Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Did Germany just officially declare war on Russia?

By Drago Bosnic | January 26, 2023

During a debate at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock bluntly stated that Germany and its allies are at war with Russia. The unexpected admission, although essentially true, is quite shocking given the fact that many Western officials have been insisting they aren’t directly involved in the conflict with Moscow. Baerbock made the statement during a discussion over sending “Leopard 2” heavy tanks to the Kiev regime. Most mainstream media conveniently ignored her words, but numerous experts were alarmed and warned that Berlin just essentially declared war on Russia.

This stands in stark contrast to claims of other German officials who have been extremely careful with their statements for nearly a year, insisting that their country is not directly involved in the Ukrainian conflict and citing uncontrollable escalation as their primary concern. However, this official stance is now in serious question, as one of the country’s top officials just effectively nullified all of their efforts. Annalena Baerbock started her statement at PACE with the following:

“And therefore I’ve said already in the last days – yes, we have to do more to defend Ukraine. Yes, we have to do more also on tanks. But the most important and the crucial part is that we do it together and that we do not do the blame game in Europe, because we are fighting a war against Russia and not against each other.”

Ironically, Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his now former defense minister Christine Lambrecht have been accused of being “weak” on arming the Neo-Nazi junta. They have frequently insisted that it would be dangerous to get more directly involved in NATO’s proxy war against Russia. However, it seems that the much more hawkish Baerbock is willing to say the quiet part out loud. Moscow immediately reacted to the comments, with Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova saying this is yet another proof that the political West was planning a war on Russia for quite some time now.

“If we add this to Merkel’s revelations that they were strengthening Ukraine and did not count on the Minsk agreements, then we are talking about a war against Russia that was planned in advance. Don’t say later that we didn’t warn you,” Zakharova said.

Baerbock’s comments come on the heels of nearly a year of direct Russophobic narrative, including openly declared plans for war with Russia. In mid-November, Der Spiegel published leaked German Defense Ministry documents, revealing that the Bundeswehr is preparing for war with Russia. The secret draft titled “Operational guidelines for the Armed Forces” was authored by none other than the German Chief of Staff, General Eberhard Zorn himself. He stressed the need for a “mega-reform” of the German military and clearly identified Russia as an “immediate threat”.

The claim makes little sense, as Germany is now over 1,500 km away from Russia, with Belarus, Poland and Ukraine standing between the two countries. While such assertions made some sense at the height of the (First) Cold War, when the Soviet Union had over half a million soldiers stationed in East Germany alone (in addition to other Warsaw Pact member states), the situation is effectively reversed nowadays. NATO is the one encroaching on Russia’s western borders, with the crawling expansion including coups and other interventions in various Eastern European and post-Soviet states. After decades of this creeping aggression and Moscow’s futile attempts to build a comprehensive partnership with the political West, Russia was forced to launch its counteroffensive.

Back in early March, the German government announced a dramatic increase in defense spending, including a €100 billion budget for the Bundeswehr, essentially double in comparison to 2021. Although this will inevitably put additional pressure on the already struggling German economy, ravaged by the sanctions boomerang from its failed economic siege of Russia, Berlin’s suicidal subservience to Washington DC seems to take precedence. Much of Germany’s prosperity was based on access to cheap Russian energy, now a thing of the past thanks to Berlin’s resurgent Russophobia.

In addition, Germany also uniquely holds historical responsibility on a scale virtually no other country in the world does, especially towards Russia. During the Second World War, it launched a brutal invasion of the Soviet Union, killing nearly 30 million people and destroying virtually everything in its path. Worse yet, after approximately 80 years of denazification in the aftermath of its WWII defeat, Berlin still decided to support the Neo-Nazi junta in Kiev, effectively renouncing its own official postwar political position. This also includes German weapons that are killing Russians, both soldiers and civilians.

Alarmed by the dramatic shift in rhetoric, many in Germany are already pointing out the fact that the country is repeating the same historical mistake by antagonizing Russia. Petr Bystron, an AfD (Alternative for Germany) member of the German Parliament, reminded his colleagues in the Bundestag of the consequences of sending German tanks to fight Russia in Ukraine:

“It’s an interesting approach you’re taking here. German tanks against Russia in Ukraine. By the way, your grandfathers have already tried to do it then with the Melnyks and Banderas [Ukrainian Nazi collaborators during WWII] and what was the result? Untold suffering, millions of deaths on both sides, and in the end, Russian tanks here in Berlin. And two of them are still here, in front of the Bundestag. You should pass by them every morning and remember it!”

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

January 26, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | 2 Comments

Judge calls California’s medical misinformation law “nonsense,” blocks it

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | January 25, 2023

A federal judge questioned the new  law that penalizes doctors for sharing COVID-19 “misinformation.”

The new law, which came into effect on January 1 this year, prohibits doctors from spreading what the state deems to be misinformation to patients, or risk being penalized for “unprofessional conduct,” which could result in their licenses being revoked.

Here’s a summary of the case so far if you’re not up to date.

The law has been challenged through separate lawsuits filed by two organizations and a group of doctors on the grounds of  violations. They filed a motion at the US District Court of Sacramento to hold the law until the cases are concluded.

In a hearing, Senior Judge William Shubb described the law’s definition of misinformation as “nonsense.”

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

“Because AB 2098 [the misinformation law] implicates [plaintiff’s] First Amendment right to receive information, she has standing,” the court wrote.

“Vague statutes are particularly objectionable when they involve sensitive areas of First Amendment freedoms because they operate to inhibit the exercise of those freedoms,” the court added, referring to a 2001 case, California Teachers Association v. State Board of Education.

“When the challenged law implicates First Amendment rights, a facial challenge based on vagueness is appropriate.”

The court granted the plaintiffs a hearing to challenge the law and blocked the enforcement of the law until the case is decided.

The law defines misinformation as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”

Shubb noted that “standard of care” is not a new principle, but argued, “contemporary scientific consensus” is.

According to Deputy Attorney General Kristin Liska, who is representing Gov. Gavin Newsom, a medical professional has to violate all three aspects of the definition of misinformation for punishment to be applicable; share misinformation, contradict scientific consensus, and go against the standard of care.

However, she refused to give examples of statements that would fit the definition, saying that it would depend on the circumstances. Shubb then asked how she expects medical professionals to know what would violate the law.

January 26, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 2 Comments

Changing Your Mind Is A Strength Not A Weakness

A Better Way to Health with Dr Tess Lawrie | January 24, 2023

This is a story about the value of standing your ground, and never letting THEM (The Hierarchy Exploiting Medics) dupe you into believing they have power over you. Truth wins out.

On 30th September 2021, I gave an invited academic lecture at a philosophical institute in Bath called Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution (BRLSI). As the General Medical Council (GMC) states in its letter to me:

“The Institution is an independent charity that promotes science, literature and art to the City of Bath; tickets for its lectures can be bought by both member and non-members of the Institution.”

The title of my lecture was ‘Covid and the State of Evidence-based Medicine’ and I covered what I knew at the time about early treatments for Covid, as well as the emerging evidence on the Covid-19 vaccines suggesting serious safety issues. I have alluded to this talk and associated investigation in a previous Substack article.

There were probably not more than forty people in the room, with a number attending via Zoom too. Towards the end of the talk, a man’s voice came loudly through the microphone, facilitated by whomever was controlling the Zoom permissions, drowning out mine, and declaring that I should be ashamed of myself for what I had said.

The lovely organiser of the meeting was suitably embarrassed, but it was clear that his feelings were not shared by his masked and furious medical colleague, who had clearly facilitated the heckler’s dramatic outburst. The colleague later denied access to the lecture recording, which was never more widely published as is usually the case for these events.

A couple of months later I was notified by the GMC that I was under investigation for “misconduct” in relation to my lecture at the BRLSI, the allegations being that I “denied the safety of Covid-19 vaccines and spread misinformation about Covid-19 treatments”. The GMC investigation was opened to determine whether I had made “inaccurate and/or misleading comments about Covid-19 and Covid-19 vaccines”.

I received excellent advice from Solicitor Philip Hyland who responded to the GMC quite simply on my behalf pointing out that “taken at its highest there is a substantial body of medical opinion that supports what Doctor Lawrie is saying.”

This week I received the outcome of the GMC’s investigation, which is “closure of the case with no action”. In its letter to me, the GMC noted that:

“During the investigation the GMC obtained a video copy and transcript of the Lecture. During the initial part of the Lecture Dr Lawrie presented her views on the evidence on ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19, later in her lecture Dr Lawrie presented her views on vaccines.

“It was established during the GMC investigation that the advertisement for the Lecture stated that Dr Lawrie was an external consultant to the World Health Organisation, a clinical practice guideline expert, and that she was Director of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd and Ebmcsquared CIC. The Ebmcsquared CIC website states that it was established by Dr Lawrie as a ‘a non-profit company in March 2021 in response to the tremendous need for independent and objective health care research and provision, arising out of the Covid-19 health emergency.’

Dr Lawrie’s comments

On 10 February 2022, Dr Lawrie’s representatives submitted that ‘taken at its highest there is a substantial body of medical opinion that supports what Doctor Lawrie is saying.’

Reasons for our decision

As case examiners we must decide whether there is a realistic prospect of establishing that a doctor’s fitness to practise is currently impaired to a degree justifying action on his or her registration.

This test has two parts.

  • We must decide if the allegations are serious enough to warrant action on the doctor’s registration.
  • We must also consider whether the allegations are capable of proof to the required standard, namely that it is more likely than not that the alleged events occurred.

In making decisions, we should have regard to the GMC’s objectives. These are to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public; promote and maintain public confidence in the profession; and promote and maintain proper standards and conduct for members of the profession.

Doctors are entitled to hold and express personal views, however they also have an overriding duty to patients and to uphold the public’s confidence in the profession. In the absence of expert or other evidence capable of proving that Dr Lawrie’s conduct was such that public confidence in the medical profession would be undermined, or that it risked the health, safety and well-being of the public, or that it undermined proper standards and conduct for members of the profession, we agree that there is no realistic prospect of establishing evidentially that Dr Lawrie’s fitness to practise is impaired to a degree justifying action on her registration.

Conclusion

For the reasons given above, we have decided to close the case with no action.”

To my medical colleagues out there, I do hope that this will reassure you and encourage you to speak out now.

Please remember, as the GMC letter states, that you “have an overriding duty to patients and to uphold the public’s confidence in the profession”, which is unequivocally at an all-time low. We know how busy you are, that you had little time to do your own investigations, and that being at the frontline of what was communicated to be a deadly pandemic was probably terrifying. We know you were told that the Covid-19 vaccines were safe and effective.

However, now that you know the Covid-19 vaccines are not safe and effective, that they are not the same as traditional vaccines, that there are unprecedented numbers of adverse drug reactions (ADR) reported to the official ADR databases, and that Covid ‘boosters’ are systematically destroying people’s immunity not ‘boosting’ it, please stand up for the truth, uphold your Hippocratic Oath, and do what is right. It is a strength not a weakness to be able to change one’s mind when new information comes to light. We have been waiting for you, now please stand up together with us. There’s undoubtedly a better way forward for health and wellbeing!

A few next steps you can take as a doctor

For doctors in the UK, you will find that www.doctorsforpatientsuk.com is a good starting point for peer learning and support.

Please find further reassurance in this article about GMC complaints related to Dr Aseem Malhotra’s BBC interview in which he called for a halt to the Covid vaccination programme. This interview has been viewed over 20 million times and counting.

If you are considering leaving the NHS and starting private practice, I encourage you to register as a practitioner on World Council for Health’s new community platform, Source. This is an online platform connecting local people with doctors and other health professionals in their area. Registration is free – the only condition is that you agree to abide by the Better Way Charter. We receive requests every day from people seeking doctors they can trust: allow us to direct them to you via Source.

Lastly, everything I said at BRLSI on 21 September 2021 about ivermectin and the safety issues with Covid injections is as applicable now more than ever. I will present an updated version of this lecture, ‘Covid and the State of Evidence-based Medicine’ at the ‘Harmonising Modern Medicines with Natures Remedies’ conference in The Philippines in February. Perhaps I’ll see you there!

January 26, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Why are the intelligentsia so stupid about vaccine injuries?

By Niall McCrae | TCW Defending Freedom | January 25, 2023

Educated stupidity is what failed us. Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic strip, now admits that his previous stance of promoting the Covid-19 vaccine was wrong, and that the ‘anti-vaxxers’ have been proved right. In his latest video, Adams opines that the decision on whether to take the shot was best made by ignoring doctors and experts. 

Adams sees an inverse correlation between intelligence and an objective understanding of Covid-19 and climate change. Truth is found not at Davos, scene of the World Economic Forum’s annual conferences attended by the high and mighty, but in Walmart. Indeed, an alternative ‘Dumb Davos’ (by which he meant a gathering of people with no letters before or after their names) would be more enlightening than listening to the arrogant, self-serving class who regard themselves as the ‘elite’.

What to follow – rules or reality? One meaning of ‘observe’ is to adhere to ritualistic practice, as demonstrated by the religiously devout, and also by followers of political ideology. There is no need to think but act dutifully. The other meaning of the verb is to watch what is happening, in a focused rather than passing manner. This is the endeavour of scientists, artists, satirists and (at least in principle) journalists. It is what you would expect of intelligent people, but the Covid-19 regime has shown an incredible observational deficit.

The last three years have shown that a large grey mammal with tusks and trunk can stand incongruously in the room, and intellectual eyes and ears cannot see it. The authorities’ radical response to a purported coronavirus pandemic should have raised questions about the inevitable harm and dubious rational of lockdown, about the dehumanising and ecological damaging mask mandates, and about the experimental injections administered to most of the global populace. But the intelligentsia saw no problem with the draconian regime; indeed, many wanted harsher restrictions. The medical profession uncritically accepted the official narrative, denigrating any practitioner who spoke out.

At a rally outside the BBC headquarters last Saturday, a series of vaccine-injured people told the audience of their dual battle with debilitating symptoms and with unsympathetic doctors who deny the obvious cause. Of course, this event was not reported by the public broadcaster. Instead, the Sunday newspapers continued the campaign against dissidents. In the Sunday Times, in response to Tory MP Andrew Bridgen coming out as a vaccine critic, Josh Glancy warned of a rise of conspiracy theorists peddling dangerous disinformation.

In logical absurdity, people who took the vaccine and suffered as a result are smeared as ‘anti-vaxxers’, a weaponised term prepared in advance of the mass vaccination programme. Other absurdities abound, such as the vaccinated reacting to a subsequent illness and positive Covid-19 test as a sign that the vaccine is working (because without it, they would have needed hospital treatment). Highly intelligent people seem to have lost their critical marbles.

During a silent march from the BBC to Downing Street on Saturday, in respect for the dead and injured, the comments of shoppers ranged from supportive sentiment to bemusement and insults (‘nutters’, I heard). It is quite startling how many people have been so indoctrinated by Covid-19 that they cannot begin to empathise with unfortunate victims of the vaccine. Claims of injury, to them, are heresy.

Two months ago, a poll in the US found that Democrat voters were less likely than Republicans to have experienced adverse effects from the vaccine.

‘More Democrats (83 per cent) than Republicans (65 per cent) or those not affiliated with either major party (58 per cent) have gotten the Covid-19 vaccine. While 80 per cent of Democrats believe Covid-19 vaccines are at least somewhat effective at preventing infection with the virus, only 40 per cent of Republicans and 45 per cent of the unaffiliated share that confidence. Similarly, only 43 per cent are at least somewhat concerned that Covid-19 vaccines may have major side effects, compared with 74 per cent of Republicans and 56 per cent of the unaffiliated.’

An important factor here is the politicisation of Covid-19 in American society. Linked to this is the generally higher education level of Democrats, who perceive their Republican opponents as callous, stupid and anti-science. A Democrat voter may have a strong suggestive effect from the shot, perceiving any bodily abnormality not as an adverse reaction but a sign that the vaccine is working. They may also have more political investment in their unquestioning compliance. By contrast, a Republican voter coerced by occupational mandate may be more likely to complain.

Or were more potent doses administered in red states? It sounds too sinister to believe, but there seems to be little doubt that vaccine strength varied. Mike Yeadon, former chief scientist at Pfizer, has highlighted the concentration of reported serious adverse events in about a tenth of the batches.

As pharmaceutical products are normally produced in a tightly controlled process, Yeadon suggested deliberate differentiation (though the vaccine industry is not without a history of contamination). Yeadon is not alone in voicing concerns about differences in quality. Leaked documents from the European Medicines Agency showed that regulators had serious concerns, finding low quantities of intact mRNA in commercial preparation. 

Whatever the reason for polarisation in vaccine outcomes, we cannot rely on scientific expertise or authority for answers. As Scott Adams realises, the more intelligent the person, the more miseducated into conformity. ‘Anti-vaxxer’, intended as a slur, has become a badge of honour for the awakened.

January 26, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 2 Comments

Pfizer Exposed For Exploring “Mutating” COVID-19 Virus For New Vaccines Via ‘Directed Evolution’

Pfizer Director Speaks Giddily About Manipulating SARS-CoV-2

Introduction by John Leake

Watching a Project Veritas undercover sting operation invariably leaves me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I’m struck with admiration for yet another one of James O’Keefe’s bold strokes against the corrupt empire that now dominates our world. On the other hand, I’m shocked by the disclosure that the Empire is staffed by such moral and intellectual lightweights.

Though incredible, it appears that the subject of O’Keefe’s latest sting, Jordon Walker, really is a Pfizer Director of Research & Development Strategic Operations.

Here he is giddily talking about deliberately mutating SARS-CoV-2 by means of “directed evolution” in order to keep Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine gravy train going:

Debate About Purported Pfizer Exec’s Identity

John Leake | Courageous Discourse | January 26, 2023

This morning I woke up to conflicting messages about the true identity of Dr. Jordon Trishton Walker—a purported Pfizer executive who is the subject of Project Veritas’s latest sting. Some commentators have suggested that James O’Keefe failed to perform his due diligence—i.e., that instead of stinging a real Pfizer executive, a Project Veritas operative got a date with a drunk and boasting young man who grossly overstated his position and knowledge.

As I noted in my post of last night, it does seem incredible that a major corporation—one that has played a key role in perpetrating a global criminal fiasco—is staffed with an executive who seems to have been recruited at a frat party. On the other hand, the Pfizer internal documents tweeted by James O’Keefe appear to be authentic.

Additional documents were posted this morning by internet sleuth and fellow Substack author, Brian O’shea.

One of the strangest features of the Hall of Mirrors in which we now live is that the public facade of powerful institutions and corporations is staffed with people who seem stunningly incompetent and unserious. I’m thinking about Karine Jean-Pierre, Rochelle Walensky, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden.

Consider the irony that one of the great idols of the West—Volodymyr Zelensky—was, just a few years ago, a TV actor “who played a high school history teacher who wins the presidential election after a viral video created by his pupils shows him ranting against government corruption in Ukraine.”

The show (Servant of the People) was so popular—and Zelensky so charming—that he was anointed by the oligarchs who run Ukraine to be the next President.

Igor Kolomoisky,the billionaire oligarch who owned 70% of the media company that created the hit show, has been indicted in the United States on charges of large-scale bank fraud. Kolomoisky’s personal attorney served as Zelensky’s campaign manager. Again, who is really making the decisions that now affect all of mankind?

Project Veritas | January 25, 2023

Donate: https://www.projectveritas.com/donate

Get emails: https://confirmsubscription.com/h/j/EC8A17570A033FCC

Follow:
Telegram: https://t.me/project_veritas
FB: https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVeritas
IG: https://www.instagram.com/project_veritas/
Telegram: https://t.me/JamesOKeefeIII
IG: https://www.instagram.com/jamesokeefeiii/

Mission Statement
Investigate & expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions in order to achieve a more ethical & transparent society.

Core Values
MORAL COURAGE – Courage is the virtue that sustains all others. We choose to overcome our fears.

WE ARE ALL LEADERS – Turning people into leaders. Completed staff work. Ownership.

COLLABORATION – Best not to work in silos. No one individual is as smart as all of us.

RESILIENCE – Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. Never, ever, ever give up. We don’t let mistakes or setbacks discourage us. Pursue perfection, knowing full well you will never attain it.

MISSION DRIVEN – The best people are motivated by purpose. We are passionate and truly believe in our cause. We must be externally focused, not internally focused.

MAKE THE STATUS QUO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE – We move mountains. Failure is not an option. We do whatever it takes.

THE TIP OF THE SPEAR – We are a loss leader. We do not shy away from conflict or litigation.

Ethical Values
Rule #1 – Truth is paramount. Our reporting is fact based with clear and irrefutable video and audio content. Truth is paramount. We never deceive our audience. We do not distort the facts or the context. We do not “selectively edit.”

Rule #2 – We do not break the law. We maintain one-party consent when recording someone is inherently moral and ethical. We never record when there is zero-party consent. In areas where we are required to have consent from all parties, we seek legal guidance regarding the expectation of privacy’s impact on our right to record.

 Rule #3 – We adhere to the 1st Amendment rights of others. During our investigations we do not disrupt the peace. We do not infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of others.

Rule #4 – The Zekman Test. The undercover investigations we pursue are judged by us to be of “vital public interest” and “profound importance.” The Zekman Test is our baseline. Undercover investigative reporting is necessary because, “… there’s no other way to get the story…” Whereas the Society of Professional Journalists allows for undercover techniques, if undercover techniques are necessary to expose issues of vital public importance; we believe they are not only allowed but required.

Rule #5 – We Protect the Innocent When Possible – Embarrassing private details are not to be investigated. We stay away from irrelevant embarrassingly intimate details about private citizens personal lives. We look for individual wrong-doing and judge its public importance. The irrelevant religious or sexual dispositions of our targets are not to be investigated.

Rule #6 – Transparency. Our methods & tactics must be reasonable and defensible. We use the “Twelve Jurors on Our Shoulder” rule. The work has to be done with such a degree of integrity that it can withstand scrutiny in both law & ethics. We are comfortable with transparency. We must be willing to be ready to disclose our methods upon publication.

Rule #7 – Verifying and Corroborate Stories – Evaluate impact on third parties and Newsworthiness of Statements Alone.We consistently consider the probable truth or falsity of statements, examine any reasons to doubt the veracity of underlying assertions and whether the assertions are newsworthy. When possible, we will confirm with our subjects that their statements captured on video are accurate & truthful. At the very least, we will give our subjects an opportunity to elaborate and/or respond. In all matters, we rely on the 1st Amendment to protect our ability to publish newsworthy items after our internal deliberations. On whether there is an obligation to ensure the veracity of statements made on video, 1.) consider whether the remarks may potentially impact an innocent third party. (Factors in support of releasing the content) and 2.)The Newsworthiness of the statement alone by itself. (Factors against releasing the content).

Rule #8 – Raw Video. In certain circumstances we may release the “raw” video to the press and or the public. But as a rule, we do not.

Rule #9 – Subject Anonymity. We investigate & question sources before promising anonymity. Once we confirm, we will do everything in our power to protect the identity of our confidential sources.

Rule #10 – Being Accountable. Admit mistakes & correct them promptly.

Rule #11 – We do not manufacture content. We do not put words in our investigative subjects’ mouths. We do not lead the horse to water. Our purpose is to elicit truth.

Rule #12 – With Great Power comes Great Responsibility.

January 26, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

    Next Entries »