In yet another demonstration of US double standards, a viral video of Israeli soldiers using a wounded Palestinian as a human shield in Jenin forced the US State Department to issue a condemnation.
But unlike the condemnation that they issued for the Palestinian group Hamas when they were accused of this very crime, the United States urged Israel to investigate itself, which, logic implies, it won’t.
One of the most prominent allegations against armed groups in Gaza, which has been used to justify Israel’s murder of Palestinian civilians, is that they use human shields.
Despite the fact that these claims, which are routinely repeated during every war on Gaza, investigations by human rights groups have never found a single case in which Hamas has used a human shield.
On the contrary, Israel has been repeatedly found to have used Palestinian civilians as human shields.
Journalist Tucker Carlson interviewed Republican Congressman from Kentucky Thomas Massie on June 7, 2024. During the interview Massie went into detail about how the Israel lobby bullies US politicians and co-opts evangelicals into getting billions of US tax dollars for Israel.
Newly released internal documents from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Germany’s federal disease control and prevention agency, reveal a stark disconnect between expert knowledge and public health messaging during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Stefan Homburg, a public finance expert and retired professor from Leibniz University of Hanover, brought “seven shocking RKI files” to the attention of the English-speaking world in a video published June 19.
The January 2020 to April 2021 documents suggest that scientific advisers tailored their COVID-19 medical and policy recommendations to align with political directives rather than available evidence.
Commenting on Homburg’s video, former Pfizer Vice President Michael Yeadon, called the political interference with RKI’s scientific analysis and recommendations “appalling” and RKI’s continuing compliance “cowardly.”
‘This event was wholly political’
RKI played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s COVID-19 response. The recently disclosed files include internal meeting minutes from the agency’s crisis management team.
RKI subsequently made over 2,500 mostly unredacted pages publicly available on May 30, citing “public interest in the content of the COVID-19 crisis team protocols.”
According to the RKI’s introduction to the released files, the minutes “reflect the open scientific discourse in which different perspectives are addressed and weighed up.”
The institute cautioned that individual statements in the documents “do not necessarily represent a coordinated position of the RKI and are not always understandable without knowledge of the context.”
Yeadon wrote, “I don’t think there’s an equivalent document which admits repeatedly that this event was wholly POLITICAL and decisions entirely driven by non-technically qualified political people at the top of government.”
‘Experts knew this but stated the opposite’
Homburg discussed how the RKI documents expose several discrepancies between internal expert discussions and public health messaging:
COVID-19 severity: Contrary to public messaging, internal discussions suggested COVID-19 might be less severe than typical influenza. “More people die in a normal influenza wave,” one entry reads. “The main risk of dying of COVID-19 is age.”
“Right — 83 years to be precise, in Germany,” Homburg said.
“Rather, the public was fooled and forced for years to wear FFP2 masks,” Homburg said.
School closures: Experts recommended school closures only in heavily affected areas. “School closures in areas that are not particularly affected are not recommended,” the documents state.
However, Homburg observed, “In the same week, politicians decided to close all German schools for months.”
Vaccine effectiveness and herd immunity: As early as January 2021, RKI experts questioned the propaganda around herd immunity. One entry reads, “Are we saying goodbye to the narrative of herd immunity through vaccination?”
“Pfizer’s preceding clinical trial had not demonstrated protection against serious illness and they had not even tested protection against transmission,” Homburg pointed out. “The experts knew this but stated the opposite in public and even before our courts.”
Vaccine side effects: One file reveals concerns about serious side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine. “Sinus thrombosis is a side effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine,” the document states. “There is also a 20-fold increased incidence in men.”
Homburg alleged that shortly after this statement, “German politicians pretended to get the AstraZeneca vaccine.” He showed images of various newspapers announcing vaccinations by Chancellor Angela Merkel, Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach and others.
Despite this internal acknowledgment, Homburg noted, “The experts did not inform the population about this danger, but insisted that AstraZeneca was safe and effective.”
‘Corona was a singular fraud’
The documents reveal a concerning level of political influence on scientific recommendations. One entry starkly illustrates this pressure: “Still high risk, order from the Federal Health Ministry: nothing will be changed until the first of July.”
This directive apparently led to pushing high-risk assessments despite declining case numbers. Homburg argued that this political interference helped the continuation of pandemic mandates.
“In fact, nothing was changed for three years,” he said. “To recall, in summer 2020, Corona cases were approaching zero and the public wanted a halt to the measures.”
The files also expose the experts’ fears of losing their advisory roles if they didn’t comply with political directives. One entry reads, “If the RKI does not comply with the political requirement, there is a risk that political decisionmakers will develop indicators themselves and/or no longer involve the RKI in similar assignments.”
“Corona was a singular fraud,” Homburg concluded. “The virus replaced influenza while the total number of illnesses remained unchanged.”
German politicians divided on response
The documents’ release ignited a fierce debate about the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, reaching the German Bundestag. The following is adapted from Schreyer’s April 30 report on Radio Munich (translated from German).
On April 24, 2024, the Parliament deliberated on a motion by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) parliamentary group to establish a commission of inquiry to review the Corona period. The proposed commission would examine the limits of intervention rights of state and federal governments and review the roles of relevant actors such as RKI.
The debate revealed deep divisions among political parties. The AfD and Free Democratic Party (FDP) supported the establishment of an inquiry commission, while the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Green parties (also called Alliance 90) opposed it, arguing for alternative approaches such as a citizens’ council. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU) faction suggested a federal-state working group instead.
Some politicians expressed concerns about the RKI files. CDU member Simone Borchardt argued that the handling of the RKI documents — first releasing them with redactions, then later allowing access to unredacted versions — suggested a deliberate attempt to control or limit information.
The debate also touched on broader issues, with some calling for amnesty for citizens who violated lockdown measures. Others warned against seeking scapegoats or spreading “half-baked conspiracy ideas.”
Since Schreyer’s report, the political landscape in Germany has shifted significantly. The June 2024 European parliamentary elections saw a decline in support for the governing coalition parties, while the far-right AfD made substantial gains, likely strengthening the position of those critical of the government’s pandemic response.
Yeadon called for increased activism to bring more attention to Homburg’s and Schreyer’s revelations, especially in light of the recent “drumbeat of ‘avian influenza’” or bird flu.
“This task cannot be left to a small number of us with the information, because we are so effectively gagged in relation to reaching large numbers of people that the perpetrators are no longer concerned about us speaking out,” he wrote.
From 1996 to 2003, he served on the Scientific Advisory Board at Germany’s Federal Ministry of Finance. He also was a member of the Federalism Commission of the Bundestag and Bundesrat from 2003 to 2004, and the Sustainability Council of the Federal Government from 2004 to 2007.
He authored several textbooks on macroeconomics and tax theory and has been regularly called upon as an expert for Bundestag hearings on tax and financial legislation.
Homburg was generally regarded favorably in the press until 2020 when he began questioning Germany’s pandemic policies. Since then, he has written scientific articles and blog posts on the coronavirus crisis and related topics, published podcasts and participated in interviews and talk shows.
“Autopsy is not only a service to the doctors who were responsible for the patient, but it is a public service for our health system.” – Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt
Many cases of sudden death and severe disease are being reported since the rollout of the COVID-19 gene-based vaccines. Early on, several doctors and scientists warned that the COVID vaccines would lead to several complications including autoimmune disease, blood clots, strokes, and more. Additionally, The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, data showed a strong correlation between the vaccines and adverse events. But how does one determine in an individual case that the vaccine was the cause of death or the adverse event? It is through pathology.
An early pioneer of pathological investigations into vaccine adverse events was Prof. Arne Burkhardt — a senior, highly accomplished pathologist from Germany. Prof. Burkhardt came out of retirement in 2021 to examine the autopsy and biopsy materials of vaccinated patients. The work of Prof. Burkhardt not only provided strong evidence of vaccine causation, it substantiated the professional medical hypotheses of doctors and scientists around the world.
Journalist Taylor Hudak interviewed Prof. Burkhardt in his laboratory in Reutlingen, Germany, shortly before his death in May 2023. Prof. Burkhardt explains several of his findings in detail as well as which testing mechanisms he uses. Additionally, he shares his perspectives on the public health industry and academic and medical science as well as what motivates him to do this work.
Want to send a check to support TLAV, or just words of encouragement?
Use our new P.O. box:
Ryan Cristian
1113 Murfreesboro Rd. Ste 106-146
Franklin, Tn 37064
“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.”
Journalist Tucker Carlson interviewed Republican Congressman from Kentucky Thomas Massie on June 7, 2024. During the interview Massey went into detail about how the Israel lobby bullies US politicians and co-opts evangelicals into getting billions of US tax dollars for Israel. Massie attended MIT where he earned a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering. Before entering Congress, Massie was a successful businessman who holds 29 patents. (See https://massie.house.gov/about/)
This video excerpts Massie’s statements about the Israel lobby from the full Carlson interview, “Rep. Thomas Massie: Israel Lobbyists, the Cowards in Congress, and Living off the Grid”. This can be viewed at https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show…
Remember last week’s video from Hezbollah, with the drone over Northern Israel?
Well, there’s a new one, and it is also very interesting. It doesn’t look like footage from a drone, but rather like satellite imagery.
But this is not Google Earth or some nonsense like that. No publicly accessible satellite service will show you Israel’s top security sites. Try it. You’ll get nothing. It’s all blurred out.
So by publishing this Hezbollah accomplished two goals: first, they know many Israeli secrets and their specific locations. Second, they have access to high-quality satellite imagery.
This means Hezbollah can not only potentially hit sensitive sites with high accuracy. What it also means, and is just [as] problematic for Israel, is that Hezbollah may be able to track the movements of Israeli forces deep in Israeli territory in relative real-time. A capability no enemy of Israel ever had while directly involved in an armed conflict against it.
We know that Iran has dozens of satellites in space, some capable of state-of-the-art high resolution. When Israel fought Hezbollah in 2006 Iran had no such capability. Today it is a major international satellite powerhouse, using domestically-developed missiles and launchers.
Is the military draft coming back? Will women be required to register for selective service? With a world war with Russia seeming to be more likely as the days pass, we break down the latest controversial proposals by America to increase readiness.
The bird flu vaccine is now in full development for not just humans but for cattle as well. Watch as we break down the COVID-like pre-positioning and how a critically-thinking public may not fall in line this time around.
You seem very reliant on accepting Putin’s worldview
rather than perhaps the stark reality of the
barbarism with which he’s executed this war.
Yeah, maybe because I know too much about the United States.
Because the first war in Europe after world War two was the US bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a european state.
The idea was to break Serbia, to create Kosovo as an enclave, and then to install Bondsteel, which is the largest NATO base in the Balkans, in the southwest Balkans.
So the US started this under Clinton, that we will
break the borders, we will illegally bomb another country.
We didn’t have any UN authority.
This was a, quote, NATO mission to do that.
Then I know the United States went to war repeatedly,
illegally, in what it did in Afghanistan and then what
it did in Iraq and then what it did in Syria, which was the Obama administration, especially Obama and Hillary
Clinton, tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad.
And then what it did with NATO illegally bombing Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi and then what it did in Kiev in February 2014.
I happened to see some of that with my own eyes.
The US overthrew Yanukovych together with right wing ukrainian military forces.
We overthrew a president.
And what’s interesting, by the way, is we overthrew
Yanukovych the day after the European Union representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych to have early elections, a government of national unity and a stand down of both sides that was agreed.
The next thing that happens is the opposition, quote unquote, says, we don’t agree.
They stormed the government buildings and they deposed Yanukovych.
And within hours, the United States says, yes, we support the new government.
It didn’t say, oh, we had an agreement that’s unconstitutional what you did.
So we overthrew a government contrary to a
promise that the European Union had made.
And by the way, Russia, the United States,
and the EU were parties to that agreement.
And the United States an
hour afterwards backed the coup.
Okay, so everyone’s got a little bit to answer for.
In 2015, the Russians did not say, we want the Donbas back.
They said, peace should come through negotiations.
And negotiations between the ethnic Russians in the
east of Ukraine and this new regime in Kiev led to the Minsk II agreement.
The Minsk II agreement was voted by the UN Security Council unanimously.
It was signed by the government of Ukraine.
It was guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France.
And you know what?
And it’s been explained to me in person.
It was laughed at inside the us government.
This is after the UN Security Council unanimously accepted it.
The Ukrainian said, we don’t want to give autonomy to the region.
Oh, but that’s part of the treaty.
The US told them, don’t worry about it.
Angela Merkel explained in Die Zeit in a notorious interview after the 2022 escalation.
She said, oh, you know, we knew that Minsk two was just a holding pattern to give Ukraine time to build its strength.
No, Minsk too was a UN security council unanimously
adopted treaty that was supposed to end the war.
So when it comes to who’s trustworthy, who to believe
and so forth, I guess my problem, Piers, is I know the United States government, I know it very well.
I don’t trust them for a moment.
I want these two sides actually to sit down in front
of the whole world and say, these are the terms.
Then the world can judge, because we could get
on paper clearly for both sides of the world, we’re not going to overthrow governments anymore.
The United States needs to say, we accept this agreement.
The United States needs to say, Russia needs to say,
we’re not stepping 1ft farther than whatever the boundary is actually reached and NATO’s not going to enlarge.
And let’s put it for the whole world to see once in a while, treaties actually hold.
The State of Kansas on Monday sued Pfizer, alleging the pharmaceutical giant misled the public by marketing its COVID-19 vaccine as “safe and effective” while concealing known risks and critical data on limited effectiveness.
The lawsuit, filed by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach in the District Court of Thomas County alleges that beginning in 2021, shortly after the vaccine rollout, Pfizer covered up the fact that the vaccine was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, failed pregnancies and deaths.
The complaint also alleges the company falsely claimed that its original vaccine retained high efficacy while knowing that efficacy waned over time and didn’t protect against new variants.
Pfizer also misled the public by claiming the COVID-19 vaccine would prevent transmission, even though the company never studied the vaccine’s capability to prevent transmission.
By marketing the vaccine as safe and effective despite its known risks, Pfizer violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act because millions of Kansans heard those misrepresentations, the complaint alleges.
More than 3.3 million Kansans received the Pfizer shot, accounting for more than 60% of all vaccine doses given in the state.
Pfizer denied the allegations, telling The Hill, that the case has “no merit” and that the company plans to respond to the suit in “due course.”
“We are proud to have developed the COVID-19 vaccine in record time in the midst of a global pandemic and saved countless lives. The representations made by Pfizer about its COVID-19 vaccine have been accurate and science-based,” the company said.
Covering up data on vaccine’s safety for pregnant women
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) monitor adverse events in several ways, including through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive reporting system that healthcare providers and patients can use to report vaccine injuries.
A total of 1,898,829 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines have been submitted to VAERS between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 31, 2024. Of those, 983,178 are associated with the Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines.
The complaint said that in addition to VAERS, Pfizer maintained its own database that “contained more adverse event data than VAERS.” The data were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit after Pfizer refused to release it publicly.
That database, the case alleged, contained 1,223 reported fatalities as early as Feb. 28, 2021.
Pfizer concealed or omitted data related to the vaccine’s safety for pregnant women, its association with heart conditions, its effectiveness against variants and its ability to stop transmission, the lawsuit alleges.
“Pfizer marketed its vaccine as safe for pregnant women,” Kobach said in a press statement posted on X. “However, in February of 2021 Pfizer possessed reports for 458 pregnant women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. More than half of the pregnant women reported an adverse event, and more than 10% reported a miscarriage.”
Early reporting in 2021 by the CDC’s Dr. Tom Shimabukuro in the New England Journal of Medicine claiming the shots were safe for pregnant women based on the CDC’s own VAERS and vaccine safety monitoring system (V-safe) data has been shown to be statistically flawed.
Kobach also referred to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla’s comment in January 2023 about myocarditis. Bourla said, “We have not seen a single signal, although we have distributed billions of doses.”
That was after internal documents showed the company had detected a safety signal and the FDA in June 2021 added a warning regarding myocarditis and pericarditis, both rare heart inflammation conditions, to Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines.
The CDC has acknowledged that those conditions have most frequently been seen in adolescent and young adult males.
Kobach said that while Pfizer was claiming the vaccine was effective against variants, the company had data showing that effectiveness was less than 50%.
“Pfizer urged Americans to get vaccinated in order to protect their loved ones, clearly indicating a claim that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccination stopped transmission,” Kobach said. “Pfizer later admitted that it never even studied transmission after the recipients received the vaccine.”
Pfizer engaged in ‘civil conspiracy’ with government agencies
The lawsuit charges “civil conspiracy” between Pfizer, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Virality Project and others “to willfully conceal, suppress, or omit material facts relating to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.”
During a press conference, Kobach pointed to comments Bourla made on “Face the Nation,” explaining why Pfizer declined to accept government funding for developing the vaccines under Operation Warp Speed.
Bourla said he didn’t want to have to submit to the government oversight that would be required.
“When you get money from someone that always comes with strings,” Bourla said. “They want to see how we are going to progress, what type of moves you are going to do. They want reports. I didn’t want to have any of that.”
Similar case filed in Texas last year, more coming
Kansas isn’t the first state to sue Pfizer over alleged false marketing claims. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in 2023 sued the drugmaker alleging it made “false, misleading and deceptive claims” about its COVID-19 vaccine and tried to intimidate and censor critics who questioned those claims or cited facts that countered them.
According to that lawsuit, Pfizer’s marketing claims about the efficacy, duration of protection and ability of its COVID-19 vaccine to prevent transmission violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
However, in his opposition to Pfizer’s motion, Paxton said the immunity protection provided under PREP and invoked by Pfizer in this case extends only to possible personal injury claims, not to deceptive marketing claims brought by a state.
Ray Flores, senior outside counsel to Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender the major difference in the Kansas case is that Kansas alleges a conspiracy with officials at the HHS and others to conceal or suppress information about the shot.
He also said the monetary damages Kansas seeks could be hundreds of times more than what is sought in the Texas suit.
Flores said Kansas has a strong case, based on the evidence of previous payments the company was ordered to make to multiple states for marketing violations related to other drugs.
He said:
“The exhibits alone should give pause to us all: the chronology of Pfizer’s false statements, a payout $137.9M to resolve previous violations, three separate stipulations that Pfizer not engage in deceptive promotions of its products, censorship and Pfizer’s denial of any wrongdoing.
“It is astonishing that the U.S. Government does business with Pfizer and grants special protections when Pfizer has a proclivity to flout the law.
“The allegations in the complaint are referenced-citation gems that every lawyer around the country should incorporate in this war for our health freedoms.”
Kobach told the press that five other states will be filing similar lawsuits, the Kansas Reflector reported.
“More suits may follow, depending on Pfizer’s reaction,” Kobach said.
Paul Buitink talks to Glenn Diesen, a Norwegian academic and political scientist. He is a professor at the School of Business of the University of South-Eastern Norway. Glenn explains why the current international liberal unipolar world order is in decline. And why a new multipolar Eurasian order is inevitable and how that would benefit the world. He describes Europe’s role and challenge in this new world order. Also Glenn dives into the Russia and Ukraine conflict and why the incremental approach of the West could lead to a boiling frog situation. At the end he also shares his experiences of being a controversial scientist in Norway.
The compelling 9-minute video prominently reveals aerial footage of the city of Haifa, showing the Rafael Military Industries Complex and the Haifa Port area, which includes the Haifa Military Base (the main naval base of the Israeli occupation forces), the Haifa Civil Port, the Haifa Power Station, the Haifa Airport, oil tanks, and petrochemical facilities.
The video also highlights key military assets, including the submarine unit’s command building, the Sa’ar 4.5 logistical support corvette, and the Sa’ar 5 corvette.
Earlier on Tuesday, the group’s military media promoted this episode under the title “Stay tuned… for what the hoopoe has brought back” as the American presidential envoy Amos Hochstein visits Lebanon, holding Israeli threats to the country.
Hebrew Media Panic
Israeli media commented on the footage, with the Yedioth Ahronoth Hebrew newspaper stating that “Hezbollah published an exceptional drone recording that filmed northern ‘Israel’, including Haifa Bay.”
Other Israeli media outlets raised the question: “The Air Force must provide an answer to the following query: How did X manage to reach and fly over the Israeli army’s battleships in Haifa Bay?”
The military correspondent for Israeli Channel 14 reported that “Hezbollah has released extraordinary footage from deep within “Israeli territory,” showcasing Israeli targets, including those at the Haifa port and naval base.”
“The capabilities demonstrated by Hezbollah have left a significant gap among military and security personnel,” he added.
In addition, the Israeli occupation army has requested that the defense industries develop a technological solution to better intercept Hezbollah’s drones, according to the Hebrew Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper on Monday.
The footage released by Hezbollah has dominated social media discussions, with users describing the video as “a clear message to the entire Zionist entity.” They highlighted that “hundreds of targets within occupied Palestinian lands are now under Hezbollah’s surveillance, and any reckless action by the Zionists against Lebanon will come at a high price.”
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.
/ paulbuitink 
Aletho News
Aletho News 