 For more videos on people's struggles, please subscribe to our YouTube channel. More evidence has emerged pointing to the fact that the Syrian government did not carry out a chemical gas attack in Douma in April 2018. WikiLeaks has published the contents of an email written by a member of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons or OPCW, who was part of the fact-finding team that investigated the alleged incident. The final OPCW report that came out in March this year said that chlorine had been most likely used in the incident. However, this leaked email says that the report was doctored by top OPCW management and much of its contents had been redacted, which significantly altered what the team had actually found. This email is not the first piece of evidence that has come out that challenges the narrative being pushed by Western powers about the supposed chemical attack. Two whistleblowers have also come forward with testimony and evidence with details on how the results of the OPCW investigations were doctored. A few days after the alleged incident, US, UK and France carried out airstrikes on Syria. The three countries justified these airstrikes by claiming that the Syrian army had carried out the chemical attack. They were relying completely on the claims of the rebels. The mainstream media too had reported this version far and wide, even though the OPCW had not even reached the site to investigate by then. Now when more and more evidence is emerging of OPCW manipulating the investigation results, which therefore means that there was no basis for carrying out airstrikes, the mainstream media has been silent. Let's look at what all was redacted and altered in the final OPCW report. The email says that misrepresentation is achieved in the report by selective omission. Additionally, the crucial facts that have remained in the redacted version have morphed into quite different to what was originally drafted. When the team arrived in Dubai to investigate, which was two weeks after the alleged incident due to the clashes that were going on, they found that much of the physical evidence was no longer available. Rebels had alleged that 49 people had died and up to 650 were affected by the weaponized gas that was released. But even the bodies of the deceased were not available for the team to inspect. Further, the rebels had claimed that gas cylinders had been dropped from an aircraft. This is what implicated the Syrian army as the Syrian government had complete air superiority. But on investigating the site where the cylinders were found, the OPCW team found it highly unlikely that the cylinders had been dropped from the air at all. All but one member of the team concluded that there is a high possibility that the cylinders were placed in those locations manually. This was also reported in the team's engineering assessment report, which was not published. The report was leaked in May this year and it said, the dimensions, characteristics and appearances of the cylinders and the surrounding scene of the incidents were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having been delivered from an aircraft and that there is a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft. The other major contentious aspect of the report is its emphasis on the presence of chlorinated chemicals in the area. This statement in the report was reported as the presence of the lethal gas by media. The second whistleblower recently addressed an all-day briefing in Brussels, which had people from several countries in attendance, including from disarmament, international law, military operations, medicine and intelligence. He said that the team took samples for analysis of the quantity of chlorine present in the allegedly attacked area, but the results of the analysis were never given to the team. They remained with the management. When this inspector got sight of the results, he found that they were in fact much lower than what would be expected in a normal environment. This inspector had in his report concluded on the basis of analyzing biological samples from alleged victims who had gone to Turkey from Duma that this attack was a non-chemical related event. He wrote in his report that the signs and symptoms of victims were not consistent with poisoning from chlorine. None of this was mentioned anywhere in the redacted report. The report deviated from the format and did not even mention the concentration values of chlorine found anywhere. After the alleged incident, a video of victims being treated in the hospital in Duma was shown by news networks across the world. In that too, the symptoms seen were not consistent with what witnesses had reported seeing that day. A detailed discussion on this was also omitted from the redacted OPCW report. The report in fact does not include any witness statement the fact finding mission took. The inspector wrote to the top brass of the OPCW furious about the changes that had been made to the report. This included the director general at the time, Ahmad Uzumku, a Turkish diplomat and also Robert Fairweather, a British career diplomat who is the chief of the cabinet and is considered to hold the most power in OPCW over day-to-day issues. This did not result into anything and the report was published in its manipulated form. But the inspector soon realized who was behind this manipulation. Jonathan Steele, the first journalist to interview the second whistleblower reported that on July 4th, there was another intervention. Fairweather, the chief of the cabinet, invited several members of the drafting team to his office. There they found three U.S. officials who were cursorily introduced without making clear which U.S. agencies they represented. The Americans told them emphatically that the Syrian regime had conducted a gas attack and that the two cylinders found on the roof and upper floor of the building contained 170 kilograms of chlorine. The inspector's left Fairweather's office feeling that the invitation to the Americans to address them was unacceptable pressure and a violation of the OPCW's declared principles of independence and impartiality. So under U.S. pressure, the OPCW ignored the findings of its own inspectors and published manipulator reports falsely accusing the Syrian government of a chemical attack. The Syrian government has said that it is unsurprised by these revelations. Imad Mustafa, the Syrian ambassador to China and a former envoy to the United States, said that the information revealed in this email is not new to us. The Syrian government has already been told by previous investigating teams that the reports were significantly editorialized and twisted to convey a predetermined indictment against the Syrian government while all evidences were pointing to the armed groups and their white helmet stage directors. He further said the OPCW has completely ruined its reputation as an honest arbiter. Any investigation conducted by its inspectors will end up in the trash bin of its secretariat, while a report on the outcome of its findings would have been already prepared even before the start of their investigations. The two whistleblowers had requested permission to address the attendees of the Anvil OPCW forum, which is going on at HAG. While it does not seem like they have been allowed, the current OPCW Director General Fernando Arias defended the report saying that he stands by the independent professional conclusion of the investigation.