Vaccine and stroke – the unmentionable connection
By Roger Watson | TCW Defending Freedom | October 13, 2023
As reported in one of our favourite outlets, Global Health Now, the newsletter of the Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins University, we can expect a rise in stroke. It is already the second leading cause of death, and the recent Lancet Neurology Commission report predicts a 50 per cent rise by 2050, taking the worldwide total to 9.7 million deaths a year.
According to the report the underlying cause of the predicted increase is high blood pressure generally; in younger people, a rise in diabetes and obesity may increase stroke. The factors identified above are all, indeed, leading causes of stroke.
Could anything else lead to an increase in stroke? In these pages, reference has been made recently by Dr Angus Dalgleish to the now widespread use of mRNA vaccines introduced as a purported way of preventing Covid-19 infection (they didn’t). In that article, he refers to stroke from blood clotting as one dangerous and even fatal outcome of the mRNA vaccines. Dr Dalgleish says that the risk associated with mRNA vaccines is so great that their use ought to be banned. But, as a search of the Lancet report reveals, there is not a single mention of any relationship between the use of mRNA vaccines and stroke. Since Pfizer propose to develop further mRNA vaccines, for example for flu, the use of these vaccines may become even more widespread.
The omission of any mention of mRNA vaccines and their relationship to stroke is, surely, a major flaw in the Lancet report. This is strange, deliberate possibly, given how common the knowledge is that there is such a relationship. The possibility of a link has been reported, among other places, in BMJ Case Reports, medRxiv, Stroke, Medical News Today, Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Disease and even in Lancet eClinical Medicine. So we know that the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines can cause stroke, and we know that the campaign to keep pushing the Covid-19 vaccines is relentless with proposals to develop further mRNA vaccines for more infectious diseases. What could possibly go wrong?
In addition to the likelihood of Covid-19 vaccines contributing to the increase in stroke, other aspects of the virtually worldwide overreaction to Covid-19, principally lockdown, undoubtedly contributed. Enforced confinement led to lower levels of physical activity and an increase in alcohol intake, among other things. As a result, levels of obesity rose, one of the contributing factors to stroke. While the imposition of lockdown may have ended, many people remain locked down in their minds, unable to leave home and suffering from depression. The working from home ‘pandemic’ is also unlikely to stop and this is known to be contributing to obesity.
A further effect of lockdown was lack of access to healthcare. Even one of the architects and proponents of lockdown and ‘saving the NHS’, Chris Whitty, warned in 2022 that there had been adverse consequences as a result of people not having access to life-saving drugs for cardiovascular disease. Surely, he saw that coming in 2020 and 2021, but chose to say nothing. Also a leading advocate of the Covid-19 vaccines, he was knighted in 2022. It’s enough to give you a stroke!
Theoretical Vaccine Effectiveness for Novavax Unacceptably Low
Real World Study Disappointing for Non-Genetic Vaccine
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | October 11, 2023
If it came to forced COVID-19 vaccination against human will, I have said Novavax would be the choice since it gives a limited 5 mcg dose of the potentially lethal Spike protein and has no genetic material. The growing number of fatal side effects with mRNA vaccines and recent news of contamination with SV-40 cDNA has resulted in record low rates of booster uptake, currently at 1.3% of unwary Americans.
Mateo-Urdiales reported on 20,903 individuals who took the two shot primary series of Novavax. Theoretical vaccine effectiveness was shockingly low:
“Adjusted estimated vaccine effectiveness against notified SARS-CoV infections in those with partial vaccination (15 days after the first dose to 14 days after the second dose) was 23%(95%CI, 13%-33%), increasing after full vaccination to 31% (95%CI, 22%-39%). Estimated vaccine effectiveness was higher against symptomatic COVID-19, with an estimate of 31% (95%CI, 16%-44%) in those partially vaccinated and of 50% (95%CI, 40%-58%) in those fully vaccinated.”
If a vaccine cannot safely provide at least 50% protection for a year, it is not viable in my clinical practice. Sadly Novavax failed at both of these outcomes. With low-risk Omicron, and likely substantial natural immunity by Fall of 2022, only 26 infections led to hospitalization during the study period; 1 occurred during the reference period, 7 during partial vaccination, and 18 after full vaccination. No deaths were reported.
In summary, Novavax is probably the safest of all the COVID-19 vaccines because it does not use genetic technology. Sadly, it is useless against Omicron and cannot be recommended for any health benefit.
Lawsuit Pushes Back Against California Medical Board’s “Misinformation” Censorship Power
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | October 12, 2023
A lawsuit has been amended in California against this US state’s medical boards’ “misinformation powers” – based on a law that is soon to be repealed, and which critics – some of them legal plaintiffs – say allowed the government to prevent them from practicing medicine, the way they were trained to do.
