“The Human Bomb”: Effects of mRNA “Vaccination” on Unvaccinated People?

 

“The Human Bomb”: Effects of mRNA “Vaccination” on Unvaccinated People?

Investigation of alarming phenomenon relating to the vaccine

 437
 77  51
 
 610

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.

***

Hundreds of people NOT “VACCINATED” report having “side effects” from Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but WITHOUT being vaccinated.

April 2021, United States: Reports of women having problems with bleeding, abnormal periods, miscarriages, very serious symptoms.

The fact is that these people and these women are “not vaccinated” but have been in contact with “vaccinated” people. Other people report pericarditis, autoimmune diseases, shingles, thrombosis, Bell’s palsy after close contact with “vaccinees”.

Introduction

The ex-vice-president of Pfizer Michael Yeadon had already warned a few months ago with ‘precaution’, that the spike protein injected by the RNA messenger vaccine, Pfizer like Moderna, has an affinity of nature and grip, with the proteins of the placenta and female and male reproductive systems and could create damage to these systems, along with other serious side effects.

He recently wrote that this massive injection of “gene” technologies was insane, contrary to Science, and presented incalculable risks to humanity.

In the video below an American doctor explains very well all the risks of injecting spike protein Sars Cov-2 messenger RNA into the human body.

He talks about the risks for people taking this injection, and also at the end of the video, the risks for others:

It has already been confirmed: the mRNA “vaccine” with synthetic spike protein + nanotechnological hydrogel, produces many cases of side effects on the female reproductive system, plus thousands of other cerebral, cardiac, neurological, neuromuscular effects, blood clots, thrombosis, thousands of deaths too, now that the “vaccination” has spread around the world.

‘Pandemic’ curves and statistics show that the number of people supposedly sick with ‘new variant covid’ (according to official propaganda) is exploding in all countries that have ‘vaccinated’ massively like Israel, Brazil, India , USA, Monaco, etc.

The list of side effects on the female and male reproductive systems is officially listed (for people who ARE “VACCINATED”) with only 1% of cases reported ( thetruedefender.com ).

The UK’s government vaccine adverse event system registered more than 2,200 reports of reproductive disorders due to receiving the jab. Among the consequences were excessive bleeding, absent and delayed bleeding, vaginal hemorrhaging, miscarriages, and stillbirths.

The Yellow Card * Adverse Event also registered 2,233 reports of reproductive and breast disorders due to the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines.

Also, 1,465 were registered involving reproductive systems and 19 miscarriages, five premature labors, and two stillbirths linked to the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The reports have:

  • 255 cases of abnormal uterine bleeding
  • 242 reports of unusual breast pain and swelling
  • 182 women who experienced absent or delayed menstruation
  • 175 cases of heavy menstrual bleeding

[The Yellow Card Scheme is the UK’s system for collecting information on suspected adverse drug reactions. The program monitors the safety of drugs and vaccines that are on the market.]

About the nano-technological HYDROGEL coating the Spike protein in Pfizer and Moderna mRNA injections: it is not itself something trivial, it has never been used in “vaccines” for humans, nor has messenger RNA technology ever been used either.

You will find below a link with analyzes, and a PDF with photos under a microscope made by Slovak doctors, on the nature and properties of this hydrogel present both in nasopharyngeal tests and in RNA ‘vaccines’:

“The Human Bomb”

According to US reports made in April 2021:

  • There are hundreds, even thousands of unvaccinated people reporting having “side effects” from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but without themselves being vaccinated.
  • April 2021, United States: there are hundreds of women reporting having problems with bleeding, abnormal periods, miscarriages, other very serious effects.

The FACT IS THAT THESE PEOPLE AND THESE WOMEN ARE NOT VACCINATED.

We note on social networks, including Telegram (posts immediately censored) hundreds of testimonials from unvaccinated women, who claim to have side effects like those of the vaccine on their genital system, serious or extremely serious effects (huge periods, blood clots, AND miscarriages) but they ARE NOT VACCINATED. They state that they have just been in close contact with vaccinated people:

Watch the video here.

Quickly, American doctors are wondering how unvaccinated people could ‘catch’ side effects of the mRNA spike protein vaccine affecting the genital and reproductive system in particular, by just being ‘around’ vaccinated people, that is without direct sexual contact or otherwise.

Serious effects on the female genital system, now affecting hundreds of women, even girl children or menopausal women: blood discharge, heavy periods, clots, including in young girls, and miscarriages in the case of pregnant women. There are problems also for men with their genitals (unvaccinated men)

Unvaccinated women claim unusual menstrual cycles & miscarriages after being near recently vaccinated individuals

Go deeper in the topic in link below:

Original video of 5 American doctors (these doctors make very elaborate assumptions, but do not yet have a sure and certain answer on “how it happens”)

This video is the exchange between 5 doctors on April 22, 2021 around the consequences of mRNA vaccination on unvaccinated people.

Indeed, reports have surfaced in recent days that people who have chosen NOT to receive the experimental COVID-19 injections, but have been exposed to those who have received them. These people suffer from what appears to be infections from these fully “vaccinated” people. This is mostly affecting women, who report menstruation problems, heavy bleeding, miscarriages and reduced breast milk.

April 29, 2021: USA. the MEDIA BOMB : the worst worry for all women and Humanity.

The evidence is piling up day by day.

A bombshell is coming out on Infowars and in reliable alternative medias in the US on what could be the POSSIBLE explanation for this ‘leak’ to the unvaccinated of “something,” (synthetic SPIKE PROTEIN injected?) (mRNA spike protein sars cov 2 coated in hydrogel NANO), which would be ‘communicated’ to unvaccinated people by vaccinated people) and proof of this is found in the PFIZER document:

Internet publication 2 = video from Infowars, with documents from the Pfizer company:

Watch the video here.

Internet publication 3 = video on the same theme: 

Watch the video here.

Internet publication 4: read the article here.

PFIZER DOCUMENT / pages 67, 68, 69. Extract:

“A female is found to be pregnant while being exposed or having been exposed to study intervention due to environmental exposure. Below are examples of environmental exposure during pregnancy:

A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by INHALATION or skin contact. “

8.3.5.3.Occupational Exposure An occupational exposure occurs when a person receives unplanned direct contact with the study intervention, which may or may not lead to the occurrence of an AE. trial participant’s care The investigator must report occupational exposure to Pfizer Safety within 24 hours of the investigator’s awareness, regardless of whether there is an associated AE. The information must be reported using the Adverse Vaccine Reaction Reporting Form.

An example of environmental exposure during breastfeeding is a female family member or healthcare provider who reports that she is breastfeeding after having been exposed to the study intervention by INHALATION or skin contact.”

Herre are examples of environmental exposure during pregnancy:

    • A female family member or a health care professional is found to be pregnant after having been exposed (unknowingly pregnant) as part of an intervention study by inhalation or contact with the skin.
    • A male family member or healthcare professional who has been exposed to a study-related procedure by inhalation or skin contact is then exposing his female partner before or around the time of conception .

See the PFIZER document by clicking HERE

The trials, wrongly called vaccination, are therefore taking place all over the world under the aegis of representatives of international high finance. The products pose major concerns, which has led some to say that we now have to manage a double problem: the pandemic on the one hand and the consequences of vaccination on the other.

Can ‘vaccines’ (of biotechnology) be technologically made to ‘disseminate’ in populations? (Were COVID-19 Vaccines Made To “Self-Spread” To Non-Vaccinated People?)

Modern science says YES: in any case, it is done for ANIMALS. And the feasibility of it was discussed for humans in 2018 at the John Hopkins Center, of which Bill Gates is a stakeholder.

Documents from Pfizer, Johns Hopkins and other organizations raise the possibility that COVID-19 vaccines “spread” to unvaccinated people who come into contact with a recently vaccinated person.

John Hopkins Document 2018

“Self-Spreading Vaccines: Self-spreading vaccines are genetically engineered to move through populations like communicable diseases, but rather than causing disease, they confer protection. The vision is that a small number of individuals in a target population could be vaccinated, and the vaccine strain would then circulate in the population much like a pathogenic virus, resulting in rapid, widespread immunity. ” Source: Infowars.com

PLEASE NOTE: a scientific document talks about the possibility of passive transfection ‘by inhaled mRNA’:

Source

“Messenger RNA (mRNA) as a means of passive immunization has been extensively studied for years. The first studies since the 1990s have shown that exogenous mRNA can drive protein expression in vivo, cementing mRNA as a promising drug platform technology. Several studies have subsequently demonstrated the usefulness of mRNA in the development of vaccines and conferring protection against cancer and infectious diseases. In addition, passive mRNA immunization also encounters fewer safety concerns due to its non-integrative and transient nature, the latter contributing to better and / or easier control of protein expression. The potential role of mRNA vaccination in the fight against SARS-CoV-2 is highlighted by ongoing COVID-19 phase I vaccine trials conducted by several pharmaceutical companies, including the mRNA-1273 vaccine from Moderna Therapeutics, which is showing promising results. The feasibility of INHALE RNA for PASSIVE TRANSFECTION has also been proven in a number of studies. Mechanistically, inhaled RNA can lead to PASSIVE SYNTHESIS of non-infectious spike proteins using the cell transfection machinery, thus leading to immunization of the individual. The feasibility of INHALE RNA for PASSIVE TRANSFECTION has also been proven in a number of studies. Mechanistically, inhaled RNA can lead to PASSIVE SYNTHESIS of non-infectious spike proteins using the cell transfection machinery, thus leading to immunization of the individual. The feasibility of INHALE RNA for PASSIVE TRANSFECTION has also been proven in a number of studies. Mechanistically, inhaled RNA can lead to PASSIVE SYNTHESIS of non-infectious spike proteins using the cell transfection machinery, thus leading to immunization of the individual.”

And they brag about it !!

We hit the bottom of human madness and the emerging risk of an extinction level event through ‘vaccine’ bio-technology.

Post 6: further proof that inhalation techniques for messenger RNA vaccines already exist, which may or may not be related to this case:

Source

Updated May 2, 2021: this video is the excerpt from the exchange between 5 doctors USA April 22, 2021 around the consequences of mRNA vaccination on unvaccinated people.

See this.

Dr. Carrie Madej shares her thoughts and concerns regarding the presence of nanolipid particles in Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

Hydrogel reactive to artificial EMF waves ??

Darpa has developed a ‘substance’ which can be inserted under the skin, which is not rejected by the body and contains ‘sensors’:

*

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.

Translated from French by the author.

How the CDC Is Manipulating Data to Prop-up “Vaccine Effectiveness”

 

How the CDC Is Manipulating Data to Prop-up “Vaccine Effectiveness”

New policies will artificially deflate “breakthrough infections” in the vaccinated, while the old rules continue to inflate case numbers in the unvaccinated.

Region:
 29
 3  5
 
 38

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.

***

The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and testing for “Covid19” in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy “vaccines” are effective at preventing the alleged disease.

They made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the change).

The trick is in their reporting of what they call “breakthrough infections” – that is people who are fully “vaccinated” against Sars-Cov-2 infection, but get infected anyway.

Essentially, Covid19 has long been shown – to those willing to pay attention – to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:

  1. False-postive tests. The unreliable PCR test can be manipulated into reporting a high number of false-positives by altering the cycle threshold (CT value)
  2. Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition of “Covid case”, used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a “Covid19 case”, even if they never experienced any symptoms.

Without these two policies, there would never have been an appreciable pandemic at all, and now the CDC has enacted two policy changes which means they no longer apply to vaccinated people.

Firstly, they are lowering their CT value when testing samples from suspected “breakthrough infections”.

From the CDC’s instructions for state health authorities on handling “possible breakthrough infections” (uploaded to their website in late April):

For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)

Throughout the pandemic, CT values in excess of 35 have been the norm, with labs around the world going into the 40s.

Essentially labs were running as many cycles as necessary to achieve a positive result, despite experts warning that this was pointless (even Fauci himself said anything over 35 cycles is meaningless).

But NOW, and only for fully vaccinated people, the CDC will only accept samples achieved from 28 cycles or fewer. That can only be a deliberate decision in order to decrease the number of “breakthrough infections” being officially recorded.

Secondly, asymptomatic or mild infections will no longer be recorded as “covid cases”.

That’s right. Even if a sample collected at the low CT value of 28 can be sequenced into the virus alleged to cause Covid19, the CDC will no longer be keeping records of breakthrough infections that don’t result in hospitalisation or death.

From their website:

As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. Previous case counts, which were last updated on April 26, 2021, are available for reference only and will not be updated moving forward.

Just like that, being asymptomatic – or having only minor symptoms – will no longer count as a “Covid case” but only if you’ve been vaccinated.

The CDC has put new policies in place which effectively created a tiered system of diagnosis. Meaning, from now on, unvaccinated people will find it much easier to be diagnosed with Covid19 than vaccinated people.

Consider…

Person A has not been vaccinated. They test positive for Covid using a PCR test at 40 cycles and, despite having no symptoms, they are officially a “covid case”.

Person B has been vaccinated. They test positive at 28 cycles, and spend six weeks bedridden with a high fever. Because they never went into a hospital and didn’t die they are NOT a Covid case.

Person C, who was also vaccinated, did die. After weeks in hospital with a high fever and respiratory problems. Only their positive PCR test was 29 cycles, so they’re not officially a Covid case either.

The CDC is demonstrating the beauty of having a “disease” that can appear or disappear depending on how you measure it.

To be clear: If these new policies had been the global approach to “Covid” since December 2019, there would never have been a pandemic at all.

If you apply them only to the vaccinated, but keep the old rules for the unvaccinated, the only possible result can be that the official records show “Covid” is much more prevalent among the latter than the former.

This is a policy designed to continuously inflate one number, and systematically minimise the other.

What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception?

*

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.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

Analysis Suggests mRNA Vaccines Are Likely Cause of Reported Deaths, Spontaneous Abortions, Anaphylactic Reactions, Cardiovascular, Neurological, and Immunological Adverse Events’

 

Analysis Suggests mRNA Vaccines Are Likely Cause of Reported Deaths, Spontaneous Abortions, Anaphylactic Reactions, Cardiovascular, Neurological, and Immunological Adverse Events’

Region:
 17
 23  3
 
 43

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.

***

This is a summary of a study by Dr. Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc. BSC, recently completed, submitted for publication, and accepted, entitled: A report on the U.S. Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of the COVID-19 Messenger RNA (mRNA) biologicals.

The goal is make the public aware of the soaring Adverse Event reports in the context of the COVID-19 biologicals being administered en-masse prior to scientifically respectable safety and efficacy studies being completed.

The study concludes:

“This work summarizes VAERS data to date and serves as information for the public and a reminder of the relevance of any adverse events, including deaths, that likely occurred as a direct result of vaccine administration.

“Based on analysis of the VAERS numbers, it may appear that AEs are not currently imposing a significant burden on the fully vaccinated population; however, the weekly releases of VAERS data do not include all of there reports made to date — they are all the reports the CDC has processed to date — and the backlog is likely to be staggering.

“Thus, due to both the problems of under-reporting and the lag in report processing, this analysis reveals a strong signal from the VAERS data that the risk of suffering an SAE following injection is significant and that the overall risk signal is high.

“Analysis suggests that the vaccines are likely the cause of reported deaths, spontaneous abortions, and anaphylactic reactions in addition to cardiovascular, neurological and immunological AEs.

“Based on the precautionary principle, since there is currently no precedent for predictability with regards to long-term effects from mRNA injections, extreme care should be taken when making a decision to participate in this experiment. mRNA platforms are new to humans with regard to mass injection programs in the context of viruses. There is currently no way to predict potential detrimental outcomes with regards to SAE occurrences in the long-term. Also, with regards to short-term analysis, this data is limited based on reporting that likely significantly underestimates actual events.”

*

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.

Featured image is from America’s Frontline Doctors

500,000,000,000 Reasons to Scrutinize the US Plan for Nuclear Weapons

 

500,000,000,000 Reasons to Scrutinize the US Plan for Nuclear Weapons

Region:
In-depth Report:
 2
 0  0
 
 2

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.

***

The public debate about the future of the US nuclear arsenal is largely a controversy about strategy. But the outcome also has major implications for dollars and cents. The United States plans to spend more than $1.5 trillion over the next several decades to sustain and upgrade its nuclear delivery systems, associated warheads, and supporting infrastructure. The biggest bills for this effort, which are slated to hit over the next 10 to 15 years, pose a growing threat to other military and security priorities amid what most experts believe will be flat defense budgets. The cost of ongoing programs to buy new fleets of ballistic missile submarines, long-range bombers, and intercontinental ballistic missiles has generated the most attention.

Meanwhile, the exploding price tag of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s long-term plan to sustain and modernize the nuclear warheads and production facilities—now an exorbitant $505 billion—flies under the radar.

Now more than ever it’s important to scrutinize the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is a semiautonomous agency of the Energy Department. Most of the agency’s budget goes to contractors, though their contract mismanagement has repeatedly landed them on the Government Accountability Office’s high-risk list. Some projects have significantly exceeded initial cost estimates—in one case nearly eight times more than the initial price tag. While cost breaches of this magnitude at the Defense Department would have triggered a review that might have cancelled the programs, the National Nuclear Security Administration was able to waste billions with no threat of closure.

The agency’s past failures to complete major projects on time and on budget raise questions about its ability to execute a workload that has grown to unprecedented post-Cold War heights. Since the end of the Obama administration, the National Nuclear Security Administration weapon-activity spending has grown by roughly 70 percent. Last year, the agency requested a multibillion-dollar boost while sitting on $8 billion in unspent funds from past years.

Against this backdrop, nuclear-weapon hawks in Congress successfully pushed through a consequential change last year that gave the Pentagon much greater influence over the development of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s budget. This power grab will not only make it harder to rein in increasingly out-of-control agency spending but put other Energy Department national security programs at greater risk. As Congress moves to write annual defense authorization and appropriations legislation this summer, lawmakers should take steps to undo the Pentagon’s expanded authority and institute reforms in an attempt to reign in wasteful spending at the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Recent budget history of the National Nuclear Security Administration. This story begins in February 2020 when the Trump administration prepared its fiscal year 2021 budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration. It requested $15.6 billion for the nuclear-weapon activities account, a staggering increase of $3.1 billion, or 25 percent, from the fiscal year 2020 appropriations and $2.8 billion more than planned a year earlier. The dramatic increase was propelled in part by cost overruns in programs inherited by the Trump administration and the cost of the additional capabilities the administration proposed.

The budget request was reportedly a controversial issue within the Trump administration and was not resolved until days before its public release on February 10, 2020. When nuclear-weapon spending boosters in Congress, along with the National Nuclear Security Administration leadership and some Pentagon officials, worried an initial version of the budget request was too low, they successfully convinced then-President Donald Trump to increase it.

One of the agency’s chief advocates, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman James Inhofe (Republican from Oklahoma), alleged that the Energy Department cut the Nuclear Weapons Council out of the budget development process until the last minute. The Nuclear Weapons Council is a powerful Pentagon body that coordinates the Defense and Energy Departments’ nuclear-weapon-stockpile responsibilities. In response to the turmoil, then-chair of the council Ellen Lord issued new planning guidance to ensure that the council reviewed the budget earlier.

Problem solved, right? Apparently not.

Inhofe, with the support of then-committee ranking member Senator Jack Reed (a Democrat from Rhode Island), included provisions in the Senate version of fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act to alter the relationship between the Energy Department and the Pentagon. Most egregiously, the provision would have given the Nuclear Weapons Council (helmed by an undersecretary of defense) the power to overrule the energy secretary (a cabinet member) on the size and scope of the National Nuclear Security Administration budget.

Inhofe claimed the aim of the legislation was to ensure greater coordination between the Defense and Energy Departments and strengthen transparency to Congress. But a plain reading of the language suggests a far more sweeping intent than streamlining nuclear bureaucracy. Namely, the legislation removed obstacles to continued astronomical National Nuclear Security Administration budget growth, even if that growth would force other Energy Department national security programs to foot the bill. Indeed, the Trump administration proposed to cut the Energy Department’s program to clean up legacy nuclear waste from the Cold War arms race to pay for a last-minute, unplanned increase. The increase also required transferring money away from the Pentagon budget, notably the Navy’s shipbuilding account.

Inhofe’s gambit sparked a flurry of bipartisan opposition in the Senate and House. The final Senate version of the authorization bill excised the language giving the council the power to veto the energy secretary on the National Nuclear Security Administration budget. The lower chamber’s authorization bill included a provision that would expand the membership of the council, and its appropriations legislation sought to bar the council from expanding its budget role.

The final version of the authorization bill, however, retained much of the Senate language, and the House provisions were dropped from the final appropriations bills.

The National Nuclear Security Administration budget must now go to the Nuclear Weapons Council before it goes to the Office of Management and Budget. The energy secretary must note any potential disagreement of the council in the final budget submission. And if the council disagrees with the proposed submission, then the council’s preferred budget must be sent to Congress along with the actual request.

If executed as written, the new law effectively makes the Nuclear Weapons Council the decision authority for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s budget. As a result, the energy secretary and the Office of Management and Budget will have reduced leverage in the development of the budget. It will also make it difficult for the president to overrule the council without getting into a messy public spat with congressional nuclear hawks about why they are going against the advice of the Pentagon.

Contrary to Inhofe’s conspiratorial claims, the main problem in need of a solution isn’t that the Defense Department is being cut out of the development of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s nuclear modernization budget or that better coordination is needed. The central problem is that the agency’s nuclear modernization budget is skyrocketing.

The growth of the agency’s weapon-activity budget almost defies belief. Projected spending on nuclear-weapon activities has risen to $505 billion, according to the agency’s 25-year plan published last December. That represents a staggering increase of $113 billion from the 2020 version of the plan.

$113 billion. In one year.

This kind of stunning growth illustrates what critics of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s excessive plans have been warning about for years: low-balled cost estimates, an inexecutable program, damaging opportunity costs, and a significant agency credibility deficit. The mounting price tag and impracticality of the scope of and scheduled goals for many of the agency’s nuclear warhead and infrastructure replacement efforts merit far greater scrutiny than Congress has provided to date.

Needed now: National Nuclear Security Administration budget reform and oversight. The Nuclear Weapons Council does not need expanded authority. Quite the opposite in fact. The council includes the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Nuclear Security Administration administrator, the undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, the undersecretary of defense for policy, and the commander of US Strategic Command. Together, these individuals oversee one slice of the total national defense budget. An increasingly large slice to be sure. But just one slice.

The council focuses on ensuring that existing nuclear-weapon sustainment and modernization plans proceed full steam ahead. Assessment of affordability and especially opportunity costs is a lower priority. As Senators Lisa Murkowski (Republican from Arkansas) and Joe Manchin (Democrat from West Virginia) wrote last year, the Nuclear Weapons Council “has a narrower focus than the Secretary of Energy, and its recommendations would likely prioritize nuclear weapons at the expense of other critical missions undertaken by” the Energy Department.

If Congress allows Pentagon leaders to add their own spending priorities to other agencies’ budgets without any requirement to propose offsets, spending on nuclear weapons will likely go in only one direction: up.

Instead of giving the Pentagon more free rein, Congress should roll back the Nuclear Weapons Council’s expanded powers and seek greater oversight of how the body generates requirements for the arsenal and for the National Nuclear Security Administration.

As former agency administrator Frank Klotz noted last year, most of the voting seats on the council belong to the Pentagon, making it “just an invitation for the [Defense Department] to constantly grade the National Nuclear Security Administration’s homework without its homework being graded in a reciprocal sort of way.”

To address this problem, the deputy energy secretary and deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget should be added to the council as full voting members. (Current law only allows the Office of Management and Budget to participate in the council’s deliberations in an advisory capacity.) This would ensure a much-needed, greater focus on affordability and balancing nuclear-weapon spending against other national security priorities.

Given that the council’s actions also impact US arms control and nonproliferation strategy, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security and the deputy national security advisor should also be added to the council as advisors.

The National Nuclear Security Administration has a long history of mismanaging its significant resources. In response, Congress should offer reform and oversight, not a blank check to steal resources from other national security priorities.

*

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.

Kingston Reif is the director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, in Washington, DC, where his work focuses on nuclear disarmament, preventing nuclear terrorism, missile defense, and the defense budget. Follow him on Twittter: @KingstonAReif.

Mandy Smithberger is the director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight, in Washington, DC, where her work focuses on Pentagon reform and the defense budget. You can follow her work @StrausReform.


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

Can We Trust the WHO?

 

Can We Trust the WHO?

 1621
 167  132
 
 2130

First published on April 25, 2020

***

The most influential organization in the world with nominal responsibility for global health and epidemic issues is the United Nations’ World Health Organization, WHO, based in Geneva. What few know is the actual mechanisms of its political control, the shocking conflicts of interest, corruption and lack of transparency that permeate the agency that is supposed to be the impartial guide for getting through the current COVID-19 pandemic. The following is only part of what has come to public light.

Pandemic declaration?

On January 30 Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of the UN World Health Organization declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern or PHIEC. This came two days after Tedros met with China President Xi Jinping in Beijing to discuss the dramatic rise in severe cases of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan and surrounding areas that had reached dramatic proportions. Announcing his emergency PHIEC declaration, Tedros praised the Chinese quarantine measures, measures highly controversial in public health and never before in modern times attempted with entire cities, let alone countries. At the same time Tedros, curiously, criticized other countries who were moving to block flights to China to contain the strange new disease, leading to charges he was unduly defending China.

The first three cases in Wuhan were reported, officially, on December 27, 2019, a full month earlier. The cases were all diagnosed with pneumonia from a “novel” or new form of SARS Coronavirus. Important to note is that the largest movement of people in the year, China’s Lunar New Year and Spring Festival, during which some 400 million citizens move throughout the land to join families went from January 17 through February 8. On January 23, at 2am two days before start of actual New Year festivities, Wuhan authorities declared an unprecedented lockdown of the entire city of 11 million as of 10am that day. By then, hundreds of thousands if not several million residents had fled in panic to avoid the quarantine.

By the time the WHO declared its Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30 January, precious weeks had been lost to contain the disease. Yet Tedros effusively praised the “unprecedented” Chinese measures and criticized other countries for placing “stigma” on Chinese by cutting travel.

In reference to the Wuhan COVID-19 spread and why WHO did not call it a pandemic, the WHO spokesman, Tarik Jasarevic, stated “There is no official category (for a pandemic)…WHO does not use the old system of 6 phases — that ranged from phase 1 (no reports of animal influenza causing human infections) to phase 6 (a pandemic) — that some people may be familiar with from H1N1 in 2009.”

Then, in an about-face, on March 11, Tedros Adhanom announced for the first time that WHO was calling the novel coronavirus illness, now renamed COVID-19, a “global pandemic.” At that point WHO said there were more than 118,000 cases of COVID-19 in 114 countries, with 4,291 deaths.

2009 WHO H1N1 Swine Flu Fake Pandemic

Since an earlier WHO fiasco and scandal in 2009 over its declaration of a global pandemic around the “swine flu” or H1N1 as it was termed, the WHO decided to drop using the term pandemic. The reason is indicative of the corruption endemic to the WHO institution.

Just weeks before first reports in 2009 of a young Mexican child being infected with a novel H1N1 “swine flu” virus in Veracruz, the WHO had quietly changed the traditional definition of pandemic. No longer was it necessary a reported disease be extremely widespread in many countries and extremely deadly or debilitating. It need only be widespread, like seasonal flu, should WHO “experts” want to declare pandemic. WHO H1N1 symptoms were the same as a bad cold.

When then-WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan officially declared a Phase 6 global Pandemic emergency, that triggered national emergency programs including billions of dollars of government purchases of alleged H1N1 vaccines. At the end of the 2009 flu season it turned out the deaths due to H1N1 were tiny relative to the normal seasonal flu. Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, a German physician specialising in Pulmonology, was then chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In 2009 he called for an inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the EU response to the Swine Flu pandemic. The Netherlands Parliament as well discovered that Professor Albert Osterhaus of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the person at the center of the worldwide Swine Flu H1N1 Influenza A 2009 pandemic as the key advisor to WHO on influenza, was intimately positioned to personally profit from the billions of euros in vaccines allegedly aimed at H1N1.

Many of the other WHO scientific experts who advised Dr Chan to declare pandemic were receiving money directly or indirectly from Big Pharma including GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and other major vaccine-makers. The WHO Swine Flu Pandemic declaration was a fake. 2009-10 saw the mildest influenza worldwide since medicine began tracking it. The pharma giants took in billions in the process.

It was after the 2009 pandemic scandal that the WHO stopped using the 6 phase pandemic declaration and went to the totally vague and confusing “Public Health Emergency of International Concern.” But now, Tedros and WHO arbitrarily decided to reintroduce the term pandemic, admitting though that they are still in the midst of creating yet a new definition of the term. “Pandemic” triggers more fear than “Public Health Emergency of International Concern.”

WHO’s SAGE Still Conflicted

Despite the huge 2009-10 conflict-of-interest scandals linking Big Pharma to WHO, today the WHO under Tedros has done little to clean out corruption and conflicts of interest.

The current WHO Scientific Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) is riddled with members who receive “financially significant” funds from either major vaccine makers, or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BGMF) or Wellcome Trust. In the latest posting by WHO of the 15 scientific members of SAGE, no fewer than 8 had declared interest, by law, of potential conflicts. In almost every case the significant financial funder of these 8 SAGE members included the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Merck & Co. (MSD), Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (a Gates-funded vaccine group), BMGF Global Health Scientific Advisory Committee, Pfizer, Novovax, GSK, Novartis, Gilead, and other leading pharma vaccine players. So much for independent scientific objectivity at WHO.

Gates and WHO

The fact that many of the members of WHO’s SAGE have financial ties to the Gates Foundation is highly revealing, even if not surprising. Today the WHO is primarily financed not by UN member governments, but by what is called a “public-private partnership” in which private vaccine companies and the group of Bill Gates-sponsored entities dominate.

In the latest available financial report of WHO, for December 31, 2017, slightly more than half of the $2+ billion General Fund Budget of WHO was from private donors or external agencies such as World Bank or EU. Far the largest private or non-government funders of WHO are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation together with Gates-funded GAVI Vaccine Alliance, the Gates-initiated Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM). Those three provided more than $474 million to WHO. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation alone gave a whopping $324,654,317 to WHO. By comparison, the largest state donor to WHO, the US Government, gave $401 million to WHO.

Among other private donors we find the world’s leading vaccine and drug makers including Gilead Science (currently pressing to have its drug as treatment for COVID-19), GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-LaRoche, Sanofi Pasteur, Merck Sharp and Dohme Chibret and Bayer AG. The drug makers gave tens of millions of dollars to WHO in 2017. This private pro-vaccine industry support for the WHO agenda from the Gates Foundation and Big Pharma is more than a simple conflict of interest. It is a de facto high-jacking of the UN agency responsible for coordinating worldwide responses to epidemics and disease. Further, the Gates Foundation, the world’s largest at some $50 billion, invests its tax-exempt dollars in those same vaccine makers including Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline.

Against this background it should come as no surprise that Ethiopian politician, Tedros Adhanom, became head of WHO in 2017. Tedros is the first WHO director who is not a medical doctor despite his insistence on using Dr. as title. His is a doctor of philosophy in community health for “research investigating the effects of dams on the transmission of malaria in the Tigray region of Ethiopia.” Tedros, who was also Ethiopia Minister of Foreign Affairs until 2016, met Bill Gates when he was Ethiopian Health Minister and became Board Chair of the Gates-linked Global Fund Against HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria.

Under Tedros, the notorious corruption and conflicts of interest at WHO have continued, even grown. According to a recent report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in 2018 and 2019 under Tedros, the WHO Health Emergencies Program, the section responsible for the COVID-19 global response, was cited with the highest risk rating noting the “failure to adequately finance the program and emergency operations [risks] inadequate delivery of results at country level.” The ABC report further found that there has also been a “surge in internal corruption allegations across the whole of the organisation, with the detection of multiple schemes aimed at defrauding large sums of money from the international body.” Not very reassuring.

In early March Oxford University stopped using WHO data on COVID-19 because of repeated errors and inconsistencies the WHO refused to correctThe WHO test protocols for coronavirus tests have repeatedly been cited by various countries including Finland for flaws and false positives and other defects.

This is the WHO which we now trust to guide us through the worst health crisis of the past century.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Lettera aperta al signor Luigi di Maio, deputato del Popolo Italiano

ZZZ, 04.07.2020 C.A. deputato Luigi di Maio sia nella sua funzione di deputato sia nella sua funzione di ministro degli esteri ...