CDC Admits It Never Monitored VAERS for COVID Vaccine Safety Signals
By Josh Guetzkow, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 21, 2022
In a stunning development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last week admitted — despite assurances to the contrary — the agency never analyzed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines.
The admission was revealed in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by Children’s Health Defense (CHD).
In September 2021, I published an article in The Defender in which I used the CDC’s published methodology to analyze VAERS for safety signals from COVID-19 vaccines.
The signals were loud and clear, leading me to wonder “why is nobody listening?”
Instead, I should have asked, “Is anybody even looking for them?”
After that article was published, I urged CHD’s legal team to submit a FOIA request to the CDC about its VAERS monitoring activities.
Since CDC officials stated publicly that “COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring is the most robust in U.S. history,” I had assumed that at the very least, CDC officials were monitoring VAERS using the methods they described in a briefing document posted on the CDC website in January 2021 (and updated in February 2022, with minor changes).
I was wrong.
The lynchpin of their safety monitoring was to mine VAERS data for safety signals by calculating what are known as proportional reporting ratios (PRR’s).
This is a method of comparing the proportion of different types of adverse events reported for a new vaccine to the proportion of those events reported for an older, established vaccine.
If the new vaccine shows a significantly higher reporting rate of a particular adverse event relative to the old one, it counts as a safety signal that should then trigger a more thorough investigation.
The briefing document states, “CDC will perform PRR data mining on a weekly basis or as needed.”
And yet, in the agency’s response to the FOIA request, it wrote that “no PRRs were conducted by CDC. Furthermore, data mining is outside of the agency’s purview.”
The agency suggested contacting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which was supposed to perform a different type of data mining, according to the briefing document.
CDC officials repeatedly claimed they have not seen safety signals in VAERS.
For example, on April 27, 2021, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky stated the CDC did not see any signals related to heart inflammation.
But a PRR calculation I did using the number of myo/pericarditis reports listed in the first table produced by the CDC obtained via the FOIA request reveals clear and unambiguous safety signals relative to the comparator vaccines mentioned in the briefing document (i.e., flu vaccines, FLUAD and Shingrix).
The table is dated April 2, 2021, almost four weeks before she made those remarks.
In fact, among the 15 adverse events for adults included in that week’s tabulations, PRRs I calculated also show loud-and-clear safety signals for acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell’s palsy, coagulopathy, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A), stroke and death.
The actual monitoring the CDC did diverges from the one promised in the briefing document in other ways.
For example, the CDC never created tables of the top 25 adverse events reported in the previous week, tables comparing different vaccine manufacturers, or tables of auto-immune diseases.
And it only began monitoring in early April 2021, even though reports from COVID-19 vaccines had been flooding VAERS since mid-December of the previous year.
To be clear, VAERS is not the only database the CDC uses to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety.
For example, the CDC sponsored several studies of COVID-19 safety using the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which is comprised of millions of medical records from HMO’s across several states.
Those studies do not raise many safety concerns. However, they make many questionable methodological choices.
To give one example, a major safety study based on VSD data published in September 2021, in “JAMA,” compares adverse event rates that occur within 1-21 days of vaccination to the rate of occurrence from 22 to 42 days after vaccination.
It makes no comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, or before vaccination versus after in the same individuals.
Moreover, the VSD is far from infallible, having failed initially to detect the increase in myocarditis rates.
In contrast, although calculating PRR’s is a blunt pharmacovigilance tool and far from perfect, it nevertheless has the advantage of being straightforward and difficult to manipulate with statistical sleight of hand.
PRRs are one of the oldest, most basic and most well-established tools of pharmacovigilance. The calculations are so straightforward that the CDC automated it several years ago, so it could have been done at the press of a button.
It simply beggars belief that the CDC failed to do this simple calculation. Even now, a paper published by CDC staff in March on the safety of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines remains purely descriptive with no PRR calculation.
Meanwhile, a study published by a researcher not affiliated with the CDC in February in “Frontiers in Public Health” analyzes VAERS and EudraVigilance data using a method similar to PRRs, revealing clear and concerning safety signals.
And while it is true that VAERS is not the only database the CDC can use to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety, it is of critical importance because it can reveal signals much faster than any other method — if anybody cares to look for them.
It remains to be seen if the FDA was properly monitoring VAERS. That will be the subject of a future FOIA request.
But even if it was, it doesn’t change the fact that the CDC completely failed in its promise to monitor VAERS for safety signals.
© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Biden predicts ‘second pandemic’
Samizdat – June 22, 2022
The US needs more money to plan for “the second pandemic,” President Joe Biden said during a press briefing on Tuesday, as he praised his government’s efforts to ensure children under five can get Covid-19 vaccines.
Biden also hailed as “a very historic milestone” that the US has become the first country in the world to offer “safe and effective” Covid-19 vaccines for children as young as six months old.
When asked about how long the administration could keep up the new vaccine campaign, Biden suggested that the current budget would be enough to “get through at least this year” but stressed that “we do need more money.”
He went on to insist that he needed even more money for an unspecified “second pandemic.” “We need more money to plan for the second pandemic. There’s going to be another pandemic,” the president warned, without going into detail about what this new wave might entail.
Biden also took the opportunity to take a swipe at his predecessor, implying that Donald Trump’s lack of preparation increased the impact of the Covid pandemic. “We have to think ahead. That’s not something the last outfit did very well and that’s something we’ve been doing fairly well. That’s why we need the money,” surmised Biden.
Some health experts and agencies such as the World Health Organization have also warned of the likelihood of future pandemics. The WHO had previously announced that it plans to confirm a global pandemic treaty at the 2024 World Health Assembly, which it hopes will help “set out the objectives and fundamental principles in order to structure the necessary collective action to fight pandemics.”
The agreement, which heavily focuses on increased surveillance, vaccinations and “restoring trust in the international health system,” would legally bind its members under international law, superseding regulations of individual countries in an effort to get all nations to act as one in the face of a future outbreak.
Dr. Clare Craig from the HART group explains the clinical trial used to justify vaccinating kids
Steve Kirsch | June 19, 2022
The HART group is a group of highly respected independent doctors and scientists. My friend, Professor Norman Fenton, is a member of this group.
In this 4 minute video, Dr. Clare Craig, co-chair of the HART group, explains the clinical trial that was used to justify vaccinating our kids. She was appalled.
The only conclusion you can draw after watching this video is that the people running the FDA, CDC and the members of the outside committees approving these vaccines are either completely incompetent or totally bought off.
Everyone should watch this video. It should be required viewing for any parent who is considering vaccinating their child.
Here is the report Pfizer submitted to the FDA referenced in her video. You can see the numbers on page 39 (look in the column headings for the N= numbers).
Pfizer vaccine effects on total motile count in sperm donors
israeli study shows persistent effects
by el gato malo – bad cattitude – june 19, 2022
one of the great early misapprehensions about mRNA vaccines is that they would not have widespread, systematic effects, instead remaining relatively localized. this was rapidly debunked and early studies showed widespread penetration of organs with a particular and perhaps unfortunate preference for concentration in ovaries and testes. (this was discovered early in japan, then denied vehemently by armies of “fact checkers” only to wind up proven in pfizer’s own documents gained through FOIA and lawsuit.)
these mRNA drugs are broadly systemic and concentrate in (amongst others) reproductive organs and effects on menstrual cycles are widely documented.
in light of this quite worrying fact (especially with a compound carrying high CG enrichment relative to high virus and the attendant risks thereof) it has been surprising to me that there have not been more studies on this topic.
but a few are starting to emerge. this israeli study was published 2 days ago:
and the results are, well, nuts. (sorry)
there was strong a priori reason to suspect effects, especially in light of the higher and more persistent prevalence of vaccine induced S proteins vs natural infection and the CG enrichment issued mentioned above.
Over the first pandemic months, there was insufficient data regarding the possible impact of Covid-19 on human reproduction. Yet, it was clear it employs the Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor for cellular entry 3, 4. Various testicular cells including Leydig, Sertoli, spermatogonia and spermatozoa express ACE2 and related proteases resulting with viral fusion 5, 6. Cytokine storm-induced dysfunction, autophagy regulation and damaged blood-testis barrier were also suggested as possible pathogenic mechanism for testicular damage 7. Clinical reports of orchitis, supported by histological findings, further emphasized testicular involvement 8, 9. Therefore, detrimental impact on both spermatogenesis and testosterone production 10 seem an obvious outcome they evaluated donors from 3 sperm banks over a longitudinal period commencing before pfizer vaccine and following up after.
the study was performed and followed up according to the following timeline around vaccination.
- T0 = pre vaxx baseline
- T1 = 15-45 days post
- T2 = 75-120 days post
- T3 = 150+ days post
and from this, substantial effects on sperm concentration and overall motile count were discovered.
the authors draw a set of conclusions from this:
and from this state:
Conclusions: Systemic immune response after BNT162b2 vaccine is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC decline. Long-term prognosis remains good
but i am left wondering about these claims and fear they may provide an example of the sort of “nerf or refute your own findings in the abstract so that we can publish this without massive controversy” behavior that has become all too common in medical and scientific journals who withhold peer review from those whose findings look too worrying if stated plainly. (but that will often let such data out if buried deep in supplements and appendixes)
this is why you should always read these data repositories. because they often tell quite a different tale than the abstract.
here’s table two from this same study. notice anything?
i’m struggling to see how one could call this “recovery.”
post day 150, sperm concentration was -15.9% vs baseline, lower even than in the 75-120 day period. average time post vaxx for T3 collection was 174 +/- 26.8 days so we’re talking about 6 months post vaxx with NO recovery in sperm concentration.
total motile count was slightly recovered from T2, but was still down 19.4% vs baseline, seeming to make up somewhat in volume what is lost in concentration.
both results were statistically significant at a 95% confidence interval.
there is a greater than 97% chance that the TMC figure is real and not random.
those are not odds you want to buck.
this raises some serious concerns for a number of reasons:
- obviously, this is a significant and unforeseen impact not only missed in the rush-job drug trials, but that the drug makers assured us was basically impossible and spent the better part of a year vehemently denying.
- this effect looks durable to at least 6 months and from this data, we really do not know when or even if (or to what extent) it will attenuate.
- the role of boosters here is not known, but there is every reason to expect they will have similar effects and either extend or possibly worsen this effect. that seems like a study that should be being performed immediately.
- even if this condition does moderate and TMC return to prior levels over time, that timescale looks quite long. it’s certainly more than 6 months. this would seem to imply low motile counts could be near constant in a regimen of annual or bi-annual boosters.
when you rush vaccines to market, especially vaccines using an entirely new and poorly understood modality that has never before been approved or even used in humans, you’re going to get all manner of nasty surprises and this looks to be yet another.
and clearly, it was missed. this was not even mentioned as a possibility in any FDA proceedings of which i am aware.
and THAT is why vaccine development generally takes place over 5-10 years, not 5-7 months.
best i can tell, we cannot even yet rule out that these effects are permanent.
and, of course, we have zero idea what they might do to pre-adolescents and possible impacts on their healthy sexual development and ultimate fertility.
and yet the US is bucking the trend in most of europe and approving this drugs for not just the young and healthy but for kids from 6mo-5 yr. this feels reckless.
we have little idea what this may be doing to ovaries and eggs either as these are much more difficult and invasive to study (and will likely need to be assessed by autopsy). this is another analysis that desperately needs to take place because unlike sperm, eggs to not replenish, so if you damage them, that’s that.
add to this effects on normal development and it could take decades to see what happened.
people have historically trusted vaccines because they underwent serious, long term testing before being pushed wide. assessment was measured in decades, not months and even a tiny number of adverse events would pull them off the market.
to trade upon that trust while abandoning all the safeguards that enabled it is bad science and worse public health policy.
how many more examples of unforeseen outcomes must we endure before this simple truth is accepted?
January 6: The show trial, the movie… and Liz Cheney’s dyspepsia
By Michael Lesher | OffGuardian | June 19, 2022
Not every piece of political theater openly presents itself as political theater. But these aren’t ordinary times, heaven knows – and the show trial that goes under the popular name “the January 6 Committee” has been nothing if not consistently over the top.
So it was appalling, but not really a shock, to note that when the committee’s ringmasters got down to serious public business on June 9, the first thing they did was to premiere their own movie.
And what a movie!
Perfectly timed to monopolize mainstream media for the evening, the committee’s production turned out to be…
an expertly curated multimedia experience unlike any Congressional hearing in history. With revelatory clips from the committee’s interviews with Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump and Bill Barr; never-before-seen and brilliantly edited footage of the rioters; and a wrenching live interview with a Capitol police officer injured in the melee.”
I’m quoting, word for word, from Jodi Rudoren, who used to recycle Israeli propaganda for the New York Times and is now (poetic justice?) reduced to gushing about a “multimedia experience” that – if offered at a genuine inquest, not a show trial aimed at stifling political dissent – could only have been reported as the national disgrace it actually was.
But grab your popcorn, folks! A movie is a movie; when has Trump-baiting ever been hampered by rules of evidence? Who needs facts when you can watch doctored testimony on a big screen?
Why ask about the legal definition of “insurrection” (a question that makes nonsense out of the committee’s putative mission) when you can sit back and enjoy “brilliantly edited footage” of the first “coup” that had to be synthesized in a cutting room?
And why even think about the only violent death that occurred during all the trouble – that of Ashli Babbitt, a slight, unarmed protester shot dead by a cop for no apparent reason – when you can hang on every word of that “wrenching interview” with a different police officer who was prepared to say exactly what the committee (and Rudoren) wanted to hear?
So much for the June 9 teleplay.
And yet, the worst part – for me, anyway – was that none of it was really a surprise. If anything had remained of the committee’s bona fides after it wasted ten months on procedural ballyhoo (who’s getting the next subpoena?… will he appear?… let’s make some headlines!), the last vestige of its credibility was trashed by the committee members themselves as they stormed TV political talk shows three days after airing their feature film to deliver their prearranged verdict against the former President.
According to Rep. Jamie Raskin, Trump was guilty because he said he had won the election when he should have known he hadn’t. “He had to have known he was spreading a ‘Big Lie,’” Raskin solemnly informed CNN’s “State of the Union” on June 12.
By that standard, I guess, you’d also have to bracket Al Gore with Hitler if it turned out that some campaign-trail bigwig whispered in his ear (Gore’s, not Hitler’s) that he probably didn’t get enough votes to carry Florida in 2000.
And Rutherford B. Hayes, who actually managed to reverse the results of the presidential election of 1876 on the basis of claims every bit as dubious as Trump’s – was he a traitor, too?
Or have I missed something?
But why quibble about logic? While Raskin was declaring bad political sportsmanship a federal crime, Rep. Adam Schiff was concocting an even bolder guilt-by-association theory on ABC, where he claimed that the committee’s hearings would demonstrate “connections” between “people in Trump’s orbit and white nationalist groups that participated in the attacks [sic].”
Asked how he could prove this, the Congressman sniffed, “You’ll just have to wait until we get to that point of our hearings.”
Schiff’s committee is supposed to have interviewed more than 1,000 people since last July, but of course it’s way too early to have any evidence to back up inflammatory accusations – though not too early to air them on national television.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Almost a year ago, I underlined how popular media had already fabricated the myth of the January 6 “coup attempt.” Within days of the protest at the Capitol, its participants had been demonized as – take your pick – “fascists” (PBS), “white supremacists” (CNN), or a violent “mob” bent on paralyzing the United States government (USA Today).
And everyone seemed to accept the dogma that the demonstrators, collectively, had staged an armed “insurrection” that only just failed to turn the United States into a right-wing dictatorship.
Indeed, typical of the early propaganda was New York Magazine’s accusation that the “goal” of the “mob” was “threatening or killing officials” of the U.S. government; The New Republic went so far as to insist that the protesters sought “the mass execution of Democratic politicians and prominent liberals” – although, of course, not a single politician was attacked on January 6, let alone “executed.”
For anyone who remembers what really happened, that distinction belongs to Ashli Babbitt – whose name is never mentioned by the January 6 committee or by the popular media breathlessly reporting its every pronouncement.
Judging from its opening night, the committee still expects us to believe that the protesters who entered the Capitol on January 6 fully intended to make corpses and to extinguish American democracy. It doesn’t seem to matter that only a handful of them have been accused of possessing “weapons” of any kind (most of which seem to have been flagpoles).
In fact, a grand total of one of those “terrorists” even thought to bring a gun to the “coup.” (And never drew it, according to police.)
Not to mention that if one riot at the Capitol amounted to an attempted overthrow of the government, you’d probably have to say the same thing about the violent protests that erupted after Donald Trump’s election victory in 2016.
And what about the Democratic members of Congress who tried to prevent the certification of that election by the Electoral College the following January? Needless to say, such questions aren’t being posed by the committee or in the liberal press.
But after all, the ringmasters have never relied much on facts; they prefer to ply their audience with emotional images and wait for it to salivate like Pavlov’s dogs.
Thus, nobody on opening night mentioned the old lie about Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick being clubbed over the head with a fire extinguisher by one of the “insurrectionists.”
Instead, the committee flashed onto a viewing screen a momentary freeze-frame of a policeman, supposedly Sicknick, holding a hand over his face while a “witness” gave a description of events that didn’t match the picture but insisted on Sicknick being “as white as this sheet of paper” as he held “his face in his hands.”
Did the poignant image we saw match the story the committee wanted us to believe?
It was awfully hard to tell from the ringmasters’ own video. And the whole thing was irrelevant in any case: there’s no evidence connecting Sicknick’s death the next day (from natural causes) with anything that happened at the protest. But who cared? The concatenation of images – Sicknick’s name, a covered face, the words “white as paper” – rendered truth irrelevant; it worked directly on the emotions of the estimated 19 million viewers for whom the histrionics were designed in the first place.
And that was just the beginning. The high point of Thursday night’s emotional blitz was that “wrenching live interview” with Caroline Edwards – the police “witness” whose testimony so moved Jodi Rudoren. And who, we may ask, is Caroline Edwards?
According to the committee’s program notes, Edwards – a Capitol Police officer who looks like an actress and whose background just happens to be “a career in public relations” – was “the first law enforcement officer injured by rioters” on January 6.
She also claims to have been an eyewitness to a gruesome “war scene” as the protest intensified outside the Capitol.
Which certainly made for some popcorn-munching theater on June 9. But one might have expected a former New York Times bureau chief (which Rudoren is) to notice at least a few gaps in Edwards’ performance.
For one thing, why did the committee choose a witness who admittedly saw nothing that happened inside the Capitol – where any actual “coup attempt” would necessarily have taken place? Why wasn’t Edwards mentioned by any of the four law enforcement officers trotted out by that same committee as its star witnesses to anti-police violence during the protest at its first hearing back in July 2021?
(At the time, one of those cops insisted he had been “tortured” by a crowd that tried to “kill him with his own gun” – claims the committee has not even attempted to substantiate since then.)
And why didn’t the committee’s video document the “carnage” and “chaos” in which Edwards said she was “catching people as they fell” and “slipping in people’s blood”?
But given the priorities of Hollywood – the ones that counted, apparently – that blurry apocalypse was more than enough to make the committee’s point. In fact, according to Rudoren, another set of images at the hearing upstaged even pretty Ms. Edwards. And since you probably can’t guess what they were, I’ll quote Rudoren once again:
[I]n some ways the most powerful images of the night were the expressions on [Rep. Liz] Cheney’s face…. Cheney wore a look of profound disappointment and deep distaste.”
The emphasis is mine; otherwise I have quoted Ms. Rudoren verbatim. And her message could hardly have been clearer. Forget the truth, folks. Forget about what really happened to whom. Forget even about that “multimedia presentation” the committee spent so much time fabricating. Just look at Liz Cheney’s face while the Wyoming congresswoman does all the looking for you.
After all, it’s entirely too passé to think for yourselves. Today we keep our mouths shut and take our cues from a politician’s facial expressions. Goodbye, democratic government; hello, Liz Cheney’s dyspeptic grimaces!
Which brings me to the real point of the January 6 committee proceedings. The partisan aspect of this show trial is too obvious to need emphasis here. But there’s a lot more to the theater than an attempt to disqualify Donald Trump from seeking political office – though, of course, that’s part of the mix.
At bottom, these hearings are a kind of morality play – a public ritual that both invokes Divine Justice and adumbrates where its verdict will fall. The show-trial-cum-exorcism that commenced on June 9, laden with symbols of threatened virtue and guilt by association, is designed to dramatize in miniature a totalitarian religion that divides Absolute Good (center-liberal government) from Absolute Evil (grassroots dissent).
The Biden administration has already made a point of defining its critics as nonpersons: white supremacists, enemies of democracy, the awful “unvaccinated.” Now hoi polloi are to be purged altogether of any temptation to challenge the machinations of the ruling class. The ultimate crime of the January 6 protesters was not, in the end, that some of them trespassed on government property, or that an even smaller number scuffled with police.
No, the protesters’ unpardonable offense was to cry, “This is our house!” as they surrounded the Capitol. And that’s why they have to be demonized: because, right or wrong in their protest’s specific objective, they believed all too sincerely in what Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg about “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” They were traitors – because they declared their faith in democracy.
That’s why the committee’s ringmasters are scapegoating every single man and woman who disputed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election as a racist or a proto-Nazi, even though only a small fraction of the January 6 protesters had any connection to the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Aryan Nations or Three Percenters.
That’s why the committee is pinning all the blame for the fracas on the few hundred protesters who entered the Capitol, while not even trying to challenge federal officials who allowed a disorganized bunch of unarmed demonstrators inside what is supposed to be one of the most zealously guarded buildings in the United States.
And this, mind you, despite the fact that General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – whose consent would have been required for the deployment of National Guard or military personnel to the Capitol on January 6 – told his aides (according to a newly-published book) that Trump reminded him of Hitler and that he was determined to see Joe Biden installed as President “come hell or high water.”
Bear in mind that Time Magazine (yes, Time Magazine), less than a month after the protest, could already report that a “conspiracy” between “left-wing activists and business titans” had managed to ensure that the Trump supporters who converged on the Capitol on January 6 “were met by virtually no counterdemonstrators” who might otherwise have had to share the blame for “any mayhem.”
Is it too much to ask of a committee supposedly dedicated to investigating the events of January 6 to hope it might inquire into whether General Milley, and some of colleagues, had anything to do with that “conspiracy” and whether they deliberately let the protest get just far enough out of hand to publicly discredit Trump and establish a pretext for demonizing all such protests in the future? The committee’s refusal to ask such questions only underscores its anti-democratic objectives.
And please don’t be fooled by the absence of any reference to COVID19 during the committee’s opening act. The COVID coup may not be in the foreground now, but it lurks just behind every surface.
The show trial we’re watching now was, and is, the culmination of a process that began in March 2020 when we were told the First Amendment’s right to assemble was a suicide pact.
It gathered strength when the governors of some forty states turned themselves into quasi-dictators, and neither the courts, the press, nor the political opposition did anything to stop them.
It took its inspiration from a series of high-profile frauds, from public muzzling to arbitrary confinements to “vaccine passports,” that for over two years have swindled citizens of basic freedoms under the false flag of “safety.”
Its systematic unscrupulousness mirrors the rights-busting propaganda blitz that has made social media off limits to unwelcome truth-telling and continues to demand that we dose ourselves, and our children, with untested drugs whose safety our government specifically refuses to ensure.
And once the January 6 protest is officially pronounced the work of Satan – as it will be when the committee’s work is done – the next steps will almost certainly take aim at the future of dissent.
Justin Trudeau has already given us a taste of that future with the police-state tactics he deployed to crush the truckers’ protest in Ottowa: scrapping civil rights protections by declaring an “emergency,” imposing outlandish fines on peaceful protesters, and “freezing” the bank accounts of anyone who contributed to the demonstrations or who even attended a protest.
That’s what you need to remember whenever you happen to watch a rerun of the January 6 committee’s “multimedia experience”: this process isn’t over. It has only begun. And it isn’t just about some unruly Trump supporters.
It’s about you.
This time, people who milled around in the Capitol lobby on January 6 got locked up without bail and slapped with federal felony charges. Tomorrow – who knows? Once Big Brother finds out that you once sent $25 to the wrong political cause, you might be the one behind the eight ball, condemned without a trial, unable to buy food or pay the rent.
And Washington’s next movie might end up featuring you among the enemies of the State.
Political theater, meet Theater of the Absurd.
No – ritual virtue-signaling, meet the short road to dictatorship.
Bill Gates and the Frame Game
BY THOMAS HARRINGTON | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | JUNE 16, 2022
A few weeks back, at the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Bill Gates said some surprising things. In the course of a 56-minute panel discussion the vaccine pusher extraordinaire admitted (starting at the 18:22 mark) that the Covid vaccines do not block infection and that the duration of whatever protection they bring to the table is extremely short.
He later talked (starting at 51:00 mark) of the absurdity of implementing any Covid passport program—and one can logically deduce any other measure to segregate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated—when the injections have shown no ability to do the least that one should expect from a vaccine: prevent infection and transmission.
These admissions violently kick the stool out from under the arguments made in favor of the more assaultive and damaging Covid “containment measures” taken in the past two years, many of which are still being pursued with pitiless vigor by public officials, CEOs, and educational “leaders” all around the world.
Are we to believe that Bill Gates had a sudden impulse to undermine all that he used his billions to mercilessly promote over the last two years? And that he was giving all those currently carrying out those plans permission to stand down?
It’s a nice thought. But I don’t believe it to be the case.
No. Bill was simply engaging in one of the more tried and true techniques of elite information management, the limited hangout, or what I prefer to call a drive to “save the frame” of an argument that is quickly taking on water.
Since Bill and many of the people he has paired up with to force the experimental and often harmful vaccines upon the world, effectively own or have donated untold amounts of money to many of the world’s more important media outlets, he knew beforehand that he did not have to worry much about his words being widely circulated.
And so it was. Only relatively small independent news gatherers took any note of what he said.
So who was he addressing his words to and why?
He was speaking to the fellow true believers and providing them with a rhetorical model for handling the loss of faith some among their ranks are having in the face of the vaccines’ abject failure.
The key to understanding the frame game here is the clause Gates uttered right before the “but” with which he introduced his truthful words about the “vaccines” pitiful infection-blocking capabilities and short duration of effectiveness: “The vaccines have saved millions of lives.”
Those familiar with the work of cognitive linguist George Lakoff, or the activities of pollster and so-called political wordsmith Frank Luntz will know what I’m talking about.
What these two men have in common—despite their divergent political allegiances—is their belief in the extraordinary power of rhetorical framing; that is, the tendency of the human brain to subordinate the careful analysis of empirically proven details to the embrace of an overarching cognitive metaphor that appeals to their deeper, if often unstated, cultural and emotional values.
It’s the difference between, for example: “The US invaded Iraq on false pretenses and destroyed it, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.” and “In its efforts to bring democracy to Iraq, the US made a number of tragic mistakes.”
The first states a bald empirical truth. The second obfuscates that crude reality and subordinates it to the noble vision, so cherished by Americans when contemplating their role in the world, of a country that is constantly helping people around the world to better their lives.
And with widespread imposition of mental frames like this through the media, “poof!” go all the gory, on-the-ground details, and with them more importantly, the need to actually interrogate what we did and how we might seek to repair the lives we broke.
Going back to Davos, Bill was effectively saying to his minions, “You are on a great moral crusade. We’ve had some small problems along the way, but don’t give up, because the world needs us to continue to be heroic and save more lives.”
And with that cognitive frame in place, any creeping doubts those in the audience might have about what they have done, and their future mission, disappear just like that.
We see the same gambit used when the US government inevitably links the apparent waning of the pandemic to the use of vaccines. Here, for example, is what the CDC said to CNN shortly after lifting requirement that US citizens be tested before returning home from foreign travels:
“The Covid-19 pandemic has now shifted to a new phase, due to the widespread uptake of highly effective Covid-19 vaccines, the availability of effective therapeutics, and the accrual of high rates of vaccine-and infection-induced immunity at the population level in the United States. Each of these measures has contributed to lower risk of severe disease and death across the United States.”
It’s no accident that the first factor adduced to explain the onset of happier days, the one that sets the frame for all that follows, is the “widespread uptake of highly effective Covid-19 vaccines.”
The goal here— as it was in the case of Gates at Davos—is to preserve, in the face of abundant empirical evidence to the contrary, the frame that presents the forced administration of vaccines as the great slayer of the pandemic and gifter of our vanquished freedoms, and to turn that suggestion into an established fact through constant repetition.
But, of course, neither Gates’s claim about the vaccines saving “millions of lives” nor the CDCs’ assertion that “widespread vaccine uptake” was the key reason for ending the pandemic are established facts. Far from it. Indeed, there are no scientific studies that I know of capable of authenticating either claim. But that’s just the point.
The elites that deign to rob us of our bodily sovereignty and so much more in the name of Covid, or whatever other “mortal health threat” that they choose to publicize next through their carpet-bomber control of most media, have all done their homework on the frame game and carefully tailor their communications to fit with its imperatives.
Unfortunately, most citizens are still not clued in to how it operates in their lives. Verbal details such as the ones cited above matter because they play an enormous role in establishing and maintaining what the now sadly tarnished Chomsky once brilliantly called the field of “thinkable thought” in our public discussions.
To open up that field we need to smash their frames. But to smash those frames we first need to admit they exist, and where we can go to find them.
Thomas Harrington, Senior Scholar at the Brownstone Institute, is an essayist and Professor Emeritus of Hispanic Studies at Trinity College in Hartford (USA) where he taught for 24 years. He specializes in Iberian movements of national identity Contemporary Catalan culture. His writings are at Thomassharrington.com.
Rash of blood clots caused by… the heat?
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | June 17, 2022
Perhaps you’ve heard about the rash of blood clots in young healthy people, recently?
Well don’t you worry your silly head about it, they were caused by dehydration due to the hot weather.
Some of them, anyway. Maybe. Definitely the most recent ones, and certainly any you may hear about in the future.
Naturally, any reported spike in blood clots before the summer was nothing to do with the hot weather.
… that was the cold weather.
Or maybe it was a long-term side effect of Covid19 infection.
Or maybe it wasn’t a clot, it was just Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.
Or one of the 300,000 symptomless cases of aortic stenosis wandering around.
Or maybe they were suffering from “post-pandemic stress disorder”.
Or maybe there weren’t any deaths at all, and the fact-checkers have debunked all of that.
It doesn’t matter. Forget it. There’s no point even considering what may or may not have caused the blood clots that may or may not have happened in the past.
The point is, in the future, they will be caused by the hot weather.
And nothing else.
Have a good day.
Our Letter Putting Colleges on Notice
Presidents, senior leadership and trustees can’t say they didn’t know.
No College Mandates | June 12, 2022
No College Mandates has launched a major letter campaign to put colleges on notice that continued Covid-19 vaccination mandates put their students, their reputations, and potentially their endowments at risk. The purpose of the letter is to make these policy makers aware of new information they likely did not know existed and to prompt them to further investigate.
To date, more than 60 college presidents have received this letter via certified mail. Across those 60 colleges, approximately 1400 individuals were copied. Many more college letters are in process. By the time we are finished, thousands of college administrators and trustees will be notified.
No College Mandates is so proud to have the following organizations as signatories on our letter: Health Freedom Defense Fund, The Mendenhall Law Group, Health Freedom Counsel, and The Unity Project.
The letter is below. If you are interested in working on this effort, email us at info@nocollegemandates.com. We’ll set you up to fight this fight with us and make change.
To College and University Presidents, Senior Leadership and Trustees:
We are writing to notify you of recently available information prompting concern that fraud has been committed by Pfizer and by the FDA in the development and continued distribution of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine. Given that your institution mandates Covid-19 vaccination for students as a condition of enrollment, it is incumbent upon you to be fully informed about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines and the claims of fraud that call both into question.
If fraud or willful misconduct is proven, the manufacturers and those involved in the distribution or mandating of the vaccines will lose immunity from liability granted to them under the existing EUA and the PREP act.
We urge you to further investigate. We believe that once you do, you will see how continued Covid-19 vaccine mandates jeopardize the safety of your students and the reputation of your institution.
The new information consists of Pfizer’s biological product file used to obtain FDA approval of Comirnaty and data from the insurance industry showing a huge rise in excess deaths in Millennial and Gen X populations concurrent with the implementation of vaccine approvals and mandates. The excess death data is raising concerns in the insurance industry and on Wall Street. We are also including timely news about product safety, given the FDA’s recent restriction of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to blood clotting concerns.
Following is a brief overview of each category and starting points for further inquiry. We are standing by to provide you with additional information or to connect you to scientists, lawyers and investors who are reviewing the current and evolving data.
Pfizer Biological Product File – background and highlights:
The Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) is a nonprofit group made up of public health professionals, medical professionals, scientists, and journalists. The group exists solely to obtain and disseminate the data relied upon by the FDA to license Covid-19 vaccines. Four days after the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine was approved for children over 16, this group submitted a Freedom of Information Act for all data within Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine biological product file. When the FDA asked for 75 years to release that data, PHMPT sued to obtain it and won. Beginning in March 2022, the public has access to Pfizer’s clinical trial data, which is being downloaded in batches monthly. You can find the document releases to-date here.
Thousands of volunteers including scientists, statisticians, doctors, and lawyers continue to examine these downloads and publish their findings. For ready reference, below are just a few of the findings of greatest concern that call into question the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer product and support a thesis of fraud:
- Pfizer failed the all-cause mortality endpoint in their unprecedentedly short 28-day clinical trial. In brief, more people died in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group. This was known yet has still not been widely disclosed to the public.
- The CDC talking point that vaccines stopped transmission was based on no data, as this metric was not evaluated during Pfizer’s clinical trials. Pfizer and the FDA knew this yet did not disclose it to the public.
- Pfizer and the FDA knew as early as November 2020 that Pfizer’s clinical trials showed:
- Vaccine failure
- Waning vaccine efficacy
A baseline condition for granting a product Emergency Use Authorization is that it must be safe and effective. The data showed that the products are not effective. Yet, based on FDA approval, the CDC promoted them as such. From the initial roll-out in December 2020 through April 1, 2021, the public health messaging was that if you received the shot, you could not get infected and could not transmit the virus. The Pfizer documents are proof that they and the FDA colluded to lie to the American people and the CDC created false public health narratives based on these lies.
- Pfizer and the FDA most likely knew in May 2021 that the vaccines caused heart damage in teenagers based on a paper that was already in peer review at that time. The FDA approved the product for teenagers in June 2021 yet did not disclose this risk factor to consumers until August. During that time, all those who received this product did not have informed consent. Parents were not made aware of this known potential risk to their children.
- Brook Jackson, a regional director employed by Pfizer sub-contractor Ventavia Research Group, came forward in September 2020 with documented evidence that the company falsified data, unblinded patients and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial conducted by Ventavia. Her findings call into question the integrity of not only Ventavia’s results but of all of the results from Pfizer’s other trial sites and the entire clinical trial. Further information is available in The British Medical Journal.
Excess death data and the insurance industry:
In December 2021, Midwest insurer One America CEO Scott Davidson disclosed a 40% increase in excess deaths over pre-pandemic levels in the working-age (18-64) population in the third quarter. Putting the number into context Davidson said, “The data is consistent across every player in this business . . . Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be a 10 percent increase over pre-pandemic. So 40 percent is just unheard of”. Other major insurers have subsequently reported increases in death claims ranging from 21–57 % over expected levels. Most of these deaths are not Covid-19 deaths. Long-term disability claims are also seeing an uptick.
These reports prompted a former institutional investor who was a #1 ranked Wall Street sell-side insurance analyst to confirm the numbers using CDC reported data. His findings, independently confirmed by others, show the spikes in excess deaths are related to the timing of vaccine approvals and mandates. This data is prompting concern at insurance and reinsurance companies, who will bear the financial brunt of this unexpected and unprecedented rise in mortality. It is raising questions about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines in the investment community and beyond.
Of related interest is Pfizer’s amendment in February of its business risk disclosures in its Q4 2021 earnings report. The changes from the Q3 2021 report language center around disclosures of unfavorable safety data and “further information regarding the quality of pre-clinical, clinical or safety data, including by audit or inspection”.
It is likely that neither Pfizer nor the FDA anticipated the court-compelled release of their clinical trial and post-marketing surveillance data and the subsequent public scrutiny of it.
Additional product safety concerns:
The FDA announced on May 5 that they were restricting use of the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine due to the risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), a syndrome of rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots in combination with low levels of blood platelets. The decision to restrict was based on 60 reported cases and 9 fatalities. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines also have serious risks and fatalities associated with them including but not limited to blood clots and myocarditis in college-aged populations. These are shown in Pfizer’s post-marketing surveillance data and in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System (VAERS). As of April 29, 2022, there were approximately 1.2 million reports of adverse events following Covid-19 vaccination including more than 18,056 reports of deaths following the Pfizer vaccine, and 7,223 following the Moderna vaccine. Logic demands that Pfizer and Moderna products be restricted immediately as well. Why have they not been? Further, a recent Danish review of all three products in preprint in The Lancet showed that the J&J reduced all-cause mortality but that Pfizer and Moderna did not and may have increased it. Given all this, it is reasonable to think that Pfizer and Moderna products could be restricted or discontinued very soon due to safety concerns. This might well trigger a much higher level of scrutiny of the now-publicly available Pfizer data and the actions of our public health institutions. How would such a situation impact institutions such as yours that continue to mandate the products while knowing such risks exist?
One last thing to consider is the nature and associated secrecy of the contracts that Pfizer forced upon governments as conditions of sale and distribution of their Covid-19 vaccines in their respective countries. A review of some of these contracts can be found here. Terms included such things as the waiving of sovereign immunity, countries assuming full liability in the event that Pfizer was shown to have used another entity’s intellectual property, and that Pfizer be held harmless in the event of injury or death from the products. Why would a company require such terms if it knew its conduct and its products were sound?
We sincerely hope this information has been useful and that you will investigate this matter fully. We urge you to end your vaccine mandates to protect your institution’s students, reputation, and, in the event that fraud is proven, potentially your endowment.
Yours truly,
No College Mandates is a coalition of thousands of concerned students, parents, professors, staff, and community members working to end college Covid-19 vaccination mandates and restore medical choice on college campuses. Contact us at info@nocollegemandates.com
Health Freedom Defense Fund is a 501(c)(3) non-profit which seeks to protect and advance health freedom, educate Americans on informed consent, advocate for human rights and bodily autonomy for all people, and legally challenge unethical mandates, laws, and policies when necessary. (HealthFreedomDefense.org)
The Mendenhall Law Group is a mission-oriented practice focused on holding government, educational institutions and corporations accountable. The group is keenly interested in medical freedom and provides legal support for those concerned about Covid-19 mandates and policies. Mendenhall Law has offices in Ohio and Massachusetts and a national network of affiliated practices. (WarnerMendenhall.com)
Health Freedom Counsel believes in the right to medical choice and provides clients with the resources to stand up to mandates that infringe upon medical freedom. (HealthFreedomCounsel.com)
The Unity Project is a non-profit organization dedicated to fighting the Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate for students, kindergarten through 12th grade. We have enlisted globally esteemed physicians, scientists and business leaders and more than 150 grassroots groups and concerned individuals focused on preserving medical freedom.
Minsk deal was used to buy time – Ukraine’s Poroshenko
Petro Poroshenko said the Minsk agreements “meant nothing” – ©STR / NurPhoto via Getty Images
RT | June 17, 2022
Petro Poroshenko has admitted that the 2015 ceasefire in Donbass, which he negotiated with Russia, France and Germany as president of Ukraine, was merely a distraction intended to buy time for Kiev to rebuild its military.
He made the comments in interviews with several news outlets this week, including Germany’s Deutsche Welle television and the Ukrainian branch of the US state-run Radio Free Europe. Poroshenko also defended his record as president between 2014 and 2019.
“We had achieved everything we wanted,” he said of the peace deal. “Our goal was to, first, stop the threat, or at least to delay the war – to secure eight years to restore economic growth and create powerful armed forces.”
He cited Sun Tzu’s stratagems as an inspiration for the deception. Winning a war does not necessarily require winning military engagements, Poroshenko said, calling the deal he made a win for Ukraine in that regard.
Poroshenko failed to be reelected in a landslide vote for President Volodymyr Zelensky, who promised voters that, unlike his predecessor, he would secure peace in Donbass.
In the interviews, Poroshenko spoke about his role in negotiating the Minsk agreements, a roadmap for reconciliation between his government and the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. The former president apparently confirmed that Kiev hadn’t come to the talks in good faith, but simply wanted a reprieve after suffering a military defeat.
The agreements included a series of measures designed to rein in hostilities in Donbass and reconcile the warring parties. The first steps were a ceasefire and an OSCE-monitored pullout of heavier weapons from the frontline, which were fulfilled to some degree.
Kiev was then supposed to grant general amnesty to the rebels and extensive autonomy for the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Ukrainian troops were supposed to take control of the rebel-held areas after Kiev granted them representation and otherwise reintegrated them as part of Ukraine.
Poroshenko’s government refused to implement these portions of the deal, claiming it could not proceed unless it fully secured the border between the rebellious republics and Russia. He instead endorsed an economic blockade of the rebel regions initiated by Ukrainian nationalist forces.
Zelensky’s presidency gave an initial boost to the peace process, but it stalled again after a series of protests by right-wing radicals, who threatened to dispose of the new Ukrainian president if he tried to deliver on his campaign promises.
Kiev’s failure to implement the roadmap and the continued hostilities with rebels were among the primary reasons that Russia cited when it attacked Ukraine in late February. Days before launching the offensive, Moscow recognized the breakaway Ukrainian republics as sovereign states, offering them security guarantees and demanding that Kiev pull back its troops. Zelensky refused to comply.
Now an opposition MP, Poroshenko, called on Western nations to provide more and heavier weapons for Kiev so that Ukrainian soldiers can “do [the West’s] job” and defend Europe from Russia. He also called for more anti-Russia sanctions and for his country to join the EU and NATO as soon as possible.
Poroshenko claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin was the one who broke the Minsk agreements. He claimed credit for Ukraine not falling into Russia’s hands within a matter of days, which was the prediction of some Western officials. The country stood up to the attack thanks to military reforms that his government implemented, the former president claimed. Moscow never gave a timeline for its military operation in Ukraine, stating only that it has proceeded as intended.
The Ukrainian official also called for the “de-Putinization” of Europe, his own country and Russia itself. He said this meant curbing Russian influence in other nations and toppling Putin. It is the only way to save the world from an “existential threat” that, Poroshenko claimed, the Russian leader poses.
State Dept. Not Investigating Saudi Use of US Weapons in Alleged War Crimes: GAO
Samizdat | June 16, 2022
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a scathing report Monday which found that the Department of Defense and the Department of State “have not fully determined the extent to which U.S. military support has contributed to civilian harm in Yemen.” The news comes on the heels of the announcement that US President Joe Biden will be paying a visit next month to Saudi Arabia, a country which in 2019 he pledged to turn into a “pariah.”
“Despite several reports that airstrikes and other attacks by Saudi Arabia and UAE have caused extensive civilian harm in Yemen, [the Department of Defense] has not reported and [the State Department] could not provide evidence that it investigated any incidents of potential unauthorized use of equipment transferred to Saudi Arabia or UAE,” the GAO report concluded.
In February 2021, US President Joe Biden declared he was ending “all American support for offensive operations” in the Saudi war on Yemen. GAO monitors pointed out that while US Military Training Mission staff claimed that “all of the equipment the US sells… to Saudi Arabia must be for defensive purposes,” the “officials could not provide a definition for equipment that is defensive in nature when asked how they distinguish between equipment used for defensive purposes and equipment used for offensive purposes.”
Instead, the report’s authors noted, State Department officials “told us they have no specific definitions for what constitutes ‘offensive weapons’ and ‘defensive weapons’ to direct the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia.”
The report also found that from fiscal year 2015 to 2021, the “Department of Defense administered at least $54.6 billion of military support to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, of which over a third, or $18.3 billion, came in the form of missiles. The remaining military aid was reportedly spent as follows: $7.6 billion on equipment maintenance, $6.2 billion on aircraft, $4.9 billion on “special activities,” $4.6 billion on communication, detection, and coherent radiation equipment, $3.3 billion on ships, $2.8 billion on training, $1.4 billion on construction, $1.2 billion on ammunition, $1.1 billion on support equipment, $900 million on weapons, and $1.8 billion on other expenditures like combat, tactical, and support vehicles, as well as research and development.
Although “the United Nations has characterized the conflict in Yemen as one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises,” the report’s authors explain that the US has “long-standing security relationships with Saudi Arabia and UAE—two primary actors in the conflict—and has continued to provide them military support, including for operations in Yemen since 2015.”
In April, 32 US Congress members urged Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to commit to a “recalibration of the US-Saudi partnership,” noting that the US’ “continued unqualified support for the Saudi monarchy, which systematically, ruthlessly represses its own citizens, targets critics all over the world, carries out a brutal war in Yemen, and bolsters authoritarian regimes throughout the Middle East and North Africa, runs counter to US national interests and damages the credibility of the United States to uphold our values.”
But with Biden’s announcement that he’ll be flying to Riyadh next month for what the Saudi embassy described as “official talks” between Joe Biden and Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the odds of such an adjustment taking place–and of US agencies taking a more proactive approach towards American involvement in alleged Saudi war crimes–are growing ever-slimmer.
Featured Video
Seyed Marandi: Trump lost the Iran war – Must sell it as victory
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Balfour Declaration – A Century of Jewish Power
By Gilad Atzmon | May 17, 2017
This year, Palestinians and their supporters mark the 100th anniversary of The Balfour Declaration, a written statement from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, to Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, in favour of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.
For Palestinians, The Balfour Declaration was the beginning of their plight: a century of ethnic cleansing at the hands of European newcomers who claim Palestine as their historic home. Yet, for some reason, supporters of the Palestinians are desperate to suppress discussion of the motivation for the Balfour Declaration – how and why did it come about? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Mission unaccomplished – Part I: America failed to achieve every war objective against Iran
- Iranian Victory- Gulf States Creating ‘Regional Security Framework’ With Iran
- IRGC Navy rejects new Strait of Hormuz shipping routes
- Seyed M. Marandi: Trump Lost the Iran War – Must Sell It as a Victory
- Iran, Saudi FMs hold phone talks as Persian Gulf states rethink US ties
- The Illusions of Western Virtue: Ursula von der Leyen and Europe’s Moral Bankruptcy
- AIPAC-backed candidates lose New York primaries as voters reject pro-genocide lobby
- The West’s Post-Soviet ‘Democracy’ Playbook
- UK suppressed intel on Sudan genocide to protect UAE ties: Report
- Starmer’s exit exposes dirty secret: UK can’t afford Ukraine War
- If Americans Knew
- Gaza faces Israel-imposed “silent famine”; cost of Israel’s wars since Oct. 7 $200B+ – Daily Update
- Israel’s Attacks on Gaza’s Children (Photos)
- ‘His only crime is that he is a Palestinian doctor’
- ‘Killed pursuing her dream’: Gaza girl on her way to school dies in Israeli drone strike
- Unbelievable pressure on Gaza from Israel, “Board of Peace” – Daily Update
- UN: Israel Continues to Commit Genocide and Other Atrocity Crimes by Deliberately Targeting Palestinian Children
- Bari Weiss, Free-Speech Fraud & Zionism Promoter, Would Rather Deport Than Debate
- ‘Doctor of the Poor’: Israeli Occupation Arrests Prominent Palestinian Physician
- Search for Your Church (and see if it has been targeted by the Israeli gov’t)
- Mark Levin Flying to Israel as Netanyahu Reportedly Seeks to ‘Leverage’ Levin to Trash Trump’s Iran Deal
- No Tricks Zone
- 3 New Studies Find Increasing Trends In Solar Radiation Since The 1980s – Easily Explaining Warming
- THE TRANSCEIVER PARADOX: Why Organoid Intelligence (OI) Could Become Our Ultimate Alien Predator
- German Wind Turbines Face Regulatory Shutdown Due To Excessive Noise
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
Aletho News 