Are these the kind of conditions that we will soon see more often in Europe? In an Italian city, angry citizens stormed the city hall because they had no more money to afford groceries. The mayor refused to receive the angry crowd.
Italian citizens stormed La Spezia City Hall after the mayor refused to receive them: “I have no money to buy bread, what will my daughter eat tonight?” cried a disappointed mother at the official residence of the city. The incident is said to have taken place in the Italian city on Wednesday.
The mayor Pierluigi Peracchini decided to ignore the problems that his constituents have been facing. He is said to have even denied the citizens access to the town hall for a discussion. Rather, as video recordings show, police officers from the local municipality prevented the angry people from penetrating further into the building.
Mayor Peracchini (58) ran for the Coraggio Italia party, a centre-right party. In Italy, the ruthless hammer of inflation has been brought down on citizens. Just recently, shocking video footage of a never-ending line of people circulating outside a food bank in Milan surfaced on Twitter.
Draghi government implode
Many blame Italy’s prime minister, ex-ECB boss Mario Draghi (74). In German-speaking countries, Draghi is however often referred to as a “blessing” (Neue Zürcher Zeitung), a “moderniser” or “Super Mario” (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung). Italians, on the other hand, who have been on the receiving end of his policies, have strongly criticized the social and economic direction of the Prime Minister, who has been in office since February 2021.
In the meantime, Draghi is facing the collapse of his government, because the Five Star Movement [Cinque Stelle] is planning to withdraw from the multi-party coalition over Italian arms deliveries to Ukraine.
In Rome this week, workers, taxi drivers, farmers, fishermen, street vendors and truckers are on the hunt for politicians and masses of angry people have besieged parliament for the second consecutive day.
The Uber Files scandal – leading to the liberalization of taxi licenses imposed by Mario Draghi – has stirred up citizens in particular. At the seat of government, a crowd was seen chanting on Friday: “Come down or we will go up!” A heavy police presence has been noted in the Italian capital.
After the fall of Boris Johnson
After the demise of Boris Johnson the implosion of the Draghi government in Italy is not formally connected to the situation in Ukraine, but it was most certainly this that ruined his tenure. The economic consequences of this war for Italy were such that the ruling coalition could not agree on measures to support the Italian economy due to the economic crisis generated by the war.
Draghi’s resignation, coupled with Johnson’s resignation, now makes it clear that European politicians do not have the opportunity to cover the growing economic crisis and falling living standards with cries of “Putin is to blame”. According to Italian pundit Lorenzo Vita, the premier was “recognized in the EU, NATO and major international circuits” as an important leader, but certainly not at home.
The likely defeat of the Democrats in the midterm congressional elections in the US, for the same reasons, will most probably confirm this trend.
The refusal of the President of Italy to accept Draghi’s resignation in the conditions of the collapse of the coalition does not change much – Italy will most likely move towards new elections.
The funds promised to Ukraine by the EU have been delayed due to concerns over the bloc’s own economic troubles and infighting in Brussels, Bloomberg reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the discussions.
Back in March, the European Commission proposed a €9 billion ($9 billion) loan to Ukraine that would be backed by the guarantees of EU members’ governments. However, so far the bloc has managed to agree only on a first tranche worth €1 billion, which was unveiled on Tuesday.
According to Bloomberg, the hang up is because Germany tried to convince the EU to provide non-refundable grants through the International Monetary Fund rather than loans to Kiev.
A German official was quoted as saying that Berlin does not want to bear the brunt of guaranteeing Ukrainian loans and has asked other members to chip in more.
Separately, a €1.5 billion loan by the European Investment Bank was said to have been blocked within the EU because more guarantees are needed to secure the sum.
The news comes as the EU is grappling with soaring inflation. Germany has been particularly concerned that sanctions and tensions with Russia could compel Moscow to cut off the flow of Russian gas, which could cripple the German economy.
The German government has repeatedly warned that such a scenario would increase unemployment and poverty. Fuel shortages would be “catastrophic” for some industries, Economy Minister Robert Habeck told the magazine Der Spiegel last month.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban raised a similar point on Friday, saying that by imposing sanctions “the European economy has shot itself in the lungs, and it is gasping for air.”
According to Bloomberg, around a third of the 27 member states warned at a meeting of EU finance ministers on Tuesday that additional support was needed for “the most vulnerable groups inside the bloc affected by the ongoing crisis to prevent disaffection toward Kiev.”
An EU official was quoted as saying that Paolo Gentiloni, the bloc’s economy commissioner, told colleagues at a closed-door meeting that national governments needed to “avoid the risk of fatigue among Europeans.”
Western countries, including EU nations, imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia after it sent troops to Ukraine in late February. Last month, the Group of Seven (G7), which includes EU economic powerhouse Germany, pledged to support Kiev “for as long as it takes.”
Data put out by the Labor Department this week showed that the Consumer Price Index hit 9.1 percent in June, its sharpest monthly increase since 1981 and the height of the ‘malaise days’ of the late Carter and early Reagan years. On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen admitted that inflation was “unacceptably high,” but blamed Russia.
The United States has lived through 14 straight months of higher and higher inflation since President Biden and his economic advisors deemed the issue a “temporary” and “transitory” issue that would quickly be brought under control.
“I really doubt that we’re going to see an inflationary cycle, although I will say that all the economists in the administration are watching that very closely. As my colleagues have said… we expect somewhat higher inflation over the next several months for a variety of essentially technical reasons… but that’s a transitory thing, not something that’s associated with a buildup in wage pressures,” Yellen said in a press conference on May 7, 2021.
Two months later, in mid-July 2021, President Biden assured Americans that recent price increases were “temporary,” and not connected in any way, shape or form to his administration’s spending plans. “As our economy has come roaring back, we’ve seen some price increases. Some folks have raised worries that this could be a sign of persistent inflation, but that’s not our view. Our experts believe and the data shows that most of the price increases we’ve seen were expected and are expected to be temporary,” Biden insisted.
What followed has been a steady ladder-shaped month-by-month increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) – the national inflation measure based on the price of a weighted basket of consumer goods and services purchased by households. Inflation crept up 5.4 percent year-on-year (YOY) in July of 2021, 6.2 percent YOY in October, 7.5 percent YOY in January, 8.3 percent YOY in April and YOY 9.1 percent in June.
source: tradingeconomics.com
On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen expressed support for the Federal Reserve’s decision to double interest rates to bring down the “unacceptably high” level of inflation, and assured that the issue was the administration’s “top priority.”
Yellen echoed Mr. Biden’s claims that America’s economic problems were partly Russia’s fault, calling the inflation rate one of the “spillover effects” caused by “Putin’s war” in Ukraine. Yellen added that broken supply chains were part of the problem, and called on G20 economies to “make our economies and our supply chains stronger and more resilient and avoid the sort of costly disruptions that have driven up inflation in America and globally.”
Last month, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell broke with the Biden administration’s “Putin’s price hike” talking point, telling lawmakers at a Senate Banking Committee hearing that “inflation was high before – certainly before the war in Ukraine broke out,” and that the phenomenon is caused by a number of factors, including supply chain disruptions, regulations that constrain supply, and “excessive fiscal spending.”
June’s inflation rate hike constituted the sharpest jump since 1981 – the height of the ‘malaise days’ of raging inflation, low growth, and soaring energy costs. The problem was ultimately resolved by temporarily increasing the interest rate to double digits, easing restrictions on adding to the federal debt, steep government spending cuts and a consumer credit boom.
Kiev is now employing the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) provided by Washington to strike Moscow-controlled areas. Such missiles hit warehouses in Nova Kakhovka – in the Kherson region – containing saltpetre, a chemical compound that is used to make gunpowder and fertilizers. Ukraine claims the target was an ammunition dump. The strike caused a major explosion and fires. Shops, gas stations, pharmacies, a church, and other civilian buildings were also hit. At least seven people were killed and 60 have been wounded, according to Vladimir Leontyev, head of the Russian-controlled Kakhovka District military-civilian administration.
The first M142 HIMARS arrived in Ukraine at the end of June and have been linked to explosions in the Donbass region and southern Ukraine. In its counter-offensive, the Ukrainian authorities are indiscriminately attacking the areas whose control they lost and are basically shelling the very population they consider to be their own people – using American weapons for that. City districts have been leveled, with civilian infrastructure destroyed and many civilians killed in the process.
Last week, Alexandr Shulguin, Moscow’s permanent representative at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), warned that Kiev is preparing provocations with chemical weapons at the Nikolaevka thermal power plant and also at other locations in Kharkiv. He told Rossiya 24 channel that a note was sent to the technical secretariat of the OPCW.
Kiev was in control of the Azot chemical factory in Severodonetsk (now taken by the Russians forces), and, on June 25, Ukrainian shelling forced Russian forces to suspend the evacuation of civilians from the plant. Hundreds of people had taken shelter there. Ukrainian troops also shelled the Yasinovka coking chemical plant in the Kirovsky district of Makiivka in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) on June 19.
Already in May there were reports that Ukrainian nationalist battalions were plotting provocations at the chemical facilities in the so-called “chemical industry triangle” (Severodonetsk, Lisichansk, and Rubezhnoye), which is home to over 30 chemical factories. On May 6, Mikhail Mizintsev, chief of Russia’s National Defense Management Center, had already warned about Kiev’s plans to deploy “heavy weapons” against chemical plants in the region. In fact, the Ukrainian military has been gathering information about chemical facilities in the Donbass, both in the DPR and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR).
Thus, the Ukrainian strategy that is unfolding now seems to involve attacking chemical plants and facilities. And US-provided missile systems might be used for that very purpose. The environmental hazards of this are quite obvious, not to mention the humanitarian disaster and the potential long-term health effects on the population even after the end of the conflict for many years to come (due to soil and water contamination). A lot of chemicals are stored in Donbass, which is a heavily industrialized region. It is also home to a number of mines which are currently closed. If a dam is broken, mercury and sulfur from the flooded mines could end up in the Sea of Azov.
Currently, eight American HIMARs are in Ukraine and four more are expected to arrive by the end of July. Even though Kiev claims this new development is a game changer, it can only protract the conflict and in fact cannot ensure Ukrainians will retake terrain. Last week, on July 6, the Russian defense ministry announced Moscow had destroyed two Ukrainian HIMARS and their ammunition depots in a village south of Kramatorsk in the Donetsk region.
If Kiev keeps targeting chemical facilities, a Russian offensive is sure to follow, and it will include an aerial onslaught. In this scenario, the HIMARs batteries will be helpless, according to a Ukrainian military official quoted by Jack Detsch, a Pentagon correspondent writing for Foreign Policy.
The proxy war the US-led West is waging against Moscow in Ukraine does not seem to have a way out or an exit strategy right now. Even with all the heavy weaponry provided, Russia and its artillery machine cannot be defeated. In fact, the Russian Federation controls three-quarters of the Donbass and still has five times more artillery than Ukraine. Ukrainian officials say there are 10 Russian canons for every Ukrainian one.
Kiev’s other weaknesses are well known, such as its lack of skilled infantry – not to mention the bad shape of its economy. Moreover, there are no real diplomatic endeavors toward peace or a compromise. So, the Western strategy apparently consists in keeping the flow of weapons to Ukraine to prolong an already disastrous conflict, at an enormous humanitarian, environmental and economic cost.
The US House of Representatives has authorized $840 billion in defense spending in 2023, boosting President Joe Biden’s proposed record military budget by $37 billion.
The annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which sets military expenditure, was passed on Thursday by a vote of 329-101.
The bill offers $1 billion in aid to Ukraine, including a program to train Ukrainian pilots to fly F-15, F-16 and other US aircraft. The Ukrainians should familiarize themselves with US-made planes “while the administration continues to consider sending such equipment,” said a statement on Congressman Adam Kinzinger’s website last month.
The bill also bans the supply of the F-16s to Turkey unless the US president guarantees to Congress that Ankara has not “violated the sovereignty of Greece, including through territorial overflights” for 120 days prior to the transfer.
Last month, the Senate Armed Services Committee proposed its own version of the budget, attaching an additional $45 billion to Biden’s original plan.
Both chambers will vote for a compromise budget later this year. Jack Reed, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told Politico magazine on Wednesday that he expects the debate on the matter in September.
The boost to defense spending comes during Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine, and continuing tensions with China over Taiwan and the larger Asia-Pacific.
The US has committed around $5.6 billion in security aid to Kiev after Russia launched its military campaign in late February. The heavy weapons delivered by Washington include M142 HIMARS multiple rocket launchers, M777 howitzers. It has also supplied radars, helicopters, and drones.
The Kremlin has stated that “flooding” Ukraine with foreign weapons would only exacerbate the conflict.
Dutch state broadcasters have come out swinging on behalf of the WEF and are attacking TCS Editor-in-Chief Keean Bexte’s coverage of the Dutch Uprising.
In a video entitled “The Great Reset: the recurring fabrications,” Nieuwsuur, a program produced by government broadcasters, claims that Bexte travelled to the Netherlands to perpetuate supposed conspiracy theories, saying that the WEF has “absolutely nothing” to do with the “nitrogen crisis” — by which they mean the nitrogen policy to cut emissions by 50% and destroy farmers’ livelihoods.
“These bloggers from far-right websites have travelled to the Netherlands especially to see that image confirmed,” the host says before playing a clip of Bexte talking about the WEF’s support for the career-destroying nitrogen policy being protested.
“But the WEF has absolutely nothing to do with the nitrogen crisis,” he continues. “It was the highest judge who ordered the Netherlands to comply with the nitrogen standards of the European Union.”
Yes, but where did the “nitrogen standards” of the European Union come from?
The nitrogen policy that was introduced is just one of many policies being brought forth by the EU to better align with the UN’s radical Sustainable Development Goals to cut all emissions, which is itself part of the UN’s Agenda 2030.
According to the European Commission’s website, “Sustainable development is a core principle of the Treaty on European Union and a priority objective for the Union’s internal and external policies. The United Nations 2030 Agenda includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) intended to apply universally to all countries.”
Moreover, in an EU briefing entitled “European policies on climate and energy towards 2020, 2030 and 2050,” the European Parliament states the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals will impact European policy, specifically regarding climate policy:
Within the framework of the commitments laid down in the Paris Agreement, in November 2018, the European Commission published a new long-term strategy which confirms Europe’s commitment to lead on global climate action and to achieving net-zero GHG emissions by 2050, through a socially fair transition in a cost-efficient manner… The strategy does not intend to launch new policies, nor does the European Commission intend to revise the 2030 targets. It is rather meant to set the direction of transition of EU climate and energy policy, and to frame what the EU considers as its long-term contribution to achieving the Paris Agreement temperature objectives, in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which will further affect a wider set of EU policies.
Now, who has been a core contributor in shaping the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals? Why, the World Economic Forum, of course.
In 2019, the WEF and UN signed a strategic partnership “to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
“The new Strategic Partnership Framework between the United Nations and the World Economic Forum has great potential to advance our efforts on key global challenges and opportunities, from climate change, health and education to gender equality, digital cooperation and financing for sustainable development,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres at the time.
So, yes. If the Netherlands is abiding by the EU’s climate policies, and the EU’s climate policies are based on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, and the WEF signed a partnership with the UN to control what these goals are, I think it’s safe to say that the WEF absolutely has something to do with the nitrogen policy being protested right now.
This should be obvious, as founder Klaus Schwab’s whole Great Reset book (which the host says he read) is all about utilizing the COVID pandemic to get countries to achieve the 2030 Agenda on time.
Besides licking Schwab’s boots, Nieuwsuur also goes after legal philosopher Eva Vlaardingerbroek andDutch politicians opposed to the WEF, specifically Thierry Baudet, the leader of the Forum for Democracy, lamenting the popularity of Baudet’s critical posts regarding the Great Reset.
The host also admits that Klaus Schwab didn’t have enough time to do an interview with him to talk about the Great Reset (embarrassing) before continuing to defend the World Economic Forum. He claims that everything negative that people say about the WEF is “sheer nonsense.”
Funnily enough, speaking at the WEF in 2020, Dutch PM Mark Rutte advised that governments and businesses around the world should start paying off journalists to control the narrative and bring the people honest coverage. It appears we are seeing the fruits of this initiative.
“You need the free press at these moments to be able to explain to the people what is really happening. But that costs money,” Rutte explains. “So, one of the pleas I have with big business here in Davos [is] don’t put all your money in the internet advertising. Make sure that our newspapers, our news outlets — also our TV stations — also in the future will be able to pay sensible and real salaries to our journalists to be able to do this.”
The globalists, of course, applauded the plea for more corruption, which the Dutch are now dealing with right now.
It’s been a busy two days for the monkeypox madness.
First, the World Health Organization announced their plans to hold a second “emergency meeting” on the monkeypox outbreak, to discuss if it merits being declared a “global emergency”.
As if trying to supply fuel for the WHO’s meeting next week, countries all around the world are reporting up ticks in cases.
Yesterday Global News reported that Canada’s monkeypox cases had “risen by 59% in just 9 days” (from 300 to 477 if you’re one of those people who likes hard figures in place of scary-sounding percentages).
Elsewhere in the UK press, one “expert” was “warning” that Monkeypox will become “endemic” if we don’t “take action”.
The “expert” also suggests that it would be wrong to “sit back and watch” monkeypox become endemic in “men who have sex with men”. Perhaps revealing the point of that part of the narrative – that if you reject monkeypox as anything to be worried about at all, you’re just being homophobic or speaking with “straight privilege”.
A similar angle is taken in this NPR piece, which claims that “the warning signs were there” with monkeypox for over a decade, and the only reason we never did anything about it is that it only affected poor African nations. Ergo, if you don’t care about monkeypox you’re a racist.
New York is apparently experiencing “urgent” vaccine shortages amid “rising cases”… rising from 223 to 267.
The US generally has seen cases increase from 700 to over a thousand since Monday. Monday was also the day they started allowing private labs to begin running tests. It’s baffling, isn’t it?
Meanwhile, on the other side of Iron Curtain 2.0, Russia reported their first monkeypox case on Tuesday. A handy reminder of their current position on the great reset agenda.
So, given all this, will the WHO declare monkeypox a “public health emergency of international concern”?
The smart money is very much on “yes”.
But there’s good news too… for biotech shareholders. China’s ZJ Biotech has seen its share prices increase by over 10% in just a day after the WHO announced a supply deal with the tech firm to manufacture Monkeypox test kits.
They still haven’t told us what they’re changing the name to, though. Maybe they can discuss that at the emergency meeting too.
‘People are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.’
By Marty Makary M.D., M.P.H. and Tracy Beth Høeg M.D., Ph.D. | Common Sense | July 14, 2022
The calls and text messages are relentless. On the other end are doctors and scientists at the top levels of the NIH, FDA and CDC. They are variously frustrated, exasperated and alarmed about the direction of the agencies to which they have devoted their careers.
“It’s like a horror movie I’m being forced to watch and I can’t close my eyes,” one senior FDA official lamented. “People are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.”
That particular FDA doctor was referring to two recent developments inside the agency. First, how, with no solid clinical data, the agency authorized Covid vaccines for infants and toddlers, including those who already had Covid. And second, the fact that just months before, the FDA bypassed their external experts to authorize booster shots for young children.
That doctor is hardly alone.
At the NIH, doctors and scientists complain to us about low morale and lower staffing: The NIH’s Vaccine Research Center has had many of its senior scientists leave over the last year, including the director, deputy director and chief medical officer. “They have no leadership right now. Suddenly there’s an enormous number of jobs opening up at the highest level positions,” one NIH scientist told us. (The people who spoke to us would only agree to be quoted anonymously, citing fear of professional repercussions.)
The CDC has experienced a similar exodus. “There’s been a large amount of turnover. Morale is low,” one high level official at the CDC told us. “Things have become so political, so what are we there for?” Another CDC scientist told us: “I used to be proud to tell people I work at the CDC. Now I’m embarrassed.”
Why are they embarrassed? In short, bad science.
The longer answer: that the heads of their agencies are using weak or flawed data to make critically important public health decisions. That such decisions are being driven by what’s politically palatable to people in Washington or to the Biden administration. And that they have a myopic focus on one virus instead of overall health.
Nowhere has this problem been clearer—or the stakes higher—than on official public health policy regarding children and Covid.
First, they demanded that young children be masked in schools. On this score, the agencies were wrong. Compelling studies later found schools that masked children had no different rates of transmission. And for social and linguistic development, children need to see the faces of others.
Next came school closures. The agencies were wrong—and catastrophically so. Poor and minority children suffered learning loss with an 11-point drop in math scores alone and a 20% drop in math pass rates. There are dozens of statistics of this kind.
Then they ignored natural immunity. Wrong again. The vast majority of children have already had Covid, but this has made no difference in the blanket mandates for childhood vaccines. And now, by mandating vaccines and boosters for young healthy people, with no strong supporting data, these agencies are only further eroding public trust. … Full article
Pfizer’s Paxlovid was granted emergency use authorization to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in December 2021.1 The drug consists of nirmatrelvir tablets — the antiviral component — and ritonavir tablets, which are intended to slow the breakdown of nirmatrelvir.2
What started out as a slow rollout — only 40,000 or fewer prescriptions were written for the drug in the U.S. each week through April 2022 — has gained steam, with more than 160,000 Paxlovid prescriptions now being issued each week.3 As of June 30, 2022, 1.6 million courses of Paxlovid have been prescribed in the U.S. since its emergency use approval in December.4
Yet, this increase in prescribing could be contributing to one of the significant downfalls of the drug — the creation of selective pressure on SARS-CoV-2, which promotes mutations that could make it resistant to the drug.5 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also issued a warning to health care providers and public health departments about the potential for COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatment.6
This recently happened to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), who experienced a return of COVID-19 symptoms after taking Paxlovid. He then took a second course of the drug, which could trigger even more mutations in the virus.
Paxlovid Triggers Fauci’s COVID-19 Rebound
Fauci said he tested positive for COVID-19, with only minimal symptoms. As his symptoms increased, he took Paxlovid for five days, after which he tested negative for three consecutive days. On the fourth day of testing, he tested positive for COVID-19 again, with symptoms worse off than they were the first time.
“It was sort of what people are referring to as a Paxlovid rebound,” he said. “… Over the next day or so I started to feel really poorly, much worse than in the first go around.”7 He was then prescribed a second course of Paxlovid.
On June 30, he stated, “I went back on Paxlovid, and right now I am on my fourth day of a five-day course of my second course of Paxlovid. Fortunately, I feel reasonably good. I mean, I’m not completely without symptoms, but I certainly don’t feel acutely ill.”8 In the CDC’s health advisory regarding COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatment it’s stated:9
“Recent case reports document that some patients with normal immune response who have completed a 5-day course of Paxlovid for laboratory-confirmed infection and have recovered can experience recurrent illness 2 to 8 days later, including patients who have been vaccinated and/or boosted …
These cases of COVID-19 rebound had negative test results after Paxlovid treatment and had subsequent positive viral antigen and/or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing.”
COVID-19 Still Spreads During Paxlovid Rebound
People who take Paxlovid can still transmit COVID-19 to others, even if they’re asymptomatic, according to a preprint study.10 Study author Dr. Michael Charness of the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Boston told CNN, “People who experience rebound are at risk of transmitting to other people, even though they’re outside what people accept as the usual window for being able to transmit.”11
The CDC12 and Pfizer13 have suggested that sometimes COVID-19 naturally comes back after a person tests negative, implying that COVID-19 rebound is spontaneous and not necessarily linked to Paxlovid. However, Charness and colleagues didn’t find this to be the case. When they analyzed 1,000 cases of COVID-19 diagnosed among members of the National Basketball Association — none of whom took Paxlovid — no cases of COVID-19 rebound were found.14
Research published in Clinical Infectious Diseases15 looked into why Paxlovid may be leading to rebound symptoms and suggests it could be the result of insufficient exposure to the drug.16 “Not enough of the drug was getting to infected cells to stop all viral replication,” UC San Diego Health reported. “They suggested this may be due to the drug being metabolized more quickly in some individuals or that the drug needs to be delivered over a longer treatment duration.”17
Pfizer Seeks FDA Approval for Paxlovid
Despite the many questions regarding Paxlovid’s association with rebound infections, Pfizer is moving ahead and seeking full approval of the drug from the FDA.18 The drug’s emergency use authorization restricts who the drug can be sold and marketed to. Once full FDA approval is granted, Pfizer can market the drug directly to consumers.
Paxlovid’s emergency use authorization allows it to be prescribed for adults and children ages 12 and older who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19.19 Pfizer estimates that up to 60% of the U.S. population meets these criteria and has at least one risk factor for severe illness, such as obesity or diabetes, making them eligible for the drug.20
However, concerns have risen over whether Paxlovid, which is said to cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 86% in high-risk patients, when taken within five days of symptoms starting,21 is effective in people who are not high-risk.
In fact, Pfizer stopped a large trial of Paxlovid in standard-risk patients because it didn’t show significant protection against hospitalization or death in this group.22 According to a news release from Pfizer:23
“In previously reported interim analyses, the company disclosed that the novel primary endpoint of self-reported, sustained alleviation of all symptoms for four consecutive days was not met, and a non-significant 70% relative risk reduction was observed in the key secondary endpoint of hospitalization or death (treatment arm: 3/428; placebo: 10/426).
An updated analysis from 1,153 patients enrolled through December 2021 showed a non-significant 51% relative risk reduction (treatment arm: 5/576; placebo: 10/569). A sub-group analysis of 721 vaccinated adults with at least one risk factor for progression to severe COVID-19 showed a non-significant 57% relative risk reduction in hospitalization or death (treatment arm: 3/361; placebo: 7/360).”
Is Paxlovid Triggering SARS-CoV-2 Mutations?
Initial reports have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 is not mutating and becoming resistant to Paxlovid, but some experts believe it’s only a matter of time before this occurs — and emerging research suggests it’s already happened.
David Ho, a virologist at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia University, was among the first to document resistance mutations in HIV 30 years ago and believes the same may be coming with SARS-CoV-2.24 He’s also experienced post-Paxlovid COVID-19 rebound firsthand. Bloomberg reported:25
“Ho said he came down with COVID on April 6 … His doctor prescribed Paxlovid, and within days of taking it, his symptoms dissipated and tests turned negative. But 10 days after first getting sick, the symptoms returned and his tests turned positive for another two days.
Ho said he sequenced his own virus and found that both infections were from the same strain, confirming that the virus had not mutated and become resistant to Paxlovid. A second family member who also got sick around the same time also had post-Paxlovid rebound in symptoms and virus, Ho says.
‘It surprised the heck out of me,’ he said. ‘Up until that point I had not heard of such cases elsewhere.’ While the reasons for the rebound are still unclear, Ho theorizes that it may occur when a small proportion of virus-infected cells may remain viable and resume pumping out viral progeny once treatment stops.”
Studies Show COVID-19 Virus Developing Paxlovid Resistance
Two separate studies cultured SARS-CoV-2 in a lab and exposed it to low levels of nirmatrelvir, which would kill some, but not all, of the virus. “Such tests are meant to simulate what might happen in an infected person who doesn’t take the whole regimen of the drug or an immunocompromised patient who has trouble clearing the virus,” Science reported.26
One of the studies revealed that SARS-CoV-2 developed three mutations after 12 rounds of nirmatrelvir treatment — “at positions 50, 166 and 167 in the string of amino acids that make up MPRO.”27 The mutations amounted to a 20-fold reduction in the virus’ susceptibility to nirmatrelvir.28 The other study29 also found mutations at positions 50 and 166, revealing that when they occurred together, SARS-CoV-2 became 80 times less susceptible to nirmatrelvir. According to the study:30
“Reverse genetic studies in a homologous infectious cell culture system revealed up to 80-fold resistance conferred by the combination of substitutions L50F and E166V. Resistant variants had high fitness increasing the likelihood of occurrence and spread of resistance.”
Lead study author Judith Margarete Gottwein with the University of Copenhagen told Science, “This tells us what mutations we should be looking for [in patients].”31 Ho, who was not involved in these studies, agreed that it appeared mutations were an inevitable outcome.
He told Science, “when you put pressure on the virus it escapes … Given the amount of infections out there, it’s going to come.”32 It’s also completely unknown what may happen when two courses of Paxlovid are taken in quick succession to treat COVID-19 rebound — as occurred with Fauci. It’s possible that ever-mutating COVID-19 variants could be created.
Other antivirals on the market to treat COVID-19 have also led to concerns over mutations. Molnupiravir (sold under the brand name Lagevrio) was developed by Merck and Ridgeback Therapeutics and approved by the FDA for emergency use December 23, 2021, for high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID symptoms.
However, not only might it contribute to cancer and birth defects, it may also supercharge the rate at which the virus mutates inside the patient, resulting in newer and more resistant variants.33
Other Early COVID-19 Treatments Ignored
Using drugs that cause high rates of organ failure, like remdesivir, and drugs that cause the virus to rebound with a vengeance, like Paxlovid, and potentially trigger mutations don’t seem to be in the best interest of public health. The fact that U.S. health authorities have focused on these drugs to the exclusion of all others, including older drugs with high rates of effectiveness and superior safety profiles, sends a very disturbing message.
An investigation by Cornell University, posted on the University’s preprint server January 20, 2022, found ivermectin outperformed 10 other drugs against COVID-19, making it the most effective against the Omicron variant.34 It even outperformed Paxlovid, yet it’s been vilified by health officials and mainstream media.
Remdesivir costs between $2,340 and $3,120,35 and nirmatrelvir costs $529 per five-day treatment,36 while the average treatment cost for ivermectin is $58.37 Do you think this has anything to do with ivermectin’s vilification?
Paxlovid alone has cost U.S. taxpayers $5.29 billion,38 while safe and less expensive options exist. Dr. Pierre Kory, who is part of the group that formed the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC) to advance early treatments for COVID-19, pleaded with the U.S. government early on in the pandemic to review the expansive data on ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, keep those with early symptoms from progressing and help critically ill patients recover — to no avail.39,40
However, if you’d like to learn more about its potential uses for SARS-CoV-2, FLCCC’s I-MASK+ protocol can be downloaded in full,41 giving you step-by-step instructions on how to prevent and treat the early symptoms of COVID-19.
U.S. President Joe Biden said in an interview aired Wednesday that he would be willing to go to war with Iran to prevent the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon, a position that drew condemnation from advocacy groups and foreign policy analysts who questioned the moral, strategic, and legal bases for such a stance.
Biden also reiterated in the sit-down interview with Israeli broadcaster N12 that he is committed to keeping the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on the U.S. State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations list, even if it means sinking the prospects of a deal to revive the nuclear accord that former President Donald Trump violated in 2018.
While acknowledging that Trump’s decision to abandon the seven-country deal was a “gigantic mistake,” Biden said he would not delist the IRGC to advance nuclear talks that have hit a wall in recent weeks.
Biden offered a one-word answer—”yes”—when asked whether he would keep the IRGC on the terror list “even if that means that kills the deal.”
The U.S. president went on to say that he’s prepared to use military force “as a last resort” to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran has repeatedly said it is not pursuing a nuclear weapon and that its nuclear energy program is designed for peaceful domestic purposes.
Peace organizations were outraged by the president’s interview, noting that the terror designation is largely symbolic while the nuclear deal was a substantive diplomatic achievement that lifted devastating economic sanctions in exchange for limits to Iran’s nuclear program.
“Let’s be clear: Congress has not authorized—and the American people overwhelmingly do not support—the use of force against Iran,” said the Friends Committee on National Legislation. “If the president is committed to preventing nuclear proliferation, he should return to the nuclear deal and prioritize diplomacy. War is not the answer.”
Matt Duss, foreign policy adviser to U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), responded that “it makes absolutely zero sense that he won’t delist the IRGC to prevent an Iranian nuke but would launch a war to prevent an Iranian nuke.”
The president’s remarks came days after his administration announced new sanctions targeting Iranian firms and individuals, a move seen as further evidence that Biden remains wedded to the failed “maximum pressure” campaign that his predecessor launched, imperiling any remaining hopes of a breakthrough in the stalled nuclear talks.
“Astonishing to see the president say he is willing to throw away the diplomatic progress his team has made and invite war with Iran over pointless partisan symbolism,” said progressive advocacy group Win Without War.
Several companies complicit in destroying and pillaging water resources in occupied Palestine have been warned that they are violating Palestinians’ right to self-determination and international law.
Al-Haq, a Palestinian NGO, has called out a number of companies including Israel’s national water company, Mekorot, Hagihon Company, TAHAL Group International B.V, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Caterpillar, manufacturing giant JCB and Volvo Group.
According to Wafa news agency, the corporations enable Israel’s appropriation of water by supporting the ongoing dispossession of the already restricted water access to Palestinian communities.
An example includes Israel’s national water company, Mekorot, which uses stolen water to increase the supply to illegal Israeli settlements, which have a high demand. It does not do the same for Palestinian communities and cities in the occupied West Bank. Indeed, it discriminates systematically, and denies water to the Palestinian population, the rights group said.
In a letter addressed to the companies, Al-Haq wrote: “By illegally appropriating large water quantities from Palestinians, Mekorot’s actions may amount to the war crime of pillage. Mekorot’s drilling of illegal wells, along with TAHAL’s infrastructural support, serves illegal Israeli settlements with an unlimited supply of water, while simultaneously restricting water supply for Palestinian communities in the same region.”
“This sustains the transfer of a foreign population into the OPT, constituting a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Through these actions, Mekorot, and many other corporations, blatantly violate Palestinians’ means of subsistence, a violation of Article 1(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 1(2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.”
The Palestinian rights organisation called on the corporations to terminate their business in the occupied territories and “to act with enhanced due diligence to avoid further involvement in serious human rights violations and war crimes.”
Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967. Human rights abuses against Palestinians and breaches of international law are daily occurrences.
The ruthless businessman who financed coups in Central America and shaped Israeli statehood
José Niño Unfiltered | May 7, 2026
Leftist commentators consistently push a shallow and economically reductive narrative that frames American foreign policy as the sole domain of greedy White capitalists while choosing to ignore the obvious Jewish power structure directing these events. When the veneer of this supposed corporate imperialism is stripped away, it becomes clear that the United States has often served as a vehicle for the specific goals of organized Jewry. The life of Samuel Zemurray stands as prime evidence of this hidden mechanism.
Few figures in American business history wielded power as ruthlessly or as secretly as Zemurray. Born Schmiel Zmurri on January 18, 1877, to a poor Jewish family in Imperial Russia, this teenage immigrant would rise from peddling rotting bananas off railroad cars in Alabama to become the controlling force behind the United Fruit Company, the most powerful agricultural corporation on earth. Along the way he overthrew governments, bribed presidents, hired mercenaries, and played a pivotal behind-the-scenes role in the creation of the State of Israel. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Leftist commentators consistently push a shallow and economically reductive narrative that frames American foreign policy as the sole domain of greedy White capitalists while choosing to ignore the obvious Jewish power structure directing these events. When the veneer of this supposed corporate imperialism is stripped away, it becomes clear that the United States has often served as a vehicle for the specific goals of organized Jewry. The life of Samuel Zemurray stands as prime evidence of this hidden mechanism.
Aletho News 