As a requirement for discussing and appreciating the imperative of health freedom in the USA, we must first define what is meant by health freedom. A simple definition is: the right of every American to decide what medical interventions to put into or onto one’s body, the right to access and use the medical and healing modalities of one’s choice, the right to maintain one’s health according to one’s conscience, and the right to live free of involuntary medication be it via the food supply, the water supply, or something airborne.
In a free and moral society, health freedom is not simply a convenience, it’s an imperative. In this vein, in the event of injury or illness, all Americans must possess the absolute right to choose what medical interventions and treatments to accept and what medical or healing modalities to utilize in order to address illness or injury; Americans must be free to choose how to maintain their health whether that be through nutrition, supplements, herbs, drugs, or a myriad of healing modalities; Americans must have access to truthful information regarding how the seeds for plants and animal feed and the food in our food supply has been grown or developed, medicated, processed, and packaged; and Americans have the right to exist in a society free of water and airborne medications, insect vectors, and chemicals.
Health freedom can only exist in a free and moral society which values each and every member of that society. This prerequisite thus excludes medical mandates of any kind. It is immoral to force another individual to risk their life for the theoretical benefit of another. Moreover, government does not have the moral authority or power to dictate what medical products any American puts into or on his or her body. If anyone in government does possess that power, then no American is truly free, nor does he or she possess any meaningful right whatsoever – Americans are merely chattel.
In order to create a society based on true health freedom, the following policy shifts should be implemented, as a first step. There are many more changes which should be implemented as well, but these proposals would address some of the most glaring, pernicious anti-liberty and anti-health aspects of our system as it exists today:
1. Ban all Medical Mandates:
The Declaration of Independence states, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” Medical mandates are prime facie violations of our founding documents.
Health freedom demands prior voluntary informed consent before a medical treatment or intervention is administered. Medical mandates are thus, by definition, antithetical to voluntary consent and therefore must be prohibited in a free and moral society. No single individual in government knows the medical history of any American, knows what is best for Americans, or has to live with the repercussions of any choices made by Americans, thus, medical mandates are never justified in any circumstance.
“The Bayh-Dole Act, formerly known as the Patent and Trademark Act Amendments, is a federal law enacted in 1980 that enables universities, nonprofit research institutions and small businesses to own, patent and commercialize inventions developed under federally funded research programs within their organizations.”
Under this program, government scientists may receive up to $150,000 per year on their patents.
In theory, Bayh-Dole incentivizes bright scientists to seek employment at federal health agencies rather than entering more lucrative private industry by allowing these taxpayer-funded scientists and other individuals and entities to retain the patent rights to intellectual property developed during their taxpayer-funded research and development activities.
In practice, this Act forever realigned the interests of taxpayer-funded scientists away from the American people and toward their own interests and profits and the profits of the private industries with which they collaborate. Dr. Anthony Fauci and his team at NIAID infamously owned half the Moderna Covid vaccine patent which incentivized the misguided covid era policies leading to a colossal violation of the rights of Americans demonstrating the perverse incentives created by Bayh-Dole and the necessity of repealing the act.
3. Repeal the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) of 1992:
“The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was created by Congress in 1992 and authorizes FDA to collect user fees from persons that submit certain human drug applications for review or that are named in approved applications as the sponsor of certain prescription drug products. Since the passage of PDUFA, user fees have played an important role in expediting the drug review and approval process.”
In 2022 alone, the pharmaceutical industry paid $2.9 billion in user fees amounting to 46% of FDA’s entire budget including $1.4 billion or 66% for FDA’s drug approvers’ salaries and $197 million or 43% of the biologics (vaccines) program budget. As a direct consequence of PDUFA, the FDA has a vested interest aligned with the profits and success of the pharmaceutical industry rather than the health and wellbeing of the American people.
4. Repeal the Public Readiness and Preparedness Act (PREP Act) which authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a PREP Act declaration.
“The declaration provides immunity from liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims:
of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions
determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency
to entities and individuals involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration, and use of such countermeasures
A PREP Act declaration is specifically for the purpose of providing immunity from liability, and is different from, and not dependent on, other emergency declarations.”
The PREP Act desecrates the ethical principle of informed consent by protecting individuals from liability even when they expressly act contrary to patients’ wishes and instructions and must be repealed.
The Affordable Care Act anchors Americans to the pharmaceutical and drug-based medical paradigm even though a majority of Americans used at least one form of “alternative” medicine in 2021 and spent $30.6 billion in out of pocket expenses for those holistic medicine services in 2023 according to Statista. Instead, implement a health savings program which permits Americans to access the health and medical modalities of their choice which in turn would foster more competition and reduce the exorbitant health care costs in the US by breaking the extant monopolies held by the medical and insurance industries.
6. Repeal the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA):
NCVIA shields vaccine makers and those who administer vaccines from liability (except for willful misconduct), creating a perverse incentive to industry to develop a never-ending stream of vaccines which are then mandated by the states and a perverse incentive to medical professionals to charge for and inject patients irrespective of the harm they may cause. Further, the NCVIA protects industry, medical professionals, and vaccine programs by creating a separate administrative federal court structure lacking due process and discovery, managed by “Special Masters” instead of judges, all in violation of the constitutionally protected right to due process. While NCVIA contains other provisions designed to protect American families and ensure the safety of the national vaccine supply, Congress is not conducting proper oversight and the promises made in 1986 at the time of the Act’s passage have not been upheld. As such, Americans who have been injured or killed by vaccines are left with astronomical medical bills and to fend for themselves.
7. Prohibit Private Donations to Government Entities:
Prohibit private individuals, foundations, corporations, contractors, any other person or entity from donating or otherwise giving money to any agency or entity of the federal government. FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) accept money from private actors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Pfizer thus skewing the interests of the agency in favor of these private actors and away from the American public. Gates has collaborated with FDA and the CDC Foundation takes money from the pharmaceutical industry whose products CDC is responsible for monitoring for safety.
8. Cooling-off Period for Senior Federal Employees:
Enact a 5-year cooling-off period before which agency leadership, deputies, and other key officials may depart federal agencies in order to enter the companies they regulate in the private sector.
9. Prevent Conflicts of Interest:
Eliminate conflict of interest waivers so that no person serving on a health agency committee, board, or other regulatory entity may have a conflict of interest. Disclosure of conflicts of interest is insufficient to ensure the agencies pursue the interests of the American people. Individuals with financial or ideological conflicts of interest should not serve as decision makers in any capacity.
10. Prohibit Government Grants to Nonprofits:
Prohibit government from allocating taxpayer dollars to nonprofit. Nonprofits exists to serve the public interests and should be funded directly by American citizens. If a nonprofit has a worthwhile mission, the public will gladly support it. Government exists to protect our rights and should not be in the business of picking winners and losers nor should it be using third parties to pursue policies outside the reach and review of the public.
11. Ban Water Fluoridation:
While water fluoridation programs are broad spread, they are not only dangerous from a health standpoint, they are forced medication in violation of the ethical principle of informed consent. Research comparing the health outcomes and IQs of communities that do and do not fluoridate their water supply reveal that children in the fluoridated water communities have reduced IQs and therefore inferior prospects in life. Other research has documented the health hazards of fluoride, an industrial waste product.
In addition, as fluoride is added to municipal water supplies, residents of those communities have no way to opt out and therefore are subjected to involuntary forced medication. No one should be forced to consume drugged water in order to maintain a biological necessity.
12. Ban Release of Genetically Modified Insects
Two tenets of good health are abundant exposure to sunshine and fresh air, however in some states, the state governments have collaborated with private business to release genetically modified mosquitoes into communities. While these mosquitoes are often designed to breed with one another and eliminate the “dangerous” species going forward, the health impacts of humans being bitten by these insects is not well understood. Nor should a person have to be risk being bitten by one of these creatures in order to venture outside. This amounts to a form of forced medication absent any form of consent and must be ended.
These recommendations should be understood as necessary first steps to begin correcting the disastrous health policy environment that exists in the United States today and to restore true health freedom in the US which would allow all Americans to decide what medical interventions to allow into or onto one’s body, which health and medical modalities to utilize in maintaining their health, and the ability to live free of involuntary medication be it via the food supply, the water supply, or the air we breathe.
This week, Robert F. Kennedy Jr sat down for his first interview with Tucker Carlson since announcing he was suspending his presidential campaign and throwing his support behind former President Donald Trump.
In that interview, Kennedy echoed the thoughts of Calley and Casey Means, a brother and sister team, who’ve been raising concerns about children’s exposure to the toxic food environment.
In particular, Kennedy mentioned endocrine disruptors, which are chemicals in our food and water that can interfere with the body’s hormone biosynthesis and metabolism.
Kennedy spoke about how the poorly regulated use of these synthetic chemicals in the environment could affect fertility, sperm counts and reproductive development.
He talked about how the onset of puberty is occurring far earlier in children than it was decades ago, and that these changes may have lasting repercussions on a child’s mental and physical development.
It is true.
In 2020, an analysis of global data found the average age of puberty onset for girls aged 8 to 13 years in the US has been dropping by about three months every decade over 40 years.
It means that a growing number of children are developing breasts, acne, pubic hair or a deepening of the voice before they reach teenage years.
Exposure to these chemicals begins in utero, and can have a significant impact on the developing foetus.
Several years ago, when I was working as a filmmaker for ABC TV in Australia, I produced a documentary about the ‘chemical soup’ of modern life and its potential health consequences.
I examined the regulation and testing around industrial chemicals in the environment, and spoke to experts around the world who shared the same concerns as Kennedy.
Linda Birnbaum, a toxicologist and former director of the US National Toxicology Program, was very critical of the regulation of industrial chemicals in America.
“In the US, we basically consider chemicals safe until proven otherwise,” she said.
Birnbaum was particularly concerned about foetal exposure to chemicals. Endocrine disruptors such as Bisphenol A (or BPA) can cross the placenta and reach a developing foetus.
She said it’s like “throwing a monkey wrench into the system and it can never recover …so you’ll have permanent change.”
Researchers were first alerted to the impact of endocrine disruptors in wildlife after observing the widespread feminisation of male fish in English rivers that were polluted with effluent, containing biologically active oestrogen.
Feminised male fish in SE London rivers Image Source: mihtiander/123RF
Similarly, a chemical spill in Florida’s Lake Apopka led to alligators exhibiting significantly smaller penises (24% decrease) and lower testosterone levels (70% lower) when compared to alligators of similar size in Lake Woodruff.
Alligator Gathering at Lake Apopka, Credit: RC Scott Photography
In humans, making ‘causal’ links to reproductive changes is more difficult, but Australian experts say a 50% increase in testicular cancer, for example, is “too fast to be entirely genetic, and therefore is likely to be environmental.”
John Aitken is a world leader in reproductive biology with a focus on male reproductive health and biology of mammalian reproductive cells. He says the development of testes in the womb is a very “sensitive barometer” of environmental toxicants.
“When environmental chemicals hit the testes, there are some cells sitting in the testes that are of a very primitive kind, and they respond very abnormally to that signal and give you that testicular cancer (later in life),” said Aitken.
Andrea Gore, a toxicologist at the University of Texas, spearheaded a report by the Endocrine Society after doctors began noticing an increase in reproductive problems and disorders of puberty and wondered if endocrine disruptors were to blame.
The dose is crucially important for any toxicological consideration. Often industry studies examine the safety of a single chemical for short durations, but in the real world, we are repeatedly exposed to a cocktail of chemicals, which render many of the studies irrelevant.
Ian Shaw, professor of toxicology at the University of Canterbury, said that hormones work at “infinitesimally tiny doses” and the doses of oestrogenic chemicals in food and water that children are exposed to are “well within the range of doses to have a biological effect.”
Bruce Lanphear, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University, said that even low levels of chemicals like lead and flame retardants, can have an impact on brain development.
These chemicals act as “dopaminergic toxicants” which disrupt the pre-frontal cortex – the part of the brain that makes us human. US data show that exposure to endocrine disruptors like lead is associated with a 5-point decrement in IQ.
“When we see this on a population level, the impact is phenomenal,” said Lanphear.
In the US, for example, if you shift the mean IQ by 5-points, it leads to an increase in children who are considered ‘challenged’ (from 6 to 9.4 million). And there’s a corresponding decrease in ‘gifted’ children (from 6 to 2.4 million).
“The pattern is pretty clear,” said Lanphear who has advocated for more stringent regulation of industrial chemicals. “We should expect that some of these chemicals [turn out ] to be toxic, and we should no longer be using our children as guinea pigs to find out when they are toxic.”
Until recently, Lanphear was co-chair of the Health Canada’s scientific advisory committee on pesticide management, but resigned in June 2023 over the agencies lack of transparency and scientific oversight.
In his three-page resignation letter, Lanphear said he felt the committee, and his role as co-chair, “provides a false sense of security” that Health Canada is protecting Canadians from toxic pesticides.
Some chemicals are stored in our body for years, whereas others can be metabolised and excreted quickly.
BPA, for example, is a short-lived chemical used to make plastic water bottles. It does not require the same safety testing as if it was added to food, but it still leaches out of the plastic and into the water that will be consumed.
Industry has responded to these concerns by developing plastics that are “BPA-free,” but BPA is often substituted for Bisphenol S (or BPS), another unregulated chemical that can also leach out of plastic into food and drink.
BPA free plastic containers are widely available
In fact, a recent literature review suggested that BPS could be more toxic to the reproductive system than BPA and was shown to hormonally promote certain breast cancers at the same rate as BPA.
There is general agreement among scientists in the field that regulators are not doing their job by simply waiting for “more evidence” of harm before they act.
They say it’s unacceptable that we are all subjected to this uncontrolled, human experiment.
Will political leaders like RFK Jr be the catalyst for change?
George Orwell wrote in 1945 that “the nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” This week is the 160th anniversary of one of the worst atrocities of the American Civil War, a barbarous episode that vanished long ago from history books. Union General Philip Sheridan laid waste to a hundred mile swath of the Shenandoah Valley, leaving vast numbers of women and children on the edge of starvation.
Before the summer of 1864, the Civil War was primarily fought on battlefields. After failing to decisively vanquish Confederate forces in pitched clashes, the Union leadership widened the war, trying to destroy the South’s economy—with the civilian population increasingly a target. William Tecumseh Sherman, the commander of the Union forces menacing Atlanta in 1864, telegrammed Washington saying that in the South, “There is a class of people men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order.”
On July 15, 1864, supreme Union commander Ulysses S. Grant signed an order that the Shenandoah Valley should be made into a “desert” and “all provisions and stock should be removed, and the people notified to move out.” His troops would “eat out Virginia clear and clean as far as they go, so that crows flying over it for the balance of the season will have to carry their provender with them.” In August 1864, Grant ordered Sheridan to “do all the damage to railroads and crops you can. If the war is to last another year, we want the Shenandoah Valley to remain a barren waste.” Sheridan set to the task with vehemence, declaring that “the people must be left nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war” and promised that, when he was finished, the valley “from Winchester to Staunton will have but little in it for man or beast.”
Because people lived in a state that had seceded from the Union, Sheridan acted as if they had automatically forfeited their property, if not their lives. Many who lived in the Shenandoah Valley, such as Mennonites, had opposed secession and refused to join the Confederate Army, but their property was also looted and burned.
Stephen Starr, author of Union Cavalry in the Civil War, wrote, “The deliberate planned devastation of the Shenandoah Valley has deservedly ranked as one of the grimmest episodes of a sufficiently grim war. Unlike the haphazard destruction caused by Sherman’s bummers in Georgia, it was committed systematically, and by order.” Historian John Heatwole, author of The Burning: Sheridan’s Devastation of the Shenandoah Valley, recounted, “From a hill near Mt. Jackson Union cavalrymen counted 168 barns burning at one time. When it was all over Sheridan’s men had systematically destroyed around 1,400 barns, countless other farm structures, seventy mills, several factories, three iron furnaces, warehouses and railroad buildings, and hundreds of thousands of bushels of wheat, oats and corn, and crops standing in the fields. In Rockingham County alone, over 10,000 head of livestock were driven off.”
Some Union soldiers were aghast at their marching orders. A Pennsylvania cavalryman lamented at the end of the fiery spree, “We burnt some sixty houses and all most of the barns, hay, grain and corn in the shocks for fifty miles [south of] Strasburg. It was a hard-looking sight to see the women and children turned out of doors at this season of the year.” An Ohio major wrote in his diary that the burning “does not seem real soldierly work. We ought to enlist a force of scoundrels for such work.” A newspaper correspondent embedded with Sheridan’s army reported, “Hundreds of nearly starving people are going North not half the inhabitants of the valley can subsist on it in its present condition.” After one of Sheridan’s favorite aides was shot by Confederates, Sheridan ordered his troops to burn all houses within a five-mile radius. After many outlying houses had been torched, the small town at the center—Dayton—was spared after a federal officer disobeyed Sheridan’s order.
By the end of Sheridan’s campaign, the former “breadbasket of the Confederacy” could no longer even feed the women and children remaining there. An English traveler in 1865 “found the Valley standing empty as a moor.” Historian Walter Fleming, in his classic 1919 study The Sequel to Appomattox, quoted one bedeviled local farmer, “From Harpers Ferry to New Market, which is about eighty miles, the country was almost a desert…The barns were all burned; chimneys standing without houses, and houses standing without roof, or door, or window.” Historian Heatwole concluded, “The civilian population of the Valley was affected to a greater extent than was the populace of any other region during the war, including those in the path of Sherman’s infamous march to the sea in Georgia.” Unfortunately, given the chaos of the era at the end of the Civil War and in its immediate aftermath, there are no reliable statistics on the number of women, children, and other civilians who perished.
Some defenders of Union tactics insist there was no intent to harshly punish civilians. However, after three years of a bloody stalemate, the Lincoln administration had adapted a total-war mindset to scourge the South into submission. As Sheridan was finishing his fiery campaign, General Sherman wrote to Grant, “Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses and people will cripple their military resources.” President Abraham Lincoln congratulated both Sheridan and Sherman for campaigns that sowed devastation far and wide. But Lincoln’s cheerleading for collective punishment vanished from the history books thanks to his hypocritical call for “malice towards none” in his second inaugural address.
The carnage inflicted by Sheridan, Sherman, and other northern commanders made the South’s post-war recovery far slower and multiplied the misery of both white and black survivors. At the end of the war, four million ex-slaves were largely left to fend for themselves. The horrific suffering of the former slaves was swept under the rug by historians for much of the twentieth century. However, as Professor Jim Downs noted in his 2012 book, Sick from Freedom, roughly 25% of freed slaves died or became gravely ill in the first years after the war. Ex-slaves suffered violence from the Ku Klux Klan, but even more suffered because they were liberated into an economic landscape that had been desolated by four years of increasingly destructive war. Sherman’s devastating march through Georgia and the Carolinas, for instance, resulted in “a large contraction in agricultural investment, farming asset prices, and manufacturing activity. Elements of the decline in agriculture persisted through 1920,” according to a 2018 National Bureau of Economic Research analysis. Harvests collapsed in the south during and after the Civil War; cotton output fell by half between 1860 and 1870. A 1997 analysis in theJournal of Economic History concluded that “the legacy of the Civil War was far more severe and long lasting than what has been previously supposed” for both blacks and whites, especially regarding illnesses such as hookworm spread in part by poverty.
After the Civil War, politicians and many historians consecrated the conflict as a moral crusade and its sometimes-grisly tactics were consigned to oblivion. The habit of sweeping abusive policies under the rug also permeated post-Civil War policy toward the Indians (Sheridan famously declared, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian”) and the suppression of Filipino insurgents after the Spanish-American War. Later, historians would often ignore U.S. military tactics in World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq that resulted in massive civilian casualties.
The U.S. government’s targeting of civilians in the final campaigns of the Civil War signified a radical change in the relation between citizens and government that endured long after the South’s surrender at Appomattox. An 1875 article in the American Law Review noted, “The late war left the average American politician with a powerful desire to acquire property from other people without paying for it.” Ironically, a war that stemmed in large part from the blunders and follies of politicians on both sides of the Potomac resulted in a vast expansion of the political class’s presumption of power.
In the post-war era in the late 1800s, Republican politicians were notorious for invoking the “bloody shirt” of wounded veterans to demonize political opponents who did not tow the GOP line. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, America saw the same political vilification of anyone who dissented from the Bush administration’s wars. Will the same groveling reflex occur from any wars launched by the next president?
Since 1864, no prudent American should have expected this nation’s wars to have happy or uplifting endings. Unfortunately, as long as people rarely if ever hear of the atrocities their government commits, citizens will underestimate the odds that wars will spawn debacles and injustices that return to haunt us.
Barack Obama courted the ‘deep state’ during his rise to power, and once in office was powerless to disobey their orders, the former US president’s half-brother has told Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi.
In an interview set to air on Monday, Malik Obama told Rattansi that before he entered the corridors of power, Barack Obama “was a really humble, really nice person.”
However, “to be the president of the USA, he had to have the backing of certain people like the Clintons” and “the [George] Soros people… the ones who are really controlling everything out there.”
Keeping their backing, along with the support of the deep state, was crucial to Barack Obama, and Malik suggested that his half-brother wouldn’t have dared oppose the 2014 coup in Ukraine or the 2011 regime-change operation against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.
“He would have lost his support,” Malik said. “He would not be what he is today, because those people are the ones that propped him up and he had to play to them.”
“That’s why I like President Trump,” he continued, “because he does things his own way. He reached out to North Korea and met the leader there. [Obama] could have done that for Muammar Gaddafi. I think he’s just… he’s a simp.”
The term ‘deep state’ refers to the unelected and often unknown government bureaucrats who steer government policy, particularly the leaders of intelligence agencies and the military.
Malik Obama has the same father as the ex-president, and visited the White House several times during his brother’s first term in office. However, he later claimed that Barack was “cold and ruthless,” and blasted him for abandoning his Kenyan family. He has since made a series of bizarre claims about the former president, apparently announcing last year that Barack Obama is “definitely gay,” and alleging in 2017 that he was born in Kenya.
Malik Obama is a vocal supporter of former President Donald Trump, who before running for office in 2016 challenged Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate over doubts he was born in the US. Trump later abandoned the dispute and admitted that Obama was born in the US.
During the full interview with Rattansi, Malik Obama discussed the current state of his relationship with his brother, and Barack’s alleged role in forcing President Joe Biden to end his reelection campaign.
If you’re not thinking about the end of the world by now, you’re either braindead or stuck in some remote corner of the world, totally removed from access to news.
Last week we came closer to a nuclear conflict between the US and Russia than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
Today we are even closer.
Most scenarios being bandied about in the western mainstream media that involve a nuclear conflict between Russia and the United States have Russia initiating the exchange by using nuclear weapons against Ukraine in response to deteriorating military, economic, and/or political conditions brought on by the US and NATO successfully leveraging Ukraine as a proxy to achieve the strategic defeat of Russia.
Understand, this is what both Ukraine and the Biden administration mean when they speak of Ukraine “winning the war.”
This is a continuation of the policy objective set forth by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in April 2022, “to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” meaning that Russia should “not have the capability to very quickly reproduce” the forces and equipment that it loses in Ukraine.
This policy has failed; Russia has absorbed four new territories—Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Lugansk—into the Russian Federation, and the Russian defense industry has not only replaced losses sustained in the Ukrainian conflict, but is currently arming and equipping an additional 600,000 troops that have been added to the Russian military since February 2022.
It is the United States and its NATO allies that find themselves on their back feet, with Europe facing economic hardship as a result of the extreme blowback that has transpired because of its sanctioning of Russian energy, and the United States watching helplessly as Russia, together with China, turns the once passive BRICS economic forum into a geopolitical juggernaut capable of challenging and surpassing the US-led G7 as the world’s most influential non-governmental organization.
As a result of this abysmal failure, policymakers in both the US and Europe are undertaking increasingly brazen acts of escalation designed to bring Russia to the breaking point, all premised on the assumption that all so-called “red lines” established by Russia regarding escalation are illusionary—Russia, they believe, is bluffing.
And if Russia is not bluffing?
Then, the western-generated scenario paints an apocalyptic picture which has a weak, defeated Russia using nuclear weapons against Ukraine in a last, desperate act of vengeance.
According to this scenario, which the US and NATO not only war-gamed out but made ready to implement when these entities imagined that Russia was preparing to employ nuclear weapons back in late 2022-early 2023, the US and NATO would launch a devastating response against Russian targets deep inside Russia designed to punitively degrade Russian command and control, logistics, and warfighting capacity.
This would be done using conventional weapons.
If Russia opted to retaliate against NATO targets, then the US would have to make a decision—continue to climb the escalation ladder, matching Russia punch for punch until one side became exhausted, or preemptively using nuclear weapons as a means of escalating to de-escalate—launch a limited nuclear strike using low-yield nuclear weapons in hopes that Russia would back down out of fear of what would come next—a general nuclear war.
The Pentagon has integrated such a scenario into the range of nuclear pre-emption options available to the President of the United States. Indeed, in early 2020 US Strategic Command conducted an exercise where the Secretary of Defense gave the launch instructions for a US Ohio class submarine to launch a Trident missile carrying W-76-2 low yield nuclear warheads against a Russian target in a scenario involving Russian aggression against the Baltics in which Russia used a tactical nuclear weapon to strike a NATO target.
The insanity of this scenario is that it ignores published Russian nuclear doctrine, which holds that Russia will respond with the full power of its strategic nuclear arsenal in the case of a nuclear attack against Russian soil.
Once again, US nuclear war planners believe that Russia is bluffing.
There is another twist to this discussion.
While the US might assess that Russia would not seek a general nuclear war following the use by the US of low yield nuclear warheads, the problem is that the means of employment of the W-76-2 warhead is the Trident submarine launched ballistic missile.
While the February 2020 scenario had Russia using nuclear weapons first (something which, at the time, represented a gross deviation from published Russian nuclear doctrine and the declaratory policy statements of the Russian President), the fact is the US will not necessarily wait for Russia to kick things off on the nuclear front.
The United States has long embraced a nuclear posture which not only incorporates the potential of a nuclear first strike, but, through declaratory policy statements, actively encourages America’s potential nuclear adversaries to believe such an action is, in fact, possible. David J. Trachtenberg, the deputy undersecretary of defense for policy during the Trump administration, said in a speech at the Brookings Institution in 2019 that a key aspect to the US nuclear posture was “keeping adversaries such as Russia and China guessing whether the US would ever employ its nuclear weapons.”
But the US takes the guesswork out of the equation. Theodore Postol points out, in a recent article in Responsible Statecraft, that a new fuse used on the W-76 nuclear warhead (not the low yield W-76-2, but rather the 100 kiloton version) has turned the 890 W-76 warheads loaded on the Trident missiles carried onboard the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into weapons capable of destroying hardened Russian and Chinese missile silos with a single warhead.
This means that, firing in a reduced trajectory profile from a position close to the shores of either Russia or China, the United States possesses the ability to launch a nuclear first strike that has a good chance of knocking out the entire ground-based component of both the Chinese and Russian strategic nuclear deterrent. As a result, Russia has been compelled to embrace a “launch on detect” nuclear posture where it would employ the totality of its silo-based arsenal the moment it detected any potential first strike by the United States.
Return, for a moment, to the scenario-driven employment of the W-76-2 low yield nuclear weapon as part of the “escalate to de-escalate” strategy that underpins the entire reason for the W-76-2 weapon to exist in the first place.
When the United States launches the Trident missile carrying the low yield warhead, how are the Russians supposed to interpret this act?
The fact is, if the US ever fires a W-76-2 warhead using a Trident missile, the Russians will assess this action as the initiation of a nuclear first strike and order the launching of its own nuclear arsenal in response.
All because the United States has embraced a policy of “first strike ambiguity” designed to keep the Russians and Chinese guessing about American nuclear intentions.
And, to put icing on this nuclear cake, Russia’s response appears to have been to change its nuclear posture to embrace a similar posture of nuclear pre-emption, meaning that rather than wait for the US to actually launch a nuclear-armed missile or missiles against a Russian target, Russia will now seek to pre-empt such an attack by launching its own pre-emptive nuclear strike designed to eliminate the US land-based nuclear deterrent force.
In a sane world, both sides would recognize the inherent dangers of such a forward-leaning posture, and take corrective action.
But we no longer live in a sane world.
Moreover, given the fact that the underlying principle guiding US policies toward Russia is the misplaced notion that Russia is bluffing, any aggressive posturing we might engage in designed to promote and exploit the ambiguity derived from the first-strike potential inherent in existing US nuclear posture will, more likely than not, only fuel Russian paranoia about a potential US nuclear pre-emption, prompting Russia to pre-empt.
Russia isn’t bluffing.
And our refusal to acknowledge this has embarked us on a path where we appear more than willing to pre-empt life itself.
We need to pre-empt nuclear preemption by embracing a policy of strict no first use principles.
By choosing deterrence over warfighting.
By deemphasizing nuclear war.
By controlling nuclear weapons through verifiable arms control treaties.
And by eliminating nuclear weapons.
It truly is an existential choice—nuclear weapons or life.
James Corbett discusses cultural transhumanism, psychological transhumanism, technocratic transhumanism, vitalism, the bio/digital convergence, simulacra and simulations, hyperreality, the desert of the real, the Sentient World Simulation and much more with David Gardner of the Freedom Convo Podcast.
Part Eighteen of this series explained that most Americans do not understand the current war in Ukraine because they’ve been misinformed. The great Glen Greenwald provides a summary of this propaganda effort. Retired US Army intelligence officer Tony Shaffer states that some 15,000 Americans are in Ukraine to support the war and many have been killed. There are comments by the prime ministers of Hungary and Slovakia who don’t support the Anglo-American war in Ukraine. Finally, the myth that Vladimir Putin is a dictator is addressed.
_________________________________
Here is an example of how the deaths of American servicemen in Ukraine and Israel can be hidden.: “Third airman dies at Air Force base in five weeks”; Nicholas Slayton; Task and Purpose; August 31, 2024; https://taskandpurpose.com/news/airma…
One Covid issue has been nagging me for years. Who is Girish Navani?
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was touted as the model for the nation in Covid response. In June 2021, more than a year into the Covid era, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts led the nation and the world in purported Covid deaths per population, not quite the model response other states should aspire to replicate.
On April 28, 2020, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker announced that a Covid Reopening Advisory Board would be formed. The board was comprised of public officials, executives of local businesses and a university, and a medical doctor who was President & CEO of a health plan company.1
One of the executives on the board is Girish Navani, listed as CEO and Co-Founder of eClinicalWorks in business since 1999. Back in 2020 and 2021, when I looked at their website, it was under construction and would not allow me past the homepage. That’s interesting because they were in business for 20 years by then. I found a legal backdoor into the site. It was not nearly put together in any useful way. Now, in September 2024, the eClinicalWorks website is fully functional. They sell an AI software product that manages patient records and connections to pharmacies, labs, and supply chains. According to their website, eclinicalworks.com, 850,000+ Healthcare professionals are using eClinicalWorks.2
One of the pages on their website claims, “The Most Widely Used Telehealth Solution … Over 56,000 physicians using healow TeleVisits.”3 The governor of Massachusetts chose the CEO of a company that stood to gain millions of dollars on telemedicine as one of the advisors to decide whether the Governor should reopen the state economy. Put another way, Navani stood to make millions of dollars to keep the economy closed and was advising Governor Baker on whether to keep the economy closed.
The telemedicine market more than doubled from 2019 to 2020 due to Covid, ebbed in each of years 2021 and 2022, then rose again in 2023, which was US$94.44 billion, still more than double 2019.4 There is no doubt that Covid shutdowns spawned the telemedicine market boom. In other words, Covid was a multimillion dollar windfall for Navani.
In 2020 and 2021, when I looked up Navani on LinkedIn, his profile was scrubbed. There was not much there at all. eClinicalWorks headquartered in Westborough, Massachusetts now has a profile on LinkedIn, but a profile for Girish Navani still cannot be found.
A current web search for “Girish Navani” yields a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs from May 31, 2017. The story states that eClinicalWorks had to pay $155 million to resolve a False Claims Act violation for certain misrepresentations about its products. Three of the founders, including Navani, were jointly and severally liable to pay $154.92 million to the United States.5
On February 2, 2022, a public records request (state FOIA) was made to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH). Some of the information requested included: who nominated Navani for the board, what credentials Navani held to be qualified for the board, the services or products his companies marketed, any conflicts of interest disclosures filed with the Governor’s office or the Reopening Advisory Board related to a conflict of interest with his appointment to the board.
On February 16, 2022, the DPH provided a response letter. The response letter states, “After a comprehensive search, DPH has not identified any records in its custody and control which are responsive to your request. DPH now considers this Public Records Request closed.”
We are left with questions — Why was Girish Navani appointed to Governor Baker’s Reopening Advisory Board in 2020? How much did Navani make from this deal? How many public officials are invested in Navani’s company?
Is there any corner of the government’s Covid narrative that is truthful and not filled with malfeasance, greed, and lies?
(September 02, 2024). Telemedicine Market Size, Share & COVID-19 Impact Analysis, By Type (Products and Services), By Modality (Store-and-forward (Asynchronous), Real-time (Synchronous), and Others), By Application (Teleradiology, Telepathology, Teledermatology, Telecardiology, Telepsychiatry, and Others), By End-User (Healthcare Facilities, Homecare, and Others), and Regional Forecast, 2023-2030. Fortune Business Insights. Found here https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/telemedicine-market-101067 on September 19, 2024.
Informed Consent Action Network lead counsel, Aaron Siri, joins Del with breaking news on the latest ICAN legal win securing religious exemptions for the largest university system in the state of California. Hear about the cases that led to this monumental victory and what this means for over 295,000 students.
Research is piling up to reveal that the mRNA vaccines increasingly weaken the immune system with each booster. Jefferey dives deeper into what “HighWire” guests Bret Weinstein, PhD and William Makis, MD both detail – multiple vaccinations causing a class switch in antibody production to an overproduction of IgG4, the antibody responsible for dampening immune response, and underproduction of IgG1 and IgG3, the antibodies responsible for cancer surveillance.
Zowe Smith had a fairly mundane job. As a medical coder at an Arizona hospital, her job was to take information from patient records and “translate that into diagnosis and procedure codes.”
But when the COVID-19 shots and COVID-19 hospital protocols were introduced, Smith began to see things she’d never before seen in her career.
“We all believe that this is where people are supposed to go to get better … the hospital is supposed to help you,” Smith told “The Defender In-Depth” this week. “That’s not what was happening.”
Smith resigned and started speaking out about the suffering she saw recorded on patient medical records. She is the author of “The COVID Code: My Life in the Thrill Kill Medical Cult.” She also writes regularly on Substack.
Patients were ‘circling the drain’ soon after administration of COVID protocols
Smith said that medical coding, aside from being used for insurance purposes, is used to track the number of cases of diseases and illnesses regionally and nationwide.
Her job was to expose “the patterns of disease going on” in the population — and she said what she observed during the pandemic led her to begin questioning.
“Even when I was experiencing what I saw, it was almost unbelievable that this could even happen in a hospital,” said Smith, who first noticed abnormalities when the hospital started implementing COVID-19 protocols.
“I started noticing … patients trying to escape the hospital, like unplugging things, pulling out vent tubes and escaping … then I started to hear rumors about the ventilators and I knew that there was a bonus for [giving] remdesivir,” Smith said.
Smith said patients coming in with cold and flu symptoms were treated differently than they had been before the COVID-19 outbreak. “Before COVID, a cold, flu or pneumonia case, you would normally be home within three days, maybe a week, unless you had other major conditions.”
Before the pandemic, patients were rarely placed on ventilators. Smith said:
“Before the pandemic and the hospital protocols began, we did not connect patients to ventilators right away. It wasn’t until they were in dire straits and we had tried every other method that they would be put on a ventilator, and then they would be coming off those ventilators as soon as possible.”
But under the COVID-19 hospital protocols, patients “would be on the ventilators for 30 days or more sometimes, which was incredibly rare,” Smith said. “On top of that, they weren’t talking about disconnecting these patients from the ventilator, which should be something they’re talking about within 24 hours, because the longer you’re on, the less likely you are to come off the ventilator.”
Under the COVID-19 protocols, doctors “went straight to the ventilator” even if patient oxygen levels had not reached “the threshold where we would normally ventilate a person.”
Patients who were given remdesivir developed kidney failure within a few days. “I could see the lab values … they were getting worse almost immediately after the administration of remdesivir,” she said.
Smith described the pattern she observed: “Patient comes in, patient gets COVID diagnosis, patient [is] given a dose of remdesivir,” Smith said. “Pretty soon, they’re on vents. Pretty soon they have kidney failure and then they’re circling the drain and nothing that we could do would save them.”
Visits by loved ones were limited or prohibited due to pandemic restrictions and the hospital protocols — and this took a “horrific” toll on patients, Smith said.
According to Smith, patient records showed instances of “the police getting called to the hospitals” to eject “people that were trying to visit … dying loved ones or loved ones that were … being harmed by the hospital protocols.”
Smith said these patterns were evident to her as a medical coder. “Every note that happens between a nurse and a patient is documented. There’s social information that’s documented. There’s information from ambulance documentation that gets added to the medical record.”
‘Huge incentive’ for ‘financially kneecapped’ hospitals to implement protocols
According to Smith, at the start of the pandemic, hospitals were placed under financial pressure — which later incentivized them to accept payments for implementing the COVID-19 hospital protocols.
“When the world was asked to lock down … hospitals were also issued mandates … that they needed to shut down their OR [operating rooms], which is their bread and butter. That’s where most of their money is made,” she said.
Hospitals also had to “increase their ICU [intensive care unit] bed capacity” and “reduce the number of patients in the ICU beds,” Smith said.
This “financially kneecapped hospitals for many months, from about March [2020] to May, when we were told we had to make room for this expected wave of COVID patients, which never came,” Smith said.
In the summer of 2020, after Congress passed the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act), the COVID-19 protocols “came down to us from the NIH” — the National Institutes of Health. The protocols prescribed the use of remdesivir and ventilators for suspected COVID-19 patients and financially incentivized struggling hospitals to use them.
Hospitals “got 20% for every single dose of remdesivir they gave to a patient … they got the bonus for it being a COVID patient to begin with. And then if the patient goes on a ventilator … they got the maximum payment,” she said.
Hospitals hid vaccine injuries by not inquiring about vaccination status
Smith said medical records also contained evidence of patient injuries following administration of the COVID-19 vaccines.
“I began seeing some incredibly crazy cases,” Smith said. “I began to notice more cases … of near-instant death, like within an hour of multi-organ failure. Massive inflammation, brain death, things that we had never, ever seen before. In my 11 years of medical coding, I had never seen a case like that.”
She added:
“Most of those patients that had sepsis and the massive, whole-body inflammation did not make it. There were a lot of cases of seizures that were uncontrollable … and then people started to arrive with brain inflammation, encephalitis … some of them suffering from stroke-like symptoms. All of a sudden, massive blood clots coming in. And these were in young people. These were not elderly people with comorbidities.”
Yet, according to Smith, hospitals would not inquire about patients’ vaccination status, making it impossible to diagnose these conditions as vaccine injuries. “They weren’t asking the right questions [and] weren’t writing it in the medical record.”
Smith said she felt the need to turn her experience “into something positive.”
“Maybe I can take this information and put it out there so that people can be warned and they can know what’s going on,” Smith said. “To me, it’s about saving lives and it’s about helping us figure out what happened.”
In an unprecedented act of terrorism, the Zionist regime carried out widespread device detonations across Lebanon over the course of two days this week.
The reckless terror attacks injured thousands and killed dozens, including children and civil workers, sparking outrage worldwide.
Devices such as pagers, walkie-talkies, and solar panels detonated simultaneously across the Arab country, starting from the suburbs of Beirut, killing, maiming, and dismembering Lebanese citizens.
The mouthpieces of the child-murdering regime in Tel Aviv have gone out of their way to claim that the attacks targeted members of the Hezbollah resistance movement.
However, this was not a military operation but cowardly terror attacks orchestrated to instill fear and anxiety in the everyday lives of the Lebanese people.
At the time of the explosions, Lebanese citizens were engaged in mundane activities—driving, working in hospitals, and grocery shopping. The detonation of their devices during these routine tasks demonstrates that the goal was not to strike Hezbollah but to foment widespread fear, panic, and chaos.
It remains unclear how Israeli regime agents gained access to these devices, imported from a European country in the thousands under the label of a Taiwanese firm.
However, it is evident that distributors and producers within the supply chain must have collaborated with Tel Aviv. Standard quality assurance processes ensure products are tamper-proof and safe for consumers.
The implantation of explosives into everyday communication objects used by Lebanese citizens suggests that something within the production process was compromised.
Gold Apollo, a Taiwanese company responsible for producing the targeted pagers, has shifted the blame to a Hungarian firm, BAC CONSULTING KFT, which it claims was responsible for the manufacturing.
In a statement, Gold Apollo noted that according to the cooperation agreement between the two sides, it authorized BAC to use its brand trademark for product sales in designated regions, but the design and manufacturing of the products were solely the responsibility of BAC.
Taiwan has been strengthening its ties with the US in recent years, despite officially adhering to the One China Policy, which recognizes Taiwan as part of the People’s Republic of China.
Over the last few years, American military and intelligence personnel have been active in Taiwan, and the US has provided millions of dollars’ worth of advanced weaponry to the Taiwanese government.
Hungary, a member of the European Union, has been largely hostile to the Palestinian cause and a supporter of Israeli occupation and its genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza, which has so far killed more than 41,300 people, mostly children and women.
Either country, or both, could have collaborated with the Zionist regime once it became known that pagers used by Lebanese people, including Hezbollah, were being sourced through these vendors.
BAC Consulting is owned by British citizen Cristiana Arcidiancono-Barsony, who has denied responsibility for the Lebanon bombings after a massive global outcry.
Given Britain’s long history of colonialism and collaboration with Zionist forces and the relationship between Zionist tech and tech honchos such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, there is a compelling case that Western technology cannot be trusted.
In fact, this technological terror plot by the Israeli occupation has escalated tensions between the imperialist West and the independence-seeking Global South.
Now, with the push of a button, the Israeli regime—or any entity granted access to this technology—can assassinate anyone via market-distributed technology.
One of imperialism’s key tools is market control: control over what is sold, produced, and licensed. If Western technology is capable of indiscriminate destruction, many will begin to question whether it’s time to step away from US-aligned tech altogether.
The Israeli regime celebrates these terroristic short-term “gains” as a military achievement, but in the long term, they have eroded trust in Western technology and products.
If the West controls supply chains and can detonate devices at will, as seen in Lebanon, can economic cooperation with the West truly be considered voluntary? And after Israel’s latest terrorist actions, is Western tech even worth purchasing?
Notice how, when countries from the Global South opt to buy Chinese, Russian, or Iranian products or welcome cooperation from other US adversaries, American politicians and media swiftly condemn these moves, decrying the spread of so-called “Chinese influence” in foreign markets.
The same dynamic can be observed with the ongoing trend of de-dollarization, prompting figures like Donald Trump to threaten “100 percent tariffs” on countries moving away from the US dollar in trade.
What does this all mean? Simply put, the US goal is to reassert itself globally, primarily through market and dollar dominance, as a means of controlling nations at a widespread level. Controlling a nation’s markets is often more effective than directly influencing politicians.
However, American imperialism cannot have it both ways. Technological terrorism, exemplified by Israeli detonators in pagers, and economic coercion, such as American sanctions, are eroding trust in the West.
For decades, American capitalists and their political representatives have argued that buying American goods and trading with US firms is voluntary and beneficial for participating nations.
Now, as American hegemony declines, the US is scrambling to maintain its influence, as countries turn to alternative models or economic alliances like BRICS and SCO in pursuit of fairer paths to development.
Governments in the Global South, especially those adversarial to the Israeli regime, are likely investigating whether they have compromised technology in their own markets.
It is well known that American tech is frequently used for surveillance—WhatsApp is believed to have played a role in the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh by revealing his location in Tehran.
This development comes as alliances such as BRICS are pushing for their own global currency, and member countries—particularly India, China, Russia, and Iran—have committed to local manufacturing whenever possible, ditching the US dollar.
Iran, for instance, developed its own COVID-19 vaccines due to the West’s long history of medical terrorism, which even extends to American citizens themselves.
Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, banned the import of Western COVID-19 vaccines, citing a lack of trust. He stands vindicated yet again.
Less than a century ago, the US government conducted the Tuskegee experiments, poisoning Black Americans with placebos or experimental treatments. Johnson & Johnson, the US company behind a COVID-19 vaccine, also participated in the infamous Agent Orange experiments, disfiguring prisoners with chemical residues.
China and Russia, too, have developed their own technology to protect against American surveillance efforts. For example, Huawei phones, a Chinese product, are banned in the US due to fears of “Chinese spying.”
In reality, these phones were developed as a safeguard against US tech giants like Apple attempting to dominate Chinese markets, which would leave China vulnerable to American attacks and surveillance.
We are witnessing the beginning of a long, negative reaction against Western technology. In an increasingly competitive global market, where US influence is waning, Israel’s murderous gambit of rigging devices tied to US supply chains will ultimately backfire and that is for certain.
Governments, corporations, and organizations will seek out technology that cannot be compromised, particularly by threats as dangerous as the Zionist regime, which collaborates with US intelligence.
This terroristic plot will be remembered not only for its moral repugnance but also for its economic repercussions. It signals another bell toll in the decline of US imperialism.
As American influence fades and powers like China, Russia, and Iran offer more attractive alternatives, the world will undoubtedly gravitate toward anything but America.
Musa Iqbal is a Boston-based researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. domestic and foreign policy.
By Jonas E. Alexis | Veterans Today | July 23, 2017
Israeli Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu seems to have picked up where the late Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef left off. The Israeli army, Eliyahu said, must slaughter the Palestinians “and leave no one alive.” The Palestinians, the good rabbi continued, must be “destroyed and crushed in order to end violence.” Here is Eliyahu’s algorithm:
“If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill 1,000. And if they do not stop after 1,000, then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million.”
There is more to this “logic” than meets the eye and ear. Eliyahu even postulated that the Israeli army ought not to get involved in arresting Palestinians because “If you leave him alive, there is a fear that he will be released and kill other people. We must eradicate this evil from within our midst.”
You may say that this is just an isolated case. No Israeli official believes that, right? … 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.
• The Anglo-American War on Russia 
Aletho News
Aletho News 