On Tuesday European regulators warned that the COVID booster shots could adversely affect the immune system.
This was a huge admission for European officials after pushing booster shots just weeks earlier. What happened?
Then later on Tuesday the World Health Organization joined the EU and also condemned the continued booster regimen.
That was quick.
What happened?
What do they now see about the experimental mRNA vaccines that they did not see just a month ago?
In a statement released by WHO on Tuesday, it said, “a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.”
Now the World Health Organization has waved the white flag on Covid vaccine boosters too.
WHO released a statement about Covid vaccines yesterday. It’s filled with the usual public health jargon and ass-covering, but one line stands out:
a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.
It’s over, people.
Advertisement – story continues below
Aside from a few unlucky Israelis, no one is going to receive a fourth dose of the original vaccine; everyone with eyes can see it doesn’t work against Omicron. (And if you haven’t gotten a third dose, at this point, why would you? You are getting at most weeks of marginally improved protection for potentially severe side effects.)
Instead the WHO is now promising/demanding vaccines based on whatever the dominant Sars-Cov-2 strain is at the moment.
That promise is as empty as all the others the health bureaucrats and vaccine companies have made.
At least five major variants (“variants of concern”) have developed in the last year, and two have become globally dominant. Even the mRNA vaccines cannot be cooked up and delivered fast enough to match whatever strain of virus becomes dominant. Covid is faster than the scientists.
The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”.Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels.
Controversially member states would also lose what few controls they have left over their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocating refugees.The plot has sparked fury and panic in Poland – a traditional ally of Britain in the fight against federalism – after being leaked to Polish news channel TVP Info.
Polish politicians say the plans include loss of control of a number of key policy areas
Polish foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski has blasted the plan
The public broadcaster reported the bombshell proposal would be presented to a meeting of the Visegrad group of countries – made up of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia – by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.In the preamble to the text the two ministers write: “Our countries share a common destiny and a common set of values ??that give rise to an even closer union between our citizens. We will therefore strive for a political union in Europe and invite the next Europeans to participate in this venture.”
The revelations come just days after Britain shook the Brussels establishment by voting to leave the European Union in a move some have predicted could leave to the break-up of the EU.
A number of member states are deeply unhappy about the creeping federalism of the European project with anti-EU sentiments running high in eastern Europe, Scandinavia and France.
Opponents of the EU have warned of its ambitions to create a superstate
Britain voted to leave the European Union in an historic referendum last Thursday
Responding to the plot Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski raged: “This is not a good solution, of course, because from the time the EU was invented a lot has changed.“The mood in European societies is different. Europe and our voters do not want to give the Union over into the hands of technocrats.
“Therefore, I want to talk about this, whether this really is the right recipe right now in the context of a Brexit.”
There are deep divides at the heart of the EU at the moment over how to proceed with the project in light of the Brexit vote.
Some figures have cautioned against trying to force through further political integration, warning that to do so against the wishes of the European people will only fuel further Eurosceptic feeling.
A few weeks before the Brexit vote European Council president Donald Tusk warned that European citizens did not share the enthusiasm of some of their leaders for “a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world, a utopia of Euro-Asian unity”.He added: “Increasingly louder are those who question the very principle of a united Europe. The spectre of a break-up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation doesn’t seem to me to be the best answer to it.”
His view was backed up by the leader of the eurozone countries, Dutch politician Jerome Dijsselbloem, who added: “In the eurozone some are pushing for a completion of the monetary union by creating a full political union, a euro area economic government or even a euro budget… to me it is obvious.
“We need to strengthen what we have and finish it, but let’s not build more extensions to the European house while it is so unstable.”
In the EU referendum about whether or not the UK should remain in the European Union, the UK government warned that leaving the EU could mean 10 years of uncertainty as new trade deals are formed, and even a collapse of the UK economy with a year of recession.
Meanwhile, the news media and anti-EU politicians concentrated on the topic of immigration, leaving the general public in fear of increasing migrants who will drain the economy and swarm their towns (source).
This same fear mongering happened in Norway when they held a referendum in 1994 (source); yet Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland, as non-EU members within Europe, enjoy some of the highest living standards in the world.
Iceland was also the only country to put bankers in prison instead of bail them out (source) and Norway will ban the sale of all fossil fuel-based cars in the next decade (source).
But inside the EU, a member country has the ability to influence the laws of 507 million people. Surely it makes sense to be part of a group of nations working together for a shared common good?
How The EU Works
Let’s have a look at how the EU works:
First, there is the European Parliament, where MEPs are elected by the general public to represent them; their job is to vote for or against proposed new EU laws.
Next there is the European Council, where the nations’ leaders meet; yet their job is also not to propose new legislation.
That is the role of the European Commission, which consists of 28 commissioners — one for each member country. These people are not elected but chosen by each country’s current leader. It is these unelected commissioners who create the laws, not the leaders or MEPs we vote in.
It is also important to note that the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon replaced all previous treaties as the new EU constitution; in this treaty, it is also almost impossible for any country to petition a law once it has been put in force (source).
The ERT
So where are these Commissioners getting their ideas for the laws? They come from the The European Round Table of Industrialists. The ERT consists of “around 50 Chief Executives and Chairmen of major multinational companies” and the ERT was formed with the express intention of shaping and furthering EU integration (source).
For example, in January 1985, the ERT presented “Europe 1990 – an agenda for action,” an action plan for the single market; 10 days later Jacques Delors, the new President of the Commission, gave his speech about the single market in parliament, and in June 1985, the Single Market White Paper was published, which was a copy and paste from the ERT action plan (source).
Today the ERT have a website, but in the 1990s they were extremely secretive, and in 1991 they quietly published their report called “Reshaping Europe.”
In 1997 they negotiated a trade agreement at the OECD called the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), which allowed corporations to sue governments if EU laws increasing environmental protection, improving labor standards, securing equal treatment for women, or taxing capital impeded on their profits (source).
The proposal was leaked and the agreement fell through, so the ERT put the agreement forward again under the name MIA at the WTO, but this time the commissioners resigned due to several counts of fraud and the MIA was also never passed (source).
Trade Agreements
Maybe you have heard about TTIP or CETA? These are new versions of this same trade agreement which now incorporate the USA and Canada, as corporations push harder than ever for their monopoly over governments to be enforced for the greater good.
Greenpeace Netherlands leaked copies of TTIP, stating, “Whether you care about environmental issues, animal welfare, labour rights or internet privacy, you should be concerned about what is in these leaked documents” (source).
Europe, Inc. is another non-profit report showing the dangerous liaisons between industry and EU institutions as well as other international institutions, such as the OECD, WTO, and the United Nations.
But surely none of this really matters because we can trust the EU to ultimately make decisions that are best for the people, right?
In 2002, Marta Andreasen was employed by the European Commission as Chief Accountant, but when she approached the Commission because huge sums of EU monies were unaccounted for, the Commission fired her for “failure to show sufficient loyalty and respect.” When Marta took this to the EU court, she was found guilty of refusing to sign accounts that she believed were unreliable, and she lost her pension (source).
One month after the economy collapsed in 2008, the then President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, appointed The Independent High Level Group on Financial Supervision. But this was not a group of independent economic experts; it was a group of eight men linked to Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs — three of the US banks that caused the crisis in the first place.
For Greece, the decision was made to have the general public’s bank accounts frozen (source), withdrawals limited (source), and deposits taxed (source), and when the people of Greece voted on rejecting further loans from the EU in 2015 (source), the EU threatened to punish Greece further (source).
If corporations and banks are deciding what laws the commissioners should create, if politicians are cooperating with these corporations and banks, and if the decision-making processes by these corporations, banks, and politicians are deliberately being carried out in secret, is it enough for us to just say that this is the world we live in today? Where is the EU heading?
Within the EU itself, it is no secret that the goal is to build a superstate renamed the United States of Europe (1, 2, 3), with its own central government (source) and an EU army (source), as well as EU border and coast guards and a European CIA (source).
The EU’s CIA does now exist, Eurojust is also being given power to start criminal investigations and prosecutions, and Europol is the European Union’s police force.
Meanwhile, the EU is blocking its borders to the humanitarian crisis caused by wars that it is supporting, and it is increasingly being called “Fortress Europe” (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
USA Getting Involved
The USA is also sending in a wave of military assistance to provide “a visible symbol of U.S. commitment to the region and our European allies” (1, 2, 3, 4).
Have we not learned from history that when the economic situation gets increasingly worse for the general public (1, 2, 3, 4), and people start to act out of fear towards others (1, 2), they turn a blind eye to their own government’s role in the treatment of others around the world (source), they accept the removal of all their civil rights (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), and they sign up for war (source), which only increases hatred and propagates more violence (source)?
We also know from history that this situation is a potential recipe for fascism, dictatorship, and a police state (1, 2,3, 4, 5); yet we still cling on to the notion that democracy means letting these people run things on our behalf.
A recent study by Princeton University has statistically proven that the USA is now covertly ruled by a small group of people in government, big business, media, and the intelligence services. Does the evidence presented here not suggest that this is also the case in Europe?
People say there is nothing we can do, but this system only functions because we cooperate. We blame society, but we are society. The question is, when are we going to speak out — at work, in public, on social media — and proudly shout out “no more!”?
WUWE is a project to promote critical thinking and inspire positive systemic change by raising awareness of global issues not covered in mainstream media; please support us on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, or subscribe for our latest updates here.
The European Commission has issued a proposal to drop the policy of zero tolerance for unapproved and untested GMOs in food; the proposal suggests setting a threshold below which contaminated imports could enter Europe’s food chain
In 2011, the EU decided to allow contamination with up to 0.1 percent of unapproved and untested GMOs in animal feed, which was previously not allowed
France recently asked the European Commission to suspend Monsanto’s authorization to plant genetically modified MON 810 corn, but the EU stepped in and blocked the ban
GM opponents are urging the EU to reject the proposals, noting the pressure to drop their zero tolerance policy regarding GM contamination is coming from the U.S. government, the WTO (World Trade Organization) and the biotech industry
By Dr. Mercola
The European Union (EU) has historically taken a strict, cautious stance regarding genetically modified (GM) crops, much to the chagrin of Monsanto and in stark contract to the United States.
For instance, while GM crops are banned in several European countries, and all genetically modified foods and ingredients have to be labeled, this is in stark contrast to the U.S., where Monsanto has effectively restricted any unfavorable legal actions because of the massive conflict they have with federal regulatory agencies.
Recently Connecticut and Vermont where ready to pass statewide GMO labeling requirements but backed out at the last minute when biotech giant Monsanto threatened to sue them if it was passed.
As a result, the U.S. has only recently begun passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion, in addition to the fact that GM ingredients do not have to be labeled.
It’s quite clear that the U.S. government, which is closely tied to Monsanto, has been aiding and abetting Monsanto’s tireless and often ruthless quest to control the world’s food crops.
U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, showed the government even conspired to find ways to retaliate against Europe for refusing to use GM seeds, mainly by engaging in aggressive trade wars against reluctant nations.i As you might suspect, the EU has been under heavy pressure to add some slack to their GM regulations – and it seems they are about to cave …
EU Proposes to Drop Zero Tolerance Policy
The European Commission has issued a proposal to drop the policy of zero tolerance for unapproved and untested GMOs in food. The proposal suggests setting a threshold below which contaminated imports could enter Europe’s food chain.
This is similar to the EU’s move in 2011 … they once had a zero tolerance policy regarding GM contamination from unapproved GMOs in animal feed, but last year decided to allow contamination with up to 0.1 percent of such materials. At the time, Greenpeace EU agriculture policy adviser Stefanie Hundsdorfer said:ii
“If the safety of a GM crop has not been tested in Europe, it should not be allowed. Setting a tolerance threshold, however low, is a sign that Europe is losing control over its own food production to please American exporters. The danger now is that EU countries come under pressure from the pro-GM lobby to also allow GM contamination in food products for direct human consumption.”
And, alas, that moment has come, just over one year later. Several GM opponents are urging the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Secretary of State Caroline Spelman to reject the proposals, noting:iii
“Pressure to drop the zero tolerance policy comes from the US government, the WTO and the biotech industry.”
EU Blocks France’s Ban on GM Corn
France recently asked the European Commission to suspend Monsanto’s authorization to plant genetically modified MON 810 corn, citing “significant risks for the environment” shown in recent scientific studies (Germany has also banned the cultivation of MON 810 corn).
The EU stepped in and blocked the ban, which was an unsettling move to put it mildly, considering that in a leaked cable from 2007, Craig Stapleton, who was the U.S. ambassador to France at the time, commented on France’s plan to ban the cultivation of GM corn, and stated that retaliation would occur:
“Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the [European] Commission… Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voice.
… Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory.”
UK Also Moving Full Steam Ahead with GMOs
to read more, go to: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/10/drop-gmo-zero-tolerance-policy.aspx?e_cid=20120710_DNL_artNew_2
The USA is also sending in a wave of military assistance to provide “a visible symbol of U.S. commitment to the region and our European allies” (