Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Price of Sanctions: Volkswagen Shuts Down Dresden Plant as German Industry Reels

Sputnik – 14.12.2025

Volkswagen plans to halt production of vehicles at its Dresden plant on Tuesday, marking the first time in the company’s history that a Germany-based factory has been shuttered.

With an installed capacity to build up to 37,500 cars a year, and the flagship of VW’s EV lineup, the Dresden plant’s closure comes against the backdrop of Germany’s broader deindustrialization, which started in 2022 when Berlin rejected the Russian energy supplies propping up its manufacturing base.

FT blames the closure on poor demand in Europe, weak sales in China, and 15% US tariffs on European vehicle imports.

Volkswagen announced plans to “transform” the Dresden factory into an “innovation campus” earlier this month as part of a “Future Volkswagen” program, which includes plans to reduce Germany-wide vehicle output by 730k units by 2028, and slash 35k jobs “in a socially responsible manner.”

German industrial leaders and Russian President Vladimir Putin warned about the consequences of cutting Europe off from Russian gas almost four years ago, with Putin saying the “suicidal” decision would undermine Europe’s global economic competitiveness.

December 14, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Over Half of Germans Feel Unable to Speak Freely – Poll

Sputnik – 14.12.2025

More than half of Germans believe they cannot freely express their opinion, a poll conducted by Swiss company Tenor and published by a German newspaper on Sunday revealed.

Fifty-seven percent of Germans feel it is currently better to “be careful” when voicing their views, the survey showed. The strongest apprehensions were recorded among the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party supporters, with only 11% of AfD voters saying they feel free in expressing their views, while the remaining 89% said otherwise.

Concerns over freedom of expression are more pronounced among residents of eastern German states, where 64% said they feel reserved in expressing their opinions. In western Germany, 55% of respondents advocated for caution.

Only 18% of Germans said they approved of the country’s social and political course, with the remaining 82% expressing the opposite opinion, the study showed.

Age-wise, the strongest dissatisfaction with Germany’s political course was expressed by respondents aged 45 to 49 years. At the same time, among all age groups from 16 to 60 years and older, at least 80% of respondents have described themselves as dissatisfied with Germany’s political path.

An overwhelming 94% of AfD voters disapprove of Germany’s social and political trajectory, while 91% of the Left Party voters described its socio-political course as “not good.”
The online survey was conducted from November 26 to December 3 among 1,500 people.

An October poll conducted by the Forsa Institute for the n-tv and RTL broadcasters showed that only 26% of Germans were satisfied with Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s job performance, his lowest approval rating to date. The number of those discontent with the conservative leader rose to a record of 71%, up from 52% in May when he was appointed chancellor.

December 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

The Algorithm of Escalation: How Ukraine Turned Poland into an Operational Theatre

By Adrian Korczyński – New Eastern Outlook – December 14, 2025

November 15, 2025, 21:00. An explosive charge detonated on the railway tracks between Miki and Gołąb. The blast was so powerful that windowpanes shook for kilometres, and residents felt the tremor in their walls. The flash left a metre-long gash in the rail, shattered sleepers, and destroyed the overhead power lines. The very next day, the two Ukrainian citizens responsible for the detonation legally crossed the border at Terespol and departed for Belarus.

Border Guard cameras recorded their departure – nothing raised suspicion at the time. They escaped before investigators could link the fingerprints and phone left at the scene.

Within hours of the explosion, Polish media and politicians almost unanimously pointed to “Russian sabotage.” Meanwhile, those familiar with Ukrainian sabotage operations immediately noticed something else: a plastic charge attached at three points to the rail, nighttime detonation on a key supply line, no civilian casualties – the exact modus operandi Ukraine’s SBU security service had used repeatedly in Crimea.

The difference was only one: this time, the target lay on Polish territory.

Thus, contrary to the public narrative, the blast near Lublin became a piece of a larger puzzle – a quiet campaign Ukraine had been conducting on Polish soil for years, with one overriding objective: to drag Poland, and thereby NATO, into an open confrontation with Russia. This mechanism had a beginning and a defined logic. Its algorithm was activated much earlier.

The Beginning of the Algorithm

In the summer of 2022, Mykhailo Podolyak – a former opposition journalist expelled from Belarus, now one of Zelenskyy’s closest advisors – introduced a simple formula: “Either Europe hands over weapons to Ukraine, or it prepares for a direct clash with Russia”. It was not a request. It was the seed of a mechanism that later grew into Kyiv’s entire communications strategy: framing every Western decision as a choice between supporting Ukraine or facing its own catastrophe.

November 15, 2022, Przewodów. A missile struck, killing two Poles. Before any official investigation could clarify the matter, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy publicly declared it a “Russian missile” and an attack on NATO.

His words instantly shaped a media narrative about the potential triggering of Article 5.

Chaos reigned for crucial hours. Only later did the USA and NATO confirm it was a Ukrainian S-300 air defence missile.

This, however, was revealed only after the version of a Russian attack had circled the globe and fulfilled its political purpose.

The incident did not change the course of the war, but it changed the rules of the game: from then on, any similar event could serve as a pretext for immediately blaming Russia and forcing a Western response.

There were no apologies. Silence fell – though, as time later showed, it was only temporary.

The game had moved to new tracks – both figuratively and literally.

Operations in the Shadows – Poland as a Proving Ground

The years 2024–2025 brought a series of incidents too coherent to be coincidental. Warehouses, logistics centres, and storage halls burned – facilities with a profile strikingly similar to the infrastructure Ukrainian services had previously attacked in Russian-controlled areas. The same kind of locations, the same target logic, the same failed attempts at explanation – the pattern repeated itself like clockwork.

Warsaw, May 2024. Marywilska 44, the largest commercial and warehouse centre in Masovia, a key hub of regional logistics, goes up in flames. Weeks later, the prosecutor’s office announces: the perpetrators are Ukrainian citizens, allegedly acting on orders from Russian intelligence. Half a year on, the picture is telling: in Poland, “small fry” are convicted for belonging to a criminal group, but the verdicts contain not a word about a Russian directive. The sentences are low, simplified, with no appeal, covering mainly arson and obstruction of the investigation. The group’s leaders remain at large outside Poland – Interpol red notices, European Arrest Warrants – no extradition. The investigation stalls, with materials classified.

July 2024, Warsaw. Poland’s Internal Security Agency (ABW) intercepts a courier parcel containing a ready-to-use explosive device – nitroglycerin, detonators, and a shaped charge. The sender is a Ukrainian citizen, Kristina S.

The blueprint was identical. Immediate reports appeared about an alleged Russian sponsor, based on “supposed contacts” of some detainees with citizens of the Russian Federation. The indictment reached court in 2025, yet the case – like the one concerning Marywilska – ground to a halt.

It is worth noting the recurring motif. The nature of the targets, timing, and type of devices used strongly resemble operations Ukrainian services conducted in Russian-controlled territories – in Melitopol or Tokmak. There, too, logistic infrastructure burned; there, too, improvised devices and the element of surprise were used, often at night. Juxtaposing the facts, the pattern of actions in Poland appears remarkably similar.

And yet, all such events in Poland are described with one sentence:

“Russian sabotage carried out by Ukrainians.”

Network and Backdrop: Unique Operational Capability

Poland hosts a network to which no other actor has comparable access: hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian citizens with legal rights of residence, work, and free movement. These are not just migrants – they constitute a ready-made, perfectly embedded operational environment. Its representatives appeared in the case files of every major sabotage incident.

In February 2025, activist Natalia Panczenko, commenting on Polish proposals to cut social benefits for Ukrainians, uttered a sentence that, in the context of these case files, sounded different from a mere warning: “There could be fights, arson of shops, houses.”

When a few months later Karol Nawrocki won the elections, combining these social benefit proposals with a ban on OUN-UPA symbolism, Kyiv responded on two tracks. On the street, a wave of arson broke out, matching the earlier pattern of sabotage. In diplomacy, the Ukrainian embassy issued an official note threatening retaliation over the draft law.

This synchronisation – violence in the shadows and a threat in the spotlight – shattered the narrative of “Russian sabotage by Ukrainians.” It revealed something more dangerous: that behind the attacks could be an actor possessing not only the unique capability but also the political will to use them openly as a tool of pressure.

Key Testimony

September 1, 2025. Outgoing President Andrzej Duda gives an interview to Bogdan Rymanowski. When asked if Zelenskyy pressured him to immediately blame Russia after Przewodów, Duda replies simply:

“You could say that.”

And when asked if it was an attempt to drag Poland into the war, Duda states plainly:

“That’s how I perceived it. They have been trying from the very beginning to drag everyone into the war. Preferably a NATO country.”

These words were not an accusation. They were an unveiling of the hidden logic of events. In one laconic answer, Andrzej Duda – the politician who for years embodied the course of “unconditional support for Ukraine” – cast a new, grim light on all prior incidents. Suddenly, all incidents – Przewodów, the arsons, the rail explosions – fell into one coherent, terrifying context: Ukraine is playing a game with Poland where the goal is escalation, not security.

Finale of the Operation – Explosion on the Tracks

In November 2025, the ABW detains another group of saboteurs – Ukrainian and Belarusian citizens – in possession of weapons, explosives, and maps indicating planned actions against critical infrastructure.

This was no ordinary “criminal group.” It was an operational cell.

A few days earlier, an explosion ripped through railway tracks near Lublin.

The operation mirrored the earlier incidents with precision: the perpetrators were the same, the method characteristic of Ukrainian special services, and the target – critical infrastructure. The media narrative immediately pointed to Russia as the culprit, while the real objective was more subtle and political: to force Warsaw’s hand. As if someone was replaying the same blueprint step by step.

“But What If It Is Russia?” – Dismantling a Convenient Lie

For the sake of completeness, one must examine the narrative repeated like a mantra after every sabotage act: But what if it is Russia?

At first glance, it makes sense. For years, Poland built its image as Ukraine’s most ardent ally and the loudest critic of the Kremlin. Donald Tusk spoke of “our war”. Szymon Hołownia promised, “we will grind Putin into the ground.”

Karol Nawrocki called the Russian president a “war criminal”, and Russia a “post-imperialist and neo-communist country” – and these are just statements from the highest level.

This was not ordinary rhetoric – it was doctrine. A state that programmes its public opinion in this manner should expect the risk of a reaction. The scenario of a Russian “warning shot” – a precise strike meant to remind Warsaw of the limits of patience – would be strategically rational.

This scenario, however, collapses the moment it is laid over the sequence of facts from 2022–2025. It is demolished by the very pattern of all events.

Who, after the Przewodów blast, immediately, without evidence, pressured for blaming Russia?

Who regularly communicated to Poland that “war will come to your home if you stop supporting us”?

Who possessed a unique, massive logistical and operational network within Poland?

Who had a direct interest in escalating tension and forcing specific decisions on Warsaw?

And finally: who – as President Duda admitted – had been trying from the start to “drag a NATO country into the war”?

The answer to each of these questions is the same. And it does not lead to Moscow.

The Russian lead is a convenient lie. Convenient for Warsaw, which does not want to admit it became a target of its ally. Convenient for the media, which prefers a simple story. And most convenient for Ukraine, whose leaders knew perfectly well that every plume of smoke in Poland would be automatically attributed to Russia.

Epilogue

The issue has long ceased to be about who physically plants the charges.

The issue is about who builds their position on the roar of those explosions.

In this calculus, Russia plays only one role: the omnipresent villain of the narrative, upon whom blame can always be laid. Poland is merely the operational terrain.

The main beneficiary turns out to be the party for whom destabilisation in Poland is a strategic tool: Ukraine – a state on the brink of military catastrophe, which for years has consistently transferred the burden and risk of its war onto the territories of its allies.

Therefore, today, in the echo of the blast near Lublin, it is finally time to ask the question the Polish political class avoided for three years, and to answer it openly:

Whose strategic interest was being pursued on Poland’s turf?

The answer leads directly to Kyiv.

Adrian Korczyński, Independent Analyst & Observer on Central Europe and global policy research

December 14, 2025 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

EU state jails anti-NATO politicians for ‘treason’

RT | December 13, 2025

An Estonian court has handed lengthy prison sentences to the leaders of an anti-NATO party convicted of working on behalf of Russia to undermine the Baltic state’s security.

On Thursday, the Harju District Court sentenced Aivo Peterson, co-founder of the small conservative Koos (Together) party, to 14 years in prison for treason. His associates Dmitri Rootsi and Andrei Andronov received sentences of 11 years and 11 years and six months, respectively. All three denied any wrongdoing and said they would appeal the verdict.

Prosecutors alleged that the defendants spread “narratives supporting Russia’s foreign and security policy” intended to undermine public trust in NATO and Estonia’s military aid to Ukraine.

“The defendants deliberately assisted Russia in activities directed against the Estonian state and society,” State Prosecutor Triinu Olev-Aas said.

Founded in 2022, Koos calls for Estonia to leave NATO, become a neutral state, remove foreign troops from its territory, and “refrain from participating directly or indirectly in military conflicts between other countries.”

In 2023, Peterson traveled to Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic, which Estonia considers occupied Ukrainian territory. He said at the time that he was gathering information about the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. “There are two sides to every conflict, but the information we receive from Estonian media is one-sided. All of our journalists support Kiev, which often comes across as propaganda,” Peterson said.

The Koos party rejected the allegations against its members, arguing that prosecutors had failed to present “concrete proof that their actions had caused real damage to Estonia’s constitutional order or security.”

Estonia is one of Ukraine’s top supporters and has been pushing for further militarization of Europe. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova labeled Estonia “one of the most hostile countries” in June and accused Tallinn of “spreading myths and falsehoods about the supposed threat from the East.”

December 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

The Five Big Lies of Vaccinology

By Clayton J. Baker, MD | Brownstne Institute | December 11, 2025

People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one, and if you repeat it frequently enough, people will sooner or later believe it. 

― Walter Langer

On November 19, 2025, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article entitled “Efficacy, Immunogenicity, and Safety of Modified mRNA Influenza Vaccine.” This article purportedly reviewed the results of Pfizer’s Phase 3 clinical trials testing its experimental, mRNA-based, gene therapy injections for Influenza, which Pfizer presents as an alternative to traditional Influenza vaccines.

Two weeks later, on December 5, 2025, the Centers for Disease Control’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 8-3 to end the recommendation in the CDC’s pediatric vaccine schedule that all American children receive the Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) vaccine at birth. This recommendation would bring the CDC’s HBV vaccine recommendations closer to those in numerous other developed nations, countries that have both better overall pediatric health than the United States and no surplus pediatric HBV deaths.

To the casual observer, neither of these events may seem very noteworthy. However, in the post-Covid world of medicine, vaccinology, and politics, both fueled controversy that shows no sign of ending soon. Why?

The New England Journal of Medicine article of Pfizer’s self-conducted study of its own product has been extensively analyzed by independent reviewers. It has been identified as an object lesson in the scientific fraud that is endemic in vaccine research, development, and marketing. Detailed review of the study has revealed multiple systematic techniques of deceptive research methods, omission and concealment of unfavorable data, and outright misrepresentation of results.

The ACIP panel’s decision, which represents a minor change in the previously sacrosanct – if ever-expanding – CDC pediatric vaccine schedule, has been met with an onslaught of hair-on-fire, alarmist proclamations by the vaccine industry and its minions of impending disease and death in American children. These claims are unsupported by the existing scientific data and bear little relationship to objective reality as a whole.

The reasons these two events have sparked such controversy are:

  • The New England Journal of Medicine article – now thoroughly deconstructed – exposes the brazen, systematic dishonesty of both vaccine development and the clinical trial process as a whole.
  • Meanwhile, the results of the study, once fully uncovered and comprehensively reviewed, shatter the viability of the mRNA gene therapy platform as a substitute for conventional vaccines.
  • The unhinged response to the ACIP decision reveals the entire pediatric vaccine schedule to be a house of cards, built on falsehoods, that cannot withstand any criticism, reform, or revision whatsoever.

The awful truth (and it is both awful and the truth) is that vaccinology is overwhelmingly a façade, constructed on a shaky foundation of lies. In the wake of these two recent controversies, it is instructive to enumerate the five great lies propping up vaccinology (plus two Honorable Mentions). I shall outline them here, and provide a more detailed discussion of each in forthcoming essays.

The Five Big Lies of Vaccinology

Big Lie #1: Equating Antibody Production with Immunity to Disease

Big Lie #2: Using Fake Placebos

Big Lie #3: Insisting My Immunity is Dependent on Your Vaccination

Big Lie #4: Declaring Multiple Simultaneous Injections to be Safe

Big Lie #5: Declaring Vaccines Fundamentally “Safe and Effective” as a Class

Honorable Mention 1: Declaring mRNA Gene Therapies to be “Vaccines”

Honorable Mention 2: Allowing Criminal Corporations to Conduct their own Clinical Studies

In upcoming essays, we will analyze each of these Big Lies of Vaccinology. In the process, we shall see how each Big Lie is interdependent upon others, and how the entire vaccine narrative depends upon this web of falsehoods. We shall see why vaccine zealots such as Peter Hotez and Paul Offit would refuse to attend the ACIP meeting – which they were invited to do – and in fact why they refuse to debate these points.

The reckoning that is taking place regarding the vaccine industry is overdue, but it is hardly unique.

There was a time within living memory when pre-frontal lobotomy was considered cutting edge medicine (pun intended). Its founder won the Nobel Prize for Medicine.

There was a time within living memory when physicians accepted corporate payment to convince the public that cigarette smoking was safe.

There was a time – very recently – when mainstream medicine actively promoted OxyContin and other deadly narcotics as safe and minimally addictive. Hundreds of thousands died as a result.

The bloom is off the rose for the vaccine industry. It is long past time for its accounting. May we all open our minds, use our heads, and face the reality of this subject.

C.J. Baker, M.D., 2025 Brownstone Fellow, is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.

December 13, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

The Real Reason U.S. Troops Were In Syria

The Dissident | December 13, 2025

Recently, two U.S. soldiers stationed in Syria were killed in an ISIS attack.

The U.S. Ambassador to Türkiye and Special Envoy for Syria, Tom Barrak, “condemned the ambush on his X account, calling it a ‘cowardly terrorist attack’ and expressing condolences to the families of the fallen.”

Reuters reported that, “in a post on his Truth Social platform, U.S. President Donald Trump vowed ‘very serious retaliation,’ mourning the loss of ‘three great patriots’. He described the incident in remarks to reporters as a ‘terrible’ attack.”

But the more important question to ask is, why were American troops sent to Syria in the first place?

The official reason given, in 2015, when U.S. troops were first sent to North East Syria, was that they were sent there to train Kurdish forces in the Syrian Democratic Forces to fight ISIS.

But the real reason- as admitted years later by a U.S. official- was to deprive Syrians of their oil and wheat, in hopes it would decimate Syria and lead to regime change against then Syrian leader Bashar al Assad.

The United States in 2012 launched “Operation Timber Sycamore”, a covert CIA program that poured billions of dollars into arming and training Syrian rebels, many of whom had links to Al Qaeda, in hopes that it would lead to regime change.

This regime change program- not fighting ISIS- was the real reason for the U.S. troop presence in North East Syria.

This was outright admitted by Dana Stroul, a U.S. Pentagon official, in 2019 when she said, “the United States still had compelling forms of leverage on the table to shape an outcome that was more conducive and protective of US interests … the first one was the one-third of Syrian territory that was owned via the US military, with its local partner the Syrian Democratic Forces … that one-third of Syria is the resource-rich, it’s the economic powerhouse of Syria, so where the hydrocarbons are, which obviously is very much in the public debate here in Washington these days, as well as the agricultural powerhouse.”

Stroul admitted, “this one-third of Syrian territory that the US military and our military presence owned” was, “leverage for affecting the overall political process for the broader Syrian conflict”, noting that because of the U.S. occupation and “owning” of one third of Syria, “the rest of Syria … is rubble”.

Along with this, she boasted that U.S. sanctions on Syria had been “preventing reconstruction aid and technical expertise from going back into Syria”.

Through depriving Syria of its “resource-rich economic powerhouse” and placing crushing sanctions on the country, Stroul boasted that it would lead to regime change in Syria.

Reporting on the effect of this policy on the ground in 2023, journalist Charles Glass wrote, “Damascus reminded me of Baghdad on my many trips there between the war over Kuwait in 1991 and the American invasion in 2003. In those years the US, the EU, and the UN were enforcing similar restrictions based on their conviction that economic hardship would destabilize Saddam Hussein’s regime or compel a hungry populace to depose him. In Iraq then, as in Syria now, the regime flourished and people starved.”

This siege warfare tactic eventually helped lead to the eventual overthrow of the Assad regime last year.

Instead of threatening more U.S. intervention in Syria as a response to the ISIS attack, the U.S should reflect on the fact that it put soldiers in harm’s way in order to starve the people of Syria, and deprive them of their “economic powerhouse” as the last phase of a bloody, covert regime change war.

December 13, 2025 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , | Leave a comment

Flawed Study Downplays Children’s Risk of Myocarditis From COVID Vaccine

By Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. | The Defender | December 3, 2025

Readers of The Defender are familiar with the fact that the COVID-19 mRNA shots pose a risk of myocarditis, especially in children. But they may not know that myocarditis is usually permanently disabling, and in adults, it is often fatal within five years.

Tragically, we are now also learning what the trajectory of myocarditis in vaccinated children actually looks like.

This has been a public relations setback for industry and governments that have been advocating, and sometimes mandating, that children as young as 6 months get the vaccines — even though COVID-19 is almost always mild or symptom-free in young people.

This month, 22 British scientists from prestigious universities published a study intended to ease parents’ minds about risks of the vaccine, and simultaneously scare them about the dangers of getting COVID-19.

The message is that yes, there are rare cases — they always use the word “rare” — in which children get myocarditis after vaccination, but hey, no product can be perfect. And it’s better to risk the vaccine than risk getting COVID-19. Also, they claim, kids are more likely to get myocarditis if they get the virus than they are to get myocarditis from the vaccine.

That’s the message — and the authors and publisher have the clout to widely broadcast that message in a press release and in news headlines in Britain and America.

But what does the study actually say? In short, it asks the wrong question — and even so, the answer they get must be buried in the appendix, because it’s inconsistent with the message they want to promote.

Article summary omitted evidence of vaccine risk

The study design is deeply compromised because the 22 authors constructed a complicated model to avoid doing a straightforward comparison (vaccine only versus disease only).

And even after they cooked the books, even after they took data from almost 14 million children and teens under age 18 in England, they got a result that is barely statistically significant, with overlapping error bars for the risk from COVID-19 and the risk from vaccination.

It gets worse.

The results, which marginally favored the vaccination, were trumpeted in a summary at the top of the paper and announced to the press.

But buried in the appendix, published separately online, is a table that shows a more relevant version of the comparison.

The version in the summary is from an early time frame when the vaccine was not available. The appendix shows comparable data for the time frame in which the vaccine was available, limited to the ages for which the vaccine was offered.

In the appendix, the risk of myocarditis from the disease is half that of the risk from the vaccine. This blatantly contradicts the summary and the headlines generated by the article — and this was a response to the deceptive version of the question, not the more straightforward one that the researchers chose not to answer.

Study authors asked the wrong question

The most pertinent question is the simple one: Did vaccinated children have a higher incidence of myocarditis than unvaccinated children?

This is an easy question to answer, given the data that these authors (but not the public) had access to. In a few minutes, they could have calculated a rate of myocarditis among vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

However, if they did the calculation, they didn’t report the results. My guess is that they did the calculation, didn’t like what they saw, so they didn’t include it in the published article.

As I stated above, I believe the study authors “asked the wrong question.” What I mean is that the article compares the risk of myocarditis from COVID to the risk from vaccination.

But this is not the most relevant question. Why?

Because many people got the vaccine and then got COVID anyway, so they were unnecessarily exposed to both risks.

Conversely, many children who didn’t get the vaccine, didn’t get COVID. Or, they get such a mild case that they don’t even notice it. These children avoided both risks.

This is why comparing the risk of myocarditis from COVID to the risk from the COVID vaccine is not really the pertinent question. It’s not a question of “either or.”

Authors ‘muddied the waters’ by analyzing myocarditis in kids who got vaccine and the virus

The message the authors wanted to imply was that, even though the vaccine increased the risk of myocarditis, it decreased the risk of COVID — and since COVID itself can cause myocarditis, the total risk is actually lower with vaccination than without.

If that is their claim, it’s easy to determine if it is true. The simplest calculation they could have done with the data available to them was also the calculation most pertinent to what parents want to know: Is my child better off with or without the vaccine?

The authors chose not to offer us the simple answer to that straightforward question.

But — given that they asked the wrong question — they might have derived a clean answer just by comparing the subset of children who were vaccinated but never got COVID to the subset who got COVID but were never vaccinated.

Because the study included data spanning two years from all over the U.K., there were hundreds of thousands of children in these subcategories — more than enough to do a clean statistical comparison.

But again, the authors chose not to do this. Or, my guess, they did the comparison and didn’t like the result, so they didn’t include it in the publication.

Instead, the authors analyzed myocarditis in the large group of children who got both the vaccine and the disease. This muddied the waters because there is no clear way to determine whether it was the disease or the vaccine that damaged the child’s heart.

Hence, the complicated model, based on timing.

The possibility that seems likely is that children who got COVID after the vaccination had the highest heart risk of all. Of course, there is the logical possibility that children who got COVID after vaccination had a milder case, with a lower risk of myocarditis.

However, if that had been the result, I would think the authors would not only have included that result, but also headlined it.

One more thing — the study looked only at the Pfizer vaccine. Myocarditis risk from the Moderna vaccine is estimated to be three times higher than Pfizer. They had the Moderna data and chose not to look at it.

Or they looked at it, decided they didn’t like what they saw, and decided not to report it.

‘This is public relations masquerading as science’

So, to summarize:

  • The authors asked a complicated question when a simple one was more relevant.
  • Given this wrong question, they did not do the most straightforward analysis to answer it.
  • Even so, they found that the vaccine held almost twice the risk of myocarditis compared to the disease. This result was only in Table S16 of the Supplementary Appendix — but mentioned nowhere in the body of the paper, let alone in the summary at the top.
  • And still they made prominent announcements to the public, claiming that their study confirms that children are better off with the vaccine than without.

This is public relations masquerading as science. For an article like this to be peer reviewed and featured prominently in Britain’s most prestigious medical journal tells us just how deeply the ecosystem of medical research has been corrupted.

And this is the “science” that our U.S. Food and Drug Administration relies on when they approve dangerous vaccines for healthy children who are at almost no risk from the disease itself.

In most statistical articles, the raw data used for a study are published online and linked in an appendix to the article. However, in this case, the U.K. National Health Service (NHS) granted access to the data exclusively to this prestigious group of scientists.

Personally, I would like to see the raw data and perform the analysis that the 22 scientists should have done from the beginning. Children’s Health Defense is in the process of requesting access from the NHS. Stay tuned …

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 13, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Hezbollah: Syria not a model for Lebanon, weapons will not be taken to fulfill Israel’s demands

The Cradle | December 13, 2025

Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem declared on 13 December that the resistance is willing to cooperate fully with the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) but emphasized that it is not ready “for any framework that leads to surrender to the Israeli entity and the American tyrant.”

“Since the ceasefire agreement was reached, we have entered a new phase … Once the agreement was concluded, the state became responsible for ending the occupation and consolidating the army’s presence, and the resistance has done everything required of it,” Qassem declared during a ceremony organized by Hezbollah’s Women’s Organizations Units.

“The problem facing the state is not exclusively the issue of weapons to rebuild the country; rather, what is being discussed is an Israeli-American demand … With surrender, Lebanon will not survive, and Syria is a model before us,” the resistance leader emphasized.

“We will defend ourselves even if the sky were to close in on the earth. The weapons will not be taken away in implementation of Israel’s demands, even if the whole world unites against Lebanon,” Qassem added.

He also pointed out recent remarks by Diotto Abagnara, the commander of the UN Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL), who told Israeli media that Hezbollah is not rearming, contradicting Tel Aviv’s assertions to justify nonstop ceasefire violations in Lebanon.

During Saturday’s speech, Qassem also urged Lebanese authorities to “stop making concessions and backtracking.”

“Implement the agreement, and then discuss the defense strategy. Do not ask us not to defend ourselves, while the state is unable to protect its citizens. Let the state provide protection and sovereignty, and then we will put everything on the table for dialogue on the defense strategy, and reach a conclusion.”

Qassem’s speech coincided with Israeli threats to bomb a residential building in Yanouh, south Lebanon, hours after a UNIFIL and LAF patrol had inspected it.

According to local sources, the building was inspected at the direct request of the “mechanism committee” overseeing the one-sided ceasefire.

The house was alleged to have weapons, but the patrol found none. As the troops were preparing to leave, an Israeli drone hovered over the site, and UNIFIL received a request to conduct a second search of the house.

Israel has threatened to launch a major offensive against the country unless Hezbollah surrenders its weapons by the end of 2025. Washington has publicly backed Tel Aviv’s threats.

December 13, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Chinese Embassy lodges solemn démarche with Israeli side at earliest opportunity over Taiwan regional official’s visit

Global Times | December 13, 2025

Asked to comment on reports that Wu Chih-chung, the Taiwan region’s so-called “deputy foreign minister,” had recently paid a secret visit to Israel, a spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Israel said that Taiwan is a province of China and there is no such thing as a “foreign ministry.” China has consistently and firmly opposed any form of official interaction between countries that have established diplomatic relations with China and the Taiwan region. The Chinese Embassy in Israel has lodged a solemn démarche with the Israeli side at the earliest opportunity.

The spokesperson noted that the one-China principle is a widely recognized consensus of the international community and a basic norm governing international relations. It is also the political foundation and prerequisite for China’s establishment and development of diplomatic relations with countries around the world, including Israel.

The Joint Communique on China and the Government of the State of Israel on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations clearly states that “The Government of the State of Israel recognizes that the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China and Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China,” said the spokesperson.

The Taiwan question concerns China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and constitutes the core of China’s core interests. It is a red line that must not be crossed. We once again urge the Israeli side to earnestly abide by the one-China principle, correct its erroneous actions, cease sending any wrong signals to separatist forces advocating “Taiwan independence,” and take concrete actions to safeguard the overall development of China-Israel relations, the spokesperson added.

December 13, 2025 Posted by | Deception | , , | Leave a comment

Why is Britain now openly admitting the death of British soldiers in Ukraine?

Strategic Culture Foundation | December 12, 2025

The death of a British paratrooper reported this week was the first public admission by Britain’s authorities that a serving member of its armed forces has been killed in Ukraine.

The timing of the official disclosure and its very public, emotive nature raise questions about the motives of the British authorities. The news of the death comes at a critical moment when London and other European capitals seem desperate to sabotage efforts by U.S. President Trump to find a peaceful settlement to the nearly four-year conflict.

Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer led tributes in the British Parliament on Wednesday to Lance Corporal George Hooley, who was described as a “hero” who “served our country in the cause of freedom and democracy.”

The British media were plastered with fond photos and sentimental commendations of the dead paratrooper.

Britain’s Minister of Defense [sic] John Healey added: “George’s tragic death reminds us of the courage and commitment with which our outstanding armed forces serve every day to protect our nation.”

How exactly British soldiers in Ukraine are “protecting” Britain is not explained.

The Sun newspaper went further to whip up anti-Russian feelings when it subsequently reported that the Kremlin made “disgusting” comments about the death of the soldier. Moscow had simply dared to ask what the British soldier was doing in Ukraine in the first place, and pointed out that British personnel have been participating in “terrorist” attacks on Russian civilian centers along with Ukrainian military units. That much is fact. Ukrainian forces have been firing UK-supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles into Russian territory over the past two years. These missiles could not be operated without British personnel on the ground. Similarly, American-made HIMARS and ATACMS, which have also targeted Russian territory, have also necessarily involved U.S. personnel for operation.

It is an open secret that British, French, American, Polish, German, and other NATO forces have been deployed in Ukraine to fight against the Russian military. Up to now, the NATO authorities have maintained a cynical silence about their involvement, pretending that the estimated 30,000 foreign soldiers in Ukraine are “private mercenaries” who have no official affiliation. Russia’s warnings about NATO being a direct participant in war have been dismissed as “Kremlin propaganda”.

But Moscow’s claims have been previously corroborated. Pentagon classified documents leaked in 2023 indicated that 50 British special forces were deployed in Ukraine, making up the biggest contingency of other NATO commandos in combat with Russia.

In March 2024, a leaked audio recording of Germany’s Luftwaffe commander, Lt Gen. Ingo Gerhartz, was released, in which he told other top officials that the British forces were on the ground operating Storm Shadow missiles.

British elite forces from the SAS and SBS (Special Boat Service), which work in conjunction with the paratroop regiments, are known to operate underwater drones in the Black Sea to target Crimea.

It is estimated that 40 British nationals have been killed in combat in Ukraine, along with other NATO nationals. However, the American, British, French, and other authorities have kept a stony silence about the identities and circumstances, implying that the casualties were private mercenaries and “soldiers of fortune”.

Logically, the NATO powers want to deny the depth of their involvement in the conflict. They are supposed to “merely” support Ukraine with the supply of weapons to defend against “Russian aggression.” The admission of NATO armed forces on the ground is an acknowledgment of the reality that the U.S.-led military alliance is at war with Russia. Of course, many independent observers know that already as fact, as does Russia. Still, it behooves the NATO states to suppress the truth and maintain plausible deniability.

Russia has said, with justification, that all combatants in Ukraine are legitimate targets. That includes members of armed forces who claim to be “peacekeepers” or acting as “military advisors”.

Given the secrecy that Britain and other NATO nations have maintained about deployment in Ukraine, and over previous military casualties, it does seem strange that this week saw such a very public announcement about the death of the paratrooper.

The British authorities claimed that Lance Corporal Hooley was killed in an accident “far from the frontlines” while overseeing the testing of an “air defense system”.

That disclosure appeared to be aimed at portraying the soldier in a minimal role working on “defense”. Together with effusive eulogies in the British media for the paratrooper as an honorable person, the intended effect was to rally public sympathy and anger towards Russia.

Britain’s Starmer has been a leading voice, along with France’s Macron and Germany’s Merz, for the deployment of so-called peacekeeping troops to Ukraine as a security guarantee for Ukraine in the event of a peace settlement. The real agenda, however, is to sabotage any peace deal because the Europeans know full well that Russia would never accept such a presence, seeing it as a backdoor for escalating NATO participation in the conflict.

U.S. President Trump has belatedly realized that the proxy war is a dead-end for NATO, especially as Russian forces speed up their advances following the capture of key bastions, including Seversk, Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk), and Kupyansk. The British and the Europeans are in panic mode to keep the proxy war going because of their vested interests. They can’t accept defeat because of the fatal loss to their political image and fallout from the false narrative they have been spouting to justify a criminal proxy war.

One can expect various provocations and maneuvers to escalate the conflict to avoid peace. Declaring the death of a British soldier should be a damning admission of NATO being at war behind the backs of the public of NATO states. But rather than an admission of culpability, the British authorities, as with other European NATO leaders, are trying to rouse public support for escalation. The civilian head of NATO, former Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte, gave a speech in Berlin this week in which he stated that European nations must be ready for full-scale war with Russia, like “our grandfathers endured”. The insane European losers want to save their political necks with World War III.

December 13, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

Investigation Into U.S. Military Bioweapons-Origin of Tick-Borne Lyme Disease Successfully Added to 2026 NDAA

By Jon Fleetwood | December 12, 2025

U.S. Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) has successfully included his amendment to investigate whether the U.S. military weaponized ticks with Lyme disease into the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The ordeal underscores the national security threat posed by laboratory pathogen manipulation.

Rep. Smith, who is Co-Chair of the Congressional Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Caucus, had offered similar amendments—one in 2019 and the other in 2021—which passed the House, but failed in the Senate.

The successful addition of the amendment follows FDA Chief Dr. Marty Makary’s statements during a November podcast, in which Makary expressed his belief that Lyme disease was created in U.S. military Lab 257 on Plum Island, New York.

A Thursday press release from Smith’s office reads:

A critical amendment authored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) to investigate whether the U.S. military weaponized ticks with Lyme disease has been included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26 NDAA) (S. 1071), which has cleared the U.S. House of Representatives, headed to the Senate, and is expected to be signed by President Trump upon its final passage.

Smith’s amendment—now Sec. 1068 of the bill—directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO)—the Congressional “watchdog”—to investigate the Cold War-era Department of Defense (Department of War) bioweapons program and determine whether they ever used ticks as hosts or delivery mechanisms for biological warfare agents.

In the press release, Smith emphasized that “New Jersey has one of the highest Lyme rates in the United States—the disease is present in all 21 counties.”

“The pervasive presence of Lyme disease in New Jersey not only carries concerns for civilians, but also for the military personnel stationed in the state—especially and including those serving at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, part of which is located within my congressional district,” the republican added.

The press release explained that Smith’s amendments were inspired by Kris Newby’s book, Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons.

The book includes interviews with Dr. Willy Burgdorfer, the federal researcher and U.S. bioweapons specialist credited with discovering Lyme disease.

Dr. Burgdorfer has revealed that “he and other bio-weapons specialists injected ticks with pathogens in order to cause severe disability, disease, and even death to potential enemies in unsuspecting ways.”

Smith’s amendment in the NDAA would compel the Comptroller General of the United States “to conduct an exhaustive review of research conducted by the military, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and other federal agencies between the period of January 1, 1945 and December 31, 1972, regarding experiments involving Spirochaetales and Rickettsiales—two forms of tick-borne bacteria.”

Smith says we are now “one step closer to finally determining whether the U.S. government’s bioweapons program contributed to the proliferation of Lyme disease.”

“The hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans suffering from Lyme disease—in addition to the millions across the United States—deserve to know the truth about the origins of their illness. An enhanced understanding of how Lyme came to be will only assist in finding a cure for this debilitating disease,” said Smith.

Rep. Smith’s amendment reads:

SEC. 1068. GAO REVIEW AND REPORT ON BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS EXPERIMENTS ON AND IN RELATION TO TICKS, TICK-BORNE DISEASE.

(a) REVIEW.— The Comptroller General of the United States shall, to the extent practicable, conduct a review of research conducted during the period beginning on January 1, 1945, and ending on December 31, 1972, by the Department of Defense, including by the Department of Defense in consultation with the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Agriculture, or any other Federal department or agency on—

(1) the use of ticks as hosts or delivery mechanisms for biological warfare agents, including experiments involving Spirochaetales or Rickettsiales; and

(2) any efforts to improve the effectiveness and viability of Spirochaetales or Rickettsiales as biological weapons through combination with other diseases or viruses.

(b) LOCATION OF RESEARCH.— In conducting the review under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall review research conducted at facilities located inside the United States and, if feasible, facilities located outside the United States, including laboratories and field work locations.

(c) INFORMATION TO BE REVIEWED.—

(1) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.— In conducting the review under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall review any relevant classified information.

(2) MATTERS FOR REVIEW.— In conducting the review under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall review, among other sources, the following:

(A) Technical Reports related to The Summary of Major Events and Problems, US Army Chemical Corps, FY 1951–FY 1969.

(B) Site Holding: CB DT DW 48158
Title: Virus and Rickettsia Waste Disposal Study.
Technical Report No. 103, January 1969.
Corp Author Name: Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD.
Report Number: SMUFD-TR-103.
Publish Date: 1969-01-01.

(C) Site Holding: CB DT DW 60538
Title: A Plaque Assay System for Several Species of Rickettsia.
Corp Author Name: Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD.
Report Number: SMUFD-TM-538.
Publish Date: 1969-06-01.

(D) Site Holding: CB DW 531493
Title: Progress Report for Ecology and Epidemiology and Biological Field Test Technology, Third Quarter FY 1967.
Corp Author Name: Army Dugway Proving Ground, UT.
Publish Date: 1967-05-08.

(E) Any relevant scientific research on the history of Lyme disease in the United States.

(d) REPORT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.— Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives or the Senate a report that includes the following:

(A) A list of the research projects reviewed under subsection (a) and an assessment of the scope of such research.

(B) A finding by the Comptroller General as to whether such review could lead to a determination that any ticks used in such research were released outside of any facility (including any ticks that were released unintentionally).

(C) A finding by the Comptroller General as to whether such review could lead to a determination that any records related to such research were destroyed, and whether such destruction was intentional or unintentional.

(2) FORM OF REPORT.— The report required under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.

If the GAO does its job and follows the paper trail where it leads, this amendment may finally force the U.S. government to answer a question it has avoided for decades: whether a taxpayer-funded Cold War bioweapons program left millions of Americans paying the price with their health.

December 13, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Militarism, War Crimes | | 1 Comment

USAID linked to pharma testing on Ukrainians – Russian MOD

RT | December 12, 2025

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) could have been involved in testing pharmaceutical drugs on Ukrainians, a senior Russian military official said on Friday. The agency was officially closed by the administration of US President Donald Trump this summer.

According to Major General Aleksey Rtishchev, the head of Russia’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Troops, US officials have acknowledged defense-related work at biological laboratories in Ukraine.

He named, among others, former National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, former senior State Department official Victoria Nuland, and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Rtishchev noted that Cornell University organic chemistry professor Dave Collum told American journalist Tucker Carlson in an interview in August that pharmaceutical drugs had been tested on the Ukrainian population in 38 laboratories.

“To ensure secrecy, the customers behind such research are not military agencies but civilian agencies and non-governmental organizations. One such organization is the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which was dismantled by a decision of US President Donald Trump,” Rtishchev said.

According to the major general, USAID also provided funding for Event 201, a pandemic simulation exercise that focused on how to respond to a coronavirus outbreak. “I would like to note that these exercises were held in October 2019… shortly before the start of the Covid-19 pandemic,” he said.

Russia’s claims that USAID was involved in unlawful activity were reinforced, Rtishchev added, by comments made by billionaire Elon Musk, who previously headed a US government efficiency agency and has called USAID a “criminal organization.”

Musk alleged that USAID used taxpayer money to fund bioweapon-related research, and echoed claims that USAID supported gain-of-function coronavirus research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, suggesting that this could have contributed to the emergence of Covid-19.

Russia has raised concerns in the past about Pentagon-backed biological laboratories in Ukraine and other countries near its borders, suggesting that they are involved in bioweapons research.

December 13, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »