Wednesday, June 30, 2021

YouTube censors scientist's popular podcast for mentioning ivermectin


YouTube censored one of the most popular podcasts in the country because it mentioned the drug ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.

Bret Weinstein, an evolutionary biologist who was a professor at Evergreen State College, told Fox News' Tucker Carlson on Tuesday night YouTube has blocked "The Darkhorse Podcast" from generating ad revenue, which is how he makes a living.

YouTube said it will not allow any channel to discuss "[c]laims that ivermectin is effective in treatment or prevention of COVID."

Carlson asked Weinstein why YouTube, which is owned by Google, would do such a thing.

"It is confusing, but I think to understand it, the thing to do is to consider the question of what would be ideal from the perspective of the pharmaceutical industry at the moment? It would be ideal if vaccines were recommended for all people irrespective of their age, irrespective of whether they had already had COVID-19, and irrespective of whether or not they were pregnant," he said.

"And it would be essential that there were no safe and effective alternatives to the vaccine because if there were safe and effective alternatives, the Emergency Use Authorizations that allow the administration of the vaccines would evaporate."

Weinstein said the "evidence is strong that ivermectin works both as a prophylactic and as a treatment if given early.

He argued that even if skeptics are right and the data is inconclusive, "because ivermectin is a safe drug, you would still administer it to people who showed up with COVID rather than sending them home until they're so sick that they need to be rescued by a hospital."

See the interview:

One week ago, Reuters reported the University of Oxford is testing ivermectin as a possible treatment for COVID-19 as part of a British government-backed study.

The university said ivermectin, an antiparasitic, resulted in a reduction of virus replication in laboratory studies. And a small pilot study showed that giving the drug early could reduce viral load and the duration of symptoms in some patients with mild COVID-19.

Worldwide, more than 50 peer-reviewed studies have shown the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. A recent study by the American Journal of Therapeutics that analyzed 18 randomized controlled treatment trials found ivermectin elicited "large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance" in COVID patients.

A peer-reviewed study released in February found that invermectin reduces coronavirus infections, hospitalizations and deaths by about 75%.

In more than 30 trials around the world, the drug caused "repeated, consistent, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes’ at all stages of the disease," according to the study, which was published in the U.S. American Journal of Therapeutics.

The evidence is so strong, the researchers believe, the anti-parasitic drug should become a standard therapy everywhere, hastening global recovery.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact


The post YouTube censors scientist's popular podcast for mentioning ivermectin appeared first on WND.


How scientists created COVID-19 fear, producing billions in wealth



Read Hanne's The Herland Report.

The COVID-19 scandal continues to transfer billions into the pockets of the already ultra-rich, while national economies are faltering under the weight of mass unemployment, bankruptcies, debt and despair.

Merging private capital with government funds, the goal of the #Davos World Economic Forum, opens up for the modern billionaire a feudalism where only the very few gain. The world's super-rich did extremely well during the 2020 coronavirus crisis, increasing their already-huge fortunes by $10 billion from April to July alone, according to a UBS and PwC study. America's richest further boosted their fortunes by $195 billion in President Biden's first 100 days.

The economic effects of COVID-19 has been addressed in a previous article at WND, as I pointed out that few discuss the massive redistribution of wealth, as the COVID economic crisis makes the fortunes of billionaires such as "world health medical expert" Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and others soar with gigantic billion-dollar profits. With more than 3 billion vaccines now administered, Big Pharma owners are set to gain even more.

At the same time, the inequality gap is rocketing with 1 billion human beings set to plunge into utter poverty. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has described a high-damage scenario, writing that 80% of the COVID economic crisis will persist for more than a decade and stall growth for a much longer time than expected.

So, how was this remarkable shift toward modern economic feudalism made possible? For one, the answer is fear. Let us take a look at one of the scientists who in 2020 helped fuel the fear of corona, as we called the virus back then.

Dr. Neil Ferguson, the man behind the Imperial College Report, which showed that up to 65 million could die from COVID-19, was central in shifting the U.K. and U.S. from the herd immunity strategy to societal lockdown. The Imperial report predicted that half a million could die in the U.K. without a lockdown.

"The Imperial Report was never even published scientifically; it's not peer-reviewed, which a scientific paper should be; it's just an internal departmental report from Imperial. And it's fascinating; I don't think any other scientific endeavor has made such an impression on the world as that rather debatable paper," said Johan Giesecke, the Swedish professor who was the state epidemiologist for Sweden from 1995 to 2005 and former chief scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

And Dr. Ferguson was sacked from his job due to improper conduct, meetings with his married lover during lockdown, demonstrating that he himself did not even believe in social distancing – so he is already out.

Dr. Mathew Maavak, a Malaysian expert on risk foresight and governance, recently commented: "When enforced narratives fail, abrupt U-turns are inevitable. One such fall guy is the British mathematical epidemiologist Dr. Neil Ferguson, whose COVID-19 contagion model paralleled the 3.5-hour pandemic simulation exercise called Event 201 in October 2019. Up to 65 million people were projected to die. Unsurprisingly, a common denominator between both projections was the omnipresent Microsoft, which helped 'tidy up' Ferguson's code. Experts and politicians the world over naturally 'listened to the science,' mirroring a teenager's hysterics over another supposedly existential issue.

"Now, however, shadow-banned links are emerging from Google's search limbo to inform us that Ferguson's code was in fact a 'buggy mess' that looked 'more like a bowl of angel hair pasta than a finely tuned piece of programming,' according to one data expert. This is what our endless lockdowns and coercive vaccination programs were based on."

Ferguson has been notorious in the past for overestimating numbers. He was involved in doing so during Ebola and the swine flu epidemic. For example, he estimated that 150,000 people would die during a Foot and Mouth outbreak. In the end, 200 people died.

The World Health Organization also helped greatly in painting an apocalyptic scenario of death in 2020.

In the March 10, 2020, meeting with EU leaders, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, estimated 3.5% or more death rates among those who contracted the virus. It would mean millions dead from COVID-19. If the death rate is 0.3%, on the other hand, such as predicted by Rystad Energies, the extreme measures imply a dramatic over reaction. Tedros is, of course, close to Bill Gates, whom he calls his "brother," the oligarch billionaire turned "world pandemic expert" paying millions into the WHO system, with particular interest in world vaccines and controlling public health.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact


The post How scientists created COVID-19 fear, producing billions in wealth appeared first on WND.


Common goals in differing public hoaxes


A short while back I learned from a Climate Change website I frequent, WattsUpWithThat, run by meteorologist Anthony Watts, that since 1980 the earth had experienced a 14% increase in greening effects, caused mostly by increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Eureka!, I thought. Of course. That’s the reason for the Climate Change hoax and demonization of CO2 – more greening leads to more food to more people. Climate Change, like Covid-19, is backed by eugenicists.

First, let me address an annoying topic in this (hopefully) short post: If you are a believer in warming and climate change and all of that, how can you be so dense? Look around, look at statistics (that have not been altered by EPA), and see that yes, while a little warming has been going on since the bottom of the Little Ice Age in the late 1600s, it only benefits us. We tend to thrive in warmth, perish in cold. Warming periods such as the Roman, Medieval and now Modern eras saw great advances in civilization. Greenland ice cores show that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. But my real question for you is this: How can you stick your head out the window, see that nothing is changing, and still think everything is changing? You make no sense! You are purely a product of the power of suggestion. Every doom and gloom prediction coming out of junk science produced by climate alarmists is just that: A prediction. According to noted climatologist and all around really smart dude Prince Charles, it was all to be over for us in 2017. When that didn’t happen, the cretin merely changed the Doomsday date. If you think Climate Change is real, I want your photo to place aside Chuck’s in the hall of deceit and stupidity. (I deliberately searched for goofy pictures of Chuck. I was offered a wide selection.)

Anyway, final notice if you are a true believer: Smarten up.

This post was triggered by two pieces of writing I’ve recently come across: You Just Bought A Half Billion Deadly Vaccines, by Miles W. Mathis, and The Covid Vaccine and Depopulation: The Beginning of the Trail, by Jon Rappoport. Neither write about the link between Climate Change and the Covid-19 vaccine. That’s my little addition to the game.

There is great similarity to the “science” behind Climate and Covid – it is junk, of course. But it is also extremely totalitarian in nature – those who push these matters act more like petty dictators, punishing anyone who steps out of line. And they mean business. There’s no career for anyone in climatology, epidemiology, “virology”, (allopathic medicine or nutrition) for those who do not, in advance, toe the line. If you make your way through into professions and see the light, you’ll be de-funded and/or fired. You’ll be ridiculed by people of half your intelligence. That is because it is understood by the elites behind these psyops that there is no good and solid science to support the ideas, so, that it all has to be faked. It only succeeds due to propaganda, agitprop and a monolithic news media.

