USAID – AusAID: Same playbook different actors
By Alan Moran | Regulatory Review | February 18, 2025
Donald Trump tweeted “Looks like billions of dollars have been stolen at USAID and other agencies much of it going to the fake news media as a payoff for creating good stories about the Democrats”. Revelations about corruption in the USAID beg questions about the integrity of Australia’s aid programs.
There are long-standing questions dating back to the Clinton days and before the Rudd ALP Government.
The Clintons are estimated to be worth between $120 million and $240 million having been in debt by $16 million when Bill left office in January 2001. According to the newsagency, Associated Press, 85 private sector stakeholders, which is more than half of the non-government people who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state, gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. This amounted to $156 million. In addition, Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity. Australia was among these governments.
According to Grok, in:
- February 2006: $25 million was donated to the Clinton Foundation by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer
- October 2006: Another 15 million was given for HIV/AIDS initiatives by the Clinton Foundation
- April 1 2008 – September 5 2008: Under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd $10 million was donated to the Clinton Foundation
- September 2012: Under Prime Minister Julia Gillard $14 million was donated while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. Gillard later Chaired the Foundation’s Global Partnership for Education
- September 22 2014: Foreign Minister Julie Bishop announced a commitment of $88 million over five years to the Clinton Health Access Initiative, a sister organisation to the Clinton Foundation
Miranda Devine reported, “The Abbott government topped up the left-wing organisation’s coffers with another $140 million in 2014, bringing total Australian largesse to $460 million, according to a press release from Foreign Minister Julie Bishop. The funding ceased in 2016, when Trump assumed office.
Section 70.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 makes it illegal for Australian individuals or companies to bribe foreign officials. Apparently, the law does not extend to Australian officials and politicians!
AusAID (which Tony Abbott located within DFAT in 2013) follows a similar playbook to USAID. Thus:
- The Office of Development Assistance (ODA) investments valued at $3 million and above must have a gender equality objective.
- DFAT has a $3.5 million Inclusion and Equality Fund to support LGBTQIA+ organisations to catalyse change in their communities.
- ODA spent $619 million (15 per cent of its budget) on climate related issues in 2022/23. It is not clear that grants to NGOs pressing climate issues are included.
Other Australian agencies are also involved in foreign expenditures. These include considerable funding for activities associated with climate change under the IPCC and the biennial Conference of Parties in which Foreign Affairs participate (as do CSIRO, BoM, Industry, Agriculture and others). These activities will surely soon be fully recognised as the gross destructive squandering of resources that they always were.
The Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSI) was initially launched in 2008 by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who committed up to $100 million annually as part of his aim to make Australia a global leader in CCS technology. Over 15 years of total failure has not daunted its subsidy-seekers’ zeal.
More recently, the Quad Clean Energy Supply Chain Diversification Program, a spin-off from the diplomatic partnership between Australia, India, Japan and the United States, has a $50 million budget administered by “Business Australia”. Round 1, which closed on February 10, provides up to $2.5 million in funding for Australian and Indo-Pacific joint applications for studies to develop and diversify clean energy supply chains in the Indo-Pacific region. Such a scheme would not find support from President Trump but will program inertia allow it to survive the changed US agenda?
If Australia is ever to get the Trumpian leadership it needs, such programs will have to be excised, perhaps by using techniques, pioneered by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), involving freezing bank accounts.
Whose Universities are Better – China vs. the US? Nature Magazine might upset the conventional wisdom
By Hua Bin | February 9, 2025
It’s a widely held truism that the US has the best universities in the world despite a mediocre secondary education system. Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale and U Penn are marque brands that are admired worldwide. They attract students from every country and enjoy enormous financial resources from tuitions, endowments, and grants.
On the other hand, Chinese universities are generally considered by the west as diploma mills with unrecognizable and generic names – who can remember the Southern University of Technology.
While Chinese universities may not graduate many students that command astronomical starting salaries or hotly sought after by high flying hedge funds, they seem to be progressing quite nicely in one of the core missions of academic research institutions, i.e. conducing world class research in science and technology.
The prestigious Nature Magazine published its annual Nature Index ranking of the world’s top research institutions and universities in 2024. The Index is illuminating.
– The ranking was based on 75,000 high impact papers in the Nature Index 2024 Global Research Leaders from Nov 2023 to Oct 2024
– It ranked 18,588 research institutes and universities worldwide
– China Academy of Sciences (CAS) is ranked No. 1 global research institute, with 8881 counts of top research output, more than double of No. 2 ranked Harvard University (3830 counts). I wrote about the research prowess of CAS in an earlier Substack article.
– 8 out of top 10 research institutes are Chinese. They include the University of Science and Technology of China, Peking University, Zhejiang University (where the DeepSeek founder graduated from), and Tsinghua University. The other non-Chinese institutes are Harvard University and Max Planck Society in Germany.
– 12 out of top 20 research universities are Chinese. 3 are American (Harvard, Stanford, and MIT). Sichuan University (No. 15), a regional university in Southwest China, is ranked higher than Stanford (No. 16), MIT (No. 17), Oxford (No. 18) and University of Tokyo (No. 19).
– 26 out of top 50 are Chinese. 14 are American. Soochow University (No. 30), decidedly not considered a top tier school by Chinese high schoolers, outranks Yale (No. 31). Xiamen University (No. 37) is ranked higher than Berkeley (No. 38), Columbia (No. 39), Cornell (No. 44), and University of Chicago (No. 49).
– Roughly half of top 100 are Chinese. Hunan University (No. 51) outranks Princeton (No. 52). You get the drift. Interestingly, Russia Academy of Sciences (RAS) made a cameo at No. 98. No universities from India or Australia made it to the top 100 list.
Westerners look at Chinese technological breakthroughs like DeepSeek or Huawei in disbelief and sour envy. Once you dig into the foundational causes of the emergence of these tech successes, you will understand they only represent the tip of the iceberg. Soon enough, you will see the Bummock, i.e. the bulk of the iceberg. Many upsets waiting ahead.
Australian Tribunal Rules Against eSafety Commissioner’s “Informal” Censorship of X Post
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 7, 2025
An Australian woman whose X post was censored based on what are known as “informal” notices, issued by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to social platforms, has appealed against the decision and won.
This was more of an uphill battle than getting censorship decisions revoked usually involves: the “informal” nature of the notices means that normally they cannot even be appealed – and eSafety’s main argument was that the appeal should not even be considered.
But the X user, Celine Baumgarten, managed to convince the Administrative Review Tribunal the censorship notice should not be considered “informal” and that her complaint was therefore within the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Baumgarten’s post from May 2024 detailed a “queer club” in Melbourne that was operating in a primary school, organized for children 8 to 12 years old.
“There is absolutely NO place for any type of LGBTxyz club in a PRIMARY SCHOOL, or any school for that matter,” Baumgarten, herself a bisexual and an activist, wrote at the time, adding, “Children should NOT be learning about sexualities at such a young, impressionable age. This is foul. Leave the kids ALONE.”
Next, in swooped Grant’s office, with what they maintain was no more than a “complaint alert” to X – as opposed to a removal notice – referring to “adult cyber-abuse material” as the reason to have Baumgarten’s post blocked for X users in Australia.
eSafety essentially tried to “sneak in” censorship under the guise of an “informal notice” – aware that an official takedown request was impossible given that they found their own rules were not violated, not in the entirety of their many parts.
X erred on the side of censorship and blocked the post for two months, to then inform Baumgarten this was done “in error.” Interestingly, Instagram, which received the same eSafety notice, ignored it.
And now the tribunal has done much more than vindicate Baumgarten; the judge broke down eSafety’s process to reveal that while asserting that the notice was “informal” and referring to the terms of use X has for itself – the complaint was actually lodged via X’s channels “for use by government authorities to submit valid legal requests for the removal from X of potentially illegal content.”
All this was interpreted by Justice Emilios Kyrou to mean that the censorship notice was clearly official and therefore eligible to be appealed.
Since eSafety prefers what it calls “informal” to “official” takedown notices (several hundred vs. three or four just over the past year), the implication of the ruling could be significant – prompting a review of other such “informal” reports.
Australian cricket commentator sacked for noting mass deaths in Gaza
By Oscar GRENFELL | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 5, 2025
For the second time, the cricket world has provided a petty, vindictive and downright ridiculous example of the broader campaign by the powers-that-be to silence opposition to the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
In December 2023, the International Cricket Council (ICC) forbade Australian batsman Usman Khawaja from taking the field in international matches with shoes that read “all lives are equal” and “freedom is a human right.” The bureaucrats, who run the game from the ICC’s headquarters in the dictatorial United Arab Emirates, deemed those statements to be “political” because they were regarded as a reference to Israel’s mass murder of Palestinians.
The ICC’s suspicious and hostile attitude to professions of human rights and basic decency has now been matched by the Sports Entertainment Network, which runs the popular SEN sports radio broadcaster.
Over the weekend, SEN unceremoniously dumped Peter Lalor, a widely-respected cricket commentator, over posts he made on his X/Twitter account referencing Gaza. The sacking was done in a hurry. Lalor was in Sri Lanka as a freelance commentator commissioned by SEN to cover the ongoing Australia-Sri Lanka Test cricket series when he was dismissed.
Lalor had commentated the first test in Galle without incident, and was scheduled to cover the second. Why then the sudden rush by SEN to sever all ties with a leading cricket expert? For anyone familiar with the witch-hunts of the past 16 months that have accompanied the Israeli war crimes, inevitably “upset” and “offended” Zionists were in the picture.
As per Lalor’s account, “I was asked by station boss Craig Hutchison, who was civil, if I didn’t care that my retweeting of events in Gaza made Jewish people in Melbourne feel unsafe. I said I didn’t want anyone to feel unsafe.” Predictably, Hutchison reportedly related accusations that Lalor may be an antisemite, which has been the go-to line for shutting down opposition to the assault on Gaza.
Lalor went on: “The following day Hutchison told me that because the ‘sound of my voice made people feel unsafe’ and that people are ‘triggered by my voice,’ I could not cover the cricket for them anymore.”
If Zionists were telling SEN management that Lalor’s measured commentary of a Test cricket match was making them feel “unsafe,” the appropriate response would have been to dismiss the remarks as absurd.
More to the point, SEN should have noted that the complainants were making a cynical bid to have someone sacked for disagreeing with them politically. They should have told the witch-hunters to stop harassing their employee.
But, as has so often been the case with the Zionist witch-hunts, SEN management rolled over.
After Lalor’s sacking, Hutchison issued a nauseating statement. “SEN Cricket is a celebration of differences and nationalities,” it proclaimed, although those “differences” evidently did not extend to opposing the unfolding genocide or referencing the mass killing of Palestinians. To justify its censorship, the statement went on to describe the station as a “a place where our SEN audience can escape what is an increasingly complex and sometimes triggering world.”
Like the saga of Khawaja’s shoes, the most striking aspect of this incident is the complete mismatch between Lalor’s “offence” and the response. Lalor is not accused of ever having mentioned Gaza during a broadcast, so the references to the sound of his voice are presumably because it reminds the Zionists of his X/Twitter feed.
Moreover, the posts on his feed are simply not of a highly controversial character. In any objective assessment, Lalor comes across as a humane and democratically minded man, disturbed by the mass killing of Palestinians and wishing for an end to war.
Most of his posts were retweets from other accounts. As per Lalor’s account, Hutchison indicated that SEN was hit with complaints over Lalor during the first Test match, played from January 29 to February 1. It is difficult to determine when something was retweeted, as against when it was posted by the original account.
But some of Lalor’s X content around that time included retweeting a post reporting that “Palestine Red Crescent teams have recovered another 14 decomposed Palestinian bodies from several areas on the Rashid Coastal Road in Gaza.”
Another was a statement by a Palestinian Christian leader, condemning the invitation by US President Donald Trump for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to visit Washington. The pastor wrote, “The man who has an arrest warrant for him from the ICC [International Criminal Court] is invited to the White House as a guest of honor. This is the world we live in. Faith leaders must make their voices heard in times like this.” Other retweets by Lalor have highlighted the plight of Palestinian children and prisoners.
People instigating a witch-hunt over such content, which has nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism, are simply supporters of war crimes.
Media and cricket figures have spoken out in defence of Lalor.
Khawaja declared on Instagram: “Standing up for the people of Gaza is not antisemitic nor does it have anything to do with my Jewish brothers and sisters in Australia, but everything to do with the Israeli government and their deplorable actions. It has everything to do with justice and human rights.” He concluded: “Pete is a good guy with a good heart. He deserves better.”
As per Lalor’s account of the sacking, “I was told in one call there were serious organisations making complaints; in another, I was told that this was not the case.”
Throughout the genocide, right-wing Zionist lobby groups that collaborate closely with the Israeli state and support its every crime against the Palestinians have fraudulently been depicted by governments and the media as representative Jewish organisations. Their every pronouncement has been reported uncritically and they have had access to the corridors of power.
These groups have repeatedly instigated witch-hunts targeting critics of Israel. Journalist Antoinette Lattouf is currently in the Federal Court, having brought a case against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) for unlawful termination. Lattouf was sacked halfway through a week-long fill-in position, after a concerted campaign by Zionist lawyers who barraged the ABC with vexatious complaints.
Lattouf’s sacking, ostensibly because she shared a post to her personal social media from Human Rights Watch condemning Israel’s use of starvation as a weapon of war, occurred in December 2023. The dismissal of Lalor, more than a year later, in such similar circumstances, underscores the normalisation of witch-hunting and politically motivated sackings by the Australian political, media and corporate establishment.
Such repressive measures set a precedent for broader attacks on working people as they enter into struggle against the broader eruption of militarism, including Australia’s transformation into a frontline state for a US-led war against China, completed by the same federal Labor government that has consistently backed Israel’s war crimes in Gaza.
Why is the top US spy alliance afraid of Trump?
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 01.02.2025
America’s Five Eyes partners – Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand – fear that US President Donald Trump’s deep state crackdown and spy apparatus overhaul could destabilize their intelligence network, reports The Wall Street Journal.
What’s driving their concerns?
Free Riders
- Trump may see Five Eyes as a bloated racket exploiting US resources, per the WSJ. The US spends nearly $100 billion on intelligence – 10 times more than the other four combined.
Russia Collusion Hoax
- Five Eyes were entangled in the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, largely pushed by US intelligence.
- The FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe, later debunked, was triggered by an Australian tip in 2016.
- Britain’s GCHQ may have wiretapped Trump during his 2016 campaign, as the White House suggested in 2017.
- Trump hasn’t directly targeted Five Eyes lately, but their unease suggests they have plenty to hide.
What Triggered the Panic?
- The “world’s most powerful spy alliance” sounded the alarm as Trump’s intelligence picks, Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard, near confirmation in Congress.
- Gabbard, nominated for director of National Intelligence, vowed to fight weaponized intelligence, citing Iraq War lies and the Russia collusion hoax.
- Patel, set to lead the FBI, pledged to curb overseas operations and increase transparency.
Australia Plans to Expand “Hate Speech” Laws Amid Debate Over Free Speech Protections
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | January 22, 2025
Australian officials are doubling down on the policy of “strengthening” what they call hate speech laws both at the federal, and state levels – and some are even presenting the country’s weak free speech protections as an advantage.
New South Wales (NSW) Premier Chris Minns has promised that even more restrictive legislation to tackle whatever the state’s authorities decide is hate speech is coming soon. It seems that “strengthening” these laws will come down to criminalizing even more types of speech, by including vague categories like “vilification.”
Minns is justifying this policy by claiming that hate speech is behind later actual criminal activities, and he’s putting the emphasis on the goings-on in the “community” especially where it pertains to religious and racial strife, i.e, protecting “multiculturalism” and “cultural diversity” by means of repressing speech.
As for when New South Wales residents can look forward to the introduction of these legislative proposals, Minns revealed that it will “hopefully” happen when parliament returns (scheduled to happen in early February).
The broadening of these laws’ scope is particularly interesting in terms of the idea of adding (racial or religious) “vilification,” currently a civil offense.
And Minns chose an odd way to defend Australia’s lack of strong free speech protections – like those enjoyed by Americans. He said there was “a very good reason for that” – namely, that Australia is a country of immigrants coming from all over the world. So – just like the United States?
But Minns seems to suggest that “basic tenets of life” can only be protected if free speech is not.
Australian Housing Minister Clare O’Neil commented on these New South Wales plans to say that the federal government was “looking at anything” it could do to deal with antisemitism, which she described as a “growing problem.”
And while hate speech laws were already “strengthened” at the federal level last year, O’Neil said – by banning “hate symbols and antisemitic phrases and symbols” – the minister believes there is “more work to be done.
“We’ve got to do more. We’ve got the Australian Federal Police working with state police, we’ve got state governments really stepping up on this, and I think we’ve all got a really clear interest here,” O’Neil told journalists.
Is Australia willing to serve as a ‘beachhead’ for the US?
Global Times | January 16, 2025
“I see Australia as the beachhead to counter China… That’s why AUKUS is so important,” said Michael McCaul, the chairman of the Republican House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a roundtable meeting on Wednesday.
The term “beachhead,” according to the dictionary, refers to an area on a hostile shore occupied to secure further landing of troops and supplies. This is how the US views Australia: as a frontline base in the Asia-Pacific to maintain US’ strategic and military presence in the region and to serve the “Indo-Pacific Strategy” aimed at countering China’s rise.
With the thawing of China-Australia relations, the US is growing anxious. Even the Australian media has noticed this: “McCaul’s remarks add to impressions that with Republicans controlling Washington, Australia may be asked to do more to challenge China in the Asia-Pacific, despite the stabilization of relations achieved by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.”
“This once again highlights how Australia is being instrumentalized and weaponized by the US, at the sacrifice of Australia’s political, economic and security interests, disregarding its sovereignty to serve US national interests,” Chen Hong, director of the Australian Studies Center of East China Normal University, told the Global Times.
Recently, Australia has been promoting the stabilization, improvement and enhancement of its relationship with China. In June last year, Albanese published an opinion piece, saying, “Working productively with China will benefit everyone in the region.” Three months later, before the visit of Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers to China, he made it clear that the discussions would focus on “stabilizing the economic relationship with China.”
The Asia-Pacific region has maintained relative peace and stability. Clearly, this is a situation the US doesn’t want to see, so it once again uses AUKUS to remind Australia: Your role is simply to serve as America’s “beachhead.”
But from its inception, AUKUS has been a burden and a liability for Australia. On September 15, 2021, the US, the UK and Australia announced the creation of AUKUS. Australia’s total investment in the plan is a staggering 368 billion AUD (about $242 billion), with an additional 555 million EUR (about $585 million) to be paid to France as compensation for the cancellation of a previous submarine deal.
What’s worse, due to the US’ limited submarine production capacity and inadequate investment in UK and Australian shipyards, the AUKUS agreement is currently facing several challenges. More and more Australians believe that the US will ultimately fail to deliver the Virginia-class nuclear submarines. A possible alternative is that the US may station its nuclear submarines in Australian ports. Given that a US official has previously declined to explicitly guarantee that Australia will have full control of the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines, Australia may ultimately face the loss of sovereignty over its submarine capabilities.
More importantly, Chen said the nuclear submarine fleet under the AUKUS framework is not tailored to Australia’s defense needs but serves the US’ military adventure plans against China. McCaul’s remarks about the US’ vision for the Asia-Pacific further support this point. “A third world war – if it occurred – would most likely break out in the Indo Pacific region… That’s why Australia, in my view, is the power in the Pacific that we need to fortify,” he said.
Albanese concluded his June article with the words, “Building a more prosperous and secure future for all who call the Indo-Pacific home.” This contrasts sharply with McCaul’s statement. For Australia, this is a strategic issue that requires deep thought and reflection: To what extent should Australia achieve its strategic autonomy and truly serve its own interests? Is the vision of the Asia-Pacific in the US blueprint the future Australia wants?
FDA responds to study on DNA contamination in Pfizer vaccine
Maryanne Demasi, reports | January 6, 2025
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has responded to a peer-reviewed study conducted within its own laboratory, which uncovered excessively high levels of DNA contamination in Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
The study revealed that residual DNA levels exceeded regulatory limits by 6 to 470 times, validating earlier studies from independent researchers that the FDA had previously disregarded.
Published by students in the Journal of High School Science, the study has garnered significant attention since the story broke, with its altimetric score rivalling those of major studies in leading medical journals.
FDA’s Response
Despite the study being conducted at the FDA’s White Oak campus in Maryland, the agency has sought to distance itself from the findings.
A spokesperson stated that the study “does not belong to the FDA” and is therefore not theirs to disclose.
“The FDA does not comment on individual studies,” the spokesperson added, declining to acknowledge the new scientific findings.
The agency also refused to address the involvement of three of its own scientists—Dr Shuliang Liu, Dr Tony Wang, and Dr Prabhuanand Selvaraj—who supervised the students conducting the study.
When questioned about potential regulatory actions, such as issuing a public alert, recalling affected vaccine batches, or notifying other agencies, the FDA stood firm in its defence of mRNA vaccine safety.
“Based on a thorough assessment of the entire manufacturing process by the agency’s scientific experts, the FDA is confident in the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines that the agency has approved and authorised,” stated the FDA spokesperson.
“The agency’s benefit-risk assessments and ongoing safety surveillance demonstrate that the benefits of their use clearly outweigh their risks. Additionally, with over a billion doses of the mRNA vaccines administered, no safety concerns related to residual DNA have been identified.”
This statement effectively shuts down any immediate plans for further investigation.
Calls for Accountability
The FDA’s response has provoked sharp criticism from scientists. Genomics expert Kevin McKernan, who first identified excessive DNA contamination in Pfizer vials in early 2023, called the agency’s stance evasive and deeply concerning.
“It’s the same script on auto-repeat at every regulatory agency,” McKernan said.
“They always say, ‘billions of doses given, benefits outweigh the risks, we’ve seen no evidence of harm.’ But billions of cigarettes were smoked too, and that didn’t make them safe.”
McKernan also questioned the FDA’s attempts to distance itself from the study.
“If the FDA supplied the materials for the study and provided technical advice through staff supervision, then how can they not be responsible for the data?” McKernan asked. “Do they only deny their connection when the data becomes inconvenient?”
Professor Nikolai Petrovsky, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease at the Australian Respiratory and Sleep Medicine Institute, shared McKernan’s concerns.
“The FDA’s response is extremely disappointing,” he said.
“It completely circumvents whether or not the level of DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines exceeds regulatory limits (as the study performed in their lab would indicate), and what they intend to do about it.”
“Just claiming there’s no safety issue and pointing to the billions of doses administered, without offering any evidence of safety, is far from satisfactory,” added Prof Petrovsky.
Regulatory Silence
The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which has previously dismissed similar findings from independent researchers as “misinformation,” was contacted for comment but did not provide a response before publication.
Russell Broadbent, Victorian Member for Monash, expressed his disbelief at the regulatory inaction.
“I cannot fathom why the TGA isn’t making this their number one priority, given their charter is to regulate therapeutics to help ensure Australians stay healthy and safe,” he said.
In light of the FDA laboratory findings, Broadbent urged regulators to “immediately pause the rollout of the vaccines, and investigate the claims.”
The Stakes Could Not Be Higher
These revelations carry immense implications. mRNA vaccines are hailed as the dawn of a new era in vaccinology, with the world increasingly relying on this platform technology to supersede traditional vaccine methods.
Failure to address the safety of this technology will torpedo public trust in both the vaccines and the regulatory systems meant to ensure their safety.
“The public deserves clear answers, not regulatory hand-waving,” McKernan said.
As calls for accountability grow louder, the FDA faces mounting pressure to engage with the scientific evidence—particularly that which originates from its own laboratory.
NB: a comprehensive critique of the student study from FDA’s lab has been published by Kevin McKernan.
The Vindication of William Bay
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | December 27, 2024
Australia was one of the most authoritarian countries in the world from 2020 onward. This week, however, we can celebrate a victory that reflects what Australians used to epitomize – no-nonsense courage and jovial determination.
The story begins in 2018, when Dr. William Bay foresaw the dangers of the Medical Board seeking to regulate doctors’ speech.
Dr. Bay stood firm against COVID restrictions, vaccine mandates, and the limiting of treatment options. But it was in 2022 that he caused quite the stir. At an Australian Medical Association (AMA) Conference he interrupted a lecture, calling out the attending doctors for their silence on vaccine harms. It was a scene to remember: doctors, masked and seated at round white tables, began standing up one by one, walking out in quiet protest. Dr. Bay was then escorted out by security. When asked how he managed to get in, his response was simply: “I’m a doctor!” The footage of his exit remains iconic and worth watching.
As seems to be the theme with dissenters, Dr. Bay was reported anonymously to the regulator. The complaint had nothing to do with his conduct as a doctor – in fact, he had an unblemished professional record. Yet, the Medical Board of Australia, under the supervision of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), suspended him.
Dr. Bay’s case highlights systemic failures within AHPRA and the Medical Board, particularly around free speech, informed consent, and medical autonomy. Under AHPRA’s 2021 position statement, health practitioners were pressured to align strictly with public health messaging, risking regulatory action if they shared views—on or off social media—that contradicted official vaccine campaigns. This created a chilling effect, stifling doctors’ professional independence and undermining their ability to provide balanced information, a cornerstone of free and informed consent for patients. Compounding this issue, AHPRA strongly encouraged — some would say coerced — doctors themselves to be vaccinated, eroding their personal autonomy to make medical decisions. In their overreach, AHPRA not only failed to respect informed consent but also demonstrated a lack of understanding of their own regulations, which are designed to safeguard patient choice and professional integrity. Dr. Bay’s courageous stand not only challenged these failures but reaffirmed the importance of free speech, informed consent, and ethical medical practice in patient care.
In June 2023, he lost his case in the High Court and was ordered to pay costs to AHPRA. Despite these setbacks, Dr. Bay – representing himself throughout – refused to give up.
His story then took a remarkable turn. As a Christian, Dr. Bay recounts a pivotal moment when he felt God instruct him to draft an amended application focusing on procedural fairness and bias and keep it ready, even though it seemed unnecessary at the time. On the final day of the appeal, the judge remarked that Bay had made excellent points on procedural issues but noted they weren’t in his original application. When Dr. Bay asked if he could submit an amendment, the judge agreed – on the condition that it be completed over the lunch break. No problem there – Bay delivered.
The case revealed a significant breach of fairness. Dr. Anne Tonkin, then Chair of the Medical Board of Australia, was present at the Australian Medical Association (AMA) National Conference where Dr. William Bay interrupted proceedings to voice his criticisms. During this event, Dr. Tonkin discussed the possibility of filing a complaint with Associate Professor Julian Rait, the AMA Chair at the time. Subsequently, Associate Professor Rait submitted a complaint regarding Dr. Bay’s conduct. Dr. Tonkin later chaired the Medical Board meeting that decided to suspend Dr. Bay’s medical registration.
On December 13, 2024, the Brisbane Supreme Court overturned the suspension, backdating the decision to when it originally occurred. Justice Thomas Bradley ruled that AHPRA and the Medical Board acted with bias and failed to afford Dr. Bay procedural fairness. The judge went further, condemning the regulators for their “animus” and “combative approach” toward Dr. Bay, noting their inability to prove that he had breached any laws or guidelines.
As a result, Dr. Bay’s suspension was lifted, and he was reinstated with costs awarded against AHPRA and the Medical Board. Notably, Bay’s costs were minimal – he had represented himself.
Now free to speak, he is continuing to voice his concerns in the style of a true Aussie lad, “I think the vaccines are shit, mate. They’re absolute shit.”
Dr. Bay’s triumph is not just personal; it sets a powerful precedent for doctors across Australia, and, we can hope, beyond. This ruling safeguards their right to speak freely, prioritize patient welfare, and challenge overreaching authorities without fear of retribution.
In the spirit of the “Aussie lad,” Dr. William Bay has shown what courage, conviction, and persistence can achieve – a victory for truth, justice, and freedom.
Five Eyes Urges Broader Censorship Under “Protect the Children” Campaign
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 12, 2024
A network facilitating spy agencies’ intelligence-sharing between the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, known as Five Eyes, has its sights set on encryption, and proceeding from that, also online anonymity.
Even more online censorship would also not be a bad idea – these are some of the highlights from the first public-facing paper the organizations behind this group have published.
We obtained a copy of the paper for you here.
And Five Eyes is not above promoting its ultimate and much more far-reaching goals by using the good old “think of the children” – the paper’s title is, Young People and Violent Extremism: A Call for Collective Action.
Both it and an accompanying press release choose to consider online encryption as merely a tool used by criminals. At the same time, the paper is ignoring the fact that the entire internet ecosystem, from communications to banking and everything in between, requires strong encryption both for privacy, and security.
But, Five Eyes focuses only on communications, which they vaguely refer to as online environments, and ones that can allow sex offenders access to children, they also mention extremists, and equally vaguely, “other” malign actors.
Since encrypted platforms provide anonymity, the spies from the five countries (who refer to the state of affairs as, “a large degree of anonymity”) don’t like that either – and again link it to negative scenarios, such as “radicalization to violence.”
The paper is not specific on the exact mechanisms that would ramp up online censorship, but mentions both governments and the tech industry; the first category should “strengthen legislative support for law enforcement,” while the other is urged to “take greater responsibility for the harm done on their platforms.”
Gaming platforms Discord, Instagram, Roblox as well as TikTok are singled out as “seemingly innocuous” – but the way Five Eyes sees it, they make violent extremism content “more accessible.”
The “whole-of-society response” is the proposed solution to the problem of radicalization of minors in these countries. And the documents vow the alliance will continue working with “government agencies, the education sector, mental health and social well-being services, communities and technology companies.”
“It is important to work together early as once law enforcement and security agencies need to become involved, it is often too late,” the paper warns.
And so, a network whose members are likely, in one capacity or another, behind many of the existing attacks on online encryption and anonymity – has now come out as the campaign’s supposedly “latest recruit.”
Australian falsely charged with selling arms to North Korea wants compensation from Canberra
By Jenniffer Seewald | RT | December 7, 2024
A South Korea-born Australian became a worldwide sensation overnight when he was arrested for allegedly attempting to broker several deals with North Korea, a breach of UN sanctions. What made the coverage fly off the shelves was that 59-year-old Chan Han Choi was then charged with having assisted the North Korean weapons of mass destruction program. It was 2017 and the first time anyone was ever prosecuted under Australia’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, adopted in 1995. Though the WMD charges against Choi were later dropped, he spent three years in prison and filed for compensation from the Australian government, alleging human rights violations and other illegal actions that he says were committed by the authorities while he was in custody. The violations he reported include torture, ill-treatment, and medical neglect.
During the hearing, Chan Han Choi did not deny having connections to Pyongyang, explaining that he ran a business back when it was legal to sell North Korean products. He also claims that he was acting on behalf of Moon Jae-in, the then-South Korean presidential candidate (who would later become president) as he truly held Seoul’s genuine interests to heart. He insists he was thrown under a bus by South Korean intelligence services after he helped establish a secret communication channel between the candidate and North Korea, to help Moon win the race.
“Through an acquaintance living in Australia, I was connected to a member of Moon Jae-in’s presidential campaign in April 2017. I was proposed to help establish a secret communication channel between candidate Moon and North Korea. Moon’s proposal seemed aimed at protecting the nation’s genuine interests without foreign interference… However, after Moon Jae-in was elected president, he feared the potential fallout if it became known that someone with North Korean ties was involved in his campaign. To avoid impeachment risks, he made me a scapegoat,” Choi asserted during a video call, a sense of sadness and hurt in his voice at what happened.
He was arrested in Canberra in December 2017, several months after Moon Jae-in won the election and at the request of the South Korean government. According to Choi, the Australian Federal Police initially questioned the legitimacy of South Korea’s supposed request, but followed through with their inquiries to help conceal the truth.
“At the time of my arrest, South Korean National Intelligence Service (NIS) agents and consulate officials accompanied the Australian police, attempting to silence me to protect Moon. This political maneuver involved the NIS, the Blue House [presidential residence], and sitting lawmakers.” Choi explains, adding that after his arrest Australia “sent experts to the US for consultations” which led him to believe this was all “orchestrated as a collaborative effort among South Korea, Australia, and a major power.”
However, this wasn’t the first time Choi crossed paths with Seoul’s spy agency; he recalls the NIS attempting to recruit him back in 2010, offering money to work as a spy. He declined the offer but, ever since, has been monitored by the NIS as a person of interest. In 2017, he said his arrest had been used by the South Korean government for, among other things, “propaganda purposes.”
“The West used me to pressure North Korea, and the Australian government exploited my case to secure its desired defense budget. However, I was falsely accused of trading missiles and weapons of mass destruction, and the Australian government detained me for three years without evidence. Spending just one night in an Australian prison turned me into a global sensation,” Choi also recalled, shrugging.
An interesting aspect of the whole affair is that none of the business deals with North Korea were finalized, including a 2008 coal and pig-iron deal that, according to Chan Han Choi, involved a company affiliated with the NIS.
“In 2008, I was introduced by a sitting member of the National Assembly to a business that brokered the purchase of North Korean coal and pig iron through Dasan Network, a front company of the National Intelligence Service. The South Korean buyer’s ship arrived at Nampo Port in North Korea, but the goods were not shipped for political reasons, and we agreed to resume business whenever the opportunity arose,” he said, adding that the South Korean intelligence service used this occurrence to disguise it as a criminal case later in 2022.
Claiming to be a supporter of intra-Korean dialogue, Choi insists that Seoul’s operations against anyone who has ties to its northern neighbor demonstrates its “amateurish … political maneuvers during times of crisis” and that, while the “South Korean government’s understanding of North Korea is insufficient” it is also misleading its citizens, leaving them unaware of certain realities. He also pointed out that the consistent pressure exerted by Washington on South Korea and its regional allies to threaten North Korea is aimed at maintaining “tensions on the Korean Peninsula to uphold US hegemony” next door to China and to expand NATO’s reach in South East Asia.
“I cannot understand NATO-related activities in South Korea. With no security ties between South Korea, the European Union, or NATO, I see this as a US attempt to create a Southeast Asian NATO, using South Korean forces as proxies… Here’s something to ponder: Can Washington abandon its own security to defend Seoul? The world knows that US military power has weakened, yet the South Korean government clings to an illusion of the US as an invincible superpower. I wonder if the US intervened during the Tongyeong Island shelling incident,” he said, referring to a 2010 event when North Korean forces fired artillery shells and rockets at Yeonpyeong Island, hitting both military and civilian targets. Pyongyang then stated that it had fired in response to South Korean artillery firing into its territorial waters. Today, Choi urged, “South Korea must thoroughly analyze all Washington-led issues and act in line with its own national interests. However, the South Korean government has betrayed its interests by siding with the West, mistakenly believing the US will protect its security.”
After what he has gone through, Chan Han Choi, now 66, is seeking justice and to expose the duplicity and human rights violations of the Australian government. So far, Canberra has failed to respond to his letter and he believes that it is because responding to it would make the Australian authorities officially admit wrongdoing. But he has the determination to further bring the case to the US courts, as well as filing a complaint with the UN.
Read the full interview with Chan Han Choi here.
Featured Video
NO MANDATES, NO PROFITS: MODERNA CEO TELLS THE TRUTH
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
In 2007, Michael Parenti Called Out The Greater Israel Project
The Dissident | January 28, 2026
In my last article, I covered the left-wing scholar Michael Parenti- who passed away at the age of 92 this week- and his prophetic writings on the Ukraine proxy war in 2014.
Parenti’s writings on the Israel lobby and the greater Israel project were equally prophetic.
In his 2007 book “Contrary Notions” Parenti called out “Israel First” Neo-cons and Israel’s role in the Iraq war, and predicted to a tee the future Israeli/American wars in the Middle East in service of Greater Israel and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
In a section of the book aptly titled “Israel First”, Parenti wrote… continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on Russia Vows to Protect Its Oil… loongtip on Hamas never agreed to lay down… eddieb on Conspiracy Denial eddieb on WEF Calls for ‘Cultural Revolu… loongtip on Trump wanted to play peacemake… Coronistan on EU member to sue bloc over ‘su… loongtip on Vicious loongtip on EU turns to India for defense… Coronistan on Donald Trump Is No Peace … seversonebcfb985d9 on French court jails pro-Palesti… eddieb on Fourteen Incredible Facts Abou… Bill Francis on European leaders’ shift in the…
Aletho News- NO MANDATES, NO PROFITS: MODERNA CEO TELLS THE TRUTH
- UK Health Officials Covered Up Reports of Heart Damage Linked to AstraZeneca Vaccine
- This is How We Should Have Responded to COVID-19
- The UK Covid Inquiry: Propaganda to protect the ‘pandemic’ narrative
- Israeli Merkava tank invades outskirts of Yaroun in southern Lebanon
- Europeans oppose Brussels’ Russian energy ban, survey finds
- Russia Vows to Protect Its Oil Tankers
- In 2007, Michael Parenti Called Out The Greater Israel Project
- Hamas never agreed to lay down arms in truce talks: Official
- Iran, China and Russia sign trilateral strategic pact
- If Americans Knew
- NBA Star Stephen Curry’s Ties To Israeli Military Intelligence
- ‘Apocalyptic wasteland’: Biden admin. blocked warning on deteriorating Gaza situation after Oct. 7
- Why Israeli counterterrorism tactics are showing up in Minnesota
- Israel Went to Extremes to Return Ran Gvili’s Body. Why Doesn’t It Accord Dead Palestinians the Same Respect?
- Across the West, speaking for Palestine is now a crime
- A West Bank Bus Trip Through ‘the Best Documented Ethnic Cleansing in History’
- Mike Huckabee’s distorted theology does not speak for Christians worldwide
- CBS Evening News” With Tony Dokoupil Is Ellisons’ & Weiss’s Pro-Israel Show
- A Generation on Hold: Inside Gaza’s Collapsing Education System
- Born Under Siege: A Gaza Family Waited 17 Years—Their Baby Survived Six Months
- No Tricks Zone
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
- Germany’s Natural Gas Crisis Escalates … One Storage Site Near Empty …Government Silent
- Polar Colding…Antarctica Saw Its Coldest October In 44 Years!
- New Study: Sea Levels Rose 20 Times The Modern Rate During The Roman Warm Period
- As German Gas Storage Dips Dangerously Low…Shortage Hardly Avoidable
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
Aletho News 