USAID funded Ukraine group that smeared Vance
Protesters gather outside USAID headquarters, February 3, 2025 © Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
RT | March 10, 2025
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has been implicated in funding a Ukrainian organization, Molfar, which labeled Vice President J.D. Vance and other US officials and public figures as “foreign propagandists” aligned with Russia, according to an investigation by The Grayzone.
Molfar, established in 2019, describes itself as an open-source intelligence community platform which “collects lists of Ukrainian enemies to bring war criminals to justice.” The group’s website identifies USAID and the US Civil Research and Development Fund (CRDF) as partners, indicating financial and operational support from US government agencies.
The group’s online blacklist not only targeted Vice President Vance for his statements opposing continued US financial support for Kiev and his stance against Ukraine’s NATO membership, but also targeted other American figures, including US Counterterrorism Director Joe Kent and Representative Thomas Massie. Molfar’s website advocated for their “removal from public positions, the introduction of sanctions, and investigations into personal involvement in crimes.”
In addition to political figures, Molfar has targeted American journalists, including Max Blumenthal, editor-in-chief of The Grayzone. The organization accused Blumenthal of disseminating Russian narratives and threatened to expose his personal information, including home addresses and family details.
Other notable figures targeted by Molfar include billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, journalists Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson, and award-winning American economist and public policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs.
A report published by Ukraine’s National Coordination Cybersecurity Center (NCSCC), bearing USAID’s logo, highlighted that Molfar assisted in training thousands of Ukrainian government employees in cyber warfare techniques and psychological operations. The report stated that over 2,000 public workers participated in practical assignments covering topics such as open-source searches, contact search, using Telegram bots, psyop as a method of information warfare, human intelligence and social engineering.
According to The Grayzone, Molfar’s activities are part of a broader network of Ukrainian organizations involved in Kiev’s information war efforts at the expense of US taxpayer money.
Another self-styled “fact-checking” outfit, VoxUkraine, has received substantial funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID. Its VoxCheck project has been involved in censoring Americans’ social media posts deemed pro-Russian. Similarly, the Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD), an official body under Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, has collaborated with both Molfar and VoxUkraine to combat “disinformation,” often labeling US public figures as promoters of Russian propaganda, including smearing now-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
Immediately upon assuming office, President Donald Trump suspended most US foreign assistance pending a three-month review to determine whether programs should continue based on their alignment with the new administration’s “America First” goals.
USAID, Washington’s primary mechanism for funding political projects abroad, has seen tens of billions of dollars’ worth of approved grants frozen as a result. The NED’s government funding was also frozen. Officially a US State Department-funded nonprofit for distributing grants to pro-democracy causes abroad, the NED has long faced allegations of acting as a CIA cutout for toppling foreign governments.
Romania: Călin Georgescu’s presidential candidacy rejection sparks mass protests and international condemnation
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | March 10, 2025
The Central Electoral Bureau (BEC) rejected the candidacy of Călin Georgescu in Romania’s upcoming presidential elections on Sunday evening. The decision, taken with 10 votes in favor out of the 14-member committee, has ignited widespread protests and drawn sharp international criticism.
Shortly after the announcement, demonstrators gathered outside the BEC headquarters in Bucharest, expressing outrage at what they labeled a “theft of democracy.” Supporters of Georgescu clashed with police, waved national flags, and chanted slogans calling for a “revolution.” Law enforcement officers used tear gas to disperse protesters who attempted to force their way into the institution. Several individuals were arrested in the ensuing confrontations.
Marius Militaru, a spokesperson for the Gendarmerie, stated that authorities were “trying to relax the atmosphere through dialogue” and that the situation was under control.
The BEC cited a missing signature on an annex of Georgescu’s declaration of wealth as the reason for his disqualification. Former Constitutional Court judge Tudorel Toader clarified that the annexes are a mandatory component of the documentation and that both substantive and procedural requirements must be met.
Despite the setback, Georgescu retains the option to challenge the decision at the Constitutional Court. If he secures a favorable ruling, he could regain his candidacy, making the upcoming days crucial for his political future.
It is understood that Georgescu has 24 hours to appeal, and any final decision must be made within 48 hours.
Taking to social media, Georgescu condemned the BEC’s decision as an attack on democracy.
“A direct blow to the heart of democracy worldwide! I have one message left! If democracy in Romania falls, the entire democratic world will fall! This is just the beginning. It’s that simple! Europe is now a dictatorship, Romania is under tyranny!” he wrote.
His rejection follows his recent arrest amid an investigation into alleged extremism, a move that had already drawn concern from high-profile figures.
The decision has provoked strong reactions from European and international political figures, some of whom have accused the European Union of political interference in Romania’s democratic process.
Matteo Salvini, Italy’s deputy prime minister and leader of the right-wing Lega party, condemned the rejection, stating: “A Soviet-style Euro-coup. First, they annul the elections he was winning, then they arrest him, and now they exclude him entirely for fear that he will win. Rather than ‘rearm Europe,’ we must refound it to defend democracy.”
U.S. billionaire Elon Musk, a senior adviser to the Trump administration, also weighed in, calling the situation “crazy” and amplifying claims that “Europe has cancelled more elections than Russia.”
Santiago Abascal, leader of Spain’s Vox party, expressed solidarity with Georgescu and Romania’s right-wing Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) party, accusing “Brussels’ bureaucratic pressure” of being exerted to block his candidacy.
George Simion, president of the AUR, claimed the decision was overtly political with all commission members affiliated with the governing parties voting against Georgescu’s candidacy.
“It was rejected without any reason. All the papers were in good order. We live in a dictatorship. Please help us. Please be on our side to restore democracy in Romania,” Simion implored.
Georgescu previously won the first round of presidential elections before they were controversially annulled last year. His arrest last week — while en route to submit his candidacy — raised further suspicions about the state of democracy in Romania.
Covid vaccine injured – Silent no More
A book review
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | March 3, 2025
Was taking the Covid vaccine Worth a Shot? A new book by Caroline Pover, written on behalf of Brianne Dressen who lives in the USA, chronicles the horrific story of how she was severely injured by the Covid vaccine after enrolling on the AstraZeneca trial in November 2020. Caroline sensitively and professionally tells the heart wrenching, eye-opening account of how Brianne Dressen’s life was turned upside down and irreversibly changed forever the day she chose to volunteer to enroll on the UK-led AstraZeneca clinical trial. This book takes the reader along the rollercoaster ride of the devastating injuries caused by the vaccine and the blatant abuse of power by the healthcare system to denigrate, ignore, and cover up her injuries – along with many others labelled – as ‘misinformation’ spreaders by the medical-industrial-military complex. Every person on the planet was misled by governments, NGOs, regulatory agencies, corporations, Big Pharma, healthcare professionals, along with social and mainstream media. From how clinical trials are conducted to the lack of injury compensation, wide scale censorship, corruption and abuse of power, this book shows the myriad ways Brianne fought and continues to fight for truth and justice for the Covid-vaccine injured, who have been completely abandoned and often maligned by society.
The AstraZeneca Clinical Trial
In the introduction, Caroline Pover describes how she had been medically diagnosed with an adverse reaction to the Covid vaccine and was led to believe Brianne Dressen did not exist. It was only when she started posting on social media and heard about another woman who was dropped from a clinical trial because of an adverse reaction to the vaccine, that their paths crossed. Worth a Shot is a book based on real events that impacted on real people and is a narrative account of Brianne’s (Bri’s) story containing brutally honest struggles with how her life has changed irreversibly after the covid vaccine, including her plans to contemplate suicide. Bri had the perfect life: she was a fit, active lady who always pushed herself physically and mentally. She had a wonderful family life, married with two children with a dream house in the mountains. After having children, Bri set up her own preschool to help children who struggled in a typical educational environment. Then in 2020, Covid hit!
When the lockdowns happened and the talk of vaccine trials began, Bri wanted to help in any way possible with contributing to scientific advancements; once “Operation Warp Speed” was being regularly reported in the media, coupled with her husband’s scientific background, Bri felt excited to enrol in the new Covid vaccine trial set up by Oxford University in conjunction with AstraZeneca, which was recruiting in UK, Brazil, South Africa, and the USA. The opening in the USA was in Salt Lake City – just 40 minutes drive from Bri’s home. She had a phone interview with a trial representative for several hours to capture her medical history and was considered an excellent candidate for the trial. Things then went quiet, but out of the blue on 4th November 2020 – the day after the election – she was called into the trial. The consent form she signed was very thorough. It went through all the expectations and explained it was a double-blinded study and that so far 5,000 individuals had received at least one dose, and the side effects were mild to moderate but transient in nature. It also stated that if anyone did experience an adverse reaction they might be withdrawn from the study, but any medical treatment needed for reactions would be covered by AstraZeneca’s insurance policy. Bri took the vaccine, but tingling started within an hour of the injection.
Adverse Reaction
Bri’s reaction was severe. Tingling spread from below her right elbow all the way up her arm and shoulder, then to the other arm. The tingling got progressively worse and her eyes started to blur, and she saw double. Her hearing started to go muffled, but she assumed the symptoms would be gone by the next morning. However, her symptoms intensified, and now both legs were becoming weaker. She called the number on the consent form to report her reactions, but no one answered her call. Within days, she was confined to her bedroom, with drapes covering the window to shut out the light. Within weeks, her condition worsened so she saw a neurologist and visited an out-of-hours emergency clinic. Nausea, vision disturbances, tingling, extreme sensitivity to sound, limb weaknesses, as well as excruciating pain developed all over the body, including her teeth, stomach, bones, joints, legs and arms. She could not eat and lost 20 lbs within weeks. Her body seemed to vibrate and buzz from within constantly, and she could not bear anyone touching her, with extreme sensitivity to sound, light, and food. She spent weeks then months confined to her bed. She lost control of her bladder and her blood pressure was erratic. None of the pain medications helped.
Her husband and other family members and close friends helped with looking after the children and caring for her. Yet Bri and her husband did not want to broadcast these issues publicly when so many were struggling with Covid itself. Weekly and even sometimes daily visits to the hospitals baffled the doctors. Friends visited her but the visible transformation of her appearance shocked them, and she had to wear earplugs and sunglasses. Attempts at exercise were futile, as the pain was too unbearable. She visited multiple experts but to no avail. The principal investigator of the clinical trial suggested she might have multiple sclerosis (MS), but the trial clinic did not recommend any other specialists. Local neurologists recommended she visit the ER. The clinic staff told Bri that the ramifications were serious if she thought there was any possibility the vaccine had caused these symptoms. When she said her reactions were from the vaccine as she was a trial participant, most professionals were not interested and dismissed the symptoms as Covid. She had MRI scans but found nothing significant; there was nothing they could do. Bri was to report back to the trial clinic, which she did. They told her not to worry because AstraZeneca would reimburse all her medical costs – and they would be in touch soon. But no one contacted her.
No Diagnosis
She continued to go through the proper channels and medical experts to get answers. After a series of tests that ruled out MS and other neurological conditions, she was no closer to a diagnosis. By ploughing through scientific papers and doing their own research, Bri discovered post-vaccination transverse myelitis (TM), Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). Both TM and ADEM are conditions relating to inflammation of the spinal cord or central nervous system, which can lead to permanent damage. Despite Bri reporting this to the trial clinic, the trial was not put on hold. She was told to report everything back to AstraZeneca, which she did, but despite all the assurances, no one contacted her. Bri’s multiple trips to the hospital caused by the vaccine meant she was a burden to the healthcare system. Many physicians shrugged off her symptoms as psychiatric because none of the tests produced any explanation. She was put on antidepressants and gabapentin for neurological pain. Nothing had been put in place to deal with anyone who had an unexpected reaction to the vaccine.
On the next visit to her clinic, Bri hoped someone would be able to help her with her condition but was told no one could see her unless she signed a new consent form. She asked what was different about this form but they insisted they could not help her unless she signed it. Bri’s vision was so impaired that she could not read the form. She felt she had no choice but to sign it. Once she signed the form, two nasal swabs were taken and a blood test to confirm she did not have Covid, and she was discharged. Bri reached out to the CDC, and her husband filled out a VAERS report, but no one responded. Bri’s health deteriorated and the medical costs were mounting up, with assurances AstraZeneca would reimburse. After weeks of scouring the internet they discovered that IVIG (intravenous immunoglobulin) might be a possible treatment. When they showed this to the doctors and other experts, they were ignored and refused this treatment. The only interaction from AstraZeneca (via a third party) was that Bri was ‘unblinded’ from the trial at her request as she wanted to know if she had received the vaccine, which was later confirmed. The trial sponsor agreed she would not receive a second dose, but they offered no help or support about her continued deteriorating health.
Losing Hope
Exhausted and losing hope, Bri and her husband reached out to the NIH. They were surprised when a specialist neuroimmunologist, Dr Avinthra Nath, Director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke at the NIH, and a researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) who worked directly under Dr Anthony Fauci, responded with interest to learn more about Bri’s condition. An appointment was arranged and he seemed very sympathetic and gave the impression he was keen to help. Bri then learned the shocking news that the AstraZeneca vaccine was authorized for use throughout the UK. Publicly the trials were being celebrated as hugely successful, but Bri knew otherwise. She felt suicidal – she was a climber, skier, and dancer who was now a completely non-functioning member of the family barely able to leave her bedroom. Bri’s circle of friends started to diminish. Their savings were also being rapidly depleted because of the skyrocketing medical costs. What about all the assurances on the consent form? What happened to all the promises of the costs being reimbursed? Bri began to lose hope. A trip into nature with her sister that aimed to be a temporary distraction for her resulted in a candid but dark exchange. Her sister asked her to promise her not to kill herself. Bri replied “I cannot promise you that”. The chapter describes how she planned to take her own life, so she was less of a burden to her family. Mercifully, she changed her mind and instead directed her focus on finding and helping others who might be injured and experiencing the same nightmare she was going through.
The Many Injured
It didn’t take long before Bri joined support groups online. After some time she saw a posting from another lady who was also injured in the AstraZeneca trial. Finally, she could talk to someone who knew exactly what she was going through! Within a few days she found another clinical trial participant (Moderna trial) who also experienced similar debilitating reactions. In this patient’s case, she had her left lymph nodes removed as they were so swollen but she became bedridden owing to complications of the surgery. Bri befriended Dr Danice Hertz, a retired gastroenterologist who had developed Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS) following the Pfizer jab and was suffering ongoing allergic-type reactions including tinnitus, chest pains, and severe nerve damage to her face. Danice increased the number of patients referred to the NIH and Dr Nath for his study. Soon she was inundated with emails from others who had experienced adverse effects from covid vaccines. Sheryl Reutters was harmed by the Moderna jab, experiencing a severe neurological reaction, and soon became a close friend of Bri. Mary Johnson a front-line ER and critical care physician who was injured by the vaccine, and was driven out of her job and confined to her home. Kristi Dobbs and Candace Hayden were also damaged by the vaccine. Bri trusted the NIH to take care of all these injured and would talk to them each week to learn about their stories.
The number of people with vaccine injuries kept mounting and they were all being ignored by doctors and the drug companies. So, the group decided to create a Covid vaccine injury support group on Facebook. However, anyone publicly criticising the vaccines soon became labelled as ‘conspiracy theorists’ and more prominent healthcare workers with dissenting voices became known as the “Disinformation Dozen”. After taking a default position of always giving the benefit of the doubt, Bri was now beginning to realise they had been strung along for months. Her own children were starting to struggle at school, and were developing anxiety, and her son was afraid of leaving the house. Then Bri discovered Maddie, a 12-year-old girl who was completely healthy before receiving the Pfizer vaccine, who was left unable to walk or eat, incontinent, and with seizures and fainting episodes. Bri and the core group of vaccine injured decided enough was enough – they had to go public!
Going Public
They started to post their testimonies and videos about their experiences on the website; some of the stories were harrowing. The videos found their way onto TikTok and were receiving millions of views, as traffic to their website exploded, with over 300,000 views per week. More and more stories poured in from around the world. Facebook seemed to be where many of the support group interactions were residing. By early 2021, although Bri had yet to find anyone else injured by the AstraZeneca jab, in the UK reports of blood clots were flooding in. Slowly news reporters began contacting them and they promised to cover the stories of the vaccine injured along with statements from governments and drug companies. The group reached out to the CDC, FDA, and VAERS but no one received a significant response. How many others were out there with the same relentless pain, alone and with overpowering thoughts? Petitions were submitted to the FDA, CDC, VAERS, and the White House, after one lady who was part of the injured group took her own life. They went to the top, and contacted Dr Peter Marks, Director of the Centre for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. Word was now spreading among the vaccine-injured community that the NIH had been contacted about hundreds of people with adverse reactions.
Bri and her newfound friends detected a distinct unease among most doctors and nurses whom they engaged with during their multiple visits to the hospital. Bri spent a week at the NIH having multiple tests, which confirmed she had nerve damage in her legs and autonomic nervous system issues. She was diagnosed with “post-vaccine neuropathy”, and recommended IVIG therapy – the very treatment Bri had pleaded with the doctors to try but were ignored. One of Bri’s friend’s, Casey, was an NIH employee who had suffered severe neurological complications as a result of the vaccine. Casey met with Dr Nath, who had previously reassured them that they were documenting and researching all the injuries. When Casey then confronted Dr Nath about his research he flatly denied any such research was underway even though Bri had spent a week at the NIH having tests and being placed on the IVIG protocol. They had no choice but to get political, so they arranged a call with Wisconsin’s Senator Johnson who had been outspoken about the harms caused by the covid vaccines and the censorship, and had been critical of the lockdown policies. Bri was cautious of accepting Senator Johnson’s help because of how he had been portrayed, but on meeting him found he was full of kindness and willing to expose himself to attack on their behalf.
Senator Johnson agreed to hold a press conference. The vaccine injured community felt the politicisation of their health and ‘vaccine stance’ was very draining. One of the support groups that came together with Bri’s group was named “A Wee Sprinkle of Hope” to reflect the culture of compassion. The real objective of the vaccine injured movement was to help people who were suffering. No headline news from the press conference was on the mainstream media, it was mentioned as an aside before going to the next item. Every vaccine injury was not misinformation and their abandonment by the manufacturers was not misinformation. Instead, the news reporters centred the stories not around the vaccine injuries, but around the fact it was led by what they claimed was a crazy, right-wing ‘conspiracy theorist’: Senator Johnston.
Censorship
Then the censorship started. Within 24 hours of the press conference, Facebook began shutting down the support groups. The injured gathered together and then joined with A Wee Sprinkle of Hope. Thousands had joined, and the group was getting larger by the day. Then 5 days after the press conference, and without warning, Facebook shut down the largest Covid vaccine injury support group in the world. Now the injured could not even talk to each other! The social media platform was actively restricting people suffering from extreme physical and emotional pain from communicating with each other. Soon the group decided to develop code words so they could still communicate under new names. Then a mainstream news article exposed one of the code words, and a new group of 30,000 members was shut down too! Warnings appeared beneath people’s posts on their own pages urging viewers to go to Facebook’s Community Guidelines on ‘accurate’ information about vaccines. The warnings also deterred other Facebook users, suggesting they should not interact with ‘repeat offenders’ posting misinformation about vaccines. People’s posts were also being ‘shadowbanned’ or hidden by Facebook algorithms.
Bri was eventually paid a measly $590.20 from AstraZeneca, which coincided with her learning of other injured people in the UK in early 2021. The injured were getting mixed messages from the NIH. On the one hand, they were paying for people’s tests and diagnosis, but then they denied any research was being done. Eventually Dr Nath stopped responding to emails and the FDA stopped communicating with Danice. The NIH then shut down the entire study of the covid vaccine injured and cancelled Bri’s upcoming trip to the NIH. Some of the “Disinformation Dozen” also had their social media accounts shut down or restricted. By now, authors, doctors, patients, activists and even celebrities were being censored. Bri’s husband studied all the clinical trial study reports that had come out, matching the injured participants they knew of to the recorded reactions and found most had been downplayed or even omitted.
It was becoming clear that the institutions they had previously trusted, such as the media, science, pharmaceutical companies, and the government were hiding the truth or outright lying about Covid vaccine adverse reactions. They were being silenced. Free speech was officially over. But another threat was looming: vaccine mandates! The idea of mandating Covid vaccines was terribly distressing to many of the injured. They knew first hand that no one would be there for anyone if they developed a severe reaction. Being fully vaccinated meant you could go to work, visit restaurants or travel without restriction. Those same ‘privileges’ would not be open to the unvaccinated. The coercion, propaganda, bribes and incentives to get the vaccines was extraordinary. Next they were going to jab children.
Eventually, Bri discovered Dr Doshi, an Associate Professor at the University of Maryland with an interest in the drug approval process and an expert in clinical trials, who was also a Senior Editor at the British Medical Journal. Bri and others set up a call with him, and he suggested organising a roundtable discussion in Washington, with senators, health officials and all media. Other pharmaceutical policy experts were brought in, and Bri and her friends started to gather the vaccine injury testimonials. Fundraising was needed to pay for the injured to travel to the event. Some organizations donated together with crowdfunding efforts that raised £37,000 to pay for everyone’s travel and accommodation. The roundtable event at the Senate lasted over 4 hours, which sparked some media interest. The clinical trial company offered a single ‘full and final settlement’ payment to Bri of £1,243.30. This amount did not even cover one-half of the cost of a single IVIG infusion. It seemed the second consent form that Bri had signed (under duress) had significant changes that included all the symptoms she had suffered since the jab, effectively invalidating the previous consent form. After meeting another vaccine victim, Dr Joel Wallskog, Bri and others formed a new group: React19.
Going Global
A Pfizer Whistleblower, Brook Jackson, had been a regional director at one of the clinical trial sites and expressed serious concerns about how the Pfizer Covid vaccine trial was conducted. Despite the stories some mainstream channels promoted about vaccine misinformation and “anti-vaccine propaganda”, clips of the roundtable event were going viral. Many of the vaccine injured, including healthcare professionals and doctors were risking their careers by speaking out against the vaccines. While React19 was originally set up to support the American’s who were injured, it ultimately became a hub for the vaccine injured all over the world. What became clear was that vaccine injury support groups before the covid vaccines faced similar medical gaslighting. The difference this time was never had a vaccine been administered to so many people at the same time – an estimated 5 billion globally – so the global repercussions would be huge. A chat group was initiated for React19, which grew with international leaders, creating a unified effort. Charlet Crichton set up the UK-based UKCVFamily around the same time as React19, as the healthcare system in the UK is different to the USA and more people in the UK had been given the AstraZeneca vaccine. Both groups now collaborated.
It was also becoming clear that as the vaccine injured community grew, the adverse reactions in all the trials had been hidden or misrepresented. Throughout her journey, Bri had started out searching to find the support she needed, but since taking on a leadership role in React19 she was now the support. The end of the book chronicles how finding allies was not as easy as some might assume. There was still no research paper from Dr Nath from the NIH, and when it finally did materialize on a preprint publication, it only published data from 24 patients (despite having over a hundred cases). Furthermore, any links to the adverse events of the vaccine were completely downplayed. When the injured were invited to speak at events by ‘advocates’ on behalf of the injured, often it was more for appearances. Some people in the freedom movement wanted to raise their profile through association with the vaccine injured, but were not directly offering help. Gradually the environment changed so that it was more ‘acceptable’ to discuss vaccine injuries. The film produced by Mark Sharman (former ITV and BSkyB News Executive) “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion” released on YouTube in October 2022, was removed from the platform within hours following its mention in a Parliamentary debate, despite amassing over a million views!
Find the Science, Find the Money
The immunization surveillance systems such as VAERS, Yellow Card report scheme and others were not working. It is estimated fewer than 1% of adverse reactions are even logged on these sites and so the true nature and scale of such reactions are far greater than captured on these systems. A staggering statistic of the VAERS system is that in the 30 years of vaccine injury, 50,000 reports had been logged. In 2021, there were 750,000 reports of adverse reactions. In other words, the covid vaccine reports in 1 year outnumbered all adverse event reports from the prior 30 years combined. Many of the VAERS reports were not being followed up or being processed properly. Studies submitted to journals that had any data that questioned the vaccines, were often rejected from multiple journals.
Compounding the issue, the 1986 US National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) removed any financial liability from the manufacturers if any deaths or injuries were caused by vaccines. Moreover, vaccine damage payment schemes, such as the VICP in the USA, were wholly inadequate as proving vaccine was the cause meant hardly any claims were successful and any moderate payments often took years. The PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act established in 2005, also granted pharmaceutical companies immunity from federal or state litigation, in circumstances such as a pandemic. So, the companies making the vaccines have no responsibility for damage and little if any incentives to carry out scientific research into any injuries caused. The vaccine injured had to find the “science to follow” rather than “follow the science”. A combination of the “fact-checkers” who demolished any “anti-vaccine” testimonials and that medical reimbursement was non-existent, the out-of-pocket medical expenses the vaccine injured faced often exhausted personal savings to the point that many were refinancing or selling their homes.
Conclusion
The fear-mongering that had contributed to many of those injured by the vaccine to choose to get vaccinated in the first place was now continuing for this marginalized section of society. Those injured by the Covid-vaccine also learned from people who had been injured by past vaccines. The censorship tale was all too familiar, but the React19 community started doing their own research and discovered alternative therapies – be it pharmaceutical, natural, physical, spiritual – and lifestyle adjustments could help with their symptoms. The Covid vaccine rollout left a trail of devastation and damage in its wake. Social cohesion and disconnection also set in with the vaccine-injured ostracised from society. Whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, most people have been affected by the loss of relatives, friendships, relationships, and often life-long careers and financial autonomy. For many, finding support in such dark times has literally been the difference between life and death. We all need healing from the collective trauma of the Covid era, which is still ongoing. By sharing this poignant story of the many Covid-vaccine injured, we hope this will inspire more kindness, connection, compassion, and courage to be open about the truth. That is Worth a Shot!
Worth a Shot?: Secrets of the Clinical Trial Participant Who Inspired a Global Movement―Brianne Dressen’s Story, told by Caroline Pover, was published in November 2024 by Skyhorse Publishing, ISBN: 9781510783461.
All proceeds from the book go to UKCVFamily and React-19, support vaccine -injured in UK and worldwide.
CHD, Doctors Ask Supreme Court to Hear Medical Free Speech Case
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender |March 6, 2025
Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Physicians for Informed Consent and a group of doctors who sued the Medical Board of California after it disciplined them for allegedly spreading COVID-19 “misinformation” have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their case.
The plaintiffs in Kory v. Bonta submitted their petition on March 1, following the November 2024 dismissal of their case by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta is named in the suit, along with the state’s medical board.
The lawsuit, filed in January 2024, is a follow-up to a previous complaint filed in 2022 and an amended suit filed in 2023, which challenged California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 2098 — a law allowing the medical board to discipline doctors who give “false” information about COVID-19 for engaging in unprofessional conduct.
A federal judge blocked AB 2098 in January 2023, and the law was later repealed. However, according to the lawsuit, the Medical Board of California is still targeting “COVID misinformation” and is threatening physicians with disciplinary action.
Three medical professionals — Dr. Brian Tyson, a board-certified family practitioner who owns an urgent care facility; Dr. LeTrinh Hoang, a pediatric osteopathic physician; and Dr. Pierre Kory, president emeritus of the Independent Medical Alliance, launched the lawsuit.
According to the petition to the Supreme Court, the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, “with the assistance of the California Legislature,” have threatened disciplinary actions against the plaintiffs and other physicians for offering information to patients that departs from official COVID-19 narratives.
In April 2024, a federal district court rejected the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction against the medical board. The 9th Circuit upheld the ruling in November 2024. In January, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ emergency application for an injunction.
Lawsuit hopes to set precedent that ‘informed consent is free speech’
The case seeks to resolve contradictory precedents from two federal appeals courts on whether the First Amendment protects physicians’ communications to patients — “a question that is particularly significant in a field like medicine, where scientific understanding is continually advancing and rarely settled.”
In a Physicians for Informed Consent press release, Rick Jaffe, who represents the plaintiffs, said the lawsuit “touches on the foundational rights of professionals to share knowledge and opinions essential for patient autonomy and informed consent.”
Tyson said patients cannot provide informed consent if their physicians are denied the opportunity to speak freely.
“We want doctors and all providers to be able to discuss risks and benefits with our patients, be able to speak out against things that are wrong, and be heard when breakthroughs are made,” Tyson said. “The hope is the Supreme Court will set the precedent that informed consent is free speech.”
Supreme Court asked to decide between competing legal precedents
According to the petition, federal courts have established competing legal precedents relating to medical free speech.
In a 2022 decision in Tingley v. Ferguson, the 9th Circuit upheld the ability of professional boards in Washington to restrict members’ speech, arguing this is similar to the boards’ enforcement of “other restrictions on unprofessional conduct.”
But in a 2020 decision in Otto v. City of Boca Raton, the 11th Circuit struck down local ordinances that limited the speech of therapists and counselors, finding that such content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions violate the First Amendment, which has no carveout for controversial speech.
Tyson said the California Medical Board’s disciplinary proceedings against him jeopardized his career. “I had to defend my position against the [board] and almost lost my license … That would have been devastating to the community I serve and to all those I employ.”
Jaffe said Kory v. Bonta is similar to another First Amendment case relating to medical speech, Stockton v. Ferguson. Filed in March 2024, the lawsuit seeks “to protect the right of physicians to speak” and the public’s right to hear such speech.
CHD is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, as are several doctors facing disciplinary proceedings by the Washington Medical Commission for their public statements criticizing mainstream COVID-19 narratives. Basketball legend John Stockton is also a plaintiff, advocating for the public’s right to access and listen to “soapbox speech.”
In January, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ emergency appeal in Stockton v. Ferguson. The case remains active before the 9th Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for May 14, Jaffe said.
“The two cases represent the entire spectrum of cases involving what physicians say and would allow the court to give a definitive and comprehensive answer to whether and how much the First Amendment protects professionals when they communicate to patients and the public,” Jaffe said.
According to Physicians for Informed Consent, four justices must agree before the full court can hear Kory v. Bonta. If the Supreme Court decides to take the case, it will hear Kory v. Bonta in October.
Jaffe said the Supreme Court may ultimately jointly consider Kory v. Bonta and Stockton v. Ferguson. He credited CHD with its role in supporting both cases.
“We hope to establish the constitutional right of healthcare providers to speak out against the prevailing medical and scientific consensus about COVID-19, as well as whatever public health challenges face the country in the future,” Jaffe said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Trump cuts $400 million to Columbia Uni. over pro-Palestine protests
Al Mayadeen | March 8, 2025
US Federal Authorities announced on Friday a cut in grants and contracts with Columbia University in New York, citing pro-Palestine protests, which the Trump administration labels as “anti-semitic”.
The US Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, and the General Services Administration— all part of the Trump Administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism— announced the cuts in a statement, citing Columbia’s ongoing failure to stop pro-Palestine protests.
The statement adds that the cuts are the “first round of action” against the Ivy League university, emphasizing that more cancellations are anticipated as Columbia has more than $5 billion in federal grant commitments.
The agencies stated that they would issue stop-work orders for the grants and contracts, which will immediately freeze Columbia’s access to the funding without divulging details about the specific programs that will be affected.
Columbia under fire for alleged ‘anti-semitism’
Columbia University has been the battleground for threats and measures targeting pro-Palestine students who organized and shared in protests against “Israel’s” genocide in Gaza, which “Israel” supporters have labelled as anti-semitic.
The US House Committee on Education and the Workforce demanded in February that Columbia University submit disciplinary records by the end of this month for students involved in anti-“Israel” protests between April and January 2024, criticizing the Ivy League institution’s handling of the matter.
The House panel sent a six-page letter to Columbia University’s leadership on February 13, stating that the institution had failed to fulfill its promise to students, faculty, and Congress to address “anti-Semitism,” asserting that “Columbia’s ongoing failure to confront the widespread anti-Semitism on campus is unacceptable, especially given the university receives billions in federal funding.”
The university’s newly established Office of Institutional Equity launched multiple investigations to track down students who voiced their opposition to “Israel”, according to the Associated Press.
Columbia sent notices to dozens of students for activities ranging from sharing pro-Palestinian social media posts to taking part in protests that the school considers “unauthorized,” while the creation of the “disciplinary office” sparked concerns among students, faculty members, and free speech advocates who said Columbia caved in to Trump’s pressure.
‘The Romanian scenario’ – Fears of EU election interference in Poland after Brussels announces roundtable
Remix News | March 6, 2025
Henna Virkkunen, vice-president of the European Commission for Technological Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, said that a roundtable on the presidential elections in Poland will be held in the coming weeks.
The Finnish politician told DW that such meetings are organized before every election in the member states and that she is concerned about the possibility of influencing the election results using social media.
“Cooperation with Germany went well, and I am sure that we will also cooperate closely with the Polish authorities. EU citizens have the right to be sure that elections are fair and free. And because of content recommendation systems and the content itself distributed by internet platforms, this is very difficult,” she said, complaining about the uncensored X platform.
Various politicians reacted quickly on X.
PiS MP Radosław Fogiel expressed concern, noting that “in Polish elections ONLY the voice of Polish citizens counts. They will certainly not be decided by the Vice-President of the European Commission, who does not even have a democratic mandate, because no one voted for her. But such announcements, along with the desire to limit freedom of speech, are disturbing. The EU is heading in a very dangerous direction.”
“The European Union is simply preparing for either the Romanian scenario in Poland or the introduction of political censorship,” said political scientist and publicist Prof. Adam Wielomski.
Following the cancellation of presidential elections in Romania after Călin Georgescu appeared poised to win, there are grave concerns about democratic backsliding in Europe. Georgescu has since been arrested in dramatic fashion and charged with a variety of crimes, including “misinformation.” After the events in Romania, former EU commissioner Therry Breton claimed they could annul the elections in Germany just as they did in Romania.
Author Rafał Ziemkiewicz wrote: “What the f**k? Will the Germans and the Eurocrats hold a ’roundtable’ to determine who will win the elections in Poland?”
“This is starting to look more and more serious. The European Commission openly announces interference in the Polish presidential elections!” posted PiS MP Paweł Jabłoński.
“Can you believe that she will hold a roundtable with Tusk on the presidential elections in Poland?” asked MP Michał Dworczyk.
German ministry dismisses lawyer for supporting Gaza, rejecting genocide
MEMO | March 4, 2025
https://twitter.com/Melaniebelizi/status/1895904365225058324
Democracy does not ‘die in darkness,’ it is dying in the EU right now
By Tarik Cyril | RT | March 4, 2025
Quiz time: What do Germany, Moldova, and Romania (in alphabetical order) have in common? They look so different, don’t they?
Germany is a traditional, large, and at this point still relatively well-off (if less and less so due to obedient self-Morgenthauing for the greater glory of Ukraine) member of the Cold War “West” (give and take a “re-unification” and all that). Currently, it has a population of over 83 million people and a GDP equivalent to $4.53 trillion. Romania is an ex-Soviet satellite with just above 19 million citizens and a GDP less than a tenth of the German one (at $343.8 billion). Moldova, which emerged from a former Soviet republic, is the smallest: 2.4 million people and a GDP of $16.5 billion.
And yet, look more closely, and they are not so different: They are all either inside the EU and NATO (Germany and Romania) or attached to these two organizations as an outside yet important strategic asset (the case of Moldova – despite and in de facto breach of its constitutionally anchored neutrality, as it happens). And also, all three have serious problems with conducting fair and clean elections. What a coincidence. Not.
Let’s take a quick look at each case: In Germany’s recent federal election, the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) failed to cross the threshold to representation in parliament – 5% of the national vote – by the thinnest of margins: The party officially garnered 4.972% of the vote. In absolute numbers, almost 2,469,000 Germans voted for the BSW (with the decisive so-called “second vote”). Only 0.028% – about 13,000 to 14,000 votes – more and the party would have passed the 5% barrier.
Even extremely tight results can, of course, be real and legitimate. The problem in Germany now is that there is steadily accumulating evidence that the elections were compromised by serious flaws and repeated errors. What makes this even more urgent is the fact that there seems to be a clear pattern with mistakes occurring not randomly but mostly at the cost of the BSW.
We already know about two key problems, although not much more than one week has passed after the election on February 23: First, about 230,000 German voters live abroad, but many of them could not cast their vote because the necessary documents reached them too late, sometimes even only after the elections. Of course, we cannot tell how exactly these voters would have voted if given the chance. But that is not the point. The fact alone that they could not participate casts severe doubt on the legitimacy of the results. And especially in the case of the BSW where so few additional votes would have been enough to principally change the outcome, that is, secure seats – and probably two to three dozen – in the next parliament.
The second even more disturbing issue is that there is ever more evidence of actual BSW votes inside Germany being allocated to another party. In the case of the major city of Aachen, for instance, a result of 7.24% for the BSW was registered for the “Bündnis für Deutschland” (an entirely different and much smaller party with no chance of parliamentary representation to begin with). The BSW vote was erroneously registered as 0%. Only protests by local BSW voters brought the scandal to light.
German mainstream media are trying to depict what happened in Aachen as an exception. Yet by now there are reports of similar “errors” from all over Germany – and don’t forget that the process of looking for these cases has only just started. In sum, there are good reasons – and they are getting better by the day – for believing that, for the BSW, the difference between correct and incorrect election procedures actually amounts to the one between being and not being in parliament. That implies, of course, that all those citizens who have voted for the BSW may well have been deprived of their proper democratic representation as foreseen by law.
Is there a motive for foul play? You bet. The BSW, an insurgent party combining leftwing social with rightwing cultural and migration-policy positions, has been hounded as too friendly toward Russia because it is demanding peace in Ukraine; it also has been outspoken about its opposition to basing fresh US missiles in Germany and to Israel’s crimes as well.
In Germany as it is now, these are all reasons for neo-McCarthyite smear campaigns and repression by – at least – dirty media tricks, all of which has already happened. It is entirely possible that a wave of deliberate local “mistakes” was added to that nasty tool box. And, a slightly different issue, asserting the BSW’s legal rights now will be especially difficult, in particular because a revision of the election result to include the party in parliament would immediately upset the complicated arithmetic of government coalition building. The BSW and its voters, in short, may well have been cheated, and they may be cheated again in case they seek redress.
The fact that one problem with those German elections has to do with voters living abroad rings a bell called Moldova, of course. There, last November, Maia Sandu narrowly won a presidential election that involved massively manipulating the outside-the-country vote. In essence, Moldovans abroad, especially in Russia, likely to vote against her were, in effect, disenfranchised by making it impossible for them to actually cast their vote; Moldovans more likely to vote for her, in the West, faced no such problems.
This crude trickery was decisive: Without it Sandu would have lost and her left-wing rival Alexandr Stoianoglo would have won. In the West, whose candidate Sandu has been, this outcome was, of course, hailed as a victory for “democracy,” a pro-EU choice, and a defeat of “Russian meddling.” As so often, it is hard to decide what is more jaw-dropping: the Orwellian reversal of reality or the Freudian projection of the West’s own manipulation on the big bad Russian Other.
That projection, in any case, is also in play in Romania. Indeed, at this point, the Romanian case of electoral foul play is clearly the most brutal one. There, the gist of a long saga beginning last November, too, is simple: Calin Georgescu, an insurgent newcomer is very likely to win presidential elections. Yet he is being denounced as a far-right populist and – drum roll – as somehow in cahoots with Russia, too.
The consequences were not surprising, except in how drastic things have gotten: First, when Georgescu was close to winning one election, the Constitutional Court abused its power to cancel the whole exercise. The pretext was a file of pseudo-evidence cobbled together by Romania’s security services that, by now, even Western mainstream media admit is ridiculously shoddy.
As you would expect, this open assault on their right to vote has made Romanians support Georgescu more, not less, as polls show. Since the next try at elections is now due to take place in May and Georgescu is still the frontrunner, the authorities have followed up with even more ham-fisted repression. This time, Georgescu was temporarily and dramatically detained – on the way to registering his renewed candidacy – and then accused of half a dozen serious crimes. His access to social media has been curtailed; his team and associates are being raked with searches, charges, and, of course, media attacks. It is possible that he will be deprived of his right to stand for the election.
Georgescu’s supporters have held large demonstrations; he himself has appealed for help in his struggle against Romania’s “deep state” to the Trump administration in Washington. Trump’s de facto right-hand man, tech oligarch Elon Musk, has used his X platform to signal support for Georgescu. And not long ago, US Vice President J.D. Vance warned the Europeans over the first round of attacks on Georgescu.
Yet Romania’s key role in NATO strategies is certain to be a key reason the NATO-skeptic and sovereigntist Georgescu has run into such massive trouble, not only from Romanian mainstream elites but also, behind the scenes, those still running the EU. With Washington now revising its approach to both Russia and its NATO clients in Europe, Georgescu’s fate could well hinge on one of the greatest geopolitical shifts of this century. And that shift might favor him.
Maia Sandu’s crooked victory in Moldova is not up for revision. The chances for the BSW of finding redress should be good, but, in reality, they are not, unfortunately. Georgescu’s luck, though, may turn again. He already has massive electoral support; he may well get even more precisely because of the escalation of dirty tricks used against him, and he has the US de facto on his side.
What is certain, in any case, is one simple fact: the “garden” West, with its endless talk of “values” and “rules” does not, in practice, believe in real elections. Instead, geopolitics prevail. And, tragically, those geopolitics are not only overbearing but stupid. Driven by an obsession with fighting Russia (and China, of course; and the Trumpist US, too, if need be) and rejecting diplomacy as such, this is a West ready to sacrifice whatever little democracy it may have left to a delusion of grandeur that will be its downfall.
Tarik Cyril Amar ia a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
UN demands answers from UK on terror law abuse
By Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone | March 1, 2025
As the British state harasses and arrests a growing number of activists and dissident journalists, including the author of this piece, UN rapporteurs delivered a forceful letter of protest to London condemning its abuse of counter-terror legislation.
In December 2024, a quartet of UN rapporteurs focused on “peaceful assembly and of association” and the “right to privacy” delivered a strongly-worded letter to the British government. Expressing grave concerns about the potential “misapplication of counter-terrorism laws” to arrest, detain, interrogate and surveil dissident activists and journalists, including The Grayzone’s Kit Klarenberg, they demanded clarity on a number of serious issues. Given 60 days to respond, London remained suspiciously silent.
As a result, the UN’s correspondence with the British government has now been made public. The rapporteurs were clearly disturbed by reports of Schedule 7 of the 2000 Terrorism Act, and Schedule 3 of the 2019 Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, which covers “hostile” state threats, “being used to examine and obtain data from journalists and activists Johanna Ross, John Laughland, Kit Klarenberg, Craig Murray and Richard Medhurst in circumstances where they appear to have no credible connection to ‘terrorist’ or ‘hostile’ activity.”
While awaiting a reply that never came, the UN “urged” British authorities to undertake “interim measures” to prevent any recurrence of potential human rights breaches under counter-terror legislation, and “ensure the accountability” of anyone responsible for “alleged violations.” Evidently undeterred by pressure from the UN, Britain has continued to escalate its war on dissidents.
Since the UN issued its letter of protest, British activists and journalists have since been arrested, raided, and prosecuted, including Asa Winstanley, Tony Greenstein, Sarah Wilkinson, Palestine Action cofounder Richard Barnard, and academic David Miller.
The UN letter focused on how “powers under counter-terrorism legislation have been used on multiple occasions to examine, detain, and arrest journalists and activists, particularly at the UK border.” Individuals “who are critical of Western foreign policy in the context of the conflict in the Middle East and the Russia-Ukraine war are especially affected by the reported misuse of these powers,” the rapporteurs wrote.
Ominously, the UN rapporteurs suggested this could amount to “over-use [or] misuse” of British counter-terrorism legislation “to target legitimate freedom of expression and opinion, including public interest media reporting, and related freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and political dissent or activism.”
“Vague and broad” laws mean mass-persecution
The UN rapporteurs were especially scathing in their critique of the powers used to harass and potentially incarcerate targets. They charged that Schedule 7 of the 2000 Terrorism Act “may be unjustifiably used against journalists and activists who are critical of Western foreign policy.” In each case they investigated, detentions under this legislation were “premeditated [and] examination, confiscation of devices, and DNA prints were conducted despite the apparent absence of a credible ‘terrorist’ connection” with the individual in question.
Such promiscuous application of ostensible counter-terrorism laws creates the unavoidable “risk of intimidating, deterring, and disrupting the ability of journalists to report on topics of public importance without self-censorship” in Britain. This “serious chilling effect,” the rapporteurs cautioned, could extend well beyond media, and “unjustifiably interfere with the rights to freedom of expression and opinion and participation in public life” across “civil society and legitimate political and public discourse.”
The UN took repeated aim “at the vagueness and overbreadth” of the 2000 Terrorism Act’s criminalisation of “expressing an opinion or belief…supportive of a proscribed organisation.” The legislation’s terms provide no definition whatsoever of the term “support”, an “ambiguous” deficiency that “may unjustifiably criminalize” legitimate opinions “not rationally, proximately or causally related to actual terrorist violence or harms.” They noted this prohibition “goes well beyond the accepted restrictions on freedom of expression under international law concerning the prohibition of incitement to violence or hate speech.”
Indeed, “speech that is neither necessary nor proportionate to criminalize, including legitimate debates about the de-proscription of an organization and disagreement with a government’s decision to proscribe” could be categorized as “supporting” a terrorist group under the 2000 Terrorism Act’s sweeping terms. This is especially problematic given certain factions proscribed by Britain, such as Hamas or Hezbollah, may be “de facto authorities performing a diversity of civilian functions, including governance, humanitarian and medical activities, and provision of social services, public utilities and education”:
“Expressing support for any of these ordinary civilian activities by the organization could constitute expressing support for it, no matter how remote such expression is from support for any violent terrorist acts by the group.”
Working for “hostile” governments without knowing
Similar alarm was sounded about the wording of Schedule 3 of the 2019 Counter-Terrorism and Border Act, under which The Grayzone’s Kit Klarenberg was detained upon returning to his home city of London in May 2023. It stipulates that anyone entering British territory suspected of “hostile activity” on behalf of a foreign power can be held against their will and interrogated for up to six hours, while the contents of their digital devices are seized and stored. Non-compliance automatically results in arrest.
See the notice of detention issued by British state security to journalist Kit Klarenberg under Schedule 3 of the UK’s Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act of 2019 here.
Ever more disturbingly, Schedule 3 is suspicionless. Under the legislation’s terms, “it is immaterial whether a person is aware that activity in which they are or have been engaged is hostile activity, or whether a state for or on behalf of which, or in the interests of which, a hostile act is carried out has instigated, sanctioned, or is otherwise aware of, the carrying out of the act.” In other words, no conspirator in a suspected conspiracy has to have consented to potentially illegal activity.
“Hostile acts” are defined as any behavior deemed threatening to London’s “national security” or “economic well-being.” Again, the rapporteurs condemned this language as “vague and over-broad.” They concluded the phrasing granted British authorities “extraordinary discretion” to engage in “unnecessary, disproportionate or otherwise arbitrary interferences in the rights to liberty and privacy” of individuals detained under these powers. Moreover, as the Act’s targets are not formally under formal criminal investigation or arrest, or suspected of having committed any offense, they have no right to remain silent.
The UN branded this distinction as “artificial… given the punitive sanctions for non-compliance,” branding it as “inconsistent with the accepted meaning of ‘arrest’ or ‘detention’” under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The “extreme breadth” of Schedule 3 also “enables unnecessary, disproportionate, arbitrary or discriminatory interference with an individual’s rights, including freedom from arbitrary detention, freedom of movement…and the rights to leave and enter one’s own country.” Article 17 of the ICCPR also states:
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with [their] privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on [their] honour and reputation.”
This is explicitly contrary to Klarenberg’s May 2023 experience at Luton airport. There, as the rapporteurs documented, he was “fingerprinted, subjected to oral DNA swabs, and photographed by the examining officer,” while asked excessively invasive questions about his financial affairs, personal and professional relationships, and living situation in his adopted home country of Serbia. His belongings were extensively “searched and he was compelled to provide the passwords to his digital devices, which included a smartphone, tablet, and two cameras.”
Not only was all data on these devices copied, but “the memory cards and SIM cards of the electronic devices were copied outside the interrogation room” and “retained by the police.” As of the letter’s dispatch, one of Klarenberg’s memory cards had “been retained for a period exceeding a year and five months” by British authorities, suggesting he “remains under criminal investigation” for uncertain offenses he did not knowingly or willingly commit.
The rapporteurs noted Klarenberg was among several journalists detained by British border officials whose “electronic devices [were] confiscated for a significant period of time and have not been updated on the use, retention or destruction of their data, or advised in relation to their personal data protection rights.” In many cases, these seized items have never been returned, without satisfactory explanation or seeming legal justification.
New British laws further criminalize dissent
In closing, the UN rapporteurs “encouraged” London to repeal legislation under which dissidents have been persecuted, or “amend it to protect freedom of expression, and…develop prosecutorial guidelines for its appropriate use to avoid the unnecessary or disproportionate incrimination of political dissent.” They further implored London to “indicate how the application of counter-terrorism laws” against activists and journalists “is consistent with international human rights law, and an appropriate application of the law,” while providing “an update on the retention of data taken from the journalists.”
They went on to “urge” the British government to “consider the growing number of instances” where laws purportedly intended to deal with violent terrorist threats “may have been inappropriately directed towards journalists and activists, and to consider addressing this through amendments to the legislation, guidance for relevant officials, and training of border security officers.” Britain’s failure to respond to the UN’s letter, and ever-ratcheting attacks on domestic dissent subsequently, amply indicate these entreaties have fallen on determinedly deaf ears.
In December 2023, Britain rammed through a new round of draconian legislation reinforcing and further codifying the “vague and over-broad” terms of the laws condemned by the UN, under the auspices of the National Security Act. Its terms introduce a number of completely new criminal offenses with severe penalties, and wide-ranging consequences for freedom of speech. Explicitly enacted to neutralize investigative journalism and prevent the emergence of a new WikiLeaks, the Act is so expansive, individuals will almost inevitably break the law without wanting to, intending to, or even knowing they have.
British journalist Johnny Miller seeks asylum in Russia following campaign of harassment
At almost exactly the same time when UN rapporteurs complained to the British government about its abuse of “counter-terror” legislation to persecute dissidents, independent journalist Johnny Miller was granted asylum in Russia. Miller, a British citizen, had reported from the front lines of the Ukraine proxy war for two-and-a-half years. During this period, supporters of the government of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky subjected him to a campaign of intensive harassment, hacking his digital devices and Telegram account, bombarding him and his family with anonymous death threats, and publicly stalking him.
Miller told The Grayzone he’s not sure who or what was ultimately behind the campaign of harassment, but strongly suspects British and/or Ukrainian intelligence played a role. He says it was evident from the start of 2024 his movements in Moscow were being closely tracked while he travelled around the city, and seemingly in advance. At repeated meetings with friends and sources in bars, cafes and restaurants in the Russian capital, individuals would be waiting there for him, staring at him menacingly:
“It might sound crazy, but I think that’s the point. The purpose was to drive me insane, and make me look insane if I ever spoke up about this publicly. But these intimidating encounters from afar happened too many times to be a coincidence, and were witnessed by those I met with. One of them was George Dusoe, a US diplomat who quit out of protest over Gaza, after growing disillusionment with US government policy, and then moved to Russia.”
Miller met with Dusoe for a coffee a day before a formal interview. Afterwards, as they headed for the central Moscow metro, Dusoe quietly informed him they were being followed by multiple people. “He’d not only experienced that personally while posted abroad, but was specially trained in how to spot and evade it,” Miller noted. While the pair eventually eluded their stalkers, losing them in the metro, the experience shook Miller.
To this day, he can’t help but wonder, “what if I was alone, and this happened at night?,” citing the example of Adrian Bocquet. A French military veteran, he travelled to Ukraine in April 2022, witnessed Kiev’s forces commit countless grave war crimes, publicly testified to these atrocities while disputing Western claims of Russian atrocities in Bucha after returning home, then was stabbed in Turkey by Ukrainian nationalists. Miller is understandably relieved to finally be granted a degree of legal protection, personally and professionally:
“Their aim was to make me so scared for my life I stopped my work, and they almost succeeded. The psychological impact was massive, it was a form of warfare, and it stressed me like nothing I’ve ever experienced before,” he commented. “It’s a sick irony that one of the main reasons I sought asylum in Russia is [in order] to apply for a new passport, I would’ve had to give the British embassy in Moscow my address. No way!”
While detained in Luton airport in May 2023, The Grayzone’s Kit Klarenberg was not only forced under threat of arrest and prosecution to provide British counter-terror police his apartment address in Belgrade, but its location within the building, how much he paid for rent, and whether energy bills were included in that price. To what malign ends this information was put isn’t clear. From Miller’s point of view, British intelligence is determined to harass dissidents wherever they are, inside the country or thousands of miles away.
Arrest of activist Yves Engler and unchecked growth of Zionist network in Canada
By Ivan Kesic | Press TV | March 3, 2025
Attempts to harass and intimidate pro-Palestine voices through fabricated and politically-motivated legal cases have intensified in the West, further revealing the dangerous tactics and mechanisms adopted by the organized Zionist network.
Numerous such cases have emerged recently, including in recent weeks, involving prominent journalists and activists such as Ali Abunimah in Switzerland, Richard Medhurst in Austria, David Miller in England, and Yves Engler in Canada.
What is common between these cases is a pattern of prolonged detentions, often lasting hours or even days, on false charges or vague suspicions. Those targeted are treated as criminals, subjected to incoherent interrogations, and in many instances, thrown in jails.
Press TV recently published firsthand accounts from Medhurst and Miller, both longtime contributors to Iran’s leading international news network, detailing their experiences.
Miller emphasized that activists and journalists are prime targets of the Zionist lobby, which exerts pressure to harass or detain pro-Palestine voices across Western countries.
This was further corroborated by the recent case of Yves Engler in Canada, where the prominent author and activist was detained for five days.
Engler, who occasionally appears on Press TV as a commentator, in a statement posted on his website outlined the methods employed by Zionist lobbyists to intimidate people like him.
Based in Montreal, Engler has been an outspoken critic of the Israeli regime and its lobbyists. He has authored 13 books on Canadian history and foreign policy, including Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid, which exposes Canada’s longstanding support for the Israeli regime.
Legal harassment of Yves Engler
On February 18, Engler received a call from a Montreal police officer named Crivello, who instructed him to appear at the downtown police station two days later, where he would be charged with harassment and indecent communication.
The officer explained that a complaint had been filed against him months earlier by a legal firm representing Dahlia Kurtz, a well-known Zionist rabble-rouser and outspoken supporter of the 16-month-long genocide in Gaza.
Engler had previously criticized Kurtz’s racist and violent anti-Palestinian posts on X in a polite and measured manner. He recalled her first – and only – reaction.
“Tomorrow the Montreal police will arrest me for posting to social media against Israel’s genocide in Gaza,” Engler wrote in an article police reached out to him over Kurtz’s complaint.
Pointing out that he had “responded to Kurtz’s racist, violent, anti-Palestinian posts on X”, Engler said he had not harassed the influencer, who “supports killing Palestinian children” and “openly calls for state violence against those challenging Canadian complicity in genocide.”
“I’ve never met Kurtz. Nor have I messaged or emailed her. Nor have I threatened her. I don’t even follow her on X (Twitter’s algorithm puts her posts in my feed).”
In early July 2024, Kurtz quoted one of his posts and wrote: “Hello, Engler Yves. I’m advising you in this one message only that you are harassing me. You’re threatening and you’re making me afraid for my safety. You must stop this harassment – and communication with me. Stop now.”
His statements that she referenced, posted a few days earlier, read: “Racist Dahlia supports killing Palestinian children. 20,000 is not enough, she wants even more Palestinian blood spilled.”
Her response was a blatant lie. Engler had never threatened, harassed, or contacted her—neither publicly nor privately via messages or emails—nor was he following her on X.
Despite this, her exaggerated claims of victimhood escalated beyond false public accusations to the extent of hiring a law firm to pursue criminal charges against him.
On the morning of February 20, Engler was taken into custody at the police station, where an officer informed him that he would be detained overnight or until he was brought before a judge.
Citing the alleged risk of recidivism, authorities held him in custody for a total of five days.
Public support for Engler
Engler’s imprisonment drew widespread anger and outrage among pro-Palestinian and human rights activists, who staged protests outside the police station and courthouse for several days.
A day before his arrest, an article on his website in which he detailed the situation, prompted the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute to launch an email campaign.
In response to his initial call, over 4,000 people emailed Montreal police inspector Crivello, demanding the charges be dropped. Soon after, more than 6,000 others sent emails to the Montreal police chief and mayor, echoing the same demand.
Organizations such as PEN Canada and PEN America, Canadian Senator Yuen Pau Woo, and journalists Ali Abunimah, Glenn Greenwald, Caitlin Johnstone, and Aaron Maté all spoke out about the case, either through statements or articles, expressing deep concern over the charges.
Singer David Rovics composed the song “What’s Going On Here, Montreal?” in response to Engler’s imprisonment and Kurtz’s violent anti-Palestinian rhetoric.
Musician Roger Waters created a short social media clip on Engler’s arrest over pro-Palestine advocacy, which garnered hundreds of thousands of views.
According to Engler, the presence of protesters during the final hours of his detention may have influenced the judicial decision to acquit him and order his release.
He also suggested that their activism contributed to more respectful treatment from the guards.
Yves Engler celebrates his release
Key Zionist rabble-rousers
After his release, Engler expressed gratitude to his supporters for their consistent backing and shared further details about the legal manipulations he encountered during his five-day detention.
He emphasized that his brief imprisonment was insignificant compared to the suffering of thousands of Palestinian abductees languishing in Israeli jails, some of whom endure incarceration for decades.
When questioned by police investigator Crivello, Engler did not deny that he had referred to Kurtz on the X platform as a “genocide supporter” and a “fascist”, labels he asserted were accurate based on their relevant definitions.
He further clarified that he had never met Kurtz nor communicated directly with her via text or email, suggesting that her claims of receiving “threats” and fearing for her safety were outright fabrications.
As a condition of his release, the investigator required him to agree to cease all interaction with Kurtz, a condition Engler stated he was willing to accept to regain his freedom.
In other words, he would no longer reference her content on social media, critique her chauvinistic outbursts and insults toward individuals or groups, or expose her attempts to play the victim.
Additionally, the investigator asked Engler’s lawyer, John Philpot, to agree that Engler would refrain from discussing the case – a request he believed was intended to shield the police, Kurtz, and her legal team from public scrutiny and embarrassment.
However, it appeared that the primary objective of the Zionist network was to completely silence Engler and apply similar tactics to other uninformed pro-Palestinian activists.
Engler had already rejected this condition before his detention, calling it “a flagrant violation of his freedom of expression” and stating he was willing to remain incarcerated until a judge ruled on whether such a restriction was legally permissible.
After spending five days in detention, he was released on February 24 without any restrictions on his ability to discuss the charges against him for his anti-Zionist activism.
He described this as “a small win for free expression and Palestine campaigning.”
“In court, the judge effectively forced the Crown to drop its bid to prevent me from mentioning arch anti-Palestinian Dahlia Kurtz. The Crown [government] sought to restrict my ability to name the Jewish supremacist who instigated a police complaint against me,” he said.
Rather than granting them anonymity, he publicly exposed those suing him, the legal firm they hired, their methods, and all related details – boldly refusing to be silenced.
Dahlia Kurtz proudly poses in the occupied territories as columns of smoke from Israeli bombing rise over Gaza Strip
Who is Dahlia Kurtz?
Dahlia Kurtz is a Canadian Jewish Zionist hate-monger who positioned herself as the leading advocate for the Israeli regime in Canada during the West-backed Israeli genocidal war against Gaza.
She unconditionally defends all Israeli military actions and has never condemned their crimes against Palestinians, instead dismissing their suffering as if it does not exist.
Yet, she has been seen proudly posing in the occupied Palestinian territories with plumes of smoke rising from an Israeli bombing on the Gaza Strip in the background.
On her website, Kurtz openly flaunts these images and reveals that she was on a “media mission” to the occupied territories, where she met with Israeli officials, implying direct ties to the regime’s vast propaganda apparatus.
She has organized events where she trained Zionist settlers and other lobbyists to operate according to a specific six-point plan she obtained during these visits.
Her social media rhetoric is saturated with Israeli disinformation, fact distortion, manipulative techniques, and the dehumanization and demonization of Palestinians. Yet she has never faced legal consequences for her actions.
Among the countless examples, she has claimed that Palestinians “know only terror,” suggested that there are no innocent Palestinians even in images of thousands of gathered Gazans, and mocked Palestinian children suffering from hunger and freezing temperatures – calling their parents “genocidal” and “obese,” among other remarks.
Following the ceasefire, she declared, “Gaza is still standing. The world has never witnessed such restraint” – a statement completely at odds with UN reports documenting destruction of civilian infrastructure on an unprecedented scale.
Regarding Jewish anti-Zionist protesters outside the Canadian Parliament, she claimed they “love Gaza too much,” using quotation marks to suggest they were fake Jews, and added that she would personally fund their deportation to Gaza.
Kurtz aggressively cultivates a victimhood narrative, frequently emphasizing that she is a short, weak woman, allegedly the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, and an independent actor. She presents herself as the ultimate symbol of the “victim” while branding critics and dissenters as “threateners.”
As Engler highlights, her image-building and propaganda efforts are bolstered by certain Canadian media outlets and politicians who seek to persuade the public that Canadian Jews are the real victims, with Kurtz positioned as a heroic figure pushing back against Canada’s so-called Jew-hate problem.
She also receives direct legal support from the Montreal-based law firm Spiegel Sohmer, particularly from litigation lawyer Neil Oberman, who is involved in Engler’s case.
Despite her claims of acting independently and financing her efforts on her own, all evidence suggests that she is merely the visible face of a well-organized Zionist network.
Neil Oberman (right) gives a political speech
Who is Neil Oberman?
Neil G. Oberman is not just a randomly selected lawyer to sue Engler. He is a key figure in the Zionist network, with deep ties to the Israeli regime and its lobby groups in Canada.
A Canadian Jewish Zionist like Kurtz, Oberman is a founding member of the Quebec Jewish Legal Alliance (QJLA), an organization that has recently made headlines for its desperate attempts to suppress local pro-Palestinian protests.
The QJLA works closely with Federation CJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), and other Zionist advocacy groups, engaging in numerous pro-Israeli initiatives and programs.
Oberman has personally delivered pro-Israeli lectures, instructing audiences on strategic positioning, activism tactics, and the politicians and universities to target.
He is also a board member of Technion Canada, the Canadian branch of the Haifa-based university long criticized by international Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) activists for its collaboration with the Israeli military and leading arms manufacturers.
Since last year, Oberman has been the Conservative Party of Canada’s candidate for the Mount Royal riding in the upcoming federal election.
His campaign is backed by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Hampstead Mayor Jeremy Levi, two of Canada’s most fervent Zionists, who reportedly helped raise $200,000 for his campaign late last year.
Engler notes that he is merely Oberman’s latest target, as the lawyer has already launched a series of lawsuits in recent months against various institutions and individuals who oppose Israel’s genocidal policies against Palestinians in the occupied territories.
Oberman’s legal targets
Among his first individual targets in late 2023 was journalist Max Blumenthal, whom he threatened with a frivolous lawsuit on behalf of Lauren Wise – a Zionist author who notoriously wished for a woman to be “raped and dragged in the streets in front of her kids” for flying a Palestinian flag.
In the first six months of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Oberman and the QJLA actively worked to suppress pro-Palestinian protests in Montreal, sending legal threats to Mayor Valérie Plante and denouncing her for allowing what he called “hate festivals.”
He also attempted to dismantle a pro-Palestinian encampment at McGill University through various legal maneuvers, but a Quebec Superior Court judge rejected an injunction request filed by two Zionist students represented by Oberman.
However, he did secure an injunction banning protests at a Jewish community building and synagogue and later expanded the ruling to include two dozen institutions for six months.
Oberman also issued legal warnings to Concordia University regarding pro-Palestinian rallies, but after being rebuffed, he lashed out at the institution, declaring: “You don’t know Neil Oberman, you don’t know the Alliance [QJLA], and you don’t know what’s coming next. This is a war!”
Frustrated by his failure to impose a 100-meter protest ban around 154 university buildings, he and other Zionists went so far as to accuse Iran of orchestrating the demonstrations at a Canadian university.
In November 2024, he collaborated with pro-Israeli pressure groups to block a visit by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese at McGill Law School. Despite their efforts, she delivered a speech commending pro-Palestinian students.
On this occasion, Oberman openly acknowledged his cooperation with several Zionist organizations, including the Jewish Law Students Association (JLSA), Israel on Campus, Students Supporting Israel (SSI), and UN Watch.
Neil Oberman (right), UN Watch’s head Hillel Neuer (center) and Hamstead Mayor Jeremy Levi (left) campaigning against Francesca Albanese’s speech at McGill University
Engler confronts Oberman
Engler personally confronted Oberman in order to question him about Israeli genocidal crimes against Palestinians in Gaza – a moment he documented on the X platform.
Oberman initially tried to evade the exchange by falsely claiming that Engler was addressing the “wrong person.” However, when Engler pressed him about the 15,000 Palestinian children killed by the Canada-backed regime, Oberman snapped aggressively, ordering him to back off and threatening to sue.
According to Engler’s lawyer, John Philpot, Oberman played a crucial role in Engler’s five-day detention. Kurtz’s original complaint from last summer had been dismissed by police, and charges were only pursued after Oberman intervened.
Philpot noted that in a minor case like Engler’s, the standard police response would typically be to instruct the accused to avoid contacting the complainant.
However, the authorities imposed additional conditions on Engler, including an unusual demand that he refrain from revealing the identity of those suing him.
The latest victim of false accusations from Kurtz and Oberman is Canadian Senator Yuen Pau Woo, known for his vocal criticism of the Tel Aviv regime and advocacy for Palestinian rights.
As in Engler’s case – where Woo had publicly expressed support during his detention – Kurtz now alleges that Woo “incited hate, aggression, and violence” against her through a series of X posts.
The Zionist modus operandi
The duo’s actions, legal maneuvers, and overall conduct illustrate the broader strategy used by the Zionist network to suppress pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist voices.
In an April 2023 lecture to pro-Israeli agents, Oberman urged them to rethink their approach to advocacy, warning: “If you act like sheep, you’re going to get treated like a sheep. If you don’t want to be a sheep, be a wolf. Stand up and be heard. You have to be heard, and to be heard, you have to take action.”
Oberman exemplified this doctrine when confronted by Engler about the mass murder of Palestinian children, refusing to address the issue and instead resorting to intimidation and legal threats.
Kurtz follows a similar pattern. Despite being publicly called out hundreds of times for glorifying Israeli crimes, she consistently ignores the criticism, sticking to her narrative.
Justifying the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians is both demanding and time-consuming. Instead, Zionist advocates and their allies in Western media often opt to ignore these atrocities altogether, pretending they do not exist.
When a dissenter gains too much visibility and disrupts their propaganda efforts, they shift tactics –playing the victim, issuing veiled threats, and ultimately resorting to baseless legal action.
Both Kurtz, online, and Oberman, in person, portrayed themselves as victims – falsely implying that Engler had privately threatened them, when in reality, they were the ones harassing him.
The charges they file have no real legal merit and serve purely as intimidation tactics. However, they still drain their targets’ time, resources, and mental energy.
These lawsuits are also leveraged in parallel smear campaigns, with media headlines falsely implying that Engler was arrested for harassment.
For activists, filing counter-charges for false accusations, a lesser offense legally, requires hiring a lawyer and securing financial resources. Meanwhile, well-funded Zionist legal groups face no such obstacles.
The attempt to condition Engler’s release on refraining from criticizing Zionist activists or discussing the lawsuit, according to observers, is a clear indication that the Zionist network in Canada has a premeditated strategy to silence other pro-Palestinian activists in the same manner.
Tulsi Gabbard questions if Ukraine is ‘aligned’ with US values
RT | March 3, 2025
Ukraine and many of its European backers may not be aligned with the US values of freedom, peace, and democracy shared by President Donald Trump, according to Washington’s director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.
In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Gabbard was asked about last week’s heated exchange at the White House involving Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and Trump and his vice president, J.D. Vance. The tense meeting ended with Zelensky abruptly leaving the White House after being accused by Trump of ingratitude, “gambling with World War III,” and refusing to seek peace with Russia.
The incident has sparked a backlash from Trump’s critics, including several EU leaders, who have accused him of “bullying” Zelensky. However, according to Gabbard, anyone who has criticized Trump over his interaction with the Ukrainian leader is merely showing that they are “not committed to peace.”
“Many of these European countries, and Zelensky himself, who claim to be standing and fighting for the cause of freedom and democracy” are actually acting contrary to these values, Gabbard stated.
“When we actually look at what’s happening in reality in these countries, as well as with Zelensky’s government in Ukraine, it is the exact opposite,” she added. Gabbard pointed to the lack of elections in Ukraine, Kiev’s criminalization of opposition parties, the shutting down of Orthodox churches, and the complete government control over media outlets.
“It begs the question. It’s clear they’re standing against [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. But what are they actually really fighting for, and are they aligned with the values that they claim to hold in agreement with [the US], which are the values of freedom, peace and true security,” Gabbard said.
The DNI chief further criticized Washington’s EU partners, recalling Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, where he accused European countries of implementing policies that “undermine democracy” and show that they “don’t actually believe in the voices of the people.”
“We’re seeing this in the United Kingdom, we’re seeing this in Germany, we saw it with the tossing out of the elections in Romania,” Gabbard said, suggesting that this shows a “huge divergence” between US values and those of the European nations that have backed Zelensky.
Russia has also suggested that last week’s clash between Zelensky and Trump once again proved that Kiev is not genuinely interested in peace. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has stressed that the Ukrainian leader’s behavior in the Oval Office “demonstrated how difficult it will be to get on the path of a settlement around Ukraine.”
Featured Video
US Marines Seized Panama in 1903
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Precedents for Pizzagate
Marc Dutroux, Belgian pedophile, sadist, and serial killer with friends in high places
By Aedon Cassiel | Counter – Currents | December 23, 2016
To reiterate a point that should be clear to the more astute reader, my goal in this series (part 1, part 2) has not been to defend “Pizzagate” as such. My goal has been to defend the people who want to investigate it against specific accusations levied against them by people who think Pizzagate has revealed no intriguing information at all—for a specific reason, which I will be honing in and focusing on much more directly in this closing entry.
Whereas the mainstream critics of Pizzagate would have you believe that the dividing line is between paranoid conspiracy theorist followers of “fake news” and level-headed people who follow trustworthy news sources and rely on cold, hard reason to determine the truth, my goal has been to show that—whatever is or is not happening with Pizzagate itself—this framing of the issue is arrogant, insulting, and the product of extremely narrow tunnel vision. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Israeli firms transform cars into intelligence devices: Reports
- Zionist-controlled companies to surveil British citizens
- THE CHILDREN GAMBIT
- A note on comment posting at Alethonews
- Trump stalls over Iran strike plan, Iran holds all the aces
- Zelensky’s Ceasefire for Elections is Strategic Gambit, Not Democratic Move
- US and Dutch pilots flying F-16s for Ukraine – Western media
- West’s Claims of Non-Involvement in Ukraine Conflict ‘Epitome of Hypocrisy’ – Expert
- Putin aide urges retaliation to ‘Western piracy’
- The Depth Charge in the Womb
- If Americans Knew
- Israel ceased firing on Gaza for just 15 days of the “ceasefire” – Not a ceasefire Day 130
- In Gaza, “rats run over our faces” – Not a ceasefire Day 129
- Israel-backed border guards, GHF-linked aid – Not a ceasefire Day 128
- Israel battles Palestinian right of return, one Palestinian at a time – Not a ceasefire Day 127
- Noor’s short life of unimaginable suffering
- Israel Destroyed Gaza’s Hospitals. Now It’s Banning Doctors Without Borders.
- Is Spite of What Zionists Say, It’s a Good Thing to Criticize Governments
- Palestinian mother, daughter recount strip searches, harsh conditions in Israeli detention
- Israel used weapons in Gaza that made thousands of Palestinians evaporate
- ADL’s Stats Twist Israel’s Critics Into Antisemites
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: A 4°C Warmer Beaufort Sea Had ‘No Sea Ice’ 11,700 – 8200 Years Ago
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
Aletho News 
