US open to economic cooperation with Russia – Rubio
RT | February 26, 2025
The US and Russia could restore economic ties once the Ukraine conflict is resolved, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suggested.
Speaking in an interview with Breitbart on Tuesday, Rubio noted that Moscow and Washington could discuss the economic and business domain, but only after they have ensured the smooth operations of each other’s diplomatic missions and have resolved the Ukraine crisis.
“We have to invite them and see, okay, if you guys are serious about ending this thing, let’s sit down and talk about it,” Rubio said. “I think step three is, if we can end this conflict, what does US-Russian relations look like in the 21st century? Are there things we can work on together geopolitically or maybe even economically?”
According to Rubio, Russia and the US have “opportunities to work together” to achieve a “reset” in relations which will “entail talking about not just Russian assets that have been seized by America, by the Europeans… but also American companies that have been hurt.”
He cautioned, however, that such negotiations remain distant. “We’re not at that step yet… We can’t even really talk about those things or fix those things until we bring this war at least to some sort of enduring ceasefire – hopefully permanent.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree in 2023 allowing for the temporary takeover of assets belonging to Russia-based foreign companies from “unfriendly” countries, with several Western companies affected. In October 2024, Russia temporarily nationalized the assets of Glavproduct, a major US-owned food producer.
However, while US-Russian relations sank to historic lows under the administration of US President Joe Biden, his successor Donald Trump has signaled interest in restoring ties. Earlier this month, the two sides held high-profile talks in Saudi Arabia that focused on paving the way for resolving the Ukraine conflict and restoring bilateral ties.
Trump has since indicated that Washington might explore joint ventures in Russia’s mineral sector and suggested that sanctions on Moscow could be lifted “at some point” as part of the broader Ukraine conflict settlement process.
Putin said on Monday that Russia and the US are in talks about “major” joint economic projects, adding that Moscow is open to cooperating with American private companies and government agencies to develop its rare-earth industry.
Zelensky now with only the dictatorship in London to support him
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 26, 2025
What is the definition of a ‘dictator’? In the days that followed Trump’s social media post calling President Zelensky one, British media seized upon the subject and ran with it for days. Various public figures were asked whether Trump was right to use the word and whether they believed Zelensky was actually one. Two figures from the right, Nigel Farage and Liz Truss both said they thought Trump was both wrong to call him one and that in fact he wasn’t one.
This remarkable endearment for Zelensky is really the core of the problem in the west in particular the UK, where its leader Sir Keir Starmer declared that he would be ready to send British troops to Ukraine – a suggestion which was quickly shot down by the elites of Germany and France as preposterous.
It’s rare that the giants of the EU put the British government in its place on world affairs but we are living in unprecedented times of sensational stupidity and perhaps ignorance from politicians which we have never seen before.
Farage’s views on the Middle East tell us he is both ignorant of what is happening there and doesn’t have any advisors covering the region. But his views on Ukraine are even more shockingly deranged. Zelensky is a leader who has shut down anything which resembles an ‘opposition’ both politically and media, he has conglomerated all TV stations into one state-owned entity so as to shut down even the slightest criticism or accountability of his own actions, he has had the few dissident voices arrested and thrown into prison, with some predicting that there are thousands of journalists and media workers. Add to that it is rapidly emerging that the level of corruption and embezzlement linked directly to Zelensky is on a scale that even hard line critics in the West could not have even imagined.
In my own investigation in October 2023, where a very angry Ben Wallace insulted me in a WhatsApp interview before blocking me, I outline how the original, more sensational claim that only about a third of all military equipment sent to Ukraine was actually making it to the battlefield was in fact realistic. This analogy was bandied about for some time and was dismissed by Wallace and others like Alecia Kearns MP as nonsense and yet turned out to be more than just realistic but likely. That is to say that 66 percent of what was being sent to Ukraine was being sold on the black market in Libya making Zelensky and his close circle billionaires.
In recent weeks now mainstream journalists and politicians are talking about the arms scandal and it is only a matter of time before we shall see the realities of this. The British government have always turned a blind eye to it, both in Ukraine and further afield. It would cost them nothing to do a study in the Sahel to evaluate how much of the equipment there funding terrorism is coming from the arms bazaars of Tripoli where all of this kit is ending up. I suggested to Wallace that his own government at the time should send some investigators there (Libya) to look at what’s available. I was more or less told to go there myself and do the job for them.
But Zelenksy support structure for so long has been that of a dictator, in particular media. The hundreds of media outlets in Ukraine which were receiving USAID funding is extensive, not to mention the hundreds of civil servants which support him being on the same payroll. If that doesn’t shock Farage and Truss, then consider the same slush fund which paid out around a 100 million dollars to movie stars to go and visit him and fake their adulation, all for the purposes of cheating the humble U.S. taxpayer by raising his profile.
Who could forget Sean Penn giving him his own Oscar, or Ben Stiller chilling with the Ukrainian leader and making small talk? Angelina Jolie is even reported to have been paid 20 million dollars to meet with him but didn’t even manage that and simply mooched about a bit in the country before jetting back to the U.S. Of course, the celebrities all dismiss these claims, through the same left-wing woke press which is part of their extended political family. But the question we should be asking ourselves is simply this: if they were not paid, then why won’t they show up now and show support at the precise moment when Zelensky needs it the most? Given that these celebrities supported Biden and are Democrats, this would be the most logical thing for them to do. In reality, the wall of silence is what we see.
Dictators don’t stand over their hired killers and watch their victims in their final moments like Idi Amin did. In reality, they only indicate and hint to the thugs on their payroll what she should do to fix problems. Do Farage and Truss actually believe that dissidents are not rounded up and thrown into jail where they are tortured and in some cases murdered? Now that the vultures are circling over Zelensky and many are wondering how many days in office he has left, more reports are emerging with details of such cases. The story of Gonzalo Lira, the American Chilean blogger whose vlogs were often well-informed and threw a very poor spotlight on Zelensky is a very sad one as he was brutally tortured while in prison and finally died. If the Zelensky cabal can do this to an American citizen, perhaps Farage and Truss will not be too surprised when in the coming weeks we will have the same Damascus prison media moment where it transpires that there are certainly hundreds, possibly thousands of journalists, commentators and political rivals in Ukraine’s prisons.
The debate, if we can call it that in the UK, over whether Zelensky is a dictator or not is a remedial one at best as it misses the point. In Britain, during the same period a man was imprisoned for posting a social media comment about a Labour official while a granny was visited by two plain clothes cops about her mere criticism of a Labour councilor’s conduct. Plain clothed detectives!
Britain has descended rapidly into a police state with Starmer as its dictator. The high ground we once had where we scolded China for arresting protestors has now been kicked away from under our feet. We have become China. Britain’s police now cannot deal with crime but prefer being the ‘Thought Police’ and threatening old biddies.
And so the talk about what is a dictator is rather fatuous if not incongruent given that those doing it are part of an elite which only claim to cherish free speech but in fact loath it. Farage cannot be taken seriously on Ukraine but his comments do steer the bumble hack towards darker questions. Who is funding him? And is his own dream of being a PM in the UK going to merely continue the present dictatorship which silences anyone who questions him? His reputation of being thin-skinned and kicking out of his party anyone who questions his ideas is already established. His own repugnance of British media also is well known. Previously in Brussels, his decision led to the closure of the only free speech, anti corruption magazine going, which he was always fearful of exposing his own infidelity while an MEP. And as for Truss, the most inept prime minister Britain has ever had in its long history, whose dictator-like style while in office crashed the economy? How should we interpret her support for Zelenksy? Do both Farage and Truss admire this dictator? The problem is not with the word ‘dictator’, it is more about the people who use it for their own purposes. It is not important whether Zelensky is one or not, rather than he is not a dictator who is servile to Trump and his cabal. Unlike Farage, Zelensky is not our kind of dictator.
NATO-skeptic Romanian presidential candidate arrested
RT | February 26, 2025
Romanian police have arrested Calin Georgescu, the front-runner in last year’s annulled presidential election, and conducted dozens of raids on his supporters and people tied to his campaign, local media reported on Wednesday.
A critic of NATO and the EU and an opponent of sending aid to Ukraine, Georgescu made headlines in November last year when he unexpectedly garnered 23% of the vote in the first round of the presidential election in Romania. However, the Constitutional Court annulled the results shortly before the second round, citing intelligence documents alleging ‘irregularities’ in his campaign.
Georgescu’s communications team has said on Facebook that he was arrested just as he was about to submit his new candidacy for the presidency.
”The system stopped him in traffic and he was pulled over for questioning at the Prosecutor General’s Office! Where is democracy, where are the partners who must defend democracy,” his team wrote.
Prior to his arrest, Georgescu condemned the raids on his supporters in a post on Facebook.
“The communist-Bolshevik system continues its odious abuses,” he wrote, accusing the Romanian authorities of trying to “invent evidence to justify the theft of the elections and to do anything to block my new candidacy for the presidency.”
The Romanian Prosecutor General’s Office is reportedly investigating Georgescu over allegations of involvement “in a fascist organization and the promotion of controversial ideologies and historical figures in the public space,” G4Media outlet reported, citing sources close to the investigation.
According to media reports, police found “weapons, live ammunition, and more than a million dollars hidden in a safe” during the raids.
America as Republic, not as Empire – Europe’s “sound and fury” after jaw-dropping pivots in U.S. policy
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 26, 2025
The bits are falling into a distinct pattern – a pre-prepared pattern.
Defence Secretary Hegseth at the Munich Security Conference gave us four ‘noes’: No to Ukraine in NATO; No to a return to pre-2014 borders; No to ‘Article 5’ peacekeeper backstops, and ‘No’ to U.S. troops in Ukraine. And in a final flourish, he added that U.S. troops in Europe are not ‘forever’ – and even placed a question mark over the continuity of NATO.
Pretty plain speaking! The U.S. clearly is cutting away from Ukraine. And they intend to normalise relations with Russia.
Then, Vice-President Vance threw his fire cracker amongst the gathered Euro-élites. He said that the élites had retreated from “shared” democratic values; they were overly reliant on repressing and censoring their peoples (prone to locking them up); and, above all, he excoriated the European Cordon Sanitaire (‘firewall’) by which European parties outside the Centre-Left are deemed non-grata politically: It’s a fake ‘threat’, he suggested. Of what are you really so frightened? Have you so little confidence in your ‘democracy’?
The U.S., he implied, will no longer support Europe if it continues to suppress political constituencies, arrest citizens for speech offenses, and particularly cancel elections as was done recently in Romania. “If you’re running in fear of your own voters”, Vance said, “there is nothing America can do for you”.
Ouch! Vance had hit them where it hurts.
It is difficult to say what specifically most triggered the catatonic European breakdown: Was it the fear of the U.S. and Russia joining together as a major power nexus – thus stripping Europe from ever again being able glide along on the back of American power, through the specious notion that any European state must have exceptional access to the Washington ‘ear’?
Or was it the ending of the Ukraine/Zelensky cult which was so prized amongst the Euro-élite as the ‘glue’ around which a faux European unity and identity could be enforced? Both probably contributed to the fury.
That the U.S. would in essence leave Europe to their own delusions would be a calamitous event for the Brussels technocracy.
Many may lazily assume that the U.S. double act at Munich was just another example of the well-known Trumpian fondness for dropping ‘wacky’ initiatives intended to both shock and kickover frozen paradigms. The Munich speeches did exactly that all right! Yet that does not make them accidental; but rather parts that fit into a bigger picture.
It is clear now that the Trump blitzkrieg across the American Administrative State could not have been mounted unless carefully pre-planned and prepared over the last four years.
Trump’s flurry of Presidential Executive Orders at the outset of his Presidency were not whimsical. Leading U.S. constitutional lawyer, Johnathan Turley, and other lawyers say that the Orders were well drafted legally and with the clear understanding that legal challenges would ensue. What’s more, that Trump Team welcome those challenges.
What is going on? The newly confirmed head of the Office of Budget Management (OBM), Russ Vought, says his Office will become the “on/off switch” for all Executive expenditure under the new Executive Orders. Vought calls the resulting whirlpool, the application of Constitutional radicalism. And Trump has now issued the Executive Order that reinstates the primacy of the Executive as the controlling mechanism of government.
Vaught, who was in OBM in Trump 01, is carefully selecting the ground for all-out financial war on the Deep State. It will be fought out firstly at the Supreme Court – which the Trump Team expect confidently to win (Trump has the 6-3 conservative majority). The new régime will then be applied across all agencies and departments of state. Expect shrieks of pain.
The point here is that the Administrative State – aloof from executive control – has taken to itself prerogatives such as immunity to dismissal and the self-awarded authority to shape policy – creating a dual state system, run by unelected technocrats, which, when implanted in departments such as Justice and the Pentagon, have evolved into the American Deep State.
Article Two of the Constitution however, says very bluntly: Executive power shall be vested in the U.S. President (with no ifs or buts at all.) Trump intends for his Administration to recover that lost Executive power. It was, in fact, lost long ago. Trump is re-claiming too, the Executive’s right to dismiss ‘servants of the State’, and to ‘switch off’ wasteful expenditure at his discretion, as part of a unitary executive prerequisite.
Of course, the Administrative State is fighting back. Turley’s article is headlined: They Are Taking Away Everything We Have: Democrats and Unions Launch Existential Fight. Their aim has been to cripple the Trump initiative through using politicised judges to issue restraint orders. Many mainstream lawyers believe Trump’s Unitary Executive claim to be illegal. The question is whether Congress can stand up Agencies designed to act independently of the President; and how does that square with the separation of powers and Article Two that vests unqualified executive power with one sole elected official – the U.S. President.
How did the Democrats not see this coming? Lawyer Robert Barnes essentially says that the ‘blitzkrieg’ was “exceptionally well-planned” and had been discussed in Trump circles since late 2020. The latter team had emerged from within a generational and cultural shift in the U.S.. This latter had given rise to a Libertarian/Populist wing with working class roots who often had served in the military, yet had come to despise the Neo-con lies (especially those of 9/11) that brought endless wars. They were animated more by the old John Adams adage that ‘America should not go abroad in search of monsters to slay’.
In short, they were not part of the WASP ‘Anglo’ world; they came from a different Culture that harked back to the theme of America as Republic, not as Empire. This is what you see with Vance and Hegseth – a reversion to the Republican precept that the U.S. should not become involved in European wars. Ukraine is not America’s war.
The Deep State, it seems, were not paying attention to what a posse of ‘populist’ outliers, tucked away from the rarefied Beltway talking shop, were up to: They (the outliers) were planning a concerted attack on the Federal expenditure spigot – identified as the weak spot about which a Constitutional challenge could be mounted that would derail – in its entirety – the expenditures of the Deep State.
It seems that one aspect to the surprise has been the Trump Team’s discipline: ‘no leaks’. And secondly, that those involved in the planning are not drawn from the preeminent Anglo-sphere, but rather from a strand of society that was offended by the Iraq war and which blames the ‘Anglo-sphere’ for ‘ruining’ America.
So Vance’s speech at Munich was not disruptive – merely for the sake of being disruptive; he was, in fact, encouraging the audience to recall early Republican Values. This was what is meant by his complaint that Europe had turned away from “our shared values” – i.e. the values that animated Americans seeking escape from the tyranny, prejudices and corruption of the Old World. Vance was (quite politely) chiding the Euro-élites for backsliding to old European vices.
Vance implicitly was hinting too, that European conservative libertarians should emulate Trump and act to slough-off their ‘Administrative States’, and recover control over executive power. Tear down the firewalls, he advised.
Why? Because he likely views the ‘Brussels’ Technocratic State as nothing other than a pure offshoot to the American Deep State – and therefore very likely to try to torpedo and sink Trump’s initiative to normalise relations with Moscow.
If these were Vance’s instincts, he was right. Macron almost immediately summoned an ‘emergency meeting’ of ‘the war party’ in Paris to consider how to frustrate the American initiative. It failed however, descending reportedly into quarrelling and acrimony.
It transpired that Europe could not gather a ‘sharp-end’ military force greater than 20,-000-30,000 men. Scholtz objected in principle to their involvement; Poland demurred as a close neighbour of Ukraine; and Italy stayed silent. Starmer, however, after Munich, immediately rang Zelensky to say that Britain saw Ukraine to be on an irrevocable path to NATO membership – thus directly contradicting U.S. policy and with no support from other states. Trump will not forget this, nor will he forget Britain’s former role in supporting the Russiagate slur during his first term in office.
The meeting did however, underline Europe’s divisions and impotence. Europe has been sidelined and their self-esteem is badly bruised. The U.S. would in essence leave Europe to their own delusions, which would be calamitous for the Brussels autocracy.
Yet, far more consequential than most of the happenings of the past few days was when Trump, speaking with Fox News, after attending Daytona, dismissed Zelensky’s canard of Russia wanting to invade NATO countries. “I don’t agree with that; not even a little bit”, Trump retorted.
Trump does not buy into the primary lie intended as the glue which holds this entire EU geo-political structure together. For, without the ‘Russia threat’; without the U.S. believing in the globalist linchpin lie, there can be no pretence of Europe needing to prepare for war with Russia. Europe ultimately will have to come to reconcile its future as a periphery in Eurasia.
EU trying to block Ukraine peace – Lavrov
RT | February 26, 2025
The EU is seeking to derail the Ukraine peace process by pushing the country to continue fighting against Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.
Speaking at a press conference in Qatar on Wednesday, Lavrov weighed in on a resolution drafted by the US calling for a “swift end” to the Ukraine conflict, which was approved by the UN Security Council on Monday. The document, which was supported by Russia and China, excluded strong language denouncing Moscow. The resolution also came after US President Donald Trump refused to condemn Russia over the Ukraine conflict while blaming Kiev for failing to prevent the hostilities.
The Russian foreign minister said that as soon as the political landscape regarding the conflict began to shift, “Europe immediately tries to undermine this trend, announces new large packages of military aid to Kiev, incites it to continue military actions.”
Lavrov went on to state that “Europe’s role in fomenting crises and its reputation in this area, which it has acquired over centuries, remains unchanged,” adding that the EU’s approach to the conflict is “hopelessly outdated and failing.”
Last week, Politico reported that the EU is preparing a military aid package worth at least €6 billion ($6.3 billion) for Ukraine, with the magazine’s sources claiming that it could potentially balloon to €10 billion as the bloc’s members “dig into their inventories to see what they can send.” Meanwhile, Trump said on Tuesday that the US is not currently supplying Ukraine with any defense assistance.
Russia has condemned the Western arms shipments to Ukraine, warning that they only prolong the conflict without changing the outcome.
Merz adopts nationalist rhetoric to legitimize his anti-Russian plans
New German leader may be more bellicose than his predecessor
By Lucas Leiroz | February 26, 2025
The European sovereignty agenda is being hypocritically used by liberal leaders to fight Donald Trump’s policies. In Germany, the potential new chancellor is publicly advocating for Berlin’s “independence” from the US. Although such independence is indeed necessary, European liberals have anti-sovereign intentions in adopting these agendas.
Friedrich Merz is indicated by preliminary data as the winner of the German parliamentary elections. Leading the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Merz is expected to receive around 28,5% of the vote, becoming the country’s prime minister. His victory means that Germany will continue to be governed by a warmongering and anti-Russian political elite, with no significant change in Berlin’s foreign policy.
Merz, however, often seems to have an even more aggressive stance than Olaf Scholz. He has made it clear that he does not intend to engage in dialogue with Russia, which represents a setback for Germany, since Scholz himself, who is one of the most warmongering leaders of the EU, had taken the initiative to talk directly to Trump.
The possible new German chancellor has also been harshly critical of the US and Donald Trump. He has described American interference in European affairs as “outrageous” and “dramatic”. Merz believes that Trump is indifferent to Europe, not caring about the stability of his own allied countries. For this reason, he has called on Germany to achieve “independence from the US”, freeing itself from the negative external influence of Washington.
“The interventions from Washington were no less dramatic, drastic, and ultimately outrageous than the intervention we saw from Moscow (…) The Americans, at least those in the current government, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe (….) (Germany must) gradually achieve independence from the US (…) I would have never thought that I would have to say something like that on a TV show,” he said.
It is curious to see pro-war European leaders using this kind of narrative, since the struggle for European sovereignty contradicts the entire Western agenda advocated by the EU. It seems that the liberal politicians of the European bloc are trying to change their rhetoric towards the US just to react to Donald Trump’s nationalist and isolationist policies.
It is impossible to talk about sovereignty in Europe and support the continuation of the war against Russia at the same time, since NATO’s anti-Russian campaign was supported by the EU precisely in a gesture of subservience to Washington. The anti-Russian economic sanctions, for example, were imposed by the US and adopted by the Europeans even though it has been proven that such measures harm European strategic interests.
Europe has been harmed in all areas of its economy and diplomacy since the beginning of the special military operation. If it had adopted a sovereign and neutral stance, respecting Russia’s right to protect its people in the neighboring country, Europe would have avoided the serious economic crisis it is currently experiencing.
Without sanctions and preserving its strategic ties with Russia, the EU would have become a relevant power in the multipolar world. However, instead of acting sovereignly, European liberals have taken all sorts of irresponsible actions, dipping the continent into an unprecedented crisis.
Until then, there was almost complete alignment between all American and European decisions, but now this situation has changed. Trump fulfilled his promise to resume diplomatic dialogue and simply excluded the belligerent European countries from the talks. EU leaders are outraged by such an American decision – not because they feel their sovereignty is being compromised, but simply because they are against ending the war with Russia.
Europeans and Americans are falling out of alignment simply because Europeans do not agree with the American decision to pursue diplomacy and peace. By speaking of “German sovereignty,” Merz is not advocating the historical struggle of Europeans to end American influence. He is simply saying that Germany must continue to fight Russia regardless of American involvement.
It is possible to say that liberals are trying to co-opt a nationalist rhetoric typical of European conservative groups. The aim is to use the genuinely sovereigntist sentiments of ordinary Germans and Europeans to legitimize the advancement of an even more “globalist” and anti-sovereigntist agenda – which internationally materializes in even more military interventionism, aid to Ukraine and escalation of hostilities against Russia.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
Utah Set to Become First State to End Water Fluoridation for All Residents
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 24, 2025
Utah lawmakers last week voted to pass the first U.S. statewide ban on adding fluoride to public water systems. The Utah Senate voted 18-8 in favor of the measure after it passed in the House.
If Gov. Spencer Cox signs the bill into law, it will end community water fluoridation. The new law also will give pharmacists new authority to prescribe fluoride supplement pills. Typically, such pills can be prescribed only by a dentist or physician.
Rep. Stephanie Gricius, who sponsored the bill, told The Defender she was thrilled the legislature voted to pass the bill. “Utah leads the nation in so many things and this is just one more example.”
Gricius emphasized that the law allows people to make their own decisions about whether and how to take supplemental fluoride.
“I am a firm believer that the proper role of government is to provide safe, clean drinking water, not medicate the public on a mass scale,” Gricius said. “Because I also believe in medical freedom, I wanted fluoride to remain available to anyone who wanted it for either themselves or their children — which is why we made the prescription easier to obtain through a pharmacy.”
The bill’s Senate sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, said during his presentation on the Senate floor that the bill is “about protecting our water, reducing unnecessary costs, and ensuring people have the right to decide what they consume.”
Rick North, board member of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), one of the plaintiffs who last year won a landmark lawsuit over water fluoridation against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said, “Utah’s fluoridation ban bill enjoyed wide support in both the House and Senate, reflecting both concerns over health risks and the firm opposition to adding any drug to drinking water, taking away people’s right to informed consent.”
North added, “If the governor signs the bill, it would be historic, and could be a catalyst for other states and cities doing the same.”
Opposition to water fluoridation has been growing across the country, particularly since a California federal judge ruled in the case brought by FAN, Mothers Against Fluoridation and others against the EPA that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and that the agency must regulate it.
Judge Edward Chen’s 80-page decision outlined the overwhelming scientific evidence that exposure to fluoride is linked to reduced IQ in children. The EPA recently announced it plans to appeal the ruling.
Chen’s ruling followed the publication in August of a key report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ National Toxicology Program (NTP) that concluded higher levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water are consistently linked to lower IQ in kids.
Other studies making similar findings have also been published in major scientific journals this year.
Fluoride a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production
Gricius started working on the issue last year after a resident approached her about “having individual choice when it comes to what prescriptions she and her children took.”
Local water conservancy districts also reached out to Cullimore to ask the state to ban water fluoridation citing claims of employee safety and the decision in the landmark case against the EPA, Gricius said.
Proponents of water fluoridation argue it protects children’s oral health. However, in October, an updated Cochrane Review concluded that adding fluoride to drinking water provides very limited, if any, dental benefits, especially compared with 50 years ago.
Proponents also underscore that fluoride is a naturally occurring chemical in water, earth and rocks. It can occur naturally in drinking water supplies, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions.
But most surface water contains very low levels of fluoride and roughly three-quarters of Americans have fluoride added to their drinking water. The fluoride added to water systems, typically in the form of fluorosilicic acid, is a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production — as documents from the fluoride lawsuit confirmed.
Cullimore also emphasized that many Utah citizens don’t want the chemical added to their water. “This bill does not prohibit anybody from taking fluoride in whatever fashion they want,” he said. It just disallows people who do not want fluoride from having to consume fluoride in their water.”
Cullimore’s district includes the city of Sandy, where a malfunctioning pump in the water fluoridation system released undiluted hydrofluorosilicic acid into the water in 2019, affecting 1,500 households, institutions and businesses and sickening over 200 people.
An investigation revealed that officials failed to notify the public for 10 days and that fluoride was detected in the drinking water at 40 times the recommended levels.
The 18-8 vote to pass the bill in the Republican-dominated Utah Senate on Friday was largely along party lines, with two Republican senators voting against it and one Democratic senator voting for it.
If signed, the bill is set to take effect on May 7. The governor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether Cox plans to sign it.
‘We’re watching water fluoridation unravel globally in real time’
Since the September court ruling, many U.S. cities and towns have moved to pause or stop fluoridating their water, signaling that the long-term and largely unquestioned practice in the U.S. is facing heightened scrutiny by the public.
FAN Executive Director Stuart Cooper said the Utah vote is a marker of how significantly public opinion is shifting.
Cooper said:
“This is another significant victory for the public, who didn’t sign up to have a developmental neurotoxin and endocrine disruptor to their drinking water. The NIH-funded science showing neurotoxicity, the NTP report confirming that neurotoxicity and the federal ruling that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to human health have all pushed this topic over the tipping point. We’re watching water fluoridation unravel globally in real time.”
Cooper pointed out that 95% of the world and 98% of Europe do not fluoridate, and many countries passed resolutions banning the practice decades ago.
He said states and towns that continue to add fluoridation chemicals to the public water supply “are the extreme outliers and radicals in this situation.”
Florida Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo in December advised governments across the state to stop adding fluoride to their water. Ladapo cited the neuropsychiatric risks — particularly for pregnant women and children — associated with the practice.
Lawmakers in at least three other states have also introduced legislation that would outlaw adding fluoride to community water systems, and four other states are considering bills to make fluoride optional or limit its concentration.
In addition to Utah, lawmakers in North Dakota, New Hampshire and Tennessee are seeking a ban on the practice. Bills in Arkansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and South Dakota would either repeal statewide fluoridation programs or set limits on the amount of fluoride added to water, Bloomberg Law reported.
Last week, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller also called on Gov. Greg Abbott and the state lawmakers to institute a statewide ban on water fluoridation.
Hawaii is the only state that does not offer water fluoridation for most residents. However, the military bases there are mandated by the federal government to fluoridate their water.
Bucking national trends, Democratic senators in Connecticut are introducing legislation to make the current levels of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter, recommended by the public health agencies, state law. They are drafting a bill, Senate Bill No. 7, that would continue water fluoridation at current levels in the state even if federal policy were to change.
The state senate democratic webpage reports they are drafting the bill out of concerns that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., recently confirmed as secretary of Health and Human Services, suggested on social media that the Trump administration would advise all American water systems to remove it from drinking water.
Related stories in The Defender
- Breaking: New Study Linking Fluoride to Lower IQ in Children Sparks Renewed Calls to End Water Fluoridation
- Florida Surgeon General Urges End to Water Fluoridation
- Children Whose Mothers Were Exposed During Pregnancy to Fluoridated Tap Water at Higher Risk of Neurobehavioral Problems
- ‘House of Cards’: Some Cities Hit Pause on Water Fluoridation in Wake of Historic Federal Ruling
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Gardasil on Trial: Did Merck Mislead the Public on Cervical Cancer Prevention?
Top expert delivers a damning report accusing Merck of misleading the public about Gardasil’s ability to prevent cervical cancer
By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | February 24, 2025
With the landmark trial against Merck adjourned until September 2025, new evidence suggests the vaccine manufacturer may have deliberately misrepresented the necessity of mass HPV vaccination.
This revelation comes from an expert report by Dr Sin Hang Lee, a pathologist renowned for his expertise in molecular diagnostics. His findings raise serious concerns about Gardasil’s efficacy and the motives behind its aggressive marketing.
Dr Sin Hang Lee, director of Milford Molecular Diagnostics, Connecticut
Does Gardasil Prevent Cervical Cancer?
Since its introduction in 2006, Gardasil has been marketed as a breakthrough in the fight against cervical cancer.
Yet, as Dr Lee bluntly states in his report, “There is no conclusive evidence that Gardasil has prevented a single case of cervical cancer in the past 18 years.”
No randomised controlled trial (RCT)—the gold standard for assessing efficacy—has ever demonstrated that Gardasil prevents cervical cancer.
Instead, Merck relied on surrogate markers of pre-cancers, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2/3) to claim effectiveness. This is a significantly lower evidentiary bar that was used to fast-track FDA approval.
The problem with this approach is well-documented. Many CIN2/3 lesions resolve naturally.
A Dutch study, for instance, tracked 114 women with CIN2/3 found that nearly two-thirds of cases regressed without intervention. Only one developed adenocarcinoma in situ (pre-cancer) and none progressed to cervical cancer.
Moreover, those lesions that don’t resolve naturally typically take years to progress, and they are usually detected through routine screening.
If CIN2/3 is an unreliable proxy for cancer, how can it serve as valid proof of Gardasil’s claimed efficacy at preventing cancer?
Are HPV Strains Merely Being Replaced?
Another major concern is “type replacement”—the possibility that suppressing certain HPV strains through vaccination leads to the rise of others.
For instance, a Finnish study found that while HPV strains 16 and 18 (targeted by the vaccine) decreased following vaccination, non-vaccine strains such as HPV 52 and 66 became more prevalent.
This raises an important question: While Gardasil may alter the landscape of HPV infections, does it actually reduce the overall risk of developing cervical cancer?
When Merck developed Gardasil 9 to target five additional HPV strains, a study involving 14,215 women found that those who received Gardasil 9 developed high-grade lesions at the same rate as those who received the original Gardasil (which only targeted four strains).
Despite the expanded coverage, the additional strains had no measurable impact on pre-cancers overall, adding to the uncertainty about whether these vaccines truly reduce cervical cancer incidence.
The Questionable Swedish and Scottish Studies
Two widely cited studies—from Sweden and Scotland—are often heralded as proof that Gardasil significantly reduces cervical cancer rates. However, Dr Lee highlights critical methodological flaws in his report.
- Swedish study
The Swedish study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, compared cervical cancer rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated women.
However, Dr Lee points out that many participants (born between 1995 and 2007) were too young to develop cervical cancer during the study period (2006–2017).
Since cervical cancer takes decades to emerge, including these young women (ages 10–22)—who had zero cases—introduced a statistical bias that exaggerated the vaccine’s effectiveness.
Moreover, the study failed to account for the “healthy user effect,” where vaccinated individuals are more likely to engage in preventive health measures like regular screening, which independently reduces cancer risk.
As a result, attributing the decline in cancer cases solely to the vaccine is misleading.
- Scottish study
A 2024 Scottish observational study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, had similar methodological issues, and was met with sensationalist media headlines: “No cervical cancer cases in HPV-vaccinated women.”
However, Dr Lee argues this claim is deeply flawed. First, the women studied were simply too young for conclusions about long-term vaccine efficacy to be drawn.
Second, Scotland’s screening programme, which detects and treats precancerous lesions before they develop into cancer, changed its entry age in 2016 during the study period.
The age at which women were first invited for screening was raised from 20 to 25, meaning there was a 5-year gap in screening for younger women. As most cancers in women under 30 are diagnosed through screening, this change could explain any decline in cancer rates, rather than the vaccine itself.
And third, just like the Swedish study, the “healthy user effect” further confounds the results.
Despite being frequently cited as definitive proof of Gardasil’s effectiveness, these studies contain serious limitations that undermine their conclusions.
Cervical cancer screening saves lives
In developed nations, around 93% of initial HPV infections resolve without medical intervention. Cervical cancer is slow to develop, with an average onset age of 54, making long-term data essential for assessing Gardasil’s true impact.
What remains incontrovertible is the lifesaving role of cervical cancer screening.
Since the widespread adoption of Pap smears in the 1950s, cervical cancer incidence in the U.S. has plummeted—from 44 per 100,000 women in 1947 to just 8.8 per 100,000 by 1970.
This dramatic decline predates the introduction of HPV vaccination in 2006.
In Australia, deaths from cervical cancer fell significantly along with incidence following the introduction of the National Cervical Screening Programme, and remained steady despite mass HPV vaccination.
Source: https://www.hpvworld.com/articles/prevention-of-cervical-precancer-and-cancer/
Dr Nancy C. Lee, former Associate Director for Science at the CDC, testified before the U.S. Congress in 1999:
- “Cervical cancer is nearly 100 percent preventable.”
- “The most important risk factor for developing cervical cancer… is the failure to receive regular screening with a Pap smear.”
- “For a woman with CIN, her likelihood of survival is almost 100 percent with timely and appropriate treatment.”
Dr Nancy C. Lee, former Associate Director for Science at the CDC
Unlike cervical cancer, which is preventable through screening and treatable with early intervention, Dr Lee asserts the harms linked to Gardasil – such as autoimmune disorders and neurological complications – are unpredictable, difficult to treat, and often irreversible.
Did Merck Misrepresent Its Vaccine?
At the core of this legal battle is a critical question: Did Merck mislead the public about Gardasil’s true value?
Despite its widespread use, Gardasil’s long-term efficacy remains unproven, while growing evidence links the vaccine to serious harms, including autoimmune disorders and neurological complications.
For decades, cervical cancer rates have declined due to improved screening—not mass vaccination. Yet Merck has aggressively marketed Gardasil as essential for cancer prevention, even in countries where cervical cancer is already rare.
Dr Lee’s report suggests Merck selectively presented data to manufacture a false sense of necessity—one that collapses under scrutiny.
As the trial resumes in September, one question remains: Did Merck knowingly misrepresent Gardasil’s safety and efficacy, prioritising profit over public health?
Hamas denounces New York Times distortion of Marzouk’s comments on Op Al-Aqsa Flood
Press TV – February 25, 2025
Hamas has rejected a report by the American daily newspaper The New York Times that has misrepresented recent remarks by a senior official of the Palestinian resistance movement, emphasizing that the comments are “inaccurate” and “taken out of context.”
In a statement released on Monday, the Gaza-based group said the interview conducted with Moussa Abu Marzouk, a senior member of its political bureau, and published several days ago did not contain the full content of the answers, and his exact remarks were quoted out of context.
Hamas stressed that the published interview did not include the true remarks made by Abu Marzouk, and did not convey the true meaning of what he had said.
On Monday, The New York Times ran an article titled: “Hamas Official Expresses Reservations About Oct. 7 Attack on Israel” claiming that Abu Marzouk voiced doubts regarding the October 7 attack.
According to the article, Abu Marzouk admitted he would not have endorsed the assault had he been aware of the destruction it would cause in Gaza.
Hamas in its statement stated that Abu Marzouk confirmed that the large-scale surprise attack, dubbed Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, against the usurping Tel Aviv regime on October 7, 2023, reflected the Palestinian people’s right to resistance and their rejection of Israel’s siege, occupation, and settlement expansion activities.
Abu Marzouk also emphasized that the criminal Israeli regime had committed appalling war crimes and genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.
Abu Marzouk told the New York Times that Hamas would not give up its positions and Palestinian people’s right to use all forms of resistance, including armed resistance, to fight off the Israeli occupation and liberate their land.
“The resistance weapon belongs to our people and its purpose is to protect our people and our holy sites, so it is not permissible to drop or surrender it as long as the [Israeli] occupation exists on our land,” the high-ranking Hamas official told the newspaper.
Backed by the United States and its Western allies, Israel launched the war on Gaza, after Hamas and other Gaza-based Palestinian resistance movements carried out Operation Al-Aqsa Flood against the Israeli regime in response to its decades-long campaign of oppression against Palestinians.
Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza has led to the killing of at least 48,346 Palestinians, mostly women and children, and injury of 111,759 others since early October 2023.
A ceasefire and prisoner exchange agreement went into effect in Gaza on January 19, halting Israel’s aggressive campaign against the coastal region.
Restoring Palestine to its rightful owners by decolonising solidarity
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | February 25, 2025
Iran rules out nuclear talks with US amid ‘maximum pressure’ campaign
Press TV – February 25, 2025
Iran will not engage in negotiations with the United States on its nuclear program unless the White House steps back from a recently reinstated “maximum pressure” campaign, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says.
Araghchi was addressing a press conference on Tuesday alongside his visiting Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov.
The foreign minister said Iran will address the nuclear issue in coordination with its allies – Russia and China.
“On nuclear negotiations, Iran’s stance is very clear: we will not negotiate under pressure, threat, and sanctions.”
“Therefore,” the Iranian foreign minister stated, “there is no possibility of direct negotiations between us and the United States on the nuclear issue as long as maximum pressure continues to be applied in its current form.”
Araghchi highlighted his “detailed and constructive” discussions with Lavrov on a broad range of topics, particularly concerning the Caucasus, Asia, and Eurasia.
The Iranian foreign minister praised the rapid progress in economic cooperation between Tehran and Moscow, citing collaborations in energy, railways, and agriculture.
On Palestine, Araghchi said they discussed Trump’s “unacceptable” forced displacement plan targeting Gaza residents.
Regarding Syria, he underlined the alignment of Iranian and Russian positions.
“Stability, peace, territorial integrity, and progress in Syria based on the will of its people are priorities for Iran. We support establishing peace and stability in this country.”
Room for diplomacy on nuclear issue
Lavrov also elaborated on his “detailed and constructive” discussions with Araghchi during the press conference.
The Russian foreign minister said both sides agreed to enhance cooperation within the framework of BRICS.
Lavrov drew attention to a notable increase in trade between Iran and Russia despite Western sanctions.
“Trade exchanges between Iran and Russia have increased by more than 13%, and we hope this trend will continue.”
The Russian minister also expressed satisfaction with the progress on the Rasht-Astara railway project.
“Construction has begun, supported by a Russian government loan, which is an important step toward establishing the North-South Corridor,” he stated, referring to a trade route connecting India to northern Europe.
Lavrov pointed to Tehran’s successful hosting of the Caspian Economic Forum and expressed optimism about convening a joint economic cooperation commission later this year.
Addressing Iran’s nuclear program, Lavrov put a premium on diplomacy.
“We believe there is still diplomatic capacity to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue, and we hope a solution can be found. This crisis was not created by Iran.”
Iran has long been subjected to Western sanctions over its nuclear activities, human rights issues, and other pretexts.
The administration of US President Donald Trump has escalated these measures since taking office, reinstating the so-called maximum pressure policy, a campaign of hybrid warfare targeting Iran.
Similarly facing sanctions over its military operations in Ukraine, Russia has deepened its cooperation with Iran in recent years.
In January, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian visited Moscow and signed a strategic partnership agreement with President Vladimir Putin to bolster economic and military collaboration.
Featured Video
Did the 9/11 Hijackers Really Fly the Planes?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Excerpt
Biden’s Closed Circle on Russia
An excerpt from ‘The Great Betrayal’
By James W. Carden | The Realist Review | June 14, 2026
Joe Biden’s presidency may ultimately come to be seen as a cautionary tale. Here was a president who showed little interest in entertaining arguments that might have contradicted his most deeply held assumptions.[1] And there were precious few within the upper ranks of the administration who might have attempted to do so, after all, only policy hands and political operatives who had come up through the ranks of the Clinton and Obama administrations or had longstanding ties to the citadels of the foreign policy community were invited into the fold. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Historic blow to South Korea’s military intelligence agency
- Russian frigate fires warning shots in English Channel
- Radio Free Europe, the Cold War ‘Weapon’ Congress Still Funds
- UN: Israel continues to violate Lebanon airspace in defiance of Iran-US MoU
- Araghchi: Israeli occupation of Lebanese land a violation of MoU
- Hezbollah fighters confront intruding Israeli forces in southern Lebanon
- The Straight of Hormuz is Open for Iranian Business… Oil is Moving and Iran is Getting Paid
- Biden’s Closed Circle on Russia
- Lebanon Accuses Israel Of Violating The Chemical Weapons Convention By Spraying Toxic Herbicide Over Farmland
- Did the 9/11 Hijackers Really Fly the Planes?
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli army ‘murdered child’ in Gaza and then dumped body on a roadside
- The Forward’s Hit Piece on Thomas Massie and USS Liberty Veterans
- Israel’s former defense minister compares settler ideology to Nazism
- The Pro-Israel Lobby’s Quiet Cash Shuffle
- Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) Propagandizes for Israel’s Wars
- A grim milestone: Gaza’s death toll surpasses 73,000 – Daily Update
- Jared Kushner’s Israel-linked island, and other dubious projects
- Why Are Crypto Billionaires and AIPAC Spending $8+ Million to Elect Adrian Boafo?
- Why the Mainstream Media Should Stop Using the ADL as Their Go-To Antisemitism Source
- Censorship and Thuggery Won’t Save Israel’s Reputation
- No Tricks Zone
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
Aletho News 