Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Theodore Postol: Trump’s Golden Dome Missile Defense & Nuclear Escalation

Prof. Theodore Postol and Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | June 6, 2025

MIT Professor and Pentagon advisor Ted Postol presents the dangers of Trump’s Golden Dome.

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , | Leave a comment

MPs from Left and Right in France vote to ditch “low emission zones” and bans on old cars

Good news — there is one less hyper-complex, pointless, car-hate program in the world

By Jo Nova | June 3, 2025

It all flipped so quickly: Only six months ago President Macron was hurling France into a climate changing roadmap of the Octopus kind. The people of France were going to have to buy EVs, work from home, swap the filet mignon for tofu, and take fewer flights overseas. Even large screen televisions were going to have to shrink, to save electrons. And some bureaucrats were enthusiastically even dreaming that they would reach into homes and set the thermostats to max out at 19C (66F) in winter and to only cool to 25C (78F) in summer.

To beat French car owners around the head, the National government legislated car zoning incentives to make life hard for anyone who wanted to drive an old car. The low emission zones started in 2019 and had already spread like a municipal leprosy to every town larger than 150,000 people.

In these ZFEs (zones à faibles émissions), cars were ranked and given a sticker. Crit’Air 0  were the cleanest and Crit’Air 5 were the most “polluting” vehicles. Different rules applied to each sticker class in each town with a soul sapping complexity. In Paris for example, Crit’Air 3 cars (basically diesel cars older than 2011, and petrol cars before 2006) were banned on weekdays. Fines varied from €68  to €750. It was a case of — if you like your car, you can keep it — (locked in the garage, right?)

But cars older than  1997 were seen as such baby killers they were not allowed to have a Crit’Air Sticker at all, so their drivers would be fined if they were caught on any weekday between 8am and 8pm. Obviously, the bans hurt the poor and the rural workers — who drove older cars. They also hurt the tradies, and small businesses that used a van.

The low emission zones were so unpopular, as the BBC even admits, they “turned into something of a lightning rod for Macron’s supporters”. (The wonder is that it took five years?)

Last week the French National Assembly voted 98 to 51 to scrap the zones entirely. The government had tried to dilute the rules, and save the restrictions to Paris and Lyon, but MP’s were having none of it. Evidently, many politicians were afraid of word getting back to voters that they didn’t vote down the low emissions zones. (Go, democracy).

Interestingly, these car zones were so awful that even some members on the far left of French politics, joined the centre right to get rid of them.

Finally, there are hints of life on the far left:

“Green policies should not be imposed on the backs of the working classes” — Clémence Guetté. 

Guetté is described in the Wall Street Journal as being “to the left of Bernie Sanders”. The Greens and Socialists though, still voted for the car sticker program to change the weather. They probably like having stickers on their cars to tell everyone how smugly clever they are.

French MPs vote to scrap low-emission zones

BBC

A handful of MPs from Macron’s party joined opposition parties from the right and far right in voting 98-51 to scrap the zones, which have gradually been extended across French cities since 2019.

But it was a personal victory for writer Alexandre Jardin who set up a movement called Les #Gueux (Beggars), arguing that “ecology has turned into a sport for the rich”.

The low-emission zones began with 15 of France’s most polluted cities in 2019 and by the start of this year had been extended to every urban area with a population of more than 150,000, with a ban on cars registered before 1997.

Marine Le Pen condemned the ZFEs as “no-rights zones” during her presidential campaign for National Rally in 2022, and her Communist counterpart warned of a “social bomb”.

The head of the right-wing Republicans in the Assembly, Laurent Wauquiez, talked of “freeing the French from stifling, punitive ecology”, and on the far left, Clémence Guetté said green policies should not be imposed “on the backs of the working classes”.

Green Senator Anne Souyris told BFMTV that “killing [the ZFEs] also means killing hundreds of thousands of people” …

The legislation still has to go through the upper house, though it is expected to. And it doesn’t stop tyrant-municipalities from imposing their own small tourist-deterrent zones. But spread the word in case any of our politicians think this idea is not radioactively awful. They need to know it’s been tried and failed so we don’t have to repeat the experiment.

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

FDA branded ‘shameful’ over infant meningococcal vaccine approval

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | June 8, 2025

“It’s shameful,” said attorney Aaron Siri of Siri & Glimstad LLP, criticising the FDA’s decision to expand use of the meningococcal vaccine MenQuadfi to infants as young as six weeks.

Previously licensed for children over two, the vaccine is now approved for babies aged 6 weeks to 23 months, based on trials in which infants received up to four doses.

Siri, who has represented families affected by vaccine injury, says the move reflects a broader pattern of weak oversight—where flawed trial designs and circular assumptions are used to justify approvals despite serious safety concerns.

Serious adverse events in infants

According to the FDA’s own summary, 5.3% of infants who received MenQuadfi in clinical trials experienced at least one serious adverse event (SAE)—defined as any medical occurrence resulting in death, hospitalisation or disability.

That figure reflects SAEs reported from the first dose through six months after the final dose.

That’s roughly one in every 20 children.

In the comparator group, 3.6% of infants who received Menveo also experienced a serious adverse event during the same period.

Instead of raising concern, the FDA took comfort in the similarity.

The agency concluded that because the rates of serious reactions were “comparable,” the expanded use of the vaccine in infants could be considered safe.

But that logic, Siri argues, is dangerously circular. “Because these rates were ‘similar,’ this product was deemed ‘safe’ by FDA because it assumes Menveo is ‘safe.’”

In the end, Sanofi, the company selling MenQuadfi, chalked up only two cases as possibly related to vaccine—both febrile seizures after the 4th dose, given in combination with MMR, varicella, and PCV13 at 12 months of age.

A placebo problem

The issue, Siri says, lies in the chain of assumptions.

Menveo wasn’t tested against a true saline placebo. It was compared to Menactra—another meningococcal vaccine. Menactra, in turn, was tested against Menomune.

But Menomune—now discontinued—was never tested against a placebo either.

The final twist?

In a bizarre loop of regulatory logic, the package insert for Menomune cites the clinical trial for Menactra—where Menomune was the comparator—as part of its own safety justification.

“I couldn’t even dream of making this stuff up,” Siri said.

What emerges is a kind of regulatory ouroboros—a snake swallowing its own tail—where each new product is built on the presumed safety of the last, and none are ever measured against a neutral baseline.

The vaccine safety pyramid

“This provides a good example of the vaccine safety pyramid scheme,” said Siri.

“Menomune was licensed without a proper placebo-controlled trial and was then used as the control to license Menactra; Menactra is then used as the control to license Menveo; and then Menveo is used as the control to license MenQuadfi,” he added.

Each step is built on the presumed safety of the one before it—but without any solid foundation. No inert comparator. Just a chain of assumptions.

“Hence, we get a trial with 5.3% and 3.6% of infants suffering serious adverse reactions and no one bats an eye—they grant licensure,” Siri said.

How did the FDA allow this?

Under current FDA guidelines, vaccine manufacturers are not required to use a placebo—an inert substance such as a saline injection—in pre-licensure trials. Instead, “active comparators” such as other vaccines are commonly used.

This practice speeds up approval, especially when companies argue the control group must be “protected” from the disease being targeted.

But critics say it undermines transparency and obscures harms.

If both the test vaccine and the comparator cause adverse events, the trial may appear to show no safety signal—even if the absolute rate of harm is high.

In this case, the FDA accepted the MenQuadfi trial design without requiring a true placebo group—despite the high rate of reported serious events.

Who pays the price?

Since MenQuadfi is already on the CDC schedule for older children, the pharma companies profiting from this product already have liability protection under U.S. vaccine injury laws.

“FDA and pharma have nothing to lose here,” Siri said.

“We, as taxpayers, will pay for all of the harms suffered and, worst of all, the children who are injected and harmed and their families will really pay for the harms,” he added.

It’s not the first time critics have accused the FDA of playing fast and loose with vaccine safety data, especially in the wake of Covid-19.

But this case, Siri argues, is a textbook example of how safety assessments are gamed when it comes to childhood vaccine.

Restoring integrity in vaccine testing

At the heart of Siri’s warning is a plea for scientific integrity.

Without true placebo-controlled trials, he argues, there’s no meaningful way to detect harms—just one untested product being measured against another.

“This isn’t science. It’s a shell game,” he said.

As MenQuadfi rolls out to younger babies, public health officials will no doubt emphasise its potential to prevent a rare but deadly disease.

But advocates like Siri want parents and legislators to understand what’s beneath the product label—not just a vaccine, but a regulatory system that is collapsing under the weight of its own shortcuts.

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Jury Hears Conflicting Testimony in Trial Alleging Hospital’s Actions — Not COVID — Caused Teen’s Death

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 6, 2025

The parents of Grace Schara, a 19-year-old with Down syndrome who died in a Wisconsin hospital days after being admitted for a COVID-19 infection, testified this week in court that their daughter died as a result of a lethal combination of drugs and a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order the hospital implemented without their consent.

Grace’s family sued Ascension St. Elizabeth Hospital in April 2023 and filed an amended complaint in July 2023, alleging the hospital’s COVID-19 treatment protocols directly resulted in Grace’s death in October 2021, a week after admission.

The trial began Tuesday at the State of Wisconsin Circuit Court for Outagamie County.

“This isn’t about failing to provide information. This is about providing treatment with no consent whatsoever,” Scott Schara, Grace’s father, testified on Wednesday. “Her passing was a result of combining Precedex, lorazepam and morphine in a 26-minute window and putting an illegal do-not-resuscitate order on her chart.”

The lawsuit names 14 defendants, including Ascension Health, five medical doctors and four John Doe medical providers, two registered nurses, and the Wisconsin Injured Patients and Family Compensation Fund.

The defendants argued that Schara may have died due to “a naturally progressing disease, a pre-existing condition, or a superseding or intervening cause,” Green Bay-based CBS affiliate WFRV reported.

According to the Journal Sentinel, the hospital also argued that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) provided it and its doctors and staff immunity from liability during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At times during the first three days of the trial, hospital doctors and nurses who testified appeared to contradict themselves over whether Grace had been oversedated and whether her family consented to a DNR order.

Green Bay, Wisconsin-based ABC affiliate WBAY reported, “This is the first wrongful death jury trial in the country for a death listed as COVID-19 on the death certificate.” WFRV reported that “this landmark case could have far-reaching implications for how medical decisions are made, especially during a public health crisis.”

The trial could last up to three weeks. Up to 22 witnesses may testify, WFRV reported, adding that the case may draw attention “to critical issues surrounding informed consent and the rights of patients and their families in the healthcare system.”

Scharas allege lack of informed consent, violation of standards of care

During opening statements Tuesday, Warner Mendenhall, the Schara family’s attorney, said the hospital violated standards of care in their treatment of Grace.

“Instead of recognizing the life-threatening situation and reducing the medications causing the problems, this medical team did the opposite,” Mendenhall said.

Jason Franckowiak and Randall Guse, attorneys for the defendants, said hospital staff provided an appropriate standard of care, which did not lead to Grace’s death. Instead, they argued that a worsening COVID-19 infection led to her death.

Her parents testified that they became concerned after their daughter displayed allergy symptoms in late September 2021, days after the family attended a concert, and that they took her for treatment as a precautionary measure.

“We were just hoping that we would just get some supplemental oxygen,” Cindy Schara, Grace’s mother, testified Tuesday.

Scott Schara told the court that Grace “was not having any trouble breathing,” and that “it wasn’t an emergency, so there was no need to have Grace in the hospital.”

But the hospital told the family they were keeping Grace overnight “for observation” and that they would put her on a steroid “for two to three days,” after which she would be discharged. “But that’s not what happened,” Cindy Schara testified.

Instead, hospital staff gave Grace Precedex, lorazepam and morphine. Mendenhall said that Precedex “dangerously lowered” Grace’s blood pressure and pulse, and that her condition improved after its dosage was lowered.

According to Scott Schara, after Grace’s first oversedation event, Dr. Gavin Shokar, a defendant who was the primary physician in charge of Grace’s care, gave an order to stop administering Precedex, but nursing staff waited 22 minutes to do so.

Shokar testified Thursday that he was uncertain whether his order was immediately implemented. Hospital staff also provided contradictory testimony in response to the Scharas’ claims that Grace had been oversedated with these medications.

Shokar testified that he “was aware” that Grace had been oversedated at least once. Samuel Haines, a nurse at the hospital, said Grace had been oversedated “only for a brief period.”

However, Hollee McInnis, another defendant, said Grace was “not oversedated.”

A witness for the Schara family, Dr. Gilbert Berdine, an associate professor of medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, said Grace was oversedated three times during her hospital stay.

According to Grace’s parents, the family did not consent to the medications and did not find out they were administered until later.

“If they would’ve asked me for consent with those, of course, I would’ve asked a lot of questions,” Scott Schara testified. He said the hospital also didn’t tell him that they reclassified Grace’s hospital room as an ICU room.

McInnis testified that she “personally did not witness” hospital doctors obtaining consent to administer the drugs in question.

Grace’s father removed from hospital after ‘pushing to get her fed’

During his testimony, Scott Schara also recounted a “heated conversation” he had with hospital staff who rejected his request to feed Grace because she was on a BiPAP (Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure) machine — a type of non-invasive ventilation.

The confrontation led the hospital to order Scott removed from the hospital, and send an armed guard to Grace’s room to escort him out.

“That’s one of the reasons I was kicked out. I was pushing to get her fed,” Scott Schara testified. “That was the last time I saw Grace alive physically.”

Hospital staff testified that Scott Schara was removed because some nurses did not want him in the room, because he was shutting off alarms from Grace’s medical equipment at night. Staff said they also suspected he had COVID-19.

But Mendenhall said Scott’s questioning of medical staff was “exactly what he was supposed to do as a dad and power of attorney for healthcare.”

According to the Scharas’ legal team, Shokar could have overruled the order to eject Scott from the hospital. But Shokar testified that his “primary responsibility was to Grace” and that “these things are non-pertinent to her particular care.”

In subsequent days, Grace’s family was able to communicate with her solely through FaceTime calls — until the hospital took Grace’s phone away.

“Cindy and I had no opportunity to communicate with Grace unless it was initiated by the hospital,” Scott Schara testified.

Hospital repeatedly pressured family to ‘pre-authorize’ a ventilator for Grace

The Scharas also testified that hospital staff repeatedly pressured them to “pre-authorize” a ventilator for Grace, even though, according to Mendenhall, “there was no need for a ventilator.”

Cindy Schara testified that she received several calls from the hospital “asking us for a pre-authorization to put Grace on a vent if something would’ve happened in the middle of the night — that is how it was always presented.”

“There was family there, so there was no need for a pre-authorization,” she added.

Scott Schara testified that Dr. Karl Baum, one of the defendants in the case, told him that “a 20% chance” of saving Grace’s life was “better than no chance” in his efforts to convince the family to pre-approve a ventilator.

“Asking for Grace to be with a pre-authorization for a ventilator at that point was the equivalent of asking somebody for a pre-authorization for a leg amputation when they just have a sprained ankle,” Scott Schara testified.

Grace’s father also testified that Shokar acknowledged during a phone call that placing Grace on a ventilator would not have saved her life.

Shokar also had separate phone calls with Grace’s parents, purportedly to make amends after Scott was removed from the hospital. But the parents testified that the conversation transitioned to renewed efforts to get them to pre-authorize a ventilator for Grace, which they again rejected.

‘We watched her die’

Grace’s parents also testified that they repeatedly told hospital staff that they did not consent to a DNR order.

Hospital staff provided contradictory testimony as to whether Grace’s family provided consent. According to Shokar, Grace’s family ultimately agreed to a DNI — a “Do Not Intubate” order.

“We started to talk about goals of care, what you guys want to do in the worst case scenario, which would be if she were to crash, essentially cardiopulmonary arrest,” Shokar testified Thursday. “I was very confident that we came to a resolution to say, ‘This is what we want to do and this is what the family wants.’”

But according to Mendenhall, Grace’s family later learned that Shokar documented that Grace had both a DNI and DNR order, adding that they did not find out about the DNR until hours before her death. The hospital did not honor their subsequent request to remove the DNR from Grace’s chart.

Cindy Shara said they would not have agreed to a DNR order on their own, without the participation of Grace’s primary care physician, an attorney, their pastor and other family members. “It would be a terrible thing to have to decide,” she testified.

As a result of the DNR, hospital staff did not intervene during Grace’s final moments of life, Grace’s parents said. “We watched her die,” Scott Schara testified.

During her testimony, McInnis acknowledged that she was responsible for placing a wristband on Grace’s arm that would have indicated her DNR status, but could not recall whether she had placed such a wristband on Grace. “If she didn’t have one on, it would be because I had not put it on,” McInnis testified.

“I believe that denying Grace any assistance to help her in her final moments was just horrific,” Cindy Schara testified.

CHD.TV is livestreaming the trial daily.

The family’s lawsuit alleges medical negligence, violations of informed consent, and medical battery — a standard of intentional harm beyond medical negligence by doctors and other providers that, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, is rarely invoked in such legal cases.

According to the complaint, the hospital was financially incentivized to implement COVID-19 protocols that allegedly caused Grace’s death.

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.

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception | , , | 1 Comment

NIH Shuts Down Research Center Founded by Fauci, as DOJ Scrutinizes Key Researchers

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 5, 2025

Officials at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) plan to shut down a research center established by Dr. Anthony Fauci that issued grants to embattled researchers who promoted the “zoonotic origin” theory that COVID-19 emerged from wildlife, The Disinformation Chronicle reported today.

Fauci established the Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID) in 2020 to conduct “investigations into how and where viruses and other pathogens emerge from wildlife and spill over to cause disease in people.”

According to The Disinformation Chronicle, when CREID launched, it issued 11 grants worth $17 million, with an additional $82 million in expected funding over five years. It’s unclear how much of the money has already been spent.

Two CREID grantees have been the focus of intense scrutiny: Peter Daszak, Ph.D., of the EcoHealth Alliance and Kristian Andersen, Ph.D., of Scripps Research Institute. Both played key roles in publicly promoting the theory that SARS-CoV-2, which led to the COVID-19 pandemic, originated in wildlife.

The U.S. Department of Justice has launched “initial inquiries” into one of the CREID grants Anderson received. Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) suspended all government funding for EcoHealth Alliance.

The Disinformation Chronicle quoted an NIH spokesperson, who confirmed the agency has terminated all outstanding CREID grants.

“Strengthening overall health through proactive disease prevention offers a more resilient foundation for responding to future health threats — beyond reliance on vaccines or treatments for yet-unknown pathogens,” the spokesperson said.

Andersen received a CREID grant after co-authoring zoonotic origin paper

In March 2020, Andersen co-authored “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” published in Nature Medicine. The paper — widely known as the “Proximal Origin” paper — concluded that COVID-19 had a zoonotic origin. It became one of that year’s most-cited papers, accessed over 6 million times.

Government officials, including Fauci, and mainstream media outlets later cited the paper as part of efforts to discredit proponents of the theory that COVID-19 originated in and escaped from a lab.

The Trump administration is investigating whether the authors and publisher of “Proximal Origin” allowed Fauci and other key public health officials to influence the paper’s conclusions in exchange for funding — a possible quid pro quo.

According to The Disinformation Chronicle, two months after “Proximal Origin” was published, Andersen received a CREID grant.

In testimony to Congress in July 2023, Andersen said, “There is no connection between the grant and the conclusions we reached about the origin of the pandemic.” Later that month, The Intercept published documents showing that Andersen “knew that was false.”

Andersen and other virologists were initially skeptical about dismissing the lab-leak theory. But emails and documents revealed through a congressional investigation and some media outlets revealed that, under pressure from Fauci and other public health officials, Andersen endorsed the zoonotic theory in “Proximal Origin.”

During a Feb. 1, 2020, email and call between Fauci and several virologists, including Andersen, the participants expressed concern that COVID-19 might have been manipulated instead of originating in nature.

Transcripts revealed by The Nation in July 2023 showed that, in a February 2020 Slack thread, Andersen wrote to other virologists that “the main issue is that accidental release is in fact highly likely — it’s not some fringe theory.”

And on April 16, 2020, Andersen sent a Slack message to his “Proximal Origin” co-authors, stating, “I’m still not fully convinced that no culture was involved. We also can’t fully rule out engineering (for basic research).”

Andersen may have misled intelligence agencies on COVID’s origins

Andersen privately questioned the true origins of COVID-19. However, in March 2020 — one week after “Proximal Origin” was published — he participated in a U.S. Department of State briefing with other non-government scientists, where he dismissed the possibility that COVID-19 emerged from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

According to The Disinformation Chronicle, the briefing led the State Department to issue a report concluding there was no evidence that COVID-19 was developed in a lab. In 2023, Andersen testified during a sworn congressional deposition that he also briefed the CIA and FBI regarding COVID-19’s origins.

The DOJ is now likely to examine Andersen’s role in misleading U.S. intelligence agencies, The Disinformation Chronicle reported, quoting a State Department official, who said, “I don’t see how this not a criminal misleading and counterintelligence matter. This is way beyond the threshold needed for a grand jury.”

In April, the Trump administration launched a new version of the government’s official COVID-19 website, presenting evidence that COVID-19 emerged due to a leak at the Wuhan lab. The CIA, FBI, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Congress and other intelligence agencies have endorsed this theory.

Daszak has also been under scrutiny for possible improprieties involving his research. According to The Disinformation Chronicle, Daszak was found to have undisclosed ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology — including issuing a subaward to a researcher at that laboratory, Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., widely known as the “Bat Lady.”

In issuing its decision to bar Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance from receiving further federal funds, HHS cited the organization’s lack of response “to NIH’s multiple safety-related requests” relating to research performed at the Wuhan lab.

Journalist Paul D. Thacker, a former U.S. Senate investigator and publisher of The Disinformation Chronicle, said that congressional investigations involving Andersen and others have been problematic.

“The congressional investigations into these matters were not well managed. A lot of people are still shocked at how little got done,” Thacker said.

Last month, the NIH introduced a new policy prohibiting NIH grantees from outsourcing parts of their research to foreign entities through subawards.

Facing investigation, is Andersen looking to flee the U.S.?

Andersen, a Danish citizen, is now looking to leave the U.S. “as the noose continues to tighten,” The Disinformation Chronicle reported. He is said to be considering a position at the University of Oslo in Norway.

Sigrid Bratlie, a molecular biologist and senior adviser at Norway’s Langsikt Policy Centre, told The Disinformation Chronicle that “there is an ongoing effort from a group of scientists at the University of Oslo to recruit Andersen, and that this might be finalized in the near future.”

In October 2024, Andersen delivered a lecture at the University of Oslo on the “facts and the fiction” of the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming that critiques of his research were political attacks spread by conspiracy theorists.

The Norwegian Society for Immunology, which sponsored the lecture, later issued an apology. According to The Disinformation Chronicle, the apology stated, “In retrospect, unfortunately, it seems the purpose of his lecture was just as much about stopping the free debate in Norway on this topic.”

Thacker said that Andersen’s possible move to Norway is part of a broader trend where many scientists are expressing public dissent at the Trump administration’s policies.

“The majority of scientists I see complaining are all entrenched in liberal politics. Pretty much every one of them has a large account on [social media platform] Bluesky where allied reporters hang out to find quotes,” Thacker said.

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

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Science Under Attack

The myths and realities

By John Ridgway | Cimate Scepticism | June 3, 2025

During the recent Covid-19 pandemic, Peter J. Hotez, professor of paediatrics and molecular virology at Baylor College of Medicine, wrote a Scientific American opinion piece that spoke of an emerging threat that he believed should concern us all:

Antiscience has emerged as a dominant and highly lethal force, and one that threatens global security, as much as do terrorism and nuclear proliferation. We must mount a counteroffensive and build new infrastructure to combat antiscience, just as we have for these other more widely recognized and established threats.

He paints a picture of a political right-wing engaging in a disinformation campaign, and of an interference with an otherwise scientifically sound programme – actions that he maintained would result in many dying unnecessarily:

Despite my best efforts to sound the alarm and call it out, the antiscience disinformation created mass havoc in the red states. During the summer of 2020, COVID-19 accelerated in states of the South as governors prematurely lifted restrictions to create a second and unnecessary wave of COVID-19 cases and deaths.

Given his strong views, and the bellicose manner in which he chose to express them, it is not surprising that Hotez recently teamed up with Professor Michael Mann to write of the triple threat of global warming, a “cadence of pandemic threats” and, most importantly:

… a well-organized, financed, politically motivated, and steadily globalizing campaign of disinformation and attacks against mainstream science that makes it extremely difficult to mount an effective global response to the climate and pandemic threats.

Of course, Hotez and Mann are not alone in promoting this narrative of a burgeoning threat to humanity. For example, in a recent PNAS article, Phillipp-Muller et al wrote:

From vaccination refusal to climate change denial, antiscience views are threatening humanity.

So confident are the authors in the reality of the phenomenon that they dedicate the whole paper to analysing causes and suggesting countermeasures:

Building on various emerging data and models that have explored the psychology of being antiscience, we specify four core bases of key principles driving antiscience attitudes. These principles are grounded in decades of research on attitudes, persuasion, social influence, social identity, and information processing. They apply across diverse domains of antiscience phenomena… Politics triggers or amplifies many principles across all four bases, making it a particularly potent force in antiscience attitudes.

But what exactly is antiscience? Is it well-organized? Does it primarily emanate from the right-wing? And is it an attitude that represents an existential threat to humanity on a par with nuclear war?

The authors of the PNAS paper seem to have no doubts regarding the basis for antiscience — it’s simply a case of pathological psychology:

Distinct clusters of basic mental processes can explain when and why people ignore, trivialize, deny, reject, or even hate scientific information—a variety of responses that might collectively be labeled as “being antiscience”.

Once one starts out with such a premise, it becomes remarkably easy to formulate ‘frameworks’ and ‘models’ to give the whole thing a scientific veneer. And since science is upheld as the epitome of the rational venture, any resistance to scientific findings can be readily dismissed as a retreat from reason.

Indeed, in their book, Science and the Retreat from Reason, John Gillot and Manjit Kumar present a thoughtful treatise explaining why, despite the obvious benefits of the scientific method and its resulting successes, society has nevertheless grown wary of the technocratic future that it offers. Yet nowhere within its 250 pages does the book use the term ‘antiscience’, or speak of it as a phenomenon resulting from politically inspired disinformation. Furthermore, perhaps because it was written back in 1995, it doesn’t see the retreat from reason as an existential threat requiring ‘new infrastructures’ to ‘mount a counteroffensive’. Instead, a lack of faith in science is seen as stemming from a post-war disillusionment. Basically, science had gained the reputation of being the handmaiden of a belligerent military, and it became very difficult to maintain high levels of trust in a sector of society that delivered the threat of atomic annihilation. Furthermore, developments such as genetically modified food and the various attempts to control and exploit the environment did little to endear those who buy in to the idea of a purity of nature. As such, it was the liberal left-wing that led the movement against science in its practical realities. The idea that antiscientific attitudes are the reserve of the right wing is a relatively modern invention.

Of course, none of this should be used as a reason to question the potency and integrity of the scientific method. However, I sincerely doubt that this is why anyone would come to ‘ignore, trivialize, deny, reject, or even hate scientific information’. It isn’t the scientific mind that some people distrust – it is the scientific community. It is the recognition that science is a social enterprise and, as such, is not immune to the problems that can emerge when humans interact and compete. Seen in this light, antiscience is not a pathology of thinking but the label invented by those who are comfortable with such issues in order to stigmatize those who are not.

It is easy to see where the comfortable position would come from. Scientists do know about phenomena such as groupthink. They are well aware that the structuring of academia is such that scientific enquiry is marshalled both by sources of funding and by influential figureheads (not to mention a growing tendency for prosocial censorship). And yet they can look around them and see a broadly uncorrupted society of individuals who are personally motivated only by the desire to understand how the world works and how best to further the interests of humanity. They are ideally placed to understand just how much effort has gone into validating a particular finding, and so must find it highly frustrating to see vociferous and vehement rejection emanating from those who enjoy no such advantage. When the challenge has a political foundation, their disquiet is bound to be all the more profound. They are the scientists and practitioners of the scientific method, so this challenge is, by definition, antiscientific to them. And if you have an ego like Michael Mann’s, combined as it is with a victim complex, you are going to imagine you are surrounded by an orc army.

There are certainly plenty of science communicators on the internet who are only too willing and eager to defend the comfortable position and to cruelly mock the ‘antiscientist’. See, for example, some of the output from Professor David James Farina, aka Professor Dave. As is often the case, he specialises in debunking easy targets such as Flat Earthers and proponents of Intelligent Design, but along with that comes a regrettably condescending and arrogantly dismissive attitude towards anyone who isn’t fully on board with the idea that only credentialed scientists are qualified to criticise other scientists. But this isn’t a debate that is going to be settled by lampooning your local crackpot. The issues are far too nuanced for that.

For example, let us return to the Covid-19 pandemic and reflect upon its use as an example of an explosion of the antiscience movement. There was indeed no shortage of opinion expressed on subjects such as the safety and efficacy of vaccines, the importance of masks, lockdown strategies, mobile phone masts, etc. Some of the advice given wasn’t particularly well thought through and there was no shortage of downright conspiracy and pseudoscience in the air. But throughout it all, politicians were anxious to maintain the mantra that they were only following the science, no matter how many twists and turns that entailed. The reality, however, was that there was never any single science but a plurality of sciences offering different perspectives. As Dr Elisabeth Paul et al point out:

“Anti-science” accusations are common in medicine and public health, sometimes to discredit scientists who hold opposing views. However, there is no such thing as “one science”. Epistemology recognizes that any “science” is sociologically embedded, and therefore contextual and intersubjective.

The paper illustrates the point by tracing the history of claims made on behalf of the various vaccines employed, pointing out many inconsistencies and contradictions in the various narratives as the crisis unfolded. The paper finishes with some very wise words:

Rather than uncritically continuing to perpetuate the “follow the science” vs “anti-science” dichotomy, let us all look in the mirror and reflect what really constitutes science. If nothing else, this involves the curiosity of deliberating the multiple perspectives arising from the different lenses of inquiry. Being open-minded and critical does not immediately equate to being “anti-science”, as some medical and political thought leaders want us to believe.

The message given is that scientists are themselves very often to blame for the lack of trust they encounter within the public, and this is basically due to them adopting an overly dogmatic attitude:

To regain public trust in science, it is high time scientists acknowledge the limitations of their methods and of their results, and to provide decision-makers, populations and healthcare providers with appropriate tools to judge how to best apply particular research results to individuals and communities.

None of this is to accuse scientists of corruption or of engaging in a hoax. They are simply dealing with complexities that have to be honestly portrayed as such. As Dr Paul et al put it:

Here, understanding the dynamics of how knowledge is socially constructed and used is crucial. This is because health interventions, and what is determined to be science, can often be captured by combinations of favoured scientific practice, pathway-dependency, vested interests, politics, louder voices, or, regarding our immediate concern, by ideational hegemonies that prohibit wider dialogic knowledge production.

Very often, by being defensive about this, scientists become their own worst enemies. Too often, sceptics are accused of failing to understand the scientific method, but the reality is that they usually understand it all too well. They are just not that convinced that it is all that relevant when evaluating a scientist’s latest earnest statement.

There is a certain hubris to be detected within those who speak of existential threats from an organised antiscience movement, since it implies that there are those with dark motives who fear the spotlight of scientific truth being shone in their direction. No doubt there is much that is irrational in modern discourse and we would all do well to take whatever benefit there is to be had from listening to the scientific voice (that is why the Trump administration’s DOGE purge is so worrying). However, that is a long way from uncritically accepting all that has been said in the interests of ‘following the science’. I’m sure that those on both sides of the debate would argue that being legitimately open-minded and critical is not being ‘antiscience’. Unfortunately, however, we are still a long way from agreeing upon what constitutes legitimacy, and this is as true for the climate change debate as it is for any.

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | 2 Comments

US must stop pursuing Netanyahu’s ‘failed’ Iran policies: Iran Parliament Speaker

Mehr News Agency | June 8, 2025

Iran’s parliament speaker says Washington’s recent nuclear proposal lacks any mention of sanctions relief, calling the US stance contradictory and coercive.

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf criticized the latest US proposal in indirect nuclear talks, saying it lacks any reference to lifting sanctions and reflects a coercive and contradictory approach by Washington.

Speaking on Wednesday, Qalibaf stressed that according to the Strategic Action Plan to Lift Sanctions passed by Iran’s parliament, the Islamic Republic remains fully prepared to build trust by demonstrating the peaceful nature of its nuclear program—but only in return for genuine sanctions relief and tangible economic benefits, all while continuing uranium enrichment on its own soil.

“The fact that the US proposal doesn’t even mention lifting sanctions clearly proves the dishonesty and contradiction in America’s approach to the indirect nuclear negotiations,” Qalibaf said.

He blamed the US for trying to deprive Iran of its internationally recognized right to enrich uranium, all while offering empty promises of economic openings. “They smile in front of the cameras and talk of economic relief, but in reality, not only do they avoid lifting sanctions—they don’t even promise to.”

“It is clear that no rational logic would accept such a unilateral and imposed agreement,” he stressed.

Qalibaf further criticized US President Donald Trump, calling him “delusional” and urging him to change course.

If Trump truly seeks a deal, he must abandon his coordination with the Zionist regime and Netanyahu’s failed policies, Qalibaf said.

He concluded by emphasizing that Iran must resolve its domestic economic problems by relying on internal capacities, thereby forcing the United States to accept a win-win deal that includes genuine sanctions relief.

The US and Iran have held five rounds of nuclear talks since April 12 and are expected to meet again for negotiations aimed at reaching a new agreement. The two countries have been at odds over the level of uranium enrichment.

Last week, the head of the Iranian negotiating team, the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Abbas Araghchi, said in a post on X that Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al Busaidi presented the elements of the US proposal regarding the nuclear agreement to Iran during a short visit to Tehran. He also said that “Iran will respond appropriately based on principles, national interests, and the rights of the Iranian people to the proposal.”

On Monday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ismail Baghaei underlined that considering national interests would be the basis of Tehran’s response to the US proposal. “Naturally, any proposal must be carefully reviewed, and the appropriate response must be based on national principles and interests.”

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian Forces Used All Kursk Churches as Military Bases, Violating International Law

Sputnik – 08.06.2025

KURSK, Russia – The Ukrainian armed forces used all the churches in the part of Russia’s Kursk Region as military objects during the period of occupation, Ivan Kopyl, the head of the human rights defense project Verum, told Sputnik.

“Absolutely all churches were used as military facilities, which is not accepted under international humanitarian law,” Kopyl said.

He said that, according to the 1954 Hague Convention, the occupying party need to protect the cultural objects of the occupied territory.

“The occupying country should avoid, as far as possible, deploying its armed forces in cultural sites such as churches, and moreover not only in the sites themselves but also near them, unfortunately the Ukrainian armed forces did not do it,” Kopyl said.

In March, Russian forces launched a large-scale offensive in the Kursk Region that was attacked by the Ukrainian forces in August 2024. On April 26, Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov announced that the Kursk Region was fully liberated, as the last of the settlements had been cleared of Ukrainian military presence.

June 8, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , | 1 Comment

Syria’s ancient sites looted as artifacts flood online markets

Al Mayadeen | June 8, 2025

Syria’s archaeological heritage is under mounting threat as looters descend on ancient sites like Palmyra, digging for artifacts that are quickly trafficked and sold online. A recent report by The Guardian reveals that antiquities theft has surged dramatically since the December collapse of the Assad regime, with online sales accelerating through platforms like Facebook.

Palmyra, which had already been subjected to destruction in 2015 at the hands of ISIS, is now being ravaged again, this time by opportunistic grave robbers and organized networks. Armed with tools, looters target 2,000-year-old crypts, leaving behind craters and shattered remains. “Once the archaeological layers are disturbed, it becomes impossible to reconstruct the past,” said Mohammed al-Fares, a local activist and member of Heritage for Peace.

According to the Antiquities Trafficking and Heritage Anthropology Research Project (ATHAR), more than 30% of the 1,500 documented Syrian antiquities cases since 2012 have occurred in just the last few months. The group says this is the largest and fastest wave of trafficking they’ve recorded from any country to date.

Western demand driving artifact theft

ATHAR co-director Katie Paul highlighted the role of social media, especially Facebook, in facilitating these illicit transactions. Despite Facebook’s 2020 ban on antiquities trading, Paul says the platform still hosts dozens of active groups selling ancient coins, mosaics, and statues, many operating in public view. In one case, a seller livestreamed from an excavation site, asking viewers for digging advice.

“This is the fastest we’ve ever seen artifacts move,” Paul noted. “What used to take a year now takes just two weeks.”

Many looters are ordinary Syrians driven by poverty, but others are part of criminal operations using heavy machinery to excavate entire sites. Videos from areas like Tall Shaykh Ali show rows of deep, uniform pits, which are evidence of professional digging. Once removed, antiquities are smuggled to neighboring countries such as Jordan and Turkey, then laundered with fake paperwork before entering Western auction houses and museums.

Syria’s interim government has responded with limited tools, threatening looters with prison time and offering rewards for turning in artifacts, though enforcement remains weak. With 90% of the population living in poverty and the country still recovering from 15 years of war, authorities face immense challenges in protecting cultural sites.

Experts like Paul and ATHAR co-founder Amr al-Azm argue that the ultimate solution lies outside Syria. “We focus too much on the supply side,” Azm said. “If there were no demand in the West, there would be far less incentive to destroy Syria’s heritage.”

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Corruption | , | 2 Comments

Key Canadian Zionist body loses final appeal against revocation of its ‘charity status’

Press TV – June 8, 2025

The Canadian branch of the so-called Jewish National Fund (JNF), one of the country’s oldest Zionist organizations, has officially lost its status as a “registered charity” after a Canadian federal court rejected its final legal appeal.

The ruling, issued on May 30, confirmed the government’s decision to revoke JNF-Canada’s “charitable designation,” and effectively forced the organization to begin shutting down operations after 57 years of activity.

The decision marked a major legal and political setback for the JNF, which had faced growing scrutiny over its use of Canadian tax-exempt donations to fund projects tied to Israeli military activity and displacement of Palestinians.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) first announced revocation of the body’s status in August 2024, citing violations linked to the organization’s overseas funding practices.

The JNF challenged the decision in court, but the May 30 ruling definitively upheld the CRA’s findings and cemented the group’s loss of its legal status.

With the court’s rejection of its appeal, JNF-Canada is now legally defunct as a “registered charity,” bringing an end to decades of financial support from Canadian donors for controversial programs inside the occupied Palestinian territories.

Human rights groups and pro-Palestinian advocates have long denounced the so-called fund for channeling donations into projects that support the Israeli military, saying the body’s activities contribute to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

Critics have also condemned the organization for “greenwashing” — planting forests over the ruins of depopulated Palestinian villages to obscure the history of displacement.

While the organization has marketed its self-proclaimed environmental and land development activity as “charitable,” rights groups and campaigners have argued that its activities in occupied territory served only to entrench illegal Israeli settlements and erase Palestinian identity.

Founded in 1901, the body has played a central role in the Zionist movement’s efforts to arrogate and settle land in historic Palestine.

In the years leading up to and following the 1948 Nakba (Catastrophe), when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly displaced during a heavily-Western-backed war, the JNF was instrumental in appropriating territory for exclusive use by the Israeli regime’s illegal settlers.

In recent decades, the JNF has maintained a quasi-official role within the Israeli regime, while presenting itself abroad as a private “charitable entity.” This has allowed it to operate with fewer restrictions under international law, while advancing agendas aligned with Tel Aviv’s policies, including illegal settlement expansion and military education.

Internationally, the JNF has drawn criticism for its lack of transparency and its marked and aggressive pro-Israeli lean.

The JNF’s operations have come under investigation in the United Kingdom also. The UK Charity Commission has previously raised concerns about the organization’s military-linked activities and its political alignment with a foreign regime.

Senior figures associated with JNF-UK have also faced scrutiny for making Islamophobic remarks, leading to public backlash and investigations by regulatory bodies.

Despite these controversies, the organization has historically enjoyed support from prominent political figures in the West, including former British prime ministers and senior Israeli intelligence officers.

Observers, however, say the recent Canadian court decision represents one of the most significant legal challenges to the JNF’s international operations to date, potentially setting a precedent for other jurisdictions reviewing the activities of organizations with “charitable status,” but political agendas.

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | 1 Comment

Russia publishes names of fallen Ukrainian soldiers disowned by Kiev

RT | June 8, 2025

Russian officials have unveiled the identities of nearly 100 fallen Ukrainian soldiers who were among the more than 6,000 Moscow has offered to return to Kiev in a unilateral humanitarian gesture during the latest round of direct talks in Istanbul on Monday.

The governor of Russia’s Zaporozhye Region, Evgeny Balitsky, published the first six pages containing 97 names, identification documents, and places of death on Saturday evening, after Ukraine reportedly refused to receive the remains of thousands of its troops.

“We are beginning to publish lists of identified bodies so that relatives can find their dead,” he wrote. “We understand that Kiev has this data, but they are deliberately hiding it from the public.”

The Istanbul talks resulted in an agreement to exchange at least 1,000 prisoners on both sides, including critically ill and younger detainees. Russia also offered to return over 6,000 fallen Ukrainian soldiers for proper burial as part of a unilateral humanitarian initiative.

The first convoy, carrying the remains of 1,212 troops, arrived at the designated exchange point on Saturday – but the Ukrainian side failed to appear, according to Lieutenant General Alexander Zorin, a member of the Russian negotiating team.

“The Ukrainian side unexpectedly postponed both the acceptance of bodies and the exchange of prisoners of war for an indefinite period,” Zorin said.

Russia’s lead negotiator, Vladimir Medinsky, confirmed that Kiev had been handed a list of 640 wounded and young prisoners but did not show up at the exchange site. “The reasons provided were various and rather strange,” he said, urging Kiev to “adhere strictly to the schedule and agreements” and ensure the dead receive a proper burial.

Ukraine’s Coordination Headquarters has denied the accusations, claiming that both sides have been preparing for the prisoner and body exchanges. Ukrainian media later reported that the process had been postponed until next week, though no official new date has been confirmed.

Balitsky accused Kiev of deliberately obstructing the return of the bodies, alleging that Ukrainian authorities are trying to conceal the scale of their military losses and avoid paying compensation to the families of the dead.

“As long as a Ukrainian soldier is listed as missing, his family will not receive a single hryvnia in aid,” the governor said. “This is a calculated attempt to hide the losses and save money.”

The refusal to retrieve the bodies is part of a broader pattern of violations by Ukraine, Balitsky argued, claiming Kiev “does not even attempt to honor agreements.” He also blamed Western countries for “derailing peaceful resolution efforts” by continuing to arm Kiev and escalate the conflict.

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment