Covid19 - New York Times vaccine safety rankings

 

 
New York Times vaccine safety rankings

1. Sinopharm 

2. Sinovac

3. Kexing 

4. CanSino

5. Astrazeneca 

6. Pfizer

7. Moderna

8. John and Johnson 

9. Novavax 

10. Satellite 5(Russian) 

This is a very interesting and revealing data from New York Times. What is more revealing are things that were not said or written and readers would have to figure out what New York Times did not say or did not want to tell.

In the first place we need to take it that New York Times did not come up with the rankings by guessing but with statistics to support it or they would be sued or accused to spreading misinformation. Pfizer, Moderna, John and Johnson, Novavax would be very unhappy with their low rankings and be ranked lower than Astrazeneca.

Let me elaborate on this point first. Astrazeneca has very bad safety records and most European countries have banned its use. The Americans have a hoard of Astrazeneca vaccines and are giving it away for fear of adverse side effects. Japan too refused to use it and dumped what they had to Taiwan.

So, how dangerous is Astrazeneca? When the Americans, Europeans and Japanese think it is not fit and unsafe to be used, trust them and stop using them as the risk is too high, unacceptable risk. Some Asean countries are still using it out of no choice as they did not have enough supplies of other vaccines. It is a case of between the devil and the deep blue sea. 

Given the fact that Astrazeneca is unsafe, bad enough to use, why should any country be using vaccines that are more unsafe than Astrazeneca?  Pfizer and Moderna are both ranked lower than Astrazeneca. Logically they should be more unsafe and should not be used. Oh, the new slogan, the benefits outweigh the risk! 

How serious is the risk compares to Astrazeneca? Now one is talking about it or reporting it. They only reported the adverse effects of Astrazeneca. Imagine how much adverse data have been covered up, not to be reported. Imagine why so many silly leaders are still singing about how good Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are and encouraging their people to use them...when it is more unsafe than the already banned in many countries Astrazeneca?  Would or should Pfizer and Moderna be banned too? Why not?

The other important point to note is NY Times is anti China and always out to smear China and of course Chinese vaccines. For them to rank four Chinese vaccines at the top, safer than their darlings Pfizer and Moderna, must be something that they had no choice but to do so. There must be overwhelming evidence that proved that the Chinese vaccines are far safer than the American vaccines. Some stupid politicians are still trying to investigate if Chinese vaccines are safe and claiming ignorance and not enough data. Surely the NY Times rankings did not mean much to them, probably unreliable.

NY Times must have all the data of the vaccines on the table for comparison. And they had the gumption to rank Pfizer and Moderna lower than even a dangerous and banned Astrazeneca said it all. They could not do otherwise. The data must have all the adverse effects of Pfizer and Moderna that the public would not be privy to, not allowed to know. But NY Times know and has to admit the facts and thus cannot say they are safer than Astrazenca or safer than the Chinese vaccines, something that they were dying to do so. And Pfizer and Moderna would not dare to sue NYT to clear their names.

Now, what do you think? Why would countries be pushing for a much unsafe vaccine to their people instead of safer vaccines? Are they mad or irresponsible or there is something else that we don't know?

I am written sometimes back that this is a rare and unusual occasion when the white people deliberately chose to inject their people with poison, an act of God, to terminate themselves. Now the proof is here. They have safer vaccines but did not want to use but insisting on using less safe vaccines. How not the white men destroy themselves willingly when they chose to act based on political exigency?

The full impact of injecting poison into their bodies would only blossom in the near future, maybe 5 years or more. By then it would be too late for those injected with these unsafe vaccines. By then there is no way to rewind the clock. The rice would be cooked.

Good riddance for the evil crimes against humanity committed over a few centuries. The debt must be repaid.

With the finding that the mRNA vaccines did not or cannot prevent the infection, many are still stubbornly sticking to the belief that mRNA vaccines are still the panacea, the must have vaccines, the must jab to be safe. But this narrative is changing and the new narrative is that it would prevent an infection from getting worse with statistics selected to substantiate the belief. How real is this? Is it too much to admit that the narrative of the best thing to have is falling apart, not as what was bragged and believed? Only time will tell.

PS. You have been warned by NYT that Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are less safe than Astrazeneca. In another word, poison, as some scientists have called them.

Was the US Invasion of Afghanistan Legal Under International Law? - Part 3 + 4

It is quite clear that insufficient efforts were made by the US to pursue peaceful solutions or further dialogues and negotiations, as President Bush had give an ultimatum of two weeks for the Taliban to hand over suspected terrorists. When this time frame is compared to that of other international conflicts, for example the Israel-Palestine conflict, in which it had taken a tremendous amount of time to broker deals. Conversely, the Afghanistan government was given hardly any reasonable time to comply or discuss its problems, issues or reservations.

The law that was used by the US to justify the need for the invasion was Article 51 of the UN Charter, which deals with the issue of self-defence.

President George W Bush announced, in a speech delivered after the first strike on Afghanistan, "We have called up reserves to reinforce our military capability and strengthen the protection of our homeland." It can be seen through this quote, and many others by President George W. Bush, that the US believed its actions were justified on the grounds of self-defence. This justification was used because it was alleged that if Afghanistan was not contained, more terrorist attacks would occur in the US and elsewhere around the world.

However, the issue of self-defence could be raised by the Afghan people themselves too, as resistance against NATO and US forces and their perceived aggression could in itself equate to individual self-defence, countering the collective, national self-defence that the US claimed.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were not carried out by one state acting aggressively against the US. They were the actions of a terrorist organisation that had no direct links to the government of any state. This logic could also be used by Afghanistan to argue that the response of Afghans who subsequently joined resistance movements did so in retaliation to a pre-emptive strike by the US, as the 9/11 attacks cannot directly be traced back to Afghanistan.

In relation to a state fighting a non-state actor, if it was necessary for the US to invade a country in order to eliminate Al Qaeda, then it can be argued that Saudi Arabia would have been a more logical choice than Afghanistan. This is because many reports over the years have suggested that Al Qaeda was formed, funded and trained by Saudi Arabia. This is affirmed by Wikileaks cables which mention this fact.

Legal scholar Olivier Corten states that there was ‘nearly unanimous political opposition to the Taliban regime’. Nonetheless even though there was strong opposition to the Taliban by various international organisations and states, regime change is not itself a substantial enough reason to allow for an invasion of one country by another. Thus, this justification for intervention by the occupying forces would not be seen as credible or permissible under international law. Furthermore, the Taliban were initially welcomed by the majority of the Afghan population when they came to power as they worked to eradicate ‘warlords and banditry’.

That is why an alternative narrative came into existence after the invasion had been going on for a while, namely that the invasion of Afghanistan by US and NATO forces was a humanitarian mission. And that the mission’s aim was to liberate the Afghan people and bring them democracy by eradicating the Taliban hold on the country.

Another important part of the Charter which needs to be mentioned is Article 2(3), which states that all disputes should be solved in a peaceful manner in order to ensure global peace and security. With this Article in mind, it seems that not enough effort was made to determine whether the objectives that the US wanted fulfilled by Afghanistan could be reached in such a manner. The threatening tone used by the former US President George W. Bush when addressing the issue, including the fact that he only gave the Taliban two weeks to hand over the suspected terrorists, suggests that this Article 2(3) was ignored entirely.

The issue of a state using force against a non-state actor is a contentious and compelling area that also needs to be analysed. Even though the Taliban was the only form of government in Afghanistan at the time of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was not. Thus, the war in Afghanistan with the aim to eradicate a non-state actor could be seen as beyond the scope of necessity and proportionality. This is because Al Qaeda did not have the kind of influence and control that the Taliban did in Afghanistan, so invading the country in order to eradicate them could be seen in a legal context as disproportionate and therefore illegitimate.

One more key issue to consider here is the principle of State Sovereignty. Afghanistan was primarily invaded due to the fact that people who the US considered to be terrorists linked to the 9/11 attacks and living in Afghanistan at the time were not handed over to the US. But it seems dialogue and diplomacy could have been pursued in order to reach an agreement, rather than rushing to the conclusion that an invasion was the only means for the US to achieve its objectives. This is because International Law states that other means to resolve disputes should be looked into before considering the act of war. This is affirmed by Article 2(4) of the UN charter which states that:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

But due to the fact that the US government believed that it was acting to prevent further loss of civilian life by the perceived future threat of Al Qaeda, such objectives could be viewed as being humanitarian and not territorial or political, as was done in Kosovo, thus leading people to believe that such an operation was more legitimate than any other form of conflict.

However, George W Bush only gave the Taliban two weeks to hand over terrorist operatives and it seems that no other forms of negotiations were engaged in, so not all that could be done to prevent war was undertaken by the US and the NATO states that subsequently invaded Afghanistan.

Washington had failed to recognise the opposition to Al Qaeda, which was vast in the Muslim world. If the US had looked to work with such groups, the spread of Al Qaeda might have been better contained than it is at present.

Furthermore, it could be argued that the Taliban was reluctant to give up these alleged terrorists for numerous reasons, one of the main ones being that it could have caused unrest in Afghanistan if it was not a move that the majority of the Afghan population supported. And given that Afghanistan had already suffered a bloody and devastating civil war, this was a serious issue that needed to be considered.

Another issue to consider was the fact that declaring war on the basis of one terrorist attack could be seen as going against the principles of necessity and proportionality when looking to engage in war, even if a state is relying on self-defence as a justification for war.

SSO - 31 July 2021.

Credit is hereby declared:

This article is an adaptation and modification of an essay written by Rabia Khan for a Master's program at the University of London. It was written in January 2013 and published on 6 November 2013.

Was the US Invasion of Afghanistan Legal Under International Law? - Part 1+2

Introduction

This article sets out to analyse whether the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was legal under international law.

Reference is primarily made to the United Nations Charter and customary international law.

Moralistic and pacifist arguments are not relied upon in this article, as the aim here is to assess the conflict within a legal context.

The work of legal scholars, academics, journalists and politicians are also used for analysis in order to determine the legitimacy of the war.


Brief History of Modern Afghanistan (1979 Onwards)

Afghanistan is a country with a population of approximately 30 million people. It is predominantly a Muslim country and is very ethnically diverse. The major ethnic groups in Afghanistan include the Pashtuns (who make up around half the population of Afghanistan), Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks and Turkmen.

The country was invaded in 1979 by the Soviet Union, after they believed that the Afghan elite was becoming increasingly close to the Americans and drifting away from the Soviets.

The war began at a time when revolutions were taking place across Afghanistan. That war went on for just under 10 years, and resulted in the defeat of the Soviet Union and victory for the Taliban, and the Afghan resistance movement as a whole.

The Taliban was an Afghan resistance movement that came into being during the Soviet invasion as a direct response to the invasion. It was funded by the US and Pakistan and was made up mainly of ethnic Pashtuns.

The need for a resistance group was necessary in Afghanistan, as the Afghan army had been funded and trained by the Soviets and was in place to serve their interests.

After the Soviet invasion came to an end, Afghanistan continued to face an uncertain future and was still riddled with instability. This was due to the civil war that broke out in the country in the late 1980s which intensified in 1992, after the government of Afghan President Mohammad Najibullah was toppled.

The civil war itself went on for over a decade and resulted in the deaths of approximately 400,000 Afghans.

After the Taliban seized control of Kabul, a group known as the Northern Alliance was formed. This group consisted mainly of Afghan minorities of Central Asian descent and was funded primarily by Iran, as well as the CIA. But the Northern Alliance fell apart by late 2001, and was not in any way as powerful as the Taliban when it was in existence.


The Beginning of ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’

The invasion of Afghanistan took place on the 7th of October 2001, and was called ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ by the United States Government. The US Government claimed that the invasion was in retaliation to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Pennsylvania. The main reason the invasion took place was because the US felt that it could eradicate Al-Qaeda and its support network within the Taliban through military action. The US claimed that it needed to get troops on the ground in Afghanistan, as Afghanistan refused to comply when asked to hand over terrorists that had sought refuge there. These were terrorists that the US believed played a major role in the 9/11 attacks.

On hindsight, after numerous Independent investigations and studies, the 9/11 attacks are said to have been carried out by people organised, trained and funded by Saudi Arabia, and probably Israel was also involved in one way or another.

It must be noted that no terrorist organisation in the world had claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, even if some may have sympathised with the act itself. 

Yoram Dinstein in his book 'War, Aggression and Self-Defence' incorrectly made the assertion that the Taliban had alluded to having conspired in implementing the attacks. In reality, the chief spokesperson of the Taliban at the time of the attacks, Wakeel Ahmed Mutawakel, and the Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, both condemned the attacks and did not claim responsibly for them on the part of the Taliban or Al Qaeda. This is also affirmed by Aijaz Ahmad in his book 'Iraq, Afghanistan and the Imperialism of Our Time', where he writes, ‘it was in fact even more difficult to link the Taliban themselves with the events of 11 September; they denounced the attack immediately and promised in no uncertain terms to help find the culprits’.

What is a ‘Terrorist’?

The US and UK governments claimed that they were engaging in a war with Afghanistan because the country was harbouring terrorists that were complicit in the attacks that befell the US on the 11th of September 2001. In order to determine whether terrorists had taken refuge in Afghanistan and if they were actively operating from there, a descriptive definition of what a terrorist or terrorism comprises is due.

The CIA has its own definition of terrorism, namely that terrorism is a ‘premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.’ Thus, with reference to the CIA’s definition of terrorism, it can be deduced that anyone engaging in such activity is a terrorist.

Furthermore, in relation to the CIA’s definition of terrorism, Al-Qaeda fit the common narrative of being a terrorist organisation, as it uses an ideology to justify the use of violence against innocent people. However, a small issue of technicality does arise here, as the CIA’s definition does not account for motives for terrorism other than political. This issue should not be ignored as Al Qaeda uses a skewed religious ideology as the basis for its activities rather than a ‘politically motivated’ one. None the less, the suicide bombings carried out by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region would suggest that such activity can only be the work of a terrorist organisation, thus labelling Al Qaeda as such is justified.

On the other hand, labelling the Taliban as a terrorist organisation is problematic. This is because the Taliban was formed as a resistance group to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, with funding from the US and Pakistan.

Also, conflating Al Qaeda and the Taliban has caused more confusion to the matter, as low level infiltration of the Taliban by Al Qaeda does not mean that both organisations are one and the same. Furthermore, the ideology of the Taliban is based around the application of Sharia law within Afghanistan, and it does not seek to follow Al Qaeda’s practices.

The Taliban continue to fight occupiers of their land and in the present context this applies to the US-led forces based there. Also unlike Al Qaeda, the Taliban are not active in terrorist attacks abroad, except in Pakistan due to the porous border between the two countries.

International Law on Self-Defence, the Use of Force and War

Initially, the United States had claimed that the invasion of Afghanistan was necessary on the grounds of self-defence, as a terrorist attack had taken place in the US and action was needed in order to prevent other such attacks. Afghanistan was specifically chosen since the US believed that terrorists were being harboured and trained there by Al Qaeda.

The former US President George W. Bush affirmed this when he said, ‘One by one we’re going to find [Al Qaeda and the Taliban] and piece by piece we’ll tear their terrorist network apart’.

SSO 

Credit is hereby declared:

This article is an adaptation and modification of an essay written by Rabia Khan for a Master's program at the University of London. It was written in January 2013 and published on 6 November 2013.

Covid19 - 75% of vaccinated people infected with Covid19 in Massachusetts

WASHINGTON: Three quarters of people infected with COVID-19 at public events in a Massachusetts town were fully vaccinated, a study by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed.

The study, published on Friday without naming the town, suggested the Delta variant of the virus was highly contagious.

Advertisement

The study found vaccinated individuals had a similar amount of virus presence as the unvaccinated, suggesting that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with the Delta variant could transmit the virus, the CDC said.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said this was a "pivotal discovery" leading to CDC's recommendation this week that masks be worn in areas where cases were surging as a precaution against possible transmission by fully vaccinated people.

The above Reuters report confirmed that vaccinated people are not safer than non vaccinated people against the virus especially Delta variant. It also said that the virus presence in vaccinated and unvaccinated people are similar, ie no difference, just as infectious.

The narrative in Singapore is that vaccinated people are safer though this is changing to one that said vaccinated people would have less severe infection than unvaccinated. Maybe the virus here and those in Massachusetts are different and the virus here are less likely to infect vaccinated people. Any data to prove this is so? Any view, vaccinated people are more dangerous carriers as many are asymtomatic and could be spreading the virus under a false confidence that they are not infected.

Whatever the narratives, the number of new cases is the new and real story. If the vaccines are effective, new cases must go down, not go up. The situations in US and UK are getting worse, more infections and more stringent measures introduced with mask becoming mandatory. And they all use mRNA vaccines, touted as the best by the sales talk with sales figures claiming more than 90% efficacy but losing ground and confidence with new data coming up.

Where is the solution, what is the solution when vaccines are no longer effective? The self denial that vaccines is the solution, the cure and prevention of this virus is growing very thin. Why keep poking and paying when it is not going to be effective?

PS. Vaccinated people infected with the Delta variant might be as contagious as those who are unvaccinated , the CDC says, and urged Americans to start wearing masks again.

Moon landing cat. How long more can the American cover up their moon landing hoax?

 

 

Look carefully at this American moon landing clip. Partially hidden by the translation band a cat was seen walking slowly across the screen, a few meters in front of the astronaut,...on the moon! How on earth could the cat be there?

Second point, looking at the shadow, the sun is pretty low on the horizon and very bright. Look at the reflection on the back of the astronaut. But it was pitch dark in the back where the sun was supposed to be.

Third point, the front of the astronaut and the cat were very bright, as if a reflector was used to reflect light onto them to show the details in their front. Normally their front would be pretty dark relative to the strong light behind them.

Fourth point. Remember the infamous Armstrong footprint on the moon? And also the numerous footprints around their lunar module in an area that looked damp? The astronaut above was walking some distance from the rover behind. But there was no trace of any footprint behind him or around him. It looked as if he was planted on the spot for a photo shoot and a cat just walked past nonchalantly.

China's moon mission is not simply to explore the moon and setting up a moon base station. It is also there to expose the American lies that they landed on the moon.  With the recent visit to the moon by its probes and collecting samples of moon soil, China is on the very of confirming that the American moon landing was simply a lie, a typical American big white lie.