Emails Show Decade of Hunter Biden Spinning Journalists on Foreign Business Deals
The Hunter Biden laptop archive shows years of careful efforts to manipulate media outlets, a rare window into the DC spin cycle.
BY LEE FANG | SEPTEMBER 19, 2023
Speaker Kevin McCarthy, announcing that the House of Representatives will pursue an impeachment inquiry, suggested that the probe will hinge in part on deceiving the American public about Hunter Biden’s foreign business ventures.
“President Biden did lie to the American people about his own knowledge of his family’s foreign business deals,” McCarthy said at a press conference. GOP lawmakers, he added, have “uncovered credible allegations into President Biden’s conduct.”
Such an investigation will likely force an examination of the public narrative regarding Hunter Biden’s consulting deals that go back at least a decade. During President Obama’s second term, then-Vice President Joe Biden was the administration’s point man on the nation’s policy toward Ukraine, a perch he used to urge the country to adopt sweeping ethics reforms to resist “the cancer of corruption” and enact sweeping ethics reforms.
At the time, some American journalists began to question whether the vice president’s stern message was undermined by his son Hunter Biden’s employment at the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, which was owned by a notorious local oligarch.
Emails on Hunter’s laptop reveal that the inquiries sparked an internal debate within his team of consultants and public relations agents. Ultimately, they devised a series of responses about Hunter’s work with Burisma that were, at best, misleading and, at worst, outright falsehoods.
The Biden team has constructed a careful image of Hunter Biden’s business ventures, sometimes employing a sophisticated myth-making operation aided by allies in the media who rarely challenged or investigated their false claims. The laptop emails show that the team closely monitored critical reporting and pushed to shape coverage with reporters from the New York Times, Time magazine, Wall Street Journal, and the Associated Press.
Their spin informed much of the ensuing coverage in the mainstream press, defusing the issue, even as President Trump and other Republicans insisted that Ukraine was a hotbed of Biden family corruption. Although he had no background in the energy field and little experience in corporate governance, Hunter Biden, who had a law degree, was appointed to the board of Burisma in May 2014.
It was revealed later that he was paid about $1 million per year – as was his business partner Devon Archer. In a press release announcing his appointment, Hunter Biden is quoted as saying, “I believe that my assistance in consulting the Company on matters of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine.”
That same month, journalist Michael Scherer reached out with questions about the arrangement.
Several consultants employed by Burisma, including Ryan Toohey of FTI Consulting and Heather King, a partner at the law firm Boies, Schiller, & Flexner, where Hunter worked as counsel, strategized over how to respond to Scherer, a reporter then with Time magazine who has since joined the Washington Post.
For the Scherer inquiry, laptop emails show, Hunter’s business associates settled on a strategy to deflect the most direct questions and obfuscate the true intent of Burisma’s attempts to sway U.S. government officials.
One of Hunter’s associates noted that they planned to respond to Scherer’s attempts to reach David Leiter, a former aide to then-Secretary of State John Kerry, hired to work for Burisma. The plan was to use an assistant to make Leiter “unavailable to comment, as opposed to some sort of statement that made it seem like we were unwilling or refusing to engage with the reporter.” Leiter, the emails show, was in fact available, but the public relations team wanted to keep him out of reach.
Scherer wanted to know why Burisma was on a hiring spree of well-connected American lobbyists, including Leiter and others. In response, Toohey planned to tell Scherer that the hired guns were simply working on issues related to energy independence, economic growth, as well as “transparency and good governance.”
In response to other questions posed by Scherer, Toohey prepared a statement claiming that Hunter Biden will “not be engaged with the U.S. government” on anything related to Burisma.
The response belied a detailed lobbying agenda spelled out in other emails.
Burisma had made clear that the company had hired Leiter, Hunter Biden, and other political operatives as part of a focused plan to obtain Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky a U.S. visa as well as to persuade American officials to intervene with Ukrainian government officials to drop an investigation of his business interests.
In a May 2014 email, Vadim Pozharskyi, a close adviser to Zlochevsky, explained to Hunter that he needed his “advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message/signal, etc. to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions,” a reference to an ongoing investigation of Zlochevsky by Ukrainian prosecutors.
That month, Pozharskyi again wrote to Hunter, spelling out the “working plan for both FTI and David,” reiterating that he wanted the lobbyists to intervene against the “politically motivated proceedings initiated against us in Ukraine” and to overcome the “US entry ban” for the Burisma owner.
“The immediate plan is to reach out to the Energy and Ukraine desks, respectively, at State Dept,” wrote Heather King, the attorney working closely with Hunter Biden at the time. “That will include outreach to Carlos Pascual, he is the top US energy diplomat,” she added.
Scherer printed the denials, but to his credit, reported on the odd circumstances surrounding Biden’s hiring, at a time when Joe Biden was the Obama administration’s point person for Ukraine, with a special focus on energy policy in the region.
In many cases, Hunter Biden’s associates cast him as simply an auditor with a special focus on renewable energy sourced from geothermal vents. That was the strategy in response to an inquiry from Stephen Braun, a reporter for the Associated Press. “Mr. Biden will not lobby on behalf of Burisma. His role is to advise the company’s legal and compliance unit, including guidance on corporate governance standards.”
Behind the scenes, Hunter Biden’s team knew otherwise. In emails conferring over how to deal with Braun’s questions, Pozharskyi reiterated the plan to provide Braun with “minimum information.”
Like many other articles from this time, the AP story focused on the conflict of interest issues, noting the denials around any lobbying with a degree of skepticism:
A former Washington lobbyist, the vice president’s son is effectively exempt from most rules that would require him to describe publicly the legal work he does on behalf of Burisma.
Hunter Biden will not lobby for the company, said Lawrence Pacheco, an official with FTI Consulting, a Washington government affairs company recently hired by Burisma.
Pacheco did not say whether Biden might oversee or advise on any future Burisma lobbying strategy in the U.S. Pacheco said the company “does not take positions on political matters.”
Braun could not be reached for comment. Scherer declined an opportunity to comment on the Hunter Biden emails. Biden, Toohey, and King did not respond to a request for comment.
However, the emails clearly indicate that substantial resources were allocated to managing both Burisma and Hunter’s personal image. Pozharskyi pointed out that Burisma had retained American consultants to reach out to “the most reputable European and American journalists/newspapers, magazines, websites, blogs,” while assistance was required to handle Wikipedia, Facebook, LinkedIn, and other online platforms. Burisma, wrote Pozharskyi, sought a “detailed algorithm on how the Company should act in case of bad publicity.” The effort included scrubbing negative details from Hunter Biden’s Wikipedia, while bolstering the online credentials of Burisma, emails show.
A highly focused effort to monitor and shape news media coverage helped maintain the public profile. Even with relatively low visibility, independent media were closely watched. Hunter and his team monitored Vice News as well as the gadfly website ZeroHedge. In response to critical reporting from Vice, one colleague noted approvingly that the article was not being “reposted or republished” in Ukrainian media.
In July 2014, Toohey circulated an investigative piece I wrote for Salon about Hunter Biden’s hiring at Burisma, which noted that the vice president’s son had been retained amid a string of nepotistic hires likely aimed at influencing natural gas and energy policy.
In the article, I noted that Joe Biden had traveled to Ukraine to “announce a $50 million aid package that included technical support for increasing the country’s natural gas production – an investment that could bolster profits at Burisma Holdings, where his son is a director.” What was not known at the time, however, was that Hunter Biden was already working with a team of public affairs consultants to channel U.S. government technical assistance to his client.
The laptop emails show that even this relatively brief mention of Hunter Biden and a potential conflict of interest with his father raised concerns.
“All, please see below a piece that mentions Hunter’s appointment as part of a broader trend, mostly within the context of relatives of eleceds [sic] engaged to lobby for the energy industry,” wrote Toohey, attaching a copy of the text of my piece. But, he added, “This was a freelanced piece picked up in a number of web-based outlets including Salon, but nothing with significant reach.”
Pozharskyi replied that he had seen the piece earlier and “wanted to have a discussion in this regard.”
In some cases, the team celebrated media coverage that elevated its desired narrative. Politico reported Hunter’s hiring at Burisma and simply printed quotes from the company’s official statements:
“The company’s strategy is aimed at the strongest concentration of professional staff and the introduction of best corporate practices, and we’re delighted that Mr. Biden is joining us to help us achieve these goals,” Alan Apter, Burisma Holdings’ chairman of the board of directors, said in a statement, which was reported by The Moscow Times on Tuesday.
Biden, joining the board, will be in charge of the legal unit, the company said. He will also provide support for Burisma Holdings “among international organizations.”
Biden said the company will help strengthen Ukraine’s economy.
Pozharskyi circulated a link to the Politico article to Hunter and his associates, noting the “positive coverage.”
Hunter’s membership on the Burisma board received renewed attention in late 2015, as then-Vice President Biden was set to visit Ukraine where he planned to address the parliament on the need to adopt new reforms against a culture of corruption in the country. James Risen of the Times, among others, renewed inquiries directed toward Hunter and his associates about the rationale behind his appointment to the company, Burisma, and why the company appeared to be buying access to high levels of government.
In one email found on Hunter’s laptop, Risen asked, “What lobbying activities is the company engaged in the US?” among other questions to Hunter Biden. In response, a Burisma spokesperson straightforwardly claimed that “no one is lobbying on their behalf.”
The company’s lobbying efforts were not covered in the story ultimately published by the New York Times, which featured Risen’s piece on Dec. 8, 2015. The article included a statement from the Hunter Biden team, crafted by the strategy firm FTI Consulting, asserting that the company’s focus was on “corporate governance and transparency.”
Risen’s article did not address whether Hunter’s business career demonstrated such expertise or his lack of experience in the energy field. Although Risen identified Hunter as “a former Washington lobbyist,” he accepted the denial that no lobbying was involved.
In reality, just a month prior to the email exchange with the Times, Burisma, following Hunter Biden’s advice, had hired Blue Star Strategies, a Democratic lobbying firm, to influence the Obama administration. A copy of the agreement, belatedly filed with the Justice Department, reveals that the firm, which aided in lobbying State Department officials on Ukrainian energy policy, received a monthly retainer of $30,000.
Blue Star Strategies was even copied on the emails with the Hunter Biden team on its response plan to Risen.
Risen also allowed a Burisma spokesman to decline to state Hunter’s compensation while claiming it was “not out of the ordinary” for such board positions. It was later disclosed that he was paid about $1 million per year, which is far higher than the typical compensation. As a point of comparison, median annual compensation of board members at Fortune 500 companies is around $110,000.
Risen, now with The Intercept, did not respond to a request for comment.
Political operatives of all ideological backgrounds frequently manipulate public perception – often employing specialized “crisis communication” firms to suppress negative coverage and shape desired narratives. What is remarkable about the Hunter Biden episode is how successful it was, and how uncritically most media organizations treated this unorthodox relationship between a president’s son and a controversial foreign corporation.
In response to the Wall Street Journal, Toohey worked closely with Blue Star Strategies’ Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano to craft a message defusing questions around a conflicting message between Hunter and his father. They settled on a strategy of presenting the Ukrainian gig as perfectly “aligned” with an anti-corruption agenda, laptop emails show. The lobbyists suggested that they release a statement to the Journal claiming that Hunter’s work for the Ukrainian energy giant, to supposedly strengthen corporate governance, are “also goals the United States.”
The Journal printed the statement, attributing it to a spokesperson.
Such coverage – which suggested Hunter Biden had engaged in questionable but ultimately harmless behavior that did not involve, much less implicate, his father – set the narrative for most coverage in mainstream outlets. When President Trump told Ukraine’s president in 2018 that “there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son” and asked him to look into Joe Biden’s demand that the prosecutor looking into Burisma be fired, Democrats moved to impeach him.
The Biden spin continued even after the New York Post published the first articles based on material from Hunter’s laptop in October 2020. The Washington Post’s fact checker, Glenn Kessler, sought to discredit the New York Post’s reporting that Hunter Biden had arranged a dinner meeting between his Ukrainian associates at Burisma and his father when he served as vice president. At the time, the Biden presidential campaign claimed that it “reviewed Joe Biden’s official schedules from the time, and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.” Kessler reiterated this denial as though it were an established fact.
It turned out to be false. The July testimony by former Hunter Biden associate Devon Archer confirmed that Hunter Biden had arranged a secret dinner with his Ukrainian business partner and his father, as the New York Post had originally reported. The ongoing saga over the Washington Post’s role in covering up the Biden revelations was detailed last month by RealClearInvestigation’s Paul Sperry.
Last month, Kessler “updated” his article to acknowledge this.
Also last month, Washington Post columnist Philip Bump, who has dismissed any hint of scandal regarding Biden business dealings, appeared on Live at the Table, a podcast hosted by Noam Dworman, the owner of New York City’s Comedy Cellar. The show went viral as Dworman challenged Bump’s claims that there was “no evidence” of wrongdoing by Joe Biden.
In a heated exchange, Bump conceded that Hunter Biden’s text messages that claim, “unlike pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary,” was one form of “evidence.” Moments later, Bump ended the interview and walked off the set.
The interaction provided a rare moment of visible accountability for the establishment press, which has largely followed the Biden spin for an entire decade on this issue.
Yet the White House is still hoping it can still instruct journalists on how to cover the story. Shortly after McCarthy’s impeachment inquiry announcement, President Biden’s White House staff circulated a memo, instructing media outlets on how to cover the news. In bold type, the memo claimed that the entire Hunter Biden conflict of interest scandal had been “refuted” and “debunked” – language that was adopted in media reports about the inquiry in Vox, NBC News and CNN.
Another Magical JFK Assassination Pseudo-Debate and Limited Hangout
By Edward J. Curtin, Jr. | Behind The Curtain | September 14, 2023
Much has been made of the September 9, 2023 simultaneous reports in The New York Times and Vanity Fair of the claims of a former Secret Service agent, Paul Landis, who was part of the security detail in Dallas, Texas when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. Like so many reports by such media that have covered up the truth of the assassination for sixty years, this one about “the magic bullet” is also a red herring.
It encourages pseudo-debates and confusion and is a rather dumb “limited hangout,” which is a strategy used by intelligence agencies to dangle some truth in order to divert attention from core facts of a case they are desperate to conceal. With these particular articles, they are willing to suggest that maybe the Warren Commission’s magic bullet claim is possibly incorrect. This is because so many people have long come to realize that that part of the propaganda story is absurd, so the coverup artists are willing to suggest it might be wrong in order to continue debating meaningless matters based on false premises in order to solidify their core lies.
Despite responses to these two stories about Landis that credit them for “finally” showing that the “magic bullet” claim of the Warren Commission is now dead, it would be more accurate to say they have revived debate about it in order to sneakily hide the fundamental fact about the assassination: that the CIA assassinated JFK.
We can expect many more such red herrings in the next two months leading up to the sixtieth anniversary of the assassination.
They are what one of the earliest critics of The Warren Commission, Vincent Salandria, a brilliant Philadelphia lawyer, called “a false mystery.” He said:
After more than a half century, the historical truth of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy has been finally established beyond rational dispute. The Kennedy assassination is a false mystery. It was conceived by the conspirators to be a false mystery which was designed to cause interminable debate. The purpose of the protracted debate was to obscure what was quite clearly and plainly a coup d’état. Simply stated, President Kennedy was assassinated by our U.S. national security state in order to abort his efforts to bring the Cold War to a peaceful conclusion.
That the corporate mainstream should trumpet these reports as important is to be expected, but that they are also so greeted by some people who should know better is sad. For there is no mystery about the assassination of President Kennedy; he was assassinated by the CIA and the evidence for this fact has long been available. And the Warren Commission’s claim that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the so-called “magic bullet” – Commission Exhibit 399 – that entered JFK’s back and exited his neck and then went into the back of Gov. John Connally, who was sitting in the front seat, zigzagging in multiple directions, causing him five wounds and then emerging in pristine condition, has always been risible. Only fools or those ignorant of the details have ever believed it, but desperate conspirators led by the late Arlen Specter, the future Senator, did desperate things for The Warren Commission in order to pin the rap on the patsy Oswald and cover-up for the killers.
I could spend many words explaining the details of the government conspiracy to assassinate JFK, why they did it, and have been covering it up ever since. But I have done this elsewhere. If you wish to learn the truth from credible sources, I would highly recommend that you watch the long version of Oliver Stone’s documentary JFK Revisited; Through the Looking Glass and then closely read the transcripts and interviews in James DiEugenio’s crucial compendium of transcripts and interviews for the film. You will immediately realize that these recent revelations are a continuation of the coverup.
This should be immediately intuited by the titles of the two pieces. The New York Times’ article, written by its chief White House correspondent Peter Baker, who previously worked for the Washington Post for twenty years, including four years as its Moscow bureau chief, is entitled JFK Assassination Witness Breaks His Silence and Raises New Questions. (The Times and Washington Post have long been the CIA’s mouthpieces.) The Vanity Fair article is written by James Robenalt, a colleague of John Dean of Watergate infamy, and is entitled A New JFK Assassination Revelation Could Upend the Long-Held “Lone Gunman” Theory.
For anyone with a soupçon of linguistic analytical skill and a rudimentary knowledge of the JFK assassination, those titles immediately induce skepticism. “New questions”? Don’t we already have the answers we need. “Could Upend the Long-Held ‘Lone Gunman’ Theory”? So we must keep debating and researching the obvious. Why? To protect the CIA.
Both articles go on to expound on how the sympathetically described poor conscience-stricken old guy Landis’s claim that he found the so-called pristine magic bullet on the top back of the car seat where JFK was sitting and placed it on Kennedy’s stretcher in Parkland Hospital without telling anyone for all these decades is an earth shattering revelation. And as they do so, they make sure to slip in a series of falsehoods to reinforce the essence of the government’s case.
If anyone is interested in the facts concerning the physical evidence, all one need do is read Vincent Salandria’s analysis here. Once you have, you will realize the hullabaloo about Landis is a pseudo-debate.
These articles about Landis reinforce what Dr. Martin Schotz describes in his book History Will Not Absolve Us, and what he said in a talk twenty-five years ago. He made a distinction between the waters of knowledge and the waters of uncertainty. In the case of the JFK assassination, the public is allowed to think anything they want, but they are not allowed to know the truth, although since the Warren Commission was released it was evident that “no honest person could ever accept the single bullet theory.” And he then added this about pseudo-debates:
The lie that was destined to cover the truth of the assassination was the lie that the assassination is a mystery, that we are not sure what happened, but being free citizens of a great democracy we can discuss and debate what has occurred. We can petition our government and join with it in seeking the solution to this mystery. This is the essence of the cover-up.
The lie is that there is a mystery to debate. And so we have pseudo-debates. Debates about meaningless disputes, based on assumptions which are obviously false. This is the form that Orwell’s crimestop has taken in the matter of the President’s murder. I am talking about the pseudo-debate over whether the Warren Report is true when it is obviously and undebatably false. . . . Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo-debate is a benign activity. That it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case. I say this because every debate rests on a premise to which the debaters must agree, or there is no debate. In the case of pseudo-debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo-debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle. The unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo-debate does not understand that he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a premise. It is so subtle that the premise just passes into the person as if it were reality. This premise—that there is uncertainty to be resolved—seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass of treated water.
But the fact remains that there is no mystery except in the minds of those who are willing to drink this premise. The premise is a lie, and a society which agrees to drink such a lie ceases to perceive reality. This is what we mean by mass denial.
That the entire establishment has been willing to join in this process of cover-up by confusion creates an extreme form of problem for anyone who would seek to utter the truth. For these civilian institutions—the media, the universities and the government—once they begin engaging in denial of knowledge of the identity of the assassins, once they are drawn into the cover-up, a secondary motivation develops for them. Now they are not only protecting the state, they are now protecting themselves, because to expose the obviousness of the assassination and the false debate would be to reveal the corrupt role of all these institutions. And there is no question that these institutions are masters in self-protection. Thus anyone who would attempt to confront the true cover-up must be prepared to confront virtually the entire society. And in doing this, one is inevitably going to be marginalized.
And to mention just one false premise of the Landis saga (beside the one that there is uncertainty to be resolved; and there are many others, but one will suffice, since I don’t want to enter into a pseudo-debate), it is that the so-called magic bullet in evidence – CE 399 – the one discussed in these articles, is not even the one said to be found somewhere in Parkland Hospital, and the chain of custody for that bullet – or some bullet – is broken in many places (see James DiEugenio, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass ).
Phantom bullets and plenty of magic go into the creation and destruction of this tall tale told to camouflage the CIA’s guilt in its killing of President Kennedy. If you believe in magic and mystery, The New York Times’ Peter Baker has these words for you, if you can understand them:
Mr. Landis’s account, included in a forthcoming memoir, would rewrite the narrative of one of modern American history’s most earth-shattering days in an important way. It may not mean any more than that. But it could also encourage those who have long suspected that there was more than one gunman in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, adding new grist to one of the nation’s enduring mysteries.
Yes, those four English lads said it in 1967: “The magical mystery tour is hoping to take you away” into an enduring mystery, even though the case was solved long ago.
Dr. Pierre Kory: New York Times Guide to Fall Vaccine Shots Is ‘Disinformation’
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 6, 2023
The New York Times on Sept. 1 published a “guide to fall vaccine shots,” which included recommending the general public get COVID-19, flu and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) vaccines, and infants 6 months and older receive COVID-19 shots this fall.
Written by Times senior writer David Leonhardt, the guide warns about rising COVID-19 cases and the approaching flu season, before offering, “The good news is that there are vaccines and treatments that reduce risks from all major viruses likely to circulate this season.”
According to the Times, “This year, we should take a broader approach,” rather than “obsess over COVID.”
Peter Hotez, M.D., Ph.D., dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine — described by the Times as a “vaccine expert” — echoed that appeal. “It’s not only COVID you have to think about,” he said.
Hotez, Nirav Shah, M.D., J.D., principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other public health officials and experts quoted by the Times recommended Americans prepare for the upcoming fall and winter by getting the trio of COVID-19, flu and RSV vaccines.
None of these experts, however, addressed any of the potential safety risks posed by these vaccines.
Medical and public health experts who spoke with The Defender took a different view and questioned the Times’ guide, citing concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccines for respiratory illnesses.
“Vaccines against respiratory illnesses have failed miserably,” said cardiologist Peter McCullough M.D., MPH. “America is wary of vaccines at this point, wanting to get on with life free of menacing vaccines, and are willing to seek early treatment, which is always the best way to handle infections, vaccinated or not.”
Pediatrician Dr. Liz Mumper, president and CEO of the Rimland Center for Integrative Medicine, told The Defender, “There have been no studies examining the effects of giving RSV vaccine, flu vaccine and COVID vaccine at the same time.”
“If you follow the advice in The New York Times article,” Mumper said, “be aware that your child will be part of post-marketing experimentation.”
Times still pushing vaccine propaganda
According to the Times, “The best defenses against COVID haven’t changed: vaccines and post-infection treatments,” which are “especially important for vulnerable people, like the elderly and immunocompromised.”
The federal government is “on track” to approve updated COVID-19 shots, designed to combat recent variants, in mid-September, the Times reported. Once they are available, “all adults should consider getting a booster shot.”
“COVID can still be nasty even if it doesn’t put you in the hospital,” the Times states. “A booster shot will reduce its potency.”
Hotez resurrected a claim heard often during 2021 and 2022, telling the Times, “Overwhelmingly, those who are being hospitalized are unvaccinated or undervaccinated.”
Experts who spoke with The Defender disagreed.
Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, citing data from U.K. Public Health, said, “All-cause deaths ages 18+ are disproportionately among vaccinated people, whether one, two or three doses, compared to unvaccinated people.”
“The statistic quoted by Dr. Hotez is false,” Risch said.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., senior director of science and research for Children’s Health Defense (CHD) said, “The new booster simply hasn’t been tested to affirm any assertion of protection. The original trials on children were laughable as they looked at antibody titers rather than actual disease prevention.”
McCullough told The Defender, “The COVID-19 vaccines have been a safety debacle with record cases of myocarditis, blood clots, stroke, and all-cause mortality.”
Despite the injury and mortality reports and the Times’ admission that the risk of COVID-19 to young children is “very low,” Shah nonetheless recommended children as young as 6 months of age get the COVID-19 booster shots this fall.
“Do you want to see your grandpa … [and] grandma?” Shah asked in the Times. “Are you really sure you’re not going to give COVID to them?”
Experts who spoke with The Defender refuted Shah’s advice.
Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), said “There is no medical justification for a healthy 6-month-old or older child to be vaccinated for COVID-19,” adding:
“There is so little data available on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in children that to give blanket recommendations like Shah is doing creates an unnecessary risk to children’s health.
“We simply do not know enough about the COVID-19 vaccines to make such broad recommendations. Additionally, COVID-19 is highly treatable in children and poses very little risk to a healthy child.”
Mumper told The Defender, “Any official who advocates that children take a vaccine to protect grandparents has not read the medical literature carefully.” She said, “After doing a deep dive on the risks and benefits of COVID vaccines in children, I remain steadfastly opposed to their use in healthy children,” adding:
“Any immunity from COVID shots is short-lived and follows a period of immune suppression. Very worrisome adverse events like inflammation of the heart, triggering autoimmunity, interfering with autonomic functions and reproductive toxicity are well described in the medical literature.”
Not all countries following suit
Some countries began limiting COVID-19 vaccination for children last year. In April 2022, Denmark ended its blanket COVID-19 vaccination recommendation, including for children.
Now, Denmark recommends “booster-vaccination” only for people “aged 50 years and above and selected target groups.”
Earlier in 2022, public health authorities in Sweden and Norway opted not to recommend COVID-19 vaccines for children between the ages of 5 and 11.
Sweden now recommends COVID-19 vaccination only for those 50 and above (18 and above for high-risk groups), while Norway is still only recommending COVID-19 vaccines for those 65 and older (and as young as 5 for high-risk groups).
In March of this year, the World Health Organization (WHO) said healthy children and adolescents ages 6 months to 17 years have a “low disease burden” and are therefore low priority for vaccination.
In June, Australian public health officials said Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is “no longer available” for children under 12, and in January, U.K. public health authorities ended their booster program for those under 50.
COVID vaccine recommendations ‘not science, not medicine, not public health’
Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and member of CHD’s scientific advisory committee, told The Defender that while public health authorities and the media continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccines, none of them have been fully licensed in the U.S., as all such vaccines are available under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) only.
In May 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said that COVID-19 vaccines for kids under 6 would not have to meet the agency’s 50% efficacy threshold required to obtain an EUA.
CDC data released in September 2022 showed that more than 55% of children between 6 months and 2 years old had a “systemic reaction” after their first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.
“The CDC, criminally, claims the (authorized) vaccines are ‘safe and effective,’” Nass said, adding:
“That is a term of art that is only allowed to be used for licensed vaccines and drugs. No licensed COVID-19 vaccine is available in the U.S. Public health is supposed to balance benefit and risk.
“This is not science. Not medicine. Not public health.”
Flu vaccines have demonstrated ‘declining efficacy’
According to the Times, “The most immediate step worth considering involves R.S.V.” On Sept. 5, the CDC issued a health advisory warning of rising RSV cases in parts of the U.S., particularly among children and babies.
Last month, the CDC signed off on the first-ever monoclonal antibody vaccine Beyfortus for the prevention of RSV, for babies up to 8 months old.
Also last month, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine for pregnant women, despite concerns raised by some medical experts about premature births identified during clinical trials. In May, the FDA approved Pfizer’s Abrysvo and GlaxoSmithKline’s Arexvy RSV vaccines for people 60 and older.
The Times quoted Ashish Jha, M.D., MPH, former White House COVID-19 adviser and now dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, who said, “If you’re 60 or over, you don’t want to get into November without having an RSV vaccine.”
And though there is no RSV vaccine approved for administration to children, the Times said that “parents may want to ask their pediatrician” about monoclonal antibody treatment for children under 8 months of age.
According to Hooker, “the RSV vaccine given to pregnant women could not even make a 20% threshold for protection (as specified by the FDA) against lower respiratory RSV infection.”
Supporting the push for the flu vaccine, the Times and experts such as Jha said, “The flu officially kills about 35,000 Americans in a typical year,” but “the flu’s toll would be lower if more people got a vaccine shot,” noting that “In recent years, less than half of Americans have done so.”
Jha added, “We underestimate the impact that respiratory viruses have on our population. The flu can knock people out for weeks, even younger people.” Jha pointed out that flu can make heart attacks and strokes more common as well.
Kory, however, told The Defender that the COVID-19 vaccines have made people more susceptible to other respiratory illnesses, like the flu and RSV:
“In my practice, we treat many vaccine-injured patients who are now more susceptible to the flu, RSV and many other viruses. The COVID vaccines cause many to present as if they have an autoimmune disease and now respond with more severe symptoms to common viruses like the flu.”
Risch, meanwhile, said, “Traditional flu vaccines are considered to be safe for most people” and may be a “reasonable” option for them, but “this should be discussed with one’s healthcare provider.”
“The flu vaccines seem to have had declining benefit over the last 10-15 years, to the point now that they may confer only a 30% benefit,” Risch added.
And according to Hooker, “The flu shot is also notoriously bad at protection against the flu and there are very few data regarding this season’s flu shot efficacy.”
‘Ludicrous’ public health messaging
Shah’s recommendation that children as young as 6 months get a COVID-19 shot this fall follows in a long line of questionable advice and claims disseminated by public health officials, some of which were later contradicted.
In a May 2021 MSNBC interview, Dr. Anthony Fauci, then-head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), said:
“Although you don’t like to see breakthroughs, the fact is, this is one of the encouraging aspects about the efficacy of the vaccine. It protect you completely against infection. If you do get infected, the chances are that you’re going to be without symptoms, and the chances are very likely that you’ll not be able to transmit it to other people.”
Fauci’s statements, however, failed to account for the many examples of breakthrough infections with severe symptoms and hospitalization.
After years of official “safe and effective” claims, in YouTube’s new “medical misinformation” policy introduced Aug. 15, “Claims that any vaccine is a guaranteed prevention method for COVID-19” are prohibited. Fauci’s videos from 2021, notably, are still up on YouTube.
In April 2020, Fauci said that remdesivir will become the “standard of care” for treating COVID-19. But numerous victims of COVID-19 hospital protocols prescribed by the CDC have come forward in recent months claiming that remdesivir was administered without permission of the patients or their families and contributed to further injury or death.
Similarly, former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in March 2021 “Our data from the CDC today suggests … that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick … can’t transmit it to others.” She doubled down on these statements during a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing in June, asserting that her statement “was generally accurate.”
Hooker said these statements were “obviously patently false, as the vaccines distributed in the U.S. at that time [in 2021] were not tested for transmission and there was evidence of ‘breakthrough’ infections even in the clinical trials.”
“This obviates any protection to ‘Grandma and Grandpa’ through children getting vaccinated against COVID-19,” Hooker added.
Also in 2021, Walensky recommended wearing pantyhose over a mask to ensure a tight fit.
Nass called such public health messaging “ludicrous,” noting that Walensky’s pantyhose recommendation “quickly disappeared” because it “had connotations the CDC was not willing to deal with.”
Kory criticized the Times’ fall vaccine guide, characterizing it as an example of “disinformation.”
“The New York Times is carrying the disinformation that continues to come from the CDC and other government health agencies,” he said. “This is one of the reasons that the public continues to lose trust in the media and our government.”
As a result, public health officials “create a mockery of how medical and scientific evidence is used to inform patient care decisions and public health policy,” Kory said.
Other experts who spoke with The Defender suggested taking vitamins to boost one’s immune system, rather than a series of vaccinations.
“For the immune system to defend against respiratory viruses, all people should take daily vitamin D to achieve blood levels of 50 or greater,” Risch said. “This is typically 5,000 units per day for a 150-lb person, but can be adjusted up or down according to body weight.”
“Serious RSV infections generally occur only in the youngest young and the oldest old. People in these categories should discuss this with their doctors,” he added.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Elections Are Bad for Our Democracy, WEF and Bill Gates’ Senior Adviser Says We do not need no stinking elections
BY IGOR CHUDOV | AUGUST 23, 2023
The World Economic Forum has been on a tear lately! A recent article in the New York Times (paywall-free link) by a senior WEF agenda contributor, Adam Grant, a Wharton management expert and an adviser to Bill Gates, says, “Elections are Bad for Democracy.”
In the United States, any private citizen can publish any opinion on their web page or social network timeline. However, Mr. Grant is not an ordinary private person; he is a WEF contributor who participated in numerous WEF functions and authored many agenda-setting articles. He is also an adviser to Google and Bill Gates.
Far from obscure is the venue that gave him a platform to be heard: The New York Times is the foremost “newspaper of record,” which used to be the most respected publication many years ago.
Who is Adam Grant? The New York Times forgot to mention that he is a very senior member of the WEF. Here’s his World Economic Forum page:
Mr. Grant is a frequent speaker and writer at the WEF, setting and promoting their agenda:
Adam Grant is a prolific WEF author, with posts too many to list individually.
You Are Too Dumb to Vote, Adam Grant Explains
Officials have been working hard to safeguard elections and assure citizens of their integrity. But if we want public office to have integrity, we might be better off eliminating elections altogether.
If you think that sounds anti-democratic, think again. The ancient Greeks invented democracy, and in Athens many government officials were selected through sortition — a random lottery from a pool of candidates. In the United States, we already use a version of a lottery to select jurors. What if we did the same with mayors, governors, legislators, justices and even presidents?
Mr. Grant advocates “randomly selecting” officials from a “pool of candidates.”
Who forms the pool of candidates? Who is admitted to the “pool”? Mr. Grant is vague on this question, but we can take a guess. The pool would be formed by the no-longer-elected “guardians of our democracy”; only the people acceptable to them would be allowed to be randomly selected.
Indeed, Mr Grant explains that those seeking to enter the “pool” would need to be vetted:
In America, imagine that anyone who wants to enter the pool has to pass a civics test — the same standard as immigrants applying for citizenship.
I am sure those who do not believe the WEF-promoted ideologies would be ineligible for the pool and unable to pass the civics test. We do not want doubters to undermine our democracy, after all! (Note the sarcasm)
If you, my dear reader, wonder who will ensure that “random selection” is truly random, you are not alone!
Mr. Grant is a senior adviser to the Department of Defense, Google, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So please take him seriously, as do the organizations above who take his advice. He means it.
Just imagine the savings, Grant says:
Switching to sortition would save a lot of money too. The 2020 elections alone cost upward of $14 billion. And if there’s no campaign, there are no special interests offering to help pay for it.
Surely, we can save a lot of money if dirty peons like you and me are not allowed to vote!
The WEF is Serious About Abolishing Voting
Is the above a weird individual opinion only? Not quite!
In this video, Klaus Schwab discusses the idea of using a “prescriptive mode” to form the will of the electorate and do without elections:
The WEF views political systems with competing political parties as “toxic” and discusses “detoxifying politics,” understood as getting rid of party competition:
The “Well-being Alliance,” another organization forming the WEF’s agenda, also suggests going away from “party politics”:
I discussed the Wellbeing Alliance, its Marxian ideology, and its relationship with the WEF here.
The above well-being agenda is already being implemented in eight countries, as discussed in the article above.
These radicals envision a future “free of party politics,” with “detoxified” discourse, and with leaders selected from a pool of WEF-approved candidates. The discourse will be free of undesirable misinformation, even if the unwanted misinformation is true.
The regular peons, like you and me, do not deserve a voice because we are considered “toxic” and incompetent to select our future glorious leaders. The WEF knows better!
The Green Energy Future Is Arriving Faster Than You Think — Or Not
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | August 19, 2023
Among the media sources serving as propagandists and cheerleaders for the “green energy transition,” two of the most prominent are the New York Times and Bloomberg News. To get an idea how the “transition” is going, let’s take a look at the latest from those two.
From the Times, in this morning’s print edition, we have a feature article that apparently first appeared online a couple of days ago, August 17. The headline is: “The Clean Energy Future Is Arriving Faster Than You Think.” The sub-head continues the excitement: “The United States is pivoting away from fossil fuels and toward wind, solar and other renewable energy, even in areas dominated by the oil and gas industries.”
But then Bloomberg News comes out yesterday with an editorial that seems to reach the exact opposite conclusion. Headline: “Net Zero Is Stalling Out. What Now?”
So which is it? Is the green energy future arriving “faster than you think,” or “stalling out”? Both can’t be right. Who has the better side of this?
Let’s look first at the Times piece. It is an uncritical litany of every possible piece of good news for the generation of electricity from wind and sun in the U.S. It is filled with more than twenty photographs and charts designed to impress you with the great progress being made: massive wind turbines, vast solar arrays, rows of EV charging stations, teams of serious-looking workers in a modern factory working away on some unnamed but clearly complex piece of equipment.
On the other hand, the piece is devoid of meaningful data on how the “transition” is progressing. Are wind and solar electricity actually making progress toward supplanting fossil fuels? You won’t find the answer to that here.
I’ll give you a few choice excerpts so you can get an idea of the technique:
Delivery vans in Pittsburgh. Buses in Milwaukee. Cranes loading freight at the Port of Los Angeles. Every municipal building in Houston. All are powered by electricity derived from the sun, wind or other sources of clean energy. . . . The nation that burned coal, oil and gas for more than a century to become the richest economy on the planet, as well as historically the most polluting, is rapidly shifting away from fossil fuels. A similar energy transition is already well underway in Europe and elsewhere. . . . Wind and solar power are breaking records. . . . Automakers have made electric vehicles central to their business strategies and are openly talking about an expiration date on the internal combustion engine. Heating, cooling, cooking and some manufacturing are going electric.
So what are these Bloomberg people talking about when they say that the “Net Zero” thing is “stalling out”? It turns out that they have plenty of data points, mostly (but not entirely) from Europe, and all relating to collapsing public support as costs become apparent:
[V]oters have legitimate questions about net-zero policies: How much will they cost? What benefits will they bring? Will they actually work as advertised? Such skepticism is already changing politics, from the recent losses suffered by Germany’s Greens to the fall of the Dutch governing coalition, which was partly fueled by farmers’ anger over forced reductions in nitrogen-oxide emissions. Even some avowed environmentalists — such as the governor of New Jersey and the leader of the UK’s Labor Party — have lately been siding with voters who feel aggrieved at the costs of environmental policies.
Can we get any actual data as to whether wind and solar energy are rapidly increasing their market share for energy production in the U.S.? The best source of information is the Energy Information Administration (part of the Department of Energy). The most recent two full years for which they have data are 2021 and 2022. Here’s the 2021 chart showing U.S. primary energy consumption by source:
Add up the percentages for petroleum (36%), natural gas (32%) and coal (11%), and you get 79% from fossil fuels in the aggregate.
And how about 2022? The chart is in a different format that is more difficult to read, but here is the key line of text: “Fossil fuels—petroleum, natural gas, and coal—accounted for 79% of total U.S. energy consumption in 2022.” Oh, that’s the exact same percentage as in 2021. It didn’t budge by even 1%.
Here is the chart they provide for 2022. As you can see, it is not so easy to calculate the percentages by source from this chart, but the general result is still obvious:
For 2023, EIA has put out monthly data through April as part of its Monthly Energy Review. There are no pretty charts, but through April fossil fuels have generated 26.082 quadrillion BTUs out of total primary energy consumption of 33.209 quadrillion BTUs. That would be 78.53% for fossil fuels. In other words, to the nearest whole percent, it’s still 79%. All the billions upon billions of government subsidies don’t seem to be moving the needle in any noticeable way.
To be fair, these figures reflect little if any of the massive subsidies brought forth by the big federal green energy bill (“Inflation Reduction Act” [sic]), which was signed a year ago on August 16, 2022 and is just getting cranked up. Will those subsidies move this needle at all? You would think that they couldn’t help moving the needle at least a little. But my own prediction is that the percent of primary energy from fossil fuels will decrease only minimally.
Over at Bloomberg, while they report honestly that Net Zero seems to be stalling out, they are not happy about it. What is the remedy? Obviously, the government planners directing the green energy transition need to go about this in a more “purposeful” and “strategic” manner:
If the government is going to ban the sale of gas boilers in 2035, as it says, it will need to make sure that cheaper alternatives are available. Likewise with a planned ban on new gas and diesel cars: It’s a fine goal, but it won’t go anywhere unless consumers have compelling incentives, charging infrastructure can meet demand and the government has otherwise laid the needed groundwork. . . . Above all, what’s needed is leadership. Decarbonization can drive economic growth, create jobs and bring substantial benefits to the environment and public health. But it must be done purposefully and strategically.
It’s the usual touching faith that central planning really is going to work this time, because it will be done more intelligently. No amount of real world failures will ever convince the true believers otherwise.
Unexploded device detonates in Donetsk killing three
RT | August 18, 2023
Three utility workers were killed in the Russian city of Donetsk on Friday when a faulty Ukrainian cluster shell exploded, according to local officials. Another worker was injured in the blast.
The workers, who had been repairing water pipes in central Donetsk, were caught in the blast during their lunch break. They were killed on the spot in a “detonation of an explosive device,” Donetsk Mayor Aleksey Kulemzin said. Two others were hospitalized following the blast.
According to media reports and local officials, the explosion was caused by a Ukrainian cluster artillery shell. The unexploded device may have been hanging from a tree or in a trash can, local residents told the media. The shell suddenly detonated and released its sub munitions, which exploded, hitting the civilians.
In recent weeks, the Ukrainian military has ramped up its use of cluster munitions, repeatedly firing them at Donetsk and other locations near the front line. The shells have already caused multiple deaths and injuries among civilians.
The uptick in the use of cluster munitions comes after last month the US sent so-called dual-purpose improved conventional munitions (DPICM) for NATO-caliber 155mm howitzers. The controversial delivery, which was criticized even by some of the US’ closest allies, came as a stop-gap measure to compensate for a shortage of conventional artillery shells, as admitted by President Joe Biden.
Over the course of the ongoing conflict, Russia has accused the Ukrainian military of repeatedly using cluster munitions from its domestic stockpiles to target civilian areas. In particular, Kiev’s forces have on many occasions shelled Donetsk and its surroundings with unguided multiple rocket artillery projectiles containing the controversial anti-personnel PFM-1 petal mines.
Western press fetishizes Ukrainian amputees as limb loss epidemic grows
BY KIT KLARENBERG · THE GRAYZONE · AUGUST 15, 2023
With Ukrainian forces reportedly suffering a level of amputations reminiscent of WWI, a New York Times proxy war propagandist is spinning amputees as sex symbols and painting their gruesome injuries as “magical.”
After 18 months of devastating proxy warfare, the scale of the depletion of the Ukrainian military is so extensive that even mainstream sources have been forced to concede the cruel reality. On August 1, The Wall Street Journal reported that “between 20,000 and 50,000 Ukrainians” have “lost one or more limbs since the start of the war.” What’s more, the outlet notes, “the actual figure could be higher” because “it takes time to register patients after they undergo the procedure.”
By comparison, around 67,000 Germans and 41,000 Britons underwent amputations during the entire four-year span of the First World War. The publication quotes the head of a group of former military surgeons who train Ukrainian military medics who maintained that “Western military surgeons haven’t seen injuries on this scale since World War II.”
While the implications of the Journal’s report have largely been studiously ignored by Western media, at least one mainstream journalist has displayed a keen interest in Kiev’s amputees. The New York Times’ columnist and ardent liberal interventionist Nicholas Kristof practically fetishized the mass disfigurement of Ukrainian combat veterans in the name of Washington’s war du jour.
In a July 8 op-ed titled “They’re Ready to Fight Again, on Artificial Legs,” Kristof insisted that rather than resenting being used as cannon fodder, Ukraine’s newly-disabled veterans “carry their stumps with pride.”
Citing one soldier who expressed hopes of returning to the frontline despite missing three limbs, Kristof framed such “grit and resilience” as a sure sign Kiev is winning the proxy conflict, and will inevitably emerge victorious over Russia.
The gut-wrenching homage to crippled and mangled Ukrainian soldiers even spun amputation as a means of getting laid, quoting the wife of one amputee as saying, “he’s very sexy without a leg.”
Another amputee cited in the op-ed claimed he had never dared ask his hometown crush out on a date before being hospitalized for “mortar injuries that took his leg and mangled his arms.” But after suffering irreparable and life-altering injuries, he and his sweetheart have been together ever since, the disabled soldier claimed.
Kristof quoted the soldier as follows: “It’s magical. Someone can have all his arms and legs and still not be successful in love, but an amputee can win a heart.”
Hyping Russian losses, covering up Ukraine’s
Throughout the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Western officials and journalists have taken a decidedly asymmetrical approach to reporting combat losses. Since the conflict’s first days, legacy media has dutifully repeated the vast, unverifiable figures that NATO-affiliated analysts insist Moscow suffered on the battlefield. In April 2022, the BBC even went as far as to publish the names and photos of Russian soldiers allegedly killed during the war.
But when reporting on Ukrainian casualties, major news outlets typically refer to the figure as a “closely guarded state secret.” The same senior US intelligence and defense officials who are heavily involved in assisting Kiev on military planning and strategy appear to be genuinely in the dark. On the rare occasion that these sources comment publicly on Kiev’s losses, they invariably caution that they’re merely offering an “estimate.”
From the perspective of Kiev and its foreign backers, the proxy war’s informational component is among its most impactful, and the propaganda utility of concealing losses is clear. Shielding Western audiences from the devastating human cost of the conflict makes the ever-fanciful prospect of Ukrainian victory seem more attainable, and keeps public support for the fight high, arms shipments flowing, and the profits of major weapons manufacturers soaring.
A Ukrainian veteran receiving care at the US-based Medical Center and Orthotics & Prosthetics
Ukrainian amputee centers “must be common as dentists”
As the Wall Street Journal explained in early August, Ukraine’s healthcare system “is now overwhelmed… with many patients waiting more than a year for a new limb.” In Zaporizhzhia alone, 40 to 80 wounded veterans reportedly arrive at hospitals with battlefield traumas each day, including amputees from the frontline 25 miles away.
The outlet quoted a Ukrainian medical director who insisted that facilities dedicated to treating and rehabilitating amputees are now needed “in every town across Ukraine,” and, ideally, “must be as common as dentists.”
Unlike recent US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the ongoing proxy conflict in Ukraine is a high-intensity battle of attrition between two near-peers. Under such circumstances, the primary sources of amputation injuries are essentially the same as they were during the grinding trench battles of World War One — artillery, missiles, and mines.
According to a 2014 policy brief published by the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center, “the typical ratio of those wounded to those killed in conflict has historically hovered around the 3:1 mark,” though “with recent medical advances, however, the U.S. wounded-to-killed ratio today ranges anywhere from 10:1 to 17:1.”
But as the proxy war’s most vocal defenders are quick to point out, Ukrainian soldiers do not have access to the same medical technology as Americans.
Beyond the year-long wait for new limbs, a severe shortage of doctors and technicians to tend to amputees has been reported as well. And despite receiving well over $100 billion in aid from Western nations, Kiev still clearly lacks the technology, infrastructure and expert staff required to match Washington’s contemporary casualty record.
Over the course of two decades of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, around 1,650 US veterans underwent amputation, according to the most recent figures available. And though that relatively small number has often been attributed to improvements in medical technology, American troops were also fighting lopsided skirmishes against poorly equipped adversaries operating without the benefit of air cover.
A January 2008 analysis of data published by the US Army Institute of Surgical Research’s Joint Theater Trauma Registry found that as of June 2006, 423 US soldiers who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan suffered one or more “major limb amputations,” a rate of 5.2% among serious injuries overall.
Eerily, the researchers responsible for the study noted that the percentage of amputees among the Vietnam War’s roughly 96,000 seriously injured casualties was also 5.2% — the same ratio recorded in Afghanistan and Iraq decades later. The paper’s conclusions were stark:
“Amputation rates [in war] have remained at roughly 7% to 8% of major-extremity injuries for the past 50 years. This is despite increasingly rapid evacuation of casualties, dramatic improvements in surgical technique, and far forward deployment of specialist care. However, over the same period, the degree of primary tissue destruction associated with modern weaponry has also increased dramatically. Unfortunately… we believe the rate of amputation following major limb injury is likely to remain unchanged in the current combat environment.”
However, The Wall Street Journal acknowledged that deaths on the Ukrainian side dwarf those suffered by the US military in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere during recent conflicts:
“Out of 100 soldiers wounded within about three miles of the front line, 36% suffered very severe injuries, while between 5% and 10% of all deployed troops were killed, according to Ukrainian military estimates shared with a group of US military surgeons. In comparison, only 1.3% to 2% of U.S. troops deployed in recent conflicts died in action.”
A study this June by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology which found that 78 percent of Ukrainians have had close relatives or friends injured or killed as a result of the conflict suggests the casualty figures are orders of magnitude greater than those publicly admitted by the Ukrainian military.
Mass death in “an investment trap”
Despite the best offers of liberal interventionists like the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof, who attempted to reframe war amputees as an indicator of Ukrainian fearlessness, rather than unambiguously grim symbols of an utterly catastrophic situation, Western citizens are increasingly repelled by the deluge of pro-war propaganda.
On August 4, a CNN poll found that a majority of Americans opposed Congress authorizing more funding for Ukraine, with 51% of respondents saying Washington had “already done enough.” Markedly, there was “slim backing for US military forces to participate in combat operations” – just 17%.
With US elections rapidly approaching, and Biden administration officials openly worrying their Ukraine policy will be a decisive issue on polling day, the conflict’s conclusion could be near. Even Democratic Party loyalists like Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment (a think tank formerly directed by now-CIA director William Burns) are lamenting that the Ukraine proxy war has become a quagmire.
“It’s sad,” Miller wrote. “But [the] US is in an investment trap in Ukraine with no clear way out. Chances of a military breakthrough or a diplomatic solution are slim to none; and slim may have already left town. We’re in deep and lack the ability to do much more than react to events.”
Since publishing its grim survey of Ukraine’s amputation epidemic, The Wall Street Journal has churned out another depressing read for proxy war boosters. On August 13, the WSJ reported that Kiev’s failure to make headway in its vaunted counteroffensive has forced military planners to look ahead to Spring 2024 for another opportunity that “might” tip the balance.
The fantasy explanations for excess deaths as panic sets in
By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | July 25, 2023
The writer is in New Zealand
On Saturday the Daily Express headlined a story ‘Experts call for urgent investigation as excess deaths spark “dangerous” theories’. UK excess deaths in 2023 have risen to levels commensurate with 2020 alpha variant deaths during the height of the pandemic, but the article admits that the 2023 excess is not due to Covid. Most concerning is the death toll in the 15-44 age group which exceeds 2020 and prior years, an age group which was mostly mildly affected by Covid.
As here in New Zealand, where our rates of excess death are measurably higher than the UK, the Westminster government is keeping quiet and looking the other way. Dr Charles Levinson, Medical Director of private GP service Doctorcall, said the ‘silence’ from the government was allowing conspiracy theories to flourish, including from anti-vaxxers, and added: ‘A refusal to openly discuss these statistics is an abdication of responsibility from parts of the scientific community [and the government], leading to an irreversible erosion of trust by parts of society.’ We agree.
So we are not conspiracy theorists when we warn that excess deaths are up, mainstream scientists agree with us, but they don’t want the jabs they pushed on people to be revealed as the cause, or even openly discussed – that could be very embarrassing.
Why aren’t governments investigating? It might be a fair guess that governments are well aware of excess deaths and afraid to investigate, because what limited data they have released suggests clearly that those asking questions about vaccine safety are right about the cause.
Excess deaths appear to be clustered around a range of cardiac events scientifically proven and acknowledged to be related to mRNA vaccines, and cancers suspected to be. The Boston Globe for example headlines ‘Rise in cancer among younger people worries and puzzles doctors’. Indian doctor Feruzi Mehta from Mumbai tweets that heart attack deaths among younger people now make up 15-20 per cent of the total, when it was just 1-2 per cent ten years ago.
Doctors like Mehta speaking up are risking de-registration. Therefore most others, faced by rising incidence of illness and death especially among the young, are remaining silent. However, some diehards are doubling down or even succumbing to the irrational.
Silence is one thing, but the NZ Prime Minister’s office is actively funding a disinformation project dedicated to discrediting anyone who asks questions about vaccine safety, labelling them violent extremists, paedophiles, satanists, anti-Semites, animal torturers, white supremacists, neo-Nazis and anti-transgender. All these wild and incredible accusations are explicitly made during the first 12 minutes of the first episode of a seven-part podcast series produced by RNZ called Undercurrent in which they interview government-funded disinformation experts. (Twelve minutes of this half-baked smear campaign was enough exposure for me to press the pause button.)
The problem with the RNZ podcast so far (aside from its lengthy episodes and unrelenting madness) is that it doesn’t actually discuss vaccine injuries or unprecedented rates of excess deaths (or even mention that there are such things). RNZ began putting the podcast series together more than ten months ago. Since that time it has become apparent that worrying excess death rates have persisted, but RNZ has apparently decided to avoid mentioning the problem. There is a possible reason for this: once you get into inventing causes of excess deaths you really do begin to sound mad.
For example, the NY Times suggests that extreme heat is causing hundreds of extra deaths. Alex Berenson, award-winning former NYT journalist, responds to this kind of reporting with ‘The New York Times has lost its mind. And by mind, I mean principles and understanding of the First Amendment (the right to free speech).’ In which he says the NYT has walked into the government censorship trap, cancelling those voicing concerns including himself.
A quick survey of other suggested causes of record excess deaths suggested by mainstream media ranges from the just possible marginal effect of lockdowns to the implausible alcohol consumption, loneliness, too much exercise, gardening, vacations, climate change and the really far out: ‘there is too much air’. One News in NZ tweeted that people in Mount Maunganui are dying of air pollution in large numbers, along with a picture of its pristine coastline. You can feel the panic setting in, can’t you? Something terrible is happening, but people are very afraid to face up to it.
Pro-vaccine advocate Professor Peter Hotez is recommending staying at home. He is warning against going to see the blockbuster Barbie or Oppenheimer movies at the cinema because you might bring Covid home with you. Incredibly he joins with RNZ in thinking that concern about vaccine safety is a form of anti-Semitism.
It doesn’t take much thought to realise that the underlying concern here is the increasingly noticeable high rate of excess deaths and the lack of any plausible explanation. All this is happening after mass vaccinations with a novel biotechnology drug. How long are we going to go on without acknowledging the elephant in the room or more especially tabulating how many among those dying are vaccinated or unvaccinated?
Just remember the paragraph with which we started this article. Scientists are now warning us that excess deaths are real and very concerning, not imaginary as our politicians and some uninformed medicos and media hacks are still pressing us to accept, against the evidence.
We are facing a real-life emergency. Our EDs and hospitals are overwhelmed. Young people are dying of conditions that used to mainly affect the elderly, but the media, the government, and the medical establishment want the subject to remain taboo. They are funding efforts to marginalise those asking questions, shooting the messenger rather than acknowledging the problem and searching for solutions. Time to wake up from the fantasy.
RFK Jr’s cautionary position on Cell Phone radiation is supported by “the science”
Unlike mRNA technology, exposure to Cell Phone radiation cannot be avoided. Many studies confirm that it is far from harmless.
By Madhava Setty | An Insult to Intuition | July 11, 2023
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates communications technology but does not independently review its safety. It relies on the FDA, an agency that has been derelict in its duty to protect the public from emerging technology like mRNA “vaccines”.
Last month RFK, Jr appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast for another long form discussion. Rogan announced up front that he intended to allow Kennedy to speak without interrupting him. A lesson he learned after watching an embarrassing exchange between Kennedy and Krystal Ball, co-host of “Breaking Points”, in May.
In that interview, Ball stated that although she believed that Kennedy was a genuine person, she disagreed with his views on vaccines. But rather than allowing Kennedy to explain his position and cite the evidence that supported it, Ball stepped out of her role as an objective journalist and played the part of a defense attorney for the medical establishment, repeatedly raising objections every few seconds.
Her audience took note. She was skewered in the comment section while Kennedy was lauded for his composure and patience.
With license to riff on JRE, Kennedy laid out coherent and defensible explanations for the decline in our population’s physical and psychological health. As to be expected, the schismatic MSM framed his hypotheses as more kooky conspiracy theories from the biggest spreader of dangerous misinformation who also happens to be arguably the biggest and most successful environmentalist on the planet who has fought polluters in the interest of public health for over three decades.
What they still cannot seem to grasp (or purposefully choose not to) is that Kennedy is asserting that there are plausible explanations for our deteriorating health that need to be sincerely investigated before being dismissed out of hand.
Chronic diseases among children exploded with the expansion of the Childhood Vaccination Schedule. Shouldn’t we rule this out as a potential cause if we care about our kids?
How do we know that environmental toxins aren’t contributing to gender dysphoria? We don’t.
Midway through the conversation with Rogan, Kennedy floated the possibility that 5G radiation is opening up our blood brain barrier to toxins. The blood brain barrier is a highly selective biological system designed to protect our central nervous system.
Kennedy asserted that he never puts his cellular phone next to his ear while speaking and that he carries his phone in his rear pocket. Kennedy let us know that he has seen enough evidence that incriminates ElectroMagnetic Radiation (EMR) as the cause of brain tumors in some cases.
Rogan asked Kennedy how 5G EMR could mess with the Blood Brain Barrier. Kennedy admitted that it was outside his scope of knowledge. Kennedy critics mocked the pair, criticizing him for his inability to explain complex biochemistry and Rogan for accepting the “crazy” theory prima facie.
Even Dr. Vinay Prasad, a sensible critic of public policy over the last three years tweeted that while Kennedy would be a formidable opponent in a debate with the scientific orthodoxy, his position on radiation spewing from your wifi router was nuts:
In his tweet above Prasad lets us know that he thinks Kennedy has made good points in his criticism of the pandemic response but is still prone to unsubstantiated opinions.
Prasad, a professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at UCSF, has been one of the saner voices coming from the medical establishment. He’s been critical of lockdowns, masking and the exaggeration of “long Covid”. He is a proponent of evidence-based medicine, peer-reviewed literature and meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies.
My biggest criticism of Prasad is that he doesn’t seem to acknowledge the bias in published literature nearly enough. I believe this has led him to reject the possibility of effective early treatment of Covid-19. Though I disagree with him on this subject, I acknowledge that he has investigated the evidence before coming to any conclusion.
For someone who prides himself on only taking stands that are backed by “good” data, Prasad’s blithe dismissal of the dangers of WiFi radiation is puzzling. I don’t think he has actually done any research into the topic. At the very least he hasn’t cited any data that proves that wifi technology is safe. Instead he is relying on his own common sense, which somehow in this case suffices for decisive proof.
Your wireless device exchanges vast amounts of information with cellular towers and wifi routers using electromagnetic waves. Download and upload speeds are dependent upon the frequency of the EM waves used. The higher the frequency, the more information that can be transferred in a given amount of time.
All good. Want quicker downloads of hi-def video? You’re going to need a system that relies on higher frequency photons.
The problem is that frequency of the EM waves is directly proportional to its energy. This fundamental relationship is known as the Planck-Einstein relation:
E = hv
Where v = frequency, h = Planck’s constant and E = Energy.
As you can see, our 3G phones from just a decade ago emit and receive EMR at frequencies 100x less than today’s 5G devices. The energy of photons emitted and received by our new phones is 100x greater than 3G phones, more or less.
Prevailing opinion assumes that photons are generally safe if their frequency is below a certain threshold, making it non-ionizing. Non-ionizing radiation cannot break chemical bonds. However with regard to the complex physiology of living beings where cellular function relies on tiny and ephemeral membrane potentials, this explanation is intuitively over simplistic.
The FCC has been busy auctioning 5G frequency bands to telecommunications companies:
“The FCC has made auctioning high-band spectrum a priority. The FCC concluded its first 5G spectrum auctions in the 28 GHz band; the 24 GHz band; and the upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands.”
Moreover they believe that this technology is vital for economic growth and needs to be pushed along:
“The FCC must update infrastructure policy to encourage investment in 5G networks. As Chairwoman Rosenworcel has said: ‘if we want broad economic growth and widespread mobile opportunity, we need to avoid unnecessary delays in the state and local approval process. That’s because they can slow deployment.’”
If the FCC is so clearly interested in the expansion of wireless technology, it must be safe, right?
Wrong.
Going down the Rabbit Hole…
The FCC has no formal body that investigates the safety of the technology it manages/regulates. The FCC takes its cues from the FDA and states:
“According to the FDA and the World Health Organization (WHO), among other organizations, to date, there is no consistent or credible scientific evidence of health problems caused by the exposure to radio frequency energy emitted by cell phones. The FDA further states that “the weight of the scientific evidence does not support an increase in health risks from radio frequency exposure from cell phone use at or below the radio frequency exposure limits set by the FCC”
This statement on the FCC website then directs us to this page from the FDA, “Scientific Evidence for Cell Phone Safety” where it is definitively stated:
“The state of scientific knowledge continues to demonstrate that:
- The current limit on radio frequency (RF) energy set by the Federal Communications Commission remains acceptable for protecting the public health. The FDA recently provided an updated assessment of the current limits based on the currently available scientific evidence (see Letter from the FDA to the FCC on Radiofrequency Exposure– PDF 74KB).
Okay. Now let’s look at this letter from the FDA that apparently provides an updated assessment of the available evidence.
It is a letter from Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., Director Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA to Mr. Julius Knapp, Chief Office of Engineering and Technology at the FCC in response to Knapp’s request for guidance with regard to safety standards of 5G technology. This letter was written on April 14, 2019.
Here’s the key paragraph from the letter:
Dr. Shuran, from the FDA, assures the FCC that no changes to safety standards are warranted at this time.
The rodent study from the NTP mentioned is titled “Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation”. They summarize:
NTP conducted two-year toxicology studies in rats and mice to help clarify potential health hazards, including cancer risk, from exposure to RFR (Radio Frequency Radiation) like that used in 2G and 3G cell phones which operate within a range of frequencies from about 700–2700 megahertz (MHz). These were published as Technical Reports in November 2018.
The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR (900 MHz) used by cell phones was associated with:
- Clear evidence of an association with tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
- Some evidence of an association with tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
- Some evidence of an association with tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.
NTP scientists found that RFR exposure was associated with an increase in DNA damage. Specifically, they found RFR exposure was linked with significant increases in DNA damage in:
- the frontal cortex of the brain in male mice,
- the blood cells of female mice, and
- the hippocampus of male rats.
So… the latest safety guidelines with regard to 5G radiation cite a study from 2018 that found evidence of heart, brain and adrenal tumors in rodents that were associated with exposure to 2 and 3G cellphone radiation.
The study also showed an association of RFR with DNA damage. This is reasonable evidence that there is more to be understood about the safety of non-ionizing radiation.
Moreover, there are studies like this one that was done over 40 years ago demonstrating that periods of RFR exposure in the 1.3 GHz range do, in fact, make the blood brain barrier more permeable in rats. Still sound nutty to you, Dr. Prasad?
But there’s no cause for concern because Dr. Shuran says that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.”
Most people in this country have abandoned their 2 and 3G devices years ago for ones that use the updated networks. Perhaps it’s time to do a few more studies around the technology that the FCC is so excited for us to enjoy.
Contrary to the public’s and the FDA’s complacency around this rapidly deployed technology, scientists from around the world have been urging the FCC to place a moratorium on the expansion of RFR bands required for 5G communications.
This is an excellent summary article that appeared in the Observations/Opinions section of Scientific American in 2019 around the time the FDA vouched for the technology: “We Have No Reason to Believe that 5G is Safe”.
Author Joel Moskowitz lays out a damning refutation of the FDA’s position citing over 500 studies that demonstrate biological effects from RFR from cellphones, celltowers, wifi routers and power lines. Furthermore, Moskowitz reports that:
- 240 scientists who have authored peer-reviewed, published papers on the topic have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for more stringent safety guidelines
- The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011.
- There is no research on health effects of 5G technology. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known about the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research.
- There are 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal which calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G
Beyond influencers like Dr. Prasad who call the potential risk of increasing EMR in our environment “nutty”, there is a clear campaign to frame any such danger as another “conspiracy theory”.
Articles like this one from the Science section of the NYT titled, “Your 5G phone won’t hurt you, but Russia wants you to think otherwise” attempt to convince us that EMR in the 5G band must be safe because publications like RT America (formerly known as Russia Today) say it isn’t.
The piece is a wonderful of example of propaganda from what is widely considered a reliable source of information among “educated” readers. It’s loaded with pseudoscience and citations that don’t actually substantiate the author’s thesis that 5G EMR is perfectly safe. It’s written for an audience that would rather be spoonfed than educated.
This was the article that opened my eyes to how far the Gray Lady would go to spin the truth. I was embarrassingly late to the game. I didn’t write a rebuttal until 2020:
What we are seeing today is an inexplicable abandonment of common sense. Highly profitable, international entities are granted the same rights as a defendant in a trial. They are innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
Why is the standard of proof of harm for new technologies like mRNA therapies and 5G so high?
One may argue that the Covid shots afforded a brief period of protection from a highly survivable disease and should be given some latitude, but what is the life saving benefit of faster downloads?
Unlike the jabs, which could be avoided (albeit often impractically), every person is constantly being bombarded with higher frequency radiation whether they like it or not. Shouldn’t this technology meet an even greater standard of safety?
US veteran faked heroics on Ukraine battlefield to become rich
By Ahmed Adel | July 19, 2023
A US military veteran, who claimed battlefield victories as a combatant in Ukraine and gained fame through media interviews and Twitter posts by boasting about his exploits against Russian forces, has been exposed for lying to create a false image that he could take advantage of after the end of the conflict to become rich. This again demonstrates the unprofessionalism of Western media, which knowingly advanced the lies of a mercenary for propaganda reasons.
James Vasquez, who has amassed more than 400,000 followers on Twitter and is regularly quoted by CNN and the New York Times, has falsely claimed exploits on the Ukraine battlefield, Insider reported on July 16.
The portal, which cited allegations by four other foreign volunteers in Ukraine, also confirmed through the Pentagon that Vasquez lied about his military history when he claimed to have had combat deployments as a sergeant in the US Army in Iraq and Kuwait. It is revealed that he served as an electrical systems repairman in the US Army Reserve.
Vasquez’s social media posts often went viral, purportedly about his exploits on the front lines.
“In his videos and posts, he bragged about capturing Russians and taking out tanks, was regularly interviewed by the news media, and made catchy claims including that he imagined the ‘punchable’ Tucker Carlson when preparing for battle,” wrote the portal.
Other fighters told the media that Vasquez boasted he would become a millionaire when the conflict ended.
“James said, and I quote, ‘I’m never gonna go back to work as a handyman. I’m probably never gonna have to work again after this war. I’m gonna be famous,’” said Tim, an American man working with the Ukrainian army who spoke to Insider on the condition of withholding his last name.
Vasquez created his claims by going to areas where battles had recently occurred, filming videos of destroyed equipment and claiming achievements as his own, say other foreigners. In one case, he claimed on Twitter that he was heading to Soledar, where heavy fighting was allegedly occurring. However, Ukrainian forces had withdrawn from the area days earlier.
Accusations against Vasquez apparently began to surface earlier this year. Sarah Ashton-Cirillo, an American who works in the Ukrainian Territorial Defence Forces media department, said in a Twitter post in March that Vasquez could not have legally gone on combat missions because he did not have a contract with the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
“I met James Vasquez three times for a total of about four hours,” she told Insider. “During our last meeting, in the presence of another person, he gave himself up and confirmed what I had known since last summer, that he was never a member of the AFU. That night he stated clearly he never had a contract nor had he ever been paid. This was in January. It was the last time I saw him.”
Although Vasquez was often accused of being a fraud or a scammer who exploited the situation in Ukraine for personal gain or fame, one of the most serious accusations against him was that he endangered the safety of his fellow fighters for social media clout. In one instance, he posted a video on Twitter that showed him standing next to a sign that indicated the exact coordinates of the unit he was with, which could have exposed them to a Russian attack.
Ashton-Cirillo told Insider : “As someone who notified a large media outlet about James Vasquez in June of 2022 and stated to them clearly that Vasquez had no combat experience and was filming fake fight scenes, it is disgraceful that they and so many other journalists advanced his lies for so long.”
This is far from being the only example of propaganda deployed by Western media in relation to Ukraine, and Ashton-Cirillo is fully aware of this fact considering her own position. In fact, she engages in such propaganda. Rather, her main concern was that Vasquez became too obvious in his propaganda stunts, and she knew it was only a matter of time until it all is exposed.
For her part, April Huggett, a Canadian volunteer who knew Vasquez, told Insider in a text message that he would exaggerate how close he was to the heavy fighting.
“I did realise very quickly he was sitting comfy right in Maidan and he was not leaving Kiev very often,” she said. “He also drank so much.”
“James just kept talking about becoming a millionaire after this,” Huggett continued.
“I’m tired, but I’m not sorry I exposed the lying scammer. […] We took away his fame and fortune, we made people see him for the disgrace he is,” she added.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
An Illustrious Censorship Institute
Harvard’s “Berkmen Klein Center for Internet & Society”
Former New Zealand Tyrant Jacinda Ardern delivering keynote address at Harvard
By John Leake | Courageous Discourse | July 17, 2023
A friend recently sent me a flagrantly political New York Times Editorial by Kate Klonick, “an associate professor of law at St. John’s University who studies law and technology, including the governance of online speech by private platforms.”
In her Opinion, Professor Klonick asserts:
No feat of rhetoric could disguise the flagrantly political nature of the federal court ruling on July 4 that restricted the Biden administration’s communications with social media platforms — but Judge Terry A. Doughty, who wrote the opinion, did his best to cover his tracks. The 155-page opinion, which could hinder the government’s efforts to counter false and misleading online speech about issues like election interference and vaccine safety, is laced with lofty references to George Orwell and quotations from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, making it more reminiscent of a civics essay than a federal judicial opinion.
Two things immediately came to mind as I read this essay:
1). Gramsci’s “Long March Through the Institutions” is now complete, having now made its way through the law department as St. John’s University. Words can’t express how disheartening I found this.
2). Professor Klonick should spend less time pontificating about “online speech” and “vaccine safety” and more time studying civics.
The trouble with lawyers like her is that they don’t understand the SPIRIT of the First Amendment. Because humans are mortal and human affairs are unstable and subject to powerful external forces, the state can always point to innumerable threats (real, perceived, and exaggerated) against which it invokes Emergency Power to reduce or suspend constitutional rules in order “to protect” the citizenry from itself and from foreigners.
James Madison, the author of the U.S. Constitution, recognized that in the grand scheme of human affairs, an overgrown executive posed a greater threat to the citizenry than the unfettered expression of free speech, which will often contain errors.
After reading Professor Klonick’s flagrantly political editorial, I pondered the question: how does the New York Times go about curating columnists like her—that is, a person with a distinguished academic resume who is willing to advocate America’s baleful new censorship regime?
A little Googling revealed that she is is on leave from St. John’s for 2022-2023 serving as a Visiting Scholar at the Rebooting Social Media Institute at Harvard University. An examination of this Institute revealed that it’s a project of Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, which recently announced that “Former New Zealand leader Jacinda Ardern joins Berkman Klein Center as Knight Tech Governance Leadership Fellow.”
Her appointment is a notable example of how many prominent public figures who advocated or imposed COVID-19 vaccine mandates “fell upward” by landing plum positions at America’s most prestigious academic institutions after public backlash against their policies and conduct. During her tenure as New Zealand Prime Minister, Ardern imposed some of the most draconian lockdowns and vaccine mandates in the world. In the spring of this year, as New Zealanders grew weary of her tyranny, she resigned and was shortly thereafter offered a job a Harvard.
A little research of financial supports of the Berkman Klein center resulted in this list of donors, which includes the Gates Foundation, George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, Microsoft, USAID, and the World Economic Forum.
And so we see how easy it is to capture men and women who have demonstrated great ambition, ability, and success in their careers, but who have no real interest in or understanding of Constitutional government.
Featured Video
“Historic Russia”: The Land Putin Will Not Give Back
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Why the War on Conspiracy Theories Is Bad Public Policy
By Kevin Barrett • Unz Review • February 1, 2019
A Review of Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas by Cass Sunstein (based on an earlier paper co-authored with Adrian Vermeule); In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business by Charlan Nemeth; and Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, edited by Joseph E. Uscinski
On January 25 2018 YouTube unleashed the latest salvo in the war on conspiracy theories, saying “we’ll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways—such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.”
At first glance that sounds reasonable. Nobody wants YouTube or anyone else to recommend bad information. And almost everyone agrees that phony miracle cures, flat earthism, and blatantly false claims about 9/11 and other historical events are undesirable.
But if we stop and seriously consider those words, we notice a couple of problems. First, the word “recommend” is not just misleading but mendacious. YouTube obviously doesn’t really recommend anything. When it says it does, it is lying. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- “Historic Russia”: The Land Putin Will Not Give Back
- How the Cambridge Analytica scandal still haunts Mark Zuckerberg
- The Ongoing Cancellation Campaign Against a Dissenting Academic in Norway
- Yemen and ‘the Houthis’: Challenging Sami Hamdi’s Narrative
- No, Christians did not invent Zionism
- AIPAC-led lobbying network opens branches in Cypriot, Greek parliaments
- Araghchi blasts ‘parasitic’ alliance as US taxpayers pay for Israel’s war on Iran
- Easy fix for Europe’s chaos? Stop fueling war against Russia
- Putin’s key remarks on peace talks and Europe’s ‘schizophrenia’
- Trita Parsi: Israel Set a Trap for Total War in the Region
- If Americans Knew
- Damning report shows the media must confront its failures on Gaza
- BBC senior broadcaster speaks out on Gaza coverage
- Netanyahu vows vast West Bank invasion in response to 20-minute skirmish that left 2 Israeli soldiers and 2 Palestinian fighters dead
- Tied up and tortured: Israel using US-made electroshock weapons on Palestinian detainees
- The outsourced risk: how newsrooms rely on Gaza’s freelancers without protecting them
- Gaza bakeries forced to shut as Israel blocks flour shipments
- Gaza’s breast cancer patients face a deadly wait for treatment amid Israel’s genocide
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- The Israel Lobby’s Changing Fortunes
- AIPAC has become such a political liability that it’s shifting to a more “nimble” approach to buying politicians
- No Tricks Zone
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
