Measles is in the news again, but is it a serious concern or a media fear tactic? Host Paul Thomas and Dr. Larry Palevsky discuss measles and MMR risk through a pediatric lens and give parents and guardians practical tips for safely navigating an outbreak and making decisions that are best for their child.
Whooping cough outbreaks in several locations around the world are putting the vaccine into focus. Is this due to poor performance or poor uptake of the problematic vaccine? We dive deep into the science surrounding the DTaP vaccine, and answer an important question- does the vaccine make you a silent spreader of the disease?
Embroiled in coast to coast lawsuits from the alleged harms of their COVID vaccine, Astrazeneca is receiving massive public backlash after admitting their shot can cause blood clots in court proceedings. Jefferey Jaxen also reveals payments made by the pharma giant to doctors in the UK, including celebrity pediatrician, Dr. Ranj Singh who strongly advocated for the now pulled product.
This week, ICAN lead counsel, Aaron Siri, Esq. filed a historic lawsuit on behalf of Utah mother, Brianne Dressen, a patient who participated in the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. The lawsuit states she was severely injured and is now suing the drug manufacturer in a lawsuit that is the first of its kind in the U.S.. Hear how the progressive neuropathy she developed from the drug trial has shattered her life, and the organization she launched to advocate for those like her.
The International Criminal Court is supposedly mulling war crimes charges against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other high-ranking Israeli political and military officials. But what reason could they possibly have for charging Netanyahu with war crimes? Uncover all the dirt on the unindicted war criminal presiding over Israel’s crimes against humanity in this important edition of The Corbett Report podcast.
On May 14, 2024, David McBride, a 60-year-old former military lawyer, was sentenced to five years and eight months in prison with a non-parole period of 27 months, for ultimately blowing the whistle on alleged war crimes committed by other Australian soldiers in 2013.
McBride initially tried to raise his concerns internally with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), but became unsatisfied with the process, so he set up a website and uploaded a trove of secret documents.
Former military lawyer David McBride
When ADF officials found the website containing classified material, they wrote to McBride reminding him of his duty not to disclose it, prompting him to take it down. No action was taken against McBride for his website leak and the Court noted in sentencing that those leaks gave rise to very little risk.
It was only after McBride leaked the material to ABC journalists who aired them in the ‘Afghan Files’ story alleging Australian soldiers did ‘kill people unnecessarily’ that McBride was arrested, interviewed and charged.
Federal police raided the ABC’s Sydney headquarters in 2019, searching for evidence of a leak, but decided against charging the journalists.
In 2023, McBride pleaded guilty to several charges, including stealing secret classified military documents and leaking them to journalists. However McBride couldn’t rely on those documents in his legal defence when the Australian government stopped them from being adduced as evidence on national security grounds.
McBride says he felt a moral obligation to bring these issues to light, believing the Australian public deserved to know the truth about their country’s military actions.
The years-long legal battle which has now landed McBride in prison, has sparked acrimonious debates about the need for an independent Whistleblower Protection Authority in Australia, and the media’s vital role in making powerful institutions accountable.
Human rights whistleblower lawyers said McBride’s punishment sends a chilling message to potential whistleblowers. They contend the Australian government should protect those who expose wrongdoing, not punish them.
Critics argued, however, that McBride was entitled and self-interested. Prosecutors suggested McBride had abandoned the internal investigation he initiated without waiting for the result, violated his signed confidentiality acknowledgments as a military lawyer, and compromised the lives of soldiers and their families while potentially harming Australia’s national security and international relations.
The Brereton Inquiry, commenced by the ADF before McBride’s whistleblowing leaks, found credible information that Australian Special Forces had unlawfully killed people in Afghanistan.
It also appears no harm has been demonstrated because of McBride’s actions, though the ACT Supreme Court said in sentencing, that potential harm to Australia’s defence personnel, their families, Australia’s national security and international relations, still exists.
In sentencing McBride, ACT Supreme Court Justice David Mossop said that while he was a person of good character strongly devoted to duty, from his time in Afghanistan he was unable to accept that his opinions about the ADF may be incorrect.
Justice Mossop considered McBride knew he was committing a criminal offence when disclosing the information but hoped he would have a (public interest) defence. McBride had legal duties and constraints as a soldier and lawyer serving the Army, but no specific duty to disclose the secret information to outsiders when there were other legitimate ways he could have raised his concerns.
ACT Supreme Court Justice David Mossop
Justice Mossop also said McBride had no remorse and still believed he did the right thing, so he sentenced McBride to prison to deter him from disclosing anymore military information and to deter other people ‘with strong opinions’ who are also under a legal duty not to disclose information, from doing so.
In the lead up to his sentencing, he added “So long as people believe I stood up for what I believed in, I can go to jail with my head held high.”
Independent MP Andrew Wilkie was outraged by McBride’s prison sentence, saying that governments “hate people shining a light on official misconduct.”
He added, “They consistently want to punish the whistleblower, and they consistently want to send a signal to would be whistleblowers to shut up, to not break ranks, to not cause problems for governments.”
AAP: Independent MP Andrew Wilkie
Daniela Gavshon, Australian Director of Human Rights Watch, said McBride’s sentencing shows that Australia’s whistleblowing laws need exemptions in the public interest.
“It is a stain on Australia’s reputation that some of its soldiers have been accused of war crimes in Afghanistan, and yet the first person convicted in relation to these crimes is a whistleblower not the abusers,” Gavshon said in a statement.
Many regard whistleblowing as morally courageous, especially when done in the public interest, as McBride claimed he did. But whistleblowing is a dangerous endeavour in Australia because of the significant legal and personal risks.
Compared to the US, where whistleblower protections are considered more robust, McBride’s case demonstrates the protracted and costly legal battles faced by whistleblowers in Australia, when up against institutions with unlimited resources.
It’s now feared McBride’s prosecution and sentencing will deter other whistleblowers from disclosing information because Australia’s laws arguably do not protect whistleblowers like McBride, who try internal reporting channels first but then find them inadequate.
While there must be a balance between national security concerns and the public’s right to know about the actions of their government and military, McBride’s case means other Australians thinking about whistleblowing, risk imprisonment too, especially where there is low trust in internal reporting channels and no alternative external reporting channel.
Australia’s Government has already announced plans to bolster public whistleblowing protections. But that won’t help McBride whose imprisonment highlights the urgent need for clear guidance and protection when disclosing information to prevent more serious harms, and the vital need for a free press if and when internal whistleblowing channels, fail.
Prior to being imprisoned, McBride recorded the following video:
Eight-year-old Ritaj survived for two days under the rubble when an Israeli strike killed her family. Doctors operated on her leg multiple times and ended up amputating it. Now, Ritaj lives in a crowded shelter with her aunt, and she just wants the war to end.
World-famous cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough recently revealed startling figures about the immense earnings doctors received for pushing the COVID-19 injections.
On the Tommy T Podcast, Dr. McCullough claimed that a typical doctor could make an extra $250,000 if they injected a substantial portion of their patients.
More specifically, if a doctor injected 75% of his or her patients at $250 per newly-injected person, that would end up being around $250,000.
Dr. McCullough explained that a full-time primary care physician typically manages a patient panel ranging from about 1,000 to 2,000 people covered by Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield.
When you do the math, factoring in the $250 incentive, 1,000 newly vaccinated people times $250 = $250,000. Some doctors made less; some made more. But the point is that doctors were financially incentivized to inject as many patients as possible.
The question is, was Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield giving doctors jab incentives, or were they being paid to do so by the government?
Most Americans know that political corruption is destroying the United States, which devotes massive resources to expand and rule its empire. The US Constitution was written to keep some power in the hands of the states, who appointed their US Senators, but the 17th Amendment, promoted by American business titans and ratified in 1913, removed this control with direct Senate elections to allow the centralization of power in Washington DC. Repealing the 17th Amendment is a simple idea that would have an immediate impact on the nation as states regain control of the federal government. US Senators would suddenly focus funding on helping people in their state and have little interest in military interventions overseas.
In a shocking turn, mainstream voices who censored and suppressed conversation around vaccine injury have reversed course, even calling for a “9/11-style tribunal.” Yet they’re “limited hangout” falls short of full accountability or vindication for the injured. Del has a message for Chris Cuomo.
Can pediatricians afford to run their medical practices without the generous kickbacks they receive for vaccinating every child?
Dr. Paul Thomas, a Dartmouth-trained pediatrician, discussed this dilemma during an April 16 interview with Polly Tommey on Children’s Health Defense’s “Vax-Unvax: The People’s Study” bus tour.
“You cannot stay in business if you’re not giving pretty close to the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] [childhood vaccine] schedule,” said Thomas, who ran a general pediatrics practice with 15,000 patients and 33 staff members.
Thomas also addressed the risks and harms of vaccines — including COVID-19 mRNA vaccines — and the importance of boosting our immune systems naturally.
‘We were losing … over a million dollars’
Thomas, author of “The Vaccine-Friendly Plan: Dr. Paul’s Safe and Effective Approach to Immunity and Health-from Pregnancy Through Your Child’s Teen Year,” gave parents in his practice a choice: vaccinate their children on the CDC schedule, vaccinate more slowly by waiting for the child’s immune system to develop or not vaccinate at all.
As more patients refused vaccines, Thomas began to notice the financial impact on his practice.
He and his staff conducted a thorough analysis of their billing records, examining the income generated from vaccine administration fees, markups and quality bonuses tied to vaccination rates.
The results shocked him. “We were losing … over a million dollars in vaccines that were refused.”
He explained that pediatric practices heavily rely on vaccine income to stay afloat, with overhead costs running as high as 80%.
“It is very expensive to run a pediatric office,” he told Tommey. “You need multiple nurses, multiple receptionists, multiple billing people and medical records — it’s a huge operation.”
Three financial incentives for giving vaccines
Pediatricians receive several types of financial incentives for administering vaccines.
The first is the administration fee, which Thomas described as a “Thank you for giving the shot.” He estimated that pediatricians typically receive about $40 for the first antigen and $20 for each subsequent antigen.
“Let’s just say a two-month well-baby visit, there’s a DPT — that’s three shots, three antigens,” he told Tommey, plus “Hib [Haemophilus influenzae type b], Prevnar [pneumococcal], Hep B [hepatitis B], polio, rota [rotavirus] — [that’s] about $240.”
The second way pediatricians profit from vaccines is through a small markup on the cost of the vaccines themselves, though Thomas noted that this is not a significant source of income.
The third and most substantial financial incentive is quality bonuses tied to vaccination rates. Insurance companies offer pediatricians bonus payments for meeting certain benchmarks, typically around 80% of patients being fully vaccinated by age 2.
“I get dinged maybe 10-15% off of those RVUs — relative value units — that are ascribed,” he said, describing the points system used to calculate physician reimbursements.
With his practice’s vaccination rate a mere 1%, Thomas was at risk of losing up to 15% of his overall revenue.
“Really, it effectively means a pediatric practice cannot survive using insurance without doing most of the vaccines, if not all of them,” he said. “And I think that explains the blinders — [why doctors] just won’t go there and look at the fact that these vaccines are causing a lot of harm.”
Neurodevelopmental issues ‘clearly linked to vaccines’
“When you hear the word syndrome, it means we don’t know what it is … [or] what causes it,” Thomas said. “But we actually have a pretty good clue.”
Thomas said six studies examined the correlation between SIDS cases and vaccines. “In one data set, 97% were in the first 10 days after the vaccine. Only 3% were in the subsequent 10 days,” he said.
Other studies showed similar patterns, with 75-90% of SIDS deaths occurring within the first week after vaccination, he said.
“We know without a doubt that things like neurodevelopmental concerns, learning disabilities, ADD, ADHD [attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder], autism [are] clearly linked to vaccines,” he stated. “The more you vaccinate, the more likely you are to have these problems.”
Vaccinated children are more prone to infections and illness compared to their unvaccinated peers, according to Thomas, who published a study comparing the health outcomes of each group.
“It’s the vaccinated who get more ear infections, more sinus infections, more lung infections,” he said. “Any kind of infection you look at, the vaccinated get more.”
‘Healthy adults just “Boom!” — dropping dead’
The risks associated with vaccines extend beyond childhood. Thomas drew attention to the recent phenomenon of “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” (SADS) following the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
“We see it on the news, we see it on the ball fields: healthy adults just ‘Boom!’ — dropping dead,” he said. “And that’s all happened since the COVID jabs.”
Thomas expressed particular concern about the mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccine development. He pointed out that despite decades of research, mRNA vaccines have never been proven safe or effective.
“When they got to the animal trials, they would vaccinate the rats,” he said. “When they re-exposed those rats, in one study, 100% of them died.”
The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines’ narrow focus on the spike protein is also problematic because it causes the immune system to become “focused on just one thing,” Thomas said.
“When the [viral] organism mutates, those who are vaccinated can’t recognize this new mutation,” he said, recalling how at a family gathering during the pandemic, it was mostly the vaccinated who contracted COVID-19.
Thomas shared a personal story about his mother’s experience with pulmonary fibrosis after receiving three COVID-19 vaccines.
“After her third COVID shot, she started really running out of energy and then getting short of breath,” he said. “Within a month, her lungs [had a] ground-glass appearance.”
“Shedding seems to be happening, and it’s been documented in studies,” he said, explaining that vaccinated individuals can expose others to spike proteins through body fluids and secretions.
‘We can no longer go to our doctors and say, “Fix me”’
Thomas discussed the likelihood of new pandemics being declared in the future, driven by the immense financial gains pharmaceutical companies reaped from the COVID-19 vaccines.
“They made too much money — Pfizer alone made over $100 billion,” he said. “So the power that the public health machinery got to themselves with COVID has to be intoxicating to them.”
In light of this, Thomas stressed the importance of personal health and natural immunity.
“We can no longer go to our doctors and say, ‘Fix me,’ after we’ve trashed our own health,” he said. “So we’ve got to take responsibility for eating right, avoiding stress, getting adequate sleep … [and] boosting our immune system naturally with organic produce.”
Thomas also encouraged people to question public health authorities and make informed decisions about their health.
“I can no longer trust the CDC, the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration], the NIH [National Institutes of Health],” he said. “Some good people work in these institutions, but the institutions themselves are captured.”
Thomas said that when it comes to vaccines or a new pandemic illness, “They’re the last people you want to trust.”
‘Vax Facts’ book coming soon
Thomas shared information about his upcoming book, “Vax Facts,” co-authored with his partner DeeDee Hoover. He said the book provides an easy-to-read, comprehensive guide to understanding the vaccine issue, regardless of one’s current stance.
“This is going to … allow you to really understand it in an organized, reasonable way why it makes sense now to pause” taking vaccines, Thomas said.
Tommey reminded viewers of Thomas’ weekly show on CHD.TV, “Pediatric Perspectives,” where he interviews pediatricians and doctors who focus on children’s health.
Thomas encouraged viewers to visit his website, Kids First 4 Ever, to learn more about his work and to access coaching services for childhood vaccines and wellness.
John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In my current series of articles, I’ve taken apart the Ebola and Zika hoaxes.
Now I take you back to the summer of 2009, when the CDC and the World Health Organization were hyping the “deadly H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic.”
They were, of course, also urging people to take the new Swine Flu vaccine. On that subject, here is an excerpt from Robert Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense (3/27/20):
“For example, [Dr. Anthony] Fauci once shilled for the fast-tracked H1N1 influenza (‘swine flu’) vaccine on YouTube, reassuring viewers in 2009 that serious adverse events were ‘very, very, very rare.’ Shortly thereafter, the vaccine went on to wreak havoc in multiple countries, increasing miscarriage risks in pregnant women in the U.S., provoking a spike in adolescent narcolepsy in Scandinavia and causing febrile convulsions in one in every 110 vaccinated children in Australia—prompting the latter to suspend its influenza vaccination program in under-fives.”
However, that is only half the Swine Flu story. The other half—which involves an astounding hoax—was surely something Fauci was aware of at the time.
Fauci was, in fact, recommending a highly dangerous vaccine for protection against AN EPIDEMIC THAT DIDN’T EXIST AT ALL.
His friends and professional colleagues at the CDC were creating the hoax.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 