A True the Vote investigation found a widespread effort to stuff ballot boxes and ballot harvest in the 2020 election in Georgia. One whistleblower admitted to being paid $10 per ballot to stuff ballot boxes and made $45,000 from both the November election and the recall election in Georgia months later. The Gateway Pundit Reports–
“The Georgia ballot trafficking whistleblower reportedly admitted to making $45,000 for stuffing Georgia ballot boxes from 2 to 5 AM in the morning. He was just one of 242 alleged ballot traffickers identified by the True the Vote investigation. There is a possibility of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of ballots that were stuffed into the ballot boxes in Georgia!”
Radio host John Fredericks went on Steve Bannon’s War Room Podcast to discuss the new findings:
John Fredericks: Here’s the bottom line. You can’t ballot harvest in Georgia. What turned this around is that a whistleblower in Georgia came forward. On the tapes, they identified 240 of the same people going around the state stuffing ballot drop boxes between 2 and 5 AM… where they were emptying backpacks out and they were dropping 50, 100 ballots into a dropbox. This is totally illegal… Here’s the bottom line, right? The one whistleblower that came forward because allegedly his mom said, hey what you’re doing is wrong and you need to be honest about it. Own up to it. He said that he was paid $10 per ballot… And he made $45,000 between November 3rd and the runoff. In two elections he made $45,000!… Now do the math.
He said this was the average payout. There were 240 people of the same ones over and over in the same car involved in it. You start doing the math here. 45,000 time 240 people… You’ve got $11 million dollars distributed illegally. Then you take 4500 ballots by 240 people. You’re talking about a million ballots!”
Was the government of Australia aware of the US Central Intelligence Agency plot to assassinate Julian Assange, an Australian citizen and journalist arrested and now imprisoned under unrelentingly bleak, harsh conditions in the UK?
Why have the country’s elected leaders refused to publicly advocate for one of its citizens, who has been held on dubious charges and subjected to torture by a foreign power, according to UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer? What does Canberra know about Julian’s fate and when did it know it?
The Grayzone has obtained documents revealing that the Australian government has since day one been well-aware of Julian’s cruel treatment inside London’s maximum security Belmarsh Prison, and has done little to nothing about it. It has, in fact, turned a cold shoulder to the jailed journalist despite hearing his testimony of conditions “so bad that his mind was shutting down.”
Not only has Canberra failed to effectively challenge the US and UK governments overseeing Assange’s imprisonment and prosecution; as these documents expose in stark detail, it appears to have colluded with them in the flagrant violation of an Australian citizen’s human rights, while doing its best to obscure the reality of his situation from the public.
On knowledge of CIA plot against Assange, Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs issues snide non-denial denial
In the wake of Yahoo News’ startling September revelations of CIA plans to surveil, kidnap, and even kill WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, which confirmed and built upon a May 2020 exposé by The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal, officials in the NATO-oriented ‘Five Eyes’ global spying network struggled to get their stories straight.
William Evanina, Washington’s top counterintelligence officer until his retirement in early 2021, told Yahoo the Five Eyes alliance was “critical” to Langley’s dastardly plot, and “we were very confident” that Julian’s potential escape from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London could be prevented, by hook or by crook.
When asked whether the US had ever briefed or consulted the government of Julian’s native Australia on the operation, however, Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) dodged the question. For his part, Malcolm Turnbull, the Australian Prime Minister at the time of these deadly deliberations, claimed, “the first I heard about this was in today’s media.”
It is certainly possible that elected officials in Canberra were kept in the dark about the CIA’s proposals. Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was unaware of the very existence of Five Eyes until 1973, 17 years after his country became a signatory to the network’s underpinning UKUSA agreement, following police raids on the offices of domestic spying agency the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, due to its withholding of information from the government.
Whether or not Turnbull was aware of the operation, DFAT’s response when a member of Julian’s family contacted the Department demanding Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne ask the Biden administration to drop the charges against him, and seeking comment on the Yahoo article, was disturbingly flippant.
“Just because it’s written in a newspaper doesn’t mean it’s true…the CIA has been accused of a lot of things, including faking the Moon landing,” a DFAT official quipped in a classic non-denial denial.
These crude remarks were recorded in a letter sent to Payne by John Shipton, Julian’s father. The missive is just one of many documents provided exclusively to Grayzone by Kellie Tranter, Julian’s legal authority in Australia.
For years, Tranter has filed freedom of information requests with the Australian government in a campaign to uncover its true position on Julian, and to what extent its intimate alliance with Washington has limited its ability or willingness to push for his freedom.
The documents acquired by Tranter expose Canberra as anything but an advocate for Assange, the Australian citizen. Instead, throughout Julian’s time in the Ecuadorian Embassy, and imprisonment at Her Majesty’s Pleasure in Belmarsh high security prison – “Britain’s Gitmo” – the Australian government has been determinedly committed to seeing, hearing, and speaking no evil in his regard, despite possessing clear evidence of his dramatically waning physical and mental health, and the torturous conditions of his confinement.
Assange informs Canberra of US violations of his rights: ‘This action was illegal’
The records of a brief visit by Australian consulate officers to Belmarsh on May 17th 2019, one month after Assange’s dramatic expulsion from the Embassy, are especially illustrative of Canberra’s attitude. Over the course of that meeting, Assange spoke in detail about prison conditions and his 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement.
“He remains in his cell most of the day, with 40 minutes allocated each day for ‘associations’,” the Australian consular officials noted. “He is allowed outside for 30 minutes each day, although he said at times this does not happen,” for reasons unstated. Unable to eat at all “for a long period,” he was now ingesting “small amounts”, collecting meals from the kitchen and returning to his cell.
Permitted just two personal visits each month, plus legal consultations, Assange mentioned his recent meeting with Nils Melzer and two medical experts specialized in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment, and that he had so far been unable to speak to his family.
The WikiLeaks co-founder eschewed work programs “which would afford him the opportunity to get out of his cell more often,” according to the diplomats, on the grounds that he refused to engage in “slave labour” and needed time to prepare his legal case. Prisoners in British jails earn an average of $13 per week for hard, thankless toil on behalf of big business, which in turn profits immensely from their rank exploitation.
While mercifully prescribed antibiotics and codeine by prison doctors for an infected root canal, which can be life-threatening in the event the infection spreads, Assange was still waiting on reading glasses and had yet to see an optometrist. The jailed journalist went on to describe how one senior officer “has it in for me,” showing his visitors a charge sheet indicating that a search of his cell uncovered a razor blade, and he’d failed to tidy it after an inspection.
A third infraction of any sort “would result in exercise privileges being withdrawn,” the document states. Possibly fearing reprisal, Assange asked that officials not raise these matters with prison authorities. Evidently, what might typically be considered an unambiguous indication of suicidal intentions was instead logged as a simple disciplinary matter.
Adding to his psychological toll, Assange reported that he had undergone blood tests, and been advised he was HIV-positive, a shocking diagnosis. However, subsequent examinations confirmed the test result to be a false positive, forcing Assange to wonder if the misdiagnosis was a mere error, or “something else.” It could well have been a grotesquely sick mind game, perhaps alluding to the bogus sexual assault allegations he had faced in Sweden, and intended to drive him toward madness.
Assange also presented the Australian consular officials with a recently-published UK Home Office deportation notice, informing him then-Secretary of State Sajid Javid had determined under the 1971 UK Immigration Act that his presence in the UK “was not conducive to the public interest, and he would be removed from the UK without delay,” with no chance of appealing the decision.
“Mr. Assange expressed concern about surviving the current process and fears he would die if taken to the US. He claimed the US was going through his possessions that had remained at the Ecuadorian Embassy. He said that this action was illegal,” the officers wrote. “He stated that his possessions included two valuable artworks he planned to sell to raise funds for his legal defence, the manuscripts of two books, and legal papers. He expressed concern his legal material would be used against him by the US.”
Assange was correct that sensitive documents were stolen by US authorities. Immediately following his arrest, his attorney Gareth Peirce contacted the Ecuadorian Embassy regarding this privileged material, demanding it be handed over as a matter of urgency. When at last his property was collected, all legal papers were missing save for two volumes of Supreme Court files “and a number of pages of loose correspondence,” making his extradition defense an even greater challenge than it already was.
Over the course of Julian’s initial extradition hearings in early 2020, assistant US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Gordon Kromberg implausibly pledged a “taint team” would excise material from these files so it would not be used in any resultant trial. Similarly feeble “assurances” of this ilk were offered during the recent appeal proceedings.
Conversely, there has so far been no unconvincing public guarantee against the abuse of any information illicitly obtained by UC Global, a CIA contractor, from its extensive surveillance of the Embassy. The Spanish private security firm went as far as bugging the building’s female bathroom, where the WikiLeaks founder conducted discussions with his lawyers, away from prying ears and eyes – or so he hoped.
Despite his situation, Julian somehow retained a vague shred of optimism about the future in discussions with consular officials, suggesting that the result of Australia’s federal election, which was held the very next day, “may present a window for a new government to do something supportive for his case,” asking that Marise Payne be briefed on developments.
As it was, Scott Morrison’s Liberal National Coalition retained its grip on power – and no alarm was publicly raised about anything learned over the course of the consular visit. Indeed, remaining tight-lipped on Julian’s suffering, no matter how horrendous, was to be a matter of dedicated policy.
Australia’s DFAT denies any role in “progressively severe abuse” of Assange
On May 30th that year, WikiLeaks’ made the shock announcement that Julian had been moved to Belmarsh’s medical ward, expressing “grave concerns” about the state of his health. Almost immediately, DFAT’s Global Watch Office fired off an internal email drawing attention to the post.
The following day, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Nils Melzer proclaimed “the collective persecution of Julian Assange must end here and now!” The international legal veteran added that, “in 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution,” he had “never seen a group of democratic states ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonize and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.”
Next, Melzer fulminated against a “relentless and unrestrained campaign of public mobbing, intimidation and defamation” by the US, UK, Sweden and Ecuador, which had subjected him to “persistent, progressively severe abuse ranging from systematic judicial persecution and arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy.”
In response, Australia’s DFAT issued a statement rejecting any suggestion Canberra was “complicit in psychological torture or has shown a lack of consular support” in Assange’s regard, claiming to be “a staunch defender of human rights and strong advocate for humane treatment in the course of judicial processes,” and expressing confidence that he was “being treated appropriately.”
Due to “privacy considerations” allegedly extended to all consular clients, the Department declined to divulge any further details related to his physical or mental state.
It added that the Australian High Commission in London “previously raised any health concerns identified with Belmarsh prison authorities and these have been addressed,” with further inquiries made following Julian’s move to the health ward.
The documents provided to The Grayzone indicate Canberra did indeed make repeated enquiries to Belmarsh by phone and mail in the wake of Wikileaks’ announcement, all of which went unanswered for six straight days. So why did Australia’s High Commissioner not intervene, and demand immediate clarity on an issue of literal life-and-death urgency?
Whatever the reason for the Australian government’s foot-dragging, a consular file dated August 8th that year records how Shipton wrote to advise that Julian had been readmitted to Belmarsh’s sick bay, and a lawyer was drafting a letter to Marise Payne, requesting DFAT “use its diplomatic sources to seek an independent medical assessment (ie outside the prison).”
Then, 11 days later, Shipton mentioned that Julian’s brother, Gabriel, had recently visited the prison and was distressed by Assange’s “deteriorating condition,” leading him to write letters to both Australian Governor General David Hurley and Morrison raising his fears.
On October 21st, Assange appeared in court for a pre-trial hearing in his extradition case. As was widely reported in the mainstream media, he appeared frail and discombobulated, struggling to recall his own name and date of birth when asked by the judge. When the presiding justice enquired whether he even knew what was happening, Assange responded, “not exactly,” indicating conditions in Belmarsh left him unable to “think properly.”
“I don’t understand how this is equitable,” the imprisoned journalist stated. “I can’t research anything, I can’t access any of my writing. It’s very difficult where I am.”
Assange’s attorney, Mark Summers, argued that his initial extradition hearing, scheduled for February 2020, should be delayed by three months due to the complexity of the case – “the evidence…would test the limits of most lawyers,” he said, and discussed the immense difficulty of communicating with his client in the jail, given he lacked access to a computer.
The judge denied the request. As a result, Julian would be deprived of “the most basic of access to the bare minimum needs for proper representation” until just weeks prior to the hearing.
Assange attorney warns Australia’s DFAT of “impending crisis”
Three days later, Assange attorney Gareth Peirce wrote to the High Commission, asserting that if consular representatives had attended court, “they will have undoubtedly noted what was clear for everyone present in court to observe” – that her client was “in shockingly poor condition…struggling not only to cope but to articulate what he wishes to articulate.”
Unbelievably, a DFAT report on the proceedings unearthed by Tranter made no mention whatsoever of Julian’s disheveled appearance, or his clearly frayed mental state.
Peirce went on to argue that under the circumstances, it was unsurprising Julian had not authorized prison officials to provide the Australian government with information regarding his medical treatment, which had been “been grossly and unlawfully compromised over some time, including, disturbingly, even whilst he has been in Belmarsh prison, false information on at least one occasion having been provided to the press by very obviously internal sources.”
“We hope that what we are able to say…will be accepted by you as having been based on close observation, including by independent professional clinicians..Every professional warning provided to the prison, including by at least one independent doctor called in by Belmarsh, has been ignored,” she wrote. “We would be pleased to meet with you at any stage if by intervention in what is now an impending crisis [emphasis added], you can contribute to its amelioration and avoidance.”
And so it was that consular officials visited Belmarsh November 1st. In their exchange, Assange criticized false statements made to the media by DFAT which suggested he had rejected offers of their support.
Next, he revealed that a prison doctor was “concerned” about his condition. In fact, Assange said his psychological state was “so bad that his mind was shutting down,” with his near-permanent isolation making it impossible for him “to think or to prepare his defence.”
He did not even have a pen with which to write, was unable to do any research, could not receive documents during legal visits, and all his mail was read by prison officials before it was given to him.
The next month, Professor Michael Kopelman, emeritus professor of neuropsychiatry at King’s College London, prepared a report on Julian’s psychiatric state based on meetings throughout his first six months in Belmarsh, conversations with his parents, friends, colleagues and Stella Morris, his partner and mother of his two children.
As was revealed in Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s January ruling on the US extradition request, Kopelman diagnosed Julian with a severe recurrent depressive disorder, which was occasionally accompanied by psychotic features such as hallucinations, and frequent suicidal thoughts.
His symptoms furthermore included loss of sleep and weight, impaired concentration, a persistent feeling of being on the verge of tears, and state of acute agitation in which he paced his cell until exhausted, punching his head or banging it against the wall.
Assange commented to Kopelman that he believed his life was not worth living, he thought about suicide “hundreds of times a day,” and had a “constant desire” to self-harm or commit suicide, describing plans to kill himself that the professor considered “highly plausible.”
Calls to The Samaritans, a UK charity helpline providing emotional support to those in emotional distress, struggling to cope, or at risk of suicide, were “virtually” a nightly occurrence, and on occasions when he had not been able to reach them, Assange had slashed his thigh and abdomen to distract from his sense of isolation.
Kopelman concluded that, if Assange was held in solitary confinement in the US for a prolonged period, his mental health would “deteriorate substantially resulting in persistently severe clinical depression and the severe exacerbation of his anxiety disorder, PTSD and suicidal ideas,” not least because various “protective factors” available to him in the UK would be absent Stateside.
“For example, he speaks to his partner by telephone nearly every day and, before lockdown, was visited by her and his children, various friends, his father, and other relatives…[Kopelman] considered there to be an abundance of known risk factors indicating a very high risk of suicide,” Baraitser recorded. “He stated, ‘I am as confident as a psychiatrist ever can be that, if extradition to the US were to become imminent, Mr. Assange will find a way of suiciding.’”
The professor’s reports were fundamental to the extradition order’s rejection – a surprising outcome, given Baraitser previously approved extradition in 96% of cases upon which she has ruled.
Nonetheless, she accepted every other argument and charge put forward by the Department of Justice, in effect criminalizing a great many entirely legitimate journalistic activities, and setting the chilling precedent that citizens of any country can be extradited to the US for alleged breaches of its national laws, therefore implying Washington’s legal jurisdiction is global in scale.
Files on Australia’s DFAT discussions with US Secretary of State redacted in full
In response to the ruling, Australia’s Shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus issued a forceful statement, declaring the opposition Labor party believed “this has dragged on for long enough,” particularly given Julian’s “ill-health,” and demanding the Morrison administration “do what it can to draw a line under this matter and encourage the US government to bring this matter to a close.”
Conversely, DFAT published a characteristically laconic, soulless note, stating merely that Australia was “not a party to the case and will continue to respect the ongoing legal process,” and rehashing previous false claims that Julian had rejected multiple offers of consular assistance.
Canberra was simply silent when in June, the Icelandic publication Stundin revealed in detail how a “superseding indictment” levelled against Assange in September 2020, which charged that he and others at WikiLeaks “recruited and agreed with hackers to commit computer intrusions,” was based largely on the admittedly false testimony of fraudster, diagnosed sociopath and convicted pedophile Siggi Thordarson, who had previously embezzled vast sums from WikiLeaks and been recruited by the FBI to undermine its founder from within.
There is good reason to believe the Australian government knew the indictment was coming. In July that year, Foreign Minister Payne met with CIA director Mike Pompeo at an Australia–US Ministerial Consultations convention, “the principal forum for bilateral consultations” between the country and the US.
Tranter submitted freedom of information requests for details of that rendezvous, but the documents she received in return were fully redacted. As were files released to her relating to the Foreign Minister’s summit with Secretary of State Antony Blinken in May 2021.
It was almost certain that Assange was a subject of these meetings. DFAT claims Payne “raised the situation” when she met Blinken again in September, and the minister herself alleges she specifically discussed Australia’s “expectations” regarding Assange’s treatment with UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab when he visited Canberra in February 2020. Tranter requested records related to this meeting too, but was told none existed.
Upon Julian’s arrest, Prime Minister Morrison alleged he would receive “the same treatment that any other Australian would get.”
“When Australians travel overseas and then find themselves in difficulties with the law, they face the judicial systems of those countries,” Morrison said. “It doesn’t matter what particular crime it is that they’re alleged to have committed, that’s the way the system works.”
However, an internal email dated April 5th 2019 secured by Tranter from the Australian Attorney General’s office was shot through with contempt for the Wikileaks co-founder. The note asserted, “FYI – Assange might be evicted. Not sure if his lawyers will make any (not very convincing) [emphasis added] arguments about Australia’s responsibilities to him but thought it was worth flagging.”
As usual, Australian officials said nothing in public about Assange’s imminent abduction.
Assange’s treatment, and the total lack of outrage over his incarceration, prison conditions, blatant procedural abuses engaged in by Washington in their relentless pursuit of him, and CIA plans to kidnap and/or murder the WikiLeaks founder, diverges starkly from Australia’s approach to Kylie Moore-Gilbert, an Australian-British academic jailed in Iran for 10 years on questionable charges of espionage in September 2018.
Behind the scenes, Australian diplomats struggled for almost two years to secure her release, eventually brokering a prisoner swap, under which she was traded for three Iranian inmates in Thailand – two of whom were convicted in connection with a 2012 bombing plot in Bangkok. In a statement, Foreign Minister Payne expressed relief that Moore-Gilbert was finally free as a result of “professional and determined work,” noting Canberra had “consistently rejected” the grounds on which she was detained.
Meanwhile, the Australian government has consistently reinforced Washington’s position on Assange. In fact, officials have on occasion gone even further than their US counterparts in publicly condemning him and his actions.
In December 2010, then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard declared WikiLeaks’ release of US diplomatic cables meant Assange was “guilty of illegality,” and that Federal Police were investigating, to offer “advice about potential criminal conduct of the individual involved.” To be fair to Canberra though, elected representatives there may effectively have no choice in the matter.
According to investigative journalist Duncan Campbell, each Five Eyes member theoretically has the right to veto a request for signals intelligence collected on an individual, group or organization collected by another. However, Campbells explained, “when you’re a junior ally like Australia or New Zealand, you never refuse,” even in situations when there are concerns about what ostensible allies may do with that sensitive information.
The documents obtained by Tranter and provided to The Grayzone provide an unobstructed view of the Australian junior ally’s betrayal of one of its citizens to the imperial power that has hunted him for years. As Julian Assange’s rights were violated at every turn, Canberra appears to have been complicit.
Former Deutsche Bank AG traders Cedric Chanu and James Vorley were convicted for manipulating gold and silver prices on Friday after three days of deliberation by a Federal jury in Chicago.
The two were accused of making fake trade orders between 2008 and 2013 to influence the prices of precious metals. Their trial was a week long and was the first of its kind since 2010, according to Bloomberg.
The convictions come as the result of a crackdown on “spoofing”, placing orders with no intention of executing them, in order to move the price of the underlying product. Spoofing works by fooling the market into thinking there are more bids or offers than are legitimately there. It has been illegal since 2010’s Dodd-Frank act.
Chanu and Vorley were said to have “weaponized” this tactic to mislead other traders, according to prosecutor Brian Young. The traders knew what they were doing, the prosecution argued, with Vorley even writing in a message to Chanu at one point: “This spoofing is annoying me. It’s illegal for a start.”
A co-worker at Deutsche Bank acted as witness during the trial and told the jury that Chanu and Vorley taught him how to manipulate prices by spoofing. The defendants didn’t call any witnesses but instead raised the issue of how difficult it was to try and prove criminal intent for “spoofing” in competitive global markets.
“If you fake a pass and run the ball, that’s competition, not fraud,” Vorley’s lawyer said.
Chanu was convicted on seven counts of fraud and Vorley was convicted of three counts. They were found not guilty on charges of conspiracy. The government has said they are going to seek about four or five years of jail for each person. Vorley said he will appeal and that he was trading “well within the law”.
Vorley’s lawyer said: “It was a compromise verdict by a jury that three times declared it was deadlocked, deliberating in the face of a Covid scare. The record is clear there was no fraud. The compromise conviction will not stand.”
Chinese virologist Dr. Li Meng Yan, who recently fled China, claims she has evidence that proves COVID-19 was manmade. What are the implications of this virus being manmade if it indeed is? What would this change about the narrative if the WHO has known this for some time?
Dr. Li-Meng Yan, a Chinese virologist and whistleblower, claims she will soon be publishing proof that COVID-19 was manmade. She believes her evidence will be so clear that even non-scientists will be able to verify the data. Previously, Dr. Yan has said that the Chinese government and the World Health Organization knew about person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 much earlier than reported. She fled China to the US to continue exploring her research.
“The genome sequence is like a human finger print’, and based on this you can identify these things. I will [use this] evidence to tell people why this has come from the lab in China, why they are the ones who made it.
Anyone, even if you have no biology knowledge, will be able to read it, and check and identify and verify it yourself.”
Dr. Yan was initially asked by a supervisor at the university she worked at in China to begin exploring a pocket of SARS cases that had popped up in Mainland China. At the time, it was looking like a new type of pneumonia.
“I was a medical doctor and PHD, I work with a bunch of the top experts in the world and because I had my two degrees from mainland China, I was the one assigned to do the secret investigation about new pneumonia in Wuhan.
During my investigation, what I found I reported to my supervisor, there was no response, because everyone was worried. So I kept silent, I knew I had to tell people because it’s urgent and on the account of a famous Chinese YouTuber in the US it was told to the world [that] China had discovered the Covid situation and [that] human to human transmission already exists.
I never thought this would happen when I did the secret investigation, I [thought] I would speak to my supervisor and they would do the right thing on behalf of the government.
But what I saw was nobody responding to that. People are scared of the government but this was something urgent, and Chinese New Year time, [I knew] this was a dangerous virus and all these things meant I could not keep silent, there are human beings and global health [at risk].”
Following her experience with the virus, and her desire to blow the whistle about what she claimed to be a coverup, she began to share what was going on. She claims that this was when her information was wiped from government databases and that her peers were ‘told to spread rumours about her’.
‘They deleted all my information and also they told people to spread rumours about me, that I’m a liar, I don’t know anything, I just killed a hamster in the lab. They will try to control my family and friends and then suddenly I don’t exist.”
Dr. Yan was based at a prestigious Hong Kong University, it was a key part of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) global epidemiology network.
The Chinese national health commission still denies the COVID-19 outbreak started in the lab in Wuhan, saying there is no evidence the new coronavirus was created in a laboratory. However, if Dr. Yan indeed publishes her findings and it tells a different story, this could be a breakthrough in the COVID narrative many have suspected was eventually going to surface.
The Importance of Journalism
This is one of the challenges with traditional or mainstream media; it is complacent with narratives from government, and often does not seek to explore other or more controversial ideas that can have a big impact on the world. In many ways, true journalism is no longer done at the mainstream media or traditional media level, it’s simply reporting on what facts have been handed down from government or major world organizations.
To this traditional narrative, it’s nothing but baseless conspiracy theories that COVID-19 started in a lab, regardless of the fact that there are multiple pieces of evidence that tell a different story, and even the fact that there are whistleblowers who tell a different story.
Because of this, it becomes complicated when alternative media decides to follow up on leads, whistleblowers, or claims that there is more to a particular story, and publishes something about it. Without even making sweeping claims, fact-checkers are deployed to determine whether or not the information alternative media shares is indeed factual, using mainstream media or traditional media sources to debunk the alternative media claims. This of course leads to calling alternative media false and untrustworthy.
This is why the idea that COVID-19 could have been manmade has not been thoroughly discussed, because traditional media and fact-checkers already have claimed it’s not true, even without evidence other than major institutions claiming it wasn’t. It’s important to note no one is holding these major institutions accountable nor fact-checking them.
What Are The Implications?
Why does it matter? If COVID-19 was manmade, what would change about our current situation? Motive aside, it would show us that our desire to tinker with and create viruses that could harm people, perhaps for biological warfare or other reasons, can have undesired effects. Perhaps we do begin to question whether there is a greater motive. Was it released by accident? On purpose? Who would gain from this? If they created it, have they created others? Is there already a vaccine? Why hasn’t the public been told the truth?
This would be one of the biggest implications to me, the fact that people would now know that government lied, public health lied, and the media was complacent in holding no one accountable. This would lead us to question many other aspects of our society, who has humanity’s best interest at hand, and what we collectively wish to change as a result of knowing more about what we were purposefully not told.
It has become imperative to watch multiple sources of media if you wish to explore what is going on in our world. The mainstream institutions of media lack both real journalism and contextual understanding of corruption that exists within government and major world organizations, leaving them out of touch when it comes to answering the world’s important questions.
As people, it is also important we become self-aware of how ideological we can become about our mainstream or alternative beliefs about the world. Truly staying open, dynamic and flexible in our thinking and making sense of the world is a crucial part of digesting media. These stories change how we operate on a day to day level in life. Greater responsibility is being called upon within people to engage with what is happening in our world so we don’t continue down a path of more authoritarian control and division.
We have a deep discussion about remaining self-aware and steering clear of ideological positions in a recent interview I did with Dr. Madhava Setty about 9/11, consciousness and more. Check it out here.
John Perkins describes the methods he used to bribe and threaten the heads of state of countries on four continents in order to create a global empire and he reveals how the leaders who did not “play the game” were assassinated or overthrown. He brings us up to date about the way the economic hit man system has spread from developing countries to the US, Europe, and the rest of the world and offers a strategy for turning this around.
“Each of us,” he says, “can participate in this exciting revolution. We can transform a system that is consuming itself into extinction into one that is sustainable and regenerative.” John’s books, including The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, have sold over a million copies, spent more than 70 weeks on the New York Times bestseller lists, and are published in more than 30 languages. As Chief Economist at a major consulting firm, his experiences advising the World Bank, UN, IMF, U.S. government, Fortune 500 corporations, and heads of state convinced him to devote his life to facilitating changes in social, political, and economic systems, as well as in general consciousness. He was founder and CEO of a highly successful alternative energy company and is a founder and board member of Dream Change and The Pachamama Alliance, nonprofits dedicated to creating a sustainable, just, peaceful, and thriving world. John’s courage in writing his books and speaking out against his former bosses exemplifies the courage shown by our Founding Fathers and Mothers when they stood up to the British Empire. Like them, John defied threats and bribes and took action. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community.
EDITORS NOTE: Strange that Snowden has gotten so much press in comparison to Julian Assange and Seth Rich. There is a lot of speculation that Snowden was a plant at the NSA and is the CIA’s own brand of Assange, who by the way is still set to testify. Is this possibly setting the stage for an Assange pardon?
President Donald Trump told reporters on Saturday he is considering a pardon for Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor who leaked a giant trove of U.S. national secrets in 2013.
“I’m going to start looking at it,” Trump said at a news conference in Bedminster, New Jersey.
Snowden fled to Russia and was given asylum in 2013 after his leaks exposed a vast domestic and international surveillance operation carried out by the NSA. U.S. authorities have since sought to have Snowden return to face criminal espionage charges.
Snowden’s attorney said the United States should not only pardon his client but drop all prosecutions since Snowden has not committed any crimes.
“He was acting not only in the interest of the American citizens, but in the interest of all the humankind,” the attorney, Anatoly Kucherena, said.
Shortly after media stories about Snowden’s leaks emerged in 2013, Trump called him “a spy who should be executed.”
The president said on Aug. 15 he thinks Americans on both the political left and the right are divided on Snowden.
“It seems to be a split decision,” Trump said. “Many people think he should be somehow treated differently. And other people think he did very bad things.”
Snowden’s leaks exposed domestic spying operations that U.S. officials claimed not to exist.
The U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit last September against Snowden, arguing that the memoir he published last year, titled “Permanent Record,” violated non-disclosure agreements.
The Justice Department said Snowden published the book without submitting it to intelligence agencies for review, adding that speeches given by Snowden also violated nondisclosure agreements.
Snowden has previously said he is willing to return to the United States if the government would guarantee a fair trial.
Snowden’s revelations about the NSA, Britain’s GCHQ, and other intelligence agencies set off an international debate about spies’ powers to monitor personal communications, and about the balance between security and privacy. Critics say his disclosures harmed the ability of the United States and its allies to fight terrorism.
A federal court ruled in 2015 that the NSA’s metadata surveillance program that Snowden exposed was illegal. The program collected information on at least 80 percent of all the phone calls made or received by Americans. President Barack Obama signed legislation the same year to terminate the program. Snowden called the decision “a historic victory for the rights of every citizen.”
The NSA still operates PRISM, a program which collects communications from internet providers.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.Follow Ivan on Twitter: @ivanpentchoukov
The Bulgarian Pathology Association has taken the stance that the testing used to identify the new coronavirus in patients is “scientifically meaningless.” This comes after the president of the Bulgarian Pathology Association, Dr. Stoian Alexov, said that European pathologists haven’t identified any antibodies that are specific for SARS-CoV-2.
He criticized the World Health Organization (WHO) and called them “a criminal medical organization” for creating fear and hysteria without, according to him, providing any verifiable scientific proof of a pandemic. He made these statements sharing his observations in a video interview summarizing the consensus of participants in a webinar on COVID-19 on May 8, 2020, with the European Society of Pathology. It was conducted by Dr. Stoycho Katsarov, chair of the Center for Protection of Citizens’ Rights in Sofia and a former Bulgarian deputy minister of health. The video is on the BPA’s website, which also highlights some of Dr. Alexov’s key points.
This may seem confusing as it goes against information that’s been published. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) claims that “Potent antibodies found in people recovered from COVID-19.” (source) So it’s understandable how many people would not agree with the stance of the association, and claim that it is indeed false, and that’s an understandable perception, but should we dismiss the reasoning? They are experts in their field.
According to Alexov, himself and his colleagues have not been able to determine a different pathology of those whom they’ve examined that have said to have passed away from Covid-19 compared to those who passed away from the flu.
Things become more clear as to why the Association has taken the position it has, when we take a look at the science, and an article that goes into more detail.
Why This Is Important/The Science
Is this “fake news?” No, because it’s quite clear that the Bulgarian Pathology Association does take this stance. The fact that they said “COVID-19 PCR tests are scientifically meaningless” is true. Whether or not they are correct, would obviously be heavily debated given the fact that again, it seems quite clear that antibodies have indeed been identified. Or have they?
So, what’s their reasoning for such a statement?
They cite an article published in “Off Guardian” that makes some very interesting points. Below is a tidbit from what the article has in it, you really have to actually read the article to get a full understanding. It’s extremely well-sourced, full of detail and uses not only a number of scientific publications to back up their claims, but also statements from a number of scientists in the field. Again, I recommend you read the entire article here to get the full scope of their reasoning.
In it, they state:
So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.
The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.
They go deep into the science as to why they believe what they do.
We also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea…to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:
[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction […] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”
And that’s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:
I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”
This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus — in this case SARS-CoV-2
They then go on to explain a little deeper the science of PCR testing.
positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite.
Again, it’s easy to see why the Bulgarian Pathology Association cited this article. Once again, to get the full reasoning and picture as to why the testing being used around the world is useless and can’t actually truly identify this virus and people who are infected with it here.
Part of the reason why this information is so shocking to people is that mainstream media has been choosing to only talk about certain topics, thus many people are not aware of how divided the scientific community is on this issue.
What’s going on here? Prior to reading the article linked in this one, it seems that testing was simple, that you simply test, and get a result. You can test for a current viral infection, or test for antibodies. I was actually suspicious earlier on in the pandemic when I came across a publication suggesting that up to 75 percent of asymptomatic people are actually false positives. (source)
This was my first introduction to the thought that the testing may not be accurate. Then, there are other strange facts like fruit and animals testing positive for the virus, which also hints at foul play. You can read more about that here.
Why is there so much controversy surrounding this pandemic? Why are experts in this area being censored if their views and research oppose that of the World Health Organization and our federal health regulatory agencies?
At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves, do we want to keep relying on corrupt organizations for important information about what’s happening? Why does humanity continue to trust organizations that have a lock track record of deceit, fraud and corruption?
Why do we believe that these organizations actually act in humanity’s best interests? Why are claims constantly made by these organizations, and simply believed, even when there is so much evidence that counters what we are getting from them?
Why do we continue to follow their instructions, obey and comply even when it’s not clear if these measures are for the best interests of the individual and the whole?
What is going on here?
These are all very important questions to ask, and the coronavirus pandemic has resulted in a lot more people asking a lot more questions.
Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has declassified the list of former Obama administration officials who were allegedly involved in the “unmasking” of then-incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn.
ABC News first reported the news but initially said in the title that Grenell was in the process of trying to declassify the list of Obama officials.
A source with knowledge of the matter told The Daily Wire that the list has already been declassified and now it’s on Attorney General William Barr to release the list.
ABC News appeared to later update their report, which stated:
Grenell, who remains the U.S. ambassador to Germany along with being the acting DNI, visited the Justice Department last week and brought the list with him, according to the official.
His visit indicates his focus on an issue previously highlighted in 2017 by skeptics of the investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia, specifically allegations that former officials improperly unveiled Flynn’s identity from intercepts of his call with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Grenell’s visit came the same week that Attorney General William Barr moved to dismiss the criminal case against Flynn following his guilty plea for lying to the FBI about his conversations with Kislyak.
Fox News reported in 2017 that the disclosing of Flynn’s identity could be “a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison” because “rules state that if an American with Constitutional protections is collaterally caught in such surveillance, his or her identity must be protected.”
In an interview last week, Barr said that the charges against Flynn were dropped because the FBI, which was under the leadership of then-Director James Comey, were not conducting a legitimate law enforcement investigation.
“A crime cannot be established here because there was not, in our view, a legitimate investigation going on,” Barr said. “They did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage, based on a perfectly legitimate and appropriate call he made as a member of the transition.”
When asked if the Obama administration set a trap for Flynn, Barr responded, “Yes. Essentially. They had started a counterintelligence investigation during the summer, as you know, related to the campaign. But in December, the team, the Crossfire Hurricane team, was closing that and determined they had found nothing to justify continuing with that investigation against Flynn.”
“On the very day they prepared the final papers, the seventh floor, that is the director’s office and the deputy director’s office up there, sent down word they should keep that open,” Barr continued. “So that they could try to go and question Flynn about this call he had with the Russian ambassador.”
“This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts. And we’re looking at the whole pattern of conduct,” Barr added. “I think a very important evidence here was that this was not a bona fide counterintelligence investigation – was that they were closing the investigation in December. They started that process. And on January 4th, they were closing it.”
Former President Barack Obama responded to the decision by Barr by saying that he was “worried” that Flynn had been cleared from the illegitimate investigation because the “rule of law is at risk.”
Tara Reade, the woman accusing former Vice President Joe Biden of sexual assault, told Fox News Sunday that she’s “disappointed” in the media — and especially CNN anchor Anderson Cooper — for avoiding asking Biden about her allegations in at least two interviews, calling anchors’ behavior “shocking” and partisan.
Reade made her claims more than a month ago, on a podcast with progressive political commentator Katie Halper. She says Biden sexually assaulted her back in the mid-1990s, when she worked as an aide in his Senate office, and alleges that she was fired when she considered going to authorities to report Biden’s behavior.
Since Reade first went public with her story, “Biden has done nearly a dozen TV interviews with news anchors including NBC News’ Chuck Todd, ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, and twice with Cooper,” Fox News reports, and all of them “failed to ask Biden about [Reade’s] public claim.”
Reade has since filed a criminal complaint with the Washington, D.C., police, even though the statute of limitations on the alleged criminal behavior has long since past, and at least two people have come forward to say that Reade told them about the assault back in the 1990s, providing some evidence of contemporaneous accounts of the attack.
Biden denies the allegations, though he has yet to speak on them publicly. When asked for comment, the Biden campaign refers reporters to a statement issued earlier in April, from Biden’s campaign manager, Kate Bedingfield calling Reade’s claims “untrue.”
Reade’s evidence is thin, but it is more than Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was able to provide in testimony made under oath against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, whom Dr. Ford claims sexually assaulted her during a high school house party when the pair were both teenagers. Dr. Ford’s claims were given far more weight in the media than Reade’s, even though Dr. Ford’s only “witness,” a woman named Leyland Keyser, denied knowing anything about the alleged assault.
According to Reade, the disaprity in treatment of her claims and Dr. Ford’s is evidence of partisanship and protectionism.
“I think it’s shocking that this much time has passed and that he is an actual nominee for president and they’re not asking the questions,” Reade told Fox, exclusively. “He’s been on ‘Anderson Cooper’ at least twice where he was not asked.”
“I guess my question is, if this were Donald Trump, would they treat it the same way? If this were Brett Kavanaugh, did they treat it the same way?” Reade added. “In other words, it’s politics and political agenda playing a role in objective reporting and asking the question.”
Reade says the only reason Biden hasn’t been asked about the sexual assault allegations is because news anchors simply don’t want to bring up a difficult subject for the presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee.
“There are two things happening at once. [Biden] is not making himself accessible to be asked the question,” she said. “And when he does make himself accessible, they are not asking, those anchors. And so that tells there may be a political agenda behind that and that’s gross. … I’m a survivor and I would like the question asked.”
“I really would look to [Cooper] for answers and I would never do that again. I’ve lost total respect,” she added, claiming that Cooper, in particular, is now showing a “blatant bias.”
Anchors may not be able to ignore Reade’s claims much longer, however. On Saturday, it emerged that Reade’s mother called into “Larry King Live” back in the late 1990s to ask the host and his panel how her daughter should handle a claim of “sexual harassment” against a high ranking Washington official.
CNN and others reported the “Larry King Live” interview late Saturday, and using circumstantial evidence, were able to largely substantiate Reade’s claims that her mother was the caller in question.
Underground Newswire DISCLAIMER:
The Underground Newswire operates from the understanding that we are in the midst of a Global information war between the Central Banking system and the loose amalgamation of sub-groups (Wall Street, CIA, Vatican, p2 Masons, Mafia, Etc.) and an Alliance of patriots from many nations (USA, Britain, India, Russia, Brazil, Italy, etc.) who are also working together to remove members of this Cabal from their individual countries. The articles, essays, and political commentaries featured on this website should NOT be taken as the ultimate truth, in fact nothing should be until you can prove it yourself. The Underground Newswire does not seek to convince or sway, rather it is our hope to indicate and suggest without violating the universal and self evident laws of free will and confusion. True objectivity may be impossible (especially these days) and while we have defended Donald Trump on many points, we are not “Pro Conservative” nor are we “Anti-Liberal”, though the accusations have been made and likely will be made again. We’d like first and foremost to suggest that we are all, every one of us, in the midst of a quiet war fought with silent weapons. The fight is world wide, louder in some places than others (think revolutions simultaneously occurring across the globe IE: Hong Kong, France, Iran, Venezuela, ETC.) It is a psychological war, and the front lines are quite literally human hearts and minds.It’s OK to consider things without blindly believing in them.
EDITOR’S UPDATE: Project Veritas has learned that Greg Coppola has been placed on administrative leave by Google.
Senior Google software engineer, Greg Coppola, has dismissed the idea that Big Tech is “politically neutral” and called out his company as “very biased,” joining Project Veritas’ growing stable of whistleblowers. Coppola said that Google has “merged” with the Democrat party.
“I’m very concerned to see Big Tech and Big Media merge basically with a political party, with the Democratic party,” Greg Coppola, a Googler since 2014 who works on the AI Google Assistant, toldProject Veritas. The real question Coppola posed is “Are we going to continue to think for ourselves or are we going to just let the biggest tech companies decide who wins every election from now on?” And according to a report by RT, Coppola says that he knows Google is attempting to manipulate public thought.
With decades of programming experience under his belt (he’s been coding since age 10, he said) Coppola wanted to inform the masses of his growing certainty about Google’s political slant.Algorithms “don’t write themselves – we write them to do what we want them to do,” he pointed out, explaining that even AI machine learning is “just a tool that we control.” Coppola chose Google News as an example to prove his point. Google News is a news aggregator that draws from “just a handful of sites, and all those sites are vitriolically against President Trump, which I really consider to be interference in the American election.”
Coppola says that Google began its censorship campaign and election meddling for the 2016 Presidential elections. The engineer explained that “the angle that the Democrats and the media took was that anyone who liked Donald Trump was a racist, even a Nazi, and that got picked up everywhere” – even Google. And even then, “most people’s jobs are not political and don’t involve politics.” But it only takes a few bad apples to spoil democracy for everyone.
I think it’s, you know, ridiculous to say that there’s no bias. I think everyone who supports anything other than the Democrats, anyone who’s pro-Trump or in any way deviates from what CNN and the New York Times are pushing, notices how bad it is. – Greg Coppola
The one real difference between the American press and the Soviet state newspaper Pravda was that the Russian people knew they were being lied to. To expose the lies our media tell us today, controversial journalist James O’Keefe created Project Veritas, an independent news organization whose reporters go where traditional journalists dare not. Their investigative work–equal parts James Bond, Mike Wallace, and Saul Alinsky―has had a consistent and powerful impact on its targets.
In American Pravda, the reader is invited to go undercover with these intrepid journalists as they infiltrate political campaigns, unmask dishonest officials and expose voter fraud. A rollicking adventure story on one level, the book also serves as a treatise on modern media, arguing that establishment journalists have a vested interest in keeping the powerful comfortable and the people misinformed. –American Pravda: My Fight for Truth in the Era of Fake News
"If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair." C. S. Lewis