Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Public Opinion on Water Fluoridation Is Changing, Expert Says

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 10, 2025

Kathy Thiessen, Ph.D., a leading fluoride expert, joined “The Defender In-Depth” this week to discuss a meta-analysis published last week by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluding that that “fluoride is a neurotoxicant in humans.”

Thiessen, president and senior scientist at the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, testified last year in a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A September 2024 federal court ruling in the case found that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children.

The ruling requires the EPA to take regulatory action to address the risks of water fluoridation. The agency, which has until Jan. 20 to appeal, has not yet taken action.

Thiessen co-authored a 2006 National Research Council report that addressed the toxic effects of fluoride and called for more research into its effects.

Thiessen said the new meta-analysis and a previous NTP report show that “fluoride is a neurotoxicant in humans and as fluoride exposure is increased, the likelihood of reduced IQ and some other cognitive deficits … increases.”

According to Thiessen, exposure to fluoride during pregnancy harms the fetus. “Fluoride crosses the placenta, so whatever the mother’s fluoride exposure is, the baby’s going to be exposed to that.”

And those risks continue after birth. “If the [infant] formula is made up with fluoridated tap water, those babies get the largest dose per body weight of anybody in the population at an age when they’re still developing,” Thiessen said.

‘Consistent body of literature’ shows ‘fluoride is neurotoxic during development’

The NTP’s latest meta-analysis reviewed 74 epidemiological studies examining the link between children’s IQ and fluoride exposure. Thiessen said the number and quality of such studies has increased substantially in recent years.

“When we wrote the [2006 report], there were just a few studies of fluoride exposure and cognitive deficits,” Thiessen said. “Many of the … most recent ones have been funded by our National Institutes of Health. They are high-quality studies.”

Thiessen said the studies together form “a very consistent body of literature showing that the fluoride is neurotoxic during development.” In the case of the NTP report and meta-analysis, however, there were repeated efforts to block or delay their publication.

Thiessen said the lawsuit against the EPA, filed by the Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation and Food & Water Watch, along with individual parents and children in 2017 was instrumental in the public release of the NTP report and meta-analysis.

“My best guess is that, if possible, they would’ve suppressed them totally,” Thiessen said. “But … because they were important to the court case, the judge required them to be made public. And we have that to be thankful for there.”

Efforts to block or delay publication of the NTP’s reports are part of “a very long history of suppression” and “of adverse information about fluoridation,” Thiessen said.

Scientists raised concerns about water fluoridation as early as the 1940s when it first started, Thiessen said. “From the 1940s on, there have been vested interests of several sorts that have pushed for water fluoridation.”

The EPA has ignored evidence of fluoride’s risks, Thiessen said. “I have said on record in the fluoride trial that if EPA had done its job responsibly, even back in the 1980s, we would not be having that case,” Thiessen added.

‘There should simply be a national end to water fluoridation’

Thiessen responded to claims that fluoridation protects oral health and that it was one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. She said, “The real evidence shows that it’s probably one of the 10 leading contributors to poor health in this country.”

Thiessen referred to a 2024 Cochrane report finding that water fluoridation confers minimal benefits to public health. She suggested that diet and other lifestyle factors are more significant determinants of oral health than fluoridation or lack of it.

“There are studies showing that children in areas where it’s a subsistence existence … These kids have great teeth. You have poor kids in this country whose diet is mostly sugar and no, they’re not going to have good teeth … It’s much more a matter of access to care, and access to good nutrition,” Thiessen said.

Thiessen suggested children in poorer and rural populations “are most likely to be adversely affected” by fluoridation, as their parents are more likely to bottle-feed babies with baby formula mixed with tap water.

Thiessen said public attitudes toward water fluoridation are changing. “The tide has been turning slowly for 20-something years, but we’re seeing a lot more of that now.”

She said many communities will be using the court ruling to justify stopping fluoridation.

“Hopefully, this will happen at the state level in those states that mandate it. I’d like to see it at the national level that we just don’t do this anymore,” Thiessen said. “There should simply be a national end to water fluoridation.”

Watch ‘The Defender In-Depth’ here.

Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

‘The Defender In-Depth’ airs on CHD.TV Wednesdays at 10 a.m. ET/7 a.m. PT.

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.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | Leave a comment

The Trump Administration Must Bring Moderna to Heel

Brownstone Institute | January 7, 2025

Last week, independent journalist Alex Berenson reported that a preschool-aged child died of “cardio-respiratory arrest” after taking a dose of Moderna’s Covid mRNA vaccine during its clinical trials. Despite federal requirements to report all trial information, the company withheld the truth for years as it raked in billions from its Covid shots.

The extent of the cover-up remains unknown, but Moderna, headed by CEO Stéphane Bancel, disregarded federal law requiring companies to report “summary results information, including adverse event information, for specified clinical trials of drug products” to clinicaltrials.gov. The company, not the government, is responsible for posting all results, and failure to report the death of a child constitutes a clear breach of US law, which threatens civil action against any party that “falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact.”

To this point, pharmaceutical companies have remained largely immune for their role in perpetrating globally-scaled deception resulting in thousands of vaccine injuries and billions in profits. They have enjoyed a liability shield courtesy of the PREP Act, which offers protections for injuries resulting from vaccines; that indemnity, however, does not extend to non-compliance with federal regulations, material misstatements or omissions of fact, or other offenses.

The death of the child only became known because of an obscure European report released last year, which revealed that Moderna has known about the death for over two years while it continues to advertise Covid shots to children as young as six months old.

Moderna’s European filing also revealed that the company withheld trial results demonstrating that children under 12 who received the vaccine were ten times more likely than those who received the placebo to suffer “serious side effects.” Without any evidence, Moderna claimed that the side effects, including the death of a child, were unrelated to the shots.

The incoming Trump administration offers a rare opportunity to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable and to investigate the depth of the cover-up.

The FDA is responsible for enforcing the reporting of vaccine trial results, but recent heads of the agency such as Scott Gottlieb and Robert Califf have been fanatical supporters of Big Pharma. Trump’s choice for FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, presents a stark contrast to his predecessors. Makary has criticized the US Government’s reluctance to acknowledge the role of natural immunity in preventing Covid infection, and he opposed the widespread vaccination of children. He testified to Congress, “In the U.S. we gave thousands of healthy kids myocarditis for no good reason, they were already immune. This was avoidable.”

President-elect Trump has tapped Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., perhaps the most well-known critic of the Covid vaccines, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA. He has named Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an author of the Great Barrington Declaration, as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health. Further, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Berenson that he plans to subpoena the FDA once Republicans become the majority party in the Senate this month.

President Trump’s first term was ultimately defined by his failure to fulfill his pledge to “drain the swamp.” A corrupt bureaucracy, personified in many ways by Dr. Anthony Fauci, aided and abetted by advisors like his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, hijacked the president’s agenda. Now, the Trump administration has an unlikely yet monumental opportunity for health reform, which can start on January 20 with an investigation into Moderna’s cover-up.

The Covid response doomed Trump 1.0. Whether one regards this as a monumental error, the betrayal of a president by his advisors, an event beyond the president’s control, or a deeper and more complex plot involving everything and everyone associated with the government, both in the US and around the world, there is no question of the scale of the calamity for the public. The shots are part of that, the capstone failure of a long line of foreshadowing with lockdowns and all that was associated with pre-pharmaceutical interventions. The antidote came not as a cure but, for many, the disease itself.

There must be truth if not justice.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

YouTube CEO Neal Mohan Says YouTube is a “Bastion of Free Speech”

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | January 6, 2025

If you believe Neil Mohan, YouTube’s CEO, the platform is a modern-day Agora—a self-described “bastion of free speech” where the world’s most pressing debates thrive. Though, “just because it’s an open platform, it doesn’t mean that anything goes,” Mohan told The Financial Times in the last week. Translation: Free speech is alive and well—until it isn’t. Because on YouTube, the marketplace of ideas comes with a bouncer, a velvet rope, and an ever-expanding list of banned words and topics.

This month, YouTube is eager to remind everyone it’s “committed” to free expression, a sentiment as convincing as a fast-food chain promising “health-conscious dining.” Over the last five years, the platform has turbocharged its content moderation policies, leaning on AI overlords and human censors to police conversations ranging from vaccine skepticism to who gets to call a virus a “lab leak.”

It’s a delicate balance, they claim—one requiring the finesse of a trapeze artist. But if the past is any guide, the only thing YouTube’s balancing act reliably delivers is corporate doublespeak and a pile of censored creators.

Moderation or Muting?

Mohan, the relatively new captain of YouTube’s Titanic, insists that the company welcomes “broad views” but won’t tolerate “anything goes.” Consider their “community guidelines,” a vague, shape-shifting set of rules that could find your grandma’s knitting tutorial in violation if it dares question Big Pharma.

Behind this rhetoric is an algorithmic enforcement machine programmed to flag, demonetize, or outright remove content at lightning speed—accuracy be damned. And when the AI overlords fumble, the human moderators step in, wielding their own biases like blunt instruments.

Critics, including banned creators, point out that YouTube’s moderation seems to skew conveniently in one direction. Questioning the CDC? Misinformation. Broadcasting claims about ivermectin? Censored. But when a mainstream outlet gets caught peddling unverified or downright wrong information, it’s business as usual.

The COVID-19 Information Iron Curtain

Of course, nothing showcases YouTube’s free speech schizophrenia better than its pandemic policies. To combat “medical misinformation,” the platform instituted a strict purge of dissenting voices, silencing everyone from epidemiologists to concerned moms armed with anecdotal evidence and Facebook memes.

Let’s not forget the lab leak theory, a hypothesis once relegated to tinfoil hat territory. When early adopters of the theory dared to post about it, their content was struck down faster than you could say “gain-of-function research.” Fast forward a couple of years and the lab-leak theory is now a “credible hypothesis,” endorsed by experts and even government agencies.

Oops.

But don’t expect an apology or even acknowledgment from YouTube for playing arbiter of acceptable science. They’ve quietly updated policies and moved on, leaving censored creators wondering why their “misinformation” turned out to be, well, information.

Advertiser-Friendly Speech Only

The real driver of YouTube’s overzealous content policing, of course, is money. Back in 2017, a wave of advertiser boycotts over “hateful” and “controversial” content sent the platform scrambling. The solution? Stricter guidelines are needed to ensure that only the most sanitized, brand-safe content remains.

While no one would argue against booting child exploitation, the crackdown didn’t stop there. It extended into politically sensitive areas, conveniently targeting independent creators and smaller voices while leaving corporate media to do as they pleased.

What’s worse is the blatant double standard. Want to critique vaccine mandates or discuss alternative COVID treatments? Good luck. But if you’re a major network spouting unverified claims about weapons of mass destruction or “imminent threats,” go right ahead. After all, those ad dollars won’t chase themselves.

YouTube’s Legacy of Censorship

Mohan’s lofty rhetoric about fostering “broad views” might play well in interviews, but the reality on the ground is clear: YouTube’s commitment to free speech is as reliable as a politician’s campaign promise. The platform has repeatedly chosen corporate image over open discourse, advertisers over authenticity, and control over community.

And yet, it continues to parade as a defender of free expression. Perhaps Mohan and his team truly believe in their own doublespeak. Or maybe they’re banking on the fact that most users will never notice the glaring contradictions. Either way, YouTube’s hypocrisy isn’t an accident—it’s a business model.

The next time you hear Neil Mohan wax poetic about “free speech,” remember this: On YouTube, freedom comes with conditions, and the only real winners are the ones writing the checks.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Ohio Governor DeWine Vetoes “Medical Free Speech” Provision

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 7, 2025

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has vetoed a provision in House Bill 315 that sought to shield medical professionals from state disciplinary actions over medical opinions conflicting with state-sanctioned guidance. The measure, described as a “medical free speech” safeguard, was removed through a late-night line-item veto on Thursday.

The provision aimed to bar regulatory entities, such as the Ohio Medical Board, from disciplining or threatening to discipline medical practitioners for expressing opinions—whether publicly or privately—that deviated from those of the board or other state agencies.

However, DeWine justified his veto by warning of potential harm to public health. In his message accompanying the veto, the governor stated, “it is not in the public interest and instead could lead to devastating and deadly consequences for patient health.”

DeWine also elaborated to reporters on how such a measure might undermine the state’s ability to hold doctors accountable for malpractice. He expressed concern that the provision could allow practitioners to avoid scrutiny simply by framing negligent actions as personal medical opinions. “All the doctor would have to say in defense is, ‘Well, it’s my opinion,’” DeWine remarked in late December, signaling his intent to veto the provision. “This would totally gut our ability to regulate health professionals.”

The proposal has faced resistance from DeWine’s administration since its initial introduction in an earlier bill, House Bill 73.

That legislation, spearheaded by Representative Jennifer Gross, R-West Chester, sought to expand patient access to off-label prescriptions and grant legal immunity to pharmacists filling such prescriptions. According to a nonpartisan analysis of H.B. 73, the bill aimed to protect both patients and medical providers engaging in treatments outside conventional practices.

Gross, a nurse practitioner, has consistently advocated for medical freedom, testifying before the Ohio House Health Provider Services committee in support of shielding health professionals from retaliation when utilizing what she described as “life-saving treatments.” Her stance reflects a broader push to ensure that neither patients nor medical practitioners face punitive consequences for pursuing unconventional or off-label medical options.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Facebook Dumps ‘Fact-checkers’ One Day After CHD Asks Supreme Court to Hear Censorship Case Against Meta

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 7, 2025

Less than 24 hours after Children’s Health Defense (CHD) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its censorship case against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, Mark Zuckerberg announced the company is ending its third-party “fact-checking” program.

“It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” Zuckerberg told viewers in a press release video. Meta also owns Instagram.

CHD sued Meta in November 2020 over the social media giant’s censorship practices. The company de-platformed CHD from Facebook and Instagram in August 2022 and has not reinstated the accounts.

Commenting on today’s news, CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender, “It’s clear that Mark Zuckerberg is worried about new anti-censorship policies of the incoming administration — as he should be. The record in CHD v. Meta clearly shows Facebook’s close collaboration with the White House to censor vaccine-related speech, even pre-COVID.”

Holland added:

“CHD has taken its case to the Supreme Court, and Facebook doubtless realizes there are Justices there that are very dubious about Facebook’s role in censoring speech at the behest of the government in the new public square.

“Zuckerberg may imagine that by making this announcement he is mooting this case, or making it no longer significant. That’s not the situation — the country needs closure that this kind of fusion of state and industry to censor unwanted information will never happen again.”

CHD’s lawsuit against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and its founder and CEO, Zuckerberg, alleges that government actors partnered with Facebook to censor the plaintiffs’ speech — particularly speech related to vaccines and COVID-19 — that should have been protected under the First Amendment.

The suit also named “fact-checking” firms Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute and its PolitiFact website. On Aug. 9, 2024, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against CHD.

Lawyers with CHD urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision. They wrote in their petition, filed Monday:

“This case goes to the heart of our constitutional design, raising critical questions in the Internet Age about the availability of open debate free from government censorship-by-proxy.

“The practical consequences of leaving the decision below intact are enormous: the levers of censorship on the mega-platforms will always be sore temptation for executive office-holders — and not just about vaccines or Covid.”

National healthcare and constitutional practice attorney Rick Jaffe called Meta’s announcement a “very big deal for the country and for CHD.”

Jaffe represents CHD in some of its cases, including cases involving doctors’ right to speak freely about COVID-19. He told The Defender :

“For the last five-plus years, CHD — largely through Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mary Holland, and the group’s supporters — have been at the forefront of defending free speech on social media … Meta’s action today shows the effect of the changing public’s view on censorship by social media companies which Meta could no longer ignore.

“So, congrats to CHD and its legal team who helped this happen. The work isn’t over yet, so onwards.”

Meta shifts to content moderation model used on X

Rather than turning to third parties to fact-check posts, Meta will use a “Community Notes model” in which social users themselves decide when posts are potentially misleading and need more context, said Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan in a statement. “We’ve seen this approach work on X,” Kaplan said.

The change will take a few weeks to implement, Kaplan said.

Meta also will lift restrictions on topics such as immigration and gender identity. “It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms,” Kaplan said.

The Defender asked Meta if it will lift restrictions on discussions about vaccine safety and COVID-19 but did not receive a response by deadline.

Meta is also changing how it enforces its policies. “Up until now,” Kaplan said, “we have been using automated systems to scan for all policy violations, but this has resulted in too many mistakes and too much content being censored that should haven’t been.”

Zuckerberg said there’s “legitimately bad stuff out there — drugs, terrorism, child exploitation.” The company will continue to take those things “very seriously” by using automated systems to scan for them.

However, for less severe violations, Meta will rely on a person reporting an issue before taking action against an account user.

Zuckerberg said he always cared about freedom of expression but that in recent years, his company responded to pressure for stricter speech restrictions. “Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more,” Zuckerberg said. “A lot of this is clearly political.”

He acknowledged that some of the “complex systems” Meta built to moderate content made mistakes. “We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship.”

Will Meta’s policy changes stick?

Zuckerberg said Meta’s policy changes were also prompted by the recent U.S. elections that were a “cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing free speech.”

Jenin Younes, a civil rights attorney who represented some of the plaintiffs in the landmark censorship case Murthy v. Missouri, told The Defender she was “cautiously optimistic” about Meta’s announcement.

Meta appeared to be making the changes because of a new presidential administration, Younes said. “That means that Meta could change course in another four years under a different administration. We need major social media platforms — the modern public square — to adopt principled free speech positions that don’t change with the wind.”

If platforms don’t adopt strong free speech positions, public dialogue suffers, Younes said. “Censorship on Meta, especially during the COVID era, strangled public debate and even went so far as to prevent vaccine-injured individuals from corresponding with each other in private groups.”

Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD general counsel, told The Defender Meta’s announcement does not undo the years of the damage done to CHD and many other individuals and groups.

“What is important is not only that Meta is making these changes but also that steps are taken to make sure this cannot be repeated, which makes our ongoing cases — including the recently filed petition to the U.S. Supreme Court — critically important.”

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.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | 1 Comment

FDA responds to study on DNA contamination in Pfizer vaccine

Maryanne Demasi, reports | January 6, 2025

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has responded to a peer-reviewed study conducted within its own laboratory, which uncovered excessively high levels of DNA contamination in Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The study revealed that residual DNA levels exceeded regulatory limits by 6 to 470 times, validating earlier studies from independent researchers that the FDA had previously disregarded.

Published by students in the Journal of High School Science, the study has garnered significant attention since the story broke, with its altimetric score rivalling those of major studies in leading medical journals.

FDA’s Response

Despite the study being conducted at the FDA’s White Oak campus in Maryland, the agency has sought to distance itself from the findings.

A spokesperson stated that the study “does not belong to the FDA” and is therefore not theirs to disclose.

“The FDA does not comment on individual studies,” the spokesperson added, declining to acknowledge the new scientific findings.

The agency also refused to address the involvement of three of its own scientists—Dr Shuliang Liu, Dr Tony Wang, and Dr Prabhuanand Selvaraj—who supervised the students conducting the study.

When questioned about potential regulatory actions, such as issuing a public alert, recalling affected vaccine batches, or notifying other agencies, the FDA stood firm in its defence of mRNA vaccine safety.

“Based on a thorough assessment of the entire manufacturing process by the agency’s scientific experts, the FDA is confident in the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines that the agency has approved and authorised,” stated the FDA spokesperson.

“The agency’s benefit-risk assessments and ongoing safety surveillance demonstrate that the benefits of their use clearly outweigh their risks. Additionally, with over a billion doses of the mRNA vaccines administered, no safety concerns related to residual DNA have been identified.”

This statement effectively shuts down any immediate plans for further investigation.

Calls for Accountability

The FDA’s response has provoked sharp criticism from scientists. Genomics expert Kevin McKernan, who first identified excessive DNA contamination in Pfizer vials in early 2023, called the agency’s stance evasive and deeply concerning.

“It’s the same script on auto-repeat at every regulatory agency,” McKernan said.

“They always say, ‘billions of doses given, benefits outweigh the risks, we’ve seen no evidence of harm.’ But billions of cigarettes were smoked too, and that didn’t make them safe.”

McKernan also questioned the FDA’s attempts to distance itself from the study.

“If the FDA supplied the materials for the study and provided technical advice through staff supervision, then how can they not be responsible for the data?” McKernan asked. “Do they only deny their connection when the data becomes inconvenient?”

Professor Nikolai Petrovsky, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease at the Australian Respiratory and Sleep Medicine Institute, shared McKernan’s concerns.

“The FDA’s response is extremely disappointing,” he said.

“It completely circumvents whether or not the level of DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines exceeds regulatory limits (as the study performed in their lab would indicate), and what they intend to do about it.”

“Just claiming there’s no safety issue and pointing to the billions of doses administered, without offering any evidence of safety, is far from satisfactory,” added Prof Petrovsky.

Regulatory Silence

The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which has previously dismissed similar findings from independent researchers as “misinformation,” was contacted for comment but did not provide a response before publication.

Russell Broadbent, Victorian Member for Monash, expressed his disbelief at the regulatory inaction.

“I cannot fathom why the TGA isn’t making this their number one priority, given their charter is to regulate therapeutics to help ensure Australians stay healthy and safe,” he said.

In light of the FDA laboratory findings, Broadbent urged regulators to “immediately pause the rollout of the vaccines, and investigate the claims.”

The Stakes Could Not Be Higher

These revelations carry immense implications. mRNA vaccines are hailed as the dawn of a new era in vaccinology, with the world increasingly relying on this platform technology to supersede traditional vaccine methods.

Failure to address the safety of this technology will torpedo public trust in both the vaccines and the regulatory systems meant to ensure their safety.

“The public deserves clear answers, not regulatory hand-waving,” McKernan said.

As calls for accountability grow louder, the FDA faces mounting pressure to engage with the scientific evidence—particularly that which originates from its own laboratory.

NB: a comprehensive critique of the student study from FDA’s lab has been published by Kevin McKernan.

January 6, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Climate Bombshell: New Evidence Reveals 30 Year Global Drop in Hurricane Frequency and Power

By Chris Morrison | The Daily Sceptic | January 4, 2025

Last month a small but powerful cyclone named Chido made landfall in Mayotte before sweeping into Mozambique, causing considerable damage and leading to the loss of around 100 lives. Days after the tragedy, the Green Blob-funded Carbon Brief noted that scientists have “long suggested” that climate change is making cyclones worse in the region, while Blob-funded World Weather Attribution (WWA) at Imperial College London made a near-instant and curiously precise estimate that a Chido-like cyclone was about 40% more likely to happen in 2024 than during the pre-industrial age. Not to be outdone, Green Blob-funded cheerleader the Guardian chipped in with the obligatory “cyclones are getting worse because of the climate emergency”. Almost unnoticed, it seems, among all the Net Zero dooming and grooming was a science paper published during December by Nature that found no increase in the destructive power of cyclones – the generic term for typhoons and hurricanes – in any ocean basin over the last 30 years. In the South Indian basin, the location of cyclone Chido, there was a dramatic decrease in both frequency and duration in recent times.

Reality rarely gets much of a look-in these days when fanatical Net Zero activism is afoot, but the paper, written by a group of Chinese meteorologists, makes its case by considering the facts and the data. The scientists apply a “power dissipation index” (PDI) which they consider superior to single measure indicators since it combines storm intensity, duration and frequency. The graphs below show the cumulative index for tropical cyclones across all ocean basins along with a global indication.

Downward trends in the cumulative PDI can be seen in a number of Pacific regions, while the trend holds steady in the North Atlantic. The southern Indian ocean downward trend is particularly pronounced while the overall global line is also heading in a similar direction.

So why does all this scientific twaddle get written by the  green activists in mainstream media? Much of it arises from the new pseudoscience that claims it can tie individual weather events to human-caused climate change. Press releases peddling climate Armageddon are issued days after a natural disaster and are eagerly reprinted by activist journalists promoting the Net Zero fantasy. The distinguished science writer Roger Pielke Jr. is a fierce critic of this new pseudoscience, which he calls weather attribution alchemy. In a recent Substack post in the aftermath of Chido, he noted that the WWA at Imperial College simply assumes the conclusion that it seeks to prove by accepting that every storm is made stronger because of warmer oceans. Using this explanation, continues Pielke, it is straightforward to conclude that the storm was made more likely due to climate change. Or as Imperial states: “The difference in the storm intensity and likelihood of this storm intensity between the counterfactual climate and today’s climate can be attributed to climate change.”

As the new Chinese paper shows, the matter is not quite so simple. Pielke notes that tropical storms encounter numerous environmental influences such as vertical wind shear and storm-induced ocean surface cooling, even when they remain over warmer waters. “Such complexities mean that simple storyline attribution – warmer oceans predictably mean stronger storms – is inappropriate when used to characterise the behaviour of individual storms,” he argues. Pielke also comes down hard on the statistical evidence backing the WWA claims. Even if storms such as Chido were more likely in the future, it would take a very long time to detect a significant change using the threshold 90% confidence set down by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And by very long time, he means thousands of years.

“Perhaps that is why assumptions are favoured over evidence,” suggests Pielke.

There were plenty of assumptions on display in a now routine end-of-year weather report from the BBC headed: ‘A year of extreme weather that challenged billions.‘ Written by Esme Stallard, it claims that record-breaking heat brought extreme weather including hurricanes and month-long droughts. Pride of place is given to Dr. Friederike Otto, lead of WWA and Senior Lecturer in Climate Science at Imperial, who claimed: “We are living in a dangerous new era – extreme weather caused unrelenting suffering.” “The impacts of fossil fuel warming has never been clear or more devastating than in 2024,” she added.

The redoubtable Paul Homewood is unimpressed with Stallard’s opening line about increasing extreme weather and has filed a complaint with the BBC. Stallard goes on to list a handful of random events, “but fails to provide any evidence that these are anything other than natural events which happen all the time”, states Homewood. “Nor is any evidence provided that such events have been getting more frequent or extreme over time,” he adds.

The BBC story highlighted typhoons in the Philippines as well as hurricane Beryl and stated that such events may be increasing in intensity due to climate change. Official data do not show any evidence of them becoming more powerful over time, notes Homewood. Much play was made of a recent drought in the Amazon, but Homewood points out that the World Bank Climate Portal reveals that rainfall has increased in the area by 5% over the last 30 years. Throughout the report, observes Homewood, the BBC bases its claims on weather attribution computer models. “However, computer models are not evidence, and can be manipulated to provide whatever results are desired. That is why they are widely derided by the wider scientific community,” he states.

For Roger Pielke, extreme weather attributions are “puzzling”. The most charitable explanation for their proliferation is that there is a demand for them, including from many in the media. The demand will be filled by someone, he concludes. “A less charitable explanation is that there is a systematic effort underway to contest and undermine actual climate science, including the assessments of the IPCC, in order to present a picture of reality that is simply false in support of climate advocacy. We might call that pseudo-scientific gaslighting,” he suggests.

January 5, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

The Risks of Vaccines During Pregnancy

What Expecting Mothers Need to Know

By Tracy Slepcevic | Warrior Mom | January 2, 2025

Pregnancy is a time of joy, anticipation, and careful decision-making. As an expecting mother, your primary goal is to ensure the health and safety of your baby. However, amidst the abundance of information and recommendations, it’s important to understand the potential risks associated with vaccines during pregnancy. Despite assurances from health authorities, recent evidence and expert testimonies suggest that vaccines given during pregnancy pose a significant risk to both mother and baby.

Lack of Proper Testing for Pregnant Women

One of the most concerning aspects of vaccine recommendations for pregnant women is the lack of rigorous safety testing. During a 2023 FDA meeting, Dr. Meryl Nass highlighted the troubling fact that many vaccines routinely recommended during pregnancy, including the COVID-19 vaccine, were not adequately tested in pregnant populations. The FDA admitted that its recommendations are based on limited or no data from controlled clinical trials involving pregnant women.

This absence of reliable data leaves many unanswered questions about the long-term effects of vaccines on both the developing fetus and the mother’s immune system. The decision to recommend vaccines without sufficient evidence undermines informed consent and raises serious ethical concerns.

Alarming Reports of Adverse Effects

Adverse events following vaccination during pregnancy are increasingly being reported. These include:

  • Miscarriages: Some studies and anecdotal reports have linked vaccines, particularly the COVID-19 vaccine, to an increase in pregnancy losses.
  • Preterm Births: Concerns have been raised about a potential connection between maternal vaccination and preterm deliveries.
  • Developmental Issues: Emerging evidence suggests the possibility of long-term developmental effects on the baby, though more research is urgently needed to confirm these findings.

Dr. James Thorp, a board-certified OB-GYN, has been vocal about the risks of vaccinating pregnant women, stating that the CDC’s recommendations lack robust scientific backing. Dr. Thorp and other experts argue that the precautionary principle should guide decisions regarding vaccines during pregnancy, especially when there are alternative ways to manage risks.

The Role of Adjuvants and Ingredients

Many vaccines contain adjuvants; these are substances added to enhance immune response. Aluminum-based adjuvants, for example, have raised concerns due to their neurotoxic effects. During pregnancy, the developing fetus is particularly vulnerable to toxins, and the accumulation of such substances may interfere with normal development.

The presence of viral DNA fragments and other contaminants in vaccines has also been flagged as a risk factor. These components are not fully studied in the context of pregnancy, further complicating the risk assessment.

Trusting Your Natural Immunity

God did not make a mistake, man did. Pregnancy is a time when the body’s immune system undergoes natural adjustments to protect both the mother and the baby. Our God-given immunity is remarkably capable of managing many potential threats without external interventions. Prioritizing a healthy diet, reducing stress, and ensuring adequate sleep can support your immune system during this critical time.

Steps to Protect Yourself and Your Baby

If you are pregnant or planning to become pregnant, here are some steps you can take to make informed decisions about vaccines:

  1. Ask Questions: Before agreeing to any vaccination, ask your healthcare provider about the evidence supporting its safety and efficacy during pregnancy. Most doctors are blinded by the dangers of vaccines or choose to keep us in the dark due to kickbacks from Big Pharma.
  2. Do Your Research: Explore independent studies and expert testimonies to gain a fuller understanding of potential risks. The research is out there, but you will have to dig deeper than a Google search.
  3. Consider Alternatives: For certain infections, there may be natural or non-invasive ways to protect yourself without compromising your baby’s development. Boost your immune system with supplements instead of neurotoxic vaccines.
  4. Seek Second Opinions: If you feel pressured by your provider, consult with another healthcare professional to discuss your concerns. Functional and Alternative medicine doctors are more likely to keep their oath to “do no harm.”
  5. Prioritize Wellness: Focus on boosting your natural immunity through nutrition, hydration, and lifestyle choices.

A Call for Transparency and Caution

As an expecting mother, you deserve complete and honest information to make the best decisions for your baby. The current vaccine recommendations for pregnancy often lack the robust safety data needed to ensure their efficacy and safety. Until comprehensive studies are conducted and transparency is prioritized, the precautionary principle should guide decisions about vaccines during pregnancy.

By taking the time to educate yourself and trust your instincts, you can protect both your health and the health of your baby. Remember, it’s your right to make informed choices about your body and your baby’s future. For more information go to http://www.WarriorMom.com and http://www.AutismHealth.com.

January 5, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

The Pandemic Planners Come for Hoof and Hen… and Us Again

By Clayton J. Baker, MD | Brownstone Institute | January 4, 2025

On December 31, 2024, the world received a year-end parting gift from the good folks at NIAID, Anthony Fauci’s old fiefdom at the National Institutes of Health. NIAID – the same unaccountable and secretive agency that Fauci used to fund the gain-of-function research of Ralph Baric at UNC Chapel Hill and the Bat Lady in Wuhan that resulted in Covid – has a new director, one Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo.

Marrazzo and another NIAID colleague, Dr. Michael G. Ison, wrote a year-end editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that accompanies a research paper on recent H5N1 Bird flu cases in the United States, as well as a case report of a lone case of severe illness associated with Bird flu in British Columbia.

Marrazzo and Ison summarize the findings of the research paper and case report as follows:

Investigators now report in the Journal a series of human cases from the United States and Canada. The former series involves 46 case patients with generally mild, self-limited infection with [Influenza type] A(H5N1): 20 with exposure to poultry, 25 with exposure to dairy cows, and 1 with undefined exposure.…Most case patients presented with conjunctivitis, almost half with fever, and a minority with mild respiratory symptoms, and all recovered. The only hospitalization occurred in the case patient with undefined exposure, although hospitalization was not for respiratory illness.

They elaborate on the single case of serious illness:

In Canada, a 13-year-old girl with mild asthma and obesity presented with conjunctivitis and fever and had progression to respiratory failure…After treatment that included oseltamivir, amantadine, and baloxavir, she recovered.

In other words:

  • Over an eight-month period, from March to October 2024, 46 cases of human bird flu occurred in the United States, a country of 336 million people.
  • There were zero deaths.
  • 45 out of 46 infected persons had known exposure to animals.
  • The majority of the cases consisted of conjunctivitis (commonly known as “pink eye”).
  • Only one US patient was hospitalized, but this was not due to pneumonia – the principal life-threatening complication of influenza – and the patient recovered.
  • One severe case was identified in Canada, a country of 40 million people, in an asthmatic, morbidly obese girl. She was treated successfully with respiratory support and existing antiviral medications, and she recovered.

Does this sound to you like a public health emergency worthy of the legacy media’s recent exhumation of discredited Covid-era fear-mongers like Dr. Leana Wen and Dr. Deborah “Scarf Lady” Birx? Does it justify their hair-on-fire pronouncements on cable news shows everywhere, pushing for indiscriminate PCR testing of animals and emergency authorization of more mRNA vaccines for humans?

Does this sound to you like justification to continue to kill and destroy (pro tip: “cull” means kill and destroy) millions upon millions of farm animals, when most animals who contract Bird flu survive, recover, and develop immunity?

Does this sound to you like justification for another Emergency Use Authorization of another mRNA vaccine?

No? Me neither.

But wait, there’s more.

In their editorial, NIAID experts Marrazzo and Ison fail to mention the following:

  • There have been zero cases of human-to-human transmission of this virus.
  • The current circulating clade of the virus has been determined by independent researchers to very likely have originated at a US Government gain-of-function laboratory, namely the USDA Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (SEPRL) in Athens, GA.
  • Multiple bioweapons laboratories, including the Yoshihiro Kawaoka lab at the University of Wisconsin, and the Ron Fouchier lab in the Netherlands (both of which have been affiliated with NIAID and with work done at SEPRL) have been doing gain-of-function research on Bird flu for many years, including experiments so outrageously dangerous that their work prompted President Obama’s ultimately unsuccessful ban of gain-of-function research in 2014.
  • In 2019, NIAID reapproved and resumed funding Kawaoka and Fouchier’s dangerous work at increasing human transmissibility of Bird flu – the very same gain-of-function research that had prompted Obama’s ban.
  • According to its package insert, Audenz, the current Bird flu vaccine, was associated with death in 1 out of every 200 recipients, compared to 1 in 1,000 placebo recipients.
  • According to openthebooks.com, and as reported in the New York Post, NIH scientists received royalties totaling $325 million from pharmaceutical companies and foreign entities over more than a decade.

So, what are our friends at NIAID’s recommendations?

For one, they stress the “urgent need for vigilant surveillance of emerging mutations and assessment of the threat of human-to-human transmission.”

Are they advocating for the willy-nilly testing of entire livestock herds, as promoted by Birx, which is sure to create a preponderance of false positives?

Are they calling for the continued mass killing and destruction of millions upon millions of farm animals, whenever a fraction of the animals test positive for the virus?

Instead of PCR-swabbing every cow, chicken, and farm worker on Earth, how about we stop creating new mutant variants of H5N1 in the labs, since that’s where the current problem originated? How about we stop funding such utter madness with our tax dollars, funneled through corrupt government agencies like NIAID?

After all, you don’t save Tokyo by creating Godzilla.

But Marrazzo and Ison make no mention of this common-sense, sane approach.
Instead, they also stress the need for more – you guessed it – vaccines. They write:

we must continue to pursue development and testing of medical countermeasures…Studies have shown the safety and immunogenicity of A(H5N1) vaccines…studies are ongoing to develop messenger RNA–based A(H5N1) vaccines and other novel vaccines that can provide protection against a broad range of influenza viruses, including A(H5N1).”

Aside from attesting to the “safety” of a product where 1 in 200 users die, the use of the word “countermeasures” is extremely telling. It is a military term, not a medical one. We have already seen this game played with Covid. The gain-of-function lab research is done to produce a lab-manipulated, weaponized version of a virus, a version that is transmissible among and toxic to humans – in other words, a bioweapon. The vaccine is the countermeasure to the bioweapon. The vaccine is the intellectual property of those who created the bioweapon, and it is worth a fortune once the weapon has been unleashed. It is as simple as that.

“Pandemic preparedness” is a gigantic, deadly protection racket. I have described it in the past as arsonists running the fire department. That is precisely what happened with Covid, and that is what is being attempted with H5N1 Bird flu.

Moving forward to a new administration that has expressed a commitment to rooting out corruption in the pharmaceutical/medical/public health realm, improving the health of citizens, and restoring trustworthiness in medicine, I recommend the following steps to combat the H5N1 Bird flu, and to end the “pandemic preparedness” racket that threatens to hold the world hostage again and again, as it did during Covid.

  • Immediately end and outlaw all gain-of-function and other bioweapons research in and funded by the United States, and apply all possible diplomatic pressure to eradicate it from the Earth.
  • Eliminate all special protections from liability for vaccines, including the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and the PREP Act.
  • Refocus Infectious Disease research on new therapeutics, rather than power-seeking and profit-driven vaccine development.
  • Completely reform the National Institutes of Health, and close the incorrigibly corrupt NIAID altogether.

The fear pornographers must be discredited. We must make realistic and sensible decisions about our food supply.

We must learn the lessons of Covid, and live in knowledge rather than in fear.

We must end the protection rackets, confidence games, and shakedowns that government insiders impose on us like mafiosi.

Happy New Year!

January 4, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Bill Gates Turns Mosquitoes Into ‘Flying Syringes’, But Who Controls What They Inject?

Sputnik – 02.01.2025

A Bill Gates-funded center has bred mosquitoes capable of injecting parasites into unsuspecting humans under the pretext of vaccinating against malaria. But are they truly harmless?

The Gates Foundation-backed Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands has developed a method of malaria vaccination using mosquitoes to deliver live-attenuated Plasmodium falciparum parasites.

The mosquitoes act as ‘flying syringes’ to deliver malaria vaccines – or potentially other substances. But concerns have been raised that recipients could be unaware of the process and be vaccinated without their consent.

How It All Began

  • In 2008, Gates pledged $168 million to develop a next-gen malaria vaccine. Jichi Medical University in Japan received funding to genetically modify mosquitoes that can pass a malaria vaccine protein into a host.
  • In 2016, Gates announced a joint $3.7-billion initiative with the British government to combat malaria.
  • By 2018, Gates-funded Oxitec was developing genetically-modified male mosquitoes whose offspring with wild females would die before adulthood.
  • In both cases, scientists raised concerns over the lack of comprehensive studies of environmental, health and ethical risks.

Once Pandora’s Box is Open, It Cannot be Closed

  • If issues of human consent and ethics are overlooked, insects could be used as ‘vectors’ for other biological agents.
  • But who guarantees they carry life-saving vaccines and not harmful pathogens? It would be impossible to verify the exact contents of the ‘flying syringes’.

Mosquitoes as Deadly Weapons

  • Insects have previously been studied as potential carriers of viruses and bacteria.
  • Nazi Germany reportedly developed malaria-carrying mosquitoes as bio-weapons at Dachau.
  • The Pentagon is said to have conducted similar studies in overseas bio-labs, including in Ukraine, according to assassinated Russian Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov.
  • Kirillov revealed that US biolabs in Ukraine studied viruses transmitted by mosquitoes, including dengue fever. That was also referenced in a lawsuit filed by Cubans following the 1981 dengue epidemic in the country, where the only area unaffected was around the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay.

January 2, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Manufacturing Dissent

By Joshua Stylman | November 17, 2024

As I often do on Sunday mornings, I was drinking my coffee and scrolling through my news feed when I noticed something striking. Maybe it’s my algorithm, but the content was flooded with an unusual amount of vitriol directed at Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s nomination as HHS Secretary. The coordinated messaging was impossible to miss—talking heads across networks uniformly labeling him a “conspiracy theorist” and “danger to public health,” never once addressing his actual positions. The media’s concerted attacks on Kennedy reveal more than just their opinion of his nomination—they expose a deeper crisis of credibility within institutions that once commanded public trust.

The Credibility Paradox

The irony of who led these attacks wasn’t lost on me—these were largely the same voices who championed our most destructive pandemic policies. As Jeffrey Tucker aptly noted on X this morning:

The Coordinated Response

This hypocrisy becomes even more glaring in the New York Times’ recent coverage, where dismissive rhetoric consistently replaces substantive engagement. In one piece, they acknowledge troubling trends in children’s health while dismissively declaring “vaccines and fluoride are not the cause” without engaging his evidence. In another, Zeynep Tufekci—who notably advocated for some of the most draconian Covid measures—warns that Kennedy could “destroy one of civilization’s best achievements,” painting apocalyptic scenarios while sidestepping his actual policy positions.

Meanwhile, their political desk speculates about how his stance on Big Food might “alienate his GOP allies.” Each piece approaches from a different angle, but the pattern is clear: coordinated messaging aimed at undermining his credibility before he can assume institutional authority.

The Echo Chamber Effect

You can almost hear the editorial conveyor belt opening as senior editors craft the day’s approved reality for their audience. The consistent tone across pieces reveals less independent analysis than a familiar pattern—mockingbird media still in action. As I detailed in How The Information Factory Evolved, this assembly-line approach to reality manufacturing has become increasingly visible to anyone paying attention.

What these gatekeepers fail to grasp is that this smug dismissiveness, this refusal to engage with substantive arguments, is precisely what fuels growing public skepticism. Their panic seems to grow in direct proportion to Kennedy’s proximity to real power. This orchestrated dismissal is more than a journalistic flaw—it reflects a larger institutional dilemma, one that becomes unavoidable as Kennedy gains traction.

The Institutional Trap

The Times faces an emerging dilemma: at some point, they’ll need to address the substance of Kennedy’s arguments rather than rely on dismissive characterizations—especially if he assumes control of America’s health apparatus. Just this morning, MSNBC anchors were literally shouting that “Kennedy is going to get people killed”—yet another example of using melodramatics and fear instead of engaging with his actual positions. Their reflexive ridicule strategy backfires precisely because it avoids engaging with the evidence and concerns that resonate with parents and citizens across political lines. Each attempt to maintain narrative control through authority rather than evidence accelerates institutional credibility collapse.

Beyond Kennedy: Redrawing Political Lines

The NYT’s analysis about Kennedy potentially alienating GOP allies particularly highlights their fundamental misunderstanding of the shifting political landscape. As a lifelong Democrat who still champions many traditional progressive values, Kennedy transcends conventional political boundaries. His message—”We have to love our children more than we hate each other”—resonates precisely because anyone who dismisses this crusade to restore American vitality as mere political theater is blind to the groundswell of people who’ve grown tired of watching their communities crumble under the weight of manufactured decline.

This isn’t just about Kennedy—it’s about the media’s inability to address the legitimate concerns of a disillusioned public. When institutions refuse to engage with dissenting voices, they deepen mistrust and fracture the shared foundation necessary for democratic discourse. While RFK, Jr.’s message has resonated across political boundaries, the media’s inability to address core issues—like regulatory failures—reveals just how out of touch they’ve become.

The Art of Missing the Point

Consider this fact-check from the same article: The Times attempts to discredit Kennedy’s Fruit Loops example, but inadvertently confirms his central point: ingredients banned in European markets are indeed permitted in American products. By focusing on semantic precision instead of the broader issue—why US regulators allow unsafe ingredients—the media deflects from substantive debates.

Senator Elizabeth Warren declared this week: “RFK Jr. poses a danger to public health, scientific research, medicine, and health care coverage for millions. He wants to stop parents from protecting their babies from measles and his ideas would welcome the return of polio.” Yet this alarmist framing dodges the simple question Kennedy actually raises: Why wouldn’t you want proper safety testing for chemicals we’re expected to inject into our children’s bodies? The silence in response to this basic inquiry speaks volumes about institutional priorities—and their fear of someone with the power to demand answers.

A Referendum on Manufacturing Consent

Say what you want about Trump, but his “fake news” remarks struck a chord that resonates deeper with each passing day. People who once scoffed at these claims are now watching with eyes wide open as coordinated narratives unfold across media platforms. The gaslighting has become too obvious to ignore. As I explored in We Didn’t Change, The Democratic Party Did, this awakening transcends traditional political boundaries. Americans across the spectrum are tired of being told not to believe their own eyes, whether it’s about pandemic policies, economic realities, or the suppression of dissenting voices.

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. 

It was their final, most essential command.”

–George Orwell, 1984

The Moment of Truth

With Kennedy potentially overseeing America’s health infrastructure, media institutions face a crucial inflection point. Fear campaigns and ad hominem attacks won’t suffice when his policy positions require serious examination. The machinery of coordinated dismissal—visible in identical talking points across networks—reveals more about institutional allegiance than journalistic integrity.

This moment demands something different. When Kennedy raises questions about pharmaceutical safety testing or environmental toxins—issues that resonate with families across political lines—substantive debate must replace reflexive ridicule. His actual positions, heard directly rather than through media filters, often align with common-sense concerns about corporate influence on public health policy.

This institutional pattern of manufactured authority connects directly to themes I explored in Fiat Everything earlier this week—systems built on decree rather than demonstrated value. They don’t sell weapons—they sell fear. The same forces that control monetary policy now seek to dictate public health discourse.

Breaking the Machine

The solution won’t come from institutional gatekeepers (that’s what got us here) but direct examination. We all need to:

  • Listen to Kennedy’s complete speeches rather than edited soundbites
  • Read his policy positions rather than media characterizations
  • Examine the evidence he cites rather than fact-checker summaries
  • Consider why certain questions about public health policy are deemed off-limits

I’m not suggesting we accept every contrarian position, but rather that institutional credibility must be earned through rigorous analysis rather than assumed through authority. Until then, coverage like these recent Times pieces will continue to exemplify the very institutional failures that fuel the movements they seek to discredit. As Kennedy approaches real institutional power, expect these attacks to intensify—a clear signal of just how much the guardians of our manufactured consensus have to lose.

January 2, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Deborah Birx’s Bird Flu Fearmongering Campaign

By Daniel McAdams | Peace and Prosperity Blog | December 29, 2024

In June, I wrote about Deborah Birx, one of the key “public health” officials from the orchestration of the American coronavirus scare, being back in action stirring up fear of another disease. This time Birx’s fearmongering was about bird flu. And she was advocating for government to follow a similar disastrous course to supposedly counter this disease as had been pursued in regard to coronavirus in the crackdown begun years back.

Here is an update.

Birx is continuing on her quest to stir up a new bird flu scare in America, and to build public support for a government response harmful to health and liberty. A recent stop on Birx’s bird flu fearmongering campaign was a Friday interview at CNN in which she warned that, like coronavirus early on, bird flu is not being addressed sufficiently by the United States government. Now, she said, routine weekly testing of people who may have been exposed to bird flu needs to be undertaken.

This testing which Birx suggested mirrors testing that was pursued to build up fear of coronavirus through jacking up the number of coronavirus cases via testing that shot out many false positive results. Indeed, Birx stated in the interview that with bird flu much increased testing is needed because “we know from covid most of the spread was asymptomatic.” Got that? The testing is purposed to identify people as sick despite the fact that they are not sick.

Birx has her pandemic propaganda process down pat.

In her CNN interview pitch, Birx tried to butter up her potential victims, declaring “I find the American public to be incredibly smart.” Hopefully, most Americans will prove too smart to fall for Birx’s new fearmongering campaign and the attacks on health and liberty it supports.

December 29, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 2 Comments

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »