Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 149

Is the Drone Psyop Indicating an Imminent False Flag Attack?

Image source from video here.

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

The ongoing Drone Psyop is still making headlines today in both the corporate and “alternative” media, with seemingly everyone chipping in to give their opinion about what is really happening.

We are going on almost 4 weeks now where the “headline” news in the U.S. has been obviously following a carefully written script to get the public’s attention. It started with the assassination of Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, which amazingly stayed in the news cycle as the headline story for over 3 weeks.

It took the drone story to displace that one, and it is very obvious that this story is also following a pre-determined script to try to accomplish something with the highly-medicated vaccine-damaged American public.

What I usually like to do when it is obvious that the American public is being distracted by something that the corporate and “alternative” media is publishing that stays in the news cycle for so long, is to look outside of American media to see if there are significant other news stories that are being reported elsewhere that are NOT reaching the U.S. media.

So this morning I looked at the two Russian English news sites, five different Middle Eastern English news sites, and 1 major English News site out of China.

There was not one single article on the “drone crisis” in the U.S. I could see on any of the home pages of all those English News sites as of this morning, and yet it continues to dominate the U.S. News.

The Middle Eastern news is, of course, still concentrating on the war in Gaza and the new situation in Syria, and China seems mostly consumed about Trump’s alleged new tariff trade wars that are being threatened.

When you look at the Russian news, however, this is the headline news today: Western leaders think they’re chosen by God – West pushing Russia beyond ‘red line’ – Putin

So here is what Putin said today, which at the time of this writing is not being reported much yet in the U.S. media.

Western countries continue to act as if they are God’s representatives on Earth by trying to maintain their global dominance through imposing duplicitous rules, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

Speaking at a meeting of top Russian Defense Ministry officials on Monday, Putin noted that the military and political situation in the world remains complicated and unstable, pointing to the bloodshed in the Middle East and other regions of the world.

The president stated that the current US administration, as well as most other Western governments, are still trying to preserve their global hegemony and force the international community to play by their “so-called rules” that constantly change and distort in a way that is convenient for them.

“In fact, there is only one stable rule: no rules for those who make the rules, for those who consider themselves to be at the head of the whole world, those who consider themselves to be representatives of God on Earth, although they themselves do not believe in God,” Putin said. (Source.)

The West’s support for Ukraine is pushing Russia to the point where it cannot help but retaliate, President Vladimir Putin has said, while warning the US against deploying medium-range missiles.

Speaking at a meeting of top Russian Defense Ministry officials on Monday, Putin accused the US of seeking

“to weaken our country and inflict a strategic defeat” on Moscow by continuing “to pump a de facto illegitimate ruling regime in Kiev with weapons and money, sending mercenaries and military advisers, thereby encouraging further escalation of the conflict.”

Washington is instilling fear in Americans by resorting to “simple tactics,” Putin stated. “They push us to the red line… we begin to respond, and then they frighten their population,” he added, suggesting that the US used the same approach during its rivalry with the Soviet Union. (Source.)

I have stated in previous articles that in my opinion, it is extremely unlikely that any of the countries that the U.S. Government wants Americans to believer are our enemies, specifically China, Russia, and Iran, would have any motivation to make a military strike on U.S. soil in the mainland, as long as our financial system is still in tact, because they all drink from the spigot of U.S. wealth, even with sanctions in place.

Russia is far more likely to attack U.S. military installations in Europe and the Middle East, and a U.S. military report published earlier this year admitted that the U.S. military could not defeat China in a direct military confrontation.

U.S. Military Report: U.S. Cannot Defeat China, U.S. Public Unaware of Dangers and Unprepared for Societal Breakdown
A truly historic event was held in Washington D.C. this week that barely broke into the news cycle, when Eric Edelman and Jane Harman, from the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, presented their findings to members of Congress based on a RAND Corporation published report that came out this week explaining that the U.S. could not win a war against China, and that Americans are totally unaware of the danger they are in and totally unprepared for the consequences of such a war, such as a Cyber Attack that would bring down our ports and much of our network services infrastructure. (Full article.)

And Iran, of course, is focused on defeating Israel, and has already launched missiles into Israel twice this year. They have nothing to gain and much to lose by attacking America’s homeland.

This leads me back, again, to Russia’s demonstration at the end of November of their new Oreshnik missile, to which there is reportedly no air defense system to stop. See:
Russia Threatens Air Strikes with New Missile on American Bases in the Middle East, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, and North Dakota

In one way or another, this new weapons technology unveiled by Russia must be putting pressure on American military leaders, and I would not be surprised at all if this entire drone psyop has something to do with their next move, which could be some kind of “false flag attack” that is about to be launched on American soil by the U.S. military.

I published a lengthy quote about “Putin’s Oreshnik Message” by Sam Parker of Behind the News Network last week that you can read here: Is a New Russian Turkey Alliance Forming? Syrian President Assad Moves to Moscow

He wrote, in part:

Putin warned the ruling elites.

In a speech last weekend, Putin warned the ruling elites (the 2 families – the Rothschilds and Rockefellers) that if these attacks on Russia continue, then expect more devastating responses in Britain and France, plus the US. (Full article here.)

Shortly after I published that article, and just after Sam Parker started a 2-part series about what just happened in Syria, the Behind the News Network website went down, and it has been down for a few days now at the time of this writing.

This has happened to them before, forcing them to change domain names.

I have found very solid intelligence reports from this website frequently since the COVID Scam, and I suspect that their analysis was close to the target, and was perhaps the reason why they were just knocked offline again.

So be careful, be prepared, and don’t be fooled by the lies published in the media.

Remember, those of us who did not fall for the COVID Scam and never took their shots and drugs, are now among the few who can still think rationally and exercise discernment.

[…]

Via https://vaccineimpact.com/2024/is-the-drone-psyop-indicating-an-imminent-false-flag-attack/

U.S. healthcare system wastes 25 cents for every $1 spent – can Team Trump fix it?

Dr Eddy Betterman

One of the worst places to live in the world for healthcare is the United States, which is rife with waste.

The latest estimates suggest that 25 percent of U.S. healthcare spending basically gets flushed down the toilet. Put another way, for every $1 spent on healthcare in America, 25 cents of it goes to waste.

In 2021, U.S. healthcare spending reached an astounding $4.3 trillion, or about $12,900 per person, on average – though keep in mind that typically older, sicker, and more insured populations account for most of that spending, not to mention the fact that millions of Americans do not even have healthcare coverage and thus are not included in that average unless they are paying for healthcare out of pocket.

If every American was covered within the existing paradigm, the total spending amount would be even higher which is amazing considering other countries with universal healthcare programs spend about half, on average, per person compared to the U.S. rate. Why is that?

A big part of the problem is waste, claims the Peter G. Peterson Foundation (PGPF). If wasteful healthcare spending was eliminated, nearly $1 trillion per year in healthcare costs could be saved, the group says.

(Related: It was announced this week that Trump is nominating “America First fighter” Kash Patel to lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation.)

Administrative costs top list of healthcare waste line items

In 2019, a team of healthcare scholars published a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) outlining how these figures were calculated. It defines wasteful spending in healthcare as follows:

1) Services and processes that are either harmful or that do not deliver any benefits

2) Excess costs that could be avoided by replacing services and products with cheaper alternatives that are identical or even better

The biggest line item that could at the very least be trimmed are administrative costs. Upwards of $266 billion annually is wasted on administrative costs, which are the highest in the world by far.

In 2021, the U.S. spent $1,055 per capita on healthcare administrative costs, which is more than three times what Germany, the second-highest spender on administrative healthcare costs, spends per capita at just $306.

“That difference is partially due to the administrative complexity of having multiple payers in the U.S. healthcare system, which results in higher costs associated with billing- and insurance-related expenses, including managing insurance claims, clinical documentation and coding, and prior authorization issues,” PGPF says.

“That administrative complexity is illustrated by the fact that estimated time spent dealing with bill-related matters amounts to $68,000 per physician per year. However, it should be noted that much of the spending discrepancies among countries stem from the fact that the U.S. healthcare system operates differently than other OECD countries, particularly those with single-payer systems.”

Out of all the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries, Japan spends the least on healthcare administrative costs at just $82 per capita, followed by the United Kingdom at $97 per capita.

Operational waste, i.e., pricing failures and misuse of medical materials, is another area of U.S. healthcare spending that could use a big trim. There is so much inefficiency that a few common-sense tweaks would easily help to reduce costs and move things in the right direction.

“The wastefulness or inefficiencies of the country’s healthcare system is a notable factor contributing to costs in that sector,” PGPF says. “Since the government pays for around two-fifths of all healthcare spending, eliminating wasteful spending, where possible, would aid in reducing the nation’s debt.”

“Fortunately, there are plenty of solutions to explore that would mitigate wasteful health spending and help reduce the financial impact on both individuals and the government.”

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2024/12/16/us-healthcare-waste-25-cents-dollar-trump/

US Sanctions Do Grave Damage and Should Be Target of Greater Political Activism

[Source: globaltimes.cn]

By David Starr

How can a country with a degree of democracy put sanctions on various countries resulting in wide impoverishment while it brags that it is spreading democracy and freedom worldwide?

A country that has the rule of capital as its main objective. True, there are other systems with negative characteristics.

But capitalism is inherently geared toward maintaining and expanding the rule of capital, in the bottom line.

The capitalist United States systematically imposes sanctions on countries branded as “evil doers,” causing grave harm in those countries. Often the most vulnerable people are targeted and are subjected to hardships and even starvation because of the sanctions, while governing elites remain in power.

Nowadays, the U.S. does not practice as much diplomacy as it does war-mongering.

Countries are demonized really because they want to take an alternative path in a multi-polar world as opposed to a bi-polar one, which the U.S. and its allies currently impose. The U.S. monetary empire cannot stand having a rival system that threatens its dominance in the world.

Agencies like the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has imposed one-third of the sanctions worldwide.

So, the U.S. is the country with the most sanctions. But who are the “evil doers?”

From Princeton University’s Research & Project Administration, here are examples:

Cuba,North Korea (DPRK),Syria,Iran,Russia, andregions in Ukraine like Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk.

Actions against the above: “Most transactions, including those involving persons or entities ‘ordinarily resident” require an OFAC License.

There are 18 countries listed including: the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Lebanon, Belarus, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Libya, Burma (Myanmar), Iraq, and Sudan.

Actions against the above: “Transactions related to activities with specific parties in these countries are prohibited.”

Afghanistan, Belarus, Russia, China (PRC), Cyprus, Iraq, Nicaragua, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Lebanon, North Korea (DPRK), Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma (Myanmar), Cuba, Haiti, Somalia, Syria, Central African Republic, DRC, Iran, Libya, South Sudan, and Venezuela.

Actions against the above: “The U.S. Department of State prohibits the export of military/space equipment or technical data to these countries and to foreign nationals of these countries.”

As shown, some countries are in more than one category.

More specifically, here are examples of sanctions against the following countries:

Cuba

Cuba has been the victim of decades of sanctions, totaling about 64 years. The U.S. embargo, or El Bloqueo (the Blockade), as Cubans call it, has been morally bankrupt and a failure. If U.S. officials were truly concerned about the welfare of Cubans, the embargo would have been lifted long ago. Instead, it was tightened after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It was, and is, a cruel set of actions to try to make Cuba subservient to the U.S., similar to pre-1959 Cuba.

The enforcement of sanctions has come in the form of several acts: the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917; the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; the Cuban Assets Control Regulations of 1963; the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992; the Helms-Burton Act of 1996; and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000.

The Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) and the Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) have, in particular, pretty-sounding names. But that is as far as it goes. The FAA spawned the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) which, despite the name, is a CIA front. The CDA contradicts democracy because, if it were actually about democracy, the embargo would have been lifted many years ago.

For 31 years, the UN General Assembly has annually voted overwhelmingly to lift the embargo. The most recent vote (November 2023) had 187 countries voting to lift it and just two countries voting to continue it, those countries being of course the United States and Israel. Ukraine abstained.

North Korea (DPRK)

With the 38th parallel dividing North Korea and South Korea (ROK), due to the Korean War, lasting from 1950 to 1953, it has been about 70 years since this alignment was established; and it has been impossible for the two Koreas to unite, mainly based on ideological differences. The U.S. has controlled the south while the USSR controlled the north. A demilitarization zone (DMZ) was established.

An agreement was made in 1948 whereby the U.S. and Soviet militaries would withdraw from both Koreas after five years. The U.S., however, left military advisers in the south, and eventually reoccupied it.

The West has consistently claimed that the DPRK wants to invade the ROK in an attempt at reunification. So, the DPRK is seen as the “aggressor.” The reality, however, is more complicated.

The DPRK, led by Kim Il Sung, and the ROK, led by Syngman Rhee, both considered civil war to unify the peninsula. But it was not the DPRK which began drawing up battle plans for another war. It was the ROK.  Nevertheless, the DPRK was still interested in reunification.

In 1994, an agreement was signed to reduce the hostility between the DPRK and the U.S. It was the U.S.-DPRK Agreed Framework, with conditions that were not favorable to the DPRK. It was to close down its nuclear facilities and have IAEA inspections. The U.S. failed to honor the agreement. There were still military threats and trade and economic barriers.

The sanctions imposed against the DPRK are as follows: Trade restricted to food, medicine and other humanitarian necessities, but require a license; imports from the DPRK have been prohibited starting in 2011; arms sales and arms transfers are fully prohibited; financial transactions are prohibited; new U.S. investment is prohibited; U.S. foreign aid is minimal, except for those “fleeing” the DPRK; U.S.-based assets are blocked; Kim Jong Un and the Korean Workers’ Party are identified as being involved in illicit and punishable activities: U.S. travel requires a special valid passport.

With these sanctions, the U.S. Empire is practicing overkill. It is the usual hostility against an “evil-doer.”

Russia

Like other “enemies,” Russia is portrayed as being “evil.” Ideally speaking, its invasion of Ukraine is violating international law. But, since the change of the international situation in 1991, with the dissolution of the USSR, tragic changes took place in the former Soviet republics. Instead of democratic reforms that would have complimented socialism, capitalist shock-therapy economics was imposed causing tragedy and suffering among the Soviet population. Since then, Russia has been on the defensive, with the U.S./NATO alliance expanding to its borders with weapons pointed at it.

Recent history shows that there was a U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014. In the Donbas and Crimea, where the Black Sea fleet is located, many ethnic Russians were attacked because they were Russian. The attackers included Ukrainian Nazis who committed war crimes, resulting in the deaths of 14,000 ethnic Russians. In response, Russia invaded the Donbas and Crimea, not wanting to lose the Black Sea fleet. There were referenda in both regions, and majorities voted to separate from Ukraine.

Still, the Ukrainian military, which includes the Azov Battalion, a Nazi group, continued to attack those regions. In February 2022, Russia added more troops to its invasion in the Donbas and Crimea, among other areas, to battle the Ukrainian military. It has been a tragic affair, with many Ukrainians and Russians dying.

There was a chance for negotiations, but the alliance put a stop to that. For example, former British PM Boris Johnson visited Kyiv and talked to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. Johnson persuaded him not to negotiate. Thus, more weapons were sent to Ukraine by the alliance.

The U.S. Empire acted quickly, putting sanctions on Russia. The majority of sanctions began in 2014, with Russia’s invasion. Examples of the sanctions are as follows, enacted with executive orders by President Barack Obama:

Executive Order 13660—“Targets those responsible for undermining Ukraine’s democracy and threatens its peace.”

E.O. 13661—“Targets Russian officials operating in the arms sector, as well as entities they own and control.”

E.O. 13662—“Targets entities and individuals operating in Russia’s financial services, energy and defense sectors.”

E.O. 13685—“Prohibits U.S. business or investment in occupied Crimea.”

Given U.S. imperialism, these sanctions are the height of hypocrisy. Further, the U.S./NATO alliance is trying to turn Ukraine into a market satellite assisted by a willing Ukrainian government whose president, Zelensky, is a neo-liberal. The idea is to take advantage of cheap Ukrainian labor.

Venezuela

The reaction by right-wing/fascist Venezuelans and their “sugar daddy,” the U.S., toward the Venezuelan presidential election is typically arrogant and pretentious outrage. A statement by Venezuelanalysis sums it up:

“For more than 25 years, The U.S. has been hellbent on overthrowing the Bolivarian Revolution. Unable to see its surrogates succeed at the polls or trigger an outright coup, Washington settled on a weapon of choice: economic sanctions.”

Some examples are as follows:

Visa Restrictions—“Since FY 2018, the State Department has imposed visa restrictions related to corruption or human rights abuses…the State Department has also privately revoked the visas of Venezuelans, including those of current Venezuelan officials and their families.”

Terrorism-Related Sanctions—“Since 2006, the Secretary of State has made annual determination that Venezuela is not ‘cooperating fully with United States anti-terrorism efforts’…the United States has prohibited all U.S. commercial arms sales and transfers to Venezuela.”

Drug Traffic-Related Sanctions—“Treasury has imposed asset-blocking sanctions on 11 individuals and 25 companies with connections to Venezuela by designating them as Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers…”

Targeted Sanctions Related to Antidemocratic Actions, Human Rights violations, and Corruption—“In response to increasing repression in Venezuela, Congress enacted the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014. [T]he law required the President to impose sanctions on those responsible for significant acts of violence, human rights abuses, or antidemocratic actions.”

For the last sentence, those acts in reality are the handiwork of U.S.-backed right-wing/fascists. They are the main instigators of violence. But the U.S. would call them “pro-democracy demonstrators.” Again, the hypocrisy.

Former UN Independent Expert on International Order Alfred de Zayas wrote a piece in CounterPunch that condemns the U.S. Empire’s own terrorism:

“In the US State Department’s toolkit, unilateral coercive measures (UCMs) are used to blackmail, bully and intimidate States that do not readily accept US hegemony. Placing a country in the US list of countries sponsors for terrorism is intended to lend some phony legitimacy to UCMs imposed against targeted States.”

In some of his writings, De Zayas has also emphasized the devastating humanitarian consequences of U.S. sanctions as a mode of economic warfare and the potential that they could lead to outright war if not regime change.

U.S. social movements ought to do more to publicize the terrible costs and illegitimacy of U.S. sanctions and to mount more effective campaigns to try and curtail them.

College protesters focused on the Israeli genocide in Gaza would do well to try and help raise awareness about additional government policies that cause harm around the world, including by contributing to the death and malnutrition of children.

[…]

Via https://covertactionmagazine.com/2024/12/16/u-s-sanctions-do-grave-damage-and-should-be-target-of-greater-political-activism/

NEW CALIFORNIA: Rural Voters Continue to Push for Divorce From Liberal Cities to Form New State

Mike LaChance

In November, the Gateway Pundit reported on a new development in California and some other states where rural conservative voters are pushing to divorce from liberal cities to create new states.

A month later, the push is still on as these voters tire of progressive policies and restrictions on freedom.

In California, conservatives are tired of the entire state being dominated by the politics of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

FOX News reports:

Rural towns push to divorce from big cities, form new conservative state

Rural voters in California have had it with the Democratic majority in Sacramento and are pushing for their communities to divorce the blue urban areas that dominate state politics.

Conservative residents in California’s rural regions are tired of overregulation, the high cost of living and the myriad of policies coming out of the Democratic-dominated state Legislature, said Paul Preston, who founded New California State in hopes of splintering off from its current home.

“We recognized that we were in a tyranny,” Preston told Fox News Digital, citing the disparity between Democrats and Republicans in state government.

Preston, a former school administrator, described California as a “one-party” state that operates similar to a communist regime by passing laws that disregard the rural class.

Under the proposed map, New California State would comprise nearly all of California’s 58 counties, except most of Los Angeles County and parts of Sacramento County, San Francisco and other parts of the Bay Area. The map is purely a proposal and doesn’t represent the final state borders, Preston said.

There is a serious case to be made here. In the 2024 election, California moved 12 points to the right.

This is insane! Trump won in such a historic fashion he swung deep blue states close to red. California alone shifted 12 points to the right. New York shifted 11!

Donald Trump saved conservatism and America pic.twitter.com/hiJ9VJLb6v

— Jessica (@RealJessica05) November 7, 2024

People are fleeing California over the state’s failed progressive policies.

Texas has welcomed millions, while California sees a mass exodus.

Housing prices in CA have soared twice as fast as in TX, despite TX adding 2x more new homes since 2000!

The culprit? Restrictive urban land planning! pic.twitter.com/imkm3A5UIO

— Stephen Moore (@StephenMoore) December 10, 2024

People across the country want a return to common sense. Even in California.

[…]

Via https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/12/new-california-rural-voters-continue-push-divorce-liberal/

Deadly USS Liberty Attack Records Remain Secret – For Now

By Michelle Kinnucan

On November 21, 2024, Senior Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington issued what seems likely to be her final order in Kinnucan v. National Security Agency et al. The order came more than four years after the federal case was first filed in September 2020. The suit was brought to obtain records the NSA, Central Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency had failed to release despite a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests concerning the USS Liberty (AGTR-5).

On June 8, 1967 – three days after Israel initiated the Six-Day War by attacking Egypt – Israeli forces launched a combined aerial and naval assault on the Liberty. Lasting over an hour, the unprovoked attack killed 34 Americans and wounded more than 170 others. The Israeli government would claim that the attack was the result of mistaken identity. More than 57 years after the attack, the FOIA lawsuit revealed new details and, more importantly, it made it clear that the US government is still refusing to release hundreds of pages of documents concerning the assault.

Attack on the Liberty

For those unfamiliar with the Liberty’s history some additional background may be in order.[1] The Liberty – a WW II-era, Victory-class cargo ship converted to serve as a signals intelligence collector or “spy ship” – was collecting intelligence for analysis by the NSA when she was attacked. The Liberty was reconnoitered multiple times by Israeli military aircraft over the span of several daylight hours on the day of, but prior to, the attack. As James M. Scott (2017) wrote: “A State Department report later determined that recon planes buzzed the Liberty as many as eight times over a nine-hour period.”

The Liberty never approached closer than 26 nautical miles to the Israeli coast.[2] Nevertheless while steaming in clear weather and calm seas in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea northwest of the Egyptian town of al-ʿArīsh, the Liberty came under repeated aerial attack by Israeli forces at approximately 2 PM, local time, followed by an assault by Israeli motor torpedo boats.

Israeli troops surrounded al-ʿArīsh on June 5 and occupied the town on June 6, 1967. Early on, Israeli officials would claim the attack on the Liberty was in response to a naval bombardment of al-ʿArīsh by an unidentified vessel. But by June 10, the Israelis dropped that claim, as no such naval bombardment had occurred. A June 1969 chronology produced by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee stated: “It was later discovered that the explosions at al -Arish were ammunition dumps and not an Egyptian naval bombardment.”

In any case, the attack on the Liberty was the only verified Israeli surface naval engagement at sea during the 1967 Israeli-Arab war.[3] Far from occurring in a heated battle involving a tangle of enemy ships firing at each other at close quarters – the proverbial “fog of war” – the Liberty was a lone, American non-combatant vessel attacked in broad daylight on a calm blue sea miles from any other hostile engagement.

As a result of the heroic response of its officers and crew, the Liberty is “the most highly decorated ship … for a single action” in US Navy history. Yet, as will be shown here, despite the heavy casualties and the crew’s heroic performance during and after the attack, the US government, evidently, has never investigated the responsibility of Israeli civilian leaders and military officers for ordering the unprovoked assault.

An Inadequate Investigation and Evidence Ignored

On June 10, 1967, a US Naval Court of Inquiry (NCOI) into the attack was convened at the direction of Admiral John S. McCain, Jr. with Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, Jr. as its presiding officer. Kidd “closed the Court” on June 16, 1967, and its findings were provided to McCain on June 18, 1967. The NCOI’s report was classified Top Secret and not declassified until 1976.

On June 28, 1967, the Defense Department issued a public media release comprised of a summary of the proceedings of the NCOI together with a transcript of testimony by the ship’s captain. On the very first page of the summary of proceedings it is stated:

It was not the responsibility of the Court to rule on the culpability of the attackers and no evidence was heard from the attacking nation … The Court heard witnesses testify … to significant surveillance of the LIBERTY…

Inasmuch as this was not an international investigation, no evidence was presented on whether any of these [Israeli] aircraft had identified LIBERTY or whether they had passed any information on LIBERTY to their own higher headquarters.[4]

On the same day as the DoD’s media release, Secretary of State Dean Rusk would read the selections quoted above, along with other portions of the summary, to members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations meeting in a closed, executive session. In response to a question by Senator Bourke B. Hickenlooper about whether Israeli pilots had identified the Liberty as an American vessel, Rusk reiterated: “You see, we do not have in front of our own Naval Court of Inquiry Israeli personnel or officers or anything of that sort so the Court of Inquiry under those circumstances could not, I suppose, properly make a finding on that point.”[5]

In fact, according to records released during the course of the lawsuit, Secretary Rusk’s department already had pertinent information. On June 10, 1967, Message 0854 was sent from the US Defense Attaché’s Office in Tel Aviv (USDAO Tel Aviv).[6] Its addressees are the White House, Office of Secretary of Defense, Chief of Naval Operations, State Department, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Defense Intelligence Agency (the USDAO is a subordinate unit of the DIA). Furthermore, the contents of Message 0854 were also analyzed in a June 13, 1967, State Department intelligence memo directed to Deputy Secretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach, Rusk’s second-in-command.[7]

Message 0854 relayed intelligence obtained from a reliable, if unwitting, Israeli source inside the Israeli military establishment. In short, Message 0854 states that Israeli aircraft, at the direction of ground controllers, made at least two reconnaissance passes specifically for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the Liberty. On each pass, the Israeli aviators observed the Liberty flying the American flag and relayed this information to ground controllers.

The Israeli source was “positive at least two attempts to identify [the] ship and two reports of [the] US flag were made.” He also stated he personally overheard these radio transmissions and disclosed them after he heard an Israeli news broadcast claiming the attack was “erroneous.”

Thus, less than 48 hours after the attack, top US civilian and military officials had credible evidence that Israeli officials were falsely claiming the Liberty had not been identified as an American vessel before the attack, an assertion the Israelis mendaciously clung to until June 17, 1967. Even then Israelis maintained that the Liberty “made an effort to hide its identity by flying a small flag which was difficult to identify from a distance”.[8]

RADM Kidd also had access to this information soon after the attack. On June 15, 1967, the USDAO Tel Aviv sent a message (Message 0900) directed to Kidd, as “President of [the] Court of Inquiry”, providing a detailed chronology of the attack and subsequent events.[9] In paragraph 13 of Message 0900 the DAO specifically references Message 0854 and states:

USDAO source reported secondary source gave info gathered by overhearing IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] AF [air force] air-to-ground control frequencies. Info suggested [sic] that IDF aircraft made two or three identification passes over a ship sometime prior to attack on Liberty. Aircraft reported ship had U.S. flag … Info this para forwarded to limited addressees including CNO [i.e. the US Chief of Naval Operations] and DIA in USDAO 0854 Jun 67.

Note here how the author of Message 0900 reduces the unequivocal assertion of the Israeli source, as reported in Message 0854, regarding the reconnaissance overflights to a mere suggestion.

Although, as discussed earlier, this intelligence was passed directly to the State Department, Secretary Rusk makes no mention of it in his Senate testimony. By contrast, at a NATO meeting in Luxembourg less than two weeks before his Senate appearance, Rusk made “comments to [NATO Secretary-General] Brosio and several foreign ministers at Luxembourg about Israeli foreknowledge that Liberty was a US ship …” Although other messages are discussed in and included as exhibits to the NCOI’s report, neither Message 0854 itself nor the information it contains, as summarized in Message 0900, is discussed or referenced in the body of the report.

As of 2005, it was the position of the US Navy’s highest legal authority, the Office of the Judge Advocate General, that “The Court of Inquiry was the only United States Government investigation into the attack.”[10] Over the years there were additional American analyses or reviews occasioned by the attack on the Liberty but in none of the declassified records do they purport to have independently investigated the culpability of Israeli leaders for the attack. This decades-long failure to properly and fully investigate underscores the importance of prying loose the hundreds of pages of records pertaining to the attack that the US government is still withholding.

The Fruits of FOIA and Litigation

Defense Intelligence Agency Records

The lawsuit resulted in the release of 162 unredacted pages of DIA messages along with four partially redacted pages of two different versions of a single message, all originating from USDAO Tel Aviv. In the course of the lawsuit it was learned, that the messages, including Message 0854, had been transferred, years earlier, from the DIA to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). In any case, the DIA still retains and exercises declassification authority over the agency messages in NARA custody.

Central Intelligence Agency Records

As a result of the lawsuit, the CIA eventually produced five batches, totaling 255 pages, of records that they had initially identified as responsive to my requests but unreleasable. While much of the released material is not germane nevertheless some of it adds to or amplifies the existing record. Moreover, several pages of relevant material – records that had never been released before or released with fewer redactions – were obtained.

In sum, the records included 171 pages with no redactions or with redactions that are unlikely to be relevant to the attack on the Liberty. Obviously, any judgment of the significance of the withheld material is, at best, informed speculation. While source and textual context can provide important clues it is, perforce, simply impossible to properly and confidently evaluate material the CIA still refuses to release.

After accounting for the 171 pages described above, this leaves about 84 pages containing redacted information that is likely significant to understanding the attack on the Liberty and the US government’s response. Of the records the CIA identified as responsive, the agency also withheld at least 14 pages in whole. This is an estimate because an unknown number of pages, containing 29 endnotes, of at least one record are missing and the CIA never acknowledged these missing pages. On 24 pages the agency released, it redacted all substantive content on each page. There are an additional 47 pages with less extensive redaction of material that is likely significant to the USS Liberty inquiry.

Knowing that there is likely relevant material that the CIA has and still refuses to release is useful. Though, of course, it’s not nearly as useful as having it released. Moreover, a minimum of six separate records can be documented to have existed but which the CIA has never acknowledged. Two examples may suffice.

The first example pertains to the evaluation of three one-page CIA information reports – two from June and one from October of 1967. These reports were first released to other requesters in the 1970s and sparked national, albeit superficial, news coverage at the time. Copies obtained in 2021 as a result of the present lawsuit reveal significant new source information.[11]

According to these reports, sources in Tel Aviv stated: “Israel’s forces knew exactly what flag the LIBERTY was flying” and Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan “personally ordered the attack” on the Liberty over the objections of senior military officers, one of whom characterized the attack as “pure murder”.

[…]

Via https://original.antiwar.com/Michelle_Kinnucan/2024/12/15/deadly-uss-liberty-attack-records-remain-secret-for-now/

 

 

The Ancient Greeks: Crucible of Civilization Episode 3 Empire of the Mind

The Ancient Greeks: Crucible of Civilization Episode 3 Empire of the Mind

PBS (2000)

Film Review

Along with the phenomenal material success of Athenian democracy (thanks to a large number of Mediterranean colonies) came a revolution in science and thinking. The Athenians now abandoned the ancient Babylonian belief that heavenly bodies were god. Instead the Greeks came to see the moon, planets and stars as inanimate bodies whose movements could be explained by reason and mathematics.

Thales is credited as the first Western scientist* to write a book on using celestial bodies in ship navigation. He also calculated the height of the Great Pyramid of Egypt by measuring its shadow at high noon. Other Athenian scientists measured the earth’s circumference and built steam engines and primitive water pumps.

This was also the era of Socrates, who the filmmakers describe as the first Western philosopher. Socrates taught critical thinking, namely that it was the responsibility of every citizen to make decisions based on what they knew to be right or good.

In 431 BC when Athens, was still the greatest power in Greece, Pericles persuaded their democratic assembly to go to war with Sparta. The latter had expanded to control all of southern Greece and, according to Pericles, posed a growing threat to Athens and the other city-states in the  Delian League.

Because Sparta had a much stronger infantry (Athens had a stronger navy), Pericles’ strategy  was to refuse to engage Sparta on land. He called for the Athenians to give up their farmlands, retreat behind Athens’ city walls and rely on imported foodstuffs.

After the Spartan burned all the fields around Athens, the city effectively relied on imported foodstuffs until one particular ship also brought the plague. Killing over a third of the population (including Pericles), the epidemic also caused the city-state to collapse into mob rule.

The mass execution of 13 naval officers who won a major battle against Sparta (on a trivia offense) proved a major loss to the Athens; naval force, dragging the war out over the next decade. In 413 BC Athens suffered a major defeat protecting a colony on Sicily, from which they never recovered. Sparta’s longtime ally Persian responded by blockading Athenians harbors. Their access to grain cut off, Athenians began dropping dead of starvation on the streets.

In 404 BC they surrendered to the Spartan commander Lysander, who installed the Thirty Tyrants’ reign of terror in Athens. After eight months in which roughly 5% of the population were subject to arbitrary arrest and execution and even more to property confiscation and/or exile, a popular uprising overthrew the tyrants and restored democratic rule.

The film end with the 39 9BC political trial (bought by Meleteus a private citizen serving as a voluntary prosecutor) and execution (by drinking hemlock) of the philosopher Socrates. His trial, in the public marketplace, by 501 citizens chosen by lot to be judges. The official charges against him were questioning the state religion and corrupting the youth of Athens. As neither offense was defined in Athenian law, the motivation seems to have been purely political. Socrates was notorious for publicly pointing out the wrongdoings of Athens’ political leaders and their Persian patrons.**

See Role of Persian Patrons https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1988/eirv15n46-19881118/eirv15n46-19881118_024-the_third_trial_of_socrates_usa.pdf

He was convinced by a small majority 280 to 221. The film includes profoundly moving excerpts from speeches Socrates gave at his trial and to friends who visited him in prison.

*The film asserts the Greeks were the first to employ celestial navigation, but the Chinese have astronomical records used in celestial navigation dating from 3000-1800 BC and the Polynesians built stick models used in celestial navigation in 1000 BC.

**See https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1988/eirv15n46-19881118/eirv15n46-19881118_024-the_third_trial_of_socrates_usa.pdf

Journal of Sustainable Development: The Scientific Case Against Net Zero

Ron Clutz

Michael Simpson of Sheffield University did the literature review and tells it like it is in his recent paper The Scientific Case Against Net Zero: Falsifying the Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis published at Journal of Sustainable Development (2024).  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Abstract

The UK Net Zero by 2050 Policy was undemocratically adopted by the UK government in 2019. Yet the science of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ is well known and there is no reason to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), or nitrous oxide (N2O) because absorption of radiation is logarithmic. Adding to or removing these naturally occurring gases from the atmosphere will make little difference to the temperature or the climate. Water vapor (H2O) is claimed to be a much stronger ‘greenhouse gas’ than CO2, CH4 or N2O but cannot be regulated because it occurs naturally in vast quantities.

This work explores the established science and recent developments in scientific knowledge around Net Zero with a view to making a rational recommendation for policy makers. There is little scientific evidence to support the case for Net Zero and that greenhouse gases are unlikely to contribute to a ‘climate emergency’ at current or any likely future higher concentrations. There is a case against the adoption of Net Zero given the enormous costs associated with implementing the policy, and the fact it is unlikely to achieve reductions in average near surface global air temperature, regardless of whether Net Zero is fully implemented and adopted worldwide. Therefore, Net Zero does not pass the cost-benefit test. The recommended policy is to abandon Net Zero and do nothing about so-called ‘greenhouse gases’. [Topics are shown below with excerpted contents.]

1. Introduction

The argument for Net Zero is that the concentration of CO2 in air is increasing, some small portion of which may be due to human activities and that Net Zero will address this supposed ‘problem’. The underpinning consensus hypothesis is that the human emission of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ will increase concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere and thereby increase the global near surface atmospheric temperature by absorbance of infrared radiation leading to catastrophic changes in the weather. This leads to the idea that global temperatures should be limited to 2°C and preferably 1.5°C to avoid catastrophic climate change (Paris Climate Agreement, 2015).

A further hypothesis is that there are tipping points in the climate system which will result in positive feedback and a runaway heating of the planet’s atmosphere may occur (Schellnhuber & Turner, 2009; Washington et al., 2009; Levermann et al., 2009; Notz & Schellnhuber, 2009; Lenton et al., 2008; Dakos et al., 2009; Archer et al., 2009). Some of these tipping point assumptions are built into faulty climate models, the outputs of which are interpreted as facts or evidence by activists and politicians. However, output from computer models is not data, evidence or fact and is controversial (Jaworowski, 2007; Bastardi, 2018; Innis, 2008: p.30; Smith, 2021; Nieboer, 2021; Craig, 2021). Only empirical scientifically established facts should be considered so that cause and effect are clear.

From the point of view of physics, the atmosphere is an almost perfect example of a stable system (Coe, et al., 2021). The climate operates with negative feedback (Le Chatelier’s Principle) as do most natural systems with many degrees of freedom (Kärner, 2007; Lindzen et al., 2001 & 2022). The ocean acts as a heat sink, effectively controlling the air temperature. Recent global average surface temperatures remain relatively stable (Easterbrook, 2016; Moran, 2015; Morano, 2021; Marohasy, 2017; Ridley, 2010) or warming very slightly from other causes (Sangster, 2018) and the increase in temperature from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0°K (Frank, 2010; Statistics Norway, 2023) and is less than predicted by climate models (Fyfe, 2013). This shows the difference between the consensus view and established facts.

The results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2. Dagsvik et al. 2024

The IPCC has produced six major assessment reports (AR1 to 6) and several special reports which report on a great deal of good science (Noting that the IPCC does not do any science itself but merely compiles literature reviews). The Summaries for Policy Makers (SPM) are followed by most politicians. Yet the SPM do not agree in large part with the scientific assessment by the IPCC reports and appear to exaggerate the role of CO2 and other ‘greenhouse gases’ in climate change. It appears that the SPM is written by governments and activists before  the scientific assessment is reached which is a questionable practice (Ball 2011, 2014 and 2016; Smith 2021).

Other organizations have produced reports of a similar nature and using a similar literature (e.g. Science and Public Policy Institute; The Heartland Institute; The Centre for the Study of CO2; CO2 Science; Global Warming Policy Foundation; Net Zero Watch; The Fraser Institute; CO2 Coalition) and arrived at completely different conclusions to the IPCC and the SPM (Idso et al., 2013a; Idso et al., 2013b; Idso et al., 2014; Idso et al., 2015a, 2015b; Happer, et al., 2022). There are also some web pages (e.g. Popular Technology) which list over a thousand mainstream journal papers casting doubt on the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases as a source of climate change. For example, a recent report by the CO2 Coalition (2023) states clearly Net Zero regulations and actions are scientifically invalid because they:

“Fabricate data or omit data that contradict their conclusions.Rely on computer models that do not work.Rely on findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that are government opinions, not science.Omit the extraordinary social benefits of CO2 and fossil fuels.Omit the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO2 emissions to Net Zero.Reject the science that demonstrates there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2.

Net Zero, then, violates the tenets of the scientific method that for more than 300 years has underpinned the advancement of western civilization.” (CO2 Coalition, 2023; p. 1)

With such a strong scientific conviction the entire Net Zero agenda needs investigating. This paper reviews some of the important science which supports and undermines the Net Zero agenda.

[…]

3. Greenhouse Gas Theory

The historical development of the greenhouse effect, early discussions and controversies are presented by Mudge (2012) and Strangeways (2011). The explanation of the greenhouse effect or greenhouse gas theory of climate change is given in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis (IPCC, 2007, p. 946):

“Greenhouse gases effectively absorb thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to some gases, and by clouds. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the greenhouse effect.”

This is plausible but does not necessarily lead to global warming as radiation will be emitted at longer wavelengths in other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum where greenhouse gases do not absorb radiation potentially leading to an energy balance without increase in temperature.

[…]

3.1 The Falsifications of the Greenhouse Effect

There are numerous falsifications of the greenhouse gas theory (sometimes called ‘trace gas heating theory’, see Siddons in Ball, 2011, p.19), of global warming and/or climate change (Ball, 2011; Ball, 2014; Ball, 2016; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009; Hertzberg et al, 2017; Allmendinger, 2017; Blaauw, 2017; Nikolov and Zeller, 2017).

[…]

3.1.1 The Ideal Gas Law

PV = nRT (1)

The average near-surface temperature for planetary bodies with an atmosphere calculated from the Ideal Gas Law is in excellent agreement with measured values suggesting that the greenhouse effect is very small or non-existent (Table 1).

[…]

3.1.2 Measurement of Infrared Absorption of the Earth’s Atmosphere

It is now possible to calculate the effect of ‘greenhouse gases’ on the surface atmospheric temperature by (a) using laboratory experimental methods; (b) using the Hitran database (https://hitran.org/); (c) using satellite observations of outgoing radiation compared to Stephan-Boltzmann effective black body radiation and calculated values of temperature.

The near surface temperature and change in surface temperature can be calculated. The result is that climate sensitivity to doubling concentration of CO2 is (0.5°C) including 0.06°C from CH4 and 0.08°C from N2O which is so small as to be undetectable. Most of the temperature change has already occurred and increasing CO2, CH4, N2O concentrations will not lead to significant changes in air temperatures because absorption is logarithmic (Beer-Lambert Law of attenuation) – a law of diminishing returns.

Figure 1. Delta T vs CO2 concentration

[…]

Ball (2014) summarizes a great deal of the geological science:

“The most fundamental assumption in the theory that human CO2 is causing global warming and climate change is that an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. The problem is that every record of any duration for any period in the history of the Earth exactly the opposite relationship occurs temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. Despite that a massive deception has developed and continues.” Ball (2014: p. 1).

[…]

“Because of the absence of any physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming, the main argument for CO2 as the cause of warming rests largely on computer modelling.”  Easterbrook (2016: p.5).

The results of the models are projected far into the future (circa 80 to 100years) where uncertainties are large, but projections can be used to demonstrate unrealistic but scary scenarios (Idso et al., 2015b). The literature that is used for the IPCC reports appears to be ‘cherry picked’ to agree with their paradigms that increasing CO2 concentrations leads to warming. They ignore the vast literature in climatology, atmospheric physics, solar physics, physics, physical chemistry, geology, biology and palaeoclimatology much of which contradicts the IPCC’s assessment in the summary for policymakers (SPM).

[…]

3.1.4 Anthropogenic CO2 and the Residence time of Carbon Dioxide in Air

There is a suggestion (IPCC) that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is different for anthropogenic CO2 and naturally occurring CO2. This breaks a fundamental scientific principle, the Principle of Equivalence. That is: if there is equivalence between two things, they have the same use, function, size, or value (Collins English Dictionary, online). Thus, CO2 is CO2 no matter where it comes from, and each molecule will behave physically and react chemically in the same way.

The figures above illustrate how exaggerated claims are made for CO2 based on the false assumption that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for long periods and can affect the climate. These results are enough to falsify the ideas of anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2 and shows how little human activity contributes to CO2 emissions and concentrations in air. The argument is clear, that if the fictitious greenhouse effect were real for CO2 the human contribution would have no measurable effect upon the climate in terms of global average surface temperature.

The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is between 3.0 and 4.1 years using the IPCC’s own data and not the supposed 100 years or 1000 years for anthropogenic CO2 suggested by the IPCC summaries for policy makers (Harde, 2017) which contravenes the Equivalence Principle (Berry, 2019).

[…]

4. Conclusions

Like many other researchers it was assumed there was robust science behind the greenhouse gas theory and that Net Zero was essential to achieve, but after investigation it now appears that the greenhouse gas theory is questionable and has been successfully challenged for at least 100 years (Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009). Much better explanations for planetary near surface atmospheric temperatures are available based on robust, empirically derived scientific laws such as the Ideal Gas law.

[…]

Via https://rclutz.com/2024/12/15/straight-talk-on-climate-science-and-net-zero/

Why It’s Probably Better to Throw Plastic in the Trash

AP AP By Ross Pomeroy

Millions of Americans dutifully fill their recycling bins each week, motivated by the knowledge that they’re doing something good for the environment. But the sad fact is that much of what is tossed in the recycling bin is eventually heaped into landfills.

John Stossel brought attention to the issue in a video segment shared on X Thursday morning, to which Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk replied, “Recycling is pointless.”

While this bombshell might be jarring – especially if you’re someone who dutifully cleans their recyclables before caringly placing them in bins – Thomas Kinnaman, an environmental economist from Bucknell University, says it’s actually not as bad as you think.

As Kinnaman discovered in a 2014 study – a complete life cycle analysis of the recycling process – it doesn’t make much economic or environmental sense to recycle plastic and glass in much of the developed world. Despite claims that plastics are recyclable, really only PET and HDPE (types 1 and 2 in North America) can be readily reused. In total, only 9% of plastic is melted and reformed. The rest goes into landfills or the wider environment.

City Journal science journalist John Tierney pointed out in Stossel’s segment that the economics of recycling have only worsened over time. Both plastic and glass are fairly easy on the environment to produce, but are often very tricky, costly, and intense to recycle. When you factor in all of the water used to decontaminate plastic and glass, the immense distances traversed transporting them (usually by truck, train, or ship), and the mechanical and chemical processes utilized to transform them into new goods, it becomes clear that they are better off in a landfill.

With novel technologies, this situation could very well change, but for now, most plastics should be thrown in the trash, Kinnaman says – though he cautions that his “provocative results certainly require confirmation from future independent and objective research before broad policy goals can be adjusted.”

“Also, many of the benefits and costs associated with waste disposal and recycling vary across regions of the country and world, and thus optimal recycling rates may also vary,” he wrote.

While plastic and glass should probably be crushed and buried in a landfill, aluminum, tin, and paper – especially cardboard – should absolutely be recycled. Just make sure that they’re not overly contaminated with food waste or small bits of non-recyclable waste. Such adulteration can render them unrecyclable.

[…]

Via https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/12/14/why_its_probably_better_to_throw_plastic_in_the_trash_152089.html

RFK Jr and the Samoan Measles Outbreak: The Facts

David Marks

When the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as Health and Human Services Secretary comes before the Senate, the specter of the Samoan measles outbreak of 2019 will dramatically be invoked to challenge him. Kennedy’s critics have repeatedly relied on this topic, citing stories that claim he was responsible for an epidemic in 2019 that caused at least 83 children to die due to vaccine hesitancy. In recent articles, reporters quote previous news coverage relying on unsubstantiated and minimal data to justify their analysis.

These stories repeat dubious assertions, fail to discuss any pathological analysis, and dismiss Kennedy’s considered support of healthcare in Samoa. He had assisted the Samoan government in developing a system for health officials to assess the efficacy and safety of medical interventions or drugs, including vaccines.

In November 2019, while the deaths of Samoan children were rapidly increasing, Kennedy wrote a comprehensive letter to the Samoan Prime Minister, presenting some possible causes of the unprecedented, virulent outbreak of measles. His concerns about the epidemic in Samoa highlight striking anomalies that were apparent to a few investigators at the time, although they remain unexplained.

The most convenient and generally accepted explanations of the outbreak claim the epidemic was the result of hesitancy, causing the population to be under-vaccinated. Measles vaccination rates were low due to the previous deaths of two infants given improperly formulated injections, which had nothing to do with Kennedy’s views.

Any considered analysis of the accessible facts soundly contradicts the conjecture that the high death count was related to low vaccination rates.

In most measles epidemics, mortality is on average one in one thousand, and dying children are often malnourished or immunocompromised. From October through December of 2019, over one in a hundred Samoan children with the disease died, ten times more than any previous outbreak in the world. No accounting for this overt statistical deviance has been published.

Despite the presumptions of those who attack Kennedy, there was never any investigation into any aspect of this baffling tragedy. Edwin Tamasese, a health advocate who questioned Samoan government policies during the outbreak, gave Kennedy some insight into what was happening.

Tamasese was concerned about the number of sick and dying Samoan children and began to assist families whose children were severely ill. He and his colleagues encountered conditions that contradicted the government’s narrative.

While the press condemned him as an anti-vaxxer, Tamasese’s interventions and observations are revelatory. In an interview after the outbreak subsided, he said, “We were very careful to take statistics when we were going in to try to identify trends. When we assessed our numbers, 98 percent of those who were getting ill had been vaccinated consistently six to seven days prior to illness. The excuse was that the vaccine did not have time to become effective. However, according to an immunologist on the team, the six to seven-day period was also the length of time it would take an under-attenuated vaccine to make the recipient sick.”

Doctors in hospitals also reported that the very ill and dying children did not have symptoms consistent with normal cases of measles. When the outbreak began, blood from the first thirty-nine cases had been sent to Australia; only seven samples were positive for measles.

The government stopped testing to confirm the cause of these deaths in early November 2019. Without scientific confirmation, illness and mortality were attributed to low immunization rates. Samoan health authorities continued to claim that the only remedy for the deadly epidemic was a drive to increase vaccination; however, the campaign appeared to increase the number of measles cases.

Neighboring Pacific island countries, Tonga and Fiji, which had concurrent outbreaks of the virus — and had a different source of the measles vaccine — did not suffer the same dramatic mortality rates. This should have raised concerns, yet there hasn’t been an inquiry into why the Samoan government switched vaccine sourcing from India to Belgium midway through the crisis.

A renewed effort to vaccinate with this alternate supply began in the first week of December 2019; it was hailed as the reason the outbreak subsided. Measles vaccines take at least 10 days before creating an immune response. There has been no explanation for the data confirming that the onset of cases dropped dramatically two weeks before this vaccination drive could have had any effect.

The government response was not driven by factual analysis; the effort focused on promoting the vaccine and silencing those questioning authority.

With Samoan officials and the press deriding his work and views, Tamasese was arrested and charged with incitement of a government order and treating children without a license. Although this was deemed appropriate justice by the international news media as they echoed the government’s praise of the vaccine, reporters again failed to present the questions raised by the outbreak.

The prosecution’s primary witness against Tamasese was a nurse whose child had measles. He had suggested that administering vitamins A and C could be helpful — and standard medical treatment for measles patients. She had taken his advice and admitted that her child recovered soon afterward.

Tamasese reported that when the nurse left the courtroom, the judge, in throwing out the case, said, “That witness may as well have represented the accused.” There was relative silence from the news media when all charges against him were dismissed.

While worldwide attention on Samoa ignored dramatic inconsistencies, Kennedy was one of the few people who asked detailed and important questions. His views were marginalized; it was easier and politically correct to blame the tragedy on low rates of vaccination.

The relatively few details known about the Samoan measles outbreak indicate that forces intent on presenting vaccines as an infallible, unquestionable remedy will not tolerate scrutiny or admit failures. This continuing devious tactic is applied internationally and is eagerly supported by most governments and the press.

Analysis of the Covid-19 pandemic has only recently vindicated those who were scorned for questioning the response. The parallels to the unfolding of the epidemic in Samoa are not obscure, and support Kennedy’s contention that vaccine development, manufacturing, and application need much more effective evaluation and monitoring to prevent complications and death.

When the US government assures the public that any vaccine or medication is safe and effective, this must come from an independent, thorough, and transparent process, rather than relying only on the words and actions of those with vested interests.

The current criticism of Kennedy is an endeavor to make him look dangerously ignorant and irresponsible to sway members of the Senate. Much to the chagrin of those who vilify him, his efforts to understand and assist in the Samoan measles outbreak exemplify his thoughtfulness and capabilities.

RFK, Jr. is at the forefront of healthcare oversight; his confirmation as HHS Secretary will ensure that Americans benefit from his experience and knowledge.

The USA and all “rich” nations have experienced a cataclysmic decline in population health since the mid 1980s. All evidence points to a finite list of environmental toxins being to blame, making massive profit for powerful corporations. The devastating rise in epidemics of auto-immune and chronic allergic conditions as well as autism, obesity, diabetes, cardiac conditions, neurologic conditions and more is hard to miss. The years of covid caused a rapid explosion in these and more thanks to the destructive response which turned basic public health on its head. It is well explained by the “return on investment” that can be made from your ill health and the partnerships between public and private entities leading to massive conflicts of interest.

The personal cost of these injuries crushes the ability of individuals and families to afford to live, and is slowly indebting the middle and lower classes. Known as disaster capitalism, convincing you to be afraid is the weapon to ensure maximum profit. Fear of Bird Flu, Marburg, MPox, Ebola, Nipah, Zika; convincing you that eating bugs will save the planet; and many other transformations are all incoming ways to enforce further mass poisoning. Don’t think the infectious disease “experts” will save you. They sit front-and-centre in the lucrative business model, which needs you to be afraid and convinced by their “expertise”.

[…]

Via https://brownstone.org/articles/rfk-jr-and-the-samoan-measles-outbreak/

Public Backlash Against Bovaer-Laced Milk and Meat

by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. 

Bovaer, a cow feed additive designed to reduce methane emissions, is facing public pushback despite industry assurances the additive is “safe and effective” and also key to reducing greenhouse emissions from dairy cows.

The feed additive works by suppressing the enzyme in a cow’s rumen that forms methane.

DSM-Firmenich, the company that created the additive, and Elanco, a U.S. drugmaker that markets the product in the U.S. and Canada, claim that feeding one tablespoon of Bovaer per lactating dairy cow per day can reduce methane emissions by about 30%. However, a meta-analysis of trials of the additive found a wider range of results.

According to Elanco, feeding Bovaer to 1 million cows for a year would be equivalent to eliminating more than 285,000 cars from the road for a year. The company also says that feeding Bovaer to cattle “has proven to be safe for animals, producers and consumers.”

Bovaer is available for sale in 68 countries and has been approved in the U.S., Mexico, Canada and the United Kingdom (U.K.), where a major dairy giant, Arla Foods, recently initiated a trial of around 30 farms.

Several major U.K. supermarket chains are set to sell milk from Bovaer-fed cows.

However, in over 13,000 replies to Arla’s announcement on X about its Bovaer field trials, commenters slammed the company. Critics called the trial “insane” and filmed themselves pouring out Arla milk products. Some called for a boycott of the product.

Critics also weighed in on TikTok and Facebook, where their posts have garnered millions of views, the BBC reported.

The public outcry has been so significant that DSM-Firmenich and Arla were compelled to make public statements about the alleged safety of the product. In the past 24 hours, British news outlets The Guardian, The Spectator and The Conversation published articles defending Bovaer and attempting to discredit its critics.

However, concerned scientists who spoke with The Defender said the product hasn’t been sufficiently studied to back up claims that it’s safe for cattle or humans. They also said there are better strategies to reduce methane emissions.

“All-in-all, there are warning flags that this drug could have harmful effects,” John Fagan, Ph.D., chief scientist of Health Research Institute, said. “It has been rushed to market without adequate testing for safety to the cows and to the people who drink the milk.”

Fagan said the drug could pose particular risks to children, who are more vulnerable because their detoxification systems haven’t yet matured.

“There is no need for highly toxic Bovear to be force-fed to cows to reduce methane emissions,” said André Leu, international director of Regeneration International, author and regenerative organic farmer.

“Most ruminant methane emissions come from Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs),” Leu said. “While methane and other greenhouse gas outputs are considerable for CAFOs and intensive industrial livestock production systems, this is not true for regenerative grazing livestock practices on pasture,” which could be a safer alternative for human and animal health.

‘Totally inadequate’ safety studies

Bovaer is made from chemicals silicon dioxide, propylene glycol and 3-nitrooxypropanol, or 3-NOP, a synthetic organic compound that prompted the U.K. Food Standards Agency’s warning last year about possible risks associated with handling the substance, Newsweek reported.

In its May approval letter, the FDA stated that 3-NOP, marketed as Bovaer, “is expected to pose low risk to humans or animals under the conditions of its intended use.” The agency said it has no public health concerns.

The FDA also noted that because Bovaer is intended to affect the structure or function of an animal’s body, it is technically a drug. However, the agency’s Center for Veterinary Medicine decided it wouldn’t make the product go through the typical requirements for new animal drug approval, which include adverse event reporting, labeling and other steps.

This was an unusual step, according to journalist Grace Hussain of Sentient, allowing the drugmaker to circumvent a lengthy and expensive typical review process for new animal drugs, which often takes nearly a decade.

Some industry-backed lawmakers are proposing to make this fast-tracked process standard for the entire feed industry.

This shouldn’t be a concern said Season Solorio, an Elanco spokesperson, who assured Newsweek that Bovaer is “safe” and “effective.”

“Bovaer — a safe, effective cattle feed ingredient — represents a key science-based opportunity,” Solorio said. “Bovaer is the most extensively studied and scientifically proven methane-reducing feed ingredient, with more than 15 years of research and more than 85 peer-reviewed published articles.”

But Leu said the safety studies that do exist have been “totally inadequate.”

“They are not long enough to determine common adverse health outcomes such as cancers, oxidative stress, endocrine disruption, reproductive problems, mutagenesis, and neurotoxicity,” Leu said. “No studies show that treated milk and meat products are safe for children.”

Leu recommended that until independent, peer-reviewed studies are published, people should avoid all meat and dairy products treated with Bovear.

Fagan said that Bovaer works by interfering with an important enzyme in the digestive function of cows. This can have long-term harmful effects, even though it has been shown that moderate doses of this chemical are not acutely toxic.

Studies so far have shown changes in liver enzymes, which suggest that long-term use of Bovaer could damage liver functioning, he added. In rat studies, non-cancerous tumors developed, but there was a risk they could become cancerous over time. “Longer studies are needed to assess whether they might become cancerous over time,” Fagan said.

Another safety concern, Fagan said, is that the drug has been approved only at very specific doses because it is clear there are risks with higher doses.

“This is risky in an agricultural setting in which agricultural laborers, not veterinarians, will be administering the drug,” Fagan said, “The risk of overdosing is much greater in this situation.”

He also criticized the regulatory decision to approve Bovaer feed additive instead of regulating it as a drug, saying it “increases significantly the risk that it will be handled less precisely to the detriment of the cow’s health.”

Administering the drug by simply adding it to feed also increases the risk of accidental higher dosing, Fagan said, which increases milk consumers’ risk of exposure to Bovear.

He added:

“Promoters of this drug claim that it is metabolized quickly and therefore will not be present in the final milk product. This ignores the key question of what are the metabolites and are they harmful either to the cow or to the person who drinks the milk? The answer is that that research has not been done.”

Regenerative farming more effective than drugs at curbing emissions

Bovaer promoters, including Elanco, most mainstream press and the Environmental Defense Fund, argue that methane from livestock emissions poses a serious threat to the global climate and technical fixes like this drug are key to reducing those emissions.

However, research shows that most methane emissions come from leaking gas, oil wells and permafrost melt. What does come from cows, is emitted on CAFOs.

“The vast majority of these so-called miracle products being introduced are for CAFO animal production,” regenerative farmer Howard Vlieger told The Defender. “The issue isn’t the number of ruminant animals, but rather the manner in which the animals are raised. The CAFO production environment of beef and dairy animals is unnatural for these species of livestock.”

“Properly managed or adaptive grazing systems using cattle and other ruminant animals are not causing climate issues,” Vlieger said.

Leu said this is because “in ranch ecosystems, much of the methane emitted by animals on pasture is degraded by soil and water-based methanotrophic (methane-eating) microorganisms. These organisms do not exist in CAFOs, also known as factory farms, and intensive livestock systems — so 100% of their emissions go into the atmosphere.”

Methane has a short half-life of only 12 years and quickly decays into carbon dioxide, he added. Well-managed grazing systems provide the added benefit of sequestering that CO2 in the soil by photosynthesis — as numerous scientific studies, and Leu’s book, “Growing Life: Regenerating Farming and Ranching,” have shown.

A new carbon market

Elanco also promotes Bovaer as a way “for dairy farmers to be financially rewarded for reducing their dairy’s carbon footprint,” by joining Athian, the Elanco-funded carbon-credit market, which allows farmers who feed the drug to their cows to claim carbon credits.

Farmers can quantify their greenhouse emissions reductions achieved by using Bovaer through Elanco’s UpLook tool, which collects farm data to “track the progress of sustainability efforts.” Farmers can use the tool to certify carbon credits that they can then sell, the company said.

What’s Bovaer got to do with Bill Gates?

Rather than taking concerns raised by scientists seriously, DSM-Firmenich has sought to discredit critiques of its product as “mistruths and misinformation,” and claimed that the product is “totally safe.”

The BBC, Newsweek and other outlets suggested that critics were engaged in “conspiracy theories” because some have made so-called “baseless claims” that Bill Gates was involved in the development of Bovaer.

While it’s true that Gates wasn’t involved in Bovaer, he has invested in a rival start-up, Rumin8, which develops a similar methane-reducing product.

Gates and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos are also funding the development of a vaccine designed to reduce the methane produced by cattle.

They also are the financiers behind the Global Methane Hub, which is pushing for countries to sign the Global Methane Pledge, which aims to reduce methane from fossil fuels and livestock by 30% between 2020 and 2030.

That pledge then functions as a justification in DSM-Firmenich’s promotional material and in the press for why products like Bovaer are necessary.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/bovaer-food-additive-drug-cows-safety-methane-emissions/