Matt Gaetz’s Brilliant Exposé on Israel Partisans’ Claims of “Antisemitism”
If Americans Knew | September 11, 2026
From The Matt Gaetz Show on OAN (One America News), Matt Gaetz exposes the dishonest double standard in American politics meant to shut down the conversation as support for Israel in the United States continues to collapse. “The Republican Jewish Coalition can say that they took out Thomas Massie but if you say they did, that is anti-Semitic. And if you say Israel caused the Iran War, that’s bigotry—unless it’s uttered by Netanyahu on the campaign trail, then it’s leadership.” – Matt Gaetz.
Source: https://x.com/OANN/status/20974901703…
Gaetz is a political commentator and former Republican Congressman from Florida. He generally identifies as a libertarian populist.
The Vitamin K Injection (2026)
A new paperback on what’s in the shot every newborn is offered in the first hour of life
Lies are Unbekoming | September 12, 2026
Every U.S. newborn is offered a shot in the leg in the first hour of life. Parents are rarely told the shot exists until the moment it is about to be given.
The new paperback is out today. It examines that shot.
What’s in the book
Twenty-seven chapters walk through what the vitamin K injection actually is, what it contains, what the manufacturers themselves warn against, what the studies did and didn’t find, and where the current framework came from.
The intervention itself. The three products currently in use in English-speaking countries — the U.S. Hospira formulation with its polyoxyethylated castor oil and benzyl alcohol preservative, the UK Konakion MM Paediatric with its glycocholic-acid mixed-micelle vehicle, and the Australian Konakion MM Paediatric with its lecithin base. What each carries alongside the vitamin K itself. The depot vehicle that keeps the injection releasing into the baby’s tissue for two months after the needle comes out. The aluminum contamination the manufacturer discloses without context. The peanut allergy pathway the mainstream literature acknowledges but does not track.
The manufacturer’s own warnings. Every current package insert opens with a boxed warning against the exact route of administration hospitals universally use. Every insert lists a set of adverse reactions — anaphylaxis, cyanosis, gasping syndrome, skin necrosis, cardiovascular collapse — that the doctors administering the shot are largely unaware of and that parents are never shown.
The history. A 1961 AAP recommendation set by a small committee that did not test what it was recommending. A 1985 quiet shift from targeted to universal injection. A 1992 cancer signal from a large UK cohort study that was dismissed rather than investigated. The menadione (K3) disaster that hospitals eventually withdrew — but only by switching products, never by pausing to ask whether the intervention itself was needed. Dam and Doisy’s 1943 Nobel, awarded for work in starved chickens, later used to justify universal injection of healthy newborns.
The alternatives. The oral vitamin K protocols in continuous use in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark. Their dosing schedules, their VKDB failure rates, their published surveillance data. Maternal supplementation as a route the doctors could offer but don’t. The physiologic support at birth that most modern maternity practice has already adopted for other reasons but has never been asked to interact with the shot.
The system machinery. The standing-order framework that bypasses individual consent. What refusal actually costs the parent, and what it usually doesn’t cost the baby. The circumcision-clotting interaction that turns one cultural habit into justification for another.
Two personal stories. A father’s account of what happened after his son’s shot. A mother’s account of what changed the week the injection was administered.
Two practical tools. A checklist of questions for the practitioner conversation. A country-by-country reference of the oral protocols with dosing, timing, and documented outcomes.
And at the end of every chapter, a short section titled How to Explain It to a Six-Year-Old.
If you’re picking one up, pick two
The natural pigeon pair for The Vitamin K Injection is The Unvaccinated: What a Forbidden Comparison Reveals About the True Cost of Vaccination. The two examine the same institutional logic from different angles. Vitamin K is the first injection most newborns receive; the childhood schedule follows. Both document what the mainstream literature won’t compare, won’t study, and won’t offer as choice.
The book
The Vitamin K Injection: What the Evidence Shows
First edition. 300 pages. 6×9 paperback, matte cover, cream paper.
ISBN 978-1-7648990-4-8
USD 19.99 / EUR 18.99 / AUD 29.99 / GBP 15.99 / CAD 26.99
The full catalogue lives on the Unbekoming Spotlight.
13 Things Your Pediatrician Was Trained Not to Tell You
An Essay on the Profession Trained for Compliance, Not Curiosity
Lies are Unbekoming | September 11, 2026
This essay engages material framed in establishment terms: vaccines, immunity, deficiencies, contagion, developmental disorders. In quotation, attribution, and official body names, that vocabulary appears as the establishment uses it. In my own analytical voice, the terrain paradigm operates. The two registers do different work. One shows what the profession says about itself. The other names what is happening to the child.
The Training
“Nothing bad should be said about any vaccine.”¹ That is what Suzanne Humphries, a board-certified nephrologist, was taught during her American medical training. Vaccines are administered on schedule. Adverse conversation was not encouraged. It was actively closed down.
Lawrence Palevsky, a pediatrician practicing in New York, describes the same experience. What he was taught in medical school and residency, he later realized, differed sharply from what he observed in his own patients and read in the primary literature.²
Robert Sears, a California pediatrician, describes reading a book in medical school that documented severe injuries from the DTP (diphtheria-tetanus-whole-cell-pertussis) vaccine. The vaccine was eventually removed from the American market. Sears kept reading. What he found was not what he had been taught.³
Rachael Ross, a family physician who spent three seasons cohosting the syndicated show The Doctors, described a similar reckoning in a widely read 2016 blog post. She had watched the schedule grow from sixteen doses of four vaccines during her own childhood to sixty-nine doses of sixteen vaccines by age eighteen. Medical school and residency, she wrote, had taught her to give them all on time, without question.⁴
Jayne Donegan, a British general practitioner, wrote in the foreword to Humphries’ Dissolving Illusions that her medical training left vaccination as an “article of faith” that could not be interrogated. The curriculum was already so crowded that there was no room to ask why non-vaccine-preventable disease deaths had also declined during the twentieth century for reasons unrelated to any injection.⁵
None of these physicians is fringe. Each trained inside the profession. Each describes the training in similar terms: a set of scripts about safety, efficacy, and schedule, delivered as certainties, with no time in the curriculum to interrogate the primary literature that would complicate them. A pediatrician does not know what she was trained not to know. She cannot ask questions she was trained not to ask.
American pediatric practice covers the child from birth through age eighteen, and in many practices through age twenty-one. What follows is a chronological walk through what that profession was trained not to tell you, across that entire arc. Thirteen items. In order.
1. The Cord Cut Before the Blood Finished Moving (birth)
A newborn’s blood volume is meant to be topped off from the placenta in the minutes after birth. When the cord is left intact and pulsing, roughly a third of the baby’s total blood supply, along with the iron that supply carries, transfers across before the placenta is expelled. That iron is the reserve intended to carry the child through the first six months of life.
The standard hospital practice throughout the late twentieth century was to clamp within seconds. The World Health Organization now recommends waiting at least one minute. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists came around in 2017. Most hospital deliveries in the United States still clamp early, driven by workflow, the neonatal warmer schedule, and the syringe already on the tray.
Your pediatrician does not raise this. The obstetrical team performed the clamp. The pediatrician receives the baby afterward and plots the numbers she is given. The infant she inherits is the infant who lost a third of the placental transfusion at hour zero.
Six months later, that same pediatrician will run an iron level, note the low result, and prescribe supplementation. The low reading she treats was produced by the system at birth. She is not trained to draw the line between the two events. She is trained to run the number and write the script.
The curious pediatrician would ask what a child born with a full complement of placental blood looks like at six months. The compliant pediatrician cannot ask, because the reference population she was trained on is the population that was clamped early.
2. The Vitamin K Injection (first hours)
Within hours of birth, the newborn receives an intramuscular injection of phytonadione, the compound sold as vitamin K1. The dose is one milligram. Breast milk carries roughly one to two micrograms of phytonadione per liter, and a newborn’s colostrum intake on day one delivers a fraction of a microgram; the injection is thousands of times that dose, and the published pediatric literature confirms that plasma phytonadione levels for two weeks after the shot run one to two thousand times higher than normal adult values. The injection also contains benzyl alcohol, polysorbate 80, and propylene glycol as excipients. The delivery site is the infant’s leg. The parent, if consulted at all, is told the shot prevents a bleeding condition called hemorrhagic disease of the newborn.
The condition exists. What is not explained is why. Newborn phytonadione levels are low at birth by design; the compound is produced by the gut bacteria that colonize the infant’s digestive tract in the first days, and levels rise on the biological schedule the infant’s body follows. Levels are further supported by the maternal transfer that continues through breastfeeding. The “deficiency” the injection corrects is the state a healthy newborn is meant to occupy for the first days of life while the gut ecology establishes itself.⁶
The bleeding events the injection is designed to prevent cluster in infants who have been subjected to the standard hospital birth sequence: early cord clamping, which strips the placental transfusion of clotting factors; maternal medications passed through delivery; the injection itself as a source of tissue injury; and, in male infants, circumcision. The intervention creates the conditions in which bleeding becomes more likely, then presents itself as the solution to the problem it has helped produce.
Two forms of the shot exist. The oral form is available in some countries and delivers a smaller dose across three administrations in the first weeks of life. The intramuscular form is the American standard. The intramuscular form has been associated in the published literature with elevated rates of childhood cancer, a finding disputed by subsequent industry-funded studies but never resolved. The oral form does not appear in that literature.⁷
This is the first injection. It is the moment at which the infant’s body, hours old, receives an industrial compound at pharmacological doses that no biology has any history with, into a system that has been producing its own supply on schedule for as long as human infants have been born. It is also the moment at which bodily sovereignty is handed over: the first substance introduced by needle before the first feed, before the first look at the mother’s face, before any element of the child’s own biology has had time to establish itself. The parent is rarely told what phytonadione is, where it comes from, what else is in the syringe, or that an oral alternative exists. The consent process is a signature.
Your pediatrician was trained that hemorrhagic disease is prevented by the injection. She was not trained to ask why the disease clusters in the population subjected to the delivery-room sequence, or what a newborn’s clotting profile looks like when the earlier interventions never happened.
3. The Hepatitis B Shot Before the First Feed (first day)
Hepatitis B, in the establishment’s account, is transmitted through blood-to-blood contact or sexual contact. In the United States it is given as an injection to every newborn within twenty-four hours of birth, regardless of the mother’s status. Denmark, which shares its borders with high-travel Europe, gives the shot only to infants born to mothers who carry the condition themselves.⁸
The safety claim rests on clinical trials. Those trials, for hepatitis B and for the childhood schedule generally, do not compare the vaccine to an inert placebo. The comparator is another aluminum-adjuvanted formulation, or a different vaccine, or the “background” mixture of the product minus the antigen. Adverse events in the “placebo” arm therefore match adverse events in the vaccine arm, because both arms received a substance that produces adverse events. The trial reports that the vaccine is “safe compared to placebo.” The label reflects the conclusion. What the label does not reflect is that the placebo was not a placebo. This is the load-bearing methodology under every safety claim on the childhood schedule. No vaccine on the schedule has been tested against saline in a pediatric population large enough to detect serious harm.⁹
The consent process at the American bedside is not consent. The mother has just given birth. The Vaccine Information Statement is handed over as the needle is prepared. The package insert, which contains the excipients, the adverse event history, and the acknowledged absence of long-term studies, is not offered. The CDC itself states that the Vaccine Information Statement is not an informed-consent document.¹⁰
The Belmont Report, drafted after the 1974 Research Act, identifies the three components of ethical consent: information, comprehension, and voluntariness.¹¹ The pamphlet handed to the mother is not information. The mother in her eighteenth hour of labor cannot comprehend the pamphlet even if she reads it. The room in which declining is coded as neglect does not offer voluntariness.
The Emergency Use Authorization products marketed for children under twelve during the COVID period had blank package inserts.¹² There was no clinical trial data to disclose. There was nothing to comprehend. The consent form still had a signature line.
Your pediatrician does not raise the Belmont Report. She does not know it exists. She was trained to hand over a pamphlet. Consent, as the Belmont Report defines it, was not part of the training.
4. The Circumstraint (first days)
Boys born in American hospitals are commonly circumcised within the first forty-eight hours of life. The procedure is elective, performed on healthy tissue, without therapeutic indication. The device most commonly used to hold the infant during the procedure is called the Circumstraint, a plastic form that immobilizes the baby’s arms and legs so the surgeon can work.
Forrest Maready has written on what happens inside the infant’s body during this event.¹³ Three triggers activate the dorsal vagal complex simultaneously: the injected local anesthetic registers as chemical intrusion, the incision as tissue injury, and the strap and plastic form as restraint. The infant cannot fight and cannot flee. Under sustained restraint, the primal system routes into shutdown. Images of babies on the Circumstraint mid-procedure show glassed-over eyes and a stillness that is not calm. It is dissociation, the same primal response animals and reptiles exhibit under capture, and the same response World War I soldiers exhibited when frozen in place under sustained fire.
The procedure requires written consent. It does not require informed consent. Parents are not shown the Circumstraint, or what dorsal vagal shutdown looks like. They are told the boy will not remember.
Whether the child remembers with his cortex is beside the point. The body remembers with its wiring. Maready traces the same trigger pattern, the same shutdown response, in the shots administered later, where the parent’s or nurse’s restraint constitutes the third trigger and delivers the injected metals into a body whose lymphatic system is now primed to transport them.
Your pediatrician was not trained in polyvagal theory. The circumcision was billed separately, performed by a different practitioner, and by the time she sees the child for the first well-baby visit, the file is closed and the incision has healed.
5. The Formula Sample in the Discharge Bag (first weeks)
Breast milk is more than food. It is a continuation of the mother’s biology into the infant. It delivers living stem cells, signalling molecules, protective proteins, and dozens of maternal components the infant’s biology integrates into its own.¹⁴ Colostrum in the first days carries a concentration of maternal material no manufactured product can replicate. The list of components identified in breast milk grows every year.
What formula provides is a mix of macronutrients dissolved in vegetable oils, built from cow’s milk protein or soy. It is what a mother feeds her baby when the biology cannot function or when she has no other option. It is not equivalent to what it replaces.
Formula recommendation frequently begins in the hospital. If the baby is slow to latch, if the mother is exhausted, if the nursing staff has other beds to turn over, a bottle of formula appears. The discharge bag contains a formula sample. The pediatrician’s office keeps sample cans for the first well-baby visit. What the office does not keep is a lactation consultant on staff.
The consultant costs money. The formula is provided by the manufacturer. The infrastructure of the American pediatric practice is built around the availability of formula and the absence of professional breastfeeding support. When troubleshooting is needed, the referral goes to a private lactation consultant the family pays for out of pocket, or, more commonly, the referral does not go anywhere and the mother receives a can of Similac.
The pediatrician was trained to identify failure to thrive. She was not trained to identify a poor latch, an undiagnosed tongue tie, engorgement, mastitis, or the constellation of ordinary breastfeeding difficulties that resolve with skilled support. The training treated breastfeeding as a preference and formula as a substitute of equivalent value. Neither claim survives the primary literature.
6. The Growth Chart Announcement (every visit)
At every visit, the baby is weighed and measured. The numbers are plotted against a curve. The pediatrician announces the percentile. Anything below the fiftieth is met with concern. Anything below the tenth triggers supplementation, formula, referrals, and repeat visits.
The curve is a statistical instrument. It plots where a population’s babies actually fell, not where healthy babies should fall. The reference standards against which most American pediatricians still work were built substantially on formula-fed populations, until the World Health Organization revised its curves in 2006 based on breastfed infants. A breastfed baby, whose weight-gain curve flattens naturally after four to six months, tracks below the older references and appears to be failing. The formula-fed baby was the standard against which the breastfed baby was measured and labeled as failing to thrive.
The percentile is not a diagnosis. Half of all babies are, by definition, below the fiftieth percentile. This is what percentiles are. The pediatrician’s alarm at the number is not a medical judgment. It is a script triggered by a chart.
The mother leaves the visit worried about her baby’s weight. She adds a bottle. The pediatrician marks the intervention on the record. At the next visit, if the number has climbed, the intervention is validated. If it has not, the recommendation escalates. More bottles. Iron drops. Cereal at four months. Formula-based supplementation.
The chart does not measure the child’s thriving. It measures her position relative to a reference population that was itself constructed by earlier interventions. The chart manufactures the pathology it then addresses.
7. The Iron Drops at Six Months (six months)
The four-month or six-month iron level comes back low. The pediatrician prescribes ferrous sulfate drops or recommends iron-fortified cereal. The parent complies. The drops stain the baby’s teeth, alter the stool, and are frequently spit up. The parent gives them anyway because the pediatrician said the number was low.
The number was low because the placenta was cut early. The reference range was developed on infants who were also cut early. The whole system, from delivery-room workflow to the reference range on the lab printout, was calibrated around interventions that removed the natural iron reserve at birth.
The intervention at hour zero produced the finding at month six that justifies the intervention at month six.
Ferrous sulfate is an industrial iron compound the infant’s body has no biological history with. It is aggressive on the gut lining, contributes to constipation, and drives oxidative stress the six-month-old is developmentally ill-equipped to buffer. The clinical trials on infant iron supplementation are almost entirely funded by the manufacturers of the supplements themselves or the cereals into which those supplements are compounded.
Iron in the form the child’s biology expects arrives packaged inside whole foods: liver, red meat, egg yolk, shellfish. These are the traditional first foods documented by Weston Price across traditional cultures around the world.¹⁵ None of Price’s cultures gave their infants iron drops. None of Price’s cultures produced the infants the American pediatric system labels as low in iron at six months.
Your pediatrician was trained in the intervention. She was not trained in what a child looks like when the intervention is not needed because the earlier interventions never happened.
8. Amoxicillin for the Ear (infancy onward)
The child has an earache. The pediatrician looks in the ear, notes the red drum, and writes a script for amoxicillin. Ten days. The ear improves. Three weeks later, the ear is red again. Another course. By eighteen months, the child has been on four rounds of antibiotics. The referral to ENT for tubes is in the file.
A 1994 study in Annals of Allergy identified food allergy in 78 percent of a series of 104 children with recurrent middle-ear fluid. Of the food-allergic group, 86 percent showed significant reduction on a sixteen-week elimination diet; when the offending foods were reintroduced, 94 percent recurred. The common offenders were cow’s milk, eggs, wheat, corn, soy, and peanuts.¹⁶ Children with undiagnosed cow’s milk allergy are roughly twice as likely to have recurrent ear problems. The ENT specialist David Hurst has spent his career documenting that allergy is the primary driver of chronic middle-ear fluid, and that aggressive allergy management resolves most cases.¹⁷
Your pediatrician does not ask about the child’s diet. She does not ask whether the ear inflammation clusters after certain foods. She writes the amoxicillin. The amoxicillin, over successive courses, does documented damage to the child’s gut ecology, contributing to the food sensitizations that will produce the next allergy diagnosis and the next inflammation and the next round of prescriptions.¹⁸
Heather Fraser has documented the loop.¹⁹ Antibiotic exposure is associated with elevated risk of food allergy. The food allergy drives the inflammation that produces the fluid that invites the prescription. The prescription drives the next allergy. The pediatrician sees the ear. The pediatrician does not see the loop.
9. The Autism Screening at Eighteen Months (eighteen to twenty-four months)
The M-CHAT is administered at the eighteen-month and twenty-four-month well-child visits. It is a screening questionnaire designed to catch signs of autism early. Parents whose children screen positive are referred for further evaluation.
By eighteen months, an American child following the CDC schedule has received over twenty vaccine doses. The MMR is typically administered at twelve to fifteen months. The pattern of parental accounts documented across the literature is consistent: the child was developing normally, received the shots at fifteen to eighteen months, and regressed.²⁰
J.B. Handley’s son Jamison is one such case. At eighteen months, Jamison was sick, never sleeping, gut in distress, alternating between diarrhea and constipation. His behavior had shifted. He ran along walls turning his eyes to the side, spun in circles, and played with his trains in odd ways. He had been an early talker, but the words had disappeared. UCSF confirmed the diagnosis: autism, the severe kind. The presiding doctor told the family to expect institutionalization. Within two weeks of beginning biomedical treatment under a different physician, Jamison’s belly had flattened, his eye contact was returning, and the dark circles under his eyes were clearing.²¹ The pattern that took his family months to piece together is the pattern the M-CHAT is designed to detect after the fact.
The screening does not prevent autism. It catches autism after the damage is measurable. It is a diagnostic backstop, timed to the developmental window in which regression is typically noticed, which is the same developmental window in which the schedule delivers its heaviest early load.
The rate is now one in thirty-one American children.²² A fully vaccinated Danish child receives thirty doses of vaccine against ten diseases across childhood, delivered in eleven injections thanks to multivalent combinations. A fully vaccinated American child, as of 2024, received between eighty-four and eighty-eight doses against seventeen diseases.²³ The pediatrician who administers the M-CHAT does not draw this comparison. She was trained that autism is genetic, that the cause is unknown, and that no controlled comparison of fully vaccinated versus never-vaccinated populations has ever been conducted. The last of these is true. The absence of the study is itself the finding.
The screening timing is the confession. The system knows when regression happens. The system built the screening around that window. What the system does not do is investigate the exposures delivered during the same window.
The Intervention Cascade: How Modern Medicine Creates the Birth Emergencies It Claims to Prevent (Part 2)
10. The Tonsillectomy Recommendation (early childhood)
The child has recurrent throat inflammation, or the tonsils appear enlarged, or the sleep is poor. The pediatrician refers to ENT. The ENT recommends removal. The parents comply.
During the American polio era, fifty to eighty percent of middle- and upper-class American children were tonsillectomized. Anderson’s 1943 Utah data showed that poliomyelitis was more than 2.5 times as common in tonsillectomized children. Bulbar polio, the form that paralyzed the muscles of breathing and swallowing, was sixteen times more common. Forty-three percent of the bulbar and bulbospinal cases had been preceded by a tonsillectomy within thirty days.²⁴ After the connection surfaced in the medical literature, tonsillectomy rates collapsed. The procedure never recovered its earlier prevalence, though it remains common enough to be a routine referral.
The tonsils are lymphatic tissue. They are part of the body’s cleansing and repair infrastructure, positioned at the entry point of the digestive and respiratory tracts to sample what comes in and to house the response. Removing them because they are inflamed is comparable to removing a filter because it is doing its job.
The recurrent throat problems have a driver. Maready has documented one pattern in the sudden-onset behavioral and neurological conditions labeled PANDAS and PANS (Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal infections, and Pediatric Acute-onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome). Aluminum from prior vaccinations creates a metal burden in the brain and lymphatic system. A subsequent inflammatory event produces a sudden onset of behavioral and neurological symptoms.²⁵ Removing the tonsils and giving antibiotics produces temporary relief. The underlying loop persists.
Your pediatrician was trained to identify the surgical indication. She was not trained to ask what the tonsils were responding to, or what the removal costs the child in the years afterward when the filter that used to sample the air is no longer there.
11. The Stimulant Prescription (school age)
The teacher flags the boy. His mother takes him to the pediatrician. A screening tool is administered. The prescription follows. Ritalin, Adderall, Vyvanse, Concerta. The child is medicated through the school day.
The DSM criteria for ADHD are behavioral. There is no biomarker. There is no imaging finding required for the diagnosis. There is no laboratory test. The condition is defined by the behavior and validated by the response to the stimulant, which by design produces focus and compliance in almost any child regardless of underlying condition.
Maready has proposed that the behavioral pattern derives from damage to a small brainstem structure called the locus coeruleus, which regulates the release of norepinephrine and mediates the fight-or-flight response.²⁶ Damage produces hypersensitivity and continuous norepinephrine release. The child is locked in a low-grade panic state. He cannot sit still because his body is preparing for a threat that never resolves. The gut problems that frequently accompany the ADHD presentation follow from the same diversion of resources away from digestion. Many parents notice that their child’s behavior improves markedly during a fever, which fits the same mechanism: the locus coeruleus diverts its norepinephrine output to raising body temperature, giving the child a temporary respite from the constant stress signal.²⁷
The metals implicated in the damage, in Maready’s account, are the aluminum-based adjuvants injected in the leg during infancy and transported by the lymphatic system toward the brainstem.²⁸ Studies have documented elevated aluminum in the hair of children diagnosed with hyperactivity. The stimulant does not address the damage. It masks the presentation by driving further neurotransmitter release, in the way that pressing harder on a broken accelerator does not fix the car.
The pediatrician was trained in the diagnostic criteria and the medication. She was not trained in the injection pathway, the lymphatic transport, or the brainstem lesion. The prescription pad was faster than the investigation.
12. The SSRI for the Teenager (adolescence)
The teenage girl is depressed. Her pediatrician writes the SSRI. American pediatric and family practice are the frontline prescribers of adolescent SSRIs; referral to a child psychiatrist happens only for complex cases. The FDA’s own black-box warning, added in 2004, states that these compounds increase suicidal ideation in children and adolescents. The warning appears on the label. It is rarely raised in the conversation before the script is signed.
In 2012, GlaxoSmithKline paid three billion dollars to settle claims that it had downplayed the risk of paroxetine, marketed as Paxil, in adolescents.²⁹ The company had promoted the drug for uses the FDA had not approved and had withheld safety data. The settlement was the largest healthcare fraud settlement in American history at the time. Nearly every major pharmaceutical company has been caught in comparable settlements. The prescriptions kept flowing.
Teenage depression has risen sharply during the period in which the pediatric schedule expanded, the smartphone was placed in every hand, sleep was compressed, sunlight exposure collapsed, gut ecology was serially disrupted by antibiotic courses, and the food supply was reengineered around industrial seed oils and ultra-processed carbohydrates. Each of these has documented effects on mood and cognition. None is investigated at the sixteen-year-old’s medication appointment.
The SSRI is not a diagnosis. It is a management protocol. It changes what the neurotransmitter machinery is doing without asking what damaged the machinery in the first place. The teen who does not respond gets a second SSRI. The teen who responds badly gets an antipsychotic added. The teen who spirals gets hospitalized. The chart records the diagnosis codes and the medication trials. The chart does not record what happened to the child between age one and age fourteen.
Your pediatrician was trained to identify depression and to prescribe the first-line medication. She was not trained to ask what a healthy sixteen-year-old looks like, or what would have to change in the child’s life for the depression to resolve without the compound.
13. The Gardasil Series (eleven to twelve)
The eleven-year-old girl is offered the HPV vaccine at her pediatric well-visit; American pediatric care runs through adolescence, and the HPV series is a scheduled pediatric-office item. In many practices, the shot is bundled with the meningococcal and Tdap boosters at the same visit, an arrangement the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends explicitly to improve series completion.³⁰ The practice’s incentive is to have the teenager walk out with all three.
The clinical trials submitted for HPV vaccine approval did not use saline as the placebo. The comparator was the aluminum adjuvant, which produces its own inflammatory and neurological effects.³¹ The trials measured precancerous lesions, not cervical cancer, which develops on a timeline decades longer than the trials ran. The insert states that the product has not been evaluated for carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.³²
The injury patterns reported after HPV vaccination include postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, seizures, chronic fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, motor symptoms, and premature ovarian failure. Mary Holland has documented individual cases in detail. Alexis Wolf was thirteen when she started the series in 2007. After the second dose her health deteriorated. After the third she could no longer focus, sleep, eat, or behave normally. Today, at twenty-five, she has daily seizures. Colton Berrett was thirteen when he received the third dose. He became paralyzed from the neck down and remained on a ventilator until his suicide, two months before his eighteenth birthday. Joel Gomez was fourteen when he died in his sleep after the second dose.³³
The American pediatric office does not present the trial design. It does not present the package insert. The pediatrician was trained that Gardasil prevents cervical cancer. That claim is not supported by the trials. The claim she was trained to make is the claim she makes.
In Japan, after the injury patterns became public, uptake dropped from around seventy percent to under one percent.³⁴ The Japanese Ministry of Health withdrew its active recommendation. Girls in Japan are still eligible to receive the shot. Their parents are informed. Most decline.
The Well-Child Visit Is Not a Health Check
Thirteen items across one childhood, all delivered by the same profession and shaped by the same training.
The nurse walks in with the shot tray already prepared. A Vaccine Information Statement is handed over as the needle is uncapped. The growth chart appears on the monitor and a percentile is announced. The developmental questionnaire sits on the clipboard. Next shots are read off the schedule. Questions raised meet a script. Parents who decline meet a second script. Parents who persist are fired from the practice.
None of this measures whether the child is thriving. The visit measures whether the child is on schedule for the shots, the screenings, the growth curve, the developmental milestones, and the medication trials. The well-child visit is a compliance check. It has been a compliance check for as long as most parents alive today have been alive. What changed is the length of the compliance list, which as of 2024 ran to eighty-four to eighty-eight doses covering seventeen diseases, an autism screening at eighteen months, a stimulant prescription at seven, an SSRI at fourteen, and a Gardasil dose at eleven.
The pediatrician cannot do the health check because she was not trained for it. She was trained to plot, prescribe, inject, refer, screen, code, and bill. The health check is what a curious pediatrician would do. The profession does not produce curious pediatricians. It produces compliant ones, because the training rewards compliance and punishes curiosity, and the compliant pediatrician takes home the same salary whether the child in front of her is thriving or not.
The mother in the exam room is the one who has to do the health check. She has to hold the developmental history the chart does not track. She has to notice what changed after which appointment. She has to ask what the pediatrician was trained not to ask. She has to know what a healthy child looks like, because the person paid to know does not.
How To Explain It To A 6 Year Old
Imagine a driving school where the students learn one thing. They learn the map. Every morning, the teacher hands out the map. It shows every road and every turn.
The students memorize the map. When they get their driver’s license, they can drive the map perfectly.
They cannot, however, look out the window.
Looking out the window was not on the map. Looking out the window is not what the driving school taught. If a dog runs into the road, the map does not have a dog. If the tire goes flat, the map does not have a tire. The students keep driving the map. They drive right through the dog. They drive on the flat tire until the wheel comes off.
If you asked one of these drivers why they did not stop, they would say the map said to keep going.
Your pediatrician has a map. It is called the schedule. It tells her which shots to give and which drops to prescribe and which screenings to run and at which age. She learned the map very well and can drive it in her sleep. She was not taught to look out the window.
The window is your child. The window is what your child looked like last week and what your child looks like this week. The window is what changed after the last appointment. The window is whether your child is thriving, or is quietly, slowly becoming someone the map does not have space for.
You are the one at the window. Your pediatrician is at the map. Both of you are trying to help your child. Only one of you can see her.
Medical Disclaimer
This essay is a work of analysis and commentary. It is not medical advice. It is not a prescription. It is not a substitute for the judgment of a practitioner who knows your child. Decisions about vaccination, medication, surgery, and pediatric care belong to the parent and to the practitioner the parent chooses. The purpose of this essay is to widen the frame of what a parent knows before those decisions are made.
In Print
Thirteen of my books are now available as paperbacks, printed to order through Lulu and shipped worldwide. The Unvaccinated lays out the completely unvaccinated as a comparison group across twenty chapters and five appendices — as far as I know, the only book of its kind. Medicalized Motherhood follows a woman through 123 documented interventions from teenage pill to postpartum discharge. Drilling for Profit argues that cavities, gum disease, and crooked teeth are a dietary problem the dental profession treats surgically. What Your Vet Can’t Tell You applies the same critique to pets — food, vaccines, and a profession trained by the industries whose products cause the harm. Escape from Psychiatry documents the fabrication of the DSM, the collapse of the serotonin hypothesis, and the specific damage done by every major psychiatric drug class.
Two go to the paradigm underneath the whole shelf. No Contagion, co-authored with Jamie Andrews, catalogues 258 failed contagion experiments and the case against germ theory itself. No Virus takes the examination one layer deeper — the isolation problem, the collapse of virology’s foundational claims, and a disease-by-disease reappraisal of the entities the framework is built on.
Four take on the remedies and paradigm questions mainstream medicine actively suppresses. The DMSO Book covers 100,000 studies, zero deaths, and one approval — the suppressed science of medicine’s most versatile compound. Chlorine Dioxide: The Forbidden Remedy collects the interviews, protocols, and evidence from the doctors and researchers they tried to silence. The Iodine Book recovers an essential mineral driven out of easy reach by bromide, fluoride, and perchlorate — and the pharmacological tradition that kept its therapeutic use alive across the decades mainstream medicine set it aside. The Hydrogen Peroxide Book recovers a century of practice with a compound the body already makes — mitochondrial, phagocytic, part of thyroid hormone synthesis — suppressed precisely because its clinical utility threatened the pharmaceutical direction that captured twentieth-century medicine.
Two more take on the remedies already in your kitchen. Baking Soda locates sodium bicarbonate inside the terrain framework industrial medicine buried — the compound already in your cupboard, and what it does at the level of the blood, kidneys, lungs, digestion, and skin. The Castor Oil Book recovers four thousand years of documented practice on the medicine mainstream healthcare quietly stopped talking about — the kitchen bottle that doesn’t sit well in a system built on prescriptions and procedures.
A physical book reaches the person a Substack post never will — the sceptical relative, the friend who won’t click a link but might open a book, the visitor whose eye lands on a coffee table. The full shelf is at lulu.com/spotlight/unbekoming. Buy one to keep, and one to give away.
References
- Suzanne Humphries, quoted in J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2018).
- Lawrence Palevsky, quoted in J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic.
- Robert Sears, quoted in J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic.
- Rachael Ross, “Vaccines, Vaccine Injury, and My Perspective as a Doctor and Mom,” Dr. Rachael (July 1, 2016), http://drrachael.com/vaccines-vaccine-injuries-my-perspective-as-a-doctor-and-mom/.
- Jayne L. M. Donegan, Foreword to Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History (2013).
- Thomas Cowan, Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness (Chelsea Green, 2018), on newborn phytonadione biology and gut colonization.
- Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, Dissolving Illusions, on intramuscular versus oral vitamin K administration and the childhood cancer literature.
- J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic, on the Danish Childhood Vaccination Program.
- J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic, on the corrupted placebo methodology across the pediatric vaccine trial literature.
- CDC, “Vaccine Information Statements: Frequently Asked Questions,” in Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (Pink Book), 14th edition, Appendix C.
- National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (1979), cited in Edward Geehr, Unavoidably Unsafe.
- Edward Geehr, Unavoidably Unsafe, on Emergency Use Authorization and blank package inserts.
- Forrest Maready, Crooked: Man-Made Disease Explained, on the dorsal vagal complex and the Circumstraint.
- Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, Dissolving Illusions, on the cellular components of breast milk and colostrum.
- Weston A. Price, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (1939), documenting traditional cultures and their infant feeding practices.
- Heather Fraser, The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, citing 1994 Annals of Allergy study on food elimination and ear inflammation.
- David Hurst, cited in Heather Fraser, The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, on allergy as the primary driver of chronic middle-ear fluid.
- Fraser, The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, on antibiotic exposure and food allergy risk.
- Fraser, The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, on the antibiotic-allergy-inflammation loop.
- J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic, on parental accounts of regression following the fifteen-to-eighteen-month shots.
- J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic, on the regression and recovery of his son Jamison.
- CDC, “Prevalence and Early Identification of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 4 and 8 Years — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 16 Sites, United States, 2022,” MMWR Surveillance Summaries 74, no. 2 (April 17, 2025).
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Assessment of the U.S. Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule Compared to Other Countries” (2025), https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/assessment-of-the-us-childhood-and-adolescent-immunization-schedule-compared-to-other-countries.pdf.
- Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, Dissolving Illusions, on tonsillectomy and bulbar polio (Anderson, 1943 Utah data).
- Forrest Maready, Crooked, on PANDAS and PANS as aluminum-inflammation cascades.
- Forrest Maready, Crooked, on the locus coeruleus and ADHD.
- Forrest Maready, Crooked, on fever, norepinephrine, and behavioral improvement in autism and ADHD.
- Maready, Crooked, on aluminum adjuvant transport via the lymphatic system.
- J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic, on the GlaxoSmithKline paroxetine settlement.
- CDC, “General Best Practice Guidelines for Immunization: Timing and Spacing of Immunobiologics,” on ACIP recommendations for simultaneous administration of adolescent vaccines at the 11-to-12 visit.
- Holland et al., The HPV Vaccine on Trial, on Gardasil clinical trial placebo design.
- Holland et al., The HPV Vaccine on Trial, quoting the Gardasil package insert on carcinogenicity and genotoxicity evaluation.
- Holland et al., The HPV Vaccine on Trial, on the cases of Alexis Wolf, Colton Berrett, and Joel Gomez.
- J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic, on the collapse of Japanese HPV vaccine uptake.
Additional Sources
Thomas Cowan, Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness (Chelsea Green, 2018).
Herbert M. Shelton, Natural Hygiene: Man’s Pristine Way of Life, and the collected articles on pediatric care.
John H. Tilden, Toxemia Explained: The True Interpretation of the Cause of Disease (1926).
Daniel Roytas, Can You Catch a Cold? Untold History and Human Experiments.
Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey, and Stefan Lanka, Virus Mania, 3rd edition (2021).
Mark Bailey, The Final Pandemic: An Antidote to Medical Tyranny (2023).
Dawn Lester and David Parker, What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong.
Sally Fallon Morell, The Nourishing Traditions Book of Baby & Child Care.
Bessel van der Kolk, The Body Keeps the Score (2014), on early-life trauma and dissociation as embodied phenomena.
Peter Gøtzsche, Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare (2013).
Trita Parsi: Massive Houthi Victory Transforms U.S.-Iran War
Glenn Diesen | September 12, 2026
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Follow the Substack of Trita Parsi: https://tritaparsi.substack.com/
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
- Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
- X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen
- Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
- PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenndiesen
- Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng
- Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f
- Buy Diesen merchandise: https://diesen-shop.fourthwall.com/en-nok
Britain stands against oppression in Palestine… by supplying F-35s
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 11, 2026
So, Britain announced with much fanfare this week that it was imposing sanctions on Israel’s illegal settlements in Palestine. Note that the sanctions are not against the Israeli state, but rather a much narrower definition: Israeli entities in the Occupied Territories.
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham claimed that the move was an example of Britain giving international leadership to stand against oppression and injustice.
Addressing the British Parliament, Burnham said: “In this difficult and dangerous world, Britain has to stand for something, Britain has to show leadership, Britain has to stand for fairness against injustice… That is what the British people expect of us, and that is what this government will do.”
Several other European states and Canada have also joined the British-led initiative to ban trade and investment with companies doing business in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank.
Israel’s occupation is illegal under international law, yet Britain, the European Union and the United States have done nothing in the way of imposing sanctions. Sanctions are something the West prefers to impose on Russia, Iran, China, Cuba, North Korea, among others.
In announcing the sanctions, the United Kingdom’s foreign minister Ed Miliband told the House of Commons that “Britain was a country that upholds its values at home and around the world, fighting against oppression and suffering, and standing up for what is right.”
The pious tones from London about Israel’s “ethnic cleansing” are not convincing.
For starters, the supposed sanctions do not cover British components for the F-35 fighter jets that the United States sells to Israel. The British parts are crucial for flying the US-made stealth aircraft. The warplane has played a major role in razing Gaza to the ground. Also not included in the sanctions are drones and surveillance equipment that British firms supply to the Israeli military. All those components are crucial for enabling the nearly three-year genocidal violence that Israel has conducted in Gaza.
If the British government were serious about “standing against oppression,” it would go a lot further than focusing on violations by Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories. The pogroms and construction of new settlements are carried out with the full assistance of the Israeli state, not just by gun-wielding fanatical settlers. Britain and other Western states have provided the legal and diplomatic cover for Israeli war crimes.
In any case, the supposed measures against Israeli business and exports from the West Bank are minimal. A recent Al Jazeera investigation found that Britain has billions of dollars invested in companies that are intimately involved in illegal settlement building. We can be sure that London is not going to cancel investments.
Total British-Israeli trade is estimated at $8 billion a year, including lucrative military items. The amount of business that Britain does with the Occupied Territories is about 1 per cent of its total trade with Israel.
Burnham and Miliband said the British government did not support boycott and divestment sanctions against the state of Israel. Both of them were at pains to emphasize that the measures are nominally limited to the violations going on in the Occupied Territories, not what Israel is doing right across Palestinian land, including Gaza, which is a genocide.
So there you have it. Britain’s “moral leadership” is nothing but tokenism and duplicity.
Should we expect anything else? After all, as former British diplomat Craig Murray pointed out this week, Burnham’s government has decided to give top-secret information for building cruise missiles to the corrupt Kiev regime. Murray warns that the Storm Shadow missiles will soon end up being sold on the black market, given the rampant corruption of Ukraine under the Zelensky cabal.
Britain is also supplying this NeoNazi regime with long-range drones that are being used to target Moscow and Russian civilians.
Is this standing up against oppression and for supposed British values?
What’s really behind London’s belated show of concern for Palestinians?
As Burnham and Miliband alluded, it’s all about Britain appearing to show international leadership. It’s a cheap way to burnish London’s “moral posturing” as a defender of “humanitarian values.”
Israel has hit back with the usual denunciations of “anti-semitism” and by closing down the British consulate in East Jerusalem. But for London, these repercussions are bearable for the bigger gains of British international PR.
As noted above, the lion’s share of its lucrative trade with Israel will go on, business as usual.
The other key motive for the Burnham government is that it realizes that a majority of the British public has become staunchly opposed to the Israeli regime. The three-year genocide has opened the eyes of many Britons (and those of other Western nations) to the historical injustices and illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. Israel is increasingly seen as a pariah, apartheid state that should be prosecuted for war crimes.
Britain’s role as the former colonial power in the Zionist annexation of Palestine is one of deep complicity and shame.
Andy Burnham was shoehorned into Downing Street to take over from the hopeless and hapless Labour leader Keir Starmer. The British establishment has bet on Burnham to shore up its imperialist interests by boosting military spending and deepening involvement in the NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
However, Burnham’s popularity has quickly worn off as he looks like Starmer 2.0.
The tokenistic moves to support Palestinian rights and oppose Israeli violations are a cynical electioneering ploy. By talking up sanctions against Israeli illegal settlements, Burnham is calculating that it will garner votes from the growing public anger over the genocide.
But the measures that London is taking are negligible. They amount to a polite tap on the wrist of the Netanyahu regime as it continues its genocide.
Britain is fuelling the genocide by Israel, as it is with the NATO proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. British duplicity is as legion as its hypocrisy.
Iran has good reason to bar IAEA inspectors from returning amid US aggression: Author
Press TV | September 12, 2026
Iran’s refusal to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors back into the country amid ongoing US aggression is understandable, says a US-based author and activist, urging the UN nuclear watchdog to inspect Israeli nuclear facilities as well.
Speaking to the Press TV website, Anthony Donovan, a war veteran and political campaigner, said he supports Iran’s decision not to allow IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi and his team into the country while Iran remains under attack by the United States, Western countries and their allies.
“IAEA will be welcome when the threats cease. Perfect good sense. You have good reason to not trust Grossi and the US pushing for this absurd resolution in the UNSC,” Donovan said.
He added that the nuclear watchdog should instead be demanding an end to the attacks and warning about the dangers posed by military action against nuclear facilities.
“The IAEA needs to immediately and strongly demand an end to these bombings and aggressions, express the outrage at the danger this can pose,” Donovan said.
His comments came after the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a politically motivated resolution drafted by the United States, Britain, France and Germany calling on Grossi to report Iran to the UN Security Council and General Assembly.
The resolution was adopted with 23 votes in favor on Wednesday, while Russia, China and Niger voted against it and eight countries abstained. The move marked the first time in 20 years that Iran had been referred to the Security Council over its nuclear obligations.
Iran’s ambassador to international organizations in Vienna, Reza Najafi, dismissed the resolution as a “political tool” and said Tehran would cooperate with inspectors only “to the extent that circumstances and safety permit.”
It comes as the IAEA has been unable to access some Iranian nuclear facilities since a US-Israeli military aggression in June 2025 that included strikes on safeguarded nuclear sites. Access remained blocked after a broader aggression was unleashed against Iran on Feb. 28.
For Donovan, the circumstances surrounding the latest pressure on Iran made renewed inspections particularly problematic.
He said the West has remained heavily “obsessed” with Iran’s nuclear program even though “it has been inspected more than any other country.” He also warned against repeating the use of the unfounded nuclear weapons programs as a pretext for military action, citing the experience of Iraq.
“The echo of using the nuclear program as we did in Iraq is before us again, an excuse to bomb and kill, to violate all known international law, humanitarian law, and our own laws,” he said.
Donovan said inspections could resume once hostilities end and trust between Iran and the international community is restored, while noting that any future inspection regime should also address Israel’s clandestine nuclear facilities.
“When there is a true lasting peace, which seems very far away, and when there is mutual trust renewed, which is very far away, Iran remains naturally open to allow inspections, along with a requirement of full inspection of Israel’s nuclear weapons facility,” he said.
Israel’s nuclear program
Donovan pointed to a double standard in international nuclear oversight, noting that Israel should face the same scrutiny demanded of Iran.
He said President John F. Kennedy had “tried to prevent” the Israeli regime’s ability to gain access to nuclear weapons.
“Israel lied to him, built a mock facility hoping to fool him. He intuited that and gave several strong ultimatums to [then-prime minister David] Ben Gurion and his government to allow full inspection by his team and warned of serious repercussions if this was not allowed,” said Donovan.
Kennedy, he added, “was adamant they not get the bomb and was killed within months of these demands.”
He also linked the issue to Kennedy’s broader efforts to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons during the Cold War, including his back-channel communications with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and the 1963 Atmospheric Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
“The Test Ban Treaty was a phenomenal success,” Donovan said, adding that Kennedy viewed it as an initial step toward ending the nuclear arms race.
Donovan noted that after Kennedy’s assassination, the US approach toward Israel’s nuclear program changed.
He also criticized the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), saying it had been weakened over time by nuclear-armed states and that Israel had not joined it.
Israel has never signed the NPT and has not submitted its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspections. The regime maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity and has never officially acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons.
Estimates of the size of Israel’s nuclear arsenal vary widely, but it is widely believed to possess hundreds of nuclear warheads and maintains delivery capabilities involving missiles, aircraft and submarines.
Donovan noted that focusing on Iran while nuclear-armed entities continue to expand their arsenals represents a dangerous double standard.
“The fact that we keep pointing at Iran maybe getting a weapon, while we are all wildly building these omnicidal devices claiming they ‘Ensure our Future,’ our security, etc. is blind, dangerous and extremely egocentric,” he said.
He said Iran’s historical experience had also shaped his understanding of Tehran’s security concerns, citing past wars and Western involvement in regional wars.
“I understand better now why it was important for Iran to be prepared for such murderous colonists,” Donovan said, referring to the US-Israeli front that has “violated life” in Iran, Palestine and Lebanon.
The author added that he would continue to call his representatives to “listen to any but Israel.”
“Fortunately, things are changing; people are rising. Most here know what we are doing in Iran is criminal, wrong,” he added.
Invoking 9/11 to justify war against Iran is ‘utterly absurd’: Tehran
Press TV – September 12, 2026
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman has rejected US attempts to invoke the anniversary of the September 11 attacks to justify a “reckless and unlawful war” against Iran, saying Washington’s narrative on terrorism is riddled with fundamental contradictions.
In a post on X early Saturday, marking the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Esmaeil Baghaei criticized remarks by the US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on terrorism and Iran.
“The narrative advanced by the US Secretary of War on the anniversary of 9/11 is riddled with fundamental contradictions,” he said.
Baghaei said the US could not simultaneously wage aggression, carry out assassinations, and cause civilian casualties while claiming exclusive authority to define terrorism and determine whose violence was legitimate.
“The perpetrators of 9/11 were not Iranians; they were the very same people whom the US itself had armed, organized, or otherwise cultivated in the preceding decades,” he said.
He also criticized the US-led “war on terror,” saying the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had brought years of war, occupation, civilian deaths, and widespread devastation.
“Against this backdrop, invoking the anniversary of 9/11 to justify a reckless and unlawful war against Iran is utterly absurd,” Baghaei said.
He further rejected attempts to justify the US war against Iran through counterterrorism rhetoric, stressing that the war involved the assassination of officials of a sovereign state and attacks on civilians, including women and children.
“A criminal war that has involved the assassination of officials of a sovereign state and the targeting of civilians, including women and children, cannot be made morally coherent simply by wrapping it in the language of counterterrorism,” he said.
The American invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001, less than a month after the September 11 attacks killed 2,977 people in the United States. Washington presented the foolhardy military adventure as the opening battle in a so-called “war on terror.”
Yet after 20 years of brutal military occupation, trillions of dollars spent, and enormous human suffering resulting from the US-led coalition’s horrendous war crimes, the occupiers have not achieved a political settlement or eliminated the forces they had vowed to defeat.
Why the Israelis are so afraid of a liberated Yemen
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | September 12, 2026
The liberation of Yemen by a staunchly pro-Palestinian movement is a nightmare scenario for the Zionist Project in the region, it ensures that the cause of occupied al-Quds will remain alive and that a new power will emerge to champion it. To the Israelis, what they are looking at is like the birth of a new Iran in the Arab World.
For long the Ansar Allah-led government of Yemen had been underestimated and treated as little more than a nuisance, one that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were handed the task of dealing with. In 2022, this dynamic began to shift, as the Yemeni Armed Forces demonstrated advanced missile and drone capabilities that shook vital targets in Saudi Arabia, even reaching as far as the United Arab Emirates.
The stalemate of the Marib offensive of 2021 may have also worked to deceive the US-Israeli alliance in the region, who clearly failed to take the armed forces of the Ansar Allah-led government in Sanaa seriously. However, Riyadh did end up taking them seriously in early 2022, as did Abu Dhabi, hence their decision to agree to a United Nations mediated temporary ceasefire.
Since then, Yemen’s leadership has become the only government on earth to directly order its military to open fire on the Zionist entity in order to support the people of Gaza. From the very beginning of the Genocide, the Yemeni Armed Forces began firing missiles at the Israelis, before imposing a blockade on them in the Red Sea.
These measures would have been notable had they come from any nation, let alone one that had suffered 400,000 deaths in brutal conflict and suffered through an illegal and inhumane siege themselves. There was nothing material that the Ansar Allah-led government sought to gain from its tangible and unapologetic support of the Palestinian Resistance in the Gaza Strip, which is what made it all the more unpredictable in the eyes of the US-Israeli alliance.
Because Sanaa had been so underestimated, the Israelis and the US were essentially left blind inside of Yemen, not having anywhere near the required intelligence to deal a serious blow to Ansar Allah. Instead, the Zionist regime did the predictable thing: it bombed civilian targets and then called in its US allies to launch three separate military operations in an attempt to break the blockade established in support of Gaza.
Yemen is a nation that, if fully liberated from the proxy forces of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, would undoubtedly dedicate its foreign policy to opposing the Zionist entity and supporting the Palestinian Resistance. This alone is a major threat to the Israeli regime.
Yet, it will also mean something else. It will be the only Arab country that has an independent government which is not allied with the United States. In other words, it will serve as an example to the entire region and will represent the spirit of Arabism. For Riyadh, Damascus, Amman, Cairo and beyond, this is a major problem, because once the example is set, their own populations could begin getting ideas about what their future should look like.
Yemen’s liberation will represent the only truly successful revolution of the Arab Spring. In the case of every other example, the nation has ended up under US domination, with the latest example being the case of Syria.
A Yemen that can gain access to its own resources, live free of blockade and have influence over the Bab al-Mandab Strait could become a major powerhouse, especially while allied with the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is a major gain for the regional resistance to US imperialism and an enormous strategic loss to the Zionist regime, along with a blow to the Washington-backed Arab dictatorships.
The only means of combating the gains made on the ground by the Yemeni Armed Forces, is to try and spread as much sectarianism throughout the region as possible. This, the Gulf Arab regimes and US-Israeli alliance, may believe to be an effective means of combating the revolutionary fervor of the Arab public who have been greatly agitated by the Gaza Genocide.
Part of the reason why the majority of the Arabic-language media, along with the entirety of the Western corporate media refer to the Ansar Allah-led government as the “Houthi rebels” is for this very reason. They hope to paint the movement as a band of Shia rebel fighters that are “proxies of Iran”. It works to both delegitimize the Yemeni Armed Forces and government based in the Capital City of the country, while also selling a false sectarian narrative.
To the great misfortune of the US-Israeli-Arab aligned bloc, their attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of the public is wearing thin. The Gaza Genocide exposed where everyone stands, and now the truth is clear for everyone to see.
BRICS Draws Red Lines on Lebanon, Cuba, and Global Security
Sputnik – 12.09.2026
In their joint declaration, BRICS summit participants spoke out against unilateral sanctions that violate international law.
BRICS also condemned the violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty and called on Israel to withdraw its troops from its territory, according to the declaration.
Other key points:
- BRICS expressed deep concern over the US tightening unilateral blockade against Cuba and its adverse impact on the economy, energy supplies and humanitarian situation.
- It reaffirmed its commitment to combating all forms of terrorism.
- BRICS voiced alarm over deliberate attacks on peaceful facilities under IAEA safeguards.
- The group stressed the need to strengthen energy security.
- BRICS underscored the necessity of ensuring the peaceful use of space technologies.
Iraqi Resistance denies role in Saudi East-West pipeline attack
Al Mayadeen | September 12, 2026
The Islamic Resistance in Iraq has denied accusations that it was behind the drone attack targeting Saudi Arabia’s strategic East-West oil pipeline, rejecting claims linking Iraqi factions to the operation and criticizing Baghdad for acting on unsubstantiated allegations.
In a statement on Saturday, the Resistance said accusations that it had targeted vital Saudi infrastructure amounted to “an honor we do not claim,” while stressing that no credible evidence had been presented proving the involvement of any Iraqi party.
The group expressed strong surprise at the Iraqi government’s haste in adopting the accusations and taking measures without relying on verified evidence or concrete investigations.
Resistance calls for official investigation
The Islamic Resistance in Iraq said it was fully prepared to participate in any government investigation committee established to determine the facts surrounding the attack.
It called on Iraqi authorities to pursue an evidence-based investigation rather than, in its words, follow “suspicious narratives.”
The Resistance also warned against US-Israeli schemes aimed at dragging Iraq into secondary crises that serve the interests of the region’s adversaries and divert attention from broader regional developments.
Support for Yemen reaffirmed
Despite denying involvement in the Saudi pipeline attack, the Islamic Resistance reiterated its firm and longstanding support for the Yemeni people.
The group said Yemen has been subjected to a Saudi-led siege for more than a decade, reaffirming its position in support of the country amid the latest regional escalation.
The statement comes in response to recent accusations and security measures following the shutdown of Saudi Arabia’s vital East-West crude oil pipeline after it was reportedly struck by a drone originating from Iraqi territory.
The roughly 1,200-kilometer pipeline stretches across the Arabian Peninsula and serves as a key route for transporting Saudi crude from the kingdom’s eastern oil-producing regions toward the Red Sea.
Following investigations into the incident, Iraqi authorities announced the dismissal of the commander of Maysan Operations over the attack.
Sana’a strikes back: How Yemeni military’s lightning advance redrew the Red Sea’s strategic map
Territory liberated by Yemeni Armed Forces during the recent operation, including the ports of Al-Mokha, Dhubab, and Al-Khokha, and towns such as Hays and Maqbanah.
By Mohammad Molaei | Press TV | September 12, 2026
In the span of roughly one week, the Yemeni armed forces accomplished what eight years of attritional warfare had failed to achieve.
In a military operation officially named “God Is Strongest in Might and Severe in Punishment,” the Yemeni military, backed by the Ansarullah resistance forces, liberated more than 5,400 square kilometers of territory along Yemen’s Red Sea coast, capturing strategically vital ports, towns, and geographic features that Saudi-backed forces had seized and held since 2017 and 2018.
The speed, coordination, and depth of the advance stunned military and security observers, shattered a carefully constructed Saudi media narrative, and fundamentally altered the strategic geometry of the war imposed on Yemen.
The ports of Al-Mokha, Dhubab, and Al-Khokha fell. Key towns, including Hays, Maqbanah, and Al-Mafraq, were liberated. The entire Jabal Habashi region came under Sana’a’s control.
These were no minor outposts but positions that the former Saudi-backed regime had spent four months capturing during the so-called “Golden Arrow” operation in 2017 and an entire summer offensive in 2018, backed by heavy Saudi air support and financial resources.
The intelligence that started it all
The roots of the operation lie in a body of intelligence and an assessment reached in Sana’a months before the first shot was fired. It was believed that Saudi Arabia, in coordination with the United States, was preparing to launch a major offensive under the diplomatic pretext of securing international navigation in the Red Sea at some point in the near future.
The Saudis aimed, first, to create operational space for Washington to assert dominance over the Bab al-Mandab Strait, a strategic waterway whose leverage Ansarullah-backed Yemeni military had wielded with increasing effect since joining the Gaza solidarity front two years earlier.
Second, they sought to neutralize that leverage by igniting a land conflict along the western coast and driving northward toward Hodeidah, effectively diverting the Yemeni military’s attention from maritime operations and drawing it back into a costly ground war.
The broader context matters. Since early 2016, Saudi Arabia had gradually sidelined the UAE across provinces outside the Yemeni government’s control, consolidating its influence over the mercenary coalition nominally operating under the banner of the Saudi-recognized regime.
By this stage, the Emiratis had been largely pushed to the margins of the ground equation. Washington, having failed to achieve decisive results in either the Strait of Hormuz or Bab al-Mandab through its own military aggression, appeared to be recalibrating around Riyadh as its primary instrument.
For Saudi Arabia, specifically, a single operation on the western coast offered the prospect of three simultaneous gains: accelerating the US push for Red Sea control; transforming what had remained an internationalized war into a fratricidal intra-Yemeni war by stoking internal fronts; and consolidating Riyadh’s dominance over the fractious coalition of Yemeni military factions, many of them previously under UAE command, by bringing them together under a unified operation.
The Saudi Maneuver and Miscalculation
Saudi preparations had begun well in advance, reportedly even before the Yemeni operation to break the siege, which was launched following the funeral ceremony of a martyred leader in Sana’a. The plan envisioned opening three simultaneous fronts in Al-Jawf, Ma’rib, and along the western coast. It immediately ran into structural problems.
Southern factions within the Saudi-backed coalition refused to commit their forces to battles in the north. This single factor created a fracture line through the entire scheme.
Riyadh’s mercenaries, many of whom were fighting for locally defined interests rather than any coherent national project, could not be so easily redirected. The Saudis responded by redeploying forces from eastern Yemen northward and shifting the primary axis toward the western coast, where the geographic and symbolic stakes were highest.
Meanwhile, Riyadh worked the diplomatic track. A host of mediators – Egypt, Turkey, and most prominently Oman – were mobilized. Sana’a, not yet ready to foreclose negotiations entirely, granted a brief reprieve, holding off on launching the second phase of its operations.
None of this changed the military reality. While negotiations proceeded, Saudi Arabia sought to reinforce its mercenary positions and replenish ammunition stockpiles. Sana’a concluded that the window for a negotiated outcome had been deliberately exploited to buy time, not to buy peace.
The intelligence war
What followed was not a conventional military offensive launched from a standing start. It was the terminal phase of a carefully sequenced preemptive campaign that had been underway for approximately four weeks before the main ground advance.
Yemeni military’s intelligence apparatus, operating under the direction of Abu Ali al-Hakim, demonstrated a level of precision that repeatedly left the Saudi-backed coalition wrong-footed.
Newly established mercenary positions were destroyed before they could be consolidated. Ammunition depots were located and struck. Command centers and operations rooms were systematically degraded. The cumulative effect was a coalition whose combat readiness had been substantially hollowed out before the ground offensive even began.
The resulting weapons shortages were severe enough that Riyadh dispatched ships carrying arms to resupply its forces, seeking to close the gap before the main battle.
But the ships, arriving at the port of Mokha, were treated as targets, much like the trucks moving through the Al-Wadiah and Al-Abr crossings. The resupply effort largely failed.
The intelligence picture was so consistently accurate that speculation arose that UAE-aligned elements, still resentful of Saudi dominance over coalition affairs, may have contributed to the flow of intelligence to the Yemeni military. Whatever the source, the Yemeni military’s penetration of the coalition’s operational security was demonstrably deep.
The spark on the Taiz Axis
The specific trigger for the ground offensive came in early September, when the Yemeni military launched a first strike against a Saudi-backed position, anticipating an offensive push northward.
The preemptive strike sparked clashes across four axes simultaneously. The result was not a cascading, domino-like collapse of positions. What the Saudis had intended as the opening move of their western coast offensive instead became the opening phase of their humiliating retreat.
Over the following days, Riyadh attempted to activate additional fronts in Al-Bayda, Al-Dhale’e, and Al-Jawf in an effort to stretch the Yemeni military forces thin across multiple theaters.
Saudi airstrikes intensified across Yemen. Saudi officers reportedly promised direct ground support to coalition factions to incentivize them to hold their positions. The Yemeni military’s own assessment of the dynamic was clear: the Saudis had previously tried activating 52 fronts simultaneously, and each time the result had been further Yemeni military advances, rather than a reversal.
The media war
As the Yemeni military advances accelerated, a parallel battle unfolded in the information space. Saudi-aligned media channels worked to construct a counter-narrative, circulating footage of mercenary vehicle convoys, highlighting minor territorial gains in areas already under Saudi coalition control, and projecting an image of momentum that bore little resemblance to the battlefield reality.
The narrative briefly gained traction by drawing, inaccurately, on the recent Syrian precedent. Some observers speculated that Sana’a might face a “Damascus moment”: a rapid, unexpected collapse of authority under a fast-moving offensive.
The comparison was analytically flawed. The structural, operational, and social conditions that led to the fall of Damascus bear little resemblance to those in Yemen. Sana’a’s military organization, popular base, intelligence infrastructure, and decade-long experience of sustained warfare against a better-resourced coalition have produced a very different kind of fighting force from the one that crumbled in Syria.
The battlefield results made it clear. The “Damascus moment” narrative did not survive contact with the liberation of the islands, the western coast, and the string of ports that followed.
Sana’a’s logic of escalation
Throughout the campaign, Ansarullah-led Yemeni military forces have maintained a consistent list of demands directed at Riyadh: the complete lifting of the air and naval blockade on Yemen; payment of civil servant salaries; an all-for-all prisoner exchange; reopening roads between provinces; Saudi withdrawal from Yemeni territory; and the complete cessation of funding and material support to anti-Sana’a factions.
The strategic logic underlying the current operation can be summarized in three interlocking equations that Sana’a appears to be establishing simultaneously:
The first is Siege for Siege: The imposition of a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia stretching from Bab al-Mandab across the full length of the Red Sea, mirroring the blockade Riyadh maintains on Yemen.
The second is Preemptive Action: Continuous surveillance and interdiction of mercenary logistics and troop movements from eastern to western Yemen, preventing the reconstitution of forces that have already been degraded.
The third is Direct Deterrence: The targeting of Saudi military bases, military airports, and Aramco infrastructure in southern Saudi Arabia in direct response to any Saudi violation of Yemeni airspace or attacks on Yemeni territory.
The endgame
Sana’a has officially announced the conclusion of the operation and directed its forces toward consolidating the liberated territories. The reasoning behind stopping the advance at this stage, rather than pushing farther, reflects three overlapping calculations.
The first is the immediate military imperative of securing and clearing 5,400 square kilometers of newly captured terrain, a task that demands both manpower and time and must be completed before any counteroffensive can be mounted effectively.
The second is the existence of other fronts requiring attention. Ma’rib retains significant economic importance because of the Safer oil-field infrastructure. Taiz carries major political weight for Sana’a’s long-term governance ambitions. Yemeni forces cannot allow gains on the western coast to come at the cost of deterioration on these other critical axes.
The third consideration is strategic restraint, an awareness that actions crossing certain thresholds could trigger a qualitatively different response and draw in actors whose involvement would complicate the current trajectory.
Arab media reports indicate that tensions inside mercenary formations in Taiz have already escalated sharply in the wake of the coastal losses. A critical highway remains in play; delaying withdrawal from the city could leave those forces cut off from a viable exit route, a development that could dramatically accelerate Taiz’s fall without requiring a further ground offensive.
Regional ripples: Tehran, Riyadh, and beyond
The operational dimensions of this campaign extend beyond Yemen’s borders. Saudi Arabia has engaged directly with Tehran in an effort to halt flights to Sana’a since the Yemeni attacks resumed. Pakistan, meanwhile, is reportedly working to include Yemen in a new ceasefire framework, not unlike its role during the previous round, when Islamabad’s diplomatic activity coincided with and helped shape the Saudi naval blockade ceasefire process.
Saudi officials have a documented pattern of denying involvement in Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon even while conducting active operations across all three theaters. Following its setbacks on the western coast, Riyadh may seek to recover leverage through alternative pressure points, with Lebanon and Iraq among the most likely arenas. That possibility warrants close monitoring.
American support for the Saudi-backed mercenary coalition has continued, but Washington has so far stopped short of direct combat involvement or assuming battlefield command.
Whether that calculus holds in the face of continued Yemeni military advances, or whether disillusionment with Saudi performance drives Washington toward renewed engagement with the UAE, remains one of the most consequential open questions as the war enters its next phase.
What comes next
If Saudi Arabia declines to meet Sana’a’s demands, as its past behavior suggests is the most probable near-term outcome, the Yemeni armed forces retain a substantial menu of escalation options. These include expanded strikes on Saudi supply chains, production and processing facilities, and oil-export infrastructure, with Yanbu and the East-West pipeline specifically on the table.
Operations in the Arabian Sea targeting foreign vessels with Saudi connections represent another avenue. Ground operations in southern Saudi territory constitute a further option that Sana’a has explicitly retained.
Crucially, the balance of internal coalition dynamics has shifted. Over the past two weeks, the Yemeni military has substantially neutralized one of Riyadh’s key remaining leverage mechanisms: its ability to activate internal Yemeni fronts. The collapse of the mercenary coalition and deepening factional rifts have made it increasingly difficult for Saudi officers to reconstitute any credible offensive capability in the near term. That fundamentally alters the timeline calculations for both sides.
The strategic implications of the Yemeni military now holding the coastline overlooking and approaching the Bab al-Mandab Strait are substantial and will require sustained analysis as the situation develops. Control of that coastline does not simply mean territory. It means depth, positioning, and, in the language of maritime chokepoints, leverage.
Yemeni military’s consolidation of Yemen’s western coast represents the acquisition of geographic depth at one of the world’s most consequential maritime chokepoints. Previously, its coastal positions remained vulnerable to suppression. That calculus has now changed.
Al-Mukha, Dhubab, and the surrounding coastline, now under firm control, give Sana’a the ability to position layered anti-ship and air-defense systems across a continuous 200-plus-kilometer stretch. The islands amplify this advantage further, functioning simultaneously as forward sensors and firing platforms, enabling earlier target acquisition, reducing the stand-off advantages of opposing forces, and potentially denying the flanks of the strait to any force attempting to escort commercial shipping.
The relationship with the Strait of Hormuz is noteworthy as well. A dual-chokepoint architecture, with Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab simultaneously subject to hostile pressure, creates a co-equal second front.
A single carrier strike group cannot cover both. Reinforcing one theater necessarily draws resources from the other, complicating the Pentagon’s traditional force-posture hierarchy, which has historically treated Bab al-Mandab as manageable through periodic shows of force.
For Saudi Arabia, the loss is asymmetric in a specific way. Riyadh could previously threaten ground pressure on Ansarullah and the Yemeni military while remaining comparatively insulated from reciprocal pressure on its maritime lifelines. That insulation is now gone.
Red Sea export terminals and the Yanbu complex sit within a substantially more threatening strategic envelope. The Yemeni military can potentially transition from a land-based force with maritime ambitions into a coastal-defense and power-projection actor. That changes the strategic character of any future negotiation and the architecture of any subsequent security ceasefire.
Featured Video
Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A short history of British torture
ICC | December 2005
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- US destroying international space law
- SCO Calls for Binding Global Deal to Prevent Arms Race in Space
- Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
- ‘40,000 tons of bombs’: Report shows Trump planning ‘largest bomb transfer in modern US history’ to Israel
- Amazon says cloud infrastructure in Bahrain, UAE ‘beyond saving’
- How Europe became an accessory to CIA torture
- Trump says Iran urgently seeks deal, Tehran sets conditions for talks
- The Andean Shadow Army
- Russia Wants to End Ukraine Conflict – Lavrov
- US Flaunts On-Orbit Weapon to Supercharge Space Arms Race
- If Americans Knew
- ‘School is Life’: 1.5 Million Palestinian Children Face Fourth Year of Shattered Education
- Pentagon admits Iran war caused ammunition shortages, cost US $33.4bn
- 37 Palestinian journalists held in Israeli jails, rights group says
- Israel’s Hilltop Youth Recruits Minors to Terrorize Palestinians (with video)
- 100 Colonial Plans Advance in West Bank Since Start of 2026
- New Maps Show How Israel Has Thwarted Hopes for a Palestinian State
- Israel trying to ‘eliminate’ living conditions for Palestinians in West Bank
- Matt Gaetz’s Brilliant Exposé on Israel Partisans’ Claims of “Antisemitism”
- MAGA Didn’t Vote For War With Iran
- Truths in NAZA film expose delusions in Israeli society – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
- 2025 Study: ‘There Exists No Unequivocal Experimental Evidence For The CO2 Greenhouse Effect’
Aletho News 