EU member to sue bloc over ‘suicidal’ ban on Russian gas
RT | January 27, 2026
Slovakia will sue the EU over the bloc’s decision to entirely ban the import of Russian gas by late 2027, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said on Tuesday. He branded Brussels’ move “energy suicide.”
A day earlier, the member nations voted to give their final approval to the REPowerEU regulation, as part of an effort to gradually phase out imports of natural gas from Russia by November of next year.
“We will file a lawsuit against this regulation at the Court of Justice of the EU,” Fico said at a press conference, calling the looming ban the finalization of the bloc’s “energy suicide.”
“It is a solution that was adopted solely out of hatred towards the Russian Federation. I reject hatred as a trait that should determine international relations,” he added.
The EU vote was approved by a qualified majority to bypass the need for unanimous approval in a way that contravened the core treaties of the bloc. The commission knew that if unanimity was required, such nonsense could not pass.
Slovakia and Hungary will lodge separate lawsuits but coordinate their positions further, Fico said.
According to Budapest, the vote was specifically run in such a way as to bypass Hungary’s and Slovakia’s opposition on a matter that pertains to their national interests.
EU divided over phasing out Russian energy
“The REPowerEU plan is based on a legal trick, presenting a sanctions measure as a trade policy decision in order to avoid unanimity… The [EU] Treaties are clear: decisions on the energy mix are a national competence,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto wrote on X shortly after the vote.
EU moves to cut off Russian gas – who will pay the price?READ MORE: EU moves to cut off Russian gas – who will pay the price?
Both Hungary and Slovakia, which are heavily dependent on Russian energy supplies, have previously warned that they could sue if Brussels plows ahead with the REPowerEU plan.
Moscow has warned that the bloc is essentially giving up its freedom by banning all Russian gas imports.
“They did give up their freedom anyway,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Monday. “Time will tell” whether EU member nations will be “happy vassals or miserable slaves,” she said.
WEF Calls for ‘Cultural Revolution’ to Promote Lab-Grown Meat
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 26, 2026
Participants at last week’s annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) called for a “cultural revolution” to increase acceptance of lab-grown meat — despite the public’s “terrible” resistance to the products, The Blaze reported.
The meeting, held in Davos, Switzerland, brought together leading global political and business leaders.
During the “Food @ the Edge,” panelist Sam Kass, a senior policy adviser for nutrition during the Obama administration, asked about the growth of “replacements” for “core foods.” The former chef said he doesn’t want to see a future “where we’re starting to drink coffee from a factory as opposed to from a tree.”
Andrea Illy, chairman of the Italian coffee giant illycaffè, countered that “there is a terrible cultural resistance from consumers to accept tech foods” but that he believes such foods “represent the way forward.”
Illy, affiliated with the WEF for over a decade, said reducing meat consumption yields environmental and health benefits. He said that “70% of the ecological footprint of agriculture is due to animal proteins.”
Illy claimed “excessive consumption” of real meat products is the leading cause of noncommunicable diseases — the “number one health problem” in the West. He called for the reduction of real meat consumption to a “healthy” level and for a decades-long “cultural revolution” to get people to consume lab-grown meat.
Experts tout benefits of real meat, question safety of lab-grown alternatives
Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, hit back at Illy’s claims. Since health officials started recommending less meat — which they blamed for certain health conditions — “we had child obesity rise from 4% to 20%,” Nass said. “Childhood Type 2 diabetes doubled. Adult diabetes and prediabetes skyrocketed.” Nass blamed high carbohydrate consumption for the increase.
“Meat is extremely healthy, especially when animals graze on grasses as they were meant to and when they are not fed antibiotics, hormones and contaminated feed,” Nass said. She said the animal feed used in industrial meat production is typically “drenched with glyphosate or grown on sewage sludge.”
Biologist Heidi Wichmann, Ph.D., a member of Make Europe Healthy Again’s advisory committee, said the primary driver of non-communicable diseases is not meat, “but the way food is produced, treated and disconnected from natural biological cycles.”
“Excessive consumption of biologically degraded, highly processed products is problematic, regardless of whether they are of animal or plant origin,” she said.
Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, said that while animal agriculture is “an ample source of disease variants,” questions remain about the safety of lab-grown meat.
“Lab-grown meat has all the unknowns of any new technology,” Jablonowski said. “In theory, lab-grown food can be healthy. In practice, only if consumers demand it.”
According to Sayer Ji, chairman of the Global Wellness Forum and founder of GreenMedInfo, these unknowns associated with lab-grown meat include “novel risks” that are not fully studied.
“Many products rely on immortalized cell lines, which by definition evade normal cellular aging and death mechanisms — raising legitimate concerns about oncogenic potential and long-term biological effects,” Ji said.
Technologies like this “centralize food production into highly patented, proprietary systems that displace decentralized, local and farmer-based food networks — a shift away from food sovereignty and toward industrial dependency,” Ji said.
WEF calls development of lab-grown meat from stem cells ‘revolutionary’
The WEF last week released a video promoting lab-grown meat produced from animal stem cells, describing the technology as “revolutionary.”
The video featured Singapore-based Shiok Meats, which grows “meat” and “seafood” from animal stem cells. The WEF said Shiok’s technologyoffers “a promising solution to the environmental and ethical concerns associated with conventional animal agriculture.”
Singapore, which approved the sale of lab-grown meat in 2020, is a global leader in promoting alternatives to conventional meat. In 2024, Singapore approved 16 insects for human consumption.
Several experts suggested that the global elite are pushing to reduce meat consumption by suggesting tactics such as making people allergic to red meat, or convincing wealthy countries to switch to “100% synthetic beef.”
“Narratives had to be created by the globalists to demonize meat,” Nass said. “The push for lab-grown meat comes from the desire to control food by central authorities,” who “want food to only come from outside authorities, who can withhold it if you do not comply — or who make it too expensive and control you that way.”
Seamus Bruner, director of research at the Government Accountability Institute, suggested that what “ties all of this together” is “an obsession by what I call the ‘Controligarchs’ — a small, self-appointed elite that believes every aspect of human life must be managed, optimized and ultimately owned by them.”
Seven states, including Florida, Texas and Montana, have banned lab-grown meats. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released new dietary guidelines favoring the consumption of protein, dairy, healthy fats, vegetables and fruit and deemphasizing grains.
Consumers have increasingly rejected alternative meat products. For instance, the stock price of synthetic meat producer Beyond Meat cratered last year, dropping from an all-time high of $240 to less than $1 amid low consumer demand in the U.S.
Jeffrey Tucker, president and founder of the Brownstone Institute, said, “There is near-zero market demand for this ‘frankenfood’ born of the same intellectual class and lab technicians who have given us poison food and medicine.”
Tucker said producers of synthetic meats “rely on government regulations and restrictions to throttle genuine health and good lives while deprecating what we know is both good for us and delicious.”
WEF: phasing out artificial additives placing ‘stress’ on food industry
Other WEF panelists criticized efforts by the HHS to phase out synthetic dyes and artificial additives in food products.
According to Slay News, Jasmin Hume, founder and CEO of Shiru, an AI-powered “protein discovery company,” said HHS’ recommendations are placing the food industry “under an unprecedented amount of stress.”
Hume claimed removing synthetic ingredients from foods would require significant changes by food manufacturers and would have a negative effect on consumers and the planet.
Nass noted that approximately 10,000 artificial food additives have been approved in the U.S. compared with only about 400 in the European Union. “Companies already know how to produce food without most such additives,” she said.
Slay News reported that Hume’s remarks came as the Trump administration “ramps up its Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) crackdown on ultra-processed junk, synthetic additives, and added sugars,” leaving WEF members “scrambling to defend” synthetic food that faces growing public and political resistance.
Mass vaccinations or culls of livestock linked to lab-grown meat agenda
Politico Europe reported Jan. 16 that authorities in Greece are responding to a nationwide sheep pox outbreak with mass culls of sheep flocks — but are facing increasing pressure to engage in mass vaccination of sheep instead.
According to Politico Europe, many Greek farmers are “begging for vaccines to save their flocks.” Mass vaccination was among the demands of farmers who recently protested against Greek government policies by blocking highways throughout the country.
“Sheep pox is so infectious that global farming regulations require whole herds to be slaughtered immediately after even a single case is detected,” Politico Europe reported. The outbreak has resulted in over 470,000 sheep and goats being culled, and the closure of over 2,500 farms in Greece.
The European Union’s Animal Welfare Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi told Greek authorities last year that vaccination is the only new measure that can stop new sheep pox outbreaks.
The Greek government and its advisers have “repeatedly rejected this option, citing the steep financial consequences and damage to exports” and the fact that no sheep pox vaccine has been approved in Greece or the EU, Politico Europe reported.
Regenerative farmer Howard Vlieger, a member of the board of advisers of GMO/Toxin Free USA, said choosing between mass culling and mass vaccination ignores a tried-and-true method in which farmers “let the ones die that are going to die” and use the surviving animals as the “genetic base for building your seed stock.”
“Vaccine-induced immunity does not replicate the breadth, durability, or ecological integration of naturally acquired immunity, which is what inspired the creation of vaccination but has never been effectively replaced by it,” Ji said.
Bruner, author of “Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, Their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life,” said lab-grown meat and mass culling or vaccination of livestock are part of the “Controligarch worldview.” This includes “centralized control over natural systems in the name of efficiency, safety and sustainability.”
“They seek to replace organic, decentralized life with systems that can be surveilled, patented and governed from the top down,” he said.
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.
The Board For Peace – Whitewashing Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide
DOC MALIK | January 26, 2026
ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION:
Last week in Davos at the WEF meeting, Trump announced the Board of Peace and the technocratic takeover of Gaza. I break down what this actually means.
This podcast is highly addictive and seriously good for your health.
SUPPORT DOC MALIK
For the full episodes, bonus content, back catalogue, and monthly Live Streams, please subscribe to either:
The paid Spotify subscription here: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show…
The paid Substack subscription here: https://docmalik.substack.com/subscri…
Thank you to all the new subscribers for your lovely messages and reviews! And a big thanks to my existing subscribers for sticking with me and supporting the show!
Scientists accuse Cochrane Reviews of using biased studies to claim HPV vaccine prevents cancer
‘Completely misleading’
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 26, 2026
The prestigious Cochrane Library in November 2025 published two reviews touting the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine.
In a press release, Cochrane claimed the reports showed that girls vaccinated before age 16 were 80% less likely to develop cervical cancer, and that there was no evidence the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine caused any serious adverse events.
Cochrane is widely cited as the “gold standard” of systematic reviews. Major news organizations, from NBC News to The BMJ, repeated claims made in the press release.
The BMJ wrote that the researchers wanted to “share high quality data to counter misinformation spread on social media, which has had a massive impact on vaccination rates.”
The two reviews were published together. One assessed evidence from clinical trials, the other examined observational studies.
Co-author Nicholas Henschke declared that based on the reviews, “We now have clear and consistent evidence from around the world that HPV vaccination prevents cervical cancer.”
Co-author Hanna Bergman told Cochrane that the evidence from the clinical trials confirmed that HPV vaccines are “highly effective” and “without any sign of serious safety concerns.”
However, experts who analyzed the reviews in detail told The Defender that based on their analyses of the reviews, they determined that the authors relied on a small number of studies with a high risk of bias for their claim that the HPV vaccine prevented cancer.
The experts said they identified similar patterns when they analyzed other outcomes cited by the researchers.
“We know that the meta-analysis can only be as good as the quality of the studies included in the meta-analysis,” Lucija Tomljenovic, Ph.D., a biochemist, said.
Yet the vast majority of the studies the authors relied on to make their most dramatic conclusions about cancer and cancer-related lesions were at “serious or critical risk of bias,” according to the study authors themselves, she said.
“If this is not a gross misinterpretation of evidence, I don’t know what is,” Tomljenovic said.
A systematic review is a “study of studies,” a high-level research method that reviews, synthesizes and critically appraises the available body of evidence for a given disease or health topic in a standardized and systematic way.
Healthcare policymakers often use them to guide their decision-making.
Researchers use a crucial metric — “risk of bias” — to evaluate the studies and determine whether to include them in a systematic review.
Risk of bias indicates the likelihood that a study contains a systematic error that could cause its results to deviate from the truth, which could lead to an over- or underestimation of the effect of an intervention — in this case, the HPV vaccine.
Authors draw ‘completely misleading’ conclusions based on the evidence with high risk of bias
Although the two Cochrane reviews claimed to find an 80% reduction in cancer rates, the review of clinical trials stated that the studies evaluated “were not of sufficient duration for cancers to develop. Four studies reported on cancer. No cancers were detected.”
The observational review, which evaluated different studies to assess the impact of HPV vaccination on the general population, claimed there was “moderate‐certainty evidence” from 20 studies that HPV vaccination reduces the incidence of cervical cancer.
However, Tomljenovic said that only four of the 20 studies had a moderate risk of bias. The other 16 studies had either serious or critical risk of bias.
Of the four studies with a moderate risk of bias, one did not even include cervical cancer as an endpoint, and the follow-up was only seven years — which is not enough time for cancer to develop. Instead, the studies measured persistent HPV infections, Tomljenovic said.
As a proxy for cancer, many studies examined precancer outcomes, focusing on the reduction in CIN3+ — or cervical squamous intraepithelial neoplasia 3 — which are abnormal cells found on the cervix that may be precancerous and are caused by a high-risk HPV type.
Tomljenovic also found that of the 23 eligible studies included in the meta-analysis investigating CIN3+ lesions, only a single study was overall at moderate risk of bias. The other 22 had serious or critical risk of bias.
On this shaky basis, she said, the authors concluded, “There are now long-term outcome data from different countries and from different study designs that consistently report a reduction in the development of high-grade CIN and cervical cancer in females vaccinated against HPV in early adolescence.”
Tomljenovic called that conclusion “completely misleading.” She said that the authors of the Cochrane reviews themselves judged the vast majority of studies that “consistently” report reduction in cervical cancer and high-grade CIN lesions to be at serious and critical risk of bias.
“The best evidence for reduction from only a handful of studies was at a moderate risk of bias rather than low,” she added.
Lancet study conclusions, cited by Cochrane, are ‘patently absurd’
The Cochrane review of observational studies included the widely cited 2021 study in The Lancet, which investigated the impact of HPV vaccination in England. The Lancet study claimed to offer first direct evidence of prevention of cervical cancer using the Cervarix vaccine — not available in the U.S.
The Lancet study claimed an 87-97% relative reduction in cervical cancer rates and CIN3 lesions in girls vaccinated at ages 12-13 compared to unvaccinated girls.
The authors claimed that vaccination “has almost eliminated cervical cancer and cervical precancer up to age 25,” Tomljenovic said. However, her own analysis of U.K. cervical cancer statistics from Cancer Research UK tells a different story.
Tomljenovic found that data show that since the early 1990s, cervical cancer incidence rates decreased by 25% in females in the U.K., and have remained stable over the last decade.
She found that cervical cancer incidence rates reached their lowest point somewhere between 2004 and 2007 — a year before the HPV vaccine was introduced in the U.K.
“Since then, the incidence rates of cervical cancer have actually slightly increased, not decreased,” Tomljenovic said. “Therefore, these data completely contradict the conclusions of The Lancet study.”
In light of the cervical cancer incidence in the U.K. over time, she said, the claim by the The Lancet study authors that HPV vaccination with high coverage in 12-13-year-old girls has almost eliminated cervical cancer and cervical precancer up to age 25 “is patently absurd.”
