Was taking the Covid vaccine Worth a Shot?A new book by Caroline Pover, written on behalf of Brianne Dressen who lives in the USA, chronicles the horrific story of how she was severely injured by the Covid vaccine after enrolling on the AstraZeneca trial in November 2020. Caroline sensitively and professionally tells the heart wrenching, eye-opening account of how Brianne Dressen’s life was turned upside down and irreversibly changed forever the day she chose to volunteer to enroll on the UK-led AstraZeneca clinical trial. This book takes the reader along the rollercoaster ride of the devastating injuries caused by the vaccine and the blatant abuse of power by the healthcare system to denigrate, ignore, and cover up her injuries – along with many others labelled – as ‘misinformation’ spreaders by the medical-industrial-military complex. Every person on the planet was misled by governments, NGOs, regulatory agencies, corporations, Big Pharma, healthcare professionals, along with social and mainstream media. From how clinical trials are conducted to the lack of injury compensation, wide scale censorship, corruption and abuse of power, this book shows the myriad ways Brianne fought and continues to fight for truth and justice for the Covid-vaccine injured, who have been completely abandoned and often maligned by society.
The AstraZeneca Clinical Trial
In the introduction, Caroline Pover describes how she had been medically diagnosed with an adverse reaction to the Covid vaccine and was led to believe Brianne Dressen did not exist. It was only when she started posting on social media and heard about another woman who was dropped from a clinical trial because of an adverse reaction to the vaccine, that their paths crossed. Worth a Shot is a book based on real events that impacted on real people and is a narrative account of Brianne’s (Bri’s) story containing brutally honest struggles with how her life has changed irreversibly after the covid vaccine, including her plans to contemplate suicide. Bri had the perfect life: she was a fit, active lady who always pushed herself physically and mentally. She had a wonderful family life, married with two children with a dream house in the mountains. After having children, Bri set up her own preschool to help children who struggled in a typical educational environment. Then in 2020, Covid hit!
When the lockdowns happened and the talk of vaccine trials began, Bri wanted to help in any way possible with contributing to scientific advancements; once “Operation Warp Speed” was being regularly reported in the media, coupled with her husband’s scientific background, Bri felt excited to enrol in the new Covid vaccine trial set up by Oxford University in conjunction with AstraZeneca, which was recruiting in UK, Brazil, South Africa, and the USA. The opening in the USA was in Salt Lake City – just 40 minutes drive from Bri’s home. She had a phone interview with a trial representative for several hours to capture her medical history and was considered an excellent candidate for the trial. Things then went quiet, but out of the blue on 4th November 2020 – the day after the election – she was called into the trial. The consent form she signed was very thorough. It went through all the expectations and explained it was a double-blinded study and that so far 5,000 individuals had received at least one dose, and the side effects were mild to moderate but transient in nature. It also stated that if anyone did experience an adverse reaction they might be withdrawn from the study, but any medical treatment needed for reactions would be covered by AstraZeneca’s insurance policy. Bri took the vaccine, but tingling started within an hour of the injection.
Adverse Reaction
Bri’s reaction was severe. Tingling spread from below her right elbow all the way up her arm and shoulder, then to the other arm. The tingling got progressively worse and her eyes started to blur, and she saw double. Her hearing started to go muffled, but she assumed the symptoms would be gone by the next morning. However, her symptoms intensified, and now both legs were becoming weaker. She called the number on the consent form to report her reactions, but no one answered her call. Within days, she was confined to her bedroom, with drapes covering the window to shut out the light. Within weeks, her condition worsened so she saw a neurologist and visited an out-of-hours emergency clinic. Nausea, vision disturbances, tingling, extreme sensitivity to sound, limb weaknesses, as well as excruciating pain developed all over the body, including her teeth, stomach, bones, joints, legs and arms. She could not eat and lost 20 lbs within weeks. Her body seemed to vibrate and buzz from within constantly, and she could not bear anyone touching her, with extreme sensitivity to sound, light, and food. She spent weeks then months confined to her bed. She lost control of her bladder and her blood pressure was erratic. None of the pain medications helped.
Her husband and other family members and close friends helped with looking after the children and caring for her. Yet Bri and her husband did not want to broadcast these issues publicly when so many were struggling with Covid itself. Weekly and even sometimes daily visits to the hospitals baffled the doctors. Friends visited her but the visible transformation of her appearance shocked them, and she had to wear earplugs and sunglasses. Attempts at exercise were futile, as the pain was too unbearable. She visited multiple experts but to no avail. The principal investigator of the clinical trial suggested she might have multiple sclerosis (MS), but the trial clinic did not recommend any other specialists. Local neurologists recommended she visit the ER. The clinic staff told Bri that the ramifications were serious if she thought there was any possibility the vaccine had caused these symptoms. When she said her reactions were from the vaccine as she was a trial participant, most professionals were not interested and dismissed the symptoms as Covid. She had MRI scans but found nothing significant; there was nothing they could do. Bri was to report back to the trial clinic, which she did. They told her not to worry because AstraZeneca would reimburse all her medical costs – and they would be in touch soon. But no one contacted her.
No Diagnosis
She continued to go through the proper channels and medical experts to get answers. After a series of tests that ruled out MS and other neurological conditions, she was no closer to a diagnosis. By ploughing through scientific papers and doing their own research, Bri discovered post-vaccination transverse myelitis (TM), Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). Both TM and ADEM are conditions relating to inflammation of the spinal cord or central nervous system, which can lead to permanent damage. Despite Bri reporting this to the trial clinic, the trial was not put on hold. She was told to report everything back to AstraZeneca, which she did, but despite all the assurances, no one contacted her. Bri’s multiple trips to the hospital caused by the vaccine meant she was a burden to the healthcare system. Many physicians shrugged off her symptoms as psychiatric because none of the tests produced any explanation. She was put on antidepressants and gabapentin for neurological pain. Nothing had been put in place to deal with anyone who had an unexpected reaction to the vaccine.
On the next visit to her clinic, Bri hoped someone would be able to help her with her condition but was told no one could see her unless she signed a new consent form. She asked what was different about this form but they insisted they could not help her unless she signed it. Bri’s vision was so impaired that she could not read the form. She felt she had no choice but to sign it. Once she signed the form, two nasal swabs were taken and a blood test to confirm she did not have Covid, and she was discharged. Bri reached out to the CDC, and her husband filled out a VAERS report, but no one responded. Bri’s health deteriorated and the medical costs were mounting up, with assurances AstraZeneca would reimburse. After weeks of scouring the internet they discovered that IVIG (intravenous immunoglobulin) might be a possible treatment. When they showed this to the doctors and other experts, they were ignored and refused this treatment. The only interaction from AstraZeneca (via a third party) was that Bri was ‘unblinded’ from the trial at her request as she wanted to know if she had received the vaccine, which was later confirmed. The trial sponsor agreed she would not receive a second dose, but they offered no help or support about her continued deteriorating health.
Losing Hope
Exhausted and losing hope, Bri and her husband reached out to the NIH. They were surprised when a specialist neuroimmunologist, Dr Avinthra Nath, Director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke at the NIH, and a researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) who worked directly under Dr Anthony Fauci, responded with interest to learn more about Bri’s condition. An appointment was arranged and he seemed very sympathetic and gave the impression he was keen to help. Bri then learned the shocking news that the AstraZeneca vaccine was authorized for use throughout the UK. Publicly the trials were being celebrated as hugely successful, but Bri knew otherwise. She felt suicidal – she was a climber, skier, and dancer who was now a completely non-functioning member of the family barely able to leave her bedroom. Bri’s circle of friends started to diminish. Their savings were also being rapidly depleted because of the skyrocketing medical costs. What about all the assurances on the consent form? What happened to all the promises of the costs being reimbursed? Bri began to lose hope. A trip into nature with her sister that aimed to be a temporary distraction for her resulted in a candid but dark exchange. Her sister asked her to promise her not to kill herself. Bri replied “I cannot promise you that”. The chapter describes how she planned to take her own life, so she was less of a burden to her family. Mercifully, she changed her mind and instead directed her focus on finding and helping others who might be injured and experiencing the same nightmare she was going through.
The Many Injured
It didn’t take long before Bri joined support groups online. After some time she saw a posting from another lady who was also injured in the AstraZeneca trial. Finally, she could talk to someone who knew exactly what she was going through! Within a few days she found another clinical trial participant (Moderna trial) who also experienced similar debilitating reactions. In this patient’s case, she had her left lymph nodes removed as they were so swollen but she became bedridden owing to complications of the surgery. Bri befriended Dr Danice Hertz, a retired gastroenterologist who had developed Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS) following the Pfizer jab and was suffering ongoing allergic-type reactions including tinnitus, chest pains, and severe nerve damage to her face. Danice increased the number of patients referred to the NIH and Dr Nath for his study. Soon she was inundated with emails from others who had experienced adverse effects from covid vaccines. Sheryl Reutters was harmed by the Moderna jab, experiencing a severe neurological reaction, and soon became a close friend of Bri. Mary Johnson a front-line ER and critical care physician who was injured by the vaccine, and was driven out of her job and confined to her home. Kristi Dobbs and Candace Hayden were also damaged by the vaccine. Bri trusted the NIH to take care of all these injured and would talk to them each week to learn about their stories.
The number of people with vaccine injuries kept mounting and they were all being ignored by doctors and the drug companies. So, the group decided to create a Covid vaccine injury support group on Facebook. However, anyone publicly criticising the vaccines soon became labelled as ‘conspiracy theorists’ and more prominent healthcare workers with dissenting voices became known as the “Disinformation Dozen”. After taking a default position of always giving the benefit of the doubt, Bri was now beginning to realise they had been strung along for months. Her own children were starting to struggle at school, and were developing anxiety, and her son was afraid of leaving the house. Then Bri discovered Maddie, a 12-year-old girl who was completely healthy before receiving the Pfizer vaccine, who was left unable to walk or eat, incontinent, and with seizures and fainting episodes. Bri and the core group of vaccine injured decided enough was enough – they had to go public!
Going Public
They started to post their testimonies and videos about their experiences on the website; some of the stories were harrowing. The videos found their way onto TikTok and were receiving millions of views, as traffic to their website exploded, with over 300,000 views per week. More and more stories poured in from around the world. Facebook seemed to be where many of the support group interactions were residing. By early 2021, although Bri had yet to find anyone else injured by the AstraZeneca jab, in the UK reports of blood clots were flooding in. Slowly news reporters began contacting them and they promised to cover the stories of the vaccine injured along with statements from governments and drug companies. The group reached out to the CDC, FDA, and VAERS but no one received a significant response. How many others were out there with the same relentless pain, alone and with overpowering thoughts? Petitions were submitted to the FDA, CDC, VAERS, and the White House, after one lady who was part of the injured group took her own life. They went to the top, and contacted Dr Peter Marks, Director of the Centre for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. Word was now spreading among the vaccine-injured community that the NIH had been contacted about hundreds of people with adverse reactions.
Bri and her newfound friends detected a distinct unease among most doctors and nurses whom they engaged with during their multiple visits to the hospital. Bri spent a week at the NIH having multiple tests, which confirmed she had nerve damage in her legs and autonomic nervous system issues. She was diagnosed with “post-vaccine neuropathy”, and recommended IVIG therapy – the very treatment Bri had pleaded with the doctors to try but were ignored. One of Bri’s friend’s, Casey, was an NIH employee who had suffered severe neurological complications as a result of the vaccine. Casey met with Dr Nath, who had previously reassured them that they were documenting and researching all the injuries. When Casey then confronted Dr Nath about his research he flatly denied any such research was underway even though Bri had spent a week at the NIH having tests and being placed on the IVIG protocol. They had no choice but to get political, so they arranged a call with Wisconsin’s Senator Johnson who had been outspoken about the harms caused by the covid vaccines and the censorship, and had been critical of the lockdown policies. Bri was cautious of accepting Senator Johnson’s help because of how he had been portrayed, but on meeting him found he was full of kindness and willing to expose himself to attack on their behalf.
Senator Johnson agreed to hold a press conference. The vaccine injured community felt the politicisation of their health and ‘vaccine stance’ was very draining. One of the support groups that came together with Bri’s group was named “A Wee Sprinkle of Hope” to reflect the culture of compassion. The real objective of the vaccine injured movement was to help people who were suffering. No headline news from the press conference was on the mainstream media, it was mentioned as an aside before going to the next item. Every vaccine injury was not misinformation and their abandonment by the manufacturers was not misinformation. Instead, the news reporters centred the stories not around the vaccine injuries, but around the fact it was led by what they claimed was a crazy, right-wing ‘conspiracy theorist’: Senator Johnston.
Censorship
Then the censorship started. Within 24 hours of the press conference, Facebook began shutting down the support groups. The injured gathered together and then joined with A Wee Sprinkle of Hope. Thousands had joined, and the group was getting larger by the day. Then 5 days after the press conference, and without warning, Facebook shut down the largest Covid vaccine injury support group in the world. Now the injured could not even talk to each other! The social media platform was actively restricting people suffering from extreme physical and emotional pain from communicating with each other. Soon the group decided to develop code words so they could still communicate under new names. Then a mainstream news article exposed one of the code words, and a new group of 30,000 members was shut down too! Warnings appeared beneath people’s posts on their own pages urging viewers to go to Facebook’s Community Guidelines on ‘accurate’ information about vaccines. The warnings also deterred other Facebook users, suggesting they should not interact with ‘repeat offenders’ posting misinformation about vaccines. People’s posts were also being ‘shadowbanned’ or hidden by Facebook algorithms.
Bri was eventually paid a measly $590.20 from AstraZeneca, which coincided with her learning of other injured people in the UK in early 2021. The injured were getting mixed messages from the NIH. On the one hand, they were paying for people’s tests and diagnosis, but then they denied any research was being done. Eventually Dr Nath stopped responding to emails and the FDA stopped communicating with Danice. The NIH then shut down the entire study of the covid vaccine injured and cancelled Bri’s upcoming trip to the NIH. Some of the “Disinformation Dozen” also had their social media accounts shut down or restricted. By now, authors, doctors, patients, activists and even celebrities were being censored. Bri’s husband studied all the clinical trial study reports that had come out, matching the injured participants they knew of to the recorded reactions and found most had been downplayed or even omitted.
It was becoming clear that the institutions they had previously trusted, such as the media, science, pharmaceutical companies, and the government were hiding the truth or outright lying about Covid vaccine adverse reactions. They were being silenced. Free speech was officially over. But another threat was looming: vaccine mandates! The idea of mandating Covid vaccines was terribly distressing to many of the injured. They knew first hand that no one would be there for anyone if they developed a severe reaction. Being fully vaccinated meant you could go to work, visit restaurants or travel without restriction. Those same ‘privileges’ would not be open to the unvaccinated. The coercion, propaganda, bribes and incentives to get the vaccines was extraordinary. Next they were going to jab children.
Eventually, Bri discovered Dr Doshi, an Associate Professor at the University of Maryland with an interest in the drug approval process and an expert in clinical trials, who was also a Senior Editor at the British Medical Journal. Bri and others set up a call with him, and he suggested organising a roundtable discussion in Washington, with senators, health officials and all media. Other pharmaceutical policy experts were brought in, and Bri and her friends started to gather the vaccine injury testimonials. Fundraising was needed to pay for the injured to travel to the event. Some organizations donated together with crowdfunding efforts that raised £37,000 to pay for everyone’s travel and accommodation. The roundtable event at the Senate lasted over 4 hours, which sparked some media interest. The clinical trial company offered a single ‘full and final settlement’ payment to Bri of £1,243.30. This amount did not even cover one-half of the cost of a single IVIG infusion. It seemed the second consent form that Bri had signed (under duress) had significant changes that included all the symptoms she had suffered since the jab, effectively invalidating the previous consent form. After meeting another vaccine victim, Dr Joel Wallskog, Bri and others formed a new group: React19.
Going Global
A Pfizer Whistleblower, Brook Jackson, had been a regional director at one of the clinical trial sites and expressed serious concerns about how the Pfizer Covid vaccine trial was conducted. Despite the stories some mainstream channels promoted about vaccine misinformation and “anti-vaccine propaganda”, clips of the roundtable event were going viral. Many of the vaccine injured, including healthcare professionals and doctors were risking their careers by speaking out against the vaccines. While React19 was originally set up to support the American’s who were injured, it ultimately became a hub for the vaccine injured all over the world. What became clear was that vaccine injury support groups before the covid vaccines faced similar medical gaslighting. The difference this time was never had a vaccine been administered to so many people at the same time – an estimated 5 billion globally – so the global repercussions would be huge. A chat group was initiated for React19, which grew with international leaders, creating a unified effort. Charlet Crichton set up the UK-based UKCVFamily around the same time as React19, as the healthcare system in the UK is different to the USA and more people in the UK had been given the AstraZeneca vaccine. Both groups now collaborated.
It was also becoming clear that as the vaccine injured community grew, the adverse reactions in all the trials had been hidden or misrepresented. Throughout her journey, Bri had started out searching to find the support she needed, but since taking on a leadership role in React19 she was now the support. The end of the book chronicles how finding allies was not as easy as some might assume. There was still no research paper from Dr Nath from the NIH, and when it finally did materialize on a preprint publication, it only published data from 24 patients (despite having over a hundred cases). Furthermore, any links to the adverse events of the vaccine were completely downplayed. When the injured were invited to speak at events by ‘advocates’ on behalf of the injured, often it was more for appearances. Some people in the freedom movement wanted to raise their profile through association with the vaccine injured, but were not directly offering help. Gradually the environment changed so that it was more ‘acceptable’ to discuss vaccine injuries. The film produced by Mark Sharman (former ITV and BSkyB News Executive) “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion” released on YouTube in October 2022, was removed from the platform within hours following its mention in a Parliamentary debate, despite amassing over a million views!
Find the Science, Find the Money
The immunization surveillance systems such as VAERS, Yellow Card report scheme and others were not working. It is estimated fewer than 1% of adverse reactions are even logged on these sites and so the true nature and scale of such reactions are far greater than captured on these systems. A staggering statistic of the VAERS system is that in the 30 years of vaccine injury, 50,000 reports had been logged. In 2021, there were 750,000 reports of adverse reactions. In other words, the covid vaccine reports in 1 year outnumbered all adverse event reports from the prior 30 years combined. Many of the VAERS reports were not being followed up or being processed properly. Studies submitted to journals that had any data that questioned the vaccines, were often rejected from multiple journals.
Compounding the issue, the 1986 US National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) removed any financial liability from the manufacturers if any deaths or injuries were caused by vaccines. Moreover, vaccine damage payment schemes, such as the VICP in the USA, were wholly inadequate as proving vaccine was the cause meant hardly any claims were successful and any moderate payments often took years. The PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act established in 2005, also granted pharmaceutical companies immunity from federal or state litigation, in circumstances such as a pandemic. So, the companies making the vaccines have no responsibility for damage and little if any incentives to carry out scientific research into any injuries caused. The vaccine injured had to find the “science to follow” rather than “follow the science”. A combination of the “fact-checkers” who demolished any “anti-vaccine” testimonials and that medical reimbursement was non-existent, the out-of-pocket medical expenses the vaccine injured faced often exhausted personal savings to the point that many were refinancing or selling their homes.
Conclusion
The fear-mongering that had contributed to many of those injured by the vaccine to choose to get vaccinated in the first place was now continuing for this marginalized section of society. Those injured by the Covid-vaccine also learned from people who had been injured by past vaccines. The censorship tale was all too familiar, but the React19 community started doing their own research and discovered alternative therapies – be it pharmaceutical, natural, physical, spiritual – and lifestyle adjustments could help with their symptoms. The Covid vaccine rollout left a trail of devastation and damage in its wake. Social cohesion and disconnection also set in with the vaccine-injured ostracised from society. Whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, most people have been affected by the loss of relatives, friendships, relationships, and often life-long careers and financial autonomy. For many, finding support in such dark times has literally been the difference between life and death. We all need healing from the collective trauma of the Covid era, which is still ongoing. By sharing this poignant story of the many Covid-vaccine injured, we hope this will inspire more kindness, connection, compassion, and courage to be open about the truth. That is Worth a Shot!
Worth a Shot?: Secrets of the Clinical Trial Participant Who Inspired a Global Movement―Brianne Dressen’s Story, told by Caroline Pover, was published in November 2024 by Skyhorse Publishing, ISBN: 9781510783461.
All proceeds from the book go to UKCVFamily and React-19, support vaccine -injured in UK and worldwide.
A federal court on Thursday awarded $90,000 each to two former St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) employees who sued the school district after their requests for a religious exemption to the district’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate were denied, St. Louis Today reported.
Two other employees reached settlements with the district last month for undisclosed amounts. In July 2024, four employees received settlements of $25,000 each.
According to St. Louis Today, 35 other employees are engaged in mediation talks with SLPS. If those talks break down, a jury trial will follow.
According to the policy, medical exemption requests would be considered “on a case-by-case basis” and the schools would offer “reasonable accommodations, absent undue hardship, to employees with sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, or practices that conflict with getting vaccinated.”
Fox 2 St. Louis reported in August 2021 that the school’s employees were required to get the Pfizer COVID-19vaccine as it was the only fully licensed vaccine available.
According to St. Louis Today, 96% of employees complied with the mandate. However, according to a November 2021 Fox 2 St. Louis report, 47 unvaccinated employees — including 44 teachers, two custodians and a secretary — were placed on unpaid administrative leave and one principal resigned in opposition to the policy.
Restrictions infringing constitutional rights ‘spread across the country like a virus’
In June 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled in favor of the 43 employees who sued SLPS, opening the door for the employees to pursue settlements with the district.
According to Bloomberg Law, the court found that the employees had grounds to pursue most of their claims.
“The District’s alleged Policy put Plaintiffs to a choice: compromise their convictions or lose their livelihoods,” U.S. Chief District Judge Stephen R. Clark wrote. “Restrictions impermissibly infringing on constitutional rights, like the right to freely exercise one’s religion, spread across the country like a virus.”
According to the ruling, while SLPS “granted the majority” of medical and disability exemption requests, it “categorically denied” all of the approximately 150-200 religious exemption requests it received, “apparently without the benefit of individualized review” — despite the district’s promises that all such requests would be reviewed.
“After submitting requests, Plaintiffs received substantially identical ‘Religious Vaccine Exemption Response’ letters in September of 2021,” the ruling stated. SLPS “eventually suspended without pay and/or terminated between 100 and 127 of those who applied for a religious exemption.”
However, in January 2022, the school district “changed course” according to the ruling and granted “most” of the previously submitted religious exemption requests, reinviting most of the employees who had previously been suspended or fired.
According to the ruling, SLPS argued that it could not accommodate the religious exemption requests because unvaccinated employees who came into close contact with a person infected with COVID-19 would have to quarantine for 14 days.
“But when the District suspended and/or terminated over 100 employees en masse for refusing the vaccine, the District may have imposed on itself a staff shortage of a worse nature than the one it sought to avoid in the first place,” the ruling stated.
The November 2021 Fox 2 St. Louis report quoted an unnamed school employee who said the remaining staff faced a “lot of added stress … because we are missing so many people.”
Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Several other lawsuits have successfully challenged denials of religious exemptions
The settlements are the latest in a string of recent successes for plaintiffs across the U.S. who sued their employers for denying their religious exemption requests.
In November 2024, a federal jury in Detroit awarded nearly $12.7 million to a Catholic woman who sued her former employer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, after she was fired in 2022 for refusing on religious grounds to get a COVID-19 shot.
In August 2024, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of a former Philadelphia assistant district attorney who said she was wrongfully denied a religious exemption for the COVID-19 vaccine and was subsequently fired when she didn’t get vaccinated.
In June 2024, a federal grand jury in Tennessee decided in favor of a former BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee scientist who refused the COVID-19 shot, citing her religious beliefs. The jury awarded her $687,240 in back pay and damages.
In at least 10 other rulings last year, federal appellate courts ruled in favor of plaintiffs who had been denied religious exemptions by their employers.
More such lawsuits are in progress, including a lawsuit in Massachusetts by a former Tufts Medical Center emergency room doctor who refused the COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds, and a lawsuit in Oregon involving over 60 former employees of Asante who were fired after their religious exemption requests were denied.
A survey conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania in January found that public support in the U.S. for religious exemptions nearly doubled over the last six years.
With the NIH showing little concern to study long COVID despite pouring $1 billion into research, a new bombshell study on patients with a debilitating post-vaccination syndrome is showing elevated spike protein levels over 2 years (the time of study) after vaccination.
The Chief of Staff of the Israeli occupation army, Herzi Halevi, was keen to end his leadership of the army with a new escalation against Egypt, by announcing his concern about the capabilities of the Egyptian army, which, although they do not pose a current threat, pose a potential threat at any moment.
Halevi, who was lecturing his officers before leaving his position at the beginning of the month, explained that the Egyptian army possesses advanced combat systems, aircraft, submarines, warships and modern tanks, in addition to a large number of infantry forces for no reason in his opinion, considering this to be a great danger.
General Halevi’s statements were made after Israel’s permanent representative to the UN, Danny Danon, expressed his concerns about the Egyptian army’s armament. He claimed that Egypt does not have any threats in the region, so why does it need all these submarines and tanks?
It is as if the general and the diplomat suddenly woke up to find the Egyptian army developing its combat capabilities and obtaining all of these weapons systems! This is despite the fact that it is openly armed and obtains its weapons from the same sources as Israel, and these sources definitely haven’t hidden its successive deals with the Egyptian army over the past years.
The Egyptian army is the strongest Arab army, and it is one of the major armies in the region, along with the Israeli, Turkish and Iranian armies. According to the Global Firepower Index, the Egyptian army ranked ninth in the world in 2020, ahead of the Turkish and Israeli armies, but it dropped ten places to 19th in the world in 2025. This decline may be due to other armies that may have jumped to higher ranks because they are developing their weapons systems, the number of their forces and their equipment, including the Israeli army, which ranked 15th globally.
According to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), issued in March 2022, Egypt was among the top ten countries in the world that imported the most weapons between 2017 and 2021, ranking third globally after India and Saudi Arabia. However, Egypt’s purchase of international weapons declined in the following years, perhaps due to a sense of sufficiency, or due to the lack of the necessary financial liquidity.
The concerns expressed by Israeli military staff and politicians about Egypt’s armament are a trick to blackmail Egypt, and impose Zionist positions and policies related to the displacement of the people of Gaza to Egypt, or involving Egypt in the management of the Strip, and disarming the resistance, which means entering into an armed confrontation with Hamas and other resistance factions.
Netanyahu and his generals are trying to save themselves from legal and political prosecution, prison and blows because of their historic failure on 7 October 2023, so they alternate between harassing Egypt, Lebanon and Syria. Their aim is to keep the situation heated and tense, and to stop it from calming after the fighting stops, even temporarily, in Gaza, pending the second phase negotiations.
The occupation authorities and their media have recently sought to shed light on Egyptian military reinforcements in Sinai, especially in Area C, where the peace agreement only allows Egypt to have police and border guard forces as a formality. The truth is that Egypt strengthened its presence in that area after the January 2011 revolution with the aim of confronting the armed groups there, and the matter developed greatly after the 2013 coup. This was done in full coordination with the Israeli authorities, which allowed the presence of these heavy forces.
Now the Israeli authorities claim that Egypt has violated the peace agreement, to cover up its own clear violation of the same agreement. This is in addition to its repeated harassment of Egyptian border checkpoints, and the killing or wounding of a number of Egyptian soldiers, some which have been announced and others concealed. Moreover, the Israeli occupation army is currently occupying the Philadelphi Corridor and refusing to withdraw from it, even though this withdrawal was scheduled to take place before the end of the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement and the handover of the captives. This phase, which lasted 42 days, ended on Saturday. It is known that the Philadelphi Corridor is a demilitarised buffer zone according to the 2005 crossings agreement, which is an integral part of the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement.
These are not real Israeli concerns, as Israel realises that the current Egyptian regime does not want war and does not want to violate the peace agreement. Instead, the Israeli allegations aim to fabricate pretexts and justifications to put more pressure on the Egyptian position that rejects the displacement of Palestinians.
Perhaps the real fear, as expressed by the (outgoing) Israeli Chief of Staff, Herzi Halevi, is that “the Egyptian army may find itself under a different leadership overnight.”
Also, part of the valid fears is the growing popular Egyptian hostility towards the Zionist entity, and the increasing popular demands to cancel, or at least freeze, the peace agreement that turned 46 years old this month.
It is natural for the wave of hostility towards the Zionists to rise among the Egyptian people, who have deep ties with the people of Gaza, and who have made great sacrifices for the Palestinian cause through five previous wars; namely the 1948 Nakba War, the Suez War in 1956, the 1967 War, the War of Attrition, and ending with the October War of 1973. Most Egyptian families keep pictures of relatives they have lost in those wars. When the Egyptians feel that the enemy has not only destroyed Gaza but also wants to forcibly displace its people to Egypt or elsewhere, it is only natural for their anger to grow and for them to demand that their armed forces confront this Israeli arrogance before it extends its war to Sinai or to the Egyptian interior.
Friday night’s dramatic events at the White House, featuring Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, have placed Western Europe in an extremely difficult position. Many of the region’s leaders, who range from moderate to intense skeptics of US President Donald Trump, have nonetheless attempted to preserve the traditional transatlantic alliance. They have pushed Washington to find a resolution to the Ukraine conflict that aligns with European interests. But the now-public rupture between Zelensky and Trump has stripped them of that opportunity.
Whether by design or by accident, Zelensky has forced the United States to clarify its stance: Washington is a mediator, not a combatant, and its priority is ending escalation, not taking sides. This marks a stark departure from the previous position, in which the US led a Western coalition against Russia in defense of Ukraine. The message is clear – American support for Kiev is not a matter of principle but merely a tool in a broader geopolitical game.
Western Europe’s Limited Options
The EU has loudly declared that it will never abandon Ukraine. But in reality, it lacks the resources to replace the United States as Kiev’s primary backer. At the same time, reversing course is not so simple. The price of trying to defeat Russia is too high, and the economic toll too severe, but a sudden shift in policy would force Western European leaders to answer for their past decisions. In an EU already grappling with internal unrest, such a reversal would hand ammunition to the political opponents of the bloc’s leaders.
Another key reason Western Europe remains on this path is its post-Cold War reliance on moral arguments as a political tool – both internally and in its dealings with external partners. Unlike traditional powers, the EU is not a state. Where sovereign nations can pivot and adjust policies with relative ease, a bloc of more than two dozen countries inevitably gets bogged down in bureaucracy. Decisions are slow, coordination is imperfect, and mechanisms often fail to function as intended.
For years, Brussels attempted to turn this structural weakness into an ideological strength. The EU, despite its complexity, was supposed to represent a new form of cooperative politics – a model for the world to follow. But it is now clear that this model has failed.
At best, it may survive within Western Europe’s culturally homogeneous core, though even that is uncertain. The world has moved on, and the inefficiencies remain. This makes the dream of an independent, self-sufficient “Europe” – one capable of acting without American oversight – an impossibility.
Adapting to Washington’s New Reality
Western Europe may attempt to endure the turbulence of another Trump presidency, just as it did during his first term. But this is not just about Trump. The shift in US policy is part of a deeper political realignment, one that ensures there will be no return to the golden age of the 1990s and early 2000s.
More importantly, Ukraine has become the catalyst for these changes. The EU does not have the luxury of waiting things out. Its leaders must decide – quickly – how to respond. Most likely, they will attempt to maintain the appearance of unity with Washington while adapting to new US policies. This will be painful, especially in economic terms. Unlike in the past, modern America acts solely in its own interests, with little regard for the needs of its European allies.
One indicator of Western Europe’s shifting posture may be the upcoming visit of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to Washington. At present, Merz presents himself as a hardliner. But if history is any guide, he may soon shift positions, aligning more closely with Washington’s new direction.
The alternative: Europe vs. America?
There is, of course, another possibility – the EU could attempt to unify and resist Trump’s America. But given the lack of capable leadership and the deep divisions within the bloc, this seems unlikely. Ukraine could serve as a rallying point for European solidarity, but public sentiment within many EU nations makes this improbable.
At the same time, the aggressive way in which Washington now interferes in European domestic politics – actively supporting populist movements sympathetic to Trump – could create an unexpected effect. Western European elites may find themselves forced to consolidate in response, while nationalists, who have long railed against external influence, may struggle to position themselves against this new reality.
Regardless of the outcome, what we are witnessing is an internal crisis within the so-called “collective West.” The very notion of Western unity is at stake. Historically, the political West is a recent construct, largely a product of the Cold War. And even then, the relationship between the Old World and the New was often uneasy. In the 1940s and 1950s, despite its rivalry with the Soviet Union, the US actively encouraged the dismantling of European colonial empires, asserting its own dominance in the process.
The answer to Western Europe’s diminishing global influence back then was deeper integration. Trump now calls the European project a failure, but for decades, Washington saw it as a useful means of streamlining Western politics and economics under American leadership. Today, that calculus has changed. The US no longer views a strong, unified EU as an asset, and it is not shy about making that clear.
If Western European leaders do decide to confront America, it will mark the beginning of a new chapter – one that could signal the definitive end of the Cold War framework that has shaped Western politics for decades.
Russia’s perspective
For Russia, a unified and coordinated EU holds no strategic value. The era in which Moscow entertained the idea of continental integration – including Russia – is long gone. Experience, more than time, has put an end to those illusions.
Moscow’s focus is now on pragmatic opportunities. The internal struggle within the West should be viewed solely from the perspective of what tangible benefits can be derived. Long-term strategic plans are irrelevant in a time of such rapid geopolitical shifts. Right now, the priority is to act decisively, capitalize on the ongoing fractures, and secure Russia’s interests amid the changing global order.
Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
This article was first published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and has been translated and edited by the RT team
Israel “deliberately” targeted archaeological sites in Gaza during more than 15 months of war, Palestinian Minister of Tourism and Antiquities, Hani Al-Hayek, said yesterday. He went on to describe Israel’s actions as a genocide.
His remarks came during the closing session of a training workshop in Cairo, organised by the Palestinian Centre for Cultural Heritage Preservation (CCHP) in cooperation with the Egyptian Heritage Rescue Foundation (EHRF), according to the official Palestinian news agency, Wafa.
During the workshop, Al-Hayek pointed out that “more than 226 archaeological and historical sites in Gaza have suffered severe damage,” adding that work is underway to develop a comprehensive action plan to rescue and restore the cultural heritage in the region.
He added: “The Israeli occupation deliberately targeted archaeological sites in Gaza, but we are determined to rebuild and restore them. These sites are an important part of the history of the Palestinian people on this land, and it is our duty to return them to their former state.”
On 6 February, French archaeologist Simon Brelaud warned that the Israeli occupation army had destroyed most of Gaza’s historical landmarks, stressing that this “puts the future of archaeology in the region at risk.”
Gaza is an ancient region that has witnessed several civilisations, including the Pharaonic, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Canaanite, Phoenician and finally, Islamic.
Vienna – In the 1980s, Eastern Europe was caught in the tension between the inflexible ideological framework of the Communist Party and the burgeoning desires of the populace for economic and political transformation. For those entrenched in power, it was about more than just holding onto their cushy positions; their very survival was at stake, as the legitimacy of their rule was precarious and the societal mood was increasingly inhospitable.
These rulers sought solace in ideological manipulation and censorship. The state-controlled media cast the West as the ultimate adversary, perpetrating ideological subversion through the dissemination of bourgeois propaganda spread by enemies of the socialism with the goal of toppling the socialist regime by violent means. Yet, this narrative had limited traction; the West’s allure lay in its exemplary living standards, relative freedom, and human rights and its intentions to overthrow the socialist system was substantiated by nothing but vacuous rhetoric.
Then, in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev emerged as the General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, introducing Perestroika — a sweeping set of economic and political reforms aimed at making the Soviet Union and the broader Eastern Bloc competitive with the West. This sparked widespread anticipation among the populace, yet also stirred anxiety among the Eastern European power structures: Gorbachev’s initiatives contained elements that threatened their power, but also a sudden shift in allegiance, redefining the hitherto adversary as ally.
The social divide grew more profound. The hopes of the populace in satellite nations were pinned on the current hegemon, now perceived as an ally against the rigid domestic power structures that he had previously established. Yet, from the perspective of the Eastern European elite, Gorbachev had committed an act of treachery, deserting them and leaving them to face their fate alone.
Within four years, the Eastern Bloc crumbled, and two years later, the Soviet Union followed suit. The previously dominant CPSU was outlawed, and its remnants in Eastern Europe swiftly switched allegiance to the former adversary.
History, it seems, has a peculiar way of repeating itself. In the early 21st century, a parallel schism is forming in Western societies. The very elements that made the West appealing for four decades — traditional values, social welfare, peace, human rights, liberty, and democracy — have been ruthlessly curtailed. The ruling establishments are embroiled in the spread of panic over COVID-19 and are actively participating in the Ukraine war and the genocide in Gaza.
Western Europeans are increasingly placing their trust in emerging populist parties, spanning both the right and left wings of the political spectrum. For the entrenched establishment, it is about more than just holding onto their cushy positions; their very survival is at stake. Their grip on power and the pathways that lead to it are laden with activities that could be unequivocally deemed criminal. The evolving societal climate does not appear promising for them either.
Their salvation, they believe, lies in media manipulation and censorship. The mainstream narrative consistently vilifies Russia and China as ominous dictatorships, wages campaigns against disinformation, the Russian propaganda, conspiracy theories and anti-Semitism spread by agents of Putin. The West, it claims, faces an imminent attack from Russia. Yet, this narrative had limited traction; the West’s credibility has been eroded by its own actions, and the notion of a Russian attack is substantiated by nothing but vacuous rhetoric.
In 2025, Donald Trump re-entered the political arena as the US President, initiating MAGA, a movement to combat the deep state and cleanse American society of obscure financial and power structures. This stirred great hope among many Americans, but also significant apprehension among the established elite. MAGA represented not just a challenge to their power, but also a sudden shift in allegiance, redefining the West’s adversary as potential ally.
The social rift grew wider. The residents of Western satellites pinned their hopes on the current hegemon, now perceived as an ally against the rigid domestic power structures. Yet, from the perspective of those structures, Trump had committed an act of treachery, deserting them and leaving them to face their fate alone.
The trajectory seems clear: the eventual disintegration of the Atlantic bloc and the shift of its remnants to the former adversary. Will the collapse of the hegemonic power come next? It’s a reasonable prediction.
But let’s go a step further. The euphoria of the Cold War’s end and the unbridled optimism for a future of comprehensive peace, freedom, democracy, and human rights were soon overshadowed by their gradual erosion. In retrospect, the new hegemon had only its own global world domination in mind from the beginning. This led to new conflicts across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
Can we expect history to repeat itself after the fall of the Atlantic bloc? Not necessarily. The emerging superpowers of China, India, and Russia do not share the western legacy of colonialist exploitation. The BRICS+ coalition presents itself as a multipolar community of equals, emphasizing cooperation over competition.
Still, we must remain cautious, for the 1990s taught us that optimism can be fleeting. A society that neglects its history is destined to repeat it. Over the past 25 years, we have amassed a treasure trove of tragic lessons to learn from and be vigilant against.
Through a Child’s Eyes, produced by Defense for Children International – Palestine, premiered on February 25, 2025.
Defense for Children International – Palestine (DCIP) is an independent, local Palestinian child rights organization dedicated to defending and promoting the rights of children living in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Since 1991, we have investigated, documented, and exposed grave human rights violations against children; provided legal services to children in urgent need; held Israeli and Palestinian authorities accountable to universal human rights principles; and advocated at the international and national levels to advance access to justice and protection for children.
To preserve the international system based on US hegemony, the US has to prevent the rise of other centres of power. The China-Russia partnership has become the key challenge to US hegemony. The strategy by the Biden administration was to use Ukraine in a proxy war against Russia to knock it out from the ranks of great powers, so the US could focus on China. As NATO lost the proxy war, the US began shifting toward a new strategy of winning Russia over to its side of the ledger and creating some divisions between Russia and China.
This is the final installment where Candace Owens wraps up her examination of the evidence and research around ‘Brigitte’s’ identity. A new figure is introduced in this episode, that of Macron’s maternal uncle, one Jean-Michel NOGUES, an important figure in the young Emmanuel’s life but of whom there is not a single photo. Notice how many ‘Jeans-…’ or ‘Jean-Michels’ there are in this story. Owens addresses that. We provide notes to the video below.
********
NOTES
All of these players in the Brigitte story could, in fact, have multiple identities.
Today Owens looks at one side of the family, the Trogneux of Amiens, Brigitte’s family.
It’s noticeable that almost all men in the family have the same first name, ‘Jean’. They’ve added other names and created a particular name brand. And the women have male middle names and generally longer name strings, as you’d find with elite families. Is there an intent to confuse here, with people within one family having such similar names?
Owens examines a family photo produced by known press fraud,Mimi Marchand. The image of Monique Trogneux‘s hand to the right of the photo looks very odd and misshapen. Monique Trogneux would marry a local billionaire yet no other photos are available of her. Xavier Poussard has noted that nothing about this story makes much sense.
Owens asks, are these families related? Is Emmanuel Macron actually Brigitte’s (male) biological son? The secret here seems to be far bigger than having a transgender wife. Why does it feel that Macron has had his hand held by people throughout his life, including David de Rothschild, a family known by their own admission to practice incest. ‘Vice is nice but incest is best because it stays in the family’, which is a direct quote from David de Rothschild’s cousin on French TV.
The book ‘The Women of the Rothschild’ by Natalie Livingston says that incest was practiced until it was no longer socially acceptable (note Meyer Amschel’s quote). Which obviously raises the question of mental fitness among family members.
So why did David de Rothschild pick up Macron and fast-track him into the banking business? How did the Rothschilds get so close to family of doctors and of chocolatiers?
We know of Jean-Michel Macron, Emmanuel’s father, but nothing of Jean-Michel NOGUES, an uncle on his mother’s side who died in 2006.
Macron chose to get baptized at the age of 12 with this uncle as godfather. He was a prominent doctor in the area, highly networked through a real estate company, bringing together medical professional organizations. No photo of him exists publicly; the medical faculty in Amiens refuse to show what they have in their records. Why was this important uncle not mentioned in Macron’s autobiography? It is yet another odd and important question that surrounds this family.
The One Claimed to be Jean-Michael Trogneux Today
A photo of this aging, corpulent man was produced, and alleged to be the original JMT by the Macrons. He’s still alive but we have no idea what he has done in his life. Facial recognition software says that this man is not JMT in fact. Also, photos of Macron’s investiture lunch show that this man was not present among the family members, nor does video footage at the investiture show this. And in another investiture video clip, Brigitte is seen to ignore him. However, the one claimed to be JMT is standing with David de Rothschild.
These questions cannot be answered satisfactorily, but people are digging. Questions we are left with:
What does Macron’s uncle, Jean-Michel NOGUES, look like?
What happened to the original Brigitte TROGNEUX?
The contents of a military file in Algeria on JMT have not yet been released.
Owens makes an appeal to the audience for more information.
At any rate, she believes, we seem to be looking at a case of incest.
I was late to the sceptical party. For the first 60 years of my life I was largely oblivious to the institutionalised evil operating within our world. Belatedly – since early 2020 – I have begun the painful process of piecing it all together, bit by bit. Much of my time is now spent reading books and online articles penned by authors who realised the egregious activities of our global elite long before my awakening. This ongoing research is an often painful process, not least because it constantly reminds me of my previous gullibility; I have to resist the temptation to abort this mission of discovery and store this new, eye-opening information in the filing cabinet labelled, ‘too difficult to think about’, and never open it again. But, of course, this is no longer a viable option; once some of the horrors have been seen it is impossible to unsee them.
So my journey of discovery must continue.
My world view has evolved, and long-established ‘truths’ in my mind have consecutively fallen like a row of dominoes, each piece’s descent destabilising the next in line. Let me summarise my trajectory into scepticism:
The worst pandemic of the century?
In early 2020, the mainstream media, politicians and the science ‘experts’ repeatedly informed us that a uniquely lethal pathogen was spreading carnage across the world, and unprecedented and draconian restrictions on our day-to-day lives were essential to prevent Armageddon. But I wasn’t buying it. As detailed in a previous post, I quickly formed the view that a momentous event, unparalleled in my lifetime, was unfolding; but it was not primarily about a virus.
The government lies were grotesque and frequent. Under the pretence of ‘keeping us safe’ and the – ominous – ‘greater good’, our basic human rights were trampled upon: prohibition of travel; confinement in our homes; social isolation; closure of businesses; denial of access to leisure activities; de-humanising mask mandates; directives (scrawled on floors and walls) dictating which way to walk; an arbitrary ‘stay 2-metres apart’ rule; exclusion from the weddings and funerals of our loved ones; the seclusion and neglect of our elderly; school shut-downs; children’s playgrounds sealed off with yellow-and-black tape; muzzled children and toddlers; students denied both face-to-face tuition and a rites-of-passage social life; and coerced experimental ‘vaccines’ that turned out to be far more harmful and far less effective than initially claimed. Equally egregious were the strategies deployed to lever compliance with these restrictions, namely psychological manipulation (‘nudging’), pervasive censorship across the media and academic journals, and the cancellation and vilification of anyone brave enough to speak out against the dominant covid narrative. All-in-all, a state-driven assault on the core of our shared humanity.
Prior to the covid event, I believed that Western political leaders – and their state-funded experts – were, broadly speaking, trying to improve the lives of their citizens. In 2020, everything changed; trust in our institutions ceased. If the establishment could tell such blatant falsehoods about a ‘pandemic’, what else are they lying about?
Are we really spiralling towards climate Armageddon?
In the 1970s, I recall being told that planet earth was cooling down and we were all at imminent risk of hypothermia. Over recent years, the narrative has shifted and we are now told ‘human behaviour is unequivocally warming our planet’, ‘a code red for humanity’, and ‘there is nowhere to hide’. According to Antonio Guterres (Secretary General of the United Nations), the weather has become a ‘weapon of mass extinction’.
But are we really spiralling towards a climate emergency?
My scepticisms about the veracity of the dominant climate-apocalypse story were accelerated by a key observation: just as a lucrative and extensive pandemic industry were profiting from the enduring myth that we were all at increasing risk from future deadly viruses, a similarly bloated money-making infrastructure had grown around the premise of an imminent climate catastrophe. When the livelihoods and statuses of experts are directly dependent upon maintaining a dominant ideology – be it a looming plague or a boiling planet – these ideologies will be highly resistant to erosion, and those challenging these doom-ladened stories are likely to be labelled as heretics.
And the perusal of a few relevant statistics raises major doubts about the dominant climate narrative and its forecasts of pending weather-related disasters. Hasn’t the climate always been changing since the time of Adam and Eve? What about the fact that there has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of storms? And the number of people who lose their lives to temperature extremes, or who are affected by floods, has reduced; life expectancy has increased; and the number of people living in poverty has fallen. So how do these observations fit with Guterres’ climate catastrophe prediction?
Also, why are our politically elite impoverishing us all by waging war on carbon dioxide? Historically, hasn’t this ‘greenhouse gas’ constituted a much higher percentage of our atmosphere than the current miniscule 0.04%? Is it not true that all plants and vegetation depend on carbon dioxide to grow and flourish? And don’t increases in carbon dioxide concentrations follow temperature rises rather than preceding them?
The reality is that there is little evidence of ‘climate impacts’ and no evidence of a ‘climate crisis’. The alarmist predictions – from Antonio Guterres, and many others – seem to be based on ideology rather than objective evidence. In a striking parallel with the covid event, the primary risk to our health is not from the purported source of danger (climate), but from the subsequent global policies that are impoverishing us all. And – predictably – the state-funded behavioural scientists (‘nudgers’) are deeply involved in this manipulative exercise.
Further truths begin to wobble and fall
Following the indisputable covid scam, and my growing recognition of the gaping holes in the imminent climate-catastrophe narrative, I have begun to question the veracity of the official accounts of many world events, both ongoing and historical.
For example, is the enduring war in Ukraine directly a result of the evil Putin’s expansionism, as we in the West are repeatedly told? Or is it more to do with the NATO warmongers who apparently feel obliged to keep prodding the Russian bear with threats that countries on their border will soon be welcomed into the alliance?
In April 2018, did the Syrian government really use chemical weapons on its own people in Douma (a suburb of Damascus), or was it a ‘false flag’ incident, concocted by the governments of the US, UK and France so as to legitimise the subsequent bombing of the region (aka the ‘War on Terror’)?
Pre-covid, even I believed that the assassination of J.F Kennedy in 1963 was not the exclusive work of lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald; more recent readings have confirmed that – unless a single bullet can defy the laws of physics and perform a couple of 90-degree turns – the CIA facilitated the execution. Furthermore, I now think that the recent attempts to eliminate Donald Trump – that pesky, uncontrollable president-elect – were likely to have involved elements of the deep state.
As one becomes increasingly aware of the depths of depravity to which actors within an unelected global elite are willing to sink, one even starts to question the official 9/11 narrative, of how, in 2001, four hijacked planes were used as guided missiles to hit the World Trade Centre (New York). In-depth analyses of the evidence by physicists, structural engineers and other scientific experts have concluded that all three skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolition – indeed, one of the three towers to collapse was not even hit by a plane, a fact largely ignored by the media and the official (inhouse) inquiry. A month following the 9/11 horrors, George W Bush led a long sought-after invasion of Afghanistan supported by an international coalition, once again raising the suspicion that the destruction of the World Trade Centre was another – evilly grotesque – false-flag event.
Is the 5G network making us sick? Are state-funded geo-engineers deploying weather manipulation techniques (such as cloud seeding) on a far greater scale than is officially acknowledged? On the 20th of July 1969, did men really walk on the moon? Is the world indeed flat? … … But perhaps my imagination is running away with me.
Is there anyone left to trust?
As I continue to dig for information to clarify what is really happening in the world, a nagging thought intrudes into my mind: can I trust the veracity of what I’m reading and hearing?
As each week goes by, more people are – understandably – questioning the reliability of the outputs of official government sources. Throughout the covid event, ministers and civil servants parroted the globalist narrative of a rampaging plague and ‘safe and effective’ vaccines. Irrespective of the reasons for their distortions (group think, gullibility, or corruption), those that still believe the utterances of our elected politicians and their ‘expert’ advisors constitute a rapidly shrinking demographic. Furthermore, an escalating number of folks are realising that many of our academics are conflicted, the future of their research departments, and often their career progressions, dependent upon recurrent funding from Big Pharma, Bill Gates and billionaires pushing a green agenda. Meanwhile, NHS public health specialists seem to have lost the propensity for independent thought, mindlessly following protocols set by global organisations. And state sponsored behavioural scientists amplify the power of the official messaging, seemingly without regard for the validity and consequences of these communications.
Beyond our national border, the high-profile mouthpieces become even less trustworthy. Ideologically driven, globalist agendas underpin the bulk of the outputs emanating from the World Health Organisation, the World Economic Forum, the European Union and the United Nations. One glaring instance of the ideologically corrupted outputs of global organisations was the WHO flip-flop on masks in summer 2020, when ‘political lobbying’ led to an abrupt reversal in the WHO’s view of the (in)effectiveness of face coverings in reducing viral spread.
As for the legacy media – purportedly the ‘fourth pillar of democracy – it seems hardly worth repeating the claim that they simply regurgitated the dominant narrative throughout the covid event and currently peddle the ongoing climate-catastrophe story. The BBC effectively function as a government mouthpiece, aided and abetted by ITV, Sky News and Channel 4.
How reliable are those who question the dominant globalist narrative?
While it is now clear that we can confidently tag almost all mainstream mouthpieces – government agencies, global organisations, academics and journalists – as unreliable, how much trust can we have in the integrity of alternative sources of information? Are the voices that are openly critical of the dominant mainstream narratives to be believed? My answer to these questions would be, ‘not always’. And there are two main reasons for this conclusion.
First, there is the potential for what is often referred to as ‘controlled opposition’: those that pretend to oppose the mainstream narratives while covertly serving the establishment, thereby appeasing the masses by fallaciously giving the impression that there is some meaningful resistance to the dominant globalist agendas. Although I believe (as discussed in an earlier article) that the term ‘controlled opposition’ is bandied around far too easily, such entities undoubtedly exist within the ubiquitous network of state-generated propaganda.
Second, we must never forget that there are multiple perceptual biases in each of us; no human being views the world in a totally objective way. Once an individual forms a strong belief – irrespective of whether it is a dominant-narrative or sceptical one – that person no longer construes the world impartially, their memories, focus of attention, and inferences all being biased in favour of maintaining existing perspectives. Furthermore, we all routinely resort to cognitive short cuts (‘heuristics’) as we navigate our complex social and physical environments, the conclusions we draw informed by snap judgements that are often mistaken.
The ubiquity of these thinking errors means that NO ONE can be impartial in perceiving, and relaying their views about, what is going on in the world. My own take on world events is shaped by bias and distortions. Similarly, my sceptical allies will be less than 100% reliable as sources of information; anyone who confidently claims to have sussed the machinations of life on this planet, to have figured out what’s going on, and to be thereby expressing an accurate account – the definitive truth – about the use of state power to control the masses, is mistaken.
So is the seeking of the truth a futile exercise?
Given that we are all treading water in an ocean of misinformation – much of it generated by government institutions and mainstream media – is my journey of discovery a pointless endeavour? As no source of information will be 100% accurate (due to corruption, censorship, propaganda, psychological manipulation, and the distorted lens of fallible humans) should I, and others, stop trying to learn more about what’s going on?
Definitely not.
While we cannot rely on any mouthpiece to provide a perfectly factual account of what is happening in our communities, what we can reasonably expect is for commentators to display integrity and honesty when giving their takes on the world around them. Thus, we should strive to identify information sources that are not on the payroll of vested interests, voices who appear to gain nothing (and potentially risk a lot) by speaking out against the dominant narratives, and those who genuinely strive to access evidence from all shades of opinion.
Taking all of these factors into consideration, which sources of information do I currently listen to and respect? The medical doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, psychologists and well-informed laypeople, who collaboratively opposed the dominant covid narrative from the outset, definitely fall into this category of trusted sources; this alliance would include my colleagues in the Health Advisory & Recovery Team (HART), my Smile Free associates who fought (and continue to fight) the mask mandates, and all those active in the Together movement to retain our individual freedoms. For similar reasons, I always actively consider the viewpoints of media people such as Neil Oliver, Bev Turner, Sonia Poulton and Joe Rogan. Although I do not always agree with every aspect of their pronouncements, I believe their words derive from a place of integrity. Also, I have a small network of sceptical friends – drawn from across the span of the ‘left-right’ political spectrum – whose observations, and opinions, I value. Anything I read or hear from other sources I approach with caution and incredulity.
I have described some of the main mouthpieces I rely on when it comes to piecing together what is going on in the world today. (There are many others with similar credentials). While they, inevitably, will all display the universal perceptual biases that are inherent to the human condition, I am confident that no one on this list of my trusted messengers is compromised by additional layers of bias deriving from financial or vocational conflicts of interest. For the near future, these sources of information will be highly influential in shaping my understanding of the forces behind the global technocratic authoritarianism we are all having to endure.
‘The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate and contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.’ – John F. Kennedy
I do not think that anyone can write about Covid without first recognising that the facts, may not actually be ‘the facts.’
My trust in medical research has been gradually draining away for the past forty years or so. I am uncertain how much remains. I do not have a handy ACME ‘trustometer’ to slap on my forehead, but I sense my levels are certainly below fifty per cent – and falling. I shall let you know when they reach zero.
There was certainly a rapid drop during Covid. Accelerated by the emergence of ‘fact checkers.’ If a group of people could be more ironically named, then I would love to hear of them. The idea that someone can be an officially verified ‘checker of the facts’ is so inimical to science that they should have been laughed out of existence the moment they appeared. Sadly not. Soviet Union anyone?
Richard Feynman believed that the very definition of science is the process of questioning, and that scientists must be sceptical. Or, as he once said. ‘Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.’ I have regularly been ‘accused’ of being a professional sceptic. My reply is usually ‘thanks, I consider that a great compliment. You, on the other hand …’
As I delved into medical research papers over the years, one painful reality emerged. Which is that you need to be wary of the findings contained therein. I came to learn that, at least in certain cases, I only needed to look at which institution the research came from and who the authors were, to know which ‘camp’ they were in. At which point I could tell you everything the paper was going to say – to paraphrase. ‘We have found that everything we previously said was absolutely correct.’ No need to read it.
Of course, this only works for areas I have been studying for many years, where the terrain is very familiar. Give me a paper on quantum physics and I would have to read the whole damned thing. Then accept that I have not the slightest idea what they are talking about.
In the world of Covid research, two camps emerged very rapidly. There was ‘establishment’ camp, or the ‘accepted narrative’ camp and the ‘alternative’ camp’. Or, as I initially thought of them, the roundheads and the cavaliers [English civil war analogy – for my overseas readers]. As far I could tell, fact checkers were fully paid-up supporters of the roundheads.
Which meant that you could write an article wildly overestimating the infection fatality rate, and nothing would be said. The fact checkers would rouse themselves momentarily, then airily wave it through. However, dare to suggest the Infection fatality rate was lower than the mainstream view, and all hell would break loose. Or, at the beginning of the Covid sage, dare to suggest that the Sars-Cov-2 emerged from a biolab in Wuhan. ‘Off with his head’.
It didn’t take too long before I decided to rename the two camps the ‘Faucistas’, and the ‘Partisans.’ Although I know there should not be two sides in a scientific discussion. We are not at war. Those who question, and probe, have a vital role to play in science.
They, we, are trying to ensure that the accepted ideas are as robust as possible. If the mainstream facts are correct, they will resist all assaults. If they cannot resist, they should wither and die, to be replaced by something far stronger. Or at least that is how I hope it works.
This is a slightly long-winded way of saying that, when it comes to Covid the first thing you have to do with any ‘fact’ is to ask where it came from. A Faucista, or a partisan. Then apply the ‘Kendrick bias constant’ to determine its validity. A figure that only exists in my head, and even I am not sure what size it is, which way round it goes, or how to use it.
You also need to accept that research is often far from clear cut, and the findings may simply be … wrong. Twenty years ago, John Ioannidis published his seminal paper called: ‘Why most published research findings are false.’ It is one of the most widely read medical research papers, ever.1
‘There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false … Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.’
The prevailing bias. I like that term. Perfectly polite yet still damning.
Was he correct, are most research findings false? Well, he has his own biases, as we all do. I still like to believe that the majority research can be relied on, at least to some extent. Boring, but reliable – yet still boring. However, there are areas where he is right about the influence of prevailing bias. Places where findings are more likely to be false than true.
I believe that Covid became one such area very quickly. Within a matter of weeks, you were a Faucista – the group which certainly had the support of the vast majority. Or you were a partisan. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
I believe the polarisation in this area was so rapid and intense in large part because of the huge amount of money that was getting burned, and the need to justify that cost. The UK spent around four hundred billion pounds (~$500Bn) on Covid measures. Maybe even more – I think it was more. Enough to fund the NHS, in its entirely, for three years. The figure from the US was ‘officially’ four point six trillion. Four …point …six …trillion … gasp, thud.2
In addition to the money, there was the unprecedented disruption of everyday life. Far greater than anything seen outside a full-scale war. There was also the damage to children’s education and everyone’s mental health. The other diseases left undiagnosed and untreated, the massive debt and residual damage to public services, the clampdown on human freedoms … The list is long. More harm than good? That is the question.
A huge amount was at stake. So many reputations, both scientific and political, became bound to the ‘accepted narrative’ camp. If the narrative went down, so did they, with all hands-on deck. Thus, all the measures taken had to be found worthwhile, or at the very at least, excusable. ‘It was all very difficult, no-one knew what was going on. We had to do something …A big boy made me do it.’
Very rapidly, the Faucistas built themselves a mighty citadel, bristling with armaments, and fact checkers. Everyone within that citadel became hair trigger sensitive to the slightest perceived ‘enemy’ touch. Ready to react with ruthless bombardment. Along with personal attacks on whoever stated them.
The Great Barrington Declaration for instance, which proposed focussing protection on the elderly, and allowing the virus to take its course in younger populations. Where the risk of death was exceedingly low. This was universally condemned. Along with its authors. Here is one press release, out of many, many…
20 public health organizations condemn herd immunity scheme for controlling spread of COVID-19.
‘If followed, the recommendations in the Great Barrington Declaration would haphazardly and unnecessarily sacrifice lives. The declaration is not a strategy, it is a political statement… What we do not need is wrong-headed proposals masquerading as science.’3
‘Unnecessarily sacrifice lives… Wrong-headed proposals masquerading as science …’ Who dares pop their head over the parapet after such attacks? Only the brave, or foolhardy. As for debate … you must be joking. I was invited to talk at an anti-lockdown rally in September 2020, in Edinburgh. I gave a talk. The organiser was threatened with five years in jail. Luckily that has all gone very quiet.
Sweden, alone amongst European countries, decided not to lockdown, or perhaps you could call what they did lockdown ‘lite’. Schools, restaurants and bars remained open. People travelled on public transport. This approach, too, was universally condemned. It was stated that Dr Tegnell (chief epidemiologist) and Stefan Löfven (the prime minister), were…
‘… playing Russian roulette with the Swedish population,” Carlsson said. “At least if we’re going to do this as a people … lay the facts on the table so that we understand the reasons. The way I am feeling now is that we are being herded like a flock of sheep towards disaster…
… Leading experts last week were fiercely critical of the Swedish public health authority in an email thread seen by state broadcaster SVT, accusing it of incompetence and lack of medical expertise.’4
But the Swedes held out. Which took some nerve, whilst their own medical experts were screaming blue bloody murder in the background. Things changed. Now the accepted wisdom is that the Swedish people effectively locked themselves down, without being told to. Being such a great public-spirited people. ‘Oh yes, I think that fully explains their figures … ahem, don’t you?’
Why this change in outlook? From outrage to a widely accepted explanation, and a collective shrug. I suspect it may be that, in comparison to other European countries, Sweden ended up with a death rate below that of:
Bulgaria
Hungary
Bosnia Herzegovina
North Macedonia
Croatia
Montenegro
Georgia
Czechia
Slovakia
San Marino
Lithuania
Greece
Latvia
Romania
Slovenia
UK
Italy
Poland
Belgium
Portugal
Russia
They were within touching distance of Spain, Ukraine and France and – just to mention another Nordic country – Finland. Certainly, a long way below the US.
If lockdowns needed to be so harsh, or even instituted at all, why was Sweden not at the very top of this, and every other list? Answer, whisper it … Because lockdowns were ineffective? ‘Off with his head.’
No, don’t be silly, it is because the Swedes locked themselves down. And here is the evidence … [insert non-existent evidence here]. Memo to self. Just saying a thing does not make it true.
‘Overall, there’s no evidence that Sweden had a “voluntary lockdown”. Mobility changed far less there than in most other Western countries.’ 5
But what was it that drove the lockdowns around the world?
The Covid Infection Fatality Rate?
The accepted narrative around Covid developed very rapidly. It is a highly contagious and deadly disease with an Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of close to three per cent – you may have forgotten that figure. Perhaps you were unaware it ever existed.
The WHO provided an early estimate that eleven million Americans may die, discussed as part of a masterful essay by Jay Bhattacharya. One of the authors of the Great Barrington declaration, and now director of the National Institutes of Health. Oh, the irony. 6
The worldwide population is approximately eight billion. Using the initial WHO figures we would have seen two hundred and fifty million deaths. Equivalent to the Spanish flu – which is where I suspect the 3% figure was initially plucked from. Hospitals around the world would be overwhelmed. Millions would die if we did not act fast and hard. Something had to be done.
That ‘something’ was lockdowns. It included the widespread use of masks, restriction on travel, closed borders, closed schools, closed entertainment venues and restaurants, workplace closures, social distancing, test and trace, the rush to bring out vaccines, and so on. These actions became unquestionable and inseparable. All of them had to be equally defended.
Trying to get a handle on the Infection fatality rate
The three per cent IFR figure was downgraded rapidly and ended up hovering at around one per cent – or thereabouts. An IFR of one per cent means that, if one hundred people become infected with the SarsCov2 virus, then one will die. Is this … was this, does this remain a fact? At the start of Covid I became obsessed with trying to work out what the Infection Fatality Rate might be. Does it really matter?
I believe it drove everything. The 1% IFR is, to quote from Lord of the Rings: the one ring that finds them, and in the darkness binds them. If the IFR was 1%, then I think everyone can just about manage to assure themselves that all their actions were justifiable.
An IFR of 1% would have meant nearly three million deaths in the US, and well over half a million in the UK. Yes, it might not have been the Spanish flu, but ‘things’ obviously had to be done?
What about half a per cent? At this level the argument begins to look pretty damned shaky. An IFR of half a per cent, or below, would be the iceberg that sank the great lockdown ship Titanic. This, the IFR, is probably the most important fact that we need to establish.
Can we ever know the infection fatality rate of Sars-Cov2?
I know that most people would love a concrete fact here. Confirmation that the IFR of Covid was 0.213, or 0.934, or whatever. But I don’t think that is possible. Concrete facts here are very difficult to find. Or at least, facts that you can rely on. Read journal A you get one figure. Read journal B, and you get another. I can give you a thousand figures.
It also does very much depend on the age you are looking at. In the age group, nought to nineteen, the IFR was 0.00003% – in the first scientific paper that comes up on a Google search. That is three per million.
In the UK there are approximately twelve million in that age group. Which means that Covid may have resulted in thirty-six deaths. If, that is, everyone of that age ended up infected.7 Almost the same number who drown yearly – in that age group.
Moving back to the overall fatality figure rate, Imperial College London (ICL) in late 2022 concluded that it was 1.15%. But we already know which camp Neil Fergusion and the ICL was in. They were the original Faucistas. In this study they found that everything they said previously was absolutely correct. By the authority of … them.8
A well-known, and reasonably reliable worldwide resource is Worldometer, which kept a running count of Covid cases and deaths from every country. It stopped counting in April 2024. The grand totals on Worldometer, now frozen in time, were that there had been seven hundred million coronavirus cases worldwide, with almost exactly seven million deaths. Which represents an IFR of precisely one per cent. 9
My goodness, independent verification that Neil Ferguson and Imperial College were bang on with their modelling. Well, Ferguson did predict an IFR of 0.9% but what’s 0.1% between friends. And if we look at China on Worldometer, it tells us we had almost exactly five hundred thousand cases, with five thousand deaths. Again, an IFR of one per cent, bang on.
Case closed? Hang on, you might wish to probe a little deeper into, for instance, the Chinese figures. According to Worldometer, the population of China is around one point four billion and there were five hundred thousand reported cases of Covid. Which means that one in three hundred people caught Covid [precise figure 0.36%].
In comparison, sixty per cent of the population in Greece caught Covid. Which is two hundred times greater. This seems a remarkably large difference. The sort of difference you may struggle to believe.
What of the death rates? China ended up with four deaths per million of the population. A figure very similar to DPRK (the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), which had three deaths per million. Strange that.
In Greece, on the other hand, they had four thousand deaths per million. One thousand times higher than China.
As for total deaths.
Greece: with a population of ten million had 37,869 deaths.
China: with a population of one point four billion had 5,272 deaths.
Personally, I find one of these figures to be more believable than the other.
Turning back to the overall figures from Worldometer. There were just over seven hundred million reported cases of Covid in total. Which means that around 9% of the world’s population became infected. Seven hundred million out of eight billion.
This is a very long way off the ninety per cent figure that Neil Ferguson predicted in his model. He predicted 90%, Worldometer says 9%. Once again, a bit of an echoing gap.
If Worldometer is right, and only 9% of the population did become infected, and the IFR was 0.9%, the UK would never have seen five hundred thousand deaths – as predicted by Neil Fergusion in his hugely influential model.
His model was, essentially.
IFR 0.9%, percentage infected 90%. Population of the UK 69m:
69,000,000 x 0.9% x .9 = 558,900
However, if only 9% become infected, this figure falls by a factor of ten:
69,000,000 x 0.9% x .09 = 55,890
This is not a great deal more than a bad flu year.
Returning to the age group nought to nineteen, if only 9% of them became infected we would have seen four deaths instead of a possible thirty-six. Which would have made school closures and the social isolation of children virtually indefensible. Sorry, leave out the word virtually.
As you can gather, the overall rate of infection, and the IFR, are intimately linked when it comes to the overall impact of an infective disease. An issue little discussed. But do you think it might be important? Answer… yes.
Which facts are facts?
At this point I suppose I need to ask. Do you believe that the coronavirus figures collated by Worldometer are ‘facts?’ Or do you believe some of them are, and others are not. In which case, which ones would you like to believe. To quote the late, great, singer songwriter John Martyn. ‘Half the lies you tell me are not true.’
Wherever you look, there is uncertainly, and disagreement. Completely different facts and figures can be found everywhere. When it comes to IFR, John Ioannidis came up with an IFR figure of 0.23% for higher income countries.10
Nature published a figure ranging between 0.79 – 1.82% (for higher income countries). The average between 0.79 and 1.82 is 1.3%.11 As you have worked out for yourself, 1.3% is nearly six times more than 0.23%.
Which IFR is correct? Which is a fact? And why did the Nature study only look at higher income countries? Surely lower income countries should have fared worse – in that they could not afford to lockdown, and did not, and the standard of medical care would have been significantly lower, so more should have died?
I suspect lower income countries were ignored because, on paper, they all had very low death rates. Or very low reported death rates anyway. Just to choose a lower income African country at random … Chad. They reported one hundred and ninety-four covid deaths out of a population of seventeen million. Which is eleven deaths per million. In fact, according to Worldometer, Covid passed Africa by.
How could this be? In most higher income countries people of African origin were significantly more likely to die than the surrounding population. In the UK, Black British had a mortality rate of 273 per 100,000. Whereas those identifying as White, had a rate of 126. Less than half.12 [Figures from the office of national statistics, and as you may have noticed these figures demonstrate and IFR of 0.273% for Black British, and 0.126% for White British].
Given this, it is difficult to argue that Black Africans, in Africa, were genetically protected, in some way. Although, it has to be added that the average age in African countries is significantly lower than in, say, the UK – and that would have had an impact on Covid related deaths – although nothing that could remotely explain the reported figures.
I also lean towards Ioannidis because I believe him to be a well-established objective seeker of the truth. He has long been a thorn in the side of what I shall call, politely, ‘official narratives.’ Other researchers, and journals, have a strong tendency towards those twin curses of human thought. Confirmation bias and groupthink. As for the fact checkers, which figures do you think they prefer? The higher, the better.
Which leads us inevitably to the question who, or what facts, do you choose to believe … or not believe. In later articles I will tell you what I believe to be the most probable IFR for Covid. And I will tell you why this figure is reasonably accurate.
Before we reach that point, I want to highlight some more of the many issues that make it difficult to be certain about anything. There are so many of them. Just to list a few important ones:
PCR testing – how accurate is it/was it?
False positive, false negatives. Did they raise, or lower, the IFR?
How do you determine if someone died of Covid – or simply died with Covid?
How many times were people infected – and how much would this affect the IFR?
Could you be exposed to Covid, and brush it aside, without becoming ‘infected’ or raising detectable antibodies?
The impact of continuing to count Covid deaths for more than three years – over the lifespan of many different variants – did this create an artificially high IFR?
What protection did vaccination provide?
Financial benefits of diagnosing Covid, did this lead to overdiagnosis?
Could aggressive treatment have been damaging, and possibly fatal?
How many people reported they had Covid, when they did not?
Which countries may have been economical with the truth about their Covid statistics?
Does the Sarv-Cov2 virus exist?
Each of these issues represents a minefield, with conflicting ‘facts’ stretching to the far horizon. Each of them capable of shifting the IFR significantly – downwards.
Does this mean we can never really know what happened with Covid? Even to answer such a superficially straightforward a question as how many died is tricky. Indeed, most facts about Covid tend to crumble when you apply a little pressure. But I think we can navigate a course, or sorts.
Next. Starting with an easy one. Does the Sars-Cov-2 virus exist? Easy …?
Fifteen of the 9/11 “hijackers” from Saudi Arabia were CIA agents working for the United States government, which was seeking to destroy the Middle East for Israel and to double the American military budget, says Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003…. 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.
Was taking the Covid vaccine Worth a Shot? A new book by Caroline Pover, written on behalf of Brianne Dressen who lives in the USA, chronicles the horrific story of how she was severely injured by the Covid vaccine after enrolling on the AstraZeneca trial in November 2020. Caroline sensitively and professionally tells the heart wrenching, eye-opening account of how Brianne Dressen’s life was turned upside down and irreversibly changed forever the day she chose to volunteer to enroll on the UK-led AstraZeneca clinical trial. This book takes the reader along the rollercoaster ride of the devastating injuries caused by the vaccine and the blatant abuse of power by the healthcare system to denigrate, ignore, and cover up her injuries – along with many others labelled – as ‘misinformation’ spreaders by the medical-industrial-military complex. Every person on the planet was misled by governments, NGOs, regulatory agencies, corporations, Big Pharma, healthcare professionals, along with social and mainstream media. From how clinical trials are conducted to the lack of injury compensation, wide scale censorship, corruption and abuse of power, this book shows the myriad ways Brianne fought and continues to fight for truth and justice for the Covid-vaccine injured, who have been completely abandoned and often maligned by society.
Israel “deliberately” targeted archaeological sites in Gaza during more than 15 months of war, Palestinian Minister of Tourism and Antiquities, Hani Al-Hayek, said yesterday. He went on to describe Israel’s actions as a genocide.
Aletho News
Aletho News 