Terence Newton
Waking Times

In a recently published article entitled, We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe, Scientific American (SciAm) magazine issued a stern warning about the known and potential dangers of 5G technology.

Of particular significance is the fact that SciAm is the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States, founded by inventor and publisher Rufus M. Porter in 1845, and running monthly since 1921. It is a highly influential publication, widely reputed for its rigorous scientific standards, and lauded by today’s fact-checkers as highly credible and staunchly pro-science.

In the article, University of California, Berkeley public health researcher Joel M. Moskowitz argues that 5G, along with previous w-fi and cellular technology, is much more harmful than the government and telecomm industry wants the public to believe.

His primary concerns center around a recent FCC announcement, made in a press release, that the FCC is close to reaffirming the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that were previously adopted by the commission in the 1990’s… well before the introduction of 5G, 4G, 3G, 2G or even WiFi.

In short, the safety standards that the FCC wishes to maintain are severely outdated and fail to reflect the growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating harm.

Moskowitz notes that the ’90’s exposure limits only address the singular concern over the potential effects of the intensity of exposure to RFR. With the research we now have available the health concerns are much broader, including a sincere risk of cancer, among other things.

“The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.” ~Joel M. Moskowitz, Scientific American

Moskowitz also cites the the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which elaborates on the now-known dangerous effects of RFR:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.” [Source]

Moskowitz points out that,”the scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.” Inviting readers and policy makers to consider the weight of more than 500 peer-reviewed research studies finding, “harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating,” Moskowitz believes that more rigorous studies are necessary before the rollout goes forward.

In other words, the scientific jury is already out on the harmful effects of RFR, and the FCC is flat-out derelict in its duty to put public safety above telecomm industry interests.

Regarding the propaganda dimension of this debate, Moskowitz addresses the fact that industry spokepersons and related government officials frequently refer to contrarian viewpoints as ‘fear-mongering,’ pointing out that the current scientific research is legitimate, leaving the scientific community with a genuine responsibility to speak out about these concerns.

“The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of “fear mongering” over the advent of wireless technology’s 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.” ~Joel M. Moskowitz, Scientific American

Final Thoughts

Cracks are showing in the government and telecom industry’s blanket assertion that 5G is safe, and many prominent and influential scientists, dignitaries, and organizations are now speaking out against 5G – the global human experiment without consent.  For the editorial board of Scientific American to run a piece this condemning 5G is a very strong signal that even the most mainstream elements of the scientific community are genuinely concerned.

Via https://www.wakingtimes.com/scientific-american-the-oldest-us-monthly-magazine-issues-severe-warning-on-5g/

Opus Dei: Faith, Power and Manipulation

DW (2021)

Film Review

The video below is a sanitized vanilla-light documentary on Opus Dei. The latter was propelled to wide public attention by Dan Brown’s 2003 book The Da Vinci Code and the 2006 movie based on the book. Contrast it with the classic 1983 Mother Jones article “Thy Will Be Done,” and the 2019 ISGCP article linked in the last paragraph.

The documentary poses more questions than it answers. According to DW, Opus Deis was  founded by Catholic priest Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer in Navarre Spain in 1928. Escriva and his followers strongly supported Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, who rewarded Opus Dei with powerful positions in his fascist government. In the 1960s, Franco’s Opus Dei-linked finance ran Spain’s central bank.

According to several unnamed sources, Opus Dei still has significant influence over the Spanish government, especially the departments of Education, Justice and Banking. It’s also believed to control the Spanish judiciary, with 1/3 of all Spanish judges and prosecutors linked to the group. One former Opus Dei member filmmakers interview blame this influence on Spain’s failure to change its political structure following Franco’s death (1975) or to hold anyone accountable the atrocities committed by his government.

Opus Dei presently has 90,000 members globally: 30,000 in North and South America, 10,000 in Africa, Asia and Oceania, 35,000 in Spain, 4,000 in Italy and 600 in Germany.

Under the organization’s current structure, 2% are priests, 10% are “numeraries” (who live monastic-style lives in Opus Dei residential centers), and the rest “supernumeraries” (allowed to marry and lead private lives).

The lapsed Opus Dei members featured in the film complain bitterly about its cult-like structure, bullying, harsh rules and pressure to recruit new members.

They also talk about the organization’s immense wealth and links with global elites at the highest level. Opus Dei runs numerous schools, universities, hospitals, business schools and foundations, mainly in Spain and the US. The vice president of the European Bank and a Spanish judge on the European Court of Human Rights are allegedly linked to Opus Dei.

The 1983 Mother Jones article Thy Will Be Done  tells a very different story, as does a 2019 article by the  Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics. The former reports on longstanding collaboration between Opus Dei and Anglo-US intelligence (eg in death squad activity in Latin America). The latter is based on an extensive 1986 Belgian police report linking Opus Dei to high level politicians and officials, western intelligence, elite child trafficking networks.

Clever Journeys

[…]

Most unaware citizens don’t realize the AMA sold out to the Obama Administration [over the insurance lobby boondoggle Obamacare] and less than 14 percent of all American doctors are members.

[…]

Recently the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) filed a motion (a brief) in federal district court in Galveston urging it to allow the lawsuit to proceed against the FDA for its misleading statements against ivermectin.

In Apter v. HHS, a group of physicians sued to hold the FDA, a federal agency within the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), accountable for its interference with physicians’ ability to treat Covid-19.

“Defendant FDA has improperly exploited misunderstandings about the legality and prevalence of off-label uses of medication, in order to mislead courts, state medical boards, and the public into thinking there is anything improper about off-label prescribing,” AAPS wrote in its amicus brief to the court.

“Not only is off-label prescribing fully proper, legal, and commonplace, but it is also absolutely necessary in order to give effective care to patients,” the brief stated.

Recall that the FDA published multiple statements and sent letters to influential organizations to falsely disparage ivermectin, implying that it was not approved for treating Covid-19.

Many, including courts and state medical boards, were misled by the FDA into thinking that its lack of approval for this treatment meant that ivermectin should not be used to treat Covid-19.

“It has never been proper for the FDA to interfere with that essential part of the practice of medicine, and the FDA knows it,” AAPS informed the court.

The FDA “insisted and continues to insist on interfering with the prescription of this safe medication by physicians in treating Covid-19,” AAPS added.

AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly pointed out to the court that the FDA “has engaged in a campaign of interference with the proper use by physicians of ivermectin, which has long been approved as fully safe for human use.”

He alerted the court that once the FDA approves a medication as safe, then physicians have full authority to prescribe it to treat any illness, particularly a novel virus like Covid-19.

In August 2022, AAPS filed similar motions in federal Southern District of Texas, against three medical special boards for their threatened retaliation against physicians who speak out on matters of public concern.

“Our freedoms depend on the ability of physicians and all Americans to speak out on important issues of our day,” said Andrew Schlafly, who filed this lawsuit. “Entities holding monopolies over board certification should not be retaliating against good physicians.”

This new lawsuit asserts that “Defendants wrongly misuse their authority in a politically partisan manner to chill speech critical of positions taken by Dr. Anthony Fauci, lockdowns, mask mandates, Covid vaccines and even abortion.”

This Complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against several specialty Board Defendants that hold monopolies over board certification, and against the federal government for its newly created Disinformation Governance Board.

“Although only official state medical boards have the proper authority to regulate the practice of medicine, certifications by the Board Defendants constitute a de facto essential credential for practicing in most hospitals or participating in most networks,” this lawsuit asserts. “By threatening to revoke board certification of physicians, the Board Defendants improperly chill speech by physicians without the political accountability of official state medical boards,” this Complaint adds.

The Board Defendants are the:

🔹American Board of Internal Medicine

🔹American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology

🔹American Board of Family Medicine.

Each of these entities, which hold monopolies over board certification in their specialties, have declared their plans to discipline physicians who speak out.

“Criticizing Dr. Anthony Fauci should not be a basis for retaliating against a physician for speaking his mind,” Andrew Schlafly states. The lawsuit points out that many Republican senators properly rebuked Dr. Fauci for his statements that “I represent science” and that those who criticize him “are really criticizing science.”

[…]

Via https://cleverjourneys.com/2022/10/07/fda-lied-about-ivermectin-and-should-be-accountable-in-court-says-physicians-association/

By Dr Meryl Nass

Kaiser Permanente is both an insurance company and a healthcare provider company. It negotiates with employers once a year to set its health insurance rates. I wonder if Kaiser started getting worried at the amount of excess illness it was seeing. Once people are too sick to work, they lose their health insurance. But what if they are somewhat sick, but keep working? What if their chronic, mystery illnesses consume a larger amount of medical care than Kaiser bargained for? Kaiser might be willing to do a little truth-telling as it tries to calculate who is going to pay for this unexpected hit, which presumably did not stop in 2021 but continues apace.

Here is Daniel Horowitz’ article. Here is the Kaiser preprint. On page 30, you can see the following table, which shows how well 3 shots worked for over 120,000 Kaiser enrollees who were tested for COVID during Omicron. Kaiser did something unusual: it actually sequenced 16,418 positive COVID samples to determine the Omicron subvariant with which the enrollees were infected.

What it found was that for 4 out of 5 Omicron subvariants by 150 days (5 months) post shot, efficacy had fallen into negative territory, and Kaiser’s thrice-vaccinated enrollees were more likely to get COVID than the unvaccinated.

VE stands for vaccine efficacy (effectiveness). The vertical lines are at the ZERO efficacy mark. You can see how efficacy drops quickly from the 14-30 days post-shot (which is the brief honeymoon period when the shots actually work), lower at 1-3 months, lower still at 3-5 months, and after that you are screwed.

All the dots to the left of the line show negative efficacy—that is when you become more prone to getting a COVID infection. After 5 months, people were more likely to get a case of Omicron BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 if they had been vaccinated. Each gray bar starts a new subvariant.

There are 2 graphs. The one on the left compares the triple-vaxxed to the unvaxxed, while the graph on the right compares the triple-vaxxed to the double-vaxxed.

Even worse for the boosted, it seems that those with 3 shots are at more risk of COVID after 5 months than those who only got two shots (this is on the right side of the graph). So please stop. It gets worse with each jab.

Via https://merylnass.substack.com/p/negative-vaccine-efficacy-keeps-rearing/

After meeting with at least 50 members of Congress, soldiers of the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment toured the US to auction off swastika-inspired patches and lobby for an end to restrictions on US arms and training.

Moss Robeson

360° Internationalist

This September, a delegation of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi-led Azov movement arrived in the United States, at a time when myth making about the far-right network’s “depoliticization” had reached a fever pitch. By this time, the New York Times had ceased referring to Azov as “openly neo-Nazi,” and was referring to the ultra-nationalist organization as “celebrated.”

Since news broke of Azov’s US tour, more information has come to light about the ultra-nationalist organization’s outreach in the country, including efforts by Azov to reverse Congress’ ban on supplying it with arms and training.

The Azov delegation included three veterans of the regiment formerly holed up in the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol. They were led by Giorgi Kuparashvili, the only fighter not taken prisoner by the Russians.

[…]

The trio was accompanied by two spouses and a mother of POWs captured at Azovstal. This included Kateryna Prokopenko, the wife of the far-right commander of the Azov Regiment, Denys Prokopenko, who was freed in a prisoner exchange and declared a Hero of Ukraine during her visit to the United States. The delegation’s other Azov wife was Yulia Fedosyuk, the leader of “Silver of the Rose,” an anti-feminist, anti-gay group linked to the Azov movement, according to journalist Oleksiy Kuzmenko.

[…]

On Saturday, September 24, half of the delegation including Kuparashvili appeared before a sizable audience at a Ukrainian church in Detroit. The Ukrainian-American Crisis Response Committee of Michigan (UACRCM), a lobbying outfit formed earlier this year, live-streamed the event, which was organized by US partners of the Azov movement’s charity wing.

Among the more prominent Ukrainian nationalists present for the event was Borys Potapenko, a member of the UACRCM and an international coordinator of the Stepan Bandera-founded Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B), which collaborated with Nazi Germany throughout much of World War Two. Potapenko is also among the leaders of the far-right “Capitulation Resistance Movement” in Ukraine, which allied with Azov’s National Corps against Volodymyr Zelensky in 2019–22. (More about this coming soon on the “Bandera Lobby Blog”…)

[…]

Later, Kuparashvili indicated that the delegation had more on its political agenda than detailing Russian war crimes, criticizing the International Red Cross, and securing the release of Azov POWs. He predicted that this year, Congress will lift its ban on the U.S. supplying arms and training to the Azov Regiment.

[…]

In his closing remarks, Giorgi Kuparashvili appeared to take aim at his least two favorite members of Congress: Ro Khanna, a liberal Democrat from Silicon Valley, thanks to whom Congress curtailed U.S. support for the Azov Regiment in 2018, and Max Rose, a former Congressman and right-wing Democrat from Staten Island, who called on the State Department to label the Azov Regiment a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” in 2020.

“From year ’14, ’15, ’16, until today,” claimed Kuparashvili, “there is a bill which, I don’t remember the name, but the Congressman who lobbied, I don’t know how… He left Congress a couple years ago, he initiated to put the Azov as a restriction in a bill. This week, we talked to all the Congressmen and Senators, everybody understands, because when you bring the bill to Congress, they have to read it. Unfortunately, nobody read it, so they approved it again.”

“Now we told them, ‘are you supporting this?’ And everybody knows it’s just a mistake in it. As the Congressmen and Senators says, this bill goes until 2025. They’re not going to wait until 2025, and gonna make the correction on this year, to remove it from there… We’re dealing with the situation and fixing it, and majority of the job is already done, and Congress and Senate, both parties are supporting this.”

Before Kuparashvili’s closing remarks, his hosts held an auction on behalf of the Azov charity project, ultimately raising $33,416. The auction ended with bidding on three Azov Regiment patches featuring stylized wolfsangel swastikas.

Before the bidding commenced, Kuparashvili insisted that things were not as they appear. “If you know, there is a symbol,” he said, tapping the patch on his left arm, “which I’m gonna explain now, because they call us Nazis, all this crap.” At that point he mockingly put his hand over his mouth, and said, “sorry my language — ha!”

Evolution of the Azov swastika. The “Black Sun” confirms that this is a neo-Nazi symbol.

“This is actually two letters, two Latin letters, N and I. The N stands for National; I, it’s Idea. National Idea. National Idea. For regiment, it’s our slogan. National Idea. Every country, it doesn’t matter, it’s U.S., Ukraine, whatever. When the country was in problem, center of gravity always became the nationalists. The National Idea. All the nation gathers around the nationalists, and around the National Idea. For us, National Idea is Ukraine. If they don’t like what is Ukraine, and what it’s National Idea, hell with them…” Kuparahsvili, touching on the totalitarian Ukrainian Nationalist concept of “Natiocracy,” all but admitted Azov’s affinity for white nationalists in the West.

[…]

According to Kuparashvili, before, only Azov members could wear their swastika patches, but he bestowed permission on the audience to place their bids, because “now, all of you are Azov.” There was another disclaimer that Kuparashvili shared only after the winners emerged. “It’s a responsibility,” he said.

[…]

Via https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/10/06/now-all-of-you-are-azov-ukrainian-neo-nazis-tour-u-s/

Dmitry Orlov

This phrase currently yields about 6,590,000 results on Google, so it must be real—or is it not? It is not. But apparently figures most authoritative have concocted a narrative where Putin, in desperation over the loss of Krasny Liman, a railroad junction in the Kramatorsk district of Donetsk People’s Republic, which as of yesterday is part of Russian Federation, will get all emotional and attack the Ukrainians using tactical nuclear weapons. Since this narrative is bogus, there must be something else going on, such as a false flag being planned by the US. Let’s tease this narrative apart and see where it leads.

If you have never heard of Krasny Liman, you are hereby forgiven for this bit of geographic ignorance. It is only notable for two things: a rail junction and the fact that the Russians recently decided to pull back from it while inflicting horrific losses on the attacking Ukrainians. As far as battlefield losses, the 10:1 ratio (10 dead Ukrainians for every dead Russian) seems to be holding steady.

Given that Russia’s population is 4 times larger and that Russia makes all of its own weapons while the Ukraine is forced to rely on the kindness of strangers, Russian victory on the battlefield is entirely assured. Krasny Liman and its majestic railway station will be retaken in due course, because it now happens to be on Russian territory, but there is no reason to rush. What’s happening now in Novorossiya (what the region was called when it was first settled by Russians, displacing wandering nomadic remnants of Genghis Khan’s empire) is an anti-terrorist operation, the Ukrainians and their Western supporters being the terrorists. The Russian troops are slowly grinding their way to victory, defined as liberating Novorossiya from the Ukrainian forces and foreign mercenaries, which are, since no war has ever been officially declared, illegal combatants—i.e., terrorists.

In case you wish to challenge these definitions, let’s add some perfectly boring legal facts. Novorossiya (currently including Donesk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye, and eventually to include, at a minimum, Nikolaev, Odessa, Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk) recently voted in a referendum on whether to join the Russian Federation. The numbers were overwhelmingly in favor.

A referendum is a legal instrument of direct democracy by which a people make their sovereign will known to the world, enshrined in Article 1 of the UN Charter as: “the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” This is international law; there is also a lot of he-said-she-said: the regime in Kiev claims that these regions are separatists; the would-be separatists rejoin that the Kiev regime is itself illegal, having been installed by Americans in an unconstitutional, violent coup d’état in 2014. But as far as Moscow is concerned Novorossiya is part of Russia because its people have so chosen while the Ukrainians and various mercenaries on its territory are terrorists to be exterminated or expelled.

You may wonder why such legalities are important here, given that shells are exploding and people are dying, and you may feel compelled to run around with your hair on fire in a futile attempt to make them stop. Well, good luck with that, but to the Russians questions of legality in international relations are of paramount importance.

Some 85% of the world’s population that is not part of the collective West sees Russia as a valuable deterrent against predatory, neo-colonialist Western practices (with its “rules-based international order” where nobody has ever seen, never mind ratified, this imaginary compendium of rules). Russia is eager to position itself as a trustworthy partner acting within a mutually acceptable legal framework. The success of international organizations such as SCO and BRICS, which many nations wish to join, testifies to the effectiveness of this approach. In contrast, the US is seen as an increasingly rudderless, internally conflicted renegade nation and the EU as a gaggle of its feckless minions.

These preliminaries out of the way, let us now consider the nature of “Putin’s nuclear threat.” The brilliant idea for concocting this false narrative came from Putin himself who, during his speech on the occasion of accepting Novorossiya into the Russian Federation, said this:

Translation: “I wish to remind those who allow themselves to make such statements in relation to Russia that our country also possesses various offensive weapons, certain components of which are more modern than those of NATO countries. And in case of threats to the territorial integrity of our country, for the defense of Russia and of our people, we will most definitely make use of all means in our possession.”

Putin did not explicitly mention nuclear weapons, although he did warn against nuclear blackmail and said, ominously, that “the wind rose can point in any direction,” implying that nuclear fallout can spread anywhere the wind blows.

And this was enough to send Western mass media into high dudgeon, causing it to hyperventilate continuously while spewing out an endless stream of verbiage on “Putin’s nuclear threat.” But it’s not a threat—it’s a promise, and for details one should look to Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine which spells out the exact conditions under which Russia’s nuclear deterrent will be employed: no first use, and to be used only in response to an existential threat. The temporary tactical retreat from Krasny Liman with its lovely railroad station is not an existential threat by any stretch of the imagination; that, plus the “no first use” stipulation in Russia’s nuclear doctrine, guarantee that Russia will not use a nuclear weapon in response.

If that’s the case, then what are we to read into “Putin’s nuclear threat” beyond an excuse to hyperventilate and rant about Russia-Russia-Russia, to distract from the now $31 trillion US federal debt and other looming disasters? The US has exhibited a pronounced penchant for false flags (9/11, where 3 skyscrapers—WTC 1, 2 and 7—were, if you are gullible, knocked down using 2 Boeings) and an equally pronounced penchant for using nuclear explosives for political ends (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and then Fukushima, where a nuclear depth charge was used to trigger a tsunami that all but shut down Japan’s nuclear power industry). Perhaps the plan is to combine the two ingredients by nuking Kiev and then attempting to pin the blame on Russia. Given that the US just blew up Nord Stream pipelines with barely a reprimand, why wouldn’t it just keep its terrorist strikes coming?

By Caitlin Tilley

Daily Mail

• The US Government makes its first purchase of Nplate for ‘nuclear emergencies’
• The drug treats radiation sickness by stopping life-threatening bleeding
• Putin’s nuclear warning did not spur the purchase, the Government said

The US has stocked up on radiation sickness drugs just weeks after Vladimir Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons against the West.

Officials said the deal — worth $290million — was ‘part of ongoing work’ and ‘has not been accelerated’ by the Kremlin leader’s escalating rhetoric.

The US Health and Human Services (HHS) – whose motto is to ‘improve the health, safety, and well-being of America – announced the purchase of romiplostim Tuesday.

Sold under the brand name Nplate, it is used to reduce bleeding caused by acute radiation syndrome (ARS), also known as radiation sickness.

Putin issued a chilling warning late last month that he was prepared to use Russia’s nuclear arsenal to protect Ukrainian territory annexed after sham referendums.

But the US Health and Human Services (HHS) said the drug order was ‘part of ongoing work’ and ‘has not been accelerated’ by Putin’s warning.

However, the timing will likely raise questions given that this is the first time the US Government has bought Nplate.

It is unclear how many doses the order covers, but the drug normally fetches between $1,000 and $2,500 per dose.

Radiation sickness occurs when a person’s whole body is exposed to a high dose of penetrating radiation, which reaches internal organs in seconds.

It can leave people with low platelet counts, causing impaired blood clotting and leading to ‘uncontrolled and life-threatening bleeding’.

Nplate – made by California pharmaceutical company Amgen – stems bleeding by stimulating the body’s production of platelets, and can be used in both adults and children.

It can also be used to treat patients with immune thrombocytopenia, a blood condition causing low platelet counts.

The HHS said the buying of the drug was due to its ‘long-standing, ongoing efforts to be better prepared to save lives following radiological and nuclear emergencies’ and not a response to Russia’s president.

‘This is part of our ongoing work for preparedness and radiological security. It has not been accelerated by the situation in Ukraine,’ it added in a statement.

The US has kept a supply of Leukine, another drug which treats ARS, since 2013, in case of a nuclear event.

As well as Leukine and Nplate, two other drugs are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat acute radiation exposure – Amgen’s Neupogen and Neulasta.

Nplate is approved for use in Europe and the UK to treat immune thrombocytopenia, but not injuries resulting from radiation exposure.

[…]

Via https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11286835/US-buys-290m-worth-radiation-sickness-drugs-amid-Russias-nuclear-threat.html