Aletho News


Medicine – the third-biggest killer in the world

By Serena Wylde | TCW Defending Freedom | January 7, 2023

Disease caused by prescribed drugs and medical errors, known as iatrogenesis, has been well documented as the third leading cause of death in the developed world, after cardio-vascular disease and cancer. How many people think about the broader implications of that information and apply it as a filter through which to scrutinise medical advice and recommendations?

Some time back, before the plandemic, I heard a radio advertisement for prescription services which stated that 52 per cent of people in this country were on permanent medication. I do not know if this astounding statistic is accurate, but if it is anywhere near that figure, it is deeply disturbing. It indicates that illness is considered the norm, and good health the out-of-the-ordinary, particularly in the over-65 age group. What must now be the percentage of people on permanent medication following the multi-billion-pound campaign to render populations drug-dependent?

A great part of that campaign, as we know, has been psychological and mental manipulation, and one of the tools in the arsenal is the distortion of language, designed to remove rational thought.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word therapy as ‘the treatment of physical or mental disorders, other than by surgery’. Therefore, so-called prophylactic interventions such as vaccines should not be described as therapy, or therapeutics, as they target healthy people who, by definition, do not have disorders and so do not need therapy. Combined with the word gene, as in ‘gene therapy’, it suggests that our genes are somehow defective and consequently in need of therapy, which most people would agree is an abomination. This is why language matters, and why we need to choose our own words to express ourselves rather than those chosen for us.

Another part of the brain-washing campaign has been to convince people they are born fundamentally flawed and cannot survive without continuous pharmacological interventions from the cradle onwards. This, of course, is the perfect business model for the supply chain of these infinite interventions.

‘The poor die from a lack of medical attention, and the rich from an excess of medical intervention’ is the view of Spanish doctor Juan Gervás who co-authored a book with Mercedes Pérez in 2013 entitled Sano y Salvo – Safe and Sound. The book challenges the public health model of wealthy, developed countries which, he contends, is driven by an insatiable quest for preventive medicine that risks becoming the undoing of good health.

Several explanations have been offered as to why doctors and scientists have been willing participants in this fraud, or are so obtuse they are unable to recognise it. These range from fear of loss of livelihood and prestige if they go the ethical route, to having received a training so deeply indoctrinating of the superiority of pharmacology that their ability to perceive inconvenient truths is all but obliterated.

When this system crumbles, as it is doing under its own weight, and the renaissance begins, doctors will have to retrain and learn instead about health.  Meanwhile, we must continue to challenge the fact-resistant institutions, from the Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to Parliament, to respond to the multitude of different sources of data corroborating the damage caused by mRNA ‘vaccines’.

In summary:

1.    We have Pfizer clinical trial data indicating serious harm, prised out of the FDA (the US Food and Drug Administration) by court order following the legal challenge made by Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency.

2.    We have national and international pharmacovigilance data (such as the Yellow Card Reporting System in the UK) showing extraordinarily high levels of reports of serious harm and fatalities following Covid-19 vaccination.

3.    We have clinical observational data of previously healthy people presenting in A&E and to their GPs with illness and injury following vaccination.

4.    We have national and international statistical data showing high levels of excess deaths in the months and years following the mass vaccine roll-out.

5.    We have data from life insurance companies showing high increases in payouts for death and disability following the vaccine rollout, as well as data from funeral homes showing no increase in deaths in 2020, but a massive surge following the vaccine roll-out in 2021/22.

6.    We have medical-scientific data on the mechanisms of the experimental ‘vaccines’ which can cause harm to all the body’s systems, as well as on the damaging effects of some of the adjuvants in the ‘vaccines’.

7.    We have autopsy data from fatalities over a broad range of ages following ‘vaccination’.

Any one of these sources of data on their own is alarming enough. Collectively they show a composite picture of iatrogenesis on a mass scale.

January 7, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

2 in 5 Kids Have Multiple Food Allergies — and It’s Taking a Toll on Their Mental and Physical Health

The Defender | January 6, 2023

Two in five U.S. children and nearly half of adults with a food allergy are allergic to multiple foods, according to research published last month in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

The researchers, led by Northwestern University’s Christopher Warren, Ph.D., also found that as the number of food allergies a person has increases, so does the effect on their physical and psychological health.

Warren told The Defender :

“Findings of such high disease burden among children and adults living with many food allergies highlights an acute need for improved treatments and approaches to improve day-to-day food allergy management in this important subpopulation, including facilitating access to psychosocial support services — including support groups which can help improve quality of life.”

Food allergies are part of a chronic and growing public health epidemic in the U.S., afflicting 32 million Americans, including 5.6 million children under age 18.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that allergy prevalence rose by approximately 50% between 1997 and 2011.

Between 1997 and 2008, the prevalence of peanut or tree nut allergy appears to have more than tripled among U.S. children.

Research has shown that food allergies adversely affect physical health, cause emotional distress, lead to economic burden and negatively affect quality of life, even for individuals who avoid exposure to triggering foods.

Past studies revealed that many people with food allergies have multi-food allergies, but their distribution and expression are still poorly understood.

To uncover the rates and manifestations of multi-food allergies in the U.S., researchers conducted a nationally representative survey of adults and children in U.S. households by phone and electronically from October 2015 to September 2016.

They analyzed responses from 40,443 adults and 38,408 children who reported on their allergies and associated physical and psychological symptoms.

Symptoms were considered “convincing” if the respondent’s most severe reaction appeared on a stringent list developed by an expert panel.

They assessed the psychological burden of living with food allergies using a 1-to-7 point scale.

They found that of the 7.6% of children who met the criteria for convincing food allergies, 40% reported multi-food allergies. Among the 10.8% of adults who met the criteria, 48% reported multi-food allergies.

As the number of food allergies increased, so did food allergy-related emergency department visits, severe allergic reactions, psychosocial burden and epi-pen use.

The researchers also identified four latent types of multi-food allergies: milk/egg-dominant, seafood-dominant, peanut/tree nut-dominant and broadly multi-food allergic.

The study’s findings underscore the importance of ensuring that patients who suspect they have one or more food allergies receive prompt and appropriate food allergy testing so that each suspected allergy can be either confirmed or ruled out, Warren said.

Warren added:

“It is remarkably common for patients to ‘self-diagnose’ their food allergies, and in many cases, they are not truly allergic to the food.

“Given the greater adverse impact on quality of life experienced by patients avoiding a greater number of food allergens, it is essential that patients are not unnecessarily avoiding foods to which they are not allergic — even more so because regular consumption of commonly allergenic foods is likely an important way to avoid developing a true allergy to those foods down the road.”

Food allergies and vaccines: What’s the connection?

In a recent episode of VSRF (Vaccine Safety Research Foundation) weekly update, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children’s Health Defense (CHD) chairman and chief litigation counsel, and VSRF founder Steve Kirsch discussed the relationship between the explosion of food allergies over the last five decades and childhood vaccination.

According to Kennedy, in 1968, the rate of chronic disease in the U.S. was 6% among children. By 1986, that had risen to 11.8% and by 2006, it was up to 54%. That means that more than half of U.S. children have neurological diseases (ADHD, autism, etc.), obesity, autoimmune disease and allergic diseases.

“All of this appeared in epidemic form suddenly in 1989,” Kennedy said. These chronic health conditions existed prior to that, but the numbers started soaring in 1989.

As a founder of the Food Allergy Initiative, now the Food Allergy Research and Education network, which raised more than $200 million for allergy research, Kennedy explained that most research focused on treating allergies rather than understanding their causes.

These treatments, he said, are developed by inducing allergies in lab rats. Researchers inject rats with aluminum adjuvants from the hepatitis vaccine, along with the protein for the given allergen being studied.

The aluminum “does not just give you allergies to materials that are in that vaccine, it will give you an allergy to materials that are in the ambient environment,” Kennedy explained. “So if you get that vaccine when there is a Timothy weed outbreak, you may now have a lifetime allergy to Timothy weed.”

Recent research by Brian S. Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., CHD’s chief scientific officer, found that fully vaccinated children were 4.31 times more likely to suffer from serious allergies (requiring an epi-pen) compared to their unvaccinated counterparts.

Hooker’s findings affirmed research by Anthony Mawson, M.A., doctor of public health, an epidemiologist and professor at Jackson State University, which showed a 3.9-time increase in allergies reported among vaccinated children versus unvaccinated children.

According to Kennedy, there are hundreds of studies with similar outcomes. “We created an entire generation of all these allergies by giving them these early vaccines.”

Vaccine side effects are not limited to allergies, Kennedy added:

“Every one of those diseases that I mentioned to you are listed as vaccine side effects on the manufacturer’s inserts of the 72 doses of vaccines that are now mandated for our children.

“There are 405 listed side effects in total on all of those vaccines. Those are a list of all of the diseases that became epidemic after 1989. Do you think that’s a coincidence?”

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.

January 7, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Time to Rethink the Core Question: What Is Health Care?

By Alan Lash | Brownstone Institute | January 5, 2023

By now we’ve all heard many stories of health policy makers, medical institutions, and even doctors seemingly act against the best health interests of the people and their patients. Doctors ignoring the real facts that Covid was never that dangerous for large swaths of the population, and equally ignoring that the vaccinations may cause serious harm. “Safe and effective,” they keep repeating.

Last month Alex Berenson provided details of yet another example of a 14-year-old girl named Yulia Hicks. Duke University surgeons took her off of the kidney transplant list because she is not vaccinated. We were horrified in hearing such examples a full year ago, but incredibly they continue.

Most of us have personal stories of close friends and family acting in equally peculiar ways. In my case, a doctor very close to me advised my daughter to get vaccinated in the summer of 2021 without talking to me at all. He didn’t know anything about her medical history or circumstances that would have potentially made the vaccine dangerous for her.

I challenged him, and he apologized, but he essentially shrugged off anything I said about the relative unnecessity for her to even take the vaccine, given that Covid was not dangerous for her. My facts didn’t seem to matter. He also shrugged off any potential long-term effects, even as I pointed out the obvious, that many such effects could not even be known at that time.

These stories go on and on, and extend to opinions of friends and family outside of health care. “You just have to take it,” we are told.

What is this disconnect? Why are there so many people who believe that it is ok to demand that a girl be vaccinated before she receives other life-saving treatment? Surely, they do not wish her harm. Why are potential risks of the vaccines just ignored by a large part of the medical community? How can they see significant numbers of cases of myocarditis in young men, and not pause for a moment to consider the impact that the vaccine might have on their lives and families?

I do not believe that all of these doctors think that when they advise these young men to take the vaccine, that they are intentionally trying to cause them harm. In fact, these doctors themselves believe that they are doing what is best for their patients.

But how is this possible? How can one group of doctors prescribe the opposite as another group of doctors and both believe that they are acting in the best interests of their patients, when all the same data points are there for everyone to see? I believe that the answer to these questions lies in the central definition of health care itself, and the worldviews that create this definition.

One worldview, the one I possess, is that health care is at essence an individual doctor/patient relationship. The doctor assesses the individual needs of the patient, whether physical or psychological, and plans treatment based on that. In Yulia’s case, my answer is obvious: the doctors must ignore their vaccination policy in the best health interests of one specific patient. It doesn’t even matter to me whether she had Covid before. Her parents’ refusal to get the vaccine, for whatever reason, is all I need to know. Clearly this worldview means there is a different treatment for each individual.

The other worldview, seemingly held by so many inside the healthcare system, does not rely on an individual assessment to understand health care. They view health care as being a general policy that applies to the entire population. If they have determined that in general vaccination is better than not being vaccinated, then they must require that everyone be vaccinated.

They say that if their policy choice is correct, then they must just accept that there are some people who will not benefit or even be harmed by the policy. The statistics are all that matter. If they follow those, then they are in fact doing what is best for everyone. Doctors can claim that they are in fact working to help people. Their statistics prove it to them.

This worldview has been brought into stark relief in the past two years with the various policies around Covid, but it has been taking root for quite some time. My father died in 2010, but in the years before his death, doctors had him on a wide variety of medications, so that every day he literally swallowed a handful of pills.

What were they for? High blood pressure, blood clot prevention, predisposition to diabetes. Note that none of these are conditions from which he suffered in his life, they are all numbers, measurements, and statistics. He wasn’t being treated as an individual with a specific problem that needed to be addressed. He fit in this category, and that other category, and so the solution is a handful of pills every day, just like everyone else in those categories.

But what happens when the statistics don’t bear out the policy decision? We have an immediate example with the Covid vaccinations. All-cause mortality has been on a frightening rise, and it’s becoming more and more difficult to ignore the possibility that the vaccines could have actually caused this. Assuming that there is a connection, surely this flies in the face of the worldview that the vaccination program has been good for all of society. If the overall numbers of deaths have increased, doesn’t that mean that the vaccination program was a failure? Isn’t that the very definition of a public health policy failure? Again, in this case, many doctors seem to be unaware of this fact. How can that be?

As baffling as this is, I think this too fits well within the worldview. When the medical community completely controls all health care decisions, that defines the success. Another way to think about it is to say that the overarching grand scheme is precisely to remove all decision-making from the individual about their own health care. In this sense, the vaccination program has been a success, regardless of myocarditis, nervous disorders, or even excess mortality.

Of course things will not go perfectly well all the time, and there may be more harm than good in a particular campaign. But overall, if people just trust what they are told to do by the medical establishment, we will all be better off over the long run. They will just have to do better next time.

But here we are now at a problem that cannot be solved. There is no reconciliation of the two worldviews.

The health policy worldview determines its success only in the fact that they have controlled the individual health decisions. Any mistakes in policy will be taken into account in the next decision. There never is a policy failure as long as the decision-makers remain in charge to tell us what is best.

The individual worldview requires that each patient be treated uniquely, with a personal relationship with a doctor viewing their needs and desires as important and unique. This attitude is wholly counter to centralized control of all health care decisions.

Where are we going? As much as I’d like to think people will ultimately reject top down control of their health care, that’s not what we’ve seen happen. The trend has been in place for at least several decades, and the emotional reaction against personal choice and individual care has been shockingly powerful in the past two years. This is despite solid and growing evidence that the vaccination campaign has been a failure in improving the health of the population. My hope is that there will be some change in attitude or some big event to get us back to health care for individuals, but I can’t think of what that will be.

Alan Lash is a software developer from Northern California, with a Masters degree Physics and a PhD in Mathematics.

January 7, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Internal CDC Emails Claim Assistant Secretary For Health Blocked Release Of Fluoride Review

By Derrick Broze | The Last American Vagabond | January 5, 2023 

Newly released emails reveal that leadership within the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Health acted to prevent the release of a long-delayed review of fluoride’s toxicity by the National Toxicology Program. The emails specifically claim that Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine intervened to stop the release of the NTP review, also known internally as a monograph.

An email dated June 3rd, 2022, shows Nicole Johnson, Associate Director for Policy, Partnerships and Strategic Communication in CDC’s Oral Health Division contacting Jennifer Greaser, a Senior Public Health Policy Analyst in CDC’s Washington office. Johnson states:

“The latest we heard (yesterday) is that ASH Levine has put the report on hold until further notice.”

ASH Levine refers to the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health, Rachel Levine.

The emails were released as part of the ongoing legal dispute between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and plaintiffs Food and Water Watch, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and others who are seeking an end to water fluoridation Throughout the historic lawsuit the plaintiffs have argued that the practice violates the EPA’s Toxic Substances Abuse Act.

Hearings for the lawsuit began in June 2020, but were delayed for more than two years after U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen put the proceedings on hold pending the release of the NTP’s review of all of the available research on fluoride. The NTP had previously claimed the review would be available in May 2022. However, the review has not been made public and hearings have been delayed and rescheduled as the judge awaited the NTP’s conclusions.

In late October 2022, Judge Chen ended the two year stay on the lawsuit when he ruled that the NTP review could be viewed in its unpublished form to better inform his final decision. However, due to concerns from the EPA, Judge Chen ruled that the report could not be made public unless the NTP releases it.

On December 14, 2022, the plaintiff’s filed several exhibits with Judge Chen, including a redacted version of the NTP’s assessment of fluoride’s neurotoxicity and internal emails between the CDC and the NTP which were obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests.

What do the #FluorideEmails reveal?

Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs, outlined the findings of the emails in several exhibits submitted to Judge Chen. “These emails confirm that the NTP considered the May 2022 monograph to be the NTP’s final report,” Connett writes. “They also confirm that the CDC was opposed to the NTP releasing the report, and that leadership at the top levels of the Department of Health Human Services intervened to stop the report from being released.”

As Connett notes, on April 28, 2022, Dr. Mary Wolfe, the Director of NTP’s Office of Policy, Review and Outreach, emailed Casey Hannan, the Director of CDC’s Division of Oral Health, and stated that the NTP’s “analysis and conclusions are set”. Dr. Wolfe also let Hannan know that the NTP had reviewed the CDC’s submitted comments, but still planned to release the review “mid/late May” 2022.

In a May 11, 2022 email, Wolfe again notifies Hannan and the CDC that the NTP has “set May 18, 2022 for publication of the monograph. The monograph will be posted to the NTP website, and we will email a notice of the posting to NTP listserv subscribers.”

However, later that day and the following day, Dr. Karen Hacker, the Director of CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), tells Dr. Wolfe that there is concern within the CDC about publishing the NTP review without an additional review by “NIH leadership”. Hacker also asked about the potential of a “interagency review” by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Dr. Wolfe subsequently told the CDC that “we (the NTP) believe the current findings, as stated in the monograph, reflect the scope of our evaluation and the available scientific literature and no revision is needed”.

Meanwhile, while Dr. Wolfe was defending the work of the NTP, internal emails among officials at the CDC’s Division of Oral Health reveal that the CDC was already preparing to prevent the release. A May 12, 2022 email from Hannan states:

“The May 18th release date for [the monograph] is almost certainly not going to happen. OASH and NIH OD are pretty clearly going to get more involved.”

OASH is a reference to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health, the second highest office in the Department of Health and Human Services, while NIH OD refers to the NIH’s Office of the Director, the highest office within the NIH. The current Director of the NIH is Lawrence A. Tabak.

Jay Sanders, Education & Outreach Director with the Fluoride Action Network, told The Last American Vagabond he believes the emails “reveal a concerted effort at the highest level of the U.S. public health bureaucracy to squash a key report on fluoride neurotoxicity”. Sanders also stated the emails “show the lengths these agencies are willing to go to to protect their pet project, fluoridation, from any scientific scrutiny.”

Together with the June 3rd, 2022 email, these communications point to direct intervention from the head of the NIH and the Assistant Secretary for Health at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The emails confirm what has long been suspected. Namely, that government officials at some level were preventing the release of this important review on the toxicity of fluoride. The CDC interference comes on top of an already unusual process employed by the NTP to evaluate the data on the safety of water fluoridation.

“This report, which has now been reviewed 4 times, is now going to be reviewed a 5th time by the NTP,” Fluoride Action Network attorney Michael Connett stated during the October 2022 hearing. “There will be at least 5 separate peer review processes extending over 4 years. This is, to put it mildly, exceptionally unusual.”

The next hearing in the #FluorideLawsuit takes place on January 12, 2023 at 2:30 PM US Eastern.

January 7, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 2 Comments

US regulator fast-tracks dementia drug

RT | January 6, 2023

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday fast-tracked  the approval of lecanemab, a drug to treat the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Made by Japanese drugmaker Eisai and Biogen and marketed as Leqembi, the drug allegedly delays cognitive decline caused by the disease, though trials have shown some alarming side effects.

While a clinical trial of lecanemab’s efficacy in early Alzheimer’s published in November found it slowed cognitive and functional decline better than a placebo, the researchers noted that it was “associated with adverse events” and recommended “longer trials” to “determine the efficacy and safety of lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease” – an unusual call for caution in a study co-funded by the drug’s manufacturers.

Around 17% of those who took lecanemab experienced brain bleeding during the trials, while nearly 13% suffered brain swelling or effusions, compared to 9% and 2% in the placebo group respectively, according to the New England Journal of Medicine study. Some 7% of the trial participants stopped taking the drug due to the side effects.

Lecanemab’s high price point – $26,500 for a year’s worth of treatment – has also raised concerns. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review suggested $20,600 as the price ceiling, arguing a cost-effective rate could be as low as $8,500. The company suggested it could lower the dosing frequency to cut costs.

Biogen is no stranger to controversy over its Alzheimer’s drugs. In 2021, several FDA board members resigned over concerns that Aduhelm, which the company had developed as the first drug designed to target the plaque buildup then believed to be the underlying cause of Alzheimer’s, had not demonstrated sufficient efficacy in treating moderate-to-severe dementia. While not a single member of the advisory panel responsible for reviewing the drug supported its approval, the FDA did so anyway, side effects and $56,000 annual price tag notwithstanding.

A congressional investigation that concluded last week found the approval process “rife with irregularities,” noting the FDA had “inappropriately collaborated” with the company it was supposed to be regulating.

Last year, it emerged that parts of the research that established the current plaque-based disease model of Alzheimer’s were possibly fraudulent, suggesting that the amyloid plaques found in the patients could be a symptom, rather than the cause, of the illness.

January 7, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 2 Comments

Survey shows overwhelming majority in Arab countries oppose normalization with Israel

Press TV – January 7, 2023

A new survey has found that an overwhelming majority of people in Arab countries oppose normalization of relations with Israel, and consider the occupying regime’s policies to be a threat to security and stability of the region.

The opinion poll, conducted by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS), indicated that 84% of the participants disapprove any recognition of Israel by their home countries, the Jewish News website reported on Friday.

The London-based website went on to say that 36% cited “colonialist occupying power in Palestine” as the main reason for opposing recognition of Israel while 9% cited Israel’s expansionist policies and the intention to dominate more Arab territory as the reason for their opposition.

Meanwhile, 8% responded that they would support recognition of Israel by their countries, and 8% were unsure or declined to answer.

The latest findings were based on face-to-face interviews with 33,000 individuals from 14 Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Bahrain and Sudan which have already normalized ties with Israel.

In Morocco, the most Israel-friendly country included in the survey, 67% of participants opposed recognition of Israel, 20% answered in support, and 13% didn’t know or declined to answer.

Among respondents from Saudi Arabia, which prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu eyes normalization of ties with, 38% rejected recognition of Israel, but 57% decided not to respond.

The survey further revealed that 72% of participants support a democratic system while 87% believe that financial and administrative corruption is widespread in their countries while 39% say they don’t enjoy full equality.

It also found 84% consider policies by Israel and the United States to be a threat to stability and security in the region, with 53% having a “very negative” view of US policy concerning the Palestinians.

Four Arab countries – the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco – agreed to normalize relations with Israel under US-brokered agreements in 2020, when former US President Donald Trump was in office.

Spearheaded by the UAE, the move has sparked widespread condemnations from Palestinians as well as nations and human rights advocates across the world, especially within the Muslim world.

Palestinians see the accords as a stab in their back and a direct affront to their cause to liberate their lands from Israeli occupation.

January 7, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Solidarity and Activism | , | 1 Comment

Israel to destroy 58 Palestinian schools

Palestine Information Center – January 6, 2023

RAMALLAH – 58 Palestinian schools are at risk of demolition in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, the Arab Campaign for Education for All revealed.

In a statement issued on Thursday, the campaign expressed deep concern over the Israeli violation of Palestinian children’s right to education.

Israeli authorities issued six demolition or stop-construction orders against six schools over the past year, according to the campaign.

58 other schools, serving 6,550 students, were also notified with demolition, the campaign added.

In this regard, the Arab Campaign for Education for All called on the UN concerned agencies to bear responsibility in confronting Israeli demolition policy against Palestinian schools.

The time has come for international institutions to go beyond condemnation and to move to pressure the Israeli occupation to stop its continuous violations against Palestinian education, the statement reads.

January 7, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | 2 Comments

Bolton Says Possible 2024 Presidential Bid Would Be To Stamp Out Trump Influence

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | January 6, 2023

Ex-Trump advisor and well-known foreign policy ultra-hawk John Bolton is teasing the possibility that he’ll run for the White House in 2024.

He said in a “Good Morning Britain” interview which aired Friday that “I wouldn’t run as a vanity candidate. If I didn’t think I could run seriously then I wouldn’t get in the race.” And then he said, “I would get in to win the nomination and I would do it primarily on the basis that we need a much stronger foreign policy.”

Given this is Bolton – the man who has has never encountered a US war he didn’t wholeheartedly support (or himself was a key architect of, as in the case of Iraq)… a “much stronger foreign policy” appears simply code for more war.

Bolton touted in the interview that he thinks he can beat his old boss former President Trump in securing the Republican nomination due to Trump suffering a “terminal decline” in the numbers of people supporting him.

“I think Trump’s support within the party itself is in terminal decline,” Bolton said. “I wouldn’t run as a vanity candidate. If I didn’t think I could run seriously, then I wouldn’t get in the race.”

Last month, the former national security adviser also told NBC that if Republican candidates don’t strongly denounce Trump and distance themselves from his influence, then…

“If I don’t see that, I’m going to seriously consider getting in,” Bolton said at the time, later adding: “I think to be a presidential candidate you can’t just say, ‘I support the Constitution.’ You have to say, ‘I would oppose people who would undercut it.'”

In the wake of the British TV interview, The Washington Times reported, “The British network took his comments as confirmation Mr. Bolton would launch a bid, though his team said that is inaccurate.”

A handful of media outlets are still running headlines which sound as if Bolton confirmed that he’ll run in 2024, but there’s yet to be a definitive statement from him, other than he’s still mulling the idea.

January 7, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | | 7 Comments

Top Cancer Expert: Aggressive Cancers Appearing After Vaccine Boosters “Not a Coincidence”


There follows the transcript of a new video put out by top cancer specialist Dr. Angus Dalgleish, who is very concerned that the Covid boosters appear to be causing cancers, an adverse effect which he says “does not look like a coincidence”.

I’m Angus Dalgleish. I’m a Professor of Oncology at St. George’s, a Consultant Medical Oncologist, and I have started to notice that several of my patients have melanoma who’ve been stable with stage 4 disease, they’ve had very good immunotherapy or other treatment and I’ve been reviewing them from five to 20 years. I’ve noticed that I have now over six, possibly seven, even an eighth yesterday, who’ve clearly relapsed following the booster vaccine.

At first we didn’t put the two together, but when a patient said, “I felt awful since the vaccine, I’ve just been drained”, they’ve described symptoms like a Long Covid, and the next thing we know, two, three weeks, couple of months later they’ve got clear evidence of relapse. And these relapses are quite aggressive. They’re not a gentle relapse. They’re relapses that are requiring systemic therapy as opposed to a little nodule that requires surgical incision.

But it’s not just this. I’m now very much aware in my own circle of many people, they haven’t got a melanoma – they’ve never had anything before – but they’ve got lumps and bumps and they’re not felling well. And two people I’ve interviewed at great length, they all put it down to feeling awful after their booster. They were fine with the first two vaccines, they just had shivers, flu etc. But they’ve described being very tired, very fatigued, wanting to stay in bed, and this has dragged on to the point were they’ve gone to the doctor and they’ve had blood counts and investigations and I now know seven of them, two of them have leukemias, and others have lymphomas, and one of them has a very bad melanoma, which he is absolutely sure was instigated by the booster as he developed dreadful symptoms.

So really I want to bring to everybody’s attention that I think that this does not look like a coincidence to me and we need to join forces and see if this is a real effect and if it is we must stop all the boosters immediately. Thank you.

Read Professor Dalgleish’s earlier articles in the Daily Sceptic warning of this potential adverse effect here and here.

January 7, 2023 Posted by | Video | | Leave a comment