Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

FBI ran ‘honeypot’ operation on 2016 Trump campaign – whistleblower

RT | October 30, 2024

Former FBI Director James Comey personally ordered “honeypot” spies to infiltrate Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, according to an agency whistleblower. The off-the-books operation was described by the agency insider as a “fishing expedition” to find wrongdoing among Trump’s team.

The operation was “personally directed” by Comey and launched in June 2015 without any case file being created in the FBI’s database, according to a whistleblower report handed to the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and seen by the Washington Times.

At the time, Trump had just announced his first presidential campaign and neither he nor anyone on his campaign team was suspected of any crimes. Nevertheless, Comey ordered two “honeypot” agents to infiltrate Trump’s team on the campaign trail with the aim of extracting damning information from adviser George Papadopoulos, the report claimed.

A “honeypot” agent refers to an attractive woman who uses a sexual or romantic relationship to gather intelligence from a target.

Comey’s operation took place a year before the FBI’s ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged contacts with Russia, which later morphed into Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s two-year ‘Russiagate’ probe. According to the whistleblower, the honeypot operation was kept “off the books” to conceal it from the US Justice Department’s inspector general, who later determined that Comey knowingly lied when submitting evidence to obtain a warrant to surveil Trump’s campaign.

Papadopoulos was eventually questioned by the FBI and in 2017 pled guilty to making false statements to agents regarding his alleged contacts with Russia the year before. He served 12 days in federal prison in 2018, and has claimed ever since that he was entrapped by FBI agents posing as Russians with damaging information on Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton.

He complained about sloppy FBI agents “dropping information in my lap that I did not want regarding Hillary Clinton’s emails in the hands of the Russians” during the Crossfire Hurricane probe, and claimed to have been targeted by at least one “honeypot” beforehand. However, Papadopoulos thought that the woman was working for the CIA and “affiliated with Turkish intelligence,” he said in 2019.

The operation was canceled when a newspaper obtained a photograph of one of the agents and was about to publish it, the whistleblower claimed. The FBI allegedly contacted the newspaper claiming that the woman in question was an informant, and not an agent, and would be killed if the photo was released, successfully preventing its publication. One of the agents was then allegedly transferred to the CIA so she would not be available as a potential witness.

“The FBI employee personally observed one or more employees in the FBI being directed to never discuss the operation with anyone ever again, which included talking with other people involved in the operation,” the report states.

The Judiciary Committee told the Washington Times that it “plans to look into” the report. Trump fired Comey in 2017, describing him as a “liar” and a “slimeball.”

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

How the West rigged Moldova’s referendum on the European Union

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 30, 2024

On October 20, a referendum was held on the Moldovan public’s interest in a constitutional reform to enable entry into the European Union. The “yes” vote won with 50.39%, a numerical margin of about 12,000 votes.

This result was well below expectations, considering all the government’s preparation and mobilization in support of the referendum.

Since Maia Sandu came to power, the goal has been to transform Moldova into a platform and tool for provocation and attack against Russia, similar to how Georgia and Ukraine were positioned in the past.

This had already begun even before Sandu’s election in 2020, with the free operation of Western or pro-Western NGOs in the country. According to various studies, there are around 14,000 NGOs registered in Moldova, a ratio of 1:200, with USAID having a strong direct presence in the country and indirect influence (as a funder of other NGOs).

USAID alone has invested more than $500 million in Moldova over the past 10 years. In terms of general funding, the West supports NGO activities in Moldova with $110 million annually. Besides USAID itself, other main NGO funders include the Open Society Foundation, the governments of Germany and the Netherlands, the NED, and Chatham House.

Among these “Moldovan” NGOs are Promo-LEX, IDIS Viitorul, the EEF (East Europe Foundation), WatchDog.MD, and the EBA (European Business Association), among others. All these groups work in areas like “promoting democracy and human rights” and “countering Russian disinformation.”

In recent years, these and many other NGOs have been actively shaping public opinion through social engineering techniques, aiming to “Ukrainize” Moldovans; that is, to turn Moldovans into Russophobic bots and compliant followers of Washington and Brussels.

With Sandu’s victory, Moldova’s automatic alignment with the West began. To achieve this, the nationalist sentiments of the population are naturally utilized, as the population historically identifies with Romania. However, this connection is manipulated not to foster a Romanian ethno-cultural identity but as a vehicle for the Westernization of Moldova.

When Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine began, Sandu seized the moment to formally apply for EU membership, despite Moldova’s constitution mandating geopolitical non-alignment. Shortly thereafter, the government started imposing censorship on the use of the Russian language in the country, as well as restricting Russian media and symbols, and even arrested her political rival, Igor Dodon. Predictably, Sandu quickly began indebting her country with multi-million euro loans from the European Union.

In the Moldovan narrative, Transnistria, a tiny strip of land with a Russian majority, poses a major threat to “Moldovan sovereignty.” Thus, Sandu decided to sacrifice Moldovan sovereignty in order to defend it. It makes no sense, but that’s how the minds of politicians who have been brainwashed by Western influence work.

Meanwhile, NATO stationed nearly 10,000 troops along the Moldovan border (even though foreign troops are prohibited on its territory), and the country faces frequent anti-government protests from citizens worried that the West might try to turn Moldova into another Ukraine.

This brings us to the referendum on constitutional reform aimed at EU integration. The result, although “victorious,” was disappointing, considering all the money spent promoting the EU, the imprisonment of opposition members, media censorship, and social engineering efforts by NGOs. Even this victory was only achieved through fraud. If you look closely at the referendum maps, you get the impression that the “no” vote won over the “yes.” And that’s exactly what happened: only 46% of Moldova’s residents voted for the reform. The majority of the country’s population voted against EU integration. In all of Gagauzia and the northern regions, opposition to the EU was nearly unanimous, and even in the center of the country, a significant portion of the population voted against joining the EU.

That’s when the “expatriate” population came into play—those who don’t live in the country, don’t share its fate, yet feel entitled to decide on its future. Out of 235,000 diaspora votes, 180,000 supported EU membership. The trick was simple: they increased the number of polling stations in Western countries while in Russia, where 500,000 Moldovans live (half the diaspora and one-sixth of all Moldovans worldwide), they reduced polling stations from 17 to 2, with only 10,000 ballots available.

The conclusion, therefore, is that under democratic rules, the Eurocrats and globalists would be soundly defeated at the polls. But since they don’t really care about democracy, they ensured that only the “right people” could vote.

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , | Leave a comment

Media Changes Narrative as the Ukrainian Proxy War is Coming to an End

By Professor Glenn Diesen  | October 30, 2024

The Economist reports that “Russia is slicing through Ukrainian defences” and Ukraine is subsequently “struggling to survive”.[1] Across the Western media, the public is prepared for defeat and painful concessions in future negotiations. The media is changing the narrative as reality can no longer be ignored. Russia’s coming victory has been obvious since at least the summer of 2023, yet this was ignored to keep the proxy war going.

We are witnessing an impressive demonstration of narrative control: For more than two years, the political-media elites have been chanting “Ukraine is winning” and denounced any dissent to their narrative as “Kremlin talking points” that aim to reduce support for the war. What was “Russian propaganda” yesterday is now suddenly the consensus of the collective media. Critical self-reflection is as absent as it was after the Russiagate reporting.

Similar narrative control was displayed when the media reassured the public for two decades that NATO was winning [in Afghanistan], before fleeing in a great rush with dramatic images of people falling off an airplane.

The media deceived the public by presenting the stagnant frontlines as evidence that Russia was not winning. However, in a war of attrition, the direction of the war is measured by attrition rates – the losses on each side. Territorial control comes after the adversary has been exhausted as territorial expansion is very costly in such high-intensity warfare with powerful defensive lines. The attrition rates have throughout the war been extremely unfavourable to Ukraine, and they continuously get worse. The current collapse of the Ukrainian frontlines was very predictable as the manpower and weaponry have been exhausted.

Why has the former narrative expired? The public could be misled by fake attrition rates, yet it is not possible to cover up territorial changes after the eventual breaking point. Furthermore, the proxy war was beneficial to NATO when the Russians and Ukrainians were bleeding each other without any significant territorial changes. Once the Ukrainians are exhausted and begin to lose strategic territory, it is no longer in the interest of NATO to continue the war.

Narrative Control: Weaponising Empathy

The political-media elites weaponised empathy to get public support for war and disdain for diplomacy. The Western public was convinced to support the proxy war against Russia by appealing to their empathy for the suffering of Ukrainians and the injustice of their loss of sovereignty. Yet, all appeals to empathy are always translated into support for continued warfare and dismissing diplomatic solutions.

Those who disagreed with the NATO’s mantra that “weapons are the way to peace” and instead suggested negotiations, were quickly dismissed as puppets of the Kremlin who did not care about Ukrainians. Support for continued fighting in a war that cannot be won has been the only acceptable expression of empathy.

For the postmodernists seeking to socially construct their own reality, great power rivalry is largely a battle of narratives. The weaponisation of empathy enabled the war narrative to become impervious to criticism. War is virtuous and diplomacy is treasonous as Ukraine was allegedly fighting Russia’s unprovoked war with the objective to subjugate the entire country. A strong moral framing convinced people to deceive and self-censor in support of the noble cause.

Even criticism of how Ukrainian civilians were dragged into cars by their government and sent to their deaths on the frontlines was portrayed as supporting “Kremlin talking points” as it undermined the NATO war narrative.

Reporting on high Ukrainian casualty rates threatened to undermine support for the war. Reporting on the failure of sanctions threatened to reduce public support for the sanctions. Reporting on the likely US destruction of Nord Stream threatened to create divisions within the miliary bloc. Reporting on the US and UK sabotage of the Minsk agreement and the Istanbul negotiations threatens the narrative of NATO merely attempting to “help” Ukraine. The public is offered the binary option of adhering either to the pro-Ukraine/NATO narrative or the pro-Russia narrative. Anyone challenging the narrative with inconvenient facts could thus be accused of supporting Moscow’s narrative. Reporting that Russia was winning was uncritically interpreted as taking Russia’s side.

There are ample facts and statements that demonstrate NATO has been fighting to the last Ukrainian to weaken a strategic rival. Yet, the strict narrative control entails that such evidence have not been permitted to be discussed.

The Objectives of a Proxy War: Bleeding the Adversary

The strict demand for loyalty to the narrative conceals unreported facts that US foreign policy is about restoring global primacy and not an altruistic commitment to liberal democratic values. The US considers Ukraine to be an important instrument to weaken Russia as a strategic rival.

RAND Corporation, a think tank funded by the US government and renowned for its close ties with the intelligence community, published a report in 2019 on how the US could bleed Russia by pulling it further into Ukraine. RAND recognised that the US could send more military equipment to Ukraine and threaten NATO expansion to provoke Russia to increase its involvement in Ukraine:

“Providing more U.S. military equipment and advice could lead Russia to increase its direct involvement in the conflict and the price it pays for it… While NATO’s requirement for unanimity makes it unlikely that Ukraine could gain membership in the foreseeable future, Washington pushing this possibility could boost Ukrainian resolve while leading Russia to redouble its efforts to forestall such a development”.[2]

However, the same RAND report recognised that the strategy of bleeding Russia had to be carefully “calibrated” as a full-scale war could result in Russia acquiring strategic territories, which is not in the interest of the US. After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the strategy was similarly to keep the war going as long as there were not significant territorial changes.

In March 2022, Leon Panetta (former White House Chief of Staff, US Secretary of Defence, and CIA Director) acknowledged: “We are engaged in a conflict here, it’s a proxy war with Russia, whether we say so or not… The way you get leverage is by, frankly, going in and killing Russians”.[3] Even Zelensky recognised in March 2022 that some Western states wanted to use Ukraine as a proxy against Russia: “There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives”.[4]

US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin outlined the objectives in the Ukraine proxy war as weakening its strategic adversary:

“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine… So it [Russia] has already lost a lot of military capability. And a lot of its troops, quite frankly. And we want to see them not have the capability to very quickly reproduce that capability”.[5]

There have also been indications of regime change that destruction of Russia as wider goals of the war. Sources in the US and UK governments confirmed in March 2022 that the objective was for “the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin” as “the only end game now is the end of Putin regime”.[6] President Biden suggested that regime change was necessary in Russia: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power”. However, the White House later walked back Biden’s dangerous remarks.

The spokesperson of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, also made an explicit reference to regime change by arguing “the measures we’re introducing, that large parts of the world are introducing, are to bring down the Putin regime”. James Heappey, the UK Minister for the Armed Forces, similarly wrote in the Daily Telegraph :

“His failure must be complete; Ukrainian sovereignty must be restored, and the Russian people empowered to see how little he cares for them. In showing them that, Putin’s days as President will surely be numbered and so too will those of the kleptocratic elite that surround him. He’ll lose power and he won’t get to choose his successor”.[7]

Fighting to the Last Ukrainian

Chas Freeman, the former US Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Security Affairs and Director for Chinese Affairs at the US State Department, criticised Washington’s decision to “fight to the last Ukrainian”.[8]

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham outlined the favourable arrangements the US had established with Ukraine: “I like the structural path we’re on here. As long as we help Ukraine with the weapons they need and the economic support, they will fight to the last person”.[9] The Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, cautioned against conflating idealism the hard reality of US objectives in the proxy war:

“President Zelenskyy is an inspiring leader. But the most basic reasons for continuing to help Ukraine degrade and defeat the Russian invaders are cold, hard, practical American interests. Helping equip our friends in Eastern Europe to win this war is also a direct investment in reducing Vladimir Putin’s future capabilities to menace America, threaten our allies, and contest our core interests… Finally, we all know that Ukraine’s fight to retake its territory is neither the beginning nor end of the West’s broader strategic competition with Putin’s Russia”.[10]

Senator Mitt Romney argued that arming Ukraine was “We’re diminishing and devastating the Russian military for a very small amount of money… a weakened Russia is a good thing”, and it comes at a relatively low cost as “we’re losing no lives in Ukraine”. Senator Richard Blumenthal similarly asserted: “we’re getting our money’s worth on our Ukraine investment” because “for less than 3 percent of our nation’s military budget, we’ve enabled Ukraine to degrade Russia’s military strength by half… All without a single American service woman or man injured or lost”.[11] Congressman Dan Crenshaw agrees that “investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea”.[12]

Retired US General Keith Kellogg similarly argued in March 2023 that “if you can defeat a strategic adversary not using any US troops, you are at the acme of professionalism”. Kellogg further explained that using Ukrainians to fight Russia “takes a strategic adversary off the table” and thus enables the US to focus on its “primary adversary which is China”. NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg also argued that defeating Russia and using Ukraine as a bulwark against Russia “will make it easier” for the US “to focus also on China… if Ukraine wins, then you will have the second biggest army in Europe, the Ukrainian army, battle-hardened, on our side, and we’ll have a weakened Russian army, and we have also now Europe really stepping up for defense spending”.[13]

In Search of a New Narrative

A new victory narrative is required as a NATO-backed Ukraine cannot realistically defeat Russia on the battlefield. The strongest narrative is obviously to claim that Russia has failed in its objective to annex all of Ukraine to recreate the Soviet Empire and thereafter conquer Europe. This narrative enables NATO to claim victory. After Ukraine’s disastrous counter-offensive in the summer of 2023, such a new narrative was indicated by David Ignatius in the Washington Post, where he argued the measurement of success is the weakening of Russia:

“Meanwhile, for the United States and its NATO allies, these 18 months of war have been a strategic windfall, at relatively low cost (other than for the Ukrainians). The West’s most reckless antagonist has been rocked. NATO has grown much stronger with the additions of Sweden and Finland. Germany has weaned itself from dependence on Russian energy and, in many ways, rediscovered its sense of values. NATO squabbles make headlines, but overall, this has been a triumphal summer for the alliance”.[14]

Sean Bell, a former Royal Air Force Air Vice-Marshal and Ministry of Defence staffer, argued in September 2023 that the war had significantly degraded the Russian military to the point it ‘no longer poses a credible threat to Europe’. Bell therefore concluded that “the Western objective of this conflict has been achieved” and “The harsh reality is that Ukraine’s objectives are no longer aligned with their backers”.[15]

The Ukrainian proxy has been exhausted, which ends the proxy war unless NATO is prepared to go to war against Russia. As NATO is preparing to cut its losses, a new narrative is required. As the narrative changes, it will soon be permitted to call for negotiations as a display of empathy for the Ukrainians.

 

For The Global Proxy War In Ukraine To End, The US Must First Want It To End

This article includes some excerpts from my book: “The Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order”

[1] The Economist, ‘Ukraine is now struggling to survive, not to win’, The Economist, 29 October 2024.

[2] RAND, ‘Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground’, RAND Corporation, 24 April 2019, p.99.

[3] L. Panetta, ‘U.S. Is in a Proxy War With Russia: Panetta’, Bloomberg, 17 March 2022.

[4] The Economist. ‘Volodymyr Zelensky on why Ukraine must defeat Putin’ The Economist, 27 March 2022.

[5] G. Carbonaro, ‘U.S. Wants Russia ‘Weakened’ So It Can Never Invade Again’, Newsweek, 25 April 2022.

[6] N. Ferguson, ‘Putin Misunderstands History. So, Unfortunately, Does the U.S.’, Bloomberg, 22 March 2022.

[7] J. Heappey, ‘Ukrainians are fighting for their freedom, and Britain is doing everything to help them’, The Telegraph, 26 February 2022.

[8] A. Maté, ‘US fighting Russia ‘to the last Ukrainian’: veteran US diplomat’, The Grayzone, 24 March 2022.

[9] A. Maté, ‘US, UK sabotaged peace deal because they ‘don’t care about Ukraine’: fmr. NATO adviser’, The Grayzone, 27 September 2022.

[10] M. McConnell, ‘McConnell on Zelenskyy Visit: Helping Ukraine Directly Serves Core American Interests’, Mitch McConnell official website, 21 December 2022.

[11] R. Blumenthal, ‘Zelenskyy doesn’t want or need our troops. But he deeply and desperately needs the tools to win’, CT Post, 29 August 2023.

[12] L. Lonas, ‘Crenshaw, Greene clash on Twitter: ‘Still going after that slot on Russia Today’’, The Hill, 11 May 2022.

[13] T. O’Conner, ‘So, if the United States is concerned about China and wants to pivot towards Asia, then you have to ensure that Putin doesn’t win in in Ukraine’, Newsweek, 21 September 2023.

[14] D. Ignatius, ‘The West feels gloomy about Ukraine. Here’s why it shouldn’t’, The Washington Post, 18 July 2023.

[15] S. Bell, ‘The West remains committed to Ukraine’s counteroffensive – but there’s scepticism over Zelenskyy’s ultimate objectives’, Sky News, 9 September 2023.

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

State Department Threatens Georgia With ‘Consequences,’ Amid Rigged Election Claims

By Connor Freeman | The Libertarian Institute | October 29, 2024

The State Department and the European Union are demanding Tbilisi repeal “anti-democratic” legislation and investigate election “irregularities” respectively after the Georgian Dream Party won this weekend’s parliamentary elections. Georgian leaders including Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze and President Salome Zourabichvili are at odds, with Zourabichvili accusing Kobakhidze’s party of winning a “total fraud” election.

Per the official tally, Georgian Dream won 54% of the vote, with multiple opposition parties earning between 3-11%. Georgian Dream will form the country’s next government as they now hold a minimum of 90 out of the national parliament’s 150 seats. However, four opposition parties which favor integration with the EU are refusing to participate in the new legislature, deeming the election stolen, and accusing the ruling party of pushing Georgia towards a pro-Russia direction. President Zourabichvili called for protests and vowed she will not recognize the plebiscite’s results.

Tens of thousands of Georgians protested for hours outside parliament on Monday night, the demonstrations reportedly ended with no plans for further action but dispersed peacefully. The Georgian government and electoral commission have dubbed the election free and fair.

State Department Spokesman Matthew Miller threatened Georgia with “consequences” before adding his demands. Miller characterized the election as having taken place within an “environment shaped by the ruling party’s policies including misuse of public resources, vote buying and voter intimidation.”

He made clear the path Georgia is taking does not bode well for its future in America’s orbit, “We encourage Georgia’s governing officials to consider the relationship they want with the Euro-Atlantic community rather than strengthening policies that are praised by authoritarians.”

Finally Miller, speaking for a government which has extensively meddled in Georgian elections including staging a coup in the 2003 Rose Revolution, warned “We do not rule out further consequences if the Georgian government’s direction does not change.” He then insisted that Tbilisi begin “withdrawing and repealing anti-democratic legislation.”

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe praised Georgia’s voter participation, substantial presence of citizen and party observers, as well as the diversity of ballot choices during the election. OSCE observers “found the legal framework to be adequate for holding democratic elections.” Although they also accused the ruling party of exploiting an “already uneven playing field,” and claimed there were instances of intimidation, coercion, and pressure being put on voters including public sector employees.

EU Council chief Charles Michel is calling on the relevant authorities in Georgia to “swiftly, transparently, and independently investigate and adjudicate electoral irregularities and allegations thereof.” He added, “These alleged irregularities must be seriously clarified and addressed.”

Western governments are condemning Georgia’s ‘law on transparency of foreign influence,’ which requires agencies to register as “agents of foreign influence” if they are operating within Georgia and foreign sources account for over 20% of their funding. Georgia’s parliamentary speaker signed the bill into law after it was vetoed by President Zourabichvili earlier this year. The law operates similarly to the US Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The West is also in an uproar against Georgian laws banning gender reassignment surgery, gay marriage, and so called LGBTQ “propaganda” including PRIDE-style events along with certain books and films. Although, polling shows significant public disapproval in Georgia of same-sex marriages.

Last month, a senior US official told Voice of America, the American state-funded media outlet, that Washington is preparing sanctions on former Georgian Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili, Georgian Dream’s influential founder, over his opposition to Tbilisi joining NATO and the EU.

An analysis by Ian Proud published by Responsible Statecraft makes the case that the ruling party’s victory can be explained not by election rigging but as a popular response to various economic and immigration crises.

Proud notes the uneven trade relationship the Caucasian country maintains with the EU since signing the EU Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement ten years ago. EU states benefit from robust exports in Georgia while purchasing four times less Georgian imports. The trade balance is more even with the Eurasian States, although they too export 1.8 times more than they import.

At the same time, the Washington-led proxy war with Moscow in Ukraine is both funded and championed by the EU. The war has caused an immigration crisis in Georgia with nearly 90,000 people emigrating from Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine between 2022 and 2023. This has led to a surging unemployment rate of over 26%, while housing prices are up 35% and rent prices have risen as much as 50%.

In 2008, at NATO’s Bucharest Summit, Brussels announced both Tbilisi and Kiev would one day join the Washington-led military bloc which has been mired in disastrous wars in the Balkans, North Africa, and Central Asia. The admission of both states to the alliance is viewed in the Kremlin as a major national security threat and provoked Russia’s invasions of both Georgia sixteen years ago and now Ukraine.

As Scott Horton, the Libertarian Institute’s director, has detailed, the now jailed former president Mikheil Saakashvili, the victor of the US-backed Rose Revolution, “was incentivized to take bigger risks due to the Bucharest Declaration of America’s intent to bring them into the NATO alliance just four months before, U.S. military support and vague security assurances the Bush government had given his government that spring. Saakashvili launched an attack on the breakaway province of South Ossetia in the southern Caucuses Mountains, then enjoying full autonomy and protection by Russian peacekeepers under a deal that had been brokered by [the] European Union… The Russians, suffering casualties in the initial assault, quickly struck back, destroying Georgia’s invading force and securing South Ossetia’s independence from Georgian rule.”

Barack Obama’s administration orchestrated a coup and overthrew the government in Kiev during the 2014 Maidan Revolution. Subsequently during the Donald Trump years, the White House armed Ukraine’s military, including Neo Nazi militias integrated in the National Guard. Concurrently, Kiev entrenched ties with US special operations forces and the CIA as it waged a war against ethnic Russian separatists in the Donbas region.

Under the current White House, as tensions mounted over the Donbas, the erstwhile USSR state became a de facto NATO member as Washington eschewed diplomacy with the Kremlin, refusing to discuss rescinding Ukraine’s invitation for membership with the alliance, culminating in Russia’s 2022 invasion.

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

U.S. mercenaries killed in Russia, West goes hysterical on dubious North Korea claim

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 29, 2024

“It’s a grave escalation in this war and a threat to global peace,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen this week.

It certainly is an alarming development that American, Canadian and Polish mercenaries were killed in action on Russian soil this week. The members of a recon and sabotage unit were eliminated by Russian forces as they crossed into Russia’s Bryansk region from Ukraine.

But von der Leyen and other Western leaders said nothing about that. They were hyperventilating instead over ropey claims about North Korean troops sent to Russia.

Credible Russian security footage showed the dead men lying beside supplies of heavy weapons, including Semtex explosives and anti-tank grenade launchers, “enough to blow up a small city,” it was reported. One of the casualties bore the tattoo of the U.S. 75th Ranger Regiment, an elite airborne special forces unit. It is unclear if the American soldier was a former member of the U.S. Army who had joined a private mercenary contractor or if he was redeployed from army ranks to fight in Ukraine against Russia.

Either way, the presence of military combatants from the United States and other NATO states on Russian territory is stark evidence that the NATO powers are directly involved in the Ukrainian proxy war against Russia.

Washington and Brussels have maintained the tenuous fiction that they “only” supply weapons to Ukraine but that NATO is not a participant in a conflict with nuclear-powered Russia.

That fiction has always been an insult to common sense. NATO countries have been actively involved in recruiting foreign mercenaries to go fight in Ukraine. Russia estimates that 15,000-18,000 militants have traveled to deploy with the Armed Forces of Ukraine since the conflict erupted in February 2022. Large numbers have been killed or taken prisoner.

Mercenaries have been identified from the U.S., Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Poland, the Baltics, and Georgia, as well as jihadists from Syria trained by American occupation forces at bases such as Al Tanf. It is estimated that foreign fighters from over 100 countries have ended up in Ukraine, aiding the NATO-sponsored Kiev regime.

Some of them are no doubt “soldiers of fortune” making a payday. Others would have to be NATO servicemen because the operation of technical weapons such as HIMARS artillery and so on must involve NATO handling expertise.

The desperate incursion into Russia’s Kursk region that began on August 6 was thought to have included many foreign mercenaries. One American private military contractor identified was the Forward Observation Group.

The Western media have largely ignored or obscured the reports of NATO connections to the ground fighting. Not surprising given the propaganda function of Western “news” media in what is information warfare.

Meanwhile, this week, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte announced concern that North Korean troops were fighting in the Kursk region. This was the first time that NATO had officially made the claim. For weeks there have been speculation and rumours about North Korean troops joining Russian forces.

The U.S. and European media ran headlines implying that the NATO claims were fact.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated: “North Korean soldiers are deployed to support Russia’s war of aggression. It’s a grave escalation in this war and a threat to global peace.”

Healthy skepticism is warranted. NATO’s Rutte did not provide any evidence to support his claim. He simply referred to his discussions with South Korean military intelligence officials.

The Ukrainian de facto dictator Vladimir Zelensky (he canceled elections months ago) has for months been pushing claims that thousands of North Korean troops are joining Russia’s ranks in Ukraine.

It seems significant that Zelensky met with South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol last year at the G7 summit in Hiroshima. It was their first meeting. Immediately after that encounter, South Korea pledged more military and financial aid to Ukraine. Zelensky’s wife also made suspicious trips to South Korea to attend “media events”.

President Yoon’s approval rating among the South Korean public has hit rock bottom over a range of grievances, including soaring cost of living. Yoon is a hawk on relations with North Korea. Pyongyang has slammed Seoul for deliberately antagonizing tensions.

Under President Yoon, South Korea has become a major weapons exporter, having sold an estimated $20 billion worth of arms over the last two years. South Korea is warning that it will increase military supplies to Ukraine on the back of claims that North Korean troops are being deployed in Russia.

There seems to be a lot of dramatizing about the purported North Korean contingency. The Kiev regime is amplifying claims as a way to get the United States and NATO more involved in the proxy war. The White House has expressed concerns about the claims of Pyongyang’s alleged participation. For President Yoon, Ukraine represents opportunities to boost his flagging poll numbers and economic gains from increased weapons exports.

The Western media are wishfully claiming that the deployment of North Korean troops is a sign of desperation by Russian President Vladimir Putin over supposed military losses in Ukraine.

That contention does not make sense. Russian forces are rapidly advancing to fully take control of the Donbass region in Ukraine. The NATO-backed side is losing territory at the fastest rate in more than two years of conflict. The idea that Russia needs North Korean military help is implausible, if not absurd.

Moscow signed a mutual defense pact with Pyongyang earlier this year. If North Korean soldiers are deployed to Russia, perhaps for training, that is entirely a legal and sovereign matter between consenting parties.

It is not Russia that is being “desperate”. The deployment of American and other NATO mercenaries to Ukraine is a real sign of desperation that the Kiev regime has run out of cannon fodder and is engaging in cross-border provocations.

Of course, NATO and Western leaders would prefer to fantasize about North Korea than to admit the truth of their “grave escalation” on Russia’s borders and reckless threat to world peace.

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Kiev regime trying to interfere in Germany’s domestic politics

By Lucas Leiroz | October 30, 2024

Ukraine is apparently trying to interfere in the domestic politics of its European “partners.” Recently, the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany tried to pressure German political parties not to cooperate with parties or public figures who oppose the military aid program to Kiev. This shows how desperate the neo-Nazi regime is to prevent any decrease in its international support, as this would mean the end of its military capability.

Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, Aleksey Makeev, has recently launched a blackmail campaign against local political parties that advocate a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian conflict. Makeev has publicly stated that all leading German politicians should avoid any involvement in projects aimed at reducing or ending Germany’s participation in the war against the Russian Federation.

The statement came shortly after the establishment of the so-called “Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance” (BSW), a coalition of political parties and social movements opposed to German participation in the war. The group is being led by the well-known German left-wing leader Sahra Wagenknecht. According to Sahra, there needs to be “more diplomatic efforts,” and it is not right for Berlin to engage in military initiatives.

“We need more diplomatic efforts (…) There is a good peace plan by Brazil and China. I hope that Germany and the EU will support such initiatives (…) It is not about being a friend or enemy to Russia, but about peace in Europe and [ending] the war in Ukraine. Without peace, everything else is nothing (…) (Germany became) an internationally respected voice that mediates in conflicts and advocates diplomacy,” she said at the time.

Apparently, despite the hegemonic status of the anti-Russian lobby in Germany, the proposal has taken the attention of many local politicians and activists, which is why Ukraine decided to “react”. The Ukrainian ambassador announced that local “democratic parties” should avoid participating in such initiatives, considering “intolerable” any possibility of Berlin cooperating with a diplomatic solution project.

“If politicians from democratic parties need support in dealing with the intolerable ultimatums of non-democratic actors, particularly in foreign policy matters, I am ready to share my own experience of negotiating with Russia,” he said.

The ambassador’s words were just the continuation of a series of recent statements against any form of alliance with pro-peace activists in Germany. Previously, he had already said that no party should “give in” to the BSW. He called all German anti-war activists “populists”, suggesting that any peace initiatives are mere meaningless populist rhetoric.

“Anyone who adopts the slogans of the BSW will only lose themselves. Democratic parties must not allow populists at either the regional or the federal level to dissuade them from solidarity with Ukraine,” he said.

It is important to emphasize that the Ukrainian Embassy is not merely criticizing the initiative. Such an attitude would be natural for Kiev, since the regime is in the midst of an armed conflict with Moscow. But what is happening is actually deeper. The Ukrainian ambassador is simply demanding that German parties not take part in a movement that has emerged in Germany itself. In other words, he is trying to tell German politicians what to do in their own country.

It is not surprising that Ukraine is using its diplomatic apparatus to lobby for war. While this practice is wrong and reprehensible – since the very purpose of diplomacy is to avoid war – there is nothing really surprising in this case, considering that the Kiev regime is simply implementing the same practices that have already become commonplace among its Western allies and sponsors.

The Ukrainian action is motivated by desperation and fear. The Zionist lobby feels “threatened” by the BSW initiative. The coalition showed interesting electoral results in key German regions such as Brandenburg, Saxony and Thuringia, where it achieved around 15% of the vote – concluding the regional elections in third place. There has been a growth of anti-war sentiment in some cities in the former East Germany, where people usually have very critical views of Berlin’s foreign policy.

However, unlike its Western sponsors, Ukraine does not have enough power to profoundly influence the domestic politics of other countries. The lobby that the Ukrainian embassy is promoting is likely to fail, as popular dissatisfaction with the pro-war stance of the German government is growing. In the end, all Ukrainian blackmail efforts will prove useless, as it is inevitable that there will be a growth of anti-war initiatives in Germany – both among politicians and among ordinary people.

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | 1 Comment

Concerts, restaurants, nightlife – Kiev regime hunting for conscripts

By Ahmed Adel | October 30, 2024

Ukraine is struggling to recruit troops to reinforce its front lines amid thousands of casualties in nearly three years of conflict. Under these conditions, the Kiev regime is hunting for recruits in places that were once off-limit, such as “upscale venues,” whilst also becoming increasingly reliant on foreign mercenaries to perform special operations.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Kiev regime has expanded its search network for military recruits to include “upscale venues” and “nightlife spots,” which is creating more social tension.

Even as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky tries to secure more weapons and security guarantees from the US government, the “biggest immediate problem” in Ukraine is recruiting more soldiers, the US outlet said. To deal with this issue, the Kiev regime recently lowered the age of compulsory military service to 25 and imposed additional penalties for draft dodgers, seeking to bring more soldiers to the front lines in the face of advancing Russian forces.

However, the newspaper said that most of the men who wanted to join the Ukrainian armed forces had already done so, while others had fled the country or were in hiding to avoid being drafted. Some prominent figures, including state prosecutors, are also avoiding joining the military by claiming medical exemptions.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the military is stepping up its recruitment campaigns in public places in the capital and other major cities. Military agents check concert halls, grocery stores, and even luxury restaurants in the port city of Odessa.

Mathieu Boulègue, a researcher at the Transatlantic Defence and Security Programme at the Centre for European Political Analysis, believes “there is no easy solution” to Ukraine’s troop shortage.

“That is unfortunately a critical issue that you cannot solve by sending stuff over, short of sending Western troops,” the researcher told the American outlet.

Some Ukrainian officials, cited by the outlet, said they were building up reserves of conscripts to replace those who had lost their jobs. However, they warned that mobilising new troops would not be effective without “more Western supplies to arm new recruits properly.”

The deployment of new Ukrainian troops is not just a military problem for Kiev, the Wall Street Journal noted, but also a growing social and political issue for Zelensky.

“Among soldiers who have been serving on the front line for nearly three years, resentment is building against men avoiding military service,” while scandals continue to emerge involving officials who allegedly accept bribes to grant exemptions.

For this reason, the Kiev regime is increasingly reliant on foreign mercenaries to perform military operations since the citizenry does not provide enough soldiers. In effect, the presence of foreign mercenaries demonstrates the extreme shortage of experienced troops in Ukraine.

In the latest example, foreign mercenaries from the US, Canada and Poland, likely on a sabotage mission or raid, attempted to breach Russia’s Bryansk Oblast on October 27. The special operations mission the mercenaries were assigned required highly skilled operators capable of sabotage or reconnaissance, so given the lack of such people in the Ukrainian military, it is reasonable that they would turn to foreigners.

Emphasising this point is the fact a tattoo was discovered on the body of one of the eliminated foreigners, indicating that he was a member of the elite 75th Ranger Regiment of the US Army.

The discovery of the mercenary group makes a mockery of the West’s claim that soldiers from North Korea are fighting in Ukraine since it is Ukraine suffering from a shortage of troops and relying on foreigners. In fact, it is clear that the West planned the operation rather than Ukraine.

While South Korea and the Kiev regime spread fake news that North Korean troops are fighting in Ukraine, about 15,000 mercenaries from more than 100 countries have arrived in the country since February 2022 to join Ukrainian forces.

According to a Russian Defence Ministry report, Western secret services recruit mercenaries through the US private military companies Academi (formerly Blackwater), Cubic, Dark Horse Benefits, Dean Corporation, Forward Observations Group, Hyperion Services, and Sons of Liberty International, as well as the Polish ASBS Othago and the European Security Academy. At the same time, mercenaries are recruited by neo-Nazi and right-wing organisations from Germany, Italy, Portugal and other countries.

With Ukraine’s best troops dead, wounded or exhausted, the Kiev regime is now hunting for recruits all over the country, including in places that were once considered off-limits. This only deepens Kiev’s reliance on foreign mercenaries and, more importantly, demonstrates the hopeless position that the regime is in.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

TGA hides from questions about sudden infant deaths after vaccination

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | October 28, 2024

Sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI) and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) are names for the sudden and unexpected death of a baby when there is no apparent cause of death.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has gone to ground after being confronted with questions about a series of sudden deaths in infants who received the Infanrix-Hexa® vaccine.

The “hexavalent” vaccine protects against six diseases (diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio, hepatitis B and Hib) and is administered to infants at 2, 4 and 6 months of age.

Approved by the TGA in 2006, the vaccine lies at the heart of the National Immunisation Program, and has been administered to millions of babies across the country [Australia].

FOI request

A freedom of information (FOI) request for the number of deaths reported after use of the Infanrix-Hexa® vaccine has revealed some worrying data.

The Database of Adverse Event Notifications (DAEN) shows 17 reported deaths in infants.

A further 26 reported deaths exist in the TGA’s ‘internal’ database, the Adverse Event Management System (AEMS), according to a recent FOI report.

Overall, 43 sudden unexpected deaths have been reported in babies mostly under 12 months of age, which have occurred within a day or two of vaccination.

Now, after many weeks of enquiries, the TGA has gone into hiding and refuses to confirm whether it has made any attempt to investigate the deaths.

Warnings from Europe

Infanrix-Hexa® was first authorised by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2000, and the public has never been alerted to any safety issues.

EMA says it monitors pharmacovigilance data in the form of Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSURs), which are submitted by the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

Essentially, PSURs describe the worldwide safety experience of the vaccine over a defined period, and are not usually available to the public for independent scrutiny.

However, a major lawsuit in Italy involving GSK, resulted in the Judge ordering the drug company to publicly release its PSURs for the Infanrix Hexa® vaccine.

Those documents were sent to Jacob Puliyel, a paediatrician and Head of the Department of Paediatrics, St Stephen’s Hospital, Delhi, who carried out an independent review.

The analysis revealed a cluster of sudden deaths among infants less than 12 months of age — 54 deaths (93%) occurred within the first 10 days of vaccination, and 4 deaths (7%) occurred within the next 10 days of vaccination.

Further, when he compared the rate of ‘expected’ sudden deaths, to the ‘actual’ rate of sudden deaths post-vaccination, there was a statistically significant increased risk of death in the first four days after vaccination, compared to the expected deaths.

The report concluded, “The clustering of deaths soon after immunisation suggests that the deaths were caused by the vaccine.”

Puliyel published the findings in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics in 2018.

The report also showed that infant deaths, which were reported in the safety report (PSUR 16) were deleted in the PSUR 19, effectively underreporting the number of observed deaths in the final report seen by EMA.

I contacted Puliyel to ask why EMA had not raised the alarm regarding the PSUR data, and he said he thought the data were misleadingly presented to EMA.

“I wouldn’t go as far as saying that EMA colluded with GSK in the subterfuge, but I think EMA was negligent and accepted the manufacturers’ deceptive data and interpretations unquestioningly,” he said.

Puliyel criticised EMA for its lax monitoring of post-marketing adverse events and has been urging all regulators to do better.

After the publication of his findings, Puliyel said there was no excuse for EMA to ignore the data discrepancies.

“The silence suggests EMA has no defence,” he remarked.

“I think nowadays, surveillance methods are designed to protect vaccine company profits rather than the public,” he added.

When I contacted EMA, the agency denied that deaths were “deleted” from the report as Puliyel claims.

Instead, EMA said the deaths were “reclassified” after it was determined the babies died of underlying diseases, such as “viral meningitis, an inborn error of metabolism congenital hydrocephalus and congenital heart disease.”

Puliyel rejected EMA’s explanation, calling it “singularly unconvincing.”

“Viral meningitis, congenital hydrocephalus and congenital heart disease would have been obvious at the time of vaccination when the children died – not discovered many years later,” explained Puliyel.

“EMA has to explain why these obvious underlying causes were not considered causes of death when the 16thPSUR report was published and why it had to be ‘reclassified’ years later,” remarked Puliyel.

‘When the number of sudden deaths exceeded deaths expected as per the calculations in the 19th PSUR – there was this urge to ‘reclassify’ three sudden unexplained deaths as ‘deaths due to underlying causes,’” he said.

TGA enquiries continue

Efforts to compel a response from the TGA will continue, but the latest data on Infanrix-Hexa® have raised broader questions about the safety of the newer generation of vaccines designed to protect against multiple diseases within a single shot.

I will explore this in a forthcoming investigation.

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

Idaho Health Board First in U.S. to Defy CDC and FDA by Removing COVID Vaccines From Clinics

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | October 29, 2024

Idaho’s Southwest District Health will no longer offer COVID-19 vaccines after its board voted 4-3 last week to pull the shots from the 30 locations where it provides healthcare services.

“It’s the first health agency in America to do that,” Laura Demaray, a Southwest Idaho resident and nurse who attended the Oct. 22 vote, told The Defender.

Miste Karlfeldt, executive director of Health Freedom Idaho, agreed that the board’s vote is historic. “It’s thrilling,” she told The Defender.

The board’s vote came after it received about 300 public comments urging the district, which encompasses six counties, to stop promoting the shots.

Just before the board voted, members heard presentations from cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole, pediatrician Dr. Renata Moon and obstetrician and gynecologist Dr. James Thorp on safety concerns related to the COVID-19 vaccines.

Dr. John Tribble, the board’s only physician, invited them to speak.

“Dr. Tribble was a very brave board member who is very aware of the harms of the COVID injection,” said Demaray. “He asked me to help gather the presenters.”

Demaray, who said she knows many people injured by the COVID-19 vaccines, and others reached out to experts who could present data related to COVID-19 vaccine harms to the board. “It was total teamwork.”

Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense CEO, applauded the board’s action:

“After hearing from 300 constituents, listening to well-informed physicians and assessing the public record, the Southwest Idaho Health District Board made an informed decision not to stock its own clinics with COVID shots.”

Demaray and Holland pointed out that the board didn’t take away anyone’s freedom to get a COVID-19 vaccine. “If residents want, they can obtain the shots from other pharmacies and doctors’ offices,” Holland said.

Demaray said the board’s decision showed “there’s some distrust in this shot.” She added:

“If a health district is giving a shot in their own clinics, then it means they believe in the shot and they don’t think somebody will get hurt. It means they support it tacitly.”

Holland said, “The Health District Board was conveying its values to the public — ‘these products are unsafe and we do not promote them’ — and the board was within its authority to do this.”

A precedent for other health agencies?

Tribble told The Defender some of the backstory leading up to the historic vote. “The people of this district were demanding answers,” he said. “Many came forward with heartbreaking stories of vaccine injury.”

After listening to its residents, the board members felt it was important to allow “the free and open discussion and evaluation of the evidence for and against the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine.”

In addition to hearing presentations from McCullough, Moon, Cole and Thorp, the board also heard from district staff physician Dr. Perry Jansen who recommended keeping the vaccine on the district’s clinic shelves.

“In the end,” Tribble said, “the evidence clearly showed a lack of safety and efficacy as it compares to the risk from COVID-19 and their [the board members’] decision reflected that.”

The board members who voted to remove the shot “exhibited courage” because they did so “based on the evidence, in direct opposition to the federal health agencies’ recommendations.” Tribble said:

“I believe our actions here stand as an example and precedent for other health agencies to take back control of their health and freedoms from a corrupted federal system. I hope this will inspire other health agencies to openly discuss this issue and evaluate the evidence for themselves.”

‘That is how you open up a can of truth’

Karlfeldt said she’s confident the board’s landmark decision will embolden other health administrators across Idaho and the rest of the U.S. to make similar moves.

Demaray agreed. She said she already heard from two other Idaho health districts that are now considering pulling the COVID-19 shots from their clinics after learning of the Southwest District’s vote.

Demaray encouraged other U.S. citizens to reach out to their local health board members, asking them to review the safety information on the COVID-19 vaccines.

Many federal health agency leaders are captured by industry, but that’s not the case with most local-level health officials, Demaray said. “They aren’t all bought out yet.”

“If you bring your local doctors like Dr. Tribble — or Dr. Cole, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Moon and Dr. Thorp — if you bring them and they make presentations, it is public record and your community gets to see that,” she said.

“That is how you open up a can of truth,” Demaray added.

There’s a lot of power at the local level because while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends COVID-19 vaccines and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves them, it’s typically the local agencies that adopt policies to promote them.

Holland said, “Sadly, people need to accept that they cannot trust the federal government anymore when it comes to their health.”

VAERS: 1.6 million reports of injury or death after COVID vaccination

Nicolas Hulscher, an epidemiologist at the McCullough Foundation, commended the board for its action.

“Southwest Idaho Health District has made the correct and brave choice to remove COVID-19 injections from their clinics,” Hulscher said. “The updated boosters were never tested in humans, while previous iterations have demonstrated that they’re not safe for human use.”

Hulscher noted that Boise State Public Radio’s coverage of the vote labeled the presentations by McCullough and others as “anti-vaccine.”

The Boise State Public Radio article — which referred to McCullough and the other presenters as “doctors widely accused of spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation” — appeared to “blindly favor COVID-19 vaccines,” he said, “while ignoring deeply worrisome safety data.”

For instance, the number of injuries and deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID-19 vaccination continues to climb.

VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before confirming the reported adverse event was caused by the vaccine. VAERS has historically been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

As of Sept. 27, there were 1,604,710 VAERS reports of injury or death following a COVID-19 vaccination.

The board’s vote has helped create greater public awareness that the COVID-19 shots “are massively injurious gene therapy products,” Holland said.

Tribble agreed:

“People need to understand that these shots are not vaccines by the traditional definition. That is to say, they do not impart immunity or prevent transmission.

“They were rushed to market, given legal immunity and coercively pushed upon the world’s population backed by unfounded fears spread by governments and media.”

Moreover, the safety and efficacy data we have is limited and primarily released by the same vaccine companies that stood to make hundreds of billions of dollars off of these injections, Tribble added.

“This experiment with mRNA gene therapy during COVID-19 will be shown to be one of the most egregious examples of democide in world history,” he said.

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.

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

NIH Spending $2.2 Million to ‘Nudge’ Elderly to Get More Vaccines

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | October 29, 2024

Using U.S. taxpayer dollars, researchers at two universities are identifying older people behind on their recommended vaccines and testing personalized “nudges” to coax them into getting more shots. nih-nudge-more-vaccines-feature.jpg

According to grant documents obtained by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is funding the $2.2 million “BE IMMUNE” clinical trial, which began in 2020 and will run through 2025.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Washington are using Electronic Health Records (EHR) data — the electronic records from doctors’ offices containing patients’ detailed health and demographic data — to target African American, Hispanic and Asian people with lower flu, pneumococcal and herpes zoster vaccination rates.

The ongoing study blames the “poor vaccination rates” on patients’ and clinicians’ “widespread decision-making biases.” The trial is testing strategies drawn from behavioral economics, which uses insights from psychology to understand — and in this case to “nudge” or direct — people’s decision-making behavior.

The randomized controlled study is headed up by Dr. Shivan Mehta and a team of healthcare management experts who combine medical and business-based strategies to run studies like these.

The trials often are based in Penn Medicine’s in-house “Nudge Unit,” where behavioral design teams are dedicated to figuring out how to influence patient choices.

The grant is part of a massive initiative by the NIH to increase vaccine uptake by changing how people make decisions. The initiative has included hundreds of millions of dollars in grants since 2020 to create “culturally tailored” pro-vaccine materials to promote COVID-19 and flu vaccines.

It also included more than 50 grants worth $40 million designed to increase HPV vaccine uptake.

Testing the ‘ladder’ of behavioral interventions

The study is testing different “nudges” at more than 100 primary care practices at Penn Medicine, University of Washington Medicine and the Veterans Affairs Health System, one of the world’s largest EHR vendors in the world.

Over 1,000 primary care physicians and thousands of eligible patients at those practices are involved in the trial.

The range of tested interventions is scaled on a ladder.

Nudges lower on the ladder try presenting people with information so they can make their own decisions about vaccines —- methods that typically are not very effective for increasing vaccine uptake, the researchers said.

Nudges higher on the ladder either prompt people to make decisions, or simply plan their decisions for them.

For example, one nudge automatically sets up vaccination appointments for people, compelling them to go to their appointment and get vaccinated unless they intentionally opt out.

The “opt-out” framework has been effective in other areas of healthcare, such as colorectal cancer screening or persuading more people to take their flu shots, the researchers reported.

Netflix uses prompts to encourage binge-watching — healthcare should prompt people to get more shots

Penn’s “Nudge Unit,” which bills itself as the “world’s first behavioral design team embedded within a health system,” houses the study, which is also being conducted in a similar unit at the University of Washington.

Economist Richard H. Thaler and legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein popularized nudging in their 2008 book, “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” as a method to create a “choice architecture” designed to influence people’s behavior in a predictable way “but without restricting choice” — particularly for policies or measures that might otherwise be unpopular.

Penn launched its Nudge Unit in 2016, inspired by British Prime Minister David Cameron’s Nudge Unit, established in 2010 to shape citizen behavior in the United Kingdom — a strategy the Penn researchers thought should also be applied to healthcare.

Penn’s Nudge Unit founders argued in a 2018 New England Journal of Medicine article that healthcare should use the same strategies businesses use to influence consumer behavior.

For example, they said, airlines require consumers to actively choose whether to purchase trip insurance before they can buy a plane ticket. Netflix changed its default settings to automatically play the next episode in a TV series to encourage binge watching.

“Similar opportunities exist to direct clinicians and patients toward better health care in situations where there’s consensus about desired behaviors,” they wrote, citing effective drugs, vaccines and targeted therapies as examples.

The strategy is being implemented globally — management consulting firm McKinsey reported that about 400 “nudge units” had been established globally by 2021.

However, even the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-backed Gavi concedes, “the theory has its critics — detractors argue that nudges can be paternalistic, invasive, ideological, and coercive in ways that erode public trust.”

The researchers behind this study also found that often the nudge approach doesn’t work.

In those cases, they argue “a stronger intervention—a ‘shove’—may be needed.”

EHR — an opportunity to scale up the nudge

The researchers celebrated EHR for offering a unique opportunity to develop and rapidly scale up personalized nudges.

The records increasingly are used for research and clinical trial recruitment because they contain a wealth of data. And new technological tools now allow researchers to “mine, assimilate, analyze, link, reproduce and transmit information” gleaned from that data.

Twila Brase, a registered nurse and author of “Big Brother in the Exam Room: The Dangerous Truth about Electronic Health Records,” told The Defender most people think the privacy of their EHR is protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, better known as HIPPA — but that’s not the case.

HIPPA only guarantees your data will be secure as it is passed among the various entities that have access to it, including researchers, Brase said. And that access can be provided without your consent.

“Nowhere in the law does HIPPA give you control over your medical records,” she said.

Because the records contain massive amounts of personal information that can be used and linked in many different ways, researchers studying EHR-based research argue that the use of EHR also raises “pressing questions concerning privacy, confidentiality, and patient awareness.”

They say that the use of one’s EHR data for research reasons can be confusing or even impossible to opt out of because often the provision of healthcare is linked to accepting a policy allowing researchers to use EHRs.

And EHR research often operates on the same logic as the nudge — an “opt-out” approach where permission is assumed unless a patient explicitly indicates they want to revoke it.

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.

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Israel’s Deadly Miscalculation: Consequences of Attacking Iran & Hezbollah

Dialogue Works | October 29, 2024

Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a Professor of English Literature and Orientalism at the University of Tehran and advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiations team: (https://x.com/s_m_marandi​)

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran’s response to Israeli attacks to fit within international law: UN envoy

Press TV – October 29, 2024

Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations says the Islamic Republic reserves its inherent right to respond to the Israeli regime’s recent attacks against the country, saying Tehran’s potential retaliation will be perfectly aligned with the international law.

Amir Saeid Iravani made the remarks on Monday, speaking at a meeting of the UN Security Council that took place at Iran’s request to address the issue of the attacks against defensive targets across Tehran, Khuzestan, and Ilam Provinces, which were successfully thwarted by the country’s Air Defense Force.

“As a sovereign state, the Islamic Republic of Iran reserves its inherent right to respond at a time of its choosing to this act of aggression, a right clearly affirmed under Article 51 of the UN Charter,” he said, echoing various Iranian authorities’ promise of retaliation against the aggression.

“Our response will be lawful, and fully compliant with international law,” Iravani added.

He denounced the Israeli atrocities as “egregious and severe violation of international law and the United Nations Charter” that led to the martyrdom of four Iranian servicemen and one civilian.

The envoy considered the aggression to be part of the regime’s broader and sustained pattern of aggression through which it is destabilizing the entire West Asia region with unchecked impunity.

He cited the regime’s October 2023-present war of genocide on the Gaza Strip and escalated deadly attacks against Lebanon as the prime examples of the atrocities.

‘US complicit in Israeli crimes’

Iravani regretted that the United States, the regime’s biggest ally, had emboldened Tel Aviv towards perpetrating the aggression with its “unwavering and unconditional” support and obstruction of the Security Council’s efforts at holding the regime accountable.

He considered the US to be “complicit” in the regime’s acts of aggression across the region due to its provision of technical expertise and advanced military systems to Tel Aviv.

The support and the resultant Israeli insistence on committing the crimes “gravely undermine regional peace and security,” the ambassador asserted.

He called on the international community and institutions, including the Council, to take decisive measures to respond robustly to such threats and restore peace and security throughout the region and the world.

“The international community cannot—and must not—remain silent in the face of such violations. The price of this silence is evident in Palestine and Lebanon, where Israel’s impunity perpetuates a vicious cycle of violence and instability across the region.”

Iravani, meanwhile, condemned the regime’s backers for supporting its atrocities as acts of “self-defense,” while “shamelessly” calling on the Islamic Republic to exercise self-restraint.

October 29, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | 3 Comments

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »