The CDC is using new, questionable techniques to declare a ‘COVID surge’ and stoke fears. Coincidentally, a new booster hits the market as students head back to school. Jefferey Jaxen reports.
Has the thin line between proxy war and direct war now been eliminated? I spoke with Colonel Douglas Macgregor as NATO’s direct involvement in the war is evident with its involvement in the invasion of Russia.
Russia has restrained itself to a large extent as retaliating against NATO could trigger another world war and possible nuclear exchange, although the failure to retaliate emboldens NATO and results in subsequent escalations. Even Zelensky referred to the failure of Russia to respond to the invasion of Kursk as a reason for why NATO should not fear stepping over more Russian red lines. Colonel Macgregor suggests that the assumption of the US and NATO being all-powerful will continue to contribute to reckless escalations in the war against Russia – but also in the Middle East, and against China.
Most Ukrainian, Western and Russian observers seemed to recognise during the first days of the invasion of Kursk that it was a mistake. Ukrainian troops emerged out of well-defended frontlines and could be easily targeted in the open and with poor supply lines. As this is a war of attrition, it is likely a huge mistake to throw away Ukraine’s best soldiers and NATO’s military equipment on territory that is not strategic and cannot be held. However, the propaganda machine has since been turned on and the war is now sold to the Western public as a great opportunity to improve negotiation power, to develop a buffer zone, and to humiliate Putin – although none of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny.
The Ukrainian and NATO invasion of Kursk has changed the war completely as the Ukrainian causalities have increased dramatically, the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbas are now collapsing even faster, and NATO’s role in the war is no longer ambiguous. This is all happening as internal divisions in NATO are surfacing, and the US/Israel will likely trigger a regional war in the Middle East.
Independent Journalist Richard Medhurst was arrested in the UK on Thursday under the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000, according to a video he posted Monday on X recounting the experience.
“On Thursday, as I landed in London’s Heathrow airport, I was immediately escorted off the plane by six police officers who were waiting for me at the entrance of the aircraft. They arrested me – not detained – they arrested me under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act of 2000 and accused me of allegedly ‘expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organization’ but wouldn’t explain what this meant,” Medhurst says in the video.
Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 has a clause that was added in 2019 that made it illegal to “expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organization” if “in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organization.”
Medhurst’s reporting has focused heavily on the Israeli-Gaza war and has spoken out against funding Ukraine. He also posted about the very act that he was arrested for.
“The fascist ‘terrorism act’ being used to hold activists without charge or trial because they tried to stop actual terrorism and genocide by the IDF,” Medhurst posted the same day he was arrested. Medhurst was referring to Palestinian activists who have been detained recently under the Terrorism Act.
Medhurst says he was then handcuffed and transferred to a police station where he was searched and his electronic devices seized.
“I was placed in solitary confinement, in a cold cell that smelled like urine. There was barely any light and the bed, if you can even call it a bed, was simply a small concrete ledge with a paper-thin mattress. The cell had no windows, no heating, no toilet paper. I was recorded 24/7 with audio and video, even when going to the toilet. I had to eat food with a piece of cardboard you’re supposed to fold in two in order to scoop up the meal,” Medhurst said, describing the conditions he was held in.
He was then held for nearly 24 hours without being allowed to contact his family and his attempts to speak to a solicitor (UK legal advisor) were hindered and possibly monitored.
“The police said that I have the right to inform someone that I’m locked up. So I said okay, I want to call my family, then they go ‘Well, your calls are withheld due to the nature of the alleged offense’ I tried to ask well, what’s the point of a right if you can just randomly withdraw it? Why tell me that I have this right at all? And one of them said something along the lines of ‘Well, it’s not an absolute right, it can be waived,’” Medhurst described.
“For many hours, no one in the world knew what had happened to me or where I was. Only the police could call a solicitor for me. I had to ask four or five different guards for several hours before I finally received a call. Some of my solicitor’s calls did not get through or were not answered. One of the calls -my solicitor was told- would be monitored, and so they simply refused to take it. I asked to speak to the solicitor afterwards when that happened but I was not allowed to.”
“In total, I spent almost 24 hours in detention. At no point whatsoever was I allowed to speak to a family member or friend. After waiting 15 hours, I was finally interviewed by two detectives,” Medhurst says the interview lasted 60 to 90 minutes.
Medhurst emphasized that he denies all accusations by the police, noting that his parents held Nobel Peace Prizes for their work as UN peacekeepers and he “categorically and unequivocally” condemns terrorism.
“Those like myself, who are speaking up and reporting on the situation in Palestine are being targeted. I had booked my ticket to London on the same day and yet an entire team of police were mobilized to arrest and question me. This is why I felt this was a preplanned, coordinated arrest. Many people have been detained in Great Britain because of their journalism, sometimes under the Terrorism Act, sometimes not. I think of Julian Assange, Craig Murray, Kit Klarenberg, David Miranda, Vanessa Beeley. As far as I am aware, I am the only journalist, however, to have been arrested and held for up to 24 hours under section 12 of the Terrorism Act.”
Medhurst said that he now feels he has a “muzzle” put on him, and does not know if he will be charged with the crime he was arrested for or if he will be put in jail in a few months, something that makes his work more difficult. “I simply do not know if or how I can work at all during the next month.
Former UN weapons inspector and geopolitical analyst Scott Ritter, whose house was raided by the United States FBI earlier this month for alleged violations of the Foreign Agents Registry Act, called the arrest “political persecution” designed to “hamper [Medhurst’s] important work as a journalist.”
“Freedom of the press, freedom of speech really are under attack. The state is cracking down and escalating to try and stop people from speaking out against our government’s complicity in genocide, please do not just stand with me, but with the others who are still inside,” Medhurst concluded.
UK authorities have not commented on Medhurst’s arrest. His website currently displays an error page but it is not clear if Medhurst removed it voluntarily, at the direction of UK authorities, or if the site was taken down by service providers. Sputnik has reached out to Medhurst for clarification and will update this space if he replies.
The use of NATO weapons to attack Russia is a controversial topic due to the ambiguity about the role of NATO. The common argument by the Western political-media elites is that Ukraine was attacked in an unprovoked Russian invasion, and NATO has every right to assist Ukraine with weapons to defend itself. This is an appealing narrative that serves the purpose of manufacturing consent from the public to send weapons worth billions of dollars to fight Russia. If one accepts this narrative, it is even seen to be immoral to put restrictions on Ukraine in terms of where these weapons are used as the country is correctly fighting for its survival. The problem with this narrative is that NATO is not a passive non-participant in this war.
The war began in February 2014 when Western governments backed the coup in Ukraine that removed the democratically elected President of Ukraine and replaced him with a government hand-picked by Washington.[1] On the first day of the new Ukrainian government, a partnership was established between the CIA, MI6 and the intelligence services of the new government in Ukraine installed by the US.[2] This happened before there were any conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, and it resulted in 12 secret CIA bases along the Russian borders. Over the next 8 years, the US instigated tensions with Russia, armed Ukraine, and sabotaged the Minsk peace agreement to extend and weaken Russia.[3]
The US developing Ukraine as a proxy against Russia was the reason for the Russian invasion in 2022. As reported by the New York Times : “Toward the end of 2021, according to a senior European official, Mr. Putin was weighing whether to launch his full-scale invasion when he met with the head of one of Russia’s main spy services, who told him that the C.I.A., together with Britain’s MI6, were controlling Ukraine and turning it into a beachhead for operations against Moscow”.[4]
When Russia invaded in 2022, it contacted Ukraine on the first day after the war to start negotiations to impose a peace agreement that would restore Ukraine’s neutrality.[5] The US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement by promising Zelensky all the weapons he would need if he would walk away from the peace talks and fight. Both the Israeli and Turkish mediators confirmed that the US chose war as it saw an opportunity to fight Russia through a proxy and thus weaken a strategic rival. Numerous American leaders have since expressed that this is a great war as they get to weaken Russia without losing any American troops. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has dismissed diplomacy and insists that “Weapons are the way to peace”.
Niall Ferguson wrote in Bloomberg in March 2022 that US and UK officials had confirmed that the only acceptable outcome for the war was the military defeat of Russia and regime change in Moscow. The objective was for “the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin” as “the only end game now is the end of Putin regime”.[6] The US Helsinki Commission argued in March 2022 that peace must be achieved by “decolonising” Russia, the destruction of Russia by Balkanising it.[7] The President of Poland (Andrzej Duda) and the incoming Foreign Policy Chief of the EU (Kaja Kallas) have also defined victory in Ukraine in terms of breaking Russia into many small nations.
NATO is providing weapons, ammunition, training, war planning, intelligence, target selection, management of complex weapon systems, and mercenaries to fight Russia – all under the guise of “helping Ukraine” to defend itself. NATO has authorised the use of long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory and provides its support in the invasion of Russian territory. From Britain to Germany, the success of conquering Russian territory is openly used as an argument to send more weapons.
In this context, if we look at the actual objectives of the US and NATO, rather than the childish assertion that the US is merely attempting to protect democracy, then one can only conclude that NATO has gone to war against the world’s largest nuclear power.
Russia’s dilemma: Emboldening NATO or risking nuclear war
The insanity of NATO’s relentless escalations in the Ukraine proxy war rests on the narrative that Russia will not defend its red lines as it is deterred by NATO. This delusion exists because all Russian responses are presented as “unprovoked” and thus occur seemingly in a vacuum. Yet, when the Western government toppled the Ukrainian government in February 2014 and subsequently threatened the Russian naval base in Sevastopol, Russia responded by seizing Crimea. When Western governments sabotaged the Minsk agreement for 7 years and then refused to give Russia any security guarantees in December 2021, Russia responded by invading Ukraine in 2022. When NATO began to send weapons to Ukraine to fight Russia, Russia responded by annexing four oblasts – Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhiya, and Kherson.
How will Russia respond? Russia is faced with a dilemma: It has been restrained as retaliations could easily escalate into a NATO-Russia nuclear exchange, yet the failure to retaliate will only embolden NATO. Western media refers to the failure of Russia to respond as a reason for why NATO can continue to escalate, as Russia is not retaliating. Yet, with every step up the escalation ladder, the pressure mounts on Russia to restore its deterrent.
The retaliation will come, but Russia keeps its head cool to decide when, where and how it best serves Russian interests. The Western media is obsessed with the objective of humiliating Putin without considering the possible consequences. Anyone calling for a return to common sense is denounced as being soft on Russia, and the recognition of Russia’s nuclear deterrent is framed as accepting Russia’s “nuclear blackmail”. Consequently, warmongering is celebrated as morality while advocating for diplomacy is denounced as appeasement. In our narrative-driven media, even arguing that NATO has gone to war against Russia is deemed treasonous as it is depicted as “taking the side of Russia”.
The propaganda prevents us from asking the most important question: How exactly do we think this escalation will end? Irrespective of what narrative we have sold to our own public about defending democracy, from Moscow’s perspective, NATO has now placed itself in the same category as Napoleon and Hitler. Let’s pick up a history book and ask ourselves how Russia will likely respond: capitulation or a powerful response?
I was on the Indian TV channel WION discussing NATO weapons being used to target Russian territory.
I’m still on August hiatus, but here’s a two-hour lecture on the history of mass media to tide you over until September! This is Lesson One of my three lesson Mass Media: A History online course. Buy the complete course for audio and video downloads, a hyperlinked transcript of each lesson and a study guide with questions and reading recommendations. Enjoy!
FactCheck.org, the organization that flags “misleading” COVID-19 content for Facebook, is supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a philanthropic organization funded by pharmaceutical giant and vaccine maker Johnson & Johnson (J&J), YouTube commentator Jimmy Dore reported.
“These fact check organizations aren’t there to check facts,” Dore said. “They’re there to push a political point of view and an agenda and to discredit people.”
Dore said when the organization “fact-checked” his work in the past, its claims were always “bogus.” He said FactCheck.org never reached out to consult him about his content, it twisted his words and it never even pointed to any erroneous facts.
Instead, he said, “They didn’t like my headlines,” and they would say they were misleading.
Johnson & Johnson’s viral vector COVID-19 vaccine received emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. After the shot was linked to dangerous blood clots, its use was suspended a couple of months later and it was eventually completely pulled from the market in May 2023.
Its current CEO, Dr. Richard Besser, formerly worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where he was acting director during the H1N1 outbreak.
When Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) first sounded the alarm in 2021 about FactCheck.org on Twitter (now X), the organization responded by saying, “The views expressed by FactCheck.org do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.”
The organization continues to receive funding from Robert Wood Johnson for its work “correcting health misinformation.” It reiterates on its website, the foundation “has no control over our editorial decisions.”
As context is very important for all videos, this message is to confirm that the purpose of this video is reporting on or documenting the content. Note that we make an effort to research for context and cite our sources as appropriate.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
HBO funnyman and vaccine shill, John Oliver, made another attempt this week on his show to amplify the mainstream vaccine safety narrative, citing the same studies he referred to in a similar segment on his show in 2017. Del once again destroys his stale, recycled misinformation.
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.
I had a very interesting discussion with Alexander Mercouris and Theodore Postol – a nuclear engineer and missile technology expert professor from MIT and former advisor to the Pentagon.
Professor Postol spoke about the new missiles that the US will deploy to Germany, which will be able to reach Moscow within 2-3 minutes and thus dramatically elevate the potential for a successful nuclear first-strike. Russia will have very little time to respond to a possible strike, which increases the risk of an accidental nuclear war or a NATO nuclear first-strike. Russia will have to respond by decentralising decision-making and granting more people the authority to launch a counter-strike against the US to reduce the threat of a decapitating strike against Russia’s decision-making headquarters, and Russia will be under pressure to launch a pre-emptive strike on the US/NATO if it suspects a first-strike in coming. This has happened before when NATO’s Able Archer exercise in 1983 almost triggered a Soviet nuclear attack as Moscow thought the NATO military exercise was a cover for a first-strike.
As the world was almost consumed by a nuclear holocaust, both Washington and Moscow recognised the need to extend the warning period for a possible nuclear first-strike. The result was the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987 to remove an entire class of missiles from Europe (500-5,500km range). In 2019, the US unilaterally withdrew from the INF Treaty, and new missiles will now be deployed to Germany which will give the US the possibility to strike Moscow with almost no warning. The US and Germany are thus setting the stage for something comparable to another Cuban Missile Crisis. The decision has no clear purpose in terms of improving security, it does not respond to any changes in the Russian nuclear posture, and the obedient media has offered no critical reporting.
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.
Soybeans generate approximately $80 million annually in mandatory producer assessments alone, funding a marketing apparatus that has transformed an industrial commodity into one of America’s most trusted “health foods.” The campaign succeeded. Soy milk lines supermarket shelves beside dairy. Soy protein fortifies everything from infant formula to energy bars. Vegetarians rely on tofu and tempeh as dietary staples. Doctors recommend soy to menopausal women. School lunch programs serve soy-based meat substitutes to children. An estimated 60 percent of processed foods contain soy derivatives. The premise underlying this proliferation—that Asians have thrived on soy for millennia and that modern science validates its health benefits—has been repeated so often it functions as established fact.
Kaayla T. Daniel’s The Whole Soy Story dismantles this premise through systematic examination of the scientific literature. The book documents that traditional Asian soy consumption averaged roughly one tablespoon daily, consumed as fermented condiments after processing methods that neutralized inherent toxins—a pattern bearing no resemblance to American consumption of industrially processed soy protein isolate, soy flour, and soy oil. Daniel catalogs the antinutrients that survive modern processing (protease inhibitors, phytates, lectins, saponins), the toxic compounds created by industrial methods (nitrosamines, lysinoalanine, hexane residues), and the heavy metals concentrated in soy products (manganese, aluminum, fluoride, cadmium). She traces the mechanisms by which soy isoflavones—plant estrogens present at pharmacologically significant levels—disrupt thyroid function, impair fertility, and interact with hormone-sensitive cancers. The evidence emerges from peer-reviewed journals, FDA documents, and industry sources themselves.
The stakes extend beyond individual dietary choices. Infants fed soy formula receive isoflavone doses equivalent to several birth control pills daily, with blood concentrations 13,000 to 22,000 times higher than their natural estrogen levels. Soy protein isolate—the ingredient in formula, protein bars, and thousands of products—has never received GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status; its only pre-1960s use was as an industrial paper sealant. Two senior FDA scientists formally protested their own agency’s approval of soy health claims, citing evidence of thyroid damage and reproductive harm. The Honolulu Heart Program found that men consuming tofu twice weekly showed accelerated brain aging and increased dementia. These findings have not penetrated public awareness because the institutions responsible for consumer protection have been compromised by the industry they regulate. The Whole Soy Story presents the evidence that has been systematically excluded from mainstream health messaging, enabling readers to evaluate for themselves what the soy industry prefers they never learn. … 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.