Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Swiss People’s Party Demands Resignation: Defense Minister Under Fire for Security Policy Failures

Sputnik – 12.01.2025

According to the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), Switzerland is incapable of guaranteeing internal and external security because of its arms deliveries to Ukraine and its rapprochement with NATO.

The Swiss People’s Party, Switzerland’s largest political force, has called on the head of the country’s Defense Ministry, Viola Amherd, to resign over her failed security policy.

“The fact that Switzerland can no longer guarantee its internal and external security is the result of political mistakes – and a consequence of wrong appointments,” a statement read.

Viola Amherd is also blamed for the country’s rapprochement with NATO.

“Those who are gradually tying Switzerland to NATO are accepting that young Swiss are dying abroad and that Switzerland is being dragged into foreign conflicts,” the Swiss People’s Party said.

According to the SVP, Amherd prefers to deal with gender issues in the armed forces rather than military equipment.

“She allows weapons ordered for Switzerland to be delivered to Ukraine. These are the wrong priorities, Federal Councillor,” the SVP said in a statement.

In late October 2024, Amherd said that Bern should ease restrictions on the re-export of Swiss weapons because of the country’s arms business. She cited the fact that the Netherlands had already decided to stop buying weapons from the nation because of the current ban on re-exports, and that Germany could follow suit.

Russia believes that arms supplies to Ukraine hinder a settlement and directly involve NATO countries in the conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine would be a legitimate target for Russia. According to Lavrov, the United States and NATO are directly involved in the conflict, not only by supplying weapons, but also by training personnel in the UK, Germany, Italy, and other countries. The Kremlin stated that the West pumping Ukraine with weapons does not contribute to negotiations and would have a negative effect.

January 12, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Non-violent revolution in Serbia gains traction and raises questions

By Stephen Karganovic | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 12, 2025

New Year’s came and went, but as we had surmised Serbia’s Batista did not make his country a wonderful holiday gift by fleeing. Not just yet. The pressure from below however continues to build relentlessly, clouding his political future. The most that the stubbornness of the regime, which has managed to annoy almost everyone, can now hope to accomplish is to merely postpone the inevitable.

The latest round of social unrest in Serbia began on 1 November when in the northern city of Novi Sad a recently “reconstructed” roof overhang weighing over 20 tonnes collapsed, squashing seventeen passers-by, of whom fourteen died on the spot, one succumbed later on, and two are still fighting for their life.

But what elsewhere might have been written off as an unfortunate accident (or an “Act of God,” as it is awkwardly known in common law terminology) has triggered in Serbia an unprecedented tsunami of popular fury directed at the presumed malfeasance of the authorities, which are seen as having made it possible for the tragedy to occur.

The broad based protest movement is spearheaded by university and secondary school students, but its ranks are being swelled by farmers, teachers, members of other professions, and ordinary citizens. The position of the protesters is that the direct cause of the killing was endemic corruption which pervades all echelons of Serbian society, with a disproportionate concentration at the political top. They argue that the railway station reconstruction was a sweetheart deal at a grossly inflated price awarding the job to contractors close to top officials, with whom they were more than willing to share the loot. As a result, the authorities deliberately turned a blind eye to egregious violations of quality standards and the shabby workmanship of their minions.

The principal demands of the student movement are that all technical and financial data pertaining to the defective reconstruction be made public and that culprits responsible for the appalling loss of life be punished, irrespective of rank. That sounds reasonable enough, although other issues vital to the Serbian nation, such as the regime’s betrayal of Kosovo, are conspicuously missing from their list of grievances. Even these rather modest demands however have been rebuffed contemptuously by the authorities, fuelling more discontentment and swelling the mass of the protesters.

To prevent the regime from hunting down or suborning their leaders, the students are operating on the principle of leaderless resistance, following the pattern previously set by the Tupamaros in Uruguay. That raises the puzzling question of how they take their decisions and do their strategic planning. The students’ somewhat disingenuous response is that they decide on matters collectively in an institutional setting they call the plenum, where all participants deliberate transparently and as equals. Many are bewildered by the suitability of such a loose mechanism for coordinating large-scale political activities. Recently, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova was openly sceptical, claiming to detect the aroma of a Western-inspired colour revolution in these proceedings.

The commotion currently taking place in Serbia could plausibly be interpreted within such a framework. Overlooking its own complete subservience to the collective West and in an effort to delegitimise the protesters, the regime has been making that point forcefully.

The “plenum” mechanism that Serbian students claim is their collective decision-making tool does raise some critical questions if we postulate the possibility that the student movement is externally directed or manipulated. The most obvious question is how young people in their twenties who did not personally experience the socialist system, where expressions such as “Party plenum” and the like were common, had settled on such odd terminology. Suspicions of a nefarious external link are reinforced by the fact that the same concept was used in 2014 during the failed “colour revolution” attempt in the Republic of Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and a year later in the partially successful regime change operation executed in Macedonia.

It turns out that in both those cases the concept of plenum was presented to the public as the collective decision-making device behind the upheavals in those two countries. In reality, it was a notion designed to create the appearance of spontaneity for a managed process and even more importantly to disguise the behind the scenes influence of the external string-pullers. This methodology for creating the illusion that the actors on the colour revolution stage are making autonomous decisions originally was pioneered by the infamous think tank, the Rand Corporation. Insights into its practical application were offered in 2007 in an article entitled “The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus,” authored by C. Hsu and B. Sandford, and published in the scholarly journal Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, no. 10, August 2007.

The authors state that the Delphi technique “is designed as a group communication process which aims to achieve a convergence of opinion on a specific real-world issue.” They add that the technique, which relies on the use of trained “facilitators” tasked with discretely supervising the decision-making process, is “well suited as a method for consensus-building.”

In the practical application of the Delphi strategy, the “change agent,” or “facilitator,” plays the principal role and is the driver of the entire process. He is trained to initially act as a neutral discussion moderator in an interaction that the participants believe is entirely controlled by them. The facilitator feigns sympathetic attention to the participants’ statements regarding their respective concerns. Whilst the participants in the “plenum” session take their turns speaking out, the facilitator categorises them as individuals with leadership potential, “barkers,” and undecided who lack a stable point of view and are apt to change their posture under group pressure.

The “facilitator” is trained in the methodology of psychological manipulation and based on previous observation he can predict the probable reactions of most participants. Individuals who take a critical stance toward the agenda the facilitator is promoting are marginalised and group members are thereby sent a message that should they identify with openly dissenting positions they too may be shunned.

Participants are rarely aware that they have been subjected to manipulation. Even should they suspect it, they have no idea how to resist. The desired effect is polarisation within the group, generating the impression of lively, democratic discussion, whilst the facilitator gradually ceases to act as an unbiased moderator and increasingly takes on the role of a full-fledged participant in the group dynamic. He or she selects the right moment to table a proposal, policy, or course of action that is slated in advance to be adopted. Those present gradually line up behind the proposal and vote in favour of it as if it originally had been their own idea, whilst pressuring uncommitted and wavering colleagues to follow suit and also give their consent.

Like everything to do with “colour revolutions,” this technique of consensus engineering is phony and contrived, designed to assure useful idiots that they are in charge of the process and to conceal the presence of the background manipulators. It is a cynical example of directed group dynamics without the participants’ knowledge. The successful employment of the Delphi method is based on the concealed presence of trained professionals to create the pretence of robust “discussion” but in reality their role is to channel group energy toward the adoption of preordained conclusions. Many of those present would perhaps have not gone along if they had been granted the possibility of unpressured reflection and informed decision-making.

There is no direct and conclusive evidence that external forces are exerting a significant influence over the Serbian student movement in the manner described above. An equally or even more plausible case could be made that the students and other citizens are indeed acting on their own, motivated by the catastrophic collapse not just of a railway station roof but of the entire legal and political system in their country. They have plenty of credible reasons for rage. But unless convincing evidence of foreign interference emerges coincidental similarities with classical colour revolution methods should not be given excessive credence. They should always however be prudently kept in the back of one’s mind.

January 12, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | | Leave a comment

Scientists Sound Alarm About Using Mosquitoes to Vaccinate Humans

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 10, 2025

Human clinical trials are underway to use mosquitoes to vaccinate people against malaria, cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough reported on his Substack.

McCullough cited a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in November reporting results from a double-blind, controlled clinical trial at two university medical centers in the Netherlands.

The trial evaluated the safety, side effects and efficacy of immunizing people via mosquito bites, using mosquitoes infected with a genetically engineered version of the parasite that causes malaria.

“It seems as if the world of vaccinology has ramped up to a feverish pitch with amplified research, massive funding, and no limit to the extent in which vaccines could be injected into humans,” McCullough wrote.

Researchers have been trying to develop a malaria vaccine since the 1960s, but they have been largely unsuccessful. It wasn’t until October 2021 that the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended the first malaria vaccine, made by GSK, for children living in sub-Saharan Africa and other high-transmission regions.

Two years later, the WHO recommended a second malaria vaccine, developed by Oxford University and manufactured by the Serum Institute of India.

The vaccines, given to small children in four doses, offer only modest and short-lived protection — 50-80% efficacy for less than a year — and are even less effective in infants in high endemic areas.

Malaria is caused by plasmodium parasites, which spread to humans through bites from infected mosquitoes.

Given the limited efficacy of existing vaccines, researchers continue researching alternative vaccination strategies, including using genetically modified versions of the malaria parasites to elicit an immune response.

“In a simplified view, the innovation may seem like a good idea,” Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender. “Malaria commonly afflicts those in poorer countries with limited access to healthcare. If we could make a change to the environment that improves the lives of all and diminishes the lives of none, in theory that would be progress.”

“The problem,” he said, “is that every detail of it looks like a bad idea.”

Researchers call results ‘promising,’ critics say research should be banned

The researchers, from two Dutch universities, previously engineered the “GA1” version of the parasite to stop developing 24 hours after being introduced into the human body.

Theoretically, these parasites wouldn’t cause malaria but would prime the immune system to recognize non-genetically modified pathogenic malarial parasites and trigger an immune response.

However, GA1 showed poor efficacy.

The NEJM study tested their next version of the genetically modified parasite, GA2, which halts development later — six days post-infection — when the parasite is replicating inside of human liver cells.

Jablonowski said this is not necessarily safe. The genetic modifications are intended to stop development in the liver stage before the parasite can proceed to the blood stage and become infective, he said. However, “The protozoa can still replicate, both sexually and asexually. This means the genetically modified protozoa can reproduce with wild-type to produce an infective genetically modified organism not bound by the original design.”

The study tested GA2 against GA1 and placebo in a small number of healthy adults 18 to 35 years old. The genetically modified parasites were injected into the human subjects via mosquito bites rather than through a shot like most vaccines currently available.

“The mosquitoes act like a vaccine syringe and then inject that modified parasite in the case of malaria into the human body,” McCullough explained in an interview on Substack.

In the first phase of the study, participants received either 15 or 50 bites from mosquitoes infected with GA2 to identify the highest dose without harmful side effects.

Next, researchers randomly assigned healthy adults who had not previously been infected with malaria to one of three groups. One was exposed to 50 bites from GA2, another to 50 bites from GA1, and the third to 50 bites from uninfected mosquitoes, the placebo group. There were nine participants in the GA2 group, eight in the GA1 group and three in the placebo group.

The researchers completed three sessions of 50 bites per session — to simulate a three-dose vaccine regimen. Three weeks later, all test subjects were exposed to five bites from mosquitoes carrying non-genetically engineered malarial parasites.

Before being exposed to the non-genetically engineered parasites, the researchers reported that the subjects in both GA1 and GA2 groups had some anti-malarial antibodies. They found that GA2 provided greater efficacy (89%) against malaria and induced a higher immune response than either GA1 or placebo. They also said the vaccine was “safe” with no significant difference in adverse events within the groups.

Adverse events included skin redness and itchiness from the bites, which most participants experienced and treated with antihistamines or topical corticosteroids. Some also reported muscle aches and pains and headaches.

Two participants had elevated troponin T levels, which indicates heart damage, or even a heart attack. However, investigators assessed these incidents as unrelated to the vaccination. One participant also showed elevated liver-function tests that researchers said were related to the antihistamines.

“The authors took a lot of liberties in identifying adverse events they considered related and unrelated to the experiment,” Jablonowski said. “When 40% of your trial group have abdominal pains, 45% have a headache, 50% have malaise and fatigue, and 60% have nausea and vomiting — these are not small relative numbers.”

The researchers concluded that the results were promising, but noted that more and larger studies would be necessary to understand the safety profile, the durability of protection and the efficacy against a greater variety of Plasmodium falciparum strains — the deadliest and most prevalent form of malaria — found in regions where malaria is endemic.

Last week, the same researchers published additional results in Nature Medicine from a second trial with the same GA2 genetically engineered parasite. In this trial, they exposed 10 research subjects to a single, “one-dose regimen” of the parasite.

That means the trial participants were exposed to one 50-bite session by mosquitoes infected with GA2. They reported that after six weeks, nine of the 10 subjects showed no breakthrough infections. They called the results “promising” and again called for further studies.

McCullough said he believes “there should be a moratorium, a ban, on all mosquito vector research right now for human conditions.”

He added, “No Institutional Review Board would agree to, you know, mass populating, mass vaccinating a population without their consent with mosquitoes.”

There would also be serious problems with tracking the effects of the vaccines themselves. “There would be no control on the dose or the inoculum, as an example. There would be no control over recognizing side effects,” McCullough said.

Jablonowski noted that 14 of the 75 originally assessed participants were excluded for medical reasons. If such a vaccine were released, “not only would a person not have foreknowledge of vaccination, they wouldn’t have after-knowledge of it either. If a medical condition arose, they would have no idea if they were infected with the genetically modified protozoan.”

He noted that in this study alone, 11 of the 75 persons initially assessed for participation declined to participate. “If this strategy is implemented, they won’t be asked if they wish to participate. Informed consent is the only power we have over our own medical autonomy,” he said. “Neither the mosquitoes nor the governments who use them are going to ask for consent.”

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.

January 12, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Zuckerberg’s mea culpa – more strategy than sincerity

Maryanne Demasi, reports | January 12, 2025

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has spent years manipulating algorithms to suppress dissent and inconvenient truths. Now, Zuckerberg wants us to believe he’s turned over a new leaf. “Community notes” is his supposed act of contrition—replacing Meta’s infamous “fact-checkers” with what he’s touting as a democratic approach to truth.

The changes will affect Facebook, Instagram and Threads – social media platforms with more than 3 billion users globally. Zuckerberg says the purpose is to outsource fact-checking to the people and let the collective wisdom determine what’s true.

Users can add context or clarification to posts, which won’t vanish into algorithmic oblivion but will instead bear appended “notes” offering a more balanced view.

So, has Zuckerberg suddenly grown a conscience? Hardly. This is less about soul-searching and more about political expediency. We’re meant to believe this is some heartfelt mea culpa, a humbling moment for a company that “got it wrong.”

But to me, this feels insincere. Pure public relations – a cynical scramble to navigate shifting political winds. Meta isn’t repenting; it’s repositioning. After all, this is the same platform that orchestrated an era of unparalleled online censorship, silencing inconvenient truths under the guise of “misinformation control.”

Remember the Biden laptop story? An exposé conveniently buried before the 2020 election because it didn’t fit the desired narrative. Zuckerberg himself admitted to suppressing the story after pressure from the FBI. But that wasn’t an isolated incident.

Over the last four years, Facebook has been the digital embodiment of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Articles questioning the efficacy of masks, the lab leak theory, or COVID-19 vaccine safety were flagged, shadow-banned, or outright erased. Entire communities of vaccine-injured individuals—desperate for support and answers—were wiped off the platform. Real lives were affected; people were isolated. Conversations that could have saved lives were silenced. It’s no exaggeration to say Facebook has blood on its hands.

One example of Meta’s overreach involved The BMJ. Paul Thacker’s piece on Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson which highlighted data integrity issues at a few of Pfizer’s vaccine trial sites, was slapped with a label by Facebook, effectively discrediting it. This wasn’t just heavy-handed; it was a brazen suppression of credible journalism. An open letter from The BMJ’s editors to Meta rightly lambasted the organisation for trying to discredit the vetted information. The damage wasn’t limited to stifling discourse; it eroded public trust in both science and media.

As recently as August 2024, Zuckerberg admitted to the House Judiciary Committee that Meta had been coerced by the government to censor Americans. His letter detailed relentless pressure to silence dissenting views on COVID-19, elections, and more. And yet, despite this supposed epiphany about governmental overreach, Facebook continued censoring content right up until its recent pivot to community notes.

Zuckerberg’s newfound candour isn’t transparency; it’s pre-emptive blame-shifting. The Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v Biden) case has exposed the collusion between tech giants and government officials to suppress online speech. Allegations that the Biden administration pressured platforms to bury certain viewpoints—even when factually accurate—paint a chilling picture. Facebook’s narrative of victimhood feels like a calculated attempt to deflect legal and public scrutiny.

Meanwhile, there are ‘journalists’ in legacy media who are mourning the loss of fact-checkers as though democracy itself is under siege. What kind of journalist defends a system that stifles free speech and debate? Science thrives on questioning and open dialogue, not the orthodoxy imposed by fact-checkers operating with opaque agendas. Their hand-wringing isn’t about truth—it’s about losing control of the narrative.

And now, as the political tide shifts and the Biden administration’s influence wanes, Meta suddenly finds the courage to air its grievances about government meddling. Convenient, isn’t it? Zuckerberg’s newfound spine is less about principle and more about positioning Meta for survival in a new political landscape.

Let’s be real. Community notes is not altruism – it’s damage control. Meta isn’t addressing the harm it caused—it’s deflecting. The platform’s censorship caused real-world consequences: vaccine-injured people left voiceless, critical public health debates silenced, and public trust shattered. If Meta was truly contrite, it would compensate for the damage, support those it deplatformed, and restore erased communities – even compensate those with vaccine injuries who were silenced.

Don’t get me wrong – I think dumping fact-checkers was the right move and its a win for free speech – it just should have happened sooner, and Zuckerberg shouldn’t be let off the hook. Meta’s track record suggests this is just another calculated move.

For years, Facebook wielded its influence with recklessness, deciding who could speak and what could be said. Now, as the tide turns, it wants to rebrand as a champion of open dialogue and transparency. But the damage is done. The trust is broken. And no amount of community notes can erase the scars left by Meta’s years of suppressing truth.

Mark Zuckerberg might try to rewrite history, but history won’t forget.

January 12, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

THE POLIO PARADOX WITH DR. SUZANNE HUMPHRIES

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | January 9, 2025

Nephrologist and co-author of ‘Dissolving Illusions’, Suzanne Humphries, MD, joins Del to discuss her significant role in the first installment of ‘Jefferey Jaxen Investigates’ on the polio virus. Hear how the dangers of vaccines came to light for her and why the future of humanity depends on people understanding the true history behind the polio vaccine.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Deception, Film Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | 2 Comments

Public Opinion on Water Fluoridation Is Changing, Expert Says

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 10, 2025

Kathy Thiessen, Ph.D., a leading fluoride expert, joined “The Defender In-Depth” this week to discuss a meta-analysis published last week by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluding that that “fluoride is a neurotoxicant in humans.”

Thiessen, president and senior scientist at the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, testified last year in a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A September 2024 federal court ruling in the case found that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children.

The ruling requires the EPA to take regulatory action to address the risks of water fluoridation. The agency, which has until Jan. 20 to appeal, has not yet taken action.

Thiessen co-authored a 2006 National Research Council report that addressed the toxic effects of fluoride and called for more research into its effects.

Thiessen said the new meta-analysis and a previous NTP report show that “fluoride is a neurotoxicant in humans and as fluoride exposure is increased, the likelihood of reduced IQ and some other cognitive deficits … increases.”

According to Thiessen, exposure to fluoride during pregnancy harms the fetus. “Fluoride crosses the placenta, so whatever the mother’s fluoride exposure is, the baby’s going to be exposed to that.”

And those risks continue after birth. “If the [infant] formula is made up with fluoridated tap water, those babies get the largest dose per body weight of anybody in the population at an age when they’re still developing,” Thiessen said.

‘Consistent body of literature’ shows ‘fluoride is neurotoxic during development’

The NTP’s latest meta-analysis reviewed 74 epidemiological studies examining the link between children’s IQ and fluoride exposure. Thiessen said the number and quality of such studies has increased substantially in recent years.

“When we wrote the [2006 report], there were just a few studies of fluoride exposure and cognitive deficits,” Thiessen said. “Many of the … most recent ones have been funded by our National Institutes of Health. They are high-quality studies.”

Thiessen said the studies together form “a very consistent body of literature showing that the fluoride is neurotoxic during development.” In the case of the NTP report and meta-analysis, however, there were repeated efforts to block or delay their publication.

Thiessen said the lawsuit against the EPA, filed by the Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation and Food & Water Watch, along with individual parents and children in 2017 was instrumental in the public release of the NTP report and meta-analysis.

“My best guess is that, if possible, they would’ve suppressed them totally,” Thiessen said. “But … because they were important to the court case, the judge required them to be made public. And we have that to be thankful for there.”

Efforts to block or delay publication of the NTP’s reports are part of “a very long history of suppression” and “of adverse information about fluoridation,” Thiessen said.

Scientists raised concerns about water fluoridation as early as the 1940s when it first started, Thiessen said. “From the 1940s on, there have been vested interests of several sorts that have pushed for water fluoridation.”

The EPA has ignored evidence of fluoride’s risks, Thiessen said. “I have said on record in the fluoride trial that if EPA had done its job responsibly, even back in the 1980s, we would not be having that case,” Thiessen added.

‘There should simply be a national end to water fluoridation’

Thiessen responded to claims that fluoridation protects oral health and that it was one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. She said, “The real evidence shows that it’s probably one of the 10 leading contributors to poor health in this country.”

Thiessen referred to a 2024 Cochrane report finding that water fluoridation confers minimal benefits to public health. She suggested that diet and other lifestyle factors are more significant determinants of oral health than fluoridation or lack of it.

“There are studies showing that children in areas where it’s a subsistence existence … These kids have great teeth. You have poor kids in this country whose diet is mostly sugar and no, they’re not going to have good teeth … It’s much more a matter of access to care, and access to good nutrition,” Thiessen said.

Thiessen suggested children in poorer and rural populations “are most likely to be adversely affected” by fluoridation, as their parents are more likely to bottle-feed babies with baby formula mixed with tap water.

Thiessen said public attitudes toward water fluoridation are changing. “The tide has been turning slowly for 20-something years, but we’re seeing a lot more of that now.”

She said many communities will be using the court ruling to justify stopping fluoridation.

“Hopefully, this will happen at the state level in those states that mandate it. I’d like to see it at the national level that we just don’t do this anymore,” Thiessen said. “There should simply be a national end to water fluoridation.”

Watch ‘The Defender In-Depth’ here.

Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

‘The Defender In-Depth’ airs on CHD.TV Wednesdays at 10 a.m. ET/7 a.m. PT.

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.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | Leave a comment

The Trump Administration Must Bring Moderna to Heel

Brownstone Institute | January 7, 2025

Last week, independent journalist Alex Berenson reported that a preschool-aged child died of “cardio-respiratory arrest” after taking a dose of Moderna’s Covid mRNA vaccine during its clinical trials. Despite federal requirements to report all trial information, the company withheld the truth for years as it raked in billions from its Covid shots.

The extent of the cover-up remains unknown, but Moderna, headed by CEO Stéphane Bancel, disregarded federal law requiring companies to report “summary results information, including adverse event information, for specified clinical trials of drug products” to clinicaltrials.gov. The company, not the government, is responsible for posting all results, and failure to report the death of a child constitutes a clear breach of US law, which threatens civil action against any party that “falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact.”

To this point, pharmaceutical companies have remained largely immune for their role in perpetrating globally-scaled deception resulting in thousands of vaccine injuries and billions in profits. They have enjoyed a liability shield courtesy of the PREP Act, which offers protections for injuries resulting from vaccines; that indemnity, however, does not extend to non-compliance with federal regulations, material misstatements or omissions of fact, or other offenses.

The death of the child only became known because of an obscure European report released last year, which revealed that Moderna has known about the death for over two years while it continues to advertise Covid shots to children as young as six months old.

Moderna’s European filing also revealed that the company withheld trial results demonstrating that children under 12 who received the vaccine were ten times more likely than those who received the placebo to suffer “serious side effects.” Without any evidence, Moderna claimed that the side effects, including the death of a child, were unrelated to the shots.

The incoming Trump administration offers a rare opportunity to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable and to investigate the depth of the cover-up.

The FDA is responsible for enforcing the reporting of vaccine trial results, but recent heads of the agency such as Scott Gottlieb and Robert Califf have been fanatical supporters of Big Pharma. Trump’s choice for FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, presents a stark contrast to his predecessors. Makary has criticized the US Government’s reluctance to acknowledge the role of natural immunity in preventing Covid infection, and he opposed the widespread vaccination of children. He testified to Congress, “In the U.S. we gave thousands of healthy kids myocarditis for no good reason, they were already immune. This was avoidable.”

President-elect Trump has tapped Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., perhaps the most well-known critic of the Covid vaccines, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA. He has named Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an author of the Great Barrington Declaration, as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health. Further, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Berenson that he plans to subpoena the FDA once Republicans become the majority party in the Senate this month.

President Trump’s first term was ultimately defined by his failure to fulfill his pledge to “drain the swamp.” A corrupt bureaucracy, personified in many ways by Dr. Anthony Fauci, aided and abetted by advisors like his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, hijacked the president’s agenda. Now, the Trump administration has an unlikely yet monumental opportunity for health reform, which can start on January 20 with an investigation into Moderna’s cover-up.

The Covid response doomed Trump 1.0. Whether one regards this as a monumental error, the betrayal of a president by his advisors, an event beyond the president’s control, or a deeper and more complex plot involving everything and everyone associated with the government, both in the US and around the world, there is no question of the scale of the calamity for the public. The shots are part of that, the capstone failure of a long line of foreshadowing with lockdowns and all that was associated with pre-pharmaceutical interventions. The antidote came not as a cure but, for many, the disease itself.

There must be truth if not justice.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Mark Zuckerberg Falsely Claims “You Can’t Yell ‘Fire’ in a Crowder Theater” To Justify Covid Censorship

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 11, 2025

In his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended Facebook’s early COVID-19 content moderation policies by invoking the often-quoted but inaccurate legal principle, “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” Zuckerberg cited this rationale to justify the platform’s censorship of certain information during the pandemic’s onset.

“COVID was the other big one where that was also very tricky because, you know, at the beginning, it was – you know, it’s like a legitimate public health crisis, you know, in the beginning. And it’s – you know, even people who were like the most ardent First Amendment defenders, the Supreme Court has this clear precedent. It’s like, all right, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. There are times when, if there is an emergency, your ability to speak can temporarily be curtailed in order to get an emergency under control,” Zuckerberg said.

This statement leans on a widely misunderstood legal argument. The phrase “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” originates from a 1919 Supreme Court opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States, which was later overturned and criticized for its justification of speech suppression. Zuckerberg’s use of this outdated precedent is misleading and offers a flawed defense for restricting speech on Meta’s platforms.

Zuckerberg elaborated on his stance, expressing initial trust in government and health authorities: “So I was sympathetic to that at the beginning of COVID. It seemed like, OK, you have this virus. It seems like it’s killing a lot of people. I don’t know. We didn’t know at the time how dangerous it was going to be. So at the beginning, it kind of seemed like, OK, we should give a little bit of deference to the government and the health authorities on how we should play this.”

However, Zuckerberg acknowledged the shifting narratives from health officials, which complicated content censorship decisions. “But when it went from, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve to, you know, in like – in the beginning, it was like, OK, there aren’t enough masks. Masks aren’t that important. To then it’s like, oh, no, you have to wear a mask. And, you know, all the – like, everything was shifting around. I – it’s become very difficult to kind of follow.”

The discredited legal metaphor has drawn criticism from free speech advocates. Such justification enables tech giants to overstep in moderating content, especially in moments of crisis when diverse perspectives are most crucial.

Equating speech to violence or danger is an easy excuse to censor controversial speech.

See also: Yes, you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 1 Comment

‘Monster’ Fauci should be jailed – Joe Rogan

RT | January 10, 2025

Hollywood star Mel Gibson and presenter Joe Rogan have claimed that former chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci should face prosecution, as they discussed his influence on the American healthcare system over the years. The popular American podcast host labelled the ex-government official a “monster.”

Fauci became the public face of the federal government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic both under President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden. The imposition of restrictive measures and the scientist’s reported involvement in suppressing the theory that the virus may have originated from US-funded gain-of-function research in China have made Fauci a controversial figure.

Gibson was a guest on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast on Thursday. Both men wondered how Fauci was “still walking around,” or “at least free” after his actions during the pandemic.

They were discussing the 2021 book by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. titled ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’. The author, a healthcare campaigner turned politician, described Fauci as an official in cahoots with big pharmaceutical corporations, who had abused his power for decades. The HIV/AIDS epidemic in the US was one of the main topics of the book.

”That book is an accurate depiction of what Anthony Fauci did during the AIDS crisis, which probably was an AZT crisis,” Rogan claimed.

He was referring to the antiretroviral medication azidothymidine. It was the first to be used en masse in the late 1980s to suppress HIV and had serious side effects. Kennedy claimed that Fauci, in his role as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), improperly endorsed AZT and downplayed its side effects while undermining possible alternative treatments.

”I drove up to San Francisco and I listened to it and I had road rage,” Gibson said, recalling his reaction to the book.

”If this is true, what the f**k is going on and how is that monster still loose?” Rogan asked. Meanwhile, the outgoing Biden administration is considering “giving him a full pardon – it’s like f**king crazy.”

Fauci’s name came up as the two were criticizing mainstream media for its “complicity” in protecting for-profit healthcare in the US. Gibson recalled how Rogan was attacked by news outlets for taking the drug ivermectin after testing positive for Covid-19 in 2021.

The medicine is widely used to treat parasites in humans in Africa. But the media dismissed it as a “horse dewormer” – the drug’s usual application in the US – as they urged the public to vaccinate against Covid-19.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The last American Banker rats are leaving the UN Net Zero Banking club

Jo Nova | January 10, 2025

A few years ago they were all going to save the world from the sixth mass extinction, but now they just want to avoid an anti-trust suit.

Such is the phase change of the Trump win, the largest banks in the USA, JP Morgan and Morgan Chase have now joined Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo the Bank of America, and Citigroup.

Six big US banks quit net zero alliance before Trump inauguration

The Guardian

Analysts have said the withdrawals are an attempt to head off “anti-woke” attacks from rightwing US politicians, which are expected to escalate when Trump is sworn in as the country’s 47th president in just under a fortnight.

The giant super-squid of asset management is also thinking of leaving the UN Net Zero Alliance.

BlackRock may exit woke business climate group Net Zero Alliance as backlash over ESG investing widens

By Charles Gasparino, New York Post

BlackRock — which for years has courted controversy with its focus on so-called ESG, or Environmental Social Governance investing — is considering an exit of the so-called “Net Zero” coalition of top corporations who pledge to reach zero-carbon emissions by 2050, The Post has learned.

BlackRock’s likely departure is more significant [than all the other banks]. The world’s largest investment fund, with more than $10 trillion in assets under management, was a leader in ESG investing, with its top executives including Fink evangelizing on the need to use the company’s investing might to force corporations to reduce their carbon footprint.

Mum’s the word:

BlackRock press officials declined comment. A rep for State Street and JPMorgan didn’t return a call for comment. A press official for the alliance declined to comment.

Their lawyers will have beaten them into silence. If the world is facing a crisis they look like cowards, and if the world isn’t facing a crisis they look like crooks for abusing clients funds for ideological quests or worse, traitorous sell-outs to the global oligarchs.

As I said, the Net Zero Banking Alliance was the UN-banker cabal that were colluding to use $130 trillion dollars in assets to bully the first world into sabotaging their economies by buying expensive, unreliable Net Zero electricity. It was dangerously close to being a proto World Government. The club effectively could decide national policies on who could build competitive electricity grids, and who had to do the fantasia plan to control the storms of 2100 with their electricity grid in 2024.

They wouldn’t be jumping ship if Kamala had won.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

Iran plans $120bn worth of investment in petroleum projects

Press TV – January 11, 2025

Iran is planning to invest up to $120 billion in petroleum projects as the country seeks to increase its oil and gas production to respond to a rising demand for energy.

Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad said on Saturday that Iran will invest some $50 billion to increase its oil production to 4.6 million barrels per day (bpd) by 2028, from a current output of 3.3 million bpd.

Paknejad said that Iran’s natural gas production should also increase from 1 billion cubic meters (bcm) per day to 1.35 bcm per day in the next four years, adding that the country will need to invest more than $70 billion to hit the target.

He said investment in gas fields will also cover projects to boost pressure at South Pars, the world’s largest gas field which straddles the maritime border between Iran and Qatar in the Persian Gulf.

The minister said seven pressure-boosting projects with a total investment of $18 billion will be executed in South Pars to help stabilize the output from the giant reserve.

Paknejad said Iran also seeks to increase its refining capacity by 0.5 million bpd per day until 2028 while trying to raise the output capacity of its petrochemical sector.

He said the development projects will be funded partly through finances provided by Iran’s sovereign wealth fund and partly through investment from foreign companies.

Iran’s plans to expand its petroleum sector come as the country is still subject to an extensive regime of US sanctions that bans the provision of technology and investment from abroad.

Since the sanctions were imposed in 2018, the Iranian Oil Ministry has mostly relied on domestic resources to develop the oil and gas fields in the country.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Russia to Respond to US Sanctions Against Energy Sector – Russian Foreign Ministry

Sputnik – 11.01.2025

MOSCOW – The United States’ decision to introduce new sanctions against the Russian energy sector will receive a response, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Saturday.

“Washington’s hostile actions will not go unanswered and will be taken into account [by Moscow] when developing foreign economic strategy,” the statement said.

The ministry also noted that the introduction of new sanctions is an attempt to harm the Russian economy ahead of the end of President Joe Biden’s “inglorious tenure” at the cost of the risk of destabilizing global markets. The interests of US allies in Europe and residents of the United States are being sacrificed, the ministry added.

“Accordingly, the incoming president, who does not have the right to lift the mentioned sanctions without the approval of Congress, is left with a ‘scorched earth,’ literally and figuratively,” the statement said.

Russia will continue implementation of large oil and gas production projects, as well as import substitution, provision of oilfield services and construction of nuclear power plants in third countries, the ministry also said, noting that Moscow was and remains a key and reliable player on the global energy market.

On Friday, the US imposed sanctions on more than 200 companies and individuals linked to Russia’s energy sector, as well as more than 180 vessels involved in energy transportation. The sanctions are aimed at restricting Moscow’s access to international markets and reducing revenues from oil and gas exports.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »