Recently, we have been touching on this theme of ivermectin as a treatment for cancer. So I was delighted to receive an excellent, well-researched piece on precisely this topic from an esteemed colleague. Dr Gérard Maudrux is a urology surgeon based in France and a strident champion for ivermectin. His article gives good insight into ivermectin’s mechanisms of action, while also acknowledging we have yet to discover them all.
I asked if I could share his article with you, and he graciously agreed. If you would like to read the original – in French – you can do so on Dr Maudrux’s blog.
Ivermectin and cancer: reserved for horses?
Dr Gérard Maudrux
Ivermectin is an extraordinary molecule, given its range of actions and safety. Since its discovery it has saved millions of lives, yet health authorities have relegated it to the status of a treatment reserved for horses; this is because medicines which are in the public domain threaten the pharmaceutical industry.
Here is a testimony received from a blog reader eight days ago:
“My wife is coming out of chemotherapy for advanced stage 3 ovarian cancer (the origin of my wife’s cancer is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene); after being assessed in the United States, she was treated with Taxol and Carboplatin.
Having read studies on the PNAS site (NB: Journal of the American Academy of Sciences ), that IVM associated with Taxol gave amplified results, I decided to supplement the chemo with 12mg of IVM every other day.
The first scan in July showed a large tumour and damage to the peritoneum. Laparoscopy confirmed the diagnosis. Ca125 marker assay = 288. From the start, I told my wife that COVID was still dragging on and that it would be useful to take ivermectin again, which had protected us from the epidemic, but which we had stopped taking in January.
After 3 chemo sessions (9 weeks), a new scan showed that the tumour was in strong regression with almost no trace on the peritoneum. Surgeon’s comment: it’s remarkable, I didn’t expect that. Ca125 dropped to 22! Operation decision within 15 days.
Uterus and ovaries were removed. Surgeon’s comment: this is extraordinary. No tumour, some dead cells on the peritoneum that I removed. The biopsy confirmed that everything has gone, Ca125 at 3.
The oncologist qualified the result as exceptional but that microscopic cells may remain, and so continued the chemo with Avastin from the 5th session. If I understand correctly, this treatment is to prevent the tumour from generating vessels to feed cancerous cells!!!! What tumour?
I informed them of my complementary “treatment” and shared my sources. Studies have shown that ivermectin restores apoptosis – this was of little interest: “I will look into it”. To this day I’m not sure they’ve done any research.”
Take note: this does not mean that ivermectin necessarily influenced this outcome – it may be a coincidence. Nevertheless this case should stand out, because this cancer is very nasty: peritoneal metastases indicate a very virulent and terminal cancer, with 87% mortality when at this stage, giving little hope.
Unfortunately, medicine as practiced in the 21st century gives this observation no value; it is not a randomized study at the cost of a few million. Moreover, no one will invest, since this molecule, which has fallen into the public domain, cannot be profitable. Observational medicine, which seeks to reproduce a possible discovery, no longer belongs in a world where industrialists and biostatisticians have replaced doctors.
It’s a shame, because ivermectin may have potential for actions that have not yet been explored. Besides its action on almost all parasites, its antiviral action proven by veterinarians and covered up in humans, its anti-inflammatory, immuno-regulatory, anti-cytokine shock action, but also its anti hemagglutination action that can protect against certain vascular side effects of vaccination, it is also clearly an adjuvant that reinforces certain anti-cancer treatments. I have also recently concluded that it is an anti-cancer treatment in its own right. It deserves twice its Nobel Prize.
Veterinarians are more advanced than doctors when it comes to the anti-cancer potential of ivermectin. This article from 2019, notes that ivermectin is more than an adjuvant, it is anti-carcinogenic, inhibiting the growth of mammary tumours in dogs – the most common kind in female dogs and with a poor prognosis. This is both in vitro and in vivo, stopping the growth of tumour cells.
This husband’s curiosity may have saved his wife’s life. It’s a shame that doctors are so unaware: this potential of ivermectin is not a recent discovery. But the authorities have done everything to belittle this extraordinary molecule because it is unprofitable.
In 2017, Santé Log and Top Santé covered a PNAS article referring to a study from the University of Osaka, reporting the anti-tumour effect of ivermectin on cancer cells of epithelial ovarian cancer, interacting with the KPNB1 gene responsible for the disease, with a direct effect on tumour apoptosis (programmed cell death which is the process by which cells trigger their self-destruction in response to a signal). Indeed, the KPNB1 gene behaves like an oncogene and the researchers confirm that its overexpression significantly accelerates the proliferation and survival of tumour cells, while its inhibition induces their apoptosis.
Ivermectin inhibits the activity of KPNB1 and has a synergistic effect combined with paclitaxel (Taxol), a standard drug for the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer. The authors conclude: “we found that the combination of ivermectin and paclitaxel produces a stronger anti-tumour effect on EOC both in vitro and in vivo than either drug alone.” Taxol is also used in certain bronchopulmonary and breast cancers and in Kaposi’s sarcomas associated with AIDS. The synergy with ivermectin seen in ovarian cancer may be equally beneficial elsewhere.
This article in Pharmacologic Research studies the different mechanisms of action of ivermectin in different cancers, based on 114 studies. It states that “Ivermectin has powerful antitumor effects, including the inhibition of proliferation, metastasis, and angiogenic activity, in a variety of cancer cells…. ivermectin induces programmed cancer cell death, including apoptosis, autophagy and pyroptosis… ivermectin can also inhibit tumour stem cells and reverse multidrug resistance and exerts the optimal effect when used in combination with other chemotherapy drugs.”
They note this apoptosis with cells of ovarian cancer, colorectal, kidney, glioblastoma and leukaemia. Autophagy affects glioma, lung cancer and melanoma, and pyroptosis affects lung cancer cells.
Other articles study the action of ivermectin in colorectal and prostate cancer. Studies are underway for an injectable form of ivermectin, on breast, lung, bladder and melanoma cancers. Another notable work is a 2021 book on the repurposing of old molecules. The chapter on ivermectin recounts a number of experiments carried out on all these cancers.
Besides these potential effects on cancers, let’s not forget this other discovery from five years ago: remyelination, opening up avenues in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (here and here). Ivermectin has not finished surprising us.
Unfortunately for all of these applications, we will not see studies that lead to marketing authorization. Indeed, what is ivermectin at a dollar a tablet worth compared to treatments at a few thousand euros promoted by the major pharmaceutical groups?
As for medics who would prescribe this drug, knowing there are no harmful side effects even in the case of it not working, they will nevertheless be prosecuted. Rules are rules, it seems, and patients’ wellbeing is secondary.
Medicine is not moving in the right direction. Doctors don’t tend to like patients coming and asking for this or that examination or treatment, because they “saw it on the internet”. But if the doctors have thrown in the towel, surely this means someone else has to step up to the plate? It was not this husband’s job to read the medical articles that doctors should have read, but he was right to do so. I can’t help but liken this to reports of vaccine-related adverse events. In pharmacovigilance records, there are almost as many withheld statements made by patients as by health professionals.
It is not the role of patients and families to research treatments and report on their findings, but that of health professionals, many of whom seem to be AWOL. If we continue like this, in future it will be the patients treating the health providers! In the meantime, at least the horses will be well cared for.
This is literally ‘hot off the ‘presses’: Austrian alternative media outlet Der Status published leaked documents from the Austrian Chamber of Physicians (Ärztekammer ) that show, beyond reasonable doubt, the grand conspiracy between government, the Chamber, and its protagonists.
Without much further ado, here’s my translation; as always, emphases and bottom lines mine. The below text has been lightly edited for clarity.
Scandal! Medical Association Ordered Experts & Doctors to Recommend Vaccination
The Austrian Medical Association, under the ousted red [i.e., Social-Democratic] president Szekeres and its current president Steinhart, worked closely with the Health Ministers for years. And in doing so, it betrayed the interests of doctors. [to say nothing about patients]
Spring 2020: Collaboration with the Politicians Commences
In April 2020, Szekeres, Steinhart, and Minister Anschober [Greens, since retired] signed a ‘Memorandum of Understanding Concerning COVID-19 Vaccinations’. That is, at a time—more than half a year—before the conditional approval of these injectable products, this Memorandum dealt with, among other things, advertising campaigns by doctors for the vaccinations, the vaccination of health-care workers and their family members, vaccinations in homes and schools, and reimbursement agreements.
Yet, secretly, an additional deal was also negotiated: it was literally agreed that ‘clear blanket vaccination recommendations will be made via the National Immunisation Consortium (Nationales Impfgremium, or NlG) on the suitability of the various vaccines and their applicability, esp. for various high-risk groups’.
Explosive: the Minister of Health and the Austrian Medical Association leadership signed a contract in which they go over the head of the National Immunisation Consortium—and they did so long before the injections were even available—to determine what the National Immunisation Consortium will recommend.
[this means, in other words, that the NIG never had anything to say about the data or the underlying clinical trials; this much we already knew, but now we have the receipts: these people have failed the public, betrayed the trust of patients, and soiled themselves]
It was never about Facts or Truth
Until now, the public was not aware of any document that so clearly showed that various ‘expert panels’ and ‘commissions’ obviously only served to obligingly recommend what politicians and the medical association leadership wanted. It was never about expertise, about advice, about objective science, about health.
Long before the beginning of the mass vaccination campaign, when vaccines did not even exist (!), it was only about one thing: vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate! The various ‘expert committees’ and doctors served only as Komparsen [extras, in German, one may also use the term Statisten, which literally implies undue influence of the state]. And it is obvious that the medical association leadership was ‘bought’ off with the reimbursement fee agreement [I’ve omitted the screen shots of some original documents, which can be checked out, if you read German, in the original article; it suffices to say that the fees are extraordinarily high, esp. in light of the incidence of injection: 25 Euros for the first jab and 20 Euros for every successive jab; this piece of evidence is reproduced below in the same position as in the original article]. April 2020 thus was the decisive moment in the history of the Medical Association in which its leadership handed the soul of the medical profession to politicians for the equivalent of thirty pieces of silver.
The Persecution of Doctors is Decided Upon
That was not all: in an ‘Amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding on COVID-19 Vaccinations between the Austrian Chamber of Physicians and the Ministry of Health, concluded in April 2020’, dated 2 Sept. 2021, the medical association leadership ‘promised action with respect to the services rendered by the medical profession’. These, too, signed off by both parties:
The Chamber of Physicians will conduct a media campaign as well as a campaign among the medical profession to increase the willingness of the population to be vaccinated. This includes raising the vaccination issue at other medical appointments (e.g., regular health check-ups) and the promise to take stronger action against doctors who spread misinformation.
As is well known, what constituted ‘misinformation’ was left to the arbitrary whims of the leadership of the Chamber of Physicians. This disgraceful agreement formed the basis for the persecution of critical doctors, which continues to this day. The medical disciplinary law was, in fact, misused for intimidation and propaganda purposes. In doing so, the leadership of the Chamber of Physicians had turned against its paying members [membership is mandatory in Austria as the Chamber also certifies physicians, much like these boards and associations in the U.S.], which cemented into place the persecution of doctors in the style of the Inquisition.
Disciplinary Proceedings by the Medical Association Were (Are) Illegal
The behaviour of the leadership of the Chamber of Physicians’ leadership in recent years is now coming back to haunt them. For months, the medical association has been attacked, ridiculed, and had its very existence openly questioned by politicians. Having done their duty for politicians in the last three years without a peep, the Chamber is apparently no longer needed and may well be let go of. The Chamber of Physicians is sinking more and more into political insignificance. According to insiders, it is now even regarded as a political opponent, a situation that can also be seen in legacy media. After having served as a ‘doormat’ for politicians of all stripes for years, the Chamber of Physicians is now also being treated as such. Various scandals internal to the medical association reinforce this tendency. [talk about Karma, eh? Those who don’t have self-respect will have a hard time getting others’ respect… ]
In the meantime, the Regional Administrative Courts of Vienna, Lower Austria, and Vorarlberg have petitioned the Constitutional Court to repeal parts or the entire Disciplinary Law in the Physicians’ Act [Ärztegesetz, these parts of the Act permit the Chamber of Physicians to enforce standards] on grounds of their suspected unconstitutionality; it is possible that the Constitutional Court will rule even the entire Physicians’ Act unconstitutional. The Chamber of Physicians is a self-governing body. All its committees are to be selected from among its members, i.e., from medical professionals. However, the Disciplinary Commission consists of two medical assessors and a ‘judicially competent chairman’ who is appointed by the Minister of Health in agreement with the Minister of Justice, i.e., someone who must not be a trained physician and who does not come out of the Chamber of Physicians. Thus, the composition of the Disciplinary Commission is a violation of the Federal Constitution. This is the unanimous legal opinion of three state administrative courts [Verwaltungsgerichtshof] and countless jurists.
