Children’s Health Defense (CHD) calls for state officials across the country to immediately request their state’s COVID-19 vaccine data and conduct an analysis to be released to the public using Florida’s model of a self-controlled case series, a technique developed to evaluate vaccine safety.
CHD also calls for an immediate suspension of the recommendation of mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations across the nation until further analysis and safety is proven.
CHD’s appeal comes after the Florida Department of Health released new guidance last Friday recommending against mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for males ages 18-39 due to an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death within 28 days following mRNA vaccination. Florida’s surgeon general, Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo, concluded that the risk of vaccination outweighs the benefit for males in that age cohort and now recommends against the COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.
“Data released from the UK and Israel are showing escalating cases of myocarditis in young people. These findings from Florida, our nation’s third-largest state, are extraordinarily concerning and could have devastating repercussions nationwide,” said CHD president and general counsel Mary Holland. “We need this data and analysis from all states in order to determine just how great the risk is for both children and adults.”
Previously published research connecting myocarditis to the COVID-19 vaccines coincides with this analysis.
“The cardiac signal out of Florida is hardly an isolated issue. Earlier this year, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published an investigation that discovered an increased risk of myocarditis in adolescent males and young men after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, especially after the second dose,” said CHD chairman and chief legal counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “Even CDC recognizes the same association. Florida’s analysis revealing cardiac-related deaths after vaccination should alarm all Americans.”
CHD calls on all medical freedom advocates to join in the campaign to demand all states analyze their COVID-19 vaccine data to determine if cardiac-related events and other signals are identified and follow the science to protect their citizens.
Children’s Health Defense is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Our mission is to end childhood health epidemics by working aggressively to eliminate harmful exposures, hold those responsible accountable and establish safeguards to prevent future harm. For more information or to donate to CHD’s ongoing lawsuits, visit ChildrensHealthDefense.org.
The European Union prosecutor’s office has launched an investigation into the bloc’s procurement of billions of Covid-19 vaccine doses, amid allegations of corruption and secret backroom dealings from several members of the EU parliament.
EU officials announced the probe in a brief statement on Friday, confirming an “ongoing investigation into the acquisition of Covid-19 vaccines in the European Union.” They added that the case follows “extremely high public interest” around the issue, though declined to share any other details.
While prosecutors were tight-lipped about the exact nature of the probe, the announcement follows allegations from MEPs that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen conducted vaccine negotiations with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla in secret. Despite requests from journalists, lawmakers and an EU watchdog, von der Leyen’s office has failed to produce personal text messages sent to Bourla during talks for nearly 2 billion vaccine doses, prompting accusations of corruption.
Croatian MEP Mislav Kolakusic noted the new investigation later on Friday, saying the decision was made thanks to pressure from lawmakers. Though he was unable to shed additional light on the probe, Kolakusic has been highly critical of the EU’s vaccine procurement process, claiming deals for billions of doses were marred by “corruption” and secrecy.
“Today, 10 of us MEPs asked [von der Leyen] the following question: when will she present to us… the communication she had with Pfizer during the procurement of 4.5 billion doses of vaccines at a time when there was absolutely no proof of the effectiveness, and especially not of the harmfulness, of that product?” he said in a tweet earlier this week, calling the issue the “biggest corruption scandal in the history of mankind.”
Last month, the European Court of Auditors said it had asked the commission to provide information on “preliminary negotiations” for the EU’s largest Pfizer purchase – including “scientific experts consulted and advice received, timing of the talks, records of the discussions, and details of the agreed terms and conditions” – but added that “none was forthcoming.” The European Commission still has yet to make the information public, fueling corruption allegations from MEPs.
Dr. Jeff Barke, a founding member of America’s Frontline Doctors, joins Del to discuss California’s new law enacted with the passage of AB2098, which effectively makes it illegal for doctors to disagree with politicians.
Social media has been in an uproar since a member of European Parliament posted a video of a hearing in which a Pfizer director admitted the company never tested whether its Covid mRNA vaccine prevents transmission prior to its approval for emergency use.
Though the fact that Covid mRNA vaccines do not prevent transmission was, of course, abundantly clear from the data soon after their implementation, this myth was a primary justification for vaccine passes and a primary cause of the unprecedented venom launched at those who refused Covid vaccines throughout 2021 and continuing through today.
Not only did governments exert this pressure through policy, but in many cases politicians and officials used their office to deliberately stoke the social stigmatization of the unvaccinated. Here’s a look back at some of the unprecedented vitriol that was launched at those who refused Covid vaccines from 2021 and beyond.
