Israel Is Ethnically Cleansing Gaza

 

Israel Is Ethnically Cleansing Gaza

By Eric Zuesse
Global Research, May 22, 2021
Region: ,
Theme:
In-depth Report:

 9
 1  0
 
  12

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 started becoming clear on May 12th, and has become increasingly confirmed by events since then. 

On May 12th, Al-Arabia, CBS News, and other media, reported Israel’s Defense Minister Benny Gantz as promising that “The army will continue to attack to bring a total, long-term quiet.” And, “Only when we reach that goal will we be able to speak about a truce.” Britain’s Guardian reported his speech as having said that “Israel vows not to stop Gaza attacks until there is complete quiet.” Britain’s The Express reported him as saying that “There is no end date and we will not receive moral sermons from any organization on our right to protect the citizens of Israel. Only when we reach that goal will we be able to speak about a truce.”

In other words, Israel is promising that until Gazans are totally conquered, there will be no “truce”: Israel will continue this until total victory is achieved — conquest, surrender by all Gazans.

Throughout the conflict, U.S. President Joe Biden has said that America’s policy is to request that there be a truce. However, ever since at least May 12th, Israel has made clear that a “truce” will occur only when the Gazans are totally defeated, so that there is, in Gaza, “a total, long-term quiet.” Does that differ from Israel’s announcing that they are ethnically cleansing Gazans from Gaza?

The difference would be equivalent to the difference between offering Gazans a choice ultimately between remaining quiet in the world’s largest-ever open-air prison, versus becoming totally exterminated by their enemy. What type of choice is that, actually?

On 15 April 2018, Elliott Gabriel reported from Gaza City, that

Palestinians confined to Gaza have faced several devastating onslaughts by the Israelis, as well as a crippling blockade by Tel Aviv and Cairo that has resulted in the collapse of the coastal strip’s economy. Monitors and advocates across the world have decried the grave humanitarian crisis prevailing in Gaza that has resulted directly from its being deprived of needed goods including construction material, electricity, food, water and medicine.

In a report on Gaza last November, local human rights monitor B’Tselem noted:

“Israel used its control over the crossings to put Gaza under a blockade, turning almost two million people into prisoners inside the Gaza Strip, effecting an economic collapse and propelling Gaza residents into dependency on international aid.”

On 15 May 2019, the Guardian bannered “One million face hunger in Gaza after US cut to Palestine aid”, and noted that,

The UNRWA, created in 1949 to provide short-term relief for Palestinian refugees after the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, runs schools, hospitals and social services in five areas including the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

It is largely propping up Gaza, subject to a total blockade by air, land and sea since 2007. Political stalemate, conflict with Israel and divisions among Palestinian factions have left the territory an economic ruin, without health and social services and with almost no access to clean water and only four or five hours of electricity a day.

With no peace in sight, a generation is growing up in Gaza who have only known the fenced-in territory and never met an Israeli.

So, if that is the reality there, then how is this ‘choice’ anything other than an ethnic cleansing of Gaza, turning it into a prison that’s designed for its inhabitants to be “quietly” exterminated until Israelis can then ultimately take over that land and make it a new land for settlement by Israelis?

On 14 May 2021, U.S. Professor Juan Cole, an internationally recognized expert on the Middle East, headlined “Shooting Fish in a Barrel: Israel bombs Palestinian Refugees from Israel in Gaza, 50% of them Children”, and he wrote:

At one point in the zeros the Israeli military made a plan to only allow enough food into Gaza to keep the population from becoming malnourished, but nothing more. No chocolate for the children. It was one of the creepiest moments in the history of colonialism.

The unemployment rate in Gaza is 50%, the highest in the world. Half the population depends on food aid. The aquifer is polluted and increasingly salty from rising seas owing to climate change, so truly clean water is available to only about 5 percent of the population. Israel has several water purification plants. The Palestinians of Gaza do not.

There is no equivalence between Israel and Gaza. Israel has the best-equipped military in the Middle East and has several hundred nuclear bombs, Its gross domestic product (nominal) per capita is on the order of $42,000 per year.

The nominal GDP per capita in Palestine is $3000, and those who live in Gaza earn less yet.

On 19 May 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden’s Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin who was selected because he is both a Black and a neoconservative, headlined at the ‘Defense’ department, “Readout of Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III’s Phone Call With Israeli Minister of Defense Benjamin ‘Benny’ Gantz”, and here is the entirety of that news-report:

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III spoke today with Israeli Minister of Defense Benjamin “Benny” Gantz.  Secretary Austin underscored his continued support for Israel’s right to defend itself, reviewed assessments of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, and urged de-escalation of the conflict.

The United States Government has ‘urged de-escalation’ but “underscored [its] continued support for Israel’s right to defend itself,” while exterminating Gazans.

Also on May 19th, the White House issued a statement about the phone conversation that day between Biden and Netanyahu, “The president conveyed to the Prime Minister that he expected a significant de-escalation today on the path to a cease-fire.”

However, on the morning of Thursday, May 20th, CNBC reported that, “Israel launched a fresh wave of airstrikes over the Gaza strip early Thursday in what it says are continued operations to take out Hamas targets.” That action by Netanyahu — a flagrant disregard for what U.S. President Biden had publicly instructed him to do (and the United States Government donates annually $3.8 billion to Israel for purchase of U.S.-made weapons) — was very embarrassing for Biden. However, Biden had not publicly threatened Netanyahu, but had only instructed him. Therefore, the question, at this point, was whether Netanyahu’s disobedience would be publicly punished (such as by means of applying U.S. sanctions against Israel and against Netanyahu personally). Which was the master, and which was the slave, in the U.S.-Israel relationship? Absent a public punishment of Israel for its disobedience, Israel would appear to be the master, and the U.S. its slave.

Also on May 20th, Al Jazeera, a news-operation that represents the royal family of Qatar, headlined “Death, destruction in Gaza as Israel defies truce call: Live”, and reported that, “Israeli fighter jets continued to pound the Gaza Strip on Thursday, … as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defied calls for a de-escalation.” This was specific public recognition that Israel was defying the publicly announced policy of the U.S. Government.

It’s good to know what America stands for, and has been standing for, at least after the Presidency of Jimmy Carter, if not ever since Harry S. Truman became America’s President in 1945. The United States has certainly been like this, continually, for a very long time.

So has Israel.

It is now out in the open. If Biden will retaliate strongly against Israel, he will change U.S. foreign policy since 1945. If he fails to retaliate at all, he will be profoundly embarrassed. If he continues to try to walk the fence on this matter, then, since it’s all out in the open now, the United States itself will be profoundly embarrassed. No matter what he does, the future will not be like the past. This juncture is a historical turning-point, whichever way he might turn.

*

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.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Featured image: Lamya al-Atar and her three children were killed in an Israeli air strike on their home in Gaza on 14 May 2021 ©Private

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Eric Zuesse, Global Research, 2021
at Nessun commento:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Apartheid: A Global Racist Phenomenon

 

Apartheid: A Global Racist Phenomenon

By Jim Miles
Global Research, May 23, 2021
Region:
Theme:
In-depth Report:

 5
 0  0
 
  6

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 current situation of Israeli house demolitions in Sheikh Jarrah is highlighting the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their indigenous lands in order to protect the demographic dominance of the Israeli Jewish population.   The system well under way and being strengthened each year is that of apartheid.

Historical moments

In pre World War I Europe, the various empires were contesting most indigenous lands around the world.  The Middle East had newly discovered resources of oil and the militaries of the world were changing from coal fired to oil powered ships of war.  In the eyes of the British empire, as well as the burgeoning interests of the U.S. in Saudi oil, a Jewish state made sense, an outpost to keep the Arabs under control as well as to protect the transportation of oil by pipelines to the Mediterranean coast.

A long history of demographic fears is apparent in most of the contributors to the establishment and maintenance of the Israeli state.  Theodor Herzl, Ze’ev Jabotinsky,  and Chaim Weizman all understood that the indigneous Palestinian population would be hostile to their development of a Jewish state in the region.  Arguments made to the British government of the period varied, but arguably the ones carrying the most weight were the imperial desires of the British to control the Middle East for its oil resources, oil transportation routes, and its general transportation routes through to Persia and India.

The Balfour letter of 1917 promoted the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine, a promissory note, indicating “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”  As is common with empires various other intrigues carried on simultaneously, the two most notable being the Sykes-Picot agreement to divide the Ottoman empire into areas of French and British control, as well as the MacMahon-Hussein correspondence recognizing a post war Arab state in former Ottoman lands.

The Balfour letter carried the day.  The 1919 Treaty of Versailles went against Woodrow WIlson’s ideals of all nationals having a right to determine their own status and led to the establishment of the French and Palestinian mandates in the Middle East.  From then on the British to varying degrees both allowed Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine and later fought against the same immigrants, the various Jewish militant groups being described as terrorists at the time.  The British also significantly suppressed any Palestinian expressions of independence.

After World War II the recognition of the holocaust gave impetus and sympathy to the Jewish cause.  The UN Partition Plan – a plan, not a law – tentatively divided the mandate into two separate states.  Britain pulled up stakes and departed, followed by the nakba of 1948 creating the new Israeli state.  At the time as many as 500 Palestinian villages were destroyed and as many as 750 000 Palestinians were expelled from the new Israeli territories.  Prior to this David Ben Gurion had set plans for expulsion understanding there would be Palestinian resistance.

A large part of the demographic fear had been reduced, but the continued presence of Palestinians remaining in their homeland has since then slowly created an apartheid state, and has since then created a slow moving set of rules and regulations assisting with the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the state and what might be considered by Israel a partial solution – apartheid.

Modern apartheid

Within the past year two significant pronouncements have been made firmly establishing the idea of Israel as an apartheid state.  B’tselem, a Jewish human rights organization issued a statement with the summary,

“Israel is not a democracy that has a temporary occupation attached to it:  it is one regime between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea, and we must look at the full picture and see it for what it is:  apartheid.”

Human Rights watch, an international organization headquartered in New York, issued a much larger report declaring that the Israeli government is committing crimes of apartheid.

Apartheid has been a significant part of Israeli plans to ethncially cleanse Palestine of its indigenous population.  After the nakba, the more ‘modern’ form of this has been since the 1967 Israeli attack against neighbouring Arab countries and the “occupation” of lands previously controlled by Egypt and Jordan – the ever increasing establishment of settlements in occupied Palestine.  The result has been the establishment in conjunction with this of many small non-contiguous bantustan like areas denying any possibility of a Palestinian state, all under the control of the Israeli military complex.

Sheikh Jarrah, in East Jerusalem, is the current hot spot for house demolitions and the slow creep of ethnic cleansing although similar destruction is served up on an ongoing basis over most remaining Palestinian towns.  Gaza, already an open air prison on subsistence rations at best, is being attacked once again as the Israeli’s lash out at Palestinian resistance.

Global apartheid

Apartheid in Israel has its most significant comparisons with the apartheid of South Africa.  Many similarities are found between the two systems; there are some differences, but also some of those differences are only by degree.

In the 2012 production “Roadmap to Apartheid” (Journeyman Films, available on Vimeo by subscription) describes many of the similarities while recognizing the demographic aspect of the situation:

“The whole framework of Israeli law is designed to prevent the growth of the non-Jewish population and maintain Jewish numerical and political supremacy – and that’s the framework in which we can understand everything we see inside Israel as well as in the Westbank and Gaza.” [Ali Abunimah]

The structures of apartheid are highly comparable between the two systems: identity passports, passes, and special permits are required; military control of checkpoints where abuse, beatings, and humiliation are used to create fear; the contradictory descriptors of “present absentees” and “foreign natives”.

Ideological similarities can also be found.  The idea of a god given land is common to both.  The rhetoric of being the victim is used to deny criticism of their actions. In contradiction to that both argue for an “iron fist” used to suppress any resistance.

In a recent Independent Jewish Voices webinar (The fight over BDS: lessons from the South African anti-apartheid movement. April 26, 2020.  Available on Youtube.) more similarities can be found.  Reactionary campaigns, an international propaganda war is carried out: in South Africa it occurred with TV and magazines, later becoming covert with the establishment of their own false front organizations and assassination of opposition leaders.  For Israel, the modern computer web allows for similar hasbara actions as well as using other covert actions.

The hasbara arguments are similar to both situations.  The arguments included the notions of being singled out for attack, of using double standards.  Opponents are accused of using inflammatory language and of being against society in general.  For South Africa, the Soviet Union was the threat to be blocked; now it is Iran, and, well for sure under the auspices of the U.S. empire, Russia.

The South African BDS movement did not target foreign domestic support as much as Israel does.  Israeli attempts to criminalize BDS and raise the spectre of anti-Semitism are additions to their current struggle against the small successes of the BDS movement.  Along with the anti-Semitism charge, South Africa did not contain as large a religious component whereas in the U.S. the Christain evangelical movement is generally in full support of Israeli ideology replete with all its very real racism.

A common thread

It could be argued it is just a rhetorical continuity, but there is a common thread between South Africa, Israel, and on into the five eyes of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Great Britain.  The thread should be obvious – British inspired imperial racism and its desire to conquer and control large regions of the world.   The five eyes countries are themselves wonderful examples of the application of an apartheid racist system of governance.

Racism is obvious in the U.S. but the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population and its apartheid results are compounded by the racism of slavery.  Canada presents a much more clear comparison as a colonial-settler state using the elements of apartheid to – for the most part – successfully ethnically cleanse itself of its indigenous population.

Canada has many elements of an apartheid system based on its British heritage of racist supremacy.    The current system, similar to that in the other five eyes countries, is the use of the polite term “reservations” to designate the small left over parcels ‘given’ to the indigenous people.   It sounds so much better than bantustans or enclaves – or concentration camps.  In order to remove the Indians from their land many tactics were used:  military force, starvation, broken promises, disease (purposely contaminated).

Once removed, more tactics were developed to maintain the system:  different levels of identification (status, non-status), removal of children, denial of language rights, banishing religious ceremonies, denial of voting, denial of access to the law, removal of tribal hereditary chiefs to be replaced by band councils, more easily controlled by the government.  One of the larger elements is the Indian Act of 1876, now institutionalized in the Constitution, effectively limiting what any band can or cannot do without Federal authorization.

Beyond these ‘legal’ systems, many of them supposedly overcome in law although still highly institutionalized within government systems, is the ongoing use of military force.  Most recently that has been seen with the struggle of the Wet’suwet’in people attempting to stop a pipeline from crossing their unceded territory (as much of British Columbia is).  Protests of support broke out across much of Canada, but the government’s response was to use paramilitarized – and generally racist – police forces to harass and intimidate the protestors.

Canada remains an apartheid country, a well tended one.  Arguably it presents a good example for Israel to follow.  Currently the two countries have a strong security relationship.  Officially Canada supports the two state solution for Israel and all parliamentary parties support this idea without recognizing its impossibility under the current situation.  In the meantime the same old tired rhetoric is handed out about the right to defend oneself without recognizing that one side is a colonial settler system with a predominant military force and the support of powerful and wealthy overseas allies, while the other is mainly a bunch of terrorists.

Canadian media is fully complicit with these efforts to present Israel as a beleaguered victim of terrorism, the lone democracy in the Middle East.  It is neither the victim nor a democracy – it is the perpetrator of human rights abuses, and within the constructs of a racist apartheid theological state cannot be considered democratic.

*

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.

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Jim Miles, Global Research, 2021
at Nessun commento:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

COVID-19 and the PCR Test — No Pandemic, Only Junk Data! By Gavin Phillips

 

COVID-19 and the PCR Test — No Pandemic, Only Junk Data!

By Gavin Phillips
Global Research, May 24, 2021
Theme: ,

 36
 12  4
 
  58

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.

***

Our world, once thriving with energy and life, has now become a dystopian landscape of barren streets and masked people with a look of foreboding in their eyes.

Governments around the world have enforced unprecedented restrictions on people’s lives, imposing lockdowns that closed down most of society for months at a time. Stopping people from visiting their family, isolating the elderly in care homes and destroying millions of people’s livelihoods.

These draconian laws were brought in to control an alleged pandemic created by a new virus called SARS-CoV-2 that creates the respiratory illness of Covid 19.

The numbers of so called ‘cases’ and deaths ‘attributed to Covid’ are churned out daily by the media fanning the fear. The hurricane force driving this pandemic is the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR). So, it’s vitally important that we understand exactly how the RT-PCR test works and its limitations.

The PCR test was invented by the late American Kary Mullis in the mid 1980’s for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1993 in Chemistry. Mullis died in August 2019.

One of the PCR’s applications is to increase genetic material found in crime scenes in order to help the police identify the criminal. The PCR test increases the amount of genetic material by using a Cycle Threshold (CT). Each CT rate doubles the amount of genetic material.

The CT rate that PCR tests are run at relating to whether someone has SARS-CoV-2 in the sample, is vitally important. Dr. Roger Hodkinson, a pathologist knowledgeable in PCR, told me that PCR tests should be below 32 cycles. If you run a PCR at over 32 CT, you start to get a lot of false positives. The higher the CT the greater the liklihood of false postive results.

The importance of the CT value was shown in a landmark court case in Portugal in November 2020. Four German tourists were forced to quarantine in a hotel in the Azores after one of them tested positive with a PCR test. The Germans brought a court case stating that they were ‘illegally confined’ in the hotel.

The Germans won their case when the Lisbon Appeal Court ruled that they were illegally held in a hotel based on a PCR test. The judges referred to a study of the PCR test by the Oxford Academic at the end of September. The study showed that any asymptomatic person being tested with a PCR test at a 35 CT or higher ‘’the probability of…receiving a false positive is 97% or higher.’’

Although it is unknown exactly at what CT value the German tourist’s PCR test was run at, virtually all European and US labs are running PCR tests at 35 CT or above, often at 40 CT.

The judges were also critical of the fact that the supposed infected person was never seen by a doctor. Only a doctor can make a medical diagnosis. This very important court case was totally ignored by the mainstream media (MSM).

Another problem with PCR tests is getting false positives from the DNA of other organisms, often referred to as cross reactions. There are billions of different DNA’s from the multitude of life forms on our planet. Some of the cells in other organisms will have parts of their genetic sequence that are identical to SARS-CoV-2.  A PCR test can give a positive for a partial genetic sequence match with DNA contamination from a plant, animal or other life form.

This was further verified by the late President of Tanzania John Magufuli. Magufuli wanted to test the reliability of the PCR test. His government randomly obtained samples from different non-human entities. Three that were tested was a goat, a sheep and a pawpaw ( a type of fruit). The samples were given human names and ages. In May 2020 Magufuli stated that the pawpaw and goat tested positive.

Due to the highly sensitive nature of PCR, it can also pick up viral fragments that may represent a recent SARS–CoV–2 infection. Let’s say you were sick with Covid 19 and then made a full recovery. Even 3 or 4 weeks later, you could still test positive, because the test cannot differentiate between a ’live’ or dead virus.

It’s also incorrect to assume that a positive PCR test equates to a clinical diagnosis of a disease in people. Positive results are not ‘cases’, they are simply positive results, many of which are actually false positives. Never in the history of medicine would a medical diagnosis be based solely on a PCR test. You need the skill and expertise of a doctor to evaluate symptoms and examine the patient. Dr Hodkinson added, “in medicine we don’t treat the numbers, we treat the whole patient”.

We keep hearing the number of supposed ‘cases’ by governments and media worldwide, but a positive PCR is never automatically considered a case in medicine.  A case is someone who is visibly sick and/or is presenting to hospital, not a healthy person who happened to test positive with a test that is prone to many errors.

January 2020 – The Corman/Drosten PCR Protocol

In January 2020 a scientific paper was published by Eurosurveillance which is a scientific journal. Its commonly referred to as the Corman-Drosten paper, although other scientists contributed to it. Both Christian Drosten and Victor Corman are German virologists.

The RT-PCR test protocol in this paper was recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO)  to countries worldwide. This test was incorrectly said to be the ‘Gold Standard’ for testing people for SARS-CoV-2. The established ‘Gold Standard’ is DNA sequencing by the Sanger method.

In November 2020 an extensive review of the Corman-Drosten PCR protocol was carried out by many scientists (PCR experts) and was submitted to Eurosurveillance. The report cited 10 major flaws with the Corman-Drosten paper and asked Eurosurveillance to retract it. I will cover 3 of these major flaws, but a link to the full review report is provided at the end of this article.

  • In January 2020 Drosten did not have a sample of the virus (SARS-CoV-2) to design a PCR test that would accurately test for the virus. The Drosten test was based on, quote ‘’…in silco (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China, because at the time neither control material of infectious (‘live’) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 nor isolated genomic RNA of the virus was available to the authors.
  • The Drosten paper recommends a CT value of 45 Cycles. As mentioned previously, any PCR test run at 35 CT (or over), will return an enormous number of false positives. Quote …if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US) ( including NHS laboratories in the UK ) , the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%. A reasonable CT value should not exceed 30. …a CT value of 45 is scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless.
  • No Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) for laboratories to run the PCR tests. Quote, There should be a SOP available…so that all laboratories are able to set up the identical same test conditions. To have a validated universal SOP is essential, because it facilitates data comparison within and between countries…It points to flawed science that such an SOP does not exist. The laboratories are thus free to conduct the test as they consider appropriate, resulting in an enormous amount of variation.

It defies belief that the WHO would recommend a PCR protocol with a CT value of 45, unless their intention was to create as many false positives as possible.

German/American Lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich

Reiner Fuellmich is the lawyer who successfully won lawsuits against Deutsche Bank and Volkswagen. Fuellmich created the German Corona Investigative Committee on July 10th 2020 with three other people, with Viviane Fischer and two other attorneys, Dr. Justus P. Hoffman and Antonia Fischer.

They decided to ask three questions. How dangerous is the virus really? How reliable is the Drosten-PCR test? How much damage do these anti-corona (Lockdowns) measures do, both to the economy and to the health and wellbeing of the world’s population?

As Fuellmich says: Now the latter is very easily answered. This is probably the worst crisis that the world has ever been in. With so many people dying…completely in vain, people who didn’t get an operation, surgical procedures that were postponed… doctors and nurses whom I have known for years tell me, Reiner, there’s something wrong, this entire hospital is almost empty, there’s no one here.

… I called a good friend of mine, someone who knows a lot about medicine, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg.  Wodarg is the doctor who stepped in 12 years ago when we had a very similar situation with the Swine Flu (2009). …the same people who advanced the theory of ‘’everybody’s going to die’’, did it back then. Including Prof Drosten, including Neil Ferguson of Imperial College of London (UK).

They all pushed this story, but eventually that (the Swine Flu) turned out to be just the common flu. By the way, that’s what this looks like, the WHO issued a statement which confirmed Professor John Ioannidis study, from Stanford University, that the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of Covid 19 is between 0.14 and 0.15, which is about the same as the flu. Bear in mind that both Ioannidis and wHO based their projections on the worldwide official figures of Covid deaths that are based on the totally flawed PCR tests. Once you remove a large percentage of the deaths as false positives, the IFR would be far lower.

Fuellmich spoke with many other experts, including Professor Sucharit Bhakdi (retired from the University of Mainz) and Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Vice president of Pfizer.

They all came to the same conclusion, whatever we’re dealing with, this is no worse than the common flu.

Fuellmich and his team decided early on to focus on the many flaws with the PCR test as the most important evidence that proves that there was no medical pandemic. As Fuellmich says, There’s a false positive PCR pandemic, not a Covid pandemic. It (the PCR test) is not even approved for diagnostic purposes – that is why this test only has a so-called emergency use authorization in the US, and not full approval.

Fuellmich is part of a team of over 30 lawyers, from Germany, the US and Canada. In the US and Canada, the lawyers will be leading class action lawsuits representing many people whose livelihoods were destroyed by the lockdowns. Fuellmich says that this is a deliberate crime against humanity; ‘’this has nothing to do with the world’s health.’’

Summation

I would like you to consider a question.

Why do you think that governments around the world ignored the hundreds of scientists that were telling them about the many flaws that the PCR test has relating to testing people for SARS-CoV-2?

One thing we now know for certain, there never was a pandemic. There was the illusion of a pandemic created by the PCR testing fraud. The mass testing of millions of healthy people which produced millions of false positives. In unison with a campaign of fear promoted by governments through the media.

Recently I was walking with my 3 yr. old niece Emily in a large town in the UK. What was once a bustling shopping centre was now just rows of closed shops. I recalled that there was an open-air food vendor marketplace which was open.

As we drew closer, we could hear someone singing. There was a well-dressed young lady, an aspiring singer and actress. She then started singing ‘’Somewhere over the Rainbow’’ from the Wizard of Oz.  She sang quite beautifully so quite a crowd had gathered.

For those few minutes everyone’s hearts and spirits were lifted, even Emily started dancing. I began thinking of the performing arts, the dancers, actors, singers and theatre. So many people’s lives have been damaged by these appalling and unnecessary lockdowns.

We have learned a few important lessons from this though. Firstly, our need as human beings to embrace each other. To reach out to each other, have a hug, shake hands and talk to each other without a disgusting mask on.

It has also shown us that we should never allow any government to take away our inalienable human rights ever again. We should never allow a government to dictate to us where we can go or who we can see. Governments should never be allowed to force us to take experimental vaccines in order to access public services, or to travel anywhere we chose to go.

Let’s rise up and remove the shackles of false fear and embrace each other. In the immortal words of Martin Luther King… Let freedom ring…from every mountainside, let freedom ring. when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city…we will be…free at last. Free at last.

In the spirit of celebrating our humanity, I would like to leave you with part of the beautiful poem ‘’Song of Myself’’ by Walt Whitman

I depart as air—I shake my white locks at the runaway sun;
I effuse my flesh in eddies, and drift it in lacy jags.

I bequeathe myself to the dirt, to grow from the grass I love;
If you want me again, look for me under your boot-soles.

You will hardly know who I am, or what I mean;
But I shall be good health to you nevertheless,
And filter and fibre your blood.

Failing to fetch me at first, keep encouraged;
Missing me one place, search another;
I stop somewhere, waiting for you.

*

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.

You can contact Gavin Phillips at gavinph@protonmail.com. Gavin encourages whistleblowers to contact him so we can expose this Covid fraud. Twitter: @photopro28, Telgram: Gavin Phillips

Sources

Dr. Roger Hodkinson and Klaus Steger reviewed the PCR science, Portuguese Appeal Court

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid-pcr-test-fail/

The Corman-Drosten review paper

Notes

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich reviewed the section about his work in an email exchange with Gavin Phillips.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Gavin Phillips, Global Research, 2021
at Nessun commento:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sweden Says PCR Tests “Cannot be Used to Determine Whether Someone Is Contagious”

 

Sweden Says PCR Tests “Cannot be Used to Determine Whether Someone Is Contagious”

By Arjun Walia
Global Research, May 24, 2021
Collective Evolution 21 May 2021
Region:
Theme:

 53
 3  5
 
  66

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.

***

According to the Swedish Public Health Agency, PCR technology cannot distinguish between viruses capable of infecting cells and viruses that have been neutralized in the immune system. As a result, these tests “cannot be used to determine whether someone is contagious or not.” They emphasize what many other experts in the field have been emphasizing during the entire pandemic, that,

“RNA from the virus can often be detected for weeks (sometimes months) after the illness but does not mean that you are still contagious. There are also several  scientific studies that suggest that the contagion of COVID-19 is greatest at the disease period.”

Even if RNA is detected at anytime, this does not mean you are infectious and capable of infecting others.

This is true, PCR tests can be positive for up to 100 days after an exposure to the virus. PCR tests do nothing more than confirm the presence of fragments of viral RNA of the target SARS CO-V2 virus in someone’s nose. While a person with COVID-19 is infectious for a one-to-two week period, non-viable (harmless) viral SARS CO-V2 fragments remain in the nose and can be detected by a PCR test for up to 100 days after exposure.

A recent article published in The Lancet medical journal explains that PCR tests can be “positive” for up to five times longer than the time an infected person is actually infectious. They explain that up to 75% of “positive” individuals are most likely post-infectious.

As a result the Swedish government recommends assessing COVID infections, and freedom from infections,

based on stable clinical improvement with freedom from fever for at least two days and that at least seven days have past since the onset of symptoms. For those who have had more pronounced symptoms, at least 14 days after the illness and for the very sickest, individual assessment by the treating doctor.”

Even if and when RNA from the the virus is detected, which the PCR test does quite well, whether or not a sample is actually infectious (containing a viable virus, capable of replicating) needs to be confirmed by lab culture. Only 44% of the “positive” samples using a Ct of 18 returned a viable lab culture, according to Dr. Jared Bullard, a paediatric infectious disease specialist and a current witness for the Manitoba government. The Manitoba government is being sued for the measures they’ve taken to combat COVID.

What is a Ct? It refers to cycle threshold. The PCR tests are not designed to detect and identify active infectious disease. Instead, it identifies genetic material, be it partial, alive, or even dead. PCR amplifies this material in samples to find traces of COVID-19.  If the sample taken from a nasal swab contains a large amount of COVID virus it will react positive after only a few cycles of amplification, while a smaller sample with small amounts of genetic material will require more cycles to amplify enough of the genetic material to get a positive result. Since the PCR test amplifies traces of COVID-19 through cycles, a lower number of cycles needed to get a positive result suggests the presence of a higher viral load for the person being tested and therefore a higher contagion potential.

An article published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35, only 3 percent of the samples showed viral replication. This can be interpreted as, if someone tests positive via PCR when a Ct of 35 or higher is used,  the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%. In this case false positive means a person is not infectious or capable of transmitting the virus to others. (source)

Dr. Anthony Fauci himself told This Week in Virology in July 2020, “If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-competent are minuscule.” Why then has our national testing standard never reflected this? PCR providers should work with other labs to perform a random viral culture, as mentioned by Bullard above, on those who received positive results, to validate their tests in terms of being an indicator of infectiousness.

There are many questions to be asked here. Labs are not supplying Ct information associated with each test. In some cases should labs be counting “positive” results as “cases” when they come from a high Ct number? We just found out that high Ct numbers around 30+ can often be non infectious or incapable of spreading the virus, this nuance is important considering public health policy is being decided off of cases alone.

What percentage of cases have been a result of a lower cycle threshold, let’s say below 20? These would be the cases, at least some of them, that would be more accurate in identifying a person who is actually infectious. If these tests, as the Swedish government says, cannot be used properly to identify an infectious person, even at a low Ct why haven’t we just put measures in place that apply to symptomatically sick people?

Manitoba has confirmed that it utilizes Ct’s of up to 40, and even 45 in some cases. It’s an important question given the fact that health policy has been based on the number of cases present in a region.

Here in Ontario, Canada outdoor amenities like golf courses, basketball courts, tennis courts, parks and more have been closed based on case counts, even though COVID spreading outdoors is extremely unlikely.

Indoors, infected individuals who are asymptomatic are more than an order of magnitude less likely to spread the disease compared to symptomatic COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis of 54 studies from around the world found that within households – where none of the safeguards that restaurants are required to apply are typically applied – symptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 18 percent of instances, while asymptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 0.7 percent of instances.

This is why many academics have urged authorities to stop the testing of asymptomatic individuals. Combine this fact with the fact that the chances of asymptomatic spread is low, and with the fact that there is a lack of clarity around PCR testing, and we see why doctors are bring up the question.

Health policy has been guided and dictated by the number of “cases.” It’s why lockdowns and mask mandates have been put in place regardless of the damage they cause and have caused. What if the majority of “positive” cases during this pandemic have been people who are not capable of spreading the disease – who are not even sick? It would represent an astronomical mistake on the part of multiple governments and the World Health Organization (WHO). Should we not be focusing on perhaps limiting the spread via symptomatic people, instead of punishing and restricting the rights and freedoms of people who are not sick?

This has been an issue for quite some time, as far back as 2007, Gina Kolata published an article in the New York Times about how declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in a disaster. The article was titled Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t. You can read that full story here if the previous link doesn’t work.

*

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 Collective Evolution

The original source of this article is Collective Evolution
Copyright © Arjun Walia, Collective Evolution, 2021
at Nessun commento:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How We Got Omnipotent Government

 

How We Got Omnipotent Government

By Jacob G. Hornberger
Global Research, May 24, 2021
The Future of Freedom Foundation 20 May 2021
Region:
Theme: ,

 2
 3  0
 
  5

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.

***

We have all been born and raised under a government that wields the power of assassination. State-sponsored assassinations at the hands of the U.S. government — and specifically the Pentagon and the CIA — have become a rather ho-hum affair. They have become fully accepted as part and parcel of American life. 

Yet, when we stop to reflect on this phenomenon, we can’t help but come to the realization that this is truly an extraordinary power. It is an omnipotent power that enables the federal government to snuff out a person’s life simply on a determination that he is a communist, a terrorist, a threat to “national security,” or whatever other designation the government establishes.

The Framers and the American people in 1789 were totally opposed to living under a government that wielded the power of assassination. Don’t forget, after all, that after the break from England, Americans had lived under the Articles of Confederation for some ten years. Under the Articles, the federal government’s powers were so weak that it didn’t even have the power to tax, much less the power to assassinate.

That’s the way our American ancestors wanted it. They believed that the biggest threat to their freedom and well-being lay not with some foreign regime but rather from their very own government. That’s why they chose to live under a government with very few and very limited powers. In doing so, they felt safer and more secure.

When the delegates met in Philadelphia in what became known as the Constitutional Convention, it was with the purpose of simple amending the Articles to make the system work more efficiently. Instead, they came up with a proposal for a different type of governmental system — a limited-government republic — which would replace the Articles. 

The American people were leery because the federal government under this new system would have more powers, including the power to tax. They were concerned that this new government would end up destroying their freedom and their well-being.

But proponents of the Constitution assured Americans that this would not be a government that wielded general powers — that is, powers that would enable federal officials to do whatever they wanted in the best interests of the nation. Instead, its powers would be limited to the few powers enumerated in the Constitution itself.

The American people were especially concerned about the power of assassination. The last thing they wanted was to live under a government that wielded the power to snuff out people’s lives for arbitrary reasons. In fact, if Americans had been told that this new federal government would wield the power of assassination, they never would have approved the deal. They would instead have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation.

Americans ended up approving the deal and accepting the new government under the assumption that its powers would be limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, which did not include the power of assassination.

To ensure that federal officials got the message, however, Americans demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights, which included an express prohibition against assassination within the Fifth Amendment, which reads in part: “No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

Due process of law is a term that stretches all the way back to Magna Carta in the year 1215. Over many centuries of resistance by British subjects against their own kings, due process came to encompass two principles: notice and trial. 

Thus, under the Fifth Amendment before the federal government could assassinate someone, it would be required to provide him with formal notice of the offense for which they wish to assassinate him and then guarantee him a trial to determine whether he in fact was guilty of committing the offense. 

Notice something important about the Fifth Amendment: Its protections apply to everyone, not just American citizens.

With the Sixth Amendment, the accused could elect to have a jury of ordinary citizens, rather than a judge or tribunal, determine his guilt or innocence. Our American ancestors simply didn’t trust judges or tribunals to make that decision. 

Since a jury’s verdict of acquittal was final and non-appealable, juries were also empowered with the ability to judge the law itself in criminal cases. If they found the purported offense unconscionable, they could elect to acquit even if the accused had actually committed it, in which case there was nothing the judge or the government could do about it. The accused would walk out of the courtroom a free person.

After World War II, the federal government was converted into a third type of governmental system — a national-security state. Under this type of government, the federal government — specifically the CIA and the Pentagon — acquired the omnipotent power of assassination. 

The conversion to a national-security state was justified under the rubric of the Cold War. The idea was that since the Soviet Union and the communist world were able to operate with omnipotent powers, including the power of assassination, the only way to prevent America from being conquered by the communists would be to adopt their same type of governmental structure — a national-security state, which came with the omnipotent power of assassination. 

The conversion to a national-security state was done through legislation, not through constitutional amendment. Nonetheless, owing to the overwhelming and ever-growing power of the national-security establishment — i.e., the military, the CIA, and the NSA — the legislative conversion to a national-security state was held to operate as a nullification of the Fifth Amendment. 

Today, the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s power of assassination is omnipotent. They are the final determiners of whether any particular person is going to have his life snuffed out. Their power of assassination is non-reviewable by any court in the land, including the nation’s highest court, the U.S. Supreme Court.

And that’s how we have come to live under omnipotent government, a type of governmental structure that wields the power to assassinate anyone it wants with impunity, simply by designating a person a communist, a terrorist, a threat to “national security,” or whatever. 

*

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.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

The original source of this article is The Future of Freedom Foundation
Copyright © Jacob G. Hornberger, The Future of Freedom Foundation, 2021
at Nessun commento:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Iscriviti a: Post (Atom)

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 ...