© George Monbiot/Twitter

Israel

The results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties. Along with explosive residues, various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites, for which there is full chain of custody.

Regarding the alleged use of toxic chemicals as a weapon on 7 April 2018 in Douma, the Syrian Arab Republic, the evaluation and analysis of all the information gathered by the FFM-witnesses' testimonies, environmental and biomedical samples analysis results, toxicological and ballistic analyses from experts, additional digital information from witnesses-provide reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place. This toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.

© OPCW



© Ian Henderson/OPCW

The genuine experts' findings were completely suppressed until they were leaked last week.

© Luke Harding/The Guardian

In neither

its report

on the Salisbury poisoning nor

its report

on the Amesbury poisoning did the OPCW ever use the word

Novichok

.

"Due to the unknown storage conditions of the small bottle found in the house of Mr Rowley and the fact that the environmental samples analysed in relation to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Mr Nicholas Bailey were exposed to the environment and moisture, the impurity profiles of the samples available to the OPCW do not make it possible to draw conclusions as to whether the samples are from the same synthesis batch"

which remember does not even use the word Novichok.

© BBC

Finally two housekeeping points. Even among regular readers of this blog, well less than 1% make a voluntary subscription and among all readers the number is even smaller. Money is an unfortunate necessity to keep the blog going, and all help is gratefully received - though I do not wish anyone to contribute who has any difficulty to afford it.



Secondly the blog has used the same photo of me since 2005, and it is high time to change it. I have found a photo in which I look at least 80, so hopefully it might keep us going a few years. I hope my kind technical team will get that done today.



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



Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers - many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.



Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

If you want to understand what is really happening in the world today, a mid-ranking official named Ian Henderson is vastly more important to you than Theresa May. You will not, however, find anything about Henderson in the vast majority of corporate and state media outlets.You may recall that, one month after the Skripal incident, there was allegedly a "chemical weapons attack" in the jihadist enclave of Douma, which led to air strikes against the Syrian government in support of the jihadist forces by US, British and French bombers and missiles. At the time, I argued that the Douma jihadist enclave was on the brink of falling (as indeed it proved) and there was no military advantage - and a massive international downside - for the Syrian Army in using chemical weapons. Such evidence for the attack that existed came from the jihadist allied and NATO funded White Helmets and related sources; andThe "Douma chemical weapon attack" was linked to the "Skripal chemical weapon attack" by the western media as evidence of Russian evil. Robert Fisk was subjected to massive media abuse and I was demonised by countless mainstream media journalists on social media, of which this is just one example of a great many.In both the Skripal and the Douma case, it fell to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to provide the technical analysis. The OPCW is a multilateral body established by treaty, and has 193 member states.An OPCW fact finding mission visited Douma on April 21 and 25 2018 and was able to visit the sites, collect samples and interview witnesses.but traces of chlorine were found. Chlorine is not an uncommon chemical, so molecular traces of chlorine at a bombing site are not improbable. The interim report of the OPCW following the Fact Finding Mission was markedly sober and non-committal:The fact finding mission then returned to OPCW HQ, at which time the heavily politicised process took over within the secretariat and influenced by national delegations. 9 months later the final report was expressed in language of greater certainty, yet backed by no better objective evidence:However the report noted it was unable to determine who had used the chlorine as a weapon. Attempts to spin this as a consequence of OPCW's remit are nonsense - the OPCW exists precisely to police chemical weapons violations, and has never operated on the basis of violator anonymity.Needless to say, NATO funded propaganda site Bellingcat had been from the start in the lead in proclaiming to the world the "evidence" that this was a chemical weapons attack by the Assad government, dropping simple chlorine cylinders as bombs. The original longer video footage of one of the videos on the Bellingcat site[I am sorry that I do not know how to extract that longer video from its tweet. You need to click on the above link then click on the link in the first tweet that warns you it is sensitive material - in fact there is nothing sensitive there, so don't worry.]Now we come to the essential Mr Ian Henderson. Mr Henderson was in charge of the engineering sub-group of the OPCW Fact Finding Mission. The engineers assessed that the story of the cylinders being dropped from the skyand it was much more probable that they had simply been placed there manually. There are two major reasons they came to this conclusion.At least one of the crater holes showed damage that indicated it had been caused by an explosive,The cylinders simply did not show enough damage to have come through the reinforced concrete slabs and particularly the damage which would have been caused by the rebar. Rebar is actually thicker steel than a gas cylinder and would have caused major deformation.Yet - and this is why Ian Henderson is more important to your understanding of the world than Theresa Maybut instead produced something that is very close to the amateur propaganda "analysis" put out by Bellingcat. The implications of this fraud are mind-blowing.And still then, this leak - which has the most profound ramifications - has in itself been almost completely suppressed by the mainstream media, except for those marginalised outliers who still manage to get a platform, Robert Fisk and Peter Hitchens (a tiny platform in the case of Fisk).The supposedly neutral international watchdog, the OPCW, was manipulated by the NATO powers to produce a highly biased report that omits the findings of its own engineers. Which can only call into doubt the neutrality and reliability of the OPCW in its findings on the Skripals too.than the vicissitudes of the ludicrously over-promoted Theresa May and her tears of self pity.Still more revealing is the reaction from the OPCW - which rather than acknowledge there is a major problem with the conclusions of its Douma report, has started a witch hunt for the whistleblower who leaked the Henderson report.The Russian government claimed to have intelligence that indicated it was MI6 behind the faking of the Douma chemical attack. I have no means of knowing the truth of that, and am always sceptical of claims by all governments on intelligence matters, after a career observing government disinformation techniques from the inside. But the MI6 claim is consistent with the involvement of the MI6 originated White Helmets in this scam. and MI6 can always depend on their house journal The Guardian to push their narrative, as Guardian Middle East editor Brian Whitaker does here in an article "justifying" the omission of the Henderson report by the OPCW. Whitaker argues that Henderson's engineers had a minority view. Interestingly Whitaker's article is not from the Guardian itself,But Whitaker's thesis cannot stand. On one level, of course we know that Henderson's expert opinion did not prevail at the OPCW. Henderson and the truth lost out in the politicking. But at the very least, it would be essential for the OPCW report to reflect and note the strong contrary view among its experts, and the suppression of this essential information cannot possibly be justified. Whitaker's attempt to do so is a disgrace.Which leads me on to the Skripals.I have noted before the news management technique of the security services,what public belief there is in the official Skripal story.before it was admitted that the first person who "coincidentally" came across the ill Skripals on the park bench, just happened to be the Chief Nurse of the British Army.The inquest into the unfortunate Dawn Sturgess has now beenThe security services have now admitted - once again through the Guardian - that even if "Boshirov and Petrov" poisoned the Skripals,. This because the charity bin in which the perfume bottle was allegedly found is emptied regularly soand becauseThis Guardian article is bylined by the security services' pet outlet,, and one other. The admissions are packaged in a bombastic sandwich about Russian GRU agents.Every single one of these points - that "Boshirov and Petrov" have never been charged with the manslaughter of Sturgess, that the bottle was sealed so could not have been used at the Skripals' house, and that it cannot have been in the charity bin that long -Making precisely these points has seen me labelled as a mentally ill conspiracy theorist or paid Russian agent. Just like the Douma fabrication, it turns out there was indeed every reason to doubt, and now, beneath a veneer of anti-Russian nonsense, these facts are quietly admitted by anonymous "sources" to Harding. No wonder poor Dawn Sturgess keeps not getting an inquest.Which brings us back full circle to the OPCW.As an FCO source explained to me , the expert scientists in OPCW were desperate to signal that the Salisbury sample had not been for days on a doorknob collecting atmospheric dust, rain and material from hands and gloves,- which the British government then spun as meaning "military grade" when it actually meant "not from a doorknob".Now we have seen irrefutable evidence of poor Ian Henderson in exactly the same position with the OPCW of having the actual scientific analysisThat is extremely strong added evidence that my source was indeed telling the truth about the earlier suppression of the scientific evidence in the Skripal case.concluding:Which is strange, as the first sample had an "almost complete absence of impurities" and the second was straight out of the bottle. In fact beneath the doublespeak the OPCW are saying there is no evidence the two attacks were from the same source. Full stop.I suppose I should now have reached the stage where nothing will shock me, but as a textbook example of the big lie technique,When it comes to government narrative and the mainstream media, mass purveyor of fake news, scepticism is your friend. Remembering that is much more important to your life than the question of which Tory frontman is in No. 10.For an analysis of the Henderson Report fiasco written to the highest academic standards, where you can find all the important links to original source material, read this superb work by the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media.