Interference by journalists on sovereign opinions of professors, academics, and independent researchers, comprise infringements to Art 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

By Marcello Ferrada de Noli,

Professor emeritus, Chair, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR).

In a recent [2] and controversial [3] story by Senior Editor Chris York,  the Huffington Post outbursts anew a worrisome attack against a dissident group of UK academics and researchers nucleated at the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. Embedded in this assault, as in others of the like launched by Western powers financing and arming jihadist-fundamentalist efforts aimed to suppress the secular government in Syria (for corporate profit), we may find attempts against freedom of expression which are incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

When those in power begin to rule not only what we should or not research and express, but also how and where our expression should be published and transported, the times of fascism are here. Hence, the one of our Resistance.


i. Introduction

ii. What, who may be behind the Huff Post attacks of January 2020?

iii. The Coda Story narrative is conceptually identical to Huff Post’s. In which way are they connected?

iv. Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

v. Guilt by Association Fallacy: From speculation to disinformation; from there to academic repression

vi. Why the Coda Story whitewashing of the White Helmets video is not credible

vii. Other libellous information in Coda Story that Huff Post has helped to spread 

vii. Notes


1. Introduction

In current commentaries aimed to obscure investigations questioning the veracity of reports fabricated by the White Helmets or doctored by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), main tactics deployed by pro-NATO or NATO-militant journalists and editors, have customarily consisted of,

a) the ad hominem attack on the investigators;

b) corollary, an avoidance towards addressing the facts, proceedings and conclusions (as well as regarding the rationale in hypothesis formation) put forward in those investigations and exposures; and

c) the complaining, or better said, the “accusation”, against academics for the specific reason they have been interviewed by media outlets from the Russian Federation ––regardless whether these are state-owned or private.

After a decade of Western media repeatedly echoing their own same absurd narrative, of journalists issuing their ever persistent and monotonous mantra of “Assad did it”, or “the Russians did it” and “will do it again” (which of course they can’t believe themselves in), it looks like if they were immune towards the understanding of what the public’s awareness has resulted precisely as consequence of such infantile media behaviour. An alternative explanation would be that they get paid to pretend not getting the point. In fact, at difference of authors in the dissident stream –such as those collaborating in The Indicter magazine– journalists belonging to the Mussolini-wise “solid bloc” referred to as MSM get payment for their pieces. Yet it is no going well for them [See an example in Note 4].

At a macro geopolitical level, the European public has since long started to connect a variety of elementary dots, which put in definitive questioning the NATO-militant journalists’ narrative “Assad’s gassing to death the Syrian people”:

– Why would Assad be in the need of launching gas attacks on his own people while his government, smoothly and constantly,  is winning (military and politically) over the fundamentalist jihadists forces which conform the core of the terrorists’ opposition?

– Why did the OPCW, and the media of the powers behind OPCW’s flawed investigations, go totally silent about the exposures in The Indicter on that Human Rights Watch and the White Helmets have fabricated the alleged chlorine gas incident in Sarmin 2015? [5]

– Why did in February 2018, the then US Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis declare –nearly a year after the missile attack ordered by President Trump as “retaliatory” act for the alleged “Khan Shaykhun sarin gas attack”– that the US had no evidence of that sarin would have been used? [6] In fact, Mattis even developed on that such  information came only from NGOs formations (read, the White Helmets) and combatant forces in the area (read Al-Qaeda related terrorists) –both fractions pursuing at the time a non-flight zone in Syria:

“I don’t have the evidence. What I’m saying is that groups on the ground, NGOs, fighters on the ground have said that Sarin has been used,” he said. “We are looking for evidence. I don’t have evidence credible or uncredible”, were Mattis’ exact words, according to CNN (2 Feb 2918). [6].

Reuters transcription of Mattis’s words is similar:

“We are even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, (but) I don’t have the evidence”, “Mattis said”. [6]

The Hill (2 Feb 2018) reported that “Defense Secretary James Mattis hinted Friday that the United States would strike the Syrian regime again if it uses sarin gas, but added that the United States has no evidence it has used the nerve agent recently.” Please see Note [6] about Mattis declarations cited above.

– Why did the French Minister of Defence, Ms Florence Perly, declare shortly thereafter that neither France had confirmed evidence of chlorine attacks in Syria attributed to the government forces? [7] Watch her saying “Nous n’avons pas des confirmation absolu“, video below [click on image]:

– Why did UN Carla del Ponte, former Swiss Attorney General and Chief Prosecutor of two United Nations international criminal law tribunals, say:

“…there are strong, concrete suspicions, but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated. This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.”? (Reuters) [8]

– Why would OPCW need to falsify/omit information about what really happened in Gouta? [9]

– Why would key testimonies intrinsically related to the OPCW investigations in Syria-Gouta be prevented from publicly delivering their evidence? Why the US would blockade Ian Henderson (key testimony regarding the OPCW Douma hoax) to testify in person at the Security Council session? [10]

– Why the MSM has been practically mute about the WikiLeaks exposures, likewise the Courage Foundation Panel’s findings, on the OPCW report by November 2019? [11]

– Why would Benito Mussolini in 1939 say, “Fascism requires militant journalism…All the newspapers must present themselves as a solid block”? [12]

Let us start with Mr Chris York, Senior Editor at the Huffington Post UK, who in this new episode of his belligerent campaign against academics debunking official narratives in the Syria war, also refers in his article to our magazine The Indicter.

He places our publication number two among the listed sources which, according to him, the said research group on Syria “relies heavily” on. Awkwardly, instead of posting for his readers the link corresponding to the source he expressly is referring to (The Indicter), Mr York links to a Coda Story article  –a piece which despite barely mentioning The Indicter, in the main instead consists in a series of false information about our organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR). [13] The sole aim of that piece was, via ad hominem, to discredit our clinical findings on the White Helmets macabre use of children for propaganda aims [14] and the updates on the White Helmets’ medical misconduct that ensued. [15]

The efforts to silence, deny, or whitewashing evidence which depicts the staging endeavors of the White Helmets are important for NATO journalists for a variety of reasons. In the context of the questioning of the OPCW report on the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Syrian East Ghouta –a sham report, as it was on Khan Shaykhun– the White Helmets emerge as being both the primary source and the ultimate providers of the fabrications.

For that reason, the NATO propaganda strategy has intended, using diverse channels, to inhibit that evidence through the vilifying of the professional and/or academic organizations and individuals that have demonstrated it. Particularly with regards to academically qualified teams consisting of –like the case of SWEDHR– verified researchers with a proven track record in top medical research universities of Sweden, US, and elsewhere.

I will later continue to address this issue of political biased criticism against objective research findings via the illegitimate target-ad-hominem malpractice. In the meantime, I post here below a synoptic rebuttal of the first section in the series of deceptive information provided by the Coda Story article –which author York makes use of to further stigmatize other academics pursuing the truth on Syria. It is on this reason that I decided, and for this unique occasion, to bother in clarifying about the false imputations by Coda Story.

 

Coda Story’s disinformation on SWEDHR
Quoted items in order of appearance in the article published May 2017
True facts contradicting Coda Story to 100% Verifiable proof
 

1. “The video from the makeshift emergency room was used as key evidence that the attack was in fact fake news. All of the Russian reports omitted a crucial fact: the video was two years old.”

SWEDHR has NEVER concealed the date of the uploaded video by the White Helmets. The right uploading dates are clearly given in our reports.

Sputnik has in several reports correctly described the video’s origin (Sarmin) and date:

a) “In March 2015, the White Helmets claimed that the Syrian army carried out a chemical gas attack in Idlib province. They published pictures online of the alleged attack and a video purporting to show a child suffering from the effects of a poison gas attack, being treated by medics.”

b) “Incident on Sarmin, Idlib, on April 15, 2015, medical rescue scenarios depicted in White Helmets videos had obviously been staged.”

c) “El vídeo de los Cascos Blancos en el que apareceel supuesto ataque con armas químicas del año 2015…”

SWEDHR:

White Helmets macabre use of children for propaganda aims [14]

Update on White Helmets’ medical misconduct. [15]

SPUTNIK:

a) White Helmets ‘Made Up Syria Gas Attack Story in Campaign for No-Fly Zone’

b) White Lies: ‘Syria Civil Defense’ Caught Faking Rescues, Doctoring Dead Children

c) La propaganda exterior de la Federación Rusa. RT y Sputnik y su cobertura mediática de la GuerraCivil Siria. Universidad de Sevilla (See page 76).

 

2. “Amnesty International in Sweden… say they never heard of SWEDHR.”

 

Amnesty Sweden did know about SWEDHR. Over a year before the ‘denial’ published by Coda Story, had Amnesty referred SWEDHR stances in email communication to a journalist:
KILTR (Scotland) journalist Erik Sandberg asked Amnesty Sweden for an interview ref. an article in The Indicter  6 March 2016 about Amnesty Sweden, signed by M.F de Noli, “Chairman of Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR)”. [16] Amnesty’s Amy Hedenborg replied by email 11 March 2016 after she read the SWEDHR piece: “the claim in [The Indicter’s] article is complete nonsense and without any substance”. [17] The reply of Amnesty is also referred by Erik Sandberg in the interview uploaded 18 March 2016. [18]
The SWEDHR article commented by Amnesty 11 March 2016:

Former paid agent of Swedish Security Police dictated Amnesty Sweden’s stance against Assange [16]

At 18:15 in this video,  journalist Sandberg reads the Amnesty statement email commenting the SWEDHR article of 2016. [18]

3. “SWEDHR, describes itself as an ‘alternative NGO’.”

 

Swedhr IS an alternative Swedish NGO: [19] At difference of “mainstream” NGOs, we
are not financed by government funds (as Amnesty Sweden), or corporate sponsoring. We do not follow the ideological/political lead of those in power, as  HRW or Amnesty do.
https://swedhr.org/

Statement in the Journal of the Swedish Medical Association: [20]

SWEDHR is an independent organization

4. “The Swedish Society of Medicine and the Swedish Medical Association all say they never heard of SWEDHR” The Swedish Medical Association had reported already in October 2015 in its official journal “Läkartidnngen” on a SWEDHR statement ref. aerial bombing of a MSF hospital in Afghanistan http://www.lakartidningen.se/Aktuellt/Nyheter/2015/10/Lakare-utan-granser-kraver-utredning-efter-sjukhusbombning/

The Coda Story article about “The Indicter”, linked by Chris York, is found here

2. What, who may be behind the Huff Post attacks of January 2020?

Beside the professors, other independent investigators participating in the Working Group on Syria were also hit by Mr York’s piece. With regard to Ms Vanessa Beeley, this would be the twelfth time that Huffington Post UK (henceforth referred to as HP) refers to Ms Beeley as “obscure blogger”. On the contrary, Vanessa Beeley is in fact a widely known and esteemed investigative reporter whose popularity in social media quadruplicates the one of the HP Senior Editor. [21] One does not need to agree, or totally agree, with all her stances –as it would be my case– to recognize her important impact in the public debate on Syria, and Yemen –which includes the providing of updated information from sources inside Syria rarely found elsewhere (the same applies regarding Ms Eva Bartlett, also a target of HP’s previous attacks). I had the opportunity to meet Ms Beeley at the Geneva event organized by the Swiss Press Club, where I beheld the clarity and bravery of her intervention.

Regarding the professors and academics attacked in the recent HuffPost article, their distinction derives not only from peer-reviewed prolific academic achievements and university appointments. It is also about a popular recognition, a credit given to the group by the international social forum for their altruistic effort to ascertain true facts, and extricate the flawed, amidst the jungle of deceptions in the war that UK agencies and  MSM journalists have helped to maintain in Syria.

Personally, I do not have any working contact with the professors of the group referred in York’s piece –neither with Professor Theodore Postol nor with Noam Chomsky and other eminent professors together with whom we had separately agreed to sign an appeal conveying an appeal for transparency in the Duma investigation at the OPCW). [22] Also Brazilian diplomat José Bustani, first Director-General of the OPCW  and former Ambassador to the United Kingdom and France, as well as George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, as well as other other internationally respected names who also signed the Open Letter. All which indicate that these wide spectra of professors and academics from different parts of Europe, the US and Australia [23] are hardly engaged in any “conspiracy”–let alone a “Kremlin’s propaganda conspiracy”.

Instead, these initiatives are solely the convergence a posteriori of conclusions enriched from independent investigations of similar scenarios, and executed by dissimilar specialities –including injury epidemiology, as in the Swedish case. In my view, it only corresponds to an equation of academics and independent researchers’ individual ethical stances with a common denominator represented by a solid rejection of wars as a means of imperialist advances. We are for Peace. We are anti-imperialists. And at difference with a variety of our detractors, we are not for sale.

In its place, the definition of conspiracy [24] undertakes the coordinated effort of several individuals which agree to reach and increase power, or defend power, via prospective illicit means. Conspiracy is the planning and coordination of assets with the participation of those cadres. In this context, the issue is rather a conspiracy aimed to extend wars, to provoke wars, for regime changes, ultimarely aimed to the preying of natural resources of defenceless societies, for the support of dictatorships against people’s free will – for the sake of corporate profits.

A conspiracy would be,  in other words, what Integrity Initiative and other state agencies of the like have planned to do with their propaganda-war endeavour, because it is exactly for that purpose they were created. [25] The same regarding supra state entities such as NATO-financed “Disinformation” joints  in Europe, Atlantic Council associates, etc. And in true, among the employed conspirators we will find several of the journalists and authors known for their attacks against “dissident” professors and independent investigators. Not only in the UK. In the US, against Professor Teodore Postol et al,  in Sweden against the professors at SWEDHR, as well as in Australia, such as in the case of Professor Tim Anderson, [23] etc.

While I ignore which specific, if any, role at Integrity Initiative would be undertaken by Mr Chris York, there are plenty of articles online reproducing ‘hacked documents’ which show his name in lists allegedly made by Alternative Initiative on presumed collaborators. However, more revealing in this context, is the report regarding the HuffPost UK editor-in-chief, Ms Jess Brammar, indicating that she “actively collaborates with the British Ministry of Defense in a program that censors journalism on behalf of ‘UK military and intelligence operations’.” [3]

Excerpt above from an article online found here See Ref. [26]

 

3. The Coda Story narrative is conceptually identical to the Huff Post narrative. In which way are they connected?

The Coda Story article against SWEDHR which Mr York linked to misrepresent The Indicter, was authored by Ms Katerina Patin. She has had her works published, among others, in Radio Free Europa. [27]

Ms Patin meddling into the freedom of expression of dissenting scientists or authors appears very similar to the fashion sported in the piece of Mr York.

In his piece of 2018, Chris York wrote:

“Robinson has also appeared regularly on RT, a channel funded by the Russian government…”

Again, in 2020, he repeats,

“Piers Robinson regularly appears on Kremlin-backed media channels.”

“Russian state media channels…provided Robinson and McCormack with a platform to air their views.”

Katerina Patin says:

“The head of SWEDHR … a frequent contributor to the Kremlin’s RT network”

Why would Ms Patin remark that I have been a “frequent contributor to the Kremlin’s RT network”, while she –according to her own penned presentation– [27] considers totally licit that her work appears in for instance Radio Free Europa / Radio Liberty – which is a US government-funded media organization? Or that she is or has been an active collaborator in Eurasianet, even at the times when it was part of the Open Society Foundations founded by business magnate George Soros?

And why does not Ms Patin also inform on my –to a higher extent– contributions to TV and media networks in Sweden, Italy, etc.?

Likewise, to which right would Mr York appeal to, in order to have objections that professors McCormack and Robinson “air their views” on a platform from Russia –or even in Russia, if they would wish?

Please note that I am NOT criticizing either Ms Patin or Mr York for using their own right to express her opinions wherever. For it is their human rights –as I’ll develop below. It is remarkable, however, that the same right seems to be denied, or considered ethically illicit, when academics would express their opinions in other mainstream media which is not NATO-associated or within its financial, ideological, or cultural perimeter of influence or control.

Lastly, I regret that the cited article in Coda Story does not inform at the same time that my interviews at “RT network” or for that part in any of the Russian media, and Swedish media, etc., have been done absolutely deprived of any pecuniary or retribution of any sort (while contributions of journalists/authors at for instance “Radio Free Europa” may have a totally different modus operandis). We at SWEDHR have never, ever, received any payment whatsoever from any state or corporate media, or individual, etc., under no circumstances or means, or for any purpose. The paradox could be in the eventuality that any of our detractors, individuals or organizations, would be receiving financing or salary in the pursuing of their activities directed against us.

 

4. Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” [28]

In connection with the above section, I would like to draw attention to these essential items contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (The Article 19):

a) It does not only protect our freedom of opinion and expression. It is also warns that these opinions should not be interfered.

b) It guarantees our right to get information (receive) from any media that we choose. This would mean also a protection regarding the availability of that media, including dissident media, and from any country. In other words, it opposes the ban to foreign media.

c) It protects our right to impart information, and impart ideas –meaning our opinions, hypothesis, etc., and,

d) It guarantees our right to impart our information and ideas regardless of frontiers.

In conclusion, the interference or objections from the part of NATO-militant journalists, in the UK, Sweden, etc., regarding our right to voice our ideas via any interviews to any outlet or channel from across and beyond our borders, or to pen these ideas and publish here or there in whatever latitude we wish, makes those objections and interference a contravention of the Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

 

5. Guilt by Association Fallacy: From suggestive speculations to disinformation, and from there to academic repression

The Huff Post article indulges in the following concatenation of speculations, that lead to a cover suggestion, pointing to the evicting the professors from their university appointments.

a. “A European diplomat told Huff Post UK: “There is wide and serious concern about the extent to which academics in the WGSPM appear to be pursuing issues which so closely overlay with Russian lies and propaganda, particularly on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.”
b. “Russia appears to be using these academics to amplify and bolster their own disinformation, particularly to undermine the OPCW and divert attention from their own activities.”
c. “It is unclear whether these academics are unwittingly and naively acting as agents of propaganda for the Russians – or they actively support Russian misinformation.”
e. “Either way, it is difficult to see how their involvement with WGSPM is compatible with having any official role in academia.”
The above concatenation is particularly revealing, for it represents a cover syllogism in which the flawed conclusion suggested for the reader would be,

i) that since some conclusions of the WGSPM’s propaganda analysis about Syria would be in line with what the Russian media more or less also put forward;

ii) and that since the Russian media (as the Western MSM invariably –and wrongly– insist) would be solely state-owned, and therefore “Kremlin’s propaganda organ” – meaning the government of the Russian Federation;

iii) Ergo, the WGSPM would be an organ of the Russian government.
Like in:
i) “Stalin was vegetarian”
ii) “Hillary Clinton was vegetarian”
iii) Ergo, “Hillary Clinton was a Bolshevik communist”
The same has been implied about SWEDHR, via similar fallacious construction put forward by biased journalists or editors.

Nevertheless biased criticism, neither there exist a logical argument, nor empirical demonstration, to infer the assumption, let alone conclusion, that peace-activist organizations such as SWEDHR, solely for have independently debunked some propaganda on Syria, agree with all stances taken by the Russian media or the Russian government. And vice versa, that they are in disagreement with all what the Western nations stand for.

A demonstration of the above is the criticism issued by the SWEDHR chair of the veto exercised by Russia in the UN Security Council, which stopped a resolution presented by European countries aimed to condemn and halt the Turkish military invasion on a Northern Syria area, held at that time by the Kurdish forces (Rojava).

My personal stance above neither automatically signifies that I approve the alliance of Kurds and US occupation forces.

Another example is that I have been a supporter, from the start, of the independence of the Donbass republics –as sovereign states. Which is not –to the best of my knowledge– the official line of Russia.

Or that the existence of the State of Israel should be recognized in the same fashion than regarding the Palestinian State. A stance which is not unanimous among Middle East actors.

 

Another means of demonstrating the kind of association fallacy described above is given in my book Sweden’s Geopolitical Case Against Assange 2010-2019 (Libertarian Books Sweden, Dec 2019), from which I borrow the following: [29]

Guilt by association fallacy: Individuals and organizations supporting the campaign for the Freedom of Assange are maliciously labelled as acting against national security interests

The logical fallacy of guilt by association, also known as association fallacy, is employed to query or suspect, and eventually delegitimize,  the action of a person or group, based on the notion that the person or group they appear associated with is ascribed an unfavourable reputation by the fallacy holder.

One most simple illustration of this fallacy –I used it in my in Logic Science lecturing– is “McCarthyism”:

A– Black Panthers support civil rights

B – John F. Kennedy supports civil rights

C – Ergo,  John F. Kennedy is a Black Panthers

It can also be explained with the this Venn diagram) [30]

The American philosopher Abraham Edel (1908–2007) wrote:  

Instead of the logic of inquire, we have argument by suspicion and character assassination, the McCarthy nightmare logic of guilt by association. The extreme was reached in the McCarran Act under which the slightest expressed criticism of the official thesis can be interpreted as aiding substantially in establishing a totalitarian dictatorship (…) Subversion of intellectual freedom is part of the road down which we may readily coast toward World War III.” [31]

 

6. Why the Coda Story whitewashing of the White Helmets video is not credible

Coda Story’s disinformation about the SWEDHR analysis of White Helmets propaganda video  

True facts contradicting Coda Story

“The White Helmets video was shown to five doctors by Coda, including a US-based pediatric specialist who has worked in Afghanistan, Sudan, Lebanon and Israel; a pediatric specialist and member of the UK’s Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; an intensive care specialist at Royal Berkshire Hospital, a general practitioner based in London with experience working in developing countries; and a pediatrics specialist at NYU Langone medical center. All of the specialists agreed that the individuals in the video did not appear to be carrying out a resuscitation attempt according to accepted guidelines and that the footage where the Syrian boy was given an injection was not a usual resuscitation method. All of them however, said it would be impossible to conclude from the brief video that the scene was staged.”

1. Coda Story does not provide the name of the five specialists it mentions had examined the White Helmets video (SWEDHR gave the names of all specialists examining the videos).

As the Coda Story article had flagrant fabrications in other items of its article analysed above, without an identification of the medical examiners the “testimonies” appear useless or bogus. The medical community has the right (if not the duty) to interact on clinical assessments that may substantially change the prognosis and/or assistance for the peoples in question.

2. Between 2017 and 2019, SWEDHR had the opportunity to confirm our analysis with colleagues from France, Netherlands and Italy, and further specialists from Sweden.

 

On the base of these further analyses and professional testimonies, we here challenge any international body, governmental institution, human-rights organization, and particularly we challenge the White Helmets organization and the Coda Story, to organize a panel/hearing on the validity and reliability of the clinical findings by SWEDHR with regard the White Helmets video of Sarmin, March 2015.

 

7. Other libellous information in Coda Story that Huff Post has helped to spread

Coda Story’s disinformation ref. Dr. Leif Elinder

 

True facts contradicting Coda Verifiable proof
 

“Dr. Leif Elinder, an expert cited in SWEDHR’s findings alleging that the White Helmets video was staged, is a retired pediatrician who was fired from the Sweden’s Social Insurance Agency for making non-factual medical assessments.”

 

a. This is a typical ad hominem argument that in no possible way is a proof that the clinical observation of Dr Elinder on the medical procedures observed in the video are inaccurate. Several specialists concurred ref. same observation.

b. It is false that Dr Elinder “was fired from the Sweden’s Social Insurance Agency”. That is not what the Radio report cited in Cosa Story said. Further, mainstream Uppsala Tidningen reports that Leif Elinder had resigned himself from that half-time assignment.

c. It is likewise unfair to inform that Dr Elinder was fired for making “non-factual medical assessments” also because his clinical stance was exactly the opposite: Dr Elinder questioned non-scientifically proven work-related ’emotional’ diagnoses (“Utbrändhet”) based solely on self reports, often contradicting, and in the absence of clinical sings & findings. At that time a huge debate went on in medical circles ref. the clinical and epidemiological validity of “Utbrändhet”, which was a Swedish diagnose, not prevalent in other countries. Hundreds thousand Swedes, mainly over middle-aged women,  obtained long term paid sick-leave, sometimes for years. It was a “fashion-diagnose” in Sweden, as I described in my DN article [See link]–>

https://web.archive.org/web/20121103075213/http://www.unt.se/startsidan/forsakringskasselakare-fick-sluta-361928-default.aspx

 

https://www.aftonbladet.se/halsa/a/oR36gR/utbrandhet-ar-ett-pahitt

 

https://www.dagensmedicin.se/artiklar/2007/10/03/utmattningssyndrom-ar-en-kulturellt-betingad-diagnos-unik-for-sverige/

 

https://www.dn.se/arkiv/debatt/dn-debatt-halsoprofessor-om-sjukskrivningarna-utbrandheten-mest-en-modetrend/

 

https://www.lakartidningen.se/OldPdfFiles/2001/22437.pdf

 

 

 

 

8. Notes

[1] David S. D’Amato, “Mussolini and the Press“, Libertarianism.org, 28 January 2016.

[2] Chris York, “The ‘Useful Idiots’: How These British Academics Helped Russia Deny War Crimes At The UN”. HuffPost UK, 29 January 2020.

[3] Ben Norton, “HuffPost UK editor works with gov’t censorship program while smearing anti-war scholars as tools of Russia“. Thegrayzone.com, 3 Febrruary 2020.

[4] I could illustrate with a recent Swedish event. After Sweden, due to own geopolitical interests in the Baltic region, [2] collaborated in the implementation of the Ukrainian putsch of 2014 –which led to the Russian initiative to recover Crimea as an issue of national security–  the Swedish weapons industry complex, which comprises ideological and political associations with the Swedish media monopolies saw the opportunity of increasing the defence expenditures and mobilization of the nearly dormant Swedish armed forces on the pretence of a “Russian aggression risk on the Baltic region including Sweden”. Of course they didn’t believe on that themselves, neither that if it would ever be true, Sweden would be capable of standing “one week” against the Russians. But NATO saw also the opportunity of exploiting a fabricated (supposedly) ‘Swedish-public panic’, and in alliance with the domestic warmonger elites, they launched a media campaign to convince the Swedes of the necessity of joining NATO –which ultimately would signify the surrender of Swedish territory to NATO missiles, bases and ground forces for a further tightening of the encircling of Russia.

However, after six years of intensive and euphonious “the Russians did it” and “will do it again” in the Baltic region, according to the last polls the percentage of  Swedish people that do want to join NATO is now less than those who doesn’t.  In the age of social media, state propaganda is not enough. People tend to try understanding better the issues related to their own security.

[5] Interestingly, while the new COI-report (“Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (Advance Edited Version)”) exhaustively list the claims of chemical attacks taken place in Syria since the conflict began –and where the COI found “reasonable grounds to believe” that it was the Syrian government who had perpetrated those attacks– there is no mention at all about the alleged “chemical attack” on Sarmine, Idlib, 16 March 2015. Those allegations, originally put forward by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and sourced in the White Helmets, were focus of an analysis-series undertaken by Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR) in March-April 2017.

[6] CNN, Mattis warns Syria against using chemical weapons. 2 February 2018.

REUTERS, U.S.’ Mattis says concerned about Syria’s potential use of sarin gas. 2 February 2018.

THE HILL, Mattis raises possibility of strike on Syria if regime uses sarin. 2 February 2018.

See also, Transcripts of US Def Sec James Mattis Press conference Feb 2, 2018.

There are reports that Jim Mattis would have said otherwise in some other opportunity, for instance in reference to previous administrations, etc. I only affirm that he did say the above at the opportunity reported by CNN, The Hill and REUTERS, and according to the transcripts of the time. These two media have neither retracted the articles nor ‘corrected’ the information; there respective reports are still available online. In my interpretation, an eventual changing of his declaration communicated afterwards, would bring per se even more significance in the context of the efforts to legitimate the missile attacks on Syria.

If it is proven that Mattis, in fact, never said what CNN transcribes, I am of course ready to put away that information.

[7] Florence Parly : Le Service national universel doit être attractif pour les jeunes. Franceinter, 9 February 2018.  See also [English] video “France Defense Minister: No confirmation of chlorine attacks, Syria.” The Indicter Channel. YouTube, 9 February 2018.

[8] Reuters, “U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator“, 5 May 2013.

[9]Robert Fisk, “The evidence we were never meant to see about the Douma ‘gas’ attack“. The Independent, 23 May 2019.

[10] Ben Norton, “OPCW investigator testifies at UN that no chemical attack took place in Douma, Syria“, thegrayzone.com. 22 January 2020.

Quoted from this article: “China’s mission to the UN invited Ian Henderson to testify in person at the Security Council session. Henderson said in his testimony that he had planned to attend, but was unable to get a visa waiver from the US government.”

[11] WikiLeaks, “OPCW Douma Docs. All releases“. 27 December 2019.

[12] Il popolo d’Italia, 2 November 1933. Referred in Doug Thomsom, “State Control in Fascist Italy”,  Manchester University Press, 1991, pag. 131.

[13] Katerina Patin, “Russia used a Two-Year Old Video and an ‘Alternative’ Swedish Group to Discredit Reports of Syria Gas Attack.” Coda Story, 2 May 2017.

[14] M Ferrada de Noli, “White Helmets Video: Swedish Doctors for Human Rights Denounce Medical Malpractice and Macabre ‘Misuse’ of Children for Propaganda Aims“. The Indicter, 6 March 2017.

[15] M ferrada de Noli, “White Helmets Movie: Updated Evidence From Swedish Doctors Confirm Fake ‘Lifesaving’ and Malpractices on Children“, The Indicter, 17 March 2017.

[16] M Ferrada de Noli, “Former paid agent of Swedish Security Police dictated Amnesty Sweden’s stance against Assange“. The Indicter, 17 March 2017.

[17] Amnesty’s Amy Hedenborg email 11 March 2016 in reply to Journalist Erik Sandberg, after she read the SWEDHR piece: Hedenborg commented the SWEDHR article her emai-reply.

[18] The Indicter Channel, “Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli rebutting Amnesty Sweden pro-government stance in Assange case“. YouTube, 18 March 2016.

[19] SWEDHR, “About us“. Swedhr homepage, 2015.

[20] SWEDHR, “SWEDHR Is Absolutely Independent. Statement in the Journal of the Swedish Medical Association”. The Indicter, 9 June 2017.

[21] Vanessa Bailey has  44.4 followers on Twitter. While –to the best of my knowledge– her detractor at HP has never set a foot in Syria, Vanessa has known the region since early years. Her father, Sir Harold Beeley KCMG CBE, was appointed UK ambassador at the United Arab Republic to which Syria pertained at that time.

[22] Open Letter to Permanent Representatives of States Parties at OPCW [In support to appeal by Courage Foundation Panel ref. transparency in Douma investigations]. The Indicter magazine, 19 Nov 2019.

[23] There are also important contributions from the part of Australian Professor Tim Anderson, who, together with Seymour Hersh (“Whose Sarin”, 2013) have been early in denouncing the flaws in the reporting around the alleged gas attacks in Syria. For example in his book of 2016 “The Dirty War on Syria“, and earlier. More in “WMD Take Two: Chemical Weapons Claims in Syria“, Global Research, 23 January 2019.

[24] Encyclopaedia Britannica: “Conspiracy, in common law, an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means.”

[25] M Ferrada de Noli, “Integrity Initiative scandal reaches Sweden amidst deceiving media debate on Martin Kragh“. The Indicter Magazine, 15 March 2019.

[26] Thread: Integrity Initiative Listed Media Pundits Share The Same Posts Smearing UK Academics As Assad Apologists. Retrieved6 February 2020.

[27] From Katarina Patin’s home page. Retrieved 4 Februrary 2020.

[28] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948.

[29] M Ferrada de Noli, “Sweden’s Geopolitical Case Against Assange 2010-2019“. Libertarian Books Sweden, December 2019. See pages 69-72.

[30] Venn diagram from Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain), created by Hydrargyrum, 2009. 

[31] Ethics, Science, and Democracy: Ethics, Science, and Democracy. The Philosophy of Abraham Edel, I. Horowitz & H.S. Thayer, eds. Transaction books, New Brunswick and Oxford, 1987. Page 159.