The crushing of dissent throughout the covid era
Orwellian parallels worsen by the week
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | October 8, 2022
The recent actions of the financial technology company, PayPal, to close the accounts of subscribers expressing political opinions of which they disapprove, represents the latest example of censorship within so-called liberal democracies. Their strategic decisions to block the online monetary activities of the Free Speech Union, the Daily Sceptic website and the Us For Them campaign group – although later reversed – signal the willingness of powerful global big-tech companies to collude with governments in the crushing of activities that challenge the dominant narratives. But no one should be surprised; we have all been manipulated by top-down censorship and state propaganda for many years, a dystopian process that accelerated during the covid era.
Since the emergence of the novel coronavirus in early 2020, there has been widespread censorship of views that do not support the two mantras of covid-19 orthodoxy: namely that, ‘Lockdowns and other restrictions were appropriate responses’ and ‘The mRNA vaccines are safe and effective’. Indeed, the unprecedented and non-evidenced covid restrictions could not have been so successfully imposed without propaganda in all its forms. Contrary to popular opinion, techniques of manipulation do not only characterise recognised totalitarian regimes, but are now endemic within contemporary liberal democracies. And three, overlapping, forms of non-consensual persuasion have been widely deployed throughout the covid era to control the narrative and subsequent behaviour of citizens:
1. Control through emotional manipulation
The covert influencing of people’s emotions via use of behavioural-science ‘nudges’ has been well documented. Based on the advice of state-employed psychological experts, the covid-19 communication strategy has relied heavily on evoking uncomfortable feelings in the populace as a way of inducing them to ‘do the right thing’, where what is ‘right’ is solely determined by government-appointed officials. In particular, the manipulation of fear, shame and scapegoating – or ‘affect’, ‘ego’ and ‘norms’, to use the euphemisms of behavioural science – has been conducted for this purpose via the broadcasting of selective statistics, alarming images and emotional messaging. Furthermore, the decision to impose mask mandates was most likely informed by the knowledge that face coverings enhance the power of each of these three nudges, thereby increasing people’s compliance with government diktats.
Despite escalating concerns about the ethical basis of the state’s deployment of behavioural science, there has been a stark reluctance of anyone in authority to accept responsibility for this form of manipulation. The British Psychological Society (the formal guardians of ethical application of psychological interventions) is of the view that covertly inflicting emotional distress on people so as to promote compliance with covid restrictions and the vaccine rollout is acceptable as it is encouraging ‘social responsibility’, thereby colluding – along with other professional bodies – with the state’s mission to silence dissent and eliminate contrary behaviour. Meanwhile the Government show a reluctance to explore the ethics underpinning their deployment of nudges as evidenced by their ‘Public Administration and Public Affairs Committee’ ignoring a request for an independent inquiry and the omission of any mention of behavioural science in the draft terms of reference for the Inquiry into the covid-19 pandemic.
2. Control through modulating the flow of information
A second way of controlling dissent – used at unprecedentedly high levels throughout the covid event – has been via the regulation of information flow within our TV, radio, newspaper and social media outlets. Ease of access to facts, data and opinion (including that of scientific experts) has been mainly determined by the degree to which the information corresponds with the dominant narratives: write or speak words supportive of lockdowns, masking and vaccination and they will typically receive preferential treatment within the media’s editorial processes, gaining prominence and ease of access; in contrast, say or print something contrarian and it will most likely be submerged in the quagmire of daily media output.
The seeds of this system of selective information flow had been sown prior to 2020 with the formation of the ‘Trusted News Initiative’ (a coalition of mainstream media, publishers and big-tech companies) aspiring to ‘create a global alliance of integrity in news’ by countering ‘misinformation’ and ‘bias’. Furthermore, at the start of the pandemic, Ofcom – the UK’s communications regulator – instructed broadcasters not to cover anything that went against the Government’s narrative. This censorial alliance ensured that voices expressing dissent about covid restrictions and the vaccine rollout were disadvantaged, displaced to the inaccessible fringes of media output.
In the UK, there has even been military involvement in the form of the 77th Brigade with their explicit mission to create and spread material ‘in support of designated tasks’ while also ‘supporting counter-adversarial information activity’. Internationally, the WHO has effectively modulated the flow of information via the use of fact-checking organisations and collaborations with Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and YouTube, so as to guarantee that ‘science-based health messages from official sources’ (aka the dominant narrative) appear first when one searches for covid information.
Specific examples of the impact of this – seemingly global – operation to control information flow are numerous. They include: Professor Gupta (an epidemiological expert) being instructed not to mention the Great Barrington Declaration prior to appearing on a BBC discussion programme about lockdowns; academic journals blocking the peer-reviewed covid research of Dr Peter McCullough and the suppression of trial findings that had concluded that Ivermectin was an effective treatment; the removal of Dr Robert Malone (the inventor of mRNA technology) from Twitter; and the removal of MPs Sir Christopher Chope and David Davies from YouTube for, respectively, raising concerns about vaccine damage and vaccine effectiveness.
One fundamental consequence of this selective regulation of information was that our Western media – a supposed pillar of democracy – failed us all in their refusal to scrutinise and evaluate the actions of public officials.
3. Control through erasing dissenting voices
Presumably based on the assumption that eliminating people before dissent is expressed is a more effective censorial method than controlling their information output, throughout the covid era there appears to have been a systematic state-driven attempt to discredit or cancel those brave individuals expressing views that are inconsistent with the dominant restrict-and-jab narrative.
Since March 2020, anyone who has expressed a contrarian covid opinion in a public space will likely have attracted criticism involving accusations of being ‘right wing’, fascist or a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Efforts by powerful players to destroy reputations and livelihoods through smearing and character assassination have been commonplace. Arguably the most high-profile example of this egregious practice is in regards to the targeting of the main authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, a multi-signatory document arguing for an alternative to the blanket lockdowns. In leaked emails between Anthony Fauci (Chief Medical Advisor to the US president) and Francis Collins (the Director of the US National Institute of Health), these powerful state officials refer to the illustrious authors of the document as ‘fringe epidemiologists’ while describing the need for a ‘quick and devastating public takedown’ of their arguments. Furthermore, the extremely popular US podcaster, Joe Rogan, was smeared as a transphobe and racist in the aftermath of him giving a platform to experts expressing views at odds with the dominant covid narrative.
A threat of imminent loss of earnings – actual or implied – is another tactic that has been commonly deployed to cancel those criticising the approach of Western governments to pandemic management. Many academics have suffered in this way, including Canadian professor Julie Ponesse who lost her job after she challenged the vaccine mandates. Of course, such a draconian sanction serves as a warning to many other university scholars who might also be considering expressing dissent.
The recent actions of PayPal suggest that our medico-technocratic powerhouses are not satisfied with inflicting emotional distress, censorship and character assassination on the Western population, but now seek to control how we spend our money. Manipulation by means of regulating access to our finances may be the new front in the war on freedom of verbal and behavioural expression. It raises the spectre of the imposition of a totalitarian social credit system, mediated via a Central Bank Digital Currency, a world where unelected global bureaucrats determine our monthly spend based on the degree to which our behaviour conforms to their version of what constitutes the ‘greater good’.
In the words of Piers Robinson (an expert on global propaganda), ‘That the censorship, smearing and coercion … has come to be tolerated is a clear indicator of how far our democracies have slipped into an authoritarian abyss’. And the imminent Online Harms Bill, with its ‘legal but harmful’ category, may further restrict our basic human right to freedom of expression. But there is still hope. As more and more people become aware of the associated collateral damage, the dominant narratives on the benefits of lockdowns, school closures, masks and ‘safe-and-effective’ covid vaccines are beginning to crumble. As awareness of ubiquitous state-funded manipulation and censorship grows, increasing numbers of citizens are turning to independent sources of expert information – such as HART and PANDA – for reliable covid updates. The basic human right of freedom of expression within Western democracies must be protected; once lost, it is unlikely to be restored within our lifetimes.
No balanced coverage of covid vaccines in legacy media, says Peter Doshi
By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | October 16, 2022
Peter Doshi, associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and senior editor at The BMJ, has spoken out about how the mainstream media has ignored important data on covid-19 vaccines.
In a recent interview with German TV, Doshi said, “Our legacy media has not done a good job in providing balanced coverage about the vaccines.”
He said there has been “a lot of nervousness” about how to communicate vaccine harms to people and is concerned that “we’re not getting the information we need to make better choices and to have a more informed understanding of risk and benefit.”
Doshi’s concerns extended to the over-confidence of public health authorities engaged in promoting the covid-19 vaccines.
“It was very unfortunate, that from the beginning, what was presented to us by public health officials was a picture of great certainty… but the reality was that there were extremely important unknowns,” said Doshi who has written and spoken about these unknowns, highlighting that even public health officials were aware of these limitations.
“We entered a situation where essentially the stakes became too high to later present that uncertainty to people.” He added, “I think that’s what set us off on the wrong foot. Public officials should have been a lot more forthright about the gaps in our knowledge.”
Doshi was part of an international group of eminent academic researchers and physicians who went back and re-analysed the safety data from the original randomised clinical trials that underpinned the FDA’s decision to authorise the mRNA vaccines in December 2020.
I reported on the pre-print study, but since then, it has been published in the peer-reviewed journal, Vaccine.
The authors focused on serious adverse events that occurred in the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine trials, events the sponsors classified as “serious” generally because they resulted in hospitalisation.
In short, their analysis showed that mRNA vaccines were associated with 1 additional serious adverse event for every 800 people vaccinated, which Doshi said is “much more common” than what we’ve traditionally observed for other vaccines where the adverse event rate is in the range of 1 to 2 per million vaccinees.
“Just to put that in some perspective, a rate like that in past years has had vaccines taken off the market. In 1976, we saw Guillain Barre Syndrome after influenza vaccines that were then withdrawn.”
The authors of the study also found the trial data showed that the increase in serious adverse events following mRNA vaccination surpassed the reduction in risk of ending up hospitalised with covid-19.
Despite public assurances that covid-19 vaccines would save lives and protect the community by preventing transmission, Doshi knew from the outset that it was never properly tested. In Oct 2020, Doshi published an article in The BMJ:
Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out [emphasis added]
It was, therefore, unsurprising to Doshi that the vaccines failed to stop the spread.
“One of the big reasons is that it’s an intramuscular vaccine, and this doesn’t produce mucosal immunity. Infections of covid, influenza and other acute respiratory infections, start in the mucosal membranes, a place where these vaccines are not particularly good, historically, at producing immunity antibodies” said Doshi.
Doshi and his colleagues have called on public health authorities and drug manufacturers to release the raw data so that we can better understand who is most at risk of a serious adverse event.
“There’s no reason to think that these risks are going away and if it’s in the low-risk population, that’s very bad news, because low-risk people have much less to potentially gain from covid vaccines, so the side effect profile in such people has to be extremely low,” said Doshi, pointing out that Denmark now recommends against routine covid-19 vaccination for people under 50.
The FDA and the vaccine manufacturers have the raw ‘patient level’ data, but they have not released it and we’re now almost 2 years into the roll out of the product.
“They should immediately be warning people about this safety signal that we found, and they should immediately be replicating our analysis — the data are indicating there’s increased risk at a level that is much higher than has previously been realised,” said Doshi.
Throughout the pandemic, we’ve been told to “trust the science” but Doshi says, “How can one recommend responsibly that these products are based on science if the data are not available? Science is about sharing data. We’re in an era of open science, not secret science.”
Doshi and colleagues have penned an open letter to the CEOs of the vaccine companies asking for the raw data, but as yet, they have not received a reply.
See the full interview on mdr.de
ACIP committee approves mRNA vaccines for the childhood schedule 15-0
By Steve Kirsch | October 20, 2022
The ACIP committee voted on Thursday, as predicted, to add the COVID vaccines to the childhood vaccination schedule so that the manufacturers will now get full liability protection for the authorized product forever.
Here’s the Reuters story that was just published:
U.S. CDC advisers approve adding COVID shots to vaccine schedules
The last of the public commenters was cut off because they were talking about Nuremberg. They were asking why do you even have a public comment section because nobody listens to the comments.
The ACIP committee voted 15-0 to approve the mRNA COVID shots for the childhood immunization schedule, just as I and others predicted they would.
See Meryl Nass’s writeup on her prediction which just came true a few minutes ago.
This means several things:
- The “emergency” can now end. They needed the emergency to be able to create EUA approval which gave them liability protection as long as the emergency existed. The emergency is no longer needed.
- The vaccine makers can now manufacture fully “approved” vaccines and have complete liability protection forever.
- The ACIP vote is just a recommendation. The CDC must add it to the schedule, but that’s a slam dunk.
These people do not want to see any data that shows the vaccines are not safe.
I tried to ask the Chair of the ACIP committee, Grace Lee, if she wanted to see the Israeli safety data showing the vaccines aren’t safe. She refused to answer my Yes or No question on this important data and called the cops on me (even though I didn’t violate any laws). I have it all on video.
That is the level of corruption we are dealing with here: “scientists” who simply look the other way when asked if they want to see the safety data.
My video erases all doubt that they could be honest. The cop handed her my note so I know she got it. She never responded to the offer. They don’t want to look at any negative data.
The Reuters article contained this statement:
“Adding the COVID-19 vaccine to the recommended childhood immunization schedule does not constitute a requirement that any child receive the vaccine,” said Dr. Nirav Shah, an ACIP member and Director of Maine’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
What Dr. Shah failed to point out is that there are many states which adopt the entire childhood schedule as a requirement to attend public school. So sure, the vote doesn’t force anyone to follow it, but the reality is that it will be mandated in those states that require the entire vaccine schedule. That point was conveniently left out.
We all knew this was going to happen. I still don’t know of a single healthy kid who died from COVID. We do know of healthy kids who die from the shot. This is insanity and few members of Congress have the guts to speak out about this.
If you haven’t supported Senator Ron Johnson in the past, this would be a very good time to donate to his campaign. It is imperative he win. Please read this article and make a donation using the link in the article. Thanks!
Spike Protein Triggers Coronary Plaque Destabilization and Thrombosis
By Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake | Courageous Discourse | October 20, 2022
As a cardiologist, I have received many reports of cardiovascular events (unstable angina, myocardial infarction) occurring after COVID-19 vaccination. Each vignette is different from an explosive fatal heart attack to rapid progression of coronary disease and the need for stenting or bypass surgery. A study by Gundy, who measured multiple biomarkers before and after vaccination was presented as an abstract at the American Heart Association; it predicted heart attacks would happen with COVID-19 vaccination based upon indicators that atherosclerotic plaque within coronary arteries would destabilize with circulatory Spike protein and cytokines.[i] This inflammatory milieu in combination with the thrombogenic nature of the Spike protein is a recipe for fatal and nonfatal heart attacks in patients with existing coronary disease.
This is different from myocarditis which is direct heart inflammation that can occur in younger people with normal coronary arteries. To the casual observer if a man over age 50 years drops dead a few weeks or a few months after a COVID-19 vaccine, it is possible the mechanism of death may have been a fatal myocardial infarction and thrombotic blockage of a coronary artery to heart muscle as depicted in the figure. The only way to tell if the cause of death was coronary heart disease or myocarditis would be to obtain a limited autopsy. Baronti et al reported on four fatal myocardial infarction cases occurring shortly after COVID-19 vaccination.[ii] All of the patients underwent autopsies and were found to have predisposing factors to blood clots. Patients with prior heart attacks, stents, and bypass surgery are at unacceptably high risk for progression of disease after COVID-19 vaccination and despite the fearful fervor of their cardiologists, they should respectfully decline the shots to keep their cardiovascular system safe. COVID-19 is always treatable and so many heart patients have already had the illness so the next episode will be characteristically mild. Because SARS-CoV-2 respiratory illness can trigger cardiovascular events in the months after hospitalization, recovering patients should consider themselves at equal risk to those who have taken the vaccine and report new heart symptoms to their cardiologist.[iii] Probably the highest risk patients are those who have had severe COVID-19 and have taken multiple injections either before or after the respiratory infection. In these cases, multiply loading the body with long-lasting Spike protein is highly likely to be an ongoing danger to the cardiovascular system and the only way to navigate out of the storm is to decline any further injections and let the body slowly recover.
Organized Chaos in South Central, Los Angeles
BY DANIEL NUCCIO | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | OCTOBER 19, 2022
The LAPD’s 77th Division in South Central serves what some officers consider “pretty much the most violent area of the entire city and county of Los Angeles,” explained Officer Charles Simmering in a phone interview. “You’re just running and gunning all night. You’re just running. There’s never a dull moment. You’re just going from one call to the next to the next. ‘Organized chaos’ is the best way we describe it.”
Each night, he explained, the 77th Division puts out a minimum of 12 cars, usually two officers per car, all 24 officers feeling “beyond overwhelmed.” The 77th Division can’t afford to lose people, Simmering said. But, he continued, that’s exactly what’s happening.
“Last year at my division alone I think we lost roughly 40 officers – and that’s putting a hurt, putting a strain on everybody,” said Simmering.
“People are leaving,” he stated. “They’re tired. They’re fed up.” Their reasons vary according to Simmering’s account. Lack of support. Lack of trust on the part of the city. Frustrations over not being allowed to make their own decisions out on the job. Nonetheless, the departure of these officers only exacerbates some of the problems that drove them to leave.
“If you need a particular day off for something family-related, your mother’s birthday or kid’s birthday, or something important,” Simmering explained, “They deny you and say, ‘No, you can’t have the day off. Sorry. We’re undermanned. We need people here.’”
That is, they need people, assuming they are vaccinated for Covid-19 because to the city bureaucracy Covid-19 remains the greatest threat to the citizens of South Central, as well as the rest of Los Angeles. Hence, officers such as Simmering, who remain unvaccinated for Covid-19, are considered dispensable.
The Parallel Reality of LA’s City Workers
Announced in July of 2021 and later passed and approved that August at the height of the Pandemic Era’s mandate madness, Los Angeles’ vaccine mandate for city employees still remains in effect. Predicated on the continued threat of Covid-19 to public health, the effectiveness of Covid vaccines, and the danger posed by the unvaccinated, the mandate comes off as a relic from a bygone era, as do the protracted Byzantine processes to which employees seeking exemptions must submit and the testing protocols such employees must agree to follow.
According to the anti-mandate organization Roll Call 4 Freedom, the ordinance and the system it established are illegal. According to the unvaccinated employees living under the ordinance, the system often seems random and arbitrary. Yet, in October of 2022, when there appears to be little doubt that Covid vaccines do little to stop the spread of Covid and that the vaccinated can spread the disease as easily as the unvaccinated, vaccine mandates are alive and well in the city of LA.
By the account of James Greenfield, a manager in the sanitation department, “It’s like we’re living in a parallel universe… [we’re] just in a parallel reality.”
Looking back on the past year, Greenfield, who is unvaccinated for Covid due to religious reasons, described life under the ordinance in a phone interview, saying requirements for compliance are always changing, “the goal post is always moving.”
“It was originally, you know, submit an exemption…” he stated. “It later developed into like this four-page, unconstitutional questionnaire on your religious beliefs.”
The city also wanted employees to “have a pastor answer questions.” Greenfield added. “I mean it [was] just over the top on violating your, you know, your religious freedom.”
Greenfield said he filed for a religious exemption, but refused to fill out the four-page form.
As a condition of remaining employed while working through the exemption process, Greenfield said, he and other unvaccinated city employees were initially required to test twice per week, but that was later reduced to once per week. The city, he said, also threatened to deduct the cost of the tests from people’s paychecks. However, before the city could charge anyone’s paycheck, they first needed them to fill out paperwork giving them permission to charge their paychecks.
“I didn’t fill out the paperwork,” Greenfield said. “I’m not going to give [the city] permission to take money out of my paycheck.”
But, he noted, he believes “a lot of people were coerced” and the city managed to bill at least a couple of people before they had to stop.
More recently, said Greenfield, they tried to bill the tests to the insurance of unvaccinated employees but backed off from those attempts within a couple of weeks.
Yvette Smith, an animal control officer at the City of Los Angeles’ Harbor Animal Shelter in the San Pedro neighborhood, stated, “We just didn’t give our insurance information and then [the city] pulled away.”
Like Greenfield, Smith has been required to test for Covid for nearly a year as she works her way through the exemption process. During the past year, Smith said, she had submitted a request for a religious exemption, was informed that it was denied, and appealed the decision. Now, in October of 2022, she awaits a decision regarding her appeal.
In some ways, although frustrated and inconvenienced, she believes people in her department (or at least her corner of her department), have gotten lucky. “As long as you have submitted a religious exemption that [the city has] denied and it’s in some imaginary nebulous area and you agree to test, they’re pretty much leaving us alone. So I’m grateful for that.”
However, Smith noted, “Every department is treating [the ordinance] differently.”
The Autumn Purge
Currently, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation appears to be one of the departments in which a purge of the unvaccinated is in full swing.
Navy veteran and former wildland firefighter, Rene Ochoa, has been a traffic officer with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation for the past 19 years. “I’ve been grateful for my job,” he said in a phone interview. “It’s helped me to have a lifestyle [I wanted], permitted me to have my home and provide for my wife and my children.”
Last year, he said, he filed a request for a religious exemption due to concerns about potential side effects and the use of aborted fetal cell lines in the development of the Covid vaccines. After his request was denied in May 2022, Ochoa said he appealed the denial. That appeal, he explained, was denied in July.
“Then, September 13 of this year…” he said, “I was walked off the job, locked out of my station in front of all my fellow coworkers…”
“I am currently on administrative leave,” stated Ochoa. “I have a Skelly hearing scheduled for Friday November 4 at 10:00 am.”
Amongst city employees working their way through the process of attaining a religious exemption from the Covid vaccine mandate, Skelly hearings are generally seen as the final step prior to termination.
Reflecting on the strong likelihood that he will lose his job on November 4, Ochoa said, “I’m in a much better position than a lot of other people I know that are younger than me and with maybe say half the time [in a city job].”
Because of his time working other positions with the city and with LA County, Ochoa is eligible for retirement, although with an early retirement penalty if he takes it before he turns 55; Ochoa is currently 53.
Smith expressed similar sentiments, commenting on the possibility she might be terminated. “I’m in a different position than most people. I’m pretty close to retirement [in June 2023] and kind of don’t give a shit at this point. So, you know, I’ll just keep jumping through the hoops until it bothers me too much and then I just won’t do it any more.”
If the City of Los Angeles does try to proceed with her termination, Smith is optimistic that she can work within the system to delay its finalization through a strategic use of vacation time, family leave, and possibly agreeing to unpaid leave until she can retire at least sort of on her terms. She admitted she is morally conflicted about having to resort to these kinds of tactics, but will do what she needs to do.
Yet, most Los Angeles city employees do not find themselves in positions where they can retire early or maneuver their way through the system until they can run out the clock and retire on terms they find acceptable.
Pearl Pantoja, for example, an employee with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, who was interviewed previously for an article published by Brownstone Institute about the troubles faced by LA city workers, has five children, one of whom has special needs. She also serves as the caregiver for her disabled mother. She and her family depend on her paycheck and the benefits that come with her job.
However, she said, “Friday, September 16, I was in effect placed on, my supervisor used the word suspension. I know the city’s calling it administrative leave without pay.”
“They gave me a notice with an appointment…” she stated. “It says you’re being placed off for non-compliance.”
But, Pantoja holds, “I was compliant, except they refused to accept my religious exemption.”
“They also did not… attempt to see if there were any reasonable accommodations that could be made so that I could continue to work.” Pantoja claims these are “parts of the process [that were] just simply ignored.”
Currently, Pantoja, like her colleague, Ochoa, awaits her Skelly hearing. Based on what she has seen happen to other unvaccinated colleagues, she is not optimistic about the future. “I have a colleague who lost his job and he is now homeless…I have another colleague who is expecting his first child and he’s now out of work and [has] no healthcare.”
“I’m really worried,” she said. “I almost know with certainty that I’m going to lose my job.”
What Lies Behind the Curtain
Perhaps the City of Los Angeles’ mandate, exemption process, and the personal and professional devastation they wrought can best be described as a form of organized chaos.
Part of what makes this all so frustrating and demoralizing, according to Greenfield, is the way the whole system is set up. No one is really accountable for any of the decisions made regarding exemptions, testing, appeals, or terminations. Everything is done through third parties and anonymous emails.
“You’ll get an email… with no name,” he explained. “Nobody attached to it. Nobody personally to talk to about it.”
“It’s like they’re just hiding,” he said. “They’re hiding behind a shroud. You know, supposedly there’s this committee that’s reviewing and coming up with these policies except who would know who’s on this committee. Who the names are? When they meet? It’s just a blind process like the wizard behind the curtain. The Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. You know, and that’s the process.”
Moreover, Greenfield noted, he and other unvaccinated city employees live with this feeling that “the hammer can drop anytime.”
“So, you’re just living under this uncertainty,” he said. “When’s the carpet going to get pulled out from beneath you?”
Simmering, who is currently on medical leave due to an injury sustained on the job, said the decision regarding his exemption has been placed on hold until he can return to work, at which point he said he’ll have to “play the Russian roulette with whether not they’re going to approve [his] exemption.”
“It’s like so much of the country is going in a different direction and maybe backtracking,” Greenfield said. “You know, maybe they thought [mandates were] a good decision. But [in LA], there’s no backtracking. It’s like they’re doubling down. [They’re] sticking to [their] guns here even though nobody else is.”
“Until Proven Otherwise, it is Likely Covid mRNA Vaccines Played a Significant Role in All Unexplained Heart Attacks Since 2021”
BY WILL JONES | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | OCTOBER 18, 2022
“Until proven otherwise, it is likely that Covid mRNA vaccines played a significant or primary role in all unexplained heart attacks, strokes, cardiac arrhythmias and heart failure since 2021.”
That’s according to Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a renowned British cardiologist who once endorsed the vaccines on TV but is now raising awareness of their dangers. In September his two–part, peer-reviewed analysis of vaccine efficacy and safety was published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance.
Dr. Malhotra made the comments in a new interview with James Freeman Wells, a former Head of U.K. Trade and Business Inflation Statistics at the Office for National Statistics, the U.K.’s Government statistics agency. James has tweeted a link to the full interview here.
Dr. Malhotra’s comments come ahead of a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Damage, where he will speak to MPs and Peers about the evidence of the risks from the vaccines, putting it in the context of wider problems with the way medicine is regulated and marketed globally. The meeting was originally planned for September but was delayed due to the Queen’s death and will now take place this coming Thursday, October 20th in the House of Commons of the U.K Parliament.
Referring to the worrisome influence of large pharmaceutical companies in the regulation of drugs – whom he describes as “immoral” and “psychopathic” because he says they are constitutionally unable to put people before profits – he proclaims:
“It’s time to put patients before profits, to put truth before money, to put human needs ahead of the needs of an immoral, psychopathic entity. Let’s do this.”
James Wells has posted a link to a template letter to encourage your MP to attend here.
Let’s hope this delivers another hammer blow to the wall of silence that has thus far met the growing clamour for recognition of the extraordinary level of injuries associated with these experimental genetic vaccines.
‘Profiles of the Vaccine-Injured’: New CHD Book Exposes Life-Changing Impact of Vaccine Injuries
The Defender – October 17, 2022
Governments, public health experts and the media have so often repeated the false claims that vaccine injuries are “rare,” “almost nonmeasurable” or “one in a million,” that many people believe them — until they experience an injury.
The controlled messaging — together with censorship of vaccine injury stories in the public square and indecent gaslighting of injured individuals who speak up — have thrown a cloak of invisibility over vaccination’s potential to ruin health and torpedo financial security.
“Profiles of the Vaccine-Injured: ‘A Lifetime Price to Pay’” — a new book by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) with a foreword by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. — exposes the official soft-pedaling of vaccine risks as a dangerous lie.
As the book takes pains to explain, vaccine injuries are common, not rare. They are “equal opportunity,” affecting all demographic groups, including young and old, rich and poor.
Vaccine injuries are, more often than not, profoundly life-changing, and they have significant ripple effects on family members.
And, with the advent of experimental COVID-19 injections, they are occurring on a scale never before seen.
Because nearly all vaccines, whether fully licensed or authorized for emergency use, are liability-free, in most cases, families are left holding the bag for the medical, educational, caregiver and other expenses that a serious vaccine injury generates — costs that have the potential to bankrupt not only individual households but the nation.
Nine stories
The heart of the book resides in nine vaccine injury stories, told by mothers of injured children and by persons injured as adults.
Their injuries, at ages ranging from 12 months to 49 years, followed receipt of “routine” childhood vaccines, travel vaccines or COVID-19 shots.
The interviews convey in vivid detail what it’s like to live with conditions such as severe autism, chronic pain or immune systems gone haywire — and, in one case, describe the tragic loss of a promising teenager’s life shortly after receiving a shot.
The nine individuals also describe experiences with gaslighting and obfuscation by the medical profession, strained family relationships and interrupted or curtailed careers, along with immense regret for “the worst decision of their life.”
Equally importantly, they identify a theme that, while common, is perhaps one of the most underrecognized facts about vaccine injury: “When it comes to vaccine injuries, there’s no help legally or financially — you’re on your own.”
Dollars and cents
Although the two pieces of legislation that established vaccines’ liability-free status have been in place for years or decades — the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (for most licensed vaccines) and the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act (for Emergency Use Authorization vaccines) — the laws and their financial ramifications remain unknown to large swaths of the public.
Both laws created mechanisms for vaccine injury compensation, but little more than one in four petitioners (28%) to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program have obtained anything — usually after years of wrangling with adversarial government attorneys — and no one has received compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) for a COVID-19 vaccine injury.
Just after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, The Associated Press described the CICP as “an obscure program with a record of seldom paying claims,” and interviewed worried experts who admitted the program could “get overwhelmed very, very quickly.”
Instead of getting “overwhelmed,” Forbes noted that relatively few individuals had, by November 2021, applied to CICP for compensation for COVID-19 vaccine-related injuries or deaths — around 1,360 — but the financial magazine speculated that the low number might be because “people don’t know the special fund exists.”
By September 2022, the landscape had shifted, with nearly 9,000 CICP petitions filed, though the program’s fiscal year 2022 budget contained funds sufficient to compensate at most three applicants.
As Wayne Rohde, a long-time analyst of U.S. vaccine injury compensation statistics, stated in an analysis of the CICP, “Our government really does not want to compensate those who have been injured.”
An unhealthy nation
In its introductory chapters, “Profiles of the Vaccine-Injured” also takes a comprehensive look at other sources of information on vaccine injuries, ranging from vaccine package inserts to published research.
Discussing the poor showing of U.S. children — and adults — in global health rankings, the book reiterates a point that CHD has emphasized in other books: namely, that vaccination must be considered a key “elephant in the room” linked to America’s chronic disease epidemics.
The recent forced release of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) V-safe app suggests that the COVID-19 injections are responsible for shocking numbers of debilitating symptoms, including severe pain as well as unprecedented rates of hospitalization and worse.
In fact, while Americans’ health disadvantage — which “begins at birth and extends across the life course” — had translated into plunging life expectancy even before the COVID-19 injections, premature deaths have become especially noticeable since the vaccines’ rollout.
Exposing the truth behind the vaccine safety myth, “Profiles of the Vaccine-Injured” is, as Kennedy writes in his foreword, ultimately a call to arms.
“When you are done weeping and tearing out your hair from fury, frustration and indignation, join Children’s Health Defense in doing something about it,” Kennedy wrote.
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.
Those Demonising the Unvaccinated Need to Look in the Mirror
BY NICK RENDELL | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | OCTOBER 17, 2022
It’s been known since the outbreak of Covid that obesity leads to higher rates of hospitalisations and deaths. Despite this, very few resources were deployed to encourage healthier eating and lifestyles. This article argues that this was a disastrous decision for the long term health of the nation and the short to medium term capacity of the NHS.
Boris Johnson (BMI 34; healthy is under 25) in his New Year message broadcast on December 31st 2020 said: “Get a vaccine, it’s far easier than losing weight” (see video from two minutes in). Well, the people of the U.K. took him at his word: we’ve had 30 months to galvanise the population into losing weight and getting fitter, 30 months entirely squandered.
First, let’s just look at how effective spending £25bn injecting 150 million vaccines into the U.K. population has been. As the NHS continues to struggle to meet demand, perhaps Covid hospital admissions are the key metric. For the vaccine programme to have been a success we should expect the unvaccinated to be disproportionately admitted to hospital. They’re not. These figures come from the latest UKHSA Weekly Vaccine Surveillance Report; table 12a on page 49 gives us the figures for hospital admissions between March 21st and August 28th of this year. In each age cohort the unvaccinated are proportionately less likely to be hospitalised than the vaccinated. As an example, in the 50-64 year-olds, 129 of the 1,342 admissions were unvaccinated, that’s 9.6%. Yet, about 14% of that age group are unvaccinated. If the unvaccinated were more likely to be hospitalised we would expect the figures to be reversed, to see a higher proportion of the unvaccinated hospitalised than the total proportion of people unvaccinated.
Demonstrably, despite the Government’s claims that vaccines have reduced hospital admissions, this can’t be true. Something has reduced hospital admissions from the peaks in the first two waves, but if the rate of admission is much the same for the vaccinated and the unvaccinated I struggle to see how vaccines can explain it. Surely, far more likely are the twin benefits of immunity brought about by prior infection and a less virulent variant. Figure 2 shows the peaks and troughs of Covid hospital admissions since the start of the pandemic.
Also worth noting, the seven-day average number of hospital admissions for Covid is currently 132% higher than it was on October 7th 2020, before anyone anywhere had been vaccinated, and 86% higher than on October 7th 2021 when most people had been vaccinated – though it should be noted that over half of Covid hospital admissions since Omicron have been primarily being treated for something else.
Despite my deep scepticism of the efficacy of the mRNA vaccines and the real world evidence presented above, to avoid any accusations of dogmatism I’m going to indulge the vaccine zealots’ figures for vaccine effectiveness. Again, with the data taken from the Government’s week 40 vaccine surveillance report, figure 3 suggests that the UKHSA thinks that the best protection a fourth dose of vaccine can offer is about 50%, soon falling to 20%.
Now let’s compare that vaccine efficacy with the impact of obesity on severe Covid outcomes by turning to a fascinating study published in June in the Lancet that looked at how BMI affects Covid outcomes. What made this latest study particularly interesting was that it used real, though anonymised, data from about 20% of the U.K. population. The data, from QResearch had over 12 million patient records but about 3 million couldn’t be used, mainly because BMI data were missing, but that still left 9,171,524 patient records to be analysed. So, again, we’re looking at real-world evidence whereas the UKHSA vaccine efficacy rates are estimates.
The data related to the period from December 2020 to November 2021. This was the period covering the initial rollout through to booster doses in older people. Part of the summary table is reproduced in Figure 4. I’ve highlighted in red hospital admissions.
There were 3,509,213 people of a healthy weight in the study, of whom 8,315 were hospitalised with Covid, that’s 0.23%. Of the 3,062,925 overweight people, 10,653 or 0.35% were hospitalised. That means the overweight were 50% more likely to end up in hospital than those classed as healthy weight.
Of the 2,278,649 obese people 13,044 or 0.57% were hospitalised. This means they were 150% more likely require hospital treatment than the healthy weight group.
Let’s now compare the relative risk of being vaccinated with that of being obese. The obese get hospitalised at a rate 150% greater than those of a healthy weight while the best you can hope for from your fourth vaccine is a 50% reduction in the likelihood of being admitted to hospital, dropping to 20% after about four months. And that’s another key point, keep the weight off and that risk reduction remains in contrast to any benefit from vaccination that soon wanes to nothing (assuming it ever existed in the first place).
But of course, it’s not just Covid where the overweight and obese have worse outcomes. The Lancet study goes on to list some of the other health outcomes for other conditions. The obese are almost six times more likely to have type 2 diabetes, more than twice as likely to suffer cardiovascular disease and over three times more likely to suffer hypertension.
Lose weight and many of these rates of disease would fall. The burden on the NHS would be reduced, the people losing weight, in most cases, would feel better and no doubt their mental health would, in the round, be improved.
I was interested in a piece by Michael P. Senger in the Daily Sceptic on October 14th 2022 highlighting the demonisation of the unvaccinated. I really don’t recall anyone in the mainstream media or in Government objecting to this vilification at the time yet it was evident from the Week 35 2021 Vaccine Surveillance Report that in each of the age groups from 40 to 80 the double dosed were testing positive for the virus at a higher rate than the unvaccinated (see an article I wrote back in June that goes into some detail on this point), so it was evident that the unvaccinated represented less of a threat than the vaccinated. Likewise, it’s been known since the Covid outbreak on the Diamond Princess back in February 2020 that obesity was a risk factor. However, can you imagine the furore that would result if people were to suggest that the obese were denied hospital treatment?
It’s not the unvaccinated who are clogging up the NHS, it’s disproportionately the obese and overweight – some of whom have been particularly vocal in vilifying the unvaccinated or in failing to promote healthier lifestyles:
- Andrew Neil (estimated BMI 32) argued for restrictions on the freedoms of the unvaccinated.
- Piers Morgan (estimated BMI 29) argued for the unvaccinated to be denied NHS care if they caught Covid.
- Boris Johnson (estimated BMI 34) attempted to bring in vaccine passports.
- Michael Gove (estimated BMI 28) was a keen advocate of vaccine passports.
- Therese Coffey (estimated BMI 30), the new Health Minister appears to be far keener on promoting vaccines rather than healthy lifestyles.
The Government spent about £12bn vaccinating the under 50s, largely a pointless exercise. As an advocate of lower taxes and a smaller state I don’t argue that this money should have been spent on schemes to subsidise healthier living. Such schemes invariably fail. What’s more, I would object just as fiercely to coercing people to lose weight as I do to coercing people to get vaccinated. However, I would like to see them campaign to raise people’s awareness of the risks associated with a high BMI. In rough terms, there appears to be about a 10% Covid hospitalisation risk reduction for each BMI point reduction and associated risk reductions for various cancers, diabetes, heart conditions, muscular/skeletal problems and mental health.
Body positivity is all well and good but being overweight is neither risk or cost free. If Andrew Neil, Piers Morgan, Boris Johnson et al. want target a group to be censorious of perhaps they should follow Jordan Peterson’s advice and go tidy their own room first.
Submission to Canada’s Public Order Emergency Commission
Fearless Canada | October 16, 2022
As a non-partisan, volunteer activist group, Fearless Canada was present at the beginning and on several other occasions during the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa. As such, many of our members witnessed first-hand what the situation looked like on the ground and how it all began. We took extensive video footage of the events during the first weekend from the moment when truckers were being directed toward Parliament by Ottawa police. We have decided to submit our evaluation of the events as well as our strongly held view that the invocation of the Emergency Measures Act (hereafter referred to as “EMA”) by the Trudeau government was not only inappropriate, but also unlawful and unconstitutional.
We must first unequivocally state that, in our view, the Trudeau government’s decision to invoke the EMA in no way met the legal threshold to do so. The usage of the EMA is reserved for exceptional circumstances in which a serious foreign or existential threat imperils the security of the nation. Such security threats would be typically related to war, as the older, subsequently replaced War Measures Act aimed to address. In no conceivable way could the temporary discomfort or inconvenience borne by Ottawa citizens or businesses justify the use of an Act that is meant to aid the government in protecting the nation against threats of an incalculably larger scale. As such, the purpose of the Commission is not to determine whether the invocation of the EMA served the Trudeau government in its objective to deescalate the so-called “occupation” of Ottawa’s downtown core, but rather to assess whether the legal threshold for its invocation was met.
The Early Days in Ottawa
Our group arrived in Ottawa in the early afternoon of January 28, 2022. The first thing we noticed was Ottawa police directing truckers and their rigs onto Wellington Street towards Parliament. The atmosphere was festive and light despite the frigid weather. As more protesters arrived in Ottawa over the course of the weekend, we would quickly observe that the crowds were both peaceful and diverse. Men, women, and children from all different backgrounds and walks of life gathered in the capital with a common goal. They demanded that the Trudeau government lift measures that, in their view, were both unjustified and discriminatory in nature. As a result of those measures, the majority of protesters in Ottawa were themselves directly impacted in profound and often irreversible ways.
In talking with dozens of truckers and protesters, we learned that many had lost their jobs, connections to loved ones, access to essential services, and much more. While speaking with police officers, we learned that many felt they were unlawfully coerced into taking a COVID vaccine in order to keep their jobs. Our impression on the ground was that the majority of police officers were in fact aligned with the goals of the protest. They, too, wanted to see an immediate end to damaging and ineffective policies that divided our nation along medical lines previously acknowledged as a matter of private and personal concern.
Legacy Media and the Trudeau Government’s Portrayal of the Freedom Convoy
While in Ottawa, our group kept an eye on the news coming out of legacy media outlets such as the CBC, CTV News, and Global News. It became impossible not to notice that a concerted narrative had quickly taken shape to misrepresent the situation and characterize protesters as far-right extremists, racists, antisemites, and more. The unjustified slander of protesters directly conflicted with our experience on the ground. What we saw was a festive and peaceful rally, replete with volunteers offering food and shelter from the cold, routinely cleaning streets and sidewalks, and organizing fun activities for the kids. At no time did we spot a single racist or Nazi in the vast crowds, as was incessantly suggested by both the Liberal government and the mainstream media. From what we could tell, these characterizations were fabricated in order to serve a narrative that aimed to discredit the legitimacy and lawfulness of the protest.
As time went on, the media’s portrayal of the situation continued to unhinge itself from reality. The press published stories about imminent violence, a van loaded with illegal firearms, and more. None of these allegations turned out to be true. Yet, the misrepresentation of the situation had already reached the eyes and ears of Canadians from coast to coast, very few of which witnessed the event themselves. But by then, the damage had already been done, just as it seemed to have been intended.
The Invocation of the EMA
At the moment the Trudeau government invoked the EMA, it must be noted that the protest in Ottawa was already in the process of de-escalation. The protest organizers and their lawyers had already brokered a dismantlement deal with the Ottawa mayor and police services. Truckers were already on their way out of the downtown core and the blockades at two Canadian points of entry had already long-since been dismantled. Yet rather than follow an organized de-escalation plan agreed to by all factions, Ottawa police and the Trudeau government instead opted to escalate the situation by using violence and propaganda against Canadian citizens. The impacts of the invocation of the EMA were profound and unwarranted.
Immediately ensuing the invocation of the EMA, police and governmental authorities froze protesters’ bank accounts and deployed violent anti-riot squads all over the downtown core of Ottawa. Several protesters were injured as police again escalated tensions using all manner of crowd dispersal techniques. In the days following the invocation of the EMA, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland wasted no time in announcing that certain aspects of the EMA would be written into law, granting broad and unconstitutional powers to government without the requisite EMA enacted. It had become clear that the Trudeau government had a predetermined objective in enacting the EMA, one that would grant greater leverage over political dissidents and, more broadly, Canadians that disagreed with its ideology. This in itself represents an egregious misuse of the EMA in order to further a political agenda.
Conclusion
The volunteer activists at Fearless Canada include Canadian scholars, lawyers, professors, small business owners, and artists. We unanimously and unequivocally feel that the Trudeau government’s invocation of the EMA as a response to ongoing protests in Ottawa was both unlawful and unconstitutional. We submit that the government manipulated public opinion by fabricating evidence of unlawful activity in Ottawa and invoked the EMA under false pretenses in order to abet their predetermined agenda. We believe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports our position, and we look forward to seeing all of it brought to light during the Commission’s discovery process.
This statement was authored by the executive of Fearless Canada and endorsed by members.
The statement has been submitted to the Public Order Emergency Commission of Canada, which began public hearings on Thursday, October 13, which will run every weekday until November 25. Live hearings can be viewed here, and True North Centre publishes a recap for each day.
FDA Just Approved Kids Covid Booster — with ZERO Testing!
Testing it on 8 baby mice was too much work for Pfizer
By Igor Chudov | October 12, 2022
Pfizer just reported FDA’s decision to approve a bivalent Covid booster for “emergency use” for children 5-17 years of age.
What is amazing is that the approved bivalent vaccine was NOT tested on children or even on baby mice, at all!
For each of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccines authorized today, the FDA relied on immune response and safety data that it had previously evaluated from a clinical study in adults of a booster dose of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine that contained a component of the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 and a component of omicron lineage BA.1. The FDA considers such data as relevant and supportive of vaccines containing a component of the omicron variant BA.4 and BA.5 lineages. In addition, the FDA has evaluated and considered immune response and safety data from clinical studies of the monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, including as a booster dose in pediatric age groups. These data and real-world experience with the monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which have been administered to millions of people, including young children, support the EUA of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccines in younger age groups.
May I ask, why no testing? The FDA and Pfizer had plenty of time: they were testing bivalent boosters on adults since the beginning of the year. No testing on children was done with any bivalent booster.
Could Pfizer at least purchase 8 baby mice and try their booster on 8 mouse babies? They surely could do that along with the adult dose testing.
An added touch of ridiculousness here is that the FDA also chose NOT to consult “FDA advisors” and thus did not convene the VRBPAC committee. That committee would, of course, approve anything. So, what is the reason for not convening it? The reason is that the FDA did not want to have any votes — even one vote — against this vaccine and did not want to have a public hearing about this travesty.
It gets worse, of course. Only 30% of children 5-11 years of age are Covid vaccinated.
Should the parents of the 70% of unvaccinated children decide that they want their child to receive a bivalent (updated with Ba.5 formulation) shot, they would have to first give that child two shots of a three-year-old monovalent Wuhan-based vaccine (primary series), and only then they would be allowed to give their children the new and updated shot. Why? The FDA is not telling us.
The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent is authorized for administration at least two months following completion of primary or booster vaccination in children down to six years of age.
If someone asked me three years ago, whether it is possible that the FDA would approve a children’s vaccine with ZERO testing on children, I would of course laugh the question off as ludicrous. Now it is reality. Even worse, schools and camps may start requiring it.
I thought that the reputation of our health authorities could only bottom at zero. Clearly, though, they want to drive it down to the negative territory.
What do you think?
50% increase in miscarriages; 50% decrease in fertility after COVID vax
But Eric Topol says there is “no evidence” that the vaccine causes harm. That’s reassuring. So Eric, if it isn’t the vaccine, what IS causing it?
By Steve Kirsch | October 15, 2022
Watch this exclusive 30 second video of Kimberly Biss, MD an OB/Gyn in Tampa Bay, FL explaining what they’ve observed in their large practice:
However, Dr. Eric Topol, who is an expert on the COVID vaccine, says this isn’t caused by the vaccine:
I’d love to know what IS causing it, but Dr. Topol blocked all of my accounts on Twitter and Twitter has banned me for life twice, so I am not allowed to ask that question.
It cannot be COVID since the problem only surfaced after the vaccines rolled out. So his explanation just doesn’t fit the observation.
So maybe you can ask Eric for me?
Please share my posts (and follow me):
Featured Video
Russia and China quietly take over natural gas markets in Asia, with Qatar gone
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Palantir CEO Calls for Draft to Fight the Empire’s Wars
Involuntary servitude is good for business
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | April 20, 2026
In 2025, Alex Karp, the CEO of government and military tech contractor Palantir, published The New York Times best-seller, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West. The Wall Street Journal praised the book as a cri de coeur, a passionate appeal “that takes aim at the tech industry for abandoning its history of helping America and its allies,” while Wired praised the book as a “readable polemic that skewers Silicon Valley for insufficient patriotism.”
On April 18, 2026, Palantir posted twenty-two points to social media summarizing the book. In addition to taking Silicon Valley to task for insufficient patriotism, advocating a role for AI in forever war, and denouncing the “psychologization of modern politics,” the Palantir post on X declares: “National service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost.”
National conscription, a form of involuntary servitude, and the wars it portends, is good for business, especially for corporations within the orbit of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the national security state. Palantir fits comfortably within this amalgamation. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The desalination front: Water as Israel’s Achilles heel
- Washington cuts flow of US dollars to Iraqi central bank until ‘acceptable’ government formed
- China blames US for diplomatic impasse with Iran, urges it to show ‘sincerity’ in talks
- Iran announces new Hormuz restrictions after US ceasefire violations
- After Islamabad: How the Global South Is Reshaping Eurasian Geopolitics
- Is Trump Going for Armageddon?
- Palantir CEO Calls for Draft to Fight the Empire’s Wars
- Iran War fallout: Russia and China quietly take over natural gas markets in Asia, with Qatar gone
- Hamas dismisses US-backed disarmament plan as ‘collective suicide’
- Israel’s war obsession and the urgency of Palestinian leverage
- If Americans Knew
- 5 times Israelis desecrated Christian sites in the past two years
- US running out of weaponry for Israel’s war; Iran has plenty – Daily Update
- Israel is (still) killing aid workers in Gaza
- Catholics finally splitting with Trump over Iran war and Israel
- Israel’s “Black Wednesday” Massacre Leaves Lebanese Families Giving DNA To ID Loved One’s Remains
- ‘I Felt I Was a Monster’: IDF Soldiers Talk About the ‘Moral Injury’ – and the Silence
- ‘I thought I might die’: A Palestinian mother’s account of Israeli detention
- Mom whose daughter was killed by Israeli bulldozer 23 years ago pleaded with Congress to finally stop funding
- Israeli soldier takes sledgehammer to Jesus statue in Lebanon – Daily Update
- Israel employs ‘Gaza tactics’ in Lebanon, destroying 1,000 homes per day – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
Aletho News 