Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Where Did 0.85 Come From? Aluminum Adjuvants and the Science That Was Never Done

Unbekoming | January 12, 2026

In May 2000, at a Workshop on Aluminum in Vaccines held in Puerto Rico, Dr. Michael Gerber from the National Institutes of Health posed a question to Dr. Norman Baylor of the Food and Drug Administration. The exchange, preserved in the workshop transcript, deserves to be read in full:

Dr. Gerber: “The standard of 0.85 milligrams of aluminum per dose set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations—can you tell us where that came from and how that was determined?”

Dr. Baylor: “Unfortunately, I could not. I mean, we have been trying to figure that out. We have been trying to figure that out as far going back in the historical records and determining how they came up with that and going back to the preamble to the regulation. We just have been unsuccessful with that but we are still trying to figure that out.”

A senior FDA official publicly admitted the agency could not explain the basis for its own regulation on aluminum content in vaccines. This was not a fringe question posed by an outsider. It came from an NIH official at an official government workshop. And the FDA’s answer was that they had searched their historical records and come up empty.

That was twenty-five years ago. In the intervening decades, the 0.85 mg limit has remained unchanged. It continues to govern vaccines administered to infants, children, and adults worldwide. And the question of where it came from—the foundational safety studies that would justify exposing newborns to this amount of injected aluminum—has never been answered.

Until now, no one had followed the documentary trail that regulators themselves claimed existed.

The Documents That Exist

In 2025, a team of French researchers—Loïc Angrand, Romain K. Gherardi, and Guillemette Crépeaux—published the results of a detailed investigation into the regulatory history of aluminum limits in vaccines. Their paper, appearing in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, traces the documentary trail that regulatory agencies had apparently never followed.

The researchers began with the 2011 Federal Register, where they found this statement: “The aluminum content per dose in the formulation of a licensed biological product, as specified in § 610.15(a), reflects the NIH Minimum Requirements for Diphtheria Toxoid (1947) and Tetanus Toxoid (1952).”

These two documents—the 1947 and 1952 NIH Minimum Requirements—are the foundational texts cited as the basis for current aluminum limits. The researchers set out to obtain them.

A Freedom of Information Act request (Case Number 63550) was submitted to NIH and the National Library of Medicine in February 2025, requesting copies of these documents. On March 7, 2025, the NLM responded: “The NLM and Office of NIH History and Stetten Museum searched its files and no records responsive to your request were located.”

The recommendation was to check with the FDA History Office, “as the Department of Biological Standards became the FDA.” When contacted, the FDA’s Foreign Regulatory Communications Coordinator replied: “I was unable to find the information that you are seeking. You may be able to obtain the requested documents by submitting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).”

A circular response: NIH directing them to FDA, FDA directing them back to NIH.

Eventually, after persistent efforts, the researchers obtained both documents from the FDA—8 pages and 19 pages respectively.

What the Documents Actually Say

The analysis of these foundational texts reveals something straightforward: they are not about aluminum safety. They are not about aluminum toxicity. They are about manufacturing diphtheria and tetanus toxoids.

The 1947 document on diphtheria toxoid and the 1952 document on tetanus toxoid describe composition, production methods, and quality criteria for the toxoids themselves. They address cultivation techniques, detoxification using formaldehyde, identity tests, and sterility requirements.

The only reference to general safety testing describes a brief animal observation: “A safety test shall be made on the contents of a final container… The parenteral injection… shall cause neither significant symptoms nor death. At least 2 animals of each species are used and the observation period is not less than 7 days.”

Seven days. Two animals per species. This is the extent of safety testing described in the documents that supposedly establish safe aluminum limits for human infants.

On the subject of aluminum itself, the documents contain a single relevant statement: “In all instances the amount of aluminum used shall be the minimum needed to accomplish the purpose intended.”

This is a statement about efficacy—using enough aluminum to achieve the desired immune response—not about the maximum amount that can be safely injected. The documents do not evaluate aluminum toxicity. They do not establish a toxicological threshold. They do not consider cumulative exposure, developmental windows, or long-term effects.

The researchers’ conclusion is direct: “Neither document discusses Al toxicity.”

From Efficacy Limit to “Safety Standard”

The historical record allows us to trace how an efficacy-based recommendation became encoded as regulatory law and eventually treated as a validated safety threshold.

In 1966, a Canadian study referenced allowances by British, Canadian, and American regulators for 15 mg of potassium alum per dose of toxoid—corresponding to 0.85 mg of elemental aluminum. This amount was derived from data on immunological effectiveness, not toxicological safety.

In 1968, the NIH codified this figure in the Federal Register, stating that an adjuvant “shall not contain more than 0.85 milligrams of aluminum.”

In 1972, regulatory authority over biological products transferred from NIH to FDA. The maximum aluminum levels remained unchanged.

In 1981, the FDA aligned regulations with World Health Organization standards for hepatitis B vaccines, maintaining the 0.85 mg limit while permitting up to 1.25 mg in certain circumstances with approval.

The 2011 Federal Register explicitly cited the 1947 and 1952 NIH documents as the basis for current standards—the same documents that, as we now know, contain no toxicological evaluation of aluminum.

At no point in this seven-decade regulatory history did anyone conduct or cite studies establishing safe thresholds for injected aluminum in humans. The limit was set based on what worked immunologically. It was transferred between agencies. It was aligned with international standards. And it came to be treated as a safety benchmark—a threshold below which harm is assumed not to occur.

Two years after Baylor’s admission that the FDA could not explain the origin of the 0.85 mg standard, he co-authored a paper with two other FDA officials stating: “The amount of 15 mg of alum or 0.85 mg aluminum per dose was selected empirically from data that demonstrated that this amount of aluminum enhanced the antigenicity and effectiveness of the vaccine.”

Selected empirically for efficacy. Not derived from toxicological studies. Not validated for safety. The FDA itself acknowledges the standard was set based on what boosted immune response, not on what was proven safe to inject.

The Studies That Were Never Conducted

The absence of foundational safety studies is not merely a historical artifact. It reflects an ongoing gap that regulatory agencies have acknowledged but never filled.

In 2015, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a paper examining cumulative and episodic vaccine aluminum exposure in young children. The paper, led by Jason Glanz, contained a remarkable admission: there was “complete absence, in children as well as in adults, of population-based studies on the long-term tolerance” of aluminum-based adjuvants.

The CDC was not claiming such studies had been conducted and showed safety. They were acknowledging such studies had never been done—while demonstrating that the data to conduct them existed.

In 2019, FOIA requests were submitted to both NIH and CDC asking for “copies of any human or animal studies involving the subcutaneous or intramuscular injection of aluminum adjuvant relied upon by the NIH to establish the safety of injecting infants and children with aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate or amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate.”

The NIH response: “The NIH Office of Intramural Research (OIR), National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) searched their files and no records responsive to your request were located.”

The CDC and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry response: “A search of [the agency’s] records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request.”

No records. From either agency. For studies establishing the safety of a practice that has continued for a century.

What Happens When Someone Runs the Study

The rarity of proper safety studies makes the exceptions worth examining closely.

In 2010, Chinese researchers published a large multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial comparing anti-H1N1 vaccines with and without aluminum hydroxide, alongside an aluminum-free placebo. This study—involving 12,961 participants—represents the only major trial to have included a true neutral placebo when evaluating aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines.

The results were unambiguous. Across all tested antigen doses, the vaccine containing aluminum produced significantly more adverse events than both the placebo and the same vaccine formulated without aluminum. The methodologist Peter Gøtzsche calculated from this data that aluminum-based adjuvant increased the frequency of severe adverse events by 2.5 to 3 times.

The study had limitations—it observed participants for only three days after each dose and therefore could not assess long-term or cumulative effects. But within its observational window, it demonstrated measurable harm attributable specifically to the aluminum adjuvant.

This finding stands largely alone. The standard practice in vaccine trials is to use aluminum-containing solutions as “placebos”—a methodology that renders the specific effects of aluminum invisible by comparison. When both test and control groups receive aluminum, any adverse effects common to both will not appear as a signal.

Dr Christopher Exley, a leading aluminum researcher, has argued that aluminum adjuvants should not be used as placebos in clinical trials for precisely this reason: it eliminates the baseline needed to detect adjuvant-specific harms.

The predictable response to concerns about injected aluminum is comparison to dietary intake—the argument that 0.85 mg is trivial relative to what we consume in food and water. This comparison is pharmacokinetically meaningless. Ingested aluminum passes through the gastrointestinal tract, where the vast majority is excreted without absorption. Injected aluminum bypasses this barrier entirely, entering tissue directly as particulate matter that immune cells engulf and transport throughout the body, including to the brain. These are not equivalent exposures.

In 2022, a systematic review pooled 102 randomized controlled trials comparing aluminum adjuvants to placebo or no intervention. The conclusion: serious adverse events may be increased, with a risk ratio of 1.18—but the evidence was graded “very low certainty” and the trials were underpowered to detect rare harms. After nearly a century of use in billions of doses, the best available meta-analysis cannot determine whether aluminum adjuvants cause serious harm. The authors of that review did not frame this as reassuring. They framed it as uncertainty. The field has simply never produced the high-quality, adequately powered trials that would be standard for any other long-term injected product.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

The Only Way For America To ‘Help’ Iran Is To Lift the Crushing Sanctions

The Dissident | January 12, 2026

On Truth Social, Donald Trump recently promised to “help” protestors in Iran, saying, “Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before, The USA stands ready to help!!”

By “help”, Trump meant unleashing a new American/Israeli bombing campaign in the country to enact regime change. According to the New York Times, “President Trump has been briefed in recent days on new options for military strikes in Iran as he considers following through on his threat to attack the country for cracking down on protesters, according to multiple U.S. officials familiar with the matter.”

In reality, the only way Trump can “help” the people of Iran is by removing the sanctions on the country, which were placed on the country with the explicit goal of causing economic collapse and a mass uprising, leading to regime change in Iran.

In its early days, the Obama administration ramped up sanctions on Iran in a “maximum pressure” campaign.

As journalist Max Blumenthal uncovered, Richard Nephew, who coordinated the sanctions on Iran under the Biden administration, in his sadistic book, “The Art of Sanctions” boasted that because of the sanctions, “Iran’s economy went from GDP growth of 3 percent to a 6.6 percent contraction between 2011 and 2012 . Iranian unemployment and inflation remained in the double digits. In 2012, Iran’s currency depreciated threefold in a matter of weeks, resulting in the hemorrhaging of Iranian hard-currency reserves.”

Nephew boasted in the book that the intention was to destroy Iran’s economy, while running propaganda operations designed to trigger unrest against the government due to the economic situation, writing:

The United States took its surgical sanctions approach a step further in June 2013 with a carefully structured set of sanctions on Iran’s automotive sector, denying Iran the ability to import manufacturing assistance but not spare parts for existing autos or whole cars themselves. Iranian manufacturing jobs and export revenue were the targets of this sanction, undermining the Iranian government’s attempt to find non-oil export sectors and ways of employing 500,000 Iranians.

All the while, the United States expanded the ability of U.S. and foreign companies to sell Iranians technology used for personal communications, helping ensure that the Iranian public had the ability to learn more about the dire straits of their country’s economy and to communicate

Richard Nephew boasted that the sanctions were intended to cause “income inequality and inflation” in Iran in order to “drive up the pressure on the Iranian government from internal sources”, boasting:

With Iran’s population technically able to purchase such goods and imports still flowing in, but with the exchange rate depriving most people of the practical benefit of being able to purchase these goods, only the wealthy or those in positions of power could take advantage of Iran’s continued connected- ness. Hard currency streamed out of the country while luxuries streamed in, and stories began to emerge from Iran of intensified income inequality and inflation . This was a choice, a decision made on the basis of helping to drive up the the pressure on the Iranian government from internal sources.

He also boasts that the sanctions deprived Iranians’ ability to purchase medical equipment and “directly contributed to the deprivation of the Iranian rial”, writing:

In Iran, for instance, there were reports throughout 2012 and 2013 that medicine and medical devices were unavailable not because their trade was prohibited but rather because they cost too much for the average Iranian due to shortages and the depreciation of the Iranian currency. The United States and its partners, through sanctions, directly contributed to the depreciation of the Iranian rial and, consequently, played some part – even if unintentional- in the creation of this problem.

In 2015, Obama ended the “maximum pressure campaign” against Iran through the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which loosened sanctions in exchange for Iran limiting its nuclear enrichment, much to Benjamin Netanyahu’s dismay, leading him to give a speech in front of the United States Congress in an attempt to stop the deal. [The US failed to actually implement their side of the deal. In the end the EU never resumed normal trade either.]

Benjamin Netanyahu got his wish in 2018, when Donald Trump, at the behest of his Zionist donors, such as Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson, pulled out of the deal and reinstated the “maximum pressure” sanctions against Iran.

Like Richard Nephew, Trump’s then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boasted, “Things are much worse for the Iranian people [with the US sanctions], and we are convinced that will lead the Iranian people to rise up and change the behavior of the regime”.

Human Rights Watch documented at the time that the renewed sanctions on Iran were, “severely limiting Iranian companies and hospitals from purchasing essential medicines and medical equipment from outside Iran that residents depend upon for critical medical care” and “directly impacted families’ purchasing power, contributing to inflation rates of around 30 percent”.

This time, as Human Rights Watch documented, the sanctions were even harsher than the previous sanctions under the Obama administration, “including doing things like designating some Iranian financial institutions not previously designated and that were previously used to facilitate food, medicine and medical imports”.

Human Rights Watch also documented that, “The Trump administration’s September 20, 2019 decision to impose further sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank under its ‘counterterrorism authority’ severely restricts the last remaining Iranian financial institution able to engage in foreign exchange transactions involving humanitarian imports”.

Elliott Abrams, the Zionist architect of the Trump’s administration’s Iran sanctions, boasted to Israel Hayom that because of the Trump administration’s sanctions, “At the end of Trump’s term, Iran was facing bankruptcy” adding, “If Trump had received four more years, the regime would have faced a choice between economic collapse and mass uprising or halting the nuclear program.”

The Biden administration continued Trump’s sanctions on Iran at the behest of the Israel lobby, never renegotiating the Iran deal.

Since getting into office, Trump has ramped up the sanctions on Iran even further, signing an executive order in February that sanctioned any country that buys oil from Iran with the intention to “drive Iran’s export of oil to zero”. The White House statement in February bragged that the sanctions were intended to “restore maximum pressure on the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran” and “impose maximum economic pressure” on Iran.

In June Al-Monitor reported, “The Trump administration announced … what it called its most extensive set of Iran-related sanctions since 2018, targeting a ‘vast shipping empire’ involved in transporting oil and petroleum products from Iran and Russia” which, “target more than 115 individuals, entities and vessels across 17 different jurisdictions, including the United Arab Emirates, India, Turkey, Singapore and Switzerland.”

Just as Richard Nephew, Mike Pompeo, and Elliott Abrams boasted would happen, the sanctions helped cause the economic collapse that sparked the current protests, which were soon exploited by the U.S. and Israel to enact their desired regime change campaign.

If, Trump really cared about helping Iranians, he would end his “maximum pressure” campaign on the country, but instead, he cares about launching a regime change war at the behest of Benjamin Netanyahu.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Did the U.S. achieve a regime change in Venezuela?

