Big Pharma and its key investors are rolling out a new strategy — “the full takeover of the public sector, specifically the World Health Organization (WHO), and the regulatory system that now holds the entire market hostage” — according to a new investigative report by Unlimited Hangout’s Max Jones.
What’s behind the new strategy? The pharmaceutical industry is facing a “patent cliff” by 2030, as many of its blockbuster drugs are set to lose their patent protection, placing $180 billion in sales at risk and threatening to topple the industry.
According to Jones, for years, when patents expired on profitable drugs, pharmaceutical giants deployed a “mergers and acquisitions” strategy, buying up smaller drug companies to add to their product portfolios.
As a result, the industry is now dominated by a handful of companies, conventional chemical drugs exist for most health issues, and the regulatory process for new ones has become onerous.
Big Pharma has now pivoted to acquiring biotech and biologic companies, whose products are “more complex, unpredictable and difficult and expensive to make,” than chemical-based medicine, Jones wrote.
Conventional drugs are chemically synthesized and have a known structure according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Biologics come from living humans, animal or microorganism cells, and are technologically altered to target particular proteins or cells in the immune system. The FDA calls biologics “complex mixtures that are not easily identified or characterized.”
As a drug class, biologics offer an appealing solution to the patent cliff problem, because they can’t be easily replicated like generic versions of conventional drugs.
Instead, producers make “biosimilars,” which unlike genetics can’t simply be interchanged with the original drug during a course of treatment without serious safety risks, according to Jones. And while generics are cheap, biosimilars are still expensive to produce. There also are regulatory hurdles to getting biosimilars to market.
However, Jones wrote, the serious safety issues associated with biologics — the high risk of serious adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccine, for example — make it difficult for drugmakers to find commercial success in a conventional regulatory environment.
“Luckily for Big Pharma,” Jones wrote, the WHO and its private backers “are pursuing an unprecedented legal process that would cement loopholes that could solve these significant market challenges of at least some biotechnologies.”
Such loopholes made Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccines — the paradigmatic example of this new strategy — Big Pharma’s highest-selling annual market success ever.
Distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines to approximately 70% of people globally was possible only because of the “fast-tracked, deregulated development and mandated consumption of the experimental drugs,” Jones wrote.
The industry hopes to replicate that model with other drugs. And it has already begun — last month the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, gave Moderna $176 million to develop an mRNA bird flu vaccine.
Stakeholders behind the WHO have turned it into an arm of Big Pharma
According to Jones, the process of rapidly developed and mandated experimental drugs was first adopted by the U.S. military for bioweapons threats. Now, it is being internationally legitimized by the WHO through the agency’s revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and its continued attempt to push its pandemic treaty.
The amendments were watered down and the treaty was partially thwarted at the last meeting of the World Health Assembly, which ended on June 1. However, the powers added to the amendments and the language in the treaty WHO and its backers are still hoping to advance next year show the type of biotech pandemic market Big Pharma has in the works.
According to Jones, this market:
“Will not be one that depends on the free will of consumers to opt in and out of products — but instead relies on tactics of forced consumption and manipulation of regulatory paradigms.
“At the forefront of this push are the WHO’s public-private-partners/private stakeholders, who directly shape and benefit from this policy. Their influence has, in effect, turned the WHO into an arm of Big Pharma, one so powerful that it already demonstrated its ability to morph the entire international regulatory process for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
These stakeholders can wield this power in part because the WHO receives 80% of its funding from private stakeholders.
Those stakeholders include private-sector giants like Bill Gates, his public-private partnership organizations like the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and public-sector bureaucrats, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and Rick Bright, Ph.D., of BARDA and the Rockefeller Foundation, who have been working for years to create a new system that would speed up vaccine production.
During the COVID-19 pandemic period, even states that lacked legal structures to provide emergency authorization for new drugs created them, using the WHO’s Emergency Use Listing Procedure (EUL) as justification, and aided by the WHO’s COVAX vaccine distribution system. COVAX was co-led by the WHO, Gavi, CEPI and Unicef, which are all backed by Gates.
The goal now, Jones wrote, is to institutionalize the procedures that were put in place globally for COVID-19 to pave the way for a new pandemic market.
The One Health agenda, which requires “full-scale surveillance of the human-animal environment,” both before and during pandemics, is central to this plan, he wrote.
The four pillars of the emerging pandemic market
There are four pillars to the plan for securing this market. The pillars are embodied in the WHO’s recently passed IHR amendments and the proposed pandemic treaty.
WHO private stakeholders, like the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have been funding such initiatives for years and continue to be at the forefront of similar initiatives today, Jones wrote.
2. Rapid sharing of data and research: Under the IHR amendments, the WHO’s director-general must provide support for member states’ research and development. In the pending treaty, that would include helping them rapidly share data during a pandemic.
Such sharing should help coordinate global pandemic responses and also “pandemic prevention.” That means building a globally coordinated effort to research and share data on diseases that don’t currently pose a public health threat but are allegedly “likely to cause epidemics in the future.”
The WHO’s announcement last week that it is facilitating data-sharing for a new mRNA bird flu vaccine from Argentina is one example.
Jones also noted that it is “highly likely” that the same global organizations that partner with the WHO and are funded by its largest private donors will be the ones doing this research and development on vaccines for “future pathogens with pandemic potential” — and also the ones profiting from it.
3. New regulatory pathways: The WHO is developing new regulatory pathways for unapproved medical products to get to market during pandemic emergencies. The IHR amendments are vague on this, Jones wrote, but the proposed language of the treaty aims to speed up emergency authorizations of WHO-recommended investigational “relevant health products.”
The proposed treaty also seeks to compel member countries to take steps to ensure they have the “legal, administrative and financial frameworks in place to support emergency regulatory authorizations for the effective and timely approval of pandemic-related health products during a pandemic.”
4. Global mandates of unapproved products: The final key element in the Big Pharma-WHO plan to pave the way for a new pandemic market is shoring up the global capacity to mandate unapproved medical products.
According to Jones, in July 2023, the WHO adopted the European Union’s (EU) digital COVID-19 passport system, or the “immunity pass” which recorded people’s vaccination records, negative test results or records of previous infections.
“While a digital vaccine passport does not function as a hard mandate in which every citizen of a given population is forced to take a vaccine, it acts as a conditional mandate — one which offers the illusion of choice, but — in reality — restricts the civil liberties of those who do not comply,” Jones wrote.
