Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Klaus Schwab, Sophist

By Laurie Calhoun | The Libertarian Institute | May 1, 2025

The existence of Klaus Schwab became known to much of the thinking world during the Coronapocalypse, when so-called conspiracy theories began to flourish about the use of the novel COVID-19 virus as a pretext for reconfiguring the world. The “Great Reset” and the “New Normal” began to be spoken of fondly by bureaucrats back in 2020, shortly after the in some ways incomprehensibly influential Schwab co-authored with Thierry Malleret a short book extolling just those concepts: Covid-19: The Great Reset.

The work, or paraphrased excerpts of it, must have been spam-emailed to every government official and mainstream media journalist on the planet, because in no time pundits and their parrots in the press were gushing about the Great Reset, essentially a Brave New World to come (had none of them read Aldous Huxley’s classic work, or did they simply not understand it?). Nearly every influential person with a microphone was emitting the expression “Everything has changed,” insisting that this was because of the emergence of the novel coronavirus, not the government policies enacted in response to it. Schwab was lurking behind the scenes from the beginning, proffering gaslighting homilies and question-begging arguments camouflaged as benevolent recommendations and facts:

“The worldwide crisis triggered by the coronavirus pandemic has no parallel in modern history.”

In truth, “Everything changed” only because government officials changed everything, by closing national borders, locking down entire populations, preventing groups from assembling, and shutting down schools and all but specially designated “essential” businesses. Human beings were required to wear masks nearly everywhere they went, and those who demurred were treated as miscreants and pursued by the police. The insistence by politicians, bureaucrats and other opinion makers that “Everything has changed” was curiously reminiscent of how officials rationalized a massive and ruthless assault on Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of crimes committed on September 11, 2001, by a small group of persons hailing primarily from Saudi Arabia. (Induction on two cases: when someone starts chiming, “Everything has changed!” in order to persuade you to do something or to support some initiative, you should probably turn around and walk away.)

Klaus Schwab founded and led the World Economic Forum (WEF) for more than fifty years. Many of what were revealed during the pandemic period to be the most brazen authoritarians among ostensibly democratic world leaders have connections to the organization. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and French President Emmanuel Macron are notable examples of leaders who punished and even ostracized citizens for daring to defy their administration’s draconian COVID policies. Schwab recently resigned from his position, but whether that was because of age—he was born in 1938—or scandal matters little at this point, for his legacy has been secured throughout much of the world.

Key features of the Great Reset were to foist ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance investing) on people transnationally or, perhaps more accurately, meta-nationally. We have seen that elements of Schwab’s Weltanschauung have indeed made their way into not only federal government policies, with Green New Deals and carbon-limiting programs imposed in many parts of the planet, but also global corporate initiatives, as many companies now boast about their “environmental and social conscience,” using this as a marketing tool. Under the “Social Governance” guise of the ESG program, enthusiastic efforts to expand DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) frameworks throughout the spheres of education and business have led to the appearance of “trans flags” waving alongside national flags at government buildings in what can only be characterized as a bizarre obsession with the subset of human beings, oddly in ascendance, who are said to have been born with the wrong set of genitalia.

One of the more extreme consequences of DEI has indeed been the effusive promotion of a radical trans agenda, which is arguably both homophobic and misogynistic, promoting as it does a grotesque caricature of femininity, exemplified by the skimpily clad and seemingly ditsy Dylan Mulvaney (remember the Budweiser ads?), while essentially denying the possibility of androgyny. In the name of inclusion, biological males (persons in possession of a Y chromosome) have been allowed to compete with females (persons devoid of a Y chromosome) in sports, with female competitors predictably forced to forego awards and scholarships as a result. Female athletes whose sports involve contact with competitors have been physically endangered by the admission of males into their sphere, as is evidenced by the case of volleyball player Payton McNabb and the 2024 Olympic boxing controversy, when two competitors who had previously failed a female gender test (for Y chromosome and testosterone levels) were permitted to compete. On top of all of those clear and present dangers, females in locker rooms have been faced with the prospect of seeing a penis dangling before them as they change their clothes or shower. Rather than attempt to protect females, policymakers were somehow persuaded by radical trans activists that males who decreed themselves to be female needed to be protected instead.

The incomprehensible power of the radical trans facet of the DEI agenda also brought about the enactment of laws which criminalize the “mis-pronouning” of persons who, despite having been born male, self-identify as female, or vice versa. Or neither, which necessitates, by law in some places now, that their interlocutors restrict personal pronoun usage to ‘they/them’. The latter is needless to say a no-win arrangement, for in complying with pronoun laws, one is thus obliged to commit a crime of grammar.

On the New Green Deal front, the European Union is continually devising new policies which attest to its commitments to the New Normal as envisioned by Schwab’s WEF, perhaps the most notorious slogan of which is “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” Countless memes have satirized the WEF leader for exhorting people to eat insects and stay in their “pods,” on the grounds that livestock and travel are allegedly a menace to the future of the planet. (Note: the persons who attend the ever-proliferating conferences on the environment or serve as parliament members of the EU generally fly to their meetings, sometimes in private jets.) Earnest discussion of the possibility of “15-minute cities,” where people do not need to (or are not allowed to) travel farther than fifteen minutes from their domicile has been taken up among local council members in “green-savvy” communities.

The list of rules and regulations already imposed by the European Union is seemingly endless, but to offer only two recent examples: plastic bottles sold in Europe are now required to have their caps affixed to them, and single-serving portion containers (such as are used at bed and breakfast hotels for jam, butter, honey, etc.) are in the process of being outlawed, despite having been devised as a means not only of convenience but also to prevent cross-contamination between unrelated guests. Only time will tell whether bureaucrats eventually side with public health officials or environmentalists in the latter case.

Far more important for the future of free people are the persistent censorship measures in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia and beyond, modeled after anti-misinformation and surveillance policies aggressively enforced in many countries during the COVID period. To the shock of many thinking people, governments have taken it upon themselves to monitor the social media posts of citizens and to criminalize the expression of what are deemed unacceptable opinions, an obvious legacy of the COVID period, when persons who disagreed with the government were roundly denounced as agents of misinformation who needed to be de-platformed and silenced, lest they kill anyone with their dangerous ideas. Strikingly, reports of vaccine injury were not even false (misinformation), according to the censors themselves, but instead “malinformation,” which officials regarded as having the potential to prevent people who needed the “vaccine” from getting it.

Looking back at the surprising convergence among governments about the necessity of global lockdowns and, later, universal vaccination in the face of a virus which primarily endangered elderly and already infirm persons, it is clear that Schwab’s work served as a sort of template for how to communicate with constituents and conduct public affairs. Paternalism reigned (or, if you prefer, “maternalism” à la Nurse Ratched), as citizens were spoken to by political leaders in condescending tones as though they were toddlers who needed to be protected from themselves. This approach to governance can be summed up in a phrase: Children are to be seen, not heard.

Citizens were told that it was wrong to do their own research because only “the experts,” such as pandemic guru Anthony Fauci knew what they were doing. Despite having repeatedly lied in insisting that the virus had emerged naturally, having somehow leapt from a bat to a human being (when someone in Wuhan ate a bowl of soup?), Fauci himself, we now know, promoted and funded the gain-of-function research which culminated in the very existence—and potency—of the virus. Throughout this period of history, persons who dared to dissent from the dictates and narratives of the government were decried as enemies of humanity who needed to be controlled in order to protect other people from their nefarious tendencies. Notably, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., author of The Real Anthony Fauci (a true tale of moral horror), who now serves as secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Donald Trump’s second administration, was publicly derided and discredited as an insane conspiracy theorist throughout Joe Biden’s presidency.

The conduct of governments during the period of history from 2020 to 2023 was so confounding and preposterous that a plethora of bona fide conspiracy theories continued to emerge, reaching a peak with the release of the alleged miracle vaccine, which everyone on the planet was first encouraged (through coaxing and bribery) and then, in some cases, required to line up for, on pain of punishment for failure to comply. Some of the theories were quite creative, asserting, for example, that the shots were introducing microchips into the bodies of the recipients, or would turn them into frogs. But the term antivaxxer was affixed to anyone who declined the shot, whatever their reason, with everyone in that group assimilated and depicted as intellectually inept for defying what were claimed by officials at the time to be the dictates of common sense.

Some people, whether with formal training in science or simply endowed with critical thinking skills, understandably expressed skepticism about the new m-RNA therapy shot which they were told would eradicate the virus, while being simultaneously told that natural immunity was inadequate and that persons who already recovered from the virus would still need to undergo vaccination. Because a vaccine, by definition, exploits the subject’s own immune system, anyone with even a modicum of logical acumen must have understood that the new miracle vaccine, which depended on the immune system itself, would only work as advertised if, in fact, natural immunity was possible. This flagrant contradiction was not recognized or acknowledged as such by inept (or, in some cases, mercenarily corrupt) government officials and public health pundits, but it was the most obvious sign to people yet to be indoctrinated into the COVID cult (or not on the Big Pharma dole) that something was seriously awry.

The “Natural immunity is not possible, but this vaccine is necessary and will save you!” contradiction no doubt inspired some of the ever-mutating and proliferating theories about what was really going on. In Covid-19: The Great Reset, Schwab himself refers to antivaxxers as a dangerous impediment to getting through the crisis, and the term came swiftly to be used to denounce anyone who raised even doubts grounded in logic and science about the wisdom of submitting to an experimental treatment in cases where the person’s chances of death from the virus were quite low, as was true for all healthy young persons, and had already been demonstrated in each particular case of anyone who had recovered from previous infection.

The Pentagon required all service persons to take part in the experimental trial of the mRNA therapy, whether or not they had already recovered from infection. The more than 8,000 troops who refused the shot were discharged without pay in 2021, and the military vaccine mandate was not rescinded until 2023. Since assuming office in 2025, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s new defense secretary, has been apologizing to those persons and attempting to make amends, acknowledging that the order to take an experimental vaccine was in fact illegal and that no one was obliged to follow illegal orders. The true motives and sincerity of the new administration on this matter will be seen in how they treat the persons who suffered vaccine injury as a result of having undergone the procedure, under the erroneous belief that Joe Biden’s secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, knew what he was doing when he ordered the entire military corps to follow his über-masked, serially vaccinated and boosted example. If the government extends its offer of compensation only to healthy troops, in an effort to woo them back into service, and ignores the persons who were disabled by the vaccine, or the individuals and families wrecked by being plunged precipitously into penury, then it will be safe to conclude that Hegseth’s apology tour is no more and no less than a measure intended to mitigate the ongoing recruitment crisis.

There seemed to be grounds for hope that the United States had managed to extricate itself from the totalitarian clutches of meta-bureaucrats such as Klaus Schwab and their “Fifty Year Plans” for humanity when Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris (who to this day has pronouns in her profile at X) in the November 2024 presidential election. The new president immediately rescinded all DEI initiatives implemented under Biden and enacted numerous executive orders in an effort to protect women, and restore a modicum of sanity to what had become a surreal situation, by boldly asserting the biological fact that no matter how many body parts a male human being chooses to cut off or modify, every remaining cell in his body will still contain a Y chromosome. Trump also acted swiftly to criminalize the scandalous medical practice of mutilating the genitalia of minors. Both Trump and his vice president, J.D. Vance, repeatedly pronounced that free speech would always prevail in the United States as a fundamental pillar of democracy, and they vociferously denounced the censorship going on abroad.

Vestiges of the New World Order, however, can be seen in the United States, for example, the requirement that all citizens who wish to travel or enter a federal building be in possession of a Real ID. This measure, too, which begins in May 2025, having been planned long ago, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, bears similarities to some of what was going on during the COVID period, when tracking apps and data collection at borders were nearly ubiquitous. More and more data about citizens continues to be collected by governments, and remnants of the health documentation requirements during the COVID period can be seen in the visas now needed to travel to countries where formerly a passport sufficed. Restriction of movement reached a peak during the COVID period, but the apparatus now exists and with a bit of tweaking could be used to stop anyone, anywhere, from relocating at the caprice of government officials, whoever they may be, and whatever their priorities.

The removal of students from campuses in the United States for daring to speak out against the government’s continuing support of the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza suggests that Trump, like Biden and Harris, supports free speech only so long as it does not threaten his own plans for the country or its satellite state, Israel. The libertarians who voted for Trump were needless to say thrilled when he followed through on his promise to pardon Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road who had received a double life sentence plus forty years with no possibility of parole. In choosing to vote for Trump, however, libertarians had somehow forgotten or chose to ignore the fact that Julian Assange was thrown into Belmarsh prison under Trump’s watch. (I am aware that many persons vote according to a “lesser evil” calculation, but the fact remains: the worst persecution of Assange occurred under Trump.) The fact that U.S. government drones are now acknowledged to be flying above U.S. skies (they were under Biden as well, although this was denied at the time), reveals that surveillance of residents remains a priority of the ostensibly new administration.

Antiwar activists—some of whom voted for Trump—were hopeful that he was sincere when he promised on the campaign trail not to start but to end wars. Even more welcome, albeit frankly astonishing, was Trump’s assertion on February 13, 2025, not long after having re-assumed the presidency, that he would like to cut the $800 billion Pentagon budget in half and work for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Pacific hopes were swiftly dashed less than two months later when, immediately after hosting Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (for the second time in 2025), Trump announced on April 7, 2025, a new, even bigger, $1 trillion defense budget, accompanied by his customary raving about how splendid the U.S. military will be, thanks to his management.

In a welcome change to citizens concerned about government overreach and the massive federal debt, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), under the direction of Elon Musk, has been purging programs and canceling contracts relating to DEI and other parts of the Schwab “New Normal” agenda, including regulations intended to promote the Green New Deal and expand government power over citizens’ lives. The era of big government, however, is obviously not behind us. Along with his sudden imposition of extreme tariffs and announcement of a shocking 25% increase in defense spending, Trump’s strange fascination with the future possible annexation of Greenland, Canada, and Gaza, does not bode well for the future of free people. The idea that the leader of one country may simply “buy” another country or a part of another country (in the case of Gaza) reflects the very megalomania intrinsic to supra-national organizations such as the WEF and characters such as Klaus Schwab who attempt to impose their will on the rest of humanity.

Setting all of those substantial concerns aside, at the very least we can take solace in the fact that Klaus Schwab is no longer calling the WEF shots and penning flagrantly sophistic pamphlets replete with non sequiturs and gaslighting guidance masquerading as benevolence. Goodbye and good riddance, Herr Professor Doktor Schwab, we will not miss you. Alas, the WEF continues on (funded by not only a congeries of self-interested global corporations, but also NGOs and, by transitivity, unwitting taxpayers), and the danger it poses thus remains. Self-deluded officials named as global thought leaders will continue to comply with the WEF, as was exemplified by former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who is explicitly singled out for praise in Covid-19: The Great Reset.

Bureaucrats, for their part, will continue to conduct themselves as bureaucrats do, amassing power, devising new rules and regulations, and imposing arbitrary policies by all means necessary, as we witnessed throughout the COVID era. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the recently named interim chairman of the WEF, is a former CEO of Nestlé who famously claimed that people have no right to water. Unbeknownst to many of the millions of people who purchase and imbibe bottled water everyday, much of it derives from government-treated municipal water supplies filtered and then poured into plastic bottles to look as though it was sourced from natural spring wells such as Evian, Perrier, Pellegrino, Gerolsteiner, et al. It is unclear how much power Brabeck-Letmathe will exert, or for how long, but he does happen to look empirically indistinguishable from the super villains depicted in movies, so there is some chance that if he begins spouting out gaslighting prescriptions about how all human beings ought to behave, at least some among us will shudder, turn around and walk away.

May 1, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Who and what was behind the purge of Pentagon officers?

If Americans Knew | April 30, 2025

As is often the case, it appears that Israel partisans were behind this, as revealed by Col. Douglas Macgregor in this interview with Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis. Macgregor is a decorated combat veteran, author of five books, a PhD, and a defense and foreign policy consultant. In 2020 he was appointed Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Defense by President Trump. In 28 years of service Macgregor taught at West Point; commanded the 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry; served as the Director of the Joint Operations Center at SHAPE in 1999; and was awarded the Defense Superior Service medal. – https://www.douglasmacgregor.com/about

Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow and military expert at Defense Priorities. Davis retired from the U.S. Army as a Lt. Col. after 21 years of active service. He was deployed into combat zones four times in his career, beginning with Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and then to Iraq in 2009 and Afghanistan twice (2005, 2011). He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for Valor at the Battle of 73 Easting in 1991, and awarded a Bronze Star Medal in Afghanistan in 2011. He is the author of The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America. – https://www.defensepriorities.org/peo…

The full Tucker Carlson interview with Dan Caldwell is here: https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show…

This video is excerpted from the “Daniel Davis / Deep Dive” interview with Col. Macgregor on April 22, 2025. View it at    • Col Doug Macgregor: Defense Sec Hegse…  

To learn more about If Americans Knew, an American nonprofit organization, go here: https://ifamericansknew.org/

May 1, 2025 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Is the forced transfer of Palestinians Israel’s ultimate goal?

Al Jazeera | April 22, 2025

As soon as he came to power, United States President Donald Trump echoed calls for the Palestinians’ massive displacement outside their homeland.

Israel’s war on Gaza has displaced nearly two million Palestinians since October 2023. And with calls by some Israeli politicians to permanently expel Palestinians from the Strip, fear is growing of yet another forced population transfer. An Israeli minister has even called the current war the “Gaza Nakba”, referring to the forced displacement of Palestinians in 1948-49.

Meanwhile, in the occupied West Bank, the Israeli army and settlers are waging a less visible but equally dangerous shadow war. People & Power delves into the history of Palestinian displacement and asks whether population transfer is Israel’s ultimate goal.

April 30, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Power, Climate and Hatred of Humans – James Corbett on the Tom Nelson Podcast

Corbett | April 28, 2025

VIDEO (AND ANY ADS THAT MAY PLAY ON IT) COURTESY OF TOM NELSON BITCHUTE / RUMBLE / YOUTUBE

SHOW NOTES:

Tom Nelson – linktree with link to all of his platforms

Bug And Tug: WEF Investigates Klaus Schwab Over ‘In-Room Massages’ And Other Allegations

How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World

What is Technocracy? – Questions For Corbett #092

Technocracy Study Course

Dissent Into Madness – Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3 / Part 4

ReportageBook.com

MediaMonarchy.com

Desmogblog: ClimategateTV: Deniers Start Their Own Station

2025 – $66M experiment to ‘dim the sun’ to combat global warming gets OK — but critics have called it ‘barking mad’

2021 – A Bill Gates Venture Aims To Spray Dust Into The Atmosphere To Block The Sun. What Could Go Wrong?

April 29, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

Israelis faced no serious pressure from Biden regime to stop war: Officials

Al Mayadeen | April 28, 2025

Former Biden officials admitted that Netanyahu rejected a ceasefire, prolonged the Gaza war for political reasons, sabotaged a Saudi normalization deal, and faced no serious pressure from Washington to stop the assault.

Senior officials from the former Biden administration have acknowledged in a revealing interview aired Sunday by “Israel’s” Channel 13 that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actively derailed efforts to reach a normalization deal with Saudi Arabia and prolonged the Gaza war for political survival, all while rejecting any serious move toward a ceasefire.

The officials revealed that in 2023, “Israel” was presented with an opportunity to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia. The proposed deal, brokered by Washington and Riyadh, would have required a ceasefire, the release of captives, and a political commitment toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. Netanyahu rejected these conditions outright. Following the October 7 events, he entrenched his refusal, dismissing any discussion of Palestinian rights as “a prize for terrorism.”

Biden aides noted that advancing Palestinian self-determination was not framed as an Israeli concession but as a necessary step to weaken Hamas and empower a reformed Palestinian Authority. Still, “Israel” refused.

“I don’t understand the decision not to grab that opportunity as the most important strategic move Israel can make,” former senior US envoy Amos Hochstein said. “I think it was missed before. I hope Israel doesn’t miss that opportunity moving forward, even if it means doing things that politically are uncomfortable.”

Throughout the course of the war, “Israel” consistently rejected calls for a ceasefire, not once requesting one itself, even as the Palestinian death toll climbed into the tens of thousands. Despite widespread destruction in Gaza, Netanyahu’s government pursued a military strategy without any political plan for what would follow, a choice Biden officials now admit was deliberate.

Former US national security adviser Jake Sullivan expressed frustration at Netanyahu’s attacks on the US, saying, “Having the prime minister of Israel question the support of the United States after all that we did, do I think that was a right and proper thing for a friend to do? I do not. [However], I will always stand firm behind the idea that Israel has a right to defend itself and that the United States has a responsibility to help Israel.”

In internal discussions, Washington briefly considered more forceful measures, including a speech from Biden to pressure Netanyahu or even encourage Israeli elections. But the US ultimately chose not to directly confront Netanyahu’s extremist coalition, enabling continued escalation in Gaza without a coherent exit strategy.

Officials further revealed that Netanyahu sabotaged diplomatic efforts by falsely accusing the US of a broad weapons freeze, leading to the collapse of negotiations to release a shipment of 2,000-lb bombs. This, despite the fact that Washington had already pushed through $19 billion in new security assistance to “Israel.”

Behind the scenes, Biden aides said they struggled to secure basic humanitarian aid entry into Gaza, facing Israeli obstruction and attacks on aid convoys by far-right settlers, actions enabled by ministers inside Netanyahu’s own government. Although the US signed memoranda requiring the State Department to monitor whether Israeli behavior violated US arms laws, whistleblowers like Stacy Gilbert resigned after accusing the Biden administration of manipulating findings to continue arms shipments to “Israel.”

Despite recognizing these realities, Biden officials continued unconditional political and military support for “Israel” throughout the war. While they claim to have privately voiced concerns, there was no serious pressure on “Israel” to halt its attack or pursue a ceasefire.

Discussions with Saudi Arabia over normalization continued during the war, but ultimately faltered because “Israel’s” leadership refused to accept any framework that would guarantee Palestinian rights. “The fact that there wasn’t a way in the Israeli political system for anyone to navigate a space to allow for that is kind of shocking,” former US ambassador Jack Lew said.

Even in ceasefire talks, Biden officials acknowledged that Netanyahu’s internal political considerations often obstructed possible deals. US negotiators admitted that Netanyahu added new conditions at critical moments, disrupting progress aimed at securing the release of captives.

While some former Biden officials sought to portray President Biden’s loyalty to “Israel” as an act of courage, the interviews paint a different reality: Biden’s refusal to apply meaningful pressure allowed Netanyahu’s government to escalate the devastation in Gaza without restraint.

Former Israeli ambassador Michael Herzog summed up this perspective when he said, “God did the State of Israel a favor that Biden was the president during this period, because it could have been much worse. We fought [in Gaza] for over a year, and the administration never came to us and said, ‘ceasefire now.’ It never did. And that’s not to be taken for granted.”

The reality, confirmed even by officials closest to Washington and Tel Aviv, is that “Israel’s” attack on Gaza was never accompanied by any serious plan for peace, only the relentless continuation of genocide, enabled and shielded by unconditional US support.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

US Senator Ron Johnson Notices 9/11 Controlled Demolitions, Pushes Investigation

While scientist David Chandler refutes specious “debunkings” of North Tower antenna drop

By Kevin Barrett | April 23, 2025

Almost twenty years after I was witch-hunted out of the University of Wisconsin-Madison by members of the Wisconsin Republican Party due to my claims that 9/11 was a false flag and the World Trade Center was demolished with explosives, Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson has finally noticed I was right. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth reports:

For the first time, a sitting U.S. senator has publicly endorsed the position that World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition on September 11, 2001.

In a bombshell interview, Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) told podcaster Benny Johnson that he became convinced that the government account of what brought the WTC towers down is false after talking with former congressman Curt Weldon and after watching the 9/11 documentary Calling Out Bravo-7.

Johnson was explicit, sounding a lot like I did in 2006:

He mentioned the molten steel under the towers and questioned why evidence was quickly removed from the site.

“Who ordered the removal and the destruction of all that evidence, totally contrary to any other firefighter investigating procedures? Who ordered that? Who was in charge? I think there’s some basic information. Where’s all the documentation for the NIST investigation?

“There are a host of questions I will be asking, quite honestly, now that my eyes have been opened up.”

Johnson says he’ll work with Weldon to expose the truth, which has been kept from the world.

“What actually happened on 9/11?” the senator asked. “What do we know, and what was covered up? My guess is that there is a whole lot that has been covered up in terms of what the American government knows about 9/11.”

Johnson is not the first US senator from Wisconsin whose “eyes have been opened up” to the 9/11 false flag. I brought the matter up several times between 2004 and 2006 with Johnson’s predecessor, then-Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), whose best friend, Sen. Paul Wellstone, was murdered in a rigged plane crash in 2002 to nip his 9/11 truth efforts in the bud. Feingold pointedly did not disagree with my assertions about 9/11 and thanked me for giving him David Ray Griffin’s books. Another senator and friend of Feingold and Wellstone, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), told a senior staff member “you don’t know how right you are” in asserting that Wellstone was murdered to protect the 9/11 coverup. As I reported in May 2010:

Scholar-activist Four Arrows, co-author of American Assassination: The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone, today revealed for the first time a reported conversation in which U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) confirmed that the Wellstone plane crash was an assassination, not an accident.

As Four Arrows recounted on today’s edition of The Kevin Barrett Show (beginning somewhere around the 20 minute mark): a trusted friend of his, during a conversation with Sen. Boxer, was surprised when the Senator asked “are you a friend of Four Arrows?” The friend said yes. Boxer said “tell him he doesn’t know how right he is. (The Wellstone assassination) was meant as a warning to all of us.” Sen. Boxer went on to say that if asked, she would deny the statement.

Sen. Boxer, who other sources report has confidentially admitted that she knows 9/11 was an inside job, has publicly confirmed that she does not trust the 9/11 Commission version of events, specifically the official narrative of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. The following exchange took place between Senator Boxer and myself on Wisconsin Public Radio’s program “Conversations with Kathleen Dunn” on December 5th, 2005 (click here for archive — note that the text below is a summary, not a transcript):

“Barrett: Senator Boxer, I’d like to thank you and Senator Feingold for hanging in there after 9/11…(Boxer: “You’re welcome.”) Now as you may know, Congressman Kurt Weldon has been screaming from the rooftops that we need a new 9/11 Able Danger investigation focusing on what US intelligence agencies knew about Mohammad Atta and when they knew it. Newsweek and other mainstream publications have written that Mohammad Atta was trained at the Foreign Officer’s school Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. And Daniel Hopsicker’s book Welcome to Terrorland makes it clear that Hoffman Aviation in Venice Florida, where the so-called hijackers trained, was actually a CIA drug import facility—it was a flight school in name only. Now Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer has blown the whistle—he says he and his colleagues in military intelligence identified Atta as a terrorist in 2000, but they were gagged and ordered to “forget they had ever heard of Atta.” Are you among the 245 senators and representatives who have signed Congressman Weldon’s letter demanding a Congressional investigation into what US authorities knew about Atta prior to the 9/11 attacks?

“Senator Boxer: That isn’t what the 9/11 Commission Report said—but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I haven’t seen Congressman Weldon’s letter yet, but…we need to pursue the truth about 9/11 wherever it leads. The truth should be the only priority. And we need the truth. My main focus now, though, is to end the war in Iraq.”

According to Four Arrows, Sen. Boxer and other high-visibility people know that if they cross certain lines, they and/or their families will be assassinated.

I salute Ron Johnson for having the courage to take on an issue that can get senate-level people killed. And while I don’t agree with Johnson’s positions on many issues, I am glad I knocked on doors for a day to help get him re-elected in 2022. Like Dennis Kucinich, who recently appeared on my podcast to voice his anguish about the US-backed Gaza genocide, Johnson has enough courage and integrity to break taboos and speak important truths. But can he organize a Senate investigation with the power to subpoena witnesses and compel testimony? The stakes couldn’t be higher: Against the chance of getting Wellstoned, an opportunity to make history and become a genuine national hero for the ages.

April 23, 2025 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , | 2 Comments

Russia: The main obstacle to the globalist project of world reordering

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 21, 2025

The current war between Russia and NATO in Ukraine is far from being merely a regional conflict. Behind the military clashes and media propaganda lies a much deeper confrontation: a struggle between sovereignty and global domination, between a multipolar world and the imposition of a centralized governance serving the interests of the transnational financial elite. In this context, Russia emerges as the last major obstacle to the globalist agenda, which seeks to completely reshape the international order—eliminating any country that resists the project of forced unification under Western technocratic control.

From “Germany Must Perish” to “Russia Must Perish”

To understand the logic behind current events, it is essential to recall the historical context of the 20th century. In 1941, Theodore Kaufman published the infamous book Germany Must Perish!, advocating for the total annihilation of Germany and the German people as a condition for world peace. Obviously, Kaufman’s absurd thesis greatly contributed to German extremism and the rise of racist revanchism. Today, that same logic has simply been redirected: the target is now Moscow. The prevailing narrative in the West no longer seeks understanding or coexistence, but rather the complete weakening and dismantling of the Russian state.

This hostility did not arise out of nowhere. What bothers the globalist power centers—based primarily in London, Washington, and Brussels—is the fact that Russia continues to refuse to surrender its national sovereignty, its distinct civilizational model, and its natural wealth. A country with immense energy and military potential that rejects subordination to rules dictated by entities like the World Economic Forum or the IMF automatically becomes an enemy.

Ukraine’s Role and the Geopolitical Siege

Ukraine has become the centerpiece of the strategy to contain Russia. The 2014 coup, openly supported by Washington and Brussels, marked the starting point of a new phase of hybrid war against Moscow. Ukraine’s integration into Western structures, the training of its armed forces by NATO, and the continuous sabotage of the Minsk agreements left Russia no choice but to launch the Special Military Operation.

It is important to note that the globalist elite never had any genuine interest in Ukraine’s stability. The country served as a pressure tool, a platform for military provocation, and a source of strategic resources: fertile agricultural lands, gas deposits, rare minerals. More than that, it acted as a barrier to prevent a rapprochement between Berlin and Moscow—a potentially devastating alliance for Anglo-American dominance.

The Trump Factor

Donald Trump’s election in 2024 reignited an unexpected hope: that the Western axis of power could be broken from within. Unlike the Washington political establishment, Trump does not represent the interests of the transnational elite, but rather a nationalist and pragmatic faction of the American bourgeoisie that sees peace with Russia as an opportunity, not a threat.

The emerging rapprochement between Trump and Putin—even if limited—suggests a possible reconfiguration of international alliances. The globalist project, which viewed the war in Ukraine as a way to weaken Moscow and solidify control over Europe, must now deal with the possibility of a ceasefire that could further strengthen Russia’s position.

A Captured Europe on a Suicidal Path

Meanwhile, the European Union remains blind in its obedience to globalist interests. Leaders such as Emmanuel Macron, Ursula von der Leyen, and Kaja Kallas do not act as statesmen, but as colonial administrators of the globalist agenda. Rapid militarization, constant war propaganda, and even campaigns urging civilians to prepare for conflict are clear signs that Brussels is committed not to peace—but to destruction.

Russia, therefore, resists not only for itself. It also resists on behalf of those in Europe and beyond who still believe in the possibility of a world based on civilizational balance, not subjugation to speculative capital. The true battle of our time is not between democracy and autocracy, as they want us to believe—but between sovereignty and servitude.

April 21, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

The myth of conquest: Why Gaza will never be subdued by Israel

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | April 21, 2025

To conquer a place is to fundamentally subdue its population. This must be clearly differentiated from ‘occupation’, a specific legal term that governs the relationship between a foreign “occupying power” and the occupied nation under international law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention.

When Israeli forces were ultimately compelled to redeploy from the Gaza Strip in 2005, a direct consequence of the persistent resistance of the Palestinian population there, the United Nations resolutely insisted that the Gaza Strip remained an occupied territory under international law.

This position stood in stark contradiction to that of Israel, which conveniently produced its own legal texts that designated Gaza a ‘hostile entity‘ – thus, not an occupied territory.

Let us try to understand what appears to be a confusing logic:

Israel proved incapable of sustaining its military occupation of Gaza, which began in June 1967. The paramount reason for Israel’s eventual redeployment was the enduring Palestinian Resistance, which rendered it impossible for Israel to normalise its military occupation and, crucially, to make it profitable – unlike the illegal settlements of East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Between 1967 and the early 1970s, when Israel began investing in building illegal settlement blocks in the Strip, the Israeli military under the command of Ariel Sharon relentlessly strove to suppress Palestinians. He employed extreme violence, mass destruction, and ethnic cleansing tactics to subdue the Strip.

Yet, at no juncture did he achieve his ultimate and comprehensive objectives of complete subjugation.

Subsequently, he invested in his infamous, but failed ‘Five Fingers‘ plan. At the time the head of the Israeli army Southern Command – which included Gaza – Sharon stubbornly believed that the only way to defeat the Gazans was by severing the contiguity of the Strip, thus hindering organised resistance.

In pursuing this aim, he sought to divide Gaza into so-called security zones where the main Israeli Jewish settlements would be built, fortified by massive military build up. This would be joined by Israeli military control of key routes and the blocking of most coastal access.

However, this plan never fully actualised, as creating these ‘fingers’ required that Palestinians on both sides of the ‘security zones’ would have to be pacified to some extent – a condition that reality on the ground never delivered.

What was actualised was the building of isolated settlement blocks: the largest was in the southwest of the Gaza Strip, near the border with Egypt, known as the Gush Katif, followed by the northern settlements, and finally the central settlement of Netzarim.

Housing a few thousand settlers, and often requiring the presence of a far greater number of soldiers assigned to protect them, these so-called settlements were essentially fortified military towns. Due to the limited geography of Gaza (181 square miles or 365 square kilometres) and the stiff resistance, the settlements had limited space for expansion, thus remaining a costly colonial endeavour.

When the Israeli army emptied the last illegal settlement in Gaza in 2005, the soldiers snuck out of the Strip in the middle of the night. At their heels were thousands of Gazans who chased the soldiers until the last of them fled the dramatic scene.

That singular and powerful episode alone is more than sufficient to allow one to assert with unwavering certainty that Gaza was at no point truly conquered by Israel.

Though Israel withdrew its permanent military presence from the main population centers of the Strip, it continued to operate within so-called buffer zones, which were often significant incursions into Palestinian territory, far beyond the armistice line. It also imposed a hermetic siege against Gaza, which starkly explains why the majority of Gazans have never stepped a foot outside the Strip.

Israel’s control over airspace, territorial water, natural resources (mostly Mediterranean gas fields), and much more readily led the UN to its immediate conclusion: Gaza remains an occupied territory.

Unsurprisingly, Israel vehemently opposed this reality. Tel Aviv’s true desire is absolute control over Gaza, coupled with the convenient and self-serving designation of the territory as perpetually hostile. This twisted logic would grant the Israeli military an endlessly exploitable pretext to initiate devastating wars against the already besieged and impoverished Strip whenever it deemed convenient.

This brutal and cynical practice is chillingly known within Israel’s military lexicon as ‘mowing the grass‘ – a dehumanising euphemism for the periodic and deliberate degradation of the military capabilities of the Palestinian Resistance in an attempt to ensure that Gaza can never effectively challenge its Israeli jailors or break free from its open-air prison.

7 October 2023, ended that myth, where Al-Aqsa Flood Operation challenged Israel’s long-standing military doctrine. The so-called Gaza Envelope region, where the late Sharon’s Southern Command is based, was entirely seized by the youth of Gaza, who organised under the harshest of economic and military circumstances, to, in a shocking turn of events, defeat Israel.

While acknowledging the UN designation of Gaza as occupied territory, Palestinians understandably speak of and commemorate its ‘liberation’ in 2005. Their logic is clear: the Israeli military’s redeployment to the border region was a direct consequence of their resistance.

Israel’s current attempts to defeat the Palestinians in Gaza are failing for a fundamental reason rooted in history. When Israeli forces stealthily withdrew from the Strip two decades ago under the cover of night, Palestinian resistance fighters possessed rudimentary weaponry, closer to fireworks than effective military instruments. The landscape of resistance has fundamentally shifted since then.

This long-standing reality has been upended in recent months. All Israeli estimates suggest that tens of thousands of soldiers have been killed, wounded, or psychologically impaired since the start of the Gaza war. Since Israel failed to subdue the Gazans over the course of two relentless decades, it is not merely improbable, but an outright absurdity to expect that Israel will now succeed in subduing and conquering Gaza.

Israel itself is acutely aware of this inherent paradox, hence its immediate and brutal choice: the perpetration of a genocide, a horrific act intended to pave the way for the ethnic cleansing of the remaining survivors. The former has been executed with devastating efficiency, a stain on the conscience of a world that largely stood by in silence. The latter, however, remains an unachievable fantasy, predicated on the delusional notion that Gazans would willingly choose to abandon their ancestral homeland.

Gaza has never been conquered and never will be. Under the unyielding tenets of international law, it remains an occupied territory, regardless of any eventual withdrawal of Israeli forces to the border – a withdrawal that Netanyahu’s destructive and futile war cannot indefinitely postpone. When this inevitable redeployment occurs, the relationship between Gaza and Israel will be irrevocably transformed, a powerful testament to the enduring resilience and indomitable spirit of the Palestinian people.

April 21, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

Pregnant women deserve better than “trust us” science

A major study has been used to reassure pregnant women that Covid-19 vaccines are safe. But the data behind the claim are fatally flawed.

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | April 12, 2025

In medicine, few assurances carry more emotional weight—or greater responsibility—than the claim that something is “safe during pregnancy.”

Pregnant women are justifiably cautious about what they expose themselves to during this vulnerable time, and history has given them every reason to be.

The thalidomide disaster, diethylstilboestrol (DES), and other cautionary tales have shown what can happen when scientific rigour is sidelined in favour of commercial interests.

So, when a new study published in Pediatrics – the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics – claimed that Covid-19 vaccination in early pregnancy was safe, it came with an air of authority and reassurance.

News headlines followed suit, and public health recommendations continued to promote the vaccine’s safety in pregnancy.

But scratch the surface of this study, and something starts to unravel.

Not only are the data unverifiable and privately sourced, but the study contains a fatal flaw that renders its conclusions virtually meaningless.

The fatal flaw

The study analyzed 78,052 pregnancies that ended in a live birth—but left out 20,341 pregnancies that ended in miscarriage or other non-live outcomes.

That’s not a minor oversight.

The very purpose of studying vaccine safety in pregnancy is to assess whether exposure in utero leads to adverse outcomes—like miscarriage, birth defects, or foetal death. Yet one-fifth of the pregnancies were excluded from the analysis, removing exactly the kind of outcomes the study was supposed to detect.

This introduces what’s known as live-birth bias—a selection bias that arises when research includes only live births, disregarding the possibility that harmful effects may have caused some pregnancies to end prematurely.

Put plainly, if you only study babies who made it to birth, you’re ignoring the ones who didn’t—and any harm that may have played a role.

Even the study’s authors acknowledge this limitation, conceding that the exclusion “could lead to an underestimation of identified outcomes.” Still, they move forward to conclude there’s no association between the vaccine and birth defects.

Omitting over 20,000 pregnancies isn’t just a technicality – it’s a fatal flaw.

If even a small fraction of those pregnancies ended in miscarriage or birth defects linked to vaccination, the entire outcome could tip the other way.

Commercial data with no accountability

Then there’s the source of the data itself—a point entirely overlooked.

Rather than using clinical records from hospitals or national birth registries, the study relied entirely on a commercial database from Merative® MarketScan® Research Databases.

These databases are vast, aggregating de-identified insurance claims, prescriptions, lab results, and hospital records from more than 263 million Americans. But they are also privately owned, and their inner workings are entirely opaque.

Researchers using MarketScan data cannot verify whether the patients are real or theoretical, whether records have been altered, or how the data has been cleaned or processed before delivery.

In essence, they are working with a black box, one that comes with no guarantee of integrity.

Experts have already noted that the data from this unverified source shows signs of being unreliable.

The authors ran 93 separate statistical tests to look for differences in outcomes like birth defects. By chance alone, you’d expect a handful to be statistically significant. But none were.

The probability of that happening randomly is just 0.8%—a sign that the dataset may have been fabricated, or that its integrity is in question.

When two of the study authors – Dr Stacey Rowe and Dr Annette Regan – were asked if they had verified the authenticity of the MarketScan database—that is, if they could confirm these were ‘real’ patient data—they did not respond.

L: Dr Stacey Rowe, R: Dr Annette Regan

This isn’t a hypothetical problem.

The medical literature has already been rocked by the Surgisphere scandal, where fraudulent hospital datasets were used to produce papers in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine.

Those papers were eventually retracted, but only after independent researchers demanded to see the raw data and were denied – the data were likely fabricated.

Reassurance without evidence

Despite these glaring problems, the study’s conclusions are being used to reassure pregnant women.

In Australia, for example, the government’s official guidance recommends Covid-19 vaccination in pregnancy, stating that the “recommendations for pregnant women are the same as the general population.”

This, despite the fact that pregnant women were excluded from the pivotal clinical trials and no randomised studies have ever been completed to assess the vaccine’s safety in early-pregnancy.

The result is a landscape where pregnant women are asked to make a “shared decision” with their doctors—based on scientific literature that’s increasingly built on unverifiable data, flawed assumptions, and little to no independent scrutiny.

We are drifting into a new era where conclusions are based on data that sit behind corporate firewalls. An era where trust is expected, but no longer earned.

The Pediatrics study is a case in point.

It carries the imprimatur of authority, published in the flagship journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. But, in reality, the analysis was based on commercial datasets that cannot be independently verified, and a methodology that systematically excludes the very outcomes it was supposed to assess.

This isn’t just bad science—it’s misleading by design.

And when it comes to pregnancy, where the stakes are literally life and death, that kind of scientific chicanery is a betrayal.

Pregnant women deserve better than a “trust us” approach to medicine.

They need full access to the data, honest communication about uncertainties, and above all, respect for their right to make informed decisions based on real evidence, not selective reporting.

Until that happens, we should remain sceptical of any study that asks us to believe in the evidence without seeing it.

April 13, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Bankers Caused World War II

Tales of the American Empire | April 10, 2025

Americans are taught a cartoonish version of World War I and World War II. We are told there was no conflict. Germans were inherently evil people who must be destroyed so Americans fought to save the world. The word “Nazi” remains common in our language as an evil person. In reality, both wars were caused by bankers and industrial tycoons who reaped great profits.

________________________________________

Related Tale: “The Genocide Called World War I”;    • The Genocide Called World War I  

Related Tale: “The Slaughter of the Yanks in 1918”;    • The Slaughter of the Yanks in 1918  

“Blockade of Germany (1914-1919)”; Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockad…)

“Was Germany Really Starved Into Surrender in WW1?”; The Great War; YouTube; January 10, 2025;    • Was Germany Really Starved Into Surre…  

Related Tale: “The Myth of Appeasement”;    • The Myth of Appeasement  

“The Dulles Brothers & U.S. Foreign Policy: Funding Both Sides of Conflict”; Maria Orsic; YouTube; November 10, 2021;    • The Dulles Brothers & U.S. Foreign Po…  

“Bush the Father”; Wide Eyes Open; YouTube; December 25, 2024;    • BUSH THE FATHER – CHAPTER 1  

Charles Higham, “Trading with the Enemy: The Nazi-American Money Plot – 1033-1949”, New York, NY: Barnes & Noble Books, 1983. Zachary Karabell, “Inside Money: Brown Brothers Harriman and the American Way of Power”, New York, NY: Penguin Press, 2021. Stephen Kinzer, “The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War”, New York, NY: Times Books, 2013.

Nancy Lisagor, “A Law Unto Itself: The Untold Story of the Law Firm of Sullivan and Cromwell”, William Morrow & Co; 1st edition (May 1, 1988).

David Talbot, “The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government”, New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2015. Antony C. Sutton, “Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler”, San Pedro, CA: GSG & Associates Publishers, 2002.

Antony C. Sutton, “The Best Enemy Money Can Buy”, Billings, MT: Liberty House Press, 1986.

Glen Yeadon & John Hawkins, “Nazi Hydra: Suppressed History of a Century”, Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive Press, 2008. Sidney Warburg (James Paul Warburg), “Hitler’s Secret Backers”, 1983, (Originally published in 1933 under the title “The Financial Sources of National Socialism).

Related Tale: “Yamashita’s Gold and the CIA”;    • Yamashita’s Gold and the CIA  

“Himmler’s Fourth Reich – SS Assets Saved in Global Conspiracy”; Mark Felton Productions; October 9, 2024;    • Himmler’s Fourth Reich – SS Assets Sa…  

April 11, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

‘Deeply Concerning’: This Year’s Flu Shots Led to 27% Higher Risk of Flu

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 8, 2025

People who received a flu vaccine formulated for the 2024-2025 flu season had a 27% higher risk of getting the flu than those who didn’t get the vaccine, suggesting “the vaccine has not been effective in preventing influenza this season,” according to a new preprint study.

The study of 53,402 employees of the Cleveland Clinic, an Ohio-based nonprofit academic medical center, concluded that the flu vaccine had a negative effectiveness rate of 26.9%.

According to the study, published last week on the MedRxiv preprint server:

“The cumulative incidence of influenza did not appear to be significantly different between the vaccinated and unvaccinated states early on, but over the course of the study the cumulative incidence of infection increased more rapidly among the vaccinated than among the unvaccinated.”

TrialSite News called the findings “deeply concerning” because they suggest “harm rather than protection” and contradict public health narratives about the flu vaccine.

“This Cleveland Clinic study reveals the complete failure of annual flu vaccines. Americans are tired of toxin-loaded injectable products that backfire and deteriorate their health,” said epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher.

Dr. Clayton J. Baker said the study “strongly suggests the shot was outright harmful.” He said the findings “not only demonstrate that this year’s flu shot was a disaster, but it calls into serious question the whole endeavor of seasonal, population-wide vaccines for respiratory viruses.”

Internist Dr. Meryl Nass said the results weren’t surprising. “Flu shots are not tested for efficacy before use,” she said. “They are grandfathered in, based on the license of earlier flu vaccines, with rudimentary safety testing.” As a result, “negative efficacy is possible.”

‘One of the most consequential influenza vaccine studies’ in recent years

Although the study hasn’t been peer-reviewed, scientists and medical experts said it is methodologically sound. “This was a large and apparently well-designed study,” Baker said. “We should take the results seriously.”

Nass said the study’s authors used a “great dataset” with a complete timeline, which included the dates participants were vaccinated and subsequently tested positive for flu.

“This wasn’t a flawed population,” TrialSite News reported. “The cohort skewed young (mean age 42), mostly healthy, with high occupational compliance. … The results should be peer reviewed.”

Writing on Substack, research scientist and author James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., said the study “is one of the most consequential influenza vaccine studies published in recent years” because of its large sample size, real-world design, risk-based outcome, the robust statistical methods used and no industry funding.

“It is rare to see a study of this scale, clarity, and independence produce a result so directly at odds with national vaccine policy,” Lyons-Weiler wrote.

Baker agreed, noting that the negative efficacy of the vaccine “suggests the vaccine caused some kind of unintentional immune impairment. This suggests the vaccine makers do not understand how the vaccine is acting upon the immune system.”

“The whole endeavor of trying to produce an effective flu shot every year appears to be something of a farce, if the manufacturers cannot even avoid producing one that increases the likelihood of contracting the flu,” Baker said.

“Given all the variables that can influence the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine in any given year, and our current processes for developing the vaccine, it may be asking for too much to expect the vaccine to be highly effective year after year,” the study stated.

Study’s findings ‘not without precedent’

According to the study, Cleveland Clinic employees “either receive an annual influenza vaccine or seek an exemption on medical or religious grounds.”

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, said the study would not have been possible if the clinic didn’t recognize such exemptions.

“If the Cleveland Clinic did not allow a religious exemption, it is likely the unvaccinated group would be too small to perform this study,” Jablonowski said. “It is an utter absurdity that those who were medically and religiously exempt posed measurably and significantly less of a threat of spreading influenza to patients than those who were mandated.”

Lyons-Weiler noted that the study’s findings are “not without precedent.” He cited a 2012 peer-reviewed study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases showing that children who received the flu vaccine were at significantly increased risk of contracting non-flu respiratory virus infections.

A peer-reviewed study published last year in Scientific Reports examined 19 vaccines and found that 17 of those vaccines, including flu shots, were associated with reported cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome — a rare condition that attacks the peripheral nervous system.

Most flu vaccines contain ingredient linked to neurodevelopmental disorders

According to the study, one reason this season’s flu vaccine was ineffective and increased the risk of infection was strain mismatch — where the strain the vaccine protects against was different from the strain that resulted in infection.

“In years where there is a poor match between vaccine strains and the circulating infecting strain, vaccine effectiveness is expected to be poor,” the study noted.

According to Lyons-Weiler, “The most likely explanation involves immune modulation caused by the vaccine — where prior exposure via vaccination may reduce the immune system’s capacity to respond to circulating strains, especially when strain mismatch is present.”

Lyons-Weiler noted that most flu vaccines also contain thimerosal, “a mercury-based preservative still used in many multi-dose flu vials.” In the study, 98.7% of the participants received a flu vaccine that contained thimerosal.

Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative used in some vaccines. It has been linked to the buildup of inorganic mercury in the brain. A 2001 report by the Institute of Medicine found a “biologically plausible” connection between thimerosal exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders.

“Many trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines contain thimerosal and must be considered as a potential culprit in making the vaccinated’s immune systems weaker,” Jablonowski said.

“Though the mechanisms may differ, the principle is the same: vaccination can, under certain circumstances, impair the broader immune response,” Lyons-Weiler wrote. He said the study “calls into question the wisdom of universal flu vaccine campaigns that fail to deliver consistent benefit — and may cause net harm.”

According to CDC data, the number of healthcare workers receiving flu and COVID-19 vaccines declined during the 2023-2024 cold and flu season, potentially indicating increased skepticism on the part of hospital workers and other medical personnel toward those vaccines.

“In an era of mounting skepticism and vaccine fatigue, public health authorities must reckon with data like this — not dismiss it,” TrialSite News wrote. “Annual flu vaccine strategies may need a serious rethink, particularly in years of poor strain matching.”

“The hubris with which we mandate vaccinations ought to be humbled by this study,” Jablonowski said. “If one of the premier medical institutions in the country endangers their patients based on an employee mandate, all institutional mandates may cause the harm they seek to avoid.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

April 11, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment

Why Liberal MP, Alex Hawke, must Apologise to Novak Djokovic: Mandatory Vaccination was a Political Decision

By Judy Wilyman PhD | April 6, 2025

To Alex Hawke, Liberal MP for Mitchell (Northwest Sydney),

In 2022, as the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, you made a political decision to deport a world class athlete who had been invited to Australia on a valid Australian visa. This was Novak Djokovic who was coming to Australia to compete for his tenth grand slam title in our country, a place that he had always loved to visit and compete.

Novak is arguably the healthiest person on the planet yet you described him as a ‘risk to public health’ in 2022. It must be the first time in history that an athlete has been removed for not taking a drug. Does this sound like public health gone bad?

This ‘drug’ that you requested he take was a genetically engineered injected product, that was approved for Emergency Use Only (EUO) in 2021 and rushed onto the market. Yet the government promoted this drug as a ‘vaccine’, even though it was never tested to see if it prevented any COVID disease. Or to see if it stopped transmission.

  1. Did you know that it is against the law to mandate a drug that has EUO approval? Mandating a novel untested product in the population would be a risk to public health.
  2. Did you know that this drug not only doesn’t prevent transmission Mr. Hawke, but it increases the chances of getting COVID and other respiratory illnesses. Just ask the paramedics.
  3. At the time Novak Djokovic even stated that he had natural immunity to COVID from a previous infection. Natural immunity is known to be long lasting immunity and the CDC has admitted this is valid protection.
  4. Did you know that the excess deaths in Australia and all COVID vaccinated countries, increased after the genetically engineered, so called ‘vaccines’, were rolled out in 2021? Here are Australia’s National Statistics for 2022 showing the increase in hospitalisations and deaths after the vaccines were rolled out in February 2021.If the vaccine was effective why did the ABS statistics show that in January 2022, deaths were 22.1% more than the historical average? And deaths to COVID-19 were the second most common cause after cancers. Does that sound like an effective ‘vaccine’?
  5. Did you know that many more young people are dying since 2021 and it is not from COVID? This experimental drug is known to target the heart, reproductive organs, nervous system and cause cancers etc.
  6. Here is a report describing the under-reporting of the US CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the gas-lighting of people that have been injured by vaccines. This under-reporting is also a feature of Australia’s TGA reporting system and it means that causal links to adverse events cannot be determined after vaccination is promoted in populations. This means that if a vaccine is fast tracked without the minimum 10 years of testing, then people can be killed or disabled without any accountability by the government or pharmaceutical industry.

So, Mr. Hawke, how safe do you think a genetically engineered drug is if it is given Emergency Use Only approval after ‘operation warp speed’?

I would argue that this drug was the ‘risk to public health’, not Novak Djokovic, and under the best public health and human rights principles, it was illegal to make your political decision to deport Novak from Australia.

Novak Djokovic abided by the fundamental principles of law, human rights and public health, and many Australians believe that it is imperative for the integrity of our country that you redress this situation with a public apology. I hope you will acknowledge this open letter and recognise that human rights, including bodily integrity and freedom of speech, are essential principles of a healthy democracy.

Here is the film Witness Statement with all the evidence you need to take action to redress this situation.

Kind regards,

Dr. Judy Wilyman PhD

My book – ‘Vaccination: Australia’s Loss of Health Freedom’ published March 2020.

April 9, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »