All posts by Algora Blog

The Melania tapes bust the “Free Melania” myth

Turns out the first lady is a lot like her husband.

By Anna North

Melania Trump stands before a podium, backed by American flags.First lady Melania Trump addresses the Republican National Convention from the Rose Garden of the White House on August 25, 2020, in Washington, DC.Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

Remember “Free Melania”?

It became a meme and a hashtag shortly after the first lady was caught on tape appearing to grimace at President Trump’s inauguration. The idea was that Melania Trump was an unwilling captor to her husband and his regime, deserving of pity and liberation, not criticism. It was all “part of a long-standing narrative in pop culture: the cheeky but also insistent assumption that the new first lady is the sad and sleepy heroine of a decidedly modern fairy tale,” as Megan Garber wrote at the Atlantic in 2017.

Now it’s 2020, approximately 10 trillion years later, and Melania herself has punched a big hole in that narrative.

On a tape secretly recorded in 2018 and released Thursday night by CNN, the first lady complains to then-friend Stephanie Winston Wolkoff that the media is bothering her about the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the US border.

“They said, ‘Oh, what about the children, that they were separated?’ Give me a fucking break,” she says on the tape, according to the CNN transcript. “Where they were saying anything when Obama did that?”

The Obama administration did not, in fact, pursue a policy of separating children from their parents at the border. And Trump’s statements on the tape suggest that, far from secretly disapproving of her husband’s administration, she is actually on board with its aims and angry at those who criticize them. She’s also mad about the “liberal media,” who she believes are treating her unfairly.

Her chief of staff, Stephanie Grisham, dismissed the tape as a “clear attempt at relevance” by Wolkoff, who also recently published a book about her relationship with Melania. “The timing of this continues to be suspect — as does this never-ending exercise in self-pity and narcissism,” Grisham said.

But the tape offers a clearer picture into Trump’s inner life than the American people have ever gotten. And in that picture, she’s not an innocent damsel in distress. Instead, she’s dismissive of the lives and rights of immigrant children, and resentful and angry at anyone who would criticize her for it. Ultimately, she’s a lot like her husband.

Americans have always projected what they want to see onto Melania

Melania Trump has always been something of a blank slate. She makes few public statements, and when she does, she’s often terse and hard to read — a polar opposite of her husband’s often logorrheic bluster. During one of her first big moments on the national stage, her speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention, she actually used someone else’s words rather than her own — Michelle Obama’s, to be exact, an instance of plagiarism for which she and the Trump campaign were heavily criticized. But that plagiarism also prevented Americans from knowing much about the real Melania.

Americans have had to read into her clothes — a pussy-bow blouse after her husband was caught on tape bragging about his ability to grab women “by the pussy”; a suffragist whitesuit at the 2018 State of the Union; a jacket reading “I really don’t care, do u?” while visiting a child detention center. Or they’ve had to speculate based on her facial expressions, like that famous frown at the inauguration, or her body language, like the time she appeared to swat her husband’s hand away during a 2017 visit to Israel.

Often, that speculation has centered on Melania’s possible hatred for her husband. At the inauguration, Jezebel’s Ashley Feinberg joked, “we all had a very nice and good time welcoming in our new president, Donald J. Trump. But of all the many, many happy people in attendance, no one was happier to be there than his loving wife who certainly does not hate him, Melania Knauss Trump.”

But some went beyond the idea that Melania harbored distaste for her husband, to joke (or maybe not joke) that she was actually begging for release. As Garber reported, signs at the 2017 Women’s March included messages like “MELANIA: BLINK TWICE IF YOU NEED HELP.”

Such messages had a darker undertone given that more than 20 women have reported sexual misconduct by the president, and that his ex-wife Ivana Trump once said that he raped her (she later said she did not mean this in a “criminal sense”). This history has led to questions about whether Trump has been abusive to Melania.

But there’s also been an element of wish fulfillment to liberals’ “free Melania” memes — a hope, perhaps, that the person in some ways closest to Trump might actually think he sucks. The idea of a secret sleeper agent within the White House, signaling to outsiders with pussy bows and cryptic expressions, has been appealing to those looking for any reason to be hopeful during the Trump administration.

There’s also more than a little sexism in the idea that Melania Trump must be a victim, as Vox’s Alex Abad-Santos has noted. It assumes that she lacks agency in her relationship and her position as first lady, and also, perhaps, that a woman simply couldn’t hold the same views President Trump does.

As it turns out, the latter isn’t true.

The tape is a rare opportunity to hear Melania speak for herself

On the tape, recorded in summer 2018 when the Trump administration’s policy of family separation was causing widespread outrage, Melania Trump argues that actually, the conditions for migrant children in detention at the border are quite good.

“The kids, they say, ‘Wow I will have my own bed? I will sleep on the bed? I will have a cabinet for my clothes?’ It’s so sad to hear it, but they didn’t have that in their own countries, they sleep on the floor,” she tells Wolkoff on the tape.

She also claims that mothers and children lie about being persecuted in Mexico so they can get asylum in the US: “A lot of like moms and kids they are teached how to do it. They go over and they say, like, ‘Oh, we will be killed by a gang member, we will be, you know, it’s so dangerous.’”

“They could easily stay in Mexico,” she goes on, “but they don’t want to stay in Mexico because Mexico doesn’t take care of them the same as America does.”

On the tape, Melania also appears to reveal that her infamous “I really don’t care” jacket, worn on a visit to a detention center in June 2018, was an effort to troll left-wingers. “I’m driving liberals crazy,” she says, “and they deserve it.” (She had previously stated publiclythat the jacket was meant as a message “for the left-wing media who are criticizing me.”)

Melania also complains on the tape about being asked about family separation while she was trying to plan the White House Christmas decorations, which she also did not care for (“who gives a fuck about the Christmas stuff and decorations?”). She also complains that she’s being unfairly treated in the media, claiming that she tried to reunite a migrant child and mother but “they would not do the story because they’re against us because they are liberal media.”

Sound familiar?

There are moments on the tape where Melania appears to resent being lumped together with her husband. “They say I’m complicit, I’m the same like him, I support him,” she says at one point. “I don’t say enough, I don’t do enough.”

But overall, the sense is of a first lady who is on board with her husband’s policy and believes in the ideas behind it: that immigrants are fraudulently coming to the US to take advantage of its supposedly generous welfare state, that they must be stopped, and that children at the border are actually lucky to be held in the comparatively palatial conditions of a US detention center.

Moreover, the Melania captured on the tape is someone who actually has a lot in common with her husband — someone who feels aggrieved and mistreated by a “liberal media” that never acknowledges her accomplishments. As she says, “they’re against us.” It’s the same message Trump has repeated throughout his presidency, as when he claimed in 2017 that “no politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly” by the media.

By not saying very much, Melania Trump has allowed liberals to project their own fantasies, and sometimes their own biases, onto her. But now that she’s been caught speaking in an unguarded moment, the reality appears far more prosaic: The woman who married Donald Trump, campaigned with him, lives in the White House with him, and has never once publicly spoken out against him despite probably knowing more about him than anyone else, is actually a lot like Donald Trump. Imagine that.

Biden – A Catalyst To Accelerate US Decline?

Authored by Egon von Greyerz via GoldSwitzerland.com,

The Chinese understand the long game and they have infinite patience. They have always known that they never needed to attack the US, financially or militarily.

Because China has invariably understood that the US would self-destruct.

POLITICS AND PRINCES DON’T MIX

The Duchess of Sussex who has dragged her poor husband, Prince Harry, into the US election has declared that this will be the most important election in history. She will most probably be right but for the wrong reason. Meghan Markle believes a Biden victory is the only way that the US can be saved, primarily because she can’t stand Trump (which is reciprocal). It probably doesn’t matter who wins the election when is comes to stopping the crash of the US economy and currency.

But what is guaranteed is that Biden’s policies will bankrupt America much faster than Trump’s. The profligate democrats will forgive trillions of debt, increase spending and reduce taxes for the masses.

The Chinese have waited patiently for this moment. They forecast the collapse of the “capitalist monetary system with the dollar as its prop” already half a century ago and how right they have been.

THE DAYS OF THE DOLLAR ARE COUNTED

A 98% fall in real terms – against gold – and a 78% fall against the Swiss franc tells the world that the days of the dollar are counted. So will we see the US bald eagle crash to the ground and a phoenix in the form of a new world currency emerge like in the 1988 Economist article?

Well, the dollar crash is guaranteed and a Biden victory will accelerate the move. But there is unlikely to be a new world currency in the near term. As the dollar falls and with it the US economy, China will gradually emerge as the next dominant economy and super power. But this will take time. Before that we will have chaos in the global financial system, economic collapse in many countries, political upheaval, riots, and wars.

BIDEN – A CATALYST FOR ACCELERATED US DECLINE

So is a Biden victory going to cause all this. No not solely. But just as the coronavirus sped up that fall of the US and world economy, Biden will be the catalyst for an accelerated decline of the US. Both events would have happened anyway but probably not as dramatically as with these two powerful catalysts – CV and Biden.

The coming US election will have bitter consequences for the US and the world whoever wins. It is likely to be aggressively fought not just before November 4th but more so after the result is declared. There will be a plethora of forums where the election result will be disputed and fought like in the courts, the media, the streets, in families and in politics of course.

CHURCHILL – WE SHALL FIGHT ON THE BEACHES

The fighting everywhere reminds me of Winston Churchill’s speech in parliament in June 1940 after the evacuation of Dunkirk:

“…… we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills;…”

Churchill’s speech was obviously to unify and prepare the nation for the major war effort ahead. But the consequence of the US election will be extremely divisive and damaging for the US whoever wins.

So 2021 is not just likely to be the start of a severe and long lasting economic downturn or collapse for the US but also an extended period of extreme political and social disharmony and discontent.

REMINISCING OVER BETTER TIMES

I have just entered my 52nd year of working life. But I can clearly remember life before that as a young boy in Sweden, back in the 1950s. This was a time when the family was the kernel of society and there was total respect for law and order. Mothers were at home and looked after the children. The wages of the father were sufficient to provide for the family. Very few people had debt and obviously there were no credit cards. Most things were paid for in cash. The police was unarmed and there was total respect for their authority. Sweden then was a very homogenous society with few immigrants. There was very little crime and virtually no violent crime. I remember visiting churches in the countryside and the doors were open and church silver would stand on shelves totally unprotected. Young children could move around freely without parental protection. Very few people went on holiday abroad or had cars or televisions. The economy was strong, based on real money with little debt. The quality of life was far superior to today. I am not talking about material things but people were much happier with less stress and strong respect for your fellow humans. There was integrity with strong moral and ethical values.

THE END OF AN ERA

I do realise that all of this could sound like a mature man nostalgically reminiscing and embellishing the past. There might be some truth in that criticism but I am quite convinced that the era we are now in is the end of a cycle when it comes to quality of life, values, crime, honesty, integrity. The current debt based economy with fake money and values is clearly creating a very unhappy society and many discontented people.

This is why the current cycle needs to soon come to an end. The world needs a proper forest fire which destroys the debt and all the bubble assets financed by printed money and worthless debt. The coming fall of the global debt edifice will be a relief for the world but it will obviously involve a long period of suffering. But only after this fall can the world start a new cycle with green shoots based on a sound monetary and financial system which is based on real values, both moral and material.

HALF A CENTURY OF DRAMATIC CHANGES IN THE WORLD

Coming back to my half a century of working life, there have also been some dramatic changes in the world. The table below shows what has happened to debt, dollar, GDP & stocks during my 51 years’ involvement with financial markets, between 1969 and 2020. US federal debt is up 75x and GDP is only up 20x. There is no clearer evidence that the US economy is running on empty and that more and more debt is required to produce an increase in GDP in nominal terms.

DEBT DEFAULT COMING

US debt to GDP has now reached 135% against 35% in 1969 and growing. These debt levels are unsustainable for future growth. With falling tax revenues and rising expenditure, there is zero chance that this debt will ever be reduced. And when interest rates go up, the US will not even be able to service the debt. So a debt default is very likely in the next few years.

Whilst US GDP is up 20x since 1969, China’s GDP is up 175x. There can be little doubt that China will be the next global economic superpower. Only a revolution in China would stop that.

Gold is up 53x since 1969 and the Dow 34x. If dividends after tax are included and reinvested, the rise of the Dow and gold would be fairly equal.

I started the article with China’s view, in 1971, on the future of the dollar and the US economy. The debt explosion and slow GDP growth are clear evidence of how right China was.

But the dollar’s 98% fall against gold and 79% against the Swiss franc confirms China’s 1971 prediction:

“…..the seriousness of the US economic crisis and the decay and decline of the entire capitalist system.”

“…..mark the collapse of capitalist monetary system with the US dollar as its prop…. Nixon’s new economic policy cannot extricate the US from financial and economic crisis.”

So there we have it. The wise Chinese saw half a century ago what would happen to the US, the dollar and the capitalist system and they knew already then that they would be the main beneficiaries.

But destruction of currencies and fall of empires is not new in history. Von Mises stated this phenomenon very eloquently:

2021 THE CHINESE YEAR OF THE GOLDEN OX

2021 will be the Chinese year of the Metal or Golden Ox. It will also be the 50th anniversary of Nixon’s fatal decision to end the gold backing of the dollar.

As the golden ox rises in China, the US bald eagle will crash to the ground as a symbol of the crashing dollar and US economy.

2021 is likely to be an ominous year in the global economy. We may not see the “final and total catastrophe of the currency system” completed already then but we are likely to see the start of the final dollar collapse and a major surge in gold and silver.

Anyone holding depreciating dollars and other currencies will soon regret not holding real money in the form of physical gold and silver.

Russia’s foreign policy enters new China-aligned phase

by M.K. Bhadrakumar
Former Indian Diplomat

Moscow is redefining its relations with Germany, Europe and the wider world in sight of its alliance with Beijing

The following is the fourth installment of an extended report on one of the most important geopolitical developments of the 21st century: the increasingly comprehensive alliance between China and Russia and its implications for Eurasian and regional powers across the planet. To follow the series, click here.

It comes as no surprise that the joint statement issued in Moscow on September 11 reserves its most powerful passage on the raison d’être of the Russian-Chinese alliance in the emerging international situation by recalling their historic struggle against Nazism and Japanese imperialism:

“The Soviet Union and China were hit the hardest by Nazism and militarism and bore the brunt of the burden of resisting the aggressors. At the price of enormous human losses, they stopped, routed and destroyed the occupiers, displaying unparalleled self-sacrifice and patriotism in this struggle.

“The new generations are deeply indebted to those who gave up their lives for the sake of freedom and independence, and the triumph of good, justice and humanity. Entering a new era, the current Russia-China relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation have a powerful, positive feature of true comradeship developed on the battlefields of World War II.

“It is a sacred duty of all humanity to preserve the historical truth about that war. Russia and China will jointly counter all attempts to falsify history, glorify the Nazis, militarists and their accomplices, and tarnish the victors. Our countries will not allow anyone to revise the results of World War II.”

Indeed, the historical analogy carries profound echoes in the current situation in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. The German government is openly accusing the Russian state of poisoning opposition politician Alexei Navalny and is threatening Russia with sanctions.

Germany’s language toward Russia has dramatically changed. It is no more restrained by any sense of guilt that the blood of 25 million Soviet citizens is on its hands. It is talking as if it is already planning the next military campaign against Moscow.

Above all, as happened once before in the 1930s, other Western powers, in their obsession with containing Russia and China, are not only turning a blind eye to the growing militarism in Germany and Japan but are surreptitiously encouraging it.

Russian diplomacy, which has a glorious tradition in modern history, does not make its moves accidentally or impulsively. The historical consciousness is intense. Memories from the past and the present lie deeply embedded, hopelessly entangled in the collective consciousness.

A little-noticed fact is that the Russian-Chinese statement of September 11 was released on the eve of the 30th anniversary of The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany.

The so-called “2+4 Treaty,” signed in Moscow on September 12, 1990, between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic – with the erstwhile World War II llies the USSR, the US, Britain and France as co-signatories – formalized the unification of Germany, which had been a divided nation through the previous four and a half decades.

No doubt, the joint statement issued in Moscow on September 11 this year heralds a new phase in Russian foreign policy in the post-Cold War era, especially with regard to Russo-German relations and Russia’s relations with Europe and the world order in general.

The salience that draws attention here is that Moscow decided to embark on this new journey holding China’s hand. This is of great importance for European, Eurasian and international politics as a whole.

Two days after the joint statement was issued, on September 13, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov appeared on the prestigious Moscow. Kremlin. Putin. program of the state-run Rossiya-1 TV channel, where he was asked about the specter of Western sanctions once again haunting Russia in the shadows of the “Navalny case” and Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project in particular, with Germany in a lead role.

Lavrov summed up Russia’s deep disenchantment with its European partners in the following words:

“In principle, the geopolitical response over these years consisted of recognizing that our Western partners were unreliable, including, unfortunately, members of the European Union. We had many far-reaching plans, and there are documents setting forth the path to developing relations with the EU in the energy sector and high technology, and stepping up economic cooperation in general.

“We share a single geopolitical space. Considering our shared geography, logistics, and infrastructure across the Eurasian continent, we benefit from a substantial comparative advantage.

“It would certainly be a grave mistake for us and the European Union, as well as other countries in this space, including the SCO, the EAEU, and ASEAN, which is also nearby, not to use our comparative geopolitical and geo-economic advantages in an increasingly competitive world. Unfortunately, the European Union sacrificed its geo-economic and strategic interests for the sake of its momentary desire to match the United States in what they refer to as ‘punishing Russia.’

“We [Russia] have grown used to this. We now understand that we need a safety net in all our future plans related to reviving the full partnership with the European Union. This means that we need to proceed in a way that if the EU sticks to its negative, destructive positions, we would not depend on its whims and could provide for our development on our own while working with those who are ready to cooperate with us in an equal and mutually respectful manner.”

The extent of the bitterness in the Russian mind at this point in time can be put in perspective only with a recap of history devolving upon the unification of Germany in 1990, the hopes that the momentous event had raised in regard of Russo-German relations (which has a troubled history, to say the least) and what subsequently turned out during the three decades thereafter.

It is a complicated story of amnesia and plain political chicanery on the part of the West. With the benefit of the “declassified” archival materials that are available today – especially the indispensable diary of Soviet politician Anatoly Chernyaev, aide to Mikhail Gorbachev, relating to the year 1990 – it is possible to reconstruct Russia’s tortuous relations with the West in the post-Cold War era.

This article was produced in partnership by Indian Punchline and Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute, which provided it to Asia Times. It is the fourth article in a series. Part 5 will examine Germany’s rise in Europe.

China’s 21st Century Technology

Instead of fireworks, 2000 drones light up Shenzhen sky to celebrate China’s National Day on Oct 1st marking 71st anniversary of Mao announcing founding of PRC on Tiananmen Square. See what China is up to. A choreography of 2000 drones. And the United States sends up balloons in response.

China Deploys Sun Tzu To Prevail In The Chip War

Authored by Pepe Escobar, via posted at The Asia Times

Beijing has a plan to become the indispensable tech core of East Asia, linking ASEAN, Northeast Asia and even both Koreas…

Let’s cut to the chase: with or without a sanction juggernaut, China simply won’t be expelled from the global semiconductor market.

The real amount of chip supply Huawei has in stock for their smart phone business may remain an open question.

But the most important point is that in the next few years – remember Made in China 2025 remains in effect – the Chinese will be manufacturing the necessary equipment to produce 5 nm chips of equivalent or even better quality than what’s coming from Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.

Conversations with IT experts from Russia, ASEAN and Huawei reveal the basic contours of the road map ahead.

They explain that what could be described as a limitation of quantum physics is preventing a steady move from 5nm to 3nm chips. This means that the next breakthroughs may come from other semiconductor materials and techniques. So China, in this aspect, is practically at the same level of research as Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.

Additionally, there is no knowledge gap – or a communication problem – between Chinese and Taiwanese engineers. And the predominant modus operandi remains the revolving door.

China’s breakthroughs involve a crucial switch from silicon to carbon. Chinese research is totally invested in it, and is nearly ready to transpose their lab work into industrial production.

In parallel, the Chinese are updating the US-privileged photo-lithography procedure to get nanometer chips to a new, non-photo lithography procedure capable of producing smaller and cheaper chips.

As much as Chinese companies, moving forward, will be buying every possible stage of chip manufacturing business in sight, whatever the cost, this will proceed in parallel to top US semiconductor firms like Qualcomm going no holds barred to skirt sanctions and continue to supply chips to Huawei. That’s already the case with Intel and AMD.

Huawei’s game

Huawei for its part is investing deeply in a very close R&D relationship with Russia, recruiting some of their best tech talent, notoriously strong in math, physics and rigorous design work. An example is Huawei’s purchasing of Russian face recognition company Vocord in 2019.

Some of the best tech brainpower in South Korea happens to be Russian.

Huawei has also established a “5G ecosystem innovation center” in Thailand – the first of its type in ASEAN.

In the medium term, Huawei’s strategy for their top notch smart phones – which use 7nm chips – will be to hand over the business to other Chinese players such as Xiaomi, OPPO and VIVO, collect patent fees, and wait for the inevitable Chinese chip breakthrough while keeping production of 5G equipment, for which it has sufficient chips.

Huawei’s Harmony OS is considered by these IT experts to be a more efficient system than Android. And it runs on less demanding chips.

With the expansion of 5G, most of the work on smart phones can be handled by cloud servers. By the end of 2020, at least 300 cities across China will be covered by 5G.

Huawei will be concentrating on producing desktop computers and digital displays. These desktops will come with a Chinese processor, the Kunpeng 920, and run by a Chinese Unified Operating System (UOS).

UOS is a Linux system developed by China’s Union Tech and commissioned by Beijing to – here’s the clincher – replace Microsoft Windows. These desktops will not be sold to the general public: they will be equipping China’s provincial and national administrations.

It’s no wonder a steady rumor in IT circles is that the best bet ahead would be to put money in a Chinese Chip Investment Fund – expecting to collect big time when major tech breakthroughs happen before 2025.

The East Asian tech core

Whatever the trials and tribulations of the chip war, the inescapable trend ahead is China positioned as the indispensable tech core of East Asia – encompassing ASEAN, Northeast Asia, and Eastern Siberia linked to both Koreas.

This is the hard node of the incoming Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) – the biggest free trade deal in the world – which is bound to be signed by 2021.

India has opted for self-exclusion from RCEP – which in geoeconomic terms condemns it to a peripheral role as an economic power. Compare it to South Korea, which is boosting its integration with ASEAN and Northeast Asia.

East Asia’s tech core will be at the heart of a global production chain integrating the very best in science and technology conception and the very best production specialists scattered around all nodes of the global supply chain.

That’s a natural consequence, among other factors, of East Asia introducing patent applications at a multiple of 3.46 times the US.

And that brings to the very special Samsung case. Samsung is increasing its R&D drive to in fact bypass US-branded technologies as soon as possible.

When South Korea’s President Moon turbo-charges his appeal for the official end of the Korean War that should be seen in tandem with Samsung eventually reaching a wide-ranging tech cooperation deal with Huawei.

This pincer movement graphically spells out South Korean independence from the American bear hug.

It does not escape the Beijing leadership’s attention that the emergence of South Korea as a stronger and stronger geopolitical and geoeconomic actor in East Asia must be inextricably linked to access by China to the next generation of chips.

So a crucial geopolitical and geoeconomic process to watch in the next few years is how Beijing progressively attracts Seoul to its area of influence as a sort of high-tech tributary power while banking on the future of what would be a Korea Federation.

This is something that has been discussed every year, at the highest level, at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok.

Wang Huiyao of the Beijing-based Center for China and Globalization notes how China and South Korea already have a free trade agreement and “will start the second phase of negotiations to establish a new mechanism for China-South Korea economic cooperation, which is developing fast.”

The next – immensely difficult – step will be to set up a China-Japan free trade mechanism. And then a closer, interconnected China-Japan-South Korea mechanism. RCEP is just the first step. It will be a long sail all the way to 2049. But everyone knows which way the wind is blowin’.

COVID-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed to “Succeed”

William A. Haseltine

“These trials seem designed to prove their vaccines work, even if the measured effects are minimal”

Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson are leading candidates for the completion of a Covid-19 vaccine likely to be released in the coming months. These companies have published their vaccine trial protocols. This unusually transparent action during a major drug trial deserves praise, close inspection of the protocols raises surprising concerns. These trials seem designed to prove their vaccines work, even if the measured effects are minimal.

What would a normal vaccine trial look like?

Prevention of infection must be a critical endpoint. Any vaccine trial should include regular antigen testing every three days to test contagiousness to pick up early signs of infection and PCR testing once a week to confirm infection by SARS-CoV-2 test the ability of the vaccines to stave off infection. Prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for any of these vaccines. In fact, their endpoints all require confirmed infections and all those they will include in the analysis for success, the only difference being the severity of symptoms between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Measuring differences amongst only those infected by SARS-CoV-2underscores the implicit conclusion that the vaccines are not expected to prevent infection, only modify symptoms of those infected.

We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols—Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca—do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache.

The greatest fear people have is dying from this disease. A vaccine must significantly or entirely reduce deaths from Covid-19. Over two hundred thousand people have died in the United States and nearly a million worldwide. None list mortality as a critical endpoint.

We recognize that the influenza vaccine does not prevent infection with that virus, but does have a measurable impact on hospitalization and death. The moderate protections from the influenza virus can potentially be replicated and improved on with Covid-19, but only with extensive trials that ensure the efficacy of a future vaccine.

Vaccine efficacy is typically proved by large clinical trials over several years. The pharmaceutical companies intend to do trials ranging from thirty thousand to sixty thousand participants. This scale of study would be sufficient for testing vaccine efficacy. The first surprise found upon a closer reading of the protocols reveals that each study intends to complete interim and primary analyses that at most include 164 participants.

These companies likely intend to apply for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with just their limited preliminary results.

Interim analysis success requires a seventy percent efficacy. For Moderna, the interim analysis includes giving the vaccine to only 53 people. Their success margin is for 13 or less of those 53 to develop symptoms compared to 40 or more in their control group. For Johnson & Johnson, their interim analysis includes 77 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 18 or less developing symptoms compared to 59 in the control group. For AstraZeneca, their interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 12 or less developing symptoms compared to 19 in the 25 person control group. Pfizer is even smaller in its success requirements. Their initial group includes 32 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 7 or less developing symptoms compared to 25 in the control group.

The primary analyses are a bit more expanded, but need to be less efficacious for success: about sixty percent. AstraZeneca, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer have primary analyses that distribute the vaccine to only 100, 151, 154, and 164 participants respectively. These companies state that they do not “intend” to stop trials after the primary analyses, but there is every chance that they intend to pursue an EUA and focus on manufacturing the vaccine rather than further thorough testing.

The second surprise from these protocols is how mild the requirements for contracted Covid-19 symptoms are. A careful reading reveals that the minimum qualification for a case of Covid-19 is a positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms. These include headache, fever, cough, or mild nausea. This is far from adequate. These vaccine trials are testing to prevent common cold symptoms.

These trials certainly do not give assurance that the vaccine will protect from the serious consequences of Covid-19. Johnson & Johnson is the only trial that requires the inclusion of severe Covid-19 cases, at least 5 for the 75 participant interim analysis.

One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus? These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19, and not infections themselves. Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these trials when they should be of critical importance.

It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation.

A greater concern for the millions of older people and those with preexisting conditions is whether these trials test the vaccine’s ability to prevent severe illness and death. Again we find that severe illness and death are only secondary objectives in these trials. None list the prevention of death and hospitalization as a critically important barrier.

If total infections, hospitalizations, and death are going to be ignored in the preliminary trials of the vaccines, then there must be phase four testing to monitor their safety and efficacy. This would be long term massive scale monitoring of the vaccine. There must be an indication that the authorized vaccines are reducing infection, hospitalization, and death, or else they will not be able to stop this pandemic.

These protocols do not emphasize the most important ramifications of Covid-19 that people are most interested in preventing: overall infection, hospitalization, and death. It boggles the mind and defies common sense that the National Institute of Health, the Center for Disease Control, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, and the rest would consider the approval of a vaccine that would be distributed to hundreds of millions on such slender threads of success.

It appears that these trials are intended to pass the lowest possible barrier of success. As this is being written, the FDA is poised to announce tougher standards for a Covid-19 vaccine in the near future. It is my hope that these new standards for an EUA will at a minimum include requirements for protections from infection itself, protections from severe virus-related disease leading to hospitalization, and a significant improvement in Covid-19 related mortality.

It is clear from these studies that the vaccines currently under trial will not be the silver bullet needed to end the pandemic. We must do all we can public health measures to control Covid-19 as China and other Asian countries have successfully done.

Source: Forbes

The State’s Response To This “Virus” Is Nothing More Than A Weapon Of Mass Submission

Authored by Gary Barnett via LewRockwell.com,

“The great masses of men, though theoretically free, are seen to submit supinely to oppression and exploitation of a hundred abhorrent sorts. Have they no means of resistance? Obviously they have. The worst tyrant, even under democratic plutocracy, has but one throat to slit. The moment the majority decided to overthrow him he would be overthrown. But the majority lacks the resolution; it cannot imagine taking the risks.”

~ H. L. Mencken (1926). “Notes on Democracy,” p. 50, Alfred A. Knopf

Draconian measures by the State against the masses require the cooperation of the masses. This is the essence of political submission, and therefore, it is the foundation of the ruling “elite’s” plan to achieve a complete global economic and total control reset. At this stage of the plot, all is going just as the globalists expected, as the takeover of the human population is well underway.

Logic would dictate that this fake pandemic should be over for good after the new CDC death figures for the U.S. were recently exposed. That report showed that 94% of those said to have died from Covid alone did not die from Covid at all. In fact, the 94% that died who were claimed as Covid deaths had on average 2.6 other co-morbidities evident.

What that means is this entire virus scam was a fraud all along, and is being used as a weapon of submission in order to gain control over the entire population. Lies on top of lies have been used to frighten people into voluntarily destroying their lives in the name of false safety, and now the damage has reached levels that will be almost impossible to overcome at any time in the near or even distant future. One would think that with this ground shattering information, all citizens would be up in arms, but that does not seem to be the case. This is extremely troubling, as without a mass uprising of the people, this horrendous plan will continue to go forward.

It is now time to consider the possible tactics that will be used by the State against all of us, especially those that continue to question, and refuse to comply with the idiocy that is called a coronavirus pandemic. Hell is coming in the form of the ruling class and its pawns in government and their plan for a captured society. Is there really a devil, or have evil men seeking power created Satin in their own image in an attempt to take over the entire planet for themselves?

All the plans of these monsters are being telegraphed in advance, just as has always happened in the past. Creating a new Pearl Harbor has taken on a whole new meaning with this manufactured virus scare, but it will only get worse from here. It is imperative to understand that nothing happening is organic or natural; it has all been purposely designed to achieve a particular outcome. That outcome is total world domination by the few, and in order to be successful in this venture, the current economic system must be destroyed, and a new digital monetary system that can be monitored and controlled from the top must be created and implemented.

Even though the CDC released death numbers that completely contradict the mainstream narrative, and show that this pandemic is a fraud, it is still little reported, and it seems that many would pay no attention to this revelation even if it were reported more widely.

CDC recently updated estimated infection fatality rates for COVID. Here are the updated survival rates by age group:

0-19: 99.997%
20-49: 99.98%
50-69: 99.5%
70+: 94.6% https://t.co/9RRLgsBHta

— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) September 23, 2020

This alone shows the weakness and apathetic mindset that permeates the American populace today.

Considering the attitude of the masses, and the lack of reason and logic evident among the herd, what is coming should be obvious. The powerful will not relent so long as the people remain indifferent to their own existence. With that in mind, expect a wave of new and exaggerated fear mongering techniques. The more the people rebel, if at all, the stronger any response by the state apparatus will be. If enough question the validity of this virus pandemic, a new and more dangerous strain will magically emerge. If resistance continues to gain favor, then a new and possibly deadly biological agent could be released, although it would need to be isolated so as to not get out of hand and threaten those responsible for its distribution among the public. If the flu season, along with a very weakened immune response of the now compromised citizenry does not keep the people in check, the release of other toxic agents is not only possible in my opinion, but also probable.

There are many scenarios that could emerge depending on what the ruling and controlling classes deem necessary in order to gain and retain total control. Once the people are frightened enough, the new vaccine will be immediately introduced. It is my belief that this vaccine is already available, and is being held until fear is at such a high level that most will voluntarily line up for injection. If this happens, control over the people will have reached a stage that is irreversible due to multiple reasons. Any Covid vaccine will introduce several viruses into the human system, and in addition, many very dangerous and problematic toxins and harmful adjuvants. But that is only part of the risk, as there could be other unknown ingredients as well, and these could be a part of a covert plan not divulged to the recipients of any vaccine.

Just recently in this article from Steemit, it was announced that the FDA is nearing approval of a biochip implant that could be injected by use of a hydrogel solution. This is supposedly an implant to detect Covid by linking the human body and mind to a computer system, and could easily be a part of any vaccine. This is insanity, but is only the beginning of any number of body and mind altering artificial intelligence methods meant to produce a transhuman society that could be controlled through technocratic means.

Beware of any bio-terror attack blamed on an outside enemy, whether an individual, a third world country, or any mainstream claimed enemy of the U.S. such as China, Iran, or Russia. An attack of this nature now would most assuredly be from within this country, and perpetrated by internal forces to stoke more fear. That additional fear, and any bio-weapon release meant to look like a virus could be claimed to be the pre-planned second wave, and this alone would turn most of the country against any that question the official narrative. Those exposing the lie that is Covid and resisting the state mandates would be severely marginalized or worse if total fear grips America.

With resistance beginning to grow due to the draconian measures initiated by the state, including lockdowns, quarantine, job loss, and mask wearing, the risk of additional manufactured terror attacks, virus releases, bio-weapon deployment, other false flag events, or vaccine-related illnesses certainly should be expected. This is the world we live in, a dystopia brought about because the people allowed it to happen.

The turning point of all this insanity is near, and will advance in the state’s favor during this farce called the presidential election. This election will bring with it untold chaos, including looting, rioting, property destruction, and hatred among the population at large. This chaos will be used against all in this country, as even more division will be forthcoming, and with it, more uncertainty and violence, leading to more state interference in our lives. This is exactly what the claimed ruling elite desires, as the more fear and hatred that exists, the easier it is to control us all. This abhorrent election, regardless of the outcome, will be a disaster, and only extend the terror we have been facing since March of this year.

“The slavery of fear had made men afraid to think.”

– Thomas Paine, Bruce Kuklick (2000). “Paine: Political Writings”, p.162, Cambridge University Press

The push toward totalitarian rule is heading into the final stage this winter. That has been proclaimed openly by the dregs of the ruling and political classes. We are on the verge of losing any sovereignty we have left, and becoming just a cog in the wheel of a centralized federal power structure bent on creating a technocratic slave society to be used to support the top tier of the tyrannical few. Stop it now or submit your body, mind, and soul to your new position as a servant to your ‘human’ masters.

Will Michele Flournoy Be the Angel of Death for the American Empire?

Biden’s rumored favorite for Defense Secretary is a vote for more lost wars, corrupt militarism and terminal decline.

by Medea Benjamin

If the Democrats manage to push Joe Biden over the finish line in November’s election, he will find himself presiding over a decadent, declining empire. He will either continue the policies that have led the American empire to decadence and decline, or seize the moment to move our nation into a new phase: a transition to a peaceful and sustainable post-imperial future.

The foreign policy team Biden assembles will be key, including his choice for Secretary of Defense. But Biden’s rumored favorite, Michele Flournoy, is not the gal for this historic moment. Yes, she would break the glass ceiling as the first female Secretary of Defense, but, as one of the architects of our endless wars and record military budgets, she would only help to steer the American empire farther down its current path of lost wars, corrupt militarism and terminal decline.

In 1976, General John Glubb, the retired British commander of Jordan’s Arab Legion, wrote a little booklet titled The Fate of Empires. Glubb observed how each of the world’s empires evolved through six stages, which he called: the Age of Pioneers; the Age of Conquests; the Age of Commerce; the Age of Affluence; the Age of Intellect; and the Age of Decadence and Decline. Despite enormous differences in technology, politics and culture between empires and eras, from the Assyrians (859-612 B.C.) to the British (1700-1950 C.E.), the whole process in each and every case took about 250 years.

Americans can count the years from 1776, and few of us would deny that the American empire is in its Age of Decadence and Decline, riven by the very traits that Glubb identified for this stage, including systemic, normalized corruption, internal political hatreds, and a fascination with celebrity for its own sake.

The decline of an empire is rarely peaceful, but it does not always involve the invasion, destruction or collapse of the imperial heartland, as long as its leaders eventually face up to reality and manage the transition wisely. So it is tragic that the 2020 presidential election offers us a choice between two major party candidates uniquely unqualified to manage America’s post-imperial transition, both making vain promises to restore mythical versions of America’s past, instead of drawing up serious plans for a peaceful, sustainable and broadly prosperous post-imperial future.

Trump and his “Make America Great Again” represent the epitome of imperial hubris, while Biden pushes the time-worn idea that America should be “back at the head of the table” internationally, as if America’s neocolonial empire was still in its prime. With enough pressure from the public, Biden might be persuaded to start cutting the imperial military budget to invest in our real needs, from Medicare For All to a Green New Deal. But that’s unlikely if he picks Michele Flournoy, a die-hard militarist who has played instrumental roles in America’s failed wars and catastrophic imperial adventures since the 1990s.

Let’s look at her record:

As Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy under President Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the May 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which laid the ideological foundation for the endless wars that followed. Under “Defense Strategy,” the QDR effectively announced that the United States would no longer be bound by the UN Charter’s prohibition against the threat or use of military force. It declared that, “when the interests at stake are vital, …we should do whatever it takes to defend them, including, when necessary, the unilateral use of military power.”

The QDR defined U.S. vital interests to include “preventing the emergence of a hostile regional coalition” anywhere on Earth and “ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources.” By framing the unilateral and illegal use of military force all over the world as “defending vital interests,” the QDR presented what international law defines as aggression, the “supreme international crime” according to the judges at Nuremberg, as a form of “defense.”

Flournoy’s career has been marked by the unethical spinning of revolving doors between the Pentagon, consulting firms helping businesses procure Pentagon contracts, and military-industrial think tanks like the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), which she co-founded in 2007.

In 2009, she joined the Obama administration as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, where she helped engineer political and humanitarian disasters in Libya and Syria and a new escalation of the endless war in Afghanistan before resigning in 2012. From 2013-2016, she joined Boston Consulting, trading on her Pentagon connections to boost the firm’s military contracts from $1.6 million in 2013 to $32 million in 2016. By 2017, Flournoy herself was raking in $452,000 a year.

In 2017, Flournoy and Obama’s Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken founded their own corporate consulting business, WestExec Advisors, where Flournoy continued to cash in on her contacts by helping companies successfully navigate the complex bureaucracy of winning enormous Pentagon contracts.

She obviously has no compunction about enriching herself off of taxpayer money, but what about her actual foreign policy positions? Given that her jobs in the Clinton and Obama administrations were behind-the-scenes strategy and policy positions, she is not widely blamed for specific military disasters.

But the articles, papers and reports that Flournoy and CNAS have published for two decades reveal that she suffers from the same chronic malady as the rest of the Washington foreign policy “blob.” She pays lip service to diplomacy and multilateralism, but when she has to recommend a policy for a specific problem, she consistently supports the uses of military force that she set out to politically legitimize in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). When the chips are down, she is one more military-industrial hammer-banger to whom every problem looks like a nail waiting to be whacked by a trillion-dollar, high-tech hammer.

In June 2002, as Bush and his gang threatened aggression against Iraq, Flournoy told the Washington Post that the United States would “need to strike preemptively before a crisis erupts to destroy an adversary’s weapons stockpile” before it “could erect defenses to protect those weapons, or simply disperse them.” When Bush unveiled his official “doctrine of preemption” a few months later, Senator Edward Kennedy wisely condemned it as “unilateralism run amok” and “a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other country can or should accept.”

In 2003, as the ugly reality of “preemptive war” plunged Iraq into intractable violence and chaos, Flournoy and a team of Democratic hawks co-authored a paper titled “Progressive Internationalism” to define a “smarter and better” brand of militarism for the Democratic Party for the 2004 election. While portrayed as a path between the neo-imperial right and the non-interventionist left, it asserted that “Democrats will maintain the world’s most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to defend our interests anywhere in the world.”

In January 2005, as the violence and chaos of the hostile military occupation of Iraq spun farther out of control, Flournoy signed onto a letter from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) asking Congress to “increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.” In 2007, Flournoy supported keeping a “residual force” of 60,000 US troops in Iraq, and in 2008, she co-authored a paper proposing a policy of “Conditional Engagement” in Iraq, which Brian Katulis at the Center for American Progress dubbed “an excuse to stay in Iraq” that “poses as an exit strategy.”

As Obama’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, she was a hawkish voice for escalation in Afghanistan and war on Libya. She resigned in February 2012, leaving others to clean up the mess. In February 2013, when Obama brought in Chuck Hagel as a relatively dovish reformer to replace Leon Panetta as Defense Secretary, right-wing figures opposed to his planned reforms, including Paul Wolfowitz and William Kristol, backed Flournoy as a hawkish alternative.

In 2016, Flournoy was tipped as Hillary Clinton’s choice for Secretary of Defense, and she co-authored a CNAS report titled “Expanding American Power” with a team of hawks that included former Cheney aide Eric Edelman, PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan and Bush’s National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. The report was seen as a view of how Clinton’s foreign policy would differ from Obama’s, with calls for higher military spending, arms shipments to Ukraine, renewed military threats against Iran, more aggressive military action in Syria and Iraq, and further increases to domestic oil and gas production—all of which Trump has adopted.

In 2019, four years into the catastrophic war in Yemen when Congress was trying to stop US participation and halt weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, Flournoy argued against a weapons ban.

Flournoy’s hawkish views are particularly worrisome when it comes to China. In June 2020, she wrote an article in Foreign Affairs in which she spun an absurd argument that an even more aggressive US military presence in the seas and skies around China would make war less rather than more likely by intimidating China into limiting its military presence in its own backyard. Her article simply recycles the tired old device of framing every US military action as “deterrence” and every enemy action as “aggression.”

Flournoy claims that “Washington has not delivered on its promised ‘pivot’ to Asia,” and that US troop levels in the region remain similar to what they were a decade ago. But this obscures the fact that US troops in East Asia have increased by 9,600 since 2010, from 96,000 to 105,600. Total US troop deployments abroad have shrunk from 450,000 to 224,000 during this time, so the proportion of US overseas forces allocated to East Asia has in fact increased from 21% to 47%.

Flournoy also neglects to mention that Trump has already increased the number of US troops in East Asia by over 23,000 since 2016. So, just as she did in 2004, 2008 and 2016, Flournoy is simply repackaging neoconservative and Republican policies to sell to the Democrats, to ensure that a new Democratic president keeps the United States wedded to war, militarism and endless profits for the military-industrial complex.

So it is no surprise that Flournoy’s solution to what she presents as a growing threat from China is to invest in a new generation of weapons, including hypersonic and long-range precision missiles and more high-tech unmanned systems. She even suggests that the US goal in this budget-busting arms race could be to invent, produce and deploy currently nonexistent weapons to sink China’s entire navy and civilian merchant fleet (a flagrant war crime) in the first 72 hours of a war.

This is only one part of Flournoy’s larger plan for transforming the US military through trillion-dollar long-term investments in new weapons technology, building on Trump’s already huge increase in Pentagon R & D spending.

In a September 10th interview with the Stars and Stripes military website, Joe Biden appeared to have already swallowed heavy doses of Flournoy’s Kool-Aid to wash down Trump’s Cold War. Biden said he does not foresee major reductions in the military budget “as the military refocuses its attention to potential threats from ‘near-peer’ powers such as China and Russia.”

Biden added, “I’ve met with a number of my advisors and some have suggested in certain areas the (military) budget is going to have to be increased.” We would remind Biden that he hired these unnamed advisors to advise him, not to predetermine the decisions of a candidate who still has to convince the American public he is the leader we need at this difficult time in our history.

Picking Michelle Flournoy to lead the Pentagon would be a tragic indication that Biden is truly hell-bent on squandering America’s future on a debilitating arms race with China and Russia and a futile, potentially catastrophic bid to resurrect America’s declining imperial power.

With our economy – and our lives – devastated by a pandemic, with climate chaos and nuclear war threatening the future of human life on this planet, we are in desperate need of real leaders to navigate and guide America through a difficult transition to a peaceful, prosperous post-imperial future. Michele Flournoy is not one of them.

Source: Antiwar.com

“If masks don’t work, then why do surgeons wear them?”

Jim Meehan MD
meehanmd.com

face maskA response to people who use the classic fallacious argument, “Well, if masks don’t work, then why do surgeons wear them?”

I’m a surgeon that has performed over 10,000 surgical procedures wearing a surgical mask. However, that fact alone doesn’t really qualify me as an expert on the matter. More importantly, I am a former editor of a medical journal. I know how to read the medical literature, distinguish good science from bad, and fact from fiction. Believe me, the medical literature is filled with bad fiction masquerading as medical science. It is very easy to be deceived by bad science.

Since the beginning of the pandemic I’ve read hundreds of studies on the science of medical masks. Based on extensive review and analysis, there is no question in my mind that healthy people should not be wearing surgical or cloth masks. Nor should we be recommending universal masking of all members of the population. That recommendation is not supported by the highest level of scientific evidence.

First, let’s be clear. The premise that surgeons wearing masks serves as evidence that “masks must work to prevent viral transmission” is a logical fallacy that I would classify as an argument of false equivalence, or comparing “apples to oranges.”

Although surgeons do wear masks to prevent their respiratory droplets from contaminating the surgical field and the exposed internal tissues of our surgical patients, that is about as far as the analogy extends. Obviously, surgeons cannot “socially distance” from their surgical patients (unless we use robotic surgical devices, in which case, I would definitely not wear a mask).

The CoVID-19 pandemic is about viral transmission. Surgical and cloth masks do nothing to prevent viral transmission. We should all realize by now that face masks have never been shown to prevent or protect against viral transmission. Which is exactly why they have never been recommended for use during the seasonal flu outbreak, epidemics, or previous pandemics.

The failure of the scientific literature to support medical masks for influenza and all other viruses, is also why Fauci, the US Surgeon General, the CDC, WHO, and pretty much every infectious disease expert stated that wearing masks won’t prevent transmission of SARS CoV-2. Although the public health “authorities” flipped, flopped, and later changed their recommendations, the science did not change, nor did new science appear that supported the wearing of masks in public. In fact, the most recent systemic analysis once again confirms that masks are ineffective in preventing the transmission of viruses like CoVID-19:

If a surgeon were sick, especially with a viral infection, they would not perform surgery as they know the virus would NOT be stopped by their surgical mask.

Another area of “false equivalence” has to do with the environment in which the masks are worn. The environments in which surgeons wear masks minimize the adverse effects surgical masks have on their wearers.

Unlike the public wearing masks in the community, surgeons work in sterile surgical suites equipped with heavy duty air exchange systems that maintain positive pressures, exchange and filter the room air at a very high level, and increase the oxygen content of the room air. These conditions limit the negative effects of masks on the surgeon and operating room staff. And yet despite these extreme climate control conditions, clinical studies demonstrate the negative effects (lowering arterial oxygen and carbon dioxide re-breathing) of surgical masks on surgeon physiology and performance.

Surgeons and operating room personnel are well trained, experienced, and meticulous about maintaining sterility. We only wear fresh sterile masks. We don the mask in a sterile fashion. We wear the mask for short periods of time and change it out at the first signs of the excessive moisture build up that we know degrades mask effectiveness and increases their negative effects. Surgeons NEVER re-use surgical masks, nor do we ever wear cloth masks.

The public is being told to wear masks for which they have not been trained in the proper techniques. As a result, they are mishandling, frequently touching, and constantly reusing masks in a way that increase contamination and are more likely than not to increase transmission of disease.

Just go watch people at the grocery story or Walmart and tell me what you think about the effectiveness of masks in the community.

If you can’t help but believe and trust the weak retrospective observational studies and confused public health “authorities” lying to you about the benefits and completely ignoring the risks of medical masks, then you should at least reject the illogical anti-science recommendation to block only 2 of the 3 ports of entry for viral diseases. Masks only cover the mouth and nose. They do not protect the eyes.

Jim Meehan MD is a physician, accomplished leader, and entrepreneur who provides innovative science and solutions that adhere to open, honest, transparent, and uncompromisingly patient-centered principles. He transforms raw data and scientific research into easy to understand information that educates, informs, and motivates changes in behavior to lead to improved health and wellness. Dr. Meehan believes in educating patients to be scientists of their own health.

Russia won’t fall prey to US-led China cage trap

By Cui Heng Source: Global Times

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

On September 19, Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov said in an interview with the Japanese publication Nikkei Asia Review that Russia will not join a US coalition against China or others. This is not the first time that Moscow has rejected an anti-China coalition.

As early as in 2016 when Donald Trump was elected US president, he extended an olive branch to Russia in a bid to improve US-Russia ties. Then Trump lobbied US allies to launch an overall suppression campaign against China. With this, the US has tried every possible means to seduce Moscow to form a comprehensive anti-China posture.

Even though the Cold War ended more than 30 years ago, viewing the global order through a Cold War-lens has become an important tradition of US diplomacy. Previous US presidents understood the world from a zero-sum point of view – even when globalization and global governance have profoundly changed the logic of world patterns.

Washington’s moves to seduce Moscow to contain China is not unprecedented or beyond the realm of possibility. In 2018, former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, a realist who developed triangular diplomacy between the US, China and the former Soviet Union, suggested to Trump that Washington work with Moscow to contain a rising China.

Although the US views both China and Russia as competitors, it treats the two differently. This difference lies in Washington’s perceptions of possible threats the two may or may not pose.

The US believes a steadily rising China poses long-term, strategic and comprehensive challenges. It views Russia as only a short-term problem related to regional and security matters. Such understandings constitute the basis of the US courtship of Russia to contain China.

Regardless of when the US invited Russia to return to G7, or allured Russia with the extension of the New START, Moscow has been cool in taking part in Washington’s anti-China coalition. Russia clearly understands that the US and its allies are always on high alert for non-Western major powers – namely China and Russia. Even if Washington tries to pull Moscow into its orbit to suppress China, the US needs Russia only temporarily. It will not accept or endorse Russia. When the US does not need Russia any more, it will kick it out without any mercy.

Therefore, Russian leaders will not join the US for such short-sighted interests. Russian academics and public opinion also suggest Moscow keep a watchful eye on Washington’s offer.

With the concerted efforts of both Chinese and Russian leaders, China-Russia relations are at historic heights. With the US trying to form an anti-China alliance with the Western world, a healthy and steady China-Russia relationship is critical. In case China-US relations come to an extreme point, solid diplomacy with Russia is key for China to avoid isolation and ensure strategic security on its western and northern borders.

China-Russia relations show strategic firmness as the US intends to drive a wedge between the two. Since the 2014 Ukraine crisis, Western academic circles labeled China-Russia relations as a matter of expediency to counter the US. They predicted that problems would emerge as external pressure changed.

However, the failure of the US in doing so is strong proof that China-Russia relations are anything but expedient. The steady development of bilateral ties result from both internal and external factors. Each is at a critical juncture of national development, and they face tough tasks of rejuvenation. The simultaneous process of China’s modernization and urbanization and Russia’s re-industrialization is the internal driving force of pragmatic cooperation between the two countries.

On the world stage, China and Russia have joined hands to counter US hegemony, and to maintain international order and rules. Currently, internal and external factors have not changed, instead they have been reinforced.

China should realize that Moscow’s support of Beijing is a result of its understanding of the future world. Russia is a truly global power. Its diplomatic strategy serves its status and interests. If its power gradually wanes, Russia will only have a few options. Russia does not want to be a puppet of other major powers. Nor does it want to become a secondary country. Therefore, Russia always promotes a multipolar world as its diplomatic strategy.

Recently, Russian elites have reached a consensus that China-US confrontation does not suit Russian interests. On this basis, Russia is trying to avoid the situation of a bipolar confrontation – hence it promotes open and multilateral international rules. As the China-US competition becomes the new normal, Russia’s choice of not joining any coalition meets Russia’s needs at the moment.

The author is a postdoctoral researcher from the Centre for Russian Studies, East China Normal University. opinion