The 2005 version of the IHR allowed for travel-based mandates that required proof of vaccination to enter countries when there was a public health risk. The new IHR, Jones wrote, expands on this by detailing the kinds of technology that can be used to check such information during future pandemics.
The WHO also is developing its Global Digital Health Certification Network, which expands the EU digital passport system to a global scale. It will digitize vaccination records and health records and will be “interoperable” with existing networks.
While interoperability makes it possible for decentralized data to be shared globally, Jones wrote, “The UN is seeking to impose digital identification as a ‘human right,’ or rather as a condition for accessing other human rights, for the entire global citizenry by 2030, as established in its Sustainable Development Goal 16.9.”
The initiative seeks to provide people with a “trusted, verifiable way” to prove who they are in the physical world and online.
“Verification systems of this size will place the right of citizens to do basic activities — like traveling, eating at a restaurant or working their job — in the hands of governments and potentially employers.
“The rights of civilians will be conditional, dictated by data stored in a massive digital hub that is global in its sharing abilities. Not only will domestic governments have access to the health information of their own citizens under this system, but an entire global bureaucracy will as well.”
Recently, The Conversation ran an article which claimed to “debunk” a range of myths about antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).
Natalina Salmaso, a clinical psychologist at Carleton University in Canada, highlighted five common myths that make people hesitant to take antidepressants.
Salmaso said hesitancy is often “unfounded” and “may not be grounded in science” and that “debunking the myths surrounding antidepressants is critical to permitting educated treatment decisions for those who suffer.”
However, Salmaso’s article was full of omissions and falsehoods, so we decided to debunk the debunker.
Myth 1 – I am stronger if I do this without meds
Salmaso says that a person with depression is like an athlete with a broken leg.
An athlete cannot compete effectively with a broken leg, in the same way a person with depression cannot function effectively, because their brain “is no longer responding to everyday life.”
She adds that a person’s brain needs to “heal” before they can expect it to function like they did pre-depression and implied antidepressants can help.
This is grossly misguided. This feeds into the false narrative that depression is a brain disease that can be cured by antidepressants.
Antidepressants don’t cure people with depression and their symptomatic effects are so small that they lack clinical relevance.
Myth 2 – I will be dependent on antidepressants to be happy
Salmaso says that antidepressants won’t make people ‘happy’ per se, but they “allow people to experience all emotions in an appropriate and balanced way.”
However, this is not what patients report. SSRIs tend to make people feel “numb” and unable to experience emotions. Some describe it as an inability to feel love, attachment or sexual excitement.
Some experience sexual dysfunction, which can continue long after the drug is discontinued.
Salmaso says that antidepressants “are a long-term (typically at a minimum for a year) and (hopefully) curative treatment, much like chemotherapy for certain types of cancer.”
This is also misguided. Most people become depressed because they have stressful or depressing circumstances, which no drug can cure.
People have been misled to believe that antidepressants can “correct” a chemical imbalance in the brain. A systematic review in 2022 thoroughly debunked the hypothesis that depression is caused a serotonin imbalance.
Salmaso even says that “most studies show that if you take antidepressant medications for a year before coming off of them, the majority of people will not relapse.”
This is also incorrect. The majority of studies on relapse are flawed because they involve subjects already on antidepressants and when they suddenly stop them for the trial they experience withdrawals, which interferes with the assessment of relapse.
Also, the longer someone takes an antidepressant, the higher the probability of that person experiencing withdrawal effects.
Myth 3 – Meds will change who I am, I will be different or feel high
Salmaso says that antidepressants won’t change you, but rather “allow you to view things from a more balanced perspective.”
However, Danish psychiatrists have reported that half of the patients on antidepressants agreed that the treatment could alter their personality and that they had less control over their thoughts and feelings.
Far from rebalancing the brain, antidepressants alter the normal functioning of the brain and disrupt biological processes with potentially devastating consequences.
As far as “changing who you are,” there have been ample reports of out-of-body experiences (including akathisia) where people became suicidal or homicidal on antidepressants, even in people with no history of this behaviour.
A systematic review found that taking antidepressants increased aggression three times more than taking a placebo, in children and adolescents.
Myth 4: I will become addicted
Salmaso says that antidepressants “are generally not addictive and have a low potential for misuse.”
This is not correct. Antidepressants can lead to dependency. Many people experience withdrawal symptoms, which are very similar to those that people experience when they try to come off benzodiazepines.
Salmaso claims that some patients get headaches and other withdrawal symptoms when the stop taking antidepressants “suddenly” but says they are “generally short-lived and can be minimised by tapering off treatment slowly.”
However, it is well-documented that about half of patients on antidepressants cannot stop them without experiencing withdrawals symptoms, which for some, can persist for many years. These symptoms are very difficult to “minimise” even with slow tapering.
Myth 5: Meds should only be used as a last resort
Salmaso disagrees that antidepressants should be used as a last resort.
She says that reserving antidepressants only for extreme cases “doesn’t make sense” because depression can reduce “work productivity and has immense societal consequences.”
“The financial repercussions that can be attributed to depression in terms of the number of workdays missed, jobs lost, accidents caused, etc. are enormous,” she added.
However, studies examining the efficacy of antidepressants have not shown any meaningful effects, such as improvements in quality of life, and they make it more difficult for people to function.
In all countries where this relationship has been examined, the increased use of antidepressants has been accompanied by an increase in disability pensions for mental health reasons.
Salmaso argues that, “Depression significantly increases risk of cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disease, respiratory disease and Parkinson’s disease, to name a few. It also seems to worsen the outcomes for cancer.”
Antidepressants do not improve these conditions either. Overall, it is our view that Salmaso’s evidence and arguments are flawed and misguided.
Ismail Al-Ghoul and his cameraman Rami Al-Refee were observing the conflict-zone-reporting best practice, as they motored back from their assignment on the last day of July. Having reported issues facing the displaced people of northern Gaza, they were leaving the scene of greatest danger. Blast vests bearing the insignia “PRESS” protected their bodies. Minutes earlier they had updated the Al Jazeera newsroom with their location.
None of this would save their lives when an Israeli drone strike blasted their car. The explosion blew off Al-Ghoul’s head – an image subsequently shared on social media. Al-Refee and Khalid Shawa, a boy who happened to be passing by on a bicycle, also died instantly.
Unusually, we know that the killing was deliberate – because the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has admitted as much.
The occupation army justified the assassination, arguing that the journalist’s name appears on a list of “senior Hamas officers” that it captured earlier in the conflict. This allegation is strenuously denied by Al-Ghoul’s family, his employer and his union. And Israeli “evidence” in similar cases has appeared questionable. Indeed, Al-Ghoul spent enough time “on camera” that his capacity outside journalism would have been limited.
Critically, however, he was arrested by Israeli soldiers in March and held for 12 hours before being released without a charge. Surely, if the evidence of his Hamas membership justified his killing, there must have been sufficient basis for his prosecution?
This admission of targeting confirms much of what have for months been swirling allegations about Israeli operations. We know that it has software – Pegasus – that secretly invades mobile phones and shares its user’s locations, communications and the identities of those who they meet.
We know that the Israeli army uses software called “Lavender” that deploys AI to sort operational intelligence and suggest targets for assassination. A further tool, “The Gospel”, uploads targets’ geo locations to killer drones dramatically faster than had been possible with manual programming.
More than 12% of Gaza’s journalists killed
Alongside this technological capability is the extraordinary number of journalists who have been killed in Gaza since 7 October. The most conservative tally is around 120, some believe that as many as 165 Gazan reporters have perished since 7 October. This is dwarfed by the total death toll in Gaza, now somewhere around 40,000 victims. It is the mortality rate among journalists that is really striking. There were approximately 1,000 journalists in Gaza at the start of the conflict – more than 12 per cent have now lost their lives.
This extraordinary rate of killing, and the precision targeting to which the Israeli occupation forces have admitted, points to a simple and awful conclusion. But there is more.
Since the outset of the conflict the Israeli government has barred international reporters from entering Gaza – despite hundreds petitioning to be admitted. It has also threatened to remove funding from newspapers such as Haaretz, shut downAl Jazeera’s operation in Israel, and disabled the internet at key moments.
And, following the law is not the army’s way either. When the United Nations investigated the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, its report concluded: “The Israeli security forces used lethal force without justification under international human rights law and intentionally or recklessly violated the right to life of Shireen Abu Akleh.”
But why target journalists in this way? The only plausible explanation is that this is an attempt to control the war narrative.
In international law, journalists are considered civilians; combatants are obliged to ensure their safety. The Israeli army’s bloody campaign is in clear contravention of this – but whether the institutions of international law will bring anyone to justice remains to be seen. The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) lead prosecutor, Karim Khan, displayed bravery in May when he issued arrest warrants for the Israeli and Hamas leadership. If he sees these cases through to satisfactory conclusions he will have shown himself as one of the greatest jurists of our age.
Justice, if it comes, will be no comfort to Al-Ghoul and Al-Refee. They have distinguished themselves, however, by standing up to the most horrific force ever visited upon journalists and continuing to act as the world’s eyes and ears. There is no consolation for them – but they deserve celebration; their colleagues, who continue this work, deserve our support.
In a recent interview, one of the world’s leading vaccinologists and co-author of what is considered to be the ‘bible of vaccines’, Dr. Paul Offit admitted that studies comparing unvaccinated children to vaccinated children have not been done, claiming they are impossible to do. All the while, lead author of the aforementioned book, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the ‘godfather of vaccines’, made a recent statement in a published paper revealing the truth about safety trials on vaccines in the US, painting a picture of vaccine safety that falls far short of the safety claims our health agencies make.
In 1945, American President Roosevelt met with Soviet Premier Stalin at Yalta to discuss the post war world. Yalta is on Russia’s Crimean peninsula where tens of thousands of Russians had recently perished fighting the invading Nazis. Both leaders would be stunned to learn that 70 years later, American leaders would insist that Crimea does not belong to Russia.
America’s corporate media is closely controlled so their reporting supports the American empire. Six massive media companies control 90% of the American market. Reporting guidelines are sent from a secret cabal to news editors then down to so-called “journalists.” Soon after direct Russian military intervention in Ukraine in early 2022, NATO launched a massive “Information War” formally known as propaganda. Russian news sites were blocked from the internet as well as many small independent western sites. Corporate propaganda was all that most Americans encountered so they are now bewildered when told Russia is winning in Ukraine.
“Israel’s leaders killed three birds with one stone,” wrote Reuven Pedatzur, a senior military affairs analyst for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “They assassinated the man who had the power to make a deal with Israel; they took revenge on someone who had caused more than a few Israeli casualties; and they signaled to Hamas that communications with it will be conducted only through military force.”
Was Pedatzur referring to the Israeli assassination of senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the group’s political bureau, in Tehran in the early hours of Wednesday morning?
No. Pedatzur died in a road traffic accident in 2014. His quote from Haaretz, above, was in response to the Israeli assassination of another senior Hamas commander, Ahmed Jabari, in November 2012, which kicked off the 2012 Gaza war.
As my former colleague at The Intercept, Jon Schwarz, documented in great detail last year, “Jabari had come to believe that it was in the best interest of Palestinians for Hamas to negotiate a long-term truce” and had been in communication with the respected Israeli peace activist Gershon Baskin. “Just before the assassination, [Baskin] gave Jabari a draft proposal for such a truce to review and approve. The draft was agreed to by Baskin and Hamas’s deputy foreign minister, and Baskin also said he had previously shown it to Ehud Barak, then the Israeli minister of defense.”
Would Jabari have signed off on a ‘hudna,’ or long-term truce, between Hamas and Israel? We’ll never know.
Israel, in fact, has a long and cynical history of killing Hamas leaders who are in the midst of ceasefire negotiations or, even, proposing long-term truces with the Jewish state.
Remember Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the quadriplegic co-founder and spiritual leader of Hamas? He was assassinated less than three months after he proposed a long-term truce with Israel “if a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”
His successor, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, was assassinated less than three months after he made a similar truce offer to Israel.
Then there was the Netanyahu government’s 2012 assassination of Jabari, who, as mentioned, was reviewing a “long-term mutual cease-fire” deal just “hours before he was killed,” according to Baskin.
The parallels between 2012 and 2024, between the killings of Jabari and Haniyeh, are eery.
“He was in line to die, not an angel and not a righteous man of peace,” Baskin said of Jabari shortly after his killing, “but his assassination also killed the possibility of achieving a truce and also the Egyptian mediators’ ability to function.”
The same could be said of Haniyeh. Mainstream Western media outlets agree that the Hamas leader was – by Hamas standards – a “pragmatist”; a key figure in the ongoing negotiations to secure a ceasefire in Gaza and free the Israeli hostages.
“For all the tough language in public, Arab diplomats and officials had viewed [Haniyeh] as relatively pragmatic compared with more hardline voices inside Gaza, where the military wing of Hamas planned the October 7 attack. While telling Israel’s military they would find themselves ‘drowning in the sands of Gaza,’ he and his predecessor as Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal, had shuttled around the region for talks over a Qatari-brokered cease-fire deal with Israel that would include exchanging hostages for Palestinians in Israeli jails as well as more aid for Gaza.”
“Haniyeh was the pragmatic face of Hamas. He was less hard-line and militaristic than Yahya Sinwar, who is the head of Hamas inside Gaza and is leading the battle. Haniyeh was the public face of Hamas’s diplomacy in Arab capitals. He was leading efforts to negotiate a ceasefire in Gaza.”
This was the person that the far-right Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu chose to assassinate on Iranian soil on Wednesday.
Why?
Put simply, Netanyahu and his coalition of fascists and bigots do not want a deal to release the hostages. They prefer to continue the war, no matter the cost to Gaza’s civilians or to their own citizens still held inside of the enclave. Despite Joe Biden’s ludicrous claims to the contrary, it is Netanyahu who has been the biggest obstacle to a deal to free Israel’s hostages in Gaza. The former spokesperson for the hostages’ families says Netanyahu rejected a deal. Benny Gantz, a former member of Israel’s war cabinet, says Netanyahu blocked a deal. Israeli defense officials tellHaaretz that “Netanyahu systematically foiled the negotiations to free the hostages.”
There is nothing new here. To misquote Winston Churchill, Israel has always preferred “war-war” over “jaw-jaw.” Israeli governments – especially those led by Netanyahu – have preferred having Hamas as the permanent enemy – or as an “asset,” to quote the current Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich – rather than trying to do a permanent deal with Hamas.
As the late Israeli journalist Pedatzur wrote, in his analysis of the disastrous Jabari assassination in 2012:
“Our decision makers, including the defense minister and perhaps also Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, knew about Jabari’s role in advancing a permanent cease-fire agreement. … Thus the decision to kill Jabari shows that our decision makers decided a cease-fire would be undesirable for Israel at this time, and that attacking Hamas would be preferable.”
Change the name ‘Jabari’ to ‘Haniyeh’ above, and those words could have been written today.
Does anyone in Israel in a position of power truly understand what the expressions “human rights” and “rule of law” really mean? Developments over the past ten months in Gaza would suggest “No,” that Israel’s government, its legal system, and its constitution exist solely to empower the state to do whatever it wishes, which in the current version includes the genocidal elimination of the Palestinian people and the theft of their land and property to be incorporated into a Greater Israel that plausibly will include the already annexed Syrian Golan Heights as well as all of historic Palestine running from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
But even given the fundamental dishonesty over the Jewish state and what it represents, there is something truly frightening about some recent developments which suggest that the long running United States government pander to Israel and its presumed interests have poisoned the chalice, making Americans absolutely complicit in the Israeli war crimes and other assorted crimes against humanity. And the level of control over Washington by Israel virtually guarantees that it will only get worse.
I am, of course, referring to the recent state visit of the world’s leading war criminal Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington, where he was worshipped by both Congress and the White House alike together with considerable fawning from the heavily Jewish-influenced media. Netanyahu, to put it succinctly, spoke for an hour in his address to the US Congress, emitting lie after lie. And the Congress critters responded with an outburst of love combined with total subservience, delivering 53 standing ovations, close to one per minute. The most exuberant ovation occurred when Netanyahu denounced the 50,000 or so demonstrators who surrounded the Capitol building to express their disgust at the Jewish mass murderer’s presence. Bibi called the protesters, some of whom were pepper-sprayed and arrested by a heavy police presence including 360 imported New York City Policemen fresh from their beatings of protesters at Columbia University, “useful idiots paid for by Iran.” That particular lie produced paroxysms of celebration among the leaping and waving Congressmen. Given that performance, does anyone need any confirmation that free speech seems to be off the agenda when it comes to Israel and the clowns who nominally represent the American people in Washington, who once upon time swore an oath to support the Constitution, but now consider speaking ill of the Jewish state to be a “hate crime.” Indeed, bills have been introduced in Congress to that effect.
It is interesting to go through his speech to determine what Netanyahu was trying to accomplish and what lies he thought he could get away with. Actually, he did nothing but lie while blaming most of his neighbors, particularly Iran, for the turmoil that Israel has caused in the Middle East for the past 75 years. And predictably, much of the coverage of the Netanyahu appearance in the mainstream media on the following day was toothless and even laudatory. It generally reflected what was hailed as Bibi’s “fiery speech” that “did not give an inch” which vowed to continue fighting until “total victory” is achieved. “It’s a clash between barbarism and civilization. It’s a clash between those who glorify death and those who sanctify life.” Ironically, Netanyahu was right about the clash of civilization though he was wrong about who represented which side: Israel backed completely by the US is pure evil. And the Netanyahu visit should be seen as a call to arms. The Jewish state is struggling economically and militarily in its war of extermination in Gaza and it knows it is not in any shape to take on Hezbollah and Iran, so it has decided to let the United States do the heavy lifting. Reading between the lines on what occurred in meetings with the two presidential aspirants as well as with a non-compos-mentis Joe Biden, it is clear that Netanyahu expects American boys and girls to do his fighting for him as well as covering the costs.
American complicity in the genocide in Gaza as well as in two possible wars in Lebanon and Iran due to the Israeli embrace is a tragedy for all parties involved, but the damage being done to future generations of American citizens cannot be remedied. Our country has done many bad things, but this whole hearted alliance with unmitigated evil is a betrayal of the birthright of every American.
So how low can you go, but the tale of Netanyahu visits Congress was soon joined by another truly awful story that demonstrates that there is no bottom to the evil in the minds and hearts of Israel’s leaders as well as among a large majority of the Israeli people, which Mondoweiss calls a “genocide from above and below.” Few Americans are aware of the atrocities that occur by virtue of what the Israelis choose to call their legal system. There is a body of law that is applicable to protect Jews and their interests, but where those interests collide with those of the native Palestinians, be they Christian or Muslim, only one outcome is acceptable even when something comparable to a legal procedure takes place. This has enabled the horrible settlement movement with something like 800,000 Jewish settlers having stolen Palestinian land and other property and has meant that Palestinians who were driven from their homes by force when Israel was founded have no ability to return to their own homes. At its most extreme, severely injuring or even killing a Palestinian, which occurs regularly, often at the hands of the heavily armed settlers, is a crime that is almost never prosecuted. To cite only one recent example, Palestinian-America journalist Shireen Abu Akleh who was wearing a clearly visible journalist vest was shot and killed by an Israeli army sniper in May 2022. In spite of repeated demands that her murder be fully investigated, no one was ever identified or punished for the killing. Israel has also killed 20 other journalists in the past several years with no one being punished. Often Israeli soldiers stand by and watch crimes involving Jewish perpetrators, never interceding to help the Arab victim. If the Palestinians resist they are immediately labeled as “terrorists” and have no rights of self-defense against the occupiers, be they army or nominally civilians.
A story that appeared a week after the Netanyahu visit illustrates perfectly the two-tiered justice in Israel and the occupied territories. There are currently nearly 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli prisons, the number having increased sharply since the war against Gaza began. Many are Gazans, but an increasing number are from the West Bank, which is also being targeted for “settlement” and eventual annexation. Many are held under what is referred to as “preventive detention,” in which they are not charged with a crime, do not appear in any court, and are held at the will of the Israeli army or police. In jail, they are frequently tortured and starved. If they are ever released, they show the signs of the torture and Israeli human rights groups, among other witnesses, have provided substantial evidence of what is taking place behind closed doors. Israel soldiers are, for their part, not shy about what they do to Palestinians, posting photos and videos online of dead Palestinians, torture in detention areas, and the gleeful destruction of Gazan homes and property.
The story is as follows: There are a number of detention centers run by the Israeli Army that are generally used to torture Palestinians prisoners, not in the old fashioned “intelligence” role to obtain “information,” but just for the entertainment of the soldiers who are the jailers. Sde Teiman, one such center in the southern Negev desert region, recently made the news due to a particularly outrageous bit of torture engaged in by ten of the soldiers in charge of the prisoners. Conditions in Sde Taiman reportedly included “Electric shocks, amputations due to bad conditions, severe beatings, surgery without anesthesia, playing loud music until inmates’ ears bleed, deaths due to bad sanitary conditions, systematic torture and sexual abuse.”
A Palestinian from Gaza was reported serially sodomized and otherwise raped at the detention site using various implements even including a cell phone which was inserted in the man’s rectum and turned on for the amusement of the Israeli soldiers. The victim also had a wooden stick inserted in similar fashion and it was believed that he was only one of a number of other prisoners who were treated in that same way, which appears to be systemic throughout the detention facilities run by the army. The activity was only exposed when the victim began bleeding heavily both internally and externally and was unable to walk with a “serious wound in his rectum area”, which may have occurred if or when the phone was removed from inside of him and he was taken to a hospital where what had taken place was revealed. The army, somewhat uncharacteristically, sent some military policemen to the center to detain the soldiers for questioning but the suspects fought back using pepper spray and building barriers. When nine of the men (one went AWOL) were eventually taken to a nearby military base at Beit Lid, the MPs were confronted almost immediately by an angry crowd of civilians, consisting largely of settlers and ultra-nationalists, led by several Likud party parliamentarians who demanded that the soldiers be set free. Something like a melee ensued. The unruly crowd chanted its support for torture and even called for the summary execution of the Palestinian prisoners, which has been an “option” supported by some in the Netanyahu government.
The rioters were so aggressive that they actually broke into the Israeli military base and there was considerable support for their actions even coming from Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who said he was “shocked” to see IDF troops being detained for questioning “in a way that is suitable for arresting dangerous criminals.” He added that the soldiers were doing a “holy job” at the base. Far-right Knesset member Simcha Rotman called the troops “heroes,” instead attacking Israel’s “justice and enforcement systems” for detaining them.
Typically, later in the day, when asked by the press about the rape accusations, US State Department Deputy Spokesman Vedant Patel refused to say whether gang raping and torturing Palestinian prisoners would be considered a war crime, even if conclusively demonstrated by witnesses and other evidence. Patel explained “So the reports of abuse are deeply concerning, and we have been clear and consistent with Israel and the IDF that they need to treat all detainees humanely and with dignity in accordance with humanitarian law.” He said that the US was going to let “due process” play out in this case. The western media that is bothering to cover the story are refusing to even use the word “rape” or “sodomy” in reference to the allegations, with the BBC describing how the soldiers are accused of “severely mistreating a Palestinian prisoner” while the New York Times prefers to call it “suspected abuse”.
At the heart of the discussion is the fact that Israel’s Knesset uniquely has a proposed law that was first formulated in 2022 by current National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir which would give automatic immunity to any soldier or policeman who kills or seriously injures any Palestinian. The immunity does not apply if the victim is a Jew. The law still has not passed through parliament, but many conservatives in Israel believe it is the guideline used by the military and judiciary de facto. Ben-Gvir has, in fact, denounced the questioning of the nine men as “shameful,” adding that the Israeli security establishment should support the soldiers and “learn from the prison service: light treatment of terrorists is over. Soldiers need to have our full support.” Ben-Gvir is also supporting a separate bill that would authorize the systematic execution of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. It also does not apply to Jews. In a video statement, Ben-Gvir said that Israel should be able to kill Palestinian prisoners with a “shot to the head.” He also recommended that Palestinian prisoners be given just enough food to keep them alive until the execution law comes into effect.
So, when it comes to human rights Israel lives in another parallel universe where there is one set of rules for Jews and other for gentiles. Perhaps the easily visible brutality evident in the recent Netanyahu speech to Congress coupled with stories like that out of Sde Teiman and the daily horror inflicted on the Gazans will bring about some kind of wake-up for the American public, which has been heavily propagandized and continues to believe in the myth of the perpetual victimhood of the Jewish people. The real victims of the “miracle of Israel” are those in western countries that the Jewish diaspora continues to buy and manipulate as well as the poor Palestinians who are forced to live under a form of daily repression and humiliation that is almost unimaginable.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
Germany’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was based on political objectives, and the government implemented countermeasures that often contradicted scientific evidence and the opinion of the government’s own scientists, according to documents leaked by a former employee of Germany’s public health agency, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI).
An unnamed whistleblower released the “RKI Files” to investigative journalist Aya Velázquez, who on July 23 published the unredacted files — totaling 3,865 pages — in their entirety on Substack.
The RKI is Germany’s equivalent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the U.S.
According to the German newspaper Schwäbische Zeitung, the RKI Files “contain explosive details” about “child vaccinations and ‘resistance from the population,’” and show “that the RKI took a much more differentiated view of Corona policy than those responsible for politics and most of the media led the population to believe.”
“A whistleblower, a former employee of the RKI, approached me and passed on the data set to me” for reasons of “conscience,” Velázquez wrote on Substack.
Other revelations include evidence of policymakers targeting and “nudging” children, and knowledge by policymakers and scientists that the COVID-19 vaccines were ineffective and led to severe adverse events.
Despite this knowledge — and for political reasons — government officials pursued measures rewarding the vaccinated and punishing the unvaccinated.
The RKI Files also reveal that policymakers and scientists sought to publicly ignore evidence of a “flattening curve” early in the pandemic, and evidence that masks and mass testing would not be useful in preventing infection.
Although some have questioned the legitimacy of documents contained within the RKI Files, the Robert Koch Institute, in an announcement carried by German news program Tagesschau addressing the publication of unredacted documents, did not confirm or deny the legitimacy of the documents themselves or their contents:
“The Robert Koch Institute has criticized the publication of unredacted minutes of the RKI crisis team on the COVID pandemic. The RKI expressly condemns the unlawful publication of personal data and trade and business secrets of third parties in these data sets and, in particular, any infringement of third-party rights.”
Other German mainstream news media outlets, including the mass-circulation Bild and Zeit newspapers, also reported on the release of the files.
‘Clear evidence that the general public was deliberately deceived’
Widespread “vaccination of children” and policies barring the unvaccinated from many public spaces — for which the RKI “provided supposedly scientific legitimacy” — weren’t based on “rational, scientific considerations” but on “political decisions,” Velázquez wrote.
Stefan Homburg, Ph.D., professor of public finance at the University of Hannover in Germany, was part of a team that worked with the whistleblower to release the unredacted RKI Files. He told The Defender the documents show decisions were made “exclusively by politicians” and that “RKI did not support these measures.”
“We have now clear evidence that the general public was deliberately deceived,” Dutch lawyer Meike Terhorst told The Defender. “Politicians made the decisions, not health authorities.”
Dr. Christof Plothe, a member of the World Council for Health steering committee, told The Defender the files “show that it was never science that initiated ineffective and harmful masking, traumatizing social distancing and lockdowns, or that introduced a novel gene therapy labeled a ‘vaccine’ … It was politicians that demanded the measures.”
Germany’s pandemic-era Federal Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach figures prominently in the documents. Plothe said Lauterbach has “never worked with patients and is a pure lobbyist of Pharma.”
German toxicologist Helmut Sterz, previously a researcher for major pharmaceutical companies — including Pfizer — told The Defender the documents show that pandemic decisions “were made by those who are responsible for the creation of this ‘pandemic’” and that “Real experts ‘disappeared’ from the public debate.”
Germany enacted among the strictest set of COVID-19 restrictions in Europe, according to the Oxford University COVID-19 Government Response Tracker.
“The measures that the German people were subjected to, besides mask mandates and social distancing rules, [include] a ‘lockdown of the unvaccinated’ that banned people from [public places] … Compulsory vaccination was imposed on military members and all people working in the health sector,” Plothe said.
Documents reveal EU discussions to ‘skip the Phase 3 trials’ for Pfizer shot
“Normally, you plan 12-18 months from the start of Phase I. EMA and Pfizer are considering whether to skip Phase III trials and go straight into broad use. If the regulators decide that, then it can go faster than 12-18 months,” the document says.
Minutes from an April 27, 2020, RKI meeting state, “There will be several vaccines that have been developed and tested in a fast-track process. Relevant data will only be collected post-marketing.”
According to German medical magazine Aertzeblatt, RKI documents from January and February 2021, after the first COVID-19 vaccines were introduced and administered, reveal discussions questioning the effectiveness of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, stating it was “less perfect” and its “Ecology needs to be discussed.”
A Jan. 29, 2021 document (page 135), for instance, states that “STIKO [RKI’s Standing Committee on Vaccination] recommends vaccine only for <65-year-olds, as there is a lack of evidence for >65-year-olds, very wide confidence intervals, too uncertain, as two highly effective RNA vaccines are available.”
According to German magazine Tichys Einblick, the documents show that as early as the beginning of 2021,” the RKI knew about serious side effects of vaccinations, for example from AstraZeneca. Nevertheless, shortly afterwards, practically all important top politicians were publicly vaccinated with precisely this shot.”
These admissions came despite public rhetoric at the time stating that the shots would protect against both the spread of and infection from COVID-19.
Problems post-vaccination soon began to pop up in the RKI documents. A Feb. 8, 2021, document references a political furor in Germany after 14 fully vaccinated residents of a nursing home tested positive for COVID-19. The same document admitted that vaccination does not prevent less severe cases of the virus.
RKI documents from March 12 and March 15, 2021, referenced the identification of severe adverse events following AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination in Denmark, the Netherlands and Austria, and an April 9, 2021, document discusses a high rate of thrombosis cases tied to the AstraZeneca vaccine, particularly in males.
“It is particularly bad that the RKI recognized many vaccine injuries caused by AstraZeneca, but did not warn the public,” Homburg said. “The constant political pressure is also remarkable.”
‘It must be cool to get vaccinated’
The RKI Files also revealed efforts on the part of the German government and the country’s public health authorities to specifically target children with COVID-19 restrictions — efforts that were marked by political interference:
A May 19, 2021, RKI document states, “Even if STIKO does not recommend vaccination for children, [then-Health Minister Jens] Spahn is still planning a child vaccination program.”
A May 21, 2021, document states that while pediatric associations “are reluctant to vaccinate children … Politicians are already preparing vaccination campaigns to vaccinate the relevant age groups.”
A July 14, 2021, RKI document reveals discussions of an “influencer vaccination challenge on YouTube” and “developing material for younger target groups,” which would “be approached with more humor” — even vaccine reactions and side effects. “It must be cool to get vaccinated,” the document stated.
The minutes of a Dec. 15, 2021, RKI meeting reveal that Germany’s health ministry was “considering booster vaccination of children, although there is no recommendation and in some cases no approval for this.”
Such measures were promoted despite early knowledge that children were not significantly affected by COVID-19. A Feb. 26, 2020, RKI document referred to data from China finding that 2% of cases were in children, while a Nov. 30, 2020, document suggested that school settings were unlikely to contribute to the spread of the virus significantly, but that school closures would “exacerbate” the situation.
And a Dec. 4, 2020, RKI meeting examining data from several countries concluded that school reopenings did not lead to significantly greater spread of the virus.
‘The vaccinated must receive privileges of some kind’
Despite such findings, there was political pressure to reward the vaccinated and punish the unvaccinated, according to the RKI Files.
A Nov. 5, 2021, document said that media rhetoric regarding “a pandemic of the unvaccinated” was “not correct from a scientific point of view,” because “the entire population is contributing” to new waves of infection.
Yet, authorities decided to continue blaming the unvaccinated for the spread of COVID-19, because it would serve “as an appeal to all those who have not been vaccinated to get vaccinated,” according to the document.
The document also noted that Spahn “talks of the [pandemic of the unvaccinated] at every press conference … so it can’t be corrected.” The document contains an acknowledgment, though, that “one should be very careful with the statement that vaccinations protect against any (even asymptomatic) infection” because “as the time between vaccinations increases,” infection becomes more likely.
A May 10, 2021, RKI document contained a determination that telling the truth to the public would “cause great confusion,” while maintaining existing vaccination recommendations would serve “to save [the] vaccine.”
Instead, a Jan. 7, 2022, document stated that “the vaccinated must receive privileges of some kind,” including fewer travel restrictions, and that this was an objective that the German Health Ministry desired, while calling for further “testing of the unvaccinated after entry” into the country.
Similarly, a March 10, 2021, document suggested that COVID-19 vaccination should be promoted to the public as a means “to be able to participate in social life again,” for people who were tired of “bans and restrictions.”
Yet, a Dec. 4, 2020, RKI document suggested that the vaccinated should continue to comply with “hygiene measures,” while a Dec. 30, 2020, document suggested that the vaccinated should still wear masks, “as there is still a risk of transmission.”
German authorities wished to ‘avoid drawing attention’ to flattening curve
The RKI Files further reveal that, early in the COVID-19 pandemic, there was political pressure to maintain restrictions, despite the “flattening of the curve.”
A March 25, 2020, document admitted that “the curve is slowly leveling off,” but said, “We should avoid drawing attention to this in our external communications, to encourage compliance with measures.”
A Nov. 18, 2020, document contains an admission that respiratory illnesses were “well below” the previous year’s level, with a downward trend. Similarly, a Nov. 30, 2020, document states that general respiratory illnesses were “well below previous years.” A Jan. 27, 2021, document stated that a “no-COVID” policy is not feasible.
And according to a Feb. 25, 2022, document, RKI was prevented from downgrading its overall risk assessment of COVID-19 from “very high” to “high” even after the mostly mild symptoms of the Omicron wave were evident, due to intervention from Lauterbach and the German Health Ministry.
Use of masks by general public deemed ‘problematic’ — but imposed anyway
The RKI Files also contain acknowledgments that masking and testing policies were ineffective in limiting the spread of COVID-19 but were pursued for political reasons:
A Jan. 27, 2020, document states that masking “does not make sense” for asymptomatic people, as there was no evidence that it would be a “useful preventive measure for the general population.”
An Oct. 23, 2020, document stated that FFP2 masks (similar to N95 masks) would be “misused” by the public and not offer protection, but instead might instill a false sense of security in people. “The harms of FFP2 masks may outweigh benefits,” the document states.
An Oct. 30, 2020, document says, “FFP2 masks have no added value if they are not fitted and used correctly” and are useless outside of “occupational health and safety.”
A Jan. 13, 2021, document states that FFP2 masks “can lead to health problems for people with preexisting conditions and should therefore remain an individual decision” and that “A general FFP2 mask requirement is not considered sensible.”
A Jan. 18, 2021, document found “No technical basis for recommending FFP2 masks for the population,” noting the risk of “undesirable side effects.”
Yet, by July 2, 2021, RKI documents contain suggestions, based on the American Academy of Pediatrics, for general mask wearing for children age 2 and older and that “The wearing of masks should be maintained … even at low incidences and should be understood as maintaining basic measures.”
RKI documents also questioned mass COVID-19 testing. A Feb. 3, 2020, document stated that positive PCR results after recovery “do not necessarily mean infectiousness,” while a July 29, 2020, document found that COVID-19 testing was ineffective, but a “political desire” for testing had to be “met.”
Similarly, a Dec. 16, 2020, RKI document suggested the suspension of elective procedures (planned operations), due to “pressure from the state governments.”
Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in Iran, the Palestinian group and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said in separate statements today.
The Palestinian resistance movement said Haniyeh was killed in “a treacherous Zionist raid on his residence in Tehran.” He had been in Iran to attend the swearing in ceremony of the Islamic Republic’s new President, Masoud Pezeshkian, yesterday.
“Early this morning, the residence of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran was struck, resulting in his and one of his bodyguards’ martyrdom. The cause is under investigation and will be announced soon,” the Revolutionary Guards said.
Asked about the news, the Israeli occupation army said: ‘We do not comment on these reports.’ While Heritage Minister Amihai Eliyahu said “Haniyeh’s death makes the world better.”
Taking to X, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich wrote: “Yes, all your enemies will perish Israel.”
While senior Hamas leader Sami Abu Zuhri said: “This assassination by the Israeli occupation of Brother Haniyeh is a grave escalation that aims to break the will of Hamas… Hamas is a concept and an institution and not persons. Hamas will continue on this path regardless of the sacrifices and we are confident of victory.”
Born on 29 January 1962 in Al-Shati refugee camp in the besieged Gaza Strip, Haniyeh was elected head of Hamas’s political bureau in 2017.
He was appointed as the Palestinian prime minister in 2006 after Hamas won the national elections but was dismissed the following year after factional fighting broke out between the group and rival Fatah, from which President Mahmoud Abbas hails.
Haniyeh served three years in Israel detention during the First Intifada in 1989 and was later exiled in 1992 to a no-man’s land between Lebanon and Israel. He has lived between Turkiye and Qatar after leaving Gaza in 2017 and has been active in negotiations efforts to bring an end to Israel’s ongoing genocidal war in Gaza.
Why lifestyle changes (and lifestyle medicine) are often a better option than pharmaceuticals and conventional medicine when it comes to preventing, treating and managing chronic disease:
Lifestyle changes target the root cause of chronic disease. They help avoid environmental damage, pollution and chemical and plastic waste entering our ecosystems. Future generations are positively impacted by focusing on lifestyle factors.
A new randomised trial in The BMJ is being touted as proof that surgical face masks are effective at an individual level for reducing respiratory infections
Whether to wear a face mask to prevent respiratory illnesses has been one of the most divisive debates during the pandemic.
After a Cochrane review in 2023 found that face masks made “little or no difference” to the spread of respiratory viruses, the issue became highly politicised.
Tom Jefferson, lead author of the Cochrane review, told me “There is just no evidence that they make any difference. Full stop.” The interview was picked up by media such as the New York Timesand CNN, sparking an international furore.
New York Times columnist, Zeynep Tufekci pushed back in her own column arguing that despite no high-quality data, we could still conclude from less rigorous observational studies, that masks do in fact work.
Well-known science historian and co-author of Merchants of Doubt Naomi Oreskesagreed with Tufekci, claiming the public had been “misled” by the Cochrane review because it prioritised high-quality studies and excluded less rigorous ones.
When former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky was challenged about her controversial mask mandates in light of Cochrane’s findings, she lied to Congress claiming that the review had been “retracted” when it had not.
Then, in September 2023, former White House physician Anthony Fauci told CNN, “There’s no doubt that masks work.” Fauci said that while studies might show masks do not work at a population level, they do work “on an individual basis.”
Could this be true?
Well, a new study published in The BMJ is being touted as proof that face masks are effective at an individual level for reducing respiratory infections.
The study
Researchers in Norway performed a ‘pragmatic’ randomised trial in the off-peak period of “the normal influenza season” to determine if wearing a surgical face mask in public could reduce the risk of contracting a respiratory illness.
This study was sufficiently powered to detect a difference in outcomes in a real-world setting.
Over a 14-day period (between Feb-April 2023), 4647 participants were randomly assigned to either wear a surgical mask in public places (shopping centres, streets, public transport) or not to wear a surgical face mask in public places (control group).
The group wearing masks showed an absolute risk reduction of ~3 percent in “self-reported symptoms consistent with respiratory infection” (8.9% mask group; 12.2% control group, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.87; P=0.001).
The authors concluded, “Wearing a surgical face mask in public spaces over 14 days reduces the risk of self-reported symptoms consistent with a respiratory infection, compared with not wearing a surgical face mask.”
In an accompanying editorial, the authors of the study anticipated their findings would inflame an already divisive debate, and called for more “open and nuanced discussions” about face masks.
“We know exactly what to expect,” they wrote.
“Mask non-believers will describe the effect size as too small to be of interest, and they will intensively highlight any source of potential bias that might have inflated the results in the wrong direction. Of course, the mask believers will do the same but in the opposite direction.”
The authors said they would welcome “a nuanced debate around the potential biases and the interpretation” of the study findings, so here I go….
Analysis
I would argue that an absolute reduction of 3% in self-reported symptoms from people wearing masks is not a clinically meaningful result.
There are several reasons why.
First, in such a study, you obviously cannot blind the participants to one group or the other. People know they’re wearing a mask and may be less likely to report symptoms if they feel “protected.”
In fact, a pre-specified subgroup analysis showed a “beneficial effect was estimated for participants who reported that they believed face masks reduced the risk of infection,” indicating the study suffered from ‘reporting bias.’
Second, the study found wearing a mask changed people’s habits which may have accounted for the small difference between groups.
For example, people in the control group were more likely to attend cultural events than people wearing a mask (39% and 32%, respectively; P<0.001). Also, a larger percentage of people in the control group visited restaurants compared to those wearing a mask (65% and 53% respectively; P<0.001).
This is similar to the cluster-randomised trial of community-level masking carried out in Bangladesh. The study found a small effect of face masks which could be explained by changes in behaviour; 29% of people in villages wearing masks practiced physical distancing, compared to only 24% in the control (non-masking) villages. The apparent small effect of masks could therefore be due to physical distancing.
Third, masks were mandated across the world to reduce the burden of covid-19. But in this study, there was no difference in the number of self-reported or registered covid-19 infections between the control group and those wearing masks.
Fourth, the study showed people wearing a mask in public places sought healthcare for respiratory symptoms at a similar rate to people who weren’t wearing a mask, indicating that the mask was not reducing the burden on the healthcare system.
Fifth, with an intervention like surgical masks, compliance is always an issue because participants can feel uncomfortable or self-conscious wearing a face covering in public, and a small reduction in risk may not be worth it.
In this trial, only 25% of participants reported “always wearing a face mask” in public and 19% wore them less than 50% of the time. Had the trial been longer than 14-days, it’s likely that compliance would have diminished along with the small benefit.
The most reported adverse effect of wearing masks in public places was the unpleasant comments from other people.
This may also explain the difference in dropout rates. At follow-up, 21% of people assigned to wear masks did not respond to the questionnaire, compared to 13% in the control group, which again, suggests reporting bias.
Conclusion
What this study shows is that wearing a face mask in public during the flu season, might reduce the sniffles by a small percentage, but it won’t change whether you seek healthcare and might actually make you less inclined to go out and have fun.
This study does not show that community masking reduces the healthcare burden of disease associated with respiratory illnesses, which was the justification for mandating face masks during the pandemic.
I’d add that viruses are smaller than the pores in surgical or cloth masks (and masks are rarely worn properly), so it’s unlikely to be an effective public health intervention.
At the start of the pandemic before masking became political, Fauci had the right idea when he told 60 minutes, “Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.”
As shown in the 2023 Cochrane review, hand hygiene is likely to be more effective at reducing the burden of respiratory illnesses, and has no real downsides.
By Kit Klarenberg and Wyatt Reed | The Grayzone | October 5, 2025
A roving reporter who covered Italy’s top politicians explains to The Grayzone how his country was reduced to a joint US-Israeli “aircraft carrier,” and raises troubling questions about an Israeli role in the killing of Prime Minister Aldo Moro.
For years, Israel’s Mossad monitored and secretly influenced a violent communist faction that carried out the March 16, 1978 kidnapping and murder of Italian statesman Aldo Moro, veteran investigative journalist Eric Salerno has documented.
Having worked closely alongside multiple Italian heads of state during his 30-year career as a correspondent, Salerno published an expose of their secret relationship with Israeli intelligence in 2010 called Mossad Base Italy. … 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.
A roving reporter who covered Italy’s top politicians explains to The Grayzone how his country was reduced to a joint US-Israeli “aircraft carrier,” and raises troubling questions about an Israeli role in the killing of Prime Minister Aldo Moro.
Aletho News
Aletho News 