The UN has put out a number of concerning policy briefs and documents in the past 2 years and I will share them with you. This is the first :
First, now is the time to re-embrace global solidarity and find new ways to work together for the common good. This must include a global vaccination plan to deliver vaccines against COVID-19 into the arms ofthe millions of people who are still denied this basic lifesaving measure. Moreover, it must include urgentand bold steps to address the triple crisis of climate disruption, biodiversity loss and pollution destroying our planet.
Second, now is the time to renew the social contract between Governments and their people and within societies, so as to rebuild trust and embrace a comprehensive vision of human rights. People need to see results reflected in their daily lives. This must include the active and equal participation of women and girls, without whom no meaningful social contract is possible. It should also include updated governance arrangements to deliver better public goods and usher in a new era of universal social protection, health coverage, education, skills, decent work and housing, as well as universal access to the Internet by 2030 as a basic human right. I invite all countries to conduct inclusive and meaningful national listening consultations so all citizens have a say in envisioning their countries’ futures.
Third, now is the time to end the “infodemic” plaguing our world by defending a common, empirically backed consensus around facts, science and knowledge. The “war on science” must end. All policy and budget decisions should be backed by science and expertise, and I am calling for a global code of conduct that promotes integrity in public information.
Fourth, now is the time to correct a glaring blind spot in how we measure economic prosperity and progress. When profits come at the expense of people and our planet, we are left with an incomplete picture of the true cost of economic growth. As currently measured, gross domestic product (GDP) fails to capture the human and environmental destruction of some business activities. I call for new measures to complement GDP, so that people can gain a full understanding of the impacts of business activities and how we can and must do better to support people and our planet. [So clever how the wordsmiths portray the globalists’ desire to get rid of measures of economic activity as if this is linked to preventing environmental destruction!—Nass ]
Fifth, now is the time to think for the long term, to deliver more for young people and succeeding generations and to be better prepared for the challenges ahead. Our Common Agenda includes recommendations for meaningful, diverse and effective youth engagement both within and outside the United Nations, including through better political representation and by transforming education, skills training and lifelong learning. I am also making proposals, such as a repurposed Trusteeship Council, a Futures Lab, a Declaration on Future Generations and a United Nations Special Envoy to ensure that policy and budget decisions take into account their impact on future generations. We also need to be better prepared to prevent and respond to major global risks. It will be important for the United Nations to issue a Strategic Foresight and Global Risk Report on a regular basis, and I also propose an Emergency Platform, to be convened in response to complex global crises.
Sixth, now is the time for a stronger, more networked and inclusive multilateral system, anchored within the United Nations. Effective multilateralism depends on an effective United Nations, one able to adapt to global challenges while living up to the purposes and principles of its Charter. For example, I am proposing a new agenda for peace, multi-stakeholder dialogues on outer space and a Global Digital Compact, as well as a Biennial Summit between the members of the Group of 20 and of the Economic and Social Council, the Secretary-General and the heads of the international financial institutions. Throughout, we need stronger involvement of all relevant stakeholders, and we will seek to have an Advisory Group on Local and Regional Governments.
For 75 years, the United Nations has gathered the world around addressing global challenges: from conflicts and hunger, to ending disease, to outer space and the digital world, to human rights and disarmament. In this time of division, fracture and mistrust, this space is needed more than ever if we are to secure a better, greener, more peaceful future for all people. Based on this report, I will ask a High-level Advisory Board, led by former Heads of State and Government, to identify global public goods and other areas of common interest where governance improvements are most needed, and to propose options for how this could be achieved…
Readers of TCW will be familiar with Neville Hodgkinson’s critical reporting of the ‘Covid crisis’ since December 2020, notably his expert, science-based informed alarm about the mass ‘vaccine’ rollout, so absent from mainstream coverage. What they may be less aware of is the international storm this former Sunday Times medical and science correspondent created in the 1990s by reporting a scientific challenge to the ‘HIV’ theory of Aids, presaging the hostile response to science critics of Covid today. In this series, which concludes today, he details findings that form the substance of his newly updated and expanded book, How HIV/Aids Set the Stage for the Covid Crisis, on the controversy. It is available here. You can read Part 1 of this series here, Part 2 here, Part 3 here, Part 4 here, Part 5 here and Part 6 here.
This series has summarised a detailed, scientifically argued case that ‘HIV’, the purported viral cause of Aids, is a modern myth. Contrary to numerous assertions, ‘HIV’ has never been proven to exist through standard microbiological techniques. Yet huge amounts of taxpayer cash have been commandeered by the HIV/Aids industry for research and treatment, with more than 250 failed ‘HIV’ vaccine trials and an endless search for a cure.
Failures that led to the construction and maintenance of the HIV/Aids theory, and suppression of contrary evidence, are being repeated now with Covid. Worse will be to come while such high-level mistakes remain unacknowledged and uncorrected by the scientific and medical communities.
As we have seen, biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, who passed away last year at the age of 85, left an extraordinary scientific legacy. She led a group based in Perth, Western Australia – 2,000 miles from the nearest major city – that for 40 years quietly amassed a treasure trove of data deconstructing the ‘HIV’ theory in fine detail, and supporting her belief that Aids was not an infectious disease. Instead, she attributed it to a build-up of cell and tissue damage known as oxidative stress. This can arise when there is an imbalance, at the cell level, between toxic exposures and the body’s ability to deal with them.
She had at her side as fellow researcher, companion, and scribe Dr Valendar Turner, an emergency physician who first met her in 1980 when she brought her grandmother to the Royal Perth Hospital as a patient. Later, when she was working at the hospital herself in the medical physics department, they found a common interest in physics and biology.
‘When Aids came along I wandered into her office one day and announced “I see they’ve found the cause of Aids”, Turner recalled. ‘To which she replied, “Oh no they haven’t”. That’s how my involvement with Aids started.
‘I think what Eleni and I had in common was a great interest in the mechanism of everything biological. Although in my younger days I was focused on the mechanism of disease, I soon realised it was essential to figure out normalcy. Once united by Aids it was off and running.’
Another regular visitor was John Papadimitriou, Professor of Pathology at the University of Western Australia, who reviewed one of her papers on carcinogenesis. He became a founding member of the Perth group on its formation in 1981.
Other scientists have made huge sacrifices in fighting the HIV theory of Aids. They include microbiologist Professor Peter Duesberg, who as described in Part 2 of this series was a star of his profession for his pioneering work on retroviruses, of which HIV was claimed to be one, until he declared there was no way it could be causing Aids. His critique gained more attention than the Perth group’s work, but today he is derided as ‘a proponent of Aids denialism’, despite his challenge over HIV having been supported by an international alliance of scientists, doctors and other researchers. At one time, this included three Nobel laureates.
In 1995 Duesberg published Inventing the Aids Virus, a scholarly 700-page work which began by declaring: ‘By any measure, the war on Aids has been a colossal failure.’ He argued that ‘the lure of money and prestige, combined with powerful political pressures, tempted otherwise responsible scientists to overlook – even suppress – major flaws in Aids theory’.
Duesberg put forward what he called the drug/Aids hypothesis, which argued that heavy, long-term drug use was the main cause of Aids. He saved many lives through campaigning against the first ‘anti-HIV’ drug AZT, heavily promoted as the ‘gold standard’ of treatment but later found to have killed thousands. When its use was finally wound down, part of a reduction in disease and deaths that followed was mistakenly attributed to the drugs that replaced it.
The Perth scientists agree that heavy recreational drug use can be a principal cause of oxidative stress and Aids, and that AZT was worse than useless. Their theory goes wider, however. They share Duesberg’s view that Aids is not a sexually transmitted infectious disease, but argue that one of the main causes of both ‘HIV’-positivity and Aids is anally deposited semen. Numerous studies in homosexual men have shown that frequent, unprotected, receptive anal sex brings a high risk of testing positive, and subsequently developing Aids. No such risk is present for the exclusively insertive (semen-donating) individual.
In heterosexual studies the evidence is the same: the only sexual risk factor for acquiring a positive antibody test is passive anal intercourse. For Aids to appear, the Perth scientists say, a high frequency of receptive anal sex over a long period is necessary. In contrast to vaginal sex, semen in the back passage is retained and absorbed. The rectum is lined by only a single layer of absorptive cells, whereas the vagina has a multi-layered, skin-like protective lining.
Further evidence in support of this understanding includes the fact that semen is one of the most potent biological oxidants, and that it can be both carcinogenic and immunosuppressive. On top of that, rectal and colonic trauma accompanying passive anal sex – facilitating absorption of semen – are proven risk factors. Volatile nitrite inhalants, widely used in gay sex in the early years of Aids, are also potent oxidising agents and played a part in their own right.
‘The evidence shows that Aids is not a disease of sexual orientation but of sexual practices, passive anal intercourse in men and women,’ the Perth scientists say. ‘It is not the sexual act per se but high frequencies of passive anal intercourse with ejaculation combined with drug use and trauma to the intestinal lining which facilitate system absorption of semen and other toxins.’
This means that the ‘safe sex’ condom campaigns initiated by the gay community played a vital part in reducing deaths from Aids. They reduced exposure to semen, as well as to sexually transmitted infections circulating among some of the groups most at risk of developing Aids.
Pioneers of the virus theory felt supported in their belief that Aids was an STI by the fact that many early studies showed a relationship between different types of sexual activity and the presence or appearance of ‘HIV’ antibodies, for which almost all Aids patients tested positive.
This association was real. But it came about because of the flawed way the test was developed, not because a new virus was present. A positive test indicated elevated levels of the many immune-stimulating agents to which those in the Aids risk groups had been exposed. Epidemiologists and others documented such exposures from day one.
People who tested ‘HIV’ positive should never have been given to understand that they were under a death sentence, as was the case for many years because of the ‘lethal new virus’ belief. If exposure to the true causes of ‘HIV’-positivity is reduced or removed, the increased risk of ill-health will disappear unless the damage caused to the immune system is already irreversible. Testing ‘HIV’-positive should be regarded as signalling an effect of the toxic exposures and associated cell disorder that can lead to Aids. The mythical ‘HIV’ is not the cause.
This was seen particularly clearly in haemophiliacs. Early ways of treating their blood clotting disorder involved exposing them to concentrates made from blood donations from hundreds of thousands of people. Many tested positive as a result of this continuous challenge from foreign protein, and, tragically, were then given lethal doses of AZT.
When genetic engineering made it possible to produce the clotting factor they needed in a pure form, those who had previously tested ‘HIV-positive’ showed immediate signs of immune system recovery.
Similar results have been seen in drug addicts, another of the groups at risk of Aids. They can lose both their ‘HIV’ antibodies and risk of illness when they give up their habit.
Acceptance of this understanding would lift the curse of an ‘HIV’ diagnosis from millions, especially in poor countries where many diseases of poverty and malnutrition have been renamed Aids through misinterpretation and misuse of the unvalidated ‘HIV’ test.
Even after 40 years, there is no microbiological proof of sexual transmission based on the isolation of ‘HIV’ from genital secretions of index cases followed by tracing and testing of sexual contacts. Except in poor countries, Aids has stayed confined to groups at risk because of lifestyle factors rather than because of exposure to a genuine sexually transmitted infection.
Where does this leave us?
The Perth group’s website contains all the detailed references that support this radically different picture from what the world has been led to believe about Aids. It is not a wild challenge, but the fruit of four decades of dedicated work.
Error correction is supposed to be the bedrock of science. It is never too late. In all of recorded history, mistaken ideas arise and sometimes last for hundreds of years, until the damage they are causing finally brings about a rethink.
The gross mishandling of Covid has awakened many to the dangers of premature consensus in science, a consequence of too much power having been ceded to self-preserving, self-enriching agencies.
Can the ‘HIV’ story teach us a similar lesson? Or are we going to allow the global pandemic industry to keep us in a state of constant fear? Can Africans bring themselves to break free from the neo-colonial hold on the continent of western scientific and ‘philanthropic’ agencies?
Perhaps each of us will have to do more to strengthen ourselves if these failures are to be brought to an end. The best-selling author and psychologist Jordan Peterson declares that we must take a stand against the ‘blind and Luciferian, prideful and intellect-based top-down tyrannies of emergency and compulsion’ that will otherwise be our future.
As we become individually more powerful, he says, ‘we must take on more responsibility – or else. If we fail to rectify our personal pathologies of pride, envy, and a willingness to lie, we will find ourselves mired in conflict with the world, both natural and social – and in precise proportion to our refusal to check the devil within.’
The psychologist Carl Jung, also quoted by Peterson, made a similar call in his 1958 book The Undiscovered Self. Reason proves powerless to stop atrocities (such as the Nazi genocide), he wrote, when its arguments affect only the conscious mind, and not the unconscious.
The Covid and ‘HIV’ tragedies are both examples of how reason can fly out of the window on a mass scale. In their 2021 book Covid-19 and the Global Predators – We Are the Prey, Peter and Ginger Breggin maintain that ‘loose coalitions of money and influence’ pursuing a globalist agenda were able to exploit widespread fears for the future, causing many to believe in the need for lockdowns and mass vaccinations despite the immediately evident and enormous harm caused. With the ‘HIV’ hypothesis, factors leading to its instant acceptance included a generalised fear that the sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies had gone too far, alongside a genuine sympathy with the early gay victims of Aids.
With great prescience, Jung wrote: ‘It is becoming ever more obvious that it is not famine, not earthquakes, not microbes, not cancer but man himself who is man’s greatest danger to man, for the simple reason that there is no adequate protection against psychic epidemics, which are infinitely more devastating than the worst of natural catastrophes.’
In this video, I interview journalist Celia Farber about her recently republished book, “Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS.” As a young reporter working for SPIN magazine, Farber started questioning the official narrative around AIDS, and this book is the outgrowth of her decades-long investigation into and writing about this “hot potato” topic.
Long before censorship went mainstream, Farber was put through the wringer. In 2006, she published an article in Harper’s Magazine titled “Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science.” In it, she highlighted the work of virologist and retrobiologist Peter Duesberg, who insisted that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.
In my view, Duesberg was brilliant, but like so many other brilliant scientists, he was widely discredited for not going along with the narrative promoted by the conventional medical establishment.
As a result of her reporting, Farber was vehemently attacked by leading AIDS researchers and activists,1 so much so, she ended up suing three of the attackers for defamation. The New York County Supreme Court dismissed2 her claim in 2011 and upheld the verdict in 2013. Still, she did not quit or back down, and kept searching for the truth.
‘The Passion of Duesberg’
As explained by Farber, Duesberg worked at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, one of the most well-respected scientific institutions in the world. After moving to the United States, he became a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
In 1987, he published a paper in Cancer Research, proposing that retroviruses are not the cause of cancer, nor the cause of AIDS. According to his scientific biographer, this was the paper that “sealed his scientific doom forever after.” Farber notes:
“Duesberg mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses. So to him, yes, they were entities, but no, they didn’t do anything. They didn’t infect or kill cells. They were harmless. And he had phrases like, ‘HIV, that’s a pussycat. It’s not going to do anything. Saying that HIV is going to cause AIDS is like saying you’re going to conquer China by killing three soldiers a day.’
In other words, there’s no ‘there’ there. There was no cell death. And fascinatingly, or disturbingly, the HIV orthodoxy never contested that. So, I would say they had a supernatural belief in HIV. They would say, ‘We just know HIV causes AIDS,’ and anybody who doesn’t know that is dangerous, homophobic, murderous and so forth.”
Mid-Air Flip in the ‘Scientific Consensus’
As explained by Farber, up until Dr. Robert Gallo claimed he’d discovered HIV in his laboratory in 1984, and determined that it caused AIDS, the scientific consensus had been that retroviruses, as a class, were not pathogenic.
“So, there’s this very strange midair complete flip where everything changes overnight,” Farber says. “It’s like a revolutionary change, and the classical scientists of integrity were so thrown by this. They didn’t even attend the press conference.
They didn’t think there was any chance, as they said, that this would fly, this press conference where Robert Gallo announces that a so-called retrovirus is the cause of AIDS.
Back to Peter. What he does that’s so monumental in the history of American science, post 1980s, is that he, first of all, dissents. And he has no idea that he’s doing anything dangerous, never mind career annihilating. And he’s conducting himself as a scientist should. He’s innocent in what he’s doing, and it’s like a building just falls on him.
Next thing you know, his name becomes synonymous with ‘wrong, dangerous, homophobic, murderous.’ And then this culture kicks in where it becomes a sport and a career advancement to trash Duesberg if you have anything to do with AIDS research.
It was gladiatorial. They went out of their way to come up with lurid and hideous things to say about him. And it went all over the international press. So, he became this scapegoat for the errors and crimes of [Dr. Anthony] Fauci’s AIDS apparatus.
Meanwhile, over in AIDS land, everything they were predicting and terrorizing people with was not coming true at all, was not panning out, whereas Duesberg’s predictions and critiques were panning out exactly. And the more he was right and they were wrong, the more trashed he got.
So, in a sense, what I’ve covered is not just about the nitty-gritty of the science and who’s correct. It’s about this moment of where science becomes, under Tony Fauci, ‘woke.’ It wasn’t called woke then. It was then called political correctness.
So, in other words, ‘AIDS spreads like this or like that and is going to affect everybody,’ because that’s what we’re supposed to say politically, not because that’s true biologically or epidemiologically. So, we’re all stuck now in this brand new era where you get flogged for observing 2+2 = 4 …
The question fascinated me because I just couldn’t square the circle. How come these guys over here are all saying this, and then this top scientist is saying this, and then others rallied around him? Kary Mullis, who invented PCR, and was a staunch defender and friend of Duesberg, always said, ‘He’s absolutely right.’
So, the dissent movement was saying, ‘There must be proof in science.’ Gallo provided no proof that HIV was the cause of AIDS or a coherent pathogen. So, it just kept growing and growing, and with a few exceptions, I had the field to myself. Nobody wanted to interview these people because it was absolutely radioactive to your career, and I can certainly attest to that.
I actually didn’t realize it was dangerous. I was naïve. And I was already way too far out at sea when the bludgeoning began and I realized how dangerous it, in fact, was, and that the people we were up against were of a much more dangerous variety than I had realized.”
Fauci’s Legacy: A Lifelong Suppression of Science
Farber’s experience is proof positive that even four decades before Fauci sold us on his destructive COVID protocols, he had the power to destroy people and convince the entire country to support a fake narrative.
“Let me speak a little bit how he did that, having lived through it. Let’s say that an editor at a major magazine or newspaper became interested in a story and thought to get a reporter on it. Somehow, he had, I guess it was a surveillance network. He knew and went in there, and somehow the story dies. The reporter gets taken off it. The show gets canceled.
I had one friend who had a major local ABC show. It was a new talk show, and he had Duesberg on and myself. The next thing you know, the whole show is canceled, and he never worked again. It was GDR [German Democratic Republic] stuff and it was across the board. It was 100% consistent that anybody who touched it [was warned they’d be destroyed] … That was their word, ‘destroy.’
One top level AIDS researcher named John P. Moore sent out an open declaration of war [against AIDS] ‘denialists’ that said, ‘We will crush you. We crush all of you.’ So that was the climate of it. Now, after all these years, I’m realizing they were part of something much larger.
They were part of this new revolutionary, post-modern, 2+2 does not equal 4 science. ‘It is whatever we tell you it is.’ They created that empire of terror during AIDS, for sure.
It’s just that not that many people knew about it because it was still within the corridors of certain risk groups and some unfortunate journalists or scientists who got caught up in it. Then with COVID, they threw a much bigger net because … it was a little more difficult to get people into the trap.”
The PCR Scam and Suppression of Useful Drugs
As with COVID-19, one of the key tools used to promote the “HIV causes AIDS” narrative was the use of the PCR test, which the inventor, Mullis, was vehemently against.
The PCR was used to measure “viral load,” which was supposed to give you a sense of how sick or well you could expect to be. This kept HIV-positive patients going back to the doctor to get tested repeatedly. But it was nothing more than a numbers game, just as it was during COVID.
There are other similarities to what happened with COVID, including the vilification and discrediting of scientists and therapies that could effectively address the disease. Just like they vilified ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, even going out of their way to fund fraudulent studies to discredit these drugs, they did the same during the AIDS epidemic.
For example, bactrim was an inexpensive drug that effectively treated AIDS-related pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, which was frequently fatal. This drug, like ivermectin, was withheld. Instead, Fauci insisted AIDS patients be treated with AZT, a horrendously toxic and expensive cancer drug that was never proven to work, and which killed hundreds of thousands of AIDS patients.
“AZT is one of the darkest, most shocking chapters. AZT was a chemotherapy compound that was shelved in the early ’60s for being too toxic for human use. For reasons that cannot be fathomed, they pulled that compound out of the drawer, put it in capsule form and made it the first drug to treat AIDS, a condition of immune devastation …
The estimate I’ve heard is that upward of 300,000, mostly gay men, died from high-dose AZT in the early years. That’s 1,200 to 1,800 milligrams. All of a sudden, Fauci drops the dose to 500 mg and people start dying less, which incredibly he spun into that he was saving lives because they lowered the dose of what was killing people.
So, a lot of these dark tricks are exactly the same as COVID. AZT was a black swan event, I would say, in medicine. But what it achieved, that we’re still suffering from, was this demolition of the formerly conservative FDA drug approval process, which was turned into something bad, evil. ‘You only support [the FDA drug approval process] if you hate people and you want them to die. You want it to take 10 years to test a drug? That’s cruel’ …
So, a lot of what we’re in today, like these insane ways of medicating and treating people without any regard for safety or possibility of death, a lot of these concepts were put into place during the AIDS epidemic.”
AIDS Activists Played Into Fauci’s Hands
Farber also reviews how AIDS activists empowered Fauci to circumvent historical safety protocols to get experimental drugs to patients as quickly as possible. AIDS activists also acted as Fauci’s foot soldiers or henchmen in that they helped him quash the opposition. In many ways we saw this during COVID as well. People brainwashed into believing masks could block viruses, for example, acted as civilian enforcers of Fauci’s clearly unscientific recommendations.
“It’s a good question ‘Who was Fauci in the beginning there?’ How did he transform into somebody so ruthless, so unaccountable? And I’m being nice right now. As an historian of all of this, I place a lot of credence in the symbiosis between Fauci and the AIDS activists, because the AIDS activists were revolutionary, and they did have a revolutionary creed, which was, ‘By any means necessary, we demand what we demand.’
And [Fauci] was a bureaucrat. A trained Jesuit … I think he’s a perfect general in a much bigger war that seeks to destroy many things outside of science. That’s my take on it. I think this is the big international war that seeks domination over human beings, period. Full stop. And these spectral virus diseases are a good revolutionary tool to get us there.
We made the mistake of seeing them as genuine outbreaks of something … I don’t believe any of that anymore. I think this is all part and parcel of the great leap forward.”
Fauci Spent a Lifetime Undermining Health Wisdom
Farber continues:
“One thing Fauci really honed over so many years is that nothing [but drugs or vaccines] makes a difference. There’s no terrain. Nutrition doesn’t matter. No research went to that, and it was absolutely scorned, again, both by Fauci and by the AIDS activists and so forth.
So, it was a culture of ‘You’re a machine, you’ve got this bad bug in you.’ It’s the machine model of biology. The bad bug is eating up your T-cells on an algorithm that’s inevitable and unstoppable, and nothing will influence that. Getting out in the sun, swimming in the ocean, eating well, what you think, whether you meditate or pray, none of that’s going to affect it.
So, in that sense, he’s advocating for a complete inversion of everything we all know to be true about health. And that’s really his legacy. He spent 40, 50 years getting Americans to think about everything else but how to stay healthy.”
How We Can Undermine the Public Health Tyranny
In addition to that, Fauci has also played a central role in furthering the ideology of technocracy and transhumanism, which aims to implement a One World Government under the veil of global biodefense. What we’re facing now is public health tyranny, in the sense that food and medicine are being turned into tools to control and manipulate entire populations.
“With AIDS, there was still choice,” Farber says. “You were heavily brainwashed. But if you got tested and you tested HIV positive, you still had a choice to take the drugs or not. What they are going to do next is, of course, what we’re all worried about.
I think people are largely woken up, very much so. But does it matter how awake you are if they have seized control of the whole apparatus of functional life? That’s what we have to stop, and I want to talk about how. How is that done? I think, by and large, it’s done by keeping your body healthy, keeping your mind clear, keeping your soul clear, and then you can go from there.
We can’t necessarily control whatever they’re going to try to do. But the good news is, to my mind, how stupid they are, how sloppy they are, how many mistakes they’ve made, and how much people hate them right now.”
Editor’s note: This is the first in a three-part series examining key questions in the public debate on the safety of wireless radiation. Part I addresses the question, How did the FDA arrive at its position on cellphones and cancer?
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims there’s not enough scientific evidence to link cellphone use to health problems — but according to Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, a toxicologist and epidemiologist, the FDA’s claim is untrue and misleading.
Davis spoke with The Defender about the important backstory leading up to the FDA’s position on cellphone radiation as it relates to human health.
To support its statement — that “the weight of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phone use with any health problems” — the FDA references a 2008-2018 literature review it conducted on radiofrequency(RF) radiation and cancer.
After completing the review, the FDA stated: “To date, there is no consistent or credible scientific evidence of health problems caused by the exposure to radio frequency energy emitted by cell phones.”
However, Davis said the FDA’s review was never signed. In other words, the names of the individuals who authored the report were never publicly released.
Davis has authored more than 200 peer-reviewed publications in books and journals, ranging from the Lancet to the Journal of the American Medical Association. She is the founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National Research Council at the National Academy of Sciences and the founder and president of Environmental Health Trust.
Davis, who worked as a scientific adviser under multiple presidential administrations said, “Normally, when you have a review at that high level it’s quite consequential and it’s always signed.”
“The reason it was unsigned, I believe,” Davis told The Defender, “is because no one in the FDA was willing to put their name behind such a piece of junk. It was absolute nonsense,” she said. “It ignored many publications and only relied on an incredibly skewed interpretation of the literature — and I’m being generous when I say it like that.”
Davis pointed out that the FDA issued the review shortly after the National Toxicology Program (NTP) completed its multi-year $30 million study on cellphone radiation.
In that study, NTP researchers concluded there was “clear evidence” that male rats exposed to high levels of RF like that used in 2G and 3G cellphones developed cancerous heart tumors, and “some evidence” of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats.
The NTP for decades has been the premier governmental testing program for pharmaceuticals, chemicals and radiation, said Davis, who served on the board of scientific counselors for the NTP when it was first started in the 1980s.
‘Gold Standard’ NTP study findings suppressed
Davis told The Defender that the government had access to a “gold standard program testing with positive results” that were consistent with and corroborated dozens of other studies. “It wasn’t like it [the NTP study] was a one-off study,” she said.
Once the word got out that the findings of the NTP study were positive — meaning the government researchers had found an association between cellphone radiation and the growth of cancerous tumors — the telecommunication industry “started its tactics” to suppress the findings, Davis said.
Davis has been researching such tactics for more than a decade. This fall she plans to release a new edition of her 2010 book, “Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family.”
Instead of the NTP study report being released in 2016 when it was first ready, she said, the telecom industry exerted pressure to subject the study’s conclusions to an unprecedented level of scrutiny.
“When the first drafts began to circulate internally, it was elevated for a peer review unlike any that has ever been conducted in the history of the entire program — and I can say that with great certainty. No other compound or substance [studied by the NTP] has ever been subject to this level of peer review,” Davis said.
However, rather than downplaying the study’s conclusions, the experts concluded that the scientific evidence in the study was so strong that they recommended the NTP reclassify some of its conclusions from “some evidence” to “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity.
Davis — who attended the three-day review — said, “The reviewers that had been picked were people who were top-of-the-game toxicologists from Proctor and Gamble, from [Nokia] Bell Labs. [They were] industry toxicologists, but they were straight-up people.”
Davis said many of the experts spoke with her privately. “The woman from Proctor and Gamble was concerned about her kids. She said, ‘This [cellphone radiation] is not appropriate.’ I said, ‘Yes, that’s what we’ve been trying to say for some time.’”
More than 250 scientists — who together have published over 2,000 papers and letters on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produced by wireless devices, including cellphones — signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for health warnings and stronger exposure limits.
FDA rejects study it solicited, ‘spins’ it as faulty
When the experts’ review of the NTP study was released, the FDA — which in 1999 requested the study and reviewed all its protocols, interim reports and final reports — the agency in November 2018, repudiated the study and in February 2020, released the unsigned literature review that criticized the study.
“They [the FDA] suddenly said, ‘Well, the exposure chambers [used in the study] are not relevant to humans. The [radiation] levels were too high,’” Davis said. “They were not.”
Davis was not alone in disagreeing with the FDA’s rejection of the NTP study. More than 20 scientists, including Davis, wrote a letter calling on the FDA to retract the literature review. Many scientists individually wrote to the FDA as well.
Moreover, the Environmental Health Trust wrote a 188-page report on the FDA’s inaccuracies in its research review and safety determinations about cellphone radiation.
Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, who has researched cellphone radiation for over a decade, identified nine “biased statements” made about the NTP study that “tend to create doubt about data quality and implications.”
In “SPIN vs FACT: National Toxicology Program report on cancer risk from cellphone radiation,” Moskowitz lists and counters each statement. For example, Moskowitz noted that the claim the study’s conclusions were faulty was rebutted by the study report itself.
Moskowitz also pointed out that Christopher Portier, Ph.D., a retired head of the NTP who helped launch the study and still sometimes works for the federal government as a consultant scientist, told Scientific American, “This is by far — far and away — the most carefully done cell phone bioassay, a biological assessment.”
How telecom industry war-gamed study’s results to manufacture doubt
According to Davis, the telecom industry has for decades influenced governmental agencies such as the FDA to “manufacture doubt” about scientific studies — such as the NTP study — that do not benefit it.
She pointed out that in the early 1990s, Motorola launched a “disinformation campaign to confuse the public.” According to the Environmental Health Trust:
“When first reports that cell phone radiation could damage DNA emerged from the laboratory of Henry Lai and N.P. Singh [both researchers at the University of Washington, Seattle] in the 90’s, a memo written by Motorola to their media advisors in 1994 announced the clear strategy that remains alive and well: war-game the science.”
The “wargame” memo — first released by Microwave News (see page 13) — showed that Norman Sandler of Motorola’s corporate communications department on Dec. 13, 1994, wrote to Michael Kehs of the Burson-Marsteller public relations firm in Washington to plan how Motorola would respond to Lai and Singh’s findings.
Sandler and Kehs had a three-point plan to impede further scientific research on how cellphone radiation might cause DNA damage and to create public doubt in such studies. The plan involved:
Delaying — or halting — Lai and Singh from continuing their DNA research.
Preventing other scientists from replicating the study, or carefully selecting scientists who would.
Convincing the press and the public using industry-selected scientists that the Lai-Singh DNA study results were of marginal importance and with questionable relevance in regard to the question of whether cellphones are safe for humans.
“I think we have sufficiently war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue, assuming SAG [the Scientific Advisory Group] and CTIA [the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association] have done their homework,” Sandler said.
Sandler said Motorola’s executive vice president was “adamant” that the industry come up with a “forceful one- or two-sentence portion of our standby statement that puts a damper on speculation arising from this research.”
Sandler proposed the industry say:
“While this work raises some interesting questions about possible biological effects, it is our understanding that there are too many uncertainties — related to the methodology employed, the findings that have been reported and the science that underlies them — to draw any conclusions about its significance at this time.”
“That exact message,” Davis said, “keeps getting repeated and is well-funded to create doubts.”
She added:
“The [telecom] industry has been very effective in their war games against science and scientists. We have to do a better job of clarifying the science and countering misleading and selective data from industry.”
Next in this series: What’s behind the 5G rollout?
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.
In summer 2021, the private messaging forum that HART used was illegally hacked and our private conversations downloaded. Within 24 hours we were contacted by a small company called Logically AI who told us they were going to publish the conversations. This small company had a contract with the government worth over a million pounds of taxpayer’s money. The government may have thought it got its money’s worth when MPs who had been talking to members of HART decided they needed to keep a wide berth. However, the basis of the ‘discrediting’ was laughable.
On 27th July 2021, this article was published concluding with the following “factcheck”:
Figure 1: Concluding figure from Logically AI’s attempt to discredit HART
Let’s see how each of those “facts” have held up over time.
1.mRNA vaccines cannot be considered vaccines
A vaccine has a particular meaning in the minds of the public as an injection that teaches the immune system in order to prevent an infection. Official definitions have changed the meaning so that it could include these novel products. The CDC changed the definition twice since 2015.
In early 2015 a vaccine was an “Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease.” That year it changed to,“The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
Overnight the requirements that the intervention be inert and prevent disease were removed. By September 2021 the definition was changed again to: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.” Any internal treatment for any disease now fits the CDC definition of vaccine. However, whatever official definitions say does not change public understanding of a word.
While it was claimed that the covid vaccines could prevent infection which led to their regulatory approvals, these claims have all been abandoned in light of the real world evidence.
What the manufacturers say about their products in documents filed in accordance with financial regulatory requirements is instructive.
Moderna said, ““mRNA has been characterised as a Gene Therapy Medicinal Product… the association of our investigational medicines with gene therapies could result in increased regulatory burdens, impair the reputation of our investigational medicines, or negatively impact our platform or our business.” BioNTech also described their products as gene therapies.
Being a gene therapy does not mean that it will interfere with cellular DNA but it does mean that certain specific and more stringent testing is required. Instead, the shortened regulatory pathway designed for influenza vaccines (developed via a well-established egg based platform) was used. This pathway should never have been used for a novel platform like the covid vaccines.
2. Vaccine trials on children and young people were ‘rushed’
This point can be extended to all vaccine trials. The programme was, if you remember, referred to as “operation warp speed”. How can you have “warp speed” without rushing?
Basic medical ethics includes the principle that children are never given new drugs until there is a well established safety record in adults. For the covid vaccines the number needed to vaccinate in order to prevent a single death was a hundred thousand or more for young people, however the rate of serious adverse events, even in the trials, was 1 in 800.
The trials that were done on children were extremely small, with only 1131 adolescents vaccinated and followed for a minimum of 1 month from their second dose before approving for this age group. Efficacy calculations excluded all covid infections occurring prior to 7 days after the second dose. Antibody levels were also assumed to be a marker for likely efficacy, despite there being no antibody level which ensures protection against covid infection. The government wording says, the product aims “to generate neutralising antibodies, which may contribute to protection against COVID-19.” This is not based on any scientific evidence, merely hope.
The worst children’s trial was the one for under 5 year olds where approvals were pushed through using antibody levels only, as a marker of success rather than expending more time to measure an impact on actual levels of covid. They also changed the efficacy requirement for approval from 50% to 30%. When the two planned doses failed to induce antibodies, they simply added a third dose in just a fraction of the children. This elicited an antibody rise, but also apparently resulted in more significant covid infections in those vaccinated. 97% of the covid cases in the study were ignored in the FDA presentation from Pfizer.
3. Lockdown policies are ineffective against covid
With the passage of time it is now clear that every covid wave rises and peaks naturally. The peaks fall at predictable times of year. The claims that all spread was through close contact, everyone was susceptible and asymptomatic spread was a key driver were all false assumptions.
Having considered the reality about these three claims it is clear that long distance aerosol transmission was a key driver of spread. Lockdowns can do nothing to prevent that. Since Logically AI wrote this article, it has become obvious that even the most brutal lockdowns, leaving people starving at home and killing their pets, did not stop the spread of covid in China. In fact every attempt at lockdown suppression in South East Asia and Australasia failed in January 2022.
A meta-analysis of 32 papers by a group at John Hopkins University analysed the effect of lockdown, concluding that “lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, loss of life quality, and the undermining of liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are little to none.”
4. Vaccine can make the recipient magnetic
Don’t rush to think this must be imaginary. Here is a video where unsuspecting recently vaccinated people were tested to see if their arms were magnetic. Most were not, but a surprising number were – 6 out of 15 tested. You can watch full video here.
Some HART members experienced this themselves and there was no question that this was magnetism – with a genuine pulling force.
So what was the cause of this? There are various steps to the manufacturing process including one in which separation of the mRNA is necessary. Some manufacturers used tiny magnetic beads to carry out this step, although which manufacturers used which techniques and to what extent is hard to know.
All that it would take to make someone’s arm magnetic would be for contamination of the vaccine vial with some of these beads. It is now well established that there was significant contamination with bacterial DNA and likely endotoxins. Is it possible that magnetic beads were also contaminants in some vials?
No-one in HART claims to be omniscient and we are constantly challenging and testing each other’s viewpoints. We believe in open scientific debate and that can only happen if people are allowed to occasionally be wrong. However, looking back at the reviews that we wrote in March 2021, they have all stood the test of time (see our 2022 revisits for what changed).
Even the private, more speculative conversations that were had in private have also stood the test of time. The reason this is the case is that all were based on well-established basic science and on real-world evidence. It is a travesty that the same cannot be said for the official narrative. Powerful people claimed that fantasy modelling and beliefs based only on assumptions were “The Science” and when those proved to be baseless, they resorted to complaining that people had lost their trust in science. They have no-one to blame but themselves.
In order to fully believe in the covid cult there were numerous beliefs all of which had to be believed. Disbelieving any one of them would cause the whole house of cards to collapse.
1. There was a virus that our immune systems would consider novel
AND
2. There were catastrophic levels of excess deaths
AND
3. Those excess deaths were caused by the virus
AND
4. The “measures” were necessary to prevent more deaths
AND
5. The “measures” were the only thing that could be done
AND
6. The measures worked
AND
7. The measures weren’t so harmful as to be worse than the virus
Zero covid ended when the belief in point 6 collapsed, even while the other beliefs were maintained. A similar series of beliefs are necessary to sign up to the official narrative regarding climate change.
1. The earth is warming
AND
2. The warming is caused exclusively by atmospheric CO2 levels
AND
3. The major driver of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic
AND
4. The warming will be destructive
AND
5. There is only one solution
AND
6. That solution will work
It is only necessary to introduce doubt on one of the beliefs for the whole net zero scheme to collapse. With the recently reported sudden surge in ocean temperatures followed afterwards by a rise in CO2 levels, points 2 and 3 are both starting to look very shaky.
Neither narrative is open to nuance. Neither invites any questioning. Both of them are a shortcut to global tyranny.
Last week, in a significant victory for free speech, a federal court stepped in to curb potential overreach by the Biden administration in its collaboration with social media platforms to suppress online content. The court ruling, issued by US District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana on Tuesday caused critics to complain that it hinders the administration’s efforts to counter online conspiracy theories and “disinformation.”
But in the usual doublespeak in an interview with MSNBC, the former head of the government’s controversial Disinformation Governance Board Nina Jankowicz claims that the government flagging content that goes against Big Tech’s policies has “nothing to do with censorship” and “is not about removing speech.”
“This is a weaponization of the court system. It is an intentional and purposeful move to disrupt the work that needs to be done ahead of the 2024 election, and it’s really chilling,” she said to the Guardian.
The ruling inhibits key federal agencies and officials from intervening in the content posted on tech platforms. It has been suggested that without such a check in place, the government’s efforts could easily spill over into manipulating public discourse and controlling information, with potentially dangerous effects on free speech and political balance.
The injunction comes as conservative leaders and groups have been vocal in their opposition, accusing the Biden administration of collusion with social media companies in an attempt to suppress conservative viewpoints.
Judge Doughty supported the arguments of Republican attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri who filed the lawsuit. They contend that the Biden administration’s tactics infringe on First Amendment rights to free speech. He expressed the sentiment that the government seemed to be exploiting its power to stifle opposing voices, and he ominously compared the handling of social media content by the administration during the COVID pandemic to the “Orwellian Ministry of Truth.”
Nina Jankowicz, a former government appointee to lead a new Department of Homeland Security unit aimed at countering online misinformation, has defended the government’s actions, insisting that they do not amount to censorship. However, critics might question her impartiality, considering she was initially named as a defendant in the case but was later removed due to no longer holding a governmental role.
Adding to the controversy, this unit was swiftly disbanded after facing intense criticism from conservatives who claimed it was stifling conservative speech. This has led some to question whether the government’s efforts to fight misinformation are truly unbiased or, as many suspect, are a veiled attempt to suppress dissenting opinions.
The ruling, which temporarily bars several agencies and officials from pressuring social media companies to remove or delete “protected free speech,” sends a strong message that government interference in the digital public square must be carefully scrutinized. This order stands as an affirmation of the fundamental right to free speech.
Readers of TCW will be familiar with Neville Hodgkinson’s critical reporting of the ‘Covid crisis’ since December 2020, notably his expert, science-based informed alarm about the mass ‘vaccine’ rollout, so absent from mainstream coverage. What they may be less aware of is the international storm this former Sunday Times medical and science correspondent created in the 1990s by reporting a scientific challenge to the ‘HIV’ theory of Aids, presaging the hostile response to science critics of Covid today. In this series he details findings that form the substance of his newly updated and expanded book, How HIV/Aids Set the Stage for the Covid Crisis, on the controversy. It is available here. You can read Part 1 of this series here, Part 2 here, Part 3, Part 4 here and Part 5 here.
COVID has shown how the scientific and medical professions, which have done so much to improve our lives, can go badly off track when fear, and big money, come into play. Most doctors failed to resist lockdowns and vaccines, despite the violation of research and medical ethics on an unprecedented scale. Thanks to the internet, groups such as HART and many individual health professionals were able to register their protests, but still about two-thirds of the global population took a Covid vaccine which was neither safe nor effective. Around the world, concerned individuals are asking how such a disaster could have happened and how it may be prevented from happening again.
These developments have increased the relevance and importance of a long-neglected scientific challenge to the very existence of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), the purported cause of Aids. Acceptance of the HIV theory of Aids 40 years ago brought a goldmine for the medical research community and pharmaceutical industry, generating hundreds of billions of dollars for trials and treatments. This flood of money also brought advances in molecular biology that contributed to the creation of the genetically engineered Covid virus, SARS-CoV-2, and the mRNA gene therapy technology on which most Covid vaccines are based.
Yet a vaccine against HIV that in 1984 was promised to be available within two years is still not on the horizon. That is after more than 250 failed trials – and still the funds are flowing. Also, despite drugs that can support patients with genuine immune deficiency, there is no cure for the purported HIV infection. ‘Anti-HIV’ drugs, now also marketed as a supposed preventive against infection, often prove toxic when taken for long periods. Lawsuits over resulting kidney and bone damage have been lodged by thousands of patients across America.
After four decades, might these failures indicate that the most studied infectious agent in history is an emperor with no clothes? That is the view of a group of scientists based in Perth, Western Australia, on whose work this series is based.
Contrary to what nearly everyone believes, public health experts knew from the start that the HIV test could not be used to diagnose Aids. This was because the proteins used in the test were not obtained from purified virus particles. It meant that the antibodies the test purports to detect were never shown to specify the presence of a new virus. But the experts, meeting under the auspices of the World Health Organization in 1986, put their reservations aside. The HIV wagon was on a roll and it was considered ‘just not practical’ to stop it. The theory suited so many purposes that it became a fact without the data to support it.
The same uncritical acceptance greeted claims by the HIV pioneers Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo to have sequenced a full-length genome for the virus. That, surely, meant HIV was no figment of the imagination? And yet, according to a case painstakingly assembled by the Perth group, the genome claims were just as ill-founded as those for the antibody test.
Our bodies teem with genetic activity, responding to the demands of life. Levels of activity vary within cells, and in communications between them. Genes code for proteins, and when production of a particular protein needs to be increased, such as for tissue repair or to fight disease, tiny structures called exosomes carrying specific coded instructions, both as RNA and DNA, are generated by cells.
When cells break down, a ‘soup’ of genetic material may be released. Failure to recognise these confounding factors, or to have valid controls in place to make sure the laboratory work was not producing misleading results, contributed to the construction of the ‘deadly new virus’ story.
HIV is claimed to be a retrovirus, a microbe that inserts a DNA copy of its RNA genome into the DNA of a host cell. To prove that a fragment of RNA is the genome of a retrovirus, it must be distinguished from other genetic material by showing that it originates from a retroviral particle. Yet, as previously described, with ‘HIV’ no such particles have ever been demonstrated to exist.
Genetic sequences that Gallo and Montagnier took to be the virus’s genome were of a type called messenger RNA (mRNA), identifiable through a ‘tail’ comprised entirely of the nucleotide adenine, one of the four building blocks of the genetic code. Gallo and colleagues maintained that finding these sequences, known as poly (A) RNA, meant finding a retrovirus, but once again, that was a false assumption. Poly (A) RNA is non-specific. Cells use it as an intermediate between DNA and the production of proteins, and fragments of it appear in a centrifugation process used to try to purify retrovirus particles, ‘banding’ at the same density.
This is why it is so important to use electron microscopy to show that particles with the characteristics of a retrovirus are clearly present in the banded material. The Perth scientists say that since no one has achieved that, then or since, there is no way of identifying ‘HIV’ proteins and genome and determining their roles and properties. Nowhere in the scientific literature is there proof of the existence of the HIV genome based on extraction of RNA from purified retroviral particles.
Gallo’s work was suspect from the start, as a two-year Office of Scientific Integrity investigation into his laboratory practices found. A cell line which he claimed to have infected with HIV was not exposed to material from an individual Aids patient, but to culture fluids from first three and ultimately from ten patients. The inquiry found this to be ‘of dubious scientific rigour’ (one scientist called it ‘really crazy’). Nevertheless, it formed part of the sequence of events that led to the construction and acceptance of the theory that a new virus had been identified as the cause of Aids, a theory whose reverberations are still affecting millions today.
Segments of the purported HIV genome can be detected through amplification with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, and are often wrongly used to confirm an ‘HIV’ diagnosis. The segments vary by as much as 30-50 per cent (compared with less than two per cent between the human and chimpanzee genomes). This huge variability is much more consistent with the sequences being newly generated within abnormally stimulated cells than from a virus for which no researcher has ever published proof of purification.
The abnormal stimulus can come from chemicals used on cells in the laboratory, or from the many agents, chemical and biological, to which Aids patients or those at risk of Aids are liable to be exposed. The common factor is the ‘shock’ to the cells (a term used by Nobel laureate geneticist Barbara McClintock for stimuli that rearrange DNA), not the common presence of a mythical virus. This interpretation is supported by the finding of so-called ‘HIV’ sequences from tumour tissue in several types of cancer.
It means that an army of people around the world are testing for a virus never proved to exist, using proteins and genetic sequences often originating from normal (albeit abnormally stimulated) cells.
Countless articles and letters in which the Perth scientists tried to convey this critique were rejected, over many years, by scientific and medical journals. In February 2003, however, a paper published in the British Medical Journal sparked an intensive, 26-month-long online correspondence, involving 842 postings, in which it looked as though the group might at last be heard.
Several exchanges were with Brian Foley, custodian of an HIV database at Los Alamos, New Mexico, who ultimately agreed that RNA selected by Gallo was the basis for what is considered to be the HIV genome, and that it was of a type not specific to retroviruses. He also agreed that it originated from the centrifugation density band used to look for retroviruses, and that there was no proof the band contained actual virus particles. Nevertheless, Foley insisted Gallo’s RNA should be seen as the HIV genome. His grounds for doing so were that when a copy (‘molecular clone’) of the RNA was introduced into a cell culture, it resulted in the production of infectious retrovirus particles with the same appearance and constituents as the parent virus.
But when pressed to cite papers proving the existence of such a sequence of events, he was unable to do so. ‘When we asked for proof for the existence of such an HIV infectious molecular clone he responded with a long list of papers. Although the titles of these papers included the phrase “infectious molecular clone” no such evidence could be found in any of them,’ the Perth scientists wrote.
In what was to be their last posting, they repeated their request: ‘Would Brian Foley please give us a summary of the evidence (not just the title) of a study as well as the evidence from a few confirmatory studies where the existence of an “infectious molecular clone” (as defined by Brian Foley) of “HIV-1” has been proven. If Brian Foley fails to respond with his summaries and references then we must conclude his whole argument for the existence of “HIV-1”, based upon the existence of the “HIV-1 infectious molecular clone”, collapses.’
At that point, instead of giving the proof requested according to his own criteria, Foley and two other prominent ‘HIV’ advocates, Simon Wain-Hobson and John Moore, put pressure on Richard Smith, the BMJ editor, to stop the debate. They did this through a letter of complaint about it to the science journal Nature, which over many years had rejected numerous Perth group submissions.
To his credit, Smith resisted, writing: ‘I find it disturbing to see scientists arguing for restriction on free speech. Surely open communication and argument is a fundamental value of science . . . We should never forget Galileo being put before the inquisition. It would be even worse if we allowed scientific orthodoxy to become the inquisition.’
Moore, a specialist in Aids vaccine development, responded: ‘The denialists crave respectability for their maverick opinions, and anything that energises them to continue their efforts to damage science and public health is to be deplored. Let them exercise their right to free speech on their own websites, not on one run by a respected medical journal.’
Soon afterwards, Smith resigned – for unrelated reasons, he has since told me – and in April 2005 the BMJ’s letters editor terminated the debate.
The reality is that construction of the HIV theory was riddled with errors, but once it became established, no one wanted to bring it down. The late Kary Mullis, who won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for inventing the polymerase chain reaction, once asked: ‘Where is the research that says HIV is the cause of Aids? There are 10,000 people in the world now who specialise in HIV. None has any interest in the possibility HIV doesn’t cause Aids because if it doesn’t, their expertise is useless . . . I can’t find a single virologist who will
give me references which show that HIV is the probable cause of Aids. If you ask a virologist for that information, you don’t get an answer, you get fury.’
Similar pressures are at work currently, as the scientific establishment tries to maintain funding for pandemic preparedness (see here, here and here, for example) by covering up the laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2, by failing to acknowledge deaths and injuries from the Covid vaccines, and by ridiculing as ‘conspiracy theorists’ those who challenge their stories.
This is not science: it is institutional self-interest. With both ‘HIV’/Aids and Covid, it is causing vast suffering. The World Health Organization has been a party to these deceptions, and yet is seeking even more power (see here and here).
Is there any other body capable of providing ethical oversight of medical science? How can we best protect ourselves against such failings in future?
The current population of Amish folks in America is quickly approaching 400,000, with the largest concentrations of 90,000 in Pennsylvania and 82,000 in Ohio. Amish have settled in as many as 32 US states, and have an average of 7 kids per family, so the population is growing rapidly. In a brand new, comprehensive study (as of June 2023), presented by Steve Kirsch to the Pennsylvania State Senate, it was calculated that for Amish children, who are strictly 100 percent not vaccinated (fully unvaccinated), typical chronic conditions barely exist, if any at all.
These chronic conditions, also called preventable diseases and disorders, that nearly many vaccinated children and swaths of Americans suffer from, include auto-immune disease, heart disease, diabetes, asthma, ADHD, arthritis, cancer, and of course… wait for it… autism (think ASD and Asperger’s Syndrome).
Expert panelists testified how healthy Amish children are compared to vaccinated American children
Maybe scaring people off vaccines is a good thing, for all those pro-jab-fanatics who think every natural health advocate is a “conspiracy theorist” who spreads disease and disorder by talking about dirty vaccines, vaccine injuries and vaccine-induced deaths. During testimony, expert health advocates shared WHY there’s never been any reports published regarding the health of Amish children in general, saying “After decades of studying the Amish, there’s no report because the report would be devastating to the narrative. It would show that the CDC has been harming the public for decades and saying nothing and burying all the data.”
Dr. Peter McCullough, a top cardiologist in America, with mountains of peer-reviewed, published work, testified before the U.S. Senate and before legislatures throughout the U.S., regarding dangers of vaccines, including the COVID-19 gene-mutating jabs. Speaking of the pandemic, the Amish did NOT lock down, they did NOT put on bacteria-breeding masks, and they most certainly did NOT “vaccinate” for the Wuhan Lab Flu. They ignored every single CDC and Fauci-propagandized mandate and protocol, including the deadly clot shots (because they knew better than to get injected with millions of toxic, sticky spike proteins and graphite nanoparticles).
Guess what happened? The Amish had a survival rate of COVID 90 times higher than the rest of America. Nobody wants to talk about this, except natural health advocates. If you post anything about it on social media, you immediately get banned, blacklisted and labeled “misinformation” or “disinformation.”
Why is it so important to AVOID vaccines like the plague? Just take a look at all the insane ingredients used in vaccines, including preservatives, emulsifiers, adjuvants, genetically modified bacteria, mutated viruses and sterility-causing chemicals. This is all listed right out in the open. No human should ever have any of this injected into their blood and muscle tissue, bypassing the normal defensive shields of the body, including the skin, lungs and digestive tract.
These toxic, sometimes lethal ingredients include mercury (high doses in the multi-dose flu jab), human blood (albumin from abortions), deadly pig viruses called circovirus (in Rotateq Rotavirus jabs), eagle blood, dog blood, infected green monkey kidney cells, sucralose, monosodium glutamate (MSG), cow blood, chicken blood, eggs, dairy, antibiotics, peanut oil (yes, residuals remain, hence all the deathly peanut allergies), latex (from the stoppers on the needles and vials that the needles penetrate), aluminum and much more.
In his June 20 Substack post, researcher Adam Gaertner provides an accessible mini-tutorial on the complex and inspirational nature of cellular proteins. He addresses the structure and function of prions, the mechanisms by which they form, and how they can wreak havoc on any organ, especially the brain.
Prion disease can lead to a number of rare, progressive neurodegenerative disorders such as dementia, ataxia and spasticity before it becomes fatal, typically within just a few years of diagnosis.
Gaertner challenges the orthodoxy that there is no cure for prion disease by discussing several recent discoveries that offer “some unexpectedly good news.”
Gaertner began his research work into potentially useful therapeutics for prion disease and has also funded the development of a non-invasive prion blood test.
He even undertook his own study of people who were diagnosed with or died of CJD-like symptoms (n=60) after receiving the (mostly Pfizer) mRNA jab.
Nevertheless, he readily admits that he has yet to establish absolute proof of causation.
In a European Union document related to the approval of the vaccine, Gaertner discovered what could be the smoking gun: The liquid nanoparticles used to encase the mRNA came primarily from cow fat. According to Gaertner, the document in question even admitted mRNA’s potential to cause prion protein contamination.
Nearly a year after Gaertner publicized his discovery — which convinced some but not all researchers — a paper by Jean-Claude Perez documented 26 cases of “a new form of CJD” observed within a few days of the Pfizer, Moderna or AstraZeneca vaccinations.
Of these, 20 people died within less than five months of the injection. (At the time of the paper’s publication, only one of the 26 had survived.)
The ‘good news’
While admitting that “there is not, ordinarily, a whole lot of good news to be had concerning prion diseases,” Gaertner outlined a mechanism by which “residues on the spike [protein] bind to the many and varied amyloidogenic proteins,” thus resulting in the blood clots observed by more than a few embalmers since the introduction of the mRNA shots.
He explained how this process can “bind up” the prionic proteins:
“So, what we essentially have here is, instead of a silently cascading apocalypse, buried deep inside parts of the brain that we will never reach, we likely, instead, have these long, stringy, vein-shaped agglomerations of the various amyloid proteins, binding together wherever they meet, and apparently at least somewhat resistant to being broken down by the body’s natural processes for dealing with such eventualities.”
The “really good news” comes from the way ivermectin binds directly to the spike protein — which has itself been described as a “prion-like” protein — thus blocking the spike from connecting to the ACE-2 receptor and “preventing the key from ever entering the keyhole.”
According to Gaertner, ivermectin also prevents the “amyloidogenic aggregations to the spike protein,” thereby arresting the production and proliferation of the prionic proteins. He adds:
“Ivermectin is, without a shadow of a doubt at this point, a true miracle drug: With so many applications, from antiviral, to cancer treatment, to anti-inflammatory, and of course in its originally recognized anti-parasitic application, there should be little wonder why the powers that be have done their best to diminish it as ‘horse paste.’”
Gaertner also notes that in a “very unscientific poll” he conducted on Twitter, 80% of respondents reported that a single, low dose of ivermectin significantly improved “brain fog,” a common post-COVID-19 symptom.
Expressing his belief that the lack of progress on therapeutics for neurodegenerative diseases is likely due to “your run-of-the-mill Pharma and charity corruption,” Gaertner nonetheless found cause for optimism.
“There’s been a lot of progress, on a lot of fronts, and more comes regularly as the world continues waking up,” he said.
John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
‘30 minutes of truth bombs’ is how one Twitter user described Liberal Democrat John Ruddick’s maiden speech to the New South Wales (NSW) Parliament, last Wednesday 28 June.
Indeed, Ruddick, who left the Liberal Party in 2021 after public disagreements over the Party’s handling of the pandemic response, said out loud in parliament what many Australians have been saying for some time now – at first privately, around dinner tables, but increasingly more publicly, over workplace water coolers or at the pub, as saying the obvious becomes more socially acceptable.
Nevertheless, what is socially acceptable offline is not necessarily acceptable on social media. YouTube swiftly removed Ruddick’s speech from its platform, just seven hours after it was uploaded. The NSW Liberal Democrats say this is the first time in Australian history that a politician’s maiden speech has been censored by the platform.
The interference of the social media giant in Australia’s political discourse is ironic given this line from Ruddick’s speech: “We libertarians are plotting to take over the world … so we can leave you all alone.”
A spokesperson for the Lib Dems says, “We initially posted the video on party founder Dr John Humphreys’ YouTube account. We then circulated that link on other social media – for example, this tweet from Dr John, which you can see now links to a takedown notice.”
YouTube claims that the video violated its ‘medical misinformation policy’, and implied that removing the video was necessary to ensure that YouTube remains a ‘safe place for all.’
Note the definition of ‘medical misinformation’ as information that, “contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19.”
Hear that? Galileo just rolled in his grave.
So what did Ruddick actually say about Covid that might have disturbed the information gatekeepers?
He said that the NSW government had enacted an “authoritarian Covid police state.”
He said that the NSW government had given in to “vaccine extremism,” telling the public, ‘we won’t let you out until you take multiple injections of not only a rushed vaccine but of an entirely new class of vaccine’.
He said that, “NSW Health published weekly data showing, the fewer vaccines you had, the less likely you went to hospital or ICU. The fatality rate was similar for the vaxxed and the unvaxxed.”
He said that, “since the vaccine rollout there has been a 15-20 per cent increase in excess deaths in nations like Australia that had mass mRNA injections,” and questioned whether this might have anything to do with the vaccines, or from locking people up for so long.
He said that take-up of the fifth shot is low – “too many know of others with bad reactions.”
He said that ivermectin, an anti-viral drug that won the 2015 Nobel Prize for Medicine, was disingenuously smeared as a horse dewormer. He noted the financial incentives for suppressing ivermectin as a potential treatment for Covid, despite researchers around the world testifying to its efficacy.
He said that there have been over 137,000 adverse events reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration following Covid vaccination, and that many drugs have been pulled from the market for far less than this.
Agree or disagree as you please, but all these claims are evidence-based. As a friend of mine said when disagreeing with my insistence, in late 2021, that the vaccines would not be effective in preventing/reducing transmission, “We believe different scientists.”
The video of Ruddick’s maiden speech has been reposted on YouTube via the Lib Dems main account, and has not yet been taken down. You can watch the speech in full via the Lib Dems twitter account.
“We’re obviously very disappointed that YouTube feels the need to censor something not only from NSW Parliament but as time-honoured as a maiden speech, but we also oddly must thank them as we’ve benefited from the Streisand effect.
“The video already has over 225,000 views on one tweet, and is also being viewed in Facebook groups, on Telegram and (for now anyway) a little bit on the federal LibDems YouTube page. The interest in the speech certainly seems to have increased exponentially after the YouTube removal, and we’re getting inundated with positive comments and questions.”
Other notable ‘truth bombs’ from Ruddick’s speech include his criticism of blown-out government debt, and his concern that pursuing a net zero carbon economy is a “reckless folly.”
While the Lib Dems are benefiting from the Streisand effect for the time being, Member of the European Parliament, Christine Anderson, is dealing with YouTube censorship by suing the social media platform. Anderson reports that YouTube blocked two videos from parliamentary sessions in which she acted on the official Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Anderson has described YouTube’s censorship as “anti-democratic,” saying, “I will not put up with uncontrolled influence on this scale, which is why I have now taken the necessary legal steps to… ensure that all citizens have unfiltered access to relevant information at all times.”
Rebekah Barnett reports from Western Australia. She is a volunteer interviewer for Jab Injuries Australia and holds a BA in Communications from the University of Western Australia. Find her work on her Substack page, Dystopian Down Under.
Readers of TCW will be familiar with Neville Hodgkinson’s critical reporting of the ‘Covid crisis’ since December 2020, notably his expert, science-based informed alarm about the mass ‘vaccine’ rollout, so absent from mainstream coverage. What they may be less aware of is the international storm this former Sunday Times medical and science correspondent created in the 1990s by reporting a scientific challenge to the ‘HIV’ theory of Aids, presaging the hostile response to science critics of Covid today. In this series he details findings that form the substance of his newly updated and expanded book, How HIV/Aids Set the Stage for the Covid Crisis, on the controversy. It is available here. You can read Part 1 of this series here, Part 2 here, Part 3 here and Part 4 here.
As a former newspaper medical and science correspondent, I saw striking parallels between the mishandling of Covid, from 2020 onwards, and illusions over HIV/Aids on which I had reported for many years. In both instances, scientists and public health experts seemed to lose their heads in the face of lobbying by powerful and sometimes mega-wealthy interests. The lobbyists were able to gain sway over state health agencies, whose generally good intentions became too readily misinformed and misdirected.
With Covid, the big push was for a jab to protect us against the toxic ‘spike protein’ that made the genetically engineered SARS-CoV-2, a product of biodefence research, a genuine new arrival in the world of microbes. Involvement of agencies heavily invested in vaccines, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK’s Wellcome Trust, contributed to economically and socially disastrous lockdowns, and to mass vaccination with the experimental mRNA gene products. Thousands of deaths and millions of injuries have been reported in the wake of these jabs, but more than two years on, authorities such as the UK’s NHS continue to insist against all evidence (see also here) that they are ‘safe and effective’ and save millions of lives.
With Aids, the promotion of an unvalidated blood test for an unproven ‘HIV’ infection became the illusory basis of worldwide panic. A global marketing opportunity opened for drug and test kit manufacturers, and a vaccine was promised within two years. Forty years on, a vaccine is not even on the horizon, despite billions of taxpayer dollars having gone into countless trials.
No one seems ready to face the possibility that there will never be a vaccine for a virus that, according to an exhaustive, immensely painstaking analysis by a group of scientists based in Perth, Western Australia, has never been proved to exist.
The so-called HIV test detects antibodies to a range of proteins (antigens) assumed, but never proved, to belong to ‘HIV’. The proteins do exist, of course, and they are found at raised levels in the blood of people exposed to a variety of chemical and microbial challenges. These can include drugs, anal sex, multiple pregnancies, repeated blood transfusions, and chronic malnutrition-associated infections.
As explained earlier in this series, despite Herculean efforts in the laboratory, scientists were unable to obtain particles of ‘HIV’ from patients with Aids or at risk of Aids. Such particles would normally be considered essential for developing a diagnostic test. The particle constituents provide the test’s developers with specific antigens. Blood that reacts with those antigens can be assumed to have antibodies signalling exposure to a specific microbe, though cross-reactions can produce false positive results.
With the HIV test, however, there were no virus particles through which antigens could be defined as relating to HIV. Instead, the test’s developers used antigens found to be reactive with antibodies in the blood of people with symptoms of immune system breakdown. Yet those were the very patients who had often been exposed to a wide variety of antibody-inducing stimuli, which did not necessarily have anything to do with a deadly virus.
On the basis of this test, millions of people have been diagnosed ‘HIV-positive’, and if they become ill, victims of ‘HIV/Aids’. But the reason they test positive has nothing to do with a new virus. The idea that the test shows infection with a deadly virus is based on entirely circular reasoning, bypassing the need to prove the existence of ‘HIV’ itself. People test positive because they have antibodies to proteins falsely designated ‘HIV’ antigens.
As explained in Part 3 of this series, that false designation was made by researchers who thought detection of a particular enzyme, reverse transcriptase (RT), meant the presence of a retrovirus. RT was later found to be ubiquitous in cells, whose genetic activity is much more dynamic than was realised 40 years ago when the ‘HIV’ theory was developed.
Public health experts knew of this deficiency from the outset. One hundred experts from 34 countries at a 1986 World Health Organization meeting in Geneva heard that the test kits were licensed to protect blood supplies, as they served as a broad screen for possible abnormalities in blood. People with Aids and at risk of Aids suffer a range of active infections, some of which could be transmissible through blood transfusions. The tests helped to protect against use of such ‘dirty’ blood.
But the meeting was told that something more was needed to distinguish genuine ‘HIV’ infection or indeed determine if there were truly such a thing as ‘genuine HIV infection’. The test kits should not be used to diagnose or screen for HIV as such.
The delegates heard that a so-called ‘confirmatory test’, called ‘western blot’, relied on the same principle as the test kits it was supposed to be checking, and so was also incapable of being used to diagnose HIV/Aids. In a monumental scientific ‘fudge’, however, a representative from the US Food and Drug Administration told the meeting that public health needs had caused usage of the kits to expand and ‘it was simply not practical’ to stop this.
In other words, panic over Aids caused science to be thrown out of the window. It was just as we now know happened with the arrival of Covid, when powerful agencies conspired to bring about unprecedented, economically and socially disastrous lockdowns, misuse of dubious testing technologies that exaggerated case numbers, and mass administration of an experimental gene product sold to us as a ‘safe and effective’ vaccine.
When later studies of the ‘HIV’ test showed a close link between testing positive and risk of developing Aids, that was taken to prove the test’s validity. The link was entirely artificial, however. It was a consequence of the circular reasoning, not of ‘HIV’ infection.
As the HIV/Aids paradigm won worldwide acceptance, increasingly complex procedures for trying to make a reliable diagnosis came into being. But the basic problem remains to this day: scientists have not been able to validate any of these procedures against pure virus, taken from patients, because no such virus has ever been obtained.
Research has repeatedly confirmed that many different conditions cause raised levels of the antibodies looked for by the ‘HIV’ test, putting people at risk of being labelled HIV-positive when there is no such virus present. They include mycobacterial infections such as TB and leprosy, widespread among impoverished people, and the cause of millions of misdiagnosed ‘HIV/Aids’ cases in Africa.
Also, when cells are dividing and growing at a higher rate than normal, such as in pregnancy, raised levels of antigens are liable to trigger positive test results which have nothing to do with ‘HIV’. This is another source of illusory ‘HIV/Aids’ diagnoses in poor countries and communities where many women undergo multiple pregnancies.
Manufacturers of the tests know they should not be used diagnostically, and test kits containa disclaimer to that effect, such as ‘Do not use this kit as the sole basis for HIV infection’. Healthcare providers never diagnose HIV based on a single test result – further ‘confirmatory’ tests are always required, and on the basis of how one test performs against another, high levels of accuracy are claimed. But these are bogus claims. All the tests suffer the same problem: lack of validation against actual virus. When the tests are based on similar principles, if the principles are wrong it means all such tests are wrong too.
As in the early days of Covid, the greater the fear generated by modellers and media, the greater the sense of approval from the authorities. In 1987, a computer model prepared at the Los Alamos National Laboratory said one American adult in ten could become infected by 1994, although researchers admitted that was based on inadequate information. In fact, the number of ‘HIV’-positive Americans has remained at a little over a million almost from the start of the testing programme. This is not the behaviour of an infectious virus new to humanity.
In 1985, the Royal College of Nursing said one million people in Britain ‘will have Aids in six years unless the killer disease is checked’. The actual cumulative total of Aids cases by 1990 was below 5,000. Today, fewer than 200 Aids diagnoses a year are reported in the UK, and well under 3,000 new ‘HIV’ diagnoses.
In poorer countries, however, continued inappropriate use of the tests has led to claims that millions are ‘HIV-infected’. This belief fuels a continuing flow of jobs and cash for researchers, non-governmental organisations, charities, and drug companies. According to the World Health Organization, 38million people are ‘living with HIV’ today, and 27,500,000 are receiving antiretroviral drugs.
It is a great tragedy. Through good intentions as well as selfish interests, huge resources are being misdirected. Since the inception in 2003 of the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the US government has invested more than $100billion in the global HIV/Aids response. It is the largest commitment in history by any nation to address a single disease, funded through the American people’s generosity. The project is said to have saved more than 25million lives, prevented millions of HIV infections, and supported several countries in achieving HIV epidemic control – ‘all while significantly strengthening global economic security’.
The weight of support for the HIV theory is still huge. PEPFAR is managed and overseen by the US Department of State, and implemented by seven government departments and agencies, ‘leveraging the power of a whole-of-government approach to controlling the HIV/Aids epidemic’.
But what if there is no epidemic? Would not development aid be a more humane and effective response to the immune deficiency widespread in poor countries than drugs of dubious safety and effectiveness, invalid tests, and endless vaccine trials?
Thirty years ago, in 1993, Sunday Times editor Andrew Neil sent me to Africa for several weeks to report from the ground on what was happening there. At that time, there were forecasts that the population was set to be decimated because of long-established, widespread infection with HIV. After meeting scientists, doctors, politicians and patients in Kenya, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Tanzania, I found no good evidence of a new, epidemic condition. But there was an epidemic of fear – Zimbabwe’s health minister told me that he called it ‘HIVitis’ – created by an invasion of Aids researchers armed with the unvalidated diagnostic tests.
My reports provoked a flood of correspondence, some supportive – such as from the influential and knowledgeable New African magazine – but also including condemnation from the highest level in the UK. A letter signed by Baroness Chalker, Minister for Overseas Development, Sir David Steel, Liberal Democrat spokesman for foreign affairs, and Tony Worthington, Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman, accused me of writing nonsense. Their letter was said to have been seen and agreed by a long list of heads of medical establishments, including the chief medical officer, the director of the Medical Research Council, and voluntary organisations concerned with Aids. It said:
‘Mr Hodgkinson says that the scientific community have collectively failed to validate their tests for HIV and have deliberately inflated statistics. If we are to believe him, these scientists have fooled the World Health Organisation, governments in developed and developing countries alike, international development organisations like the Save the Children Fund, ActionAid and Oxfam, institutes of public health, journalists and the general public.
‘The sad fact is that Africa is in the grip of a major HIV epidemic. Tens or hundreds of thousands have already lost their lives: tens of millions are at risk.
‘Mr Hodgkinson has got it badly wrong, and you do your readers a disservice in giving credence to his nonsense.’
In 1993 Africa’s population was approaching 700million. In 30 years, far from being decimated, it has more than doubled and now stands at nearly 1,433,000,000.
Philippe Krynen, head of the African mission Partage Tanzanie, was a star on the HIV/Aids circuit until he realised that ‘this epidemic which was going to wipe out Africa is just a big bubble of soap’, as he told me at his headquarters overlooking Lake Victoria in 1993. Krynen, whose charity has been doing magnificent work for orphans in the region for nearly 35 years, managed to resist an attempt by the European Community’s Aids task force to have him thrown out of the country in the wake of his revelations.
We were last in touch in November 2022. He wrote: ‘The Aids issue is totally buried in dusty files, at least for us here in Tanzania. The distributors of antiretroviral drugs are still doing their business in the country but the pandemic tale is dead.’
He added: ‘As for the Covid tale, it didn’t last long. In 2020 a short epidemic of acute respiratory tract infection was taken care of by a cocktail of common antibiotics. The combination of very few tombs per community, and a patent lack of statistics, dismantled the scarecrow. Prevention (masks and soaps) was quickly abandoned and business as usual never interrupted . . . Tanzania today is seen as a peaceful African jewel.’
Covid has made it more important than ever that the illusions around the HIV theory of Aids should be dispelled. They are not likely to disappear overnight, but 40 years on, with no vaccine or cure for the purported ‘HIV’ infection, and many lives put at risk by toxic medicines directed against a mythical enemy, is there not someone in the scientific community with the integrity and human decency to take an honest look at the astonishingly detailed and challenging work of the Perth scientists?
Otherwise, we may also be condemned to decades of untruths about Covid. So far, the scientists who created the genetically engineered virus have not been called out for their mistakes, and a continued climate of fear means people are still testing, distancing, masking, and queuing up for an ineffective and unsafe medical treatment that masquerades as a vaccine.
Previously I argued whether Saudi Arabia’s repeated involvements in U.S. interventions and wars stem from free national will or in response to a specific condition. For starters, in Saudi Arabia there is no national will. In Saudi Arabia, the national will is the will of the Al Saud clan. Still, when a major Arab state allies itself with a superpower that committed unspeakable crimes against humanity in almost every Arab country, then something is wrong. This fact alone should compel us to examine the U.S.-Saudi relation for one exceptional reason. As a result of the U.S.-Saudi wars, hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia have lost their lives. Millions became displaced in their own homelands. And millions more rendered refugees.
Attributing the Saudi policies to the bonds of “partnership” with the U.S. is frivolous. There are no bonds between these two thugs except those of business, military deals, secret plots, and wars. Proving this point, bonds such as these have no space for the American and Saudi peoples to share significant cultural or societal exchanges. If partnership is not the reason for the Saudi contribution to the U.S. strategy of empire and imperialism, then another reason must exist.
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.
Second, now is the time to renew the social contract between Governments and their people and within societies, so as to rebuild trust and embrace a comprehensive vision of human rights. People need to see results reflected in their daily lives. This must include the active and equal participation of women and girls, without whom no meaningful social contract is possible. It should also include updated governance arrangements to deliver better public goods and usher in a new era of universal social protection, health coverage, education, skills, decent work and housing, as well as universal access to the Internet by 2030 as a basic human right. I invite all countries to conduct inclusive and meaningful national listening consultations so all citizens have a say in envisioning their countries’ futures.
Aletho News
Aletho News 