Paul Gauguin Why are you angry? 1896
I assure you, if it requires coercion, manipulation, gaslighting, 24/7 advertising, fear-mongering, silencing of dissenting opinions and experts, slandering of alternative options, tons of incentives, and indemnification from liability, then it isn’t required for health.
Aus 🇭🇲 It's a Trial, The World's Largest Ever Clinical trial, which means there's no SAFETY data, but we assure you it's SAFE. That comment in itself is Insane 💥👊 pic.twitter.com/QOmAINCcXB
— 𝙇𝙏𝙍𝙉8 𝙀𝙉𝘿𝙉 (@ATLEASTDIETRYN) July 8, 2021
Note: Goldman puts this down to vaccinations (what do they know, they’re bankers). How about it’s because Delta is more transmissible and also much less dangerous?
“For every 1,000 confirmed cases for COVID-19, at least 140 hospitalizations, 50 mechanical ventilations and 5 deaths were prevented with treatment.”
US 34 million cases, 621,000 deaths. Ergo: at 5 deaths per 1000 prevented, this alone could have saved 170,000 lives.
In a prospective observational study (pre-AndroCoV Trial), the use of nitazoxanide, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine demonstrated unexpected improvements in COVID-19 outcomes, when compared to untreated patients. The apparent yet likely positive results raised ethical concerns on the employment of further full placebo84 controlled studies in early stage COVID-19. The present analysis aimed to elucidate whether full placebo-control randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on early-stage COVID-19 are still ethically acceptable, through a comparative analysis with two control87 groups.
Active group (AG) consisted of patients enrolled in the Pre AndroCoV-Trial (n = 585). Control Group 1 (CG1) consisted of a retrospectively obtained group of untreated patients of the same population (n = 137), and Control Group 2 (CG2) resulted from a precise prediction of clinical outcomes based on a thorough and structured review of indexed articles and official statements. Patients were matched for sex, age, comorbidities and disease severity at baseline. Compared to CG1 and CG2 AG showed reduction of 31.5-36.5% in viral shedding (p < 0.0001), 70-85% in disease duration (p < 0.0001), and 100% in respiratory complications, hospitalization, mechanical ventilations, and deaths (p < 0.0001 for all).
For every 1,000 confirmed cases for COVID-19, at least 70 hospitalizations, 50 mechanical ventilations and five deaths were prevented. Benefits from the combination of early COVID-19 detection and early pharmacological approaches were consistent and overwhelming when compared to untreated groups, which, together with and well-established safety profile of the drug combinations tested in the Pre-AndroCoV Trial, precluded our study to continue employing full placebo in early COVID-19.
“..let’s assume the 600,000 figure is accurate as the “base” across the country. If it’s 22% that’s 132,000 people who did not actually die of Covid-19.”
That’s 170,000 -see above- that need not have died from Covid, plus 130,000 that did not die from it. Roughly half of all US deaths right there.
When you pay people to do something without proof the event occurred the outcome is simple: You get institutionalized, mass-fraud. Remember, this is from official “fact checking” sites: “We rate the claim that hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as COVID-19 and on ventilators as TRUE.” Hospitals and doctors do get paid more for Medicare patients diagnosed with COVID-19 or if it’s considered presumed they have COVID-19 absent a laboratory-confirmed test, and three times more if the patients are placed on a ventilator to cover the cost of care and loss of business resulting from a shift in focus to treat COVID-19 cases. Of course USA Today said that there was no evidence that hospitals would game this.
Except…. now there is evidence that not only did they game it, they committed mass-fraud in that they got paid for Covid-19 cases that never existed and deaths that were not Covid-19 caused. “A county in northern California announced last week that it revised the method in how it registered coronavirus deaths that led to a 22% drop in its death toll, a report said.” 22% eh? This is the second one, by the way. Alameda county did the same thing; their drop was 25%. So around 1/4 of all alleged “Covid-19” deaths, if this is representative (and it probably is) weren’t actually Covid-19 related at all. But the hospitals all got paid for them as if they were, and exactly zero of that money will be recovered — right? How much is that?
Well, let’s assume the 600,000 figure is accurate as the “base” across the country. If it’s 22% that’s 132,000 people who did not actually die of Covid-19. More to the point if none of them had ventilators used, and of course we know many of them did, the medical providers BILKED you and I, as we fund the government, out of some $1.716 BILLION in payments and, if half of them were put on vents that figure more than doubles.
Oh, and wait…. what does that do to the claimed “excess death”? I do recall writing an article or three on that in which it was quite clear that in fact uncorrelated data sets, that is, Social Security and the labor numbers, made clear that while there was excess death it was nowhere near what the government and CDC had claimed. Yes, “excess” people died, but many were pulled forward by six months to a year, mostly in nursing homes where 53% of those admitted die within six months. Note that this statistic is from 2010 which means that statistically-speaking those in nursing homes that Covid-19 “got” were highly-likely to have been dead from something within six months anyway. Said deaths were not “excess.”
All death is sad but falsely coding a gunshot or motorcycle wreck victim as Covid-19 in order to grab an extra $19,000 from the taxpayer is fraud, and inflating such statistics to inculcate fear ought to generate decades-long prison terms. We now have hard proof that in fact both happened in size and were not rare. WHERE ARE THE HANDCUFFS AND WHY DON’T JOE-N-HO SEND THEIR TEAMS AROUND TO GO “DOOR TO DOOR” LOCKING UP EVERY HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR AND CLINICIAN WHO DID THIS?
Hydroxychloroquine is an excellent Interleukin-6 receptor blocker. But there’s no profit in it. So we must re-invent it.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has updated its patient care guidelines to include interleukin-6 receptor blockers, a class of medicines that are lifesaving in patients who are severely or critically ill with COVID-19, especially when administered alongside corticosteroids. These were the findings from a prospective and a living network meta-analysis initiated by WHO, the largest such analysis on the drugs to date. Data from over 10 000 patients enrolled in 27 clinical trials were considered. These are the first drugs found to be effective against COVID-19 since corticosteroids were recommended by WHO in September 2020.
Patients severely or critically ill with COVID-19 often suffer from an overreaction of the immune system, which can be very harmful to the patient’s health. Interleukin-6 blocking drugs – tocilizumab and sarilumab – act to suppress this overreaction. The prospective and living network meta-analyses showed that in severely or critically ill patients, administering these drugs reduce the odds of death by 13%, compared to standard care. This means that there will be 15 fewer deaths per thousand patients, and as many as 28 fewer deaths for every thousand critically ill patients. The odds of mechanical ventilation among severe and critical patients are reduced by 28%, compared with standard care. This translates to 23 fewer patients out of a thousand needing mechanical ventilation.
Clinical trial investigators in 28 countries shared data with WHO, including pre-publication data. Researchers worldwide compiled and analyzed the data. With the support of these critical partnerships, WHO has been able to issue a rapid and trustworthy recommendation for the use of interleukin-6 receptor blockers in severe and critical COVID-19 patients. “These drugs offer hope for patients and families who are suffering from the devastating impact of severe and critical COVID-19. But IL-6 receptor blockers remain inaccessible and unaffordable for the majority of the world,” said WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
Catch up on your Greek alphabet, it’ll come in handy.
Fully vaccinated people may still be at risk of infection from the California ‘Epsilon’ coronavirus variant, a new study finds. Researchers from the University of Washington and Vir Biotechnology, based in San Francisco, found that the variant had three mutations on the spike protein, which the virus uses to enter and infect human cells. These mutations could provide resistance to neutralizing antibodies generated by the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.
What’s more, the mutations may be able to evade natural antibodies a person forms after being infected with the virus. Health experts say neutralizing antibodies are what protect people from the virus, and the variant’s ability to resist them could leave people in danger. The Epsilon variant is not believed to be more infectious than the original virus, though.
The Epsilon variant was first identified in May 2020 and was virtually nonexistent until October. It would later split into two separate versions, the B.1.427 and the more common B.1.429 mutation. It has remained a relatively quiet variant of the virus outside of California, not causing an outbreak similar to the Indian ‘Delta’ variant. Epsilon still managed to find its way into at least 44 countries, though 97 percent of the 49,221 cases worldwide have been recorded in the U.S. Of the 47,987 cases recorded in the U.S., more than 22,000 have been detected in California. Hawaii and Nevada also dealt with smaller outbreaks of the B.1.429 mutation of the virus. Researchers, who published their data in the journal Science on July 1, found that both types of the variant had the ability to evade the neutralizing antibodies found in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which use messenger RNA (mRNA) technology.
Effectiveness of the neutralizing antibodies was reduced by 50 to 70 percent. They also found that neutralizing activity was reduced in 14 of 34 of the antibodies responsible for it. The data is worrying, and is an early sign that the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines may not be enough to permanently protect from the virus. Experts have long believed that a third ‘booster shot’ of the mRNA vaccines – produced by Pfizer and Moderna – would be needed in the future to protect from variants. Both companies have launched clinical trials for a booster shot as well.
“If you refuse the “booster” you are at much higher risk of getting sick and dying. If you take the booster you are at much higher risk of the booster making you sick or killing you.”
All viruses mutate over time. All non-sterilizing vaccines potentiate mutation because they prohibit neither infection or transmission — they only suppress the severity of disease. We’ve known this for decades and in fact we know this is why Marek’s disease happened in poultry. Of course we ignored all of this because, well, Warp Speed. We now see evidence of more transmissible variation coming to the forefront. This is the natural evolution of a virus; the more-transmissible variant “wins”; the less loses. Whichever gets the person who can contract it (vaccinated or not, if the vaccine is non-sterilizing) that’s the variant that “wins” and gets to infect someone else. What isn’t yet solidly in evidence is whether those mutations have rendered the stabs effectively worthless.
But what’s bad news whether they are or aren’t is that if the spike protein, which we know is pathogenic, has ‘greater’ binding affinity and thus you want a “booster” to fight it said booster will also have a higher risk of causing nasty adverse effects because it is the spike that causes the problem and if it binds more in the virus so will the version of it used for the “booster.” In other words on the evidence you would expect a variation that produces more transmission to also produce more-serious adverse reactions from jabs that are designed to “protect” against it, all other things being equal. Now add to this that as titers wane you may have no choice if you took the original stabs because as that happens you may wind up with plenty of binding antibodies (which enhance the infection) but not enough neutralizing ones.
If you refuse the “booster” you are at much higher risk of getting sick and dying. If you take the booster you are at much higher risk of the booster making you sick or killing you. Meanwhile those who refused originally sneeze when infected, especially if they employ immediate countermeasures using existing drugs. Yeah, it’ll get some of those folks — but probably not all that many, as the “easy to kill” are already dead from the previous round. That sucks. Is this yet in evidence? No, because thus far boosters don’t exist. But it is exactly what I expect to happen.
When a new and dangerous disease appears, what do you do? Why, you weaken the immune system of course! It may take a while, but after the first whole year you should definitely see the first results.
New Zealand hospitals are experiencing the payoff of “immunity debt” created by Covid-19 lockdowns, with wards flooded by babies with a potentially-deadly respiratory virus, doctors have warned. Wellington has 46 children currently hospitalised for respiratory illnesses including respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. A number are infants, and many are on oxygen. Other hospitals are also experiencing a rise in cases that are straining their resources – with some delaying surgeries or converting playrooms into clinical space. RSV is a common respiratory illness. In adults, it generally only produces very mild symptoms – but it can make young children extremely ill, or even be fatal.
The size and seriousness of New Zealand’s outbreak is likely being fed by what some paediatric doctors have called an “immunity debt” – where people don’t develop immunity to other viruses suppressed by Covid lockdowns, causing cases to explode down the line. Epidemiologist and public health professor Michael Baker used the metaphor of forest brushfires: if a year or two have passed without fire, there is more fuel on the ground to feed the flames. When a fire finally comes, it burns much more fiercely. “What we’re seeing now is we’ve accumulated a whole lot of susceptible children that have missed out on exposure – so now they’re seeing it for the first time,” Baker said.
The “immunity debt” phenomenon occurs because measures like lockdowns, hand-washing, social distancing and masks are not only effective at controlling Covid-19. They also suppress the spread of other illnesses that transmit in a similar way, including the flu, common cold, and lesser-known respiratory illnesses like RSA. In New Zealand, lockdowns last winter led to a 99.9% reduction in flu cases and a 98% reduction in RSV – and near-eliminated the spike of excess deaths New Zealand usually experiences during winter. “This positive collateral effect in the short term is welcome, as it prevents additional overload of the healthcare system,” a collective of French doctors wrote in a May 2021 study of immunity debt.
But in the long term, it can create problems of its own: if bacterial and viral infections aren’t circulating among children, they don’t develop immunity, which leads to larger outbreaks down the line. “The lack of immune stimulation… induced an “immunity debt” which could have negative consequences when the pandemic is under control and [public health intervientions] are lifted,” the doctors wrote. “The longer these periods of ‘viral or bacterial low-exposure’ are, the greater the likelihood of future epidemics.”
Because they’re in bed with Daszak and Fauci.
Someone needs to tell The Lancet the most basic tenet of crisis management: when in a hole, stop digging. Instead, this world-renowned medical journal seems determined to keep shredding its reputation, in tandem with a group of experts ignorant to the damage they have caused the scientific community as they have stifled debate regarding the pandemic’s origins. Early last year, just as the world was starting to grapple with the trauma of Covid, The Lancet published a highly-controversial statement in support of Chinese scientists, attacking “conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin” and praising Beijing’s “rapid, open and transparent sharing of data”.
Clearly this was absurd given China’s cover-up, silencing of doctors and deletion of key data. But the statement, signed by 27 prominent experts, played a key role in shutting down suggestions the pandemic might have started with a lab incident, rather than spilling over naturally from animals. Scandalously, we later learned it was covertly drafted by British scientist Peter Daszak, £300,000-a-year president of Eco-Health Alliance charity and long-term partner of researchers at Wuhan Institute of Virology. Despite the global furore, Daszak’s gang has gone back into battle with a follow-up statement, as I revealed they were planning to do 10 days ago. Even the headline on The Lancet article — Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans — seems designed to gaslight their critics, given their previous stance.
This latest statement is more nuanced but again disingenuous. It claims “the strongest clue” is that the virus evolved in nature, while saying suggestions of a lab leak “remain without scientifically validated evidence”. Yet there is zero firm evidence for natural spillover, and significant circumstantial evidence to raise suspicions of a lab incident. Besides, any leak could have involved a virus sampled from nature. Other scientists, such as Alina Chan from the Broad Institute, have pointed out also that none of the linked articles claiming to support their claims actually provides any evidence of how SARS-CoV-2 might have naturally emerged in Wuhan.
Laughably, the article excuses Daszak’s incredible role in the World Health Organisation mission to probe the origins by saying this was done “as an independent expert in a private capacity” — as though he would have disregarded his personal, professional and financial ties to Wuhan scientists carrying out risky experiments in labs with known safety concerns. The statement even dares argue it is “time to turn down the heat of the rhetoric and turn up the light of scientific inquiry” when no one has been more forceful in pushing the idea that a possible lab leak was “baloney” and a “conspiracy theory” than Daszak.
Once again, regrettably, The Lancet has failed to detail all the conflicts of interest of these signatories such as a trio with recent or current Eco-Health affiliations. It is a shame also to see Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, and two of his colleagues tarnishing one of science’s finest brands by adding their names again. Yet the most significant aspect of this latest stunt are that three of the more distinguished signatories of the first statement opted not to sign the follow-up. The reason is simple: they symbolise how this debate has shifted in recent months despite the best efforts of Daszak and his allies.
Daszak’s lame retort.
On Feb 19, 2020, we, a group of physicians, veterinarians, epidemiologists, virologists, biologists, ecologists, and public health experts from around the world, joined together to express solidarity with our professional colleagues in China.1 Unsubstantiated allegations were being raised about the source of the COVID-19 outbreak and the integrity of our peers who were diligently working to learn more about the newly recognised virus, SARS-CoV-2, while struggling to care for the many patients admitted to hospital with severe illness in Wuhan and elsewhere in China. It was the beginning of a global tragedy, the COVID-19 pandemic. According to WHO, as of July 2, 2021, the pandemic has resulted in 182 101 209 confirmed cases and 3 950 876 deaths, both undoubtedly underestimates of the real toll.
The impact of the pandemic virtually everywhere in the world has been far worse than even these numbers suggest, with unprecedented additional social, cultural, political, and economic consequences that have exposed numerous flaws in our epidemic and pandemic preparedness and in local and global political and economic systems. We have observed escalations of conflicts that pit many parties against one another, including central government versus local government, young versus old, rich versus poor, people of colour versus white people, and health priorities versus the economy. The crisis has highlighted the urgent need to build a better understanding of how science proceeds and the complex, but critical, links science has with health, public health, and politics.
Recently, many of us have individually received inquiries asking whether we still support what we said in early 2020.1 The answer is clear: we reaffirm our expression of solidarity with those in China who confronted the outbreak then, and the many health professionals around the world who have since worked to exhaustion, and at personal risk, in the relentless and continuing battle against this virus. Our respect and gratitude have only grown with time. The second intent of our original Correspondence was to express our working view that SARS-CoV-2 most likely originated in nature and not in a laboratory, on the basis of early genetic analysis of the new virus and well established evidence from previous emerging infectious diseases, including the coronaviruses that cause the common cold as well as the original SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.
No need to fall in love outright, Pepe.
At the start of 2021, before the onset of the Year of the Metal Ox, President Xi Jinping emphasized that “favorable social conditions” should be in place for the CCP centennial celebrations. Oblivious to waves of demonization coming from the West, for Chinese public opinion what matters is whether the CCP delivered. And deliver it did (over 85% popular approval). China controlled Covid-19 in record time; economic growth is back; poverty alleviation was achieved; and the civilization-state became a “moderately prosperous society” – right on schedule for the CCP centennial. Since 1949, the size of the Chinese economy soared by a whopping 189 times. Over the past two decades, China’s GDP grew 11-fold. Since 2010, it more than doubled, from $6 trillion to $15 trillion, and now accounts for 17% of global economic output.
No wonder Western grumbling is irrelevant. Shanghai Capital investment boss Eric Li succinctly describes the governance gap; in the U.S., government changes but not policy. In China, government doesn’t change; policy does. This is the background for the next development stage – where the CCP will in fact double down on its unique hybrid model of “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. The key point is that the Chinese leadership, via non-stop policy adjustments (trial and error, always) has evolved a model of “peaceful rise” – their own terminology – that essentially respects China’s immense historical and cultural experiences. In this case, Chinese exceptionalism means respecting Confucianism – which privileges harmony and abhors conflict – as well as Daoism – which privileges balance – over the boisterous, warring, hegemonic Western model.
This is reflected in major policy adjustments such as the new “dual circulation” drive, which places greater emphasis on the domestic market compared to China as the “factory of the world”. Past and future are totally intertwined in China; what was done in previous dynasties echoes in the future. The best contemporary example is the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – the overarching Chinese foreign policy concept for the foreseeable future. As detailed by Renmin University Professor Wang Yiwei, BRI is about to reshape geopolitics, “bringing Eurasia back to its historical place at the center of human civilization.” Wang has shown how “the two great civilizations of the East and the West were linked until the rise of the Ottoman Empire cut off the Ancient Silk Road”.
“.. probably couldn’t find his way home after dark.”
A survey conducted by the Convention of States Action in partnership with The Trafalgar Group has found that an overall majority of Americans do not believe that Joe Biden is executing the duties of his office or running policy, and that “others” are doing it in his place. The poll found that 56.5% of American voters do not believe Biden is fully executing the duties of his office, with only 36.4% saying they believe he is directing all policy and agenda. Even close to one third of Democrats (31.7%) said they don’t think Biden is in charge of anything. A whopping 83.6% of Republicans are adamant that Biden isn’t running the show, with 58.4% of Independent voters in agreement.
Mark Meckler, President of Convention of States Action proclaimed that “The American people deserve transparency from the Biden Administration as to the true state of the President’s mental and physical health, and leaders in both parties in Congress need to follow through on this immediately.” “The continued failure to ask hard questions and demand real answers is a disgrace to the foundation of our democracy,” Meckler added. Questions over Biden’s mental health continue to swirl as it is clear he cannot speak for extended periods of time and is often heard asking aides “what am I doing?”
A separate poll by Rasmussen earlier in the year found that 50 percent of Americans are “not confident” Biden is physically and mentally up to the job of being president of the United States. The clear cognitive decline of Biden has caught the attention of foreign media, with Sky News in Australia pointing out earlier this week that Biden “probably couldn’t find his way home after dark.” “Suddenly, the world’s greatest power is in the hands of a slightly dazed bloke who looks like he’s always waking up from heavy anesthesia,” said host Alan Jones.
Pensions and 401(k)’s are the only legit claims on actual money left. Make that “were”.
As the private equity industry launches ads to protect its lucrative tax preferences, we should remember that this industry is the unseen man behind the curtain driving many social ills — from high hospital prices to surprise medical bills to nursing home deaths to media layoffs to a housing crisis that has become a human rights emergency. A Businessweek cover put it best: You live in private equity’s world, even if you don’t know it. But a series of new reports remind us that there is another person behind the monocled, mustache-twirling oligarch running the Emerald City’s secret control panel — and that person isn’t a billionaire. It is the faceless pension official in a state capital or city hall who is using workers’ retirement savings to finance the Wall Street takeover of Oz.
In the process, teachers, firefighters, sanitation workers, and other government employees are being fleeced. Their retirement savings are being skimmed by finance industry executives, who are using the cash to lobby for self-enriching tax breaks while waging a class war on everyone else. All that money could end up bankrolling a new round of housing profiteering and infrastructure privatization, using workers’ money to wage a war on workers themselves. [..] In the popular imagination, a pension is known, if at all, as a shitty European hotel, a pool of extra cash that Gordon Gekko tried to pilfer in the Bluestar Airlines deal, or a small bit of subsistence pay that grandpa used to get back in the day, when times were different. But here’s the thing you need to know: Public pensions are a huge business and quite exciting to the world’s richest people in the here and now.
That’s because while fewer and fewer workers today get pension benefits, there is now $5 trillion in public pension systems that have accrued government workers’ retirement savings over decades. That giant pool of capital, overseen by appointees tied to Wall Street-bankrolled politicians, is the fuel behind the finance industry’s conquest of America. Pension money is deferred compensation: Millions of public-sector workers — who are often paid less than their private-sector counterparts — have accepted lower up-front wages in exchange for pension contributions to fund their future retirement benefits. Two decades after pension officials began funneling more of that money into private equity, hedge funds, and real estate, roughly one fifth, or about $1 trillion, of the cash is now in these opaque “alternative” investments.
These investments generate outsized fees for financial firms, bankroll the Wall Street’s political machine, and capitalize the corporations that are pillaging the middle class.
But not hard or fast enough.
Pleas for Julian Assange to be freed from prison are being stepped up amid warnings that the WikiLeaks founder is suffering “severe psychological abuse”. The United States administration is appealing against a UK court decision in January not to extradite him, but no date has been set for the hearing, so Mr Assange remains in Belmarsh prison. His legal team said on Wednesday that permission to appeal has been granted by the High Court on a limited basis, allowing only “narrow, technical grounds”. Mr Assange’s fiancee, Stella Moris, said: “Six months ago, Judge Vanessa Baraitser blocked the extradition of my partner, Julian Assange, because consigning him to the US prison system would have amounted to signing his death warrant. That should have been the end of it.
“The case is rotten to the core, and nothing that the US government can say about his future treatment is worth the paper it is written on. This is a country whose agents plotted to kill Julian on British soil, who harried his solicitors and stole legal documents; who even targeted our six-month-old baby. “I am appealing directly to the Biden government to do the right thing, even at this late stage. This case should not be dragged out for a moment longer. End this prosecution, protect free speech and let Julian come home to his family. “The current administration admits that the Trump Department of Justice lacked independence. It seems inconceivable that President Biden would want to continue with this case – because Julian’s freedom is coupled to all our freedoms, and no democratic society can ever make journalism a crime.
“If the Biden Administration does not end this now, the case will limp through the courts while Julian remains in prison indefinitely, unconvicted, suffering and isolated, while our young children are denied their father.” Speaking to journalists outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Wednesday, having visited Mr Assange in Belmarsh earlier in the day, Ms Moris said: “The High Court delivered its decision that it will allow limited permission for the US Government to appeal January’s decision to block Julian’s extradition. “That means he is still at risk of extradition where he faces a 175-year prison sentence and, according to (Judge Baraitser), is certain to lose his life if he is extradited. “The US Government should have accepted the Magistrates’ Court’s decision – instead, it keeps this case going.
“The case is itself falling apart. The lead witness of the US Department of Justice now admits that he lied in exchange for immunity from US prosecutors. The lawyers of Julian were spied on, their offices were broken in to. Even our six-month-old baby was targeted while he was in the embassy. “And now the High Court has limited the grounds on which they are to appeal, so the case is falling apart.”
We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, you are now not just a reader, but an integral part of the process that builds this site. Thank you for your support.
The milky way perfectly aligned with the temple of Karnak in Egypt
TUCKER: "Late this spring I contacted a couple of people I thought could help us get an interview with the Russian President Vladimir Putin. I told nobody I was doing this other than my executive producer… The Biden administration found out anyway by reading my emails." pic.twitter.com/RxkJtEiqG2
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 8, 2021
Support the Automatic Earth in virustime. Click at the top of the sidebars to donate with Paypal and Patreon.