Tag Archives: Europe

Why Germany Has Won and Italy Has Lost

By Manlio Dinucci (via Global Research)

German Chancellor Merkel – writes Alberto Negri (il manifesto, July 23) – has resisted the pressure of three U.S. administrations – Obama, Trump and Biden – to cancel North Stream 2, the pipeline that flanks the North Stream inaugurated ten years ago, doubling the supply of Russian gas to Germany. Instead, “South Stream, the Eni-Gazprom pipeline, failed”. Negri rightly concludes that Merkel “has won the game that we have lost”. The question arises spontaneously: why did Germany win and Italy lose?

The headline of the Washington Post is significant: “US, Germany reach agreement on Russian gas pipeline, ending dispute between allies”. The agreement, stipulated by President Biden with Chancellor Merkel, has been and is strongly opposed by a bipartisan group in Congress, led by Republican Senator J. Risch who proposes a law against “the malignant Russian project”. So the agreement is actually a “truce” (as Negri defines it).

The reason why the Biden administration has decided to stipulate it is to put an end to the “dispute” that was spoiling relations with Germany, an important NATO ally. The latter, however, had to pay the “pizzo” to the U.S. boss, committing itself – as requested by the under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland – to “protect Ukraine” (in fact already a member of NATO) with an investment fund of $ 1 billion to compensate it for the decreased revenue, since the twin North Stream gas pipelines pass through the Baltic Sea bypassing its territory.

In return, Germany has, at least for now, US permission to import 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year from Russia. The pipeline is managed by the international consortium Nord Stream AG, consisting of 5 companies: Russian Gazprom, German Wintershall and Pe-gi/E.On, Dutch Nederland’s Gasunie and French Engie. Germany thus becomes the energy hub for the Russian gas supply to the European network.

The same role could have been assumed by Italy with the South Stream pipeline. The project was born in 2006, during the Prodi Il government, with the agreement stipulated by Eni and Gazprom. The pipeline would have crossed the Black Sea (in Russian, Bulgarian and Turkish territorial waters) continuing overland through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Slovenia and Italy to Tarvisio (Udine). From here the gas would be routed into the European network.

Construction of the pipeline had begun in 2012. In March 2014, Saipem (Eni) was awarded an initial €2 billion contract to build the undersea section. In the meantime, however, while the Maidan Square putsch precipitated the Ukrainian crisis, the Obama administration, in concert with the European Commission, moved to scuttle the South Stream. In June 2014, a delegation from the U.S. Senate, headed by John McCain, arrived in Sofia and transmitted Washington’s orders to the Bulgarian government. Immediately this announced the blocking of the works of the South Stream, in which Gazprom had already invested 4.5 billion dollars.

In this way, Italy lost not only contracts worth billions of euros, but also the possibility of having on its territory the hub for the supply of Russian gas in Europe, which would have generated strong revenues and increased employment. Why has Italy lost all this? Because the Renzi government (in office from 2014 to 2016) and Parliament accepted Washington’s imposition with bowed heads. Merkel’s Germany, on the contrary, opposed it. It then opened the “dispute between allies” that forced Washington to accept the doubling of North Stream, while retaining the U.S. claim to decide which countries Europe is allowed to import gas from and which countries it is not allowed to import gas from.

Would an Italian government dare to open a dispute with Washington to defend one of our national interests? The fact is that Italy has lost not only the pipeline, but its own sovereignty.

Big Pharma Conglomerate with a Criminal Record: Pfizer “Takes Over” the EU Vaccine Market. 1.8 Billion Doses

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky (via Global Research)

“Hundreds of millions of people have taken an injection that allows a bio-reactive “gene-therapy” molecule to be injected into their bodies because of fear, ignorance, and a refusal to consider that the people who are promoting this … have ulterior motives.” (Edward Curtin, April 2021)

Introduction

On April 14, 2021, the President of the European Commission confirmed that Brussels is negotiating  a contract with Pfizer for the production of 1.8 billion mRNA vaccine doses. 

This astronomical figure represents 23 percent of the World’s population. It is exactly four times the population of the 27 member states of the European Union (448 Million, 2020 data). 

This is the largest vaccine project in World history which is accompanied by the imposition of a diabolical “Timeline” on the people of the European Union consisting of recurrent mRNA inoculations over “the next two years and beyond”.

The entire process will be coupled with a relentless fear campaign and the embedded ID vaccine passport, approved by the European Parliament barely a few weeks prior to the EU’s announcement.

The EU Digital Vaccine Passport to be implemented by Pfizer BioNTech is part of  theinfamous ID2020 project sponsored by Bill Gates’ Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) “which uses generalized vaccination as a platform for digital identity“.

If this EU contract with Pfizer extending into 2023 were to be  carried out as planned, every single person in the European Union would be vaccinated four times over a two year period (2021-2023).

And bear in mind, at the time of writing, Pfizer’s mRNA (as well as those of its competitors including Astrazeneka, Moderna and J & J) are legally categorized (in the US) as “unapproved” and “experimental products”. They are illegal drugs.

In the US, the FDA in its ambiguous statement  provided a so-called Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, namely “to permit the emergency use of the unapproved product, … for active immunization…” (see below)

I have checked this statement with a prominent lawyer. It is blatantly illegal to market an “unapproved product” (irrespective of government permissions pertaining thereto).

A Multi-billion Dollar Bonanza for Pfizer BioNTech

Coinciding with the EU April 14, 2021 historic decision, Pfizer has announced that the price of its vaccine has been hiked up to $23 a dose.

Big Money for Big Pharma. The 1.8 billion doses vaccine project will cost 41 billion dollars, largely to be financed by the creditors of EU member states. The vaccine project will thereby contribute to the spiralling public debt crisis affecting most European countries, which was triggered by the closure of economic activity and the lockdowns in the course of last 13 months.

Meanwhile, Pfizer has extended its global market largely to the detriment of its competitors.

  • A contract to supply the US with up to 600 million doses,
  • Brazil, approximately 100 million,
  • South Africa 20 million doses,
  • Philippines, 40 million,
  • etc.

The Medium Term: 2021-2023 and “Beyond”. No Return to the “New Normal” once Vaccinated

What is envisaged in the EU is a so-called “medium term” plan extending into 2022/23. Does this “medium term” timeline imply a fourth and a fifth wave?

The “medium term” project will be carried out in liaison with the “Great Reset” proposed by the World Economic Forum. It will most probably be accompanied by lockdown and other restrictive measures. No foreseeable return to the “New Normal” is contemplated:

But let me [President of EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen] also focus on the medium term. ... It is clear that to defeat the virus decisively, we will need to be prepared for the following: … we might need booster jabs to reinforce and prolong immunity; … we will need to develop vaccines that are adapted to new variants; and we will need them early and in sufficient quantities. Having this in mind we need to focus on technologies that have proven their worth. mRNA vaccines are a clear case in point.

Based on all this, we are now entering into a negotiation with BioNTech-Pfizer for a third contract. This contract will foresee the delivery of 1.8 billion doses of vaccine over the period of 2021 to 2023. And it will entail that not only the production of the vaccines, but also all essential components, will be based in the EU.

The negotiations we are launching today [April 14, 2021]– and hope to conclude very rapidly – are a further important step in Europe’s response to the pandemic.

I want to thank BioNTech-Pfizer. It has proven to be a reliable partner. It has delivered on its commitments, and it is responsive to our needs. This is to the immediate benefit of EU citizens. ( President of EU Commission)

Reliable Partner? Pfizer’s Criminal Record

There is another dimension, a “can of worms” which the EU does not want to open. The largest vaccine project of an “unapproved drug” is to be implemented by a Big Pharma company which has a longstanding record of bribing medical doctors and public health officials.

Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. (Dr Robert G. Evans, National Institutes of Medicine)

Moreover, Pfizer has a criminal record in the US, indicted by the US Department of Justice in 2009 for “fraudulent marketing”. 

“Pfizer, the world’s largest drugs company, has been hit with the biggest criminal fine in US history as part of a $2.3bn settlement with federal prosecutors for mispromoting medicines and for paying kickbacks to compliant doctors.”(Guardian)

In a historic US Department of Justice decision in September 2009, Pfizer Inc. pleaded guilty to criminal charges. It was “The Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement” in the History of the U.S. Department of Justice.

To view the C-Span Video Click Screen below 

How on Earth can you trust a Big Pharma vaccine conglomerate which pleaded guilty to criminal charges by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) including “fraudulent marketing” and “felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”? 

In this 2009 DOJ Judgment, Pfizer was so to speak “Put on Probation” for a four year period. Pfizer was ordered to enter into “a corporate integrity agreement” with the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting as a de facto “Parole Officer”. “That agreement provided for “procedures and reviews to … avoid and promptly detect” (future) misconduct on the part of Pfizer, Inc.

The Killer “Vaccine”

Corporate Integrity? Pfizer BioNTech’s “Fraudulent Marketing” behaviour prevails with regard to the projected 1.8 billion doses of its  “unapproved” “experimental” mRNA COVID‑19  Tozinameran “vaccine”, sold under the brand name Comirnaty.

What we are dealing with is the “fraudulent marketing” of what is best described as a killer “vaccine”.

But in fact, the mRNA “vaccine” which modifies the human genome “is NOT” a vaccine. It is based on gene therapy combined with an embedded ID vaccine passport.

Deaths and Injuries Resulting From the MRNA “Experimental Vaccine”

Is the European Commission intent on edging out Astrazeneka and J & J (on behalf of Pfizer??). Official statements suggest that Pfizer BioNTech will eventually be taking over the entire EU vaccine market.

In early March 2o21, 18 European countries including France, Italy, Germany and Spain decided to suspend the AstraZeneka mRNA vaccine. Astrazeneka was the target of national EU governments, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as well as the EU Commission.

The EU has now confirmed that it will not renew its contracts with J and J and AstraZeneka despite the fact (according to EU and UK data) that the deaths and injuries resulting from the Pfizer BioNTech “vaccine” are much higher than those of AstraZeneka.

Official EU data pertaining to vaccine deaths and injuries  for Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca point to: 3,964 Dead and 162,610 Injuries  (December 27, 2020 – March 13, 2021) 

The Breakdown (Astrazeneka, Pfizer, Moderna)

Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222(CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/AstraZeneca451 deaths and 54,571 injuries to 13/03/2021

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2Comirnaty) from BioNTechPfizer: 2,540deaths and 102,100 injuries to 13/03/2021

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273 (CX-024414) from Moderna: 973 deaths and 5,939 injuries to 13/03/2021

UK data also confirms that the so-called side effects of the mRNA are significantly higher for the Pfizer BioNTech “vaccine” (in comparison with AstraZeneka).

So why are Pfizer’s competitors, namely Astrazeneka and J & J being shoved out of the EU market?

There is War within Big Pharma. 

Concluding Remarks

Amply documented, the vaccine is not required.  There is no pandemic. 

And why would the EU Commission representing 450 million people in 27 countries commit itself to purchasing 1.8 billion doses of Pfizer’s mRNA Tozinameran”vaccine” which at the very outset is known to have resulted in countless deaths and injuries including autoimmune reactions. blood clotting abnormalities, stroke and internal bleeding?

Who is behind this despicable project??

See the Rebuttal of Doctors for Covid Ethics addressed to the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Say NO to the Killer Virus. The EU sponsored Pfizer “vaccine” must be the object of  a coordinated grassroots movement in all 27 member states of the European Union, as well as  Worldwide.

The scientific evidence amply confirms that a Covid-19 vaccine is NOT required. Quite the opposite.

The estimates of so-called covid-19 positive cases are based on the RT-PCR test which according to the WHO’s latest statement(January 20, 2021) is totally unreliable and which has served to hike up the numbers, while also justifying the need for a mRNA vaccine, which in effect is not a vaccine.

See:The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

While the media will highlight the “Killer virus”, with scanty and contradictory “evidence”, what is at stake is best described as “a killer vaccine”.

Misleading Covid Death Estimates

Moreover, the estimates of Covid deaths used to justify the need for a vaccine are fake. In the US, certifiers have been instructed to indicate the “underlying cause of death” as Covid-19 “more often than not”.

See Covid-19 and the Falsification of Death Certificates: The CDC’s “More Often Than Not” Clause

Swine flu: “They Organized the Panic”. Inquiry into the Role of Big Pharma and WHO by Council of Europe

Bruno Odent interviews Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg

By Bruno Odent (via Global Research)

New Development: The German President of the Health Committee of the Council of Europe, Wolfgang Wodarg, is issuing accusations against the pharmaceutical lobbies and the governments. He has intitiated the start of an investigation by that body concerning the role played by the pharmaceutical in the campaign of panic about the virus.

Ex-member of the SPD, Wolfgang Wodarg is a doctor and epidemiologist. His request for a commission of inquiry into the role of pharmaceutical companies in the management of swine flu outbreak by WHO and the nation states was granted unanimously by the members of the Health Committee of the Council of Europe…

What made you suspicious about the influence of pharmaceutical companies had on the decisions being taken in respect of swine flu?

Wolfgang Wodarg. We are facing a major failure of national institutions responsible for warning about risks and responding in case a pandemic occurs. In April when the first alarm came from Mexico I was very surprised at the figures furnished by the World Health Organization (WHO) to justify the declaration of a pandemic. I was immediately suspicious: the numbers were very low and the alarm level very high. There were not even into a thousand patients when there was already talk of the pandemic of the century. And the alert was decreed extreme based on the fact that the virus was new. But the characteristic of influenza disease is to develop very quickly with viruses which take on new forms each time, by dwelling in new hosts, animal, human etc.

There was nothing new in itself to that. Each year a new virus of this “flu” type appears. In reality there was no reason to sound the alarm at this level. This was only possible because in early May the WHO changed its definition of a pandemic. Before that date there had to be not only a disease which had broke out in several countries at once but also one that had very serious consequences with the number of deaths above the usual average. This aspect was removed from the new definition, to retain the rate of spread of disease as the only criteria. And they claimed that the virus was dangerous because people had not been able to develop immunity against it. Which was false for this virus. Because it was observed that people aged over 60 years already had antibodies. That is to say they had already been in contact with similar viruses. That is why also there are virtually no people aged over 60 who have developed the disease. Yet those were the people who were recommended to be vaccinated quickly.

Among the things that aroused my suspicions there was therefore on one side this determination to sound the alarm. And on the other side, some curious facts. Such as, for example, the recommendation by WHO to carry out two injections for vaccines. That had never been done before. There was no scientific justification for this. There was also the recommendation to use only special patented vaccines. There was however no reason for not adding, as it is done every year, specific antiviral particles of this new H1N1 virus, “completing” the vaccine used for seasonal influenza. This was not done because they preferred to use patented vaccine materials that major laboratories had designed and manufactured to be ready in case of a pandemic developing. And by proceeding in this way they did not hesitate to endanger the persons vaccinated.

What danger?

Wolfgang Wodarg. To provide products rapidly, adjuvants were used in some vaccines, whose effects have not been adequately tested. In other words, they wanted absolutely to use these new patented products instead of developing vaccines according to traditional methods of production which are much simpler, more reliable and less costly. There was no medical reason for this. It was only for marketing purposes.

How could anyone justify that?

Wolfgang Wodarg. To understand we must return to the episode of avian influenza from 2005 to 2006. It was then that new international plans were defined for dealing with a pandemic alarm. These plans were officially developed to ensure rapid manufacturing of vaccines in case of an alert. This led to negotiations between pharmaceutical companies and governments. On the one hand the labs committed themselves to keep ready to develop the preparations, on the other hand, states assured them they would buy them all. After this strange deal the pharmaceutical industry took no economic risk by engaging in new fabrications. And it was sure to touch the jack pot in the case of a pandemic outbreak.

Do you disagree with the diagnoses and even the potential severity of influenza A?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes, it’s just a normal kind of flu. It does not cause a tenth of deaths caused by the classic seasonal flu. All that mattered and that led to the great campaign of panic which we have seen was that it was a golden opportunity for representatives from labs who knew they would hit the jackpot in the case of a pandemic being declared. 

Those are very serious accusations you’re making. How was such a process made possible within the WHO?

Wolfgang Wodarg. A group of people in the WHO is associated very closely with the pharmaceutical industry.

Will the investigation by the Council of Europe also work in this direction?

Wolfgang Wodarg. We want to clarify everything that brought about this massive operation of disinformation. We want to know who made decisions, on the basis of what evidence and precisely how the influence of the pharmaceutical industry came to bear on the decision-making. And the time has come at last for us to make demands on governments. The purpose of the inquiry is so that there are no more false alarms of this type in the future. So that the people may rely on the analysis and the expertise of national and international public institutions. The latter are now discredited, because millions of people have been vaccinated with products with inherent possible health risks. This was not necessary. It has also led to a considerable mismanagement of public money.

Do you have any concrete figures on the extent of this mismanagement?

Wolfgang Wodarg. In Germany it comes to 700 million euros. But it is very difficult to know the exact figures because we are talking on one side about vaccines resold to foreign countries and most firms do not communicate due to the principle of respect for “business secret” regarding the amounts in contracts concluded with States and any indemnification clauses contained therein.

Will the work of “lobbying” by pharma companies on the National Institutes of Health also be dealt with by the investigation of the Council of Europe?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes we will examine the attitude of institutions like the Robert Koch Institute in Germany or Pasteur in France who should in fact have advised their governments from a critical standpoint. In some countries certain institutions have done so. In Finland and Poland, for example, critical voices were raised to say: “we do not need that.

Has the tremendous global operation of disinformation also been possible because the pharmaceutical industry had “representatives” even within the governments of the most powerful countries?

Wolfgang Wodarg. As regards the ministries, that seems to me to be obvious. I can not explain how specialists, very smart people who know the problems of the influenza disease by heart, did not notice what was happening.

So what happened?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Without going as far as saying direct corruption, which I am certain does exist, there were many ways for labs to exercise their influence over decisions. A very concrete example, is how Klaus Stöhr, who was the head of the epidemiological department of the WHO at the time of bird flu, and who therefore prepared the plans to cope with a pandemic that I mentioned above, in the meantime had become a top executive of the company Novartis. And similar links between Glaxo and Baxter, etc. and influential members of the WHO. These large firms have “their people” in the cogs and then they pull strings so that the right policy decisions are taken. That is to say, the ones that will allow them to pump as much money from taxpayers.

But if your survey succeeds, will it not be a support for citizens to insist their governments demand accountability from these large groups?

 
Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes, you’re right, this is one of the major issues related to this investigation. States could indeed take advantage of this to contest contracts drawn up in, let us say, improper conditions. If it can be shown that it was under the influence of firms that the process was initiated then they will have to be push to ask for reimbursement. But that’s just the financial side, there is also the human side, persons who were vaccinated with products that were inadequately tested.
 

So what kind of risk have these healthy people unknowingly taken by getting vaccinated?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Again, the vaccines were developed too quickly, some adjuvants were insufficiently tested. But there is worse to come. The vaccine developed by Novartis was produced in a bioreactor from cancerous cells. A technique that had never been used until now.

Why, I’m obviously not an expert, but how can one claim to make a vaccine from diseased cells?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Normally one uses chicken eggs on which viruses are grown. We need in fact to work on living cells. Because viruses can only multiply in this way and so do, by definition, the virus preparations that go with it. But this process has a big flaw, it is slow and it takes a lot of eggs. And it is long and complex technically. Another potentially excellent technique is to grow the virus in living cells in bioreactors. This requires cells which grow and divide very quickly. It’s a bit like the method used to culture yogurt, which is also produced in a bio-reactor. but in this context the cell was so upset in its environment and its growth that it grows like a cancer cell. And it is on these rapidly multiplying cells that they grow the virus. But to manufacture the vaccine the virus must be re-extracted from these cells on which they were implanted. And it can therefore happen that during the manufacturing process of the vaccine, residue of cancerous cells remain in the preparation. In the same way as it happens in conventional manufacturing with eggs. Thus we know that in the case of a classic influenza vaccination, side effects can occur in people who are allergic to egg albumin found in egg white. It can not be excluded that proteins, remains of a cancer cell present in a vaccine produced by bio-reactor, may generate a tumour on the person vaccinated. According to a true principle of precaution, before such a product is allowed on the market, there should therefore be 100% certainty that such effects are actually excluded.

And wasn’t this done?

Wolfgang Wodarg. It was not. The EMEA (European Medicines Agency), an institution under the responsibility of the European Commissioner for Economic Affairs, based in London, which gives permission to release vaccines on the market in Europe, gave the green light for commercializing this product arguing, namely, that this mode of manufacture was not a “significant” risk. This was very differently appreciated by many experts here in Germany and by an independent drug institution, which instead sounded the alert and voiced their objections. I took these warnings seriously. I studied the case and intervened in the context of the Bundestag health committee of which I was a member so that the vaccine would not be used in Germany. I made it known that I was certainly not opposed to the development of vaccines with this technique. But first it had to have a total guarantee of innocuousness. The product has therefore not been used in Germany where the government terminated the contract with Novartis.

What is the name of this vaccine?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Obta flu.

But that means that in other European countries like France the product can be marketed without any problem?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes, it obtained permission from EMEA and can be used anywhere in the EU.

What alternative do you intend to propose so that further scandals of this type are avoided?

Wolfgang Wodarg. The WHO should be more transparent, so we know clearly who decides and what type of relationship exists between participants in the organization. It should also be flanked by at least one elected chamber, which should be able to react very critically and where everyone can express themselves. This enhanced public scrutiny is essential.

Isn’t the question of another system capable of handling a matter which is in fact a common good for citizens across the planet coming to the surface?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Can we go on allowing the production of vaccines and the conduct of these productions to organizations whose goal is to win as much money as possible? Or is the production of vaccines not something that States must absolutely monitor and implement themselves? That’s why I think we should abandon the system of patents on vaccines. That is to say, the possibility of monopolization of vaccine production by a large group. For this option requires that we sacrifice thousands of lives, simply in the name of respect for these monopoly rights. You’re right, that particular claim has become evident for me.