Aletho News


Pfizer’s Bourla has Covid Again, a Month After His Previous Bout

Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS)?

By Igor Chudov | September 24, 2022

Amazing news from Pfizer’s Albert Bourla.

“I have tested positive for COVID. I’m feeling well & symptom free. I’ve not had the new bivalent booster yet, as I was following CDC guidelines to wait 3 months since my previous COVID case which was back in mid-August. While we’ve made great progress, the virus is still with us.”

Mr. Bourla had his previous Covid infection in mid-August. Now he tested positive for Covid again, only a month after his previous illness. Albert is very lucky to be protected by his vaccine and previous booster doses!

Pfizer’s CEO says that he did not yet get the bivalent booster, because he wanted to wait 3 months after his most recent infection.

This is what the CDC said about this:

So, the CDC said that Bourla had a “low risk of reinfection” for three months after his last Covid — but Bourla got Covid a mere month after his previous infection.

Albert is not alone. Here’s a Redditor who is having his or her FIFTH Covid in 1.5 years:

Covid is not going anywhere.

Apparently, it is again rising strongly in the UK. The United States is usually about a month behind the UK. So, for now, the US is in the “Covid is over” phase.

Is Albert having VAIDS and is unable to get any kind of immunity?

He is definitely one person who I badly want to take his own 8-mouse booster as soon as possible.

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 3 Comments

After 21-Year Delay, Judge Hears Evidence in Lawsuit Alleging Cellphones Caused Plaintiffs’ Brain Cancer

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 23, 2022

A judge this month is hearing evidence in a lawsuit filed in 2011 by a group of individuals who developed cancer, allegedly as a result of radiation from their cellphones. Depending on how the judge rules, the lawsuit could finally head to a jury trial.

Evidentiary hearings in Murray v. Motorola began Sept. 12 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and are scheduled to continue until Sept. 30. Expert testimony will be presented during the hearings before the case goes before a jury.

In a parallel case that may have repercussions for the D.C. case, a similar lawsuit before a federal court in Louisiana — filed by the widow of a man who died of an aggressive form of brain cancer allegedly caused by cellphone radiation — also is headed to trial.

The D.C. case is proceeding without the plaintiffs being able to present a significant category of evidence pertaining to the defendants’ liability. However, that evidence will be heard in the Louisiana case.

In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Hunter Lundy, a lawyer representing plaintiffs in both cases, discussed the evidence and expert testimony and the potential significance rulings in this case could have.

D.C. case: lawsuit filed in 2001 finally headed to a jury

In 2001 and 2002, six individuals, including Michael Patrick Murray, sued the telecommunications industry.

The six plaintiffs had developed brain tumors beneath where they held their cellphones. Additional plaintiffs joined the case in 2010, 2011 and thereafter — with the number of plaintiffs now exceeding 80, according to Lundy.

The defendants are a who’s who of major telecommunications companies, including AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Bell South, Motorola, Nokia, Qualcomm, Samsung, Sanyo, Sony, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon and many other companies.

The lawsuit also names the Federal Communications Commission and the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CITA), an industry lobbying group.

After 21 years and multiple delays, many of the plaintiffs have since died.

Despite efforts on the part of the defendants to get the lawsuit dismissed or relocated to federal court in Maryland, the case was initially remanded from the D.C. District Court to the D.C. Superior Court — where the complaints were dismissed in 2007, before being partially reinstated in 2009, by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case continued to wind through the courts, with evidentiary hearings finally beginning this year.

Lundy discussed key details about the lawsuit, stating that the plaintiffs alleged: “the radiation frequency … the microwave radiation coming out of cellphones increased the risk of individuals getting brain tumors.”

The plaintiffs further alleged that “the cell phone industry, the manufacturers and the carriers knew when these [cellphones] were put out on the market that they had dangers that they didn’t warn people about,” said Lundy.

However, Lundy said that the main thrust of the case concerns gliomas — tumors that impact the brain and spinal cord.

According to Lundy, “There are several kinds of gliomas … the most prevalent one is the glioblastoma,” a type of malignant glioma.

Other gliomas, such as acoustic neuroma, are benign, Lundy told The Defender, but form on the cerebral nerve inside the brain, growing without their victims being aware of them. Eventually, their growth leads to hearing loss and their removal results in residual brain damage.

Ultimately, most such cases result in death, said Lundy. With glioblastoma, for instance, diagnoses range from having three to four months — to five years at most — to live.

“There’s not a lot of optimism when you get a glioblastoma,” said Lundy. “And so, whether it’s directly or indirectly, [the gliomas] have a genotoxic effect which will end up having a mutagenic effect and then a tumor coming out of it.”

Referring to the plaintiffs in the D.C. case, Lundy said, “Many of them have died, and many of the cases are just death cases right up front, or the widows or family members brought the suits.”

“This is what the battle is [about] … that’s our case in a nutshell,” explained Lundy.

The victims were impacted by first-, second- and third-generation analog cellphones produced in the 1980s and 1990s. “The antennas were up at the top of the phone and some of them were operated on three watt and greater power,” Lundy said, whereas “Today you’ve got smartphones operating on a quarter watt.”

Lundy told The Defender :

“There was a long period of years in which people were getting high exposure from cellphone radiation because they were using them so much … and there wasn’t sufficient information, instruction or warning by the industry to the user of the dangers involved. That’s the thrust of the case.”

“Our argument is that if you continue to use the analogue [phones] and you use the second- or some of the third-generation [devices], you’ll see a linear effect” regarding radiation exposure and latency, Lundy added, where the effects of such radiation become apparent over time.

As an example, Lundy referred to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, where “it was still 40 years before … you saw tremendous numbers of cancers developing.”

Although the plaintiffs were from different parts of the U.S., the initial lawsuits — later combined into the current case — were filed in the District of Columbia “because [of] the idea that the lobbying institutions of the wireless industry [are] located in D.C.,” said Lundy.

However, these lobbying groups — and the rest of the defendants — “don’t want us to have a trial in front of a jury,” said Lundy, which resulted in the defendants using a variety of delay tactics.

In 2013, a Frye hearing was held, during which, according to Lundy, the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses “had to pass a standard before they could testify in front of a jury.”

“The Frye standard had to be met where you proved that the methodology used by the expert … was generally accepted in the scientific community,” Lundy said.

In the period between 2013 and 2015, the five experts put forth by the plaintiffs were approved according to the Frye standard and a trial was held, Lundy said. However, the defendants, on appeal, were able to get the case reversed and to get the standard by which the plaintiffs’ experts were evaluated changed, to the Daubert standard.

According to Lundy, in this second standard, “you had to prove that not only was the science [accepted], you had to prove that it was reliable and that it was readily available.”

“In the interim,” according to Lundy, “we have been through several judges.”

Ultimately, the plaintiffs were not allowed to supplement the opinions of the initial experts with new witnesses and new science, unless it “somehow [was] related to the old opinion,” Lundy said. This hamstrung the plaintiffs and subsequent judges hearing the case, he added.

But “We’re going forward with other witnesses … and then the case will be submitted to the court again and there will probably be post-hearing briefs,” Lundy said. “At some point, the court will make a ruling and then both parties will have a right to appeal … and so, the process goes on.”

Louisiana case an opportunity for more expert testimony to be presented

The related case, Walker v. Motorola et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, may present an opportunity for plaintiffs to present expert testimony that was shut out of the D.C. case.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, is co-counsel in this case.

According to Lundy, this lawsuit has the potential to quickly go to trial.

“Ahead of what’s going on in D.C., we just want a case to go to trial somewhere … we need a ruling before people go forward,” Lundy told The Defender.

Referring to the D.C. case, Lundy said:

“We haven’t been able to get … liability document production, discussing the development of the products, the interaction between risk management and others.

“So I think in Louisiana, if we prevail, we will get the discovery [of such evidence]. It’s a different ballgame.”

In the Louisiana case, the family of Frank Aaron Walker sued the telecommunications industry, alleging the pastor’s death from an aggressive brain cancer was brought on by cellphone radiation, the health risks of which the industry has known for decades.

According to the suit, the telecommunications industry “suppressed credible cell phone safety concerns and has conspired to conceal or alter results of safety studies to make them more ‘market-friendly.’”

Walker was “a 25-year user of cell phone products,” the suit claims, before dying on Dec. 31, 2020, age 49, following “a two-year battle with glioblastoma that included extensive radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.”

During this two-year period, Walker experienced severe symptoms including “seizures, visual auras, excessive fatigue, migraines, light sensitivity, memory problems, psychological and emotional stress, anxiety, and depression,” the lawsuit alleges.

Similar to the D.C. case, the defendants in the Louisiana lawsuit include several major telecommunications industry players, such as AT&T, Cricket Communications, CITA, Motorola, the Telecommunications Industry Association and ZTE.

In a 2021 press release issued after the lawsuit was filed, Lundy stated:

“For generations, the telecom industry has fought the release of scientific studies and information regarding ties between mobile phone use and brain tumors. The industry manipulated the science to the detriment of consumers.

“With this lawsuit, Mr. Walker’s family hopes to help reveal the telecom industry’s secrets and hold them accountable for harm done to consumers.”

In the same release, Lundy alleged the telecommunications industry “downplayed, understated, and/or did not state the health hazards and risks associated with cell phones.”

The press release also quoted Walker’s widow, April Marie Walker:

“Throughout his battle with cancer, Frank never lost his faith or his sense of humor, but he suffered terribly.

“Our family’s hope now is that we can force the telecom industry to let consumers make informed choices about the products we buy.

“If the telecom industry knew holding a cell phone next to one’s head is dangerous, then the public should have known this information.”

In remarking on the broader significance of this case, Lundy said:

“There needs to be an exposure of truth. I just believe everybody should be accountable.

“We have not been allowed to do liability discovery. We have done scientific discovery and evidence about science. But we do not yet have the industry’s documents.

“I think we’ll be able … to do liability discovery here in federal court in Louisiana when we go forward.”

Industry concealed studies linking cellphone use to brain and DNA damage, plaintiffs allege

The Louisiana lawsuit also cites a significant number of scientific studies and industry actions taken since the 1980s, “including the firing, defunding or denigration of researchers who discovered adverse effects associated with cell phone use.”

According to the lawsuit:

“At all times herein mentioned, Defendants were aware of numerous studies and experiments that demonstrated the health hazards of RF radiation dating back to the late 1940s and continuing to this day, yet Defendants have consistently maintained to the public at large that cell phones are absolutely safe.”

The lawsuit alleges “scientific and medical research, published in peer-reviewed literature, has demonstrated a correlation between biological effects and the exposure to RF radiation within the radio frequency band of 300 megahertz to 2.4 gigahertz,” noting, however, that such peer-reviewed journals are not typically read by the general public.

Radiation exposure standards adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), initially in the 1960s, and subsequently modified in the 1980s and 1990s, “excluded cell phones,” states the lawsuit, as “the cell phone industry manipulated the research and pressured members of the ANSI Safety Committee to exempt cell phones from regulation and compliance.”

However, as scientific and public concern over radiation produced by cellular phones increased in the 1990s, “defendants, individually and through their trade associations … undertook with public fanfare to fund scientific studies to prove the safety of cell phones,” resulting in the formation of the Scientific Advisory Group in 1993.

Subsequently, industry associations CTIA and Telecommunications Industry Association hired an expert, Dr. George Carlo, to direct the Scientific Advisory Group and conduct research into cellular phone radiation. However, as the lawsuit states:

“When this industry-funded research failed to corroborate the industry’s claims of safety and, in fact, presented new evidence supporting health concerns, the industry responded by terminating the research funding and publicly disparaging Dr. Carlo as well as suppressing and minimizing the results of his studies.”

Nevertheless, numerous other scientific studies followed, calling into question the industry’s claims regarding the safety of their mobile devices. These studies are cited in the lawsuit and include:

  • A 1995 University of Washington study conducted on rats exposed to “radiation similar to the type of radiation emitted from the antenna of a cell phone,” found the radiation caused damage to DNA. The industry funded research that aimed to disprove these fundings, but which ultimately confirmed them, leading the industry to refuse to publish the results.
  • Another scientist who subsequently replicated the DNA damage found by the University of Washington research had his findings “suppressed” by the industry, pressuring him and threatening to withdraw funding.
  • A 1996 study of Air Force personnel found those exposed to RF radiation had a “risk of brain tumors 1.39 times higher … versus those not exposed.”
  • A 2000 study by Sweden’s Orebro Medical Center “found the risk of tumors developing on the same side of the head cell phone users hold their cell phones is significantly higher than it is for the other side.”
  • In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a decade-long multinational research study, the “Interphone Study,” ultimately finding that “the use of cell phones for a period of 10 years or more can increase the risk of glioblastomas by 40% in adults” and that “tumors are most likely to occur on the side of the head most used for calling.”
  • A 2002 Swedish study found “the risk of developing brain tumors from first-generation cell phones … was as much as 80% greater than those who did not use cell phones.”
  • Another Swedish study, in 2003, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which in turn operates under the aegis of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “found electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by certain cell phones damaged neurons in the brains of rats.”
  • A four-year study performed by Reflex, with funding from the European Union, in 2004 found that “radio waves from cell phones damage DNA and other cells in the body and that the damage extended to the next generation of cells.”

The lawsuit adds, “mutated cells are considered a possible cause of cancer,” and that the radiation levels tested in the study were within the range used by most cellphones at that time. The study ultimately “advised people to use landlines, rather than cell phones, whenever possible.”

  • A 2005 study “reported using a cell phone in rural areas might lead to the development of brain tumors.” As cellphone towers are more sparsely placed in rural locations, cellular devices tend to use higher wattage in order to achieve reception of a mobile signal.
  • A 2009 meta-analysis of 465 scholarly studies involving the relationship between cellphone radiation and cancer, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, “demonstrated a significant positive association between cell phone use and cancer” and “established the association increased with long-term cell phone use.”
  • hearing held by the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies in 2009 featured testimony from an investigator involved in the Interphone Study that was also published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

According to the expert, there was “an elevated risk of salivary gland tumors was seen among people who used cell phones for more than 10 years, especially when the phone was usually held on the same side of the head where the tumor was found, and when use was relatively heavy.”

  • In 2011, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) “declared the RF radiation emitted from cell phones to be ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans.’”

Also according to the lawsuit, in the period since the IARC’s 2011 declaration, “more than 1,000 additional scientific studies have been published in peer-reviewed literature further supporting the causal link between cell phone radiation, brain tumors and health effects.”

The lawsuit states that “several experts have analyzed this new information and concluded cell phone radiation should be classified as a ‘probable human carcinogen.’”

Some of these subsequent studies include:

  • A 2015 study out of Jacobs University in Germany, finding (and replicating the results of a 2010 German study) that “weak cell phone signals can promote the growth of tumors in mice,” at “radiation levels that do not cause heating and are well below current safety standards.”
  • A 2016 study by the U.S. National Toxicology Program, finding that “male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed higher rates of cancer” and also “caused DNA breaks in the male rats’ brains.”

Remarking on these studies and on the type of testing performed by the telecommunications industry with regard to radiation produced by cellular phones, Lundy told The Defender :

“We know that, for instance, the cellphone industry, the cellphones are supposed to pass a standard called SAR — Specific Absorption Rate. They did these [tests] on mannequins.

“There’s nothing wrong with the standard. But the way they test it to comply with the standard was wrong. And they used 6’2” male mannequins to determine whether or not these phones were passing SAR, and that’s so unrealistic.

“And they’ve got instructions telling people, don’t hold [mobile devices] firm against you, hold it 5/8 of an inch away from your head. Well, nobody knows that they weren’t doing that in their mannequin testing.”

However, according to Lundy and to the lawsuit, the telecommunications industry tacitly began to address these concerns beginning in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Lundy told The Defender that “the fact that they, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as they started making patent applications to change the design of their phones, started to move the antennas because they had a problem,” is indicative of this shift, adding:

“And we know enough to know that the London [insurance] market quit writing coverage for the wireless industry in the early 2000s, so they know something and are seeing something that we haven’t seen.”

The Louisiana lawsuit cites 13 examples of the telecommunication industry’s moves to quietly reduce RF exposure from mobile devices, dating back as early as 1991.

Lundy noted that, in the D.C. case, expert witnesses from Europe, including epidemiologists and cell biologists from countries such as Austria, Greece and Slovakia, were initially the most willing to come forward with testimony, adding, however, that “American scientists are now on board.”

Lundy: ‘The truth is going to come out’

Lundy said he’s frustrated with the legal proceedings’ slow pace:

“It’s just disappointing that the scales of justice turn so slowly. And you know, sometimes that’s the case. There’s no justice.

“But the truth is going to come out. It’s coming out now. I mean, sometimes [it] doesn’t always come out in the timing that we want it to come out, but it will come out.”

Lundy cited the long history of lawsuits involving the tobacco industry as an example of this, saying:

“The cigarette industry never lost a case for 30 or so years. But when [tobacco industry whistleblower] Dr. Jeffrey Wigand disclosed the fact that they were manipulating nicotine to addict 13-year-olds, I mean, the whole climate shifted.”

According to Lundy, truthful information regarding children’s health, in relation to the use of cellular phones, is of particular importance:

Lundy told The Defender :

“There’s other countries … that have barred the use of cellphones for kids that aren’t 16 years of age yet … we know that the skull is not fully developed until they’re 25. So we’re talking about children having radiation going into their brain very young.

“So it’s about information. It’s about warning. It’s about telling people the truth. It’s not about money over that.”

Overall, for Lundy, the broader significance of the D.C. and Louisiana cases and their outcome concerns “educating people.”

He said:

“The significance is going to educate the world. It’s going to educate people that at these radiation frequencies from these devices … they increase the risk.

“We just want to be informed. How can we be a free nation and exercise our freedom when we’re not told the truth? And I’m not trying to be political, but that’s just a fact. We’ve got a world of misinformation and it’s motivated by greed.”

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

CDC Report Blames Pregnancy-Related Deaths on Heart, Mental Health Issues, But No Mention of Vaccines

The Defender | September 23, 2022

The U.S. has long had the dubious distinction of trailing other wealthy nations in infant and child mortality.

Shamefully, it is not just babies and young children who are at a disadvantage compared to their counterparts in peer nations, but also American moms-to-be and new moms, with the U.S. having the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed country.

In countries like New Zealand, Norway and the Netherlands, there are three or fewer maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births, versus about 17 deaths per 100,000 in the U.S.

America also is the only high-income nation where pregnancy-related deaths have, since 2000, been increasing rather than declining.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks moms’ deaths both short-term and longer-term, looking at maternal deaths that occur within six weeks (42 days) of the end of pregnancy, and deaths that occur up to a year after the end of pregnancy, some of which are referred to as “late maternal deaths.”

“Late” deaths are yet another area in which the U.S. is an outlier compared to its sister nations.

For both the short-term and longer-term measures, the cause may be “any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy.”

In lower-income nations, hemorrhage, infections and delivery-related complications are some of the leading contributors to maternal mortality.

But according to a new CDC report, in the U.S., the picture is quite different.

The CDC report analyzed about 1,000 deaths from 36 states for the 2017-2019 period — that is, the time frame before restrictive COVID-19 policies and vaccines introduced new risks.

Noting that more than half of pregnancy-related deaths (53%) in America take place well after delivery — anywhere from one week to one year postpartum — the CDC report highlights mental health and cardiovascular conditions as the top two “underlying causes of pregnancy-related death,” albeit with stark differences by race/ethnicity.

For white and Hispanic women, it’s the mind

Among non-Hispanic white and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic women, mental health conditions top the list of apparent underlying causes, with the CDC attributing more than a third of pregnancy-related deaths (35%) in the former group to that category and about 1 in 4 deaths (24%) in the latter group.

The CDC defines mental-health-related deaths among pregnant women and new moms as “deaths of suicide, overdose/poisoning related to substance use disorder, and other deaths determined … to be related to a mental health condition, including substance use disorder.”

It should be noted that some researchers believe published data sources on maternal mortality vastly underestimate deaths from suicide and overdose.

Up to 17% of women, according to some sources, experience postpartum anxiety, a fact that long ago prompted experts to flag suicide risks in postpartum women as a “public health priority.”

In 2018, Stanford authors also linked major depression during pregnancy — reportedly experienced by up to 13% of expectant women — to increased risks of “maternal self-harm or suicide.”

However, the go-to “treatments” for postpartum blues — anti-anxiety drugs and antidepressants — are in and of themselves linked to increased suicidality, not to mention being of unproven efficacy.

WebMD, which blithely encourages women experiencing postpartum depression to consider antidepressants, says nothing about suicidality as a potential side effect, merely telling women the drugs “should help you feel more like yourself” and if they don’t, suggesting “a different dosage” or a “combination of medicines.”

Likewise, a 2018 article in HuffPost connected no dots when it told the story of a two-time mom who committed suicide shortly after initiating anti-anxiety medication.

2021 meta-analysis assessing 1.45 million patients produced far more assertive findings, showing that all types of antidepressants — whether commonly prescribed SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) drugs (e.g., Celexa, Lexapro, Paxil, Pexeva, Prozac, Zoloft) or non-SSRI medications (e.g., Effexor, Remeron, Wellbutrin, Zyban) — are associated with a significantly increased risk of suicide.

Commenting on the 2021 study, the organization Mad in America noted, “Studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry were far more likely to find lower suicide rates than studies performed by independent researchers,” with non-industry-beholden researchers reporting a doubling of suicide risk in adults taking antidepressants.

An 11-year analysis of prescription medications found a statistically significant association with increased suicide attempts for the anti-anxiety drugs Xanax and Valium — both widely prescribed to new moms and both in the highly addictive benzodiazepine family — as well as for the opioid Vicodin, which combines the narcotic hydrocodone with acetaminophen.

In fact, both depression and suicidal symptoms are potential “side effects” of more than 200 common drugs used by one-fourth to one-third of all Americans — “an important reminder that the drugs a person takes for one health condition may be making them sick in other ways.”

All of these data are left unmentioned when the CDC and other researchers lament substance use disorders as a risk factor for pregnancy-related death.

At best, they pay lip service to the fact that such disorders may involve legal drugs and medications in addition to illicit substances.

Medical sites are equally selective in the facts they choose to emphasize regarding opioid use disorder in pregnant and postpartum women.

For example, few dwell on the hefty incentives that have encouraged providers to widely prescribe opioids for these and other patient groups.

Describing overprescribing of opioids after childbirth, and particularly after cesarean surgery, a 2019 study noted that “the absolute number of women who are exposed to opioids after childbirth and become chronic opioid users every year is very large.”

The same study also highlighted the association between chronic opioid (mis)use and depression.

For Black women, it’s the heart

Among non-Hispanic Black women — who are two-and-a-half times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes than white women — the CDC’s latest findings highlight cardiovascular problems rather than mental health issues as the leading mortality contender.

By the CDC’s accounting, problems ranging from “cardiac and coronary conditions” to cardiomyopathy (heart muscle weakness) to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (forms of high blood pressure predictive of future heart attacks) to strokes and blood clots are responsible for almost 6 in 10 pregnancy-related deaths (58%) in Black women, with a paltry 7% of deaths attributed to mental health challenges.

Recent research indicates Black moms who experience high blood pressure during pregnancy actually face a significantly increased all-cause mortality risk for at least five years after delivery.

Notably, Black women’s heart risks appear to be impervious to socioeconomic status or level of education.

In fact, a Commonwealth Fund report published in late 2020 noted the “startling” fact that education “exacerbates rather than mitigates Black-White differences in maternal deaths,” with college-educated Black mothers being at greater risk of pregnancy-related death than white mothers of any education level.

Many experts profess to be baffled about the root causes or “driving mechanisms” of Black-white cardiovascular disparities.

One factor could be obesity — affecting 57% of Black women versus 40% of white women — but typically, individuals with more education are less likely to be obese, so this can’t completely account for the findings pertaining to college-educated Black women.

Regarding both obesity and related chronic diseases like diabetes, other researchers have speculated that Black Americans “consume significantly more added sugars … than Whites,” noting that diabetes went from being far less to far more common in Blacks versus whites concurrently with the exponential rise in added sugar (and notably, soft drink) intake.

A third factor that has long garnered attention is that of stress and what are referred to as social determinants — “the complexity of factors germane to the environment (that) predisposes people to a burden of cardiovascular disease” — although researchers who vaguely blame “multifactorial” causes ranging from “the individual level to the social environment” have not been particularly helpful in pinpointing meaningful solutions.

Vaccines: an invisible factor affecting both mind and heart

No discussion of threats to the health of pregnant and postpartum women would be complete without noting the alarming loosening of former prohibitions against vaccination during pregnancy.

Vaccine package inserts list nearly 400 possible adverse events — including death and every single “mental health,” cardiac or vascular condition reported by the CDC as an “underlying cause” of pregnancy-related death.

However, the CDC will never investigate the role of this influential variable. On the contrary, the nation’s lead public health agency is the ringleader for vaccination of pregnant women, aggressively recommending inactivated flu shots since around 2006, and Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis) vaccines since about 2011, despite an utter lack of data supporting their safety.

By April 2020, three out of five pregnant women (61%) were receiving flu shots and nearly that many (57%) were getting Tdap vaccines, with the CDC celebrating large year-over-year increases in flu shot coverage for non-white women, in particular.

The CDC now also recommends that all pregnant women get COVID-19 shots, and in addition advises five vaccines — hepatitis A and B, meningococcal vaccines (ACWY or B), and polio — either “in some circumstances,” or based on “risk vs. benefit,” or “if otherwise indicated” or “if needed.”

For travel purposes, the CDC gives a thumbs-up to pregnant women for anthrax vaccines (if there is a “high risk of exposure”), rabies (“if otherwise indicated”), typhoid (“if needed”), smallpox (if “post-exposure”) and yellow fever (“if benefit outweighs risk”).

The agency takes an agnostic position (either “no recommendation” or “inadequate data for specific recommendation”) on the PCV13, PPSV23 and zoster vaccines, which leaves only four vaccines — human papillomavirus (HPV), live influenza, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and varicella (chickenpox) — that the CDC either does not recommend or considers “contraindicated” for pregnant women.

When the CDC and other public health officials opened the floodgates to vaccination of pregnant women — a group historically considered to require heightened research protections — it was clear they were turning a blind eye to known risks to the developing fetus, including miscarriage, subsequent neurodevelopmental disorders arising from an inflammatory response called “maternal immune activation,” birth defects and preterm delivery.

But it was with the rushed authorization of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women — “based on [an] unreviewed study [and] unverifiable data” — that public health and government hypocrisy with regard to pregnant women came under the brightest spotlight.

As thousands, if not millions, of women and their babies suffer serious adverse events from the COVID-19 jabs, the CDC’s crocodile tears about 1,000 or so pregnancy-related deaths over a three-year period are hard to take seriously.

If the agency wants to stop pregnant women and new moms from dying, a good start would be to halt all vaccination during pregnancy and take a cold, hard look at the pharmaceutical pill-pushing and other social-environmental factors that ensnare so many women trying to do right by their babies.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Corruption | , , | 1 Comment

The climate scaremongers: Were the Pakistan floods due to climate change?

By Paul Homewood | TCW Defending Freedom | September 23, 2022

ACCORDING to the BBC’s Environment Correspondent, Matt McGrath, Pakistan’s catastrophic floods last month were ‘likely made worse by global warming’. 

This claim originated from the World Weather Attribution group, who regularly publish such claims every time there is some bad weather. They base their conclusions on computer models, not on real world data. If they had looked at the actual data, they might have come to different conclusions.

According to the Pakistan Meteorological Department, most of the excess rain in August arrived on 18th/19th and 25th/26th. In fact 41 per cent of the month’s rainfall fell on these four days:

Pakistan Meteorological Department

The cause of this heavy rain was two tropical storms, which had crossed from the Bay of Bengal – BOB 06 and BOB 07. (In the Indian Ocean they are categorised as a ‘depression’ and ‘deep depression’. in Atlantic storm terminology, these would be called a tropical depression and a tropical storm respectively).

Both storms followed identical routes west from Bengal, tracking over Rajasthan before hitting the province of Sindh, the region worst affected by flooding:

Unusually, these storms did not dissipate after landfall in Bengal so wreaked havoc for days afterwards. Pakistan, needless to say, is not immune to tropical cyclones. But for two storms to hit in the space of a week, at the same location, and during the wettest month of the year is an extremely rare combination of meteorological events.

Pakistan was already experiencing a wetter than normal monsoon, courtesy of La Nina, but those two storms pushed the rainfall into record territory, the wettest August since 1961.

There is no evidence that tropical cyclones are getting more frequent or intense in the Indian Ocean, so consequently there is also no evidence that last month’s rainfall had anything to do with climate change.

What is significant, though, is the chart of annual rainfall in Pakistan, published in the State of the Pakistan Climate 2021:

Annual rainfall was clearly much less during the 1960s and 70s, the direct result of global cooling at the time. Those years of drought were a disaster for Pakistan, and the country has welcomed the increase in rainfall since, just as they do across the border in India. The wetter, the better!

It is also significant that the seven-year moving average has barely changed since the 1980s, fluctuating up and down, but with no obvious long-term trend. If global warming was really bringing more extreme rainfall, we should expect to see evidence of this in the annual figures.

You will of course hear none of this from the BBC or the climate attribution industry, which was established to promote the climate change agenda, and which routinely publishes patently unsupportable claims.

Steve Koonin, President Obama’s climate scientist, puts it best: ‘Practitioners argue that event attribution studies are the best climate science can do in terms of connecting weather to changes in climate. But as a physical scientist, I’m appalled that such studies are given credence, much less media coverage. A hallmark of science is that conclusions get tested against observations. But that’s virtually impossible for weather attribution studies. It’s like a spiritual adviser who claims her influence helped you win the lottery – after you’ve already won it.’ 

Of course, like most of climate science, the climate attribution industry has little to do with science, and everything to do with money.

The Arctic ice scam

FOR years the ‘experts’ have been telling us that the Arctic would soon be ice-free in summer.

Al Gore notoriously warned us in 2009 that ‘there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.’

He was, of course, just a politician. But a whole host of supposed Arctic scientists were all busy issuing similar warnings at the time. In 2007, for instance, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told us that northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just five to six years. In December that year, Jay Zwally of Nasa agreed, giving the ice till 2012. A year later, in 2008, Professor David Barber went one step further, saying the ice would all be gone that very summer.

For sheer persistence in getting it wrong, however, the prize must go to Peter Wadhams, Professor and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge:

•       In 2012, he predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2015/16.

•       In 2014, he thought it might last till 2020.

•       In 2016, he confidently predicted the Arctic would be ice-free that summer (though curiously he now defined ‘ice-free’ as less than 1 million square kilometers).

All these pronouncements were designed for political propaganda purposes, not for scientific reasons, and were widely propagated by the gullible media.

For instance in an article in the Independent in June 2016 (complete with photos of a cute polar bear on a melting piece of ice) Wadhams confidently asserted: ‘My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well disappear, that is, have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year. Even if the ice doesn’t completely disappear, it is very likely that this will be a record low year. I think there’s a reasonable chance it could get down to a million this year and if it doesn’t do it this year, it will do it next year.’

Unfortunately for Professor Wadhams, the sea ice has not been melting away as ordained. On the contrary, it has been remarkably resilient. Arctic sea ice has just reached its minimum extent this week, just as it always does in September, and the provisional data shows that there is still 4.7million sq km of the stuff.

As can be seen from the chart below, this year and last had the largest extents since 2013 and 2014, and there is considerably more ice around this year than in 2007 and 2008.

There was a climate shift in the Arctic in 2007, when warm Atlantic waters entered the Arctic basin and ocean currents pushed a lot of the thicker multi-year ice out through the Fram Strait, which lies between Greenland and Svalbard, into the open Atlantic Ocean, where unsurprisingly it melted. Since 2007, much of the ice has consequently been thinner, new ice, which naturally tends to melt in summer.

Climate scientists with an agenda to peddle jumped on the bandwagon and predicted that the ice would just carry on melting. However, they ignored the lesson of history. The Atlantic Ocean regularly goes through such cyclical events, with cold and warm phases lasting about 50 to 60 years. The cycle is called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO, and it is known to have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years.

In the 1970s, climate scientists were extremely concerned about the increase in sea ice in the Arctic, which occurred during the cold phase of the AMO. The leading climatologist of his day, H H Lamb, wrote in 1982: ‘A greatly increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for 50 years. In April-May 1968 and 1969, the island was half surrounded by ice, as had not occurred since 1888.’

Satellite monitoring of Arctic sea ice began in 1979, at the depth of the cold period. The climate mafia always use this period as the baseline, pretending it was the ‘norm’. That way they can attempt to fool the public that the warming in the Arctic and loss of ice since then is due to man-made global warming.

What is astonishing is that these buffoons are still in a job and living off the taxpayer. In any other field of science, to be so consistently wrong for so long would have quickly led to a well-earned oblivion.

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Germany’s “Tenfold Increase In Gas And Electricity Prices” Is Driving Out Industry

Europe’s energy policy is creating jobs – for the USA

By P Gosselin – No Tricks Zone – September 23, 2022

What leaves once, will not come again. While energy prices in Europe are going through the roof, they remain moderate in the USA. This will have serious consequences for energy-intensive industries.

The Wall Street Journal (paid article) is already rubbing its hands together for the US economy. It is twice beneficial: high prices for LNG exports and new jobs in the future. It’s Win/Win – Lose. One of the losers for Germany is Areclor-Mittal. Now they are turning down the first blast furnace. Here, too, the USA is profiting. The FAZ reports:

Arcelor-Mittal, the world’s largest steel producer, is shutting down two production facilities at the end of September due to high energy prices in Germany. “Until further notice,” one of the two blast furnaces at the plate steel site in Bremen will be shut down. And the direct reduction plant at the Hamburg long steel mill is also to be shut down. In addition to the already high costs for gas and electricity, the gas surcharge planned from October will place a further burden on the competitiveness of energy-intensive plants, it says in justification. ‘With a tenfold increase in gas and electricity prices, which we had to accept within a few months, we are no longer competitive in a market that is 25 percent supplied by imports,’ Germany CEO Reiner Blaschek is quoted as saying in a statement from Arcelor-Mittal.

In order to avoid gas consumption in Hamburg, the precursor iron is now being purchased from America in order to be able to continue production – more cheaply, but with a higher CO2 footprint. Reduced work hours is also being introduced at the production sites in Duisburg and Eisenhüttenstadt due to the difficult situation.”

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | 1 Comment

Biden Condemns Nuclear War in Lie-Filled UN Address… But He Is Making Such a War Happen

Strategic Culture Foundation | September 23, 2022

If there were any justice, Biden should have been escorted away from the UN podium to a prison cell awaiting prosecution for crimes against peace.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s address to the 77th annual UN general assembly this week was a spectacle of blatant lies and delusions.

Every year, the world is forced to endure American presidents standing before the assembly of 193-member nations proclaiming the presumed virtues of the United States. However, it’s always an occasion of embarrassing delusion and deception uttered with unctuous self-regard.

This year, the leaders of Russia and China didn’t bother attending the event held at UN headquarters in New York. No doubt they have better things to do. And besides who would want to sit through a speech from an American president that is an absurd insult to common intelligence and historical truth?

Biden condemned nuclear war, saying “it cannot be won and must never be fought”. He went on to accuse Russia and China of undermining world peace with nuclear posturing.

Russia is “making irresponsible nuclear threats” and China is “conducting an unprecedented, concerning nuclear build-up without any transparency”.

Biden said the “United States and I as president champion a vision for our world that is grounded in the values of democracy… I reject the use of violence and war to conquer nations or expand borders through bloodshed.”

The calumny is as contemptible as it is astounding coming from Biden, who during his more than 50 years as a senior Washington politician has advocated dozens of U.S. criminal wars of aggression in every part of the globe.

It is particularly sickening that Biden’s UN speech was presented by U.S. media as a “historic mission” to prevent nuclear war.

It is the United States and this president who are recklessly inciting dangerous tensions with nuclear powers Russia and China. World peace is indeed under imminent threat of a global catastrophic war — from the United States in its relentless aggression toward Russia and China.

The Biden administration and its NATO partners are pumping weapons into Ukraine to prolong the conflict in that country on Russia’s western border. That war is the culmination of eight years of deliberate arming of the anti-Russian Kiev regime to act as a spearhead against Russia.

The Neo-Nazi Kiev regime, which was installed by a CIA-backed coup in 2014, has for weeks been shelling the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant in southeast Ukraine with U.S.-supplied artillery. American and British intelligence is guiding their Kiev proxy forces to strike Russian territory with longer-range missiles.

Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu this week remarked that Russia is at war not merely against Ukraine but against the collective U.S.-led NATO bloc. The implication of this is truly alarming as the Strategic Culture Foundation has stated in previous recent editorials. We are already in a quasi-world war predicament that is on the precipice of escalating into a nuclear confrontation, one that would inevitably destroy the entire planet.

Ukrainian areas under Russian control are due to hold referenda next week which will likely see these separatist areas joining the Russian Federation as Crimea had done in 2014. Thereafter, that will mean NATO forces are directly involved in attacking Russia if they persist in supporting the Kiev regime. There is every indication that Washington and its allies will continue in their madness. Biden has said the U.S. will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes”. As long as what takes? The presumed conquering of Russia, which has been Washington’s strategic objective ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Russian President Vladimir Putin this week warned NATO that it faces a stark choice. Referring to the forthcoming referenda and the joining of Donbass regions with the Russian Federation, Putin gave notice that Russia reserves the right to defend itself by all means.

Biden and the Western media turn reality on its head. Putin is accused of threatening nuclear strikes. But it is the United States and its European lackey leaders who have created the abysmal impasse from their importunate weaponizing of Ukraine and repeated refusal to engage with Moscow on negotiating a definitive security arrangement concerning the halting of NATO encroachment on its borders.

Turning to China, there is an analogous situation. The Biden administration like his Republican and Democrat predecessors in the White House is arming the breakaway island territory of Taiwan in a brazen assault on China’s sovereignty and national security. The United States and its NATO partners as well as non-NATO clients Australia and Japan are sailing warships through the Taiwan Strait in a cynical attempt to provoke Beijing.

Earlier this week, Biden for the fourth time announced that the United States would militarily “defend” Taiwan if China were to launch a military invasion. Legally under UN law, Taiwan is an integral part of China, so how can China “invade” itself?

Washington is deliberately inciting Beijing and violating its own U.S. domestic laws that recognize Taiwan as being under China’s sovereignty. Yet Biden has the gall to tell the UN assembly that his nation still upholds the One China Policy. The Americans like to call this “strategic ambiguity”. To other observers, it is simply offensive “strategic duplicity”.

The world would seem to be witnessing a deranged American imperialist power at full throttle. The leader of the globe’s biggest aggressor nation who is inexorably pushing provocations toward Russia and China has the audacity to lecture the rest of the world about peace, security, international law, and democracy — and the danger of nuclear war.

If there were any sanity and justice, Biden should have been escorted away from the UN podium to a prison cell awaiting prosecution for crimes against peace.

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 2 Comments

From Suicide to Dead and Buried… Germany Now Provokes China

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 23, 2022

Not content with committing its nation to economic suicide from deteriorating Russian relations, the German government now wants to bury the corpse by sabotaging trade relations with China.

Robert Habeck, Germany’s trade minister, has riled Beijing by telling a G7 summit last week that Berlin was aiming to adopt a new China policy to “reduce economic dependency”. Habeck said Germany would strive to take tougher controls over Chinese foreign investment and move away from German reliance on China for key commodities such as semiconductors, batteries and other electronics.

Sounding tough in front of other Western members of the G7 forum (a redundant elite club if ever there was one), Habeck said, “the naivety towards China is over”. He said that trade relations would no longer be viewed in isolation from alleged human rights violations and other international concerns, presumably meaning China’s alleged hostility towards Taiwan.

Beijing slammed Habeck’s remarks and retorted that he was the one who is being “naive” in seeking to damage mutually beneficial bilateral relations.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz doubled down on the provocation at the weekend when he was asked about China’s position on Taiwan. Scholz implied that Beijing was the hostile party in recent tensions over the breakaway island territory. He cautioned China: “It is important that we ban violence from international relations.”

It was another red flag being waved by Berlin in China’s face. Scholz doesn’t seem to realize, or doesn’t want to realize, that Taiwan is a sovereign part of China. That is the legal fact of treaties at the United Nations and the internationally accepted One China Policy. It is the United States, Britain, Australia, France and Germany that are increasingly deploying military forces in China’s territorial waters that are causing dangerous tensions and obliging Beijing to take a tougher position on defending its sovereignty, including its rightful claims over Taiwan.

What are the German leaders playing at? The recklessness of their stance and the damage being inflicted on the nation’s economy make you wonder whose interests are they serving. Certainly, it would seem, not the interests of the German population.

Germany, the economic engine of the European Union, is crashing headfirst from its insane sabotage of energy trade with Russia. It reminds you of those slow-motion car crash tests where dummies are flung into the windscreen. Now it’s heading for a Chinese wall.

The self-imposed cutting off of gas supply from Russia is wrecking German industry and plunging the population into a winter of misery of untold poverty and hardship. Many observers including Russian President Vladimir Putin are baffled by the willful embrace of economic suicide that the German government is rushing into.

For decades, the German export-led economy has been driven by a copious supply of low-priced Russian natural gas and oil. The coalition government in Berlin, which took over from Angela Merkel’s administration at the end of last year, has cut off links with Moscow as part of its support for Washington’s policy to isolate Russia. Germany has gone all in to support the U.S.-backed Kiev regime with heavy weapons supplied to Ukraine in a war with Russia.

So much for Scholz’s admonition to China to “ban the use of violence in international relations”. Berlin is fueling the conflict in Ukraine and along with the U.S. and other NATO powers is preventing any diplomatic process to find a peaceful resolution with Russia.

If the death blow to the German economy was not bad enough from the reckless policy toward Russia, now Berlin wants to kill relations with Beijing.

China is Germany’s top trading partner for the past six years. Bilateral trade has grown steadily. This year’s commerce is heading to surpass the 2021 record high of over $240 billion in Chinese-German trade.

With its 1.4 billion population, China is a vital market for Germany’s exporters, especially the all-important auto industry that drives the German economy. Nearly 40 percent of global sales for Volkswagen, Audi, BMW and Mercedes are in China, spurred by the latter’s phenomenal economic development.

The Berlin government is putting its economic lifeline with China at risk by adopting a policy of wantonly provoking Beijing. In this, the German “leaders” are following Washington’s bidding. They have done this with regard to sabotaging Russian relations. Now they are bent on repeating the folly toward China.

It is notable that Habeck, the German trade minister, is a member of the Greens in the coalition government with Scholz’s Social Democrats. The other senior Green in the coalition is Annalena Baerbock who is the foreign minister. Both of them are pushing an irrational ideological position of damaging Russian and Chinese relations. The Greens want to convert Germany to renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. That’s how they justify doing away with Russian hydrocarbons. But the calculation is woefully misplaced. German industries and the wider population need Russian gas to run their factories and heat their homes. The folly of cutting off Russian energy is backfiring big time. The absurdity is that Germany is now going back to dirty fuel from coal in order to desperately fill the power vacuum that has been self-inflicted by Green ideologues.

More than Green ideology, however, is the real underlying ideology of Russophobia and Sinophobia. Habeck and Baerbock are blinded by their subservience to Washington’s transatlantic agenda of dividing Europe from having normal neighborly relations with Russia and China.

Washington’s agenda is to promote U.S. hegemony and its presumed unipolar dominance in international relations. In short, American imperialism.

An extension of that agenda is to incite antagonism toward China. The encirclement of Russia goes hand in hand with the encirclement of China. It is no coincidence that as Washington escalates tensions with Moscow over Ukraine and NATO encroachment, it is also feverishly inciting tensions with China over Taiwan and dubious allegations of human rights violations by Beijing.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration and Congress are pumping weapons into Ukraine and Taiwan in a deliberate and one could say criminal bid to provoke military confrontation. The U.S. capitalist economy needs tensions and conflict to sustain its military-industrial complex, the beating heart of American capitalism.

If Germany’s Chancellor Scholz had any independence of thought, he would be better to remonstrate with Washington over the use of violence in international relations.

But there is no chance of Scholz and his government ever doing that. They are lackeys for Washington and are hopelessly brainwashed with ideological nonsense, Russophobia and Sinophobia.

This winter is already coming with dread for Germany and the wider European population over the policy choice to trash the cornerstone of Russian energy relations. With the further damage to German-Chinese relations, the Berlin political elite are shooting Germany and Europe in the head – twice.

German industries, businesses and workers are incensed by the stupidity of their so-called government which is more accurately described as a Washington-backed regime in Berlin. Angry protests on the streets witnessed in recent weeks in Germany and elsewhere across Europe against self-inflicted economic misery are but a foretaste of the explosive social unrest brewing.

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Americans, Overcoming Nonstop Propaganda, are Increasingly Not Worried about Russia Defeating Ukraine

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | September 23, 2022

The propaganda masters at the big money media and the United States government have pulled out all the stops in their effort to stir up Americans to oppose Russia in its war with Ukraine and to support extreme and expensive efforts of the US government to help the Ukraine government’s side in that war. But, as time has worn on, Americans are increasingly saying it is not a big deal to them whether Russia, led by supposed archvillain Vladimir Putin, wins the war or even takes over Ukraine.

The Pew Research Center conducted a poll from September 13 to 18 in which Americans were asked whether they are concerned about the possibility of “Ukraine being defeated and taken over by Russia” — a question Pew also had asked in April 25 to May 1 polling. Looking at the answers in September compared with in May, a big drop in concern about the possibility of “Ukraine being defeated and taken over by Russia” is evident over the four month period.

While in May 55 percent of polled individuals said they were very or extremely worried about that possibility of Russia defeating and taking over Ukraine, by September only 38 percent were. Meanwhile, the percentage of people saying they are not too concerned or not at all concerned about such a result jumped from 16 percent to 26 percent.

The percentage of polled individuals choosing the middle ground answer that they are somewhat concerned grew from 28 percent to 34 percent.

Notably, the poll question asks about concern regarding Russia taking over all of Ukraine as a result of winning the war — an outcome more extreme than most people think is likely. Consider if the poll instead asked if people are concerned about Russia defeating Ukraine and requiring it to stop exercising control of areas of Ukraine with large Russian population majorities and to maintain neutrality in regard to Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Then, surely, concern levels would have registered yet lower.

These poll results demonstrate a major propaganda fail. Given time, many Americans have seen through the lies. They have stopped being had.

Further, a good number of Americans have bristled at the great amount of US government spending undertaken to support the Ukraine government’s war effort. More and more Americans are also likely increasingly disturbed by the high ongoing cost in lives and destruction that such spending has caused and promises to cause in the future by dragging out a war that Russia and Ukraine would probably otherwise have already settled by agreement.

Indeed, the September poll found an increased percentage of individuals declaring the US government has given too much support to Ukraine. The percentage of polled individuals providing this answer rose from 12 percent in May to 20 percent in September. Among Republican and Republican-leaning polled individuals, the view that the US has provided too much support to Ukraine rose from 17 percent in May to 32 percent in September. Should this trend in views continue to progress, constituents’ pressure on American politicians to turn off the Ukraine money spigot can be expected to continue increasing.

Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute.

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , | 1 Comment

Italian NGO Observer at Donetsk Referendum Says UN ‘Asleep’ as Ukraine Shells Civilians

Samizdat – 24.09.2022

DONETSK – The United Nations has been indifferent to Ukrainian attacks on the Donetsk People’s Republic as it voted Saturday on whether it should join Russia, an Italian observer from a UN-recognized nonprofit said.

“Unfortunately, we see that the UN is asleep. Not only when it comes to Donbass but also to other countries in a similar situation. The UN has not been reacting,” Vito Grittani told reporters in Donetsk.

Grittani heads the International Diplomatic Observatory (ODI-VG), which has consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council. He said shelling by Ukrainian troops has been going on “despite them knowing that people are voting.”

“We will report about this in our home countries,” he said, adding that Italian observers had also received threats and “recommendations” not to go to the polls.

Voting in the Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics, as well as in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, began on Friday and will close on Tuesday. Russian President Vladimir Putin said this week that Russia would accept any decision people made during the referendums.

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

The Conflict Between the West and Russia Is a Religious One

By Emmet Sweeney | The Remnant | August 24, 2022

The war currently underway in Ukraine—which pits Ukraine as a proxy for the collective West against Russia—is primarily an ideological or religious one, with Russia representing what is left of Christian Europe, and “the West” representing a totalitarian ideology that abhors religion in general and Christianity in particular. This statement may sound strange, given the fact that some Westerners – though fewer every day – still see “the West,” (basically Europe and North America) as Christian, and Russia as Communist, or crypto-Communist. But this is no longer the case, and has not been for some considerable time. In fact, the thirty years that have passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet Union, has seen a complete reversal of roles; the collective West is now a totalitarian and aggressively anti-religious power-block that seeks to export its anti-Christian and anti-human ideology onto the rest of the world. And Russia is loathed by the West’s ruling elite precisely because it has resisted this process and moreover has gone in the opposite direction: having once been an active proponent of “scientific materialism” and atheism, Russia has reverted to its Orthodox Christian roots and has rolled back the more pernicious policies and attitudes of the Soviet era.

In order to demonstrate the truth of this, we need to look at the history of Russia and its interaction with the West since the early 1990s.

By 1991, when the Soviet Union was officially abolished, it was clear that the West had won the Cold War. Russia itself, under its new president Boris Yeltsin, openly proclaimed the end of all hostilities. Russia’s satellites in Eastern Europe were permitted to go their own way, and autonomous republics within the Soviet Union were allowed to declare themselves independent countries. The old Soviet system of state ownership was officially abolished, and almost everything was privatised. The press and media in general were freed of all censorship and could now say whatever they wanted. Russia under Yeltsin reached out the hand of friendship to the West – a gesture that was not reciprocated and ultimately snubbed by the West.

The euphoria of 1991 soon gave way and the 1990s turned out to be a catastrophic decade for Russia and her people. First and foremost, the policy of privatisation turned out to be disastrous. A law was passed which forbade foreigners from buying Russian utilities and industries; only Russians could do so. Unfortunately, nobody in Russia, hitherto a Communist country, had any money. However, certain groups within the country – mainly ethnic Jews – had important and wealthy connections abroad. These arranged to have funds sent into Russia for the purpose of purchasing the country’s state-owned industries. Desperate for any dollars and euros it could lay its hands on, the Yeltsin administration sold these industries for a tiny fraction of their true value. (Russia’s natural resources alone make it potentially one of the wealthiest countries on the planet). The buyers of said industries became the notorious “oligarchs,” who systematically plundered the country for almost ten years, in what has been described as the biggest act of looting in history. Rather than plow some of the profits back into the businesses, the oligarchs exported almost all of them, impoverishing both their employees and the country in general. The result was that large segments of the population began to experience severe hardship. Many came close to starvation and many died of hypothermia during the bitter Russian winters. Some state employees were paid in cabbages, and it is estimated that Russia suffered over five million excess deaths between 1991 and 2000. The majority of these were caused by simple diseases such as influenza, which developed into pneumonia for want of funds to buy an antibiotic. But deaths from all causes, including murder, suicide, alcoholism, and drug addiction, rocketed. Russia was a country falling apart, and the population began to plummet.

During this time, a Chechen independence movement, spurred on by funds from Saudi Arabia and (allegedly) the West, launched a violent campaign against the Russian authorities. A savage war followed, which claimed tens of thousands of lives, and eventually resulted in 1997 in Yeltsin’s recognition of a semi-independent Chechnya. Independence movements began to appear in other autnomous regions and it was clear that Russia itself stood on the verge of disintegration.

During all of this, the attitude of the West, or of those who control the West, was striking. Western media, by that time in the hands of a few mega-corporations, was almost gleeful in its reporting of Russia’s trauma. In their suffering, the Russian people became the butt of the West’s shadenfreude. And it should be borne in mind that it was precisely in the 1990s that American corporations commenced massive “outsourcing” of their industries to other, and less expensive, locations. Entire factories, together with their machinery and technology, were exported en masse, primarily to China. Almost nothing went to Russia. This in spite of the fact that China continued to be a Communist and indeed totalitarian country. Not even the massacre of Tiananmen Square (1989) and the subsequent brutal repression could halt the American plutocracy’s enthusiasm for exporting work and business. So Russia, which had held out the hand of friendship to the West, and had permitted the subjugated peoples to go free, continued to be treated as an enemy, and was effectively plundered by Western interests, whereas China, which did no such thing, was now treated as a favored trading and business partner. How to explain such an astonishing disparity?

There seems to be no logical explanation other than to assume an underlying cultural/religious antipathy towards Russia and her people on the part of a very large segment of the West’s ruling plutocracy. I suggest that this is the case, and it is Russia’s religion that is at the root of it.

During the Communist era, Christianity was suppressed in Russia and throughout the Soviet block. At its worst, under Lenin and Stalin, the Communist regime massacred millions of Christians. Victims were mainly Orthodox, but Christians of every denomination suffered. Even after the death of Stalin and into the 1980s religion continued to be persecuted.  All children were required to attend lessons in atheism, during which Christianity and religious faith in general was mocked. By the end of Communism, the Orthodox Church was a small remnant of its former self under the Tsars, but that soon began to change. Hardship birthed a spiritual revival; by the mid-1990s the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as other branches of Christianity, began to experience noticeable growth. It was not however until the first decade of the twenty-first century, and the presidency of Vladimir Putin, that this movement became really significant.

Putin had occupied a senior position in the Yeltsin administration, and he was no doubt viewed by the oligarchs, at that time the real rulers of Russia, as a safe pair of hands who could be relied upon to continue the policies which had allowed them to plunder the country for almost a decade. He was appointed Prime Minister on 9th August 1999 and, just four months later, in December, acting President of Russia, following the unexpected resignation of Boris Yeltsin. A presidential election on 20th March 2000 was easily won by Putin with 53% of the votes. One reason for Putin’s popularity was that he was seen as a strong leader during the Second Chechen War, which commenced on 7th August 1999, just two days before his appointment as Prime Minister. The war ended in April 2000, with Chechnya again part of the Russian Federation, a victory which enhanced Putin’s reputation as a strongman, willing and able to restore stability and enforce the law.

Over the next five years, Putin showed that the ruling plutocrats were very much deceived had they imagined him to be under their control and part of their team. On the contrary, the new president set about breaking their power. The next decade witenessed a series of legal cases and trials which left some of the oligarchs in prison and others forced to pay substantial compensation. Others, arguably the most criminal, fled the country and their assets were confiscated. The breaking of the oligarchs’ power, together with that of the “Russian mafia” which enforced their corrupt rule, began to restore some form of normality.

In parellel with his economic reforms, Putin oversaw a revival of the Russian Orthodox faith. In an act heavy with symbolic import, he made a visit to the great Orthodox monastic settlement of Mount Athos in Greece in 2001, just one year into his presidency. Although this attempt had to be aborted owing to a storm which grounded his helicopter, and a second attempt in 2004 similarly shelved when he had to return to Russia to deal with the Beslan School siege, he finally made it to the Holy Mountain in 2005. There he established a bond with the monks that transformed their community and impacted the lives of ordinary Russians. A major program of church-construction commenced, and the numbers attending church began to grow. Putin made it clear that he regarded Orthodoxy as Russia’s national religion and the Church was accorded a favored legal position. And such symbolic gestures were backed by new legislation which began to transform Russian society: the country’s abortion laws, hitherto some of the most liberal in the world, were tightened. In October 2011, the Russian Parliament passed a law restricting abortion to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, with an exception up to 22 weeks if the pregnancy was the result of rape. The new law also made mandatory a waiting period of two to seven days before an abortion could be performed, to allow the woman to “reconsider her decision.”

During this period, the portrayal of Russia in the Western media moved from one of condescension to outright hostility. As early as 2005, scholars Ira Straus and Edward Lozansky remarked upon a pronounced negative coverage of Russia in the US media, contrasting negative media sentiment with largely positive sentiment of the American public and US government. As Russia displayed increasing signs of a Christian revival, so the media reporting in the West became increasingly hostile. Only rarely however did journalists openly attack Russia for its “Christianization”; normally, columnists, conscious of the fact that large numbers of people in the West continued to describe themselves as Christian, portrayed their anti-Russian commentary as a result of Russia’s “aggression,” “corruption,” or “lack of democracy.” All that however changed with the new abortion law of 2011. Now the attacks against Russia became explicitly ideological. The Russians, we were told, were oppressing women and turning their backs on “progress.”

It was not until 2013, however, that the anti-Russian rhetoric went hyperbolic. In that year, the Russian parliament passed its so-called “Gay Propaganada” law. The bill, described as “Protecting Children from Information harmful to their Health and Development,” explicitly banned Gay Pride parades, as well as other forms of LGBT material, such as books and pamphlets, which attempted to normalize homosexuality and to influence children in their attitudes to homosexuality. In actual fact, since around 2006, many districts in Russia had been imposing their own local bans on such material, though these rules had no power outside their own jurisdiction. The bill, which was signed into law by Putin on June 30 2013, was extremely popular, and passed through the Russian Parliament unanimously, with just one abstention. But the impact upon the Western nomenklatura who form the gatekeepers of acceptable opinion, was immediate. Almost unanimously, Western media outlets now began to compare Putin with Adolf Hitler; he was a “thug,” a “fascist,” a “murderer.” Between bouts of seething rage, he became the butt of scathing satire. He was cast in the role of a caricature James Bond villain, routinely murdering and torturing those he held a grudge against. There is even evidence, admittedly somewhat circumstantial, that Western Intelligence bodies, such as the CIA and MI5, became actively involved in anti-Russian propaganda.

The effect of this deluge of demonization upon ordinary Westerners soon began to show: Whereas in 2006 only 1% of Americans listed Russia as “America’s worst enemy” by 2019 32% of Americans, including 44% of Democrat voters, shared this view. Only 28% of Republicans however agreed; a remarkable reversal of opinion. During the Cold War, Republican voters, traditionally the more religious and nationalistic element of the American political divide, viewed the Russians as the major threat; now it was the less or non-religious (and more pro-LGBT) Democrats who held this opinion.

But the Western elites did not confine its efforts to irate editorials in the London Times or the Washington Post: Economic sanctions now began to be discussed. There were immediate calls to boycott the Winter Olympics, held in February 2014 in Sochi, Russia. Whilst the call to boycott was generally resisted by athletes, many Western politicians refused to attend, and the Russophobic temperature in the Western media ratcheted up. And things were about to get much worse.

In 2010 Viktor Yanukovych, a native of Russian-speaking Donetsk, was elected President of Ukraine, defeating Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko, in what was judged by international observers to be a free and fair election. In November 2013 Yanukovych delayed signing a pending European Union association agreement, on the grounds that his government wished to maintain economic ties with Russia, as well as with the European Union. Russia had in fact offered a more favorable loan bailout than the European Union was prepared to offer. This led to protests and the occupation of Kiev’s Independence Square, a series of events dubbed the “the Euromaidan” by those in favor of aligning Ukraine with the European Union. Whilst at times it looked as if the protests would fizzle out, there is no question that almost from the beginning there was a concerted effort on the part of Western politicians to keep them going. Beginning early in December, several politicians from Berlin and Brussels paid “morale-boosting” trips to the square, and these were followed, on December 15, by the arrival of American Senators John McCain and Chris Murphy. To the assembled crowds, McCain announced that “we are here to support your just cause.” The Russians, for their part, condemned America’s “crude meddling” in Ukraine’s affairs.

Victoria Nuland, at that time Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in the Obama administration, arrived in Ukraine shortly afterwards, and immediately set about fanning the flames of an already volatile situation. In speech after speech she promised the protestors and rioters that America was behind them. The result was that by early February 2014 Ukraine appeared to be on the brink of civil war; violent clashes between anti-government protestors and police left many dead and injured. Fearing for his life, on February 21 Yanukovych fled the capital, initially travelling to Crimea and ultimately to Russia. A new interim government, handpicked by Nuland, and virulently anti-Russian, was immediately installed in Kiev.

When considering the actions of America and the collective West at this time we have to remember that Ukraine was and is a deeply divided society. Half the country, roughly the north and west, regards itself as Ukrainian and is historically antagonistic towards Russia. The other half, predominantly the south and east, is pro-Russian and views itself as simultaneously Ukrainian and Russian. A glance at the electoral map of the country demonstrates this division in a most graphic way, for it was the Russian part of the country, the south and east, which overwhelmingly put Yanukovych into power. In supporting a violent overthrow of the latter, the American government quite deliberately threw its weight behind the anti-Russian half of the population. And it is impossible to believe that the political elite in Washington did not understand what they were doing. They had to have known that they were making civil strife – if not outright civil war – an absolute certainty.

The civil strife was not long in coming. As the anti-government mobs in Kiev were in the process of throwing out Yanukovych, major protests against the coup began to occur in the south and east. Crimea, which was overwhelmingly Russian and had only been transferred to the jurisdiction of Kiev in 1954 by Khruschev, held a referendum, resulting in a 97% vote for reunion with Russia. Putin, infuriated by American actions in Kiev, accepted the result of the vote, and formally announced the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation. Simultaneous with this, cities and towns throughout the south and east of the country, saw massive “anti-Maidan” protests, with many people calling for secession from Ukraine and union with Russia. The new Washington-appointed regime in Kiev reacted with force. Forty-seven pro-Russian demonstrators in Odessa were besieged in the city’s Trade Union building and burned to death by a Neo-Nazi mob. Seeing the way things were going, the ethnically-Russian provinces (“Oblasts”) of Lugansk and Donetsk declared independence and prepared to defend themselves. This quickly escalated into full-scale war, and over the next two years or so around 14,000 people, mainly ethnic Russian civilians, died, as the Kiev government fought to return the two provinces to Ukraine.

The fighting in Lugansk and Donetsk (the “Donbas”) de-escalated after the signing of the so-called Minsk 2 Accord in 2015. This deal, brokered by Russia, the US and the UN, provided for a degree of autonomy for the two breakaway provinces, as well as recognition and respect for their Russian language and culture. The deal also called for the immediate halting of all military action.

Had the Minsk agreement been fully implemented, it is quite possible that all hostilities would have ended, but this was never the case. The new government in Kiev, which from May 2014 was headed by Petro Poroshenko, made no attempt whatsoever to abide by the Accord’s provisions. On the contrary, the Russian language, hitherto one of the official languages of Ukraine, was demoted, and Russian culture in general denigrated. Even worse, none of those who had committed murder in Odessa and elsewhere were brought to justice, and the Neo-Nazi militias responsible for these atrocities were actually integrated into the Ukrainian army. Worst of all, sporadic shelling of civilian targets in Lugansk and Donetsk continued – for the next six years.

To repeat; the collective “West” could not have been unaware of the dangers of its interference in the affairs of Ukraine. This was a deeply divided country; to intervene on behalf of one section of the country at the expense of the other could not fail to deepen divisions and ultimately cause the disintegration of the state. That the West took the side of the anti-Russian half of the population was entirely in harmony with the increasingly hysterical tone of anti-Russian rhetoric in the Western media in the years leading up to the Maidan Revolution. And we can take with a pinch of salt the idea that Nuland and the Obama Adminstration was concerned with “corruption” in the Yanukovych regime: America is and always has been on very friendly terms with governments far more corrupt, violent and totalitarian than that of Yanukovych.

I would suggest that the real reason, or certainly an extremely important though unspoken reason, for Nuland’s mission was that Yanukovych’s pivot towards Russia was seen by the “woke” establishment in Washington as a sign that Ukraine would follow Russia into adopting an increasingly Christian-friendly social culture; one that the “liberals” and “progressives” in Washington despised. We should note too that one of Poroshenko’s first actions as President of Ukraine was to provide openings for George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, and to simultaneously support the establishment of LGBT input into the educational system. Gay “Pide” parades became a regular feature of life in Kiev where, though distinctly unpopular with the great majority of the population, they received massive support and protection from the security forces.

© 2022 The Remnant Newspaper, A Traditional Catholic Publication since 1967.

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

China warns US about ‘attitude’

Samizdat – September 24, 2022

The US must change its attitude towards China so the two powers can get along on the world stage, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said during a meeting with his US counterpart, Antony Blinken, in New York on Friday.

“China-US relations are at a critical juncture, and it is urgent for both sides to establish a correct way for the two major countries to get along with each other in a responsible attitude towards the world,” Wang told Blinken, according to a statement from the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

Wang added that by pledging to defend Taiwan, Washington is undermining China’s sovereignty and “sending a very wrong and dangerous signal.”

China considers the self-governing island its territory and opposes any form of foreign diplomatic and military aid to Taipei. “The issue of Taiwan is China’s internal affair, and the US has no right to interfere,” Wang said.

We hope that the US will correct its perception of China … and stop trying to deal with the Chinese from a position of strength.

According to US State Department spokesman Ned Price, Blinken spoke about the need to maintain open lines of communication with Beijing and stressed that Washington is “committed to maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, consistent with our longstanding ‘one-China’ policy.”

CNN quoted a senior US official as describing the conversation between Wang and Blinken as “extremely candid, direct, constructive and in-depth.”

Speaking to CBS News last week, President Joe Biden said the US would defend Taiwan in case of a Chinese invasion. However, the White House later clarified that Washington continues to maintain ‘strategic ambiguity’ on the matter.

Last month, China strongly protested the visit of US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, who became the highest-ranking US official to make the trip since the 1990s. Beijing retaliated by launching major military drills around the island.

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment


New World Next Week with James Evan Pilato

Corbett • 09/23/2022

Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Substack or Download the mp4

Story #1: US Senate’s CIA Torture Report to Remain Secret for ‘National Security’

Senate Doesn’t Have to Release Full CIA Torture Report, Judge Rules

Beryl A. Howell

Michael Rosenfeld

Senate Report: Torture Didn’t Lead to Bin Laden

Senator: Government Used Communist Torture Techniques Aimed at Extracting FALSE Confessions

Episode 027 – Torture is Bad

Why the Self-Proclaimed 9/11 Mastermind Hasn’t Seen Trial 21 Years Later

One of the Main Sources for the 9/11 Commission Report was Tortured Until He Agreed to Sign a Confession that He Was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ

Story #2: Biden Uses Executive Order To Institutionalize Eugenics, Transhumanism

“Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy” //

Notice on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks //

Controlled Demolition Of The COVID Illusion Ushers In “Biomanufacturing” & The American “Bioeconomy”

Biodigital Convergence: Bombshell Document Reveals the True Agenda

Story #3: Beyond Meat Executive Bites Man’s Nose Outside Football Game

Beyond Meat Suspends Operating Chief After Arrest for Allegedly Biting Man’s Nose

Video: Beyond Meat COO Doug Ramsey Arrested, Accused of Biting Man’s Nose

Free Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Popcorn and McDonald’s — Businesses Pile On More Perks For Getting Vaccinated (Mar. 23, 2021)

Impossible Foods Seeks EU, UK Approval for Its GMO “Fake Meat” Bleeding Ingredient

Rat Feeding Study Suggests the Impossible Burger May Not Be Safe to Eat

The New World Next Week Store

Become a member of Corbett Report ( and Media Monarchy ( to help support independent media. Those in the US who want to support our work can send cash, check or money order to:

Media Monarchy

P.O. Box 189

El Rito, NM 87530

Thank You.

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Subjugation - Torture, Video | , | Leave a comment