Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

LAPD’s Failure to Protect Peaceful Protesters at UCLA from Right-Wing Mob Shows Real Priorities

By Jeremy Kuzmarov | CovertAction Magazine | May 6, 2024

In 1991, Frank Donner, former director of the ACLU’s Project on Political Surveillance, published a book entitled Protectors of Privilege, which provided a history of police suppression of left-wing and labor protests in the United States.

A key chapter in the book focused on the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), whose reactionary political function was epitomized by two of its most notorious chiefs: William Parker and Daryl Gates, who were overtly racist and supported anti-democratic paramilitary policing practices.

The LAPD’s true colors were on display at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) at the end of April when its officers stood by for hours as hundreds of right-wing vigilantes attacked pro-Palestinian demonstrators in what Al Jazeera described as a “really shocking and ugly scene of violence.”

The LAPD then aggressively broke up the pro-Palestinian demonstrators’ encampment using flash bangs and riot gear, arresting around 200 of the anti-genocide protesters who were entirely peaceful. (none of the vigilantes were arrested).[1]

Pro-Israel attackers try to remove barricades at a pro-Palestinian encampment at the University of California, Los Angeles, on May 1, 2024 [David Swanson/Reuters]

Pro-Israel attackers try to remove barricades at a pro-Palestinian encampment at the University of California, Los Angeles, on May 1, 2024. [Source: msn.com]

On May 2, a day after the break-up of the encampment, I visited the UCLA campus and witnessed students and university employees clearing the protest area.

Though many of the students were refusing to speak to any media, I managed to interview one, Lisa Cooper, who described herself as a seasoned organizer originally from New York who had joined the protesters in solidarity with them.

Cooper told me that she helped run a wellness center in the encampment that brought in acupuncturists who administered treatment to students who had either been physically attacked or were dealing with emotional trauma and the stress of living in the encampment while studying for mid-terms.

The students believed they had to do something in the face of the horrific atrocities going on in Gaza.

Cooper said that dissent was currently under siege in the U.S. and that the protests provided an opportunity to get people thinking about societal problems and realities, and that the students involved felt empowered by their experience, which they would take with them into other aspects of their lives.

As part of the daily programming, students coordinated teach-in events like during the 1960s era Vietnam campus protests. Benjamin Kersten, a Ph.D. student in art history, told the UCLA Daily Bruin that “this is a public university that preaches the importance of education, and yet, topics like Palestine are not taught. A lot of the programming shows that people here are taking their education into their own hands, and learning what it means to teach each other and enact activist values.”[2]

According to Cooper, public protest is a right Americans enjoy under the U.S. Constitution and that this should not be forgotten.

Cooper said that the right wing vigilantes who stormed the encampment were equipped with bear mace, projectiles and other weapons that they deployed against protesters, causing injuries to some of the students.

One protester had 16 staples inserted into his scalp.

Because the students did not want to call 911 and put themselves at risk of suspension or arrest, other students drove them to the hospital by car.

UCLA students clearing material from protest encampment on May 2. [Source: Photo courtesy of Jeremy Kuzmarov]

Cooper herself was not injured in the attack, but said that the vigilantes hurled racial slurs at her (she is African-American).

The main police units that broke up the encampment were officers of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) who, she said, are not required to wear body cam devices. CHP was backed up by the LAPD, whose presence was ubiquitous around the campus during my visit.

Cooper said that UCLA should be called to account for not allowing peaceful protests on public property.

UCLA President Michael Drake released a statement supporting the university’s decision to label the protest encampment as unlawful, noting that, “when it threatens the safety of students or everyone else, we must act.”[3]

UCLA President Michael Drake [Source: thelantern.com]

However, there is no evidence that the encampment threatened the safety of UCLA students in any way[4]; rather, it was the vigilante counter-demonstrators who compromised the safety of UCLA students expressing their constitutional right to dissent.

  1. During the vigilante attack, a group reportedly piled on one person who lay on the ground, kicking and beating the person until others pulled him out of the scrum. The editor of the UCLA Daily Bruin, Catherine Hamilton, was punched in the chest and upper abdomen by the vigilantes. Robert Reynolds of Al Jazeera reported that the vigilante mob, which called for a second Nakba, “appear[ed] to be all largely people who are not of student age and they’re not from the UCLA campus, but what they’re doing is trying to harass and attack the pro-Palestinian demonstrators.” The leaders of the anti-war encampment at UCLA said that “law enforcement simply stood at the edge of the lawn and refused to budge as we screamed for their help. The only means of protection we had was each other as the attack went on for more than seven hours.” “The university would rather see us dead than divest,” it added in a statement posted on X. The Los Angeles Public Defenders’ Union called the UCLA arrests “shameful and a complete failure of leadership.” President Garrett Miller said they are ready to “represent every person facing charges.”
  2. Dylan Winward, “Encampment Hosts Programming, Draws Counter-Protesters,” UCLA Daily Bruin, April 26, 2014, 2. Winward’s article detailed how Jewish Voices for Peace organized a passover seder in the encampment and shabbat service, dispelling the myth that somehow the students involved in the encampment were anti-semites.
  3. Anna Dai-Liu and Dylan Winward, “Pro-Israel counter-protesters attempt to storm encampment, sparking violence,” UCLA Daily Bruin, May 1, 2024, 1.
  4. Sam Mulick, “UCLA Community Responds to Palestine Solidarity Encampment,” UCLA Daily Bruin, APril 26, 2024, 3 quotes from students, the majority of whom had highly positive views of the encampment. This included numbers of Jewish students. One student quoted in the article expressed appreciation that students of this generation were politically active and cared about the plight of oppressed people in the world, while another said the encampment was an effective method to engage community members on the campus. Still another, a psychology student, Erin Lee, told The Daily Bruin that UCLA should offer more support to Palestinian students, and that the university had taken a direct role in the war in Gaza through its investments in companies affiliated with the Israeli military. She added correctly that while she thinks students in the encampment were sending a very powerful message, she doubts the UC system will respond to their actions.

May 7, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

The beast of ideology lifts the lid on transformation

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 6, 2024

The Transformation is accelerating. The harsh, often violent, police repression of student protests across the U.S. and Europe, in wake of the continuing Palestinian massacres, exposes sheer intolerance towards those voicing condemnation against the violence in Gaza.

The category of ‘hate speech’ enacted into law has become so ubiquitous and fluid that criticism of the conduct of Israel’s behaviour in Gaza and the West Bank is now treated as a category of extremism and as a threat to the state. Confronted by criticism of Israel, the ruling élites respond by angrily lashing out.

Is there a boundary (still) between criticism and anti-semitism? In the West the two increasingly are being made to cohere.

Today’s stifling of any criticism of Israel’s conduct – in blatant contradiction with any western claim to a values-based order – reflects desperation and a touch of panic. Those who still occupy the leadership slots of Institutional Power in the U.S. and Europe are compelled by the logic of those structures to pursue courses of action that are leading to ‘system’ breakdown, both domestically – and concomitantly – provoking the dramatic intensification of international tensions, too.

Mistakes flow from the underlying ideological rigidities in which the ruling strata are trapped: The embrace of a transformed Biblical Israel that long ago separated from today’s U.S. Democratic Party zeitgeist; the inability to accept reality in Ukraine; and the notion that U.S. political coercion alone can revive paradigms in Israel and the Middle East that are long gone.

The notion that a new Israeli Nakba of Palestinians can be forced down the throats of the western and the global public are both delusional and reek of centuries of old Orientalism.

What else can one say when Senator Tom Cotton posts: “These little Gazas are disgusting cesspools of antisemitic hate, full of pro-Hamas sympathisers; fanatics and freaks”?

When order unravels, it unravels quickly and comprehensively. Suddenly, the GOP conference has had its nose rubbed in dirt (over its lack of support for Biden’s $61bn for Ukraine); the U.S. public’s despair at open border immigration is disdainfully ignored; and Gen Z’s expressions of empathy with Gaza is declared an internal ‘enemy’ to be roughly suppressed. All points of strategic inflection and transformation – likely as not.

And the rest of the world now is cast as an enemy too, being perceived as recalcitrants who fail to embrace the western recitation of its ‘Rules Order’ catechism and for failing clearly to toe the line on support for Israel and the proxy war on Russia.

It is a naked bid for unchecked power; one nevertheless that is galvanising a global blow-back. It is pushing China closer to Russia and accelerating the BRICS confluence. Plainly put, the world – faced with massacres in Gaza and West Bank – will not abide by either the Rules or any western hypocritical cherry-picking of International Law. Both systems are collapsing under the leaden weight of western hypocrisy.

Nothing is more obvious than Secretary of State Blinken’s scolding of President Xi for China’s treatment of the Uighurs and his threats of sanctions for Chinas trade with Russia – powering ‘Russia’s assault on Ukraine’, Blinken asserts. Blinken has made an enemy of the one power that can evidently out-compete the U.S.; that has manufacturing and competitive overmatch vs the U.S.

The point here is that these tensions can quickly spiral down into war of ‘Us’ versus ‘Them’ – ranged against not just the China, Russia, Iran “Axis of Evil”, but vs Turkey, India Brazil and all others who dare to criticise the moral correctness of either of the West’s Israel and Ukraine projects. That is, it has the potential to turn into the West versus the Rest.

Again, another own goal.

Crucially, these two conflicts have led to the Transformation of the West from self-styled ‘mediators’ claiming to bring calm to flashpoints, to being active contenders in these wars. And, as active contenders, they can permit no criticism of their actions – either inside, or out; for that would be to hint at appeasement.

Put plainly: this transformation to contenders in war lies at the heart of Europe’s present obsession with militarism. Bruno Maçães relates that a “senior European minister argued to him that: if the U.S. withdrew its support for Ukraine, his country, a Nato member, would have no choice but to fight alongside Ukraine – inside Ukraine. As he put it, why should his country wait for a Ukrainian defeat, followed by [a defeated Ukraine] swelling the ranks of a Russian army bent on new excursions?”

Such a proposition is both stupid and likely would lead to a continent-wide war (a prospect with which the unnamed minister seemed astonishingly at ease). Such insanity is the consequence of the Europeans’ acquiescence to Biden’s attempt at regime change in Moscow. They wanted to become consequential players at the table of the Great Game, but have come to perceive that they sorely lack the means for it. The Brussels Class fear the consequence to this hubris will be the unravelling of the EU.

As Professor John Gray writes:

“At bottom, the liberal assault on free speech [on Gaza and Ukraine] is a bid for unchecked power. By shifting the locus of decision from democratic deliberation to legal procedures, the élites aim to insulate [their neoliberal] cultish programmes from contestation and accountability. The politicisation of law – and the hollowing out of politics go hand in hand”.

Despite these efforts to cancel opposing voices, other perspectives and understandings of history nonetheless are reasserting their primacy: Do Palestinians have a point? Is there a history to their predicament? ‘No, they are a tool used by Iran, by Putin and by Xi Jinping’, Washington and Brussels says.

They say such untruths because the intellectual effort to see Palestinians as human beings, as citizens, endowed with rights, would force many Western states to revise much of their rigid system of thinking. It is simpler and easier for Palestinians to be left ambiguous, or to ‘disappear’.

The future which this approach heralds couldn’t be farther from the democratic, co-operative international order the White House claims to advocate. Rather it leads to the precipice of civil violence in the U.S. and to wider war in Ukraine.

Many of today’s Woke liberals however, would reject the allegation of being anti-free speech, labouring under the misapprehension that their liberalism is not curtailing free speech, but rather is protecting it from ‘falsehoods’ emanating from the enemies of ‘our democracy’ (i.e. the ‘MAGA contingent’). In this way, they falsely perceive themselves as still adhering to the classical liberalism of, say, John Stuart Mill.

Whilst it is true that in On Liberty (1859) Mill argued that free speech must include the freedom to cause offence, in the same essay he also insisted that the value of freedom lay in its collective utility. He specified that “it must be utility in the largest sense – grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being”.

Free speech has little value if it facilitates the discourse of the ‘deplorables’ or the so-called Right.

In other words, “Like many other 19th-century liberals”, Professor Gray argues, “Mill feared the rise of democratic government because he believed it meant empowering an ignorant and tyrannical majority. Time and again, he vilified the torpid masses who were content with traditional ways of living”. One can hear here, the precursor to Mrs Clinton’s utter disdain for the ‘deplorables’ living in ‘fly-over’ U.S. states.

Rousseau too, is often taken as an icon of ‘liberty’ and ‘individualism’ and widely admired. Yet here too, we have language which conceals its’ fundamentally anti-political character.

Rousseau saw human associations rather, as groups to be acted upon, so that all thinking and daily behaviour could be folded into the like-minded units of a unitary state.

The individualism of Rousseau’s thought, therefore, is no libertarian assertion of absolute rights of free speech against the all-consuming state. No raising of the ‘tri-colour’ against oppression.

Quite the reverse! Rousseau’s passionate ‘defence of the individual’ arises out of his opposition to ‘the tyranny’ of social convention; the forms, rituals and ancient myths that bind society – religion, family, history, and social institutions. His ideal may be proclaimed as that of individual freedom, but it is ‘freedom’, however, not in a sense of immunity from control of the state, but in our withdrawal from the supposed oppressions and corruptions of collective society.

Family relationship is thus transmuted subtly into a political relationship; the molecule of the family is broken into the atoms of its individuals. With these atoms today groomed further to shed their biological gender, their cultural identity and ethnicity, they are coalesced afresh into the single unity of the state.

This is the deceit concealed in classical Liberalism’s language of freedom and individualism – ‘freedom’ nonetheless being hailed as the major contribution of the French Revolution to western civilisation.

Yet perversely, behind the language of freedom lay de-civilisation.

The ideological legacy from the French Revolution, however, was radical de-civilisation. The old sense of permanence – of belonging somewhere in space and time – was conjured away, to give place to its very opposite: Transience, temporariness and ephemerality.

Frank Furedi has written,

“Discontinuity of culture coexists with the loss of the sense of the past … The loss of this sensibility has had an unsettling effect on culture itself and has deprived it of moral depth. Today, the anticultural exercises a powerful role in western society. Culture is frequently framed in instrumental and pragmatic terms and rarely perceived as a system of norms that endow human life with meaning. Culture has become a shallow construct to be disposed of – or changed.

“The western cultural elite is distinctively uncomfortable with the narrative of civilisation and has lost its enthusiasm for celebrating it. The contemporary cultural landscape is saturated with a corpus of literature that calls into question the moral authority of civilisation and associates it more with negative qualities.

“De-civilization means that even the most foundational identities – such as that between man and woman – is called into question. At a time when the answer to the question of ‘what it means to be human’ becomes complicated – and where the assumptions of western civilisation lose their salience – the sentiments associated with wokeism can flourish”.

Karl Polyani, in his Great Transformation (published some 80 years ago), held that the massive economic and social transformations that he had witnessed during his lifetime – the end of the century of “relative peace” in Europe from 1815 to 1914, and the subsequent descent into economic turmoil, fascism and war, which was still ongoing at the time of the book’s publication – had but a single, overarching cause:

Prior to the 19th century, he insisted, the human way of being had always been ‘embedded’ in society, and that it was subordinated to local politics, customs, religion and social relations i.e. to a civilisational culture. Life was not treated as separated into distinct particulars, but as parts of an articulate whole – of life itself.

Liberalism turned this logic on its head. It constituted an ontological break with much of human history. Not only did it artificially separate the ‘economic’ from the ‘political’, but liberal economics (its foundational notion) demanded the subordination of society – of life itself – to the abstract logic of the self-regulating market. For Polanyi, this “means no less than the running of society as an adjunct to the market”.

The answer – clearly – was to make society again a distinctly human relationship of community, given meaning through a living culture. In this sense, Polanyi also emphasised the territorial character of sovereignty – the nation-state as the pre-condition to the exercise of democratic politics.

Polanyi would have argued that, absent a return to Life Itself as the pivot to politics, a violent backlash was inevitable. (Though hopefully not as dire as the transformation through which he lived.)

May 7, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

After Positioning Military Biolabs Around the Globe, US Officials Urge Biodefense Buildup

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 07.05.2024

Russia’s Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense Troops have spent over two years studying and publicizing sensitive documents and analytical materials on the extent of Pentagon, CDC and US biotech firms’ funding for unethical and potentially illegal military biological research in Ukraine and around the world.

US biodefense planners are preparing to release a ‘bombshell’ report calling on all levels of the US government to radically improve national biodefense measures and create a national strategy to address global biological threats.

The document, seen by Axios ahead of publication, was put together by the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense, a panel of former high-ranking US officials and lawmakers, including senior former Clinton, Bush and Obama administration staff. The Commission, created in 2014 to “provide for a comprehensive assessment of the state of US biodefense efforts,” has called its new report the 2024 National Blueprint for Biodefense.

The ‘blueprint’ highlights the growing risks stemming from the outbreak of infectious diseases, bioweapons research and lab leaks, predicting that the number of biothreat incidents will increase over time, and urging policymakers to make major new investments in biodefense.

“We’re not putting enough emphasis on getting ahead of these biological threats,” Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense executive director Asha George said. George urged Biden National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan to spearhead a national biodefense effort and set up a deputy advisor post to deal with the job’s daily duties.

The Committee is asking Washington to create a unified federal biodefense budget, and multiyear funding for programs as part of an agenda featuring 36 separate recommendations, from the creation of a congressional working group and biodefense reviews once every four years, to amendments to the 1944 Public Health Service Act to “produce a research and development plan for reducing pathogen transmission in built environments.”

Curiously, the panel’s recommendations also feature a section on “emerging astrobiological threats,” warning about “the intersection of space exploration and infectious disease,” and of the possibility of space-based microorganisms being brought to Earth and posing a threat to the planet’s “human, animal, plant, or ecosystem health.”

Threats Closer to Home

Additional details on the contents of the report have yet to be publicized. However, based on the information made available by Axios, it will offer little if any data on the US government’s own role in creating, manipulating and spreading biological threats globally, starting with the National Institutes of Health gain of function research which may have sparked the global Covid-19 pandemic, to the operation of dozens of military-grade biolabs around the world, including in Ukraine, Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Russia’s Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense Troops warned in January that Washington’s goals in the military-biological domain are multifold, ranging from the creation and manipulation of the causative agents of “particularly dangerous infections in regions of the world that are strategically important for the United States,” to efforts to achieve global “superiority” in biomanufacturing, biological monitoring, and the expansion of potentially unethical and illegal military biological research outside US jurisdictions.

RCBD Troops chief Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov has indicated that the US military bioresearch program “consists of government agencies and private contractors,” including representatives of big US pharmaceutical companies and that “through the organs of the executive branch, a legislative framework is being created to finance military-biological research directly from the federal budget.” In turn, Kirillov said, “guarantees provided by the state attract funds from non-governmental organizations,” including the Clinton, Soros and Rockefeller foundations.

NATO Goes All In on Transhumanism

The ‘2024 National Blueprint for Biodefense’ report comes less than a month after the NATO alliance published details on an alarming new “international strategy to govern the responsible development and use of biotechnologies and human enhancement technologies.”

On the pretext of unsubstantiated claims that adversaries, including Russia, are planning to deploy chemical and biological weapons, the NATO strategy offers a Brave New World-style vision of the need to fast track the development of biotech and human enhancement (BHE) technologies, predicting that they will “transform our economies, societies, security and defense in unprecedented and unforeseeable ways.”

NATO cites the AI-assisted modification of biological processes, cells and cellular compounds as “opportunities” to “enhance our defense and security,” including via “biotechnological and non-biotechnological interventions that enable individuals to operate beyond normal human limits or abilities.”

This scary new BHE push has been met with opposition from social conservatives worldwide, who have cited work in this direction as a means to establishing unprecedented levels control over humanity.

May 7, 2024 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

The Great Ukraine Robbery is Not Over Yet

By Ron Paul | May 6, 2024

The ink was barely dry on President Biden’s signature transferring another $61 billion to the black hole called Ukraine, when the mainstream media broke the news that this was not the parting shot in a failed US policy. The elites have no intention of shutting down this gravy train, which transports wealth from the middle and working class to the wealthy and connected class.

Reuters wrote right after the aid bill was passed that, “Ukraine’s $61 billion lifeline is not enough.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell went on the Sunday shows after the bill was passed to say that $61 billion is “not a whole lot of money for us…” Well, that’s easy for him to say – after all it’s always easier to spend someone else’s money!

Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, was far from grateful for the $170 billion we have shipped thus far to his country. In an interview with Foreign Policy magazine as the aid package was passed, Kuleba had the nerve to criticize the US for not producing weapons fast enough. “If you cannot produce enough interceptors to help Ukraine win the war against the country that wants to destroy the world order, then how are you going to win in the war against perhaps an enemy who is stronger than Russia?”

How’s that for a “thank you”?

It may be understandable why the Ukrainians are frustrated. Most of this money is not going to help them fight Russia. US military aid to Ukraine has left our own stockpiles of weapons depleted, so the money is going to create new production lines to replace weapons already sent to Ukraine. It’s all about the US weapons industry. President Biden admitted as much when he said, “we are helping Ukraine while at the same time investing in our own industrial base.”

This is why Washington Is desperate to make sure that if Donald Trump returns to the White House, the “Ukraine” gravy train cannot be shut down by his – or future – administrations. Last week news broke that the Ukrainian government was in negotiations with the Biden Administration to sign a ten-year security agreement that would lock in US funding for Ukraine for the next two and a half US Administrations. That would unconstitutionally tie future presidents’ hands when it comes to foreign policy and would leave Americans on the hook for untold billions more dollars taken from them and sent to the weapons industry and to a corrupt foreign government.

The US weapons industry and its cheerleaders in Washington DC are determined to keep Ukraine money flowing… until they can figure out a way to gin up a war with China after losing the current war with Russia. That, of course, depends on whether there is anything left of us when the smoke clears.

When President Biden signed the $95 billion bill to keep wars going in Ukraine and Gaza and to provoke a future war with China, he called it “a good day for world peace.” Yes, and “War is peace.” Debt is good. Freedom is slavery. We are living in a post-truth society where billions spent on pointless wars are “not a whole lot of money.” But the piper will be paid and the debt will be cleared.

May 7, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Skin Cancer

On Dermatology

Lies are Unbekoming | May 5, 2024

I was listening to a close friend recently talk about his regular visits to his Dermatologist to remove basal cell carcinomas, it was in connection to the stench of the burning skin.

I’d just read AMD’s long essay on the subject. At some point I’ll have to tell him about the Dermatology racket.

In a recent conversation with a different friend, I found myself explaining “meta ideas” that multiple industries rely on to make their living.

I explained it as a wall that is required to push against. Without that wall, you cannot generate enough force to go in your desired direction.

One of the biggest meta ideas within Cartel Medicine is Cancer, the big C.

Cancer and Virus have been competing for the top spot of Meta Ideas, with Virus I think now winning in that race, but for most of the last 50-70 years Cancer has been the biggest Meta Idea and the source of most fear and the source of most industrial profit for a wide variety of Interdependent Cartels.

This stack is about the Dermatology Cartel, that has relied on the Cancer “wall” and the demonization of the Sun; to generate all the force and energy it needs progress towards its profit goals.

I have created a list of Q&As relying on the wonderful and important work of AMD, Yoho and Mercola. Without these guys doing the heavy lifting on these subjects it would be impossible for people like me to come along and synthesize this material.

These are the three articles I have relied on:

Dermatology’s Disastrous War Against The Sun (midwesterndoctor.com)

FAILED CANCER TREATMENTS chapter from Butchered by “Healthcare” (substack.com)

Many Pathologists Agree Skin Cancer Is Overdiagnosed (substack.com)

But before we look at the Q&As, here are 15 of the most material statistics from the three texts.

Statistics

  1. Chemotherapy added only 2.1% to the 5-year survival for US adults treated for cancer, according to a literature search by Drs. Graeme Morgan and colleagues published in Clinical Oncology in 2004.
  2. By 2013, 65 to 70 percent of oncologists’ income was drug charges.
  3. New chemotherapy medications can be 300 times (not 300 percent) more expensive than old ones.
  4. Twenty percent of all Mohs surgeries are performed on people over 85 years old, many in the last year or weeks of life.
  5. Only 22% of melanomas occur in regions of the body with significant sunlight exposure, compared to 87% of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) cases and 82.5% of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) cases.
  6. Outdoor workers have a lower incidence of melanoma and half the risk compared to indoor workers, despite receiving 3-10 times the annual UV dose.
  7. A 1997 meta-analysis found workers with significant occupational sunlight exposure were 14% less likely to get melanoma.
  8. A 1982 study found fluorescent light exposure at work increased women’s risk of developing malignant melanoma by 2.1 times, with risk increasing based on exposure duration and intensity.
  9. In a survey of 115 dermatopathologists, 68% believed overdiagnosis was a public health issue for atypical nevi, 47% for melanoma in situ, and 35% for invasive melanoma.
  10. Dermatologists freeze millions of actinic keratoses (AKs) with liquid nitrogen, but studies show over half of AKs disappear on their own, with only 1% changing to skin cancer after a year and 4% after four years.
  11. The ideal blood level of vitamin D for disease prevention is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL, while 40 ng/mL is considered the low end of sufficiency, and 30 ng/mL is the minimum to prevent disease.
  12. In 2014, the average annual treatment cost for skin cancer was $8.1 billion for 4.9 million adults, a 44% increase in people diagnosed and a 125% increase in cost compared to 2002-2006.
  13. Curaderm, a topical cream containing eggplant extract, has a success rate of 66-78% in treating basal cell carcinoma.
  14. Valisure tested 294 sunscreen products and found 27% contained benzene, a known carcinogen, at levels at least three times higher than the FDA allows under special circumstances.
  15. The 2019 and 2020 JAMA studies found that certain sunscreen ingredients (avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate) may build up in the body at unhealthy levels after just one day of use and can persist in the body.

Questions and Answers

Question 1: What did the American Academy of Dermatology do in the 1980s to raise public awareness about skin cancer?

Answer: In the early 1980s, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) hired a prominent New York advertising agency for over 2 million dollars to raise the public’s appreciation of dermatology. The agency recommended “educating” the public that dermatologists are skin cancer experts, not just pimple poppers, and established free National Skin Cancer Screening Day.

Skin cancers are by far the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, so to prevent them, the public is constantly told to avoid the sun. However, while the relatively benign skin cancers are caused by sun exposure, the ones responsible for most skin cancer deaths are due to a lack of sunlight. – AMD

Question 2: What are actinic keratoses (AKs), and how do dermatologists typically treat them?

Answer: Actinic keratoses (AKs) are skin bumps that dermatologists call precancerous. Many seniors have dozens, if not hundreds of these. Dermatologists treat millions of AKs with liquid nitrogen devices resembling tiny blow-torches, billing Medicare for each treatment.

Question 3: What percentage of actinic keratoses (AKs) disappear on their own, and what proportion develop into skin cancer?

Answer: Studies show that over half of all actinic keratoses (AKs) disappear on their own. Only one percent change to skin cancer after a year, and four percent after four years. These skin cancers are virtually all slow-growing and easily treatable.

Question 4: What is Mohs surgery, and how does it differ from older methods of treating skin cancer?

Answer: Mohs surgery is a procedure where dermatologists remove skin cancer layer by layer, examining each layer under a microscope until all diseased tissue is removed. Patients may spend a full day in an operating room, and dermatologists bill for each cut, slide preparation, and microscopic examination. Older methods involved scratching, burning, or cutting away skin cancers and following up for recurrence.

Question 5: According to Robert Stern, a Harvard dermatologist, what factors influence the decision to utilize Mohs surgery?

Answer: According to Robert Stern, a Harvard dermatologist, “The decision to utilize [Mohs] is likely to reflect the economic advantage to the provider rather than a substantial clinical advantage for the patient.” He reported wide variations in usage by practice and region.

Question 6: What percentage of Mohs surgeries are performed on people over 85 years old, and under what circumstances?

Answer: Twenty percent of all Mohs surgeries are performed on people over 85 years old. Many are performed in the last year of life, and even in the last weeks before death. Demented people in nursing homes get frozen, biopsied, and operated on.

Question 7: How do dermatologists typically handle cases of melanoma, the only skin cancer that routinely metastasizes and kills people?

Answer: Dermatologists almost universally refer melanoma cases to plastic surgeons for removal and then to oncologists for chemotherapy. Few skin doctors want to get involved with a fatal disease.

Question 8: What pattern is observed when comparing melanoma diagnosis rates and mortality rates?

Answer: While melanoma diagnosis rates have increased dramatically, the total deaths from melanoma have not increased. The disease-specific mortality for melanoma has remained unchanged despite the extra procedures performed to treat them.

Question 9: What did the survey of 115 dermatopathologists reveal about their beliefs regarding the overdiagnosis of various skin conditions?

Answer: The survey of 115 dermatopathologists showed that 68% believed overdiagnosis was a public health issue for atypical nevi, 47% thought melanoma in situ was overdiagnosed, and 35% thought invasive melanoma was overdiagnosed.

Question 10: What did lead researcher Kathleen Kerr say about the disparity between increasing melanoma diagnoses and stable death rates?

Answer: Lead researcher Kathleen Kerr said, “Melanoma diagnoses have been rising in the U.S. If there were truly an epidemic of melanoma, we would expect deaths from melanoma to show a corresponding rise, since there hasn’t been a major breakthrough in treatment during this time. Yet melanoma deaths have been remarkably constant. This suggests that the rise in melanoma diagnoses is largely due to overdiagnosis.”

Question 11: What are the three primary risk factors for basal cell carcinoma (BCC)?

Answer: The three primary risk factors for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) are excessive sun exposure, fair skin (which makes you more susceptible to excessive sunlight penetrating your skin), and a family history of skin cancer.

Question 12: What percentage of basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) recur after removal, and what is the typical fatality rate?

Answer: The recurrence rate for basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) after removal ranges from 65% to 95%, depending on the source. Most sources say BCC has a 0% fatality rate.

Question 13: How does the metastasis and survival rate of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) compare to that of basal cell carcinoma (BCC)?

Answer: Unlike basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) can metastasize. If SCC is removed prior to metastasizing, it has a 99% survival rate, but if removed after metastasis, the survival rate drops to 56%. The average survival rate for SCC is around 95%.

Question 14: What percentage of melanomas occur in regions of the body with significant sun exposure, compared to squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC)?

Answer: Only 22% of melanomas occur in regions of the body with significant sunlight exposure, such as the face. In contrast, 87% of all SCC cases and 82.5% of BCC cases occur in these regions.

Question 15: How does the incidence of melanoma in outdoor workers compare to that of indoor workers, despite higher UV exposure?

Answer: Outdoor workers get 3-10 times the annual UV dose that indoor workers get, yet they have lower incidences of cutaneous malignant melanoma and an odds ratio (risk) that is half that of their indoor colleagues.

Question 16: What did a 1997 meta-analysis reveal about the risk of melanoma in workers with significant occupational sunlight exposure?

Answer: A 1997 meta-analysis of the available literature found workers with significant occupational sunlight exposure were 14% less likely to get melanoma.

One of the oldest “proven” therapies in medicine was having people bathe in sunlight (e.g., it was one of the few things that actually had success in treating the 1918 influenza, prior to antibiotics it was one of the most effective treatments for treating tuberculosis and it was also widely used for a variety of other diseases). In turn, since it is safe, effective, and freely available, it stands to reason that unscrupulous individuals who wanted to monopolize the practice of medicine would want to cut off the public’s access to it. – AMD

Note: the success of sunbathing was the original inspiration for ultraviolet blood irradiation.

Question 17: How does sunscreen use affect the rates of malignant melanoma, according to existing research?

Answer: Existing research has found using sunscreen either has no effect on the rates of malignant melanoma or increases it.

Question 18: What did a 1982 study find regarding the relationship between fluorescent light exposure at work and the risk of developing malignant melanoma in women?

Answer: A 1982 study of 274 women found that fluorescent light exposure at work caused a 2.1 times increase in their risk of developing malignant melanoma, with this risk increasing with more fluorescent light exposure, either due to the exposure at their job (1.8X with moderate exposure jobs, 2.6X with high exposure jobs) or the time spent working at it (i.e., 2.4X more likely for 1-9 years of work, 2.8X for 10-19 years, and 4.1X for over 20 years).

Question 19: What did the 1987 study comparing fatty acids in the tissue of melanoma patients and healthy controls find?

Answer: The 1987 study, which analyzed samples of fat tissue from 100 melanoma patients and 100 people without melanoma, found an increase in linoleic acid in the tissue of all subjects. However, the percentage of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) was significantly higher in the melanoma patients’ tissue. The researchers suggested that increased consumption of dietary polyunsaturates may have a contributory effect in the etiology of melanoma.

Question 20: What type of fatty acid is linoleic acid, and in what foods is it commonly found?

Answer: Linoleic acid is the primary fat found in omega-6 polyunsaturated fats, including vegetable/seed oils, and accounts for about 80% of the fat composition of vegetable oils. It is found in virtually every processed food, including restaurant foods, sauces, salad dressings, and “healthy” foods like chicken, pork, and some olive oil.

Question 21: What percentage of sunscreen products tested by Valisure were found to contain benzene, and what is benzene?

Answer: Valisure tested 294 sunscreen products and found that 27% contained benzene, a known human carcinogen, at levels at least three times higher than the FDA allows under special circumstances.

Question 22: What sunscreen ingredient, found in 70% of products, is known to be an endocrine disruptor?

Answer: Oxybenzone, found in an estimated 70% of sunscreens, is a known endocrine disruptor linked to reduced sperm count in men and endometriosis in women.

Question 23: According to a Danish study, how many sunscreen chemicals allowed in the US may reduce male fertility?

Answer: According to a Danish study, 8 out of 29 sunscreen chemicals allowed in the US and/or European Union can reduce male fertility by affecting calcium signaling in the sperm, in part by exerting a progesterone-like effect.

Question 24: What did the 2019 and 2020 JAMA studies find regarding the absorption and persistence of certain sunscreen ingredients in the body?

Answer: The 2019 and 2020 JAMA studies found that certain sunscreen ingredients (avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate) may build up in the body at unhealthy levels. The ingredients were absorbed after only one day’s exposure, and some persisted in the body after use.

Question 25: What blood level of vitamin D is considered ideal for disease prevention, according to the research cited?

Answer: According to the research cited, the ideal blood level of vitamin D for disease prevention is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL, while 40 ng/mL is considered the low end of sufficiency, and 30 ng/mL is the minimum to prevent disease.

Question 26: What signs and symptoms may indicate that a person has low vitamin D levels?

Answer: Signs and symptoms that may indicate low vitamin D levels include ongoing musculoskeletal pain and achy bones, frequent infections or illnesses, neurological symptoms (such as depression, cognitive impairment, and migraines), and fatigue and daytime sleepiness.

Question 27: How does the antioxidant astaxanthin function as an “internal sunscreen”?

Answer: Astaxanthin is a potent antioxidant that acts as an internal sunscreen by protecting against UV radiation exposure and gene expression changes that lead to skin photoaging, such as sagging and wrinkles. It has strong free radical scavenging activity that protects against oxidative damage.

Question 28: What other nutrients are mentioned that may provide photoprotection for the skin?

Answer: Other nutrients mentioned that may provide photoprotection for the skin include lycopene, beta-carotene, vitamin D, and vitamin E.

Question 29: What does Dr. David Elpern believe led to the overdiagnosis of melanoma and an increase in expensive, low-value procedures for skin cancer and actinic keratosis?

Answer: Dr. David Elpern believes that the American Academy of Dermatology’s (AAD) campaign in the 1980s to educate the public about dermatologists being skin cancer experts led to inflated health anxiety about skin cancer, resulting in the overdiagnosis of melanoma and an increase in expensive, low-value procedures for skin cancer and actinic keratosis.

Question 30: What role did dermatopathologists’ perception of overdiagnosis play in their diagnostic behavior when examining skin biopsy cases?

Answer: The study found no statistically significant associations between dermatopathologists’ perceptions about overdiagnosis and their interpretive behavior when diagnosing skin biopsy cases. Dermatopathologists who believed invasive melanoma was overdiagnosed were slightly more likely to diagnose invasive melanoma compared to other dermatopathologists examining identical cases.

Question 31: What are the consequences of overdiagnosing melanoma for patients?

Answer: Overdiagnosing melanoma can have significant consequences for patients on both an emotional and financial level.

Question 32: What factors make reducing overdiagnosis of skin cancer challenging, according to lead researcher Kathleen Kerr?

Answer: According to lead researcher Kathleen Kerr, reducing overdiagnosis of skin cancer will be challenging as it requires cooperation between patients, primary care physicians, and pathologists.

Question 33: What did the studies from 1991, 2008, 2002, and 2011 demonstrate about the effectiveness of a topical cream containing a nightshade extract (solasodine glycosides) in treating various types of skin cancer?

Answer: The studies from 1991, 2008, 2002, and 2011 demonstrated the effectiveness of a topical cream containing a nightshade extract (solasodine glycosides) in treating various types of skin cancer, including actinic keratosis, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The 1991 trial showed complete regression of lesions with no adverse effects, the 2008 trial found a 66% success rate for treating BCC, the 2002 English trial showed a 78% success rate for treating BCC with a short duration of treatment, and the 2011 case report showed good cosmetic outcomes for large BCC and SCC lesions.

Question 34: What is the current state of natural and alternative treatments for skin cancer, such as Curaderm, and why are they not more widely known and utilized despite their reported success rates?

Answer: There are several natural and alternative treatments for skin cancer that have been scientifically studied and have shown promising results. One such treatment is Curaderm, a topical cream containing solasodine glycosides, which are derived from eggplant extract. Studies have demonstrated that Curaderm has a success rate of 66-78% in treating basal cell carcinoma (BCC), the most common type of skin cancer.

In addition to Curaderm, other natural and alternative treatments that have undergone scientific study include topical creams containing vitamin B3 (niacinamide) and vitamin A (retinoids). While these treatments have shown potential, more research is needed to fully establish their effectiveness and safety.

Despite the reported success rates of these alternative therapies, they are not widely known or utilized in the mainstream treatment of skin cancer. This lack of awareness and adoption can be attributed to several factors, one of which is the potential threat they pose to the lucrative business model of the dermatology profession.

Healthy Sunbathing (by AMD)

One of the major mistakes Americans frequently make is the belief that if something is good for you, more of it is better. This very much holds true for sun exposure, as (assuming you are caucasian) once your skin starts turning pink, you lose the ability to utilize the sunlight you are being exposed to (e.g., you stop producing vitamin D), and in time also begin to burn (which can damage the skin). For this reason, many advise stopping sunbathing once your skin starts to turn pink and making sure to have regular small bursts of sunlight rather than intermittent large ones.

Note: doing this often completely eliminates the need for vitamin D and is one of the things that I’ve repeatedly seen greatly helps with longevity.

Additionally, there is a “good” type of ultraviolet light (UVB) and a bad type (UVA), and depending upon the time of day, different types are in prominence. For this reason, the absolute best time to be outside is between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., which interestingly is the time Chinese Medicine recognizes that the energy of the heart peaks (an organ I believe is particularly sensitive to the energy of sunlight).

Conversely, most windows block UVB (but not UVA) so it’s actually not a good idea to get your direct light exposure through the window.

Note: specialized materials exist which don’t do this (e.g., quartz glass), but they are a bit expensive and hard to find.

Finally, something many do not appreciate about sunscreens is that two forms of them exist—ones that work by having chemicals which absorb UV light (and decrease it) and ones that simply block and reflect it. The chemicals that absorb UV light are often quite toxic, and a case can be made they are actually responsible for some of the increase in skin cancer that has been observed. With the reflecting ones, either titanium oxide or zinc oxide are typically used. Zinc oxide is the better option (people don’t react to it, and it can sometimes help heal the skin), so when selecting a sunscreen, the main thing to look for is one that uses zinc oxide and doesn’t have any questionable chemicals in it.

Note: there are now beginning to be pushes to stop the use of more toxic sunscreens in areas with abundant aquatic life because they poison the reefs. This raises the point that if a small amount of sunscreen diluted in the water is too toxic for an ecosystem to handle, why would you want to put it on your skin where it can directly absorb into the body at its full concentration?

May 7, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Once Upon A Lockdown

Aidan Killian | May 4, 2024

Irish comedian and storyteller, Aidan Killian travelled around Ireland during ‘lockdown’ and this shows another side of the story about how many lived, connected, and gathered during these dark times.

May 7, 2024 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Australia’s Digital ID Push Is Undermined by Data Leak Disaster

By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | May 5, 2024

The Australian government’s decision to institute a pilot program testing an online age verification system digital ID system was overshadowed by a privacy scandal concerning a legal requirement for bars and clubs in the region.

The wrinkle juxtaposed these two narratives in a glaring light and shows how the push for digital ID raises privacy concerns that transcend the initial point-of-sale or point-of-access and becomes an ongoing data-invasive system that makes surveillance much easier.

In New South Wales (NSW), clubs must legally collate personal information from patrons upon entry under the state’s registered clubs legislation, a mandate echoing the proposed age verification and digital ID requirement for websites. The data gathered, meant to be safeguarded under federal privacy laws, has become the heart of recent concerns on privacy and data risks surrounding age verification as it has ended up getting leaked.

However, following hard on the heels of the government’s announcement of an online age verification system, the privacy of club-goers and bar attendees was threatened in a substantial data privacy issue.

There are now suspicions of a considerable data violation, involving personal data collected under law by these venues. An unauthorized platform has purportedly made accessible the personal data of over a million customers from at least 16 licensed NSW clubs, forcing cybercrime detectives into action.

The alleged data spill includes records and personal data of high-level government officials. Outabox, an IT service provider, stated it had been notified about the potential data breach involving a sign-in system used by its clients by an “unrestricted” third party.

Government representatives, in the face of this serious data breach, attempted to understate the magnitude of the incident. The Gaming Minister David Harris, in response to the crisis, clarified the incident wasn’t a hack as it stemmed from a data breach of a third-party vendor.

“We know that this is an alleged data breach of a third-party vendor, so it wasn’t a hack,” he said.

“There was a high-level meeting yesterday and the authorities, cybersecurity and police organizations are currently investigating that and when we get authorization we can give more information.”

But such an incident underscores precisely the apprehensions articulated about online age verification and digital ID mandates. It’s also underscored by the fact that the government wants to backdoor encrypted messaging, ending privacy for all. But as with all of this data surveillance, you can’t control who ultimately gets their hands on that data.

May 6, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Still Pushing COVID Shots for Pregnant Women

Could Millions in Government Funding Explain Why?

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | May 2, 2024

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) missed a May 1 deadline to explain why the organization recommends COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women despite growing evidence that they pose a serious risk.

Reform Pharma, a Children’s Health Defense (CHD) initiative, sent ACOG a letter on March 22 outlining the extensive and mounting scientific research documenting the risks of the vaccines to mothers and infants.

The letter also addressed grant money ACOG accepted from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The funding was contingent on the organization’s full compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) guidance endorsing the vaccine during pregnancy.

The grant also stipulated that ACOG admonish doctors who failed to follow CDC protocols and track women who declined the vaccine, then target them with follow-up pressure to get the shot.

Reform Pharma demanded ACOG end its practice of recommending COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant women and explain why it has continued to push the shot until now.

The letter stated:

“It’s time for ACOG to reconcile and admit its mistake. … Our team demands that ACOG stop intimidating and misleading both physicians and pregnant women. …

“It is imperative that ACOG take proper action now to prevent needless further injury and death, as it is under a legal, ethical, and moral obligation to stop the shots!”

After ACOG didn’t respond, Reform Pharma sent a follow-up letter on April 22 via certified mail and email to the ACOG president and its chief legal officer.

The letter gave ACOG until May 1 to explain, in writing, why it continues to push the COVID-19 vaccines.

ACOG President Verda J. Hicks responded by blocking Reform Pharma’s email.

An automated out-of-office reply was the only response from the organization’s chief legal officer, Molly Meegan.

“The fact that the ACOG president blocked us shows that they are not even willing to have a conversation to explain why they continue to push COVID-19 shots on pregnant women despite mounting scientific evidence of the safety risks,” Reform Pharma co-director Amy Miller told The Defender.

Reform Pharma continues working to publicize what it says is ACOG’s corruption.

“The American people need to know that ACOG is using its authority and influence to push dangerous COVID-19 shots on pregnant women but failed to disclose its backdoor deal with the CDC,” Justine Tanguay, an attorney and Reform Pharma’s co-director, told The Defender.

“Sacrificing the lives and health of pregnant women and their unborn babies in exchange for money is unacceptable,” she added.

Reform Pharma’s mission is to systematically end corruption in Big Pharma and restore integrity to the U.S. healthcare system.

“Reform Pharma is doing critically important work shining a light on organizations like ACOG which purport to represent the interests of their member physicians and the patients those physicians treat,” Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD general counsel and a signatory to the letter, told The Defender.

“In reality, money talks, and it appears that payments and incentives from pharmaceutical companies may influence and capture such organizations.”

ACOG a ‘massively powerful’ organization that dominates maternal-fetal health

ACOG is a “massively powerful” organization with 60,000 members, maternal-fetal medicine expert Dr. James Thorp told The Defender.

The professional membership organization for obstetricians and gynecologists produces practice guidelines, educational materials and initiatives to improve women’s health, according to its website.

It is also — along with the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) and American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) — a key gatekeeper organization for the field of obstetrics and gynecology, exercising tremendous power over the practices and norms among its members who are practitioners in women’s health, Thorp said.

According to Reform Pharma, ACOG takes its marching orders from Big Pharma and public health agencies.

“It functions primarily as a shill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and, in particular, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — both lobbying arms for the pharmaceutical industry,” Reform Pharma wrote in its letter.

This became even more concerning once ACOG started promoting the COVID-19 vaccines, Reform Pharma said.

When the vaccines came on the market in December 2020, ACOG held a neutral position on vaccination during pregnancy, recommending pregnant women “be free to make their own decision regarding COVID-19 vaccination.”

That changed in July 2021, when the organization began encouraging its members to “enthusiastically recommend vaccination to their patients,” after accepting $11 million in grant money from HHS and CDC to adopt and promote the agencies’ positions on COVID-19 to its members.

“If ACOG should waver or fail to toe the line, ACOG would be required to return all the grant money it received,” according to Reform Pharma’s letter.

“ACOG made a deal with the devil and willingly sacrificed the health of pregnant women and their unborn babies in exchange for money,” Reform Pharma said.

Reform Pharma also accused ACOG of pressuring and intimidating doctors into strongly recommending the vaccine to their patients and directing them to “harass” women who refused until they capitulated.

Attorney Maggie Thorp, who last year identified the HHS grant funding — which she told The Defender is now up to $17 million since the COVID-19 pandemic period began — said she believes the CDC is just using ACOG as its mouthpiece.

Based on her analysis of the documents acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request, Maggie Thorp said the collaboration between the public health agency and the private organization is so tight that it was “hard to identify where CDC ended and where ACOG began.”

She said HHS is using ACOG to do what it cannot — “dictate the content of private conversations that happen between doctors and their pregnant patients.”

In that sense, Maggie Thorp said, HHS is “using ACOG to quell doctors’ free speech and their ability to express dissent.”

As a result, she said, patients don’t get access to the information they need to give “true, valid informed consent.”

James Thorp said that ACOG then collaborates with its partner organizations, SMFM, ABOG, and the Federation of State Medical Boards, which can take away doctors’ medical licenses or accreditation if they don’t comply, as the federation openly said it would in a July 2021 letter.

“They have the power to fire doctors or remove their accreditation from the medical board. That destroys an obstetrician,” he said. “So it’s extraordinarily intimidating.”

‘Sad’ that ACOG ‘ignores the science’

Reform Pharma provided ACOG with an extensively footnoted overview of current science showing the risks COVID-19 shots pose to pregnant women and the general population.

For example, studies have shown that the vaccine can pass through the blood-brain barrier and the placenta.

Early reporting in 2021 by the CDC’s Dr. Tom Shimabukuro in the New England Journal of Medicine claiming the shots were safe based on the CDC’s own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Monitoring System (V-safe) data was statistically flawed, the letter stated.

Shimabukuro concluded there were no “obvious safety signals” among pregnant women who received the vaccine. However, he presented the numbers in a misleading manner that obscured the actual rate of spontaneous abortions.

According to Reform Pharma’s letter:

“Failure to disclose the true incidence of spontaneous abortion is at best gross incompetence and at worst malfeasance. The true incidence of spontaneous abortion [in his statistics, among first- and second-trimester pregnancies] is alarming, ranging between 82% to 91%.”

Early research also linked the shot to “autism-like behaviors” in newborn rats, indicating the shot could complicate neurodevelopment and underscoring the need for more studies.

Several studies in top journals have shown that nursing mothers shed the spike protein in their breast milk, causing potentially serious adverse reactions in their newborn babies.

And, according to the letter, the COVID-19 shots pose safety risks for all people that also extend beyond complications associated with pregnancy. That data has been published extensively in places ranging from VAERS to peer-reviewed studies and beyond — sources readily available to anyone at ACOG who cares to investigate.

Given the extensive evidence summarized in the letter, “It is sad that ACOG appears not to be doing a deep dive into all the science concerning COVID-19 injections, instead taking the word of the pharmaceutical companies themselves and the FDA and CDC, which similarly rely on pharma science,” Mack Rosenberg said.

“Particularly tragic is the failure of ACOG to acknowledge and investigate the important evidence from patients themselves of the tragic impact these injections have had on pregnant women, their babies and their families,” she added.

“Pregnant women should never take this vaccine,” said James Thorp, who also has extensively documented the literature on the dangers of the COVID-19 shots for pregnant women.

“It isn’t even really a vaccine,” he said. “It’s an experimental genetic therapy with absolutely zero long-term follow-up. This is unprecedented. This is a complete violation of the golden rule of pregnancy.”

‘Wrongdoers will be held accountable’ 

The “public health emergency” has been officially over since May 11, 2023, and it has been demonstrated that vaccines don’t stop transmission and that there is extensive evidence regarding risks to pregnant women and all people, Reform Pharma wrote.

That means, “the only explanation for ACOG continuing to push this poison on pregnant women and their unborn children is that the organization is ‘bought off,’” the letter said. “Wrongdoers will be held accountable.”

Reform Pharma reiterated its concerns in the second letter, but aside from the blocked email and out-of-office notifications, ACOG has not responded.

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior 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.

May 6, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Target Israel and we’ll target you: US senators warn ICC

Press TV – May 6, 2024

A dozen American senators have strongly warned the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s chief prosecutor against the UN court’s potential issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli officials over the regime’s ongoing genocidal war on the Gaza Strip.

The warning was issued in a harshly-toned letter addressed by the senators to the British lawyer Karim Khan on Monday.

“Target Israel and we will target you,” wrote the senators, who included Tom Cotton, Mitch McConnell, Rick Scott, Tim Scott, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio.

The ICC, located in The Hague, is currently conducting investigations into reported war crimes committed by the Israeli military.

Speculations have been rife that the court could issue arrest warrants against top Israeli officials over the October-present war that has so far killed nearly 35,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children.

The Israeli officials facing the prospect include Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Minister for Military Affairs Yoav Gallant, and the Israeli military’s Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi.

The senators, however, said by serving the warrants, the ICC risked losing the United States’ support.

The undersigned also cautioned Khan that they would move to “sanction your employees and associates, and bar you and your families from the United States,” adding, “You have been warned.”

Back in January, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ legal arm, ruled that “there is a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza and the continuing serious harm to civilians since then.” The court ordered Tel Aviv to take all measures to prevent genocide in the coastal sliver, but stopped short of ordering a ceasefire.

Ever since the ruling, though, the regime has even stepped up its deadly assaults on the Palestinian territory, and has vowed to carry out a ground invasion against the southern Gazan city of Rafah, where some 1.5 million people are seeking refuge from the ravages of the war.

May 6, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

UN experts ‘appalled’ by Israeli military’s sexual violence against Palestinian women

Press TV – May 6, 2024

United Nations experts say they are “appalled” that Israeli military forces continue to sexually assault Palestinian women in the Gaza Strip.

In a joint statement on Monday, UN Special Rapporteurs “expressed profound dismay at the reported targeting of Palestinian women by Israeli forces.”

They underscored “continued reports of sexual assault and violence against women and girls, including against those detained by Israeli occupation forces.”

“We are appalled that women are being targeted by Israel with such vicious, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, seemingly sparing no means to destroy their lives and deny them their fundamental human rights.”

A UN report in March said there were “reasonable grounds” to believe sexual violence, including rape, was committed in multiple locations across the besieged Palestinian territory.

The Special Rapporteurs had earlier warned the regime that these inhumane acts could “amount to serious crimes under international criminal law that could be prosecuted under the Rome Statute.”

UN experts also said the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, exacerbated by widespread destruction of housing and infrastructure, disproportionately affects women and girls.

They cited the challenges faced by pregnant and lactating women, including Israel’s direct bombardment of Gaza hospitals and denial of access to healthcare facilities, that has led to a surge in miscarriages and infant mortality.

The Special Rapporteurs are independent experts – part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council – whose mandate is to follow and report on the human rights situation of a specific country or thematic issues in all parts of the world.

Israel has killed more than 34,600 people, 70% of whom women and children, in Gaza since early October, according to the Gaza health ministry.

May 6, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Israel acknowledges barbarous strike on UNRWA building in Gaza

Press TV – May 6, 2024

Israel has bombed a building belonging to the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) in the besieged Gaza Strip.

Israel’s broadcaster KAN said the military hit the UN facility late Sunday on the proclaimed grounds that it was being used as a “military command center” by the resistance movement Hamas.

Many people were also killed in airstrikes by Israeli warplanes on two schools in Gaza where displaced families had taken shelter.

Israel has previously targeted UNRWA centers and UN-run schools across the besieged Palestinian territory.

UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini recently called for countries to back an independent investigation into killings and detentions of its staff and damage to its premises in Gaza.

UNRWA has accused Israel of targeting its facilities since early October.

The agency says 182 of its staff there had been killed and more than 160 of its shelters hit, resulting in the death of hundreds of people fleeing Israeli bombardment.

UNRWA is the biggest humanitarian aid provider in Gaza, where its 13,000 staff there also run schools and social services for the refugees who make up the majority of Gazans.

The regime is forcibly evacuating Palestinians from the eastern part of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip amid the prospect of its widely-discouraged ground invasion.

Hamas has called on humanitarian organizations, including UNRWA, not to leave Rafah.

The Palestinian resistance movement has also called on the international community to take urgent action to stop Israel’s planned invasion.

Israel has killed nearly 34,700 Palestinians, mostly women and children, in Gaza since October 7, 2023.

The International Court of Justice has said it is “plausible” that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

May 6, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel signals rejection of ceasefire proposal accepted by Hamas

Press TV – May 6, 2024

The Palestinian resistance movement Hamas has agreed to a ceasefire proposal in Gaza, where it has fought a seven-month Israeli aggression that has left tens of thousands dead.

A short statement from Hamas on Monday said that head of the group’s politburo, Ismail Haniyeh, had informed Qatari and Egyptian mediators that it accepted their proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza.

The Israeli regime, however, appears not to have accepted the deal.

If the ceasefire agreement takes effect, it would be the first truce since a week-long pause in the fighting in November 2023.

The statement by Hamas came hours after senior officials in the group said efforts for reaching a ceasefire would stop if Israel goes ahead with its plans to invade the city of Rafah in southern Gaza, where more than half of the territory’s population of 2.3 million people has been sheltering from Israel’s brutal bombardments in other regions.

Israel on Monday ordered people in some parts of Rafah to evacuate in an apparent move to prepare for an invasion of the city.

The US government said it had warned the Israeli regime against a major operation in Rafah.

Speaking to reporters after Hamas’ announcement on the ceasefire, the Israeli military spokesperson Daniel Hagari would not confirm whether Israel would go ahead with plans to attack Rafah.

However, he said that the Israeli regime will exhaust “every possibility regarding negotiations and returning the hostages.”

A senior Hamas official told Al Jazeera that the proposal presented by Qatar and Egypt consists of a three-stage plan, and includes the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, the return of Palestinian refugees, and a prisoner exchange.

Khalil al-Hayya, deputy head of Hamas politburo in Gaza, explained that the plan is interconnected in terms of the stages of its implementation.

In the first stage of the agreement, the Israeli military will withdraw to areas adjacent to Gaza, he said. In the second stage, he said, a permanent ceasefire and cessation of hostilities will be declared.

Al-Hayya insisted that the ball was now in the Israeli regime’s court whether to accept the deal and end the war.

The Hamas official also said that the mediators promised that US President Joe Biden had signaled a commitment to ensuring the implementation of the proposed deal.

Biden spoke over the phone with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday to warn him that Washington is concerned about Israel’s Rafah invasion plans.

Saudi Arabia also warned of the dangers of Israel targeting Rafah as part of its “bloody” and “systematic campaign to storm all areas of the Gaza Strip and displace its residents”.

Nearly 35,000 people have been killed in Gaza since Israel launched its aggression on the enclave on October 7 last year.

The invasion came hours after Hamas carried out a brief but extensive military operation into the Israeli-occupied territories near Gaza, killing nearly 1,200 Israeli settlers and military forces.

Hamas also took some 250 captives during its anti-Israeli operation in October. Under growing pressure from settler communities living in the occupied Palestine, the Israeli regime has been pushing for the release of the captives as part of a potential ceasefire deal with Hamas.

May 6, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »