Now that a few days have passed and the hysteria has come down slightly, perhaps a few sane thoughts might be added to what has otherwise been a microcosm of everything that is wrong with America’s warmongering media and political class.
As everyone is by now well aware, a data-gathering balloon of Chinese origin passed over the continental United States last week.
According to the Pentagon, it is not the first. They say China has launched some two dozen over the past five years, several of which passed over either Florida, Texas, or Guam during that time. Far from being cause for alarm, however, the Pentagon initially reported that the balloons’ “signals collection ability isn’t radically different from other systems available to the Chinese,” and did not pose “a significantly enhanced threat.”
In other words, though this particular balloon passed over several sensitive military installations in the central United States, the Chinese government likely did not learn anything of interest—if that was even their intention.
Beijing claimed it was an off-course weather balloon with “limited” maneuverability. With the incident described as an “accident” and a case of “force majeure,” the stage seemed set for a simple apology.
That was last Tuesday.
By Wednesday, with the fake China threat live on every channel, it was clear that deescalating the situation, as when a US spy plane collided with an intercepting Chinese jet over Chinese airspace in 2001, resulting in the death of the Chinese pilot, wasn’t on the table.
The media talked of little else the rest of the week, while Republicans, ignoring that the Pentagon had declined to shoot the balloon down over Idaho for fear of damage caused by falling debris, took to the lowest fear-mongering imaginable. Marco Rubio, Kevin McCarthy, J.D. Vance, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis—nobody could get out quickly or emphatically enough how much of a threat China was and how weak Joe Biden was for not acting completely belligerent.
About what might have been a surveillance balloon, and which in any case had no extraordinary capabilities and posed no threat.
But, of course, Biden caved—turning what could have been a minor incident into an escalating diplomatic spat at a moment when Sino-American relations have scarcely been worse.
Because Washington and Beijing do so much overhead surveillance of one another, this incident, intentional or not, could have gone on to form a platform for dialogue ahead of Antony Blinken’s (now cancelled) visit. Yet rather than taking the opportunity to discuss the important norms of overhead surveillance in the wake of the Open Skies Treaty, which Trump’s administration foolishly ripped up, the Biden administration caved to domestic political pressure, cancelling what would have been the first ever face-to-face meeting between Xi Jinping and a cabinet-level member of the Biden administration.
Biden’s final decision to shoot down the admittedly harmless balloon (leaving China to observe goings-on in the United States from their many equally effective low-orbiting surveillance satellites), squandered any potential opportunity for diplomatic settlement.
Indeed, after a muted week, Beijing responded to the final downing of the balloon by a missile off the Carolina coast by threatening to act accordingly under similar circumstances.
Obviously, there are a lot of questions, but even just considering what we know, it seems clear the reason-distorting impact of the fake China threat caused Washington to ignore better options in favor of one that would satiate a riled-up domestic audience.
Making matters worse, the Biden administration has attempted to spin the capture of what remained of the balloon as a major intelligence coup, while the US House followed up with a rare unanimous resolution condemning the “brazen violation” of US sovereignty. Never mind that Beijing maintains the balloon was a weather balloon thrown off course and that Xi has gestured at firing the head of China’s weather service. The Pentagon, too, changed its tune. As reported in the Washington Post, the balloon has transformed into “part of [a] vast aerial surveillance program” overnight.
These days, with every general or admiral with any stars taking a turn on Capitol Hill to issue breathless warnings about impending war with China over Taiwan, one is only surprised the Pentagon acted so reservedly earlier in the week. A libertarian-realist reading of the situation is that the Pentagon was quite content to see the admittedly harmless airship float in clear view over the country for a week in order to stoke the predictable mindless media frenzy.
Setting aside the question of why trillions of dollars in defense spending to protect against (much faster moving) incoming flying objects was inadequate to safely bring down a slow-moving hot air balloon over some of the least densely populated stretches of the industrialized world, would Beijing have welcomed the opportunity to close the matter with a formal apology had the Biden administration publicly ignored the hawks?
While the Wall Street Journal did (briefly) mention that the incident may have been a response to recent so-called freedom of navigation acts by the US Navy and its allies through disputed waters claimed by China, and indeed Xi has been under pressure from China’s own hawks over what they view as his timidity in response to high-level US delegations’ repeated visits to Taiwan, Xi has been recently preoccupied with trying to reassure and woo Western investors and businesses. With supply chain issues and extended arbitrary lockdowns having already prompted many multinational corporations to shift away from China, rapidly deteriorating relations between Washington and Beijing are prompting more moves.
Considering Xi’s need to address these concerns, to say nothing of managing his myriad domestic difficulties, it is hard to imagine, particularly given what has been stated publicly, that he purposefully ruined his own sit-down with Blinken. Again, it is possible that he did, or that rogue hawks within the Chinese establishment manufactured the incident in order to sabotage the meeting to prevent any potential détente. The observable facts just seem to mitigate the possibility.
We’ll never know. Beyond any potential retaliation on the part of Beijing for Washington’s response, what is most alarming about the situation is the ease with which such a level of public hysteria seized all levels of the corporate media and political elite.
Even worse to consider, is that the climate Washington wants?
Is it supposed to foster a thought climate more permissive of a military response to any potential move by Beijing against Taiwan?
The time to speak out against any potential changes to the status quo policy vis-à-vis Taiwan is now. Already the one-China policy has been seriously eroded without any public debate, and much more serious changes were nearly smuggled into one of the annual “must-pass” appropriations.
We have come to a dangerous place. It was by choice. We could and should choose otherwise.
Joseph Solis-Mullen can be contacted through his website http://www.jsmwritings.com or find him on Twitter @solis_mullen.
Employees of the New York City Department of Education who refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19 had their fingerprints and files sent to the New York Criminal Justice Services and the FBI, a legal filing alleges.
New York City had a vaccine mandate for employees of the Department of Education that required them to be fully vaccinated by September 2, 2022. By mid-September, about 1,950 employees had been fired for refusing to get the vaccines.
Those who refused to get vaccinated also had a “problem code” added to their personnel file.
“And while she applied to over 60 jobs during that span, she received no offers because, as one interviewer told her, the DOE attached a problem code for her due to alleged ‘misconduct.’ While she waited for a decision, her home went into foreclosure, her son had to leave college, and she was forced to get vaccinated to feed her family,” read the affidavit of a principal from the Bronx who got suspended without pay for refusing to get vaccinated.
Teachers For Choice claimed that teachers’ “fingerprints are sent with that flag to the FBI and the New York Criminal Justice Services.”
The group further claimed that after personnel files got flagged, they were sent to the Department of Justice and the FBI.
“In addition, you’ve got these problem codes in the personnel files,” said John Bursch, an attorney at Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal group that is defending employees that were terminated by the city, to the court.
“When the city puts these problem codes on employees who have been terminated because of their unconstitutional policies, not only do they have this flag in their files, but their fingerprints are sent with that flag to the FBI and the New York Criminal Justice Services. So it impacts their ongoing ability to get employment.
“Even for those who are eligible for reinstatement, when they apply, they’ve all got so-called ‘problem codes’ in their personal file because they purportedly failed to fulfill a contractual condition, which was to get vaccinated.
“The city simply didn’t like that some people objected to the vaccine on religious grounds and they punished them for that.”
As far as I am concerned, here are the Covid numbers that matter most.
N = 40,000 – Estimated number of mainstream “journalists” in America.
N = 0 – Estimated number of these journalists who have published a major story questioning any of the authorized Covid narratives.*
Note: For the purposes of this article, I’m not counting journalists who work for, say, Fox News or The Epoch Times as “mainstream journalists.” If I did, the above number would not be 0 … but it would still be minuscule.
*At the end of this article, I list 29 elements of the “authorized Covid narrative.”
N = 100,000 – Estimated number of credentialed “scientists” in America. (Note: About 2,000 per state).
N = 95,000 – Estimated number of credentialed scientists in America who support all the Covid narratives.
N = 5,000 – Estimated number of contrarian scientists who do not support all the Covid narratives.
N = 0 – Number of scientists who support the Covid narrative who have been banned by social media.
N = 2,500 – Estimated number of contrarian scientists who do not support the narrative who have been banned by different social media platforms (50 percent).
N = 5,000 – Estimated number of active physicians who have publicly disagreed with key parts of the authorized Covid narrative. (About 100 physicians in each state).
N = 99.995 percent – Approximate percentage of active U.S. physicians who have been unwilling to speak out against any of the authorized Covid narratives. (Approximately 0.046 percent have been willing to speak out publicly against the authorized narrative).
N = 600 – Approximate number of U.S. Senators and Congressmen who have served in Congress since the official pandemic began.
N = 5 – Approximate number of members of Congress who have publicly and consistently challenged key aspects of the authorized Covid narrative. (0.083 percent of Congress – less than 1 percent).
N = 0 – Number of Covid tribunals or Commissions authorized by U.S. government to date.
N = 60 percent – Approximate number of federal politicians who would have to support such tribunals to create them.
N = 500 – Approximate number of Substack authors who routinely challenge elements of the authorized Covid narrative.
N = 5 million – Approximate number of regular readers of “Covid contrarian” Substack sites.
N = 300 – Approximate number of “mainstream” press organizations in America (about 250 large newspapers and about 50 national sites).
N = 250 million – Approximate number of Americans who get Covid stories from “mainstream” news sources.
N = 2,040 – Estimated number of coroner or medical examiner officials/offices in the U.S. in 2018.
N = 0 – Number of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies who publicly challenged elements of the authorized Covid narrative.
Expressed differently …
About 0-in-40,000 mainstream journalists and editors (not counting a few at Fox News or The Epoch Times) are willing to speak out against the official Covid narrative.
About 0-in-2,040 medical examiners/coroners are willing to speak out about possible vaccine deaths and injuries.
About 0-in-500 CEOs of Fortune 500 companies criticized elements of the official Covid narratives.
About 1-in-200 physicians have been willing to challenge the authorized Covid narratives.
About 1-in-120 elected members of Congress have been willing to challenge at least some elements of the authorized Covid narrative.
As a percentage …
Zero percent of “mainstream” journalists have challenged parts of the official Covid narrative.
Zero percent of CEOs at Fortune 500 companies challenged parts of the official Covid narrative.
Zero percent of coroners and medical examiners have raised any questions about an increase in all-cause deaths.
Fewer than 1 percent of the members of Congress have spoken out in a conspicuous and consistent manner.
Zero percent of Democratic politicians at the state or national level have spoken out against parts of the Covid narrative.
On the other hand …
Maybe 75 percent of “alternative media” or Substack journalists who write about Covid have challenged aspects of the authorized Covid narrative.
The Question …
Given the above estimates, what’s the probability something substantial or meaningful will be done to expose elements of the Covid narrative as false or even as “crimes against humanity?”
I would say the probability of this happening is very close to zero percent.
I would also argue that maybe 80 percent of Americans don’t care or want any of the possible Covid lies or frauds exposed as such.
However, I would argue that maybe 20 percent of Americans do care passionately about seeing “the truth” exposed, and would like to see the officials who are most guilty/responsible exposed and punished.
What all of the above tells me is …
What this thought exercise (or “by-the-numbers” presentation) shows is that Congress, elected officials, the mainstream press, corporate leaders and almost all physicians and scientists do not care at all about the views of approximately one-fifth of the country.
This also tells me that the only things that really matters are the views of the mainstream press and the politicians. Really, the only organizations that could hold substantive hearings or tribunals that would “have teeth” and make a difference (change narratives) are official elected office holders.
I’ve always assumed politicians DO or will respond to pressure from voters or the public … but the only pressure or media they pay attention to is the “mainstream” media reports … so the mainstream media does matter.
So far at least, the reporting and commentary of “the alternative” media – which is actually sane and still capable of critical thinking and is still willing to be skeptical of pronouncements of officials and experts … and which is growing in size – doesn’t matter.
Basically, a significant population cohort (20 percent, per my estimate) is being ignored by officials and the mainstream press, but is still fighting as hard as they can to bring attention to issues that the people and organizations “that matter” still don’t want to discuss or investigate.
In short, the dichotomy of views on “what’s important” – and what should change or be exposed regarding Covid topics – is nothing short of stunning.
“Our” side is definitely in the minority, but 20 percent of people is still a significant percentage of the population.
In a nutshell, the mainstream press, politicians, bureaucrats, corporate leaders, physicians, scientists, coroners, etc. hold views that are 180-degrees opposite the views of 20 percent of the country.
Re-stated: All the important people and organizations think nothing like myself and probably 99 percent of my readers … or the millions of readers who now visit Substack or “alternative media” sites every day.
All I can say is that all of this is… bizarre.
***
Defining the ‘Authorized Covid Narrative’ …
Above, I make many references to organizations or groups that supported all or most elements of the “authorized Covid narrative.” So what are the parts of the “authorized Covid narratives?”
Here’s a quick effort to define these elements. Most of these statements are still considered to be “settled science.” For what it’s worth, I would argue that every one of these ‘authorized” narratives is/was dead wrong.
N = 29 – Elements of the “authorized Covid narrative” (Partial list).
N = 0 – Groups or individuals cited above who challenged or disputed any of the following statements.
The Covid vaccines are “safe” – i.e. they don’t produce adverse reactions and/or have never led to any deaths. Anyone who died after a vaccine didn’t die from the vaccine.
The Covid vaccines are “effective” – they prevent infection and transmission.
Vaccines are superior to natural immunity at preventing infection and spread.
Alternative treatments like ivermectin or HCQ do not work and should not be allowed or prescribed by doctors. (C19 is not a “treatable” illness via existing medications).
Asymptomatic spread is a major cause of transmission. (People who don’t have symptoms are a major or important avenue of virus spread).
The virus can be spread from physical surfaces.
The virus can be easily spread outdoors.
Masks prevent the spread of the virus and prevent people from getting infected … and should thus be mandated.
C19 poses a serious mortality risk to everyone, including children and healthy people under the age of 60.
Testing of non-symptomatic people is an excellent way to prevent infections and spread and should either be mandatory or strongly encouraged by employers and officials.
Remdesivir saves lives and should be given to many people.
More than one million Americans have died “from” Covid.
There has NOT been an increase in “excess” mortality in America in the last two years. And if there has been, the cause of these deaths must be Covid – even after widespread administration of Covid vaccines, which are 95 percent effective at preventing severe cases and deaths.
There has been no increase in deaths of people 18 to 64.
There has been no increase in deaths from young people playing sports.
Lockdowns prevented cases and thus serious infections and deaths. Absent lockdowns, millions more people in the world would have died from Covid.
Closing schools saved countless lives. Ceasing routine medical procedures and diagnostic surgeries saved many lives. Cancelling church services saved many lives. Not allowing family members to visit their loved ones in the hospital or nursing home saved countless lives.
Closing non-essential businesses saved the economy by preventing countless Covid cases and deaths.
Lockdowns and business closings did not increase suicides, suicide attempts, drug overdoses, depression, alcohol abuse or domestic abuse …. or, if they did, dying from suicide or drug overdose is better than dying from Covid.
Trillions of dollars in Covid expenditures did not accelerate or cause inflation.
Censorship of “disinformation” has saved countless lives.
Cancelling sporting events, concerts, plays, family reunions and keeping people from traveling to see family saved countless lives.
The novel coronavirus did not begin to spread around the world until “latter January” 2020. There were zero cases of Covid in communities in America before January 2020.
Everyone who had Covid symptoms before mid-January 2020 had the flu or some other virus, but not Covid, because Covid was not spreading until February 2020.
Wide-spread use of ventilators were very important to saving lives. Officials saved countless lives by getting more ventilators in hospitals and doctors saved countless lives by making sure they put patients on ventilators.
Boosters save lives.
People who have been vaccinated or boosted get Covid far less often than people who do not.
If you have been vaccinated or boosted, your case of Covid will be less severe than people who have never received a shot.
How might strong advocates of community masking – who happen to occupy positions within the hierarchy that provide opportunities to influence research activity – go about achieving their aims? I suggest it would include some combination of discouraging the undertaking of robust research about mask effectiveness and potential harms, impeding and delaying the publication of unfavourable findings, and undermining the value of rigorous empirical science. A look at the history of the Cochrane mask reviews seems to offer an illuminating case study of these insidious forces in action.
Cochrane reviews are widely recognised to provide the most authoritative and comprehensive evaluation of the scientific evidence regarding specific healthcare interventions, and their raison d’être is to inform the decision-making process. On January 30th 2023, the latest version of the Cochrane review of the effectiveness of physical interventions (including masks) in reducing the spread of respiratory viruses was published. In keeping with their earlier reviews, the overarching conclusion of the authors confirmed what we already knew: masks achieve no appreciable reduction in viral transmission. Arguably of more interest are the indications that powerful forces within the academic world were at work to obstruct the dissemination of this inconvenient truth.
In regard to the potential benefits of mask-wearing, the findings of the review were emphatic: after considering 12 research trials (ten in the community and two among hospital workers) the main takeaway message was that face coverings made “little or no difference to influenza-like or COVID-19-like illness transmission”. When only studies where respiratory infections had been confirmed in a laboratory were included in the analysis, the conclusion was even more stark: “Wearing masks had no effect on… influenza or SARS-CoV-2 outcomes”. Furthermore, the type of mask used – the surgical variety or the higher-quality N95/P2 respirators – made no difference to the outcome.
It is plausible to assume that the conclusions of the Cochrane scholars did not make easy reading for the pro-mask establishment. The Covid era has been characterised by extraordinarily high levels of censorship of views that did not tally with the dominant public health narrative, and this silencing of alternative perspectives has often been evident within the academic and research spheres. A close inspection of the two most recent updates to the Cochrane review – their development and content – suggests that these malign forces of suppression may have been targeting this initiative in an effort to dilute the impact of its masks-are-ineffectual message. There are five observations consistent with this premise.
1. Scarcity of robust studies
It is intriguing that, three years after the start of the Covid event, there is a dearth of prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) – the type that provide the most robust kind of scientific evidence – to evaluate the efficacy of community masking as a means of reducing viral transmission. In the words of the Cochrane review authors, there was a “relative paucity” of such studies “given the importance of the question”. In a politicised environment, where Covid policy was often determined without recourse to empirical evidence, perhaps those in power did not want to fund research that would provide a definitive answer to the question of whether masks offered an effective viral barrier, particularly in light of the earlier discouraging results?
2. Unpublished research
In November 2020, the Danish mask study – the first RCT of mask efficacy specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus – found that masks achieved no significant benefit for the wearer. Despite this ground-breaking conclusion, the research was initially rejected by at least three prestigious medical journals. This publication bias is also evident in the current Cochrane review where the authors, when discussing the range of RCTs included in the analysis, state that: “We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is finalised, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID‐19 pandemic” (my emphasis). Why would a finalised RCT, on such a pressing issue as mask effectiveness, not be published? The most likely answer, in this censorial environment, is that it came to the ‘wrong’ conclusion.
3. A disregard of the harms of masking
Very few of the studies included in the Cochrane review addressed the potential harms of wearing masks; harms were “rarely measured and poorly reported”. When one considers the wide range of credible negative consequences (physical, social and psychological) associated with mass masking in the community, this is a glaring omission. Once again, the most plausible reason for this inattention to harms in mask research in the last three years is political pressure – Government policy makers urgently sought evidence to support their premature decisions to impose mask mandates, to demonstrate their effectiveness as a viral barrier, and were disinclined to investigate the potential harms.
4. Publication delays
A blatant indication of top-down censorial influence on the ‘masks don’t work’ message is the way that publication of one of the Cochrane review updates was delayed. The previous 2020 version, incorporating updates up until January 2020, had passed peer review and was finalised by April of the same year. Extraordinarily, its publication was delayed until November 2020 due to “unexplained editorial decisions“. According to lead author, Dr. Tom Jefferson, this extra scrutiny was “a very unexpected event in Cochrane, especially during a period in which the topic of the review and the setting of policy was of global importance”.
It is unlikely to be coincidence that this window of delay corresponds to the period when the U.K. and other Governments, under intense pressure from pro-mask groups, U-turned and imposed mask mandates on their populations. In the midst of this policy flip-flop, it would have caused considerable political embarrassment to our public health leaders should the Cochrane group – the source of the most authoritative and comprehensive scientific evidence – have broadcast its conclusion that masks are ineffective as a viral barrier. In the words of Dr. Jefferson, by the time their report was published in November 2020, “the advisers had changed their minds about the evidence, and the policies had been set”.
The latest Cochrane review update includes studies up to October 2022. Its publication three months later suggest that this edition was not delayed, presumably because, at a time when most of society is unmasked, its conclusions are likely to evoke less discomfort for policy makers.
5. Editorial interference
An explicit example of the top-down interference with the Cochrane review process (referred to above) is an editorial that accompanied the 2020 edition. Including statements such as, “Waiting for strong evidence is a recipe for paralysis”, the content of this commentary appears totally at odds with the ethos of the Cochrane initiative. Indeed, this decisions-before-evidence assertion mirrors the proclamations of pro-mask zealot Professor Trish Greenhalgh, who has previously stated that the rigorous search for empirical evidence is the “enemy of good policy“.
In the words of Dr. Jefferson, the 2020 Cochrane editorial “seemed to undermine our work” and had the effect of “completely subverting the precautionary principle”. The lead author of the editorial was Dr. Soares-Weiser (Cochrane’s Chief Editor) who is “responsible for ensuring that the Cochrane Library meets its strategic goals of supporting health care decision-making by consistently publishing timely, high-priority, high-quality reviews”. Clearly, the 2020 Cochrane mask review failed her ‘timely’ criterion and her trivialisation of the value of empirical evidence is at odds with the ‘high-quality reviews’ aspiration.
Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS consultant clinical psychologist and a co-founder of the Smile Free campaign that opposes mask mandates.
The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene set up a “Misinformation Response Unit” to monitor what it would determine to be “dangerous misinformation” posted on social media, non-US sites, and non-English media in the US.
This “misinformation” mostly had to do with Covid vaccination – the Department was determined to drive vaccination rates up by spreading its word, and in this gathered over 100 partners whose job was to craft positive messaging around the controversial subject.
Among those the dedicated new unit is working with is Public Good Projects, otherwise known for receiving funding from a lobbying group representing two major Covid vaccine manufacturers, Pfizer and Moderna.
Their “good” work here also included sending Twitter, on a weekly basis, lists of posts slated for censorship.
In an article published by the NEJM Catalystjournal, those behind the effort are now assessing the Unit’s work as successful, what with it being able to “rapidly identify messages” deemed as containing inaccurate information about the virus, vaccines, treatment, etc.
And although admitting that “vaccine hesitancy” remains high around the world even two years after the vaccines were first introduced – and this is something attributed to “disinformation and misinformation” and continues to worry the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Surgeon General, as well as “medical experts” – the New York City Health Department thinks that it did well in getting its own narrative out, particularly in traditional media.
However, it needed help on the internet and so, in 2021, the NYC Health Commissioner penned a letter to the largest social networks asking them to engage in “broader efforts to curtail deliberate disinformation, particularly from the most notorious spreaders of disinformation and from non-English language sources.”
This is also where the Public Good Projects came in, to enlist social media “microinfluencers” to spread pro-vaccine messages, and train others to come up with campaigns.
The email Dave A. Chokshi, New York City health commissioner, addressed to then Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, with the subject line reading, “Vaccine Misinformation,” urges the pair to “take immediate action to stop the spread of fraudulent and inaccurate information about COVID-19 vaccines” on their platforms.
Chokshi wanted this action to be “effective and vigorous” and asserted that misinformation on these sites, as understood by the city’s Health Department, was “costing New Yorkers their lives.”
Twitter and Facebook were then urged to do the following: “Consistently and promptly remove all misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccines from your platforms and ban any user that repeatedly posts misinformation, including the Dirty Dozen; redesign the algorithms used by your platforms to avoid amplifying misinformation, particularly among non-English languages; provide greater transparency to your data to allow health departments to better identify, track and understand the spread of misinformation, and amplify messaging from trusted public health experts and local partners.”
Twenty years ago this spring the US government was finally successful in lying us into war with Iraq. Administration after administration had sanctioned and bombed and even invaded the country, but finally 20 years ago next month the Bush Administration unleashed “shock and awe” to flatten a country that did not and could not threaten the United States.
After eight years of battle in Iraq perhaps as many as a million innocent people died, either directly or indirectly, from Washington’s aggression. No one was brought before a tribunal over the lies and destruction. No one even apologized. Washington’s puppet of the day, Ahmed Chalabi, brushed off the lies about Iraq’s WMDs by proclaiming that the war promoters were “heroes in error.” They got their regime change and that’s all they cared about.
The propaganda machine pushing the Iraq war seemed overwhelming at the time. At that time several fellow Members of Congress began to open communication across party lines to look for way to stop the war. From conservatives like the late Rep. Walter Jones and Rep. John Duncan, to progressives like Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Rep. Jim McGovern, and so many more, we began to organize and strategize.
One tool we used to our advantage was the idea of an “improbable” coalition of left and right uniting to oppose the war. The media may not have been interested in our antiwar views, but they could not help themselves when presented with this “man bites dog” story. Time and again this “unlikely” group held press conferences, introduced various legislative tools, and communicated behind the scenes to try and grow the movement against the Iraq war.
Unfortunately with the 2008 election of Barack Obama, who ran as an antiwar candidate but then launched numerous military attacks abroad, that old coalition fell apart. Some progressives excused Obama’s militarism and lost interest in cooperating with conservatives. Some conservatives were driven by their personal dislike of Obama and lost sight of the target.
Suddenly, as we face the once-unimaginable prospect of a direct military conflict with nuclear-armed Russia over Ukraine, a beyond Left-Right coalition is emerging from its long slumber. This Sunday, February 19th, a broad and very diverse group will assemble in Washington, DC at the Lincoln Memorial to denounce Washington’s sleepwalking into World War III.
The “Rage Against The War Machine” rally promises to be the first large-scale rally against Washington’s aggressive war lobby in many years. I am looking forward to sharing the stage with my good friends and former House colleagues Dennis Kucinich and Tulsi Gabbard, as well as my good friend and fellow libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano, and so many more speakers from a broad political spectrum.
Many of us have watched with alarm as the Biden Administration – with the enthusiastic backing of many Congressional Republicans – has continuously escalated involvement in the Russia/Ukraine conflict and now sits dangerously close to a direct, hot war with the largest nuclear superpower on earth.
How did we get here? Where are the sane voices and cooler heads? Just when it seemed they were nowhere to be found, here we are! I hope as many people as possible will join us and continue to come together for this important cause. We must join together while we still can. No war with Russia!
Hysterics at the Chinese balloon overflying the U.S. – taken to volume 11 – through scrambling a hush-hush Raptor jet (F-22) to ‘pop’ it, and then bally-hooing the ‘pop’ as Raptor’s first ever ‘air-to-air kill’, may be a source for quiet derision around the world, yet paradoxically this seemingly trivial event may cast a long shadow over the U.S. war-timetable for Ukraine.
For it is the U.S. political calendar that may yet determine what happens next in Ukraine – from the western side.
Seemingly nothing important occurred – it was an instant of spy frenzy, leaving Biden’s ‘tough task’ unchanged: He needs to convince the American voter, facing collapsing standards of living, that they misread the ‘runes’; that rather than gloom, the economy – contrary to their lived experience – is ‘working well for them’.
Biden needs to perform this magic against polls that say only 16% of Americans feel better off since the start of his tenure, and 75% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters wish him to not stand in 2024. Significantly, this message is coming today from the Democratic-leaning media, suggesting thoughts of replacing him are already in circulation.
For now, Biden’s allies in the party establishment (the DNC) continue to clear the way for his candidature – postponing initial primaries (in which Biden could be expected to be trounced) for a later South Carolina primary election, where Black and Latino voters would reflect demographics in which Biden might (possibly) shine. It may work; it may not.
Simply put, against this highly sceptical Party backdrop, Biden will have to change American perceptions of the economy at a moment when many indicators signal further deterioration. It will be a ‘heavy lift’. The economic team, for sure, will be insisting: ‘Keep the focus on economic achievements! We don’t want distractions from any foreign policy débacles; We do not want the TV debates to centre on Balloons, or around Abrams tanks: ‘It’s the economy, stupid!’’.
The ‘Chinese balloon’ was popped, yes, but similarly popped was Team Biden’s hope to negotiate a limited understanding with a tetchy President Xi that could stop China tensions becoming a spoiler issue in the primary debates. The balloon incident obliged the U.S. to cancel Blinken’s appointment with Xi (even though such a meeting with the head of state would be a rare event).
The powerful ‘China hawk’ faction in the U.S. was ecstatic. The China balloon ‘kill’ inadvertently, and in an instant, elevated China to ‘Main Threat’. It was the chance for these hawks to ‘pivot’ foreign policy back from Ukraine and Russia – to fully focus on China.
They make the case that Ukraine was ‘eating’ too much of America’s arms inventory. It was leaving America vulnerable; already, it would take years for the U.S. to make up for this equipment loss by reinstating weapons supply-lines. And there is ‘no time to spare’. The military ‘deterrence fence’ around China has to be in place – ASAP.
Naturally, the tight neo-con circle around Biden – some of whom have invested in the ‘Destroy Russia’ project for decades – is not ready to ‘let go’ the Ukraine project, for China.
Yet, the Ukraine narrative ‘bubble’ has been punctured, and has been leaking helium for some time. The Beltway – and even the MSM narrative – has pirouetted from ‘Russia losing’ to an ‘Ukrainian defeat is inevitable’. Indeed, Kiev is defeated, and is hanging by the slenderest of threads.
Olexii Arestovich, Zelensky’s senior adviser and former ‘spin doctor’ in the Presidential office, speaking in late January this year, was candid in his assessment:
“If everyone thinks that we are guaranteed to win the war, then it is very unlikely. Since January 14, it has ceased to be like this. What do you think, that the assessment from the President of Poland, Duda, not only did he say this about the decisive months. That it is generally unknown whether Ukraine will survive …
“The war may not end as the Ukrainians expect, and as a result, Ukraine may not return all its territories, and the West is ready to follow such a scenario … What will happen to the society that raised its expectations too high, but will receive a conditional Minsk-3? This recoil of unfulfilled expectations will hit us so hard – morally and everything else – that we will simply be stunned.
“The way out of this war may not be at all what it seemed to us three months ago, after the success of the Kherson operation. And not because the insidious Americans do not give weapons or delay, but because success requires 400 thousand of perfectly trained soldiers with NATO weapons to grind it all up and liberate the territories. Do we have it? No. Will it be next year? Will not be. There will not be enough training facilities…
“We as a society are not ready for such an outcome. I decided to say it as the expectation of the Russian side. But the most unpleasant thing is that in the West they think the same way, and we are totally dependent on them. What should the West do? The scenario of two Koreas. Create South Korea with guarantees”, Arestovich said, adding that with this option, Ukraine can get a lot of bonuses.
Put bluntly, if Biden is to avoid a repeat of the humiliating Afghan débacle, America needs urgently to to move-on before the 2024 Presidential calendar kicks-off this summer – with Ukraine/Russia sucking all the oxygen out from the coming economic debates.
But that is not what is happening. Victoria Nuland – who has been ‘capo’ in Kiev for a decade – is overseeing a purge: Unreliables are ‘out’, and pro-American radical Ukrainian hawks are ‘in’. It is a make-over of the Kiev mafia, which leaves Zelensky without friends – and wholly dependent on Washington. It looks to be preparation for the U.S. to attempt a double-down in Ukraine.
Seymour Hersh’s detailed article on the backdrop to the Nordstream pipeline sabotage by the U.S., on which Hersh worked for many months (though his assertions have been denied by the White House), tells us something highly significant.
All the familiar, anti-Russia neo-cons (Nuland, Sullivan and Blinken) were part of the Nordstream sabotage plot – but the impulse for it came from Biden. He led it. And just to be plain, Biden is just as emotionally invested in Ukraine as his team mates; it is likely that he too cannot ‘let go’ in Ukraine.
BUT, doubling down now, in Ukraine, won’t work for Biden. It would be highly reckless (although the Nordstream plot was nothing, if not reckless).
Doubling-down will not bring his hoped-for ‘win’, because its logic is based on an egregious mis-analysis.
Olexii Arestovich, Zelensky’s former ‘spin doctor’ and adviser, has described the circumstance of the Russian SMO first entry into Ukraine: It was conceived as a bloodless mission and should have passed without casualties, he says. “They tried to wage a smart war… Such an elegant, beautiful, lightning-fast special operation, where polite people, without causing any damage to either a kitten or a child, eliminated the few who resisted. They didn’t want to kill anyone: Just sign the renunciation”.
The point here is that what occurred was political miscalculation by Moscow – and not militaryfailure. The initial aim of the SMO didn’t work. No negotiations resulted. Yet from it flowed two major consequences: NATO controllers pounced on this interpretation to trumpet their pre-conceived bias that Russia was militarily weak, backward and stumbling. That misreading underlay how NATO perceived Russia would prosecute the war.
It was wholly incorrect. Russia is strong and has military predominance.
On the presumption of weakness, however, NATO switched plans from a planned guerrilla insurgency, to conventional war along the ‘Zelensky Defence Lines’ – thus opening the path for Russia’s artillery domination to attrit Ukraine’s forces to the point of entropy. It is an error that cannot be rectified. And to try it might just lead to WW3.
The Abrams M1 tank will not save Biden from débacle in the lead-up to the U.S. election debates:
“It was designed for the kind of tank-on-tank combat that hasn’t happened since WW2. It’s huge, expensive, full of sorts of electronics. And powered by a repurposed jet engine. It breaks down quickly and needs its own army of mechanics, runs out of gas quickly and at almost 70 tonnes, it is too heavy to cross most bridges and needs specialized bridge crossing equipment. And it sinks in the mud. The Saudis used Abrams tanks in Yemen – and lost 20 to the Houthis, not exactly the most sophisticated military force”.
So, how does this all pan out? Well, the fight is on – in Washington. The China hawks will try to wrench the U.S.’ full attention back to China. The Biden neo-cons may try for some escalatory tactic in Ukraine that makes war with Russia unstoppable.
However, the reality is that the Ukraine ‘Balloon’ is popped. Military and civilian circles in Washington know it. The ‘elephant in the room’ of inevitable Russian success is acknowledged (albeit, with the compulsion to avoid seeming ‘defeatist’ – that persists in certain quarters). They know too that the NATO (as ‘formidable force’) ‘balloon’ has popped. They know that the balloon of western industrial capacity to manufacture weapons – in sufficient quantity and over a long duration – has popped also.
The consequences are the risk of severe U.S. reputational damage, the longer the war persists. These circles do not want that. Perhaps they will conclude that Biden is not the man to lead the U.S. out of this blind alley – that he is the part of the problem, and not the solution. If so, he must be gone in good time for the Democrats to work out who they want to lead them into the 2024 Presidential election (no easy prospect).
They may sense too, that the 2024 campaign lines already are coalescing for the Republican Party, which has its own reading of the Ukraine débacle – ‘Let’s exit from Ukraine to confront China’ (with full bi-partisan support). This means firstly, that the thread of U.S. financial support for Ukraine – as Bill Burns (CIA chief) reportedly told Zelensky on his last visit – likely will taper this summer. And secondly, it hints that any bi-partisan support for further arming Kiev may be over by the time the primary season will be in full swing.
Bill Burns travelled (in secret) in mid-January to meet Zelensky. Was it to prepare Zelensky for a shift in the American stance? Burns, the long-standing U.S. quiet negotiator, is not party to the Nuland programme. The former said at Georgetown Universityin early February that “China remains the biggest geopolitical challenge the U.S. faces in the decades ahead, and the biggest priority for CIA”. His framing, ‘was not a bug, but the substance’ in his address.
Nuland may be planting U.S.-aligned hawks around Zelensky in order to continue the war, but there are other, wider interests within Washington. Financial circles are worried about a market collapse that could lead to the dollar haemorrhaging value. There are worries too, that the Ukraine war is contributing to a serious weakening of America’s standing in the world. And there are concerns that a reckless Team Biden could lose control and take the U.S. into a wider war with Russia.
In any event, time is short. The Election Calendar looms. Is Biden to be the Democratic candidate? Whether or not he will be a candidate in 2024 needs to be resolved before the early primaries to allow any successor to demonstrate his or her paces in good time.
In future, it will no longer be enough for the EU to censor and silence undesirable alternative media only in its own area of responsibility. The EU also wants to fight unwelcome opinions and competing media in the rest of the world.
To this end, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has announced that he intends to use alleged “disinformation experts” in EU offices around the world. Their task would be fighting Russian and Chinese spreaders of alleged “fake news”.
Borrell announced the deployment of official censors to this end: “All our delegations will be equipped with experts in countering disinformation in many parts of the world so that our voice is better heard.”
A particular thorn in the side of the EU is the Russian and Chinese media and their multipliers, for example on platforms such as Telegram.
More international solidarity with allies is also required here, said Borrell. “We need to address this issue politically at the highest level.” The EU and like-minded partners should create their own way of sharing data and analysis of foreign disinformation campaigns, but also work more with authorities around the world to ban competing voices.
Borrell did not give any specific information about what this should look like in the future and how the EU broadcasters should act against “fake news”. So far, the EU has not come up with anything other than censorship when it comes to unwanted competition but that could be difficult in foreign countries.
From the point of view of Borrell and the EU authorities there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the official narrative, and every expressed doubt will now be given a new label: “Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference”, abbreviated FIMI.
The unelected preach ‘democracy’
The EU Commission is not a democratic structure, its members are appointed, not elected, and most of them lack any understanding of democracy. EU Foreign Affairs Commissioner Josep Borrell could virtually serve as Exhibit A.
Not long ago, Ursula von der Leyen deleted her mobile phone communication with Pfizer about the purchase of millions of doses of a pharmaceutical preparation and while it raises the suspicion of corruption, this could be presented as FIMI simply because it was also reported by a Russian broadcaster.
Borrell’s grasp of the English language is at least as bad as that of Ursula von der Leyen’s. Yet both insist on proposing these far-reaching measures in English, no longer an EU language. Do they understand the subtleties of their proposal?
Ignoring facts
The Chinese state media, according to the EU report, “have reinforced selected pro-Kremlin conspiracy narratives, for example about alleged US military biorepositories in Ukraine”.
This is a clear example of how to dispose of truth or factual information as a criterion. These labs are not only found as budget items listed in the US defence budget (a document over which the Kremlin presumably exercises no control), but individual collaborations, such as the research projects of the Bernhard Nocht Institute or the Friedrich Löffler Institute with these Ukrainian labs, can also be found on their websites, as well as the financier of these projects, the German Ministry of Defence.
It must therefore be stated that these laboratories existed, that they were financed from the military budget and that the research was carried out on behalf of the military, and not only on behalf of the US. Nevertheless, the EU has declared the very existence of the labs to be a “conspiracy narrative”.
In connection with protests under the title #StopKillingDonbass, the EU report stated that it was “falsely claimed that the Armed Forces of Ukraine and ‘paramilitary units of neo-Nazis’ were committing atrocities against civilians, including children” while the Soros NGO Human Rights Watch recently actually admitted that Ukraine had distributed butterfly mines in Donetsk, an outlawed munition in residential areas.
According to their rationale, any “disinformation” accusation by FIMI does not have to take into account whether the statement is true, but only that it contradicts the EU narrative.
Therefore, the report noted: “The information disseminated by these networks does not have to be provably false or misleading to constitute a FIMI incident, which FIMI applies more broadly than the classic definition of disinformation.”
The US has turned to Islamist extremists to plan terrorist attacks in Russia and other ex-Soviet republics, Moscow’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said on Monday. A group is being trained at a base in Syria for the purpose, the agency claimed.
“The US military is actively recruiting militants from jihadist groups affiliated with Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] and Al-Qaeda to commit terrorist attacks in Russia and members of the Commonwealth of Independent States [CIS],” the SVR stated, citing “credible reports.”
Established after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the CIS incorporates some of its former republics, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
According to the SVR, the US has enlisted 60 terrorists who have already been active in the Middle East. They are undergoing training at the Al-Tanf American military base in Syria, where they are learning how to manufacture and use improvised explosive devices, it added.
“Particular attention is paid to planning attacks on well-protected facilities, including foreign diplomatic missions,” the agency stated. It added that Washington is aiming to “deploy the militants as part of small groups to the territory of Russia and the CIS states in near future.” They will then target “diplomats, public officials, law enforcement officers, and military personnel,” the SVR claimed.
“We see that US security agencies have lost all moral principles… Obsessed with the crazy idea of ‘bleeding Russia dry’, Washington strategists presume it is acceptable to directly use terrorists for their dirty purposes,” the agency said. It asserted that “such actions put Washington on a par with the largest international terrorist groups.”
In December, SVR Director Sergey Naryshkin claimed that the White House was pursuing policies to create an “instability belt along Russia’s external perimeter.” Naryshkin had previously stated that the security services in Russia and CIS countries have the common goal of “counteracting Western countries’ destructive actions on the territory of our states.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was treated like a hero when visiting Brussels on February 9. Although he received endless adulation, his lobbying to EU leaders for further military support mostly fell on deaf ears despite making an impassioned, but disingenuous plea that Ukraine is defending Europe’s eastern borders.
Zelensky visited London and Paris on his second foreign trip since the war began almost a year ago and hoped to secure modern fighter jets and long-range missiles. He then brought his circus show to Brussels to address EU leaders and MEPs directly. Unsurprisingly, Zelensky received cheers and a standing ovation in the European Parliament, yet, made no progress in convincing Brussels to allow Ukraine an express membership into the EU.
“We are defending against the most anti-European force of the modern world — we are defending ourselves, we Ukrainians on the battlefield, along with you,” Zelensky told MEPs.
However, despite the contradictory rhetoric emanating from European leaders, they are also fully aware that Russia will never attack without provocation. It is for this reason that they can make a show for Zelensky in Brussels, but will never commit to the extent that Kiev demands.
Although French President Emmanuel Macron awarded Zelensky with the National Order of the Legion of Honour, he also made it clear that he would not supply fighter jets to Kiev in the near future. Even though Zelensky has forced the supply of fighter jets into discourse, European leaders, including Macron, are less than enthusiastic as they are fully aware it would take several years to train Ukrainian pilots to be competent enough with an unfamiliar fighter jet to have any chance against the Russian Air Force. In addition, they understand that Russia will respond appropriately too.
Ignoring this reality, European Parliamentary speaker Roberta Metsola, declared: “Ukraine is Europe and your nation’s future is in the European Union. States must consider, quickly, as a next step, providing long-range systems and the jets you need to protect the liberty too many have taken for granted.”
Unfortunately for the European Parliament, they wield very little influence on state policies and enforcing support for Ukraine. Rather, with Zelensky seen in Western European capitals begging for more weapons, the whole exercise is a tasteless theatre to discuss supposed value systems – values that tolerate rampant neo-Nazism in Ukraine.
In this way, Zelensky is nothing more than an actor in a show to present supposed European unity on Ukraine. The uncomfortable truth is that unity in the Western world is forced and mostly just exists at a political level. With support for Ukraine being mostly maintained by the political class, public dissatisfaction caused by economic difficulties from the sanctions against Russia is growing.
With dissatisfaction growing, Macron is desperately wanting the war to end and for a peace conference to be held – but on terms that do not correspond to the realities on the battlefield and with aims of making Russia the ultimate loser.
At the trilateral meeting held on February 8 in the Elysée Palace with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Zelensky, Macron presented a proposal for organising a peace conference but, as said, on terms where Russia is the ultimate loser. Macron sees Kiev’s ten-point plan as a “solid foundation on the way to a peace conference” despite confirmation that Kiev is categorically refusing to negotiate on Russia’s unification with Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye and Kherson.
In addition, a peace conference can only occur if Washington and London agree to one since they are the real masters behind the war. Although Macron has grandiose illusions of becoming a second Charles de Gaulle to lead an “autonomous Europe,” his endless failed attempts to form a European Army and the cancellation of military contracts with Australia shows that he is far from the global and historic figure that he wants to be remembered as. It also demonstrates that Western power is still firmly in Anglo hands.
Rather, Macron’s initiative is media propaganda because the two most powerful states in the EU, France and Germany, want to legitimise themselves in the media as contributors to the peace process. It cannot be forgotten that France and Germany already mediated the signing of the Minsk Accords and that former German chancellor Angela Merkel admitted that the aforementioned agreements allowed the Ukrainian military to become stronger as it bought time.
Therefore, French and German mediation in the current crisis cannot be trusted, and for this reason it is unlikely that Moscow will ever entertain a peace conference under such ludicrous terms. It was French and German inaction in enforcing the Minsk Accords that led to the current conflict, and now that Russia has acted on the only option that was left available, Macron has the audacity to request a peace conference on the terms that Russia backs away from all the progress it made.
As this is unrealistic, the song and dance must continue, and Zelensky will continue playing the part. But in the end, the level of support that Zelensky wants is evidently not coming to fruition, and will likely remain this way, rendering his tour of Europe to be mostly useless.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
The American Medical Association (AMA) urges physicians to promote COVID-19 vaccines and bivalent boosters. The AMA even supplies members with social media talking points and strategies to deal with vaccine detractors. It is not the first time that my profession has endorsed a product that may be hazardous to your health.
For most of the 20th century, the AMA turned a blind eye toward the dangers of tobacco use. During the 1930s, 40s and 50s, tobacco companies paid handsomely to advertise cigarettes in AMA’s journal, JAMA. In a 1948 editorial minimizing the ill effects of smoking and justifying tobacco advertising in its publications, JAMA noted that “cigarette business is a tremendous business,” as if the size of the bottom line can mitigate a conflict for an organization founded for the “betterment of public health.”
The connection between smoking and lung cancer was recognized early in the century. At the same time, the AMA became increasingly dependent on money generated by tobacco sales. Tobacco companies sponsored meetings of medical societies, setting up their booths alongside exhibitions of the latest medical treatments. Free cartons were distributed at physician meetings. Cigarette makers even paid for publication of pseudoscientific reports claiming the health benefits of their products.
Doctors who opposed smoking faced ridicule from their colleagues. Dr. Alton Ochsner, a renowned surgeon and sentinel voice warning of the dangers of tobacco, began publishing on the connection between smoking and lung cancer in the early 1940s. His 1954 book Smoking and Cancer: A Doctor’s Report was negatively reviewed in prominent medical journals, characterized as a medieval model of logic that belongs in the nonscience section of a library. Prior to his appearance on Meet the Press, Dr. Ochsner was told he could not discuss the relationship between smoking and lung cancer on air.
Yet the mounting evidence was hard to ignore. In 1954, JAMA stopped accepting cigarette advertisements and published an editorial rebuking tobacco company advertising practices. But five years later, a JAMA editorial was still skeptical of the evidence linking smoking to cancer, and a 1961 Nebraska State Medical Journal editorial dismissed the evidence as merely “statistical.” Tobacco companies continued to sponsor state medical meetings as late as 1969. By then most people were aware of the dangers of smoking.
In 1964, the Surgeon General concluded that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer and other life-limiting health conditions. The next year, a warning label was required on packages of cigarettes. By 1971, the government banned cigarette advertisements on television and radio. Instead of taking the lead against an obvious threat to public health, the AMA asked for time and money to study the effects of tobacco.
Between 1964 and 1976, the AMA received more than $20 million from the tobacco industry to fund research. Instead of using the money for smoking cessation programs, many of the funded studies focused on ways to make a safer cigarette. To keep money flowing into its Education and Research Foundation the AMA delayed, stating in a confidential 1971 report that, “AMA is not prepared to make any statement regarding termination of the smoking-health research program.” The report went on to complain that tobacco companies are “in arrears on 1970 contributions.” The dependency on tobacco money created a political alliance between doctors and cigarette makers as their lobbyists joined forces in Washington.
The delay benefitted tobacco sales and maintained the AMA’s “research” payments, but it angered Dr. Ochsner, who accused the AMA of being derelict. The AMA called Dr. Ochsner’s position “extreme.” But name-calling could not stall the inevitable conclusion any longer. In 1978 the AMA finally agreed with what most people had already realized: smoking causes lung cancer, and many other health problems. The romance with big tobacco was over.
Or was it?
As late as 1982, JAMA publications were warned to steer clear of “politically sensitive” topics like tobacco use. After most of a century of being on the tobacco dole, the AMA could not make a clean break. The AMA portfolio contained investments in tobacco companies until the late 1990s.
In 1998, the tobacco industry settled lawsuits filed by state governments with a massive Master Settlement Agreement. In exchange for perpetual annual payments and tight regulatory control, the tobacco industry could continue to sell its products protected from future lawsuits brought by participating states and jurisdictions.
But who really benefitted from the Tobacco Settlement? Only 2.6 percent of the money has been used for smoking prevention and cessation programs. Some states have used the tobacco money to fill budget gaps. South Carolina gave money to tobacco farmers affected by a drop in prices. Altria Group, a global tobacco company, is on the US News & World Report 10 best-performing stocks list. Altria, Phillip Morris, and British American Tobacco have all grown annual dividends consecutively since the settlement. According to Dr. Ed Anselm, “The most addictive thing about tobacco is money.”
Tobacco use remains the number one preventable cause of death in the United States. In the first fifty years after the Surgeon General’s 1964 report, more than 20 million Americans died of smoking. How many of these deaths would have been prevented if doctors had not been conflicted by financial entanglements with the tobacco industry?
The New York State Journal of Medicine published a retrospective of tobacco’s relationship to medicine in its December 1983 issue. Flipping through the pages is enlightening. Surrounding the articles describing the greed and politics of Big Tobacco are advertisements from medicine’s new love—Big Pharma. Doctors have exchanged one bedfellow for another.
By endorsing irrelevant COVID-19 vaccines and poorly tested bivalent boosters, the AMA is pushing a product without concern for its potential negative health effects. Like before, the medical profession lags behind public opinion. According to recent Rasmussen Reports, 7 percent of vaccinated individuals report a major side effect, and nearly half of Americans believe that COVID-19 vaccines have caused unexplained deaths, about the same proportion who believed that smoking caused cancer in the 1960s while the AMA was studying the issue.
A conflicted profession cannot honestly evaluate data. Nowadays, the pharmaceutical business is a tremendous business. An organization benefitting from product sales cannot be trusted to evaluate that product.
If doctors could not recognize the health dangers of tobacco for most of the last century, why should we trust them when they say novel vaccines are safe and effective?
Kevin Homer, MD has practiced anatomic and clinical pathology at a community hospital in Texas since 1994.
This essay goes to the matter of Kosovo; where the Western states (NATO & the EU) have determined Serbia is not fit to govern a minority (of ethnic Albanians) on their own (Serbian) territory but the now purported (by the West) independent Kosovo is fit to govern a minority (of ethnic Serbs.)
The EU position seems to embrace an attitude of ‘never mind the inconvenient fact’ that recent Kosovo ‘leaders’ are being arrested and delivered to international tribunal for crimes against ethnic Serbs (includes organ harvesting), also not to mention what amounts to mere ‘lip service’ (no concrete action or enforcement) concerning the repatriation of 250,000 Serbs driven from Kosovo in an ethnic Albanian engineered cleansing pogrom following the NATO bombing of Serbia.
Insofar as an EU repatriation precedent, Croatia’s ethnic cleansing of Srpska Krajina shows the dishonesty of the EU position; there is no realistic expectation (and never was) by the European Union that the 200,000 Serbs expelled from this (formerly) Serb majority region would be allowed to return to Croatia and their homes. Meanwhile Croatia had been admitted to the European Union.
So, in the context of Serbs are not trustworthy to govern an ethnic minority of Albanians but Albanians are trustworthy to govern a minority of Serbs, the EU de facto embraces (actual outcomes, not political postures) just the sort of ethnic cleansing the NATO bombing was supposed to stop? … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 
