F. William Engdahl -- The Models, the Tests and Now the Consequences

28.04.2020 Author: F. William Engdahl

The Models, the Tests and Now the Consequences

Column: Society

Region: Europe

Since late in January the world has undergone staggering changes which in many cases may be irreparable. We have given decisions over every aspect of our lives to the judgment of tests and to the projections of computer models for the coronavirus first claimed to have erupted in Wuhan China, now dubbed SARS-CoV-2. With astonishing lack of transparency or checking, one government after the other has imposed China-model lockdowns on their entire populations. It begins to look as if we are being led like sheep to slaughter for corrupted science.

The Dubious COVID Models

Two major models are being used in the West since the alleged spread of coronavirus to Europe and USA to “predict” and respond to the spread of COVID-19 illness. One was developed at Imperial College of London. The second was developed, with emphasis on USA effects, by the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Seattle, near the home of Microsoft founder Bill Gates. What few know is that both groups owe their existence to generous funding by a tax exempt foundation that stands to make literally billions on purported vaccines and other drugs to treat coronavirus—The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Larry Romanoff -- COVID-19: All Truth Has Three Stages

COVID-19: All Truth Has Three Stages

By Larry Romanoff

Global Research, March 19, 2020

Region: USA

Theme: Media Disinformation, Science and Medicine

First, it is ignored.

Second, it is widely ridiculed.

Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

With COVID-19, we have now entered Stage 2. At first, the media ignored the claims and the analysis that the virus could have originated in the US. But the spread of information and restatements of evidence from all sides, including in the US itself, has become too intense and now the claims are being openly ridiculed in the Western media.

Briefly, Chinese virologists discovered conclusively that the original source of the virus was not China, nor Wuhan, nor the seafood market, but had been traced to the US, a possible scenario being that the virus might have originated at the US Military’s bio-weapons lab at Fort Detrick (which was shut down by the CDC in July, because of outbreaks), and brought to China during the World Military Games in October 2019.

Also, Japanese and Taiwanese virologists arrived independently at the conclusion that the virus could have originated in the US.

SP -- Larry Romanoff -- COVID-19: evidencia adicional de que el virus se originó en los EE. UU

COVID-19: evidencia adicional de que el virus se originó en los EE. UU 

Por Larry Romanoff

Global Research, 11 de marzo de 2020

El Coronavirus de China: Una actualización impactante. ¿El virus se originó en losEstados Unidos? Por Larry Romanoff, 04 de marzo de 2020 ***

Como recordarán los lectores del artículo anterior (arriba), los epidemiólogos y farmacólogos japoneses y taiwaneses han determinado que el nuevo coronavirus se originó casi con toda certeza en los Estados Unidos, ya que ese país es el único que se conoce que tiene los cinco tipos, de los cuales todos los demás deben haber descendido. Wuhan, en China, sólo tiene uno de esos tipos, lo que lo convierte, por analogía, en una especie de "rama" que no puede existir por sí misma, sino que debe haber crecido de un "árbol".

El médico taiwanés señaló que en agosto de 2019 los Estados Unidos sufrieron una oleada de neumonías pulmonares o similares, que los estadounidenses culparon de "vaping" a los cigarrillos electrónicos, pero que, según el científico, los síntomas y las condiciones no podían explicarse por los cigarrillos electrónicos. Dijo que escribió a los funcionarios de EE.UU. diciéndoles que sospechaba que esas muertes eran probablemente debidas al coronavirus. Afirma que sus advertencias fueron ignoradas.

Inmediatamente antes de eso, el CDC cerró totalmente el principal laboratorio biológico del ejército de los EE.UU. en Fort Detrick, Maryland, debido a la falta de garantías contra las fugas de patógenos, emitiendo una completa orden de "cese y desistimiento" a los militares. Fue inmediatamente después de este evento que surgió la epidemia del "cigarrillo electrónico".

También tuvimos los ciudadanos japoneses infectados en septiembre de 2019, en Hawai, personas que nunca habían estado en China, estas infecciones se producen en suelo estadounidense mucho antes del brote en Wuhan pero sólo poco después del cierre de Fort Detrick. Luego, en los medios sociales chinos, apareció otro artículo, consciente de lo anterior pero presentando más detalles. En él se afirmaba, en parte, que cinco atletas "extranjeros" u otro personal que visitaban Wuhan para los Juegos Militares Mundiales (18 a 27 de octubre de 2019) fueron hospitalizados en Wuhan por una infección indeterminada. El artículo explica más claramente que la versión del virus de Wuhan podría haber venido sólo de los EE.UU. porque es lo que llaman una "rama" que no podría haber sido creada primero porque no tendría "semilla". Tendría que haber sido una nueva variedad derivada del "tronco" original, y ese tronco sólo existe en los EE.UU. (1)

Se ha especulado mucho en público sobre la transmisión deliberada del coronavirus a China pero, según el artículo chino, es posible una alternativa menos siniestra.

F. William Engdahl -- How Globalization and China’s Economic Crisis Might Jeopardize Our Precarious Medical Supply Chains

How Globalization and China’s Economic Crisis Might Jeopardize Our Precarious Medical Supply Chains

By F. William Engdahl

Global Research, February 26, 2020

Region: Asia, USA

Theme: Global Economy, Science and Medicine

The grave risks and dangers in the process of worldwide out-sourcing and so-called globalization of the past 30 years or so are becoming starkly clear as the ongoing health emergency across China threatens vital world supply chains from China to the rest of the world. While much attention is focused on the risks to smartphone components or auto manufacture via supplies of key parts from China or to the breakdown of oil deliveries in the last weeks, there is a danger that will soon become alarmingly clear in terms of global health care system.

If the forced shutdown of China manufacturing continues for many weeks longer, the world, could begin to experience shortages or lack of vital medicines and medical supplies. The reason is that over the past two decades much of the production of medicines and medical supplies such as surgical masks have been outsourced to China or simply made in China by Chinese companies at far cheaper prices, forcing Western companies out of business.

Sole source China

According to research and US Congressional hearings, something like 80% of present medicines consumed in the United States are produced in China. This includes Chinese companies and foreign drug companies that have outsourced their drug manufacture in joint ventures with Chinese partners. According to Rosemary Gibson of the Hastings Center bioethics research institute, who authored a book in 2018 on the theme, the dependency is more than alarming.

Gibson cites medical newsletters giving the estimate that today some 80% of all pharmaceutical active ingredients in the USA are made in China.

“It’s not just the ingredients. It’s also the chemical precursors, the chemical building blocks used to make the active ingredients. We are dependent on China for the chemical building blocks to make a whole category of antibiotics… known as cephalosporins. They are used in the United States thousands of times every day for people with very serious infections.”

The made in China drugs today include most antibiotics, birth control pills, blood pressure medicines such as valsartan, blood thinners such as heparin, and various cancer drugs. It includes such common medicines as penicillin, ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), and aspirin. The list also includes medications to treat HIV, Alzheimer’s disease, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, cancer, depression, epilepsy, among others. A recent Department of Commerce study found that 97 percent of all antibiotics in the United States came from China.

Why West Fears ‘Made in China: 2025’

Few of these drugs are labeled “made in China” as drug companies in the USA are not required to reveal their sourcing. Rosemary Gibson states that the dependency on China for medicines and other health products is so great that, “…if China shut the door tomorrow, within a couple of months, hospitals in the United States would cease to function.” That may not be so far off.

LARRY ROMANOFF -- Biological Weapons: A Useful and Timely Factual Overview

Biological Weapons: A Useful and Timely Factual Overview

Part I

By Larry Romanoff

Global Research, February 07, 2020

Region: USA

Theme: History, Intelligence, Science and Medicine

The US government and its many agencies and educational and health institutions, have for many decades conducted intensive research into biological warfare, in many cases strongly focused on race-specific pathogens.

In a report to the US Congress, the Department of Defense revealed that its program of creating artificial biological agents included modifying non-fatal viruses to make them lethal, and genetic engineering to alter the immunology of biological agents to make treatment and vaccinations impossible. The military report admitted that at the time it operated about 130 bio-weapons research facilities, dozens at US universities and others at many international sites outside the purview of the US Congress and the jurisdiction of the courts.

This knowledge hasn’t been a secret for a long time. In a classified 1948 report by the Pentagon’s Committee on Biological Warfare, the main selling point was that “A gun or a bomb leaves no doubt that a deliberate attack has occurred. But if … an epidemic slashes across a crowded city, there is no way of knowing whether anyone attacked, much less who”, adding hopefully that “A significant portion of the human population within selected target areas may be killed or incapacitated” with only very small amounts of a pathogen. (1) (2)

A US Army operating manual from 1956 stated explicitly that biological and chemical warfare were an integral operating portion of US military strategy, were not restricted in any way, and that Congress had given the military “First Strike” authority on their use. In 1959, an attempt by Congress to remove this first-strike authority was defeated by the White House and Kennedy increased bio-chemical weapons expenditures from $75 million to almost $350 million. That was an enormous amount of money in 1959. (3)

LARRY ROMANOFF --- China’s Coronavirus – How the Western Media Spin the News

China’s Coronavirus – How the Western Media Spin the News

By Larry Romanoff

Global Research, February 05, 2020

Region: Asia, USA

Theme: Intelligence, Media Disinformation, Science and Medicine

Reporting from Shanghai

It is not possible to understand the situation of China’s new coronavirus infections without some context. Let’s place ourselves in the position of patient and physician. If you develop a headache, what is your first thought? Do you say to yourself, “My god, I have a brain tumor and I will die”? Not likely. Similarly, if you report your headache to a doctor, his range of thoughts is unlikely to involve your immediate demise. Both parties assume the event is merely one more common and typical occurrence and, barring unusual symptoms that indicate additional testing, the physician’s advice would most likely be to “take two aspirins and call me tomorrow”.

This was essentially the circumstance in China with the new coronavirus. The initial symptoms of the first patients were quite mild, seemingly no more than a typical winter flu and thus of no special concern. It was only after about two weeks, when the symptoms became more severe and patients required hospitalisation, that medical experts realised they were dealing with a new contagion.

Prof Michel Chossudovsky --Global Warming and the Ozone Layer: What’s More Dangerous, CO2 or Nuclear War?

Global Warming and the Ozone Layer: What’s More Dangerous, CO2 or Nuclear War?

An Overview

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, November 27, 2019

Global Research

Theme: Environment, Global Economy, Militarization and WMD, Oil and Energy, Science and Medicine

First published in September 2019

#FridaysForFuture:

4500 climate strikes in over 100 countries. Several million protesters demand that governments around the World  “take action” on the devastating environmental impacts of climate change.

Many of the climate activists point to the destructive impacts of global capitalism on their lives. 

“Capitalism = death (or extinction)”.

“Cancel Capitalism.”

People’s lives are destroyed. Politicians are coopted by the corporate giants including Big Oil. The economic, environmental and social structures are undermined. The outcome is a process of Worldwide impoverishment. 

The oil giants were indelibly under fire. In New York City, climate activists confronted “Big Oil”: 

“ExxonKnew: Make Them Pay” outside a meeting of fossil fuel CEOs and government representatives at the Morgan Library and Museum, just blocks away from the U.N. Climate Summit in New York. 

Who is Funding the Protest Movement

“Exxon: Make Them Pay”?

The unspoken truth is that Big Oil funds the campaign against Big Oil. Sounds contradictory?

Climate activists have been lied to.

The Climate Movement (New Green Deal) is funded by major charities and corporate foundations including the National Endowment for Democracy, Soros Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Brothers Trust, Shell Foundation, BP, Goldman Sachs, among others.

Whereas “Big Oil” is held responsible for the devastating impacts of the fossil fuel industry, the architect of Big Oil, namely the Rockefeller family is the major protagonist of the Green New Deal:

“Beginning in the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became leading advocates of the global warming agenda. … In their Sustainable Development Program Review, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund boasts of being one of the first major global warming activists, citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 establishment of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.” (The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute published in 2016).

Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance.

But who controls that debate? Major capitalist foundations ultimately call the shots?

There is an obvious contradictory relationship. The protest movement is funded by corporate foundations.

According to William Engdahl, the New Green Deal is a multibillion “economic project”: