“The claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.”
“Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.”
“Scientific studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines contribute to the development of autism. However, this statement has historically been disseminated by the CDC and other federal health agencies within HHS to prevent vaccine hesitancy.”
Meaning, the CDC has simply been lying to you. The CDC’s website then continues its mea culpa stating:
“[M]ultiple reports from HHS and the National Academy of Sciences …. have consistently concluded that there are still no studies that support the specific claim that the infant vaccines, DTaP, HepB, Hib, IPV, and PCV, do not cause autism and hence the CDC was in violation of the DQA [Data Quality Act] when it claimed, ‘vaccines do not cause autism.’ CDC is now correcting the statement, and HHS is providing appropriate funding and support for studies related to infant vaccines and autism.”
“Of note, the 2014 AHRQ [Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality] review also addressed the HepB vaccine and autism. One cross-sectional study met criteria for reliability; it found a threefold risk of parental report of autism among newborns receiving a HepB vaccine in the first month of life compared to those who did not receive this vaccine or did so after the first month.”
“In fact, there are still no studies that support the claim that any of the 20 doses of the seven infant vaccines recommended for American children before the first year of life do not cause autism. These vaccines include DTaP, HepB, Hib, IPV, PCV, rotavirus, and influenza.”
As for the MMR vaccine, CDC’s website now says:
“[I]n 2012, the IOM reviewed the published MMR-autism studies and found that all but four of them had ‘serious methodological limitations,’ and the IOM gave them no weight. The remaining four studies and a few similar studies published since also have all been criticized for serious methodological flaws. Furthermore, they are all retrospective epidemiological studies which cannot prove causation, fail to account for potential vulnerable subgroups, and fail to account for mechanistic and other evidence linking vaccines with autism.”
The largest vaccination campaign in history has been accompanied by the weakest safety monitoring ever attempted.
The world conducted the largest medical intervention in history when billions of people received Covid-19 vaccines beginning in late 2020. Yet, five years later, no comprehensive, mandatory system exists in the U.S. or anywhere else to track down adverse events the vaccine may be causing on a massive scale.
No government health agency, medical association, or hospital system has required doctors, clinics, or hospitals to routinely ask every patient about new symptoms, cross-reference their Covid and vaccination history, and systematically report that information to a central database capable of detecting possible patterns.
Today, untold millions of patients with mysterious or debilitating new conditions are said to be routinely told their symptoms are due to anxiety, depression, unexplained “long Covid,” or simply treated without regard to what could be the cause, without any effort to collect the data that could prove or disprove a vaccine connection.
The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), co-managed by the CDC and FDA since 1990, remains the primary U.S. tool for identifying previously unknown adverse events from vaccines, and their frequency.
By law, healthcare providers must report certain serious events after any vaccination, including hospitalization, permanent disability, or death, to the VAERS database. But during the Covid-19 vaccine rollout, compliance was extremely low, and — shockingly — neither the government nor medical organizations enforced the requirement at perhaps the most critical time in our history in terms of sheer number being exposed to experiments both in terms of the specific vaccines and novel form of delivery.
A major reason for underreporting to VAERS: many physicians believe — incorrectly — that they should only submit a report if they are personally convinced the vaccine caused the problem. This misunderstanding defeats the entire purpose of a passive reporting system, which is to collect reports of all health issues following vaccination, regardless of suspected cause, so that unexpected patterns can emerge over time.
This is exactly how previously unrecognized serious side effects were discovered with other medications. In the late 1990s, as a CBS News investigative correspondent, I reported on Rezulin (troglitazone), a diabetes drug withdrawn in 2000 after reports of liver failure began appearing in the FDA adverse event reporting system.
What started as a small number of reported liver deaths after Rezulin signaled a much larger problem once standard underreporting multipliers are understood: experts say for each adverse event reported, there are likely 10,000 to 100,000 more that don’t get reported. That’s why a handful of fatalities was so alarming and prompted the FDA to pull the drug from the market.
Similarly, as I also broke news on at CBS, the erectile dysfunction drug Viagra was linked to a form of sudden blindness (non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy) years after approval. But it was only because clusters of blindness cases happened to get reported to the FDA’s adverse-event system, and a few intrepid eye doctors noticed a pattern in their patients. The actual doctors prescribing Viagra failed to recognize and report the blindness as a possible adverse event. The side effect was originally denied by the drugmaker, but is now added into warnings on the label.
A third example among many I investigated is cholesterol lowering statins. At first, statin makers denied that potentially fatal muscle problems and brain issues could be related to their medicine. But after enough reports made it into the federal database, it became undeniable— and those adverse events were ultimately added to the label.
VAERS data for Covid vaccines now exceed 1.6 million reports in the U.S. alone, including more than 36,000 deaths and 200,000 hospitalizations reported after vaccination. Experts across the spectrum agree these figures represent massive underreporting because most physicians are not filing reports or even asking their sick patients about their vaccine status, and many adverse events are never recognized as possibly vaccine-related.
What should have happened from day one — and still has not — is a simple, mandatory protocol: at every medical encounter (office visit, ER, hospital admission, or routine checkup), patients should be asked a few standardized questions about new or worsening conditions since their last Covid vaccination or infection, and the answers should be forwarded to a central analytical database. In an era of electronic health records and artificial intelligence, this could be inexpensive and straightforward.
Yet no such program exists.
The National Institutes of Health spent more than $1.15 billion tax dollars on the RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) initiative to study “long Covid.”
RECOVER has collected detailed longitudinal data on tens of thousands of patients. This includes data that could be valuable, if not vital, to the pursuit of finding out about and helping treat Covid vaccine injuries.
Yet the study’s public protocols and publications to date lump all patients together as Covid injuries— even though the majority of studied patients were also vaccinated.
When I contacted RECOVER representatives in 2024 to ask how they distinguished potential vaccine-related injury from post-viral “long Covid,” they refused to answer and then ceased communications with me.
It begins to look like RECOVER is more about finding and promoting money making pharmaceutical treatments for “long Covid” without really getting at the heart of what Covid vaccines might be doing to our population on a massive scale.
Confirmed serious adverse events now acknowledged by the FDA and CDC to be caused by Covid-19 vaccines include myocarditis and pericarditis (especially in young men after mRNA doses), anaphylaxis, and immune thrombocytopenia.
Other conditions under continuing investigation include tinnitus, Guillain-Barré paralysis syndrome, and various serious neurological disorders.
Rates of certain cancers in people under 50 have risen sharply since 2021, as have reports of aggressive “turbo cancers” and unusual neurological diagnoses.
Without systematic, mandatory post-vaccination surveillance that includes everyone — vaccinated or not — it is impossible to determine whether any of these increases are related to the vaccines, to the virus, to both, or to unrelated factors.
Untold millions of patients are suffering mysterious or debilitating new conditions with doctors potentially misunderstanding or misinterpreting causes, which impacts success of treatment plans. Physicians are rarely if ever asking sick patients about Covid vaccine status. Often, patients report doctors are treating them without even bothering to identify potential causes of their maladies at all, let alone collecting data that could prove or disprove a Covid vaccine connection.
The largest vaccination campaign in history was accompanied by the weakest long-term safety monitoring ever attempted. Five years in, that failure has still not been corrected.
The latest Rasmussen poll speaks volumes. A major flashing warning light for public health officials and political leadership. Are they paying attention? And more importantly, will they act?
Rasmussen polls are pulse checks – real-time snapshots of public sentiment and mood on key topics.
The recent Rasmussen report reveals:
26% say they had minor side effects from the Covid shot
10% reported major side effects from the vaccine
46% believe it is likely that side effects of COVID-19 vaccines have caused a significant number of unexplained deaths
Under Kennedy’s leadership at HHS, once authoritarian Covid shot mandates have been backed off to ‘individual-based decision-making’ but is that enough. It’s clear the current public health apparatus wants out of all aspects of the Biden administration’s Covid train wreck.
Given the mounting data and science pointing to harms, many believe the government should be doing more – namely removing the Covid shot from the market.
At the same time, The Telegraph is reporting the following:
The story was created thanks to the legal action of the independent, non-profit, non-affiliated group UsForThemUK, along with diagnostic pathologist Dr. Clare Craig, who engaged in a 2-year battle to get public transparency of the general Covid vaccine and mortality data… data that was freely shared with pharmaceutical companies but withheld from the public.
The group lost its legal fight but a key admission was revealed to the public as the Telegraph writes:
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) argued that releasing the data would lead to the “distress or anger” of bereaved relatives if a link were to be discovered.
Public health officials also argued that publishing the data risked damaging the well-being and mental health of the families and friends of people who died.
The Telegraph then describes a behind-the-veil moment writing:
UsForThem, a campaign group, requested that UKHSA release the data under freedom of information laws. But the agency refused, making a number of different arguments including that publishing the data “could lead to misinformation” that would “have an adverse impact on vaccine uptake” in the public.
Among the new admissions the CDC website now states:
Scientific studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines contribute to the development of autism. However, this statement has historically been disseminated by the CDC and other federal health agencies within HHS to prevent vaccine hesitancy.
Together, both the UKHSA and CDC’s new statements show there has been, and still is, a lockstep coordination to purposely censor information from the public when it comes to injectable pharmaceutical product lines.
Governments are desperate to avoid the Covid vaccine injury conversation eager to avoid full-blown public health revolt on unknown consequences (already happening in large sections of the population)
Meanwhile, the ‘science is not political’ crowd spawned an East and West Coast Alliance coalition of all blue Democrat-run states representing the high water mark of hypocrisy and groupthink. Banding together for the purpose of ignoring the facts and evidence to push the Covid shot on infants and healthy people sans pandemic emergency.
The bizarre and self-defeatist move refusing to acknowledge any new science since 2020 on the mounting dangers of the Covid shot – the alliances are not only a danger to public health but to the credibility of the very institutional trust they claim to be standing for – perfect inversion.
The harms of the Covid shot are still a real concern of the American public. Ignoring these concerns or attempting to soft-sell solutions bypassing real help for the injured will not make this flashing red light any dimmer.
A former BBC health correspondent said editors repeatedly prevented him from reporting on emerging scientific debates over the safety of water fluoridation, dismissing the story as “scaremongering.”
Michele Paduano spent three decades reporting for the BBC from the West Midlands, the first region in the U.K. to fluoridate its water supply, in 1964.
The court found that the U.S. fluoridation level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) posed an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health. The West Midlands fluoridates its water at 1 mg/L, about 30% higher than the recommended U.S. level.
Paduano said mainstream media rebuttals were “so strong and absolute” that he knew publishing a story on the findings would be difficult.
He said he pursued the story only after reading the September 2024 court decision, which cited new evidence pointing to potential neurodevelopmental risks at lower fluoride concentrations.
“At that point, it felt like my public duty to tell people in the West Midlands that there was potentially a problem,” he said.
BBC editors rejected story as ‘scaremongering’
Paduano said he pitched the fluoride story through the BBC’s planning process and arranged an interview with West Midlands anti-fluoridation campaigner Joy Warren. Senior online and television editors abruptly cancelled the interview.
“They told me the story was scaremongering,” he said. Internal BBC scientists and public-health staff insisted there was no credible new evidence. Paduano said he challenged the decision and urged editors to read the U.S. court judgment, but they instead accused him of bias.
“As a BBC journalist, impartiality is fundamental. But impartiality also means reporting new evidence when it emerges,” he said.
Paduano continued investigating the issue and spoke with professor John Fawell, a leading U.K. pro-fluoridation expert and adviser to the World Health Organization (WHO).
As a result of their conversation, Paduano said Fawell acknowledged that recent research should prompt the U.K. to consider lowering fluoridation levels to match U.S. and Canadian guidance. Fawell, who co-authored a book on fluoridation’s oral health benefits, urged U.K. officials to reexamine the country’s dosage and consider aligning it with the U.S.
“If somebody who is a leading pro-fluoride proponent adjusts their position, that is a story,” Paduano said. But he said BBC editors still refused to let him cover it.
Paduano said he then emailed CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs Deborah Turness and BBC Director-General Tim Davie, but the response was “radio silence.” He then took his concerns to Nicholas Serota, a BBC board member responsible for editorial standards.
In the meantime, Paduano said he learned of planned BBC coverage in the North East about proposed fluoridation expansion, and he told Serota that failing to mention the U.S. court decision would constitute “significant censorship.”
Paduano said the article on the North East fluoridation expansion that eventually appeared briefly mentioned the U.S. judgment. He continued arguing that the West Midlands — which has fluoridated its water for decades — should also have reported on the new developments.
The editorial board refused to cover the story. “Concern was that we would be scaremongering, we would frighten people and that the science wasn’t there,” Paduano said.
Paduano said frustrations over fluoride reporting, along with broader concerns about the broadcaster’s impartiality and its close relationship with government, ultimately pushed him to leave the BBC.
Soon after, the BBC published an article about a recommendation by Worcestershire public health officials to expand fluoridation countywide. In what Paduano described as “the ultimate bias,” the article didn’t refer to the U.S. judgment or related research.
After leaving the BBC, Paduano contacted The Independent, which published his story on Fawell’s changing position on water fluoridation.
Paduano said he again approached the BBC, arguing that national coverage proved the issue’s newsworthiness, but editors held their ground and directed him to the complaints process — which he says has resulted in little progress.
‘We should avoid worrying our audiences unduly,’ BBC says
The BBC has not responded publicly to Paduano’s allegations, and it did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment.
The organization did reply to complaint letters from Howard and FAN’s science adviser Paul Connett, Ph.D., author of “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There.” The letters urged the BBC to show “objectivity and professionalism on the latest research into the risks of water fluoridation” and to investigate Paduano’s claims.
In its initial response, the BBC complaints team said it had “provided a fair and appropriate view” of the water fluoridation issue.
In a follow-up response to Connett and Howard, the BBC defended its decision not to mention recent science linking fluoride exposure to neurodevelopmental issues in children.
The BBC said its reporting reflects “the majority view — from the World Health Organisation, US Centre for Disease Control, the American Dental Society [sic] and others,” and argued that it maintains a “higher bar for publishing stories around health risk.”
The BBC cited its editorial guidelines:
“The reporting of risk can have an impact on the public’s perception of that risk, particularly with health or crime stories. We should avoid worrying our audiences unduly and contextualise our reports to be clear about the likelihood of the risk occurring. This is particularly true in reporting health stories that may cause individuals to alter their behaviour in ways that could be harmful.”
Kevin Silverton, who signed the letter, said the complaints team could not continue corresponding and that further concerns should be taken to the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit.
BBC reporting on fluoride ‘can’t be trusted’
Connett told The Defender he was “shocked” when the BBC justified its position by citing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Dental Association (ADA) and the WHO as representing the majority expert view. He said:
“As you well know, the CDC oral health division’s mission was to promote fluoridation, and the ADA has avidly promoted it for years — so much so that any study that found any harm was immediately dismissed as being bad science, and the WHO has not looked at fluoride’s neurotoxicity for many years, if ever. It is incredible to me that this very large government-funded body should rely on such one-sided, essentially partisan.”
Connett said the public and local officials rely on the BBC for accurate information, but on fluoride, “it can’t be trusted.” He said:
“When a major media entity gets involved, you would hope that they would do their homework and review the science when it is available for them. In this case the issue should have been easy because it did not entail slogging through all the studies themselves. They had a major review by a government entity, the National Toxicology Program, and they also had the judgment of a judge in a seven-year lawsuit.
“In short, the BBC is abusing the public’s trust on this important health issue, and that is shocking. Scientists like myself have an obligation to speak out. In our case, we were lucky to have a journalist to give us an inside view of the censorship that went on. We are often not that lucky.”
Before Dr. Vivek Murthy prescribed “community” as America’s cure, he helped engineer the policies that tore it apart.
When outgoing Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy released his January 2025 essay, “My Parting Prescription for America,” it was framed as a heartfelt reflection on the nation’s loneliness and disconnection. The document reads like a sermon on “love,” “service,” and “community” — invoking Christian compassion, Hindu dharma, and African Ubuntu to offer a kind of spiritual healing for America’s fractured soul.
But beneath the soft prose lies a striking irony: the very official who now urges the nation to “choose community” presided over one of the most divisive and dehumanizing public health regimes in U.S. history. His tenure was marked by systematic censorship, defamation of independent scientists and health advocates, and the suppression of truthful reporting about vaccine injuries and deaths — all documented in federal court filings and corroborated by congressional investigation.
The Surgeon General Who Prescribed Silence
In 2021, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy partnered with the now-disgraced Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and its soon-to-be-deported founder, Imran Ahmed, to launch a campaign labeling “health misinformation” as a public threat and urging social media companies to “take more aggressive action” against those who questioned the official COVID-19 narrative.
As detailed in Finn v. Global Engagement Center (3:25-cv-00543) (Doc. 83), Murthy’s office collaborated with entities like the CCDH, the White House, and Big Tech platforms to pressure for the removal or throttling of lawful speech — including posts about natural immunity, vaccine injury, and early treatment protocols.
This coordination, which the complaint describes as a “fusion of state and private power to suppress disfavored viewpoints,” forms part of a broader transnational censorship enterprise now under legal scrutiny.
Murthy’s rhetoric about “protecting public health” masked an unprecedented effort to erase public testimony from the vaccine-injured and to delegitimize independent medical experts whose research contradicted pharmaceutical and government messaging. Many of those targeted — including myself — were falsely branded as part of the “Disinformation Dozen,” a defamatory construct disseminated to newsrooms worldwide through UK-linked NGOs and U.S. federal agencies.
Covering the Wounds He Helped Inflict
In his “Parting Prescription,” Murthy writes that “community is the formula for fulfillment” and that the modern epidemic of loneliness demands “love, courage, and generosity.”
Yet his own tenure systematically dismantled trust and belonging, dividing families, churches, and workplaces through moralized public health edicts.
Lockdowns, school closures, and vaccine mandates — all publicly championed by Murthy — fractured communities, creating the very isolation he now laments.
The Surgeon General who now preaches about “connection” was among those who ordered Americans to sever their most human bonds: to distance from loved ones, to shun the unvaccinated, and to treat dissenters as diseased threats.
His later call to “build a new social contract” founded on service and civic programs like the “Youth Mental Health Corps”is telling. It repackages the same surveillance-based public health infrastructure — behavioral tracking, centralized intervention, social credit by another name — in the language of compassion.
Weaponizing Psychology: Pathologizing Dissent
Murthy’s tenure advanced a subtle but potent form of psychological warfare: pathologizing dissent as sickness.
When he declares that division and distrust are symptoms of a “spiritual crisis,” he erases the political and moral legitimacy of resistance. Those who refused the experimental injections, questioned corporate capture of science, or defended medical choice are reframed not as engaged citizens but as patients in need of behavioral correction.
This framing, echoed by the World Health Organization and the Surgeon General’s “advisories,” lays the groundwork for the next phase of informational control — one cloaked not in censorship, but in therapeutic paternalism.
The Great Inversion: Coercion as Care
At the heart of Murthy’s “Prescription” is a moral inversion: coercion recast as compassion.
Throughout the pandemic, his messaging repeatedly equated compliance with virtue and questioning with harm. His Office’s partnership with the CDC and White House COVID Response Team normalized the language of “protecting others” — a phrase that justified censorship, job loss, and social exclusion.
Now, Murthy’s final reflection dresses that same ideology in the soft robes of empathy. His triad of “relationships, service, and purpose”reads less like a personal wellness philosophy than a state catechism — urging citizens to find meaning through collective obedience to approved narratives.
The Spiritual Disguise of Technocratic Power
Murthy’s invocation of faith traditions — Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and Ubuntu — is striking not for its inclusivity, but for its instrumental use of sacred language to legitimize centralized authority.
In merging spirituality with governance, Murthy mirrors a broader trend in global health policy: the conversion of care into control, where moral virtue is measured by conformity to bureaucratic “truth.”
The true crisis is not loneliness, but alienation from truth — a wound deepened by those who censored, shamed, and silenced the nation under the guise of saving it.
From Surgeon General to Social Engineer
Murthy closes his “Prescription” with a challenge:
“We are kin, not enemies… Good people with hearts full of love can change the world.”
True love cannot coexist with coercion. True community cannot be built on lies.
The enduring legacy of Murthy’s public health tenure is not one of healing but of division, distrust, and epistemic violence — the destruction of the social immune system that protects a free people: open inquiry and dissent.
A Prescription Reversed
If Murthy’s farewell message was sincere, his repentance would begin with acknowledgment — of the vaccine-injured, of the silenced physicians, of the citizens whose livelihoods and voices were destroyed in the name of “safety.”
Until then, his “parting prescription” serves not as medicine, but as mirror — reflecting the psychological alchemy of a technocratic era that calls its injuries love.
Referendes
Murthy’s My Parting Prescription for America (your uploaded PDF) — referenced for quotes and thematic contrast.
Ji et al. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate et al. (Doc. 83 – Second Amended Complaint) — for legal and factual references regarding Murthy’s actions, coordination, and the broader censorship regime.
Judicial and congressional context — including Missouri v. Biden and Kennedy v. Murthy, which form the legal frame for federal involvement in viewpoint suppression.
A recent article in The Guardian, “Change course now: humanity has missed 1.5C climate target, says UN head,” claims that the planet is in grave danger of passing climate “tipping points,” as it is now inevitable that 1.5°C warming will be breached. Although 1.5℃ of warming may be locked in if not already surpassed, the claim that it signifies a dangerous milestone is false. Not only is the tipping points narrative bunk, but there is no evidence that 1.5°C warming is any particular threat. The purported temperature threshhold was chosen arbitrarily and for political reasons rather than scientific ones.
The Guardian’s story focuses on comments made by United Nations Secretary General António Guterres, who in advance of the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, warned that it is “inevitable” that 1.5°C of warming will be breached, and it will result in “devastating consequences” for the planet. The Guardian says Guterres “urged the leaders who will gather in the Brazilian rainforest city of Belém to realize that the longer they delay cutting emissions, the greater the danger of passing catastrophic “tipping points” in the Amazon, the Arctic, and the oceans.”
There is no scientific basis for any so-called tipping points, and claiming otherwise is just fearmongering for political gain.
Beginning with the Amazon rainforest, the location of the next climate summit in November, Guterres reportedly warned that it could become a “savannah,” or a dry grassland. There is no evidence for this absurd claim. Like Guterres’ previous “boiling oceans” comment, it is purely fanciful hyperbole lacking any basis in fact. Guterres is referencing a period of drought suffered by parts of the Amazon basin in recent years, but that drought has not been historically unusual, and the recent localized areas of drought have not been more severe than previous drought periods. As discussed in the Climate Realism post “Media Outlets Continue Spreading False Amazon “Record Drought” Claims,” the Amazon has experienced periods of heavy rain and extended drought in the past that were worse than those we see now. Historic records do not show any worsening of drought in the Amazon. The threat that impacts tree cover is deforestation and clear cutting, not climate change.
The Arctic is also not approaching any dangerous tipping point. Should warming continue, ice extent will likely shrink, but it has not been happening at nearly as fast a rate as alarmists claim. Arctic sea ice extent has been stable since about 2010, indicating a new ice extent regime, and there is no telling how long that will last. If the past is any guide, sea ice might begin expanding again, as it has waxed and waned historically.
Finally, the ocean tipping point Guterres is referring to is the claim that coral reefs will die out as a result of ocean pH changes and higher temperatures, but again, science and paleo-history shows that corals are resilient to changes that are much more extreme than the modest warming of recent decades. As discussed repeatedly at Climate Realism, the world’s oceans are not at risk of becoming acidic and coral reefs are expanding their range and setting records for growth.
It is true that the “1.5°C threshold” is likely to be passed. But that does not mean anything, certainly nothing catastrophic. The 1.5°C warming limit was already passed in 2024 because of the El Niño conditions—with no cataclysm. This should not be of concern to anyone, because that limit is not a scientifically established value. The Guardian fearmongered about it in the past, which Climate Realism addressed here, and seems to have learned nothing. The 1.5°C number was arbitrary; established by an 11 member German political advisory board containing only one meteorologist. It is not a hard scientific threshold the way the boiling point of water is, though alarmists inappropriately treat it that way.
Guterres’ comments are not based on science, data, or even history. He is simply attempting to worry the public, with The Guardian’s complicity, in order to gain political leverage for negotiations at COP 30 even as a growing number of countries are downplaying climate concerns in the realistic assessment that other issues are more pressing and fossil fuels, for now, remain vital to prosperity.
Today, Americans for Public Trust released a new report exposing how a group of foreign “charities” has spent almost $2 billion bankrolling U.S. policy fights and advancing an extreme climate agenda.
“It is extremely alarming that five foreign charities have quietly poured almost two billion dollars into advocating for the most extreme liberal policies and protests in the United States. Since current laws regulating foreign giving to U.S.-based nonprofit organizations are hindered by a lack of oversight and exploitable exemptions and loopholes, foreign actors have been able to advance their radical and dangerous interests virtually unchecked. Congress needs to address these serious shortfalls in our laws to protect American interests and keep foreign influence out of our politics.” — Caitlin Sutherland, Executive Director, Americans for Public Trust
Fast Facts:
Five foreign charities have quietly funneled almost $2 billion into U.S. policy fights, litigation, research, protests, lobbying, and the nonprofit sector to advance their extreme, foreign, activist climate agenda. The groups support a radical green agenda including: the managed decline of oil and gas, climate protests, opposing the Keystone XL Pipeline, and more.
Quadrature Climate Foundation (QCF): QCF, out of the United Kingdom has given $530 million in foreign money to 41 U.S.-based groups from 2020 to the present, including: ClimateWorks Foundation, Growald Climate Fund, The Grantham Foundation, Arabella’s Windward Fund, and the Sunrise Project.
KR Foundation: The KR Foundation, a Danish charity, has given over $36 million in foreign cash to 53 U.S.-based groups from 2015 to 2024, including: The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Stop the Money Pipeline, Fossil Free Media, The Associated Press, and Oil Change International (OCI).
Oak Foundation: OF, based in Switzerland, has given over $750 million in foreign money to 152 U.S.-based groups from 2014 to 2024, including: The Environmental Law Institute (ELI), Community Change – the fiscal sponsor for Free DC -, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA), Arabella’s New Venture Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and The Tides Center.
Laudes Foundation: Since 2020, The Laudes Foundation, another Swiss-based charity, has poured almost $20 million into 17 U.S.-based groups, including: The Pulitzer Center for Crisis, Ceres, Community Initiatives, and The World Resources Institute (WRI).
Children’s Investment Fund Foundation: CIFF, based in the United Kingdom, has given over $553 Million in foreign money to 39 U.S.-based groups from 2014 to 2023, including: The Energy Foundation China (EFC), The Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and The Sunrise Project.
A recent article in The Hill, “Climate change is not a ‘con job’,” claims that catastrophic, human-caused climate change is killing reefs via ocean heatwaves. This claim is false. In reality, corals have existed for millions of years, through warmer and colder periods, and in the recent past, coral reefs have recovered from bleaching events and even die-offs, proving to species to be adaptive and resilient in the face of climate change.
The Hill article, from Rebecca Vega Thurber, the director of the UC Santa Barbara Marine Science Institute, is framed by Thurber’s annoyance that President Donald Trump says climate change is a “con job.” She claims her personal research experience refutes his comment.
Thurber explains that pollution from fertilizer runoff can kill corals, which is true, but goes on to assert that “every result we have collected, in every one of these well intentioned and carefully designed experiments, was waylaid by the increasingly frequent and severe heat waves that have arisen in the last decades.” She says their efforts to mitigate pollution were “overwhelmed by high water temperatures driven by climate change or worse, climate change killed our whole experiment.”
Thurber claims marine heatwaves in the French South Pacific hampered her work by “transform[ing] these normally bountiful reefs from habitats where there was once 60 percent of the seafloor covered with healthy corals to barren plains with less than 1 percent live coral.”
In point of fact, one long-term study from 2019 showed that rather than a “barren plain” French Polynesian reefs have an “outstanding rate of coral recovery, with a systematic return to pre-disturbance state within only 5 to 10 years.”
A second study from 2024, published in Nature, sought to understand why reefs bounced back so readily after major heat waves, concluding that:
Over the past three decades, there have been five main warming events that have caused mass bleaching around Moorea and Tahiti, in 1994, 2002, 2007, 2016, and 2019. Despite bleaching levels up to 100% for some coral species, reefs experienced as high as ~76% recovery following each event. […]
It is currently unknown what controls the ability of coral coverage to recover quickly at these locations. It has been suggested that reefs may develop an increased tolerance to higher SSTs following each bleaching event, and that the increased resilience would allow for a shorter recovery period with less die-off under subsequent SST extremes.
In short, the scientific literature does not support Thurber’s contention in The Hill that coral reefs are dying off in vast numbers. Interestingly, just a few years ago The Hillpublished an article with a different tone, discussing the fact that coral reefs were thriving “despite warming seas,” but the outlet seems to have forgotten this.
What Thurber and The Hill also neglected to mention was that recent mass die offs did not just coincide with heatwaves alone. Rather a spate of tropical cyclones and crown of thorns starfish outbreaks occurred over the same period resulting in multiple coral colony declines. Multiple stressors are harder on a species than any of those dangers would be alone.
Thurber mentions that Australian reefs are another part of her area of research, but she does not mention that 2024 was the third year in a row where the Great Barrier Reef had record breaking coral coverage.
Unfortunately, close study of reef die backs barely existed in the early parts of the 20th century and before, so short term records like single-event tied die-offs do not stretch into the pre-industrial period for comparison. As a result it is all too easy for alarmists to assert, for example, that marine heatwaves are unprecedented when there are only a few decades of satellite data to work from. Longer term studies, and a knowledge of how coral reefs around the world are built over time, show, in fact, that coral death is part of the reef construction process.
Coral reefs have survived much hotter periods than today, like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum which was 5-8°C hotter, as well as much colder glacial periods. One reason for this is that coral organisms are not immobile. Even if particular regions became too hot, which is highly unlikely in our lifetimes, corals could just migrate poleward, as research suggests they did in the past. Change like that might be uncomfortable for narrowly-focused researchers, but it is part of the Earth’s history.
The Hill did a disservice to its readers by publishing this article which served no other purpose than to frighten readers into ignoring Trump’s important point, that bad actors (particularly at the United Nations, where he made the comments) are using climate alarm to promote harmful leftist-favoring policies and enrich themselves. I am sure that Thurber is a “true believer” in the catastrophic warming narrative, but it does not help her case when essential facts are left out of the argument and when the multiple sources of data that do exist contradict her claims.
Melissa is now ranked tie 3rd most intense Atlantic hurricane at 892mb. We can look at it in graph format:
The picture is stark – nearly all of the eleven most intense have occurred in recent years, including the two most intense, Gilbert in 1988 and Wilma in 2005. Does this mean then that global warming really is making hurricanes more intense?
WHOA THERE!!!
Take another look at that table.
Of the eleven on the list, seven were logged out at sea. Of the other four, we already know that the Melissa reading was not at landfall, but occurred several hours before at sea.
Dean’s minimum pressure was measured at landfall, but was observed by hurricane hunters. The other two, Labor Day and Camille, were the only two genuinely recorded at the surface on land.
When we separate readings at landfall and at sea, we get a different story:
It is not a coincidence that mid ocean hurricanes did not feature before 1980, because proper technology did not exist then to measure them, whether satellites or aircraft.
We know that hurricanes almost invariably weaken as they approach land, so comparing mid-ocean intensities with landfall ones is a meaningless exercise.
But it gets worse.
On the Wikipedia table of most intense hurricanes at landfall, all of the modern entries were taken by hurricane hunters – Dean, Dorian and Irma.
Nowadays hurricane hunters are able to stay inside hurricanes for hours on end, able to seek out the highest wind speeds and lowest pressures. In contrast, measuring hurricanes like Camille relied on land based thermometers, which were extremely unlikely to be at the exact spot where pressure was lowest.
Scientists at the US Hurricane Research Division have done sterling work with their attempts to reanalyse past hurricanes. But as good scientists, they have to be conservative in their findings. They only estimate pressures and windspeeds that they can sensibly justify. Believing that a hurricane was probably more intense is not enough if you don’t have the data to back it up.
Many hurricanes only hit small islands – Dorian and Irma for example. Hurricane hunters are invaluable in getting measurements in these situations where previously there may have been no reliable land-based data.
Hundreds of catastrophic hurricanes have hit the Caribbean over the years. Just because we don’t have accurate data on them does not make them less catastrophic.
In America, infants are dying at a rate of around 1,300 to 4,500 per year depending on the reporting source. Lives ended suddenly, unexplained with the greater medical system appearing to be okay with it as evidenced by their lack of deeper investigation into the ‘syndrome.’
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) has long-haunted parents and pediatricians alike. Defined traditionally as the sudden death of an apparently healthy infant under one year old for unknown reasons – scientific and legal momentum may be moving towards public understanding.
For decades, it was viewed as an enigmatic “diagnosis of exclusion,” often chalked up to environmental factors like prone sleeping, overheating and in extreme cases blaming the parents for abuse.
Yet, as of 2025, this static portrait is fracturing. Emerging research, landmark court rulings, and legislative reforms reveal SIDS not as a singular black box, but a tapestry of metabolic, genetic, and iatrogenic vulnerabilities—chiefly, immature detoxification pathways and post-vaccination inflammatory cascades.
Florida’s House Bill 188, filed for the 2026 legislative session, exemplifies this paradigm shift legislatively. The bill amends state statutes to mandate comprehensive autopsies for Sudden Unexpected Infant Deaths (SUID) and Sudden Death in the Young (SDY), explicitly requiring microscopic toxicology, full immunization records from the past 90 days, and reporting to the CDC’s national SUID/SDY Case Registry.
No longer optional, these protocols aim to unmask hidden contributors, such as vaccine excipients or genetic polymorphisms, that prior “undetermined” classifications obscured.
And the best part, the bill comes with penalties for noncompliance—fines up to $5,000 and potential license revocation—underscore a growing impatience with incomplete probes. By integrating immunization data with federal surveillance, HB 188 positions SIDS investigations as proactive risk-factor hunts, potentially reclassifying dozens of annual cases from “unexplained” to preventably-framed within the context of the largely untested infant CDC vaccine schedule.
This rigor finds stark validation in the 2023 U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruling on Sims v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (No. 15-1526V), a rare vaccine court triumph that dismantled SIDS as a default for post-vaccination fatalities.
An eleven-week-old infant succumbed just eight hours after receiving five routine shots after a well baby visit. Autopsy revealed cerebral edema [brain swelling] and pulmonary congestion.
The Special Master Christian Moran ruled the vaccines triggered a “Table” encephalopathy via cytokine storms breaching the blood-brain barrier, leading to herniation and arrest. Expert witnesses retained by the Sims family skillfully displayed and achieved the “preponderant evidence” standard under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) against all odds that the Department of Justice attornies and their expert witnesses fought to deny justice.
HHS Secretary Kennedy said during a 2025 interivew with Tucker Carlson:
“The lawyers in the Department of Justice, the leaders of it were corrupt. They saw their job as protecting the trust fund rather than taking care of people who made this national sacrifice.”
The Sims family vaccine court award of $300,000 has ignited momentum and advocacy. As detailed in Wayne Rohde’s June 2025 Substack analysis, the case—amid fewer than 5% NVICP death-claim successes—challenges the “coincidental” narrative, urging deeper scrutiny of ~100 pending infant petitions. With the appeal deadline passing without action, we may be witnessing a precedent-proof vaccine link in such cases, eroding SIDS’s explanatory monopoly.
Scientifically, the puzzle pieces align with revelations on cytochrome P450 (CYP450) enzymes, the liver’s metabolic gatekeepers. A 2025 paper by Dr. Gary Goldman has highlighted infants’ CYP450 immaturity: at birth, activity hovers at 30-60% adult levels, with preterm babies hit hardest by “poor metabolizer” genetics (15-40% prevalence).
These enzymes process vaccine adjuvants like aluminum (up to 3,350 mcg in year one) and polysorbate 80. A vicious circle appears as inflammation from shots further suppresses the detoxification ability prolonging toxin exposure.
VAERS data clusters 75% of SIDS-like reports within a week post-vaccination, peaking at day two—echoing the Sims timeline. In serotonin-deficient brains (flagged in 70% SIDS autopsies). In a node to Florida’s SB 188, Dr. Goldman’s study warns current toxicology protocols ignore these developmental gaps, fostering misclassifications.
Together, these threads weave a bolder SIDS narrative: less “syndrome,” more sentinel for systemic oversights. HB 188’s mandates, the Sims precedent, and CYP450 insights demand holistic federal and state-level probes—genetic screening, excipient dosing tiers, and inflammation biomarkers. As Rohde posits, transparency could halve misattributions, saving lives while honoring the unexplained’s gravity. In 2025, SIDS evolves from fatalism to fixable, urging science and policy to catch up before another crib goes silent.
The Justice Department’s securing of a criminal indictment of Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro reminds us that when it comes to the U.S. government’s regime-change operations, coups, invasions, sanctions, embargoes, and state-sponsored assassinations are not the only ways to achieve regime change. Another way is through a criminal indictment issued by a federal grand jury that deferentially accedes to the wishes of federal prosecutors.
The best example of this regime change method involved the president of Panama, Manuel Noriega. … continue
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.
Aletho News 