US bragging about its direct involvement in Ukraine may lead to uncontrollable escalation
By Drago Bosnic | May 6, 2022
On May 4, the New York Times published a highly controversial article openly bragging about how the United States has been providing critical intelligence about the location and movement of Russian troops, which has allowed Ukrainians to target them. The publication also claims that “many Russian generals have died in action in the Ukraine as a result,” citing senior US officials. However, this is hardly news, since the US and NATO have been doing it since day one of the special military operation in Ukraine. The Russian military has been warning the political West about this issue. And yet, the US and NATO aren’t only ignoring the warnings, but are also openly bragging about their actions which are contributing to the death of Russian military personnel in Ukraine as we speak.
The claim that “many Russian generals have died” is questionable at best, but it does show the US and NATO’s determination, whose involvement is key to prolonging the conflict. An epidemic of fake news about alleged injuries or even murder of Russian High Command officers has become the mainstay, even among the once-respected Western media. According to these news outlets, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has so far survived at least two heart attacks “due to bad performance and high casualties of the Russian military” and even “Putin’s order to shoot the Defense Minister for his failures in Ukraine”.
These claims are not just outright lies, but simply ridiculous. However, they expose the mainstream media in the US and other NATO countries as an inalienable part of the military and (geo)political structure. Their reporting is designed not just to demoralize the opponent, but also to boost public morale, galvanize it and push for more support for a potential war with the targeted country or even a group of countries. This is exacerbating the already high tensions between the political West on one side and Russia and its allies on the other.
When the special military operation started, the US and NATO at least claimed their non-involvement, even though everyone knew they were involved. But the very statement they weren’t sent a message that NATO will not escalate tensions. However, this report has now changed that. By admitting effectively direct involvement in the conflict, the US and NATO are opening the door for further escalation, which most certainly will not be appreciated by Russia, whose leadership has already given strong statements regarding this issue.
The intelligence sharing is part of “a stepped-up flow” in US assistance that includes heavier weapons and billions in military supplies, demonstrating how quickly the “early American restraint” on support for Ukraine has shifted as the war enters a new stage, the NYT reported. This is further proof that the US is not interested in de-escalation. On the contrary, the latest “lethal aid” package President Biden announced is said to be $33 billion, a truly staggering sum, orders of magnitude greater than Ukraine’s annual military budget.
“The administration has sought to keep much of the battlefield intelligence secret, out of fear it will be seen as an escalation and provoke President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia into a wider war. American officials would not describe how they have acquired information on Russian troop headquarters, for fear of endangering their methods of collection. But throughout the war, the U.S. intelligence agencies have used a variety of sources, including classified and commercial satellites, to trace Russian troop movements,” the NYT report added.
This statement alone should trigger alarm across the globe. The admission that the US military and intelligence services are using commercial satellites in their operations sets a dangerous precedent which further blurs the line between civilians and the military. This comes at a time when companies such as SpaceX are accused of using their products and services, most notably the Starlink satellites, to help the Ukrainian military target Russian and DLNR units. It’s clear the US is mobilizing all of its assets in an attempt to weaken Russia. In fact, this is exactly what US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin openly stated. He went so far as to say that “we want to see Russia weakened to the degree it cannot do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”
However, there are still moments when the Pentagon and State Department are giving vague and even contradictory statements regarding this issue. When asked about the intelligence being provided to the Ukrainian side, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said that “we will not speak to the details of that information.” But he acknowledged that the US provides Ukraine with intelligence information. After the NYT article was published, Adrienne Watson, a National Security Council spokeswoman, said that the battlefield intelligence was not provided to the Ukrainians “with the intent to kill Russian generals.”
“Not all the strikes have been carried out with American intelligence. A strike over the weekend at a location in eastern Ukraine where Gen. Valery Gerasimov, Russia’s highest-ranking uniformed officer, had visited was not aided by American intelligence, according to multiple U.S. officials. The United States prohibits itself from providing intelligence about the most senior Russian leaders,” the official said.
This statement clearly refers to the reports that the Chief of Russian General Staff, General Gerasimov was allegedly wounded in a Ukrainian strike during a visit to the frontline units. Again, this shows an almost schizophrenic nature of statements coming from US officials. First, they are bragging about the “decisive role” of their intelligence support to Ukrainians, but as soon as reports of Russian High Command officers being injured surface, they are quick to announce how this support might not be “as decisive as previously thought”.
This just goes to show how dangerous US involvement in Ukraine is. Even though we know the statements about Gerasimov are false, an obvious question arises, what if it were to happen? What if he or any other Russian High Command officer were injured in Ukraine? Does the US truly believe they could just say “it wasn’t our intelligence” in an attempt to control the level of escalation which could plunge all of us into a world-ending conflict?
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Former NATO Commander Disguises War Propaganda as Novel
By Patrick Macfarlane | The Libertarian Institute | April 26, 2022
On March 9, 2021, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Admiral James Stavridis, co-authored a fiction novel with Elliott Ackerman, another former U.S. military officer. The book, entitled 2034: A Novel of the Next World War, imagines a kinetic war between the United States and China.
Given the pedigree of its authorship, the novel provides a compelling window into the psychology of NATO’s military leadership and, correspondingly, the foreign policy establishment behind it. To those familiar with said psychology, the events of the novel will not be surprising.
It begins with a Chinese ambush of a U.S. vessel in the South China Sea; an Iranian capture of a U.S. pilot; a full scale naval battle between the U.S. and China (resulting in a total U.S. defeat); and a Russian invasion of Poland. The novel concludes with a limited nuclear exchange between the U.S. and China.
Given the last few decades’ hawkish hand wringing about Chinese and Russian cyber capabilities, the tactics employed in the novel are similarly unsurprising. A Chinese cyberattack disables U.S. hardware, allowing the naval rout. The Iranians, as allies of Russia and China, similarly disable U.S. aircraft. For their part, the Russians slice underwater communications cables leading to a complete internet blackout in the West.
To an uncritical reader, the novel appears to be a “cautionary tale” and a “warning” against global conflict. The novel’s dust jacket states:
Everything in 2034 is an imaginative extrapolation from present-day facts on the ground combined with the authors’ years working at the highest and most classified levels of national security. Sometimes it takes a brilliant work of fiction to illuminate the most dire of warnings: 2034 is all too close at hand, and this cautionary tale presents the reader a dark yet possible future that we must do all we can to avoid.
Mainstream outlets were as successful in their attempts to paint 2034 as a “warning” as their reviews were cringeworthy.
Wired, which ran a series of exclusive pre-print excerpts, had this to say:
WIRED HAS ALWAYS been a publication about the future—about the forces shaping it, and the shape we’d like it to take. Sometimes, for us, that means being wild-eyed optimists, envisioning the scenarios that excite us most. And sometimes that means taking pains to envision futures that we really, really want to avoid.
By giving clarity and definition to those nightmare trajectories, the hope is that we can give people the ability to recognize and divert from them. Almost, say, the way a vaccine teaches an immune system what to ward off. And that’s what this issue of WIRED is trying to do…
Consider this another vaccine against disaster. Fortunately, this dose won’t cause a temporary fever—and it happens to be a rippingly good read. Turns out that even cautionary tales can be exciting, when the future we’re most excited about is the one where they never come true.
The Washington Post’s review was almost worse.
This crisply written and well-paced book reads like an all-caps warning to a world shackled to the machines we carry in our pockets and place in our laps, while only vaguely understanding how the information stored in and shared by those devices can be exploited. We have grown numb to the latest data breach—was it a pollical campaign (Hillary Clinton’s), or one of the country’s biggest credit-rating firms (Equifax), or a hotel behemoth (Marriott), or a casual-sex hookup site (Adult Friend Finder), or government departments updating their networks with the SolarWinds system (U.S. Treasury and Commerce)?
In “2034,” it’s as if Ackerman and Stavridis want to grab us by our lapels, give us a slap or two, and scream: Pay attention! George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece, “Nineteen Eighty-four: A Novel” was published 35 years before 1984. Ackerman’s and Stavridis’s book takes place in the not-so-distant future when today’s high school military recruits will just be turning 30.
Between Wired’s ham-handed COVID-19 vaccine analogy and the CIA Washington Post’s ironic Orwell reference, the mainstream marketing campaign clearly attempts to portray the novel as a cautionary tale.
It is impossible to gaze into the hearts of men, but we do have some clues. Those clues suggest that the co-authors really do seek to warn against war with China. However, in doing so, they advocate for it. Indeed, their warning is not against the folly of empire, but against a rising China.
Ultimately the co-authors’ MacBethian premonition of conflict necessitates escalatory U.S. policy.
On March 18, 2021, the pair were interviewed by NPR. Stavridis had this to say:
… a subtext in all of this [the novel] is to strike a warning bell about the rise of China and the propensity in human history going back 2,500 years almost any time a [sic] established power is challenged by a rising power, it leads to war. It’s a dangerous moment. And 15 years from now, I think, will be a moment of maximum danger because China will have advanced in its military capability and technology. Therefore, our military deterrent will somewhat decline. We’re standing in the danger, as we say in the Navy.
Ackerman embraces this view:
…and we’re not only sounding the alarm bell, but the book is also trying to situate where America is in this moment of 2034.
Further, the pair assert they do not believe in the American decline.
Interviewer (to both): “…do you believe this, that America will be the author of its own destruction?”
Stavridis: “I believe there are many in the world who do believe that. I personally do not… there are many in the world who believe our best days are somehow behind us. They would be miscalculating, in my view, to believe that.”
Ackerman: “I would add I am by no way a believer in the decline of America. And I am very much committed to the idea of the American ideal. That being said, looking back throughout our entire history, the greatest threat is us turning inward and destroying that ideal. Lincoln himself said – I’m paraphrasing, but basically said that if America is going to destroy itself, we will be the author and the finisher. And I think he says, a nation of free men will live forever or die by suicide. And I don’t think that’s Lincoln being a declinist about the United States. But I think it’s him recognizing that our divisiveness can oftentimes be the greatest threat and what leaves us the most unable to respond to challenges from outside the country.”
Indeed, a reader would be hard pressed to find any point where the co-authors suggest any strategy short of increasing military confrontation with China.
Instead, they warn that America must be more united against an outside threat. It must, by implication, build up its military force, and, oddly enough, confront Chinese technological advances with less reliance on our own technology.
Stavridis expanded on his China policy prescriptions in a June 2021 interview:
The South China Sea is a vital entry point for the United States today. It’s a massive body of water full of oil and gas as well as fisheries, and about 40 percent of global trade passes through it.
So, there are strong strategic reasons, as the United States values its alliances in Asia, to push back against Chinese claims.
It is not just the South China Sea but also the East China Sea, where the Senkaku Islands lie, that are vital to American interests as long as our allies operate there and trade flows through there.
And above all we simply as an international community cannot acquiesce to China’s preposterous claims, which have been rejected by international law.
Indeed, a number one red line would be an attack against our allies.
For example, if China attacked and tried to forcibly take the Senkaku Islands, that would be a red line for the United States. Or an attack against the Philippines, another treaty ally of the United States. An attack against any treaty allies would be the number one red line.
A second red line would be trying to attack U.S. military personnel operating in the South China Sea.
We conduct what we call “freedom of navigation patrols.” These are our warships sailing through international waters such as the South China Sea.
If China were to attack a U.S. ship to attempt to demonstrate their view that they own the South China Sea, that would be a red line. In fact, the book “2034” opens with an attack involving U.S. military personnel being killed in the South China Sea.
Stavridis believes that the U.S. must continue to devote itself to entangling alliances, against which the founding fathers warned. The U.S. must also continue to press its presence in the South China Sea.
Despite resolutely warning against a war against China, Stavridis commits the U.S. to myriad tripwires that would ignite it.
These China policy positions parallel Stavridis’ positions on Ukraine. It’s always more, more, more.
More funding, arming, and training Ukrainians, more U.S. commitment to NATO, more U.S. weaponization of Big Tech, more money to the U.S. State Department, more interagency cooperation, and more silencing dissent. These positions are escalatory. At the very least, they flirt with making Washington a direct party to the War in Ukraine. They may give Russia reason to attack U.S. and NATO forces.
Given Russia’s nuclear footing, these policies pose an existential threat to humanity itself.
Indeed, it will always be a mystery how the hawks convinced the American public that the path to peace leads through war. Perhaps those of us who survive the inevitable result of this mantra can ponder the answer while painting on the cave walls.
Patrick MacFarlane is the Justin Raimondo Fellow at the Libertarian Institute where he advocates a noninterventionist foreign policy. He is a Wisconsin attorney in private practice. He is the host of the Liberty Weekly Podcast at www.libertyweekly.net, where he seeks to expose establishment narratives with well researched documentary-style content and insightful guest interviews. His work has appeared on antiwar.com and Zerohedge. He may be reached at patrick.macfarlane@libertyweekly.net
PBS agitates to have Tucker Carlson taken off the air
By Russell Cook | American Thinker | May 4, 2022
The taxpayer-funded national network PBS is pushing for less viewpoint diversity, no doubt intended to accelerate the growing push for Tucker and Fox News to be taken off the air. From the PBS Newshour, May 2, 2022: “Tucker Carlson’s influence and his increasingly extreme views” (Amna Nawaz interviews New York Times’ Nick Confessore, who wrote the 4/30 “How Tucker Carlson Stoked White Fear to Conquer Cable“).
Excerpts (emphases added):
Nick Confessore: … He’s the highest rated cable show host in history. And it’s also the most racist show in history. … Every night, that show teaches fear and loathing. He may claim to be a person who opposes racism and prejudice, but what the show tells you every night is to be afraid, to be afraid of people who are in the street asking for police officers to not shoot Black people, be afraid of Afghan refugees who helped us in the war who are coming over here now, to be afraid of Dr. Fauci, and to be afraid of immigration in general, which he posits is part of a cabal, a plot to destroy Western civilization … it’s not just the anti-white racism kind of rhetoric on the show. He’s literally taking ideas that began on the very far right, on arcane corners of the Internet, on neo-Nazi sites …
… Amna Nawaz: Nick, he’s also aggressively defended January 6 insurrectionists and played down how violent that day actually was. … he’s very much in line with the Republican Party and their message. What did your reporting find about that relationship between the GOP and Tucker Carlson?
Nick Confessore: Look, I would say he is the high priest of Trumpism.
“Amy Walter and Annie Linskey on primary election season, Tucker Carlson’s role in the GOP”
Excerpts:
Judy Woodruff: … Amy, let’s start with what we just heard Amna talking to Nick Confessore about … Clarify for us, what is Tucker Carlson’s role in the Republican Party, in American politics?
Amy Walter: … Nick Confessore put it really well when he said that he’s filling the void that had been left by Donald Trump‘s voice being off of social media … He’s also being talked about as a potential 2024 candidate for president. And that’s not idle discussion. I think his name will be very seriously floated, and we may see more to come of a Tucker Carlson trial balloon in 2024.
… Judy Woodruff: And, Annie, what — the darker side of this, which we heard in that conversation, about race… and about the role of the threat that many white Americans feel, what does that say about our politics right now?
Annie Linskey: … I think that was one of the most stunning takeaways, for me at least, from the New York Times reporting, which was just so incredible, is just the extent to which they really documented the ways in which Carlson is normalizing discussions of race that I think would not be considered — are not considered appropriate in many parts of the country. … But Carlson’s show is moving through the window to where they’re becoming more appropriate. And I think that’s what many groups on the left worry about. And I think that is what The Times is reporting is kind of showing us, really the danger that Tucker Carlson and his show presents, is making it more OK to have those kinds of grievances voiced out loud…
According to the PBS NewsHour and the NYT, neither of which seems to have people who’ve watched Tucker’s show at any depth, Tucker espouses Bull Connor–style racism and enables people like you and me to freely advocate talk that escalates toward genocide. His show should therefore be silenced, he should be jailed for insurrectionist incitement before he announces his presidential run, and you and I need to be leery of saying anything against… well, anything. Obey.
Why Won’t They Say Who Funded These Ukraine Ads?
By Michael Tracey | May 2, 2022
On April 17, I was in London Bridge train station in central London, and couldn’t help but notice that the entire station was blanketed with these digital “Be Brave Like Ukraine” ads. Stylized in a nifty semi-Cyrillic font, the ads feature the classic blue and yellow color scheme that has now become so ubiquitous across “The West” — perhaps most prominently in London, where a local acquaintance told me she’s seen more Ukraine flags on display over the past two months than she ever saw of the UK’s own national flag.
I had a few natural questions upon seeing these ads. First, who crafted them? That answer came quickly: Just go to the “brave.ua” website and you’ll discover the ads were crafted by a consortium within the Ukraine government, including the office of Zelensky.
The answer to other natural questions have not come so quickly, though. Those questions include: Who paid for these ads? How much did they cost? Who organized their placement in some of the most expensive advertising real estate in the world? (They’ve also been displayed in Times Square, among other high-profile locations.)
Strangely, this information has proven difficult to acquire.
First I tried querying the TFL, the government body in charge of transport in London. They had no clue about the ads. Then I tried Network Rail, which runs most of the railways in England. They had no clue either. Finally I tried the massive global advertising agency which apparently owns the digital screens in question, JCDecaux. And… it initially seemed like they might have the answer. I know this because the “Corporate Communications Director” for JCDecaux inadvertently sent me an email where she deliberates with her colleague about how to answer my questions:
Kinda funny that the “Corporate Communications Director” still doesn’t have the hang of communications skills like sending your sensitive internal emails to the right recipient. Either way, this person did not in fact “come back to me tomorrow.” Days passed, and I heard nothing. Then, finally, here was the answer:
Curious, don’t you think? Why would a multinational advertising conglomerate based in France, with branches in the UK, US, and elsewhere, be so skittish about providing basic details about this Ukraine government advertising campaign? Shouldn’t they be proud of it, and therefore happy to provide the details? I thought the message of the ads was to “Be Brave Like Ukraine.” Apparently that “Bravery” doesn’t extend to allowing for transparency in the financial arrangements of these PR maneuvers, which have resulted in “Western” capitals being saturated with imagery that to the naked eye may seem benign — but, functionally, amounts to obvious pro-war propaganda.
Because bear in mind that these government-crafted ads have flooded London, NYC, Washington DC, etc. at the same time as Ukraine officials are furiously lobbying the UK and US governments to ramp up their military involvement in the war. Those lobbying efforts have been incredibly successful, with Respectable Mainstream outfits like The New Yorker finally now admitting that the scale of the US commitment constitutes “a full proxy war with Russia.” (Not so long ago, I was attacked as a peddler of “Putin’s talking points” for using the term “proxy war” on TV.)
It went largely unremarked upon when the head of the Pentagon, flanked by the head of the State Department, transited into Kiev for a secret mission on April 25 — and then hours later, a series of giant explosions ripped through a Russian military logistics hub approximately 90 miles inside Russia. This after US officials began leaking that they would no longer even pretend to recognize any distinction between “defensive” and “offensive” combat operations conducted by the Ukraine military — effectively acknowledging their willingness to provide both weaponry and real-time intelligence to launch attacks on Russia itself.
In the UK, the Armed Services Secretary, James Heappey, followed this up by declaring that it would be “entirely legitimate” for arms delivered by “Western countries” to be used for offensive strikes within Russian territory. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss then went further than even any US official when she declared that total “victory” in Ukraine must also include driving Russia out of Crimea, raising the stakes higher still.
With each passing week, both these countries adopt a more and more aggressive, bombastic war footing.
Meanwhile, the nice-seeming “Be Brave Like Ukraine” ads are covering major transportation centers. It doesn’t take much elaborate dot-connecting to apprehend that the ads are one facet of the larger PR campaign to draw the US, UK, and other governments further and further into the war. This campaign has been demonstrably effective. And the ad agency which facilitated the ads is choosing to conceal from the public basic details about their provenance — such as who even paid for them. Really makes you think.
Now will the BBC retract its lies over vaccine threat in pregnancy?
By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | April 29, 2022
‘WHAT I’ve Seen in the Last Two Years Is Unprecedented’: Physician on Covid Vaccine Side Effects on Pregnant Women. This was Wednesday’s front-page headline on the US newspaper Epoch Times.
You may remember how from early on in the Covid vaccine roll-out the former Pfizer chief Mike Yeadon, as part of his many warnings against the new gene ‘vaccines’, strongly advised against jabbing pregnant women. Not only had there been no pre-clinical reproductive toxicology testing but research on rats showed that the vaccine accumulated in the ovaries. Needless to say the BBC was first out of the traps to dismiss fears that the vaccines could harm fertility or cause miscarriages, and to target Yeadon personally. It put out a special propaganda (News) ‘reality check’ report claiming that the study showing the vaccine accumulating in the ovaries was ‘false’.
It did not take long for TCW’s Neville Hodgkinson, an experienced medical and science journalist, to show just whose claim was false. Once again, however, the BBC got away with it, as have others in ‘authority’.
Will there be any retraction or apology now senior obstetricians are putting their heads above the parapet to report on what they have been seeing amongst their patients?
Dr James Thorp is one such, an extensively published 68-year-old US specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology as well as maternal-foetal medicine, who has practised for more than 42 years. He told Epoch Times that he sees 6,000 to 7,000 high-risk pregnant patients a year and that many complications among them are due to the Covid vaccines.
‘I’ve seen many, many, many complications in pregnant women, in moms and in foetuses, in children, offspring, foetal death, miscarriage, death of the foetus inside the mom,’ he said, adding that what he has seen in the last two years is unprecedented.
Thorp goes on to explain that although he has seen a visible increase in foetal death and adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with the Covid-19 vaccination, attempts to quantify them ‘are hampered by the imposition of gag orders on physicians and nurses’ imposed in September 2021.
You can see the full article here – it is well worth reading.
The tragedy is, as Mike Yeadon comments in the article, that ‘adverse impacts on conception and ability to sustain a pregnancy were foreseeable’. They were, and he did his best to warn us of them, but all the BBC was interested in was discrediting him.
To remind the BBC, this is what he said then, to a Truth for Health Foundation conference, about the special dangers to women of child-bearing age from the gene-based vaccines, as reported by Neville Hodgkinson.
‘We’re being lied to . . . The authorities are not giving us full information about the risks of these products . . . The first is that we never, ever give experimental medicines to pregnant women. The thalidomide tragedy of the 1950s and 60s, in which a new product for morning sickness gave rise to at least 10,000 birth malformations, taught us that babies are not safe and protected inside the uterus, which is what we used to think. Interference by a chemical or something else at a critical stage of development could lead to irreparable damage.
‘Our government is urging pregnant women and women of childbearing age to get vaccinated, and they’re telling them they’re safe. And that’s a lie, because those studies have simply not been done. Reproductive toxicology has not been undertaken with any of these products, certainly not a full battery of tests that you would want.
‘That’s bad enough. Because it tells me there’s recklessness. No one cares. The authorities do not care what happens. But it’s much worse than that.’
Yeadon said he had seen a copy of the biodistribution report obtained from the Japanese regulator. To his horror, he said, ‘what we find is the vaccine doesn’t just distribute around the body and then wash out again, which is what you’d hope. It concentrates in the ovaries of rats, at least 20-fold over the concentration in other background tissues like muscles. And a general rule of thumb in toxicology is: if you don’t have any data to contradict what you’ve learned [from the animal studies], that’s the assumption you make for humans.
‘So my assumption at the moment is that these vaccines are concentrating in the ovaries of every female who has been given them. We don’t know what that will do, but it cannot be benign and it could be seriously harmful.’
His third concern, shared by a German doctor in a petition to the European Medicines Agency eight months ago, is that the spike protein produced by the vaccine ‘is faintly similar – not very strongly – to an essential protein in your placenta, something that’s absolutely required for both fertilisation and formation and maintenance of the placenta’.
The worry was that an immune response to the spike protein might cause antibodies to bind to the placental protein as well.
There was more. He concluded: ‘I think you can only expect that that is happening in every woman of childbearing potential. What the effect will be, we can’t be certain, but it can’t be benign.
‘So I’m here to warn you that if you are of child-bearing potential or younger, so not at menopause, I would strongly recommend you do not accept these vaccines.’
Blame the unjabbed – whatever the facts
By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | April 29, 2022
The writer is in New Zealand
THE business magazine Forbes has published a story with the arresting headline: ‘Unvaccinated People Increase Risk Of Covid Infection Among Vaccinated, Study Finds.’
The work to which it refers is not in the normal sense a study but is actually a modelling exercise published by the journal of the Canadian Medical Association. Did the Forbes staff writer read the paper very well? I am quite sure not. At the end of paragraph one of the Method section of the original paper, it describes its model, saying: ‘A vaccine that is 80 per cent efficacious would result in 80 per cent of vaccinated people becoming immune, with the remaining 20 per cent being susceptible to infection. We did not model waning immunity.’
Now I am sure you know that the mRNA vaccines do not stop infection and also wane in effectiveness. In other words mRNA vaccination does not confer immunity and its effectiveness does not remain constant as the paper assumes. So what use is this paper and to what do its conclusions apply? Apparently not to the mRNA Covid vaccines.
Lo and behold, one of the paper’s authors, David Fisman, declares competing interests: ‘He has served on advisory boards related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines.’
Another author, Ashleigh Tuite, was ‘employed by the Public Health Agency of Canada when the research was conducted’ (aka the domain of Justin Trudeau).
So why publish this story which on the face of it has little relevance to the real-world data of the current pandemic? Forbes magazine is 51 per cent owned by a Hong Kong-based company, Integrated Whale Investments, about which little is known. The Washington Post has suggested that Forbes’s editorial policy has been influenced as a result, but by whom no one really knows.
At this point in the pandemic, it has become clear that boosted individuals are becoming more vulnerable to Omicron than the unvaccinated. So I can only suggest that it might be advantageous for some scientists and politicians to blame the unvaccinated for everything in order to cover up their own mistaken ideas. Or perhaps there are commercial interests anxious to sell more arguably useless vaccines for billions of dollars. You decide.
If the government and their compliant media friends are our one source of truth, as has happened in New Zealand (by decree), then you have no option except to blame the unvaccinated whatever happens.
The actual situation is that the unvaccinated are currently less likely to be hospitalised than the boosted. Thank you to Grant Dixon for compiling and graphing NZ Ministry of Health data, below.
This morning my mask-exempt friend entered a haberdashery shop, whereupon two other potential customers turned and fled. Yesterday she was turned away from a fabric store. I am sure many of you have had similar experiences. The fact of the matter is that almost the whole of the New Zealand population has become subject to fear-based government-sponsored groupthink.
Are we all being conditioned to vote for Jacinda Ardern in next year’s election based on the carefully constructed myth that she is keeping us all safe? We should be keeping our feet on the ground. We should recognise that public relations experts and propaganda promoters are at work full-time, but they are working out of touch with reality.
Meanwhile our whole economy is becoming ever more dysfunctional. As people are too afraid to associate with one another in public, the whole basis of commercial activity is being undermined.
The two large supermarket chains are laughing all the way to the bank. As small businesses are forced to close and their monopoly grows, supermarket prices and profits are entering the stratosphere. Smart individuals are now ordering their vegetables and groceries direct from Australia (as far away from us as Moscow is from London) because they are so much cheaper.
The government is clueless to control this rampant price inflation, along with most things including the pandemic. The public is hoodwinked, queueing fully masked and fully vaccinated to pay through the nose for everyday items without a squeak of dissent.
The ten-year-old son of a friend asked his mother the other day: ‘Which do you think our society is more like – Brave New World or 1984?’ I doubt if either Aldous Huxley or George Orwell could ever have imagined anything so incomprehensibly doublethinking as 2022 New Zealand.
This is the state we have reached through our government’s careful rationing of information and saturation conditioning.
Time we reopened the floodgates of free speech and social media – hold your horses, we might endanger our one source of truth.
Parsing the “data” from Moderna’s selective leaks to the press about its failed clinical trial in kids under 6
The shot made no difference against Covid but it does cause myocarditis and came with a 15% to 17% adverse event rate. Meanwhile the CDC admits that 74.2% of kids already have natural immunity.
By Toby Rogers | April 30, 2022
On Friday, the NY Times and other stenographers for the cartel breathlessly announced that Moderna has asked the FDA to authorize its junk science mRNA shot in kids under 6. Oh, so that means Moderna submitted an application to the FDA? Well, not exactly. From the article:
“A top official at the company said it would finish submitting data to regulators by May 9.”
Wait, so Moderna is “asking” the FDA to authorize its product but Moderna will not even finish its application for another 10 days!? That’s weird. It’s like a kid asking his teacher for a A+ while his homework assignment is half-finished.
So already we’re seeing serious red flags and we’re not even out of the first paragraph.
Of course it gets worse.
To be clear, there is no data because Moderna has not even finished its application. But Moderna and the White House have been selectively leaking numbers to the press that dutifully prints them without question — and those numbers tell us that Moderna’s clinical trial was a disaster.
I need to provide some background and context and then I’ll get into the particular details about this failed clinical trial in kids.
Moderna applied for Emergency Use Authorization to administer its mRNA shot to adolescents 12 to 17 years old back on June 10, of 2021. But the application has been held up ever since. Why? Myocarditis. From the Wall Street Journal :
The Food and Drug Administration is delaying a decision on authorizing Moderna Inc.’s mRNA Covid-19 vaccine for adolescents to assess whether the shot may lead to heightened risk of a rare inflammatory heart condition, according to people familiar with the matter.
Moderna has at least two big problems in giving this shot to teenagers:
1) The dose they are giving to teenagers is the same dose as that given to adults — 100 mcg of mRNA — which is four times the amount in the Pfizer shot given to adults (25 mcg). So the Moderna shot is great at generating antibodies that target the spike protein of the original Wuhan lab leak strain. But some of that mRNA can migrate to the heart and generate myocarditis as well. Remember, Pharma’s capture of the FDA is so extreme, they should just be able to write “Iz Gud!” on a paper napkin and the FDA will approve it — as they did with Pfizer’s application to inject kids 5 to 11 — in spite of ZERO evidence supporting this use. So if the FDA has held up Moderna’s application in teens for nearly a year, the myocarditis signal must be truly terrifying.
2) Nordic countries are slightly less corrupt than the United States. Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have all suspended the use of the Moderna mRNA shot in teenagers because its leads to myocarditis. (Finland and Sweden even suspended its use in men under 30 years old.) Even the criminally corrupt European Medicines Agency acknowledged that both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA shots lead to myo- and pericarditis and added a warning to the product insert.
Okay what do we know about Moderna’s clinical trial in kids under 6?
Back on March 23, Moderna put out a press release claiming that:
vaccine efficacy in children 6 months to 2 years was 43.7% and vaccine efficacy was 37.5% in the 2 to under 6 years age group.
The NY Times of course printed that like it was a clay tablet handed directly from God to Moses just as they printed the “90% to 100% effective(TM)” lie in connection with the clinical trial in adults. By now everyone knows that the actual vaccine effectiveness is zero or even negative after 6 months.
Sane people pointed out that vaccine efficacy of 43% and 37% are BELOW the 50% threshold required for FDA authorization. It’s not clear why the geniuses at Moderna did not realize this — perhaps they just wanted to rub everyone’s noses in the sheer criminality of their enterprise?
But somewhere between March 23 and last Friday, Moderna staff got the message so they did what they always do, they just manipulated the data. From the NY Times :
Moderna said Thursday the vaccine appeared to be 51 percent effective against symptomatic infection among those younger than 2, and 37 percent effective among those 2 to 5.
Okay first off, lol that they still cannot get the number above 50% in kids 2 to 5 even when they are just straight up lying about the numbers. But how did they convert 43% to the magical 51% in kids 0 to 2? They simply deleted data that they did not like:
Those results were slightly better than the ones Moderna previously released for children under 2. The company said that was because the second time, the firm excluded infections that had not been confirmed with a P.C.R. test analyzed in a laboratory.
Let’s be clear — this is Moderna’s clinical trial. They control the whole process. If you’re a study participant who is having a heart attack in the middle of the night and call 911 and go to the hospital — they kick you out of the clinical trial for not seeing their doctors and following their protocol. So Moderna is the one who makes the decision as to whether to use “a P.C.R. test analyzed by a laboratory.” To now exclude (without any valid justification) infections that made their clinical trial look bad is gross scientific misconduct. The Moderna application, when/if it is submitted 10 days from now, should be rejected immediately because of this misconduct.
While the clinical trials in kids were failing, Pfizer and Moderna were running a half-hearted campaign to pressure the FDA to approve these shots in kids under 5 — in spite of zero data showing benefit and considerable evidence showing harms. The attempts were pathetic and included hashtags on social media like #immunizeunder5 that were likely only used by people taking money from these monsters. But of course the stenographers eagerly reported on this milquetoast effort and one of the talking points is, ‘well, okay, the shots do not meet the required 50% FDA threshold but some protection is better than none(TM) so please authorize my right to genocide my kids.’
Well, it turns out, these shots do NOT even offer “some protection”:
Moderna’s clinical trial data showed that the antibody response of the youngest children compared favorably with that of adults ages 18 to 25, meeting the trial’s primary criterion for success. Although the trial was not big enough to measure vaccine effectiveness…
What!? “The trial was not big enough to measure vaccine effectiveness.” Isn’t that the whole point of a clinical trial!? So Moderna (and the NY Times ) are saying that the clinical trial made ZERO difference on Covid-related health outcomes including infection, hospitalization, ICU visits, or deaths, because the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not a threat to healthy children in this age group — which we have been pointing out for months.
So how does Moderna try to finesse it? They look at antibodies in the blood, not health outcomes in the real world. They call it “immunobridging”. As I explained at length back in October, this is NOT a scientifically valid way to use immunobridging (claiming likely future health outcomes from antibodies alone when the trial showed no such thing). Immunobriding is only valid if one has clinically validated correlates of protection and conditions prevent one from conducting a proper RCT (neither of which apply in this case).
Even the hand-picked yes-men and women on the CDC’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) acknowledged at their last meeting that they do NOT have “correlates of protection” that would enable them to estimate health outcomes from antibody measures. Eric Rubin (Editor-in-Chief of the NEJM ) even stated, “We know what kind of antibody response can be generated, we just don’t know if it works.”
So Moderna is asking the FDA to authorize its mRNA shot in kids under 6 based on antibodies alone even though every member of the FDA’s VRBPAC acknowledges that antibodies tell you absolutely nothing about likely health outcomes.
(In fact, new evidence suggests that mRNA shots suppress the body’s innate ability to generate anti-N antibodies.)
What about side effects?
Side effects were at a similar level as those from previously approved pediatric vaccines, with fevers in 15 percent to 17 percent of the children, Moderna said.
Any shot with an adverse event rate over 1% should not be authorized. To authorize a shot with a 15 to 17% adverse event would be batsh*t insane.
Furthermore, we know that Moderna and Pfizer make cases of disability and death in their clinical trials disappear — so the actual adverse event rate is surely even higher than 15% to 17%.
Making this nightmare complete, the CDC acknowledged on April 26, 2022, that 74.2% of children ages 0 to 11 are already naturally immune to Covid-19 because of prior exposure. The 74.2% number came from February, so given the rate of increase at the time, by now nearly 100% of children ages 0 to 11 likely already have natural immunity which is superior to artificial vaccine immunity. There is no emergency in this population that would justify an emergency use authorization of this useless toxic product.
So to recap this painful saga:
• Moderna shots cause myocarditis and pericarditis which is why Moderna has not been able to get authorization to inject mRNA into teenagers.
• Moderna shots make no difference in connection with Covid-19 in this age group.
• Moderna shots come with at least a 15% to 17% adverse event rate.
• Nearly all children in this age group are already naturally immune so there is no emergency that would justify an emergency use authorization.
This is not hard to figure out. In a sane world this application would be dead on arrival, whenever Moderna gets around to actually turning in its application. Any reporter worth his/her salt should be ridiculing Moderna’s weird mix of hubris, incompetence, bad “data”, and malevolence. But our country, its “public health” agencies, and the mainstream media are run by Insane Nazi Clowns. I imagine many bougiecrats will drown in their own tears if they are not allowed to genocide their own kids with this shot (and then they’ll celebrate their sacrifice and take selfies with their kids in the ICU when the myocarditis kicks in, proclaiming #getvaccinated). Of course bougiecrats can already get this shot for their kid off label, so my hunch is that it’s really your kids who they want to genocide.
In future articles I’ll have additional thoughts about how we push back. In the meantime, this continues to be our best play and I encourage all of us to just get into the habit of contacting 25 people at the FDA every day to tell them to REJECT both the Moderna and Pfizer applications to inject mRNA into little kids.
Ukrainian strike on Donetsk market was a terrorist act
© Eva Bartlett
By Eva Bartlett | Samizdat | April 30, 2022
If the Donetsk marketplace that was hit by rocket artillery on Thursday had been in a city controlled by Kiev, the names and faces of the five civilians killed would be on all major news sites. But because it was another Ukrainian attack on civilians in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), the deaths and 23 additional civilians injured will almost certainly go unreported, as has the been the norm during the regime’s eight years of the Donbass and Western media’s eight years of ignoring the attacks.
According to the DPR’s Healthcare Ministry, “The strike at the Tekstilschik neighbourhood in the Kirovsky district killed four people on the spot. One patient died in an ambulance during the transportation.”
With another journalist, I went in a taxi to the bombed markets. Two of the dead still lay at the site when we arrived, splayed on the ground. The other bodies had already been removed, but traces of their blood remained on the ground, doors nearby were riddled with shrapnel holes and debris from the strike was all around.
Presumably, rescue workers dealt with the injured first and didn’t prioritize retrieving all the dead as further Ukrainian strikes were possible. I saw this during my experience in Gaza, where Israeli’s waited for people to come to the scene of their attack, then bombed again.
According to Gennady Andreevich, a local employee of the district’s safety commission, at 11:40 am Grad missiles struck two different nearby markets: the vegetable and clothing market where the bodies lay, and a household chemicals and building materials market across and down the street. The latter was far more damaged, stalls completely burnt out, but no one was killed there.
Gennady walked with us to the vegetable market, speaking about previous Ukrainian attacks–which have been happening since 2014. More recent shellings hit near a gas station outside the market, at a residential building beyond the market, and in his own market administrative building, killing two colleagues.
He noted that at this time of day the market would have been filled with people, and that Ukraine knows very well what it is firing at.
“They know there is a market here and that from 10am to 1pm there are many people here,” Gennady said as we walked past shops.
This is a completely civilian area, no military installations.
Who else attacks markets and public spaces?
Striking crowded markets and streets at a busy time of the day is something terrorists in Syria did for years, to the silence of Western media. It is something Israel has also done for a long time, hitting residential and public areas of Gaza–one of the most densely inhabited places on earth.
During the 2009 war on Gaza, Israel bombed crowded mosques, hospitals, and buildings housing displaced Palestinians. One of the more notable incidents was when Tel Aviv targeted a UN-run school in Jabaliya sheltering nearly 1,500 people. At least 40 were killed. Another horrific attack on a crowded place was in the Zeitoun district, after Israeli soldiers forced at gunpoint nearly 100 of the extended Samouni family into one home and later bombed it, killing 48 members of the clan.
During the war, I accompanied medics in their ambulances, documenting Israel’s war crimes. A medic (Arafa abd al-Dayem) I had accompanied was killed one day when the Israeli army fired a prohibited flechette (dart) shell directly at him and the ambulance he stood beside. The following day, Israel struck the crowded mourning tents, also with flechettes, killing six and injuring 25 of the relatives and friends who had gathered in one small space to mourn Arafa’s death.
Damascus’ old city is a maze of twisting lanes, overlapping houses, churches, mosques, schools, crowded outdoor eateries, and markets. Terrorist factions occupying eastern Ghouta shelled most frequently when children would be going to or from school, people to markets.
Having spent a lot of time in the East Gate and Thomas Gate areas of the old city, I experienced the shelling and, unfortunately, acquired many accounts of the terrorists shelling crowded places.
Even today, walking around Old Damascus, you’ll find the imprint of mortar blasts. And if you do walk those lanes, you’ll see how crowded they usually are, meaning many people would have been injured and killed per single mortar blast.
In mid April 2014, for example, they hit an elementary school and a kindergarten, killing one child and injuring 65 more, just some of the countless children killed and injured by shelling over the years.
Incidentally, I later wrote about how the BBC were present at the same hospital where I saw these injured children, and were told explicitly that terrorists were mortaring the city every single day. The BBC article that later followed included the line: “the government is also accused of launching them into neighborhoods under its control.”
I also wrote about terrorist bombings of Aleppo, citing one day in November 2016 when I was in the city, which by the end of the day killed 18 and injured more than 200 civilians. These were some of the nearly 11,000 civilians killed in Aleppo alone by terrorist attacks on homes and public places.
I could continue citing such acts of terrorism in Syria, in Palestine, elsewhere, but I’ve made my point: when Ukraine bombs a crowded market, it is an intentional act of terrorism. As is Ukraine’s relentless bombing of homes in the Donbass republics these past eight years.
Western Media won’t report on this; Western politicians won’t condemn this; virtue signallers won’t speak about this. And when you actually go and document it, they will silence you relentlessly.
© Eva Bartlett
My initial tweet about the market attack was predictably trolled, with comments claiming the bodies were fakes, the bombing never occurred, “prove it” sort of remarks.
Since my observations and photos, as well as Gennady’s testimony, will still not be proof enough, in my video I also included footage taken by a local who was in the market when it was bombed and filmed the immediate aftermath. Gennady himself showed photos on his phone of firefighters dousing the flames, and scenes of the wounded and dead, clearly surrounded by new bomb debris.
But this is what we’ve come to today: Ukraine, often using weapons acquired from the West, can continue to bomb busy civilian areas of the Donbass republics, killing still more civilians, and not only do the hypocrites of the West so keen to accuse Russia of war crimes (which they can never prove and often contradict themselves over), but media and troll farms work in lockstep to gaslight the public and whitewash Ukraine’s war crimes.
Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years).
Biden’s Mammoth $33BN Ukraine Package Includes Help With Wartime Propaganda
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | April 28, 2022
Politico’s Christopher Miller noted earlier that the record-smashing $33 billion spending package that the White House is proposing for Ukraine actually “dwarfs the annual defense budgets of most nations.” To which we naturally asked: how many billions of dollars does it take to turn a ‘proxy’ war into a ‘direct conflict’?
For starters it’s clear that such a massive amount of taxpayer money means that Washington clearly doesn’t expect that the war will end anytime soon, as multiple US defense and intelligence officials have recently testified. In fact General Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee during the first week of this month that he sees this as a “very protracted conflict” to come that will be “at least measured in years.”
Biden in his Thursday rollout remarks described that the new aid package “begins the transition to longer-term security assistance.” But interestingly as part of this assistance, a key area that the US will fund is what’s essentially information warfare…
Independent journalist and media commentator Michael Tracey has pointed out…
White House fact-sheet says part of the mammoth $33 billion spending package it’s requesting for Ukraine will be to “support independent media.” Because nothing screams “independent” like being directly funded by the US Government as part of its “information warfare” initiative.
Of course, going back to at least 2014 the US government has funded such Ukraine initiatives as “citizen journalism” to push back against ‘Russian influence’ in the country.
As WikiLeaks has documented long ago, there was similarly heavy State Department and US intelligence funding of “independent” and “opposition” media in Syria in the lead-up to and during the decade-long war to try and overthrow Assad.
But this marks a huge expansion of the United States much more directly assisting Ukraine in its media and wartime propaganda efforts. The White House fact sheet detailing the scope of the security aid package spells out in a bullet point:
- Counter Russian disinformation and propaganda narratives, promote accountability for Russian human rights violation, and support activists, journalists, and independent media to defend freedom of expression.
This as “freedom of expression” is often suppressed at home, ironically enough especially targeting independent media outlets.
Also of little comfort to the US taxpayer in terms of a potential eventual path to WW3 between two nuclear armed powers is this section under a header titled Help Ukraine Defend Itself Over the Long-Term…
- A stronger NATO security posture through support for U.S. troop deployments on NATO territory, including transportation of U.S. personnel and equipment, temporary duty, special pay, airlift, weapons system sustainment, and medical support.
Ultimately this means hundreds of millions will go toward propping up “independent media” which will actually in truth be US-state funded pro-NATO information efforts.
Here’s what I found at the reported ‘mass grave’ near Mariupol
A first-hand look at the location where Kiev claims trenches hold thousands of bodies
© Eva Bartlett
By Eva Bartlett | Samizdat | April 28, 2022
According to recent Western media, Russian forces have buried up to 9,000 Mariupol civilians in “mass graves” in a town just west of the Ukrainian city. These reports use satellite imagery as supposed evidence and repeat the claims of officials loyal to Kiev that “the bodies may have been buried in layers” and “the Russians dug trenches and filled them with corpses every day throughout April.”
I went to the site in question and found no mass graves.
On April 23, I joined RT journalist Roman Kosarev on a visit to the location, in the town of Mangush. What I saw were new, orderly grave plots including some still empty ones – an extension of a cemetery that already exists at the spot. No mass pit. Many of the graves have placards with the names and dates of birth of the deceased when available, and the remaining plots were numbered according to burial.
Since the media is essentially copy-pasting from the same source – the former mayor of Mariupol, Vadym Boichenko (who seems to be far from the city now) – I’ll cite from the Washington Post’s article.
Boichenko, the article notes, “called the site the ‘new Babyn Yar,’ referring to one the largest mass graves in Europe located in the outskirts of Kyiv, where 33,000 Jews where killed by Nazis in 1941 during World War II.”
This is ironic on several levels. A mayor who is whitewashing the neo-Nazis who have run amuck in his city – notably those from the Azov Battalion, who have used civilians as human shields, occupied and militarized civilian infrastructure, point-blank executed civilians – is comparing an alleged (non-existent) mass grave to a Nazi massacre of WWII.
Meanwhile, the Kiev regime has re-written history, making WW2 Nazis and their collaborators heroes of the nation. The most notorious example being the WWII figure Stepan Bandera.
Boichenko’s other alarming claim was that the alleged “mass grave” was “the biggest war crime of the 21st century.” We are only 22 years into it, but we’ve already seen the US-led invasion and destruction of Iraq, the levelling of Syria’s Raqqa, Saudi Arabia’s ongoing war in Yemen – all of which are much stronger contenders than the nowhere-to-be-found “mass graves” of Mangush.
In reality, the site has around 400 individual plots, including nearly 100 empty ones. The 9,000 bodies and “biggest war crime of the 21st century” were unverified claims made by a mayor who fled his city, promoted by media which down the page admitted they could independently verify the claims – but by then, the damage had been done.
Gravediggers disprove mass grave claims
While walking around the site, two men responsible for burials arrived, and when presented with the former mayor’s accusations of mass graves they vehemently rejected the claims.
“This is not a mass grave and no one is throwing bodies into a pit,” one told me.
© Eva Bartlett
According to them, they bury each person in a coffin and separate grave, details are logged in the morgue, and when any documents regarding name and age are given, the plot is marked with a placard containing those details. Otherwise a number is used.
Interestingly, they also noted that a section of the new graves included buried Ukrainian soldiers. “They’re human, too” one of the men said.
For those in doubt as to the location, see Roman’s report: his drone footage shows that it’s precisely the same location as shown in the satellite images used by Western media.
Meanwhile, as Roman noted while walking, mass graves is something Ukraine has previously been accused of. He cited DPR leader Denis Pushilin as having stated that at least 300 such sites have been discovered since 2014.
He also spoke of what he witnessed. “In 2014 or 2015, mass graves were discovered as Azov or Aidar fighters retreated from the Donetsk region. I even saw a woman, she was dug up, she had her arms tied behind her back, she was in the late stages of pregnancy and she had a hole in her head, so that means she was executed.”
American journalist George Eliason, who has lived in Lugansk for many years, has written about these alleged atrocities. In a documentary on the issue, he said: “I’m here for five minutes and then I’m told the first five people they found, it was five decapitated heads. They were all civilians. Who does this to people?”
This story of a mass grave in Mangush is another fake from the Western corporate media, which previously pushed incubator babies being thrown on the floor by Iraqi soldiers, pushed lies about WMDs in Iraq, and carried reports of a chemical attack in Douma that never happened, to name but a few of their litany of hoaxes.
Meanwhile, when I was in Mariupol on April 21 and 22, yes there was destruction – thanks to those Neo-Nazi & regular Ukrainian forces occupying upper floors of residential buildings and using them as military positions, thus drawing return fire on the buildings – but I also saw people in the streets, and the beginning of the cleaning up process before rebuilding can occur.
I’ll repeat what I’ve said on Western media reporting on Syria (which in my experience, from on the ground in that country, is largely dishonest): those who promote these hoaxes and war propaganda have blood on their hands.
After the countless lies emanating from Western corporate media, I would hope people would exercise critical thinking whenever a new claim is pushed, particularly when it is repeated in chorus by the usual suspects.
Featured Video
The Empire Enters the Cocaine Trade
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Summary
The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food
Lies Are Unbekoming | January 20, 2026
Soybeans generate approximately $80 million annually in mandatory producer assessments alone, funding a marketing apparatus that has transformed an industrial commodity into one of America’s most trusted “health foods.” The campaign succeeded. Soy milk lines supermarket shelves beside dairy. Soy protein fortifies everything from infant formula to energy bars. Vegetarians rely on tofu and tempeh as dietary staples. Doctors recommend soy to menopausal women. School lunch programs serve soy-based meat substitutes to children. An estimated 60 percent of processed foods contain soy derivatives. The premise underlying this proliferation—that Asians have thrived on soy for millennia and that modern science validates its health benefits—has been repeated so often it functions as established fact.
Kaayla T. Daniel’s The Whole Soy Story dismantles this premise through systematic examination of the scientific literature. The book documents that traditional Asian soy consumption averaged roughly one tablespoon daily, consumed as fermented condiments after processing methods that neutralized inherent toxins—a pattern bearing no resemblance to American consumption of industrially processed soy protein isolate, soy flour, and soy oil. Daniel catalogs the antinutrients that survive modern processing (protease inhibitors, phytates, lectins, saponins), the toxic compounds created by industrial methods (nitrosamines, lysinoalanine, hexane residues), and the heavy metals concentrated in soy products (manganese, aluminum, fluoride, cadmium). She traces the mechanisms by which soy isoflavones—plant estrogens present at pharmacologically significant levels—disrupt thyroid function, impair fertility, and interact with hormone-sensitive cancers. The evidence emerges from peer-reviewed journals, FDA documents, and industry sources themselves.
The stakes extend beyond individual dietary choices. Infants fed soy formula receive isoflavone doses equivalent to several birth control pills daily, with blood concentrations 13,000 to 22,000 times higher than their natural estrogen levels. Soy protein isolate—the ingredient in formula, protein bars, and thousands of products—has never received GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status; its only pre-1960s use was as an industrial paper sealant. Two senior FDA scientists formally protested their own agency’s approval of soy health claims, citing evidence of thyroid damage and reproductive harm. The Honolulu Heart Program found that men consuming tofu twice weekly showed accelerated brain aging and increased dementia. These findings have not penetrated public awareness because the institutions responsible for consumer protection have been compromised by the industry they regulate. The Whole Soy Story presents the evidence that has been systematically excluded from mainstream health messaging, enabling readers to evaluate for themselves what the soy industry prefers they never learn. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
eddieb on Fourteen Incredible Facts Abou… Bill Francis on European leaders’ shift in the… seversonebcfb985d9 on Villains of Judea: Philip Esfo… loongtip on Report warns that ‘Jewish terr… Craig Nelms on New study shows that toxic gas… loongtip on A Funny Thing Happened on the… loongtip on EU free trade pact on hold as… John Edward Kendrick on Regime Change In Iran Is The F… Bill Francis on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… seversonebcfb985d9 on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… Bill Francis on Britain’s AI Policing Plan Tur… loongtip on Miami Beach Resident Questione…
Aletho News- A pro-EU regime is moving to suppress this proud nation. Will they be able to withstand it?
- US-Russia Arms Control May Face ‘Very Dark Period’ – Scott Ritter
- Israel moves to restrict Palestinian re-entry to Gaza, ‘encourage outflow’: Report
- Trump aims to create new UN and own it, Brazil’s Lula warns
- UN rapporteur says Israeli demolition of UNRWA compound reflects broader attack on UN system
- From Proxy to Disposable: The US Betrayal of the Syrian Kurds
- Six injured in stabbing spree at Kurdish rally in Antwerp, victims stabbed ‘indiscriminately’
- US pledges to ‘starve’ Iraq of oil revenue if pro-Iran parties join new government
- Is China a threat to Greenland?
- South Korea’s Prime Minister Proposes US Send Special Envoy to North Korea — Report
- If Americans Knew
- Another Gaza baby freezes to death on Netanyahu’s watch – Not a ceasefire Day 106
- Oppose Israel’s Abuses While You Still Can
- UNRWA Heads Tell Ha’aretz: ‘We Don’t Radicalize Palestinians – Their Lived Existence Does’
- Plans Call for “New Rafah” Built in Israel’s Image — Without Palestinians
- Posing as priest, reporter is spat at many times, highlighting anti-Christian sentiment in Israel
- Leaked Documents: “Planned Community” in Rafah Would Force Palestinians Into Israeli Panopticon
- ‘Permits of Humiliation’: How Israel Strangles Christian Education in Jerusalem
- “The world sees death, destruction and injustice – and they see dollar signs” – Not a ceasefire Day 105
- War criminal Netanyahu kills 11 in Gaza, joins Board of Peace – Not a ceasefire Day 104
- Another baby dies of cold in Gaza, as Rafah crossing remains locked down – Not a ceasefire Day 103
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany’s Natural Gas Crisis Escalates … One Storage Site Near Empty …Government Silent
- Polar Colding…Antarctica Saw Its Coldest October In 44 Years!
- New Study: Sea Levels Rose 20 Times The Modern Rate During The Roman Warm Period
- As German Gas Storage Dips Dangerously Low…Shortage Hardly Avoidable
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
Aletho News 