It was one of the rules, called Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098), introduced to keep medical professionals in check, in case they felt like speaking their minds freely as insights into Covid were developing.
And since the world has now moved on to other crises, the “forgotten pandemic” censorship laws are getting “quietly” repealed.
But not really, the plaintiffs in this case claim – because of the nature of the repeal of the short-lived AB 2098, made null-and-void on September 14 via Senate Bill 815 (SB 815). California Senator Newsom got to sign all three documents.
However, the repeal – which will not be in effect before the start of 2024 – at the same time incorporates Democrat member of California Assembly Evan Low’s provision that doctors who get accused of “misinformation” can still be punished – “held accountable” – regardless of whether the controversial law was actually applicable.
“The Medical Board of California will continue to maintain the authority to hold medical licensees accountable for deviating from the standard of care and misinforming their patients about COVID-19 treatments,” Low said.
How in the world is this political, ideological, pre-election, and legal gymnastics even supposed to work?
The lawsuit against the bill, Hoang et al. v. Bonta et al., has the plaintiffs represented by California attorney Richard Jaffe.
He had this to say: “Because of the repeal of AB 2098, and the board’s position that it can still sanction the speech targeted by the soon-to-be-repealed law, we are pivoting in our lawsuit and arguing to the judge that they can’t do it under their general statute either because the speech does not change just because the legal theory/statute changes.”
The world clearly has moved to other crises – but it seems, not the California Democrats. And so the plaintiffs in the lawsuit’s amended format are also asking to add more to their ranks. One of the original ones is Children’s Health Defense (CHD).
However absurd the “standard of care” argument that supersedes a law may seem to a layperson, Jaffe is obviously taking it seriously.
The court will hear the arguments related to this new development on November 13.
BANNED: Book by Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake
BY JOHN LEAKE | COURAGEOUS DISCOURSE | OCTOBER 9, 2023
I would like to open this column by stating that I have long had a great relationship with Amazon, which has sold far more of my books than have ever been sold in bookstores. I have also been extremely grateful to Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing program for empowering me to publish whatever nonfiction books I please, quickly and efficiently, while retaining the rights and earning the best royalty in the business.
In May 2022, Dr. McCullough and I published our book, The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, directly on Amazon. Quickly the book became a hit and within a year it had earned over 1000 5-Star Reviews. For almost 3 weeks in July 2022 it was a top 100 seller.
In the autumn of last year, Tony Lyons, President and Publisher of SKYHORSE in New York, graciously offered to bring out a special, handsome hardcover edition with a preface by U.S. presidential candidate, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who warmly endorsed our work.
A bit of Covid fatigue this year caused sales to decline, but in September the book got a second wind as more and more Americans seem to be recognize that Dr. McCullough has been right all along.
To my gratitude and delight, Amazon actually supported the effort by running a deep discount promotion while still paying the same royalty to us—an act of generosity to authors that is unheard of in traditional publishing.
And then, on September 29, seemingly out of nowhere, Amazon Account Review sent me the following notice:
We have temporarily suspended your KDP account because we found offensive content that violates our Content Guidelines in the title(s) listed below:
ASIN: B09ZLVWMD9 –
Title: THE COURAGE TO FACE COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex – Author: John Leake
Upon receiving this message, I humbly beseeched Account Review to restore my account and to let me know what “offensive content” was found in our book. Amazon restored my account and published my latest book—a conventional work of true crime—but refused to reinstate The Courage to Face COVID-19. Yesterday my third appeal was turned down without answering my query about what in our book is offensive.
My question seemed especially pertinent, given that Account Review provided me with a link to its Content Guidelines, which include a section on Offensive Content.
Offensive content
We don’t sell certain content including content that we determine is hate speech, promotes the abuse or sexual exploitation of children, contains pornography, glorifies rape or pedophilia, advocates terrorism, or other material we deem inappropriate or offensive.
Obviously, nothing in our book even remotely touches on any of these subjects. Upon reading this description, it occurred to me that it was a perfection description of 120 Days of Sodom, by the Marquis de Sade, which contains hundreds of pages that glorify the abuse and sexual exploitation of children, violent pornography, and glorifications of rape and pedophilia. I did a quick search for the title, and voila, there it is, for sale on Amazon in three formats.
None of my polite entreaties to Content Review was answered with an explanation of what, in our book, is offensive or in violation of any other published guideline. This strengthened my suspicion that the decision was the result of a sudden imposition of power for which the Content Review staff was not prepared.
Even more stunning than banning my softcover edition was Amazon’s decision to ban Tony Lyons’s SKYHORSE hardcover edition from the site without even sending the publisher notice. He learned of his edition’s demise from me.
This is a developing story about arbitrary censorship and book banning. Generally speaking, Amazon has a robust history of resisting pressure to ban books. Even during the COVID Pandemic, Amazon bucked the censorship regime that was established at Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.
I believe it is no exaggeration to state that Amazon’s decision to ban our work of medical and historical scholarship, carefully vetted by Dr. Peter McCullough—who has published over 600 peer-reviewed papers in top academic medical journals—is the most egregious act of arbitrary censorship in the history of American publishing.
Many works of literature have been banned from public school systems and libraries and censured by religious organizations. However, I cannot find a single example of a banned nonfiction book that contains zero sex, zero violence, zero expletives, zero harshly expressed opinions, and zero assertions that aren’t grounded on rock solid scholarship.
Indeed, the book is a strictly factual narrative based on hundreds of published sources ranging from academic papers to standard works of medical history to documents published by U.S. federal agencies. The longest chapter in the book recounts Dr. McCullough’s U.S. Senate testimony on November 19, 2020.
This is a developing story about a gross infringement of the freedom of speech that is enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution. Coincidentally, tomorrow (October 10) I have been invited to address the Republican Women of Greater North Texas about the critical importance of maintaining free speech for the maintenance our Constitutional Republic. I can now speak from very personal experience.
I would like to conclude by stating that I believe this decision is almost certainly the result of outside pressure being brought to bear on Amazon—the sort of outside pressure from the U.S. Executive Branch that was revealed in discovery in Missouri v. Biden.
As Jacob Siegel recently remarked in a brilliant piece in Tablet magazine titled “A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century:”
At companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Amazon, the upper management levels had always included veterans of the national security establishment. But with the new alliance between U.S. national security and social media, the former spooks and intelligence agency officials grew into a dominant bloc inside those companies; what had been a career ladder by which people stepped up from their government experience to reach private tech-sector jobs turned into an ouroboros that molded the two together.
I strongly suspect that the banning of our book from Amazon has the fingerprints of Biden administration or intelligence agency goons all over it.
For those who would still like to purchase our book, please visit our website by clicking on the image below.
Doctor Persecuted For “Misinformation” Wins Appeal
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | October 8, 2023
Subverting the tightening noose of censorship, the judicial system has risen, this time at least, as a defender of free expression and professional discourse in Washington State. The Court of Appeals has recently extended a lifeline to Dr. Richard Eggleston, a retired ophthalmologist, in his battle against the Washington Medical Commission’s (WMC) accusations of spreading “misinformation” about COVID-19. This pivotal ruling not only resonates as a triumph for Dr. Eggleston but also echoes across the medical community, bolstering the principle that the crucible of critical discourse should not be chilled by punitive actions.
We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.
Dr. Eggleston, from Clarkston, Washington, had penned a sequence of critiques last year in the Lewiston Morning Tribune, challenging the prevailing narratives around COVID-19, specifically deliberating on the safety and veracity of the vaccines. His audacity led to an avalanche of disciplinary actions spearheaded by the WMC in August 2022. Accused of unprofessional conduct and “willful misrepresentation of facts,” the retired eye doctor found himself thrust into the cauldron of a legal and professional maelstrom.
As the waves of allegations crashed down, Eggleston invoked his First Amendment right to free speech, refuting the charges with a motion to dismiss. The WMC’s refusal to honor his motion nudged him to escalate the matter to the courts. His quest for justice first encountered a roadblock when the Washington State Superior Court denied his appeal for an injunction. Undeterred, Eggleston propelled his case to the Court of Appeals, which in a moment of judicial prudence, awarded him an emergency injunction in May, halting the impending court proceedings.
The saga witnessed a fresh chapter last week when Court of Appeals Commissioner Hailey L. Landrus sanctioned Eggleston’s motion for a discretionary review of the previous court’s verdict. Attorney Richard Jaffe, representing Eggleston, lauded the decision as “very good news for all who believe that doctors should be able to publicly criticize” what he termed as COVID-19 “propaganda.” This sentiment was echoed by another counsel for Eggleston, Todd Richardson, who expressed both gratitude and relief at the verdict.
Christian Drosten: “I’ve Had Three Doses of the Vaccine and Been Infected Twice”
BY ROBERT KOGON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | OCTOBER 7, 2023
Does anyone still remember the days when COVID-19 vaccines were reputed to do what other vaccines do – namely, prevent people from getting infected – and hence we were all taught to speak of exceptional ‘breakthrough infections’ when the unexpected, nonetheless, came to pass?
Well, Germany’s ‘state virologist’ Christian Drosten apparently does not remember them either. Drosten is a member of the German Government’s ‘Corona Expert Council’ and is treated as the absolute authority in Germany for all things COVID-19-related. He also, purely coincidentally, developed the notoriously hyper-sensitive COVID-19 PCR testing protocol, which would go a long way to create the COVID-19 pandemic based on the innumerable ‘asymptomatic cases’ it would go on to detect.
Drosten has given a new interview to the German weekly paper Die Zeit on the solemn occasion of the awarding of this year’s Nobel Prize in Medicine to Drew Weissman and Katalin Kariko, two scientists who contributed to developing the mRNA technology underlying the most widely-used COVID-19 vaccines in the West. Drosten praises the decision to award the prize to the mRNA pioneers – “the technology has proven its significance thanks to the authorisation for COVID-19” – and goes on to note that “I’ve had three doses of the vaccine and been infected twice”.
Three doses and he still got infected twice? Well, why does he agree with the Nobel Committee awarding the prize to Weissman and Kariko then?
Drosten’s remark is apparently supposed to help explain why he will not be getting the new ‘variant-adapted’ COVID-19 jab this autumn or donning a facemask when out and about: since, namely, he already has adequate immunity to fend off the virus – not, it seems, thanks to his previous vaccine doses but due to having caught the bug despite them!
Further on in the interview, Drosten makes this assumption explicit. Thus, asked whether the public has to be concerned about new, more highly transmissible Covid variants, Drosten replies:
Two years ago, higher transmissibility due to new mutations always also meant that more people got seriously ill. Simply because immunity against serious outcomes was not yet complete. By now, the overwhelming majority have built up immune defences by way of infections which are directed against the whole virus, not only against the spike protein from the vaccine. Infections were required for this.
So, Drosten now speaks (and it is not the first time) as if the idea all along was for people to get the vaccine and the virus. He adds, however, that vaccination was still worthwhile, since, he claims, it reduced the severity of the illness when people got infected. Mind you, he has just said that “complete immunity” even against severe disease is only achieved via infection.
The somewhat bewildering position adopted by Drosten is, by the way and not surprisingly – he is not referred to as Germany’s ‘state virologist’ for nothing – also the official German Government position. The official recommendation of the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) of the German public health authority is that everyone over 18 years of age should have acquired a “basic immunity” by way of at least three “antigen contacts”, either in the form of vaccine doses or infections. The STIKO, however, insists that at least two of these “contacts” should have taken place by way of vaccination, thus suggesting that vaccine-induced immunity is somehow superior to natural immunity, whereas Drosten’s remarks clearly suggest the contrary.
In its latest recommendation on the new ‘variant-adapted’ jab, moreover, the STIKO notes that “the majority of the population has already been vaccinated multiple times and has acquired good basic immunity thanks to having had SARS-CoV-2 infections in addition”. This is why, incidentally, the STIKO only recommends the adapted jab for persons over 60 and members of other ostensibly high-risk groups, but not for anyone else. But the tenor is exactly the same as in Drosten’s remarks, as if getting vaccinated and then getting sick had been the plan all along.
Well, for Drosten’s and the STIKO’s benefit, the below comes directly from the European Medicines Agency summary document on what is by far the most-widely used COVID-19 vaccine in the EU: BioNTech’s mRNA-based ‘Comirnaty’.
Comirnaty was authorised to prevent COVID-19, not to prevent severe outcomes. If it does not prevent COVID-19, it failed.
Robert Kogon is the pen name of a widely-published journalist covering European affairs. Subscribe to his Substack and follow him on X.
NZ doctors avoided Covid jabs while insisting the public had them
By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | October 5, 2023
The New Zealand Ministry of Health granted vaccine exemptions to hundreds among its key staff whilst hypocritically insisting that the public be vaccinated.
An Official Information Act (OIA) request to the ministry dated August 2, 2023 asked the following question:
‘According to the legislation at the time in 2021, there were operational exemptions available for those who were not getting vaccinated against Covid-19. How many requests were received? How many were approved by the ministry?’
Matt Hannant, Interim Director, Prevention, National Public Health Service, replied:
‘From 13 November 2021 to 26 September 2022, a total of 478 applications for Significant Service Disruption exemption (SSD) were received. 103 applications were granted, covering approximately 11,005 workers. Please note that it is not possible to provide the exact number of workers that were covered by SSDs. This is because it was possible for an organisation to submit an application to cover more than one worker.’
So exactly how many Ministry of Health staff and associated contractors benefited from the vaccine exemptions? I have made inquiries and found some staff prepared to leak information. One source has told me that 95 consultants in the Dunedin region alone benefited from vaccine exemptions. Another source has pointed to a group of doctors working in Northland who arranged among themselves to remain unvaccinated. The total appears to run to hundreds and possibly more.
It seems that those granted exemptions were restrained by gagging orders so that they could not tell anyone that they had been granted exemptions: it was a secretive process that the Ministry of Health was anxious to hide from the public.
In any case, any doctor advising a patient that mRNA Covid vaccination might be risky faced disciplinary action, and many were suspended.
So medical staff allowed themselves to be manipulated into a position whereby, if they were unvaccinated themselves, they were still required to advise their patients to vaccinate, a recipe for widespread hypocrisy in the health service.
This process was certainly approved by Dr Ashley Bloomfield (then chief executive of the Ministry of Health) who gained considerable notoriety by refusing vaccine exemptions to those among the public severely injured by their first jab, insisting that they continue with a vaccination schedule. Given Dr Bloomfield’s close working relationship with Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins (then Health Minister, now Prime Minister) it is quite likely that they approved it. The opposition leaders were also likely kept in the loop.
The criteria for granting exemptions apparently entailed an assessment concerning how vital staff were to the working of the health service. In other words, senior figures and those holding key surgical positions could insist that they remain unvaccinated and continue to be allowed to work. Meanwhile unvaccinated nurses, for example, could not gain exemptions and lost their positions.
If senior staff who wished to remain unvaccinated had spoken out publicly, the issue of Covid vaccine safety might have been given a public airing. Instead the Ministry of Health and the government kept a lid on all and any discussion. It did so through liaison with mainstream and social media outlets to censor content and through tight control of staff.
Senior medical staff who chose to remain unvaccinated may have been aware of a 2019 paper in Frontiers in Oncology journal entitled Gene Therapy Leaves a Vicious Cycle which reported:
‘Gene therapy has been caught in a vicious cycle for nearly two decades owing to immune response, insertional mutagenesis, viral tropism, off-target activity, unwanted clinical outcomes (ranging from illness to death of participants in clinical trials), and patchy regulations.’
As someone who has analysed social data over the last fifty years, I do sympathise with the doctors who opted for caution. That would be a normal reaction to new medications. It takes years to assess safety. So how unsafe is the mRNA Covid vaccine? Extremely unsafe, as shown by the 2023 excess death data across OECD nations.
The most highly Covid vaccinated nations in the OECD are in order Portugal, Chile, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Spain and Australia. Their average percentage of the population vaccinated is 91 per cent. Their average rate of excess deaths so far in 2023 is 12 per cent above the five-year historical average.
The least Covid vaccinated nations in the OECD are Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Poland, Estonia, Czech Republic, Hungary and Switzerland. Their average percentage of the population vaccinated is just 63 per cent. Their average rate of excess deaths so far in 2023 is 0 per cent compared to the five-year historical average. In other words, they have averaged a normal death rate.
Anyone who suggests that the death rate among the unvaccinated is higher than the vaccinated is running against the tide of evidence. This view doesn’t fit with the international data.
The standard way to resolve this inconsistency would be to refer to prospective studies which assemble two matched groups, vaccinate one group and leave the other unvaccinated and measure what happens over a significantly long period. In the normal course of vaccine approval this would have been done for around ten years prior to approval. No one has done this.
In the Pfizer trial the unvaccinated control group were all vaccinated after a few months, ensuring that long-term comparative outcomes are unavailable. In any case, during those few months more people died in the vaccine group than the unvaccinated control group. There are also many studies differentiating the outcomes of the vaccinated and unvaccinated that we have reported including journal citations.
How concerning is the excess death problem? According to the OECD there were 1.2 million excess deaths in 2022 among their member countries, with a combined population of 1.2 billion: one excess death in every 1,000 people.
Now it is becoming accepted that both Covid and Covid vaccination began their lives in a biotech lab, it doesn’t seem to much matter what proportion of excess deaths are due to Covid and what to Covid vaccination, but for the record in 2022 there were approximately 200,000 deaths ‘with Covid’ in the OECD. In summary, OECD excess deaths not attributable to Covid were one million in 2022 alone. This probably extends to a few millions worldwide, about the same as the annual deaths during World War one.
You can see why it is so important for those involved in creating Covid policy and enforcing mandates to make sure that everyone continues to believe that more unvaccinated die than vaccinated because otherwise their narrative that Covid policy is saving millions of lives completely falls apart.
In this light we can now assess the motivations of those still poking fun at the vaccine injured or accusing the ‘vaccine hesitant’ of seeking to undermine the government. For example the New Zealand Disinformation Project, funded by the Prime Minister’s Office, in common with many politicians, have described vaccine injury as a conspiracy theory. They are trying to hide their own mistakes which have undermined the health of the nation.
For the last couple of years the Hatchard Report has had a simple lament: ‘No one in authority seems prepared to ask why excess deaths are occurring at an unprecedented rate’. Deaths are in fact a very stable part of life. In a normal year there are no excess deaths. Insurance actuaries calculate how many of us will die and when with great accuracy, and set life insurance premiums accordingly. Right now, actuaries must be having sleepless nights because something has gone terribly wrong that has not happened at any other time during the last 100 years outside war and conflict zones: a great many people are falling ill and dying when they should be alive and well.
The Ministry of Health has been hiding these disturbing facts while quietly and hypocritically acknowledging their staff have a right to avoid these risks. They have not just gaslighted the public, they have recklessly put the public’s lives at great risk. This has broken families and communities, pitting one against another. It has caused tragedies affecting families across the nation, while the Ministry of Health and the government are going through tortuous and secret processes in order to conceal what is happening. Moreover they have plans to continue to roll out more experimental vaccines.
Facebook Censors Report On Study About Covid Vaccine mRNA Found in Breast Milk
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | October 6, 2023
Facebook has once more found itself at the helm of controversy regarding the censorship of accurate information concerning COVID-19. This is not the maiden voyage of the social media giant into the tempestuous waters of information control; earlier this year, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg conceded to having stifled truthful content about the pandemic at the behest of establishment voices.
His admission followed on the heels of both the US government and the World Health Organization declaring the curtain call on the COVID-19 public health emergency. This prompted Meta to retrench its medical “misinformation” policy, albeit the platform seemingly persists in its endeavor to silence certain narratives.
As reported by Public, the latest instance of censorship came to light when Facebook initiated a fact-check, labeled, and curtailed the visibility of an article titled “Covid Vaccine mRNA In Breast Milk Shows CDC Lied About Safety.” The scrutiny led by Facebook was not aimed at debunking the veracity of the article but instead was targeted at what it deemed as “missing context.”
The article, based on a recent Lancet study, brought to the public’s attention evidence of trace amounts of vaccine mRNA in breast milk, a finding that contradicts previous assurances by the CDC.
Despite the fact that these women were side-stepped in the original vaccine trials, they were given the green light for vaccination, based on the CDC’s now-questionable advice.
Facebook’s audit extrapolated the “context” that pregnant women ought to proceed with vaccination, thereby sidelining the primary discourse of the article which was to shed light on the misleading information dispersed by the CDC.
The methodology employed by Facebook in this instance extends beyond a mere examination of facts. By reducing the spread of the article, the platform effectively stifles a critical examination of the claims made by government health authorities, thereby undermining the public’s right to be informed and to engage in crucial discourse.
Facebook’s ongoing dalliance with censorship, especially of critical health-related information, raises significant questions about the role of social media platforms in the contemporary information ecosystem. The unfurling narrative underscores the necessity for a transparent, decentralized, and accountable framework for information dissemination, one that is immune to undue influence and serves the collective endeavor for truth.
The High Stakes in the Legal Battle for Free Speech
Brownstone Institute | October 6, 2023
The ongoing war between the US Security State and the First Amendment is perhaps the most underreported development of the 21st century. Now, Missouri v. Biden may bring it to the Supreme Court.
Just two decades ago, the internet promised liberation as dictatorships would cave to the emerging swell of information. That was the hope, at least.
“There’s no question China has been trying to crack down on the internet,” President Clinton said in 2000. “Good luck. That’s sort of like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.”
That optimism did not come to fruition. Instead of Westernizing the Orient, technology laid the foundation for the US Security State to pursue unprecedented social control.
At first, the conflict appeared to be between rank-and-file military members and transgressive cyber actors. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden seemed like mere hackers, not harbingers for the impending suspension of American liberty.
The battle suddenly became a civilizational struggle in 2020. A highly efficient technocracy declared war against the Bill of Rights. The US Security State shut down American society, eradicated due process, and captured the public health apparatus. The CIA bribed scientists to cover up the origins of Covid, and the Department of Homeland Security dictated what Americans could and could not see in their newsfeeds. The FBI helped banish the country’s oldest newspaper from Twitter for reporting on its preferred candidate’s son.
When Clinton made his “Jell-O” comment, few of us could imagine that we’d live in such a country. We trusted our courts and our elected government to protect us. We thought the rule of law was sacrosanct. We were wrong.
Now, however, the judiciary has the opportunity to reclaim the First Amendment from the tyranny of the Security State in Missouri v. Biden.
Missouri v. Biden and the CISA Injunction
Tuesday, the Fifth Circuit reinstated an injunction against CISA, an agency in the Department of Homeland Security, that prohibits its agents from colluding with social media companies to promote censorship of any kind.
The case demonstrates how far the United States has strayed from its former free speech ethos. CISA held ongoing meetings with social media platforms to “push them to adopt more restrictive policies on censoring election-related speech,” according to the Fifth Circuit. This included criticism of lockdowns, vaccines, and the Hunter Biden laptop. Through a process known as “switchboarding,” CISA officials dictated to Big Tech platforms what content was “true” or “false,” which became Orwellian euphemisms for acceptable and prohibited speech.
CISA’s leaders reveled in their usurpation of the First Amendment. They overturned hundreds of years of free speech protections, appointing themselves the arbiters of truth. Without freedom of “election-related speech,” we no longer live in a democracy. They pursued a faceless dictatorship.
They sought to eradicate dissent surrounding the policies that they imposed. CISA had been responsible for dividing the workforce into categories of “essential” and “nonessential” in March 2020. Hours later, the order became the basis for the country’s first “stay-at-home” order, a process that quickly spiraled into a previously unimaginable assault on Americans’ civil liberties.
CISA betrayed the country’s founding principle. A group of unelected bureaucrats hijacked American society without ever having a vote cast in their names. They disregarded the First Amendment, due process, and elected government in their pursuit of power.
The Framers understood that liberty relied on the free flow of information. They were well aware of the dangers of widespread lies and an incendiary press corps, but tyranny presented a far greater risk to society. Government could not be trusted to wield power over the minds of men, so they enshrined freedom of press, worship, and speech in our Constitution.
The Security State unwound those liberties. White House officials used the power of the federal government to suppress dissent. The Biden Administration launched an interagency attack on free speech. The Covid regime’s coup d’etat continued unimpeded until Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 injunction.
Now, the Fifth Circuit has remedied its previous error by reinstating the injunction against CISA. The case may now head to the Supreme Court, where the Justices would have the opportunity to dismantle the technocratic censorship operation at the heart of the Covid response.
The war is far from won. Julian Assange remains in jail alongside terrorists for publishing news reports that undermined the Security State’s deceit surrounding the War on Terror. Edward Snowden is banished from his homeland for exposing the lies of James Clapper.
President Biden’s “misinformation” crusade shows no signs of retreat entering the 2024 election cycle. Social media is still censored. Your Google results are still gamed at the behest of powerful state actors. YouTube has proudly announced that it will censor content based on the diktats of the World Health Organization. Say the wrong thing on LinkedIn and you are toast.
Among the large players, only X, formerly known as Twitter, is eschewing routine takedowns of speech deemed oppositional to regime priorities. That is truly only because one man had the means to buy and the drive to liberate it from the Censorship Industrial Complex, for now.
Tuesday’s decision reaffirmed what the Supreme Court called the “bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment” in 1989: “that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
Rebuilding from the wreckage of Covid will require reclaiming those fundamental pillars of American society. The freedom to speak was not the first right earned by a people in revolt against ancient-world forms of statism but it might be the most essential. That’s why it is instantiated in the very first amendment to the Bill of Rights.
If the regime can control the public mind, they can control everything else too. A loss here is a loss everywhere.
Germany Has Thrown Away or Donated 242 Million COVID-19 Vaccine Doses – 50 Million More Than it Has Used!
BY ROBERT KOGON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | OCTOBER 5, 2023
An interesting article in the German online magazine Multipolar on the many German COVID-19 vaccine ‘profiteers’ (BioNTech of course, but also lipid-suppliers Merck and Evonik, the Strüngmann brothers, the city of Mainz etc.) also contains some interesting observations on Germany’s own COVID-19 vaccine orders.
Author Karsten Montag notes that Germany has ordered some 672 million Covid vaccine doses: 557 million already at the height of the pandemic under then German Health Minister Jens Spahn and another 115 million under his successor Karl Lauterbach. But Germany has only in fact used 192 million doses (as can be seen here at the Ministry of Health’s handy ‘Vaccine Dashboard’).
Montag calculates that at the current relatively paltry vaccination rates in Germany, perhaps another one million doses will be used altogether by the end of this year. But what then about the remaining 479 million doses that have been ordered?
Well, not all of them have in fact been delivered. But Montag notes that in response to a question from the member of the German Bundestag Thomas Dietz, the German Government has now admitted to discarding 114 million COVID-19 vaccine doses which had reached their date of expiration by August 31st and of donating another 128 million to other countries.
This gives a total of 242 million COVID-19 vaccine doses which the German government has either discarded or donated – 50 million more than it has used!
Robert Kogon is the pen name of a widely-published journalist covering European affairs. Subscribe to his Substack and follow him on X.
Featured Video
The Empire Enters the Cocaine Trade
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Summary
The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food
Lies Are Unbekoming | January 20, 2026
Soybeans generate approximately $80 million annually in mandatory producer assessments alone, funding a marketing apparatus that has transformed an industrial commodity into one of America’s most trusted “health foods.” The campaign succeeded. Soy milk lines supermarket shelves beside dairy. Soy protein fortifies everything from infant formula to energy bars. Vegetarians rely on tofu and tempeh as dietary staples. Doctors recommend soy to menopausal women. School lunch programs serve soy-based meat substitutes to children. An estimated 60 percent of processed foods contain soy derivatives. The premise underlying this proliferation—that Asians have thrived on soy for millennia and that modern science validates its health benefits—has been repeated so often it functions as established fact.
Kaayla T. Daniel’s The Whole Soy Story dismantles this premise through systematic examination of the scientific literature. The book documents that traditional Asian soy consumption averaged roughly one tablespoon daily, consumed as fermented condiments after processing methods that neutralized inherent toxins—a pattern bearing no resemblance to American consumption of industrially processed soy protein isolate, soy flour, and soy oil. Daniel catalogs the antinutrients that survive modern processing (protease inhibitors, phytates, lectins, saponins), the toxic compounds created by industrial methods (nitrosamines, lysinoalanine, hexane residues), and the heavy metals concentrated in soy products (manganese, aluminum, fluoride, cadmium). She traces the mechanisms by which soy isoflavones—plant estrogens present at pharmacologically significant levels—disrupt thyroid function, impair fertility, and interact with hormone-sensitive cancers. The evidence emerges from peer-reviewed journals, FDA documents, and industry sources themselves.
The stakes extend beyond individual dietary choices. Infants fed soy formula receive isoflavone doses equivalent to several birth control pills daily, with blood concentrations 13,000 to 22,000 times higher than their natural estrogen levels. Soy protein isolate—the ingredient in formula, protein bars, and thousands of products—has never received GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status; its only pre-1960s use was as an industrial paper sealant. Two senior FDA scientists formally protested their own agency’s approval of soy health claims, citing evidence of thyroid damage and reproductive harm. The Honolulu Heart Program found that men consuming tofu twice weekly showed accelerated brain aging and increased dementia. These findings have not penetrated public awareness because the institutions responsible for consumer protection have been compromised by the industry they regulate. The Whole Soy Story presents the evidence that has been systematically excluded from mainstream health messaging, enabling readers to evaluate for themselves what the soy industry prefers they never learn. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
eddieb on Fourteen Incredible Facts Abou… Bill Francis on European leaders’ shift in the… seversonebcfb985d9 on Villains of Judea: Philip Esfo… loongtip on Report warns that ‘Jewish terr… Craig Nelms on New study shows that toxic gas… loongtip on A Funny Thing Happened on the… loongtip on EU free trade pact on hold as… John Edward Kendrick on Regime Change In Iran Is The F… Bill Francis on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… seversonebcfb985d9 on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… Bill Francis on Britain’s AI Policing Plan Tur… loongtip on Miami Beach Resident Questione…
Aletho News- US-Russia Arms Control May Face ‘Very Dark Period’ – Scott Ritter
- Israel moves to restrict Palestinian re-entry to Gaza, ‘encourage outflow’: Report
- Trump aims to create new UN and own it, Brazil’s Lula warns
- UN rapporteur says Israeli demolition of UNRWA compound reflects broader attack on UN system
- From Proxy to Disposable: The US Betrayal of the Syrian Kurds
- Six injured in stabbing spree at Kurdish rally in Antwerp, victims stabbed ‘indiscriminately’
- US pledges to ‘starve’ Iraq of oil revenue if pro-Iran parties join new government
- Is China a threat to Greenland?
- South Korea’s Prime Minister Proposes US Send Special Envoy to North Korea — Report
- Pentagon downgrades China threat, shifts focus to homeland, hemisphere
- If Americans Knew
- Another Gaza baby freezes to death on Netanyahu’s watch – Not a ceasefire Day 106
- Oppose Israel’s Abuses While You Still Can
- UNRWA Heads Tell Ha’aretz: ‘We Don’t Radicalize Palestinians – Their Lived Existence Does’
- Plans Call for “New Rafah” Built in Israel’s Image — Without Palestinians
- Posing as priest, reporter is spat at many times, highlighting anti-Christian sentiment in Israel
- Leaked Documents: “Planned Community” in Rafah Would Force Palestinians Into Israeli Panopticon
- ‘Permits of Humiliation’: How Israel Strangles Christian Education in Jerusalem
- “The world sees death, destruction and injustice – and they see dollar signs” – Not a ceasefire Day 105
- War criminal Netanyahu kills 11 in Gaza, joins Board of Peace – Not a ceasefire Day 104
- Another baby dies of cold in Gaza, as Rafah crossing remains locked down – Not a ceasefire Day 103
- No Tricks Zone
- 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
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
Aletho News 