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 12, 2026

Shortly after the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the event was quickly disseminated as a typical “regime change” operation against its new target and enemy, Venezuela. Critics and supporters of Bolivarianism flooded social media with posts announcing the “end” of Chavismo.

Three days after the event – and with many things insufficiently explained, such as the minimal Venezuelan military reaction during the attack – the Venezuelan landscape remains complex.

First, let’s look at the factual reality: Chavismo still governs in Caracas. The country’s Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez, was sworn in as interim president in a ceremony that featured the prominent participation of the ambassadors from Russia, China, and Iran. She does so, by all appearances, with the consensus of her brother Jorge Rodríguez, who leads the National Assembly, Defense Minister Padrino López, and Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello. Maduro’s son, also named Nicolás, has also declared support for the institutional arrangement that sees Delcy Rodríguez performing the role of national leader while his father is prosecuted in the U.S.

Was there an expectation that things would unfold differently?

Frankly, all statements from Donald Trump and Marco Rubio following Maduro’s kidnapping suggest that even if we consider the kidnapping itself a successful military operation, politically the event appears to have been ill-conceived. The U.S. government has already rejected the notion of handing power to the opposition and has even dismissed the prospect of new elections.

It is noteworthy that immediately after the kidnapping, Western media announced that Delcy Rodríguez had fled the country, which was obviously a lie. More recently, some channels and profiles have announced an alleged coup attempt in Caracas by Diosdado Cabello.

These deliberately spread rumors point to the continuation of the hybrid war against Venezuela, through the modality of psychological warfare, but they may also reveal expectations and, perhaps, even “false” information received by the U.S. about the situation in Venezuela.

Perhaps, indeed, the U.S. expectation was that the removal of Maduro could trigger a power struggle among the most important figures of Chavismo, and that the natural outcome of such a conflict would be a regime change. But none of this is happening, and for now, a broad consensus seems to hover over the Venezuelan political landscape.

It is also plausible that the U.S. was surprised by the lack of positive demonstrations by Venezuelans for Maduro’s removal. In Venezuela, one only sees protests criticizing the U.S. imperialist action. Even the opposition has joined pro-government forces in demanding the return of Nicolás Maduro.

This represents a significant problem.

Over the past few years, the U.S. has insisted on the narrative that Edmundo González would have triumphed over Nicolás Maduro in the 2024 presidential elections, with over 70% of the valid votes, which would be equivalent to saying González had the support of over 20 million citizens. Where are these people? Why were there no celebrations in Venezuela for Maduro’s kidnapping? It’s no use resorting to the “repression” thesis. “Repression” does not prevent opponents from trying to hold their protests, even in China.

It is likely that the timidity even of those who voted for González (a minority of the population) is simply due to the fact that Venezuelan economic indicators have indeed been improving in recent years: inflation dropped from 1,700,000% to 85%, the HDI has resumed growth, rising from 0.660 to 0.705, the unemployment rate fell from 33% to 6%, GDP growth of 6.5% (9% in the third quarter alone), and so on. Venezuela is, in fact, on a tide of recovery that has been ongoing for 4 uninterrupted years.

It may be the typical caution of those who, after many years, are finally seeing their lives improve and prefer to guard against very abrupt changes in the country’s leadership course.

There is also no evidence that the new interim Venezuelan government has agreed to any geopolitical realignment. Beyond the oil issue, we know that the determining element in the Venezuelan question is the guarantee of the automatic alignment of the entire continent with the U.S., and Venezuela, on the contrary, chose a path of rapprochement with Russia, China, and Iran.

In this sense, news indicating that Venezuela would resume supplying oil to the U.S. does not mean much. Venezuela has always wanted to sell oil to the U.S. and has indeed been selling oil to the U.S., both under the Chávez and Maduro governments, after a period of interruption due to sanctions.

The real question is whether the U.S. will manage to convince Venezuela to stop selling oil to its allies, as well as to break military ties and diplomatic alignments. Only then could one speak of a U.S. victory.

For now, however, we are facing a classic U.S. modus operandi: lots of pyrotechnics, little substance, zero prognostication.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Why America’s Oil Giants Aren’t Eager to Invest in Venezuela in Wake of Maduro’s Abduction

Sputnik – 12.01.2026

The significant capital investment required ($100B) and the need to wait up to 15 years to make a profit are the biggest factors hindering oil majors like Exxon, ConocoPhillips and Chevron from returning to the Venezuelan market, says international oil economist Dr. Mamdouh G. Salameh.

“US oil majors will have to wait a very long time before benefiting from Venezuela’s oil largesse… Moreover, they feel embarrassed to be complicit” in this form of “daylight thievery with legal implications for them,” the expert told Sputnik.

In fact, the companies would probably be happy enough dealing with the existing “sovereign and national [government] in the country openly,” free of Washington’s threats of regime change.

Efforts by the White House to ban third parties from engaging with Venezuelan oil revenues constitutes not “only a total imposition of control over Venezuela’s oil but a daylight robbery,” Salameh stressed.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Illegal Occupation | , | Leave a comment

Pirates of the Caribbean

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 12, 2026

So many things are happening in such a short space of time that it is difficult to keep track of them all. Certainly, one of the most “entertaining” is the return of piracy, which the United States of America inaugurated at the beginning of 2026.

We are talking about a new and particularly controversial phase of their economic and strategic pressure policy: the direct seizure of oil tankers on the high seas, believed to be involved in the transport of crude oil on behalf of states subject to unilateral U.S. sanctions, in particular Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. This practice, which Washington presents as a legitimate enforcement activity against illegal trafficking, is raising profound questions about international maritime law and the balance between state sovereignty, freedom of navigation, and the use of force.

From the Caribbean to the icy North Seas, the most emblematic case is that of the oil tanker Mariner, seized a few days ago after a long chase in the North Atlantic by the U.S. Coast Guard, while the ship was being joined by Russian naval forces. According to U.S. authorities, the ship was part of the so-called shadow fleet, an informal network of oil tankers that operate through frequent changes of name, flag, and management company in order to evade sanctions regimes. This operation is accompanied by other significant seizures or interceptions, including the tankers Sophia, Skipper, and Centuries, stopped in various maritime areas on similar charges of sanctioned oil trafficking and fraudulent use of flags of convenience. In short, a cinematic-style raid. Donald “Sparrow” Trump has found a new hobby.

As for the Mariner, to be fair, it is a VLCC oil tanker built in 2002. Its gross tonnage is over 318,000 tons, making it one of the largest types of oil tankers used in the global crude oil trade. In terms of age and technical characteristics, it is an ordinary working ship, designed to operate for 25-30 years, provided it passes inspections. Since its construction, the ship has not had a stable “nationality.”

Over the course of more than twenty years, it has changed its name, flag, and owners several times, a practice typical of tankers operating in sanctioned and semi-sanctioned segments of the market. The ship was successively named Overseas Mulan, Seaways Mulan, Xiao Zhu Shan, Yannis, Neofit, Timimus, Bella 1, and finally Marinera. Each name change was accompanied by a change of jurisdiction or management company. The flags also changed regularly. The ship flew the flags of the Marshall Islands, Liberia, Palau, and Panama. According to international databases, there was a period when the ship flew the flag of Guyana, indicating an incorrect or unconfirmed registration. This episode was subsequently used as a formal pretext for intervention by the U.S. Coast Guard.

After the persecution began, the ship obtained temporary registration under the flag of the Russian Federation with Sochi as its port of registry, as recorded in official ship registers. The history of the ship’s ownership and management also indicates its commercial rather than state nature. Over the years, the ship has been managed by companies registered in Asia and offshore jurisdictions, including structures linked to Chinese and Singaporean operators. Between 2022 and 2023, the owner and manager of the ship was Neofit Shipping Ltd, then Louis Marine Shipholding ENT. Since the end of December 2025, the owner and commercial operator of the ship has been the Russian company Burevestmarin LLC. This is a private entity, not linked to state-owned oil companies and not part of any “state fleet.”

In recent years, the ship has been used in the classic sanctions evasion scheme linked to the Iran-Venezuela-China routes. A crucial turning point came in mid-December 2025, when the United States announced an effective maritime blockade of Venezuela. The tanker, then called Bella 1, had left the Iranian port in November and was approaching the Venezuelan coast just as these measures were introduced. The attempt to enter the port was interrupted by the U.S., after which the ship set course for the Atlantic Ocean. The composition of the crew also clearly shows the commercial nature of the ship. Most of the sailors on board are Ukrainian citizens, while there were also Georgian citizens and only two Russians on board. The Mariner proved to be a convenient demonstration target for the U.S. as part of its new strategy of forcibly disrupting Venezuelan oil routes.

The owner’s attempt to hide under the Russian flag was a logical commercial move, but it did not change the intentions of the U.S. Russia was formally involved in the situation as the flag state and because of the presence of Russian citizens in the crew. The ship was not of strategic value to Russia and was not part of its oil logistics. Any escalation around a private tanker, which had been operating for decades on gray routes, would have made no rational sense.

From Washington’s point of view, the legitimacy of such actions rests on two main pillars. The first is the extraterritorial application of U.S. sanctions: seized tankers are considered assets directly involved in violations of Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) regulations and are therefore subject to confiscation. The second pillar is the doctrine of the stateless vessel, according to which a ship that cannot credibly prove its nationality—due to irregular registrations, false flags, or contradictory documentation—loses the legal protection guaranteed by the flag state and can be stopped by any other state on the high seas.

Bye-bye Law of the Sea

It is precisely this second point that is the focus of much of the legal debate. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes that, on the high seas, a ship is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state. Exceptions to this principle are limited and strict: piracy, slave trade, unauthorized radio transmissions, absence of nationality, or express authorization from the UN Security Council. The extension of these exceptions to the application of unilateral sanctions, not approved by the United Nations, is a highly contested interpretation.

Russia and China have reacted harshly to the seizures, calling them a blatant violation of international law and, in some cases, an act comparable to state piracy. Moscow argues that the seized tankers were flying regular flags and that the use of force against commercial vessels in peacetime, outside a UN mandate, constitutes a breach of the maritime legal order. Beijing, for its part, has emphasized the illegitimate nature of unilateral sanctions and the risk that such practices create dangerous precedents, normalizing the armed interdiction of commercial shipping.

The implications of this new phase are significant. On the legal front, there is growing tension between a law of the sea based on the neutrality of routes and freedom of navigation, and a power practice that tends to transform economic sanctions into instruments of military coercion. On the geopolitical front, there is a risk of maritime escalation, with possible countermeasures by the affected states and a progressive militarization of global energy routes.

On the other hand, all this is consistent with what the U.S. administration is doing: creating rapid chaos that distracts the world, while surgically targeting certain elements within the American system and, on the other hand, applying the Donroe Doctrine and establishing control over the Western Hemisphere.

The seizure of oil tankers is not just an isolated episode of conflict between states, but a sign of a deeper transformation of the international order. The U.S. has set out with conviction and has no intention of stopping. If this practice were to become established, international maritime law would risk being very quickly stripped of its fundamental principles, leaving room for a logic of force in which naval supremacy replaces shared legality. The issue, therefore, is not only about the seized ships, but the entire future of global maritime governance.

The U.S. has said it: Venezuela is American property and from now on will be its new backyard. Greenland will be next.

Piracy elevated to the rank of military strategy and international relations.

And remember: in just 11 months of government, since the beginning of his second term, Donald Trump has bombed seven sovereign countries: Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela. He has kidnapped one head of state (Maduro) and threatened to kill three others: Khamenei, Petro, and Rodriguez. He has threatened to invade five countries: Iran, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, and Greenland (i.e., Denmark). He has done everything in his power to prevent the international community from passing resolutions against Israel and its prime minister Netanyahu during and after the massacres in Gaza.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense, who is not misled by political preconceptions, can draw the most basic conclusions from these actions.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Does Venezuela Have to Do with Israel?

It may have friends that Netanyahu does not like

By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • January 9, 2026

It is interesting to observe how United States foreign policy, such as it is, often appears to have an Israeli back story that explains at least in part how Donald Trump’s mindless aggression against much of the world is driven by Zionist imperatives rather than actual American interests. Ukraine is supported by Israel and the US Israel Lobby in part because the roots of many diaspora and Israeli Jews are “Kazarian,” i.e. they derive from that part of Eastern Europe. Plus, Ukraine’s acting head of state Volodymyr Zelensky is a Jew whose mother and father reportedly live in Israel in a posh residence paid for by the money stolen by their son from US and European donations to Kiev to fight Russia. Also, the Jewish antipathy towards Moscow in large part derives from the belief that Imperial Russia was the source of many pogroms in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. That narrative fails, however, to mention how Russian Jews turned Bolshevik and, becoming enforcers of the Communist Revolution, subsequently got their revenge a hundred-fold on Russian and other Eastern European Christians.

And, of course, it has been frequently observed how US policy in the Middle East is essentially dictated by war criminal Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who de facto controls both Trump and the US Congress. The Israel Lobby also has significant input into what goes on at state and local government levels and has considerable control over what appears in the national media, which they increasingly own thanks to the efforts of Jewish billionaires like Larry Ellison. This ability to use money to manipulate politics and government has been manifested in the ability to suppress free speech in the United States when the topic is Israel’s abhorrent behavior towards the Palestinians and its other neighbors. Criminalizing antisemitism, which includes any criticism of Israel, has become the crime du jour to silence opposition to pro-Zionist agendas at both federal and state levels and it has also been used to eliminate Palestinian support at universities and through the job market. Beyond that, the US State Department is now demanding access to the social media of visa applicants so that those who are supporters of the Palestinian cause can be blocked from entry into the United States. This is what Jewish power in America is all about.

It is interesting to note the somewhat unexpected Israeli and Jewish hand in recent US aggression directed particularly against Venezuela. There are several main reasons for the Venezuela hit. Caracas developed a close relationship with Iran through its negotiations over BRICS and has unambiguously sided with Palestine in denouncing the Zionist war crimes and crimes against humanity. This clearly was impressed upon Donald Trump and his consiglieri by the Israelis and members of the Israeli Lobby like Miriam Adelson and Laura Loomer who have full access to the president and who no doubt were able to convince the Orangeman that he would be able to benefit by striking against an ally of a common enemy of the US and Israel with one fell swoop.

Trump could and did plead nevertheless that he was only applying his heavily promoted “corollary to the Monroe Doctrine,” which he inevitably dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine,” and which was explicit in the new National Security Strategy. But he surely knew that he would also at the same time be satisfying the demands of his Jewish donors and Netanyahu himself, who undoubtedly raised the issue of Venezuela with the president and his staff on his recent visit to Florida.

So the possibility that there just might be a relationship between Venezuela and Iran has become something that is exploitable by the Israel Lobby and also by Trump. On his recent visit, Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to identify the issue and no doubt also personally pushed for Trump to do something right away. Bibi also appeared on US television and told one interviewer that Iran is “exporting terrorism… to Venezuela. They’re in cahoots with the Maduro regime… this has got to change.” The Israelis also see ties between Caracas and both Hamas and Hezbollah, a claim that has been echoed in the US national-Zionist-at-all-times media.

To cite only one example of how it works, Fox News has published an article claiming Maduro’s Venezuela has become “Hezbollah’s most important base of operations in the Western Hemisphere, strengthened by Iran’s growing footprint and the Maduro regime’s protection.” Ultra-Zionist US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, not to be outdone, later doubled down, stating publicly that the US overthrow of Maduro was good news for Israel because of Venezuela’s partnership with Iran and Hezbollah.

The New York Times meanwhile has soft-pedaled its news coverage of the Caracas attack and instead has featured several prominent Zionist opinion contributors who have argued that for those Middle Eastern connections alone Venezuela has deserved everything that it has so far received at the hands of the US military. The always reliable Israeli firster Bret Stephens opined that There Were Good Reasons to Depose Maduro citing the Venezuelan Vice-and-Acting President Delcy Rodríguez having “claimed Maduro’s capture had ‘Zionist undertones,’ suggesting that her grip on reality may not be what the [Trump] administration hopes.”

And on the same day in The Times there appeared good old reliable Elliott Abrams in his A Defense of US Intervention in Venezuela claiming that he knows things about the threat posed by Venezuela that no one else seems to be aware of aside from him and his Zionist buddies. He states that “… they have invited into Venezuela Cuban thugs, and Hezbollah and Iran, as well as Russia and China. So, it’s a security issue for the whole region, again, including for the United States. For Hezbollah, for example, and Iran, we know that the Maduro regime gave them blank passports so that agents of Iran and Hezbollah could be moving around Latin America and elsewhere under false identities. We know that Iran has helped not only give drones to the Venezuelan military, but helped them learn how to build drones. We know from the Israeli experience with Iran, drones can go a very long distance now. We’re talking about drones that can hit not only Puerto Rico, but hit the continental United States. When I was in the State Department doing this about five years ago, Iran was contemplating giving intermediate-range missiles, which could reach the United States, to the Maduro regime in Venezuela. So this is an actual security threat in Latin America and to us.”

So Israel and its friends were no doubt delighted when Donald Trump decided to attack Venezuela and kidnap its president Nicolas Maduros. Netanyahu personally thanked Washington after the Venezuela attack took place, tweeting that “Congratulations, President @realDonaldTrump for your bold and historic leadership on behalf of freedom and justice. I salute your decisive resolve and the brilliant action of your brave soldiers.”

Perhaps this extra agenda in support of Israel explains why Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodriguez has herself gone on television to say her country will not be “cowed” by Washington. As Bret Stephens maintains, she also believes that “Venezuela is the victim and target of an attack of this nature, which undoubtedly has Zionist undertones. It is truly shameful.” To be sure there is one thing that is true, that as Venezuela is critical of Israeli war crimes, its government has broken diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv and recognized Palestinian statehood. It might therefore very plausibly be suggested that Netanyahu, speaking for his government, which in return has been openly supporting regime change in Venezuela, played the decisive role in convincing his pliable tool Trump to move on Caracas sooner rather than later when they met recently in Mar-del-Lago.

So the attack on Venezuela has opened the door to all kinds of complications and intrigue. Given the ability of the Israelis to manipulate an ignorant and confused Trump, who now claims his policies are guided only by his “morality” rather than “international rule of law,” the next developments will almost certainly include a joint Israel-US attack on Iran. And when that initiative has run out there will certainly be still more enemies of Israel to confront. And what will be the benefit for the average American when all the costs and deaths are counted after it is all over? As usual, “Nothing!”

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org

January 11, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Halliburton Executive Contradicts Trump on Venezuela Sanctions, Exposing Economic Hypocrisy

Trump’s own 2019 sanctions — not business decisions — forced Halliburton to abandon Venezuela

teleSUR | January 10, 2026

A now-viral video has reignited global scrutiny over Washington’s coercive economic policies. Speaking directly to camera, asenior company official clarified a critical fact often omitted in U.S. political discourse: “We didn’t leave Venezuela by choice or due to operational issues. We were forced out by the sanctions imposed by Trump’s own administration in 2019.”

The statement, originally shared by Venezuelan journalist Joan Contreras and widely disseminated by the investigative outlet Misión Verdad, delivers a rare insider account from within one of America’s most powerful oil service corporations. It directly challenges recent claims by former President Donald Trump – who, amid speculation about his return to office in 2025, has floated the idea of “immediately lifting sanctions” to allow U.S. oil firms back into Venezuela.

But as the Halliburton executive makes clear, the very policies Trump championed are what expelled these companies in the first place. Far from being a neutral market withdrawal, Halliburton’s exit was a direct consequence of U.S. Treasury Department directives that criminalized financial and commercial transactions with Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

This revelation underscores a long-standing contradiction in U.S. foreign policy: sanctions billed as tools for “democracy promotion” end up punishing American corporations while deepening humanitarian suffering abroad. In Venezuela’s case, the human cost has been staggering – yet the corporate toll is now coming full circle.

Halliburton Executive Reveals Coercive Reality

The executive’s testimony aligns with documented history. In January 2019, during Trump’s first term, the U.S. imposed sweeping sanctions on PDVSA, effectively freezing its U.S.-based assets and prohibiting any American entity from engaging in oil-related transactions with the company. For Halliburton—a firm that had operated in Venezuela for over six decades and provided critical drilling, well completion, and reservoir management services—the order was unambiguous: comply or face crippling fines and legal penalties.

“We had no option,” the executive explained. “Continuing operations would have meant violating U.S. law. The Treasury made it clear: work with PDVSA, and you’re out of the U.S. financial system.”

These sanctions were part of a broader “maximum pressure” campaign that included secondary sanctions targeting non-U.S. entities, asset freezes, and visa bans. By 2020, nearly all major American oil service firms—including Schlumberger and Baker Hughes—had suspended Venezuelan operations, despite having profitable contracts and functional infrastructure on the ground.

Experts consulted by teleSUR emphasize that this episode reveals the self-defeating nature of unilateral sanctions. “Washington claims it wants U.S. companies to dominate global energy markets,” said Dr. Elena Martínez, an international trade analyst at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO). “But by weaponizing finance, it pushes its own corporations out of strategic territories—opening the door for Russia, China, and Iran to step in.”

Indeed, since 2019, PDVSA has forged new technical and commercial alliances with Rosneft, CNPC, and Iranian firms, gradually restoring production capacity despite ongoing U.S. restrictions. In 2025, Venezuela reported its highest oil output in five years—proof that economic siege does not equate to control.

Geopolitical Context: Sanctions as a Double-Edged Sword in Global Energy Politics

The Halliburton admission arrives at a pivotal moment in global energy realignment. As the world transitions toward multipolarity, U.S. sanctions are increasingly seen not as instruments of power, but as accelerants of de-dollarization and alliance diversification. Countries targeted by Washington – from Venezuela to Iran to Russia – are deepening trade in local currencies, building alternative payment systems, and reducing reliance on Western financial infrastructure.

For American oil giants, this shift carries long-term strategic costs. While short-term compliance with sanctions may avoid legal trouble, it cedes influence in some of the world’s largest hydrocarbon reserves. Venezuela alone holds the largest proven oil reserves on Earth – over 300 billion barrels – mostly in the heavy crude of the Orinoco Belt, a region where Halliburton once held technological dominance.

Moreover, the hypocrisy exposed by the executive’s statement undermines U.S. credibility in multilateral forums. When Washington presents sanctions as “peaceful tools,” yet they result in $130 billion in estimated Venezuelan economic losses since 2015 (according to Caracas), and simultaneously force U.S. firms out of lucrative markets, the narrative collapses under its own weight.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures has repeatedly condemned such policies, noting they violate international law and disproportionately harm civilians. Yet the Halliburton case shows even corporate elites are not immune—suggesting that sanctions function less as precision tools and more as blunt instruments of economic warfare with indiscriminate fallout.

Regionally, this dynamic strengthens Latin American calls for sovereignty. Brazil’s Lula, Colombia’s Petro, and Mexico’s Sheinbaum have all criticized U.S. sanctions as relics of interventionism. If American businesses themselves acknowledge the damage, regional resistance will only grow.

Corporate Testimony Undermines U.S. Political Narratives

Trump’s recent suggestion that lifting sanctions would “bring U.S. oil companies rushing back” ignores a fundamental reality: trust has been broken. After being compelled to abandon decades of investment overnight, firms like Halliburton face enormous legal, financial, and reputational risks in re-entering Venezuela—even if sanctions ease.

Furthermore, the geopolitical landscape has shifted. PDVSA no longer depends solely on Western technology. With Russian drilling equipment, Chinese refining partnerships, and Iranian logistical support, Venezuela has built a resilient, sanctions-resistant oil ecosystem. U.S. firms may find the door not as open as they imagine.

The Venezuelan government has consistently maintained that sanctions constitute a flagrant violation of international law, amounting to collective punishment of its civilian population. From medicine shortages to power grid failures, the humanitarian impact is well-documented. Yet the Halliburton video adds a new dimension: even the architects of U.S. corporate power are casualties of this policy.

As speculation grows about potential partial sanctions relief in 2026 – possibly tied to electoral conditions or oil-for-debt deals – the executive’s message serves as a sobering reminder: coercion begets fragmentation, not compliance.

Conclusion: When Sanctions Backfire on Their Own Enforcers

The viral testimony of a Halliburton executive does more than correct the historical record—it exposes the internal contradictions of U.S. foreign policy. The Halliburton executive contradicts Trump on Venezuela sanctions not to defend Caracas, but to defend truth: American companies didn’t flee Venezuela because of chaos or mismanagement. They were pushed out by Washington itself.

In doing so, the U.S. not only harmed millions of Venezuelans but also weakened its own strategic position in the global energy arena. As the world moves toward multipolarity, such self-inflicted wounds may prove harder to heal than any military defeat.

For now, the video stands as a rare moment of corporate candor—and a powerful indictment of a policy that sacrifices both people and profits on the altar of hegemony.

January 11, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Economics | , | Leave a comment

The 15 Most Devastating Truths About the PSA Screening Disaster

Lies are Unbekoming | October 26, 2025

The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test has screened 30 million American men annually for over three decades. The man who discovered PSA in 1970, Richard Ablin, now calls mass screening “a public health disaster.” Two landmark 2012 studies found no survival benefit from radical surgery compared to watchful waiting. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded PSA screening does more harm than good. Yet the $3 billion annual industry continues largely unabated.

These revelations emerge from three insider accounts: Ablin’s The Great Prostate Hoax, urologist Anthony Horan’s The Rise and Fall of the Prostate Cancer Scam, and oncologist Mark Scholz’s Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers. Together they document how a test meant to monitor existing cancer patients became a screening juggernaut that has left millions of men incontinent, impotent, or dead from unnecessary treatment.

The numbers are staggering. Since 1987, when PSA screening exploded nationwide, over one million American men have undergone radical prostatectomies. Studies show 40 to 50 men must be diagnosed and treated to prevent one death from prostate cancer. The other 39 to 49 men receive no benefit but face permanent side effects. Medicare and the Veterans Administration fund most of this treatment, pouring billions into a system that prominent urologists privately acknowledge has failed.

What follows are the most damaging truths about how PSA screening became entrenched despite overwhelming evidence of harm, why it persists against scientific consensus, and what this reveals about American medicine’s inability to abandon lucrative practices even when they damage patients.

1. The Test’s Creator Calls It a “Public Health Disaster”

Richard Ablin discovered prostate-specific antigen in 1970 while researching cryosurgery’s effects on prostate tissue. He never intended PSA as a screening test for healthy men. The test cannot distinguish between the cancers that kill and those that remain harmless. Ablin has spent decades publicly denouncing mass screening, including a 2010 New York Times op-ed titled “The Great Prostate Mistake.”

Ablin compares PSA screening’s specificity to “a coin toss” – hardly the precision expected from a medical test that determines whether men undergo surgery or radiation. He testified before Congress, published papers, and gave countless lectures warning against screening’s misuse. The medical establishment ignored him. In his book, he writes that watching his discovery become “a hugely expensive public health disaster” has been “painful.” The man who found PSA receives angry emails from men whose lives were destroyed by unnecessary treatment triggered by elevated PSA levels.

2. 75% of Men with Elevated PSA Don’t Have Cancer

A PSA level above 4.0 triggers the treatment cascade, yet three-quarters of these men have no cancer. Infections, enlarged prostates, bicycle riding, and recent ejaculation all elevate PSA. The test measures inflammation as readily as malignancy. This 75% false positive rate means millions undergo invasive biopsies needlessly.

The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial found that 15% of men with PSA under 4.0 – the “normal” range – actually had prostate cancer, including aggressive forms. Meanwhile, only 25% with elevated PSA had cancer at all. No blood test with such poor specificity would gain approval today. Yet once PSA became standard practice, removing it from clinical use proved impossible despite its fundamental unreliability.

3. The $3 Billion Annual PSA Gold Rush

PSA screening generates at least $3 billion annually, with Medicare and the Veterans Administration covering most costs. Each abnormal PSA triggers a cascade: repeat tests, biopsies, imaging, surgery or radiation, plus years of follow-up. A single radical prostatectomy bills $15,000 to $30,000. Radiation therapy can exceed $50,000. These procedures require expensive equipment, specialized facilities, and teams of providers.

Hospital systems depend on this revenue stream. Urology practices built business models around screening and treatment. Medical device companies profit from surgical robots, radiation equipment, and biopsy tools. This economic ecosystem resists evidence showing most treatment is unnecessary. When the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against routine screening in 2012, medical associations mobilized massive lobbying efforts to preserve the status quo. Money, not medicine, drives the screening machine.

4. 30 Million Tests, 1 Million Unnecessary Biopsies Per Year

Annual PSA screening of 30 million American men triggers approximately one million prostate biopsies. Since most elevated PSAs are false positives, at least 750,000 of these biopsies find no cancer. Each biopsy involves 12 to 18 needle cores punched through the rectal wall into the prostate. Serious infections requiring hospitalization occur in 1-4% of cases. Sepsis can be fatal.

Even negative biopsies don’t end the cascade. Urologists often recommend repeat biopsies for persistently elevated PSA, subjecting men to multiple rounds of needles, infection risk, and anxiety. Some undergo four, five, even six biopsies chasing ghost cancers that either don’t exist or would never threaten their lives. The psychological toll – months of fear between tests, the dread of results, the pressure to “do something” – devastates men and families. This suffering serves no medical purpose for the vast majority subjected to it.

5. The “Arbitrary” 4.0 Cutoff That Changed Everything

The PSA threshold of 4.0 ng/mL that triggers intervention was, according to New York Times reporting, chosen “just sort of arbitrarily.” William Catalona’s influential 1991 New England Journal of Medicine article established this cutoff without reporting false positive rates – a basic requirement for screening tests. The entire world adopted this number uncritically.

No scientific process determined that 4.0 represented a meaningful boundary between health and disease. The number could have been 3.0 or 5.0 or 6.5. Each choice would have swept millions more or fewer men into the treatment vortex. This arbitrary threshold, selected without rigorous validation, has determined the fate of millions. Men with 4.1 undergo biopsies while those with 3.9 are deemed safe, though this 0.2 difference has no biological significance. A random number became medical dogma, and challenging it meant confronting an entire industry built on its foundation.

6. 2,600 Post-Surgery Deaths at the 1992 Peak

Radical prostatectomy deaths peaked at 2,600 in 1992, five years after PSA screening exploded nationally. These men died from surgical complications – bleeding, infections, blood clots, anesthesia reactions. They underwent surgery for cancers that, in most cases, would never have threatened their lives. The operation killed them before their cancer could.

Anthony Horan documents how radical surgery was “revived without new evidence” in the 1980s after being largely abandoned. The combination of PSA screening and renewed surgical enthusiasm created a perfect storm. Thousands died on operating tables for a disease that grows so slowly most men die with it, not from it. These deaths represent only immediate surgical mortality – not the men who died months later from complications, or whose lives were shortened by surgical trauma. Each death was preventable had screening not detected their harmless cancers.

7. Radical Surgery Shows No Survival Benefit Over Watchful Waiting

Two randomized controlled trials reported in 2012 found no difference in cancer-specific mortality between radical surgery and watchful waiting. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) followed 731 men for up to 15 years. The Scandinavian trial tracked men for over 20 years. Both reached the same conclusion: surgery doesn’t save lives compared to monitoring.

These studies destroyed the rationale for early detection. If removing the entire prostate doesn’t extend life compared to doing nothing, then finding cancer early serves no purpose except to subject men to treatment side effects. The medical establishment largely ignored these findings. Surgery rates declined modestly but remained far higher than evidence justified. Mark Scholz writes that these studies should have “removed the rationale for early diagnosis with PSA” entirely. Instead, the industry adapted its messaging while continuing essentially unchanged.

8. The FDA Approval Based on 3.8% Detection Rate

The FDA approved PSA for screening in 1994 based primarily on a study showing it could detect 3.8% more cancers than digital rectal examination. This marginal improvement became justification for testing millions annually. The agency relied heavily on this single statistic while downplaying false positive rates and overdiagnosis risks.

Alexander Baumgarten, one of FDA’s own expert advisers, warned officials: “Like Pontius Pilate, you cannot wash the guilt off your hands.” Susan Alpert, who directed FDA’s Office of Device Evaluation during approval, later acknowledged the decision’s problems. The agency never required studies showing screening actually saved lives or improved quality of life. This regulatory failure, approving a test based on detection rates rather than patient outcomes, enabled the disaster that followed. The FDA has never revisited its decision despite overwhelming evidence of harm.

9. Prostate Cancer Grows So Slowly Most Men Die WITH It, Not FROM It

Autopsy studies reveal that 30% of men in their 40s and 70% in their 70s have prostate cancer cells. Most never knew and were never affected. The cancer’s typical growth rate means decades pass between initial cellular changes and potential lethality. A 65-year-old diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer has less than 3% chance of dying from it within 15 years if left untreated.

Men diagnosed at 75 almost certainly will die of something else first – heart disease, stroke, other cancers. Yet screening doesn’t discriminate by age or life expectancy. Elderly men in nursing homes receive PSA tests and undergo biopsies. Some receive radiation or surgery in their 80s for cancers that could never outlive them. This fundamental biological reality – that most prostate cancers are clinically insignificant – undermines screening’s entire premise. Finding these cancers serves only to transform healthy men into cancer patients unnecessarily.

10. The Biopsy Train: 18-Gauge Needles and Serious Infections

Modern prostate biopsy involves 12 to 18 hollow-bore needles, each 18-gauge in diameter, fired through the rectal wall. The needles extract tissue cores while potentially spreading bacteria from the bowel into the prostate and bloodstream. Fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria have made infections increasingly dangerous. Some men develop sepsis requiring intensive care.

Richard Ablin receives emails from men describing their biopsy experiences as “spinning out of control,” having “panic attacks,” and living in a “nightmare.” The procedure’s violence – needles punching through tissue, the sound of the spring-loaded gun, blood in urine and semen for weeks – traumatizes men regardless of results. Those with negative biopsies face pressure to repeat the procedure if PSA remains elevated. Some endure annual biopsies for years, each carrying infection risk, each failing to find cancer that likely isn’t there or doesn’t matter. The biopsy itself becomes a recurring assault that serves no medical purpose.

11. Incontinence and Impotence: The “Acceptable” Side Effects

Radical prostatectomy leaves 20-30% of men with permanent urinary incontinence requiring pads or diapers. Erectile dysfunction affects 60-80%, depending on age and surgical technique. These rates come from centers of excellence; community hospitals report worse outcomes. Surgeons routinely minimize these risks, calling them “acceptable” trade-offs for cancer treatment.

For men whose cancers would never have threatened them – the majority who undergo surgery – these side effects represent pure harm. They lose sexual function and bladder control to treat a disease that required no treatment. Their marriages suffer. Depression is common. Some become recluses, afraid to leave home without knowing bathroom locations. The medical profession’s casual acceptance of these devastating outcomes reflects a stunning disregard for quality of life. No other medical specialty would tolerate routinely destroying normal function to treat non-threatening conditions.

12. PSA Isn’t Even Prostate-Specific

Despite its name, prostate-specific antigen isn’t specific to the prostate. Breast tissue produces PSA – it’s a normal component of breast milk. Salivary glands make it. Some lymphomas produce PSA. Women have measurable PSA levels. This basic biological fact undermines the test’s fundamental premise.

Anthony Horan notes he personally reported PSA production in B-cell lymphomas. The protein’s presence throughout the body means elevated levels can reflect numerous non-prostatic processes. Yet the medical establishment treats PSA as if it were a precise prostate cancer marker. This scientific sloppiness – naming and using a test based on false assumptions about specificity – exemplifies the intellectual bankruptcy underlying mass screening. If PSA were discovered today with current knowledge, it would never be approved for screening healthy men.

13. The Veterans Administration’s Role in the Screening Epidemic

The Veterans Administration extensively promoted and funded PSA screening, making it routine for millions of veterans. The VA’s electronic medical records prompted doctors to order PSA tests, created quality metrics based on screening rates, and facilitated the treatment cascade. Veterans, trusting their government healthcare, underwent screening at higher rates than the general population.

The VA spent billions on screening, biopsies, and treatment. Veterans suffered disproportionately from overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Many underwent surgery or radiation at VA hospitals with limited experience in these procedures, likely experiencing higher complication rates. The government that sent these men to war later subjected them to medical harm through systematic overscreening. Only after the 2012 USPSTF recommendation did the VA begin moderating its approach, too late for hundreds of thousands of veterans already harmed.

14. Why Urologists Can’t Stop Screening Despite the Evidence

Urologists understand the evidence against screening yet continue promoting it. Professional self-interest explains this cognitive dissonance. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment represent major revenue sources for urology practices. Academic urologists depend on prostate cancer research grants. Professional status derives from surgical volume and technical expertise in procedures that shouldn’t be performed.

Mark Scholz describes the “surgeon personality” that sees every problem as requiring surgical solution. Urologists train for years to perform radical prostatectomies. Abandoning these procedures means acknowledging that much of their training and practice caused unnecessary harm. The psychological and economic barriers to accepting screening’s failure prove insurmountable. Even urologists who privately acknowledge the problem continue participating in the system. Professional conferences feature token debates about screening while exhibit halls showcase million-dollar surgical robots. The specialty cannot reform itself when its economic survival depends on perpetuating harm.

15. Active Surveillance Works for 99% of Low-Risk Cases

Multiple studies demonstrate that active surveillance – monitoring without immediate treatment – works for virtually all low-risk prostate cancers. Memorial Sloan Kettering reported that fewer than 1% of men on surveillance die from prostate cancer over 15 years. Johns Hopkins found similar results. These men avoid treatment side effects while maintaining the option to treat if their cancer progresses.

Despite this evidence, most men with low-risk disease still receive immediate treatment. Doctors present surveillance as “doing nothing” rather than an active management strategy. Patients fear leaving cancer untreated, not understanding their cancer’s indolent nature. The medical system’s financial incentives favor treatment over monitoring. Each patient choosing surveillance represents lost revenue. This proven alternative that could spare hundreds of thousands from unnecessary treatment remains underutilized because it threatens the economic foundation of prostate cancer care.

Conclusion

The PSA screening disaster exposes American medicine’s darkest impulses: the primacy of profit over patient welfare, the persistence of harmful practices despite overwhelming evidence, and the medical establishment’s inability to acknowledge error. Thirty years of mass screening has transformed millions of healthy men into cancer patients unnecessarily, subjecting them to treatments that left many incontinent, impotent, or dead.

The men who exposed this scandal from within – Richard Ablin who discovered PSA, Anthony Horan who practiced urology during screening’s rise, Mark Scholz who treats screening’s victims – deserve recognition for their courage in challenging their profession’s orthodoxy. Their accounts reveal not isolated mistakes but systematic failure: arbitrary thresholds adopted without validation, regulatory approval based on minimal evidence, and an entire medical specialty economically dependent on perpetuating harm. Until American medicine can abandon lucrative practices that damage patients, the PSA disaster will repeat in other forms, with other tests, harming other victims who trusted their doctors to first do no harm.

References

Ablin, Richard J., with Ronald Piana. The Great Prostate Hoax: How Big Medicine Hijacked the PSA Test and Caused a Public Health Disaster. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.

Horan, Anthony H. The Rise and Fall of the Prostate Cancer Scam. 3rd ed. Broomfield, CO: On the Write Path Publishing, 2019.

Scholz, Mark, and Ralph H. Blum. Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers: An Essential Guide to Managing Prostate Cancer for Patients and Their Families. Revised ed. New York: Other Press, 2021.

January 11, 2026 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Larry Johnson: End of Negotiations & Launch of Oreshnik

Glenn Diesen | January 10, 2026

Larry Johnson is a former intelligence analyst at the CIA who also worked at the US State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. Johnson discusses provocations, end of negotiations and launch of the Oreshnink.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

January 10, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Wary US Oil Giants Dodge Venezuela Investment Pitch

Sputnik – 10.01.2026

American oil majors left a White House meeting without signing up for a fast money push into Venezuela’s oil sector following the capture of the country’s legitimate President Nicolas Maduro, reports Axios.

The Trump administration has floated a $100 billion investment figure, promising “security” and “direct deals” with the US. But executives kept their distance.

  • Exxon CEO Darren Woods bluntly called Venezuela “uninvestable” under current legal and commercial conditions
  • ConocoPhillips’s Ryan Lance stressed the need to talk with banks — likely including the US Export-Import Bank – on how to restructure debt “to deliver the billions of dollars that are required to restore their energy infrastructure”
  • Chevron — the only US major still operating in Venezuela — stuck to cautious language, focusing on employee safety and “compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to its business, as well as the sanctions frameworks provided for by the US government”

A handful of independents reportedly signaled interest, but with Venezuela’s output at around 800,000 barrels per day – still far below its past peaks – and legal risks front of mind, Wall Street’s oil titans aren’t exactly racing back in.

Getting back to the 3.5 million barrels per day level of the late 1990s could require much more than $100 billion worth of investment over a significant number of years, according to analysts cited by the outlet.

Oil prices are currently low, with WTI crude hovering around $59 per barrel, which also plays a significant factor in the reluctance — major investments in Venezuela’s heavy crude projects would require much higher sustained prices to justify the risks and capital investments.

January 10, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

Trump, Greenland, and the colonialism Europe pretends not to see

Neither Washington nor Copenhagen: Greenland belongs to the Inuit people

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 10, 2026

The recent resurgence of controversy surrounding Donald Trump’s interest in annexing Greenland has reignited debates over imperialism, sovereignty, and self-determination in the Arctic. The European response – particularly from Denmark and the European Union – has been marked by a moralizing discourse against “American expansionism.” This discourse, however, deliberately ignores Denmark’s own colonial history in the region – a history that has been profoundly violent toward the Inuit people of Kalaallit Nunaat, the territory’s true name.

Recently, Russia-based Irish journalist Chay Bowes wrote an excellent piece on the history of European colonialism in Greenland. As he said, Denmark’s presence in Greenland was never the result of Indigenous consent. Beginning in 1721 under the religious pretext of “rescuing” supposed Norse descendants, colonization quickly became a systematic project of cultural domination and economic exploitation. When no Europeans were found, Danish missionaries turned their efforts against the Inuit, criminalizing their spiritual and cultural practices, dismantling traditional social structures, and imposing Lutheranism as a tool of control.

With the establishment of a trade monopoly in 1776, Denmark began treating the island as a profitable hub for natural resources, deliberately keeping the Indigenous population isolated and dependent. This colonial logic intensified throughout the twentieth century. In 1953, seeking to evade new UN decolonization guidelines, Copenhagen annexed Greenland as a “county.” Lacking adequate international scrutiny, the lives of Inuit natives increasingly became a nightmare.

Among these policies were the abduction of Inuit children to be “reeducated” in Denmark – the infamous “Little Danes” experiment – and the forced removal of entire communities from their ancestral lands into urban housing complexes, aimed at creating cheap labor for Danish-controlled industries. Even more severe was the secret imposition of contraceptive devices on thousands of Inuit women and girls between the 1960s and 1970s, without consent, in an explicit attempt at population control.

Although Greenland gained administrative autonomy in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009, real power remains concentrated in the “Danish Crown.” Key areas such as foreign policy, defense, and much of the economy remain outside Inuit control. International bodies continue to pressure Denmark to acknowledge and repair colonial crimes, but progress has been minimal.

In this context, European indignation over potential U.S. expansionist moves sounds hypocrite. This does not mean absolving Washington of its own imperialist history – the United States has an equally disastrous record in its treatment of Indigenous peoples. However, for many Inuit, life under American rule would hardly be worse than centuries of European subjugation have already been. The difference is that the U.S., at least, does not pretend to be a “progressive benefactor” while maintaining intact colonial structures.

The true alternative, however, lies neither in Washington nor in Copenhagen. The most coherent and reasonable solution would be the construction of an independent Inuit state, grounded in self-determination, cultural restoration, and sovereign control over the territory. An Inuit ethnic state – understood as a project of Indigenous national liberation, not of ethnic or racial exclusion – would represent a historic rupture with centuries of external domination.

Obviously, in a world marked by violent disputes and the rule of force, it is naïve to think that the political will of Greenland’s native population alone would be sufficient to secure any real sovereignty. It will be necessary to engage in alliances and strategic diplomacy with countries that also oppose U.S. and European imperialism and expansionism – especially those with shared ethnic and cultural ties. Russia would be an excellent example of a potential partner for an independent Greenland, given the large presence of Arctic peoples in Russian territory – including Inuit – and Russia’s historical experience with respect for plurinationality.

Greenland is not a strategic asset to be bargained over by rival Western powers. It is the homeland of a people who have survived colonization, social engineering, and population control. Before denouncing “American imperialism,” Denmark and the European Union should confront their own colonial past—and recognize that Inuit self-determination remains the only truly right path forward for Kalaallit Nunaat.

January 10, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

FLU FEAR VS. FLU FACTS

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | January 8, 2026

Alarmist media coverage and public health messaging have branded this season’s flu a so-called “super flu,” but surveillance data from both the U.K. and the U.S. tell a more measured story. While reports of influenza-like illness (ILI) have risen—as they typically do during winter—rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza remain within normal seasonal levels. The distinction is often blurred in headlines, with ILI frequently conflated with confirmed flu infections. Even public health officials acknowledge these limitations, along with the well-documented constraints of flu vaccine effectiveness, raising questions about whether the current narrative reflects the data.

January 10, 2026 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »