Israeli dominance over Washington has gone on for far too long
By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • September 11, 2025
I have university degrees in ancient, medieval and early modern history but search as I may, I cannot find another example of a small, low population state largely devoid of natural resources that has been able to dominate the politics and policies of a much larger great power to the extent that Israel controls many aspects of America’s government, its economy, its education system, its media, and, most of all, its foreign and national security policies. Little Israel commands and the superpower United States obeys, a relationship that has coined the expression “the tail wags the dog.”
To be sure, Israel has resources that might be regarded as unconventional for most nation states around the globe, consisting of a large and astonishingly wealthy network of “diaspora” co-religionists who are prepared to corrupt the governments in the countries where they actually live to benefit the Jewish state in every way possible. Politicians can easily be bought by Jewish billionaires, as in the case of President Donald Trump who reportedly received $100 million as a campaign donation from Israeli Las Vegas casino magnate Miriam Adelson, plausibly in exchange for Israel having a free hand in the West Bank, up to and including total annexation and deportation of the inhabitants to eliminate a possible Palestinian state.
In the United States, this Zionist Lobby power has produced a series of presidents terrified to object to what Israel declares to be its interests, plus a Congress that has been bought and manipulated into total submission to war criminals like Israel’s ghastly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Even the US Constitution is no defense against Israel’s interests, with First Amendment free speech rights being abridged through the interpretation that any criticism of the self-described Jewish state is ipso facto a hate crime, which is a felony.
The abuse inherent in the relationship, which is hugely expensive to the US and damaging to its real interests, is fortunately beginning to be so visible that a reaction to the arrangement is beginning to penetrate to the level of the average voters. Opinion polls suggest that most Americans oppose what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, but President Donald Trump and the clowns he has appointed to high office, Zionists all, are unmoved. Hopefully they will see the light if a strong message is sent during elections coming up in November.
In a recent interview, I declared that the only real national security threat against the United States comes from Israel in that it has repeatedly pushed America into bad policy choices to serve its own interests. That means that policymakers, in search of the number one “American enemy” in the world, should look no farther than Israel and they should immediately take steps to distance themselves from Israeli initiatives. In terms of other alleged threats to the US, one must concede that most analyses coming out of Washington are essentially phony, designed to deflect from real problems, including which is what to do about Israel and the all-powerful Israeli Lobby reenforced by the “waiting for a Rapture” Christian Zionists that have taken over so much of the government. Sorry Marco Rubio but Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela do not threaten the United States of America. Continuation of the dance of death with the Israelis will on the contrary be likely to lead to ruin for Americans.
The sad truth is that the United States gains absolutely nothing from its bondage to Israel, quite the contrary. When I was in government in CIA Stations and Bases in Europe and the Middle East I used to hear US politicians proclaiming how Israel (Mossad) shared wonderful intelligence information that made America safer. The truth was quite different as I used to see the Israel-generated reports and they were consistently puff pieces intended to make Arabs and Iranians look bad by inventing “threats.” It was that type of information, i.e. the claimed existence of WMD, promoted by Jewish neocons in the media as well as in the Defense Department and in the Vice President’s office, that led to war against a completely non-threatening Iraq that killed as many as 600,000 Iraqis.
More recent developments illuminate just how poisonous the relationship with Israel is, though one might also dare to mention long ago Jewish state perfidy like the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 that killed 34 sailors and the suspicions about Israeli involvement in both the killing of JFK and 9/11, all of which were subject to deliberate US government cover-ups and bungled investigations. Israel does not hesitate to kill Americans, witness the cases of protester Rachel Corrie and journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, both of whom were murdered by the Israeli army. In neither case did the US Embassy demand an explanation from the Israelis.
This past June, Israel decided to attack Iran and convinced Donald Trump to join in the game, with the argument that Iran is secretly building nuclear weapons, which was not true. Israel, of course, has its own secret nuclear arsenal, and has even threatened to use the weapons in the Samson Option, but both Tel Aviv and Washington apparently regard that as perfectly acceptable. So the United States, to oblige Israel, followed on to the Israeli attack and hit selected targets in Iran. This led to a lying or ignorant, you can take your choice, Trump boasting about how he had “obliterated” the Iranian nuclear development sites, which was not true. So what was gained? Again “nothing” but the US went to war, a war crime, solely to appease Israel and spent something like $1 billion to carry out the mission.
More recently, Israel bombed a residential building in Doha, the capital of Qatar, in a bid to kill Hamas officials who were in the city to negotiate a cease fire in Gaza with the Israelis. The meeting was allegedly backed and “guaranteed” by Washington but it now appears that, at the same time, Trump or his associates were conniving with Israel to assassinate the Hamas representatives. The US has its largest air base in the Middle East in Qatar at Al Udeid with 10,000 American military on site. Mysteriously, the base’s radar and air defense system appear to have been turned off when the Israeli planes were approaching the target. One wonders who ordered that. And the planes needed to be refueled to return to Israel after the attack. Conveniently, British Royal Air Force tankers were in the area to carry out that task. Sounds like a set-up to end any chance of a ceasefire by killing Hamas envoys in an ostensibly safe country Qatar that was orchestrated by Israel, the US and Britain. And what does the United States of America gain from it? “Nothing!” Or rather, global hatred of Washington due to its groveling support of all things Israeli just crept up by ten points!
And then there is the Genocide in Gaza itself. If there is any remaining confusion about Trump’s true intentions, one might cite Netanyahu, who has asserted that he has complete American support to do whatever he wants in Gaza, “no partial deals with Hamas, go with full force.” It is nevertheless difficult to imagine how average Americans benefit by allowing the crime against humanity to go on and on, something that could be stopped with a phone call if Donald Trump had even a trace of compassion hidden somewhere in that empty head that he bears.
Regrettably, the United States is completely complicit in the atrocity that is taking place in Gaza which is clearly visible to the entire world. And the US is even paying for and providing the arms for the slaughter. There is a certain irony in the fact that Washington funds the war for Israel, which has both free medical care and free higher education for its Jewish citizens, something that many American citizens are reportedly struggling with. One might well describe it as a misplaced priority, but it is in reality yet another symptom of the power that Israel has over the United States government from top to bottom.
Finally, if any additional evidence were required to demonstrate Israel’s power over the United States, the recent block by Washington on visa issuance for Palestinian participation in the United Nations opening session in New York as well as the general ban on accepting passports issued by the Palestine Authority are steps demanded by Israel to make it impossible for Palestinians to argue their own case for statehood and decent treatment in international fora. And what does the US get out of it even though it in theory supports a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine? Nothing.
Such is the level of pure evil emanating from Israel that many have come to believe that it is capable of any crime, which is quite likely true. Conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated on Wednesday, reportedly had begun to entertain some criticism of Israel which had resulted in threats that led him to employ bodyguards. As a result of that and other developments, momentum is growing to do something about Israel, which is clearly considered a threat to all the world, completely reckless in its behavior, and having “secret” nuclear weapons that it is very likely prepared to use. Suspension from the UN and the insertion of an international protection force in Gaza to stop the genocide are being discussed under the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, which empowers the General Assembly to recommend such steps to take when the Security Council is unable to act due to the expected US veto. There are also calls for Israel’s presence and privileges within the UN system to be suspended until a ceasefire in Gaza and full humanitarian access to the strip is restored. But never fear, Donald Trump will receive his orders from Benjamin Netanyahu and the US will do everything in its power as the rogue state it has become to stop any such action, including threats of sanctions and even violence against those promoting those moves, just as the US has done with the International Criminal Court and other bodies seeking an end to Israel’s war crimes. That is the unfortunate reality.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
By Peter C. Gøtzsche | Brownstone Institute | September 8, 2025
I am a specialist in internal medicine and have a keen interest in statistics and research methodology.1 My general approach to science has led to publications in many different areas because people came to me when they suspected something fishy in their specialty.1
In 2007, midwife Margrethe Nielsen from the Danish Consumer Council wanted to find out if history was repeating itself. I offered her a PhD student scholarship and we found out that the withdrawal symptoms are very similar for depression drugs and benzodiazepines, but they were described as dependence only for the latter.2
This started my interest in psychiatry and I quickly realised that a lot else was also misrepresented in this specialty. The lies psychiatrists convey to the public are so common and so harmful for their patients that I published my own textbook of psychiatry where I document what is wrong in the official textbooks used by medical students and psychiatrists in training.3 Much of what is claimed in the textbooks is scientifically dishonest, and frequently cited research is often totally unreliable because the data were tortured till they confessed.4
Psychiatry is the only specialty I know of that causes more harm than good; in fact, vastly more harm than good.5 This disaster can only survive because psychiatrists constantly lie to the public about what they can achieve with their drugs. Psychiatrists also routinely violate elementary human rights about informed consent and use forced treatment even though it is harmful.5,6
The title of my most recent psychiatry book summarises the issues: “Is psychiatry a crime against humanity?”5 As you shall see, I am not exaggerating.
In January 2014, I published the article, “Psychiatry gone astray,” in a major Danish newspaper, which also came out in English.7 I described ten myths in psychiatry that are harmful for the patients:
Myth 1: Your disease is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain.
Myth 2: It’s no problem to stop treatment with antidepressants.
Myth 3: Psychotropic drugs for mental illness are like insulin for diabetes.
Myth 4: Psychotropic drugs reduce the number of chronically ill patients.
Myth 5: Happy pills do not cause suicide in children and adolescents.
Myth 6: Happy pills have no side effects.
Myth 7: Happy pills are not addictive.
Myth 8: The prevalence of depression has increased a lot.
Myth 9: The main problem is not overtreatment, but undertreatment.
Myth 10: Antipsychotics prevent brain damage.
I explained why “Our citizens would be far better off if we removed all the psychotropic drugs from the market, as doctors are unable to handle them. It is inescapable that their availability creates more harm than good. Psychiatrists should therefore do everything they can to treat as little as possible, in as short a time as possible, or not at all, with psychotropic drugs.”
I hit some sore toes. There was an outcry, spearheaded by the drug industry and their paid allies among doctors and the media, but also the biggest debate in Denmark ever about psychiatric drugs.1,6 For more than a month, there wasn’t a single day without discussion of these issues on radio, TV, in newspapers, and at psychiatric departments. But sadly, the harmful business continued as usual.
The Facts
Psychiatric drugs do not have any specific effects, directed against a specific disease.8 Psychiatric disorders are merely a constellation of symptoms and psychiatric drugs have mainly two effects: They either sedate and numb people, or they stimulate them.
Brain-active drugs have such effects, e.g., also alcohol, opioids, cannabis, other psychedelics, and cocaine, but we don’t call such drugs antidepressants or antipsychotics. And the effect of antidepressants and antipsychotics is far below the minimally relevant effect, as established by the psychiatrists themselves in their research.3,6 It is therefore reasonable to say that they don’t work.
The most important effects of psychiatric drugs are not what you hear about. Because of the colossal overuse of the drugs, they are the major reason that our prescription drugs are the leading cause of death, ahead of heart disease and cancer.9 One in five citizens is on an antidepressant, which can cause falls, and when elderly people break their hip, one-fifth will die within the next year.
Many of those who don’t die will fare badly anyhow. In all countries where the relationship has been examined, the rates of disability pensions go up in tandem with increased usage of psychiatric drugs.10
You don’t hear much about sexual disturbances either. The so-called happy pills harm the sex life in half the patients, and in half of those patients, the harm is unacceptable.11 In some patients, the harms are irreversible and continue after the patients come off their drugs, which has led to suicide.12
The Lies
Psychiatrists, particularly those in high positions, routinely lie to the public with the intent to protect their guild interests and their financial interests, which are huge. In the US, there are more psychiatrists collecting payments from the pharma industry than any other type of specialist.13
The American Psychiatric Association (AMA) is corrupt. Many of the psychiatrists who invented the most foolish diagnoses in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) for psychiatric disorders, which expanded hugely the market for psychiatric drugs, were on industry payroll. But they are not open about it. The DSM-5-TR panel members received $14 million in undisclosed industry funding.14 To a European, this is an obscene level of corruption.
The worst lie is this one: Psychiatrists routinely tell their patients that they are ill because they have a chemical imbalance in the brain and that they will receive a drug that fixes this.
An associated lie is that withdrawal effects, when the patients try to come off their drugs, are trivial, and not withdrawal effects at all, but signs that their disease has relapsed and that they still need the drugs.15
In 2018, leaders in the UK Royal College of Psychiatrists wrote in the Times that, “in the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks of stopping treatment.”5 A group of clinicians and academics, including me, wrote to the authors that their statement was incorrect and that the College’s own survey of over 800 patients had found that withdrawal symptoms were experienced by 63% of the patients and that a quarter reported anxiety lasting more than 12 weeks.
The College immediately removed its survey from its website and when they refused to correct the error, we made our complaint public, which was covered by the BBC. Later, psychiatrist Sir Simon Wessely, previous president of the College, rejected any link between the pills and suicide and stated categorically in a podcast that they are “not addictive.”
We then published a most damning letter in the BMJ.16 Since guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) stated that withdrawal symptoms were “usually mild and self-limiting over about 1 week,” we asked for the evidence. NICE provided two short review articles, neither of which supported the one-week claim, and both articles cited numerous sources that contradicted it!
The embarrassment was now so big that the College needed to change its stance and NICE updated its guidelines.
This is one of the very rare instances where protests about psychiatry’s lies have led to any change. But the organised denial just continued. In 2025, a highly flawed systematic review in JAMA Psychiatry claimed that antidepressant withdrawal is not a problem.17,18 As usual, the authors postulated that depression after discontinuation is indicative of depression relapse.
To spread a little candlelight in the psychiatric darkness, I invented the term abstinence depression, which is not a true depression.3,18 The fact is that about half of the patients experience withdrawal effects; in half of the cases they are severe; and when patients try to stop, they often become worse than they were before they started on the drug.19 Moreover, the longer one is on the drugs, the higher the risk of withdrawal.19,20
The lies about a chemical imbalance and that abstinence symptoms are signs of relapse keep patients on their drugs for many years. Why would they ever stop when it is so clear that they need the drugs? But we don’t argue this way in relation to abuse of alcohol or narcotics. The patients never had a chemical imbalance causing their problems; but the drugs created one21,22 and caused harm.
Another big selling point is that you only need to treat a couple of patients to benefit one of them. This is also a huge lie. Psychiatric drugs cannot cure anyone. And the illusion of huge benefits is obtained by statistical manipulation.23 The trick is to dichotomise disappointing outcome data on a ranking scale and talk about response rates instead.24
This statistical hocus-pocus can convert a non-existing benefit into an almost doubling of the response rate,24 which looks very impressive. But as psychiatrist Joanna Moncrieff wrote, it is spinning straw into gold transforming ineffectiveness into the much-trumpeted idea that antidepressants work.25
The number needed to treat to benefit one patient (NNT) doesn’t exist because more patients are harmed than those who benefit. There can therefore only be a number needed to harm (NNH), which is two for sexual harms caused by antidepressants.11
Harms and benefits are rarely measured on the same scale, but when patients in a placebo-controlled trial decide whether it is worthwhile to continue in the trial, they make a judgment about if the benefits they perceive exceed the harms. My research group found that 12% more patients dropped out on a depression pill than on placebo (P < 0.00001).26 Thus, the patients will benefit by NOT being treated with antidepressants. They prefer a placebo.
More Examples of Institutional Betrayal
The US National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH) is the most prestigious psychiatric institution in the world. In 2022, Thomas Insel, its director from 2002 to 2015, called “America’s psychiatrist,” published the book, “Healing: Our Path From Mental Illness to Mental Health.”
Insel takes on the role of a drug rep, selling the wonders of psychiatric drugs to the public, but his book is misleading and dishonest.5 It starts already with the title. Psychiatric drugs cannot heal mental disorders, and the path the psychiatrists have taken is not from mental illness to mental health, but from bad to worse. Clearly, Insel makes an unintended case for abolishing psychiatry even though he tries to support it.27
The book reflects the thinking of psychiatric leaders everywhere and encapsulates how psychiatry has consistently betrayed public trust and misinformed the public, and that it will never tell the public the truth about psychiatric drugs.
Being a former NIMH director, Insel had an ethical obligation to tell his readers about the negative long-term outcomes of treatment with psychiatric drugs, as documented in expensive and prestigious research funded by the NIMH, e.g. the STAR*D trial in depression – a $35 million fraud – the MTA trial in ADHD, and the CATIE trial in schizophrenia.5 He didn’t, even though the NIMH is the only institution in the world that funds the big, long-term drug trials. As psychiatric leaders always do, Insel sacrificed the patients and protected the psychiatric guild by keeping the long-term studies financed by his own institute hidden.
In January 2025, I notified the UK drug regulator, the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), that the package inserts for antidepressants — called patient information leaflets (PIL) — contain false statements about depression being caused by a chemical imbalance, and I called for the misleading messages to be removed.28
The MHRA refused and when I sent a letter about this to four major UK newspapers and the Royal College of Psychiatrists with Joanna Moncrieff and others, they didn’t even have the courtesy to respond.
To paraphrase Lenin, editors of leading medical journals also behave like useful idiots for psychiatry and the drug industry. On 10 May 2025, an anonymous editorial in the Lancet, “50 years of SSRIs: weighing benefits and harms,” did little of what its title promised. It praised the drugs based on flawed research and glossed over the harms. When I pointed out how misleading the editorial was in a letter to the editor, it was rejected.28
Many Cochrane reviews of psychiatric drugs also contain misleading praises of the drugs and are garbage in, garbage out exercises that uncritically reproduce the flawed data the drug industry has published.1,5,29-31
The Lie That Drugs Can Prevent Suicide
Despite their pompous designation, “State of the Art” articles in leading medical journals are usually misleading and they are particularly dishonest in relation to suicides.1 A 19-page review in the BMJ claimed that depression drugs, lithium, antiepileptics, clozapine, ketamine, and electroshock can decrease the risk of suicide.32 None of the 159 references were convincing;33 the package inserts for depression drugs warn against the risk of suicide; and the package inserts for antiepileptics state that they double the risk of suicide!
In a 14-page Lancet suicide seminar from 2022, the authors tried to resurrect the lie about the chemical imbalance but the two articles they cited were gobbledygook.34,35 Among risk factors for suicide, they mentioned substance use but not depression pills, antiepileptics, or the psychiatric profession itself.35,36 A Danish register study of 2,429 suicides showed a very marked dose-response relationship:36 The closer the contact with psychiatric staff, the greater the risk of suicide.
Compared to people who had not received any psychiatric treatment in the preceding year, the adjusted rate ratio for suicide was 44 for people who had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital.36 Such patients would of course be expected to be at greatest risk of suicide because they were more ill than the others (confounding by indication), but the findings were robust and most of the potential biases in the study were actually conservative, i.e. favoured the null hypothesis of there being no relationship. An accompanying editorial noted that there is little doubt that suicide is related to both stigma and trauma and that it is entirely plausible that the stigma and trauma inherent in psychiatric treatment—particularly if involuntary— might cause suicide.37
The Lancet authors wrote that there is a possibility of exacerbating suicidal thoughts. Wrong. It is not a possibility; it is a fact. None of the 142 references were to any of the many meta-analyses showing that depression pills increase the suicide risk compared to placebo. The authors even claimed, with no references, that drug treatment can reduce the suicide risk. Which miraculous drugs can do this?
They also noted that some research has found an association with increased risk of suicide-related outcomes in young people. This is also dishonest. When the FDA looked at all the randomised trials, they found a causal relation and not just an association.
In 2023, the “experts” failed us badly again. A 16-page article in BMJ about suicide in young people, with 169 references, mentioned some risk factors, e.g. living in a home with firearms, but not depression drugs, which they recommended with “increased monitoring by the prescribing physician.”38 This is a fake fix, as people may kill themselves suddenly and unexpectedly.39
The authors considered a risk difference of 0.7% for suicidal ideation or suicide attempt between drug and placebo small and even dismissed it: “Data from more recent pediatric antidepressant trials have not shown differences between drug and placebo.” The review they quoted cannot be used to such effect and for rare events, it is unacceptable to lose statistical power by including only “recent” trials. Moreover, the review only included published trial reports, which we know have omitted many suicide attempts and suicides, even in children.6,39 It is irresponsible of the BMJ to publish such dangerous nonsense.
In 2023, I called for retraction of three fraudulent trial reports that had omitted suicidal events in children.40 Even though my letter was co-signed by 10 people who each lost a child or spouse to suicide as a direct consequence of being prescribed an antidepressant drug for a non-psychiatric condition, my request was turned down by both involved journals.41
Annette Flanagin, Executive Managing Editor, Vice President, Editorial Operations JAMA and JAMA Network, replied: “We shared your letter with the author of the study published in Archives of General Psychiatry and he does not identify any new concerns. Similarly, we do not find new evidence in support of your request to retract this article.”
So, JAMA and Graham Emslie, who omitted two suicide attempts on fluoxetine, do not think this is something to bother about. When I contacted the journal’s owner, Elsevier, they did not engage with our concerns but directed me back to the journal.
Douglas K. Novins, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JCAAP), wrote to me that, “Following guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE),” they had thoroughly reviewed my “critique, as well as the responses provided by the papers’ authors. We are satisfied that the critiques of the papers as outlined do not merit retraction.”
It is hard to see how Novins could have followed the COPE guidelines, as the two trial reports, by Emslie and Martin Keller, are clearly fraudulent.
In 2023, I did a Google search on suicide and antidepressants, which confirmed that the public is being massively and systematically misinformed.42,43 One of the top 10 posts was from the Danish Centre for Suicide Research that reported that depression drugs increase the risk of repeated suicide attempts by 50%.44 The research was supported by Lundbeck, and after the researchers had adjusted their analyses for many factors including psychiatric contact and use of various psychiatric drugs, they concluded that the pills do not increase the risk of suicide. It is plain wrong to adjust for something that is part of the causal chain, as it may remove a true association, but the authors surely pleased their funder.
Another post was a comment I made on the Danish Board of Health’s website.45 Poul Videbech, a national icon in depression, had claimed in the Board’s journal, Rational Pharmacotherapy, that undertreatment with depression drugs is dangerous because of the suicide risk. This cannot be correct because the drugs increase the risk of suicide.
When I searched the Internet to find out what the “experts” opine currently, I found a systematic review in the psychiatrists’ flagship journal, American Journal of Psychiatry.46 It was about “evidence-based strategies,” but already the abstract was blatantly false. It claimed that “Meta-analyses find that antidepressants prevent suicide attempts.”
I don’t know of any other medical specialty whose practitioners lie systematically to the public in matters of life and death and claim the opposite of what is true.
In June 2025, I gave a talk in Capitol about suicides caused by antidepressants, invited by US war veterans who are routinely given these drugs for their war traumas.47 As expected, the effect of the veterans’ suicide prevention programme has been a notable increase in suicides corresponding to a similar increase in antidepressant usage.48,49
In the surreal upside-down world of psychiatry, all suicide prevention initiatives I have come across have included drugs that increase suicides!50
There was a press conference outside the Capitol,47 but the media are not keen to write stories about antidepressants killing people. I only saw an article in the Wall Street Journal, which I tweeted about:
Combat cocktails: US war veterans are destroyed and kill themselves because of psychiatric polypharmacy. Wall Street Journal https://bit.ly/4fjkz5P.
Antidepressants Harm the Unborn Child
New winds are blowing in the US, which could profoundly change healthcare for the better.51 On 21 July 2025, the FDA held a two-hour seminar about the possible harms to the foetus of treating pregnant women with antidepressants.52 For the first time, this crucial issue was honestly debated at the FDA, by good scientists, but this could not be tolerated by the professional liars.
There was a howl of outrage from psychiatric organisations and mainstream media that accused the FDA’s panel of being alarmingly unbalanced and of spreading misinformation,53-55 which was not at all the case.
The American Psychiatric Association (AMA) wrote to the FDA four days after the meeting that it was “alarmed and concerned by the misinterpretations and unbalanced viewpoints shared by several of the panelists… This propagation of biased interpretations at a time when suicide is a leading cause of maternal death within the first postpartum year could seriously hinder maternal mental health care. The inaccurate interpretation of data, and the use of opinion, rather than the years of research on antidepressant medications, will exacerbate stigma and deter pregnant individuals from seeking necessary care.”
The AMA could hardly have been more dishonest. Antidepressants double not only the risk of suicide but even actual suicides.49,56
Without mentioning the pregnancy issue, the AMA circled the wagons again, in a tweet on 28 August:57
“IMPORTANT: Decades of rigorous research, randomized clinical trials, peer-reviewed studies, meta-analyses, national registry studies, and FDA oversight show that psychiatric medications are safe and effective. Medications like SSRIs can be lifesaving if they are taken as directed under the care of an appropriately licensed healthcare professional. Learn more: https://ow.ly/RWEQ50WNJeI.“
In just two sentences, the AMA propagated three lies. No psychiatric drug is safe. They all kill people, to a substantial degree.1,3,5,6,9 And it has never been documented that SSRIs can be life-saving while it has been documented that they take many lives. They cause suicides and homicides6 and lead to falls in the elderly,9 and when they break their hip, one-fifth will die within the next year. Psychiatric medications are not effective either, e.g. the effect of antidepressants and antipsychotics is far below the minimally relevant effect, as established by the psychiatrists themselves in their research.5,6
Not even when there is clear evidence, both from studies in animals and humans,52-55 that our children are being harmed by psychiatric drugs before they are even born, do we see any admission from the AMA that it is wrong to treat pregnant women with antidepressants. They prefer to continue lying.
Antidepressants should be banned for use in pregnant women. Psychotherapy is more effective, as it has enduring effects,5,6 and it won’t harm the unborn child.
Reactions to AMA’s Tweet
Increasingly, the public is waking up to psychiatry’s deceptions. People are not so dumb as the AMA thinks they are, which the retweets to AMA’s tweet57 demonstrate:
“The FDA issues a black box warning for all SSRI’s indicating increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, particularly in children, adolescents, and adults under 25. How could the American Psychiatric Association make such a claim? (sic) Isn’t doing so extremely unethical?!”
“The APA is lying to you. SSRIs are neither safe nor effective. NOT EVEN CLOSE. And they do not magically perform better under the care of a licensed professional. Them’s the facts.”
“Anytime I hear experts so-called say something is safe and effective. I immediately know that that is not the case. Thank you for confirming my suspicion.”
“Merriam-Webster defines ‘safe’ as ‘free from danger, harm, or risk.’ All classes of psych meds include black box warnings about serious or life-threatening adverse effects risks.”
“How safe is sudden death? Some of those meds can cause that.”
“Life-taking. My adult son didn’t make it past 6 weeks after his #PillPusher prescribed SSRIs within 15min of meeting him.”
“What percentage of patients who take SSRIs are cured and can stop taking them?”
“I don’t know a single person who has been cured by psychiatric drugs.”
“The good ‘ol APA, brought to you by Pfizer. Maybe they will make a med for cognitive dissonance soon?”
“Psychiatry is quackery. Read the book Anatomy of an Epidemic by Robert Whitaker!”
“Psychiatry is one of the dumbest religions.”
A retweeter showed this picture of Mr. Bean, which sort of explains it all:
Conclusions
Psychiatry is a totally corrupt specialty, ethically, scientifically, and financially, with devastating consequences for the patients, their relatives and friends, and for our national economies.
Psychiatry is a crime against humanity that must be stopped.5 It should not be a medical specialty, and patients with mental health issues should not be treated by medically trained doctors because the existing approaches, which focus on drugs, are not working.
In the UK, mental health disability has almost tripled in recent decades, and the gap in life expectancy between people with severe mental health issues and the general population has doubled.58 The World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Nations have therefore recently called for systematic mental health reform emphasising psychosocial interventions.58
My advice to patients is: If you have a mental health issue, don’t see a psychiatrist. It is too dangerous and might turn out to be the biggest error you made in your entire life.12,59 Don’t look up a family doctor either, as they are also programmed to make psychiatric diagnoses and hand out psychiatric pills.
References
1 Gøtzsche PC. Whistleblower in healthcare (autobiography). Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom 2025; April 8 (freely available).
2 Nielsen M, Hansen EH, Gøtzsche PC. What is the difference between dependence and withdrawal reactions? A comparison of benzodiazepines and selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors. Addiction 2012;107:900–8.
3 Gøtzsche PC. Critical Psychiatry Textbook: a new psychiatry is needed. Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom 2023; May 17.
4 Mills JL. Data torturing. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1196-9.
5 Gøtzsche PC. Is psychiatry a crime against humanity? Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom; 2024 (freely available).
6 Gøtzsche PC. Deadly pPsychiatry and Organised Denial. Copenhagen: People’s Press; 2015.
7 Gøtzsche PC. Psychiatry gone astray. Mad in America 2014; Jan 28.
8 Moncrieff J. The Myth of the Chemical Cure: A Critique of Psychiatric Drug Treatment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2007.
9 Gøtzsche PC. Prescription Drugs Are the Leading Cause of Death. Brownstone Journal 2024; April 16.
10 Whitaker R. Anatomy of an Epidemic, 2nd edition. New York: Broadway Paperbacks; 2015.
11 Montejo A, Llorca G, Izquierdo J, et al. Incidence of sexual dysfunction associated with antidepressant agents: a prospective multicenter study of 1022 outpatients. Spanish Working Group for the study of psychotropic-related sexual dysfunction. J Clin Psychiatry 2001;62 (suppl 3):10–21.
12 Gøtzsche PC. Mental Health Survival Kit and Withdrawal from Psychiatric Drugs. Ann Arbor: L H Press; 2022.
13 Staton T. Psychiatrists dominate doc-payment database. Fierce Pharma 2010; Oct 25.
14 Burton KW. DSM-5-TR Panel Members Received $14M in Undisclosed Industry Funding. Medscape 2024; Jan 10.
15 Gøtzsche PC, Demasi M. Interventions to help patients withdraw from depression drugs: A systematic review. Int J Risk Saf Med 2024;35:103-16.
16 Davies J, Read J, Hengartner MP, et al. Clinical guidelines on antidepressant withdrawal urgently need updating. BMJ 2019;365:l2238.
17 Kalfas M, Tsapekos D, Butler M, et al. Incidence and nature of antidepressant discontinuation symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 2025;Jul 9:e251362.
18 Gøtzsche PC. Exposing the Lie That Antidepressant Withdrawal Symptoms are Mild and Short-Lived. Brownstone Journal 2025; July 25.
19 Davies J, Read J. A systematic review into the incidence, severity and duration of antidepressant withdrawal effects: Are guidelines evidence-based? Addict Behav 2019;97:111-21.
20 Horowitz MA, Buckman JEJ, Saunders R, et al. Antidepressants withdrawal effects and duration of use: a survey of patients enrolled in primary care psychotherapy services. Psychiatry Res 2025;350:116497.
21 Moncrieff J, Cohen D. Do antidepressants cure or create abnormal brain states? PLoS Med 2006;3:e240.
22 Moncrieff J, Cooper RE, Stockmann T, et al. The serotonin theory of depression: a systematic umbrella review of the evidence. Mol Psychiatry 2023;28:3243-56.
23 Gøtzsche PC. Number needed to treat with a psychiatric drug to benefit one patient is an illusion. Mad in America 2022; Dec 13.
24 Gøtzsche PC. Response Rates in Psychiatric Drug trials are Statistical Nonsense. Brownstone Journal 2025; July 11.
25 Moncrieff J. Chemically Imbalanced: The Making and Unmaking of the Serotonin Myth. Padstow: Flint; 2025.
26 Sharma T, Guski LS, Freund N, et al. Drop-out rates in placebo-controlled trials of antidepressant drugs: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on clinical study reports. Int J Risk Saf Med 2019;30:217-32.
27 Whitaker R. Thomas Insel makes a case for abolishing psychiatry. Mad in America 2022; Apr 30.
28 Gøtzsche PC. Protecting the false narrative about antidepressants. Mad in America 2025; July 7.
29 Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane recommends antidepressants for anxiety in a garbage in, garbage out review. Mad in America 2025; July 29.
30 Gøtzsche PC. Garbage in, garbage out: the newest Cochrane meta-analysis of depression pills in children. Mad in America 2021; Aug 19.
31 Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane reviews of psychiatric drugs are untrustworthy. Mad in America 2023; Sept 14.
32 Bolton JM, Gunnell D, Turecki G. Suicide risk assessment and intervention in people with mental illness. BMJ 2015;351:h4978.
33 Gøtzsche PC. No psychiatric drugs have been convincingly shown to decrease suicides. BMJ 2015; Dec 10.
34 Knipe D, Padmanathan P, Newton-Howes G, et al. Suicide and self-harm. Lancet 2022;399:1903-16.
35 Gøtzsche PC. A hopelessly flawed seminar in “The Lancet” about suicide. Mad in America 2022; June 1.
36 Hjorthøj CR, Madsen T, Agerbo E, et al. Risk of suicide according to level of psychiatric treatment: a nationwide nested case-control study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2014;49:1357–65.
37 Large MM, Ryan CJ. Disturbing findings about the risk of suicide and psychiatric hospitals. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2014;49:1353–5.
38 Hughes JL, Horowitz LM, Ackerman JP, et al. Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention. BMJ 2023;381:e070630.
39 Gøtzsche PC. Depression drugs have been shown to double the risk of suicide in young people and should not be used. BMJ 2023; April 26.
40 Gøtzsche PC. Call for retraction of three fraudulent trial reports of antidepressants in children and adolescents. Institute for Scientific Freedom 2023; Aug 3.
41 Gøtzsche PC. Medical journals refuse to retract fraudulent trial reports that omitted suicidal events in children. Mad in America 2024; Mar 18.
42 Gøtzsche PC. The lie that antidepressants protect against suicide is deadly. Mad in America 2023; Nov 28.
43 Gøtzsche PC. So-called suicide experts recommend antidepressants, which increase suicides. Mad in America 2024; Oct 24.
44 Jakobsen SG, Christiansen E. Selvmordsforsøg og antidepressiva. Center for Selvmordsforskning 2019; Dec.
45 Gøtzsche PC. Misinformation om antidepressiva og selvmord. http://www.irf.dk 2015; March 5.
46 Mann JJ, Michel CA, Auerbach RP. Improving suicide prevention through evidence-based strategies: a systematic review. Am J Psychiatry 2021;178:611-24.
47 Harris L. Veterans Take Their “War Cry For Change” to Capitol Hill. Mad in America 2025; June 14.
48 Gøtzsche PC. Suicides increase after national suicide prevention introduced. Mad in America 2025; Feb 20.
49 Gøtzsche PC. Observational studies confirm trial results that antidepressants double suicides. Mad in America 2025; Feb 8.
50 Gøtzsche PC. So-called suicide experts recommend antidepressants, which increase suicides. Mad in America 2024; Oct 24.
51 Kennedy: A new time for America? Filmed interview with Peter C. Gøtzsche. Broken Medical Science 2025; Jan 12.
52 FDA Expert Panel on Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and Pregnancy. YouTube 2025; July 21.
53 Whitaker R. Not even the unborn are safe from psychiatric harm. Mad in America 2025; Aug 23.
54 Moncrieff J, Urato A. Antidepressants in Pregnancy -Turning a Blind Eye, Again. Mad in America 2025; Aug 25.
55 Gøtzsche PC. Psychiatrists Deny the Harm of Antidepressants for the Fetus. Brownstone Journal 2025; Aug 30.
56 Hengartner MP, Plöderl M. Reply to the Letter to the Editor: “Newer-Generation Antidepressants and Suicide Risk: Thoughts on Hengartner and Plöderl’s ReAnalysis.” Psychother Psychosom 2019;88:373-4.
57 American Psychiatric Association tweet. X 2025; Aug 28.
58 Shifting the balance towards social interventions: a call for an overhaul of the mental health system. Beyond Pills All-Party Parliamentary Group 2024; May.
59 Breggin P. The most dangerous thing you will ever do. Mad in America 2020; March 2.
Dr. Peter Gøtzsche co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration, once considered the world’s preeminent independent medical research organization. In 2010 Gøtzsche was named Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen. Gøtzsche has published more than 97 over 100 papers in the “big five” medical journals (JAMA, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine). Gøtzsche has also authored books on medical issues including Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime.
MEMO | September 11, 2025
A Scottish lawmaker tabled a motion at parliament Thursday condemning Israel’s membership in European sporting associations, urging organizations to revoke its participation, Anadolu reports.
The motion, lodged at Holyrood by James Dornan, said Israel should not be permitted to compete under European banners as it is geographically situated in the Asian continent, not Europe.
It cited reported views that Israeli state policy is one of genocide against the people of Gaza. The motion views “the relentless and barbaric implementation of this policy are grounds for the rescinding of Israel’s membership from European sporting associations.”
Dornan’s motion urged European bodies such as the European football governing body (UEFA), the Federation of International Basketball Association Europe, the European Handball Association and the European Athletic Association to dispel Israel’s membership forthwith.
Last month, Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur for human rights in the Palestinian territories, demanded UEFA expel Israel from competitions for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip.
It was after UEFA’s farewell to former Palestinian footballer Suleiman al-Obeid, whom it called the “Palestinian Pele.”
The Israeli army has continued a brutal offensive on Gaza, killing at least 64,700 Palestinians since October 2023. The military campaign has devastated the enclave, which is facing famine.
Last November, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its war on the enclave.
Al Mayadeen | September 11, 2025
Hezbollah has denied the Syrian Interior Ministry’s claim that several individuals arrested in the western Damascus countryside are members of the group.
In a statement issued by its Media Relations Office on Thursday, Hezbollah reiterated that it does not have any presence or any activity within Syrian territory, asserting that it is “deeply committed to Syria’s stability and the security of its people.”
This follows remarks by the head of internal security for the Damascus countryside governorate, Brigadier General Ahmad al-Dalati, who alleged that security forces arrested a cell operating in the western Damascus countryside towns of Sa’sa’ and Kanakir, which he claimed was affiliated with Hezbollah.
Al-Dalati further claimed that security forces had seized rocket launch platforms, 19 Grad-type rockets, anti-tank missiles, a number of individual weapons, and large quantities of various types of ammunition.
Not so new accusations
Syria has previously leveled similar accusations against Hezbollah, which consistently denies having any involvement or presence on Syrian soil.
On July 13, Hezbollah categorically denied similar allegations made by Syria’s Interior Ministry that one of the individuals arrested in Homs at the time was affiliated with the Lebanese Resistance group.
In a statement issued Sunday by its Media Relations Office, Hezbollah said it has “no presence or activity in Syria” and rejected any connection to local events or conflicts.
No involvement in Syria events
On March 8, Hezbollah issued a firm denial of media reports that claimed it was involved in the ongoing conflict in Syria, as a war monitor reported that recent violence had killed more than 500 people from the country’s Alawite minority community.
In its statement, Hezbollah’s Media Relations Office urged media outlets to refrain from falling for disinformation campaigns that serve questionable foreign agendas, asserting that “some parties are keen to drag Hezbollah’s name into the events taking place in Syria and accuse it of being a party to the conflict.”
The Lebanese Resistance group further called on media outlets to uphold accuracy in their reporting and to avoid being drawn into politically motivated disinformation campaigns that serve foreign interests.
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 11, 2025
The recent Israeli attacks on Qatar have brought to public debate an issue long overlooked by analysts during the current Middle East conflict: Qatar’s ambiguous role in the regional security architecture.
In the geopolitical theater of the Middle East, Qatar has played a profoundly ambiguous role—at times portrayed as a regional mediator, at others as a strategic collaborator with the Washington-Tel Aviv axis. This ambivalence is neither accidental nor merely tactical. It is rooted in the very foundations of Gulf monarchies’ foreign policy, notoriously driven by a commercial mentality that prioritizes stability, survival, and diplomatic gains over any consistent ideological alignment. However, in light of the current stage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this self-interested neutrality has increasingly morphed into active complicity with the Zionist occupation regime.
Despite hosting the political leadership of Hamas in Doha, Qatar does not finance its military wing—which, in fact, is supported by Iran. The hospitality extended to the political branch of the Palestinian movement serves, in reality, as a diplomatic tool to increase Qatari influence over the resistance and steer it toward behavior less hostile to Israeli and American interests. This strategy has been employed for years under the pretense of “mediation,” but in practice, it functions as a containment mechanism for the Palestinian national movement.
For years, the Al Jazeera network, controlled by Doha, had authorized access to the Gaza Strip, even under the strict control of Israeli security forces. This privilege was not granted out of goodwill by Tel Aviv but was the result of a strategic arrangement: Al Jazeera promoted anti-Iran rhetoric within the occupied territories, reinforcing the sectarian divide between Sunnis and Shiites and distracting Palestinians from their real source of military support. In return, Israel allowed the ideological diffusion of Wahhabism in Gaza, calculating that this doctrine would weaken Palestinian nationalism and inter-Muslim solidarity, replacing them with religious divisions and fractured loyalties.
This pact began to decline as Al Jazeera became a major outlet for exposing the brutal reality of the genocide in Gaza. Once Qatar’s media presence in occupied Palestine started to generate more costs than benefits for Israel, the Zionist regime enacted a censorship law banning Al Jazeera and assassinated several of its journalists during the criminal airstrikes on Gaza.
Qatar is also home to the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East—Al Udeid Air Base. This facility not only houses American equipment and troops but also serves as an operational platform for Israeli assets in joint missions against Gaza, Hezbollah, and potentially Iran. The Israeli presence on Qatari soil is an open secret and illustrates just how much Qatar has functioned as a logistical hub for the regional security architecture coordinated by Washington and Tel Aviv.
In June, Iran launched precision strikes against this base during its brief direct war with Israel. The message was unequivocal: by allowing its territory to be used by powers hostile to the Axis of Resistance, Qatar had crossed the limits of neutrality. Doha’s response, however, was to remain in a position of complicit silence, ignoring internal protests and maintaining its alignment with Western allies.
This posture exposes the fundamental paradox of Gulf foreign policy: even with populations broadly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, the Wahhabi bloc has repeatedly chosen to accommodate Israeli and American projects, as long as doing so ensures dynastic survival and economic stability. This reflects a deeply rooted rationality in the political culture of desert nations—one shaped by centuries of pragmatic adaptation to scarcity and existential threats. In an environment where taking sides can mean ruin, ambiguity becomes a way of life.
However, in the current context of conflict radicalization, this ambiguity is no longer perceived as strategy but as betrayal. By refusing to break with the occupying powers, Qatar risks being dragged into an escalation it helped to ignite. The Israeli bombs falling on Gaza today do so, directly or indirectly, with American logistical support originating from Qatari territory. This undeniable fact—under any serious analysis—undermines Doha’s attempt to present itself as both bridge and wall, as arbiter and accomplice.
The recent Israeli strikes on Doha have made one thing painfully clear: befriending the Zionists is a deadly mistake.
Al Mayadeen | September 11, 2025
In a significant move to reclaim Congressional authority over military engagement, the US House of Representatives voted on Tuesday to repeal decades-old laws that authorized war in the Middle East.
The 261-167 vote represents a bipartisan push to rescind the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs), originally enacted ahead of the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The repeal was adopted as an amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and is being hailed as a victory for war powers reform advocates, who argue that outdated authorizations enable unchecked presidential use of military force.
Long-awaited win for war powers reform advocates
The amendment was co-sponsored by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and garnered support from 49 Republicans and 212 Democrats. Advocates argue that keeping these authorizations in place enables future administrations to bypass Congress in deploying US military power.
“We don’t need to have Congress effectively modern-day declaring war and leaving it in place for a quarter of a freaking century, or in this case, 34 years,” said Roy.
Meeks added that he was “prepared to fight” in upcoming Senate negotiations to ensure the repeal becomes law.
Pushback from opponents
The proposal had an uncertain path to passage. Initially excluded from the package of amendments allowed for floor debate, the measure was added only after an unusual procedural win in the House Rules Committee. Republicans Ralph Norman (SC), Morgan Griffith (VA), and Chip Roy broke with their party to help Democrats force a debate on the amendment.
Not all lawmakers welcomed the repeal. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-FL) warned that revoking the war powers laws would “tie the president’s hands” in responding to regional threats, including resistance movements in Iraq.
Despite these concerns, the amendment passed with bipartisan backing, though deeper divisions remain over broader defense policies.
Wider debate over executive military power continues
While the vote represents a symbolic step toward limiting presidential war authority, critics note that the repeal will not affect recent military actions, including President Donald Trump’s alleged strike last week on a vessel in the Caribbean he claimed was for smuggling drugs.
The war powers repeal is expected to become a central issue in House-Senate negotiations over the final defense policy package. Although both chambers have voted in recent years to repeal the 2002 Iraq AUMF, no repeal legislation has yet been enacted into law.
Background on AUMFs
While former President Joe Biden never formally used the authorization, his administration argued it was important to keep it intact to respond to any future threats.
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 11, 2025
The Germans are sticking to their preposterous claims that the Nord Stream pipeline attacks, which effectively forced Germany to ditch its cheap gas in preference for overpriced American gas, were carried out by Ukrainians. In late August, a cohort of unlikely suspects, who some might call ‘patsies’ were rounded up and bundled into vans to face charges, according to a number of big media outlets whose reports did not make it into the international domain.
However, the story itself is comical as the Germans are going to extraordinary servile lengths to please their American masters who have no doubt asked them to cook up a story and go out and arrest ‘the usual suspects’.
German media went to extraordinary lengths to not only get details right but also to present it to a gullible public with a united front – one story, one narrative with no possibilities of it being spun differently when the smaller media outlets rewrite it. They went so far, they even made it a ‘joint report’ between Die Zeit, ARD, and Süddeutsche Zeitung, with investigators reported to have said they have identified all suspects involved in the sabotage. The reports claim the warrants cover four divers, an explosives expert, a ship captain, and the ‘leader’ of the operation.
Officials allege the suspects travelled under false names using genuine passports, a detail they say indicates support from high-level Ukrainian officials although no such journalists writing up the hilarious piece appear to want to point out the absurdity of the whole operation being carried out by a diving instructor.
One has to wonder why at this precise moment these unfortunate souls have been framed for crimes they didn’t commit. Is it because western intelligence picked up reports that more information is coming to light about the operation and which partners the Americans might have had?
As far as making calculated assumptions about who the real culprits were, the Russians themselves appear to be the most realistic with their assessment with some of their experts fingering the British naval special forces.
The sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines could not have been pulled off without Western commandos, a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed, singling out Britain as the likely culprit to have done it. The idea that Ukrainians themselves carried out the technical work lacks credibility on a number of levels. In an article published recently in Kommersant, the former head of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), Nikolay Patrushev, argued that Ukrainians simply don’t have the required expertise to carry out this complex operation under their own steam. The sabotage was likely ‘planned, overseen, and executed with the involvement of highly trained NATO special forces,’ Patrushev wrote, adding that the perpetrators were experienced in deep-sea operations and familiar with working in the Baltic. ‘Few armies or intelligence services have divers capable of executing such an operation correctly and, above all, covertly. One unit with the necessary skills is the British Special Boat Service,’ he said.
Founded during World War II, the SBS is the Royal Navy’s elite squad specializing in amphibious warfare which carried out a number of daring raids during WWII which changed the course of the war – perhaps salt in the wound of politicians in Germany who prefer not to remember this period of their history.
For those in Germany who kept a straight face for the last three years like the then chancellor Olaf Scholz or his foreign minister, the clueless Annalena Baerbock, there are rewards though from the Americans who are grateful that they sold out their own country. Baerbock has just landed the top job at the UN as the assembly’s president. Nice work if you can get it but in reality, a brown envelope pay off for her graft.
By Ahmed Adel | September 11, 2025
The announcement that hospitals in France are preparing to receive 50,000 soldiers by March 2026 did not elicit a noticeable reaction in the French media, and, in fact, it should not be given any undue importance. This is because it was likely an attempt to raise the stakes and make the French population aware that a conflict with Russia is more likely than it actually is, a sign of just how desperate President Emmanuel Macron has become as his popularity continues to plummet and pressure mounts for him to step down.
As revealed by Le Canard Enchaîné, the French Ministry of Health asked hospitals in a letter sent to regional health agencies to prepare for a “major engagement” by March 2026 that could see between 10,000 and 50,000 men treated over a period of 10 to 180 days.
“In the current international context, it is necessary to anticipate the modalities of health support in situations of high-intensity conflict,” the Ministry of Health reportedly wrote in the document.
Health Minister Catherine Vautrin did not deny the details outlined in the letter or its existence in an interview with French broadcaster BFMTV, instead minimizing the alarming preparedness efforts by using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example.
“It’s part of preparation, like strategic stockpiles, like epidemics. I wasn’t in office at the time of COVID-19, remember. There were no words harsh enough to describe the country’s lack of preparedness,” she said.
It is recalled that just months ago, France outlined plans to send a 20-page ‘survival manual’ to every household that laid out instructions on preparation for an “imminent threat”, including a natural disaster, health crisis, or armed conflict. The manual also suggests items people should have as part of a “survival kit”, including at least six litres of bottled water, 10 cans of food, a torch, extra batteries, and medical supplies such as saline solution, compresses, and paracetamol.
Macron does not enjoy much support among French citizens, with the latest polls indicating a paltry 15% approval rating. Such an announcement should therefore not be taken too seriously. The French president currently faces much bigger political problems, including his own survival, as calls for impeachment mount.
At the same time, March 2026 is only half a year away, and it is questionable whether hospitals can realistically prepare for such a large capacity within such a short period. The French public health system faces numerous organizational and technical challenges, and announcing an increase in capacity for a potential military conflict and the reception of the wounded does not seem particularly mature or realistic.
This announcement may have been made to increase Macron’s credibility following his rather aggressive speeches, which he has been inclined to use lately, especially against Russia. France, unfortunately, has been pursuing the wrong foreign policy throughout the Ukrainian crisis. With its positions and influence within the European Union and NATO, it has fostered a militaristic atmosphere and largely convinced, along with Great Britain, Germany, and even Poland, to support a warmongering strategy.
Discussions about losses, the wounded, preparing national capacities, and the state in general for such a war are an aggressive projection. Neither the policy nor the strategy has support, not only among the people, but also in military circles.
Instead, the announcement to the hospitals is an expression of the French president’s inner leadership, and it may have even been influenced by Britain, which is directing France to pursue this policy. Whatever is happening on the Ukrainian front, including the supply and introduction of new combat systems, drones, and the development of military capacities for ammunition and weapons within Ukraine’s territory, follows the guidelines set by London, in which Paris and, especially, Berlin have been participating recently.
Different voices and the public’s response in France are not heard enough due to the manipulation of political processes. Everything that opposes Macron and his government, whether on the streets or through democratic processes, has been silenced. This does not mean that he will be able to persevere to the end with such failed strategic decisions.
France has had a hung parliament since Macron surprised his country by calling snap national elections last year, after a poor performance in the June 2024 European vote. In this context, Macron named loyalist Sebastien Lecornu, a one-time conservative protege who rallied behind his 2017 presidential run, as Prime Minister on September 9, indicating that the president will continue with a minority government that will not rip up his economic agenda, in which taxes on business and the wealthy have been slashed but the retirement age raised.
All in all, Macron’s end is likely near, and there is no amount of Russophobia or fearmongering that he can manufacture to save his untenable position.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
By Vijay Jayaraj | Real Clear Markets | September 9, 2025
When most people think of ASEAN – a diverse association of Southeast Asian nations that include Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam – they picture Thailand’s beaches, Singapore’s gleaming skyline or Indonesia’s temples.
What they don’t see is an economic juggernaut that will drive some of the planet’s largest growth in energy demand. Vietnam has emerged as a global manufacturing hub. Indonesia processes the world’s nickel for electric vehicle batteries. Thailand manufactures automobiles for export across Asia. Each of these economic engines demands reliable, affordable electricity that operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
In fact, 2023 witnessed a demand increase of nearly 45 terawatt-hours (TWh), an amount of energy that must be generated, transmitted regionally, and delivered locally on a continual basis. Where did this new power come from? Coal. An astonishing 96% of that new demand was met by coal-fired power plants.
Let that sink in. Coal, the energy source routinely demonized in Western capitals and at global climate summits, met nearly all the region’s new electricity needs. This reality stands in direct contradiction to rosy predictions of a transition to “renewables” manufactured by highly compensated executives at elite consulting firms who have spent the better part of a decade selling energy fairy tales to governments and investors.
Indonesia alone added 11 TWh of coal-generated electricity in 2023, while its electricity demand rose by 17 TWh, with coal meeting two-thirds of this increase. The Philippines generates more than 60% of its electricity from coal, and Malaysia and Vietnam each around 50%.
Ultra-supercritical coal technology – using extraordinarily high temperatures and pressures and pioneered at Malaysia’s Manjung plant and Indonesia’s Batang facility, delivers higher efficiency than older coal plants. These advanced facilities demonstrate that coal technology continues to improve while wind and solar remain dependent on weather conditions and the time of day.
The wind and solar share across ASEAN remained a pitiful 4.5% in 2023. This minuscule contribution exposes the bankruptcy of consultants’ promises of “renewables” dominating the regional power mix by mid-2020s.
Coal’s dominance in recent years is not an accident; it is a necessity. Indonesia, the region’s economic giant, leans on coal to power its export-driven industries, including nickel for EV batteries. Vietnam’s manufacturing boom, lifting millions into the middle class, runs on coal’s steady output. Malaysia and the Philippines, too, rely on coal to sustain their growing economies. Even Singapore, a global hub of innovation, depends on coal to maintain its energy security.
Yet, to focus solely on the power grid is to miss the forest for the trees, as electricity is just one component of total energy consumption. Electricity represents only a fraction of total consumption across ASEAN. The larger picture is primary energy consumption, which includes fuel for transport, industry and heating.
Oil, natural gas and coal collectively hold the major share of ASEAN’s primary energy mix, with oil leading consumption patterns across transportation and industrial sectors. Factories, petrochemicals, shipping, aviation, and agriculture all consume fossil fuels in large quantities.
ASEAN countries are committing hundreds of billions of dollars to fossil fuel infrastructure that will operate for decades. Coal plants have an average lifespan of 40 years. These capital investments create long-term commitments to hydrocarbon use that extend far beyond current political cycles.
Nineteen projects across Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, Indonesia, and Myanmar hold more than 540 billion cubic meters of recoverable gas. Countries don’t spend billions developing gas fields if they plan to abandon fossil fuels within the next decade.
ASEAN’s embrace of coal is about more than just keeping the lights on. These nations aren’t chasing arbitrary climate targets; they’re building the infrastructure of their future and prosperity for people.
Every new airport, every new highway and every new factory is a testament to the power of coal. To argue against coal is to oppose the physical manifestations of progress. The “green” agenda, by seeking to eliminate coal, demands that the developing world stop building – an ultimatum that ASEAN is rightly and wisely ignoring.
By Etienne de la Boetie2, The Art of Liberty Foundation | September 3, 2025
There is a new 9-11 documentary entitled CODEX 9-11 by Brad Zerbo, a former skyscraper layout engineer and investigative journalist, that does a superb job of bringing new information to light. I thought I would break down some of the top revelations from the documentary:
In what many believe to be the “dry run” for 9-11, a military war game takes place on June 1-2nd, 2001 which uses remotely piloted drones to simulate an attack by Osama Bin Ladin. The war game features Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) that are remotely piloted by a C-130 in the exercise, similar to what is believed to have happened on 9-11, where the original Boeing 767s were landed and replaced by other remotely piloted aircraft that were crashed into the WTC complex and Pentagon.
In what appears to be a “Funny Ha Ha,” by the perpetrators, the two UAVs in the exercise were numbered “9” and “11.” The “9” UAV was scheduled to be airborne at the exact same time (08:30-09:30am) as the 9-11 planes were allegedly hijacked and crashed into the WTC complex.
The Art Projects that Gave Access to the WTC Complex in the months leading up to 9-11
Gelatin team members on the 91st floor of WTC 1, standing in front of multiple boxes of what appear to be Littlefuse BB18 Fuse Holders that could have been used to wire up explosives in the building.
The documentary breaks down the incredibly suspicious nature of two different “art collectives” being given access to the WTC complex in the year prior to 9-11 where almost every aspect of their “art work” foreshadowed the attacks in another “funny Ha Ha” that will become a recurring theme of other “revelation of the method” mockery by the perpetrators of the attacks.
The first “artist collective” Gelatin/Gelitin, is also the name of a blasting agent used in controlled demolition. Gelatin/Gelitin team members were photographed in their “studio area” on the 91st floor (9-1) of WTC 1 in front of boxes of BB18 fuse holders. Their “art project” was called “The B-Thing” (Bomb Thing?) and their own drawings appear to show one of the towers collapsing. The project, coincidently, provided the excuse to rent a helicopter and survey the WTC complex prior to the event.
The 2nd “Artist Collective,” The E-TEAM (Franziska Lamprecht, Hajoe Moderegger, and Daniel Seiple), coordinated with tenants in the WTC complex to spell out the word “E-TEAM” (Explosive Team?) by using the windows between the 89th and 95th floors of WTC1 on March 29th 2001. Those floors would be, essentially, the exact same floors of the impact zone on the exact same side of the exact same building on 9-11.
While not mentioned in the documentary, in the official photo of the “art work,” the floors on WTC 2 appear blacked out in the area that would be the impact zone for that building.
In addition to the two art collectives having unusual access to the building, there was a suspicious elevator modernization going on where some of the most sophisticated elevators in the world were being modernized by a relatively unknown elevator company, ACE Elevator, which won the contract from Otis Elevator, who had installed the original elevators. Investigators theorize that these three projects, and potentially others, gave the perpetrators access to the building, including the elevator shafts, core columns and service areas within the core of the building, required to wire up the building for the controlled demotion of both towers.
A photo of Akamai CEO Dan Lewin, a “former” Israeli commando of the counter-terrorist unit: Sayeret Matkal, alleged to be the 1st person killed on 9-11 when he was stabbed by Satam al-Suqami, one of the five alleged hijackers of AA Flight 11. In this photo taken the year before, Lewin is sitting in front of what appears to represent two towers prominently wearing a Swatch watch called: The Hijacker.
Dan Lewin was sitting in seat 9B… on Flight 11… 9-11… another funny “Revelation of the Method” Ha Ha by the perpetrators.
In one of the most potent pieces of evidence that I had never heard before, Director Zerbo breaks down the complete impossibility of the numerous cell phone calls from the passengers to their loved ones. In the case of stewardess CeeCee Lyles, whose phone call to her husband was recorded by their answering machine, there is no engine or background noise to indicate that she is on an airborne aircraft.
After telling her husband to “Listen Carefully,” she relates the official story of the hijacking as if under duress.
Right before she hangs up she clearly whispers: “It’s a frame.”
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
– Voltaire
I have described 9-11 to my kids as a kind of national intelligence test. You either understand the basics of logic, science, physics and history or don’t. You either believe a completely implausible story that violates the laws of physics and doesn’t make any sense, OR you don’t.
The “Official Story” DESTROYED in Less Than 5 Minutes by James Corbett
I know most of my audience understands that the government and media lied to the population about what happened on 9-11. Still, there are many young people who don’t really understand the basics. Here is an executive summary for your kids and grandkids that will bring them up to speed.
Why is it important? With an hour or two of research or watching 1-2 of our recommended documentaries below, anyone can grasp the basic understanding that we have a 100% completely organized crime “government,” including the military and intelligence agencies. This organized crime system is controlling perception through the monopolized media and algorithmic censorship of search and social media to sell the population on false flag terror that was used to steal trillions through the military-industrial complex AND our civil liberties. If you don’t understand these basics, then you aren’t really in the game.
WTC7 was a modern, fireproofed steel-frame building not struck by a plane that collapsed completely and symmetrically into its own footprint at 5:20 PM. The building fell at free-fall speed, defying the laws of physics and displaying all the hallmarks of controlled demolition: Visible squibs, free-fall collapse, molten metal. At 5:00, Fox News, CNN and the BBC began reporting it had already fallen. Whistleblower Barry Jennings reported bombs. Prior knowledge was documented by workers pointing out on video that it would collapse, as well as auditory explosions and symmetrical collapse.
What Really Happened on 9-11: Both towers and WTC 7 were brought down in controlled demolition (WTC 7) & controlled demolition + Directed Energy Weapons (WTC 1&2) organized by US & Israeli intelligence agencies + Pentagon with government & monopoly media cover-up.
Used to Justify: Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, warrantless wiretapping, suspension of posse comitatus and habeas corpus, torture, military tribunals, and stealing trillions of dollars through insurance on the buildings, pre-positioned shorting of stocks/disaster capitalism, and unneeded Military-Industrial-Complex and homeland security spending.
Best Evidence of Gov’t involvement: Obvious use of explosives in WTC7 and complete pulverization of WTC 1&2 to complete dust: free fall speeds, molten metal still molten weeks later, explosive residue in dust, dozens of war games taking place on 9-11 to pull fighter response/distract FAA, Israeli Mossad (Aka Dancing Israelis) caught “documenting the event,” symmetrical collapse.
Best Documentaries: Anatomy of a Great Deception, AE911Truth: Experts Speak Out, Solving 9-11 by Chris Bollyn, CODEX 9-11 by Brad Zerbo
Best Short Videos: 9-11: A Conspiracy Theory, 9-11 Trillions – Follow the $
Best Books: 9-11 Ten Years Later (DRG), Another 19 (Ryan), Solving 9-11-The Deception that Changed the World (Bollyn), Where Did the Towers Go? (Dr. Judy Wood)
One of the best examples of Mockingbird Media, WTC 7 collapses at 5:20. At 5:00, Fox News, CNN, and the BBC begin reporting that the building has already collapsed. In the case of the BBC, their reporter Jane Standley is doing a live shot from NYC with the building still standing visibly behind her as she explains how it was “weakened” by fire.
Best Evidence of Gov’t involvement: Obvious use of explosives in buildings: free fall speeds, molten metal still molten weeks later, explosive residue in dust, dozens of war games taking place on 9-11 to pull fighter response/distract FAA, Israeli Mossad (Aka Dancing Israelis) caught “documenting the event,” symmetrical collapse.
9-11 in Memes & Pictures
Etienne Note: WTC 7 appears to have been conventional explosives. In contrast, WTC 1&2 appear to have been thermite/thermate used in the buildings where certain floors were “re-fireproofed” with spray on thermite/thermate to initiate the collapse without visible squibs; conventional explosives were used to begin/accelerate the collapse, and a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) used to pulverize the remainder of the buildings once they achieved the effect of making it look like a gravity collapse.
About the Author
Etienne de la Boetie2 is the founder of the Art of Liberty Foundation, the author of “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! and the editor of the Art of Liberty Daily News on Substack and Five Meme Friday, which delivers hard-hitting voluntaryist memes and the best of the alternative media.
He is the author of The Covid-19 Suspects and Their Ties to Eugenics and Population Control/Reduction and Solving Covid – The Covid 19, Eugenics, and Vaccine/Drug Scam Timeline
About the Art of Liberty Foundation
A start-up public policy organization: Voluntaryist crime fighters exposing inter-generational organized crime’s control of the “government,” media and academia. The foundation is the publisher of “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed!– How Inter-Generational Organized Crime Runs the “Government,” Media and Academia.
The Cradle | September 10, 2025
Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officially agreed to resume cooperation on 9 September, following a suspension over Israel’s US-backed war against the country and its strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
The meeting between IAEA chief Rafael Grossi and Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was hosted by Egypt.
“In Cairo today, I agreed with Iran’s Foreign Minister on practical modalities to resume inspection activities in Iran. This is an important step in the right direction,” Grossi said on X.
During a press conference between Grossi, Araghchi, and his Egyptian counterpart, the Iranian foreign minister said, “the development marks an important step in demonstrating the Islamic Republic’s goodwill and its commitment to resolving all issues related to its peaceful nuclear program through diplomacy and dialogue.”
“Iran has remained steadfast in defending its inalienable rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to peaceful nuclear energy, even while facing illegal and criminal attacks by the Israeli regime and the US, and has shown readiness to engage in meaningful dialogue for the implementation of its obligations,” he added.
US and Israeli strikes on the Islamic Republic have “fundamentally altered the conditions under which Iran had cooperated with the IAEA.”
As a result, a “new mechanism” has been reached after intensive talks between Iran and the IAEA recently, Araghchi said.
Unnamed diplomats cited by Reuters said “the devil was in the details, and neither Grossi nor Araghchi provided any.”
In early July, Tehran formally suspended cooperation with the IAEA. Talks between the two sides resumed the following month.
Iran stressed that it could not “completely end” its cooperation with the agency, but said “new conditions” would need to be reached.
The Iranian government had previously accused the agency of passing along sensitive information obtained from inspections over to Israel. It also said the agency paved the way for Israel’s war with its anti-Iran report in May and its resolution accusing Tehran of not fulfilling nuclear obligations, which was passed just one day before Tel Aviv attacked.
It also accused it of failing to properly condemn the attack on nuclear sites.
Officials even signaled potential legal action against Grossi himself, who was barred from entering the country in late June.
Sputnik – 10.09.2025
Iran has not yet given permission to IAEA inspectors to visit its nuclear facilities, despite an agreement to resume cooperation, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Wednesday.
“I should note that under this agreement, we are currently not giving access to IAEA inspectors,” Araghchi said on Telelgram.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
MMR Vaccine (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella) Is It Safer Than Measles, Mumps and Rubella?
Physicians for Informed Consent | December 2024
… It has not been proven that the MMR vaccine is safer than measles, mumps, and rubella. The vaccine package insert raises questions about safety testing for cancer, genetic mutations, and impaired fertility. Although VAERS tracks some adverse events, it is too inaccurate to measure against the risk of measles, mumps, and rubella. Clinical trials do not have the ability to detect less common adverse reactions, and epidemiological studies are limited by the effects of chance and possible confounders. Safety studies of the MMR vaccine are particularly lacking in statistical power. A review of more than 60 MMR vaccine studies conducted for the Cochrane Library states, “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate.”19 Because permanent sequelae (aftereffects) from measles, mumps, and rubella are so rare (especially in children with normal levels of vitamin A and infected after birth),6,15-17 the level of accuracy of the research studies available is insufficient to rule out the possibility that the MMR vaccine causes greater death or permanent disability than measles, mumps, and rubella. – Read full article
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
