Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Germany to combat ‘conspiracy theories’

RT | February 28, 2025

Germans who suspect that their relatives or friends have fallen for conspiracy theories can now seek official guidance, the Interior Ministry has announced. The government has launched a nationwide consultation center to combat “lies and disinformation.”

Known as the Advice Compass on Conspiracy Thinking, the service was launched on Thursday and is accessible online or by phone. According to the ministry, it aims to provide “the most tailored help and advice possible” for those seeking guidance.

The center offers consultations and can refer individuals to specialized agencies if necessary, according to Minister for Family Affairs Lisa Paus, without specifying which agencies will be involved.

Interior Minister Nancy Faeser said that an “open dialogue on equal terms” is often difficult with individuals deeply immersed in conspiracy beliefs. She hailed the initiative as “an important building block in the holistic fight against extremism and disinformation.”

Paus described conspiracy theories as “poison for our democracy” and a burden on families and colleagues. The Interior Ministry claimed that these beliefs can lead to extremist ideologies and incite violence, highlighting anti-Semitic conspiracies as a major concern.

The German authorities have been raising the alarm over the supposed rise of conspiracy theories. This trend is often linked to the Querdenker (lateral thinking) movement, which emerged during the Covid-19 pandemic to oppose lockdown measures and other government policies. Since then, Querdenker groups have organized protests against Germany’s foreign policy and weapons supplies to Kiev, which began in 2022 following the escalation of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

Some factions have also called for “regionality, direct democracy, and limiting the power” of the federal government. Officials and media outlets often associate Querdenker groups with conspiracy theories and far-right organizations.

In 2021, the German domestic security agency (BfV) announced it would closely monitor some Querdenker groups, claiming that they could try to “delegitimize” the state and use legitimate protest to “provoke escalation.”

The announcement of the Advice Compass came just days after the right-wing Alternative for Germany party (AfD) secured second place in snap parliamentary elections, receiving 20.8% of the vote – a significant rise from the 10.4% they received in 2021. Despite the gains, the party remains ostracized by the other major political parties and is frequently labeled ‘far-right’ by officials and media.

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 2 Comments

The American perestroika is gaining momentum

By Vladimir Mashin – New Eastern Outlook – February 28, 2025

Only a month has passed since Trump’s inauguration, but the U.S. has witnessed a real revolution (some call it a ‘perestroika’ in reference to our country’s history).

Previous Democratic administrations tried in every possible way to impose new ‘transgender ideas’. Trump immediately stated that there are only two sexes (male and female), and not 32, as the media shouted. All government agencies, schools and educational institutions are being instructed with this information (15,000 transgender people are already mere steps away from being removed from the army, and all government benefits for such individuals have been cancelled.) The 47th President of the United States calls this a revolution of common sense.

The fusion of power and big capital is accelerating

The Republican Party has traditionally expressed the interests of America’s wealthiest strata, however, under Trump, this approach has outdone itself, with vigorous support for major corporations and oligarchs, and assistance to them through tax cuts.

In fulfilling his campaign promise of the absolute priority of American interests, Trump is imposing new trade tariffs on many countries, striving for balanced export and import relations.

It so happens that the vast majority of the media in the United States belongs to supporters of the Democratic Party. Therefore, many newspapers write that Trump’s actions are only leading to an increase in the wealth of billionaires and limit social spending for the poorest segments of the population (the press claims that there are 14 billionaires in Trump’s new cabinet, and the clearest evidence of this is the incredible wealth of the oligarch closest to him, Elon Musk).

The US media mentions that billionaire Peter Thiel, who has been preaching the idea of reducing social support for society for many years, is a kind of éminence grise of the new Republican government. It is notable that Vice President Vance considers him one of his most important mentors in life.

At the very end of the 20th century, Thiel and another billionaire, David Sacks, who was responsible for the fields of artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency in the Trump administration, wrote the book ‘The Diversity Myth’, where he sharply criticised the ideas of positive discrimination, political correctness and multiculturalism. 20 years later, in one of his essays, Thiel condemned the ‘green agenda’ that prevents science and technology from building a “bright future”.

Republicans have always accused Democrats of restricting freedom of the press by imposing solely their own point of view. It is noteworthy that Vice President Vance’s speech in Munich on February 14 shocked the Europeans, whom he reproached for not listening to the wishes of their people, instead looking to blame Russia and China as an excuse for their problems. “This was”, wrote Bloomberg on February 15, “an attack of unbridled rage in the name of freedom of speech, exposing the long-standing hostility that Donald Trump and his senior aides feel towards the European Union. They see the bloc as a symbol of big government that restricts the activities of American companies”.

These ideas are clearly reflected in the activities and statements of Elon Musk, and generally highlight the philosophy of ignoring rules for the sake of progress and innovation. This approach is shared by many Silicon Valley oligarchs.

To some extent, they express the views of the main figures of the Trump team, who are sceptical of traditional institutions, which, according to CNN on February 16, failed them during the years of inconclusive wars in the Middle East. This worldview clearly corresponds to Trump’s messages, including his stated reluctance to use the U.S. military abroad and his broader distrust of government agencies and the so-called ‘deep state’.

The United States is currently experiencing a historically unprecedented concentration of technological, financial and political power.

Trump is clearly in a hurry, especially considering the results of his first term as president, when the resistance of the deep state prevented him from realising his plans.

During the first month of the Trump administration, much has already changed in the United States and around the world. However, it is safe to say that the main battles are still ahead. The opposition to his course from the Democratic Party and European liberal hawks will not weaken.

Vladimir Mashin, political observer, Candidate of Historical Sciences

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Russia proposes resuming direct flights with US

RT | February 28, 2025

Moscow has proposed restoring direct air travel with the US as part of ongoing efforts to revive bilateral relations, according to a statement issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry on Friday following a new round of talks in Türkiye.

The US suspended flights and closed its airspace to Russian airlines in 2022, along with other Western nations, in response to the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. Since then, travelers have relied on connecting flights through hubs such as Istanbul and Dubai.

In response, Moscow banned flights from 36 ‘unfriendly nations’, including EU member states and Canada. This forced Western airlines to reroute flights, leading to higher fuel consumption and increased costs. Some European carriers have since criticized the EU’s sanctions on Moscow, citing “unfair” competition from Chinese airlines, which continue to freely cross Russian airspace.

According to the ministry, the Russian proposal to resume flights was made during a meeting with the US delegations in Istanbul on Thursday. The talks, which were aimed at mending the diplomatic rift that deepened under the previous administration, focused on reinstating regular operations at diplomatic missions and ensuring favorable conditions for their functioning.

Moscow described the Istanbul talks as “substantive,” with both sides agreeing to continue dialogue.

“Specifically, the US was invited to consider the possibility of restoring direct air services,” the Russian ministry stated.

Some experts, however, are skeptical about the possibility of an immediate resumption of direct flights between Russia and the US, pointing out that European airspace remains closed to Russian airlines, making direct routes challenging.

The meeting in Türkiye follows high-level talks in Saudi Arabia and a phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump earlier in February. Trump has since signaled that Washington could lift the sanctions against Russia “at some point” as part of broader peace negotiations to resolve the Ukraine conflict.

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Three years on… Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine is vindicated

Strategic Culture Foundation | February 28, 2025

This week marks the third anniversary of Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, launched on February 24, 2022.

Moscow has consistently explained the conflict in Ukraine to be a manifestation of a bigger geopolitical confrontation brought about by U.S. and NATO aggression using Ukraine as a proxy. That aggression was latent for decades going back to the end of the Second World War.

Russia’s emerging military victory against a NeoNazi regime armed to the teeth by an array of Western enemies has not just defeated a nefarious proxy war. It is demolishing the charade of supposed Western moral authority. This is an epoch-making watershed. It is significant that this event comes at a time when U.S. and Western global power is failing and flailing, and a new multipolar order is evolving, one where Russia’s international esteem and influence are increasing.

The United States, its European allies and the Western corporate-controlled news media have tried to depict Ukraine as an innocent victim of “unprovoked Russian aggression”.

Three years on, the Western narrative has collapsed in a pile of propaganda lies. The United States, under the new administration of President Donald Trump, has abandoned the erstwhile claims made against Russia. This week, the United States tabled a resolution at the United Nations Security Council which calls for peace in Ukraine and refrained from accusing Russia of aggression.

As many as one million Ukrainian soldiers have been killed over the past three years on the battlefield. Russia has not disclosed how many of its troops have died. Some estimates put the death toll at around 100,000.

The conflict in Ukraine is the biggest on the European continent since the end of World War II. It is a tragedy of epic proportion, especially given that the conflict could have been avoided by diplomacy.

The Trump administration is now pushing for peace negotiations with Russia. The American president has also acknowledged some of the “root causes” of the conflict, namely the provocative and unacceptable idea of Ukraine joining the NATO alliance advocated by his predecessor, and the longer-term threat posed by NATO’s expansion toward Russia’s borders since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s.

In other words, the U.S. administration has now moved to a point for diplomacy that the previous Biden White House rejected.

It is important to recall that in the weeks before hostilities erupted at the end of February 2022, Moscow had presented a detailed and comprehensive proposal for a mutual security treaty between Russia and the U.S.-led NATO military alliance. That diplomatic initiative was dismissed by Washington and its European allies. The rejection of negotiations made the conflict and the ensuing death and destruction inevitable. That is a diabolical shame on the heads of the Western powers.

In our weekly editorial on February 25, 2022, it was stated: “Moscow had warned that if its reasonable security proposals were not reciprocated, then there would be ‘military-technical measures’. Having exhausted the initiative for dialogue and mutual respect, the next phase is the use of more ‘physical language’ to convey meaning to people who seem unresponsive to normal dialogue. It is the Western powers and their arrogant presumption of superiority that are responsible for the impasse and now the repercussions.”

Russia was fully justified in taking military action against NATO’s relentless threats. The conflict was never about merely Ukraine, it was about facing down the entire U.S.-led Western bloc and its incorrigible aggression towards Russia.

Again, in our editorial from three years ago we stated: “Russia has for years warned that U.S. and NATO aggression was posing a critical danger to international security and had to stop. The revoking of arms control treaties by the U.S. (the ABM, INF, Open Skies Treaty) and the expansion of missile threats near Russia’s borders were no longer tolerable. Ukraine is really just one element of the bigger picture. But this week, Russia has moved finally to stop the aggression. It is a historic watershed.”

This week, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed hope that sanity and diplomacy may prevail under the Trump administration to negotiate a peace settlement in Ukraine. Putin also warned of the danger that diplomacy could be sabotaged by Western powers who would rather that their proxy war against Russia continues – no matter how many deaths it inflicts nor the risks of all-out nuclear war.

It is not clear if the Trump administration can be a reliable party. Trump this week extended economic sanctions on Russia for another year – which is not a good sign. Yes, he has expressed recognition of Russia’s deep concerns but this American president is fickle and mercurial. He seems prone to flip-flopping on his positions. Last week, he called Ukraine’s expired president, Vladimir Zelensky, a “dictator” (which is arguably correct). But this week, Trump denied the disparagement while inking a major mining deal with Zelensky in Washington.

Let’s not forget, too, that Trump during his first administration was complicit in instigating war when in 2019 he approved Javelin missiles to the Ukrainian regime – the first time the taboo of supplying lethal weapons was broken. Trump also ripped up the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty, gravely provoking tensions with Russia.

Fair enough, this time around, Trump has, in a good way, upended relations with European allies by snubbing their involvement in peace talks with Russia. The rupture in the transatlantic alliance has cast a huge shadow of doubt that the NATO bloc can hold together after 76 years of existence.

At the very least, Trump has created a space for dialogue and potential peace. However, it remains to be seen if his administration delivers on resolving the systematic causes of conflict.

It could turn out that Washington is merely moving to save face for the United States from an embarrassing defeat in Ukraine, aiming to dump the costs on its European lackeys, rather than forging a genuine security treaty as demanded by Moscow.

Washington’s belated dropping of the narrative about “Russian aggression” proves that the narrative was baseless. The Western-backed war in Ukraine with hundreds of billions of dollars and euros has been fueled on lies and deception. That is monstrously criminal.

Russia launched its special military operation to protect the ethnic Russian population that had come under relentless, murderous attacks by the NATO-backed Kiev regime that the CIA had installed in the 2014 coup.

Russia has regained historic territories through referenda in Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. Other historic territories are also up for reclaiming, including Kharkiv and Odessa, the port city founded by Russian empress Catherine the Great in the 18th century.

Russia will continue its military campaign to eradicate the Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.

And Russia will ensure that the NATO bloc (if it continues to exist, which is doubtful at this time) never acquires a foothold in the rump Ukrainian territory. That includes rejecting any spurious notion by Britain and France of deploying “peacekeeping troops”.

The debacle among the U.S. and its European allies is proof of Russia’s vindication and why it was wholly justified in taking military action against NATO in Ukraine.

The enemies of Russia are in no position to trade. They have nothing to trade.

Russia’s vindication means there can be no shoddy deal – or compromises as Trump fancifully reckons. Russia is right to insist on all its demands for security and respect.

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish: Why the Five Eyes Alliance Should Be Dismantled

Sputnik – February 28, 2025

UK media have reported that senior Trump advisor Peter Navarro lobbied his boss to cut Canada out of the Five Eyes intel-sharing network. Navarro rejected the report. But given the harm the intel coalition has done to Trump, Americans and relations with allies, removing members or dismantling the organization wouldn’t be a bad idea. Here’s why.

In 2024, journalists Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger revealed that Barack Obama’s CIA chief had worked with Five Eyes partners to circumvent restrictions on domestic spying to illegally tap Trump’s 2016 campaign, targeting Trump himself and over two dozen of his associates.

In 2013, NSA contractor-turned whistleblower Edward Snowden exposed his former employer’s work with the Five Eyes using tools like PRISM and XKeyscore to engage in a global, unfathomably massive warrantless spying program targeting foreigners and Americans alike.

Besides ordinary people, the Snowden leaks revealed Five Eyes spying on non-Anglosphere allied countries’ leaders, including Chancellor Merkel of Germany and President Hollande of France.

The Five Eyes have also been linked to diplomatic crises between Western nations and the developing world, with the 2023-present spat between Canada and India over the extraterritorial killings of Sikh separatists accompanied by allegations of a Five Eyes plot to destabilize India.

In 2013, a scandal erupted in Australian-Indonesian relations after it was revealed that Canberra and its Five Eyes partners sought to tap the phones of Indonesia’s sitting president, his wife and other senior officials.

And the Five Eyes’ shady activity goes back much further than that, with the ECHELON surveillance program, launched in the early 1970s, ostensibly to monitor Eastern Bloc countries and the Soviet Union, actually engaging in the interception of communications worldwide.

In the late 1990s, it was revealed that ECHELON had been used by US corporations to spy on their European competitors.

Similar activity was uncovered by WikiLeaks in 2015, with Japanese officials and companies revealed to have been monitored by the NSA using Five Eyes during negotiations on the TPP trade pact.

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , , , | Leave a comment

EU’s Kallas blasts Trump over ‘Russian talking points’

RT | February 28, 2025

The European Union’s top diplomat has suggested that US President Donald Trump has adopted Russian narratives about the Ukraine conflict. Kaja Kallas also expressed concern over Washington’s supposed drift away from its long-time European allies.

Kallas, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy and former Estonian Prime Minister (2021-2024), is known for her hawkish views on foreign policy.

In an interview with the media outlet Axios on Thursday, she said it had been “uncomfortable” to hear Trump and other senior US officials “repeating Russian narratives and talking points” in recent weeks.

“The statements made towards us are quite strong. The statements regarding Russia are very friendly. It is a change,” Kallas observed. She claimed that if Russia is allowed “back around the international table like nothing has happened,” more armed conflicts will follow, and not only in Europe.

The diplomat also insisted that while US officials are free to “talk with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin all they want… in order for any kind of deal to be implemented, they need the Europeans.” Failure to include the EU and Ukraine in negotiations would prevent any agreement from being implemented, Kallas argued.

Both the bloc’s representatives and officials from Kiev were excluded from the US-Russia negotiations held in Saudi Arabia earlier this month. Washington and Moscow have argued that no other parties were invited because the talks centered on first restoring bilateral relations.

Kallas also balked at criticisms regarding the state of democracy in the EU voiced by US Vice President J.D. Vance at the Munich Security Conference – a speech praised as “brilliant” by Trump. “I refuse to accept that criticism, because it’s just simply not true,” she said.

On Monday, the diplomat similarly remarked that “if [we] look at the messages that come from the US, then it is clear that the Russian narrative is there, very strongly represented.”

Last week, she warned Washington against walking “into the Russian traps,” alleging that Moscow had emerged as the “winner” from the talks in Riyadh.

In recent weeks, Trump has made several critical remarks toward the Ukrainian leadership, characterizing Vladimir Zelensky as a “dictator without elections,” and suggesting that Kiev bears responsibility for letting the hostilities flare up in 2022. While the US head of state has since somewhat toned down his comments, a marked departure from the policy course pursued by his predecessor, Joe Biden, remains evident.

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Will Trump succumb to European pressure as MSM launches another North Korea fake?

By Drago Bosnic | February 28, 2025

The EU/NATO’s desperation to keep pushing with its crawling aggression against Russia is slowly turning into the rather pathetic “begmanding” we usually see from the Neo-Nazi junta and its frontman Volodymyr Zelensky. This gives even more credence to the hypothesis that NATO-occupied Europe is taking on the role of “the next Ukraine”.

If we don’t count the Baltic Chihuahuas, it seems that Europeans who are the furthest away from Russia are the most belligerent, namely the United Kingdom and France. On the other hand, even Poland is reluctant to get involved as its most experienced military leaders are aware that the Kremlin wouldn’t fight NATO with one hand tied behind its back as it does in Ukraine. Western Europe also understands this, but it still wants escalation. To accomplish this, it needs the US, which is in the middle of a major shift under Trump.

America is currently negotiating with Russia and it seems both sides are largely content with how things are progressing. It can be argued that Moscow is cautiously optimistic, but that’s hardly surprising given the fact that the previous administration was effectively waging a war against it. On February 27, Russian and American delegations concluded their six-hour meeting in Istanbul. This is the second round of peace talks after the previous one in Riyadh.

Expectedly, this meeting also excluded the participation of the EU/NATO and the Kiev regime. The talks included much more than Ukraine and have been focused on fully restoring diplomatic ties between the US and Russia. On the same day, President Vladimir Putin praised this as a positive development in a meeting with the representatives of the Federal Security Service (FSB).

“We all see how rapidly the world is changing, the situation in the world. In this regard, I would like to note that the first contacts with the new US administration inspire certain hopes,” he said, adding: “There is a mutual dedication to work towards restoring interstate relations and gradually resolving the enormous volume of accumulated systemic and strategic problems in the global architecture.”

Putin stressed that these issues provoked both the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict and other crises around the world. Other top-ranking Russian officials also demonstrated cautious optimism, but reiterated that the Kremlin will achieve all state goals and that this is non-negotiable. However, presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow doesn’t see any immediate breakthroughs in the ongoing talks.

“No one expects easy or quick solutions – the problem is too complex and has been neglected for too long. However, if both countries maintain their political will and willingness to listen to each other, I believe we will be able to navigate this working process,” he said, adding: “There is no need to jump ahead. Information on the outcome of the negotiations will be provided in due course.”

And indeed, Russia is in no hurry and it seems Trump isn’t either. However, the EU/NATO is, as they’re terrified of what’s effectively bound to be a strategic defeat. This is why we saw both Emmanuel Macron and Kier Starmer in Washington DC, desperately trying to persuade Trump to “take action”. France even expressed interest in the rare-earth minerals deal. Some are arguing that Macron’s visit was “awkward” and a “waste of time”, but it seems he persuaded Trump not to cancel Zelensky’s visit to the US.

The same can be said for Starmer whose meeting with Trump also seemed “mildly unpleasant”, but still resulted in the latter toning down his usually unrestrained rhetoric on the Neo-Nazi junta’s frontman. Trump is certainly aware that the EU/NATO need him, as evidenced by his comments on the UK’s ability to “take on Russia by itself”, resulting in a sour smirk on Starmer’s face.

However, while Trump’s exchange with both Macron and Starmer was unpleasant, he still seems rather ambivalent. At one moment, he’s calling for “the killing to stop”, but praising “American weapons and good Ukrainian soldiers” in another, stressing that his decision to supply the “Javelin” ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles) was supposedly “instrumental”. It should be noted this is another myth that even the endemically and pathologically Russophobic UK recently admitted, pointing out that these weapons are so useless that the Kiev regime troops are abandoning them en masse, resulting in the Russian military now possessing more “Javelins” than the British Army itself. Trump’s ambivalence could certainly be attributed to an attempt of strengthening his negotiating position, but his unpredictability makes it difficult to rely on much of what he says.

This was quite evident during his first presidency, when it often seemed like he’s pushing back against the war party in Washington DC. However, he’d then change the tune and do exactly what they expected from him, as evidenced by the direct attack on the formerly sovereign Syria in 2018. It should also be noted that precisely France and the UK convinced him to do so and also participated in this illegal aggression against Damascus.

This was coordinated with the mainstream propaganda machine that launched yet another campaign of blatant lies about the Syrian government’s supposed “use of chemical weapons”. Interestingly, the same media are now recycling the long-debunked fakes about the supposed participation of North Korean troops in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, spreading lies about “European security in jeopardy due to Kim Jong Un”.

Just like the last time, the mainstream propaganda machine is quoting “South Korean intelligence” that allegedly said that “at least 1,000 more North Korean troops have been sent – with some regional media reports saying 3,000 – though the exact number is unknown”. These reports insist that “South Korean intelligence also said other North Korean troops have been re-deployed to frontlines in the western Kursk region after initial reports they had withdrawn from frontline areas in January”.

It should be noted that the Pentagon itself debunked these claims back in December last year. And yet, here we are again. The timing is quite convenient, as the US previously (ab)used these reports as an excuse to “draw red lines regarding North Korean presence in Ukraine”. It remains to be seen whether Donald Trump will use this to escalate or continue along the path of actual peace negotiations.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | Leave a comment

Covid Response at Five Years: Introduction

Brownstone Institute | February 27, 2025

This is the way the world ends,” T.S. Eliot wrote in 1925. “Not with a bang but a whimper.” Ninety-five years later, the pre-Covid world ended with a nationwide sigh of submission. Democrats remained silent as government mandates transferred trillions of dollars from the working class to tech oligarchs. Republicans dithered as states criminalized church attendance. Libertarians stood by as the nation shuttered the doors of small businesses. College students obediently forfeited their freedoms and moved into their parents’ basements, liberals accepted widespread surveillance campaigns, and conservatives greenlit the printing of 300 years’ worth of money in sixty days.

With rare exception, March 2020 was a bipartisan, intergenerational capitulation to fear and hysteria. Those who dared to object to the freshly-mandated orthodoxy were subject to widespread contempt, derision, and censorship as the US Security State and a subservient media corps muzzled their protests. The most dominant forces in society used the opportunity to their advantage, pillaging the nation’s treasury and overthrowing law and tradition. Their campaign was devoid of the triumph of Yorktown, the bloodshed of Antietam, or the sacrifices of Omaha Beach. Without a single bullet, they overtook the republic, overturning the Bill of Rights in a quiet coup d’état.

Perhaps no episode better exemplified this phenomenon than the House of Representatives on March 27, 2020. That day, the House planned to pass the largest spending bill in American history, the CARES Act, without a recorded vote. The $2 trillion price tag was more money than Congress spent on the entire Iraq War, twice as much as the cost of the Vietnam War, and thirteen times more than Congress’s annual allocation for Medicaid – all adjusted for inflation. No House Democrats objected, nor did 195 out of 196 House Republicans. For 434 members of the House, there were no concerns of fiscal responsibility or electoral accountability. There wouldn’t be a whimper, let alone a bang; there wouldn’t even be a recorded vote.

But there was one voice of dissent. When Representative Thomas Massie learned of his colleagues’ plan, he drove overnight from Garrison, Kentucky to the Capitol. “I came here to make sure our republic doesn’t die by unanimous consent and empty chamber,” he announced on the floor.

Democrats, the self-professed guardians of democracy, did not heed his call to fulfill their obligation to represent their constituents. Republicans, supposed defenders of originalism and the rule of law, ignored Massie’s invocation of the constitutional requirement for a quorum to be present to conduct business in the House. The supreme law of the land gave way to the hysteria of coronavirus, and the Kentucky Congressman became the target of a bipartisan character assassination.

President Trump called Massie a “third rate Grandstander” and urged Republicans to expel him from the party. John Kerry wrote that Massie had “tested positive for being an asshole” and should be “quarantined to prevent the spread of his massive stupidity.” President Trump responded, “Never knew John Kerry had such a good sense of humor! Very impressed!”

Republican Senator Dan Sullivan quipped to Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Mahoney, “What a dumbass.” Mahoney was so proud of the conversation that he took to Twitter. “I can confirm that @RepThomasMassie is indeed a dumbass,” he posted.

Two days later, President Trump signed the CARES Act. He bragged that it was the “single-biggest economic relief package in American history.” He continued, “It’s $2.2 billion, but it actually goes up to 6.2 — potentially — billion dollars — trillion dollars. So you’re talking about 6.2 trillion-dollar bill. Nothing like that.”

The bipartisan Covid regime stood behind the President smiling. Senator McConnell called it a “proud moment for our country.” Rep. Kevin McCarthy and Vice President Pence offered similar praise. Trump thanked Dr. Anthony Fauci, who remarked, “I feel really, really good about what’s happening today.” Deborah Birx added her support for the bill, as did Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin. The President then handed Dr. Fauci and others the pens that he used to sign the law. Before leaving, he took time to chastise Rep. Massie again, calling him “totally out of line.”

By the end of March 2020, the pre-Covid world was over. Corona was the supreme law of the land.

The Press Conference That Changed the World

On March 16, 2020, Donald Trump, Deborah Birx, and Anthony Fauci held a White House press conference on the coronavirus. After nearly an hour of unremarkable questions and answers, a reporter asked whether the government was suggesting that “bars and restaurants should shut down over the next fifteen days.”

President Trump ceded the microphone to Birx. As she stumbled through her answer, Fauci flashed a hand signal to indicate that he wished to step in. He walked to the podium and opened a small document. There was no indication that President Trump knew what was coming next or that he had read the paper.

Is the government calling for a shutdown for 15 days? Fauci took the microphone. “The small print here. It’s really small print,” he began. President Trump was distracted. He pointed at someone in the audience and appeared unconcerned with Fauci’s answer. “America’s doctor” continued at the microphone as his boss engaged in a side conversation with someone in the audience.

“In states with evidence of community transmission, bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms and other indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed.” Birx grinned in the background as she listened to the plan to shut down the country. Fauci walked away from the podium, nodded at Birx, and smiled as the press prepared a new question.

The plan that gave them unbridled joy was unprecedented in “public health.” Despite firsthand knowledge of smallpox and Yellow Fever, the Framers had not written epidemic contingencies into the Bill of Rights. The nation had not suspended the Constitution for pandemics in 1957 (Hong Kong flu), 1921 (Diphtheria), 1918 (Spanish flu), or 1849 (Cholera). This time, however, it would be different.

The press conference that day was never meant to be a temporary means to flatten the curve; it was the beginning, “a first step,” toward their vision to “rebuild the infrastructures of human existence,” they later admitted. “We worked simultaneously to develop the flattening-the-curve guidance,” Birx reflected in her memoir. “Getting buy-in on the simple mitigation measures every American could take was just the first step leading to longer and more aggressive interventions.” After demanding that buy-in on March 16, the pre-Covid world was over. Longer and more aggressive interventions became reality.

The following day, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security called the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released a guide on who was permitted to work and who was subjected to lockdowns. The order divided Americans into two classes: essential and nonessential. Media, Big Tech, and commercial facilities like Costco and Walmart were exempt from the lockdown orders while small businesses, churches, gyms, restaurants, and public schools were shut down. With just one administrative order, America suddenly became an explicitly class-based society in which liberty depended on political favoritism.

On March 21, an image of the Statue of Liberty locked in her apartment appeared on the front page of the New York Post. “CITY UNDER LOCKDOWN,” the paper announced. States chained playgrounds and criminalized recreation. The schools closed, businesses failed, and hysteria ran rampant.

War Fever

When Massie arrived at the Capitol, a war-like fervor had taken over the country. Publications including Politico, ABC, and The Hill compared the respiratory virus to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. On March 23, the New York Times published “What 9/11 Taught Us About Leadership in a Crisis,” offering “lessons for today’s leaders” in response to a “similar challenge.”

The column did not warn against the dangers of impulsive responses leading to unintended consequences, unaccountable government agencies, unscrupulous ideologues, and untold federal expenditures. There were no analyses of how temporary national fear could lead to trillions of dollars wasted on disastrous initiatives. Instead, the “similar challenge” led to familiar smear campaigns.

Thomas Massie and Barbara Lee have very little in common; Massie, an MIT alumnus, styles himself a “high-tech redneck.” His Christmas card featured his family of seven holding guns with the caption “Santa, please bring ammo.” Lee, a California Democrat, volunteered for Oakland’s Black Panther Party and marched alongside Nancy Pelosi at the “Women’s March.” Both, however, stood as lone voices of dissent in the two most defining crises of this century. They served as Cassandras, issuing prophetic warnings that drew the ire of disastrous bipartisan consensus.

In September 2001, Lee was the only member of Congress to oppose the authorization to use military force. With the rubble still smoldering at the World Trade Center, she warned Americans that the AUMF provided “a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events — anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation’s long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit.” A jingoistic press attacked Lee as “un-American,” and she received bipartisan condemnation from her peers in Congress.

When Massie took the House floor nineteen years later, American troops were still in Afghanistan, and the “blank check” had been used to support bombings in at least ten other countries. Like Lee, Massie’s dissent was prescient. He warned that the Covid payments benefited “banks and corporations” over “working class Americans,” that the spending programs were riddled with waste, that the bill transferred dangerous power to an unaccountable Federal Reserve, and that the increased debt would be costly for the American people.

In retrospect, Massie’s points were obvious. The Covid response became the most disruptive and destructive public policy in Western history. The lockdowns destroyed the middle class while the pandemic minted a new billionaire every day. Childhood suicides skyrocketed, and school closures created an educational crisis. People lost jobs, friends, and basic rights for challenging Covid orthodoxy. The Federal Reserve printed three hundred years’ worth of spending in two months. The PPP Program cost nearly $300,000 per job “saved,” and fraudsters stole $200 billion from Covid relief programs. The federal deficit more than tripled, adding over $3 trillion to the national debt. Studies found the pandemic response will cost Americans $16 trillion over the next decade.

What We Knew Then

Time vindicated Massie, but the pro-lockdown advocates have not demonstrated remorse. To evade responsibility for their catastrophic policies, many cower behind the excuse that we didn’t know then what we know now. “I think we would’ve done everything differently,” Gavin Newsom reflected in September 2023. “We didn’t know what we didn’t know.” “Let’s declare a pandemic amnesty,” The Atlantic published in October 2022. The precautions may have been “totally misguided,” wrote Brown Professor Emily Oster, an advocate for school closures, lockdowns, universal masking, and vaccine mandates. “But the thing is: We didn’t know.”

But the evidence from March 2020 refutes the Rumsfeldian invocation of unknown unknowns.

On February 3, 2020, the Diamond Princess cruise ship was set to return to harbor in Japan. When reports emerged that there had been an outbreak of the novel coronavirus aboard the ship, authorities kept it in the water to quarantine. Suddenly, the ship’s 3,700 passengers and crew members became the first contained study of Covid. The New York Times described it as a “floating, mini-version of Wuhan.” The Guardian called it a “coronavirus breeding ground.” It remained in quarantine for almost a month, and passengers lived under strict lockdown orders as their community went through the largest outbreak of Covid outside China.

The ship administered over 3,000 PCR tests. By the time the last passengers left the boat on March 1, at least two things were clear: the virus spread rapidly in close quarters, and it posed no significant threat to non-senior citizens.

There were 2,469 passengers on the ship under the age of 70. Zero of them died despite being held on a cruise ship without access to proper medical care. There were over 1,000 people on the ship between 70 and 79. Six died after testing positive for Covid. Out of the 216 people on the ship between 80 and 89, just one died with Covid.

Those points became even more clear in the ensuing weeks.

On March 2, over 800 public health scientists warned against lockdowns, quarantines, and restrictions in an open letter. ABC reported that Covid likely only posed a threat to the elderly. So did SlateHaaretz, and the Wall Street Journal. On March 8, Dr. Peter C Gøtzsche wrote that we were “the victims of mass panic,” noting that “the average age of those who died after coronavirus infection was 81… [and] they also often had comorbidity.”

On March 11, Stanford Professor John Ioannidis published a peer-reviewed paper that warned of “an epidemic of false claims and potentially harmful actions.” He predicted the hysteria surrounding the coronavirus would lead to drastically exaggerated case fatality ratios and society-wide collateral damage from unscientific mitigation efforts like lockdowns. “We’re falling into a trap of sensationalism,” Dr. Ioannidis told interviewers two weeks later. “We have gone into a complete panic state.”

On March 13, Michael Burry, the hedge fund manager famously portrayed by Christian Bale in The Big Shorttweeted: “With COVID-19, the hysteria appears to me worse than the reality, but after the stampede, it won’t matter whether what started it justified it.” Ten days later, he wrote: “If COVID-19 testing were universal, the fatality rate would be less than 0.2%,” adding that there was no justification “for sweeping government policies, lacking any and all nuance, that destroy the lives, jobs, and businesses of the other 99.8%.”

By March 15, there were widespread studies on the mental health ramifications of lockdowns, the health impact of shuttering the economy, and the harms of overreacting to the virus.

Even the Covid regime’s wildly inaccurate models, which overestimated the fatality rate of Covid by multitudes, could not justify the response. One of the main bases for lockdown policies was Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College London report from March 16. Ferguson’s model overestimated the impact of Covid on various age groups by degrees of hundreds but conceded that the young faced no substantial risk from the virus. It predicted a 0.002% fatality rate for ages 0-9 and a 0.006% fatality rate for ages 10-19. For comparison, the fatality rate for the flu “is estimated to be around 0.1%,” according to NPR.

On March 20, Yale Professor David Katz wrote in the New York Times: “Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?” He explained:

“I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near total meltdown of normal life — schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will. The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order.”

He cited data from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and South Korea which suggested that 99% of active cases in the general population were “mild” and did not require medical treatment. He referenced the Diamond Princess cruise ship, which housed “a contained, older population,” as further proof that the virus appeared harmless to non-senior citizens.

Later that month, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya called for “immediate steps to evaluate the empirical basis of the current lockdowns” in the Wall Street Journal. The same week, Ann Coulter published “How do we Flatten the Curve on Panic?” She wrote: “If, as the evidence suggests, the Chinese virus is enormously dangerous to people with certain medical conditions and those over 70 years old, but a much smaller danger to those under 70, then shutting down the entire country indefinitely is probably a bad idea.”

Harvard Medical School Professor Dr. Martin Kulldorff wrote in April, “COVID-19 Counter Measures Should be Age Specific.” He explained:

“Among COVID-19 exposed individuals, people in their 70s have roughly twice the mortality of those in their 60s, 10 times the mortality of those in their 50s, 40 times that of those in their 40s, 100 times that of those in their 30s, 300 times that of those in their 20s, and a mortality that is more than 3000 times higher than for children. Since COVID-19 operates in a highly age specific manner, mandated counter measures must also be age specific. If not, lives will be unnecessarily lost.”

On April 7, Burry called on states to lift their lockdown orders, which he decried as “ruining innumerable lives in a criminally unjust manner.” On April 9, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, who later became the Surgeon General of Florida, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “Lockdowns Won’t Stop the Spread.” Ten days later, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp reopened his state. “Our next measured step is driven by data and guided by state public health officials,” Kemp explained. Shortly thereafter, Governor Ron DeSantis lifted Covid restrictions in Florida.

Brian Kemp, Thomas Massie, and Ron DeSantis didn’t flip a coin on the Covid issue. They knew they’d be accused of endangering fellow citizens, killing grandmas, and overrunning the healthcare system. If they nodded along to the consensus like their peers, then they could have increased their power and perhaps won an Emmy like Andrew Cuomo. Joining the herd was socially and politically fashionable, but their rationality stood athwart the prevailing madness.

Wisdom was in short supply in American government and media. Anthony Fauci and President Trump attacked Kemp for reopening Georgia. The New York Times stoked racial animus to criticize opponents of the Covid regime, telling its readers that “black residents” would have to “bear the brunt” of Kemp’s decision to “reopen many businesses over objections from President Trump and others.” The New York Daily News referred to “Florida Morons” daring to go to the beach that summer, and the Washington PostNewsweek, and MSNBC chastised “DeathSantis.” While the slanders and hysteria were temporary, a radical and insidious movement sought to permanently transform the country.

The Quiet Coup

Amid the name-calling and memorable headlines of school closures, arrests for paddle boarding, and urban anarchy, the nation underwent a coup d’état in 2020. The First Amendment and freedom of speech were replaced by a censorship operation designed to silence citizens. The Fourth Amendment was supplanted by a system of mass surveillance. Jury trials and the Seventh Amendment disappeared in favor of government-provided legal immunity for the nation’s most powerful political force. Americans found they suddenly lived under a police state without the freedom to travel. Due process disappeared as the government issued edicts to determine who could and could not work. Equal application of the law was a relic of the past as a self-appointed caste of Brahmins exempted themselves and their political allies from the authoritarian orders that applied to the masses.

The groups that implemented this system also benefited from it. State and federal government agencies gained tremendous power. Unshackled from the restraints of the Bill of Rights, they used the pretext of “public health” to reshape society and abolish personal liberties. Social media giants assisted these efforts, using their power to silence critics of the new Leviathan. Big Pharma enjoyed record profits and government-provided legal immunity. In just one year, the Covid response transferred over $3.7 trillion from the working class to billionaires. To replace our liberties, Big Government, Big Tech, and Big Pharma offer a new ruling order of suppression of dissent, surveillance of the masses, and indemnity of the powerful. 

The hegemonic triumvirate framed their agenda with favorable marketing strategies. Eviscerating the First Amendment became monitoring misinformation. Warrantless surveillance fell under the public health umbrella of contact tracing. The fusion of corporate and state power advertised itself as public-private partnerships. House arrest received a social media rebranding of #stayathomesavelives. Within months, business owners replaced their “We stand with first responders” signs with “Going out of business” announcements.

Once the rule of law had been overturned, the culture was soon to follow.

Ten weeks after the press conference that changed the world, a Minnesota police officer put his knee on the neck of a Covid-infected, fentanyl-laced career criminal. This led to cardiopulmonary arrest, the death of the man, and a cultural revolution. The BLM and Antifa violent protests in reaction to the death of George Floyd sparked 120 days of rioting and looting in the summer of 2020. Over 35 people died, 1,500 police officers were injured, and rioters caused $2 billion in property damage. CNN covered the resulting arson in Wisconsin with the chyron “FIERY BUT MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTESTS.”

With the notable exception of Senator Tom Cotton, politicians were largely complicit in the mass looting and violence. President Trump was absent; while the cities burned on the weekend of May 30, the Commander-in-Chief was uncharacteristically silent. His only communication was that the Secret Service had kept him and his family safe.

Others seemed to encourage the destruction. Kamala Harris raised money to pay bail for looters and rioters arrested in Minneapolis. Tim Walz’s wife, then Minnesota’s First Lady, told the press that she “kept the windows open as long as [she] could” in order to smell “the burning tires” from the riots. Nikki Haley tweeted, “the death of George Floyd was personal and painful for many. In order to heal, it needs to be personal and painful for everyone.”

And painful it was. Just hours before Haley’s demand for communal suffering, rioters set fire to Minneapolis’s Third Precinct police building. Thousands celebrated around the building as it burned. They looted the evidence rooms as the police inside fled under the mayor’s orders. Two days later, the mobs in St. Louis killed 77-year-old former policeman David Dorn. His death was broadcast on Facebook Live.

Every major institution cowered to the demands of the rising Jacobins. Once proud institutions released statements of self-flagellation, statues of American heroes came toppling down, and crime skyrocketed. In Minnesota alone, aggravated assault increased 25%, robberies increased 26%, arson increased 54%, and murder increased 58%. Vandals toppled Minneapolis’s statue of George Washington and covered it in paint. Minnesota State University removed its statue of Abraham Lincoln from its campus display after 100 years after students complained that it perpetuated systemic racism.

None of this concerned the truth behind Floyd’s death. Typically, deaths in individuals with fentanyl concentrations over 3 ng/ml are considered overdoses. Floyd’s toxicology report revealed 11 ng/ml of fentanyl, 5.6 ng/ml of norfentanyl, and 19 ng/ml of methamphetamine. Floyd’s autopsy concluded that there were “no life-threatening injuries identified,” and the county medical examiner told the local prosecutor that there “were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation.” He asked, “What happens when the actual evidence doesn’t match up with the public narrative that everyone’s already decided on?”

Evidently, the answer was a nationwide cultural upheaval. The wreckage spread through the country and beyond June 2020. The racial reckoning left no American institution untouched. “New homicide records were set in 2021 in Philadelphia, Columbus, Indianapolis, Rochester, Louisville, Toledo, Baton Rouge, St. Paul, Portland, and elsewhere,” Heather MacDonald writes in When Race Trumps Merit. “The violence continued into 2022. January 2022 was Baltimore’s deadliest month in nearly 50 years.” New York City removed statues of Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt; California vagrants toppled tributes to Ulysses S. Grant, Francis Scott Key, and Francis Drake; San Francisco vandals dragged statues and prepared to toss them into a fountain until they learned the fountain was a memorial to AIDS victims. Oregon criminals desecrated statues of T.R., Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington.

At Rockefeller University, they removed the portraits of scientists who won the Nobel Prize because they were white men. The University of Pennsylvania took down a portrait of William Shakespeare because it failed to “affirm their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English Department.” The soon-to-be 46th President and his allies announced that there would be racial prerequisites for the selection of its highest-ranking officials – including the Vice President, a Supreme Court Justice, and the Senator from California. The private sector was even worse: in the year after the George Floyd riots, just 6% of new S&P jobs went to white applicants, a result that required mass discrimination.

By Independence Day 2020, the coup d’état had succeeded. The rule of law had been overturned. Former bedrock principles of the Republic – freedom of speech, freedom to travel, freedom from surveillance – were sacrificed upon the altar of public health. A culture that had once championed meritocracy became obsessed with berating the identity of the majority of its population. Hypocrisy in the ruling class grew to the point that there was no longer equal application of the law. The most powerful groups augmented their wealth while the working class suffered under despotism.

This series is meant to outline the freedoms that we sacrificed, and, just as importantly, the people and institutions that benefited from the erosion of our liberties. There are no allegations of the pandemic’s causes. Those speculations, intriguing as they may be, are unnecessary to demonstrate the coordinated upheaval that took place. The bedrocks of liberty enshrined in the Bill of Rights disappeared while the nation panicked. The most powerful people profited while the weakest suffered. Under the pretense of “public health,” the Republic was overturned.

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Economics, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 1 Comment

FDA Calls Off Meeting to Select Flu Strains for Next Season’s Flu Vaccine

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 27, 2025

The committee that advises the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on which flu strains to target for the upcoming flu season will not meet as scheduled next month, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

In a statement provided to CNN, the FDA said:

“A planned March 13 meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee [VRBPAC] on the influenza vaccine strains for the 2025-2026 influenza season in the northern hemisphere has been cancelled. …

“The FDA will make public its recommendations to manufacturers in time for updated vaccines to be available for the 2025-2026 influenza season.”

The FDA sent VRBPAC members an email on Monday informing them of the cancellation, the Times reported. No reason was given for its cancellation.

According to CNBC, the VRBPAC meets each March to select the strains for the upcoming season’s flu shots.

Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and member of the committee, told CNBC he wasn’t sure why the meeting was cancelled.

“Who canceled this meeting? Why did they cancel the meeting? Will manufacturers now turn to the World Health Organization to determine strains for this year’s influenza vaccines?” Offit asked.

According to the FDA, VRBPAC “reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of vaccines and related biological products which are intended for use in the prevention, treatment, or diagnosis of human diseases.” The committee is composed of 15 voting members.

The Times tied the meeting’s cancellation to the recent confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., former chairman of Children’s Health Defense, as secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS oversees federal health agencies, including the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The cancellation plays into fears among scientists who worry that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will use his position as health secretary to sow doubts about vaccines,” the Times reported.

Offit, in an interview with Inside Medicine, also connected the meeting’s cancellation to Kennedy’s recent confirmation.

“Is it part of RFK Jr.’s cleansing project of removing anyone whom he presumes to have a conflict of interest related to vaccines? I don’t know. But I feel like the world is upside down. We aren’t doing the things we need to do to protect ourselves,” Offit said.

On Monday, Offit told MedPage Today that VRBPAC members were asked to fill out conflict-of-interest forms in advance — a routine process before every meeting — “and we weren’t told the meeting was canceled.” He said members were told to set time aside for the meeting.

But late Wednesday, Offit phoned Medpage and said, “If we are not going to have the meeting, I guess it means we will be looking to the WHO [World Health Organization] for a flu shot formulation.”

Last week, a meeting of another key public health committee — the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — was postponed. The meeting was supposed to take place Feb. 26-28.

Valerie Borek, associate director and policy analyst for Stand for Health Freedom, said, “it’s not unreasonable” for an incoming HHS secretary to place advisory meetings on hold.

“We have a new HHS Secretary who has promised to expose and eliminate conflicts of interest that tend to lurk in groups like these,” Borek said. FDA and CDC advisory committees do not have final decision-making power; however, the agencies typically rubber-stamp their recommendations.

‘Time to stop pretending the flu vaccine is effective’

Offit said cancellation of the meeting could delay production of next season’s flu vaccines.

“It’s a six-month production cycle,” Offit told the Times. “So one can only assume that we’re not picking flu strains this year.”

Another VRBPAC member, Dr. Stanley Perlman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, told Reuters that “we don’t have much time” to produce the next season’s flu vaccines.

Perlman said a separate meeting of a VRBPAC subcommittee scheduled for March was also canceled.

Door to Freedom founder Dr. Meryl Nass, who follows FDA and CDC vaccine advisory meetings and often blogs about them, welcomed the meeting’s cancellation and expressed skepticism about flu vaccines.

“The purpose for the U.S. flu vaccine program is shrouded in mystery,” Nass said. “The CDC creates models of influenza mortality and then tells us how many deaths occur from flu each year by citing its own models.”

Nass described the VRBPAC’s annual meetings to select strains for the following season’s flu vaccines as “a crapshoot.”

“The VRBPAC are there to give cover to U.S. government officials who do not want to pick the wrong strains,” Nass said.

Nass referred to a 2005 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine that could “not correlate increasing [flu] vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group” and that “observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit.”

A CDC report issued today found the flu shot less effective for some children this year. According to CBS News, “Effectiveness was 32% for children and adolescents, from the CDC’s U.S. Flu VE network of health care systems. That’s down from 67% in last year’s estimates.”

Biologist Christina Parks, Ph.D., said it is “time to stop pretending the flu vaccine is effective.” She added:

“The extremely low efficacy of flu vaccines call into question whether they should keep being offered at all. Studies have shown that receipt of flu vaccines over multiple years actually increases your risk of contracting a severe case of the flu and ending up in [an intensive care unit].

“The cancellation of the VRBPAC meeting suggests to me that the new Secretary for Health and Human Services understands that flu vaccines exist to line the pockets of vaccine manufacturers, not to actually protect people from getting the flu.”

According to CNBC, the cancellation comes during a “particularly brutal flu season in the U.S.” that, according to CDC data, has resulted in up to 910,000 hospitalizations since October 2024.

But Nass said those claims are overstated. She said that contrary to CDC claims of up to 52,000 flu deaths annually in the U.S., data from death certificates indicate “only about 2,000 Americans per year die from influenza.”

“I worked for many years as a hospitalist and yet it is hard for me to think of anyone who died of influenza in the hospital. They may have died of a secondary bacterial infection,” Nass said.

Discussion of flu vaccine-related deaths missing from mainstream narrative

Albert Benavides, founder of VAERSAware.com and an expert on the U.S. government-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), said a discussion of deaths caused by the flu vaccines has been missing from the mainstream narrative.

“There are currently 2,652 deaths associated with flu vaccines in VAERS back to 1990,” Benavides said. He noted that 697 of these deaths have been received and published in the VAERS database since January 2021, calling this development “concerning.”

Benavides said the data showed that “many elderly flu deaths are comingled with COVID-19, Pneumovax, Shingrix, Zostavax and now even some RSV and Monkeypox vaccines and in every combination,” suggesting that interactions between the vaccines may be deadly for some people.

A study published in October 2024 in the journal Scientific Reports found that 17 vaccines, including flu vaccines, were associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare condition that attacks the peripheral nervous system.

Nass questioned the U.S. spending of “billions of dollars” yearly. “Other countries don’t do this,” she said.

VRBPAC members ‘often team up with industry’

According to the Times, Kennedy has “repeatedly warned of ‘regulatory capture’ — the idea that federal regulators are captive to industry.”

In an interview with Fox News earlier this month, Kennedy said several public health agency panels that develop policies such as vaccine guidelines are composed of “outside experts,” almost all of whom “have severe … conflicts of interest.”

The Times acknowledged that the members of committees like VRBPAC “often team up with industry,” citing the example of Offit, “an inventor of a rotavirus vaccine that was later developed by the pharmaceutical giant Merck.”

Parks said she thinks it’s “good that VRBPAC meetings have been put on ice until the members of these advisory committees are actually properly vetted and determined not to have conflicts of interest. Currently, it appears that many members are there to rubber-stamp the agenda of vaccine manufacturers.”

The cancellation of the VRBPAC meeting came just days after HHS announced the end of the CDC’s “Wild to Mild” advertising campaign promoting flu vaccines. HHS called on the CDC to instead develop “advertisements that promote the idea of ‘informed consent’ in vaccine decision-making.”

“I am hopeful that better data on the flu and flu vaccines will help Americans make truly informed choices about whether to get flu vaccines,” Nass said.

Related articles in The Defender

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | 1 Comment

Media Panic Over Measles Distracts From Real Threats to Kids’ Health and Safety

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 27, 2025

Measles outbreaks in Texas and New Mexico, with one new case reported in Kentucky and two in New Jersey, are fueling media stories that the U.S. is poised for an epidemic.

On Wednesday, Texas health authorities announced the death of a child who tested positive for measles, setting off a spate of media reports blaming the measles outbreaks on declining vaccination rates.

However, some doctors warn the situation isn’t as dire as the headlines suggest.

Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, a pediatrician, said it is a tragedy anytime a child dies. But he also said there isn’t “enough information to know whether the child had an underlying medical condition, whether the child had measles and what diagnostic criteria were being used to make the diagnosis of measles.”

Palevsky said it remains unknown “what treatment the child received in the hospital that may or may not have had anything to do with the deterioration of this child’s health. More information is needed.”

Outlets like Vox, The Washington Post, and The New York Times warned that the outbreaks herald a coming “public health crisis” that will be made worse by the fact that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has raised questions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule, is now secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Some accused Kennedy of downplaying the news after he said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is watching what is happening and that measles outbreaks happen every year.

Should we panic over measles outbreaks?

Leana Wen, writing in the Post, said people aren’t alarmed enough about measles because they don’t see the illness often enough. She warned it is a dangerous disease with high hospitalization rates and serious long-term health consequences that may include immune system destruction and death.

However, according to a 2018 publication by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) measles is a respiratory disease characterized by a fever, a head cold, pink eye and a rash of small red and sometimes itchy bumps that can cover the body.

Complications from measles such as an ear infection, diarrhea, croup, or bronchopneumonia, can occur — and bronchopneumonia can be quite serious — but they are rare in developed countries like the U.S, the AAP said.

It is “self-limiting,” meaning that it goes away on its own. By 1962 — prior to the introduction of the first measles vaccine a year later — the CDC described measles as a disease with low mortality.

By that time, the death rate had declined 98% since the beginning of the century due to improvements in public health. It carried a hospitalization rate of 11.5 per 1,000 cases and a mortality rate of 0.2 per 1,000 cases. Parents and medical practitioners considered measles an inevitable stage of a child’s development.

“We have a forgotten history of measles,” Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Senior Scientist Karl Jablonowski told The Defender. “The 1950s Vital Statistics report states, ‘measles are poorly reported because a large proportion of the cases are never seen by a physician.’ This, at a time when 600,000 annual reports of measles was normal.”

Despite Wednesday’s tragic reported death of a child in Texas, deaths from measles in the U.S. are extremely rare. Typically, people who die from measles have some other serious underlying condition.

Dr. Liz Mumper, a pediatrician, said it is “very uncommon” for a child to die from a measles infection in developed countries such as the U.S. that have access to clean water and good sanitation systems.

Although the CDC reports that the U.S. death rate from measles is 1 to 3 deaths out of every 1,000 reported cases, prior to the reported death on Wednesday in Texas, the last U.S. measles death was in a young immunocompromised woman in 2016. The last time a child died of measles in the U.S. was in 2003.

Hospitalization rates for measles are high, but that’s partly because people are often hospitalized to keep them isolated to stop transmission of the contagious illness, according to the CDC.

Treatment in hospitals typically involves keeping people hydrated and lowering their fevers.

“Effective treatments include vitamin A in high doses and attention to hydration status,” Mumper said. “Many natural methods to help the body fight viruses, like extra vitamin D and vitamin C, are effective but not widely recommended by mainstream medicine.”

Is the measles vaccine effective?

Most media reports blame the recent outbreak on unvaccinated people — mostly children — and claim the only way to resolve the crisis is to get the vaccination rate up to the professed target of 95% through mass vaccination campaigns.

This approach implies that without the measles vaccine, measles complications and deaths would be rampant.

CBS News suggested that if people can’t find their vaccination records or are worried about exposure, they should get a booster — because they are “safe and effective,” implying there’s no risk.

However, Mumper said it can’t generally be assumed that outbreaks are caused by unvaccinated people — cyclical outbreaks still occur even in populations, such as college students, with nearly 100% vaccination. The vaccine’s protection is not complete and wanes over time.

Measles vaccines come with a long list of serious side effects

The measles vaccine, like all vaccines, can cause serious side effects in some people, according to the author of “The Measles Book.”

Today, there are two measles vaccines available in the U.S. — Merck’s MMRII and GSK’s Priorix. Neither were safety-tested against a true placebo, according to pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas, co-author of “Vax Facts: What to Consider Before Vaccinating at All Ages & Stages of Life.”

MMRII was tested against the vaccine components without the virus — which included the adjuvant — and Priorix was tested against the MMRII.

Merck’s label for MMRII, the most commonly given measles vaccine, reports that clinical trials and post-marketing studies identified a wide range of adverse reactions affecting almost every system in the body.

Examples include atypical measles and measles-type rashes, pancreatitis, thrombocytopenia, myalgia, respiratory illnesses like pneumonia, skin disorders, encephalitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, convulsions or seizures, syncope and many other possible reactions.

The possible side effects for Priorix are similar. During the drug’s trials, there were high rates of serious adverse events and emergency room visits. New onset of chronic diseases occurred in both groups.

“To any sane mind, that means both the MMRII used as placebo and the new Priorix are dangerous,” according to Thomas.

A series of studies by the National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) conducted in the 1990s to 2000s found similar adverse effects associated with the MMR vaccines.

Since the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was established in 1990, there have been 115,849 adverse events associated with the measles vaccine reported, including 572 deaths.

All reports in VAERS are not necessarily verified and vary in completeness. However, underreporting is a known and serious disadvantage of the VAERS system. Researchers have found that the number of injuries reported to VAERS is less than 1%.

In addition to VAERS reports, many thousands of parents who saw their children regress into autism after taking the MMR vaccine have filed claims in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

Even though research shows a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, the VICP denied those claims en masse — and that denial is used to justify the now-common claim that there is no link between vaccines and autism.

An ongoing lawsuit alleges that the U.S. Department of Justice committed fraud to cover up the potential link between vaccines and autism. The case is pending in federal court.

The vaccine ‘propaganda playbook’

Measles outbreaks in the U.S. happen every year, but only some of them make headlines.

Stories circulate periodically about measles outbreaks, blaming them on low vaccination rates. Often, these outbreaks and the news reports sensationalizing them are followed by changes in vaccine laws to eliminate vaccine exemptions.

“The Measles Book” calls this fearmongering used to drive policy changes a “highly effective ‘propaganda playbook.’”

“We’ve seen this playbook in California in 2015 and in New York in 2019,” CHD CEO Mary Holland said. “We know that Hawaii’s legislature currently has bills to repeal its religious exemption.”

Holland added:

“The measles repeal playbook is well-worn and has been effective in the past, not because of a real threat to children’s health, but rather in large part due to media hype from corporate funding and government fearmongering.”

In 2015, allegedly prompted by a measles outbreak at Disneyland — blamed on unvaccinated children and low vaccination rates — California passed a controversial bill, Senate Bill No. 277 (SB 277), which eliminated the “personal belief exemption” for mandatory vaccination.

The passage of SB 277 in 2015 made California the first state in nearly 35 years to eliminate nonmedical vaccine exemptions.

In 2019, following a measles outbreak in 2018-19 in Brooklyn and Rockland Counties in New York, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed legislation ending nonmedical exemptions from school vaccination requirements for children.

What’s really killing children today? It’s not measles.

Measles is not — and has never been — a leading cause of death, according to Jablonowski.

The most common cause of death in non-infant children in 2023 was assault by firearm (2.2 per 100,000), motor-vehicle accident (1.3 per 100,000), self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation (0.9 per 100,000), suicide by firearm (0.7 per 100,000), accidental overdose (0.7 per 100,000), drowning (0.5 per 100,000).

Over the past decade, children have also faced increasing rates of anxiety and depression, stress, asthma, autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or ADHD, obesity, and other chronic diseases, many of which can be linked to toxic exposures from pesticides, plastics, vaccines and other pharmaceutical products, water fluoridation, and electromagnetic radiation.

“Any childhood disease is scary, and measles can lead to complications like pneumonia,” Jablonowski said. “However, diseases like anxiety and depression, which are a serious threat to children’s health, do not have a Mayo clinic ‘self care’ section that begins with ‘take it easy,’” Jablonowski said.

“Any death of a child is tragic,” Holland said. “We grieve for this child and the child’s family. “That said, measles is not a grave threat to America’s children.”

Holland added:

“There are well-established protocols to treat it and healthy children can resolve a measles infection easily. This was the norm until 1963 when a single measles vaccine came into use. The notion that somehow measles is a scourge among well-nourished children with sanitation is diverging on the absurd.

“The real threats to America’s children are chronic health conditions: allergies, asthma, autism, ADHD, bipolar, and on, and on and on. The media would do well to start focusing its attention on the real risks to America’s children.”

Related stories in The Defender

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | 1 Comment

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: The EU in Panic as Peace May Break Out

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs with Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | February 26, 2025

I spoke with Professor Jeffrey Sachs after his speech at the European Parliament. How did we end up in a position where the EU has become the leading actor to oppose diplomacy and negotiations, and instead aims to prolong a war that devastates Europe and cannot be won? How did the Europeans reach a consensus on absurd notions such as Russia should not have a say in where NATO expands, and that the Europeans cannot sit down and talk to Russia without Ukraine? Professor Sachs attended the Istanbul negotiations in early 2022, but why are these negotiations now largely absent in the EU’s war narrative?

Jeffrey Sachs’ Explosive Address at the EU Parliament Sends Shockwaves Across Europe!

Putin invaded Ukraine ‘to stop NATO’, alliance chief tells EU

Jeffrey Sachs’ Full Address

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

How UK counter-terror police colluded with Zionists to detain me after Beirut trip

By David Miller – Press TV – February 27, 2025

At 21.32 local time on the evening of Monday, 24 February, I stepped off a plane from Istanbul to Heathrow and into the terminal building.

In front of me were a wide circle of people evidently waiting for someone, perhaps for a number of passengers. I knew right away one of them was me.

One of the SO15 (formerly special Branch) plain clothes officers of the Counter Terrorism Command, for it was them, asked for my passport and whether I had started my journey in Istanbul.

Of course I knew that they knew this was not the case. In any case, I had done nothing wrong in – as I said to them – visiting Beirut to cover the funeral of Hezbollah leaders Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Sayyed Hashem Safieddine.

This was my first taste of Schedule 7. They started to explain what Schedule 7 was and I said yes, I know about it. From being stopped before? No, because I am a researcher who studies terrorism legislation.

About then, on the moving walkway, I realised that the circle of people had only been waiting for me. I looked round and counted them out loud. I know I’m a big lad, I said, (I am over 6 foot) but did you really need eight officers to detain me?

So, we got to the interrogation room, which is, as past detainees will know, immediately behind passport control. Anyone coming out of that door is SO15 or a detainee.

For those who may face this experience in the future, it is worth explaining how the process goes.  It’s a bureaucratic procedure.

There is a guidance hand book dictating how the process should be handled. First they have to read out the relevant extract from the Terrorism Act. It’s a whole page (see below) and they give you a copy, which they ask you to sign.

The essential bit is that you are being ‘detained’ as opposed to arrested in order that the ’Examining Officer’ can determine if you ‘appear’ to be a person ‘concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism’.

A couple of other details are of relevance. They can’t hold you for more than 6 hours after the time they first apprehend you. You are not under criminal investigation or under arrest and as a result ‘you do not have the right to remain silent’. If they do change their minds and arrest you, you do at that point have the right to remain silent and you should do so.

You have to participate in the process, answer questions and to accept being searched. You don’t have to answer questions that you think they are asking and only need to answer what they actually ask.  There is no need to be unduly long winded!

The other point to note is that nothing you say can be used ‘in evidence in criminal proceedings’. (The only exceptions are that if you do not comply, that can be used in evidence and if you later rely on something in court which is ‘inconsistent’ with what you say, then the contents of your interview can be used).

You have the right to contact a next of kin/friend and a lawyer and you should exercise that right. The rules state that if you ask for a solicitor you cannot be questioned until your solicitor has consulted you.

And your solicitor can participate in the questioning either on the phone or in person, if you can get them out of bed to come to wherever you are detained!

Once in the room both I and my luggage were searched. They found little of interest. No devices. The only thing that they brightened at was a very small USB drive, which I had forgotten was in there.

I confirmed that I thought it had no security protection and they took it away. Later it was returned, much to my surprise.  What was on it I asked?  Only some teaching notes they said in disappointment.

Later, at home I checked. Hilariously there was only one file on the drive: a Powerpoint presentation on the ‘Zionist movement’.

And so we got to the actual interrogation. I estimate that mine started about 23.00, so there was a long period of silence while we waited for the solicitor to call back.

This was partly due to the police deciding that they could not call my first nominated solicitor because he wasn’t on their list, though he should not have needed to be.

Anyway, after I talked to my solicitor, we were off.

What followed was around two hours of questioning about my trip to Beirut. Why did I go, what did I do when I was there, did I support Hezbollah, and many other similar questions.

There is not space to tell it all blow by blow but here are some highlights which might be of use to others who like me are manifestly not involved in the commission of acts of terrorism, as everybody knows.

First, they wanted to know why I went. As I had already intimated when they first stopped me, I was there to cover the funeral as a journalist. As is public knowledge, I work as a journalist on a freelance basis.

I produce a TV show called Palestine Declassified for Press TV, and write for a variety of other publications such as Electronic Intifada, Mintpress, TRT World and Mayadeen English. I mentioned this as well as mentioning that I used to work at the university of Bristol until I was sacked.

They asked about that. I summarised the story including the four occasions on which I was exonerated of ‘antisemitism’ at Bristol (internal enquiry, two external QC reports and the internal appeal), followed by the ‘landmark’ victory at the Employment Tribunal in February 2024.

We went on to discuss my trip to Lebanon. What did I do there? I recounted that I had visited the southern village of Maroun El Ras which is within a mile of the border of occupied Palestine, high on a hill overlooking the colonial settlements of Avivim and Yir’on.

I went with a number of other foreign guests including from Ireland, Yemen, Brazil and various other countries. What was there I was asked? I replied (truthfully) that there was nothing in the village since almost all 600 houses had been destroyed.

The officer seemed confused: why would I want to visit then? Precisely because it had been destroyed by the Zionists, obviously.

We got fairly quickly to the question of whether I supported Hezollah as a proscribed organisation. I referred back to my Employment Tribunal at which similar questions had been asked somewhat ineffectually by the University of Bristol’s counsel Chris Milsom.

There I had said the same thing as I now stated: I ‘support’ the right as given in international law for the Palestinians (and indeed others under occupation) to resist including by armed force.

In case officers in SO15 or other actors need reminding of this, the relevant text is from the UN General Assembly resolution 38/17 of 1983, which states that it

“Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for their independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle”.

They went on to see if they could entice me into saying I specifically supported proscribed organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah. So, I obviously went on to say that it was not only a question of Hezbollah and Hamas, but also Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the PFLP-GC, which is of course not the same as the PFLP itself, which is not proscribed. It was instructive that my interrogator appeared not to know about PIJ and the PFLP-GC, asking me to repeat each name.

We also visited the topic of deproscription. The officer wanted to know why I thought that all of the four, groups should be de-proscribed.

It seemed like he thought this was a valuable concession from me. But, as he is, presumably, aware, the Terrorism Act (year) specifically notes that it is not illegal to call for de-proscription.

I include a table from the Home Office website which gives a list of the charges that can relate to proscribed organisations.

And then we were on to the question of terrorism. Did that mean that I thought they were not terrorist. At which point I am afraid I referred back to my decades long record of research on the question of terrorism and its role in propaganda including my early work on the struggle to decolonise the north of Ireland.

As if the sentiments encoded in the proscribed list or the Western use of the term ‘terrorism’ itself are necessarily subscribed to even by most British citizens, never mind the rest of the world. Let’s not forget that the way in which we use the term ‘terrorism’ in the west – in particular ‘Islamic terrorism’, has it origin in Zionist propaganda operations as has been shown by, for example, Remi Brulin.

At one point, apparently out of the blue I was asked: Are you a practising Muslim? I expressed some surprise at this question. In his defence my interrogator said that I had earlier noticed and asked about whether the small pile of folded prayer mats in the cupboard was in fact a small pile of folded prayer mats.

I had noted them earlier and wanted to check that’s what they were. Only the best for the predominantly Muslim ‘guests’ of the room! As the Guardian reports only 20% of Schedule 7 detentions are of white people (that’s including ‘white Irish’, and others stopped, like me for their solidarity activities, so it’s likely that the proportion of white ‘far right’ suspects stopped is lower than 20%)

The officer seemed mystified about my attendance at an event in which everyone must have been a supporter of Hezbollah. As if reporting on events and supporting those events is the same thing. He asked if everyone there supported Hezbollah.

I replied that I didn’t feel able to report any great knowledge on the consciousness of perhaps the million people there. But it is certainly the case that there were very many Hezbollah flags.

I did also note that there was a largish contingent from the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and made the point that the sheer numbers present suggested that Nasrallah has something of a larger reputation than just among party members and core supporters.

As we talked the officer started asking about Press TV, for which I work on a freelance basis. He evidently had not known what Press TV was as it took a long time for him to understand – after I told him that it was the English Language TV channel of the Iranian government – the equivalent of the BBC world Service.

Then he wanted to know about whether the people I work with at Press TV are extremists or have extreme opinions. Obviously I had to press him to explain what he meant by extremism. Given the British government abandoned its efforts to define the term in any legally robust way, he fared no better.

So he asked something about how many were opposed to western society. I was not impressed by this, since, as I said, most people in the world are opposed to the West, and many of them are British citizens.

And then; does Press TV support the recent ‘terrorism’ in this country?! Which terrorism, I enquired. And do you know what he said? He only said the Southport attack. That was not terrorism I said. Even his colleague butted in and agreed with me!

So we were back to finding specific examples and – put on the spot – he came up with the stabbing and car at Parliament in 2017. That, of course, was carried out by an individual who had made multiple trips to Saudi Arabia and appeared to have been inspired by an ISIS related ideology.

Before we got any further I was asked if Press TV covered incidents like this. The implication, of course, being that covering such activities might be tantamount to ‘supporting’ them.

Obviously, being a news service Press TV does cover political violence of many types, as does every other news organisation in the world.

But moving on I replied that in fact Press TV is opposed to those kind of attacks. I was on the verge of going on to say that this of course was different to the position of their colleagues in MI6 and in the government and indeed the BBC who are only too happy to collaborate in supporting ISIS/Al Qaeda in Syria if it suits their perception of British foreign interests. But I let that lie.

By now we were winding down and it was pretty clear they were about to release me, even if I had taken their claim that it would be over soon with the requisite heap of salt. At the end they asked if I had anything to ask, like we were coming to the end of a job interview.

I made one statement which was that it was abundantly clear to everyone in the room that I was not a person who was concerned in the ‘commission, preparation or instigation’ of acts of terrorism.

By way of defence of the detention the officer attempted to justify it in term of a British citizens attendance at the funeral of a terrorism leader, a defence which of course worked to deny that they had effectively been instructed by others to stop me. With that we were done and I was released at 1am too late to get home except via a prohibitively expensive taxi.

It appeared abundantly clear that SO15 did not have any real idea of who I was and had not prepared any case against me. It was just a normal Schedule 7 stop.

Except of course, it wasn’t. I had openly announced on X that I was in Lebanon for the funeral and had reported from my visit to Maroun El Ras and the Iran garden, on its outskirts both of which had been totally destroyed by Zionist bombardment.

I also posted a clip of my visit to Kfar Kila showing mass destruction of civilian infrastructure wreaked by the Zionists and my discovery of a US arms firm manufactured detonation wire used in blowing up civilian houses.

I also posted on the funeral itself, including while I was stuck in traffic on the way, as I arrived in the ‘nick of time’ and as the ceremony started.

Of course all of this was very triggering for the genocidal Zionists who track any deviation for the authorised position of pretending that the genocide is not happening and that those that resist are simply ‘terrorists’.

wide range of anonymous trolls and Zionist regime assets started mass reporting the Met Police calling for me to be arrested and jailed. I know they say that the Zionists don’t have much power, but bouncing the Met into detaining a journalist on assignment seems like power of some sort.

Here is a select list of Zionist agents and assets who called for me to be arrested:

All of the above were involved in one way or another in the campaign to have me sacked at Bristol, a decision that the Employment Tribunal found was flawed and unjustified, in its ‘landmark’ decision.

This was all topped off by reports on Monday in the Mail (published at 5 to one in the morning just as Monday 24th began) and later (at 5.25 pm) in the Telegraph. This latter report cited the fanatical Zionist Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, who was reported as saying: “David Miller isn’t even bothering to hide his anti-Semitism any more.

He’s now openly boasting of his support for a proscribed terrorist group. It’s shocking that for so long he held a senior position at Bristol University.” Of course no actual ‘antisemitism’ was on display, and I said no words capable of being construed as ‘openly boasting’ of ‘support’ for Hezbollah.

Jenrick has form a far as I am concerned in that he has in the past spent a not inconsequential amount of time trying to have me sacked from my post at Bristol. For example, when he was Housing minister he directly bullied the University of Bristol over my case.

The report ended by saying that the paper had (like the Mail claimed too) contacted me for comment. The facts are that I have had no such query from the Telegraph or from the Mail.

I must say that I did enjoy the column the next day by Stephen Pollard who presided over a significant number of libel defeats in his role as editor of the Jewish Chronicle.  ‘Opening a communication from’ me back then he says was like ‘ingesting poison’. My parents would be proud.

What, self-evidently, happened in this instance was that the Zionist pressure worked its way through and an order to detain was issued. As to whether it came from the top of the counter Terrorism Command, the Home Office or elsewhere, we don’t know as yet.

But it is very much of a piece with the general picture post October 7 2023, which is that there is intense Zionist pressure on the counter terrorism and policing apparatus to weaponise both hate crime laws and terrorism legislation.

It is perfectly plain, as I have shown elsewhere that this pressure from Zionist lobby and intimidation groups and pressure from Zionist aligned politicians like Michael Gove, Suella Braverman, Stuart Polak, Robert Halton and the aforementioned Robert Jenrick, more than adequately explains all of the alleged rise in ‘antisemitism’ as well as almost all of the uses of the many Terrorism Acts on the statute books to oppress and repress those who will stand with the Palestinians in virtually any way.

And in recent months the attacks have widened to journalists, who’s historically recognised craft implies that they can report on all events without being attacked directly by the state.

But now, after Richard Medhurst, Sarah Wilkinson, Asa Winstanley and most recently Ali Abunimah, it is clear that journalists too are direct targets of the Zionists operating as they do via the allegedly sovereign justice apparatus of Western states.

David Miller is the producer and co-host of Press TV’s weekly Palestine Declassified show. He was sacked from Bristol University in October 2021 over his Palestine advocacy.

February 27, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment