Head of Nonprofit With Ties to Wuhan Lab Should Face Criminal Investigation, House Committee Says
By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | May 2, 2024
A House committee investigating the COVID-19 pandemic on Wednesday called for a criminal investigation into Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, and further investigation into failures in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant-funding procedures.
In a statement released after the hearing — accompanied by a 59-page report — the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic called for permanently terminating funding for EcoHealth Alliance, which has ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Both Republican and Democrat representatives explicitly called for defunding EcoHealth Alliance, which Daszak said receives about $16 million in government grants annually.
However, journalist Paul D. Thacker cautioned against allowing Daszak to become “the fall guy” — because the NIH and Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), aided Daszak “in this multi-year cover-up,” he said.
Thacker, who has extensively covered Daszak and other COVID-19 origins-related news, told The Defender the Democrats seemed more concerned during the hearing about EcoHealth’s paperwork and conflicts of interest than the core allegations of dangerous gain-of-function research.
“The American people deserve accountability, and Daszak should be prosecuted for helping to misdirect USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development] funds to create the Global Virome Project,” Thacker said.
He pointed to a 2022 U.S. Right to Know investigation showing Daszak co-founded the Global Virome Project with then-director of USAID’s Emerging Pandemic Threats Program Dennis Carroll, who “siphoned taxpayer funds” to launch the project.
The Global Virome Project aims to collect more than 1 million viruses from wildlife for research to forecast future pandemics.
Thacker also noted the change in the Democrats’ messaging throughout the hearing, which was more critical of Daszak. “No great evidence came to light,” he said. “But something is going on behind the scenes that we don’t know about yet.”
The House report confirms many of the same allegations laid out in “The Wuhan Cover-Up,” by Children’s Health Defense founder and chairman on leave Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The book was published in 2021.
Dems admit SARS-CoV-2 may have come from a lab
Daszak appeared before the committee to answer questions about his organization’s ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and allegations of conducting risky coronavirus research.
Committee members pressed him on claims that EcoHealth was conducting gain-of-function research, failed to report on experiments showing excessive viral growth and repeatedly missed deadlines for progress reports.
Led by Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) and Ranking Member Paul Ruiz (D-Calif.), the subcommittee also examined the circumstances surrounding EcoHealth’s NIH grant termination in 2020, and the ongoing dispute over access to virus samples collected at the Wuhan lab.
In his opening statement, Wenstrup said Daszak “comes across as disingenuous” when using “highly technical definitions in order to assert that a certain project really isn’t gain-of-function.”
Acknowledging EcoHealth’s failure to comply with grant-reporting requirements, Ruiz said Daszak’s actions “draw into question whether [he] sought to deliberately mislead regulators at NIH and NIAID.”
Daszak faced tough questioning from members on both sides of the aisle about his organization’s transparency and handling of taxpayer funds, biosafety standards at the Wuhan lab, efforts to downplay the role of Chinese scientists in his proposals, and communications with government officials through private emails.
Maintaining a composed and technical demeanor throughout, Daszak frequently cited government regulations, grant terms and scientific evidence to defend EcoHealth’s actions.
However, at times Daszak appeared evasive or uncertain when challenged on specific details. Many subcommittee members expressed skepticism about his forthrightness.
In a noteworthy departure from previous hearings, Democrats admitted that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could have come from a lab, although several underscored the lack of definitive evidence for the lab-leak theory.
“I’m hoping someday that we are going to get to the bottom of the truth of this,” Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) said at the hearing. “I don’t know that we ever are because I’m hearing totally opposite information from reliable sources.”
Substack author Maryam Henein, noting the extensive documentation and testimony already gathered by the subcommittee and its failure to get to the bottom of COVID-19 origins, asked, “So, are all these hearings and reports for optics?”
Dispute over gain-of-function research definition
A central focus of the hearing was whether EcoHealth was conducting gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab.
According to the subcommittee’s May 1 interim staff report, this research violated the terms of NIH grant R01AI110964 awarded to EcoHealth in 2014 for its five-year study, “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”
Majority Counsel Mitch Benzine pointed out that NIH Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak, Ph.D., and coronavirus expert Ralph Baric, Ph.D., testified that the experiments described in EcoHealth’s year 5 progress qualified as gain-of-function research.
This contradicts claims Daszak made in November 2023 during a transcribed interview before the subcommittee.
Daszak disputed the allegation, citing a letter from NIH stating that the work was not subject to gain-of-function regulations. “I tend to go with the regulatory authority on this, which is NIH,” he said.
The subcommittee’s interim report states that the definition of gain-of-function research on the NIH website was “unceremoniously removed … the same day the EcoHealth experiment was reported to Congress.”
The report alleges this change occurred before Fauci testified before the U.S. Senate claiming NIAID did not fund gain-of-function research and that Fauci therefore “misled the public” about funding such research at the Wuhan lab.
Public concerns about the research resulted in NIH reviewing EcoHealth’s grant, which it eventually suspended on April 24, 2020, the report states.
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) questioned “NIAID’s approval and oversight of risky experiments involving potential pandemic pathogens,” calling the oversight “lax,” “a farce” and “grossly negligent.”
Congress will “have to put some adults in place to independently review proposed gain-of-function research” that federal agencies want to fund, Griffith said.
Daszak conceded that the Wuhan lab could have been conducting gain-of-function research on human coronaviruses without his knowledge.
He also emphasized that EcoHealth’s 15 years of work in China “provided direct public health benefits to the American people.”
“The viruses that we identified in bats in China were used by U.S. labs throughout the COVID pandemic and continue to be used to test drugs, vaccines and therapies that saved countless lives,” Daszak said.
Daszak: ‘Zero evidence’ virus emerged from a lab
The debate over the origins of COVID-19 was a central point of contention throughout the hearing.
Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) asked Daszak whether U.S. intelligence agencies “suspected something fishy was going on at the Wuhan lab” — including bioweapons manufacturing — before the pandemic.
“Well, that’s really for the intelligence community to answer,” Daszak said, claiming that only two agencies had “low to moderate confidence” of a lab-leak origin.
Daszak repeatedly stated that the available evidence strongly points to a natural zoonotic spillover. “There is zero evidence that it emerged from a lab.”
When Lesko cited a 2021 U.S. Department of State fact sheet alleging the Wuhan lab collaborated with the Chinese military on secret projects, Daszak denied knowing anything about a military connection to the lab.
Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) questioned Daszak’s past statements dismissing the lab-leak origins as a “conspiracy theory,” noting this contradicted Daszak’s current testimony acknowledging the possibility.
Democratic Chief Counsel Giancarlo Pellegrini also interrogated Daszak on the issue, citing the following statement he and other scientists made in The Lancet in 2020: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”
Daszak defended the comments, arguing the claims at the time were that the virus had HIV inserts and snake DNA and that it was bioengineered.
“Those are pure conspiracy theories,” he said. “There is no evidence at all for them. And they’re based on myth and legend.”
Under repeated questioning about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, Daszak doubled down on his claim, telling Comer, “The evidence that this came from a natural spillover is huge and growing every week.”
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) probed Daszak over EcoHealth’s DEFUSE proposal — developed with Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., of the Wuhan lab, and presented to DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) in 2018 — and its planned “experiments to introduce furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses.”
She said the altered furin cleavage site is an attribute of SARS-CoV-2 and suggested some of Daszak’s actions were “intended to mislead DARPA about the extent of Wuhan’s involvement.”
Daszak countered that the proposal was never accepted or funded and that he was transparent about his relationship with the Wuhan lab in his prior discussions with DARPA.
EcoHealth failed to report on coronavirus-infected mice
The subcommittee report stated that EcoHealth failed to report an experiment at the Wuhan lab that showed the chimeric virus had enhanced growth compared to the control, violating NIH grant terms.
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) questioned Daszak about EcoHealth’s year 5 progress report, which describes an experiment where mice infected with a chimeric coronavirus WIV1-SHC014 had a much lower survival rate (25%) compared to mice infected with just the WIV1 virus (71.4%).
Daszak argued the NIH rules did not apply to bat coronaviruses. “It was not considered of any risk to human health because they’ve never been shown to infect people,” he said.
Pellegrini pressed Daszak on the lack of the control virus data in EcoHealth’s year 4 grant report, which made it impossible to verify compliance with NIH’s rule for reporting a significantly increased level of virulence.
“We did the experiment, reported it back,” Daszak said. “Nobody came back to us and said, ‘This is highly concerning,’ because it wasn’t. The results were unremarkable.”
Daszak argued the experimental results showed “normal variations within a small group of mice.”
“I also want to remind the committee, these are SARS-CoV-related bat viruses,” Daszak said. “They’re not known to be infectious to people. They’re nothing to do with COVID-19.”
Daszak blamed late report on NIH website lockout
The subcommittee report found that EcoHealth submitted the NIH grant year 5 progress report nearly two years late, in August 2021, despite the report being due on September 28, 2019.
Daszak claimed his staff attempted to submit the report on time but the NIH system “locked us out.” However, an NIH investigation found no evidence to corroborate Daszak’s excuse, Rep. Deborah Ross (D-N.C.) said.
Ross grilled Daszak, challenging his claim that EcoHealth staff only made phone calls and noting EcoHealth’s typical pattern of communicating with NIH by email.
Daszak acknowledged there was no email on the issue, only phone calls from his staff that could not be verified, but promised to look again for any evidence of email communications concerning the lockout.
‘You didn’t tell me the truth’
EcoHealth’s failure to submit the report on time may have been due to ulterior motives, Griffith argued.
He pointed out discrepancies between the May 2020 draft of the year 5 report — the one EcoHealth claimed to have attempted to upload in 2019 — and the report submitted to NIH in August 2021.
In the 2020 version, EcoHealth claimed that bat coronavirus spillover in Southeast Asia and South China is a rare event, whereas the later report stated that “spillovers infected potentially a million people each year,” Griffith said.
“Rare or up to a million?” Griffith asked, telling Daszak that in his November 2023 closed-door testimony, he claimed there were no significant differences between the two versions of the report.
“You changed perhaps one of the most important findings — the likelihood of bat coronavirus spillover into humans,” Griffith said. “There’s no new data. There’s no new paper cited. Just a complete 180 reversal on the conclusion.”
Griffith told Daszak he assumed “Dr. Fauci or others at NIAID” pressured him to change the conclusion “to satisfy NIAD or others in the scientific community or to cover potential liability.”
Daszak responded that it was possible that EcoHealth conducted further scientific research after the initial draft, resulting in a revised conclusion.
Griffith pushed back, telling Daszak, “You didn’t tell me the truth” in the November interview.
Citing his experience in the criminal courts, Griffith said, “If you were my client, I would tell you that ‘That dog won’t hunt’ and the judge ain’t gonna believe that.”
Subcommittee posts key takeaways after hearing
In its statement released after the hearing, the subcommittee shared the following takeaways:
- EcoHealth Alliance used U.S. taxpayer dollars to facilitate gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China.
- EcoHealth Alliance violated its NIH grant terms and conditions by failing to report a potentially dangerous gain-of-function experiment conducted at the WIV.
- EcoHealth Alliance also violated its NIH grant terms and conditions by failing to submit a required research update report — which included details about its gain-of-function work at the WIV — until nearly TWO YEARS after the NIH deadline.
- The Trump Administration identified serious concerns with EcoHealth Alliance’s funding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and instructed NIH to fix the problem. Then, NIH terminated EcoHealth’s grant. Without the intervention of the Trump Administration, EcoHealth may have been allowed to continue its dangerous research.
- NIH is currently violating the terms of the WIV’s formal debarment by funding EcoHealth Alliance’s research.
John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.
Andrew Bridgen – UK Parliament Speech On Excess Deaths – April 18, 2024
You can watch the entire debate here.
Mr Bridgen’s speech in full
Thank you, Mr Speaker,
We are witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in this country in living memory and possibly ever.
The excess deaths in 2022 and 2023 is that scandal.
Its causes are complex but the novel and untested medical treatment described as a “covid vaccine” is a large part of the problem.
I have been called an anti-vaxxer as if I have rejected these vaccines based on an ideology.
I want to state clearly and unequivocally that I have not. I am, in fact, double vaccinated.
Intelligent people must be able to distinguish between being anti-vax and pro-vax but against a product that a) doesn’t work and b) causes enormous harm to a small percentage of people.
I am proud to be one of the few members of parliament with a science degree. It is a great shame there is not more intellectual diversity here. Maybe if there was, there would be less reliance on the Whips Office’s briefings, more independent research and less groupthink.
I am used to raising issues in this House that no one cares about and no one wants to know about.
Nothing has been learned from the Post Office scandal.
Only two of the five MPs in the room when the Second Sight team were appointed, on my recommendation, to investigate the post office are still in the House of Commons. I am one of them. Michael Rudkin, the national sub-postmaster Federation Chairman who famously saw the live Horizon terminals in the basement of Fujitsu HQ was my constituent.
I have been fighting his corner in this House for many many years. Long before that scandal became national news. Long long before. I was mostly ignored.
I am being ignored again, this time on the issue of excess deaths.
Yet again, the official narrative is to deny, obfuscate, ridicule and silence dissenting voices.
I say to the House, and I say it with seriousness, this debate – and others like it proposed by me and others – are going to be pored over by future generations.
They will be genuinely agog that the evidence was ignored, that genuine concerns were disregarded and that those raising it were gaslit, smeared and vilified.
The excess deaths scandal bears an uncanny resemblance to the Post Office catastrophe
Both involve:
- Complacent public bodies
- Ministers unable to understand the technicalities and mouthing platitudes
- Malevolent corporations with a vested interest in silencing questions
- Lives ruined by greed, lies and corruption
- Most damaging of all is a culture of denial, obfuscation, secrecy and denigration
- Much of the harm was avoidable
You don’t need to have any scientific training to be horrified by officials deliberately hiding key data in this scandal.
The Covid-19 experimental ‘vaccine’ is a scandal that is happening right now, today, and it must end.
The Office of National Statistics used to release weekly data on deaths per 100,000 in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
Now it doesn’t. No one will explain why.
The public has a right to that data.
There have been calls – from serious experts whose requests I have amplified repeatedly in this House – for what is called “record-level data” to be anonymised and disclosed.
This data will allow meaningful analysis of deaths after vaccination and settle the issue of whether these experimental treatments are responsible for the increase in excess deaths.
Far more extensive and detailed data has been released to the pharma companies from publicly funded bodies. Jenny Harries, head of the UKHSA, said this anonymised aggregate death by vaccination status is “commercially sensitive” and shouldn’t be published.
The public is being denied this same data.
Yet again data is hidden with impunity. Just like the Post Office.
You may remember Professor Dame Jenny Harries, who in July 2022, said that masking was a good idea – and I quote, “If I’ve got any respiratory infection it’s a good thing to do, and I think it’s a new lesson for the country.”
She earlier gave the following totally contradictory advice: “The virus will not survive very long outside. Many outdoor events, particularly, are relatively safe.”
On 11th March 2020 on the issue of masks, she said, “It’s really not a good idea and doesn’t help,” and “in some ways, you may actually risk catching the disease rather than preventing it.”
She was right then. What made her do a U-turn on all these critical points?
Professor Harries has also endorsed a recent massive change in the calculation of the baseline population level used by the ONS to calculate ‘excess deaths’. It is incredibly complex and opaque and by sheer coincidence, it now appears to show a massive excess in deaths in 2020 and 2021 and minimal excess deaths in 2023.
Under the old calculation method, tried and tested for decades, the excess death rate in 2023 was an astonishing 5%, long after the pandemic was over and when you would expect a deficit in deaths because so many people died early in previous years.
20,000 premature deaths are now being airbrushed away in 2023 alone with the “new normal” baseline.
Fear
What is even more shocking is the sheer number of mistakes and scandals in this ongoing horror story.
For example, in March 2020, the government conducted a consultation exercise on whether people over a certain age or with disabilities should have Do Not Resuscitate orders imposed on them, known as DNRs.
A document summarising the proposals was circulated to doctors and hospitals. This was mistakenly treated as formal policy by a number of care homes and GPs up and down the country who enacted it.
At the same time, multiple hospitals introduced a policy that they would not admit patients with Do Not Resuscitate orders because they thought they would be overwhelmed.
Many people died as a result who did not need to, as nurses did TikTok videos while their hospitals lay empty.
Another example:
Fear kills. It kills because people don’t seek needed medical care for fear of the virus, a virus which has a 99.8% survival rate.
It kills because it has been proven that increased stress can suppress the immune system or even be fatal in vulnerable people.
It kills because people who were trying to get care were told to isolate.
It kills because frightened staff were too eager to ventilate to reduce aerosols in the ward.
It kills because isolated, vulnerable and elderly people are abandoned by family and friends.
It’s not just patients who are frightened. Doctors are frightened too. Frightened for their careers. Frightened for their reputation. Frightened of the GMC. Frightened to do anything not prescribed by the authorities who set the protocols.
There have been many doctors and scientists who have bravely spoken out on this, risking their careers and livelihoods, people like Dr Aseem Malhotra, Professor Norman Fenton, Dr David Cartland and Professor Angus Dalgleish to name but a few. Not to forget all of the team at the Hart Group including Dr Clare Craig, who has been so instrumental in helping me put together this speech today.
Another example is that during Covid, doctors failed to call out a dangerous change in protocol. The average time to death from covid symptoms starting was 18 days.
It is a little-known fact that the body clears all the virus within around 7 days.
What kills people is that some people, especially the vulnerable, have an excessive immune response.
Doctors have been treating this for decades with steroids, antibiotics for secondary pneumonia infections and other standard protocols.
But, not this time.
Even though the virus was long gone, doctors abandoned the standard clinical protocols because covid was a new virus.
They sent people home and told them to take paracetamol until their lips turned blue.
Then they sedated them, put them on ventilators and watched them die.
It gets worse, the protocol was a binary choice between two treatment tracks. Once admitted, ill patients were either to be ventilated in intensive care or, if they were not fit for that level of care, they were to be given end-of-life medication including Midazolam and Morphine.
The body responsible for this protocol – NG163 which was published on 3rd April 2020 – is called the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence – NICE.
Giving Midazolam and Morphine to people dying of cancer is reasonable but they have a side effect. The side effect is that these drugs have a respiratory depressant effect.
It is hard to imagine a more stupid idea than to give people struggling to breathe, drugs that do that. Yet that’s what they did.
Why was the warning letter regarding the use of Midazolam in NICE guideline NG163 to the British Medical Journal on 19th May 2020 signed by two Professors and nine Doctors ignored? Especially as it would seem it’s a replica of Abolished Liverpool Care Pathway in dosages and combined use of Midazolam plus an opioid.
NG163 stated that a blanket start dose of 2.5 mg of Midazolam should be injected regardless of age, body weight and comorbidities, how can this be medically acceptable as results show titration was not possible at such a dose for many elderly and who authorised it?
Why was Midazolam then removed from the same updated guideline NG191 on 30th November 2023? (As it was removed is it now considered and admitted it was a mistake to ignore the warning of the inclusion of that specific drug in NG163)?
It’s now been confirmed by subsequent letters from Ministers to families that doctors and nurses should have treated the individual patient with their own knowledge rather than strictly follow NICE guideline NG163 (as suggested by Quince and Stephenson) so if the warning letter from 11 experts to the BMJ was correct is the blame with NICE, NHS England or individual doctors and nurses, should legal action find verdicts of unlawful killing?
I would like to pay tribute to the Scottish Covid Inquiry which is hearing extensive, heartbreaking evidence of the effect of this alternative protocol on real people, real lives and sadly real and unnecessary deaths. People scared. People angry. People dying. People gasping for their lives away who might have been saved.
I very much hope that the eventual Scottish Inquiry Report addresses in detail the NICE decision making on the alternative protocols for those with Covid.
All these deaths were ascribed by the government to covid as if no other factors needed to be investigated.
But this is one example of a scandal that if it wasn’t for the Scottish Inquiry would never be investigated and never learned from.
Anyone who raised this problem during the pandemic was smeared as a covid denier.
Even worse
NICE has now removed these alternative protocols from its website. All other old protocols are still there for historical reference.
Why have NICE removed this protocol from their website? Are they ashamed of the harm they caused?
They certainly should be.
What can we learn from this? Doctors don’t challenge what they are told. Protocols with no authors are distributed and doctors fall in line.
We need doctors who are prepared to put their necks on the line for the sake of their patients, but we don’t have them and the whole system is broken as a result.
Here is another example.
Not a single death certificate was written saying that death was due to the rare brain clots caused by AstraZeneca until the MHRA said there was a link. Then the death certificates started to trickle in.
That’s not the scandal.
The scandal is that doctors wait for authorities to tell them they could label a death as vaccine-linked before they will do it. They are afraid of being smeared or reported to the GMC.
In the meantime, the MHRA relies on the evidence from death certificates in order to identify a problem.
That’s the scandal.
It wasn’t until other countries and public and political pressure FORCED the MHRA to admit the link between vaccines and blood clots causing death that they finally admitted it. And THEN doctors started putting it on death certificates.
There is a stark contrast in how deaths and illnesses after vaccination have been recorded compared to Covid. After a positive test, any illness and any death was attributed to the virus. After the experimental and emergency-use vaccine, no illness and no death occurred. Both are totally unscientific approaches. That is why we have to look to other data sources – excess deaths to determine if there is an issue.
Safe and Effective
The fear deliberately stoked by the government promoted the idea of being rescued by a saviour vaccine. The chanting of the safe and effective narrative began. The phrase seems to have hypnotised the nation.
“Safe and Effective” was the slogan used to market Thalidomide.
After that scandal rules were put in place to prevent such marketing in future. Pharma companies are prohibited from saying “safe and effective” without significant caveats.
That didn’t matter this time because the media, the government and authorities turned into the pharma marketing department.
It is hard to now hear the word safe without the echo of “and effective”.
But they are not safe and effective. In March 2021, when the majority of UK citizens had already received these novel products, Pfizer signed a contract with Brazil and South Africa in which they said, “the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and … adverse effects of the Vaccine… are not currently known.”
These so-called vaccines were the least effective vaccines ever. Is there anyone left under the illusion that they prevented any infections?
Yet, even the Prime Minister now has one eye on history.
When he was at the dispatch box on 31st January at PMQs, following my question, he could not bring himself to add “and effective” to his “safe” mantra that the vaccines were safe.
Why is the Prime Minister gaslighting the 163 successful claims made to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme totalling an incredible £19.5m in compensation for harm caused by the Covid vaccines? Haven’t they suffered enough already? Those 163 are the tip of the iceberg by the way.
It should be noted that the maximum payment is £120,000. So each of those 163 got the maximum possible award, which tells you something perhaps.
That same compensation scheme paid out a total of £3.5m between 1997-2005 with an average of 8 claims per year. That’s for ALL other claims in the entire country for all vaccines.
So much for ‘safe’.
How about effective?
Even by 25th October 2021, the former Prime Minister and Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip even admitted that, and again, I quote, “It doesn’t protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on.”
Looking at the levels of the virus in sewage shows that the post-vaccine wave was in the same order of magnitude and duration as the previous waves.
Vaccines changed nothing. They were not safe. And they were not effective.
Those who imposed these vaccines knew full well they could never prevent infections in this kind of disease.
An injection in the arm cannot do that. Only immunity on the surface of the airway and lungs can prevent viral infection. Antibodies in the blood cannot.
In Dr Anthony Fauci’s own words, “It is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses has ever been effectively controlled by vaccines”
He continued, “This observation raises a question of fundamental importance: if natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines to do so”
The mantra of “safe and effective” has so brainwashed some people that we now have the outrageous situation where the loving mother of a 24 year old man, who had the mental age of an 18 month old has been threatened in court with jail time, by a lawyer charged with representing her son’s best interests, because she does not want him vaccinated.
He has had covid meaning he has the optimum possible protection against a subsequent infection already.
The judge has used the argument that Tom would choose to be vaccinated for altruistic reasons but the court has a duty to act in his best interests not the interests of society.
Altruism means taking vaccinations to help others. But, these vaccines do not protect others! They do not prevent infection. Why is our system persecuting this mother? What are they hoping to achieve?
Only a few days ago, the ABPI, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry rapped Pfizer on the knuckles for the sixth time and said their marketing practices had brought the industry into disrepute. They were asked to pay £30,000 in administrative expenses with no fine on top. The person heading the ABPI at the moment is also the head of Pfizer UK. The MHRA have a statutory duty to carry out this work and has handed the responsibility over to the industry itself. This is an outrageous conflict of interest.
Another drug produced by Pfizer was Paxlovid designed to supposedly treat Covid. It was approved in December 2021.
Pfizer this week revealed the trial results for Paxlovid that had been hidden for two years.
The study showed that Paxlovid did not work to reduce illness.
Worse still, it caused rebound infections in 25% of those treated.
Worse still it causes serious drug interactions and other side effects.
Will Pfizer be held accountable for this? I am not holding my breath.
Australia
But let’s return to excess deaths. The Australian government has launched an Inquiry into their excess death problem.
Australia is almost unique as a case study for excess deaths. They had the vaccine before they had Covid.
Their excess deaths are not so easily blamed on the long-term effects of a virus. Like us, they saw a rise in deaths that began in May 2021 and has not let up since. The impact was evident on the ambulance service first.
South Australia saw a 67% increase in cardiac presentations of 15-44 year olds which peaked in November 2021 before covid hit.
We saw a similar deeply worrying effect here too:
Calls for life-threatening emergencies in the UK rose from 2000 per day to 2500 per day in May 2021 and it has not returned to normal.
Queensland doctors called the problem a “ticking time bomb” in April 2021 and described a “flood of patients.” 69
By October 2021, despite it being springtime in Australia headlines reported on ambulances unable to drop off patients in hospitals that were at full capacity.67
Mark McGowan, Premier of Western Australia, said he could not explain the overwhelmed hospitals, “Our hospitals are under enormous pressure. This has been something no one has ever seen before. Why it is, is hard to know.”68
By April 2022, Yvette D’ath Queensland health minister said about the most urgent ambulance calls (“code ones”), QUOTE: “I don’t think anyone can explain why we saw a 40% jump in code ones… We just had a lot of heart attacks and chest pains and trouble breathing, respiratory issues. Sometimes you can’t explain why those things happen but unfortunately, they do.”70
Omicron caused excess deaths in Australia from 2022 onwards, however, there is a huge chunk of excess deaths which doctors have not been able to blame on the virus.
Could these deaths be caused by the vaccine? Very few dare ask, Mr Speaker.
Remember the warning from Kate Bingham, head of the covid vaccine task force, who said in October 2020 that vaccinating healthy people who have little risk from covid “could cause them some freak harm.”
Has there been some freak harm? The data on disability claimants would suggest the answer is yes! Both here and in the USA there was a rocket in the number of working-aged people unable to work because of long-term sickness. The increase began in May 2021. Thankfully these figures have stopped climbing here and in the USA in 2023.
The timing, or temporal link, suggests vaccines as the cause rather than the virus.
A rise in sickness and a rise in deaths that both occurred from May 2021 in Australia and in the UK despite their seasonal differences and despite their different covid trajectories is highly suggestive that vaccines are the underlying problem here.
It is important to remember how these vaccines were made. Traditionally the key to making a vaccine is to ensure that the pathological parts of the virus or bacteria are inactivated so the recipient can develop an immune response without the dangers of the disease.
In stark contrast, these so-called covid vaccines used the most pathological part of the virus in its entirety.
The harm is systemic because, contrary to what everyone was told, the lipid nanoparticles spread throughout the whole body after injection, potentially affecting all organs. At the time everyone was being reassured that the injection was broken down within the arm at the injection site, regulators knew or ought to have known of these problems.
Furthermore, there is now plentiful evidence that the drug results in continued protein production for many months, even years, in some people. The deaths, thus far have been predominantly cardiac. but there may be more deaths to come.
Cancer
Dr Robert Tindle is the retired director of the Clinical Medical Virology Centre in Brisbane and Emeritus Professor in Immunology.
This month Dr Tindle published a paper highlighting the multiple potential harms from the vaccines including harm to the immune system which – as with anything which disrupts the immune system – can potentially increase the risk of cancer.
There are other reasons to be concerned about cancer being induced by these vaccines.
Cancer is a genetic disease that arises from errors in DNA allowing cells to grow uncontrollably.
Moderna has multiple patents describing methods for reducing the risk of cancer induction from their mRNA products.
This risk comes from material interrupting the patient’s DNA.
It turns out that what we were told was an mRNA injection actually had very high quantities of DNA in it. This massively increases the risk of disturbing a patient’s own DNA.
Worse still the DNA that was injected contained sequences that were hidden from the regulator. This was no accident. Yet again crucial information was hidden with impunity.
Conclusion
The evidence is clear that these vaccines have caused deaths.
Despite this, they have been described as safe and effective.
But, for a small proportion of people, the vaccines have caused serious harm including death.
Neither are they effective. The vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission and when the data is looked at objectively, it does not prevent serious illness and death.
These are hard truths to face.
We must face them if we want to learn the lessons from the last few years.
I’ve been right before.
At some point that will be evident. Let’s not wait as long as the post office scandal before we admit it.
It is time to take the politics out of science and put some actual science back into politics.
So, Mr Speaker, I offer Members of this House the same opportunity which I offered the Prime Minister: ‘To be on the right side of history, the right side of science and on the side of the people.’
Sadly, given the PM’s compromised position regarding his investments in big pharma, he only dug himself an even bigger hole!
I wish I was wrong about the experimental vaccines but the evidence was overwhelming 18 months ago it is absolutely unequivocal now.
I call on this House to do the right thing and protect our constituents, even if it means standing up to the most powerful vested interest in the world.
Fake Physician Allison Neitzel Caught Running Real Medical Misinformation Site
Medical clown for “disinformation reporters” at NBC and Mother Jones crashes her own disinformation circus
By Paul D. Thacker | The DisInformation Chronicle | April 3, 2024
Promoted to national prominence by a coterie of reporters tackling pandemic misinformation, physician Allison Neitzel took a hard fall last week when she was forced to atone for promoting misinformation and defaming medical experts—by posting an apology on her website, and pinning the same to the top of her social media X account. But unless you hang on every word of Democratic Party aligned reporters with a knack for labeling everyone they don’t like a “conspiracy theorist,” you likely don’t know physician Allison Neitzel.
If you haven’t heard of her, you should know her name and story.
Allison Neitzel’s story encapsulates everything that went wrong during COVID when self-defined “disinformation reporters” glommed onto anyone they tripped over on social media as an “expert” they could deploy to castigate those refusing to bend the knee to Big Pharma.
“I know of Allison because of the way she has targeted me,” says Tracey Beth Høeg, a physician researcher and associate professor of clinical research at the university of Southern Denmark. Neitzel has deleted many of her social media posts denigrating Hoeg, including one in which she labeled her “Hoeg hag.”
“The fact she has not nearly completed her training but has appointed herself as an expert physician in pointing out misinformation strikes me as both odd and ironic,” Hoeg continued. “For example, as you can see, she is really attacking me rather than anything substantive about what I have done or said.”
Allison Neitzel rocketed to national fame on CNN after graduating from the Medical College of Wisconsin and posting a letter on social media that accused Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers of spreading COVID misinformation. Rodgers said he was allergic to one of the vaccine ingredients and didn’t need to be vaccinated because he had already been sick with COVID, however, this was almost a year before the CDC stated that prior infection was no different than being vaccinated.
Despite spreading false information about Rodgers, Neitzel’s letter and purported medical bona fides proved catnip to reporters at MedPage Today, Mother Jones, and NBC, who quoted her as a physician exposing medical misinformation. Columns Neitzel has written for websites WhoWhatWhy and Science-Based Medicine also claim she is a physician focusing on disinformation.
And this is where the circus fun begins, because famed medical misinformation expert Allison Neitzel is not now, nor has she ever been, a physician.
Allison Neitzel did not respond to multiple requests for comment to explain.
COVID clown show
I began unraveling Allson Neitzel’s COVID circus act shortly after she posted the apology to her website with the ironic name “MisinformationKills” and pinned it to the top of her @AliNeitzelMD X account.
Neitzel’s apology details a long list of false statements she made against multiple physicians accusing them of a fraud and grift, along with weasel words that make clear this is a non-apology apology, in the vein of “I am sorry if you feel bad.”
“I regret if anyone understood the statements as accusations that any of them had engaged in fraudulent professional or business practices,” Neitzel writes.
You can read her apology, but the depth and particulars of Neitzel’s defamation of real medical experts is impossible to know because she has deleted many of her posts on social media and on MisinformationKills.
But particulars don’t matter.
Neitzel is one in a legion of medical clowns the media launched into prominence during the pandemic because they served as useful idiots for “disinformation journalists” needing a quotable “expert” to bash people who dared question conventional COVID wisdom, or who charged that the government made phony claims about a lab accident in Wuhan, overstated the efficacy of masks and lockdowns, or lied about the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines.
What makes Allison Neitzel unique from the COVID clown posse is that she was forced to retract and apologize for her lies and fake claims.
Interested, I dug into her background and discovered that all the outlets claiming Neitzel was a physician hadn’t bothered to do a modicum of due diligence before platforming her, because guess what? Allison Neitzel isn’t a physician.
Donning clown costume
The first social media trace I could find for Allison Neitzel is a 2019 Facebook post by the Medical College of Wisconsin. “Third-year med student Allison Neitzel helped teach young students how to use blood pressure cuffs, listen to heart and lung sounds through the use of a stethoscope, how to perform CPR and more.”
But when Neitzel jumped into the national conscience in 2021, she began claiming she was a “physician.” A group called the National Association of Medical Doctors (NAMD) posted Neitzel’s letter criticizing Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers in their Journal of Medicine, where she signed as “Allison Neitzel is a physician.” (Stay tuned: While researching the NAMD, I learned even more about COVID grift, which I will report in a future investigation.)
But when you look into Wisconsin law, you find the state defines a physician as “an individual possessing the degree of doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathy or an equivalent degree as determined by the medical examining board, and holding a license granted by the medical examining board.”
So I looked up Neitzel in the National Provider Identifier Standard (NPI) which lists everyone licensed as a physician in the U.S. And guess what?
Allison Neitzel isn’t a physician.
Of course, her false claims of being a physician didn’t stop multiple media outlets from promoting Neitzel as a “physician” and misinformation expert. Let’s take a look.
COVID clown circus
Neitzel made two appearances as a “physician” in 2023 stories written by Kiera Butler at Mother Jones. Butler specializes in “COVID disinformation” stories that uncover “anti-vaxxers” and “right-wing” forces peeking out from every corner of America to harm the public with “misinformation.”
In one of her more amusing reporting incidents, Butler penned an article that claimed natural immunity from prior COVID infection was a “dangerous theory” spread by anti-vaxxers.
After California passed a law to discipline doctors for sharing “false COVID information” with patients that differs from the “scientific consensus” (whatever that is), Butler began attacking physicians who sued to stop the censorship, claiming that they were spreading medical lies. Linking to a tweet by Neitzel, who she labeled a “physician and disinformation researcher” Butler reported that “far-right rhetoric” and Nazi propaganda were supporting the lawsuits.
In fact, a California judge blocked the law for violating physicians’ First Amendment rights. Having first signed a bill that created the law, Governor Newsom then repealed it.
Neitzel was also featured in a story by NBC’s Brandy Zadrozny, another “disinformation reporter” who specializes in “extremism”—code in the disinformation world for “conservative” as people like Zadrozny never seem to find extremism among liberals.
In a story looking into anti-vaxxers—a favored topic for disinformation types—Zadrozny reported on aggressive online harassment against physicians and quoted Neitzel as an expert.
Online harassment has become increasingly common for doctors during the pandemic, according to Dr. Ali Neitzel, a physician researcher who studies misinformation.
“The targeting of individual physicians is a well-worn tactic,” Neitzel said. “But this cheaply done fake — trying to frame a doctor who is doing unpaid advocacy work — that’s a new low.”
Forget that Neitzel is not even a physician. The absurdity is that Zadrozny quoted Neitzel—forced to post an apology last week for fomenting years of misinformation, and years of harassing physicians—as an expert commentator on misinformation and harassment of physicians.
It’s that ludicrous.
Trying to understand Zadrozny’s reporting, I emailed her questions pointing out that Neitzel was never a physician, and asking if she had bothered to check into Neitzel’s credentials.
“Do you plan to correct your article?” I asked.
True to the disinformation journalism game, in which reporting errors are never admitted nor corrected, Zadrozny never responded.
Neitzel’s online persona as a misinformation expert also gained her entrée into three different articles at MedPage Today.
- Bebe Rexha’s Wound Care; ‘The System Is Broken’; Finding Nemo in a Blood Drain
- Ron Johnson and the COVID Disinformation Pipeline
- Should Doctors Worry About ‘Nuremberg 2.0?’ (MedPage Today labels this article an “exclusive special report”)
“Can you explain why MedPage Today ran so many stories featuring Allison Neitzel who falsely claimed to be a physician and has been forced to post an apology for defaming physicians?” I emailed MedPage Today’s editor-in chief Jeremy Faust, an instructor at Harvard Medical School.
“I’m trying to understand if such reporting meets the standards at MedPage Today and if you plan to run any corrections or clarifications.”
Faust refused to respond to questions sent to his Harvard email.
Neitzel’s claims of being a physician also garnered her a column at the nonprofit news organization WhoWhatWhy. “Allison Neitzel, MD, is physician-researcher and founder of the independent research group MisinformationKills, which has investigated the dark money and politics behind public health disinformation with a focus on the pandemic,” reads her author bio page.
“Why have you claimed Allison Neitzel is a physician?” I emailed WhoWhatWhy’s editor-in-chief, Russ Baker. “And do you plan to continue claiming Neitzel is a physician?”
Baker did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Neitzel also wrote a column for the site “Science-Based Medicine” where her bio states she is a physician. Science-Based Medicine is a marketing site for the biopharmaceutical industry run by David Gorski, a Wayne State University surgeon, self-described “misinformation debunker,” and ardent vaccine cheerleader.
After the European Medicines Agency concluded in April 2021 that unusual blood clots should be listed as a very rare side effect for AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine, Gorski called foul on the regulator. The UK government eventually stopped offering the AstraZeneca vaccine, and The BMJ reported last year that dozens of patients had launched legal action against AstraZeneca after suffering the same vaccine side effects that Gorski claimed were nonexistent.
In an email to Gorski, I asked why he lists Neitzel as a physician when she doesn’t meet the legal requirements for a physician in Wisconsin where Neitzel resides.
Gorski called the question “pedantic” and said he will ignore Wisconsin law in favor of a definition for “physician” that he found on the website for the American Medical Association.
“In general, ‘misinformation’ reporting seems to have certain ideas they are told are true/false and it’s about finding evidence to support what they have been told,” says Hoeg. “Also the ‘misinformation’ reporters often seem less qualified in terms of understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific studies and domains than the people/scientists they are accusing of spreading ‘misinformation.’”
CORRECTION: In reporting on Allison Neitzel’s farcical rise to media glory, I mixed up the websites MedPage Today and Medscape. The Medscape articles featuring Allison Neitzel are Young Doc to Aaron Rodgers: Be a ‘Team’ Player on COVID Vaccine and Physicians Get Cyberbullied Over Vaccine Advocacy.
Shame on me for making this mistake. Shame on Medscape and MedPage Today for platforming COVID circus clown Allison Neitzel.
UPDATE: Following this exposé, Allison Neitzel changed her X account to be compliant with Wisconsin law and more honestly represent her credentials.
She’s a work in progress.
WHO: Intel Agency for Gates Foundation?
Examining the Foundation’s prescient August 2019 purchase of BioNTech stock
By John Leake | Courageous Discourse™ | April 22, 2024
Reviewing BioNTech’s Disclosure of Classes of Share Capital for the year ended December 31, 2019, I noticed the following:
On August 30, 2019, BioNTech entered into agreements with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). BMGF agreed to purchase 3,038,674 ordinary shares with nominal amount of k€ 3,039 of BioNTech for a total of k€49,864 (k$55,000). These agreements require BioNTech to perform certain research and development activities to advance the development of products for the prevention and treatment of HIV and tuberculosis. In the event of a breach of the underlying conditions, including such research and development activities, BMGF has the right to sell its shares back to BioNTech at the initial share price or fair market value, whichever is higher, subject to certain conditions. BioNTech’s ability to pay dividends is also limited under the terms of these agreements.
Less than two years after the Gates Foundation purchased the stock (pre-IPO) at $18 per share, it peaked on Aug. 6, 2021 at $389. At that price, the Foundation’s $55 million investment was worth $1,182,044,186.00 ($1.182 billion).
On September 18, 2019—just nineteen days after the Gates Foundation took its huge position in BioNTech stock— a report titled A World At Risk was published by the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, which was founded in 2018 by the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization.
The report’s title page is illustrated with an image of a coronavirus, and its text is an urgent call to action for the world to invest far more in preparedness for a respiratory viral pandemic. As the report states on page 8:
The report mentions nothing about the need to invest in bolstering bio-laboratory safety. It expressly warns about the threat of a lethal respiratory pathogen “accidentally or deliberately released,” but its entire call to action is to invest a fortune to responding to such a pathogen instead of preventing it from being released in the first place.
This was in spite of numerous urgent warnings from Rutgers University biology professor Richard Ebright and others that many of the world’s bio-labs had a history of grave security lapses that were NOT being adequately addressed. In 2017, Professor Ebright expressed particular concern about the new BSL-4 lab that was about to open in Wuhan, China.
We now know that SARS-CoV-2 was officially detected in December of 2019 but probably emerged and started spreading in August or September of 2019—that is, around the same time A World At Risk was published.
The September 18, 2019 date of the report strongly suggests that someone doing bio-surveillance for the WHO in China obtained intelligence that a SARS coronavirus was already circulating.
Given that the Gates Foundation is the WHO’s second largest donor (after Germany, where BioNTech is headquartered) I wonder if this intelligence was passed to someone in the Gates Foundation months before December 31, 2019—the date the WHO claimed it received its first report of cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan.
Does the WHO—with its Country Offices obtaining bio-surveillance reports from the field—serve an an unofficial intelligence agency for the Gates Foundation?
If so, it would enable the Foundation to obtain extremely valuable information about emerging infectious disease pathogens—naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released—long before other market players obtain this information.
Informed Dissent
Medical Dissidents, Agency Capture, and Dr. Mary Talley Bowden’s Battle with the FDA over Ivermectin
BY M.C. ARMSTRONG | HONEST MEDIA | APRIL 18, 2024
Dr. Mary Talley Bowden recently sued the FDA for stepping beyond their charter, defaming Ivermectin prescribers, and, thereby, interfering with the doctor-patient relationship. Last month, Dr. Bowden resolved her suit, receiving a substantial undisclosed settlement from the government agency.
Dr. Pierre Kory has been an early and staunch defender of the use of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in humans. Kory believes the FDA settled this case with Bowden because they had likely hired the PR firm Weber Shandwick to create the now infamous “horse dewormer” campaign (detailed below) to smear Ivermectin and its proponents. If true, once Bowden’s lawsuit went into the phase of discovery then this information would have been revealed, but we will never know since the case is now settled. Weber Shandwick lists the CDC, Pfizer, and Moderna as their clients.
Honest Media covered Ivermectin and the “horse dewormer” controversy in a letter sent to the Associated Press documenting the lies the AP published about the drug. We have also recently received a trove of emails between Dr. Bowden and the Arizona Mirror, an outlet that smeared Dr. Bowden and her colleague, Dr. Peter McCullough. After reviewing them, we can say that these documents illustrate the media’s contempt for medical dissidents.
But why this fear of letting dissenting doctors speak? There has been virtually no coverage of Dr. Bowden’s case. Where there is documentation, like with Jen Christensen’s reporting for CNN, nobody gives voice to the victor and victim, Dr. Bowden. Why?
Dr. Bowden, a Stanford-trained ear, nose, and throat doctor from Houston, has treated more than 6,000 patients suffering from COVID. She is a strong and intelligent woman of science speaking truth to power. Here, in Dr. Bowden, is that “gutsy woman” who Americans were told to admire by leaders like Hillary Clinton. But there’s an implicit caveat in the cult of Clinton’s “gutsy woman:” Such women are to be ignored (and even pilloried and censored) if they challenge the orthodoxies of the Democratic Party or the DNC-aligned Big Pharma industry.
For prescribing Ivermectin and dissenting against the dominant COVID narratives, Dr. Bowden was forced to resign from Houston Methodist Hospital. And she wasn’t the only doctor to face such consequences. Dr. Robert Apter and Dr. Paul Marik, two other Ivermectin physician-advocates, joined Dr. Bowden in her suit against the FDA. Marik, for his part, was forced to resign from Eastern Virginia Medical School as well as Sentara Norfolk General.
Last month, Dr. Bowden traveled to the Supreme Court to stand in solidarity with activists as SCOTUS listened to Murthy v. Missouri. The Murthy case concerns the suppression of medical dissidents, specifically, and online censorship, more broadly. Dr. Bowden addressed the crowd of protesters about her four-year battle with the captured government agency:
How many COVID patients did they examine? How many histories did they take? How many prescriptions did they write? Zero. None of them have cared for a single COVID patient, but because they had the full support of Big Pharma, the government, and, most importantly, the media, they became the scientific authority on a novel disease they had zero first-hand experience in treating.
Bowden has a point. The FDA’s campaign against doctors such as herself gained purchase with the public, in part, because the agency’s claims were amplified by a mainstream media that is shaped and funded – captured – by Big Pharma. Due to the massive influx of advertising dollars and the perfect storm of misinformation and disinformation summoned by Russiagate, the 2020 election, and the COVID-19 pandemic, the American public’s trust in the mainstream media has reached record lows. Bowden’s case reveals another example of why the public is justified in its skepticism.
Let the Doctors Speak
I recently spoke with Dr. Bowden about her fight with the government.
“This was a war on Ivermectin,” she said. “But it was also a war on the doctor-patient relationship.”
I asked her what precipitated the suit against the FDA. Dr. Bowden told me that never before in her career had she witnessed interference with the doctor-patient relationship from the FDA or her local pharmacies. When I asked about prescribing a drug that wasn’t FDA-approved, she told me that she’d often prescribed off-label in the past, with no problems, and that she approached Ivermectin, initially, with hesitancy and skepticism. She said she preferred prescribing monoclonal antibodies at the beginning of the pandemic, but sought new options when access to these treatments became restricted.
“I was nervous to start using it,” she said. “Before I started, I looked at the FDA’s website and the toxicity data. Once I was assured that it worked (maybe not as quickly as monoclonal antibodies), I started offering it to patients.”
Not only did Dr. Bowden prescribe Ivermectin to her patients and witness positive results, but she used it herself. She’s had COVID three times. And in every instance of Ivermectin treatment, both with herself and her patients, she observed either efficacy or minimal side effects.
“I haven’t lost one patient due to Ivermectin,” she said.
In 2015, the Nobel Committee for Physiology honored the discovery of Ivermectin with a Nobel Prize. The NIH lauded this “multifaceted drug,” which was largely unknown in American public discourse prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Then, suddenly everyone and their grandmother was an expert on the dangers of Ivermectin. Seemingly overnight, the American people absorbed a viral propaganda campaign from the very government agency (the FDA) that they supported with tax dollars. And if you were a doctor or patient seeking this low-cost, award-winning therapeutic treatment, you were suddenly in the crosshairs of the “war on Ivermectin.” This policing of the poor and the independent all started, according to Dr. Bowden, “with the horse tweet.”
On August 8, 2021, the FDA weaponized its social media account to stigmatize physicians like Dr. Bowden and skeptical and underprivileged patients seeking affordable alternative care. The agency issued a tweet with two images: a veterinarian outdoors caring for a horse, coupled with a physician in an office caring for a masked human. The text for the tweet reads: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” This tweet, with its careful use of the colloquial and the second person, supplemented with a juvenile binary logic, became the most popular tweet in FDA history.
Hate wins clicks. Fear creates fog. Shortly after the tweet’s publication and viral propagation, Dr. Bowden’s life came undone.
“I never had a pharmacy deny a prescription before,” she said.
Dr. Bowden’s struggle with the pharmacy was just the tip of the iceberg, revealing the stranglehold Big Pharma now has on health care in America. Dr. Bowden suffered (and still suffers) from vicious attacks online, as well as alienation from her peers. She was forced to resign from her workplace, Houston Methodist Hospital. She explained to me that the “war on Ivermectin” was more vitriolic than anything she’d ever seen before in the discourse on public health. And whereas most doctors bent the knee, stayed silent, and complied with government mandates, Dr. Bowden (and others) fought back. Her case represents what one might call a scientific profile in courage.
What does fighting back look like? Well, for starters, perhaps it begins with telling the truth in public and revealing the whole story of Dr. Bowden’s struggle, along with that of fellow medical dissidents like Dr. Kory, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration), and Dr. Peter McCullough.
In Dr. Bowden’s and Dr. McCullough’s recent email exchanges with the Arizona Mirror, one can see, firsthand, a publication that ignores the opportunity to correct factual errors. The Mirror instead willfully litters its reporting on Dr. Bowden and Dr. McCullough with misinformation, ad hominem attacks, bizarre references to Qanon, constant allusions to shadowy conspiracy theories, and the slanderous insinuation that Dr. McCullough is antisemitic.
The Association Fallacy
One of the most recurrent disinformation patterns we have witnessed in studying the defamation of populist voices, broadly, and Dr. Bowden’s case, specifically, is what scholars of rhetoric call the association fallacy. In short, the association fallacy describes claims where even oblique social connection to a stigmatized individual or organization (like QAnon) is used to poison the claims of the targeted speaker. Simply associating the terrifying name of the poisonous organization with the speaker scares the reader and creates an irrational – fallacious – connection.
What’s troubling, in the case of the Arizona Mirror reporting, is that Dr. Bowden and Dr. McCullough have no ties to QAnon. Furthermore, Dr. Bowden and Dr. McCullough both reached out to Jim Small, the paper’s editor, and politely asked that these fallacies be removed from the Mirror’s articles.
For example, Dr. Bowden and Dr. McCullough called attention to the Mirror’s repeated use of the ad hominem “anti-vaxxer” to label Dr. McCullough and associate the doctor with the world of “anti-vaxxers.” In their email exchange, Dr. McCullough confides in Small that he has “accepted dozens of vaccines during the course of my life.”
But the Mirror refused to mirror the truth and remove the slur. The Mirror refused to interview these doctors, refused to correct their reporter’s mistakes when alerted by the victims, and, furthermore, sought to defame the doctors through ad hominem attacks and the association fallacy.
To witness how the association fallacy works, consider the following sentence about Dr. Bowden’s colleague, Dr. McCullough, from the Arizona Mirror’s Jerod Macdonald-Evoy: “McCullough has become a darling to those in both Qanon and the broader conspiracy world, appearing regularly on shows like the one hosted by antisemite Stew Peters, who said the COVID vaccine is a bioweapon.”
In one sentence, the reporter has accused the doctor (without directly accusing him) of antisemitism and conspiracy theory simply by virtue of association with other human beings, mostly unnamed, who populate “the broader conspiracy world.”
What is happening to people like Dr. McCullough and Dr. Bowden rarely happens to those in power. It happens to those who challenge power.
The Arizona Mirror and CNN should be ashamed. They punished informed dissent. They refused to contextualize Dr. Bowden’s struggle as part of a subculture of dignified scientists and physicians. They erased and defamed Dr. Bowden and her colleagues. They published fear porn and called it journalism. They left out this gutsy woman’s voice. Honest Media has chosen a different path. We let the doctor speak.
‘Tacit Admission of Guilt’: Two Top Journal Editors Decline to Testify Before Congress on Scientific Censorship
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 17, 2024
Only 1 of 3 science journal editors invited to testify before Congress on government interference in the peer-reviewed publication process accepted the invitation this week.
Holden Thorp, Ph.D., editor-in-chief of the Science family of journals, on Tuesday testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.
Magdalena Skipper, Ph.D., editor-in-chief of Nature, and Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, “declined to participate,” according to the subcommittee’s website.
“We invited the editors-in-chief of The Lancet, Nature and Science. Only the editor of Science had the courage to come and help us be better,” Subcommittee Chair Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) said.
In his opening remarks Tuesday, Wenstrup said, “This subcommittee was established so we can collectively take a look back on the pandemic and see what we can do better for the next time.”
But experts who spoke with The Defender said they were disappointed with the editors who declined to testify — but also with the members of the subcommittee, who they argued failed to address key issues during the hearing.
Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender, “The committee and Thorp disappointed academic researchers and the public alike.”
McCullough, author of more than 1,000 science journal articles, added:
“Thorp was silent on harmful retractions of fully published papers … This has happened repeatedly for manuscripts describing early treatment(s) and protocols for ambulatory acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and for reports of COVID-19 vaccine injuries, disabilities and deaths.
“Who is behind these retractions? Why are they working to suppress early therapeutic options for patients and scrub any concerns over vaccine safety?”
Epidemiologist and public health research scientist M. Nathaniel Mead told The Defender, “It seems very telling” that Skipper and Horton skipped Tuesday’s hearing.
“In the context of SARS-CoV-2 origins, these two journals have been accused of being unduly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry and government agencies,” Mead said. “Such conflicts can impede unbiased scientific reporting and commentaries.”
“Skipper and Horton’s absence would seem to be a tacit admission of guilt on the part of the two journals they represent,” said Mead, who wrote a peer-reviewed paper that was retracted by the journal Cureus after publication.
McCullough said two papers for which he was senior author were retracted. “In both instances, the public and the practicing community were harmed by the intentional omission of critical side effects from the knowledge base on these products.”
Independent journalist Paul D. Thacker has investigated scientific censorship for The Disinformation Chronicle. He told The Defender, “The science and medical journals did not publish the best research available during the pandemic. They just served as gatekeepers to protect people, institutions and corporations in power.”
Thacker added:
“Holden Thorp should resign. He oversaw a news section that ran several fake stories about the pandemic to misinform the scientific community. And Science published studies that have been noted in the peer-reviewed literature for poor statistics to deny a possible lab accident. It’s a historical low point for this publication.
“Nothing will change from these hearings. My only hope is that some researchers will understand how corrupt the scientific process has become and this hearing will spur them to make change.”
‘No place for politics’ or government influence over journals
During his opening remarks, Wenstrup said the hearing was not intended “to see how the government can be more involved in the journal editorial process, but to make sure that the government does not involve itself or influence this process.”
“There’s no denying the awesome power these periodicals as well as their editors hold over the medical and scientific communities,” Wenstrup said. As a result, “there can be no place for politics or inappropriate government influence of journals.”
But Wenstrup accused the journals and their editors of not always being “arbiters of truth.” Instead, he said, they “provide a forum where scientific claims are made, defended, and debated by peer review.” Wenstrup added, “We saw a breakdown of that during the pandemic.”
“Rather than the journals being a wealth of information and opinions about this novel virus of which we knew so little, they helped establish a party line that literally put a chilling effect on scientific research regarding the origins of COVID-19,” Wenstrup said.
Wenstrup cited the “Proximal Origin” paper — published by Nature in March 2020 — as an example, saying that it helped “set a precedent … that the natural origin of COVID-19 was the only plausible theory.”
“Anyone else who had even the inkling of another plausible scientific thought was immediately labeled a conspiracy theorist … How is that acceptable in the scientific community when the entire crux of the field is open for debate?” Wenstrup said.
During his opening remarks, Ranking Member Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.) contradicted Wenstrup’s statements, claiming the subcommittee has not proven that top government public health officials such as Drs. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins orchestrated the publication of the “Proximal Origin” paper.
‘Clear evidence of malfeasance and dishonesty’
Thorp told members of the subcommittee that he is “extraordinarily proud of the Science journals’ work” and “of the role that the scientific enterprise plays in society.”
He said the Science journals “abide by a rigorous multi-step peer-review process” and “a careful process to ensure that the reviewers do not have a conflict of interest.” This “well-established process,” he said, “was applied consistently to the nearly 9,000 research papers submitted to the Science family of journals related to SARS-CoV-2.”
Thorp referred to a May 2021 letter by virologist Jesse D. Bloom that Science published in its commentary section. “This letter called for a thorough investigation of a lab origin of COVID-19,” Thorp said, citing the commentary as evidence the journal did not conduct viewpoint censorship.
“Publication of this letter turned the tide in the discussion of COVID origins toward considering the possibility of a lab origin,” Thorp said.
Thorp also referred to two papers, by virologists Michael Worobey and Jonathan E. Pekar, published in Science’s research section 2022 that supported but “[did] not conclusively prove the theory of natural origin.” He said the government did not influence the publication of these papers.
“To be clear and to state upfront, no government officials from the White House or the NIH [National Institutes of Health] prompted or participated in the review or editing of [these] papers by us,” Thorp said.
Upon questioning by Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) and Rep. Deborah Ross (D-N.C.) about communications between Fauci, Collins and Thorp in May 2021, Thorp said they supported an investigation into the origins of COVID-19 at the time and did not dissuade Science from publishing the Bloom letter.
Responding to Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa), Thorp acknowledged that opinion pieces “go to 8,000 reporters four days before they’re published.” Because some of these pieces mention government figures, he “from time to time let[s] them know ahead of time that there’s an opinion piece coming that they might get asked about.”
“Scientists are not and never will be perfect,” Thorp said. “We are human, but the scientific method enables us to reach beyond our individual limitations by requiring evidence and constant self-correction. It helped us end the pandemic.”
Referring to the Worobey and Pekar papers, Wenstrup said, “It seems that these studies, much like ‘Proximal Origin’ … were used to stifle debate.”
Similarly, Mead told The Defender that, in recent years, “It seems clear that prestigious high-impact journals like Nature and The Lancet were inclined to prioritize certain narratives or findings that align with the interests of their influential stakeholders.”
“The result has been a suppression of alternative theories or evidence that diverges from these interests, undermining the integrity and objectivity of scientific inquiry,” Mead said, adding that this obstructed the “open exchange of information critical for understanding how this pandemic got created in the first place.”
“The more insidious fundamental issue concerns the biases of the editors themselves and the behind-the-scenes communications they receive from industry and government sources that want them to uphold a specific narrative,” Mead said.
Noting that Democrat members of the subcommittee appeared to defend former government officials like Fauci and Collins during the hearing, Mead said, “It seems fairly clear … that the mega financial relationships between biopharmaceutical companies and the Democratic Party have tainted the conversation around the politicization of science.”
“Why are Fauci and Collins being so assiduously protected by the Democrats when there is clear evidence of malfeasance and dishonesty on their parts?” Mead asked. “This seems to be yet another attempt to whitewash what happened during the pandemic.”
Deleted Thorp tweet contradicts his congressional testimony
Wenstrup questioned Thorp about a now-deleted March 2023 tweet referring to the origins of COVID-19, in which Thorp said, “One side has scientific evidence, the other has a mediocre episode of Homeland,” noting that “the tweet appears to contradict your testimony today.”
“I was not as careful expressing my personal opinions on my personal Twitter page as I should have,” Thorp said. “That does happen on social media. From time to time, I’ve gotten off Twitter and I highly recommend that.”
Wenstrup also asked Thorp about a November 2021 editorial in which he claimed that research allegedly conducted by the University of North Carolina, the EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology on inserting furin cleavage sites into novel coronaviruses did not occur.
Thorp said he is under pressure to write a 720-word editorial “every two weeks” and, at the time, he “was going from what was reported in news stories” about the issue.
Mead told The Defender that Thorp’s admission that he was basing his editorials on information reported in news stories “is quite alarming.”
“Relying solely on mainstream news reports rather than direct investigation through primary sources and interviews with Ralph Baric and other researchers risks perpetuating misinformation and totally undermines the integrity of scientific inquiry,” Mead said.
‘Redactions were never mentioned’ during the hearing
“The government will never earn the trust back from the Americans by deeming all information that it doesn’t like as misinformation, nor will it deserve that trust if that’s what our government is doing,” Wenstrup said in his closing remarks.
But experts told The Defender that there was much that Wenstrup and other members of the subcommittee left out of Tuesday’s hearing.
“Congress needs to explore ways to cut off taxpayer funding for journals that do not want to be accountable to taxpayers,” Thacker said.
“The behavior of Nature has been atrocious, both in terms of the biased news they ran during the pandemic and the corrupt studies they published, such as the ‘Proximal Origin’ paper, which has all the hallmarks of ghostwriting that I looked into while leading congressional investigations,” Thacker added.
Mead said the relationships of key virologists with Fauci and the Wuhan Institute of Virology “should have been discussed openly” during the hearing.
“Retractions were never mentioned in the context of scientific journals and censorship by those journals,” Mead added. “Problems with the peer review process need to be more fully fleshed out, such as how to avoid overly biased reviewers being skewed in a particular direction to suit the editors’ own biases.”
“It would be interesting to find out how much of Science’s revenue depends on pharmaceutical advertising,” he added.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
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.
Censorship & persecution of dissident voices continues across the world
The ‘cautionary tale’ modus operandi
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | April 15, 2024
Those who, like the members of HART, have been speaking out for three or four years about the perils of lockdowns, the lack of access to proper medical care and the utter debacle of the unsafe and ineffective vaccines, keep hoping the tide is turning. But for every stone upturned another boulder seems to descend to crush the truth. There is also no apparent end to the persecution of doctors speaking out.
Two physicians from opposite ends of the world and facing loss of their medical careers for speaking out against the vaccine saviour narrative, typify the current authoritarian approach. Charles Hoffe from Canada and Shankara Chetty from South Africa have two things in common, firstly both are clinicians serving a large local population and secondly both have shared their experiences widely. In Dr Chetty’s case he has reported his success at treating over 1000 covid patients with a combination of repurposed drugs including antihistamines in a clinical centre in rural South Africa with no access to oxygen let alone intensive care. In Dr Hoffe’s case, he first hit the headlines when he reported a high frequency of serious adverse events when his patients started receiving the mRNA vaccines.
Both these hard working and ethical physicians now, three years on, are being subjected to investigations by their medical boards. For Dr Chetty, he has previously been found guilty of professional misconduct but was called to attend a further hearing last week in front of the Health Professionals Council of South Africa. The results of their deliberations are awaited.
For Charles Hoffe the situation is even more bizarre. He was due for a hearing last week but when he submitted all the supportive evidence for his case, the health board in British Columbia deposited a large amount of evidence of their own but then threatened to invoke a ruling by which their evidence would be accepted as ‘fact’ by the court and Dr Hoffe and his legal team would be unable to cross question the data or present any information to the contrary. It looks like the right to a free trial has been abandoned in Canada, along with the right to free speech.
Below is a list of some senior clinicians and academics from across the world who have been vilified for speaking truth to power. It is by no means comprehensive.
USA:
Canada:
Australia:
- Dr Robert Brennan
- Dr Melissa McCann (subject to ‘re-education’)
- Dr Ros Neelon-Cook
- Dr Paul Oosterhuis
New Zealand:
Germany:
- Sucharit Bhakdi (acquitted of charge of antisemitism)
France:
- Dr Didier Raoult (an outspoken academic accused of unethical practice)
Switzerland:
- Thomas Binder (initially incarcerated in a mental institution)
UK:
- Dr David Cartland (GMC investigation ongoing)
- Professor Angus Dalgleish (clinical work suspended by St George’s Hospital)
- Dr Jayne Donegan (struck off by GMC, working as an independent)
- Professor Christopher Exley (told by Keele University to discontinue all research into Aluminium toxicity)
- Dr Aseem Malhotra (GMC initially declined to investigate until a legal case was brought to force an investigation)
- Mr Ahmad Malik (suspended by his private hospital for online posts)
- Dr Sarah Myhill (suspended by GMC, appeal pending)
- Dr Anne McCloskey (suspended by GMC in 2021, further hearing April 2024)
- Dr Sam White (NHS suspended him and GMC placed restrictions which were overturned in the High Court, currently working in independent practice)
This list is continuing to grow despite the increasing reports in the scientific literature which confirm almost everything they have said.
When does it stop?
What authority would scare and shame an already frightened population?
Answer: The UK Government & their behavioural science advisors
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | April 15, 2024
In the knowledge that people are already in a state of heightened anxiety, what government would choose to further frighten and shame them? When citizens have amended their lifestyles in order to function under difficult circumstances, what government would seek to actively disrupt these necessary and understandable adaptations? And what government believes that a fearful population during a ‘pandemic’ is not acceptable, and opts to instil panic instead? A recently published paper by HART member, Dr Gary Sidley, has revealed that such a regime is our very own UK Government, aided and abetted by their advisors and behavioural science experts.
The state’s strategic deployment of fear, shame and peer pressure/scapegoating – affect, ego and normative pressure ‘nudges’ – to promote compliance with covid restrictions has been widely documented (for example, see here and here). Focusing on the harrowing, and highly contentious, ‘Look them in the eyes’ (LTITE) messaging campaign of January 2021, Sidley has conducted a forensic analysis to expose the rationales offered by the Cabinet Office to justify the use of these emotionally disturbing advertisements on the British people. The findings provide insight into the mindsets and motivations of our political leaders and expert advisors, and convey their callous disregard for the wellbeing of those they are paid to serve.
The advertising agency responsible for the production of the LTITE videos and posters was MullenLowe, and a reminder of the harrowing tone and content of this campaign can be found on their website. The adverts comprise close-up images of acutely unwell patients in intensive care units, alongside weary and stressed healthcare staff (all, of course, clad in respirators or masks), ominous background music, and a voice over saying, ‘Look them in the eyes and tell them you are doing everything you can to stop the spread of Covid 19’. Multiple behavioural science nudges underpin the images and slogans, with fear inflation and shaming being particularly prominent.
Based on the Cabinet Office’s responses to a series of Freedom of Information requests, Sidley has revealed the official explanations proffered by our political leaders and state-funded experts in their attempt to justify the infliction of further emotional distress on an already overly anxious population. Specific aspects of the Cabinet Office reasoning in January 2021 – used to support the endorsement of the LTITE campaign – are listed below, followed by a brief evaluative response:
‘Level of perceived risk … is not as high as March 2020. March a shock to the system but now have learned to live alongside COVID’ (FOI, 2023).
Humans have been ‘living alongside’ respiratory viruses since the time of Adam and Eve. It is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that such an observation is a positive one, and a political establishment that have the welfare of their people to the fore would welcome this finding rather than using it to justify the infliction of more fear and shame on its citizenry.
‘They have settled into their own level of “acceptable behaviour” … that fits with their lifestyle, their specific needs and circumstances’ (FOI, 2023).
It is perverse to view these adaptations as reasons for state intervention. A more rational interpretation of these behavioural changes would be that people were increasingly making their own individualised, balanced risk assessments to inform their pragmatic decisions about how best to function in challenging circumstances.
‘Significant and visible difference in behaviour and attitude between the two lockdowns … Fearful but much less panic this time around’ (FOI, 2023).
The implication here is that the observation that people were ‘fearful’ was insufficient to satisfy our policymakers; they wanted full blown ‘panic’. In a liberal democracy, those in positions of influence should endeavour to maintain calm rather than increase alarm; only tyrants purposely terrify their own people.
‘The challenge is in overcoming people’s established ways of managing their lives within the lockdown rules’ (FOI, 2023a).
In a civilised society, during times of national ‘crisis’, our elected leaders (and their expert advisors) would strive to support and empower the creative efforts of their citizens to continue to function through difficult times. To strategically aim to override people’s coping strategies is unforgivable.
What role did state-funded behavioural scientists (‘nudgers’) play in these decisions to inflict further fear and shame on an already overly scared population? Sidley’s research suggests some answers
The quotes cited in the FOIs (as detailed above) derive from the Cabinet Office’s own qualitative research, conducted by ‘Solutions Research’ (a private research agency). However, Sidley revealed other key state actors that were directly involved in the development of the LTITE campaign. Conrad Bird (Director of Campaigns & Marketing at the Cabinet Office) was the senior civil servant who led the commissioning team that provided the creative brief to MullenLowe. Furthermore, the senior minister ultimately responsible for signing off the harrowing LTITE videos and posters was the then Health Secretary, Matt – ‘don’t kill your gran’ – Hancock. As for the behavioural science input, the ‘internal Cabinet Office Government Communication Service Behavioural Science team provided insight and guidance to Conrad Bird’ (FOI, 2024). Thus, this small group of behavioural scientists, located in the heart of government, were formally tasked with furnishing Bird with expert advice on the appropriate use of nudges within the LTITE communications; as such, it is reasonable to assert this band of experts hold a significant degree of responsibility for the fear-inflation and shaming intrinsic to this campaign, via either their active guidance to Bird and his team, and/or their failure to intervene to prevent the unethical deployment of these psychological strategies of persuasion.
The central conclusion to be drawn from Sidley’s critical analysis of the genesis of the LTITE campaign is that we have a government, and a corresponding group of behavioural science advisors, who are willing to frighten and shame an already fearful population in order to lever compliance with state diktats. As things stand, we can expect the same tone and content in government communications the next time our political leaders choose to declare a ‘global crisis’, whether it be under the banner of health, climate, pollution or some other assumed world-wide threat.
Featured Video
U.S. Naval Blockade & Ground Invasion of Iran?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Major rabbi says non-Jews are donkeys, created to serve Jews
By Khalid Amayreh, in occupied East Jerusalem | The People’s Voice | October 18, 2010
A major Jewish religious figure in Israel has likened non-Jews to donkeys and beasts of burden, saying the main reason for their very existence is to serve Jews.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual mentor of the religious fundamentalist party, Shas, which represents Middle Eastern Jews, reportedly said during a Sabbath homily earlier this week that “the sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews.”
Yosef is considered a major religious leader in Israel who enjoys the allegiance of hundreds of thousands of followers. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Russian security chief issues warning to four NATO states
- Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Naval Blockade & Ground Invasion of Iran?
- The Iran War Exposes the Emptiness of American ‘Strength’ in East Asia
- Europe’s Drone Pipeline to Ukraine Could Soon be in Russia’s Crosshairs – Analyst
- EU spied on Orban for years – former Slovak minister
- Fact-Checking the “Placebo Control” Fact Checkers
- An Open Letter To President Donald Trump (My Response) | Candace
- Arms industry given direct influence over university courses
- Another Trump Flip Flop: From ‘Kill FISA’ to ‘Clean Renewal’
- AIPAC ‘slimeball’ Eric Swalwell leaves the stage
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- 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
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
Aletho News 