Current Pfizer Board Member and Former Trump Appointed FDA Commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb
His loyalty to Pfizer is so strong he’s willing to be publicly disloyal to Trump and attack Trump’s pick for HHS Secretary with false claims about vaccines
Injecting Freedom by Aaron Siri | December 1, 2024
Pfizer board member and former Trump appointed FDA commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, went on the air to attack Trump’s nomination for HHS Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Here is my response, posted on X, to his comments:
Pfizer board member, @ScottGottliebMD, you look foolish attacking @RobertKennedyJr on CNBC (links to clips below) because it’s clear you lack basic knowledge regarding vaccines. For example:
- Your claim that in “early 2000s … FDA reformulate[d] the existing MMR vaccine to take some of the preservatives out,” is false. Never happened. You are likely thinking about the removal of thimerosal in the early 2000s from various vaccines but as even CDC explains, “Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines do not and never did contain thimerosal.” https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/thimerosal.html
- Your claim that a child “can’t get vaccinated [for MMR] until age 2” is simply false. MMR is routinely given at one year of age and sometimes even earlier. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/index.html
- Your claims regarding pertussis vaccines nonsensically ignore the fact that these products do not prevent transmission of the pertussis bacteria – they only provide, at best, personal protection. As a recent consensus paper of industry pertussis vaccine “experts” explained, “aPVs [pertussis vaccine] … cannot avoid infection and transmission. … aPV pertussis vaccines do not prevent colonization. Consequently, they do not reduce the circulation of B. pertussis and do not exert any herd immunity effect.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31333640/
- Your claims regarding polio nonsensically ignore the fact that the last wild case of polio in the U.S. was in 1979 and that the only polio vaccine used in the U.S. for the last 24 years only provides, at best, personal protection and does not prevent transmission of the polio virus. As CDC explains: “IPV [inactivated polio vaccine] … does not stop transmission of the virus.” https://www.cdc.gov/poliovirus-containment/diseaseandvirus/index.html
- You claimed that “we [Pfizer] don’t make the pediatric vaccines, Pfizer is not in that market” to deflect the claim that, as a board member of Pfizer, you have a serious conflict of interest in attacking RFK Jr. regarding pediatric vaccines. But, as you no doubt know, Pfizer does sell pediatric vaccines, including the Prevnar vaccine given to babies at 2, 4, 6, and 12 months of age, which was one of Pfizer’s top three selling products in 2023. https://www.pfizer.com/sites/default/files/investors/financial_reports/annual_reports/2023/ Your claim is either a lie or reveals deep ignorance.
- Your claim regarding measles mortality is based on dubious and unreliable data and ignores the facts that (1) approximately 400 people total died annually in the U.S. in the years before the first measles vaccine in 1963 (amounting to around 1 death for every 500,000 Americans), and (2) mortality from measles declined by over 98% from 1900 to 1960 before the vaccine and was continuing to decline. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/6200. In any event, you dutifully ignore the fact that RFK Jr. has made clear he has no intention of taking away vaccines from anyone who wants them.
- You claim RFK Jr. will cost lives, but I would argue that ignorance regarding vaccine products does and has cost lives. I welcome a public debate in which we can discuss the number of lives ignorance about vaccines has cost versus your speculations about those RFK Jr. will supposedly cause (a man who has actually devoted his life to saving the lives of children).
Your knowledge regarding these products is only matched by your track record as a public “health” official. The plummeting decline in childhood health from the early 1980s (from less than 13% with chronic disease to now well over 50%) continued unabated while you were FDA commissioner. Respectfully, you lack authority or a track record, let alone basic knowledge, to speak on the subjects you address in this interview (let alone to discuss this topic with Senators to dissuade them from confirming RFK Jr.)
If you were being honest, you would reveal that your real concern, as a board member of Pfizer, is that Pfizer’s golden gooses – Covid-19 vaccines, Prevnar vaccines, RSV vaccines, etc. – will have to face the reality of the devastating harms they have caused to families across America. Your interview stinks of self-interest. The time for selling out America’s children so pharma and its leaders, like you, can line their pockets has come to an end.
The above responds to a recent CNBC segment on which you recently appeared and which you tweeted out in two parts:
Syria after 13 years of U.S. state terrorism… what do you expect?
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 10, 2024
In less than 13 days, a coalition of U.S.-backed jihadist militant groups took over Syria. The offensive, which began on November 27, culminated in Syrian President Bashar al-Assad hastily stepping down and fleeing to Russia. Assad and his wife were confirmed to be in Moscow by December 9.
Assad said he made his decision to preserve the peace in Syria. Russia said it was not involved in his decision-making.
The gloating by American and European politicians reflects the years of investment by the Western powers for regime change in Syria. An investment that seems to have paid off, finally.
It is misplaced to speculate that there may have been some kind of betrayal or “deal” by Assad and his allies in Russia and Iran to let the country go. Yes, the Syrian army and authorities capitulated in breath-taking short order. But it is callow to conjecture about a more devious move behind the scenes, such as Russia or Iran leaving its Syrian ally to the mercy of insurgents.
Syria was simply broken and exhausted by years of Western aggression and attrition. There was little that Russia or Iran could do to salvage an allied country.
The final collapse of Syria did not come after a 13-day blitzkrieg. It came after 13 years of non-stop state terrorism by the United States and its European NATO allies. The earlier phase of U.S.-sponsored proxy terrorism (2011 to 2020) was checked by the intervention of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. But the West’s proxies weren’t defeated definitively. In retrospect, that may be seen as a fateful strategic blunder.
The continuation of the proxy war after 2020 relied on the imposition of crippling economic and trade sanctions on Syria by the U.S. and the European Union. War by other means also involved the American and Turkish military forces illegally occupying Syrian territory in the north, east, and south, which enabled the theft of Syria’s oil and wheat exports. During Trump’s previous presidency, he openly bragged about “stealing Syria’s oil.”
So, from 2011, when the Obama administration targeted Syria for regime change, until the fall of Damascus at the weekend, the nation has endured a 13-year war of attrition. Even after the relative peace obtained due to Russia and Iran’s intervention from around 2020 onwards, Syrians have been starved of food, medicines and fuel. Over half its population suffered displacement from their homes. The Syrian economy was in ruins. Its currency had become worthless, adjusting for inflation by the hour. When the Western-backed insurgents launched their offensive on November 27 from the northern Idlib enclave, there was nothing left of the Syrian state to put up resistance. Aleppo, Hama, Homs and the capital fell like dominoes.
The main insurgent faction is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), led by Mohammed al-Jawlani. HTS is an internationally proscribed terrorist organization that even the U.S. officially designates as an outlawed group. Its leader has a bounty of $10 million on his head offered by the State Department.
But in the shell game of U.S. proxy war, HTS and its leader are Washington’s assets. From 2011, the Americans and their NATO partners used Al Qaeda, ISIS, Jabhat al Nusra Front (later HTS) with ratlines of weapons and fighters from Libya, Turkey and all over the world to descend on Syria to inflict horrors. The Western media propagated the charade by cynically referring to the terrorist proxies as “moderate rebels.” The Pentagon-run military base at Al Tanf in southern Syria is said to be for training “moderate rebels” when, in reality, it is jihadist extremists who are weaponized.
Only last week before the final push on the Syria capital, Damascus, Al-Jawlani, the HTS commander, was given a primetime interview/platform by CNN, the U.S. news channel, to rehabilitate his image as a statesman-like leader instead of being a wanted terrorist. Al-Jawlani says the days when he and his organization were associates of ISIS and Al Qaeda are long gone. And CNN and other Western media do their best to make the claim sound plausible. Ah, such a happy ending!
It’s not clear at this early stage if Syria will now be plunged into sectarian bloodletting, reprisals, and murderous mayhem that characterized the earlier phase of U.S.-sponsored proxy war in Syria when Shia, Alawites, and Christians were beheaded for being “apostates and infidels.”
Ominously, the United States and Israel immediately started bombing the country, cynically claiming that they were trying to stabilize the situation.
The rapid events in Syria have taken aback the whole world. Who would have thought only two weeks ago that Assad would end up exiled in Moscow? The reaction of the U.S., Israel and other Western leaders is almost disbelief in what they see as their great luck.
Russia and Iran seem to have been genuinely blindsided. The NATO proxy war in Ukraine on Russia’s doorstep has no doubt taken a toll on Russian military resources. Iran is preoccupied with securing its own country from Israeli aggression.
American President Joe Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke excitedly about the new “opportunity” in Syria. Both claimed to have had a hand in the triumph of a terrorist insurgency. Netanyahu took credit for his genocidal war on Gaza and Lebanon for weakening Syria’s allies in Hezbollah and Iran.
Biden was even more shameless in spelling out how U.S. state terrorism destroyed Syria and paved the way for its takeover by terrorist proxies. He said: “Our approach has shifted the balance of power in the Middle East through a combination of support for our partners, sanctions, diplomacy [sic], and targeted military force.”
In Washington’s double-speak, “support for partners, sanctions and targeted military force” translates as sponsoring terrorists to traumatize a nation, economic warfare to grind it down, and illegal aggression to force final submission.
The destruction of Syria is another vast crime by the U.S.-led imperialist West.
US backs Israeli invasion of Syria
RT | December 10, 2024
Washington has defended Israel’s military incursion into Syria, with State Department spokesman Matthew Miller stressing that the operation is in self-defense. At a press briefing on Monday, Miller claimed that the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) advance to the Syrian side of the Golan Heights was done to prevent Syrian-based militants from taking over the border areas and launching an offensive into Israel in the future.
Israeli troops moved into the demilitarized buffer zone in the occupied Golan Heights on Sunday, after Syrian opposition forces seized Damascus and forced former President Bashar Assad to flee the country. On Monday, Israeli forces moved beyond the buffer zone and into Syria proper, with Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz saying they intend to create a new “security area” there that would be clear of “heavy strategic weapons and terrorist infrastructure.”
According to Miller, by abandoning its positions in the area around the buffer zone, the Syrian Army “potentially created a vacuum” that could be filled by terrorist organizations.
“That would threaten the state of Israel and would threaten civilians inside Israel. Every country has the right to take action against terrorist organizations,” Miller stated, adding that “ultimately, it’s important that there is security along that border,” which, according to him, the Israeli military can now ensure.
Miller noted, however, that Washington expects the Israeli occupation to be temporary.
“This is a temporary action that they have taken in response to actions by the Syrian military to withdraw from that area… We want to see the 1974 disengagement agreement upheld, and that includes the terms of the buffer zones, which includes Israel withdrawing to its previous positions,” he stated, referring to Israel’s 1974 agreement with Syria to establish a demilitarized strip in the Golan Heights.
Miller’s words run counter to remarks made earlier by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. While West Jerusalem told the UN Security Council that its incursion into Syria is a “limited and temporary measure” at a press conference on Monday night, Netanyahu declared that “the Golan Heights will forever be an inseparable part of the state of Israel.” He previously argued that Israel’s disengagement agreement with Syria effectively “collapsed” once Syrian troops “abandoned their positions” in the buffer zone.
The UN has criticized Israel for the incursion, saying it violates the disengagement agreement and stressing that “there should be no military forces or activities in the area of separation.” A number of Middle Eastern countries have also condemned Israel’s advance past the Golan Heights, accusing West Jerusalem of orchestrating an illegal land grab. In a statement on Monday, Qatar’s Foreign Ministry slammed the move as “a blatant attack on Syria’s sovereignty and unity” and “a flagrant violation of international law.” Similar remarks were made by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan.
Russia’s Demands in Peace Negotiations
Dmitri Polyanskiy, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen on the Duran
Glenn Diesen | December 7, 2024
We had a conversation with Dmitri Polyanskiy, the First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations. Polyanskiy shared the Russian perspective on recent escalations with NATO and the requirements for a peaceful settlement.
As Ukrainian frontlines are collapsing, the US can either escalate or start negotiations. The decision by the Biden administration to attack Russia with long-range ATACMS crossed Russia’s red lines, and the response was the Oreshnik missile. The Oreshnik missile was intended as a warning shot by not attaching a warhead. Russia demands an end to NATO expansion, territorial concessions, and restoring minority rights in Ukraine.
View video at Odysee
The Real Scandal of Hunter‘s Pardon
By Ron Paul | December 9, 2024
Politicians and pundits spent much of last week commenting on President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter for lying on a federal gun purchase form, failing to pay taxes, and any other offenses he may have committed over the past decade. Much of the controversy is because President Biden repeatedly pledged that he would never pardon his son.
Some have also observed that the pardon’s timeline starts the year Hunter Biden joined the board of the Ukraine energy company Burisma. This has led to speculation that President Biden is trying to block any investigation into links between his son’s business dealings and President Biden’s Ukraine policy.
What has not been widely discussed is the fact that Hunter Biden may be the only American President Biden has pardoned for violating unconstitutional federal gun and drug laws.
Hunter Biden was convicted of lying on federal Form 4473. This is a form Americans must fill out to get federal government “permission” to purchase a firearm. Specifically, Hunter Biden gave a false answer to the question, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
The Second Amendment forbids the federal government from limiting the ability of any American to exercise his natural right to own a firearm. Furthermore, federal drug laws are themselves unconstitutional.
The Constitution only creates three federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. All other crimes are under the jurisdiction of state and local governments. So, the required use of this form is a constitutional violation of the rights of Hunter Biden and all other Americans who are subjected to it when they seek to obtain a gun.
Form 4473 warns Americans that “the use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.” Thus, someone could be prevented from exercising his Second Amendment right because of his activities that are perfectly legal in his state. This turns federalism on its head.
Hunter Biden was also convicted of, and pardoned for, tax evasion and the filing of fraudulent tax returns. It is hard for anyone who values liberty to get upset at those who violate the tax laws since the income tax is a form of theft by the government of people’s hard-earned income.
An outrage of Hunter Biden’s pardon is President Biden’s hypocrisy. When he served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1990s, then-Senator Biden played a major role in getting through Congress the Brady Law that created the federal gun purchase background check system that Hunter Biden was convicted of violating. Senator Biden also was a leading drug warrior who led the fight to pass the 1994 crime bill and was a champion of mandatory minimums and other infringements of civil liberties in the name of the war on drugs. President Biden also supported hiring more IRS agents to squeeze more money from taxpayers.
Then-Senator Biden wrote large parts of the PATRIOT Act. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden also led the effort to pass the unconstitutional (and disastrous) “authorization for use of military force” against Iraq.
President Biden should spend his last month in office pardoning more Americans for violations of unconstitutional drug and gun laws. This would serve as a small gesture of atonement for a political career spent advocating policies destructive of peace, prosperity, and liberty.
US Bill Would Reverse ATACMS Order
By Joe Lauria | Consortium News | December 7, 2024
Capitol Hill, Washington – A bill introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) would prohibit the U.S. from sending long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine to be fired into Russia.
As U.S. personnel and satellites are required to fire the missiles from Ukrainian territory, Moscow considers it a direct U.S. attack on Russia putting it in a state of war with the U.S. which could lead to nuclear conflict.
To remove the potential of nuclear war, the proposed legislation seeks to end ATACMS launches into Russia. The bill reads:
(a) Prohibition. —For the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending at the close of January 20, 2025, notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period for which a state of conflict exists between Ukraine and the Russian Federation—
1) no Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) may be transferred to Ukraine; and
(2) U.S. Military Services or intelligence agencies may not provide support to Ukrainian units operating High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HMARS) platforms utilizing ATACMS munitions to strike outside of internationally recognized Ukrainian territorial borders—
(A) targeting intelligence support;
(B) mission planning support; and
(C) any other type of support.
Several members of Congress and their staff said they were taken off guard by President Joe Biden’s reversal of his previous decision not to allow the use of ATACMS to be fired into Russia from Ukraine.
The members and their staff made these remarks during meetings on Thursday on Capitol Hill with former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter and activists of Code Pink, led by Medea Benjamin.
Biden Breaks With Realists
Biden had twice before sided with the Pentagon to avoid direct war with Russia. In March 2022 he overruled his Secretary of State Antony Blinken to scotch plans for a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine, which could have lead to direct conflict with Russia.
Biden opposed the no-fly zone, he said at the time, because “that’s called World War III, okay? Let’s get it straight here, guys. We will not fight the third world war in Ukraine.”
Then in September Biden deferred to the realists in the Pentagon to oppose long-range British Storm Shadow missiles from being fired by Ukraine deep into Russia out of fear it would also lead to a direct NATO-Russia military confrontation with all that that entails.
Putin warned at the time that because British soldiers on the ground in Ukraine would actually launch the British missiles into Russia with U.S. geostrategic support, it “will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.”
That was a clear warning that British and U.S. targets could be hit. Biden thus wisely backed off.
But after he was driven from the race and his party lost the White House last month, Biden suddenly switched gears allowing not only British, but also U.S. long-range ATACMS missiles to be fired into Russia. It’s not clear that the White House ever informed the Pentagon in advance.
Higgin’s bill was introduced as H.R. 10218 on Nov. 21, but none of the other House members that Ritter and Benjamin met with on Capitol Hill had heard of it. Nor was it reported in the mainstream media.
“We found that commonsense is actually alive and living here in the halls of Congress,” Ritter told Consortium News. “Members of Congress and their staffs understand the danger of nuclear war. We found that there was a bill already written … that sought to achieve what we were trying to get them to do.”
Benjamin said: “We are excited to push this bill, which we just found out about. … It will not pass, but the idea is to get momentum for it so that message is coming out there that there are members of Congress who want to see this reversed and that in the next Congress, they will introduce it again with a lot more momentum.”
“To stop a nuclear war comes down to one issue,” Ritter said:
“The United States has to stop attacking Russian soil with American-made ATACMS missiles. Even though we use a Ukrainian cutout, it’s American provided, American targets and American intelligence. It’s the Americans attacking Russia. From the Russian perspective, the United States is at war with Russia … which has triggered their nuclear doctrine.”
Kiev reveals terms of $20 billion US loan
RT | December 9, 2024
The Ukrainian government has approved the terms of a conditional agreement with the US Federal Financing Bank (FFB) for a 40-year loan of $20 billion which will be backed by profits from frozen Russian state assets.
It’s part of a broader $50 billion G7 loan deal, which includes a separate $20 billion EU commitment, and $10 billion to be split by G7 members Britain, Japan and Canada.
The money will be transferred to the Facilitation of Resources to Invest in Strengthening Ukraine Financial Intermediary Fund, established by the World Bank on October 10, “for the sake of the state,” a resolution issued by Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers on Friday stated.
The transfer will be based on a Certificate Purchase Agreement between Ukraine, the FFB, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), along with a loan guarantee and repayment agreement between Ukraine and USAID.
Under the deal, Ukraine’s Finance Ministry will issue a certificate of indebtedness to the FFB, guaranteed by USAID, the government resolution said.
The loan, which has an annual interest rate of 1.3% plus the current average rate for one-year US Treasury bills, will be repaid using interest earned from immobilized Russian sovereign assets.
The US and its allies froze an estimated $300 billion in assets belonging to the Russian central bank following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. In June, G7 members pledged a $50 billion loan for Kiev, with the frozen Russian assets to be used as collateral, to help Kiev buy weapons and rebuild damaged infrastructure. The agreement was finalized in October.
Moscow has repeatedly denounced the asset freeze as “theft” and argued that tapping into these funds would be illegal and set a dangerous precedent. The Russian Finance Ministry has warned that it will initiate retaliatory measures mirroring the West’s actions against resources of Western investors held in the country.
The latest move is part of the current US administration’s last-minute strategy to bolster Kiev’s war effort, which includes a new $725 million military aid package to Kiev and another round of sanctions against Russia. It comes as uncertainty grows over Washington’s commitments under the upcoming presidency of Donald Trump, particularly after US House Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed President Joe Biden’s request to include $24 billion in additional aid to Ukraine in a government funding bill last week.
Biden claims credit for toppling Syria’s Assad
RT | December 9, 2024
Outgoing US President Joe Biden has claimed credit for the fall of Damascus to a coalition of armed groups, including jihadists from Hayat Tahrir-al-Sham (HTS). Washington had weakened the supporters of former Syrian President Bashar Assad, the American leader has said.
The result of the lightning offensive of anti-government militants in the past two weeks was a “fundamental act of justice” and a “moment of historic opportunity for the long-suffering citizens of Syria,” Biden said in a video address from the White House on Sunday.
“For years, the main backers of Assad have been Iran, [the Lebanese-based militant movement] Hezbollah, and Russia. But over the last week, their support collapsed, all three of them. Because all three of them are far weaker today than they were when I took office,” Biden said.
Washington has been pushing for the ouster of Assad since 2011, when mass protests spiraled into a devastating civil war, in which foreign-armed Islamists emerged as dominant players among anti-government forces. HTS, one of the groups that took over Damascus on Sunday, was formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra, a Syrian Al-Qaeda affiliate. The war was exacerbated further in 2014 when the terrorist group Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) rose as a regional threat amid the collapse of security in Syria.
In his speech, Biden highlighted the sanctions on Syria, as well as the US military presence in the country and its support for Kurdish militias in the northeast, which denied Damascus access to fertile lands and oil fields under their control. The US has also supported Israel in its military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon and its direct confrontation with Iran, Biden added.
“Our approach has shifted the balance of power in the Middle East,” Biden said, mirroring similar remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Through this combination of support of our partners, sanctions, diplomacy, and targeted military force where necessary, we now see new opportunities opening up for the people of Syria and for the entire region.”
The US president claimed that Washington was clear-eyed about HTS and its “grim record of terrorism and human right abuses.” Washington will “assess not just their words, but their actions,” he stated. Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, said on Sunday that HTS’ history of terrorism and atrocities is a concern for the US.
Abu Mohammed al-Julani, the current leader of HTS, has had a $10 million bounty posted on his head by the US since 2013. According to the US government, the fighters he led were responsible for kidnappings and massacres of civilians.
Syria falls to rebels who are “a tool of NATO, Israel and Turkey” with US role included
By Uriel Araujo | December 9, 2024
After combating terrorism and rebel groups for over twelve years, the former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fled the capital of Damascus with his family on December 7, shortly before it fell to the rebels. The victorious insurgents are the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) organization along with an umbrella group called the Syrian National Army.
Craig Murray (former British ambassador to Uzbekistan), in a panel about “the end of pluralism in the Middle East”, described the “Syrian rebels” as “a tool of NATO, Israel and Turkey”. This is a complex description for a complex situation indeed. Of the three, many analysts are focusing on the Israeli and Turkish angle—not so much on the American angle, though.
To recap, since the 2011 armed rebellion, Syria has counted on military aid from its allies Iran and Russia. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard, as well as the (Tehran-backed) Lebanese Hezbollah have in fact been the main anti-terrorist actors in the Levant, by deterring the expansion of terrorist group ISIS (Daesh) and thereby making the region safer for Christians and other minorities. Islamic Wahhabi/Salafi extremists were, after all, beheading some of them while kidnapping others and selling women as slaves.
The fact is that the rebels who have won in Syria now are not of a very different persuasion, and it is no wonder many are now concerned. Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens for one has urged the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs to aid the Christian population in Syria. He wrote: “The advance of extremist armed groups and the capture of Aleppo threaten… the interfaith composition of the region’s population… there is now a looming danger of the complete eradication… of Greek Orthodoxy and Christianity from the wider region.”
Such concerns are well founded. One should bear in mind that (Saudi-born) Abu Mohammed al-Julani, the very leader of Turkish-backed HTS, the group who has captured Aleppo (Syria’s second largest city), joined Al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2003, later establishing its split branch in Syria, the so-called al-Nusra Front. This group, under al-Julani, cooperated with the infamous Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of Al-Qaeda’s split offshoot called “Islamic State in Iraq”, later known as ISIL (ISIS) or Daesh.
Al-Julani’s own later split from al-Qaeda and creation of the aforementioned HTS has been described as merely a “bid” to “stress his group’s national, as opposed to transnational, ambitions.” In other words, the group is just another re-branded offshoot of ISIS/Al-Qaeda. And those are the people who have now conquered Syria.
One might disapprove of Assad’s ruling but such a development can hardly be described by most as anything other than a disaster. Turkey (who aids the rebels) and Israel, as already mentioned, do benefit from this outcome, however, for their own reasons—and much is already being talked about that. But not so many analysts are highlighting the American role in all of it.
For example, the US-backed Syrian Free Army (a coalition which has taken control of Hom’s Palmyra district) announced that they are “open to friendship with everyone in the region – including Israel. We don’t have enemies other than the Assad regime, Hezbollah and Iran. What Israel did against Hezbollah in Lebanon helped us a great deal” – while claiming they are not allied with Turkey. The group, being increasingly dependent on Turkey, is a close ally of the United States, and was even hosted at the American military base at al-Tanf. Turkey, despite its differences with Washington is of course also, let us not forget, a NATO member.
The future of Syria and the concerned parties is far from clear now, there being lots of room for infighting among the different rebel factions. Turkey, which has long occupied northern Syria, has taken advantage of the ceasefire in Lebanon to give the rebels the green-light for launching an offensive (with Iran weakened in Syria and Hezbollah cornered in Lebanon). However Turkish-American differences pertaining to the Kurdish question are to remain a focal point for tensions.
HTS is indeed Turkish-backed but, as mentioned, its roots can be traced to Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other such groups empowered by Washington’s policy. One should not forget the fact that there are still around 900 US troops in Syria (mostly in the northeast, near Turkish strongholds) which witnessed the rebel victory. This has led some analysts to comment that “whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not”, these troops are “likely involved in the broader conflict unfolding there right now.”
Moreover, there is nothing new about the West praising and empowering brutal terrorism and radicals when such is deemed geopolitically convenient: if former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton under President Barack Obama had achieved her stated goals, Syria would be in a similar situation to Libya since 2011 – in Libya, coincidence or not, arms provided by the US to rebels there also “ended up” in ISIS hands, according to Amnesty reports.
Back to the Levant region, it is a well-established fact that Washington played a key role in the empowerment of ISIS (or Daesh) both in Syria and Iraq (as well as other brutal radicals), with the Pentagon and the CIA arming mostly foreign Islamic militias that ended up even fighting among themselves. This is consistent with American foreign policy elsewhere too. The infamous Clinton emails also show how the US was aware of their allies Qatar and Saudi Arabia supporting Daesh terror.
The White House National Security Council (NSC) spokesperson Sean Savett said in a recent statement that Washington “has nothing to do with this offensive.” Considering all of the above, one can certainly be justified in taking such statements with a grain of salt. For Washington, further destabilizing Syria might also serve the role of “countering” Russia in the region. The US has consistently aided, funded, armed and trained Fundamentalist rebels who operate in the Levant for over a decade and there is no reason to assume anything is different now with the newest developments.
Finally, still on the topic of the Christian minority, US foreign policy—for a variety of reasons—has actually often involved dividing or destabilizing Eastern Christian (both Orthodox and Miaphysitist) populations or sometimes even aiding or turning a blind eye to the ethnic-religious cleansing of such groups or of Christians in general in the Levant region, for that matter.
This is of course quite ironic for a country such as the US who often hails itself as “one nation under God” or as a “Christian nation”– this being the Republican party line at least. Trump for one has posted that “Syria is a mess, but is not our friend”.
Uriel Araujo, PhD is an anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.
Regime Change in Syria: Another Step Towards “Greater Israel”
By Alan Sabrosky • Unz Review • December 8, 2024
“For they have sown the wind,
and they shall reap the whirlwind.”
-Hosea 8:7
The collapse of the Assad government in Syria is certain to be greeted with considerable satisfaction in Jerusalem and Washington. Both capitals of the Zionist Co-Dominium have long seen the Assads much as they did Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. All were obstacles to Israel’s designs in the region.
All three were also targets of that nefarious policy of “regime change” highlighted by the US after 9/11, as were four other countries in the region. Now the last of the three has fallen, albeit much later than the mostly Jewish neoconservative “chicken hawks” (so called because all advocated war but very few ever served in uniform) had anticipated back in 2001.
So What Caused the Collapse?
Internal dynamics within Syria that played their part, to be sure, but I will focus here on the external factors. A major reason was the unrelenting pressure and considerable resources poured into the assorted militias and jihadists trying to overthrow Syria’s regime. Money talks, and it talked very loudly here. So did the frequent Israeli air and artillery strikes into Syria. Shielded by the US, Russian forces in Syria could do little for their ally.
Then, too, the numerically small but politically significant, open-ended US military presence on the ground in Syria had their own impact, So did the limited but strategically significant direct military attacks by the US and other NATO countries on Syrian government forces and installations. Image matters, and here it mattered greatly.
Syria’s Assad could never match that. Only Russia (to a very limited extent) and Iran (to a even lesser one) really did much of anything. But Russia is caught up with the Ukrainian “tar baby” and Iran is hedging its bets in anticipation of America’s own “regime change.” A scarcity of strong, reasonably reliable allies also counts, and it counted here, but not in a good way.
Second, Syria lost the information and propaganda war, in a very big and very decisive way. The Jewish-dominated media in the US and most of Europe made sure that virtually every claim, no matter how ludicrous, of the jihadists and other anti-government elements in Syria was treated as Gospel truth. Few in the legacy media disputed their assertions, although many did in the alternative media and on social media platforms.
It wasn’t enough. Israel can rip Gaza apart and kill tens of thousands of civilians, but any criticism of its very real war crimes is almost universally denounced in the media and Western capitals as “vicious antisemitism” that needs to be suppressed and punished. That criticism was nothing of the sort, but it demonstrates the exceptional degree of Jewish influence throughout the West. It also underscores the accuracy of the axiom that “truth is the first casualty of war,” at least whenever Israel or its interests are involved.
Third, it is worth noting that this event saw insurgent militias and local jihadists do to the Syrian government forces what the US-backed mujaheddin did to the Afghan government and their Soviet allies, and later the Taliban (the lineal operational descendants of the original mujaheddin) did to another Afghan government and its American patron. It seems that local governments have very great difficulty holding out against insurgents who have an external sanctuary, external assistance, or both.
In all three cases cited above, the insurgents had both. In Syria, the government forces had also to contend with direct military attacks by Israel, the US and other NATO countries. What made it harder for them was that they essentially fought these external forces with one hand firmly tied behind their backs.
Other than in defense, Syrian government forces could only engage in occasional artillery duels with the Israelis, but not respond to air attacks in kind. Nor could the Russians assist them, other than defensively. Any attempt to respond directly to US, Israeli or other attacks meant a direct confrontation with the US, Israel covered by its American puppet, or NATO. The Syrians could not do this alone, and Syria simply was not worth enough to Russia to risk that kind of engagement.
Reflections
It will take some time for the implications of all this to become clearer (perhaps “less murky” would be more accurate). I expect the current Syrian government officials and senior military commanders are wondering if they will still be alive next week. I am not a specialist on Syrian affairs, but the historical track record in these situations would not be reassuring to them.
I expect, however, a major consideration on the part of the winners will be the role intended for them by their foreign patrons. Do we want the new Syrian government to be another Egypt, at least insofar as Israel is concerned? Or is it something else?
Whatever it is, insurgent forces – even heavily infiltrated ones – have shown themselves to be exceptionally difficult to predict or to control, or even to influence, once they are in power. Recall that the people the US armed to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan morphed into a Taliban which employed some of those weapons and techniques to force yet another humiliating American debacle.
The Israeli experience with these things is even more problematic. I was told back in the 1980s by a senior Israeli officer that they had successfully infiltrated every single Arab government and movement, relying principally on Sephardic Jews. So when Israel set up Hamas in the 1980s as a counter-weight to the PLO, I expect they thought they had made a good bargain. Yet it, too, changed over the years. Infiltrated or not, it has given Israel a more “interesting” time than it anticipated.
The case of ISIS and the Syrian jihadists is even more interesting. Now, “false flags” (attacking someone but making people believe someone else is doing it) is something of an Israeli specialty. The motto of Mossad, the best-known Israeli intelligence organization, is aptly “By Deception, Shall You Wage War.
Mossad and its sister organizations have lived up to that motto since the founding of Israel. They have been aided worldwide by dual Israeli citizens, or Jews without Israeli citizenship, some Christian Zionists, and outright mercenaries.
Examples abound. Three of particular relevance to the US, for example, are the Lavon Affair in Egypt (1954), the attack on the USS Liberty (1967) and the 9/11 attacks (2001). Worth looking them up (do NOT trust either Wikipedia or Google search engine!), but here is a start on the last-named one.
The case of ISIS is even more intriguing. Supposedly a militant Islamic organization, it seems to have exceptionally great difficulty hitting Israeli or American targets anywhere in the world. This was a problem Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda, with fewer assets, obviously did not share.

Despite the resources to field fleets of white Toyota pick-up trucks with heavy weapons in their beds and other paraphernalia, they found it an “almost” insurmountable challenge to strike what should be their own principal enemies. Curious, is it not? I wonder how many ISIS leaders have shared drinks with their Mossad and CIA contacts.
Last are the Syrian jihadists, easily the most fascinating facet of the Syrian puzzle. We are told constantly that these people are Islamic fanatics who spend their nights dreaming of how to kill non-believers, and their days trying to do it (or is that backwards?). But apparently there are “good” jihadists and “bad” jihadists. The former are those who do the bidding of Western governments (including Israel) and attack Muslim countries. The latter are those that apparently do not.
Peering Ahead
It is hazardous at best to anticipate what will emerge in the aftermath of the Syrian government’s defeat. At a minimum, I would expect the new rulers to order the Russians out. Of course, the Russians may not go, just as the US ignored the demands of many weaker governments to leave. Imperial powers, even if weakening and in a chaotic world, are often like that.
We may learn a bit more about ISIS and these “good” jihadists in Syria. Precisely what will they do in power? Will they be like the Taliban in Afghanistan? If not, what would that say about their actual character and that of their leaders? Thought-provoking times, at best.
What is clearer is that what happened in Syria will embolden the Israelis to deal with the Palestinians within and Lebanon and Hezbollah without, especially once Trump is President and recognizes Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Trump is even more beholden to Israel than most US presidents, and Israel will capitalize on it.
Moreover, with Assad’s Syria removed from the game, Iran will move to the regional front burner. No person in the US can now even be a serious candidate for President without being in Israel’s pocket, much less be elected to that office, but the two American political factions have different priorities.
What this means is that the Neo-conservatives stacking up in Trump’s administration are an odds-on certainty to see this as a golden opportunity to complete their 2001 agenda and neutralize Iran. Knowing them, they and Jewish money will push (perhaps I should say “nudge”) Trump to do one of three things: (1) support Israel in attacking Iran, (2) join Israel in doing that, or (3) attacking Iran without Israel.
The net effect is a far more dangerous 2025 than recent years have seen, and they have not been exactly a joy. We face civil upheaval at home and more war abroad, if Trump actually puts his agenda into effect. For Israel, Syria’s defeat and Trump’s presidency augur well on its march to a “Greater Israel.” For Palestinians. Lebanese and so many others in the region, things have gone from bad to an almost unimaginably worse. For Americans, challenging times, indeed.
Alan Ned Sabrosky (PhD, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran. He served in Vietnam with the 1st Marine Division and is a graduate of the US Army War College. Dr. Sabrosky can be contacted at docbrosk@comcast.net
NBC Blasts Trump and Kennedy for Wanting to Conduct Vaccine-Autism Studies
NBC claims this issue has been debunked … but has it?
Injecting Freedom by Aaron Siri | December 8, 2024
NBC today blasted DonaldTrump and RobertKennedyJr for wanting to study a possible connection between “autism and childhood vaccines” because NBC claims it has been “debunked” by “hundreds of studies.” But has it? The answer is unmistakably “no!” Here is the proof:
Most parents with autistic children claim vaccines – including DTaP, Hep B, Hib, PCV13, and IPV, each injected 3 times by 6 months of age – are a cause of their child’s autism.* Yet the studies to support that these vaccines do not cause autism have not been conducted.
In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in which it ordered federal health authorities (HHS) to study whether pertussis vaccine can cause autism due to parental complaints regarding same.
In 1991, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued its report on this question and could not find a single study on the question of whether pertussis vaccine causes autism. Meaning, the science had not been done.
In 2012, the IOM was again commissioned to study this question, this time by CDC, and also the question of whether tetanus and diphtheria vaccines can cause autism (DTaP), and again the IOM could not find a single study to support the claim that these vaccines do not cause autism. Not one. But it did find one study supporting that DTaP vaccine is correlated with autism but threw it out since it was based on VAERS data.
In 2018, I deposed the world’s leading vaccinologist about the 2012 finding by the IOM and while admitting there are no studies to support that these vaccines do not cause autism, he said he would nonetheless tell parents vaccines do not cause autism even though he has no evidence to support that claim.
In 2019, we sued CDC for the studies it claims support that the vaccines given in the first six months of life do not cause autism. CDC then identified 20 studies: 18 of those studied a different vaccine (MMR) or an ingredient not in these vaccines (thimerosal), and one irrelevant study looked at antigens. Incredibly, the final study CDC identified was the 2012 IOM review that found no studies supporting that DTaP doesn’t cause autism.
In 2020, in a lawsuit specifically about vaccines and autism, one the world’s leading vaccinologists admitted under oath that there were no studies to support that vaccines given in the first six months of life do not cause autism.
This is why actually studying whether vaccines cause autism is important: Video report
While CDC claims that vaccines do not cause autism, despite demanding the studies to support this claim for the vaccines given in the first six months of life, and asking, suing, deposing, etc., for them for years, we still have not received a single such study.
But NBC doesn’t really care about the facts, rather it just repeats the dogmatic claim that “vaccines do not cause autism” like a mantra.
One final thought: given the lack of studies regarding vaccines and autism – the issue CDC and “health” authorities claimed to have most thoroughly studied – imagine the state of the “science” with regard to the 100 other serious harms (often immune or immune-mediated disorders) parents claim are caused by vaccines. (For more meat on that bone watch Episode 388)
The Pentagon’s new plan to protect Pacific air assets from Chinese missiles may be the dumbest ever
Inside China Business | December 5, 2024
Most of the Western Pacific is easily within range of China’s missile brigades, and Pentagon war planners are gravely concerned that Chinese hypersonic missiles would destroy allied naval and air units, within moments of a breakout in hostilities. The Pentagon has embraced a new strategy, called Agile Combat Employment. It involves new construction and additions to over a dozen new airfields across the Pacific, where crews can land heavy bombers and other aircraft in the event the primary bases are too badly damaged. China has over 2,000 ballistic missiles, and a mere two or three would suffice to cripple a major airfield beyond use. It is difficult to imagine how building twelve more will make much of a difference. But even if so, the public affairs officers involved in these projects have shared sensitive data on these plans with major news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal. What’s more, the strategy presupposes a willingness of other nations to host American nuclear weapons platforms during a hot war with China, in perpetuity.
Resources and Links:
Substack, for video transcript and direct links https://open.substack.com/pub/kdwalms…
Scatter and Survive: Inside a U.S. Military Shift to Deny China ‘Big, Juicy’ Targets https://www.wsj.com/world/us-military…

