Aletho News



By Kit Klarenberg | MintPress News | February 2, 2023

Throughout January, a deluge of previously concealed evidence exposing how journalists, spies and social media platforms perpetuated and maintained the RussiaGate fraud has entered the public domain at long last, via the Elon Musk-approved “#TwitterFiles” series.

While Twitter’s Pentagon-connected owner evidently has a partisan agenda in releasing this material, the at-times explosive disclosures amply confirm what many independent journalists and researchers had long argued. Namely, false claims of Kremlin-directed bot and troll operations online were duplicitously weaponized by an alphabet soup of U.S. intelligence agencies to bring major social networks to heel, and enduringly enshrine their status as subservient wings of the national security state.

Yet, while RussiaGate only becomes ever-more dead and buried over time, and the true purposes it served becomes increasingly stark, a central component of the conspiracy theory stubbornly clings to life. In June 2017, The Intercept published a leaked N.S.A. document, which it claimed revealed “a months-long Russian hacking effort against the U.S. election infrastructure.”

Ever since, it has been an article of faith in the mainstream media and among Democratic politicians that Russian G.R.U. cyberwarriors “hacked” the 2016 election, if not others too, by malevolently attempting to alter vote tallies to skew results. Moreover, Reality Winner, the N.S.A. analyst who leaked the document and ended up in jail as a result, has been elevated to the status of a heroic whistleblower on a par with Edward Snowden.

These outcomes, or at least something like them, may well have been the specific objectives of the individual and/or entity that furnished the N.S.A. with the information contained in the leaked report. For as we shall see, there are strong grounds to believe Winner unwittingly walked into a trap laid by the C.I.A.


Before The Intercept had even published its scoop on the leaked file, Reality Winner was in jail, pending trial for breaches of the Espionage Act. Her arrest, announced by the Department of Justice on the same day the story was published, only added to the mainstream frenzy that erupted in the wake of its publication.

Overnight, the hitherto unknown Winner, a United States Air Force Intelligence Squadron veteran who’d received a medal for aiding the identification, capture, and assassination of hundreds of “high-value targets,” became a major cause célèbre for Western liberals, and campaigns calling for her release backed by major press freedom and digital rights groups sprouted in profusion.

Winner’s incarceration, and the failure of the N.S.A. to take action on the report’s findings publicly or privately, also furthered suspicions that proof of Donald Trump’s ties to the Kremlin being subject to a politicized coverup at the highest levels, in which the ostensibly independent U.S. intelligence community itself was implicated.

It is perhaps due to Winner becoming the main focal point of the scandal, combined with desperation among liberal politicians and journalists to substantiate the RussiaGate narrative, that the leaked report’s details were never subject to serious mainstream scrutiny.

While The Intercept declared the document “displays no doubt” that a wide-ranging cyberattack in which spear-phishing emails were dispatched to over 100 local election officials mere days before the 2016 election “was carried out by the G.R.U.,” its contents suggest nothing of the kind.

The report, authored by an N.S.A. intelligence analyst, does attribute this activity to the G.R.U. But the underlying “raw intelligence” – evidence upon which that conclusion is based – is not contained in the file. It is abundantly clear, though, the finding was far from concrete anyway.

For one, the report states, “it is unknown if the G.R.U. was able to compromise any of the entities targeted successfully.” Still, more significantly, the agency is said only to be “probably” responsible – an “analyst judgment” based on the purported hacking campaign having “utilized some techniques that were similar to other G.R.U. operations.” The analyst is nonetheless forced to concede “this activity demonstrated several characteristics that distinguish it [emphasis added]” from known prior G.R.U. hacking operations.

Yet further cause for doubt about the report’s clearly unsupported headline claim is provided by the extremely unsophisticated methods employed by who or what was behind the spear-phishing efforts, which included the use of a blatantly fraudulent Gmail account. Evidently, this was not a professional operation and had very little chance of succeeding. Why would an elite intelligence agency stoop to such rudimentary tactics, particularly if its operatives were seriously determined to compromise U.S. election integrity?

Even more dubiously, among the named recipients of a purported G.R.U. spear-phishing email is the election office of American Samoa, an unincorporated U.S. territory located in the South Pacific, southeast of Samoa itself. Its population is just 56,000, and they cannot vote in mainland elections.

While a criminal hacker might have an interest in personal data held by such an entity, it is difficult to conceive what possible grounds a military intelligence agency would have for seeking access to such a trove. This interpretation is furthered by a chart in the N.S.A. report referring to how the same hacker also attempted spear-phishing campaigns targeting other email addresses, including those registered with, a Russian company.

These shortcomings, rather than a concerted coverup, may account for why the report was not publicized or acted upon by the N.S.A. The Intercept, however, bombastically dubbed the document “the most detailed U.S. government account of Russian interference in the election that has yet come to light.”


When asked by journalist Aaron Maté in a September 2018 interview about “the possibility that the significance of this document has been inflated,” Jim Risen, senior national security correspondent at The Intercept and director of First Look Media’s Press Freedom Defense Fund (which supported Winner’s legal defense) was at a total loss.

Audibly flustered and irritated by this repeated line of questioning, Risen then terminated the interview abruptly when Maté sought to probe him over “criticism” of how The Intercept handled the document, which all but ensured Winner’s identification and imprisonment.

Now departed co-founder of The Intercept Glenn Greenwald rightly branded Winner’s exposure “deeply embarrassing,” claiming it resulted from “speed and recklessness.” A New York Times post-mortem of the debacle confirmed the two reporters who took the lead on the story, Matthew Cole and Richard Esposito – whose sloppiness and dishonesty landed C.I.A. whistleblower John Kiriakou in jail in 2012 for disclosing secrets about the Agency’s torture program – were “pushed to rush the story to publication.”

It would be entirely unsurprising if this pressure emanated from Betsy Reed, then editor-in-chief of The Intercept, a committed RussiaGate advocate who in 2018 slammed left-wing skeptics of the narrative as “pale imitations” of Glenn Greenwald, lacking his “intelligence [and] nuance.” When former FBI director Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation conclusively found no indication of a secret relationship between Trump and the Kremlin the next year, she claimed the failed probe, in fact, identified “plenty” of “soft loose” collusion.

The outlet’s haste to publicize the leaked N.S.A. report meant in-house digital security specialists at The Intercept were not consulted, leading Cole and Esposito to make a number of shocking blunders in attempting to verify the document pre-publication. First, they contacted a U.S. government contractor via unsecured text message, informing them they had received a printed copy of the document in the mail, postmarked Augusta, Georgia, where Winner then lived. This contractor subsequently informed the N.S.A.

Then, The Intercept approached the N.S.A. directly with a copy of the report. As Winner’s arrest warrant attests, examination of the material showed pages within it were creased, “suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space.”

While all color printers embed borderline invisible patterns on each page, allowing for individual devices to be identified via serial number, the N.S.A. simply checked which of its staffers had printed the document. Six had, and Winner was among them. Further checks of the sextet’s desk computers showed she, and only she had used hers to contact The Intercept.

The outlet’s failure to undertake even the most basic measures to protect their source terminally damaged its reputation and remains a stain upon it and its senior staff to this day. Nonetheless, there has never been any acknowledgment of how inept and incautious Winner’s own actions were.

Even if The Intercept had not readily handed over distinguishing clues to the N.S.A, her highly self-incriminating use of a work computer to email the outlet, along with identifying the specific area where she resided, were in themselves smoking guns that almost inevitably would have led to her exposure.


Winner has always claimed she acted alone, and there is no reason to doubt that she felt it was her patriotic duty to release the document. But her clumsiness, naivety and incompetence suggest she may well be easily manipulable, and a great many individuals and organizations had an interest in the dud intelligence report’s release. Foremost among them, elements of the C.I.A. loyal to John Brennan, Agency director between 2013 and January 2017.

Two weeks before Donald Trump took office, Brennan presented an Intelligence Community Assessment (I.C.A.) on “Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections.” It declared American spooks had “high confidence” that Moscow interfered in the 2016 election to help the upstart outsider seize power. While the document contained nothing to substantiate that charge, its dubious assertions were eagerly seized upon by the media.

It was not revealed until four years later that this “confidence” wasn’t shared by the U.S. intelligence community. Instead, Brennan personally authored the report’s incendiary conclusions, then selected a clique of his own confidantes to sign off on them. This subterfuge irked many analysts within and without the C.I.A. who assessed Russia, in fact, favored a Hillary Clinton victory, given Trump was an unpredictable “wild card” calling for much-increased U.S. military spending.

“Brennan took a thesis and decided he was going to ignore dissenting data and exaggerate the importance of that conclusion, even though they said it didn’t have any real substance behind it,” stated a senior U.S. intelligence official.

The only trace of dissent to be found in the I.C.A. is a reference to the N.S.A. not sharing the “confidence” of the C.I.A. in its findings. While wholly overlooked at the time, this deviation was massively consequential, given the N.S.A. closely monitors the communications of Russian officials. Its operatives would therefore be well-placed to know if high-level figures in Moscow had discussed plans to assist Trump’s campaign or even viewed him positively.

Brennan fudged the I.C.A. findings to keep the F.B.I. Trump-Russia “collusion” investigation alive. Launched by the Bureau in 2016, it found no evidence Trump or members of his campaign were conspiring with Moscow. The N.S.A. publicly breaking ranks would have inevitably been poorly received by Brennan and his allies in Langley, given it undermined their malign objectives.

As such, it is an obvious question whether Winner’s leak – in addition to furthering the RussiaGate fiction and damaging Trump – also served to discredit the N.S.A. by creating the illusion it had been asleep at the wheel over Kremlin meddling, if not actively suppressing evidence of this activity from the public.

Winner need not have been a willing or conscious collaborator in this scenario; the introduction of the report she leaked notes opaquely that information about the purported G.R.U. hacking effort became available in April 2017. The nature of this information and its source is unstated; could it have been the C.I.A. or operatives thereof?


Winner was convicted in August 2018 and jailed for 63 months, the longest sentence ever imposed for the unauthorized release of classified information to the media in U.S. history. Her appallingly harsh sentence was accordingly framed as politically motivated, yet further proof then-President Donald Trump had been compromised by and/or owed his upset election victory to the Kremlin and was desperate for this to be swept under the rug.

Released in June 2021, Winner remains under probation until November 2024, is not allowed to leave southern Texas, has to obey a strict curfew, and must report any interaction with the media in advance, a shocking coda to her time behind bars. Still, while allegedly facing imprisonment for discussing the document she leaked publicly, a documentary on her case is in production, and she has conducted multiple interviews with both mainstream and independent journalists.

In Winner’s most prominent media appearance to date, in July 2022, CBS aired a highly sympathetic, lengthy sit-down discussion with her, likely watched by millions. Apparently unconcerned about legal ramifications, she made a number of bold claims and statements throughout, at total odds with comments at her sentencing, when she told the judge, “my actions were a cruel betrayal of my nation’s trust in me.”

For its part, CBS rather unbelievably declared, based on the word of “two former officials,” that her leak “helped secure the 2018 midterm election,” as it revealed the “top secret emails” used by the hackers. Quite what threat those addresses could have posed, or why they would continue to be used a year-and-a-half after the report became publicly available, is not clear.

The program’s framing of Winner, in her own words, “exposing a White House coverup” as “the public was being lied to” was even more curious. A clip of Trump being interviewed by John Dickerson – “typical of the time,” according to CBS – was inserted, in which the President stated, “if you don’t catch a hacker in the act, it’s very hard to say who did the hacking.”

“I’ll go along with Russia, could’ve been China, could’ve been a lot of different groups,” he added before a CBS narrator stated dramatically, “but it was Russia, and the NSA knew it,” as Winner “had seen proof in a top-secret report on an in-house newsfeed.” The program then cut back to the former N.S.A. analyst: “I just kept thinking, ‘My God, somebody needs to step forward and put this right. Somebody.’”

In that clip, Trump was, in fact, discussing which party was responsible for purported cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee servers (D.N.C.), not the spear-phishing attack on election officials detailed in the leaked N.S.A. report. This dishonest sleight of hand by the program’s producers is nonetheless illuminating, for it highlights another potential utility of that report’s leak from the perspective of the C.I.A. – obfuscating its own role in the hack-and-leak of Democratic Party emails.

That the D.N.C. servers were hacked by Russian intelligence is widely accepted, a conclusion based primarily on the findings of D.N.C. contractor CrowdStrike. Yet, when grilled under oath by the Senate Intelligence Committee on the matter in December 2017, the company’s chief, Shawn Henry, revealed he, in fact, possessed no “concrete evidence” the files were “actually exfiltrated” by anyone – dynamite testimony that was hidden from public view for over two years.

CrowdStrike’s case for Russian culpability was predicated on a number of seemingly injudicious errors on the part of the hackers, such as their computer username referencing the founder of the Soviet Union’s secret police, Russian text in their malware’s source code, and ham-fisted attempts to use the Romanian language. However, WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 disclosures show the CIA’s “Marble Framework” deliberately inserts these apparent failings precisely into a cyberattack’s digital footprint to falsely attribute its own hacking to other countries.

The Agency would have had good reason for falsely attributing the emails’ source. For one, at this time, the C.I.A. was tearing its proverbial hair out attempting to link WikiLeaks – the organization that published them – and its founder Julian Assange with a foreign actor, preferably Russia, to secure legal justification for engaging in hostile counterintelligence operations against the organization and its members.

By framing the emails as Russian-hacked, media and public attention were also diverted from the communications’ contents, which revealed corruption by the Clinton Foundation and meddling in the Democratic Party primaries to prevent Bernie Sanders from securing the Presidential nomination. Meanwhile, concerns about whether D.N.C. staffer Seth Rich’s still-unsolved July 2016 murder was in any way related to his potential role in leaking the material were very effectively silenced.

The fate of Assange (and perhaps Rich, too) is a palpable demonstration of what can so often befall those who publish damaging information powerful people and organizations do not want in the public domain. Winner’s veneration by the U.S. liberal establishment, and post-release promotion by the mainstream media, should, at the very least, raise serious questions about who or what ultimately benefited from her well-meaning, personally destructive actions.

Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist and MintPresss News contributor exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions. His work has previously appeared in The Cradle, Declassified UK, and Grayzone. Follow him on Twitter @KitKlarenberg.

February 4, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Joint open letter to Charity Commission

“We call upon the Charity Commission to conduct an independent and urgent investigation into these very serious allegations relating to the British Heart Foundation.”

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | February 1, 2023

Joint Open Letter from Doctors for Patients UK, HART and the UK Medical Freedom Alliance to Helen Stephenson, CEO, Charity Commission

Cc: Dr Charmaine Griffiths, CEO, British Heart Foundation (BHF)
Prof Charalambos Antoniades, BHF Chair of Cardiovascular Medicine
Rt Hon Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister
Rt Hon Steve Barclay, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Mr Andrew Bridgen, MP

Re: Allegations that the British Heart Foundation (BHF) is involved in concealing and withholding important information relating to harms to cardiac function caused by the novel mRNA vaccines

31 January 2023

Dear Ms Stephenson

We wish to express our deep concern, regarding allegations that the British Heart Foundation (BHF) is involved in concealing and withholding important information relating to the potential of the novel mRNA vaccines to damage cardiac tissue and function.

It was alleged in the House of Commons that staff working in a cardiology research department at Oxford University withheld information, for fear of losing funding from the pharmaceutical industry, and were therefore prioritising funding over patient safety.

Mr Andrew Bridgen MP stated in Parliament on 13 December 2022:

“It has also been brought to my attention by a whistleblower from a very reliable source that one of these institutions is covering up clear data that reveals that the mRNA vaccine increases inflammation of the heart arteries. It is covering this up for fear that it may lose funding from the pharmaceutical industry. The lead of that cardiology research department has a prominent leadership role with the British Heart Foundation, and I am disappointed to say that he has sent out non-disclosure agreements to his research team to ensure that this important data never sees the light of day. That is an absolute disgrace.”

It was subsequently asserted on GB News that the research department mentioned above was headed by Professor Charalambos Antoniades whose position is funded by the BHF. Despite GB News approaching Professor Antoniades for comment, he has made no public denial that Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) were entered into by members of his department.

Doctors and the public rely on reputable and well-established charities such as the BHF to provide accurate and up-to-date information, as well as to highlight and investigate potential, novel causes of heart damage and heart disease. Concerns should be raised immediately, whenever there are doubts relating to the safety of any pharmaceutical product, so that administration of the product can be halted, protecting the public from unnecessary harm, while an investigation is carried out.

The BHF rapidly dismissed the allegations made by Mr Bridgen and called for those making the allegation to provide specific and credible information in support of it.

Due to the seriousness of the allegations, and given the absence of any public denial or clarification from Professor Antoniades, we are calling for a full and independent investigation into any suppression of data by the British Heart Foundation itself or by senior BHF grant holders.

There are a significant number of signals that COVID-19 vaccines have led to cardiac pathology, which warrants an urgent review of their safety:

  1. The Pfizer trial saw four cardiac arrests in the vaccination group but only one in the placebo group after 6 months (although the numbers are too small to be statistically significant, this was a signal that should have been followed up).
  2. The evidence for vaccine-induced myocarditis is well established and in older patients this may be misdiagnosed as any of the more common forms of heart disease. The rate of myocardial infarction was disproportionately high in the first three days after vaccination.
  3. Studies in Thailand and Switzerland have shown rises in troponin levels consistent with damaged heart muscle in 3% of those vaccinated. Heart cells cannot be replaced and the resulting scarring can lead to electrical conduction issues and sudden death. 30% of the children in the Thailand study had cardiac signs or symptoms.
  4. Vaccine-derived spike protein was detected in the heart biopsies of 9 out of 15 patients with post-vaccination myocarditis.
  5. Vaccinated people had a rise in cardiovascular risk factors that would predict a significantly increased risk of heart disease (from 11% to 25% risk of a heart attack in 5 years). This study has been criticised for not having a control group but is the equivalent of an early phase clinical trial in demonstrating a safety concern.
  6. An Israeli study showed a 25% increase in acute coronary syndrome and cardiac arrest calls in 16-39 year olds associated with the first and second doses of vaccine but not with COVID-19 infection.
  7. There were 14,000 more cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England in 2021 than 2020.
  8. There has been a rise in cardiac excess deaths and excess deaths have been disproportionately seen in more highly vaccinated groups e.g. less deprived cohorts and people of white ethnicity.
  9. In a report of 35 autopsies in Germany, there were 5 deaths confirmed as caused by a COVID-19 vaccine and a further 20 deaths where a contribution from the vaccination could not be excluded.
  10. Post mortem studies have shown inflammation of the coronary arteries after vaccination, causing death four months later.
  11. A separate post mortem report showed vaccine-derived spike protein in heart muscle, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, in a subject who had myocarditis before he died.
  12. Australian hospitals have experienced intense service pressure since Summer 2021, despite no significant COVID-19 infection rates or reduction in healthcare capacity at that time.
  13. Australians have seen a similarly timed rise in excess non-Covid deaths, with ischaemic heart disease being the biggest contributor. This was despite no significant volume of COVID-19 cases or reduction in healthcare before Omicron as was seen in the UK.
  14. Systematic exploratory analysis of the possible causes in the rise in excess deaths by comparing countries, suggests a link to healthcare quality cannot be excluded but there is no link to COVID-19 or Long Covid. There is a weak link to lockdown severity but a strong correlation with vaccination.

Crucially, data has not been shared to counter the hypothesis that the mRNA vaccinations are linked to recent excess deaths caused primarily by cardiac pathology. The ONS were regularly publishing deaths by vaccination status. The last data was released for May 2022 and showed a higher mortality rate for that month in the vaccinated. No data has been shared since.

As medical professionals, and in the interest of patient safety, we demand that the British Heart Foundation immediately release the following information, in the public interest and in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA):

  1. Any and all information and emails regarding potential and actual harms caused by the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
  2. A copy of any Non-Disclosure Agreements that have been sent to people working at, or associated with, the British Heart Foundation and Oxford University, relating to COVID-19 vaccine safety and data.
  3. A full list of conflicts of interests that the BHF and Oxford University have relating to the COVID-19 vaccines.

We further call upon the Charity Commission to conduct an independent and urgent investigation into these very serious allegations relating to the British Heart Foundation. Suppression of research findings, conflicts of interest and acting in the interests of commercial entities are in direct conflict with the requirements inherent in holding charitable status.

Thank you for your attention. We look forward to receiving a prompt response.

Yours sincerely

Doctors For Patients UK (DFPUK-

Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART –

UK Medical Freedom Alliance (UKMFA –


Professor Richard Ennos, MA, PhD. Honorary Professorial Fellow, University of Edinburgh

Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS, BMed Sci, FRCS, FFSEM(UK), Professor Emeritus, Honorary
Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

Professor Dennis McGonagle,PhD, FRCPI, Consultant Rheumatologist, University of Leeds

Professor Anthony Fryer, PhD, FRCPath, Professor of Clinical Biochemistry, Keele University

Professor Karol Sikora, MA, MBBChir, PhD, FRCR, FRCP, FFPM, Honorary Professor of Professional Practice, Buckingham University

Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMedSci, Professor of Oncology, University of London; Principal, Institute for Cancer Vaccines & Immunotherapy

Professor Roger Watson, FRCP Edin, FRCN, FAAN, Professor of Nursing

Lord Moonie, MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, retired member of House of Lords, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State 2001-2003, former Consultant in Public Health Medicine

Dr Najmiah K Ahmad, BM, MRCA, FCARCSI, Consultant Anaesthetist

Dr Ali Ajaz, Consultant Psychiatrist

Dr Shiraz Akram, BDS, Dental Surgeon

Dr Sonia Allam, MBChB, FRCA, Consultant Anaesthetist

Dr Victoria Anderson, MBChB, MRCGP, MRCPCH, DRCOG, General Practitioner

Julie Annakin, RN, Immunisation Specialist Nurse

Wendy Armstrong, RN, BSc, DipHE, Practice Nurse

Dr Abby Astle, MBBChir, BA(Cantab), DCH, DGM, MRCGP, GP Principal, GP Trainer, GP Examiner

Helen Auburn, Dip ION, MBANT, NTCC, CNHC, RNT, registered Nutritional Therapist

Dr Ancha Bala-Joof, BSc, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Michael Bazlinton, MBCHB, MRCGP, DCH, General Practitioner

Dr David Bell, MBBS, PhD, FRCP(UK), Public Health

Dr Mark A Bell, MBChB, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, Consultant in Emergency Medicine, UK

Dr Michael D Bell, MBChB, MRCGP, retired General Practitioner

Dr Gillian Breese, BSc, MB ChB, DFFP, DTM&H, General Practitioner

Dr Emma Brierly, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Kim Bull, Foundation Degree in Paramedic Science, Paramedic

Mr John Bunni, MBChB (Hons), DipLapSurg, FRCS, Consultant Colorectal and General Surgeon

Dr Elizabeth Burton, MBChB, Retired General Practitioner

Dr David Cartland, MBChB, BMedSci, General practitioner

Catherine Cassell, RGN, Practice Nurse

Dr Peter Chan, BM, MRCS, MRCGP, NLP, General Practitioner, Functional Medicine Practitioner

Angela Chamberlain, BSc(Hons) Midwifery

Michael Cockayne, MSc, PG Dip, SCPHNOH, BA, RN, Occupational Health Practitioner

James Cook, NHS Registered Nurse, Bachelor of Nursing (Hons), Master of Public Health (MPH)

Mr Ian F Comaish, MA, BMBCh, FRCOphth, FRANZCO, Consultant Ophthalmologist

Dr Clare Craig, BMBCh, FRCPath, Pathologist

Dr David Critchley, PhD, Clinical Pharmacologist

Dr Phuoc-Tan Diep, MBChB, FRCPath, Consultant Histopathologist

Dr Jayne LM Donegan, MBBS, DRCOG, DCH, DFFP, MRCGP, Homeopathic Practitioner

Dr Jonathan Eastwood, BSc, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LlB(Hons), DipPharmMed

Dr Elizabeth Evans, MA(Cantab), MBBS, DRCOG, retired Doctor, Director UKMFA

Dr Chris Exley, PhD, FRSB, retired Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry

Dr John Flack, BPharm, PhD, retired Director of Safety Evaluation at Beecham Pharmaceuticals 1980-1989 and Senior Vice-president for Drug Discovery 1990-92 SmithKline Beecham

Dr Simon Fox, BSc, BMBCh, FRCP, Consultant in Infectious Diseases and Internal Medicine

Gayle Gerry, BSc(Hons), Registered Nurse

Sophie Gidet, RM, Midwife

Dr Cathy Greig, MBBCh(Hons), General Practitioner

Dr Ali Haggett, Mental Health Community Work, 3rd sector, former Lecturer in the History of Medicine

Mr Anthony Hinton, MBChB, FRCS, Consultant ENT Surgeon, London

Ian Humphreys, UKMFA Programme Director

Dr Keith Johnson, BA, DPhil(Oxon), IP Consultant for Diagnostic Testing

Fiona Jones, BSc(Hons), DipPreSci, Cert Med Ed, FRPharmS, MFRPSII, Clinical Pharmacist Independent Prescriber (retired)

Dr Timothy Kelly, MBBCh, BSc, NHS doctor

Dr Tanya Klymenko, PhD, FHEA, FIBMS, Senior Lecturer in Biomedical Sciences

Dr. Eashwarran Kohilathas, BMBS, doctor and author

Dr Sheena Langdon, General Practitioner

Dr Caroline Lapworth, MBChB, General Practitioner

Dr Branko Latinkic, BSc, PhD, Molecular Biologist

Dr Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD, Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath

Dr Felicity Lillingstone, IMD, DHS, PhD, ANP, Doctor in Urgent Care, Research Fellow

Dr Nichola Ling, MBBS, MRCOG, Consultant obstetrician and digital advisor to NHS England

Mr Malcolm Loudon, MBChB, MD, FRCSEd, FRCS(Gen Surg), MIHM,VR, Consultant Surgeon

Katherine MacGilchrist, BSc(Hons) Pharmacology, MSc Epidemiology, CEO, Systematic Review, Director, Epidemica Ltd

Dr C Geoffrey Maidment, MD, FRCP, retired Consultant Physician

Mr Ahmad K Malik, FRCS(Tr & Orth), Dip Med Sport, Consultant Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr Ayiesha Malik, MBChB, General Practitioner

Dr Imran Malik, MBBS, MRCP, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Kulvinder S Manik. MBChB, MRCGP(2010), MA(Cantab), LlM(Gray’s Inn)

Dr Fiona Martindale, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Sam McBride, BSc(Hons) Medical Microbiology & Immunobiology, MBBCh, BAO, MSc in Clinical Gerontology, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, FRCP(Edinburgh), NHS Emergency Medicine & Geriatrics

Kaira McCallum, BSc, retired Pharmacist, Director of Strategy UKMFA

Mr Ian McDermott, MBBS, MS, FRCS(Tr&Orth), FFSEM(UK), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr Scott Mitchell, MBChB, MRCS, Emergency Medicine Physician

Dr Alistair Montgomery, MBChB, MRCGP, DRCOG, retired General Practitioner

Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH, retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology

Dr David Morris, MBChB, MRCP(UK), General Practitioner

Margaret Moss, MA(Cantab), CBiol, MRSB, Director, The Nutrition and Allergy Clinic, Cheshire

Theresa Ann Mounsey, BSc Hons in Midwifery studies.

Dr Alice Murkies, MBBS, MD, FRACGP, General Practitioner and Medical Researcher

Dr Greta Mushet, MBChB, MRCPsych, retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy

Dr Angela Musso, MD, MRCGP, DRCOG, FRACGP, MFPC, General Practitioner

Dr Sarah Myhill, MBBS, Dip NM, Retired GP, Independent Naturopathic Physician

Dr Christopher Newton, PhD, Biochemist, CIMMBER

Dr Rachel Nicoll, PhD, Medical researcher

Tim Nike, BSc(Hons), MCSP, HCPC, Senior Neurological Physiotherapist

Dr Richard O’Shea, MBBCH, BA(Hons) MRCGP, General Practitioner

Sue Parker Hall, CTA, MSc (Counselling & Supervision), MBACP, EMDR. Psychotherapist

Dr Christina Peers, MBBS, DRCOG, DFSRH, FFSRH, Menopause Specialist

Rev Dr William J U Philip MB ChB, MRCP, BD, Senior Minister The Tron Church, Glasgow, formerly physician specialising in Cardiology

Dr Angharad Powell, MBChB, BSc(Hons), DFRSH, DCP (Ireland), DRCOG, DipOccMed, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Dean Patterson, MBChB, FRCP, Consultant Cardiologist

Dr Gerry Quinn, PhD, Microbiologist

Dr Johanna Reilly, MBBS, General Practitioner

Dr Naomi Riddel, MBBCh, MSc, MRCPsych, Consultant Child Psychiatrist

Jessica Righart, MSc, MIBMS, Senior Biomedical Scientist

Mr Angus Robertson, BSc, MBChB, FRCSEd (Tr & Orth), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr Jessica Robinson, BSc(Hons), MBBS, MRCPsych, MFHom, Psychiatrist and Integrative Medicine Doctor

Dr Susannah Robinson, MBBS, BSc, MRCP, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Jon Rogers, MBChB (Bristol), Retired General Practitioner

Mr James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal Surgeon

Dr Salmaan Saleem, MBBS, BMedSci, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Sorrel Scott, Grad Dip Phys, Specialist Physiotherapist in Neurology

Dr Rohaan Seth, BSc(Hons), MBChB(Hons), MRCGP, retired General Practitioner

Dr Magdalena Stasiak-Horkan, MBBS, MRCGP (2017), DCH, General Practitioner

Natalie Stephenson, BSc (Hons) Paediatric Audiologist

Marco Tullio Suadoni, RN, BSc (Hons) Adult Nursing, MSc, Specialist Palliative Care Lead

Dr Noel Thomas, MA, MBChB, DObsRCOG, DTM&H, MFHom, Retired Doctor

Dr Stephen Ting, MBChB, MRCP, PhD, Consultant Physician

Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, PhD, Clinical Scientist

Dr Jannah van der Pol, iBSc, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB(Hons), MRCGP, DCH, DRCOG, General Practitioner

Dr Carmen Wheatley, DPhil, Orthomolecular Oncology

Mr Lasantha Wijesinghe, FRCS, Consultant vascular surgeon

Dr Lucie Wilk, MD, MRCP, Rheumatologist

February 4, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

‘Beyond Dystopia’: Is a Mad Scientist Set to Become Chief Scientist at the WHO?

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 30, 2023

The World Health Organization (WHO) last month named Dr. Jeremy Farrar its new chief scientist. Farrar will step down Feb. 25 as director of the Wellcome Trust, the largest funder of medical research in the U.K. and one of the largest in the world.

Farrar and the Wellcome Trust are less well-known relative to similar global public health giants, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — and that’s “to people’s detriment,” investigative journalist Whitney Webb told journalist Kim Iversen on a recent episode of “The Kim Iversen Show”:

“If what is essentially a power grab by the World Health Organization gets put into force, then Jeremy Farrar will have essentially total authority to impose upon member states what medical responses they would have to implement in the event of another pandemic.”

Webb referred to proposals in the works to transform the WHO from an advisory organization to a global governing body whose policies would be legally binding for member states in the case of a global health emergency.

While at Wellcome Trust, Farrar was the architect of several key WHO COVID-19 pandemic policy directives, including lockdownsmasking and mass vaccination.

“What we see with Farrar is a recipe for disaster when it comes to imposing experimental medical technology on the population during public health crises. This is a guy who was very much invested in this stuff,” Webb said.

It’s something out of ‘Brave New World’

Iversen asked about links between the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.

While there is no direct link, Webb said, “The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and a lot of these other organizations, including the Wellcome Trust, are very much pushing an agenda that I would argue is sort of the fusion of Big Pharma and Big Tech.”

“Essentially Big Pharma is looking for new markets and new products and Big Tech can help them accomplish that,” she said.

Over the last several decades, Big Pharma and “billionaire philanthropists” have come to dominate the WHO, Webb told Iversen. They are the ones, “in my opinion, executing this power grab more than the WHO itself,” she said.

There are also key ties between Big Tech and national security agencies, Webb said.

Farrar has connections to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA, the Pentagon’s research arm, Webb said.

His philosophy of scientific innovation is best exemplified by the organization he created as an offshoot of the Wellcome Trust — Wellcome Leap, “a global health equivalent of DARPA” — to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, she said.

Wellcome Leap’s programs focus on “transhumanist” research. For example, one project seeks to map infants’ brain development to create a “perfect child brain model” to use as the basis for creating AI-based interventions in infants and toddlers that seek to make children cognitively homogenous.

Webb said:

“I mean it just sounds like mad scientist stuff and per Wellcome Leap, which again is an organization with a lot of influence, they’re hoping to have 80% of kids subjected to that by 2030.

“So if Jeremy Farrar as chief scientist of the WHO is willing to sign off on a program like that, with those kinds of insane ambitions … I mean it’s just like something out of Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World.’”

In fact, Huxley’s brother, Julian, was president of the British Eugenics Society, which later became the Galton Institute — and whose archives, to this day, are housed by the Wellcome Trust.

Webb said mainstream media and alternative media already have traditionally underreported on the Wellcome Trust.

Now, she said:

“The guy that’s been at the helm of that [Wellcome Trust] and signing off on a lot of these honestly hellish programs is due to have an insane amount of power when it comes to the sovereignty over your own body and your children’s bodies …

“I really think that Jeremy Farrar needs to be talked about a lot more, particularly by outlets that are rightfully covering the World Health Organization’s efforts to expand its influence and power.”

‘Beyond dystopia’

Iversen said that it sounded “beyond dystopia,” and because of that, people likely imagine they would never allow something so unthinkable to come to pass.

But, she said:

“Actually, people would let that happen, people have let [things like] that happen in the past, and we’re just human just like everybody else.

“I think what is important for people to understand is they incrementally push us in this direction using fear,” Iversen added, pointing to the example of the draconian COVID-19 public health measures that gained widespread support.

Webb agreed, noting that the COVID-19 emergency made possible changes to regulatory frameworks that authorized technologies like the mRNA vaccines that simply couldn’t get approval before the crisis.

She cautioned that new arguments saying wearable technology is necessary for healthcare are opening space for Big Tech companies to collaborate with the government “to surveil very intimate parts of our lives.” She cited Amazon’s wearable that can detect people’s emotional state, as an example.

Author Yuval Harari described this kind of technology at the World Economic Forum as something that will be used “‘to wipe out dissent because even if you outwardly act like you agree with leadership and are supportive of certain agendas and policies, but you’re internally not, the government will know’ … That’s his interpretation of that stuff and it’s just totally insane,” Webb concluded.

Watch here.

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.

February 4, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

Drink it, snort it, smoke it – the vaccine juggernaut rumbles on

By Roger Watson | TCW Defending Freedom | January 28, 2023

More good news on vaccine, folks. First, you may be required to take only one Covid-19 shot per year, and if all goes well you will not even have to do that. You will be able to drink or even inhale your vaccine. No more painful injections, just a quick slurp or a snort and the job’s a good ’un. That’s you safe from the deadly virus for another year.

We could even make it fun. Why not hold Covid-19 vaccine parties? A selection of flavours in shot glasses (they don’t call them shot glasses for no reason) or add your vaccine to a vape and puff away until your immune system is primed.

I glean all this garbage from Global Health Now, the daily newsletter from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The first story concerns how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States is considering ‘simplifying the Covid vaccination schedule, allowing most people to get the currently available booster, regardless of how many doses they had received before that’. This means that if you are boosted up to the eyeballs or have never had one before and suddenly made the incomprehensible decision to start now, then Bob’s your uncle; roll up your sleeves.

Please note that nothing has changed; there is no new vaccine and no new threat. The FDA is just making an arbitrary decision to change the schedule. Clearly the aim is to get more people to accept the vaccination. But it is also clear that they are making this stuff up as they go along. They have no further evidence that the vaccines will work any better this way.

The information that is available to them is the abundant and accumulating evidence of vaccine harms which, incredibly, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MRHA) in the United Kingdom admits can be serious while insisting that the vaccines are safe. If truth is the first casualty of war – it certainly died early in the Covid-19 madness – logic is not far behind it. The MRHA is willing to trade off serious vaccine side effects against minimal protection from a virus which is virtually harmless to the vast majority of people. Perhaps the FDA is trying to reduce the number of boosters it says people will need in the hope that vaccine injuries will go away. Alternatively, it may be keen to accelerate the rollout before the general population wakes up to the fact that they are being conned, if they are lucky, and killed if they are not.

The potential for a drinkable/snortable/inhalable vaccine comes courtesy of US Speciality Formulations, a company which has produced the QYNDR vaccine. If QYNDR is a bit of a consonant-rich mouthful, then be informed that the official pronunciation if ‘KINDER’. And the advent of QYNDR is closer than you think. Phase 1 trials have already been completed in New Zealand (where else?) and all that is required is more funding to proceed with further trials. Apparently, it is very difficult to formulate a vaccine that survives the vicissitudes of the digestive tract.

And why do we need these vaccines? Well, according to US Speciality Formulations: ‘Covid-19 is still here and deadly.’ Also, I imagine that the inventors and investors envisage that this will make them shedloads of money. It clearly pays to perpetuate the Covid-19 narrative and to pepper it with as much panic as possible.

At some point in the panic-demic, the vaccine rollout became a juggernaut. Large and hard to stop. With the widespread and obvious extent to which people are gullible, government and drug manufacturers are willing to lie, health professionals are willing to stay silent and there are bucks to be made, it is unlikely that the juggernaut will be halted any time soon.

Who knows what’s next? Perhaps they will develop a vaccine that one can stick up one’s bottom. Whether or not they do, I strongly advise them that is what they can do with the present products.

February 4, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | 3 Comments

We Must Save Health from the Medical Bureaucracy

By Michael Keane, Kara Thomas| Brownstone Institute | February 4, 2023

We genuinely urge doctors involved with medical regulation not to go down with the sinking ship of authoritarian censorship and suppression of intellectual freedom. Not only is this behaviour historically illiterate and intellectually feeble, it is putting the safety of patients at risk, causing hazards to public health, runs counter to our community standards of a liberal democracy, and sits in conflict with the societal benefits of intellectual freedom that have recently been stated by the High Court of Australia.

When has there been a society that prospers because people are cancelled, removed, or ‘disappeared’ from their vital work because they dared to disagree with the ‘regime’s unquestionable truth?’ Do our modern medical authoritarians want to be looked back on with the same pathetic disdain with which we judge similar historical despots?

In this article we present two rays of hope in the context that the tide is changing. Firstly, for those doctors who genuinely want to have an open expression of ideas, there is a High Court precedent about the benefits to society of intellectual freedom where professional views asserted in the context of intellectual freedom can be expressed forcefully even if they cause offence, embarrassment, or lack of trust.

Secondly, for those doctors who continue to persecute other doctors for participating in the act of intellectual freedom, accumulated medical, ethical and legal information – we believe this warrants consideration that those doctors involved with AHPRA and the Medical Board of Australia themselves have their licenses suspended as they potentially pose a danger to the public’s health, in our opinion.

Go forth and be confident in the concept of intellectual freedom

Recent controversy has surrounded the sanctioning, by regulatory authorities, of doctors for publicly expressing views on elements of the Covid pandemic. Doctors have been punished because they sought to bring critical (if not ideologically uncomfortable) medical information to the public’s awareness.

This controversy is fundamentally about the limits of intellectual freedom doctors have within the constraints of general, and often highly subjective, Codes of Conduct that doctors must adhere to. In this context, a recent unanimous High Court of Australia judgment gives an important window into how the Court considers what the boundaries of intellectual freedom are and how the Court considers attempts by authorities to curtail such freedom under the guise of ‘conduct.’ (Find the example in detail at the end of the article.)

Although the case of Ridd v James Cook University (JCU) involved specific clauses within an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement, the High Court included valuable commentary on the societal importance of intellectual freedom from an instrumental, ethical, and historical perspective. This provides a useful context for academic freedom in general. Inherent in the developed concept of intellectual freedom is the ability to dissent against the establishment narrative. It is one of the modern marvels of living in a liberal democracy and brings tremendous benefit to society, as affirmed by the High Court:

‘Once developed, justification for intellectual freedom is instrumental. The instrumental justification is the search for truth in the contested marketplace of ideas, the social importance of which Frankfurter J spoke powerfully about.’

The Court further affirmed that:

‘Another justification is ethical rather than instrumental. Intellectual freedom plays “an important ethical role, not just in the lives of the few people it protects, but in the life of the community more generally” to ensure the primacy of individual conviction: “not to profess what one believes to be false” and “a duty to speak out for what one believes to be true.”’

Although doctors do not have a specific clause guaranteeing them the right to intellectual freedom, the High Court’s discussion of the societal benefits makes it difficult to argue that doctors should be punished for participation in the act of intellectual freedom.

There have been suggestions that the sanctioning of doctors has not necessarily been for the content of their views but how they have expressed them; invoking concepts such as incivility, rudeness, bullying, and harassment.

The Court explicitly addressed this issue in Ridd v JCU and was forthright in the view that intellectual freedom is not always pretty and wrapped in civility; curtailment on these grounds necessarily involves an assault on the fundamental phenomenon of intellectual freedom itself:

‘The instrumental and ethical foundations for the developed concept of intellectual freedom are powerful reasons why it has rarely been restricted by any asserted “right” of others to respect or courtesy … however desirable courtesy and respect might be, the purpose of intellectual freedom must permit of expression that departs from those civil norms.’

Furthermore, the Court reinforced the concept that there is no right against embarrassment or against lack of trust resulting from someone else’s assertions made in the course of intellectual freedom.

The Court quotes Dworkin:

‘The idea that people have that right [to protection from speech that might reasonably be thought to embarrass or lower others’ esteem for them or their own self-respect] is absurd. Of course, it would be good if everyone liked and respected everyone else who merited that response. But we cannot recognise a right to respect, or a right to be free from the effects of speech that makes respect less likely, without wholly subverting the central ideals of the culture of independence and denying the ethical individualism that culture protects.’

For the public’s safety it’s time to cancel the cancellers

It is absolutely frightening that major medico-legal organisations have issued advice to doctors to be wary about participating in intellectual freedom and that even reporting on evidence-based scientific data might put them in peril of being professionally ‘disappeared’ if that data doesn’t conform with the government’s ‘messaging.’ Is that what the community at large expects?

Sure, the regime may allow some new information if it is from a regime-approved source and disseminated in a way that the regime approves. But that defeats the whole purpose of intellectual freedom and merely perpetuates the formation of insular establishment echo chambers. A previous article showed the mass lethality of that group-think and establishment thinking during the first world war until dissident thinkers like General Sir John Monash came along.

But what about supposedly ‘bad ideas?’

Firstly, if those ideas are plausible, then as the High Court says, the truth is found in the ‘contested marketplace of ideas.’ If they are really bad ideas, then the sunlight of rigorous intellectual critique is the best disinfectant. Does driving a bad idea underground really make people think, ‘Oh well, the government told me it’s wrong, so it must be?’

Dr Li Wenliang was credited as one of the first doctors in Wuhan to sound the alarm about Covid on social media.

‘In early January (2020), he was called in by both medical officials and the police, and forced to sign a statement denouncing his warning as an unfounded and illegal rumor.’ [New York TimesSound familiar?

Dr Li was among ‘eight people reprimanded by security officers for “spreading rumours.” [Int J Infect Dis.] Sadly Dr Li died of Covid. But during his illness he advocated that “I think a healthy society should not have just one voice.”’ [New York Times]

And it is accepted that chilling the expression of ideas (by making people scared to speak out) is just as detrimental as the specific banning of ideas.

Scholars of history, the Australian public at large, Dr Li and the High Court of Australia, understand the importance of the developed concept of intellectual freedom.

In this context, intellectual freedom is so important to knowledge advancement through, as the High Court ruled regarding ‘the contested marketplace of ideas,’ that banning intellectual freedom (unilaterally removing that contested marketplace) poses a serious risk to public health. Therefore, should doctors associated with AHPRA or the Medical Board of Australia who have participated at all in the dangerous repression of intellectual freedom have their licences to practice medicine immediately suspended while a thorough investigation is undertaken into their fitness to practice?

What builds trust in an institution? Intellectual freedom through open scientific discourse or enforced adherence to the regime’s singular ‘truth’ under the threat of professional excommunication?

Public health is still dependent on individuals receiving informed consent about treatments, consent being specific to the individual patient.

This introduces the last issue where transparency should be favoured over repression. If any information comes to light that would materially alter someone’s decision to give/not give consent (and that information was suppressed as a result of the chilling effect on intellectual freedom by AHPRA/Medical Board’s censorship), then AHPRA and the Medical Board should be open to both civil and criminal liability for any harm caused due to the silence they fashioned.

Statements by the High Court of Australia in Ridd v James Cook University

One developed justification for intellectual freedom is instrumental. The instrumental justification is the search for truth in the contested marketplace of ideas, the social importance of which Justice Felix Frankfurter spoke powerfully about in Sweezy v New Hampshire. Another justification is ethical rather than instrumental. Intellectual freedom plays ‘an important ethical role not just in the lives of the few people it protects, but in the life of the community more generally’ to ensure the primacy of individual conviction: ‘Not to profess what one believes to be false’ and ‘a duty to speak out for what one believes to be true.’

Whilst different views might reasonably be taken about some additional restrictions upon intellectual freedom, the instrumental and ethical foundations for the developed concept of intellectual freedom are powerful reasons why it has rarely been restricted by any asserted ‘right’ of others to respect or courtesy. It is not necessary to go as far as Said’s assertion that ‘the whole point [of an intellectual] is to be embarrassing, contrary, even unpleasant’ to conclude that, however desirable courtesy and respect might be, the purpose of intellectual freedom must permit of expression that departs from those civil norms.

JCU’s submission depends upon drawing a distinction between what is said and how it is said. But such a distinction may not exist. The content of what is said often depends upon how it is said. This is particularly so when impugned speech concerns the expression of an opinion. The content of speech that expresses an opinion will often be inseparable from the strength of conviction with which the opinion is held, which is tied to the manner of expression. The message conveyed by a statement, expressed tentatively ‘It may be that it was an error for Professor Jones to claim that the earth is flat’ expresses a proposition only of possibility. It cannot be divorced from the tentative manner in which it was expressed. By contrast, ‘no reasonable person could ever claim that the earth is flat’ expresses a proposition of certainty, all the more so if it is expressed in an emphatic manner.

That interpretation aligns with the long-standing core meaning of intellectual freedom. Whilst a prohibition upon disrespectful and discourteous conduct in intellectual expression might be a ‘convenient plan for having peace in the intellectual world,’ the ‘price paid for this sort of intellectual pacification, is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind.’ The 2016 Censure given to Dr Ridd was, therefore, not justified.

Michael Keane is adjunct associate professor, Swinburne University, Adjunct senior lecturer, Monash University and a specialist anaesthetist.

February 4, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Facebook and Instagram delete Project Veritas video confronting YouTube executive over censorship

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | February 4, 2023

’s  and  platforms have removed a video by Project Veritas showing a journalist confronting YouTube’s Vice President of Trust and Safety Matt Halprin about the censorship of a video showing a Pfizer executive talking about mutating viruses.

Both platforms claimed that the video was in violation of Community Standards, specifically the policy prohibiting “content that could lead to identity theft or put someone at risk of physical or financial harm.”

In the video that was removed by both platforms, Project Veritas’ journalist Christian Hartsock asked Halprin why he banned a video showing Pfizer’s Director of Research and Development, Strategic Operations Jordan Trishton Walker talking about mutating viruses.

“How much is Pfizer paying you to run cover for them?” said Hartsock. “Is YouTube brought to us by Pfizer?”

On January 25, Project Veritas posted a video of Walker talking about the company mutating COVID-19 virus. Walker later said he made it up.

“Well, one of the things we’re exploring is, why don’t we just mutate it ourselves so we could preemptively develop new vaccines, right?” said Walker.

“If we’re gonna do that, though, there’s a risk of, as you can imagine, no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating fucking viruses.”

YouTube banned the video.

February 4, 2023 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | 2 Comments

Report: Israel commits 3,532 violations in West Bank, Jerusalem in January

MEMO | February 4, 2023

Israeli occupation settlers and forces have committed 3,532 violations against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem in January, the Palestine National Information Centre revealed.

The Information Centre disclosed in a report that January was the bloodiest month in the occupied West Bank since 2015, citing the Israeli killings of 35 Palestinians, including eight children and a 61-year-old woman – with 20 killed in Jenin alone.

In addition, the report also pointed out that the Israeli occupation settlers and forces wounded 342 Palestinians.

According to the Information Centre, the occupation settlers committed 17 settlement activities, including stealing land, razing farms, paving new settlement roads and approving new settlement units, in addition to 319 aggressions.

Meanwhile, the occupation forces and settlers demolished 290 commercial and agricultural facilities and confiscated 40 others.

The Information Centre also documented the Israeli demolition of 40 Palestinian homes and issued 154 demolition notices.

It documented 29 aggressions on holy sites, road closures in 38 areas and 511 temporary and permanent Israeli military checkpoints across the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem.

February 4, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | 4 Comments

US announces first transfer of seized Russian assets to Kiev

RT | February 4, 2023

US Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on Friday the first transfer of assets, confiscated as part of anti-Russia sanctions, to Ukraine to pay for the country’s reconstruction.

The measure affects $5.4 million expropriated from Russian businessman Konstantin Malofeyev on charges of sanctions evasion, according to the top official.

“With my authorization today, forfeited funds will next be transferred to the State Department to support the people of Ukraine,” Garland said, adding that the funds were confiscated following an indictment against Malofeyev, issued last April.

Earlier this week, a federal court in New York allowed prosecutors to confiscate $5.4 million belonging to Malofeyev, paving the way for the funds to be used to help rebuild Ukraine.

In June, millions were seized from a US bank account belonging to Malofeyev, against whom the US Treasury Department announced sanctions in April “for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly” the Russian government.

The businessman, who owns Russian Orthodox Christian channel Tsargrad TV, has been on the US sanctions list since 2014. Malofeyev previously claimed that he had no holdings in the West since then.

In December, US President Joe Biden signed legislation allowing the Department of Justice to transfer some forfeited assets to the State Department to aid Ukraine. US law restricts how the government can use such assets.

February 4, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | | 2 Comments

Poland’s Pipedream, Redux

By Thane Angus | The Postil Magazine | February 1, 2023

It is a curious thing… the chief claims of feminism used to be that women can run the world better than men, in which peace will abound and everyone will be nice to each other—gone will be toxic masculinity, the root of all evil.

But glancing at the women who have clawed their way to power does not bode well for Pax Feminarum.

Of course, this article is really going out on a limb, because it is recklessly assuming that we all know what a “woman” is. Given recent manifestations of feminine grace and “feminine beauty,” one may well be hard-pressed to hold one’s tongue, as it now appears that men make better women.

But regardless, the now-infamous honesty of Annalena Baerbock caught the righteous off-guard who quickly had to declare that shipping untold weapons and money to the Ukraine, to allow that pitiful country to kill some Russians while also getting itself slaughtered—does not mean that anyone actually wants war. Heavens, no! What insanity. Supplying weapons and cash is one thing. War is, well, quite another! Ms. Baerbock is simply “insane,” everyone happily concluded. Of course, what Ms. Baerbock said was all Russian propaganda. (Here, one can only stand in awe-struck wonder of Russian bots that can now hack into a politician’s brain and force out words that can then be used for “propaganda”).

Not to be outdone, of course, Poland launched its own secret weapon, one Anna Fotyga, who helpfully penned an op-ed, in which she laid out her own brilliant master-plan of dismantling Russia and dividing it up into tiny bits and owning all the natural resources, which can only be best managed by the likes of Ms. Fotyga and her various cronies. To help along this endeavor, Ms. Fortyga has set up proper “team” to get the job done good and right. Premeditated crimes, premeditated war, anyone?

You might be wondering, why should Russia be dismantled by those that know better? Let’s just quote Ms. Fotyga (and please hold back Polish jokes until later):

There are no such things as Russian gas, oil, aluminium, coal, uranium, diamonds, grain, forests, gold, etc. All such resources are Tatar, Bashkir, Siberian, Karelian, Oirat, Circassian, Buryat, Sakha, Ural, Kuban, Nogai, etc. For most of the inhabitants of the regions — be they ethnic Russians or indigenous people — Moscow represents only war, repression, exploitation and hopelessness. Harassment and discrimination against ethnic minorities in Russia is commonplace. Hyper-centralisation has exposed the country’s multiple weaknesses, but foremost, subjugated theoretically autonomous regions and republics to the will of the Kremlin. Moreover, with its odious war of aggression, Moscow is sending ethnic minorities to the meat grinder, implementing a real ethnic policy by further harming both the Ukrainian and already conquered nations of the Far East.

In other words, Ms. Fotyga wants to do exactly what she says are “Russian crimes”—taking other people’s stuff. The rationale for all this, you might wonder? Well, here’s the headline to the article: “The dissolution of the Russian Federation is a far less dangerous than leaving it ruled by criminals.”

What she herself is planning are not crimes, because only Russians can be dangerous criminals. Polish politicians… not so much.

And wonder what does she really mean by “dangerous?” And how does she really understand “criminality?” “Dissolution”—the Final Solution? But among her cronies, saying “Russians” is explanation enough. You see, in Ms. Fotyga’s version of the world, the Russians by nature are beastly criminals and don’t deserve to have a country, let alone live, since they took it all from other people anyway. Dissolution!

One might want to ask Ms. Fotyga whether she’s considering returning any of the “wealth” stolen by Poles from the indigenous people that once lived on the real estate that she and her ilk so presumptuously call “Poland?” As an example, why not first break up Poland and give it back to the Vlachs, the Avars, the Scythians, the Balts, the Sarmatians, the Celts, and heck, even the Germans, all of whom lived in this area long before the Polans, a tribe of Slavs, decided to show up in the 7th century AD. And true to form, the Polans went ballistic and killed everyone, so they could steal their land. Thus, the ancestors of Ms. Fotyga were busy being horrible colonialists, using genocide and conquest to their advantage. Yes, “dangerous” “criminals.” The dissolution of Poland is far less dangerous than leaving it ruled by criminals.

Given the “moral” outrage at Russia, it is high time that Poland led by example. For starters, the worthy team, “European Conservatives and Reformists,” might want to put together a working group that will trace the descendants of the aforesaid indigenous peoples of Poland and start making reparations. It’s high time for a Polish version of Truth and Reconciliation, to pay for the crimes of the Polans. By the way, lots of cash is always a good way to begin. (By the way, how the heck can you be a “conservative” and a “reformist?”)

While all that is taking shape, these Polish politicians might also wish to explain why in a poll conducted in 2011, a lot of people living in Poland decided that they were not going to identify as “Polish.” Wonder why that is? Truth and Reconciliation.

Here, it is necessary to say that this is not about ordinary Polish people, who are being ruled over by warmongers—just as in every other Western country, where politicians are a tribe all their own, who rule against the people that they supposedly work for. But let’s not digress.

Now, we all know the real reason for Ms. Fotyga’s dreams of conquest and plunder. Her fellow countryman, one Mr. Brzezinski, also had the same dream, and he imagined that he could convince America to be the hacksaw that would hack apart Russia and let Poland be the Gauleiter-in-chief of the “eastern lands.” In other words, Poland wants to get its hands on all those resources that Russia has via the USA. See “criminality” above.

And so, Poland wants to transform the war in the Ukraine into pure banditry aimed further East—yes, exactly what the Polans did to the area now known as “Poland.” The apple does not fall far from the tree.

The only problem with this pipedream is that Ms. Fotyga and her band of self-righteous looters are relying on old Uncle Joe who, granted, has a lot to bury in the Ukraine. But as he just outplayed Scholz of Germany with tanks, let’s not get too carried away, would be sane advice to Poland. Joe isn’t as foolish as he appears, that is, his handlers aren’t.

By the way, why is everyone dutifully calling the tanks the Germans will be sending to the Ukraine “Leopards?” And why are the earlier versions of these tanks that went into the same region, back in the day, in the 1940s, always called “Panzers?” Remember the Panzerlied? In 2023, Panzers are not “Panzers,” because they’re “Leopards,” which in German is Panzers. Got that? Yes, because gender is fluid.

But why does the current crop of female politicians love war so much? Keep in mind, the entire Ukraine mess is the creation of one Victoria Nuland, of “F*** the EU!” fame, and who also could not help but gloat recently, when she remembered what happened to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline…

So, the rumors are true—Poles got the go-ahead from her to blow up the pipelines, and dutifully did?

There was another woman, with thwarted presidential ambitions, who gloated and cackled at the horrendous murder of Muamar Kaddafi, she of the “We came, we saw, he died” fame. But let’s go down that rabbit hole.

Polish politicians actually thinks such people are their friends? How deluded do you have to be?

But let’s go back to where we began. Whatever happened to that feminist claim that women will manage the world far better than men? There is an old trope in folktales the world over—of the evil step-mother. That is who these women politicians are — our evil step-mothers.

As for Poland, back in the day, the Poles assumed that they had finally found the perfect friend in this world. Old Adolf Hitler himself and they were going to pal up to him and use the Germans to destroy the Russians. We all know how that turned out. Well, it’s the same pipe dream again; and to show Uncle Joe that this time Poland means business, they are arming themselves to the hilt, because you know, Russians—and all that loot, just yours for the taking. Just replace Adolf with Joe Biden. And the conniving strategy is to draw America in so deep into the Ukraine that withdrawal will become impossible and then the fun can really begin. How quickly people forget Afghanistan…

Ok, break out the Polish jokes.

And, please God, deliver us all from evil step-mothers.

Thane Angus writes from a small northern Canadian town.

February 4, 2023 Posted by | Russophobia | | 1 Comment


The Highwire with Del Bigtree | February 2, 2023

Top Cardiologist and The HighWire Contributor, Dr. Peter McCullough, was sued by health giant Baylor Scott & White, over an alleged violation of his separation agreement. On January 23rd, a Dallas County District Court dismissed the case with prejudice. Del announces the development, and offers his thoughts as well as congratulations to Dr. McCullough over the ‘win for freedom.’


The Highwire with Del Bigtree | February 2, 2023

The Covid emergency is over in America… in three more months says the White House. Why now? Is politics at the heart of this decision? And what does it mean for the EUA vaccines and therapies? The HighWire gets to the facts behind the headlines.

February 4, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , | Leave a comment