Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Practicing Physician’s Case for Kennedy

By Clayton J. Baker, MD | Brownstone Institute | January 20, 2025

I am a practicing physician. I see patients, and I diagnose and treat their illnesses. I have been doing so for more than a quarter of a century. It is how I earn my living.

I heartily endorse Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The fact that I take care of patients distinguishes me from the overwhelming majority of the captured politicians, legacy media pundits, and Pharma lobbyists who are trying to torpedo Mr. Kennedy’s nomination.

The uproar surrounding this nomination is telling in itself. Since when has there been such crying and gnashing of teeth over a nomination for the Secretary of Health and Human Services? How many Americans can even name the last three HHS Secretaries? I’m a physician who follows these things, and off the top of my head, I could only recall the last two – former Congressman Xavier Becerra and former Pharma executive and lobbyist Alex Azar.

When a public figure is being viciously attacked from all sides, as Mr. Kennedy is at present, we should consider the attackers. Depending on who they are, such extreme disapproval may in fact represent the strongest possible endorsement.

Consider Mr. Kennedy’s Attackers

On the Democrat side, Kennedy has been attacked by the likes of Massachusetts Congressman Jake Auchincloss. On CNN, he said that if Kennedy were named HHS Secretary, with respect to American children, Kennedy would “give them polio.”

Auchincloss is a lawyer, so his total ignorance of pathophysiology might be forgivable. However, his father is Dr. Hugh Auchincloss, who served as none other than Anthony Fauci’s right-hand man at NIAID, the NIH agency over which Fauci wielded immense and almost complete power for decades, and through which he funded Ralph Baric and the Wuhan Institute’s genetic manipulations of the SARS CoV-2 virus that caused Covid, using our tax dollars. If there is one HHS department that best exemplifies the capture, corruption, and unaccountability of the present medical-industrial complex, it is NIAID. Hugh Auchincloss left NIAID in 2024.

But wait, there’s more. Auchincloss’s mother is Dr. Laurie Glimcher, former president and CEO of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. In 2021, the Boston Globe exposed her simultaneously serving on the boards of multiple Big Pharma companies, including Bristol Myers Squibb and GlaxoSmithKline, while in charge of Dana-Farber. Furthermore, in 2024, multiple research papers Glimcher had authored were exposed for falsification of data, and at least 6 of the papers were retracted. Laurie Glimcher resigned as head of Dana-Farber in 2024.

On the Republican side, there is Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who stated on television that a Kennedy HHS “will cost lives in this country.”

Many may recall Gottlieb as the FDA commissioner during much of the first Trump administration. Gottlieb left the FDA in 2019, shortly before the pandemic, and quickly joined the Board of Directors at Pfizer, where he remained throughout the pandemic and still is today. A more thorough review of his history shows multiple prior stints at the FDA. Over the years, he has bounced back and forth between that key HHS regulatory agency and Big Pharma and healthcare venture capital firms – the exact industries the FDA should be overseeing.

These are the kinds of people who want to stop Mr. Kennedy from leading HHS. Their prime motivation, it seems, may not be positive reform of medicine or the well-being of patients.

If prominent figures such as these revile Mr. Kennedy, why do I endorse him?

Because medicine desperately needs reform. Mr. Kennedy has been nominated to be a quintessential reformer. He has deep knowledge of the problem, and he has a proven track record of success in reforming corrupt systems. He is being viciously attacked because the last thing that those currently in control of medicine want is meaningful reform.

Medicine Is a Mess, and Desperately Needs Reform

I can tell you from nearly three decades of first-hand clinical experience what the state of medicine is right now.

It’s a mess.

Medicine has been in decline for decades. Autonomy has been gradually stripped away from physicians and patients, as protocols and guidelines have replaced clinical decision-making. Doctors have become employees rather than independent professionals. The doctor-patient relationship has been eroded as care has been fragmented and as the Electronic Medical Record has intruded. Most importantly, control of the entire medical industry has been seized by Big Pharma, captured and corrupt government agencies, and the insurance industry.

Then Covid happened, with two results – one intentional, the other accidental. First, the entire medical system was intentionally hijacked by what was really a military operation. The pretense of a medical emergency was used to shut down both society as a whole, and the routine practice of medicine in particular. Second, this takeover accidentally revealed who actually controls the medical industry – and it sure isn’t doctors and patients.

Patients have caught on. For patients, trust in physicians and hospitals and acceptance of vaccines have both cratered. This is not due to “anti-science” stupidity or “misinformation.” It is due to the fact that patients have simply been lied to too many times. It doesn’t matter how much money and power you have – you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Patients know – some explicitly, others intuitively – that the official narrative of Covid was riddled with lies. They know that they were deliberately made to live in fear. They have friends and family who suffered and even died from the excesses of the lockdown policies, and others who were injured or even killed by the hospital protocols and the mandated shots. They know that Big Pharma and their Government were behind it. They know that their own local hospitals and even their own healthcare providers were complicit to some extent.

Patients also know that health care is captured. Patients know that Big Pharma and other corporate and ideological forces drive health care policy and messaging – all they have to do is turn on their TVs to see the endless barrage of idiotic commercials for drugs.

Patients know the NIH, CDC, and FDA are corrupt, and captured by Big Pharma. Patients have wearied of the constant fear-mongering about “pandemics” that they now know are almost always man-made. Most importantly, patients realize that none of this is intended to improve their health.

How do I know that patients know all this? They tell me every day.

What about rank-and-file doctors? Most clinical physicians I speak with privately acknowledge the excesses of the Covid era. I’m not aware of a single practicing doctor who has taken all the CDC-recommended Covid boosters. I have copious evidence, both from my patients and from communications with other doctors, that the extreme virophobia and vaccine fervor of 2021 and 2022 has faded among my colleagues just as it has in the rest of the population.

Most doctors have heard the news that public trust in them and their profession has nosedived. Most realize that the system is in chaos in many respects – all one has to do is stop by any emergency room to see that. Many acknowledge that the profession of medicine and the healthcare industry have been hijacked by Pig Pharma and other malign forces. Many who can are leaving the profession altogether.

However, beyond those already speaking out, I see few new colleagues calling out for reform. Like many other people, it seems that most rank-and-file doctors just want the nightmare to end. A great many don’t really know how things got so bad. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, they know something has happened, but they don’t know what it is.

For these reasons, meaningful reform of medicine will not come from a groundswell from the rank and file. They saw what happened to those who spoke out during Covid and want no part of that. They wouldn’t know where to begin to fix a system in which they have very little agency. However, I truly believe the great majority of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals would welcome and support meaningful reform.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the very best choice to lead medical reform. If you doubt his expertise on the subjects of the corruption and capture of medicine, and the regulatory capture of agencies like the CDC, NIH, and FDA, I recommend his books The Real Anthony Fauci and The Wuhan Cover-Up. Not only do these books demonstrate his encyclopedic knowledge of the problem, but as Joe Rogan and others have pointed out, they have never been directly challenged by the medical establishment – because they are factually accurate.

Furthermore, given his experience and successes as an environmental lawyer, including against large corporations such as Monsanto, DuPont, and Ford, Mr. Kennedy has the know-how to affect meaningful reform.

Rest assured that under a Kennedy-run HHS, medicine will not revert to the time of Galen. Polio will not run rampant, although vaccines may finally be held to the same standards as other drugs – which of course should have always been the case. Even a partial reversal of the nearly total capture that Big Pharma and its allies have over medical research, academia, education, medical licensing, and certification will only benefit doctors and patients.

Medicine is in desperate need of thorough reform. It must be decoupled from the control of Big Pharma, captured governmental agencies, and other rich and powerful forces that currently dominate the industry. Patient autonomy and the doctor-patient relationship must be restored as central to the practice of medicine. Informed consent must be re-established as the inalienable and fundamental value of the profession as encoded at Nuremberg.

Humans are autonomous individuals with rights. Patients must not be “managed” like herd animals, as the current population-based public health approach to medicine insists. Covid proved this approach to be a disaster, and it must end.

This is why I, a practicing physician, heartily endorse Robert F. Kennedy as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.

C.J. Baker, M.D. is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.

January 20, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Immunocascade

Why Infectious Diseases are on the Rise

Biopolitiks by Dr. Alejandro Diaz | January 16, 2025

Over the last few years, I’ve had the privilege and honor of speaking in some of the most important global health forums. The topics discussed in these forums are information of the highest level. This information provides a broad epidemiological outlook on global health, but what about the feeling on the ground? I believe treating patients is vital to my understanding of the current state of health.

What I’ve seen in consults recently is alarming—immunosuppression like never before. The rate of infectious diseases, particularly upper respiratory infections, is through the roof this season. The long duration of symptoms is what has caught my attention the most.

I attribute this to widespread immunosuppression, stemming from the toxic injectable materials so-called “COVID vaccines”, and the rest of the pandemic-era “public health” policies. Beginning with the insane restrictive measures that were implemented worldwide and continuing with the rollout of the jab. The result has been an unprecedented immunocascade. It is estimated that approximately 5.5 billion people around the globe took at least one dose of the COVID Vaccine. Imagine the level of widespread harm.

The immune system is composed of a complex and unique set of molecules. It can be described as the summation of all those physiological processes that endow the host with the capacity to recognize “materials” as foreign and neutralize, eliminate, or metabolize them with or without injury to its tissue. This ability to differentiate “self” from “nonself” constitutes the basic hallmark of the immune response. Recently there has been a lot of talk about “new” viruses like avian influenza (H5N1) which has been around since the 1960s. There is also mention of RSV and Human metapneumovirus (HMPV) known since the early 2000s with recent outbreaks in China. All these “outbreaks” are different versions of the same agenda of fear and critical mass formation psychosis.

After the COVID op, everything is sold out as an outbreak. However, few people have realized that all these infections have existed for many years. Due to the different measures taken during the COVID operation, including and especially the jabs, weakened immune systems aren’t able to respond accordingly. This is why we are seeing a rise in respiratory illnesses, and other health problems like turbo cancer.

At scale, people have not yet begun to understand the true consequences of these COVID-era policies. Policies that “experts” implemented to supposedly mitigate the spread of an infectious disease (COVID), forced the entire globe to isolate for nearly an entire year. What resulted has been an entire generation of immunosuppressed individuals, particularly children who were in their age of prime immune system development. The consequences are just barely being shown. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

It’s not as though new pathogens are springing up out of nowhere. Instead, people now have suppressed immune systems incapable of fighting off simple infectious diseases that have been around forever.

What is true, is that infections are up. The UK, for example, reported a ‘tidal wave’ of flu cases in hospitals this season.

QUICK PARENTHESIS

Isn’t it interesting that during the COVID Op, all respiratory infections were labeled as COVID until proven otherwise? In the same time period, the flu seemed to disappear. Interestingly, after a 3-year hiatus, the flu is back. Doesn’t that seem suspicious?

Obviously, this is being used as an excuse to promote further vaccination.

The so-called “novel” viruses, while they may have been around for some time, are being artificially pushed onto the public.

The McCullough Foundation recently published a research paper in the Poultry Fisheries & Wildlife Sciences Journal. This study looks into two laboratories that have been conducting gain-of-function research on H5N1, leading to the possible conclusion that these recent outbreaks may be the result of laboratory leaks.

A “manmade problem”, as Dr. Peter McCullough describes it, just as the COVID Operation was. There seems to be coordination here. They are purposefully pushing these diseases to spread fear and incite information warfare, taking advantage of the fact that there are now more immunocompromised people.

They’re pulling out the same playbook as they did for the COVID Op. They are trying to create a perfect storm in a renewed effort to exert further control of people.

Fortunately, the collective consciousness is elevated, and I’m certain that people won’t fall for it the same way that they did before.

Compromised immune systems are at the heart of the problem here. Strengthening them will be key to fighting off these coordinated bioattacks by utilizing early treatments such as nasal sprays, nutraceuticals, and natural remedies to prevent and treat these diseases effectively.

Trust has been greatly eroded in conventional medicine, as I have mentioned repeatedly in my articles. In the middle of all the chaos that surrounds the constant barrage of fear and health crises, patients must have options. Trusted messengers that they can look to and trust when it comes to their well-being. There is an increased awareness worldwide. People are starting to look for better health options.

There is no doubt that a new shift in attitude is required. An alternative/parallel healthcare system must be built. It should revolve around specialists who understand these basic principles of care, not those who have been captured by rhetoric and indoctrination of the medical religion.

Dr. Alejandro Diaz is a Pediatric Allergist / Immunologist and Global Health Expert with extensive international experience. He has delivered conferences in over 27 countries around the globe on topics of medicine, migration, biosecurity, and related topics. This includes prestigious venues such as the White House, the US Capitol, the Romanian Parliament, the European Parliament in Brussels, the Mexican Senate of the Republic, the United Nations in Geneva, Japanese Parliament, among others.

His career encompasses diverse roles in healthcare including private practice, health systems, and advisory positions for medical service companies, governments, and government entities worldwide.

January 18, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

YouTube Removes Barrister’s Legal Submission at Official UK Covid Inquiry Amid Censorship of Vaccine Injury Discussions

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 15, 2025

YouTube’s decision to remove a barrister’s legal submission from the UK Covid Inquiry has intensified concerns over widespread censorship of vaccine-related discussions on major social media platforms.

Anna Morris KC, who represents families claiming injury from Covid-19 vaccines, disclosed that YouTube deleted a video of her preliminary remarks to the inquiry in September 2023, citing violations of its medical “misinformation” policy. Although the platform later reinstated the video, it failed to provide a clear explanation, admitting only that “it sometimes makes mistakes.”

This act of censorship has been condemned as part of a larger pattern of silencing voices critical of vaccine safety and government health policies. As reported by The Telegraph, during the inquiry’s Module 4 session — focused on vaccines and pharmaceutical measures — Morris directly addressed this issue, stating, “The inquiry must understand the stigma and censorship for the vaccine injured and bereaved.”

She revealed that a poll of affected families found that 74% had been censored when discussing vaccine injuries on social media platforms.

Morris further criticized the suppression of information, noting that doctors were instructed to withhold concerns from both the public and their own patients. Her removed statement emphasized that “the treatment of the vaccine injured in this country has historically been a source of shame.”

Morris argued that those harmed by vaccines have been systematically “dismissed, ignored, censored,” and subjected to hostility when seeking acknowledgment and support.

She condemned the ongoing silencing of vaccine-injured individuals as a severe barrier to accountability and transparency, adding, “Unfortunately, this censorship has continued years after the pandemic and into our engagement with this inquiry.”

Despite repeated requests for a review, YouTube justified the video’s removal by citing its medical “misinformation” policies, a rationale that critics argue is increasingly being used to suppress legitimate concerns and experiences.  This censorship has fueled calls for a reevaluation of how social media platforms regulate content related to public health, especially when it involves dissenting voices.

An emotional impact video shown during the inquiry highlighted the tragic story of pharmacist John Cross, who took his own life after suffering paralyzing complications from a Covid vaccine and being denied compensation. His story underscores the devastating consequences of dismissing those seeking recognition and support.

January 18, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Dr. Drew Pinsky Criticizes YouTube for Video Removals and Mandatory Reeducation Training Over Vaccine Discussions

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 15, 2025

Dr. Drew Pinsky, widely known as Dr. Drew, has publicly criticized YouTube for removing two of his videos over alleged violations of the platform’s medical “misinformation” policy. On January 14, 2025, Pinsky took to X to challenge YouTube’s decision, highlighting concerns about free speech and the suppression of open dialogue on health-related topics.

In order to get the flags removed from his video, YouTube told Dr. Drew that he would have to attend a form of reeducation training and have no violations for 90 days, or else it would delete his entire channel and all of his videos. Pinsky has over 1,000 videos on the platform.

In one of his posts, Pinsky expressed frustration over the platform’s actions: “This weekend, @YouTubeCreators accused me of spreading ‘medical misinformation’ & took down 2 videos with an MD & a lawyer. I’ve been a board-certified physician for over 40 years – 2x @YouTube’s existence.”

The flagged videos featured discussions with Dr. Kelly Victory, a board-certified physician, and attorney Warner Mendenhall. Pinsky elaborated that these conversations centered around the side effects of mRNA vaccinations, a topic he argues warrants open discourse rather than censorship. In his discussion with Dr. Victory, she stated that the “vast majority of the people who have been injured are young, healthy people who were under the age of 50 who had fundamentally zero risk from COVID itself. They all got COVID. These are people who would have been fine if they were just left alone.”

Pinsky defended the content, asserting that sharing professional perspectives and personal beliefs in a public forum should not be equated with spreading misinformation. He emphasized that their dialogue was an exchange of viewpoints rather than a promotion of falsehoods.

In a separate video with Warner Mendenhall, the attorney discussed legal cases involving individuals who suffered severe reactions following vaccination. Pinsky highlighted that Mendenhall shared client experiences and expressed personal beliefs—not medical advice. Pinsky wrote, “It is not medical misinformation for someone to state their belief that a large number of people were harmed by a medical product or study.”

This isn’t the first time YouTube has targeted Dr. Drew’s content. He noted that previous strikes were resolved after discussions between his production team and YouTube officials. Despite the latest removals, Pinsky confirmed that the videos remain accessible on X, suggesting that alternative platforms may offer more space for unrestricted conversations.

A prominent internist and addiction medicine specialist, Dr. Drew Pinsky has been a notable media figure for decades. His career includes hosting television shows like Dr. Drew On Call on HLN and Lifechangers on The CW.

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Candace Owens Responds To Mr. And Mr. Macron

Candace Show | January 13, 2025

I respond to the Macrons legal letter, Ian Carroll ratios Elon Musk on X, Mark Zuckerberg appears on Joe Rogan to discuss Biden censorship, and an update on what people are saying about the LA fires.

PreBorn!
To donate, dial pound 250 & say the keyword “BABY” that’s pound 250 “BABY” or donate securely at https://preborn.com/candace

PureTalk
Get 50% off your first month at http://www.PureTalk.com/Owens

American Financing
Act today! Call 800-795-1210 or visit http://www.AmericanFinancing.net/Owens
NMLS 182334, http://www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.458% for well qualified borrowers. Call 800-795-1210 for details about credit costs and terms.

Candace on Apple Podcasts: https://t.co/Pp5VZiLXbq
Candace on Spotify: https://t.co/16pMuADXuT
Candace on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RealCandaceO
Subscribe to Club Candace: https://www.clubcandace.com
Join The Candace Community on Locals: https://candace.locals.com

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Video, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Zuckerberg’s mea culpa – more strategy than sincerity

Maryanne Demasi, reports | January 12, 2025

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has spent years manipulating algorithms to suppress dissent and inconvenient truths. Now, Zuckerberg wants us to believe he’s turned over a new leaf. “Community notes” is his supposed act of contrition—replacing Meta’s infamous “fact-checkers” with what he’s touting as a democratic approach to truth.

The changes will affect Facebook, Instagram and Threads – social media platforms with more than 3 billion users globally. Zuckerberg says the purpose is to outsource fact-checking to the people and let the collective wisdom determine what’s true.

Users can add context or clarification to posts, which won’t vanish into algorithmic oblivion but will instead bear appended “notes” offering a more balanced view.

So, has Zuckerberg suddenly grown a conscience? Hardly. This is less about soul-searching and more about political expediency. We’re meant to believe this is some heartfelt mea culpa, a humbling moment for a company that “got it wrong.”

But to me, this feels insincere. Pure public relations – a cynical scramble to navigate shifting political winds. Meta isn’t repenting; it’s repositioning. After all, this is the same platform that orchestrated an era of unparalleled online censorship, silencing inconvenient truths under the guise of “misinformation control.”

Remember the Biden laptop story? An exposé conveniently buried before the 2020 election because it didn’t fit the desired narrative. Zuckerberg himself admitted to suppressing the story after pressure from the FBI. But that wasn’t an isolated incident.

Over the last four years, Facebook has been the digital embodiment of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Articles questioning the efficacy of masks, the lab leak theory, or COVID-19 vaccine safety were flagged, shadow-banned, or outright erased. Entire communities of vaccine-injured individuals—desperate for support and answers—were wiped off the platform. Real lives were affected; people were isolated. Conversations that could have saved lives were silenced. It’s no exaggeration to say Facebook has blood on its hands.

One example of Meta’s overreach involved The BMJ. Paul Thacker’s piece on Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson which highlighted data integrity issues at a few of Pfizer’s vaccine trial sites, was slapped with a label by Facebook, effectively discrediting it. This wasn’t just heavy-handed; it was a brazen suppression of credible journalism. An open letter from The BMJ’s editors to Meta rightly lambasted the organisation for trying to discredit the vetted information. The damage wasn’t limited to stifling discourse; it eroded public trust in both science and media.

As recently as August 2024, Zuckerberg admitted to the House Judiciary Committee that Meta had been coerced by the government to censor Americans. His letter detailed relentless pressure to silence dissenting views on COVID-19, elections, and more. And yet, despite this supposed epiphany about governmental overreach, Facebook continued censoring content right up until its recent pivot to community notes.

Zuckerberg’s newfound candour isn’t transparency; it’s pre-emptive blame-shifting. The Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v Biden) case has exposed the collusion between tech giants and government officials to suppress online speech. Allegations that the Biden administration pressured platforms to bury certain viewpoints—even when factually accurate—paint a chilling picture. Facebook’s narrative of victimhood feels like a calculated attempt to deflect legal and public scrutiny.

Meanwhile, there are ‘journalists’ in legacy media who are mourning the loss of fact-checkers as though democracy itself is under siege. What kind of journalist defends a system that stifles free speech and debate? Science thrives on questioning and open dialogue, not the orthodoxy imposed by fact-checkers operating with opaque agendas. Their hand-wringing isn’t about truth—it’s about losing control of the narrative.

And now, as the political tide shifts and the Biden administration’s influence wanes, Meta suddenly finds the courage to air its grievances about government meddling. Convenient, isn’t it? Zuckerberg’s newfound spine is less about principle and more about positioning Meta for survival in a new political landscape.

Let’s be real. Community notes is not altruism – it’s damage control. Meta isn’t addressing the harm it caused—it’s deflecting. The platform’s censorship caused real-world consequences: vaccine-injured people left voiceless, critical public health debates silenced, and public trust shattered. If Meta was truly contrite, it would compensate for the damage, support those it deplatformed, and restore erased communities – even compensate those with vaccine injuries who were silenced.

Don’t get me wrong – I think dumping fact-checkers was the right move and its a win for free speech – it just should have happened sooner, and Zuckerberg shouldn’t be let off the hook. Meta’s track record suggests this is just another calculated move.

For years, Facebook wielded its influence with recklessness, deciding who could speak and what could be said. Now, as the tide turns, it wants to rebrand as a champion of open dialogue and transparency. But the damage is done. The trust is broken. And no amount of community notes can erase the scars left by Meta’s years of suppressing truth.

Mark Zuckerberg might try to rewrite history, but history won’t forget.

January 12, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

The Trump Administration Must Bring Moderna to Heel

Brownstone Institute | January 7, 2025

Last week, independent journalist Alex Berenson reported that a preschool-aged child died of “cardio-respiratory arrest” after taking a dose of Moderna’s Covid mRNA vaccine during its clinical trials. Despite federal requirements to report all trial information, the company withheld the truth for years as it raked in billions from its Covid shots.

The extent of the cover-up remains unknown, but Moderna, headed by CEO Stéphane Bancel, disregarded federal law requiring companies to report “summary results information, including adverse event information, for specified clinical trials of drug products” to clinicaltrials.gov. The company, not the government, is responsible for posting all results, and failure to report the death of a child constitutes a clear breach of US law, which threatens civil action against any party that “falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact.”

To this point, pharmaceutical companies have remained largely immune for their role in perpetrating globally-scaled deception resulting in thousands of vaccine injuries and billions in profits. They have enjoyed a liability shield courtesy of the PREP Act, which offers protections for injuries resulting from vaccines; that indemnity, however, does not extend to non-compliance with federal regulations, material misstatements or omissions of fact, or other offenses.

The death of the child only became known because of an obscure European report released last year, which revealed that Moderna has known about the death for over two years while it continues to advertise Covid shots to children as young as six months old.

Moderna’s European filing also revealed that the company withheld trial results demonstrating that children under 12 who received the vaccine were ten times more likely than those who received the placebo to suffer “serious side effects.” Without any evidence, Moderna claimed that the side effects, including the death of a child, were unrelated to the shots.

The incoming Trump administration offers a rare opportunity to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable and to investigate the depth of the cover-up.

The FDA is responsible for enforcing the reporting of vaccine trial results, but recent heads of the agency such as Scott Gottlieb and Robert Califf have been fanatical supporters of Big Pharma. Trump’s choice for FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, presents a stark contrast to his predecessors. Makary has criticized the US Government’s reluctance to acknowledge the role of natural immunity in preventing Covid infection, and he opposed the widespread vaccination of children. He testified to Congress, “In the U.S. we gave thousands of healthy kids myocarditis for no good reason, they were already immune. This was avoidable.”

President-elect Trump has tapped Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., perhaps the most well-known critic of the Covid vaccines, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA. He has named Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an author of the Great Barrington Declaration, as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health. Further, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Berenson that he plans to subpoena the FDA once Republicans become the majority party in the Senate this month.

President Trump’s first term was ultimately defined by his failure to fulfill his pledge to “drain the swamp.” A corrupt bureaucracy, personified in many ways by Dr. Anthony Fauci, aided and abetted by advisors like his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, hijacked the president’s agenda. Now, the Trump administration has an unlikely yet monumental opportunity for health reform, which can start on January 20 with an investigation into Moderna’s cover-up.

The Covid response doomed Trump 1.0. Whether one regards this as a monumental error, the betrayal of a president by his advisors, an event beyond the president’s control, or a deeper and more complex plot involving everything and everyone associated with the government, both in the US and around the world, there is no question of the scale of the calamity for the public. The shots are part of that, the capstone failure of a long line of foreshadowing with lockdowns and all that was associated with pre-pharmaceutical interventions. The antidote came not as a cure but, for many, the disease itself.

There must be truth if not justice.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Mark Zuckerberg Falsely Claims “You Can’t Yell ‘Fire’ in a Crowder Theater” To Justify Covid Censorship

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 11, 2025

In his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended Facebook’s early COVID-19 content moderation policies by invoking the often-quoted but inaccurate legal principle, “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” Zuckerberg cited this rationale to justify the platform’s censorship of certain information during the pandemic’s onset.

“COVID was the other big one where that was also very tricky because, you know, at the beginning, it was – you know, it’s like a legitimate public health crisis, you know, in the beginning. And it’s – you know, even people who were like the most ardent First Amendment defenders, the Supreme Court has this clear precedent. It’s like, all right, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. There are times when, if there is an emergency, your ability to speak can temporarily be curtailed in order to get an emergency under control,” Zuckerberg said.

This statement leans on a widely misunderstood legal argument. The phrase “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” originates from a 1919 Supreme Court opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States, which was later overturned and criticized for its justification of speech suppression. Zuckerberg’s use of this outdated precedent is misleading and offers a flawed defense for restricting speech on Meta’s platforms.

Zuckerberg elaborated on his stance, expressing initial trust in government and health authorities: “So I was sympathetic to that at the beginning of COVID. It seemed like, OK, you have this virus. It seems like it’s killing a lot of people. I don’t know. We didn’t know at the time how dangerous it was going to be. So at the beginning, it kind of seemed like, OK, we should give a little bit of deference to the government and the health authorities on how we should play this.”

However, Zuckerberg acknowledged the shifting narratives from health officials, which complicated content censorship decisions. “But when it went from, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve to, you know, in like – in the beginning, it was like, OK, there aren’t enough masks. Masks aren’t that important. To then it’s like, oh, no, you have to wear a mask. And, you know, all the – like, everything was shifting around. I – it’s become very difficult to kind of follow.”

The discredited legal metaphor has drawn criticism from free speech advocates. Such justification enables tech giants to overstep in moderating content, especially in moments of crisis when diverse perspectives are most crucial.

Equating speech to violence or danger is an easy excuse to censor controversial speech.

See also: Yes, you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

‘Monster’ Fauci should be jailed – Joe Rogan

RT | January 10, 2025

Hollywood star Mel Gibson and presenter Joe Rogan have claimed that former chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci should face prosecution, as they discussed his influence on the American healthcare system over the years. The popular American podcast host labelled the ex-government official a “monster.”

Fauci became the public face of the federal government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic both under President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden. The imposition of restrictive measures and the scientist’s reported involvement in suppressing the theory that the virus may have originated from US-funded gain-of-function research in China have made Fauci a controversial figure.

Gibson was a guest on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast on Thursday. Both men wondered how Fauci was “still walking around,” or “at least free” after his actions during the pandemic.

They were discussing the 2021 book by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. titled ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’. The author, a healthcare campaigner turned politician, described Fauci as an official in cahoots with big pharmaceutical corporations, who had abused his power for decades. The HIV/AIDS epidemic in the US was one of the main topics of the book.

”That book is an accurate depiction of what Anthony Fauci did during the AIDS crisis, which probably was an AZT crisis,” Rogan claimed.

He was referring to the antiretroviral medication azidothymidine. It was the first to be used en masse in the late 1980s to suppress HIV and had serious side effects. Kennedy claimed that Fauci, in his role as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), improperly endorsed AZT and downplayed its side effects while undermining possible alternative treatments.

”I drove up to San Francisco and I listened to it and I had road rage,” Gibson said, recalling his reaction to the book.

”If this is true, what the f**k is going on and how is that monster still loose?” Rogan asked. Meanwhile, the outgoing Biden administration is considering “giving him a full pardon – it’s like f**king crazy.”

Fauci’s name came up as the two were criticizing mainstream media for its “complicity” in protecting for-profit healthcare in the US. Gibson recalled how Rogan was attacked by news outlets for taking the drug ivermectin after testing positive for Covid-19 in 2021.

The medicine is widely used to treat parasites in humans in Africa. But the media dismissed it as a “horse dewormer” – the drug’s usual application in the US – as they urged the public to vaccinate against Covid-19.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Facebook Dumps ‘Fact-checkers’ One Day After CHD Asks Supreme Court to Hear Censorship Case Against Meta

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 7, 2025

Less than 24 hours after Children’s Health Defense (CHD) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its censorship case against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, Mark Zuckerberg announced the company is ending its third-party “fact-checking” program.

“It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” Zuckerberg told viewers in a press release video. Meta also owns Instagram.

CHD sued Meta in November 2020 over the social media giant’s censorship practices. The company de-platformed CHD from Facebook and Instagram in August 2022 and has not reinstated the accounts.

Commenting on today’s news, CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender, “It’s clear that Mark Zuckerberg is worried about new anti-censorship policies of the incoming administration — as he should be. The record in CHD v. Meta clearly shows Facebook’s close collaboration with the White House to censor vaccine-related speech, even pre-COVID.”

Holland added:

“CHD has taken its case to the Supreme Court, and Facebook doubtless realizes there are Justices there that are very dubious about Facebook’s role in censoring speech at the behest of the government in the new public square.

“Zuckerberg may imagine that by making this announcement he is mooting this case, or making it no longer significant. That’s not the situation — the country needs closure that this kind of fusion of state and industry to censor unwanted information will never happen again.”

CHD’s lawsuit against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and its founder and CEO, Zuckerberg, alleges that government actors partnered with Facebook to censor the plaintiffs’ speech — particularly speech related to vaccines and COVID-19 — that should have been protected under the First Amendment.

The suit also named “fact-checking” firms Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute and its PolitiFact website. On Aug. 9, 2024, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against CHD.

Lawyers with CHD urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision. They wrote in their petition, filed Monday:

“This case goes to the heart of our constitutional design, raising critical questions in the Internet Age about the availability of open debate free from government censorship-by-proxy.

“The practical consequences of leaving the decision below intact are enormous: the levers of censorship on the mega-platforms will always be sore temptation for executive office-holders — and not just about vaccines or Covid.”

National healthcare and constitutional practice attorney Rick Jaffe called Meta’s announcement a “very big deal for the country and for CHD.”

Jaffe represents CHD in some of its cases, including cases involving doctors’ right to speak freely about COVID-19. He told The Defender :

“For the last five-plus years, CHD — largely through Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mary Holland, and the group’s supporters — have been at the forefront of defending free speech on social media … Meta’s action today shows the effect of the changing public’s view on censorship by social media companies which Meta could no longer ignore.

“So, congrats to CHD and its legal team who helped this happen. The work isn’t over yet, so onwards.”

Meta shifts to content moderation model used on X

Rather than turning to third parties to fact-check posts, Meta will use a “Community Notes model” in which social users themselves decide when posts are potentially misleading and need more context, said Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan in a statement. “We’ve seen this approach work on X,” Kaplan said.

The change will take a few weeks to implement, Kaplan said.

Meta also will lift restrictions on topics such as immigration and gender identity. “It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms,” Kaplan said.

The Defender asked Meta if it will lift restrictions on discussions about vaccine safety and COVID-19 but did not receive a response by deadline.

Meta is also changing how it enforces its policies. “Up until now,” Kaplan said, “we have been using automated systems to scan for all policy violations, but this has resulted in too many mistakes and too much content being censored that should haven’t been.”

Zuckerberg said there’s “legitimately bad stuff out there — drugs, terrorism, child exploitation.” The company will continue to take those things “very seriously” by using automated systems to scan for them.

However, for less severe violations, Meta will rely on a person reporting an issue before taking action against an account user.

Zuckerberg said he always cared about freedom of expression but that in recent years, his company responded to pressure for stricter speech restrictions. “Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more,” Zuckerberg said. “A lot of this is clearly political.”

He acknowledged that some of the “complex systems” Meta built to moderate content made mistakes. “We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship.”

Will Meta’s policy changes stick?

Zuckerberg said Meta’s policy changes were also prompted by the recent U.S. elections that were a “cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing free speech.”

Jenin Younes, a civil rights attorney who represented some of the plaintiffs in the landmark censorship case Murthy v. Missouri, told The Defender she was “cautiously optimistic” about Meta’s announcement.

Meta appeared to be making the changes because of a new presidential administration, Younes said. “That means that Meta could change course in another four years under a different administration. We need major social media platforms — the modern public square — to adopt principled free speech positions that don’t change with the wind.”

If platforms don’t adopt strong free speech positions, public dialogue suffers, Younes said. “Censorship on Meta, especially during the COVID era, strangled public debate and even went so far as to prevent vaccine-injured individuals from corresponding with each other in private groups.”

Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD general counsel, told The Defender Meta’s announcement does not undo the years of the damage done to CHD and many other individuals and groups.

“What is important is not only that Meta is making these changes but also that steps are taken to make sure this cannot be repeated, which makes our ongoing cases — including the recently filed petition to the U.S. Supreme Court — critically important.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

January 6, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

The Risks of Vaccines During Pregnancy

What Expecting Mothers Need to Know

By Tracy Slepcevic | Warrior Mom | January 2, 2025

Pregnancy is a time of joy, anticipation, and careful decision-making. As an expecting mother, your primary goal is to ensure the health and safety of your baby. However, amidst the abundance of information and recommendations, it’s important to understand the potential risks associated with vaccines during pregnancy. Despite assurances from health authorities, recent evidence and expert testimonies suggest that vaccines given during pregnancy pose a significant risk to both mother and baby.

Lack of Proper Testing for Pregnant Women

One of the most concerning aspects of vaccine recommendations for pregnant women is the lack of rigorous safety testing. During a 2023 FDA meeting, Dr. Meryl Nass highlighted the troubling fact that many vaccines routinely recommended during pregnancy, including the COVID-19 vaccine, were not adequately tested in pregnant populations. The FDA admitted that its recommendations are based on limited or no data from controlled clinical trials involving pregnant women.

This absence of reliable data leaves many unanswered questions about the long-term effects of vaccines on both the developing fetus and the mother’s immune system. The decision to recommend vaccines without sufficient evidence undermines informed consent and raises serious ethical concerns.

Alarming Reports of Adverse Effects

Adverse events following vaccination during pregnancy are increasingly being reported. These include:

  • Miscarriages: Some studies and anecdotal reports have linked vaccines, particularly the COVID-19 vaccine, to an increase in pregnancy losses.
  • Preterm Births: Concerns have been raised about a potential connection between maternal vaccination and preterm deliveries.
  • Developmental Issues: Emerging evidence suggests the possibility of long-term developmental effects on the baby, though more research is urgently needed to confirm these findings.

Dr. James Thorp, a board-certified OB-GYN, has been vocal about the risks of vaccinating pregnant women, stating that the CDC’s recommendations lack robust scientific backing. Dr. Thorp and other experts argue that the precautionary principle should guide decisions regarding vaccines during pregnancy, especially when there are alternative ways to manage risks.

The Role of Adjuvants and Ingredients

Many vaccines contain adjuvants; these are substances added to enhance immune response. Aluminum-based adjuvants, for example, have raised concerns due to their neurotoxic effects. During pregnancy, the developing fetus is particularly vulnerable to toxins, and the accumulation of such substances may interfere with normal development.

The presence of viral DNA fragments and other contaminants in vaccines has also been flagged as a risk factor. These components are not fully studied in the context of pregnancy, further complicating the risk assessment.

Trusting Your Natural Immunity

God did not make a mistake, man did. Pregnancy is a time when the body’s immune system undergoes natural adjustments to protect both the mother and the baby. Our God-given immunity is remarkably capable of managing many potential threats without external interventions. Prioritizing a healthy diet, reducing stress, and ensuring adequate sleep can support your immune system during this critical time.

Steps to Protect Yourself and Your Baby

If you are pregnant or planning to become pregnant, here are some steps you can take to make informed decisions about vaccines:

  1. Ask Questions: Before agreeing to any vaccination, ask your healthcare provider about the evidence supporting its safety and efficacy during pregnancy. Most doctors are blinded by the dangers of vaccines or choose to keep us in the dark due to kickbacks from Big Pharma.
  2. Do Your Research: Explore independent studies and expert testimonies to gain a fuller understanding of potential risks. The research is out there, but you will have to dig deeper than a Google search.
  3. Consider Alternatives: For certain infections, there may be natural or non-invasive ways to protect yourself without compromising your baby’s development. Boost your immune system with supplements instead of neurotoxic vaccines.
  4. Seek Second Opinions: If you feel pressured by your provider, consult with another healthcare professional to discuss your concerns. Functional and Alternative medicine doctors are more likely to keep their oath to “do no harm.”
  5. Prioritize Wellness: Focus on boosting your natural immunity through nutrition, hydration, and lifestyle choices.

A Call for Transparency and Caution

As an expecting mother, you deserve complete and honest information to make the best decisions for your baby. The current vaccine recommendations for pregnancy often lack the robust safety data needed to ensure their efficacy and safety. Until comprehensive studies are conducted and transparency is prioritized, the precautionary principle should guide decisions about vaccines during pregnancy.

By taking the time to educate yourself and trust your instincts, you can protect both your health and the health of your baby. Remember, it’s your right to make informed choices about your body and your baby’s future. For more information go to http://www.WarriorMom.com and http://www.AutismHealth.com.

January 5, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »