Global Research Editor’s Note

“The flu season is upon us. Which type will we worry about this year, and what kind of shots will we be told to take? Remember the swine flu scare of 1976? That was the year the U.S. government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer that could spread across the nation, and Washington decided that every man, woman and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nation-wide outbreak, a pandemic.

Well 46 million of us obediently took the shot, and now 4,000 Americans are claiming damages from Uncle Sam amounting to three and a half billion dollars because of what happened when they took that shot. By far the greatest number of the claims – two thirds of them are for neurological damage, or even death, allegedly triggered by the flu shot. (CBS, 60 MINUTES, 1979)

This 1979 CBS 60 Minutes was shown only once. TO VIEW CLICK HERE

The WHO and the US adminstration in alliance with Big Pharma are involved in a major propaganda campaign to implement compulsory vaccination.

There is no more “honest reporting” by mainstream TV as in this 1979 CBS TV program. Today, with some exceptions, network TV in America is complicit with the government’s disinformation campaign.

Michel Chossudovsky, July 18, 2009

Swine Flu Vaccine

Below is the full transcript of the 1979 broadcast from the CBS investigative news program 60 Minutes on government propaganda around the 1976 swine flu scare.The program was aired on Sunday, November 4, 1979. Only one person was killed by the actual flu, while hundreds filed claims of death of their loved ones from the massive vaccine campaign which was mounted. Key sections are highlighted in bold. To watch this video clip online, click here. For more reliable reasons not to trust the government when it tells you to take a vaccine, click here and here.

Swine Flu 1976

MIKE WALLACE: The flu season is upon us. Which type will we worry about this year, and what kind of shots will we be told to take? Remember the swine flu scare of 1976? That was the year the U.S. government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer that could spread across the nation, and Washington decided that every man, woman and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nation-wide outbreak, a pandemic.

Well 46 million of us obediently took the shot, and now 4,000 Americans are claiming damages from Uncle Sam amounting to three and a half billion dollars because of what happened when they took that shot. By far the greatest number of the claims – two thirds of them are for neurological damage, or even death, allegedly triggered by the flu shot.

We pick up the story back in 1976, when the threat posed by the swine flu virus seemed very real indeed.

PRESIDENT GERALD FORD; This virus was the cause of a pandemic in 1918 and 1919 that resulted in over half a million deaths in the United States, as well as 20 million deaths around the world.

WALLACE: Thus the U.S. government’s publicity machine was cranked into action to urge all America to protect itself against the swine flu menace. (Excerpt from TV commercial urging everyone to get a swine flu shot.) One of those who did roll up her sleeve was Judy Roberts. She was perfectly healthy, an active woman, when, in November of 1976, she took her shot. Two weeks later, she says, she began to feel a numbness starting up her legs.

JUDY ROBERTS: And I joked about it at that time. I said I’ll be numb to the knees by Friday if this keeps up. By the following week, I was totally paralyzed.

WALLACE: So completely paralyzed, in fact, that they had to operate on her to enable her to breathe. And for six months, Judy Roberts was a quadriplegic. The diagnosis: A neurological disorder called “Guillain-Barre Syndrome” – GBS for short. These neurological diseases are little understood. They affect people in different ways.

As you can see in these home movies taken by a friend, Judy Roberts’ paralysis confined her mostly to a wheelchair for over a year. But this disease can even kill. Indeed, there are 300 claims now pending from the families of GBS victims who died, allegedly as a result of the swine flu shot. In other GBS victims, the crippling effects diminish and all but disappear. But for Judy Roberts, progress back to good health has been painful and partial.

Now, I notice that your smile, Judy, is a little bit constricted.

ROBERTS: Yes, it is.

WALLACE: Is it different from what it used to be?

ROBERTS: Very different, I have a – a greatly decreased mobility in my lips. And I can’t drink through a straw on the right-band side. I can’t blow out birthday candles. I don’t whistle any more, for which my husband is grateful.

WALLACE: It may be a little difficult for you to answer this question, but have you recovered as much as you are going to recover?

ROBERTS: Yes. This – this is it.

WALLACE: So you will now have a legacy of braces on your legs for the rest of your life?

ROBERTS: Yes. The weakness in my hands will stay and the leg braces will stay.

WALLACE: So Judy Roberts and her husband have filed a claim against the U.S. government. They’re asking $12 million, though they don’t expect to get nearly that much. Judy, why did you take the flu shot?

ROBERTS: I’d never taken any other flu shots, but I felt like this was going to be a major epidemic, and the only way to prevent a major epidemic of a – a really deadly variety of flu was for every body to be immunized.

WALLACE: Where did this so called “deadly variety of flu”, where did it first hit back in 1976? It began right here at Fort Dix in New Jersey in January of that year, when a number of recruits began to complain of respiratory ailments, something like the common cold. An Army doctor here sent samples of their throat cultures to the New Jersey Public Health Lab to find our just what kind of bug was going around here. One of those samples was from a Private David Lewis, who had left his sick bed to go on a forced march. Private Lewis had collapsed on that march, and his sergeant had revived him by mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. But the sergeant showed no signs of illness. A few days later, Private Lewis died.

ROBERTS: If this disease is so potentially fatal that it’s going to kill a young, healthy man, a middle-aged schoolteacher doesn’t have a prayer.

WALLACE: The New Jersey lab identified most of those solders’ throat cultures as the normal kind of flu virus going around that year, but they could not make out what kind of virus was in the culture from the dead soldier, and from four others who were sick. So they sent those cultures to the Federal Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, for further study. A few days later they got the verdict: swine flu. But that much-publicized outbreak of swine flu at Fort Dix involved only Private Lewis, who died, and those four other soldiers, who recovered completely without the swine flu shot.

ROBERTS: If I had known at that time that the boy had been in a sick bed, got up, went out on a forced march and then collapsed and died, I would never have taken the shot.

DR DAVID SENCER: The rationale for our recommendation was not on the basis of the death of a – a single individual, but it was on the basis that when we do see a change in the characteristics of the influenza virus, it is a massive public-health problem in the country.

WALLACE: Dr David Sencer, then head of the CDS – the Center of Disease Control in Atlanta – is now in private industry. He devised the swine flu program and he pushed it.

WALLACE: You began to give flu shots to the American people in October of ’76?

DR SENCER: October 1st.

WALLACE: By that time, how many cases of swine flu around the world had been reported?

DR SENCER: There had been several reported, but none confirmed. There had been cases in Australia that were reported by the press, by the news media. There were cases in -

WALLACE: None confirmed? Did you ever uncover any other outbreaks of swine flu anywhere in the world?

DR SENCER: No

WALLACE: Now, nearly everyone was to receive a shot in a public health facility where a doctor might not be present, therefore it was up to the CDC to come up with some kind of official consent form giving the public all the information it needed about the swine flu shot. This form stated that the swine flu vaccine had been tested. What it didn’t say was that after those tests were completed, the scientists developed another vaccine and that it was the one given to most of the 46 million who took the shot. That vaccine was called “X-53a”. Was X-53a ever field tested?

DR SENCER: I-I can’t say. I would have to -

WALLACE: It wasn’t

DR SENCER: I don’t know

WALLACE: Well, I would think that you’re in charge of the program

DR SENCER: 1 would have to check the records. I haven’t looked at this in some time.

WALLACE: The information form the consent form was also supposed to warn people about any risk of serious complications following the shot. But did it?

ROBERTS: No, I had never heard of any reactions other than a sore arm, fever, this sort of thing.

WALLACE: Judy Roberts’ husband, Gene, also took the shot.

GENE ROBERTS: Yes, I looked at that document, I signed it. Nothing on there said I was going to have a heart attack, or I can get Guillain Barre, which I’d never heard of.

WALLACE: What if people from the government, from the Center for Disease Control, what if they had indeed, known about it, what would be your feeling?

JUDY ROBERTS: They should have told us.

WALLACE: Did anyone ever come to you and say, “You know something, fellows, there’s the possibility of neurological damage if you get into a mass immunization program?”

DR SENCER: No

WALLACE: No one ever did?

DR SENCER: No

WALLACE: Do you know Michael Hattwick?

DR SENCER: Yes, uh-hmm.

WALLACE: Dr Michael Hattwick directed the surveillance team for the swine flu program at the CDC. His job was to find out what possible complications could arise from taking the shot and to report his findings to those in charge. Did you know ahead of time, Dr Hattwick that there had been case reports of neurological disorders, neurological illness, apparently associated with the injection of influenza vaccine?

DR MICHAEL HATTWICK: Absolutely

WALLACE: You did?

DR HATIWICK: Yes

WALLACE: How did you know that?

DR Hattwick: By review of the literature.

WALLACE: So you told your superiors – the men in charge of the swine flu immunization program – about the possibility of neurological disorders?

DR RATTWICK: Absolutely

WALLACE: What would you say if I told you that your superiors say that you never told them about the possibility of neurological complications?

DR HAJTWICK: That’s nonsense. I can’t believe that they would say that they did not know that there were neurological illnesses associated with influenza vaccination. That simply is not true. We did know that.

DR SENCER: I have said that Dr Hattwick had never told me of his feelings on this subject.

WALLACE: Then he’s lying?

DR SENCER: I guess you would have to make that assumption.

WALLACE: Then why does this report from your own agency, dated July 1976, list neurological complications as a possibility?

DR SENCER: I think the consensus of the scientific community was that the evidence relating neurologic disorders to influenza immunization was such that they did not feel that this association was a real one.

WALLACE: You didn’t feel it was necessary to tell the American people that information

DR SENCER: I think that over the – the years we have tried to inform the American people as – as fully as possible.

WALLACE: As part of informing Americans about the swine flu threat, Dr Sencer’s CDC also helped create the advertising to get the public to take the shot. Let me read to your from one of your own agency’s memos planning the campaign to urge Americans to take the shot. “The swine flu vaccine has been taken by many important persons,” he wrote. “Example: President Ford, Henry Kissinger, Elton John, Muhammad Ah, Mary Tyler Moore, Rudolf Nureyev, Walter Cronkite, Ralph Nader, Edward Kennedy” -etcetera, etcetera, True?

DR SENCER: I’m not familiar with that particular piece of paper, but I do know that, at least of that group, President Ford did take the vaccination.

WALLACE: Did you talk to these people beforehand to find out if they planned to take the shot?

DR SENCER: I did not, no.

WALLACE: Did anybody?

DR SENC ER: I do not know.

WALLACE: Did you get permission to use their names in your campaign?

DR SENCER: I do not know.

WALLACE: Mary, did you take a swine flu shot?

MARY TYLER MOORE: No, I did not.

WALLACE: Did you give them permission to use your name saying that you had or were going to?

MOORE: Absolutely not. Never did.

WALLACE: Did you ask your own doctor about taking the swine flu shot?

MOORE: Yes, and at the time he thought it might be a good idea. But I resisted it, because I was leery of having the symptoms that sometimes go with that kind of inoculation.

WALLACE: So you didn’t?

MOORE: No, I didn’t.

WALLACE: Have you spoken to your doctor since?

MOORE: Yes.

WALLACE: And?

MOORE: He’s delighted that I didn’t take that shot.

WALLACE: You’re in charge. Somebody’s in charge.

DR SENCER: There are -

WALLACE: This is your advertising strategy that I have a copy of here.

DR SENCER: Who’s it signed by?

WALLACE: This one is unsigned. But you–you’ll acknowledge that it was your baby so to speak?

DR SENCER: It could have been from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. It could be from CDC. I don’t know. I’ll be happy to take responsibility for it.

WALLACE: It’s been three years now since you fell ill by GBS right?

ROBERTS: Right.

WALLACE: Has the federal government, in your estimation, played fair with you about your claim?

ROBERTS: No, I don’t think so. It seems to be dragging on and on and on, and really no end in sight that I can see at this point.

JOSEPH CALIFANO: With respect to the cases of Guillain Barre…

WALLACE: Former Secretary of HEW Joseph Caifano, too was disturbed that there was no end in sight. So a year and a half ago, he proposed that Uncle Sam would cut the bureaucratic red tape for victims suffering from GBS and would pay up quickly.

CALIFANO: We shouldn’t hold them to an impossible or too difficult standard of proving that they were hurt. Even if we pay a few people a few thousand dollars that might not have deserved it, I think justice requires that we promptly pay those people who do deserve it.

WALLACE: Who’s making the decision to be so hard-nosed about settling?

CALIFANO: Well, I assume the Justice Department is.

WALLACE: Griffin Bell, before he left?

CALIFANO: Well, the Justice Department agreed to the statement I made. It was cleared word for word with the lawyers in the Justice Department by my HEW lawyers.

CALIFANO: That-that statement said that we should pay Guillain Barre claims without regard to whether the federal government was negligent, if they – if they resulted from the swine flu shot.

GENE ROBERTS: I think the government knows its wrong.

JUDY ROBERTS: If it drags out long enough, that people will just give up, let it go.

GENE ROBERTS: I—I am a little more adamant in my thoughts than my wife is, because I asked – told Judy to take the shot. She wasn’t going to take it, and she never had had shots. And I’m mad with my government because they knew the fact, but they didn’t realize those facts because they – if they had released them, the people wouldn’t have taken it. And they can come out tomorrow and tell me there’s going to be an epidemic, and they can drop off like flies to – next to me, I will not take another shot that my government tells me to take.

WALLACE: Meantime, Judy Roberts and some 4,000 others like her are still waiting for their day in court.

TO VIEW CLICK HERE

source.globalResearch

send to API by Catherine Mills

Photo: Mercedes Sayagues/IRIN

“Most women are shy when it comes to things concerning sex”

Women’s voices have gone largely unheard in the debate on male circumcision as an HIV prevention method, but informal discussions with women reveal a range of concerns, preferences and views that researchers and governments would do well to consider before drawing up plans for rolling out a national circumcision programme.

In an unscientific poll, IRIN/PlusNews found a high degree of ambivalence among wives, girlfriends and mothers about the implications of a mass male circumcision campaign.

“It’s going to be an advantage for women who are married to men who are cheating,” said Carol Masombuka, 19, a Sesotho woman from Mpumalanga Province, in South Africa, zeroing in on the fact that even the partial protection circumcision provides could make a difference to women who are powerless to insist on condom use.

Other women were wary of an initiative that could give men one more excuse not to use condoms. “Most women are shy when it comes to things concerning sex – it’s always the man who knows better, so he will decide when we have sex, and if he wants to use a condom he will, and whatever he says goes, so it’s going to suppress women even more,” said Kgaugelo Khuto, 20, a student from South Africa’s Limpopo Province.

“Women should be informed so they do not get fooled by the men, because some girls might get told by the men that because he’s circumcised she can’t be infected,” said Masombuka.

Gloria Mphekgwana, 44, a receptionist and single mother of two, who lives in a Johannesburg township and has watched a number of her relatives succumb to AIDS-related illnesses, was strongly in favour of male circumcision. “Women should fight for this,” she said. “They can refuse to have sex unless their man goes for circumcision.”

The evidence, or lack of it

Studies have found even higher levels of acceptability for male circumcision among women than among men. This is despite the fact that very little is known about how a large-scale male circumcision campaign would affect women.

Three clinical trials have demonstrated that circumcision reduces a man’s chances of contracting HIV by about 60 percent. The expected numbers of male HIV infections averted by a large-scale male circumcision programme would eventually translate into fewer infections in women. There is also evidence that circumcised men are less likely to harbour the human papilloma virus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer – a major killer of women in sub-Saharan Africa.

Women should be informed so they do not get fooled by the men, because some girls might get told by the men that because he’s circumcised, she can’t be infected

However, a set of guidelines issued by the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS in March 2007 makes it clear that we do not know whether male circumcision, specifically, reduces sexual transmission of HIV from men to women.

Preliminary results from a study underway in Uganda suggest that HIV-positive men who resume sex before their circumcision wounds have healed are more likely to infect their female partners. The findings are too small to be conclusive, but they have raised the alarm about the need to inform both sexes about the potential risks and benefits.

One of greatest of those risks is that circumcised men will misunderstand or exaggerate the degree to which they are protected from HIV and stop using condoms; no one knows how real this risk is or to what extent it could be offset by education campaigns and individual counselling.

A route to “better manhood”?

The only experience many African women have of male circumcision is as part of a traditional rite of passage that their sons, brothers and male friends go through if they belong to certain ethnic groups.

Women are not only barred from attending such rituals, men are also “not supposed to talk about it with women – they tell them they can go crazy if they do”, said Masombuka.

Several of the women IRIN/PlusNews spoke to said they could observe a positive change in men who had attended traditional circumcision ‘schools’. “Most of the guys who’ve been through it know how to respect a woman and elders; a person not coming from circumcision school, they’re very rude and they use power,” said Mphekgwana, who is from Limpopo Province, where traditional circumcision is practiced.

According to Masombuka, “They tell them to be faithful to a girl, and to marry that girl, and not to go ‘jolling’ [sleeping] around.”

Rachel Jewkes, who heads the gender and health unit of South Africa’s Medical Research Council, believes that efforts to introduce male circumcision as an HIV intervention should borrow from traditional approaches that view the procedure as part of a “transformative process”.

“If we see it purely as a medical intervention, it’ll be a mistake; it’s a social intervention,” said Jewkes. “I think culture is very flexible and to the extent that circumcision has been associated with manhood, I think that gives it enormous potential for equating it with better manhood.”

By “better manhood” Jewkes means men who are more sexually responsible, and more willing to view women as equals. She sees male circumcision programmes as a valuable opportunity to engage men in discussions about safer sex as well as gender equity.

“The critical thing is that male engagement in HIV prevention must not stop at the surgical knife, but that circumcision programmes must be accompanied by gender-transformative approaches to HIV prevention,” she stressed.

What role for women?

Although public health experts have paid lip service to the idea of involving women in efforts to roll out national male circumcision programmes, details of what form such involvement would take are sketchy.

Some women prefer circumcised men because they last longer

Dr Yassa Piere, a virologist who treats HIV-positive patients at the University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka, Zambia’s capital, believes women could play a role in motivating their male partners to be circumcised.

He pointed to evidence that circumcised men experience slightly less sensation during sexual intercourse, a side effect some women might consider an advantage. The latest research contradicts this, but according to Piere, “some women prefer circumcised men because they last longer.”

The women IRIN/PlusNews spoke to were more likely to cite hygiene as a reason for preferring their sexual partners to be circumcised. “I prefer a guy who’s circumcised, I think it’s safer and cleaner,” said Kgaugelo Khuto, the student from Limpopo. “But I wouldn’t ask him to do it.”

Mothers were much more vocal in support of medical circumcision. Gloria Mphekgwana is under pressure from her ex-husband to send their son to a traditional circumcision school, but she has read media reports about botched procedures and even fatalities, and refuses to send her son to one.

“No one wants her kids to go there now, because they don’t clean their utensils, they’re using only one blade. I want to take him to the hospital [to be circumcised],” she said.

At the male circumcision clinic at Lusaka’s University Teaching Hospital, where around 80 procedures are performed every month, about half of the patients are young boys brought to the clinic by their mothers.

“Studies show high acceptability of women for this,” said Dr Kasonde Bowa, the clinic’s director. “I think they’re very keen on anything that is healthy for their children and their husbands.”

ks/he/kn source.www.irinnews.org

Photo: Kristy Siegfried/PlusNews

The study results reinforce the need for counselling to accompany the procedure

JOHANNESBURG,  – New research suggests that circumcising HIV-positive men does not reduce the risk of their female partners becoming HIV-infected.

The findings, reported on 17 July in the British medical journal, The Lancet, emerged from a clinical trial in Rakai District, southern Uganda, involving 922 HIV-infected men and 163 of their HIV-negative female partners.

Half the men were circumcised at the start of the two-year trial; the other half, who made up the control group, were circumcised at the end of it. Their uninfected female partners were followed up after six, 12 and 24 months to determine whether they had acquired HIV from their male partners.

Male circumcision has become a recommended HIV-prevention strategy since three clinical trials, one of which was also held in Rakai, showed that the procedure could reduce the HIV risk to men by as much as 60 percent. Until now, little was known about whether male circumcision also reduced the risk of HIV infection in women.

Previous observational studies suggested that the partners of circumcised HIV-infected men were less likely to acquire HIV, but the trial in Rakai failed to confirm this. Out of 92 couples in the circumcised group, 18 percent of the women became infected during the study period, compared to 12 percent of women in the uncircumcised control group.

Male circumcision may actually have increased the HIV risk to some of the women in the intervention group. After six months, women whose partners ignored advice to abstain from sex for at least six weeks after the circumcision procedure had an HIV acquisition rate of 27.8 percent, compared to 9.5 percent among women whose male partners delayed sex until healing was complete, and 7.9 percent among women with uncircumcised partners.

The trial was stopped early because of “futility”, meaning that the accumulation of further data was unlikely to produce substantially different results.

The findings are likely to have important implications for the male circumcision programmes being rolled out in a number of countries with high rates of HIV, including Zambia, Swaziland, Kenya and Uganda. The programmes have received substantial backing from governments, international donors and UN agencies.

In an accompanying comment in The Lancet, Jared Baeten, of the University of Washington’s Departments of Global Health and Medicine, cautioned that the results of the Rakai trial “should in no way hinder programmes working to scale up circumcision services for men at risk for HIV”.

Circumcising HIV-positive men may not directly reduce HIV risk to their female partners, but large-scale male circumcision programmes would benefit women in the long term by bringing down overall HIV prevalence in communities.

Baeten also agreed with the study authors that the results should not prevent HIV-infected men from qualifying for the procedure, because excluding them could lead to stigmatization and deny them other health benefits, including a reduction in genital ulcer diseases.

The findings reinforced the need for men undergoing the procedure to receive extensive counselling about the importance of delaying sex for at least six weeks afterwards, the continued need to use condoms, and to reduce partner numbers.

ks/he source.www.irinnews.org

Photo: Allan Gichigi/IRIN

A group of Somali refugees at the gate of the UNHCR compound in Dadaab: Although Kenya officially closed its border with Somalia in 2007, more and more Somalis continue to pour into the country (file photo)

NAIROBI,  – The process of decongesting chronically overcrowded camps hosting Somali refugees in Dadaab, northeastern Kenya, should be speeded up to check disease outbreaks and rising tensions with the local community, an official of the International Rescue Committee (IRC) warned.

“Disease outbreaks is one of the current issues we are tackling; in the Hagadera camp [where IRC runs a hospital and four health posts] there are 35 cases of measles already,” Kellie Leeson, IRC’s country director said at a press briefing in Nairobi.

Although Kenya officially closed its border with Somalia in 2007, more and more Somalis continue to pour into the country amid intensifying fighting between government troops and Islamist insurgents in the Somali capital, Mogadishu.

Leeson said humanitarian officials needed a reception centre to screen the new arrivals to check for potential disease outbreaks.

On 1 July, IRC launched an emergency measles vaccination campaign targeting thousands of children in Hagadera, one of three camps in Dadaab.

“We are concerned about the issue of space in Dadaab; negotiations for more land to expand the camps are ongoing and we urge the [Kenyan] government to speed up this process,” Leeson said. “Plans are already under way to move 10,000 to 15,000 of the refugees to Kakuma [camp in the northwest]; but this figure is equivalent to three months of arrivals.”

She said the growing tensions between the refugees and the local communities was another concern. The camps are not officially demarcated and some of the long-term refugees have purchased livestock, fuelling tension over pasture and water, Leeson added.

According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), the refugee population in the three Dadaab camps – Dagahaley, Ifo and Hagadera – stood at 279,603 on 14 June.

The agency said the three camps were established to accommodate 90,000 refugees – 30,000 per camp – but by 30 April, Ifo was the most populous, hosting 95,180 refugees. Hagadera has a population of 93,642 while Dagahaley is home to 86,873 refugees.

Photo: Reliefweb

UNHCR said it had registered 32,057 new arrivals from Somalia so far in 2009 with no sign of a let-up.

Increased insecurity especially in the middle and lower Juba regions of Somalia, coupled with drought and food insecurity, were the main reasons for the surge from January to March. The lower number in April was attributed to the rainy season, which may have reduced drought-induced food insecurity and also made some border roads harder to pass.

In March 2009, Refugees International, an advocacy NGO, called on “UNHCR and donor governments to mount a full-scale diplomatic effort, including reaching out to Kenyan refugee and human rights NGOs, to gain Kenyan government permission to expand the Dadaab refugee camps”.

js/am/mw source.www.irinnews.org

By Athman Amran

Seven Cabinet ministers, three Assistant Ministers and several sitting and former MPs are among 219 people who the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) claims could have had a hand in post-election violence.

But in a cautionary note, KNCHR says it has not concluded that the people mentioned are guilty.

“This is presented in the effort to remain faithful to hundreds of Kenyans who provided this information, which we expect the relevant agencies will further investigate,” the KNCHR says.

The report, ‘On the Brink of The Precipice: A Human Rights Account of Kenya’s Post-2007 Election Violence’, also names prominent businessmen, church and youth leaders and groups.

Also in the list of the revised edition are a former PC and some police bosses, chiefs and councillors, among others.

Those mentioned adversely include Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, Cabinet ministers Sally Kosgei (Higher Education), William ole Ntimama (National Heritage) and Najib Balala (Tourism).

We could not reach some Cabinet ministers, assistant ministers, MPs and businesspeople the report mentions adversely. Due to legal reasons, we cannot, therefore, identify them.

Uhuru and Dr Kosgei are in court contesting the inclusion of their names in an earlier version of the KNCHR report.

Mrs Elizabeth Ongoro, Nairobi Metropolitan Development Assistant minister, is adversely mentioned.

Police Commissioner Hussein Ali is also listed alongside MPs Chris Okemo (Nambale), Boaz Kaino (Marakwet West), Omondi Anyanga (Nyatike) and Fred Kapondi (Mt Elgon).

Maj-Gen Ali said he will issue a statement next week to respond to the claims by KNCHR.

Also named are former Roads minister Kipkalya Kones, former Assistant minister Lorna Laboso and MP David Kimutai (Ainamoi), who all died last year.

The list was released on Friday by KNCHR at a Nairobi hotel to discuss whether post-election suspects should be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC) or at a special tribunal.

KNCHR released the report as ICC Prosecutor Luis-Moreno Ocampo opened the Waki envelope and resealed it, saying he will not disclose the names of the alleged suspects.

But he has also said he has no obligation to act on the list. The ICC must conduct independent investigation.

Most of the politicians mentioned come from Rift Valley and Central provinces. Others are from Western, Nyanza, Nairobi and Coast provinces.

According to the human rights’ State agency, the alleged perpetrators were mentioned adversely by interviewees.

Further investigation

In the 159-page report, KNCHR specified names and dates when planning meetings were held, those in attendance and the resolutions passed.

According to KNCHR, the list is, however, not “comprehensive” and “does not present a complete picture of all who may have been involved”.

“We have given the list so that further investigation can be done,” KNHCR Chairperson Florence Sambiri-Jaoko said during the re-launch of the report.

The report cites use of derogatory language against other communities as one of the causes of the clashes.

For instance, the report says a meeting chaired by a Cabinet minister, and attended by other politicians in August 2007, “resolved to carry out mass evictions of non-Kalenjins from the Rift Valley”.

The minister is alleged to have said they would “uproot sangari (weed), shake off the soil, gather it together and burn it” in reference to ‘outsider’ communities.

The KNCHR says it believes the background information and the allegations would provide “a basis and a good starting point for further investigation”.

The report asks the ICC to launch investigation to determine who bears the greatest responsibility in the commission of crimes against humanity.

But Mrs Ongoro, who is also the Kasarani MP, termed the report ridiculous.

“I am shocked. How could they put me in that list yet I was among those who had been targeted for elimination?” she asked.

She added: “My Christian values cannot allow me to engage in such acts. The KNHCR was looking at constituencies where there was violence and tagging the area MP’s name.”

Mt Elgon MP Fred Kapondi rubbished the report, saying it had not adduced any evidence to implicate anyone. He added that he had nothing to fear.

“When you are innocent, you have nothing to fear. I’m not worried nor moved at all. That was not an investigative report, but full of hearsay without serious evidence,” he said on the telephone.

He accused the commission of compiling the report in a hurry to please donors.

In February and March last year, the report says, a minister is alleged to have met and planned retaliatory attacks against people in the Rift Valley, contributed funds and organised militia to attack.

The report also cites a former minister who convened a meeting of youths in January last year, and told them to block roads.

“Mere rumours”

“When we tell you to block, make sure you block the road. And when we tell you to remove, make sure you remove them,” he is alleged to have said.

Mr Anyanga, the Nyatike MP, dismissed the report, saying it is based on hearsay and questioned its authenticity.

“This report is based on hearsay perpetuated by enemies to sabotage others politically. Remember, this report was compiled at a time when people were still bitter and its authenticity must be questioned,” he said.

Mr Ntimama termed the report as “mere rumours” meant to hoodwink Kenyans from the main issues.

“The report is biased against ODM since most of our members appear to have been mentioned. They also don’t have evidence to connect me to the said accusation. Furthermore, Narok was peaceful throughout the election period,” Ntimama said.

Mr Okemo, the Nambale MP, who KNCHR says engaged in a hate campaign, dismissed the allegations against him as farfetched, malicious and defamatory and vowed to challenge KNCHR in court.

“Kenya is at a crossroads in dealing with impunity, crimes of murder and rape. I have never incited Kenyans against Kenyans in my political career. Let the perpetrators, planners and murderers face the law. I have instructed my lawyers to take up the matter.” Okemo said.

Mr Kaino, the Marakwet West MP, said he was at his Kapchesewes rural home after the elections and could not have planned post-election violence.

“How could I have planned the violence when I had to be escorted to Nairobi for the swearing in ceremony by police officers because of the violence?” asked Kaino.

Protest rallies

Tourism Minister Najib Balala denied claims that he instigated violence at the Coast, saying it was widely known that he “took part in peaceful protests”.

“I must say I’m shocked at the claims that I organised youth to go to the streets due to the stolen votes. What I can say is that I organised protest rallies, not fighting,” he said.

Balala added: “Once somebody claims that Balala was one of the people who paid the youth to cause violence, let that person not just say so but provide evidence on what I did.”

The human rights body alleged that it had sent out letters to all MPs they have mentioned, “which, however, elicited very few responses”.

The alleged perpetrators are said to have either planned, financed, provided transport and weapons and incited or participated in the violence.

On provincial administrators and police officers, the report claims they ordered or used excessive force, neglected duty, were partisan or participated in arson and theft.

The report also names some radio stations and accuses them of hate speech and programmes

source.standard.ke