Extraordinary and Deliberate Lies from the Guardian 295


UPDATE One reason I was so stunned at the Guardian’s publication of these lies is that I had gone direct from the Ecuadorean Embassy to the Guardian building in Kings Cross to give an in-depth but off the record briefing to Euan MacAskill, perhaps their last journalist of real integrity, on the strategy for Julian. I told Euan that Russia was ruled out. I did not mention this yesterday as I greatly respect Euan and wanted to speak to him first. But on phoning the Guardian I find that Euan “retired” the day the lying article was published. That seems a very large coincidence.

I am just back from a family funeral – one of a succession – and a combination of circumstances had left me feeling pretty down lately, and not blogging much. But I have to drag myself to the keyboard to denounce a quite extraordinary set of deliberate lies published in the Guardian about a Russian plot to spring Julian Assange last December.

I was closely involved with Julian and with Fidel Narvaez of the Ecuadorean Embassy at the end of last year in discussing possible future destinations for Julian. It is not only the case that Russia did not figure in those plans, it is a fact that Julian directly ruled out the possibility of going to Russia as undesirable. Fidel Narvaez told the Guardian that there was no truth in their story, but the Guardian has instead chosen to run with “four anonymous sources” – about which sources it tells you no more than that.

I have no idea who the Guardian’s “anonymous sources” are, but I know 100% for certain that the entire story of a Russian plot to extract Julian from the Embassy last Christmas Eve is a complete and utter fabrication. I strongly suspect that, as usual, MI6 tool Luke Harding’s “anonymous sources” are in fact the UK security services, and this piece is entirely black propaganda produced by MI6.

It is very serious indeed when a newspaper like the Guardian prints a tissue of deliberate lies in order to spread fake news on behalf of the security services. I cannot find words eloquent enough to express the depth of my contempt for Harding and Katherine Viner, who have betrayed completely the values of journalism. The aim of the piece is evidently to add a further layer to the fake news of Wikileaks’ (non-existent) relationship to Russia as part of the “Hillary didn’t really lose” narrative. I am, frankly, rather shocked.


295 thoughts on “Extraordinary and Deliberate Lies from the Guardian

1 2 3 4 5
    • N_

      Be relieved then that they won’t do the same again, eh? Because they won’t have time, what with all that “hounding”. They won’t have time to copy and paste government and corporate press releases either. I wonder whether they’ll be able to find time to train “crisis actors” to wander about at the next “fake” school shooting? As for the Kushners, who? Only loonies don’t focus on Hillary Hillary Hillary.

      • MJ

        Yes. When Bret Kavanaugh is confirmed, the deep state will be in the dock. Soros and his kids may be turned over to Hungary. The money for all the protests and election-rigging and whatever else Soros was funding will be gone. Clinton, Comey, Rice, Brennan and more, including Obama, will be facing serious sedition charges .

        The neocons couldn’t care less how ridiculous they look, with 75 percent of the American population unmoved by their desperate antics. All the corrupt neocons care about is stalling Kavanaugh’s confirmation until someone gives up. Then they will have everything riding on stealing the mid-terms and impeaching Trump. It is their only hope.

        • N_

          If Trump gets impeached, where will the two-thirds majority in the Senate come from?

          He’s more likely to go full-out James Forrestal.

          • MJ

            Trump won’t be impeached. A president can only be impeached for misdemeanours committed while in office.

      • FizzyDummy

        …“fake” school shooting… Highly offensive and shocking to find a comment of that caliber here.

  • Sharp Ears

    Condolences on your loss Craig. Always sad seeing friends and family departing this life.

    Q Did Ewan McAskill retire or did Ms Viner ‘retire’ him?

    Had you visited Kings Place before? Quite a glorious edifice for a monument to lies and propaganda.

    • Den Lille Abe

      Condolences to Craig.
      Death is an inevitable thing. But it is not always a showstopper. Elderly people are mostly not afraid of death. When you have lived a long life, death might be welcomed by some. I am 62 and have had a good an meaningful life, I do not want to die die, but if it happens I hope I have given so much to my daughter’s that they will remember who I were. Dying is a inevitable process we go through, I would rather die early than late, if I was hindered fro activities I do now.
      My gran- Granny said to me at 94 ” Michael , I have tried most things , I cant do what I like to do, death would be a liberation, but you are young and do not understand, I know that. But when I am gone remember me.”
      And I i did and do. She died in 1987.

  • Anthony

    Jonathan Cook asks: Why is it being left to Craig Murray to do the work that salaried journalists should be doing?

    No questions about Skripals

    One needs only to look at the narrative about the two men, caught on CCTV cameras, who have recently been accused by our political and media class of using a chemical agent to try to murder Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia back in March.

    I don’t claim to know whether Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov work for the Russian security services, or whether they were dispatched by Vladimir Putin on a mission to Salisbury to kill the Skripals.

    What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have been entirely passive too.

    That there are questions about the narrative to be raised is obvious if you turn away from the compliant corporate media and seek out the views of an independent-minded, one-time insider such as Craig Murray.

    A former British ambassador, Murray is asking questions that may prove to be pertinent or not. At this stage, when all we have to rely on is what the intelligence services are selectively providing, these kinds of doubts should be driving the inquiries of any serious journalist covering the story. But as is so often the case, not only are these questions not being raised or investigated, but anyone like Murray who thinks critically – who assumes that the powerful will seek to promote their interests and avoid accountability – is instantly dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or in Putin’s pocket.

    That is no meaningful kind of critique. Many of the questions that have been raised – like why there are so many gaps in the CCTV record of the movements of both the Skripals and the two assumed assassins – could be answered if there was an interest in doing so. The evasion and the smears simply suggest that power intends to remain unaccountable, that it is keeping itself concealed, that the narrative is more important than the truth.

    And that is reason enough to move from questioning the narrative to distrusting it.

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/09/24/hiding-in-plain-sight-why-we-cannot-see-the-system-destroying-us/

    • Rupert Beer

      During the time of the 2015 earthquake in Nepal, the Guardian did a piece about an Israeli search & rescue team, who had gone out there to help. I posted a comment, sarcasticly asking if this would be the same team that operates in Gaza!! My post got in, under the radar, but was soon taken down. Subsequently I was never able to post ANY comments for ANY Guardian articles. I did manage to talk to somebody at the Guardian at a later date, but was fobbed off with the excuse, that it was an abusive post on my part.

  • Sharp Ears

    Ewan McAskill on his retirement.

    ‘Nasty, nasty man’: Guardian reporter on being insulted by Trump and breaking the Snowden story
    Ewen MacAskill, who has retired after 22 years at the Guardian, recalls encounters with MPs, spies and presidents
    Sat 22 Sep 2018 12.43 BST

    Ewen Macaskill in The Guardian newsroom. Photograph: Jill Mead for the Guardian

    During his time with the publication, MacAskill has been chief political correspondent, diplomatic editor, Washington bureau chief, New York-based reporter, and defence and intelligence correspondent, as well as part of the Guardian team who won a Pulitzer Prize for our coverage of the Edward Snowden story.

    https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2018/sep/22/snowden-guardian-reporter-trump-mackaskill-interview

    No mention of the cover up of Dr Kelly’s murder or of Syria and he has skimmed over the Iraq war and the situation of the Palestinians.

  • Le Canadian

    Wot, the presstitutes are now freely giving complimentaryanal, are their mortgages paid off? The question really is who owns the Guardian? Its known the kingdom of saudi iblisia sovereign fund has its tentacles into Twitter,etc but et tu Guardian? A number of these journalists may have been planted by the jetblack touper, but even rusbridger would not have countenanced such complimentary behaviour. The great is rapidly receding from Britain and all that remains now is for Dame Hodge to do a runner to israel like Lady Porter, for the edifice to collapse.

  • Sharp Ears

    What follows? An earlier report said that Iran was holding the Saudis responsible in conjunction with Israel and the US.

    Iran vows vengeance after military parade slaughter
    Richard Spencer, Middle East Correspondent, Baghdad
    September 24 2018,

    The Iranian rebel attack killed 12 Revolutionary Guards and civilians and children watching the parade in the city of Ahvaz

    Iran furiously condemned Britain and other European countries for “harbouring terrorists” yesterday as it accused the West of orchestrating an attack on a military parade that killed 29 people.

    A separatist group based in the ethnic Arab southwest of the country said it had carried out the attack in Ahvaz city, the capital of the province of Khuzestan, in which at least 12 members of the regime’s elite Revolutionary Guard were killed. Elderly people, women and children also died.

    The Ahvaz National Resistance made its claim on Iran International, a new opposition television station based in London, outraging the Iranian leadership. The Revolutionary Guard said it would wreak vengeance. “Considering the full knowledge of the centres of deployment of the criminal terrorists’ leaders, they will…
    /..
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/iran-vows-vengeance-after-military-parade-slaughter-ss27hfkbg

  • Sergey Tokarev

    ‘When a newspaper like the Guardian’ – there are no newspapers lower than the Guardian. On 1-10 scale, taking Assange for 10, the Guardian is firmly one or zero. Therefore, your indignation isn’t justified. It is the first time I disagree with Mr. Murray. All British mainstream media outlets are just spam, and the Guardian is the worst.

  • JB

    Craig,

    After your update I would like to repeat my suggestion that you request The Guardian to publish your account.If they don’t, you could submit the issue to the UK press body (can’t remember what it’s called).

    I know this comes at a sensitive time for you personally because of the deaths in your family, and I am deeply sorry, but you also understand how important exposing direct lies in the media is.

    Alternatively, you could send your account to all main UK and international media; or call a press conference and tell it all. It’s worth it.

  • Moocho

    I was awoken to the Guardian’s role by the interview between Noam Chomski and Andrew Marr where Noam points out that the role of the left leaning press is to set boundaries for left leaning thinkers. Their role is to define how far left you can acceptably go. More mind control, basically. Choms, as a prominent 9/11 truth denier/gatekeeper, is not someone I particularly trust but that does not mean everything he has ever said is tripe; Noam Chomsky on Propaganda – The Big Idea – Interview with Andrew Marr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow

    • Clark

      “Choms, as a prominent 9/11 truth denier/gatekeeper, is not someone I particularly trust”

      Well if you’d take any notice of those like me who actually understand some physics…

      • Clark

        Sorry, but that can’t be so. Thermite isn’t quick enough, or if you mean the fast stuff, too loud, not heard, plus in both cases the core was seen to stand longest. Check my comments on the 9/11 thread; I worked out the collapse sequence for myself.

      • Clark

        Rowan, I saw your comment before it went. Sorry, but that can’t be so. Thermite isn’t quick enough, or if you mean the fast stuff, too loud, not heard, plus in both cases the core was seen to stand longest. Check my comments on the 9/11 thread; I worked out the collapse sequence for myself.

        • Clark

          That doesn’t match observation, which shows the vast majority of dust produced as the collapses hit ground, the moment of maximum crushing. Plus these “high grade military grade explosives […] fitted throughout the buildings” were not heard.

          Twin Tower demolition theories contradict the observed facts. I therefore reject them.

  • Sharp Ears

    Bring it on John (McDonnell)

    John McDonnell targets water bosses in renationalisation plan
    Industry chiefs would see pay cut and have to reapply for jobs under plan outlined at conference
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/24/john-mcdonnell-targets-water-bosses-in-renationalisation-plan

    Water bosses’ £58m pay over last five years a ‘national scandal’
    GMB chief launches campaign to return England’s nine water firms to national ownership
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/05/water-companies-pay-national-scandal-gmb-union-says

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    I wish you felt the same way about false news regarding PM Theresa May, the former Home Secretary who approved all those assassinations.

  • David Hawkins

    If you are critical of Britain’s military and foreign policy there is nobody in the mainstream media (with possible exception of Channel Four News). The propaganda is relentless even extending to little children as Blue Peter on BBC does a broadcast from one of our aircraft carriers. I used to think that the obsessive hostility to Jeremy Corbyn was about Israel but I begin to realise that it is about much more than that a Britain that has never completely abandoned it pretensions to “punch above its weight” and play the Global power. At a time when poor people are really suffering, you will see no debate at all about WHY we need to confront Russia, maintain bases in Cyprus and Germany, pay for two aircraft carriers, support brutal dictators or befriend a country that deliberately cripples unarmed protestors with exploding bullets for demanding their ancestral homes back in Israel.
    The ONLY debate we hear is how much more we should spend on defence.

  • FobosDeimos

    Hello Craig, since you respect Euan MacAskill, I am in no position to second-guess him or in any way imply that he willingly misused the information that you gave him about Assange, but it sure looks like the source for the Guardian’s fake (and completely distorted) news on Assange-Russia was indeed Euan MacAskill (maybe unwittingly), and perhaps he “retired” or speeded up his retirement when he saw the headline.

  • Victor

    Whatever does one expect, when it’s an article with Luke Harding’s name on it? Honest reporting – from a man who was successfully sued, while he was a Guardian correspondent in Moscow, for blatant plagiarism, and the Guardian picked up the tab? Surely not?

  • (Dr) Pri Bandara

    Dear Mr. Murray,
    I read this with interest after someone in the UK drew my attention to it. Unfortunately it seems that the Guardian has also become a mouth-piece for industries that produce toxic products harming public health.
    We, scientists at ORSAA (www.orsaa.org) sent the following rebuttal to the Australian editor of the Guardian after they reproduced a disingenuous article risking public health. We never got a reply.
    It is very unfortunate that this is the reality of present times.
    Thank you for your efforts to educate the misled masses.
    (Dr) Pri Bandara
    —————————-
    31st August, 2018

    Ms Lenore Taylor
    The Editor
    The Guardian
    Correspondence via email:
    [email protected]
    [email protected]

    An informed critique of Modern myths about cancer – from ‘chemicals’ in food to wifi

    Dear Ms. Taylor,

    ORSAA is writing to you with reference to the article titled “Modern myths about cancer – from ‘chemicals’ in food to wifi” by Naomi Elster published on Mon 20 Aug 2018 in the Australian Edition of the Guardian.
    ORSAA is the only independent scientific organization in the Aust-NZ region currently investigating the scientific evidence for biological/health effects of wireless radiation; i.e., radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR). The volunteer scientists at ORSAA have constructed the world’s largest categorised database of peer-reviewed studies regarding RF-EMR biological/health studies. The ORSAA database currently contains over 3100 scientific studies sourced from all over the world. As a result, ORSAA is very concerned that the above referenced article has given misleading information about the current science and has thereby put public health at risk. The article presents a view which although it contradicts the body of current scientific evidence, is promoted by those with vested interests such as the wireless industry and governments which draw massive revenues from this billion-dollar global industry.
    The weight of the scientific evidence now clearly shows harmful biological effects and in some cases clear adverse health effects from long-term exposure to RF-EMR. These health effects include but are not limited to an increase in the risk of cancer. Please find below some salient points which clearly refute the claims made in the Modern myths about cancer article:

    1. The manner in which the article describes the meaning of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) classification of RF-EMR as a “possible carcinogen” is distorted. The explanation given in the article that: “this classification means only that there may be a hypothetical link that cannot be ruled out, rather than that there is a real likelihood of something causing cancer.” is not true to the intended meaning of the term “possible“. In May 2011 in Lyon, France, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (i.e., IARC, an arm of the WHO) gathered a panel of 30 experts to evaluate the empirical evidence linking wireless radiation (RF-EMR) with cancer. The available evidence was considered “limited”, and this fact, along with no adequate explanation being available for a mechanism for carcinogenesis, caused the panel to settle for a “2B possible carcinogen” classification as they could not agree on a higher classification [1]. The IARC’s definition of “limited evidence“ was that: “A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.” At the time, Dr Jonathan Samet the overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that “the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk”[2]. Furthermore, since 2011, further stronger evidence has emerged and the plausible mechanism of oxidative stress is currently being established, thereby building a case for classifying RF-EMR (from any wireless source) as a Group 1 carcinogen [3].

    • The Modern myths about cancer article claims that the Interphone study showed that mobile phone use “did not increase a person’s chance of getting a brain tumour”. This statement is a distortion of the findings from that study. It is true that the pooled data from 13 countries showed no significant overall effect for combined brain tumours (meningioma and glioma). However, the results did show a 40% increased risk for glioma type brain cancers for those who used their phones for more than 1,640 hours cumulatively (see the data in Table 2 of the Interphone study final publication [1]). Moreover, this risk doubled (to a 100% increase in risk) when the brain cancer was located on the same side of the head where the mobile phone was used, as demonstrated by an Odds Ratio of 1.96 (95% confidence interval: 1.22–3.16; see Table 5). The Head of the Australian arm of the Interphone study, Prof. Bruce Armstrong of the University of Sydney, can verify these results. It should be noted that many flaws have been identified in that study, such as designating a “regular user” to be a person who made a single phone call per week for 6 months, thereby weakening the likelihood of finding any statistically significant effects for regular users. This flaw is analogous looking for effects of smoking on regular users but then defining regular smokers as those who smoke a single cigarette per week for 6 months. Furthermore, It is unlikely that the Interphone study’s definitions of high use (1640 hrs, which over 10 years represents only 30 minutes per day) is representative of modern patterns of high use. Despite such flaws, the Interphone study still showed an increase in cancer risks for high phone usage.

    • The Modern myths about cancer article has ignored other prominent studies showing a significant increase in brain cancer risk associated with mobile phone use. These include the large French CERENAT study [5 ] and the Swedish Hardell group studies [6] which have investigated several thousand brain cancer cases. The latest meta-analysis of all the 24 case controlled studies (26,846 brain tumour cases compared with 50,013 controls) [7] shows a significant increase in risk of intracranial tumours (especially gliomas/glioblastomas) associated with long term use (>10 yrs) of mobile phones. That is, current epidemiological evidence indicates a very real increase in the risk of brain cancer with wireless phone use, despite claims to the contrary.

    • The article ignores evidence showing that gliomas have been on the increase with the most aggressive being glioblastomas (GBM). For example, the GBM incidence rate has more than doubled over the last two decades in UK [8], and studies from Netherlands [9], USA [10], Australia [11], Tunisia [12] and Israel [13] report similar trends which correlate with wireless phone use.

    • The article takes the spotlight away from the causes of cancer as being man-made environmental factors by suggesting that “thinking of cancer as a result of modern life causes unnecessary fear”. In fact, there is much evidence linking cancer to human-introduced environmental factors and lifestyles in affluent urbanised societies. The cancer snapshot of the world created by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/Map.aspx ) shows that the highest cancer incidence rates (new cancer diagnosis rate) occur in the most developed Western-style industrialised countries. In general, cancer incidence rates vary with socioeconomic status, they are more associated with urban life than rural life and they cannot be explained using hereditary factors. For example, South Korea, the most techno-embracing society in the world has a higher rate (308 new cases diagnosed per 100,000 people) than their less technologically developed neighbour, North Korea (181 cases per 100,000). Lifestyle and dietary factors seem to be the cause of the differences in cancer rates (after the effects of smoking have been considered).

    • The Modern myths about cancer article incorrectly claims that RF-EMR from mobile phones and Wi-Fi cannot damage DNA “Breaking or stressing DNA requires a great deal of energy, far beyond the capabilities of mobile phones”. In fact, RF-EMR (wireless radiation from mobile phones, Wi-Fi etc.) can damage DNA at low-level exposures. This has been shown in over 100 peer-reviewed studies that are summarised in the ORSAA database (www.orsaa.org ). A review of 43 of these papers was conducted by Prof. Hugo Rudiger in 2009 [14]. More recently, a large rodent study by the US National Toxicology Program (costing $25M) has confirmed that mobile phone radiation can damage DNA and promote cancer [15]. This finding has been confirmed by a large Italian study at the Ramazzini Institute [16]. Interestingly the glioma type brain tumours and schwannomas associated with mobile phone use in human epidemiology studies were the same types of cancers that occurred in the NTP rats. Further evidence for DNA damage has come from researchers in India who have recently found increased DNA damage and increased oxidative stress (that can cause DNA damage and other types of cellular damage) in healthy young people living close to mobile phone base stations (masts), independent of other factors [17,18]. Finally, a large Brazilian population study recently conducted around hundreds of mobile phone base stations has shown a significantly increased cancer death rate with proximity to the base stations [19]. Unfortunately, no such studies are being conducted by Australia or its Western allies.

    Objective reports from the ORSAA database have revealed that research outcomes on RF-EMR have an apparent bias which is related to funding-sources, with industry/government communication department funded research having largely reported ‘no effect’ results [20] (attached). In contrast to public conversations which downplay the health risks and which are fuelled by such biased interests, ORSAA calls for an immediate reduction in exposure levels currently allowed by government regulatory bodies for the public [21] (attached).
    Accordingly, ORSAA implores media agencies such as the Guardian to maintain their adherence to social responsibility by reporting from unbiased expert opinions and from credible medical organisations such as the European [22] and American Academies [23] of Environmental Medicine. ORSAA strongly recommends that reporters conduct independent research, and refrain from reporting second-hand views possibly fashioned by scientists/government agencies/NGOs with serious financial conflicts of interest or close ties to very powerful telecommunication and energy industries.

    Such efforts will assist the world to avoid repeating mistakes such as the coverup and the human tragedy created by Big Tobacco, which advanced with the assistance of the media at that time. On 14th April 1954, the New York Times published statements of 36 distinguished authorities denying the link between smoking and lung cancer [24]. This was a document prepared by the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, which included top “experts” in the field of cancer; i.e. those whose credibility was unquestioned by the public, and who in spite of their positions of great responsibility, made statements such as:
    “If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one” Dr. W. C. Heuper, the National Cancer Institute USA

    “I do not think the evidence is convincing enough to establish as a positive fact that cigarette smoking is necessarily the cause of cancer of the lung” Dr. Walter B. Martin, President – American Medical Association.

    ORSAA urges The Guardian to consider retracting the Modern myths about cancer article from such a reputable paper, as a service to the public. ORSAA also requests that this rebuttal letter be published with necessary formatting changes according to your guidelines. We look forward to your response to the above concerns and action. Please contact us for further information. ORSAA scientists are happy to be interviewed by media wanting to hear the other side of the story from an evidence-based approach, free of vested interests.

    Yours sincerely,

    Dr. Julie McCredden
    ORSAA President

    Copy: Mr. David Munk, Deputy Editor
    [email protected]
    References

    1. Baan R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, et al. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncol 2011;12(7):624-6.
    2. IARC PRESS RELEASE N° 208: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf
    3. Carlberg, M, Hardell L. Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation. Biomed Res Int, 2017;9218486.
    4. Interphone Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 2010 Jun;39(3):675-94. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyq079. Epub 2010 May 17.
    5. Coureau G. et al., Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. Occup Environ Med. 2014;71(7):514-22
    6. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma – Analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997-2003 and 2007-2009. Pathophysiology. 2015 Mar;22(1):1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2014.10.001. Epub 2014 Oct 29.
    7. Bortkiewicz A, Gadzicka E, Szymczak W. Mobile phone use and risk for intracranial tumors and salivary gland tumors – A meta-analysis. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2017;30(1):27-43.
    8. Phlilips A, Henshaw DL, Lamburn G, O’Carroll M. Brain tumours: rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme incidence in England 1995–2015 suggests an adverse environmental or lifestyle factor. J Environ Pub Health 2018 (in press).
    9. Ho VK, Reijneveld JC, Enting RH, Bienfait HP, Robe P et al. Changing incidence and improved survival of gliomas. Eur J Cancer 2014;50(13):2309-18.
    10. Zada G, Bond AE, Wang, YP, Giannotta SL, Deapen D. Incidence trends in the anatomic location of primary malignant brain tumors in the United States: 1992-2006. World Neurosurg 2012;77(3-4):518-24.
    11. Dobes M, Shadbolt B, Khurana VG, Jain S, Smith, SF, et al. A multicenter study of primary brain tumor incidence in Australia (2000-2008). Neuro Oncol 2011;13(7):783-90.
    12. Trabelsi S, Brahim DH, Ladib M, Mama N. Harrabi I, et al. Glioma epidemiology in the central Tunisian population: 1993-2012. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014;15(20):8753-7.
    13. Barchana M, Margaliot M, Liphshitz L. Changes in brain glioma incidence and laterality correlates with use of mobile phones–a nationwide population based study in Israel. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2012; 13(11): p. 5857-63.
    14. Ruediger HW. Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Pathophysiology 2009;16(2-3):89-102.
    15. National Toxicology Program USA. NTP releases rodent studies on cell phone radiofrequency radiation. 2016; https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/update/2016/6/cellphones/index.html (last accessed 25 April 2018).
    16. Falcioni L, Bua L, Tibaldi E, Lauriola M, De Angelis L, Gnudi F, et al. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environ Res. 2018 (in press).
    17. Zothansiama, Zosangzuali M, Lalramdinpuii M, Jagetia GC. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagn Biol Med 2017:1-11.
    18. Gulati S, Yadav A, Kumar N, Priya K, Aggarwal NK, Gupta R. Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of antioxidant enzyme system in human population exposed to radiation from mobile towers. Mol Cell Biochem. 2018;440(1-2):1-9.
    19. Dode AC, Leao MM, Tejo Fde A, Gomes AC, Dode DC, Dode MC, et al. Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Sci Total Environ 2011;409(19):3649-65.
    20. Leach V and Weller S. Radio frequency exposure risk assessment and communication: Critique of ARPANSA TR-164 report. Do we have a problem? Radiation Protection in Australasia, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 9-18, 2017
    21. Bandara P and Weller S. Biological effects of low-intensity radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation – time for a paradigm shift in regulation of public exposure. Radiation Protection in Australasia, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 2-6, 2017
    22. The European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM): https://europaem.eu/en/library/blog-en/97-europaem-emf-guideline-2016
    23. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM): https://www.aaemonline.org/emf_rf_position.php
    24. Health Year Book 1954 compiled by O. E. Byrd MD, Professor of Health Education, Stanford University Press, pp. 141-42.

    • Dungroanin

      Nice one doc.
      I see what your confusion is
      “ORSAA urges The Guardian to consider retracting the Modern myths about cancer article from such a reputable paper, as a service to the public.”
      The Groan mainly stopped being reputable some time ago and is in it’s self induced destruction.

      Is there a link to the letter, which would make sharing easier?

  • Sue Mason

    Not here to comment on the Guardian article. Sorry for your loss, Craig and hope that you have close and loving friends and family to see you through your despondency. Your blogs are a very valuable way of joining dots as to what ‘authority’ is up to, so my thanks for all you’ve done to shine a light on the manipulation of the country. So all yer chins up. You are much valued here and social media/ blogs are taking over from MSM for true journalism.

  • nevermind

    Somebody is eating articles before they are published.

    Labour…where is the fair and proportional election for the many?
    The same rights our leaders enjoy should also be good enough for us, at every election, local regional or national.
    I will not finance anybody who thinks they can deny Scottish people the right to determine their own future, or an indyref.2.
    What a shame, still too much control over the puppets.

  • daniel king

    You must be the only person in the UK to be shocked by these scumbags. I view this as par for the course.

  • Timothy Veater

    We exist in a quagmire of fabrication and deceit eminating from government ‘sources’. Who are the people with almost limitless, publically funded, resources, but who can remain invisible and effectively, unaccountable? Now the British government has somehow plucked from the non-existant ‘money tree’ another half a billion pounds, on top of the huge amount already dedicated to GCHQ and the other secret services, “to tackle cyber crime” pro-actively, whatever that may mean. This it is claimed is to protect the state from criminals, ISIS and Russia. Never mind the farago of lies surrounding ‘ISIS’, shown to be merely a tool of the zionist alliance. The Russian threat appears to be equally contentious and fraudulent merely because it has frustrated western designs in Syria and elsewhere. Seventeen years of complicity and cover-up of the crimes of 9/11, prove that no citizen of the west can trust its government in general or secret services in particular. The Guardian case referred to, may be but a recent example of the phenomenom and perhaps although disgust may be appropriate, surprise should not be.

  • Jude D

    I have a hunch the real reason the deep state and their media prozzies go after Trump is because he said the unsayable during the 2016 election campaign: that the powers that be rig elections. It’s even possible that his prediction that the 2016 election would be rigged frightened them into letting him win. They may have feared a huge groundswell of popular cynicism about the integrity of elections if Hillary got in – and in any case they had enough of their own assets in his camp to make sure he could be controlled once in office – so they didn’t have that much to lose by throwing Hillary under the bus. A losing Trump would probably have been more of a threat to them – forever mouthing off at rallies about “crooked Hillary” and her powerful cronies rigging the outcome. As that old Freemason crook LBJ said in another context, better to have him pissing out than pissing in.

    The Russian hacking allegations unwittingly reveal the deep state’s own view on the integrity and trustworthiness of western elections. If, as Luke Harding claims, the alleged Russian hack was a low budget low tech operation, but nonetheless swung the election for Trump, think what the CIA,the NSA, the FBI, Mossad, MI6, MI5 and the rest can do when working in concert – in any western country – to rig outcomes.

  • Jinny

    A lot of us are shocked at everything, nothing is as it seems, hope you can gather yourself together in love

  • amanfromMars

    The thin end/cutting edge of the wedge, Craig, and the abiding vulnerability for onward forward exploitation …. Is telling of “deliberate lies” about national security matters an act of sedition and treasonous or just pulp fiction doing its remote brainwashing thing against the masses for the greater benefit of the few who presume and assume they know more and what is best?

  • PleaseBeleafMe

    My condolences Craig, I’ll raise a mug (or 10) to your grief.
    I read a full page of comments before skimming the rest but didn’t see this referred to:
    The plan to extricate Assange to Russia is false but there apparently was a plan to get him out and to somewhere else correct?
    I found this fascinating as obviously if Julian leaves the embassy he’ll soon be in handcuffs so there is a scheme afoot. Good!
    As someone who feels they owe Assange a debt of gratitute for his commitment to truth I wish his desire to remain free and continue his work in a healthier atmosphere all the best.
    If however he ever decides or is forced to give himself up then I would like to volunteer to be somewhere outside the embassy when he does. I think that if organized in advance enough people could show up try and intimidate the authorities to let him remain free. A peaceful demonstration of course and all that.

  • Jason Makeig

    A lot like the anonymous NYT story perporting to be by an insider from the Trump office that proclaims the ‘failings’ of the POTUS.. AN obvious intervention by shadow forces prescribing the Russiaphobia narrative ..Equally bad it would be that the Guardian is a party to such investigative journalism ‘abuse’ !!! V Murdochian ..

  • Debbie

    Very sorry to hear of your loss, sympathies and condolences to you and your family.

    Understand why you might not be up for much blogging or explanation, but the above piece isn’t particularly well thought out. JA not wanting to go to Russia last Christmas doesn’t rule it out as a useful option for him now, or at some point in the future. Wikileaks has been extremely useful to Russia, and JA’s reluctance to go there may well stem from knowing that to do so would set the seal on its reputation as a source of disinformation and propaganda. Having said that, I think he’d fancy his chances there better than in the UK or US.

    You say you know ‘…100% for certain that the entire story of a Russian plot to extract Julian from the Embassy last Christmas Eve is a complete and utter fabrication.’ Well you must have some very definite and definitive sources then. You neither cite them nor provide evidence of falsehood beyond the words of Fidel Narvaez, who may not know the whole truth, and who surely cannot speak for JA’s preferences indefinitely, let alone the activities and motives of his Russian connections.

    The Guardian has anonymous sources, and presumably, so do you, both making opposite claims. With utmost respect, there is no reason to believe yours over theirs, barring faith and preference. If you have evidence, perhaps you should present it. Being shocked at what you call ‘Fake News’ is not enough, and using the language of one of the greatest liars in the world does not add to credibility.

    • PleaseBeleafMe

      I was closely involved with Julian and with Fidel Narvaez of the Ecuadorean Embassy at the end of last year in discussing possible future destinations for Julian. It is not only the case that Russia did not figure in those plans, it is a fact that Julian directly ruled out the possibility of going to Russia as undesirable. Fidel Narvaez told the Guardian that there was no truth in their story, but the Guardian has instead chosen to run with “four anonymous sources” – about which sources it tells you no more than that.
      Hi Deb,
      Craig can pick up for himself but he clearly states in the above paragraph that he was personally involved in the decision making. Fidel Narvaez tried to inform the Guardian and once published Craig also tried.
      Which person are u calling the “greatest liar”?

      • Debbie

        Hi PBM.

        No, Craig hasn’t said that he was involved in the decision making, though if he was, I am sure he can correct me. He says he was present for discussions on future destinations for JA, not the same thing at all. In fact he only mentions one decision made in his presence, and it came down to JA ruling out going to Russia. He does not say that this was any kind of joint decision, he does not mention whether or not discussions occurred at other times or without his presence… and of course, JA might change his mind.

        FN informed the Guardian that the story is not true but with the best will in the world, Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. It is hard to envisage a situation in which anyone would admit to being Julian Assange’s ‘point of contact with Moscow.’

        The Guardian is claiming to have other sources, and what we are getting from Craig is his belief that these sources do not exist outside of British Intelligence. It’s an interesting idea, but it does need evidence.

        Re the greatest liar, I mean Trump.

        • PleaseBeleafMe

          JA has a rather small inner circle, and of course other people may have been involved in a Russian extracation conversation but surely the Ecuadorian embassy (FN) would have to know? That Craig was involved in any capacity must mean that he has greater credibility than any anonymous source does it not?
          There is also the possibility that everyone is lying and JA has been a Russian intelligence agent since the very beginning but that’s why we’re here discussing this.
          Craig’s theory that British intelligence is involved does lack evidence but I’d throw a little money into the pot to say it is them or some other “official credible source” associated with the British government. It fits the evil Russian Empire narrative that so many of us here think is hogwash.

          • Debbie

            I see no reason why FN or Craig would necessarily know JA’s final decision, presuming it is a final decision, which is a claim no-one can make unless we are expecting JA to leave the embassy soon.

1 2 3 4 5

Comments are closed.