Officials in many jurisdictions proposed making the unvaccinated pay more for healthcare.
In Victoria, Australia — where lockdowns were longer than in perhaps any other city in the world—one politician proposed cutting the unvaccinated out of the national health system entirely.
A particularly disturbing idea that began to gain serious traction among the elite commentariat was to have hospitals triage emergency care to serve the unvaccinated last, or even deny healthcare to the unvaccinated entirely—a fairly clear-cut crime against humanity.
One vocal proponent of the idea of triaging emergency care to disfavor the unvaccinated was David Frum, Senior Editor of the Atlantic, most famous for his outspoken support for the invasion of Iraq. When his infamous tweet on the subject sparked an uproar, Frum doubled down.
Piers Morgan agreed that the unvaccinated should be denied emergency care.
Shockingly, this appalling idea of triaging emergency care based on vaccination status is still being proposed to this day.
The demonization of the unvaccinated was, of course, far from limited to healthcare. Vilifying the unvaccinated became a kind of illiberal fad among the elite commentariat. The US CDC even paid screen writers and comedians to promote Covid vaccines, which in some cases involved paying them to mock the unvaccinated.
In a bout of recidivism to the early 20th century, Austria and Germany introduced the chilling concept of “lockdown for the unvaccinated.”
“Lockdown for the unvaccinated” gained traction in the English-speaking world as well.
Most countries, cities, and states across the western world introduced vaccine passes that their own citizens had to show in order to partake in daily life. The World Health Organization published an extensive document on implementing a digital vaccine-pass system, including an international vaccine status registry and instructions on how to later revoke someone’s vaccine pass.
The most dystopian of these vaccine pass systems was in Lithuania, where the unvaccinated were banned from nearly all public spaces and employment outside their homes; the few shops where they could purchase essentials had to post large red signs on their doors indicating that unvaccinated persons could be present.
And of course, who could forget Justin Trudeau’s classic fuhrer-style rant about having to share public transportation with the unvaccinated, despite government documents later revealing that he had no science to back any of these claims.
Like so much of the response to Covid, these vaccine passes and the illiberal fad of stigmatizing the unvaccinated were unscientific, unprecedented, ineffective, totalitarian, brutal, and dumb.
It was never remotely realistic for any government to expect every single person to get vaccinated, especially when the vaccine in question involved a novel genetic-based therapy. Thus, these proposals to impose draconian hardships on those who refused Covid vaccines would inevitably involve the state imposing draconian hardships on a sizable portion of the population.
According to Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff, one of the most credible voices on the subject, Covid vaccines likely yielded benefits for the elderly and vulnerable, but it remains entirely unclear whether Covid vaccines have yielded any benefit at all for healthy adults and especially for children. Coupled with the still-unknown risks associated with mRNA technology and the now well-documented cases of death and serious injury from these vaccines, for governments across the world to have exerted extreme pressure on children and healthy adults to get these vaccines is absolutely sickening.
That some healthy young people were surely coerced into receiving an injection that led to their death or serious injury, when the data showed that the benefits did not outweigh the risks, is an unconscionable tragedy.
My news feed and my inbox in my email program have been flooded with links to stories reporting what so many in the Alternative Media today are claiming is BREAKING NEWS: Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine was Never Tested on Preventing Transmission!
The source of this “Breaking News” is apparently a Dutch Member of the European Parliament, Rob Roos.
Well I have some news for all of you emailing me this story: This is NOT news!
Pfizer and the FDA have NEVER claimed that their COVID-19 stopped transmission of COVID, and this information has been readily available to the public since the beginning when the shot was first given an EUA.
It has ALWAYS been a lie propagated by the Corporate Media and the criminal CDC, and we have exposed this lie many times in the past.
In January of 2021, just about a month after the shots were given emergency use authorization, I published an article titled:
Not only did they NOT claim that the shots stopped transmission, they didn’t even claim it would prevent the one receiving the vaccine from getting COVID!
Then in May of 2021, just a few months after the shots were authorized by the FDA, Barbara Loe Fisher, the co-founder of The National Vaccine Information Center, which is the leading vaccine consumer advocacy group in the world and has been in existence for over 30 years, wrote what was by far the most comprehensive review of these new shots where she warned the public, among other things, that these vaccines were never even intended to stop transmission!
Myth: Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Vaccines Have Been Proven to Prevent Infection and Transmission of SARS-CoV-2
What are the two biggest myths that have been generated by the advertising campaign being conducted with Pharma and taxpayer dollars?
The first big myth is that if you get two doses of the mRNA COVID vaccine, you will get artificial immunity and cannot be asymptomatically or symptomatically infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and you will not be able to infect others who come in physical contact with you: you dutifully got vaccinated and now you are immune.
That is a normal assumption because that is what vaccines are supposed to do, but it is a false assumption.
The Emergency Use Authorization the FDA gave to Pfizer and Moderna was not granted based on scientific evidence that the product prevented infection and transmission of SARS-Cov-2.
In fact, the FDA directed manufacturers in the summer of 2020 to make a product that had at least a 50 percent efficacy rate in either preventing or reducing severity of COVID-19 disease.
The companies chose to apply for an EUA based on nine months of clinical trial data that the product prevents people from developing severe symptoms of COVID-19 disease and reduces the likelihood they will have serious complications leading to hospitalization and death – not that it prevents infection and transmission.
So with all due respect to Mr. Roos, this is OLD NEWS, and is certainly not a “smoking gun.”
The fact that so many people are getting worked up into a frenzy over this today just proves that people in the beginning did not do their homework and research for themselves the public information that was available about these shots, and sadly, that included MANY in the medical field who were recommending them!!
As I have written many times over the years, people spend more time researching information before purchasing a home or a car, than they do before taking someone’s word about an experimental medical procedure that could kill them, or maim them for life.
And that is exactly what happened in the beginning with these COVID shots, and now that the truth is coming out, everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon regarding the now obvious criminal activities that brought these vaccines to the public.
And yet there are those of us who have been warning the public about the criminal activities of the FDA, CDC, and Big Pharma in the vaccine industry for decades, when almost nobody wanted to listen to us, until they ended up with a vaccine-damaged child, or were themselves injured by the flu shot or some other bogus vaccine that nobody has ever needed, because the science has NEVER proven that any single vaccine has ever been safe, nor effective.
In early 2021, CDC director Rochelle Walensky had no problem going on national television and declaring to the world that if you took the covid-19 vaccine “you will not get or spread covid.” Within weeks, this was found to be entirely untrue.
Dr. Anthony Fauci also spread the exact same misinformation, telling Americans that they had nothing to worry about once they took the shots. Yet hundreds of thousands of people who took the shots, got sick and died.
Joe Biden, Bill Gates, and countless other Pfizer shills in the media waged a massive campaign to convince Americans and the world at large that taking the vaccine meant that you could not get or transmit COVID-19. And they were all dead wrong.
Instead of apologizing and admitting they were wrong, team Pfizer doubled down and claimed that getting “boosted” was the real protection. Again, this was proven wrong.
Now that tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have flowed into their coffers, Pfizer is admitting that they never even tested whether or not the vaccine prevented transmission before they released it. Read that again—Pfizer admitted that they never tested their vaccine’s ability to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 before its release.
During a hearing this week on the European Union’s COVID-19 response, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, made this bombshell admission.
Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Robert “Rob” Roos asked Small if Pfizer tested whether or not the vaccine prevented transmission. Her answer was a resounding “no.”
“Regarding the question around did we know about stopping immunization before it entered the market…No.,” Small said.
Given this telling admission that the vaccine was never tested in this manner, it raises the question as to where all the blowhards in the video above received this information. Who was telling them that the vaccine prevented transmission if the manufacturer never tested it?
Where did Walensky, Biden, Fauci, Gates, Maddow and others get this information from when they launched their concerted effort to spread this misinformation? This is a question we must all be demanding an answer to immediately.
We should also be asking why not a single mainstream outlet is reporting on this admission. Literally, no one in corporate media has touched this new information despite its bombshell nature. Americans would probably like to know that they were forced to take a vaccine that was never tested for prevention of transmission despite the entirety of the establishment telling them otherwise. Yet corporate media, largely funded by Pfizer, is silent.
We must never forget that politicians—all claiming to “follow the science”—locked us down, destroyed the economy, decimated the middle class through inflation, forcibly medicated us, and muzzled our children over the last 2 years. All the while we were told that our only way out of this was to take the jab.
We have been constantly reminded that if you don’t follow “The Science,” you are a science-denying buffoon who wants grandma to die, doesn’t care about the children, were an alt-right Nazi, a white supremacist, extremist, and most likely a domestic terrorist.
Those who stood against unconstitutional vaccine mandates were scorned by the mainstream, labeled as “anti-vaxxers” and had people wishing for their deaths. Even people who took the jab but stood against mandates were labeled anti-vaxxers as definitions were altered to fit the narrative.
We the people were pitted against each other in one of the most divisive propaganda campaigns in human history. The middle ground was eliminated and logic and reason burned to the ground alongside the economy. And all of it was based on lies.
Dr. Paul Offit, MD is the Director of the Vaccine Education Center and practices medicine in the Infectious Disease department at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and he also sits on the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).
Paul Offit admits he doesn’t see the benefits of the booster. And if he can’t find any benefits, it’s probably because there aren’t any. Click the image to watch the video.
The background
Several months ago, VRBPAC voted to approve a COVID vaccine novel booster formula that combined the mRNA instructions that targeted BA.4 & BA.5 – the two Omicron strains which circulated last spring and early summer.
There were no human clinical trials conducted on this booster. It was not tested on people. It was tested on just 8 mice. There is no long term data on what happened to the mice after injection. All the mice were challenged with Omicron and every mouse was infected showing that the vaccine had zero protection against getting the virus. The mice were sacrificed shortly thereafter because we don’t want to know the long term effects. Don’t ask, don’t tell.
You will not find a bigger proponent of vaccines in general and the COVID vaccines specifically, in American medicine, than Dr. Paul Offit. He voted YES to give the COVID vaccines to all children, even babies as young as 6-months.
Why did Paul Offit vote No on the boosters
Yet when VRBPAC recently voted on the novel COVID booster, Dr. Offit voted no, because (in his own words) “HELL NO was not a choice!”
How? Why? What happened?
First, there was no trial to show that there are any clinical benefits at all. And any clinical benefits must be weighed against the risks.
Secondly, according to Offit, once you have your initial injection, you’re already protected against severe disease so there is no additional benefit to a booster. In this MedPage Today interview, Offit explains:
The question is, does it matter? Because still it looks like you’re protected against severe illness, so does it really matter to get that third dose? I would argue ‘no.’
Thirdly, the FDA doesn’t really want the outside committee members to actually review the scientific data. They just want them to vote yes so it looks like outside experts reviewed the data. The FDA provides hundreds of pages of material just days before the meeting giving the members an inadequate amount of time to review the data before voting on it. It’s just another example of sham science: the panel is simply there to rubber stamp what the White House and FDA want to do; they are not there to protect the public.
Why is the government advocating for three or more doses when there is no evidence of a benefit?
The reason for three or more doses is because the press and the public health officials want you to get it. The science doesn’t support it. But science doesn’t matter. This is about compliance with orders, not protecting your health (or the health of others since even Pfizer admits that the vaccine doesn’t protect against transmission).
I think this is now a three-dose vaccine for the most part, because that’s the way the press and the public have handled it, it’s the way public administrators have handled it.
In short, the booster was created to give the public the perception that the government is doing something to protect them.
Even pro-vaccine doctors like Martin Makary, MD are reposting this important video.
Before you consent to take any vaccine, demand to see at least one all-cause mortality and morbidity study vs. placebo with at least a 12 month follow-up that are independently managed by multiple organizations with no financial ties to the vaccine manufacturers.
Currently, there aren’t any vaccines where such a study is available. Now you would think that if any vaccine had a true cost-benefit, such studies would exist, wouldn’t you?
This is a new documentary by director Robert Bailey that is free and available at the In The Furnace rumble channel about a Canadian man named Shaun Mulldoon who was injured by the COVID vaccine.
I want to talk about Dr Aseem Malhotra. After the press conference on 27 September, there were concerns from some circles that World Council for Health was associating itself with Dr Malhotra. While some regard him as ‘controlled opposition’, others object to his lack of questioning vaccines in general, given Covid-19 “vaccine” and pharmaceutical industry corruption revelations.
We are living through interesting times. As the institutions entrusted with public service and care, reveal themselves to have betrayed our trust, as vaccine harms become ever harder to shove under the carpet, and as governments become ever more incompetent and unaccountable, we find ourselves apparently cast adrift on a turbulent sea, understandably wondering who is our enemy and who is our friend.
What helps me stay centred and free from fear, is the 7 Principles of A Better Way. They came out of the collective wisdom shared in May’s Better Way Conference, and they are a lodestar in these times of extreme pressure.
One of the Principles is:
We value different perspectives.
We celebrate respectful discussion as the means to ever more refined knowledge, compassion and wisdom.
It is in the spirit of this noble principle that we hosted Dr Malhotra’s press conference. Not all of us agree with his view that traditional vaccines are safe and effective. But we do agree that the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out should be halted immediately, and this is something that World Council for Health has been calling for almost since its inception. Dr Malhotra’s press conference has been viewed well over 100,000 times. Many wrote to us to say that they would be sharing it with their loved ones as it was just the thing that would reach them and get them thinking.
My hope is that his courageous efforts will, in particular, reach doctors and other medical professionals – those who are questioning the ‘safe and effective’ narrative but are afraid to speak up. They are certainly under the cosh: on Friday, California’s Governor Gavin Newsome signed a bill that means any doctor can lose their licence for sharing ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ about Covid-19. In Queensland, Australia, a similar bill is being presented to Parliament next week that goes even further, prohibiting doctors from giving any advice or opinion that goes against public health edict. Governments are going out of their way to shut doctors up, and while that may be terrifying for doctors – and their patients – it is also an indication of the power doctors hold. Governments know that if enough doctors speak up, the ‘safe and effective’ narrative will quickly crumble.
How we treat Dr Malhotra may be a deciding factor as to whether other doctors follow suit to stand up for medical ethics and their patients. Will we welcome them with gratitude and compassion, or shun them for not having spoken up sooner? This is a personal question for each of us, and one that we will all have to reckon with at some point. Is it for us to judge and does it serve the highest good of all to do so?
There are those who benefit from us dividing ourselves and each other into the binary camps of friend or foe. Of debating whether this or that person is controlled opposition, or bona fide. In this endless speculation we exhaust our precious life force, and find ourselves lacking the energy to create a better way.
If we can just relax and remember ourselves and why we are here, we can reclaim the broader view: that humanity is inherently fallible and yet capable of the most extraordinary acts of redemption. That we are all beings of light, but that we each have our own darkness as well. And, that we are all redeemed in the light of compassion for ourselves and each other.
This Saturday 15th October, we are holding a UK Doctors Conference in London. Our wish is for every doctor and health professional to feel they are welcome. It will be a safe and private space for people to ask questions, learn more about what’s really going on, and speak freely with each other. Please watch NHS Consultant Dr Julia Wilkens’ invitation (click on the image to view) – she could not have put the value of being there any better:
Please share this event widely: there is still space and we want as many people as possible to come together and realise that they are not a sole dissenter but one of many ready to question, to inquire, and understand.
‘Winning Doctors Back One at a Time’ Hearts of Oak podcast
I recently returned to the highly informative Heart of Oak podcast to speak about doctors, health, and of course the doctors conference. I really enjoyed our conversation – if you’d like to tune in, you’ll find it on the Hearts of Oak home page here.
Attempts by Oxford University and AstraZeneca researchers to induce mucosal immunity by introducing their adenovirus vector product directly to the mucosal membranes of 30 unvaccinated and 12 double-vaccinated volunteers, have gone down in flames. Only a minority of participants developed mucosal immunity at all, and serum-antibody levels were worse than those elicited by intramuscular injections.
From the Financial Times, we learn that the trial involved no new vaccine product at all, and that participants were merely asked to snort the AstraZeneca intramuscular formulation:
Oxford’s Sandy Douglas, chief investigator on the trial, said the spray, which used the same formulation as the intramuscular version of the vaccine, did not perform as well as researchers had hoped.
“We believe that delivery of vaccines to the nose and lungs remains a promising approach, but this study suggests there are likely to be challenges in making nasal sprays a reliable option,” said Douglas. He said the weaker result was possibly the result of the majority of the spray ending up being swallowed and destroyed in the stomach, although targeted delivery into the lungs could avoid that.
If you can’t just spray vaccine up your nose and hope for the best, then I guess all those nasal spray flu vaccines with frightening names like FluMist Quadrivalent and Fluenz Tetra are equally pointless. Probably the entire influenza vaccination project is a top-to-bottom pharmaceutical scam. Otherwise, companies like AstraZeneca are clearly struggling to find a market for all the obsolete spike protein juice they’ve spent the last two years brewing. The bivalent mRNA doses are one way to get rid of that excess product. It looks like remarketed nasal sprays aren’t going to fly, though.
Title says it all – the evil of Mandates, when they had to know they served no purpose but… totalitarianism and control! Great one to share with normies, as all the data is packed in here too.
NOTE: My extensive research and interviewing / video/sound editing, business travel and much more does require support – please consider helping if you can with monthly donation to support me directly, or one-off payment: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=69ZSTYXBMCN3W – alternatively join up with my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/IvorCummins
I’ve just been included in a nonsense propaganda publication! A book no less – publishing tomorrow Oct 6th – “Web of Lies”. Unbelievable deceit dripping through the piece they decided to share with me before publication – and stunningly incorrect throughout. Btw if referring to this book or sharing thoughts, always use the hashtag #WebOfLies – and PLEASE don’t comment if talking depopulation, radio waves or any other such stuff – always stick to the pandemic response ‘science’, and to published science/data – I never associate with anything other than the latter, as you should well know… 😠
That said, this vid will give you and your friends/family an invaluable education on how these guys craft propaganda. Enjoy, while I blow their deceit out of the water with trivial ease – directly from the published data – as always 😉 p.s. the white paper I sent them – a key resource to download and share: https://thefatemperor.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Evidence-For-and-Against-the-Effectiveness-of-Lockdown-Policies-DRAFT-RevC.pdf
Almost three years ago science entered a new dark age.
Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, seems to agree. He has been compiling a list of the examples of anti-science we have unfortunately become used to.
I have listed his thoughts so far but the list is continually expanding.
Insinuating that the lab leak hypothesis is a racist conspiracy theory is anti-science;
Closing international borders to keep a virus out when the virus is already established in-country is anti-science;
Panicked killing of Danish mink was anti-science. Public health apologizing for the mistake is pro-science;
Redefining herd immunity to exclude immunity conferred by disease recovery is anti-science;
Sending covid infected patients back to nursing homes to keep hospital beds empty was anti-science;
Lockdowns and other trickle down epidemiology are anti-science;
Science bureaucrats using their power to smear scientists who disagree with them is anti-science;
Instituting lockdowns & restrictions on the basis of overly-simplistic covid models is anti-science;
Pretending there is a scientific consensus on lockdown and so much else when there is not a scientific consensus (Especially while censoring sceptical voices) is anti-science;
Arbitrarily dividing society into essential and non-essential is anti-science;
Ignoring the obvious and devastating economic costs of policy is anti-science;
Censorship of scientific debate is anti-science. Literally.
Zoom school is anti-science;
Politically partisan public health is anti-science;
Not permitting healthy people to leave home for more than an hour, even for exercise, is anti-science;
Jumping off the sidewalk to avoid the breath of an unmasked person walking by is anti-science;
Shutting down kids’ sports is anti-science;
Public health shaming people for not following public health diktats is anti-science;
Forcing school kids to eat six feet apart from each other, outdoors and in silence was anti-science;
Redefining health to be synonymous with the avoidance of a single infectious disease is anti-science;
Six-foot social distancing is anti-science;
Not letting family members visit dying relatives is anti-science;
Contact tracing to contain a highly infectious and aerosolized respiratory virus is anti-science;
Zero covid is anti-science;
Mask mandates are anti-science;
White washing the harm done to children by school closures by glibly asserting that ‘kids are resilient’ is anti-science;
Institutionalized hypochondria is anti-science;
Masking toddlers is anti-science;
Requiring waiters to mask to serve unmasked patrons is anti-science;
Noble lies are bad public health practice and anti-science;
Pharmaceutical company funding of on-air news media and professional medical organizations is anti-science;
Policing private doctor patient communication for non-CDC approved content is anti-science;
Science & medicine are the common inheritance of all, regardless of party. Medical and scientific professional societies officially endorsing political candidates and thereby alienating half the population is anti-science;
Not rapidly running randomized trials to evaluate off-patent early treatment options and denigrating doctors and patients who tried them (“horse paste”) when better options were not available is anti-science;
Ignoring age-stratification in risk in determining pandemic policy and vaccine recommendations is anti-science;
Vaccine discrimination is socially divisive and is anti-science;
Public health experts have an obligation to speak respectfully with everyone, including people who oppose their recommendations (such as on vaccines). Guilt-by-association attacks on experts who fulfil this obligation are anti-science;
Asserting that a vaccine stops transmission when it does not stop transmission is anti-science;
Ignoring immunity after covid recovery is anti-science;
Vaccine mandates have demolished public trust and are anti-science;
Pausing childhood vaccination programs and tuberculosis treatment in poor countries because of fear of covid led to many unnecessary deaths and is anti-science;
Ignoring legitimate vaccine injury is anti-science;
Declaring oneself to be The Science itself is anti-science;
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 Journalpraised 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
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
While prosecutors were tight-lipped about the exact nature of the probe, the announcement follows 
Aletho News 