Throughout the summer, a major scandal has been brewing in Lithuania. In late July, the country suffered a landmark defeat in the European Court of Human Rights in a case brought by Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi national held in secret detention and brutally tortured for four years in CIA black sites around the world – including Lithuania. While Western governments and news outlets have ignored the judgement, the ECHR’s conclusions produced bitter political division locally, with the opposition calling for a new investigation into the CIA’s use and abuse of the country during the US-led ‘War on Terror’.
Lithuania’s ruling coalition, in keeping with previous governments, is resistant to any further damaging light being shed on their territory hosting criminal operations of American intelligence for many years in total secret, with perpetrators of horrendous torture insulated from any legal repercussions or professional consequence. Their resistance is understandable. On top of not wanting to offend their colossal US ally, Lithuania’s ruling elites are keen to conceal from the local population, and the world, how their ‘independence’ under Western hegemony comes with unseen strings attached. When those strings entail intimate collusion in grave crimes, it’s Lithuania that suffers the consequences.
How did the ECHR rule against Lithuania?
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is accused of being the mastermind of the October 2000 USS Cole bombing, and heading Al Qaeda in the Persian Gulf. He was captured by the CIA in November 2002. Over the next four years, he was held in nine separate CIA black sites, and brutally tortured every step of the way. Five months of his ordeal were spent at a specially constructed facility in Lithuania, named ‘Detention Site Violet’ in internal CIA memos, from November 2005 to March 2006. Lithuania denied any responsibility for al-Nashiri’s maltreatment, and contested the evidentiary basis of his claims. The ECHR found Vilnius’ culpability was “proven beyond reasonable doubt.”
During his incarceration in Lithuania, al-Nashiri was held incommunicado in solitary confinement and denied any contact with the outside world. His removal from the country was conducted with the Lithuanian government’s full knowledge he could face “a flagrant denial of justice and the death penalty” if extradited to the US, where he has remained in Guantanamo Bay until today. The ECHR unanimously found Vilnius violated numerous Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights through the country’s complicity with the CIA’s treatment of al-Nashiri, including right to a fair trial, right to respect for private and family life, right to life, and inhuman or degrading treatment.
Is this Lithuania’s first run in with the ECHR over CIA torture?
The ruling on al-Nashiri’s treatment is the third ECHR judgement against Lithuania over its involvement in the CIA torture program. In May 2018, the court ruled state authorities conspired with the CIA and subjected high-profile prisoner Abu Zubaydah to inhuman treatment, sensory isolation, and violation of his fundamental rights to liberty and security. Vilnius was ordered to pay him €100,000 in damages, which he has been unable to collect due to his ongoing detention in Guantanamo Bay. It was just the beginning of Lithuania’s major legal woes over its part in the CIA’s torture program.
In January 2024, the ECHR ruled Lithuania was responsible for arbitrarily detaining Saudi national Mustafa al-Hawsawi. Like Zubaydah, he was held in Detention Site Violet, exposing him to arbitrary detention and ill-treatment, and failing to conduct an effective local criminal probe into his incarceration and torture. Lithuania was ordered to pay €100,000 to al-Hawsawi in damages and €30,000 in costs. It’s not just the ECHR which has sought to hold Lithuania accountable, either. In 2022, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found Vilnius was complicit in torture and secret detention of alleged terrorists on the CIA’s behalf.
All along, the ECHR has condemned the Lithuanian authorities for the country’s involvement in the CIA’s torture program, which saw many ‘high value’ detainees – including accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – pass through Detention Site Violet’s secret doors. The court has also harshly criticized Vilnius for its stubborn refusal to conduct serious criminal and/or public investigations into the secret CIA prison network constructed on Lithuania’s soil, and the involvement in and knowledge of these operations on the part of the country’s security, intelligence, and policing apparatus. But it’s abundantly clear the microscopic Baltic state was heavily complicit.
What are the Lithuanians hiding?
Despite the conspiracy of silence in Vilnius, numerous local investigations in the US and at the EU level have created damning trails of breadcrumbs leading straight from Detention Site Violet to the highest levels of the Lithuanian state. It is confirmed the CIA obtained approval from the country’s political leaders before constructing the black sites. One Lithuanian official was reportedly “shocked” by the proposals, but agreed anyway – it was an offer they couldn’t refuse. The CIA offered $1 million to its Lithuanian ‘partner’ agencies to “show appreciation” for their support, with the cash funneled through “complex mechanisms” to conceal the payments.
The Lithuanian parliament’s own Committee on National Security and Defence (CNSD) found the country’s State Security Department (SSD) accounting of funds it received for the operation was “inappropriate.” The construction of two separate CIA black sites was also concluded to have been “blessed by the top officials of the State.” The first was abandoned due to its small size limiting how many detainees could be held there at one time. This led to Detention Site Violet being built, with Lithuanian officials including then-President Rolandas Paksas kept in the loop regularly on its progress by the CIA. High-ranking SSD directors were also well-aware.
Meanwhile, SSD staff were highly active participants in the torture program on-the-ground from 2002 onwards, structuring and equipping the covert facilities according to CIA specifications and requirements.
Lithuania’s domestic spying agency enjoyed “unrestricted access to all the premises” of the two prisons, although the CIA was largely allowed to act without supervision there. Detention Site Violet was constructed in a former horse riding school located just 15 miles from Vilnius, the property having been bought by a CIA front company based in Panama, called Elite LLC. Coincidentally, this purchase was completed in March 2004, right when Lithuania became a NATO member. ABC News reported:
“On a series of thick concrete pads, [the CIA] installed what a source called ‘prefabricated pods’ to house prisoners, each separated from the other by five or six feet. Each pod included a shower, a bed and a toilet. Separate cells were constructed for interrogations… The prison pods inside the barn were not visible to locals. They describe seeing large amounts of earth being excavated during the summer of 2004. Locals who saw the activity at the prison and approached to ask for work were turned away by English-speaking guards. The guards were replaced by new guards every 90 days.”
How were CIA prisoners tortured in Lithuania?
Despite plentiful open source details on Detention Site Violet and the Lithuanian state’s cognizance and culpability in the torture program, the crucial question of what happened to CIA prisoners in the country has never been satisfactorily resolved. However, it has been confirmed Mustafa al-Hawsawi was denied medical treatment after suffering severe health issues from repeated rectal rehydration – a form of sexual abuse – while in CIA detention. An Inspector General report found Detention Site Violet – in keeping with other black sites – did not have resources for treating serious mental or physical conditions inflicted by the torture, despite both being common.
Under the CIA’s own guidelines, “in situations where a detainee’s medical condition cannot be adequately treated at the detention facility, detention facility staff and local CIA station personnel arrange access to the host country’s health care system.” However, Lithuanian officials “reneged on previous assurances that they would arrange inpatient treatment or have declined to become involved in providing medical treatment for CIA detainees.” Ultimately, al-Hawsawi was transferred to a third country for treatment, with the CIA covering the costs. Difficulties with the Lithuanian authorities over al-Hawsawi’s treatment ultimately resulted in Detention Site Violet’s March 2006 closure, when its remaining prisoners were transferred to Afghanistan.
Lithuania’s stonewalling of serious investigations into the country’s involvement in the CIA torture program means we do not know for sure the torture techniques to which detainees were subjected there. However, in light of the ECHR’s ruling on al-Nashiri, it may be relevant to consider how he was treated at a CIA black site in Poland.
This included being forced into excruciating standing stress positions for days – which resulted in a medical officer intervention, over fears his shoulders could dislocate – mock executions with a handgun, and the use of a cordless power drill. A January 2003 CIA cable noted concerns over this abuse at agency headquarters:
“We have serious reservations with the continued used of enhanced techniques with Nashiri and its long term impact on him. Subject has been held for three months in very difficult conditions, both physically and mentally… Continued enhanced methods may push subject over the edge psychologically.”
The very same day, the CIA’s chief of interrogations announced his early retirement. “I will no longer be associated in any way with the interrogation program due to serious reservation I have about the current state of affairs,” he wrote. “Instead, I will be retiring shortly. This is a train wreak [sic] waiting to happen and I intend to get the hell off the train before it happens.”
Is Lithuania the only NATO country implicated in CIA torture?
Today, much remains concealed and uncertain about the CIA’s torture program. But it is clear Lithuania was far from alone in assisting the CIA commit horrendous crimes against humanity on its territory, without political or public oversight. In 2007, the Council of Europe published a detailed report on “secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees” involving EU member states. Poland and Romania were also found to have eagerly abetted the CIA’s demonic activities, despite government denials of knowledge and/or culpability. The CoE found “the key arrangements for CIA clandestine operations in Europe were secured on a bilateral level.”
In Lithuania, Poland, and Romania, formal agreements with local governments and the CIA covered all manner of cooperation, including building the prisons, material support, and operational security, along with cast-iron promises of “non-interference” in the CIA’s criminality. This extended collusion to airport staff, which helped falsify flight records to conceal the arrival and departure of CIA detainees, and prevented customs and border officials from inspecting planes carrying prisoners. However, EU and NATO countries assisted the CIA’s torture program in more low-key ways throughout its operation. One notorious example is the rendition of Khaled El-Masri from North Macedonia.
Two-and-a-half decades on, the events of 9/11 and all that followed still casts a long shadow on every corner of the world, and justice continues to be denied to an unknown number of people – many of them completely innocent – who fell victim to the CIA’s global torture conspiracy. The ECHR’s latest ruling against Lithuania should, one might think, trigger a long-overdue public inquiry into how officials in Vilnius knowingly colluded in an operation that was completely illegal and unethical, along with appropriate punishments for the figures involved. As 9/11’s silver anniversary has just been marked, it’s never been more vital that the truth be finally told.
US President Donald Trump said Monday that Iran is urgently seeking an agreement with the United States, while leaving open the question of whether Washington will engage in negotiations.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump described Iran as a “failed country” and said Tehran wants to reach an agreement with the United States “very quickly.”
Trump added that he would decide whether the United States would engage in the effort and enter negotiations, indicating that Washington remains open to the possibility of reaching an agreement with Iran.
The US president did not provide further details on what any potential agreement would entail or the conditions under which Washington would pursue talks with Tehran.
Tehran warns against mixed signals from Washington
Trump’s remarks come against the backdrop of sharply differing signals over the prospects for negotiations with Iran.
Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei warned against being misled by what he described as contradictory statements from Trump, pointing to the shift from declaring that there would be “no negotiations” to saying that Washington is ready to talk.
Rezaei stressed that Iran would not enter negotiations before its conditions are met, saying, “No negotiations before Iran’s conditions are met. Period.”
The Iranian official also said that the equations surrounding oil and strategic waterways had changed, warning that attempts to contain the consequences of the current situation would not prevent what lies ahead.
Iran sets seven conditions for reopening strait
Iran has told the United States that the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed until seven conditions approved by the country’s top officials are met, Iranian news agency Tasnim reported on Saturday, citing an informed source.
The message comes as Tehran prepares to meet with Iraq and Persian Gulf states in Oman on Monday to discuss safe routes for commercial shipping through the strategic waterway.
“Until these seven conditions, which have been approved by Iran’s top officials, are met, the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed,” the source told Tasnim.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry announced the planned meeting as efforts continue to coordinate maritime traffic amid the escalation of the US war on Iran.
Oman agreement does not include reopening waterway
The reported conditions come after Iran and Oman reached an agreement concerning the Strait of Hormuz, although the arrangement did not include reopening the waterway.
The understanding between Iran and Oman “does not provide for the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, but lays the groundwork that could allow for its reopening,” an Iranian source told Tasnim on Saturday.
The source added that the arrangement would be a step toward Iran exercising its sovereignty over the Strait and that reopening it depends entirely on the United States meeting Tehran’s conditions.
Under the agreement, the two sides coordinated the main routes for vessels entering and leaving the Strait of Hormuz.
The waterway has become a major point of concern for international shipping as the war has sharply disrupted maritime traffic through one of the world’s most important energy routes.
MOSCOW – Russia wants to end the Ukrainian conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday.
On Ukraine
“We want to resolve this conflict and appreciate our friends’ willingness to help in this effort,” Lavrov said at the embassy roundtable on the situation around Ukraine, adding that if the US had not abandoned the Anchorage agreements, we would have been living in peace already for one year.
Russia is always ready for negotiations on Ukraine and has never delayed them or tried to complicate them, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, commenting on the prospects for the imminent convening of a new round of negotiations.
“We are always ready for negotiations. We have never delayed these negotiations or tried to complicate them,” Lavrov said.
If Ukraine is ready to resume negotiations, Russia agrees to them and has something to say, the minister said, adding that Russia has never changed its position on talks on Ukraine.
“We are ready to seek reasonable compromises within the framework of this position, but fundamentally, we have not changed our goal: to ensure our security, to prevent NATO from appearing on our borders, and to safeguard the legitimate rights of Russians and Russian‑speaking people who have lived on these lands for centuries,” Lavov added.
On Russia-US Relations
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that he plans to meet with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.
“I have a meeting with secretary Rubio scheduled in New York on the sidelines of the General Assembly,” Lavrov said.
Reports of a US-deployed “on-orbit” weapon confirm that the West has already turned outer space into an extension of the Ukraine battlefield, air defense historian Yuri Knutov tells Sputnik.
US and French reconnaissance satellites are already feeding battlefield intel to Ukraine’s military, with Finland about to join in, reminds the military expert, and Poland plans to deploy its own reconnaissance satellites.
Other countries are developing “inspector” spacecraft built to maneuver close to other satellites to spy on them.
Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite communications and broadband systems are used in space – and guide Ukraine’s drones.
It is fair to say that “an arms race in space is already underway,” says the pundit, and the US space weapons claim seeks to accelerate this orbital race further.
Trump’s costly Golden Dome project, touted as a global missile defense system, fits into the same aggressive vision, the military expert pointed out.
the ground-based tier is a system that has already been partially deployed, capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, including artificial Earth satellites in space
it partly relies on the Aegis system, as well as advanced weapon systems employing new physical principles – electromagnetic guns (that fry spacecraft electronics) and combat lasers (potentially megawatt-class, but so far 300-kilowatt)
space-based tier to feature satellites armed with space-to-space missiles capable of intercepting ballistic missiles and destroying enemy satellites, alongside space-based lasers
“The Americans appear to have already begun building out the space-based arsenal, judging by the US secretary of the Air Force’s remarks,” adds the expert.
Statements such as US Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink’s claim that the United States has deployed an “on-orbit” weapon could have far-reaching consequences, Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, told Sputnik.
Announcing that the US has a space weapon in Earth’s orbit could fuel a dangerous arms race in orbit, the arms control expert warned.
In his opinion, that could set off a cycle of action and counteraction, threatening the satellites and other orbital systems that countries worldwide rely on for communications, navigation and other essential services.
He argued that the world’s major nuclear powers are failing to address growing strategic risks.
The five nuclear-weapon states are not actively discussing concerns over weapons in space, strategies for reducing nuclear risks or measures to halt and reverse the expansion of nuclear arsenals, he noted.
The expert urged the US and other powers to exercise restraint and return to arms-control diplomacy, calling for America to launch bilateral negotiations with both Russia and China to prevent a dangerous buildup in space.
The warning comes as US War Secretary Pete Hegseth has repeatedly stated that space represents the future of warfare, requiring heightened offensive and defensive investments.
Russia has repeatedly underscored that it stands for preserving space as an area exclusively for peaceful activities.
The US has for the first time acknowledged that it has weapons in space amid ongoing tensions with Russia and China.
US Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink revealed the deployment on Monday during the opening of the Air & Space Forces Association’s 2026 Air, Space & Cyber Conference at National Harbor in Maryland.
“Today, we continue to ensure we remain ready to meet the challenge of evolving threats wherever they exist,” Meink said in a keynote address.
“This is why the Space Force now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action,” he said, without elaborating. “It’s important from a deterrence perspective,” he added.
During a question-and-answer session, Meink declined to go into detail, stressing that the phrasing of his remarks was “very well thought out.”
“It is critically important that we maintain our dominance, not only in the air but in space,” he said, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine.
The Washington Post quoted a US official as saying that the technology mentioned by Meink could include the ability to “take out” an enemy satellite if it were being used to target American troops or a US satellite.
There is no international ban on deploying weapons in space, provided they are not weapons of mass destruction.
US President Donald Trump established the Space Force in 2019 during his first term in office, describing space as “the world’s newest warfighting domain.” Last year, he unveiled plans for Golden Dome, a multilayered missile-defense system designed to protect the entire United States that includes space-based interceptors.
The project echoes the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), dubbed Star Wars, launched by President Ronald Reagan at the height of the Cold War in 1983. Reagan’s ambitious program was later scaled back and ultimately abandoned without its proposed space-based weapons being deployed.
In March, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov condemned what he described as “the militarization of space” and argued that the Golden Dome “poses a significant threat to strategic stability.”
Since the 2000s, the US, China, India and Russia have tested anti-satellite weapons. In November 2021, the Russian military successfully destroyed a decommissioned Soviet-era spy satellite. The Russian Foreign Ministry said at the time that the operation was conducted in strict accordance with international law and was not directed against any particular country.
Iran’s top nuclear official has been blocked from addressing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) general conference in Vienna after pressure from Washington, Bloombergreported on 14 September, citing a US official.
Iran’s vice president for nuclear affairs, Mohammad Eslami, left Tehran on Saturday and was slated to address the UN nuclear watchdog as part of its 70th General Conference, which began on Monday.
However, Austria denied Eslami entry at the request of the Trump administration, an anonymous US official told Bloomberg.
A spokeswoman for the Austrian government referred questions over the issue to the Foreign Ministry, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“His attendance and early speaking slot could have been seen as lending credibility to Iran,” Bloomberg wrote.
Meanwhile, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright will be given a platform to speak at the conference. He plans to promote US claims that Iran is seeking to build a nuclear weapon.
While the US has attacked Iranian nuclear facilities, it has never produced evidence that Tehran is developing a nuclear weapon.
Iran has long said its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes and has allowed the IAEA to monitor its activities.
Wright’s planned speech follows a claim from the IAEA that the agency observed nuclear related construction activity at Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain.
President Trump claimed last Wednesday that there was “a little activity at Pickaxe” and warned Iran “not to get cute, because we will have to hit them very hard.”
In response, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said the IAEA and US claims of construction at the site are “part of Washington’s psychological warfare.”
They speak as if a secret and confidential case has been discovered while, in fact, “we are facing fuss for nothing,” Baghaei stated.
Iran submitted a formal request to the IAEA Secretariat to discuss at the conference the topic of “prohibiting all forms of attacks and threats of attack against nuclear sites and facilities that are under Agency safeguards and dedicated to peaceful purposes.”
US influence over the IAEA was apparent last week, when the UN agency referred Iran to the UN Security Council (UNSC) for “non-compliance” with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) treaty.
The board of governors of the UN nuclear watchdog passed a resolution at a meeting in Vienna claiming a lack of information on Iran’s nuclear material and the lack of access to nuclear facilities for IAEA inspectors.
The IAEA resolution was tabled by the UK, France, Germany and the US and called for IAEA chief Rafael Grossi to report Iran to the Security Council.
Representatives of 23 countries on the IAEA board of governors voted to approve the measure, while eight abstained. China, Russia and Niger voted against it.
The US and its European allies will likely use the decision to impose new sanctions on Iran through the Security Council.
However, Russia and China could block such efforts with their vetoes.
Tehran condemned the IAEA decision, saying that US and Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities had disrupted nuclear inspections.
“They attack Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities, disrupt the normal process of verification, and then use that very disruption as a pretext to issue a resolution,” Iranian deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi wrote in a post on X.
The US and Israel targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities during their unprovoked 12-day war on the Islamic Republic in June 2025.
Washington and Tel Aviv renewed their aggression against Tehran during 40 days of intense strikes in February of this year.
In California, gas stations are facing a unique challenge. The station signs are only configured to go up to $9.99 per gallon and at several stations the price of diesel has reached that maximum. Diesel prices are higher than they have ever been in history.
Worse, according to some news reports the advertising of the maximum price of $9.99 per gallon is meant to signal to truck drivers that they have run out of diesel altogether. Expensive diesel is a hit to the economy, but running out of the fuel at any price is a whole different kind of crisis.
Our highways are filled with semi-trucks burning diesel to bring the products we depend on to the markets. Our freight trains use diesel to transport what is not transported by truck. When the price of diesel increases, the cost of everything moved by that diesel also increases. This is one reason we are seeing much more inflation than the government wants to admit.
The diesel crisis is getting so serious that even President Trump has been forced to admit it. Of course, instead of taking at least part of the blame over his war of choice against Iran and his continuation of the proxy war against Russia through Ukraine, he is blaming Ukraine’s military strikes on Russian energy infrastructure.
President Trump is now asking Ukraine to stop attacking Russian energy resources because diesel is a global commodity and the scarcity produced by the attacks is hitting us here at home. But the strikes deep inside Russia are guided by US intelligence, which provides the targeting data for Ukraine.
The Russia/Ukraine war is only part of the problem. Despite President Trump’s bluster about controlling the Strait of Hormuz, the fact is Iran is in control and very little oil – or anything else – makes it out without Iranian approval.
Yemen’s Iran-allied Houthis joining the fight only makes matters worse. Over the weekend they attacked Saudi Arabia’s bypass pipeline, taking much more oil off the market.
The real problem here is not oil or diesel. The real problem is that wars of choice spin out of control and destroy the economies of those who launch them. Empires throughout history have been undone by endless overseas wars. No amount of bragging about the size and strength of our military can change this reality.
Now we are seeing the chickens coming home to roost.
President Trump has justified tanking the US economy by claiming the attack on Iran was essential because they were about to get a nuclear weapon. Our intelligence community disagreed, but he refused to listen and took his cue from Netanyahu instead.
It turns out Iran actually does have a “nuclear weapon.” That weapon is the ability to control the world’s oil flows at a margin high enough to cripple the economies of any country seeking to conquer it. According to press reports, former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard tried to warn President Trump that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz if attacked but he didn’t want to hear it.
The Founders were determined to prevent the executive branch from being able to start wars for this very reason. The “people’s branch” of government – Congress – is where they placed the power to launch wars. We are now seeing the consequences of ignoring their very wise advice.
From The Matt Gaetz Show on OAN (One America News), Matt Gaetz exposes the dishonest double standard in American politics meant to shut down the conversation as support for Israel in the United States continues to collapse. “The Republican Jewish Coalition can say that they took out Thomas Massie but if you say they did, that is anti-Semitic. And if you say Israel caused the Iran War, that’s bigotry—unless it’s uttered by Netanyahu on the campaign trail, then it’s leadership.” – Matt Gaetz.
Every U.S. newborn is offered a shot in the leg in the first hour of life. Parents are rarely told the shot exists until the moment it is about to be given.
The new paperback is out today. It examines that shot.
Twenty-seven chapters walk through what the vitamin K injection actually is, what it contains, what the manufacturers themselves warn against, what the studies did and didn’t find, and where the current framework came from.
The intervention itself. The three products currently in use in English-speaking countries — the U.S. Hospira formulation with its polyoxyethylated castor oil and benzyl alcohol preservative, the UK Konakion MM Paediatric with its glycocholic-acid mixed-micelle vehicle, and the Australian Konakion MM Paediatric with its lecithin base. What each carries alongside the vitamin K itself. The depot vehicle that keeps the injection releasing into the baby’s tissue for two months after the needle comes out. The aluminum contamination the manufacturer discloses without context. The peanut allergy pathway the mainstream literature acknowledges but does not track.
The manufacturer’s own warnings. Every current package insert opens with a boxed warning against the exact route of administration hospitals universally use. Every insert lists a set of adverse reactions — anaphylaxis, cyanosis, gasping syndrome, skin necrosis, cardiovascular collapse — that the doctors administering the shot are largely unaware of and that parents are never shown.
The history. A 1961 AAP recommendation set by a small committee that did not test what it was recommending. A 1985 quiet shift from targeted to universal injection. A 1992 cancer signal from a large UK cohort study that was dismissed rather than investigated. The menadione (K3) disaster that hospitals eventually withdrew — but only by switching products, never by pausing to ask whether the intervention itself was needed. Dam and Doisy’s 1943 Nobel, awarded for work in starved chickens, later used to justify universal injection of healthy newborns.
The alternatives. The oral vitamin K protocols in continuous use in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark. Their dosing schedules, their VKDB failure rates, their published surveillance data. Maternal supplementation as a route the doctors could offer but don’t. The physiologic support at birth that most modern maternity practice has already adopted for other reasons but has never been asked to interact with the shot.
The system machinery. The standing-order framework that bypasses individual consent. What refusal actually costs the parent, and what it usually doesn’t cost the baby. The circumcision-clotting interaction that turns one cultural habit into justification for another.
Two personal stories. A father’s account of what happened after his son’s shot. A mother’s account of what changed the week the injection was administered.
Two practical tools. A checklist of questions for the practitioner conversation. A country-by-country reference of the oral protocols with dosing, timing, and documented outcomes.
And at the end of every chapter, a short section titled How to Explain It to a Six-Year-Old.
Excess mortality researcher Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., on Tuesday told Canadian lawmakers that national mortality statistics show “screaming safety signals” following the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines — including increases in deaths among infants and children and increases in turbo cancers.
Testifying at Canada’s Allison Inquiry, Rancourt also argued that COVID-19-era government interventions — including lockdowns, isolating the elderly, closing businesses and withdrawing government support programs — also drove excess mortality during the pandemic.
Rancourt based his arguments on his analysis of official mortality data from Statistics Canada and in the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). He described how COVID-19 vaccines directly harmed individuals, and how specific pandemic policies caused broader societal harm.
His presentation came on the opening day of the Allison Inquiry, a four-day hearing chaired by Canadian Member of Parliament Dean Allison. The inquiry collected testimony from 50 Canadians injured by COVID-19 vaccines, along with testimony from physicians, scientists and other witnesses.
4,000 excess infant deaths in the U.S. alone
Infant mortality had been declining in the U.S. before the pandemic. That trend reversed during the pandemic, according to Rancourt’s data — but not until 2022, nine months after COVID-19 vaccination was recommended for pregnant women.
Rancourt estimated the change represented approximately 4,000 excess infant deaths in the U.S. from 2022 to 2024.
He presented a similar case for Canada, although the raw numbers were much lower due to the smaller population. After Canada issued its vaccine guidance for pregnant women on May 28, 2021, he said mortality rose among infants, with a marked increase nine months after the recommendations.
He estimated there were 200 excess infant deaths in Canada during that time, with 10 excess pregnancy-related deaths.
Data show 2,000+ excess deaths among 1- to 4-year-olds in U.S.
Rancourt identified more than 2,000 excess deaths among children ages 1-4 in the U.S. between 2021 and 2024.
He attributed an initial increase in 2021 partly to the abrupt withdrawal of federal financial assistance in some states.
But Rancourt said the largest increase coincided with the June 17, 2022, authorization of COVID-19 vaccines for young children. Excess deaths peaked precisely with the vaccine rollout.
Canadian mortality data showed a similar age-specific pattern. Rancourt shared mortality trends for Canadian children ages 1-4, 5-9 and 10-14, showing each group experienced a pronounced increase during the year COVID-19 vaccines became available for that particular age group.
The spikes in excess mortality were “very sudden,” he said. The increases did not occur during the first two years of the pandemic, he emphasized.
“As soon as you vaccinated these age groups and not before, not when there was COVID, not in the first two years of the pandemic. But when you started vaccinating them, that is the signature that you see in the mortality [data],” Rancourt said. “It’s absolutely stunning.”
He estimated 410 excess deaths among Canadian children ages 1-14.
‘Turbo cancers’ and excess cancer deaths
Rancourt said that rapidly progressing cancers, also called “turbo cancers,” are not a new phenomenon. Scientific literature on “hyperprogressive disease,” or HPD, has reported such cancers in some patients undergoing immunotherapy since 2015, when the new treatments became available.
However, excess mortality data now show signals of an unusually aggressive increase in cancer mortality following the vaccine rollouts, according to Rancourt.
Rancourt identified more than 4,000 excess cancer deaths among Americans ages 5-44 during the study period. An estimated 960 of those were among young people ages 5-24. He highlighted a sharp increase in deaths from cancers of the long bones and limbs.
Rancourt called the increase “definitely a safety signal.”
He also estimated that 240 excess deaths among Americans ages 25-44 involved multiple primary cancers — separate primary tumors occurring in different organs rather than a single cancer metastasizing to other parts of the body.
Approximately 1,500 excess deaths due to these cancers occurred in people 75 and older. He said his research group has observed similar signals in Canada, but researchers are still analyzing those data.
It’s not just the vaccines — pandemic policies also linked to excess deaths
The second half of Rancourt’s presentation focused on an argument his research group has built over several years of excess mortality analysis — that government policy responses to COVID-19 caused excess mortality.
For example, his research team examined more than 80 province-specific socioeconomic variables in Canada to determine which were linked to excess mortality.
They found that excess mortality correlated strongly with GDP per capita. “The more wealth generation you have in the province, the more excess deaths you have,” he said.
He surmised that when the economy shut down in provinces with vibrant economies, it had devastating effects on workers and their families.
Policies designed to protect elderly contributed to their deaths
Rancourt compared weekly excess mortality with an Oxford University index measuring the intensity of measures intended to protect elderly people, including isolation and lockdown policies.
Increases in the severity of those measures corresponded with large mortality peaks, Rancourt said. Those peaks were then followed by periods of unusually low mortality.
“And that’s because you’ve killed so many people in that first peak that there’s less people of that age to die in the weeks that follow,” he said. “That’s called the dry tinder effect.”
He interpreted the pattern as evidence that measures intended to protect elderly Canadians instead contributed to their deaths.
During questioning after his presentation, Rancourt was asked whether that meant elderly people should not have been isolated and locked down.
“Absolutely,” he responded.
Rancourt said social isolation and severe stress can have profound physiological effects, particularly among vulnerable populations.
“If you had not tried to save the elderly by isolating them and locking them in” the mortality outcome would have been different, he said.
“You have to know that isolation kills,” he said. “This is unambiguous.”
Cutting financial support also correlated with deaths
Rancourt said another mortality signal appeared when governments withdrew pandemic-era financial assistance.
Canada and the U.S. initially provided enormous financial support to workers and families after governments shut down large portions of the economy.
Those programs were so effective that poverty actually declined in Canada during 2020 and 2021, when more than $1 trillion was given out, Rancourt said.
But mortality increased following major reductions in financial assistance, according to the data he presented.
“It’s worse if you give money, if you give support and you cut it, it’s worse than if you’d never given it,” Rancourt said.
No evidence of viral pandemic, Rancourt argued
Rancourt said his team’s all-cause mortality research across North America and Europe failed to show the mortality pattern that would be expected if a spreading respiratory virus were the primary cause of excess mortality.
Rancourt described the spread in mortality as “geostatic,” rather than “geotemporal” — meaning mortality sometimes appeared to peak in one geographic location without spreading into neighboring regions.
As an example, he cited the dramatic differences between the area around Milan in northern Italy, which experienced massive early mortality spikes, and Rome, which had no comparable event.
Both cities had similar demographics and similar types of exposure — through international airports and other types of transportation networks — but very different outcomes.
If there had been a viral disease, they should have seen a similar type of spread and similar mortality rates.
“Identical systems, identical types of societies, just as many poor, high-density urban areas,” he said.
Rancourt said the geographic patterns were “inconsistent with the accepted theory of how a virus spreads” through person-to-person respiratory transmission.
‘Assaults’ drove excess mortality, ‘not a virus’
Rancourt ended his presentation by telling the members of the inquiry that his research led him to conclude that government policies and toxic vaccines were to blame for excess deaths in the COVID-19 period.
He said:
“History will record that the COVID period was, in effect, a massive and unnecessary multifaceted assault against people, exploiting fear and causing harm, injury and death, especially in the most vulnerable. All governments under U.S. hegemony and media influence cooperated or imitated. Canada was no exception.
“The vaccines are toxic and caused many deaths and injuries in plain sight of robust national statistics.”
He listed economic shutdowns, fear, mandates, isolation, medical interventions and vaccination among the “assaults” that he believes, based on the data he analyzed, caused excess mortality.
Rancourt singled out COVID-19 vaccination as the most devastating. Unlike other pandemic measures, it involved administering a pharmaceutical product directly to large numbers of healthy as well as vulnerable people, including elderly people, pregnant women and children.
Rancourt conceded that excess mortality data cannot, on their own, conclusively prove what caused individual deaths. He argued instead that uncertainty about causation should not become a reason to ignore unusual population-level signals.
“Science can never prove causality,” Rancourt said. But institutional capture can “always minimize and invalidate screaming safety signals and personal hardship.”
The patterns he presented should have triggered investigation and changes in government policy, he said.
“These are the signals I showed you today,” Rancourt said. They “needed to be acknowledged right away and used to change government and medical establishment behavior.”
This essay engages material framed in establishment terms: vaccines, immunity, deficiencies, contagion, developmental disorders. In quotation, attribution, and official body names, that vocabulary appears as the establishment uses it. In my own analytical voice, the terrain paradigm operates. The two registers do different work. One shows what the profession says about itself. The other names what is happening to the child.
The Training
“Nothing bad should be said about any vaccine.”¹ That is what Suzanne Humphries, a board-certified nephrologist, was taught during her American medical training. Vaccines are administered on schedule. Adverse conversation was not encouraged. It was actively closed down.
Lawrence Palevsky, a pediatrician practicing in New York, describes the same experience. What he was taught in medical school and residency, he later realized, differed sharply from what he observed in his own patients and read in the primary literature.²
Robert Sears, a California pediatrician, describes reading a book in medical school that documented severe injuries from the DTP (diphtheria-tetanus-whole-cell-pertussis) vaccine. The vaccine was eventually removed from the American market. Sears kept reading. What he found was not what he had been taught.³
Rachael Ross, a family physician who spent three seasons cohosting the syndicated show The Doctors, described a similar reckoning in a widely read 2016 blog post. She had watched the schedule grow from sixteen doses of four vaccines during her own childhood to sixty-nine doses of sixteen vaccines by age eighteen. Medical school and residency, she wrote, had taught her to give them all on time, without question.⁴
Jayne Donegan, a British general practitioner, wrote in the foreword to Humphries’ Dissolving Illusions that her medical training left vaccination as an “article of faith” that could not be interrogated. The curriculum was already so crowded that there was no room to ask why non-vaccine-preventable disease deaths had also declined during the twentieth century for reasons unrelated to any injection.⁵
None of these physicians is fringe. Each trained inside the profession. Each describes the training in similar terms: a set of scripts about safety, efficacy, and schedule, delivered as certainties, with no time in the curriculum to interrogate the primary literature that would complicate them. A pediatrician does not know what she was trained not to know. She cannot ask questions she was trained not to ask.
American pediatric practice covers the child from birth through age eighteen, and in many practices through age twenty-one. What follows is a chronological walk through what that profession was trained not to tell you, across that entire arc. Thirteen items. In order.
1. The Cord Cut Before the Blood Finished Moving (birth)
A newborn’s blood volume is meant to be topped off from the placenta in the minutes after birth. When the cord is left intact and pulsing, roughly a third of the baby’s total blood supply, along with the iron that supply carries, transfers across before the placenta is expelled. That iron is the reserve intended to carry the child through the first six months of life.
The standard hospital practice throughout the late twentieth century was to clamp within seconds. The World Health Organization now recommends waiting at least one minute. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists came around in 2017. Most hospital deliveries in the United States still clamp early, driven by workflow, the neonatal warmer schedule, and the syringe already on the tray.
Your pediatrician does not raise this. The obstetrical team performed the clamp. The pediatrician receives the baby afterward and plots the numbers she is given. The infant she inherits is the infant who lost a third of the placental transfusion at hour zero.
Six months later, that same pediatrician will run an iron level, note the low result, and prescribe supplementation. The low reading she treats was produced by the system at birth. She is not trained to draw the line between the two events. She is trained to run the number and write the script.
The curious pediatrician would ask what a child born with a full complement of placental blood looks like at six months. The compliant pediatrician cannot ask, because the reference population she was trained on is the population that was clamped early.
Within hours of birth, the newborn receives an intramuscular injection of phytonadione, the compound sold as vitamin K1. The dose is one milligram. Breast milk carries roughly one to two micrograms of phytonadione per liter, and a newborn’s colostrum intake on day one delivers a fraction of a microgram; the injection is thousands of times that dose, and the published pediatric literature confirms that plasma phytonadione levels for two weeks after the shot run one to two thousand times higher than normal adult values. The injection also contains benzyl alcohol, polysorbate 80, and propylene glycol as excipients. The delivery site is the infant’s leg. The parent, if consulted at all, is told the shot prevents a bleeding condition called hemorrhagic disease of the newborn.
The condition exists. What is not explained is why. Newborn phytonadione levels are low at birth by design; the compound is produced by the gut bacteria that colonize the infant’s digestive tract in the first days, and levels rise on the biological schedule the infant’s body follows. Levels are further supported by the maternal transfer that continues through breastfeeding. The “deficiency” the injection corrects is the state a healthy newborn is meant to occupy for the first days of life while the gut ecology establishes itself.⁶
The bleeding events the injection is designed to prevent cluster in infants who have been subjected to the standard hospital birth sequence: early cord clamping, which strips the placental transfusion of clotting factors; maternal medications passed through delivery; the injection itself as a source of tissue injury; and, in male infants, circumcision. The intervention creates the conditions in which bleeding becomes more likely, then presents itself as the solution to the problem it has helped produce.
Two forms of the shot exist. The oral form is available in some countries and delivers a smaller dose across three administrations in the first weeks of life. The intramuscular form is the American standard. The intramuscular form has been associated in the published literature with elevated rates of childhood cancer, a finding disputed by subsequent industry-funded studies but never resolved. The oral form does not appear in that literature.⁷
This is the first injection. It is the moment at which the infant’s body, hours old, receives an industrial compound at pharmacological doses that no biology has any history with, into a system that has been producing its own supply on schedule for as long as human infants have been born. It is also the moment at which bodily sovereignty is handed over: the first substance introduced by needle before the first feed, before the first look at the mother’s face, before any element of the child’s own biology has had time to establish itself. The parent is rarely told what phytonadione is, where it comes from, what else is in the syringe, or that an oral alternative exists. The consent process is a signature.
Your pediatrician was trained that hemorrhagic disease is prevented by the injection. She was not trained to ask why the disease clusters in the population subjected to the delivery-room sequence, or what a newborn’s clotting profile looks like when the earlier interventions never happened.
3. The Hepatitis B Shot Before the First Feed (first day)
Hepatitis B, in the establishment’s account, is transmitted through blood-to-blood contact or sexual contact. In the United States it is given as an injection to every newborn within twenty-four hours of birth, regardless of the mother’s status. Denmark, which shares its borders with high-travel Europe, gives the shot only to infants born to mothers who carry the condition themselves.⁸
The safety claim rests on clinical trials. Those trials, for hepatitis B and for the childhood schedule generally, do not compare the vaccine to an inert placebo. The comparator is another aluminum-adjuvanted formulation, or a different vaccine, or the “background” mixture of the product minus the antigen. Adverse events in the “placebo” arm therefore match adverse events in the vaccine arm, because both arms received a substance that produces adverse events. The trial reports that the vaccine is “safe compared to placebo.” The label reflects the conclusion. What the label does not reflect is that the placebo was not a placebo. This is the load-bearing methodology under every safety claim on the childhood schedule. No vaccine on the schedule has been tested against saline in a pediatric population large enough to detect serious harm.⁹
The consent process at the American bedside is not consent. The mother has just given birth. The Vaccine Information Statement is handed over as the needle is prepared. The package insert, which contains the excipients, the adverse event history, and the acknowledged absence of long-term studies, is not offered. The CDC itself states that the Vaccine Information Statement is not an informed-consent document.¹⁰
The Belmont Report, drafted after the 1974 Research Act, identifies the three components of ethical consent: information, comprehension, and voluntariness.¹¹ The pamphlet handed to the mother is not information. The mother in her eighteenth hour of labor cannot comprehend the pamphlet even if she reads it. The room in which declining is coded as neglect does not offer voluntariness.
The Emergency Use Authorization products marketed for children under twelve during the COVID period had blank package inserts.¹² There was no clinical trial data to disclose. There was nothing to comprehend. The consent form still had a signature line.
Your pediatrician does not raise the Belmont Report. She does not know it exists. She was trained to hand over a pamphlet. Consent, as the Belmont Report defines it, was not part of the training.
Boys born in American hospitals are commonly circumcised within the first forty-eight hours of life. The procedure is elective, performed on healthy tissue, without therapeutic indication. The device most commonly used to hold the infant during the procedure is called the Circumstraint, a plastic form that immobilizes the baby’s arms and legs so the surgeon can work.
Forrest Maready has written on what happens inside the infant’s body during this event.¹³ Three triggers activate the dorsal vagal complex simultaneously: the injected local anesthetic registers as chemical intrusion, the incision as tissue injury, and the strap and plastic form as restraint. The infant cannot fight and cannot flee. Under sustained restraint, the primal system routes into shutdown. Images of babies on the Circumstraint mid-procedure show glassed-over eyes and a stillness that is not calm. It is dissociation, the same primal response animals and reptiles exhibit under capture, and the same response World War I soldiers exhibited when frozen in place under sustained fire.
The procedure requires written consent. It does not require informed consent. Parents are not shown the Circumstraint, or what dorsal vagal shutdown looks like. They are told the boy will not remember.
Whether the child remembers with his cortex is beside the point. The body remembers with its wiring. Maready traces the same trigger pattern, the same shutdown response, in the shots administered later, where the parent’s or nurse’s restraint constitutes the third trigger and delivers the injected metals into a body whose lymphatic system is now primed to transport them.
Your pediatrician was not trained in polyvagal theory. The circumcision was billed separately, performed by a different practitioner, and by the time she sees the child for the first well-baby visit, the file is closed and the incision has healed.
5. The Formula Sample in the Discharge Bag (first weeks)
Breast milk is more than food. It is a continuation of the mother’s biology into the infant. It delivers living stem cells, signalling molecules, protective proteins, and dozens of maternal components the infant’s biology integrates into its own.¹⁴ Colostrum in the first days carries a concentration of maternal material no manufactured product can replicate. The list of components identified in breast milk grows every year.
What formula provides is a mix of macronutrients dissolved in vegetable oils, built from cow’s milk protein or soy. It is what a mother feeds her baby when the biology cannot function or when she has no other option. It is not equivalent to what it replaces.
Formula recommendation frequently begins in the hospital. If the baby is slow to latch, if the mother is exhausted, if the nursing staff has other beds to turn over, a bottle of formula appears. The discharge bag contains a formula sample. The pediatrician’s office keeps sample cans for the first well-baby visit. What the office does not keep is a lactation consultant on staff.
The consultant costs money. The formula is provided by the manufacturer. The infrastructure of the American pediatric practice is built around the availability of formula and the absence of professional breastfeeding support. When troubleshooting is needed, the referral goes to a private lactation consultant the family pays for out of pocket, or, more commonly, the referral does not go anywhere and the mother receives a can of Similac.
The pediatrician was trained to identify failure to thrive. She was not trained to identify a poor latch, an undiagnosed tongue tie, engorgement, mastitis, or the constellation of ordinary breastfeeding difficulties that resolve with skilled support. The training treated breastfeeding as a preference and formula as a substitute of equivalent value. Neither claim survives the primary literature.
At every visit, the baby is weighed and measured. The numbers are plotted against a curve. The pediatrician announces the percentile. Anything below the fiftieth is met with concern. Anything below the tenth triggers supplementation, formula, referrals, and repeat visits.
The curve is a statistical instrument. It plots where a population’s babies actually fell, not where healthy babies should fall. The reference standards against which most American pediatricians still work were built substantially on formula-fed populations, until the World Health Organization revised its curves in 2006 based on breastfed infants. A breastfed baby, whose weight-gain curve flattens naturally after four to six months, tracks below the older references and appears to be failing. The formula-fed baby was the standard against which the breastfed baby was measured and labeled as failing to thrive.
The percentile is not a diagnosis. Half of all babies are, by definition, below the fiftieth percentile. This is what percentiles are. The pediatrician’s alarm at the number is not a medical judgment. It is a script triggered by a chart.
The mother leaves the visit worried about her baby’s weight. She adds a bottle. The pediatrician marks the intervention on the record. At the next visit, if the number has climbed, the intervention is validated. If it has not, the recommendation escalates. More bottles. Iron drops. Cereal at four months. Formula-based supplementation.
The chart does not measure the child’s thriving. It measures her position relative to a reference population that was itself constructed by earlier interventions. The chart manufactures the pathology it then addresses.
The four-month or six-month iron level comes back low. The pediatrician prescribes ferrous sulfate drops or recommends iron-fortified cereal. The parent complies. The drops stain the baby’s teeth, alter the stool, and are frequently spit up. The parent gives them anyway because the pediatrician said the number was low.
The number was low because the placenta was cut early. The reference range was developed on infants who were also cut early. The whole system, from delivery-room workflow to the reference range on the lab printout, was calibrated around interventions that removed the natural iron reserve at birth.
The intervention at hour zero produced the finding at month six that justifies the intervention at month six.
Ferrous sulfate is an industrial iron compound the infant’s body has no biological history with. It is aggressive on the gut lining, contributes to constipation, and drives oxidative stress the six-month-old is developmentally ill-equipped to buffer. The clinical trials on infant iron supplementation are almost entirely funded by the manufacturers of the supplements themselves or the cereals into which those supplements are compounded.
Iron in the form the child’s biology expects arrives packaged inside whole foods: liver, red meat, egg yolk, shellfish. These are the traditional first foods documented by Weston Price across traditional cultures around the world.¹⁵ None of Price’s cultures gave their infants iron drops. None of Price’s cultures produced the infants the American pediatric system labels as low in iron at six months.
Your pediatrician was trained in the intervention. She was not trained in what a child looks like when the intervention is not needed because the earlier interventions never happened.
The child has an earache. The pediatrician looks in the ear, notes the red drum, and writes a script for amoxicillin. Ten days. The ear improves. Three weeks later, the ear is red again. Another course. By eighteen months, the child has been on four rounds of antibiotics. The referral to ENT for tubes is in the file.
A 1994 study in Annals of Allergy identified food allergy in 78 percent of a series of 104 children with recurrent middle-ear fluid. Of the food-allergic group, 86 percent showed significant reduction on a sixteen-week elimination diet; when the offending foods were reintroduced, 94 percent recurred. The common offenders were cow’s milk, eggs, wheat, corn, soy, and peanuts.¹⁶ Children with undiagnosed cow’s milk allergy are roughly twice as likely to have recurrent ear problems. The ENT specialist David Hurst has spent his career documenting that allergy is the primary driver of chronic middle-ear fluid, and that aggressive allergy management resolves most cases.¹⁷
Your pediatrician does not ask about the child’s diet. She does not ask whether the ear inflammation clusters after certain foods. She writes the amoxicillin. The amoxicillin, over successive courses, does documented damage to the child’s gut ecology, contributing to the food sensitizations that will produce the next allergy diagnosis and the next inflammation and the next round of prescriptions.¹⁸
Heather Fraser has documented the loop.¹⁹ Antibiotic exposure is associated with elevated risk of food allergy. The food allergy drives the inflammation that produces the fluid that invites the prescription. The prescription drives the next allergy. The pediatrician sees the ear. The pediatrician does not see the loop.
9. The Autism Screening at Eighteen Months (eighteen to twenty-four months)
The M-CHAT is administered at the eighteen-month and twenty-four-month well-child visits. It is a screening questionnaire designed to catch signs of autism early. Parents whose children screen positive are referred for further evaluation.
By eighteen months, an American child following the CDC schedule has received over twenty vaccine doses. The MMR is typically administered at twelve to fifteen months. The pattern of parental accounts documented across the literature is consistent: the child was developing normally, received the shots at fifteen to eighteen months, and regressed.²⁰
J.B. Handley’s son Jamison is one such case. At eighteen months, Jamison was sick, never sleeping, gut in distress, alternating between diarrhea and constipation. His behavior had shifted. He ran along walls turning his eyes to the side, spun in circles, and played with his trains in odd ways. He had been an early talker, but the words had disappeared. UCSF confirmed the diagnosis: autism, the severe kind. The presiding doctor told the family to expect institutionalization. Within two weeks of beginning biomedical treatment under a different physician, Jamison’s belly had flattened, his eye contact was returning, and the dark circles under his eyes were clearing.²¹ The pattern that took his family months to piece together is the pattern the M-CHAT is designed to detect after the fact.
The screening does not prevent autism. It catches autism after the damage is measurable. It is a diagnostic backstop, timed to the developmental window in which regression is typically noticed, which is the same developmental window in which the schedule delivers its heaviest early load.
The rate is now one in thirty-one American children.²² A fully vaccinated Danish child receives thirty doses of vaccine against ten diseases across childhood, delivered in eleven injections thanks to multivalent combinations. A fully vaccinated American child, as of 2024, received between eighty-four and eighty-eight doses against seventeen diseases.²³ The pediatrician who administers the M-CHAT does not draw this comparison. She was trained that autism is genetic, that the cause is unknown, and that no controlled comparison of fully vaccinated versus never-vaccinated populations has ever been conducted. The last of these is true. The absence of the study is itself the finding.
The screening timing is the confession. The system knows when regression happens. The system built the screening around that window. What the system does not do is investigate the exposures delivered during the same window.
The Intervention Cascade: How Modern Medicine Creates the Birth Emergencies It Claims to Prevent (Part 2)
10. The Tonsillectomy Recommendation (early childhood)
The child has recurrent throat inflammation, or the tonsils appear enlarged, or the sleep is poor. The pediatrician refers to ENT. The ENT recommends removal. The parents comply.
During the American polio era, fifty to eighty percent of middle- and upper-class American children were tonsillectomized. Anderson’s 1943 Utah data showed that poliomyelitis was more than 2.5 times as common in tonsillectomized children. Bulbar polio, the form that paralyzed the muscles of breathing and swallowing, was sixteen times more common. Forty-three percent of the bulbar and bulbospinal cases had been preceded by a tonsillectomy within thirty days.²⁴ After the connection surfaced in the medical literature, tonsillectomy rates collapsed. The procedure never recovered its earlier prevalence, though it remains common enough to be a routine referral.
The tonsils are lymphatic tissue. They are part of the body’s cleansing and repair infrastructure, positioned at the entry point of the digestive and respiratory tracts to sample what comes in and to house the response. Removing them because they are inflamed is comparable to removing a filter because it is doing its job.
The recurrent throat problems have a driver. Maready has documented one pattern in the sudden-onset behavioral and neurological conditions labeled PANDAS and PANS (Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal infections, and Pediatric Acute-onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome). Aluminum from prior vaccinations creates a metal burden in the brain and lymphatic system. A subsequent inflammatory event produces a sudden onset of behavioral and neurological symptoms.²⁵ Removing the tonsils and giving antibiotics produces temporary relief. The underlying loop persists.
Your pediatrician was trained to identify the surgical indication. She was not trained to ask what the tonsils were responding to, or what the removal costs the child in the years afterward when the filter that used to sample the air is no longer there.
The teacher flags the boy. His mother takes him to the pediatrician. A screening tool is administered. The prescription follows. Ritalin, Adderall, Vyvanse, Concerta. The child is medicated through the school day.
The DSM criteria for ADHD are behavioral. There is no biomarker. There is no imaging finding required for the diagnosis. There is no laboratory test. The condition is defined by the behavior and validated by the response to the stimulant, which by design produces focus and compliance in almost any child regardless of underlying condition.
Maready has proposed that the behavioral pattern derives from damage to a small brainstem structure called the locus coeruleus, which regulates the release of norepinephrine and mediates the fight-or-flight response.²⁶ Damage produces hypersensitivity and continuous norepinephrine release. The child is locked in a low-grade panic state. He cannot sit still because his body is preparing for a threat that never resolves. The gut problems that frequently accompany the ADHD presentation follow from the same diversion of resources away from digestion. Many parents notice that their child’s behavior improves markedly during a fever, which fits the same mechanism: the locus coeruleus diverts its norepinephrine output to raising body temperature, giving the child a temporary respite from the constant stress signal.²⁷
The metals implicated in the damage, in Maready’s account, are the aluminum-based adjuvants injected in the leg during infancy and transported by the lymphatic system toward the brainstem.²⁸ Studies have documented elevated aluminum in the hair of children diagnosed with hyperactivity. The stimulant does not address the damage. It masks the presentation by driving further neurotransmitter release, in the way that pressing harder on a broken accelerator does not fix the car.
The pediatrician was trained in the diagnostic criteria and the medication. She was not trained in the injection pathway, the lymphatic transport, or the brainstem lesion. The prescription pad was faster than the investigation.
The teenage girl is depressed. Her pediatrician writes the SSRI. American pediatric and family practice are the frontline prescribers of adolescent SSRIs; referral to a child psychiatrist happens only for complex cases. The FDA’s own black-box warning, added in 2004, states that these compounds increase suicidal ideation in children and adolescents. The warning appears on the label. It is rarely raised in the conversation before the script is signed.
In 2012, GlaxoSmithKline paid three billion dollars to settle claims that it had downplayed the risk of paroxetine, marketed as Paxil, in adolescents.²⁹ The company had promoted the drug for uses the FDA had not approved and had withheld safety data. The settlement was the largest healthcare fraud settlement in American history at the time. Nearly every major pharmaceutical company has been caught in comparable settlements. The prescriptions kept flowing.
Teenage depression has risen sharply during the period in which the pediatric schedule expanded, the smartphone was placed in every hand, sleep was compressed, sunlight exposure collapsed, gut ecology was serially disrupted by antibiotic courses, and the food supply was reengineered around industrial seed oils and ultra-processed carbohydrates. Each of these has documented effects on mood and cognition. None is investigated at the sixteen-year-old’s medication appointment.
The SSRI is not a diagnosis. It is a management protocol. It changes what the neurotransmitter machinery is doing without asking what damaged the machinery in the first place. The teen who does not respond gets a second SSRI. The teen who responds badly gets an antipsychotic added. The teen who spirals gets hospitalized. The chart records the diagnosis codes and the medication trials. The chart does not record what happened to the child between age one and age fourteen.
Your pediatrician was trained to identify depression and to prescribe the first-line medication. She was not trained to ask what a healthy sixteen-year-old looks like, or what would have to change in the child’s life for the depression to resolve without the compound.
What to Ask Before Your Next Antidepressant Prescription
The eleven-year-old girl is offered the HPV vaccine at her pediatric well-visit; American pediatric care runs through adolescence, and the HPV series is a scheduled pediatric-office item. In many practices, the shot is bundled with the meningococcal and Tdap boosters at the same visit, an arrangement the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends explicitly to improve series completion.³⁰ The practice’s incentive is to have the teenager walk out with all three.
The clinical trials submitted for HPV vaccine approval did not use saline as the placebo. The comparator was the aluminum adjuvant, which produces its own inflammatory and neurological effects.³¹ The trials measured precancerous lesions, not cervical cancer, which develops on a timeline decades longer than the trials ran. The insert states that the product has not been evaluated for carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.³²
The injury patterns reported after HPV vaccination include postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, seizures, chronic fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, motor symptoms, and premature ovarian failure. Mary Holland has documented individual cases in detail. Alexis Wolf was thirteen when she started the series in 2007. After the second dose her health deteriorated. After the third she could no longer focus, sleep, eat, or behave normally. Today, at twenty-five, she has daily seizures. Colton Berrett was thirteen when he received the third dose. He became paralyzed from the neck down and remained on a ventilator until his suicide, two months before his eighteenth birthday. Joel Gomez was fourteen when he died in his sleep after the second dose.³³
The American pediatric office does not present the trial design. It does not present the package insert. The pediatrician was trained that Gardasil prevents cervical cancer. That claim is not supported by the trials. The claim she was trained to make is the claim she makes.
In Japan, after the injury patterns became public, uptake dropped from around seventy percent to under one percent.³⁴ The Japanese Ministry of Health withdrew its active recommendation. Girls in Japan are still eligible to receive the shot. Their parents are informed. Most decline.
The HPV Lie: Pap Smears, Gardasil, and a Cancer Caused by Something Else
Thirteen items across one childhood, all delivered by the same profession and shaped by the same training.
The nurse walks in with the shot tray already prepared. A Vaccine Information Statement is handed over as the needle is uncapped. The growth chart appears on the monitor and a percentile is announced. The developmental questionnaire sits on the clipboard. Next shots are read off the schedule. Questions raised meet a script. Parents who decline meet a second script. Parents who persist are fired from the practice.
None of this measures whether the child is thriving. The visit measures whether the child is on schedule for the shots, the screenings, the growth curve, the developmental milestones, and the medication trials. The well-child visit is a compliance check. It has been a compliance check for as long as most parents alive today have been alive. What changed is the length of the compliance list, which as of 2024 ran to eighty-four to eighty-eight doses covering seventeen diseases, an autism screening at eighteen months, a stimulant prescription at seven, an SSRI at fourteen, and a Gardasil dose at eleven.
The pediatrician cannot do the health check because she was not trained for it. She was trained to plot, prescribe, inject, refer, screen, code, and bill. The health check is what a curious pediatrician would do. The profession does not produce curious pediatricians. It produces compliant ones, because the training rewards compliance and punishes curiosity, and the compliant pediatrician takes home the same salary whether the child in front of her is thriving or not.
The mother in the exam room is the one who has to do the health check. She has to hold the developmental history the chart does not track. She has to notice what changed after which appointment. She has to ask what the pediatrician was trained not to ask. She has to know what a healthy child looks like, because the person paid to know does not.
How To Explain It To A 6 Year Old
Imagine a driving school where the students learn one thing. They learn the map. Every morning, the teacher hands out the map. It shows every road and every turn.
The students memorize the map. When they get their driver’s license, they can drive the map perfectly.
They cannot, however, look out the window.
Looking out the window was not on the map. Looking out the window is not what the driving school taught. If a dog runs into the road, the map does not have a dog. If the tire goes flat, the map does not have a tire. The students keep driving the map. They drive right through the dog. They drive on the flat tire until the wheel comes off.
If you asked one of these drivers why they did not stop, they would say the map said to keep going.
Your pediatrician has a map. It is called the schedule. It tells her which shots to give and which drops to prescribe and which screenings to run and at which age. She learned the map very well and can drive it in her sleep. She was not taught to look out the window.
The window is your child. The window is what your child looked like last week and what your child looks like this week. The window is what changed after the last appointment. The window is whether your child is thriving, or is quietly, slowly becoming someone the map does not have space for.
You are the one at the window. Your pediatrician is at the map. Both of you are trying to help your child. Only one of you can see her.
Medical Disclaimer
This essay is a work of analysis and commentary. It is not medical advice. It is not a prescription. It is not a substitute for the judgment of a practitioner who knows your child. Decisions about vaccination, medication, surgery, and pediatric care belong to the parent and to the practitioner the parent chooses. The purpose of this essay is to widen the frame of what a parent knows before those decisions are made.
In Print
Thirteen of my books are now available as paperbacks, printed to order through Lulu and shipped worldwide. The Unvaccinated lays out the completely unvaccinated as a comparison group across twenty chapters and five appendices — as far as I know, the only book of its kind. Medicalized Motherhood follows a woman through 123 documented interventions from teenage pill to postpartum discharge. Drilling for Profit argues that cavities, gum disease, and crooked teeth are a dietary problem the dental profession treats surgically. What Your Vet Can’t Tell You applies the same critique to pets — food, vaccines, and a profession trained by the industries whose products cause the harm. Escape from Psychiatry documents the fabrication of the DSM, the collapse of the serotonin hypothesis, and the specific damage done by every major psychiatric drug class.
Two go to the paradigm underneath the whole shelf. No Contagion, co-authored with Jamie Andrews, catalogues 258 failed contagion experiments and the case against germ theory itself. No Virus takes the examination one layer deeper — the isolation problem, the collapse of virology’s foundational claims, and a disease-by-disease reappraisal of the entities the framework is built on.
Four take on the remedies and paradigm questions mainstream medicine actively suppresses. The DMSO Book covers 100,000 studies, zero deaths, and one approval — the suppressed science of medicine’s most versatile compound. Chlorine Dioxide: The Forbidden Remedy collects the interviews, protocols, and evidence from the doctors and researchers they tried to silence. The Iodine Book recovers an essential mineral driven out of easy reach by bromide, fluoride, and perchlorate — and the pharmacological tradition that kept its therapeutic use alive across the decades mainstream medicine set it aside. The Hydrogen Peroxide Book recovers a century of practice with a compound the body already makes — mitochondrial, phagocytic, part of thyroid hormone synthesis — suppressed precisely because its clinical utility threatened the pharmaceutical direction that captured twentieth-century medicine.
Two more take on the remedies already in your kitchen. Baking Soda locates sodium bicarbonate inside the terrain framework industrial medicine buried — the compound already in your cupboard, and what it does at the level of the blood, kidneys, lungs, digestion, and skin. The Castor Oil Book recovers four thousand years of documented practice on the medicine mainstream healthcare quietly stopped talking about — the kitchen bottle that doesn’t sit well in a system built on prescriptions and procedures.
A physical book reaches the person a Substack post never will — the sceptical relative, the friend who won’t click a link but might open a book, the visitor whose eye lands on a coffee table. The full shelf is at lulu.com/spotlight/unbekoming. Buy one to keep, and one to give away.
References
Suzanne Humphries, quoted in J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2018).
Lawrence Palevsky, quoted in J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic.
Robert Sears, quoted in J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic.
Jayne L. M. Donegan, Foreword to Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History (2013).
Thomas Cowan, Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness (Chelsea Green, 2018), on newborn phytonadione biology and gut colonization.
Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, Dissolving Illusions, on intramuscular versus oral vitamin K administration and the childhood cancer literature.
J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic, on the Danish Childhood Vaccination Program.
J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic, on the corrupted placebo methodology across the pediatric vaccine trial literature.
CDC, “Vaccine Information Statements: Frequently Asked Questions,” in Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (Pink Book), 14th edition, Appendix C.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (1979), cited in Edward Geehr, Unavoidably Unsafe.
Edward Geehr, Unavoidably Unsafe, on Emergency Use Authorization and blank package inserts.
Forrest Maready, Crooked: Man-Made Disease Explained, on the dorsal vagal complex and the Circumstraint.
Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, Dissolving Illusions, on the cellular components of breast milk and colostrum.
Weston A. Price, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (1939), documenting traditional cultures and their infant feeding practices.
Heather Fraser, The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, citing 1994 Annals of Allergy study on food elimination and ear inflammation.
David Hurst, cited in Heather Fraser, The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, on allergy as the primary driver of chronic middle-ear fluid.
Fraser, The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, on antibiotic exposure and food allergy risk.
Fraser, The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, on the antibiotic-allergy-inflammation loop.
J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic, on parental accounts of regression following the fifteen-to-eighteen-month shots.
J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic, on the regression and recovery of his son Jamison.
CDC, “Prevalence and Early Identification of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 4 and 8 Years — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 16 Sites, United States, 2022,” MMWR Surveillance Summaries 74, no. 2 (April 17, 2025).
Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, Dissolving Illusions, on tonsillectomy and bulbar polio (Anderson, 1943 Utah data).
Forrest Maready, Crooked, on PANDAS and PANS as aluminum-inflammation cascades.
Forrest Maready, Crooked, on the locus coeruleus and ADHD.
Forrest Maready, Crooked, on fever, norepinephrine, and behavioral improvement in autism and ADHD.
Maready, Crooked, on aluminum adjuvant transport via the lymphatic system.
J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic, on the GlaxoSmithKline paroxetine settlement.
CDC, “General Best Practice Guidelines for Immunization: Timing and Spacing of Immunobiologics,” on ACIP recommendations for simultaneous administration of adolescent vaccines at the 11-to-12 visit.
Holland et al., The HPV Vaccine on Trial, on Gardasil clinical trial placebo design.
Holland et al., The HPV Vaccine on Trial, quoting the Gardasil package insert on carcinogenicity and genotoxicity evaluation.
Holland et al., The HPV Vaccine on Trial, on the cases of Alexis Wolf, Colton Berrett, and Joel Gomez.
J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic, on the collapse of Japanese HPV vaccine uptake.
Additional Sources
Thomas Cowan, Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness (Chelsea Green, 2018).
Herbert M. Shelton, Natural Hygiene: Man’s Pristine Way of Life, and the collected articles on pediatric care.
John H. Tilden, Toxemia Explained: The True Interpretation of the Cause of Disease (1926).
Daniel Roytas, Can You Catch a Cold? Untold History and Human Experiments.
Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey, and Stefan Lanka, Virus Mania, 3rd edition (2021).
Mark Bailey, The Final Pandemic: An Antidote to Medical Tyranny (2023).
Dawn Lester and David Parker, What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong.
Sally Fallon Morell, The Nourishing Traditions Book of Baby & Child Care.
Bessel van der Kolk, The Body Keeps the Score (2014), on early-life trauma and dissociation as embodied phenomena.
Peter Gøtzsche, Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare (2013).
By Donald Neff | Washington Report On Middle East Affairs | January 1996
On January 4, 1948, Jewish terrorists drove a truck loaded with explosives into the center of the all Arab city of Jaffa and detonated it, killing 26 and wounding around 100 Palestinian men, women and children.[1] The attack was the work of the Irgun Zvai Leumi – the “National Military Organization,” also known by the Hebrew letters Etzel – the largest Jewish terrorist group in Palestine. The Irgun was headed by Revisionist Zionist Menachem Begin and had been killing and maiming Arabs, Britons and even Jews for the previous ten years in its efforts to establish a Jewish state.
This terror campaign meant that at the core of Revisionist Zionism there existed a philosophical embrace of violence. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.