IMHO the bivalent “new” boosters were designed as a publicity stunt to convince more people to get vaccinated and justify new mandates. Why is it so important to government officials and the WHO to inject us, and do it over and over again?
They are despondent that interest in the new vaccines, rolled out on September 1, has “stagnated.” Below is the press release, just out.
Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, Shock Therapist was the NY Times title of an article from which I excerpt below:
By Peter Passell
New York Times, June 27, 1993
“… Jeffrey D. Sachs, a boyish-looking 38-year-old Harvard professor who is now probably the most important economist in the world. He has appropriated a cluster of comfortable armchairs for a meeting with two members of his team, Americans who work full time in Russia…
As an adviser to reform-minded governments from Bolivia to Slovenia to Poland, Sachs led successful battles for fiscal and monetary discipline in economies written off by more cautious practitioners of the dismal science….
"Poland, with its reforms in place, is the fastest-growing economy in Eastern Europe," says Sachs. "If Poland can do it, so can Russia."‘
The man who so loves the poor designed their nooses 30 years ago.
This is from the top of his Linked-In:
"The world is on the edge of nuclear catastrophe in no small part because of the failure of Western political leaders to be forthright about the causes of the escalating global conflicts. The relentless Western narrative that the West is noble while Russia and China are evil is simple-minded and extraordinarily dangerous. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion, not to deal with very real and pressing diplomacy."
This may be a plea from someone who cares and thinks deeply about world problems. Or it may be intended to get us ready for a one world government, perhaps the only way nuclear weapons might be abolished. Now, gentle reader, keep your eyes open for talk about the use of nuclear weapons. Do you now see one of the narratives that the Ukraine war serves: to gin up the nuclear weapons fear?
What do others say about Jeffrey? Remember Ban Ki-moon, who wrote a blurb for Sachs’ 2020 book: The Ages of Globalization: Geography, Technology, and Institutions:
“As my special advisor on the Sustainable Development Goals, Jeffrey Sachs consistently emphasized that the world can achieve sustainable development only through bold and forward-looking cooperation on a global scale. In his new panoramic history of globalization, Sachs shows why the imperative of peaceful cooperation is more crucial than ever. Our very survival as a species requires that we understand our common fate. This book will help us to reach that shared understanding.” -- Ban Ki-moon, former Secretary-General of the United Nations
Here is another blurb for this book:
This dazzling book makes an invaluable contribution to the debate about the future of globalization by brilliantly summarizing humanity’s existential challenges and providing bold ideas for ensuring our survival. Sachs makes a persuasive argument that applying the concept of sustainable development must be today’s essential mission. His thoughtful proposals for reforming key international institutions, starting with the UN, merit particular attention. The Ages of Globalization is required reading for our times. -- Vuk Jeremić, former president of the United Nations General Assembly
And the below is from Professor Sachs’ own personal website:
The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic
Sachs JD, Abdool Karim SS, et al. The Lancet, September 14, 2022
The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic provides a comprehensive investigation, analysis, and response to COVID-19. The Commission delivers a number of recommendations that are divided into three main areas. First, practical steps to finally control and understand the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, realistic, feasible, and necessary investments to strengthen the first line of defence against emerging infectious agents in countries by strengthening health systems and widening universal health coverage. Third, ambitious proposals to ignite a renaissance in multilateralism, integrating the global response to the risk of future pandemics with actions to address the climate crisis and reversals in sustainable development.
These slides I made for a talk 2 years ago this month.
Dr. Nass did a great job of warning us about Jeffrey Sachs’ trial balloon for global government through the WHO.
We should add some background.
Jeffrey Sachs helped lead the privatization (rape of Russia) that led to the death of millions in Russia. The smell was so bad and the genocide so great, it even ended up leaking into too many public forms....
https://home.solari.com/anne-williamson-testimony/
including in a Qui Tam lawsuit against Harvard University
https://dillonreadandco.com/resources/documents/US-complaint.pdf
Action: Tell your representations to exit the WHO and stop funding the WHO!
Here is the Lancet COVID Commission Report, chaired by Jeffrey Sachs. Next is an excerpt from its executive summary:
“Section 3 presents our policy recommendations, particularly around multilateral cooperation centred at WHO to address global health crises, and around investments in preparedness for future health crises through strong national health systems and international financing and technology cooperation with the world's lower-income regions.”
Remember, the guy is an economist. And this harkens back to the World Economic Forum goals. The WEF celebrates Building Back Better after Destroying, Debasing and Degrading our economies and culture. Which the WEF and now the Lancet COVID Commission drool over, as it will require massive amounts of FINANCING. The way leeches make their money is from the commissions they get for financing big projects.
Nuggets from the final section of the report follow:WHO, working with the main vaccine-producing companies and countries, needs to intensify its efforts to ensure high levels of immunisation coverage in all countries, especially in the low-income countries where vaccine coverage remains dangerously low. Countries must then implement a vaccination-plus control strategy that includes mass immunisation; the availability and affordability of testing; treatment for new infections (test and treat); rehabilitation and social support for people with long COVID; and complementary public health and social measures such as the use of face masks, the promotion of safe workplaces, and economic and social support for self-isolation.
WHO should remain at the centre of the multilateral response to emerging infectious diseases. Yet WHO needs strengthening. Such strengthening should include new regulatory authority, more backing by national political leaders, more contact with the global scientific community, and a larger core budget to carry out its many crucial responsibilities. The capacity of WHO should also be complemented by far greater international finance to support the health systems, research and development, and biomedical production capacity of LMICs.
The weaknesses and shortfalls of the IHR (2005) in protecting the world against the COVID-19 pandemic have led to the decision by WHO member states to start the process to draft and negotiate new agreements on pandemic preparedness and response, including a possible new Pandemic Treaty. We echo many other reports on COVID-19 in calling for a global pandemic agreement and for a reassessment of and update to the IHR (2005).96, 489, 490, 492
…the approval by WHO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the International Maritime Organization of standing regulations regarding the processing and control of international travellers and international freight and shipping under global pandemic conditions.
a substantial increase to the core budget of WHO is required to increase its effectiveness at its headquarters in Geneva, at regional offices, and in countries around the world. Moreover, WHO needs the capacity to draw upon large-scale emergency financing in the case of a global public health emergency. WHO should continue to use the infrastructure it has built up so that this infrastructure is in place when another pandemic emerges. An emergency credit line at an international financial institution, designed as a key tool of the new Global Health Fund, could provide the necessary emergency financing channel.
Strategies to prevent research-related releases should include stronger international and national oversight of biosafety, biosecurity, and biorisk management, including the strict regulation of gain of function research of concern…
It is certain that future pandemics will arise from interactions between humans and animals, and that research on viruses will continue with the potential for accidents. It is therefore imperative that society enacts measures to reduce the possibility of both natural spillovers and spillovers from research-related activities…Calls for One Health approaches to address the risks of the emergence and transmission of zoonotic diseases are common among reports on pandemic prevention and preparedness, and many reports have called for greater global surveillance and monitoring of disease risks, with WHO as the coordinating power.
Coincidentally, I warned my readers about Jeffrey Sachs and about One Health in a long post I wrote in May 2022, titled, “A winding tale of the WHO, monkeypox, Jeffrey Sachs' turnaround, and One Health.” It was subtitled, “Important backstories behind the news you're getting. More coming.” How prescient was that?
Here is what I wrote then about the WHO‘s International Health Regulations amendments, and about the pandemic treaty that was being negotiated:
The US state department drafted a dozen AMENDMENTS to an existing international health treaty that had been adopted in 2005, termed the International Health Regulations (IHR). These US-drafted amendments would enable the WHO to assume control over the pandemic response to future pandemics on a worldwide basis. This is the US writing new rules that would give up its own sovereignty (and everyone else's) to the WHO, in the event of a pandemic or health emergency. In February, very quietly, the proposed amendments were sent out to the WHA members for review, pending a vote this week.
I can promise you the US never gives up even a speck of sovereignty; and that the purpose of the state department is to maintain and expand US power. The only conclusion I could draw is that the US Government and/or the global elites were confident they could control the WHO, and since using the guise of a pandemic to grab power, influence and money had worked so well for them so far, they were expanding the program to the whole world via the WHO. People like Astrid Stuckelberger, James Rogusky and others predicted this was the mechanism to achieve a worldwide coup.
Concurrent with the presentation of these amendments to the WHA, a new WHO treaty has been in the process of being negotiated since last fall, and was expected to accomplish essentially the same thing: a means to transfer national control over health and medical care from individual nations to the WHO under the guise of a pandemic or medical emergency…
Regarding Mr. Sachs I wrote in May:
“The Lancet Commission published a massive 23 page report in the Lancet on September 14, 2020 that seemed to me to be establishing Sachs' group as credible, and buttressing a variety of what we have come to know as globalist narratives and agendas.
Professor Sachs therefore appeared to be a globalist flunky. And when I looked at the publications from his massive Commission, I learned the majority had to do with pushing COVID vaccinations.
So I was surprised to learn a few days ago that Professor Sachs himself had supposedly gone rogue, and published a paper in the PNAS, noting how the US government and institutions were hiding information about COVID's origins. He and his coauthor wrote:
EHA [Daszak], UNC [Ralph Baric], NIH [Fauci], USAID [one of many funders of EHA and Wuhan], and other research partners have failed to disclose their activities to the US scientific community and the US public, instead declaring that they were not involved in any experiments that could have resulted in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2...
a US-based investigation need not wait—there is much to learn from the US institutions that were extensively involved in research that may have contributed to, or documented the emergence of, the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Only an independent and transparent investigation, perhaps as a bipartisan Congressional inquiry, will reveal the information that is needed to enable a thorough scientific process of scrutiny and evaluation.”
Most likely, Sachs is trying to reassert his leadership regarding the original Lancet Commission investigation that was halted due to the notoriety of Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance. He may also be seeking funding for such investigation, and/or trying to repair his tattered reputation. Will he team up with Robert Zelikow to whitewash any future origins investigation? Stay tuned.”
Here is what I said about One Health in that article:
I used to think One Health was just a silly concept designed to justify more funding for the EcoHealth Alliance type of voracious grant hunter. Certainly EcoHealth was a major proponent of the concept. But well-fed One Health adherents suddenly appeared, tucked into many corners of the world (here is one South American example), including CDC, the World Bank and WHO. I had been wrong.
One Health is an idea plucked out of thin air: that in order to manage the health of the planet, we can't think about people in isolation. We have to consider them in the context of animals too, both livestock and wild animals, and also "ecosystems". This might have been a good idea if a significant chunk of human disease came from animals, but in fact, zoonoses (infections spread to humans from animals) are pretty rare. Think anthrax. Rabies. Monkeypox. And while flu viruses do reassort in animals, the risk of influenza has been factitiously ginned up by public health agencies for decades. I now suspect the reason was to acclimate the public to the idea of yearly booster shots.
It seems that One Health is an integral part of the globalist plan (proposing false health narratives with the aim of usurping authority), so I thought I had better give you a brief summary of this concept as I know it…
Then I marshalled a lot of evidence about One Health. Please read it if you are interested; it is quite the scam. But this piece is already so long, I will stop now. Except for one more nugget.
Here are the conflicts of interest of the authors of the Lancet COVID Commission report, in case you couldn’t guess:
SSAK declares grants paid to the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa from the National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), the South African Medical Research Council, the National Research Foundation, and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership. He is a vice-president of the International Science Council; a commissioner of the African Commission on COVID-19; and a member of the WHO Science Council, the Advisory Council of the Physicians for Human Rights, the Global Medical Advisory Board on COVID-19 for Sanofi Pasteur, and the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. CBa declares consulting fees from and is a member of the advisory board of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. MEB and PJH are co-directors of a team of scientists at Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, who are co-inventors of a COVID-19 recombinant protein vaccine technology owned by Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) that was licensed by BCM, non-exclusively and with no patent restrictions, to several companies committed to advancing vaccines for low-income and middle-income countries. The co-inventors have no involvement in license negotiations conducted by BCM. Similar to other research universities, a long-standing BCM policy provides its faculty and staff, who make discoveries that result in a commercial license, a share of any royalty income. To date, BCM has not distributed any royalty income to the co-inventors of the COVID-19 recombinant protein vaccine technology. Any such distribution will be undertaken in accordance with BCM policy. CBu declares grants from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson Japan; payment from University of Malaya; and is the president of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco—Oceania. GCB is co-chair of the UHC2030 International Alliance. AH declares grants and consulting fees from the Wellcome Trust and the Oak Foundation. NJ declares support from the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and consulting fees from the University of California, San Francisco Department of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Foundation for Global Governance and Sustainability. ET declares consulting fees from the United Nations Development Programme. VV-F and IS are co-chairs of the Nizami Ganjavi International Centre. MAP declares grants from the Rockefeller Foundation to his institution and is a member of the Board of Directors for Management Sciences for Health, and non-executive Governing Board member of Sidra Medicine. JT declares funds from the Victorian Government to BehaviourWorks Australia for surveys and research on COVID-19 related behaviours, from Monash University and from Melbourne Water. AG was a member of the Open Society Global Drug Policy Program until February, 2022. MH declares funds from the Victorian Government, the New South Wales Government, the Australian Government, and the Macquarie Foundation to the Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia for research and modelling work related to COVID-19, and grants from AbbVie and Gilead Sciences that are unrelated to this work. JVL declares grants from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, MSD, and Roche Diagnostics, and consulting fees from NovVax, all unrelated to this work. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest. This report does not represent the institutions nor the organisations for which the authors work.
Start at minute 20:00 and listen to 23:20. Or better yet, read my transcription below.
Globalist extraordinaire Jeffrey Sachs read the following on September 15, 2022, regarding the conclusion of the Lancet COVID committee report:
“We don’t want laboratory-created pandemics, and yet there is a lot of hidden, dangerous research underway and it needs to be regulated and supervised.
I am sorry to put even more burden on our dear director general of WHO. But we need WHO to oversee the biosafety. Because we don’t have any global oversight of biosafety right now. And I can tell you surely, whatever the origin of this virus, there is a lot of hidden, dangerous work underway that is not properly controlled, and we need to know what’s happening, to monitor it, and make sure it is being safely and properly done. And that is not the case right now.
Then we recommend several steps for strengthening WHO. WHO is the cornerstone of our global health and safety.
It was made for a reason in 1948. It has done round the clock very difficult work. Including in the most recent hours, as I’ve been hearing, in this.
We need WHO to have a full, proper, adequate budget. We need it to have the backing of political leaders and the global scientific community. We need it to have the powers to investigate as necessary. We can't let it get caught in geopolitical conflict between the US and China or anyone else. It needs strong global backing.
This is the main message of our report. We want an absolutely strong WHO. We have strong leadership but we need to back the strong leadership.
Finally we need financing. To meet the urgent needs of vulnerable populations. Especially poor people around the world. We live in a world of vast inequality as I have emphasized. But justice is that everybody has the right to life and health. And we’ve also realized that since the Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution of the WHO itself.
So we call for a global health fund, based in Geneva, working alongside WHO. Of tens of billions of dollars, not a trickle. Roughly 0.1% of the rich world income.
That’s absolutely manageable. So that we have the funding to ensure health systems that function everywhere in the world."
My error—no Nobel Prize. But here are his awards according to Wikipedia:
In 2004 and 2005, Sachs was named one of the 100 Most Influential People in the World by Time. He was also named one of the "500 Most Influential People in the Field of Foreign Policy" by the World Affairs Councils of America.[68]
In 1993, the New York Times called Sachs "probably the most important economist in the world."[27] In 2005, Sachs received the Sargent Shriver Award for Equal Justice. In 2007, he was awarded the Padma Bhushan, the third highest civilian honor bestowed by the government of India.[69] Also in 2007, he received the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution International Advocate for Peace Award and the Centennial Medal from the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences for his contributions to society.[31]
In 2007, Sachs received the S. Roger Horchow Award for Greatest Public Service by a Private Citizen, an award given out annually by Jefferson Awards.[70]
From 2000 to 2001, Sachs was chairman of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health[71] of the World Health Organization (WHO) and from 1999 to 2000 he served as a member of the International Financial Institution Advisory Commission established by the United States Congress. Sachs has been an adviser to the WHO, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations Development Program. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Harvard Society of Fellows, the Fellows of the World Econometric Society, the Brookings Panel of Economists, the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Board of Advisers of the Chinese Economists Society, among other international organizations.[31] Sachs is also the first holder of the Royal Professor Ungku Aziz Chair in Poverty Studies at the Centre for Poverty and Development Studies at the University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia for 2007–2009. He holds an honorary professorship at the Universidad del Pacifico in Peru. He has lectured at the London School of Economics, the University of Oxford and Yale University and in Tel Aviv and Jakarta.[31]
In September 2008, Vanity Fair ranked Sachs 98th on its list of 100 members of the New Establishment. In July 2009, Sachs became a member of the Netherlands Development Organisation's International Advisory Board.[72] In 2009, Princeton University's American Whig-Cliosophic Society awarded Sachs the James Madison Award for Distinguished Public Service.[73]
In 2016, Sachs became president of the Eastern Economic Association, succeeding Janet Currie.[74]
In 2017, Sachs and his wife were the joint recipients of the first World Sustainability Award.[75] In 2015, Sachs was awarded the Blue Planet Prize for his contributions to solving global environmental problems.[76]
In May 2017 Sachs was awarded the Boris Mints Institute Prize for Research of Strategic Policy Solutions to Global Challenges.[77]
Not sure their stats are trustworthy of course
According to CDC staff at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on September first, 49% of the eligible US population had already received at least one COVID vaccine booster. “Eligible” meant only those Americans who had completed the initial series, which was 67% of the US population.
Immediately after the meeting the new, bivalent boosters were rolled out. They were already being shipped to clinics, having been authorized by FDA the day before. Rochelle Walensky blessed them after the ACIP gave its approval on September 1, the same day that bivalent boosters were rolled out in Canada, Switzerland, the European Union and the US.
I am not sure what the rush was.
With data updated through September 14, how many Americans have received one of these shiny new boosters? How many ran out to get the latest and greatest omicron-containing shots?
According to CDC, the total number of eligible Americans who took any type of first booster is 48.6%. Wait, what? Isn’t that less (or the same) as the 49% claimed by CDC on September 1 to have gotten one of the old boosters?
Americans have smartened up. And didn’t Biden say the pandemic was over?
Nobody wants these killer vaccines any more.
The Pentagon has ordered a sweeping audit of how it conducts clandestine information warfare after major social media companies identified and took offline fake accounts suspected of being run by the U.S. military in violation of the platforms’ rules.
The takedowns in recent years by Twitter and Facebook of more than 150 bogus personas and media sites created in the United States was disclosed last month by internet researchers Graphika and the Stanford Internet Observatory. While the researchers did not attribute the sham accounts to the U.S. military, two officials familiar with the matter said that U.S. Central Command is among those whose activities are facing scrutiny. Like others interviewed for this report, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military operations.
The researchers did not specify when the takedowns occurred, but those familiar with the matter said they were within the past two or three years. Some were recent, they said, and involved posts from the summer that advanced anti-Russia narratives citing the Kremlin’s “imperialist” war in Ukraine and warning of the conflict’s direct impact on Central Asian countries. Significantly, they found that the pretend personas — employing tactics used by countries such as Russia and China — did not gain much traction, and that overt accounts actually attracted more followers.
Centcom, headquartered in Tampa, has purview over military operations across 21 countries in the Middle East, North Africa and Central and South Asia. A spokesman declined to comment.
Air Force Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, said in a statement that the military’s information operations “support our national security priorities” and must be conducted in compliance with relevant laws and policies. “We are committed to enforcing those safeguards,” he said.
Spokespersons for Facebook and Twitter declined to comment.
According to the researchers’ report, the accounts taken down included a made-up Persian-language media site that shared content reposted from the U.S.-funded Voice of America Farsi and Radio Free Europe. Another, it said, was linked to a Twitter handle that in the past had claimed to operate on behalf of Centcom.
One fake account posted an inflammatory tweet claiming that relatives of deceased Afghan refugees had reported bodies being returned from Iran with missing organs, according to the report. The tweet linked to a video that was part of an article posted on a U.S.-military affiliated website.
Centcom has not commented on whether these accounts were created by its personnel or contractors. If the organ-harvesting tweet is shown to be Centcom’s, one defense official said, it would “absolutely be a violation of doctrine and training practices."
Independent of the report, The Washington Post has learned that in 2020 Facebook disabled fictitious personas created by Centcom to counter disinformation spread by China suggesting the coronavirus responsible for covid-19 was created at a U.S. Army lab in Fort Detrick, Md., according to officials familiar with the matter. The pseudo profiles — active in Facebook groups that conversed in Arabic, Farsi and Urdu, the officials said — were used to amplify truthful information from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the virus’s origination in China.
The U.S. government’s use of ersatz social media accounts, though authorized by law and policy, has stirred controversy inside the Biden administration, with the White House pressing the Pentagon to clarify and justify its policies. The White House, agencies such as the State Department and even some officials within the Defense Department have been concerned that the policies are too broad, allowing leeway for tactics that even if used to spread truthful information, risk eroding U.S. credibility, several U.S. officials said.
“Our adversaries are absolutely operating in the information domain,” said a second senior defense official. “There are some who think we shouldn’t do anything clandestine in that space. Ceding an entire domain to an adversary would be unwise. But we need stronger policy guardrails.
A spokeswoman for the National Security Council, which is part of the White House, declined to comment.
Kahl disclosed his review at a virtual meeting convened by the National Security Council on Tuesday, saying he wants to know what types of operations have been carried out, who they’re targeting, what tools are being used and why military commanders have chosen those tactics, and how effective they have been, several officials said.
The message was essentially, “You have to justify to me why you’re doing these types of things,” the first defense official said.
Pentagon policy and doctrine discourage the military from peddling falsehoods, but there are no specific rules mandating the use of truthful information for psychological operations. For instance, the military sometimes employs fiction and satire for persuasion purposes, but generally the messages are supposed to stick to facts, officials said.
In 2020, officers at Facebook and Twitter contacted the Pentagon to raise concerns about the phony accounts they were having to remove, suspicious they were associated with the military. That summer, David Agranovich, Facebook’s director for global threat disruption, spoke to Christopher C. Miller, then assistant director for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict, which oversees influence operations policy, warning him that if Facebook could sniff them out, so could U.S. adversaries, several people familiar with the conversation said.
“His point‚” one person said, “was ‘Guys, you got caught. That’s a problem.’ ”
Before Miller could take action, he was tapped to head a different agency — the National Counterterrorism Center. Then the November election happened and time ran out for the Trump administration to address the matter, although Miller did spend the last few weeks of Donald Trump’s presidency serving as acting defense secretary.
With the rise of Russia and China as strategic competitors, military commanders have wanted to fight back, including online. And Congress supported that. Frustrated with perceived legal obstacles to the Defense Department’s ability to conduct clandestine activities in cyberspace, Congress in late 2019 passed a law affirming that the military could conduct operations in the “information environment” to defend the United States and to push back against foreign disinformation aimed at undermining its interests. The measure, known as Section 1631, allows the military to carry out clandestine psychologic operations without crossing what the CIA has claimed as its covert authority, alleviating some of the friction that had hindered such operations previously.
“Combatant commanders got really excited,” recalled the first defense official. “They were very eager to utilize these new authorities. The defense contractors were equally eager to land lucrative classified contracts to enable clandestine influence operations.”
At the same time, the official said, military leaders were not trained to oversee “technically complex operations conducted by contractors” or coordinate such activities with other stakeholders elsewhere in the U.S. government.
Last year, with a new administration in place, Facebook’s Agranovich tried again. This time he took his complaint to President Biden’s deputy national security adviser for cyber, Anne Neuberger. Agranovich, who had worked at the NSC under Trump, told Neuberger that Facebook was taking down fake accounts because they violated the company’s terms of service, according to people familiar with the exchange.
The accounts were easily detected by Facebook, which since Russia’s campaign to interfere in the 2016 presidential election has enhanced its ability to identify mock personas and sites. In some cases, the company had removed profiles, which appeared to be associated with the military, that promoted information deemed by fact-checkers to be false, said a person familiar with the matter.
Agranovich also spoke to officials at the Pentagon. His message was: “We know what DOD is doing. It violates our policies. We will enforce our policies” and so “DOD should knock it off,” said a U.S. official briefed on the matter.
In response to White House concerns, Kahl ordered a review of Military Information Support Operations, or MISO, the Pentagon’s moniker for psychological operations. A draft concluded that policies, training and oversight all needed tightening, and that coordination with other agencies, such as the State Department and the CIA, needed strengthening, according to officials.
The review also found that while there were cases in which fictitious information was pushed by the military, they were the result of inadequate oversight of contractors and personnel training — not systemic problems, officials said.
Pentagon leadership did little with the review, two officials said, before Graphika and Stanford published their report on Aug. 24, which elicited a flurry of news coverage and questions for the military.
The State Department and CIA have been perturbed by the military’s use of clandestine tactics. Officers at State have admonished the Defense Department, “Hey don’t amplify our policies using fake personas, because we don’t want to be seen as creating false grass roots efforts,” the first defense official said.
One diplomat put it this way: “Generally speaking, we shouldn’t be employing the same kind of tactics that our adversaries are using because the bottom line is we have the moral high ground. We are a society that is built on a certain set of values. We promote those values around the world and when we use tactics like those, it just undermines our argument about who we are.”
Psychological operations to promote U.S. narratives overseas is nothing new in the military, but the popularity of western social media across the globe has led to an expansion of tactics, including the use of artificial personas and images — sometimes called “deep fakes.” The logic is that views expressed by what appears to be, say, an Afghan woman or an Iranian student might be more persuasive than if they were openly pushed by the U.S. government.
The majority of the military’s influence operations are overt, promoting U.S. policies in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere under its own name, officials said. And there are valid reasons to use clandestine tactics, such as trying to infiltrate a closed terrorist chat group, they said.
A key issue for senior policymakers now is determining whether the military’s execution of clandestine influence operations is delivering results. “Is the juice worth the squeeze? Does our approach really have the potential for the return on investment we hoped or is it just causing more challenges?” one person familiar with the debate said.
The report by Graphika and Stanford suggests that the clandestine activity did not have much impact. It noted that the “vast majority of posts and tweets” reviewed received “no more than a handful of likes or retweets,” and only 19 percent of the concocted accounts had more than 1,000 followers. “Tellingly,” the report stated, “the two most-followed assets in the data provided by Twitter were overt accounts that publicly declared a connection to the U.S. military.”
Clandestine influence operations have a role in support of military operations, but it should be a narrow one with “intrusive oversight” by military and civilian leadership, said Michael Lumpkin, a former senior Pentagon official handling information operations policy and a former head of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center. “Otherwise, we risk making more enemies than friends.”
I will be one of the speakers,
| ||
|
One of the interviews was with Russian emigre Veronika Kyrylenko at the New American and the other was with Terry Gilberg (Timeline with Terry).
Terry has been a US journalist for decades who has maintained her self-respect by refusing to broadcast the single narrative approved by our deep state, and she continues to tell the truth.
Veronika does not want the US to fall into the trap the USSR sunk into for 70 years, while her homeland is still suffering the after-effects from it.
Here is Terry's interview: https://ctva.tv/watch-on-demand-below/?video_id=58351&title=TIMELINE%20with%20TERRY%20-%20Guest%20Dr.%20Meryl%20Nass
Here is Veronika's: https://thenewamerican.com/dr-meryl-nass-insanity-of-new-covid-boosters/
Has she been asleep for the past year?
Or does she know something we don't?
-----------
And now we hear there is a cholera epidemic in Syria. More BW? This is a reflection of unsafe water or deliberately contaminated water supplies. It kills via massive diarrhea and dehydration, though it is otherwise not a severe illness.
The WHO's Michael Ryan is overdoing himself today with his body language and loud voice. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. He has not suggested a single solution, nor have any of the other WHO briefers.
The WHO press conferences occur weekly on Wednesdays at 9 am EDT.
There have been 2 deaths in Americans who had monkeypox. Both were said to be severely immunocompromised.
Sept. 12, 2022, 12:33 AM EDT / Updated Sept. 13, 2022, 12:20 PM EDT
The Los Angeles County health department on Monday confirmed the first death from monkeypox in the U.S.
In a statement, the department said the patient was severely immunocompromised and had been hospitalized, but did not provide further details.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed the death as well, the department said.
In Texas, health officials are still investigating the death of a person with monkeypox. When the death was reported on August 29, the Texas Department of State Health Services said the patient was diagnosed with monkeypox in the Houston area and was "severely immunocompromised." But it's not yet known whether monkeypox was the cause of death.
There was also one reported death in a Hollywood makeup artist 9 days after receiving a monkeypox vaccine injection.
Fortunately, monkeypox cases have been steadily dropping over the past 3 weeks.
Federal health officials working to stem the monkeypox outbreak are shifting tactics in their immunization campaign as interest in the vaccine wanes and gaps in getting the shot to communities of color persist.
Earlier this summer, eager people snapped up vaccination appointments in cities from New York to Los Angeles. But a POLITICO review of a Biden administration pilot program that began last month to offer shots at large events found that supply outpaced demand, a trend mirrored nationwide as vaccine uptake has slowed.
Now the administration says it’s widening the net, creating another pilot to send vaccines to smaller venues and clinics.
I have pointed out that vaccine did not prevent monkeypox in monkeys. It did generate antibody levels…but without a correlate of protection antibody levels don’t mean much. All vaccine candidates generate antibodies of some kind. In an apparent attempt to show the vaccine “works”, the manufacturer has released some unpublished data, according to CIDRAP at the University of Minnesota:
In contrast to a recent Dutch preprint that cast doubt on the efficacy of Bavarian Nordic's Jynneos (modified vaccinia Ankara [MVA]) vaccine to produce significant neutralizing antibodies to monkeypox, the company has released its own preprint study showing that single and two-dose Jynneos vaccinations administered subcutaneously induced durable neutralizing antibody responses in healthy volunteers.
Results were comparable to older-generation replicating smallpox vaccines.
But here’s the thing: The CDC gave the vaccine to 1000-1600 healthcare workers in an area of the Congo where many were expected to be exposed. Vaccinations began in 2017 and were completed by 2020 or earlier.
The 2017 clinicaltrials.gov report of this trial says it will enroll 1600 healthcare workers. The 2018 publication describing the logistics of the trial says the target enrollment was 1000. This publication also states that “16 weeks were required for initial enrollment of participants.” It further describes its methodology:
Serologic monitoring of study participants will continue at roughly 6-month intervals until the two-year timepoint is reached. Until that time, the study team will continue to collect information pertaining to participants’ occupational exposures to MPX cases—presumptive and confirmed—, MPX infection status, and possible vaccine adverse events. Finally, as a surrogate measure for immunization efficacy, we will measure participants’ serum orthopoxvirus antibody titers and will assess whether specific participant characteristics (e.g., age, sex, prior smallpox immunization) are associated with more enduring antibody levels…
Understanding the performance parameters of IMVAMUNE [one of the many earlier names of Jynneos—Nass] under conditions of natural orthopoxvirus transmission will build confidence in its use as a preventive measure for many populations potentially at risk, including HCWs, and, in the future, perhaps hunters or other groups with elevated risk.
Yet CDC has breathed not a word of the results of this extensive field trial, the only trial of efficacy—ever—for this vaccine.
If the results were positive, don’t you think CDC would be shouting them from the rooftops as it seeks more and more recipients for its monkey business vaccine?
And now they want our children to join the experiment. Or maybe it is not an experiment and the federal officials know exactly what they are doing.
