Vaccine news – Measles Virus Does Not Exist

Measles Virus Does Not Exist
German biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka initially offered 100,000 euros to anyone who could provide scientific evidence that the measles virus existed. He had initially been ordered to pay up in court after Doctor David Bardens attempted to claim the prize after providing the biologist with a study that had been published in a medical journal. At that time, a Judge in the regional court in Ravensburg, South Germany, ruled in the favour of Dr. Bardens in a controversial decision claiming the criteria for evidence had been met.
The First Civil Senate of the BGH confirmed a judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) on in February 2016. The sum of 100,000 euros which was offered as a reward for scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus did have to be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also was ordered to bear all procedural costs.
Five experts have been involved in the case and presented the results of scientific studies. All five experts, including Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Podbielski who had been appointed by the OLG Stuttgart as the preceding court, have consistently found that none of the six publications which have been introduced to the trial, contains scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus.
In the trial, the results of research into so-called genetic fingerprints of alleged measles virus have been introduced. Two recognised laboratories, including the world’s largest and leading genetic Institute, arrived at exactly the same results independently.The results prove that the authors of the six publications in the measles virus case were wrong, and as a direct result all measles virologists are still wrong today: They have misinterpreted ordinary constituents of cells as part of the suspected measles virus.
Because of this error, during decades of consensus building process, normal cell constituents were mentally assembled into a model of a measles virus. To this day, an actual structure that corresponds to this model has been found neither in a human, nor in an animal. With the results of the genetic tests, all thesis of existence of measles virus has been scientifically disproved.
The authors of the six publications and all other persons involved, did not realise the error because they violated the fundamental scientific duty, which is the need to work “lege artis”, i.e. in accordance with internationally defined rules and best practice of science. They did not carry out any control experiments. Control experiments would have protected authors and mankind from this momentous error. This error became the basis of belief in the existence of any disease-causing viruses. The expert appointed by the court, Prof. Dr. Dr. Podbielski, answering to the relevant question by the court, as per page 7 of the protocol explicitly confirmed that the authors did not conduct any control experiments.
The OLG Stuttgart overturned the judgment of the court of first instance, dismissed the action and referred, inter alia, to the central message of Prof. Podbielski with respect to the six publications. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the OLG to the Supreme Court. As reason he stated his subjective, yet factually false perception of the trial sequence at the court in Stuttgart, and the assertion that our naming of facts about measles posed a threat to public health. The plaintiff’s position was rejected by the Supreme Court in plain words. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the OLG Stuttgart from February 16, 2016.
The six publications submitted in the trial are the main relevant publications on the subject of “measles virus.” Since further to these six publications there not any other publications which would attempt by scientific methods to prove the existence of the measles virus, the Supreme Court judgment in the measles virus trial and the results of the genetic tests have consequences: Any national and international statements on the alleged measles virus, the infectivity of measles, and on the benefit and safety of vaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of their legal basis.
Upon enquiries which had been triggered by the measles virus contest, the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, admitted an important fact. This admission may explain the increased rate of vaccination-induced disabilities, namely of vaccination against measles, and why and how specifically this kind of vaccination seems to increasingly trigger autism.
Prof. Mankertz has admitted that the “measles virus” contains typical cell’s natural components (ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell). Since the vaccination against measles contains whole “whole measles virus”, this vaccine contains cell’s own structures. This explains why vaccination against measles causes frequent and more severe allergies and autoimmune reactions than other types of vaccination. The court expert Prof. Podbielski stated on several occasions that by the assertion of the RKI with regard to ribosomes in the measles virus, the thesis of existence of measles virus has been falsified.
In the trial it was also put on record that the highest German scientific authority in the field of infectious diseases, the RKI, contrary to its legal remit as per 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), has failed to create tests for alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on measles virus, however refuses to hand over or publish the results.

OLG Stuttgart Urteil vom 16.2.2016, 12 U 63/15
Auslobung: Rechtsbindungswille bei einer negativen Auslobung; Auslegung eines Preisausschreibens hinsichtlich des Nachweises des Masernvirus
Tenor
1. Auf die Berufung des Beklagten wird das Urteil des Landgerichts Ravensburg vom 12.03.2015 – 4 O 346/13 – abgeändert und wie folgt gefasst:
(1) Der Beklagte wird verurteilt, an den Kläger 492,54 EUR nebst jährlicher Zinsen hieraus in Höhe von 5 %-Punkten über dem jeweiligen Basiszinssatz seit 16.04.2014 zu bezahlen.
(2) Im Übrigen wird die Klage abgewiesen.
2. Die weitergehende Berufung des Beklagten wird als unzulässig verworfen.
3. Die Kosten des Rechtsstreits in beiden Instanzen trägt der Kläger.
4. Das Urteil und das Urteil des Landgerichts, soweit es aufrechterhalten wird, sind vorläufig vollstreckbar.
Der Kläger kann die Vollstreckung gegen Sicherheitsleistung in Höhe von 115 % des vollstreckbaren Betrages abwenden, wenn nicht der Beklagte vor der Vollstreckung Sicherheit in Höhe von 115 % des jeweils zu vollstreckenden Betrages leistet.
5. Der Gegenstandswert für das Berufungsverfahren wird auf bis zu 110.000,00 EUR festgesetzt.

Anti-Vaxxer Biologist Stefan Lanka Bets Over $100K Measles Isn’t A Virus; He Wins In German Federal Supreme Court
Conclusions
The six publications submitted in the trial are the main relevant publications on the subject of “measles virus.” Since further to these six publications there not any other publications which would attempt by scientific methods to prove the existence of the measles virus, the Supreme Court judgment in the measles virus trial and the results of the genetic tests have consequences: Any national and international statements on the alleged measles virus, the infectivity of measles, and on the benefit and safety of vaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of their legal basis.
Upon enquiries which had been triggered by the measles virus contest, the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, admitted an important fact. This admission may explain the increased rate of vaccination-induced disabilities, namely of vaccination against measles, and why and how specifically this kind of vaccination seems to increasingly trigger autism.
Prof. Mankertz has admitted that the “measles virus” contains typical cell’s natural components (ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell). Since the vaccination against measles contains whole “whole measles virus”, this vaccine contains cell’s own structures. This explains why vaccination against measles causes frequent and more severe allergies and autoimmune reactions than other types of vaccination. The court expert Prof. Podbielski stated on several occasions that by the assertion of the RKI with regard to ribosomes in the measles virus, the thesis of existence of measles virus has been falsified.
In the trial it was also put on record that the highest German scientific authority in the field of infectious diseases, the RKI, contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), has failed to create tests for alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on measles virus, however refuses to hand over or publish the results.
http://www.wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/Protokoll_13_4_20150001.pdf

Trump Warns Flu Shots Are The Greatest ‘Scam’ In Medical History
Posted on January 27, 2017 by Baxter Dmitry
The flu shot is the greatest scam in medical history, created by Big Pharma to make money off vulnerable people and make them sick, warns President Donald Trump.
In an interview with Opie and Anthony on Sirius XM, Trump slammed flu shots as “totally ineffective” and declared that he has never had one.
“I’ve never had one. And thus far I’ve never had the flu. I don’t like the idea of injecting bad stuff into your body. And that’s basically what they do. And this one (latest flu vaccine) has not been very effective to start off with.
“I have friends that religiously get the flu shot and then they get the flu. You know, that helps my thinking. I’ve seen a lot of reports that the last flu shot is virtually totally ineffective.“
Trump is right – flu shots are the greatest medical fraud in history. They are full of “bad stuff” including formaldehyde and mercury – two powerful neurotoxins – and the vaccine industry even admits that laboratory tests prove the popular jab does not work.

Study reveals 83 children awarded for damages in vaccine court have an autism diagnosis! Mary Holland, one of the study authors, says neither CDC nor Congress has ever adequately responded to this study’s claims (see study link in first comment and listen to Podcast with Mary Holland in second comment for more detail)
Please note: this story on Fox ran in 2011. The study they are reporting about was published in the NYU Law School’s legal journal, you can find a copy of it in the first comment below. NYU Law Professor Mary Holland, one of the study’s authors, noted that the CDC NEVER reposnded to the study in any way, not even to try and refute it. A podcast interview with Mary is included as the second comment, it’s a fascinating listen, thank you.

IS VACCINE INJURY ONE IN A MILLION?
With 320 million people populating the U.S. if vaccine injury is one in a million how many vaccine injuries are there? The Vaxxed Bus travels the country to see. Camera and editing by Joshua Coleman.

Dr. Rachael, featured in the documentary Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe & cohost of the syndicated show The Doctors, says, “I am scared of vaccines at this point,” after reviewing CDC data and hearing the stories of vaccine injury. www.StopMandatoryVaccination.com

Advertisements

Flu Vaccine is the most Dangerous Vaccine in the U. S. based on Settled Cases for Injuries

Flu Vaccine is the most Dangerous Vaccine in the U. S. based on Settled Cases for Injuries
Attorney Howard Gold of Gold Law Firm, who settled a case for GBS due to a flu vaccine in 2011, remarked:
Petitioners have three (3) years from the onset of the injury (or two years from date of death) to file a claim. Gold states that the “Program is not used as much as it could be because the American public is just not aware of it. I receive at least 5 calls a month from individuals who cannot obtain compensation because the deadline has passed. They just found out about it too late. We all need to do a better job in getting the word out to the public that the Program exists.” (Source.)
In November 2013, a healthy 19-year old young man died from a routine exam that included the flu vaccine. Chandler Webb received the flu shot on October 15th, and then died on November 19th, 28 days later. Since the flu shot is considered safe in the medical field, doctors waited too long to suspect that the flu shot was causing Chandler’s rapidly deteriorating medical condition, according to his mother. She believes that if they had investigated the adverse reaction to the flu shot immediately, he might still be alive today.

Just a quick cursory view of cases that are being compensated by this vaccine court shows that the most cases, by far, are cases for GBS and the flu vaccine.
The U.S Court of Federal Claims provides a referral list of attorneys that specialize in representing clients wanting to file claims for vaccine damages. The list is here, and contains 123 attorneys.
One of the law firms representing clients in the Vaccine Court is Maglio, Christopher, & Toale. This law firm has actually listed cases they have settled in the past couple of years here.
From what appears to be some point in 2010 through 2013, they have settled 132 cases

Preliminary Results: Surveillance for Guillain-Barré Syndrome After Receipt of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine — United States, 2009–2010
GBS incidence was calculated and compared for the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, which were estimated by age group, using data from CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and National 2009 H1N1 Flu Survey (NHFS) telephone survey data for the counties in the EIP catchment areas, using methods published previously (4). The total person-time of follow-up was calculated by multiplying the population under surveillance by the number of days since the start of surveillance, October 1, 2009. Person-time at risk for GBS in the vaccinated population was calculated by multiplying the number of vaccinees by 42 days (or the number of days from vaccination to the end of the surveillance period if <42 days) (1). Children aged 6 months–9 years who received a second dose of 2009 H1N1 vaccine were presumed to have received it 28 days after the first dose, as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices,¶ giving them an additional 28 days of person-time at risk. To calculate the corresponding person-time in the unvaccinated population, the person time at risk for GBS was summed among the vaccinated population and then subtracted from the total person-time of follow-up under surveillance.
Incidence among the vaccinated population was calculated by dividing the number of GBS cases vaccinated within the risk window by the total amount of person-time at risk following vaccination. Incidence among the unvaccinated population was calculated by dividing the number of GBS cases unexposed to vaccine or exposed to vaccine outside the risk window by the total amount of person-time unexposed to 2009 H1N1 vaccine. Bootstrapping methods were used to estimate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the rate ratios that incorporated the variance of vaccine coverage estimates (5). A Poisson distribution was assumed for the occurrence of cases and a normal distribution for the vaccine coverage estimates; the Mantel-Haenszel method was used for age-adjusted CIs. A temporal scan statistic was used to assess for any significant clustering in the interval between vaccination and illness onset in vaccinated cases (6).
During October 1, 2009–May 10, 2010, a total of 529 reports of potential GBS were identified by EIP, of which 326 met the GBS case criteria. Of the 326 persons with GBS, 27 had documentation of 2009 H1N1 vaccination in the 42 days preceding illness onset, 274 did not receive vaccine, and the vaccine status of 25 was either unknown (six) or pending ascertainment (19) (Table 1). Sixteen of the 27 (59%) with documentation of 2009 H1N1 vaccination also reported antecedent illness symptoms in the 42 days before GBS onset; 78% of unvaccinated persons with GBS (215 of 274) reported antecedent symptoms (p=0.04). No clustering among vaccinated persons was observed in the period between vaccination and illness onset (p=0.54). Among the 27 GBS patients with 2009 H1N1 vaccination, four required ventilator support, and one remained hospitalized 30 days after GBS onset; among the 274 GBS patients who did not receive 2009 H1N1 vaccination, 37 (14%) required ventilator support, and 34 (12%) remained hospitalized after 30 days. Eight (2%) of the 326 GBS patients died (from any cause); none of the eight had received the 2009 H1N1 vaccine within 42 days of illness onset.
Among patients hospitalized through March 31, 2010, comparison of the incidence of GBS among those who received 2009 H1N1 vaccine and those who did not receive the vaccine revealed an age-adjusted rate ratio of 1.77 (CI = 1.12–2.56) (Table 2). If this preliminary rate ratio is confirmed in end-of-surveillance analyses, the attributable rate of GBS would be 0.71 per 100,000 person-years, corresponding to an attributable risk of 0.8 excess cases of GBS per 1 million vaccinations.**

Risk of Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following H1N1 Influenza Vaccination in Quebec
RESULTS
During the active surveillance period, 61 possible GBS cases were reported to public health authorities. Seventy-seven possible GBS cases were retrospectively identified in the MEDECHO hospital admission database. Thirty-seven cases were found in both sources, for a total of 101 cases. For all 101, medical charts were retrieved and analyzed. Eighteen possible cases were excluded: 12 cases with a final diagnosis other than GBS, 2 recurrent GBS cases, 2 cases with disease onset before October 13, 2009, and 2 other cases with onset after March 31, 2010. Thus, 83 cases were included in the analysis. The overall GBS incidence rate in the study population, representing 3 623 046 person-years of observation, was 2.3 per 100 000.
Of the 83 confirmed GBS cases included in the analysis, 42 had been immunized before disease onset (1-121 days after immunization) and all had received the ASO3 adjuvant H1N1 vaccine. For 25 cases, disease onset was 8 or fewer weeks after the vaccine was administered and they were considered exposed, whereas the 17 other cases were immunized more than 8 weeks before disease onset and were considered unexposed. Thus, for the cohort analysis, 25 GBS cases were considered exposed and 58 cases were considered unexposed.
The characteristics of GBS cases according to exposure status are shown in Table 1. Forty-nine cases were classified in the Brighton level 1 category, 22 cases in level 2, and 12 cases in level 4. The distribution of cases according to diagnostic category was similar in exposed and unexposed cases. The percentage of male patients was 69%. The median age was 49 years (range, 1-89 years). The percentage of elderly patients was higher in the exposed group than the unexposed group. The majority of patients (96%) were hospitalized; 25% developed severe paralysis of the lower limbs and were unable to walk at some point; and 17% developed respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation and/or assisted ventilation. Four patients died, all of whom were older than 60 years. Conditions occurring within 1 month before GBS onset as reported in medical records included a respiratory tract infection or influenzalike illness in 36% of cases, gastroenteritis in 18%, and trauma in 4%. A history of infection during the month prior to hospitalization was less frequent in exposed than in unexposed patients. The median interval between disease onset and hospitalization was 5 days (range, 1-34 days).
Of the 83 confirmed GBS cases identified during the 6-month study period, 56 (67% of total) occurred during a 12-week period from October 18, 2009 (2009 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] week 42) to January 9, 2010 (2010 CDC week 1). The cluster was mostly explained by cases occurring in persons who were recently (≤8 weeks) immunized (22/56). Details on the distribution of cases are provided in eFigure 1.

Vaccines and the U.S. Mystery of Acute Flaccid Myelitis

Do we need a new approach to making vaccine recommendations?
BMJ 2015; 350 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h308 (Published 30 January 2015)
Vaccines and the U.S. Mystery of Acute Flaccid Myelitis
Since August 2, 2014 our Centers for Disease Control has received reports of 107 cases of ‘acute flaccid myelitis’ (AFM), a polio-like illness in children in 34 states. During the same interval there have been 1153 cases of respiratory illnesses associated with enterovirus D-68 (CIDRAP News 1/16/15. CDC update 1/15/15. Catherine Saint Louis, NY Times 1/13/15). AFM affects motor neurons in spinal cord gray matter, resulting in asymmetrical limb weakness; 34% of patients have cranial nerve motor dysfunction. Median age of patients is 7.6 years/range: 5 months-20 years (MMWR 63: 1243–January 9, 2015). So far only one child has fully recovered. EV-D68 is a suspected cause but, thus far, no viruses have been found in the spinal fluid of patients, and only a minority have had an antecedent illness associated with EV-D68. Case-control studies are planned to look for clues, but presently AFM is a mystery disease of unknown cause.
It is taboo to suggest a role for vaccines, but some old-timers remember “provocation poliomyelitis” or “provocation paralysis.” This is paralytic polio following intramuscular injections, typically with vaccines. PP was most convincingly documented by Austin Bradford Hill and J. Knowelden during the 1949 British polio epidemic when the risk of paralytic polio was increased 20-fold among children who had received the DPT injection (BMJ 2:1–July 1, 1950). Similar observations were made by Greenberg and colleagues in New York City; their literature review cited suspected cases as far back as 1921 (Am J Public Health 42:142–Feb.1952). I first became aware of PP 10 years ago while browsing through “Krugman’s Infectious Disease of Children” (page 128 of the 2004 edition).
AFM may result from a direct virus attack on the spinal cord, or by an immune attack triggered by a virus, or by something else. If a polio-like virus is circulating in the U.S., the possibility of its provocation by one or more vaccines has to be considered.

Smoke, Mirrors, and the “Disappearance” Of Polio
“The tendency of a mass vaccination program is to herd people. People are not cattle or sheep. They should not be herded. A mass vaccination program carries a built-in temptation to oversimplify the problem; to exaggerate the benefits; to minimize or completely ignore the hazards; to discourage or silence scholarly, thoughtful and cautious opposition; to create an urgency where none exists; to whip up an enthusiasm among citizens that can carry with it the seeds of impatience, if not intolerance; to extend the concept of the police power of the state in quarantine far beyond its proper limitation; to assume simplicity when there is actually great complexity; to continue to support a vaccine long after it has been discredited;… to ridicule honest and informed consent.[1]”
There is plenty of confusion on the topic of vaccination, especially amongst brainwashed doctors who trusted their medical schools.  Then the unsuspecting, trusting public trusts them…because the medical establishment must know best, right? And doctors are nice people, trying to do a good thing.  True.  I was once one of those brainwashed doctors who believed in the benevolence of the medical system and believed that all I learned was the best that modern times had to offer. It is blazingly clear to me now though, that much of what is taught in medical school is enormously limited. I now see that most doctors are little more than blind slave-technicians who follow the dogma they were taught and were rewarded for repeating, even as the truth unfolds in front of them dictating otherwise.
Unbeknownst to most doctors, the polio-vaccine history involves a massive public health service makeover during an era when a live, deadly strain of poliovirus infected the Salk polio vaccines, and paralyzed hundreds of children and their contacts.  These were the vaccines that were supposedly responsible for the decline in polio from 1955 to 1961! But there is a more sinister reason for the “decline” in polio during those years; in 1955, a very creative re-definition of poliovirus infections was invented, to “cover” the fact that many cases of ”polio” paralysis had no poliovirus in their systems at all. While this protected the reputation of the Salk vaccine, it muddied the waters of history in a big way.
Even during the peak epidemics, unifactorial poliovirus infection, resulting in long-term paralysis, was a low-incidence disease[2] that was falsely represented as a rampant and violent crippler by Basil O’Connor’s “March Of Dimes” advertising campaigns. At the same time as Basil O’Connor was pulling in 45 million dollars a year to fund the Salk vaccine development, scientists started to realize that other viruses like Coxsackie, echo and enteroviruses, could also cause polio.  They also discussed the fact that lead, arsenic, DDT, and other commonly-used neurotoxins, could identically mimic the lesions of polio. During the great epidemics in the United States, the pathology called polio was reversed by alternative medical doctors who attested to great success, using detoxification procedures available at the time – yet they were categorically ignored[3].
Now it is admitted in the medical literature that other viruses can cause polio, yet few people on the street have any idea.

People who don’t get CDC-recommended shots cost the U.S. $7B in 2015: Merck Report

It seems that there is no conflict of interest between the study made by Merck, vaccine producer, which states that:
People who don’t get CDC-recommended shots cost the U.S. $7B in 2015: Report
The UNC study was funded by Merck, a large vaccine player whose list of products includes HPV vax market leader Gardasil, pneumococcal vax Pneumovax 23 and zoster vaccine Zostavax, among others. The company does not market a flu vaccine.
Last year, unvaccinated adults cost the economy $7.1 billion, an analysis done by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found.
Parental opposition to vaccines recently forced the American Academy of Pediatrics to change its stance to suggest that pediatricians can dismiss parents who don’t comply with the recommended vaccine schedules.

The CDC is being being influenced by corporate and political interests

The CDC is being being influenced by corporate and political interests
Concerns about the inner workings of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have been mounting in recent months amid disclosures of cozy corporate alliances. Now a group of more than a dozen senior scientists have reportedly lodged an ethics complaint alleging the federal agency is being influenced by corporate and political interests in ways that shortchange taxpayers.

A group calling itself CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or (CDC SPIDER), put a list of complaints in writing in a letter to CDC Chief of Staff and provided a copy of the letter:

to the public watchdog organization U.S. Right to Know (USRTK). The members of the group have elected to file the complaint anonymously for fear of retribution.
The complaint cites among other things a “cover up” of the poor performance of a women’s health program called the Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Woman Across the Nation, or WISEWOMAN. The program provides standard preventive services to help 40- to 64-year-old women reduce their risks for heart disease, and promote healthy lifestyles. CDC currently funds 21 WISEWOMAN programs through states and tribal organizations. The complaint says there was a coordinated effort within the CDC to misrepresent data given to Congress so that it appeared the program was involving more women than it actually was.
“Definitions were changed and data ‘cooked’ to make the results look better than they were,” the complaint states.  “An ‘internal review’ that involved staff across CDC occurred and its findings were essentially suppressed so media and/or Congressional staff would not become aware of the problems.”

The U.S. Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really.

The U.S. Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really.
By Loren Thompson ,   CONTRIBUTOR
I focus on the strategic, economic and business implications of defense spending as the Chief Operating Officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute and Chief Executive Officer of Source Associates. Prior to holding my present positions, I was Deputy Director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University and taught graduate-level courses in strategy, technology and media affairs at Georgetown. I have also taught at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. I hold doctoral and masters degrees in government from Georgetown University and a bachelor of science degree in political science from Northeastern University. Disclosure: The Lexington Institute receives funding from many of the nation’s leading defense contractors, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and United Technologies.
Russia has about 1,600 missile warheads capable of reaching U.S. territory, and if even a small fraction were launched, they could wipe out our electric grid, our financial networks, and quite possibly the whole U.S. economy.
The answer is that the administration is proposing to spend nothing.  Even though we know that most of those Russian warheads are pointed at America.  Even though we know relations with Russia are deteriorating.  Even though we know that Vladimir Putin’s subordinates have repeatedly threatened the West with nuclear consequences if it seeks to block expansionist moves along the Russian periphery such as last year’s invasion of Ukraine.