By Tom Cowan, M.D.
Because news outlets are blanketing us with updates on the coronavirus and the CDC’s prediction that a major epidemic is inevitable, I am getting a lot of questions about my understanding of this situation. Before I share my thoughts, I want to emphasize that this is an immense, controversial and emotionally charged subject, one that demands careful thought, research and action. I have no special insight into the genesis of this situation, besides the research I can do on my own. I also want to emphasize that anyone who doesn’t take the time and effort to look into this article by Martin Pall, PhD, and the book “The Invisible Rainbow” by Arthur Firstenberg will most likely not have the full picture.*
This article is only a brief look at what these two pioneers are telling us.
First, as I have previously explained, every instance of “influenza” epidemic in our modern era was associated with a radical change in the electrification of the earth immediately before the outbreak. One of the most studied of these pandemics was the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, which killed millions of people around the globe. The Spanish influenza pandemic actually started not in Spain but in the U.S. in early 1918. It was particularly associated with Naval bases and installations that were the first to install high-intensity radar. The use of worldwide radar signals grew exponentially, and along with this expansion, the pandemic spread rapidly around the world, even appearing in places that had no contact with infected travelers. In other words, it appeared on naval ships and ports at identical times, essentially proving that an infectious or contagious etiology was impossible.
Also, paradoxically, the doctors at the time reported that their patients were not dying from respiratory complications, as one would expect from an infection with a respiratory virus…
“Success” because its ever-gullible readers will accept that it was all an innocent mistake, just like every other. Who is more culpable, the fake media or the fake citizens who use it as their own means of plausible deniability?
The Washington Post published an op-ed yesterday from a research team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology showing that there was no fraud in the October elections in Bolivia after all. The Post had for months claimed that President Evo Morales won the election fraudulently, thus justifying the U.S.-backed coup that ousted him weeks later. There simply “isn’t statistical support for the claims of vote fraud,” the research team concluded.
While the Post deserves some credit for publishing the findings at all and for accurately using the word “coup” to describe the events – something much of the media refused to do – there are still a number of glaring errors and omissions with the new Post line. For one, the article frames the events leading to Morales’ ouster as “protests” that police joined. A more honest framing would be that the powerful right-wing opposition conducted a campaign of terrorist violence that included burning down the houses of and kidnapping elected officials from Morales’ Movement to Socialism (MAS) party. For example, Patricia Arce, Mayor of the town of Vinto, was kidnapped, had her cut her hair off and her body painted red, and was publicly dragged through the streets and abused, with her captors forcing her to commit to leaving office. Morales made clear he was only stepping down due to the threat of increased violence.
The Post story also presents the Organization of America States (OAS) as an honest neutral body raising genuine concerns over the election, rather than a politically biased group that is majority funded by the Trump administration. Indeed, in justifying its continued funding, USAID argued that the OAS is a crucial tool in “promoting U.S. interests in the Western hemisphere by countering the influence of anti-U.S. countries” like Bolivia. It also describes the dozens of people protesting the upheaval of democracy murdered by security forces in well-documented massacres as merely people dying in “post-electoral conflict,” effectively whitewashing the new government’s actions.
The article also fails to mention the salience of their findings, particularly the American government’s full support of the coup, and glosses over the media’s overwhelming endorsement of events. Thus, the entire article is presented as an interesting anomaly, rather than evidence of a major international crime….
Reckless claims by anonymous intelligence officials that Russia is “helping” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are deeply irresponsible. So was former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s calculated decision Tuesday to repeat this unsubstantiated accusation on the debate stage in South Carolina. Enough is enough. I am calling on all presidential candidates to stop playing these dangerous political games and immediately condemn any interference in our elections by out-of-control intelligence agencies.
A “news article” published last week in the Washington Post, which set off yet another manufactured media firestorm, alleges that the goal of Russia is to trick people into criticizing establishment Democrats. This is a laughably obvious ploy to stifle legitimate criticism and cast aspersions on Americans who are rightly skeptical of the powerful forces exerting control over the primary election process. We are told the aim of Russia is to “sow division,” but the aim of corporate media and self-serving politicians pushing this narrative is clearly to sow division of their own — by generating baseless suspicion against the Sanders campaign.
It’s extremely disingenuous for “journalists” and rival candidates to publicize a news article that merely asserts, without presenting any evidence, that Russia is “helping” Bernie Sanders — but provides no information as to what that “help” allegedly consists of.ADVERTISEMENT
The American people have the right to know this information, in order to put Russia’s alleged “interference” into proper perspective. It is a mystery why the Intelligence Community would want to hide these details from us. Instead they are relying on highly dubious and vague insinuations filtered through their preferred media outlets, which seem designed to create a panic rather than actually inform the public about a genuine threat.
All this does is undermine voters’ trust in our elections, which is what we are constantly told is the goal of Russia.
If the CIA, FBI or any other intelligence agency is going to tell voters that “Russians” are interfering in this election to help certain candidates — or simply “sow discord” — then they need to immediately provide us with the details of what exactly they’re alleging. Otherwise, all they are doing is fomenting a sense of powerlessness and paranoia in the voting public, which could suppress engagement in the electoral process. And, at least according to the anonymous officials speaking menacingly to the media, that is precisely what Russia wants.
If our political leaders and those in the media were really concerned with protecting the integrity of our elections from outside manipulation — instead of just making money from manufactured hysteria — they would presumably devote more coverage to proposals to institute backup paper ballots, which would ensure that no malicious actors can ever alter our votes or hack into our election infrastructure. The bill I reintroduced last year, the Securing America’s Elections Act, does exactly that — but the media has never shown much interest because it would not generate the so-called “bombshell” headlines they so desperately crave.
The FBI, CIA or any other intelligence agency should immediately stop smearing presidential candidates with innuendo and vague, evidence-free assertions. That is antithetical to their role in a free democracy. The American people cannot have faith in our intelligence agencies if they are pushing an agenda to harm candidates they dislike….
Misplaced faith is even worse than no faith. These corrupt snake pits need to finish their merger with the organized crime industry and get off the public dole.
Brzezinski was “national security” advisor to our most “humanitarian” recent presidencies, carter and obama. Clearly we have a very big problem with mass murderers in government.
A couple of years ago I posted an article that gave a brief overview of the Trilateral Commission, quoting directly from numerous former members of the institution and how their overarching goal was for the integration of nation states at the expense of self determination.
It was in the article where I argued that the prevailing model for globalists dating back to at least the First World War has been to use crisis as an opportunity, first by instigating periods of chaos before presenting themselves as the order to the ensuing turmoil. Four of the world’s largest global institutions – The Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations – were founded on this principle. Without a series of crises there would have been no rationale for them to exist.
A trend over the past few years has been how in the midst of geopolitical conflict global bodies and world leaders have called for the likes of the European Union and the World Trade Organisation to undergo substantial reforms in the wake of a rise in political nationalism and protectionism. The push for reform has been largely justified on the grounds that the international ‘rules based global order‘ – brought to be out of the ruins of World War II – is under threat, and all as a direct consequence of the growth in anti-globalisation movements that are often characterised as ‘populism‘.
So if global institutions want to broaden their level of power through deeper centralisation, where exactly does the Trilateral Commission fit into that? Earlier this month I happened by chance on a blog called ‘Dorset Eye‘, which launched in 2012 and describes itself as ‘an online citizen media magazine in which local, national and international members of the public have their voices heard‘.
One of Dorset Eye’s recent articles focused on the Trilateral Commission, and made reference to a report published by the institution in the summer of 2019 titled, ‘Democracies Under Stress: Recreating the Trilateral Commission to Revitalize Our Democracies to Uphold the Rules-Based International Order‘. Strangely, the brochure in question is not directly accessible from the Trilateral Commission’s website. A search on google for the document produces an authentic and downloadable PDF file, but no actual location for it on the group’s web page. For whatever reason, the Commission has not made this document easily accessible.
Before we look at some of detail contained within the brochure, it should be noted that its publication came two years after the deaths in 2017 of the Trilateral Commission’s two founding members – David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. It also followed the death of Peter Sutherland, who was the European Chairman of the Commission from 2001 to 2010 and also the former chairman of Goldman Sachs. In particular, with Rockefeller and Brzezinski now deceased, the Trilateral Commission now sees a need to ‘recreate‘ itself and carry on the work of it’s founding father’s.
In the executive summary of the brochure, the Commission remarks how ‘the global order that seemed so invincible at the end of the Cold War is now in doubt‘:
Whether the world proves able to tackle the most urgent problems facing mankind today will in part depend on the ability of advanced democracies to overcome their current malaise and work together as they have in past decades.
A forty-five year old organization, the Trilateral Commission is recreating itself to be a leader and an indispensable resource in this effort.
They talk of ‘rediscovering their roots‘, ‘sharpening‘ their mission, and the need for ‘rejuvenating‘ their membership – all under the pretext of overcoming the challenges of the 21st century and to ‘uphold the rules-based international order.’
One of the main challenges, according to the Commission, is that whilst ‘the drive toward deeper integration and greater globalization seemed irreversible until just a few years ago‘, the ‘unintended consequences of these trends— from inequality to cultural alienation—have fueled new forms of discontent, spurring a rise in populism and nationalism in the most advanced economies and democracies in the world.’
The Commission opens themselves up as a solution by stating that ‘today’s institutions—both global and domestic—seem ill-equipped to face these trends down and ensure the maintenance of the rules-based international order.’
They mention how the rise in populism and nationalism has caused nations around the world to become ‘compromised by internal divisions and governed by institutions that are no longer well-suited to the realities of the day.’
As you would expect, the Commission has a plan for meeting these challenges. Firstly, it will require the democracies of North America, Europe and Asia to be ‘revitalized‘, and for the purging of ‘authoritarian regimes gaining confidence and establishing themselves more firmly on the global stage.’ Secondly, for this ‘democratic renewal‘ to be achievable, it will ‘require new voices and thinking from all segments of these societies.’
One potential avenue for ‘renewal‘ is the adoption at national levels of the UN devised Green New Deal, championed heavily in the United States by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Come the 2024 election, she will be eligible at thirty five years old to run for the presidency…..
Coming soon to a satanic malthusian hellhole near you.
In order to receive development assistance, Tanzania has to give Western agribusiness full freedom and give enclosed protection for patented seeds. “Eighty percent of the seeds are being shared and sold in an informal system between neighbors, friends and family. The new law criminalizes the practice in Tanzania,” says Michael Farrelly of TOAM, an organic farming movement in Tanzania.
In order to get developmental assistance, Tanzania amended its legislation, which should give commercial investors faster and better access to agricultural land as well as a very strong protection of intellectual property rights.
‘If you buy seeds from Syngenta or Monsanto under the new legislation, they will retain the intellectual property rights. If you save seeds from your first harvest, you can use them only on your own piece of land for non-commercial purposes. You’re not allowed to share them with your neighbors or with your sister-in-law in a different village, and you cannot sell them for sure. But that’s the entire foundation of the seed system in Africa’, says Michael Farrelly.
Under the new law, Tanzanian farmers risk a prison sentence of at least 12 years or a fine of over €205,300, or both, if they sell seeds that are not certified.
‘That’s an amount that a Tanzanian farmer cannot even start to imagine. The average wage is still less than 2 US dollars a day’, says Janet Maro, head of Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania (SAT).
Under pressure of the G8
Tanzania applied the legislation concerning intellectual property rights on seeds as a condition for receiving development assistance through the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (NAFSN). The NAFSN was launched in 2012 by the G8 with the goal to help 50 million people out of poverty and hunger in the ten African partner countries through a public-private partnership. The initiative receives the support of the EU, the US, the UK, the World Bank and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation…
Chinese scientists have reported that the coronavirus ripping through populations worldwide is much more likely than its close cousin Sars to bind to human cells, as it contains unexpected genes which link it to HIV and Ebola.
The research comes from Nankai University in the north Chinese city of Tianjin. Published on February 14, it has already become one of the most viewed papers on the platform, indicating the massive interest both in China and abroad for the latest findings on the virus.
It is well-known by now that 2019-nCoV shares over 80 percent of its DNA with Sars virus, making the cause of the 2002/3 outbreak in Southeast Asia its closest genetic relative. Sars invaded the human body by binding to a receptor protein, called ACE2, on the membranes of cells. But this was ultimately the downfall of that virus — ACE2 is rare in the cells of healthy people, which limited the spread of Sars significantly, resulting in it burning itself out by 2004. In the end, only about 8,000 people worldwide were infected, as compared to covid-19 which has already infected over 80,000 people.
