Science and Pseudo-Science

The Founder Who Turned Against Root Canals

An Essay on George Meinig, Weston Price’s Buried Research, and the Dead Teeth in Your Mouth

Lies are Unbekoming | February 23, 2026

A woman had been confined to a wheelchair for six years with severe arthritis. Her joints were swollen, deformed. She could not walk. Her doctors had no answers.

Her dentist, Weston Price, suspected her root-canalled tooth. The X-rays showed nothing wrong with it. No visible infection. No symptoms in the tooth itself. He extracted it anyway.

Then he did something no one had tried before. He washed the tooth and surgically implanted it under the skin of a rabbit. Within two days, the rabbit developed the same crippling arthritis. In ten days, the rabbit was dead.¹

The woman recovered. She walked without a cane. She returned to fine needlework.²

Price repeated this experiment hundreds of times. He implanted root-canalled teeth from patients with heart disease into rabbits — the rabbits developed heart disease. Kidney patients — kidney disease in the rabbits. Eye infections, stomach ulcers, rheumatism, lung problems, bladder infections, ovarian diseases — the rabbits developed whatever the patient had.¹ ³

To rule out the possibility that any foreign object implanted under the skin would cause illness, Price also implanted healthy teeth extracted for orthodontic reasons, impacted wisdom teeth, and sterilized coins. Nothing happened. The rabbits remained perfectly healthy.¹ He ran these controls a hundred times.⁴

This research was not conducted in a garage. Price led a 60-person research team operating under the auspices of the American Dental Association’s Research Institute. His advisory board included Charles Mayo of the Mayo Clinic, Frank Billings (who coined the term “focal infection”), and Milton Rosenau, the Harvard professor of preventive medicine.⁵ The research produced 1,174 pages of data, published in two volumes in 1923, with photographs, charts, and the results of experiments on over 5,000 animals.⁵

Those 1,174 pages were then buried for seventy years.

How the Research Disappeared

The burial was not accidental. It was driven by two forces — a flawed counter-experiment and a professional overcorrection — and the result suited an industry that had no interest in the answer Price had found.

In the years following Price’s publications, a dentist named Percy Howe injected streptococcus bacteria taken from a normal, infection-free mouth into rabbits. None became sick. This study was seized upon by opponents of the focal infection theory to discredit Price’s work.⁸ The logic was circular: Howe used ordinary oral bacteria, not the mutated anaerobic organisms that Price had specifically demonstrated were trapped inside root-canalled teeth. Price had shown that bacteria sealed inside the oxygen-deprived environment of a dead tooth undergo polymorphic changes — becoming smaller, losing their need for oxygen, and producing toxins of far greater virulence than their original aerobic forms.⁶ ⁷ Howe tested something Price never claimed, then used the negative result to dismiss what Price had documented across thousands of experiments.

The second factor was collateral damage from Price’s own findings. Some dentists, reading the research too hastily, began extracting teeth indiscriminately, promising cures for every ailment. When wholesale tooth removal failed to produce miracles in every case, the entire focal infection theory was further discredited.⁸ The profession overcorrected. Rather than refine the understanding of which teeth were problematic, under what conditions, and why some patients recovered after extraction while others did not, dentistry rejected the premise altogether. Price himself had been careful to note that not all root canals produced illness — roughly 25–30% of patients appeared to tolerate them — and that outcomes depended heavily on the patient’s immune capacity.¹⁸ These nuances were discarded along with the research.

S. Hale Shakman’s doctoral dissertation, Medicine’s Grandest Fraud, documented the suppression in detail. The dismissal of Price’s work — and the parallel work of Edward Rosenow on elective localization of bacteria — was built on flawed calculations and professional politics, not sound science.³ Yet for decades, modern dentistry relied on this dismissal to assure dentists, dental students, and the public that root canals were safe.

By the mid-twentieth century, root canal therapy was established practice, the American Association of Endodontists was growing rapidly, and Price’s two volumes sat unread in the archives of the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation.

The Man Who Read the Books

George Meinig was one of 19 dentists who founded the American Association of Endodontists. He practiced root canal therapy at a time when few dentists performed the procedure and few dental schools taught it. He and his colleagues taught practicing dentists how to save infected teeth rather than extract them. Their pitch was effective: “How could you, as dentists, ever learn how to save teeth by taking them out?”⁹

Meinig went on to manage the Twentieth Century Fox Studio dental office. He received fellowships from the American College of Dentists and the International College of Applied Nutrition. He spent 17 years writing a weekly nutrition column for the Ojai Valley News. In May 1993, at the AAE’s 50th anniversary meeting, Meinig was honoured as one of only four surviving founding members of the organization.⁹ ¹⁰

That same year, he published a book telling people not to get root canals.

The path from founder to dissident began when Dr. Hal Huggins obtained Price’s two original research volumes and alerted the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation to their significance. The Foundation, recognizing the need for someone with both the technical background and the ability to translate research for a general audience, asked Meinig to review the material.¹⁰

Meinig read the table of contents and could not believe the magnitude of what Price had undertaken. He was, in his own words, “terribly disturbed and shaken” that he had never heard anything about these findings. He started reading immediately and could not put the books down. As he continued, he became “flabbergasted that our profession and the public had been cut off from learning about the basic and serious problems involved in this subject.”¹⁰

He was reading the evidence that the specialty he helped build was leaving dead, infected organs inside people’s bodies.

The weight of this was not lost on him. Meinig knew that publishing these findings would put him at odds with the profession he had served for 47 years. His dental colleagues — particularly those who knew him and were familiar with his background — would, as he predicted, think he had lost his mind. He asked himself whether his ability to translate technical material into readable language was enough, and whether making this information public would bring only unrest.¹⁰

But he kept returning to the numbers. Millions of people were ill with degenerative diseases for which the medical profession had no answers. The root canal research shed direct light on a potential cause. To Meinig, further delay was intolerable. If the profession would not investigate, the public needed the information to make their own decisions.¹⁰

He also knew that he was not easily dismissed. His credentials — founding member of the AAE, Fellow of the American College of Dentists, 47 years of practice, the Fox Studios appointment — made him precisely the kind of insider whose testimony carried weight. As he put it: who else but someone with this kind of background could appraise this serious research?⁵

What Happens Inside a Dead Tooth

A living tooth is not a static mineral peg. It is a complex organ with its own blood supply, nerve pathways, and immune function. The dentin — the hard tissue that makes up the bulk of each tooth — is not solid. It is laced with millions of microscopic tubules that radiate from the pulp chamber outward. If the dentinal tubules from a single tooth were placed end to end, they would extend approximately three miles.¹¹ ¹² ¹³

In a healthy tooth, nutrient-rich fluid flows outward through these tubules, from the pulp toward the surface. This pressurized flow is part of the tooth’s self-cleaning mechanism — an invisible toothbrush that keeps the internal structure clear of debris and bacterial invasion.¹⁴ The odontoblast cells lining the pulp chamber act as pumps, pushing microscopic droplets of this fluid through the tubule network.¹⁵

A root canal procedure kills this system. The dentist drills into the tooth, removes the pulp — the nerve, blood vessels, and connective tissue — and attempts to sterilize the hollow chamber. The canal is then packed with gutta-percha, a rubbery filling material, and sealed.¹²

The three miles of dentinal tubules remain untouched. No instrument can reach them. No disinfectant can penetrate their full length.¹¹ ¹³ Price tried soaking extracted infected teeth in powerful disinfectants, thoroughly killing all surface bacteria, then implanted them in animals. Infections still occurred.¹⁶ The bacteria inside the tubules survived every sterilization protocol available.

With the blood supply removed, the pressurized outward fluid flow that kept bacteria out of the tubules ceases. The environment inside the sealed tooth shifts from aerobic to anaerobic. Bacteria trapped in the tubules do not die. They mutate — becoming smaller, able to thrive without oxygen, and producing toxins of far greater potency than their original forms.⁶ ⁷ Price found that when he filtered out the bacteria from extracts of root-canalled teeth, leaving only the toxins, the remaining liquid was more lethal to rabbits than when the bacteria were present.¹⁷

The tooth is now a sealed container of necrotic tissue producing a continuous supply of toxic metabolic waste. The body attempts to wall off the threat. Sometimes this appears on an X-ray as a radiolucent area around the root tip.⁸ But the toxins produced inside the tooth migrate outward — through the dentinal tubules, through the cementum (the root’s outer covering), through lateral accessory canals, and into the surrounding jawbone and bloodstream.⁶ ¹²

Price demonstrated this directly. He cemented small steel tubes into root canals of extracted teeth and pumped dyed water through them under pressure. The coloured water traveled through the dentin tubules and seeped through the entire cementum — the root’s supposedly impervious outer layer.⁶

The filling material itself compounds the problem. Gutta-percha shrinks as it cools and sets. Price tested this with a packing device he invented that exerted several hundred pounds of pressure — far more than could be achieved in a patient’s mouth. After the material cooled, he submerged the exposed end in blue ink dye. In every single test, the gutta-percha leaked. The ink flowed into the gaps between the filling material and the canal walls.¹⁸ Modern research confirms the problem: one study found bacteria leaked out of 80% of teeth filled with gutta-percha regardless of which sealer was used, and another detected bacteria in 84% of gutta-percha-filled teeth after just 72 hours.¹⁹

There is no sealing material that solves this. The pastes used alongside gutta-percha contain their own toxic components: formaldehyde, ammonia, bismuth oxide, and compounds whose own safety data sheets warn against allowing them to reach sewage or ground water.²⁶ These materials are placed directly into the interior of a tooth that sits in the jawbone, millimetres from the bloodstream. And the filling materials themselves, whether gutta-percha, Resilon, or the calcium oxide-based Biocalex, all produce teeth that test highly toxic on enzyme inhibition assays upon extraction. The surrounding bone consistently shows chronic osteomyelitis — inflamed, infected bone.¹⁹

Dentistry is one of the only healing professions that routinely leaves a dead organ inside the body and assumes the body will tolerate it indefinitely.²⁰ Every surgeon knows what happens when dead biological tissue is left inside a surgical wound. It becomes infected. It spreads bacteria to other locations. The dental profession operates under an exemption from this principle that no other branch of medicine would accept.

The Thirty Rabbits

One of Price’s most striking experiments involved a single tooth from a patient who had died of a heart attack. Price extracted the tooth, crushed it into powder, and injected a minuscule amount — one millionth of a gram — into a rabbit. The rabbit developed heart disease and died.²¹

Price then retrieved the tooth from the first rabbit, cleaned and washed it, and implanted it in a second rabbit. That rabbit died too. He continued this process through 30 rabbits in succession. The expectation was that the toxic content of the tooth would gradually deplete with each implantation. Instead, all 30 rabbits died within approximately six days, except for one exceptionally large and aggressive male that survived to day ten.⁴

Even more remarkable: Price took infected teeth that had killed multiple rabbits, placed them in boiling water for one hour, then implanted them in new rabbits. The rabbits still became ill and died — in 22 days rather than six, but they died. He escalated to hospital autoclave temperatures at 30 pounds and 60 pounds of pressure for one hour, and even 300 pounds of pressure for two hours. The autoclaved teeth, when implanted, still caused weight loss, blood changes, and death in the rabbits — in 35 days.⁴

Whatever was inside those teeth was not ordinary infection. It was something that survived conditions that destroy all known pathogens. Under a terrain framework, this makes sense: the issue is not primarily the bacteria but the accumulated toxic metabolic waste products and breakdown compounds produced by anaerobic putrefaction within the sealed tubule network. These chemical toxins are not alive, and boiling or autoclaving does not neutralize them.

The 30-Billion-Dollar Industry

Each year in the United States alone, more than 30 million root canals are performed. That represents a 30-billion-dollar industry.¹⁷ The American Association of Endodontists — the organization Meinig helped found — now has thousands of members. The AAE’s official position is that there is no valid scientific evidence linking root canal-treated teeth to systemic disease.²² The AAE has no scientific article that effectively refutes the work of Weston Price and Edward Rosenow, though it claims otherwise.³

Cross-sectional studies from multiple countries paint a different picture. Periapical infection — infection at the root tip, indicating failure — was found in 50.8% of root canal-treated teeth in Scotland, 61% in Germany, nearly 68% in Turkey, 52% in Denmark, 64.5% in Spain, and 39–51% in Canada and the United States.²² These numbers are based on standard 2D X-rays, which means the actual infection rates are higher, since 2D imaging misses pathology that 3D imaging reveals. In the German study, only 14% of examined root canal-treated teeth met currently accepted standards for adequate filling.²²

The most recent long-term studies of root canal success rates over five- and ten-year periods report overall success rates of 30–40%.¹⁷ During Price’s era, the rate of root canals showing no observable side effects was 25%.¹⁷ The procedure works best for teeth that are minimally infected — the very teeth that would have been easiest to heal through nutritional intervention and that arguably did not need root canals in the first place. The badly decayed teeth that most need saving are the ones where the procedure most reliably fails.¹⁷

Root canals present a structural catch-22 that no amount of improved technique resolves. The problem is not inadequate disinfection protocols or inferior filling materials. The problem is the anatomy of the tooth itself: three miles of microscopic tubules that no instrument will ever reach, no chemical will ever sterilize, and no filling material will ever seal.

Modern Tools, Same Findings

Thomas Levy, a board-certified cardiologist, came to the root canal question through an unlikely path. While practicing cardiology in Colorado Springs, he met Dr. Hal Huggins — the same dentist who had first brought Price’s research back to light. At Huggins’ clinic, Levy saw patients with degenerative diseases improving and abnormal laboratory tests normalizing after programs of dental revision, to a degree he had not believed possible regardless of the treatment given.²³

Levy’s own research led him to conclude that focal infections from root canal-treated teeth reliably promote increased oxidative stress through the continuous release of pathogens and toxins into the body. The pathogens encounter the high-pressure arterial system first in the coronary arteries. Once seeded there, they consume local vitamin C, initiating focal scurvy and a chronic inflammatory response that never resolves until the infectious source is removed.²³

Levy himself became a case study. Despite good baseline health, his C-reactive protein levels — a strong indicator of chronic inflammation and a significant risk factor for coronary heart disease — remained stubbornly elevated for years. He could not determine the source. He even took 100 grams of intravenous vitamin C daily for a week, which barely moved the number. Then he experienced the sudden onset of chest tightness and shortness of breath while running after a dog. He was a cardiologist. He had seen this presentation countless times in his own patients. He had a root canal-treated tooth extracted and the infected bone around it cleaned. His health improved rapidly. A subsequent cardiac CT scan showed a 40–50% narrowing in his most important coronary artery — an area he suspected had been critically narrowed before the extraction.²³

One case from Levy’s clinical experience is particularly instructive. A friend with aggressive coronary artery disease had undergone seven angioplasties and stent placements in four years. Despite an extraordinary supplement regimen — including nine grams daily of liposome-encapsulated vitamin C — his disease continued to progress. Levy’s dentist found one root canal-treated tooth. He extracted it and cleaned the infected bone in the socket. The man never had another episode of chest pain. A cardiac CT scan years later showed that much of the arterial narrowing documented on earlier angiograms had resolved.²³

Levy’s work also brings a critical piece of modern evidence: 3D cone beam computed tomography. Standard two-dimensional dental X-rays — the kind used in every dental office — routinely fail to detect infection around root-canalled teeth. The periapical lesions hide in front of or behind the root, or sit a few millimetres from the radiographic apex, invisible on a flat image. When researchers compared the two technologies on the same set of 46 root canal-treated teeth, 2D X-rays detected infection in 70% of them. The 3D scans found infection in 91%.²²

That gap — the 21% of teeth that look clean on standard X-rays but show active pathology on 3D imaging — represents millions of people who have been told their root canals are fine.

Australian dentist Robert Gammal, who spent decades removing root canals and documenting the results, described a pattern that echoes Price’s findings from a century earlier: patients returning a week after extraction to report that symptoms they had suffered for years had disappeared within days. Breast lumps resolving — so frequently that Gammal lost count.²⁴ Multiple sclerosis symptoms vanishing after the removal of a single dead tooth. A 32-year-old man diagnosed with MS had one root-canalled tooth extracted and recovered completely.²⁴ A woman with two large brain lesions visible on MRI had a dead tooth and a bridge removed; three months later, a follow-up MRI was clear. Her neurologist declared her free of MS and did not want to know what she had done.²⁴

German cancer specialist Professor Max Daunderer reported that when MS patients had amalgam fillings removed but refused extraction of root-canalled teeth and treatment of infected jawbone, the cure rate was 16%. When patients accepted full treatment — amalgam removal, root canal extraction, and cleaning of the alveolar bone — the cure rate rose to 86%.²⁴

One published case study describes a 16-year remission of rheumatoid arthritis following extraction of root canal-treated teeth that appeared clinically healthy. The only clue was that the patient could reproducibly trigger severe arthritis attacks by applying heavy pressure to those specific teeth. After extraction, a layer of pus was found covering the root tips of teeth that looked perfectly normal. The rheumatoid factor became negative. The patient remained symptom-free for 16 years.²⁴

A Man Who Couldn’t Unknow

George Meinig published Root Canal Cover-Up in June 1993. The response, he reported, was immediate. His phone rang constantly with people recounting how illnesses had started shortly after root canal procedures, and how those illnesses resolved when the teeth were extracted.²⁵

The dental profession’s reaction was predictable. Meinig had anticipated it. He knew that most dentists and endodontists would reject his message — the same way the profession had rejected Price’s findings seventy years earlier. He noted that many important advances in medicine have come about only after public pressure was applied, and he was not optimistic that the profession would voluntarily re-examine its most profitable procedure.¹⁰

Meinig was no outsider throwing stones. He had taught root canal therapy to practicing dentists. He had helped build the professional organization that credentialed root canal specialists. He had been honoured by that organization for his contributions. His credentials were not just adequate — they were the very credentials the profession most respected.

He spent his remaining years trying to undo what he had helped build — lecturing, writing, appearing on radio and television, and urging the public to examine Price’s research and make their own decisions.¹⁰ He did this knowing that the procedure he was warning against was being performed 24 million times a year in the United States at the time he wrote, a number that has since grown to over 30 million.⁹ ¹⁷

The research is publicly available. It was never refuted — it was abandoned. When one of the founding members of the endodontic specialty finally read it, he reached the same conclusion that Weston Price had reached seventy years earlier.

The 1,174 pages are still there. They say what they say.

References

Meinig, G.E. Root Canal Cover-Up. Bion Publishing, 1993/1998. Chapter 1.
Price, W.A. Dental Infections Oral and Systemic, Volume I. Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, 1923. As cited in Meinig, Chapter 1, and Fife, B. Oil Pulling Therapy.
Levy, T.E. The Toxic Tooth: How a Root Canal Could Be Making You Sick. MedFox Publishing, 2014. Chapter on Price’s research.
Meinig, G.E. Root Canal Cover-Up. Chapter 21, “The 30 Rabbits Study.”
Meinig, G.E. Root Canal Cover-Up. Chapter 2, “Alarming Cover-up of Vital Root Canal Research Discovered.”
Meinig, G.E. Root Canal Cover-Up. Chapter 3, “The Bacteria and Other Microorganisms That are Involved in Dental Infections.”
Breiner, M.A. Whole-Body Dentistry. Quantum Health Press, 2012. Root canal chapters.
Arnett, B.J. Wholeistic Dentistry. Beaver’s Pond Press, 2011. Chapter on focal infection theory.
Meinig, G.E. Root Canal Cover-Up. Preface.
Meinig, G.E. Root Canal Cover-Up. Chapter 2 and About the Author.
Levy, T.E. The Toxic Tooth. Chapter 2, anatomy of the tooth and dentinal tubules.
Breiner, M.A. Whole-Body Dentistry. Chapter 18, anatomy and root canal discussion.
Fife, B. Oil Pulling Therapy. Chapter on root canals.
Artemis, N. Holistic Dental Care. Chapter on tooth anatomy, dentinal fluid flow, and odontoblasts.
Nagel, R. Cure Tooth Decay. Chapters on dentinal tubules and Steinman’s research.
Fife, B. Oil Pulling Therapy. Discussion of Price’s disinfection experiments.
Nagel, R. Cure Tooth Decay. Section on root canals, citing Meinig.
Meinig, G.E. Root Canal Cover-Up. Chapter 9, “Root Canal Fillings Getting Better but Still a Problem.”
Levy, T.E. The Toxic Tooth. Chapter 3, citing Shashidhar et al. (2011) and Shantiaee et al. (2011).
Lawrence, S.A. Holistic Dental Care: Your Mind, Body, and Spirit Guide. Rowman & Littlefield.
Meinig, G.E. Root Canal Cover-Up. Chapter 16; Breiner, Whole-Body Dentistry, root canal chapters.
Levy, T.E. The Toxic Tooth. Chapters on failure rates and 3D imaging, citing Lofthag-Hansen et al. (2007).
Levy, T.E. The Toxic Tooth. Chapter 8, “Experience with Root Canal Treatment.”
Yoho, R. Judas Dentistry. Chapter 4, citing Dr. Robert Gammal’s clinical accounts and published case study of RA remission.
Meinig, G.E. Root Canal Cover-Up. Chapter 25, “Conclusions.”
Munro-Hall, G. Toxic Dentistry Exposed. Section on root-canal-filling material contents and toxicity.

February 25, 2026 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | United States | Comments Off on The Founder Who Turned Against Root Canals

The Mandelson Molecule: Exposing the Architecture of Cross-Border Political Suppression

By Freddie Ponton | 21st Century Wire | February 18, 2026

The resignation of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington in February 2026 revealed more than a scandal—it exposed the architecture of a parallel governance system operating through deniable channels. The Epstein files, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) censorship apparatus, and the Mandelson intelligence pipeline are not separate stories. They are component parts of a transatlantic mechanism that converts private access into public control, with enforcement mechanisms that now reach across sovereign borders to silence American citizens.

Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted sex offender with deep ties to political and financial elites on both sides of the Atlantic. Peter Mandelson is a former UK power‑broker and ambassador to Washington, now under investigation for secretly sharing government information with Epstein. This article shows how their relationship connects to a wider system of online censorship and private global‑health finance.

The Intelligence Pipeline: Real-Time Treasury Briefings to a Convicted Sex Offender

The Mandelson-Epstein correspondence reveals something far more systematic than indiscreet friendship. It documents a private intelligence channel operating at the highest levels of UK and US financial policy.

In December 2009, while serving as Business Secretary, Mandelson forwarded Treasury positions on the bankers’ bonus tax to Epstein within hours of receiving them, with Epstein requesting advance notice “before Jes” and Mandelson replying simply: “Treasury”. By March 2010, the pattern had escalated—Mandelson forwarded notes from a meeting between UK Chancellor Alistair Darling and US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers to Epstein within five minutes, followed by his own meeting with Summers the next day. Those notes were forwarded within two minutes.

The content was market-moving intelligence: Dodd-Frank implementation, hedge fund taxation, derivatives regulation, and Bank of England quantitative easing strategy during the credit crunch. Mandelson advised Epstein that JPMorgan’s CEO should “mildly threaten” Chancellor Darling over policy. This systematic extraction of live government intelligence for private financial advantage can hardly be construed as incidental corruption.

DOCUMENT: Peter Mandelson leaked No 10 documents to Epstein, who then helped him pursue multi-million dollar jobs (Source: Tax Policy Associates)

The Censorship Architecture: From Anti-Corbyn Operations to American Deplatforming

The same censorship machine that produced the Biden White House’s authoritarian campaign against the so-called “Disinformation Dozen” in 2021 had emerged from the notorious Room 216, Brixton, where Israeli loyalist and architect of Keir Starmer’s rise to power, Morgan McSweeney, along with Imran Ahmed, built the “Labour Together” operation to dismantle Jeremy Corbyn. It was a CCDH list of 12 named individuals, which the White House then pushed Facebook to censor. The March 2021 “Disinformation Dozen” report was not independent research—it was unequivocally the identical playbook redeployed. The Biden White House directly cited CCDH’s report to pressure Facebook into censoring American health publishers, with internal documents showing the platform’s “secretly demoted” users, including alleged “anti-vaxxers”, and Twitter accounts of targeted individuals. When Facebook pushed back that the “majority of the accounts in question were not spreading misinformation,” the White House persisted.

Among those branded the “Disinformation Dozen” by the CCDH in March 2021: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Children’s Health Defense), physician Joseph Mercola, and Sayer Ji—whose investigative work exposing the Mandelson intelligence pipeline appears later in this report.

The method was documented in internal strategy papers: cultivate “seemingly independent voices to generate and share content to build up a political narrative,” infiltrate opposition spaces to extract decontextualised content, and feed narratives to sympathetic media. The “antisemitism crisis” that destroyed UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was, as Labour Party files confirm, instrumentalised by this same faction.

Morgan McSweeney was CCDH’s founding director and subscriber for 18 months, operating from the same Brixton office that produced Labour’s anti-Corbyn operation. When he resigned in April 2020 to become Starmer’s chief of staff, Ahmed inherited an apparatus already proven effective at demonetising political opposition.

Morgan McSweeney, founding director of the CCDH, and former British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff. (Source: The Edge | Business news)

The March 2021 “Disinformation Dozen” report was not independent research—it was unequivocally the identical playbook redeployed. The Biden White House directly cited CCDH’s report to pressure Facebook into censoring American health publishers, with internal documents showing the platform “secretly demoted” affiliated accounts and Twitter accounts of targeted individuals. When Facebook pushed back that the “majority of the accounts in question were not spreading misinformation,” the White House persisted.

Project Molecule: The Financial Infrastructure of Private Governance

The August 2011 JPMorgan “Project Molecule” blueprint reveals the financial architecture that made this system durable. The $150 million fund Epstein pitched to JPMorgan CEO Mary Erdoes was designed to operate “across sovereign borders, into specific countries, for specific biological interventions”—with no elected officials, no treaty obligations, and no public accountability beyond its own audit committee.

DOCUMENT: JPMorgan “Project Molecule” blueprint (Source: DOJ Epstein File Library | EFTA01301114)

Epstein operated as Bill Gates’s representative under a written agreement, with the explicit purpose of securing “additional money for vaccines” while creating a “permanently governed, privately controlled, transnational system”. The budget allocated $40M for polio vaccines in Afghanistan, $40M in Pakistan, $20M specifically for “financing the surveillance network in Pakistan,” and $30M for rotavirus vaccines in Latin America.

This is the governance model: private intelligence (Mandelson-Epstein), private finance (Project Molecule’s offshore vaccination funds), and private enforcement (CCDH’s deplatforming operations) operating in substitutional parallel to democratic institutions.

The Enforcement Layer: Cross-Border Suppression of American Speech

What transforms influence operations into censorship is enforcement. The original investigation documents the apparatus reaching into foreign legal proceedings against American journalists—cross-border enforcement without due process, extradition treaties, or congressional oversight.

The pattern is now confirmed by US government action. In December 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio barred Imran Ahmed from entering the United States, citing his role in “leading organised efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose”. Ahmed was one of five Europeans sanctioned under a visa policy targeting foreigners responsible for censoring protected speech in America.

The CCDH is now reportedly under DOJ investigation for potential violations of foreign agent registration laws, given its coordination with UK Labour operatives while targeting US political speech. Labour’s deployment of approximately 100 operatives to US swing states during the 2024 election—conducted by McSweeney’s network—has generated formal FEC complaints alleging direct electoral interference.

After days of parliamentary theatre about “transparency,” Westminster has craftily moved to bury the Mandelson-Epstein papers—not in open sunlight, but inside the Intelligence and Security Committee, a body three of whose members have already stuffed with cash from pro-Israel lobbyists.

In Britain, Downing Street originally wanted veto power over anything “prejudicial to national security”, but the documents will now be reviewed by the Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). Critics argue that this allegedly independent oversight body could be compromised. In effect, three sitting members—Deputy Chair Sir Jeremy Wright, Sir John Hayes, and Labour’s Derek Twigg—have all taken money from the pro-Israel lobby, which by some estimates bankrolls roughly a quarter of British MPs. This can be verified in the excellent Declassified UK report published in June 2024.

🔴 EXPOSING THE ISRAELI LOBBY'S INFLUENCE ON UK POLITICS

Curious about how millions in funding might sway UK MPs and impact an investigation? Dive into this eye-opening clip revealing the powerful influence of the Israeli lobby on UK politics and the Epstein case.

🔔 FYI – WE… pic.twitter.com/XyhyyKpBr3

— Patrick Henningsen (@21WIRE) February 16, 2026

The bottom line is that the Epstein file, which details how Mandelson piped classified Treasury intelligence to a convicted sex offender, and how British power brokers and Wall Street criminals traded backroom briefings, will now be “vetted” by politicians on the take from foreign influence networks. Forget transparency—it was never on the table.

The Architecture of Manufactured Consensus

The critical insight is structural: these networks exploit the gap between formal democratic institutions and actual governance. Mandelson’s Treasury briefings to Epstein occurred through informal channels. Project Molecule’s sovereign surveillance programs were designed to operate offshore. CCDH’s censorship operations, though effective at capturing White House policy, occurred through a nonprofit rather than state agencies. According to reports, George Soros is said to have donated $250,000 to the CCDH, which is working to censor conservative news outlets and to undermine Musk’s Twitter.

When the same personnel (McSweeney as CCDH founder, then Starmer’s chief of staff), the same infrastructure (Brixton operations), and the same methods (crisis amplification, media laundering, financial pressure) appear across Corbyn’s destruction, COVID censorship, and US electoral operations, we are not observing a coincidence. We are witnessing a system.

The switchboard is not the scandal. The switchboard is the system, and it is now being dismantled by the very government it sought to influence.

The Original Investigation

This synthesis builds upon the groundbreaking investigative work of Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo and author of the Switchboard series—including the first publication to connect the Mandelson-Epstein intelligence pipeline to the CCDH censorship apparatus. Ji’s research, conducted under direct legal and professional pressure from the very networks he was exposing, documented how British political operatives built a cross-border enforcement mechanism capable of weaponising foreign courts against American journalists.

His original reporting on Room 216, the Brixton operations, and the emergence of “disinformation” as a tool for political suppression predates mainstream coverage by years, and has now been validated by the Epstein disclosures, the Rubio sanctions against Ahmed, and the DOJ’s investigation into CCDH’s foreign agent activities.

Read the complete investigation series and supporting documentation at Sayer Ji Substack…

Sayer Ji reports on Substack…

The Switchboard: From Epstein to Mandelson to McSweeney to Ahmed — How a British Machine Became America’s Censorship Engine

How the Epstein Files Reveal the Architecture Behind Censorship, Crisis Finance, and What Happened When I Investigated It – Part 3 in a Series

Peter Mandelson, “the Prince of Darkness,” Keir Starmer’s hand-picked ambassador to Washington, the most powerful unelected figure in British politics, resigned from Parliament this week, one step ahead of legislation to eject him. The Metropolitan Police opened a criminal investigation. The Prime Minister apologised to Jeffrey Epstein’s victims for believing Mandelson’s lies.

The press is treating this as a story about a politician’s downfall. It is not. It is a story about what he was connected to — and what was built to make sure you never found out.

Key Findings:

The censorship machine that targeted American speech during COVID was built inside a Labour Party factional operation. Morgan McSweeney and Imran Ahmed created the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) from the same office, using the same staff, and the same dark-money infrastructure they used to destroy Jeremy Corbyn — then redeployed the identical playbook against U.S.-based health publishers and independent media.
CCDH’s founder and political patron is a protégé of Peter Mandelson, who was simultaneously routing confidential UK and U.S. government intelligence to Jeffrey Epstein. Mandelson forwarded Treasury readouts on the Volcker Rule, Dodd-Frank, and derivatives regulation to Epstein within minutes of receiving them — intelligence worth billions to Epstein’s Wall Street clients. The same political culture of deniable backroom operations that made the Epstein network functional also produced CCDH.
Epstein’s network was not just criminal — it was architectural. Project Molecule, a $150M JPMorgan blueprint produced the same month Epstein sketched a private global health fund, reveals the institutional machinery: offshore vaccination funds, sovereign biological surveillance programs, and governance structures designed to bypass elected oversight entirely.
The enforcement layer is not theoretical — it has already been deployed against named individuals. CCDH’s “Disinformation Dozen” list led directly to platform deplatforming. In at least one documented case, CCDH-originated material was entered into foreign legal proceedings to seek an ex parte arrest warrant against a U.S.-based journalist for lawful American speech — cross-border enforcement with no due process, no extradition treaty, and no congressional oversight.
The same network is now the subject of a formal FEC complaint alleging direct electoral interference. McSweeney — Mandelson’s protégé, CCDH’s political architect, and now Starmer’s chief of staff — was named in a formal FEC complaint for dispatching approximately 100 Labour operatives to U.S. swing states during the 2024 presidential election. The censorship pipeline and the electoral interference pipeline share the same personnel, the same infrastructure, and the same assumption: that British political operatives can shape American outcomes without accountability.

Continue reading this investigation on Substack

February 18, 2026 Posted by aletho | Corruption, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Human rights, UK, United States, Zionism | Comments Off on The Mandelson Molecule: Exposing the Architecture of Cross-Border Political Suppression

‘Fox guarding the henhouse’: AMA, Vaccine Integrity Project to conduct their own vaccine safety and efficacy reviews

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 11, 2026

The American Medical Association (AMA) is teaming up with the Vaccine Integrity Project to conduct its own review of vaccine safety and efficacy, claiming that advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are no longer doing a good enough job.

The groups said Wednesday in a press release that “for decades,” the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) had “served as the engine of evidence-based vaccine policy” for the U.S. “That system has now effectively collapsed.”

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Press Secretary Emily G. Hilliard told The Defender the claim that ACIP’s evidence-based process has collapsed is “categorically false.” She said:

“ACIP continues to remain the nation’s advisory body for vaccine use recommendations driven by gold standard science. While outside organizations continue to conduct their own analyses and confuse the American people, those efforts do not replace or supersede the federal process that continues to guide vaccine policy in the United States.”

The Vaccine Integrity Project, based at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), says it is dedicated to “safeguarding vaccine use in the U.S.”

The AMA will work with the project to review vaccines for the 2026-2027 respiratory virus season. These include immunizations against COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), according to the press release.

CIDRAP Director Michael Osterholm said in a statement that the goal is “to restore peace of mind for clinicians and patients by ensuring that experts are continuously evaluating vaccine safety and effectiveness using transparent, evidence-based methods.”

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg said it’s unlikely that the groups will restore people’s peace of mind about vaccines. She said:

“Unfortunately, the AMA and the Vaccine Integrity Project support a narrative about vaccines that is being exposed more and more as problematic and contradicted by what people are seeing with their own eyes.

“The system is broken and efforts to prop it up from the inside are being exposed for conflicts of interest and flawed analyses.”

The groups’ review process looks similar to how the ACIP traditionally worked, but they won’t issue recommendations. Instead, they will share their review results with medical societies, which can write recommendations for their patient demographic.

The AMA and the Vaccine Integrity Project said they will also involve medical societies and public health and healthcare organizations to craft policy questions.

Review members will disclose “relevant” conflicts of interest, according to the press release. However, “relevant” was left undefined.

The AMA and Vaccine Integrity Project said in a statement:

“The goal of this work is to ensure a deliberative, evidence-driven approach to produce the data necessary to understand the risks and benefits of vaccine policy decisions for all populations — the approach traditionally used by the federal government.”

The effort may generate more confusion among Americans who are torn between looking to the federal government or medical societies for vaccine guidance, according to Trial Site News.

“The country is no longer operating with a single, uncontested center of vaccine-policy gravity,” Trial Site News wrote.

‘Like asking the fox to guard the henhouse’

The Vaccine Integrity Project, launched in April 2025, is funded by an unrestricted gift from iAlumbra, a nonprofit founded by Walmart heiress and philanthropist Christy Walton.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, The Greenwall Foundation and Lasker Foundation are also listed among the project’s funders.

The Vaccine Integrity Project declined The Defender’s request for a list of donation amounts and names of any individual donors.

Former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky serves as the Vaccine Integrity Project’s adviser of medical affairs. In 2022, Walensky admitted the CDC gave false information about COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring.

Already, the Vaccine Integrity Project released a review of the hepatitis B vaccine that supported vaccinating all newborns at birth, rather than delaying when the mother has tested negative for hepatitis B. The project is currently reviewing the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.

“Trusting the AMA and the Vaccine Integrity Project to objectively review vaccine safety feels a lot like asking the fox to guard the henhouse,” said Nebraska chiropractor Ben Tapper.

Mack Rosenberg said the repeated failures of such organizations to “truly and comprehensively” analyze vaccine safety data have led to “increasing distrust among the public — and with good reason.”

AMA ‘a political force,’ not a ‘neutral medical association’

In 2025, the AMA spent nearly $24 million on lobbying, making it one of the top 10 groups trying to influence government policy, according to OpenSecrets.

“This is not the behavior of a neutral medical association. It is the strategy of a political force,” wrote Jason Altmire in an op-ed for RealClearHealth.

Altmire, a former hospital and health insurance executive who served in the U.S. House of Representatives, is an adjunct professor of healthcare management at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center.

Tapper questioned whether the AMA and the Vaccine Integrity Project would sufficiently assess the safety of vaccines.

For many people, the concern isn’t that vaccines can have benefits, he said. “The concern is whether safety data is fully transparent, whether adverse event reporting is thoroughly investigated, whether conflicts of interest are disclosed and whether risk-benefit analyses are stratified appropriately by age and health status.”

The AMA, which touted 2024 revenues of $546 million, was criticized during the COVID-19 pandemic for deferring to political ideology rather than medical facts.

Its “AMA COVID-19 Guide: Background/Messaging on Vaccines, Vaccine Clinical Trials & Combatting Vaccine Misinformation” encouraged doctors to use certain words and avoid others. For instance, “stay-at-home order” replaced “lockdown,” and “deaths” replaced “hospitalization rates.”

The AMA in August 2025 was disinvited from the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee’s workgroups.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

February 16, 2026 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | AMA, United States, Vaccine Integrity Project | Leave a comment

Epstein Pitched JPMorgan Chase on Plan to Get Bill Gates ‘More Money for Vaccines’

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 10, 2026

In the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, Bill Gates and key figures from the Gates Foundation regularly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, discussing ways to finance and develop a global pandemic preparedness and vaccination network.

The communications between Gates and Epstein were included in the “Epstein Files” released Jan. 30 by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Last year’s passage of the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act prompted the release.

Sayer Ji told The Defender the files show that Epstein “functioned as a switchboard” connecting “hedge funds, central banks, billionaires, academic institutions and global health initiatives.”

Ji published his analysis of health- and medical-related information in the files in a series of Substack articles and posts on X.

Seamus Bruner, director of research at the Government Accountability Institute, said the files revealed the workings of a network of “Controligarchs on steroids, but with shocking new receipts.”

Bruner said the files showed that Epstein helped develop “the architecture for pandemic profiteering” years before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The documents largely date from the 2010s — after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting underage sex and his inclusion on a registry of sex offenders.

Ji noted that months before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the same actors who appear in the Epstein files participated in Event 201 — a simulation of a global pandemic caused by a coronavirus.

The pandemic preparedness infrastructure built in the years before the pandemic helped lead to this simulation, Ji wrote.

According to The Hill, members of the U.S. Congress began reviewing unredacted versions of the documents on Monday.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who co-sponsored the Epstein Files Transparency Act along with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), told The Defender the documents’ release is about justice, not politics.

“Rep. Ro Khanna and I have tried to keep the Epstein files from being political. The Democrats want to make it about Trump, and the Republicans want to make it about the Clintons. We want to make it about the survivors and getting them justice and transparency,” Massie said.

Gates, Epstein and the ‘architecture behind pandemics as a business model’

Ji’s series of Substack posts revealed what he described as “a 20-year architecture behind pandemics as a business model — with Bill Gates at the center of the network,” along with multinational financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase.

The documents, dating from 2011 to 2019, illustrate an “architecture whose foundations predate the COVID-19 era by more than a decade,” Ji wrote. He said they constitute evidence of “a major Wall Street bank asking a convicted sex offender to define the architecture of a Gates-linked charitable fund.”

The documents included several emails outlining the development of a Gates-led charitable fund. A Feb. 17, 2011, email from JPMorgan Chase’s Juliet Pullis to Epstein included questions from the “team that is putting together some ideas for Gates.”

Epstein’s reply outlined how this fund could be structured. The proposal would be developed further in the following months.

In a July 26, 2011, email from Epstein to JPMorgan Chase executive Jes Staley, on which Boris Nikolic, Gates’ chief science and technology adviser, was copied, described a “silo based proposal that will get bill [Gates] more money for vaccines.”

By Aug. 17, 2011, Staley and Mary Erdoes, then-CEO of JPMorgan Asset and Wealth Management, were discussing more details of the proposed fund, including developing “an offshore arm — especailly for vaccines” and projecting “billions of dollars” in donations within two years.

In a response later that day, Epstein said Gates was “terribly frustrated” at the slow pace of establishing the fund. He said Gates was insistent that “additional money for vaccines” be included in an upcoming presentation about the fund.

By Aug. 31, 2011, JPMorgan Chase had apparently developed a proposal called “Project Molecule,” where the bank would partner with the Gates Foundation to develop a perpetual charitable fund for pandemic preparedness and surveillance, vaccine promotion and disease eradication.

According to Ji, the proposal contains many of the ideas Epstein had previously discussed with JPMorgan Chase executives. It also contained plans to spend millions of dollars to purchase oral polio vaccines for Afghanistan and Pakistan, a rotavirus vaccine for Latin America, and a meningitis vaccine for Africa.

The proposal suggested that Melinda Gates chair the fund’s strategic program/grant and distribution committee and that Erdoes, Warren Buffett, Jordan’s Queen Rania and Seth Berkley, CEO of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, also participate. The Gates Foundation funded Gavi’s launch in 1999 and holds a permanent seat on its board.

Ji wrote that while Epstein’s name does not appear in the Project Molecule proposal, it acts as the “institutional translation of the architecture he was sketching informally.”

By 2013, these efforts appear to have led to the launch of the Global Health Investment Fund. A confidential Sept. 23, 2013, briefing described the fund as “the first investment fund focused on global health drug and vaccine development.” The fund promised investors annual returns of 5%-7%.

Among the attendees at the fund’s September 2013 launch were JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and representatives of Pfizer, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK).

Gates could ‘work with anyone on earth’ but ‘chose a registered sex offender’

According to Ji, Nikolic’s involvement is significant. In August 2013, Gates and Epstein signed an agreement, in which Gates “specifically requested” that Epstein “personally serve” as Nikolic’s representative. The letter noted Epstein’s “existing collegial relationship” with Gates.

“This agreement was executed five years after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution,” Ji wrote. “Gates had the resources to work with anyone on earth. He chose a registered sex offender — and put it in writing.”

The documents showed that a month earlier — on July 18, 2013 — Epstein authored a draft email apparently intended for Gates. It references Epstein’s friendship with Gates, his disappointment that Gates sent him an “unfriendly strongly worded email,” and referenced sordid communications the two apparently previously shared.

“TO add insult to the injury you them implore me to please delete the emails regarding your std, your request that I provide you antibiotics that you can surreptitiously give to Melinda and the description of your penis,” Epstein wrote.

In a video posted on X, Michael Kane, director of advocacy for Children’s Health Defense, said that while it’s unknown whether Epstein ever sent that email to Gates, “the next month they’re in a contract together.”

“I think Bill Gates got the message,” Kane said.

In November 2023, a federal judge approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and over 100 women who accused Epstein of sexual abuse. The women alleged that JPMorgan Chase continued doing business with Epstein despite internal warnings over a span of several years.

“JPMorgan banked Epstein for years despite clear red flags — over $1 billion in suspicious transactions flagged internally and ignored. They knew. They didn’t care,” wrote The Truth About Cancer.

Did Epstein play role in launch of the ‘biosecurity state’?

According to Ji, the documents provide a roadmap for how a pandemic preparedness infrastructure was developed and how it helped make Event 201 possible.

“By the time Event 201 convened, the architecture … was no longer conceptual. It had been funded, structured, bonded, insured, staffed, and legally papered. What remained was the rehearsal,” Ji wrote.

September 2014 documents show that Gates disclosed his upcoming meeting with President Obama to Epstein, just as an adviser to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak sent Epstein an invitation to a private, off-the-record reception with Obama the following month.

Ji said the communications occurred during “the week Ebola was formally reclassified as a threat to international peace and security.” He said the timing is significant, as this “was the week the biosecurity state was born.”

According to Ji, these developments helped activate the infrastructure outlined in Project Molecule, where Epstein acted as a node for Ebola-related project proposals.

This included Epstein receiving a United Nations (U.N.) diplomat’s proposal for the development of a “Nexus Centre for peace and health” that would take “into account the serious impact of Ebola,” and a proposal by a group of scientists for a pre-symptomatic Ebola detection system using PCR testing.

The scientists behind the proposal — affiliated with a U.S. military biolab at Fort Detrick, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health — asked Epstein to send the proposal to Gates and the Gates Foundation.

By October 2014, Epstein was warning Kathy Ruemmler, then White House counsel to Obama, of the political cost if Obama didn’t take action on Ebola. By 2015, Epstein was acting as an intermediary in efforts to convene global experts who would “discuss how we can most effectively address and prevent pandemics.”

The proposal, by the International Peace Institute’s Terje Rød-Larsen, led to the convening of a May 2015 closed-door meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, titled “Preparing for Pandemics: Lessons Learned for More Effective Responses.” The World Health Organization (WHO), World Bank and U.N. were involved with the meeting.

The meeting’s agenda included sessions addressing “how pandemics should be anticipated, how authority should be exercised, how multiple stakeholders should be coordinated, and — critically — what legal, institutional, and financial mechanisms must be put in place in advance to enable rapid, centralized response,” Ji wrote.

According to Ji, the COVID-19 pandemic response has its roots in the 2014 Ebola response, as Ebola “was the first disease to formally justify the suspension of normal political and sovereign constraints on a global scale. … When the next global health emergency arrived — COVID-19 — the playbook was already written.”

“Epstein appears in the background of precisely these formative conversations — serving as a connector between global finance, philanthropic capital, and biological risk governance,” Ji told The Defender.

Epstein involved in ‘strain pandemic simulation’ two years before COVID

By 2017, these conversations led to proposals for pandemic simulations.

In a January 2017 iMessage thread between Epstein and an unidentified physician seeking help in finding a new job, the physician cited “expertise with public health security.”

The physician, who had experience at the U.N., WHO, Gates Foundation and World Bank, said he “just did pandemic simulation,” which could become a “big platform.”

Referring to Gates, the physician told Epstein, “He hates mental health but he’s crazy about vaccines and autism stuff. That could be start to a more broad conversation.”

A March 2017 email chain, which included Epstein and Gates, discussed efforts by the then-bgC3, Gates’ private strategic office, to develop “Follow-up recommendations and/or technical specifications for strain pandemic simulation.”

Ji noted that in 2017, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) was launched at the World Economic Forum (WEF), with Gates Foundation funding and a goal of creating “pandemic-busting vaccines” within 100 days. Later that year, the World Bank issued the first-ever pandemic bonds.

Event 201, held just six weeks before the first publicly acknowledged COVID-19 cases were announced, involved the Gates Foundation, WEF and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Global financial institutions, media organizations and intelligence agencies also participated.

The simulation focused on the response to a novel coronavirus outbreak by governments, pharmaceutical companies, media outlets and social media platforms.

Ji said the Epstein Files don’t show that COVID-19 was planned or manufactured, or that Event 201 led to COVID-19. Instead, they prove that “the institutional infrastructure to capitalize on exactly this kind of crisis was already built, tested, staffed, and insured.”

February 15, 2026 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Gates Foundation, United States | Leave a comment

No, Al-Jazeera, Climate Change Hasn’t Altered African Flood and Drought Patterns

By Anthony Watts | Climate Realism | February 3, 2026

Al Jazeera (AJ) recently published an article titled “Drought in the east, floods in the south: Africa battered by climate change” by Haru Mutasa, in which the reporter details recent experiences of drought in East Africa and flooding in southern Africa, asserting that those weather events are proof that climate change is battering the continent. This is false. The article relies on flimsy content such as personal observation, interviews, and evocative imagery to imply causation, ignoring data and trends that show no appreciable changes in flood or drought patterns over time.

Mutasa asserts that “rising seas and intensifying storms” and shifting rainfall patterns are already devastating livelihoods, citing the author’s personal field observations as evidence of a broader climate crisis. Readers are shown photos of dry riverbeds, dead livestock, submerged neighborhoods, and distressed residents, then invited to connect these scenes directly to global warming. The emotional impact is real, but emotion is not evidence.

Let us start with AJ’s most basic error: weather is not climate. Climate is defined by long-term patterns measured over decades, typically 30 years or more. A drought in one region followed by floods in another over a few weeks or months says nothing about a durable climate trend. Africa’s climate has always been highly variable, with sharp swings driven by ocean–atmosphere cycles such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation and the Indian Ocean Dipole. Short-term extremes—sometimes back-to-back—are a known feature of the region, not a recently discovered diagnostical proof of climate change.

The historical record bears this out. Southern and eastern Africa experienced severe droughts and catastrophic floods long before modern greenhouse gas emissions rose. Mozambique’s Limpopo River basin, featured prominently in the article’s flood imagery. The area has a long history of major inundations, including the devastating 2000 Mozambique floods, which displaced hundreds of thousands and occurred during a strong El Niño year. East Africa’s Horn has likewise seen repeated, multi-year droughts throughout the twentieth century, interspersed with episodes of extreme rainfall. These precedents matter because they show that today’s events are consistent with a long pattern of variability rather than proving a novel climate regime.

In fact, science has shown a 50-year seasonal variability across centuries in East African droughts and floods recorded in lake sediments.

When measured data are consulted instead of anecdotes, the alarm bells fade. Climate at a Glance summarizes the global evidence in “Floods” and “Drought,” explaining that there is low confidence in any increasing trend of global flood frequency or magnitude and that drought trends are regionally mixed, not universally worsening. These conclusions align with the cautious language used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), which emphasizes uncertainty and regional variability rather than blanket claims of intensification.

The AJ article substitutes interviews for analysis. Quoting local residents and aid workers about hardship may document suffering, but it does not diagnose cause. Infrastructure deficits, land-use changes, deforestation, river management, dam releases upstream, population growth in floodplains, and limited early-warning systems all play decisive roles in disaster outcomes across Africa. Climate Realism has repeatedly shown how media coverage overlooks these factors while attributing complex events to climate change by default, as catalogued in its Africa-related reporting and extreme-weather analyses accessible via Climate Realism’s search on floods and droughts and Climate Realism’s coverage of drought claims.

Even within the article’s narrative, local management issues loom large. Mutasa notes dam releases in South Africa’s Mpumalanga province sent additional water downstream into Mozambique—an operational decision with immediate hydrological consequences that has nothing to do with global temperature or climate change. Treating such factors as footnotes while elevating climate change as the primary driver of flooding misinforms readers about where real risk reduction lies.

Serious climate reporting distinguishes between events and trends, and between personal experiences and measured evidence.

By presenting interviews and moment-in-time scenes as confirmation of a continent-wide climate verdict, Al Jazeera is misleading its audience by making a causal connection where data show none. Africa’s vulnerability to climate and weather extremes is real, but the causes are multifaceted and long-standing. Ignoring historical precedents and measured trends in favor of an alarming narrative certainty does not inform the public; it misleads it with false headlines.

February 8, 2026 Posted by aletho | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | Africa | Leave a comment

Bad Science, Big Consequences

How the influential 2006 Stern Review conjured up escalating future disaster losses

By Roger Pielke Jr. | The Honest Broker | February 2, 2026

For those who haven’t observed climate debates over the long term, today it might be hard to imagine the incredible influence of the 2006 Stern Review on The Economics of Climate.1

The Stern Review was far more than just another nerdy report of climate economics. It was a keystone document that reshaped how climate change was framed in policy, media, and advocacy, with reverberations still echoing today.

The Review was commissioned in 2005 by the UK Treasury under Chancellor Gordon Brown and published in 2006, with the aim of assessing climate change through the lens of economic risk and cost–benefit analysis. The review was led by Sir Nicholas Stern, then Head of the UK Government Economic Service and a former Chief Economist of the World Bank, from the outset giving the effort unusual stature for a policy report.

As the climate issue gained momentum in the 2000s, the Review’s conclusions that climate change was a looming emergency and that virtually any cost was worth bearing in response were widely treated as authoritative. The Review shaped climate discourse far beyond the United Kingdom and well beyond the confines of economics.

One key aspect of the Stern Review overlaps significantly with my expertise — The economic impacts of extreme weather. In fact, that overlap has a very surprising connection which I’ll detail below, and explains why back in 2006 I was able to identify the report’s fatal flaws on the economics of extreme weather in real time, and publish my arguments in the peer-reviewed literature soon thereafter.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

I have just updated through 2025 the figure below that compares the Stern Review’s prediction of post-2005 increases in disaster losses as a percentage of global GDP with what has actually transpired.

Specifically, the figure shows in light grey the Stern Review’s prediction for increasing global disaster losses, as a percentage of GDP, from 2006 through 2050.2 These values in grey represent annual average losses, meaning that over time for the prediction to verify, about half of annual losses would lie above the grey bars and about half below.

The black bars in the figure show what has actually occurred (with details provided in this post last week). You don’t need fancy statistics to see that the real world has consistently undershot the Stern Review’s predictions over the past two decades.

The Stern Review forecast rapidly escalating losses to 2050, when losses were projected to be about $1.7 trillion in 2025 dollars. The Review’s prediction for 2025 was more than $500 billion in losses (average annual). In actuality losses totaled about $200 billion in 2025.

The forecast miss is not subtle.

How did the Stern Review get things so wrong?

The answer is also not subtle and can be summarized in two words: Bad science.

Let’s take a look at the details. The screenshot below comes from Chapter 5 of the Review and explains its source for developing its prediction, cited to footnote 26.

As fate would have it, footnote 26 goes to a white paper that I commissioned for a workshop that I co-organized with Munich Re in 2006 on disasters and climate change.

That white paper — by Muir-Wood et al. — is the same paper that soon after was played the starring role in a fraudulent graph inserted into the 2007 IPCC report (yes, fraudulent). You can listen to me recounting that incredible story, with rare archival audio.

But I digress . . . back to The Stern Review, which argued:

If temperatures continued to rise over the second half of the century, costs could reach several percent of GDP each year, particularly because the damages increase disproportionately at higher temperatures . . .

The report presented its prediction methodology in the footnote 27, shown in full below, which says: “These values are likely underestimates.”

Where do these escalating numbers come from? Who knows.

They appear to be just made up out of thin air. The predictive numbers do not come from Muir-Wood et al., who do not engage in any form of projection.

The 2% starting point for increasing losses — asserted in the blue highlighted passage in the image above — also does not appear in Muir-Wood et al. which in fact says:

When analyzed over the full survey period (1950 – 2005) the year is not statistically significant for global normalized losses. . . For the more complete 1970-2005 survey period, the year is significant with a positive coefficient for (i.e. increase in) global losses at 1% . . .

The Stern Review seems to have turned 1% into 2% and failed to acknowledge that over the longer-period 1950 to 2005, there was no increasing trend in losses as a proportion of GDP. The escalating increase in annual losses from 2% to 3%, 4%, 5%, 6% every decade is not supported in any way in the Stern Review, nor is it referenced to any source.

When the Stern Review first came out, I noticed this curiosity right away, and did what I thought we scholars were expected to do when encountering bad science with big implications — I wrote a paper for peer review.

My paper was published in 2007 and clearly explained the Muir-Wood et al. and other significant and seemingly undeniable errors in the Stern Review.

Pielke Jr, R. (2007). Mistreatment of the economic impacts of extreme events in the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change. Global Environmental Change, 17(3-4), 302-310.

I explained in that paper:

This brief critique of a small part of the Stern Review finds that the report has dramatically misrepresented literature and understandings on the relationship of projected climate changes and future losses from extreme events in developed countries, and indeed globally. In one case this appears to be the result of the misrepresentation of a single study. This cherry picking damages the credibility of the Stern Review because it not only ignores other relevant literature with different conclusions, but it misrepresents the very study that it has used to buttress its conclusions.

Over my career in research, I’ve had some hits and some misses, but I’m happy to report that I got this one right at the time and it has held up ever since. Of course, perhaps a more significant outcome of this episode, and a key part of my own education in climate science, is that my paper was resoundingly ignored.

One reason that science works is that scientists share a commitment to correct errors when they are found in research, bringing forward reliable knowledge and leaving behind that which doesn’t stand the test of time.

I learned decades ago that in areas where I published, self-correction was often slow to work, if not just broken. Over the decades that pathological characteristic of key areas of climate science has not much improved (e.g., see this egregious example).

The Stern Review helped to launch climate change into top levels of policy making around the world. Further, we can draw a straight line from the Review to the emergence of (often scientifically questionable) “climate risk” in global finance a decade later. It still rests on a foundation of bad science.

1 My ongoing THB series on insurance and “climate risk” in finance prompted me to revisit the 2006 Stern Review, hence this post.

2 Note that the Review explicitly referenced the tabulation of global economic losses from extreme weather events as tabulation by Munich Re, which is the same dataset that I often use, such as in last week’s THB post on global disaster losses. The comparison here is thus apples to apples.

February 8, 2026 Posted by aletho | Deception, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science | UK | Leave a comment

New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties

By Kenneth Richard | No Tricks Zone | February 6, 2026

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has for decades advocated net-zero governmental policies to reduce anthropogenic CO2 (aCO2) emissions.

This advocacy is rooted in the non-physical assumption that aCO2 molecules are special, as they remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries.

Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) narrative even claim aCO2 removal can “take up to several hundreds of thousands of years.”

While AGW proponents insist that “once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years,” they (and the IPCC) simultaneously acknowledge the residence time of “natural” or non-anthropogenic CO2 is only about 4 years.

In reality, a new study references the Equivalence Principle in emphasizing nature’s sinks indiscriminately and equivalently absorb both aCO2 and natural CO2 in about 4 years (Müller, 2025). There is no physical reality for IPCC claims of “specialized” absorption time for aCO2 vs. natural CO2 molecules.

The IPCC assumes exactly 50% of aCO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere for decades to millennia. It is consequently assumed net-zero policies that propose to halve aCO2 emissions will lead to the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Because “anthropogenic CO2 has the same [4-year] residence time of natural CO2,” this assumption is physically invalid.

Net-zero policies will literally have no detectable effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In sum, “the IPCC’s assumptions and fundamentals are wrong.”

February 8, 2026 Posted by aletho | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

When Threats Replace Evidence

What an Australian Newspaper Article Reveals About the Vaccine Compliance Machine

Lies are Unbekoming | February 5, 2026

The Sydney Morning Herald wants you to know the penalties. Doctors and nurses who falsify vaccination records face suspension, deregistration, and jail. Parents who seek them out face fraud investigations through Services Australia. The article names specific dollar amounts ($2,500 per child), quotes the Health Minister expressing shock and outrage, and reminds readers that AHPRA—the regulatory body that controls whether medical professionals can earn a living—is watching.

The article reads less as journalism than as a warning to anyone considering dissent.

The Herald is one of Australia’s oldest and most influential newspapers, the rough equivalent of the New York Times in reach and establishment credibility. When it publishes a piece like this, it speaks with institutional authority. The January 2026 article, “Parents are paying $2500 to falsify vaccine records,” arrives at a particular moment in Australian public health: vaccine uptake has “stalled below national targets,” mandate enforcement is creating a black market for exemptions, and parents are organising in Facebook groups 40,000 members strong.

To understand the context, American readers need to know what Australia built. Between 2014 and 2019, five Australian states—New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia—rolled out “no jab, no play” laws, which bar unvaccinated children from childcare and preschool enrollment entirely. The only exemptions are medical, and these require documented life-threatening allergic reactions or severe immunocompromise—conditions so narrow that most families cannot qualify no matter their concerns.

The coercion is not subtle—and it violates the government’s own rules. Australia’s Immunisation Handbook states that valid consent must be given “voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.” Denying a child access to childcare unless the parents comply is textbook duress. The government has built an enforcement apparatus that fails its own stated ethical standards.

The system was designed to make non-compliance economically devastating and socially impossible. And for years, it worked. But now that system is encountering mass resistance, and the Herald article’s purpose is to make examples—to signal what happens to doctors who help parents escape a coercive system, and to parents who refuse to comply.

Buried beneath the threats is a dead baby. Riley Hughes, 32 days old, is the emotional payload. His story opens the piece, provides the moral frame, and transforms regulatory enforcement into righteous protection of the innocent. Without Riley, this article is just an inventory of punishments. With Riley, non-compliance becomes child murder.

The story requires examination.

Riley developed “mild cold symptoms” at three weeks old. His mother took him to a doctor, who said he appeared “perfectly fine.” When he stopped feeding, she took him to the children’s hospital. By day three, doctors “suspected” whooping cough. By day four, he had pneumonia. By day five, he was on life support. He died at 32 days old. Riley died in February 2015—eleven years before this article was published. The Herald reached back over a decade to find its dead baby.

The article states that “The Bordetella pertussis bug had overwhelmed his tiny body.” This is presented as fact. But reading carefully, the diagnosis was never confirmed—doctors “suspected” whooping cough. The journalist’s assertion that pertussis killed Riley is not attributed to any medical source. It is simply declared.

More striking is what the article omits entirely: what happened during those five days of hospitalisation. What interventions were administered to a three-week-old infant? What antibiotics? What was the “life support” that preceded his death? The hospital’s role in Riley’s deterioration is invisible. The medical system appears only as the place where heroic efforts were made to save him from the disease that (we are told) the unvaccinated community gave him.

The article describes Riley as “too young” to be vaccinated against whooping cough, which is given at six to eight weeks in Australia. But it does not mention that under Australian guidelines, Riley would have received the Hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours of birth. He was not an unvaccinated child. He was a vaccinated child who had not yet received this particular vaccine.

If Riley had been completely unvaccinated, that would be the story. “Unvaccinated baby dies of preventable disease” writes itself. Instead, the article performs a subtle shift: a vaccinated infant dies after five days of hospital intervention, and an entire class of people—parents who refused to vaccinate—are scapegoated to protect the system that failed him.

None of this can be stated with certainty. We do not have Riley’s medical records. We do not know what drugs were administered, what procedures were performed, what his body endured in those five days. But that is precisely the point: neither does the Herald, and neither do its readers. The article presents a story with a hole at its centre and fills that hole with a villain—the unvaccinated community—while the institution that actually had custody of Riley during his decline remains unexamined.

What we do know: Riley was vaccinated. He received the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth, as per Australian protocol. He then spent five days in hospital care before he died. This is a vaccinated child who died after days of medical intervention—and the article repurposes his death as a case against vaccine refusal.

The mother, Catherine Hughes, is quoted: “My son would likely be alive today if everyone in my community had been fully vaccinated against whooping cough.”

This is a grieving mother’s belief, given to her by a medical system that needed someone to blame. She has since founded the Immunisation Foundation of Australia and become a professional advocate for vaccination mandates. What the Herald does not disclose: as journalist Alison Bevege has documented, her foundation received $170,000 from Sanofi in 2023 and $100,000 from GSK in 2025. Hughes herself appears in GSK press releases promoting their products. The article presents her as a spontaneous voice of bereaved motherhood. She is a paid pharmaceutical spokesperson.

The article’s foundational premise—that unvaccinated children endanger the community—is not merely unexamined. Even within the mainstream framework of germ theory and disease transmission, the published science contradicts it.

In 2014, researchers at the FDA published a study using baboons to examine how the acellular pertussis vaccine actually works. The results, within the germ theory framework the researchers operated in, were unambiguous: vaccinated baboons exposed to Bordetella pertussis showed few symptoms but became colonised with the bacteria. They were then placed in cages with unvaccinated baboons—and by the researchers’ own account, the vaccinated animals passed the bacteria to the unvaccinated ones. The study’s conclusion: “acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission.”

A 2015 study by Althouse and Scarpino went further. Using epidemiological, genetic, and mathematical modelling data, they argued that asymptomatic spread from vaccinated individuals “provides the most parsimonious explanation for the observed resurgence of B. pertussis in the US and UK.” Vaccinated individuals who show no symptoms carry and spread the bacteria—according to the very framework the public health establishment operates within. The authors noted that this also explains the documented failure of “cocooning”—the strategy of vaccinating family members to protect newborns. By their own logic, it doesn’t work because the vaccinated family members become silent carriers.

Even by the establishment’s own standards, the pertussis vaccine does not prevent colonisation. It does not prevent spread. What it does, according to their own researchers, is suppress symptoms in the vaccinated individual while allowing them to pass the bacterium to others, including infants too young to be vaccinated.

These are peer-reviewed studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and BMC Medicine. The FDA conducted the baboon study.

Meanwhile, within this same framework, the bacterium has apparently evolved under vaccine pressure. A 2014 Australian study found that between 30% and 80% of circulating pertussis strains during a major outbreak were “pertactin-deficient”—lacking the protein the vaccine targets. The authors observed that “pertussis vaccine selection pressure, or vaccine-driven adaptation, induced the evolution of B. pertussis.”

The pertussis vaccine suppresses symptoms. Whether it also creates asymptomatic carriers who spread an apparently evolving pathogen, as the establishment’s own researchers claim, remains their narrative to defend. But even within that narrative, the unvaccinated are not the problem—the vaccine is.

When the Herald article quotes a professor warning about “one of the kids there has whooping cough or measles, and it spreads through the childcare, putting your child at risk,” the establishment’s own science suggests the spreader is more likely to be a vaccinated child with no visible symptoms than an unvaccinated child who would be home sick.

Even within the establishment’s own framework, if Riley had pertussis, the most likely source—according to their own research on asymptomatic carriage—would be a vaccinated person, perhaps someone in his own family who had been “cocooned” as the health authorities recommend. The article does not explore this possibility. It cannot, because the entire enforcement apparatus rests on the premise that the unvaccinated are the danger.

The article is not confused about the science. It is not interested in the science. Its function is compliance enforcement, and its vectors are specific.

The first vector targets medical professionals. The article names a Perth nurse charged with fraudulently recording vaccines—though the case was dropped for lack of evidence. It names a Victorian doctor whose registration was suspended. It quotes AHPRA warning that practitioners found acting fraudulently face suspension or deregistration. The message to any doctor or nurse who might help parents escape the system: we are watching, and we will destroy your career.

This is not new. In December 2020, Dr. Paul Thomas, a Portland paediatrician who had practiced for 35 years, published a peer-reviewed study comparing health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children in his practice. The data showed unvaccinated children were significantly healthier across multiple metrics. Within days of publication, the Oregon Medical Board issued an “emergency order” suspending his licence, claiming his “continued practice constitutes an immediate danger to the public.”

The Board’s letter accused Thomas of “fraudulently” asserting that his vaccine-friendly protocol improved health outcomes—the very thing his peer-reviewed data demonstrated. His paper was later retracted under circumstances its authors describe as dubious. Thomas eventually surrendered his licence rather than continue fighting the Board’s conditions, which prohibited him from consulting with parents about vaccines or conducting further research.

The pattern is consistent. Produce evidence that challenges the orthodoxy, lose your ability to practice medicine. The threat in the Herald article is not abstract. Medical professionals in Australia have seen what happens to dissenters.

The second vector targets parents. The article reminds readers that Services Australia investigates Medicare and Centrelink fraud. Parents who pay for falsified records are not just endangering children (according to the article’s framing)—they are committing crimes against the Commonwealth. The article implies that seeking workarounds exposes parents to criminal liability, transforming a decision about their child’s medical care into a prosecutable offence.

The third vector is reputational. The article quotes the Health Minister: “I am shocked and appalled that any doctor or nurse would falsify vaccination records.” Parents in the Facebook groups are framed as reckless conspirators, their concerns about vaccine safety transmuted into selfish endangerment of babies like Riley. The 2025 study cited in the article notes that 47.9% of parents with unvaccinated children “did not believe vaccines are safe” and 46.7% “would not feel guilty if their unvaccinated child got a vaccine-preventable disease.” These statistics are presented as moral indictments.

What the article does not mention: the same study found that nearly 40% of these parents “did not believe vaccinating children helps protect others in the community.” Given the published science on pertussis—even within the establishment’s own framework—these parents have a point.

In 2004, Glen Nowak, the CDC’s director of media relations, gave a presentation to the National Influenza Vaccine Summit titled “Increasing Awareness and Uptake of Influenza Immunization.” His slides explained that vaccine demand requires “concern, anxiety, and worry” among the public. “The belief that you can inform and warn people, and get them to take appropriate actions or precautions with respect to a health threat or risk without actually making them anxious or concerned,” Nowak explained, “is not possible.”

His recipe for demand creation included medical experts stating “concern and alarm” and predicting “dire outcomes” if people don’t vaccinate. References to “very severe” and “deadly” diseases help motivate behaviour. Pandemic framing is useful.

The Herald article follows this template precisely. It opens with a dead baby. It features a professor warning about diseases “spreading through childcare.” The Health Minister invokes “serious complications, hospitalisation, and in some cases, death.” The 14 measles cases since December are presented ominously, without context about how many of those cases involved vaccinated individuals or resulted in any serious illness.

The article also quotes Dr. Niroshini Kennedy, president of the paediatrics and child health division at the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, warning about “vaccine hesitancy.” What the article does not mention: the RACP has a foundation that partners with GSK, a major pertussis vaccine manufacturer. The expert voice warning about hesitancy has institutional financial ties to a company that profits from vaccination.

The financial stakes are not abstract. GSK’s pertussis products Boostrix and Infanrix generated $2.3 billion in 2023. Sanofi’s pertussis vaccine revenue hit $1 billion in 2024, up 10.8% on the previous year, driven by booster demand. When the Herald runs a story demonising vaccine refusers, it serves an industry measured in billions.

The article acknowledges, briefly, that public health experts warned in 2019 that “vaccine mandates can backfire, and simply induce parents to seek loopholes, and, worse, fuel negative attitudes towards vaccination.” This warning has proven accurate. Australia’s escalating mandate regime has not produced the desired compliance. It has produced a $2,500 black market and Facebook groups with 40,000 members sharing strategies for resistance.

The system’s response is not to reconsider the mandates. It is to escalate enforcement and amplify fear. The article is part of that escalation.

The escalation itself is diagnostic. Systems that can defend their policies on evidence do not need to inventory punishments in the newspaper. They do not need to reach back eleven years for a dead baby. They do not need AHPRA warnings and Health Minister quotes and reminders about criminal prosecution. They make their case and let the data persuade.

What the Herald article reveals, beneath its institutional authority, is a system that has run out of persuasive tools. The sequence tells the story: first came the information campaigns, which did not produce sufficient uptake. Then came the mandates—no jab, no play—which produced compliance but also resistance. Then came enforcement against the resisters, which produced a black market. Now comes the threat display in the national press, designed to frighten the black market into submission. Each escalation is a concession that the previous level of coercion failed. Each one is more desperate than the last.

A system confident in its science would welcome questions. A system confident in its products would publish the safety data that parents are asking for. A system confident in its outcomes would point to the evidence and let parents decide. This system prosecutes nurses, deregisters doctors, denies children access to childcare, and runs articles designed to make examples of anyone who dissents. That is not the behaviour of an institution operating from strength. It is the behaviour of an institution that knows it cannot survive scrutiny—and is scrambling to ensure that scrutiny never arrives.

What parents are waking up to, slowly and in growing numbers, is that the fundamental promise—vaccinate your children and they will be protected, vaccinate enough children and the community will be protected—is not supported by the evidence, even within the framework that public health authorities operate in. What they are discovering is that asking questions produces hostility rather than answers. What they are learning is that doctors who support informed consent are being systematically removed from practice, leaving parents with no one in the medical system willing to have honest conversations.

The 40,000 parents in that Facebook group are not there because they read misinformation. They are there because they asked questions their doctors couldn’t answer, or because their child had a reaction that was dismissed, or because they did the research the system told them not to do and found that the confident assurances didn’t match the published science.

The Herald article treats these parents as a problem to be solved through enforcement. It does not entertain the possibility that they might be responding rationally to real information. It cannot, because that would require examining the science—and the science does not support the policy.

Australia has constructed a system where parents lose childcare access if they do not vaccinate, where doctors lose their licences if they support parental choice, where asking questions about vaccine safety is framed as “misinformation,” and where a dead baby is deployed to transform regulatory non-compliance into moral monstrosity.

The article calls this public health. A more accurate description: this is what happens when a policy built on faulty premises meets a population that is beginning to see through it. Unable to defend the science, the system defends itself through threats, fear, and the weaponisation of grief.

Riley Hughes deserved better than to become a propaganda tool for the companies that fund his mother’s foundation. The parents seeking exemptions deserve honest information about what vaccines can and cannot do. The doctors trying to practice informed consent deserve to keep their licences.

None of them are served by an article whose purpose is to frighten dissenters into silence.

The system is telling parents: comply or be punished, and don’t ask questions. The parents are responding: we have questions, and your threats are not answers.

That tension will not be resolved by more enforcement. It will be resolved when someone in authority has the courage to address the questions honestly—or it will continue to escalate until the system’s credibility collapses entirely.

Forty thousand parents in one Facebook group suggest which direction this is heading.

References

The Article Under Discussion:

Olaya, K. (2026, January 31). Parents are paying $2500 to falsify vaccine records. It’s endangering babies like Riley. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/national/parents-are-paying-2500-to-falsify-vaccine-records-it-s-endangering-babies-like-riley-20260127-p5nxah.html

Catherine Hughes Financial Disclosures:

Bevege, A. (2026, February 4). ‘Baby-Killers’ – Nine Newspapers falsely claim unvaccinated people killed a baby by spreading whooping cough. Letters from Australia. https://alisonbevege.substack.com/

RACP-GSK Partnership:

GSK Australia. RACP Foundation partnership announcement. Referenced in Bevege (2026).

Vaccine Revenue Figures:

GSK. (2024). Annual Report 2023. Boostrix and Infanrix/Pediarix revenue figures.

Sanofi. (2025). Fourth Quarter 2024 Earnings Report. Polio/pertussis/HiB vaccine sales.

Pertussis Vaccine and Asymptomatic Carriage:

Warfel, J. M., Zimmerman, L. I., & Merkel, T. J. (2014). Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(2), 787-92. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314688110

Althouse, B. M., & Scarpino, S. V. (2015). Asymptomatic transmission and the resurgence of Bordetella pertussis. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 146. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0382-8

Pertussis Vaccine Evolution and Waning Immunity:

Lam, C., Octavia, S., et al. (2014). Rapid increase in pertactin-deficient Bordetella pertussis isolates, Australia. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 20(4), 626-33. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2004.131478

Tartof, S. Y., Lewis, M., et al. (2013). Waning immunity to pertussis following 5 doses of DTaP. Pediatrics, 131(4), e1047-52. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-1928

van Boven, M., Mooi, F. R., et al. (2005). Pathogen adaptation under imperfect vaccination: implications for pertussis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272(1572), 1617-24. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3108

Dr. Paul Thomas Case:

Oregon Medical Board. (2020). In the Matter of: Paul Norman Thomas, MD. License Number MD15689: Order of Emergency Suspension. https://omb.oregon.gov/Clients/ORMB/OrderDocuments/e579dd35-7e1b-471f-a69a-3a800317ed4c.pdf

Lyons-Weiler, J., & Thomas, P. (2020). Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8674. [Retracted 2021]

Hammond, J. R. (2021). The War on Informed Consent: The Persecution of Dr. Paul Thomas by the Oregon Medical Board. Skyhorse Publishing.

CDC Fear-Based Messaging:

Nowak, G. (2004). Increasing Awareness and Uptake of Influenza Immunization. Presentation at the National Influenza Vaccine Summit, Atlanta, GA.

Vaccine Mandates and Backfire Effects:

Ward, J. K., et al. (2019). France’s citizen consultation on vaccination and the challenges of participatory democracy in health. Social Science & Medicine, 220, 73-80.

Suppression of Vaccine Dissent:

Martin, B. (2015). On the Suppression of Vaccination Dissent. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(1), 143-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9530-3

Australia’s No Jab, No Play Laws:

Australian state governments. No Jab, No Play legislation (2014-2019). New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia.

Australian Immunisation Handbook — Consent Requirements:

Australian Government Department of Health. Australian Immunisation Handbook. Section: Valid Consent. https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/

February 8, 2026 Posted by aletho | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | Australia | Leave a comment

Is Canada Really Warming?

By Tom Harris | American Thinker | January 30, 2026

Is Canada really warming at double the global average rate, as the Canadian government says it is? A new report says no, because the data Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) uses are apparently corrupted by fundamental mistakes, mistakes so severe that when corrected, all the supposed warming of the past six or seven decades vanishes.

Given that Canada represents a large fraction of global land surface area, one naturally wonders if the world is warming at anything like we are told it is.

This discovery should have generated mainstream media headlines across Canada. After all, the mistakes in the Canadian temperature data were discovered over four years ago by Dr. Joseph Hickey, a highly qualified Canadian data scientist, and the group I lead, the International Climate Science Coalition – Canada, has been publicizing the story for the past month.

But don’t expect mainstream media in the Great White North to say anything about this. Most of Canada’s press are heavily subsidized by the federal and provincial governments, which would probably not appreciate the story being covered. Dr. Dave Snow, Associate professor in political science at the University of Guelph, writes:

“Canada has created a bevy of policies, ranging from subsidies to tax breaks to mandated contributions from foreign tech companies, that undoubtedly constitute a major portion of news outlets’ revenue and journalists’ salaries — potentially upwards of 50 percent.”

Publicly questioning government narratives on something as significant as climate change is a risky proposition for any editor when doing so leaves their paymasters with egg on their faces.

Here’s what governments in Canada — and the media outlets reliant on their largess — would rather you never heard. On December 23, the report “Artificial stepwise increases in homogenized surface air temperature data invalidate published climate warming claims for Canada” was released by Dr. Joseph Hickey, a data scientist with a PhD in Physics. The report was published by CORRELATION Research in the Public Interest regarding a significant error in Canada’s temperature data.

Using the data from ECCC for hundreds of stations across the country, scientists had previously calculated that the surface air temperature has increased 1-2 degrees Celsius over the past six to seven decades in Canada. Yet in 1998, the exact year in which 72 Canadian reference climatological stations were first added to the Global Climate Observing System, a sudden stepwise increase of approximately 1 degree Celsius occurred at most stations across the country.

Numerous studies in scientific literature assert that sudden temperature jumps like this are not due to real climactic change but instead are caused by temperature measurement artifacts corrupting the data. They contend that this data should therefore be removed from the record. Even though one of the studies explaining this was authored by Dr. Lucie A. Vincent, the senior Environment Canada Research Climatologist, the temperature jump was left in ECCC’s data and is still there to this day. Hickey concludes, “The reported climate warming of Canada appears to be entirely from a temperature measurement artifact.”

Hickey first discovered this in 2021 when he was as an analyst for the Bank of Canada and so was barred from sharing his findings with the public. After leaving the bank, he secured his communications with Environment Canada via an access to information, which is why we know what happened next.

In that year Hickey alerted Environment Canada to the problem and explained in detail to Vincent that the sharpness of the temperature increase, and its magnitude, indicate that it is not due to real climactic change. He also laid out a thorough analysis of potential sources of the artifact, which could include land use changes and instrumentation changes. Both of these could easily cause a one-degree shift in the temperature data. Moreover, he explained, “there are no other similar large and geographically widespread discontinuities in the AHCCD dataset [Environment Canada’s flagship temperature dataset] at other years.” This increase could be responsible for almost all the claimed warming calculated for Canada over the past six or seven decades.

Vincent essentially brushed him off, did not provide an explanation for the step increase, and said that the shift “is probably due to climate variability only.”

So, Canada is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to fight climate change largely based on data that the government scientist most involved in its generation can only say is “probably” indicative of warming.

Hickey was not the only Bank of Canada employee to find fault with ECCC’s temperature data. In his December report, he writes:

“On December 7, 2020, Bank of Canada Economist Julien McDonald-Guimond sent an email to Environment Canada researchers with an inquiry about the … daily temperature records, noting he had found some cases in which the daily minimum temperature was greater than the daily maximum temperature for the same day and for the same AHCCD station.”

In fact, there were more than 10,000 instances of days for which the daily minimum temperature was greater than the daily maximum temperature.

Environment Canada Climate Data Analyst Megan Hartwell replied to McDonald-Guimon, saying that “We were quite surprised by the frequency of the issue you reported, and have taken some time to go through the data carefully.”

That ECCC were surprised by McDonald-Guimond’s finding is cause enough to worry. But the fact that they now “have taken some time to go through the data carefully” begs the question: didn’t they go through the data carefully before releasing it the first time?

Environment and Climate Change Canada have yet to respond to Hickey’s December report. They have some explaining to do.

Tom Harris is Executive Director of International Climate Science Coalition – Canada.

February 7, 2026 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Canada | Leave a comment

Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries

By P Gosselin | No Tricks Zone | February 3, 2026

More than two decades ago, renowned climate scientist Mojib Latif of Germany’s Max Planck Instiute for Meterology, based in Hamburg, warned the climate-ambulance chasing Der Spiegel that, due to global warming, Germany would likely no longer experience harsh winters with heavy frost and snow as it had in previous decades.

In light of the current severe winter weather in Germany, Latif’s statements are facing renewed scrutiny. An article appearing in the Berliner Zeitung notes that Latif’s prophecy has “aged poorly” and he appears to want to have nothing to do with them.

Hiding from the media

According to the Berliner Zeitung, the former Max Planck Institute scientist has recently stopped responding to media inquiries regarding his past claims. Critics argue that such drastic predictions damage the credibility of climate science, while others point out that extreme weather events—including intense cold snaps—can still occur within the broader context of climate change.

No Easter snow as well

Latif also claimed he recalled snow in the past occurring at Easter time, implying this no longer happens today. But that too was a false claim. perhaps prof. Latif will answer phone calls in April?

February 7, 2026 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science | Germany, Max Planck Instiute for Meterology | Leave a comment

‘Fact-checking’ as a disinformation scheme: The Brazilian case of Agência Lupa

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 7, 2026

Since the term “fake news” emerged in the world of political journalism, we have been confronted with a new angle through which the establishment attempts to reinforce its hegemony in the intellectual and informational sphere: by simulating ideology as science, data, or fact.

A fundamental aspect of hegemonic liberalism in the “rival-less” post-Cold War world is the transition of ideology into the diffuse realm of pure facticity. What decades earlier was clearly identified as belief comes to be taken as “data,” that is, as indisputable, not open for debate. This is the case, for example, with the myth of “democracy,” the myth of “human rights,” the myth of “progress,” and the myth of the “free market.” And today, we could extend this to the dictates of “gender ideology” and a series of other beliefs of ideological foundation, which are nevertheless taken as scientific facts.

“Fact-checking” has thus become one of the many mechanisms used by the establishment to reinforce systemic “consensus” in the face of the emergence of alternative perspectives following the popularization of the internet and independent journalism. The “authoritative” distinction made by a self-declared “independent” and “respectable” agency between what would be “fact” and what would be “fake news” has become a new source of truth.

Some liberal-democratic governments, like the USA, have gone so far as to create special departments dedicated to “combating fake news,” thus acting as authentic “Ministries of Truth” of Orwellian memory.

However, even within the “independent” sphere, we rarely encounter genuine independence. On the contrary, in fact, Western “fact-checking agencies” tend to be well-integrated into the constellation of NGOs, foundations, and associations of the non-profit industrial complex, which, in turn, is permeated by the money of large corporations and the interests of liberal-democratic governments. Even their staff tend to be revolving doors for figures coming from the NGO world, mainstream journalism, and state bureaucracy.

Although the phenomenon is of Western origin, Brazil is not exempt from it. “Fact-checking agencies” also operate here — most of them engaged in the same types of disinformation operations as the governments, newspapers, and NGOs that sponsor them.

A typical example is Agência Lupa.

Founded in 2015, its founder Cristina Tardáguila previously worked for another disinformation apparatus disguised as “fact-checking,” Preto no Branco, funded by Grupo Globo (founded and owned by the Marinho family, members of which are mentioned in the Epstein Files). Lupa was financially boosted by João Moreira Salles, from the billionaire banker family Moreira Salles (of Itaú Unibanco).

Despite claiming independence from the editorial control of Revista Piauí, also controlled by the Moreira Salles family, Agência Lupa continues to be virtually hosted by Piauí’s resources, where Tardáguila worked as a journalist from 2006 to 2011. Furthermore, she also received support from the Instituto Serrapilheira, also from the Moreira Salles family, during the health crisis to act as a mechanism for imposing the pandemic consensus in what was one of the largest social experiments in human history.

In parallel, it is relevant to mention that the same João Moreira Salles was involved decades ago in a scandal after it was revealed that he had financed “Marcinho VP,” one of the leaders of the drug trafficking organization Comando Vermelho. Moreira Salles made a deal with the justice system to avoid being held accountable for this involvement.

Tardáguila was also the deputy director of the International Fact-Checking Network, an absolutely “independent” “fake news combat” network, yet funded by institutions such as the Open Society, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, Meta, the Omidyar Network, and the US State Department, through the National Endowment for Democracy.

Today Tardáguila no longer runs Lupa, but her “profile” on the official page of the National Endowment for Democracy (notorious funder of color revolutions and disinformation operations around the world) states that she is quite active at the Equis Institute, which counts among its funders the abortion organization Planned Parenthood, and aims to conduct social engineering against “Latino” populations.

Lupa is currently headed by Natália Leal. Contrary to the narrative of “independence,” the reality is that she has worked for several Brazilian mass media outlets, such as Poder360, Diário Catarinense, and Zero Hora, in addition to also writing for Revista Piauí, from the same Moreira Salles. Leal is less “internationally connected” than Tardáguila, but she was “graced” with an award from the International Center for Journalists, an association of “independent journalists” that, in fact, is also funded by the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Meta, Google, CNN, the Washington Post, USAID, and the Serrapilheira Institute itself, also from Moreira Salles.

Quite clearly, it is somewhat difficult to take seriously the notion that Lupa would have sufficient autonomy and independence to act as an impartial arbiter of all narratives spread on social networks when it and its key figures themselves have these international connections, including at a governmental level.

But even on a practical level, it is difficult to take seriously the self-attributed role of confronting “fake news.” Returning to the pandemic period, for example, the differentiated treatment given by the company to the Russian Sputnik vaccine and the Pfizer vaccine is noteworthy. The former is treated with suspicion in articles written in August and September 2020, both authored by Jaqueline Sordi (who is also on the staff of the Serrapilheira Institute and a dozen other NGOs funded by Open Society), the latter is defended tooth and nail in dozens of articles by various authors, ranging from insisting that Pfizer’s vaccines are 100% safe for children, to stating that Bill Gates never advocated for reducing the world population.

On this matter, by the way, it is important to emphasize that Itaú coordinates investment portfolios that include Pfizer, therefore, there are business interests that bring the Moreira Salles family and the pharmaceutical giant closer.

But beyond disinformation about Big Pharma, as well as about other places around the world, such as Venezuela, regarding which Lupa claims that María Corina Machado has the popular support of 72% of the Venezuelan population (based on a survey by an institute that is not even Venezuelan, ClearPath Strategies), Lupa seems to have a particular obsession with Russia and, curiously, Lupa’s alignment with the dominant narratives in Western media is absolute.

Lupa argues, for example, that the Bucha Massacre was perpetrated by Russia, using the New York Times as its sole source. Regarding Mariupol, it insists on the narrative of the Russian attack on the maternity hospital and other civilian targets, even mentioning Mariana Vishegirskaya, who now lives in Moscow, has admitted to being a paid actress in a staging organized by the Ukrainian government, and now works in the Social Initiatives Committee of the “Rodina” Foundation. It also denies the attempted genocide in Donbass and the practice of organ trafficking in Ukraine.

An article written by founder Cristina Tardáguila herself relies on the Atlantic Council as a source to accuse Russia of spreading disinformation, one of which would be that Ukraine is a failed state subservient to Europe — two pieces of information that any average geopolitical analyst would calmly confirm.

A particular object of Lupa’s obsession is the Global Fact-Checking Network — of which, by the way, I am a part. It is one of the few international organizations dedicated to fact-checking in a manner independent of ideological constraints, counting among its members a team that is, certainly, much more diverse and multifaceted than the typical “revolving door” of fact-checking agencies in the Atlantic circuit, where everyone studied more or less in the same places, worked in mass media, and were, at some point, funded or received grants from Open Society, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and/or the US State Department.

Lupa’s criterion for attacking the GFCN is… precisely obedience or not to Western mass media sources, in a circular reasoning that cannot go beyond the argument from authority.

This specific case helps to expose a bit the functioning of these disinformation apparatuses typical of hybrid warfare, which disguise themselves in the cloak of journalistic neutrality to engage in informational warfare in defense of the liberal West.

February 7, 2026 Posted by aletho | Corruption, Deception, Russophobia, Science and Pseudo-Science | Latin America, Venezuela | Leave a comment

REDFIELD REWRITES THE RECORD

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | January 29, 2026

Former CDC Director Robert Redfield’s recent, startling admissions about the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines raise a critical question: how different might the COVID era have been if the public had been told early on that these shots were never designed to stop transmission and were not appropriate for children?

February 1, 2026 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | COVID-19 Vaccine, United States | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries

Daniel Davis: China & Russia Will Defend Iran

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

From the Archives

Sugar: Killing us Sweetly

Staggering Health Consequences of Sugar on Health of Americans

By Dr. Gary Null | Global Research | February 3, 2014

In September 2013, a bombshell report from Credit Suisse’s Research Institute brought into sharp focus the staggering health consequences of sugar on the health of Americans. The group revealed that approximately “30%–40% of healthcare expenditures in the USA go to help address issues that are closely tied to the excess consumption of sugar.”[1]The figures suggest that our national addiction to sugar runs us an incredible $1 trillion in healthcare costs each year. The Credit Suisse report highlighted several health conditions including coronary heart diseases, type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome, which numerous studies have linked to excessive sugar intake.[2]

Just a year earlier in 2012, a report by Dr. Sanjay Gupta appearing on 60 Minutes featured the work of Dr. Robert Lustig, an endocrinologist from California who gained national attention after a lecture he gave titled “Sugar: The Bitter Truth” went viral in 2009. Lustig’s research has investigated the connection between sugar consumption and the poor health of the American people. He has published twelve articles in peer-reviewed journals identifying sugar as a major factor in the epidemic of degenerative disease that now afflicts our country. The data compiled by Lustig clearly show how excessive sugar consumption plays a key role in the development of many types of cancer, obesity, type II diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. His research has led him to conclude that 75% of all diseases in America today are brought on by the American lifestyle and are entirely preventable.[3]

Until the airing of this program, no one in the “official” world acknowledged anything wrong with sugar, here is a sampling of some the latest research available to them if they chose to look… continue

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,404 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,395,918 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

February 2026

M T W T F S S

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28

« Jan
Categories

Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags
9/11 Afghanistan Africa al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkey Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank WHO Yemen Zionism

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

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
No Tricks Zone
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair Use

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

DMCA Contact

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

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

We will respond and take necessary action immediately.

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

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

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Morgan McSweeney, founding director of the CCDH, and former British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff. (Source: The Edge | Business news)

Featured Video

From the Archives

By Dr. Gary Null | Global Research | February 3, 2014

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info