Main National TV Station Pumps INSANE Propaganda
Ivor Cummins | November 20, 2023
Our National main TV station just aired an INSANE piece of WEF/UN-style propaganda – it’s a parody of itself! Nonetheless I have a great time taking it down hardcore ;-) Please share widely – you can download vid here too, to share elsewhere:
NOTE: My extensive research and interviewing / video/sound editing, business travel and much more does require support – please consider helping if you can with monthly donation to support me directly, or one-off payment:
– alternatively join up with my Patreon – exclusive Vlogs/content and monthly zoom meetings with the second tier upwards:
Curious Admission Surfaces Concerning MHRA Blackmailing Mainstream Media Outlet Over Adverse Event Reporting
And no one really picked up on it…
BY JJ STARKY | NOVEMBER 25, 2023
Mass consumers of news – me included – are often exposed to so much information that some of that information can be lost in all the noise.
There’s little explanation why such a bombshell revelation featured in a recent Telegraph article gained next to no attention.
On 8th November, journalist Sarah Knapton published an article, entitled, ‘In the end, the AstraZeneca vaccine just wasn’t as good as its rivals’. Knapton broke down how AstraZeneca’s (AZ) purported efficacy could not stand up to the purported efficacy of the other vaccines. The consequences of which led to its eventual abandonment.
Curiously, however, buried in the 14th paragraph, was a confession that back in March 2021 – when the Telegraph first reported on AZ’s blood clot risks – Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) officials effectively blackmailed them.
Knapton writes:
“On the day we published the story we received a threatening phone call from a senior official at the MHRA warning that The Telegraph would be banned from future briefings and press notices if we did not soften the news.
Another well-known Cambridge academic got in touch to complain about our “disgraceful fear-mongering headline” on the story, claiming that it would discourage vaccine uptake and cost lives.”
This was the headline of that 17th March 2021 article:
Considering the title includes a subjective opinion from a foreign medical regulator that softens the news, I’m not sure how it constitutes “disgraceful fear-mongering”.
Perhaps this remark is more reflective of the contagious petulance we witness with medical regulators. For them, negative news is not just negative news. It’s analogous to physical assault.
What seems far more “disgraceful” is how a supposedly impartial medical regulator – tasked with safeguarding citizens from potentially lethal treatments – allegedly threatened to strip away a news organisation’s access. Leaving them out in the cold as competitors would stand to benefit from their potential exclusion.
And the curious thing is, no one has seemed to pick up on the news bar The Conservative Woman and the Health Advisory & Recovery Team (HART).
A report from HART earlier in August further revealed that MHRA officials have been blocking journalists, scientists, and vaccine injured victims on social media. HART asked them why and they responded:
“Thank you for flagging your issue about Twitter. We’ve reviewed recent action taken on that platform and have identified accounts which have been blocked in error, these have now been unblocked and you should be free to interact with our content again. Please let us know if you have any further issues so we can investigate and rectify, if necessary”.
“Sorry folks, it was error. And a complete ‘coincidence’ that we primarily blocked commentators who were critical of us…”
These are the same officials who refused to answer a routine Freedom of Information Request concerning data AstraZeneca submitted in their application to licence their Covid-19 vaccine. The reason they refused? It was “vexatious”.
They wrote in their response:
“this request falls to be considered “vexatious” due to the scope of the request and the disproportionate burden that compliance would create. S14(1) of the FOIA states that “Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.
Downloading the dossier of the vaccine is a relatively straightforward task, although it does require time. Due to the voluminous size of the file packages, when downloading the full package of data, the database software may be more prone to freeze. However, the time required to read through the dossiers, to identify exempt information and to consider and make redactions we expect would take many weeks, if not months to complete, as the dossier encompasses gigabytes of data. To meet the request our staff: Would need to read the dossier in full, in order to identify where redactions need to be made.
We appreciate that there remains a strong public interest in COVID-19 vaccines, however, we do not feel that the public interest outweighs the resource burden required to meet your request.”
Sometimes the actions of government officials are laced with so much arrogance, incompetence, and just frank laziness that it makes one question if they’re genuinely true.
If I sat across the table from an uninitiated countryman and told him of the above, it would come as no surprise to see him raise his eyebrows in astonishment. But not because of what I was telling him, but at me, as if I was about to descend into prophetic trance about how judgement day is coming and there’s going to be some epic battle between us and the lizard people outside Matt Hancock’s house.
Put differently, the extent to which the medical regulators’ actions are so unbelievable actually benefits them. It is easier for people to dismiss it as false. Of course, if the media actually did their job, this wouldn’t be a problem.
Naturally, when MHRA threatened the Telegraph, the outlet hesitated to revisit the subject for months. The blackmail paid off.
Were covid vaccine trials misleading by design?
Data presentation was deceptive
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | November 23, 2023
In chemotherapy, the primary aim is to reduce the disease burden in patients who are already diagnosed with cancer. This is reflected in endpoints like tumour size reduction, progression-free survival, and overall survival, which are directly related to the degree of disease burden. Therefore, measuring the benefit of chemotherapy involves comparing the extent of disease burden (or its progression) at the end of the trial between those who received the chemotherapy and those who did not. This comparison provides insight into how effectively the chemotherapy mitigates the impact of the cancer.
On the other hand, vaccines are designed with the primary goal of keeping individuals healthy by preventing the onset of a specific disease. Therefore, the efficacy of vaccines is best measured by comparing the health status among participants at the end of the trial. This involves assessing how many individuals remained healthy and disease-free in the vaccinated group versus the control group. Such an approach accurately reflects the preventive nature of vaccines.
The covid vaccine trials did not focus on how many were healthy instead comparing those who developed disease. To take the Pfizer/BioNTech trial as an example, there were 8 PCR positive symptomatic people in the vaccine group and 162 in the placebo group more than a week after the second dose and after up to 2 month’s follow up. That worked out at a 94.6% efficacy when calculated as a percentage reduction.
That sounds fantastic but it is not fantastic when measured in other ways. There is more than one scenario that could result in a claim of a 94.6% relative risk reduction as shown in the table. The alternative ways of measuring show the relative change in the percentage who remained healthy and the absolute change – i.e. the percentage of the population who benefitted.
In a hypothetical trial in which 94% of the placebo group developed a disease while only 5% of the treatment group did would also have a 95% efficacy as calculated the conventional way. However, these results have a totally different meaning to a patient. In this scenario 93.7% of the individuals who received the treatment directly benefited. Furthermore there was a marked change, 91.0% in the proportion who remained healthy.
Adjusting the percentages affected shows numerous situations in which the Relative Risk Reduction as conventionally calculated are identical but the Relative Risk Reduction in the proportion remaining healthy and the proportion who directly benefited tell a very different story. The last row are the actual results.
For the first two scenarios the people taking the treatment are more likely to directly benefit than not. For scenarios 3 and 4 there is still a high possibility of direct benefit. However, for the last two scenarios the chances of not directly benefiting are far higher than the chance of benefitting. It is possible in these scenarios that a longer follow up would improve the situation as more people would develop disease or be protected from it. However, the evidence of waning means that the time frame of follow up is close to the maximum possible period of benefit anyway.The important lesson here is that looking at the relative risk reduction as presented in the trials on its own is a meaningless measure. That is why the industry’s own code of practice says, “Referring only to relative risk, especially with regard to risk reduction, can make a medicine appear more effective than it actually is. In order to assess the clinical impact of an outcome, the reader also needs to know the absolute risk involved. In that regard, relative risk should never be referred to without also referring to the absolute risk.” The efficacy claims, even if we trust the results, were presented to the public in a way that could be deliberately misinterpreted.
New Report: Young People Dying of Cancer at ‘Explosive’ Rates, UK Government Data Show
By Mike Capuzzo | The Defender | November 21, 2023
Teenagers and young people in their 20s, 30s and 40s in the U.K. are dying from rapidly metastasizing and terminal cancers at an unprecedented rate since mass COVID-19 vaccination began, according to a new analysis by Edward Dowd.
The 45-page report by Dowd, a former Wall Street hedge fund manager and author of “‘Cause Unknown’: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022,” alarmed some oncologists who characterized it as a sharp reversal of decades of mortality data.
Dowd based his analysis on readily available government statistics from the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics.
In an interview with The Defender, Dowd said he and his research partners, who include a handful of high-level scientists, data analysts and financial experts, examined all International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, (ICD-10) codes for cause of death in the U.K. in the study period of 2010-2022 to investigate trends in malignant neoplasms (C00 to C99 codes).
ICD-10 codes are the international physicians’ classification of diagnosis, symptom and procedure for claim processing set by the World Health Organization (WHO). A malignant neoplasm is a cancerous tumor.
Dowd said his research team noticed a striking pattern: While almost all deaths among older people in 2021 and 2022 in Wales and England had been coded, 8% of deaths among 15- to 44-year-olds in 2021, and 30% of deaths in that age group in 2022, hadn’t yet been coded.
“When you die in a hospital, you leave a trail of life and death with indications of what led to the death,” he said. “When a young person dies at the wheel of a car, walking down the street or in their sleep, there’s an investigation” that consumes time to assign the cause of death.
Dowd said the missing codes are “indicative of the problem” of excess deaths among young people.
But even with the caveat of missing codes, he said, the remaining 92% of coded deaths in 2021 and 70% of coded deaths in 2022 revealed “a strong signal of cancer deaths in the young. We show a large increase in mortality due to malignant neoplasms that started in 2021 and accelerated substantially in 2022.
“The increase in excess deaths in 2022 is highly statistically significant (extreme event),” Dowd wrote in his report. “The results indicate that from late 2021 a novel phenomenon leading to increased malignant neoplasm deaths appears to be present in individuals aged 15 to 44 in the UK.”
The study’s results in the rate of cancer deaths above the historic norm in 2022 for ages 15-44 in the U.K. included:
- A 28% rise in fatal breast cancer rates in women.
- An 80% increase in pancreatic cancer deaths among women and a 60% increase among men.
- A 55% increase among men in colon cancer deaths and a 41% increase in women.
- A 120% increase in fatal melanomas among men and a 35% increase in women.
- A 35% increase in brain cancer deaths among men and a 12% rise in women.
- A 60% increase in cancer death rates among men in cancers “without site specification” and a 55% increase among women.
‘Mounting clinical evidence’ led to study
Dowd produced his report, assembled by Carlos Alegria, one of Dowd’s partners, in his Humanity Projects study of excess deaths in the U.K. and the U.S. using government and insurance industry data.
He said he started his pro bono data-driven project to help guide public policy when he saw how COVID-19 pandemic policies were destroying society’s faith in institutional experts.
Surveying the capture of national and state government regulatory agencies and corporate media by Big Pharma and other global interests, he realized, “We need independent agents to act as gatekeepers of the public interest.”
“We intend to be such agents, and to provide high-quality research to other individuals and institutions who seek similar outcomes,” he wrote.
The new report is his third in the UK Cause of Death Project, which previously examined “UK – Death and Disability Trends for Cardiovascular Diseases, Ages 15-44,” and “UK – Death Trends for the Cardiovascular System, Ages 15-44, Analysis of Individual Causes.”
The mounting clinical evidence linking burgeoning cancers in young people to the COVID-19 vaccines led Dowd to his latest study, he said.
“We focus our research on younger individuals, aged 15-44, as presently it is a topic of particular interest due to the rise in anecdotal evidence of many unexplained aggressive and unusual cancers (such as turbo cancers … ) occurring in the population, particularly in younger individuals,” he wrote in the study.
“The focus of this study is not to examine individual claims and anecdotes, but instead to provide a statistical analysis at a population level and clarify if the anecdotal evidence is abnormal or not.”
Dowd said he hopes “the relationships that we uncover in our analysis” are “a basis for a reality check for health professionals to understand underlying trends in individuals’ health.”
Dowd’s method was to analyze the number of deaths attributed to cancer in England and Wales between 2010 and 2022 in the U.K. Office for National Statistics data.
He compared excess death rates, the difference between observed deaths and the baseline for expected deaths, before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
He established a baseline of normal cancer death rates from 2010-2020 that was remarkably consistent with few deviations, he said — until the cancer death rates rose significantly in late 2021 in the U.K. following the vaccine rollout.
Key findings from the report include:
- Breast cancer dominates in women. The most common cause of fatal cancer in women, ages 15-44, is breast cancer, representing about 25% of the total excess death rate caused by malignant tumors in women in 2022. The next most dangerous cancers for women, based on excess death rates, were colon cancer and cancer of the cervix uteri.
- While fatal cancer deaths rose dramatically among both young men and young women in 2022, young men saw a disproportionately higher rise in cancer deaths, but with no dominant cancer comparable to breast cancer in women. Brain cancer, colon cancer and stomach cancer accounted for 30.9% of the rise in fatal cancers in men in 2022.
- Cancers “without specification of site,” indicating rapid metastasis to other organs and commonly called “turbo cancers,” “exploded” in 2022, Dowd said. “These cancers saw very large rise in both women (in 2021 and 2022) and men (in 2022) and were likely metastasized already once they were identified. As the individuals refer to younger individuals who do not require early screening, these cancers were likely of rapid growth.”
- Men experienced a huge rise in skin cancer death rates of 118% in 2022. “Even though these cancers do not account for a large proportion of all cancers,” Dowd said.
- Cancers of the digestive tract “saw explosive changes in 2021 and 2022 relative to the 2010-2019 trend,” Dowd wrote. “Of particular notice are cancers of the colon (internationally coded as C18), stomach (C16) and esophagus (C15). “These cancers related to the digestive tract appear to have risen substantially in importance, and we also notice that they seem to be affecting men in a disproportionate manner.”
- Pancreatic cancer “saw a very large rise in both women (in 2022) and men (in both 2021 and 2022). Why these cancers rose so dramatically and why they rose first in men then women is one of the questions that we believe warrants investigation.”
Dowd emphasized that his research was “a first attempt to bring out some patterns that are observed in trends” in cancer post-2020.
“We hope that medical doctors and specialized researchers perform further investigations based upon these (and other) insights that our data analysis provides,” he wrote.
Link between COVID shots and rise in cancers ‘worth looking at’
Dr. Chris Flowers, an academic physician, radiologist and breast cancer specialist in England who came out of retirement to be the volunteer scientific lead of the War Room/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis Project, told The Defender the U.K. data were “very, very, concerning.”
Flowers said Dowd’s research confirmed similar data on sharp cancer death increases reported by researchers, clinicians and cancer specialists in the U.S., U.K. and across the Western industrialized world since the global rollout of the experimental Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccine. An estimated more than 5.55 billion people, or about 72.3% of the global population, received the shots.
Flowers said he and his colleagues, including pathologists, radiologists, oncologists, internists, critical care doctors and researchers in the U.S. and U.K., have never seen anything like the severity of fatal breast cancers and other cancers in the young that exploded in 2022.
Dowd’s report confirms what Flowers and his colleagues have noticed for more than a year: “We’re seeing 2 or 3 times the normal rate of cancer.”
“We’re seeing younger people, we’re talking 20- and 30-year-old women, usually after they started menstruating and some form of growth promoter is going on normally, presenting with advanced tumors which are difficult to treat, but also they may have more than one tumor,” Flowers said. “Something that was rare is now relatively common.”
Perhaps most distressing, Flowers said, is the rise in the young of what some oncologists now call “turbo cancers,” a new term.
“Turbo cancer is a popular name that’s been coined to describe several things,” Flowers said. “It is cancers in young people just turning up, one day you’re absolutely fine, the next day you’re told you have terminal cancer and you’re dead in a week. There are many reports of that even in the mainstream media.”
“Tumors are not only faster growing but you’re getting more types of cancer occurring in the same person. It used to be very very rare. Just occasionally I’d see a very, very aggressive inflammatory cancer in young people. But now everyone has stories.”
Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonologist and critical care doctor who is president and medical director of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and treats hundreds of vaccine-injured patients in his practice, said he is “being deluged with reports and consults for help” about cancer increases from colleagues and patients.
David Wiseman, Ph.D., a pharmacist with a doctorate in experimental pathology and a pioneer, originally for Johnson & Johnson, of products to prevent post-surgery internal injuries, said he was alternatively astonished and outraged that governments and mainstream media won’t follow up on research he and Kevin McKernan, a former director of research and development at the MIT Human Genome Project, conducted showing the mRNA shots were contaminated with DNA fragments.
These fragments, Wiseman said, add to the potential damage the vaccines could cause to the human genome and open new doors to an infinite variety of problems, including cancer.
Wiseman told The Defender that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own data show cancer concerns connected to the COVID-19 vaccines.
“We’re seeing an increase in cancers in VAERS,” the official U.S. Food and Drug Administration and CDC site for reporting vaccine injuries, Wiseman said. “The CDC did a PRR analysis, a signal analysis, that found a signal for cancer in the vaccines, which isn’t proof but it means it’s worth looking at.”
Mike Capuzzo is the managing editor of The Defender. He is a former prize-winning reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Miami Herald, a science writer, and a regional magazine founding editor and publisher who has won more than 200 journalism awards as a writer, editor and publisher.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Pfizer, Moderna Spend Millions on Ads Featuring Catchy Phrases and Celebrities to Push COVID Shots
By Mike Capuzzo | The Defender | November 22, 2023
Facing dramatic stock market declines and growing resistance to their mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna are running upbeat TV commercials with jingles and celebrities to push COVID-19 vaccination just in time for the holidays.
The 30-second Pfizer commercial features a cheery, driving tune and smiling celebrities Martha Stewart, singer-songwriter John Legend, professional soccer player and progressive activist Megan Rapinoe, singer-songwriter Charlie Puth and football star Travis Kelce.
All but Rapinoe flash Pfizer’s trademark blue band-aids on a shoulder showing they got Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot.
“Got it,” Stewart says, as the Pfizer ad copy reads, “This season’s updated COVID-19 shots are here,” and “Ask your healthcare provider if getting your COVID shot with your flu shot is right for you.”
“Got yours?” is the Pfizer tagline.
Moderna’s 60-second TV spot wants its audience to “Spikevax that body.”
Spikevax is the brand name of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine. It refers to the artificial spike protein the vaccine is designed to stimulate in the body to allegedly trigger protective antibodies to the virus.
The commercial opens with an older man playing table tennis accompanied by a narrator, who says, “When it comes to your health … you ping and pong that body.”
The spot proceeds through a variety of ordinary people practicing their passions, including a woman blending a vegetable shake (“you green that body”), a man plunging into an ice bucket (“you plunge that body”), and a man and woman playing chess (“you brainpower that body).”
It concludes with, “You flu shot that body, and now, you Spikevax that body. Because even though the pandemic is over, COVID-19 isn’t.”
The pharmaceutical trade press portrayed the ads as an attempt by Pfizer and Moderna, whose COVID-19 vaccines were injected into more than 5 billion people worldwide during the pandemic, to reverse dramatic losses in their stock prices in recent weeks.
“With hardly any Americans signing up to receive the updated COVID-19 shot, Pfizer is pulling out all the stops to increase uptake,” said Dr. Joseph Mercola.
Mercola reported that Pfizer paid Kansas City Chiefs tight end Kelce an outsized $20 million to promote the drugmaker’s COVID-19 shots, compared to his $5 million-per-year total endorsements from McDonald’s, Papa John’s, Walgreens, Nike and Tide, and was trying to capitalize on the football star’s recent surge in popularity as he dates pop star Taylor Swift.
Other medical trade journals debated whether celebrity endorsements like Kelce’s will actually help or hurt Pfizer’s sales and stock price.
Critic: COVID shot ads don’t meet FDA requirements for biologic side effects
But doctors and scientists interviewed by The Defender were appalled that Pfizer and Moderna, and the governments and media that support them, would continue to push the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines blamed for more than 36,000 deaths reported to the U.S. government-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS.
A large Canadian study of 17 countries estimated the COVID-19 vaccines killed approximately 17 million people around the world.
Dr. Peter Breggin, a New York psychiatrist and author with his wife Ginger of “COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey,” said the Pfizer and Moderna commercials draw the audience into “a never-never land of fakers.”
“This is a combination of extreme fraud and sham,” Breggin told The Defender. “We now know from multiple scientific studies that there was a broad panoply of adverse effects to the vaccines as there are with some very potent drugs. That resulted in death in some people, and with more reports to the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] of deaths than all the other vaccines in the world combined.”
Breggin, a frequent expert witness in pharmaceutical cases involving dangerous drugs and co-author of the bestseller “Talking Back to Prozac: What Doctors Aren’t Telling You About Today’s Most Controversial Drug,” said the Moderna ad makes a passing reference to possible myocarditis side effects while the Pfizer spot names no possible dangers at all.
“They’re not like ordinary drug commercials,” he said, adding that neither meets the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirement for describing biologic side effects.
Pfizer outspent competitors on digital, TV ads for COVID shots
Big Pharma advertising is big business in the U.S., the only country in the world with the exception of New Zealand that allows direct pharmaceutical advertising to consumers.
Spending on the marketing of prescription drugs, health services, laboratory tests and disease awareness grew from $17.7 billion in 1997 to $29.9 billion in 2016, with the largest increases coming in direct-to-consumer spending, which nearly tripled to 32% of all medical marketing spending.
Between Jan. 1 and May 6, 2021, Pfizer spent $21.5 million on digital advertising alone to push its COVID-19 vaccine, while Johnson & Johnson spent $29.1 million marketing its COVID-19 vaccine.
Big Pharma TV ad spending grew 8% in 2022, reaching a total of $4.05 billion. Much of that was “COVID vaccine-related television commercials” with “companies such as Pfizer and BioNTech” spending “large amounts of TV dollars on campaigns highlighting ‘getting back to normal,’ featuring loved ones reuniting after years apart,” according to Fierce Pharma.
Pfizer was the biggest drug-ad spender at this year’s Oscars, shelling out an estimated $5.7 million for the most expensive spot in the televised event on its new COVID-19 drug ad: “If it’s COVID, it’s Paxlovid.”
Pfizer also aired the second-most-expensive TV ad at the Oscars, spending an estimated $3.8 million on another COVID-19 ad using “star power to emphasize risk factors and COVID-19 in [its] latest vaccine ad push” featuring celebrities including Pink, Questlove, Michael Phelps and Jean Smart.
The fourth-biggest advertising spender at the Oscars was the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which spent an estimated $1.9 million on a 30-second “awareness ad” with no pharma company mentioned “to get people to consider getting the latest COVID boosters amid ‘fading protection.’”
Despite nearly around-the-clock media reports and advertising by Big Pharma and governments urging people to get the latest COVID-19 vaccine and boosters, Pfizer’s September 2023 rollout of its updated 2023-24 COVID-19 shot suffered “abysmal” uptake, with only 7.1% of adults and 2.1% of children receiving the updated COVID-19 shot as of Oct. 14, according to Mercola.
Dr. Pierre Kory was encouraged that vast numbers of Americans, a majority of whom took the experimental mRNA COVID-19 shots during the pandemic, are waking up to the fact the mRNA technology is dangerous and its risk-reward benefit presents potentially frightening risk with little or no benefit, especially for children.
“It appears to me that pharma companies are now desperately marketing the vaccines to consumers via TV ads,” he said. “It looks like their previously winning strategy of fear-mongering via public health agency proclamations and widespread news media behavioral psychology ‘nudging’ tactics is now failing.”
Mike Capuzzo is the managing editor of The Defender. He is a former prize-winning reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Miami Herald, a science writer, and a regional magazine founding editor and publisher who has won more than 200 journalism awards as a writer, editor and publisher.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Texas Sues Pfizer for ‘Endangering Children’ by Selling Ineffective ADHD Drug
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 22, 2023
Acting on behalf of the state of Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton on Monday unsealed a lawsuit against Pfizer and its drug manufacturer, Tris Pharma, alleging the companies sold medication to children even though they knew the drug was ineffective and potentially unsafe.
The suit, filed in the Harrison County District Court, alleges Pfizer knowingly distributed a drug used for treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to children on Medicaid — despite the drug’s pattern of failing quality control tests.
The drug, Quillivant XR, is a stimulant that affects brain and nerve chemicals involved in hyperactivity and impulse control.
From 2012-2018, “Pfizer and Tris continually manipulated Quillivant testing to hide poor manufacturing practices and defraud the Texas Medicaid program,” according to a press release.
During those years, many families complained that the medication failed to work. According to the complaint:
“At no point did Defendants warn Texas Medicaid providers or decision-makers that Quillivant had known manufacturing issues affecting its efficacy, thereby depriving the Medicaid program of the crucial information it relies on. … As a result, thousands of Texas children received an adulterated Schedule II Controlled Dangerous Substance.”
In a tweet, Paxton said:
Commenting on the lawsuit, Kim Mack Rosenberg, acting general counsel for Children’s Health Defense, said, “Pfizer once again is in the spotlight for alleged unethical and fraudulent activity.”
Rosenberg told The Defender :
“I applaud the Texas AG for taking action here to protect some of Texas’s most vulnerable children, those who rely on Medicaid for healthcare. To knowingly supply adulterated medication to vulnerable children is inexplicable and unconscionable.”
“Unfortunately,” Rosenberg added, “this is not the first time questions have been raised about Pfizer’s conduct, including wrongdoing allegedly resulting in children dying in clinical trials in Nigeria in the 1990s and serious questions about Pfizer’s COVID-19 injections and its treatment medication Paxlovid.”
Defendants in the suit include Pfizer, Tris and Tris CEO Ketan Mehta.
The lawsuit stemmed from a whistleblower complaint made by Tarik Ahmed, who served as Tris’ technology chief from 2013-2017.
The lawyers are suing for more than $1 million, including civil penalty fees, and are asking the court to force Pfizer and Tris to pay back to the state of Texas all profits received from selling Quillivant in the Texas Medicaid program “as a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts” and, additionally, to pay back double that amount.
Lawyers with Paxton’s office requested a trial by jury.
In 2017, Quillivant grossed roughly $193.3 million in U.S. sales. The drug was developed by NextWave Pharmaceuticals, which Pfizer bought in 2012 for $680 million.
The lawyers charged the defendants with defrauding the Texas Medicaid program “by providing adulterated pharmaceutical drugs to Texas children in violation of the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act, now known as the Texas Health Care Program Fraud Prevention Act (‘THFPA’).”
The press release said, “For years, Tris altered the drug’s testing method in violation of federal and state laws to ensure Quillivant passed regulatory hurdles and could continue to be sold.”
According to Reuters, Pfizer said in a statement that it had examined the suit’s allegations on “multiple occasions” and “did not find any impact on the safety of the product.”
Pfizer said the case has no merit and will move to dismiss it.
A Tris spokesperson told Reuters in an email, “We categorically deny and intend to rigorously defend these allegations in the court of law.”
Drug failed quality control tests for years
Almost immediately after getting U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, Quillivant began failing routine quality tests. According to the complaint:
“Beginning at least as early as October 2012, Tris quality control personnel observed that sample of Quillivant tested under FDA-required dissolution specifications were not generating passing results.
“Dissolution testing is an important quality control tool used to measure whether a drug was properly manufactured, by comparing a simulated release of the drug to a standard set upon the drug’s initial approval.
“This in turn helps to predict whether the drug (as manufactured) will be released as expected in a patient’s body — which is critical for ensuring proper and consistent patient dosing.”
The Quillivant samples formed lumps during the reconstitution phase of the test.
Instead of investigating why there were lumps, Tris “retrained” its analysts to shake the water/drug mixture longer and to conduct the test only when “foaming is absent from the suspension,” the filing said.
Even with these changes, Quillivant continued to fail dissolution tests. Tris then stopped using that testing method and switched to a new method.
“Alarmingly,” the filing said, “the new test method was not representative of real-world usage by patients, and worse, went against the pharmacy reconstitution instructions contained in the FDA-approved label for Quillivant.”
When quality control issues continued to arise, the companies told the FDA a “misleading” and “convenient narrative to explain away the problem.”
Pfizer wanted to ‘fully exploit the economic potential of Texas Medicaid’
Meanwhile, Pfizer was petitioning Texas Medicaid to get Quillivant added to the program’s preferred drug list — but said nothing about the drug’s ongoing and unresolved quality control issues.
The FDA on March 26, 2018, sent a warning letter to Pfizer, informing the company that Quillivant was “adulterated starting in 2012 and continuing into 2018.”
Yet “even after receiving this clear and unequivocal assessment, neither Tris nor Pfizer alerted Texas Medicaid decision-makers to the FDA’s serious findings,” the filing said.
The suit alleges that the companies avoided telling Texas Medicaid about the issues because “Quillivant’s status with Texas Medicaid became a selling point.” The filing said:
“Tris and Pfizer both recognized that Texas Medicaid business would be crucial for Quillivant’s success.
“To fully exploit the economic potential of Texas Medicaid, Defendants needed Medicaid decision-makers to add Quillivant to the VDP [Vendor Drug Program] Formulary and the Preferred Drug List.
“These steps would effectively allow Medicaid providers to prescribe Quillivant to their Medicaid patients and would streamline the prescribing process by eliminating the need for the treating doctor to go through the burdensome process of obtaining prior authorization.”
Pfizer projected that Quillivant sales in Texas would significantly increase if the drug were added to the Texas Medicaid Preferred Drug List, as Texas was a “populous state with a disproportionately high percentage of children covered by Medicaid,” according to the complaint.
The Civil Medicaid Fraud Division of Paxton’s office undertook the investigation.
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
German News Report on Covid Vaccines and ‘Turbo Cancer’ Withdrawn in “Frontal Assault on Freedom of the Press”
BY ROBERT KOGON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | NOVEMBER 21, 2023
This past September 21st, the German news agency epd – the news agency of the German Protestant Church – published a potentially explosive report titled ‘Coronavirus Vaccines: Doctors and Researchers Express Concerns.’ The concerns in question were, more precisely, about a possible link between mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines and rapidly-developing or “turbo” cancers.
Thus, we read, for instance:
The Munich-based immunologist Peter Schleicher is currently treating 1,000 patients in his medical practice. Around 30 of them have “turbo cancer”, as he says. This means that “the cancer grows incredibly quickly,” Schleicher told the Evangelischer Pressedienst (epd). He has never before had so many “turbo cancer patients” at the same time, he added.
According to Schleicher, all 30 patients were diagnosed with cancer within three months of their last coronavirus vaccination. He has long suspected that mRNA vaccines can impair the immune system, so that diseased cells in the body can no longer be effectively combated: “In my view, this explains why the tumours grow at lightning speed.”
And further on in the article:
“As early as autumn 2021, I suspected that the coronavirus vaccines could give rise to turbo cancer,” Ute Krüger told epd. The cancer epidemiologist, who specialised as a breast cancer pathologist at the Breast Cancer Centre of Oskar Ziethen Hospital in Berlin in 2004, is currently conducting research at Lund University in Sweden.
For some time now, she has been dealing with cancer patients the course of whose illness has been extremely strange, she says. The cancer specialist points, for instance, to a 70-year-old woman who had been living with metastatic breast cancer for several years: “Shortly after being vaccinated against COVID-19, the tumour growth in her liver exploded.” The patient died within a month.
The article also cites chemistry professors Andreas Schnepf of the University of Tubingen and Martin Winkler of the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, who likewise expressed their worries about the dangers of the vaccines.
Within one week of publication, however, the report had been quietly withdrawn. The article has been preserved on the Wayback Machine here. But it has disappeared from the original URL on the website of the German Protestant Church newspaper, the Evangelische Zeitung. Under the same title, ‘Coronavirus Vaccines: Doctors and Researchers Express Concerns’ – even with the same publication date and time! – we now find a brief disclaimer instead of the article. This disclaimer begins as follows:
Here, there was previously a text about coronavirus vaccinations and alleged possible links to cancer illnesses. It was an agency text which came directly from the agency and which had not been edited [by us]. The editors had already distanced themselves from the text and the repeatedly-used term ‘turbo cancer’, which has gained notoriety from its use by so-called ‘Querdenker‘.
The term Querdenker is widely used in German public discourse to refer to opponents of Covid measures such as lockdowns and mass vaccination. ‘Quer-denker‘ literally means ‘oblique’ or ‘transverse’ thinker and has the connotation of non-conformist or dissident, i.e., someone who ‘thinks differently’. (Thus, the English ‘queer’ appears to be derived from the German quer or to share a common etymological root with it.) The term has somehow become a term of disparagement in contemporary German usage.
It should be noted that Germany’s “Protestant Newspaper”, needless to say, regularly runs articles from its Protestant news agency.
The disclaimer goes on to cite a ‘fact-check’ from Germany’s public health authority, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), which virulently rejects any link between the vaccines and cancer and indeed goes on the attack against those suggesting there is one:
Alluding to such fears is a targeted strategy of opponents of vaccination, which is used again and again. They try to create an association between vaccinations and cancer using invented notions like ‘turbo cancer’.
“There is no scientific basis whatsoever for this supposed relationship,” the RKI concludes. Oddly enough, the RKI ‘fact-check’ makes no specific reference to mRNA vaccines here, even though it is obviously such vaccines which are at issue in this context. It only mentions the mRNA vaccines in passing later on, in order to praise the “ingenious idea” of using mRNA technology to fight cancer.
It should be noted that the original epd article already included contrary opinion, including from the German regulatory agency, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, which told the epd, somewhat elliptically, that it “has no indication that the COVID-19 vaccines authorised in Germany altered the human genome”.
Although the German public health authority is cited in the disclaimer, in response to a recent query by the German regional newspaper the Nordkurier, epd Editor-in-Chief Karsten Frerichs insisted that the agency had not come under any pressure from Government officials to withdraw the article, but merely reconsidered the wisdom of its publication after receiving inquiries from “private individuals”.
Peter Schleicher, the Munich-based immunologist cited in the article, calls its withdrawal “outrageous”, describing it as a “frontal assault on freedom of the press”. There is “a great deal of absolutely serious [scientific] literature which undergirds the suspicion” of a link between mRNA vaccines and cancer, he told the Nordkurier.
Robert Kogon is the pen name of a widely-published journalist covering European affairs. Subscribe to his Substack and follow him on X.
Why were German politicians so eager to vaccinate children, and why are they lying about it now?
eugyppius: a plague chronicle | November 18, 2023
Here is a riddle:
Why were German politicians so eager, in summer 2021, to vaccinate children? Why did they place public pressure on vaccine regulators to recommend child vaccination?
Even a few months ago, I would’ve said this was no great mystery. Before August 2021, everybody still operated on the insane assumption that the vaccines would eradicate Covid. They believed (or professed to believe) that a vaccination rate in excess of some magic number would end the pandemic, and that magic number was presumed to be unachievable if children were spared the jabs. I’d still say that was the case, but a recent news story has caused me to consider this question more deeply. Where did the specific pressure come from? What drove, for example, random regional ministers of education to mount their own appeals to vaccinate schoolchildren? What did these dumb people ever know about viruses or reproduction numbers or population immunity? What was going on?
There has been a lot of talk in the German press about the need for an appraisal of pandemic policies. This talk has flowed in directly inverse proportion to anybody’s willingness to actually appraise anything. Almost the only exception is the state parliament of Brandenburg, where Alternative für Deutschland are strong enough to have forced the convening of a Corona Investigatory Committee. The revelations so far have been extremely eye-opening, despite the limitation of the inquiry to Brandenburg and substantial obstruction from the political establishment.
The Committee publishes no protocols, many of their sessions are closed to the public, and with a few exceptions the media studiously avoids reporting on their work. Nevertheless, every time its members meet, something new and very bizarre comes to light. During their third session, in October, the Committee summoned Britta Ernst, Minister of Education in Brandenburg from 2017 to 2023, and also since 1998 the wife of Chancellor Olaf Scholz. At one point in the proceedings, Saskia Ludwig asked Ernst a very important question, namely the one that stands at the head of this post:
Why did Ernst advocate the vaccination of children in 2021?
The Nordkurier reports on the exchange that ensued:
Ernst had always campaigned in favour of vaccination and said in November 2021 that a “high vaccination rate” was “crucial for child welfare.” Ludwig asked … whether Ernst would repeat this statement given the current level of knowledge about the risk of side effects when vaccinating children against Covid.
Ernst … replied that the recommendation of STIKO [the Standing Committee on Vaccination] had been decisive for her.
STIKO “set the standard” and she had “no doubts about the work of STIKO,” which is why she had “naturally adopted their findings, which they make on a scientific basis.” Regarding her statement from November 2021, she said: “I suspect that this quote regarding the vaccination rate referred primarily to adults.” Ernst continued: “In addition, STIKO also recommended the vaccination of children and adolescents, and we followed this recommendation.”
In other words, Ernst was just Following the Science. She was just doing what the expert regulators of STIKO told her to do.
Except, that’s not true at all. Ernst was calling for the vaccination of teenagers as early as July 2021, well before that body had made any such recommendation. She was circulating flyers among Brandenburg schoolchildren that assured them they might even be able to get vaccinated without their parents’ permission. And what is more, she was even demanding that STIKO expand their recommendation to include everyone over 12 years of age.
From an rbb return-to-school article published on 29 July 2021:
The new school year begins in Brandenburg in just over a week. Primary school pupils will then be required to wear masks and there will continue to be plenty of ventilation. The Minister of Education believes that schools are in a good position – but there is still a need for action when it comes to vaccination.
Brandenburg’s Education Minister Britta Ernst (SPD) is calling for children and young people to be vaccinated from the age of 12 …
Until now, the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) has advised that 12 to 16-year-olds should only be vaccinated if they have certain preexisting conditions. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has already approved the vaccines from Moderna and Biontech/Pfizer for this age group.
Ernst called on STIKO to issue a clear recommendation in favour of these vaccinations. The committee has already established that the incidence of infection among children is not dangerous and that illnesses among children are not severe. “This gives us further support in favour of opening schools,” Ernst said. A clear recommendation from STIKO, however, would be “helpful in any case, because many parents are naturally unsure how they should act.”
It wasn’t just Ernst. The day before, the Minister President of Brandenburg, Dietmar Woidke, had also renewed his demands that STIKO approve the vaccines for healthy adolescents:
On rbb television, Brandenburg’s Minister President Dietmar Woidke (SPD) once again called for the vaccination of children aged twelve and over to be considered. “STIKO already recommends vaccination for children with pre-existing conditions,” Woidke said. He would welcome it if … STIKO were to make a recommendation for the vaccination of adolescents in view of the spread of the Delta variant. According to Woidke, Delta has increased the risks for children and adolescents. STIKO must now weigh “the risk posed by Covid and the risk that vaccines may pose to younger age groups.”
Confronted with these contradictions at the Committee last month, Ernst became oddly evasive. She said vaguely that “many parents were waiting for a recommendation from STIKO” and that she “seem[ed] to remember that children in other countries were already vaccinated.” She did not refer to Woidke or describe any broader discussions within the Brandenburg government, although demands for child vaccination were clearly bigger than her. Nor did she refer to pressure from teachers’ organisations or any specific epidemiological goals.
The excuse about parental pressure is very strange and unsatisfying, when you think about it. First, the vaccines had already been approved by the EMA for the 12-and-up group. Parents who really wanted to jab their kids just had to find a willing doctor. Second, and more importantly, it is not the job of state education ministers to pass the concerns of local jab-crazed parents on to national medical regulatory bodies in the media. Why can’t Ernst clearly describe her motives? Where did the demand to vaccinate children come from?
At another revealing moment, Ludwig asked Ernst about a pro-vaccine flyer circulated among Brandenburg schoolchildren. This flyer assured kids that “There are hardly any long-term side effects; the vaccine is broken down quickly by the body.” It also enthused that “In some cases, you can even be vaccinated without your parents’ consent.” Here, too, Ernst had no good answers. She would say only that the flyer merely described “the legal situation” and “that underage girls are given contraceptives by doctors without parental consent.”
I looked into this flyer, which is a creepy exercise in marketing vaccines to children. The version that was circulated in Thüringen is still online:
Ernst couldn’t say much about its contents because it came from on high. The flyer was funded by the Thüringen Health and Education ministries, and masterminded by odious health communicator, Erfurt professor and villain-of-the-blog Cornelia Betsch. In later months, Betsch would go on to advise the government on how to nudge German vaccine uptake higher. We are dealing with the upper reaches of the German vaccinator-industrial complex here, in other words. The flyer was designed according to interviews its authors conducted with teenagers at the Henfling Gymnasium in Meiningen, for the purposes of figuring out out how best to manipulate kids into getting excited about vaccines.
There are two things about this document that make it extremely obnoxious. The first is that it is full of highly manipulative propaganda. It tells children that “The virus spreads primarily among the unvaccinated,” that “if you are not vaccinated, you have a greater risk of becoming infected,” that “the virus is becoming more contagious,” that “it is very rare to be infected despite vaccination and it is rare to infect others” and that “if you are vaccinated, you also protect others who can’t be vaccinated.” It contains a specific section explaining that the vaccines won’t impact fertility, and so I expect it was targeted specifically at girls, for whom the get-vaccinated-to-protect-your-family subtext would be especially effective.
The second obnoxious point is that this flyer, advising teenagers to seek the jabs even in the absence of parental permission and providing them with the contact information of local vaccination centres, was published on 14 July 2021. That is, it came out in advance of any official STIKO recommendation that this age group should be jabbed at all, and just two weeks before leading Brandenburg politicians like Ernst and Woidke began calling for STIKO to expand their recommendations to include teenagers.
There was, then, an unauthorised child vaccination campaign underway in summer 2021, which consisted of vaccine propaganda circulated to school children on the one hand, public pressure on vaccine regulators on the other hand, and who knows what else on however many other hands. It was timed around the summer holidays, for the clear purpose of scaring children into seeking the jabs before they returned to school. For some reason, Ernst will not tell the Brandenburg parliament why she participated in this campaign, and she will not say who its orchestrators were.
FYI Archbishop Justin Welby, Jesus Would Not Approve
On the profound betrayal of Humanity by the leader of the Anglican Church
A Better Way to Health with Dr Tess Lawrie | November 18, 2023
One of the most troubling occurrences during Covid-19 was the collusion of formal religion with the supranational military-industrial-banking complex to induce our compliance with unlawful, unscientific and downright harmful Covid-19 policies.
The speed at which church doors were shut whilst big business continued its trading was anathema to most people. When places of worship did open, people had the fear of (science) God put into them by the corporate media, politicians and their trusted religious leaders alike. Sanitising rituals were demanded upon entry, social distancing within churches was enforced with tape and stickers, and various religious practices were modified or curtailed.
One of several images shared on social media of priests using toy guns to interact with people such as, in this instance, to conduct baptism rituals
Even singing in church was deemed dangerous. As such, it had to be done through face masks or was prohibited entirely. People not complying with these religio-political directives were often vilified, prevented from attending services and risked being cast out of their congregation. Fear of the latter kept many reluctantly acquiescent. Even my elderly parents regularly remarked how ridiculous, uncomfortable and de-humanising it was; how it was hard to breathe, let alone sing, through the mask – and how going to church just wasn’t the same.
Why was joy, love, compassion and trust so readily sent packing when Covid came along?
Why was the joy and community of regular Christian services systematically undermined? Why did religious leaders urge us to transfer our trust in ourselves and our spiritual relationships to conflicted scientists and politicians? Why were we encouraged to fear, instead of love and feel compassion for one another? And why was our faith abruptly deemed insufficient by religious leaders who fell quickly in step with directives from the New World Order planners?
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, may well know the answer to these questions. Welby has been the leader of the worldwide body of Anglican Christian churches since 2013. On the Anglican Communion website it states that, in the UK, ‘He is regarded as the nation’s senior Christian and spiritual voice,’ and is the ecclesiastical lead over 13,000 parishes. In addition, church leaders and millions of Christians across 165 countries are likely to be guided by his leadership.
Given his reach and responsibility, Archbishop Welby in my opinion may be responsible for the most profound betrayal of Humanity in two thousand years.
Mail Online article from 22 December 2021
When, in December 2021, the UK’s Daily Mail ran an article quoting Welby as suggesting that Jesus would get the [Covid-19] vaccine, I could barely believe it. At the time, there were well over two million reports of associated adverse Covid-19 vaccine reactions, including thousands of deaths, reported to the World Health Organisation’s Vigiaccess database; on the UK’s Yellow Card scheme, there were about 400,000 individual reports with around 2,000 fatalities.
The World Council for Health (WCH), which had been established in September 2021 to provide trustworthy guidance in the face of the harmful official Covid policies, had already commenced it’s ‘Cease and Desist Campaign’ to urgently raise awareness of these very concerning vaccine safety data and to advise vaccinators and others to stop vaccinating and promoting these novel injections. WCH had also published the Covid-19 vaccine spike protein detoxification guide.
The video accompanying the Daily Mail article on the 22nd December 2021 chilled me to the bone.
Urging people to get Covid-19 vaccinated, Welby emphasises in the Daily Mail video:
“It’s not about me and my rights. Now, obviously there are some people who for health reasons can’t go vaccinating – [that’s a] different question. But it’s not about me and my rights to choose, it’s about how I love my neighbour. To love one another as Jesus said: Get vaccinated. Get boosted.”
This announcement by the Archbishop, a figure of worldwide Christian authority, leveraging Jesus’ goodwill and our love for him against us to convince us to take Covid-19 injections should be a matter of great concern for all.
The Jesus I know would never have said that we should take as many vaccines as the military-industrial-banking complex tells us to.
He would never have promoted unsafe medical interventions that harm men, women, and children whilst lining the pockets of the rich; neither would he advocate for the derogation of individual sovereignty to state or supranational entities.
This is the antithesis of what Jesus stood for. Jesus healed with his hands and our faith. He stood for truth, justice, freedom and peace. Jesus was fighting the same corrupt system that exploits us today and targets our children from the shadows.
I’m not going to start unpicking all that I feel is so very evil about what Welby said. The way Welby used Jesus’ words to promote the agenda of the military-industrial-banking complex, which seemingly will stop at nothing to materialise its 2030 Great Reset agenda, is disgusting and disgraceful in my opinion. However, it is not up to me to forgive or to judge the Archbishop. Ultimately, Welby will have his Judgement Day, as will we all, and I’m very glad not to be in his shoes.
The Roman Empire that crucified Jesus is finally crumbling as its latter-day representatives reveal themselves to be, indeed, wearing the Emperors’ clothes. Thankfully, two thousand years later, all that has been hidden from us is being revealed. Evil will no longer be facilitated or tolerated in the world we are creating afresh together. It will no longer lurk in the shadows when we are done shining our lights on it.
A Better World for us, our children, and all creatures on this beautiful planet is being born. All that is required is that, in remembering who we are as human beings – courageous, firm and loving, following Jesus’ very human example – we take care of one another, draw on our collective power, breathe and push.
Featured Video
Patrik Baab: Europe’s New Iron Curtain – Freedom of Speech Dies
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Jack Ruby: Israel’s Smoking Gun
BY LAURENT GUYÉNOT • UNZ REVIEW • NOVEMBER 13, 2021
By a strange paradox, most Kennedy researchers who believe that Oswald was “just a patsy” spend an awful lot of time exploring his biography. This is about as useful as investigating Osama bin Laden for solving 9/11. Any serious quest for the real assassins of JFK should start by investigating the man who shot Oswald at pointblank in the stomach at 11:21 a.m. on September 24, 1963 in the Dallas Police station, thereby sealing the possibility that a judicial inquiry would draw attention to the inconsistencies of the charge against him, and perhaps expose the real perpetrators. One would normally expect the Dallas strip-club owner Jack Ruby to be the most investigated character by Kennedy truthers. But that is not the case. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Aletho News- Senator Rand Paul Introduces Federal Bill to END Vaccine Makers’ Liability Shield
- The Hidden Map: US and Israel May Use Unexpected Neighbors to Attack Iran
- Trump, Netanyahu Agree to Target Iranian Oil Exports to China
- Russia open to discussing Ukraine’s ‘external governance’ – senior diplomat
- US Caribbean Buildup Near $3B — Report
- Munich Security Conference and the U.S. elephant in the room
- Epstein Pitched JPMorgan Chase on Plan to Get Bill Gates ‘More Money for Vaccines’
- Germany’s CDU Pushes Real-Name Social Media Mandate and ID Checks
- Patrik Baab: Europe’s New Iron Curtain – Freedom of Speech Dies
- Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ exports Israeli ‘ceasefire’ diplomacy to the world
- If Americans Knew
- ISIS-linked border guards, GHF-linked aid – Not a ceasefire Day 128
- Israel battles Palestinian right of return, one Palestinian at a time – Not a ceasefire Day 127
- Noor’s short life of unimaginable suffering
- Israel Destroyed Gaza’s Hospitals. Now It’s Banning Doctors Without Borders.
- Is Spite of What Zionists Say, It’s a Good Thing to Criticize Governments
- Palestinian mother, daughter recount strip searches, harsh conditions in Israeli detention
- Israel used weapons in Gaza that made thousands of Palestinians evaporate
- ADL’s Stats Twist Israel’s Critics Into Antisemites
- Why Is the World Silent When the Gaza Genocide Is Not Over?
- In Gaza: 8,000 bodies under rubble, 3,000 missing – Not a ceasefire Day 126
- No Tricks Zone
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
Aletho News 