Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. – John 8.44

“I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.” Rev 3.9

“I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” Rev. 2.9

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come." Matthew 3:7

"I and my Father are one,[31] Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. JOHN 10:30-31

For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last. - Thessalonians 2:14-16

GOD cursed the Satanic Jews out of Jerusalem for life. Jesus arrived and focused on Jerusalem because it was the most unholy, evil, place on earth... still is today.

The Nomadic Turks (ashkeNAZIS) have been behind all the Evil in the world since Cain's children... using their News Networks to create the News, and set the stage, to blame their opponents, for everything evil they do, across the globe.

Jewish Communist Dictum:- "Accuse the enemy of those crimes you are guilty of"


The Elite Jews create the illness, then sell the Cure. They create Chaos & Terrorism, then sell the solution... for more control and power.

Islam and Christianity have become servants of the Jews. Acting as physical and spiritual cattle for the Jews to harvest in building their Global Satanic Kingdom.

If I converted to Buddhism, does that make me Chinese? If I converted to Hinduism, does that make me Indian? When Khazarians (Turks) converted to Judaism in 740 BC and stole the true Semite Israelite Aegean identity, did that make the counterfeit Jews Hebrew? Well, the Jew World Order seems to think so. They crucified Jesus Christ for exposing them.

The invention of the Muslim Terrorist by our Jewish Governments... to keep us in fear, and to justify raping the World, and slaughtering billions of innocent families in every country for power and control...for their 2 horned Gods.

Every Religion Church and Mosque has been infiltrated by the Jews. How do you know? ... if your Church has not discussed the below phrases by Christ... then it has been compromised.

Kings, Rockets Both Aim to Build Off Success

Two teams in search of an elusive winning streak go head-to-head when the Houston Rockets and host Sacramento Kings meet Friday night.

The teams also play at Sacramento on Sunday.

The Rockets put up their third-most points this season when they surprised the San Antonio Spurs 128–124 on Wednesday night to open a five-game trip. Eric Gordon led the way for Houston with 31 points.

Meanwhile, the Kings earned a 125–116 victory over the Los Angeles Lakers at home Wednesday behind 29 points from De’Aaron Fox.

The victories by the Rockets and Kings had something in common: Each featured double-figure scoring by all five starters. The Rockets’ starting quintet combined for 99 of the team’s 128 points, with each player going for at least 13, while the Kings’ first-teamers totaled 96 of the 125 points, with each contributing 14 or more.

Houston’s win came one day before the one-year anniversary of its franchise-altering trade that sent James Harden to the Brooklyn Nets. The Rockets went on to lose 49 of their last 63 games last season (.222 winning percentage), and have started this season 12–31 (.279).

After a full year, Houston coach Stephen Silas sees improvement.

“I love our direction,” Silas said. “I love where we’re going and where we will be, but the growing pains sometimes can be pretty tough.”

The Rockets lost three in a row and 11 of 12 before the win over the Spurs. They had a seven-game winning streak bridging November and December but have not won consecutive games since.

The Kings also are plowing forward minus a superstar who sat in the owner’s box. Shaquille O’Neal announced Wednesday he was forced to sell his financial stake in the franchise because of a relationship with a gambling site.

“I loved being an owner of such a forward-thinking organization,” O’Neal posted to Twitter shortly before a game against one of his former teams, the Lakers. “I hope to be back someday.”

Perhaps coincidentally, the Kings responded with one of their best games of the season, especially in the second half, when a 24–3 burst turned an eight-point deficit into a 13-point lead.

The win allowed Sacramento to split its four-game season series with the Lakers. The Kings’ longest winning streak this season is just three games.

Friday’s contest pits two teams that have shown improvement of late offensively, but have continued to struggle because of poor play at the other end of the court.

The Rockets have averaged 112.3 points in January, a continued climb from 104.3 in November and 111.6 in December. But their 124.9 points allowed this month are the most in the league.

The Kings have allowed the 10th-most points this month (113.1), including 103 or more in all seven games. Sacramento has scored 111 or more in four of its last seven games, but lost two of them.

“We knew offensively we can get whatever we want,” Tyrese Haliburton said of the Lakers game. “We just have to put it in the hoop.”

Houston has made just one trip to Sacramento in the post-Harden era, losing that game 125–105 last March. Fox paced the win with 30.

Field Level Media



UK Retailers Face Inflation Hangover After Blowout Christmas

LONDON—British consumers enjoyed a blowout Christmas, results from the country’s biggest retailers show, treating themselves to upmarket food, drink, and clothes before the sober reality of surging prices hits home in 2022.

Retailers Tesco, Marks & Spencer, and Next performed better than expected in the final weeks of 2021, as a rise in COVID-19 cases left pubs and restaurants deserted, and consumers crowding supermarket aisles for tempura prawns, novelty bottles of gin, and turkeys.

But they warned of pain to come as pressure built across their operations, from higher freight costs, wage hikes for warehouse workers, and more expensive raw materials.

Retailers also saw no immediate relief from supply-chain disruption, with the online fast-fashion retailer ASOS flying in more of its stock from Asia, at greater cost, to guarantee delivery for Christmas.

The trading updates give an early indication of how retailers globally may have fared during the festive season, with earnings from the major U.S. and European groups expected later this month and next.

Britain’s most famous retailer M&S, a provider of food, clothes and homewares, said it had largely held the line against price rises, but with inflationary pressures building in the pipeline that would have to give in 2022.

“We have to just try and make sure we get that balance and do what’s right for the consumer,” M&S finance chief Eoin Tonge told reporters.

He said inflation in the food market in the 12 weeks to December was 2.7 percent, rising to 3.5 percent in December, but M&S had not passed that much on to its shoppers.

British consumers have already seen food prices rise, with post-Brexit economic barriers pushing up the cost of trade, and hikes in taxes and energy bills are set for April. The Bank of England expects consumer price inflation to hit 6 percent in April, its highest since 1992, before easing.

Official economic surveys show household spending, which accounts for nearly two thirds of the UK economy, held up well to the end of December, but a lack of spending firepower in the spring will hit retailers hard while their costs remain high.

Soaring Costs

Britain’s biggest retailer Tesco said it was seeing operating cost inflation of about 5%, up from the normal levels or 2-3 percent.

“There’s no doubt that there are inflationary pressures, (it’s) very hard for us to predict what those are going to look like over the coming months but we’ll do our very best to manage them,” CEO Ken Murphy told reporters.

Fast fashion groups have struggled as supply chain disruption limits their ability to deliver new ranges from factories in Asia to customers at speed. ASOS said it had already introduced low to mid-single digit price increases to offset the cost inflation.

ASOS logo
A keyboard and a shopping cart are seen in front of a displayed ASOS logo in this illustration picture taken on Oct. 13, 2020. (Dado Ruvic/Illustration/Reuters)

That fitted with comments from Japanese clothing retailer Uniqlo which said it would raise some prices due to higher shipping and raw materials costs.

ASOS noted that despite the pressures it expected demand to hold up as it is cheaper than many rivals and some shoppers will not have spent on holidays or weddings for two years. The retailer added that factories producing spring-summer ranges were closer to home, unlike winter coats which come from China.

“I do think there is a lot more demand to run,” Chief Operating Officer Mat Dunn told reporters. He said that freight costs, while high, had plateaued, and that recent wage rises for warehouse workers had filled the staffing gaps.

For Christmas, the supermarkets said the arrival of the Omicron variant of coronavirus had prompted many Britons to stay at home, even though restrictions were not as tough as 2020 when a last-minute December lockdown hit hospitality and boosted supermarket sales. That provided tough comparatives.

For Christmas 2021, Tesco sold more than 8 million bottles of champagne and sparkling wine and highlighted smoked salmon as one of its best sellers. In comparison, sales at pubs group Mitchells & Butlers fell 10.2 percent in the four weeks over Christmas compared with pre-pandemic times.

M&S said it had sold one in four of the country’s fresh turkeys, along with more than 1 million light-up snow globe bottles of gin. M&S and Tesco both upgraded their profit outlooks.

By James Davey, Paul Sandle, and Kate Holton




Patriarchal capitalism and marriage in 21st century

Marriage Dowry

In the Sonnet 116, William Shakespeare defines relationships as marriage of true minds, where sovereign individuals love each other to overcome all impediments in life with the tempest of unchanging will. These voluntary, organic and humane ideals are institutionalised and domesticated to comply with the requirements of patriarchal, religious and capitalist cultures in different continents. The moral philosophers have also engaged with the idea of marriage and its role in the transformation of society. The political philosophers look at marriage and question whether the institutions like state, society and family involve in the matters of love, sex, intimacy, marriage and reproduction.

The idea of modern marriage continues to draw its ideological lineages from all the major religions. Augustine’s treatise on the good of marriage (De bono coniugali) consists of three benefits: fidelity (fides), progeny (proles) and sacrament (sacramentum). These ideals are not very different from the idea of marriage in Hinduism and Islam. These three benefits are also central to patriarchal capitalism in terms of institutionalisation and domestication of sovereign individuals and communities. The moral unison between the Christ/god and church/temple/mosque/ other places of worship continue to be the foundation on which both marriage as an institution and marriage as a process stands in 21st century. The modern state also gets involved in this civic, religious and moral processes of regulating romance between two sovereign individuals.

From polygamy to monogamy and from love marriage to arranged marriages, there are considerable variations of marriage in different stages of history.  Marriage as a form of relationship was codified and institutionalised to sustain kinship, caste, race, class and property based social and economic structures to control inheritance, share resources and domesticate labour power.  The state codifies such ideas and practices as laws of marriage both in its civil and communitarian forms. Both serve patriarchal capitalism with few aberrations. Modern marriages continue to preserve and promote caste, race, gender, sexuality and class based social, economic and political structures and institutions, where elites circulate without any hindrances to their social, political and economic privileged hierarchy.

The reactionary communities, state, patriarchal capitalism and its religious brethren continue to destroy the organic relationships based on love, friendship and marriage. The rise of private property, gender division of labour and division of space are pillars of patriarchal capitalism, where gender inequality, exploitation and dominance of men over women are three direct outcomes. Patriarchal social, political, religious and cultural institutions and processes help such system to expand worldwide as a natural phenomenon. Families, peer groups, schools, colleges, universities and states normalise such processes of institutionalisation and domestication of relationships, love and friendships and transforms it into marriage. In this way, marriage has become a sacred institution in during 21st century.

Marriage can be a voluntary or permanent social and cultural requirement, a religious sacrament, a legal unison and contractual obligation, a relationship based on mutual support and civic need, that patriarchal capitalism denies to sovereign individuals. Patriarchal capitalism transforms marriage merely into biological fetishism tied with asocial moral and religious values. Such Manichean dual values shape patriarchal marriages which continue to naturalise servitude and codify social relations based on dominance and inequality in the name of family honour. Men and women accept, participate and perpetuate such ideals in the name of family, society, community, culture, tradition and religion. The capitalist system reinforces and reproduces such a system to control labour (female labour in particular) to expand its empire of profit.

There is no scope for emancipation for women and men within the institutions of marriage and patriarchal capitalism both in its essentialist and normative sense. True love and marriage or any form of liberated relationships flourish in a society without patriarchy and capitalism Patriarchal capitalism is an enemy of love, marriage and true relationships.

Bhabani Shankar Nayak, University of Glasgow, UK

Related posts:


Malaysia Govt Receives $80Mil From KPMG in Settlement Over 1MDB Scandal

Malaysia’s government has received RM340.92 million ($80 million) from international accounting firm KPMG in settlement over the firm’s fiduciary duties in auditing the accounts of scandal-hit state fund 1Malaysia Development (1MDB) from 2010 to 2012, its Finance Ministry said on Thursday.

This follows KPMG’s agreement in September last year to settle a civil suit filed by 1MDB over the firm’s alleged negligence and breach of contract in its audit of the state fund’s financial statements.

The settlement with KPMG was described as “one of the largest 1MDB-related settlements by an audit firm in Southeast Asia,” which valued at more than 800 times the audit fees earned by the company.

The ministry said in a statement that the fund was deposited into Malaysia’s Assets Recovery Trust Account, which has received a total of RM19.138 billion ($4.5 billion) in seized funds related to the 1MDB financial scandal.

The funds will be used to settle 1MDB’s outstanding debts, it stated.

1MDB was set up by former Prime Minister Najib Razak when he took office in 2009. It relied primarily on debt to fund investment and economic development projects and was overseen by senior Malaysian government officials.

However, the state fund amassed massive debts, and U.S. investigators allege that at least $4.5 billion was stolen from the fund and laundered by Najib’s associates.

Finance Minister Tengku Zafrul Aziz said in a statement that the government has repaid RM13.3 billion of 1MDB’s debt so far, with RM38.81 billion ($9.28 billion) in debt–comprising principal and coupons or profit for bonds and Sukuk–still outstanding as of Dec. 31, 2021.

“However, the current balance of the Trust Account is sufficient to pay off only the principal amount of the bonds for 2022,” Zafrul said.

“Once all the Trust Account funds are utilized, the government will continue to bear the obligation to pay the balance of 1MDB’s debts, whose issuance was backed by a government guarantee and letter of support,” he added.

The ministry reaffirmed its commitment to recovering the 1MDB asset and allocating adequate funds to manage the national financial burden caused by the 1MDB financial scandal.

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, center, wearing a face mask with his supporters arrives at a courthouse in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on July 28, 2020. (Vincent Thian/AP)

Last month, Malaysia’s Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Najib’s appeal to overturn his conviction and upheld the High Court’s verdict against him.

Najib was sentenced to 12 years in prison and fined RM210 million ($50 million) in July 2020 after being found guilty of transferring RM42 million ($9.9 million) from SRC International, a former unit of 1MDB, into his bank accounts.

He faced seven charges encompassing criminal breach of trust, abuse of power, and money laundering, but pleaded not guilty to all charges and denied any wrongdoing.

Najib has reportedly filed an appeal to the Federal Court against the Court of Appeal’s decision in December last year.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Aldgra Fredly


Aldgra Fredly is a freelance writer based in Malaysia, covering Asia Pacific news for The Epoch Times.


Dalits in 21st Century’s India

dalit lives matter

Dawn of 21st century, for Dalits, should have been better because of the long war they waged on superstructures of discrimination, the price they have paid with their lives, agony, torture and humiliation they have been subjected to should have resulted in offering better fruits. They should not have faced even an iota of discrimination; notorious primitive forms of untouchability should have disappeared totally and like anyone else their life should have been normal in the nation. But after two decades of this century, one would find that the story, unfortunately is worse than the earlier centuries in terms of violence, in reducing hard earned constitutional guarantees, self-respect and freedom to grow. Conflicts and ruptures between, Dalits and caste Hindus in India have re-acquired the notoriety of pre-modern times. The story slightly differs from the earlier centuries in terms of Dalits becoming more assertive. But one would see that the counter to such assertion is becoming more ruthless, consequences of assertion is becoming unbearable or painful and such an action and reaction interplay is becoming much more aggressive, ironically, as the time progresses instead of becoming less.

Reasons for aggressive suppression of the Dalit assertion is easily understandable. In 19th and 20th centuries, the caste Hindus saw that the Dalit assertion was against caste system not against Hindu religion though it is inbuilt in it. Neither Jyothi Rao Phule nor Ambedkar made a distinction between these two. More specifically Ambedkar suggests either uprooting Hinduism or conversion as a solution. However, liberal/hypocritical Hindus like M. K. Gandhi, cleverly fought against such radical rejection and made sure that Dalits remain in Hindu religion. Therefore, struggle for annihilation of caste was not equated to uprooting Hindu religion. It was understood that Dalits convinced themselves to be comfortable with Hindu religion and lessen their aggression on it.  Such a perception is quite natural as most of Dalits in this country are Hindu Dalits. Upper caste Hindus knew that it would be difficult for many Dalits Hindus to break away from their religion. They were forced to remain in Hindu religion for want of religion, culture and to benefit from constitutional guarantees. In fact, constitutional guarantees (reservations) which are hardly guaranteed have ignorable impact on life of the Hindu Dalits. Though they offered chance of upward movement, such movement has hardly resulted in elimination of caste related humiliation to Hindu Dalits even if a Dalit is President of India. The present President of India, Ram Nath Kovind, who could have been respected by the all-in executive, has been publicly made to respect to his masters and made to stand with trident next to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, Home Minister and the leaders of Rastriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) who were sitting in chairs. At Jagannath Temple, Puri, Odissa, the President and his wife Savita Kovind were not allowed to enter.  This indicates that the Vedic-Brahmanism which governs the religious, cultural and social spheres of the nation makes sure that it sets limitations to Dalit empowerment. It does not want to give the impression that there could be a complete empowerment which could be endowed with power and equality. If a Dalit like that of a non-Dalit in a constitutional position has to exercise the power that is inbuilt in it he/she needed to be permitted to do so.  This permission comes, if the custodians Hindu religion are under the pressure of proving that religion treats Dalits equally for political gains. Otherwise, it is the nature of a typical Hindu to treat a Dalit as an untouchable in thought and in practice. K. R. Narayanan was an exception. His case is different. He was assertive and he was not looking for any one’s permission to assert his rights and duties as the president of India. This is the difference from President of India, a Dalit but a member of RSS and a President of India, a Dalit but highly educated intellectual, assertive and progressive. Most of Dalits acquired power and position through reservations in various spheres could not avoid humiliation in different forms. Compare to Budhist, Christian and Muslim Dalits, Dalit Hindus are not doing well. They might be at little bit of advantage in terms of benefiting from schemes of emancipation. Hindu Dalits, in one way, in various degrees, adhere to Hinduism and on the other, seek liberation from the atrocities of caste Hindus. Ambedkar did not believe that it is possible. Demanding for equal treatment of Dalits within Hinduism was not attacking superstructure though it sends shock waves. Ambedkar’s anti-caste movement from 1927 was a direct organised attack on the superstructure. After that, seeking lands rights, fighting for education and employment opportunities, fighting against deprivation of life essentials and for reservation in opportunities and in power has brought intensity in conflicts between Dalits and non-Dalits. Such an organised assertion of Ambedkar scared Gandhi who was more concerned about Dalits breaking away from Hindu religion than Dalits getting liberated from atrocities of caste system. Gandhi’s response to Communal Award, 1932, is a best example to point out why Hindus wants Dalits to remain within the fold of Hinduism and also why they expect to be loyal. Gandhian tactics have not stopped Ambedkar who has already determined to liberate Dalits from domination of upper caste.  Chronology of Ambedkar’s anti-caste movements: Mahad Satyagraha (1927), Communal Award (1932), speech on Annihilation of Caste (1936) and converting into Buddhism (1956) clearly indicate the fact that Ambedkar step by step tightening grip. Taking charge of Jyothi-Savitri Phule’s legacy which consisted strong ideological foundations, anti-caste literary narratives and institutional arrangements, Ambedkar set goals for himself for the betterment of Dalits. From 1927, aggressive, radical and rebellious Ambedkar fought against the strong enemy that never have faced a challenge like Ambedkar, after Buddha.

His multi-pronged struggle that produced anti-caste theory, built narratives of caste discrimination, theorised life of Dalits, provided proof of Dalit history, exposed the hypocrisy and criminality of the upper caste and uncovered the true colour of caste for the rest of the world to see. Ambedkar did all this single handily and expected his followers to carry forward. To do this, another Ambedkar would not have needed. But after his demise, if we look work done by Ambedkarites, except, perhaps, Kanshi Ram, Mayawati Prabu Das, Bojja Tharakam, Katti Padma Rao and Tholakppiyan Tirumavallavan we did not see many who are serious enough. However, Ambedkarites, as activists, academicians, politicians and students did what they could to take Ambedkarism forward. There are problems and deficiencies in the Ambedkar movement. In earlier centuries, every educated Dalit naturally could not become Ambedkarite. Becoming conscious of Ambedkar and the question of oppression of Dalits was urban centric idea even till today. However, from 1990s, there is growing consciousness among rural Dalits because expanding urbanism along with which Dalit consciousness was spreading and number of students who were joining in the city colleges and universities is growing. Even then, in 21st century in a context where every educated Dalit, naturally should have become conscious of oppression, suppression and discrimination, there are educated Dalits who are genuinely under the influence of caste system that normalised discrimination and among them there are those sees caste as a taboo maintaining distance is better than identifying with it. While the earlier group, in future would add to the social justice movement, that latter would continue to remain as selfish Dalits.

Yet compare to earlier two centuries, 21st century saw the dramatic expansion of Dalit consciousness propelled by the Dalit intellectuals (multi-lingual as well as vernacular) and activists. The information revolution provided some speakability to Dalits. However, careerism, caste, cultural and religious slavery, selfish interests and political obligations have always kept these Dalits away from Ambedkarism. They might have their own reasons. But for a community which should only fight for its rights through democratic movements where mass participation of the people is very essential, even single Dalit staying away from the boundaries of Dalit consciousness and movements not only de-moralise the Dalits spirit for fighting for justice but also discourage them to build confidence. This is major drawback for the Ambedkarite movement

Challenges to the social justice movement are plenty. The strength of the enemy is biggest challenge. The upper caste/caste Hindus, as custodians of culture and protectors of social positions would be very inventive in generating means and methods of keeping its discriminative culture and social positions. They are in corridors of power, possess economic resources and have access and ability to manipulate law. This is enough for them keep weakening the will and strength of the Ambedkarites. They keep investing their intelligence and criminality on generating anti-Dalit sentiments.  Anti-Dalit sentiments are very powerful because they are drawn from jealous of the development of an individual. Say if A feeling jealous of B because B (he/she) causing damage to the economic, political and social interests of A, it is just jealous caused by an individual growth. But here, A’s concern is more to do with B who is religiously, socially and culturally not equal to A is challenging or causing damage to the foundations of A’s history, religion and his social position which are providing needed cultural/social/political capital. Every move a Dalit makes against it, the entire upper caste/caste Hindu network gets alerted and invokes all their channels to generate immediate reaction and long-time planning. It is against such a powerful enemy, the Ambedkarites are fighting.

Minority position of Dalits, object poverty of Dalit, sub-caste fractions within Dalits, inaccessibility of education and extreme religiosity of the middle-class Hindu Dalits and Christians have been roadblocks for the penetration of Ambedkarism into large scale Dalit masses. It has been the problem of the last two centuries. However, the emergence of Ambedkarites from higher educational institutions from 1970s which began to gain momentum in India and abroad has led to the new brand of intellectual Ambedkarites who are forming themselves into associations and organisations to perform functions such as addressing immediate discrimination they face at personal level as individuals and also as group, theorisation of Dalit experience, sharing ideas and internationalising problems of caste and Dalit discrimination. Some of them have become lifelong activist-academicians who has more filed experience on the experience of Dalits better in theorising Dalit experience. They also formed many Non-Governmental Organiations committed to provided needed assistance to Dalits fighting for justice. These are main functions. But their objectives are not limited to this alone, they have been researching on Dalit’s history, economy, politics and culture. Formation of student associations in higher educational institutions (central and state universities and institutions) which are also forming national and state level of student associations and unions too have been doing commendable job in addressing the discrimination that they face and also reflect on issues of Dalits, caste and general student issues at regional, national and international level. Emergence of Dalit feminism and the emergence of semi-urban and rural Dalit activism are, though had roots in the last century, becoming quite visible and their struggle, activism and building of narratives of discrimination has added new dimension to anti-caste and justice movements.

The caste Hindu society is as usual in 21st century as it has been for centuries. There is no absence in practicing notorious forms of untouchability in rural India and there is no dearth for inventiveness in generating newer and more sophisticated forms of untouchability in urban India. While the notoriety in the rural and sophistication in urban seems to be performing their functions. Rural India would need notorious forms of untouchability and repression as it does not want to lose its grip on Dalits. It has not gone through much of change in terms of integrating Dalits into the rural mainstream society. Urban sophistication is needed for the upper caste/caste Hindu society to control thought process, curtail the spread of Dalit consciousness and keep assertion under control.

Blue wrist bands to school children to identify them as Dalits, beating a teenage boy for wearing Ambedkar T-shirt, killing and chopping private parts of Dalit boys for loving caste Hindu girls and developing grudge over Dalits  for riding bikes, wearing jeans and sun glasses, beating Dalits for accidentally touching water bucket, shooting Dalits for entering into temples and for arguing, urinating in their mouths,  forcing Dalits to remove their slippers, tonsuring half of their heads, raping Dalit women at will and wish and inserting things in to their private parts and beating a boy for keeping Ambedkar song as ring tone, burning an old Dalit man for entering into temple and the list go on. There is no change in its cruel character. In fact, it became more aggressive in its reaction to fight for justice of Dalits.

The youth of caste Hindus of this century believe that they are provided with new means and methods of cultivating caste pride and prestige. They have become more organised in their thought and action. Most of them drawn from engineering and science disciplines have never read much about caste discrimination or on the existence of caste.  Those from social sciences and literature who would read about caste and understands it would not only involve in generating anti-Dalit narratives on many issues, especially against constitutional guarantees to Dalits as an unfair favour from the government at the cost of their hard work, opportunities, property and wealth but also organising themselves to attack rights conscious assertive Dalits in multiple ways. They would continue to do it as long as Dalits uses assertion as a tool of fighting for justice. They have been using social media as effectively as they can to abuses Ambedkar, Dalits and their leaders. Social media, in fact, became their favourable tool in humiliating Dalits. They attack Ambedkar statue, they beat a Dalit to death, they stamp their feet on Ambedkar statue-head and even urinate, they use abusive casteist slur on Dalits and make videos. This is 21st century’s new tool in the hands of caste Hindus is to show their strength and to warn of consequences of violating the established social norms and also warns of severe consequences of any assertion or fight for justice. There could have been thousands of such videos made by the young men/women of the caste Hindus so far. Not many of them have faced the heat of law. So, this century’s caste Hindu youth is different. They acquired the ability of generating narratives which would justify caste system, social and economic inequalities. They use their ‘intelligence’ to normalise the inhuman socio-cultural traditions. They are capable of locating their history and culture in the framework of nation/nationalism. They invest their intelligence in developing social/cultural/political capital that naturally declares the Dalit youth, activist and intellectuals as the enemy of both the casteist society and the nation as well.

Even the matured caste-Hindu politician is no exception. Many of them in this century have also behaved like their youth. In fact, they reciprocate with each other. A Dalit boy and caste Hindu girl’s love marriage in Tamil Nadu has led to the emergence of anti-Dalit political formation into which even Muslim parties could also join. This is unthinkable in this century.  But it is a reality. This clearly indicates that the caste Hindu society would never be able to discontinue from its culture of discriminating Dalits. No matter how many centuries passes by

The rise of the Hindutva Hindus is one of the important aspects of this century. Its agenda and objectives would appeal to the general caste-Hindu population whose identity is primarily based on caste, religion and culture. Caste Hindus and Hindutva Hindus shares same identity and concerns. Political affiliations of many caste Hindus publicly might force them to maintain visible distance from hardcore ideology of the Hindutva Right. But that does not mean that they don’t admire it. Majority of caste Hindus believe that forces of Hindutva are essential for the nation as they allegedly provide needed strength for ‘national culture. In other words, ideologically, many caste Hindus might be critical or even act as haters of Hindutva Right but they reciprocate with each other. Very less percent of educated, conscious and intellectual caste Hindus because of their personal convictions, ideological subscriptions and political ambitions would maintain a visible distance from the Hindutva Right. As force of criticising the unfairness of the unacceptable behaviour of the both caste Hindus and Hindutva Right, this minority might be useful. It, to some extent, becomes the representative of nation’s positive ideals. But, within this small minority, there might be some who are oscillating between recognising the positivity of not only the caste Hindus but also Hindutva Right and importance of keeping secular traits and social equality alive. They, most probably lean towards the Hindutva Right. These camouflaged progressive intellectuals might be more dangerous than those who out rightly oppose Ambedkar and Dalits. Thus, the age-old caste rot is not only continued into the 21st century, enemies of Dalits are getting more aggressive and sophisticated. Dalit among Dalits to spread consciousness, to secure justice and rights and to be more assertive, Dalit unity, if needed, they need to join with social forces fighting for the protecting rights of the deprived.

Dr. Y. Srinivasa Rao teacher history at Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu

Related posts:


Businesses Welcome Relief From Supreme Court on Biden’s Vaccine Mandate

Businesses welcomed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday that ordered a temporary stay on an economy-wide federal requirement that forced them to choose between hefty fines and protecting the personal health care rights of their employees.

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked President Joe Biden’s mandate that all private sector employers with at least 100 workers ensure their employees are vaccinated against center or be tested weekly. The mandate was enacted through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and would have placed hefty fines on businesses that refused to comply. That mandate was expected to affect 84 million workers nationwide.

The court also allowed the vaccine mandate to stand for health-care workers at federally funded facilities.

“Many States, businesses, and nonprofit organizations challenged OSHA’s rule in Courts of Appeals across the country,” the court’s ruling said. “The Fifth Circuit initially entered a stay. But when the cases were consolidated before the Sixth Circuit, that court lifted the stay and allowed OSHA’s rule to take effect. Applicants now seek emergency relief from this Court, arguing that OSHA’s mandate exceeds its statutory authority and is otherwise unlawful.

“Agreeing that applicants are likely to prevail, we grant their applications and stay the rule,” the court said, tipping its hand on its upcoming final ruling.

The private sector ruling came on a 6–3 vote. Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court’s three left-leaning justices in a 5–4 decision to uphold the health care workers mandate.

The private sector ruling was welcome news for businesses, who felt the administrative burden of enforcing the mandate as well as the expected loss of unvaccinated workers in the middle of a year-long labor shortage.

“The small business economy remains fragile as owners work through supply chain disruptions, high inflation, and staffing shortages,” said Karen Harned, Small Business Legal Center Executive Director at the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

Those economic concerns were heightened just hours before the Supreme Court issued its ruling when the Department of Labor released more inflation data showing producer prices rose at the highest rate on record. Consumer prices have risen at the highest levels in decades, according to federal data.

NFIB, a leading challenger in this case, welcomed the court’s decision, emphasizing that businesses needed the relief and saying they are “optimistic” about the court’s final ruling.

“Today’s decision is welcome relief for America’s small businesses, who are still trying to get their business back on track since the beginning of the pandemic,” Harned said after the ruling. “As small businesses try to recover after almost two years of significant business disruptions, the last thing they need is a mandate that would cause more business challenges. We are pleased the Supreme Court stopped the rule from taking effect while the courts consider whether or not it is legal. We are optimistic that the courts will ultimately agree with us that OSHA does not have the emergency authority to regulate the entire American workforce.”

Recent polling showed that the majority of Americans did not favor Biden’s private sector mandate.

“We have done more polling on the vaccine mandates than any other organization [Convention of States/Trafalgar Group] and it’s unmistakably clear that a majority of voters are against Biden’s mandate, they never wanted people to lose their jobs over this–which has tragically already happened–and they support various measures to block it,” Convention of States President Mark Meckler said in a statement. “From Governors stepping up to the current bill in Congress to block the mandate, no matter what we polled, voters want this unconstitutional mandate stopped. After seeing horrifying moments from ignorant Justices during oral arguments last week, it’s encouraging to see SCOTUS came down on the right the side of Constitutional freedoms.”

The court’s ruling went on to point out that such a broad, sweeping mandate was unprecedented.

“OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate,” the ruling reads. “Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here.”

President Joe Biden, whose administration argued the mandate was necessary to protect workers, said he was disappointed with the decision.

“I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has chosen to block common-sense life-saving requirements fortribune employees at large businesses that were grounded squarely in both science and the law,” Biden said. “The Court has ruled that my administration cannot use the authority granted to it by Congress to require this measure, but that does not stop me from using my voice as president to advocate for employers to do the right thing to protect Americans’ health and economy.”

But the ruling gave reason for optimism to groups challenging federal vaccine requirements in other cases.

First Liberty Institute represented several religious organizations challenging the OSHA rule, but they also represent a group of U.S. Navy SEALs who allege their religious exemption requests were unfairly denied.

“We’re pleased that the Supreme Court is preventing this unconstitutional mandate from going into effect, but we hope the court will strike it down to avoid a Constitutional crisis,” said Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel for First Liberty Institute. “President Biden is not a king. He cannot federalize the nation’s workforce and force employers to violate the conscience rights of their employees. We will continue to fight on behalf of our clients and the American people to protect them from this illegal, dangerous expansion of government power.”

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost celebrated the ruling Thursday. Ohio Solicitor General Ben Flowers performed oral arguments before the Supreme Court last week, leading 27 states in a challenge to the mandate.

“Americans have lost too much to this disease already—all of us want this pandemic to end—but it is critical that we do not lose our Constitution, too,” Yost said. “Today’s ruling protects our individual rights and states’ rights to pursue the solutions that work best for their citizens.”

By Casey Harper

The Center Square


The Center Square was launched in May 2019 to fulfill the need for high-quality statehouse and statewide news across the United States. The focus of our work is state- and local-level government and economic reporting.


Rule of Law Vs Rule of Laws

haridwar dharm sansad

There is now a real hunt for coining ever new terms for new upsetting phenomena in society and politics,such as finer terms to denote different degrees of authoritarianism in stead of seeing as a whole the concerted and unremitting campaign to turn the state into a full-fledged fascist state.

On the other hand there is a reluctance to examine the erosion of useful old terms and the concepts they connote.

Consider the Rule of Law.It has been throughout history a dynamic concept nurturing the progress and expansion of democracy.It has been used rather lazily umpteen number of times until it has become blunt and blase.

Does it only mean conformity to existing laws of a country? In that case it may narrow the real content of the term in two ways. If examined with a deliberately narrow focus, it might get circumscribed by existing laws in their amended forms.The reach of Law as a principle of unfettered and equal justice which is the real essence of Rule of Law will then fall far too short.Quite a lot of ideas and ends which cover the entire scope of that principle,and as it were its living spirit,will have been unnecessarily and prematurely walled in.With the development of human society and human mind there will arise need for new laws expanding and defending the liberties of the people as well as protecting them.

The fundamental rights are sometimes thought of as inviolate things that no law can ever breach.But there are also positive laws that uphold them against newer challenges and invasions.Current legalistic thought usually prefer the conservative idea of law that fence in
impregnable things,just as once the unjust rights of Zemindars used to be thought of as made sacrisanct by the right to property.Thus the idea of rights is also subject to some examination, revision,expansion and restriction in the interest of greater freedom for all.Likewise the explosion of digital capacities and receptivity extending to state espionage of its own citizens today call for urgent steps to meet these threats to the liberty of life and the freedom of expression.All through this there is of course the need to watch out for conspiracies to stamp out freedom under the pretext of ensuring it.

Reportedly the Dy Chief Minister of the UP in an aborted interview to the BBC had remarked that the so-called saints in a religious convention in Haridwar had as much right to freely express their genocidal views and promote their execution as everybody else in their own platforms. This is certainly an ominous formulation of the idea of the Rule of Law to mean just the opposite.Even if such blatant vandalism in the realm of ideas is at last challenged in courts it does gravely disturb one’s mind that no constitutional authority had cared to intervene for three full weeks.

For one thing it is clear that the executive today can no longer be trusted to uphold and defend the Rule of Law.But the prolonged silence and inaction of the judiciary at this heinous trumpery against the constitution fill one with alarm. One always entertains the highest regard for the scruples of higher judiciary in their fear of disregarding the limits of their constitutional reach and power.But this outrage does not seem to call for such sustained scrupulous scrutiny.

Perhaps their lordships were constrained by the unconscious austerity in interpreting the Rule of Law as that embodied in their present confused,complex and multitudinous extent.Rule of Laws,to be blunt.The terrible consequence of such a conception is surely as clear as daylight.And it is a relief that Kapil Sibal as in many of his recent legal performances has in this case has put the matter with such lucidity and succinctness.

Hiren Gohain is a political commentator

Related posts:


West Australian Govt Locks Out Unvaccinated From More Venues

Western Australia (WA) Premier Mark McGowan has unveiled the “broadest proof of vaccination requirements in the nation,” with almost every indoor venue and most events only to allow fully vaccinated from Jan. 31.

More than one in ten West Australians aged 16 and over are not fully vaccinated and will be affected by the measures. It comes as WA prepares to ease border restrictions from Feb. 5 for vaccinated individuals wanting to travel interstate.

The restrictions will be mandated for a range of facilities, including fitness centres, bottle shops, dine-in eating, entertainment venues, and more. West Australians will also need to be vaccinated to visit family at hospitals.

“Life will be very difficult for the unvaccinated from January 31,” McGowan warned in a Jan.13 Facebook post, shortly after using a slur against residents refusing to show proof of vaccination on Jan. 6 and echoing the same message on Jan. 10.

“No pub, no bottle shop, no gym, no yoga class, no gigs, no dance floors, no hospital visits.”

Epoch Times Photo
WA Premier Mark McGowan speaks during an announcement in Perth, Australia, on Dec. 13, 2021. (AAP Image/Richard Wainwright)

WA has also mandated vaccinations, including booster shots, for 75 percent of the state’s workforce—equivalent to over a million workers—by the same day on Jan. 31, a move which some estimates place the cost in the billions of dollars, leaving tens of thousands unemployed.

Venues and events exempt from the ban are now limited and include retail, supermarkets, libraries, hairdressers, and community sport and school-based events. Those who are sick may also still make an appointment with a GP or doctor.

The exact blacklist includes:

  • Visitors to public and private hospitals, and aged care facilities;
  • All hospitality venues, including restaurants, cafes, bars, pubs, clubs, taverns, night clubs and dine-in fast food (roadhouses, service stations, and takeaway is exempt);
  • Indoor entertainment venues, including play centres, gaming and gambling, theatres, concert halls, museums, cinemas and live music venues;
  • Bottle shops;
  • The entire Crown Perth complex;
  • Major stadiums;
  • Gyms, fitness centres and health studios;
  • Amusement parks and the zoo; and
  • Music festivals and large events with more than 500 people, unless exempt.

McGowan accused those who chose not to get vaccinated of putting fellow West Australians at greater risk.

“If you choose to remain unvaccinated, and at this point, it’s certainly a choice. You’re choosing to put yourself at risk, you’re choosing to put the people around you at risk, and you’re choosing to increase the burden on our health staff,” he said.

However, growing evidence indicates that currently available vaccines may prove ineffective against the latest Omicron variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.

In particular, the Pfizer chief executive has said that “two doses of the (existing) vaccine offer limited protection, if any,” with the World Health Organization backing this point, suggesting current vaccines must be reworked to offer protection against Omicron and possible future COVID-19 variants.

This has been supported by recent hospitalisation figures in New South Wales, with the state reporting more fully vaccinated admitting to hospital for COVID-19 than those who were unvaccinated.

Epoch Times Photo
A general view of the Warringah Aquatic Centre Histopath Pathology COVID-19 drive-through testing clinic in Sydney, Australia, on Jan. 10, 2022. (Photo by Jenny Evans/Getty Images)

The announcement by McGowan was overwhelmingly met by anger from some commenters on the Facebook post, some of whom raised concerns of possible adverse impacts on a significant portion of the state’s unvaccinated residence.

In particular, concerns have been raised that new measures could impact the physical and mental wellbeing of more than one-tenth of West Australians who cannot attend gyms or join social events.

The Epoch Times reached out to the WA government to enquire about the state’s stance on vaccine efficacy against Omicron, and to ask whether a risk-benefit analysis had been conducted over the new vaccine requirements, but did not receive a reply in time for publication.

Daniel Khmelev


Daniel Khmelev is an Australian reporter based in Perth covering energy, tech, and politics. He holds bachelor’s degrees in math, physics, and computer science. Contact him at


California Governor Rejects Parole for Robert F. Kennedy Assassin

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—Sirhan Sirhan, who assassinated presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, was denied parole Thursday by California’s governor, who said the killer remains a threat to the public and hasn’t taken responsibility for a crime that altered American history.

Kennedy, a U.S. senator from New York, was shot moments after he claimed victory in California’s pivotal Democratic presidential primary. Five others were wounded during the shooting at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has cited RFK as his political hero, rejected a recommendation from a two-person panel of parole commissioners who said Sirhan, 77, should be freed. The panel’s recommendation in August had divided the Kennedy family, with two of RFK’s sons—Douglas Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—supporting his release, and their siblings and mother vehemently opposing it.

In his decision, Newsom said the assassination was “among the most notorious crimes in American history,” Aside from causing Kennedy’s then-pregnant wife and 10 children “immeasurable suffering,” Newsom said the killing “also caused great harm to the American people.”

It “upended the 1968 presidential election, leaving millions in the United States and beyond mourning the promise of his candidacy,” Newsom wrote. “Mr. Sirhan killed Senator Kennedy during a dark season of political assassinations, just nine weeks after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s murder and four and a half years after the murder of Senator Kennedy’s brother, President John F. Kennedy.”

Sen. Robert F. Kennedy
Sen. Robert F. Kennedy speaks to the delegates of the United Auto Workers at a convention hall in Atlantic City, N.J., on May 9, 1968. (AP Photo)

He said Sirhan still lacks insight, refuses to accept responsibility and has failed to disclaim violence committed in his name. That adds “to his current risk of inciting further political violence,” Newsom wrote.

In 1973, terrorists took 10 hostages at an embassy in Sudan, demanding the release of Sirhan and other prisoners and killing three diplomats when their demands weren’t met, he noted.

Sirhan, who will be scheduled for a new parole hearing no later than February 2023, will ask a judge to overturn Newsom’s denial, defense attorney Angela Berry said.

“We fully expect that judicial review of the governor’s decision will show that the governor got it wrong,” she said.

State law holds that inmates are supposed to be paroled unless they pose a current unreasonable public safety risk, she said, adding that “not an iota of evidence exists to suggest Mr. Sirhan is still a danger to society.”

She said the parole process has become politicized, and Newsom “chose to overrule his own experts (on the parole board), ignoring the law.”

Parole commissioners found Sirhan suitable for release “because of his impressive extensive record of rehabilitation over the last half-century,” Berry said. “Since the mid-1980’s Mr. Sirhan has consistently been found by prison psychologists and psychiatrists to not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the public.”

Sirhan Sirhan
Sirhan Sirhan arrives for a parole hearing in San Diego on Aug. 27, 2021. (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation via AP)

During his parole hearing, the white-haired Sirhan called Kennedy the “hope of the world.” But he stopped short of taking full responsibility for a shooting he said he doesn’t recall because he was drunk.

“It pains me … the knowledge for such a horrible deed, if I did, in fact, do that,” Sirhan said.

Kennedy’s widow, Ethel, and six of his children hailed Newsom’s decision in a statement that called RFK a “visionary and champion of justice” whose life “was cut short by an enraged man with a small gun.”

“The political passions that motivated this inmate’s act still simmer today, and his refusal to admit the truth makes it impossible to conclude that he has overcome the evil that boiled over 53 years ago,” they wrote.

The panel’s decision was based in part on several new California laws since he was denied parole in 2016—the 15th time he’d lost his bid for release.

Commissioners were required to consider that Sirhan committed his crime at a young age, when he was 24; that he now is elderly; and that the Christian Palestinian who immigrated from Jordan had suffered childhood trauma from the conflict in the Middle East.

In addition, Los Angeles County prosecutors didn’t object to his parole, following District Attorney George Gascón’s policy that prosecutors should not be involved in deciding whether prisoners are ready for release.

The decision had a personal element for Newsom, a fellow Democrat, who displays RFK photos in his official and home offices. One of them is of Kennedy with Newsom’s late father.

Sirhan originally was sentenced to death, but that sentence was commuted to life when the California Supreme Court briefly outlawed capital punishment in 1972.

By Don Thompson

The Associated Press



Google Executive in Charge of ‘Tackling Disinformation’ Becomes DHS Senior Leader

A past senior aide to former President Barack Obama, who became a Google executive in charge of “tackling disinformation”, has joined the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a senior leader from this week.

Kristie Canegallo, who was vice president of Trust and Safety in Google beginning March 2018, was appointed chief of staff in DHS on Monday.

“I am excited to share with you that Kristie Canegallo will join our Department as our new Chief of Staff on January 10, 2022,” DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement.

“I have worked closely with Kristie in the past and know firsthand that she will be a great colleague and of tremendous support to us all,” Mayorkas said.

Epoch Times Photo
Kristie Canegallo (center left) with President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and others in the White House on June 25, 2015. (Pete Souza/White House)

According to Google’s website, Canegallo’s role was to “ensure Google is a trusted source of information, content, and interactions” across Google’s portfolio, including Google Search, Google News, YouTube, and advertising platforms.

Before that, Canegallo served as White House deputy chief of staff from 2014 through January 2017, during which time she crossed paths with Mayorkas, then-director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Jon Feere, who was the senior advisor to the director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the Trump administration, has raised concerns about the appointment.

“The Biden administration is fully aware that their anti-borders policies 
are wildly unpopular, so their selection of a person who has spent her time 
eliminating opinions online is certainly suspect,” Feere told The Epoch Times via email.

“She’s now playing a key role in the release of thousands of criminal aliens into our communities and will naturally see a lot of pushback on this horrific agenda,” he said.

“It wouldn’t be surprising to her see former Google colleagues help her out by expanding their definition of ‘anti-migrant’ and further stifling speech online,” he continued.

In 2021, close to 2 million illegal immigrants from 150 different countries were apprehended along the southwest border—more than double 2019, the last pre-pandemic year, according to data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

“While there is certainly a need for Silicon Valley to bar criminal content, a line is quickly crossed when policy preferences and opinions are banned in an overbroad manner,” added Feere, now director of investigations at the Center for Immigration Studies.

“Fighting disinformation” was an important part of Canegallo’s work with Google. In 2019 at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, she and her team presented a white paper (pdf) detailing how Google “tackle[s] the intentional spread of misinformation.”

Google and other Big Techs such as Twitter and Facebook have been widely criticized for their censorship and political bias.

In an early 2020 article titled “Supporting the 2020 U.S. election”, Canegallo said her team “span the globe to monitor and disrupt account hijackings, inauthentic activity, disinformation campaigns, coordinated attacks, and other forms of abuse on our platforms on a 24/7 basis.”

CBS “60 Minutes” found that in 2019, Google took down over 300 of President Donald Trump’s political ads. YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said at the time that some of the videos were “not approved to run.” But Google didn’t give specific reasons why it took down the ads or what company policy they violated.

In a co-authored article published in December 2020, Canegallo vowed to fight misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.

One of the strategies is to raise “authoritative information.” The article said that since the beginning of the pandemic, Google has given $250 million in grants “to help more than 100 government agencies around the world run critical public service announcements about COVID-19.”

“Our teams have removed more than 700,000 videos related to dangerous or misleading COVID-19 medical information. We also continue to remove harmful COVID-19 misinformation across other products like Ads, Google Maps, and the Play store,” the article stated.

DHS hasn’t responded to a request from The Epoch Times for comment.

Harry Lee



Artemis 1: the first step towards humanity’s return to the Moon

Artemis 1: the first step towards humanity’s return to the Moon
January 13, 2022

Artemis 1: the first step towards humanity's return to the Moon News-artemis-orion

The Orion spacecraft with its solar panels fully deployed. Image Credit: ESA
Later this year, NASA’s Artemis 1 mission will take us one small step towards a return to the lunar surface.
On December 19 1972, astronauts Eugene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt and Ronald Evans splashed down safely in the Pacific Ocean, ending the Apollo 17 lunar mission. They were the last people to travel beyond low-Earth orbit – typically defined as less than 1,000km above the Earth’s surface.

Some 49 years later, we are approaching the launch of Nasa’s Artemis 1 lunar mission. Artemis is the latest in a long series of projects over many decades to attempt a human return to the Moon. It’s by far the closest one to being realised, with the earliest launch attempts currently scheduled for March 2022.

Artemis 1 will not carry astronauts, but it will launch the first spacecraft capable of doing so on a return journey to lunar orbit in nearly 50 years. With the ultimate aim to establish a long-term human presence on and around the Moon, Artemis is the first in a series of increasingly complex deep space crewed missions slated for the coming years.

Artemis 1 consists of an Orion spacecraft which will be launched by the new space launch system – currently the world’s most powerful operational rocket. Orion comprises the crew module, a conical capsule which can accommodate up to six astronauts for 21 days in deep space, and the European Service Module, containing Orion’s main rocket engine.

The European Service Module generates electrical power with distinctive “x-wing” solar panels, and carries stores of water, breathable air and fuel. It also controls the thermal environment inside the crew module, keeping astronauts and electrical systems within safe temperature limits.

Two critical challenges

The two most difficult parts of any mission to space are launch and landing. Let’s look first at how Artemis 1 will launch.

The space launch system consists of an enormous liquid-fuelled core stage, powered by engines from the Space Shuttle era, and two powerful side-mounted solid-fuelled booster rockets, which together produce nearly nine million pounds of thrust at launch.

Atop the core stage is the interim cryogenic propulsion stage, a smaller liquid-fuelled engine which will push Orion out of Earth orbit and towards the Moon.

The Orion spacecraft is now attached to the space launch system at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida for a series of pre-launch tests and rehearsals. This includes fuelling the space launch system, and practising rolling all the elements of the rocket out to the launch pad.

Although the space launch system has never been flown before, the Orion spacecraft has been tested in space once. This was also without astronauts, back in 2014. While this test flight travelled beyond low-Earth orbit successfully, it didn’t go all the way to the Moon.

Objects returning to Earth from the Moon are travelling considerably faster when they encounter our atmosphere than objects falling from low-Earth orbit. This generates very hot temperatures. So one key objective for Artemis 1 is to ensure that the thermal protection on Orion can withstand this ferocious heat of reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere.
On returning home, Orion will be travelling at 25,000 mph when it reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere, and must withstand temperatures of 2,760C. For comparison, a spacecraft returning to Earth from the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit is typically travelling at speeds of 17,000 mph and encounters temperatures of roughly 1,900C.

What happens after takeoff?

Artemis 1 will launch from the Kennedy Space Centre into Earth orbit, whereupon the core stage of the space launch system will detach, and the interim cryogenic propulsion stage will ignite, sending Orion on its way to the Moon.

After a voyage lasting several days, Artemis 1 will swoop down to just 100km above the lunar surface, fire its onboard engines and enter a distant retrograde orbit around the Moon, which will carry it out to a maximum distance from Earth of some 430,000km. From such a distance the Earth would appear to an astronaut to be about the same size as the nail of your little finger held at arms length.

This will be the greatest distance from Earth ever reached by a human-capable spacecraft. The current record holder is the 1970 Apollo 13 mission, which was forced to abort a Moon landing after an explosion in one of the spacecraft’s oxygen tanks.

During this period, engineers will test Orion’s systems – such as its ability to retain air pressure and radiation levels inside the crew capsule. While Artemis 1 is primarily about ascertaining Orion’s viability for future crewed missions, cameras at the ends of the European Service Module solar panels should provide breathtaking images of Orion in space, with the Earth and Moon as a backdrop.

After six days in lunar orbit, Orion will perform several more engine firings and another close lunar flyby, before beginning its voyage home. Exact timings of the flight will depend on when Artemis 1 is launched.

Numerous considerations for launch windows have to be made, such as ensuring that the Earth doesn’t block sunlight from reaching the European Service Module’s solar panels during the flights to and from the Moon, and that reentry and splashdown occurs in daylight to aid in recovery of the spacecraft.

It’s anticipated that some 26 days after launch, Orion will detach the European Service Module and then point the flat base of the conical crew compartment, clad in thermal protection, towards Earth for what will hopefully be a safe atmospheric reentry and parachute-assisted splashdown in the Pacific.

Much rides on the success of this mission. All being well, we can hope to see Artemis 2 – with astronauts – take off in the coming years.

Gareth Dorrian, Post Doctoral Research Fellow in Space Science, University of Birmingham and Ian Whittaker, Senior Lecturer in Physics, Nottingham Trent University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Read the original article. Artemis 1: the first step towards humanity's return to the Moon Count

Source: The Conversation
Thanks to:


U.S. Judge Denies Prince Andrew’s Bid to Dismiss Virginia Giuffre Lawsuit: Will Go to Trial

U.S. Judge Denies Prince Andrew’s Bid to Dismiss Virginia Giuffre Lawsuit: Will Go to Trial

Date: January 13, 2022Author: Nwo Report

U.S. Judge Denies Prince Andrew’s Bid to Dismiss Virginia Giuffre Lawsuit: Will Go to Trial Duke-of-york-640x480

Prince Andrew had his bid to get a civil case which alleges he sexually assaulted Virginia Giuffre dismissed by a U.S. judge on Wednesday.
The BBC reports his lawyers said the case should be thrown out, citing a 2009 deal she signed with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But a New York judge ruled the claim could be heard.
Prince Andrew has consistently denied the allegations.
The motion to dismiss the lawsuit was outlined in a 46-page decision by Judge Lewis A Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Kaplan’s decision to rejected the application from the Duke’s lawyers is likely to result in a high-profile case in September over Giuffre’s sensational allegations against the British royal.

U.S. Judge Denies Prince Andrew’s Bid to Dismiss Virginia Giuffre Lawsuit: Will Go to Trial Vd9wHGYX_normal

Breitbart London

Prince Andrew to ‘Step Back’ From Royal Duties For Foreseeable Future Over Epstein Links

U.S. Judge Denies Prince Andrew’s Bid to Dismiss Virginia Giuffre Lawsuit: Will Go to Trial LeN-40Og?format=jpg&name=small
Scandal-Struck Prince Andrew to ‘Step Back’ From Royal Duties
Prince Andrew has announced he is standing down from royal duties amid fallout from his previous relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

12:46 PM · Nov 20, 2019

In the conclusion of his written ruling, Kaplan said: “For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint or for a more definite statement is denied in all respects.”
In court documents, Giuffre said she was the victim of sex trafficking and abuse by late billionaire financier Epstein.
Part of her abuse involved being lent out to other powerful men, she alleges.
She is seeking unspecified damages in a civil suit against Andrew, but the sum could reportedly be in the millions of dollars.
Andrew, who has not been charged with any criminal offences, has vehemently denied all the allegations against him, as Breitbart News reported.

U.S. Judge Denies Prince Andrew’s Bid to Dismiss Virginia Giuffre Lawsuit: Will Go to Trial Vd9wHGYX_normal

Breitbart London

U.S. Prosecutor Says Prince Andrew Has Provided ‘Zero Cooperation’ in Jeffrey Epstein Probe

U.S. Judge Denies Prince Andrew’s Bid to Dismiss Virginia Giuffre Lawsuit: Will Go to Trial YtvmPiAB?format=png&name=small
Prosecutor: Prince Andrew Provided ‘Zero Cooperation’ in Epstein Probe
A U.S. prosecutor overseeing the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation said that Britain’s Prince Andrew has been uncooperative.

12:04 PM · Jan 27, 2020

Date: January 13, 2022Author: Nwo Report  0 Comments  
U.S. Judge Denies Prince Andrew’s Bid to Dismiss Virginia Giuffre Lawsuit: Will Go to Trial Duke-of-york-640x480

Prince Andrew had his bid to get a civil case which alleges he sexually assaulted Virginia Giuffre dismissed by a U.S. judge on Wednesday.
The BBC reports his lawyers said the case should be thrown out, citing a 2009 deal she signed with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But a New York judge ruled the claim could be heard.
Prince Andrew has consistently denied the allegations.
The motion to dismiss the lawsuit was outlined in a 46-page decision by Judge Lewis A Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Kaplan’s decision to rejected the application from the Duke’s lawyers is likely to result in a high-profile case in September over Giuffre’s sensational allegations against the British royal.
TRENDING: The Digital Dehumanization of Mankind
In the conclusion of his written ruling, Kaplan said: “For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint or for a more definite statement is denied in all respects.”
In court documents, Giuffre said she was the victim of sex trafficking and abuse by late billionaire financier Epstein.
Part of her abuse involved being lent out to other powerful men, she alleges.
She is seeking unspecified damages in a civil suit against Andrew, but the sum could reportedly be in the millions of dollars.
Andrew, who has not been charged with any criminal offences, has vehemently denied all the allegations against him, as Breitbart News reported.
Prince Andrew said in an interview with BBC Newsnight in 2019 he had no recollection of ever meeting Virginia Giuffre.
His lawyers had argued that Giuffre agreed in court in 2009 not to sue anyone else connected to Epstein when she settled her damages claim against the billionaire sex offender.

Th judge has now ruled otherwise.
Thanks to:


Could cannabis prevent COVID? To the authors of a new study, it sure looks like it

Could cannabis prevent COVID? To the authors of a new study, it sure looks like it

But put away the pipe — it appears the compounds that may be most helpful in preventing COVID degrade at high temps

By  Brett Bachman

Published January 12, 2022 9:23PM (EST)

 Could cannabis prevent COVID? To the authors of a new study, it sure looks like it Marijuana-0524211   Cannabis plant (Getty Images)

A groundbreaking new study published this week identified what could be an unexpected tool in the world’s fight against COVID-19: cannabis.

Yes, you read that right.

According to a peer-reviewed paper published this week in the Journal of Natural Products, titled “Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants,” at least three compounds naturally occurring in the cannabis plant were shown in lab tests to be effective at stopping coronavirus molecules from entering human cells. The mechanism effectively mimics the activity of antibodies, with the cannabis compounds attaching themselves to the virus’ spike protein, one of the authors told Salon. The study concludes:

With widespread use of cannabinoids, resistant variants could still arise, but the combination of vaccination and CBDA/CBGA treatment should create a more challenging environment with which SARS-CoV-2 must contend, reducing the likelihood of escape.

In case any of that is confusing, the authors also included in the paper a handy illustration of the phenomenon:

Could cannabis prevent COVID? To the authors of a new study, it sure looks like it Cannabis_covidAn

illustration showing how cannabinoids can block the entry of SARS-CoV-2 from human cells. (Courtesy the Journal of Natural Products)

The findings have gone viral, so to speak, trending on Twitter and inspiring much speculation online under the hashtag “#WeedPreventsCOVID.” But don’t reach for that joint just yet — the compounds, CBD-A, CBG-A, and THC-A, are non-psychoactive and degrade at high temperatures, which makes smoking or baking less-than-ideal ways to consume them. Pills or gummies are better, not to mention concentrates that have been designed to maximize the content of these specific substances.

Beyond that, the entire premise must undergo a series of clinical trials before researchers will say for sure whether it works in real life the way it does in the controlled conditions of a lab. Still, Dr. Richard van Breemen, one of the study’s authors and a professor of medicinal chemistry at Oregon State University, says the results are “incredibly promising.”

“This is by far the biggest response to a study that I’ve encountered in my career,” Dr. Van Breemen told Salon.

“A number of hemp dietary supplements containing these compounds are available over-the-counter all over the country,” he added, meaning if the findings were carried over into successful clinical trials, the preventative treatment would immediately be accessible by millions of Americans. 

The entire project was a collaboration between the Linus Pauling Institute and the Global Hemp Innovation Center, both headquartered at Oregon State University, which picked up research into the commercial and pharmaceutical applications of hemp several years ago after the USDA gave academic institutions the greenlight to resume research into hemp following a decades-long moratorium. The paper’s seven authors are all faculty members at either OSU or Oregon Health & Science University.

Researchers set out with the intention of testing a number of botanical extracts that they thought might bind with the spike protein of the SARS-COV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19. Dr. Van Breemen said they went through “dozens” of substances before discovering cannabis worked.

Another compound, this one found in licorice, was also found to reliably bind to the SARS-COV-2 virus — but more research is needed to determine if it will produce the same antiviral activity as the compounds found in cannabis. 

So what does all of this mean for the average person?

Simply put — it’s still too early to tell. But people are unlikely to experience any of the viral protection benefits from ingesting cannabis in a way that will also get them high. Because of the current research restrictions on THC-A (and its connection to the psychoactive compound THC), it will be effectively impossible to continue research into proper application methods for that compound.

Meanwhile, CBD-A and CBG-A are both acids that break down into CBD through the application of heat — a process called “decarboxylation.” That same heating process is responsible for the psychoactive qualities found in marijuana.

While it’s still entirely unclear what dosage level may prove clinically viable, most all over-the-counter hemp supplements have to list their CBD-A and CBG-A content, which will at least make information about a given product’s efficacy easy to determine.

The other good news? It appears that testing suggests the cannabis compounds are effective against all known variants of COVID-19. 

“Our data show minimal impact of the variant lineages on the effectiveness of CBDA and CBGA, a trend that will hopefully extends to other existing and future variants,” the authors write in the study. 

Brett Bachman

Thanks to:


Coming Clean: Why I’m Taking a Stand Against COVID Vaccines

Coming Clean: Why I’m Taking a Stand Against COVID Vaccines

Cory Zue, an “MIT-educated, well-meaning, rational (hopefully), Massachusetts-born, Democrat who works in public health” explains why he didn’t get the COVID vaccine, and why it isn’t okay to live in a world in which medical procedures can be forced on people without an impenetrable foundation of evidence to support them.
  Cory Zue  

Link copied
Coming Clean: Why I’m Taking a Stand Against COVID Vaccines Coming-clean-against-Covid-vaccines-feature-800x417

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the Day. It’s free.
There’s no easy way to do this, so I’m going to just come out and say it.
I know that what I’m about to say may make some of you uncomfortable.
It might make some of you angry.
Maybe even scared.
But it’s who I am. It’s my truth.
I’m …
Wow, ok this is hard. Let me try again.
I’m …
… not vaccinated.
Phew! That was hard!
I almost feel like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders.
Are you still here?
Ok. Let’s continue.
For most people my vaccination status is surprising. For many, it’s incomprehensible.
How could an MIT-educated, well-meaning, rational (hopefully), Massachusetts-born, Democrat who works in public health still not have a COVID vaccine?
I’ve been asked this question many times — sometimes in good faith and sometimes less so. And each time, I’ve struggled to fully satisfy people with my response. So I thought maybe I’d try writing it down.
This essay is my attempt to explain my vaccination status as best I can. It’s a complicated answer, which touches on family, science, policy and morality.
It’s a topic that is simultaneously very personal and very broad — difficult to talk about and yet also important — perhaps, now more than ever.
What follows is likely to anger some of you, but I hope that it makes more of you curious, or even empathetic, to my position. We’ll see if I can pull it off.
Are you ready?

BUY TODAY: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s New Book — ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’  
The seed of doubt
I suppose the answer starts with my mother.
The first thing you need to know about my mother is that she is one of the smartest people I know. And not in the typical “my mom is amazing because she’s my mom” way but in the “my mom was one of the first women in the world to get a Ph.D. in computer science from MIT” way.

Coming Clean: Why I’m Taking a Stand Against COVID Vaccines Mom-300x217

My mom at age 21, working at an MIT research lab on one of the world’s first computers (1969).
When I was a kid, my mom and I used to take regular walks to the grocery store, during which she would try to explain complex science to me in terms I could understand.
One time she told me how if you breathed in too much carbon monoxide — the pollutant from cars that can kill you if you idle in a garage for long enough — your blood cells would run around thinking it was the greatest stuff on earth, only it wasn’t.
Nothing else in the body wanted it. So the blood cells would carry it from organ to organ and the organs would say “no thank you” and the cells would try the next one. And the next one.
And eventually, if enough blood cells were running around carrying this useless stuff with nowhere to drop it off, then there wouldn’t be any left to carry the good things you actually needed (i.e., oxygen), and you’d die.
For years after that conversation, I held my breath every time I walked by an idling car. My blood cells wouldn’t get fooled by that awful stuff, thank you very much!
My mom is an independent thinker. Some of her contrarian opinions — for example, that high-fat foods weren’t necessarily all bad for you — were vindicated over time. Others — like the idea that the Egyptian pyramids were built over water and not on land — were not.
She was by no means right about everything, but she wasn’t afraid to go against the grain, something I’ve always admired.
When it comes to human health, my mom is a naturalist at heart. She believes that millions of years of evolution is more likely to be optimized for us than decades or even centuries of human science.
So, for example, she thinks the sun — which humans have co-evolved with since the dawn of time — is likely “net good” for you even though it is also known to cause some skin cancer.
She favors natural and whole foods and dislikes processed food and pesticides. And she often favors natural treatments and the human immune system to modern medicine.
You might see where this is going.
A contrarian thinker who generally distrusts modern medicine?
Ah yes.
The last thing you need to know about my mom — and one that’s the most relevant for this conversation — is that she’s not so hot on vaccines.
So that’s the start of it.
Now, my mom is an influence on my thinking, but she is not the only influence. I do not share her stance on vaccination.
Long before COVID, my mom discouraged me from giving my children their routine childhood immunizations. I take her opinion seriously, and so I looked into it closer. But when I looked into the evidence base, I drew a different conclusion.
Against her blessing, we decided to give our kids the shots. We did it a little later, and a bit more spread out than the recommended schedule — because it seemed low-downside and possibly advantageous — but we did it.
What my mother had provided was a seed of doubt. A reason to look closer at the science that everyone around me took for granted. If my mother did not exist, it would have never occurred to me that there was any reason to look into childhood vaccines — or later, COVID vaccines — and that would be the end of the story.
But she does exist. So when COVID came around and she again discouraged vaccination, I again took a closer look to try and figure out the truth.
I had no idea just how hard that would be.
And thus began a long, fraught, journey into the world of COVID science, data and policy. A journey that started months and months ago and slowly grew into what is now something of an obsession.
While much of the world has moved on, I’m still here reading COVID preprint papers, following epidemiologists on Twitter, looking at Our World In Data graphs, etc. I’ve become one of those people.
So what’s the answer? Was my mom right?
If only it were that easy.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. With the seed of doubt planted, let’s return to the story.

Watching and waiting
I’m an American, but I live in South Africa. This put me in a relatively unique situation early in the vaccine rollout. I could simply be a bystander.
South Africa — like all of Africa — had to wait for everyone in the first world to get their shots before we’d be given any. And when we finally got vaccines, we prioritized the old, healthcare workers and immunocompromised. I wasn’t eligible to get a shot until mid-July, 2021, more than 6 months after the vaccines were distributed to much of the developed world.
During this period I mostly waited and watched.
And a lot happened!
The Delta variant tore through India and spread to the rest of the world. COVID policy, and later vaccination policy created a fierce political divide in the U.S. and much of Europe.
Things went from “cutting in line to get the shot” to “here’s $100 to get the shot” to “get the shot or lose your job” in a surprisingly brief period of time. In a country that still had a 5% vaccination rate, the path to mandate was hard to imagine but impossible to ignore.
We also learned a lot about COVID and the vaccines.
With COVID, it became clear that the impact of the disease was highly stratified. If you were old and/or sick, COVID was really scary, and if you were young and healthy it was relatively mild. I studied CDC mortality statistics, trying to figure out the chances that I — a 39-year-old who runs 5 miles a day — might die from COVID.
I never got an exact answer but it was clear COVID was far less likely to kill me than a heart attack, and was perhaps on par with getting murdered. (Murdered in the U.S. — my odds of being murdered in South Africa are higher.) I’d never worried about heart attacks and murder before, so it didn’t seem rational to worry about COVID. So I stopped.
I then applied the same exercise to my wife — similar to me — and two healthy children — whose odds of dying were orders of magnitudes lower than ours. For kids COVID was as dangerous as the flu — again, something I hadn’t ever worried about except as a mild inconvenience.
I concluded our family was already safe enough from the disease and did not feel compelled to vaccinate for our own health.

Coming Clean: Why I’m Taking a Stand Against COVID Vaccines Covid-deaths-by-age-300x187

COVID deaths in the U.S. by age, as of Dec. 15, 2021. 3% of deaths are among people under 40 — many with other co-morbidities — and 25% are over 85. Source.
So we were ok. But what about vaccinating to stop the spread and protect those around me?
Well, around this time, we also started seeing evidence that the vaccine’s protection against infection was waning pretty quickly. About a month after I became eligible for my shot, a paper came out of Israel indicating that vaccine effectiveness against infection dropped to 50 or 60% after 6 months.
And on top of that, we saw evidence that vaccinated people carry equal viral loads and spread the disease as much (though for a shorter duration) as unvaccinated people.
I concluded there was a benefit to being vaccinated to protect those around me, but that it might be short-lived — or require boosting — to stay above a compelling threshold. And also that I could likely do just as much to protect those around me by continuing to only see people outside, wear a mask, etc.
The other thing that became clear during this time was that COVID would become endemic. That is — we would not be able to stop its spread and would have to learn to live with it in our lives. This meant that most of the measures we were taking weren’t stopping people from getting the disease, they were just delaying it.
If getting vaccinated meant I could prevent a COVID illness, that was pretty compelling. But if it only meant pushing the illness back a few months, that was a bit less remarkable. Still beneficial — by spreading the strain on health systems or allowing more time for new treatments to come out — just not nearly as much.
These factors created a backdrop where I could see that getting vaccinated meant stepping onto a treadmill of sorts. A treadmill that didn’t have any clear stopping criteria. The immunity would go, but the virus would stay. And to continue to be a responsible citizen I’d have to keep topping up my immunity.
Still, so what? Unless the vaccines were harmful, there was still no reason not to get vaccinated. And the vaccines were safe, right?
And the simple answer is “yes.” If I wasn’t worried about COVID then I should also not be worried about the vaccine. Yes, there were some rare side effects — some of which were quite serious — but these appeared to be less common than the serious problems associated with COVID itself. Statistically, the vaccines looked less dangerous than the disease.
But that seed of doubt lingered in the back of my mind. From what we knew, the vaccines were safe, but how much did we know? Did we have a complete picture of what the vaccines did, or were we standing on top of an iceberg with lots of information still lurking underneath?

Coming Clean: Why I’m Taking a Stand Against COVID Vaccines Iceberg-text-300x195

My main early concern about COVID vaccines was that our knowledge of them might look like this, with lots of information still to come in the months and years ahead.
What I could say definitively is we didn’t know everything. We’d been wrong about the vaccine effectiveness that was quoted when the shots were first released. There was no clinical trial data for boosters. The trials for kids were underpowered to demonstrate true risk/benefit from the intervention. And so on.
Did our lack of complete information mean the vaccines were bad? Of course not. Did it mean there was a chance the vaccines were bad? Maybe.
I tried to think about other times in history where it took a long time to learn that something was bad for us. Smoking and lung cancer. Asbestos. X-Rays and other cancers.
I wondered, if the vaccine made people 1% more likely to develop cancer or heart problems sometime later in life, how long would it take to figure that out? I decided the answer was probably quite a while. I decided to wait.
You might find my choice to remain unvaccinated a selfish act. To some extent it was. Part of me felt guilty about not “doing my part” to protect those around me. I was torn. But, looking at the balance of evidence — I could live with myself.
In life we constantly balance our selfish desires with the global good. If I were completely selfless I would be vegan, get rid of my car and donate all my extra money to people with less than me.
In the balance of selfish things I do every day, and the data as I understood it, I did not feel my decision to remain unvaccinated was wildly out of line with my own moral compass.
Still, my wife and I regularly revisited the prospect of getting the shot. But it was easier to put off the decision another day, another week, and so on than to take action. Perhaps, if we were less lazy we would have gotten it earlier.
And then we got COVID. And the picture changed again.

BUY TODAY: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s New Book — ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’  
Getting COVID, natural immunity and down the information rabbit hole
I don’t know how we got COVID, since we were continuing to be pretty careful/anti-social. The most likely source is through my toddler’s school, where a teacher and several students had it. Either way, there it was.
It went through the whole family. My wife got hit the worst and had bad flu symptoms for two or three days. I had one day that was pretty rough, but was back to exercising a few days later. The kids barely felt it. And that was that. Almost exactly as I’d predicted, and statistically very normal.
Being on the other side of COVID further changed the vaccine picture. In my province, they [url= COVID19 Vaccination Fact Sheet 15 June 2021.pdf]didn’t recommend[/url] getting the shot within three months of a COVID infection, so I now had more time to think about the decision. Also, I now had some degree of future protection from the disease (a.k.a. natural immunity).

Coming Clean: Why I’m Taking a Stand Against COVID Vaccines Immunity-xkcd

xkcd on natural immunity. Making a good point, but ignoring that many people already have natural immunity and did not “seek it out.”
Now natural immunity is another funny topic with COVID. No one can seem to agree how much protection you get from it. Policies in some places — including most of the U.S. — ignore natural immunity entirely.
And yet, simultaneously, much of Europe includes it in the definition of “fully vaccinated” in terms of their restrictions — at least for some period of time after infection. This apparent lack of consensus seemed odd, so I found myself digging into the evidence.
Sadly, the evidence was just as confusing.
One study that came out of Israel in August claimed that previously infected people were 27 times less likely to get infected and 9 times less likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people. But then, many other papers claimed that vaccines produced “a more consistent, and higher-titer initial antibody response” — whatever that meant.
Then in November, the CDC published a study that found the complete opposite of the Israel data: infected people were 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID than the vaccinated. Huh?!
My background is in engineering and computer science. I’ve been a practicing software developer for 15 years and done my fair share of data science in my career. But I’m not a biologist. Making sense of these papers was slow-going.
So I thought, “well, I’ll do what I normally do in other fields — I’ll just look to the experts to tell me what the answer is.”
Unfortunately, the experts didn’t agree either!
Instead, the experts seemed to say whatever supported their own previously-held positions. Experts who favored vaccination loved the CDC study. Experts who thought COVID policy had become too extreme hated it. It was enough to make my head explode. How can we not know these things? How is there not consensus?

Coming Clean: Why I’m Taking a Stand Against COVID Vaccines Confirmation-bias-300x107

I knew that individuals were highly susceptible to confirmation bias. I didn’t expect to find it among all the scientific experts.
I went deep on this topic, trying to form as unbiased an opinion as I could based on reading as many papers and conflicting opinions as I could.
My conclusion after many, many hours of research was that my natural immunity was at least as good as any vaccine. (There are a large number of scientific papers acknowledging that natural immunity is likely more protective — or at least as good and longer-lasting — than vaccination when looking at the outcomes of Covid infection and severe disease. To my knowledge, the CDC paper is the only one that claims the opposite.)
Probably far better than one dose of J&J. Maybe not as good as two doses of Moderna. Either way, I was now as “protected” and as “safe to society” as anyone who’d been vaccinated.
The other conclusion I drew from this exercise was that our information ecosystem was pretty broken. I had tried to get an answer to what I thought was a simple question — ”how protective is natural immunity vs vaccination?” — and found it to be a deep and complex rabbit hole of evidence and opinions.
I also observed a serious disconnect between how confident people were and the body of contradictory evidence. To borrow a term from Wait But Why, everyone was operating in the Arrogant Zone.

Coming Clean: Why I’m Taking a Stand Against COVID Vaccines Wbw-conviction-knowledge-295x300

The knowledge/conviction graph, from Wait But Why’s The Thinking Ladder. With COVID it seemed too many people were operating in the “Arrogant Zone.”
The simplest answer was: we aren’t sure! But everyone was talking as if they knew everything, despite equally-credentialed people across the aisle saying the polar opposite.
I had thought being scientifically-minded meant continually questioning consensus opinions with new information, but here things had turned on their head. Science was being used to affirm our previously held beliefs, rather than help us see truth.
As I continued down the COVID rabbit hole, what did become clear is that I had to “correct for bias” in everything I read about COVID. I would see a study and immediately think “ah the New York Times is gonna love that one.” Or another one and think “The Brownstone Institute is gonna be all over this.”
Media outlets that I had trusted my whole life morphed into these predictable propaganda machines, amplifying the information they liked and ignoring the information they didn’t. I realized that to see the whole picture I had to follow a wide group of sources with a broad range of opinions and draw my own conclusions.
I also realized that almost no one around me was doing anything like what I was doing. Instead, most people were living in an ideological echo chamber, certain that it represented the truth. I don’t blame people for this — getting a broad view takes a lot more time and effort — but it was troubling that this was the position we had gotten ourselves into.
The slow turning of public opinion
What also became clear to me is that the downstream effects of these COVID information echo-chambers was having a big impact on policy and public opinion.
Here again, my position in South Africa provided a unique perspective into the things that started happening elsewhere in the world. Specifically, the politicization and polarization of all things pandemic, from masks to lockdowns to vaccines to mandates.
As I said, I’m American and most of my friends are still in the U.S.. What became striking was how different the conversations I was having in South Africa were from the conversations people were having in the U.S.
It was a slow transition, but here are a few moments that punctuated it for me.
August, 2021: On a call with an American friend, I mentioned my vaccination status in the context of an upcoming trip to the States. He told me that it was likely that a lot of my friends would not be comfortable seeing me. This was a real shock as it literally had never once come up in South Africa at this time (I’d only been eligible for the shot for a few weeks). I checked with another friend and they confirmed this sentiment was common. Wow!
September, 2021: When I told my American friends I had COVID, my vaccination status came up. Someone said, “whoa, are you a conspiracy theorist or something?” Again, I found this to be a strange question. The topic of vaccines here was largely an independent, personal choice but clearly in the U.S. it had become something … else. Huh.
October, 2021: I was talking to an American executive of a U.S.-based company that does some government contracting. The topic of compliance for Biden’s OSHA vaccine mandate — which the company fell under — came up.
He mentioned he was concerned about how to roll it out because “in a group of 100 people there’s probably one or two crazies in there.” It was said so casually that I was a bit taken aback. Was I crazy?
November, 2021: I was having dinner with some Americans who were visiting Cape Town. One of them mentioned they weren’t vaccinated. Given that he was a liberal-leaning American, I was shocked and excited to find a potential ally. “Whoa, really?!” I asked. And then he awkwardly had to explain that it was a joke — of course he was vaccinated. Pretending you were unvaccinated was … funny?
All of these interactions were small. None of them harmed our friendships (at least that I’m aware of). All of them turned into little opportunities for me to attempt to explain my position, data around natural immunity, and generally try and convey how someone like me — someone who seemed reasonable and didn’t fit their typical image of a Trump-loving, science-denying anti-vaxxer — might still choose not to get vaccinated in today’s world.
My points didn’t usually land, but I took my shot.
At the same time, the smallness of these interactions stayed with me. The casual way in which there were clear “sides” to this thing. In which it was obviously “right” to be on one side, and that the people who felt differently were somehow conspiracists, crazy, and worthy of mockery. The casualness of it all was the most striking.
I’ve seen this “othering” before in various forms. I’ve been a part of many conversations — some in the workplace — where it was perfectly acceptable to casually mock and dismiss anyone who supported Donald Trump.
I wondered what it would be like to be a Trump supporter in a place like that. Whether you’d try to defend your position. Whether you’d keep silent. Or whether you’d eventually be shunned and forced out. And suddenly I was getting a taste for it. Vaccine status had become a “safe” place to mock and shame our fellow people.
Was this ok?
In South Africa, our vaccination rate slowly climbed to 20%, then 30% of the population, but the vaccinated remained a minority. Most of my personal network was vaccinated, but the national picture was still quite different. And my interactions were quite different.
Everyone was respectful. No one made assumptions. No one has shamed me. If my status comes up, it’s usually a level-headed and nuanced conversation. I’ve never had any of these “othering” experiences that became commonplace with the people in the west.
Something clearly different was happening in America. For reasons that were clearly not just about public health.
It didn’t sit well.

The growing logical divergence
As time went by I became increasingly confused by what appeared to be a growing divergence between science, common sense and policy.
On the science side the effectiveness of vaccines against infection continued to wane. The vaccines continued to do great at preventing hospitalizations and deaths, but there was now no doubt that they weren’t going to contain the spread. Countries with 80 or 90% of their adult populations vaccinated saw their largest waves ever.
Israel redefined “fully vaccinated” to mean three shots instead of two, and people started talking about doing the same in Europe and the U.S.
Natural immunity also waned over time, but appeared to last longer than vaccines. (During this period I wrote a very different essay to this which attempted to break down the evidence base surrounding vaccine effectiveness, risks, natural immunity, and other topics. You can find more details and citations for many of the positions I’ve taken there. Note that I haven’t kept it updated since publication in October, 2021.)
I looked at the global picture and thought, well it’s clear that the vaccines aren’t stopping the spread of disease. It looks like getting vaccinated is moving towards becoming more of a personal health decision than a public health necessity.
So maybe mandates are no longer required? Or perhaps at a minimum we’ll recognize natural immunity is at least as good as these vaccines?
Oh you sweet summer child. This perspective turned out to be hopelessly naive.
Instead, mandates continued to be pushed, harder and harder, and with more and more tenuous logical reasoning.
I became ineligible to enter Canada — my wife’s home country — due to my vaccination status. I can no longer dine in many of the most popular cities in the U.S. The goal of pandemic policy seemed to have changed from “stop the virus at all cost” to “increase vaccination rates at all cost,” and so a policy that increased vaccination that was deemed “successful” even if it didn’t really … well … stop the virus.
And there was a cost. Thousands of people were losing their jobs. Hospitals were hurt by staff shortages in part because they had fired healthcare workers — people who risked their lives and got COVID early in the pandemic, but whose natural immunity wasn’t recognized. Students were being kicked out of universities. Long-tenured, celebrated doctors and professors were fired from their jobs.
The gap between policy and common sense didn’t just apply to vaccines. Mask policies in many places became a circus. People would put on their masks for 30 seconds walking through a restaurant, only to dine unmasked for 2 hours, and somehow everyone accepted this was helping.
The U.S. masked kids, often as young as 2, despite this being against World Health Organization recommendations, and being based on a very tenuous base of circumstantial evidence. Did we have any idea what harm that was doing?

Every time I walk into a restaurant with my mask affixed for 30 seconds before being seated, then spend 45 minutes unmasked eating and drinking, and then affix my mask again for 30 seconds while leaving, I give thanks for how many thousands of lives this practice has surely saved
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) October 17, 2021

The decoupling of evidence from policy and public opinion created a fierce rift in society. It also created a group of people — people like me — who paid attention to the science and saw just how much our trusted institutions were getting wrong. This erosion of public trust will take a long, long time to repair.
I tried having conversations about this with people around me — people who were very smart, highly educated and generally open and liberal-minded — and was consistently met with fierce resistance.
Usually we disagreed about the facts. How effective the vaccines were, how risky they were, whether it mattered if you were old, young, infected, etc. Fact-based disagreements were tricky because — like I found on the topic of natural immunity — the evidence base was overwhelmingly complex.
I couldn’t bring everyone along my 100-hour research journey, and there was plenty of evidence out there to support whatever position anyone wanted to have.

Coming Clean: Why I’m Taking a Stand Against COVID Vaccines Reddit-research-meme-300x287

How I sounded whenever I attempted to take a position that was not considered “scientific consensus.”
What was most effective in these conversations was pointing out where there were clear differences of COVID policy globally.
Pointing out that natural immunity was widely acknowledged in Europe’s COVID pass system, for example. Or that Germany and France suspended giving Moderna shots to anyone under 30 because of heart inflammation risks. But whenever I presented an opinion that diverged from most government policies the conversation became almost impossible.
I get it.
It’s pretty hard to fathom that most of the world might be operating on imperfect and incomplete information. It’s hard to believe that some random person who did some internet research has a more balanced, or nuanced position on COVID than Anthony Fauci.
But Fauci sits on the edge of a complex spectrum of opinion related to COVID policy. Many equally-credentialed experts in public health and epidemiology think very differently.
And there are even highly credentialed experts who believe the vaccines might be far more harmful than we believe. Somewhere in this mess lies the truth. The biggest difference between Fauci and the other experts is that Fauci has the biggest microphone.
The Omicron disruption
It had become clear to me that we were spinning into a weirder and weirder place at faster and faster speeds with our COVID policies.
And then came Omicron.
And if pandemic policy had already become decoupled from science and common sense, Omicron put this divergence into hyperdrive.
Once again being in South Africa provided a unique perspective into what was going on with the pandemic. Where historically living here was like living four or five months in the past, now all of the sudden I was living in the future! We went through Omicron first and were weeks ahead of the rest of the world in terms of what the impact would be.
And Omicron turned the balance of pandemic policy upside-down in every way.
First it was impossible to contain. It spread like wildfire and tore through populations regardless of what measures were put in place. Vaxxed? Previously infected? Masked? Don’t matter. Omicron finds you.
Second, it was much more mild. And I know that as of the time of this writing (Jan. 4, 2022) that some people don’t feel ready to admit that to be true, it is getting more and more impossible to ignore. In South Africa — now on the downward slope of our Omicron wave — the “peak” of deaths has been only 1/10th as big as previous waves.

Coming Clean: Why I’m Taking a Stand Against COVID Vaccines Sa-cfr-owid-300x215

The case fatality rate of COVID in South Africa. Omicron became the dominant variant almost exactly where it falls to near zero. Source: Our World in Data
Third, it largely evades vaccines. Many of Omicron’s mutations are in the spike protein that is used by the vaccines to confer immunity. It appears the changes substantially reduce the effectiveness of the vaccines against infection to levels bordering on zero just a few months after the shot. (Discovery — South Africa’s largest medical insurer — published a large study indicating the effectiveness of 2 doses of Pfizer against Omicron infection fell to 25% after 3 months. Many places which publish data by vaccination status are now seeing equal or even more infections among the vaccinated (for example Ontario or the UK.)
So now we have an impossible-to-stop virus that looks a lot like the common cold. And we have a heavy-handed global mitigation strategy based on vaccination that does very little to stop it. Surely, I thought, we will now see that these policies, and especially vaccine mandates, do not make any logical sense?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Instead, the mandate train kept right on coming. Universities started mandating boosters for healthy 20-year-olds. Kenya announced — two days before Christmas — that all airplane travelers would require vaccination to enter or exit the country. Because … the variant that evades vaccines was spreading.
Kenya’s policy change forced us to cancel our planned holiday trip with less than two weeks’ notice. In a fun twist of irony, the policies rolled out the same day I got my yellow fever vaccine for the trip.
The public opinion train steamed on as well. As cruise ships, parties and weddings of fully-vaxxed, often boosted, people created massive spreading events, people continued to celebrate their cities’ vaccine mandates on Instagram, shame the unvaccinated on Twitter and grow the ever-increasing divide among us.
Here in South Africa, we had all but declared the pandemic over.
The day after Kenya mandated vaccination for air travel, South Africa issued a remarkable update to it’s COVID guidelines. No more contact tracing. No more isolation or testing of COVID contacts. No more need to isolate even if you test positive for COVID, as long as you weren’t sick. And no different treatments for vaccinated or unvaccinated people.
The government acknowledged what is now obvious: this virus is here to stay, it’s not that bad anymore and we need to live with it and get back to our lives.
I was shocked. Not because I disagreed with the changes, but because I didn’t think the government would be willing to do something that would be so obviously controversial. I was never more proud to be in South Africa than I was at that moment.
And then just a few days later, they rolled back the guidelines. Citing “media, stakeholders and public enquiries,” they decided to take more time for comments. We’re now back in limbo with our old rules. And once more the court of public opinion is leading policy instead of the science.
The world is standing on a knife’s edge right now. As parts of the world (and even parts of the U.S.) declare the pandemic over and move on, other parts are increasing restrictions, mandating further shots and tests and deepening a strong political and ideological divide among us.
Now we are faced with a crucial decision. Do we continue pushing harder and harder down the path of coercion and dehumanization, with ever-increasing harm and ever-diminishing returns? Or do we take a beat, admit that the picture has changed, and try to find ourselves back to acceptance and sanity?
I wish I knew the answer. But I know what I’m hoping for.
You might be wondering, well why not just get the shot?
And of course, of course, it would be great to be among the privileged vaccinated class right now. I do not like being forced to take a COVID test to step into my son’s school (even though my natural immunity is better than some of the vaccinated people and their 13% J&J efficacy). I do not like having my holiday plans canceled at the last minute. I do not like not being able to visit my wife’s home country.
And it’s not that I’m scared, or that I think something bad will happen to me if I get the vaccine. I believe the vaccines are safe enough. As I mentioned, the evidence suggests that my risk from the vaccine is less than the risk I accepted for my first bout of COVID, which I also wasn’t scared of.
At the same time, I do genuinely believe that given my previous infection the risk/benefit of the vaccine is negative. That is — I think it is more likely to do harm than good. And I believe that any good it will do is temporary and futile in the long term.
The overwhelmingly likely outcome is that the vaccine would do just what the virus did: maybe inconvenience me for a day or so, and then I’d be on with my life. Rationally, isn’t that worth being able to live “normally” again?
Yes. That would be worth it. But the issue is no longer the vaccine. The problem is the precedent.
I don’t believe it’s ok to live in a world in which medical procedures can be forced onto people without an impenetrable foundation of evidence to support them. And I’m just not seeing that from where I stand.
The world I want to live in is a world where we make and enforce rational, evidence-based policies based on the good of the population. A world in which we defer some autonomy to individuals to make their own decisions regarding their health and don’t keep them from going out to dinner or getting on an airplane if we disagree with them.
I’d also like to live in a world where we stop shaming “the other,” and I’ve decided that one way I can do that is by declaring myself as part of “the other.”

Coming Clean: Why I’m Taking a Stand Against COVID Vaccines I-am-spartacus-300x164

“I. Am. Unvaccinated.”
Earlier I didn’t take the shot because I wasn’t sure it was good for me. But now? Now I’m not taking the shot because I’m taking a stand.
I’m taking a stand because if people like me don’t stand up against what’s going on in the world right now then things will only get harder and weirder and scarier for other people like me. I’m worried that if we don’t get off this path soon, it’s going to get harder and harder to turn back. And I don’t want to see where that ends up.
At the end of the day, we’re all just trying to do our best.
We’re trying to make the decisions we believe are best for ourselves, our families and our communities, based on our best understanding of the world.
But the world is complicated. All it takes is a brief glance through history to realize that we humans have been confident and wrong about many, many things, from slavery to smoking to carbon emissions. Every day we learn more than we did the day before, and hopefully every day we make better choices.
But, sometimes we get lost.
I think society is pretty lost right now. And maybe, just maybe, my story can set one or two of us on a better path.
We’re in this together.
We’ll get through this together.

Coming Clean: Why I’m Taking a Stand Against COVID Vaccines Family-support-300x200

Photo credit: Tyler Nix on Unsplash.
Big thanks to Rowena Luk, Neal Lesh, Mike McCandless, Greg McCandless, Andrew Marder, Gareth Dwyer, Will Pride, and two people who chose to remain anonymous for reading drafts of this.
How can you help?
Concretely, some of the big things I’m concerned by are:
1. The decoupling of our COVID policies from the body of evidence. A few obvious policies that do not have clear scientific backing include:

  • The lack of acknowledgment of natural immunity for many “immunity passport” systems.
  • Travel restrictions and quarantines when the virus or variant is already spreading locally.
  • The use of cloth masks on very young children in the U.S.
  • Vaccine mandates for anyone whose risk of a serious COVID outcome approaches zero, including young children and previously-infected young adults.
  • Any vaccine mandates which are justified as stopping or slowing the spread of disease in the face of Omicron.

2. The vast degree of censorship happening on our big tech platforms for credible experts who take non-consensus opinions. We should always be debating the science, not shutting down science we disagree with.
3. The casual “othering” of the unvaccinated, and casual dismissal into their right to choose what to put into their body and freedom to live their lives in society.
4. The slow drift into authoritarian behavior in some places (Austria, Germany and Australia, to name a few).
If you’re also concerned about any of these things, but have kept silent to date, now is the time to speak up. Without your voice things aren’t going to change.
Have a conversation on these topics with a friend. Share this essay if you’d like. Or go amplify the message of Vinay Prasad, Jay Bhattacharya, Zubin Damania, Marty Makary, Sunetra Gupta and the dozens of other powerful COVID centrists — all highly credentialed doctors or scientists — who are speaking out against many of our current policies.
Post on Facebook. Join a protest. Resist.
If you don’t agree with me, that’s ok. I know that for many of you COVID is still (rightly) very scary, and that you may look at the complicated body of evidence and feel the case for vaccination and mandates is clear-cut.
To you, I’d simply ask to try and seek out and listen — really listen — to someone who disagrees with you. Be curious. They might surprise you.
And try to remember that just because you disagree with their choices that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are wrong or that they are bad people.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
Thanks to:


Supreme Court Strikes Down OSHA Mandate, Says Vaccine Mandates for Healthcare Workers Can Proceed

Supreme Court Strikes Down OSHA Mandate, Says Vaccine Mandates for Healthcare Workers Can Proceed

The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandate for large businesses, but ruled separately that a mandate for healthcare workers can move forward.
  Megan Redshaw  
Link copied
Supreme Court Strikes Down OSHA Mandate, Says Vaccine Mandates for Healthcare Workers Can Proceed Supreme-Court-feature-800x417

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the Day. It’s free.
The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected the Biden administration’s mandate requiring employees of large businesses to be vaccinated against COVID or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask indoors while working.
The court’s conservative majority said the administration overstepped its authority by imposing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) vaccine-or-test rule on U.S. businesses with at least 100 employees.
At the same time, the court allowed to move forward a separate rule mandating COVID vaccines for workers in healthcare facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid.
The Supreme Court on Jan. 7 heard oral arguments pertaining to both of the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandates. The focus of the hearing was whether to stay or to grant temporary injunctions requested by plaintiffs in a number of lawsuits challenging the emergency mandates for millions of Americans.
At the time, the rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), was stayed for 24 states that initiated lawsuits, but the OSHA stay was lifted by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court’s decision today reversed the lower court rulings, imposing a stay on the OSHA mandate and allowing the CMS rule to proceed.

BUY TODAY: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s New Book — ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’  
Today’s rulings came three days after the OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard went into effect, targeting more than 84 million workers and two-thirds of the nation’s private-sector workforce.
The conservative justices wrote in an unsigned opinion:
“OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here.”
The conservative majority also expressed concerns over the implications of allowing OSHA to implement a widespread mandate without congressional authorization.
“Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life — simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock — would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization,” the opinion stated.
A majority of the Supreme Court’s justices concluded the applicants challenging OSHA’s mandate were likely to succeed in the merits of their claim and the secretary of labor lacked authority to impose the mandate, resulting in a stay while the case works its way through the 6th Circuit Court.
“Administrative agencies are creatures of statute,” the justices wrote. “They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided.”
In a joint dissent of the OSHA ruling, the court’s three liberal justices argued the court was overreaching by substituting its judgment for that of health experts.
“Acting outside of its competence and without legal basis, the Court displaces the judgments of the Government officials given the responsibility to respond to workplace health emergencies,” Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a joint dissent.
The justices contended OSHA’s mandate is comparable to a fire or sanitation regulation imposed by the agency, while the majority said a vaccine mandate is strikingly unlike the workplace regulations that OSHA has typically imposed as a vaccination “cannot be undone at the end of the workday.”

SCOTUS allows CMS rule to move forward
In a separate opinion, the court allowed a rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to take effect.
The mandate is estimated to affect 10.3 million healthcare workers in the U.S., but allows for religious and medical exemptions. The rule was previously blocked by two lower courts for the 24 states that challenged the rule.
The opinion stated:
“Vaccination requirements are a common feature of the provision of healthcare in America: Healthcare workers around the country are ordinarily required to be vaccinated for diseases such as hepatitis B, influenza, and measles, mumps, and rubella. As the Secretary explained, these pre-existing state requirements are a major reason the agency has not previously adopted vaccine mandates as a condition of participation.”
The opinion went on to suggest healthcare workers and public health organizations “overwhelmingly support” the CMS rule.
“Indeed, their support suggests that a vaccination requirement under these circumstances is a straightforward and predictable example of the […] regulations that Congress has authorized the Secretary to impose,” the opinion states.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, dissented.
“Neither CMS nor the Court articulates a limiting principle for why, after an unexplained and unjustified delay, an agency can regulate first and listen later, and then put more than 10 million healthcare workers to the choice of their jobs or an irreversible medical treatment,” Justice Alito wrote.
“The challenges posed by a global pandemic do not allow a federal agency to exercise power that Congress has not conferred upon it. At the same time, such unprecedented circumstances provide no grounds for limiting the exercise of authorities the agency has long been recognized to have,” Justices Alito and Thomas wrote, stating the “latter principle governs” in the healthcare cases.
Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) said in an email to The Defender:
 “CHD is delighted to see that the Supreme Court, 6-3, has upheld the preliminary injunction in the OSHA case, deciding that the administration lacked the authority to impose a COVID injection mandate on corporations with more than 100 employees.
“We are concerned, however, that the Supreme Court upheld the administration’s CMS mandate for healthcare workers. This mandate of an experimental, unapproved pharmaceutical product with only an ‘Emergency Use Authorization’ designation violates federal law and the Nuremberg Code, prohibiting coercion for participation in experimental medicine. We will continue to fight for true informed consent for all people.”
Scientists submit brief to SCOTUS on ineffectiveness of COVID vaccines
Drs. Luc Montagnier, co-winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine, Harvey Risch, a Yale Professor of Epidemiology and Robert Malone, co-inventor of mRNA concepts and processes used in the existing COVID vaccines filed two briefs (first brief, second brief) as amici curiae in support of the applicants’ application for a stay or preliminary injunction of the OSHA and CMS mandates.
The briefs were designed to “highlight critical facts concerning Omicron — facts not addressed in the administrative record,” while “correcting an important false statement of fact in an amicus brief submitted by the American Medical Association et al. so that the court is not led into error.”
In their briefs, Montagnier, Rische and Malone argued neither OSHA nor CMS did any analysis of vaccine effectiveness against the COVID virus as it now exists and there is no evidence to suggest vaccination “will curb the spread of the virus we now face.”
Thanks to:


Reiner Füellmich and 50 Lawyers: “Different Batches” and “Lethal Doses”, ”The Vaccines Are Designed to Kill”

January 13, 2022
Video: Reiner Füellmich and 50 Lawyers: “Different Batches” and “Lethal Doses”, ”The Vaccines Are Designed to Kill”
By Reiner Fuellmich and Perspektiv
Global Research, January 13, 2022Perspektiv 10 January 2022

Reiner Füellmich and 50 Lawyers: “Different Batches” and “Lethal Doses”, ”The Vaccines Are Designed to Kill” Senior-woman-doctor-shot-vaccine-400x225-1

After hearing the witness statements to the German Corona Investigative Committee by former vice president of Pfizer Dr Mike Yeadon who has been a scientist for 36 years, lawyers with Reiner Füllmich draw the same conclusion: The injections normally called Corona vaccines are designed to experiment on the human race and to find out what dosage of a yet unknown toxin is needed in order to kill people.
The mortality rate linked to the vaccines, according to Yeadon, is traceable in terms of lot numbers of the different batches, as some batches appear to be more lethal than others. When taking a look at the evidence available, the main goal with the injections all over the world is global depopulation, according to the lawyers involved. Dr Füllmich told Perspektiv that the lawyers preparing an international law suit were no longer in doubt: Poisoning and mass murder through so called Corona vaccines is intentionally being perpetrated on the peoples of the world.
Citizen Journalist Ulf Bittner from EU/EES Healthcare blog and Sverige Granskas stated in the interview that the situation with traceable lot numbers and injuries and death related to lot numbers is similar in the different health care regions of Sweden. Bittner is in contact with a vaccine coordinator who has provided documents to keep track of how many people have been injured and lost their lives related to the different batches of the so-called vaccines.

01:00 Different numbers on the barcodes on the bottom of the vaccine doses are placebo which has been given to politicians according to a Slovenian chief nurse. Is it the same in other countries?
1:54 Mike Yeadon and the LOT numbers of some shots of the brands Moderna, Johnson& Johnson and Pfizer/Biontech are related to much higher mortality than for the other manufacturers.
3:52 The producers of the so-called vaccines are experimenting with the correct dosages to kill people according to Dr Füllmich. This according to the Corona Investigative Committee, constitute compelling evidence for punitive damages and attempted mass murder. They are intentionally killing people.
[ltr]5 Questions To Ask Your Friends Who Plan To Get The Covid Vaccine[/ltr]
08:30 Lawyers from India have filed complaints for premeditative murder.
09:55 Mike Yeadon as a witness for the coming legal action against the perpetrators.
10:44 Everyone who critizises the wrongdoings of the governments of the world is being called a ‘right wing extremist’. This has also happened to the internationally renowned scientist Mike Yeadon.
13:05 CDC withdrew the recommendation for the PCR-tests diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 from 31/12-2021. PCR- tests are the foundation of the pandemic. Why is Anthony Fauci now doing a 180-degree turn?
17:25 At least a million dollars per person will be claimed in punitive damages if the lawsuit is successful.
18:33 Previously only ten percent of all adverse effects were reported. In the situation the world is right now, the team estimated that in fact only one percent of all adverse effects were being reported.
19:25 CEO of Life insurance company from Indiana USA with 100 billions of dollars in assets said: ”Over the span of this past year there has been an excess mortality of 40 percent”. This is believed to be due to the injections.
21:05 What substance in the vials makes them so lethal? Is it Graphene Oxide/graphene hydroxide?
22:37 Any vaccin is a poison, it is the dosage which makes the difference. This is not a vaccine, as a vaccine provides immunity, while these products demand incessant injections. Either a vaccine works or it does not.
24:40 This is not gene therapy either, since a gene therapy means exchanging a broken gene with a fixed one. This is more like experimenting on people, and trying to kill us.
25.15 The doses are not tested by governments, while governments will be keeping the contracts hidden from the public for at least 55 years. How is this affecting the possibility of getting people punished? Dr Füllmich goes through all the lies paving the way for the tyrannical situation the world is now in.
28:25 The vaccines are neither safe nor effective. The producers are experimenting on lethal doses of poison. Everyone now taking part in intentional malicious infliction of harm will be punished.
30:05 How sure are legal experts about the conclusion that Mike Yeadon has drawn from this, that it is all about depopulation and intentionally killing people through injections? If close to 50 lawyers are of the same opinion, it is regarded as “irrefutable proof”.
32:08 Batches of injections in Sweden can be traced by an application.
32:45 Füllmich is in cooperation with people working within the secret service of Germany who do not wish to take the injections.
34:15 Dr Lee Merritt on combat pilots in the USA refusing to get the shots. According to Dr Füllmich, Dr Merrit explained: ”They understood that if they were forced to [get vaccinated] they were going to get killed.”
35:15 Information is being collected on batches in Sweden from every region, the Swedish health authorities (Folkhälsomyndigheten) and medical board (Läkemedelsverket). Every batch is traceable through an application. There is economic reward for the Swedish regions which manage to get more people injected. One of the expert lawyers involved in the upcoming court hearings is a specialist on Nuremberg Trials.
38:45 How will the trials be performed, and through what legal structure? A common design, the same structure as for the Nuremberg trials.
39:40 Free choice should reign for members of the European Union. Consumers of health care have consumer rights. Fraud means misleading the people and consumers of health care.
42:00 The so called vaccines are an adulterated product put on to the market. According to Mike Yeadon there is a law in the US that will make everyone liable for the harms created by the adulterated product. Toxins are being put into the vials other than the known lipids etc, which the people who took the vaccines never consented to.
43:40 The importance of decentralization of power and national independence rather than global organizations such as the European Union telling the people what to do. Disconnecting from the banking system, NGO:s and creating independent and strong agricultural supply chains, energy supply chains etc.
46:15 When are the trials going to take place? How will the indictments happen and how will the trials be held? One of the goals is to inform people and expose the wrongdoings by involving the alternative media so that the mainstream media won’t be able to ignore the trials. The crew is working on a new system of law in the USA, Africa and Germany.
50:48 Dr Füllmich believes the world is close to a tipping point and the whole narrative will fall apart very very soon, maybe in a couple of weeks or months.
54:13 Robert Malone, Robert F Kennedy and Mike Yeadon and others involved in exposing the agenda are in contact with each other, and a tour is planned with these whistleblowers in the USA in March

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Video: Reiner Füellmich and 50 Lawyers: “Different Batches” and “Lethal Doses”, ”The Vaccines Are Designed to Kill”

Thanks to:


29 Charged in 6-State Shoplifting Ring That Hit Pharmacies

TULSA, Okla.—State and federal authorities announced Thursday that they arrested and charged more than two dozen people for taking part in a multistate shoplifting ring that made off with more than $10 million in stolen goods over the past few years, most of which was over-the-counter medications.

U.S. Attorney Clint Johnson in Tulsa and Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor announced state and federal charges against 29 defendants. Johnson said 25 of those charged had been arrested and four others were still at large.

Prosecutors said the defendants took part in a conspiracy to steal mostly over-the-counter medications from retailers such as Walmart, Costco, Walgreens, CVS and GNC in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas. The ringleaders would then arrange for the sale of the items on websites such as Amazon and eBay.

“Consumers and businesses incur a high price for thieves who commit larcenies and profit by selling their stolen goods to well-organized theft rings,” said Tulsa Police Chief Wendell Franklin, whose department launched its investigation in 2019 after an organized crime investigator from a pharmacy retailer shared information about bulk thefts from its Tulsa-area locations. “Thieves should take notice. Tulsa is not going to capitulate and allow criminals to disrupt commerce in our city.”

Prosecutors allege that a 48-year-old Tulsa woman, Linda Been, led the ring, which netted an estimated $4.5 million from the sale of stolen goods such as Flonase, Mucinex, Nexium and Allegra to fencing organizations outside of Oklahoma that then sold the merchandise on e-commerce sites. They allege that Been, whose name is listed in jail records as Linda Gann, would provide shoplifters with a detailed list of items to steal and pay for their expenses when they traveled out of state. She also would pay for the shoplifters’ bond if they were arrested, prosecutors allege.

State and federal court records don’t indicate whether Been has an attorney who might speak on her behalf.

The Associated Press



Waukesha County Judge Deals HUGE BLOW to Democrats — Bans Use of Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes in Wisconsin

Waukesha County Judge Deals HUGE BLOW to Democrats — Bans Use of Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes in Wisconsin

Date: January 13, 2022Author: Nwo Report

Waukesha County Judge Deals HUGE BLOW to Democrats — Bans Use of Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes in Wisconsin Image-581

Source: Jim Hoft
Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Michael Bohren issued a summary judgment decision on Thursday banning ballot drop boxes in the state. Judge Bohren also banned illegal ballot harvesting in the state.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) issued memos to Wisconsin clerks in March and August of 2020 encouraging their use, stating that absentee ballots do not need to be mailed by the voter or delivered by the voter, in person, to the municipal clerk, but instead could be dropped into a drop box. According to WEC, ballot drop boxes can be unstaffed, temporary, or permanent.
This advice was contrary to state law.
Joe Biden won the state after a stunning drop of Biden only ballots in the middle of the night following the election.

Waukesha County Judge Deals HUGE BLOW to Democrats — Bans Use of Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes in Wisconsin Image-582

Waukesha County Judge Deals HUGE BLOW to Democrats — Bans Use of Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes in Wisconsin XAnmTRF0_normal

Empower Wisconsin

BREAKING: Judge rules WEC broke the law,that absentee ballot drop boxes and ballot harvesting are not permitted in state law. Waukesha Co judge also found WEC’s guidance documents on drop boxes should have gone through legislative rules process #wiright #wipolitics @WILawLiberty
5:56 PM · Jan 13, 2022

Waukesha County Judge Deals HUGE BLOW to Democrats — Bans Use of Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes in Wisconsin 3orcwJkJ_normal


NEW: Waukesha Judge Rules Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes, Ballot Harvesting Illegal Under State Law Details –>

Waukesha County Judge Deals HUGE BLOW to Democrats — Bans Use of Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes in Wisconsin FJBQniPXEAIoPED?format=jpg&name=small

5:39 PM · Jan 13, 2022

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty reported.
The News: Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Michael Bohren issued a summary judgment decision, in court, that absentee ballot drop boxes and ballot harvesting are not permitted in state law. Judge Bohren also ruled that the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) guidance documents on absentee ballot drop boxes, issued in 2020, should have gone through the rules process.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Waukesha County voters in June 2021 challenging the legal status of absentee ballot drop boxes after WEC issued unlawful guidance to clerks, in 2020, encouraging the use of absentee ballot drop boxes, and telling voters that anyone else can return their ballot for them.
The Quote: WILL Deputy Counsel, Luke Berg, said, “The guidance from the Wisconsin Elections Commission on absentee ballot drop boxes was unlawful. There are just two legal methods to cast an absentee ballot in Wisconsin: through the mail or in-person at a clerk’s office. And voters must return their own ballots. We are pleased the court made this clear, providing Wisconsin voters with certainty for forthcoming elections.”
Background: Absentee ballot drop boxes were used widely during Wisconsin elections in 2020. The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) issued memos to Wisconsin clerks in March and August of 2020 encouraging their use, stating that absentee ballots do not need to be mailed by the voter or delivered by the voter, in person, to the municipal clerk, but instead could be dropped into a drop box. According to WEC, ballot drop boxes can be unstaffed, temporary, or permanent.
This advice was contrary to state law. Voting is a constitutional right, but state law makes clear that, “voting by absentee ballot is a privilege exercised wholly outside the traditional safeguards of the polling place.” There are just two legal ways in Wisconsin to submit an absentee ballot. When voting by absentee ballot, state law says “[t]he envelope [containing the ballot] shall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots.”

Thanks to:


Quebec to Heavily Tax the Unvaxxed

Quebec to Heavily Tax the Unvaxxed

Date: January 13, 2022Author: Nwo Report 

Quebec to Heavily Tax the Unvaxxed Image-522

Source: Cristina Laila
The Canadian province of Quebec will heavily tax the unvaccinated.
Premier Francois Legault on Tuesday said the unvaccinated will be taxed, however the fee has not been decided.
The tax will be “significant” the premier said.
“I think right now it’s a question of fairness for the 90% of the population who made some sacrifices,” Mr Legault said. “I think we owe them this kind of measure.”

The Canadian province of Quebec, struggling to control the Omicron variant, will impose a new health tax in the coming weeks on those who are not vaccinated against Covid-19.
“We are working on a health contribution for all the adults who are refusing to get vaccinated” because they represent a “financial burden for all Quebecois,” said Quebec Premier Francois Legault.
The 10 percent of Quebecois who have not yet received any vaccine doses must not “harm” the 90 percent who have, he said.
“It is not on all Quebecois to pay for that,” he said during a press conference, specifying that the government of the French-speaking province wanted the tax to represent a “significant amount”.
“I feel this discontent with regard to the unvaccinated minority which, all things considered, clogs our hospitals,” he said.
Thanks to:

First Person Convicted Under Hong Kong’s National Security Law Drops Appeal

HONG KONG—The first person convicted under Hong Kong’s national security law and jailed for nine years last July has dropped his decision to appeal, his lawyer said on Thursday.

Former waiter Tong Ying-kit, 24, was found guilty of terrorist activities and inciting secession after driving his motorcycle into three riot police officers in 2020 while carrying a flag with the protest slogan “Liberate Hong Kong—Revolution of our times.”

The ruling was seen as a watershed moment for Hong Kong’s judicial system. Tong had indicated at the time through his lawyer, Clive Grossman, that he would appeal.

Grossman, however, told Reuters on Thursday in an email that Tong, who had pleaded not guilty, had decided not to appeal.

“I have no idea why he dropped the appeal,” said Grossman.

The decision was first reported in the Hong Kong Free Press, which cited Grossman as saying he was surprised by it.

The Chinese regime imposed a national security law on Hong Kong in June 2020 punishing what the Chinese Communist Party considered acts of subversion, terrorism, collusion with foreign forces, and secession with possible life imprisonment.

Critics, including Western governments, say the law has been used to silence dissent, with scores of pro-democracy campaigners arrested, civil society groups disbanded, and free speech curtailed.

At the end of Tong’s closely watched trial, Judges Esther Toh, Anthea Pang, and Wilson Chan—picked by city leader Carrie Lam to hear national security cases—ruled that the slogan he carried on his motorbike was “capable of inciting others to commit secession.”

Human rights groups criticized his conviction, saying it imposed new limits on free speech, and the precedents set by the trial contrasted with Hong Kong’s common law traditions.

Several other national security cases are pending, including a “conspiracy to commit subversion” case involving 47 of the city’s most prominent campaigners for democracy including Benny Tai, Joshua Wong, Owen Chow, Gwyneth Ho, Sam Cheung, and former lawmakers Eddie Chu, Wu Chi-wai, and Lam Cheuk-ting.

Last month, police raided pro-democracy online news outlet Stand News, froze its assets, and charged two editors with conspiring to publish seditious publications, leading to its closure.




Australia Unions Decry Move to Ease Isolation Requirements for Close Contacts

Australian unions have slammed the national cabinet decision to allow close contacts in essential industries who test negative to COVID-19 to return to work.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), the peak union body, also condemned the decision against making rapid antigen tests (RATs) free and accessible for all Australians.

“The announcement [on Jan. 13] allowing more workers who are close contacts to attend work is not a solution to the current crisis,” the union said. “It increases risk; and could increase sickness in workplaces and across the community at a time health workers and hospitals are already overwhelmed.”

ACTU wrote to Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Monday evening demanding free RATs and the restoration of paid pandemic leave for close contacts and those forced out of work but have yet to receive a response.

“The federal government’s plan to open up, if there is one, has clearly failed our health systems, our economy, and the essential national supply chains,” ACTU Secretary Sally McManus said.

She said if the prime minister and the federal government will not act on their demands, then the unions will step up to provide national leadership.

“Accordingly, the ACTU has called a crisis meeting of union leaders representing all workers to consider our response to the prime minister’s regrettable failure of leadership, to ensure that Australia can get through the continuing pandemic without compromising the safety of workers and the Australian community,” she said.

The Transport Workers’ Union (TWU) predicted that the transport crisis would “significantly worsen” in the coming weeks due to the national cabinet’s decision.

“Distribution centres will become virus hotbeds sending more essential workers to their sick beds, infecting their families along the way,” TWU National Secretary Michael said.

Epoch Times Photo
Minister for Finance Simon Birmingham at a press conference at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia on May 13, 2021. (AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)

Finance Minister Simon Birmingham told ABC radio that the newer Omicron variant was a game-changer, with actual demand for tests far exceeding what had been previously modelled by health advisers.

Birmingham said the government had been planning for Australia’s reopening in response to health advice for the Delta variant, where there had been a “strong preference to keep using PCR testing as much as possible.”

“If we could all have predicted what the Omicron variant would look like, of course, we would have prepared for it in different ways,” he said. “But ultimately, we modelled very carefully how we would reopen against the Delta variant.”

“Omicron’s changed a lot of that, it’s changed, vastly, the case numbers that we’re seeing and the world is seeing in terms of COVID-19.”

Birmingham added that while the government knew there would be more variants after Delta, it is not possible to predict what kind of impacts those new variants would have.

Meanwhile, the Australia Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) welcomed the national cabinet decision but warned that until supply constraints on RATs were resolved, employees in isolation will still be unable to return to work.

“We have been calling for rapid antigen tests to be freely and widely available for Australians, small business, and other industry settings since September last year,” ACCI Andrew McKellar said. “The government must redouble its efforts to procure the supply Australia needs.”

“As soon as the availability of rapid antigen testing makes this possible, the national cabinet should take action by extending the close contact protocols announced today to all workers.”

Rebecca Zhu


Rebecca Zhu is an Australian reporter based in Sydney. She focuses on the Australian economy, property, and education. Contact her at


Jon Stewart Doesn’t Understand Why National Anthem Is Played Before Sports Events: ‘It’s Such a Weird Ritual’

Jon Stewart is flummoxed as to why the national anthem is played before sports events, calling it a “weird ritual.” He also questioned the American tradition of standing for the national anthem.

In the latest episode of his podcast, Stewart spoke to billionaire and Dallas Mavericks owner Marc Cuban, who recently ended the playing of “The Star-Spangled Banner” at home games.

“Does anyone know when that started, playing the national anthem before games? It’s such a weird ritual,” Stewart said. “I’ve always thought about when [Colin] Kaepernick took the knee and the whole thing was like, ‘You gotta stand for the anthem!’ Now I imagine like in living rooms, guys are getting nachos ready, and fucking the wings, and the anthem comes on and they all just have to…” [Stewart suggests standing up].

 Recording artist Yolanda Adams performs the American national anthem before a game between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Las Vegas Raiders at Allegiant Stadium on October 24, 2021 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Raiders defeated the Eagles 33-22. (Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

Chief Petty Officer, Stephen Powell performs the national anthem before the NFL game at State Farm Stadium on October 10, 2021 in Glendale, Arizona. The Cardinals defeated the 49ers 17-10. (Christian Petersen/Getty Images)

“But like why is that?” he continued. “When the anthem comes on, you only have to stand if you’re there. But the transitive principle through the television — if it’s through the television you can do whatever the fuck you want. You can take a shit during the national anthem as a patriot. But if you’re at the stadium there’s like a whole regimen you have to go through.”

Stewart recently landed in hot water after he accused the Harry Potter books and movies of antisemitism, saying the goblin characters who work at the Gringotts Wizarding Bank are in fact crypto-Jews. He later walked back his statements following intense media blowback.

“I do not think J.K. Rowling is antisemitic. I did not accuse her of being antisemitic. I do not think the Harry Potter movies are antisemitic. I really love the Harry Potter movies, probably too much for a gentleman of my considerable age,” he said.

Follow David Ng on Twitter @HeyItsDavidNg. Have a tip? Contact me at


Part of Making a Star is Reshaping Their Faces; Beauty is Made. Anybody Spending Obscene Amounts of Money on Plastic Surgery Could Look as Good As These Do.

Illuminati Agendas this celebrity pushes: Open Borders, Gay/Lesbian Rights, Multiculturalism, Kalergi Plan, Loss of Sovereignty, Invasians in the Name of Human Rights, UN, etc. All Cabal Priorities and She is a Cabal Member Belonging to UN and Council of Foreign Relations. She pushes What they tell her to push.


China: Freedom in Kazakhstan Would Be a National Security Threat for Beijing

China’s state-run Global Times on Wednesday argued that political stability in neighboring Kazakhstan is a vital Chinese national security interest — even the stability of a merciless authoritarian regime with a ruler “elected” under shadowy circumstances who imprisons and kills protesting citizens to remain in power.

The Global Times said China shares this interest with Russia, which hastily dispatched troops into Kazakhstan to help put down the protests under the aegis of a regional security alliance.

China, like Russia, has many restless republics along its huge borders, and the Chinese would view an outbreak of political freedom in any of them as a security threat — a threat it accused the United States of deliberately nourishing for selfish strategic ends:

It’s quite necessary to prevent “color revolutions” and the “Three Evils” – namely terrorism, extremism, and separatism – in Kazakhstan from causing regional unrest and spillover to the surrounding regions. This is directly related to China’s national security and serves as a common task for Central Asian countries. China’s clear attitude of preventing chaos or war embodies the responsibility of a major power – that is, China will not stand by idly and let happen what are detrimental to China’s national interests and to the common welfare of the entire region.

China has the largest number of neighbors in the world, with 14 bordering China on land. It has always been China’s goal to ensure that its neighbors are free from chaos and crises that will affect China’s sovereignty, security and development interests. Allowing no chaos and war is China’s solemn attitude when it comes to matters of major security concerns threatened by disturbances from outside forces, such as issues related to the Korean Peninsula and the South China Sea. China is very prudent when dealing with international affairs and will always keep its words.

No country’s development can go ahead without stable surrounding environments. If neighboring countries fall in turmoil, become unable to maintain political and social stability, and even engage in chaos and war, their influence may spill over. The US knows this well. And it has been constantly stirring up unrest in neighbors of other big countries, while keeping stable the environment surrounding itself. 

The “Three Evils” in Chinese Communist ideology are religious extremism, separatism, and terrorism. China invokes the Three Evils to justify atrocities like the genocide of the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province.

The Global Times also railed against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for pushing east to “erode Russia’s surroundings” and using a similar tactic to weaken China’s territorial claims in the South and East China Seas.

“Quite often, Washington is behind some unrest around China,” the Global Times muttered, presenting this as an excuse for China to support brutal dictatorships against their own people while simultaneously claiming to hold “nonintervention in others’ internal affairs” as its highest foreign policy principle.

“Facts have proven that it is rare to see the US and the West not get involved in major regional crises around the world, and in many cases they are the biggest sources of chaos and war. In pursuit of geopolitical gains, they incite opposition parties and seek proxies in other countries with the superiority of ‘missionaries,’” the editorial charged.

“They even didn’t hesitate to use force to forcibly transform a society with a completely different history and cultural tradition, regardless of whether the shoes they offer fit,” the Global Times added, derisively referring to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.


Kazakhstan’s new president Kassym-Jomart Tokayev attends a press briefing after his meeting with Russia’s president at the Kremlin in Moscow on April 3, 2019. (Photo by ALEXANDER ZEMLIANICHENKO/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev appears to have weathered the storm of protests, granting China its wish for stable strongman rule along its borders. 

The Russian Defense Ministry announced on Thursday that Russian troops have completed their mission in Kazakhstan and will soon withdraw. In harmony with China’s talk of “color revolutions” and the “Three Evils,” both Tokayev and Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed the protests were orchestrated by hostile foreign powers.

Russia’s announcement seemed like a rebuke to skeptical observers like U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who questioned the need for outside troops to reinforce Kazakh police and implied Russia was using the protests as an excuse to permanently station its troops in Kazakhstan. 

Sources in Kazakhstan told the New York Times (NYT) on Thursday Russia might have preferred to keep its forces in the country for longer, but growing resentment from Kazakh citizens made withdrawal seem like a wiser policy. A political analyst in Kazakhstan suggested Russia will soon reveal the “price” to be paid for the “favor” it rendered to Tokayev by keeping him in power.

The NYT noted Tokayev and his officials have given conflicting accounts for how they believe the protests began and who was behind them, the government has not released a definitive account of how many civilians were arrested or killed, and some analysts still believe “the violence stemmed from an internal power struggle among the country’s elites.”


Hollywood & Pentagon Have a Love Affair-Pentagon Does NOT Allow a Negative Portrayal Regardless of the Truth-All Pro War Propaganda

Comment: To be a good top Pentagon Official or CIA Director you look people in the eyes and lie with a straight face.


The Supreme Court backed down on Vaxx mandate

The Supreme Court backed down on Vaxx mandate
Tap News / Tapestry


Nothing is going to happen now. Enjoy your over priced meats, because you can still get them. No company is subject to a mandate that can force you to vax now. I guess if they make it policy, here is what will happen:

Sh*thole companies will drive all their talent away with vax mandates and companies we don’t even know about are going to spring up from out of “nowhere”. Google will do all it can to bury them and they are going to have to make it on talent alone. The telecoms are going to take the communications of these new companies and make them not happen, while people who try to call them for business get connected with the pro vax competition instead. This will produce diminishing returns for the forced vax companies as their talent evaporates and staffs dwindle. It is going to be real interesting.

There is still a huge wave of vax deaths on the way. Perhaps to cover their tracks, “they” are going to put the cure for the vax in future boosters but I would not bet on it, with the vax mandate overturned enough people are going to survive to cause HEADS TO ROLL.

THAT IS IF, AND ONLY IF: Only if Bill Gates does not react to this by releasing that new strain he keeps talking about. THAT could still screw everything.

Unrelated comment: I call it a “jab” because it is not a vaccine.


I guess the pressure got too high. Maybe the pitch forks came out and “they” had second thoughts.

They will probably “circle back” to that, but for now the truckers will not be shutting down. I guess all the panic buying really told the Canadian government where the public sentiment sits.


Original Article:

Please Help Support Independent Media

$1 Per Month or make a Donation

Become a Patron


Jen Psaki: Biden Knows He Is ‘Not Always the Most Effective Messenger’ on Vaccines

White House press secretary Jen Psaki admitted Thursday that President Joe Biden was “not the most effective messenger” when it came to convincing unvaccinated Americans to take the coronavirus vaccine shot.

It was not the first time Psaki had noted that many Americans did not take their health advice from the president — and that some Americans would be inclined to ignore him for political reasons — but she stressed the importance of vaccination in any case.

Asked whether the White House had any “evidence” or “sound basis” for believing that Biden could succeed in urging the unvaccinated to change their minds, Psaki said that “more than 80% of the country has gotten at least one dose.”

She added:

What the president also recognizes is that he’s not always the most effective messenger. Everybody in the country’s not looking for him to tell them what to do. He certainly knows that. What’s most important here is people hearing from local leaders, doctors, people who have different political beliefs out there, conveying clear, accurate information about the effectiveness of these vaccines. We think all of that has had an impact, and a lot of that is stuff that we have implemented.

The White House recently expressed appreciation to President Donald Trump for his role in developing the vaccines, and for encouraging his supporters to be vaccinated and to take the booster shot, though it has not asked him to play a larger role.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


Ann Coulter: The Great Epstein Cover-up, Part 2

Last week, we reviewed our ruling class’s strange lack of interest in Jeffrey Epstein’s child molestation ring, in which so many of them played a part. The media cover-up is second only to the government cover-up, with prosecutors delivering loss after loss in cases they’ve been forced to bring (by the police and the public) against the accused child molester.

This week, we’ll look at the government’s long record of zealously trying NOT to unravel the case.

Barry Krischer was the first prosecutor to let Epstein off for child molestation. The local police presented then-Palm Beach state attorney Krischer with bales of evidence. They had affidavits from dozens of witnesses: girls abused by the pederast, the women who recruited them, the butler who cleaned up sex toys after the “massages,” as well as records of Epstein’s molestation appointments, one delayed because of a victim’s “soccer practice.”

Pretty much everything we know today about Epstein’s sex ring was unearthed by the Palm Beach Police back in 2005 and handed to Krischer on a silver platter.

Protesters hold up signs of Jeffrey Epstein in front of the Federal courthouse on July 8, 2019 in New York City. (Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

Five underage girls had given police sworn statements that Epstein had sexually abused them, backed by 17 other witnesses, but when Krischer brought the case to the grand jury, weirdly, he allowed only one of the girls to testify — and then attacked her on the stand! (Epstein’s attorneys had helpfully provided Krischer’s office with the girl’s posts on MySpace, where she talked about boys and drinking, the little harlot.)

According to an extensive review by the Palm Beach Post, most of Krischer’s 2,800-page investigative file on the case consists of dirt against the teens — and against the police — given to him by Epstein’s lawyers. (Thanks, Epstein attorneys! Do we owe you anything?)

The grand jurors, who’d been meticulously kept in the dark by Krischer, ended up voting only for a single charge of “solicitation of prostitution” against Epstein in 2006. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years’ probation. No jail time, no record as a sex offender — no criminal record whatsoever.

According to Nexis, only one newspaper, the Palm Beach Post, reported at the time — or ever — that Palm Beach prosecutor Krischer gave Epstein probation for his years of child abuse.

Epstein’s friends claimed he was the victim of a crusade by Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter, whom they called a “born-again nutcase.” Apparently, anyone who thinks prison is appropriate for the mastermind of a massive child sex ring has gotta be “born-again.”  (How does he feel about teenaged girls talking about boys and drinking?) In fact, there’s no evidence that Reiter is even a Christian — other than the fact that he’s never won an award from the ADL.

(In 2018, the Anti-Defamation League gave a “Jurisprudence Award” to … Barry Krischer! The award praised him for “exemplifying the principles upon which the Anti-Defamation League was founded.” Hey, Jonathan Greenblatt, was Harvey Weinstein out of town?)

At that point, the enraged Palm Beach chief of police took his evidence to a completely separate law enforcement agency — the federal government, even though these were mostly state crimes. U.S. attorney Alex Acosta proceeded to make a deal with Epstein — with Krischer essentially operating as Epstein’s defense counsel — resulting in a plea only slightly tougher than Krischer’s pat on the head.

According to journalist Vicky Ward, Acosta later defended this sweetheart deal to the Trump transition team, explaining: “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone.”

Most recently, the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York brought a gentle prosecution against Epstein’s pimp and fellow child molester, Ghislaine Maxwell. Federal prosecutors called a mere four girls who claimed to have been recruited and/or abused by Maxwell. They could have put dozens of her victims on the stand.

U.S Attorney Audrey Strauss points to a photo of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell during a news conference on July 2, 2020. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Most notably, the Southern District did not call the star witness, Virginia Giuffre, who has openly named the rich and powerful men she says these creeps forced her to have sex with, including Prince Andrew, former Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, former New Mexico governor and presidential candidate Bill Richardson, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, French model scout Jean-Luc Brunel, and the hedge fund billionaire Glenn Dubin, among others.

(Times of London, Jan. 9, 2022: “Alan Dershowitz asked Donald Trump to grant Ghislaine Maxwell a preemptive pardon.”)

Virginia Roberts Giuffre (center) speaks at a news conference outside a Manhattan court where sexual assault claimants addressed a hearing following Jeffrey Epstein’s death. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)

A combination photo of the front pages of British newspapers on November 21, 2019, headlining the scandal surrounding Britain’s Prince Andrew’s involvement with accused child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. (AP Photo)

Immediately after the Southern District accidentally won five guilty verdicts against Maxwell, the prosecutors quietly revealed that, weeks earlier, they’d dismissed all charges against the prison guards who failed to check on Epstein for more than eight hours the night he allegedly committed suicide — despite an explicit directive that they check on him every 30 minutes.

Not to brag but …

July 25, 2019, 1:05 a.m.: @AnnCoulter Dear Bureau of Prisons: Please get Jeffrey Epstein to a super Max prison pronto, or the people who want him dead will make sure we never know the truth. ACT NOW!

Aug. 10, 2019: Epstein found dead in his cell.

The feds not only did not move Epstein to a super-maximum security prison as some observers recommended, but they also did this:

— The day before Epstein died, he was taken off suicide watch.

— Against orders, his cellmate transferred elsewhere, leaving Epstein completely alone in his cell.

— All the cameras on Epstein’s floor were mysteriously broken.

— Even the footage of his earlier suicide attempt had been mistakenly erased and the backup footage destroyed “as a result of technical errors,” according to assistant U.S. attorneys Jason Swergold and Maurene Comey.

How many times can they use the “we’re completely incompetent” defense? (Hey, does anybody know if this case implicates rich people?)

Maxwell’s brother soon announced to the press — and to anyone else who might be interested! — that his sister was no snitch. She wouldn’t rat out any of Epstein’s fellow child molesters in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Maxwell is facing up to 65 years in prison, and her brother has just admitted she can name names. Hello? SDNY? Any thoughts about applying some pressure?

Kevin Maxwell and Isabel Maxwell stand in front of the federal courthouse in New York where their sister Ghislaine Maxwell was on trial for sex trafficking on December 3, 2021. (AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey)

Unfortunately, these are the same prosecutors who just did everything in their power to blow the case against her. My prediction of their next conversation with Maxwell: This is our last offer: 30 hours of community service — and we’re not kidding! OK, 20 hours. Damn — you’re one tough negotiator.

Most strange, the ink wasn’t dry on the guilty verdicts before one of the jurors ran to the press and announced that he’d lied on his juror questionnaire. Although he’d denied ever having been sexually molested, he had been! Not only that, but — hoo boy — did his experience with sex abuse sway the jurors during deliberations!

The defense immediately moved for a mistrial and the chatty juror moved to a villa in the south of France he’s just inherited from an unknown relative. OK, the second part isn’t true (that I know of), but are you kidding me??

Are prosecutors even investigating any contact between Maxwell’s representatives and the jurors? Will he be tried for perjury?

In this courtroom sketch, Judge Alison Nathan (upper left) reads instructions to the jury during Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking trial on December 20, 2021, in New York. (Elizabeth Williams via AP)

However this ends, once it’s over, we’ll never hear about Epstein again — unlike, say, January 6, which we will never stop hearing about. If America got to vote, which story do you think they would find more interesting?

Which story is more important? Doesn’t the public have a right to know how big Epstein’s sex/blackmail club was, who among America’s ruling elite were compromised, and to what end?


Law to Liquefy Corpses & Flush Them Down the Drain Passed in Washington State

Washington State legalized “flesh goo” liquefaction of human corpses before activating covid concentration camps
The State of Washington legalized the liquefaction and disposal of human corpses  just one year before the state activated covid concentration camps, providing for an efficient, stealth mechanism for mass disposal of human corpses.Washington’s legalization of this “flesh goo” mechanism for liquefying human corpses — known as “alkaline hydrolysis” — went into effect on May 1, 2020. The law is RCW 68.50.110 and the passage refers to “alkaline hydrolysis” as the new, legal means to dispose of human corpses.In 2020, after the covid pandemic exploded, Washington State legalized the practice as it began the launch its plans to build covid concentration camps run by “strike team” operators.Washington State has developed a way to dispose of large masses of human bodies without having to dig mass graves or run incinerators which would be detectable by drones or satellites.They are planning to carry out large-scale genocide.

Get full details in today’s bombshell feature article and podcast here.

Also see the 36 minute hard-hitting summary of all this in today’s special report podcast, separate from the Situation Update:

New Videos from

8 Big Government Lies About Covid-19

Watch this video

Mandatory Jabs In Canada – Quebec To Steal Money Of The Unvaccinated – What You Need To Know

Watch this video

Featured Articles

Leaked military documents show that ivermectin “works throughout all phases” of covid… so why has the medical establishment suppressed it for two years?

By Ethan Huff | Read the full story

U.S. shoppers facing increasingly barren shelves, with comparisons to Soviet stores in the 1980s amid Biden’s worsening supply chain crisis

By JD Heyes | Read the full story

DC Mayor Bowser declares emergency, says all persons must carry vaccine papers and photo ID just to leave their own homes (but not to vote)

By JD Heyes | Read the full story

Pfizer CEO just admitted his company’s shots are useless, double jabbed have “very limited protection, if any” — so why are governments still paying for Pfizer shots and mandating them?

By Lance D Johnson | Read the full story

USA Today shocker: Paper seeks to justify pedophilia, calls it merely “inappropriate” and “among the most misunderstood” conditions in U.S.

By JD Heyes | Read the full story

More of Today’s ArticlesDiscovery: Natural sweetener xylitol can fight bacteria and viruses, including the covid-19 virus
Natural sweetener xylitol, a lower-calorie alternative to sugar, may have strong antiviral and antibacterial properties. Research suggests that xylitol may have both antibacterial and antiviral …Pharma-controlled media tells everyone suffering from mass formation psychosis that there’s no such thing as mass formation psychosis
Recently, word has really started getting around about how every person who still somehow believes in the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) plandemic is stuck under a spell of mass formation …The Patriot Nurse tells Mike Adams: Fauci has psychological pathology
The Patriot Nurse told Mike Adams during a recent episode of “Brighteon Conversations” that Dr. Anthony Fauci has an abnormal mental state,” which leads to manipulation and lust …CDC’s Walensky now admits that covid vaccines “can’t prevent transmission” … so what’s the point of vaccine passports?
In a recent interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Rochelle Walensky, queen of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), admitted that Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) …Researchers hunt for covid-resistant individuals in hopes of discovering a natural cure
The phenomenon of how some people naturally resist Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) infection despite clearly being exposed to the virus is now the subject of intense research globally. In October …Air Force rejects requests from soldiers seeking medical exemption from covid vaccine mandates (are they trying to kill off the military?)
A member of the Air Force who requested a medical exemption from the military’s mandatory Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccination” policy has been rejected. According to reports, …Biden pushes American children to develop serious illness or die by getting vaccinated, despite near-zero risk from covid
President Joe Biden urged the unvaccinated, including children, to get injected with the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine as the country recently recorded over one million new infections in a …Government continues risky push for vaccines despite growing reports of adverse reactions, deaths
The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that COVID-19 vaccines officially have over one million adverse effects cases and 21,000 deaths. The data, which was …Federal judge blocks Pentagon from punishing unvaccinated Navy SEALs, other special forces members
Judge Reed O’Conner recently ruled that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic provides the government with “no license to abrogate the freedom” that any American has. The …Ontario courts refuse to intervene on cases filed by employees and unions against vaccine mandates
Ontario courts have refused to intervene on cases filed by a number of employees and unions seeking injunctions that would prevent Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine mandates from being …Babies born during the pandemic have lower IQs than those born pre-pandemic, studies reveal
Recent studies on the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) found that babies born during the pandemic have slightly lower IQs compared to pre-pandemic babies. But parents, especially COVID-19 infected …Mayo Clinic fires hundreds of unvaccinated employees despite ongoing staff shortages, rejecting the advantage of natural immunity
Mayo Clinic confirmed that it fired approximately 700 employees who refused to get vaccinated against the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19). The massive nonprofit health care employer terminated one …Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis says vaccine passports are a big failure
For Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, vaccine passports are a big failure – not only with regard to their inability to curb the spread of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), but also for being …Facebook is the latest employer to require vaccine boosters for all in-person workers
The parent company of Facebook, Meta Platforms, has announced that it will be delaying its employees’ return to the office from January 31 to March 28 and that those who return to the office …Western Australia Premier threatens to create “difficult life” for unvaccinated Aussies
Western Australia (WA) Premier Mark McGowan warned that the state’s unvaccinated residents will have a difficult life moving forward. The premier’s statement came ahead of WA lifting …Investigative journalist Mary Fanning says Americans must restore God to first place in their lives ­- Brighteon.TV
Investigative journalist Mary Fanning told Ann Vandersteel that Americans must restore God to first place in their lives because the United States is a God-given country. “This is a …LA psychologist: Mask wearers sick with mass formation psychosis
On “The Ben Armstrong Show,” Dr. Mark McDonald talked about people who are suffering from the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) mass formation psychosis. “I would say the masks were the …Implantable chips for humans to be implemented globally
An implantable microchip designed to read Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination status could be implemented globally – whether we like it or not. This was according to Hannes Sjoblad, the …Companies are tracking the vaccination status of their employees using invasive digital systems
Corporations all over the United States are preparing to enforce President Joe Biden’s workplace Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine mandate using internal tracking systems that force …
WebSeed 3820 Central Avenue Unit #109 Cheyenne, WY 82001


The Covid-19 Pandemic Does Not Exist

The Covid-19 Pandemic Does Not Exist
Global Research / Prof Michel Chossudovsky

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

This article was first published by Global Research on November 10, 2021

Please forward this important article which is the object of censorship by the search engines.

To read Part II of this article click link below:


Fake Science, Invalid Data: There is No Such Thing as a “Confirmed Covid-19 Case”. There is No Pandemic


There is much confusion and disinformation regarding the nature of the so-called Covid-19 “pandemic”.

The definition of a pandemic is rarely mentioned by the governments and the corporate media.

What confirms the existence of a pandemic is not only the number of people affected by Covid-19, but also reliable evidence of a disease outbreak which is spreading over a wide geographic area “including multiple countries or continents”

“A pandemic is an epidemic that becomes very widespread and affects a whole region, a continent, or the world” (Nature)

The above definition does not in any way describe the alleged spread of SARS-CoV-2.

There Never Was a Pandemic

I have investigated this matter extensively since January 2020 and have come to the conclusion based on relevant definitions, the history of the corona crisis as well as the official WHO “estimates” of “Covid positive cases” that there never was a pandemic.

At the outset of the corona crisis, the number of so-called confirmed positive cases was abysmally low, starting with 83 positive cases outside China (6.4 billion people). These ridiculously low numbers were nonetheless used to justify the launching on January 30th 2020 of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency leading up six weeks later to the official declaration of a Worldwide Pandemic on March 11, 2021 (44,279 covid positive cases outside of China).

Test, Test, Test

It was only in the wake of the official announcement of the pandemic (March 11, 2020) that the number of Covid-19 cases went fly high. And that had nothing to do with the alleged spread of the disease to major regions of the World.

A highly organized Covid testing apparatus was established. The mandate was Test Test Test.

Meanwhile, the Gates Foundation together with other billionaire philanthropists generously funded sizeable investments in PCR-RT testing

Screenshot, Forbes, July 1, 2021

The Polymerase Chain Reaction Test (PCR-RT)

The “customized” and flawed PCR-RT Test (which does not under any circumstances identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus) has been used Worldwide to generate millions of erroneous Covid positive cases.The latter were then used to sustain the illusion that the alleged pandemic was Real and that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was spreading relentlessly to all major regions of the World.

This assessment based on erroneous numbers was then used to spearhead the fear campaign.

Erroneous figures of positive cases are now part of a giant data base, coupled with fake data on so-called Covid-19 mortality.

In turn, these millions of positive cases are then used to justify every single Covid-19 related policy adopted since March 2020, including the lockdown, confinement of the labor force, social distancing, the facemask, the closure of schools, colleges and universities, the suspension of cultural and sports events, etc.

This tabulation of Covid positive cases was also used as a pretext to justify the March 2020 “closure” of the global economy (simultaneous “closure” of 190 national economies of member states of the United Nations) allegedly with a view to saving lives.

And since December 2020, the alleged “Covid-19 pandemic” is used to convince people Worldwide that the Covid-19 vaccine (coupled with the Vaccine Passport) is the “solution” to curbing the spread of the disease.

Defining the Pandemic

In analyzing the evolution of the Covid-19 crisis, we must distinguish between three important concepts: The Outbreak of the Disease, the Epidemic and the Pandemic.

The Outbreak constitutes:

“a sudden rise in the incidence of a disease” and typically is confined to a localized area or a specific group of people. Should an outbreak become more severe, and less localized, it may be characterized as an epidemic. If it broadens still further, and affects a significant portion of the population, the disease may be characterized as a pandemic. Webster-Merriam

The Epidemic is defined as a disease outbreak:

“affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time”

The Pandemic is broadly defined as an extension of the epidemic:

“An outbreak of a disease occurring over a wide geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affecting a significant proportion of the population” (Webster-Merriam, emphasis added)

Based on the above definitions, as well as data released by the Chinese health authorities pertaining to positive cases, there was an Outbreak of the Disease inWuhan, Hubei Province in late December 2019.

A review of the data leading up to the official WHO decision to declare a Pandemic on March 11, 2020 confirms the following:

  • no evidence of a pandemic, characterized by an outbreak of Covid-19 “over a wide geographic area such as multiple countries or continents”
  • The official published data of the WHO pertaining to the alleged spread of Covid-19 do not confirm the existence of either an epidemic nor a pandemic.

The Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)

The first step towards building a fake consensus on the potential spread of the disease was initiated on January 30, 2020 with the decision by the WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

Under the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), the member states of the WHO have “a legal duty to respond promptly to a PHEIC”.

Without a shred of evidence, the Director General of the WHO declared the PHEIC, pointing to

“a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response”.

This warning pointed to the possible occurrence of a pandemic.

A Global Health Emergency based on 83 Covid-19 Positive Cases Outside China

The January 30 2020 PHEIC intimates the possibility of a pandemic. In an advisory published on December 19, 2019 (barely two weeks before the Wuhan outbreak), the WHO reconfirmed the definition of the PHEIC:

“a situation that is:

  • serious, sudden, unusual or unexpected;
  • carries implications for public health beyond the affected State’s national border;
  • may require immediate international action.”

The calling of a PHEIC was a fraudulent decision on the part of the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Why? Because on the 30th of January 2020 there were 83 Covid positive cases outside China for a population of 6.4 billion people.

83 cases in 18 countries, and only 7 of them had no history of travel in China. (see WHO, January 30, 2020).

The “Evidence” Points to Fraud

There was nothing “serious, sudden, unusual or unexpected” requiring immediate international action.

These ridiculously low numbers which were not mentioned by the media, did not prevent the launching of a Worldwide fear campaign.

In the week preceding this historic WHO decision. The PHEIC was the object of “consultations” at the World Economic Forum (WEF), Davos (January 21-24). The WHO Director General Dr. Tedros was present at Davos. Were these consultations instrumental in influencing the WHO’s historic decision to declare a PHEIC on January 30th.

Was there a Conflict of Interest as defined by the WHO? The WHO’s largest donor is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which together with the WEF and CEPI had already announced in Davos the development of a Covid-19 vaccine prior to the historic January 30th launching of the PHEIC.

The WHO Director General had the backing of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Big Pharma and the World Economic Forum (WEF). (See Michel Chossudovsky, E book, Chapter II)

“Divisions” Within the WHO

There are indications that the decision of the WHO Director General to declare a PHEIC was taken on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos (January 21-24) overlapping with the Geneva January 22 meeting of the WHO emergency committee on 22 January, 2020. According to the minutes of this meeting (excerpt below), there were divisions within the Emergency Committee regarding the calling of a PHEIC:

On 22 January, the members of the Emergency Committee expressed divergent views on whether this event constitutes a PHEIC or not. At that time, the advice was that the event did not constitute a PHEIC, but the Committee members agreed on the urgency of the situation and suggested that the Committee should be reconvened in a matter of days to examine the situation further.

“Divergent views” is an understatement. There was firm opposition to the implementation of the PHEIC. 83 positive cases on January 30th “does not constitute a PHEIC”.

I should mention that the first PHEIC goes back to 2009. It was inaugurated by the WHO in relation to the H1N1 swine flu pandemic, which turned out to be a fraud.

On January 29, 2020, the day preceding the launching of the PHEIC (recorded by the WHO), there were 5 cases in the US, 3 in Canada, 4 in France, 4 in Germany.

There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide public health emergency.

And bear in mind that the figures quoted above are based on Covid positive estimates generated by the contentious and disputed PCR-RT methodology

Screenshot of WHO table, January 29, 2020, (pdf document no longer available)

January 31, 2020: President Trump’s Decision to Suspend Air Travel with China

And these these ridiculously low numbers of Covid positive cases were then used by President Trump to suspend air travel to China on the following day (January 31, 2020).

… Trump announced that he would deny entry to the US of both Chinese and foreign nationals “who have traveled in China in the last 14 days”. This immediately triggered a crisis in air travel, transportation, US-China trade relations as well as freight and shipping transactions.

…The five so-called “confirmed cases” in the US were sufficient to “justify” President Trump’s January 31st 2020 decision to suspend air travel to China while precipitating a hate campaign against ethnic Chinese throughout the Western World. (Michel Chossudovsky, E-Book Chapter II)

This historic January 31st 2020 decision paved the way towards the disruption of international commodity trade as well as the imposition of Worldwide restrictions on air travel. It has also led to the bankruptcy of major airlines, hotel chains and the tourist industry Worldwide.

And all they needed was 83 Covid Positive cases.

The next step of the COVID-19 saga unfolds on February 20, 2020.

February 20-21, 2020. Dr. Tedros Intimates that the Pandemic is Imminent. 1073 Covid Positive Cases Outside China

At a press conference on Thursday the 20th of February afternoon (CET Time) in a briefing in Geneva, the WHO Director General. Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said that he was

“concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” …

“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.”

Nonsense and outright lies. On the day of Dr. Tedros’ historic press conference (February 20, 2020) the recorded number of confirmed cases outside China was 1073 out of which 621 were passengers and crew on the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship (stranded in Japanese territorial waters).

On that same day, 57.9 % of the Worldwide Covid-19 “confirmed cases” were from the Diamond Princess, hardly representative of a Worldwide “statistical trend”. From a statistical point of view, the WHO decision pointing to a potential “spread of the virus Worldwide” did not make sense.

A quarantine had been imposed on the cruiser See NCBI study. Many passengers fell sick due to the confinement on the boat. All the passengers and crew on the Diamond Princess undertook the PCR test. Without the Diamond Princess data, the so-called confirmed cases worldwide outside China on February 20th 2020 were of the order of 452, out of a population of 6.4 billion. (See the graph below indicating International Convenience (Diamond Princess))

Needless to say, this so-called data was instrumental to spearheading the fear campaign and the collapse of financial markets in the course of the month of February 2020.

Screenshot, WHO Press Conference, February 20th, 2020

Note: The tabulated data above for February 20, 2020 indicates 1073 cases. 1076 cases in WHO Press Conference)

Dr. Tedros’ Statement (based on flawed concepts and statistics) had set the stage for the February 20-21 stock market collapse.

These are the figures (table right) used to support Tedros’ warnings that the pandemic is imminent.

Early March 2020

The recorded covid positive cases remain exceedingly low. On March 5, the WHO Director General confirms that outside China there are 2055 cases reported in 33 countries. Around 80% of those cases were from three countries (South Korea, Iran, Italy).

On March 8, three days before the official launching of the Covid-19 Pandemic, the number of “confirmed cases” (infected and recovered) in the United States was of the order of 430, rising to about 600 on March 8, 2020.

Compare these ridiculously low figures to those pertaining to Influenza B Virus: The CDC estimated for 2019-2020 “at least 15 million [U.S] virus flu illnesses… 140,000 hospitalizations and 8,200 deaths. (The Hill)

It is worth noting that in early March, reported new cases in China fall to double digit. 99 cases recorded on March 7. All of the new cases outside Hubei province were categorized as “imported infections” (from foreign countries). The reliability of the data remains to be established:

99 newly confirmed cases including 74 in Hubei Province, … The new cases included 24 imported infections — 17 in Gansu Province, three in Beijing, three in Shanghai and one in Guangdong Province.

While the outbreak in Hubei province was virtually over, the fake pandemic outside China launched on March 11, was commencing.

March 11, 2020: The Historic Covid-19 Pandemic, 44,279 “Confirmed Cases”

The WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic at a time when there were 44,279 confirmed cases outside China (6.4 billion population). Here is the justification of the WHO Director General regarding the WHO’s decision to declare a Worldwide pandemic:

As I said on Monday, just looking at the number of cases and the number of countries affected does not tell the full story.

Of the 118,000 cases reported globally in 114 countries, more than 90 percent of cases are in just four countries, and two of those – China and the Republic of Korea – have significantly declining epidemics.

81 countries have not reported any cases, and 57 countries have reported 10 cases or less.

Nonsensical and contradictory statement. No evidence of an unfolding pandemic.

These are the figures used to justify the lockdown and the closing down of 190 national economies, with a view to saving lives.

In the US, recorded on March 11, 2020, there were according to John Hopkins: 1,335 “cases” and 29 deaths (“presumptive” plus PCR confirmed).

No evidence of a pandemic on March 11, 2020.

Immediately following the March 11, 2020 WHO announcement, the fear campaign went into high gear. Stock markets collapsed on the following day: Black Thursday.

On March 18, 2020 a lockdown was launched in the US.

The Upward Trend of Covid Positives In the Wake of the March 11, 2020 Lockdown

What can be observed in the diagram below is that the recorded Covid positive cases were exceedingly low prior to the official declaration of a pandemic on March 11, 2020: 44,279 cases outside China. There was absolutely no justification to launching the lockdown as a means to combating a non-existent “pandemic”.

As of March 11, 2020, following the lockdown, national governments were urged to implement the PCR-RT test on a massive scale, with a view to pushing up the numbers of covid positive cases Worldwide.

Test, Test, Test: The numbers started to climb with a view to generating more and more fake statistics.

Look at the table below. A very small number of positive cases in early March. And then, Covid positive cases going fly high as of April, May June 2020.


In Part II, we will examine the role of the flawed PCR-RT Test and how it has been applied to sustaining the illusion of a Worldwide pandemic.

See Michel Chossudovsky’s E-Book, 13 Chapters:

The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”


About the Author

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, John Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983)

He is the author of twelve books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005), The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).

He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]

See Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

Michel Chossudovsky’s Articles on Global Research

Original Article:

Please Help Support Independent Media

$1 Per Month or make a Donation

Become a Patron


Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes