Israeli Intel Whistleblower: Israel Ended Clinton Iran Deal With Epstein Blackmail
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | June 22, 2026
The former Israeli intelligence official turned whistleblower, Ari Ben-Menashe made some explosive claims to journalist Afshin Rattansi in the latest episode of his Going Underground TV Show, alleging that then president Bill Clinton made a deal with then Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, but then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, a known close associate of Jeffery Epstein, used blackmail about Clinton’s known connection with Jeffery Epstein and his trafficking operation of underage girls, to end the deal.
Ben-Menashe alleges that in 2000 Bill Clinton “met President Khatami in Mirabel Airport north of Montreal and they worked out the deal between them”.
Ben-Menashe noted that “on March 17, 2000, Madeleine Albright made a speech at the American Iranian Council apologizing to the Iranian people for America overthrowing an elected government in 1952 in Iran and bringing the Shah back”
Indeed, on March 17, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made a speech apologizing for the overthrow of Iran’s popular elected president Mohammed Massadegh in 1953, saying:
In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.
Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah’s regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah’s government also brutally repressed political dissent.
As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S. policy towards Iraq, during its conflict with Iran appear now to have been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light our subsequent experiences with Saddam Hussein.
This certainly suggested that the Clinton administration was trying to reset the U.S. and Iranian relationship, acknowledging Iran’s long list of legitimate grievances against the United States.
But according to Ari Ben-Menashe, the deal never went through because Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak “sabotaged” the deal using Epstein blackmail.
Ben-Menashe said, “But Ehud Barak and company sabotaged that deal by using Epstein and company against Mr. Clinton”.
Because Clinton had already gone through the Monica Lewinsky scandal, this was enough for him to abandon diplomacy, according to Ben-Menashe.
Israel Brings The War Rhetoric Towards Türkiye
After Being Defeated In Iran, Israel Targets Türkiye.
By Justin K.P. – The Dissident – June 22, 2026
The idea of Israel going to war with Türkiye- a NATO member- potentially triggering World War III seems insane.
And yet Israel is using their war rhetoric towards Türkiye.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry put out a post seemingly laying the groundwork for an Israeli war, claiming that “Hamas terrorists based in Turkey are directing attacks against Israelis, funding terrorism, and recruiting operatives. The network is exposed. The facts are clear.”
This is far from the first time Israel has used war rhetoric towards Türkiye.
Israel’s Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli recently said that Israel “will be at war with Syria sooner or later” in part because he called Syria “a Turkish protectorate”.
He also fabricated a new “radical Sunni axis of evil” which supposedly includes Pakistan, Turkey and Qatar.
Middle East Eye reported:
“What we are witnessing before our eyes is the rise of a new axis,” Chikli told 103FM radio on Wednesday, referring to Turkey, Qatar and Pakistan. He described this so-called alliance as “a radical Sunni axis of evil, more dangerous than anything we have seen before”.
While Chikli mentioned both Qatar and Pakistan in his interviews, he mainly focused on Turkey, branding Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s vision “an extremely dangerous combination for us”.
Other members of the ruling Israeli Likud party have similarly been declaring Türkiye “an enemy state”.
Middle East Eye noted, “Last week, Israeli lawmaker Ariel Kellner, also of Likud, called Turkey an ‘enemy state’, while Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar said last month that Israel’“must begin to treat Turkey as an enemy state,’ suggesting that Turkey would suffer heavy blows in a possible conflict with Israel.”
It added that “In February, former prime minister Naftali Bennett indicated that he sees Turkey as an enemy, with the opposition figure stating: ‘Turkey is the new Iran.’”
Perhaps the most concerning development is the fact that the Foundation for The Defence of Democracies (FDD), an Israeli lobby cutout that played a large role in the U.S. war on Iran, has begun publishing articles using similar rhetoric towards Türkiye.
FDD put out an article titled , “Turkey the new Iran? Ankara’s growing challenge to Western interests”.
The article attempted to label Türkiye as the “new Iran”, writing:
As Iran and its proxies take a beating from American and Israeli forces, observers are questioning whether Turkey is waiting in the wings to emerge as the region’s next “bogeyman.” The answer is likely yes, albeit in its own form.
Turkey is not Iran, but depicting Turkey as a nuisance or simply “complicated” only emboldens a maturing adversarial regime with an established track record of undermining its Western allies.
The article attempted to ratchet up hostilities between Türkiye and the United States, writing, “The real question is whether Turkey is actively undermining US, NATO, and regional security interests. There is little doubt that Ankara is doing just that, and doing so more brazenly with the passage of time.”
It also lamented that Türkiye is too supportive of the Palestinian resistance, writing “Hamas, as an Iranian proxy, has served Ankara’s interests in undermining Israel’s security interests, something which Turkey would like to see intact after the end of the current war.”
FDD has similarly put out articles pushing for the U.S. to put sanctions on Türkiye, saying that “Washington should pursue Global Magnitsky sanctions against targets in Turkey” and that “the United States should utilize Global Magnitsky authorities to target Turkish individuals responsible for human rights violations”.
It also called for the U.S. to designate “government officials” in Türkiye as “terrorist organizations” and wrote that “The United States should protect the international financial sector by recommending added scrutiny and screening to transactions involving Turkish financial institutions” and that “Washington should coordinate with the G7 to return Turkey to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) ‘grey list’ until further improvements are seen in combating terrorism financing.”
The Carnegie Endowment for Peace documented that “FDD was the brainchild of a New York Times journalist-turned-Republican operative, Clifford May,” adding that “it arose out of an organization committed to burnishing Israel’s reputation in the United States. On April 24, 2001, three major pro-Israel donors incorporated an organization called EMET (Hebrew for ‘truth’). In an application to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status, May explained that the group ‘was to provide education to enhance Israel’s image in North America and the public’s understanding of issues affecting Israeli-Arab relations.’ But in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, May broadened the group’s mission and changed its name to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. As he explained in a supplement to the IRS, the group’s board of directors decided to focus on ‘develop[ing] educational materials on the eradication of terrorism everywhere in the world.’”
It added that, “FDD’s chief funders have been drawn almost entirely from American Jews who have a long history of funding pro-Israel organizations. They include Bernard Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot, whiskey heirs Samuel and Edgar Bronfman, gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson, heiress Lynn Schusterman, Wall Street speculators Michael Steinhardt and Paul Singer, and Leonard Abramson, founder of U.S. Healthcare.”
Sima Vaknin-Gil, a former Israeli military intelligence officer, in the Al Jazeera documentary The Lobby, admitted that “We have FDD” and that “the foundation is ‘working on’ projects for Israel, including ‘data gathering, information analysis, working on activist organizations, money trail. This is something that only a country, with its resources, can do the best”.
FDD played a huge role in shaping American policy towards Iran at the behest of Israel.
Now, as Israel calls Türkiye an “enemy state”- the FDD has begun pushing Washington to place sanctions on the country and designate government officials as terrorists, laying the groundwork for a new Israeli war.
The Swiss summit of imperial humiliation
By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | June 22, 2026
In Switzerland, amid the alpine calm where empires go to perfume panic as diplomacy, Iran delivered another masterclass in the ancient art of refusing to kneel.
The Americans arrived with the usual imperial luggage: threats, ultimatums, sanctions theology, and that peculiar Washington habit of mistaking obedience for “peace.” Iran arrived with something far less fashionable and far more effective: leverage. Not the decorative leverage of think-tank seminars and cable-news generals, but the real kind — the kind that closes straits, terrifies markets, freezes war rooms, and forces the self-appointed masters of the universe to rediscover geography.
The spectacle would be hilarious if it were not so historically obscene.
For decades, Washington imagined Iran could be sanctioned into hunger, bombed into prudence, insulted into submission, and finally dragged into a room to sign its own humiliation.
Instead, the empire found itself bargaining with a country it had failed to break. The result was not Iranian capitulation. It was American improvisation — and improvisation by a declining empire always sounds the same: threats in public, panic in private, and a desperate attempt to rename retreat as strategy.
This is the deeper meaning of Switzerland. It is not merely a diplomatic episode. It is a theatre of reversal. The United States entered the crisis assuming Iran would negotiate like a wounded state. Iran is negotiating like a victorious one. It did not ask for mercy. It is demanding implementation. It did not plead for relief. It is presenting conditions. It did not enter the room as an accused party awaiting sentencing. It is entering as a power whose red lines have acquired consequences.
That is why the Strait of Hormuz matters. In the fantasy literature of American empire, waterways are lines on maps guarded by aircraft carriers and narrated by admirals. In reality, they are political arteries. When Iran demonstrated that it could interrupt the world’s most sensitive energy passage, it did more than create a shipping problem. It shattered a mythology. The empire discovered, rather late in its education, that the sea has neighbors — and that those neighbors have memories.
Washington’s response was pure imperial farce. Trump threatened, blustered, contradicted himself, and performed his usual routine: half Caesar, half casino promoter, with the emotional discipline of a man losing an argument to a mirror. One moment he wanted a deal; the next he wanted tribute.
One moment he spoke of peace; the next he threatened annihilation. This was not statecraft. It was strategic delirium dressed up as presidential resolve.
Yet beneath the orange thunder was the essential fact: America needed the strait open, the markets calm, the war contained, and the humiliation disguised. Iran understood this. More importantly, Iran acted on it.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, performed the role history has assigned him: arsonist in a fireman’s helmet. His political survival depends on permanent emergency. War is not merely his instrument; it is his oxygen. Defeat must be repackaged as deterrence, slaughter as security, occupation as necessity, and humiliation as a “strategic achievement.”
Israel’s problem is not that it miscalculates occasionally. Its problem is that it has built an entire political theology around impunity — and then acted shocked when impunity met resistance.
But this time the room for Israeli theatrics narrowed. Iran’s pressure, Hezbollah’s endurance, the strain on global markets, and Washington’s fear of economic catastrophe produced a rare collision between Israeli maximalism and American self-preservation. For once, unconditional support for Israel began to look expensive even to its underwriters. Let us not become sentimental: this was not morality awakening in Washington. It was arithmetic. But in imperial politics, arithmetic sometimes does what conscience is too cowardly to attempt.
Here lies the exquisite irony. The United States spent decades trying to teach Iran the meaning of pressure. Iran returned the lesson, corrected the grammar, and underlined the thesis. Pressure is not a press release. It is not a Lindsey Graham war fantasy delivered between television segments. It is not Netanyahu’s sweaty monologues about victory while the region watches his project rot from within. Pressure is the ability to alter the enemy’s choices. In Switzerland, Iran is proving it can do precisely that.
The Americans may still posture. Trump may still rage into the digital void. Netanyahu may still deliver speeches polished with self-pity and fraud. The professional warmongers may continue promising wars they will never fight, depressions they will never suffer, and corpses they will never count. But beneath the noise sits the brutal reality: Iran survived the siege, absorbed the blows, retained escalation dominance, defended its allies, protected its sovereignty, and forced the conversation onto terrain of its choosing.
That is the defeat Washington cannot confess and Israel cannot metabolize. Not merely that Iran endured, but that Iran emerged demanding compliance. Not merely that coercion failed, but that the coerced state exposed the coercer’s dependence. Not merely that the empire blinked, but that everyone saw it blink.
Switzerland, then, is not a peace summit in the ordinary sense. It is a mirror held up to American power. What stares back is not omnipotence, but exhaustion dressed as menace.
Iran’s message could not be clearer: no surrender, no submission, no confession of guilt to satisfy an empire addicted to obedience. If Washington wants de-escalation, it must pay in substance. If it wants open waterways, it must respect red lines. If it wants agreements, it must implement them. And if it insists on calling this diplomacy, it should begin with the only honest admission available: coercion failed, Iran stood, and the age of bullying Tehran into submission is over.
Iran to continue IAEA cooperation under existing framework, SNSC decision: Baghaei
Press TV – June 22, 2026
The spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry says Tehran will continue its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under existing procedures and in accordance with parliamentary legislation and decisions by the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC).
Esmaeil Baghaei, who serves as spokesperson for the Iranian negotiating team, said on Monday that “Iran’s engagement with the Agency, in fulfillment of its obligations under safeguard agreements, will continue within the existing framework and in line with the resolutions of the Majlis (parliament) and the decisions of the Supreme National Security Council.”
The remarks came after US Vice President JD Vance said during a press conference at the Bürgenstock hotel that Iran had agreed to invite IAEA inspectors back into the country.
Sources familiar with Saturday’s talks in Switzerland said Tehran did not negotiate over its nuclear program during the 18-hour discussions and did not agree to any new commitments, IRNA reported.
Meanwhile, Fars News Agency quoted an informed source as saying that Vance’s claim was “false”.
Under the “Law Requiring the Government to Suspend Cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency,” enacted on June 25, 2025, Tehran has invited IAEA inspectors to visit its active nuclear facilities on a case-by-case basis, subject to approval by the SNSC.
Since the law took effect, IAEA inspectors, with the council’s approval, have conducted multiple inspections at the Bushehr nuclear power plant, including overseeing the loading of reactor fuel supplied by Russia.
As a result, inspections of operational Iranian nuclear facilities are not new, and Tehran has continued to cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog regarding access to such sites.
However, inspections of damaged nuclear facilities and arrangements concerning Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile remain contingent on the establishment of a specific mechanism in a final agreement expected to be negotiated during the anticipated 60-day talks.
Report highlights US munitions crisis: Missiles cannot be replenished quickly even with al the money in the world
Al-Manar | June 22, 2026
The supply chain constraints affecting US missile production are structural in nature; they cannot be solved merely by throwing money at them, The National Interest website introduced its article written by by Harrison Kass and titled “Why Can’t America Make More Interceptor Missiles?”.
The article maintained that one of the sharpest conflicts stemming from America’s wars in the Middle East is the rapid depletion of its anti-air interceptor missile inventory, adding that months of operations in the Middle East during the Trump administration—first Operation Rough Rider against the Houthis in Yemen, then the far more expansive Operation Epic Fury against Iran, alongside consistent support for Israeli air defenses in the post-October 7 period—have consumed advanced interceptor missiles at a pace far faster than America’s existing defense industrial base can replace them.
The article warned, “Although most Americans do not worry about missile production rates, the problem is non-trivial. In fact, it is serious enough that the United States’ depleted missile inventories are now influencing broader strategic planning and force-posture decisions, particularly in Asia.”
“So why can’t the US just build more of these systems? The primary constraint is not money, but industrial capacity; a handful of inputs are difficult to ramp up production for, creating bottlenecks for the rest of the missile supply chain.
- Solid Rocket Motors: In spite of their differing designs, nearly every advanced interceptor missile depends on the same highly consolidated rocket-motor section, which is difficult to build and requires human expertise.
- Skilled Labor: Production of many missile components requires specialized technicians who need years of training in order to complete their jobs. Nor is expertise the only constraint; many technicians in sensitive jobs must complete thorough security vetting to ensure they will not share production secrets with US adversaries, taxing the limited resources of government investigators.
- Precision Tooling: Many components depend in turn on advanced machines, which are costly to build and subject to their own supply chain constraints. Though production of these is ramping up, many take time and cannot simply expand overnight.”
Recent defense budgets have dramatically increased procurement funding. Funding for SM missiles jumped from $1.26 billion to $8.5 billion from Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) to FY27. The goal is to rebuild inventories while expanding future production capacity, the article noted.
“Unfortunately, missiles cannot be replenished quickly. Even with all the money in the world, the SM-6 won’t be restored to pre-2025 magazine depth until 2028 or 2029; the PAC-3 until mid-2029; the THAAD until late 2029; the Tomahawk, a cruise missile also used extensively in Iran, around 2030. Many advanced interceptors require roughly two years from component production to final delivery.”
“The strategic consequences of this lag are significant. The Pentagon’s plans for the Pacific rely heavily on SM-6 interceptors, Patriots, and THAAD systems. These weapons would be absolutely critical in a conflict involving China. Every interceptor fired in the Middle East means one interceptor unavailable for the Pacific. So using multi-million-dollar interceptors to defeat cheap drones in the Middle East is a strategic loss,” the article concluded.
Trump’s Attempt to End the Iran War Infuriates the Uniparty
By Ron Paul | June 22, 2026
Against the odds, the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the US and Iran appears to be holding, after threats and counter-threats. It may collapse, but it has survived a first round of talks between the two sides in Switzerland over the weekend.
President Trump started a war on Iran against all sober guidance and in violation of the US Constitution’s requirement that only Congress can declare war. There must be a reckoning for our elected leaders who violate their oath of office, the Constitution, and simple common sense.
However, what is more telling is the reaction when President Trump finally took the correct move and attempted to end the war. The neocons who had hailed him as a great leader – Levin, Bolton, Pompeo, etc. – suddenly turned against him when he turned against further escalation of the war.
Even Trump’s top funder, Miriam Adelson, attacked Trump in her newspaper Israel Hayom. “You could have been the greatest president of all, but you failed,” the newspaper wrote in an editorial.
Not much gratitude from the Israel-first crowd, even if the war was started to benefit Israel.
And more telling even than this was the reaction of the “opposition” party in Congress, the Democrats. They attacked him harder for ending – or at least pausing – the war more than for starting the war in the first place! Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) called the MOU a “capitulation.” Sen Chris Murphy (D-CT) called the MOU an “embarrassing document.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar falsely claimed that President Trump was paying Iran $300 billion to re-open Hormuz.
This is more evidence – as if any is needed – that our foreign policy is run by the “uniparty.” When it comes to wars, there is no Republican Party nor is there a Democratic Party. There is only the “yes!” party.
Congress remains silent in the run-up to war. Congress remains silent when the President launches a war. Congress even remains silent when the war begins going badly. It is only on those rare occasions that a president takes steps to correct his mistake that Congress finds its voice.
Yes, there is plenty to criticize. After weekend talks, the US side, led by Vice President JD Vance, is celebrating as a “breakthrough” that the Strait of Hormuz is open again and that Iran has reportedly agreed to the return of UN inspectors. But the Strait was open before this war and UN inspectors were in Iran before President Trump unilaterally pulled out of the JCPOA “Iran Deal” in his first term.
The only difference now is that we burned through likely several hundred billion dollars, we lost dozens of aircraft and other military equipment, and we likely lost more service members than the Pentagon is admitting.
It is a reminder of why the Founders intended to make sure that any war must be declared by the people’s Representatives before the first bullet is shot: it should be very hard to launch wars.
Nevertheless, those who are truly against the wars should, in my opinion, hold their fire for the time being in hope that a lasting resolution can be found. The President Is being attacked from all sides by the war party. Now may not be the best time for the peace party to join in.
First round of Swiss-hosted Iran-US talks ends with 5 key agreements
Al Mayadeen | June 22, 2026
Following the conclusion of the first round of the Iran-US talks in Switzerland on Monday, the media committee of the Iranian negotiating delegation issued a statement outlining the main points and understandings reached during the talks.
The Bürgenstock talks outline a phased framework linking security arrangements, financial measures, and sanctions relief to conditional implementation steps.
Key developments include a Lebanon ceasefire monitoring mechanism, structured communication over the Strait of Hormuz, coordinated asset release arrangements, and temporary sanctions relief measures tied to energy exports.
Lebanon ceasefire monitoring mechanism
According to the statement, continued pressure from the Iranian negotiating delegation since Saturday afternoon contributed to maintaining a fragile ceasefire in Lebanon for the time being.
To support stabilization efforts, the parties agreed to establish a monitoring framework titled the “Conflict Control Unit.” Iran is expected to participate in this mechanism, which will oversee developments related to the ceasefire.
The statement further noted that this arrangement would formally integrate the Islamic Republic of Iran into Lebanon’s security-related discussions, despite US efforts in recent months to exclude Iran from Lebanese affairs. It also stated that “Israel” will have no role in this mechanism.
Strait of Hormuz communication channel
Regarding discussions on the Strait of Hormuz, the statement said an understanding was reached to establish a communication channel aimed at addressing potential implementation issues.
Through this channel, relevant parties would be able to directly contact Iran and present concerns related to maritime coordination and regional navigation.
It characterized this arrangement as part of broader discussions on the management and gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
Conditional launch of nuclear and sanctions working groups
The agreement also includes the formation of three working groups focused on nuclear issues, sanctions, and monitoring mechanisms.
These groups are set to begin their work only after the implementation of Article 13 of the memorandum of understanding, which outlines several key steps, including:
- A ceasefire across all fronts, particularly in Lebanon
- Initial steps toward lifting the naval blockade
- Release of frozen Iranian assets
- Issuance of waivers lifting sanctions on oil and petrochemical exports
Iran will not enter the final phase of negotiations before these conditions are fulfilled.
Iran–Qatar agreement on frozen assets
During the same round of talks, Iran and Qatar signed a memorandum of understanding concerning the release of Iranian frozen assets. The agreement is presented as part of ongoing financial and diplomatic coordination between the two sides regarding outstanding economic issues.
US OFAC 60-day sanctions suspension
The statement also referenced documents issued by the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) during the negotiations.
According to the statement, these documents provide for a 60-day suspension of sanctions targeting oil, petrochemical, and related sectors. This arrangement would allow Iran to resume oil sales to its customers and receive payments through formal mechanisms managed by the Central Bank, the statement explained.
Bilateral and trilateral meetings at Bürgenstock resort
Al Mayadeen’s Geneva Bureau chief reported on Sunday that various bilateral and trilateral meetings have begun at the Bürgenstock resort ahead of the first official session of Iran-US talks. The opening session took place at 2:30 PM al-Quds time.
The first file discussed after the inaugural session was the implementation of the first clause, which relates to ending the war, particularly on Lebanon.
Al Mayadeen’s Geneva bureau chief later reported that the Iranian delegation held talks with the Qatari delegation in Geneva to discuss the ceasefire in Lebanon. He also reported that, following a meeting with the Iranian delegation, the Pakistani Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff held talks with the US delegation, headed by Vice President JD Vance.
According to an Iranian official, speaking to CNN on Saturday, before departing for Switzerland, Vance said that one of the top concerns included in the talks would be to make progress towards a ceasefire in Lebanon. “I think we’re going to hopefully make progress on the nuclear issue, make progress on the Lebanon ceasefire issue. Those are the two big things that I think we’re going to be focused on,” the US vice president told reporters, noting that he expected to participate in the talks for only “a day or two”.
IRAN WALKS OUT ON PEACE DEAL DUE TO TRUMP’S THREATS – w/ Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi
Mario Nawfal | June 21, 2026
Moderna’s mRNA Flu Vaccine Gets Unanimous Thumbs-Up Despite Risks, Low Efficacy
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 18, 2026
A federal advisory committee today unanimously voted to endorse Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine — just months after rejecting the company’s application on the basis that Moderna had not performed an “adequate and well-controlled” clinical trial.
The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which reviews scientific data on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and other therapeutics on behalf of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), voted 9-0 in dual votes to recommend approval of the vaccine for the 50-64 and 65-plus age groups.
Today’s votes took place after several hours of presentations based on the findings of Moderna’s Phase 4 clinical trial data for its mRNA-1010 vaccine. The trial compared the efficacy of mRNA-1010 to that of a conventional, non-mRNA flu vaccine.
Daniel O’Connor, founder and CEO of TrialSite News, told The Defender today’s favorable votes “may reflect the committee’s view that the benefit-risk profile is acceptable.” However, the vote “does not erase the fundamental concerns surrounding this application.”
“Significant questions remain about comparator selection, study design and whether the reported efficacy advantage represents a clinically meaningful improvement for patients or simply a statistical advantage within the framework of the trial,” O’Connor said.
According to an FDA briefing document prepared in advance of today’s meeting, “no major deficiencies were identified” with the vaccine for adults 50 and over. Citing the clinical trial data, the document states that the mRNA-1010 vaccine had a 26.6% relative efficacy rate in adults 50 and over, with similar rates for adults 65 and up.
The mRNA-1010 vaccine also showed a higher immune response than Sanofi’s Fluzone vaccine, the document noted. According to Fierce Biotech, these results met all of the FDA’s “pre-specified criteria for success” and bolstered Moderna’s application for approval.
Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, said today’s vote shifts mRNA-1010 safety monitoring to after licensure.
“VRBPAC meetings proceed to the beat of the rubber stamp. The unanimous vote guarantees a lot of really good questions of harm will have to be answered in the post-marketing period, when that harm manifests in the population,” Jablonowski said.
Moderna seeks traditional approval for the mRNA-1010 vaccine for the 50-64 age group and accelerated approval for the 65-plus age group.
Fierce Biotech reported that the FDA uses VRBPAC meetings to “seek outside counsel on tough or high-profile regulatory decisions.”
The FDA will make an approval decision on mRNA-1010 by Aug. 5 — and while the agency is not bound to VRBPAC’s votes, it “often follows the opinions” of its advisory committees.
Moderna’s stock was up over 4% in trading immediately after the vote, and up 3.50% at the close of market.
mRNA vaccine had higher rate of adverse events than conventional flu shot
According to MedPage Today, all current flu vaccines are “manufactured using egg-based, cell-culture based, or recombinant production technologies” — a production process that could result in “egg-adaptive mutations” and which makes it slow to reformulate vaccines when they don’t match currently circulating flu strains.
In their briefing document, FDA scientists suggested that “high-volume manufacturing” of a flu vaccine “capable of rapid strain reformulation is … needed.”
However, the briefing document did identify some concerns with mRNA-1010. FDA scientists noted the higher rate of solicited adverse events among clinical trial participants who received mRNA-1010 — and the higher number of unspecified deaths and serious adverse events related to anemia or urinary tract infections.
The document also noted that “efficacy in immunocompromised individuals and very frail older adults has not been established” — which is “significant because these populations face the highest absolute risk of severe influenza-related complications and may respond differently to mRNA-based vaccine platforms.”
Several experts told The Defender that Moderna’s mRNA-1010 vaccine poses risks. “Throughout the study, solicited adverse events are almost, and in some cases more than, double that of the comparator,” Jablonowski said.
The briefing document acknowledged a higher rate of solicited adverse reactions for mRNA-1010 vaccine recipients than among the conventional flu vaccine recipients. According to the Association of Health Care Journalists, solicited adverse events are “those that the trial investigators specifically ask participants about because they are either expected or likely based on known reactions to other vaccines.”
Unsolicited (unexpected) adverse events, serious adverse events, adverse events of special interest and deaths “were balanced between treatment groups,” and “no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were identified within 42 days postvaccination,” the document states.
Immunologist and biochemist Jessica Rose, Ph.D., said this period is too small to detect long-term risks. “There is no way to know what the long-term adverse events will encompass,” she said.
Dr. Angus Dalgleish, professor emeritus of oncology at City St. George’s, University of London, said, “There is no need for any specific flu vaccine.” He cited the high number of serious adverse events related to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
“The case for mRNA gene therapies for any infectious disease can never be approved with current technology, given the totally unacceptable serious side effect risks,” Dalgleish said.
Rose agreed. She said that since mRNA-1010 is based on the same “flawed” platform as the COVID-19 shots, she anticipates “exactly the same problems as for the COVID shots, as per the millions of reported adverse events to pharmacovigilance databases.”
FDA glosses over safety concerns
These concerns are similar to those expressed when Moderna first filed its application for licensure in December 2025 and which contributed to the FDA declining to review the company’s application in February.
In a “refusal-to-file” letter signed by Dr. Vinay Prasad, then-director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, which oversees vaccines, the agency cited Moderna’s failure to perform an “adequate and well-controlled” clinical trial and its failure to use the “best-available standard of care” during the trial process.
In February, STAT reported that Prasad overruled senior FDA vaccine reviewers, who were ready to review Moderna’s application. However, Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told STAT at the time that the claim was “categorically false.”
In response to Moderna’s claim that mRNA-1010 had a 26.6% higher relative efficacy rate than the existing Fluzone vaccine, former pharmaceutical research and development executive Sasha Latypova wrote on Substack that this is significantly lower than the 95% relative efficacy claimed for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during Phase 3 clinical trials.
Jablonowski told The Defender in February that the mRNA-1010 clinical trial data show that mRNA recipients had a 329% higher chance of sustaining a serious adverse event and a 278% higher chance of experiencing an unsolicited adverse event — referring to a condition that was not expected or previously known.
However, the FDA’s briefing document found that mRNA-1010’s safety profile was “acceptable for the intended population” and that there was no causal relationship between the vaccine and the unspecified deaths and cases of anemia and urinary tract infections identified during the clinical trial.
The document said these adverse events are “unlikely to represent a vaccine safety signal” and that the risk of rare adverse events should be tracked through post-licensure monitoring.
But according to Jablonowski, conventional flu vaccines have shown they have negative efficacy — placing the vaccinated at higher risk of flu than the unvaccinated. He said this makes any comparison between the candidate mRNA vaccine and existing vaccines invalid.
“If the current flu vaccines have negative efficacy, a placebo would be more efficacious. … In the 2024-2025 season, the Cleveland Clinic found a negative 27% efficacy,” Jablonowski said.
‘They’re promoting the platform’
The FDA’s decision to decline review of Moderna’s application led to an uproar within the pharmaceutical and public health spheres. Within two weeks, the FDA accepted the company’s application for licensure of mRNA-1010. Leadership shake-ups at the FDA soon followed.
Last month, Dr. Marty Makary resigned his FDA commissioner post, following rumors that he would be fired. In April, Dr. Vinay Prasad resigned from the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) — for the second time in less than a year. The FDA then fired Tracy Beth Høeg, M.D., Ph.D., the agency’s top drug regulator and a staunch advocate for vaccine safety.
Some experts suggested that political pressure — and corporate lobbying — contributed to the FDA’s about-face.
Blackstone, a New York-based investment firm, is the world’s largest alternative assets manager, with a portfolio exceeding $1 trillion. In 2024, the company launched an ongoing, $750 million investment in Moderna, explicitly to support the development of its mRNA flu shot.
Aside from its financial might, Blackstone is also closely connected to the Republican Party and the Trump administration, through significant donations from its executives and employees and through its ties with prominent lobbying firms linked to Republicans — and Big Pharma.
In turn, Blackstone’s CEO and co-founder, Stephen A. Schwarzman, has close ties to President Donald Trump and his administration, while members of Blackstone’s Life Sciences division have ties with several vaccine makers, including Pfizer.
In a post on X, Max Bayer, a science reporter with Endpoints News, noted that today’s meeting included the participation of a non-voting pharmaceutical industry representative and that “no waivers were issued for conflicts of interest.”
Bayer also noted that unlike the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which advises the agency on vaccine recommendations and which U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revamped before a federal court froze those changes, VRBPAC’s membership remains “pretty much intact.”
According to a February study, 557 clinical trials of mRNA therapeutic products are in progress, 507 of which involve vaccines, with Pfizer and Moderna leading the way in what analysts project will be a rapidly growing — and lucrative — market for mRNA products in the coming years.
Rose suggested that these moves signal a desire on the part of the FDA to continue promoting mRNA vaccine technology.
“They’re promoting the platform,” Rose said. “People who acknowledge risk who oppose using an unsafe and ineffective platform are a problem for the industry players aligned with pushing this technology forward.”
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.
Cuban FM blasts Rubio for ‘chronically lying’ about US fuel blockade
Press TV – June 21, 2026
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla has condemned US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s claim that there is no oil blockade imposed by the United States on Cuba.
In a post published on X on Sunday, Rodríguez wrote: “When [Rubio] talks about incompetence in Cuba, he should be asked why he lies chronically and contradicts the US president and his spokeswoman by denying the existence of the total fuel blockade that the White House acknowledges.”
“There is no oil blockade on Cuba, per se,” Rubio claimed on Saturday while guest-hosting the daily White House press briefing.
Rodríguez stated that Rubio’s references to the situation in Cuba are consistently framed in a way that avoids responsibility and self-accountability, describing it as “an attempt to present himself as a savior.”
The Cuban foreign minister also denounced the “economic suffocation plan” against his country, saying it prevents foreign companies from selling parts and technology needed for the island’s thermoelectric plants.
The plan “prevents any company in the world from selling oil to our country” and also targets CUPET, the Cuban company responsible for fuel logistics and energy infrastructure, he explained.
He added that it sanctions nickel companies, threatens foreign companies involved in tourism and mining, and strips foreign citizens who visit Cuba of the right to use Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) visas to enter the US.
Rodríguez also said Washington pressures and threatens countries that maintain health cooperation agreements with Cuba.
He further stated that Rubio “openly calls for the subversion of Cuba’s constitutional order and persistently seeks US military intervention in Cuba.”
An executive order signed by Trump on January 29 authorized the White House to impose tariffs on countries exporting fuel to Cuba.
So far in 2026, Cuba has received a single shipment of 100,000 tons of crude oil from Russia.
Featured Video
Houthis Keep Advancing as the Red Sea Crisis Deepens
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
15 Saudi ‘hijackers’ were CIA agents working for US: Scholar
Press TV – April 13, 2016
Fifteen of the 9/11 “hijackers” from Saudi Arabia were CIA agents working for the United States government, which was seeking to destroy the Middle East for Israel and to double the American military budget, says Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003…. continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Israel seeks ‘compensation’ from Washington over Saudi F-35 sale
- Saudi crown prince seeks dialogue with Ansarullah after Yemeni blows: Report
- Damascus rejects Saudi request for Syrian fighters to counter Yemen: Report
- South Korea says will not send troops to join terrorist US war on Iran
- Russia Just Struck the Eyes of NATO’s War Machine in Ukraine
- Russia summons UK charge d’affaires over Kiev drone support
- NATO member warns bloc seeking pretext for war with Russia
- Macgregor: We Haven’t Seen the Worst of the Iran War Yet
- ‘We are not like everyone else’ laws that bind other nations do not apply to Israel, says Likud lawmaker
- Report: Saudi Arabia seeks allies’ assistance as missiles deplete amid war on Yemen
- If Americans Knew
- CPJ demands release of arrested Palestinian-US journalist near Bethlehem
- Robert Kraft: The Billionaire Friend of Netanyahu Pulling The Strings Behind the Macklemore/Ed Sheeran Blow Up
- Columbia Administered Fund Gives Big Money to Pro-Israel Groups
- Deportation Case of Palestinian Activist Salah Sarsour Tests First Amendment
- ‘We Will Not Forget’: Palestinians Mark 44 Years since Sabra and Shatila
- Why do we let Zionists decide what we can and can’t say?
- US welcomes Israeli, Iranian delegations to UN, but not Palestinians – Daily Update
- Biden’s Genocide Accomplices Targeted by New Accountability Campaign
- AIPAC’s Network Has Already Spent $67.2 Million to Shape the Midterm Elections
- Jewish Supremacist Manufacturing a Civilizational Threat to License Bigotry
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
Aletho News 