Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US ceasefire in Yemen: Retreat masquerading as restraint

The US ends its Red Sea campaign not by victory, but by necessity – under relentless pressure from an underestimated Yemeni resistance

By Mawadda Iskandar | The Cradle | May 8, 2025

In a major recalibration of its year-long Red Sea military campaign, the US has agreed to a ceasefire with Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned armed forces, brokered by Oman. After months of escalating attacks under the guise of “protecting international shipping,” Washington now finds itself calling time on a conflict it launched – but failed to control.

While Yemen’s leaders stress that operations in support of Gaza will persist, the US pivot signals more than de-escalation: It is a tacit admission that its campaign has collapsed under pressure, unable to achieve even its most basic strategic goals.

With over a thousand airstrikes launched since March 2024, Washington’s failure to contain the Yemeni threat in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab Strait, and the Gulf of Aden stands as a stark indictment of its military planning. The war devolved into a costly, high-stakes exercise in attrition – one Yemen emerged from stronger, not weaker.

A flawed campaign from the start

From its inception, the US-led campaign ‘Prosperity Guardian’ lacked clarity. The mission to “protect shipping lanes” quickly became an open-ended confrontation with no political roadmap. American officials misread both the battlefield and Yemen’s resilience.

Despite the might of its airpower, Washington failed to dent Sanaa’s capacity or will to fight. Instead, the bombardment accelerated Yemen’s military innovation, forcing Washington into a deterrence game it could not win.

Yemen’s unconventional warfare style, grounded in its topography and culture, posed immense challenges. Leaders operated from mountainous terrain fortified by tunnel systems, well beyond the reach of satellite surveillance.

The US had little intelligence penetration into Yemen’s military hierarchy and no functioning target bank. Sanaa’s leadership, experienced from years of prior war against the Saudi and UAE-led coalition and its proxies, held the advantage.

Speaking to The Cradle, Colonel Rashad al-Wutayri lists five key reasons for the campaign’s failure. First, Yemen’s use of low-cost, high-impact weapons – ballistic missiles and drones – pierced even US carrier strike groups.

Second, the campaign failed to protect Israeli or allied shipping. Third, Ansarallah exposed Israeli-American spy networks and clung to its demands: Namely, an end to the war on Gaza. Fourth, apart from Bahrain, Washington’s Arab allies declined to join the US-led coalition. Fifth, the financial cost spiraled, with the US spending millions on interceptors to counter drones built for mere thousands.

No coalition, no ground game

Washington’s diplomatic push to build a regional anti-Yemen coalition fell flat. Persian Gulf states, still stung from their own failures in Yemen, wisely kept their distance. Saudi Arabia refused to be drawn back into a war it has been trying to exit since 2022. The UAE, meanwhile, limited its support to logistics. Egypt stayed silent, unwilling to be sucked into another regional escalation.

This reticence was not without reason. Ansarallah leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi issued direct warnings to neighboring countries: Any cooperation with the US – via bases or troops – would bring immediate retaliation.

The threat worked. When Washington explored the idea of a ground assault using US special forces and Persian Gulf-backed militias, the plan quickly collapsed. Yemen’s terrain, its entrenched resistance, and the bitter legacy of previous Saudi-Emirati attempts made such a venture untenable.

Political analyst Abdulaziz Abu Talib tells The Cradle that Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have internalized the cost of further escalation. While both continue to bankroll proxy militias, they are steering clear of overt military entanglement. Yemen’s ability to withstand this trilateral aggression – and to land blows on US and Israeli interests – further eroded faith in Washington’s protective umbrella.

Bombs, billions, and blunders

Between March 2024 and April 2025, the US launched over 1,000 airstrikes on Yemen. Yet, rather than break its adversary, the campaign emboldened it. In retaliation, Yemen escalated steadily – from targeting Israeli vessels in November 2023, to US and UK ships by January, the Indian Ocean by March, and the Mediterranean by May.

By July, Ansarallah struck Tel Aviv with hypersonic missiles. A direct hit on Ben Gurion Airport followed, redrawing the region’s military balance.

The costs piled up. In the first three weeks alone, the US burned through $1 billion. Weapons like Tomahawk and JASSM missiles – costing millions apiece – were deployed against drones worth a few thousand dollars. Yemen’s own achievements mounted: 17 MQ-9 Reaper drones shot down, a $60 million F-18 fighter jet destroyed, and a declared aerial blockade of Israel.

Wutayri highlights that Yemen developed its arsenal domestically, without foreign technical assistance. That included the hypersonic missiles that bypassed Israeli and US air defenses, and drones capable of striking both military and commercial ships. Even as Washington intensified its bombardment, Yemen’s operational tempo and range only grew.

Erosion from within

Back in Washington, the cracks were showing. The Pentagon quietly expanded military commanders’ autonomy to strike targets without White House clearance – an effort to shield the administration from political fallout. But the costs, both financial and reputational, were impossible to ignore.

US media outlets began questioning the purpose and direction of the campaign. Public patience waned. There were calls for countries benefiting from Red Sea trade – namely Persian Gulf monarchies – to shoulder the burden of maritime security.

Wutayri says the US suffered further humiliation: a destroyer and three supply ships were sunk, and both the USS Abraham Lincoln and Harry S. Truman aircraft carriers were targeted. Despite spending another $500 million on interceptors, the results were negligible. The image of US warplanes crashing into the sea, and of exhausted troops – some 7,000 deployed – unable to break Yemen’s resolve, dented American prestige.

More than just a response to Red Sea attacks, the campaign was part of Washington’s broader effort to counter China’s regional influence, particularly Yemen’s emerging Belt and Road links. But the military track backfired, hardening local resistance and undermining US credibility.

Abu Talib notes that even stealth aircraft and strategic bombers failed to achieve deterrence. The Trump administration faced two options: retreat under the weight of defeat, or engage in talks under Ansarallah’s terms – chief among them an end to the Gaza war.

A war without an aim

From the outset, Washington struggled to manufacture a narrative of victory. The Pentagon released videos of jets launching from carriers – empty spectacle, absent substance. There were no “shock and awe” moments, no milestones to sell as success.

Yemen, meanwhile, delivered iconic images; among them, a father shielding his child during a bombing raid – a powerful symbol of national defiance. As civilian casualties mounted, so did public fury. Scenes of women and children pulled from rubble circulated widely, drawing uncomfortable parallels with past US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to Abu Talib, Yemen’s social cohesion and rugged geography undermined every attempt to break its lines. Far from fracturing under pressure, the public rallied behind Ansarallah. The more the US escalated, the more entrenched Yemeni resistance became – both militarily and socially.

Now, the Trump administration is shifting gears, seeking peace without admitting defeat. But Sanaa is not standing still. It promises continued operations, and with them, new strategic equations that could further upend the regional balance of power.

May 8, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Collapsing Empire: AnsarAllah Defeats US Again

By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | May 8, 2025

On May 6th, Donald Trump made the shock announcement that the US was abandoning all hostilities against Yemen. A vast, multi-billion dollar naval and air campaign officials in Washington had pledged would last “indefinitely” has abruptly ended, in return for AnsarAllah pledging not to attack American shipping in the Red Sea. While the President has bragged the Resistance group “capitulated” to his administration’s renewed, much-intensified belligerence and “don’t want to fight any more”, the reality is that God’s Partisans have once again defeated the Empire.

As reported by the New York Times, it remains unclear whether the ceasefire will apply to other foreign shipping, “after a costly seven-week bombing campaign.” Meanwhile, AnsarAllah has “stopped short of declaring a full cease-fire, saying that they would continue to fight Israel,” while [portraying] the deal as a major victory for the militia and a failure for Mr. Trump, spreading a social media hashtag that read ‘Yemen defeats America’.” In other words, the Resistance campaign against the Zionist entity will endure, and could intensify.

Reinforcing the Empire’s trouncing, such was Washington’s desperation to extricate herself from the self-initiated conflict, Israeli officials apparently weren’t apprised of the deal, only learning the US was withdrawing from the Red Sea from TV news reports. Yet, the mainstream media has over recent weeks clearly been laying the foundations of the Empire’s surrender to AnsarAllah, for the second time in less than a year. A number of prominent Western news reports have been uncharacteristically critical of US performance in battling God’s Partisans anew.

For example, on April 28th, major media outlets became abuzz with news that the USS Harry S. Truman – which led the Trump administration’s effort to crush AnsarAllah’s anti-genocide Red Sea blockade – lost an F-18 fighter jet and tow tractor, while executing a hard turn to evade fire from the Resistance group. While a US Navy press release on the incident made no reference to Yemen’s assault, nameless American officials briefed several mainstream journalists that God’s Partisans were responsible.

Reporting on the disaster by dependably servile CIA and Pentagon propaganda megaphone CNN was extraordinarily candid. “US Navy loses $60 million jet at sea after it fell overboard from aircraft carrier”, its headline read. The outlet explicitly acknowledged this resulted from an AnsarAllah “drone and missile attack” on USS Harry S. Truman. CNN went on to note the aircraft carrier has “repeatedly been targeted in attacks” by Yemen, while suffering a series of shameful blunders since its deployment to the Red Sea in September 2024.

In December that year, a US fighter jet posted to USS Harry S. Truman was shot down while conducting a refueling mission over the Red Sea in a friendly fire incident. The USS Gettysburg, which was escorting the aircraft carrier, blasted the jet with a missile for reasons unclear. This gross misadventure remains subject to official investigation. Then, on February 12th this year, USS Harry S. Truman was extensively damaged after colliding with a commercial vessel near Egypt’s Port Said, at the Suez Canal’s northern end.

The aircraft carrier returned to service after a period spent in Greece’s Souda Bay for repairs. The US Navy refused to release details about the cost of these repairs, or the total damage USS Harry S. Truman sustained in the collision. Whether further repairs were required was also not clarified. However, the accident was apparently considered so catastrophic within the Pentagon, the carrier’s chief Dave Snowden was fired from his post on February 20th, “due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command”.

These humiliating developments were completely ignored by the media. Concurrently however, mainstream outlets were engaged in a concerted effort to rehabilitate Operation Prosperity Guardian, the embarrassingly failed Biden administration attempt to smash God’s Partisans and end the Resistance group’s righteous Red Sea blockade. Launched with much hype following the Gaza genocide’s eruption, a vast US flotilla led by USS Eisenhower spent nine months getting battered by a relentless barrage of AnsarAllah drones and missiles to no avail, before scurrying back home.

‘Defensive Systems’

Throughout Operation Prosperity Guardian, current and former US military and intelligence officials expressed disquiet at the enormous “cost offset” involved in battling God’s Partisans in the Red Sea. The US Navy squandered countless difficult-to-replace missiles costing hundreds of thousands of dollars – if not millions – daily to shoot down the Resistance group’s drones. As Mick Mulroy, a former DOD official and CIA officer, bitterly told Politico:

“[This] quickly becomes a problem because the most benefit, even if we do shoot down their incoming missiles and drones, is in [AnsarAllah’s] favor… We, the US, need to start looking at systems that can defeat these that are more in line with the costs they are expending to attack us.”

There were no indications of this “cost offset” having been remediated by the time Operation Prosperity Guardian fizzled out in July 2024. Official US Navy figures on the “unprecedented” engagement suggest the USS Eisenhower-led carrier group fired a total of 155 standard missiles and 135 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, while accompanying fighter jets and helicopters “expended nearly 60 air-to-air missiles and released 420 air-to-surface weapons” – 770 munitions in total – over the nine-month-long conflict.

Independent analysis suggests these figures are likely to be even higher. Moreover, the US Navy did not provide a breakdown of the costs involved in Operation Prosperity Guardian. Still, even if one accepts the official totals, a single Tomahawk alone costs around $1.89 million, meaning firing 135 cost a staggering $255,150,000. There is also the enduring question of whether this astonishingly expensive arsenal failed to protect USS Eisenhower from direct AnsarAllah attack.

In February 2024, a cruise missile fired from Yemen penetrated so many layers of the aircraft carrier’s defences it was seconds from impact, forcing USS Eisenhower to employ the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System – its “last line of defense”. It marked the System’s first ever recorded use in battle. Then in June that year, the USS Eisenhower inexplicably withdrew from its sphere of operations in the Red Sea at maximum speed, immediately after God’s Partisans announced they had successfully struck the carrier. The media was silent on this incident.

Still, as this journalist recorded at the time, multiple news reports painted a dire picture of Operation Prosperity Guardian in its aftermath. Associated Press revealed participating sailors and pilots had found the experience “traumatizing”, as they “weren’t used to being fired on.” Many had repeatedly come within seconds of being struck by “Houthi-launched missiles”, before they were destroyed “by their ship’s defensive systems.” The Pentagon was thus considering providing “counseling and treatment” to thousands of US Navy employees suffering from “post-traumatic stress”, and their families.

‘Supplemental Funds’

Fast forward to February 2025, and Business Insider published a curious article, claiming based on documents exclusively obtained by the outlet that in fact, the US Navy had successfully “fended off” AnsarAllah’s Red Sea blitzkrieg throughout Operation Prosperity Guardian, “without firing a shot”. Instead, “undefined” and “unspecified” methods and weapons of a “non-kinetic” variety were “successfully” employed to protect “Navy and coalition warships and commercial vessels.” This was of course at total odds with literally everything the mainstream media had hitherto reported on the debacle.

With hindsight though, the report’s propaganda utility seems clear. It served to rehabilitate the US Navy’s performance in its war on Yemen, at a time the Trump administration was preparing to kickstart hostilities against God’s Partisans again. So it was on March 15th, US airstrikes began raining down on Sanaa anew, while the USS Harry S. Truman-led carrier force thrust stridently into the Red Sea. US officials talked a big game about the fresh assault continuing “indefinitely”, while Trump bragged that AnsarAllah was being “decimated”.

The April 28th loss of an F-18 fighter jet due to Yemeni attacks amply demonstrated these boasts to be bogus. The anonymous briefings furthermore strongly suggest Pentagon apparatchiks wanted it publicly known AnsarAllah was responsible. In the meantime, on April 4th, the New York Times reported Pentagon officials were “privately” briefing Trump’s belligerence was failing to graze God’s Partisans, while costing in excess of $1 billion to date. This not only meant “supplemental funds” needed to be mustered from Congress, but doubts about continued ammunition availability gravely abounded:

“So many precision munitions are being used, especially advanced long-range ones, that some Pentagon contingency planners are growing concerned about overall Navy stocks and implications for any situation in which the United States would have to ward off an attempted invasion of Taiwan by China.”

We can surmise this report, and the subsequent flurry of critical mainstream reporting on the USS Harry S. Truman’s troubles, were indicative of the Pentagon’s determination to end Washington’s renewed malevolence against Yemen before AnsarAllah inflicted yet another historic defeat on the US Empire. In a larger than life, farcical full stop to this debacle, on the same day Trump announced the Empire had been crushed again in the Red Sea, the USS Harry S. Truman lost another F/A-18. You couldn’t make it up.

May 8, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Who’s the ‘Real’ Peter Marks?

New Website Exposes Failure of Former FDA Vaccine Czar to Protect Americans From COVID Vaccine Dangers

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | May 6, 2025

A former top U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vaccine official ignored evidence that COVID-19 vaccines caused serious injuries, and dismissed the pleas of people injured by the vaccines, all while reassuring the public the shots were safe, documents published today on TheRealPeterMarks.com website reveal.

The website hosts public statements by Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., recordings of his calls with vaccine-injured individuals, transcripts and previously unreleased FDA records.

Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), React19 and Follow the Silenced — organizations that advocate for the vaccine-injured — obtained the documents through Freedom of Information Act requests and other legal work.

Dr. Danice Hertz, a retired gastroenterologist injured by the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, said she hopes the website reveals the side of Marks that the media ignores. Hertz said:

“We want to set the record straight about Marks. The media is misinformed about him and has falsely represented him as a hero. In my opinion, he is far from a hero. He is a dishonest, corrupt man whose allegiance has been to the vaccine manufacturers and not to the safety of the people.”

Website contradicts claims Marks makes in latest media blitz

On March 28, Marks resigned as director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) under pressure from his new boss, U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

He has since made several appearances on mainstream media, defending his record and attacking Kennedy.

React19 co-chair Dr. Joel Wallskog, a Wisconsin orthopedic surgeon injured by the COVID-19 vaccines, accused Marks of lying during media interviews.

“He is a liar and fearful of the truth getting out,” Wallskog said. “The best defense is a good offense.”

Wallskog and Brianne Dressen, a vaccine-injury victim and co-chair of React19, said the media failed to ask the former FDA executive key questions.

Wallskog said he wants to know why Marks “refused” to give Kennedy the vaccine injury data he requested. Dressen said she wants to ask Marks “about the countless lives negatively impacted by the COVID vaccines.”

“We brought the truth front and center to Marks, and he refused to see it,” Dressen said. “His decisions not to disclose highly reported injuries had devastating impacts on the medical community’s ability to recognize and treat injuries.” As a result, she said, “countless lives” were lost and people were “permanently harmed.”

Dressen said Marks’ “real tagline is ‘profits over people.’”

In an April 13 interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Marks told host Margaret Brennan, “You’re talking to the person who came up with Operation Warp Speed.”

Operation Warp Speed was the government’s public-private partnership responsible for facilitating and accelerating the development, manufacture and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.

As the person responsible for that operation, Marks would have been privy to warning signs on the possible dangers of the new COVID-19 vaccine.

Documents on TheRealPeterMarks.com site reveal that Marks knew about adverse events following vaccinations as early as October 2020 — less than two months before the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines received emergency use authorization (EUA).

Dressen said she was “astonished” that Marks ignored those warning signs and instead promoted the government’s “safe and effective” narrative.

“He knew very well that there were serious problems with the COVID vaccines,” Dressen said. “What astonished me was how he can say it with such resolve.”

Marks approved COVID vaccines, boosters for kids despite knowledge of risks

The documents posted on TheRealPeterMarks.com show that Marks ignored reports and studies on COVID-19 vaccine injuries sustained by children, and that he claimed such reports were “sensationalized.”

For example:

Dressen called out Marks for his handling of a prominent case of childhood vaccine injury involving Maddie de Garay, a 16-year-old who was seriously injured by the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in January 2021.

In June 2021, Marks accepted Pfizer’s finding that de Garay’s injuries were unrelated to the vaccine.

Marks received further updates about de Garay’s condition over the next few months, including statements by de Garay’s mother at an October 2021 meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

But in March 2022, Marks said de Garay’s injuries were not vaccine-related and he denied her parents’ request for a meeting. “They took Pfizer’s word for it, then internally gaslit her,” Dressen said.

‘Marks was continually moving the goalpost’ on vaccine risks

Transcripts of Marks’ meetings with vaccine-injury victims showed that he repeatedly rejected safety concerns, or safety signals, related to the COVID-19 shots.

“Marks was continually moving the goalpost — it didn’t matter how we communicated the data, didn’t matter how many hoops we jumped through,” Dressen said.

For example, Marks was repeatedly informed about the prevalence of neurological injuries post-vaccination, including in emails and reports he received in February, March, April and August of 2021.

Marks claimed in a September 2021 email to Dressen that there were no safety signals for neurological injuries. He did not take action in response to several reports in late 2021 and early 2022 on the prevalence of such injuries.

“We spoon-fed their own data to them, showing exactly where the problem is, and still, Marks insisted they couldn’t see it,” Dressen said.

“We know through our work at React19 that neurological adverse events are the most common,” Wallskog said.

Other examples highlighted in the documents include:

  • During a call in late 2022, Dr. Narayan Nair, then-director of CBER’s Division of Pharmacovigilance, acknowledged a safety signal for neuropathy in young women. But in the same call, Marks said this signal has “not been possible to tease out.”
  • In April 2021, a peer-reviewed paper described the case of a vaccinated person who experienced small fiber neuropathy following COVID-19 vaccination. It identified a successful treatment.
  • An August 2021 analysis of VAERS data showed that compared to the annual average of other vaccinations, there were 17 times more reports of serious injuries and 42 times more deaths reported after COVID-19 vaccines.

Marks also repeatedly denied the existence of safety signals for multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS). In an email from September 2022, Dressen told Marks that MIS occurs at a higher rate than thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome, which was associated with the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) COVID-19 vaccine and led to a pause in its administration.

However, in a call three days later, Marks said there was not enough data to “make a clear association” between MIS and the COVID-19 vaccines.

‘Stone-cold’ demeanor: Marks appeared indifferent to people injured by vaccines

In several instances, Marks expressed confusion as to why the vaccine-injured were having difficulty receiving medical care for their conditions. Yet he also reportedly appeared indifferent to the victims’ plights.

Dressen and Wallskog pointed to several instances when Marks appeared to act disrespectfully toward vaccine injury victims, notably blowing off an August 2021 meeting with vaccine-injured people and doctors.

Dressen said the meeting, scheduled three weeks in advance, was held the same day the Pfizer Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine received full FDA approval. “He was busy approving Comirnaty,” Dressen said.

Marks said in an email at the time he missed the meeting due to “urgent matters related to the ongoing pandemic.”

Marks later skipped a Nov. 2, 2021, COVID-19 vaccine injury roundtable hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), even though Johnson invited the FDA to attend. Marks did not respond to other emails from vaccine injury victims and attorneys in 2021.

According to Dressen and Wallskog, during other meetings and calls, Marks appeared unmoved by the stories recounted by the vaccine-injured. Wallskog said he acted “cold and calculated.” Dressen claimed Marks had a “stone-cold” demeanor and he was visibly performing other work while the injured shared their stories.

Related articles in The Defender

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

May 7, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Trump bans federal funding of “dangerous” gain-of-function research

The executive order targets high-risk bioengineering, calling time on a scientific gamble that is likely to have sparked a global catastrophe.

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | May 5, 2025

In a major policy shift, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order halting federal funding for “dangerous” gain-of-function (GoF) research.

The order defines such work as “scientific research on an infectious agent or toxin with the potential to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or increasing its transmissibility.”

Sitting behind the Resolute desk, flanked by key health officials, Trump signed the order with his trademark black Sharpie.

“It’s a big deal,” he said in a subdued tone. “Could have been that we wouldn’t have had the problems we had… if we had this done earlier.”

The directive compels federal agencies to suspend funding for any project “reasonably determined to be dangerous.” It applies not only to domestic institutions, but also to research conducted in “countries of concern” such as China and Iran.

A reckoning led by dissenters

The announcement marked not only a change in policy, but a striking reversal in scientific leadership.

Standing beside Trump were three officials once ridiculed as outliers during the pandemic – Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary.

Now elevated to senior roles, each has been outspoken in challenging the dominant narrative around Covid-19, including the origins of the virus and the ethics of risky research.

“It’s unbelievable to think the entire nightmare of Covid was totally preventable,” said Makary, referring to the mounting evidence of a lab origin and the suppression of early warnings.

“It’s crazy to think this entire nightmare was probably the result of some scientists messing with mother nature—with technology exported from the United States—that is, inserting a furin cleavage site,” said Makary. “So I hope this does some good in the world.”

Kennedy, long critical of gain-of-function research, was more blunt. “In all of the history of gain-of-function research, we cannot point to a single good thing that has come of it,” he said.

Speaking to reporters, Kennedy added, “We can’t allow this reckless experimentation to continue, especially when it’s been linked to catastrophic outcomes with no discernible benefit.”

For Kennedy, the NIH’s support of EcoHealth Alliance’s work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology wasn’t an isolated failure—it reflected a broader pattern of merging national security interests with poorly regulated academic ambition, which he wrote about in his latest book, The Wuhan Cover-Up.

Bhattacharya called the order a long-overdue correction.

“This is a historic day,” he said. “The conduct of this research does not protect us against pandemics, as some people might say. It doesn’t protect us against other nations.”

Bhattacharya warned that even well-intentioned experiments carry immense risk.

“There’s always a danger that in doing this research, it might leak out, just by accident even, and cause a pandemic. Any nation that engages in this research endangers their own population, as well as the world,” he warned.

Bhattacharya emphasised that most scientific work would continue unaffected. “The vast majority of science will go on under this as normal,” he explained, “but the fraction of this research that has the risk of causing a pandemic… we’re going to put in place a framework to make sure that the public has a say.”

“I’m really proud to be here with President Trump, who signed this order ending this research and for the first time, putting in place a real regulatory framework to make it go away forever,” Bhattacharya added.

Suppression of lab-leak evidence

The executive order also represents a deeper reckoning with how early concerns about a lab origin were dismissed.

Early in the pandemic, Trump publicly raised the possibility that Covid-19 may have leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, reportedly based on intelligence assessments.

But his suggestion was swiftly undermined—particularly by those within his own administration. Dr Anthony Fauci, then director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was quietly working to promote the natural origin theory.

Fauci held enormous influence over public health messaging, the media, and scientific institutions. His behind-the-scenes efforts to discredit the lab-leak hypothesis and favour a zoonotic explanation triggered a near-immediate shift in the White House’s public stance.

The campaign to suppress alternative explanations also became visible in leading scientific journals.

In February 2020, The Lancet published a letter organised by Fauci-linked researchers, which labelled lab-origin theories as “conspiracy.” The intent was not to encourage scientific debate, but to squash it.

Weeks later, Nature Medicine released the now-infamous “Proximal Origin” paper, which declared the virus was “not a laboratory construct.” Private emails later revealed that the authors actually had serious doubts and suspected the virus looked engineered.

Together, the two papers helped shut down legitimate scrutiny and created a scientific firewall protecting US-funded research.

Fauci retired in 2022 and, in early 2025, was granted a sweeping pardon by President Biden.

In April this year, the Trump administration launched an official White House website.

It states rather unequivocally: “COVID-19 came from a lab in Wuhan, China. The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), a lab controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), likely leaked the virus that caused the deadliest pandemic in human history.”

The site also alleges that top scientists and government officials in the US helped cover it up.

A turning point

This executive order signals a broader shift in how Trump’s government intends to confront the scientific and political failures of the pandemic era.

For years, unelected bureaucrats silenced dissent, buried contradictory evidence, and steered decisions behind closed doors. Questions about the virus’ origins were dismissed as conspiracy.

Whistleblowers were marginalised and dangerous research continued, shielded from oversight.

Now, with this order, the Trump administration is drawing a line.

By cutting off federal funding for high-risk virus manipulation and imposing new oversight, the order delivers what’s been missing from pandemic policy – that is, the political will to confront uncomfortable truths and a serious effort to prevent a future man-made pandemic.

May 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

War in Washington

By Karen Kwiatkowski | Lew Rockwell | May 3, 2025

The President values loyalty above all, and the war on leakers and whistleblowers is weapons hot, torpedo tubes flooded. The targets seem to be the “less loyal” among the current tribe of administration appointees and selected leftovers and hangers-on from the Biden regime. The shuffling of leaker-by accident NatSec Advisor Waltz over to the UN and the firing of his deputy Mr. Wong is what Trump voters wanted. Israel, maybe not so much.

This compelling Tucker Carlson interview with Dan Caldwell – one of three accused leakers in the administration let go a few weeks ago – reveals some things we ought to think about.  Caldwell, and others in the administration and the vast majority of Americans, don’t want stupid wars for even stupider reasons. Certain of Trump’s appointees, and a significant proportion of his loyal supporters, are realists on foreign policy, and this doesn’t sit well with the pro-war crowd infesting DC and inside the administration.

The recent jury trial of the federally prosecuted Uhuru activists sets the stage for understanding the long executive war against freedom of speech and association. Over 20 years ago under Bush 43  – advertised as non-interventionist at home and abroad – we saw “free speech zones” popularized and made par for the course. The charges against the Uhuru group were made up by the Biden administration and testify to not only elite requirements for our obedience in all things, but a direct contempt for an earlier Democratic Party that actually fought for freedom of speech and dissented against war.

The state demands loyalty. The loyalty construct is modeled by both major parties, all the way down to local Republican and Democratic committees, who operate in generally polite Bolshevik-mode. It is this very construct that we saw used under the Biden administration – where swearing that mostly peaceful cities burning is a national good, and under Trump – where criticizing a genocide conducted by an “ally” fueled and funded by the American taxpayer is verboten hate speech, illegal.

A Texas town is considering a non-binding resolution stating, among other things, that it no longer wishes for its State of Texas tax haul of $4.4 million being sent to Israel.  Read it for yourself, nothing in the resolution is false, and it represents – we may know for sure after the May 6th Town Council meeting – the wishes of the people of San Marcos.  Governor Abbott is beside himself.

DoJ’s charges against the Uhuru group had dwindled before the trial to only two: Failure to register as an agent of a foreign country, and conspiracy to fail to register as an agent of a foreign country.  AIPAC did not file an amicus brief, but they sure should have. There is a long history of AIPAC being accused of advocating for a foreign government in Washington, and in all 50 states.

The sheer reactivity of the pro-Israel lobby – and their paid for, bribed up, and reputation-blackmailed politicians – to the slightest whiff of disfavor about a small, corrupt, thoroughly militarized state of 9 million people is breathtaking.  This is becoming far more obvious, to far more people, far sooner than ever before. It’s starting to look frantic, desperate even. More than that, if “Princess and the Pea” is a strategy, it’s a bad one, very different than years of the behind the scenes maneuvering, cultivating and quietly placing key people in key positions in order to promote Zionist interests in Washington and to shape and leverage a sector of American Christian evangelicalism. Has the Israel lobby miscalculated what is happening in the US? Has Israel itself miscalculated what it needs to do to survive as a country?

Trump’s personality, a lingering Western recession, the common-man’s dawning recognition that DOGE has barely scratched the surface of tax-funded waste and idiocy, and emergent anti-war patriotism – none of this helps Netanyahu, or his successor.

Israel’s apologists in Washington and elsewhere are acting like addicts being nudged towards a rehab facility.  The Zionist lobby here and in Israel is not just exhibiting narcissism and denial, but a growing tone-deafness.

Matt Walsh has some useful observations on America today.  He told Tucker:

I don’t understand why, how do we get to a point where the dominant conversation in this country is about what’s happening in other countries…. My sense is… When I go on Twitter, go on X, and no matter what the topic is, it seems, it’s like, you know, it used to be six degrees of Kevin Bacon or whatever. Yeah. Uh, now it’s two degrees of Israel. I was like, no matter the topic, it always comes back for a lot of people to Israel one way or another. And, um, that’s not how I see it. I don’t see Israel as the centerpiece of any of these debates.

I think Matt is articulating what many Americans wonder about.  And the reaction to this national “wondering” is revealing the depth of the dependency, and the real fear Zionists in Israel and in America have that the Zionist project is going to be returned to them alone, no longer an experiment of interest to the United States, no longer a maximal or even existent line item on the foreign affairs and Pentagon budget. Matt suggests that if a country cannot organically survive, without significant aid and assistance from another country, maybe it isn’t a legitimate country. Maybe it doesn’t deserve the help – maybe it should demonstrate how it would manage its affairs on its own earnings, its own identity and value system. He observed,

… when I say that a country that can’t survive without us shouldn’t exist or doesn’t exist. That’s not any kind of like moral judgment. It’s just, this the way of human civilization. You have to be able to you have to be able to stand on your own two feet to be, to even qualify as a country. Right. And I think the American taxpayers have been saddled for many years now with propping up country after country after country.

Rational people, and rational Americans can’t argue with that. In fact, this kind of thinking is fundamental to the so-called “American dream.” It is how we think, and incidentally, it is also antithetical to both socialism and progressivism.

It’s time to cut the apron strings of foreign and military aid. We can’t afford it and it doesn’t work as advertised. Trump is looking to cut overseas enterprises that are obviously corrupt, deceitful, immoral and have no cards left to play. He has stated this publicly, about Ukraine.

Trump’s thinking on this topic may evolve to give Israel the same liberation. Trump’s over-the-top support for Israel allows him to safely chide Netanyahu, surprise him with direct talks with Iran, slow roll tariff relief, and tell him that he needs to allow food and water into Gaza. Without a doubt, Trump has staffed the most pro-Israel government since Lyndon Baines Johnson. I am ready for a new and inverted Nixon to China meme, where only uber pro-Zionist Trump can set Israel free.

The people advising Trump are important to him, but they are even more important to Israel. Moving Waltz out to the hinterland of UN talking points is a skirmish in a larger battle being waged in DC over personnel and policies. The last time we had this intensity of Zionists battling for power over a US President and his foreign policy, we got a violent regime change.

May 7, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Kristi Noem’s Authoritarian Take on Travel

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | May 6, 2025

Speaking Tuesday before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations regarding the implementation of REAL ID mandates on travelers, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem displayed succinctly in one sentence her disdain for the right of Americans to travel freely and her support instead for an authoritarian approach to travel.

“But we are telling people that this law will be enforced and it will allow us to know individuals in this country who they are and that they’re authorized to travel,” declared Noem regarding the starting the next day of REAL ID enforcement on travelers. Yet, the right to travel is a fundamental right long recognized by the US government and its courts. And the right to travel is the opposite of travel being allowed only when and to whom the government decides. Further, the right to travel includes the right to travel without showing your papers, updated in the age of mass surveillance to showing your REAL ID. An apparently peaceful person going about his business should be able to continue to do so without having to identify himself to any government agent or provide proof that the government has preapproved his movement from point A to point B. That’s freedom. The Noem approach, in contrast, is authoritarianism.

Adding to the outrageousness of this defense of REAL ID Noem offered is an assertion she made just before in her comments at the subcommittee hearing. Noem said that REAL ID would be imposed on travelers on Wednesday because after years — 17 years in fact — of delay of implementation “the Biden administration chose that it should go into place on May seventh and we intend to follow the law.” Hold on: Noem is really passing the buck to the Biden administration? President Donald Trump and his administration has spent a great amount of effort — via executive orders, regulation changes, and other actions — rescinding many decrees of the Biden administration. Trump and Noem could do the same regarding REAL ID. At a minimum, they could ensure four more years of delay as administration after administration has done before. Instead, they chose to move forward with imposing REAL ID on travelers. They cannot evade any of the responsibility on this. Trump and Noem are choosing to pursue the authoritarian course.

May 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Shelter in your bunkers or leave our region: President of Yemen’s Supreme Political Council to Israelis

Al Mayadeen | May 6, 2025

President of Yemen’s Supreme Political Council, Mahdi al-Mashat, vowed on Tuesday that Sanaa’s response to Israeli and US aggression would be “devastating and painful,” and beyond what either party could withstand.

His remarks followed Israeli airstrikes targeting civilian infrastructure in Sanaa, including the airport, power stations, and factories.

“From now on, take shelter in your bunkers or leave our region immediately,” al-Mashat warned the Israeli occupation. “Your failed government can no longer protect you.”

He reaffirmed Yemen’s firm stance in supporting Gaza, stressing, “Our strikes are effective, and they will continue. We will not be deterred from our rightful stance in supporting our brothers in Palestine until the aggression ends and the siege on Gaza is lifted.”

Trump says aggression on Yemen suspended

The remarks came shortly after US President Donald Trump declared a halt to American airstrikes on Yemen, claiming Sanaa had promised to end Red Sea attacks on ships.

However, Ansar Allah leaders denied any formal commitment, with senior official Mohammed al-Bukhaiti stating that operations against US warships might pause if American strikes ceased, but vowed that military actions in support of Gaza and against the Israeli occupation would continue unabated.

Al-Mashat: Escalation will endanger Trump during his visits to the region

Later, al-Mashat said that authorities in Sanaa indirectly informed Washington that the continued escalation in the region will only affect the visits of “the criminal Trump” to the region. He said that Yemen did not inform the US of anything else.

“If the criminal Trump wants to stop his aggression and compensate [for the destruction] he left behind, that is up to him,” al-Mashat emphasized.

Oman’s Foreign Ministry confirmed it had brokered a ceasefire agreement aimed at de-escalation between the US and the authorities in Sanaa, with both parties agreeing not to target each other moving forward.

Yet the US State Department later clarified that the agreement applies strictly to maritime operations in the Red Sea. “If the Houthis [Ansar Allah] commit to not targeting ships, we will also reciprocate,” a spokesperson said.

‘Israel’ bewildered by Trump announcement

Meanwhile, the announcement from Trump sent shockwaves through the Israeli political establishment. According to Channel 14, the Israeli occupation leadership was blindsided by both Trump’s remarks on Yemen and his promise of a “major announcement” during his upcoming Middle East tour. The channel described the political mood as one of “confusion and disbelief.”

Amit Segal of Channel 12 described Trump’s message as a regional signal: “If I were Iranian, I would understand it as: hit ‘Israel’ and leave us alone.”

Tsvi Yehezkeli, Arab affairs analyst for Channel 13, speculated that the US may be pursuing a quiet agreement with Yemen. “I don’t see another explanation for this declaration,” he said, warning that the US disengagement puts “Israel” in a difficult position, effectively leaving it alone to face Yemeni retaliation. “This is no longer just about Red Sea shipping; it’s now about direct fire on Israel,” he added.

However, despite Trump’s claims of a breakthrough, Ansar Allah denied that any such concession had been made. In an interview with Bloomberg, Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a member of the group’s Political Council, affirmed that military operations in the Red Sea and against “Israel” would continue until the aggression on Gaza ends and the siege on its people is lifted.

May 6, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Oman brokers US-Yemen ceasefire, Israelis in dark regarding deal

Al Mayadeen | May 6, 2025

The Omani Foreign Ministry announced on Tuesday that it had successfully brokered a ceasefire agreement between the United States and the authorities in Sanaa, aimed at achieving mutual de-escalation.

According to a statement from Muscat, the agreement entails a commitment by both sides, Washington and the Sanaa-based government, not to target each other in future military operations.

“The Sultanate thanks both parties for their constructive approach that led to this welcome outcome,” the statement read, emphasizing Oman’s longstanding diplomatic efforts in mediating regional conflicts.

US President Donald Trump had earlier declared an immediate halt to US airstrikes on Yemen, claiming that Yemeni authorities had promised to cease attacks on vessels in the Red Sea.

‘Trump surprised us’

The declaration appears to have caught the Israeli occupation off guard, with Axios journalist Barak Ravid quoting a senior Israeli official saying, “We didn’t know about this. Trump surprised us.”

Despite Trump’s claims of a breakthrough, Ansar Allah denied that any such concession had been made. In an interview with Bloomberg, Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a member of the group’s Political Council, affirmed that military operations in the Red Sea and against “Israel” would continue until the aggression on Gaza ends and the siege on its people is lifted.

Support for Gaza will not cease

While al-Bukhaiti indicated that attacks on US warships may pause if American strikes cease, he stressed that “we will definitely continue our operations in support of Gaza,” underscoring that the movement’s military actions are directly tied to the Israeli regime’s ongoing war on the Gaza Strip.

Ansar Allah “will not stop regardless of the consequences until the end of the aggression on Gaza and blockade on its people,” al-Bukhaiti stressed.

US to halt airstrikes on Yemen

Trump announced on Tuesday that Washington will halt its airstrikes on Yemen, claiming that his administration received a “promise” from Yemeni representatives to stop attacks on vessels in the Red Sea. Trump described the move as “good news” and a step toward de-escalation in the region.

Speaking during a press conference at the White House alongside Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump said his administration trusts the Yemeni assurances despite the absence of a formal agreement. “The Yemenis don’t want to fight, and we’ll stop bombing them. We believe their word that they won’t target ships anymore,” he said.

He emphasized that the decision was made in light of what he described as a “genuine desire for calm” and reiterated that there is “no reason to continue the air raids as long as Yemen holds to its commitment to end naval operations.”

‘Israel’ conducts airstrikes on Yemen

Trump’s remarks came just hours after Israeli warplanes carried out airstrikes on the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, resulting in several casualties and injuries.

According to The Jerusalem Post, the Israeli occupation was not informed in advance about the US decision to halt its aggression on Yemen.

Al Mayadeen’s correspondent confirmed that Sanaa International Airport was targeted by a series of Israeli airstrikes.

Footage shared on social media platforms showed scenes of Israeli airstrikes reportedly targeting Sanaa International Airport.

May 6, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Do Trump’s Slick Comments Put Iran Talks in Jeopardy?

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | May 6, 2025

U.S. President Donald Trump’s unexpected answer on Sunday to an interviewer’s question has thrown his administration’s nuclear negotiations with Iran into confusion.

Trump has consistently said that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program are limited to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon: “You know, it’s not a complicated formula. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.” But in an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, when the interviewer asked Trump, “Is the goal of these talks limiting Iran’s nuclear program or total dismantlement?” Trump answered, “Total disarmament.”

There has been disagreement in the Trump team over, not just the goal of negotiations with Iran, but, more fundamentally, over negotiating with Iran. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz advocated for a military path, while Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Vice President J.D. Vance advocated for caution. Vance urged fully exploring talks before settling for a military solution. Trump sided with the diplomacy camp, believing that “we can make a deal without the attack.”

According to reporting by The Washington Post, Trump fired Waltz as National Security Advisor because he opposed Trump and “wanted to take U.S. policy in a direction Trump wasn’t comfortable with because the U.S. hadn’t attempted a diplomatic solution.” Waltz maintained that “the time was ripe to strike Iran.”

Having agreed on the diplomatic path, there appeared to be confusion over the goal of diplomacy. Waltz said that the U.S. is demanding “full dismantlement,” and Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff said that “a Trump deal” means “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.” But these statements had been at odds with Trump’s more limited stated goal. Until Sunday.

If there was a lack of clarity in America’s goals in negotiating, there was no ambiguity in Iran’s. Iran wanted a deal that the United States couldn’t walk away from, as they walked away from the previous 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement, and they wanted negotiations to lead to three things.

The first is that negotiations have to lead to a cessation of U.S. threats of a military solution. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian had made it clear that “the language of threats and coercion is absolutely unacceptable… It is unacceptable for someone to come along and say, ‘Don’t do this, don’t do that, or else.’ I won’t come to negotiate with you.”

The second is that negotiations have to lead to the complete lifting of sanctions.

The third is that, while Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has fully empowered his team to negotiate, he has placed the firm limit that Iran will not negotiate “the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.”

The American-Iranian talks were showing signs of success. Iran called the first round “constructive” and “respectful.” The U.S. called it “constructive” and “positive.” The first round led to a second, which led to an agreement to begin work on a framework for a potential deal and a third round of talks.

Then a flurry of confusing and contradictory statements made by U.S. officials in the past few days began to derail the talks.

First, Pete Hegseth returned to the language of threats. Referring to Yemen’s Houthi attacking vessels in the Red Sea, Hegseth “warned” Iran, “You know very well what the U.S. Military is capable of… You will pay the CONSEQUENCE at the time and place of our choosing.” From Iran’s perspective, what is the point in negotiating limits on your civilian nuclear program to avoid American bombs if the United States is going to bomb you anyway for another purpose?

Then Trump returned to the threat of sanctions, posting that “Any Country or person who buys ANY AMOUNT of OIL or PETROCHEMICALS from Iran will be subject to, immediately, Secondary Sanctions. They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form.”

Following those two statements, the fourth round of scheduled talks between the United States and Iran were postponed. They were allegedly postponed “[f]or logistical reasons.” However, a senior Iranian official said that “U.S. sanctions on Iran during the nuclear talks are not helping the sides to resolve the nuclear dispute through diplomacy” and that “[d]epending on the U.S. approach, the date of the next round of talks will be announced.”

Then came the unexpected threat to future talks. Trump told Meet the Press that the talks are not negotiating what the Iranians thought they were negotiating. The United States he said, is not negotiating verifiable limits on Iran’s civilian nuclear program, it is demanding “total dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program.

“That’s all you’ll accept?” the interviewer clarified. “Yeah, that’s all I’d accept,” Trump confirmed.

The interviewer then, wrongly, suggested that Trump’s statement was inconsistent with Marco Rubio, his Secretary of State’s, suggestion that the U.S. “would accept… a peaceful, civilian nuclear program.”

Trump’s statement is not inconsistent with Rubio’s, though, because Rubio’s statement that Iran can have a civilian nuclear program by importing uranium enriched up to 3.67% but no longer by enriching their own, is consistent with Trump’s statement that Iran would have to dismantle its enrichment capability.

Though Trump’s statement may not be inconsistent with Rubio’s, it did, at this point, become a little confused with itself. Trump suggested that Iran has no need of a civilian nuclear program “to make electricity” because “they have so much oil, what do they need it for.” Trump then, confusingly repeated his earlier formulation, saying, “The only thing they can’t have is a nuclear weapon.” He said, “I think that I would be open to hearing” about a civilian nuclear program to generate energy before seemingly shutting it down again with the observation that “civilian energy often leads to military wars.”

The recent return by Washington to military threats and sanctions are not helping negotiations that seemed to be on a path to possible success. Trump’s latest remark that Iran has to fully dismantle its civilian nuclear program and stop all enrichment appears to take away any motivation for Iran to negotiate. Since Trump has said that “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing,” it is imperative to clarify the confusion and the positions and get the fourth round of talks back on schedule.

May 6, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘A lot of people know’ who blew up Nord Stream – Trump

RT | May 6, 2025

US President Donald Trump has dismissed claims that Russia was behind the 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines and suggested that the true culprit is widely known – without naming names.

Speaking at a White House press event, Trump said there was no need for a formal investigation to uncover who carried out the attack, which crippled a key energy route between Russia and Western Europe.

Three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, built to deliver Russian gas to Germany and the rest of Western Europe, were damaged by blasts at the bottom of the Baltic Sea in September 2022.

On Tuesday, a correspondent for libertarian financial blog ZeroHedge, which has been admitted to White House press events under the new administration, noted that Trump had previously rejected the Western narrative that Russia blew up its own pipelines, and asked the president if he was planning to initiate a probe to find out who was actually behind the attack.

“If you can believe it, they said Russia blew it up,” Trump responded. “Well, probably if I asked certain people, they would be able to tell you without having to waste a lot of money on an investigation. But I think a lot of people know who blew it up,” he added, without elaborating.

ZeroHedge suggested that Trump’s comment meant that “based on classified intelligence he knows exactly who was behind” the destruction of Nord Stream. It also “should put the ‘Russia destroyed its own vital and economically lucrative pipeline’ storyline to rest,” the outlet insisted.

In early February 2023, veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published a report claiming that then US President Joe Biden had given the order to destroy Nord Stream. According to an informed source who talked to the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, the explosives that were detonated on September 26, 2022 had been planted at the pipelines by US Navy divers a few months earlier under the cover of a NATO exercise called ‘Baltops 22’. The White House denied the report, calling it “utterly false and complete fiction.”

Senior Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, have previously pointed the finger at the US as the possible culprit behind the Nord Stream explosions. They have argued that Washington had the technical means to carry out the operation and stood to gain the most, considering that the attack disrupted Russian energy supplies to the EU and forced a shift to more expensive US-supplied liquefied natural gas.

May 6, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Economics, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Gender-affirming care for minors under fire in sweeping US report

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | May 4, 2025

Paediatric gender dysphoria has rapidly emerged as one of the most divisive and urgent issues in medicine today. In the past decade, the number of children and adolescents identifying as transgender or nonbinary has soared.

In the US alone, diagnoses among youth aged 6 to 17 nearly tripled—from around 15,000 in 2017 to over 42,000 by 2021—signalling a seismic shift not only in culture but in clinical practice.

Children diagnosed with gender dysphoria—a condition defined by distress related to one’s biological sex or associated gender roles—are increasingly being offered powerful medical interventions.

These include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and, in some cases, irreversible surgeries such as mastectomy, vaginoplasty, or phalloplasty.

An umbrella review from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) states that “thousands of American children and adolescents have received these interventions,” despite a lack of solid scientific footing.

While advocates often claim the treatments are “medically necessary” and “lifesaving” the report concludes “the overall quality of evidence concerning the effects of any intervention on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret, or long-term health, is very low.”

It also cautions that evidence of harm is sparse—not necessarily because harms are rare, but due to limited long-term data, weak tracking, and publication bias.

This 409-page report delivers a scathing review of the assumptions, ethics, and clinical practices driving gender-affirming care in the US.

An inversion of medical ethics

At the heart of the HHS critique is a reversal of medical norms.

“In many areas of medicine, treatments are first established as safe and effective in adults before being extended to paediatric populations,” the report explains. “In this case, however, the opposite occurred.”

Despite inconclusive outcomes in adults, these interventions were rolled out for children—without rigorous data, and with little regard for long-term, often irreversible consequences.

These include infertility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone development, elevated cardiovascular risk, and psychiatric complications.

“The physical consequences are often irreversible,” the report warns.

Puberty blockers, frequently marketed as a reversible ‘pause,’ actually interrupt bone mineralisation at a critical growth stage—raising the risk of stunted skeletal growth and early-onset osteoporosis.

When followed by cross-sex hormones, as is common, the harms multiply. Known risks include metabolic disruption, blood clots, sterility, and permanent loss of sexual function.

Yet many clinics operate under a “child-led care” model, where a minor’s self-declared “embodiment goals” dictate treatment.

The report notes that some leading clinics conduct assessments “in a single session lasting two hours,” often with no robust psychological evaluation.

Consent and capacity

This raises a critical question: are children capable of consenting to life-altering medical interventions?

According to the HHS, informed consent means more than simple agreement—it requires a deep understanding of risks, alternatives, and long-term impact.

And by definition, children lack full legal and developmental capacity for medical decision-making.

“When medical interventions pose unnecessary, disproportionate risks of harm, healthcare providers should refuse to offer them even when they are preferred, requested, or demanded by patients,” the report states.

Supportive parents cannot shield clinicians from ethical responsibility. Many children who present for transition also have autism, trauma histories, depression, or anxiety—all of which can impair decision-making.

Yet clinicians frequently misread a child’s desire to transition as evidence of capacity.

The report warns that the current affirmation model “undermines the possibility of genuinely informed consent” and that the “true rate of regret is not known.”

This becomes especially urgent when the outcomes—sterility, bone loss, and sexual dysfunction—are permanent. Can a 13-year-old grasp what it means to forgo biological parenthood?

As the report suggests, the system has failed to distinguish between a young person’s wish to transition and their developmental ability to understand what that means long term.

A moral failure

The problem is not only medical—it’s moral.

The HHS accuses the medical establishment of abandoning its core duty: to protect vulnerable patients. Ideology and activism, it argues, have taken precedence over evidence and caution.

“The evidence for benefit of paediatric medical transition is very uncertain, while the evidence for harm is less uncertain,” it states.

Among the most disturbing trends highlighted in the report is the sidelining of mental health support.

Research suggests that most cases of paediatric gender dysphoria resolve without intervention. Yet clinicians continue to proceed with irreversible treatments.

“Medical professionals have no way to know which patients may continue to experience gender dysphoria and which will come to terms with their bodies,” the report explains.

The illusion of consensus

The report also takes aim at the idea that gender-affirming care enjoys universal professional backing. It reveals that many official endorsements come from small, ideologically driven committees within larger organisations.

“There is evidence that some medical and mental health associations have suppressed dissent and stifled debate about this issue among their members,” it warns.

Several whistleblowers have spoken out—often at considerable personal risk.

Jamie Reed, a former case manager at the Washington University Transgender Center, alleged that children were being rushed into medical transition without adequate psychological screening. Her testimony led to a state investigation and Senate hearing.

Clinical psychologist Erica Anderson, a transgender woman and former president of the US Professional Association for Transgender Health, has repeatedly raised concerns about the haste with which children are put on medical pathways.

Dr Eithan Haim, a surgeon in Texas, is now facing prosecution after revealing details about paediatric gender surgeries at a children’s hospital.

Rather than sparking debate, these whistleblowers have faced vilification, career damage, and in some cases legal consequences. The HHS suggests this culture of fear has stifled the scientific inquiry necessary for sound medicine.

Psychotherapy as an alternative

Instead of defaulting to hormones or surgery, the report urges a return to psychotherapy. Gender-related distress, it notes, often overlaps with broader psychological challenges that can be addressed non-invasively.

“There is no evidence that pediatric medical transition reduces the incidence of suicide, which remains, fortunately, very low,” the report finds.

Psychotherapy carries no documented harms and offers space for resolution and support. The HHS calls for greater investment in “psychotherapeutic management” as a safer and more ethical approach.

Restoring scientific integrity

Commissioned under President Trump’s Executive Order Defending Children’s Innocence by Ending Ideological Medical Interventions, the report responds to growing alarm over the medicalisation of minors.

Trump’s Executive Order directed federal agencies to evaluate practices to help “minors with gender dysphoria, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, or other identity-based confusion, or who otherwise seek chemical or surgical mutilation.”

It explicitly criticised “junk science” promoted by groups such as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), calling for a return to evidence-based standards and scientific discipline.

Rather than imposing new mandates, the HHS report focuses on delivering “the most accurate and current information available” to clinicians, families, and policymakers—urging caution and restraint.

“Our duty is to protect our nation’s children—not expose them to unproven and irreversible medical interventions,” said NIH Director Dr Jay Bhattacharya. “We must follow the gold standard of science, not activist agendas.”

Reform already underway

The HHS report lands amid a wave of legal reforms.

As of this year, 27 states have passed laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors. These range from full bans on hormones and surgery to tighter consent requirements.

Nineteen of those laws were passed in 2023 alone, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Over half of states have enacted laws/policies limiting youth access to gender affirming care

Though many face court challenges, the trend reflects mounting public concern over the medicalisation of gender-distressed youth. The HHS findings are expected to accelerate further scrutiny and legislative action.

Global shifts

The HHS review is part of a broader international movement to re-examine paediatric gender medicine.

In 2024, the UK’s Cass Review, led by paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass, delivered a landmark critique of NHS gender services. Cass concluded that the model had been adopted prematurely “based on a single Dutch study,” and lacked sufficient evidence.

Dr Hilary Cass, paediatrician

In response, the UK banned the routine use of puberty blockers and began closing the Tavistock gender clinic, replacing it with regional centres focused on holistic mental health care.

In Australia, the Queensland government took similar steps earlier this year, pausing all prescriptions of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors pending further review.

The move followed the suspension of Dr Jillian Spencer, a senior psychiatrist, from her clinical duties at Queensland Children’s Hospital after she raised concerns about the gender care protocols being used.

Her case has since become a focal point in Australia’s national debate on youth gender medicine.

Dr Jillian Spencer, paediatric psychiatrist, Queensland

A reckoning

The HHS report is more than a policy review—it is a warning.

It reveals that thousands of children—many struggling with underlying psychological issues—have been placed on a path of irreversible medicalisation without the basic safeguards expected in any other area of healthcare.

The report concludes that gender medicine has been practised backwards – treatments were introduced first, and only later did the search for evidence begin.

It calls for a course correction—one that puts evidence before ideology, and ethics above political expediency.

Whether institutions will act on its findings remains to be seen. But for families searching for answers, the report may finally provide the long-overdue clarity that has been obscured by years of activism and politics.

May 5, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

UCLA Gaza protesters sue over police violence, rubber bullet injuries

Al Mayadeen | May 5, 2025

A new lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court accuses law enforcement of police brutality during a violent crackdown on pro-Palestine protesters at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in spring 2024.

At the height of nationwide demonstrations against “Israel’s” war on Gaza, the UCLA encampment became a central site of student-led protest. On April 30, a pro-“Israel” mob attacked the encampment for more than four hours. Protesters say that police stood by as counter-demonstrators launched fireworks, sprayed chemical agents, and engaged in harassment and sexual assault, according to The Intercept.

The following day, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, UCLA officials, and multiple law enforcement agencies coordinated plans to dismantle the encampment. On May 1, the encampment was forcibly cleared.

On February 12, 2025, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Graduate Students for Justice in Palestine (GSJP) were placed on interim suspension.

Police response: coordination and forceful dispersal

More than 700 police officers descended on campus, including members of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), California Highway Patrol (CHP), Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, University of California Police Department, and private security forces.

During the raid, law enforcement fired over 50 rounds of rubber bullets into the crowd, striking multiple protesters in the head. Several individuals were hospitalized, including one who sustained internal bleeding and another whose hand bones were shattered, requiring surgery and extensive rehabilitation.

Protesters are now suing both the state of California, which oversees CHP, and the city of Los Angeles, which oversees LAPD. The suit argues that the use of rubber bullets by LAPD and CHP amounted to excessive force and violated protesters’ constitutional rights.

Legal violations: restricted rubber bullets and protesters’ rights

Following mass protests in 2020 against the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, California lawmakers passed a law limiting the use of kinetic impact projectiles, commonly known as rubber bullets. The legislation bans their use at protests unless there is an objective and immediate threat to life or serious injury.

The lawsuit states that officers’ actions at the UCLA encampment violated this law. Attorney Becca Brown, representing the plaintiffs, emphasized that the indiscriminate firing of such projectiles is both illegal and dangerous.

“They cannot be used simply because someone is non-compliant,” she explained.

Despite UCLA’s revised protocols following 2020 to minimize reliance on external police forces, CHP, typically less involved in protest response, played a prominent role in the May 1 raid.

An LAPD after-action report later attempted to justify the force used, citing incidents like a protester throwing a traffic cone or removing a police helmet. However, the report admitted communication breakdowns among agencies and recommended improved command clarity.

Chilling effect: trauma, criminalization, and fear of future protest

The lawsuit includes plaintiffs such as a UCLA Ph.D. candidate, an undergraduate student, another student from a different university, and an architectural designer. All were struck with rubber bullets, several in the head. Beyond physical injuries, the plaintiffs say the crackdown has severely impacted their willingness to participate in future demonstrations.

“The encampment clearance by means of violence, excessive force, and kinetic energy projectiles traumatized Plaintiffs,” the complaint reads. “It justifiably made them less willing to engage in any further Palestine-related protest activity.”

One plaintiff, Abdullah Puckett, now fears future retaliation if he returns to protest. The complaint states that he is “more hesitant and afraid,” and has had to reevaluate the extent of his participation in pro-Palestine demonstrations.

Broader implications: political accountability and state repression

More than 200 people were arrested during the UCLA encampment clearance. LAPD later requested over $500,000 in reimbursement for the operation, which included 2,400 overtime hours, according to the Daily Bruin. The arrests resulted in criminal records for many students.

Lawyers say those records are now being used by the Trump administration to conduct background checks on international students and potentially flag them for deportation.

“For international students that may have been arrested at any of these encampments, that got flagged and could be subject to deportation under Trump’s fascist policies,” said Ricci Sergienko, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

Sergienko criticized Democratic leaders such as Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Bass, arguing that their actions laid the groundwork for broader state repression. “These attacks also happened in Democratic-run cities and blue states,” he said.

He also warned of mounting censorship in academia, pointing to a proposed bill in California that targets ethnic studies programs under the pretext of combating antisemitism. “That’s another attack on speech coming from the blue state, the liberal paradise of California,” he said.

During a recent screening of the documentary The Encampments at UCLA, police were once again called in. LAPD officers arrested three students.

May 5, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »