Swedish Doctors for Human Rights: Doctor That Reported Idlib Chemical Attack – “Was No Expert”

Executive Officer of Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations (UOSSM) in Geneva, organization closely associated with the White Helmets operations in Syria, tells that “missiles from the sky” carried the alleged gas-attack, according to their source.

 

By Professor emeritus Marcello Ferrada de Noli, PhD. Chair, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights

 

 

This article reports on unique statements given to SWEDHR by Mr Shadi Alshhadeh, the Executive Offcer of UOSSM in Switzerland (Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations (UOSSM), Swiss branch) about the nature of the alleged Khan Sheikhoun attack of April 4, 2017.

 

The UOSSM is a medical-humanitarian organization which, according to its official page, maintains the  Bab Al Hawa Hospital and two training centers. Over 2000 medical staff have been trained via “world-class training courses” that are  led by Professor Pitti from France,”a previous medical advisor for NATO”, inform the organization. The UOSSM declares on Twitter and Facebook [picture at left] of being “proud to have provided training to the White Helmets“.

The organization claims providing health services and surgical management in “over 120 hospitals across the country, serving over 20,000 patients per month”.

In a telephone interview I held with Executive Officer Shadi Alshhadeh April 19, 2017, he told me that the doctor that was the source for the UOSSM news on the alleged ‘aerial’ gas attack in Syria of April 4 [see box above] was no expert as to determine what kind of weapon was used in causing the attack. This information was also confirmed via email. In the talk he also gave the name of the doctor, which I withhold because is not relevant to the content of this report.

 

This raises serious questions on the reliability in the early reports regarding the character of the alleged gas attack. These reports were quickly picked up and reproduced by CNN and other Western media, all which, together with a debatable Intelligence report, orchestrated the dramatic discourse compelling President Trump to order the retaliation attack on Syria. The US attack left its own toll of fatalities and injured, including the violent demise of children.  Some days after, it was reported a massacre of over 100 Syrian travelers in Aleppo neighbour area of Rashidin, which multiple eyewitnesses attribute to the rebels. SWEDHR once again calls for a political solution of the Syrian conflict, and that, for the sake of the civilian population, peace is immediately implemented between the belligerent forces.

 

 

As professor emeritus with years of research in the field of injury epidemiology, I have raised  my doubts towards the veracity of specific reports by the ‘White Helmets’ that earliest told of gas sarin as the chemical agent, while at the same time reporting a much larger number of injured victims in comparison to a notable ‘low’ number of fatalities. However, the expected ratio injured/fatalities in cases of attacks with chemical agents of high toxicity goes in the opposite direction, where few injured survive amid lager fatality scores.

 

Four possibilities: Aerial, or in the ground attack, or perhaps accident, or even just another false flag

Only an ad-hoc committee of experts can elucidate what really happened in Khan Sheikhoun on April 4, 2017.

I am definitely not inclined to believe that the alleged attack would have been “ordered by Assad”, as the UK foreign minister quickly implied, and I have given my reasons for this. It is not logical, it is not strategical, it has no military value for his forces, and above all this alleged attack emerges all suddenly against the backdrop of a seemingly irreversible military victory by the Syrian forces over the ‘rebels’.

The assumption that it could have been instead the ‘rebels’ behind such attack, is a possibility which I have previously explored myself. This, based that opposition combatants have done this before, according to reports. And that they would have the chemical weapons at their disposal. So far, however, no demonstrable evidence has been put forward that this was also the case in the alleged Khan Sheikhoun event. Precisely, as equally no verifiable evidence have demonstrated that the alleged attack would have been an initiative of the government.

Which would lead to a third possibility: Perhaps it was an accident. An accidental explosion, not clear which chemical agent, or agents, would have been involved.  This entails that a facility existed on the ground, containing these substances. The detonation would have been either occasioned by a projectile, undetermined if from the air or from he ground, and so the accidental explosion would have occurred.

And there is yet another possibility. That the event never occurred. This thesis is developed in an interesting essay, “10 reasons why the chemical attack in Syria was a false flag operation“, which I expect to comment later on.

I asked Dr Alshhadeh, the above-mentioned executive director of UOSSM in Geneva, on whether the attack could have been a ground one, instead of aerial. He replied, “no ground attack; our sources said that they saw missiles coming from the sky”. “Okey, missiles”, I said, but you also affirm that the reporting doctor is no expert in weaponry. “No he isn’t; none of our personal over there is expert on those things”, he admitted.

I also wonder how could the doctor see any thing falling from the sky with the speed of a “missile” if he is working inside a hospital. Considering the speed of a “missile” while approaching target (are not missiles fired from launching sites far away the target, from a submarine or other vessels on the sea, or intercontinental? in terms of time lapsing, the possibilities for a doctor of first being alerted (by for instance another staff that saw the missile coming “from the air”), and then make his way out of the hospital to be in time to document that a “missile” still visible in the air is then gradually descending until hit the ground, is highly non-existing. Sorry, Mr Alshhadeh, I have difficulties in accepting the version of your doctors over there.

 

 

Mr Alshhadeh, helpful and correct, asked me to pass the word on that they are doing an humanitarian job for the victims of war. I truly believe the intentions of the amiable Mr Alshhadeh, an administrator sitting in Geneva advocating for the financial and material support from the EU countries on behalf of UOSSM medical-humanitarian mission. He asked me not to forget mentioning that. But I also firmly believe that a great deal of the UOSSM / White Helmets reporting form the areas held by al-Nusra ‘rebels’ is propaganda, and campaigning to obtain a No-Fly Zone in Syria. In this campaign we have, unfortunately, documented episodes of unethical use of children for a propagandist dramatization of events, some of them staged. One other hallmark in this propaganda is the continuous reports of hospitals bombed in the region they (the “rebels”) control. After I saw their site on Twitter, I could not finish the counting of the number of hospitals they claim, almost everyday, that have been destroyed by the Syrian government. I had to suspend the counting for I had to answer to an interview. Though the number of destroyed hospitals seems to supersede the number of ever existing hospitals there before the occupation of the territory started!

One of the several times “destroyed” hospital in Aleppo, turned being intact when the Syrian Army retaken the city. French humanitarian activist, Pierre Le Corf, made a video reportage from inside and outside the hospital showing that everything was on place, including the cache of medicine and equipment stored by the White Helmets. The video also documents the ostensibly cooperation between the White Helmets and the “rebels”. Did I say that the Aleppo hospital building location was neighbour with the al-Nusra facilities? I guess rest of weaponry were found in the hospital, while ‘white helmets’ were found in the al-Nusra house.

How to verify what is true and what is fantasy? A U.S. journalist said yesterday in a press briefing given just recently by Information Director at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Ms Maria Zakharova, that “it would be dangerous” to travel to that zone in order to perform any checking up.  So, how can “moderate” forces be “dangerous” to a verification team of for instance OPCW?, seems Ms Zakharova to have wondered in her dialogue with the U.S. journalist.

By the way, Ms Maria Zakharova also mentioned “the Swedish NGO Doctors for Human Rights” report on the propaganda material of the White Helmets. I will do a brief report on this item in the coming days. The declarations by Director Zakharova were made only five days after the Rusophobe Swedish newspaper DN bitterly complained in a fake-news report, that conclusions by SWEDHR were mentioned in the discussions at the United Nations Security Council (April 12, 2017). No wonder why. “Secular” Sweden staunchly supports the jihadist White Helmets, which staunchly support “rebels” and terrorists armed, trained and funded by US, UK and some EU countries in efforts to oust a secular government, and replaced for a fundamentalist dictatorship. Hillary Clinton’s doctrine in other words.

Sweden has practically no own doctrine since “somebody” assassinated our beloved Prime Minister, the honourable Olof Palme.

 

---