The mRNA COVID Vaccine Is Not a Vaccine

By Makia Freeman

Comment: I hear people (even those very close to me) and read sign all over the place that state “We’re All In This Together”. I am not “In This Together” with anyone who endorses poverty and bankruptcy of small businesses, closure of educational institutions, restructuring our work lives and abandoning our loved ones, because a regime of greedy people created this mess for some billionaires’ benefit (think of all those who called Doug Ford and Justin Trudeau ‘hero’ for robbing us of our lives then giving it back by way of the CERB). I’m not “In This Together” with anyone who says playing in a park in the open fresh air will cause your kids to bring a virus back to grandparents and kill them (as I have heard far too many times), and yet keep liquor and pot stores open as ‘essential servises’… Because that’s what we need, more junkies and drunks. I am not “In This Together” with those who blindly think a drug company will save the day when the very same drug companies rattle off the lethal side effects in their advertising. And I’m not “In This” with anyone who claims that we need to be locked up and kept away from everyone for the sake of not getting sick by the healthy. These are mechanisms built to make everyone suspicious of every single person around them. As the Chief Medical Doctor of Canada said (to paraphrase) ‘we don’t know this will work as we’ve never tried this before’. It clearly hasn’t been tried for the flu and pneumonia (which have been counted together in the WHO and CDC’s data) that takes more lives than this SARS Cov2 has, and has changed the definition of herd immunity to ‘by vaccine’. I’m also not “In This Together” to become human experiments for drug companies – whoever wants to become a guinea pig is their choice. We keep hearing the talking heads on CBC use words “modelling”, “projected” and the likes, which should tell us this is all a total scam run by a computer nerd who wants to be referred to as a ‘philanthropist’ (the biggest joke I’ve ever heard! I want to be known as an astronaut but I know it’s not happening any time soon). I hear many doctors and nurses say their hospitals are empty. I hear too often that we need to “keep testing” with a test that is not used to diagnose illness. And test for what? A virus that has not been purified or isolated that we don’t know even exists?! Why aren’t those who have been fooled willing to admit they have been fooled? Is it pride?

Doctors David Martin and Judy Mikovits Expose How So-Called COVID Vaccine is Not a Vaccine

Listen to this short excerpt featuring doctors David Martin and Judy Mikovits (who have both been very outspoken thus far in exposing the COVID plandemic) who are speaking with Robert Kennedy Jr. and lawyer Rocco Galati, who is representing a Canadian freedom group suing the government for the entire COVID scam. David Martin makes some extremely important points about how we can’t accurately label the device Moderna and Pfizer are pushing as a vaccine, because both medically and legally, is not a vaccine:

“This is not a vaccine … using the term vaccine to sneak this thing under public health exemptions … This is a mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. It is not a vaccine! Vaccines actually are a legally defined term … under public health law … under CDC and FDA standards, and a vaccine specifically has to stimulate both an immunity within the person receiving it, but it also has to disrupt transmission … They have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell is not to stop transmission. It is a treatment. But if it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities, because then people would say “What other treatments are there?”

The use of the term vaccine is unconscionable … because it actually is the sucker punch to open and free discourse … Moderna was a started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for SARS … if we said we’re going to give people prophylactic chemo for the cancer they don’t have, you’d be laughed out of a room, because it’s a stupid idea. That’s exactly what this is! This is a mechanical device, in the form of a very small packet of technology, that is being inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogen manufacturing site.

The only reason why the term [vaccine] is being used is to abuse the 1905 Jacobsen case that has been misrepresented since it was written. If we were honest with this, we would actually call it what it is: it is a chemical pathogen device, that is actually meant to unleash a chemical pathogen production action within the cell. It is a medical device, not a drug, because it meets the CDRH [Center for Devices and Radiological Health] definition of a device.

It is made to make you sick … 80% of the people who are exposed to allegedly the virus [SARS-Cov-2] have no symptoms at all … 80% of people who get this injected into them have a clinical adverse event. You are getting injected with a chemical substance to induce illness, not to induce a[n] immuno-transmissive response. In other words, nothing about this is going to stop you transmitting anything. This is about getting you sick, and having your own cells be the thing that get you sick.”

Judy Mikovits also chips in with this:

“It’s a synthetic pathogen. They’ve literally injected this pathogenic part of the virus into every cell of the body … it can actually directly cause multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease … it can cause accelerated cancer … that’s what the expression of that piece of virus … has been known to do for decades.”

COVID Vaccine is an Operating System, Says Moderna

The COVID mRNA Vaccine is an operating system which can program your DNA, and therefore program you, at your core essential blueprint level. Is this an exaggeration? No it’s not. Moderna states on their website that their mRNA technology platform is a “software of life” and “functions very much like an operating system on a computer.” This is straight from their website:

“It is designed so that it can plug and play interchangeably with different programs. In our case, the “program” or “app” is our mRNA drug – the unique mRNA sequence that codes for a protein.”

The Game Plan: Making Every Human into a Digital Node on the Control Grid

We are fast moving into the world of transhumanism, where our natural biological bodies are hijacked and infiltrated with synthetic parts, starting at the nanoparticle level. The NWO controllers want to download some kind of Microsoft office system or software into your body and brain, and hook you up to the JEDI and/or Amazon-CIA cloud, so they can have direct access to your brain. Then, they can roll out “vaccines” which are not vaccines to continually update you, just like computer software gets regular updates. Viruses, real or not, and vaccines, real or not, are just means to achieve this goal.

Turning Humans into Commodities via Social Credit Currency

Alison McDowell sums up the current transhumanistic NWO path of highest probability below, which involves social credit, 5G, the Smart Grid and AI to induce planetary-wide compliance:

“Within the tech-no-logic system, total compliance will be demanded. Approved behavior becomes currency, tokenized on blockchain and monitored by sensors and AI. They are training us for a future where we compete with one another to see who is the best behaved, the most docile. Surviving will mean conforming to the strident terms of psychopathic financial agreements. To obtain the data needed to verify claims embedded in twisted “pay for success” deals, our mother, the earth, must be remade as a geo-fenced digital prison using 5G and satellite constellations. All of your data will be added to your “permanent record” to evaluate your value as human capital for investor portfolios. The billionaires envision a future where freedom is a privilege limited to themselves, their functionaries, and the robots they control. Be assured AI is already keeping tabs, and social credit scoring is well underway.”

It is a grim future, however it is not set in stone. I agree wholeheartedly with McDowell that we do NOT have to accept this as our fate or experience such a painful timeline IF we can wake up quickly and change. However, we must first accept this is the probable path we are on. Like it or not, this is the current trajectory. How do we change it? Firstly by looking within. To change ourselves, we must change our inner world and change our perception, and so therefore change our reality:

“This planned future, however, is NOT preordained. Totalitarian transhumanism is not a foregone conclusion. Trudell’s remedy? Change our perception of reality through active non-cooperation. Manifest in our hearts, minds, and actions the world we desire. Where they engineer disconnect, RECONNECT with intention; not only with one another, but with ALL our relations and the land and the spiritual beings that exist beyond our senses. We must synchronize to change the vibrational reality, and that power exists within us as children of the earth.”

This is not airy-fairy talk, but rather a realization that we are participating in co-creating a nightmare world by allowing our perception to be programmed to bring about the NWO. They are using our energy to do it! To reclaim our sovereignety, we must reclaim our perception by breaking down the programming that was inserted into us.

Final Thoughts: A Technocratic, Transhumanistic Tool

It is vital to know, and to tell others, that the current mRNA COVID vaccine is not a vaccine. This is not just because calling it a vaccine gives Big Pharma legal immunity from damages, but also for all the reasons listed above. These devices are designed to reprogram you at the fundamental level. They are not vaccines, they are not drugs, and in my opinion, they are not treatments or medicine. As scary as these terms are, I would go beyond just calling them chemical devices, operating systems, synthetic pathogens and chemical pathogen production devices, which are already illuminating terms and horrible enough. I would call them technocratic, transhumanistic tools to permanently change your genetics and transform you into a synthetic human. They are symbolic of just how swiftly the NWO agenda is being made manifest in our physical reality, and hopefully a wake-up call to everyone to strive harder to stop this dark, nefarious agenda while there is still time.

This article was originally published on The Freedom Articles.

Ten Things You Need to Know about the Experimental COVID Vaccines

By Makia Freeman

Experimental COVID Vaccines: Never-Before-Used Tools to Modify and Program Your Genetics

The COVID vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna are called mRNA (messenger RNA) vaccines – a completely new type of vaccine that has never been licensed or used on humans before. We have absolutely no idea what to expect from this vaccine, nor no way to know if it will be effective or safe. Traditional vaccines introduce pieces of a weakened virus to stimulate an immune response. mRNA vaccines inject molecules of synthetic genetic material from non-humans sources into your cells, thus hijacking your genes and permanently reprogramming them to produce antibodies to kill the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus causing COVID (although, as regular readers of The Freedom Articles know, the virus has never been isolated, purified or proven 100% to exist). These newly created proteins are not regulated by your DNA and are thus completely foreign to your body.

Experimental COVID Vaccines: mRNA Vax is an Operating System

The mRNA vaccines of Moderna and Pfizer could barely be regarded as medicine in the traditional sense. They are transhumanistic tools to synthetically alter you at the genetic level. In fact, Moderna has even admitted on their website that their new COVID vaccines are an “operating system” and the “software of life”:

“Recognizing the broad potential of mRNA science, we set out to create an mRNA technology platform that functions very much like an operating system on a computer. It is designed so that it can plug and play interchangeably with different programs. In our case, the “program” or “app” is our mRNA drug – the unique mRNA sequence that codes for a protein.”

Catherine Austin Fitts has recently been pointing out that these tools are ‘vaccines’ in name only, called so to give them legal immunity from liability, when actually they are operating systems:

“Just as Gates installed an operating system in our computers, now the vision is to install an operating system in our bodies and use “viruses” to mandate an initial installation followed by regular updates. Now I appreciate why Gates and his colleagues want to call these technologies “vaccines.” If they can persuade the body politic that injectible credit cards or injectible surveillance trackers or injectable brain-macine interface nanotechnologies are “vaccines,” then they can enjoy the protection of a century or more of legal decisions and laws that support their efforts to mandate what they want to do.”

“Why are we calling these formulations “vaccines”? If I understand the history of case law, vaccines, in legal terms, are medicine. Intentional heavy metal poisoning is not medicine. Injectible surveillance components are not medicine. Injectible credit cards are not medicine. Injectible brain-machine interface is not a medicine. Immunity for insurance companies is not the creation of human immunity. We need to stop allowing these concoctions to be referred to by a word that the courts and the general population define and treat as medicine and protect from legal and financial liability.”

Experimental COVID Vaccines: Safety Abandoned

Vaccines usually take 7-20 years to adequately research, test and bring to market. The slew of COVID vaccines produced by Big Pharma companies are being rushed to market in less than 12 months, which is nowhere enough time to meet established safety standards. No long-term safety studies were conducted, so no one has any real idea of the danger these vaccines could cause down the line. Many of the trials only lasted 3-4 months. Animal trials, an important part of safety testing, were skipped. While long-term safety is completely unknown, short-term safety looks extremely sketchy (see next section and list of links at end of article). It is no understatement to say that much of the worldwide population has just become Big Pharma’s guinea pigs.

Experimental COVID Vaccines: Dangerous Adverse Effects

The COVID vaccines promote disease enhancement due to pathogenic priming. In other words, they make people sicker than the disease would have. In Moderna’s trials alone, FDA documents record that 13 people died (6 from the vaccine and 7 from the placebo), while the FDA also issued a new warning regarding Bell’s Palsy as a potential side effect (results were correct up until December 3rd 2020). Since the rollout of the COVID vax, doctors and nurses have fainted live on TV (nurse manager Tiffany Dover fainted while speaking to the media about receiving the vaccine, and later died), contracted Bell’s palsy and become paralyzed. Some people have even died following the vaccine, including in places like Miami, Portugal, Israel, Switzerland, Iceland and more (see links in last section of article).Experimental COVID Vaccines: COVID Vax Only Designed to Stop Mild Symptoms

With the risks of the COVID vaccine so undeniably grave, you might think the benefits are large. Think again. Big Pharma has stated that the vaccine only protects against mild (not moderate or severe) symptoms, which makes the vaccine virtually pointless, given the large majority of people who allegedly have COVID have little or no symptoms whatsoever.
The study Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) by Professor Peter Doshi raises at least 2 very good points about the failure of the COVID vaccines to stop moderate/severe symptoms and to stop transmission. He quotes, among others, Moderna chief medical officer Tal Zaks:

“But what will it mean exactly when a vaccine is declared “effective”? To the public this seems fairly obvious. “The primary goal of a covid-19 vaccine is to keep people from getting very sick and dying,” a National Public Radio broadcast said bluntly. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said, “Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things . . . first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission.” Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either. None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”

“Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, told The BMJ that the company’s trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess those outcomes. “The trial is precluded from judging [hospital admissions], based on what is a reasonable size and duration to serve the public good here,” he said. Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out. Zaks said, “Would I like to know that this prevents mortality? Sure, because I believe it does. I just don’t think it’s feasible within the timeframe [of the trial]—too many would die waiting for the results before we ever knew that.” What about Hotez’s second criterion, interrupting virus transmission, which some experts have argued should be the most important test in phase III studies? “Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission,” Zaks said, “because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.”

Experimental COVID Vaccines: COVID Vax Not Designed to Stop Transmission

Likewise, Big Pharma admitted they didn’t design the vaccine to stop transmission. Therefore, if someone else gets the vaccine, it doesn’t stop them from transmitting the virus to you, and if you get the vaccine, it does not stop you from transmitting the virus to others. This may be why NIAID head Dr. Anthony Fauci continued to push the dehumanizing agenda when he stated on MSM TV that people should still socially distance and wear masks even after getting vaccinated:

“Obviously, with a 90+% effective vaccine, you could feel much more confident [about not getting sick] … but I would recommend to people to not abandon all public health measures just because you have been vaccinated.”

genomic virus Fran Leader

Experimental COVID Vaccines: No Real Isolated Virus Was Used to Make the Vaccine

The vaccine cannot possible be truly effective since it was not based on an actual isolated sample of the SARS-CoV-2 virus

The WHO protocols that Pfizer used to produce the mRNA do not appear to identify any nucleotide sequences that are unique to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. I have been covering this point ever since the COVID scamdemic began, especially in articles like SARS-CoV-2: The Stitched Together, Frankenstein Virus where I highight that COVID or SARS-CoV-2 is a theoretical digital virus, constructed from a computer database, that doesn not exist in the real world. Fran Leader questioned the UK MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) about this, asserting that the ‘virus’ was actually a computer generated genomic sequence, and ultimately they confirmed:

“The DNA template does not come directly from an isolated virus from an infected person.”

Experimental COVID Vaccines: WHO Admits There’s No Evidence COVID Vax Works

The World Health Organization chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan Yadav admitted that there is no “evidence on any of the [COVID] vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on.”

Experimental COVID Vaccines: Contains PEGylated Lipid Nanoparticles Which Can Cause Disease

Dr. Frank Shallenberger writes about the dangers of PEGylated lipid nanoparticles which are used to hide the mRNA from our bodies:

“The mRNA molecule is vulnerable to destruction. So, in order to protect the fragile mRNA strands while they are being inserted into our DNA they are coated with PEGylated lipid nanoparticles. This coating hides the mRNA from our immune system which ordinarily would kill any foreign material injected into the body. PEGylated lipid nanoparticles have been used in several different drugs for years. Because of their effect on immune system balance, several studies have shown them to induce allergies and autoimmune diseases. Additionally, PEGylated lipid nanoparticles have been shown to trigger their own immune reactions, and to cause damage to the liver.”

Experimental COVID Vaccines: Pfizer Vaccine Fallout

An astonishing number of people have been hurt, damaged, injured and killed from the Pfizer COVID vax. Take a look at the following headlines, data and links from our friends at For Our Rights:

CDC data shows that 3,150 people are now “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work”after vaccination. This is 2.7% of people who took it

Portuguese health worker, 41, dies two days after getting the Pfizer covid vaccine as her father says he “wants answers”

Mexican doctor hospitalized after receiving COVID-19 vaccine

Hundreds of Israelis get infected with Covid-19 after receiving Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine

Wife of ‘perfectly healthy’ Miami doctor, 56, who died of a blood disorder 16 days after getting Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine is certain it was triggered by the jab, as drug giant investigates first death with a suspected link to shot

75-year-old Israeli man dies 2 hours after getting Covid-19 vaccine

Death of Swiss man after Pfizer vaccine

88-year-old collapses and dies several hours after being vaccinated

Thousands negatively affected after getting Covid-19 vaccine

Hospital worker with no prior allergies in intensive care with severe reaction after Pfizer Covid vaccine

4 volunteers develop FACIAL PARALYSIS after taking Pfizer Covid-19 jab, prompting FDA to recommend ‘surveillance for cases’

Investigation launched as 2 people die in Norway nursing home days after receiving Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine

Hundreds Sent to Emergency Room After Getting COVID-19 Vaccines

US officials report more severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines

NHS told not to give COVID vaccine to those with history of allergic reactions

COVID-19: Single vaccine dose leads to ‘greater risk’ from new coronavirus variants, South African experts warn

CDC reveals at least 21 Americans have suffered life threatening allergic reactions to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine

Woman experiences side effects of COVID-19 vaccine

COVID vaccine side effects more common after 2nd dose

Bulgaria reports 4 cases of side effects from Pfizer COVID vaccine

Two NHS workers suffer allergic reaction to Pfizer vaccine

Conclusion: Watch Out!

The above are just 10 reasons to watch out for the COVID vax, however for those wishing to dig deeper, I suggest investigating things such as unsafe epitopes (parts of proteins capable of causing immune and auto-immune conditions), ADE (antibody-dependent amplification, long known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats. All cats that initially tolerated the vaccine well, died after catching the wild virus), nanoparticles (graphene and hydrogel) and more, all of which are likely linked to the COVID vaccines. These concoctions take the NWO scheme to a whole new level. The agenda has arrived at your doorstep and, indeed, at your bloodstream.

This article was originally published on The Freedom Articles.


The Assange Verdict: What Happens Now

By Craig Murray

Comment: The only conclusion I personally have come to is this “judge” has no judicial integrity.

I had the strong impression that Baraitser was minded to grant bail and wanted the decision to be fireproof. I have spoken to two others who were in court who formed the same impression. Indeed, in the past, she has more than once indicated that she will reject a bail application before one has been made. I can think of no reason why she would steer Fitzgerald so strongly to delay the application if there were not a very strong chance she would grant it. She gave him the advice and then adjourned the court for 45 minutes so Fitzgerald and Gareth Peirce could discuss it with Julian, and on return they took her advice. If she were simply going to refuse the bail application, there was no reason for her not to get it over with quickly there and then.

Fitzgerald briefly made the point that Assange now had very little incentive to abscond, as there had never been a successful appeal against a refusal to extradite on medical grounds. Indeed it is very difficult to see how an appeal can be successful. The magistrate is the sole determinant of fact in the case. She has heard the evidence, and her view of the facts of Assange’s medical condition and the facts of conditions in American supermax prisons cannot be overturned. Nor can any new evidence be introduced. The appeal has rather to find that, given the facts, Baraitser made an error in law, and it is difficult to see the argument.

I am not sure that at this stage the High Court would accept a new guarantee from the USA that Assange would not be kept in isolation or in a Supermax prison; that would be contrary to the affidavit from Assistant Secretary of State Kromberg and thus would probably be ruled to amount to new evidence.

Not to mention that Baraitser heard other evidence that such assurances had been received in the case of Abu Hamza, but had been broken. Hamza is not only kept in total isolation, but as a man with no hands he is deprived of prosthetics that would enable him to brush his teeth, and he has no means of cutting his nails nor assistance to do so, and cannot effectively wipe himself in the toilet.

Not only is it hard to see the point of law on which the USA could launch an appeal, it is far from plain that they have a motive to do so. Baraitser agreed with all the substantive points of argument put forward by the US government. She stated that there was no bar on extradition from the UK for political offences; she agreed that publication of national security material did constitute an offence in the USA under the Espionage Act and would do so in the UK under the Official Secrets Act, with no public interest defence in either jurisdiction; she agreed that encouraging a source to leak classified information is a crime; she agreed Wikileaks’ publications had put lives at risk.

On all of these points she dismissed virtually without comment all the defence arguments and evidence. As a US Justice Department spokesman said yesterday:

“While we are extremely disappointed in the court’s ultimate decision, we are gratified that the United States prevailed on every point of law raised. In particular, the court rejected all of Mr Assange’s arguments regarding political motivation, political offence, fair trial, and freedom of speech. We will continue to seek Mr Assange’s extradition to the United States.” That is a fair categorisation of what happened.

Appealing a verdict that is such a good result for the United States does not necessarily make sense for the Justice Department. Edward Fitzgerald explained to me yesterday that, if the USA appeals the decision on the health and prison condition grounds, it becomes open to the defence to counter-appeal on all the other grounds, which would be very desirable indeed given the stark implications of Baraitser’s ruling for media freedom. I have always believed that Baraitser would rule as she did on the substantial points, but I have always also believed that those extreme security state arguments would never survive the scrutiny of better judges in a higher court. Unlike the health ruling, the dispute over Baraitser’s judgement on all the other points does come down to classic errors in law which can successfully be argued on appeal.

If the USA does appeal the judgement, it is far more likely that not only will the health grounds be upheld, but also that Baraitser’s positions on extradition for political offences and freedom of the media will be overturned, than it is likely that the US will achieve extradition. They have fourteen days in which to lodge the appeal – now thirteen.

An appeal result is in short likely to be humiliating for the USA. It would be much wiser for the US to let sleeping dogs lie. But pride and the wound to the US sense of omnipotence and exceptionalism may drive them to an appeal which, for the reasons given above, I would actually welcome provided Julian is out on bail. Which I expect he shall be shortly.

More analysis of Baraitser’s judgment will follow.

This article was first read on

Science Is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators Do Not Prevent Transmission of Viruses

By Dr. Denis G. Rancourt

Comment: masks are a control device. Not wearing one has nothing to do with being selfish; people who publicly shame people for not wearing a mask should be ashamed at succumbing to the fear the “leaders” want society to live in. Doctors and surgeons who work in hospitals do not wear masks for hours at a time; those very few and vocal doctors that advocate masks (and distancing) for the general healthy public, I ask for scientific proof that a mask should be worn at all times by everyone (including and especially the healthy) and the health benefits.


Masks and respirators do not work. There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work.

It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Conclusion regarding masks that do not work

No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewiseno study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit. Masks and respirators do not work.

Precautionary Principle turned on its head with masks

In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks.

In this case, public authorities would be turning the precautionary principle on its head (see below).

Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease, and why masks do not work

In order to understand why masks cannot possibly work, we must review established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of seasonal variation of excess deaths from pneumonia and influenza, the aerosol mechanism of infectious disease transmission, the physics and chemistry of aerosols, and the mechanism of the so-called minimum-infective-dose.

In addition to pandemics that can occur anytime, in the temperate latitudes there is an extra burden of respiratory-disease mortality that is seasonal, and which is caused by viruses. For example, see the review of influenza by Paules and Subbarao (2017). This has been known for a long time, and the seasonal pattern is exceedingly regular.

For example, see Figure 1 of Viboud (2010), which has “Weekly time series of the ratio of deaths from pneumonia and influenza to all deaths, based on the 122 cities surveillance in the US (blue line). The red line represents the expected baseline ratio in the absence of influenza activity,” here:

mortality rate chart

The seasonality of the phenomenon was largely not understood until a decade ago. Until recently, it was debated whether the pattern arose primarily because of seasonal change in virulence of the pathogens, or because of seasonal change in susceptibility of the host (such as from dry air causing tissue irritation, or diminished daylight causing vitamin deficiency or hormonal stress). For example, see Dowell (2001).

In a landmark study, Shaman et al. (2010) showed that the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens.

Lowen et al. (2007) demonstrated the phenomenon of humidity-dependent airborne-virus virulence in actual disease transmission between guinea pigs, and discussed potential underlying mechanisms for the measured controlling effect of humidity.

The underlying mechanism is that the pathogen-laden aerosol particles or droplets are neutralized within a half-life that monotonically and significantly decreases with increasing ambient humidity. This is based on the seminal work of Harper (1961). Harper experimentally showed that viral-pathogen-carrying droplets were inactivated within shorter and shorter times, as ambient humidity was increased.

Harper argued that the viruses themselves were made inoperative by the humidity (“viable decay”), however, he admitted that the effect could be from humidity-enhanced physical removal or sedimentation of the droplets (“physical loss”): “Aerosol viabilities reported in this paper are based on the ratio of virus titre to radioactive count in suspension and cloud samples, and can be criticized on the ground that test and tracer materials were not physically identical.”

The latter (“physical loss”) seems more plausible to me, since humidity would have a universal physical effect of causing particle / droplet growth and sedimentation, and all tested viral pathogens have essentially the same humidity-driven “decay”. Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how a virion (of all virus types) in a droplet would be molecularly or structurally attacked or damaged by an increase in ambient humidity. A “virion” is the complete, infective form of a virus outside a host cell, with a core of RNA or DNA and a capsid. The actual mechanism of such humidity-driven intra-droplet “viable decay” of a virion has not been explained or studied.

In any case, the explanation and model of Shaman et al. (2010) is not dependant on the particular mechanism of the humidity-driven decay of virions in aerosol / droplets. Shaman’s quantitatively demonstrated model of seasonal regional viral epidemiology is valid for either mechanism (or combination of mechanisms), whether “viable decay” or “physical loss”.

The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic.

In particular, Shaman’s work necessarily implies that, rather than being a fixed number (dependent solely on the spatial-temporal structure of social interactions in a completely susceptible population, and on the viral strain), the epidemic’s basic reproduction number (R0) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity.

For a definition of R0, see HealthKnowlege-UK (2020): R0 is “the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where everyone is susceptible.” The average R0 for influenza is said to be 1.28 (1.19-1.37); see the comprehensive review by Biggerstaff et al. (2014).

In fact, Shaman et al. showed that R0 must be understood to seasonally vary between humid-summer values of just larger than “1” and dry-winter values typically as large as “4” (for example, see their Table 2). In other words, the seasonal infectious viral respiratory diseases that plague temperate latitudes every year go from being intrinsically mildly contagious to virulently contagious, due simply to the bio-physical mode of transmission controlled by atmospheric humidity, irrespective of any other consideration.

Therefore, all the epidemiological mathematical modelling of the benefits of mediating policies (such as social distancing), which assumes humidity-independent R0 values, has a large likelihood of being of little value, on this basis alone. For studies about modelling and regarding mediation effects on the effective reproduction number, see Coburn (2009) and Tracht (2010).

To put it simply, the “second wave” of an epidemic is not a consequence of human sin regarding mask wearing and hand shaking. Rather, the “second wave” is an inescapable consequence of an air-dryness-driven many-fold increase in disease contagiousness, in a population that has not yet attained immunity.

If my view of the mechanism is correct (i.e., “physical loss”), then Shaman’s work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to large droplets that are quickly gravitationally removed from the air.

Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Despres, 2012).

It is not entirely unlikely that viruses can thereby be physically transported over inter-continental distances (e.g., Hammond, 1989).

More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011):Such small particles (< 2.5 μm) are part of air fluidity, are not subject to gravitational sedimentation, and would not be stopped by long-range inertial impact. This means that the slightest (even momentary) facial misfit of a mask or respirator renders the design filtration norm of the mask or respirator entirely irrelevant. In any case, the filtration material itself of N95 (average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm) does not block virion penetration, not to mention surgical masks. For example, see Balazy et al. (2006).

Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, because the minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant difference.

On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case.

Yezli and Otter (2011), in their review of the MID, point out relevant features:

  • most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal laboratory susceptibility
  • it is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the host
  • the 50%-probability MID (“TCID50”) has variably been found to be in the range 100−1000 virions
  • there are typically 103−107 virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 μm − 10 μm
  • the 50%-probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized droplet

For further background:

  • A classic description of dose-response assessment is provided by Haas (1993).
  • Zwart et al. (2009) provided the first laboratory proof, in a virus-insect system, that the action of a single virion can be sufficient to cause disease.
  • Baccam et al. (2006) calculated from empirical data that, with influenza A in humans, “we estimate that after a delay of ~6 h, infected cells begin producing influenza virus and continue to do so for ~5 h. The average lifetime of infected cells is ~11 h, and the half-life of free infectious virus is ~3 h. We calculated the [in-body] basic reproductive number, R0, which indicated that a single infected cell could produce ~22 new productive infections.”
  • Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed.

All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application.

Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above-described features of the problem, are irrelevant. For example, see such studies as these: Leung (2020), Davies (2013), Lai (2012), and Sande (2008).

Why there can never be an empirical test of a nationwide mask-wearing policy

As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results:

  • Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.
  • Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.
  • Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviours; see Wada (2012).
  • The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.
  • Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.
  • Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.
  • Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.
  • Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.
  • Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.

Unknown aspects of mask-wearing

Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:

  • Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?
  • Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?
  • Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?
  • What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?
  • How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?
  • What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?
  • Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?
  • Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioural modification?
  • What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?
  • Do the masks shed fibres or substances that are harmful when inhaled?


By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.

Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.

Otherwise, what is the point of publicly-funded science?

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Dr. Dennis Rancourt is Ph.D from University of Toronto (1984), and is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa.


  • Baccam, P. et al. (2006) “Kinetics of Influenza A Virus Infection in Humans”, Journal of Virology Jul 2006, 80 (15) 7590-7599; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01623-05
  • Balazy et al. (2006) “Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?”, American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 34, Issue 2, March 2006, Pages 51-57. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2005.08.018
  • Biggerstaff, M. et al. (2014) “Estimates of the reproduction number for seasonal, pandemic, and zoonotic influenza: a systematic review of the literature”, BMC Infect Dis 14, 480 (2014).
  • Brooke, C. B. et al. (2013) “Most Influenza A Virions Fail To Express at Least One Essential Viral Protein”, Journal of Virology Feb 2013, 87 (6) 3155-3162; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.02284-12
  • Coburn, B. J. et al. (2009) “Modeling influenza epidemics and pandemics: insights into the future of swine flu (H1N1)”, BMC Med 7, 30.
  • Davies, A. et al. (2013) “Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza Pandemic?”, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, Available on CJO 2013 doi:10.1017/dmp.2013.43
  • Despres, V. R. et al. (2012) “Primary biological aerosol particles in the atmosphere: a review”, Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 64:1, 15598, DOI: 10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598
  • Dowell, S. F. (2001) “Seasonal variation in host susceptibility and cycles of certain infectious diseases”, Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(3):369-374. doi:10.3201/eid0703.010301
  • Hammond, G. W. et al. (1989) “Impact of Atmospheric Dispersion and Transport of Viral Aerosols on the Epidemiology of Influenza”, Reviews of Infectious Diseases, Volume 11, Issue 3, May 1989, Pages 494-497,
  • Haas, C.N. et al. (1993) “Risk Assessment of Virus in Drinking Water”, Risk Analysis, 13: 545-552. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.x
  • HealthKnowlege-UK (2020) “Charter 1a – Epidemiology: Epidemic theory (effective & basic reproduction numbers, epidemic thresholds) & techniques for analysis of infectious disease data (construction & use of epidemic curves, generation numbers, exceptional reporting & identification of significant clusters)”,, accessed on 2020-04-10.
  • Lai, A. C. K. et al. (2012) “Effectiveness of facemasks to reduce exposure hazards for airborne infections among general populations”, J. R. Soc. Interface. 9938-948
  • Leung, N.H.L. et al. (2020) “Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks”, Nature Medicine (2020).
  • Lowen, A. C. et al. (2007) “Influenza Virus Transmission Is Dependent on Relative Humidity and Temperature”, PLoS Pathog 3(10): e151.
  • Paules, C. and Subbarao, S. (2017) “Influenza”, Lancet, Seminar| Volume 390, ISSUE 10095, P697-708, August 12, 2017.
  • Sande, van der, M. et al. (2008) “Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population”, PLoS ONE 3(7): e2618. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002618 Shaman, J. et al. (2010) “Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States”, PLoS Biol 8(2): e1000316.
  • Tracht, S. M. et al. (2010) “Mathematical Modeling of the Effectiveness of Facemasks in Reducing the Spread of Novel Influenza A (H1N1)”, PLoS ONE 5(2): e9018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009018
  • Viboud C. et al. (2010) “Preliminary Estimates of Mortality and Years of Life Lost Associated with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic in the US and Comparison with Past Influenza Seasons”, PLoS Curr. 2010; 2:RRN1153. Published 2010 Mar 20. doi:10.1371/currents.rrn1153
  • Wada, K. et al. (2012) “Wearing face masks in public during the influenza season may reflect other positive hygiene practices in Japan”, BMC Public Health 12, 1065 (2012).
  • Yang, W. et al. (2011) “Concentrations and size distributions of airborne influenza A viruses measured indoors at a health centre, a day-care centre and on aeroplanes”, Journal of the Royal Society, Interface. 2011 Aug;8(61):1176-1184. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0686.
  • Yezli, S., Otter, J.A. (2011) “Minimum Infective Dose of the Major Human Respiratory and Enteric Viruses Transmitted Through Food and the Environment”, Food Environ Virol 3, 1-30.
  • Zwart, M. P. et al. (2009) “An experimental test of the independent action hypothesis in virus-insect pathosystems”, Proc. R. Soc. B.2762233-2242

Palestinians Can Now See Their Stolen Property in the Database We’ve Made Public

By Dr. Nasser Qudwa

Comment: all truths eventually comes out, even those that a buried under a ton of rocks, concrete and lies….. like a green leaf sprouting from the crack in the grey rubble, sunlight warming it and a rain of tears shed by so many that pass on by nourishing it…. The truth is there for all to see. LONG LIVE PALESTINE

Rather than just pushing pro-Israel positions, Trump fully endorsed an extremist pro-annexation narrative, presenting a plan that perpetuated Israel’s denial of Palestinian national rights. It not only encouraged illegal colonial settlements, but also negated Palestinian refugee rights. The US aimed to pre-empt several final status issues, including Jerusalem, settlements and refugees, by going beyond even Israel’s stated positions.

Trying to dismantle UNRWA, the United Nations agency that aids Palestinian refugees, was a key part of the Trump team’s strategy. Yet, what they did not realise is how solidly enshrined Palestinian rights are within the UN system – particularly refugee rights.

This began as soon as the UN appointed its first mediator, Sweden’s Folke Bernadotte, who was later assassinated in Jerusalem by Israeli terrorists. Perhaps his most important legacy was Resolution 194, approved on 11 December 1948, which established a Conciliation Commission comprising the US, France and Turkey, aimed at supporting the parties to reach a final settlement.

While the commission did not achieve its main goal, it did succeed in establishing a comprehensive database of the private property belonging to Palestinian refugees, churches, endowments and non-Palestinian owners in the territory occupied by Israel in 1948.

For many years, the database was classified as secret, and copies of the work were distributed to Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, the Arab League and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The work of the commission was updated and digitised after the UN called upon the secretary-general to “take all appropriate steps … for the protection of Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel and to preserve and modernize existing records”.

The resulting copy was given to the Mission of Palestine to the United Nations that I was heading.

International responsibility

It was in the context of the tremendous US attack against the rights of our people that we decided to make the database open to the public through the Yasser Arafat Foundation. If the team behind the Trump Middle East plan was arrogant and ignorant enough to dismiss international law, UN resolutions and even Washington’s own diplomatic history, we thought there could be a chance that they would understand the value of private property and the rights of individual owners.

Today, we have decided to open the records for every Palestinian to be able to check on their property and, in certain cases, obtain respective documents.

Whoever accesses this database will realise not only the great injustices inflicted upon the Palestinian people but also how much Israel has profited from Palestinian refugee property. The database includes 210,000 owners and 540,000 parcels of land, and it was mainly built up using British land and tax registries. This includes around 6,000 maps showing the locations of each parcel.

In other words, we can fairly talk about 5.5 million dunums (1.359 million acres) of private Palestinian property in what is now Israel, excluding the Naqab, as it was not registered.

Palestinian refugee rights are well enshrined in international law and relevant UN resolutions. The same international community that decided to divide Palestine cannot continue to ignore the results of its actions.

In the absence of a just and lasting political settlement that addresses all issues in accordance with international law, the implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including self-determination, will continue being its responsibility.

Failed approach

Trump said that by recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, he was taking Jerusalem “off the negotiating table”. His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, used similar logic in his campaign to strangle UNRWA, aiming to take the refugee issue “off the table” as well.

But their approach failed. This should serve as a lesson for those who continue working to deny Palestinian rights. Denying Palestinian rights means denying the basic principles upon which the UN was established, and represents one of the biggest failures of the multilateral international system. The greatness of the Palestinian cause is the reason Trump failed.

When Israel became a UN member in 1949, it committed to respect the UN Charter and its resolutions. Seventy-two years later, it has still failed to do so.

The Biden administration will not aid the cause of peace if it tries to repeat formulas aimed at solidifying Israel’s impunity and denying Palestinian rights. It should instead seek to partner with other members of the international community to repair previous failures, realising that international law cannot be bypassed, nor can the rights of millions of Palestinian refugees.

The refugee property database that we have opened to the public should serve as a reminder of the magnitude of what has been done to the Palestinian people.

Dr Nasser Qudwa is the head of the Yasser Arafat Foundation and member of the Fatah Central Committee. He is the former permanent representative of Palestine to the United Nations and foreign minister. He led the Palestinian team at the International Court of Justice in the case against the wall built by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory (2004).

It is time for the one state solution to go mainstream

A promising outlook that would make the settler colonisers shudder and quake. They should be afraid as their bubble that has been built upon the blood of the indigenous, the lies their terrorist regimes have fed them, and the deceit they choose to wrap themselves in, has a concrete potential to come to an end. This has never been a “conflict” but a colonial settler project that has been in motion for over 100 years. Anyone who tells you this “conflict” cannot be resolved is infantile in their thinking. Anyone who tells you this “conflict” has been going on for thousands of years, that the Arabs have always been bloodthirsty hounds, needs to do a little bit of basic reading. There are simple solutions to every issue/problem, and this “conflict” has one too:

By Awad Abdelfattah and Jeff Halper

December 18, 2020 “Information Clearing House” – The “Palestinian-Israeli conflict” has often been presented as one of the most intractable in modern world history.

But one reason for this is precisely that it has been wrongly analyzed as a conflict and thus the “solutions” offered and the “peace processes” for getting there fail.

This is not a conflict. There are not two sides fighting over some issue that can be resolved through technical negotiations and compromise. Rather, Zionism was – and is – a settler-colonial project.

Jewish settlers arrived in Palestine from Europe with the intention of taking over the country and making it their own. Like all settler movements they came equipped with a narrative of why the country actually belonged to them, and they pursued their claim to entitlement unilaterally. The indigenous Palestinian population (which included Sephardi, Mizrahi and ultra-Orthodox Jews) had no voice in the process; they were not a “side,” but simply a population to be disposed of.

That remains true to this day as the settler Zionist project has virtually completed its task of Judaizing Palestine, of transforming an Arab country into a Jewish one. Its inescapable conclusion is apartheid: confining Palestinians into disconnected and impoverished enclaves scattered over 15 percent of their country.

Settler-colonialism and apartheid, however, cannot be resolved through negotiations and compromise. A people cannot negotiate their fundamental human, national, political and civil rights. The only way out of a colonial situation is through a process of decolonization.

What does that entail? It entails a fundamental readjustment to the current reality. It entails the return of Palestinain refugees and their reintegration into society. It entails the dismantling of all structures of domination and control, be they political, economic or ideological and cultural.

It requires acknowledging that the colonized population has the right to an equal say in the construction of the post-colonial polity. It necessitates the formation of a new political system and civil society that guarantees equal rights to all its citizens as well as to the national, ethnic and religious groups that comprise it.

It further demands an equitable redistribution of resources, especially land, the prime target of settler-colonialism, along with an acknowledgment by the colonizers of the suffering they have brought, and consequent reparations.

It is such fundamental change that is needed to generate a new, shared political community. And that, in turn, is the only possible way settler-colonialism can be transcended.

A political program

Settler-colonial analysis is well-developed in academic circles and offers genuinely new horizons for a just peace in Palestine/Israel. But it has not yet penetrated popular or political discourses, which are still mired in necessarily fruitless attempts to negotiate – or, more precisely, manage – a conflict.

Attempting to replace conflict resolution with the more appropriate and just process of decolonization, a Palestinian-led initiative has emerged out of Haifa over the past three years.

The One Democratic State Campaign (ODSC), though still in its infancy, comprises Palestinians from every major community (citizens of the areas that in 1948 became Israel, the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, the refugee camps and the Diaspora/Exiles), together with their anti-colonial Israeli Jewish allies. It has issued a call for the establishment of a single democratic state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, one that will also witness the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homeland.

Building on the work of others, the ODSC has also formulated a 10-point political program that “thinks through” the entire process of decolonizing the settler-colonial entity of Israel through the establishment of a post-colonial polity and political community. They are, in brief:

  1. Decolonization. The only way to resolve a settler-colonial situation is through a thorough process of decolonization that will ultimately give rise to a new, shared political community.
  2. A Single Constitutional Democracy. One democratic state shall be established between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River belonging to all its citizens, including Palestinian refugees who will be able to return to their homeland. All citizens will enjoy equal rights, freedom and security. The State shall be a constitutional democracy, the authority to govern and make laws emanating from the consent of the governed.
  3. Right of Return, of Restoration and of Reintegration into Society. The single democratic state will fully implement the Right of Return of all Palestinian refugees who were expelled in 1948 and thereafter, whether living in exile abroad or currently living in Israel or the Occupied Territory. The State will aid them in returning to their country and to the places from which they were expelled. It will help them rebuild their personal lives and to be fully reintegrated into the country’s society, economy and polity. The State will do everything in its power to restore to the refugees their private and communal property and/or compensate them.
  4. Individual Rights. No State law, institution or practices may discriminate among citizens on the basis of national or social origin, color, gender, language, religion or political opinion or sexual orientation. A single citizenship confers on all the State’s residents the right to freedom of movement, the right to reside anywhere in the country, and equal rights in every domain.
  5. Collective Rights. Within the framework of a single democratic state, the Constitution will also protect collective rights and the freedom of association, whether national, ethnic, religious, class or gender. Constitutional guarantees will ensure that all languages, arts and culture can flourish and develop freely. No group or collectivity will have any privileges, nor will any group, party or collectivity have the ability to leverage any control or domination over others. Parliament will not have the authority to enact any laws that discriminate against any community under the Constitution.
  6. Constructing a Shared Civil Society. The State shall nurture a vital civil society comprised of common civil institutions, in particular educational, cultural and economic. Alongside religious marriage the State will provide civil marriage.
  7. Economy and Economic Justice. Our vision seeks to achieve justice, and this includes social and economic justice. Economic policy must address the decades of exploitation and discrimination which have sown deep socioeconomic gaps among the people living in the land. A State seeking justice must develop a creative and long-term redistributive economic policy to ensure that all citizens have equal opportunity to attain education, productive employment, economic security and a dignified standard of living.
  8. Commitment to Human Rights, Justice and Peace. The State shall uphold international law and seek the peaceful resolution of conflicts through negotiation and collective security in accordance with the United Nations Charter.
  9. Our Role in the Region. The ODSC will join with all progressive forces in the Arab world struggling for democracy, social justice and egalitarian societies free from tyranny and foreign domination.
  10. International responsibility. On a global level, the ODSC views itself as part of the progressive forces striving for an alternative global order that is just, egalitarian and free of any oppression, racism, imperialism and colonialism.

Considerable work still needs to be done to flesh out our program, which is very much a participatory work in progress. But our task in this historic moment is clear: to enter the political arena armed with a clear and compelling political program, organization and strategy, all required if we are to effectively mobilize our main allies, the global grassroots.

A democratic state in historic Palestine is no utopian vision. It is doable, it is critical and it is urgent. The time has come for an inclusive democratic state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Awad Abdelfattah is the Coordinator of the One Democratic State Campaign (ODSC). He is the former Secretary-General, Balad/Tajamo party.

Jeff Halper is the head of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and a founding member of the ODSC. His forthcoming book is Decolonizing Israel, Liberating Palestine: The Case for One Democratic State (London: Pluto, 2021)

pre-drawn conclusions

I have been utterly heartbroken, unequivocally sad for a long time.  It’s over so many things, but in particular, the Julian Assange (show/sham) trial that came to a close a couple of weeks ago.  A rushed close that has not drawn a single “journalists” attention to the mainstream media; the very people this particular trial should be concerned for the consequences to them.  Their silence has been deafening to say the least.

This political trial has been a tragic travesty unfolding from day one.  Make no mistake it is political and its conclusions are pre-drawn indeed.    The charade, this play, where the actors on the prosecutions’ side (including the presiding magistrate) are all on the US political payroll, it is hard not to see what is going on here:  this sham trial from the start is to make the prisoner/suspect/truth teller, the witnesses, the pubic (all 5 of them), the supporters, the whole lot of them to throw their hands up in the air and scream ‘ I GIVE UP!’.

Julian Assange’s treatment from the moment he was dragged out from the Ecuador embassy, shoved into the police van with the numerous police puppets, made to be housed with the most violent criminals at Belmarsh Prison.  The US regime hoped he would take his own life while in solitary confinement. They did not know his resilience

Unable to be a participant in his own hearing, it has been a blatant eye opener for those who really cared to see, to watch, to read.  The UK has been a puppet to the US regimes. Even Vanessa Baraister, who is only a magistrate (not judge!), is at the bottom, the dregs, of the ‘judicial’ system, who, as John Pilger accurately calls a “gothic looking creature”.   This chapter of lawlessness is on stage to portray fairness and equality to the world, that the US regime is the most democratic and above all other nations.  But it is they – the real supporters of dictatorships and terrorists of the world – who had drawn up the scripts for the “gothic looking creature” to read out.

Evil is being whitewashed, torture being fluffed off, and killing innocent people by the millions are apparently of no significance or consequence to those who commit the most ghoulish of crimes against their very own species!  The irony: the very people who grip the baton of freedom (to slander, torture, and slaughter whomever they wish), human rights (abusers), democracy (as long as it is their inverted version) and yes, exceptionalism (imaginary at best), are the very people who abuse, murder, degrade, humiliate, lie cheat and steal, carte away and untold number of unknowns to ‘secret’ prisons dotted all over the globe, then walk away as if it is their right. 

Do they not know that karma is a wicked, hideous bitch? 

It is so heart wrenchingly miserable that no one cares to know about what is willfully being done to Julian Assange, in broad daylight no doubt.  He has shone the light upon the dark side!  Yet if the light were shone upon Bashar Al-Assad, or Maduro, or Xi, it’s worth the time, a look, a gasp, a ‘we need to drop bombs on the civilians to save their lives from that wicked dictator!’.

Too many people have benefitted from Wikileaks and Julian Assange.  But when it and he became too inconvenient and embarrassing, he was dropped. 

Julian Assange is now awaiting his pre-drawn conclusion to be delivered by the “gothic looking creature” that is already pre-drawn.  And it is depressing.

show trial of Julian Assange

The Assange Hearing Day 21 – by Craig John Murray

I really do not know how to report Wednesday’s events. Stunning evidence, of extreme quality and interest, was banged out in precis by the lawyers as unnoticed as bags of frozen chips coming off a production line.

The court that had listened to Clair Dobbin spend four hours cross-examining Carey Shenkman on individual phrases of first instance court decisions in tangentially relevant cases, spent four minutes as Noam Chomsky’s brilliant exegesis of the political import of this extradition case was rapidly fired into the court record, without examination, question or placing into the context of the legal arguments about political extradition.

Twenty minutes sufficed for the reading of the “gist” of the astonishing testimony of two witnesses, their identity protected as their lives may be in danger, who stated that the CIA, operating through Sheldon Adelson, planned to kidnap or poison Assange, bugged not only him but his lawyers, and burgled the offices of his Spanish lawyers Baltazar Garzon. This evidence went unchallenged and untested.

The rich and detailed evidence of Patrick Cockburn on Iraq and of Andy Worthington on Afghanistan was, in each case, well worthy of a full day of exposition. I should love at least to have seen both of them in the witness box explaining what to them were the salient points, and adding their personal insights. Instead we got perhaps a sixth of their words read rapidly into the court record. There was much more.

I have noted before, and I hope you have marked my disapproval, that some of the evidence is being edited to remove elements which the US government wish to challenge, and then entered into the court record as uncontested, with just a “gist” read out in court. The witness then does not appear in person. This reduces the process from one of evidence testing in public view to something very different. Wednesday confirmed the acceptance that this “Hearing” is now devolved to an entirely paper exercise. It is in fact no longer a “hearing” at all. You cannot hear a judge reading. Perhaps in future it should be termed not a hearing but an “occasional rustling”, or a “keyboard tapping”. It is an acknowledged, indeed embraced, legal trend in the UK that courts are increasingly paper exercises, as noted by the Supreme Court.

In the past, the general practice was that all the argument and evidence was placed before the court orally, and documents were read out, Lady Hale said.
She added: “The modern practice is quite different. Much more of the argument and evidence is reduced into writing before the hearing takes place. Often, documents are not read out.
“It is difficult, if not impossible, in many cases, especially complicated civil cases, to know what is going on unless you have access to the written material.”

At least twice in the current case, Judge Baraitser has mentioned that the defence gave her three hundred pages of opening argument, and has done so in the context of doubting the need for all this evidence, or at least for lengthy closing arguments which take account of the evidence. She was highly resistant to any exposition by witnesses of their evidence before cross-examination, arguing that their evidence was already in their statements so they did not need to say it. She eventually agreed on a strict limit of just half an hour for witness “orientation”.

However much Lady Hale thinks she is helping by setting down a principle that the documentation must be available, having Patrick Cockburn’s statement online somewhere will never have the impact of him standing in the witness box and expounding on it. What happened on Wednesday was that the whole hearing was collapsed, with both defence and prosecution lawyers hurling hundreds of pages of witness statement at Baraitser’s head, saying: “You look at this. We can get finished tomorrow morning and all have a long weekend to prepare our next cases.”

I was so disappointed by the way the case petered out before my eyes, that the adrenaline which has carried me through must have dried up. Returning to my room at lunchtime for a brief doze, when I tried to get up for the afternoon session I was overcome with dizziness. I eventually managed to walk to the court, despite the world having decided to present itself at a variety of sharp and unusual angles, and everything appearing to be under glaring orange sodium light. The Old Bailey staff – who I should say have been really friendly and helpful to me throughout – very kindly took me up in a lift and through the advocate’s robing room to the public gallery.

I am happy to say that after court two pints of Guinness and a cheese and ham toastie had a substantial restorative effect. Those who have followed these reports will understand how frustrating it was to be deprived of James Lewis asking Noam Chomsky how he can venture an opinion on whether this extradition is politically motivated when he is only a Professor of Linguistics, or whether he has ever published any peer-reviewed articles. To attempt to encapsulate the wealth of information skipped through yesterday is not the work of an evening.

What I shall do for now is give you the eloquent and brief statement by Noam Chomsky on the political nature of Julian Assange’s actions:

I will also give you the breathtaking testimony of “Witness 2”:

A friend last night gave me the cold comfort that I should not worry about the hurried close of these proceedings reducing the public gaze on the evidence and the arguments (and I think there were altogether nine witness statements yesterday), because that public gaze had been extremely limited, as indeed I have been continually explaining. In other words, it makes no difference. I follow that argument, but it goes against some fundamental beliefs and motivations I have about bearing witness, which I shall need to develop further in my own mind.

In the next few days I will try to bring you a synthesis and analysis of all that passed on Wednesday. Now I need to go to court and see the last few dribbles of this case, and exchange last glances of friendship with Julian for some months.