UK Government Caught Hiding COVID Shot–Death Data “To Prevent Distress or Anger”
By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH | FOCAL POINTS | November 15, 2025
Today, The Telegraph revealed that the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has refused to publish anonymized data that would likely show strong evidence of a link between COVID-19 “vaccines” and mass deaths.
According to the report, UKHSA justified the secrecy by claiming that releasing the figures could cause “distress or anger” among bereaved families if a connection were discovered.
Even more concerning: The same dataset — mapping vaccination dates to dates of death — was provided to pharmaceutical companies but NOT released to the public. UKHSA also claimed that publishing the numbers could “lead to misinformation” or impact vaccine uptake.
For two years, the campaign group UsForThem fought to obtain the anonymised dataset through FOI requests. UKHSA refused every time. Ultimately, the Information Commissioner sided with the agency, allowing the data to remain hidden indefinitely.
MPs and peers had already sounded the alarm last year, urging the government to release the data “immediately,” noting that it had been quietly shared with vaccine manufacturers.
Intentionally withholding critical vaccine-safety data carries serious legal consequences, including but not limited to Misconduct in Public Office, Corporate Manslaughter or Gross Negligence Manslaughter, breaches of statutory duties under public-health and disclosure laws, and potential Fraud by omission or abuse of position.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Support our mission: mcculloughfnd.org
Read More:
UK Government Wins 2-Year Battle to Withhold Data Linking COVID Vaccines to Excess Deaths
Swiss probe links Ali Abunimah detention to Israeli political pressure
Al Mayadeen | November 17, 2025
A Swiss parliamentary investigation has revealed that the detention and expulsion of Palestinian-US journalist Ali Abunimah in January were the result of political interference and undisclosed ties between senior Swiss officials and Israeli interests. The findings have raised alarms about institutional bias and shrinking space for Palestine advocacy in Europe.
The Control Commission of the Council of States released its report last week, confirming that Nicoletta della Valle, then-head of Switzerland’s federal police agency (Fedpol), personally intervened to impose an entry ban against Abunimah. The decision, investigators found, “deviated from standard practice” and was implemented in a manner they described as “unsatisfactory” and “particularly problematic.”
Abunimah, the executive director and co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, had entered Switzerland legally and was scheduled to speak at a public event before being detained without warning by plainclothes officers. He was held incommunicado for three days and deported without due process.
Della Valle’s ties to Israeli interests raise conflict concerns
The report detailed how Zurich police initially requested a ban before Abunimah’s arrival. Fedpol rejected the request after consulting intelligence and immigration agencies. However, following a phone call from the commander of Zurich’s cantonal police, della Valle reversed that decision, without new evidence, and verbally instructed her staff to enforce the ban after Abunimah had already entered the country.
Critics have pointed to Della Valle’s post-retirement role at Champel Capital, an Israeli investment firm with ties to high-ranking Israeli officials, including Major General Giora Eiland and politician Amir Weitmann. Both men are known for advocating extreme measures against Gaza and its population. Della Valle’s name has since been quietly removed from the firm’s website.
Abunimah said the findings confirmed that “serious irregularities and abuses of power” were carried out to suppress public criticism of “Israel’s” genocide in Gaza. He noted that the entry ban violated basic democratic rights and was politically motivated.
UN experts condemn growing restrictions on Palestine advocacy
International human rights bodies have condemned Abunimah’s detention and broader crackdowns on critics of the Israeli occupation in Europe.
Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, warned at the time of a “toxic climate” for freedom of speech, while UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Irene Khan, called the repression of Palestinian voices “alarming” and “unjustifiable.”
The parliamentary report reconstructs a clear pattern of intervention. Authorities confirmed that Abunimah posed no threat, but the entry ban was forced through via irregular backchannel influence. Della Valle’s personal directive to override procedural safeguards has become the centerpiece of a growing scandal.
Swiss Zionist lobbying under scrutiny following revelations
The case has intensified scrutiny of Swiss institutions and their connections to Zionist lobbying networks. Switzerland hosts a wide range of organizations affiliated with the global Zionist movement, including the Swiss Zionist Federation, KKL-JNF, Keren Hayesod, and the Jewish Agency’s Swiss branch, all of which have supported illegal settlement activity and lobbied for policies targeting Palestinian advocacy.
Parallel groups, such as the Switzerland-“Israel” Society (GIS), the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities (SIG), and CICAD, as well as newer outfits like NAIN, have pushed for bans on the Palestinian Resistance in Gaza, cuts to UNRWA funding, and efforts to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
Observers say these organizations shape political narratives and influence policymakers, enabling state repression of pro-Palestinian voices under the guise of combating hate speech.
Legal challenge underway
Abunimah is now taking legal action in Zurich and at the federal level, with his legal team preparing further filings based on the parliamentary commission’s findings. His case has become emblematic of growing concerns about freedom of expression in Europe and the ability of foreign-linked networks to suppress dissent through state institutions.
“These grave violations of democratic and human rights were carried out to prevent me from speaking at lawful public events, organized by Swiss citizens and residents, calling for an end to ‘Israel’s’ genocide in Gaza,” Abunimah said in a social media post.
Red ribbons in London: A silent uprising bringing Palestinian hostages back into view
By Adnan Hmidan | MEMO | November 16, 2025
Walking through Westminster, in the quiet rush of central London, flashes of red caught my attention — ribbons tied to lampposts, railings, and street fixtures. They were not adverts or campaign posters, but dense, symbolic gestures: spontaneous in form, unmistakable in meaning. They returned to public sight faces that have long been hidden behind prison walls — Palestinian hostages abducted by the occupation from homes and hospitals, held without trial under a system that resembles nothing but the law of the jungle.
These ribbons seemed like individual efforts, small and uncoordinated, yet unified in what they were trying to say: that the Palestinian hostage file remains locked in darkness, despite being one of the most devastating human crises. Thousands have been torn from their lives with no charges, no legal process, no daylight.
Of the nearly 9,100 Palestinians currently detained, it is estimated that almost a third are effectively treated as hostages; abducted and denied even the bare minimum of legal rights or guarantees.
A language that must reclaim its meaning
For years, the word “prisoner” has been used broadly. But what the occupation practises is not detention — it is abduction. People are taken from their beds or hospital rooms and disappear for indefinite periods, without charges, court hearings, or the most basic procedural rights.
The figures alone reveal the scale of the crisis:
3,544 held under administrative detention without trial
400 children
53 women
16 doctors
117 Palestinian hostages killed in the past two years alone during the genocide in Gaza
These individuals cannot honestly be called “prisoners.” They are hostages in every legal and moral sense — seized outside any legitimate framework by a state whose own foundations rest on dispossession and violation.
Red… a colour that bears witness, not beauty
The choice of red is self-explanatory. It is the colour of spilled blood, of injustice endured, of wounds that never fully heal.
These ribbons may hang quietly across London, but the question they raise is anything but quiet:
How can thousands of people be abducted in this way, while the world remains unable — or unwilling — to see them?
No one is asked to lead a campaign or become an activist. What is needed is recognition, a wider awakening to a file packed with human lives, daily suffering, families searching, and children growing up in absence.
Stories hanging from lampposts… so memory does not fade
Seeing the ribbons brought back the painful stories that fill this file:
The child pulled from his bed because soldiers deemed him a “threat,”
The woman taken from her home in front of her children,
The doctor who vanished from an operating room and never returned,
Those subjected to torture and enforced disappearance,
And the testimonies of rape and sexual abuse recently documented by international organisations.
These stories need no embellishment; their truth is weight enough. They also echo Steve Biko’s famous line:
“The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”
These red ribbons feel like a modest attempt to unsettle that weapon.
Catherine Connolly’s victory: Europe’s moral rebellion against the Israeli occupation
When execution becomes a celebration
It is difficult to grasp that the occupation’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, celebrated inside the Knesset after passing a law permitting the execution of Palestinian detainees.
More troubling still is how easily such a moment can pass as a routine political step — as though it were merely another debate rather than a descent into deeper, institutionalised brutality.
When a state legalises killing those it has abducted without trial, imprisonment ceases to resemble detention. It becomes just one point on a chain that runs from abduction to torture to death.
The rising number of Palestinians dying inside Israeli prisons is not an exaggeration — it is an expanding reality.
Preserving memory before preserving the body
Red ribbons do not claim to liberate anyone, nor do they replace political or legal work. But they accomplish something essential: they return faces to public view and stop stories from being buried in darkness.
The Palestinian hostage file needs wider adoption and genuine engagement. It is a file overflowing with pain and heavy with violations, yet among the least addressed internationally.
Ribbons cannot break iron bars.
But they can remind the world that behind every statistic is a human being waiting to be rescued from disappearance.
Justice begins when we choose to see.
And sometimes, the first step toward that justice is nothing more than a small red thread tied to a lamppost in a distant city.
Trump dumps Marjorie Taylor Greene in escalating Epstein-files clash
Al Mayadeen | November 15, 2025
US President Donald Trump formally withdrew his support for Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene on Friday, publicly severing ties with one of his most loyal MAGA allies after she criticized his attempts to block the release of files related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump announced the break on Truth Social, writing: “I am withdrawing my support and endorsement of ‘Congresswoman’ Marjorie Taylor Greene, of the great state of Georgia. All I see ‘Wacky’ Marjorie do is COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN!”
He added that he would offer his “unyielding support” to a primary challenger “if the right person runs” for Georgia’s 14th congressional district. The rupture came hours after Greene told Politico that Trump was wrong to try to halt the release of Epstein-related documents at a time when many US citizens, including his own supporters, are struggling financially.
“It’s insanely the wrong direction to go. The five-alarm fire is healthcare and affordability for Americans. And that’s where the focus should be,” she said.
“Releasing the Epstein files is the easiest thing in the world. Just release it all. Let the American people sort through every bit of it, and, you know, support the victims. That’s just like the most common sense, easiest thing in the world. But to spend any effort trying to stop it makes – it just doesn’t make sense to me,” she added.
Policy clashes and Gaza stance fuel Greene’s widening split with Trump
It marks the sharpest public split yet between Trump and the 51-year-old lawmaker, who built her national profile as one of his fiercest defenders. In recent months, Greene has increasingly broken with the White House and members of her own party on domestic and foreign policy.
Earlier this week, Trump rebuked her criticism of his agenda, saying she had “lost her way” after she accused him of prioritizing foreign affairs over the economic struggles facing US citizens. Greene responded on X: “The only way is through Jesus. That’s my way, and I’ve definitely not lost it. Actually I’m working hard to put my faith into action.”
Since Trump’s return to office, Greene has clashed more frequently with Republican leadership. She denounced plans to send “billions of dollars” in weapons to Ukraine and broke with the party’s longstanding support for “Israel” by calling its war in Gaza a “genocide.”
She has also voiced frustration with congressional leaders during the government shutdown that ended this week. In a rare move for a Republican, she joined Democrats in pushing for expanded healthcare subsidies.
The global Zionist organ trafficking conspiracy
By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | November 15, 2025
In early October, Israeli-Ukrainian Boris Wolfman was arrested in Russia. He is charged with masterminding a criminal organ trafficking scheme. His capture, wholly ignored by the Western media, raises the prospect that at long last, some justice will be served in a number of major organ trafficking scandals, dating back many years. Wolfman’s apprehension also highlights Tel Aviv’s little-scrutinised role as the world’s centre of illegal organ harvesting and trafficking. Grimly, the Gaza genocide may have greatly facilitated this perverse commerce.
Ever since October 7th, credible allegations have widely circulated that Zionist Occupation Forces are illegally harvesting the organs of slain Palestinians. In November 2023, the Euro-Med Monitor published a report documenting how Israeli soldiers confiscated dozens of corpses from major hospitals in Gaza, to the extent of digging up and raiding mass graves built in their grounds to accommodate the never-ending influx of slaughtered civilians. While some bodies were subsequently handed over to the Red Cross, many were and remain withheld.
Euro-Med Monitor records how many corpses exhibited clear indications of organ harvesting, including missing cochleas and corneas, as well as hearts, kidneys, and livers. Since then, the Zionist entity has released token numbers of murdered Palestinians at intermittent intervals to their surviving relatives. Frequently, the bodies are decomposed beyond recognition, making conducting professional autopsies – and identifying whether organs have been stolen – difficult if not impossible. Sometimes, the corpses are frozen solid, again greatly complicating medical examinations, and potentially obscuring organ theft.
The 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention mandates respect for the dignity of dead civilians, and explicitly prohibits the looting or mutilation of their bodies during wartime. However, the Zionist entity has not only failed to ratify the treaty, but expressly rejects its applicability to Gaza and the illegally-occupied West Bank. Moreover, repulsive local laws and legal precedents unique to Tel Aviv grant authorities the power to refuse to release dead Palestinians to their families.
Their bodies can be used as grisly bargaining chips – or their organs looted with impunity. For decades, the Zionist entity has been the illicit organ trade’s international nucleus. While Palestinians have long-raised alarm over Tel Aviv’s theft of their fallen comrades’ organs, it was not until the early 2000s that the practice was officially admitted. Yehuda Hiss, head of “Israel’s” Abu Kabir Institute, openly boasted of harvesting skin, bones, and other human materials during autopsies. He was never punished, suggesting his macabre activities were state-sanctioned.
This interpretation is amply reinforced by former Institute employee Meira Weiss’ 2014 work Over Their Dead Bodies. She reveals how, during the First Intifada 1987 – 1993, ZOF officials directed the centre “to harvest organs from Palestinians using a military regulation that an autopsy must be conducted on every killed Palestinian.” This gave them free rein to seize whatever they wished from bodies in their care. Institute apparatchiks nostalgically referred to these years as the “good days”, as they could pilfer organs “consistently and freely”.
Disturbingly, the Gaza genocide’s catastrophic death toll may represent the dawning of a new era of “good days” for the Zionist entity’s organ trade. Wolfman’s arrest, and the collapse of the conspiracies he oversaw, are unlikely to dent Tel Aviv’s operations in the field. He was but one player in a world-spanning nexus of Israeli traffickers. In the manner of a hydra, Wolfman’s removal will simply lead to others taking his place. After all, the returns are high, and risks mysteriously low.
‘Organ Broker’
In July 2015, the European Parliament issued a landmark report on organ trafficking. Its introduction notes, “before 2000, the problem of trafficking in human organs…was primarily limited to the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia.” However, the report noted that following the turn of the millennium, “trafficking in organs has seemingly started to spread globally, to a large extent driven by Israeli doctors.” The document went on to detail a number of high-profile organ trafficking cases.
In all but one, the evidentiary trail led directly back to the Zionist entity. An accompanying map of international organ trade routes places Tel Aviv at the very core, with its citizens both being leading customers, and heading the gangs that supply organs to overseas buyers. One cited case was the exposure in 2003 of a leading South African hospital performing over 100 illegal transplants on overseas patients – “the majority” from “Israel”.
Local law enforcement uncovered how a criminal syndicate led by well-connected Israeli Ilan Perry recruited poor, desperate individuals from Brazil, Romania, and elsewhere who were willing to sell their organs for a token sum, then transported them to South Africa. Customers would pay vast amounts for the transplants – Perry, the “organ broker”, and his associates would pocket the bulk, with the rest paid to ‘donors’ and hospital staff to perform the illegal procedures, then keep quiet about the connivance.
Another cited case is the Medicus Clinic scandal in Pristina, Kosovo. It erupted in October 2008, when a young Turkish man collapsed at the city’s airport. After a fresh surgical scar was found on his abdomen, he explained his kidney had been removed at the clinic, leading to a police raid. Medicus was already on local law enforcement’s radar due to the profusion of foreigners arriving in Pristina with letters of invitation to the clinic for heart treatment, which Medicus was not known to provide.
Subsequent investigations revealed Israeli Moshe Harel and Turkish doctor Yusuf Sonmez – known as “the world’s most renowned organ trafficker” – were responsible for sourcing clientele, who paid in excess of $100,000 for transplants. The surgeries were primarily conducted by local Kosovo Albanian medical professionals. Patients spent a short period in recovery before being discharged, provided with “information on their treatment to present to doctors in their home countries.” Donors did not enjoy such charity.
As the EU report notes, suppliers were forced to sign documents attesting they were donating their organs “voluntarily to a relative or altruistically to a stranger.” These documents were written in Albanian, and not translated to them. While in some cases they were promised fees of up to $30,000, “a number of them received only part of the money and some nothing at all.” Those given a portion were told they’d get the remainder “on condition that they themselves would recruit other ‘donors’.”
‘Notable Price’
Boris Wolfman was also centrally embroiled in Medicus. While a wanted man in multiple jurisdictions and subject to an Interpol red notice, he remained at large in Turkey for years until his recent deportation to Russia. Incredibly, he kickstarted another organ trafficking venture in the meantime, exploiting vulnerable Kenyans for small sums, selling their kidneys et al. to wealthy buyers from Germany and “Israel” for up to $200,000. As in Kosovo, donors were not given the money promised, or provided with appropriate medical care post-procedure.
It remains to be seen what, if any light, his prosecution will shed on the wider criminal network in which he operated, or whether the Zionist entity might be directly implicated in Wolfman’s venture. Still, that he is facing trial at all is somewhat miraculous. His confederates in the Medicus horror have proven suspiciously impervious to legal repercussions for their monstrous activities. Sonmez likewise lived freely and openly in Turkey for some years after the conspiracy’s unravelling, despite facing criminal charges in multiple countries.
Turkish prosecutors sought to jail him for 171 years, but Sonmez never served a day in prison, and appears to have vanished without a trace. Meanwhile, Harel was arrested by Israeli police in 2012, only to be released. He was nabbed again in Cyprus six years later on an Interpol warrant, but demands from Kosovo authorities he be extradited inexplicably appear to have not been acted upon. Whether the pair’s continuing liberty is indicative of state protection is an open, obvious question.
The Zionist entity’s 21st-century Holocaust in Gaza, and disastrously failed wars against Hezbollah and Iran, have “exacted a notable price” on its finances, Focus Economics has recorded. For example, tourism – once a core component of “Israel’s” income – has shrunk from millions of visitors annually to almost literally zero. “A full recovery could take multiple years and is likely dependent on a permanent end to hostilities with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran,” the outlet forecasts – fantastically, given the Resistance cannot peacefully coexist with Tel Aviv.
Meanwhile, the Zionist entity continues to suffer mass brain drain, foreign investor flight, diplomatic isolation, and a huge drop in confidence among its largest overseas trading partners. Grotesquely, organ trafficking might represent one of Tel Aviv’s few dependable profit sources at this stage. With thousands of Palestinians both dead and alive in its custody, “Israel” certainly has ample resources to fuel the trade. Mainstream blackout on Wolfman’s long-overdue arrest may indicate the entity’s overseas puppet masters are relaxed about the prospect.
US plan for a divided Gaza cements long-term occupation, trapping 2 million Palestinians in ruins: Report
Press TV – November 15, 2025
The US is drafting a plan to entrench Gaza’s division, creating a fortified “green zone” under “joint Israeli–international control,” while relegating most Palestinians to a devastated “red zone” left in ruins and neglect, a report says.
According to internal documents obtained by The Guardian and sources briefed on US deliberations, Washington is working towards institutionalizing a partition of Gaza along the Israeli-imposed “yellow line.”
Under the blueprint, foreign troops would be deployed alongside Israeli forces in the east, while nearly the entire Palestinian population remains displaced west of it, the daily reported on Friday.
One senior American official, acknowledging the depth of Washington’s ambitions, admitted, “Ideally, you would want to make it all whole, right? But that’s aspirational. It’s going to take some time. It’s not going to be easy.”
The revelation sharply contradicted earlier American pledges, including President Donald Trump’s own assurances, that a 20-point so-called ceasefire scheme announced by the chief executive earlier this year would pave the way to full Palestinian governance across Gaza.
Instead, Washington’s planning documents pointed to a fractured, semi-occupied coastal sliver, where reconstruction is limited to the Israeli-controlled sector, while the rest of Gaza is effectively abandoned.
The United States has been cycling through back-to-back plans, from fenced “alternative safe communities (ASC)” to a “green-zone enclave model,” all devised without Palestinian involvement and without addressing more than two years of Washington-backed Israeli genocide that Gaza has suffered since October 2023. Even humanitarian agencies, long alarmed by US proposals, were not informed of the abrupt scrapping of the ASC model.
Observers say, with no credible roadmap for Israeli withdrawal, international peacekeeping, or large-scale rebuilding, Gaza risks being locked into a “not war but not peace” paralysis.
This, they note, would pave the way for a divided territory under constant threat of Israeli attacks, stripped of Palestinian self-rule, and starved of the reconstruction needed for even minimal recovery.
Trump’s 20-point scheme hinges on, what he calls, an “international stabilization force (ISF)” mandated by the UN Security Council.
However, Washington refuses to place a single American trooper on the ground or finance the reconstruction Palestinians desperately need, the paper wrote.
European nations were drafted into early versions of the plan, including as many as 1,500 British troops and 1,000 French forces, but diplomats from allied capitals dismissed the proposals as unrealistic and politically suicidal, it added.
According to the report, after long, bloody missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, few leaders are willing to send troops into Gaza’s shattered landscape. One source described the plan in blunt terms as “delusional.”
The documents, The Guardian revealed, also envision Jordan sending hundreds of infantry forces and thousands of police officers, despite King Abdullah’s explicitly rejecting any deployment.
With more than half the Jordanian population of Palestinian descent, such participation would be explosive domestically and a direct threat to Jordan’s internal stability, it said.
A US “concept of operation” states that foreign troops would operate only within the “green zone.” None would enter the Palestinian-held western side, where the Hamas resistance movement is reasserting control.
The “enclave” would begin with just a few hundred troops and slowly expand to a force of 20,000, integrating with Israeli forces along the dividing line.
According to the report, the parallels to the United States disastrous invasions of the 2000s are, therefore, unavoidable. In both wars, US-created “green zones” became symbols of occupation, shielded by blast walls, while chaos and destruction consumed the surrounding cities.
US planners openly hope that limited reconstruction in the green zone will “attract” desperate Palestinians into the Israeli-controlled area. As one US official put it, “People will say ‘hey we want that,’ and so it evolves in that direction. No one’s talking about a military operation to force it.”
Experts commenting on the report said the blueprint envisages a future for Palestinians conditioned on accepting the Israeli regime’s authority, not on justice, sovereignty, or the right to rebuild their own homeland.
The report came as more than 80 percent of Gaza’s infrastructure, including nearly every school and hospital, lies in ruins.
Israel continues to block even basic aid items. Tent poles, water filters, and construction materials remain barred under “dual use” claims.
Around 1.5 million Palestinians still wait for emergency shelter items, and more than two million are crushed into the narrow territory that the US plan designates as the red zone.
EU’s “Democracy Shield” Centralizes Control Over Online Speech
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | November 13, 2025
European authorities have finally unveiled the “European Democracy Shield,” we’ve been warning about for some time, a major initiative that consolidates and broadens existing programs of the European Commission to monitor and restrict digital information flows.
Though branded as a safeguard against “foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI)” and “disinformation,” the initiative effectively gives EU institutions unprecedented authority over the online public sphere.
At its core, the framework fuses a variety of mechanisms into a single structure, from AI-driven content detection and regulation of social media influencers to a state-endorsed web of “fact-checkers.”
The presentation speaks of defending democracy, yet the design reveals a machinery oriented toward centralized control of speech, identity, and data.
One of the more alarming integrations links the EU’s Digital Identity program with content filtering and labelling systems.
The Commission has announced plans to “explore possible further measures with the Code’s signatories,” including “detection and labelling of AI-generated and manipulated content circulating on social media services” and “voluntary user-verification tools.”
Officials describe the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet as a means for “secure identification and authentication.”
In real terms, tying verified identity to online activity risks normalizing surveillance and making anonymity in expression a thing of the past.
The Democracy Shield also includes the creation of a “European Centre for Democratic Resilience,” led by Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath.
Framed as a voluntary coordination hub, its mission is “building capacities to withstand foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation,” involving EU institutions, Member States, and “neighboring countries and like-minded partners.”
The Centre’s “Stakeholder Platform” is to unite “trusted stakeholders such as civil society organisations, researchers and academia, fact-checkers and media providers.”
In practice, this structure ties policymaking, activism, and media oversight into one cooperative network, eroding the boundaries between government power and public discourse.
Financial incentives reinforce the system. A “European Network of Fact-Checkers” will be funded through EU channels, positioned as independent yet operating within the same institutional framework that sets the rules.
The network will coordinate “fact-checking” in every EU language, maintain a central database of verdicts, and introduce “a protection scheme for fact-checkers in the EU against threats and harassment.”
Such an arrangement destroys the line between independent verification and state-aligned narrative enforcement.
The Commission will also fund a “common research support framework,” giving select researchers privileged access to non-public platform data via the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Political Advertising Regulation.
Officially, this aims to aid academic research, but it could also allow state-linked analysts to map, classify, and suppress online viewpoints deemed undesirable.
Plans extend further into media law. The European Commission intends to revisit the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) to ensure “viewers – particularly younger ones – are adequately protected when they consume audiovisual content online.”
While framed around youth protection, such language opens the door to broad filtering and regulation of online media.
Another initiative seeks to enlist digital personalities through a “voluntary network of influencers to raise awareness about relevant EU rules, including the DSA.” Brussels will “consider the role of influencers” during its upcoming AVMSD review.
Though presented as transparent outreach, the move effectively turns social media figures into de facto promoters of official EU messaging, reshaping public conversation under the guise of awareness.
The Shield also introduces a “Digital Services Act incidents and crisis protocol” between the EU and signatories of the Code of Practice on Disinformation to “facilitate coordination among relevant authorities and ensure swift reactions to large-scale and potentially transnational information operations.”
This could enable coordinated suppression of narratives across borders. Large platforms exceeding 45 million EU users face compliance audits, with penalties reaching 6% of global revenue or even platform bans, making voluntary cooperation more symbolic than real.
A further layer comes with the forthcoming “Blueprint for countering FIMI and disinformation,” offering governments standardized guidance to “anticipate, detect and respond” to perceived information threats. Such protocols risk transforming free expression into a regulated domain managed under preemptive suspicion.
Existing structures are being fortified, too. The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), already central to “disinformation” monitoring, will receive expanded authority for election and crisis surveillance. This effectively deepens the fusion of state oversight and online communication control.
Funding through the “Media Resilience Programme” will channel EU resources to preferred outlets, while regulators examine ways to “strengthen the prominence of media services of general interest.”
This includes “impact investments in the news media sector” and efforts to build transnational platforms promoting mainstream narratives. Though described as supporting “independent and local journalism,” the model risks reinforcing state-aligned voices while sidelining dissenting ones.
Education and culture are not exempt. The Commission plans “Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling disinformation and promoting digital literacy through education and training,” along with new “media literacy” programs and an “independent network for media literacy.”
While such initiatives appear benign, they often operate on the assumption that government-approved information is inherently trustworthy, conditioning future generations to equate official consensus with truth.
Viewed as a whole, the European Democracy Shield represents a major institutional step toward centralized narrative management in the European Union.
Under the language of “protection,” Brussels is constructing a comprehensive apparatus for monitoring and shaping the flow of information.
For a continent that once defined itself through open debate and free thought, this growing web of bureaucratic control signals a troubling shift.
Efforts framed as defense against disinformation now risk becoming tools for suppressing dissent, a paradox that may leave European democracy less free in the name of making it “safe.”
Trump’s and the Pentagon’s Illegal Killings in the Caribbean
By Jacob G. Hornberger | The Future of Freedom Foundation | November 13, 2025
In federal criminal cases, U.S. District Judges issue the following types of instruction to jurors:
“The indictment is not evidence of any kind. It is simply the formal method of accusing a person of a crime. It has no bearing on the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and you must not consider it in your deliberations except as an accusation. You must not assume the defendant is guilty just because he or she has been indicted. The defendant begins this trial with a clean slate.The burden is entirely on the government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In other words, an indictment carries absolutely no evidentiary weight whatsoever. It is simply an accusation. It is not proof. It is not evidence. The jury is prohibited from considering it when deciding guilt or innocence.
This principle applies to any person accused of violating federal criminal statutes.
President Trump and the Pentagon have now attacked and killed more than 70 people on the high seas in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean near South America. They justify these killings by claiming that the victims are engaged in a violations of U.S. federal drug laws.
But the fact is that Trump’s and the Pentagon’s claims are nothing more than informal accusations. In fact, their informal accusations don’t even amount to a formal accusation set forth in a grand-jury indictment. That’s because a grand jury cannot issue an indictment unless it sees evidence that establishes that there is “probable cause” that the accused committed the crime. With Trump’s and the Pentagon’s informal accusation, no such burden of proof is required.
Therefore, if a jury is prohibited from using an indictment to convict a person who the feds are accusing of having violated U.S. drug laws, it stands to reason that U.S. officials are prohibited from killing people based simply on their informal accusation that the person has violated the law.
In fact, with the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, our American ancestors expressly prohibited the federal government from depriving any person of life without due process of law. It has been long established that due process in a criminal case means, at a minimum, two things: (1) being formally notified of the specific charges that the defendant is accused of violating; that’s what a grand-jury indictment is for; and (2) a trial where the government is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with relevant and competent evidence that the person actually did commit the crime. The accused, if he elects, can have a jury, not the judge, decide whether or not he is guilty.
There have always been some Americans who hate these provisions. They prefer how things are done in nations run by totalitarian regimes, where the government wields the omnipotent power to kill or punish anyone it suspects of having committed a crime — without having to go through the difficulty and expense of formally accusing people and according them a trial.
Nonetheless, like it or not, that is our system of government, and it remains so unless and until the Constitution is amended to end it.
What about the fact that it is the military that is carrying out these killings? No matter the exalted position that the national-security establishment has come to play in America’s federal governmental system, it doesn’t alter the constitutional principles at all. All it means is that the military is operating in the role of a policeman who is enforcing a federal criminal statute.
For example, suppose that Trump’s military troops that are occupying various U.S. cities begin enforcing federal drug laws by arresting people and then turning them over to the DEA for incarceration and prosecution. The military would simply be operating in a police capacity, not in a war situation.
It’s no different with those killings in the Caribbean. The military, which, by the way, is legally prohibited from enforcing drug laws inside the United States, is simply operating in a police capacity when it is enforcing U.S. drug laws on the high seas. It is essentially standing in the stead of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
What about Trump’s and the Pentagon’s claim that the U.S. is at war and, therefore, it’s okay for soldiers to kill the enemy in war. Clearly that claim is a ruse designed to justify their extra-judicial killings. The concept of war involves conflicts between nation-states, not enforcement of criminal statutes. There is no war between the United States and Venezuela, Columbia, Mexico, or any other Latin American country.
After all, if Trump’s and the Pentagon’s ruse was valid, it would entitle them to use the military to kill drug-war suspects here inside the United States under the claim that enemy drug forces have invaded and occupied the United States and are waging “war” against the United States. In fact, their ruse would enable them to use the military to kill anyone they wanted who they claimed had violated any federal criminal statute.
What about Trump’s and the Pentagon’s claim that the victims are also being accused of violating federal terrorism statutes and, therefore, that it is okay to summarily kill them? Again, it’s just another ruse to justify the extra-judicial killing of people who are accused of violating U.S. criminal laws. After all, terrorism itself is a federal criminal offense. That’s why there are criminal prosecutions for terrorism in federal district court. Trump and the Pentagon are bound by the same principles in federal criminal cases involving terrorism as they are with cases involving alleged federal drug offenses. They are required to secure federal criminal indictments and accord the people with trials, where they bear the burden of proving that the defendants really are guilty of terrorism (or drug offenses) before they can kill them or punish them.
One more point worth noting: The troops carrying out these killings are obviously loyally and blindly obeying orders to commit an illegal act. That’s because, as I have long pointed out, their loyalty is to their commander-in-chief, notwithstanding the oath they take to support and defend the Constitution.
Trump, the Pentagon, and the troops are clearly engaging in illegal conduct with their extra-judicial, unconstitutional drug-war killings. The problem is that given their omnipotent power within America’s federal governmental system, neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court or anyone else will — or can — do anything to stop them.
US Officers Cannot Explain Why So Much Military Needed for Strikes in Caribbean – Reports
Sputnik – 11.11.2025
WASHINGTON – US senior Special Operations officers in a briefing last month did not provide a comprehensive explanation why the Trump administration needed a massive military presence in the Caribbean for strikes on a few small boats allegedly used by drug cartels, CNN reported on Tuesday, citing sources with the knowledge.
At the moment, there is no public information from the Pentagon on what the military is using to conduct the strikes, but the sources told CNN that MQ-9 Reaper drones are used for US attacks on alleged drug boats, as well as AC-130J gunships and fighter jets.
The sources told CNN that the Pentagon officials also could not provide an exact amount of taxpayers’ dollars spent on the counternarcotics campaign. However, administration officials have stated that each strike costs up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, the report said.
A significant part of all deployed US naval assets worldwide have been located in US Southern Command since last month, and even more US military assets are about to be placed in the Caribbean, the report added.
Earlier this week, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said that the United States conducted strikes on two drug trafficking vessel in the Eastern Pacific, killing six people.
To date, the US military has conducted 19 strikes, destroyed 20 boats, and killed 76 people as part of a counternarcotics campaign, CNN reported.
In late October, the Trump administration held a briefing in the US Congress to lay out its legal justification for the strikes on Venezuelan ships. However, only Republicans were invited to the briefing, causing negative responses and vast criticism among Democrats.
United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres believes that US attacks in the Caribbean contradict international law, and so does UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk.
Universities in West are “occupied by Zionist/Jewish supremacist lobby groups,” repress speech against genocide

By Syed Zafar Mehdi | Press TV | November 11, 2025
Over the last two years, universities across the West have gone out of their way to repress speech against the ongoing genocide in Gaza and against Zionism, says a university lecturer who was forced to leave his university due to a Zionist witch-hunt.
In an interview with the Press TV website, Harry Pettit, the former Assistant Professor of Human Geography at Radboud University, the Netherlands, said any speech in support of the Palestinian resistance has been criminalized in Western academic circles.
Pettit, who holds a PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science and is the author of The Labor of Hope: Meritocracy and Precarity in Egypt (2023), has been hounded at his university over his strong advocacy for Palestinian rights.
His social media posts, in which he unequivocally condemned the genocide in Gaza and the complicity of Western governments, sparked controversy as Zionist lobby groups in the Netherlands campaigned for his ouster from Radboud University.
In a statement on Monday, Pettit said the university had monitored his X account and he was pressured to retract his statements on Palestine.
He was even warned by the university administration and threatened with dismissal at the behest of influential Zionist lobby groups such as the Center for Information and Documentation on Israel (CIDI), the Netherlands Committee for Israel and the Jewish People (NCAB), as well as media outlets like De Telegraaf and Education Minister Gouke Moes.
“Over the last two years, universities across the West have gone out of their way to repress speech against the genocide, against Zionism, and in support of the Palestinian resistance,” Pettit told the Press TV website only hours after announcing he was leaving the university.
“They have done this because they are occupied by Zionist/Jewish supremacist lobby groups that want to shut down any critique of ‘Israel’. We have no choice but to fight back against this.”
He said the pro-Israel lobby is powerful in the Netherlands, which is evidenced by the data.
“If you look at data, the Netherlands has by far the biggest economic relationship with Israel in the whole of Europe. Therefore, there is a big incentive to squash critique,” he noted.
“CIDI is the main lobby group and it acts in similar ways to other countries, targeting individuals who speak out and trying to destroy their livelihoods. It also has links to political parties, the media, and student groups like Standwithus, and together they apply pressure on universities.”
Pettit, however, was not alone in this fight. He received tremendous support from his colleagues and students, who defended his freedom of speech.
“I have received a lot of support from colleagues and students who have also been taking risks to speak out against the genocide and Zionism, and the students have been incredible at engaging in disruptive protest over the last two years that has forced the university to cut ties with Israeli universities,” he told the Press TV website.
Unfazed by the threats, he vowed to continue speaking for the Palestinian cause and against the ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip.
“I have every intention of continuing to use my platform to advocate for Palestinian liberation. That is why I left Radboud to go to a more supportive environment that enables me to keep doing that,” he asserted.
Pettit had been vocal not only on his own social media handles but also had been giving media interviews to raise awareness about the plight of Palestinians.
In one of his interviews in October, he told Volkskrant that he wants to raise awareness in the Netherlands that Palestinians “as an oppressed people have the right to armed resistance.”
“Calling October 7th a legitimate resistance operation doesn’t mean I condone everything that happened that day. But Israel wants us to see Hamas as barbarians who hate Jews. That’s a racist frame that serves to legitimize the genocide. It also obscures decades of oppression,” he said at the time.
His defense of the Palestinian resistance and the historic Operation Al-Aqsa Storm on October 7, 2023, irked Zionist lobby groups that aggressively pushed for his ouster.
Amid the genocide in Gaza, students in many universities across Europe and the US have been suspended and even arrested at the behest of Zionist lobby groups.


