Deception « Aletho News

After 21-Year Delay, Judge Hears Evidence in Lawsuit Alleging Cellphones Caused Plaintiffs’ Brain Cancer

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 23, 2022

A judge this month is hearing evidence in a lawsuit filed in 2011 by a group of individuals who developed cancer, allegedly as a result of radiation from their cellphones. Depending on how the judge rules, the lawsuit could finally head to a jury trial.

Evidentiary hearings in Murray v. Motorola began Sept. 12 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and are scheduled to continue until Sept. 30. Expert testimony will be presented during the hearings before the case goes before a jury.

In a parallel case that may have repercussions for the D.C. case, a similar lawsuit before a federal court in Louisiana — filed by the widow of a man who died of an aggressive form of brain cancer allegedly caused by cellphone radiation — also is headed to trial.

The D.C. case is proceeding without the plaintiffs being able to present a significant category of evidence pertaining to the defendants’ liability. However, that evidence will be heard in the Louisiana case.

In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Hunter Lundy, a lawyer representing plaintiffs in both cases, discussed the evidence and expert testimony and the potential significance rulings in this case could have.

D.C. case: lawsuit filed in 2001 finally headed to a jury

In 2001 and 2002, six individuals, including Michael Patrick Murray, sued the telecommunications industry.

The six plaintiffs had developed brain tumors beneath where they held their cellphones. Additional plaintiffs joined the case in 2010, 2011 and thereafter — with the number of plaintiffs now exceeding 80, according to Lundy.

The defendants are a who’s who of major telecommunications companies, including AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Bell South, Motorola, Nokia, Qualcomm, Samsung, Sanyo, Sony, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon and many other companies.

The lawsuit also names the Federal Communications Commission and the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CITA), an industry lobbying group.

After 21 years and multiple delays, many of the plaintiffs have since died.

Despite efforts on the part of the defendants to get the lawsuit dismissed or relocated to federal court in Maryland, the case was initially remanded from the D.C. District Court to the D.C. Superior Court — where the complaints were dismissed in 2007, before being partially reinstated in 2009, by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case continued to wind through the courts, with evidentiary hearings finally beginning this year.

Lundy discussed key details about the lawsuit, stating that the plaintiffs alleged: “the radiation frequency … the microwave radiation coming out of cellphones increased the risk of individuals getting brain tumors.”

The plaintiffs further alleged that “the cell phone industry, the manufacturers and the carriers knew when these [cellphones] were put out on the market that they had dangers that they didn’t warn people about,” said Lundy.

However, Lundy said that the main thrust of the case concerns gliomas — tumors that impact the brain and spinal cord.

According to Lundy, “There are several kinds of gliomas … the most prevalent one is the glioblastoma,” a type of malignant glioma.

Other gliomas, such as acoustic neuroma, are benign, Lundy told The Defender, but form on the cerebral nerve inside the brain, growing without their victims being aware of them. Eventually, their growth leads to hearing loss and their removal results in residual brain damage.

Ultimately, most such cases result in death, said Lundy. With glioblastoma, for instance, diagnoses range from having three to four months — to five years at most — to live.

“There’s not a lot of optimism when you get a glioblastoma,” said Lundy. “And so, whether it’s directly or indirectly, [the gliomas] have a genotoxic effect which will end up having a mutagenic effect and then a tumor coming out of it.”

Referring to the plaintiffs in the D.C. case, Lundy said, “Many of them have died, and many of the cases are just death cases right up front, or the widows or family members brought the suits.”

“This is what the battle is [about] … that’s our case in a nutshell,” explained Lundy.

The victims were impacted by first-, second- and third-generation analog cellphones produced in the 1980s and 1990s. “The antennas were up at the top of the phone and some of them were operated on three watt and greater power,” Lundy said, whereas “Today you’ve got smartphones operating on a quarter watt.”

Lundy told The Defender :

“There was a long period of years in which people were getting high exposure from cellphone radiation because they were using them so much … and there wasn’t sufficient information, instruction or warning by the industry to the user of the dangers involved. That’s the thrust of the case.”

“Our argument is that if you continue to use the analogue [phones] and you use the second- or some of the third-generation [devices], you’ll see a linear effect” regarding radiation exposure and latency, Lundy added, where the effects of such radiation become apparent over time.

As an example, Lundy referred to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, where “it was still 40 years before … you saw tremendous numbers of cancers developing.”

Although the plaintiffs were from different parts of the U.S., the initial lawsuits — later combined into the current case — were filed in the District of Columbia “because [of] the idea that the lobbying institutions of the wireless industry [are] located in D.C.,” said Lundy.

However, these lobbying groups — and the rest of the defendants — “don’t want us to have a trial in front of a jury,” said Lundy, which resulted in the defendants using a variety of delay tactics.

In 2013, a Frye hearing was held, during which, according to Lundy, the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses “had to pass a standard before they could testify in front of a jury.”

“The Frye standard had to be met where you proved that the methodology used by the expert … was generally accepted in the scientific community,” Lundy said.

In the period between 2013 and 2015, the five experts put forth by the plaintiffs were approved according to the Frye standard and a trial was held, Lundy said. However, the defendants, on appeal, were able to get the case reversed and to get the standard by which the plaintiffs’ experts were evaluated changed, to the Daubert standard.

According to Lundy, in this second standard, “you had to prove that not only was the science [accepted], you had to prove that it was reliable and that it was readily available.”

“In the interim,” according to Lundy, “we have been through several judges.”

Ultimately, the plaintiffs were not allowed to supplement the opinions of the initial experts with new witnesses and new science, unless it “somehow [was] related to the old opinion,” Lundy said. This hamstrung the plaintiffs and subsequent judges hearing the case, he added.

But “We’re going forward with other witnesses … and then the case will be submitted to the court again and there will probably be post-hearing briefs,” Lundy said. “At some point, the court will make a ruling and then both parties will have a right to appeal … and so, the process goes on.”

Louisiana case an opportunity for more expert testimony to be presented

The related case, Walker v. Motorola et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, may present an opportunity for plaintiffs to present expert testimony that was shut out of the D.C. case.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, is co-counsel in this case.

According to Lundy, this lawsuit has the potential to quickly go to trial.

“Ahead of what’s going on in D.C., we just want a case to go to trial somewhere … we need a ruling before people go forward,” Lundy told The Defender.

Referring to the D.C. case, Lundy said:

“We haven’t been able to get … liability document production, discussing the development of the products, the interaction between risk management and others.

“So I think in Louisiana, if we prevail, we will get the discovery [of such evidence]. It’s a different ballgame.”

In the Louisiana case, the family of Frank Aaron Walker sued the telecommunications industry, alleging the pastor’s death from an aggressive brain cancer was brought on by cellphone radiation, the health risks of which the industry has known for decades.

According to the suit, the telecommunications industry “suppressed credible cell phone safety concerns and has conspired to conceal or alter results of safety studies to make them more ‘market-friendly.’”

Walker was “a 25-year user of cell phone products,” the suit claims, before dying on Dec. 31, 2020, age 49, following “a two-year battle with glioblastoma that included extensive radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.”

During this two-year period, Walker experienced severe symptoms including “seizures, visual auras, excessive fatigue, migraines, light sensitivity, memory problems, psychological and emotional stress, anxiety, and depression,” the lawsuit alleges.

Similar to the D.C. case, the defendants in the Louisiana lawsuit include several major telecommunications industry players, such as AT&T, Cricket Communications, CITA, Motorola, the Telecommunications Industry Association and ZTE.

In a 2021 press release issued after the lawsuit was filed, Lundy stated:

“For generations, the telecom industry has fought the release of scientific studies and information regarding ties between mobile phone use and brain tumors. The industry manipulated the science to the detriment of consumers.

“With this lawsuit, Mr. Walker’s family hopes to help reveal the telecom industry’s secrets and hold them accountable for harm done to consumers.”

In the same release, Lundy alleged the telecommunications industry “downplayed, understated, and/or did not state the health hazards and risks associated with cell phones.”

The press release also quoted Walker’s widow, April Marie Walker:

“Throughout his battle with cancer, Frank never lost his faith or his sense of humor, but he suffered terribly.

“Our family’s hope now is that we can force the telecom industry to let consumers make informed choices about the products we buy.

“If the telecom industry knew holding a cell phone next to one’s head is dangerous, then the public should have known this information.”

In remarking on the broader significance of this case, Lundy said:

“There needs to be an exposure of truth. I just believe everybody should be accountable.

“We have not been allowed to do liability discovery. We have done scientific discovery and evidence about science. But we do not yet have the industry’s documents.

“I think we’ll be able … to do liability discovery here in federal court in Louisiana when we go forward.”

Industry concealed studies linking cellphone use to brain and DNA damage, plaintiffs allege

The Louisiana lawsuit also cites a significant number of scientific studies and industry actions taken since the 1980s, “including the firing, defunding or denigration of researchers who discovered adverse effects associated with cell phone use.”

According to the lawsuit:

“At all times herein mentioned, Defendants were aware of numerous studies and experiments that demonstrated the health hazards of RF radiation dating back to the late 1940s and continuing to this day, yet Defendants have consistently maintained to the public at large that cell phones are absolutely safe.”

The lawsuit alleges “scientific and medical research, published in peer-reviewed literature, has demonstrated a correlation between biological effects and the exposure to RF radiation within the radio frequency band of 300 megahertz to 2.4 gigahertz,” noting, however, that such peer-reviewed journals are not typically read by the general public.

Radiation exposure standards adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), initially in the 1960s, and subsequently modified in the 1980s and 1990s, “excluded cell phones,” states the lawsuit, as “the cell phone industry manipulated the research and pressured members of the ANSI Safety Committee to exempt cell phones from regulation and compliance.”

However, as scientific and public concern over radiation produced by cellular phones increased in the 1990s, “defendants, individually and through their trade associations … undertook with public fanfare to fund scientific studies to prove the safety of cell phones,” resulting in the formation of the Scientific Advisory Group in 1993.

Subsequently, industry associations CTIA and Telecommunications Industry Association hired an expert, Dr. George Carlo, to direct the Scientific Advisory Group and conduct research into cellular phone radiation. However, as the lawsuit states:

“When this industry-funded research failed to corroborate the industry’s claims of safety and, in fact, presented new evidence supporting health concerns, the industry responded by terminating the research funding and publicly disparaging Dr. Carlo as well as suppressing and minimizing the results of his studies.”

Nevertheless, numerous other scientific studies followed, calling into question the industry’s claims regarding the safety of their mobile devices. These studies are cited in the lawsuit and include:

A 1995 University of Washington study conducted on rats exposed to “radiation similar to the type of radiation emitted from the antenna of a cell phone,” found the radiation caused damage to DNA. The industry funded research that aimed to disprove these fundings, but which ultimately confirmed them, leading the industry to refuse to publish the results.
Another scientist who subsequently replicated the DNA damage found by the University of Washington research had his findings “suppressed” by the industry, pressuring him and threatening to withdraw funding.
A 1996 study of Air Force personnel found those exposed to RF radiation had a “risk of brain tumors 1.39 times higher … versus those not exposed.”
A 2000 study by Sweden’s Orebro Medical Center “found the risk of tumors developing on the same side of the head cell phone users hold their cell phones is significantly higher than it is for the other side.”
In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a decade-long multinational research study, the “Interphone Study,” ultimately finding that “the use of cell phones for a period of 10 years or more can increase the risk of glioblastomas by 40% in adults” and that “tumors are most likely to occur on the side of the head most used for calling.”
A 2002 Swedish study found “the risk of developing brain tumors from first-generation cell phones … was as much as 80% greater than those who did not use cell phones.”
Another Swedish study, in 2003, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which in turn operates under the aegis of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “found electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by certain cell phones damaged neurons in the brains of rats.”
A four-year study performed by Reflex, with funding from the European Union, in 2004 found that “radio waves from cell phones damage DNA and other cells in the body and that the damage extended to the next generation of cells.”

The lawsuit adds, “mutated cells are considered a possible cause of cancer,” and that the radiation levels tested in the study were within the range used by most cellphones at that time. The study ultimately “advised people to use landlines, rather than cell phones, whenever possible.”

A 2005 study “reported using a cell phone in rural areas might lead to the development of brain tumors.” As cellphone towers are more sparsely placed in rural locations, cellular devices tend to use higher wattage in order to achieve reception of a mobile signal.
A 2009 meta-analysis of 465 scholarly studies involving the relationship between cellphone radiation and cancer, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, “demonstrated a significant positive association between cell phone use and cancer” and “established the association increased with long-term cell phone use.”
A hearing held by the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies in 2009 featured testimony from an investigator involved in the Interphone Study that was also published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

According to the expert, there was “an elevated risk of salivary gland tumors was seen among people who used cell phones for more than 10 years, especially when the phone was usually held on the same side of the head where the tumor was found, and when use was relatively heavy.”

In 2011, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) “declared the RF radiation emitted from cell phones to be ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans.’”

Also according to the lawsuit, in the period since the IARC’s 2011 declaration, “more than 1,000 additional scientific studies have been published in peer-reviewed literature further supporting the causal link between cell phone radiation, brain tumors and health effects.”

The lawsuit states that “several experts have analyzed this new information and concluded cell phone radiation should be classified as a ‘probable human carcinogen.’”

Some of these subsequent studies include:

A 2015 study out of Jacobs University in Germany, finding (and replicating the results of a 2010 German study) that “weak cell phone signals can promote the growth of tumors in mice,” at “radiation levels that do not cause heating and are well below current safety standards.”
A 2016 study by the U.S. National Toxicology Program, finding that “male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed higher rates of cancer” and also “caused DNA breaks in the male rats’ brains.”

Remarking on these studies and on the type of testing performed by the telecommunications industry with regard to radiation produced by cellular phones, Lundy told The Defender :

“We know that, for instance, the cellphone industry, the cellphones are supposed to pass a standard called SAR — Specific Absorption Rate. They did these [tests] on mannequins.

“There’s nothing wrong with the standard. But the way they test it to comply with the standard was wrong. And they used 6’2” male mannequins to determine whether or not these phones were passing SAR, and that’s so unrealistic.

“And they’ve got instructions telling people, don’t hold [mobile devices] firm against you, hold it 5/8 of an inch away from your head. Well, nobody knows that they weren’t doing that in their mannequin testing.”

However, according to Lundy and to the lawsuit, the telecommunications industry tacitly began to address these concerns beginning in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Lundy told The Defender that “the fact that they, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as they started making patent applications to change the design of their phones, started to move the antennas because they had a problem,” is indicative of this shift, adding:

“And we know enough to know that the London [insurance] market quit writing coverage for the wireless industry in the early 2000s, so they know something and are seeing something that we haven’t seen.”

The Louisiana lawsuit cites 13 examples of the telecommunication industry’s moves to quietly reduce RF exposure from mobile devices, dating back as early as 1991.

Lundy noted that, in the D.C. case, expert witnesses from Europe, including epidemiologists and cell biologists from countries such as Austria, Greece and Slovakia, were initially the most willing to come forward with testimony, adding, however, that “American scientists are now on board.”

Lundy: ‘The truth is going to come out’

Lundy said he’s frustrated with the legal proceedings’ slow pace:

“It’s just disappointing that the scales of justice turn so slowly. And you know, sometimes that’s the case. There’s no justice.

“But the truth is going to come out. It’s coming out now. I mean, sometimes [it] doesn’t always come out in the timing that we want it to come out, but it will come out.”

Lundy cited the long history of lawsuits involving the tobacco industry as an example of this, saying:

“The cigarette industry never lost a case for 30 or so years. But when [tobacco industry whistleblower] Dr. Jeffrey Wigand disclosed the fact that they were manipulating nicotine to addict 13-year-olds, I mean, the whole climate shifted.”

According to Lundy, truthful information regarding children’s health, in relation to the use of cellular phones, is of particular importance:

Lundy told The Defender :

“There’s other countries … that have barred the use of cellphones for kids that aren’t 16 years of age yet … we know that the skull is not fully developed until they’re 25. So we’re talking about children having radiation going into their brain very young.

“So it’s about information. It’s about warning. It’s about telling people the truth. It’s not about money over that.”

Overall, for Lundy, the broader significance of the D.C. and Louisiana cases and their outcome concerns “educating people.”

He said:

“The significance is going to educate the world. It’s going to educate people that at these radiation frequencies from these devices … they increase the risk.

“We just want to be informed. How can we be a free nation and exercise our freedom when we’re not told the truth? And I’m not trying to be political, but that’s just a fact. We’ve got a world of misinformation and it’s motivated by greed.”

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

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.

September 24, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

No, Lockdown Instigators Do Not Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt

The damage that lockdowns would cause was far too well known, uneven, and catastrophic to assume their chief instigators must have had good intentions.

By Michael P Senger | The New Normal | September 20, 2022

In the United States, some 2,000,000 people—over 1% of adult men—currently reside in prisons and jails. In America’s poorest cities, crime and law enforcement are intertwined with life to such a degree that many children grow up more familiar with the justice system than the education system. For kids who grow up in these circumstances, getting through school while staying out of jail is a feat worth celebrating.

Some of this is, of course, necessary to maintain a peaceful society in a country as open and unequal as the United States. But the American political-prison-industrial complex is also riddled with perverse incentives. As Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch put it: “We live in a world in which everything has been criminalized. And some professors have even opined that there’s not an American alive who hasn’t committed a felony under some state law.” We’ve even developed an Orwellian lexicon for this system; the term “crime of moral turpitude” is a tacit admission that America’s statutes are riddled with crimes that do not actually involve “moral turpitude”—it’s puzzling why these should be considered crimes at all.

Worse yet, an estimated 5% of convicts are actually innocent. That means there are currently some 100,000 Americans in prisons and jails who didn’t even commit the crimes for which they were charged. The sad truth is that just living in one of America’s poorest neighborhoods comes with some risk of incarceration; the more people around who are convicted, the greater the odds of becoming an innocent convict oneself. Juries do their best, but they’re beset by the usual human biases. Judges know all too well that verdicts often come down to such irrelevant factors as the defendant’s charisma, physical attractiveness, or even what the jury had for breakfast that morning.

Mass incarceration is one sad byproduct of inequality and community deterioration in the 21st century. But an even worse byproduct of that inequality is an entire caste of western elites who’ve begun to manipulate the system to exempt themselves and their supporters from the rule of law to a degree not seen since the rise of the fascist regimes of the 1930s. And in no instance has this been made more clear than in the promulgation of Covid lockdowns into policy in early 2020.

The Crime

Lockdowns, or the shutting of businesses and community spaces with the force of law, were unprecedented in the western world prior to Xi Jinping’s lockdown of Wuhan and weren’t part of any democratic country’s pandemic plan; rather, these pandemic plans suggested only voluntary social distancing measures. While lockdowns bore some facial resemblance to the voluntary social distancing measures contemplated in pandemic plans, this similarity was no coincidence, as the concept of “social distancing” in its origin was lifted by the US CDC straight from the Chinese Communist Party policy of “lockdown” as imposed during SARS in 2003. Further, some leading federal officials have disclosed that at the time they recommended temporary social distancing measures for Covid, they did so with the intent that state governors would enforce them as indefinite forced lockdowns.

As former UN Assistant Secretary-General Ramesh Thakur has documented in scrupulous detail, the harms that lockdowns would cause were all well-known and reported at the time they were first adopted as policy in early 2020. These included accurate estimates of mass deaths due to delayed medical operations, a mental health crisis, drug overdoses, an economic recession, global poverty, hunger, and starvation.

Yet regardless, for reasons we’re still only beginning to understand, some key scientists, health officials, national security officials, media entities, international organizations, billionaires and influencers advocated the broad imposition of these unprecedented, devastating policies from the earliest possible date, ostensibly to stop or slow the coronavirus as the CCP claims to have done in Wuhan, while censoring any contrary opinions, spinning a false illusion of consensus amongst an unknowing public. A report later revealed that military leaders saw this as a unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on the public, shaping and “exploiting” information to bolster government messages about the virus. Dissenting scientists were silenced. Psyops teams deployed fear campaigns on their own people in a scorched-earth campaign to drive consent for lockdowns.

These early advocates of lockdowns inverted the definitions of key public health principles in sophisticated, Orwellian fashion. While the lockdowns they advocated were deliberately intended to overturn existing public health practices, they instructed the public to “follow the science,” leading the public to believe that their policies were grounded in established scientific practice. They used the rhetoric of equity and vulnerability to advocate policies that disproportionately harmed the most vulnerable and increased existing economic divides. They then retroactively cited the broad public support for lockdowns that had been sown by their own propaganda as justification for their propaganda in support of those lockdowns.

Ultimately, these lockdowns failed to meaningfully slow the spread of the coronavirus and killed tens of thousands of young people in every country in which they were tried. We now know the virus had already begun spreading undetected all over the world by fall 2019 at the latest and had an infection fatality rate under 0.2%.

However, the lockdowns caused the public to believe that the virus was hundreds of times deadlier than it really was. Simultaneously, the World Health Organization issued global PCR testing guidance—using tests later confirmed by the New York Times to have a false positive rate over 85%—pursuant to which millions of cases were soon discovered in every country. Additionally, the WHO issued new guidance on the use of mechanical ventilators to member nations; over 97% of those over age 65 who received mechanical ventilation in accordance with this guidance were killed.

Terrified by this surge of deaths and the psychological terror campaigns deployed by governments on their own people, populations across the western world proceeded to impose an ever-darker swathe of illiberal mandates including forced masking and digital vaccine passes for everyday activities. Young children, who were at virtually no risk from the virus, lost years of primary education in the worst education crisis since the end of the Second World War. An indefinite state of legal emergency was imposed which continues to this day. The global fight for human rights and the end of poverty was set back decades.

Over $3 trillion in wealth was transferred from the world’s poorest to a tiny number of billionaires and their supporters, predominantly in China and in the tech and pharmaceutical industries. Several key early lockdown proponents indicated that they saw Covid as an opportunity to “entrench a new idea of the left … reconstructing a cultural hegemony on a new basis.” Authoritarian regimes grew more autocratic, and democratic governments took on authoritarian characteristics.

Worst of all, a norm was grafted onto western democracy that the fundamental rights to movement, work, association, bodily autonomy, and free expression, for which our forebears fought so tirelessly, can be suddenly and indefinitely suspended, without precedent, analysis, or logic, based on nothing but vague promises that doing so will “save lives” — rendering them all but moot.

Meanwhile, the lockdowns and mandates led to the deaths of over 170,000 Americans and proportionate numbers in countries that imposed them across the western world. By 2021, lockdowns had killed over 228,000 children in South Asia. Studies of excess deaths indicate that lockdowns led to several million deaths in India and proportionate numbers in other developing nations.

A million here, a million there, pretty soon you’re talking real atrocities.

These numbers do not even begin to count the total damage that will ultimately ensue due to the economic devastation of lockdowns, which we will continue to witness for many years to come. Many early lockdown proponents may never be among the 2,000,000 Americans currently residing in jails and prisons, but we can be sure that thousands more would-be innocent children will one day be added to the prison rolls as a result of the economic destruction their policies unleashed.

Ladies and gentlemen, this case ultimately comes down to whether, unlike the other 2,000,000 Americans currently in state custody, we can be sure that by virtue of their socioeconomic position and the panic over a virus which panic they deliberately stoked with their own policies, this handful of key early lockdown proponents acted in good faith when they convinced the world to adopt these unprecedented, catastrophic policies based on the belief that China eliminated the virus from an entire country by shutting down one city for two months—so sure that the question demands no further inquiry. I leave that for you to decide.

September 23, 2022 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Deception, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, Human rights | Leave a comment

Why have 355 excess deaths in children disappeared from EUROMOMO?

By Carl Heneghan, Tom Jefferson, and Jason Oke | Trust the Evidence | September 21, 2022

Two weeks ago, we reported that EUROMOMO (the European mortality monitoring site) data showed an excess of 800 deaths for 2022 in children aged 0 to 14.

An eagle-eyed subscriber alerted us to a strange phenomenon: in the latest report (week 36), 355 excess deaths have seemingly disappeared. Note the numerical change on the vertical axis in the graphs below.

This is what it looked like two weeks ago – just above 800 (see here)

We emailed EUROMOMO asking to explain what happened in the two most recent reporting weeks to cause the “disappearance”.

The answer was, “as you can read in our weekly bulletin and on the webpage for “Graphs and maps”, Spain did not participate in the EuroMOMO output in week 36, due to an adjustment process related with mortality data source”.

We can rest easy then (well, sort of): 355 child excess deaths took place in Spain over a 1-2 week period, and the non-reporting accounted for the dramatic fall in excess mortality. Moreover, such a notable fall caused the readjustment of the Y axis on the graph (note from 800 to 400).

The Spanish government should investigate matters urgently. Or maybe, EUROMOMO data managers should look carefully at what they publish. We are puzzled over how many excess deaths in Europe occur in children. In the meantime, we’ll keep digging.

September 23, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, EUROMOMO | Leave a comment

And It Finally Hit The Fan…

By Stephen Karganovic | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 21, 2022

Veteran observers of the way Western democracies function are familiar with the routine. When it is not distorted, information is hermetically sealed and deliberately kept inaccessible in order to mislead the public or simply keep it in the dark. This process may take one of two forms. Facts vital to arriving at an informed opinion may literally be locked away in a safe for several decades or longer, with harsh punishments provided should it occur to anyone to violate the secrecy regime.

The second method only appears to be more liberal, but in practice it tends to the same effect. The media monopoly ignores evidence that contradicts the official narrative and denigrates anyone who questions it. Technically, in most democracies there is no “secrecy act” (which actually does exist in Great Britain and is used as a legal tool to punish violators) but to suggest publicly anything that diverges from the official version is viewed as a grave breach of political correctness, with attendant harsh consequences. The result in both scenarios is therefore nearly the same. Evidence to the contrary is suppressed and discordant voices are effectively silenced. The public are deprived of information lacking which reasonable assessments are impossible and rational political decisions cannot be made. In an environment shaped by a deliberately orchestrated disinformation endeavour, it is safe to let “democracy” flourish. Allowing a deceived and benighted populace to form an “opinion,” and even to vote, obviously presents little danger to the system which is manipulating and keeping it in the dark.

On rare occasions when in spite of the suppression regime accurate information about an event does eventually surface, that usually occurs with such delay that the newly disclosed facts no longer matter. They are nonchalantly dismissed as “water under the bridge,” which is not an entirely inaccurate description of what they are. Facts which had they been honestly disclosed at the appropriate time might have made a political difference no longer have any impact whatsoever.

Copious examples can be cited of this sleight of hand played by the cynical rulers on their unsophisticated and trusting subjects. The Kennedy assassination comes readily to mind. A huge amount of evidence that if properly examined might have answered key questions, challenged the immediately established narrative, or could have generated uncomfortable implications, was immediately secreted away and has been kept under lock and key for over 50 years. Long ago, the Presidential assassination was supplanted by numerous other concerns. The opening of the remaining files, if and when it should occur, will cause few waves, except in the ranks of a handful of academics.

Evidence pertaining to what happened in Srebrenica in July of 1995 similarly has been locked away for decades. The official pretext in this as in other cases – “national security” – is of course shamelessly bogus. With very few exceptions, in a democracy national security is best served by keeping the public thoroughly informed and by vigorously debating all important issues. Armed with facts, instead of disoriented by the elite’s self-serving fabrications, the people would be empowered to make intelligent political decisions, as we are told in theory that it is their sovereign right to do. Perish the thought that such a thing should ever come to pass.

Were their minds not poisoned by ignoble sentiments against their Russian neighbours, Poles should be up in arms right now at how their leaders and their foreign masters ruthlessly deceived and manipulated them following the 2010 plane crash near Smolensk that killed President Lech Kaczynski and 95 other prominent Polish government officials aboard as their aeroplane was attempting to land in dense fog. Polish public opinion was encouraged from the start to believe that the crash was not an accident but an act of sabotage for which the Russian side was to be blamed. The already existing rift between two neighbouring Slavic nations was aggravated by this perception.

It appears nevertheless that facts about the crash that occurred in 2010 may have been misrepresented or swept under the rug but are finally beginning to emerge. As reported by the Indian news platform Republicworld.com an expose by the Polish television broadcaster Fakty TVN24 on September 12, 2022, has called into question the conclusions of the Polish government commission which studied the crash and which dutifully confirmed the official narrative of a Russian assassination plot.

Republicworld.com reports that, contrary to the official Polish version, “a professional commission for investigating aviation accidents found the April 10, 2010 crash of the Tu-154 aircraft near the rudimentary airport was an accident caused by human errors in adverse weather and technical conditions.”

The Indian source alleges that “in its report aired late Monday, private broadcaster TVN24 said the Polish government team intentionally ignored or manipulated facts presented by outside experts that negated its findings that intentional explosions aboard the plane caused the crash.”

The principal motive behind evidence manipulation may well have been political because “the head of the [government investigative] team, former Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz, is an associate of ruling party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski. The assassination theory helps to consolidate the right-wing Law and Justice’s nationalist base and is supported by Kaczynski.”

The Polish government and political establishment have turned out to be quick learners and eager acolytes of their Western democratic paragons. After transitioning to the simulacrum of democracy, they did not miss a beat when an opportunity presented itself to mislead their own citizens by deliberately massaging facts about the tragic plane crash. The aim of these fledgling democrats apparently was to exacerbate enmity toward Russia and consolidate support for their nationalist agenda, by whipping up xenophobic fervour with deliberately falsified evidence.

With a twelve-year delay, the proverbial organic matter has finally hit the fan, as they say in America. It is doubtful that these disclosures will significantly alter the perceptions of the passionately anti-Russian Polish audience. But in view of the position that Poland has taken vis-à-vis the turbulence which currently surrounds it, these disclosures are illuminating and deliciously timely.

September 21, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Russophobia | Poland | Leave a comment

More Disinformation from Israel Biden caves to Jewish pressure, as usual

BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • SEPTEMBER 20, 2022

Joe Biden ran for president in 2020 with a pledge to restore the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, which Donald Trump had withdrawn from in May 2018 under pressure from Republican Party Jewish donors, most notably underwritten by an estimated $100 million coming from now deceased Sheldon Adelson’s Las Vegas casino fortune. The JCPOA might plausibly be regarded as the only major diplomatic success for the Barack Obama Administration, which featured Biden as Vice President, and it was good for the US due to its curb on proliferation, as well as being a benefit for the entire Middle East region as it made less likely a “weapons of mass destruction” arms race involving the Egyptians and Saudis.

Predictably, however, the pledge did not please the state of Israel. For three decades, Israel has been urging the United States to use force to eliminate what it refers to as the Iranian nuclear weapons program, a program that does not exist and might never have existed. The nuclear weapons threat raised by Israel might be seen as a disinformational wedge issue to bring about the complete destruction of the Iranian military capability by the United States. Israel seeks to exploit its influence over the US government and media to bring that about.

To be sure, weakening Iran and possibly even replacing its government is the most compelling issue for Israel and its powerful US domestic lobby, but the Israeli plan is much broader than that, to make the United States the junior partner providing the money and weapons in an effort to militarily dominate the Middle East. Knowing that both Donald Trump and Joe Biden were willing to concede actual US national interests in response to Israeli pressure, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his replacement Yair Lapid have sent waves of top-level officials to cajole both Congress and the White House into giving Jerusalem whatever it wants.

This flow of “experts” arriving with their maps and charts in hand has increased as the realization that a politically weak and clueless Joe Biden will cave under even the slightest pressure has grown. Biden has demonstrated particular gutlessness in his recent failure to seek a full investigation and consequences for the Israeli Army murder of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, deferring to Israel’s complete unwillingness to establish some form of accountability and Prime Minister Lapid’s declaration that the current level of his army’s use of force against the Palestinians will continue. Biden has also backed down on rejoining the JCPOA, declaring that the issue is now “off the table.” Secretary of State Tony Blinken has confirmed that decision, declaring that any new arrangement with Iran is “unlikely.”

Preceding the Administration’s decision to ignore American interests in deference to Israeli concerns, there were frequent visits to Washington by Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz and also by other senior officials who arrived in DC to sell a product. The latest pitch involves the Iranian threat and the continuation of a free hand to attack neighboring Syria but there also has been a bizarre drive to have the US State Department declare that the Palestinian civic and human rights organizations that Israel has been shutting down are “terrorist organizations.” Even though a US intelligence and law enforcement agency review has declared that not to be the case, the Biden team is predictably waffling under Israeli pressure. This is how State Department spokesman Ned “Pencil Neck” Price responded to a question regarding the Israeli claims: “Our Israeli partners have in recent days provided us with additional information. They provided this information not only to the department but also to a range of our interagency partners. We are continuing to review this and that process is ongoing.” Price added that he didn’t want to “prejudge” the information. Pretty gutless Ned, huh? Even for you, who also excused the killing of Abu Akleh, saying “it was a horrific tragedy, but not one that should be prosecuted. This was not an intentional, targeted killing. This was the tragic result of a gunfight in the context of an Israeli raid in the West Bank.” Interestingly, Ned surely knew that there was no gunfight anywhere near where she was killed, which makes him a liar as well as a man bereft of any morality. And I love the fact that Ned declares we Americans are “partners” with Israel. Junior partners, clearly.

Israel has never provided any actual hard intelligence to back up its claims, though it has several times been caught fabricating evidence. Senator Bernie Sanders’ Foreign Policy Advisor Matt Duss tweeted after the latest round of pressure to call the Palestinians “terrorists” that “This isn’t about intel sharing or security. It’s political pressure to justify political repression. The admin knows, as our allies do, that the designations are false. The question is whether [the Biden Administration is] willing to do anything about it.”

One should consider that for Israel, the United States, Russia, Ukraine and nearly everyone else what is passed off as intelligence is anything but. It is instead more often than not a tightly woven argument to convince other countries, the public and the media that something that is supportive of one’s policies is true and should be considered corroborative. This is how we the people have now come to see global events through the prism of an official lie factory. Another recent ploy by Israel to enable its continued bombardment of neighboring Syria is a tale of how Israeli intelligence has developed information that Iran is using Syria to construct technically sophisticated weapons that will be used against the Israelis. Defense Minister Benny Gantz, speaking in New York City last Monday, claimed that Iran has used “10 military facilities in Syria to produce advanced missiles and weapons for its proxies.”

One might observe that Gantz’s use of a map to show where the alleged facilities are located was convincing of nothing as it was a graphic produced by the Israeli government, somewhat like the dreck that is flowing out of Ukraine at the moment. And there is a bit of logical inconsistency in the tale in that Iran has its own arms industry and does not need to build weapons in Syria. There is also the question of why is Gantz speaking in New York? The answer is obvious. Israel is speaking to a gullible American audience about the alleged Iranian threat and Syrian culpability. Predictably, nothing was said about Israel’s recent war crime bombing of the international airport in Aleppo.

And there’s more, as there always is with Israel. The Israeli government is also running full speed with brand new claims about an alleged secret Iranian nuclear weapons program. The information was presented to the US and German governments by Prime Minister Yair Lapid with the claim that it “proves the Iranians are cheating as we speak.” Lapid told the Germans that the Biden Administration had hardened its stance against Iran vis-à-vis the JCPOA negotiations in response to the new information. What the new intelligence consists of might lead to some speculation, but Israel’s claims along those lines have been frequent for the past twenty years and also regularly found to be both malicious and fabricated.

Finally, who says that the Israelis and their rabid Jewish supporters in the United States don’t have a sense of humor? A story making the rounds in the Jewish media in the US and featured in the Jewish News Syndicate asks the question “[Why] 21 years later, [the] US still doesn’t recognize Iran’s role in 9/11.?” The discussion features Caroline Glick and David Wurmser, two noted neocons and Israel-firsters. Wurmser is of course described as “an expert on Middle East affairs” rather than as a Zionist extremist while Glick, who lives in Israel, is among the most rabid journalists calling for “deterrence and containment” of Iran, with the US military doing the heavy lifting. Glick also recalls 9/11, stating that “America’s willful blindness to Iran’s role in global terrorism, including in the September 11 attacks, is part of the collective amnesia about the events of September 11.” When I stopped laughing, I continued reading to see if the two honorable Zionists would also mention the Israeli art students who were all over the place spying on the US and the five Israeli dancing Shlomo “movers” who clearly had prior knowledge of what was about to take place and were seen celebrating the sight of the burning twin towers. And then there was the quote by then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu concerning 9/11 that “We [Israelis] are benefitting from one thing, and that is the attack on the twin towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.” So, Israel actually had a motive. Makes you wonder… Who really did 9/11?

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

September 21, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Israel, Middle East, Sanctions against Iran, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

What They Aren’t Telling People About EeeeeeeVeeeeeees

Eric Peters Autos – September 15, 2022

Everyone knows – well, everyone has heard – that EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeeeeee are the vehicles for solving what is said to be the “climate crisis” – which is an interesting thing to say, given the EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeeees being produced are much more powerful than they need to be to get people from A to B. That requires huge batteries, to store all the electricity needed to make them go very fast, very quickly.

You’d think that would be discouraged – even banned – if there is a “crisis” looming that is being caused by the “emission” of carbon dioxide. After all, more of the latter is being “emitted” than necessary by the utility plants that generate almost all of the electricity that powers over-powered EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeees.

Does anyone need to get 60 in 2.9 seconds? Or even six? If there is a “crisis,” that is. Yet practically every EeeeeeeVeeeeee on the market is designed specifically to use up more power than is needed for bare-minimum or even economy-car-equivalent basic transportation needs.

This tells you something about the true nature of the “crisis” – and those who say it is one. If a ship on the open sea has sprung a leak and is sinking, do you open more holes below the waterline?

There are some other things about EeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeeees they aren’t telling you about as well.

You can’t “fast” charge an EeeeeeeeeVeeeeee at home –

Practically every article gushing about EeeeeeeVeeeeeees will report on the fact that it is possible to “fast”charge an EeeeeeeeeeeVeeee in about 30 minutes. Some will gushingly report that – soon! – you’ll be able to do it in less than 15 minutes. What they never tell you is that you cannot do this at home. Because private homes do not have the capability to “fast” charge an EeeeeeVeeeee. The very “fastest” you can charge an EeeeeeeeeeVeeee at a private home is in around eight-nine hours, on a 240 volt (dryer-type) outlet.

You will never be able to “fast” charge an EeeeeeeeeVeeeee at home. Not without completely rewiring the home to commercial-grade capacity. This means you will always have to drive to wherever the “fast” charger is – and wait there. This means spending time getting to (and from) the “fast” charger. Which means spending more time “fast” charging. Thirty minutes to “fast” charge” ends up being that plus however long it took to drive there, plus the wait there.

And that “15 minutes” – soon! – they also gush about? They do not tell you that while it might be “faster” it is less. As in, not a full recharge. Just enough to get going again. But not very far – before you’ll need to stop (and wait) again.

Speaking of which . . .

A “fast” charge is never a full charge –

Whenever you read an article gushing about EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeees and the miracle of taking at least five times as long to “fast” charge it vs. the five minutes it takes to refuel a non-EeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeee, you will never encounter the disclaimer that the “fast” charge is only 80 percent charged. In other words, you end up with 20 percent less charge than a full charge, which means 20 percent less range . . . which means having to stop (again) 20 percent sooner.

The reason why you cannot – well, should not – “fast” charge an EeeeeeVeeeee to fully charged is because it is hard on the battery, which is the most expensive part of an EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeee. There is also an increased fire risk. So EeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeees (and “fast” chargers) are set up to deliver 80 percent charge “fast” – and the rest, slow.

This 20 percent loss of charge-range – assuming you don’t have time to wait for a full (slow) charge – is probably not a huge big deal if you aren’t going far or have the time to stop and wait (again). But if you’re on a long trip, you’ll be stopping – and waiting – more than you’ve been led to believe you will be.

Speaking of that . . .

The farther you drive, the shorter the service life –

If you drive an EeeeeeeeVeeeeee to the limit of its range, you will have heavily discharged its battery pack. If you want the battery pack to last you should avoid doing this, because regularly discharging a battery is likely to reduce the life of the battery. Meaning, its capacity to hold the charge (and so, deliver the range) it advertised when new. This is why hybrid cars are designed to always keep the battery partially charged. Even so, a hybrid car’s battery pack eventually loses its capacity to hold charge and must be replaced.

But EeeeeeeeeVeeeeees have no gas engine on board to keep the battery from being heavily discharged. This presents a paradox: If you use the EeeeeeeeeVeeeeee’s advertised range you are reducing the battery pack’s service life. Put another way: The EeeeeeeeVeeeeeee’s advertised range is functionally about 30 percent less-than-advertised, if you want to avoid having to spend 30-50 percent as much as the EeeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeee itself cost you on a replacement battery pack before it is time to replace the EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeee, itself.

You have probably not heard about this, either. But you really ought to know about it, if you’re thinking about buying an EeeeeeeeVeeeee.

There are some other things to know about EeeeeeeeVeeeees, too.

If you don’t have a garage, where will you plug in your EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeee? Will you be able to run an extension cord from inside your house – or apartment – to wherever the EeeeeeeeVeeeeee is parked?

Did you know that leaving an EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeee garaged outside – in the cold – will result in the EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeee’s range when you parked it being less when you get up the next day to drive it? This is because EeeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeees burn power even when they aren’t being used – because EeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeees have powered heating (and cooling) systems that are always on – to keep the battery from getting too cold (or too hot). That means needing to keep the EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeee plugged in, to avoid loss of charge while it’s just sitting – especially if it is sitting outside, in the cold (or heat).

Finally – for those who are considering an EeeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeee because they believe that they are thereby reducing their “carbon footprint”: You are probably increasing it. For two reasons.

One, EeeeeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeees do not last as long as non-EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeees – because EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeee battery packs do not last as long as non-EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeees do and cost more than it’s worth to replace them when they can no longer power the EeeeeeeeVeeeee. That means a new EeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeeeee sooner. Which means new raw materials (and carbon dioxide “emissions”) to make the new EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeee – which will be just as prematurely disposable as the old EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeee.

Two, because EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeees are energy hogs. Even the small ones like the Tesla 3 – which is a compact-sized car comparable to a Honda Civic sedan – has more than 1,000 pounds of battery pack, which it uses to deliver the speedy 0-60 times it touts. But that entails a probable doubling of the size of the battery pack that would otherwise be needed to deliver adequate (rather than “ludicrous”) speed – and also uses twice (or more) the power needed to keep it charged up. Almost all of that power – especially the commercial-grade power available at “fast” chargers – produced by combusting lots of natural gas, oil and coal. Resulting in lots of carbon dioxide “emissions.”

So, why aren’t the people hard-selling EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeees telling people these things? Well, for the same reason the same people didn’t tell the people about the “vaccines” – until after they’d been injected with them.

September 21, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Zionists Have to Lie

By Scott Horton | The Libertarian Institute | September 20, 2022

The truth does not serve to bolster their position, so they just lean hard on lies.

Check out Rep. Brad Sherman here, trying to justify a law censoring the word “apartheid” from curriculum in Palestinian schools funded by the US or UN:

“I believe this amendment is accurate… There might be some who would say– or at least I have met a few people who would claim– that Israel is an apartheid state, and I want to rebut that extreme conclusion. We want a two state solution. That means that there will be one state for one people apart from another state for another people. That is not apartheid. Apartheid was a vicious system in Southern Africa that the entire world worked to destroy. So to call Israel an apartheid state is to call for a worldwide effort to destroy Israel. The fact is that there is a border between Israel and Egypt. So the Egyptian people are separated from Israel by a border. They live apart from Israel in Egypt.

That is no different from what we see in Europe. Nobody has called the Netherlands an apartheid state because it has a border with Germany. And the Dutch live predominantly on one side of the border and Germans tend to live on the other side of the border, and they both have different states for different people. And of course there are some Germans living in the Netherlands and some Dutch living in Germany and their rights are protected. So to say those who want a Jewish state living side by side with a Palestinian state are embracing the evils of apartheid is to say that virtually every international border constitutes a separateness, an apartheid, because it divides people into different countries. And I think that’s an extreme and ridiculous conclusion. We do want a two state solution. That is a majority sentiment in Israel and is the official position of the Israeli government. It’s almost the position of the Palestinian Authority. So to condemn Israel because it wants to be a Jewish state should be done right after we condemn the Netherlands because for wanting to be a predominantly Dutch state.”

As Phil Weiss comments, “There are many reasons I think this argument is nonsense. There is today only one state in the land, Israel, and the U.S. does all in its power to prevent Palestine’s efforts to be recognized as a state. The “borders” established by the international community in 1947 and again in 1949 are mere wishes; they have not been respected; Israel has occupied the land assigned to Palestine and moved 750,000 Jewish Israelis into that territory. Jews there are under a separate set of laws than the Palestinians, with separate roads and walls that cut through Palestinian villages, and the Palestinians are under military law.”

As Benjamin Netanyahu has said, there will only ever be one state between the river and the see, but it will most assuredly not be free:

“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”

Right. Apartheid.

September 21, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | Israel, Palestine, Zionism | Leave a comment

DID YOU KNOW THAT UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS ARE “ROUTING RUSSIAN FORCES AND COLLAPSING RUSSIA’S NORTHERN DONBAS AXIS?”

By Larry Johnson | A Son Of The New American Revplution | September 19, 2022

Nope, I did not know that. But thank God we have retired General Dave Petraeus to clue us in. He wrote the following 10 days ago:

A successful encirclement of Russian forces fleeing Izyum would result in the destruction or capture of significant Russian forces and exacerbate Russian manpower and morale issues.
The Russian MoD’s inability to admit Russian failures in Kharkiv Oblast and effectively set information conditions is collapsing the Russian information space. Kremlin-sponsored TV propagandists offered a wide range of confused explanations for Ukrainian successes ranging from justifications that Russian forces are fighting against the entire Western Bloc, to downplaying the importance of Russian ground lines of communication (GLOCS) in Kupyansk.
The withdrawal announcement further alienated the Russian milblogger and Russian nationalist communities that support the Kremlin’s grandiose vision for capturing the entirety of Ukraine. Russian milbloggers condemned the Russian MoD for remaining quiet, choosing self-isolation, and distorting situational awareness in Russia.

Turns out that General Dave experienced premature military orgasm. It is true that the Russians retreated from Izyum, but they were not surrounded. Putin has never claimed the “grandiose vision for capturing the entirety of Ukraine.” He has been quite clear–as recently as the press conference this week at the SCO–Russia is going to secure the Donbas. What about growing dissent in Russia about the SMO? Putin, based on his recent news conference at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, could give two shits about the feelings of “the Russian milblogger and Russian nationalist communities.”

I am citing Petraeus not because I respect his alleged military “genius.” I do not not. General Dave had the reputation at West Point as the consummate sychophant. The other cadets said he would marry the Commandant’s homely daughter just to get ahead. Guess what? He did. I cite Petraeus because his views are emblematic of the Washington national security establishment who are totally committed to lying about the reality in Ukraine. No matter what the actual situation is on the ground, Ukraine is winning, Russia is losing and it is just a matter of time before Russia implodes. This theme has been trotted out and paraded around the internet almost every month since March by Ukraine’s western enablers.

The Hill just published another installment of this delusional analysis by Mark Toth and Jonathan Sweet. Let’s meet the boys:

Mark Toth is a retired economist, historian and entrepreneur who has worked in banking, insurance, publishing and global commerce. He is a former board member of the World Trade Center, St. Louis, and has lived in U.S. diplomatic and military communities around the world, including London, Tel Aviv, Augsburg and Nagoya.

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2752375324738/hey-russia-it-s-putin-stupid?noAds=1&_f=app_share&s=i3

Jonathan Sweet, a retired Army colonel, served 30 years as a military intelligence officer. His background includes tours of duty with the 101st Airborne Division and the Intelligence and Security Command. He led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012-14, working with NATO partners in the Black Sea and Baltics.

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2752375324738/hey-russia-it-s-putin-stupid?noAds=1&_f=app_share&s=i3

I do not know if their article is the result of ignorance, willful blindness or if they were paid to push propaganda. Regardless of the motive, Toth and Sweet join the Petraeus club and push the objective lie that the tenacious Ukrainians are defeating the Russian army:

it is Ukrainian soldiers, equipped and trained by English-speaking countries, alongside their allies who have opened fresh cans of whoop-ass and are inflicting a beatdown of Putin’s military forces in the Donbas. . . .

There has been one constant since Putin’s illegal invasion began in February: Russia’s military forces have been forced to retreat and regroup, time and time again. . . .

Putin has been exposed as an “emperor with no clothes,” forced to rely upon haggling with Iranian and North Korean surrogates to purchase drones and, according to the New York Times, “millions of artillery shells and rockets.” Saturating social media with disinformation and excuses about why Russian ground forces are failing cannot mask the images of abandoned equipment and reports of Russian soldiers surrendering.

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2752375324738/hey-russia-it-s-putin-stupid?noAds=1&_f=app_share&s=i3

Do you remember that incredible defeat of the Russian army in Mariupol when the Ukrainians surrounded the Russian troops and forced the surrender of 2500 combatants? Neither do I. That is what Russia did to the Ukrainian AZOV battalion.

How about the Russians fleeing in terror ahead of the Ukrainian blitzkrieg around Kherson? Nope. Another dry hole. The Russians pushed that attack back and inflicted catastrophic casualties on the Ukrainians.

What about the Luhansk People’s Republic? Ukraine held on to that and crushed the Russian backed militia. Right? Wrong!! Luhansk was secured and the same process is underway now in the Donetsk People’s Republic.

Why do western political, military and media leaders embrace demonstrable lies? I think it reflects a deeper sickness that afflicts the west. This self-delusion is not an isolated phenomena. Biden, his military commanders and the mainstream media also insist that men can be women and become pregnant, that inflation is zero, that Biden is popular, and that pedophiles are not bad people. Oh yeah, one more–the southern border of the United States is secure.

The time is coming when reality will intrude and destroy the fantasies. It happened to Baghdad Bob, who insisted there were no U.S. tanks in Baghdad in March 2003, and will happen to General Dave, Mark Toth and Jonathan Sweet. Seven months into the Russian “Special Military Operation,” Putin and his Generals have committed only a small fraction of their military forces to the conflict. They seem content to destroy Ukrainian units and equipment with artillery, missiles and mortars and force NATO to keep supplying Ukraine so that it can send its troops, armed with new equipment, to the front to be destroyed.

Yet NATO’s European members do not have the industrial capacity to replace the donated military equipment and are facing a bleak winter with scant energy resources needed to power manufacturing plants. The United States also is depleting its stockpile of weapons. Raheem Kassam has provided a very useful summary of what the United States has sent to Ukraine (read here). For example, the United States has provided Ukraine in six months more Javelins than it can produce in one year. So far the number stands at more than 8500, which is more than one-third of the U.S. total arsenal.

And how many Russian tanks have the Ukrainians destroyed with these Javelins? We do not know. The U.S. intelligence community does not know. U.S. intelligence is relying on Ukraine to report the good news and the Ukrainians simply say, “lots.” In theory, U.S. intelligence analysts have the ability to use satellite imagery to count disabled and destroyed tanks. But I am told that has not happened.

What we do have is a lot of social media video showing the Russians capturing hundreds, if not thousands, of javelin ATGMs. And we have videos of Russian tanks being hit with a javelin but continuing to operate. The javelin is not turning out to be the wonder weapon it was promised to be.

Let me reiterate one very important point–the so-called intelligence on Russian casualties in terms of personnel and equipment, is being provided solely by the Ukrainians. The United States has not taken any steps to independently verify the Ukrainian “intelligence.” That is a recipe for disappointment once the truth comes out that Ukraine is guilty of exaggerating.

September 20, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | NATO, Russia, Ukraine, United States | Leave a comment

A Danger of Giving FBI Agents Quotas on Domestic Terrorism and White Supremacy Related Crime

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | September 15, 2022

Sometimes police will be given quotas for ticketing drivers. Results of the pressure put on cops to meet their ticket targets tend to include that many drivers are pulled over and ticketed for minor infractions that would be better overlooked or based on dubious or fabricated grounds. Is a similar quota system, with expectable similar results, developing now in regard to “domestic terrorism” and “white supremacy” related crime at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)?

A Wednesday Washington Times article by Kerry Picket and Joseph Clark, referencing information provided by current and former FBI agents, suggests that is the case. Picket and Clark write:

Current and former FBI agents tell The Washington Times that the perceived threat has become overblown under the administration. They say bureau analysts and top officials are pressuring FBI agents to create domestic terrorist cases and tag people as White supremacists to meet internal metrics.

“The demand for White supremacy” coming from FBI headquarters “vastly outstrips the supply of White supremacy,” said one agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “We have more people assigned to investigate White supremacists than we can actually find.”

The agent said those driving bureau policies “have already determined that White supremacy is a problem” and set agencywide policy to elevate racially motivated domestic extremism cases as priorities.

“We are sort of the lapdogs as the actual agents doing these sorts of investigations, trying to find a crime to fit otherwise First Amendment-protected activities,” he said. “If they have a Gadsden flag and they own guns and they are mean at school board meetings, that’s probably a domestic terrorist.”

The Gadsden flag is a historical American flag with a yellow field showing a timber rattlesnake and the words: “Don’t Tread on Me.” It is often used as a symbol of liberty.

Read the complete article here.

September 20, 2022 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism | FBI, United States | Leave a comment

Bombshell court filing suggests the FBI knew ‘Russiagate’ was a fraud in January of 2017, but it kept up its pressure on Trump

Igor Danchenko’s confession appears to reveal the bureau’s true intentions

By Felix Livshitz | Samizdat | September 20, 2022

Lawyers for Igor Danchenko, the primary source of the notorious and utterly discredited “Trump-Russia|” dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, have filed a motion to dismiss the charges brought against their client by special counsel John Durham.

In the process, they have revealed another startling and potentially criminal dimension to the FBI’s probe of potential collusion between the campaign of former President Donald Trump and the Kremlin.

Danchenko’s case

Durham charged Danchenko in November 2021 with five counts of lying to the bureau. Four of those relate to statements he made in a February 2017 interview, in which he repeatedly claimed to have met and had conversations with Sergey Millian, a Belarusian-born businessman who claimed ties with the Trump campaign.

Danchenko, and thus Steele, claimed Millian was a key source of the dossier’s most explosive allegations – namely, that there was a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between Trump and the Kremlin, that Russia’s GRU had hacked the Democratic National Convention email server and provided the content for WikiLeaks for the purposes of “plausible deniability,” and the then-Presidential candidate had received a “golden shower” from prostitutes while in Moscow years earlier, which was filmed by Russian intelligence and could be used as “kompromat.”

In his FBI interview, conducted between February 9 and 12, 2017, Danchenko claimed to have received this incendiary intelligence through telephone conversations and email exchanges with Millian, who also suggested they discuss matters further in person in New York City. However, Durham charges that Danchenko fabricated these calls, repeatedly emailed Millian without response, and was never invited to any meeting anywhere.

The new court filing shows that to buttress these claims, Danchenko provided the Bureau with a synopsis of a mid-August email he sent to Millian, a month prior to his sit-down interview series. Yet, as the filing notes, the communication makes no mention of the phonecalls they’d purportedly engaged in previously, or the prospect of meeting in person.

Danchenko’s lawyers now argue that this email in fact proves he wasn’t lying about having had direct contact with Millian, and made clear they’d never spoken to his interviewers. Problematically for all involved, though, Danchenko, and as a result Steele, both attributed wild charges against the Trump campaign to Millian before this email.

FBI vs the truth

In turn too, this means the FBI had concrete reasons to believe at least some of the Steele dossier was bogus on January 25, 2017 at the very latest. But the Bureau, undeterred, continued to not only “assess” the dossier’s veracity, but to use it as a justification for further surveillance of Trump 2016 presidential campaign adviser Carter Page, and intensifying its investigation of the campaign.

The FBI’s questionable use of the dossier in court submissions to secure FISA warrants against Page is well-known, and was a key criticism of a December 2019 Justice Department Inspector General review, which determined the Bureau made 17 errors or omissions in its FISA applications.

Even more damningly though, just two days after Danchenko presented the discrediting email to the FBI, Trump privately met with then-FBI director James Comey, and the President specifically raised the Steele dossier.

According to Comey’s account of the dinner, as retold in the Mueller report: “the President… stated that he was thinking about ordering the FBI to investigate the [Steele] allegations to prove they were false. Comey responded that the President should think carefully about issuing such an order because it could create a narrative that the FBI was investigating him personally, which was incorrect.”

In other words, Comey played Trump, appealing to his ego and feigning concern for his reputation, when he knew better than anyone bar Steele and Danchenko themselves that the FBI was already investigating the former MI6 operative’s “allegations” and knew them to be meritless. Had he told the truth, perhaps the entire Russiagate fraud would’ve collapsed before it had even properly erupted publicly.

If he’d known, the President may not have been successfully pressured into demonstrating his anti-Russian credentials with an increasingly hostile and belligerent stance towards Moscow, which saw Trump go to dangerous lengths the previous administration had deliberately avoided, such as arming and legitimizing the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, and shredding vital Cold War arms control treaties, brinksmanship that brought us to where we are today.

Hate of Bureau

In any event, while the filing is in many ways useful confirmation of top-level FBI knowledge of the dossier’s inherent worthlessness at an early stage, it could pose problems for Danchenko’s prosecution.

His conviction hangs on the ability of Durham’s team to prove his lies to the FBI materially influenced its investigation, and it can be easily argued that the Bureau’s evident determination to investigate Trump’s non-existent Russia ties meant no disclosure, true or false, would’ve convinced the agency to stop.

That the FBI was utterly determined irrespective of facts to damage Trump, first as a candidate, then as leader, has long-been clear, yet it has largely faded from public memory. One might argue it’s quite incredible that even the former president’s supporters have not invoked this dubious history in the wake of the Bureau’s raid on Mar-a-Lago, which bears clear hallmarks of being likewise politically motivated.

Evidence of the FBI’s anti-Trump agenda is amply available in black and white – so too the agency’s surging Russophobia. Two of the key Bureau figures central to the Trump-Russia probe, one-time lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, spelled this out both in public testimony and private text messages.

On the latter front, Strzok texted Page in July 2016 – right when the Trump-Russia probe was launched – to declare, “f*** the cheating motherf***ing Russians… bastards… I hate them… I think they’re probably the worst. F***ing conniving cheating savages.” He also pledged that the pair would together “stop” Trump from winning. Page was only slightly less foul-mouthed when she testified to Congress in July 2018:

“It is my opinion that with respect to Western ideals and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans, Russia poses the most dangerous threat to that way of life.”

Quite why Strzok and Page, along with many other Bureau operatives, haven’t been prosecuted for their role in arguably the biggest US national security scam since the Iraq War isn’t clear.

September 20, 2022 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Deception, Russophobia | FBI, United States | Leave a comment

Report: Pentagon Orders Review of US Clandestine Ops After Social Media Takedowns of Fake Accounts

Samizdat – 19.09.2022

Internet researchers Graphika and the Stanford Internet Observatory revealed in late August that over 150 false personas and media websites formed in the United States had been removed in recent years by Twitter and Facebook.

Major social media firms discovered and removed phony accounts believed to be operated by the US military in violation of the platforms’ policies, prompting the Pentagon to request a thorough examination of how it conducts clandestine information warfare, the Washington Post reported on Monday.

According to the report, after the White House and some federal agencies expressed growing concerns over the Defense Department’s attempted manipulation of audiences abroad, Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, reportedly instructed the military commands that engage in psychological operations online last week to provide a complete accounting of their activities by next month.

The US Central Command (CENTCOM) is one of the agencies whose operations are under investigation, the undisclosed sources claimed, despite the fact that the researchers from Graphika and Stanford did not link the phony accounts to the military.

The takedowns of bogus accounts happened during the last two or three years, per the report. The researchers did not specify when the takedowns happened. They claimed several were recent and involved articles from the summer that promoted anti-Russian narratives by referencing the Kremlin’s “imperialist war” in Ukraine and announcing the conflict’s direct effects on Central Asian nations.

Importantly, they discovered that overt accounts actually drew more followers, and that false personas, which used strategies allegedly popular in nations like Russia and China, did not acquire much traction. With its headquarters in Tampa, CENTCOM oversees military operations in 21 Middle Eastern, North African, Central Asian and South Asian nations.

At a virtual meeting called by the National Security Council, Kahl reportedly announced his review and said he wanted to know what operations had been conducted, who they were targeting, what tools were being used, why military commanders had chosen those tactics, and how successful they had been, according to the report.

One defense official reportedly stated that essentially the message was: “You have to justify to me why you’re doing these types of things.”

However, the Pentagon’s press secretary, Air Force Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder is quoted in the report as saying that the military’s information operations “support our national security priorities,” and that they must be carried out in accordance with applicable laws and procedures.

“We are committed to enforcing those safeguards,” he added.

Inflammatory Posts From Fake Accounts That Violate Rules

The accounts that were deleted, per the report, included one for a fictitious Persian-language media outlet that disseminated posts that were copied from Radio Free Europe and Voice of America Farsi, which are supported by the US government. Another, it alleged, was connected to a Twitter account that previously claimed to operate from CENTCOM.

According to the article, one bogus account tweeted an emotional message saying relatives of deceased Afghan refugees had informed them that bodies had been returned from Iran with missing organs. The tweet reportedly contained a link to a video included in an article published on a website with ties to the US military.

While CENTCOM has not confirmed or denied the existence of such accounts under its control, according to a defense official, it would “absolutely be a violation of doctrine and training practices” if the tweet about organ harvesting is proven to be connected to the military.

Officials familiar with the situation indicated that Facebook disabled in 2020 fictitious personas purportedly developed by CENTCOM to combat “misinformation” spread by China that the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 was developed at a US Army lab in Fort Detrick, Maryland.

The fake profiles were reportedly used to spread “truthful” information from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the virus’ origin in China, according to the officials. They were active in Facebook groups where people conversed in Arabic, Farsi and Urdu.

Despite being permitted by law and policy, the US government’s use of fictitious social media accounts has reportedly caused controversy inside the Biden administration, with the White House urging the Pentagon to explain and defend its procedures.

Several US officials quoted in the report revealed that the White House and officials within the State and Defense departments are worried policies are too open-ended, and could allow for strategies that, even if they are used to spread accurate information, run the risk of undermining American credibility.

“Our adversaries are absolutely operating in the information domain,” one of the sources said. “There are some who think we shouldn’t do anything clandestine in that space. Ceding an entire domain to an adversary would be unwise. But we need stronger policy guardrails.”

‘You Got Caught, That’s the Problem’

Pentagon doctrine and policy forbid the military from spreading lies, but there are purportedly no regulations requiring the use of accurate information in psychological operations. For instance, the military occasionally uses fiction and humor to persuade people, but normally communications are expected to stick to the facts, according to officials.

Officers from Facebook and Twitter contacted the Pentagon in 2020 to voice their concerns about the fake accounts they were being forced to delete because they appeared to be connected to the military. That summer, Christopher Miller, the assistant director for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict, who is in charge of overseeing influence operations policy, had a conversation with David Agranovich, Facebook’s director for global threat disruption, in which the latter cautioned him that if Facebook could detect them, so could US adversaries.

“His point was ‘Guys, you got caught. That’s a problem,'” one of the sources said.

According to the report, Miller failed to take adequate action due to the fact that the Trump administration’s term was already approaching its end.

Kahl requested a study of Military Information Support Operations, or MISO — the Pentagon’s term for psychological operations — in response to concerns from the Biden White House. According to the report, a draft detailed that communication with other agencies, like the State Department and the CIA, needed to be strengthened, and that regulations, training, and monitoring all needed to be tightened.

The unnamed officials claimed that while there have been instances when the military has promoted false information, these were due to insufficient control over contractors and staff training rather than systemic issues. The same officials stated the Pentagon leadership did not do anything with the review before Graphika and Stanford released their findings on August 24.

Covert Psy Ops to Counter Washington’s Rivals

Military leaders have long sought to counter – including online – the rise of Russia and China as their strategic rivals. Congress has also agreed with that goal; in fact, congressional lawmakers passed legislation in late 2019 confirming the military could conduct operations in the “information environment” to defend the US and combat foreign disinformation aimed at undermining its interests.

This was done in response to frustration with what was perceived as legal barriers preventing the Defense Department from carrying out covert activities in cyberspace. The law, known as Section 1631, reduces some of the friction that previously prevented such operations by allowing the military to conduct covert psychologic operations without infringing on what the CIA claims to be their covert power.

“Combatant commanders got really excited,” one of the defense sources stated. “They were very eager to utilize these new authorities. The defense contractors were equally eager to land lucrative classified contracts to enable clandestine influence operations.”

The insider added that military officers lacked necessary skills to supervise “technically complex operations conducted by contractors” or coordinate such endeavors with other interested parties within the US government.

Moreover, an unnamed US diplomat told the Washington Post that the US “shouldn’t be employing the same kind of tactics that our adversaries are using because the bottom line is we have the moral high ground.”

“We are a society that is built on a certain set of values,” they asserted. “We promote those values around the world and when we use tactics like those, it just undermines our argument about who we are.”

Military psychological operations to advance American narratives abroad are surely nothing new, but the widespread use of Western social media has led to an expansion of strategies, including the employment of manufactured personalities and images often known as “deep fakes.”

According to the argument, opinions given by someone who looks like, for example, an Afghan woman or an Iranian student, may be more convincing than if the US government were overtly promoting them.

However, the majority of the military’s influence activities are open, supporting American policies in the Middle East, Asia, and other regions under its own name. Officials have noted there are legitimate reasons to employ covert methods, such as attempting to eavesdrop on a closed terrorist discussion group.

Is It Even Worth It?

Currently, determining whether the military’s clandestine influence efforts are producing outcomes is a critical concern for senior politicians.

“Is the juice worth the squeeze? one person reportedly said. “Does our approach really have the potential for the return on investment we hoped or is it just causing more challenges?”

According to the report by Graphika and Stanford, the covert operation had little effect. It stated that only 19% of the fabricated accounts had more than 1,000 followers, and that the “vast majority of posts and tweets” examined got “no more than a handful of likes or retweets.” The two most-followed assets in the data provided by Twitter were accounts that openly declared a connection to the US military, according to the report.

September 19, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception | CIA, United States | Leave a comment

Federation of State Medical Boards Attacks Physicians Over COVID ‘Misinformation’ — Who’s Behind It?

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 14, 2022

The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) has taken a stand against what it refers to as “the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other healthcare professionals on social media platforms, online and in the media,” going so far as to recommend disciplinary action and state policy changes.

In a July 2021 press release, the FSMB warned physicians they could risk “disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license.”

And in a lengthier statement issued in April 2022, the nonprofit — which says it “serves as the voice for state medical boards” — appeared to advocate for laws like the one sitting on California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk that would punish doctors who share COVID-19 “misinformation” with their patients, with language like this:

“Prohibitions on disseminating misinformation are already expressly written, or implied, in many state statutes regulating the practice of medicine. However, adopting a specific policy on misinformation is encouraged in light of the increased prevalence of, and harm caused by, physician-disseminated misinformation in this ongoing pandemic.”

In yet another show of support for cracking down on “misinformation,” FSMB President and CEO Dr. Humayun Chaudhry will speak next week on “Misinformation in Health Care: The Implications for Professionalism and the Public Trust” at the American Board of Medical Specialties annual conference.

In its July 2021 press release, the FSMB did not define what it meant by “misinformation or disinformation,” yet the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine subsequently issued a joint statement supporting the FSMB’s position.

According to its website, the FSMB says it “supports its member boards as they fulfill their mandate of protecting the public’s health, safety and welfare through the proper licensing, disciplining, and regulation of physicians and, in most jurisdictions, other health care professionals.”

It also issues guidelines that serve as the basis for model policies with the stated goal of positively impacting the health and safety of patients and the medical regulatory system.

But some critics of the FSMB’s aggressive “misinformation” policy questioned where the organization derives its authority and who’s really behind it.

What is the FSMB — and who funds it?

Created in 1912 at a “small annual gathering of state board executive officers with no permanent staff or headquarters,” the FSMB today has almost 200 employees and two national headquarters — one in Texas and another in Washington, D.C.

The private tax-exempt 501(c)(6) trade association says it supports “America’s state medical boards in licensing, disciplining and regulating physicians and other healthcare professionals” and works to “keep patients safe.”

Since its inception, the FSMB has been staffed with members who presently or previously held positions with other medical governing bodies.

In fact, FSMB’s leadership — in conjunction with the U.S. government — in May 1994 spawned another medical authority agency — the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities (IAMRA).

According to IAMRA’s website, the IAMRA was formed when “FSMB, under contract with the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), planned and hosted the 1st International Conference on Medical Regulation in Washington, D.C.”

FSMB and IAMRA share an office address in Texas. Their official phone numbers are nearly identical. And when a person calls the phone number listed on IAMRA’s website, the prerecorded welcome message tells the caller they’ve reached FSMB and IAMRA, in that order.

FSMB’s president and CEO, Chaudry, is also the secretary of the IAMRA. This overlapping of leadership positions extends beyond FSMB and IAMRA into medical councils in other countries.

For example, Dr. Emanuel Garcia, a psychiatrist living in New Zealand who publicly voiced concern about the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, noted in an Aug. 22 article for Global Research that the chair-elect of the IAMRA, Joan Simeon, “just happens” to be the CEO of the Medical Council of New Zealand.

Garcia, who questioned whether the FSMB and IAMRA’s true motivations were ensuring safe medical practices, said:

“In casting an eye over the years since the dramatic introduction of the COVID pandemic, the near total shutdown of the world, the immense transfer of wealth from the middle and poorer classes upwards, the universal imposition of an inadequately tested so-called vaccine, and the vehement suppression of critical early treatment, one cannot but conclude that there is indeed an agenda beyond health and welfare.

“The FSMB and the IAMRA have shown by their actions that they are tools whose task is to further this agenda, and that this agenda is both anti-medical and inhumane.”

In addition to contracting with the U.S. government and IAMRA, the FSMB runs its own foundation that functions as a separate 501(c)(3) organization but is supported by a “generous seed endowment” from the FSMB.

Last April, the FSMB foundation celebrated its 10-year anniversary by hosting its annual fundraising luncheon. Its annual highbrow luncheons have raised thousands of dollars to support the organization’s activities, including “the study of state responses to the COVID-10 pandemic.”

The FSMB foundation’s website does not disclose its donors.

Commenting on the FSMB’s July 2021 statement, “Spreading COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation May Put Medical License at Risk,” Garcia said, “The outstanding question remains: Where does the FSMB derive its authority to regulate United States medical boards and, through its apparent international partner, the IAMRA, direct medical councils around the world to discipline doctors?”

So many questions …

Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare epidemiologist who had her medical license suspended in January for “spreading misinformation,” told The Defender the FSMB’s authoritative actions raise many questions.

Nass, a member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, outlined the questions in an email:

Why would a nonprofit with no regulatory authority suddenly decide it was important to trash the First Amendment, the Nuremberg Code and other legal doctrines to push for punishing doctors who fail to tell the government’s story and use COVID-19 treatments the government doesn’t want used?
Why is the FSMB monitoring the states and collecting information on their attempts to investigate and/or punish doctors for doing their duty to act as learned intermediaries to their patients?
Why did the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Medical Association and the American Association of Pediatrics push identical policies in lockstep in mid-2021 that would destroy physician autonomy, when physicians are, one would think, their clients?
Why did the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists push for experimental vaccinations during all trimesters of pregnancy?

Nass suggested all of these questions should be investigated.

A history of ties to Big Pharma

Historically, there is evidence of Big Pharma funneling money to the FSMB.

For example, a decade ago, MedPage Today broke the story on how the FSMB turned to a pharmaceutical company with a $3.1 million request to underwrite the cost of producing and distributing a book about its opioid prescribing policy.

After the FSMB’s guidelines for the use of opioids to treat chronic pain patients were adopted as a model policy, the organization asked Purdue Pharmaceuticals for $100,000 to help pay for printing and distributing the policy to 700,000 practicing doctors.

The initial $100,000 was just a small downpayment on the $3.1 million the FSMB’s foundation estimated it would cost for its campaign to get out the word about the “safe” use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of chronic pain, according to MedPage.

The FSMB also has a history of challenging and attacking non-pharmaceutical medical approaches used by integrative doctors as falling outside the “standard of care” as they define it.

Dr. Christiane Northrup, a former board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist with more than 30 years of experience, told The Defender she intuitively sensed the FSMB had questionable associations and chose not to renew her medical license when it came up for renewal in 2015.

Northrup, who had shifted her professional activities away from directly seeing patients, said she asked herself, “Do I need this for what I’m doing now?” and concluded, “Let’s not renew this.”

Northrup pointed out the historical connection between pharmaceutical companies and the FSMB. She told The Defender that “what we’re talking about is a very carefully orchestrated attempt to control doctors.”

Many people who have been taught that “the doctor knows best,” Northrup said, cannot comprehend the “horror” of the implications of the FSMB’s actions.

The Defender reached out to the FSMB and the IAMRA for comment, but neither had responded at the time of this writing.

Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.

September 19, 2022 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine, United States | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Broke Princes: Saudi Arabia’s Powder Keg

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

From the Archives

A sample of vaccine and injectable medication tragedies during my lifetime

This is what happens when you demand speedy production in an era of politicized regulation

By Meryl Nass, MD | February 12, 2022

All these tragedies have been due to failures of testing or failures in manufacturing processes. Most occurred before vaccine manufacturers were given virtually complete protection from liability in 1987.

With the duration of patent exclusivity determining how much new products earn, products are rushed to market as quickly as possible, most using a shortened path for FDA review. Recalls and market removals of approved products are much more common than they used to be. We can only expect more of these disasters in the future, especially if the products are mandated for everyone. … continue

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,368 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,798,287 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

November 2026

M T W T F S S

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

« Oct
Categories

Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags
Afghanistan Africa AIPAC al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkiye Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank WHO Yemen Zionism

November 2026
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
No Tricks Zone
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.

This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.

Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.

Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.

The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.

Fair Use

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

DMCA Contact

This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.

If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.

We will respond and take necessary action immediately.

If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.

All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

By Felix Livshitz | Samizdat | September 20, 2022

Samizdat – 19.09.2022

Featured Video

From the Archives

By Meryl Nass, MD | February 12, 2022

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info