With Karim Khan’s dismissal, the elimination of the war crimes court is near-complete
By Jonathan Cook | July 30, 2026
The most important question we should be asking after Karim Khan’s dismissal last week as chief prosecutor of the ICC – the international war crimes court in The Hague – is not whether he is guilty of “sexual misconduct” against another staff member, identified as “Sarah”.
That can only be decided through a legal process – one, let us note, that has already taken place. A fact-finding body carried out a lengthy investigation of Sarah’s allegations over more than a year; its thousands of pages of evidence were then evaluated in detail by three senior judges.
Though you would not know it from the media coverage, they concluded that there was no evidence to suggest any kind of misconduct by Khan, sexual or otherwise.
Strangely, that determination was largely confirmed by an extraordinarily deferential “exclusive” CNN interview with Sarah, aired earlier this month.
She declined to give any meaningful details of what Khan had allegedly subjected her to, and celebrity interviewer Christiane Amanpour delicately avoided pressing her for any clarification.
No matter. The purpose of the CNN interview was never about excavating facts. It was designed to offer face-saving cover as an entirely political body called the Assembly of States Parties, comprising diplomatic representatives of the 125 states signed up to the ICC, entirely ignored the legal findings and dismissed Khan.
Paradoxically, it was the Assembly of States Parties that appointed the judges who had concluded that there was no evidence of misconduct or breach of duty by Khan. That inconvenient judgment was simply reversed, despite the Assembly members being in no position to weigh the evidence themselves.
We should not forget that many of these states have an investment in weakening the only international court that can bring their own senior officials to trial for war crimes.
In May 2024 – shortly before Sarah made her allegations – the ICC demonstrated that it was finally ready to prosecute western leaders for war crimes, not just those from the Global South or from the West’s official enemies, such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
Khan issued an arrest warrant for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant. Both are accused of crimes against humanity for starving the people of Gaza through a prolonged blockade of food, water and power.
Were Netanyahu ever to face trial – and found guilty, as he almost certainly would be – a lot of other leaders would have good reason to fear they might be found culpable next, not least for their complicity in Israel’s mass slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.
The question that needs answering now is not whether Khan is guilty of misconduct – that has been decided at a political level, not a legal one. No, we need an answer to an equally political, and far more troubling, question.
“Cui bono?” Or “Who benefits?”
The evidence is hiding in plain sight. The evidence is revealed both in the deeply politicised process that led to Khan’s downfall, and in what that process means for the future of the court.
Covert war
Khan is not the first ICC chief prosecutor to face extreme pressures – and, as with Khan, those pressures surfaced at the very moment Khan’s predecessor tried to take on Israel over its war crimes.
Fatou Bensouda faced a “covert war” waged against her by Israel for the best part of a decade, according to an investigation by the Guardian in May 2024, just as Khan issued his arrest warrant for Netanyahu.
The Guardian’s report, published nearly three years after Bensouda had completed her nine-year term at the ICC, revealed that, during that time, she had faced threats to herself and her family, the monitoring of her communications, and an intimidating visit to her home.
More recently, Bensouda has confirmed these accounts in an interview with Al Jazeera. Bensouda notes that she repeatedly reported Israel’s campaign of intimidation to the Dutch authorities, but they did nothing to investigate the threats or protect her.
She also says certain “authorities” – she does not name them – warned her that she was going too far in investigating Israeli crimes and that “you could be harmed or you could be killed, or family members could be harmed in some way.”
The campaign of threats – instigated by Yossi Cohen, then the director of Israel’s spy agency, Mossad – intensified as Bensouda considered whether to open a formal investigation into Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories.
Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people, we should remember, predate – by decades – Hamas’ attack on 7 October 2023. In fact, though no one is supposed to mention it, Israel’s sustained crimes of occupation are the self-evident cause of that Hamas attack.
An Israeli source told the Guardian that “the Mossad’s objective was to compromise the prosecutor or enlist her as someone who would cooperate with Israel’s demands”– that is, scrap the ICC’s investigation into Israeli crimes. Another source admitted that Cohen was acting on Netanyahu’s instructions.
During one contact, Cohen reportedly issued a Mafia-style threat to Bensouda: “You don’t want to be getting into things that could compromise your security or that of your family.”
The Guardian reported that the Mossad “took a keen interest in Bensouda’s family members and obtained transcripts of secret recordings of her husband, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the situation. Israeli officials then attempted to use the material to discredit the prosecutor”.
The paper also noted that there were fears among senior ICC officials that “Israel had cultivated sources within the court’s prosecution division” – the division Khan would inherit from Bensouda.
Cohen was described as “stalking” Bensouda, and personally “ambushed” her in a hotel room in New York in 2018. Afterwards he repeatedly phoned her, in a threatening manner that was said to have escalated over time. When Bensouda asked Cohen how he had obtained her phone number, he reportedly replied: “Did you forget what I do for a living?”
According to the Guardian :
On one occasion, Cohen is said to have shown Bensouda copies of photographs of her husband, which were taken covertly when the couple were visiting London. On another, according to sources, Cohen suggested to the prosecutor that a decision to open a full investigation would be detrimental to her career.
Between 2019 and 2020, the Mossad had been actively seeking compromising information on the prosecutor and took an interest in her family members.
The spy agency obtained a cache of material, including transcripts of an apparent sting operation against her husband.
Israel used the materials to mount a “smear campaign” against her, but one that ultimately proved unsuccessful.
Concerted backlash
When Khan took up the role of ICC chief prosecutor in June 2021, he proved reluctant to pick up where Bensouda had left off on the Palestine case. Presumably, he was only too aware of the retaliation from Israel against her.
Bensouda had announced in December 2019 that she had grounds to open a full criminal investigation into allegations of war crimes in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
However, in the face of a concerted backlash from western states, she delayed opening the investigation. She first sought a ruling from a pre-trial chamber of ICC judges – presumably in the hope it would serve as some kind of insurance policy – on whether the court had jurisdiction over the occupied Palestinian territories.
By February 2021 the judges confirmed what was already self-evident. The court did have such jurisdiction because Palestine had been signed up to the court since 2015.
Bensouda stepped down a few months later.
The door was now open for Khan to prosecute Israeli officials for war crimes. However, the new chief prosecutor gave every appearance – perhaps understandably – of preferring to sit on his hands.
It was not just Israel that had been fearsomely opposed to its officials being tried for war crimes. Washington was equally incensed at the prospect – sometimes, it seemed, more so than over the possibility that US officials might also face arrest warrants for crimes committed by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Between 2019 and 2020, during Trump’s first presidency, the US imposed severe visa restrictions and financial sanctions on Bensouda. Mike Pompeo, then US secretary of state, linked the sanctions to the Palestine case: “It’s clear the ICC is only putting Israel in [its] crosshairs for nakedly political purposes.”
Khan might well have avoided pursuing Israel indefinitely had it not been for the events that followed 7 October 2023.
Israel’s mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, its devastation of the enclave’s homes and infrastructure, and its starvation of the entire population were actions so criminally abhorrent that UN agencies, major human rights groups and Holocaust scholars were soon all in agreement that they amounted to genocide.
In May 2024, Khan announced arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, as well as three Hamas leaders subsequently killed by Israel.
Tsunami of threats
Shortly before Khan made that announcement, 12 senior US Senators had sent a threatening letter to the ICC: “Target Israel and we will target you.” The letter ended: “You have been warned.”
Describing Israeli and US sovereignty as inseparable, the senators reminded Khan that Washington had demonstrated “the lengths to which we will go to protect [our] sovereignty.”
A 2002 law, popularly known as “The Hague Invasion Act”, authorises the US president “to use all means necessary and appropriate” to bring about the release US persons and any allies imprisoned or detained by the ICC. Those allies, it goes without saying, include Israeli leaders.
Such threats, it should be noted, are a violation of Article 70 of the Rome Statute.
Following the issuing of the arrest warrants, there followed a tsunami of similar threats – and presumably more that have yet to become public – against Khan and the ICC.
A British-Israeli lawyer within the ICC – one known to have ties to Netanyahu’s legal adviser – warned Khan “they will destroy you and they will destroy the court” if the warrants were not rescinded. He urged Khan to “climb down the tree” and drop the case.
The UK’s foreign secretary of the time, David Cameron, phoned Khan to tell him Britain would defund the court and withdraw from the Rome Statute that founded the ICC if Khan did not back down.
Cameron warned Khan that he was “on the brink of making a huge mistake” and urged him to “take a step back and consider things”. He added that applying for arrest warrants for Israeli officials was tantamount to “dropping a hydrogen bomb”.
Meanwhile, Trump issued an executive order imposing aggressive financial sanctions against Khan and other ICC officials, including several of its judges.
Khan himself received warnings that Israel’s Mossad was continuing its operations in The Hague, where the ICC is located, to monitor and compromise the court’s investigators as they compiled evidence on Israel – just as it had done earlier under Bensouda.
Khan publicly stated that retaliatory threats and intimidation were explicitly targeting members of his own family.
Untouchable criminals
What conclusions should we draw from all of this?
Quite aside from the matter of whether Sarah’s allegations of “sexual misconduct” are true or not, it is clear that Israel and the US have been digging for dirt – and apparently ready to fabricate such dirt – on any chief prosecutor who tries to hold them to account for their crimes.
Both have indicated that they are ready to manipulate legal and political processes to ensure the outcome they desire: that they remain untouchable.
We have a template for how this plays out. Julian Assange, founder of the whistle-blowing site Wikileaks, published details in 2010 of US and British war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Almost immediately he found himself entangled in accusations of sexual misdemeanours – in his case in Sweden – that were similarly amplified by an uncritical western media.
Assange faced years in various forms of confinement while the US and UK pressured Sweden to keep alive an investigation against him Swedish prosecutors at least twice sought to drop for lack of credible evidence.
In fact, the US and UK never wanted the evidence tested – they were quite happy with a permanent, unresolved “investigation” – precisely because they knew it would have been unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny.
The point was simply to generate constant headlines about “rape”, turning Assange into a pariah, justifying his effective disappearance from public life, severely weakening Wikileaks as a whistleblowing platform, deflecting attention from the all-too-real crimes committed by the US and Britain, and paving the way to a political show trial to extradite him to the US on entirely confected “espionage” charges.
This has been repeated in the case of Khan and the ICC. In Khan’s case, the evidence was tested and found inadequate. So the legal process has been replaced by a flagrantly political one.
Khan has been turned into a legal pariah, even stripped of his right to work as a lawyer in the UK by the British Bar Association.
The ICC has been further weakened, just as Israel and the US have expressly stated they wanted it to be. Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of state, has recently launched an official campaign to dismantle the ICC “brick by brick”.
He says: “Now they [the ICC] are going to see the consequences”. Consequences of what? Of seeking to enforce international law against a key US client state.
Meanwhile, accountability for the all-too-real crimes being committed by Israel in Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank – and actively supported by western states like the US, Germany and Britain – recedes yet further into the background
As each brick protecting the ICC is dismantled, a brick is added to the wall of protection around Netanyahu and Israel’s genocidal war machine.
Israel, meanwhile, is barely concealing that it has been masterminding the effort to destroy the ICC.
According to Guy Azriel, the diplomatic correspondent for i24 News, Israeli foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar “oversaw a dedicated task force and employed intensive diplomatic efforts aimed at securing Khan’s removal from office”.
Hillel Neuer, director of the Israel apologist group United Nations Watch, cheered what he called “our campaign to remove” Khan, and warned Francesca Albanese, the UN’s legal expert on the occupied Palestinian territories, “you’re next”.
Like Khan, Albanese has been searching for practical, legal ways – not just rhetoric – to hold Israel and its western allies to account for the crimes in Gaza.
Predatory states
The ICC claims its work will not be affected by Khan’s removal and that the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant will still be pursued under new stewardship. That seems doubtful.
Israel and the US are cranking up the intimidation of the ICC, which has no tools – beyond the support of members states – to enforce its rulings or protect itself from the hostility of a rogue superpower.
Currently the court appears paralysed, allowing Israel to muddy the waters with interminable, and vexatious, appeals against the arrest warrants.
Any lawyer who takes up the post of ICC chief prosecutor will be only too aware of the fate that befell Khan and the campaign of intimidation against Bensouda as soon as each tried to enforce accountability on Israel and its western patrons.
It will take a very brave individual indeed to renew that task. Khan’s successor will understand that, in any further confrontation with Israel and Washington, the US will not hesitate to crush the ICC and, with it, remove the only effective restraint on criminality by powerful states.
More likely, however, the Assembly of States Parties – the political body that ousted Khan – will privately require from his successor reassurances that the new chief prosecutor reliably defer to the principle of Israeli and western impunity. Only someone less willing to ruffle feathers stands any chance of being appointed.
That was the clearest of messages sent by the Assembly when a majority of member states voted to be rid of Khan. The short-lived experiment in creating a mechanism for enforcing international law is over. We are back to the law of the jungle.
Hundred of thousands of people around the world – more likely millions – will now find themselves even more exposed to the criminal actions of predatory states. Unlike Khan’s accuser, they are unlikely to ever get their day in court.
UK charges over 1,500 people over signs opposing Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza
The Cradle | July 31, 2026
British authorities listed the cases of 1,579 people at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 30 July, holding cardboard signs opposing Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, according to the campaign group Defend Our Juries.
The group said the hearing had been pushed back to October, but that hundreds of defendants were never told, leaving them unsure whether they were required to appear, pointing to the confusion as evidence of a crisis the courts cannot absorb.
One court notice seen by Middle East Eye told the recipient they must attend on 30 July, then instructed them in the same letter not to come to court.
Defendants who arrived were handed a further letter addressed to whomever it may concern, adjourning all cases to 26 October.
The chaos came on the same day the Supreme Court ruled that Palestine Action can challenge its proscription.
Over 3,500 arrests have been made under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 of people holding cardboard signs reading, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action,” Defend Our Juries said.
Those cases are tried summarily and carry a maximum of six months in prison, and include senior citizens, faith leaders, and first-time protesters.
In the past two months, 96 people have filmed videos inviting support for Palestine Action, with many also declaring membership.
The declaration of membership exposes them to Sections 11 and 12 of the same act, which are heard before juries and carry sentences of up to 14 years.
Eight of those who filmed have been arrested, seven in dawn raids on people’s homes, with another 14 detained outside New Scotland Yard on 5 July.
Home Office figures cited by the group show 92 percent of terrorism arrests in the year to March 2026 were linked to alleged support for Palestine Action, with the average demographic profile of the suspect being a 59-year-old white British woman.
A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries said UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham had inherited the crisis, asking “does he really want to be seen locking up pensioners, priests and 84-year-old Reverend Sue Parfitt while people convicted of violent offenses are released early?”
On 15 June 2026, the Court of Appeal ruled the government’s classification of Palestine Action as a terrorist entity was lawful, overturning the February 2026 High Court judgment that had called it unlawful and disproportionate.
How NIH Silenced Its Critics Without Telling Them
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | July 29, 2026
NIH knew its keyword filters were hiding one side of a public debate. Internal emails now reveal how its lawyers tried to keep the system working without making the censorship look unconstitutional.
Harry Harlow died in 1981. His maternal-deprivation experiments on rhesus macaques turn up in most undergraduate psychology courses, usually as the case study for why research ethics rules exist at all. Four decades after his death, his surname was one of the terms the National Institutes of Health typed into Facebook’s comment-filtering tool so that any comment containing it would vanish from public view.
Next to Harlow on the Facebook list: Suomi, for Stephen Suomi, who runs a comparative ethology lab at NIH’s child health institute. Then monkey, monkies, marmoset, hamster, mouse, mice, primate, chimpanzee, cats, gatos, animales, animalitos, cruel, cruelty, revolting, torment, torture, two monkey emojis, and an emoji with an expletive face. Until December 2021, the list also held PETA and PETALatino.
The Instagram list ran shorter and odder: animal, chimpanzee, monkey, experiment, hurt, kill, test, torture, stop.
Much of this has been public since 2024, when the D.C. Circuit held the filters unconstitutional. What was missing was the agency’s own side of it: what NIH’s lawyers thought they were doing, and what they told the communications staff running the accounts.
On July 22, 2026, Senator Rand Paul, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, released 128 pages of internal NIH email from the case. The messages run from November 2021 to January 2022, between NIH’s Office of the General Counsel, its Office of Communications and Public Liaison, and, relayed second-hand, the Justice Department attorneys defending the suit.
Paul’s interest was COVID, and the COVID material is in there. What the emails document, in greater detail, is how an agency behaves in the days after its own attorney tells it, in writing, that it is discriminating against a viewpoint.
How the hiding works
Facebook and Instagram give page administrators an optional keyword filter. You paste in a list of words. Any comment containing one of them, past or future, is hidden automatically. On Facebook there is also a built-in profanity filter with strength settings; NIH had it on “strong.” Instagram has its own default offensive-word filter, which NIH had enabled as well.
“Hidden” has a technical meaning on these platforms that differs from what most people assume. A hidden comment survives. It remains fully visible to the person who wrote it and to that person’s friends. Everyone else scrolling the page sees nothing. The joint stipulation in the case spells out the consequence in flat language: the user whose comment has been hidden typically receives no notice.
So the speaker’s screen looks normal. They wrote a sentence; they can see the sentence, the sentence is there tomorrow. The rest of the page sees nothing, and no error message ever told them so. The silencing leaves no trace, so there is nothing to appeal and no accurate way to complain. Madeline Krasno, one of the plaintiffs and a former University of Wisconsin animal-lab employee, eventually worked out that she was being filtered and started deliberately misspelling words to get through.
What the lawyers told NIH
On December 1, 2021, an NIH senior attorney in the Office of the General Counsel wrote to the communications team after a call with DOJ. The email is the heart of the release.
She opened with a direct instruction. NIH should stop blocking PETA and PETALatino on Facebook and PETA on Instagram, immediately. That is agency counsel identifying terms as viewpoint-based; you cannot block the name of an organization and claim you are policing subject matter. The words stayed up until December 3. Three Instagram hashtag filters, #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals, were still running afterward. The attorney later had to check from her own personal Instagram account to establish that they were still live.
For those hashtags she laid out four options. The first, which NIH took, was to remove them and use a different neutral keyword hashtag “to achieve the same effect” against the volume of PETA comments; she suggested #testing or #animals. The second was to keep the anti-testing hashtags and add a pro-testing one to offset them, and she offered an example: #keepanimaltesting. The third was to drop the filters if they were not doing much. The fourth was to keep them, on which DOJ’s advice was that a court might find the terms not viewpoint-neutral, and that the worst that could happen would be an order to stop using them.
The first option is a piece of legal engineering. Counsel has identified a constitutional defect in the selection of words. The remedy chosen is a different selection of words, picked to produce the same suppression while surviving review. The volume of hidden speech stays exactly the same. The category of hidden speech barely changes. What changes is the paper trail.
The evidence DOJ kept asking for
DOJ wanted to argue that NIH had no policy of targeting animal-rights speech, and that a comment defending animal testing would be hidden on the same terms as one attacking it. To make that argument stick, they needed examples. They asked at least three times, across several emails, for two or three instances of the filters catching a pro-testing comment.
NIH came up empty. The answer that came back was that this was not a scenario that happens, since people were not really posting in favor of animal testing. The closest they could offer was that a pro-research reply posted under an already-hidden comment would disappear along with it.
That is a serious problem for the neutrality argument. A filter can be even-handed in its text and one-sided in its operation because only one side of a debate uses the vocabulary. “Torture” and “cruelty” are loaded words in a fight about animal research. They are the other side’s words. The substitute hashtags counsel proposed work the same way: #testing and #animals catch the people who came to complain, and say nothing about them.
Wuhan, ivermectin, and the “neutral” filter
Pressed for examples of off-topic hiding that had nothing to do with animals, NIH’s comms staff supplied one. On a post about the agency’s initiative to end structural racism, comments about the Wuhan Institute of Virology and ivermectin had been hidden as off-topic.
At its narrowest that is defensible. Ivermectin has no bearing on a post about racial equity in the biomedical workforce, and a moderator who removes it is doing an ordinary job badly rather than doing a sinister job well.
However, the agency’s stated purpose for its accounts, according to its own documents, is to be the voice of factual information in a time of “misinformation,” and its internal list of disruptive comment examples is characterized as mostly COVID misinformation.
And the December email contains a line that should worry anyone regardless of where they land on lab-leak or ivermectin: if the court found NIH’s pages to be designated public forums, the attorney wrote, NIH might lose the ability to use neutral filters to shut down discussion of a broad topic. Her two examples: animal testing generally, and COVID vaccinations generally.
A neutral filter is a tool for removing a subject, not off-topic noise, and the subjects an agency wants gone are the subjects on which it is under attack.
What it costs the rest of us
Keyword filtering falls hardest on people without lawyers. PETA had the Knight First Amendment Institute and the Animal Legal Defense Fund and four years of litigation budget. A parent asking whether a mouse-model result applies to their child, on a post about a mouse-model result, had none of that and never learned the question was invisible.
Any political movement with a recognizable vocabulary can be filtered by list. Animal advocacy happens to be the test case because its lexicon is unusually easy to enumerate. Immigration, abortion, Gaza, vaccine injury, policing: all have signature words, and all can be removed from a government comment section by an administrator with fifteen minutes and no oversight. What is documented is this one list on these two accounts. Whether the rest of the federal government and the fifty states run filters like it is unknown; almost nobody has asked.
Krasno asked. She filed a Freedom of Information Act request with NIH on April 24, 2021, for the keyword blocklist on its social accounts, and had the records five days later. A circuit opinion, four years of litigation, and 128 pages of internal email descend from that request. For the years before it, the only people who knew which words were on the list were the ones who typed them in.
The Second Circuit Again Violated the Rights of the Amish
By Aaron Siri | Injecting Freedom | July 28, 2026
At the end of last year, the United States Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit’s decision that enabled New York State to persecute the Amish for refusing to inject pharma products in violation of their religious beliefs, and it remanded the case (Miller v. McDonald) to the Second Circuit to reconsider its illiberal and unconscionable decision.
Instead of abiding by the Constitution and protecting the religious freedom of the Amish, the Second Circuit again ruled against the Amish. So, we will be going back to the Supreme Court.
And yes, the 168 unvaccinated Amish children related to this case are far healthier than American children who are vaccinated. We provided sworn expert evidence attesting that among a random sample of 168 U.S. children, one would expect to find (based on the background rate of chronic disease among U.S. children) 31 cases of environmental allergies, 15 cases of ADHD, 10 cases of asthma, 9 cases of food allergies, and 4 cases of ASD. Yet, the 168 unvaccinated Amish children whose families New York wants to persecute are free from the chronic health conditions—all related to some form of immune system dysregulation—that plague the vaccinated communities in New York.
Since vaccination is supposedly about improving health, and the Amish who do not vaccinate are clearly healthier, one would expect New York to leave them alone. But that is not how this religion works. The vaccine zealots in New York cannot stand that the Amish refuse to abandon their beliefs in favor of the religious beliefs held by the New York officials regarding vaccines. These “health” officials are willing to sacrifice the way of life and belief system of these Amish children and their community (which have kept them far healthier), if they refuse to bend the knee to adopt cult-like vaccine beliefs.
These “health” officials also apparently cannot stand that the Amish children are healthier and are even willing to wage war against them until they submit and receive every vaccine New York demands—so they can be just as “healthy” as all the children outside the Amish community.
The Amish earnestly seek to avoid conflict but because violating their sincerely held religious beliefs is not an option, they have been placed in an impossible position. We, along with co-counsel, intend to continue to litigate on behalf of the Amish to defend their freedom to practice their religion in peace.
Ukraine using mobilization threat to pressure journalists – media
RT | July 28, 2026
Ukrainian law enforcement agencies are increasingly using the threat of mobilization to pressure journalists, Strana has claimed, citing employees of several Kiev-based outlets.
The report comes as Ukrainian media have documented numerous cases of violent forced conscription, while investigators have uncovered a series of high-profile corruption scandals.
Revoking draft exemptions or conscripting journalists’ relatives has become one of the main tools for pressuring media workers, Strana wrote on Tuesday. One publisher was allegedly told by uniformed officers that his exemption from military service could be revoked within minutes unless he removed several articles from his website, prompting him to comply. In another case, an editor was reportedly threatened with the mobilization of her son if she published an article critical of the leadership of a Ukrainian law enforcement agency.
The allegations follow the detention of investigative reporter Yevgeny Shulgat in Kiev on Monday. According to Hromadske, police stopped the taxi he was riding in, handcuffed him and took him to a recruitment center. Kiev police and conscription officers claimed the reporter had failed to undergo a mandatory military medical examination and issued a summons.
Hromadske insisted that documents in its possession showed Shulgat had not breached mobilization requirements and suggested the detention was linked to his investigative work. Shulgat has authored a series of investigations into alleged corruption involving Ukrainian officials, particularly within the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).
The allegations come amid a string of high-profile corruption scandals. Since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, investigators have uncovered procurement schemes involving inflated prices for military supplies, while the authorities have also pursued major graft cases in the energy sector, including two investigations into state nuclear company Energoatom.
Ukraine’s mobilization campaign has also drawn mounting criticism. Videos circulating on social media have repeatedly shown recruitment officers forcibly detaining military-age men, while Ukrainian media have documented deaths at recruitment centers and cases of men with serious medical conditions being declared fit for military service.
Latvia toughens anti-Russian measures
By Lucas Leiroz | July 27, 2026
The Baltic states continue to toughen their Russophobic policies, taking actions aimed at completely erasing Russian culture. Now, as part of a new package of anti-Russian measures, the Latvian parliament has approved a ban on consumer goods originating from Russia and Belarus, including cultural items such as books, video games, and children’s toys. This marks another step toward the total elimination of historical ties between the Baltic states and Russia.
Parliament made the decision on July 23. Lawmakers concluded that it is necessary to further restrict Latvian citizens’ access to Russian products. Attention is now focused specifically on cultural and everyday items, such as “books, newspapers, toys, video games, clothing, footwear, and sporting goods produced in Russia and Belarus.” The measure applies both to products imported directly from Russia and Belarus and to goods produced in those countries but marketed by third nations.
Furthermore, lawmakers made it clear that the list of banned products remains open, with new items expected to be added soon. Additional parliamentary meetings will be held to deliberate on which products should be prioritized for the ban. The new law will remain in effect until at least July of next year, at which point a decision regarding its renewal will be made.
Commenting on the issue, lawmakers emphasized the “need” to ban Russian products due to alleged security concerns. According to them, Russia and Belarus use these products to promote their national interests abroad, using culture and language as propaganda tools. Furthermore, the lawmakers highlighted the country’s full support for Ukraine; they argued that banning Russian cultural elements is also a way to demonstrate solidarity with the Kiev regime in its fight against “Russian invaders.”
Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braze also commented publicly on the matter, endorsing the narrative that these products serve as Russian propaganda and should be banned on security grounds. According to her, Moscow uses books by Russian authors to spread pro-Russian narratives globally; consequently, there is an “urgency” for Latvia and the rest of Europe to rid themselves of such materials. Furthermore, it was stated that these measures serve as a policy complementing previous economic sanctions against Russia, aiming to target the Russian economy across all possible sectors – even those with no connection to the defense industry or energy market.
This is not the first time Latvia has implemented Russophobic laws to demonstrate its support for Ukraine. Since 2022, the country has restricted the use of the Russian language. Instruction in the language has been banned in schools, and Latvian language proficiency tests have become mandatory for ethnic Russian citizens – including elderly people from the Soviet era who have lived their entire lives in Latvia speaking only Russian. Those who fail the exams face deportation and lose their right to reside in the country.
These policies are truly racist. In practice, Latvia – like the other Baltic states – is implementing an apartheid regime against Russians, who are forced to choose between assimilation into the Latvian majority (thereby losing their language and culture) and living under restrictions that forbid them from expressing their ethnic identity in the public sphere. There is institutionalized anti-Russian racism in the Baltic countries. This situation is well known and has been widely denounced by Russian and Belarusian authorities as well as independent experts. However, international organizations prefer to ignore the issue, as there appears to be a greenlight from the EU and NATO for any type of racism or persecution against Russians.
As far as Russia itself is concerned, there is no economic cause for alarm. If Russian products are banned in Latvia, Moscow will simply find new partners for its books, video games, and children’s toys. Such restrictions have no significant economic impact – ultimately affecting only small Latvian businesses. Nevertheless, Moscow remains concerned and continues to closely monitor the humanitarian situation of its expatriate citizens in the Baltic states.
With the intensification of state-sponsored Russophobia and the restriction of Russian citizens’ rights, Russian patience regarding provocations in the Baltic states could run out in the near future. Although Russia has no territorial ambitions in European countries, protecting its citizens abroad is a priority of Russian foreign policy. Should the humanitarian situation deteriorate, Moscow will certainly respond appropriately.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Nablus: When the killer becomes the victim
By Tamer Ajrami | MEMO | July 25, 2026
In the occupied West Bank, the story often starts too late.
It starts when an Israeli settler is killed, injured, or frightened. It starts when Israeli officials speak, when the army enters Palestinian villages, and when headlines describe a “clash” or a “terror attack”. Suddenly, the settler becomes the victim, the Palestinian village becomes the threat, and the occupation disappears from the story.
But Nablus cannot be understood from the middle of the story.
For years, Palestinian villages around Nablus have lived under daily pressure: land seizures, settlement expansion, military raids, road closures, intimidation, and settler violence.
This is not a normal conflict between two equal communities. It is a system where one side expands with weapons, army protection, and state support, while the other side is expected to remain silent.
That is why the recent events of yesterday near Nablus cannot simply be called a “clash”. The word sounds neutral, but the reality is not neutral. A clash suggests two equal sides. But there is no equality between armed settlers living on occupied land and Palestinians living in villages surrounded by settlements, checkpoints, and military control.
Of course, individual settlers can suffer. Death is death. Fear is fear. No human pain should be mocked or ignored. But the pain of one incident cannot erase the larger reality. A settler can be a victim in one moment, while still being part of a wider system that causes fear, dispossession, and daily suffering for Palestinians.
This is the contradiction: the executioner becomes the victim only when the story is cut away from its history.
When the headline begins with Israeli pain, Palestinian pain becomes invisible. The settler becomes a civilian under attack. The Palestinian becomes a security threat. The settlement becomes a neighbourhood. The occupied village becomes a battlefield. The army becomes “protection”. Resistance becomes “terrorism”. And the occupation, which created this whole reality, disappears.
This is not by accident. This is how power protects itself.
The settlement movement has always tried to make its presence in the West Bank look normal. It wants the world to see settlers as ordinary residents, not as people living inside a political project built on occupied land. It wants attacks on Palestinians to look like isolated events, while every Palestinian reaction is used to say that Palestinians are violent and must be controlled.
But the truth is simple: a system built on domination cannot bring security.
It can bring temporary control. It can create fear. It can silence people for a while. It can build walls, checkpoints, settler roads, and military zones. But it cannot bring peace. When land is taken, when homes are attacked, when settlers enter Palestinian villages, and when the army protects one side only, violence is not an accident. It becomes part of the system.
This does not mean every settler carries the same guilt. It does not mean every Israeli death should be dismissed. It means that individual suffering should not be used to hide collective power. The victimhood of the settler cannot be used to erase the long victimhood of the occupied.
Yet this is what often happens.
The Palestinian is asked to explain his anger. The settler is rarely asked to explain why he is there. The village is asked to condemn violence. The settlement is rarely asked to justify its existence. The occupied are told to stay calm, while the occupier calls control “security”.
That is why the phrase “when the executioner becomes the victim” matters. It is not a denial of human pain. It is a refusal to forget the political reality.
A settler killed in one incident may be a victim of that incident. But the settlement project remains a machine of dispossession. The grief of one Israeli family does not erase the daily fear of Palestinian families living beside armed settlers, checkpoints, and expanding settlements. One tragic day does not erase decades of occupation.
Nablus shows this clearly. The more Israel protects settlements, the more tension it creates. The more settlers expand, the more Palestinian space shrinks. The more Palestinian life is controlled, the more resistance becomes likely. Then, when violence erupts, Israel presents itself as surprised, as if it had no role in creating the conditions.
This is the oldest trick of domination: create the wound, then cry when the wound bleeds.
The question after Nablus is not only who fired first. That question matters, but it is not enough. The deeper question is: who built the reality where armed settlers, occupied villages, military raids, and daily humiliation became normal?
Who allowed settlers to move through Palestinian land with confidence, while Palestinians move through their own land with fear? Who turned settlements into protected facts, and villages into security zones? Who decided that Palestinian life could be restricted every day, then acted shocked when this reality produced violence?
Until these questions are answered, every incident will be treated as a beginning, when it is actually only another consequence.
When the executioner becomes the victim, the world must be careful. It must see human pain, but it must also see the political structure. It must mourn the dead, but it must not forget the system that keeps producing death.
Because the real tragedy is not only that people die. The real tragedy is that occupation creates the conditions for death, then asks the world to feel sorry when those conditions return to its own doorstep.
British Army faces Kenya setback amid row over troops’ crimes
RT | July 24, 2026
The UK has canceled a major army exercise in Kenya after the two countries failed to resolve a dispute over Nairobi’s powers to prosecute British soldiers accused of committing crimes in the East African nation.
The planned Exercise Haraka Storm, involving the 1st Battalion and The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, was reportedly scheduled to begin in September in central Kenya’s Laikipia County. It will instead be held outside Kenya, the British Ministry of Defence said on Thursday, according to The Guardian. Kenya’s Standard newspaper reported that the training would be moved to neighboring Tanzania.
“It is with regret that the necessary licences required to allow training to take place in Laikipia later this year have not been forthcoming,” a Ministry of Defence spokesperson said.
The African state hosts a permanent British Army training support unit, known as BATUK, in Nanyuki, about 200km (125 miles) north of the capital, Nairobi. British troops have trained there since Kenya’s independence in 1963, conducting infantry exercises, as well as engineering and medical deployments under a bilateral defense cooperation agreement.
Kenyan lawmakers have, however, withheld approval for a renewed bilateral defense agreement amid demands for greater jurisdiction over serious offenses committed by British troops. Funding for BATUK is also reportedly under negotiation.
The unit has faced widespread allegations of misconduct, including murder, rape, and environmental pollution. A two-year Kenyan parliamentary investigation report released last December accused British soldiers of murder, sexual assault, torture, and forcibly evicting residents near Nanyuki. It also documented claims involving civilian deaths and injuries from unexploded ordnance, pollution, toxic-waste disposal, and damage to wildlife habitats.
Former serviceman Robert Purkiss has been charged in Kenya with the 2012 murder of 21-year-old Agnes Wanjiru. He is contesting extradition from Britain. Wanjiru’s body was found in a septic tank near a Nanyuki hotel after she was last seen with British troops. Purkiss denies the charge.
Last year, Britain agreed to pay £2.9 million ($3.9 million) to more than 7,700 Kenyans and an environmental group over a 2021 wildfire accidentally started by British troops. The blaze destroyed more than 12,000 acres of the Lolldaiga Hills and reportedly caused one death.
The Ministry of Defence said it remained committed to its defense partnership with Kenya and would continue talks aimed at resuming training.
Nelson Koech, chairman of the Kenyan parliament’s defense committee, said Nairobi is seeking stronger accountability measures, greater protection for local communities, and implementation of the BATUK inquiry’s recommendations.
The two governments are “actively engaging to address these outstanding issues,” The Guardian quoted Koech as saying.
Italian newspaper forced to pay for smearing ‘Putinists’
Corriere della Sera claimed the Italian government was investigating a Russian propaganda ring
RT | July 22, 2026
Italy’s Corriere della Sera was ordered to pay compensation to a sociology professor that it defamed as a “Putinist” after a court determined that the pro-Russia influence network he supposedly belonged to never existed.
In a Tuesday ruling, a court in Milan found that the newspaper had defamed Professor Alessandro Orsini by referring to him as a member of “Putin’s Network in Italy.” Corriere della Sera, a mainstream broadsheet paper, was ordered to pay €27,500 in compensation to Orsini.
“Publishing and allowing the publication of an article that attributes to Orsini the status of a member of an organized network of pro-Putin supporters aimed at propaganda and counter-information… constitutes conduct damaging to his personal and professional image and reputation,” the judge noted in the ruling.
Published in 2022, the defamatory article listed Orsini – then a professor at Luiss University in Rome – as a member of a “complex and diverse” network aimed at “attacking pro-Kiev politicians” and “undermining government decisions” it deemed favorable to Kiev. According to the newspaper, the group was under investigation by the Italian parliament’s intelligence committee (COPASIR), which allegedly determined it was “activated at key moments” to spread pro-Russia propaganda during the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
However, COPASIR’s president admitted at the time that the committee had “never conducted its own investigations into alleged influencers.” Italy’s undersecretary for intelligence services, Franco Gabrielli, added that “the names given by the newspaper do not appear in any type of investigation.”
During the trial, Corriere della Sera claimed it had received “other and different information” from confidential sources to back its story but was unable to prove this in court.
The judge noted that, not only had the newspaper failed to prove that Orsini participated in an organized propaganda network, but it was unable to prove that the network even existed in the first place.
As a result of the Corriere della Sera article, Orsini lost his position at Luiss University and was dropped as a contributor by Italian broadcaster RAI.
Orsini has been a persistent critic of Italy’s support for Ukraine. In early 2022, he accused Prime Minister Mario Draghi of “total subordination to America,” while blasting the West for “doing nothing for peace.”
“We must be open to recognizing the independence of Donbass and lifting sanctions,” he said in an appearance on RAI. “Draghi must say he’s no longer sending weapons to Zelensky.”
Ukrainian human rights commissioner warns of growing public anger at forced conscription
By Ahmed Adel | July 22, 2026
Ukrainian society is approaching a violent confrontation with its political leadership because of the apparent shortcomings of current mobilization efforts, said Dmitry Lubinets, Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada (unicameral parliament) Human Rights Commissioner. In a recent TV interview, Lubinets warned that rising tensions could spiral into chaos if not addressed promptly.
Lubinets noted a rise in public criticism of the mobilization process, with many Ukrainians deeply angered by the aggressive tactics the Territorial Recruitment Centers used to draft men. He cautioned that unless reforms are implemented, Ukraine could face worsening social divisions and even violent confrontations between civilians and authorities.
The ombudsman explained that Ukrainian citizens notice the lack of legal accountability for the actions of recruitment officers. As a result, citizens are taking matters into their own hands, which could potentially lead to escalated conflicts and greater instability in the future. This self-help approach, Lubinets said, reflects a breakdown in trust between the population and state institutions responsible for defense matters.
Lubinets expressed concern over the high levels of desertion and evasion occurring even before soldiers reach the front. Many conscripts reportedly escape from enlistment centers or while being transported to training sites. He noted several instances of unauthorized desertion from assigned positions. As a result, although official records may indicate a growing army, the real number of active combat-ready troops is decreasing. This gap highlights significant inefficiencies and morale issues within the military.
Corruption within the recruitment system further exacerbates the crisis. Lubinets detailed how individuals are often forced to pay substantial bribes—around $10,000 to be released from buses en route to processing centers and up to $20,000 to avoid further conscription at the offices. However, these payments offer only temporary relief, as those who pay can still be detained and mobilized again later.
Ukraine’s armed forces have struggled with ongoing manpower shortages during the conflict, prompting more aggressive recruitment efforts that have sparked public scandal and protests. Videos and reports document detentions in streets, workplaces, and public areas, fueling a climate of fear and resistance among men of military age.
Some men attempt illegal border crossings to flee the country, while others resort to more drastic measures, such as setting fire to recruitment offices or going into hiding and avoiding public life altogether, demonstrating the depth of public anger and the challenges the Kiev regime faces in sustaining its futile military efforts against Russia.
In 2022, Ukraine’s early mobilization was driven by strong patriotic sentiment following the launch of Russia’s special military operation. Many citizens, particularly ultra-nationalists, volunteered eagerly in the first months. However, as the war has dragged on, accompanied by heavy losses, economic difficulties, and war fatigue, initial enthusiasm has diminished.
Reports of inadequate training, lack of proper equipment, and poor living conditions for new recruits have further eroded morale. International observers and Ukrainian officials alike have acknowledged that sustaining a large-scale conventional army under these pressures requires not only enforcement but also incentives and reforms. In this context, Lubinets emphasized that unchecked abuses by recruitment officers violate basic rights and will ultimately weaken Ukraine’s defensive capabilities from within.
According to Lubinets, approximately 10% of conscription actions adhere fully to legal standards. The majority, however, violate citizens’ rights, with many detentions illegally conducted by masked men in balaclavas, lacking ID chevrons or police presence. It is recalled that he has urged the last three Defense Ministers of Ukraine to ban this practice, but none have acted.
Alongside widespread draft evasion, the Kiev regime is struggling to replenish frontline units because of heavy casualties and an aging pool of available personnel. Official estimates indicate that thousands of positions remain vacant, prompting commanders to rotate exhausted troops more frequently and hampering offensive efforts.
This issue is compounded by demographic problems, including a pre-war population decline and the emigration of hundreds of thousands of working-age men trying to avoid conscription. Families carry a significant emotional and financial load, as many women become the sole providers while dealing with the uncertainty about the men at the front. Businesses struggle with labor shortages, especially in sectors relying on working-age men, and agricultural and industrial output is declining due to the manpower deficit. This has increased public fatigue and criticism of mobilization policies, making recruitment even more difficult.
Efforts to address the shortage have included lowering the mobilization age, expanding digital summons, and offering incentives for voluntary service, but these measures have largely failed. Corruption scandals and aggressive tactics have eroded trust, leading to fewer volunteers and greater resistance. Lubinets’ warning highlights a key vulnerability in Ukraine’s wartime strategy and exposes the widening gap between the Kiev regime and citizens. Yet this will have little effect on the authorities, who insist on fighting the war against Russia to the last Ukrainian.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Andy Burn ’Em, Britain’s new PM, wants to end homelessness by fueling militarism and war
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 22, 2026
Andy Burnham took over as British prime minister this week, promising to bring “hope and change” to poverty-stricken Britain amid a political crisis in which public contempt for governing parties is at record levels.
In his first speech outside 10 Downing Street on Monday, Burnham said: “I will put the care of people at the heart of everything I do… Let us make this the moment when Britain starts to believe again, the moment we bring back hope.”
British media headlines were swooning over this supposed radical new beginning for Britain. At 56 years old, Burnham brings a fresh face to tired British politics.
Notably, he said his top priority was to end “rough sleeping” on the streets for thousands of homeless Britons. And he announced a budget of £340 million (€400 m, $450 m) over the next five years to fix the problem by building affordable homes.
This apparent commitment to improving social conditions may sound laudable. It buffs Burnham’s image as a caring politician on the side of working-class Britons. He likes to talk about his North of England credentials and empathy for popular concerns during his tenure as Mayor of Greater Manchester (2017-2026).
But let’s put his homeless budget in a realistic context. On his first day in Downing Street, Burnham also made Britain’s military support for Ukraine another of his priorities. He said there would be “one hundred per cent” continuation of the policy under his predecessor Keir Starmer that made Britain one of the most gung-ho backers of the Kiev regime in NATO’s proxy war against Russia.
Significantly, Burnham appointed former defense minister John Healey as the new Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister). Healey will be London’s man in control of all government budgets. As defense minister in the previous Starmer Cabinet, Healey was an ultra-hawkish figure when it came to supporting Ukraine and calling for greater military spending. It was Healey’s shock resignation on June 11 as defense secretary that was the last nail in Starmer’s premiership. Healey quit because he claimed that Starmer had not allocated enough money to enable Britain’s NATO commitments for reaching a military spending target of 3.5 per cent of GDP. He claimed that Starmer was undermining Britain’s national security and leaving it vulnerable to an alleged Russian threat. Healey and the military establishment wanted additional funds amounting to at least £15 bn more than what Starmer could muster in his Defence Investment Plan.
If Healey gets his way as the new finance minister, he will commit Britain to increasing its annual military spending from £63 bn to £90 bn. This will have to be paid for by massive cuts in public services and social welfare, austerity that has already driven British society into widespread poverty, where one-in-three children live in deprivation.
That Burnham has surprised many observers with the appointment of Healey to the second-most powerful position in Downing Street is a sure sign that he, as prime minister, is fully committed to Britain ramping up its militarism and support for Ukraine.
Burnham’s first phone call in office was to U.S. President Donald Trump. His second call was to Vladimir Zelensky, the puppet president of Ukraine, to assure him of Britain’s ongoing support.
Doesn’t it seem a bit incongruous that “caring, sharing Andy” should make support for Ukraine and assurances about NATO spending his first foreign policy priority while at the same time posing with concern about homelessness in Britain?
Under a bilateral defense pact between Britain and Ukraine signed last year by Starmer and which Burnham will uphold, London is committed to supplying £3 billion (€3.5 bn, $4 bn) in military aid to the Kiev regime every year over the next five years and “for as long as Ukraine needs support”. This is on top of Britain’s own national military spending.
Burnham’s budget to end homelessness in the UK works out at £68 million per year over five years. This is paltry, equivalent to only 2.3 per cent of the money that his government will be supplying every year to a NeoNazi regime to fight a futile war against Russia – paid for by British taxpayers.
What’s going on in Britain is not a supposed renaissance of people-centered democracy. The British media are hyping Burnham as a “people’s prime minister”. He is talking about decentralizing political power from London to create a “No 10 of the North”. All the sentimental aspiration about hope and change is reminiscent of when Barack Obama became U.S. president in 2008. It’s all hokum and empty rhetoric.
Lord Peter Ricketts, a former British national security advisor, let the cat out of the bag when he told CNN in an interview that Burnham’s task will be to use his populist communication skills to “sell” the agenda to the public of Britain continuing its support for Ukraine and intensifying the militarism of the British economy. This agenda depends on convincing the British public that Russia is a threat to Europe.
Already, Burnham has shown that he buys into that geopolitical project of making Britain ready for war against Russia. He is being an obedient politician to promote the interests of the British imperialist deep state and the military-industrial complex. As soon as he announced the appointment of Healey as chancellor, the stock prices of British weapons companies spiked.
Before he became prime minister, Burnham gave an interview to the London Times in which he pointedly said that he would not be “squeamish” about cutting social welfare funds to pay for increasing military spending. He was signalling to the British establishment that he would be a “safe pair of hands” in Downing Street.
During his first speech outside Downing Street this week, he said he would find a “sustainable way to bring the welfare bill down, to meet our fiscal rules, and honor our commitments on defense to our international partners.” For “international partners” read “NATO and Ukraine.”
If Burnham were genuinely seeking to overhaul Britain’s politics and economics to serve the pressing democratic needs of the British people, he would be challenging the irrational, undemocratic and reckless agenda of pushing NATO militarism and a proxy war in Ukraine. He would reject the relentless propaganda demonizing Russia that is driving Britain and Europe to the abyss of all-out war.
Andy Burnham is not going to save Britain from political and economic collapse. He’s just another manikin brought in to fob off the mass of angry people while the British imperial state siphons more money out of the economy for war. Under Andy Burn ’Em, Britain’s homelessness problem will take on a whole new meaning if he lets the country slide into a world war.
Featured Video
The Roswell Incident Is the Perfect Psyop
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
What Is Peanut Allergy?
An Essay on the Injection That Created the Epidemic
Lies are Unbekoming | August 8, 2026
… In 1988, Japanese pediatricians began seeing something new. Children who had received the recently reformulated DTaP vaccine at three months of age were arriving at emergency rooms with anaphylaxis after eating yogurt or Jell-O. Others were reacting at their MMR shot months later. The reactions had not existed at that scale before. The pediatricians investigated. They identified the cause.
The aluminum adjuvant in the new acellular DTaP had sensitized the children to the trace gelatin proteins in the vaccine. Weeks or months later, the MMR (which also contained gelatin) delivered the second dose. The second injection provoked anaphylaxis in a subset of children. Some then reacted to gelatin in food.
The Japanese doctors wrote it down. They published. They removed gelatin from DTaP. New cases of gelatin allergy in Japanese children dropped.
The paper is on file. The cause is named. The solution worked. No Western regulator has applied the same investigation to peanut allergy, though peanut anaphylaxis emerged in Western children during the same window, at the same ages, following the same category of injection schedule change.
The Mayo Clinic’s public description of peanut allergy states that it occurs when the immune system “mistakenly identifies peanut proteins as something harmful.” FARE, the establishment’s own advocacy organization, documents that peanut allergy in US children more than tripled between 1997 and 2008. Neither statement explains why the mistake began, at scale, in a specific decade, in a specific set of countries.
The mistake framing is the tell. A mechanism that “mistakes” a food protein for a threat cannot explain why the mistake was rare in 1980 and epidemic by 1995. The body’s design did not change in fifteen years. What changed was what was injected into infants: what compounds, at what ages, in what combinations.
The Japanese case is the counterfactual. The cause was found and the epidemic was ended. What separates the Japanese gelatin admission from the Western peanut silence is not the science. The science has been in the record since 1913. What separates them is the willingness to name what was done. … Read full essay
Blog Roll
Aletho News- ‘Trump lost this war’: US senator warns America gets weaker as war on Iran drags on
- The Roswell Incident Is the Perfect Psyop
- Netanyahu rejects Trump’s post-genocide 15-point plan for Gaza
- Saudi-Turkish-Pakistani military alliance shaped by fear of Israel, not Iran: Analyst
- When sanctions become piracy with a government stamp
- China’s first 100-bcm Bohai gas field Phase I fully online, with daily output topping 5,200 tons
- Iran Holds Firm on the Strait of Hormuz
- Saudi Arabia, Turkey & Pakistan Sign Defence Pact
- China to launch regular shipping to Europe via Russia’s Northern Sea Route – Rosatom
- When the coloniser calls resistance terrorism
- If Americans Knew
- Why is Israel Israel adding one billion shekels to its Defense Ministry? – Daily Update
- Gaza: UNICEF reports a small, “highly fragile” uptick in aid supplies – Daily Update
- Tucker Carlson unveils 10-point manifesto amid third-party speculation
- Unicef: At least 300 children reportedly killed in Gaza in past 300 days
- The Briton who helped 6,000 Jews move to Israel
- Sewage, trash, rodent catastrophe in Gaza
- Trump Undercuts His Own Peace Plan while Israel Ramps Up Killing in Gaza
- Israel’s detention of children in West Bank rises sharply – Daily Update
- Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power
- Lebanon: Israel’s Killing of Journalist an Apparent War Crime
- No Tricks Zone
- Uncertainty In Estimating Solar Forcing Across The Arctic Is 100-350x Larger Than CO2’s Alleged Climate Impact
- Farce Of The Week: Germany’s Weather Site Donnerwetter.de Attempts To Measure The Rhine River’s Temperature!
- Analysis: Robert Koch Institute’s Heat Death Model Is “A Joke”… Deaths “Assumed” To Be Due To Heat
- New Research Finds Increasing CO2 Induces Cooling In The Lower Atmosphere Over The Arctic
- Germany’s Industrial Suicide… Grid Agency Prepares Secret Power Rationing Plans Amid Electric Power Bottlenecks
- ECMWF Models Throwing Cold Water On Extreme Germany Heat Wave Forecast Next Week
- Greenland’s Ice Sheet Was Supposed To Be Rapidly Melting Away. It Hasn’t Been.
- Global Temperature Trend Has Cooled Over The Past 6500 Years, Scientists Have Found
- Wind Energy Means Going Back To The Middle Ages, Says German Professor Horst-Joachim Lüdecke
- New Study: A 40-Fold Increase In Earth’s Main Greenhouse Gas Contributes To Cooling The Ocean
Aletho News 