[I’ll have more to say about this particularity below, for time being: this is potentially huge—and it would be akin to completely re-writing the rules of medicine]
The Chamber of Physicians has unintentionally awakened sleeping dogs with its wave of ill-advised disciplinary hearings against critical doctors. The consequence may be that it now has to be completely re-imagined. But this could also be an opportunity for the medical profession after all the repression of doctors in recent years. For in its current form, the Chamber of Physicians is a politically superfluous enemy and, for its members, the doctors, a very expensive mandatory association whose dues are used to finance the functionaries’ luxury salaries.
Bottom Lines
From time immemorial, we’ve all known that a man’s—or woman’s—price is about, in purely monetary terms, 30 pieces of silver, to say nothing about the amorality and, yes, cowardice of most physicians everywhere.
The notion of buying off support has been well-established in the U.S. (see, e.g., here).
Here, we’re talking individual doctors who are paid handsomely for jabbing people.
Yet, this isn’t even the worst part of this.
The Three Axioms of Governance-by-Bureaucracy
You’ve gotta love them German-speakers for being so stupid to actually put these things into writing.
We now have definitive proof that the subsequent shenanigans—first and foremost the obnoxious Covid Passports — were based on the unholy trinity of questionable medical ethics (ahem), government coercion, and arbitrary definitions.
Remember that ‘fully vaccinated’ used to be two injections? Now it’s at least three, with the fourth jab ‘optional’ (haha, see above), and the Covid Passports come with expiration dates varying from 3-6 months, irrespective whether you’re ‘vaccinated’ or ‘recovered’.
Thus, we may formulate whatthe first axiom of governance-by-bureaucracy is: everything leaks.
In other words: arbitrary categories by government fiat, arrived at with the collaboration of the overwhelming majority of the medical profession.
If history is any guide, the Covid Passports are the functional equivalent of the Aryan Certificate deployed by Nazi Germany: both documents were clearly politically motivated and based on sham ‘The Science™’.
Yet, Covid is revelatory: we’ve seen the abject lack of integrity, morality, and compassion on part of the political caste, its willing executioners in legacy media, and its perpetrators among medical professionals.
Don’t ask what’s wrong with individuals. It’s the bloody ‘system’ that stands exposed.
Thus, we may formulate the second axiom of governance-by-bureaucracy: everyone has his or her price.
We’ve known this for quite some time; sure, I could cite the Nazi and Stalinist atrocities here, but I’d like to point you also to the Asch Conformity, the Milgram, and the Stanford Prison Experiments. Or the book The Wave.
And yet, despite all of this, there’s also a bright spot in all of this: contrary to the claims of postmodernist woke-fied agents-provocateurs, not everything in human society and relations is ‘socially constructed’ or about ‘power’.
A sizeable share of people everywhere has resisted the pressure to ‘get vaccinated’.
A group of doctors have resisted the pressures and temptations—remember the 30 pieces of silver—of collaboration and compliance with government tyranny.
If ‘booster’ uptake is any guide, more and more people are realising that they’ve been had.
Thus the third axiom: incentives and coercion work, until they don’t.
Our highly complex societies are, of course, more than the sum of their moving parts. Yet, given the highly integrated structures, it would be far-fetched to believe that anyone is able to control everything.
True, a lot can be dominated, but in the end, the ‘normative power of the factual’ (Georg Jellinek), in combination with individual experiences, is a powerful antidote to tyranny.
Still, this ain’t over yet, far from it.
If history is any guide, all that humans have ever been able to do is punish the perpetrators in the (vain) hope of establishing deterrence.
It has happened before, it is happening again, and it will happen again.
The next step is to see this through, re-establish the rule of law, and hold these people to account.
Next Monday, an uneasy anniversary arrives. It will be 20 years since the invasion of Iraq by the United States. Britain was a pillar of the US-led ‘coalition of the willing.’ The Guardian columnist John Harris wrote on Sunday that it was “the greatest political and humanitarian disaster the UK had been involved in since the second world war… when the supposed political centre ground suddenly lurched somewhere reckless and catastrophic.”
The Iraq War caused endless violence and huge levels of death. Ironically, it was Seymour Hersh who exposed that horrific chronicle of torture in the Abu Ghraib by the US troops that shocked the world.
Harris made a debatable point that the Iraq War had “profound effects” on the UK. He listed, amongst them, “a sense that politics and power had lurched away from the public, and left a huge and very uneasy gap.” Maybe he is right, but for the wrong reasons. As time passed, the Iraq War made Britain’s party politics look farcical.
Britain today has a UniParty — the party of government, which seems to consist of the same people as the party of the opposition. Britain has reached where the US has been for quite some time— a cabal of political elites hijacking the country, operating its own agenda, regardless of which political party is formally in power — and the people at large having lost control of their government. That is why crimes like Abu Ghraib and Nord Stream go unpunished.
On March 3, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had a top secret one-on-one with Biden in the Oval Office in what appears to have been an attempt, among other things, to reach a consensus on how to handle Hersh’s explosive report on the sabotage of Nord Stream. (Read my blog Ukraine:A war to end all wars in Europe.)
Look at the sequence of events: Four days after Scholz met Biden, New York Times carried a sensational media leak regarding Nord Stream, attributing the sabotage to a “pro-Ukrainian group” consisting of five men and one woman who used a yacht rented in Poland.
The vessel was later found by German investigators — also a media leak in Berlin — and turned out to be the Andromeda, a Bavaria C50 sailing boat. The group reportedly embarked on their mission from Rostock on September 6, 2022. The equipment for the secret operation was allegedly transported to the port in a truck.
Germany’s Die Zeit backed the Times narrative in real time. But the narrative itself is riddled with discrepancies. Questions are galore: How could a 15-meter chartered yacht have possibly carried an estimated 1,500-2,000 kilograms of explosives required for the sabotage? How could Andromeda, which doesn’t have a crane, hoistsuch massive quantities of explosives safely into the water?
A Russian analysis points out that “the site of the explosion, the Baltic Sea, is about 80 meters deep, which requires special diving equipment, including air tanks with a helium-oxygen mixture and pure oxygen. All in all, one would need 30 litres of a special gas mixture for one dive alone, which means there must have been dozens of bottles on board. In addition, there should have been a decompression chamber for the divers, something that the yacht is not fit for. Furthermore, it would have taken several dives and a few days to lay the explosives on the pipelines. It’s hard to imagine that these activities would have gone completely unnoticed.”
The Times news desk evidently didn’t do any fact check. But on March 10, the chair of the Bundestag’s intelligence oversight committee, Konstantin von Notz from the Green Party, told Die Zeit that what happened was likely a “state-backed act of terrorism” and was likely conducted by a “state or quasi-state actor.”
Scholz is skating on thin ice. He heads a coalition of Atlanticists. But Germany is not yet a UniParty country. Besides, unlike in the US or the UK, in the German political system, the public prosecutor who is investigating the Nord Stream sabotage is an autonomous entity who can’t be ordered around by politicians in power.
The German defence minister Boris Pistorius’ reaction to the Times report shows it — that Germans don’t yet know whether this was a Ukrainian commando that acted with the knowledge of the Ukrainian government, a pro-Ukrainian group that acted without their knowledge, or whether it might have been a false flag operation. Berlin apparently doesn’t exclude official Ukrainian involvement.
Scapegoating comes handy for Washington in such situations as an exit strategy. A report inPoliticoon Sunday distanced the Biden Administration from the Ukrainian regime of Zelensky, and the Nord Stream sabotage is mentioned there as one of three reasons for the “growing differences behind the scenes” between Washington and Kiev.
For the present, though, there seems to be a tacit understanding between Biden and Scholz that they will not tear each other up over this matter. As for Zelensky, he probably has no option but to play the role of a scapegoat when necessary.
By mentioning Nord Stream as a matter of discord between Washington and Kiev, the Politico report seems to hint to Zelensky that this is a high stakes game affecting transatlantic unity and scapegoat may become necessary.
Meanwhile, instead of pointing a finger at Washington, the Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolay Patrushev was non-committal on Sunday, saying, “I emphasise that any accusations that are not supported by the results of an impartial investigation cannot be trusted. Therefore, Moscow insists on an objective investigation with the participation of Russia and other interested countries. Without this, voicing one-sided subjective versions of the terrorist attack does not explain anything.”
Patrushev has virtually challenged the Biden-Scholz tandem. To be sure, an impartial investigation will have political consequences. For one thing, German public opinion is relatively fickle on the issue of weapons deliveries. Second, Scholz cannot afford a perception that he is in collusion with Biden.
Of course, if it is established that a Ukrainian commando unit or an American outfit was responsible for the sabotage, the political consequences will be massive. The German public may demand stoppage of arms supplies to Ukraine. On the other hand, if the US is responsible, the current renaissance in German-American ties will simply wither away.
Scholz is yet to understand that Transatlanticism is not the defining characteristic of the Democratic Party. His fate may turn out to be the same as Tony Blair’s. Harris wrote that the effects of Blair’s deceptions rippled on all the way to Brexit.
To quote him, “Iraq hideously sullied Blair and [Gordon] Brown’s domestic record and marked the end of the New Labour vision of Britain as a young, confident country. It reduced the fantasies of “liberal interventionism” to ash, and deepened the disaffection and unease that would lead to our exit from Europe.”
Handelsblatt newspaper in a report last Thursday pointed out that the investigation on Nord Stream may play politically into the hands of the far-left and the far-right in German politics. Can Scholz survive the deception over Nord Stream sabotage? If Ukraine is implicated, there is no going back for Germany.
California legislators continue their reign of vaccine mandate terror with the proposed Assembly Bill 659, which would require children to be vaccinated for HPV before entering 8th grade. Attorney, Michael Baum, Esq., discusses his law firm’s fight to block this bill, which would stop countless crippling injuries, especially in the absence of proof of efficacy.
FROM 2010: This week we turn the focus of our open source investigation to Sgt. Terrance Yeakey, one of the first responder heroes at the scene of the OKC bombing who discovered something that conflicted with the official story of the bombing…something that cost him his life.
This is the latest instalment of a series in which Paula Jardine examines how the Covid vaccine programme was conceived by US defence planners nearly 20 years ago as a 21st century ‘Manhattan Project’ for biodefence. You can read Part 1 here, Part 2 here, Part 3 here and Part 4 here.
It was co-written by Dante Disparte, later a member of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Council and of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Digital Currency Governance Consortium, and Governor Tom Ridge, a Vietnam veteran who was the first US Secretary of Homeland Security. Ridge co-chairs Dr Robert Kadlec’s Biodefense Commission, a private entity whose funders include the smallpox and anthrax vaccine manufacturers Bavarian Nordic and Emergent Biosolutions, and the Hudson Institute, co-founded in 1961 by Herman Kahn, the Rand Corporation pioneer of situational simulations (like the ones so loved by Kadlec) who was satirised by Stanley Kubrick as Dr Strangelove.
The co-authors wrote: ‘In public health, it is much easier to play offense than it is to play defense. Playing offense well, however, is going to require a lot more co-ordination – both internationally and within national borders. We believe an important first step in this effort is for the United States and governments around the world to develop an equivalent to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) that focuses cross-sector efforts on advancing biological and pandemic risk readiness.’
Kadlec’s Covid-19 Manhattan Project, reported on here which was rolled out as Operation Warp Speed in the US and spearheaded internationally by CEPI, an organisation that is the international equivalent to DARPA for vaccines, did just that. The aim was operationalising DARPA’s Pandemic Prevention Platform (P3) programme through a network of public-private partnerships. DARPA says P3 aims ‘to support military readiness and global stability through pursuit of novel methods to dramatically accelerate discovery, integration, pre-clinical testing, and manufacturing of medical countermeasures against infectious diseases.’
Dr Michael Callahan, the man hired by Kadlec to investigate the Covid-19 outbreak on the quarantined Diamond Princess cruise ship, which purported to prove that SARS-CoV2 spread asymptomatically, is a physician scientist who managed DARPA’s biodefence ‘therapeutic’ programmes between 2005 and 2012. It was part of DARPA’s ‘super soldier’ project, the aim of which was to create ‘kill proof’ soldiers with an unfair advantage over enemy troops. Inner Armour was the name Callahan gave to the programme to develop advanced genetic vaccines against infectious diseases, now commercialised by Moderna and BioNTech. If conventionally developed vaccines are conceived of as the regular troops routinely deployed in the War on Microbes, the new genetic rapid response vaccines DARPA wanted were meant to be the guerilla fighters, ‘bushwhackers’ as the Americans call them, to be used as an interim firewall.
The objective behind the kill proofing programme was to make American soldiers deployable anywhere in the world on short notice. Callahan told Wired magazine in 2007: ‘As of today, our soldiers are vulnerable to diseases to which the enemy is immune. When a single soldier is infected, the mission is jeopardized and often terminated.’
During Callahan’s time in charge of the biodefence therapeutics programme, its annual budget ballooned from $61million to $260million. The portfolio involved eight programmes that generated nine investigational new drugs (INDs) and three new drug applications with products in the market. Callahan also launched the Department of Defense Icon programme Accelerated Manufacture of Pharmaceuticals (AMP) which generated emergency use pandemic swine flu (H1N1) vaccine, and ZMapp, an experimental monoclonal antibody developed by Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory and the US Army Medical Research Institute of Disease to treat Ebola. ZMapp is ‘pharmed’ in tobacco plants grown by a subsidiary of British American Tobacco and was tested on 200 people during the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak without having previously undergone any human clinical trials for safety or effectiveness.
The genetic vaccine programme called ADEPT: PROTECT is part of the Pandemic Platform Program (P3) launched in 2011. Its focus is on developing ‘rapid discovery, characterisation, production, testing, and delivery of efficacious DNA- and RNA-encoded medical countermeasures’.
Notably absent from this shopping list is the word ‘safe’. This programme is the genesis of the mRNA gene therapy vaccines catapulted on to the pharmaceutical market by Moderna and BioNTech via the Covid-19 pandemic.
Wired magazine first reported the US military’s desire for these genetic vaccines in 1996, but until the appearance of Covid-19 little substantive progress had been made in developing them to the point of commercialisation via normal regulatory approval pathways. Regardless, the ambition to see this ‘rapid response’ technology authorised for use remained undented.
In 2017, the P3 Manager Matt Hepburn, another one of Kadlec’s Red Dawn Wolverines, said: ‘DARPA’s goal is to create a technology platform that can place a protective treatment into health providers’ hands within 60 days of a pathogen being identified, and have that treatment induce protection in patients within three days of administration. We need to be able to move at this speed considering how quickly outbreaks can get out of control. The technology needs to work on any viral disease, whether it’s one humans have faced before or not.‘
Sars CoV2, the vehicle that finally delivered this vaccine technological revolution (through regulatory wormholes at warp speed into countless arms), appears itself to be a by-product of other US government programmes intended to achieve the Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine, articulated by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in Rebuilding America’s Defenses. Biodefence was a single throw-away line in the PNAC document. ThoughKadlec, Tara O’Toole and their associates attempted to focus the attention of defence planners on bioweapons via the June 2001 Dark Winter tabletop simulation of a smallpox bioweapon attack, it was not until the anthrax attacks that followed 9/11 that this received the attention they desired. Again, despite the FBI coming to believe the so-called Amerithrax attacks were an inside job, the War on Microbes had arrived.
Full Spectrum Dominance in the War on Microbes entails predicting pathogen evolution, attempting to pre-empt it and, finally, defending against it. Since the early 1960s, the US military has been cataloguing pathogens around the world as part of its operational preparedness efforts in order to develop vaccines to defend its personnel. In 2009, USAID, a US government agency that is known to act as a front for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), launched an Emerging Pandemic Threats (EPT) programme to target the early detection of new disease threats in the developing world. This virus surveillance programme was called PREDICT. Its aim was to identify the animal sources of coronaviruses, influenza viruses and filoviruses such as Ebola and mitigate the epidemic risk ‘by minimising those practices and behaviours that trigger the spill-over and spread of new pathogens from animal reservoirs to humans’.
Five years into the EPT programme, a non-profit organisation called EcoHealth Alliance, whose president is Dr Peter Daszak, a British zoologist with an interest in disease ecology, joined an international consortium working on the PREDICT programme. Originally called the Wildlife Trust, EcoHealth Alliance was founded in 1971 by the British naturalist Gerald Durrell as a conservation organisation. It has evolved a long way from its original aims.
Dr William Karesh, EcoHealth Alliance’s Executive Vice President for Health and Policy, is a member of Kadlec’s Biodefense Commission who participated in the 2014 workshops that produced the Biodefense Commission’s ‘National Blueprint for Biodefense’. He is also a consultant to the World Health Organisation and is credited with coining the term ‘One Health’ used to describe the interdisciplinary approach promoted by EcoHealth Alliance which says that the health and wellness of all living things on the planet is interconnected. The One Health ‘philosophy’ has been adopted by the WHO and the US government.
In 2016, interested parties gathered at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Conference Center in Italy ‘to develop a vision on the importance and feasibility of the Global Virome Project in building a world safe from the threat of emerging viral diseases.’ Karesh was there. So was Dr George Gao, then Director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control. Under the One Health rationale, once viruses have been identified and catalogued, all creatures, human, or animal are candidates for vaccination, for the good of their health. Last month Sir Jeremy Farrar, the WHO’s incoming Chief Scientist called for governments to invest in developing vaccines for all known animal influenzas just in case they caused a human outbreak. In the War on Microbes there are countless enemies and corresponding opportunities for pharma-profit churning.
The PREDICT consortium contracted out surveillance work on coronaviruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). In 2018, EcoHealth Alliance announced that the WIV had found viruses closely related to SARs in bat caves and that they were capable of infecting humans. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dr Daszak was involved with Dr Baric, Sir Jeremy Farrar and Dr Anthony Farrar in the email chain concerning what’s become known as ‘the proximal origin discussion’ to quash any suggestion of a lab origin for SARS-CoV2.
Once an animal viral reservoir is identified, another DARPA programme called PREMPT, to ‘pre-empt pathogens’ emergence with preventive vaccine’, is meant to activate. This programme, which Michael Callahan also once oversaw, aims to preserve military readiness to deploy to remote locations by protecting against infectious disease threats by targeting the animal hosts of the viruses with self-spreading vaccines.
Not even wild animals fall outside the scope of America’s Full Spectrum Dominance ambitions. In March 2018, EcoHealth Alliance submitted a PREMPT funding proposal to DARPA called DEFUSE which proposed to reverse-engineer a bat coronavirus vaccine.
You may have heard that Marburg virus is rearing its ugly head in west Africa. The subtext is Be Very Afraid.
Just in time, the NIAID (Fauci’s old fiefdom) has a vaccine ready to be tested in unfortunate Africans, after being tested on 40 unfortunate Americans. And once they convince governments or other buyers to obtain it, who gets royalties? Why NIAID of course. And its employees can collect up to $150,000/year if their name is on the patent. Sweet, since it was developed and patented on the taxpayers’ dime.
This first-in-human, Phase 1 study tested an experimental MARV vaccine candidate, known as cAd3-Marburg, which was developed at NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center (VRC). This vaccine uses a modified chimpanzee adenovirus called cAd3, which can no longer replicate or infect cells, and displays a glycoprotein found on the surface of MARV to induce immune responses against the virus. The cAd3 vaccine platform demonstrated a good safety profile in prior clinical trials when used in investigational Ebola virus and Sudan virus vaccines developed by the VRC [NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center].
So they claim the Ebola vaccine, also using the adenovirus platform, has a good safety profile—well, the death rate in the 2018-19 east African epidemic was 60%, higher than usual Ebola epidemics. The vaccine was widely used there—so did the disease kill people or the vaccine? Why were there 300 attacks on health workers, many of whom were vaccinators? I don’t think that imputing safety to the Ebola vaccine is acceptable, nor that the Ebola vaccine can be used to impute safety of the Marburg vaccine. Why did the NIAID only test the vaccine in 20 Americans if there were no serious adverse events, and it was so safe?
Plans are in place to conduct further trials of the cAd3-Marburg vaccine in Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, and the United States. If additional data supports the promising results seen in the Phase 1 trial, the cAd3-Marburg virus vaccine could someday be used in emergency responses to MARV outbreaks.
Yes, the adenovirus vector platform, which was known even before the pandemic to cause blood clots. (I have blogged on this.) And clearly proven to cause venous sinus clots around the brain with the J and J and Astra-Zeneca adenovirus vector COVID vaccines.
Marburg: CDC lists a total of 475 lab-confirmed cases during the entire 56 years since Marburg was first identified. How was it identified? It came to Europe with monkeys from Africa, affecting lab workers, of whom 7 of 31 (23%) died.
Marburg is clinically like Ebola, which has affected thousands, but still—in the US Ebola only spread from affected patients to 2 nurses and never spread further. There have been no US Marburg cases. Neither of these infections is very contagious. Using reasonable precautions you won’t get them.
My point is that the risk to us from a natural virus or bacterium is miniscule. That may not be true of a lab-developed microorganism.
It is the lab-designed bugs that are the problem. We need to stop them. Close the labs, the BSL4s, reduce the BSL3’s and get rid of basic research on “selected agents,” destroy the samples, end this form of “science” that has proven its ability to kill millions and cause worldwide economic destruction. End the field of virology and evolutionary viral genetics—which seem to be peopled by a large group of ‘scientists’ who were in cahoots to keep the lab origin covered up…or at a minimum were afraid to tell the public the truth. Keep a few medical virologists around who did not get their hands dirty. Who needs most of them? They have proven their societal value—which is NEGATIVE—over and over these last three years.
I will shed no tears if they are forced to go and do some manual labor in future. Will you?
Put tight price controls on vaccines, allow about 5% profit, and the wild west in vaccinology will disappear. End pandemic preparedness, from which the money for all the new BSL4s and the new coronaviruses in the US came.
We need to get clear on this. The naturally occurring bugs don’t cause deadly pandemics. They do kill off some weak and frail people in the developed world, and occasional a virus or bacterium will kill a young person. Those deaths are unpredictable and the bugs, often unidentified, don’t really spread beyond an occasional case or two. We have no viable path for preventing them. The so-called “spillover” infections can hardly be found.
It is the Global Biosecurity Agenda that must be stopped.
The Telegraph’s publishing of former UK Health Czar Matt Hancock’s private Whatsapp messages has been dubbed ‘The Lockdown Files.’ The messages detail multiple interactions demonstrating the U.K. Government’s willingness to abandon science and a reasoned approach to Pandemic measures, for coercion and control of the British people.
Former CDC Director, Dr. Robert Redfield, testified before The House Selection Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic this week, letting loose on Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx, Francis Collins, gain-of-function research and the lab origin debate detailing what he witnessed in early 2020. His testimonials are nothing short of historical.
Now that they’ve stopped telling the public to constantly cover their mouths, Japan’s government and media have moved on to telling the public to put bugs into them. And who better to advocate for people to put insects down their throats than the man who advocated most actively for people to put mRNA injections into their veins, former Vaccine Minister and current Digital Minister Taro Kono?
Taro Kono tries crickets at a venture firm exhibition, Says they are “delicious”.
Here’s a better look at the “delicious” crickets Mr Kono pulled his mask down to taste.
But since about 90% of Japanese are resistant to the idea of eating bugs, Japan’s politicians and propaganda apparatus will have to work harder at pushing crickets than they did pushing Covid jabs. Reworking some of its greatest hits from the Covid era, the media has declared “neophobia” to be the new “vaccine-hesitancy”.
Is revulsion to edible crickets due to neophobia (fear of new things)?
So are the neophobes selfishly preventing the creation of a “sustainable” society with their anti-cricket stance? Or do they have a point in sticking to foods humans have actually evolved to consume? Let’s ask the science.
In an 2018 article entitled “Novel foods: a risk profile for the house cricket”, Jannson et al. conducted a literature review to present a risk profile of house crickets as food. They found four potential concerns.
(1) high total aerobic bacterial counts; (2) survival of spore-forming bacteria following thermal processing; (3) allergenicity of insects and insect-derived products; and (4) the bioaccumulation of heavy metals (e.g. cadmium).
The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate the developmental forms of parasites colonizing edible insects in household farms and pet stores in Central Europe and to determine the potential risk of parasitic infections for humans and animals. The experimental material comprised samples of live insects (imagines) from 300 household farms and pet stores, including 75 mealworm farms, 75 house cricket farms, 75 Madagascar hissing cockroach farms and 75 migrating locust farms. Parasites were detected in 244 (81.33%) out of 300 (100%) examined insect farms. In 206 (68.67%) of the cases, the identified parasites were pathogenic for insects only; in 106 (35.33%) cases, parasites were potentially parasitic for animals; and in 91 (30.33%) cases, parasites were potentially pathogenic for humans. Edible insects are an underestimated reservoir of human and animal parasites.
Among the various parasites potentially pathogenic for humansfound in cricket samples were the following.
Isospora spp. [found in 2.67% of samples from cricket farms] are cosmopolitan protozoa of the subclass Coccidia which cause an intestinal disease known as isosporiasis. These parasites pose a threat for both humans (in particular immunosuppressed individuals) and animals. The host becomes infected by ingesting oocytes, and the infection presents mainly with gastrointestinal symptoms (watery diarrhea).
Physaloptera spp. [found in 1.33% of samples from cricket farms] form cysts in the host’s hemocoel approximately 27 days after ingestion.
Although both above-mentioned papers point to various potential issues, they admit there isn’t enough evidence yet to draw conclusions about the health effects of mass-production and mass-consumption of crickets. And I’d say we’re better off keeping it that way, no matter what names the globalist overlords call us.
On November 19, 2020 I testified as the lead witness in the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs led by Senator Ron Johnson. I used the term “academic fraud” in a series of sharp exchanges with now White House Coronavirus Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha. I was told by colleagues that the term fraud was too strident and I should tone down my comments for the media.
Over two years later the US House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic held hearings on “Investigating the Origins of COVID-19” and has hit the tip of an iceberg of academic fraud with a trail of peer-reviewed manuscripts as evidence for the creation of the SARS-CoV-2 chimeric virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology Biosecurity Annex Level 4 laboratory (WIV). This lab had been conducting experiments designed by UNC researcher Dr. Ralph Baric for years and publishing their progress on creation of a coronavirus that could invade human respiratory cells via the ACE2 receptor. They were also developing countermeasures including monoclonal antibodies and killed virus vaccines.
Menachery VD, Yount BL Jr, Sims AC, Debbink K, Agnihothram SS, Gralinski LE, Graham RL, Scobey T, Plante JA, Royal SR, Swanstrom J, Sheahan TP, Pickles RJ, Corti D, Randell SH, Lanzavecchia A, Marasco WA, Baric RS. SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Mar 15;113(11):3048-53. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1517719113. Epub 2016 Mar 14. PMID: 26976607; PMCID: PMC4801244. Menachery, V., Yount, B., Debbink, K. et al. A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence. Nat Med 21, 1508–1513 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3985
The House Committee found through emails that multiple researchers including Dr. Kristian Andersen and Dr. Edward Holmes messaged Dr. Anthony Fauci in January with their conclusions that SARS-CoV-2 could not have arisen from nature. These and other doctors were summoned to a teleconference with Fauci, Dr. Francis Collins, and Welcome Trust Director (now WHO Scientific Director) Jeremy Farrar and four days later the messaging from all the individuals made a 180 degree turn consistently stating the virus did not come from the WIV.
In April, 2020, an opinion paper led by Andersen and coordinated by Farrar appeared in Nature Medicine which completely ignored the work by Baric in the WIV and concluded the virus could not have come from the lab.
In September, 2021, Holmes continues the false narrative in the journal Cell this time citing Baric’s work (Menachery et al) but completely ignoring the chimeric creation in 2015 with homology to the ancestral WIV SARS-CoV-2.
These no doubt are just a few of the individuals and the manuscripts that will memorialize an academic crime that advanced a false worldwide narrative on the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Many have speculated that NIH funding was the motive to get in line with Fauci and Collins. The author list however, tells us this was a global act of fraud.
Why did so many scientists want their names on papers that intentionally misled readers away from WIV? What was the motivation for NIH NIAID UNC WIV to design SARS-CoV-2 as a lethal infection with potential to kill millions? Was this for the advancement of science or where there intentions darker? Did all of these doctors really think it could all be covered up? When I said “fraud” on the Senate record (National Archives) in 2020 I had no idea the extent would be this deep and nefarious. The work of investigative reporters has just begun.
The New York Times recently carried an interesting article about the death in 1973 of Pablo Neruda, one of the most renowned poets in the world. Neruda was a Chilean citizen. He was also a strong supporter of Chilean president Salvador Allende, who the Chilean national-security establishment, with the encouragement of the U.S. national-security state, ousted from power in a violent coup in that year. The coup was headed by Chilean conservative military strongman General Augusto Pinochet.
At the time of the coup, Neruda was suffering from cancer and was hospitalized. He died during the coup. The Chilean military-intelligence establishment claimed that he died from his cancer. There were always suspicions, however, that he had been murdered by the Chilean national-security establishment.
Pablo Neruda
The Times article describes a report from a team that examined Neruda’s remains. The team found bacteria within his body that could be deadly. But they could not determine for sure whether it was, in fact, a toxic strain of bacteria and whether it had been injected into him.
One thing is for certain though: It certainly would not have been unusual for Pinochet and his henchmen to murder Neruda, with the full support of the Pentagon and the CIA, both of which had agents on the ground in Chile during the coup.
Remember: This was 1973, when the Pentagon’s and CIA’s Cold War racket was still going strong. As part of that racket, the Pentagon and the CIA had carte blanche to murder communists wherever they found them.
In 1970, the Chilean people democratically elected Allende to be their president. Allende was a socialist, one who immediately established a friendly relationship with the communist world. He even invited Cuban president Fidel Castro to visit Chile. Their parade in downtown Santiago was met with throngs of enthusiastic supporters.
The U.S. national-security establishment deemed Allende to be a grave threat to national-security. That made him subject to being assassinated by the CIA. Don’t forget that the CIA had already repeatedly tried to assassinate Castro for being a communist.
Rather than assassinate Allende, however, the Pentagon and the CIA instead decided to encourage the Chilean national-security establishment to initiate a violent coup against him. When the coup took place in 1973, the Chilean military tried to assassinate Allende with missiles fired at him from military planes. Allende fought back but was no match for the power of the Chilean national-security establishment. At the end of the battle, Allende lay dead, supposedly having decided to commit suicide.
But even if Allende didn’t commit suicide, the outcome was never in doubt. The Chilean military-intelligence establishment was going to kill him, either during the coup or after the coup. That’s because it, like the Pentagon and the CIA, deemed him to be a communist. Like their counterparts in the Pentagon and the CIA, as far as they were concerned they had the omnipotent authority to kill communists, especially those within their own country.
In fact, after the coup Pinochet and his goons routed up more than 50,000 of Allende’s supporters, including women. They murdered or disappeared around 3,000 of them. They tortured most of them. They raped or violently sexually abused many of the women.
None of this was considered to be any big deal for the killers, the kidnappers, the rapists, and the abusers because the victims were all considered to be communists or communist sympathizers. In the minds of the Chilean national-security establishment, the only good communist was a dead communist, a tortured communist, a raped communist, or a sexually abused communist.
All of this met with the fervent approval of the Pentagon and the CIA. U.S. taxpayer-funded money flooded into the Pinochet regime. In the eyes of the Pentagon and the CIA, Pinochet was helping win the worldwide war on communism, even if the U.S. was losing to the communists in Vietnam.
During the coup, the Chilean military took two young Americans into custody, Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi. They too were supporters of Allende. They were also opponents of the U.S. war in Vietnam. Chilean officials murdered both men. There is no way that Pinochet would have killed two Americans without first having received a green light from U.S. officials. But it was easy to secure that green light because Horman and Teruggi were considered to be unpatriotic, treasonous American communist sympathizers.
In 1970, U.S. officials first began planning their coup against Allende. Standing in their way, however, was Gen. Rene Schneider, the overall commander of Chile’s armed forces. The CIA orchestrated his violent kidnaping to remove him as an obstacle to the coup. Schneider was murdered by the CIA-employed thugs during the kidnapping attempt.
No one in the CIA was ever brought to justice for Schneider’s murder. For that matter, no one in the CIA or the Pentagon was ever brought to justice for Horman’s and Teruggi’s murder.
Many years later, when the Schneider sons sued in federal court for the murder of their father, the federal judiciary made it clear that it would never interfere with any of the CIA’s or Pentagon’s state-sponsored assassinations.
So, given all this, it certainly should not surprise anyone if Pablo Neruda was, in fact, one of the murder victims during the Chilean coup. In fact, what would be surprising is if he wasn’t.
“Stranded assets.” You know what those are. Probably you’ve read a hundred or more articles over the past few years confidently proclaiming that oil and gas fields and coal mines owned by large energy companies will soon become worthless, as production of energy shifts to “cleaner” and “cheaper” things like wind and solar. The owners of the fossil fuel properties won’t be able to sell them for even a dollar. The assets will thus be “stranded.”
The “stranded assets” predictions unsurprisingly come from the same crowd who are also ordering up the electric car future. For just a tiny sample of recent pieces making the stranded assets point, check out this from Nature Climate Change, May 26, 2022 (“The transition to a global low-carbon economy entails . . . the fast phase-out of fossil-fuel production, which will necessitate the write-down of major, functioning capital assets and reserves reflected as assets on fossil energy companies’ balance sheets.”); or this from MIT News, August 19, 2022 (“As the world transitions away from greenhouse-gas-emitting activities, . . . fossil fuel companies and their investors face growing financial risks (known as transition risks), including the prospect of ending up with massive stranded assets.”); or from the Guardian, November 4, 2021 (“Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition.”).
Lynch’s piece is somewhat long (14 pages), and filled with decades’-old super-confident predictions of our energy future, all of which failed. I’ll give you just a sample:
Rawleigh Warner, CEO of Mobil, 1977: “The oil business has come to maturity, and with this maturity comes a new set of challenges… oil companies have no other choice. They must diversify or go the way of the buggy-whip makers.”
Standard & Poors, 1980: “Diversification [by oil majors] into alternative energy fields should offer promising new opportunities for increasing profitability.”
Standard & Poors, 1984: “Diversification out of the oil business has been disastrous for most of the majors…”
Ford Chairman William Clay Ford, Jr., 2000: “I believe fuel cells will finally end the 100-year reign of the internal combustion engine . . . Fuel cells could be the predominant automotive power source in 25 years.”
Jurgen Schrempp, Chairman of the Board of Management of Daimler-Chrysler said the company would be a market leader and later predicted sales of 100,000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in 2005.
Lynch on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles: “[T]oday, a quarter century later, sales are in the four figures.”
Senator Richard Lugar and R. James Woolsey, 1999: “Cellulosic ethanol is a first-class transportation fuel, able to power the cars of today as well as tomorrow, use the vast infrastructure already built for gasoline, and enter quickly and easily into the transportation system.”
Lynch on cellulosic ethanol: “[C]urrent production of cellulosic ethanol is so low data is not reported by the government.”
It goes on and on from there. There’s one very safe bet on the energy future, and that is that the utopian dreams of would-be central planners will fail. The $300-400 billion of subsidies said to be in the “Inflation Reduction Act” for “renewable” energies is not nearly enough to enable those things to prevail over fossil fuels in the market for energy. The energy supply will inexorably move to whatever best supplies consumer needs at the lowest cost.
By Khalid Amayreh, in occupied East Jerusalem | The People’s Voice | October 18, 2010
A major Jewish religious figure in Israel has likened non-Jews to donkeys and beasts of burden, saying the main reason for their very existence is to serve Jews.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual mentor of the religious fundamentalist party, Shas, which represents Middle Eastern Jews, reportedly said during a Sabbath homily earlier this week that “the sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews.”
Yosef is considered a major religious leader in Israel who enjoys the allegiance of hundreds of thousands of followers. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 