That’s the Way to Fight Back! Boycott!

via RT

Spartak Moscow and Zenit St. Petersburg fans are disgusted by the laws

Russian football fans are protesting that football stadiums are “not prisons” after announcing that they will be shunning their beloved clubs’ matches in opposition to controversial new fan ID requirements which are due to be introduced in summer 2022.

Politicians moved in December 2021 to adopt the third and final reading of the bill to bring in the new system, which will reportedly cost around $10.5 million to implement, on June 1.

Supporters have already carried out protests including mass premature departures from matches over the plan, which includes measures to restrict them to buying tickets via a portal system that will hold their data.

Russian Premier League side Spartak Moscow’s vast Fratria group has announced an immediate boycott of games in response, with followers of reigning champions Zenit St. Petersburg and Rostov, who used to be managed by national team boss Valeri Karpin, said to be following suit.

“We are united in our position. We refuse to accept the rules imposed on us: passports, identifiers and the fan ID law,” Fratria said in a statement, suggesting that supporters who attend games in the league, domestic cup, European competitions and other games where a mandatory ID system is applied will be considered traitors.

“Our boycott starts from now and will last until the complete repeal of the adopted law.

“The boycott applies to all fan associations, organizations and teams that identify themselves with Spartak, Moscow, Russia, the CIS countries and the whole world.

“Not a single law, not a single document and not a single official can deprive a fan of his sacred right: to be close to his club, to be part of its history, to consider the stadium and sector as his home, to openly express his emotions and opinions.

“In our blood, our ideology was, is and will forever remain the main principle – the support of our team.

“At any time, despite the results, restrictions, pressure from law enforcement agencies and other circumstances, we remained close to Spartak.

“However, the current situation and repressive innovations do not leave us the opportunity to make a decision other than this – difficult, but balanced and the only right one in the current situation.”

Individuals could be denied a Fan ID or have their documentation and permissions frozen for public order offenses at matches in Russia and abroad.

Shortly before the bill was passed, an incident at CSKA Moscow saw more than 400 fans detained by riot police after dozens of people set off flares.

Security personnel blocked an entire section of supporters from leaving in an attempt to identify those responsible following the mysterious hacking of stadium CCTV cameras, with fans said to have been led into waiting police vans hours after the final whistle.

Backers of the bill, such as politician and three-time Olympic figure skating champion Irina Rodnina, have argued that it needs to be implemented in order to identify people acting unlawfully and ensure people are safe inside stadiums.

Critics of the legislation have included RPL side Ural’s president, Grigory Ivanov.

Ilya Gerkus, a former president of Lokomotiv Moscow, reportedly called the boycotts “logical based on the dynamics of the situation” because he felt that law-makers had not carried out sufficient discussions with fans.

“This is the correct and almost the only acceptable reaction,” he told RIA. “Now we are waiting for the response of the sports authorities, their words and actions.

The Fratria vowed to continue supporting Spartak by any means available to them beyond attending games.

“The emotions of the sector, the crowded roaring stadium and tens of thousands of hearts beating in unison have always been the most important part of life for us,” they said.

“We consciously give up what was so dear to us in the name of one single goal: to protect the rights of everyone who considers themselves a fan.

“So our position is stated. Everyone who identifies with football must make their choice.

“The system will not stop – having got rid of the fans, having cleared the active sectors from the ‘objectionable’, its mechanism will ruthlessly start in a new direction.

“The law aimed at providing a ‘comfortable and safe environment for football’ will not only destroy the essence of fanaticism and its emotions, but will also cynically – without explanation and in violation of the presumption of innocence – deal with anyone who does not fit into the rules dictated by it, [including] ordinary fans, visitors to the ‘family sectors’ and VIPs.

“We declare that everyone who decides to ignore the declared position and stay at the stadium will no longer be able to look into the eyes of thousands of comrades-in-arms with honor and dignity.

“Anyone, regardless of his status and regalia, having crossed the line of the stadium at the time of our boycott, will momentarily cease to be part of the great Spartak movement and leave our ranks forever. A stadium is not a prison. Football for fans.”

One fan on social media joked: “So to go to football you need a ticket, a QR code, Fan ID showing your location, an agreement from the police, the blessing of the church, a written undertaking not to leave and permission from your wife.”

The protests could have a noticeable impact in the stands: Zenit’s Gazprom Arena home has 68,000 seats to fill at full capcity, while Spartak’s Otkritie Arena can hold 45,360 supporters.

Fan ID systems were used in Russia at the 2017 Confederation Cup, the 2018 World Cup and Euro 2020 matches held in the country.

Was Novak Djokovic a Victim of Anglo-Australian Rio Tinto’s Lithium Grab Failure?

Aleksandar Vucic insists Western governments funded protests that sunk $2.7 bn lithium mine

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has brushed aside denials by Western governments that it was they who had funded the environmental protests that forced Belgrade to scrap an ambitious mining project.

He doubled down on the accusations made by his prime minister, saying that those who had provided the funds for the demonstrations through various NGOs had sought to damage his administration.

“Those foreign foundations are helping to topple the government in Serbia,” he said in an interview with local media. “These protests have nothing to do with the environment.”

Vucic was referring to the plans of the Anglo-Australian minerals conglomerate Rio Tinto to build a lithium mine near the city of Loznica, in western Serbia.

Environmental organizations had staged a series of mass protests against the mine since November, closing major highways and otherwise putting pressure on the government. Last week, they secured a victory, when Prime Minister Ana Brnabic announced that the project would be scrapped.

As she announced the change of plans on Thursday, Brnabic denounced the organizers of the protest. She accused them of acquiring money for their activities from foreign funders, whom she called hypocrites.

Most of the funding, she claimed, had come from the US, Great Britain, Germany, and Austria through nonprofit organizations such as the Rockefeller Foundation, USAID, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the British Council and the Heinrich Böll Foundation.

The US, the UK, and Germany rejected the allegations, saying that Brnabic’s claims were “damaging” and did not “reflect our partnership with Serbia.”The three nations said in a joint statement on Friday that they had been “among its most generous and reliable partners and friends, providing assistance funding totaling well over €3 billion [$3.4 billion].” They denied having had a hand in “funding or directing actions specifically targeting the Serbian government or any of its policies,” including through the provision of funds for protests.

In an interview on Saturday, Vucic said the prime minister had fought for the wellbeing of the Serbian people by supporting the lithium mine project, but could not overcome the resistance from those who had sought to put a stop to the project by whipping up public opposition. In the end, the government had had to yield to the demands of the people, he said.

Had the project been implemented, the Jadar mine would have been one of the largest of its kind in the world. Rio Tinto had pledged €2.4 billion ($2.7 billion) in investment and promised to use local labor for construction and create around 1,000 permanent jobs that would predominantly go to local workers.

The multinational had expected production to start in 2027, turning Serbia into a major supplier of raw materials for manufacturing lithium-ion batteries – the core element in the global transition to electric vehicles and renewable energy.

The West’s Weapons Won’t Make Any Difference to Ukraine

By Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation, and Scott Boston, a senior defense analyst at the Rand Corp. via ForeignPolicy

U.S. military equipment wouldn’t realistically help Ukrainians—or intimidate Putin.

With Russian forces massed on Ukraine’s borders, the policy discussion in Washington increasingly has focused on what the United States can do to help its Ukrainian partners defend their country. Just this week, the Biden administration has approved deliveries of U.S.-made Stinger shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles to Kyiv, in addition to upping provision of other military equipment. Allies, including the United Kingdom, are providing their own assistance, too.

The justification for the aid has varied. Some have made the case that U.S. military assistance to Ukraine can change Russia’s calculus now, possibly deterring Moscow from launching an attack. Others claim that aid to the Ukrainian military can have a real impact on a possible fight with the Russians, making it meaningfully more challenging for the Kremlin to achieve victory and ruling out certain military options Russia might be considering. And there are also voices who call for additional capabilities merely to raise costs for Moscow—that is, to kill more Russian soldiers—so as to create political problems for President Vladimir Putin at home, although without much expectation that Ukraine would prevail.

None of these arguments is convincing. That does not mean security cooperation with Kyiv should cease. It does mean that military assistance is not an effective lever for resolving this crisis.

Since 2014, the United States has provided over $2.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine, following the Russian annexation of Crimea and invasion of the Donbass. U.S. assistance to Ukraine has included the provision of trainers, selected defensive systems (such as counter-mortar radars), and, more recently, Javelin anti-tank missiles. This assistance has principally aimed to improve Ukrainian effectiveness in the relatively static conflict against Russian-backed separatist forces in the Donbass, who are mainly armed with small arms and light weapons, along with some artillery and Soviet-era armor.

Crucially, however, Ukraine has mainly not been fighting Russia’s armed forces in the Donbass. Yes, Russia has armed, trained, and led the separatist forces. But even by Kyiv’s own estimates, the vast majority of rebel forces consist of locals—not soldiers of the regular Russian military. Indeed, the Russian armed forces engaged directly in the fighting only twice—in August-September 2014 and January-February 2015—and with limited capabilities, although both episodes ended in crushing Ukrainian defeats.

Moscow has sought to retain some veil of deniability about its involvement in the conflict, which meant the Russian military never used more than a tiny fraction of its capabilities against the Ukrainians. It applied just enough force to get the job done while avoiding protracted, overt interventions. A wide variety of signature Russian capabilities—including its air force and ballistic and cruise missiles—have not been involved in the fighting at all, even as they have been repeatedly demonstrated in combat operations in Syria.

The nature of the reported Russian buildup suggests the expanded war, if it happens, will differ fundamentally from the past seven years of simmering stalemate. Russia has the ability to carry out a large-scale joint offensive operation involving tens of thousands of personnel, thousands of armored vehicles, and hundreds of combat aircraft. It would likely begin with devastating air and missile strikes from land, air, and naval forces, striking deep into Ukraine to attack headquarters, airfields, and logistics points. Ukrainian forces would begin the conflict nearly surrounded from the very start, with Russian forces arrayed along the eastern border, naval and amphibious forces threatening from the Black Sea in the south, and the potential (increasingly real) for additional Russian forces to deploy into Belarus and threaten from the north, where the border is less than 65 miles from Kyiv itself.

In short, this war will look nothing like the status quo ante of conflict in Ukraine, and that undermines the first justification for U.S. aid: deterring Russia. The Ukrainian military has been shaped to fight the conflict in the Donbass and thus poses little deterrent threat to Russia; provision of U.S. weapons can do nothing to change that. If Moscow is willing to launch a major war, invading the second-largest country in Europe with a population of over 40 million, all while absorbing tremendous economic punishment from the West, then it is unlikely to be deterred by whatever U.S. military assistance can be delivered in the coming weeks. The only weapons systems that could plausibly impose costs that could change Russia’s calculus, such as surface-to-air missiles and combat aircraft, are ones that the United States would be highly unlikely to provide the Ukrainians. And, regardless, they could not be procured, delivered, and be made operational—to say nothing of getting the Ukrainian operators trained up to use them—in time to have an impact on this crisis. Large, modern systems require extensive training and material support.

Once deterrence fails and a war begins, the Ukrainian armed forces will find themselves in desperate circumstances almost immediately. Ukraine does not have anywhere near enough forces to credibly defend against all the potential avenues of attack, which means it would have to choose between defending a select set of fixed strong points—ceding control of other areas—or maneuvering to engage Russian forces that outnumber them. The line of conflict in the Donbass will be but one of many fronts. The Ukrainian fortifications there may well look like a modern-day Maginot Line: prepared for a frontal attack that may never come and bypassed by the mobile forces of an adversary with more advanced aircraft and more mobile land forces.

Ukraine’s great size means that the land forces operating there will be required to move to cover large areas of rural terrain. Mobile engagements would benefit Russian forces, which are far better trained and equipped to conduct coordinated air and land maneuver warfare than their Ukrainian opponents. The Russian military has repeatedly practiced the use of long-range strike and tactical fires cued by drones as well as other means of reconnaissance, both in training and in combat operations in Syria. Russia’s combat aircraft and strategic air defenses give Moscow many more options to control the air and to strike Ukrainian forces, and most Russian pilots have recent real-world experience in Syria. The Ukrainian military also largely operates legacy Soviet weapons; Russian forces have a deep familiarity with the limitations of these systems and know what tactics to employ to further reduce their effectiveness.

In short, the military balance between Russia and Ukraine is so lopsided in Moscow’s favor that any assistance Washington might provide in coming weeks would be largely irrelevant in determining the outcome of a conflict should it begin. Russia’s advantages in capacity, capability, and geography combine to pose insurmountable challenges for Ukrainian forces tasked with defending their country. The second argument for aid—changing the course of the war—thus does not hold water.

The third argument for aid is to provide assistance to enable a Ukrainian insurgency to impose costs on a Russian occupying force. Many have in mind the historical analogy here of U.S. aid to the mujahideen in Afghanistan following the Soviet invasion in 1979. Indeed, some are even recommending providing the same Stinger shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles that plagued the Soviet air force at the time.

If Russia attempts a long-term occupation of areas with lots of hostile Ukrainians, these forms of support could, on the margins, complicate matters for Moscow. But U.S. support to a Ukrainian insurgency should be a matter of last resort during an extended conflict, not a centerpiece of policy before it has even started. The prospect of a marginally more costly occupation is unlikely to make a difference to Moscow if it gets to that stage; it will have already absorbed far more significant costs. Russian planners are aware that a lot can go wrong in a large-scale operation, especially an occupation. If Putin takes the decision to occupy large parts of Ukraine, it will not be because he believes it will be easy or inexpensive to Russia.

We should also keep in mind that the costs of a war that lasts to the point of an insurgency campaign in Ukraine will be disproportionately borne by Ukrainians. At that stage of conflict, thousands—or, more likely, tens of thousands—of Ukrainians will have died. For any successes they achieve against the Russian occupiers, Ukrainian insurgents will be made to pay dearly; the experience of the Syrian opposition or the Chechen insurgents is not one Americans should wish on a close partner like Ukraine.

In normal times, there are many good reasons for the United States to provide military support to Ukraine. But these are not normal times. Military assistance now will at best be marginal in affecting the outcome of the crisis. It might be morally justified to help a U.S. partner at risk of aggression. But given the scale of the potential threat to Ukraine and its forces, the most effective way Washington can help is to work on finding a diplomatic solution.

Iran-Russia-China Axis is Shaping Up

by Pepe Escobar via The Cradle

Three ain’t a crowd: The Iran-Russia summit this week, concurrent with RIC military drills in the Sea of Oman, [by Russia, China, Iran] in advance of a Xi-Putin meeting in two weeks, suggests a rapidly-advancing strategic vision for the three Eurasian powers.

The official visit to Russia by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, at the invitation of Vladimir Putin, generated one of the most stunning geopolitical pics of the 21st century: Raisi performing his afternoon prayers at the Kremlin.

Arguably, more than the hours of solid discussions on geopolitical, geoeconomic, energy, trade, agriculture, transportation and aerospace dossiers, this visual will be imprinted all across the Global South as a fitting symbol of the ongoing, inexorable process of Eurasian integration.

Raisi went to Sochi and Moscow ready to offer Putin essential synergy in confronting a decaying, unipolar Empire increasingly prone to irrationalism. He made it clear at the start of his three hours of discussions with Putin: our renewed relationship should not be “short-term or positional – it will be permanent and strategic.”

Putin must have relished the torrents of meaning inbuilt in one of Raisi’s statements of fact: “We have been resisting the Americans for more than 40 years.”

Yet, much more productive, was “a document on strategic cooperation” between Iran and Russia that Raisi and his team presented to Russian officials.

Raisi emphasized this road map “can determine the prospect for at least 20 years ahead,” or at least clarify “the long-term strategic interaction between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation.”

Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian confirmed that both presidents tasked their top diplomats to work on the roadmap. This is, in fact, an update of a previous 20-year cooperation treaty signed in 2001, originally meant to last for 10 years, and then twice extended for five years.

A key item of the new 20-year strategic partnership between the two neighbors is bound to be a Eurasian-based clearing network designed to compete with SWIFT, the global messaging system between banks.

Starting with Russia, Iran and China (RIC), this mechanism has the potential to unite member-nations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), ASEAN, BRICS and other regional trading/security organizations. The combined geoeconomic weight of all these actors will inevitably attract many others across the Global South and even Europe.

The basis already exists. China launched its Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) in 2015, using the yuan. Russia developed its System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS). To build an independent, Russian-Chinese financial system by linking the two should not be a problem. The main question is to choose the standard currency – possibly the yuan.

Once the system is up and running, that’s perfect for Iran, which badly wants to increase trade with Russia but remains handicapped by US sanctions. Iran has already signed trade agreements and is involved in long-term strategic development with both Russia and China.

The new roadmap

When Amir-Abdollahian described Raisi’s visit to Russia as a “turning point in the policy of good neighborliness and looking to the East,” he was giving the short version of the roadmap followed by the new Iranian administration: “a neighbor-centered policy, an Asia-centered policy with a focus on looking to the East, and an economy-centered diplomacy.”

In contrast, the only ‘policy’ de facto deployed by the collective West against both Russia and Iran is sanctions. Nullifying these is therefore on top of the agenda for Moscow and Tehran. Iran and the EAEU already have a temporary agreement. What they need, sooner rather than later, is to become full partners in a free trade area.

While Amir-Abdollahian praised the resolution of disputes with neighbors such as Iraq and Turkmenistan, and a reconfiguration of the diplomatic chessboard with Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, and even Saudi Arabia, President Raisi – when addressing the Duma – chose to detail complex foreign plots to dispatch networks of Takfiri terrorists to “new missions from the Caucasus to Central Asia.”

As Raisi said,”experience has shown that only pure Islamic thought can prevent the formation of extremism and Takfiri terrorism.”

Raisi was unforgiving on the Empire: “The strategy of domination has now failed, the United States is in its weakest position, and the power of independent nations is experiencing historic growth.” And he certainly seduced the Duma with his analysis of NATO:

“NATO is engaged in penetration into the geographical spaces of various countries under the pretext of cover. Again, they threaten independent states. The spread of the Western model, opposition to independent democracies, opposition to the self-identification of peoples – this is precisely on the agenda of NATO. It is only a deception, we see the deception in their behavior, which will eventually lead to their disintegration.”

Raisi’s main theme is ‘resistance,’ and that was imprinted in all of his meetings. He duly emphasized the Afghan and Iraqi resistances: “In modern times, the concept of resistance plays a central role in deterrence equations.”

The Islamic Republic of Iran is all about that resistance: “In different historical periods of Iran’s development, whenever our nation has raised the banner of nationalism, independence, or scientific development, it has faced sanctions and pressures of the Iranian nation’s enemies,” Raisi emphasized.

On the JCPOA, with the new round of negotiations in Vienna for all practical purposes still bogged down, Raisi said, “the Islamic Republic of Iran is serious about reaching an agreement if the other parties are serious about lifting the sanctions effectively and operationally.”

University of Tehran Professor Mohammad Marandi, now in Vienna as a high-level advisor to the Iranian delegation, compares his experience with the original JCPOA negotiations in 2015, when he was an observer. Marandi notes that as far as the Americans are concerned, “it’s the same mentality. We’re the boss, we have special privileges.”

514BiChCuYL.jpg

He stresses, “a deal is not imminent.” The Americans refuse to provide guarantees: “The main problem is the scope of the sanctions, they want to keep many of them in place. In fact they don’t want the JCPOA. Basically it’s the same attitude as during Trump.”

Marandi offers practical solutions. Remove all maximum pressure sanctions. Accept “a reasonable verification process if you have no intention of cheating Iranian people again.” Provide assurances so “Iranians know you won’t violate the deal again. Iran won’t accept threats or deadlines during negotiations.” It’s unlikely the Americans will ever accept any of the above.

The contrast between the Raisi and Rouhani administrations is stark: “In the hope of getting something from the West, the previous administration wasted serious opportunities with both China and Russia. Now it’s a completely different story,” says Marandi.

The Chinese angle is quite intriguing. Marandi notes how Amir-Abdolliahan has just returned from China; and how the only nation in West Asia that the Chinese can reliably depend on is Iran. That is inbuilt in their 20-year strategic deal, many positive facets of which should be adopted by the Russia-Iran mechanism.

The lineaments of a new world

The gist of Raisi’s expose to the Duma is that Iran has been winning battles on two different fronts: against Salafi-jihadi terrorism and against the American campaign of maximum economic pressure.

And that places Iran in a very good position as a Russian partner, with its “extensive economic potential, especially in the fields of energy, trade, agriculture, industry and technology.”

Geoeconomically, Raisi noted how “the privileged geographical location of Iran, especially in the North-South corridor, can make trade from India to Russia and Europe less expensive and more prosperous.”

Way back in 2002, Russia, Iran and India signed an agreement to establish the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), a 7,200 km multi-modal ship/rail/road cargo network linking India, Iran, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Russia and Central Asia all the way to Europe as an alternative transportation corridor to the Suez Canal. Now Putin and Raisi want maximum impetus for the INSTC.

Raisi’s visit happened just before a crucial joint drill, codenamed “2022 Marine Security Belt,” started in the Sea of Oman, actually the north of the Indian Ocean, with marine and airborne units of the Iranian, Chinese and Russian navies.

The Sea of Oman connects to the ultra-strategic Strait of Hormuz, which connects to the Persian Gulf. Pentagon denizens of the “Indo-Pacific” strategy will be hardly amused.

All of the above spells out deeper interconnection. The Putin-Raisi meeting precedes by two weeks the Putin-Xi meeting at the start of the Winter Olympics in Beijing – when they are expected to take the Russia-China strategic partnership to the next level.

A new Eurasia-led order encompassing the vast majority of the world’s population is a work in fast progress. China using Eurasia as the larger stage to upgrade its global role, in parallel to the fast-evolving Sino-Russian-Iranian interaction, carry larger than life implications for the Western gatekeepers of the imperial ‘rules-based order.’

The de-Westernization of globalization, from a Chinese point of view, does involve a completely new terminology (“community of shared destiny”). And there are hardly more glaring examples of ‘shared destiny’ than its deeper interconnection with both Russia and Iran.

One of the crucial geopolitical questions of our time is how an emergent, supposedly-Chinese hegemony will articulate itself. If actions speak louder than words, then Sino-hegemony looks loose, malleable and inclusive, starkly different to the US variety. For one, it concerns the absolute majority of the Global South, which will be involved and vocal.

Iran is one of the leaders of the Global South. Russia, deeply implicated in de-Westernizing global governance, holds a unique position – diplomatically, militarily, as an energy provider – as the special conduit between East and West: the irreplaceable Eurasian bridge, and the guarantor of Global South stability.

All of that is at play now. It is no wonder that the leaders of the three main Eurasian powers are meeting, and holding discussions in person, within just a matter of days. As the Atlanticist axis drowns in hubris, arrogance, and incompetence, welcome to the lineaments of the Eurasian, post-Western world.

Republished from The Cradle

New Hampshire Pharmacies To Begin Dispensing Ivermectin Without Doctor’s Prescription

A bill working its way through the New Hampshire legislature would allow residents to receive ivermectin from pharmacies with a prescription of a doctor or an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) for the off-label treatment of Covid-19.

House Bill 2011 would allow pharmacists to “dispense ivermectin under the delegated prescriptive authority of the physician or APRN (Advanced Practice Registered Nurses), specify a mechanism to document screening performed and the prescription in the patient’s medical record, and include a plan for evaluating and treating adverse events,” reads the bill. “Any such prescription shall be regarded as being issued for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of professional practice.”
Ivermectin, a protease inhibitor (just like Pfizer’s new Covid pill), has come under attack ever since former President Trump suggested it as a potential treatment for Covid-19. Shortly thereafter, a flurry of anti-ivermectin studies came out – the majority of which analyzed already-hospitalized patients, as opposed to its use as an early intervention.

via ivmmeta.com

Indeed, ivermectin already may have saved hundreds of thousands of lives from India to Brazil.
Co-sponsored by Rep. Leah Cushman (R), the New Hampshire bill would require pharmacists to provide patients with a “standardized information sheet written in plain language” that would note the importance of follow-up care.
“Nothing on the information sheet shall discourage the recipient from using ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19,” reads the bill.
On Tuesday, a state House committee heard arguments for and against the bill.
“Ivermectin is not authorized or approved by the FDA for use in preventing or treating COVID-19,” said Steve Ahnen, president and CEO of the New Hampshire Hospital Association.
Arguing for Ivermectin was Dr. Paul Marik with Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, who resigned his position as Professor of Medicine with Eastern Virginia Medical School following a reprimand from the Virginia Board of Medicine for proscribing drugs to people who were not his patients.

Marik has over 400 peer-reviewed journal articles and 50 book chapters under his belt.
Some key excerpts from his testimony can be seen below via Granite Grok:

This is not controversial. It has been made controversial by politics and special interests.
I’ve been practicing critical care for 35 years.
I’ve published over 600 peer reviewed papers.
After penicillin, this is the second most important drug ever produced. It has saved hundreds of thousands of lives across this planet in poor underserved countries. So, we’re just going to talk about Ivermectin.
It is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines.
3.7 Billion doses have been dispensed to humans, to human beings… not horses.
This is a remarkable drug. It has broad spectrum anti-parasitic, effective against a whole bunch of parasites, and as we heard, it is very effective against RNA viruses: HIV virus, zika virus, influenza virus, SARS-CoV-2 virus. In addition, what makes this a truly astonishing drug, and there is no other drug like it, it is a potent anti-inflamatory drug.
And if anybody knows about Covid, Covid goes through stages. A viral replicative phase to a profound inflammatory phase. That’s why Ivermectin is unique in that it treats across the spectrum of SARS-CoV-2.
It’s safe and well tolerated.
Ivermectin acts on a number of different pathways to inhibit viral replication. This is not theoretical. This is shown in the lab and this is shown in patientsit kills the virus. So any assumption that it doesn’t is false propaganda.”
You’ll see an 83% improvement in prophylaxis trials. 66% improvement in early trials. 34% improvement in late trials. A 52% reduction in mortality. It reduces mortality by half.

More via Granite Grok
Dr. Marik left no stone unturned, and addressed the FDA’s propaganda statement, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously y’all. Stop it. You should not use Ivermectin to treat or prevent Covid-19 using the drug Ivermectin which can be dangerous and even lethal.”

So that is an outright lie. It’s dishonest and it’s an outrage.
As we’ll see, this is a highly effective drug, and Ivermectin has never killed a single person. It is one of the safest drugs on this planet.
What is really interesting is Ivermectin is safe in 79 countries in the world. Let me say that again… it is approved in 79 countries.
Let’s look at Covid-19 vaccines in one year: 14 thousand deaths and over two million serious adverse events. This does not include the 20,000 deaths in the VAERS database which is probably a tenth of all deaths due to the vaccine. This is their data.

So somehow the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are safe and effective, yet Ivermectin is a dangerous horse deworming medicine. That is an absolute outright lie. The data speaks for itself. This is not my data. This is from the WHO.
More people have died from Tylenol, which is an over-the-counter medicine, than Ivermectin. As I said, it is one of the safest medications on this planet.

Dr. Marik then compared Ivermectin to Remdesivir (the EUA drug that is pushed on Covid patients in hospitals). There is no comparison…

The cost of Remdesivir: $3,000 a shot. Ivermectin: pennies.
Remdesivir increases the risk of dying by 4%. This is used throughout the entire country as first line therapy for hospitalized patients. It increases the risk of death by 4%, and what is most outrageous is the federal government gives hospitals a 20% bonus on the entire hospital bill for medicare patients if they prescribe Remdesivir.

It is disturbing that our federal government is financially incentivizing the use of an experimental treatment that increases the risk of dying.

Ivermectin reduces the risk by 50%.
This is a cheap drug. It is exceedingly safe. It is exceedingly effective. And patients should be offered the right to use this drug.
If Ivermectin had been promoted at the beginning of this pandemic, we would not be sitting here today.

Dr. Marik’s testimony (cued up below), is very convincing and well worth the watch, as is the Q&A that took place afterwards with the Committee Members.
Watch:

And Now DC: ‘Defeat The Mandates’ Rally

via ZeroHedge

At least 20,000 people are expected to attend Sunday’s “Defeat the Mandates: American Homecoming” rally on the North Mall in Washington DC on Sunday – and organizers have already put bad actors on notice.

Hello fellow protesters!

“We condemn all organizations and individuals who would use the March as an opportunity to further their own agendas of extremism, intolerance, and violence,” reads a Friday statement, which notes that disinformation has already been spread about the event.

For example, on January 11, owners of the Instagram account “Intheweeds_dmv” published a slanderous post that claimed participants intended to “enter hospitality venues to challenge DC’s vaccine mandate.” WAMU, the local NPR affiliate in Washington, then reported it, despite the account’s lack of any substantiation. 

A false narrative was then created, leading listeners and readers to believe that the March to Defeat the Mandates was created in response to Mayor Bowser’s Washington DC Mandate when in reality, organizers for the March applied for permits in November before the mayor’s Mandate was ever made public.  In fact, one could argue that the mayor’s mandate was in response to our announcement of the March to Defeat the Mandates.

The organizers have also contracted “comprehensive private security” which is “working in concert with local and federal law enforcement” in an effort to keep the event peaceful.

We do not welcome extremist groups on any side that condone racism or bring violence of any kind to the thousands of Americans that will be marching peacefully,” the statement continues.

Meanwhile, the New York Freedom Rally group – which is affiliated with “Defeat the Mandates,” offered guidance to anyone traveling to DC to attend the rally.

“The media will paint anyone doing sit-ins or other disruptive behavior as insurrectionists,” they wrote in an Instagram post which was shared by the DC organizers. “We are here to peacefully gather, march and stand for freedom, nothing more.”

The march will begin in the morning at the Washington Monument and end in the afternoon at the Lincoln Memorial.

“You’re going to hear a lot of people talk about on the left say this is a big, anti-vax rally — it’s people coming in to deny science,” organizer Will Witt told Fox News, “but this march is about the mandate, and this march is about the Draconian measures that we’re seeing all across this country right now, especially in places like D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco.”

Witt said 90% of speakers at the march are vaccinated. Several high-profile speakers, however, have been at the center of national debate over COVID-19 vaccines and mandates, including Dr. Robert MaloneDr. Peter McCollough, YouTuber JP Spears, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who recently said giving children “one of these vaccines” is “criminal medical malpractice” at a December event in California, according to The Associated Press.

Kennedy’s nonprofit organization, Children’s Health Defense — which has received some criticism for its newsletters and social media posts questioning the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in children — is sponsoring Sunday’s march. The organization doubled its revenue in 2020 to $6.8 million, filings with charity regulators obtained by AP show. –Fox News

According to Witt, the mandates are a “slippery slope” towards more restrictions – pointing to Australia where all residents may face $4,000 fines per quarter for remaining unvaccinated. Witt says that when Covid-19 first hit the scene, it was “understandable why politicians” would want to lock down cities – however two years later – and with Omicron variant evading the vaccine – the mandates are moot.

“No politician wants to be known as the person who didn’t [lock down] their city. Everyone gets sick. So, it made sense in the beginning, but it’s been almost two years now,” Witt said, arguing that those in favor of the mandates aren’t being exposed to accurate information in the media,” he said. “I think we’ve got a pretty clear understanding of how this virus works, how it spreads and the best way to combat this. But again, that real information isn’t getting out to a lot of voters and people, so these left-wing places continue to be dominated by these … mandates.”

Ahead of the event, Dr. Robert Malone – who will be speaking at the March – published a ‘COVID Declaration’ which has over 17,000 signatories. 

Via rwmalonemd.substack.com:

Following Dr. Robert Malone’s appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, more physicians and medical scientists have joined with their colleagues from around the world in signing the Physicians Declaration. Now with more than 17,000 signatures confirmed through a rigorous validation process, these physicians and scientists are represented by Dr. Malone as he speaks at the march to Defeat the Mandates on Sunday, January 23 in Washington, D.C.

The over 17,000 signers to the declaration have reached consensus on three foundational principles:

  1. Healthy children should not be subject to forced vaccination: they face negligible risk from covid, but face potential permanent, irreversible risk to their health if vaccinated, including heart, brain, reproductive and immune system damage.

  2. Natural Immunity Denial has prolonged the pandemic and needlessly restricted the lives of Covid-recovered people. Masks, lockdowns, and other restrictions have caused great harm especially to children and delayed the virus’ transition to endemic status.

  3. Health agencies and institutions must cease interfering with the physician-patient relationship. Policymakers are directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, as a result of institutional interference and blocking treatments proven to cure at a near 100% rate when administered early.

Led by Dr. Malone and staying loyal to the Hippocratic oath, the declaration’s signers have resisted financial inducements, threats, unprecedented censorship, and reputational attacks to remain committed first to patient health and well-being. After 23 months of research, millions of patients treated, hundreds of clinical trials performed and scientific data shared, and after demonstrating and documenting their success in combating COVID-19, the 17,000+ physicians and medical scientists who signed the declaration support the core principles Dr. Malone and many other doctors have been speaking out about since late last year.

The 17,000+ signatures of the declaration are authentic and must pass a screening process before being officially identified as signing the declaration. Signatories are required to supply their affiliation and a link to their medical organization, facility, or profile. Nurses, non-MD practitioners and non-medical scientists are removed from the list signatories, as are duplicate entries and “bot” emails. The emails of the signatories have been separately and repeatedly tested and verified by a 3rd-party provider.

As the number of signatures to the declaration continues to rise, we have published a select group of world famous, highly credentialed physicians and scientists who authored the

declaration. Many other doctors who have spoken out against the corruption, censorship and hypocrisy by authorities have been threatened, fired, censured, lied about, intimidated, and harassed – all while saving patients’ lives daily. Never has the public been forced to become lab rats, for a vaccine 5 years away from adequate testing, violating basic principles of informed consent. Moreover, the medical and scientific evidence on the efficacy and safety of the COVID- 19 vaccine do not support mandating its use for anyone, especially healthy children.

January 23 March on Washington

The over 17,000 signers of the declaration will be represented on Sunday, January 23, when Dr. Malone stands with fellow doctors and scientists on stage in Washington DC, as part of the Defeat the Mandates march Sunday, January 23, 2022. At the Lincoln Memorial, they will be joined by a wide range of featured guests for a series of inspiring talks and musical performances. Join us!

About the Global COVID Summit

Global Covid Summit is the product of an international alliance of doctors and scientists, committed to speaking truth to power about Covid pandemic research and treatment.

Thousands have died from Covid as a result of being denied life-saving early treatment. The Declaration is a battle cry from physicians who are daily fighting for the right to treat their patients, and the right of patients to receive those treatments – without fear of interference, retribution or censorship by government, pharmacies, pharmaceutical corporations, and big tech. We demand that these groups step aside and honor the sanctity and integrity of the patient- physician relationship, the fundamental maxim “First Do No Harm”, and the freedom of patients and physicians to make informed medical decisions. Lives depend on it. More information here: https://globalCovidSummit.org

European Awakening – 600 Organizations Protest Jab Mandates

Fierce clashes between protesters and police in Brussels saw damage dealt to the European External Action Service building

Chaotic scenes unfolded on the streets of the Belgian capital, Brussels, on Sunday, as thousands of protesters joined a mass march against Covid-19 health passes and other restrictions introduced by European governments in the name of combating the pandemic.

Videos captured by RT France journalist Charles Baudry showed white-helmeted police officers in riot gear blocking streets with barricades and deploying water cannons to disperse the crowds. All the while, black-clad masked protesters were pelting the police with various projectiles, including planks they had apparently acquired from demolishing a café’s terrace.

The protesters could be heard whooping and cheering as they threw plastic chairs at the police, who sought to disperse them with tear gas. Officers armed with shields and batons moved in tight formation to push the crowds away from a city park, RT videos showed.

In one particularly violent incident, demonstrators were seen attacking the entrance to the European External Action Service headquarters. They attempted to smash the door, leaving visible marks on its reinforced glass, then used planks as improvised spears as a group of police officers remained inside and attempted to drive them away with tear gas.

The mass protest followed anti-lockdown demonstrations in other European cities on Saturday. It was said to be organized by more than 600 local associations from all over Europe, as well as by some national branches of World Wide Demonstration and Europeans United.

The organizers claimed they were not against Covid-19 measures as such, but were defending freedom, democracy and human rights, while protesting against the “undemocratic way” governments in Europe chose to introduce restrictions.

“We want to point out that a large and ever-growing group of people no longer feel that they are heard in the social debate,” Tom Meert, the head of Europeans United, told VRT broadcaster.

According to AFP, Sunday’s anti-lockdown march in Brussels was larger than ever before. Dutch, Polish and Romanian flags were seen among the packed crowd that filled the streets of the Belgian capital, which also houses the EU’s governing bodies.

A similar protest in early January resulted in dozens of arrests, even though it was described as “largely peaceful” by the media at the time. Police had not revealed information about any detentions linked to Sunday’s protest at the time of writing. There have also been no reports about the number of injuries.

The protest came as Belgium reported a spike in new Covid-19 infections that reached more than 60,000 a day last week and prompted the authorities to describe it as a “tsunami.”

Huge Protest in London Against Mandatory Jabs

Welcome to American Health Care System

Authored by Matt McGregor via The Epoch Times

Sentiments expressed in random phone calls for Anne Quiner as her husband Scott lay in a hospital bed breathing through a ventilator ranged from “I hope your husband dies a vegetable” followed by a litter of profanity, to “he should have taken the vaccine; I hope he dies,” before hanging up.

Anne and Scott Quiner at Gooseberry Falls State Park in 2018. (Courtesy of Anne Quiner)

While not the traditional Hallmark expressions for one to get well soon, Quiner said it was a feeling shared among some of the doctors at Mercy Hospital in Coon Rapids, Minnesota, where Scott had been hospitalized for COVID-19 complications in November.

In one recorded phone call with Dr. Linda Soucie in which Quiner was fighting to keep Scott on the ventilator, Soucie told Quiner, “Unfortunately, if we could turn back time and he had gotten the vaccine, then he wouldn’t be here,” just after Soucie had told Quiner, “After three years, I think we’ve gotten pretty good at determining who’s going to make it and who’s not, and unfortunately Scott’s in that range of the group that is not going to make it.”

In a recorded conference call, doctors told Quiner that they would be taking Scott off the ventilator on Jan. 13 because he would not recover due to what they said were his “destroyed lungs from COVID pneumonia,” and that their attempts at decreasing sedation only caused him pain.

Quiner told The Epoch Times that her petitions for alternative treatments, as well as to keep Scott on the ventilator, had been met with contempt.

With doctors determined to take Scott off the ventilator, Quiner sought legal counsel.

Making It Out Alive

Marjorie Holsten, Quiner’s attorney, told The Epoch Times that she filed a motion for a temporary restraining order that prevented the hospital from taking Scott off the ventilator.

Mercy Hospital then hired its own law firm that objected to the temporary restraining order on the basis that Holsten and Quiner’s position isn’t “supported by medical science.”

Because of this, the hospital requested that the court issue an order authorizing the hospital to take Scott off the ventilator.

The judge sided with Holsten, issuing the order based on the standard that irreparable harm would result if not issued, which Holsten said was easy to establish because if Scott had been taken off, he would have died.

On Jan. 15, Scott was transferred out of Mercy Hospital and taken to an undisclosed hospital in Texas, where Holsten said the doctors have reported Scott to be malnourished, having lost 30 pounds underweight, and dehydrated.

Both Holsten and Quiner said doctors in Texas were “horrified” by Scott’s condition when he arrived.

“One doctor said he didn’t know how Scott made it out of that hospital alive,” Quiner said. “He looked at his chart and said, ‘I can’t believe the heavy, sedating drugs they put him on.’”

The hospital was following a rigid late-treatment COVID protocol that has “very likely killed many people,” Holsten said.

Mercy Hospital is a part of the Allina Health hospital system.

When reached for comment on Scott’s treatment, a spokesperson for Allina Health told The Epoch Times that Allina Health “has great confidence in the exceptional care provided to our patients, which is administered according to evidence-based practices by our talented and compassionate medical teams. Due to patient privacy, we cannot comment on care provided to specific patients,” and that the hospital system wished “the patient and his family well.”

Currently, Holsten said Scott is “making tremendous progress.”

“Yesterday, Scott started following the doctor’s hands with his eyes, and now he’s blinking in response to questions,” Holsten said. “He was able to nod his head and move his legs for the nurse.”

The ordeal became a manifestation of Quiner’s biggest fear in taking Scott to the hospital after his symptoms worsened, Quiner said.

Since the beginning of COVID-19, rumors of neglectful treatment of COVID patients in hospitals fueled by financial incentives have circulated.

‘It’s a Bounty on People’s Lives’

Dr. Robert Malone, a virologist and immunologist who has contributed to mRNA vaccine technology, said in a December 2021 interview on The Joe Rogan Experience said that the financial incentives aren’t rumors.

“The numbers are quite large,” Malone told Rogan. “There’s something like a $3,000 basically death benefit to a hospital if it can be claimed to be COVID. There’s a financial incentive to call somebody COVID positive.

The hospitals receive a bonus, Malone added, from the government if someone is hospitalized and able to be declared COVID positive.

“They also receive a bonus—I think the total is something like $30,000 in incentive—if somebody gets put on the vent,” Malone said. “Then they get a bonus, if somebody is declared dead with COVID.”

It was Stew Peters, a podcaster on The Stew Peters Show, that broke Quiner’s story and garnered audience support that facilitated Scott’s release.

After sending the two recordings Quiner made of her conversations with her doctors to her patient advocate and Minnesota State Rep. Shane Mekeland, they both then contacted Peters who Quiner said called her “right away.”

“He told me, ‘If you don’t get social media involved and get this viral, they will kill your husband and you won’t have any say in it at all,’”
Quiner said. “That’s when Stew got me on his show and within moments the hospital got like 300,000 phone calls. They had to shut their phone lines down.”

Quiner said it was Peters and his audience that were responsible “for helping me save my husband’s life.”

“Without their taking action, Scott would have died,” Quiner said.

At one point, there were so many phone calls that Quiner said the hospital began denying that Scott was a patient there.

“Our audience flooded the hospital and Frederickson & Byron Law Firm (the firm that represents Mercy Hospital) with calls, making them all
aware that the world was watching,” Peters told The Epoch Times.

The Stew Peters Show put a team together that included Attorney Thomas Renz and coordinated with a doctor to take Scott’s case and the hospital
where Scott was transferred.

On the Stew Peters Show, Dr. Lee Vliet, president and chief executive officer for the physician-founded Truth for Health, a nonprofit that has promoted early COVID treatment to keep people out of hospitals, said the CARES Act has documented hospital incentive payments.

Hospital administrators know that they will be extra for doing the PCR tests and positive test results,” Vliet said. “A COVID diagnosis means admission to the hospital. On admission, there is an incentive payment. Use of remdesivir provides a 20 percent bonus payment from our government to the hospital on the entire hospital bill for that COVID patient.

The use of remdesivir gives the hospital a 20 percent bonus payment from Medicare instead of other medicines, such as ivermectin, Vliet said.

“It’s a bounty on people’s lives, basically, to use remdesivir and prevent access to other medications such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin,” Vliet said.

She echoed Malone’s statement on hospital incentives for putting a patient on a ventilator and declaring a patient deceased from COVID.

In addition, she said the coroner gets a financial incentive for a COVID diagnosis.

She added that medical practices are paid more under Medicare and Medicaid services based on a higher percentage of their patients being vaccinated.

On average, she said, it has been calculated that hospitals receive a bonus of $100,000 minimum for every COVID patient who has the elements of COVID diagnosis with remdesivir and ventilator treatment before a COVID cause of death.

Vliet cites her research in an editorial in the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons titled, “Biden’s Bounty on Your Life: Hospitals’ Incentive Payments for COVID-19.”

‘She Just Wants to Keep Her Husband Alive’

Married 35 years with three children, Quiner and Scott have been through much together, she said, and in these last few months, Quiner has faced some of the hardest parts without him.

After 14 years, amid fighting to keep her husband alive, Quiner had to put their dog Toby down earlier in January because he could no longer walk.

“One morning I got up and he could not get up at all,” Quiner said.

Quiner has been verbally attacked not just through phone calls but through news and social media, platforms her children warned she avoid.

“My family told me not to even go on to Twitter because I didn’t want to read what they were writing about me,” Quiner said.

Still, Holsten said Quiner continues to fight.

“She’s a trooper, and she hasn’t sought any of this,” Holsten said. “She just wants to keep her husband alive.”

On his transfer to Texas, Quiner said she’s relieved.

“That’s the first thing I felt,” Quiner said, “relief that he’s out of that hospital and in safe care.”

Comment: From a book called Chronicles of Geneva (second tome), pages 395–402, authored by François Bonivard:

When the plague hit Geneva in 1530, everything was ready. They even opened an entire hospital for plague victims. With doctors, paramedics and nurses. Merchants contributed, and the magistrate gave grants every month. Patients always gave money,” and if one of them died alone, all the property went to the hospital.

But then a catastrophe happened to the hospital: the plague died out, and subsidies depended on the number of patients.

For the staff of the hospital in Geneva in 1530, there was no talk of right and wrong. If the plague brings in money, then the plague is good. And then the doctors got organized. At first, they only poisoned patients to raise mortality statistics, but they quickly realized that statistics don’t have to be just about mortality, but about plague mortality.

So they began to cut the ulcers from the bodies of the dead, dry them, grind them in a mortar and give them to other patients as medicine. Then they started wiping the dust off their clothes, handkerchiefs and garters. But the plague somehow continued to subside. Apparently, the dried bubbles did not work well.

Doctors went to town and at night spread bubble powder on door handles, choosing those homes where they could then profit. As one eyewitness wrote about these events, “this has remained hidden for some time, but the devil is more concerned with increasing the number of sins than hiding them.”

In short, one of the doctors became so cheeky, careless and lazy that he decided not to wander the city at night, but simply threw a bundle of dust into the crowd during the day. The stench rose to the sky and one of the girls, who luckily played out of that hospital recently, discovered what the smell was like.

The doctor was tied up and placed in the good hands of competent “craftsmen”. They tried to get as much information from him as possible.

The execution lasted several days. The “clever” Hippocrates were tied to poles on wagons and carried around the city. At each intersection, the executioners tore off pieces of meat with hot tongs. They were then taken to a public square, beheaded and cut, and the pieces were taken to all the districts of Geneva. The only exception was the son of the director of the hospital, who did not take part in the trial, but muttered that he knew how to make drinks and prepare powder without fear of contamination. His head was simply beheaded “to prevent the spread of evil.”

More Unraveling of the Scamdemic

Swiss health minister Alain Berset says the country is heading in the right direction, but warns the coronavirus can be ‘unpredictable’

Swiss health minister Alain Berset has signaled that the Alpine nation’s controversial use of a Covid-19 certificate system could soon be over since the public health response to the pandemic appeared to be “on the right track.”

The document – which indicates whether a person has been vaccinated, tested or recovered from the coronavirus and determines entry into public venues – has been in use since July 2021. But Berset suggested on Saturday that the time may have come to do away with the system.

“The certificate period seems to be almost at an end,” Berset told the Schweiz am Wochenende newspaper, adding that the country looks to be “on the right track.” But he warned that the “virus has shown itself to be unpredictable on several occasions.”

Over the last year, protests had broken out over the certificates and other restrictions in a number of cities. But after anti-lockdown groups gathered almost 200,000 signatures to force a vote on the law, a significant majority of Swiss citizens elected in December to keep the system.

Since December 20, only those vaccinated against Covid-19 or who have recovered from an infection have been allowed to enter restaurants, cultural, sporting and leisure venues and attend indoor events. In addition, private gatherings in the country have been limited to 10 people – if there is even one person aged 16 and above present who does not have a level of either natural or vaccine-acquired immunity.

Last Wednesday, the government announced it would extend quarantine and mandatory work-from-home rules until the end of February. It also outlined tentative plans to keep other restrictions in place until March as the country fights a fifth wave of the pandemic.

Despite reports of nearly 38,000 new cases over a 24-hour period on Friday, Berset said on Saturday that the government could “transform the compulsory order to work from home into a recommendation, and end quarantines” if the situation improves over the next few weeks.

via RT