Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Utah Set to Become First State to End Water Fluoridation for All Residents

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 24, 2025

Utah lawmakers last week voted to pass the first U.S. statewide ban on adding fluoride to public water systems. The Utah Senate voted 18-8 in favor of the measure after it passed in the House.

If Gov. Spencer Cox signs the bill into law, it will end community water fluoridation. The new law also will give pharmacists new authority to prescribe fluoride supplement pills. Typically, such pills can be prescribed only by a dentist or physician.

Rep. Stephanie Gricius, who sponsored the bill, told The Defender she was thrilled the legislature voted to pass the bill. “Utah leads the nation in so many things and this is just one more example.”

Gricius emphasized that the law allows people to make their own decisions about whether and how to take supplemental fluoride.

“I am a firm believer that the proper role of government is to provide safe, clean drinking water, not medicate the public on a mass scale,” Gricius said. “Because I also believe in medical freedom, I wanted fluoride to remain available to anyone who wanted it for either themselves or their children — which is why we made the prescription easier to obtain through a pharmacy.”

The bill’s Senate sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, said during his presentation on the Senate floor that the bill is “about protecting our water, reducing unnecessary costs, and ensuring people have the right to decide what they consume.”

Rick North, board member of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), one of the plaintiffs who last year won a landmark lawsuit over water fluoridation against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said, “Utah’s fluoridation ban bill enjoyed wide support in both the House and Senate, reflecting both concerns over health risks and the firm opposition to adding any drug to drinking water, taking away people’s right to informed consent.”

North added, “If the governor signs the bill, it would be historic, and could be a catalyst for other states and cities doing the same.”

Opposition to water fluoridation has been growing across the country, particularly since a California federal judge ruled in the case brought by FAN, Mothers Against Fluoridation and others against the EPA that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and that the agency must regulate it.

Judge Edward Chen’s 80-page decision outlined the overwhelming scientific evidence that exposure to fluoride is linked to reduced IQ in children. The EPA recently announced it plans to appeal the ruling.

Chen’s ruling followed the publication in August of a key report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ National Toxicology Program (NTP) that concluded higher levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water are consistently linked to lower IQ in kids.

Other studies making similar findings have also been published in major scientific journals this year.

Fluoride a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production

Gricius started working on the issue last year after a resident approached her about “having individual choice when it comes to what prescriptions she and her children took.”

Local water conservancy districts also reached out to Cullimore to ask the state to ban water fluoridation citing claims of employee safety and the decision in the landmark case against the EPA, Gricius said.

Proponents of water fluoridation argue it protects children’s oral health. However, in October, an updated Cochrane Review concluded that adding fluoride to drinking water provides very limited, if any, dental benefits, especially compared with 50 years ago.

Proponents also underscore that fluoride is a naturally occurring chemical in water, earth and rocks. It can occur naturally in drinking water supplies, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions.

But most surface water contains very low levels of fluoride and roughly three-quarters of Americans have fluoride added to their drinking water. The fluoride added to water systems, typically in the form of fluorosilicic acid, is a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production — as documents from the fluoride lawsuit confirmed.

Cullimore also emphasized that many Utah citizens don’t want the chemical added to their water. “This bill does not prohibit anybody from taking fluoride in whatever fashion they want,” he said. It just disallows people who do not want fluoride from having to consume fluoride in their water.”

Cullimore’s district includes the city of Sandy, where a malfunctioning pump in the water fluoridation system released undiluted hydrofluorosilicic acid into the water in 2019, affecting 1,500 households, institutions and businesses and sickening over 200 people.

An investigation revealed that officials failed to notify the public for 10 days and that fluoride was detected in the drinking water at 40 times the recommended levels.

The 18-8 vote to pass the bill in the Republican-dominated Utah Senate on Friday was largely along party lines, with two Republican senators voting against it and one Democratic senator voting for it.

If signed, the bill is set to take effect on May 7. The governor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether Cox plans to sign it.

‘We’re watching water fluoridation unravel globally in real time’

Since the September court ruling, many U.S. cities and towns have moved to pause or stop fluoridating their water, signaling that the long-term and largely unquestioned practice in the U.S. is facing heightened scrutiny by the public.

FAN Executive Director Stuart Cooper said the Utah vote is a marker of how significantly public opinion is shifting.

Cooper said:

“This is another significant victory for the public, who didn’t sign up to have a developmental neurotoxin and endocrine disruptor to their drinking water. The NIH-funded science showing neurotoxicity, the NTP report confirming that neurotoxicity and the federal ruling that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to human health have all pushed this topic over the tipping point. We’re watching water fluoridation unravel globally in real time.”

Cooper pointed out that 95% of the world and 98% of Europe do not fluoridate, and many countries passed resolutions banning the practice decades ago.

He said states and towns that continue to add fluoridation chemicals to the public water supply “are the extreme outliers and radicals in this situation.”

Florida Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo in December advised governments across the state to stop adding fluoride to their water. Ladapo cited the neuropsychiatric risks — particularly for pregnant women and children — associated with the practice.

Lawmakers in at least three other states have also introduced legislation that would outlaw adding fluoride to community water systems, and four other states are considering bills to make fluoride optional or limit its concentration.

In addition to Utah, lawmakers in North Dakota, New Hampshire and Tennessee are seeking a ban on the practice. Bills in Arkansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and South Dakota would either repeal statewide fluoridation programs or set limits on the amount of fluoride added to water, Bloomberg Law reported.

Last week, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller also called on Gov. Greg Abbott and the state lawmakers to institute a statewide ban on water fluoridation.

Hawaii is the only state that does not offer water fluoridation for most residents. However, the military bases there are mandated by the federal government to fluoridate their water.

Bucking national trends, Democratic senators in Connecticut are introducing legislation to make the current levels of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter, recommended by the public health agencies, state law. They are drafting a bill, Senate Bill No. 7, that would continue water fluoridation at current levels in the state even if federal policy were to change.

The state senate democratic webpage reports they are drafting the bill out of concerns that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., recently confirmed as secretary of Health and Human Services, suggested on social media that the Trump administration would advise all American water systems to remove it from drinking water.

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 25, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Gardasil on Trial: Did Merck Mislead the Public on Cervical Cancer Prevention?

Top expert delivers a damning report accusing Merck of misleading the public about Gardasil’s ability to prevent cervical cancer

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | February 24, 2025

With the landmark trial against Merck adjourned until September 2025, new evidence suggests the vaccine manufacturer may have deliberately misrepresented the necessity of mass HPV vaccination.

This revelation comes from an expert report by Dr Sin Hang Lee, a pathologist renowned for his expertise in molecular diagnostics. His findings raise serious concerns about Gardasil’s efficacy and the motives behind its aggressive marketing.

A person standing in front of a computer Description automatically generated

Dr Sin Hang Lee, director of Milford Molecular Diagnostics, Connecticut

Does Gardasil Prevent Cervical Cancer?

Since its introduction in 2006, Gardasil has been marketed as a breakthrough in the fight against cervical cancer.

Yet, as Dr Lee bluntly states in his report, “There is no conclusive evidence that Gardasil has prevented a single case of cervical cancer in the past 18 years.”

No randomised controlled trial (RCT)—the gold standard for assessing efficacy—has ever demonstrated that Gardasil prevents cervical cancer.

Instead, Merck relied on surrogate markers of pre-cancers, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2/3) to claim effectiveness. This is a significantly lower evidentiary bar that was used to fast-track FDA approval.

The problem with this approach is well-documented. Many CIN2/3 lesions resolve naturally.

A Dutch study, for instance, tracked 114 women with CIN2/3 found that nearly two-thirds of cases regressed without intervention. Only one developed adenocarcinoma in situ (pre-cancer) and none progressed to cervical cancer.

Moreover, those lesions that don’t resolve naturally typically take years to progress, and they are usually detected through routine screening.

If CIN2/3 is an unreliable proxy for cancer, how can it serve as valid proof of Gardasil’s claimed efficacy at preventing cancer?

Are HPV Strains Merely Being Replaced?

Another major concern is “type replacement”—the possibility that suppressing certain HPV strains through vaccination leads to the rise of others.

For instance, a Finnish study found that while HPV strains 16 and 18 (targeted by the vaccine) decreased following vaccination, non-vaccine strains such as HPV 52 and 66 became more prevalent.

This raises an important question: While Gardasil may alter the landscape of HPV infections, does it actually reduce the overall risk of developing cervical cancer?

When Merck developed Gardasil 9 to target five additional HPV strains, a study involving 14,215 women found that those who received Gardasil 9 developed high-grade lesions at the same rate as those who received the original Gardasil (which only targeted four strains).

Despite the expanded coverage, the additional strains had no measurable impact on pre-cancers overall, adding to the uncertainty about whether these vaccines truly reduce cervical cancer incidence.

The Questionable Swedish and Scottish Studies

Two widely cited studies—from Sweden and Scotland—are often heralded as proof that Gardasil significantly reduces cervical cancer rates. However, Dr Lee highlights critical methodological flaws in his report.

  • Swedish study

The Swedish study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, compared cervical cancer rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

However, Dr Lee points out that many participants (born between 1995 and 2007) were too young to develop cervical cancer during the study period (2006–2017).

Since cervical cancer takes decades to emerge, including these young women (ages 10–22)—who had zero cases—introduced a statistical bias that exaggerated the vaccine’s effectiveness.

Moreover, the study failed to account for the “healthy user effect,” where vaccinated individuals are more likely to engage in preventive health measures like regular screening, which independently reduces cancer risk.

As a result, attributing the decline in cancer cases solely to the vaccine is misleading.

  • Scottish study

A 2024 Scottish observational study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, had similar methodological issues, and was met with sensationalist media headlines: “No cervical cancer cases in HPV-vaccinated women.”

However, Dr Lee argues this claim is deeply flawed. First, the women studied were simply too young for conclusions about long-term vaccine efficacy to be drawn.

Second, Scotland’s screening programme, which detects and treats precancerous lesions before they develop into cancer, changed its entry age in 2016 during the study period.

The age at which women were first invited for screening was raised from 20 to 25, meaning there was a 5-year gap in screening for younger women. As most cancers in women under 30 are diagnosed through screening, this change could explain any decline in cancer rates, rather than the vaccine itself.

And third, just like the Swedish study, the “healthy user effect” further confounds the results.

Despite being frequently cited as definitive proof of Gardasil’s effectiveness, these studies contain serious limitations that undermine their conclusions.

Cervical cancer screening saves lives

In developed nations, around 93% of initial HPV infections resolve without medical intervention. Cervical cancer is slow to develop, with an average onset age of 54, making long-term data essential for assessing Gardasil’s true impact.

What remains incontrovertible is the lifesaving role of cervical cancer screening.

Since the widespread adoption of Pap smears in the 1950s, cervical cancer incidence in the U.S. has plummeted—from 44 per 100,000 women in 1947 to just 8.8 per 100,000 by 1970.

This dramatic decline predates the introduction of HPV vaccination in 2006.

In Australia, deaths from cervical cancer fell significantly along with incidence following the introduction of the National Cervical Screening Programme, and remained steady despite mass HPV vaccination.

Source: https://www.hpvworld.com/articles/prevention-of-cervical-precancer-and-cancer/

Dr Nancy C. Lee, former Associate Director for Science at the CDC, testified before the U.S. Congress in 1999:

  • Cervical cancer is nearly 100 percent preventable.”
  • The most important risk factor for developing cervical cancer… is the failure to receive regular screening with a Pap smear.”
  • For a woman with CIN, her likelihood of survival is almost 100 percent with timely and appropriate treatment.”

Dr Nancy C. Lee, former Associate Director for Science at the CDC

Unlike cervical cancer, which is preventable through screening and treatable with early intervention, Dr Lee asserts the harms linked to Gardasil – such as autoimmune disorders and neurological complications – are unpredictable, difficult to treat, and often irreversible.

Did Merck Misrepresent Its Vaccine?

At the core of this legal battle is a critical question: Did Merck mislead the public about Gardasil’s true value?

Despite its widespread use, Gardasil’s long-term efficacy remains unproven, while growing evidence links the vaccine to serious harms, including autoimmune disorders and neurological complications.

For decades, cervical cancer rates have declined due to improved screening—not mass vaccination. Yet Merck has aggressively marketed Gardasil as essential for cancer prevention, even in countries where cervical cancer is already rare.

Dr Lee’s report suggests Merck selectively presented data to manufacture a false sense of necessity—one that collapses under scrutiny.

As the trial resumes in September, one question remains: Did Merck knowingly misrepresent Gardasil’s safety and efficacy, prioritising profit over public health?

February 25, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Hamas denounces New York Times distortion of Marzouk’s comments on Op Al-Aqsa Flood

Press TV – February 25, 2025

Hamas has rejected a report by the American daily newspaper The New York Times that has misrepresented recent remarks by a senior official of the Palestinian resistance movement, emphasizing that the comments are “inaccurate” and “taken out of context.”

In a statement released on Monday, the Gaza-based group said the interview conducted with Moussa Abu Marzouk, a senior member of its political bureau, and published several days ago did not contain the full content of the answers, and his exact remarks were quoted out of context.

Hamas stressed that the published interview did not include the true remarks made by Abu Marzouk, and did not convey the true meaning of what he had said.

On Monday, The New York Times ran an article titled: “Hamas Official Expresses Reservations About Oct. 7 Attack on Israel” claiming that Abu Marzouk voiced doubts regarding the October 7 attack.

According to the article, Abu Marzouk admitted he would not have endorsed the assault had he been aware of the destruction it would cause in Gaza.

Hamas in its statement stated that Abu Marzouk confirmed that the large-scale surprise attack, dubbed Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, against the usurping Tel Aviv regime on October 7, 2023, reflected the Palestinian people’s right to resistance and their rejection of Israel’s siege, occupation, and settlement expansion activities.

Abu Marzouk also emphasized that the criminal Israeli regime had committed appalling war crimes and genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.

Abu Marzouk told the New York Times that Hamas would not give up its positions and Palestinian people’s right to use all forms of resistance, including armed resistance, to fight off the Israeli occupation and liberate their land.

“The resistance weapon belongs to our people and its purpose is to protect our people and our holy sites, so it is not permissible to drop or surrender it as long as the [Israeli] occupation exists on our land,” the high-ranking Hamas official told the newspaper.

Backed by the United States and its Western allies, Israel launched the war on Gaza, after Hamas and other Gaza-based Palestinian resistance movements carried out Operation Al-Aqsa Flood against the Israeli regime in response to its decades-long campaign of oppression against Palestinians.

Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza has led to the killing of at least 48,346 Palestinians, mostly women and children, and injury of 111,759 others since early October 2023.

A ceasefire and prisoner exchange agreement went into effect in Gaza on January 19, halting Israel’s aggressive campaign against the coastal region.

February 25, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Restoring Palestine to its rightful owners by decolonising solidarity

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | February 25, 2025

I have long argued that the Israeli war and genocide in Gaza must be a catalyst for change in the overall political discourse on Israel and Palestine, particularly regarding the need to free Palestine from the confines of victimhood. This shift is necessary to create space where the Palestinian people are seen to be central to their own struggle.

It is unfortunate that centring a nation in a conversation about its own freedom from colonialism and military occupation requires years of advocacy. This is the reality that Palestinians face, though, often due to circumstances far beyond their control.

As outrageous as US President Donald Trump’s comments about buying Gaza were, they were a crude interpretation of a pre-existing culture that views Palestinians as marginal actors in their own story. While previous US administrations and their Western allies didn’t use such blatant language as Trump’s “taking over the Gaza Strip”, they did treat Palestinians as irrelevant to how the West perceived the “solution” to the “conflict”, language that rarely adhered to international and humanitarian laws.

For many Palestinian intellectuals, the fight for justice has been waged on two fronts: one to challenge global misconceptions about Palestine and the Palestinian people; and the other to reclaim the narrative altogether.

Recently, I have argued that reclaiming the narrative by centring Palestinian voices is not enough.

Many of these supposedly “authentic” Palestinians do not represent the collective aspirations of the Palestinian people.

This argument responds to the Western exposition of certain types of Palestinians whose narratives do not directly challenge Western complicity in the Israeli occupation and war. These voices often focus on highlighting the victimisation component of the “conflict”, often indicating that “both sides” should be supported — or blamed — equally.

This is why it was refreshing to talk with the iconic Norwegian Professor of Emergency Medicine Mads Gilbert, who is fighting to decolonise the concept of solidarity in medicine and, by extension, western solidarity as a whole.

Prof. Gilbert has spent much of his career working in Gaza, as well as among Palestinian doctors and communities in the West Bank and Lebanon. Since the start of the war, he has remained one of the most tireless voices in exposing the Israeli genocide in the Strip.

Our conversation touched on many subjects, including a term that he has coined: “evidence-based solidarity”. This concept applies evidence-based practice in medicine to all aspects of solidarity, both within and beyond Palestine.

It means that solidarity becomes more meaningful when it is supported by the kind of information which guarantees that the support does more good than harm.

A good example was his explanation of the field hospital as a strategy to cope with man-made crises, such as the genocide in Gaza. Our discussion elaborated on an article by Gilbert and other colleagues, published on 5 February in the BMC Medical Journal, entitled “Realising Health Justice in Palestine: Beyond Humanitarian Voices”.

The article was a critical response to another piece, published last May by Karl Blanchet and others, entitled “Rebuilding the Health Sector in Gaza: Alternative Humanitarian Voices”. Gilbert found the original article reductionist for failing to recognise that the crisis in Gaza was “entirely manufactured” and for overlooking the centrality of “Palestinian perspectives”.

This conversation may seem rhetorical until it is placed within its practical context. Field hospitals, which could be seen as the ultimate act of solidarity, in Gilbert’s view often deplete local resources and exacerbate the challenges facing Palestinian healthcare. He pointed out how the establishment of these temporary foreign-run facilities can contribute to a “brain drain”, while simultaneously exhausting the local healthcare system by creating parallel structures that, despite being well-funded, do not integrate with the native system.

According to Gilbert, these efforts divert critical resources away from the urgent task of rebuilding and restoring Palestinian hospitals and providing fair wages for the dedicated healthcare workers — doctors, nurses, paramedics and midwives — who are integral to the local medical infrastructure.

It must be frustrating for Palestinian medics, hundreds of whom have been killed in the Israeli genocide on Gaza, to watch others have a conversation about helping Gaza without acknowledging the vital role of the Palestinian Ministry of Health and local hospitals and clinics. They fail to recognise the unmatched experience — let alone the resilience — of the Gaza medical community, which has proven to be one of the most durable and resourceful anywhere in the world.

This is but a manifestation of a much larger issue.

The West, whether “evil-doers” or “do-gooders”, insists on seeing the Palestinian as an outsider to be removed from Gaza altogether or treated as a person with no relevant input, no worthy experience and no agency. Many often engage in this thinking, while assuming that they are indeed helping the Palestinians.

However, the genocide should serve as the watershed moment for these conversations to escape the academic realm and enter the public sphere, where the centrality of the truly representative Palestinian experience becomes the litmus test for any outside “proposals”, “plans”, “solutions” or even solidarity. As for the latter, decolonising solidarity is now an urgent task. There is no time to waste when the very existence of Palestinians in their historic land is at stake.

February 25, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , | 1 Comment

Iran rules out nuclear talks with US amid ‘maximum pressure’ campaign

Press TV – February 25, 2025

Iran will not engage in negotiations with the United States on its nuclear program unless the White House steps back from a recently reinstated “maximum pressure” campaign, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says.

Araghchi was addressing a press conference on Tuesday alongside his visiting Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov.

The foreign minister said Iran will address the nuclear issue in coordination with its allies – Russia and China.

“On nuclear negotiations, Iran’s stance is very clear: we will not negotiate under pressure, threat, and sanctions.”

“Therefore,” the Iranian foreign minister stated, “there is no possibility of direct negotiations between us and the United States on the nuclear issue as long as maximum pressure continues to be applied in its current form.”

Araghchi highlighted his “detailed and constructive” discussions with Lavrov on a broad range of topics, particularly concerning the Caucasus, Asia, and Eurasia.

The Iranian foreign minister praised the rapid progress in economic cooperation between Tehran and Moscow, citing collaborations in energy, railways, and agriculture.

On Palestine, Araghchi said they discussed Trump’s “unacceptable” forced displacement plan targeting Gaza residents.

Regarding Syria, he underlined the alignment of Iranian and Russian positions.

“Stability, peace, territorial integrity, and progress in Syria based on the will of its people are priorities for Iran. We support establishing peace and stability in this country.”

Room for diplomacy on nuclear issue

Lavrov also elaborated on his “detailed and constructive” discussions with Araghchi during the press conference.

The Russian foreign minister said both sides agreed to enhance cooperation within the framework of BRICS.

Lavrov drew attention to a notable increase in trade between Iran and Russia despite Western sanctions.

“Trade exchanges between Iran and Russia have increased by more than 13%, and we hope this trend will continue.”

The Russian minister also expressed satisfaction with the progress on the Rasht-Astara railway project.

“Construction has begun, supported by a Russian government loan, which is an important step toward establishing the North-South Corridor,” he stated, referring to a trade route connecting India to northern Europe.

Lavrov pointed to Tehran’s successful hosting of the Caspian Economic Forum and expressed optimism about convening a joint economic cooperation commission later this year.

Addressing Iran’s nuclear program, Lavrov put a premium on diplomacy.

“We believe there is still diplomatic capacity to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue, and we hope a solution can be found. This crisis was not created by Iran.”

Iran has long been subjected to Western sanctions over its nuclear activities, human rights issues, and other pretexts.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has escalated these measures since taking office, reinstating the so-called maximum pressure policy, a campaign of hybrid warfare targeting Iran.

Similarly facing sanctions over its military operations in Ukraine, Russia has deepened its cooperation with Iran in recent years.

In January, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian visited Moscow and signed a strategic partnership agreement with President Vladimir Putin to bolster economic and military collaboration.

February 25, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russian auto-giant cites billion dollar Renault re-entry price tag

RT | February 25, 2025

Renault will have to compensate Russian carmaker AVTOVAZ up to $1.3 billion if it wishes to re-acquire its former business and re-enter the market, having previously quit the country, CEO Maxim Sokolov said on Tuesday.

In 2022, AVTOVAZ purchased Renault’s share in the joint enterprise for a symbolic sum of 1 ruble with an option to return within six years.

Renault joined other foreign corporations that succumbed to international pressure and left Russia in the wake of the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.

A return is only possible if the French automaker reimburses the investments made in its absence to develop the business, Sokolov told journalists, specifying that they would top 112 billion rubles ($1.3 billion) in 2023-2025.

“They [the investments] exceed the average annual investment volumes that were made by the previous shareholder, Renault, in the early 2020s,” the top executive said.

“Therefore, it’s clear that these investments will need to be reimbursed upon return,” he added, stressing that the price of return wouldn’t equal the price of exit.

Renault sold its 100% stake in Renault Russia and its 68% stake in Russian carmaker AvtoVAZ in 2022. Renault’s assets were later transferred to Russian state ownership.

In November 2022, Russia launched production of an updated version of the iconic Soviet-era car brand Moskvich at Renault’s factory in Moscow, which used to produce cars under the Renault and Nissan brands.

The car giant reported a write-down of over $2 billion as a result of the withdrawal from its second-biggest market.

February 25, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Three years of a cruel and destructive NATO proxy war in Ukraine

By Dmitri Kovalevich | Al Mayadeen | February 25, 2025

The end of February marks three years since the start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine and 11 years since the ‘Euromaidan’ coup of February 2014. The coup was the main cause of the current military conflict.

The war in the now-former eastern territories of Ukraine could have been avoided had two successive presidencies in Kiev (Petro Poroshenko, 2014-2019 and Volodomyr Zelensky since 2019) complied with the Minsk 2 peace agreement of February 2015. Minsk 2 (text here), was agreed by Kiev and the pro-autonomy forces in the Donbass region on February 12, 2015. France, Germany, and Russia co-signed the agreement as guarantors. The agreement was unanimously endorsed by no less than the UN Security Council on February 17, 2015.

Minsk 2 envisioned the return of Lugansk and Donetsk (the two rebellious ‘peoples republics’ of the industrialized Donbass region) to the fold of the Ukrainian constitution, this time as semi-autonomous oblasts (provinces). Kiev also agreed to a neutral status for Ukraine. It could apply for membership in the European Union if it chose, but membership in the NATO military alliance was for Russia a non-starter.

EU membership increasingly became a goal of Western-oriented business interests in Ukraine during the decade of the 2000s. That decade followed 10 years of sharp economic decline following the dissolution in 1989-90 of Soviet Ukraine and of the Soviet Union (USSR, of which Soviet Ukraine was a key constituent).

Tragically for the people of post-Soviet Ukraine, the Western countries, particularly the leading powers of NATO, quietly and deceptively opposed Minsk 2. They worked quietly from the get-go to sabotage the agreement.

Deception of Ukrainians by the West

On February 12, 2025, the deputy secretary of the Russian Security Council, Aleksey Shevtsov, spoke on the ninth anniversary of the signing of Minsk 2, explaining once again to those who would listen that Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine would never have happened had the West honored the agreement. He stressed that the people of Ukraine today have every right to demand an accounting for the deceptions that took place in 2015 and after.

On the same day, the Ukrainian online publication Strana published a lengthy commentary in its Telegram messaging service headlined, ‘Why did the Minsk agreement fail?’ Strana wrote, “Russia says that Kiev deliberately refused to fulfill the conditions of the Minsk 2 agreement and instead proceeded to rearm its army and restart armed attacks against the people of Donbass. The Russian government says it can no longer trust the government in Kiev and so there is no possibility of a ‘Minsk 3’.” (‘Minsk 1’ was a first attempt, in September 2014, by the pro-autonomy forces of Donbass to reach a peace agreement with the new administration in Kiev.)

Strana wrote further, “Russia did not launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2014 or 2015. Perhaps it wanted to, who knows, but it could not do so because it would have been hit with harsh economic sanctions similar to those levied against it by the Western powers beginning in February 2022. It would have faced economic sanctions worse than those initially levied against it following the Crimea referendum of March 2014. The Russian economy was in no shape to easily withstand such sanctions, in contrast to the situation in 2022.

“Additionally, although the Ukrainian army back then was much weaker compared to 2022, this was also the case for the Russian army.”

In their recollections of the events of those years, leaders of today’s Donetsk Peoples Republic (today a constituent of the Russian Federation) say that the main opponent of a major military response to Kiev’s continued military provocations and sabotage of Minsk 2 was the Russian military. Russian military leaders said at the time that the Russian Federation did not have enough combat-ready troops to take on such a large and industrial country as Ukraine.

“From a purely military point of view, the rapid success of Russia in Crimea in the spring of 2014 was due to the fact that Russian troops were already present on the Crimean peninsula [by virtue of a 1997 agreement between Russia and Ukraine; see Wikipedia on the subject]. They needed no time to deploy, and they prevented armed attacks being threatened by the paramilitaries of the new administration in Kiev. At the time, there were no large military formations of the Russian Federation along the lengthy Russian-Ukrainian border. Donbass’s self-defense forces only began to form in the late spring of 2014 and it was several years before they were integrated as auxiliaries of the Russian armed forces.”

As Russian sources stated at the time, the initial military defense that arose in the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts of Ukraine against the paramilitaries of the 2014 coup bore the markings of a military adventure and were not at all coordinated with the political leadership of the Russian Federation. The self-defense forces hoped to convince or pressure Russia to join a war of defense for which Russia was not ready, not politically, economically nor militarily.

What the Western-incited war in Ukraine has wrought

In the lead-up to and since the 2014 coup, western and central Ukraine has been living the fate of a battering ram to be used by the Western imperialist powers to weaken Russia, regardless of the tragic human consequences and of the prospect of Ukraine being cast off once it is no longer needed for such a role. The results of this cruel and heinous policy are increasingly evident as graveyards continue to spread on Ukraine’s territory with each passing day.

The Politnavigator media outlet explained (as reported on Telegram on February 1) the consequences of such policy for the mortals conscripted into war, many against their will. The report cites Anton Cherny, an officer of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. He explains, “We are being lied to about the value of our soldiers’ lives. I watched the speech of our commander-in-chief that every soldier is valuable to Ukraine and worth his weight in gold. That’s what they tell the people, but it’s not true.”

Cherny says that 90% of the soldiers who die or succumb to injuries on the battlefields are simply buried there and then officially listed as missing. “Everyone there knows perfectly well what is happening.” And the indignities do not end there. The families of those reported as ‘missing’ do not receive the financial compensation to which they are entitled.

Cherny also explains that it is extremely difficult for surviving fighters to exit the grim fighting along the front lines. “It’s hard to get out of there by yourself, it’s unrealistic. How lucky it would be if there were fog, very big snow or some other bad weather.” He explains that Ukrainian lines are under constant surveillance from drones flying overhead. As soon as evacuation vehicles approach from the Ukraine side, the drones threaten to strike them, making it very difficult to evacuate the injured or the dead from the various battlefields.

Politnavigator continues its report:

‘The army doesn’t provide guidelines or instructions for soldiers to somehow make their tasks easier. Its words to this effect are just talk. Soldiers are told to go here or there and ‘do’ something, but as to what, where and why, you have to be some kind of superman to figure it out. It’s unreal,’ Cherny says indignantly.

Provoking the sleeping bear of Russia

Radical nationalist and neo-Nazi paramilitaries operating under the control of Kiev’s police and special services waged nine years of military conflict and terrorist attacks against civilians in Donbass from 2014 to 2021. This was bound to provoke a reaction from the Russian Federation sooner rather than later, as any serious commentator knew and reported.

Ukrainian commentators were writing more than three years ago that Kiev’s deployments of paramilitaries in Donbass and its turning a blind eye to their crimes, backed by promises of weapons by belligerent Western governments, would inevitably provoke Russia into responding, as though provoking a bear with a stick. The weapons of Ukraine, many provided by the West, did indeed, predictably, awaken the bear, and angrily.

In early February 2025, the prime minister of neighboring Georgia, Irakli Kobakhidze, told journalists that back in 2022, his country’s then-government was being encouraged by the West to open a ‘second front’ against Russia. The country was to be used just as Ukraine was being used. According to the Kobakhidze, Georgian officials of the day were told a fable by the Western powers to convince them to act. “They said Ukraine is winning the war; you should not miss this chance to strike against Russia.”

Kobakhidze believes it will now take Ukraine 100 years to return to a state of development comparable where it was prior to the 2014. He asks, “Why was all this done? No one is offering a clear answer to this question. However, there is an answer: some global interests, evil interests, have sacrificed our friendly country Ukraine.”

Full-fledged dictatorship

The eleven years that have elapsed since the Euromaidan coup of 2014 have been years of Ukraine sliding inexorably towards dictatorship, all the while accompanied by rosy phrases from EU leaders claiming that a ‘triumph of democracy’ was taking place. The ideology of Nazism from the World War II era has been officially rehabilitated, while opponents of this course have been targeted by armed, ultra-nationalists and neo-Nazis.

All left-wing parties in Ukraine have been banned. Some of their members and leaders have been killed, while many more have been forced into exile. Protests against, and critics of, the ‘pro-European’ dictatorship in Kiev have been targeted for repression. The Western powers have turned a blind eye to the crimes being committed, while United Nations officials have occasionally issued toothless resolutions expressing ‘concern’ about the civil rights being violated.

In 2021, Zelensky banned more political parties critical of his government, and he closed all television channels deemed non-compliant with his policies. No court or other legal reviews of these decisions have taken place.

With the outbreak of war in February 2022, Zelensky imposed martial law and then canceled national elections for the presidency and the legislature (Rada). These were to take place no later than April 2024, according to the Ukraine constitution. Zelensky has said that Ukraine cannot hold elections until it has fully regained control over its former territories. Since this would be impossible to achieve, his statements on the matter mean that for all intents and purposes, elections will not take place in the remaining territories held by Kiev. Period.

Alexander Dubinsky, a former associate of Zelensky jailed by his administration, writes that the war became for Zelensky an escape from the social explosion building up inside the country and appearing inevitable by the end of 2021. “I think this largely determined why Zelensky promoted military rhetoric in every possible way, and why in March 2022 he ceded to Western government pressures to draw back from a political settlement with the Russian Federation.”

For Dubinsky, the end of the war would mean a loss of political power by Zelensky and his cohorts, and this, in turn, would expose them to direct conflict with all the enemies he has managed to make. He may be able to protect himself from the widows and mothers of the deceased, reasons Dubinsky, but not from the violent, ‘serious men’ who have proliferated under his government.

Detention camps using torture methods under Zelensky

Every day, more and more facts are emerging in Ukraine about the detention camps that Zelensky has created in order to sustain its power and continue the NATO proxy war.

In January, legislator Oleksandr Dubinskyy urged Ukrainians to report to U.S. authorities about the detention camps that the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has organized, notably for the purpose of forcing accused conscription evaders to confess to accusations of state treason. According to him, the SBU detention camps are prototypes of what Ukraine as a whole has become under Zelensky.

Dubinskyy has been detained since November 2023 under accusations of financial crimes and treason. He has recently announced from detention his intention to run for president of Ukraine if and when a national election takes place.

Another former associate of Zelensky, legislator Artem Dmytruk, wrote on Telegram on January 30 that the entire special corps of the Lukyanivske pre-trial detention center in Kiev should be called a concentration camp and named ‘Zelensky’s Factory’. Legislators Oleksandr Dubinsky and Yevhen Shevchenko are among those imprisoned there. “90|% of detainees in this center face charges by the office of the expired president Zelensky.”

Dmytruk fled to Britain in August 2024 shortly after he was the only deputy in the Rada to speak and vote against a new law banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, of which he is a subdeacon.

The Ukrainian magazine Liberal published a lengthy report in February saying that individuals and political formations connected to the Zelensky administration are the only ones in Ukraine not talking about political repression prevailing today in the country.

The authors claim that extensive political repression was being prepared and carried out well before the start of the Russian military intervention in February 2022. According to the publication, thousands of SBU employees were sent to border regions on the eve of the Russian intervention to monitor troop morale and other measures of the military situation.

At the same time, Kiev began to address its shortages of police and prison personnel in Kiev and other regions by recruiting ‘trained athletes’ into the ranks of the SBU after completing three-month courses in western Ukraine. ‘Trained athletes’ is a euphemism in Ukraine for members of criminal gangs.

“Thousands of bone-crackers performing police functions inside the country spread out without the slightest remorse to beat testimony out of Ukrainians using the most brutal forms of violence and creating torture institutions such as the famous ‘Sports Hall’ on Volodymyrska Street [in the center of Kiev],” writes Liberal.

“People were lying on floors, deprived of the right to move and subjected to constant beatings and humiliation. The Ukrainian anthem and nationalist songs were played continuously from loudspeakers. The eyes of the prisoners would be taped shut with duct tape or tied with rags, and they were taken to the toilet only once a day. They were also fed very sparingly, once per day.”

The authors note that political prisoners now account for about half of the prisoners in Ukraine. The main motives for many SBU officers, Liberal notes, have not been security concerns but the robbery of suspects. Detainees have been forced to surrender their personal wealth upon arrest and detention.

Two reports in English on prison conditions in Ukraine were published in 2024, one by a Danish government agency (110 pages) and one by an agency of the Council of Europe (46 pages). Both reports skirt incendiary accusations such as the one published by Liberal and the many ones appearing widely on social media.

On February 12, a German court for the first time approved the extradition of a conscientious objector to military service who had fled Ukraine. Ukraine prohibits men of military age (age 25 to 55, 60 for officers) from leaving the country. Many of the fugitives from Ukraine’s compulsory conscription have chosen to flee to Germany, attracted by Germany’s claimed liberal values. This court decision is the first warning sign that the authorities of European Union countries may begin to conduct forced deportations of the Ukrainian men who have managed by hook or by crook to escape from their homeland’s military conscription. It is reported that in 2024, there are some 200,000 Ukrainian men residing in Germany alone.

February 25, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , , | Leave a comment

How President Trump is well placed to secure a deal with Russia to end the war

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 25, 2025

Media coverage of America’s recent talks with Russia in Saudi Arabia focussed almost exclusively on the prospects for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Russia and the U.S. probably want different outcomes from the talks. But President Trump is better placed to reach a deal with President Putin that he was in his first term.

The speed with which America has moved to reestablish diplomatic contact with Russia has left European leaders breathless and flatfooted. Zelensky has also been damaged by a needless public fight with President Trump that he could not win, after accusing him of living in a Russian disinformation bubble.

Donald Trump has arrived in the White House, for the second time, following a collapse in U.S.-Russia relations under a preceding Democratic Party President. What seems different today is that the politics of Washington have made it easier for him to engage with President Putin.

In 2017, Russia undoubtedly hoped for a potential reset of relations with the United States after a general collapse in engagement under President Obama. In Obama’s final foreign policy fling on 29 December 2016, he expelled 35 Russian diplomats, in response to the so-called Russiagate allegations.

In my view, Obama hoped these expulsions would make it harder for President Trump to engage with President Putin, if Russia retaliated with reciprocal diplomatic expulsions. But, Putin deliberately paused on retaliating, waiting to see what Trump might offer.

The real obstacle to engagement in 2017, which doesn’t seem to exist today, was the bipartisan resistance in Washington to President Trump improving relations with Russia in any way.

Just one day after Obama expelled the Russian diplomats, the rabidly anti-Russian late Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) were in Kyiv. There, they pressed for even tougher sanctions against Russia, and more support for Ukraine.

Even before President Trump had been sworn in, moves were being made by representatives of his own political party, to hem him in. The vehicle to achieve this was the Countering American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which imposed sweeping new sanctions against Russia, Iran and North Korea.

This sanctions act was so punitive, allowing the U.S. to sanction European countries that did business with Russia, that several EU leaders were furious and lobbied hard for it to be watered down.

On 31 July 2017, within days of Congress approving the CAATSA act, President Putin finally chose to retaliate, evicting seven hundred fifty five staff from U.S. diplomatic missions.

Two days later, when President Trump signed the CAATSA Act into Law, he noted that the bill was ‘seriously flawed.. because it encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate.. This bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people, and will drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together.’

Whether or not you agree with sanctions against Russia, it would take a confident person today, to say that Russia, China and North Korea weren’t closer now than they were eight years ago.

Back in 2017 the CAATSA Act was a hammer blow to President Trump’s efforts to reengage. President Putin’s retaliation gutted America’s diplomatic network in Russia.

I was Charge d’Affaires at the British Embassy at the time and took the short walk most days to the U.S. Embassy to help the Deputy Chief of Mission as he grappled with the dreadful choice of which of his diplomats to send back to America.

I could have taken a car, but I wanted to walk in and out each day, under the watchful gaze of the Russian state apparatus, as a small sign of solidarity.

The main U.S. Embassy site in Moscow sits behind the White House, which the Russian army famously fired at by Russian army tanks during the 1993 parliamentary rebellion. In 2017, a cavernous new, glass and steel Consular Services building had recently erected which even today sits largely empty, as the U.S. shut down practically all visa processing in Russia.

I recommended a plan – successful as it turns out – to prevent closure of the Anglo-American school of Moscow, under the cover of the mass expulsions. The school had first opened in 1949, as a place for the children of American, British and Canadian diplomats to get an education. That school finally closed it doors in May 2023, having supported diplomatic children – including my two – for seventy-four years without interruption.

Both are small signs of just far low U.S.-Russia day to day diplomatic ties have fallen.

The talks that took place between in Saudi Arabia on 18 February between Secretary Rubio and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov focused in significant part on a process gradually to return diplomatic relations to a more normal footing.

In my experience, Russia places considerable value on day-to-day diplomatic collaboration across social, cultural, scientific and other fields. Even NASA had a liaison in Moscow while I was there.

It is no great secret that the intelligence services of both sides work relentlessly to spy on the other. But this softer diplomatic engagement is a huge help in moderating some of the ‘bad stuff’.

President Trump would like the war to end, but Russia holds the upper hand on the battlefield and can play for time in suing for peace. Russia would undoubtedly like a more normalised diplomatic relationship with the United States of America.

Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov has said he is not interested in a quick ceasefire that allows Ukraine to rearm and come back later for another war.

Any negotiation depends on knowing what both sides want and what you can offer without diminishing your own goals. There is little appetite on the Hill to pump further billions into the Ukraine war effort. With over 20,000 sanctions imposed on Russia already and with its economy still robust, there is no benefit in pushing more sanctions.

Taking small steps to redress the awful day-to-day diplomatic relations between both countries seems a good place to start as both sides look to broker a lasting peace. And with President Trump not held back by dissenters in his own party, he appears strongly placed to agree a deal with President Putin.

February 25, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Candace Owens: There’s Much More Hidden Behind the ‘Brigitte’ Story

Becoming Brigitte: The Epilogue
Europe Reloaded | February 23, 2025

This is the final installment where Candace Owens wraps up her examination of the evidence and research around ‘Brigitte’s’ identity. A new figure is introduced in this episode, that of Macron’s maternal uncle, one Jean-Michel NOGUES, an important figure in the young Emmanuel’s life but of whom there is not a single photo. Notice how many ‘Jeans-…’ or ‘Jean-Michels’ there are in this story. Owens addresses that. We provide notes to the video below.

********

NOTES

All of these players in the Brigitte story could, in fact, have multiple identities.

Today Owens looks at one side of the family, the Trogneux of Amiens, Brigitte’s family.

It’s noticeable that almost all men in the family have the same first name, ‘Jean’. They’ve added other names and created a particular name brand. And the women have male middle names and generally longer name strings, as you’d find with elite families. Is there an intent to confuse here, with people within one family having such similar names?

Owens examines a family photo produced by known press fraud,Mimi Marchand. The image of Monique Trogneux‘s hand to the right of the photo looks very odd and misshapen. Monique Trogneux would marry a local billionaire yet no other photos are available of her. Xavier Poussard has noted that nothing about this story makes much sense.

Owens asks, are these families related? Is Emmanuel Macron actually Brigitte’s (male) biological son? The secret here seems to be far bigger than having a transgender wife. Why does it feel that Macron has had his hand held by people throughout his life, including David de Rothschild, a family known by their own admission to practice incest. ‘Vice is nice but incest is best because it stays in the family’, which is a direct quote from David de Rothschild’s cousin on French TV.

The book ‘The Women of the Rothschild’ by Natalie Livingston says that incest was practiced until it was no longer socially acceptable (note Meyer Amschel’s quote). Which obviously raises the question of mental fitness among family members.

So why did David de Rothschild pick up Macron and fast-track him into the banking business? How did the Rothschilds get so close to family of doctors and of chocolatiers?

We know of Jean-Michel Macron, Emmanuel’s father, but nothing of Jean-Michel NOGUES, an uncle on his mother’s side who died in 2006.

Macron chose to get baptized at the age of 12 with this uncle as godfather. He was a prominent doctor in the area, highly networked through a real estate company, bringing together medical professional organizations. No photo of him exists publicly; the medical faculty in Amiens refuse to show what they have in their records. Why was this important uncle not mentioned in Macron’s autobiography? It is yet another odd and important question that surrounds this family.

The One Claimed to be Jean-Michael Trogneux Today

A photo of this aging, corpulent man was produced, and alleged to be the original JMT by the Macrons. He’s still alive but we have no idea what he has done in his life. Facial recognition software says that this man is not JMT in fact. Also, photos of Macron’s investiture lunch show that this man was not present among the family members, nor does video footage at the investiture show this. And in another investiture video clip, Brigitte is seen to ignore him. However, the one claimed to be JMT is standing with David de Rothschild.

These questions cannot be answered satisfactorily, but people are digging. Questions we are left with:

  1. What does Macron’s uncle, Jean-Michel NOGUES, look like?
  2. What happened to the original Brigitte TROGNEUX?
  3. The contents of a military file in Algeria on JMT have not yet been released.

Owens makes an appeal to the audience for more information.

At any rate, she believes, we seem to be looking at a case of incest.

Links to other episodes:

Becoming Brigitte: an Introduction

Becoming Brigitte: Gaslighting The Public | Ep 1

Becoming Brigitte: An Inaccessible Past | Ep 2

Becoming Brigitte: One Coincidence Too Many | Ep 3

Becoming Brigitte ep.6 FULL VIDEO INTERVIEW AT CANDACE OWENS’ SITE

February 25, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment