Aletho News


Biden nominates Thomas Nides as ambassador to Israel

MEMO | June 16, 2021

US [proclaimed] President Joe Biden appointed Thomas Nides as the country’s next ambassador to Israel, the White House announced in a statement yesterday.

Nides, 60, is vice chairman of Morgan Stanley, the fourth-largest US investment banking firm and has previously served as deputy secretary of state from 2011 to 2013 during the administration of former President Barack Obama.

“Thomas Nides is a distinguished public servant and business leader,” the White House said in a statement. “Nides was Chief of Staff to the US Trade Representative Micky Kantor, was Senior Advisor to Speaker of the House Thomas S. Foley, and earlier to House Majority Whip Tony Coelho,” the announcement reads.

“He is a Member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the former Chairman of the Board of the Woodrow Wilson Center appointed by President Obama. Nides received his B.A. degree from the University of Minnesota. He is the recipient of the Secretary of State’s Distinguished Service Award,” it adds.

Born in 1961 to a Jewish family in Duluth, Minnesota, his father, Arnold Nides, was the president of Temple Israel and the Duluth Jewish Federation.

As deputy secretary of state, Nides built effective working relationships with several Israeli officials and played a key role in the Obama administration’s approval of an extension on loan guarantees for Israel worth billions of dollars in military aid, including funding for the Iron Dome missile defence system.

In 2012, Nides articulated the Obama administration’s opposition to an effort to redefine Palestinian refugees as only people who were forced to leave Palestine in and around 1948 – excluding their descendants.

“United States policy has been consistent for decades, in both Republican and Democratic administrations – final status issues can and must only be resolved between Israelis and Palestinians in direct negotiations,” Nides said in a letter to congressional leaders at the time.

“The Department of State cannot support legislation which would force the United States to make a public judgment on the number and status of Palestinian refugees.”

His appointment now needs to be confirmed by the Senate, but no opposition is expected.

June 16, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | 2 Comments

FBI Operatives Likely ‘Unindicted Co-Conspirators’, Organizers Of Capitol Riot: Report

By Tyler Durden – Zero Hedge – June 16, 2021

Tucker Carlson dropped several bombshells on his show Tuesday night, chief among them was from a Revolver News report that the FBI was likely involved in organizing the Jan. 6 Capitol ‘insurrection,’ and were similarly involved in the kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor Gretchin Whitmer.

Why are there so many factual matters that we don’t understand about that day?” asked Carlson.

Why is the Biden administration preventing us from knowing? Why is the administration still hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from the US capitol on January 6th? What could possibly be the reason for that – even as they call for more openness… they could release those tapes today, but they’re not. Why?”

Carlson notes that Revolver News has dissected court filings surrounding the Capitol riot, suggests that unindicted co-conspirators in the case are likely to have been federal operatives.

We at Revolver News have noticed a pattern from our now months-long investigation into 1/6 — and in particular from our meticulous study of the charging documents related to those indicted. In many cases the unindicted co-conspirators appear to be much more aggressive and egregious participants in the very so-called “conspiracy” serving as the basis for charging those indicted.

The question immediately arises as to why this is the case, and forces us to consider whether certain individuals are being protected from indictment because they were involved in 1/6 as undercover operatives or confidential informants for a federal agency.

Key segment from Tucker:

“We know that the government is hiding the identity of many law enforcement officers that were present at the Capitol on January 6th, not just the one that killed Ashli Babbitt. According to the government’s own court filing, those law enforcement officers participated in the riot – sometimes in violent ways. We know that because without fail, the government has thrown the book at most people who were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6. There was a nationwide dragnet to find them – and many are still in solitary confinement tonight. But strangely, some of the key people who participated on Jan. 6 have not been charged.”

Look at the documents, the government calls those people ‘unindicted co-conspirators.’ What does that mean? Well it means that in potentially every case they were FBI operatives… in the Capitol, on January 6th.”

“For example, one of those unindicted co-conspirators is someone government documents identify only as “person two.” According to those documents, person two stayed in the same hotel room as a man called Thomas Caldwell – an ‘insurrectionist.’ A man alleged to be a member of the group “The Oathkeepers.” Person two also “stormed the barricades” at the Capitol on January 6th alongside Thomas Caldwell. The government’s indictments further indicate that Caldwell – who by the way is a 65-year-old man… was led to believe there would be a “quick reaction force” also participating on January 6th. That quick reaction force Caldwell was told, would be led by someone called “Person 3,” who had a hotel room and an accomplice with them. But wait. Here’s the interesting thing. Person 2 and person 3 were organizers of the riot. The government knows who they are, but the government has not charged them. Why is that? You know why. They were almost certainly working for the FBI. So FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6th according to government documents. And those two are not alone. In all, Revolver news reported there are “upwards of 20 unindicted co-conspirators in the Oath Keeper indictments, all playing various roles in the conspiracy, who have not been charged for virtually the exact same activities and in some cases much, much more severe activities – as those named alongside them in the indictments.”


Revolver, meanwhile, has important questions about January 6th

  • In the year leading up to 1/6 and during 1/6 itself, to what extent were the three primary militia groups (the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters) that the FBIDOJPentagon and network news have labeled most responsible for planning and executing a Capitol attack on 1/6 infiltrated by agencies of the federal government, or informants of said agencies?
  • Exactly how many federal undercover agents or confidential informants were present at the Capitol or in the Capitol during the infamous “siege” and what roles did they play (merely passive informants or active instigators)?
  • Finally, of all of the unindicted co-conspirators referenced in the charging documents of those indicted for crimes on 1/6, how many worked as a confidential informant or as an undercover operative for the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, etc.)?

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has demanded an explanation from FBI Director Christopher Wray:


We recommend you read the entire Revolver piece, which includes the fact that at least five individuals involved in the “Whitmer Kidnapping Plot” were undercover agents and federal informants.

June 16, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Video | , | 1 Comment

Letter to Canadian Transport Minister: Israeli Apartheid Not Welcome in Canadian Ports #BlocktheBoat

Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network | June 15, 2021

The following letter was sent today to Canada’s Transport Minister Omar Alghabra and called on “the Canadian government to stop legitimizing the crimes of apartheid…and suspend all instances of Zim-operated ships docking and unloading in Canadian ports.” This action is part of the growing demand that Canada must hold Israel accountable, through economic sanctions and a bilateral arms embargo.

June 15, 2021

Minister of Transport Omar Alghabra
Ottawa, Ontario

In recent weeks, people of conscience in Canada watched in horror as the Israeli regime ruthlessly targeted Palestinians from all regions of historic Palestine. What started as a popular movement to #SaveSheikhJarrah residents from further ethnic cleansing expanded into a broad unity of Palestinians from Jerusalem to Gaza to Haifa to Toronto and Vancouver all sending the same message. Palestinians will no longer accept the status quo of Israeli apartheid.

As part of this burgeoning movement, Palestinian-Canadians and their supporters have actively participated in rallies, pickets and #BlockTheBoat actions. The latter refers to the efforts to stop Zim-operated ships from either docking in, or unloading, at U.S., Canadian and other international ports.

Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd is Israel’s largest and oldest cargo shipping company, dealing in Israeli manufactured military technology, armaments and logistics equipment, as well as consumer goods.

The Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) and a large coalition of all major Palestinian workers unions and professional associations have called on fellow trade unions and workers worldwide to boycott Israel and businesses that are complicit with its apartheid regime. They specifically urge “refus[ing] to handle Israeli goods” and “supporting [union] members refusing to build Israeli weapons.”

Last month, and in response to the above appeal from Palestinian trade unions, South African trade unions refused handling cargo from an Israeli ship in Durban. Dockworkers in Italy have also successfully blocked a recent shipment of munitions and armaments destined for Israel.

At Canada’s largest port in Vancouver, there was a successful community picket on June 8 that tied up both the Port entrance and a busy intersection; activists from a diverse range of groups stated clearly – “Israeli Apartheid Not Welcome in Vancouver Ports”. (The same message was also delivered on June 14 at the Prince Rupert Port.)

Port Authorities in Canada fall under the Ministry of Transport. As such, Mr. Alghabra, allowing and enabling such Israeli apartheid profiteering makes both the ports and the Canadian government further complicit in the ongoing dispossession of the Palestinians. Both B’tselem and Human Rights Watch have been clear in exposing the system of Israeli governance as apartheid. We, the undersigned organizations, expect the Canadian government to stop legitimizing the crimes of apartheid, and to refuse to give economic incentives to such abhorrent behaviour.

Your ministry is already mired in controversy for refusing to cancel a contract with Elbit Systems to purchase one of their drones. Who would have imagined that the Canadian Ministry of Transport would be so entangled with Israeli apartheid? We call on you to observe your government’s alleged respect for international law and human rights and suspend all instances of Zim-operated ships docking and unloading in Canadian ports.

Popular protest is not going to stop as long as Palestinians are not free.

c.c. PM of Canada, Justin Trudeau
Vancouver Fraser Port Authority


BDS Vancouver-Coast Salish Territories
Canada Palestine Association
Palestinian Youth Movement Vancouver
Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network

Endorsed by:

Anti-Imperialist Alliance, Ottawa
BAYAN Canada
Canadian Peace Congress
Communist Party of Canada
Gabriela BC
Independent Jewish Voices Vancouver
Just Peace Advocates
Niagara Movement for Justice in Palestine Israel
OPRA – Oakville Palestinian Rights Association
Palestinian Canadian Community Centre – Palestine House
Poetic Justice Foundation
Regina Peace Council
Sulong UBC
West Coast Coalition Against Racism Society

June 16, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , , , | 2 Comments

Congress Moves to Censure Both Ilhan Omar and Marjorie Taylor Greene for Accidentally Offending Jews

By Eric Striker • National Justice • June 16, 2021

Members of Congress have put forth resolutions to censure Reps. Ilhan Omar and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

On the surface, the hijab-wearing Muslim progressive from Minnesota and the gun-toting Southern Evangelical Republican could not be more different. But the two women — portrayed in the press as extreme manifestations of their respective party’s ideologies — have accidentally crossed organized Jewry.

The act of censuring a member of the House of Representatives is less grave than a formal expulsion, but it is still considered to be a serious punishment. Only 24 members of Congress have been censured since 1832, the most recent cases were for engaging in brazen corruption or sexual assault.

In Rep. Omar’s case, Florida Republican Mark Waltz is leading the charge to shut her down for making a moral equivalence between the actions of the Israeli military and the Palestinian resistance group Hamas in a question posed to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.

A wide range of Jewish organizations and over a dozen Democrats immediately began attacking Omar. At first, Reps. Omar attempted to call her attackers Islamophobes, but when appealing to identity politics did not work, Omar walked her comment back under pressure from House leader Nancy Pelosi, much to the dismay of pro-Palestine activists.

Rep. Greene is being targeted for comparing COVID restrictions to the “Holocaust.” Democrat Brad Schnieder, who has also led condemnations of Ilhan Omar, announced that he will be “shelving” Greene’s censure after she begged for forgiveness in front of a Holocaust museum on Monday.

While Schnieder appeared to be satisfied with her groveling, the American Jewish Congress (AJC) took the opportunity to attack her even harder.

“Marjorie Taylor Greene, your apology is NOT accepted” read an over the top bulletin on their website. AJC president Jack Rosen is demanding that Greene “find a different career” and went on to condemn her as an abnormal person who cultivates “anti-semites” and “white supremacists” in her base.

Reps. Omar and Greene both serve Jewish interests dutifully in different capacities. Omar has used her political platform to promote “domestic terrorist” and “white supremacist” hysteria, while Greene is an unflinching supporter of the Zionist project abroad.

But the work the two women invest in promoting different Jewish interests do not shield them from constant bad faith attacks from Jewish groups, who demand absolute allegiance on every one of their issues.

June 16, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , | 13 Comments

The EEOC Did NOT Say Federal Law Permits Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine

Informed Consent Action Network | June 16, 2021

In the article, “Can employers require workers to get the COVID vaccine?”, Bailey Aldridge claims that, given the updated rules of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), “your employer can require you to get a COVID vaccine.”   Aldridge even claims that “The EEOC says there are no federal laws that prevent an employer from requiring employees who are physically in the workplace to get the COVID-19 vaccine.”

The EEOC’s guidance, however, does not claim that an employer can legally require an emergency use COVID-19 vaccine. The EEOC guidance merely states that the “federal EEO [Equal Employment Opportunity] laws do not prevent an employer from requiring” an emergency authorized COVID-19 vaccine. That is not surprising because the EEO laws apply only to discrimination based on certain protected classes, such as race, religion and national origin.

Federal law is, of course, far broader than the narrow EEO laws. In recognizing that there are other federal laws that do prohibit an employer from requiring a COVID-19 vaccine, the EEOC’s guidance also states that, “These three vaccines were granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) by the FDA” and that, “It is beyond the EEOC’s jurisdiction to discuss the legal implications of EUA or the FDA approach.”

When one reviews the FDA’s EUA and its approved labeling, a.k.a. “fact sheets,” for each COVID-19 vaccine, they each clearly provide that: “It is [the vaccine recipient’s] choice to receive or not receive the COVID-19 Vaccine.”  The reason each fact sheet includes this language is because the same section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that authorizes the FDA to grant an EUA also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

That same section of the Act also authorized the Secretary, and only the Secretary, to provide the “consequences” for refusing to receive an EUA product and the EUAs for each COVID-19 vaccine do not include permission to terminate an employee for refusing the vaccine.

ICAN hopes that the Department of Justice will do its job and enforce the federal law prohibiting mandating an EUA vaccine and will continue to push it to enforce this important law.

June 16, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

NHS GP witnessed first-hand the catastrophic way Matt Hancock failed the old and vulnerable

By Malcolm Kendrick | RT | June 14, 2021

The Health Secretary claims he “tried” to throw a protective ring around care homes but, from my experience in the early days of the pandemic, he couldn’t have come up with a more disastrous and deadly policy.

As a GP working mainly with elderly patients in care homes and intermediate care I witnessed, at first hand, the absolute disaster that was the government policy at the start of the Covid-19 outbreak. Elderly patients who were Covid-19 positive, or not tested, or perhaps even negative, were simply shovelled out of hospitals and into care homes. ‘The hospitals must be cleared out… nothing else matters.’

At the time there was no PPE available… at all. In fact, in many care homes staff were actually ordered by the management not to wear PPE. This was also the case in hospitals. Not that it would have made a great deal of difference in most care homes where patients with dementia often wander happily from room to room without masks, and oblivious to any potential danger. I had to usher one or two out of the nurse’s office from time to time.

In my work with intermediate-care patients, looking after those who were too well to be in an acute hospital bed, but not yet well enough to be at home, we were placed under massive pressure to just send everyone home. That is, if they were Covid-19 positive, or not, or untested, where they could spread it to their – often elderly – relatives. Alternatively, they could infect their carers who would then travel to the homes of other elderly people they were looking after – without PPE.

In fact, if you wanted to design a system of ensuring that every single vulnerable person in the country gained full exposure to Covid-19, you could not have done a better job. I wrote various increasingly frustrated emails to various managers, but they simply stated they were just following policy so ‘you can’t blame me’. Policy set at the very top.

Here is an example of the type of email I was sending in April 2020. You may sense the frustration (I have changed the names of the unit and wards, for confidentiality reasons).

“I think this is very simple, Unit A is currently ‘hot’. We have five patients and four staff ‘Covid positive’ swabbed. Eight patients have now died of Covid.

“If we admit Covid negative patients into Unit A this is putting them at great risk of being infected. So, we should stop admissions. The only ones that should come in are those found positive, recovered, and 14 days post positive swab – at least.

“Equally if we discharge patients, we are, almost certainly, spreading Covid around the entire care community. Until fourteen days have passed.

“There is also a plan to send Covid positive patients to ward B, and keep Unit A as green (no Covid). The only way Unit A can be green is if we stop admitting patients. Because, once new patients reach Unit A they are likely to get infected, then another 14 – 21 days must pass. So, we will go round and round, forever.

“Also, another plan is to send high risk staff to Unit A, and have low risk staff in ward B, so the staff will be swapped around. Again, Unit A is currently red hot. We will be endangering high risk staff if we send them to Unit A. Some of them will get infected. Then, they will incubate for 7 – 14 days. They will infect patients, and other staff, then they will go off sick. Then, some of them may well die.

“The current plan seems to be to admit elderly vulnerable patients into a high risk Covid ‘hot’ environment and hope they don’t get Covid. We have already seen staff to patient transmission in Unit A. So, some of these patients will get infected, with a very high risk of dying….”

In a way, it is hard to blame management who were trying to follow every changing edict from above. Edicts often directly contradicting what they had been told the day before. It was chaos. Now, we have Matt Hancock, the UK Health Secretary, stating, amazingly without being struck down by a lightning bolt, that he threw a ring of steel around care homes and elderly hospital units at the time. A… ring… of… steel. This was presumably to stop anyone escaping somewhere safer. Of course, he now says that the most important word in his statement is ‘tried’ as in ‘We tried to throw a ring of steel…’

This will now be his perfect defence. I didn’t say we succeeded, I only said that we tried. How completely pathetic. First, he did the exact opposite of trying. He put in place policies that were directly responsible for the massive number of deaths in care homes. He commanded hospitals to be emptied of elderly patients. What’s his next excuse? ‘Lots of the other countries did the same thing.’ Which is true. But you can hardly claim you are a leader, if all you managed to do was follow others down a disastrous policy failure.

How many deaths did this cause? Well, during the first wave of Covid-19 it has been estimated that 40% of deaths occurred in care homes. Here from the Nuffield trust:

“The burden of the virus fell much more severely on care homes (relative to the population generally) in the first wave. Of the 48,213 Covid deaths registered between mid-March and mid-June, 40% were care home residents.”

There are around half a million residents in care homes, which is 0.7% of the entire population. Yet they had 40% of the deaths. Yes, the elderly, especially those in care homes, were most likely to die from Covid-19. But this was known very early on. In Italy, where Covid-19 first hit Europe, the average age of death was 82, and almost all of those who died had other significant diseases.

If there was one population that needed to be protected it was elderly, vulnerable care home residents. Matt Hancock presided over policy decisions that threw care home residents under a bus. Now he is trying to claim he did all he could to protect them. Anyone who works in the health service, or in the care sector, knows exactly what he did.

Malcolm Kendrick is doctor and author who works as a GP in the National Health Service in England. His blog can be read here and his book, ‘Doctoring Data – How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsense,’ is available here.

June 16, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

Why do brilliant doctors and scientists toe the party line against COVID treatments?

By James V. DeLong | American Thinker | June 16, 2021

One should believe the science, and the scientific evidence is overwhelming that ivermectin (IVM) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are effective for preventing and treating COVID, especially when combined with other drugs.

The studies supporting this conclusion are readily available and endorsed by clinicians and scientists with awesome credentials. See, for example, the work of Pierre Kory and his team, the BIRD GroupPeter McCulloughHarvey RischBrett Weinstein/Steve Kirsch/Robert Malone, and many others.

The information has been available since the start of the pandemic. As early as April of 2020, some clinicians were saving their patients and pleading, in vain, with the health authorities to investigate the value of these drugs.

Throughout this time, the major social media companies have suppressed this vital information. Facebook seems to be the most ruthless. YouTube and Twitter are close behind, though some information escapes the eagle eye of the censors.

Facebook’s censorship fits ill with its assurance in its SEC filings:

COVID-19 Response. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we launched multiple initiatives to support the global public health community’s work to keep people safe and informed. We took steps to provide our community with access to accurate information, stop misinformation and harmful content, and support global health experts, local governments, businesses, and communities. . . We also launched an information center on Facebook and Instagram to provide our community with real-time updates, information, and the ability to offer and ask for help. We have already connected over two billion people to authoritative COVID-19 information[.]

In its zeal to “keep people safe and informed,” Facebook also deplatforms groups that question the safety of the vaccines.

The wages of this sin of official mendacity and private enforcement of The Official Narrative is death. Of the 600,000 Americans who died of COVID (at least according to official numbers), a defensible estimate is that 500,000 could have been saved. And it continues, even as the evidence in favor of these treatments continues to confirm their value.

These facts raise a puzzling issue of corporate governance. All of these companies are controlled by boards of directors composed of the crème de la crème of the American elite.  See the members of the Board of FacebookTwitter, and Alphabet (which owns YouTube). They are well compensated. For example, Alphabet directors get $75,000 to $100,000 in fees, plus bonuses such as stock options that can boost total annual compensation to almost half a million.

Board members are mostly from the corporate and financial worlds, but not entirely. A Twitter director is Fei-Fei Liu, a Canadian cancer researcher, whose personal opinion would be worth knowing. Facebook’s board includes Peter Thiel, one of the most brilliant entrepreneurs of our time, and chair of the company’s Compensation, Nominating, and Governance Committee. Until 2018, the Alphabet Board included Shirley Tilghman, a distinguished molecular biologist. Her opinion on the censorship would also be interesting.

So what is going on here? These people are far too sophisticated to take at face value all the statements of Anthony Fauci or the World Health Organization. They did not get rich and powerful by being so credulous, and their refusal to look behind the Wizard’s curtain demands explanation.

Because stupidity won’t serve, the most logical explanation is strategic cowardice. As long as the companies can pretend to believe Fauci and WHO, they will not bear legal responsibility for any consequences. Were they to provide alternative information, they have reason to fear a weaponized Deep State, which could make a company’s life hell.  All the quasi-monopoly social media outlets need continuing government forbearance.

But neither should one neglect sloth and greed.  For an individual director to raise the alarm would require work to review the literature and would risk the loss of a lucrative board seat. It is easier to pretend to believe the staff’s assurances.

As to the moral responsibility for the unnecessary fatalities, remember the old Tom Lehrer song: “Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That’s not my department!” In the end, if cornered, the directors can claim that they were just following orders and blame Fauci.

But one would like to see the news media start asking them for an explanation.

June 16, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hancock: “We Have No Duty Of Care At All To Vaccine Refuseniks!”

By Richie Allen | June 16, 2021

Speaking in the House of Commons this afternoon, Health Secretary Matt Hancock suggested that people who refuse a covid-19 jab, will be refused treatment on the NHS.

Hancock was responding to a question from Tory MP Liam Fox about the vaccine status of those currently receiving hospital treatment for the so-called Delta variant.

Hancock said:

“I think that there is a material difference between the states responsibility to offer the vaccine to all adults and the duty that we have when somebody has not been offered the vaccine is greater than the duty we have when we have offered a vaccine but somebody has chosen not to take it up. And there is a material difference between those two situations.”

Hancock’s colleague Andrea Leadsom interjected and said:

“Can I take (it) one step further? If I choose not to say, not to have a yellow fever jab when I am going to a place that suffers yellow fever, the government of the United Kingdom takes no interest whatsoever in my illness status. So when my right honourable friend says that he has less of a duty, surely what he means is that he has no duty at all. It is for people to take up the vaccine.”

Hancock replied:

“Up to a point and the point is should you take that as an absolute principle, then there is a challenge, should there be an overwhelming demand on the NHS that would impact on others. And of course with a communicable disease, there is an impact on others in terms of spreading the disease so we do have to have an eye to that.

That’s why I phrased it as I did. But in terms of the argument that my right honourable friend is putting, I think she and I concur in the broad thrust of the case being made.”

Nobody in the chamber batted an eyelid. The Secretary of State for Health said that those who refuse a covid-19 vaccine, might be left to die if they contract a respiratory infection and the NHS is otherwise engaged, presumably treating those with vaccine injuries. Welcome to dystopia.

June 16, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , | 2 Comments

Perspex Screens Installed to Stop COVID May Have Actually Increased Its Spread

Al Seib / Contributor via Getty Images
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | June 16, 2021

A leaked Whitehall document seen by Politico suggests that perspex screens installed to stop the transmission of COVID-19 may actually have increased its spread.

Businesses and schools were told by the government to install the screens as a condition of re-opening after the first lockdown and they were widely used by ‘essential’ shops throughout the entire period.

Politico’s Alex Wickham writes that the perspex screens could be about to be scrapped given new information the government has received on their efficacy.

“Ministers are also being advised that those perspex screens that have appeared in some offices and restaurants are unlikely to have any benefit in terms of preventing transmission,” states the report.

“Problems include them not being positioned correctly, with the possibility that they actually increase the risk of transmission by blocking airflow. Therefore there is clear guidance to ministers that these perspex screens should be scrapped.”

Despite the report, government ministers say there is no plan to change advice on installing the screens in businesses.

What other COVID-19 measures put in place to fight the spread of the virus have been utterly useless or actually made it worse?

A study on the effectiveness of face masks involving 6,000 participants in Denmark found “there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19.”

June 16, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

HIV Now Sets the Pace in the Bogus-vaxx Race

‘HIV’ and ‘AIDS’ are just as bogus as the ‘novel coronavirus’ and ‘Covid.’ Yet they’re now setting the pace in the vaxx-development race.

By Rosemary Frei, MSc | June 14, 2021

This month marks the 40th anniversary of the first report of what was subsequently dubbed ‘acquired immunodeficiency syndrome’ or ‘AIDS.’

Officials like Anthony Fauci are using the occasion to spread the message that vaccines for HIV, which is the virus said to cause AIDS, will soon be rolling out. Forty years of fruitless effort supposedly are suddenly successful thanks to the precedent of the lightening-speed and ‘successful’ development of Covid vaccines.

Fauci said June 4 in an MSNBC interview by Rachel Maddow that because of “the technologies that have now been perfected, particularly the mRNA technology and other vaccine platforms that were perfected and used in Covid-19, I believe strongly we’ll go back and be able to really forward and advance the HIV [vaccine] effort.”

A June 6 Guardian article says that Fauci “holds out hope that the three HIV vaccines in advanced clinical trials will prove at least 50% efficacious, justifying a global roll out. But he now hopes mRNA or other advanced technologies could yield even more powerful HIV vaccines.”

Note that under Fauci, in July 2020 as part of Operation Warp Speed, four major NIAID-funded HIV global clinical-trials networks were retooled into the Covid-19 Prevention Network (COVPN). People in the network help create vaxxes and other ‘treatments’ for both HIV and Covid.

And already by April 14, 2020, mRNA ‘vaccine’ maker Moderna had announced that soon they’ll be conducting small human trials on their experimental jabs against HIV and the flu.

So far, at least 26 different mRNA shots are on the way from Moderna, in addition to their three types of Covid jabs. The shots in development range from two for HIV to one ‘personalized cancer vaccine.’

Among the main funders of Moderna’s mRNA HIV-vaxx development is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. AIDS is a special focus of Gates’s, including through the Global Fund and especially for people in sub-Saharan Africa.

Vaccines are immensely profitable: the new, Covid jabs are topping the all-time charts for medical money-making. Plus vaccine makers have no liability for the illnesses and deaths they cause. Therefore using the name ‘vaccine’ for all ‘treatments,’ no matter what they contain, is a formula for making huge amounts of money with very little downside.

And the potential market for HIV ‘vaccines’ alone is very large. For example, an October 2020 paper in the journal Lancet HIV — on the use of two experimental HIV vaxxes made by Janssen in healthy, HIV-negative people, and funded by among others the Gates Foundation — starts with the sentence, “Current estimates of 37.9 million people living with HIV worldwide and 1.7 million new infections annually, with no cure on the horizon, make development of an effective prophylactic vaccine a global priority.” (The paper’s authors reported very high rates of adverse events to the vaccines, but still assessed the shots as being “generally safe and well-tolerated.”)

All of this is despite the fact that HIV has not been detected by anything other than indirect methods such as antibody, T-cell and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. HIV also has not been clearly shown to cause disease. Nor has it been isolated or rigorously imaged via electron microscopy. Isolation is a necessary step before sequencing – because otherwise the resulting sequences reflect a heterogeneous mix of material rather than pure virus. Details on this are below.

This also holds true for the novel coronavirus.

Phalanxes of officials such as Fauci censor these inconvenient facts. And they keep the public captive, overloaded and off-balance with an avalanche of complex and contradictory jargon, modelling and scientific studies.

The Myth of HIV and of AIDS

Kary Mullis won the Nobel Prize in 1993 for inventing PCR. He died in August 2019. There are many videos of him demolishing Fauci and/or the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. He also discusses this in his autobiography Dancing Naked in the Mind Field.

For example, Mullis said the following in one of his video interviews: “He [Fauci] doesn’t know anything really about anything, and I’d say that to his face. Nothing! … He doesn’t understand electron microscopy, and he doesn’t understand medicine, and he should not be in a position like he’s in…. Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people [taxpayers] who pay his salary and lie directly into the camera.”

Indeed, falsely claiming to have isolated HIV and imaged it with electron microscopy are key parts of the artifice used by Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo to assert in 1984 that they’d discovered HIV and that it causes AIDS.

The same applies to the novel coronavirus. For example, one of today’s top electron microscopy experts – Duke University pathology professor Sara Miller — herself failed in an April 2021 paper to prove that an electron-microscopy image shows the novel coronavirus. She simply asserted it’s the virus without giving information on, or even references to, the techniques used to show that it is. (If she had given information, it certainly would have relied on the use of antibodies, because they are the main tool for identification purposes. But as I document in my article The Antibody Deception, antibodies cross-react with many other things and therefore cannot accurately pick out the novel coronavirus.)

Mullis wrote the foreword to the very long but very important book Inventing the AIDS VirusThe book was published in 1996 and is by Peter Duesberg, a University of California, Berkeley, professor of biochemistry, biophysics and structural biology. It details the genesis of the HIV-AIDS myth and is still highly relevant today. (Note that Duesberg believes the virus exists but is harmless because it doesn’t multiply in the body, while Mullis believed the virus doesn’t exist at all.)[Note added June 14 after article posted: Mullis apparently did believe the virus exists. See for example this video, which a friend just emailed me. However, I stand by my assertion that HIV has never been conclusively isolated or imaged. Even Mullis’s statements in that video can be seen as indicating HIV is virtually impossible to conclusively isolate or image.]

Mullis writes this in the forward:

“We [he and Duesberg] have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that it is true,” wrote Mullis in that foreword. “… We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.”

In the book, Duesberg documents that one main part of the trajectory toward the creation of the myth started in 1912, with the reorganization of the U.S.’s Public Health Service. Another key part was the creation in 1946 of the predecessor of the current CDC — with its predilection for deeming ‘outbreaks’ to be due to infectious diseases, and then testing, tracking and quarantining people under the premise of stopping the spread.

(Two of many valuable insights by Duesberg are on page 137-138: “The CDC has … continued to exploit public trust by transforming seasonal flus and other minor epidemics into monstrous crises and by manufacturing contagious plagues out of noninfectious medical conditions.” And, “[E]pidemiologists have classically studied clusters of sick people as clues to subtle environmental hazards, not infectious agents. But when public health officials issue ominous warnings about mysterious disease outbreaks, they terrify the public with visions of deadly pandemics.”)

Duesberg also details, on pages 174 to188, the failure of HIV to fulfill Koch’s postulates. And on page 202 he concludes that, “AIDS fails all epidemiological criteria of an infectious disease.”

(I believe the same is true for Covid.)

Duesberg points, in addition, to the reasons ‘experts’ give for why it’s virtually impossible to directly detect the virus. For example, he writes on page 206 that:

“[I]f little or no HIV can be found in the body, scientists propose hidden reservoirs and special routes of infection. If only antibodies against HIV [rather than HIV itself] can be found, researchers call them ‘nonneutralizing’ (or ineffective) antibodies and assert that the virus mutates too fast for the antibodies to keep up…. All these hypotheses are constantly being disproved or shown to be irrelevant, but the reservoir of new evasions is inexhaustible.”

That of course parallels the pranks ‘experts’ are playing on the public with respect to the novel coronavirus and Covid.

There are many other prominent people who have spent decades exposing the HIV-AIDS hoax. They include: activist and journalist John Lauritsen in his many articles and his books including The AIDS War: Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex; microbiologist Eleni Papadopulos in, among others, a 2004 paper detailing the fatal flaws in the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, a 1997 interview and an October 2020 interview; journalist Jon Rappoport in dozens of blog posts including his March 8, 2021 oneand in his 1988 book AIDS Inc.; and Duesberg’s colleague David Rasnick in many formats such as a 2009 article they co-authored, and his blog, including this May 2021 post. (Rappoport and Rasnick, among others, also have pointed out the striking parallels in the politics and deception surrounding HIV and AIDS and the novel coronavirus and COVID.)

What Are the Real Causes of ‘AIDS’?

Duesberg makes the strong case that ‘AIDS’ is actually 30 conditions inappropriately lumped into the single category. And he demonstrates that the main causes are: toxicity from AZT and other meds given to people who test positive for HIV (more on this below); toxicity from recreational drugs like nitrite inhalants — AKA ‘poppers’; and overuse of antibiotics.

In countries such as Africa, the causes also include poverty, malnutrition, lack of indoor plumbing and tropical infections.

Lauritsen also details this in his 1993 book The AIDS War.

“‘AIDS’ … is defined entirely in terms of other, old diseases, in conjunction with dubious test results and even more dubious assumptions. Although people are undeniably sick, ‘AIDS’ itself does not really exist; it is a phoney construct,” Lauritsen states on page 180 of the book.

Yet virtually all the funding for the vast HIV/AIDS research-administrative-medical-industrial complex assumes HIV is the cause of ‘AIDS.

In 1984, just three years after the first report of what later would be dubbed AIDS, Fauci became the head of NIAID.

AIDS made him a star: he’s good at grabbing the spotlight with his gift of glib gab, and under his tenure NIAID ballooned thanks to a huge inflow of AIDS-related funding.

Just three years later, in 1987, the first medication for HIV went on the market: AZT, which is highly toxic.

AZT has killed huge numbers of people, thanks in large part to Fauci pushing the message that it is ‘safe and effective.’

“I would say there were hundreds of thousands of people killed by AZT. And many — perhaps most — of them were perfectly healthy before they were put on the drugs,” Lauritsen told me in a telephone interview from his home in Boston. “They got a positive result on the worthless HIV tests, and then they were told to put time on their side and take AZT. And of course it killed them.”

AZT made a mint for its first manufacturer, Burroughs-Wellcome, and then for its second and current maker, GlaxoSmithKline (which bought Burroughs Wellcome in 1995).

Fauci and other powerful officials have also pushed other deadly drugs, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb’s didanosine (ddI).

Duesberg and Lauritsen detail how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was pressured into giving ddI fast-track approval in 1991 — despite clear evidence that it is toxic, and that there were no placebo-controlled safety or efficacy studies conducted on it.

Even Wikipedia, which usually censors information that criticizes big pharma, states that about one-quarter of people taking ddI develop peripheral neuropathy. And in 2010 the FDA issued a warning that a serious liver disease can occur in people taking ddI.

Today there are at least 46 FDA-approved drugs for people who have tested positive for HIV, according to this list. (The list includes AZT — but for some reason not ddI, even though it’s apparently still on the market).

The most popular of these meds are for pre-exposure prophylaxis’ (PrEP)(also known as ‘treatment as prevention’ or TasP).

Sound familiar? It’s like the billions of perfectly healthy people who are taking the Covid shots.

Most PrEP is combinations of several drugs, many of which are repurposed, older, HIV meds.

The latter include drugs as tenofovir, lamivudine and emtricitabine. These are a type of drug known as nucleoside analogues (AKA nucleoside inhibitors or nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors). And they have the same, and potentially very dangerous, mechanism of action as AZT and ddI: that is, they stop DNA synthesis from taking place in cells throughout the body.

[Full disclosure: in the mid- to late 1990s as a freelance medical writer I co-wrote marketing materials for HIV drugs such as lamivudine and tenofovir through a Toronto, Ontario, marketing agency called Jeffrey Simbrow Associates. Then later, until the mid-2000s, as a medical journalist I wrote many stories for trade publications about HIV drugs. I somehow was completely unaware of the controversy surrounding these drugs and HIV and AIDS.]

Today tens of millions of healthy people are taking PrEP because they’ve been led to believe this will either prevent infection, or lower their HIV levels to undetectable (the latter goes by the slogan ‘U=U’ for ‘undetectable = untransmissible’). And information is suppressed that many people who have tested positive for HIV but haven’t taken any medication remain healthy for decades.

Over the last year, PreP sales have been sliding somewhat, as has HIV testing. ‘Experts’ are blaming this on the curtailment of usual accessible care during the pandemic. (And they’re also telling scary tales of untreated ‘HIV/AIDS’ potentially interfering with efforts to quash Covid.)

Enter the news about HIV vaxxes being on the horizon — and their potentially huge market.

There are tens of millions of people who have tested positive, and many many more being tested every day.

Plus, most people would prefer an HIV vaxx instead of a daily pill; pills are expensive and inconvenient.

Central Players in the HIV and Novel Coronavirus Capers

Not surprisingly, there are major overlaps between the key figures in the HIV-AIDS and novel coronavirus-COVID agendas. And they’re not just the usual suspects such as Bill Gates.

They include names such as Larry Corey, Myron Cohen and Lindsey Baden.

Corey leads the HIV Vaccine Trials Network, a position he’s held since 1999, and which now is the operational center for the COVID-19 Prevention Network (COVPN – mentioned earlier). He also is co-leading vaccine testing at the COVPN – which started, last summer, with a Phase 3 study of one of Moderna’s mRNA Covid jabs.

Cohen is director of the Institute for Global Health and Infections Diseases, and a prof of medical microbiology, immunology and epidemiology at University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

Cohen also is co-principal investigator of the another of the four networks that form COVPN, the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN). (The other two are the Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Consortium and the AIDS Clinical Trials Group.)

They’re testing PrEP drugs and antibodies. The latter includes the AbCellera/Eli Lilly antibody bamlanivumab.

The results of one of those studies, on bamlanivumab for workers and residents in care homes, were announced on Jan. 21 by Lilly via a press release. They were published in the prominent Journal of the American Medical Association on June 3, 2021, with Cohen as the lead author. (In my The Antibody Deception article I described how it’s virtually impossible for bamlanivumab to be an effective treatment for anything.)

Baden is the deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a position he’s had since 2005. And he’s also a long-time associate prof at the Harvard Medical School.

He has been working toward HIV vaxxes since at least 2007

Baden’s pushing both the HIV and Covid agendas forward at warp speed. For example, he’s the first author on the Dec. 30, 2020, NEJM paper that concluded that one of Moderna Covid vaccines has “94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness.”

Baden is funded by, among many others, Moderna, the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Janssen, the Military HIV Research Program and NIAID (see pages 2 and 3 of the disclosure forms for the paper’s authors).

There also are many other ways that the money pipers call Baden’s tune.

For example, since February 2020 Baden has been giving once-weekly audio interviews for NEJM, together with the journal’s editor-in-chief Eric Rubin. The pair use this prominent pulpit to, among other things, endorse mass vaccination for Covid including in minoritiespregnant women and children.

And Baden, Corey and Cohen were among the co-authors of a March 2021 NEJM paper titled, ‘Two randomized trials of neutralizing antibodies to prevent HIV-1 acquisition.’ In other, using antibodies for PrEP.

There are hundreds of other key players in the parallel HIV-COVID play. You can use PubMed to look up the papers and conflicts of interest of prominent scientists in your area who have been among those pushing the Covid agenda.

They include everyone from the infamous Neil Ferguson to one of the two co-chairs of the Canadian COVID-19 Immunity Task ForceCatherine Hankins.

They’re all engaged in the gold rush for bogus ‘vaccines’ and other ‘treatments’ for an array of non-existent or benign conditions.

After obtaining an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, Rosemary Frei became a freelance writer. For the next 22 years she was a medical writer and journalist. She pivoted again in early 2016 to full-time, independent activism and investigative journalism. Her website is

June 16, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 4 Comments