Amid tens of thousands of lawsuits that are pending in state courts all across the U.S., a new report based on evidence discovered in these court cases reveals Big Pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) had, for decades, concealed evidence showing that Zantac could cause cancer.
According to Bloomberg Businessweek, GSK — then known as Glaxo — had been aware of cancer-causing risks with ranitidine, the drug which was marketed as Zantac, even before it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1983. These warnings came from independent researchers but also from Glaxo scientists.
Within five years, Zantac, used to treat or relieve heartburn, acid indigestion and gastric ulcers, became the world’s best-selling medicine and was one of the first to surpass $1 billion in annual sales, according to Reuters. GSK later sold the drug to Pfizer — and Zantac was then sold to Boehringer Ingelheim and finally Sanofi.
In 2019, an online pharmacy detected high levels of a potent carcinogen, NDMA, in Sanofi and its generic equivalents. This led to recalls, followed by a formal FDA withdrawal of the drug in 2020.
This decision was made based on “research showing the amount of NDMA in the products increases the longer the drug is stored and could potentially become unsafe,” Reuters reported, with Fierce Pharma adding that this problem was identified “even under normal storage conditions.”
According to the Bloomberg Businessweek report, the storage issues came in addition to the known risk that “under certain conditions in the stomach, ranitidine could form a potentially dangerous compound” that could cause cancer.
All four aforementioned pharmaceutical companies are now facing tens of thousands of lawsuits in state courts throughout the U.S. “Plaintiffs said the companies knew, or should have known, that ranitidine posed a cancer risk and that they failed to warn consumers,” reports Reuters.
According to Reuters, “While NDMA is found in low levels in food and water, it is known to cause cancer in larger amounts.” Zantac, accordingly, has been linked “to at least 10 types of cancer” in lawsuits that have been filed, including bladder, esophageal, liver, pancreatic and stomach cancers.
GSK continues to claim that there is “no consistent or reliable evidence” that Zantac caused cancer.
What is NDMA?
According to Bloomberg Businessweek, “NDMA, which is short for N-Nitrosodimethylamine, is a yellow liquid that dissolves in water. It doesn’t have an odor or much of a taste.” It is most toxic to the liver, and “was first linked to cancer in 1956.”
It adds that “The carcinogen, called NDMA, was once added to rocket fuel and is now used only to induce cancer in lab rats.”
The same report notes that NDMA is “one of a group of chemicals called nitrosamines, which by the 1970s were considered the most potent carcinogens yet discovered. They caused cancer in every species of animal tested. A single dose of less than a milligram of NDMA can mutate mice cells and stimulate tumors, and 2 grams can kill a person in days.”
According to USA Today, drawing on FDA data, “Nitrosamines are found in water, cured and grilled meats, dairy products and vegetables” and studies have found that they lead to “increased cancer risk if people are exposed to large amounts over long periods of time.”
Stephen Hecht, Ph.D., a professor of cancer prevention at the University of Minnesota, told USA Today that food safety experts have made efforts to reduce nitrosamine levels in foods such as cured meats to far below the levels of the 1970s and 1980s.
Bloomberg Businessweek states that “Every public-health agency, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the FDA to the World Health Organization, says NDMA likely causes cancer in humans.”
The FDA has placed limits on six types of nitrosamines, reports USA Today, equaling “up to one case of cancer per 100,000 people exposed to the contaminant.”
However, the drugs that were recalled and ultimately pulled from the market far exceeded these limits, with estimates of a risk of one cancer case for every 3,000 to 8,000 patients, according to USA Today.
The withdrawal of Zantac and its generic versions resulted in tens of thousands of lawsuits that are still pending — and a process of discovery that has unearthed significant evidence revealing that Glaxo and regulatory bodies were long aware of the presence of NDMA in these medications.
Discovery reveals that Glaxo, regulators continuously ignored NDMA cancer risk
Bloomberg Businessweek reviewed “thousands of pages” of documents, including those arising from the discovery process in the ongoing lawsuits against GSK and other drugmakers, as well as scientific studies, to develop its story, discovering that GSK supported “flawed research” that skewed the narrative away from Zantac’s risks.
As stated in the Bloomberg Businessweek report: “Proving that a particular person’s cancerous cells were mutated by a company’s drug is complicated. Glaxo’s decisions suggest it never wanted to consider that possibility. The clues were there. The documents show that Glaxo preferred not to find them.”
The report continued:
“From ranitidine’s beginning to its end, Glaxo had been warned by its own scientists and independent researchers about the potential danger. An account of those four decades emerges in hundreds of documents, thousands of pages, many of which have never been made public.
“Bloomberg Businessweek reviewed court filings, many still under seal, as well as studies, FDA transcripts and new drug applications obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests. They show that the FDA considered the cancer risks when approving ranitidine. But Glaxo didn’t share a critical study.
“Over the years, the company also backed flawed research designed to minimize concerns and chose not to routinely transport and store the medication in ways that could have eased the problem. Glaxo sold a drug that might harm people, tried to discount evidence of that and never gave anyone the slightest warning.”
The report presents evidence indicating that Glaxo — and later GSK — were aware that NDMA could be present in Zantac, both as a result of how it was metabolized in the human stomach and also by naturally occurring even under ordinary storage conditions.
According to the report, ranitidine was first developed by Glaxo scientists in the 1970s, and a U.S. patent for it was granted in 1978. As stated by the report, the process of developing ranitidine and getting it approved was swift.
“They developed ranitidine quickly, and the US Food and Drug Administration reviewed it quickly. Glaxo gave it the brand name Zantac,” said Bloomberg Businessweek. It was soon marketed as being “better and safer” than the leading heartburn drug at the time, Tagamet.
However, the warning signs were already there. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, a U.S. government cancer researcher and biochemist, William Lijinsky, had found in 1969 that nitrosamines could form in the stomach, exacerbated by the presence of nitrites, “a common chemical found in cured and grilled meat and in beer and coffee and vegetables” found to be “common causes of heartburn and acid reflux.”
Lijinsky’s solution to this, presented in published studies and in Congressional testimony in the 1970s, was to limit sodium nitrite levels in food. Already, by the late 1970s, Lijinsky identified roadblocks that were not allowing his warnings to be fully heeded.
“It seems to me that the regulatory agencies have been less than eager to act in the matter of nitrites and nitrosamines,” he testified before Congress in 1977. “There has been ample information available, if they had sought it. There is, of course, immense opposition by the manufacturing companies to any change.”
According to Lijinsky’s wife, Rosalie Lijinsky, herself a genetic toxicologist who recently retired from the FDA, William lost federal funding for his research due to pressure from both the food and pharmaceutical industries.
Nevertheless, the warning signs continued to build up. A 1980 report titled “Glaxo, Ranitidine—Cause for Concern,” found that ranitidine could potentially form a potentially dangerous, and cancerous, compound in the stomach.
Glaxo, which was seeking FDA approval for Zantac, prepared for “defensive action” to protect itself from the report’s findings. The Bloomberg Businessweek story noted that Glaxo’s board never tested ranitidine to see if it might form a nitrosamine compound.
In a 1981 trial in Britain, 11 healthy men who were administered a daily two-dose regimen of ranitidine for four weeks developed more nitrite in their digestive system — meaning that conditions were favorable for the formation of nitrosamines.
These results were deemed inconclusive by Glaxo scientists, who said that “Ranitidine is recommended only for short-term use” — even though most Zantac users took the drug “for months, sometimes years, even decades,” according to Bloomberg Businessweek.
Another 1981 study, published in The Lancet by Italian scientist Silvio De Flora, Ph.D., found that when ranitidine was mixed with nitrite, it led to “toxic and mutagenic effects.” De Flora later suggested that the consumption of Zantac occur long before or after a meal. However, says Bloomberg Businessweek, “instructions for taking Zantac to prevent heartburn would recommend using it close to mealtime.”
De Flora, who told Bloomberg Businessweek that “Pharmaceutical companies do not like this kind of study,” said he was quickly approached by Glaxo executives, who then published a follow-up letter in The Lancet attempting to downplay De Flora’s findings.
A 1982 study, which infamously became known as the “Tanner study,” also found danger. Specifically, this study, conducted by scientist Richard Tanner of rival drugmaker Smith, Kline & French, found that ranitidine when combined with different concentrations of nitrite, formed a cancerous poison that was soon named NDMA.
According to Bloomberg Businessweek, “back in 1982, court documents show, Glaxo kept the study secret. The associate director of clinical research in the U.S. was never told about the Tanner report. The senior medical adviser for gastrointestinal research was unaware of it. So was the FDA.”
At the same time, reports Bloomberg Businessweek, “Glaxo also knew of another potentially serious problem with ranitidine. It wasn’t always stable. The drug was sensitive to heat and humidity, and when exposed to too much of either could degrade … That creates conditions for NDMA to form in the drug itself.”
However, later in 1982, Glaxo officials did not reveal this knowledge to a panel of FDA officials and independent researchers. “The Glaxo scientists disputed the idea that ranitidine could form a nitrosamine under any normal human conditions,” according to Bloomberg Businessweek.
By May 1983, the FDA had approved Zantac in a rapid process — and by 1989, it “was worth $2 billion. It accounted for half of Glaxo’s sales and 53% of the market for prescription ulcer remedies.”
However, problems persisted. In the early 1990s, it was found that the pills were not stable and were changing color while in storage. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, “Discoloration is often a sign that tablets are degrading. In some cases, degradation can cause dangerous impurities to form.”
However, Glaxo’s solution was to change the color of the pills. At this time, the company was seeking FDA approval for a less potent over-the-counter version of Zantac. This approval came in the spring of 1996.
Nevertheless, issues with discoloration persisted into the last decade. In 2010, Zantac was “tested for impurities that were known to cause … yellow discoloration.” Although, according to Bloomberg Businessweek, “NDMA used in labs is yellow,” no tests were conducted for this particular substance.
Similarly, when a manufacturing site in China identified problems with “discolored and degraded Zantac tablets” in 2015, GSK sought to downplay the issue, while no testing for NDMA was conducted. Instead, “inappropriate storage” was blamed.
During this period, GSK was fined by regulators in the U.S. and China, but not over Zantac specifically. In 2012, GSK pled guilty and was fined $3 billion “for marketing drugs for inappropriate uses, disregarding safety data and cheating Medicaid,” according to the Bloomberg Businessweek report.
And in 2014, “China fined GSK $500 million and deported a top executive for bribing doctors to prescribe its drugs.”
Issues with Zantac did not come to a head until September 2019, when the FDA received a document from Valisure, an independent laboratory, which, according to Bloomberg Businessweek, “had found extremely high levels of NDMA in Zantac and several generic versions of ranitidine.”
Valisure conducted these tests after NDMA had been found in batches of the blood pressure medication valsartan the previous year. Bloomberg Businessweek reports that Valisure “found NDMA in every version of ranitidine it tested and concluded the problem was inherent to the molecule itself.”
Although the FDA issued an alert, it also questioned Valisure’s testing methods and conducted its own tests. “Within a month,” says Bloomberg Businessweek, “at least two dozen countries pulled ranitidine from stores or halted its distribution.” GSK stopped distributing the drug, as did Sanofi.
Ultimately, in April 2020, ranitidine was banned by the FDA. The agency found that “NDMA levels increase in ranitidine even under normal storage conditions … And NDMA has been found to increase significantly in samples stored at higher temperatures, including temperatures the product may be exposed to during distribution and handling by consumers.”
However, says Bloomberg Businessweek, the FDA has not shared specifics in any published paper about what its tests detected. Instead, these findings were revealed “during a monthly lecture series called FDA Grand Rounds,” in October 2021: one tablet of ranitidine contained “almost four times the FDA’s limit in any drug” when initially tested.
Nevertheless, in June 2021, the FDA said there were “no consistent signals” that Zantac increases cancer risk and that such links that were found in outside research papers were not conclusive. Bloomberg Businessweek says this “is now a regular part of Glaxo’s public-relations and, presumably, legal defense.”
A statement provided by GSK to Fierce Pharma in response to the Bloomberg Businessweek article says it “presents an incomplete and biased presentation of the facts surrounding the Zantac (ranitidine) litigation.”
“Patient safety is the highest priority for GSK, and the company categorically refutes any allegation of having covered up data regarding the safety of ranitidine,” the statement adds. “The safety of ranitidine has been thoroughly evaluated over the past 40 years.”
Thousands of Zantac-related lawsuits pending despite setbacks
The Bloomberg Businessweek report states that “More than 70,000 people who took Zantac or generic versions of it are suing the company in U.S. state courts for selling a potentially contaminated and dangerous drug,” with the first of these trials set to begin later this month in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.
Other companies that sold Zantac, including Pfizer, Sanofi and generic manufacturers, are also facing lawsuits.
There have been some setbacks for plaintiffs, however. According to the Bloomberg Businessweek report, a December 2022 ruling, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, “dismissed thousands of federal lawsuits that had been consolidated in her courtroom for pretrial proceedings.”
U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg found there is “no widespread acceptance in the scientific community of an observable, statistically significant association between ranitidine and cancer.” Lawyers for the plaintiffs plan to appeal.
GSK is hanging its hat on this ruling, according to Bloomberg Businessweek. In a statement, Kathleen Quinn, a spokesperson for the company, said, “The court’s view is consistent with the position that GSK and other co-defendants have taken throughout this litigation.”
And in a statement following the Florida federal court ruling, GSK said it was glad that “unreliable and litigation-driven science did not enter the federal courtroom.”
Fierce Pharma reports that following this ruling, not just GSK but “Pfizer, GSK, Sanofi and Boehringer Ingelheim are now able to wash their hands of thousands of Zantac-related lawsuits,” as about 50,000 claims were taken “off the drugmakers’ plates.”
And according to Law360, on Feb. 7, the same Florida judge issued a new ruling which will not allow tens of thousands of Zantac lawsuits to be combined.
This ruling was made on the basis that the lawsuits in question had signed up for “court-created registry of claims in the multidistrict legislation” that was “abandoned” following the December 2022 decision.
In this new ruling, Judge Rosenberg also provided some insights into the appeals that were filed against the December 2022 decision, stating that “claimants in the registry are still now required to file their cases individually in federal court in order for their claims to be considered timely,” according to Law360.
However, as reported by Bloomberg Businessweek, “GSK does still have to fight the tens of thousands of cases waiting in state courts, where judges aren’t bound by the federal court’s ruling,” adding that “GSK could face years of lawsuits in California, Delaware and other states, with the possibility of billions in damages.”
Law360 reported Jan. 26 that despite the December 2022 Florida ruling, “New York’s Litigation Coordinating Panel on Thursday consolidated more than 40” Zantac lawsuits. Attorneys from Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, one of the firms representing plaintiffs in the lawsuits, described this as “a welcome alternative” to the Florida multidistrict litigation.
In the forthcoming Alameda County court case, GSK “is expected to urge” the court “to limit what expert testimony jurors can hear,” reports Reuters.
The plaintiff in that case, James Goetz, says he developed bladder cancer from taking Zantac over a period of many years. According to Bloomberg Businessweek :
“Goetz was 60 in 2017 when he was diagnosed with bladder cancer. That in and of itself wasn’t too unusual; 60 is about the age this particular cancer is often diagnosed in men. Smokers get bladder cancer, but Goetz hadn’t smoked since he was 22. His job hadn’t exposed him to any potentially harmful chemicals. It was perplexing, but he had no reason to think his getting cancer was anything other than random.
“When Zantac was recalled, he kept four bottles he’d already purchased. They’re in the freezer in the office of one of his attorneys, Brent Wisner, as are leftover pills from Russell. Tests showed that one of Goetz’s pills is contaminated with 3,000ng of NDMA, Wisner says; one of Russell’s has more than twice as much. Wisner says he’s invited GSK to test the tablets, but the company hasn’t done so.”
Goetz’s cancer has returned in aggressive form, necessitating surgery and dialysis. His bladder and prostate were removed, along with 20 feet of his intestines. He later suffered sepsis, kidney stones and kidney failure. His lawsuits against Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer and Sanofi were settled in December 2022, but his GSK case continues.
Depositions taken during the discovery process, brought to the public eye by Bloomberg Businessweek, have been revealing. A former senior medical adviser to Glaxo, when asked during a June 2021 deposition whether Glaxo had ever tested for the presence of NDMA in Zantac, answered, “Not to my knowledge.”
In a May 2022 deposition, Andrew Whitehead, who had been director of second-generation research and development for the company, testified that “it would have been known in the ‘80s as part of the development” of Zantac that ranitidine would degrade in high temperature conditions.
And a May 2021 deposition, Fred Eshelman, formerly Glaxo’s associate director of clinical research when Zantac was developed, agreed with a lawyer for the plaintiffs that “it is completely unheard of in the industry to go that fast” — referring to the clinical development of ranitidine.
More drugs under scrutiny for potential presence of nitrosamines
As the lawsuits against the former manufacturers of Zantac continue, increased scrutiny of medications for the potential presence of nitrosamines has followed.
USA Today reports that the FDA “has asked drugmakers to evaluate all products for any risk they might contain nitrosamines,” adding that “Companies that identify any such risk must conduct follow-up testing, report changes and take action” by Oct. 1.
“We continue to closely evaluate this type of impurity and will continue to investigate and monitor the marketplace and manufacturing efforts to help ensure the availability of safe, quality products for U.S. consumers,” stated FDA spokesman Jeremy Kahn.
According to USA Today, in recent years, several drugs have been recalled due to the presence of nitrosamines, including diabetes medication metformin, anti-smoking medication Chantix, and blood pressure, heart and kidney medications losartan, quinapril (sold as Accupril) and valsartan.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
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 18, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Timeless or most popular | United States |
1 Comment
Immunity acquired from past COVID-19 infection provides strong, lasting protection against severe outcomes from the illness at a level “as high if not higher” than that provided by mRNA vaccines, according to a study published Thursday in The Lancet.
Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 65 studies worldwide, providing overwhelming evidence to support what many scientists, doctors and studies have said since early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The Lancet is finally acknowledging what doctors and scientists have been gaslit for saying for years — that natural immunity provides superior protection to experimental vaccines,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief litigation counsel for Children’s Health Defense.
“Only the tsunami of propaganda and censorship from the pharma/government biosecurity cartel and the controlled media persuaded the public that Pfizer and Moderna were better at protecting the human immune system than God and evolution,” he added.
The study found that immunity acquired from infection was often far more robust and consistently waned more slowly than the immunity from two doses of an mRNA vaccine.
The researchers found that natural immunity was at least 88.9% effective against severe disease, hospitalization and death for all COVID-19 variants 10 months after infection.
It also provided 78.6% protection against reinfection for all variants except omicron BA.1, for which protection was 45.3%.
At an October 2022 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting, the CDC presented data showing that vaccine-acquired immunity after two or three injections dropped to zero six months after injection, and then became negative.
The Lancet study stated that “although protection from reinfection from all variants wanes over time, our analysis of the available data suggests that the level of protection afforded by previous infection is at least as high, if not higher than that provided by two-dose vaccination using high-quality mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech).”
The study was funded in part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Authors included Dr. Christopher Murray, director of The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, the Gates-funded institute that was “largely responsible for the notoriously exaggerated mortality calculations that overestimated COVID deaths by 20-fold at the COVID pandemic’s outset,” according to Kennedy.
The authors argued, based on their findings, that natural immunity should be recognized along with vaccines when authorities are considering restricting travel, access to venues and work based on immunization status.
Commenting on these conclusions, Dr. Meryl Nass, internist and epidemiologist, said:
“While framing this as an acknowledgment that natural immunity confers protection, what it is also doing is providing tacit agreement that government-imposed policies restricting travel are acceptable. It furthermore provides tacit approval of vaccine passports.”
The ‘cartel’s’ war on natural immunity
In October 2020, The Lancet published an article — “Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now” — by authors including CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, which was widely covered in the mainstream press. They stated that “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection” and that “the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future.”
But in November 2021, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request forced the CDC to admit that it didn’t even collect data on natural immunity.
Then, in January 2022, the CDC was compelled to revise its position on natural immunity, acknowledging in a report that natural immunity against COVID-19 was at least three times as effective as vaccination at preventing people from becoming infected with the Delta variant.
The pharmaceutical companies were also aware of the benefits of naturally acquired immunity, although they suppressed that information, documents revealed.
In October 2021, Project Veritas exposed three Pfizer officials saying that antibodies lead to equal if not better protection against the virus compared to the vaccine, The Defender reported.
Later, in April 2022, Pfizer documents held by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and released under court order confirmed Pfizer knew natural immunity was as effective as the company’s COVID-19 vaccine at preventing severe illness, journalist Kim Iversen reported.
Most recently, the Twitter files revealed that a Pfizer board member who used to head the FDA lobbied Twitter to take action against a post accurately pointing out that natural immunity is superior to COVID-19 vaccination, The Epoch Times reported.
FOIA requests also revealed that Dr. Anthony Fauci and his boss, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, colluded to suppress the Great Barrington Declaration, which argues that natural immunity plays an important role in mitigating public harm from COVID-19, The Defender reported.
The vaccines are failing, which means we need more vaccines
Media that reported on the study, including NBC, ABC and U.S. News & World Report, continue to advocate for vaccination as the more important way to protect against severe disease and death from COVID-19.
This is despite the fact that even vaccine advocates Bill Gates and Fauci admitted that COVID-19 vaccines perform poorly.
In a paper published last month in Cell Host and Microbe, Fauci and his co-authors confirmed that the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses, including influenza, coronaviruses, respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, and common colds “have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines.”
They concluded, “Durably protective vaccines against non-systemic mucosal respiratory viruses with high mortality rates have thus far eluded vaccine development efforts.”
Nass said that while it is quite significant for The Lancet to publish these findings about natural immunity, the authors’ framing, like the admissions by Gates and Fauci, “is intended to quietly, without apology, veer away from current COVID vaccines, while implying that more money is needed to develop new types of vaccines. No one made any mistakes. No one accepts any blame. Chris Murray never erred with his outlandish estimates. No, just send money and let us do the science.”
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
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 18, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Gates Foundation |
Leave a comment
Pfizer enrolled 44,000 people across 270 clinical sites in the phase 3 clinical trials for the Pfizer/BioNTech Comirnaty vaccine. The largest of these sites by far was number 1231 in Buenos Aires, under the direction of the pediatric infectious diseases specialist Fernando Polack. The Argentine operation appears to have been plagued by substantial irregularities and is the subject of an ongoing inquiry by the Argentinian parliament.
Yesterday, Welt reporter Elke Bodderas published a report shedding further light on what appear to be systematic efforts to cover up or reclassify adverse events among trial participants.
The centrepiece of their reporting is patient number 12312982, a 36 year-old Buenos Aires resident named Augusto Roux, who participated in the vaccine arm of the trial and experienced significant adverse reactions following both doses of the vaccine. His most severe symptoms followed the second jab; they included shortness of breath, nausea, fever and darkened urine, and required hospitalisation. Throughout both sets of reactions, he tested negative for Covid. A trial doctor judged his symptoms very likely to be an adverse reaction to vaccination, and there are compelling reasons to think he suffered pericarditis. Roux promptly dropped out of the trial, and his lawyers succeeded in gaining access to internal Pfizer records his case. These reveal that Buenos Aires researchers recorded Roux as testing positive for Covid following dose 1, despite multiple negative PCR tests. To cover for his September hospitalisation, meanwhile, they listed him as suffering from a “severe anxiety attack.”
Welt finds other irregularities in data from the the Argentine clinical site as well. Following the first dose at the end of August, they removed 53 trial participants; internal documents give nothing but vague, contradictory excuses for the purge. Following the second dose, Buenos Aires researchers removed a further 200 participants – two-thirds of all removals across the entire trial.
Irregularities appear to extend beyond the shady Buenos Aires operation. As a friend notes on Twitter, the fact that there were more deaths in the vaccine than the placebo arm of the Pfizer trial has always been considered an awkward coincidence by the fact checkers. Upon closer examination, though, it begins to look like deaths from severe vaccine injuries were actually what put the vaccine arm over the top:
[Pharmacology expert and head of the “Data Based Medicine” network and the vaccine injury support organisation React-19] David Healy has … questions about the trial beyond the Augusto Roux case and other events at Buenos Aires. He wonders about a total of 21 vaccine group deaths that are said to be “not due to vaccination.” In at least two of these deaths, this conclusion doesn’t seem to be fully justified. WELT has documents showing that patient No. 11621327 was found dead in his home three days after the second dose, apparently a stroke. Patient No. 11521497 died 20 days after vaccination, diagnosed with cardiac arrest. “According to the current understandings, these two cases would be attributed to vaccination,” says Berlin-based pharmaceutical specialist Susanne Wagner, “especially since the US health authority CDC is currently investigating strokes in vaccinated people and it is known that blood clots can trigger sudden deaths following vaccination.”
In response to Welt inquiries, Pfizer responded that “Regulatory authorities around the world have approved our Covid-19 vaccine. These approvals are based on a robust and independent assessment of the scientific data on quality, safety, and efficacy, including the phase 3 clinical trial.” Thomas Mertens, head of the German vaccine regulator STIKO, demanded clarification from Pfizer, while the Berlin Charité immunologist Andreas Radbruch suggested the pharmaceutical should be sanctioned to preserve faith in vaccination and trust in regulators.
I doubt very much that will happen.
February 18, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine |
1 Comment
Government officials in Tel Aviv have expressed their dismay after the Israeli delegation was kicked out of the African Union (AU) summit in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa on 18 February, allegedly at the request of Algeria and South Africa.
“Israel views seriously the incident in which the deputy for Africa, Ambassador Sharon Bar-Li, was removed from the African Union hall despite her status as an accredited observer with access badges,” said foreign ministry spokesperson Lior Hayat.
Hayat blamed Iran for the delegation’s expulsion, lamenting that “the African Union has been taken hostage by a small number of extremist countries such as Algeria and South Africa, driven by hatred and controlled by Iran.”
An AU official who spoke with AFP said that the Israeli official who was escorted out by security was not invited to attend the meeting, as the non-transferable invitation was issued to Israel’s ambassador to the AU, Aleli Admasu.
“It is regrettable that the individual in question would abuse such a courtesy,” the official said.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s spokesman Vincent Magwenya, meanwhile, told AFP that Israel “must substantiate their claim” about Pretoria’s alleged involvement in the incident.
Israel’s accreditation to the 55-member bloc has become a contentious issue for many member states.
The 2021 decision by African Union Commission chief Moussa Faki Mahamat triggered a rare dispute within a body that values consensus, with powerful member states who have suffered from apartheid and colonization, notably South Africa, loudly protesting the move.
Algeria also protested the move, arguing that it contradicted AU statements of support for the Palestinian territories.
Last year’s AU summit suspended a debate on whether to withdraw Israel’s accreditation and established a committee to address the issue.
Following Tel Aviv’s accreditation in 2021, the Palestinian resistance group Hamas strongly condemned the decision, describing it as “shocking and reprehensible.”
“The decision would legitimize the presence of the occupying Israeli regime on our lands and would give it more chances to press ahead with its plans to deny Palestinians their rights and to continue its brutal crimes against them,” the movement said in a statement.
They also called on African states, which it said “still suffer from the yoke of colonialism and racism,” to “expel” Israel from the pan-African bloc and to slap it with sanctions “until it acquiesces in truth and justice.”
February 18, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video | Africa, Israel, Zionism |
1 Comment
CBS joins the chorus of mainstream media outlets promoting the false narrative that covid is the cause of a sharp increase in excess heart failure deaths around the world. The concept of “covid heart” has been thoroughly debunked by multiple studies, yet the lie continues to persist because of media disinformation.
An early report that set in motion fears of a Covid-heart disease connection was published in JAMA Cardiology on July 27, 2020. German researchers claimed that 78% of recently recovered Covid-19 patients had “abnormal” signs on their cardiac magnetic resonance scans and 60% showed signs of inflamed heart muscle, a condition known as myocarditis. Those astonishing numbers were covered in nearly 400 news outlets. The report has so far been viewed more than 900,000 times — a rarity for academic papers.
Soon after its publication, however, the paper was criticized for statistical and methodologic errors. It eventually underwent a long but much quieter correction that indicated that many of the abnormalities were only marginally more common among those recovering from Covid-19 than among similar control individuals who had not had Covid-19.
The assertion of the existence of covid heart serves a useful purpose, however, as it conveniently helps to distract from the very real threat of myocarditis caused by mRNA vaccines. Studies show a direct connection between covid vaccination, boosters, and risk of heart failure, specifically in younger people. The corporate media continues to ignore these studies in favor of the covid heart claim.
The CBS report presents a correlation as proof of causation: The explosion in heart failure happened in parallel with the pandemic, therefore, they say it “must be covid” that is causing the damage. But there was one other event that also happened in parallel with the heart failure spike – The introduction of experimental mRNA vaccines which have never been used before.
In reality, there is no evidence of a significant increase in risk of heart problems from contraction of covid, and there are no studies yet that use unvaccinated people as a control group to determine if vaccines help or hurt a patient’s chances. Medical officials simply assume that the deaths of younger people are due to them being “less likely” to have been vaccinated. The complete absence of objective scientific analysis has contributed to a lack of understanding surrounding covid risks versus vaccine risks. Mainstream outlets have consistently proven they are only interested in repeating establishment positions and protecting the status quo.
Why don’t medical authorities use unvaccinated people as a control group for their observations? Why do they continue to promote assumptions rather than definitive evidence? One can only theorize, but this behavior suggests a desire to hide certain findings and mislead the public rather than uncover the facts.
February 18, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine |
1 Comment
An Israeli-linked oil tanker was attacked one week ago by Iranian forces, BBC Persia reported on Friday 17 February.
Though not initially reported, the Liberia-flagged “Campo Square” oil tanker was attacked on 10 February, and is owned by Zodiac Maritime, a shipping company led by Israeli billionaire Eyal Ofer.
According to US military sources, Iran used Shahed-136 suicide drones from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as well as naval vessels from the elite force in the Persian Gulf.
Senior Israeli security officials confirmed the report and suggested the Iranian attack was an attempt at revenge for attacks attributed to Israel against Iran.
Iran has accused Israel of attacking a number of sensitive military and nuclear sites in the past few years.
No casualties were reported and the damage to the tanker was allegedly not significant.
However, on 14 February, Iranian state media reported that Iran had killed two Israeli officers in retaliation for a 29 January sabotage attack in Isfahan.
According to report by Iranian state media, an Israeli spokesman confirmed that two Israeli officers had been killed in accidents. The report noted that other Israeli sources have indicated that the killing of the two officers came as part of an Iranian operation in response to the Isfahan attack.
On 29 January, a powerful explosion occurred at an Iranian Defense Ministry ammunition depot in the city of Isfahan. According to Israeli sources, this was a booby-trapped drone attack. No casualties were reported. Additionally, a large fire broke out in a major refinery in Tehran. The cause of the fire remains unclear.
Days later, Iranian officials blamed Israel for the attacks and promised retaliation. Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Amir Saeed Irbani submitted a letter to the interim president of the UN Security Council claiming that the initial investigations carried out in Iran indicated that the “Zionist regime” was responsible for the “terrorist attack” at the Defense Ministry facility in Isfahan.
Irbani wrote further that “Iran has a legitimate right to defend its national security and to respond resolutely to any threat or injustice of the ‘Zionist regime’, at any time and in any place.”
The Iranian attack on the Israel-linked oil tanker came amid pledges between the US government and six Gulf states for increased cooperation against Iran. Bloomberg reported on 17 February the US and Gulf nations “voiced concern about what they said was Iran’s deeper cooperation with “state and non-state actors,” an apparent reference to Iran’s alleged support for Russia in its war against Ukraine, and called “Tehran a growing threat to regional security.”
February 18, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | Iran, Israel, United States |
Leave a comment
Early this week the European Commissioner for Energy Kadri Simson delivered the opening speech at the Egypt Petroleum Show 2023 Strategic Conference, the largest oil, gas and energy conference and exhibition across Egypt, North Africa and the Mediterranean.
Simson highlighted the EU’s need to diversify its energy sources, pointing out that this became a necessity after the Russian-Ukrainian war. In an attempt to decrease the bloc’s energy imports from Russia, Simson said, it had started to look for new energy sources. Fortunately, the EU found Israel and Egypt.
“The EU is serious about investing in trusted, reliable energy partnerships,” Simson told attendants. “That describes Egypt perfectly.” Referring to the base of their partnership, she said: “In the immediate wake of the crisis a year ago, the very first energy agreement the EU concluded was the Memorandum of Understanding with Egypt and Israel on trade, transport and natural gas cooperation.”
Simson referred to that MoU as a “remarkable political milestone for energy,” stressing that it was “something we are very proud of,” reiterating “how grateful” she is “to both Egypt and Israel, for their cooperation to turn the political vision of mutual cooperation into a reality.”
The European commissioner for energy also made it very clear that “the EU could count on the partnership” with Israel and Egypt due to the “landmark” agreement, which came “at the height of the energy crisis,” stressing “it was central to our efforts to diversify and stabilise the supplies for our citizens.”
But has Simson thought about the source of this energy? How much blood was shed, how many people were forced out of their homes, or how many villages and cities were destroyed in order to get this energy? Has she questioned the human rights situation of the countries which are selling this energy?
The energy which comes from Israel is stolen from Palestinians from whom the Zionists stole land with the help of many countries, mainly the United States and the United Kingdom. Israel was created on bodies of thousands of Palestinians, the ruins of their homes, mosques, schools, villages and cities. Israel has been stealing Palestinian land, resources, history and culture.
Has Simson not seen reports of the daily killing of Palestinians, their detention, the demolition of their homes, stealing of their land, suppression of their freedoms, the night raids, desecration of their holy sites, restriction of their movement, the apartheid policies imposed on them and the deadly blockade hindering life for those living in Gaza over the past 16 years?
Numerous international rights groups, even Israeli rights groups, have investigated Israeli aggression on the Palestinians and found that the Israeli occupation state has committed war crimes against the Palestinians. In February last year, Human Rights Watch issued a report that proved Israeli war crimes against Palestinians.
Gerry Simpson, associated crisis and conflict director at HRW, said: “Israeli forces carried out attacks in Gaza in May [2021] that devastated entire families without any apparent military target nearby.” The UN and many other official bodies have condemned the Israeli occupation and its continuous aggression against Palestinians.
In a statement issued in 2020, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in the Palestinian Territory Occupied since 1967 said: “The Israeli occupation continues to deepen. The number of announced new Israeli settlement units has risen dramatically. Gaza remains besieged and beleaguered.”
Throughout its occupation, Israel has prevented Palestinians from accessing their natural resources, water, land and the offshore gas fields.
The UN Special Rapporteur said in his statement: “Israel has maintained a comprehensive land, air and sea blockade on Gaza … and it controls virtually everything and everybody that enters or leaves the Strip. The blockade has contributed mightily to the civilian suffering in Gaza, which has a collapsed health care system, an aquifer with almost completely undrinkable water, enormous rates of unemployment and poverty, intermittent electrical power and densely packed housing.”
While Simson is praising Israel for selling stolen Palestinian gas to the EU to help it through its energy crisis, Palestinians are languishing under a brutal occupation and suffering in the cold without access to electricity and gas.
There is so much I could highlight about the brutality of the occupation and how deals with it are emboldening it and encouraging the oppression of Palestinians. But here I lay down only the foundations for what Simon has to learn about the deal she is praising.
It is very clear the EU deals with the Russian occupation of Ukraine differently from the Zionist occupation of Palestine; ending trade deals with Moscow while strengthening ties to Tel Aviv. Proof of apartheid practices have done little to change the ‘moral’ EU’s stance on the occupation state because its needs are greater than its will to protect the lives and rights of others.
February 18, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Progressive Hypocrite | Egypt, European Union, Human rights, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Leave a comment
The US voiced opposition to the UN Security Council’s resolution to stop the further expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories on 16 February, despite Washington previously criticizing Israel on the issue.
A few days before the proposed resolution, AP disclosed that it demanded that Tel Aviv “immediately and completely cease” settlement expansion and construction in the occupied territories.
Israel’s new extremist government has faced mass criticism over increasing Tel Aviv’s military operations in the West Bank and its bid to legitimize and construct settlement outposts and housing units in the occupied territories. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to annex more of the West Bank, with his party recently proposing the annexation of the Jordan Valley.
Washington expressed that it was “deeply dismayed” by Tel Aviv’s decision to expand its settlements. However, the US State Department affirmed that it would not support the resolution, reportedly proposed by the UAE – one of the Arab states that normalized relations with Israel during the signing of the Abraham Accords in 2020.
The State Department spokesman Vedant Patel remarked: “Our view is that the introduction of this resolution was unhelpful in supporting the conditions necessary to advance the negotiations of a two-state solution.”
On the other hand, Palestinian activists and political experts have indicated that the further expansion of settlements into the Palestinian territories will hinder efforts to reach a two-state solution.
Earlier this week, the Israeli government authorized the construction of nine occupation outposts in the West Bank, which drew mass opposition from the Palestinian Authority (PA).
Over half a million Israelis live across 200 settlements on Palestinian land, including several areas in the West Bank. These settlements are deemed illegal under international law.
This came a week after Israel’s Religious Zionism party issued a statement highlighting that there will be “no pause” to the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, despite pushback from US officials.
“There will be no construction freeze in [the West Bank], period. There will be no damage done to Israeli deterrence against terrorists, period. There will be no continuation of illegal construction and Arab land-grabbing in open areas, period,” the statement reads.
February 18, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News |
2 Comments
Iran has condemned Friday’s brutal attack by the Daesh terrorist group in the central Syrian province of Homs, saying the United States is complicit in the continuation of the acts of terror in the war-ravaged country.
“The current policies and approaches of the American regime indicate the continuation of this regime’s double standards in dealing with international issues, including the battle against terrorism,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kan’ani said on Saturday.
He reiterated the importance of providing the Syrian government with effective international support to help it fight the remnants of Daesh and other terrorist groups.
“The US government, as one of the founders and supporters of the Daesh terrorist group and a government that has an illegal military presence in a part of Syria’s territory, is complicit in the continuation of the crimes by this group and the continuation of insecurity in Syria,” Kan’ani said.
At least 53 citizens, who were truffle hunting, were killed in the Daesh attack on the southwest of the town of al-Sokhna in the desert east of the city of Homs on Friday, state television reported.
The victims included 46 civilians and seven soldiers, said Dr. Walid Odeh, director of the General Authority of Palmyra National Hospital.
The Friday attack was the deadliest attack by the outfit since January last year when the terrorists stormed a prison in the northeastern Syrian city of Hasakeh in a bid to free fellow Takfiris.
February 18, 2023
Posted by aletho |
War Crimes | Iran, ISIS, Syria, United States |
2 Comments
In his excellent exposé of the recent decision by the Knight-Cronkite News Lab (KCNL) to advocate journalism that goes beyond objectivity, and in light of the report from the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) confirming that RussiaGate was fabricated nonsense, genuinely independent researcher, writer and filmmaker James Corbett made a number of very salient points.
As Corbett points out:
As a moment’s sober reflection will immediately reveal, the mouthpiece mockingbirds of the controlled establishment media have never been objective and they have no credibility to damage.
But there is far more to this particular psyop than merely covering up the inconvenient history of media. The new narrative, sold to us in this instance by both KCNL and the CJR, is laying the foundations for a transformation of the media landscape.
The establishment wants us to believe that our “trust” in journalism is a vital component of our democracy—and, moreover, that the state can determine which news media organisation is deserving of our “trust.”
In truth, if democratic principles really matter to us, it is essential that we never trust any “news reports” from any journalist or news provider. Democracy places a duty upon us to be fierce critical thinkers. We should never unquestioningly accept anything we are told.
Journalism Is Story Telling
Every mainstream media (MSM) and “alternative media” outlet presents narratives. They are in the business of telling stories, not simply presenting “objective” facts.
Good journalism expresses an opinion and then cites the evidence that informs it. Well written journalism does this within the engaging and intriguing narratives it weaves. But no journalism is free from the journalist’s own conformation bias, and the tenor of the story is often directed by the editorial policy and allegiances of the publisher.
Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh’s recent investigation, in which he exposes the likelihood that the US government was behind the destruction of the Nord Stream II pipeline, is only available via independent outlets and on his own Substack. Despite this apparently being a story of enormous magnitude, the MSM seems extremely reluctant to bring it to wider attention. You can read about it only in the so-called “alternative media.”
While some MSM outlets report the official denial of Hersh’s piece, none have lent it much credibility, and many have been quick to cast aspersions on Hersh himself. Yes, the old game of attacking the messenger while avoiding the content of the message.
It is fair to say, based on the Hersh article alone, that no one can really verify his revelations in specific regard to Nord Stream II. He presents no evidence other than anecdotal accounts from unnamed sources. But nowhere in the MSM does there appear to be any interest in pursuing the needed investigation that Hersh’s piece demands.
Thus, it remains a piece of fantastic journalism, most notably because the very specific references it makes to orders given and operations undertaken during the BALTOPS22 exercise can be investigated. Detailed questions can be asked of officials. The blanket denials of Hersh’s story and his precise allegations are nowhere near enough to discredit it.
Given all the circumstantial evidence that also points towards US and NATO aligned culpability, his journalism—a great story—adds real fuel to the fire. This is real investigative journalism. That the story he presents in part reflects his own perspective is irrelevant.
The MSM Was Never Objective
One of the MSM’s main criticisms of the so-called “alternative media” is that it can often be described as activist journalism. This allegation implies that the perspective of the alternative news journalist biases their reporting. But such a criticism is itself a deception, because all journalism reports from a perspective.
There are basic commercial reasons why objectivity doesn’t suit journalism. Consumers of “news” don’t want to simply know what the facts are. They also want a steer on the broader implications of those facts. If that reaffirms their existing world view, all the better for sales. We all want to believe we are right and not be constantly reminded that we are probably wrong.
This is why very few Guardian readers also read the Daily Telegraph or Sun readers the Mirror, even when the presented “facts” are essentially the same. We pay for the perspective we agree with, not simply an objective reporting of the facts.
It is science, not journalism, that strives to achieve absolute objectivity in its pursuit of empirical facts. But the problem with scientific objectivity, beyond its corruption, is that it tends to introduce immense complexity and can be extremely boring to read. It doesn’t lend itself well to stirring up emotions or selling media content.
Other than a few obsessive researchers and the scientists themselves, few of us actually want to read highly technical and sterile scientific papers. We rely upon the journals and the MSM to tell us what the science says, wrongly assuming that their reporting of it is “objective.”
Our faith in the MSM places us in a vulnerable position, especially when it comes to the reporting of hard facts, such as those supposedly revealed by science. If those same alleged “facts” then become the basis for justifying government policy and/or our own decisions, then we had better be damn sure that our belief in the veracity of the story is well-placed.
The evidence that the MSM doesn’t even report the facts accurately is overwhelming. The CJR has exposed RussiaGate as the politically motivated nonsense it was. But this rubbish was relentlessly spewed out on both sides of the Atlantic for more than a year—alongside the equally baseless Skripal yarn—by a majority of MSM outlets. The obvious propaganda was designed to illegitimately demonise the Russian government.
Video link
The CJR report demonstrates that today’s Western MSM is a mass purveyor of mis- and disinformation. We are presently regaled with highly spurious Ukraine war propaganda. This is the culmination of the Russophobic Western MSM agenda that has been building for many years.
The scene has seemingly been set, and we have all been psychologically prepared for the current conflict. This makes it easier for us to imagine that the Russians are our enemy.
State propaganda partnerships with the MSM are nothing new. Three examples quickly come to mind:
— British military intelligence were feeding senior broadsheet correspondents “stories” for decades, long before the MSM made up tales about WMD in Iraq to convince the public to accept a fake casus belli for the Iraq War.
— The Church Committee formally exposed the “Operation Mockingbird” network in the US in 1975. The CIA had been manipulating the reporting of the US MSM for many years, feeding selected operative journalists intel that they then reported as “objective journalism.”
— The Mockingbird Operation PBSuccess employed public relations guru Edward Bernays to use the media to overthrow the Guatemalan government on behalf of the United Fruit Company in 1954.
While proven MSM disinformation operations and campaigns, such as these, have purportedly been assigned to the annals of history, disinfo activity is manifestly ongoing. If anything, state control of the MSM narrative for propaganda purposes has reached heights that even Bernays couldn’t have imagined.
State propaganda has been privatised. Governments channel taxpayers’ money to their global corporate partners, which in turn pay the MSM to produce the desired disinformation. During the pseudopandemic we saw whole teams of behavioural scientists at the World Health Organisation global governance level and in various nations states “use” the MSM to unethically deploy applied psychology and disinformation to tackle what the establishment and its MSM hypocritically called “the infodemic.”
When Spi-B—the team of behavioural change experts within the UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE)—recommended that the UK government should “use the media” to increase “the perceived level of personal threat” to convince British people that they were living through a pandemic, contrary to the evidence of their own eyes, the MSM dutifully obliged. They launched numerous corporate backed terror campaigns upon an unsuspecting public.
We are constantly told by the political class that “press freedom” is an essential part of our democracy. If the MSM really were a pluralistic and free media, it wouldn’t be possible to “use” it for propaganda. There would be too many dissenting articles by investigative MSM journalists to maintain a single, uniform narrative across all outlets simultaneously. But it isn’t a pluralistic and free media and never was, so it is entirely possible for the MSM to be co-opted. What does this say about our alleged democracy?
The so-called “infodemic,” identified by the World Health Organisation as being “just as dangerous” as an alleged global pandemic, included any and all information that questioned the diktats of our “democratic” policymakers. The MSM attacked all dissent—literally without question—on the behalf of governments and intergovernmental authorities and their corporate partners.
The infodemic, according to the establishment, was prompted by the public’s questions about government policy, about “science” as reported by the MSM, and about data that revealed statistical manipulation. The infodemic was also prompted by the MSM looking askance at sceptical scientific papers shared by people who dared question the reported “science” as well as at the millions of people who raised their voices in mass protests. These protests were either ignored by the MSM or the protestors views were distorted and their peaceful demonstrations labelled “extremist.”
There was nothing remotely “objective” about any of this mainstream “news coverage.” Rather, in total obedience to the state, the Western MSM attacked informed opinion, ridiculed all questions and demonised individuals who did not comply. Not because there was any justification for doing so, but because that is the role of the MSM. Objectivity is nowhere in sight, nor has it ever been.
The MSM Has Never Questioned Power
The Knight-Cronkite News Lab (KCNL) objective is to create a “set of standards for trustworthy news.” Indeed, maintaining the public’s “trust” is the overwhelming fixation of the MSM and its government partners. We are urged to place our faith in those who evidently lie to us and suppress facts all the time.
At one point the KCNL noted:
As early as the turbulent 1960s, some younger journalists, especially investigative reporters, began to question what objectivity really meant if it did not challenge power, privilege and inequality.
Similarly, the CJR report on RussiaGate states that “primary missions” of journalism include “informing the public and holding powerful interests accountable.”
We are told that “holding power to account,” or watchdog journalism, is the core principle of journalism. Yet nowhere in the International Federation of Journalists Charter of Ethics or in the UK National Union of Journalists Code of Conduct is there any mention of this alleged principle.
The American Press Association’s (APA) Principles of Journalism does say that journalism must serve as an independent monitor of power. But this “principle” speaks more about defending journalists’ alleged “rights” than it does about exposing any wrongdoing:
Journalism has an unusual capacity to serve as watchdog over those whose power and position most affect citizens. The Founders recognized this to be a rampart against despotism when they ensured an independent press; courts have affirmed it; citizens rely on it. As journalists, we have an obligation to protect this watchdog freedom by not demeaning it in frivolous use or exploiting it for commercial gain.
The APA’s watchdog principle is supposedly protected by the government and its courts. Yet it is not a “right,” but rather a permit bestowed upon American journalists by the establishment. This permit can be rescinded. The extent to which journalists in the US can question “power” is based solely on the protection that legacy journalism receives from the institutions it allegedly questions.
Demeaning something as frivolous is precisely what the MSM does when it labels people as conspiracy theorists, as science deniers or as COVID deniers. These attacks are rarely, if ever, based upon any exploration of the evidence. In fact, the labelling system itself is used to omit, obscure or “deny” the evidence.
All the APA’s principles mean is that certain subjects and certain kinds of evidence, characterised as “frivolous,” must not be reported by its members. What is or is not considered “frivolous” is entirely subjective. Given journalism’s legislative “protections,” it seems pretty clear what will be considered “frivolous.” A high degree of subjectivity, not objectivity, is the full extent of the APA members’ ethical commitment to “watchdog” journalism.
We only need look at the history we’ve discussed to understand that the news media barely and rarely holds power to account. Instead, the MSM is more frequently an extension of state and corporate power and is used to control the people through disinformation, omission and misdirection rather than to inform them and question power on their behalf.
This is not to say that good MSM journalism doesn’t exist. But, on those few occasions when MSM journalists do expose state crimes, they pay a terrible price for doing so. Julian Assange is among the small band of journalists who have dared to question power. He currently languishes in a British high-security prison precisely because he did so.
The MSM doesn’t question power when it deceives the public about chemical weapon attacks on behalf of the state. It isn’t holding power to account with its refusal to investigate, or even report, evidence of malfeasance in office. Its ignoring of state crimes can in no way be considered “watchdog freedom.” And it certainly does not act as any kind of watchdog when it simply reports whatever it is ordered to report by a centrally controlled global propaganda network.
We Are the Problem and the Solution
Social media has been lambasted for corralling its users into self-affirming information silos. While this is somewhat concerning, it isn’t anything new. The technological capability of social media to control opinion is an added dimension, to be sure, but the MSM has been doing exactly the same thing for more than a century.
Unfortunately, the MSM is able to propagandise us with relative ease. It does this partly by exploiting our own misconceptions. While we all seem to agree that the Russian and Chinese MSM are state propaganda, we Westerners, for some unknown reason, apparently imagine that our own mainstream media isn’t.
There is, however, a caveat with regard to this apparent gullibility. Research statistics show that there is a remarkable lack of trust in the MSM in the West. Notably, in the US “trust” in the news is as low as 26%. The UK fares little better, at just 34%. “Trust” in the news is higher in Scandinavian countries.
We only need have brief conversations with friends and family to realise that the propaganda does, in fact, work. But what explains this disconnect between our lack of trust in the MSM with our continuing willingness to believe what it tells us?
The answer lies in the greatest achievement of the Western MSM and the parasite class it serves: They have convinced us that our media is free and is pluralistic—this despite it never being true.
Consequently, it seems that while we are wary of spin and propaganda, we refuse to contemplate the likelihood that the MSM is out-and-out lying to us. Perhaps that is because we perceive the MSM as basically serving the public interest—even if we admit to ourselves that it bends the truth a little. In other words, our scepticism does not extend as far as disbelief.
We therefore remain unable to reconcile our credulous acceptance of MSM claims about itself with the reality that we are being misled en masse by that same institution. Cognitive dissonance—the uncomfortable psychological sensation we experience when we hold two or more contradictory thoughts at the same time—may account for our irreconcilable beliefs.
In other words, we are caught between not “trusting” the MSM, on the one hand, and, on the other, our inability to accept the fact that virtually nothing the MSM tells us is true. The implications of this dichotomy are beyond anything we want to contemplate. As a result, we still believe that “the news” is our window on the world.
If you think about it, the idea that all the important global events of the day can be condensed into a single “newspaper” or a 30-minute “evening news” broadcast is quite ridiculous. Even if it were composed of honest, unbiased reports, which it seldom is, “the news” cannot provide us with anything approaching a reasonable understanding of what is actually going on.
Therefore, if we genuinely want to know what’s happening, we have to actively seek information and critically evaluate it ourselves. As James Corbett wrote:
Granted, the realization that all media is constructed for us by someone with an interest in making us believe something is not a happy one for most people. Instead, it is a deeply unpopular realization, because it means we can’t just switch on the evening news, switch off our brain, and expect some totally neutral journalistic saviour to come along and hand us “the news” from on high.
Like it or not, it is our responsibility to think critically about all information, no matter who relays it. This responsibility applies equally to the stories we are fed by the “alternative media.” This article should be read critically! It is, after all, just information that’s being passed along to you.
The Knight-Cronkite News Lab suggests that journalists should give their “readers, viewers, listeners and users valuable information that helps them make better decisions and lead better lives.”
Here, the new breed of MSM journalists, no more nor less objective than their predecessors, has been given the task of reporting “the news” from a value-driven perspective. The aim is to change us by making us “better” people. So what are the values the new breed of journalists are being taught to advocate?
KCNL tell us:
There is broad consensus today about the reality of climate change and the threats that it poses. That may well inform how many resources a newsroom devotes to reporting on the issue as well as any point of view its stories reflect. The same might go for opposition to systemic racism, say, or support for LGBTQ rights. [. . .] One value we believe is worth stating out loud is support for democratic institutions, which are under attack on multiple fronts. Trustworthy news is essential to sustaining a healthy democracy.
Herein lies the problem. Every one of these “values” serves global political agendas and dovetails neatly with government policy and, perhaps most notably, with global governance policy. That is to say, the MSM’s new values are exactly the same as their old values. Their “new” objective, just like the old objective, is to advocate for power, not question it.
Contrary to the KCNL’s claims, democracy is not founded upon our acceptance of whatever we are told by government “institutions.” Rather, it is predicated upon our ability not just to question the state but to limit it. Thus, KCNL’s contention that a “healthy democracy” is one where “democratic institutions” assert sovereignty over us is entirely false.
To point out that these institutions have no authority over us whatsoever is not to attack “democracy.” On the contrary, doing so defends “democracy.” But you will never hear that from the MSM. The MSM’s continuing mission is to maintain the lies that ensure we never realise this “truth.”
It is ironic that the MSM attacks their alternative counterparts for advocacy journalism and yet the MSM’s own apparent solution to the trust issue that preoccupies it is to itself emulate advocacy journalism. The difference? The alternative media is far more likely to advocate the questioning of power, while the MSM looks set to continue advocating for power.
Seeing as how the concept of “news” is, in and of itself, absurd, the suggestion that news should be “trusted” simply adds another layer of misdirection to this new MSM advocacy journalism. So, if our “faith” in the stories we are told is part of the problem, a solution is self-evident. We should abandon any notion of “trust.” We should invest our efforts in being “better” critical thinkers.
The “alternative” media outlet UK Column sums up this point nicely. It asks:
Why should I trust the UK Column ? Put simply, you shouldn’t. The question of whether or not to trust a news organisation is a false choice. Making such a choice is promoted by government, the old media, and two new organisation types: the fact checker and the trust provider.
It disenfranchises readers, viewers and listeners. It is based on the principle that if you trust the media organisation you are visiting, there is no need for you to check the information they present. So we ask you not to trust us. Instead, view everything published here with a critical eye. Where possible, primary source material is made available for everything we publish: check it; make up your own mind.
In his previously referenced article, James Corbett provides a list of questions we should all ask ourselves whenever we encounter information offered by any source. We don’t need government or any other “democratic institution” to control information for us, nor we do need to be told what to think about it. We just need to think critically and answer these simple questions to our own satisfaction:
- Why is this media outlet showing us this report?
- What interest do they have in making us think a particular way about the issue presented?
- Can the information in the report be independently confirmed or triangulated from other sources?
- Whose viewpoint is being shown, and how is that viewpoint portrayed? Whose viewpoint is being excluded? Why?
- What language is being used to frame the issue?
- What does the report make us believe about the world?
- Are we in agreement with the report? Why or why not?
Ultimately, as ever, the choice is yours. You can gather information from any source you wish. If you want to know what the state wants you to believe and what behaviour it expects of you, then go to the MSM. If you want to explore broader criticism of government and its policies, then the more independent “alternative media” provides richer pickings.
Treat these two impostors just the same. There is honest, high-quality journalism in both. There is also propaganda to be found in both. Fortunately, if you answer James Corbett’s suggested questions, you’ll be able to spot the difference more often than not.
February 18, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video |
1 Comment
A Moscow court has begun processing a request by the Russian Justice Ministry to close down nonprofit organization the Jewish Agency for Israel, also known as Sokhnut, it was announced on Saturday.
A hearing was initially scheduled for August of last year but was postponed at the request of the defense, which argued that Sokhnut needed time to correct violations pointed out by the Russian authorities.
The Jewish agency’s lawyers had asked for a second delay, although the judge refused the request and has now heard the positions of both parties.
Representatives of the Justice Ministry stated that Sokhnut, which helps facilitate the repatriation of Jews to Israel, had been collecting the personal data of Russian citizens and placing it on foreign websites, which is banned by Russian law.
The NGO committed 16 such violations between April 2019 and March 2022, and was issued with fines totaling 735,000 rubles ($9,900) as a result.
The Justice Ministry considers those breaches to be “systematic” and sufficient enough to seek the shutdown of the organization, representatives explained. They added that the ministry has other complaints about Sokhnut’s operations.
Lawyers for the NGO argued that a shutdown was an excessively harsh measure, considering the violations. They also said that each breach should be considered separately by the court as it would allow the ministry to indicate “mistakes.”
The presiding judge has ordered a break in the case, with the two sides returning to the courtroom on Tuesday.
Late last year, Sokhnut announced that a record 70,000 foreign Jews had immigrated to Israel in 2022. The NGO credited its work to encourage Russians and Ukrainians to repatriate amid the conflict between their nations as leading to such a high figure.
The number of Russians making the so-called ‘Aliyah’ last year was 37,364, exceeding the total figure of immigrants for 2021 by almost 9,000, according to the organization’s data.
February 18, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Israel, Russia, Zionism |
Leave a comment
In the Christian faith, God comes in the form of three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Together, these three beings form the Trinity.
In a recent interview with the German writer Fabian Scheidler, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh discussed his bombshell article that appeared in his inaugural posting on Substack, “How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline”.
When Scheidler thanked Hersh for his courageous reporting, the veteran reporter shot back, “What’s so courageous about telling the truth? We’re supposed to tell the truth!”
I’ve known Sy Hersh for coming on a quarter century. While I was too young to experience first-hand the impact of his reporting on the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, I had a front row seat to the masterful job he did in bringing to light the horrible facts about what the United States was doing in the Abu Ghraib prison, in Iraq.
Legendary status isn’t given—it is earned. And Sy Hersh has earned the absolute right to be called the GOAT when it comes to investigative journalism. He is, simply put, the best.
I’ve read nearly everything Sy Hersh has written, and am able to put his considerable journalistic output in its proper historical perspective. It is therefore that I feel very comfortable in concluding that, in terms of its potential for bringing about tectonic geopolitical change, Sy’s Nord Stream reporting is his most important work ever.
The GOAT has produced what I call the Trinity of Truth.
Truth One: The President of the United States, Joe Biden, by conspiring with members of his national security team to deliberately bypass constitutionally-mandated reporting requirements to Congress regarding acts of war undertaken by the United States, has committed an impeachable offense unmatched by any other president in the history of the United States.
Truth Two: The blow-back that will occur inside Germany to the revelations put forward by Seymour Hersh that the United States carried out an economic Pearl Harbor by destroying energy infrastructure critical to the well-being of the German nation has the potential of breaking up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU), upending more than eighty years of post-war European security and stability, and resulting in the diminishment of the United States on the world stage as it becomes isolated from long-time European allies that served as the foundation of the global acceptance of the so-called “rules based international order” that has served as the means by which the United States exerted global hegemony.
Truth Three: The decision to attack the Nord Stream pipeline puts a lie to the US contention that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was an unprovoked act of aggression, instead underscoring the harsh truth that the United States had a strategic plan which hinged on provoking a conflict with Russia in Ukraine to provide the geopolitical cover for ending Europe’s reliance upon cheap Russian natural gas by demonstrating that every time Russia sought a negotiated end to the crisis, whether before the invasion through implementation of the Minsk Accords, or after in the Istanbul round of talks scheduled for April 1, the United States sabotaged the effort, keeping the conflict alive long enough to implement its major objective—the destruction of Nord Stream.
In short, Sy Hersh, through his reporting, has exposed truths which have the potential of bringing down a presidency, destroying NATO, and proving Russia right in the eyes of the world.
Name one other piece of journalism in the past half-century that packs such a punch.
You can’t.
Sy Hersh is a national—no, an international—treasure, something this Trinity of Truth underscores.
Be sure to treat him as such.
February 18, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Russophobia, War Crimes | European Union, Germany, NATO, Russia, United States |
1 Comment
Aletho News 