Unlike Sars though, the novel Coronavirus has a section of genes that are absent from the Sars genome, according to this research. In fact, they bear resemblance to genes found in HIV and Ebola. These genes may encode for a different pathway targeting the protein furin on human cells, which is how HIV and Ebola attack. If it operates as those other viruses do, this mutation could make it up to 1,000 times better at binding to human cells than Sars.
Hearing the names of these terrible plagues will hardly serve to inspire confidence in those afraid that the world is spiralling into a global pandemic. Nevertheless, there is a silver lining to this news: Gaining deeper understanding into the precise genetic nature of the coronavirus will enlighten the scientists working on it as to how it transmits from person to person, what a vaccine for it would look like, and ultimately, how it can be stopped.
A controversial bedfellow
The suggestion that the coronavirus may bear some similarities to HIV has sparked controversy before. Earlier this month, a pre-print paper was published on bioRxiv entitled, “Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag”, suggested that some HIV genes may have actually leapt into 2019-nCoV, making it more contagious and therefore dangerous. The paper soon came under fire for the spuriousness of its results, and the authors have acknowledged that it would not have gotten through peer-review in that version. After all, this is the point of peer review: to challenge, clarify and pick holes in research before official publication.
In the case of the latest research, the team behind it have published it as a pre-print on Chinaxiv.org, a Chinese version of bioRxiv used by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. As such it is not peer-reviewed, and the findings must be taken as provisional until the final version of the paper appears.
That said, it is not the only research that has found the furin-like cleavage site present in HIV and Ebola, but which is absent from other coronaviruses — another pre-print on chinaxiv.org and a French study published in the peer-reviewed journal Antiviral Research came to the same conclusion. Drugs do exist which target the furin enzyme — drugs previously used in HIV treatments. Whether they could be co-opted for covid-19, or whether this is in fact a sensible path towards a treatment, remains to be seen.Comment: See also:
Former top Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin says he was pushed out under pressure from US Vice President Joe Biden, after he seized the assets of the oligarch behind Burisma, the gas company that employed Biden’s son.
President Donald Trump’s efforts to investigate Biden’s role in getting Shokin fired served as a pretext for his impeachment in the House of Representatives back in December. However, after Trump was acquitted by the Senate, the US media forgot about Burisma — and Ukraine.
French investigative journalist Olivier Berruyer, founder of popular anti-corruption and economics blog Les Crises, did not. In the fourth installment of his documentary series ‘UkraineGate: Inconvenient facts,’ Shokin reveals why and how he was ousted and what role the US has played in Ukraine.
Shokin tells Berruyer that Biden and the US government had approved his appointment as prosecutor-general — as, indeed, they did all major appointments in Ukraine since the 2014 Maidan upheaval — and worked with him well until he started getting too close to Burisma. He rejected reports that described his probe as “dormant.”
“Biden was acting on behalf of his own interests, and those of his family, and not in the interest of the American people,” Shokin said, adding that Barack Obama’s VP “believed that Ukraine was his private property, his fiefdom and that he could do whatever he wanted here.”
Within a few days of Shokin seizing the assets of Mykola Zlochevsky, the oligarch owner of Burisma, President Petro Poroshenko summoned him and told him to back off.
“Don’t you understand what Biden wants from you? Why are you getting into this Burisma stuff again?” Shokin quoted Poroshenko as saying. Within a few weeks, he was replaced by someone Biden called “more solid” – Yuriy Lutsenko, who had no training in law, and whom Shokin describes as a traitor to Ukraine.
The previous installment of Berruyer’s documentary featured testimonies from Ukrainians who argued that Poroshenko was directly involved in corruption, and that Hunter Biden’s job at Burisma was a de facto bribe intended for his father.
As usual the MSM is only interested in US foreign policies insofar as it affects US domestic politics. But there really is a place called Ukraine and people live there. At least those who survived Obama, Hillary and the blood-dripping fangs of the state department and its appendage, the MSM.