Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Von der Leyen’s final plan: a false democracy for a false Europe

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 17, 2025

A change in perception

The perception of the European Union is changing in some sections of public opinion: from a project of cooperation between sovereign states, the EU is increasingly seen as a centralized bureaucratic machine, which is what it really represents, and this view is fueled by the growing control exercised over information spaces, political dynamics, and the very interpretation of democratic principles. If the failure of the euro as a common currency was already telling, even more so were the isolationist policies of sanctions against the Russian Federation, followed by those against China and, in general, against any political entity that was not in the good graces of the UK-US axis.

In this context, the role of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is worrying. While proclaiming herself a champion of democratic values, she is contributing to the construction of a system in which truth, dissent, and public debate are suppressed or marginalized. There is no doubt that no one has ever pursued policies as totally anti-democratic, liberticidal, and homicidal as hers (as in the cases of Ukraine and Palestine).

These concerns have been fueled by discussions on a motion of no confidence against von der Leyen. In June 2025, Romanian MEP George Piperea proposed a vote to question her leadership. The necessary signatures were collected from various MEPs to put the issue to a vote in the plenary. The main reason given is the alleged violation of transparency rules during the management of contracts for COVID-19 vaccines in 2020-2021.

Following those agreements, the EU purchased huge quantities of doses, many of which proved to be surplus to requirements, with an estimated 215 million doses, worth close to €4 billion, subsequently being discarded. When citizens and the media asked for clarity on those contracts, the European Commission refused to make the communications public, a decision that the Court of Justice of the European Union later ruled contrary to the rules. According to the Court, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission is obliged to prove that such communications do not exist or are not in its possession.

Despite this, the Commission has never provided a clear explanation as to why the messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO were not disclosed. It has not been clarified whether the messages were deleted voluntarily or whether they were lost, for example, due to a change of device by the president.

Finally, on July 10, during a plenary session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament rejected the motion of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen. To pass, it would have required a qualified majority of two-thirds, supported by an absolute majority of MEPs. The result was 360 votes against, 175 in favor, and 18 abstentions.

The motion was supported by right-wing groups such as Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations, numerous members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, and some members of the radical left. Von der Leyen was not present at the time of the vote. Despite the criticism, the main centrist groups – the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe and the Greens – rejected the motion, ensuring the political survival of the president. However, if the no-confidence motion had passed, the entire European Commission would have fallen, opening a complicated process for the appointment of 27 new commissioners.

This decision is perhaps more strategic than tactical: keeping a president who has already lost confidence and is therefore politically manageable and has limited room for maneuver is more convenient than having a new president who may be worse than the previous one and has the full confidence of the European Parliament.

European elections lose political weight

Elections in the European Union, as in many other democratic contexts, should express the will of the people. They should, I emphasize. In practice, however, they are increasingly seen as an institutional ritual with no real impact on fundamental political choices and, above all, they are not an expression of the real will of the people, as they lack representation. Many of the key decisions are no longer taken by elected governments or national parliaments, but by EU bodies often guided by a technocratic logic and by interests dominant within the EU system.

The 2024 European elections represented a turning point: conservative, sovereignist, and nationalist parties significantly expanded their representation, establishing themselves in countries such as Italy, Austria, Germany, France, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. These parties have strongly opposed the EU’s migration policies, environmental measures deemed excessive, and its confrontational foreign policy towards Russia. However, instead of encouraging constructive debate and giving space to critical voices – as the European Parliament claims to want to do – these forces have been systematically branded as “anti-democratic” and publicly discredited.

A central role in this strategy has been played by Ursula von der Leyen, in office since 2019, who has repeatedly portrayed right-wing parties as a “threat to European unity,” without ever providing concrete evidence to support this claim, but often referring to alleged Russian interference or generic “threats to sovereignty.”

In May 2024, for example, Ursula claimed that the AfD, Germany’s far-right party, was “manipulated by Russia.” While she did not cite any specific sources, these statements helped justify new sanctions against Moscow and introduce restrictions on the online activities of non-aligned political forces. Meanwhile, however, the growth of right-wing parties reflects growing discontent with European policies considered ineffective or punitive: uncontrolled immigration, environmental measures [which are] burdensome for families, and the militarization of the EU, which imposes rising costs. Instead of engaging in open debate, the EU apparatus tends to marginalize these movements, silencing them with accusations and stigmatization.

Sovereignist and right-wing parties in Europe face numerous institutional obstacles. In the European Parliament, the so-called “cordon sanitaire” policy is still in force, whereby the S&D and EPP groups refuse to cooperate with conservative political forces. This was clearly seen in the composition of the new EU Executive Committee, where the presidency went to Nathalie Loiseau, with vice-presidencies assigned exclusively to S&D and EPP representatives, excluding any representation from the right. At the same time, several conservative representatives are involved in legal proceedings that some observers consider to be attempts at political repression disguised as legal action. This is the case, for example, of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen, who is being prosecuted for expressing traditional religious views on the family. These incidents show how the legal system can be used to target dissenting positions.

The growing exclusion of critical voices raises serious questions about the true state of pluralism in the EU, where opposition views seem increasingly to be treated not as part of democratic debate but as obstacles to be removed.

Controlling public discourse

In recent years, the regulation of digital platforms has become one of the main tools with which the EU manages political dissent. Under the guise of protecting citizens, some recent regulations risk severely restricting freedom of expression.

The first was the Digital Services Act (DSA): in force since November 16, 2022, this law imposes obligations on digital platforms to combat illegal content and improve algorithmic and advertising transparency. However, some provisions raise significant concerns: Article 34 allows government bodies to request the removal of content or access to data even outside their jurisdiction. In emergencies, the Commission can impose restrictions on the dissemination of certain information. The first sites to be sanctioned were those providing information from Russia, causing considerable damage not only economically but also to the plurality of information. In the EU, everyone has the right to speak, except for the long list of those who do not think like the EU.

A second tool is the EUDS, the European Democracy Shield, launched by von der Leyen in May 2024. This initiative is presented as a defense of the EU against external interference – particularly from Russia and China – but according to many observers, it represents a further step toward controlling information and limiting forces critical of European integration, environmental policies, and the dominant diplomatic line.

Among the main points of the EUDS are:

  • Forced removal of so-called fake news;
  • Greater transparency in political propaganda;
  • Strengthening mechanisms to identify and block content considered “external manipulation.”

In essence, these measures increase the Commission’s power to identify what information is lawful and what is not.

Inconsistencies in the European Union’s foreign policy

Von der Leyen continues to strongly support the Ukrainian cause, insisting on the need to supply weapons to Kiev and isolate Russia internationally. However, this commitment also has obvious inconsistencies.

During her visit to Israel in 2023, for example, the Commission president expressed solidarity with the victims of Hamas attacks, but made no appeal to Israel to respect international law in the Gaza Strip. This attitude has drawn criticism from UN officials and some European leaders, and even Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign policy, known for his words against the Axis of Resistance and in particular for his media attacks on Iran, has reiterated that the definition of diplomatic guidelines is the responsibility of the governments of the member states, not of a single institutional figure.

Another example of this approach is his determination to accelerate Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Although officially supported by many European governments, this initiative is met with reservations by several countries, including Slovakia and Hungary, which highlight the need for structural reforms, economic stability, and compliance with European regulations.

Her insistence on a rapid transition to electric vehicles, including the decision to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars from 2035, has also been adopted despite strong concerns from the automotive industry and part of the population, as well as calls for compromise from countries such as Germany.

Ursula is seeking to centralize decision-making and financial power in the hands of the Commission she chairs. This is a political method, not a “hiccup.”

Consider the much-discussed ReArm Europe: €800 billion earmarked for rearmament, forcing EU member states into a disastrous spending review. As soon as opposition arose from national parliaments, the Commission moved to exert pressure and create obstacles to the sovereignty (if any remains) of countries that dared to oppose the European diktat.

Many European citizens are expressing growing concern about the president’s top-down style. Sanctions packages against Moscow, climate initiatives, defense projects, and even official statements are often developed without involving member states. In numerous cases, von der Leyen has taken a position on behalf of the entire Union without consulting the European Council or the External Action Service.

If a single leader is able to block institutional activities without transparency or coordination, this signals a dangerous personalization of power and a lack of shared governance mechanisms.

The European Union has always claimed to be democratic and multilateral, at least formally; but the truth is that, especially in recent years, this European Union – which is something different from Europe – is dismantling the last vestiges of sovereign power and freedom, compressing everything into a few bureaucratic, indeed technocratic, structures that are in the hands of a very few people who report to the President of the Commission. There is no transparency, no pluralism, no real democracy. Just chatter, words, slogans, advertising campaigns, and internships for young students lobotomized by European political drugs. And while discussions multiply about the impact of these transformations on fundamental rights – including freedom of speech, democratic participation, and the right to criticize – European leaders reiterate that these measures are being taken in the interest of the collective good and the stability of the Union. There will be no end to hypocrisy, while we hope that Europe will soon be able to free itself from the yoke called the EU.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

Massie Proposes to Make COVID Vaccine Makers Liable for Injuries, Opening Door for Thousands of Lawsuits

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 16, 2025

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) on Tuesday introduced legislation to repeal the “sweeping” liability shield that exempts COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers from responsibility for serious injuries or death caused by their products.

The liability protection amounts to “medical malpractice martial law,” Massie said in a press release.

The PREP Repeal Act (H.R.4388) would revoke the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005, a law that provides legal immunity to “covered persons” who manufacture or administer countermeasures during a public health emergency.

“Covered persons” under the PREP Act include vaccine makers, manufacturers of masks and other personal protective equipment, and physicians, nurses and pharmacists who administer vaccines.

The Biden administration ended the COVID-19 public health emergency in May 2023. However, the public health emergency, declared in January 2020 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the PREP Act, remains in effect.

In December 2024, HHS extended the liability protections through 2029. It was the 12th extension since 2020.

Massie’s bill would strip away these protections, repealing the PREP Act’s liability shield and restoring civil remedy rights for people harmed by products covered under the act.

“Τhe ability of citizens to seek redress for injury or harm is a fundamental principle of justice and due process,” the bill states, adding that the PREP Act’s liability shield has “undermined public trust and accountability” and “enabled regulatory capture.”

“The 2005 PREP Act prevents people from holding corporations accountable for the pain and suffering they cause during Presidentially declared emergencies. Americans deserve the right to seek justice when injured by government-mandated products. The PREP Repeal Act will restore that right,” Massie said in the press release.

In an interview today on the “Brian Thomas Morning Show,” Massie said the bill would apply to all COVID-19-related countermeasures, not just vaccines.

“If somebody made a mask that had cancer particles on it, and you inhaled those … too bad, they’re covered by the PREP Act,” Massie said. “I don’t like lawsuits, but they do keep corporations sort of in check. There’s this incentive not to harm people if you’re going to have to pay for it, if it becomes unprofitable.”

Attorney Ray Flores, senior outside counsel for Children’s Health Defense and an expert on the PREP Act, said:

“The ‘sweeping liability protections’ extend far beyond manufacturer shields to condone every conceivable medical atrocity. If Massie’s bill passes, the pandemic assembly line would be dismantled. It would be goodbye liability protections, goodbye mandates and goodbye mass-human experimentation.”

According to Flores, repeal of the PREP Act would also end other current public health emergencies, including mpox (monkeypox), pandemic influenza, anthrax and Zika.

Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, said the bill “will stop another COVID vaccine fiasco and also stop the widespread use of unproven tests such as the COVID-19 PCR tests, which were also issued under emergency use authorizations (EUA).”

Wayne Rohde, author of “The Vaccine Court: The Dark Truth of America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program” and “The Vaccine Court 2.0,” said the bill contains “nonspecific language” and gaps that require attention. Rohde said this includes:

“How to wind down the Act, address all of the amendments added to the Act over the last 4 years, covered persons, how to handle the covered countermeasures such as medical devices, medications, drugs and personal protective equipment, and, of course, the elephant in the room, the vaccines used and their future legal liability.”

Legislation would open the door to thousands of lawsuits previously blocked by PREP Act

Massie’s proposed legislation would apply to all current and future lawsuits challenging the PREP Act, including pending appeals.

Attorney Rick Jaffe said the proposed legislation is retroactive to March 10, 2020, “reopening the courthouse doors to thousands of injured individuals whose claims were previously blocked by PREP’s sweeping liability shield.”

The legislation would allow claimants to sue COVID-19 vaccine makers directly, Jaffe said:

“The bill, if passed, allows people injured by the COVID shots to sue, presumably, the manufacturers as well as those who administered the shots, and that would be a big and much unwanted thing from the perspective of the manufacturers and pharmacy chains which administered the shots.”

Massie told Brian Thomas he believes the PREP Act is unconstitutional, as it preempts state medical malpractice laws.

“Here’s why I call the PREP Act medical malpractice martial law,” Massie said. “It’s a federal law that says none of the state laws apply, and I think it’s a violation of the 10th Amendment. There’s nowhere in the Constitution that lets the federal government say that all state laws dealing with liability are null and void.”

Most, but not all, courts have so far sided against vaccine injury lawsuits challenging the PREP Act’s liability shield.

In March, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower court ruling that school medical staff who gave a COVID-19 vaccine to a minor without obtaining parental consent cannot be held liable under the PREP Act.

The Maine ruling came one week after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a lower court’s ruling in a similar lawsuit in Vermont. In that case, a school administered a COVID-19 vaccine to a 6-year-old boy despite his and his parents’ objections. Last year, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the PREP Act shielded school officials from liability.

At least two recent lawsuits challenging the PREP Act have cleared initial judicial hurdles but remain pending.

In March, the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that a lawsuit filed by the mother of a 14-year-old boy given a COVID-19 vaccine at school without consent can proceed. The court ruled the PREP Act does not preempt state law requiring parental consent for vaccination.

In November 2024, a federal court ruled that a lawsuit filed by a woman injured by AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine during a U.S. clinical trial can continue.

According to the complaint, AstraZeneca’s consent form for trial participants promised enrollees medical treatment in the event of illness or injury suffered during the study. The court rejected the drugmaker’s claim that a federal liability shield protects it from breach-of-contract claims.

Bill would end ‘dismal’ PREP Act vaccine injury compensation program

Massie’s proposed bill also rescinds unused federal funds earmarked for injury claims under the PREP Act.

Such claims are heard by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), a government-run COVID-19 vaccine injury compensation program established under the PREP Act.

CICP has faced criticism for its slow pace of resolving claims and the limited compensation it offers.

Jaffe said:

“The PREP Act created a legal black hole where traditional tort rights and due process protections disappeared, replaced by a virtually unreviewable administrative compensation program — the CICP — that has denied nearly every COVID-related claim. In effect, Americans injured by federally endorsed products were stripped of their constitutional right to seek redress. This bill restores that right.”

According to the most recent CICP data, of the 13,836 claims related to COVID-19 countermeasures filed to date, 75 were found eligible for compensation. As of June 1, 39 of those have been compensated. The overwhelming majority of claims were denied (4,338) or are “pending review or in review” (9,423).

Dr. Joel Wallskog, an orthopedic surgeon injured by COVID-19 vaccines and co-chair of React19, an organization advocating on behalf of vaccine-injury victims, said CICP strips claimants of their constitutional rights to due process and a jury trial.

“The CICP program was intended to be the safety net for those Americans injured by the emergency countermeasures, such as the COVID-19 shots. However, the program is a dismal failure with over a 98% denial rate,” Wallskog said.

If the proposed legislation passes, Flores said, the most likely outcome would be attempting to move COVID-19 injuries into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which covers injuries from vaccines routinely administered to children and pregnant women.

However, such a move may face obstacles, including complications regarding how to handle claims pending before the CICP.

Rohde said:

“Money obligated for current operations would not be affected [but] how do you determine the monetary need for pending CICP petitions? How to handle the CICP petitions already received and what about the future claims? Do you move all the CICP vaccine petitions into the VICP? That creates all sorts of new problems.”

In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) changed its recommendations on COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children. The CDC now recommends that parents of healthy children consult their pediatricians and together make decide whether to vaccinate against the virus.

According to Flores, “Now that these injections are not on the routine recommended schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, they wouldn’t qualify” for compensation from the VICP.

‘It will probably only pass if Americans get behind it in a big way’

Massie’s proposed legislation is similar to a bill introduced last year that would allow Americans to sue the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines for vaccine-related adverse events, including deaths, by removing the vaccine makers’ liability shield.

The Let Injured Americans Be Legally Empowered Act, or the LIABLE Act (H.R.7551), has since languished in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Wallskog said Massie’s bill faces “an uphill battle to make it to the Congressional floor and get to a vote.”

Flores was less optimistic about the bill’s future because it would allow claimants to sue COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers directly.

“The bill, in theory, is just what we need. However, implementing it would cause utter chaos,” Flores said. “Absent a miracle, the prospects [of passage] are slim to none.”

Nass said public awareness and support are crucial for the bill’s success.

“It will probably only pass if Americans get behind it in a big way,” Nass said.

Wallskog said if the legislation is passed, it would be more far-reaching than a declaration by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removing COVID-19 countermeasures from the PREP Act.

“Executive orders can simply be reversed by the next HHS secretary. Legislative change is much more powerful with more staying power,” Wallskog said.

This has not occurred to date, which Flores said is “the greatest indication of the forces that Kennedy and Rep. Massie are up against.”

Related articles in The Defender

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

RT journalist interrogated by UK police

RT | July 16, 2025

The head of RT’s Lebanon office, Steve Sweeney, has been detained and interrogated by the British police over his work for the Russian state-funded broadcaster, its editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan has reported.

In a post on her Telegram channel on Wednesday, she said the British journalist had been apprehended on arrival in his home country. According to Simonyan, the UK authorities told Sweeney they “suspected him of terrorist activities [and] took away all his phones [and] laptop and interrogated at length regarding his work for RT.”

“They asked [the journalist] whether RT management forces him to say what he doesn’t want to say [and] whether instructions are being handed down to him,” RT’s editor-in-chief detailed.

Simonyan also stated that police officers had asked Sweeney whether he has links to the Lebanese Hezbollah Shiite militant group.

She said that after the questioning was finished, British officials let the journalist go, noting that “Steve… plans to continue working for RT.”

Sweeney is a seasoned war-correspondent, who has covered hostilities in Iraq among other conflicts.

Back in February, the Austrian authorities similarly detained independent British journalist Richard Medhurst, known for his pro-Palestinian stance. The apprehension came months after a run-in with the UK police.

Austrian officials told the reporter that he was suspected of “disseminating propaganda [and] encouraging terrorism,” according to Medhurst’s own account of the events. He claimed that the Austrian police might have acted at the behest of their British colleagues.

Last October, the UK police raided the London home of an associate editor of the pro-Palestinian Electronic Intifada website, Asa Winstanley, over “possible offenses” related to his social media posts.

Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, the UK, the EU and several other Western nations banned RT and prohibited social media platforms from distributing its content, citing the need to combat “misinformation.”

Moscow has argued such actions demonstrate a lack of commitment to free speech and reflect a willingness to suppress narratives that challenge Western viewpoints.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

Moldova’s ‘Victory’ Bloc Seeks Union State With Russia – Opposition Leader

Moldova’s opposition bloc Pobeda (Victory) and Sor party leader Ilan Shor
Sputnik – 14.07.2025

CHISINAU – On Monday, Ilan Shor, leader of Moldova’s opposition Pobeda (Victory) bloc, announced the bloc’s support for establishing a Union State between Moldova and Russia, along with greater cooperation between the country and the Eurasian Economic Union.

“Pobeda will fight for the right to represent a free Moldova in parliament. We believe in our strength, because we have the votes of hundreds of thousands of people, and we will never betray their trust. Pobeda offers a clear and transparent program: for the Union State with Russia; for trade and economic cooperation with the EAEU countries; for cheap gas and fair prices; for the preservation of national identity and sovereignty,” Shor wrote on Telegram.

According to him, the bloc will closely monitor the actions of the Central Election Commission, acknowledging that the authorities may attempt to prevent the registration of the political formation.

July 15, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , | Leave a comment

Trump’s DOJ Says EPA Will Appeal Landmark Fluoride Ruling

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 14, 2025

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to appeal a decision last year by a federal court ordering the agency to address the risks of water fluoridation, according to Michael Connett, lead attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

“Rather than use the court’s decision as an opportunity to finally end water fluoridation (as most of Europe has already done), the EPA will spend its time legally challenging the court’s order,” Connett wrote in a post on X.

The American Chemistry Council, a trade organization representing the chemical industry, and the American Fluoridation Society, a fluoridation advocacy organization that touts its work undermining local efforts to oppose water fluoridation, filed motions seeking to submit amicus briefs supporting the EPA appeal, he said.

Connett told The Defender that the American Dental Association also plans to file a brief.

The EPA said it will file the appeal on July 18, after which the case will go to a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The appeals court will receive briefs from both sides, along with any amicus briefs, and hear oral arguments before issuing its decision.

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA, said on X that the appeal was “a very disappointing move by EPA.” “A few months ago, @epaleezeldin went on a public speaking tour with @SecKennedy to address why fluoride needs to come OUT of the water. Now the EPA will appeal to keep fluoride IN drinking water.”

Connett noted that the decision to appeal came from the solicitor general at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), who reports to Pam Bondi and the White House, not by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has vocally opposed water fluoridation, but lacks the authority to end it.

“Only the EPA has this power, and it has decided, for now, to forego its historic opportunity (as provided by the court’s decision) to exercise it,” Connett said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes recommendations from the U.S. Public Health Service on whether communities should add fluoride to their drinking water and at what levels. However, the EPA sets the maximum levels allowed in water under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The current maximum allowable levels of fluoride in drinking water are 4.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is many orders of magnitude higher than the currently recommended dosage of 0.7 mg/L.

Even the lower recommended dosage has demonstrated a risk to children’s health in numerous studies, and according to the federal ruling that the EPA plans to challenge.

EPA continues to treat fluoride as a ‘protected pollutant’

In September 2024, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen issued the historic decision in the lawsuit against the EPA, ruling that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children and that the EPA must take regulatory action to address that risk.

At the time of the ruling, more than 200 million Americans were drinking water treated with fluoride at the “optimal” level of 0.7 mg/L.

Chen ruled that a preponderance of scientific evidence showed this level of fluoride exposure may damage human health, particularly that of pregnant mothers and young children.

Environmental and consumer advocacy organizations, including FAN, Moms Against Fluoridation and Food & Water Watch, along with individual parents and children, filed the lawsuit against the EPA in 2017 under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) after the EPA denied their citizens’ petition to reexamine water fluoridation.

During the trial that followed, Chen reviewed existing regulations, regulatory frameworks and current science on fluoride’s risks to children and pregnant women presented through peer-reviewed papers and experts on both sides.

The case dragged on for seven years, after numerous delays by the EPA, and attempts by HHS officials to block the release of the key piece of evidence in the case, a government report on fluoride’s toxicity.

Chen’s 80-page ruling, issued seven months after closing arguments in February 2024, offered a careful and detailed articulation of the EPA’s review process for hazardous chemicals and summarized the extensive scientific data on fluoride’s toxicity.

Chen concluded that the risk to health at current levels of exposure demanded a regulatory response by the agency.

Evidence against fluoride keeps piling up

Since the end of the trial, the body of scientific evidence showing fluoride’s adverse impacts on children’s health has grown. Scientists at the National Toxicology Program in January published a meta-analysis in JAMA Pediatrics linking fluoridated water and IQ loss in children.

The program also published a monograph in August 2024 that found a link between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children.

In May 2024, a study in JAMA Open Network found children born to Los Angeles mothers exposed during pregnancy to fluoridated drinking water were more likely to have neurobehavioural problems.

FAN’s executive director, Stuart Cooper, said the group has long sought to end the “unnecessary life-long and life-altering brain impairment in children specifically due to artificial fluoridation schemes” and the many other side effects to people’s liver, kidneys, thyroid and bones.

For nine years, he said, the EPA has been working against them. “From day one of our interactions with them, they’ve treated fluoridation chemicals as a protected pollutant, likely due to the government’s role in promoting their use and guaranteeing their ‘safety’ for over 80 years.”

Cooper added:

“While the science is clear and the lower court’s ruling was very strong and comprehensive, it’s not necessarily a surprise that the appeal has occurred. Our case is precedent-setting. We were the first to sue the EPA under TSCA. I suspect that corporate polluters who have learned how to manage and influence the EPA to their benefit don’t want citizens groups to use TSCA to force the EPA to regulate harmful chemicals.”

Another plaintiff in the lawsuit, Moms Against Fluoridation, told The Defender it was“deeply disappointed” that the EPA plans to appeal the ruling.

“The science is clear, and our lawsuit’s findings are undeniable: fluoridation is a toxic legacy that must end, like asbestos, DDT, and lead,” it said. “The agency’s plan to appeal only underscores their prioritization of industry interests over the well-being of our children and vulnerable populations. Moms Against Fluoridation will not back down — we will continue to fight tirelessly for the health and safety of all Americans.”

60+ towns and counties and two states vote to end fluoridation

Since the federal ruling last year, more than 60 U.S. towns, counties and two states — Utah and Florida — have voted to stop fluoridating their water, according to FAN.

During that time, there has been an ongoing campaign by the American Dental Association, the American Fluoridation Society and mainstream media to discredit the court’s ruling.

Typically, they assert that water fluoridation is an important, safe and effective way to prevent tooth decay — and that without it, rates of cavities will soar, costing billions. They cite a study published by researchers funded by pro-fluoridation groups.

Yet, overwhelming scientific research shows that fluoride’s benefits to teeth are topical, not the result of ingesting fluoride, and a 2024 Cochrane Review found adding fluoride to drinking water provides very limited dental benefits, especially compared with 50 years ago.

Most media reports also highlight the fact that fluoride is a “naturally occurring mineral.” However, they don’t mention that the fluoride added to water supplies is not.

The fluoride most commonly added to U.S. drinking water supplies is hydrofluorosilicic acid, the byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production. Chemical companies sell the byproduct to local water departments across the country.

Communities that have recently ended fluoridation have found themselves saddled with a chemical that they must dispose of as hazardous waste, per EPA regulations — an expensive and time-consuming process.

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.

July 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

French Prosecutors Open Criminal Case Against X Over Alleged Algorithm Manipulation

The French state is now policing the algorithm in the name of democracy

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 13, 2025

French prosecutors have opened a criminal case into X on allegations it altered its algorithms in ways that may have supported “foreign interference.”

Magistrate Laure Beccuau confirmed on Friday that the investigation began Wednesday, with authorities looking into whether X violated French law by manipulating its recommendation systems and deceptively collecting user data.

This latest development builds on a separate inquiry launched in January, which was prompted by complaints from a French parliamentarian and a senior civil servant.

The original accusation targeted X for promoting “an enormous amount of hateful, racist, anti-LGBT+ and homophobic political content, which aims to skew the democratic debate in France.”

X is facing mounting pressure not only from French officials but also from European regulators. On Thursday, two members of France’s National Assembly filed a complaint with Arcom, the national digital watchdog.

At the European level, the Commission has been examining X’s practices for close to two years under the recent censorship law, the Digital Services Act. The focus has included “misinformation” but in January the scope of the investigation widened to include X’s algorithms.

Momentum is building within EU institutions to wrap up that investigation. While regulators cite threats to democratic discourse and online safety, the French government’s move to criminally probe X brings into sharper focus the tension between public oversight and free expression.

These state-led actions, framed as efforts to regulate tech platforms, may well cross the line into political censorship under the cover of legality.

July 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Will the French regime go Soviet?

Facing the political impasse of the entire system, some MPs have a dystopian idea: ban and punish all criticism of the “Republic”

By Matthieu Buge | RT | July 10, 2025

This may seem trivial but in June 2025 a ridiculous bill has been conceived by the right/center-right Les Republicains party. A bill that sums up just about everything that’s wrong with France’s system, not just its political system, but even its core cerebral system: prohibiting and punishing content and speech of an “anti-republican” nature.

Many critics of French political circles have – rightly – pointed out this incredible ability of politicians to use the argument of the “values ​​of the Republic” whenever it suits them without ever explaining what these values ​​are. However, the MPs who came up with this bill made a (minimal) effort in attempting to outline what it entails. Thus, it reads: “The French Republic is based on fundamental principles: liberty, equality, fraternity, secularism, sovereignty of the people, and the indivisibility of the nation. These values, guaranteed by the Constitution and consolidated by law, constitute the foundation of ‘vivre-ensemble’ [something purely French that can be understood as ‘social harmony’].” What would happen to someone who violates these principles? Oh, nothing, just being sentenced to three years of imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 ($52,000).

Beyond the purely vote-catching aspect of such a bill emanating from a right-wing party seeking to appeal to its public worried about the spread of Islam in France, there is something profoundly dystopian about it. All the listed “fundamental principles” are so vague that anything can be considered a violation of them.

France, which has specialized in devising abstruse theories since the end of the 18th century, is based on the absurd triptych “liberty, equality, fraternity.” However, any sane person understands that this triangle cannot work. “Liberty” and “equality” are by definition antagonistic and “fraternity” is mainly some leftover of a distant Christian morality. The sacrosanct secularism must apply to everyone – except to the Jewish community, something that tends to frustrate the Muslim community and leaves French citizens, who are predominantly atheist but psychologically remain, as the great demographer Emmanuel Todd coined, in a kind of “zombie Catholicism,” wary. When it comes to the “sovereignty of the people,” most people understand that it is a joke since politicians wiped their feet on the people’s “no” during the referendum on the European Constitution in 2005. As for the “indivisibility of the nation,” an umpteenth abstract concept that implies territorial unity, unity of the people, and unity of law, it would be necessary to explain it to the police and firefighters who can no longer go to some territories of the “Republic” as France is on the verge of becoming a narco-state. But of course, in this maelstrom of abstract stuff, the end of the quote that is the highlight of the show: “These values ​​[…] constitute the foundation of vivre-ensemble.”

Not long ago, during the June heat wave, a water park had to close permanently because it was invaded and trashed by “young people” the very first day after it opened. With the riots of summer 2023 (never described as “racial” by the French press though they use the term when it comes to the US) and the chaos following PSG’s Champions League victory in 2025, along with the daily attacks and violence, the French people seem to be struggling to integrate the concept of “vivre-ensemble.”

Someone said that the British had problems with ideas but not with facts, whereas for the French it’s the opposite. This is absolutely true. The French, especially their elites, live in a completely abstract mental space, which, unfortunately, has tended to colonize the West, particularly through the philosophical movement Les Lumieres and, 200 years later, through the “French Theory” that eventually lead to the disastrous woke culture.

What the right-wing party behind this bill doesn’t seem to realize is that with such vague criteria, France could find itself in the kind of judicial system that communist regimes experienced, where any statement could be interpreted to prove that it wasn’t “Marxist-Leninist.” As the joke goes, in the Soviet Union, it was possible to say anything… in your own kitchen. Well, in France, with such a bill, you’ll have to choose your words carefully while enjoying your beef bourguignon. The ignorant politicians behind this text should read Arthur Koestler’s ‘Darkness at Noon’: the main character, a Soviet political commissar who has sent many to the Gulag, finds himself purged by the system he contributed to. With an honest judge, it would be easy to charge them with, for example, having violated the principles of “equality” and “fraternity” by increasing their salaries at the National Assembly while asking the French people to make an effort because there is no money anymore.

Of course, given that the country’s prisons are already overcrowded and the state ruined, these MPs obviously have in mind to resort to the ultimate repressive instrument of liberal democracies: hitting the wallet. €45,000 for “anti-republican” remarks made in public. But the fine will, according to them, be increased to €75,000 if the remarks are made “in a meeting,” on a social network, or by an individual holding a position of public authority or office. €75,000 for tweeting that there is a problem with uncontrolled immigration? Is calling a bust of Marianne (a symbol of the Republic) ugly considered a crime? Does Brigitte Macron’s gender enter into the equation of republican values?

But beyond the excesses and abuses such a law could lead to, the Republicans’ approach reflects something much more important: the political regime is becoming increasingly oppressive because it is at the end of its tether. Mass immigration has induced such chaos that it is no longer “manageable,” the working classes are struggling to keep a delusional social system afloat, and more than 50% of voters are now over 50 years old. The country’s vital forces no longer have any confidence in their institutions, so they must be constrained. If this law is adopted, the Republic will take care of it, as Macron would say, “whatever the cost.”

Matthieu Buge has worked on Russia for the magazine l’Histoire, the Russian film magazine Séance, and as a columnist for Le Courrier de Russie. He is the author of the book Le Cauchemar russe (‘The Russian Nightmare’).

July 12, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

MEP Clare Daly delivers searing critique of EU crackdown on dissent

APT | July 2, 2025

July 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | 1 Comment

Hungary summons Ukrainian envoy over death of recruit from ‘forced conscription’

RT | July 10, 2025

Hungary summoned Ukrainian Ambassador Fyodor Shandor on Thursday following reports that Ukrainian recruitment officers beat a Hungarian man to death. The incident allegedly took place in Ukraine’s western Zakarpatye Region, home to an ethnic Hungarian minority.

“It is outrageous and unacceptable to beat someone to death, especially a Hungarian, simply because he refused to go to war and take part in senseless killing,” Hungarian Parliamentary State Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Trade Levente Magyar said.

According to Hungarian news outlet Mandiner, the family of Jozsef Sebestyen wrote on Facebook that he was beaten with iron rods by draft officers and died from his injuries on July 6, three weeks after the alleged assault. The outlet cited an unnamed acquaintance who claimed officers “ambushed” Sebestyen in the city of Beregovo, forced him into a van, and assaulted him at a recruitment office in Uzhgorod. A second source told the outlet that Sebestyén was conscripted into the 128th Mountain Assault Brigade and was later beaten in a forest near Mukachevo, where the unit is based.

“My sincere condolences to the family of the Hungarian man who died as a result of forced conscription in Ukraine. We stand with you in these difficult hours,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban wrote on Facebook.

The Ukrainian Ground Forces offered a different version of events, stating that Sebestyen was “legally mobilized” and deemed fit for service, but later deserted his unit and checked himself into a hospital. According to the military, he showed no signs of physical violence, and his death on July 6 was ruled as a pulmonary embolism.

Ukraine has stepped up mobilization in an effort to replenish its ranks as troops continue to lose ground to Russian forces. Ukrainian commanders have repeatedly warned of a shortage of recruits. Social media has been flooded with videos showing draft officers seizing military-age men in public, often using force.

July 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Subjugation - Torture | , , | 1 Comment

Pro-Palestinian Activists Targeted By Trump Administration Match Canary Mission Blacklist

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | July 10, 2025

The Donald Trump administration is finding students on the Canary Mission’s website to target with deportation. The Canary Mission is an anonymous website that uses McCarthyite tactics against people expressing pro-Palestine views.

During a trial challenging Trump’s immigration policy on Wednesday, a federal judge asked, “Many of the names of the student protesters provided to you for the Office of Intelligence to produce reports of analysis on came from the website Canary Mission?”

Peter Hatch, a senior DHS investigations official, responded, “It’s true, many of the names, or even most of the names, came from that website.” The DHS official said the agency had other sources. The Canary Mission denied direct contact with the Trump administration.

Hatch added that there were no official ties between the Canary Mission and the US Government. “I don’t know who creates the website. We don’t have a relationship with the creators of the website,” he said.

Canary Mission targeted Rümeysa Öztürk before she was arrested by masked police officers on the streets in Somerville, Massachusetts, earlier this year. The Trump administration attempted to expel her from the country over an op-ed she co-authored for a Tufts University student newspaper.

Mahmoud Khalil was another student targeted with deportation that was also blacklisted by Canary Mission.

The Trump administration is not the first to use the Canary Mission in criminal proceedings. “The case of a Palestinian-American law student named Ahmad Aburas provides a particularly disturbing portrait of Canary Mission tactics in action,” Max Blumenthal wrote in 2018. “While Aburas was enrolled at Seton Hall Law School, Canary Mission contacted school administrators to suggest that statements he made on social media expressed support for terrorism. Seton Hall then called the FBI, Aburas was taken out of class and subjected to interrogation by federal agents over his political views.”

July 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Court Orders Bank Freezing Records in Freedom Convoy Case

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 9, 2025

A Canadian court has ordered the release of documents that could shed light on how federal authorities and law enforcement worked together to freeze the bank accounts of a protester involved in the Freedom Convoy.

Both the RCMP and TD Bank are now required to provide records related to Evan Blackman, who took part in the 2022 demonstrations and had his accounts frozen despite not being convicted of any crime at the time.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) announced the Ontario Court of Justice ruling. The organization is representing Blackman, whose legal team argues that the actions taken against him amounted to a serious abuse of power.

“The freezing of Mr. Blackman’s bank accounts was an extreme overreach on the part of the police and the federal government,” said his lawyer, Chris Fleury. “These records will hopefully reveal exactly how and why Mr. Blackman’s accounts [were] frozen.”

Blackman was arrested during the mass protests in Ottawa, which drew thousands of Canadians opposed to vaccine mandates and other pandemic-era restrictions.

Although he faced charges of mischief and obstructing police, those charges were dismissed in October due to a lack of evidence. Despite this, prosecutors have appealed, and a trial is set to begin on August 14.

At the height of the protests, TD Bank froze three of Blackman’s accounts following government orders issued under the Emergencies Act. Then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had invoked the act to grant his government broad powers to disrupt the protest movement, including the unprecedented use of financial institutions to penalize individuals for their support or participation.

In 2024, a Federal Court Justice ruled that Trudeau’s decision to invoke the act had not been justified.

Blackman’s legal team plans to use the newly released records to demonstrate the extent of government intrusion into personal freedoms. According to the JCCF, this case may be the first in Canada where a criminal trial includes a Charter challenge over the freezing of personal bank accounts under emergency legislation.

July 9, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »