Fact checking the Radio New Zealand fact check
COVID Plan B | November 17, 2021
Radio New Zealand has recently criticized a Facebook live conversation between former National MP Matt King and epidemiologist Dr Simon Thornley. While people should undertake their own research, we provide some comments related to the media’s critique. The evidence related to covid-19 policy continues to change and be updated.
In the interview, Professor Rod Jackson made several claims, decrying Thornley personally during the interview. Let’s examine them in turn.
- “There is no trial evidence that ivermectin [an anti-parasitic drug used as early treatment for covid-19 in some parts of the world] works in people with Covid – it doesn’t exist.”
Trials do exist. In fact a meta-analysis or summary study of six such trials exist. The pooled effect of these trials is a 79% decline in all-cause mortality (95% confidence interval: 89% to 58%). These trials are from Iraq, Iran, Bangladesh, Egypt, Turkey and India, places less reticent about its use. But they are trials, and the reduction in all-cause mortality is stark, an endpoint which is generally considered clinically important and free of error and bias. Another trial points to effective treatment, such as from vitamin D supplementation, which reduced intensive care admissions to 1/50 (2%) in the treated from 13/26 (50%) in the untreated in Spanish covid-19 patients.
We’re not advocating ivermectin at all. But we are prepared to look at the evidence. The fact that Jackson didn’t know there were trials invalidates his point.
- “Professor Jackson also said claiming Covid-19 was no worse than the flu was nonsense”.
In the interview, Thornley claimed the infection fatality rate of covid-19 was as bad as a ‘severe flu’. A summary study of many countries indicates that the average global infection fatality rate of covid-19 is 0.15% or 1/667 people.
The fatality rate for H1N1 influenza is variable, but this figure from covid-19 is well within the range of estimates presented from a similar summary study.
The comparison between covid-19 and flu is therefore fair and accurate. Jackson’s claim is misinformation.
We should note that many fatality studies take the definition of a covid-19 death at face value but it does not mean the individual died exclusively from the virus. This was exemplified by the counting a recent covid-19 death in a man who was actually shot and killed, yet tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the autopsy. This was defended by the Ministry of Health, as it conformed with World Health Organization policy.
We are able to test the accuracy of Jackson’s claimed fatality risk. In May 2020, Jackson admonished Sweden for its lax approach. He said the fatality rate of covid-19 was 1/100 people infected, so predicted 56,000 deaths from covid-19 in the country, assuming 60% of the population would be infected. To date, there have been about 15,000 covid-19 deaths, with an age distribution similar to that of background deaths (figure). In fact, by all accounts, Sweden has fared through the epidemic particularly well compared to other European countries.
Figure. Deaths with covid-19 in Sweden, by age at November 3, 2021. Source: statistica.com
- “This is a severe disease and we have a evidence-based treatment [the vaccine] where there is definitive evidence that it reduces the risk of severe disease and death by 95 percent, in that order.”
This is an extraordinary claim for several reasons. First, the original Pfizer trial reported about the same number of overall deaths in the treated and the untreated groups (14 in the treated and 13 in the untreated). In the six-month trial results, only three covid-19 deaths occurred, one in the treated and two in the untreated group. This is not consistent with Jackson’s assertion of a 95% reduction in risk of severe disease and death.
Given the numbers of deaths in the original trial, it is possible to work out whether the trial would have picked up a 95% reduction as Jackson claims. The trial would have been expected to have only one death in the treated group, and would have detected a difference more than expected by chance with 96% certainty.
There is observational evidence from Sweden of reduced covid-19 hospitalisations and deaths (not from all-causes), however, the vaccine effect diminished to zero for all three outcomes eight months after the date that the vaccine was administered.
To compound the confusion about the effect of the vaccine, the original Pfizer trial now is marred by whistle-blowers who have given the British Medical Journal evidence of fraud occurring during its conduct. Sixteen Swedish doctors have now called for the injection to be suspended as a result of these revelations.
Both Jackson and RNZ use extensive use of ad hominem attacks, which are considered an invalid, and lowest, form of argument.
Examples include:
- “anti-vax”
- “discredited academic”
- “And we have someone who is questioning that evidence, who doesn’t know what they’re talking about, talking to an epidemiologist who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
- “outlier in his field”.
The purveyors and writers of such ‘argument’ appear to have no embarrassment at the anti-intellectualism and inhumanity of their conduct.
We’ll stick to the contest of ideas by again considering Jackson’s accuracy. Back in August 2020, Jackson and his colleagues claimed that elimination was still the best strategy for New Zealand to tackle covid-19. That article has not dated well, yet the personalised tirade and arguments are familiar.
“He [Thornley] is the only dissenter in the epidemiological community,”
“It’s not like this is a discussion like a boxing match with two equal partners. What you’ve got is every experienced epidemiologist in the country supporting the Government’s elimination approach.”
“We are all advising the Government, and we speak with one voice. And you have got a junior epidemiologist who is presenting a different case.”
Jackson has made increasingly inaccurate claims during the pandemic, claiming, unchallenged that one in five infected people will be hospitalised after infection with covid-19. No media have ever fact checked this.
New Zealand’s own government data shows Jackson overestimated by at least a factor of ten, since the proportion of cases (rather than infections) hospitalised is 2% (table).
Table. Counts of cases of covid-19 in New Zealand (16 November 2021).
| Count | % | |
| Self-isolation | 2058 | 56% |
| Isolation Complete | 969 | 26% |
| Managed Isolation | 396 | 11% |
| Hospital | 73 | 2% |
| Other | 198 | 5% |
As sailing great Russell Coutts has recently pointed out, it is questionable how “media entities can maintain objectivity when they have accepted a government grant that is conditional on them promoting certain government policies”.
It is prudent to check all sources of information, not only those who dare to question the what is coming from the Beehive.
BBC Believes a Conspiracy Drives Climate Conspiracy Theories
By Eric Worrall | Watts Up With That? | November 16, 2021
Shadows everywhere: The possibility that people might want to reject climate lockdowns and Covid lockdowns of their own volition does not seem to occur to BBC conspiracy theorists.
Covid denial to climate denial: How conspiracists are shifting focus
By Marianna Spring
Specialist disinformation reporter, BBC NewsMembers of an online movement infected with pandemic conspiracies are shifting their focus – and are increasingly peddling falsehoods about climate change.
Matthew is convinced that shadowy forces lie behind two of the biggest news stories of our time, and that he’s not being told the truth.
“This whole campaign of fear and propaganda is an attempt to try and drive some agenda,” he says. “It doesn’t matter whether it’s climate change or a virus or something else.” […]
And recently, groups like the ones he’s a part of have been sharing misleading claims not only about Covid, but about climate change. He sees “Covid and climate propaganda” as part of the same so-called plot.
The White Rose network
It’s part of a larger pattern. Anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine Telegram groups, which once focused exclusively on the pandemic, are now injecting the climate change debate with the same conspiratorial narratives they use to explain the pandemic.
The posts go far beyond political criticism and debate – they’re full of incorrect information, fake stories and pseudoscience.
According to researchers at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), a think tank that researches global disinformation trends, some anti-lockdown groups have become polluted by misleading posts about climate change being overplayed, or even a so-called “hoax” designed to control people.
“Increasingly, terminology around Covid-19 measures is being used to stoke fear and mobilise against climate action,” says the ISD’s Jennie King.
She says this isn’t really about climate as a policy issue.
“It’s the fact that these are really neat vectors to get themes like power, personal freedom, agency, citizen against state, loss of traditional lifestyles – to get all of those ideas to a much broader audience.”
One group which has adopted such ideas is the White Rose – a network with locally-run subgroups around the world, from the UK to the US, Germany and New Zealand – where Matthew came across it.
“It’s not run by any one or two people,” Matthew explains. “It’s kind of a decentralised community organisation, so you obtain stickers and then post them on lampposts and things like that.” […]
While we chat, he mentions “The Great Reset” – an unfounded conspiracy theory that a global elite is using the pandemic to establish a shadowy New World Order, a “super-government” that will control the lives of citizens around the world. … Full article: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-59255165
The Great Reset is a public programme promoted by the World Economic Forum. The annual “Great Reset” WEF Davos event costs more than $50,000. According to Wikipedia, in 2011 an annual membership cost $52,000 for an individual member, $263,000 for “Industry Partner” and $527,000 for “Strategic Partner”. An admission fee cost $19,000 per person. In 2014, WEF raised annual fees by 20 percent, bringing the cost for “Strategic Partner” from CHF 500,000 ($523,000) to CHF 600,000 ($628,000)
A simple google search turns up the WEF page near the top of the list of searches. The page cites Covid and climate change as justifications for their programme.
In my opinion there is room to debate the true nature of the Great Reset programme, but calling it “unfounded”, as in non-existent, is at best plain ignorant, and well below the BBC journalistic standards we once thought we had a right to expect.
As for the White Rose network, never heard of it. I have no doubt White Rose and many similar groups exist, in our unsettled world there are plenty of concerned people seeking out like minded fellows. But some groups are run by people with their own agenda, who are not acting in their member’s best interests, and any significant group will be heavily monitored by the government, so I strongly urge caution for anyone who participates in large private social media groups.
In Britain there is a “malicious communication act”, which makes it an offence to distribute written material which causes offence or anxiety, which has been used to arrest people campaigning against British government Covid policy. I am not a lawyer, but in my opinion it is only a matter of time before this act is used against people who oppose other high priority government policies in Britain. Be careful what electronic footprints you leave, your words could be misinterpreted. Above all, stay within the law, wherever you live.
Australian War Propaganda Keeps Getting Crazier
By Caitlin Johnstone | November 15, 2021
60 Minutes Australia has churned out yet another fearmongering war propaganda piece on China, this one so ham-fisted in its call to beef up military spending that it goes so far as to run a brazen advertisement for an actual Australian weapons manufacturer disguised as news reporting.
This round of psychological conformity-making features Australian former major general Jim “The Butcher of Fallujah” Molan saying that in three to ten years a war will be fought against China over Taiwan and that Australians are going to have to fight in that war to prevent a future Chinese invasion of the land down under. He argues Australia will need to greatly increase its military spending in order to accomplish this, because it can’t be certain the United States will protect it from Chinese aggression.
“Australia is monstrously vulnerable at the moment; we have this naive faith that American military power is infinite, and it’s not,” says Molan, who is a contributor to government/arms industry-funded think tanks Lowy Institute and Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
Decrying what he calls “panda huggers” (meaning people who aren’t China hawks), Molan claims that “the Chinese Communist Party’s aim is to be dominant in this region and perhaps dominant in the world.” Asked when war might break out, he claims “Given the power that they have in their military they could act any time from now on, and that’s what frightens me more than anything.”
“The next war is not going to be ten or twenty years away, it’s going to be in the next three to ten years,” Molan asserts. “My estimate is that in a serious fight the Australian Defense Force only has enough missiles for days. This is not going to be resolved in days. And of course we’re not big enough. We should expand the defense force significantly… We should fund defense now based on our assessment of the national security strategy which is based on the war that we want to win.”
“In short do you think Australia needs to prepare for war tomorrow?” the interviewer asks Molan.
“Absolutely,” he replies.
Molan makes the ridiculous argument that if Australia does not to commit to defending Taiwan from the mainland then it won’t be long before they can expect a Chinese invasion at home, as though there’s any line that could be drawn between the resolution to a decades-old Chinese civil war and China deciding to invade a random continent full of white foreigners thousands of miles away.
“Suppose we said okay Taiwan you’re on your own up there and the Chinese snapped it up, and the Chinese started looking around the world and they might snap up other liberal democracies like Australia,” Molan argues. “And we might then turn to America and say America well could you give us a bit of a hand here? And the Americans might say what we said to Taiwan. Where do you draw the line? This situation that is developing now is an existential threat to Australia as a liberal democracy.”
Incredibly, the 60 Minutes segment then plunges into several minutes of blatant advertising for Australian defense technology company Defendtex which manufactures weaponized drones designed to be used in clusters, saying such systems could handily be used to defeat China militarily in a cost-effective manner.
The segment also promotes bare-faced lies which have become commonplace in anti-China propaganda, repeating the false claim that Chinese fighter planes have been “breaching Taiwanese airspace” and repeating a mistranslation of comments by Xi Jinping which it used in a previous anti-China segment made to sound more aggressive than they actually were.
This segment follows a cartoonishly hysterical fear porn piece on China put out by the same program this past September which featured Australian Strategic Policy Institute ghouls insisting that Australians must be prepared to fight and die in defense of Taiwan and that a Chinese invasion of Australia is a very real threat. That 60 Minutes segment was preceded by an equally crazy one in May which branded New Zealand “New Xi-Land” for refusing to perfectly align with US dictates on one small foreign policy issue.
To be perfectly clear, there is no evidence of any kind that China will ever have any interest in an unprovoked attack on Australia, much less an invasion, and attempts to tie that imaginary nonsense threat to Beijing’s interest in an island right off its coast which calls itself the Republic of China are absurd.
As we’ve discussed previously, anyone who’d support entering into a war against China over Taiwan is a crazy idiot. In the unfortunate event that tensions between Beijing and Taipei cannot be resolved peacefully in the future there is no justification whatsoever for the US and its allies to enter into a world war between nuclear powers to determine who governs Taiwan. The cost-to-benefit ratio in a conflict which would easily kill tens of millions and could lead to the deaths of billions if it goes nuclear makes such a war very, very, very far from being worth entering into, especially since there’s no actual evidence that Beijing has any interest in attacking nations it doesn’t see as Chinese territory.
There’s so much propaganda going toward generating China hysteria in westerners generally and Australians in particular, and it’s been depressingly successful toward that end. Watching these mass-scale psyops take control of people’s minds one after another has been like watching a zombie outbreak in real time; people’s critical thinking faculties just fall out their ears and then all of a sudden they’re all about cranking up military spending and sending other people’s kids off to die defending US interests in some island.
Please don’t become a zombie. Keep your brain. Stay conscious.
Ukraine gives its view on alleged Russian military buildup near border
By Jonny Tickle | RT | November 16, 2021
Ukraine’s State Border Service has rejected claims that Russia’s military is gathering near the two countries’ shared border, after NATO’s Secretary-General said there was a “large and unusual” build-up of forces at the frontier.
Speaking to the Ukraine-24 TV channel on Monday, border service spokesman Andrey Demchenko revealed that Kiev does not have reason to believe Russian troops are accumulating nearby.
“We do not register any movement of equipment or military of our neighbouring country near the border,” he explained. “If any actions are taking place, it may be dozens or even hundreds of kilometres from the state border.”
Demchenko’s comments directly contradict a claim from NATO head Jens Stoltenberg, made earlier that day. “We see an unusual concentration of troops, and we know that Russia has been willing to use these types of military capabilities before to conduct aggressive actions against Ukraine,” Stoltenberg said.
Last week, American business outlet Bloomberg reported that US officials warned their European counterparts that Moscow may be planning an invasion of Ukraine, noting that their concerns were backed by “publicly available evidence.”
The suggestion of an invasion was quickly slammed by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov groundless.
“This is not the first publication and not the first statement by the US that they are concerned about the movement of our armed forces in Russia,” he said. “We have repeatedly said that the movement of our armed forces on our own territory should be of no concern to anyone. Russia poses no threat to anyone.”
ANOTHER BOGUS RUSSIAN WAR SCARE
By Paul Robinson | IRRUSIANALITY | November 12, 2021
I have had a couple more pieces published in RT in the last two days. One concerns the probably temporary closure of the Kyiv Post and why it seems to have provoked immense outrage whereas the previous shutting down of Russian-language Ukrainian media outlets did not. The other responds to a letter of resignation sent by Russian liberal journalist Konstantin [von] Eggert [MBE] to the Chatham House think tank in protest the institute’s decision to give an award to a BLM activist. I use this an opportunity to delve into different Russian and Western conceptions of rights and freedoms. You can read these here and here.
For this post, though, I intend to tackle another topic, which follows on naturally from my last one. In that, I mocked the idea being floated around in some circles that Russia was behind the Belarus-EU migrant crisis and somehow using it as a provocation for further aggressive action, including maybe a military assault on the ‘Suwalki Gap’.
As we now know from Bloomberg, this theory is nonsense: Russia has no intention of invading Poland, it’s planning to invade Ukraine instead. Or so say ‘American officials’, and as we all know you can trust their judgement 100%.
According to Bloomberg:
“The U.S. is raising the alarm with European Union allies that Russia may be weighing a potential invasion of Ukraine as tensions flare between Moscow and the bloc over migrants and energy supplies.
With Washington closely monitoring a buildup of Russian forces near the Ukrainian border, U.S. officials have briefed EU counterparts on their concerns over a possible military operation, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.
… The assessments are believed to be based on information the U.S. hasn’t yet shared with European governments, which would have to happen before any decision is made on a collective response, the people said. They’re backed up by publicly-available evidence, according to officials familiar with the administration’s thinking.
… Russia has orchestrated the migrant crisis between Belarus and Poland and the Baltic states — Lithuania and Latvia share a border with Belarus — to try to destabilize the region, two U.S. administration officials said. U.S. concerns about Russian intentions are based on accumulated evidence and trends that carry echoes of the run-up to Putin’s 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, another administration official said.
… Some analysts argue that Putin may believe now is the time to halt Ukraine’s closer embrace with the West before it progresses any further.
“What seems to have changed is Russia’s assessment of where things are going,” said Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation. “They seem to have concluded that unless they do something, the trend lines are heading to Russia losing Ukraine.”
According to defense-intelligence firm Janes, the recent Russian deployment has been covert, often taking place at night and carried out by elite ground units, in contrast to the fairly open buildup in the spring.
Let’s take a look at all this. We have some statements from three anonymous officials, based on “publicly available information” (none of which I have seen that points to an imminent invasion) and some sort of secret information that the US hasn’t shared with anybody and so can’t be assessed. Now call me a sceptic, but unverifiable information from anonymous sources doesn’t sound like something very solid to me.
Beyond that, if the final lines from Janes are correct, we have a deployment of “elite ground units,” but you can’t invade a foreign country just using “elite” units, let alone a country the size of Ukraine. You’d need a massive build-up of a very considerable volume of rank-and-file line units. So, the actual evidence presented doesn’t fit the scenario portrayed.
As for Mr Charap’s statement that “They seem to have concluded that unless they do something, the trend lines are heading to Russia losing Ukraine,” I have yet to see any indication of this. Quite the contrary. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev’s recent comment that Russia should do “nothing” about Ukraine and simply wait until the Ukrainians come to their senses, points to an entirely different conclusion. We are “patient,” said Medvedev, who is Deputy Chairman of the Security Council, and so one imagines, well versed in what is in people’s minds at the highest level. His comments hardly suggest that senior officials are thinking that radical action is urgently required.
The fact that American “officials” are briefing the press that war is possible, and that analysts from the RAND Corporation are backing them up, speaks to an awful lack of understanding of things Russian in the United States. The fact that Bloomberg then repeats these claims without serious challenge points also to a disturbing lack of critical thinking on behalf of the American press (no surprise there!), as well as reinforcing what academic studies of the media have long since noted – its worrisome dependence on official sources.
The only part of the Bloomberg article that gives readers a real sense of what’s going on comes in the following lines, which say:
Russia doesn’t intend to start a war with Ukraine now, though Moscow should show it’s ready to use force if necessary, one person close to the Kremlin said. An offensive is unlikely as Russian troops would face public resistance in Kyiv and other cities, but there is a plan to respond to provocations from Ukraine, another official said.
This strikes me as accurate. There is absolutely no reason for Russia to start a war with Ukraine. It would be enormously costly and bring no obvious benefits. Besides which, war needs careful advance preparation of public opinion. There have been absolutely no indications of the Kremlin doing anything of the sort. That said, as I have noted before, I have little doubt that if Ukraine launched a major attack on the rebel regions of Donbass, and if large numbers of civilians were killed as a result (as would be most likely), Russia would respond. And its response would likely be very tough, much tougher than it was in August 2014 when it very briefly sent a limited number of forces into Donbass to defeat the Ukrainians at Ilovaisk. If there is a Russian invasion of Ukraine, it’s likely to be large-scale, to settle the issue once and for all.
All this talk of war is therefore rather dangerous. It helps to ramp up tensions on Russia’s borders, and also serves to justify a build-up by NATO forces in the region. That in turn may send the wrong messages to Ukraine and encourage it to act rashly. Fortunately, I don’t think that things will go that far, but I do think that “American officials” and the press are playing with fire. They would be well advised to stop. Unfortunately, one gets the impression that their lack of knowledge and understanding makes that impossible. Sad times indeed.
Russia denies US media reports that it plans to invade Ukraine
By Jonny Tickle | RT | November 12, 2021
The Kremlin has strongly denied suggestions that Russia is planning to invade Ukraine, after reports emerged that officials from the US had warned their counterparts in Europe that Moscow is considering a “military operation.”
Speaking to the press on Friday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov slammed the suggestion as groundless.
“This is not the first publication and not the first statement by the US that they are concerned about the movement of our armed forces in Russia,” he said. “We have repeatedly said that the movement of our armed forces on our own territory should be of no concern to anyone. Russia poses no threat to anyone.”
Reports that Washington fears Russian aggression against Ukraine were first published by business outlet Bloomberg on Thursday. Citing unnamed sources, the news agency reported that US officials had briefed their partners in the EU over a “potential invasion,” noting that their concerns were backed by “publicly available evidence.”
“Such headlines are nothing but empty, unfounded tension build-up. Russia poses no threat to anyone,” Peskov reiterated.
The suggestion was earlier refuted by Dmitry Polyanskiy, Russia’s first deputy ambassador to the UN, who wholly denied any plan to attack its neighbor.
“We have never planned [an invasion] and never will, unless we are provoked by Ukraine or someone else, and it is a matter of defending our national sovereignty,” he said.
Russian MP Viktor Vodolatsky also commented on the accusation, suggesting that the article is more indicative of NATO’s plan to create conflict in Ukraine.
“This is all done with only one goal: to get Ukraine involved in a war, realizing that Russia will not turn a blind eye to it,” he said. Vodolatsky is the first deputy head of the parliamentary committee on CIS Affairs, Eurasian Integration, and Relations with Compatriots.
A “Deadly Attack” on the Capitol?
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | November 10, 2021
Yesterday, I was listening to a classical-music station when NPR came on with the news. Addressing the controversy surrounding former President Trump’s efforts to keep secret his records relating to the January 6 protests at the Capitol, the NPR reporter referred to the “deadly attack” on the Capitol.
I immediately thought to myself, “Well, that’s certainly an interesting use of language.”
When I hear the word “attack,” I think of weapons, specifically guns, grenades, or missiles that are intended to kill people. For example, when the Pentagon fired a missile at that family in Afghanistan shortly before exiting its 20-year war in that country, I would term that an “attack” — and a “deadly attack” at that, especially given that many innocent people, including children, were killed by that missile.
One of the fascinating aspects of the “attack” on the Capitol is that the “attackers” didn’t have guns. In fact, as far as I know, they didn’t even have any swords. To me, that’s one unusual “attack.” In fact, I’ll bet that there haven’t been many other “attacks” in history in which the “attackers” failed to use weapons to commit their “attack.”
What about words? Yeah, the Capitol “attackers” certainly employed a lot of words during the course of their “attack.” Maybe that is what NPR means when it describes what happened as an “attack” — that the “attackers” were engaged in a “word attack” on the Capitol. Imagine how frightening that “attack” must have been — with “attackers” hitting one victim with some particular word — maybe “Tyrant!” — followed by some other word, perhaps “Thief!”
Now, I think you would agree with me that that would be one scary “attack”!
In fact, it was so scary that one Capitol police officer shot and killed one of the “attackers” because he was so afraid that the “attackers” were coming to get him. He wasn’t the only one who was afraid. Many members of Congress were equally terrified of the Word-Attackers.
Hey, don’t judge these people too harshly. You don’t know how you would react if a bunch of Word-Attackers were coming after you and flinging and hurling nasty words at you.
Another interesting aspect of the NPR news broadcast was the reporter’s reference to the “deadly” attack on the Capitol. Now, when I hear that someone has engaged in a “deadly” attack, I immediately think that the attackers have killed people in the course of their attack.
Yet, here, the “attackers” didn’t kill anyone. Instead, the only person killed was one of the “attackers.” Her name was Ashli Babbitt. She was shot dead by that Capitol policeman who was terrified that Babbitt and the “attackers” were coming to get him and members of Congress. It’s still not clear why he didn’t fire a warning shot over her head. If he had done that, she undoubtedly would have backed off, especially since she was unarmed, well, except for words in her vocabulary.
For a while, the news media was reporting that Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick was beaten to death by the “attackers.” For example, the New York Times reported that he “was overpowered and beaten by rioters from the mob at the Capitol.”
Could that be what NPR is referring to when it cites the “deadly” attack on the Capitol?
I don’t think so because as things turned out, what the Times reported about Sicknick turned out to be incorrect. An autopsy revealed that Sicknick died of natural causes, to wit: strokes.
The New York Times also reported that a woman named Rosanne Boyland, who was one of the “attackers,” “appears to have been killed in a crush of fellow rioters during their attempt to fight through a police line.”
Alas, what appeared to be true wasn’t. An autopsy revealed that she died of a drug overdose, not trampling.
Two other “attackers” — Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Phillips — died of a heart attack and a stroke.
Thus, five people died during the “deadly attack.” One “attacker “was killed by a terrified Capitol police officer. One Capitol police officer and two of the “attackers” died of natural causes. Another “attacker” died of a drug overdose.
Given the nature of those deaths, is it really proper to refer to the “deadly” attack on the Capitol? Doesn’t the use of the term “deadly” imply that the attackers deliberately shot or killed people as part of their “attack”?
Maybe NPR is saying that the words that the “attackers” were employing as weapons caused those people to have heart attacks, strokes, and drug overdoses. Maybe their words are what caused that police officer who killed Ashli Babbitt to become terrified.
Ironically, as far as I know, the Justice Department hasn’t charged any of the January 6 protestors with murder or even a massive conspiracy to initiate a “deadly attack” on the Capitol.What’s up with that? Those federal prosecutors need to start listening to NPR.
Attenborough and his climate cohorts are scaring the young into mental illness
By David Seedhouse | TCW Defending Freedom | November 10, 2021
THE BBC last week re-published yet another video article – Climate Change: The Facts – featuring David Attenborough. It shows scenes of calamity and collapse and has a single main message: ‘Act now or we are all doomed.’
Despite its title, there is no attempt whatsoever at a balanced analysis of ‘the facts’. The video includes a comment from the discredited Michael Mann, whose faulty algorithm created the famous ‘hockey stick‘ chart of supposed global warming that so exercised Al Gore and Greta Thunberg – who has no scientific credentials, or arguably any right at all to be included in a ‘fact-based’ video.
Towards the end of his presentation, Attenborough declares: ‘We now stand at a unique point in our planet’s history, one where we must all share responsibility both for our present wellbeing and for the future of life.’
Hyperbole, hubris, hysteria … but no humility. We have apparently become the gods of ancient Greece, able to control all aspects of life, including the planet.
It is unclear how we all have responsibility for ‘the future of life’, which managed very well before humans existed and, according to experts of Attenborough’s ilk, will inevitably change according to the laws of evolution in any case.
However, we surely do have responsibility towards each other, especially not to cause unwarranted alarm, and to support the mental health of our young people, which according to many reports is at a nadir.
One large survey found that nearly 60 per cent of young people approached said they felt very worried or extremely worried about the climate issue.
More than 45 per cent said such feelings affected their daily lives. Some 75 per cent thought the future was frightening, while 56 per cent think humanity is doomed.
Take a minute to digest this. The survey, led by Bath University in collaboration with five other universities, spanned ten countries. It amassed responses from 10,000 people aged between 16 and 25 and found that a staggering majority are so scared and depressed that they feel they have no future.
This devastating situation has not happened spontaneously. Nor is it a rational response to the actual evidence. Rather it is the result of years of uninhibited scaremongering by older people who prefer to be part of a lucrative alarmist club than set a decent example of balanced reasoning.
Most traditional societies revere and respect their elders, for their life experience and wisdom. And in return the elders quietly and calmly protect the young, beneficently pointing to the good things in life that may come.
This seemingly timeless human – and indeed animal – circle of life has come close to breaking with astonishing speed. Many of our prominent elders, who should be sage, measured and knowing, are behaving like reckless toddlers in a sandpit they think is all theirs.
They spent 2020 and much of 2021 locking young people away from their schools, their friends, and their elderly relatives, terrifying them with useless masks and distancing to ‘protect’ them from a virus that poses hardly any risk to them.
These thoughtless adults constantly say how much they care for the future of humanity but show, with every poorly-researched exaggeration, that they don’t give two hoots for the psychological wellbeing of the young who actually are the future.
Whether through guilt, ignorance, psychological bias or just the misplaced desire to show how powerful they are, such infantile elders display little awareness of the damage they are causing. And if they have even an inkling of how they are harming the young, they show no restraint.
Their imagined certainties do not exist. We do not know everything there is to know about viruses and we certainly do not know everything about the climate of a vast and complex planet. We cannot possibly say with any confidence what will happen to us, and we cannot control Nature. Nor should we try.
Young people do not need to be saved by anyone, not least these false prophets of doom. They need the wherewithal to live fulfilled lives – with knowledge, curiosity, social support, friendships, honesty and, above all, the modesty to accept human limitations, without self-righteous hectoring from older adults who have lived most of their own lives in circumstances where the future held promise rather than terror.
Those such as David Attenborough and the rest of the climate establishment presumably have the best of intentions. But their obsession with controlling the uncontrollable has completely blinded them to the awful damage their blinkered obsessiveness has caused our young.
They have abjectly failed to provide sensible information and an inquisitive, questioning environment. They should be setting an example of gentle wisdom, where problems are solved by open minds. Instead, they have caused a huge avoidable mental health crisis, and have barely noticed what they have done.
The first “climate change” diagnosis is here. It will not be the last.
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | November 9, 2021
Doctor Kyle Merritt, an attending physician at an emergency department in Nelson BC, added “climate change” as a contributing factor to the medical issues of one of his patients. And, in so doing, has achieved a remarkable and troubling world first.
The first-ever medical diagnosis of “climate change”.
Dr Merritt said in an interview with Glacier Media:
If we’re not looking at the underlying cause, and we’re just treating the symptoms, we’re just gonna keep falling further and further behind,” the emergency room doctor told Glacier Media. […] It’s me trying to just… process what I’m seeing.”
The entire situation raises some interesting questions.
DOES IT MAKE MEDICAL SENSE?
Of course it doesn’t.
He diagnosed her as “suffering from climate change”. You can’t do that, it is insane.
That’s like diagnosing someone who was struck by lightning as “suffering from the effects of rain” or a person having a heart attack as “suffering from the effects of Mcdonald’s”.
… actually, it’s worse than that. At least my examples have a distinct cause-and-effect relationship, and there are no scientific papers suggesting Mcdonald’s doesn’t actually exist.
The patient in question is over 70, asthmatic, diabetic and suffering from heart failure. She’s very, very sick… no matter the climate.
Even if Dr Merritt can somehow trace a decline in her health due to the weather (and there’s no evidence at all that he can), actually diagnosing it is completely bonkers.
… SO WHY DO IT?
It’s a staged PR move. A very obvious one, when you think about it.
For one thing, there’s the question of how the media ever found out it happened, since medical records and diagnoses are completely private.
Clearly Dr Merritt didn’t just diagnose his patient with “climate change”, he then immediately called up the local media to tell them he had done it.
Throw in the fact that this happened to occur during the COP26 conference in Glasgow, which only today warned of “climate-linked health risks” rising, and that the move has already spawned a new NGO, “Doctors and Nurses for Planetary Health”, and you have a textbook example of a stage-managed media rollout.
WHY NOW?
In simple terms, because Covid worked and climate didn’t.
They have been stoking up public fear of “a new ice age” and acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer and myriad other supposedly incipient climate disasters for literal decades, and never touched one-tenth of the level of hysteria created by the Covid19 “pandemic”.
Somewhere, some not especially bright public relations executive has decided that the way to push the “pivot from Covid to climate” is to try and turn the long-predicted environmental disaster into a public health issue.
It’s hamfisted, a little funny, and probably won’t work, but it does open up some troubling possibilities going forward.
LIKE WHAT?
Well, for starters, this may be the first “climate change diagnosis”, but do you honestly believe it will be the last?
Don’t be surprised if we see a huge spike in “climate diagnoses” in the next few months.
There are already widespread academic efforts to create a causal link between “climate change” and common illnesses.
A few days ago, the Independent headlined The climate crisis is not just about the environment – it’s about health too.
As I mentioned earlier, just today the COP26 panel warned that “climate-linked health risks” are going to rise.
Only last week the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology published a paper titled “Climate Change and Global Issues in Allergy and Immunology” which argues climate change is already making asthma and some allergies worse.
It’s not hard to put together a list of other common afflictions that are already being linked back to climate change.
Cancer, pneumonia, heatstroke, diabetes, heart disease and essentially all lung conditions.
There’s also all diseases spread by mosquitos or other zoonotic agents, plus every waterborne illness.
And that’s without even severely stretching logic, which Covid has shown our medical and scientific institutions have no trouble doing.
They are already discussing “climate-related” mental health issues such as stress, anxiety and depression. These could easily become further types of “climate-related diagnoses” too.
Now, allow me to speculate for a few paragraphs…
The practice of “climate-related diagnosis” is likely going to expand. When questions about the science behind this are raised by sceptics, they will naturally be accused of “climate denial”.
Opinion pieces will appear torturing reason to defend the practice of diagnosing “climate illness”. So-called journalists, or mercenary experts in made-up fields like “climate ethics”, will crochet strands of reason into positions so full of holes they barely exist.
We’ll be told that even if the practice is technically inaccurate, it’s serving a greater truth. That people might not literally be sick due to climate change, but we are all figuratively dying of it.
“Covid has shown us people only do what’s right when they’re scared: We need to make them feel climate fear.”
“Climate change diagnoses are on the rise. And that’s a good thing.”
“Healthcare workers take stand on climate with new diagnosis trend.”
“NHS workers saved us from Covid, and now want to take on climate.”
… you don’t have to read the Guardian as much as I have to feel those headlines, or ones very like them, in our future.
Then the deaths can start happening. Covid has demonstrated that you can create a “mass casualty” scare by essentially just adding an extra line on a death certificate. They can do that for climate too. The headlines will carry on…
“Physicians see spike in “climate deaths” as people suddenly feel the consequences of inaction”
When people point out the flaws in reasoning the papers will argue that, even if people aren’t really dying of climate change, symbolically putting it on death certificates is the best way to illustrate how much danger we’re in.
They’ll backhandedly admit the statistic isn’t real, but then use it as an excuse to call for action anyway:
“Weekly climate deaths are outstripping Covid – we need to address the “climate pandemic.”
… it will go on and on.
Climate change will start being listed as an “underlying cause of death” for more and more diseases. I already mentioned cancer, lung disease and heart disease. They’ll all be “climate-related”.
The press spent the last year telling us that climate change “makes pandemics more likely”, so any future “pandemic” can be linked to climate and boom, a few hundred thousand climate deaths.
Climate change is allegedly bad for unborn babies, so stillbirths and miscarriages can all be “climate deaths”.
They can do a study finding “higher levels of solar radiation” can “increase the risk of cancer”, and then start saying anyone who dies of cancer also died of climate.
They don’t even have to limit it to natural causes.
Drowned in a flash flood? That’s a climate death.
Starved due to drought? Climate death.
Committed suicide? “he was pretty upset about the climate”.
Attacked by a polar bear? Well, climate change forced it out of its natural habitat.
I’m not being funny. This is not satire, I wish it were. Believe me, they could easily actually say it, or something like it, eventually.
If the past twenty months have done nothing else, they should at least have taught you this valuable lesson: There is nothing – NOTHING – too dishonest, too cynical or even too insane for the establishment to sell.
It doesn’t matter if it’s unlikely, or self-contradictory or irrational – it doesn’t even matter if it’s literally physically impossible – they will say it, and they will expect you to believe it.
We now have our first climate “case”. The first death “with climate” probably won’t be far behind. Thousands more will likely follow.
That’s when talk of “climate lockdowns” will come back.
The old saying was right: kill your television
(and your smartphone)
By Richard Hugus | November 8, 2021
A month ago, illegal and criminal coercion toward covid injections in the workplace was announced by the Biden Administration. Many have lost their jobs for rightly refusing this unsafe, ineffective, and possibly life-changing medical procedure. Now it has been announced by the pharma-owned FDA and CDC that children 5 to 11 years old may be given the shot. Comments from the public and renowned doctors and scientists were overwhelmingly against this, but as with so may other boards across the country, the officials at the table voted unanimously in favor, as if they never heard a thing. This shot will now be mandated in spite of the fact that older children who have already been injected have experienced heart problems and other serious reactions, including death. Neither of these age groups have ever been in danger, and the shots can only hurt them. Next it will be children newborn to 4. What are we to make of a government willing to sacrifice children to pharmaceutical company profits, or ends even worse?
Coerced injections, worthless for their stated purpose, and now provably harmful, are clearly a means to some end. This might include social control through digital passports, totalitarian surveillance, the re-engineering of humanity through genetic manipulation, the reduction of the world’s population (a longtime dream of eugenicists), hooking people up to the “internet of bodies”, or all of the above. One thing is certain — none of this was ever about public health. That lie is impossible to believe as we watch health care workers being fired, leaving hospitals understaffed; as news of injection injuries is censored; as ER doctors ignore injection injuries and fail to report them; as the medical establishment is seen to be under the obvious control of politics and corporations; as goalposts are moved, new rules invented, and definitions changed; as sanitation workers are let go and garbage piles up in the streets; as fire fighters and first responders are put on “leave without pay;” as workers across the country lose their jobs and can no longer provide for themselves or their families; as mental health declines from isolation, fear, and stress; as natural immunity is suddenly no longer recognized; and as effective medicines are withheld while harmful medicines are protocol. The goal is apparently not to promote public health, or indeed social order, but to destroy it. One might think that government would respond to the obvious deterioration of society, but the last two years have shown that this is actually what governments want. This is a war from the inside out. Our own government is trying to kill us.
We have been fed a string of lies 20 months long, but lies over time have a way of wearing thin. In the attempt to explain contradictory evidence, official explanations become more and more elaborate, and the more this happens the easier it is for us to see both the lies and the liars. Our great advantage is that the truth doesn’t need the vast resources of states and corporate media to be told. When it came to the point where the state was forced to just censor the truth outright, this was just another lesson for us. The bigger the coverup, the more obvious the crime. Clarity grows every day.
The tyranny we are facing didn’t just start in March 2020. We are in the midst of a system that had already surrounded us when the “pandemic” operation began. This is why such an obvious hoax gained so much territory so quickly across the world. The operation itself was carefully planned, but it was built on an established foundation. For almost 60 years — counting back to the John F. Kennedy assassination — the world has been subjected to a long list of planned attacks in which black operators created a traumatic public event, manipulated the public into believing the event was carried out by a selected patsy, and made desired institutional changes on the basis of that event. The September 11, 2001 attack seemed the pinnacle of any ambition these operators could possibly have, until covid 19 came along and somehow struck 193 countries with the same catastrophic results all at the same time. Manufactured case and death statistics then started rolling in, videos of people dying in the streets were produced, and the narrative of a terrible, unprecedented public health emergency was everywhere around us. The real event was seasonal respiratory illness hyped as a “pandemic”, with maybe a dash of real bioweapon thrown in. The patsy was bats in China spreading a mysterious deadly virus. And the deep institutional change looks like a wholesale re-organization of national economies, resources, and populations to suit the one-world-government fantasy of Vanguard investment bankers, secret cabals, and the openly conniving Davos elite. Far more people were immediately killed by health care policy and medical malpractice in the early days of the covid operation — for example, the elderly sent to die in nursing homes, the ventilator murders — than the 3,000 who died on September 11. Without death and gore, there is no trauma, and the scale of this op required plenty of trauma. As intended in the 9-11 operation, the US proceeded with a series of wars against the enemies of Israel. As intended in the Covid 19 operation, the oligarchs have proceeded to destroy economies worldwide. 9-11 led to millions of deaths; covid 19 (the operation) will bring many more.
Dark actors with evil schemes have been honing their craft throughout history, but have never been able to fool more people than in the age of Edward Bernays, mass media, and social engineering. Today, a world-shaking falsity can be created out of thin air. The 1969 “moon landing” is a good example. Fortunately that psy-op was carried out without mass murder. It was an astounding feat. From the battleship Maine to the Reichstag fire to the Gulf of Tonkin, to “weapons of mass destruction”, to the 7-7 London bus bombing, to 9-11, to the Boston Marathon bombing, to the Las Vegas hotel shooter massacre, to the January 6 “insurrection”, and scores of other entrapments, fakes, and shootings; served by a veritable industry of crisis actors, informants, patsies, undercover police, agents, infiltrators, provocateurs, assassins, and spies; huge lies have been relentlessly sprung upon an unwitting, crisis-weary public, and the lies have succeeded for the most part because people can’t believe anyone would commit crimes of such magnitude.
Perhaps it’s time to rethink our relationship to the source of much of this manipulation — the TV screen. We literally are not seeing something real when it comes to us through this medium. The image on the screen is not reality. It may easily show us what someone else wants us to believe. The format is a wide open field for propagandists. Our personal experience is limited. TV makes our experience seem almost unlimited and we come to believe this expanded experience is authentic. We have been seduced by media and technology to such an extent that today much of our “reality” is not even real — it is virtual. It all comes down to epistemology — what is real and what we actually know is one of the central questions of philosophy. But as a practical matter, gaining knowledge through our own direct experience, dealing with people face to face, being there in person, interacting with the natural world in our immediate (non-mediated) surroundings, is overwhelmed by the simulacra that we get from electronic media. Like junk food, electronic media is pervasive and addictive. We are not physically or psychologically prepared to deal with it. We are simply not capable of ‘knowing’ all the people, places, ideas, and events brought to us in the avalanche of content on the internet. The hosts of the virtual world, like Facebook and Google, are happy to see us occupied on smart phones and social media with a previously unimaginable circle of hundreds of “friends.” We may even organize with our hundred friends to break Facebook and Google into a thousand pieces, but silicon valley doesn’t care because they gain so much more from collecting and selling our data. Technology once seemed to be there to make life easier, but then it quietly enslaved us. To fight technocracy — that is, government which derives its power from technology — we have only to look at the technocrats’ means of control — QR codes, data bases, surveillance cameras, license plate readers, algorithms, artificial intelligence, body scanners, microchips, video games, blockbuster movies, cable TV, smartphones, and credit scores — and get them one by one out of our lives. It is certainly within our means to get rid of the devices we ourselves carry. Are you opposed to “vaccine passports”? Then don’t carry or own the smartphone that makes them possible.
Facebook recently announced it wants to change its name to “Meta”, the Latin word for ‘beyond.’ To the forward-thinking predators running Facebook, the “metaverse” is the next frontier in the attempt to capture and control human minds. With a VR (virtual reality) headset, one actually believes he’s in a given program, and may even believe he’s interacting with the program. The next step will be a no-headset, or wireless, VR platform. Since the oligarchs want to use those of us who survive the Frankenshots as slave labor, they would want us to be more than just passive batteries in a pod with cables stuck to our heads, as in The Matrix. Mobile humans having reality fed to them wirelessly would be a huge improvement. Perhaps the technology for that is contained in the “vaccines”, with their strange magnetic effects, so far unacknowledged and unexplained. Indeed, this may be why Bill Gates said that “unfortunately everyone on the planet will have to be vaccinated.” Obviously, the privileged few can’t have unauthorized humans walking around in their own reality!
The ongoing operation for the digital enslavement of humanity is insane. We are not a Frankenstein experiment. We are not software programs. We are not computers. We are not ones and zeros. We are not transhuman. We are miracles created by God, not to be tampered with. It is time to de-digitize the world around us and return to our spiritual connections and our humanity. Like government, technology is there to serve us, not the other way around. Like government, technology is not to be trusted. When government and technology are working together, the potential for abuse increases exponentially. To save ourselves, both of these forces must be permanently put in their place.
These days many of us are in the streets protesting. The benefit of this is not that we might attract the attention of politicians who hold us in contempt, but that we see and talk to each other in person, and give those on the sidelines strength in seeing healthy and strong opposition to the madness. When it comes time to actually confront the authorities, they will have no choice but to listen, and they aren’t going to like it. On the way to that day, and perhaps in order to reach it, we have to get 60 years of very sophisticated, highly manipulative media programming well out of our heads. Hoaxes and false flags will then be immediately obvious, and will no longer be used against us. The “pandemic” and the cast of characters fomenting this two year atrocity will disappear like a bad dream. It’s as if we can beat this monstrosity simply by evolving.
NHS accused of ‘lying’ about Covid stats to promote vaccination
RT | November 8, 2021
NHS chief Amanda Pritchard claimed that 14 times as many Covid-19 patients are in Britain’s hospitals as this time last year. However, even the NHS itself has admitted that Pritchard’s claim uses misleading figures.
Multiple news reports on Monday told the same story: Britain’s hospitals are seeing “14 times more coronavirus patients than this time last year,” and the country faces a “difficult winter,” as people gather indoors, where the virus is more likely to spread.
The source of the “14 times” figure is Amanda Pritchard, Chief Executive of NHS England. Pritchard used the apparently alarming surge in hospitalisations to encourage the 4.5 million Britons who still haven’t gotten vaccinated to roll up their sleeves, and those eligible to take their third shot of the vaccine.
However, NHS data shows that Pritchard’s figures are false. According to the health service, a 7-day average of 9,331 Covid-19 patients were in hospital at the beginning of November, compared to 12,654 a year earlier. Just over 1,000 people per day were being admitted to hospital at the end of October, compared to 1,500 last year.
Pritchard was swiftly accused of peddling fake news, with commentators warning that such misleading figures were straying into “resignation territory.”
Amid a growing clamour online, NHS officials told reporters shortly afterwards that Pritchard was citing figures from August 2021 compared to August 2020. Hospital admissions were indeed 14 times higher this August than in 2020, but only for several days toward the end of the month. Since then, they have trended downwards and are now comparable to last year’s rate.
However, hospitalisations persist despite the fact that nine out of 10 people over the age of 12 in the UK have received at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, according to NHS statistics. Rising cases too have called into question the long-term efficacy of the jabs, but government officials still insist on vaccination as key to defeating the virus – and studies suggest those vaccinated patients still fare better if they catch the virus.
As Pritchard called on the population to get vaccinated or go in for booster jabs, former Health Secretary Matt Hancock called on Monday for the government to mandate vaccines for healthcare workers. “There is no respectable argument left not to force health and social care workers to get jabbed,” he wrote in The Telegraph, calling the vaccine “the only reason for the safe return of our liberty.”
Featured Video
Rewriting the risk? Inside the government’s vaccine safety messaging
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
“Davos Can Really Replace the UN”
Inside the book that maps the architecture behind global governance — from the Epstein files to the Pact for the Future
Lies are Unbekoming | April 1, 2026
On June 13, 2019, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum signed a partnership deal to “accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” That same evening, WEF president Börge Brende — Norway’s former Foreign Minister — had dinner with Jeffrey Epstein at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. The Epstein files, released January 2026, contain an exchange between the two from the previous year. Epstein to Brende: “Davos can really replace the UN. C21, cyber, crypto . genetics… intl coordination.” Brende back to Epstein: “Exactly — we need a new global architecture. World Economic Forum (Davos) is uniquely positioned — public private.”
The next day, the UN General Assembly adopted the framework for restructuring global governance.
That sequence — the partnership signing, the Epstein dinner, the candid admission about replacing the UN with a public-private architecture, and then the formal adoption — opens Jacob Nordangård’s The Digital World Brain. Pages two and three. Footnoted to the UN resolution number, the Epstein files, and the General Assembly record.
I keep coming back to it because it captures what this book does that almost nothing else in the independent research space manages. I’ve followed Jacob’s work for years now and interviewed him about his research. Each book peels back another layer of the same institutional architecture, and each time I think he’s reached the limit of what can be documented, the next one goes further. Nordangård doesn’t speculate. He doesn’t editorialize much. He lays institutional actions next to each other in chronological order and lets the pattern announce itself. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- How I fell foul of the BBC thought police
- The End of NATO
- 37 days of war on Iran cost US staggering $42bln, tracker shows
- Baghdad tells Asian refiners, traders to begin loading Iraqi crude amid Iranian exemption
- Under fire, Moscow and Tehran close ranks
- Iran, US receive Pakistan-mediated plan for ceasefire then final deal
- Iran submits demands for end to war as mediators scramble ahead of Trump deadline
- Iran Threatens Retaliatory Strike on Stargate AI Project in UAE
- US sent ‘a lot’ of arms to Iranian protesters – Trump
- Barak Ravid Launders Deception To Allow Trump To Back Off Of His Power Plant Threat – Again
- If Americans Knew
- Trump poised to “blow everything up” (ie. commit war crimes) in Iran – Daily Update
- In Iran, Israel-US take aim at “reason, research, and freedom of thought” – Daily Update
- US loses planes over Iran, Israel downgrades Lebanon war goals – Daily Update
- Israel Is Blocking Palestinians from Easter at Church Where Jesus Resurrected
- Plot to assassinate Palestinian activist follows harassment campaign promoted by Zionist groups and elected officials
- Prominent New York synagogue hosts presentation on why U.S. Jews should support the ethnic cleansing of Gaza
- Tapper vs. Piker: Is the CNN Anchor Auditioning for David Ellison?
- Shouldn’t Democrats Be Able to Condemn Genocide?
- Israel-US kill negotiators, destroy civilian structures, but Iran’s military capabilities still largely intact – Daily Update
- ‘War crime’: Global condemnation as Israeli ministers celebrate death penalty law targeting Palestinian prisoners
- No Tricks Zone
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
Aletho News 