Why did Pierre Omidyar shut down the Snowden archives, with the full agreement of Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill?

From Cat McGuire:

Virtually nothing is being said about how billionaire Pierre Omidyar, essentially the owner of the Snowden docs, has shut down the release, analysis and custodial care of the archives claiming lack of funds. This decision was made just this past March, 2019 with the full participation and agreement of Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill.  


Understanding the historical significance of the Snowden cache, Laura Poitras screamed bloody murder that this important treasure trove has been summarily shuttered, particularly since only 10% of the documents have ever been released. 


The raison d’etre of the new company Poitras, Greenwald and Scahill created in partnership with Omidyar called The Intercept (First Look) was for Omidyar to finance the herculean effort of responsibly releasing the Snowden documents. 

To date, however, once Omidyar got control of the goods around October 2014, only a trickle of the Snowden archives has seen the light of day. The remainder of the digital documents are in dire danger of never being released — or worse, being destroyed, accidentally or otherwise.

Remember, from June of 2013 when the Snowden event happened to late 2014, for weeks on end all we heard about were the Snowden docs, with one side saying they’re a violation of national security, and the Greenwald/Poitras side championing the right to whistleblow state secrets.

So now that the famous Snowden archives have been unilaterally shut down by Omidyar, Greenwald, and Scahill, why is hardly anyone from the left, right, or center raising red-flag alarms?  Even Snowden himself has been suspiciously silent. 

We would not know about any of this were it not for Poitras who released the private emails explaining how she was excluded from this momentous decision. She exposed how alleged budget concerns were a smokescreen since a mere 1.5% of the Intercept budget was allocated to the Snowden archives team anyway.

Since the very beginning, my sister Colleen and I have wondered what manner of subterfuge has been going on with Greenwald et al. For a long time now, a few brave critics have raised serious questions about Snowden, Poitras, Greenwald, Scahill, and Omidyar to the ire of indignant leftists who deem them all sacred cows immune to criticism. Over the years, a multitude of dubious actions surrounding Omidyar beg massive exposure. To wit:

  • His many connections to the NSA
  • Cutting WikiLeaks’ PayPal account, and supporting the criminal prosecution of Anonymous when they hacked PayPal
  • Attempting to steal Craigslist for which in an unusual move against a corporate principle, a Delaware judge all but called Omidyar a thief
  • Helping fund the neo-nazi coup d’etat in Ukraine 
  • Detrimentally undermining women’s microfinancing in India
  • After taking over Intercept and poaching star reporters, barely allowing anyone to publish their whistleblowing articles (e.g., Ken Silverstein, Matt Taibbi)
  • And much more

Past duplicity notwithstanding, this recent development of the shuttering of the Snowden docs is an unprecedented violation of the public trust. Those documents belong to the American people, no matter how deftly Omidyar purloined them — or whatever deals-with-the-devil Greenwald et al signed on to.  As Greenwald purportedly said in December 2014 when asked why he joined forces with Omidyar, “What billionaire do you expect me to go with?” 

Why is the press silent on such a momentous issue? Why has Greenwald colluded in this outrageous new development, including the ousting of Poitras? 

With the arrest of Julian Assange, Greenwald has rightfully spoken out in strong opposition to the extradition. Nonetheless, it is the height of unseemly opportunism when Greenwald sent the attached email on April 11 to The Intercept’s readers bemoaning Assage’s arrest. . . and then asking readers to support free speech by donating — not to Assange’s legal defense! — but rather to the already richly-endowed Intercept, the very organization that is abandoning the valuable assets entrusted to them by Edward Snowden, another besieged whistleblower.

Further worth noting is Greenwald’s interview with NPR on April 11, the day of Assange’s arrest in which in a tweet Greenwald claims the interview “became contentious” when NPR characterized him as a “colleague of Julian Assange.”  Why on earth would being a colleague of Julian Assange offend Greenwald?

Although Glenn Greenwald does a lot of superb work, his handling of the Snowden docs and his alliance with Pierre Omidyar should ring alarm bells.

Below are some starter articles.  Pass them on to journalists and beseech them to publicize the memory-holing of the Snowden archives.

MintPress:  Silencing the Whistle: The Intercept Shutters Snowden Archive, Citing Cost, March 30, 2019

Medium: Why The Intercept Really Closed the Snowden Archive, March 27, 2019 (Poitras’ emails)

Washington Babylon: Why Did Omidyar Shut Down The Intercept’s Snowden Archive?, March 25, 2019

MintPress: How One of America’s Premier Data Monarchs is Funding a Global Information War and Shaping the Media Landscape , February 18, 2019

Julian Assange’s plight brings out the sociopath in Hillary Clinton

The Hillary Clinton richly amused by the nabbing of Julian Assange is the same inveterate kidderwho suggested that the US use a drone to whack him ("I was only joking!"), and who thus infamouslyjested at the news of Muammar Qaddafi's death: "We came, we saw, he died!" This is the samesadistic wag who, while speaking out against the beating of protestors in Egypt and Iran, pointedly ignored the beating of protester Ray McGovern right in front of her—a punishment for silent protestthat sent him to the hospital.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErH29hrpqvg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI
https://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/18/ex_cia_analyst_ray_mcgovern_beaten


Thus this queen of "the Resistance" is just Donald Trump in drag.

MCM

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-12/hillary-clinton-assange-must-now-answer-what-he-has-done

Assange held in Belmarish Prison, “Britain’s Guantanamo Bay”

From Suzi Dawson: 

Hi all –

just stumbled across this. Unable to write it up myself due to domestic duties but there is no shortage of people on this email list who will find it interesting and can push this info in print/media. 
https://twitter.com/Suzi3D/status/1117078521493565440

According to Wikipedia: 
“Between 2001 and 2002, Belmarsh Prison was used to detain a number of people indefinitely without charge or trial under the provisions of the Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, leading it to be called the “British version of Guantanamo Bay“.[1] The law lords later ruled in A v Secretary of State for the Home Dept that such imprisonment was discriminatory and against the Human Rights Act.[2]

…In May 2007, there was a violent disturbance in the prison, Sky News reported. At least four prison officers were injured.

…In November 2009, an inspection report from Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons criticised the “extremely high” amount of force used to control inmates at the prison.[5] The report also stated that an unusually high number of prisoners had reported being intimidated or victimised by staff at Belmarsh.”

Note: there are protests for Julian at the prison today and tomorrow, details in this graphic:

https://twitter.com/SomersetBean/status/1117035195280941056

Thanks for everything you are all doing to support Julian. It is hugely appreciated by his family and legal team

Suz

Operation Gladio makes the world go wrong

On the history of false flags mounted by the CIA, Paul Williams' Operation Gladio is essential reading, the best of several good books on that most nefarious ofcovert operations.

Before Paul turned his critical attention to this subject, back when he deemed himselfa neoconservative, he appeared often on Fox News as an expert on Islamist terrorism.Once he discovered that such terror has actually been cultivated by the US government,Fox News dropped him like a hot piece of shrapnel; nor has his excellent book beenmuch reviewed (to put it mildly).

A few years back Paul visited my class "The Culture Industries" at NYU, where hetold the story of his evolution from a safely "expert" talking head to an explosiveteller of appalling truths about the CIA since World War II, including its longinvolvement with the Mafia, the Vatican, the global drug trade and the international far right.

Please read and share this hair-raising synopsis of Operation Gladio, and read and spread the word about the book itself.

MCM

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-06/operation-gladio-unholy-alliance-between-vatican-cia-mafia

On vaccines, some urgent common sense from Dr. Meryl Nass

Missing, hidden and destroyed adverse event data. Who vaccinates?

Who are the anti-vaxxers, really?

If I asked you whether you were for or against pharmaceutical drugs, you would think my question absurd.  Obviously, each drug is different and should be judged on its own merits; furthermore, the usefulness of a drug depends on the specific needs of the person to whom it is given.  Yet we have become accustomed to thinking about the vaccine issue in terms of being pro or con the entire class of vaccines.Most parents who do not fully vaccinate their children are not “against” vaccination. The media have incorrectly framed the debate this way, for a reason.  The for–or–against meme is very powerful propaganda, designed to suggest that this issue is black and white, which it most assuredly is not.  It is further designed to create a picture in people’s minds that those “against” vaccine mandates are anti-science, uneducated ‘deplorables’ (and who wants to be in that camp?) while those “for” vaccinations and mandates are the educated, pro-science, savvy people.But guess what? Families who vaccinate less turn out to be wealthier and more highly educated than families that receive all the recommended vaccinations.  So, if they aren’t the ‘deplorables,’ are they entitled elites trying to get a ‘free ride’ off the backs of everyone who fully vaccinates?

What might be the true reason they decline vaccinations?

In the US, only 1% of children receive no vaccinations at all.  According to CDCabout 25% of children receive some, but not all recommended vaccinations. Their parents are choosy. They may have recognized that the birth dose of Hepatitis B is an unnecessary vaccine for 99% of babies. They may have learned that the age 12 dose of Tdap has little value. It doesn’t prevent much pertussis, and kids are already immune to tetanus and diphtheria after 5 earlier vaccine doses.  They may have cottoned on to the fact that their child doesn’t need either Meningitis A,C,W,Y or Men B vaccines when there is less than a one in a million chance of getting meningococcal disease. (Rates of meningitis had dropped before current vaccines came into use.)  They may know that while the vaccines certainly generate an antibody response, real world efficacy of these 2 vaccines has yet to be determined.

For these diseases, herd immunity does not exist. [Hep B requires bloodborne or sexual transmission. Pertussis immunity wears off so quickly that the vast majority of pertussis cases are vaccinated, but non-immune. Vaccination may increase the duration of pertussis shedding. Meningococcus is carried in the nose/throat of from 1-25% of the population, with or without vaccination.]  Therefore, for these specific conditions, the unvaccinated get no free ride from the vaccinated, nor do the unvaccinated pose more than a minuscule increased risk to others.  Parents have a legal right to opt out of vaccines using religious or philosophical exemptions in 47 US states.  I wasn’t choosy when my kids were small, but today I certainly would be, if only because the benefits and risks of each vaccine are different for each vaccine.

Why does this author claim authority?I strongly support vaccinations, and everyone’s right to vaccinate with any licensed vaccine they choose.  But I know a lot about how vaccines are made, and the serious adverse effects they can cause.  I am an expert on the anthrax vaccine, and have provided expert testimony on this vaccine to several congressional committees, the National Academy of Sciences, the Canadian military courts (which led to ending its use in Canada) and a British tribunal.  And I, through my patients’ bitter experiences, learned it is critical to retain the right to choose your vaccines.

Choice leads to better vaccinesThe fact is, every vaccine is made very differently from every other. Just like drugs, no vaccine is “100% safe,” and some are not very effective. You will lower your family’s risk of an adverse effect by choosing only those vaccines that provide high value:  needed benefit and relatively low risk. This is of course what doctors are expected to do when they prescribe drugs.When vaccines are mandated, there is no incentive for their manufacturers to improve them.  Sometimes, vaccine effectiveness becomes less over time.  The whole-cell pertussis vaccine was replaced by the current acellular pertussis vaccine in 1997 both because its effectiveness had lessened, and because it caused a high rate of adverse events. Had consumers not been refusing it, there might have been no switch to an acellular vaccine.  Now, we need a more effective pertussis vaccine, but with a guaranteed market for existing vaccines, industry has been slow to respond.

Unknown substances

Vaccines are both ‘biologics’ and drugs, according to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. And according to the FDA, “Most drugs consist of pure chemical substances and their structures are known. Most biologics, however, are complex mixtures that are not easily identified or characterized.” Translating from FDA-speak:  vaccines contain unknown substances. Unknown even to the FDA.

Doctors are not trained about vaccines in med school

Doctors are not taught about vaccines the way they are taught about drugs’ risks and benefits.  I received very thorough training on drugs, but no more than an hours’ training on all vaccines. Thus, doctors usually don’t learn about vaccine adverse reactions until something happens to their own patients.  In the past twenty years, vaccines that caused more problems than they solved (and were subsequently taken off the market) have included Rotashield, Lymerix and Pandemrix. Few doctors were aware of any problems until the vaccines were withdrawn.  Yet this is the proof that vaccines can be either good or bad.  What data do FDA use to license drugs and vaccines?We rely on the FDA to assure that vaccines are relatively safe and effective.  The FDA relies on the results of clinical trials and other tests.  Testing before licensure is entirely paid for and/or conducted by the manufacturer, and all data are owned and supplied by the manufacturer. FDA approves vaccines and then crafts a label in conjunction with the manufacturer, describing the safety and efficacy of the vaccine based only on manufacturer data. Do the data become public after licensing a vaccine or drug?

For vaccines, as much else in life, the devil is in the details. And public access to those details (especially regarding safety) is very limited. Twenty years ago, when Congress was examining the safety of vaccines, CDC answered my Freedom of Information Act requests for data on their own anthrax vaccine studies. But for the past ten years they have only provided excuses and stonewalling.The book Vaccine Whistleblower tells Dr. William Thompson’s story of how CDC employees, including himself, were made to put unwanted data in a garbage can and rework their analyses until a strong statistical association between black males who received an early MMR and becoming autistic just–disappeared.  Then CDC published this doctored paper.A new Hepatitis B vaccine, Heplisav, may cause a considerable number of excess heart attacks. It may cause other significant problems, and may not be safe in pregnancy. The data needed to resolve all of this don’t exist yet.  FDA licensed the vaccine anyway, asked the manufacturer to conduct the needed studies in tens of thousands of patients (who are unlikely to know they are receiving an experimental product they have paid for) and FDA will look at the studies after they are completed in 2021, 2022 and 2023 to determine if the vaccine is safe.

Heplisav is only the latest example of ‘license first, get the answers later’–at FDA.

Agency malfeasanceThe fact is, information on the safety of vaccines is being withheld from the American people by their own governmentThe only explanation is that the leaders at FDA and CDC have been captured by industry, along with a massive agency-industry revolving door
That adverse event information for licensed vaccines, drugs and medical devices, collected or generated by federal health agencies–as in this recent FDA scandal –gets hidden, destroyed or does not even exist should be a compelling concern of everyone.