Screening, healthy practices prevent cervical cancer, and affect study outcomes
Children’s Health Defense Senior Research Scientist Karl Jablonowski said, “The HPV vaccines are pushed, because they allegedly prevent cancer. Yet, a comprehensive review of the world’s literature on HPV vaccinations concludes an insufficient body of evidence exists.”
Dr. Sin Hang Lee, a pathologist and expert in molecular diagnostics who has extensively studied the HPV vaccine, told The Defender that most HPV infections — even high-risk types — are cleared by the immune system. He said cervical cancer is a predictable and preventable disease because it can be identified early through regular pap screenings and treated.
“With proper gynecological care, no woman should have cervical cancer or die of cervical cancer,” Lee said.
According to Lee, the cohort studies assessed in the Cochrane review that reported a reduced risk of cervical cancer following the HPV vaccine were conducted in countries where it is less likely that gynecologists may remind patients to do pap screening follow-ups.
The basic flaw of using observational cohorts to detect efficacy, he said, is that “observational studies are subject to healthy user effect and healthy adherer effect, which may lead to erroneous conclusions,” and create a statistical bias.
That means women who choose to receive a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer are also more likely to seek other preventive services and practice healthy behaviors that affect cervical cancer. This includes exercising more, eating a healthier diet, having fewer sex partners, and avoiding tobacco, excessive alcohol intake and illicit drugs.
“A healthy lifestyle is known to affect the rate of clearance of HPV infections,” Lee added.
Observational studies typically compare these women to women who did not get the vaccine, “which may lead to erroneous conclusions.”
No serious adverse effects?
The Cochrane authors also claimed their findings dispute claims about serious adverse effects “reported on social media.”
However, social media isn’t the only place where serious adverse events, including autoimmune conditions like POTS [postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome] and POI [primary ovarian insufficiency], have been reported.
The vaccine adverse event databases (VAERS and VigiBase) contain reports of serious adverse events. So do numerous case studies and Merck’s own internal data — as revealed in court documents from hundreds of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts against Merck, the maker of the Gardasil HPV vaccine.
Writing in response to the Cochrane findings in a letter to The BMJ, Dr. Peter Gøtzsche, ousted founder of the Cochrane Collaboration and founder of the Institute for Scientific Freedom, wrote that his own research group conducted a peer-reviewed systematic review that found “the HPV vaccines increased serious nervous system disorders significantly.”
Gøtzsche said that as an expert witness in a case against Merck, he documented that Merck “had hidden cases of serious neurological harms on Gardasil from the drug regulators.” Gøtzsche published his findings in a recent book.
Other research studies have identified similar adverse events. This includes a study published in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics in July 2025. The study, which analyzed reports in the VAERS database related to Gardasil between 2015 and 2024, used multiple statistical signal-detection methods to identify safety signals for the Gardasil vaccine.
The researchers identified signals for certain neurological and autoimmune-related conditions, including POTS, eye movement disorders, autoimmune thyroiditis and posture abnormality — none of which are isted on the vaccine’s label.
U.S. regulators taking a closer look at HPV vaccines?
When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) earlier this month reduced the number of recommended routine childhood vaccines, the agency left the controversial HPV vaccine on the schedule.
However, the CDC now advises a single dose of the HPV vaccine, instead of the previous two-dose regimen. In making the new recommendations, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services cited a growing global consensus that one shot is effective at protecting against HPV.
Investigative reporter Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., reported last week that after nearly two decades on the childhood immunization schedule, the HPV vaccine is being subjected to closer scrutiny.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) convened a new workgroup to reexamine the vaccine from the ground up — including its effectiveness, dosing, safety and long-term population impact.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Retsef Levi, a current ACIP member who has repeatedly called for longer safety follow-up and greater transparency about uncertainty in vaccine science, is leading the workgroup, Desmasi wrote.
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.
Spain Opens Probe Into Israeli Tourism Firms
IMEMC | January 26, 2026
Spain’s Ministry of Social Rights, Consumer Affairs, and Agenda 2030 has opened a formal investigation into Israeli tourism companies suspected of promoting goods or services linked to Israeli colonies built on occupied Palestinian land.
In a statement issued Sunday, the ministry said the inquiry aims to determine whether companies operating in Spain have advertised or sold tourism‑related services connected to Israeli colonies in the occupied West Bank, in violation of Spanish law.
The investigation is based on Royal Decree‑Law 10/2025, which prohibits the advertising of goods or services originating from occupied territories.
The decree was adopted in September 2025 as part of Spain’s emergency measures responding to the genocide in Gaza and to ensure that companies operating in Spain do not profit from activities tied to Israel’s occupation.
According to the ministry, the probe focuses on allegations that certain Israeli tourism firms promoted services linked to colonies illegally constructed on Palestinian land under military occupation.
Spanish officials emphasized that such activity would constitute illegal advertising under the decree, given the internationally recognized status of the West Bank as occupied territory and the illegality of Israeli colonial activity under international law.
The ministry stated that the purpose of the inquiry is to identify all companies involved and determine whether their conduct violates Spanish consumer and advertising regulations. If breaches are confirmed, authorities may impose sanctions or restrict the companies’ ability to operate commercially in Spain.
Spanish officials underscored that the investigation reflects the government’s commitment to ensuring that businesses in Spain do not contribute to or profit from Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian land.
All of Israel’s colonies in the occupied West Bank, including those in and around occupied East Jerusalem, are illegal under International Law, the Fourth Geneva Convention, in addition to various United Nations and Security Council resolutions. They also constitute war crimes under International Law.
Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits collective punishment and acts of terror against civilian populations.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”.
Articles 53 and 147 prohibit the destruction of civilian property and classify pillage as a war crime.
Craig Murray, Reporting from Venezuela

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | January 26, 2026
Last year, British journalist and former diplomat Craig Murray provided valuable reports from Lebanon, documenting — among other things — death and destruction brought by Israel’s military. Now, Murray is on the ground in Venezuela, doing what he did in Lebanon last year — providing access to information that tends to be filtered out or distorted in much reporting.
Indeed, in his first report from Venezuela that he posted at his website on Monday, Murray provided, based on his crisscrossing of the nation’s capital, an account that the situation there is very different from what is commonly reported. “I have now been in Caracas for 48 hours and the contrast between what I have seen, and what I had read in the mainstream media, could not be more stark,” stated Murray to begin his report. Expanding on this observation, Murray wrote later in his report:
Pretty well everything that I have read by Western journalists which can be immediately checked – checkpoints, armed political gangs, climate of fear, shortages of food and goods – turns out to be an absolute lie. I did not know this before I came. Possibly neither did you. We both do now.

As in Lebanon last year, Murray is set to provide a view into matters much of the media is not interested in sharing with people around the world. Murray explained in his report:
When I was in Lebanon a year ago, the mainstream media were entirely absent as Israel devastated Dahiya, the Bekaa Valley, and Southern Lebanon, because it was a narrative they did not want to report.
Disgracefully, the only time the BBC entered Southern Lebanon was from the Israeli side, embedded with the IDF.
The BBC, Guardian or New York Times simply will not send a correspondent to Caracas because the reality is so starkly different from the official narrative.
To be more informed about what is happening in Venezuela, it would be a good practice to check periodically Murray’s website where he is planning to post more written and video reports in the coming weeks.
Why Israel’s Drive to Destroy Iran is Ultimately about Palestine
By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | January 26, 2026
While the regime change propaganda about Iran continues to circulate, it is important to understand that the only real reason Israel seeks to topple the Islamic Republic is because of its role in supporting the Palestinian struggle.
Pro-war think tanks, media outlets, social media influencers, and rights groups have not relented in their blatant disinformation campaigns, designed solely to manufacture consent for a war of aggression against Iran.
The number of protesters that regime change advocates claim were killed by the Iranian authorities appears to grow by the day. First, it jumped from thousands to just over ten thousand. Now, you may be seeing the claim that 43,000 were killed, while 350,000 are injured and 20,000 await execution.
So where are these figures coming from? The 43,000 figure comes from a group called the “International Center for Human Rights” (ICHR), based in Toronto, Canada. On its website, it presents itself as a “non-governmental, non-profit international organization dedicated to promoting and defending human rights and democratic values.” However, it is a group that focuses almost entirely on Iran and celebrates the importance of the alleged “growing friendship between Iran and Israel.”
Unlike human rights groups like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch (HRW), it uses extremely biased language, such as labeling the Iranian government the “terrorist regime” or a “criminal regime occupying Iran.” It is also explicitly in favor of regime change.
Its executive director, Ardeshir Zarezadeh, even praised Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah leader Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, posting a photo of himself and his colleague, Ahmad Batebi, drinking what appears to be wine, with Israeli and Iranian opposition flags behind them. For context, that Israeli strike killed around 300 civilians.
Without having to go into any more depth on this Canada-based human rights center, it suffices to say that it is far from a neutral source. The reason for pointing out where these figures come from is to say that those repeating such extreme and unsubstantiated claims are not doing their due diligence.
The blind acceptance of such ridiculously high casualty numbers, which exceed the casualty tolls from some wars and major battles in the region, is what gives way to a free-for-all of ridiculous atrocity propaganda. Take, for example, regime change advocate influencer Sana Ebrahimi, who recently claimed that over 80,000 protesters were killed, citing “someone who is in contact with sources inside the government.”
When we cite casualty numbers as journalists, it is incumbent upon us to check our sources. The refusal to check sources is precisely how the “300 babies thrown out of incubators by Iraqi forces in Kuwait” and “40 babies beheaded by Hamas” hoaxes spread.
As of now, there are no internationally verified numbers of how many protesters, rioters, and armed militants were killed during the recent round of unrest in Iran. Tehran has produced its own figures, which it backs up with names and documentation, but in terms of impartial “international investigations,” there is simply no evidence for any of these figures being circulated.
It’s All About Palestine
It is no secret that the Israeli government is backing and allied with the Iranian opposition and is seeking regime change. It has been revealed by a Haaretz investigation that Israel has used bots and paid Persian-language speakers to promote the Shah’s son as the alternative leader of the country. It is also no secret that the excuse for bombing Iran has shifted from “eliminating the nuclear threat,” to “eliminating their ballistic missile program,” and now to “they are killing their own people.”
But why are the Israelis so invested in destroying Iran? The reason is very simple: Iran’s government is the only one on earth that provides military assistance to the Palestinian resistance.
Iran is allied with every Palestinian political faction that uses violent resistance against the Israelis. It arms Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), but also Marxist groups like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and nationalists like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades—an unofficial armed wing falling within the fold of the Fatah movement. It does so without requiring anything in return. It trains armed resistance groups and helps in the development of Gaza’s tunnel infrastructure.
The Islamic Republic also supports Yemen’s Ansarallah, which played a key role in fighting on the side of Gaza during the entire course of the genocide. It also supports Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Every armed force that Iran supports in the region is opposed to Israel, including Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU), components of which repeatedly fired drone and cruise missiles at Israel.
Some argue that the Iranians do this for strategic reasons. The counterargument is that if this has been the primary driver of support for the Palestinian cause, why then have the Iranians refused to use this as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the United States? Another counterpoint offered is that Iran is punished because it supports Palestine, not the other way around.
Regardless of whether you take the viewpoint that Iran’s support for resistance against the Israelis is born of moral concerns, strategic concerns, or both, there is no denying that the support exists. No other country, except Ansarallah’s government in Yemen, has directly fought the Israelis.
If Iran’s government is toppled and replaced with a pro-Israel puppet dictator, this would lead to the total collapse of the entire support infrastructure behind the regional players resisting Israel. In other words, this outcome would give the Israelis a free hand in Lebanon and enable them to do with the Palestinian people whatever they choose.
Therefore, it is a contradiction to claim you support toppling the Iranian government and also support Palestine. It would be like claiming you support the overthrow of the Soviet Union and a plot to install a German puppet regime during World War II, while still claiming to oppose the Nazis. These positions are irreconcilable.
Does this mean you need to blindly support the Islamic Republic? Evidently not. Rather, simply consider your stance using the above-mentioned analogy.
The US-Israeli effort to cause regime change in Iran has nothing to do with the people of Iran. It is all about destroying the resistance groups fighting against them. Therefore, the end of the Islamic Republic means the end of the Palestinian resistance and total Israeli domination of the entire region.
That is the truth.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
Trump and Iran, War or Negotiations?
By Samyar Rostami – New Eastern Outlook – January 26, 2026
Although the likelihood of a US attack on Iran has greatly increased. If Iran shows widespread strength and resistance, the Americans will retreat. Iran’s response to military attacks will certainly be more severe and comprehensive than in previous cases.
In the national security document published in Trump’s second administration, like the previous two documents, the national defense of the United States is characterized, as it includes the defense of the territory, the defense of the people, the defense of the political system, and the defense of the economy.
Iran’s position was also prominent in previous documents. In that document, the name of Iran was repeated six times, and it was one of the greatest threats to US national security. It was proposed, and in addition, in two other cases, it referred to the threat of Iran.
In the latest document, the number of these references has been reduced to three. In the new document, direct reference to Iran’s nuclear program has been almost eliminated. But the issue and role of waterways is still prominent in this document; in fact, this time the name of the Strait of Hormuz is explicitly mentioned and emphasized in the new document.
The new US national security document depicts Iran in the general framework of “weakening” and does not actually mention Iran as a fundamental threat. But this does not mean that the United States no longer considers Iran a threat.
War or negotiations
The behavior of the Trump administration, namely in recent months, has been not only in rhetoric but also in practice anti-Iranian, from pressuring European governments to activate the snapback mechanism to supporting Israeli military actions, seizing ships suspected of carrying weapons to Iran, and even actions such as seizing ships off the coast of Venezuela.
Given the current state of US-Iran relations, the US has two options: moving towards an agreement or adopting a military option, but Washington’s desire is to stop Iran’s nuclear capability without falling into the quagmire of eternal wars.
The issue of negotiations had been stalled since the 12-day war because Tehran refuses to return to negotiations before receiving the necessary guarantees from the US about not starting another attack against Iran by Israel or the US and having the right to enrich uranium.
Not all Trump officials and aides share the same view and approach, and some believe that negotiating with Tehran will increase Iran’s legitimacy. Within the administration, it seems that some are willing not to move towards a military option before diplomatic solutions are exhausted.
Also, the United States, which previously adopted a policy of “maximum pressure campaign,” still claims to protect the rights of the Iranian people. In this regard, Donald Trump has now imposed a 25% customs tariff on any country that has trade relations with Iran, which could have a negative impact on Iran’s economic relations. Trump also called for illegal actions, including the occupation of government institutions, by asking Iranian protesters to continue the protests and even promised that help was on the way.
The United States is also using the protests inside Iran as a tool to gain more concessions from Tehran in any possible agreement.
Iran’s readiness for diplomacy and defense
Previously, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had emphasized that the United States and the regime would not achieve a different result by repeating the previous failed experience. “Iran is much more prepared than the 12-day war,” he said, adding, “I hope the wise option will be chosen. We will prepare diplomatic and economic options.”
In a situation where an average of $10 billion was allocated annually for the import of basic goods, the government came to the conclusion that economic surgery should be performed in this area; the preferential currency should be eliminated for consumers.
The protests in Iran have been carried out peacefully since early January by a group of people and trades in response to currency fluctuations and the living conditions. The government announced that it recognizes these protests and efforts to address these concerns are ongoing. However, after a week and on January 8-9, the protests by terrorist elements turned into riots in cities, destroying government, public, relief, and mosques.
Iranian authorities have made mass arrests of terrorist elements in team houses and terrorist cells, and they even have documents about the connections between these terrorist elements and the United States and Israel.
In the view of government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani, the peaceful protests of the people were subjected to a terrorist attack. Also, Brigadier General Ahmad Ali Goodarzi, Commander of the Faraj Border Guard, announced the identification and destruction of 3 terrorist teams before they entered the country at the country’s borders and the discovery of weapons and ammunition from them.
Amir Saeed Iravani, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Iran in the United Nations, stated in a letter to the Security Council and the Secretary-General of the UN: “The Islamic Republic strongly condemns the continuous, illegal, and irresponsible behavior of the United States of America in coordination with Israel to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs through threats, incitement, and deliberate encouragement of instability and violence.”
Also, internal cohesion among political groups and figures in Iran is established and stable. Apart from the words and positions of the Leader of Iran, the representatives of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Parliament) considered the government’s decision (end of the consumption chain) a courageous act and an important step.
The parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said, “At this time, the responsibility of us as Iranian officials is to confront the enemy in the economic war.”
From the perspective of Hassan Rouhani, if a foreign aggressor wants to abuse the protest within the family, the family members will put aside the difference and break the aggressor’s hand.
In fact, from Tehran’s perspective, Iran is ready for both war and negotiation. That means fair, honorable, and equal negotiations with mutual respect and based on mutual interests are still the priority, not giving orders and dictating. Iran also has preconditions.
Although the US has greatly increased its forces in the region. Iran’s military forces are also at the peak of defensive readiness and are ready to confront any aggression and evil of the enemy against Iran. Therefore, any action must face retaliation from Iran.
The amount of oil sales in the past 14 months in the form of export shipments has been record-breaking. The creation of new restrictions on the sale of Iranian oil does not create any serious restrictions on Iran’s oil sales processes.
Outlook
It seems that the US is paying special attention to shaping a soft transformation and a colorful and internal revolution in Iran, along with hard threats as a means of pressure. But internal cohesion among political groups and figures in Iran is established and stable.
Although the likelihood of a US attack on Iran has greatly increased. If Iran shows widespread strength and resistance, the Americans will retreat. Iran’s response to military attacks will certainly be more severe and comprehensive than in previous cases.
In the meantime, Washington’s failure in the direction of the hard programs could make the path of interaction or resolution of issues between Iran and the United States, in the new framework, more complex.
Samyar Rostami is а political observer and senior researcher in international relations.
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
US pressure contributing to Israeli influence in Latin America: Experts
Press TV – January 26, 2026
US political pressure is contributing to the Israeli regime’s influence across Latin America, even as long-standing regional support for the Palestinian cause continues through diplomatic, legal, and grassroots channels, experts say.
For decades, several left-wing governments in the region shaped their foreign policy around anti-imperialism and de-colonial identity, aligning openly with Palestinian rights, but analysts warn the legacy is now at the disposal of a mix of US interference, far-right political shifts, and economic leverage, the Middle East Eye news and analysis website reported on Monday.
Following the launch of the Israeli regime’s war of genocide on Gaza in October 2023, Brazil’s president verified the nature of the onslaught as being “genocidal,” Colombia suspended diplomatic ties with the regime, and Chile sought accountability for Israeli atrocities at international courts. Yet experts cited by the outlet said Washington has worked to counter that momentum through lobbying, political threats, and direct pressure on outspoken governments.
“Latin American states lack instruments of hard power and are therefore constrained in how they can respond to US pressure,” said Ali Farhat, a Latin American affairs specialist. “That limitation creates openings for Israel to consolidate influence, particularly where governments seek to avoid confrontation with Washington.”
US officials have increasingly framed cooperation with Washington as a test of “security” and “democratic alignment,” while linking regional diplomacy to broader American foreign policy goals that dovetail with closer ties with Tel Aviv.
Argentina has emerged as the clearest example of this shift. Far-right President Javier Milei has announced plans to move the country’s embassy to the holy occupied city of al-Quds and expand security and economic cooperation with the regime, while openly backing its war on Gaza as “legitimate self-defense.”
Last year, Argentina received a $20-billion bailout from Washington, which US President Donald Trump defended as support for a “good financial philosophy,” despite skepticism over its impact on the country.
Farhat said US meddling has reshaped the regional landscape, pointing to Washington’s targeting of Venezuela’s leadership as part of a broader effort to weaken vocal supporters of Palestine.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, long seen as one of the most uncompromising defenders of Palestinian rights in Latin America, was kidnapped by US forces earlier this year and is now standing trial in New York on “drugs, weapons, and narco-terrorism” charges.
“He (Maduro) was among the most uncompromising defenders of Palestine on the continent,” Farhat said. “His marginalization [and now ouster] represents the loss of a fierce advocate for the cause.”
The pundit said Maduro framed the Palestinian struggle as inseparable from anti-imperialism and viewed the US as a colonial power and the regime as an occupying entity backed by it.
Since Trump’s return to office last year, Farhat said, left-leaning leaders have shifted tactics rather than abandoning Palestine, opting for recalibration over confrontation, but far-right governments have accelerated alignment with both Washington and Tel Aviv.
As of 25 January, Argentina is the only Latin American country to have agreed to join Trump’s controversial “Board of Peace” initiative in Gaza, which describes itself as an international organization seeking to promote stability and secure “peace.”
Nilto Tatto, a congressman from Brazil’s Workers’ Party, urged Latin American governments to reject the board and any initiatives undermining Palestinian rights.
“Any framework managed by Washington would not serve peace so much as reproduce hegemony under an international guise,” Tatto said.
“Brazil, evidently, cannot take part in a process whose outcome is already predetermined, namely one that focuses on the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip only to then keep the territory under US control.”
Julia Perie, a former Argentine lawmaker, said Argentina’s shift reflected ideological realignment.
“Argentina’s position is part of a geopolitical vision that prioritizes alignment with the United States,” said Perie.
She added that Latin American solidarity with Palestine has always been cyclical. “This is another phase in a longer historical transformation, not the end of solidarity.”
‘Recalibration not abandonment’
Amid the situation, observers noted, support for Palestine in countries facing mounting political pressure was increasingly being channeled through legal action, multilateral institutions, and popular movements rather than overt diplomatic confrontation.
Ramon Medero, president of Venezuela’s La Danta TV, said the current moment represented adaptation, not retreat.
“It is difficult to argue that the Palestinian cause has suffered a decisive blow,” Medero said.
“What we are seeing is a repackaging of escalation through legal and multilateral avenues to reduce the costs of sanctions and backlash.”
Medero added that the Palestinian cause was now embedded in a broader Global South struggle.
“The Palestinian cause has become a structural symbol of liberation, sovereignty, and self-determination,” he said. “What is shifting is agency – away from governments and toward popular consciousness.”
He added that far-right advances could intensify grassroots mobilization.
China Rejects U.S. Claims of Coercion in Central America
teleSUR | January 26, 2026
On Monday, Guo Jiakun, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, rejected U.S. accusations of alleged Chinese “coercion” and “interference” in Central America.
His remarks came after Rep. John Moolenaar, chairman of the U.S. House Select Committee on China, traveled to several Central American countries to counter Chinese influence and question the involvement of Asian companies in strategic sectors such as the operation of ports linked to the Panama Canal.
In response, Guo described the U.S. claims as “complete lies and fallacies,” saying they reflect ideological bias and a Cold War mentality. “China firmly opposes certain U.S. politicians interfering in the normal relations between Central American countries and China,” the Chinese diplomat said.
He also stressed that the Chinese foreign policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean is based on principles of mutual respect, sovereign equality, mutual benefit, openness and inclusiveness, and cooperation aimed at shared development.
According to Guo, relations between China and Central American countries have produced tangible benefits for local populations, particularly in areas such as infrastructure, trade, logistics connectivity, productive investment, and technology transfer.
China maintains that its presence in Central America is not aimed at political domination but rather at a model of South-South cooperation that has been “well received by the countries involved.”
Guo urged U.S. politicians to stop instrumentalizing China-related issues for geopolitical purposes and to focus their efforts on initiatives that contribute to regional development. In multiple international forums, China has reiterated its rejection of bloc-based thinking and confrontation, advocating for a multipolar international order based on multilateralism and respect for state sovereignty.
Earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump released the new U.S. National Security Strategy, which prioritizes strengthening his country’s influence in Latin America and the Caribbean and seeks to reconfigure strategic control over key trade corridors such as the Panama Canal.
New US defense strategy downgrades Russian ‘threat’
RT | January 26, 2026
The Pentagon has downgraded the alleged threat level from Russia in its newly released US National Defense Strategy.
A similar document issued under the previous administration of President Joe Biden in October 2022, less than a year after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, described Moscow as an “acute threat.”
But the updated defense strategy, published by the War Department on Friday, referred to Russia as “a persistent but manageable threat to NATO’s eastern members for the foreseeable future.”
The document also stressed that Moscow “possesses the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, which it continues to modernize and diversify, as well as undersea, space, and cyber capabilities that it could employ against the US Homeland.”
It said the fighting between Moscow and Kiev has proven that Russia “retains deep reservoirs of military and industrial power,” as well as “national resolve required to sustain a protracted war in its near abroad.”
However, according to the Pentagon’s assessment, Moscow is “in no position to make a bid for European hegemony. European NATO dwarfs Russia in economic scale, population, and, thus, latent military power.”
The document said that the US will “continue to play a vital role in NATO” and “remain engaged in Europe,” but from now on it will “prioritize defending the US Homeland and deterring China,” echoing the White House National Security Strategy published in October.
Despite Europe having “a smaller and decreasing share of global economic power,” NATO members on the continent are “strongly positioned to take primary responsibility for Europe’s conventional defense, with critical but more limited US support,” according to the strategy.
The EU and UK should also be “taking the lead in supporting Ukraine’s defense,” the Pentagon stressed. It also reiterated the stance of US President Donald Trump that the conflict between Moscow and Kiev “must end.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin opined last October that the Trump administration is guided by American interests, which he called a “rational approach.”
“Russia also reserves the right to be guided by our national interests. One of which, incidentally, is the restoration of full-fledged relations with the United States,” he stressed.

