The Raw Story

Sunday, 25 January 2015

Study finds: "Very Strong" correlation between GMOs and two dozen diseases

It's no secret that we are living in a time where chronic disease continues to rise at an exponential rate, especially within the past couple of decades. New evidence continues to mount suggesting that Genetically Modified Organisms (more specifically GM food) might have played, and do play a key role in those statistics.

A new study recently published in the last September examined US government databases, researchers searched for GE (Genetically Engineered) crop data, glyphosate application data, and disease epidemiological data while performing a "correlation analysis" on a total of 22 different diseases.

Researchers reached an alarming conclusion:

"These data show very strong and highly significant correlations between the increasing use of glyphosate, GE crop growth and the increase in a multitude of diseases. Many of the graphs show sudden increases in the rates of diseases in the mid-1990s that coincide with the commercial production of GE crops. The probabilities in the graphs and tables show that it is highly unlikely that the correlations are a coincidence. The strength of the correlations shows that there is a very strong probability that they are linked somehow." (1)

If you're thinking you are right, but it's important to consider taking into account the multitude of studies that clearly indicate the potential dangers associated with ingesting genetically modified foods. There is a lot of information out there, and our lack of support for GE foods comes from examining a multitude of information instead of just "a study." It's always important to look at a wide variety of data and evidence when trying to make the best possible decisions for you and your family when it comes to GE foods. The science suggesting that they should not be deemed completely safe for consumption is quite large, and goes beyond the correlation analysis that was performed in this study.

If you take glyphosate, for example, it was introduced in 1974 and its use is accelerating at an alarming rate. Over the decades, strong scientific evidence has shown how glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system and the balance of gut bacteria, that it damages DNA and encourages cell mutations that can lead to cancer . It's also been linked to autism, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and various other detrimental human health ailments. This fact alone gives more credence to the main study mentioned in this article.

The actual study contains more information and visuals for anybody who reads it, you can access it within the sources.

With all of the information and science that's now been published, more specifically with regards to glyphosate, it's absolutely absurd, dangerous and irresponsible for any biotech corporation who manufactures these substances to tell the world that they are completely safe and harmless, yet they do. Don't you think? How could a corporation like Monsanto (a corporation charged with regulating our global food supply) claim that glyphosate is safe despite all of the evidence that confirms that it's not?

"It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides... Despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions."

- R. Mesnage et al., Biomed Research International, Volume 2014 (2014) article ID 179691

Keep in mind that the use of glyphosate rose 1500% from 1995 to 2005, and that 100 million pounds of glyphosate is used every year on more than a billion acres. (Cherry B. GM crops increase herbicide use in the United States. Science in Society 45, 44-46, 2010)(source)

Source

1. organic-systems.org/ [PDF]

Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.

If you believe the official pronouncements of top governmental health agencies like the CDC and FDA, all the vaccines in the present day schedule are safe and effective.

Not only are you told that they can't harm you, but that can kill you.

Parents are under even more pressure. They are told that refraining from vaccinating their infants or children will greatly increase their risk of dying or being disabled. Worse, they are increasingly labeled as 'crazy' and 'irresponsible' anti-vaccine zealots who are putting the lives of others in danger.

But what happens when the actual evidence from the scientific and clinical literature produced by these very agencies contradicts their own vaccine policies?

This is exactly what has happened with the publication of a new study in the titled ,"Adverse Events following Haemophilus influenzae Type b Vaccines in the Vaccine Adverse Event ReportingSystem, 1990-2013 ," wherein CDC and FDA researchers identify 749 deaths linked to the administration of the Hib vaccine, 51% of which were sudden infant death linked to the administration of Hib vaccine.

The CDC has boldly denied that there is any evidence supporting a causal link between vaccines and infant death, despite the fact that their own webpage on the topic acknowledges that "From 2 to 4 months old, babies begin their primary course of vaccinations. This is also the peak age for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)." Written off as coincidence, the CDC suggests that stomach sleeping is the primary modifiable risk factor.

Because SIDS is the 3rd leading cause of death in infants, and because the U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world , one would think that more progress would have been made toward understanding its causes. Perhaps, as explored in this past article , the signal of harm is being ignored. Neglect and suppression of available data has recently been exposed with the confession of a top CDC vaccine scientist who was compelled to covered up data revealing an autism-MMR link in African-American boys .

In the new study, the CDC and FDA researchers themselves acknowledge "the scarcity" of postlicensure safety data on HiB vaccines in today's vaccination schedule. They evaluated reports involving the currently licensed Hib vaccines received from January 1, 1990, through December 1, 2013 available on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Presently, the CDC recommends 4 doses of the HiB vaccine at the following ages: 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months through 15 months.

The HiB vaccine is described on the CDC website as "very safe" and "effective" at preventing HiB disease, which it states can be deadly. They list "most common side effects as usually mild and last 2 or 3 days," including "redness, swelling, and warmth where the child got the shot" and "fever". Nowhere is there listed death or disability as a possible side effect.

In stark contrast to these statements the study uncovered the following highly concerning results:

VAERS received 29,747 reports after Hib vaccines; 5179 (17%) were serious, including 896 reports of deaths. Median age was 6 months (range 0-10.22 months). Sudden infant death syndrome was the stated cause of death in 384 (51%) of 749 death reports with autopsy/death certificate records. The most common nondeath serious AE categories were neurologic (80; 37%), other noninfectious (46; 22%) (comprising mainly constitutional signs and symptoms); and gastrointestinal (39; 18%) conditions. No new safety concerns were identified after clinical review of reports of AEs that exceeded the data mining statistical threshold.Consider also that VAERS is a passive surveillance system, which suffers from profound underreporting. According to the VAERS site's own disclaimer :

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report.

According to Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccination Information Center , underreporting may result in overlooking 99% or higher of all vaccine associated injuries:

"Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler estimated in a 1993 article in the Journal of the that fewer than 1 percent of all doctors report injuries and deaths following the administration of prescription drugs. This estimate may be even lower for vaccines. In one survey that our organization conducted in New York in 1994, only 1 doctor in 40 reported to VAERS."

Considering the influence of underreporting, these deaths represent only the tip of the iceberg of vaccine-induced infant morbidity and mortality caused by HiB vaccines. The study also mentioned an earlier analysis which found that infant death is the most common cause of death reported by all vaccine linked reports on VAERS, "accounting for almost one-half of all deaths reported."

Obviously, this is an appalling study. The death of even 1 child for a potentially ineffective medical intervention designed to prevent a rarely fatal illness is a tragedy. Nor can any single vaccine be proven to have prevented any single case of disease because the clinical outcome (end point) is a non-event. This is not the case, however, for vaccine side effects which can be linked directly to the vaccination event with plausible scientific mechanisms.

What is perhaps most astounding is the researcher's conclusion:

"Review of VAERS reports did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns for Hib vaccines."

This callous disregard for the evidence -- evidence that clearly shows the CDC misrepresents the safety of the HiB vaccine -- speaks to the blind investment in vaccine policy decisions over human wellbeing. Millions of parents have listened to the CDC and FDA and believed that these vaccines not only work but are safe. Informed consent requires those undergoing a quasi-mandatory medical intervention like vaccination to know the true risks associated with it. Failing to do so is clearly a violation of this medical ethical protection against being abused, and in some cases disabled and even killed.

The following article appeared briefly at this URL on censor.net.ua and was quickly pulled down. Ironic? It would seem so. My translation. I bring it to you because it succinctly lays out the situation as I've been able to piece it together from multiple Russian- and Ukrainian-language sources, and because you are unlikely to come across anything this truthful from cough Western media cough.

"Panic in Kiev: Ukrainian forces surrender Donbass"

International observers report of growing panic in Kiev in connection with the successful counteroffensive of the separatists near Donbass.

Over a week of fighting the partisans have delivered a heavy blow to the Ukrainian forces. The group of Ukrainian fighters in Donbas suffered huge losses, the soldiers are demoralized, the officers are confused and unable to control the situation.

Ukrainian military leadership is seriously concerned of a new encirclement near Debaltsevo, as well as in other areas.

The situation is made worse by the fact that army and national guard reserves are almost completely depleted, and plugging the gaps in defense using small formations cannot stabilize the front. Besides, the Ukrainian forces are running low on ordnance, food and medical supplies.

In turn, the partisan field commanders report 752 killed Ukrainian military personnel, 59 destroyed tanks and a large number of people taken prisoner. In view of their combat successes, the partisans are refusing to take part in any further negotiations in the format of the Minsk agreements and threaten to continue the counterattack.

Local authorities in Ukrainian-controlled districts near the front report that Ukrainian soldiers are deserting with their weapons and taking to looting the countryside in increasing numbers.

In this critical situation the military is afraid to report to president Poroshenko the real situation in the southeast of the country, hiding from him the full scale of the catastrophe.

The head of state is still convinced that the situation is under control, and hopes that in case of a real threat he will still have the chance to ask the West for help.

And then there is this video evidence: American "boots on the ground" have invaded Eastern Ukraine. How do you say "Get out of my face, please!" in Ukrainian? I guess the grunts aren't taught that in Basic Training... are they too busy learning how to shell civilians and then blame the other side?

Comment: It looks like Kiev's fears have come true. Zakharchenko has announced an offensive on Ukrainian-occupied Mariupol:

I want to say the following: Today began an offensive on Mariupol [the crowd cheers], God willing in a couple of days Debaltsevo cauldron will be closed. And it will be the best answer to honor the memory of the dead. Because we will pay back everyone, we will pay those who pulled the trigger or pushed the button which launched the missiles that killed our countrymen here. Those who shot people in Gorlovka, Makeevka, Yenakievo, Shakhtersk, Zhdanovka, Kirovka. Will pay back for each of our murdered child, and each old man innocently killed here.

Now, the DPR and LPR armies have joined up and successfully encircled Ukrainian troops in Debaltsevo: that's 7,500 Ukrainians troops trapped.

The Unbearable rudeness of "Bibi" Netanyahu

With the front page of the paper being occupied by so-called Deflate-gate, Congress was quick to reclaim its rightful place with its own mini-tempest over House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin ("Bibi") Netanyahu to speak before a Joint Meeting of Congress without prior notice to and/or approval from the Obama administration.

The issue of a foreign head of state addressing a joint meeting of Congress is not in itself a huge deal. This would be the 115th time it occurred and would be Netanyahu's third appearance before the body.

What is a big deal, however, is that Prime Minister Netanyahu actively sought, and Speaker Boehner extended, the invitation entirely behind the administration's back to permit Netanyahu to advocate harsher sanctions against Iran that the administration (and even Mossad) opposes while a final resolution with Iran is being negotiated.

Even worse, the date selected (March 3) is only two weeks before Israel's election, so the administration will not be able to meet with Netanyahu due to longstanding policy of not meeting with foreign leaders too close to their election so as not to be seen as interfering.

As an administration official explained privately, "[t]there are things you simply don't do. He spat in our face publicly and that's no way to behave." Welcome to the .

When American Presidents speak of Israel, it is often expressing sentiments similar to President Clinton's when he said, "America and Israel share a special bond. Our relations are unique among all nations."

When Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks of the United States, however, it is to say that "American policy in the Middle East is based on lies and distortions " or to boast that America is easily manipulated and moved "in the right direction [so] they won't get in the way." He has also bragged about double-crossing President Clinton by reluctantly agreeing to adhere the Oslo accords but then taking measures to render it meaningless.

Secretary of State James Baker temporarily banned then-Deputy Foreign Minister Netanyahu from the State Department for his "lies and distortions comments," while Netanyahu's manipulation comments only prove President Clinton's initial impression after meeting with the new Prime Minister in which he said "[h]e thinks he is the superpower, and we are here to do whatever he requires." (Further supporting Clinton's assessment was the recent statement of one of Netanyahu's cabinet members who told the U.S. ambassador that Israel expects "unconditional" support "even when you think we're wrong.")

Time and time again, Netanyahu has shown little respect for American presidents, institutions or interests despite the fact that we provide Israel with over $3 billion in aid annually, use our diplomatic capital to block anti-Israeli measures at the United Nations and have had to endure a devastating oil embargo and terrorist attacks at home and abroad because of our support for Israel.

In 2010, Netanyahu announced the expansion of new settlements in occupied East Jerusalem on the same day that Vice President Joe Biden arrived to restart the peace process (ignoring the U.S.' request to to implement a settlement freeze as part of the resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians). Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the announcement as an insult, while Vice President Biden privately scolded Netanyahu that he was "undermin[ing] the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Netanyahu has lectured the President in front of the White House press corps and compared the administration's refusal to set a firm deadline for Iran to act on its nuclear program or face military action to the Roosevelt's administration rejecting calls from Jewish leaders to bomb Auschwitz.

He also has shown little reluctance about meddling in American politics. In 1998, when President Clinton was pushing Netanyahu to fulfill Israel's obligations under the Oslo accords, Netanyahu made a point of starting his U.S. tour by meeting with House Speaker Newt Gingrich and appearing at a political rally with Rev. Jerry Falwell (who at the time was selling a videotape called "The Clinton Chronicles,'' which accused the President of having been a narcotics dealer and user and involved in the death of Vincent Foster).

In 2012, Netanyahu was criticized in both Israel and the U.S. for actively supporting Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Romney and Netanyahu shared political consultants and Netanyahu's attempts to escalate the situation in Iran during the fall campaign were quickly translated into Romney attack ads in the final days of the campaign.

Less than a month before the 2014 midterm elections, Netanyahu appeared on CBS' and charged that he was "baffled" by President Obama's opposition to expansion of settlements in the Occupied Territories, a position he said was "against American values." , Israel's leading English newspaper, called the comments a "stink bomb" and condemned Netanyahu for playing the partisan during our election season when he "slammed the president as if he was a Tea Party brawler rather than the leader of a country with a 'special relationship' with America."

Netanyahu's comments also were a flat out lie, since every President since the 1967 War, from President Johnson to President Obama, has expressed opposition to expansion of the settlements in the Occupied Territories.

Netanyahu latest stunt seeks to fuel claims that President Obama is not "pro-Israel," an astounding charge since former Defense Secretary Gates, who served under three Republican Presidents and Obama once reminded Netanyahu that "no U.S. administration had done more, in concrete ways, for Israel's strategic defense than Obama's" (a view shared by former Prime Ministers Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak).

For Netanyahu to disrespect the United States just after Secretary of State Kerry had called nearly 50 head of state to head off action against Israel at the United Nations is astounding. Waterboys are treated with more respect than that.

Maybe the better question is whether Netanyahu is a friend of the United States? In words and deed he clearly is not. As an American, I am deeply offended that a nation that we have given so much to and sacrificed for would show such a total lack of respect to our President. I am also appalled that so-called "loyal opposition" leaders were complicit in this scheme. Sadly, Republicans seem elated to see a foreign leader spit in the face of the United States (so much for "politics ending at the water's edge").

Israelis also are outraged since Netanyahu is alienating Israel's most important ally to salvage his reelection chances. As one Israeli columnist noted, the relationship between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States is "the greatest strategic asset that Israel has had since its establishment" and Netanyahu has "irresponsibly" "destroyed" that relationship.

Israeli voters may have the final say on this issue, since with Netanyahu running behind in the polls, they may send Bibi to a well-deserved retirement.

He will not be missed.

Woman, visiting family member in jail, held against her will, forced to strip for prison guards

Nashville, TN - A lawsuit filed on Thursday against Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison management company in the US, alleges that a visitor at a South Central Correctional Facility in Clifton, Tennessee, was forced to expose her genitalia to prison guards to prove that she was menstruating after she attempted to bring a sanitary napkin into a visit.

On April 20, 2014, the plaintiff was making her way through a second security screening point when guard spotted the feminine hygiene product partially exposed in her pocket. The woman was told she would have to get a "CCA-approved" pad instead. An annoying, but not terribly unreasonable requirement.

At this point, however, the male guard, along with another male guard standing beside him, told her, "But I'll have to make sure you are - I'll have to make sure you are actually - "

The male guards called over a female guard at the point, who upon arrival, asked what was going on. Jane Doe responded that she was on her period, to which the female guard sarcastically responded with "oh, great," before walking into a restroom.

According to the lawsuit, once inside the restroom, the plaintiff asked the guards what they wanted her to do, to which another female guard responded "show me."

The female guard stood infront of Jane Doe at this point, as the first female guard stood by the bathroom door and the two male guards waited outside the door.

The plaintiff then asked again, what the guard wanted to do, to which the guard responded with, "What do you think? Show me!"

Jane Doe then exposed her pelvic area and the guard squatted down so she was eye level with the woman's vaginal area. Once the guard was satisfied that the woman was in fact on her period she was finally permitted to exit the bathroom and go have her visit.

According to the lawsuit, the woman who has chosen to be identified only as "Jane Doe," due to the embarrassing nature of the incident, offered to leave the prison and was not permitted to. She also claims to have offered to leave the pad behind and end her visit early if she needed to change it, urinate in the toilet without flushing and show them her menstrual blood in the bowl, or show guards her used menstrual pad- and all of these reasonable compromises were denied.

Instead, she was sent into a bathroom stall where she was forced to drop her pants and underwear to allow a female guard to examine her vagina in violation of her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches.

The woman says she called and spoke with the head of security at the prison the day after her visit, concerned about being subjected to another degrading search if she returned for another visit during that time of the month, and was told that strip searches of menstruating visitors were standard policy there.

"Plaintiff should not be forced to make the intolerable choice between abstaining from visiting an inmate in prison because she is on her period and visiting the prison with the risk of being subjected to another humiliating and degrading search of her exposed genitalia. The on-going constitutional violation and strong likely hood of future constitutional violations constitutes irreparable injury," the lawsuit states.

Jane Doe is suing for assault, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and more. She is not only asking for damages, but for the court to order the prison to stop unconstitutional strip and body cavity searches.

The Fourth Amendment provides us a right against unreasonable searches. This means there must be reasonable suspicion before the state can humiliate and degrade you with a body cavity search. Not wanting to bleed all over your clothing and therefore carrying personal hygiene products does not provide reasonable suspicion.

Read the full 29 page complaint here.

© Unknown

Sick and twisted cop, Warren Luke, was cleared of any wrong-doing after brutally assaulting a mother in a hospital.

A police officer who admitted to kicking and beating the mother of a sick child has just been cleared. The woman suffered over 40 injuries, but Officer Warren Luke, 38, has been cleared of causing her actual bodily harm.

Luke, a Metropolitan police officer in the United Kingdom, said that he had the right to attack the woman because hospital staff told him she would not leave the lobby when asked. Thursday, a jury in the Wood Green crown court cleared Officer Luke of committing any crime whatsoever.

The mother has not been named for legal reasons. What we do know was that she had been caring for her seven-year-old daughter. The young girl suffers from cerebral palsy, and was taken to the hospital for an incident related to this, back in December of 2013. The hospital had told the mother that she had to leave the hospital and an argument ensued. Officer Luke was one of four officers who came to "resolve" the incident, but he was the only one who chose to use violence to do so.

A security camera video was played for the jury. The video documents the cop saying to the mother: "'You've got to leave, you've got to leave'," the woman explained. "I kept playing with my daughter and then I saw him moving towards me. He was kicking me and kicking me. He had one hand on my head. When I fell on the bed he grabbed my hair and banged my head. I was screaming. I couldn't defend myself. My ex-husband ran in and shouted, 'why are you kicking my wife?'"

Officer Luke has been a police officer for over six years. He told the court that the woman's behavior was "escalating" the situation. He claims that he had to assault her, because the child's "safety" was at risk.

He admits to punching the mother repeatedly on her left bicep. He then admits that he struck her in different places. This, he said, was part of a continually evolving approach - throwing a "distraction strike" on the left side of her face, using his foot. He was wearing heavy combat style boots at the time.

"I did kick out at the left side of her face as trained to do. My footwear was a boot but it's light."

When he was asked how he caused the woman so many injuries if he was indeed trying to deescalate the situation, he replied: "I can't say exactly where and how her injuries were sustained, I can only say what I did."

The Guardian UK was told that the woman needed plastic surgery after the assault, and has been unable to work ever since.

The officer explains that when his punches didn't seem to have the desired effect, he decided to attack the woman with more fury and strength.

"I wouldn't say that I used full force but I do remember hitting harder because it had no effect. I used police tactics with good reason that were absolutely necessary. I didn't go too far. Whenever a police officer uses force you need to be accountable for it."

Security officers who witnessed the incident said they were appalled by the officer's action. Two police officers also testified against Officer Luke. Officer Mary Clark described the attack as "just horrific".

Still, Officer Luke was cleared of all wrong-doing.

This may turn out to be a critical day in the evolution of the Ukrainian conflict.

1. The Russian Security Council met today. We do not (obviously) have a full account but Putin's website has provided some details.

Strikingly, Putin referred to the junta as "official Kiev" and not "the Ukrainian government" or "the Ukrainian side". He also referred to the two east Ukrainian republics as "the Donetsk People's Republic" and "the Lugansk People's Republic".

This is the closest Putin has yet come to since Poroshenko's election in implying that the junta is not the legitimate authority in the Donbass and that the two NAF republics are.

2. Putin also pointedly referred to "criminal orders" coming from "official Kiev".

3. Putin has also had a telephone conversation with Lukashenko, who is a key partner in relation to the Ukrainian conflict. Again we have scarcely any information about what was discussed but Putin will have wanted to ensure that Lukashenko remains on board. I expect a phone call to Nazarbayev shortly.

4. We now know from comments made by Shuvalov at Davos that Beijing is being consulted all the time. The key point about what happened at Davos is that Shuvalov made it absolutely clear that Russia will not submit to sanctions and Kostin of VTB gave a very clear warning against any attempts to exclude Russian banks from the SWIFT payments system. The has a good summary of the comments Shuvalov and Kostin made and I attach it below.

5. The Russian Justice Ministry meanwhile has formally banned a number of Ukrainian organisations including Right Sector. Some of us are surprised that they had not been banned already. (ITAR-TASS)

6. Zakharchenko has said that the Minsk Memorandum no longer applies. This is not the same document as the Minsk Protocol, which was the original ceasefire agreement that was agreed on 5th September 2014. Rather, it is the technical follow-up document that purported to set out the ceasefire line and which provided for the withdrawal of heavy weapons, which was agreed on 19th September 2014. Neither the Minsk Protocol nor the Minsk Memorandum have ever been implemented. By saying the Minsk Memorandum no longer applies Zakharchenko has freed the NAF to pursue offensive operations, which is currently what it is doing.

7. Lastly, Zakharchenko has also again been saying that the DPR's/LPR's decision to secede from the Ukraine is final.

Now it may be that all these discussions and conversations and comments are uncoordinated and do not in total amount to anything. Perhaps there has been no change in Russian policy. However they do look like a hardening of position and perhaps give clues that the Russians have at least for the moment given up hope of the diplomatic approach. They also suggest a preparation for a battening down of the hatches in case another round of sanctions is on the way.

----------------------------------------------------------------

From the :

One of Russia's top bankers on Friday warned that excluding the country from the Swift banking payment system would be tantamount to "war".

The suggestion that Russia could be shut out of Swift triggered widespread alarm in Moscow's financial community when it was floated by western politicians last summer. Russia's banks rely heavily on the Belgium-based payments system for both domestic and international payments. However, the move was at the time considered too punitive a sanction, being described by one adviser as "the nuclear option".

Speaking at a panel in Davos on Friday Andrei Kostin, chief executive of VTB, Russia's second-largest bank, said: "If there is no Swift, there is no banking . . . relationship, it means that the countries are on the verge of war, or they are definitely in a cold war."

"The next day, the Russian and American ambassadors would have to leave the capitals," he added.

Mr Kostin's comments highlight how the west's sanctions regime is creating a sense of anger and defiance among the Russian political and business elite.

"The more you press Russia, I do not think the situation will change," he said, pointing out that the country was moving to reduce its reliance on western payment systems such as Swift.

"We have already created a domestic alternative to the Swift system . . . and we need to create alternatives internationally."

He drew attention to efforts under way between Russia and China to create a separate platform of their own, outside western control.

Igor Shuvalov, Russia's deputy prime minister, echoed this theme. "We are developing our eastern vector," Mr Shuvalov declared, pointing out that although efforts to build links with China had been under way before the crisis, they had dramatically intensified since sanctions started, as Russia looked for alternatives to the west.

Mr Shuvalov said that the so-called Bric countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) were ready to help each other in a financial crisis too. "Large Chinese investors are coming to us," he said.

The "pivot to Asia" has become a key part of Vladimir Putin's foreign policy since the breakdown in relations with the west over Ukraine. While several flagship deals have been signed, such as the $400bn contract to supply Russian gas to China for 30 years last May, few Russian policy makers or businesspeople believe China can save the Russian economy from a painful recession.

"The present situation looks like it is softer than [the 2008-09 financial crisis] but we are going into a long crisis situation and it may be protracted," Mr Shuvalov said.

But he added that foreign pressure would not succeed in changing the political leadership of the country.

"We will survive any hardship in the country - eat less food, use less electricity," he said.

Alexei Kudrin, the respected former finance minister, predicted Russia could see capital outflows of $90bn this year after a record $151bn in 2014. "We should clearly understand the price we are paying for sanctions," he said.

The Raw Story

Focused on providing independent journalism.

Kiev orders crackdown on Russian TV channels

What I did after police killed my son

Emerging solar plants scorch birds in mid-air

Sunday, 25 January 2015

Study finds: "Very Strong" correlation between GMOs and two dozen diseases

CDC's own data: Vaccine-infant death link

Panic in Kiev?

The Unbearable rudeness of "Bibi" Netanyahu

Woman, visiting family member in jail, held against her will, forced to strip for prison guards

Cops in the UK just as crazy as the US: System protects cop who assaulted mother of sick child

A key day in the Ukrainian conflict?

Search

Recent Posts

Popular