Republican Presidential Candidates Lining Up in Support of War on Mexico
By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | June 19, 2023
On April 10, I wrote about Republican presidential candidates being open to pursuing war on Mexico — sending the US military into Mexico to fight drug cartels despite the opposition of the Mexico government to such intervention.
Mexican-American War II advocates, I noted, included candidates Donald Trump, Asa Hutchinson, and Vivek Ramaswamy.
It turns out the list of Republican presidential candidates open to such US military action is longer. Republican presidential candidates Tim Scott and Nikki Haley have announced they support war on Mexico, as detailed by Brad Dress in a Saturday The Hill article.
Ron DeSantis, who has the second most support among Republican presidential primary candidates, has so far refrained from endorsing war on Mexico. Dress wrote:
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the top candidate after Trump, has not explicitly endorsed military action but said last month “we really need to hold the Mexican drug cartels accountable” over migration concerns.
If DeSantis were to come out strongly against war on Mexico, he could set himself apart from the field and challenge front-running candidate Trump’s claim to the title of “peace candidate” in the Republican presidential primary contest.
Copyright © 2023 by RonPaul Institute
Switzerland Votes to Keep Covid Laws & Vaccine Passes
Also voted for the Climate Protection Act
NAKEDEMPEROR | JUNE 19, 2023
Often, the narrative put forth suggests that the restrictions and mandates related to Covid-19 were enforced upon citizens by their governments. This viewpoint could seemingly imply that if left to the discretion of the masses, these lockdowns, social distancing protocols, and mandatory vaccinations might never have seen the light of day.
However, one nation stands as a testament against this theory – a control country allowing us to examine the public sentiment more closely – Switzerland.
Switzerland distinguished itself as one of the few nations globally that entrusted its citizens with the power to vote on measures concerning Covid-19. The first referendum took place in June 2021. It was a time when only approximately a third of the populace was vaccinated, yet the poll results exhibited a significant majority support for the Covid laws with a staggering 60.2% favouring them.
Not long afterwards, in November 2021, Switzerland’s second referendum took place. This vote was particularly contentious as it encompassed an array of substantial measures like stricter restrictions, comprehensive contact tracing, and the issuance of vaccination certificates. Despite the divisive nature of these policies, an even greater number of people endorsed them, with a 62% majority, which interestingly, was also the fourth-highest voter turnout in Swiss history, standing at 65.7%.
Surely, in 2023, the outcome would be different? Nobody is talking about Covid anymore. With the global narrative having largely moved on from Covid, would the Swiss people continue to support these laws?
Yes they would and no, in 2023 the outcome is no different. Yesterday, a rare third referendum was held. At the end of 2022, the Swiss parliament decided to extend some aspects of the Covid laws, including the vaccine certificates, until summer 2024. The reason given was that a dangerous new Covid variant may emerge and the authorities would have to react quickly. Due to the extension, opponents of the policies obtained enough signatures to force a new referendum.
Despite the ongoing contention, a significant majority of 61.9% voted in favour of these laws.
59% of voters also agreed to pass a climate change law which aims to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Opponents said the plan would drive up electricity use and prove too costly for consumers but authorities plan to incentivise households and businesses to be more climate-friendly.
It seems people never learn and Covid restrictions & vaccine passes could return tomorrow if a new health panic were to emerge.
UK Government Plans To “Unlock The Power Of Location Data,” Surveil Population Movements
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | June 19, 2023
The UK government has published its Geospatial Strategy 2030, an update to the one unveiled a decade ago – and the focus now is on “unlocking the power of location data,” as well as surveillance of population movements.
The document, prepared by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s Geospatial Commission, set up five years ago, claims that the implementation of the new strategy will “unlock” billions of pounds via “location-powered innovation,” thanks to using AI, satellite imaging and real time data.
Those behind the strategy are selling it as a way to better public services, create higher-paying jobs, and spur economic growth.
And to get there from here, the government proposes moving in three main directions: allowing technology to speed up what it calls geospatial innovation, push for more use of geospatial applications in the economy, and, as “mission 3” – “build confidence in the future geospatial ecosystem.”
First up, slated to be done by 2025, is a review of the Public Sector Geospatial Agreement (PSGA), which is described as the largest investment of the public sector in location data.
The same deadline is set for the National Underground Asset Register (NUAR) to become fully operational, the strategy revealed.
And what’s an example of a time when location-based insights turned out to be particularly valuable? Commission chairman Sir Bernard Silverman has the answer: during the pandemic, when outbreak tracking was allegedly of “critical” importance in making relevant public health decisions.
And going forward – this same type of insights will be again highly useful regarding climate change, energy security and economic growth, said Silverman.
By the end of this year, a report is expected to detail how location data can be utilized in the healthcare sector, while in addition to those areas already set in the new document, other potential targets include increasing the number of electric vehicle charge-points, and connected and automated mobility, among others.
The strategy explains that the plans laid out here represent a continuation of existing activities, now seeking to scale and ensure more investment.
The document also states that the Commission that produced it focuses on “innovation” and growing the geospatial ecosystem – “with initial targeted initiatives on remote sensing and population movement data.”
Kiev ‘Politically Pushed’ by NATO to Launch Counteroffensive Despite Being Unprepared
By Andrei Dergalin – Sputnik – 19.06.2023
The long-anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive, touted both by the regime in Kiev and its Western backers for months, finally began this month, although it seems that it has so far failed to produce the results its masterminds desired.
While Ukrainian forces demonstrated a remarkable aptitude for losing manpower and military hardware by charging across minefields into fortified positions held by Russian forces, they haven’t managed to get close to, let alone breach, the first line of Russian defense.
Retired USAF Lt.Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, a former analyst for the US Department of Defense, told Sputnik that Western media “has reported very little concrete information about the counteroffensive,” with much of the information on the subject coming straight from Ukrainian media and thus being “difficult to verify.”
According to Kwiatkowski, Kiev was “politically pushed” into launching this counteroffensive by “its NATO sponsors,” despite the fact that, as it turned out, Ukrainian forces simply weren’t prepared for it.
“The results are an increasingly desperate battlefield for Ukraine, and increasingly desperate measures being taken by Ukraine and its political leadership,” she said. “When I say desperate, I’m suggesting that the Ukrainian leadership has decided to write off regaining the eastern lands including Crimea and now are ready to do what they can to simply increase costs for Russia in the future – by destroying civilian and energy infrastructure, and the ability of that part of Ukraine to become productive as easily as they might.”
Rather than an actual counteroffensive meant to allow Kiev to seize control over Donbass and Crimea, Kwiatkowski argued, we are witnessing what she described as “dog in the manger” military scenario.
It also remains unclear whether NATO leaders and the Kiev regime are even in agreement about what the “end goal” of this “strangely-designed counteroffensive” actually is, the ex-DoD analyst mused.
“When US policymakers are asked about this ‘goal’ they say simply, ‘no peace, no freeze, keep fighting until the last Ukrainian,'” she added.
As Kwiatkowski explained, the Kiev regime and its NATO backers are unlikely to achieve any “serious progress” if they “continue solely with what they have been doing.”
Theoretically, Ukrainian forces might achieve success if their “ground and limited sea capability” could be “refreshed, well-led, focused on a specific mission, AND a specific counter-offensive coordinated with a temporary destruction of air command and control, or a major destruction of Russian airfields or aircraft,” she said.
However, “the very imaginative consideration of how many ducks would need to be in a row for this to succeed is mind-blowing, and certainly unsustainable by current Ukrainian capabilities,” Kwiatkowski remarked.
“In a sense, this has been the story of the Ukraine war — and fantasies that have fed Ukrainian political strategy since 2014. These fantasies are based in trust in American politicians and diplomats – who know very little about actual war-fighting, actual democracy, and economy,” she continued. “The same people who promised cakewalks and flowers in Iraq and new energy pipelines across Afghanistan, also promised Zelensky things that cannot be delivered.”
Kwiatkowski did warn, however, that this does not mean that the “neocons in the West, who have insisted upon this war, are not dangerous to Ukraine, Russia, and the rest of the planet.”
Israeli raid in Jenin escalates into full-scale battle
One of the Israeli Apaches which launched airstrikes on Jenin, pictured firing flares over the West Bank city during a battle between the Israeli army and resistance fighters. 19 June, 2023. (Photo credit: AFP)
The Cradle | June 19, 2023
Israeli troops launched a massive raid into the occupied West Bank city of Jenin on the morning of 19 June, resulting in the death of five Palestinians and the injury of at least 66, Palestinian media outlets reported.
The four killed have been identified as 21-year-old Khaled Assasa, 21-year-old Qais Jabareen, Ahmad Daraghmeh, 19-year-old Qassam Sariya, and 15-year-old Ahmad Saqr.
The raid began as usual, with the Israeli army storming Jenin to make arrests and facing heavy gunfire from resistance fighters.
Confrontations escalated significantly after members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s (PIJ) West Bank-based Jenin Brigade managed to ambush Israeli troops and detonate explosive devices targeting their military vehicles. Members of the Jenin Brigade opened fire at the vehicles following the explosions.
The Jenin Brigade named the operation “Fury of the Free.”
Israeli media outlets confirmed that seven Israeli soldiers were injured in one of the blasts, with unconfirmed reports suggesting deaths among the troops.
In a brief statement, the Jenin Brigade said: “We still have more surprises … we warn the occupation against continuing their aggression.”
As violence continued to escalate, Israeli helicopters launched airstrikes on Jenin, targeting the West Bank in an aerial attack for the first time in over 20 years.
The airstrikes were launched in order to secure the evacuation of the Israeli soldiers wounded in the resistance’s explosive attack, Israeli media said. Resistance fighters reportedly attempted to target Israeli helicopters with gunfire.
According to Palestinian media reports, the wounded Israeli soldiers remain trapped within one of the vehicles targeted in the blast.
In another brief statement, the Jenin Brigade claimed that the Israeli army was attempting to withdraw from Jenin, but the resistance was obstructing their escape from the area.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich was quoted as saying, in response to the events in Jenin, that “the time has come” for Israel to launch a full-scale military operation against the resistance in the occupied West Bank, which has grown beyond unprecedented levels in the last two years.
“I will request an emergency meeting of the Security and Political Security Council,” Smotrich said.
For months, Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir have been calling for a wide-scale West Bank operation to root out ‘terrorism’ in the area.
However, the military establishment has been mulling over the idea and is conflicted, as some believe that a cost of such an operation would be too high.
AfD politician speaks out against arming Ukraine
By Lucas Leiroz | June 19, 2023
Berlin is one of the biggest supporters of Kiev’s neo-Nazi regime, sending money and weapons in large sums so that the anti-Russian war machine remains active. However, not all German politicians seem to follow this bellicose mentality. In a recent speech in the German Parliament, an opposition deputy made clear his dissatisfaction with the current policy of sending weapons to Ukraine, showing that there is still a realistic and rational approach among local representatives.
The criticisms were made by Markus Frohnmaier, a deputy linked to the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. He questioned in his speech Germany’s real aims with its funding of Ukrainian activities. Frohnmaier classified Berlin’s policy as “carefree” and claimed that the people would be “fed up” with the irresponsible measures taken by the government. He also emphasized that Germans do not want to “pay for Kiev forever”.
The main targets of Frohnmaier’s criticism were German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Economic Affairs Minister Robert Habeck. The legislator even ironically questioned whether they were “Germans or Ukrainians”, in addition to mocking the names of the officials, mixing them with the names of Ukrainian political figures:
“Are you [Robert Habeck] the German or Ukrainian Minister of Economy? (…) This government, these Bandera-Baerbocks, these Volodymyr Habecks, these foreign administrators, they don’t give a damn about Germany”, he said.
Indeed, the parliamentarian’s targets are justified, considering the intensity with which both German officials work in defense of the interests of NATO and its proxy neo-Nazi regime. Annalena Baerbock has been one of the most prominent anti-Russian activists since the start of the special military operation, even going so far as to say that the European Union was “at war with Russia” during a speech in January. She has also been an emphatic instigator of war against Moscow, using her role as head of German diplomacy to encourage neutral countries to adopt anti-Russian measures, as seen in her recent visit to Brazil.
In the same vein, Robert Habeck’s administration has been disastrous. Prioritizing a liberal ideological agenda over the country’s strategic interests, Habeck has been one of those most responsible for the economic and energy crisis that hit Germany, in addition to being seen with strong opposition by the local population. He is, for example, the author of the unpopular proposal to replace oil and gas heating systems by green sources – a project that simultaneously meets the Western radical environmentalist plans and the anti-Russian agenda, as it endorses the end of energy cooperation between the two countries. A recent survey showed an 80% rejection to Habeck’s proposal among Germans, which shows how local people see his administration.
So, considering these facts, it is really justified for the AfD’s deputy to criticize the officials and denounce the government’s subservience to Ukrainian and Western interests. Germany has been one of the countries most affected by the diplomatic crisis that currently marks relations between Russia and the West, which is why it is urgent that there be a reconsideration of Berlin’s policy concerning its support for Ukraine.
One of the parties that has worked most in favor of these changes has been precisely the AfD. As well as Markus Frohnmaier, there are other party members who advocate a sovereign policy for Germany. As a party linked to the so-called “Eurosceptic movement”, the AfD strives to pressure the government to prioritize national interests over EU and US, which has driven a quest to improve ties with Russia.
For example, in September last year, the AfD sent a delegation of five affiliated politicians to visit Russia, including the four reintegrated regions, in a gesture of diplomatic goodwill in opposition to the hostility of the German state. As expected, these measures were enough for the mainstream media to describe the organization as “pro-Russia” and inaccurately accuse it of spreading “Kremlin propaganda“. The AfD is also often referred to as “right-wing extremist” because of its Eurosceptic stance, while ironically the Ukrainian neo-Nazism remains fully supported by the German government.
A curious fact is that this realistic and diplomatic approach that has been adopted by the AfD has contributed a lot to the increase in the party’s popularity. In a recent poll, the number of respondents saying that they would never vote for AfD dropped from 60% to 53.9%. The same survey also showed a drop in the preference for the Greens (a pro-government party to which both Baerbock and Habeck belong), who are in their worst position in the popularity ranking in five years. In practice, the numbers show that the more pro-war and anti-Russian politicians are, the less the German people support them.
In fact, despite popular support for rational and friendly relations with Russia, Berlin is strongly coerced by the US to act in a subservient way. The inertia of the country’s authorities in the face of evidence of American responsibility for the attack on the Nord Stream is a clear example of how Germany is currently not a truly sovereign state. However, the growth of a realistic and Eurosceptic mentality shows that changes can occur in the near future, generating hope for the local people.
Putin’s shocking revelations show there can be no negotiations with Kiev
By Drago Bosnic | June 19, 2023
Respecting deals between countries or governments goes back millennia and includes civilizations such as Sumerians and Ancient Egyptians. This was always considered a sort of litmus test of a certain country’s or ruler’s reputation and it stuck for a very long time. In essence, this practice predates the very concept of international law and is in many ways its direct predecessor. However, it would seem certain countries haven’t really got the memo about how important respecting treaties is and what disastrous consequences may follow if one doesn’t.
On June 17, during a meeting with a number of African leaders and delegates who came to Moscow to offer a solution that would end the Ukrainian conflict, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a shocking revelation and even gave details of a March 2022 peace deal with the Kiev regime. The agreement, titled the “Treaty on the Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine” (negotiated with the mediation of the Turkish government), was actually signed by the Kiev regime. However, the Neo-Nazi junta decided to discontinue its compliance with the treaty as soon as Russia kept its own initial end of the bargain.
Apart from other, more technical details, the deal included a clause that was supposed to be one of the key points of the Ukrainian Constitution and that would guarantee the country’s permanent neutrality. The very fact that Russia was insisting on this makes the claims that Moscow allegedly wanted to “conquer Ukraine” a moot point. In return for neutrality, the Russian military was to pull out and effectively end the special military operation (SMO). To back up his claims, President Putin also presented the relevant documentation of the abortive peace deal to the African delegates.
“I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, with President Erdogan’s assistance, as you know, a string of talks between Russia and Ukraine took place in Turkey so as to work out both the confidence-building measures you mentioned, and to draw up the text of the agreement. We did not discuss with the Ukrainian side that this treaty would be classified, but we have never presented it, nor commented on it. This draft agreement was initiated by the head of the Kiev negotiation team. He put his signature there. Here it is,” Putin stated and then presented the documents.
The documents also revealed that apart from Russia, other guarantors of the agreement were the United States, the United Kingdom and France. The only non-Western guarantor was China. The deal also specified the future size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), as well as what types of weapons and equipment it would be allowed to field. Expectedly, numbers proposed by the two sides were vastly different, as Moscow suggested the AFU shouldn’t have more than 85,000 soldiers, while the National Guard should be limited to 15,000. On the other hand, the Kiev regime insisted that the number should be 250,000.
In terms of weapons and equipment, Russia proposed that the AFU should be capped at 342 MBTs (main battle tanks), 1029 armored vehicles, 96 MLRS (multiple launch rocket systems), 50 combat and 52 support aircraft. However, for its part, the Neo-Nazi junta insisted on having 800 MBTs, 2400 armored vehicles, 600 MLRS, 74 combat and 86 support aircraft. The agreement was also supposed to include limitations on the number of ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles), MANPADS (man-portable air defense systems), mid to long-range SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems and several other types of weapons and military equipment.
To show that its goal was never to “conquer Ukraine”, as well as to demonstrate its readiness to honor the peace treaty, Moscow even pulled out its troops from northern Ukraine, including from the outskirts of Kiev it reached in mere days. Obviously, the actual aim of the SMO was to conduct an operation similar to that in Georgia in 2008, when Tbilisi was forced to sign a peace deal after it foolishly attacked Russian peacekeepers in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However, the Kiev regime withdrew from the talks immediately after the Russian military left northern Ukraine, clearly indicating that the Neo-Nazi junta never intended to honor the agreement.
“After we pulled our troops away from Kiev – as we had promised to do – the Kiev authorities … tossed [their commitments] into the dustbin of history. They abandoned everything,” Putin stated, adding: “Where are the guarantees that they will not walk away from agreements in the future? … However, even under such circumstances, we have never refused to conduct negotiations.”
Indeed, how is Russia to ever trust any official agreement signed by the Kiev regime when the latter repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to break any and every deal so far? Worse yet, the so-called “guarantors” from the political West have shown that they’re equally untrustworthy, as their (current and former) leaders have not only admitted, but are even openly boasting about “giving Ukraine time” by signing deals that they knew would be broken. This only reinforces the notion former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev (rightfully) insists on – negotiating deals with the political West and its vassals and satellite states only demonstrates weakness.
It should also be noted that thanks to this treachery, approximately 200,000 forcibly conscripted Ukrainians were sent to certain death, while at least twice as many have suffered permanent, life-altering injuries. Worse yet, these are not conclusive numbers, as there’s no indication that hostilities will end any time soon. Moscow clearly demonstrated that it didn’t want this, but it also showed what its armed forces are capable of. Either way, the political West awakened a sleeping giant that is extremely unlikely to go back to hibernation now that its opponents have shown their true colors.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
James Corbett Testifies at the National Citizens Inquiry
Corbett • 06/12/2023
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
On May 18, 2023, James Corbett testified to the National Citizens Inquiry in Ottawa on the subject of the WHO’s looming global pandemic treaty, the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations, and the One Health approach that is being used to justify an even greater centralization of power in the hands of unaccountable institutions in the name of “global health.” The presentation also includes information on the prospect of Canada or other member states withdrawing from the WHO, information on the technocratic roots of the One Health agenda, how states of exception are used to undermine constitutional rights, and much, much more.
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack / Download the mp4
DOCUMENTATION
| National Citizens Inquiry – #SolutionsWatch | |
| Time Reference: | 00:47 |
| National Citizens Inquiry homepage | |
| Time Reference: | 01:17 |
| Quotations from WHO Constitution | |
| Time Reference: | 05:19 |
| Zero draft of the WHO CA+ for the consideration of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body at its fourth meeting | |
| Time Reference: | 10:12 |
| WHO says COVID emergency is over. So what does that mean? | |
| Time Reference: | 13:20 |
| WHO chief declares monkeypox an international emergency after expert panel fails to reach consensus | |
| Time Reference: | 20:55 |
| Newsweek: PHEIC gives WHO widespread powers, up to and including “mobilizing NATO military assets” | |
| Time Reference: | 21:40 |
| Council of Europe: The handling of the H1N1 pandemic: more transparency needed | |
| Time Reference: | 23:01 |
| BMJ: WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies” | |
| Time Reference: | 23:04 |
| Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) submitted in accordance with decision WHA75(9) (2022) | |
| Time Reference: | 23:33 |
| Quote on Global Digital Health Certification Network from Implementation of the International Health Regulations (2005) |
|
| Time Reference: | 25:07 |
| CDC page on One Health | |
| Time Reference: | 33:27 |
| Quadripartite Secretariat for One Health | |
| Time Reference: | 35:24 |
| Sovereignty Coalition Press Conference: Get the US out of the W.H.O. | |
| Time Reference: | 40:12 |
| Biosecurity and Politics (Giorgio Agamben) | |
| Time Reference: | 43:15 |
| State of Exception by Giorgio Agamben | |
| Time Reference: | 51:33 |
| Universal Declaration of Human Rights | |
| Time Reference: | 51:59 |
| Lab-grown meat could be 25 times worse for the climate than beef | |
| Time Reference: | 55:21 |
| Shock: Elon Musk’s Grandfather Was Head Of Canada’s Technocracy Movement | |
| Time Reference: | 57:44 |
| Exploring Biodigital Convergence – Policy Horizons Canada | |
| Time Reference: | 01:01:04 |
| Denis Rancourt on excess mortality during the scamdemic | |
| Time Reference: | 01:15:40 |
| The Independent Panel: “Pandemic Preparedness” scores vs. death rates | |
| Time Reference: | 01:16:31 |
Media Attacks Spotify For Allowing Robert F Kennedy Jr. Joe Rogan Episode
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | June 18, 2023
Spotify, the audio streaming giant, is once again in the crosshairs of media critics for allowing an episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience” that featured Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The episode is accused of spreading vaccine “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories” without sufficient censorship by the platform, and the media is questioning Spotify’s decision to host it.
Joe Rogan, a major podcasting force in the US, hosted the three-hour long show that touched on vaccine skepticism, 5G technology, and alternative COVID-19 treatments. This comes as part of a broader scrutiny from media outlets urging platforms to put a lid on content that challenges mainstream narratives and contradicts the stances of global health organizations.
Media outlets including Vice and The Verge point fingers at Robert F. Kennedy Jr., known for his criticism of vaccines and pharmaceutical companies, for allegedly making several false claims during the podcast. These include the claim linking vaccines to autism and an assertion regarding vaccines containing harmful forms of mercury. The media’s bone to pick with Spotify is its decision to not clamp down on Kennedy’s suggestion that “Wi-Fi radiation” could play a role in various chronic illnesses.
Peter Hotez, Baylor microbiology professor and public health advocate, threw the spotlight on the issue by sharing a critical article via Twitter. Not one to back down, Rogan threw down the gauntlet to Hotez for a debate with Kennedy, sweetening the pot with a $100,000 donation to charity if Hotez agreed. He didn’t.
Despite the uproar and calls for censorship, Spotify defended its position. A spokesperson from the company maintained that neither Rogan nor Kennedy crossed the line in terms of the platform’s policies.
Spotify’s history with attacks from the media is somewhat checkered. Flashback to early 2022, when artists including Neil Young and Joni Mitchell yanked their music from Spotify as a show of protest against Rogan’s questioning of Covid vaccine efficacy, including his statement that vaccines don’t halt infection spread.
The Great Debate that won’t happen
Kennedy vs. Hotez might be a narrative-changer.
BY BILL RICE, JR. | JUNE 18, 2023
In south Alabama we have an expression: “If you’re scared, say you’re scared.”
Well, Dr. Peter Hotez – one of the best-known vaccine advocates and defenders of all the Covid mitigation measures – is obviously scared to death. He just needs to come out and admit it.
What scares Dr. Hotez is an invitation for him (Hotez) to debate presidential candidate and contrarian Covid expert Robert Kennedy, Jr. on Joe Rogan’s ultra-popular podcast show.
Apparently, Hotez kept bad-mouthing “disinformation super-spreader” Kennedy and Rogan finally had enough.
Rogan offered to donate $100,000 to Hotez’s favorite charity if Hotez would just come on his show and, in a debate with no time-table, debate Kennedy on vaccine effectiveness, safety and all the other allegedly “settled” Covid science.
As I write, the debate invitation has gone viral on Twitter with plenty of other wealthy people (like Steve Kirsch) ponying up money to make the debate happen. At last look, Dr. Hotez could net $1.5 million for his favorite charity by simply talking to Kennedy and Rogan for two or so hours.
Talk about easy money.
Needless to say, Kennedy is game for a “cordial” debate and, needless to say, he doesn’t need to be bribed to participate. He’ll do it for free and pay his own expenses to show up in the studio.
Truth be told (there’s that word – “truth”) … Nobody is surprised that Dr. Hotez is running from a genuine debate on Covid topics. This is because no expert in America has participated in a genuine debate on Covid topics in 40 months.
Apparently, one new feature of our “New Normal” “scientific method” is that real debates are no longer necessary.
In fact, they are strongly discouraged, which is exactly why Facebook, Google, YouTube, the CDC, “Joe Biden’s” White House and the corporate press have been pushing for censorship on steroids for so long.
For those who haven’t picked up on this yet, censorship also precludes real debates.
Hotez and every “expert” and authority of his ilk has been saying for almost four years that people like Kennedy who are spreading “disinformation” and “misinformation” are potentially killing and harming massive numbers of people with their false Covid claims.
According to the experts, the claims made by Kennedy, Kirsch (and Bill Rice Jr.!) are ridiculous, preposterous, obviously false, easily discredited, etc.
Such claims are interesting as they suggest that any debate with a Covid skeptic would be a lay-up or gimme to win. Even a cave man could humiliate RFK, Jr. in a debate about real science.
So, if victory would be so easy – and if one can make a couple million for his favorite charity – why not do this?
Speaking for myself, I’m tired of acting like I’m obtuse when I’m not. We all know the answer: The Dr. Hotez’s of the world are scared to death of a real debate.
If this isn’t a giant “tell” about these frauds and charlatans nothing is.
Also, every one of them are pro-censorship.
Facebook has been censoring content left and right for three-plus years, but Hotez’s cabal of “influencers” are demanding that Congress and the White House make social media companies censor even more content/speech that they don’t like.
The entire justification for North Korea-style censorship is that the disinformation spreaders are harming people. Presumably, Hotez’s noble goal is to save lives and shut up all the “disinformation” spreaders.
Well, what would shut them up more than a pay-per-view prize fight between one of the leading advocates of the Status-Quo narrative and the best known Covid skeptic in the world?
Once Dr. Hotez wipes the floor with Kennedy, every other vaccine super spreader will crawl back into a cave and keep his mouth shut from here on out.
My side will be disgraced and humiliated … and every neutral person will now know this.
In one fell swoop, the “disinformation” movement will suffer a lethal blow. Millions of lives will be saved because, in the future, everyone will know that Dr. Peter Hotez and Dr. Anthony Fauci were exactly right with everything they said about Covid.
Not only will Kennedy lose this “science” debate, his hopes of pulling an upset and winning the White House will also go down the toilet.
Dr. Hotez would be THE hero to all the groups, companies and bureaucracies who are having nightmares about Kennedy beating their chosen candidate, “Joe Biden.”
Kennedy’s Children Health Defense non-profit, which has been growing by leaps and bounds, would wither up and die.
Everyone would know that not only did the Covid vaccines save millions of lives, they’d also know that the massive spike in autism cases in recent decades had nothing to do with vaccines and the flu vaccine – which is now being questioned by more and more Americans – would once again be perceived as a must-get annual shot.
Hotez could also put to bed the claim that his side is anti-free speech because they would be allowing Kennedy and Rogan to deploy their dad-blasted free speech in said “debate.”
“See, we are NOT censors and we do believe in free speech and genuine debates in our democracy,” Hotez could show the world in this debate.
For all these reasons, it would seem Dr. Hotez and his side would achieve a panoply of positive, life-saving results, with no down-side whatsoever.
The only downside might be if, Hotez, in fact got annihilated in this debate and every American who witnessed the event started questioning all the claims the experts had made in the last four years (or decades for that matter).
But this scenario can’t be a possibility because the science is so “settled” and Kennedy is such a “wacko” and conspiracy theorist that he would have no chance of prevailing in any debate … right?
Of course, we all know Dr. Hotez knows he’d get his ass whipped in any debate with Kennedy. Fauci knows this, The New York Times knows this, Bill Gates knows this, every commentator at MSNBC and CNN knows this.
“Whatever you do, do NOT debate Robert Kennedy on Covid topics!” they are all now screaming at Dr. Hotez.
If the debate is held, it will set Internet ratings records. The fact that Hotez is running from said debate is already giving another huge boost to the presidential campaign of RFK, Jr, who is having no trouble going around the MSM “gatekeepers of the news,” who all despise and fear him.
In fact, that’s another reason the debate can’t be allowed. It’s almost a given that RFK, Jr. would go off on the captured mainstream press in said debate.
Dr. Hotez would be the one defending the credibility of The New York Times and singing the praises of Big Pharma, which has of course always been as honest as the day is long.
If enough Americans keep calling Dr. Hotez a sissy, maybe this will goad the previously cocky doctor into taking the bait and actually debating Kennedy.
If so, this might qualify as a game-changer and give the world it’s very first honest discussion of Covid policies. It might also help elect a president who genuinely wants to dismantle the Military Industrial Complex and the Science/Medicine Industrial Complex.
But my bet is Dr. Hotez won’t debate.
There’s another expression we’ve all heard: “You can run, but you can’t hide.” Well, in our surreal New-Normal times, apparently the experts and authorities CAN run and they can hide. That’s what they’ve been doing for 40 months and, as far as I can tell, they are still in power. So that strategy is working perfectly.
What’s Wrong With This Study? CDC Finds COVID Shots ‘Safe and Effective’ for Kids Under 4
By Angelo DePalma, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 16, 2023
An analysis published earlier this month in Pediatrics concluded the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are safe and effective in preschool-age children — a conclusion trumpeted by media outlets such as Parents and Medscape.
But the study, conducted by Kaiser Permanente researchers with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), raises more questions than it answers.
Researchers followed children (mostly 4 years old or younger) who collectively received more than 245,000 doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA products and “found no indications of serious side effects,” according to a Kaiser Permanente news release.
Using a form of surveillance monitoring known as rapid cycle analysis, investigators performed weekly sequential analyses for 19 safety signals, including myocarditis, pericarditis, seizures, heart attack, Bell’s palsy, neurological inflammatory conditions, anaphylaxis and several others.
The study period was from June 2022 to March 2023.
Instead of using a comparable group of unvaccinated children as the control, the authors compared adverse events occurring 1-21 days after vaccination in one group, with outcomes among children in another group who had received the shot at some point between 22 and 42 days previously.
Time since inoculation was the only distinguishing feature, and the only factor that might account for inter-group differences.
The study, therefore, boils down to the question of whether children who received an mRNA shot about 10 days previously experienced more or fewer adverse events than children who received their jab about 32 days previously.
Data were mined from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), a repository of patient data from eight private healthcare systems, which included five Kaiser Permanente regions and three other large health entities.
Up to three doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech product were given to 135,000 children, ages 6 months to 5 years, while 112,000 children, ages 6 months to 6 years, got the Moderna gene therapy.
Subject demographics more or less reflected the populations served by these healthcare companies.
The authors wrote that their safety surveillance over nine months “did not detect a safety signal for any outcome during the 21 days after vaccination. Importantly, no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis occurred after vaccination.”
The accompanying press release framed the conclusion even more positively. According to corresponding author Dr. Nicola Klein:
“Parents can be assured that this large study found no serious side effects from the mRNA vaccines. … Parents can protect their young children from COVID-19 in the same way they vaccinate their children to protect from other serious childhood diseases.”
Perhaps anticipating the long list of questions regarding their work, the researchers discussed the potential limitations of their analysis, which they said included:
- Reduced statistical power, particularly for rare outcomes.
- Low vaccine uptake in the evaluated age group (“only” 24.7% of the eligible population received at least one shot).
- Surveillance did not include “all potential safety concerns.”
And the kicker:
“We may have underestimated or missed potential safety concerns if the biologically plausible risk interval for an outcome differed from our specified risk interval.”
Together, the choice of control group and the time period selected almost guaranteed “reduced statistical power,” particularly when comparing the two groups.
In a 2022 paper Klein noted reports from “worldwide” sources of myocarditis/pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 treatments “especially among younger male persons [italics mine] 0 to 7 days after receiving dose 2.”
Although the incidence of heart inflammation was low in the 0-5 age group for the Pfizer product (14.4 per million doses, mostly after the second shot), the incidence of serious cardiac events rose markedly for older groups.
No data were available in the 2022 study for the Moderna shot.
For 18- to 29-year-old males — the youngest age group for which both Pfizer and Moderna data were available — Klein reported, based on VSD numbers, a cumulative myocarditis/pericarditis incidence of 135 cases per million for children who had received the two injections plus the booster.
For the Moderna product, the incidence was 185 per million. For females, the rates were about 10 per million for both mRNA shots.
Given the serious long-term consequences of heart inflammation, and its known occurrence among vaccinated teenagers and young adults, one wonders at the wisdom of giving mRNA shots to children who are even younger than those known to get sick from the treatments.
COVID-19 itself has been blamed for the rise in heart inflammation, but a search for data from very early in the pandemic, before this storyline emerged (possibly to hide the incidence of “vaccine” injuries), shows this to be a red herring.
A 2022 Italian study comparing myocarditis/pericarditis incidence pre- and post-COVID-19 reported that the annual incidence of myocarditis was significantly higher before the pandemic than during, with a rate of about 80 per million “pre” and 60 per million “during.”
The authors made a point to emphasize that “the incidence of myocarditis was significantly lower in COVID than in PRECOVID in the class of age 18-24 years” than for their general study population, which averaged 40 years of age.
The incidence of pericarditis was unchanged between the two time periods, at about 45 per million.
Comparing data from two far-flung studies should be undertaken with caution. However, the difference between a baseline of fewer than 60 cases per million for 18- to 24-year-old adults (the Italian study) and the 185 per million for “male persons” between 18 and 29 post-mRNA treatment (Klein et al.) clearly and inconveniently shatters the “safe and effective” narrative.
The lack of statistical power in Klein’s 2023 study, despite a very large “denominator” (total patients studied), is almost certainly due to the relatively small number of cases — which is exactly what one would expect when uncommon (but serious) side effects over such short time periods are compared.
True, this is an apples-to-apples comparison — but in this case, investigators pretty much used the exact same apples and reported their similarities as somehow noteworthy.
Klein’s data source(s) raise additional questions. Although the VSD is connected to the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), how much of her raw data came from VAERS and how much came from VSD is unclear.
Eleven of VSD’s 13 participating commercial and academic hubs are “data reporting sites” whose contributions presumably include vaccine side effect reports.
The concern here is about motives and incentives. VAERS data are based mainly on self-reporting and are known to be gross underestimates of the actual number of incidents.
By contrast, hospitals and healthcare systems, e.g. those participating in VSD, were robustly incentivized to promote and administer the COVID-19 shots.
Along those lines, note that one author “received funding from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention for a study unrelated to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines.” And lead investigator Klein “received grants from Pfizer for coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine clinical trials and from Merck, GSK, and Sanofi Pasteur for study work unrelated to the current study work.”
The rationale for immunizing children against COVID-19 has been hotly debated since the shots were first available to older adults in late 2020.
But by the time these treatments were authorized for children, it was already clear that kids do not get very sick from COVID-19 and are not a significant source of infection, either for the community or for “grandma” in her rocking chair at home.
As of early 2021, with the huge wave of Delta-variant fatalities in freefall, the number of U.S. pediatric COVID-19 deaths reported by the CDC was close to zero, both in terms of absolute cases and as a percentage of all deaths.
Yet in her interview with her institution’s media department, lead author Klein said:
“Even as the COVID-19 emergency has ended, we know that the coronavirus poses a long-term, serious threat to all ages, including children. Vaccinating children against COVID-19 benefits them by reducing the burden of illness, avoiding spreading the virus to family and others, and mitigating the small but real risk of serious illness.”
Angelo DePalma, Ph.D., is a contributing editor for The Defender.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Featured Video
BRITAIN’S WARNING: PREPARE FOR WAR
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archive
How Ukraine Tortured and Slaughtered Donbass
By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | July 11, 2024
Almost immediately after the proxy war erupted, ISIS-tier footage of the torture and murder of Russians in Ukrainian custody emerged.
On July 6th, the New York Times published an astonishing investigation: In Ukraine, Killings of Surrendering Russians Divide an American-Led Unit. The article documents in grim detail how Chosen Company, an international volunteer battalion for Kiev, routinely executes Russian prisoners of war. It is the very first mainstream admission that this practice – a brazen breach of the Geneva Conventions, and a grave war crime – is widespread among Ukraine’s fighters, both foreign and homegrown. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Pentagon designates Chinese cultural centers national security threat
- Israel Demolishes Home Of Lebanese Journalist Whose Viral Film Exposed Pager Attack
- Record Oil, Empty Tanks: The UAE’s Miracle Recovery
- Burnham tackles Britain’s poverty with aggression in Yemen
- Peace in Ukraine: the easy way – or the hard way
- Trump & the Rrrrussians
- US taxpayer money laundered back through Ukraine – Musk
- Before COVID, an NIH lab chief proposed making a SARS-like bat virus more infectious
- Gates, Bourla on Trial in Netherlands Accused of ‘Great Reset’ Scheme at Vaccine Injury Hearing
- BRITAIN’S WARNING: PREPARE FOR WAR
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
