Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump Administration Moves to Overhaul Childhood Vaccine Schedule, Embrace Informed Consent Model

By Sayer Ji | December 20, 2025

In what may prove to be the most significant transformation of U.S. vaccine policy in decades, the Trump administration is preparing to fundamentally restructure how childhood vaccines are recommended—shifting away from blanket federal endorsements toward a model that empowers parents and physicians to make individualized decisions.

According to a December 19th report in The Washington Post, federal health officials are developing guidance that would encourage parents to consult directly with their doctors about vaccination decisions, rather than simply following a standardized federal schedule. This “shared clinical decision-making” approach represents a profound departure from the paternalistic model that has defined American vaccine policy for generations.

The Denmark Model: Less Is More

Central to the administration’s emerging framework is Denmark’s approach to childhood vaccinations. While the current U.S. schedule calls for vaccinations against 18 infectious diseases, Denmark recommends the injections against 10—yet maintains excellent health outcomes.

Tracy Beth Hoeg, a top FDA official, presented the Danish model to the CDC’s federal vaccine advisory committee earlier this month. Her presentation highlighted what she characterized as the “Danish Vaccination Schedule Benefits,” including making “more time for overall health at doctors’ appointments” and decreasing the “medicalization of childhood.”

The policy shift “kicked into high gear” immediately following President Trump’s directive earlier this month to consider recommending fewer shots. In his announcement, Trump noted that the United States is an “outlier” among developed countries and emphasized that “many parents and scientists have been questioning the efficacy of this ‘schedule.’”

Informed Consent Takes Center Stage

Perhaps most significantly, the administration is moving toward what health freedom advocates have long championed: genuine informed consent.

Under the emerging framework, vaccines would shift to “shared clinical decision-making”—meaning parents would consult with medical professionals about the risks and benefits before proceeding. Critically, insurance coverage would remain intact, preserving access while restoring choice.

The CDC has already begun implementing this approach for covid vaccines and the hepatitis B vaccine for children. This marks a fundamental acknowledgment that vaccination decisions are not merely technical matters to be dictated by government committees, but personal medical choices that belong in the hands of families and their trusted physicians.

A Vindication Decades in the Making

For those of us who have spent years (even decades) advocating for medical freedom, parental rights, and genuine informed consent, this moment represents a profound vindication.

Those like Secretary Kennedy, part of the “disinformation dozen,” viciously targeted during the Covid-19 era, have long argued that the U.S. vaccine schedule—which has expanded dramatically over the past four decades—deserves rigorous scrutiny rather than reflexive acceptance. We have insisted that parents are capable of making informed decisions about their children’s health when given accurate information about both risks and benefits. We have maintained that comparing health outcomes across nations reveals that more vaccines do not automatically equal better health.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has called for additional scrutiny of the childhood vaccine schedule throughout his career, now sits at the helm of HHS. Martin Kulldorff, a renowned epidemiologist and biostatistician, has been named a chief science officer at the department. The voices that were systematically marginalized and deplatformed are now shaping policy.

Del Bigtree, founder of the Informed Consent Action Network, told the Post he supports the shift: “Our belief is there are just too many vaccines. It’s very exciting.”

What This Means Going Forward

The policy remains in development, and specific details—including which vaccines would move to the shared decision-making model—have not been finalized. HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon cautioned that until official announcements are made, reports remain “pure speculation.”

However, the direction is unmistakable. The era of unquestioning deference to an ever-expanding federal vaccine schedule is drawing to a close. In its place is emerging a model that:

  • Respects parental rights as the foundation of children’s healthcare decisions
  • Restores the physician-patient relationship to its proper central role
  • Acknowledges uncertainty rather than projecting false consensus
  • Aligns with international norms rather than treating American exceptionalism as an excuse for over-medicalization
  • Preserves access while eliminating coercion

The Resistance Has Already Begun

Predictably, the public health establishment is sounding alarms. Former CDC official Demetre Daskalakis called the Denmark comparison “not gold standard science.” The recently defunded American Academy of Pediatrics rejected what it termed the “one-size-fits-all approach” while simultaneously opposing any departure from the current one-size-fits-all schedule.

Even a Danish health official questioned the shift—though notably, his objection was that “public health is not one size fits all” and is “population specific,” which is precisely the point advocates have been making for years. If public health is population-specific, then surely it should also be individual-specific, with families empowered to make decisions appropriate to their unique circumstances.

A New Chapter for Health Freedom

We are witnessing what may be the most consequential health policy transformation of our lifetimes. After years of censorship, deplatforming, and marginalization, the health freedom movement’s core principles are being integrated into federal policy.

This is not about being “anti-vaccine.” It is about being pro-informed consent, pro-parental rights, and pro-science that welcomes questions rather than demanding compliance.

The battle is far from over. State mandates remain in place. Institutional resistance is fierce. The entrenched interests that have profited from the expanding schedule will not yield quietly.

But the tide has turned. And for parents who have long demanded the right to make informed medical decisions for their children, this moment represents nothing less than the restoration of a fundamental freedom.

December 21, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Hepatitis B Vaccination of Newborns: Seriously Misleading Media Reports

By Peter C. Gøtzsche | Brownstone Institute | December 19, 2025

Fiction or faith. It is a major failure to give equal prominence to people presenting scientific facts and people talking about their feelings or beliefs with no evidence in their support, or to allow them to contradict unchallenged the most reliable evidence we have.

However, virtually every time I know something about a healthcare issue considered controversial, this is what I see in the news, and the hepatitis B vaccine controversy illustrates this abundantly.

On 5 December 2025, with a vote of 8 versus 3, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ended the recommendation that all newborns in the United States receive a hepatitis B shot at birth. The birth dose was recommended only if the mother had tested positive for the virus or if her infection status was unknown.

The change was very rational, and as in Western Europe, only Portugal recommends a universal birth dose, it would seem difficult to argue against it. But the media did and failed us badly. Two days after the vote, I downloaded news stories from 14 major media outlets, and they were all very negative. The media used three main tactics to support their beliefs:

They denigrated the Secretary of Health, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the members of ACIP he had selected, and some of the presenters at the meeting.

They gave undue prominence and praise to the three dissenting ACIP voices and outsiders, who were depicted as experts or scientists, as if to say that they must be right, and they were widely quoted for their remarks, which were rarely rational or evidence-based.

They didn’t check if what the critics of the policy change claimed was correct.

The Denigration of Kennedy

Of the 14 news outlets, only Nature did not denigrate Kennedy.

Reuters started its press release by saying it was “a major policy win” for Kennedy that vaccine advisers named by him reversed a decades-long recommendation “that disease experts say will reverse decades of public health gains.” So, Kennedy’s advisers were not experts, and as the critics were experts, they must be correct, right?

Reuters noted that the CDC is “now run by a Kennedy-appointed acting head, Jim O’Neill, who is not a scientist;” that Kennedy founded the anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense; fired ACIP’s previous 17 “independent” experts and replaced them with a group that largely supports his views; dropped broad recommendations for the Covid vaccine and cut funding for mRNA vaccines.

The facts are that several of the previous experts at the ACIP were not independent but had conflicts of interest in relation to vaccine manufacturers and other drug companies; that recommending Covid vaccines only to high-risk groups brought the US on par with Europe; and that cutting funding for mRNA vaccine research was well motivated. Kennedy said that his team had reviewed the science and found that these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like Covid and flu. His department was therefore shifting the funding toward “safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate.”

Reuters misrepresented the ACIP meeting entirely, claiming that “many of Kennedy’s committee members criticized the vaccine as unsafe.” What they said was that safety had not been adequately studied, which was correct.

The other media called Kennedy a vaccine sceptic (The Hill, Health Policy Watch, CBC), a vaccine activist (CNN, the Guardian), or an anti-vaccine advocate (PBS), who fired all 17 previous members of the ACIP, replacing them with people who largely shared his scepticism (New York Times, Washington Post, National Public Radio, CNN, PBS, CBS News, Time, Health Policy Watch, CBC, BBC, Guardian ) with a “goal of upending vaccine policy” (New York Times ), and the vote fulfilled a long-held goal of the anti-vaccine movement (The Hill ).

The CBC, the largest news broadcaster in Canada, noted that Kennedy had promoted debunked theories linking vaccines to autism. It is correct that studies of the MMR vaccine and aluminium adjuvants did not find a link, but the aluminium study is seriously flawed, some studies have claimed a link, and as it has not been studied if the extensive US childhood vaccine program might cause autism, the CDC has suggested additional research projects.

The Washington Post said that aluminium had become a focal point for anti-vaccine groups that claim cumulative exposure may harm neurological development and that vaccine researchers note that aluminium is present naturally in breast milk, food, and water at far higher levels than in vaccines and is rapidly cleared from the body. It is highly misleading to compare dietary intake with injections, as very little aluminium is absorbed from the gut and the rest is effectively eliminated via the kidneys, and as aluminium adjuvants in vaccines are harmful.

The Hill and CNN noted that aluminium adjuvants in vaccines have been proven to be safe (which is false), but that vaccine sceptics like Kennedy have long said they are linked to allergies and other health conditions (which is correct). Natural infection protects against allergies, and studies comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated children have shown vaccines increase the occurrence of asthma and other atopic diseases.

The Denigration of ACIP Members and Meeting Presenters

Nature noted that several panel members continued to express broad criticism of vaccines.

The New York Times lamented that most of the new ACIP members and some of the presenters have no experience in vaccine research or clinical practice and that the divisiveness and dysfunction of the committee in making the decision raised questions about the reliability of the advisory process.

This is terribly misleading. People who have learned to read can assess the merits of vaccines, and scientific debate is what furthers science. Acting ACIP chair Robert Malone said that the committee’s work must be guided by evidence, transparency, and a willingness to scrutinise assumptions rather than protect them.

Health Policy Watch wrote that Malone has been criticised for vaccine misinformation, which is a meaningless comment without any mention of what the issues were. Some of the most outstanding vaccine researchers in the world, professors Peter Aaby and Christine Stabell Benn from Copenhagen, have been criticised for misinformation and have had lectures and interviews removed from YouTube even though everything they said was correct.

CBS News noted that ACIP member Retsef Levi, a mathematician with no medical training (so what?), had falsely claimed that experts had never tested the vaccines appropriately, and the New York Times called it incorrect when lawyer Aaron Siri, a presenter, said that “not one” of the shots administered to children had been compared against a placebo or an inert substance. But Levi and Siri were correct. No childhood vaccine on CDC’s schedule was studied in placebo-controlled trials or relied upon before licensure.

The CBC also described Levi as a person with no medical degree who had questioned the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines and called for Covid vaccine programs to be halted. Well, I have observed repeatedly that Levi’s arguments were far more persuasive than those offered by people with medical degrees, e.g. by ACIP member Cody Meissner, a paediatric infectious-disease specialist (see below).

And Covid vaccines are definitely not safe; they have killed children who developed myocarditis and adults who developed blood clots. It was very prudent to change the “all-inclusive” US Covid vaccine programs when by far most people have been infected, whether vaccinated or not, and because repeated boosters can weaken the immune system and increase the risk of respiratory infections, also for flu shots. Healthcare workers themselves have already delivered a verdict. According to the CDC’s own data, fewer than 10% received a booster in the past year.

National Public Radio denigrated Siri: an anti-vaccine lawyer with no medical or scientific training, and the Washington Post failed their readers, too: “Aaron Siri, a Kennedy ally and lawyer for the anti-vaccine movement, delivered a presentation for more than 90 minutes. Siri said clinical trials for vaccines have not been properly performed, that safety surveillance after vaccines are licensed is lacking and that the efficacy of vaccines in reducing deaths and spread of disease has been overstated. Siri and Kennedy-aligned activists argue that the cumulative number of shots places an undue burden on child immune systems. Scientists counter that… the immune system can safely handle far more antigens than vaccines contain.”

Siri is correct and the reason why he was given so much time is that he is evidence-based and very knowledgeable. His book about vaccines is outstanding. And “scientists” have no evidence that the immune system can safely handle many vaccine antigens injected simultaneously. This is unknown and needs studying.

The Washington Post also noted that “Siri petitioned the government in 2022 on behalf of the anti-vaccine group Informed Consent Action Network, which is run by Kennedy’s former communications director, to reconsider its approval of Sanofi’s stand-alone polio vaccine. Siri argued that the government had relied on inadequate data, a claim regulators rejected.”

However, the petition notes that “the clinical trials relied upon to license this product did not include a control group and only assessed safety for up to three days after injection. These trials therefore did not comply with the applicable federal statutory and regulatory requirements necessary to prove the product was ‘safe’ prior to licensure.” As live, attenuated polio vaccines can mutate and cause polio, I agree with Siri that this drug had not been adequately studied before licensure.

The New York Times and National Public Radio wrongly implied that Siri wanted to remove all polio vaccines (“polio vaccines” or “the polio vaccine”).

Praising “Experts” and Giving Them Undue Prominence

Safety was a major issue. Dissenting ACIP member Cody Meissner said at the meeting that we know that the vaccine is safe, and his reassurances were quoted by the New York Times, the Washington Post, National Public Radio, Nature, the BBC, and Time.

However, when the Institute of Medicine in 2013 was commissioned to review the safety of the CDC childhood vaccine schedule, they could not find a single study that had compared health outcomes in vaccinated children with those in children who had not received any vaccines and they concluded: “There is no evidence that the schedule is not safe.” Similarly, Time wrote about the hepatitis B vaccine that there is “no evidence in regard to lack of safety.” My comment on this kind of reasoning was: “If the brakes in a new car model have never been tested, the reassuring conclusion would be: ‘There is no evidence that the brakes don’t work.’”

At the ACIP meeting, Meissner accused Siri of presenting “a terrible, terrible distortion of all the facts” (New York Times, National Public Radio, The Hill, CNN, Time ) and of making “absolutely outrageous statements about safety.” This was totally false and Meissner should know better. ACIP members were shown that the clinical trials underpinning approval of the hepatitis B vaccine were small, lacked a placebo group, and followed infants for no more than seven days after vaccination, which would not detect any long-term adverse outcomes. Normally, such findings would have shocked people and prompted caution, but Meissner insisted that “There is no evidence of harm.” Well, if you don’t look, you won’t find.

Levi hit the nail on the head: “What is the number needed to vaccinate – among babies born to hepatitis B-negative mothers – to prevent one case of chronic hepatitis B?” No one supplied an answer. But if the true number was “in the millions,” then any credible harm-benefit analysis would require showing a number-needed-to-harm one infant seriously even higher.

Meissner, however, opined that the move was rooted in baseless scepticism and that we will see more hepatitis B infections (Washington Post, Nature ). He was also against possibly using fewer than three doses of the vaccine (New York Times, The Hill ), arguing that antibody titres are not a good correlate of protection and did not have scientific backing (Nature ). The inconsistency was unmistakable. Antibodies are embraced as proof of vaccine efficacy when convenient, e.g. in drug regulation, otherwise not.

Another dissenting ACIP member, psychiatrist Joseph Hibbeln, was quoted a great deal although he said nothing of substance: The revised guidance was “unconscionable” (Washington Post ), “the decisions should be based on data” (The Hill ), “Those are all speculations” (Time ), “Is there any specific evidence of harm of giving this vaccination before 30 days?” (Guardian ). Not a single journalist wondered why a psychiatrist sat in a vaccine committee.

Dr Tracy Beth Høeg, a presenter at the meeting, noted that the US was an outlier recommending around 72 childhood vaccine doses, while countries like Denmark use fewer than 30. PBS and Time argued that the US is not an outlier in recommending hepatitis B vaccines for newborns because 116 of the 194 WHO member states did the same. This is not a proper comparison, and, as noted above, in Western Europe, only Portugal recommends a universal birth dose.

Levi noted that “The policy in the US is completely misaligned with many countries that… care about their children just as much as we do,” and when Meissner viewed the growth of the childhood vaccine schedule as an achievement for child health, Siri countered correctly that the US “has the worst health outcomes amongst all developed countries.”

The media quoted three previous CDC directors. Rochelle Walensky said that over the past few months, she had observed “a systematic undermining of the nation’s vaccine program” (National Public Radio) and that the “US vaccine-safety monitoring system can detect very, very rare safety events“ (Nature ). Maybe, but she ignored them. In April 2021, cases of myocarditis after Covid-19 vaccination, particularly among young male vaccine recipients, had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System at the CDC, but Walensky said by the end of the same month: “We have not seen a signal and we’ve actually looked intentionally for the signal in the over 200 million doses we’ve given.”

Tom Frieden provided a doomsday statement: “The ACIP recommendation… puts millions of American children at greater risk of liver damage, cancer and early death.” He advised everyone to “stand up for fact-based care” and “not accept this misguided and dangerous recommendation” (Time).

Demetre Daskalakis had a weird argument: “This will signal to clinicians that there is something wrong with the vaccine – there is not” (Reuters, CNN). It could also signal greater responsibility at the CDC than under previous directors. But the BBC and the Washington Post joined the folly arguing that public health experts, representatives of medical organisations, and some ACIP members worried the vote could raise unfounded safety concerns about the vaccine and undermine hard-won trust in vaccines leading to more sickness.

The media gave organisations undue prominence without ever considering if they were impartial. They urged people to look to “independent recommendations,” e.g. from the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, for “science-based advice” (National Public Radio).

I would call it advice based on money. The Academy would continue to support the birth dose of the vaccine (Reuters, CBS News, Health Policy Watch, CNN, Time, CBC) but all journalists forgot to say that it receives many millions of dollars from vaccine manufacturers and other drug companies. Unsurprisingly, hepatitis B vaccine makers Merck, Sanofi, and GSK defended their products as safe, and Merck was “deeply concerned by the vote” (Reuters ). Perhaps because Merck’s shares dropped?

“Don’t listen to ACIP at all… listen to the American Academy of Pediatrics” (CNN), which said that the “irresponsible and purposely misleading” guidance would harm children; called it a “deliberate strategy to sow fear and distrust among families” (CBC); and delivered a gigantic falsehood: “Vaccine recommendations are largely similar across developed countries” (CBS News).

Reuters noted that ACIP members had said that the birth dose “was out of step with peer countries, particularly Denmark,” but then quoted “a CDC disease expert” for saying that the US is not comparable to Denmark with its universal healthcare and more thorough screening for the virus. The Washington Post said that “public health experts” had noted that European countries recommending fewer shots for children were smaller and had better health care systems, and that medical associations had argued that the US schedule had been thoroughly studied (which is blatantly false). None of the media quoted Levi, who mentioned that the US and Denmark have the same background rate of hepatitis B despite different policies on the birth dose.

The American Medical Association is also heavily corrupted by industry money and said that ACIP’s decision was “reckless and undermines decades of public confidence in a proven, lifesaving vaccine. Today’s action is not based on scientific evidence” (CNN).

The American College of Physicians said that “This vote… will only endanger children and increase risk of death for millions,” and a hepatitis researcher urged people to “go back to our true experts… our CDC colleagues” (Health Policy Watch).

Time noted that “A group of several dozen professional medical organizations and health advocacy groups, including the American Medical Association” expressed alarm over the committee’s decisions: “Previously, we could expect science to drive decisions.”

Some panellists and media noted that universal hepatitis B vaccination at birth had helped to nearly eliminate cases among newborns in the United States, and that there was no evidence of harm (New York Times, Washington Post, The Hill, Guardian ). However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When Levi countered that the risk for a child of getting infected was extremely low, supporters of the birth dose noted that the virus can be spread by household objects like toothbrushes, razors, or combs used by an infected person. This is a fake argument and the CDC website is explicit: “Although HBV can be found in saliva, it is not spread through kissing or sharing utensils. It is also not spread through sneezing, coughing, hugging, breastfeeding, or food or water.”

Levi also said that the decline in hepatitis B cases occurred long before the birth-dose policy was introduced and was concentrated in older age groups, not among infants, which supported a risk-based policy, focused on infants born to hepatitis B-positive mothers and on high-risk adult populations. When ACIP liaison Dr Flor Muñoz of the Infectious Diseases Society of America claimed that much of the discussion amounted to “misinformation,” Levi responded: “It’s not misinformation… this is CDC data.” When Muñoz pushed back, presenting her disagreement as established fact, Levi replied: “I appreciate your beliefs and feelings about this, but these beliefs and feelings are not supported by the data that were presented.”

Levi also pointed to ACIP’s prior recommendation of Covid-19 vaccination for healthy, extremely low-risk children, which he described as “one of the most outrageous” examples of framework failure.

ACIP’s decision sparked anger from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA), a doctor, who said the vaccine is safe and effective (BBC, CBS News, Time, Health Policy Watch). He wrote on X that “Siri, a prominent anti-vaccine lawyer, makes his living suing vaccine manufacturers and is presenting as if an expert on childhood vaccines. The ACIP is totally discredited” (Washington Post, The Hill ).

The Hill was particularly critical. It wrote about an ardent objection from major medical organisations, internal spats among ACIP members, and a stark lack of data to support altering decades-long vaccine guidance, in fact, “There’s been great data and studies done on these vaccines, and they are safe and effective.” The Hill quoted top figures from Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York City for their rants, which included that they would not abide by ACIP’s “irresponsible attacks on clear, evidence-based science.”

When journalists “dial-a-quote,” they call organisations or people whom they know will respond in a way that mirrors their own bias pretending they have asked an “independent expert.”

The media were full of evidence-free, derogatory comments that were meaningless because they could not be contested:

  • “We can no longer trust federal health authorities when it comes to vaccines,” “heartbreaking to see this science-driven agency turn into an ideological machine” (New York Times );
  • “Medical experts have argued that it’s important to vaccinate all newborns for hepatitis B” (Washington Post );
  • “The vaccine is incredibly safe,” experts decried the move (Reuters );
  • the American Association of Immunologists is “extremely disappointed” in the decision;
  • the American College of Physicians called the meeting “completely inappropriate” (CBS News); “many experts expressed dismay at today’s decision” (CNN);
  • “A long lineup of medical experts…strongly urged against changing the vaccination schedule” (Health Policy Watch);
  • “Public health experts decried the move,” CDC and the ACIP are no longer trustworthy sources and are becoming increasingly irrelevant (CBC);
  • “a forum for the discussion of falsehoods,” ACIP members promoted their own sceptical views on vaccines, looking for a bogeyman, and you’re not going to find something if it doesn’t exist (Time );
  • “Experts say any change to the current hepatitis B vaccination recommended schedule could have significant and far-reaching consequences for childhood health in the US” (Guardian ).

When the media presented statements that could be contested, they were usually wrong or seriously misleading, e.g. “Siri’s presentation was replete with ‘falsehoods and misrepresentation of the data,’ and he conflated informed consent with mandates” (New York Times ); “fierce objections from medical groups that said the recommendation had proved a successful public health strategy, nearly eradicating the dangerous virus among U.S. children” (Washington Post); a “Minority of members argue the change is not supported by data” (Reuters ).

Persuasion by Big Numbers

Like the drug industry does, the media used big numbers in their propaganda.

Globally, the vaccine has prevented millions of infections (Health Policy Watch). Before the vaccine, around 200,000 to 300,000 people were infected each year; since the vaccines began being universally administered to babies, overall cases are down to around 14,000 annually (PBS).

After a birth dose was recommended in 1991, the shots have prevented an estimated 90,000 deaths in the US (BBC) and reduced hepatitis B infections among infants and children by 99% (CBS News, Time, Health Policy Watch, Nature ).

All these claims are false or seriously misleading. Data presented at the meeting showed that much of the decline in hepatitis B infections over past decades occurred before the birth dose was recommended and it was largely driven by behaviour change, screening, and targeted vaccination of high-risk groups.

Senator Cassidy wrote on X that “Before the birth dose was recommended, 20,000 newborns a year were infected with hepatitis B. Now, it’s fewer than 20” (CBS News, CNN, Health Policy Watch). This was an error of 133 times. CDC data show that in 1990, only around 150 children below one year of age became infected.

Vaccinologist Paul Offit Lied on CNN

The most high-profile vaccinologist in the world, after vaccine “Godfather” Stanley Plotkin, is Paul Offit, but that may be a thing of the past after Siri’s recent revelations and his self-destructing appearance on CNN on the second day of the ACIP meeting.

Offit told viewers he had not been invited to speak at the meeting but internal documents show his claim is false. CDC officials had contacted him repeatedly – via emails, phone calls and a speaker-request form – inviting him to present.

Offit warned viewers that “50% of people in this country have chronic hepatitis B and don’t know it” (only about 0.3% have chronic disease) and suggested newborns were at risk through everyday contact with nannies, daycare workers, and family members because of sharing toothbrushes, towels, or simply being held by an infected adult, which the CDC denied could happen.

Offit described ACIP as a “clown show,” an “anti-vaccine advisory committee” that “puts children in harm’s way.” He lied monstrously saying that before universal infant vaccination, “30,000 children under the age of 10” contracted hepatitis B each year. CDC data presented at the ACIP meeting showed that new hepatitis B cases in children under the age of 10 were around 400 per year before the universal birth dose was introduced.

I am very indebted to journalist Maryanne Demasi, PhD, who wrote many of the articles I quoted above. She gave Offit the opportunity to clarify his remarks but he did not respond. This silence contrasts sharply with the certainty he brings to national television, where his claims are delivered without scrutiny and his financial ties to vaccine manufacturers are almost never mentioned.

Offit is not an impartial commentator. He earned millions from the sale of his stake in Merck’s rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq, and has long been aligned with the pharmaceutical industry whose products he routinely defends. Yet major news outlets present him as a neutral authority and take his statements at face value.

Conclusions

The media’s reporting on the hepatitis B issue was seriously misleading and their advice that we should trust the “experts” who condemned the ACIP committee’s wise decision is horribly misguided.

The new ACIP’s first chair was biostatistician Martin Kulldorff. He developed the monitoring system the CDC uses for quick detection of vaccine harms, considered the best in the world. On 1 December, Kennedy announced that Kulldorff was appointed to a senior role at the Department of Health and Human Services after he had “transformed ACIP from a rubber stamp into a committee that delivers gold-standard science for the American people.” NIH director Jay Bhattacharya said that “Five years ago, Martin Kulldorff and I co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration calling for an end to pandemic lockdowns. That evidence-based approach to public health now permeates HHS.”

What the media presented was what we call eminence-based medicine, and the medical journals’ reporting on vaccine issues is also a disaster. I shall end with the abstract of an article I published on 10 November:

The reactions to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s initiatives to improve vaccine safety have been almost uniformly negative. I studied how the narratives were framed in a cohort of 33 articles in the BMJ of which 30 were written by journalists or the editor. I focused on whether the reporting was balanced and informative, and whether the articles saw any merit in Kennedy’s reforms in his role as Secretary of Health and Human Services or supported the status quo.

The reporting in the BMJ was highly biased. Much of the information provided in Kennedy’s disfavour was misleading, and some was wrong. All initiatives at improving vaccine safety were condemned, without any analysis of their merits in an evidence-based fashion. Instead, the BMJ cited people who had their own agendas and who condemned Kennedy without providing any evidence in their favour while expressing faith in vaccines, with the industry mantra that they are safe and effective, although all drugs will harm some people.

The BMJ did not take any interest in the widespread and lethal corruption in US healthcare institutions – one of Kennedy’s focus points – but toned it down.

Despite the constant ad hominem attacks, Kennedy has succeeded to introduce important changes and plans related to vaccine safety, guidance about how vaccines are used, and about avoiding neurotoxic metals in vaccine adjuvants.

Dr. Peter Gøtzsche co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration, once considered the world’s preeminent independent medical research organization. In 2010 Gøtzsche was named Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen. Gøtzsche has published over 100 papers in the “big five” medical journals (JAMA, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine). Gøtzsche has also authored books on medical issues including Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime.

December 21, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

South Carolina Measles Outbreak Spurs Renewed Debate About MMR Vaccine

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | December 11, 2025

South Carolina health officials warned this week that a measles outbreak, primarily affecting children, is “accelerating.” They blamed rising vaccine hesitancy for the increase in cases.

Some news outlets pointed the finger at federal health policy, and specifically U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a link some experts rejected.

Emily G. Hilliard, press secretary for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), told The Defender that 120 cases have been reported in South Carolina, “primarily in an under-vaccinated community, of which 43 were reported since Dec. 5.”

The Washington Post cited Dr. Linda Bell, an epidemiologist with the South Carolina Department of Public Health (DPH), who said that of the 111 measles cases reported as of Wednesday, 105 people were unvaccinated and three were partially vaccinated.

DPH reported that 254 people are in quarantine and 16 are in isolation.

During a Wednesday press conference, Bell said that “accelerating is an accurate term” to refer to the trajectory of the current outbreak. She said the state has “lower than hoped for” MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccination coverage.

Hilliard said the increase in recent cases in South Carolina “was due to exposures occurring at large church gatherings among under vaccinated communities and at schools, including an international school in Greenville, South Carolina.” She said more cases are expected in the coming week.

According to DPH, 16 cases resulted from exposure at the Way of Truth Church in Inman, while 43 students at Inman Intermediate School are in quarantine.

DPH data show that most cases were identified in children, including 75 cases in kids ages 5-17, and 20 cases in children under 5.

Bell said the spike in cases across the state was the result of travel during the Thanksgiving holiday weekend and a lack of vaccinations.

MMR vaccine responsible for ‘catastrophic’ injuries

DPH data show that MMR vaccination coverage among school children in South Carolina decreased from approximately 96% in 2020 to 93.5% this year.

According to NBC News, MMR vaccine uptake in Spartanburg County, one of the hardest-hit areas during the latest outbreak, was 90% for the 2024-25 school year.

At Wednesday’s press conference, Bell credited “high vaccination coverage” for eliminating ongoing transmission in this country. She urged the public to “consider the effectiveness of the vaccine and having this disease essentially go away.” She said the outbreak may end if more people get vaccinated.

The Post reported that even a “small decline in vaccination can significantly increase the likelihood of an outbreak,” citing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) figures indicating that one dose of the MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles and the two-dose series is 97% effective.

Hilliard said, “The best way to protect against measles is vaccination with the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine. CDC encourages individuals to consult with a healthcare provider on what is best for them.”

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), agreed that the MMR vaccine is the best way to prevent measles — but questioned whether measles needs to be prevented in the first place.

“Case mortality for measles before the vaccine was introduced was 2 in 10,000,” Hooker said. “I just don’t think you need to avoid getting the measles, as opposed to the risk of the vaccine.”

Polly Tommey, host of CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD,” has interviewed parents whose children were injured or killed as a result of an adverse reaction to the MMR vaccine. “The devastation this particular vaccine causes is catastrophic,” she said.

“We’ve seen so many children and adults who have had multiple MMRs and still had measles,” Tommey said. “Not only does the vaccine hardly work, it can and has killed children. I know because I’ve interviewed the parents … So much brain injury, life-altering gut issues, to mention a few.”

Tommey added that while measles “is not much fun,” its symptoms don’t last long, and that “with proper care and rest, children bounce back very quickly.”

Dr. Michelle Perro, a pediatrician, said measles infection can provide lifelong natural immunity.

“It is well established that natural measles infection produces long-lasting, lifelong immunity — a feature recognized in classical infectious-disease epidemiology. While no one recommends seeking out infection, it is inaccurate to imply that immunity from infection is weak or transient,” Perro said.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., CHD senior research scientist, said the MMR vaccine contains live measles virus — specifically, genotype A, which is raised in chicken cells and considered poorly equipped to proliferate within humans.

“In theory, this gives our immune system time to learn how to fight it, along with the other wild-type measles strains,” he said. But theory “doesn’t always translate into practice, and vaccine-originating measles viruses can persist and infect others.”

Experts question ‘scary’ mainstream media narrative on measles

The Post reported that South Carolina’s worsening measles crisis is proof that the U.S. is “reeling from the resurgence of a preventable, highly contagious disease.” The news organization cited this year’s measles outbreaks in West Texas and other regions that reportedly cost the lives of three unvaccinated people as proof of vaccine hesitancy’s toll.

But Hooker said, “the ‘scary’ narrative in the mainstream media is stoked by the evident surge in 2025 and the false reporting about the three deaths wrongly attributed to measles.”

“We know that the two girls who died in West Texas died due to improperly treated bacterial pneumonia. And in the third case of an adult in New Mexico, the individual denied all medical treatment and was diagnosed with measles only via RT-PCR during their autopsy,” Hooker said.

Jablonowski said the two Texas girls “did not die from measles — they died from hospitals, hospital-acquired infections and fatally biased healthcare professionals.”

According to CNN, no new measles cases have been reported in Texas since August. The CDC has recorded 1,912 measles cases in the U.S. this year.

‘No vaccine provides 100% immunity’

Perro said that while the current outbreak is being blamed on the unvaccinated, such outbreaks “have historically included both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.”

“No vaccine provides 100% immunity, and secondary vaccine failure — waning immunity years after vaccination — has been documented in the literature. Breakthrough cases are generally milder, but they do occur, and understanding those patterns is essential to a complete epidemiologic picture,” Perro said.

Hooker cited safety concerns with the MMR vaccine, noting that in 1999, Merck “started secretly increasing the virus content within the MMR to levels that could eclipse that which has been appropriately safety tested.”

This coincided with a “dramatic increase in the reports of deaths and anaphylaxis from the vaccine” submitted to the U.S. government-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 provides a liability shield for manufacturers of vaccines included in the CDC’s childhood immunization schedule. As a result, manufacturers have less incentive to produce safe vaccines, Perro said.

“Manufacturers could have pursued cleaner formulations over the past four decades, such as aluminum-free products, improved stabilizers or alternative delivery systems, but without liability and regulatory oversight, the incentive simply was not there,” Perro said.

‘Absurd’ to blame RFK Jr. for measles outbreaks

Media narratives also suggested that Kennedy’s policies as HHS secretary have contributed to “vaccine hesitancy” and the increased spread of measles.

According to the Post, “an uptick of vaccine misinformation that, at times, has propagated on social media and among some public officials, including President Donald Trump and his pick for health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,” has contributed to the outbreaks.

But Perro said that CDC data show that measles cases in the U.S. “have been rising for several years, from 59 cases in 2023 to 285 in 2024, and now over 1,900 cases reported in 2025 across 43 jurisdictions.” She said these trends “predate the current HHS leadership.”

“The representation that one political figure alone ‘caused’ this is not supported by the longer-term data,” Perro said.

According to Hilliard, the 1,912 measles cases reported so far this year in the U.S. are significantly fewer than the number of cases reported in Canada (5,298) and Mexico (5,089). Both countries have substantially smaller populations than the U.S.

Tommey said it is “absurd” to blame Kennedy for this year’s outbreaks. “Parents are not vaccinating because they see the utter carnage from those of us that have vaccinated. They have lived it or seen it first-hand … Once you know, you know — this is why the vaccination rates are down,” she 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.

December 21, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | Leave a comment

UK doctor arrested under pressure from Israel lobby over ‘anti-genocide posts’

Press TV – December 21, 2025

British police have arrested a senior doctor under pressure from pro-Israel lobby groups over social media posts condemning the regime’s genocide against Palestinians.

Ellen Kriesels, a consultant paediatrician with more than 15 years of service at London’s Whittington Hospital, was arrested at her home on Saturday by officers from the Metropolitan Police.

According to a colleague of Kriesels, she was arrested in front of her children.

“The Israeli lobby began hunting her in September because of her sign at a national Palestine demonstration,” Doctor Rahmeh Aladwan wrote in a post on X.

“Britain is doing this to our NHS doctors for Israel. Britain is occupied,” she added.

Kriesels was first targeted after appearing at a pro-Palestine protest holding a placard opposing Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Within days, she was suspended from Whittington Hospital.

She was subsequently reported to the General Medical Council (GMC) and later to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), which suspended her medical license for nine months.

Healthcare workers’ group HCWs Against Censorship also condemned Kriesels’ arrest, which it said was followed by a coordinated campaign against her after she participated in a national pro-Palestine demonstration in September.

“The Israeli lobby strikes again,” the group said, adding that police acted following complaints from pro-Israel lobbying organisations, including UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) and the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA).

The arrest was carried out “on behalf of a foreign-aligned lobby,” the group said, describing it as “an absolute outrage.”

“This is what Britain now does to NHS doctors for speaking about Palestine,” one supporter said. “It is repression, plain and simple.”

No formal charges have been publicly confirmed yet. The Metropolitan Police have not released details of the specific offences under investigation.

In a post on X dated September 17, Kriesels criticized the NHS for reporting her to the police over her “anti-genocide posts and placards.”

“Leaving the front door ajar so the police don’t have to use force when they come and get me,” she wrote at the time.

Her arrest comes as British police have threatened a renewed crackdown on pro-Palestinian demonstrations, warning they will arrest anyone chanting the phrase “globalize the intifada” or displaying it on placards.

Intifada, an Arabic word meaning uprising, is used by Palestinians to describe resistance to Israel’s occupation of their land.

The Metropolitan Police made their first arrests linked to the chant at a pro-Palestine demonstration in London on Sunday, claiming the slogan constitutes “a call for violence against Jewish people.”

Pro-Israel lobby groups are pressing for a harsher crackdown on demonstrations and have even suggested that chants such as “Free, free Palestine” inherently incite violence.

Pro-Palestinian protests have surged across London over the past two years, amid Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and in response to the UK government’s military and diplomatic support for Israel.

December 21, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Whistleblowers accuse CPJ of ‘shielding’ Israel to appease donors

The Cradle | December 20, 2025

Current and former staff at the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) have accused the organization of deliberately downplaying Israel’s war crimes in Gaza to placate pro-Israel donors, according to a report by Electronic Intifada published on 18 December.

The whistleblowers claim CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg personally controls all Gaza-related research, blocking work that would reveal that the Israeli army deliberately targets journalists.

One research piece backed by military experts reportedly concluded Israel knowingly kills journalists, but Ginsberg shelved it.

An employee was reportedly fired after disputing Ginsberg’s refusal to classify journalist killings as targeted murders—a war crime under international law.

Despite an internal memo stating CPJ should call Israel’s actions “genocide,” whistleblowers say this is misleading.

The memo instructs staff to use qualified language like “what human rights groups deem a genocide” to talk about the mass murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians.

A website review found that in only two of 15 Gaza-related items does CPJ use “genocide” without attribution, with the first appearing in October 2025, two years into Israel’s genocidal war.

The CPJ denied the allegations, saying staff were never told to avoid “genocide” and could use any language on personal social media, citing examples of Ginsberg publicly using the term and accusing Israel of war crimes.

The annual CPJ fundraising dinner draws major media donors, including five Rupert Murdoch-owned outlets, which contributed $250,000 total.

Rupert Murdoch is a longtime supporter of Israel who has routinely advanced pro-Israel positions via his platforms.

He previously described Israel as a front-line defender of “western democratic civilization” at the peak of Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign.

This year’s awards honored journalists from China, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan, and Tunisia, with no Palestinian nominees.

Ginsberg explained CPJ doesn’t award journalists from the same country consecutively, noting last year’s recipient was Palestinian journalist Shrouq Al Aila.

Whistleblowers called Al Aila a “safe choice” whose background was extensively vetted, and said proposals to honor slain Al Jazeera journalist Anas Al-Sharif were ignored.

Since the genocide began over two years ago, nearly 300 journalists have been killed by Israeli forces.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has declared Israel the world’s leading cause of death of journalists for three years in a row. Forty-three percent of the 67 journalists killed globally between December 2024 and December 2025 were killed by Israeli forces in Gaza.

The organization condemned the murders and designated them as targeted killings by state militaries.

Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham recently revealed that military intelligence created a “Legitimization Cell” to justify killing Palestinian journalists by falsely portraying them as Hamas operatives.

December 21, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

The Empire of Lies: How the BBC Strangles Free Speech Under the Mask of Objectivity and Why Trump is Right to Sue

By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – December 21, 2025

Against the backdrop of hysteria over “repressions in Russia,” Great Britain itself has long since transformed into a police state, where dissent is stigmatized and truth is replaced by propaganda. Putin’s response has exposed the double standards of Western media.

The Smokescreen of the “Free Press”

On December 19, 2025, Vladimir Putin gave comprehensive and calm answers in a live broadcast to provocative questions from BBC journalist Stephen Rosenberg. Instead of honestly analyzing his arguments about foreign agents, security, and sovereignty, Western media, and the BBC itself first and foremost, prepared another portion of distortions under headlines like “Putin Denies the Obvious.” This moment is the perfect prism through which to discern the essence of the phenomenon. While the missionaries from Northgold Street teach the whole world about “democracy” and “free journalism,” the British Isles themselves are rapidly sinking into the quagmire of ideological conformity and censorship. The BBC Corporation, once a symbol of respectability, has become the epitome of systemic bias and an industry for manufacturing narratives. It is no coincidence that Donald Trump, whom this media machine has vilified for years, has filed a lawsuit against it—this is a logical act of self-defense against organized lies.

Hypocrisy as Editorial Policy. “Repressions” There and Censorship Here

Putin’s answer on the issue of “foreign agents” was crystal clear: the law is a copy of the American FARA, requiring only transparency of foreign funding, not criminal prosecution for opinion. This thesis reveals a monstrous contrast with the realities of Great Britain itself, where freedom of speech has become a fiction, covered by bureaucratic and ideological terror.

Thought Police in Action: From Tweets to Kitchen Conversations. In Russia, it’s registration for NGOs; in Britain, it’s a criminal charge for an ordinary citizen. The Online Safety Bill is nothing other than an architecture of preemptive censorship. UK police regularly detain people for “offensive” or “alarming” posts on social media. There are known cases of a man being interrogated for a sarcastic tweet about transgender people, and a pensioner for a “racist” comment about migration on Facebook. These are not isolated excesses; this is the system. Where is the freedom of speech that the BBC so fiercely defends in its reports about Russia?

De Facto “Foreign Agents”: Stigmatization Instead of Discussion. The BBC has appropriated for itself the right to define the boundaries of permissible discourse. Any criticism that goes beyond these boundaries, be it doubts about the radical environmental agenda, questions about transhumanism, or analysis of the problems of mass migration, is instantly branded by the corporation as “marginal,” “extremist,” or “propagandistic.” Independent analysts, scientists, and journalists who disagree with the general line are systematically pushed out of the airwaves and public sphere under the convenient pretext of “fighting disinformation.” That is, the BBC itself creates “disinformation,” defines it, and fights it, eliminating competitors. This is a classic monopoly on truth.

Trump’s Lawsuit is an Anatomy of the BBC’s Lies. From the “Steele Dossier” to the Myths of “Russiagate”

Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC is not the gesture of an offended politician, but a legal exposure of the festering wound of systemic malfeasance. Trump accuses the corporation of “deliberate and malicious defamation,” and history provides him with ample evidence.

The “Steele Dossier” — A Fake as a Journalistic Standard. In 2016-2017, the BBC, like many Western media outlets, zealously circulated sensational allegations from an unverified dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton’s political allies. Citing “high-ranking sources,” the BBC built a narrative for months about “Trump’s ties to Moscow,” presenting unconfirmed gossip as facts. Subsequent FBI and US Department of Justice investigations proved the dossier was fabricated, its key “evidence” unsubstantiated. No apologies or serious editorial conclusions ever came from the BBC. The corporation simply moved on to the next topic, leaving a poisoned residue of lies in the minds of millions of viewers.

Salisbury — Verdict Instead of Investigation. The story of the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal became a textbook example of how the BBC replaces journalistic investigation with state propaganda. From the first minutes, the corporation abandoned the basic principle—presumption of innocence. The airwaves carried not questions of “who and why?” but assertions: “Russia committed an act of war on British soil.” Alternative versions, inconsistencies in the official story (for example, the complete absence of traces of the “Novichok” poison in the places the Skripals allegedly were), expert opinions questioning the British version—all of this was either hushed up or ridiculed in specially designated “disinformation” segments. The BBC brazenly turned an unverified accusation into an indisputable dogma, denying viewers the right to information.

The Myth of Trump’s “Russian Links,” Which Lasted for Years. Throughout Trump’s presidency, the BBC peremptorily supported the obsessive narrative of his “secret collusion” with the Kremlin. This “link” was the central theme of thousands of reports, analytical programs, and articles. The final report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller (2019) found no evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. For an objective media outlet, this would have been a reason for a deep review of its own editorial policy. For the BBC—merely a reason to change rhetoric: if not “collusion,” then “interference” that Trump “didn’t condemn enough.” The goal was not to inform but to shape the desired, pre-set perception of Trump as illegitimate and hostile.

Censorship in the Name of Security: British Total Control vs. Russian Defense

Putin directly explained internet restrictions in frontline zones: it’s a matter of life and death, a way to prevent the targeting of high-precision weapons through open foreign services. This is a military necessity in conditions of real conflict.

Double Standard as a Principle. And what does peaceful, democratic Great Britain do? Under the same pretext of “national security,” one of the world’s most total surveillance mechanisms over its own citizens has been created here. The Investigatory Powers Act (or “Snoopers’ Charter”) allows intelligence agencies to mass-collect the browsing history, calls, and message metadata of every resident without any court warrant. In partnership with the government, major IT companies and social networks engage in preemptive content censorship, removing viewpoints inconvenient to the authorities under vague labels like “hate propaganda” or “disinformation.” The difference is fundamental: Russia is protecting its physical borders from real military threats in the context of the Special Military Operation. The British state, with the tacit approval and participation of the BBC, actively and undemocratically protects the ideological boundaries of the ruling establishment from dissent, passing it off as “concern for security” and “protection of democracy.”

The Collapse of the Monopoly on Truth and the Birth of a New Information Order

Putin’s answers to that very BBC correspondent became the very funhouse mirror in which this moldy media empire finally saw its true face: not of a noble arbiter, but of a pathetic sycophant and agitator for the globalist establishment, projecting onto others its own rotten core—total censorship, the stifling of dissent, and the fabrication of convenient agendas. Trump’s lawsuit is not the beginning, but a logical final act. It is a shameful verdict for an organization that, with hypocritical, sanctimonious zeal, searched for “tyranny” in far-off lands, blinded by its own arrogance, until it itself turned into the main strangler of free thought at home, on those very blessed islands ruled by arrogant mandarins from Whitehall, detached from reality, and their lackeys at the BBC.

Readers and viewers around the world have long been sick of this hypocritical sham. They are fleeing these dreary, pompous preachers of the “only correct” truth to vibrant alternatives, live streams, and independent voices, bypassing these filtered sewer channels of the old, thoroughly rotten guard.

The world no longer believes in the sacred cow of the “public broadcaster” BBC, whose editorial policy has long been groveling low and basely before the powers that be. All the world’s vileness is committed not by the powers that be, but by the most cowardly dregs, in this case, “the dregs of journalism.” They cannot win in an open fight, and therefore always act with rat-like methods, basely and brazenly distorting obvious facts. Cowards from journalism always rely on baseness and prefer to strike from behind, like rats. This word is the best characterization of the BBC’s current state.

The era when a bunch of pompous dandies from the Thames could arrogantly tell the world what to think has irrevocably sunk into oblivion. And in this lies the best slap in the face to their ossified arrogance and a real breath of freedom for the word in the 21st century.

Victor Mikhin, Writer, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Expert on Middle Eastern Countries

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

December 21, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , | 1 Comment

Reuters spreads lies and propaganda to prolong Ukraine conflict – Tulsi Gabbard

©  Alex Wong / Getty Images
RT | December 21, 2025

US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has accused European NATO states of trying to pull Washington into a direct confrontation with Russia and slammed Reuters for “fomenting hysteria” in order to sell war.

Russia has consistently rejected claims that it plans to attack EU countries, describing them as warmongering tactics used by Western politicians to justify inflated military budgets. This week, President Vladimir Putin once again dismissed such claims as “lies and nonsense.”

Yet in a report published on Friday, Reuters claimed that “Putin intends to capture all of Ukraine and reclaim parts of Europe that belonged to the former Soviet empire,” citing anonymous sources allegedly “familiar with US intelligence.”

“No, this is a lie and propaganda Reuters is willingly pushing on behalf of warmongers who want to undermine President Trump’s tireless efforts to end this bloody war that has resulted in more than a million casualties on both sides,” Gabbard retorted in a post on X.

Dangerously, you are promoting this false narrative to block President Trump’s peace efforts and foment hysteria and fear among the people to get them to support the escalation of war, which is what NATO and the EU really want in order to pull the United States military directly into war with Russia.

According to Gabbard, US intelligence assessments instead indicate that Russia “seeks to avoid a larger war with NATO” and lacks the capacity to wage one even if it wanted to.

Moscow insists it is defending its citizens in the Ukraine conflict and has accused NATO of provoking hostilities and derailing US-backed peace initiatives. Putin, who has repeatedly dismissed any intention to restore the Soviet Union, has accused NATO countries of “preparing for a major war” by building up and modernizing offensive forces while “brainwashing” their populations with claims that a clash with Russia is inevitable.

Putin’s special envoy Kirill Dmitriev, who is currently engaged in Ukraine peace talks with US interlocutors in Miami, praised Gabbard as a rare voice of reason.

“Gabbard is great not only for documenting the Obama/Biden origins of the Russia hoax, but now for exposing the deep-state warmonger machinery trying to incite WW3 by fueling anti-Russian paranoia across the UK and EU,” Dmitriev wrote on X. “Voices of reason matter – restore sanity, peace, and security.”

December 21, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

EU loan to Ukraine pushing bloc ‘into war’ with Russia – Orban

RT | December 20, 2025

EU nations have a vested interest in continuing the Ukraine-Russia conflict and even escalating it, as repayment of their €90 billion loan to Kiev is essentially tied to a military victory, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said.

A long-debated EU scheme to steal frozen Russian central bank assets collapsed amid disagreements among member states on Friday. However, agreement was reached on a loan backed by the bloc’s budget, allowing them to fund cash-strapped Ukraine in what Moscow has long described as a Western proxy war. Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic secured exemptions from the loan.

“Whoever lends money wants it back. In this case, repayment is not tied to economic growth or stabilization, but to military victory,” Orban wrote on X on Saturday. “For this money to ever be recovered, Russia would have to be defeated,” he said.

A war loan inevitably makes its financiers interested in the continuation and escalation of the conflict, because defeat would also mean a financial loss.

Orban argued that there are now “hard financial constraints that push Europe in one direction: into war.”

Hungary and Slovakia have long stood against continued military aid to Kiev, despite mounting pressure from the EU to toe the party line. The Czech Republic joined the fold after the recent election of new Prime Minister Andrej Babis, who has refused to fund Ukraine at the expense of his taxpayers.

Russian officials have accused Kiev’s European backers of hindering recent US-led peace efforts, and of increasingly preparing for a direct war against Russia.

Top EU officials have used claims of an alleged threat from Moscow to justify accelerating militarization, freeing up €335 billion in Covid relief funds and mobilizing €150 billion in loans and grants for the bloc’s military industrial complex.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly dismissed the allegations as “nonsense” aimed at “creating an image of an enemy” to distract Western European taxpayers from domestic problems.

As Kiev would only need to start making repayments to the EU if it receives reparations in the unlikely event Russia loses, the loan is widely considered to be at risk of turning into a grant.

December 21, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment