Part 4. SWEDHR analyses on the Khan Shaykhun and Sarmin allegations by the White Helmets were correct and verifiable. Debunking Kragh’s & Shyrokykh’s disinformation

Part 4 in the series “Karina Shyrokykh & Martin Kragh Disinforming About Disinformation”* (Part 1 here) (Part 2 here) (Part 3 here)

By Marcello Ferrada de Noli. Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology, esp. injury epidemiology, MED.DR. (Karolinska Institute, Sweden). Founder, Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR)


Setting the record straight about 1) What The Indicter or SWEDHR really stated about happenings in Khan Shaykhun and Sarmin Syria, 2) How our take was later confirmed by Defence Ministers of the US and France.

Where exactly in our publications is the “disinformation” alleged by “disinformation experts” Karina Shyrokykh & Martin Kragh?

The main stirred controversy from the part of those authors, [1] experts on “disinformation”, has to do with our analysis of propaganda episodes perpetrated by the White Helmets in Syria. One is referred to SWEDHR clinical findings regarding their false medical life-saving procedures. The other was about unconfirmed information given by “human rights from the field” (denomination used in the context by then US Defence Secretary Mattis) –including the White Helmets– on an alleged sarin attach in Khan Shaykhun, respective a chlorine gas attacks in Sarmin, Syria. We problematized the using of the organization White Helmets –financed mainly by the US and the UK– as a main source of information by UN investigative commissions. We also demonstrated a lack of solid evidence regarding a couple of specific alleged reports on gas attacks, including –in one case– doubts as to whom would have been its perpetrators. Our statements referred to injury epidemiology aspects, and in the false medical life-saving episode studies, we also referred to emergency medicine procedures with infants. All these opinions done by specialists in the fields commented.

The White Helmets medical misconduct

In March 2015, the White Helmets uploaded a video series depicting life-saving scenes of children purported filmed in the aftermath of an alleged gas attack in Sarmine, Idlib. [64] ]65] Those videos correspond exactly to the materials uploaded the very same day by “Coordinating Sarmin” (تنسيقية سرمين), an organization bearing a logo with the jihadist Shahada flag used by Al-Qaeda.

SAM, a White Helmets associated organization based in the US, showed those videos in a session ad hoc to the Security Council in New work –an event that took place 16 April 2015, leaving “UN officials in tears watching video from alleged chlorine attack in Syria”. [66] However, the veracity-content of those video materials were not controlled. Or if it was, the materials were shown anyway. All that to support the argument of an intensification of the military campaign against the Syrian government, specifically pledges for the establishment of a no-fly zone. At the time, Senator McCain, the White Helmets, al-Nusra Front and other CIA-backed jihadist organizations were intensively campaigning for a No-Fly Zone in Syria.

The videos aimed to represent the effects of an alleged gas attack in Sarmin and imputed to the Syrian government. No evidence was ever produced regarding the attacks, beside two “anonymous” witnesses that claimed they had heard a helicopter sound (“heard”; not “seen” the helicopter). One of the two anonymous sources was a White Helmet operative by the name of Leith Fares. [67]

We examined those videos, and our conclusions were published in two analyses, “White Helmets Video: Swedish Doctors for Human Rights Denounce Medical Malpractice and ‘Misuse’ of Children for Propaganda Aims”, [68] and “Updated Evidence from Swedish Doctors Confirm Fake ‘Lifesaving’ and Malpractices on Children”. [69] I strongly recommend reading in full our referred original publications, which contain detailed graphic material. I here present a synopsis of our findings:

 

Summary of the first set of findings

Dr Leif Elinder, a Swedish specialist in paediatrics, summarised:

“After examination of the video material, I found that the measures inflicted upon those children, some of them lifeless, are bizarre, non-medical, non-lifesaving, and even counterproductive in terms of life-saving purposes of children”.

Dr Lena Oske, a Swedish medical doctor and general practitioner. Excerpts from her statement to SWEDHR:

Intracutaneous injection with adrenalin may be used if any other resuscitation measure does not succeed. Especially under precarious circumstances – such as in field emergency settings– where safer ways for the administration of medication (i.e. endotracheal, intravenous, or intraosseous) might be difficult or unavailable. But not in the way shown in the video”.

“In order to perform the injection, CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) has to be interrupted, and then the CPR resumed immediately after. Which is not done in the procedures shown in the video.”

And referring to a correct medical procedure, the Swedish specialist MD adds:

“The technique is simple. Long needle, syringe with 1 mg adrenaline, find the 4th or 5th intercostal space and insert the needle just adjacent to the sternum, left side, deposit the medication after checking you are in the right position (aspiration of blood and no resistance), take out the needle and immediately resume CPR! So, the doctor who wrote the comment, ‘If not already dead, this injection would have killed the child’ was right! What a macabre scene; and how sad.”

Summary of the second set of findings:

I reproduce here exactly what I wrote in my article in The Indicter,[68] and I stand for every word. No demonstrable proof has been put forward by Karina Shyrokykh & Martin Kragh –not even intended to– to contradict these conclusions:

“The new findings, which have also been confirmed in second opinions issued by MD specialists and members of Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR) on March 12, 2017,

a) demonstrate that the main highlighted ‘life-saving‘ procedure on the infant shown in the second video of the sequence was faked. Namely, no substance (e.g. adrenaline) was injected into the child while the ‘medic’ or doctor introduced the syringe-needle in a simulated intracardiac-injection manoeuvre [See video above with the findings’ synopsis];

b) may bring support to the hypothesis mentioned by doctors in the previous report, referring that the child in question, “if not already dead, might have died because the injection procedure”.

The three children subjected to ‘life-saving’ procedures in the second video were eventually dead, and the cause of death –that according to the White helmets video would be attributed to chlorine gas– has been disputed by other medical opinions independently of the assessments by the Swedish doctors mentioned in the SWEDHR reports. For instance, in the opinion of a UK doctor, the health-status in reference to the above-mentioned child could be instead attributed to drug overdose, likely opiates.”

Our findings have never proven wrong.

A one and only attempt to discuss our findings (done by a former journalist of the US government-financed Radio Liberty, [60] and published in CODA Story – publication also financed by the National Endowment for Democracy), [58] was totally debunked in The Indicter. [57] I have already publicly challenged CODA Story to a public debate assisted with a panel of independent specialists, to go through their contentions. CODA Story never replied.  Here below a summary of the debunked allegations done by Coda Story.

Debunking 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 aparece el 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/

 

Analysis on the OPWC preliminary report on an alleged chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun

In an article I published in The Indicter in November 2017, I analysed a report by the OPCW-JIM on an alleged chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun (se further below my take on the OPCW-JIM investigation on the Khan Shaykhun incident)

Among a variety of flaws and bias in the OPCW report, I took up an epidemiological inconsistency referred to the ratio killed/injured by the effects of a sarin-gas attack:

“The numerous incongruencies in the documentation and testimonies that the JIM accepted to include in its report. For instance, that several dozens of ‘victims’ of the alleged attack were admitted and registered in the vicinity hospitals at a time-point before the purported occurrence of the said attack; or the notorious clinical disagreement reported in samples taken from same individuals, etc. These and other kinds of epidemiological flaws or oddities, such as an atypical ratio between injured and reported fatalities, are equally prominent in the parallel COI report.” [70] (Down below extended transcript of this text).

In another article, I “raised my doubts” on the veracity of specific reports by the ‘White Helmets’, who, in conjunction with their rapid report claiming that the chemical agent used in attack in Kay Shankhun was sarin, reported a much larger number of injured victims in comparison to a notable ‘low’ number of fatalities. However, I wrote, “the expected ratio injured/fatalities in cases of attacks with chemical agents of high toxicity such as sarin, goes in the opposite direction, where few injured survive amid much larger fatality scores”. [71]

Despite my public statements focused on these injury-epidemiology issues, Shyrokykh & Kragh repeatedly suggest that we at SWEDHR do not possess competence to utter such opinions.

I mentioned further arguments in an interview a gave to the Italian journal Quotidiano Nazionale. [72] There I even took up a clinical inconsistency arising from a statement of a local consultant (in the rebels-controlled zone). He affirms –as “proof” that a sarin gas attack has taken place– that he is identifying that characteristic “smell”. He says that while posing in a video-selfie beside an alleged injured. Whereas the fact is that sarin is odourless.

Later in 2019, together with other academics, I signed a letter to the permanent representatives of States parties at the OPCW, about an ongoing investigation on a gas attack allegation. [73] The other academics also signing that communication together with José Bustani (Ambassador of Brazil, first Director General of the OPCW and former Ambassador to the United Kingdom and France), were Noam Chomsky, Emeritus Professor, MIT, Anne Gazeau-Secret, former French Ambassador at The Hague, Theodore Postol, Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology and National Security, MIT, George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury.

Nevertheless, authors Karina Shyrokykh & Martin Kragh only refer to my participation (as SWEDHR chair) when commenting the criticism that the OPCW biased reports did receive. But nothing is said about the rest of the signatories. I have searched for “disinformation” articles authored by Shyrokykh or Kragh in reference to those names. So far, I did not find any. All which, once again, denotes that for these authors, the aim would seemingly be to discredit our organization SWEDHR. A sort of argument ad hominem to disqualify what we have published –because it contradicts the narrative of their patrons.

The reason why they focus precisely on our organization is given by themselves: “(SWEDHR), one of the most durable examples of online disinformation involving a black knight NGO”.[4] “As such, the SWEDHR case is noteworthy in itself”. [74] Well, I intake it as a confirmation that we have succeeded in contradicting their disinformation.

Nevertheless, I insist on what I commented before (see chapter on “legitimacy”, in Part 2 of this series).[75] If we did reach a space in the public’s attention at the level Shyrokykh and Kragh attribute to us (SWEDHR as a case “noteworthy in itself”), it is because the content of our publications, its adherence to facts, its veracity and verifiability. Would have been otherwise, SWEDHR would have never reached this spread:

 

  1. In less than ten years, The Indicter (a SWEDHR publication, according to the authors) had reached over half million viewers reading our articles (n= 543,734 to be exact). The Indicter Channel in You Tube, where we post our informative videos, has also reached long over half million viewers (n= 588,000 to be exact).
  2. The most important: It is the veracity, the factual content of our articles which have made our publications a “case noteworthy in itself” (expression used by Shyrokykh & Kragh, see above).
  3. Again, is that, the quality derived of facts-based information what gives a publication authentic legitimacy among the readers. Conversely, it is NOT the “perceived legitimacy” associated with the “legitimacy attributes” Shyrokykh & Kragh describe about our organization SWEDHR –that we “are form Sweden”, “doctors”, talking on “human rights”. This is completely nonsense, and it conveys the idea that the reading public would be for the most stupid.
The Indicter articles as documents in the Security Council

Kragh & Shyrokykh also resent that my piece analysing a report by OPCW on an alleged chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun [70] was included as accompanied document at the UN Security Council,[76] presented by the Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations. They write:

“Despite being a small NGO with not much presence in the public space in Sweden, SWEDHR receives considerable international attention and coverage, not least because of its input prepared for the UN Security Council by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Patin 2017).” [77]

So, the authors of “Black knight NGOs and international disinformation”[1] refer, and resent, only the fact that such analysis in The Indicter was presented at the UN by the Russian envoy. The authors do not present any criticism, any analysis or rebuttal on any of the issues contained in that article. Besides, a SWEDHR investigation had earlier been mentioned yet in other document presented by the Russian ambassador to the UN Security Council [78]. As well, our investigations on another subject (the White Helmets “medical procedures”) had been cited at the Security Council in another occasion, by the Syrian ambassador. He asked, “Has anyone read the report issued by the organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, exposing the duplicity of the so-called White Helmets?” [79]

Referred to the above statement of  Shyrokykh and Kragh (“not much presence in the public space in Sweden…”), I would like to remind that SWEDHR have had from the beginning, precisely, the aim to be active in the international sphere –and not as a priority in Sweden. This because, despite the chauvinism and självgodhet (translated as complacency, arrogance, or self-righteousness) [80] of many Swedish academics and self-proclaimed elites, happenings in and from Sweden may be important for what has been referred as Sweden’s ankdamm (duck pond), [81] but not necessarily determinant for world’s geopolitical destiny –including the human rights and democracy. This we did declare from the beginning  in our Foundation Manifest of 2014:

“Our aim is to contribute to the international Human Rights movement based on our research and professional experience in the health sciences. Health concerns are an important area in the HR-international mission that has, unfortunately, been neglected as primary focus by most of established HR NGOs. We have chosen to undertake this endeavour from an independent platform, as a new established organization independent from government or partisan-politic interests. We act upon the basis of the UN chart of human rights and the ethical norms of the World Medical Association. We seek no sponsoring from any institution. We are totally independent from government, and we will not receive any financial support from governmental or corporative entities.” [82]

Debunking Shyrokykh and Kragh accusations on  SWEDHR “denying” the chemical attacks in Syria

Amongst the multiple incidents attributed to gas attacks in Syria during the Assad government, SWEDHR has had an opinion about the “verifiable evidence” (non-existing at the time of our opinions) of only two of those reports: the alleged Sarmin incident of 2015 (later discarded from the allegations) and the one in Khan Shaykhun. In both cases the allegations had been made by the White Helmets. With regard to the Douma incident of 2018, the opinion of SWEDHR was was only limited to procedure issues of the OPCW investigation.

The first main attack that SWEDHR received on its opinion came from the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter –to many considered a sort of official public speaker of the government elites of Sweden, thus carrying the globalist agenda dictated in the EU and the US.

May I first remind that the one who uses a source without controlling the veracity of the information, in this case a lie, and then reproduce that lie publicly, is a double liar –if doing that with intent. And if doing that by academic negligence, is a deficient investigator.

In a front-page reportage about SWEDHR, the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (DN) headed that piece, “Gasattacker förnekas med hjälp från svensk läkargrupp” (“Gas attacks denied with help from Swedish doctors’ group”) [83]. Which is the DN article that Shyrokykh and Kragh used as one of the two references “For reports on chemical attack denials by SWEDHR”. The DN reportage was also based in a telephone interview with me.  But neither me personally, nor SWEDHR, in that interview or elsewhere, have never ever denied that gas attacks had occurred in Syria. For its disinformation, DN gives as “proof” its own interpretation of what I would have said in a TV interview with Russian RT International, but without quoting precisely what I have in fact said in that interview –as I clarify further below.

Also, what annoyed my colleagues and I, it is the “right” DN (and other Swedish stream media) believes it possesses in order decide which international media should or should not be legit for me or SWEDHR to give interviews, and answer in the fashion and content I wish.

That is why the first I did after the DN publication was to answer to them the following:

“A) As a free human been in control of my own thoughts, my own will and my own knowledge, I give myself the right to decide what opinion I shall express, on whatever issue I wish, and to whoever I decide. I also would believe that, as Swedish citizen, I am protected by the Freedom of Speech legislation.
B) The last thing it would ever occur to me, before accepting to be interviewed by any international outlet or journalist –regardless if from Danmark, the Donbass republics, Germany, Italy, the Russian Federation, or the UK, etc.– is to ask permission to DN and similar representatives of the power elites, to governments,  or to any other institution colluded with world corporate magnates in selling weapons to fundamentalist dictatorships, which end being used to decimate decent people of secular countries.” [84]

Now to the content of the DN publication. It affirms, referring to me: “In the TV interview, he says that it is likely that rebels are behind chemical gas attacks in Syria”. [85] DN refers to a RT live interview [86] about the White Helmets’ allegations of a chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun. Well, I never said that it is “likely”. In the interview, the anchor asked to me, in base of reports that the “rebels” (the jihadists) have previously used chemical weapons, if I would consider that it would be credible that these rebels could be behind of this new alleged gas-attack. I said, well, I have information about the rebels having access to chemical. So, of course “it is credible”.

Which is quite different to affirm that “it is likely” the rebels have in fact perpetrated that attack. [85]

To clarify, what would be the difference between, “it is credible that ‘Jihadist moderate rebels’ have done that”, and “it is likely that ‘Jihadist moderate rebels’ have done that”? Reply:

Credible = “able to be believed or trusted” [87], it refers to the believability or trustworthiness of the source (and I trusted the source of my information: Jurist Carla del Ponte, Ex Chief Prosecutor UN Criminal Law Tribunals. [88] [89] See below),

Likely = “it will probably happen. [90]. It is something qualitatively else and refers to the high expected occurrence of something. Meaning, credible and likely have two completely different meanings.

So, what put forward (also in the interview with Sputnik Radio by that time), it was not a denial on whether an attack has occurred in Khan Shaykhun. I only emphasized that, at that moment no evidence had been put forward (the interview was conducted only a couple of days after the attack allegations done by the White Helmets).

What information then, what source I had regarding both the access to chem weapons by the rebels, AND the use of chemical weapons in previous attacks? Nothing less that Jurist Carla del Ponte, formerly Swiss attorney-general as well Chief Prosecutor UN Criminal Law Tribunals. In a video interview she had stated: [88]

“We collected some witness’ testimonies, that made to appear that, some chemical weapons were used, in particular nerving gas. And what appear on, in our investigation, [is] that was used by  the opponents, by the rebels”.

White Helmets jihadists

Besides, the diffuse denomination “rebel forces” referred to the armed opposition to ex-President Assad is a euphemism covering Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, ISIS cadres, and HTS jihadists (those now in control of the government od Syria. All these formations had in past decade an organic behaviour of continuously splitting, reunifying, fractioning, etc., but all of them waging war against the secular government of Assad. In this context it is difficult to distinguish which fraction has been responsible for this or that attack. The fact is that some of them, at the very least ISIS, was on possession of chemical weapons inclusive Sarin gas. And that fact was at the time reported by The New York Times, [91], besides the Reuter’s report [92] which for me was on that also a credible source. So, it should not be considered strange that answered that that was “credible”, in view of the sources I mention.

The other publication used as reference Kragh & Shyrokykh “for reports on chemical attack denials by SWEDHR”, [93]  is an article in RT published in Russian language: «Нет доказательств, которые можно обсуждать» (“There is no evidence that can be discussed”). [94] It is also about the Withe Helmets’ allegations about a gas attack in Khan Shaykhun.

Regarding the RT article, my own words quoted there are simple and unequivocal:

“I cannot judge the nature of this incident as there is no evidence to discuss. If evidence of this chemical attack would exist, it should have been shown to the public”. [94]

The authors of the RT article continue (their words):

“Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli stated on RT that the evidence of a chemical attack by the Syrian government forces presented by the “White Helmets” is extremely dubious and that the volunteers of this organization have already been accused of similar crimes in the past” (it specifically refers to the SWEDHR analysis of the White Helmets’ faked resuscitation of infants discussed in the beginning of this section).[94]

Well, so dubious was that “evidence”, that JIM (the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism) took much time in decide what “evidence” should be considered tenable as to be analysed about that alleged attack. A similar case occurred with the OPCW report on the ‘Douma 2028 incident’, where plenty irregularities ensued during that investigation. [95]

Instead, this was my take, and no other, on the JIM-OPCW investigation about the Khan Shaykhun incident :

I

The narrative authored by the “Seventh report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ­­­– United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism” tells that a main probe that one bomb containing a chemical substance of highest toxicity was dropped by the ‘Syrian government’ consists in a crater left in a Khan Shaykhun road. The same JIM authors acknowledge that rebels in Khan Shaykhun have however destroyed evidence by filling the purported impact “crater” with concrete.

Why the “rebels” have done that – and what consequences that sabotage would have for the investigation of facts is not even considered by the panel. Instead, what the JIM reports is that “The high security risk of a site visit to Khan Shaykhun, which is currently in a situation of armed conflict and under the control of a listed terrorist organization (Nusrah Front), outweighed the benefits to the investigation.”

The JIM panel’s uttered messaging on that their own perception of a personal risk would outweigh the obvious need of on-site collecting of evidence, also deserves a comment.

In the first place, what danger al-Nusra and the rest of the “moderate terrorists” would possibly pose to the JIM team? They are these ‘rebel’ associates who actually made the allegations. And those terrorist formations argued as “risk” by the JIM are actually the first beneficiaries of the JIM conclusions, and of all panels’ conclusions of that kind that end suggesting an intensification of the political (including juridical) and military operations against the Syrian government.

Secondly, those forces that the JIM Commission members say to “fear”, have been militarily, logistically and politically supported by the same Western powers behind pushing the JIM ‘conclusions’. So what should be the problem with a further cooperation among all those actors  to gather evidence on-site?

Then we have the fact that several journalist from Western mainstream media have visited the area, came back and published their reportage.

In essence, what is true here is that a visit on-site would make difficult for he JIM to disregard evidence that may contradict the departure-premises of the investigators: ‘al-Assad is guilty’, ‘Russia is guilty’, ‘Iran is guilty’, and all those that oppose the U.S. pipeline dream in the Middle East shall be ‘guilty’ the same.

II

As regarding the ‘bomb crater’ version defended by the JIM, the panel reports about witnesses’ testimonies, photographs and even “satellite imagery”. These efforts would be appropriate in case some one would be questioning the existence of he crater. But the existence of the hole in the road is NOT the issue in discussion. The issue is instead to discern what caused that crater. In this regards, it is incomprehensible that the JIM neglected to report details of the exhaustive investigations conducted by Ted Postol, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and who demonstrated that such a crater could not possibly be the result of an aerial bombing. [96]

III

By acknowledging that Khan Shaykhun was then under control of al-Nusra, the JIM report exhibits yet another methodological contradiction: That would mean that al-Nusra and its jihadists allies, by having control of the area, they were also in control of the ‘official’ information delivered from Khan Shaykhun on the alleged incident. This would imperatively call for a questioning of the reliability/credibility (bias) of main sources that the panel used for its allegations.

Particularly concerning propaganda organizations such as the White Helmets and other formations “under control of al-Nusra” (it is what JIM says), or in frank collaboration. For the White Helmets, main source at the UN reports of recent years, could possibly function in those areas only insofar a convergence would exist towards the local powers in control. No need to remind that territories occupied by terrorists do not function as a democracy.

IV

What those biases not investigated by JIM would consist of? The answer is in what has been the core of the propaganda strategy of al-Nusra / FSA/ White Helmets and the rest of the sharia-adept jihadist organizations of the “Syrian opposition”, and from the very beginning [97] the constant advocating for an escalation of the U.S./EU military intervention. For instance –as I have already pointed out in The Indicter Magazine and in interviews with Russian and EU media– each time an allegation of “chemical attacks” arises from the part of the “Syrian opposition”, and in particular by the White Helmets, those claims have been immediately followed by their renewed international pledge for a No-Fly Zone in Syria. [98][98][100]

V

Further, the JIM presents a highly confusing argument on that the purported ‘sarin’ would not be properly sarin, but instead some sort of substance of the like. Then the panel admits that the mysterious substance is not actually ‘Syrian” sarin as such, but instead it would contain something that previously would also has been present in chemical materials time ago stockpiled in Syria (Syria destroyed all chemical weapons between 2013-2014). [101] But considering the documentation existing a) on the possession of chemical weapons (inclusive sarin) by opposition forces. [88][89] b) on the rebels ‘homemade’ amateurish fabrication and stockpiling; and c) on the actual weapon-transfers that has existed between jihadists formations in the area, ISIS included, [91] [102]: Who would possibly accept such an ambiguous JIM argument on the “semi-sarin” as unequivocal evidence that the alleged attack was ordered by the Syrian government?

VI

The panel states, again paradoxically, that “Should conditions improve and it be determined that an on-site investigation would produce valuable new information, a visit could take place in the future.” So, if I may ask, why not waiting for that possibility instead of passing judgement and declaring Syria ‘guilty’ already now, in absence of solid evidence?

The answer is elsewhere in a UN investigative panel’s document, where it is admitted that the more time passes, the less possibilities remain for evidence collection. So, the UN-JIM panel members may think, why to hurry?

To the above it should be added the numerous incongruences in the documentation and testimonies that the JIM accepted to include in its report. For instance, that several dozens of ‘victims’ of the alleged attack were admitted and registered in the vicinity hospitals at a time-point before the purported occurrence of the said attack; or the notorious clinical disagreement reported in samples taken from same individuals, etc. These and other kinds of epidemiological flaws or oddities, such as an atypical ratio between injured and reported fatalities, are equally prominent in the parallel COI report.

And this is from a report by British academics:

“The clearest evidence that the White Helmets were actively involved in managing a massacre of civilians is from the Khan Sheikhoun incident on 4 April 2017, where a Syrian jet was alleged to have dropped a sarin-containing munition on the town causing the deaths of at least 70 people. The Joint Investigative Mechanism’s subsequent investigation [103] of this incident reported that a flight map (presumably provided by the US military) “indicated that the closest to Khan Shaykhun that the [Syrian] aircraft had flown had been approximately 5 km away”, effectively ruling out an airstrike as the explanation for the incident. The only possible alternative is that the Khan Sheikhoun incident was organized on the ground, and this must have required the active involvement of the White Helmets. Although the White Helmets are famous for videoing their activities, there were no images of a search and rescue operation from the Khan Sheikhoun incident.” [104]

 

Conclusion, “upprättelsen” and epilogue

SWEDHR have only stated opinions regarding the –at that time– lack of verifiable evidence two of the series of alleged gas attacks, and which correspond to claims done by the White Helmets: the Sarmin chlorine gas allegation, and the Khan Shaykhun sarin gas allegation. Both were unlikely to have happened in the manner told by the White Helmets narrative. About the incident reported in Syrian East Ghouta, we only mentioned the absence of a proper procedure in the OPWC investigation. [105]

Karina Shyrokykh and Martin Kragh again and again misrepresent SWEDHR by attributing to our organization, or to The Indicter officially, statements that are not ours. This other case refers to this “quote” done by the authors:

“The Syrian government is almost certainly not dropping chlorine on its people. Instead, as outlandish as it may sound, it’s quite likely that Islamist opposition forces in Syria are behind all of these events.” [105]

Again, the fact is that SWEDHR has never penned such a formulation. That instead correspond to an opinion article by Adam Larson, [106] whom, as I have clarified before, neither is member of SWEDHR or of The Indicter editorial team. Furthermore, The Indicter clearly stated under Adam Larson’s name:

“Editor’s note: Mr Adam Larsson’s contribution to this debate in The Indicter is an opinion article, whose content do not necessary represent neither the editorial position of The Indicter Magazine nor of SWEDHR. [106]

In summary, I have made clear in this section of the series debunking the disinformation on SWEDHR engineered by Karina Shyrokykh and Martin Kragh, that:

a) By March 2017, sourced in established publications such as Washington Post, The New York Times, Reuters, added the statements by Jurist Carla del Ponte (formerly Swiss attorney-general as well Chief Prosecutor UN Criminal Law Tribunals who had been investigation the possession of such chem weapons by rebel forces) – we had  reasons to believe in the likelihood that those two incidents were staged by the very reporters of the allegations, the White Helmets.

b) The credibility of the White Helmets, on the other hand, had been challenged not only by SWEDHR but by several other organizations and independent outlets. Our examination of the White Helmets’ video materials on fake life-saving procedures has never been refuted. The CODA Story’s propaganda intent was completely debunked. SWEDHR challenged the CODA Story’s author or her handlers to a public debate on the issue, invitation they did not respond.

c) Injury-epidemiological assessments on the casualty’s ratio referred to injured/fatalities, survivors and hospital attendance, added to the assessment of a likely staged operation.

d) the lack of correspondence between the second-hand anamnestic reports by White Helmets and the actual symptoms that medical literature has recorded for such gas attacks,

e) visible / non-visible “symptoms” in individuals presented by the White Helmets as victims of the gas attacks, neither seemed to correspond to real effects of gas attacks.

d) In the case of the Sarmin allegation, the evidence was equal to zero, and to the extent that the case was dropped from the list of incidents of that kind reported at the UN. As I mentioned before, there was only two testimonies who declared to have “heard” a helicopter. One of the witness was a White Helmets activist and operative.

Upprättelsen (the confirmation)
The SWEDHR’s take on the White Helmets allegations on gas attacks in Khan Shaykhun, were later confirmed by the US Secretary of Defence and the Defence Minister of France

In February 2018, the then US Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis declared that the US had no evidence that sarin would have been used. According to the CNN report [106](fascimile below): “Mattis was referring to the April 2017 military strike when the US launched Tomahawk missiles against Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack”. The “chemical weapons attack” (CNN wording) of April 2017 corresponds to the Khan Shaykhun incident, reported by the White Helmets that had happened 5 April 2017.

Other sarin attack allegation has never been commented by SWEDHR.

Mattis even developed on that such  information (the use of sarin) 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). [108].

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”. [109]

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.” [110]

Here below, a fascimile with the CNN report  about Mattis declarations cited above. [108]

 

Further, in a transcription done by the U.S. Department of Defense, 2 February 2018, General Mattis is quoted saying: “We are more — even more concerned [than chlorine] about the possibility of sarin use, the likelihood of sarin use, and we’re looking for the evidence.” [111] (my bold letters).

In other words, at the moment I wrote, and also stated in the cited interviews, that no evidence had yet been established about the use of sarin in the form of an attack  from the Syrian armed forces. I was thus informing, and not “disinforming”, as Karina Shyrokykh and Martin Kragh put forward in their article [1] here commented.

And the same with regard to the allegation of chlorine gas in Sarmin:

French Defence Minister: “We don’t have absolute confirmation”

Ensuing, the French Minister of Defence, Ms Florence Perly, declared shortly thereafter that neither France had confirmed evidence of chlorine attacks in Syria attributed to the government forces. [112] Watch her saying “Nous n’avons pas des confirmation absolu“, video below:

 

 

 

Epilogue

With all, the deceitfulness of the authors of “Blacknight NGOs and international disinformation” goes beyond the misrepresentation in quoting of equivocal translations. In another part of their article, referring to the Douma incident, Martin Kragh and associate simply lie when affirm that “Again, earlier blog posts by SWEDHR were used to deny the chemical attack.” [103]  The fact, and easy verifiable, is that no SWEDHR member has ever authored an article in The Indicter or any “blog” denying reports of a gas attack in Douma. The only two articles in The Indicter analysing the Douma allegations was authored by Mr. Adam Larsson, an independent investigator who is neither member of SWEDHR nor of The Indicter editorial team. As to the above-mentioned letter to the OPCW by Courage Foundation, reproduced also in The Indicter, in no part analyses the Duma incident as such, but referred only to procedures or an appeal to include in the investigation the testimony of a former OPCW employee.

Nevertheless, Swedish associate professors Kragh & Shyrokykh praise the White Helmets in panegyrical terms across their article. But these are not distinguishable, ideologically, politically and in praxis, from those fanatic jihadist rebels that nowadays with the complacency of ISIS terrorists, cut the throat of Alawites, Christians and believers of other creeds. And with that, beheading the secular tradition of Syria. The authors mimic the pattern of the self-denominated democracy-lovers leading the EU in unelected fashion, and the behaviours of the governments therein. But for me, personally, those rulers are not for democratic rule at all. They are absolutely no liberals as they proclaim. They support new and old dictators here and there, they censure freedom of speech –and wish to censure it even more, do not mind limitations to trade unions, religion freedom, peace movements, etc. They pay with public funds to present to the public information as disinformation.

Next: PART 5, on the “Pro-Kremlin” and “Illiberal” defamations.

* THIS TEXT MIGHT BE UPDATED, same regarding references & notes.

  • First update done 28 January 2025
  • Second update done 29 January 2025

REFERENCES & NOTES

  1. Shyrokykh, Karina & Kragh, Martin: “Black knight NGOs and international disinformation”. European Security, 17 Dec 2024.
  2. Id, page 3.
  3. Id., page 9.
  4. Id., page 4.
  5. Id., Introduction.
  6. Locke, John (1689), “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” (chapter ‘Of Wrong Assent, or Error’). Pauline Phemister ed., OUP Oxford, 2008. ISBN 9780199296620.
  7. “SDHR” https://tinyurl.com/yex6z4p4  (Retrieved 30 Dec 2024)
  8. “SWEDHR”  https://tinyurl.com/bdz6zx2b (Retrieved 30 Dec 2024)
  9. Wikipedia, Swedish Professors & Doctors for Human Rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Doctors_for_Human_Rights (Retrieved 28 Dec 2024)
  10. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op. cit., page 9.
  11. Id., page 13.
  12. See “The Indicter Geopolitical magazine
  13. Aikin, Scott & Casey, John (2023). “Straw Man Arguments. A Study in Fallacy Theory”, page 53. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781350284708.
  14. Shyrokykh & Kragh, op. cit., page 9.
  15. Id., page 8.
  16. Ferrada de Noli, M. “White Helmets video: Swedish doctors for human rights denounce medical malpractice and macabre ‘misuse’ of children for propaganda aims”. The Indicter 6 March 2017. (Reference “2017b” in Karina & Kragh, op.cit.)
  17. Walton, Douglas (1998). “Ad Hominem Arguments”. Page 2 in section “Abusive and Circumstantial”. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 978-0-8173-0922-0.
  18. The Local (Sweden), “Solidarity brings hope: why Swedish support matters for us Ukrainians”, 2 March 2022
  19. Karina Shyrokykh’s Linkedin post: “Support the 47th Brigade – Join Our Effort!” (Retrieved 28 December 2028)
  20. Ferrada de Noli, M. “Poltava’s geopolitical aftermath and the warmongering of Swedish elites”. The Indicter, 24 March 2021.
  21. Atlantic Council Portal
  22. Ferrada de Noli, M., “Integrity Initiative scandal reaches Sweden amidst deceiving media debate on Martin Kragh”. The Indicter, 15 Mar 2019.
  23. Ferrada de Noli, M., “Propaganda for war by proxy: Rebuttal to Martin Kragh’s flawed analysis in Swedish J Social Sciences 2020. Part 2: The falsehoods”.
  24. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op. cit., page 9.
  25. Id., page 7.
  26. Id., page 8.
  27. Id.
  28. Ferrada de Noli M. “Sweden’s Extraordinary Renditions and Arbitrary Detentions”, The Indicter,   https://theindicter.com/extraordinary-renditions-and-arbitrary-detentions/
  29. Ferrada de Noli M.  United Nations HR sanctioned Sweden for violating the UN’s Absolute Ban on Torture
  30. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op. cit., page 8.
  31. Chen, Jing (2016). “How petitions assist decentralized authoritarianism in China”. Lexington Books, New York. ISBN 9781498534529. Page 165.
  32. Provisions on defamation – the crimes of defamation and insult – are found in chapter 5 in the Swedish criminal code.
  33. “The Strawman fallacy is a logical fallacy that involves misrepresenting an opponent’s position in order to make it easier to attack.” In “Logical Fallacies –Strawman”.
  34. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op. cit., page 10.
  35. Id., page 12
  36. Larson, Adam. Analysis of evidence contradicts allegations on Syrian gas attacks. The Indicter, 5 April 2017.
  37. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op. cit., page 8.
  38. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op. cit., page 9.
  39. Id.
  40. Id.
  41. Ferrada de Noli M. “Fighting Pinochet”. Libertarian Books Europe, Stockholm, 2022.
  42. Ferrada de Noli M. “Interference by journalists on sovereign opinions of professors, academics, and independent researchers, comprise infringements to Art 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights“. The Indicter, 7 Feb, 2020.
  43. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op. cit., page 9.
  44. Ferrada de Noli M., “How Sweden bribed its way to a seat in the UN Security Council using millions taken from the public budget for aid to poor countries”, The Indicter, 28 Dec 2026.
  45. Epoch Times, “Platsen i FN:s säkerhetsråd kostade 27 miljoner”, 16 Jul 2027.
  46. Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights
  47. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op. cit., page 3.
  48. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., “Notes”, page 16. art name page “Notes”, page 16: “For reports on chemical attack denials by SWEDHR see …”
  49. Martin Kragh has been repeating this unfounded allegation since many years, without proof, against Swedish scholars or journalists who would, for instance, question the benefit of the country’s membership in NATO. For this bizarre behaviour he has been reported several times. Including by me upon the Swedish Journal of Social Sciences. During proceedings of a report on Kragh labelled scientific misconduct presented at the University of Uppsala, he had to back on those accusations referred to victims of such libel. See my article “Propaganda for war by proxy: Rebuttal to Martin Kragh’s flawed analysis in Swedish J Social Sciences 2020. Part 2: The falsehoods”.
  50. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op. cit., page 1.
  51. Id., page 2.
  52. Id., page 4.
  53. Id.
  54. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op. cit., page 2.
  1. Id., page 2.
  2. Larson, Adam. Refuting the Coda Story’s narrative on Swedish Doctors for Human Rights. The Indicter, 11 February 2020.
  1. Ferrada de Noli, M. Interference by journalists on sovereign opinions of professors, academics, and independent researchers, comprise infringements to Art 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Chapter III: “The Coda Story narrative is conceptually identical to Huff Post’s. In which way are they connected?” The Indicter, 7 February 2020.
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coda_Media. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
  4. From Katarina Patin’s home page. Retrieved 4 February 2020.
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
  6. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op. cit., page 3.
  7. Bencivenga, Ermanno (2007): “Ethics Vindicated. Kant’s Transcendental Legitimation of Moral Discourse. Oxford University Press, pages 168-169.
  8. Upload by White Helmets under the name “Syrian Civil Defence in Idlib Province”, “ الدفاع المدني ادلب_سرمين:محاولة لأنقاذ الأطفال بعد اصابتهم بالغاز الكيماوي 26_3_2015”. YouTube video published 16 March 2015.
  9. Id.

 

  1. Logan N., “UN officials in tears watching video from alleged chlorine attack in Syria”. Global News, 17 April 2017.
  2. Note: Leith (or Laith) Fares is repeatedly found in both Arab and Western news giving statements –from a variety of locations in Syria– to visiting Western journalists. For instance, while in the Human Rights Watch report Fares gives the notion of being present at the alleged event in Sarmin, in Arab News is given that Leith Fares is “a rescue worker in Ariha”, and that “(Fares) told AFP his team had pulled at least 20 wounded people out of the rubble.” ‘Laith Fares’ keeps also an uploading account in You Tube with anti-Syria propaganda videos, and on behalf of White Helmets political positions.
  3. Ferrada de Noli, M. “White Helmets Movie: Updated Evidence From Swedish Doctors Confirm Fake ‘Lifesaving’ and Malpractices on Children“, The Indicter 17 March 2019.
  4. Ferrada de Noli, M. “White Helmets Video: Swedish Doctors for Human Rights Denounce Medical Malpractice and Macabre ‘Misuse’ of Children for Propaganda Aims“. 6 March 2017.
  5. Ferrada de Noli, M. “UN ‘Joint Investigative Mechanism’ report on Khan Shaykhun proven inaccurate, politically biased“, The Indicter, 18 November 2017.
  6. Ferrada de Noli, “UOSSM admits that doctor reporting alleged Khan Shaykhun ‘aerial attack’ was not qualified to do that“, The Indicter, 29 April 2017.
  7. Bianchi, Lorenzo. “Nessuna prova che sia stato Assad Anche i ribelli hanno armi chimiche –I dubbi dell’epidemiologo sul raid col gas: i conti non tornano“. Quotidiano Nazionale, Roma, 14 May 2017.
  8. Bustani J. et. al., “Open Letter to Permanent Representatives of States Parties at OPCW” , Courage Foundation, 18 November 2019.
  9. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 9.
  10. Ferrada de Noli M. “Credibility in Publishing: Does ‘Perceived Legitimacy’ Outweigh Factual Accuracy?, The Indicter, 4 January 2025.
  11. UN Security Council. V. N. Letter 30– 11– 2017 Annex Article By Prof. M. Ferrada de Noli – UNSC Doc S 2017 1010 N 1804349
  12. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 9.
  13. http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2017_848.pdf
  14. United Nations Security Council meeting of 12 April 2017. Page 13.
  15. Glosbe.com translation, “självgodhet“. Retrieved 10 January 2025.
  16. Ferrada de Noli, M (2019), “Sweden VS. Assange. Human Rights Issues“. Part II “The Trial by Media”, Background A: The “Duck Pond”, pages 113–116.
  17. Swedish Professors & Doctors for Human Rights, SWEDHR Foundation Manifest.
  18. Gasattacker förnekas med hjälp från svensk läkargrupp“, Dagens Nyheter (DN), 21 April 2017.
  19. Ferrada de Noli M, “Reply to Dagens Nyheter assault on Swedish Doctors for Human Rights“, The Indicter 22 April 2017.
  20. “I tv-inslagen säger han att det är troligt att rebeller ligger bakom kemgasattacker i Syrien.” Dagens Nyheter, id. 21 April 2017.
  21. Marcello Ferrada de Noli talks with RT. Live interview, April 2017.
  22. Cambridge Dictionary. “Credible“. Retrieved 12 January 2025.
  23. Statements By Carla Del Ponte, Ex Chief Prosecutor UN Criminal Law Tribunals, on the use of chemical weapons by Syria “rebels” (opposed to the Assad government). Video interview.
  24. Richard Hall, “UN’s Carla Del Ponte says there is evidence rebels ‘may have used sarin’ in Syria”, Independent, 6 May 2013.
  25. Cambridge Dictionary. “Likely“. Retrieved 12 January 2025.
  26. ISIS Used Chemical Arms at Least 52 Times in Syria and Iraq, Report Says”. The New York Times, 21 November 2016.
  27. U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator“, Reuters, 5 May 2013.
  28. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., Note 8, page 16.
  29. «Нет доказательств, которые можно обсуждать»: шведский врач о химатаке в Сирии (“There is no evidence that can be discussed”: a Swedish doctor about the chemical attack in Syria” – The head of SWEDHR spoke about the lack of evidence on the chemical attack), RT, 10 April 2017.
  30. Robinson, Piers, “The corrupt politics of chemical weapons“, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 27 July 2023.
  31. Postol, T. “Assessment of White House Intelligence Report About Nerve Agent Attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria“, Global Research,18 November 2017.
  32. Syria Needs a No-Fly Zone! A no-fly zone was Syrians’ earliest demand from the international community. http://www.sacouncil.com/syria_needs_a_no_fly_zone
  33. Interview with the author, “NATO White Helmets Denounced by Swedish Doctors”. UK Column News. Published on Mar 8, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijcA3LCKCl0
  34. Interview with the author, “De Hvide Hjelmes propaganda er farlig”. Arbeideren, Denmark, 26 April 2017. http://arbejderen.dk/udland/de-hvide-hjelmes-propaganda-er-farlig
  35. Associazione di medici svedesi: “Attacco chimico in Siria è una fake news”. Oltre La Linea, Italy. http://www.oltrelalinea.news/2017/04/10/associazione-di-medici-svedesi-attacco-chimico-in-siria-e-una-fake-news/
  36. Loveday M & Birnbaum M. “Syria has destroyed chemical weapons facilities, international inspectors say“. The Washington Post, 31 October 2013.
  37. U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands”. The New York Times, 5 December 2012.
  38. Seventh report of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (S/2017/904), 26 October 2017.
  39. McKeigue Paul, Mason James, Robinson Piers, Miller Davis, “Le Mesurier: a reconstruction of his business activities and covert role“. Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, 16 December 2019.
  40. Ferrada de Noli M. “The OPCW report on the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syrian East Ghouta“. The Indicter, 2 November 2019.
  41. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 12.
  42. Larson, Adam. “Analysis of evidence contradicts allegations on Syrian gas attacks“. Opinion article in The Indicter, 5 April 2017.
  43. CNN, Mattis warns Syria against using chemical weapons. 2 February 2018.
  44. REUTERS, U.S.’ Mattis says concerned about Syria’s potential use of sarin gas. 2 February 2018.
  45. THE HILL, Mattis raises possibility of strike on Syria if regime uses sarin. 2 February 2018.
  46. U.S. Department of Defense. “Transcript. Media Availability by Secretary Mattis at the Pentagon“. 2 February 2018. Note: 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; their 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.
  47. 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.