Of all the interviews I have done so far, with so many amazing people, this is the most personal and significant.
In the darkest of the dark days, the people that I relied on the most to triangulate my sanity were Paul Collits, Michael Yeadon, Malcolm Kendrick, and Jeffrey Tucker.
Paul was different in two ways.
Firstly, he is Australian; there were very few sane people writing anything useful left in this country, and secondly, because of the sheer breadth and depth of his knowledge and insight, as you will soon see.
He helped me with far more than just navigating Covid insanity.
Having the opportunity to do this interview is an absolute honour, and truth be told, I was quite emotional when I first read it.
With thanks and gratitude to Paul Collits, for everything.
1. Paul, could you please start by giving readers a brief overview of your background and journey up to this point
First, many thanks to you for arranging the interview. I am very happy to be involved. I am in my late sixties, now well and truly retired. I live in northern New South Wales, close to the Queensland border. Brisbane is the closest large city. We live in a large rural town of about 30,000 people. I have had a pretty varied career, but mainly I have worked as a civil servant (policy professional) and an academic. In the former role, I have worked for a State Government and for the Feds. In the latter role, I have been both a researcher and a teacher. I have also done a short stint working for a Senator (when I was much younger) and briefly as a local economic development practitioner, in both Australian and New Zealand. So I have had had pretty good exposure to all levels of government. Much of my career was spent in regional economic development, and much of my academic writing was in this area. My initial training was in political science (International relations, political theory, public policy, Australian politics) and my PhD was in urban planning. In “retirement”, I have written on a range of topics related to politics, philosophy, economics, policy, education, religion and public health. I have published in The Spectator Australia, Politicom, Quadrant, The Conservative Woman (UK), The Daily Sceptic, News Weekly and A Sense of Place Magazine. I am the Senior Political Commentator at Politicom. And I have a substack. Briefly, I wrote for The Freedoms Project, a pro-life, Christian-inclined blog.
2. In your writing, you often discuss the concept of “convergent opportunism”. Could you explain what this means and how it relates to the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
I think this phrase came from the British Covid hero and former Big Pharma executive, Mike Yeadon. I love Mike’s writing, sincerity, compassion, fierce independence and clear thinking. I think he landed on “convergent opportunism’ as his preferred explanation for the policy debacle over Covid. It is a middle position between the Hanlon’s Razor view – the decision makers were stupid – and the conspiracy theorists who think, probably correctly, that the Covid policy response was born of malfeasance and tyranny. For a political scientist like me, the convergent opportunism thesis had some appeal. It goes to the old Rahm Emmanuel dictum, don’t ever let a crisis go to waste. And to the public choice theory that public officials get captured by powerful interests and have their own private interests separate from the “public good”. Many actors had an interest in erecting the Covid State. And they did. There were the public health officials who discovered their fifteen minutes of glory and power. There were the pharmaceutical companies who spied profits. There were the globalists who saw opportunities for control. There were the petit fascists who luxuriated in the opportunity for social control and virtue signalling. There were the captured legacy media. There were the academics who got their grants from the Bill Gates class. There were many opportunists who saw Covid as chance to advance various agendas, all at the expense of the people. And subsequent events lend credence to the theory. Like the pandemic preparedness industry that has emerged. Interests converged. And they cashed in. Mind you, Mike Yeadon came to reject his earlier theory, and who now believes it was all planned, known and executed. Not merely convergent opportunism. There is much evidence to support his new position. Pretty much everything that the conspiracy theorists said of Covid has been proven to be correct. None of this, of course, has been admitted by the guilty parties. The powers that be cling, at best, to the position that “mistakes were made”. We still await Nuremberg Two.
3. You’ve been critical of the “pandemic preparedness” movement. Why do you believe this movement has been detrimental to society, and how has it influenced government policies during the COVID-19 crisis?
Everyone knows (now) about Big Pharma. Less well known are the global public health tsars, housed in national bureaucracies, international governance institutions, research centres, universities, NGOs, corporates, the media, thinktanks, Big Philanthropy, and governments themselves. Klaus Schwab famously said that the World Economic Forum had “penetrated ze cabinets”. It certainly has. Just as Big Pharma has an interest in creating pandemics in order to find uses for their dangerous and ineffective drugs, governments and their puppet masters have an interest in control, in depopulation and in power. Back in the day, the Rockefellers determined that global control can be gained through crises, preferably crises at global scale that are said to “demand” global action in response. In the 1950s, the Rockefellers came up with financial crisis, climate crises and pandemics the perfect means of gaining global control of populations and pesky governments. One of the core means of assuring that governments played ball was to create globalist institutions, like the World Health Organisation, that could take over the functions of national governments. Another is to shape popular responses to global crises through fear-based propaganda. Create an expectation of crisis, create fear of the coming plagues, recruit hyper-connected actors to the cause, and use “science” or its illusion to suggest that “experts” and not elected governments should run things, and centrally plan responses. Vaccine nutters and global controllers like Gates provided big money to a global network of closely connected players, in the academy, in research institutes, in global institutions, and bought off the media, created narratives, and set up “events” to “plan” for the “inevitable” crises. He did this before Covid, in late 2019, and it worked. (See below). Since Covid, and despite all of the manifest failures and catastrophes of government public health policy, they are still at it, even more so, in planning future pandemic policy. From WHO to Davos and the WEF to the United Nations…
4. In your opinion, why did Australia seem to “fracture” into separate states during the pandemic, ultimately being ruled by what can be described as a collection of would-be dictators?
It turned out that the States still retain a lot of power, after all, despite the centralisation of much power in Canberra over the past century. The States still run the hospitals, the schools, the police, and their own borders. The Government of Scott Morrison surrendered authority to the States during Covid. This was spineless and based on fear of the already scared voters. He abandoned statesmanship and left the rule to thugs in State Government. He opted for a model of shared responsibility so as to avoid electoral pain. He created a National Cabinet to achieve this consensus model. This was a cop out and a disaster. The states pushed the boundaries of what they could do, and found compliant populations willing to give up their freedom for the “goodies”, like JobKeeper and JobSeeker, and the assurance of salvation from the coming vaccines. Australians, like other nationalities, bought the Covid lies and obeyed out of fear. They signed up for the track-and-trace technology, they suspected not the signs of coming tyranny, being large of supine disposition and clustered most in the most compliant quadrant of conformism. They became militant in their denunciation of covid dissidents, abusing vaccine doubters and lockdown laughers. They were cultural maskists, too. And dobbers. So, it was a lack of national leadership, cowed politicians fearful of backlash if they went “soft” on the virus – despite all of the science against lockdowns and in support of letting the virus run itself out, while protecting the vulnerable – a compliant population that simply didn’t question the elites’ lies, and State politician-tyrants who enjoyed the daily press conferences and the appearance of power, and who discovered, perhaps to their surprise, that the States can still be very powerful.
5. Some have compared Australia’s relationship with the United States to that of an invisible star on the American flag, or a Sub-Imperial State. How do you view Australia’s position within the context of the American Empire?
The Liberal Prime Minister, John Howard (1996-2007) was in Washington DC on the day of 9/11, due to address Congress. He was, not unexpectedly for a staunch American ally who happened to be almost on site for the attack, deeply shocked by the events. He stated that this was not the time for Australia to be an “eighty per cent ally” of the USA. And so, Australia went to war in the Middle East in what as to turn out a costly disaster for all concerned, with Iraq an unholy mess and Afghanistan returned to the Taliban twenty years on. Howard was criticized at the time by the left, and subsequently by some on the right who may have been queasy about the Iraq War (in particular), but went along with Bush 43 because we are a one hundred per cent ally. Howard was derided as Bush’s “deputy sheriff”. Now, while Howard’s Liberal Party remains a firm US ally, others on the right in Australia are not quite so friendly these days. And with reason. They see America as a political and judicial basket case, Washington DC as a swamp that is perhaps undrainable, they are embarrassed that Trump caved in to the Deep State over Covid, and has not apologised, they simply cannot understand how a crook like Biden can occupy the White House, and, especially with Ukraine, they see US foreign policy run by a weird concoction of neocons and the military industrial complex. They are also convinced that the democrat machine will again rig the election, and that Trump will fail again, irrespective of whether he is likely to make the nation great again. In summary, from my perspective, the alliance with the USA is far more nuanced than before, despite the elites’ continued embrace of the alliance, seen through defence agreements and initiatives such as AUKUS. It is hard to say whether the left still hates America in the way it used to. Our current Prime Minister sucks up to Biden, but, as a leftist, probably because Biden’s regime is far left as well rather than because of any deeply held labor Party love for the USA.
6. The concept of “the long march through the institutions” is a recurring theme in your writing. Could you explain what this means and how it has manifested in Australia and other Western nations?
The long march is a Marxist strategy for capturing power by infiltrating the key institutions of society and embedding revolutionary ideologies to effect permanent social change. They target and seek to undermine the key institutions of social power – the family, the Church, the bureaucracy, the universities, the media. It was born of the Italian Marxist Gramsci and perfected by 1960s radicals in the USA and Europe. Marxists came to believe that the working class was useless in advancing the communist revolution, and that the real action was not in the economy but in the culture. Especially after the collapse of Stalinism and the USSR in the 1980s, they realised that the workers didn’t want socialism but had aspirations to middle class comforts. The Marxist pivot was secured by then. The post-Gramsci strategy was firmly in place. The fruits of the strategy are plentiful. The bureaucracy is captured, as are the universities, the NGOs, the churches, and even right-of-centre political parties. It has been a brilliant and successful strategy. The modern Marxists now hate the working class and their (perceived) racist, homophobic, xenophobic attitudes. The beauty of the long march strategy has been that no one knew it was happening, until it was too late. The capture of the public imagination has been comprehensive. The leftists could never have imagined, for example, that their ideology would so totally capture the corporations, who now embrace woke ideology and are that ideology’s chief champions. Complete victory. And vindication of the Gramsci plan.
7. Jane Halton, a key figure in Australia’s pandemic preparedness efforts, might be described as a “smoking gun”. Could you explain her role in laying the legal groundwork for what ultimately happened in Australia during the pandemic?
Jane Halton is a “retired” senior health bureaucrat from Australia. She is also impeccably connected to the establishment here, being married to a very senior public sector statistician who happens to be the brother of Brett Sutton, Victoria’s former Chief Health officer responsible for enforcing the Western world’s toughest and most brutal lockdown. Halton left the Australian public service for international roles in public health, including at the World Health Organisation. I have previously termed her Bill Gates’ girl down under, for her role in the CEPI (the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations) , Gates’ funded Event 201 in October 2019, which conducted simulations of a coronavirus-type pandemic mere months before the Wuhan outbreak. Astonishingly, and with much lobbying of governments by Gates and others in the “family” – see Fauci, Daszak, Baric, Jeremy Farrar, Neil Ferguson, Tedros, Schwab, Deborah Birx, Walensky and friends – CEPI’s simulation turned into global pandemic policy. Halton was therefore front and centre in the push to enforce lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine rollouts and the defenestration of democracy and economic strength across the world. She is the international health bureaucrat’s international health bureaucrat, and continues to be closely involved with the organisation of the next global public health panic. She chairs the OECD’s health committee and numerous other international bodies. She is an enemy of freedom and human rights to health autonomy. She has escaped punishment, has not apologised, and must be outed. Inevitably, she did a review of aspects of Covid vaccine policy for the Australian Government, avoiding the real issues, like excess deaths, vaccine harms, the failure of lockdowns, and the rest of the existential harms done to our nation by covid policy. An unelected member of the administrative state, Halton would be utterly unknown to most Australians. Hence her extreme “covert power”. Halton’s continued presence at the global health policy table will ensure she will have a central role in future pretend health crises.
8. Collectivist ideologies seem to have a strong hold on popular narratives. What strategies do you think conservatives and libertarians can employ to create a compelling, unifying narrative of their own?
First, I think there is now a large, growing and distinct third group of dissenters from the collectivist mindset and policy drive. These are the outsiders who cherish freedom, recognise that it has been taken from them, and hate the privileged insider class and all of its works. They aren’t necessarily conservatives or libertarians in the traditional sense, but they are dismayed and disillusioned. They want governments to keep their promises, safeguard the interests of the dispossessed, stop being crooked, disengage from corporate power, stop giving jobs to their mates, and to take elections seriously again. Covid radicalised them. They are nationalists, and reject globalism. They possibly read Compact magazine if they are intellectually inclined, rather than Reason or National Review. The new divide is insiders versus outsiders, and the rejection of executive power and the deep state. So the hew hybrid, call it social conservatism + social democracy, isn’t the same as the old enemies of collectivism, and the new enemy isn’t just collectivism either. So I would recast the question a little. Which isn’t to say that collectivism isn’t a problem. t just now has several new faces, like the nanny state, the administrative state, the post-Covid state, the military fact-checker complex, the cancel culture, the woke establishment. It is a hydra-headed beast. What are the push-back alternatives? Conventional party politics is out as a solution in the age if the UniParty, where the two major parties in each polity are often in agreement on the big issues, and often the only difference between them is the speed at which we are hurtling towards the cliff. So it is a must to support minor freedom parties and build coalitions that will hopefully win seats in legislatures and hold to account whichever of the major parties holds power. Electoral systems work against this and against minor parties. Outside of electoral politics, there are two possible strategies. One is to abandon the system altogether, to retreat to the cave. The American writer Rod Dreher calls this the Benedict Option. Perhaps the “cave” is a foreign country like Hungary (at present). Since all of the Western institutions have been captured, there is little hope (in our lifetimes) of a reversal of direction in the bureaucracy, the NGOs, the corporates, the universities and the legacy media. The other option, which a number of thinkers have suggested, is to form “parallel societies” and operate outside the system. Shop local. Use cash. Have large families. Home school them. Form online and other communities of shared interests. Avoid paying tax. Get offline where possible. Shun social media. Avoid digital ID if you can. But still engage with civil society. Attend peaceful protests against tyranny. Conventional politics and ideologies are legacy tools. Most politicians are chancers, bought up or ineffectual and spineless. Playing those games is a waste of time, when the enemy is at the gate already.
9. Climate change is another topic you’ve written about extensively. Could you walk us through the “five stages of descent into climate madness” that you’ve identified?
I once asked the doyen of Australian climate realists, Ian Plimer, why he still bothered to fight the good fight on climate change. My view is that this war is over, and no amount of rational, evidence based argument against the net zero nutters will persuade them to change their minds. Ian agreed up to a point, but said that he and others on the side of climate truth had a duty to place on the record the real picture, for future generations and future historians. Hence his continued crusade. I largely stopped writing about climate change a decade ago, since rational debate is now impossible with climate emoters, and, in any case, the private equity funds that run the world had put their chips on renewables. Nevertheless, the deceptions over climate policy are real, disastrous and ongoing, so one does have that duty. Especially when clowns like Michael Mann win court cases against the likes of Mark Steyn. The “climate madness” consists of a series of highly dubious propositions linked by a false logic path, and the acceptance of this nonsense by policy-makers and the public, or at least enough of the public for politicians to fear the electoral consequences of climate “inaction”. These propositions are as follows. The earth’s temperature is rising. It is rising substantially. The rise is caused by man. Governments of the world can do something about this. Governments of the world should do something about this. None of these propositions is true. Yet we have global action on climate, action that will impoverish the world’s economies, kill countless people, destroy freedom and blast us all back to the stone age. So, what are the five stages of descent into climate madness? First, there was the greenhouse gases theory of the Swede Arrhenius, and others, and the linking of rising emissions to the industrial revolution. Next came the realization by early generation green radicals that climate could be the big global threat they could use to garner support for their extremist anti-capitalist crusade. Third came the end of the Cold War and the eclipse of traditional Soviet style Marxism, and the emergence of cultural Marxism and post-modernism as drivers of leftist thought. The pivot away from the working class and towards alleged victims of oppression came with a green tinge, and the acceptance of “sustainability” as the new unifying ideology of radicals. Fourth came the leftists’ capture of science and scientists only too eager to harvest the research funding that the new world promised. This has been called academic “grant troughing”. Finally, the last stage has been the capture of both governments and corporates by the watermelon ideology, as James Delingpole has called it. It is all another example of convergent opportunism, you might say. Everyone in the establishment is a winner. Greenies win. Academics get their grants. Politicians salve their consciences. Bankers and other capitalists get their profits through green-washing and ponzi schemes, their green investments typically paid for by the taxpayer. Bureaucrats have new jobs for life. Yes, it turns out that the case for taking up the fight, seemingly hopeless, remains strong.
10. You’ve been critical of Australian feminism. Do you believe there are unique aspects to feminism in Australia that set it apart from feminist movements in other parts of the world?
I can’t really comment on feminism in other countries, but will focus instead on some of the harmful consequences of feminism and especially me-tooism as they have emerged in Australia. I suspect that Australian feminism isn’t that different from the practices and views of the sisterhood in other places. Some of the worst consequences of feminism as it emerged in the 1960s have been the trashing of the traditional family, the raising of children by childcare workers, the lies told to women that persuaded several generations to assume they have to be wage slaves, making taxpayers pay for the raising of children in childcare centres, at great and growing cost, massive house price inflation resulting from the emergence of two income families as the norm, and the hounding of innocent men wrongly accused – either through the courts or in the court of public opinion – of sexual assault. It isn’t just feminism on its own, of course. It is leftist feminism typically part of an ideological package that also includes socialism, multiculturalism and environmentalism. Few radical feminists are not also rabid socialists, greenies, anti-Israel and supporters of mass immigration. They often support the suppression of free speech, create moral panics over rape and sex abuse, and especially go after the churches and churchmen. We saw the destruction of Cardinal George Pell’s reputation and his imprisonment on false charges, and the attack on him was led by radical feminists in the Victorian legal system, the police, the publishing industry and the media. I have written upwards of 50,000 words on the Pell case, and was threatened by The Age newspaper with contempt of court over one of the articles I wrote.
11. The World Economic Forum (WEF) and its annual meeting in Davos have been the subject of much controversy. What are your thoughts on the role of the WEF in shaping global policies and narratives?
As I have noted, the WEF has “penetrated ze cabinets”. It isn’t just some country club for rich, greenie wankers, who meet in the snow once a year. It isn’t simply a fantasy made up by “conspiracy theorists”. Yes, thousands of gas guzzling private jets ferrying oligarchs into a Swiss village do make for good copy and a charge of hypocrisy. Their use of $3000-a-time sex workers, the same. These people are not clowns. They make a difference to the world. Money talks. So does proximity to power. It has become clear who really has that power, and it isn’t the puppet politicians. Establishment types like the Spectator’s Toby Young like to mock those who see the world run by Bond villains. They are so unawake it isn’t funny. As many others have pointed out, Klaus Schwab, initially a messenger boy for Henry Kissinger, writes books on his and the WEF’s vision for the world, and he means business. They are not secretive, not like the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome and the other world-dominator types, with whom the WEF share fraternal bonds and overlapping membership. The WEF puts it all out there, and hides nothing. They are confident that half the world will agree with them, and the other half will shrug them off. They win. The things they are pushing, with real resources and lethal intent, include the destruction of farming, global digital vaccine passports, WHO control of national public health policy, digital currencies, the end of cash, programmable spending by individuals, social credit, depopulation, eugenics, abortion, socialism for the peasants, the end of global travel for the masses, and censorship. Oh, and the much-adored Chinese model. The penetration of ze cabinets has included Australia. The Health Minister during Covid was a former employee of the WEF. Many other Australians, like the American born Julie Inman Grant, our eSafety Commissar, who is a Davos girl, are regulars. Former participants in the WEF’s Young Global Leaders Program are scattered across the world’s governments. And the merest casual observer of world politics these days will have noticed the utter alignment of the policies of all the major parties, of whichever hue, with the tripe coming out of Geneva. No coincidence, that.
12. In your article “Demography and Replacement Down Under”, you discuss the challenges posed by Australia’s current immigration policies. What do you see as the long-term consequences of these policies for Australian society and culture?
Mass immigration is a blight on Australian culture and a ponzi scheme for the economy. We now have, post-Covid and under a far-left Government, upwards of half a million migrants arriving every year. This was never agreed to by voters in any election. A referendum on the subject would end in catastrophic defeat for supporters of huge migrant numbers. The arrivals put upward pressure on infrastructure costs, housing prices and the cost of living. They lead to the apartment booms in our cities, where often the jerry-built structures simply fall down after a few years. The apartment boom has become a form of urban blight, especially in middle ring suburbs traditionally the homes of the middle classes and older people and families. These are now under threat from the vertical expansion said to be needed because of the exploding population. (The trendy new urbanism embraced by most town planners is, of course, a cause as well as bloated in-migrant populations. Mass immigration has also led to the formation of enclaves. We don’t have multiculturalism so much as multi mono-culturalism. Half of Australia’s people now have at least one parent born overseas. About one third were born overseas themselves. And the mix is by no means conducive to social harmony, as many Jews here are now finding out. One commentator has noted that “they hate us before they get here”. Many new Australians do not accept our values, yet we keep on bringing more in, in increasing numbers. It is a recipe for disaster. Some have called it “replacement theory”. If you don’t like the population, and its racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic values, well change the population. Leftists call this theory a nasty conspiracy theory. To me it is simple reality, and it is utterly plausible that replacement is the aim, as well as the effect, of the policy. And the economic impact? Neutral, at best, many economists agree. Businesses love mass migration – cheap labour to do the nasty jobs many Australians won’t do. Governments keep inviting more migrants in order to cover up their own economic mismanagement.
13. Many of your articles touch on the theme of elite control and manipulation. How do you think the average person can resist these influences and maintain a sense of autonomy in their lives?
See also the answer to Q 8. Many people have traded freedom for convenience, and boredom for wall-to-wall entertainment, since the arrival of smartphones. A retired Australian judge, in explaining the willingness of our people to follow Covid tyrannical instructions, once said Australians were content so long as they had Netflix, full bellies and a warm place to defaecate. He had that pretty right. In other words, many are in the passive conformist quadrant in the quadrant of conformity. They don’t see, for example, digital IDs as anything to be remotely worried about. How the active dissidents and non-conformists can change the attitudes of the former group is a question to which I have no real answers. For those who do wish to resist, as I have said, do all of the things that the elites don’t want you to do. Use cash, form parallel communities, ditch the search engines that lie and track you, live off-line, shop local, ditch the big corporates, throw away the newspaper subscriptions, avoid tax, scrub social media. Elite control is worsening, so the task will only get harder. Bringing the dangers of elite control, even the existence of it, to the attention of the unawake will get harder over time, but also it will become more urgent. Some observers have argued that using rational counter-arguments is pointless, at least at the beginning of a process of educating others. Data comes later. First try emotive counter-arguments, exaggerate, get their attention, find personal examples of general phenomena. Tell people how many people YOU know who have had vaccine injuries, rather that quoting the latest study by (for example) Denis Rancourt or Steve Kirsch or Bret Weinstein, brilliant and necessary though their work is. In other words, there are two issues with resistance. There is your own resistance as an individual or family. Then there is influencing the broader debates and the behaviour of others.
14. You’ve written about the importance of community and the dangers of social atomization. In an age of increasing digital connectivity and globalization, how can individuals and communities maintain a sense of rootedness and belonging?
This question is linked to my answers to Questions 8 and 13. There is a crisis of meaninglessness in the West, a crisis of alienation, a crisis of addiction and a crisis of loneliness. The evidence for these trends is everywhere, and their relevance to the collapse of community is equally clear. Robert Putnam in his famous book, Bowling Alone, cottoned on to it, well before the advent of the Web 2.0 and social media arrived and took over so many lives. And way before Covid lockdowns crushed the whole notion of “community”. Other observers have picked up on aspects of the crises. Like Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Haidt, Australia’s former Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, the late Roger Scruton, and the writers at Compact magazine. What is the evidence? Friendship has given way to fake friends online, half of marriages break up, children are lonely and suffer from depression and anxiety, suicides are increasing, JD Vance and others have highlighted the opioid crisis, huge numbers of people are medicated for mental health ailments, violence is increasing, identity hatreds now trump civilised debates and friendships across the aisle are far fewer. The sense of place is diminished, belonging now means belonging to victim groups rather than real communities, and globalization and mass migration are killing nationhood and patriotism. Working from home and online learning are destroying real work and real study, respectively. These are existential threats to the traditional order, an order thoroughly upended by the class of 68 and the post-modernist ideas they transmitted. Again, as in answers to Questions 8 and 13, the choice is retreat to the cave, live and operate in parallel societies, build real as opposed to online communities, speak out on the ills that befall us. Or simply go with the trends and watch our societies sink into the mire. One solution sometimes floated is localism, and this sums up much of the thinking of those who argue for “parallel societies”. There are many who do not see any of these things as problems to be addressed or even lamented. This, above all, is our biggest problem. And I don’t just speak of the enemies of freedom and community, but also of those who simply shrug their shoulders. Those who appeal for world peace normally say – start at home, be people of peace yourselves. This strikes one as pretty lame, but what else is there?
15. Finally, what projects or topics are you currently focused on, and how can interested readers stay informed about your work and engage with your ideas?
With the world as insane as it is, with democracies trashed, with individual rights removed, with government out of control, with traditional families and their values under constant siege, with world war a real possibility, and with education systems failing, the world of a political commentator is “target rich”. As a political scientist, I tend to focus on government failure and on the changing nature of ideology. Australian politics are always in view, with both major parties abandoning their roots and their base and an election coming in a year’s time. I write less on conservatism than I used to, less on climate change and less on US politics. The 2020 presidential election took away a lot of my interest in taking American politics seriously, the system is so flawed. Trump’s performance during Covid disillusioned me. Covid provided a rich vein of commentary, such was the sheer madness and evil on display as well as the abandonment of all pretence at following medical science and good practice. The absence of any apologies by anyone means that there is still work to be done in outing the Covid criminals. And the ramping up of post-Covid totalitarianism, seen in the war on cash, digital IDs and the institutionalisation of cancel culture, as merely three example deserves ongoing exposure and critique. The changing dynamics of ideologies and new, hybrid ideological forms are of increasing interest to me, especially the increasing convergence of social leftism (and globalism) with belief in the virtues of economic freedom on the one hand, and the emergence of social democrat/social conservatives on the other. The former has solidified into a distinct class, with progressive, green, pro-Covid-state, woke, globalist worldviews emerging across the political spectrum and solidifying. This is likely to be a history of ideas project. I am still interested in classical liberalism, from my Master of Arts thesis days in the 1980s. In that project, I examined the crossovers in libertarian thought exemplified by FA Hayek and Robert Nozick. Finally, because of my writing gig at Britain’s Conservative Woman (TCW), I have spent an increasing amount of time studying British politics.
Scientists trying to reinfect people with the COVID-19 virus so they could test vaccines and treatments found high levels of immunity made it nearly impossible, according to results from the COVID-19 “Human Challenge” trials in the U.K.
The results, published May 1 in The Lancet Microbe, “raise questions about the usefulness of COVID-19 challenge trials for testing vaccines, drugs and other therapeutics,” Nature reported.
“If you can’t get people infected, then you can’t test those things,” Tom Peacock, Ph.D., a virologist at Imperial College London, told Nature.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense told The Defender, “The results show the power of natural immunity as compared to the many breakthrough infections in ‘naive’ vaccinated individuals.”
“Any assertion that vaccination-based immunity is more powerful than natural immunity is complete lunacy — the acquired immune system is a beautiful thing and vaccination is a cheaper and much less effective substitute,” he said.
Challenge trials require deliberately infecting healthy people with a virus, typically so scientists can understand infections and test the effectiveness of existing vaccines and treatments, and develop new ones.
Proponents argued the trials were necessary to speed the development of countermeasures and that the low relative risk was worth the benefit. Critics countered it was unethical to infect people with a disease for which there is no cure.
After months of ethical debate, the first study launched in March 2021. In that study, researchers exposed 36 people ages 18-29 to the original strain of COVID-19 via nasal droplets.
About 53% of the participants eventually tested PCR-positive for COVID-19 but had very mild or no symptoms. And there was no correlation between symptom severity and viral load.
The second study, whose results were reported in The Lancet Microbe last week, infected people with COVID-19 who already had natural immunity because they were previously infected “by a range of variants,” Nature reported. Some were vaccinated and some weren’t.
Between May 6, 2021, and Nov. 24, 2022, scientists inoculated 36 people with different doses of SARS-CoV-2. They quarantined the subjects for 14 days and tested them for the virus during that time and throughout 12 months of follow-up.
When the first participants did not become infected, the researchers continued increasing the dose until it reached 10,000 times the original dose.
They were unable to induce sustained infection in any of the volunteers. Five of them later got mild infections during the Omicron period.
“We were quite surprised,” Susan Jackson, a study clinician at Oxford and co-author of the latest study, told Nature. “Moving forward, if you want a COVID challenge study, you’re going to have to find a dose that infects people.”
Nature reported that another challenge trial is ongoing at Imperial College London, where participants are being given the Delta variant. However, that trial has also had problems infecting participants. The scientist leading that study, Christopher Chiu, told Nature that the level of infections study subjects are sustaining is “probably not enough for a study testing whether a vaccine works.”
They are continuing to try to develop ways to actually infect trial subjects so they can develop vaccines. Those methods include giving people multiple doses of the vaccine or finding people who have low levels of immune protection.
This grant was awarded in March and will focus on using human challenge trials to develop these vaccines. That is despite the challenges to infecting subjects reported in the human challenge trials so far.
In that study, more than a dozen teams will use human challenge studies to test experimental vaccines that are either inhaled or given through the nose to see if they can induce mucosal immunity in the nose, throat and lungs.
The researchers say they are developing new vaccines against betacoronaviruses, the subfamily of coronaviruses that includes COVID-19, and other seasonal viruses that cause common colds.
In 2022, CEPI launched a broader $200 million initiative to develop more vaccines for COVID-19 and other betacoronaviruses.
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
I was listening to a close friend recently talk about his regular visits to his Dermatologist to remove basal cell carcinomas, it was in connection to the stench of the burning skin.
I’d just read AMD’s long essay on the subject. At some point I’ll have to tell him about the Dermatology racket.
In a recent conversation with a different friend, I found myself explaining “meta ideas” that multiple industries rely on to make their living.
I explained it as a wall that is required to push against. Without that wall, you cannot generate enough force to go in your desired direction.
One of the biggest meta ideas within Cartel Medicine is Cancer, the big C.
Cancer and Virus have been competing for the top spot of Meta Ideas, with Virus I think now winning in that race, but for most of the last 50-70 years Cancer has been the biggest Meta Idea and the source of most fear and the source of most industrial profit for a wide variety of Interdependent Cartels.
This stack is about the Dermatology Cartel, that has relied on the Cancer “wall” and the demonization of the Sun; to generate all the force and energy it needs progress towards its profit goals.
I have created a list of Q&As relying on the wonderful and important work of AMD, Yoho and Mercola. Without these guys doing the heavy lifting on these subjects it would be impossible for people like me to come along and synthesize this material.
But before we look at the Q&As, here are 15 of the most material statistics from the three texts.
Statistics
Chemotherapy added only 2.1% to the 5-year survival for US adults treated for cancer, according to a literature search by Drs. Graeme Morgan and colleagues published in Clinical Oncology in 2004.
By 2013, 65 to 70 percent of oncologists’ income was drug charges.
New chemotherapy medications can be 300 times (not 300 percent) more expensive than old ones.
Twenty percent of all Mohs surgeries are performed on people over 85 years old, many in the last year or weeks of life.
Only 22% of melanomas occur in regions of the body with significant sunlight exposure, compared to 87% of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) cases and 82.5% of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) cases.
Outdoor workers have a lower incidence of melanoma and half the risk compared to indoor workers, despite receiving 3-10 times the annual UV dose.
A 1997 meta-analysis found workers with significant occupational sunlight exposure were 14% less likely to get melanoma.
A 1982 study found fluorescent light exposure at work increased women’s risk of developing malignant melanoma by 2.1 times, with risk increasing based on exposure duration and intensity.
In a survey of 115 dermatopathologists, 68% believed overdiagnosis was a public health issue for atypical nevi, 47% for melanoma in situ, and 35% for invasive melanoma.
Dermatologists freeze millions of actinic keratoses (AKs) with liquid nitrogen, but studies show over half of AKs disappear on their own, with only 1% changing to skin cancer after a year and 4% after four years.
The ideal blood level of vitamin D for disease prevention is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL, while 40 ng/mL is considered the low end of sufficiency, and 30 ng/mL is the minimum to prevent disease.
In 2014, the average annual treatment cost for skin cancer was $8.1 billion for 4.9 million adults, a 44% increase in people diagnosed and a 125% increase in cost compared to 2002-2006.
Curaderm, a topical cream containing eggplant extract, has a success rate of 66-78% in treating basal cell carcinoma.
Valisure tested 294 sunscreen products and found 27% contained benzene, a known carcinogen, at levels at least three times higher than the FDA allows under special circumstances.
The 2019 and 2020 JAMA studies found that certain sunscreen ingredients (avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate) may build up in the body at unhealthy levels after just one day of use and can persist in the body.
Questions and Answers
Question 1: What did the American Academy of Dermatology do in the 1980s to raise public awareness about skin cancer?
Answer: In the early 1980s, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) hired a prominent New York advertising agency for over 2 million dollars to raise the public’s appreciation of dermatology. The agency recommended “educating” the public that dermatologists are skin cancer experts, not just pimple poppers, and established free National Skin Cancer Screening Day.
Skin cancers are by far the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, so to prevent them, the public is constantly told to avoid the sun. However, while the relatively benign skin cancers are caused by sun exposure, the ones responsible for most skin cancer deaths are due to a lack of sunlight. – AMD
Question 2: What are actinic keratoses (AKs), and how do dermatologists typically treat them?
Answer: Actinic keratoses (AKs) are skin bumps that dermatologists call precancerous. Many seniors have dozens, if not hundreds of these. Dermatologists treat millions of AKs with liquid nitrogen devices resembling tiny blow-torches, billing Medicare for each treatment.
Question 3: What percentage of actinic keratoses (AKs) disappear on their own, and what proportion develop into skin cancer?
Answer: Studies show that over half of all actinic keratoses (AKs) disappear on their own. Only one percent change to skin cancer after a year, and four percent after four years. These skin cancers are virtually all slow-growing and easily treatable.
Question 4: What is Mohs surgery, and how does it differ from older methods of treating skin cancer?
Answer: Mohs surgery is a procedure where dermatologists remove skin cancer layer by layer, examining each layer under a microscope until all diseased tissue is removed. Patients may spend a full day in an operating room, and dermatologists bill for each cut, slide preparation, and microscopic examination. Older methods involved scratching, burning, or cutting away skin cancers and following up for recurrence.
Question 5: According to Robert Stern, a Harvard dermatologist, what factors influence the decision to utilize Mohs surgery?
Answer: According to Robert Stern, a Harvard dermatologist, “The decision to utilize [Mohs] is likely to reflect the economic advantage to the provider rather than a substantial clinical advantage for the patient.” He reported wide variations in usage by practice and region.
Question 6: What percentage of Mohs surgeries are performed on people over 85 years old, and under what circumstances?
Answer: Twenty percent of all Mohs surgeries are performed on people over 85 years old. Many are performed in the last year of life, and even in the last weeks before death. Demented people in nursing homes get frozen, biopsied, and operated on.
Question 7: How do dermatologists typically handle cases of melanoma, the only skin cancer that routinely metastasizes and kills people?
Answer: Dermatologists almost universally refer melanoma cases to plastic surgeons for removal and then to oncologists for chemotherapy. Few skin doctors want to get involved with a fatal disease.
Question 8: What pattern is observed when comparing melanoma diagnosis rates and mortality rates?
Answer: While melanoma diagnosis rates have increased dramatically, the total deaths from melanoma have not increased. The disease-specific mortality for melanoma has remained unchanged despite the extra procedures performed to treat them.
Question 9: What did the survey of 115 dermatopathologists reveal about their beliefs regarding the overdiagnosis of various skin conditions?
Answer: The survey of 115 dermatopathologists showed that 68% believed overdiagnosis was a public health issue for atypical nevi, 47% thought melanoma in situ was overdiagnosed, and 35% thought invasive melanoma was overdiagnosed.
Question 10: What did lead researcher Kathleen Kerr say about the disparity between increasing melanoma diagnoses and stable death rates?
Answer: Lead researcher Kathleen Kerr said, “Melanoma diagnoses have been rising in the U.S. If there were truly an epidemic of melanoma, we would expect deaths from melanoma to show a corresponding rise, since there hasn’t been a major breakthrough in treatment during this time. Yet melanoma deaths have been remarkably constant. This suggests that the rise in melanoma diagnoses is largely due to overdiagnosis.”
Question 11: What are the three primary risk factors for basal cell carcinoma (BCC)?
Answer: The three primary risk factors for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) are excessive sun exposure, fair skin (which makes you more susceptible to excessive sunlight penetrating your skin), and a family history of skin cancer.
Question 12: What percentage of basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) recur after removal, and what is the typical fatality rate?
Answer: The recurrence rate for basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) after removal ranges from 65% to 95%, depending on the source. Most sources say BCC has a 0% fatality rate.
Question 13: How does the metastasis and survival rate of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) compare to that of basal cell carcinoma (BCC)?
Answer: Unlike basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) can metastasize. If SCC is removed prior to metastasizing, it has a 99% survival rate, but if removed after metastasis, the survival rate drops to 56%. The average survival rate for SCC is around 95%.
Question 14: What percentage of melanomas occur in regions of the body with significant sun exposure, compared to squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC)?
Answer: Only 22% of melanomas occur in regions of the body with significant sunlight exposure, such as the face. In contrast, 87% of all SCC cases and 82.5% of BCC cases occur in these regions.
Question 15: How does the incidence of melanoma in outdoor workers compare to that of indoor workers, despite higher UV exposure?
Answer: Outdoor workers get 3-10 times the annual UV dose that indoor workers get, yet they have lower incidences of cutaneous malignant melanoma and an odds ratio (risk) that is half that of their indoor colleagues.
Question 16: What did a 1997 meta-analysis reveal about the risk of melanoma in workers with significant occupational sunlight exposure?
Answer: A 1997 meta-analysis of the available literature found workers with significant occupational sunlight exposure were 14% less likely to get melanoma.
Note: the success of sunbathing was the original inspiration for ultraviolet blood irradiation.
Question 17: How does sunscreen use affect the rates of malignant melanoma, according to existing research?
Answer: Existing research has found using sunscreen either has no effect on the rates of malignant melanoma or increases it.
Question 18: What did a 1982 study find regarding the relationship between fluorescent light exposure at work and the risk of developing malignant melanoma in women?
Answer: A 1982 study of 274 women found that fluorescent light exposure at work caused a 2.1 times increase in their risk of developing malignant melanoma, with this risk increasing with more fluorescent light exposure, either due to the exposure at their job (1.8X with moderate exposure jobs, 2.6X with high exposure jobs) or the time spent working at it (i.e., 2.4X more likely for 1-9 years of work, 2.8X for 10-19 years, and 4.1X for over 20 years).
Question 19: What did the 1987 study comparing fatty acids in the tissue of melanoma patients and healthy controls find?
Answer: The 1987 study, which analyzed samples of fat tissue from 100 melanoma patients and 100 people without melanoma, found an increase in linoleic acid in the tissue of all subjects. However, the percentage of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) was significantly higher in the melanoma patients’ tissue. The researchers suggested that increased consumption of dietary polyunsaturates may have a contributory effect in the etiology of melanoma.
Question 20: What type of fatty acid is linoleic acid, and in what foods is it commonly found?
Answer: Linoleic acid is the primary fat found in omega-6 polyunsaturated fats, including vegetable/seed oils, and accounts for about 80% of the fat composition of vegetable oils. It is found in virtually every processed food, including restaurant foods, sauces, salad dressings, and “healthy” foods like chicken, pork, and some olive oil.
Question 21: What percentage of sunscreen products tested by Valisure were found to contain benzene, and what is benzene?
Answer: Valisure tested 294 sunscreen products and found that 27% contained benzene, a known human carcinogen, at levels at least three times higher than the FDA allows under special circumstances.
Question 22: What sunscreen ingredient, found in 70% of products, is known to be an endocrine disruptor?
Answer: Oxybenzone, found in an estimated 70% of sunscreens, is a known endocrine disruptor linked to reduced sperm count in men and endometriosis in women.
Question 23: According to a Danish study, how many sunscreen chemicals allowed in the US may reduce male fertility?
Answer: According to a Danish study, 8 out of 29 sunscreen chemicals allowed in the US and/or European Union can reduce male fertility by affecting calcium signaling in the sperm, in part by exerting a progesterone-like effect.
Question 24: What did the 2019 and 2020 JAMA studies find regarding the absorption and persistence of certain sunscreen ingredients in the body?
Answer: The 2019 and 2020 JAMA studies found that certain sunscreen ingredients (avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate) may build up in the body at unhealthy levels. The ingredients were absorbed after only one day’s exposure, and some persisted in the body after use.
Question 25: What blood level of vitamin D is considered ideal for disease prevention, according to the research cited?
Answer: According to the research cited, the ideal blood level of vitamin D for disease prevention is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL, while 40 ng/mL is considered the low end of sufficiency, and 30 ng/mL is the minimum to prevent disease.
Question 26: What signs and symptoms may indicate that a person has low vitamin D levels?
Answer: Signs and symptoms that may indicate low vitamin D levels include ongoing musculoskeletal pain and achy bones, frequent infections or illnesses, neurological symptoms (such as depression, cognitive impairment, and migraines), and fatigue and daytime sleepiness.
Question 27: How does the antioxidant astaxanthin function as an “internal sunscreen”?
Answer: Astaxanthin is a potent antioxidant that acts as an internal sunscreen by protecting against UV radiation exposure and gene expression changes that lead to skin photoaging, such as sagging and wrinkles. It has strong free radical scavenging activity that protects against oxidative damage.
Question 28: What other nutrients are mentioned that may provide photoprotection for the skin?
Answer: Other nutrients mentioned that may provide photoprotection for the skin include lycopene, beta-carotene, vitamin D, and vitamin E.
Question 29: What does Dr. David Elpern believe led to the overdiagnosis of melanoma and an increase in expensive, low-value procedures for skin cancer and actinic keratosis?
Answer: Dr. David Elpern believes that the American Academy of Dermatology’s (AAD) campaign in the 1980s to educate the public about dermatologists being skin cancer experts led to inflated health anxiety about skin cancer, resulting in the overdiagnosis of melanoma and an increase in expensive, low-value procedures for skin cancer and actinic keratosis.
Question 30: What role did dermatopathologists’ perception of overdiagnosis play in their diagnostic behavior when examining skin biopsy cases?
Answer: The study found no statistically significant associations between dermatopathologists’ perceptions about overdiagnosis and their interpretive behavior when diagnosing skin biopsy cases. Dermatopathologists who believed invasive melanoma was overdiagnosed were slightly more likely to diagnose invasive melanoma compared to other dermatopathologists examining identical cases.
Question 31: What are the consequences of overdiagnosing melanoma for patients?
Answer: Overdiagnosing melanoma can have significant consequences for patients on both an emotional and financial level.
Question 32: What factors make reducing overdiagnosis of skin cancer challenging, according to lead researcher Kathleen Kerr?
Answer: According to lead researcher Kathleen Kerr, reducing overdiagnosis of skin cancer will be challenging as it requires cooperation between patients, primary care physicians, and pathologists.
Question 33: What did the studies from 1991, 2008, 2002, and 2011 demonstrate about the effectiveness of a topical cream containing a nightshade extract (solasodine glycosides) in treating various types of skin cancer?
Answer: The studies from 1991, 2008, 2002, and 2011 demonstrated the effectiveness of a topical cream containing a nightshade extract (solasodine glycosides) in treating various types of skin cancer, including actinic keratosis, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The 1991 trial showed complete regression of lesions with no adverse effects, the 2008 trial found a 66% success rate for treating BCC, the 2002 English trial showed a 78% success rate for treating BCC with a short duration of treatment, and the 2011 case report showed good cosmetic outcomes for large BCC and SCC lesions.
Question 34: What is the current state of natural and alternative treatments for skin cancer, such as Curaderm, and why are they not more widely known and utilized despite their reported success rates?
Answer: There are several natural and alternative treatments for skin cancer that have been scientifically studied and have shown promising results. One such treatment is Curaderm, a topical cream containing solasodine glycosides, which are derived from eggplant extract. Studies have demonstrated that Curaderm has a success rate of 66-78% in treating basal cell carcinoma (BCC), the most common type of skin cancer.
In addition to Curaderm, other natural and alternative treatments that have undergone scientific study include topical creams containing vitamin B3 (niacinamide) and vitamin A (retinoids). While these treatments have shown potential, more research is needed to fully establish their effectiveness and safety.
Despite the reported success rates of these alternative therapies, they are not widely known or utilized in the mainstream treatment of skin cancer. This lack of awareness and adoption can be attributed to several factors, one of which is the potential threat they pose to the lucrative business model of the dermatology profession.
Healthy Sunbathing (by AMD)
One of the major mistakes Americans frequently make is the belief that if something is good for you, more of it is better. This very much holds true for sun exposure, as (assuming you are caucasian) once your skin starts turning pink, you lose the ability to utilize the sunlight you are being exposed to (e.g., you stop producing vitamin D), and in time also begin to burn (which can damage the skin). For this reason, many advise stopping sunbathing once your skin starts to turn pink and making sure to have regular small bursts of sunlight rather than intermittent large ones.
Note: doing this often completely eliminates the need for vitamin D and is one of the things that I’ve repeatedly seen greatly helps with longevity.
Additionally, there is a “good” type of ultraviolet light (UVB) and a bad type (UVA), and depending upon the time of day, different types are in prominence. For this reason, the absolute best time to be outside is between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., which interestingly is the time Chinese Medicine recognizes that the energy of the heart peaks (an organ I believe is particularly sensitive to the energy of sunlight).
Conversely, most windows block UVB (but not UVA) so it’s actually not a good idea to get your direct light exposure through the window.
Note: specialized materials exist which don’t do this (e.g., quartz glass), but they are a bit expensive and hard to find.
Finally, something many do not appreciate about sunscreens is that two forms of them exist—ones that work by having chemicals which absorb UV light (and decrease it) and ones that simply block and reflect it. The chemicals that absorb UV light are often quite toxic, and a case can be made they are actually responsible for some of the increase in skin cancer that has been observed. With the reflecting ones, either titanium oxide or zinc oxide are typically used. Zinc oxide is the better option (people don’t react to it, and it can sometimes help heal the skin), so when selecting a sunscreen, the main thing to look for is one that uses zinc oxide and doesn’t have any questionable chemicals in it.
Note: there are now beginning to be pushes to stop the use of more toxic sunscreens in areas with abundant aquatic life because they poison the reefs. This raises the point that if a small amount of sunscreen diluted in the water is too toxic for an ecosystem to handle, why would you want to put it on your skin where it can directly absorb into the body at its full concentration?
Irish comedian and storyteller, Aidan Killian travelled around Ireland during ‘lockdown’ and this shows another side of the story about how many lived, connected, and gathered during these dark times.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) missed a May 1 deadline to explain why the organization recommends COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women despite growing evidence that they pose a serious risk.
Reform Pharma, a Children’s Health Defense (CHD) initiative, sent ACOG a letter on March 22 outlining the extensive and mounting scientific research documenting the risks of the vaccines to mothers and infants.
The letter also addressed grant money ACOG accepted from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The funding was contingent on the organization’s full compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) guidance endorsing the vaccine during pregnancy.
The grant also stipulated that ACOG admonish doctors who failed to follow CDC protocols and track women who declined the vaccine, then target them with follow-up pressure to get the shot.
Reform Pharma demanded ACOG end its practice of recommending COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant women and explain why it has continued to push the shot until now.
The letter stated:
“It’s time for ACOG to reconcile and admit its mistake. … Our team demands that ACOG stop intimidating and misleading both physicians and pregnant women. …
“It is imperative that ACOG take proper action now to prevent needless further injury and death, as it is under a legal, ethical, and moral obligation to stop the shots!”
After ACOG didn’t respond, Reform Pharma sent a follow-up letter on April 22 via certified mail and email to the ACOG president and its chief legal officer.
The letter gave ACOG until May 1 to explain, in writing, why it continues to push the COVID-19 vaccines.
ACOG President Verda J. Hicks responded by blocking Reform Pharma’s email.
An automated out-of-office reply was the only response from the organization’s chief legal officer, Molly Meegan.
“The fact that the ACOG president blocked us shows that they are not even willing to have a conversation to explain why they continue to push COVID-19 shots on pregnant women despite mounting scientific evidence of the safety risks,” Reform Pharma co-director Amy Miller told The Defender.
Reform Pharma continues working to publicize what it says is ACOG’s corruption.
“The American people need to know that ACOG is using its authority and influence to push dangerous COVID-19 shots on pregnant women but failed to disclose its backdoor deal with the CDC,” Justine Tanguay, an attorney and Reform Pharma’s co-director, told The Defender.
“Sacrificing the lives and health of pregnant women and their unborn babies in exchange for money is unacceptable,” she added.
Reform Pharma’s mission is to systematically end corruption in Big Pharma and restore integrity to the U.S. healthcare system.
“Reform Pharma is doing critically important work shining a light on organizations like ACOG which purport to represent the interests of their member physicians and the patients those physicians treat,” Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD general counsel and a signatory to the letter, told The Defender.
“In reality, money talks, and it appears that payments and incentives from pharmaceutical companies may influence and capture such organizations.”
ACOG a ‘massively powerful’ organization that dominates maternal-fetal health
ACOG is a “massively powerful” organization with 60,000 members, maternal-fetal medicine expert Dr. James Thorp told The Defender.
The professional membership organization for obstetricians and gynecologists produces practice guidelines, educational materials and initiatives to improve women’s health, according to its website.
It is also — along with the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) and American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) — a key gatekeeper organization for the field of obstetrics and gynecology, exercising tremendous power over the practices and norms among its members who are practitioners in women’s health, Thorp said.
According to Reform Pharma, ACOG takes its marching orders from Big Pharma and public health agencies.
“It functions primarily as a shill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and, in particular, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — both lobbying arms for the pharmaceutical industry,” Reform Pharma wrote in its letter.
This became even more concerning once ACOG started promoting the COVID-19 vaccines, Reform Pharma said.
When the vaccines came on the market in December 2020, ACOG held a neutral position on vaccination during pregnancy, recommending pregnant women “be free to make their own decision regarding COVID-19 vaccination.”
That changed in July 2021, when the organization began encouraging its members to “enthusiastically recommend vaccination to their patients,” after accepting $11 million in grant money from HHS and CDC to adopt and promote the agencies’ positions on COVID-19 to its members.
“If ACOG should waver or fail to toe the line, ACOG would be required to return all the grant money it received,” according to Reform Pharma’s letter.
“ACOG made a deal with the devil and willingly sacrificed the health of pregnant women and their unborn babies in exchange for money,” Reform Pharma said.
Reform Pharma also accused ACOG of pressuring and intimidating doctors into strongly recommending the vaccine to their patients and directing them to “harass” women who refused until they capitulated.
Attorney Maggie Thorp, who last year identified the HHS grant funding — which she told The Defender is now up to $17 million since the COVID-19 pandemic period began — said she believes the CDC is just using ACOG as its mouthpiece.
Based on her analysis of the documents acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request, Maggie Thorp said the collaboration between the public health agency and the private organization is so tight that it was “hard to identify where CDC ended and where ACOG began.”
She said HHS is using ACOG to do what it cannot — “dictate the content of private conversations that happen between doctors and their pregnant patients.”
In that sense, Maggie Thorp said, HHS is “using ACOG to quell doctors’ free speech and their ability to express dissent.”
As a result, she said, patients don’t get access to the information they need to give “true, valid informed consent.”
James Thorp said that ACOG then collaborates with its partner organizations, SMFM, ABOG, and the Federation of State Medical Boards, which can take away doctors’ medical licenses or accreditation if they don’t comply, as the federation openly said it would in a July 2021 letter.
“They have the power to fire doctors or remove their accreditation from the medical board. That destroys an obstetrician,” he said. “So it’s extraordinarily intimidating.”
‘Sad’ that ACOG ‘ignores the science’
Reform Pharma provided ACOG with an extensively footnoted overview of current science showing the risks COVID-19 shots pose to pregnant women and the general population.
Early reporting in 2021 by the CDC’s Dr. Tom Shimabukuro in the New England Journal of Medicine claiming the shots were safe based on the CDC’s own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Monitoring System (V-safe) data was statistically flawed, the letter stated.
Shimabukuro concluded there were no “obvious safety signals” among pregnant women who received the vaccine. However, he presented the numbers in a misleading manner that obscured the actual rate of spontaneous abortions.
According to Reform Pharma’s letter:
“Failure to disclose the true incidence of spontaneous abortion is at best gross incompetence and at worst malfeasance. The true incidence of spontaneous abortion [in his statistics, among first- and second-trimester pregnancies] is alarming, ranging between 82% to 91%.”
Early research also linked the shot to “autism-like behaviors” in newborn rats, indicating the shot could complicate neurodevelopment and underscoring the need for more studies.
Several studies in top journals have shown that nursing mothers shed the spike protein in their breast milk, causing potentially serious adverse reactions in their newborn babies.
And, according to the letter, the COVID-19 shots pose safety risks for all people that also extend beyond complications associated with pregnancy. That data has been published extensively in places ranging from VAERS to peer-reviewed studies and beyond — sources readily available to anyone at ACOG who cares to investigate.
Given the extensive evidence summarized in the letter, “It is sad that ACOG appears not to be doing a deep dive into all the science concerning COVID-19 injections, instead taking the word of the pharmaceutical companies themselves and the FDA and CDC, which similarly rely on pharma science,” Mack Rosenberg said.
“Particularly tragic is the failure of ACOG to acknowledge and investigate the important evidence from patients themselves of the tragic impact these injections have had on pregnant women, their babies and their families,” she added.
“Pregnant women should never take this vaccine,” said James Thorp, who also has extensively documented the literature on the dangers of the COVID-19 shots for pregnant women.
“It isn’t even really a vaccine,” he said. “It’s an experimental genetic therapy with absolutely zero long-term follow-up. This is unprecedented. This is a complete violation of the golden rule of pregnancy.”
‘Wrongdoers will be held accountable’
The “public health emergency” has been officially over since May 11, 2023, and it has been demonstrated that vaccines don’t stop transmission and that there is extensive evidence regarding risks to pregnant women and all people, Reform Pharma wrote.
That means, “the only explanation for ACOG continuing to push this poison on pregnant women and their unborn children is that the organization is ‘bought off,’” the letter said. “Wrongdoers will be held accountable.”
Reform Pharma reiterated its concerns in the second letter, but aside from the blocked email and out-of-office notifications, ACOG has not responded.
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
A recent article by the LA Times editorial board claims that California is experiencing record high temperatures. Jefferey Jaxen does a fact check on their claims. As President Joe Biden mulls the idea of declaring a climate emergency, we look into the potential powers that could be gained from this move. Will we have a climate lockdown on our horizon?
From ‘calling the shots’ to calling out their safety and efficacy — Dr. Suzanne Humphries is one of the countless conventionally-trained physicians who dug into the research on pharmaceuticals rather than blindly prescribing them and “saw something that they thought was worth risking everything for.” But what would a world without these products, such as vaccines, look like? Dr. Humphries and Dr. Thomas discuss, this week, on ‘Pediatric Perspectives.’
Dr. John Robson investigates the unsound origins and fundamental inaccuracy, even dishonesty, of the claim that 97% of scientists, or “the world’s scientists”, or something agree that climate change is man-made, urgent and dangerous.
The United Nations continues with an attempt to advance the agenda to get what the organization calls its Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms implemented.
This code is based on a previous policy brief that recommends censorship of whatever is deemed to be “disinformation, misinformation, hate” but that is only the big picture of the policy UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming is staunchly promoting.
In early April, Fleming gave a talk at Boston University, and here the focus was on AI, whose usefulness in various censorship ventures makes it seen as a tool that advances “resilience in global communication.”
A piece on the Boston University Center on Emerging Infectious Diseases site first asserts that AI had a “major role” in helping spread misinformation and conspiracy theories “in the post-pandemic era,” while the UN is described as one of the institutions that have been undermined by all this, while “working to dispel these narratives.”
(The article also – helpfully, in terms of understanding where its authors are coming from – cites the World Economic Forum (WEF) as the “authority” which has proclaimed that “the threat from misinformation and disinformation as the most severe short-term threat facing the world today”).
You will hardly hear Fleming disagreeing with any of this, but the UN’s approach is to “harness” that power to serve its own agendas. The UN official’s talk was about how AI can be used to feed the public the desired narratives around issues like vaccines, climate change, and the “well-being” of women and girls.
However, she also went long into all the aspects of AI that she perceives as negative, throwing pretty much every talking point already well established among the “AI fear-mongering genre” in there:
“One of our biggest worries is the ease with which new technologies can help spread misinformation easier and cheaper, and that this content can be produced at scale and far more easily personalized and targeted,” she said.
Flemming said that with the pandemic, this “skyrocketed” around the issue of vaccines. But she didn’t address why that may be – other than, apparently, being simply a furious sudden proliferation of “misinformation” for its own sake.
Flemming then mentions a number of UN activities, basically along the lines of “fact-checking” and “pre-bunking” (like “Verified,” and #TakeCareBeforeYouShare”).
Some might refer to Flemming as one of the “merchants of outrage” but she has this slur reserved for others, such as “climate (change) deniers.”
And it wasn’t long before X and Elon Musk cropped up.
“Since Elon Musk took over X, all of the climate deniers are back, and (the platform) has become a space for all kinds of climate disinformation. Here is a connection that people in the anti-vaccine sphere are now shifting to the climate change denial sphere,” Flemming lamented.
But, the UN official reassured everyone that “she and her team are working to build coalitions and initiatives that leverage AI to promote exciting, positive, fact-driven global public health communications.”
“I didn’t know it was possible for a human to die so horrifically, so quickly, before they rolled out the mRNA injections… [For] days, patients would be seizing, and no medications would stop it, and eventually they… kinda had to be put down.”
A hospital medical coder who goes only by “Zoe” for this interview describes for Children’s Health Defense (ChildrensHD) the horrors she witnessed following the rollout of the COVID injections. Among the unthinkable, and deadly, illnesses were things like encephalitis, gangrene of the spine, blood clots, strokes, and multiple system organ failure.
“I didn’t know it was possible for a human to die so horrifically, so quickly, before they rolled out the mRNA injections… It was insane, I’ve never seen anything like that. The worst of them, they called it sepsis, but it was like instant multi-organ failure. Like, within hours patients would die of liver, lung, kidney… failure [all at once]…” Zoe tells CHD. She adds that “Some of the records… [from the] emergency crew that found them [the injection victims], it’s like their body tried to reject everything and [in] some of these cases their family would be there 30 minutes before, and then within an hour they’re dead.”
Zoe notes that “there were patients coming in with seizures like I’d never seen before,” and that hospital staff “couldn’t control some of them.” The coder adds, “[For] days, patients would be seizing, and no medications would stop it, and eventually they… kinda had to be put down.”
“They called it encephalitis, or encephalopathy, and then later on, even the coding organization… [called it] COVID-19-associated encephalitis,” Zoe says.
“[T]he clots were insane,” the coder notes. “Never seen clots like that before—even the interventional radiologists that were going in with…scopes where they can do heart interventions and do stents [a stent is a tube usually constructed of a metallic alloy or a polymer] in carotid artery (if you have a stroke going to your brain), normally it’s rare to have more than one stent go in, and they were documenting… multiple locations all at once. They had heart attack cases that were like that where they needed massive amounts of stents that they never needed before.”
Zoe goes on to say that “There were people that were hiking in their 20s that were totally healthy, that had been running marathons, that suddenly needed a leg amputated because they had a massive blood clot going from their hip all the way down to their leg, and it couldn’t be saved.”
“There were some cases of overnight spinal gangrene, which I’d never seen before,” the coder adds. “And, you know, you can’t amputate the spine when it goes gangrenous. Normally they cut out tissue that’s dying like that so it prevents further infection and they didn’t know what to do. The only thing they could do was… basically replace that part of [their] spine with an implant, that’s the best they could do… It was really intense.”
As for doctors’ responses to these horrors, Zoe says, “[they] were baffled, they weren’t connecting the dots.” However, she adds that “Knowing what the potential symptoms of a vaccine injury could be, we 100% had all the things I just described.” Despite that knowledge, “doctors would never tell [patients] that. They would just say, ‘It’s a stroke. It’s a heart attack. It’s a blood clot.’ And then they would never connect the two.”
Even as U.S. health agencies and the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) are being heavily criticized for their botched response to the COVID-19 pandemic,123 WHO officials are ramping up pressure on all nations to sign a WHO pandemic treaty and amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR), which will give them more authority to track, quarantine, force vaccine use and censor free speech during WHO declared pandemics.45 The WHO’s Director General has been blaming opposition to the UN agency’s epic power grab on “a torrent of fake news, lies and conspiracy theories.”6
On Apr. 19, 2024, the United Nations sent out a press release declaring that the “ongoing global spread of ‘bird flu’ infections to mammals including humans is a significant public health concern,” pointing to an outbreak of H5N1 viral infections in dairy cows in the U.S. and warning that the virus could evolve and cause human-to-human transmission with “extremely high” mortality.7 The implication was that a potentially deadly global bird flu pandemic was a clear possibility.
The CDC website describes symptoms of H5N1 bird flu infections, and they sound very similar to seasonal influenza or SARS-CoV-2 infections associated with COVID-19 disease:
“The reported signs and symptoms of bird flu virus infections in humans have ranged from no symptoms or mild illness [such as eye redness (conjunctivitis) or mild flu-like upper respiratory symptoms], to severe (such as pneumonia requiring hospitalization) and included fever (temperature of 100ºF [37.8ºC] or greater) or feeling feverish*, cough, sore throat, runny or stuff nose, muscle or body aches, headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath or difficulty breathing. Less common signs and symptoms include diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, or seizures.”8
Warnings That Egg and Milk Supplies May Be Contaminated with Bird Flu Virus
Mainstream media have been joining the UN in characterizing bird flu outbreaks in cattle as a significant public health concern, with news outlets breathlessly reporting that cattle were infecting each other with H5N1 and some experts questioning whether raw or even pasteurized milk containing high levels of the avian virus is safe.9 Although H5N1 bird flu was first detected in 1996, since 2020 there have been more outbreaks in poultry farms, wild bird and land and marine animals.1011 Americans were warned in early April that the eggs from chickens potentially infected with the avian virus should be well cooked,12 and then the media reported that a U.S. dairy farm worker in Texas had been infected with bird flu.13
The same day the UN issued their press release, Agence France Presse again reminded readers that a person working on a dairy farm in Texas was recovering from bird flu. A WHO official was quoted as stating that, “The case in Texas is the first case of a human infected by an avian influenza by a cow.”14
U.S. Plan to Drive the Global “Health Security” Agenda If WHO Treaties Fail
Three days earlier, on Apr. 16, the White House announced a five-year “Strategy to Strengthen Global Health Security” plan citing the COVID-19 pandemic as the need to put the U.S. in the driver’s seat via bi-lateral financial investment partnerships with 50 to 100 countries to “drive global action toward shared goals” and “mitigate the impact of health security threats” in order “to prevent, detect and contain them at their source.”15 The new plan “articulates a whole-of-government science-based approach to strengthening global health security.”
The current U.S. administration is in favor of the WHO pandemic treaty and IHR amendments proposed by the world’s largest public health agency.16 However, the WHO is getting pushback from lawmakers and citizens in the U.S. and in other nations, who do not want to go along with the UN/WHO power grab that many critics say threatens human rights and national sovereignty.171819 A respected Japanese scientist posted a video message to the world online,20 and there was a massive demonstration In Japan this month against the WHO pandemic treaty.21
The U.S. “Global Health Security” plan would ensure that if the WHO treaties fail to be signed by enough countries to become international law, the U.S. will make sure there is a global “rapid response to global health emergencies.” According to the U.S. plan, the core of that “rapid response” are “efforts to transform international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, and to accelerate “manufacture, procurement and delivery” of medical countermeasures like vaccines.22
Even though there is Increasing public opposition to the WHO’s plan to expand its legal authority to tell eight billion people what to do whenever WHO officials declare a “public health emergency” – which includes eliminating freedom of speech and electronically monitoring everyone’s vaccination status and requiring people to carry a digital “vaccine passport” in order to travel or enter public spaces23 – it looks like the U.S. government is going to get the job done whether the WHO manages to get enough countries to sign the WHO/IHR treaties or not. The lucrative public-private business partnerships that have been expanded over the past four decades between the WHO, pharmaceutical corporations, governments and other institutions is paying big dividends for the Public Health Empire.24
Bird Flu Vaccines Being Developed and Stockpiled
Is the latest well-publicized specter of a deadly global bird flu pandemic, which is so reminiscent of the well-publicized specter of a deadly coronavirus pandemic in early 2020,25 a harbinger of things to come or just a coincidence?
Whatever it is, the preparations for delivery and approval of H5N1 “vaccines,” which includes mRNA bird flu shots, is well underway.
On Apr. 20, Barrons reported that the U.S. government “says it could distribute enough [bird flu] vaccines within four months to inoculate a fifth of the U.S. population” (68 million people) if the H5N1 strain infecting cattle began to spread among humans.26 Healthcare workers, law enforcement and other first responders, military personnel pregnant women, infants and high risk children would get the shots first.
Apparently, two clinical trials of bird flu vaccine have been underway since last year and CSL Sequiris and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) are under contract to test the vaccines targeting a strain of avian influenza closely related to the H5N1 strain currently infecting U.S. dairy cows. Another major manufacturer of influenza vaccine, Sanofi, would also likely be involved in bird flu vaccine production.
H5N1 Vaccine Production Could Be Ramped Up to Vaccinate the Entire U.S. Population
An FDA spokesperson reportedly told Barrons that the approval process to quickly distribute a new H5N1 bird flu vaccine for Americans would be similar to the accelerated process used to create annual flu vaccines. A spokesperson for Administration for Strategic Preparedness & Response (ASPR) also commented that, if needed, the agency would work with bird flu vaccine manufacturers “to ramp up production to make enough vaccine doses to vaccinate the entire [U.S.] population.”
Oil in Water Adjuvants in Vaccines and Autoimmunity
Both Sequirus and GSK have developed “oil in water” emulsion adjuvants added to influenza vaccines, including bird flu vaccines, to stimulate hyper-inflammatory responses in the body that generate high levels of antigen-specific antibodies in an effort to make the vaccines more “effective.” Squalene adjuvants have been associated with development of autoimmune disorders.272829
GSK’s AS03 adjuvant contains a-tocopherol, squalene and polysorbate 80,30 and some European children and adults, who got GSK’s AS03 adjuvanted H1N1 “swine flu” vaccine in 2009, developed cases of narcolepsy, a neurological autoimmune disorder.31 The Sequiris influenza vaccine contains MF59,32 the first squalene oil in water emulsion adjuvant added to influenza vaccines in the 1990s.33 According to the Apr. 20 Barrons’ report, large quantities of both of these squalene adjuvants are stored in the U.S. government’s special pandemic influenza vaccine stockpile, which was created in 2005, along with premade influenza antigens.
A 2023 article published by Chinese researchers the medical literature promoted the “remarkable success” of mRNA coronavirus vaccines and the need to use three types of specific adjuvants to make mRNA vaccines more effective: (1) RNA with self-adjuvant characteristics; (2) components of the delivery system [such as lipid nanoparticles]; and exogenous immunostimulants (such as squalene).34
As with squalene adjuvants, the lipid nanoparticles, which envelop and deliver synthetic RNA in COVID shots to body cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, are highly inflammatory to stimulate a strong immune response, but also have been associated with allergy and autoimmunity.35
Europe Already Has Approved Two H5N1 Bird Flu Vaccines
Earlier this year, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved two H5N1 avian flu vaccines made by Sequiris, although neither one are mRNA products. Medscape reported on Feb.23, 2023 that Celldemic had been approved for use in infants six months of age and older if public health officials anticipate a bird flu pandemic, and Incellipan had been approved for use when a bird flu pandemic has been declared.36
mRNA Bird Flu Vaccines A Quick Way to Produce Bird Flu Vaccines
A year ago, Scientific American reported that “vaccine makers are preparing for bird flu,” with one pediatric infectious disease doctor quipping “It’s a really dangerous time to be a bird.” Another expert warned “None of us know when the next influenza pandemic will emerge… At the outset, you have to say there is uncertainty, with one exception: there will be a pandemic.”37 In that article, the reliance on U.S. stockpiled egg-based flu vaccines to produce an H5N1 vaccine was called into question and mRNA technology to produce bird flu vaccine was highlighted because it offers “speed of production” so an mRNA vaccine targeting a new influenza strain can be created in a matter of weeks.
Also in 2023, there was a report in the medical literature that University of Pennsylvania researchers had created an H5N1 mRNA lipid nanoparticle vaccine being tested on mice and ferrets.38 In March 2024, Chinese researchers announced they had created a 10-valent mRNA nanoparticle vaccine encoding proteins from four seasonal influenza viruses, two avian flu viruses with pandemic potential, and spike proteins from four SARS-CoV-2 variants. They said two doses of FLUCOV-10 “elicited robust immune responses in mice” against all 10 vaccine-matched viruses.39
Only Time Will Tell
Amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR) will be voted on at the end of May. Only time will tell whether the latest publicity warning the public about a potentially imminent bird flu outbreak in humans is real or just another bit of propaganda being used to create fear and put pressure on governments to give up sovereignty for the illusion of safety.
By James W. Carden | The Realist Review | June 14, 2026
Joe Biden’s presidency may ultimately come to be seen as a cautionary tale. Here was a president who showed little interest in entertaining arguments that might have contradicted his most deeply held assumptions.[1] And there were precious few within the upper ranks of the administration who might have attempted to do so, after all, only policy hands and political operatives who had come up through the ranks of the Clinton and Obama administrations or had longstanding ties to the citadels of the foreign policy community were invited into the fold. … 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.
/ @climatedn ) and our newsletter (at http://www.climatediscussionnexus.com/), like us on Facebook ( 
/ climatedn , follow us on Twitter ( 
/ climatedn, and make a monthly or one-time pledge at http://www.climatediscussionnexus.com…
Aletho News
Aletho News 