Revealed: The OPCW Hid Toxicology Report That Debunked Syria War Deception.

The OPCW has admitted to hiding a toxicology report that debunked the claim of a Chlorine gas attack in Douma, Syria.

In April of 2018, the U.S., U.K., and France launched more than 100 missiles at the former Assad regime in Syria over allegations that it had committed a chemical attack against civilians, in the town of Douma.

The bombing took place before inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) conducted an investigation into what really happened in Syria.

The evidence for a chemical attack at the time, was based on video and images put out by CIA-backed rebel groups who controlled Douma at the time.

Videos and photos released showed over 40 civilians dead and foaming at the mouth in an apartment building, and cylinders on the roof of an apartment and on a bed in an apartment, alleged to be cylinders containing a chemical weapon which killed the civilians.

In March of 2019, the OPCW released a report which largely lined up with the narrative of a chemical attack in Douma.

While the report said there was no evidence of sarin gas or other nerve agents used in Douma, writing that the “team did not observe any major key precursors for the synthesis of chemical weapons agents, particularly for nerve agents such as sarin, or vesicants such as sulphur or nitrogen mustard” the report asserted that there was evidence for a chlorine gas attack in Douma, writing, “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.”

Soon after, however, critical evidence suppressed from the investigation began being released to Wikileaks.

The suppressed evidence not only showed that experts “ruled out” the idea of Chlorine gas being used in Douma, but strongly suggested that the massacre in Douma was a false flag event carried out to trigger Western intervention.

Among the suppressed evidence were the minutes of a meeting with toxicologists who “ruled out” the possibility that Chlorine was used in Douma.

The minutes from the meeting read, “With respect to the consistency of the observed and reported symptoms of the alleged victims with possible exposure to chlorine gas or similar, the experts were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure. In particular, they stated that the onset of excessive frothing, as a result of pulmonary edema, observed in photos and reported by witnesses would not occur in the short time period between the reported occurrence of the alleged incident and the time the videos were recorded (approximately 3-4 hours).”

(Emphasis: Mine)

“The key ‘take-away message’ from the meeting was that the symptoms observed were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine. and no other obvious candidate chemical causing the symptoms could be identified,” the meeting minutes added.

The experts even raised “the possibility of the event (in Douma) being a propaganda exercise.”

Dr. Brendan Whelan, one of the lead experts on the Douma investigation, attempted to get answers from the OPCW leadership as to why this piece of evidence was suppressed, and why the final report claimed there was a Chlorine attack, despite Chlorine being ruled out by toxicology experts.

This attempt resulted in Whelan facing suppression and smears from the OPCW leadership.

Whelan took the OPCW to court over this, taking the case to the Administrative Tribunal of the Geneva-based International Labour Organisation, which ruled in favour of Whelan, forcing the OPCW to pay him 20,000 euros in moral damages.

Over the course of the legal battle, the OPCW admitted to suppressing the above mentioned toxicology report, while ignoring Whelan’s questions as to why it was suppressed.

In the OPCW’s response to Whelan, it openly admitted to suppressing the toxicology report, writing , “On 25 April 2019, the Appellant (Brendan Whelan) sent to the staff member without the need-to-know a copy of a letter that he had written to the Director-General, expressing his disagreement with the findings in the Final Report on the Douma incident. As with the letter of 25 March, the 25 April letter contained specific and detailed information gathered by FFM investigators from toxicology experts. This information, classified as OPCW Highly Protected, was not included in the Final Report which was publicly released.”

(Emphasis: Mine)

Journalist Aaron Mate- who has extensively covered this controversy- noted that the officially released OPCW report did not even mention the meeting with toxicology experts in its summary of the investigation’s timeline. As Mate wrote :

The Germans’ assessment was included in the Douma team’s initial report, which Whelan authored with the help of fellow experts and, after peer approval including the team leader, prepared for publication in June 2018. But senior OPCW officials subverted that document and tried to rush out a replacement, doctored version that falsely claimed evidence of chemical weapons use. Whelan thwarted the release of the bogus substitute only after discovering it at the last minute and sending an email of protest. But when the final report was released in March 2019, after Whelan had departed the Organisation, the OPCW again excluded any mention of the Germans’ expert opinions, or even that they had been consulted. Instead, the report claimed that there were “reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine [chlorine gas].” Had the Germans’ findings been published, they would have explicitly contradicted this conclusion.

Furthermore, as Brendan Whelan revealed in a recent article, the OPCW similarly admitted to refusing to answer to Whelan as to why the toxicology report was suppressed, and even told OPCW officials to “not engage with this person” in reference to Whelan.

He noted, “I wrote to the OPCW Director-General (DG), Ambassador Fernando Arias, to express ‘some major concerns’ about the report. Specifically, I highlighted the omission of the expert opinion of German toxicologists who had ruled out chlorine gas as the cause of death of more than 40 victims, as well as the excision of the fact that the levels of chlorinated chemicals (trichlorophenols) in environmental samples from the alleged crime scene were no different to what would be expected in the natural environment. Had this evidence been included, it would have turned around the conclusions of the Douma report.”

After this, he noted, “There was no reaction or even acknowledgement from the OPCW chief.”

He added:

In April, I contacted a senior OPCW director to enlist her help in trying to get a private meeting with Arias. I even offered to fly to The Netherlands. But it was a no go. According to the OPCW Chief of Cabinet (CoC), an audience with the DG would be problematic. Because of protocols, I was told.

Instead, I could write again and mail the letter to the OPCW. And depending on the content, the CoC might consider allowing me a ‘possible’ meeting with the Director-General.

The OPCW Chief of Cabinet told Whelan that he would have to meet with Sébastien Braha, then the French representative to the OPCW- one of the states that bombed Syria over the gas attack allegation- in order to get a meeting with the OPCW director general, Fernando Arias.

After another piece of suppressed evidence from the Douma investigation- an engineering assessment which showed that the cylinders found at the scene in Douma were “manually placed rather than being delivered by aircraft” was released to Wikileaks- Whelan noted “A meeting with Arias was now more relevant than ever. Tired of being given what seemed like the proverbial run-around, I wrote to the senior director and demanded to speak with the DG ‘even if protocols have to be side-stepped or even trampled on.’ Still no response, but I did get a letter from the Director-General on 7 June.”

He noted that “His vague and blithe response addressed none of the concerns I had raised. It did, however, make what appeared to be a veiled warning against any public revelations. ‘I take this opportunity to remind you of the obligations you undertook when you signed your secrecy agreement with the OPCW. I trust you will fulfill them,’ Arias replied.”

Then, as Whelan documented:

Despite Arias’ brushoff, given how senior OPCW aides had appeared to be shielding him from engaging directly with me, I wasn’t convinced he wasn’t being insulated from inconvenient facts by his close aides. I made, therefore, a last-ditch effort to get my concerns to him about the suppressed toxicology by other means.

I wrote an email to two senior OPCW colleagues who had been to Germany with me in June 2018 to meet the toxicologists. As scientists, they’d have the same concerns about the suppression of critical evidence. ‘I believe it is our professional and moral obligation to ensure the DG appreciates the gravity of the matter,’ I wrote.

Whelan, in his email, wrote:

Knowing both of you, I imagine you have similar concerns about how such pivotal information could have been omitted from the report - possibly biasing the outcome of the investigation itself. I would like to know your opinions on this potentially serious irregularity and, given the information all three of us are privy to, whether you are willing to jointly raise the issue with the DG. I have tried it alone but to no avail. A shared effort from us might get the DG’s ear, however, and hopefully he will want to understand, as I do, why the critical fact in question was not considered and included in the report. I believe it is our professional and moral obligation to ensure the DG appreciates the gravity of the matter. There may be a justified reason for the omission - though I can’t imagine what. At a minimum a satisfactory explanation has to be provided. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thanks to the OPCW’s evidence presented during the tribunal, Whelan has now learned:

The two officials forwarded the email to the CoC and got a reply that was disturbingly telling. I have only since learned of it because the OPCW submitted this correspondence to the Tribunal as part of its defense. ‘DG’s instructions are to not engage with this person,’ the CoC cautioned the two members of staff.

Moreover, my audacious ‘attempt of communication’ with the DG would, he said, be dealt with ‘at the appropriate level.’

By the OPCW’s own admission, it suppressed the toxicology report “ruling out” the use of Chlorine in Douma, and refused to meet with Brendan Whelan over the suppression, instead telling OPCW staff to “not engage” with him.

He added, “And I was dealt with ‘appropriately’. That same day, I was notified that I was a suspect in the leaking of the engineering assessment to the internet, despite having parted with the organisation eight months earlier. Six months later, I was sanctioned by the Director-General for having supposedly contributed to the unauthorised leak and was barred for life from returning to the OPCW.”

The Administrative Tribunal of the Geneva-based International Labour Organisation has now ruled that “There was a requirement to observe due process at the disciplinary stage prior to the imposition of any sanction upon to the complainant (Brendan Whelan). According to the OPCW staff regulations and interim staff rules, no disciplinary proceeding may be instituted against a staff members unless he or she had been notified of the allegations against him or her, as well as of the right to seek assistance in his or her defence and be given a responsible opportunity to respond to those allegations. These steps were not taken before the director general issues disciplinary measures against the complaint to the extent that the complainant was not provided with the charges. He was also not provided with a copy of the full investigation report. The complaint right to due process before those measures were imposed upon him was violated,” and concluded that the sanctions and ban on Whelan were in violations of his rights.

The OPCW decided to shield Western governments from the fact that they bombed Syria over a likely false flag event, and suppressed its own inspectors to do so.

---

Note to readers: The Dissident is a reader-supported outlet. If you liked this article, consider becoming a paid subscriber.