Doctors Call on "White Helmets" in Syria to End Fake Rescues and Killing Civilians




Swedish Doctors For Human Rights (swedhr.org) analyzed videos of the alleged rescue after a previous alleged chemical attack in Syria and have stated that they believe the "White Helmets," a known Islamic jihadi propagandist group were not engaged in rescue at all.  In fact, the doctors even questioned whether or not those working to "rescue" the victims were actually killing some of them.
Due to the graphic nature of the video, we will not post it here, but you can see it online by clicking here.  The video was made on March 10, 2017 and is not the alleged chemical attack from this month.
At a Foreign Ministry press-briefing, Maria Zakharova cites The Indicter's report on SWEDHR analyses of White Helmets' videos.
Prof Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Chairman for Swedish Doctors for Human Rights wrote a report that "findings I obtained in a further examination of videos published by the White Helmets, and which aimed to represent consequences of an alleged gas attack in Sarmine in March 2015 [See my first report of March 6, 2017]. [1] The videos depict a medical rescuing scenario focused on ‘lifesaving’ procedures on children."


"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," he added.  "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 below 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," he continued.  "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."


"The findings in these reports raise serious questions about the ethical integrity of the organization White Helmets, on the anti-medical procedures they advertise in its videos, and the war-criminal behaviour represented by the misuse of dead children with propaganda aims," he concluded.
Now, this should cause us to ask, if the rescues are faked in order to help the jihadis in Syria, then is it possible the chemical attacks are also fake?  Furthermore, if they are not fake, is it possible the attacks were conducted by the Islamic jihadis who seek to overthrow Bashar Assad?
Lest you think I'm going off the deep end, I'll remind many of you that you claim not to trust the mainstream media.  However, consider this side by side on how an actual sarin gas attack was handled in Tokyo and what we've been shown in Syria.

President Donald Trump has said the "enemy of the American people" is the fake news media.  Isn't it interesting how all of the media is on board with what going on in Syria?  Isn't it telling how Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, as well as Hillary Clinton are right there supporting what was done in Syria this past weekby President Trump?  We are being readied for war there.


Finally, listen to Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett expose not only the White Helmets as "not credible," but also the majority of Western media reporting on Syria.









Reading the news about the recent US-China summit one thing strikes an eye. President Trump personally told President Xi Jinping about the airstrikes against Syria. He didn't hesitate to do it in the middle of the summit obviously sending a certain kind of message to the Chinese counterpart. According to Press-Secretary Sean Spicer, «The President informed President Xi that strikes were occurring as their dinner concluded». Donald Trump said the visit was a success and «progress» was made. He told reporters that his relationship with the Chinese president was «outstanding». Definitely, the timing for the air strikes was deliberately chosen. Was it an attempt to show who calls the shots in the contemporary world or did the US president demonstrate special respect?

The air strikes against a Syrian airfield were definitely a message regarding not the Middle East only but rather the US policy on the entire Asia. «China will either decide to help us with North Korea or they won't», Trump said in an interview published on April 2 in the Financial Times. «If they do, that will be very good for China, and if they don't, it won't be good for anyone».


Despite the fact that North Korea was the front-and-center security issue on the table, no new «package arrangement» was announced at the end of President Xi’s visit. With all attention riveted on the airstrikes in Syria, the talks on North Korea policy ended with no significant breakthroughs. But the message was sent. True, attacking North Korea is dangerous because of its nuclear arsenal and the capability to strike Japan and South Korea, making the US involved in combat actions to defend the allies.

President Trump’s quick decision to strike Syria is to show that he is a person who can take a risk. He may also pin his hopes on China toughening its stance on North Korea because Beijing will not be happy with the US military presence in North Korea which shares a border with China.








With everyone putting down new and/or revised "red lines", be it on Syria or North Korea, it was now China's turn to reveal its "red" or rather "bottom line", and in a harshly worded editorial titled "The United States Must Not Choose a Wrong Direction to Break the DPRK Nuclear Deadlock on Wednesday" Beijing warned it would attack North Korea's facilities producing nuclear bombs, effectively engaging in an act of war, if North Korea crosses China's "bottom line."
The editorial in the military-focused Global Times tabloid, owned and operated by the Communist Party's People's Daily newspaper, said that North Korea’s nuclear activities must not jeopardize northeastern China, and that if the North impacts China with its illicit nuclear tests through either "nuclear leakage or pollution", then China will respond with force.

“China has a bottom line that it will protect at all costs, that is, the security and stability of northeast China... If the bottom line is touched, China will employ all means available including the military means to strike back. By that time, it is not an issue of discussion whether China acquiesces in the US’ blows, but the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will launch attacks to DPRK nuclear facilities on its own."

This, as the editorial puts it, is the "bottom line" for China; should it be crossed China will employ all means available including the military means to strike back," warned the editorial.
In the editorial, the author also declared that the "People's Liberation Army (PLA) will launch attacks to DPRK nuclear facilities on its own. A strike to nuclear facilities of the DPRK is the best military means in the opinion of the outside world." The northeastern Chinese provinces of Liaoning and Jilin share borders with North Korea. These two provinces and Heilongjiang are part of the Shenyang Military Region, one of seven military regions of the People's Liberation Army.

The editorial also explained the advantages to the world of a Chinese attack on North Korea's nuclear facilities.
It noted China and the world know the locations of North Korea's nuclear facilities. Once the PLA attacks these nuclear sites, North Korea will permanently suspend its nuclear weapons programs.
North Korea "has limited resources of nuclear materials and is strictly blockaded in the outside world, erasing the possibility for DPRK to get the materials again."






US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has arrived in Moscow on Tuesday to discuss Syria with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov. The visit comes as recent US strikes on a Syrian base were followed by hints of sanctioning Russia for supporting Assad. 
While in Moscow, Tillerson is expected to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Tuesday, with the Syrian crisis being the key issue on the agenda. This is the former oil executive’s first visit to Russia as Secretary of State.
Russia expects a constructive dialogue free of confrontational rhetoric, the Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday ahead of the meeting. Moscow is willing to discuss all matters of mutual concern raised by Tillerson and is ready “for any course of events,” the ministry noted. It would, however, prefer “to work on de-escalating the international tensions, not heightening them,” it said, adding, “We do hope that the American side wants the same.”

Russia expects a constructive dialogue free of confrontational rhetoric, the Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday ahead of the meeting. Moscow is willing to discuss all matters of mutual concern raised by Tillerson and is ready “for any course of events,” the ministry noted. It would, however, prefer “to work on de-escalating the international tensions, not heightening them,” it said, adding, “We do hope that the American side wants the same.”