Rappoport makes the point that vaccines are intended to cause depopulation. That’s why any who question or criticize are labeled freaks and cranks and quacks.

Real scientists do not attempt to prove hypotheses. Rather, they attempt to disprove them. It is only after time and rigorous failed attempts to disprove an idea that it finally graduates to a “theory,” rarely “proven” and always subject to modification or replacement by something better. Said Richard Feynman, “The first principle [of scientific inquiry] is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”

Anyway, if you’ve time, read the two pieces. That’s all I set out to say. As usual, my fingers ran away from me.

PS: Nothing new under the sun: “It’s terrible to have to say the World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.” (Oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier, November 1991). The vaccine might be Cousteau’s wish come true.


Did Cops Attack and Provoke Peaceful Protesters on January 6?

Joe Biden’s Justice Department is using every legal maneuver at its disposal to keep under wraps more than 14,000 hours of surveillance footage captured by the United States Capitol Police security system on January 6.


Abu Dhabi Bars Unvaccinated People From Most Public Spaces

Abu Dhabi Bars Unvaccinated People From Most Public Spaces

As paranoia surrounding the "Delta" variant intensifies, inspiring new lockdowns and other measures like the revival of mask orders (in LA, the Department of Public Health just issued a statement asking the public to return to wearing masks indoors when in public) around the world, the emirate of Abu Dhabi has announced that soon people who haven't been vaccinated will be barred from shopping centers, restaurants, colleges, recreational facilities and other places.

The city’s government said the far-reaching measure - which has been approved by the Emergency, Crisis and Disasters Committee and will take effect on Aug. 20. - will exempt children below the age of 16, and others with an official exemption.

"The committee stated [that] the decision would enhance safety in areas that have been subject to additional precautionary measures and provide enhanced protection for community members," the Abu Dhabi Government Media Office said in a statement.

The new measures will begin on Aug. 20, giving the tiny emirate more time to inoculate its citizens. Those who haven't been vaccinated against COVID-19 will not be allowed to enter shopping centers, restaurants, cafes, and all other retail outlets, including those which are not part of a shopping center, except supermarkets and pharmacies.

They will also be barred from gyms, recreational facilities, health clubs, resorts, museums, cultural centers, theme parks, universities, institutes, public and private schools, and nurseries.

Put another way, if you live in Abu Dhabi, and you ever want to leave your home again, you will need to accept the vaccine. To ensure adequate supplies, the emirate announced last week that it would ban foreigners from being vaccinated in the country (wealthy individuals from around the region have apparently been traveling to the emirate to get the vaccine).

The UAE has the highest vaccination rate in the world, boasting a rate of 154 doses administered per 100 people.

It also has recorded more than 607K coronavirus cases and 1,802 deaths since the start of the pandemic.

More than 2K new cases were reported on Monday, along with six new deaths.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/30/2021 - 04:15


Tuesday, June 29, 2021

Are Supremes about to strengthen your gun rights?



Would carrying a gun make you feel safer?

Robert Nash and Brandon Koch thought so. But the state of New York denied them gun permits, saying they hadn't demonstrated a "special need."

Why did they have to prove such a "need"? The Supreme Court ruled more than 10 years ago that all Americans have a right to keep and bear arms, no matter where they live.

"Many other courts have thumbed their nose at that Supreme Court ruling," Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation tells me. He's excited that the Supreme Court will soon rule on Nash and Koch's lawsuit over New York's law.

I understand Nash and Koch's frustration. I once tried to get a carry permit in New York.

First, I had to read 60 pages of instructions about irrelevant things like "metal knuckle knives" and "kung fu stars," fill out a confusing 17-page form, get it notarized and then go in person to police headquarters.

There they fingerprinted me, demanded reasons why I should be allowed to have a gun and charged me $430.

I heard nothing from them for half a year. Then they wrote me saying that my application was "denied."

I called to ask if I could appeal. They said I could try again if I could prove that "special need" to carry a gun. After years of confronting crooks on TV, I actually do have a special need for self-protection. I showed the cops threats on my life.

Not good enough, said the NYC permit department. They turned me down again.

Apparently, my mistake was not bribing the cops. Later it was revealed that the police in the permit department were giving out permits for money.

Scams like that thrive whenever politicians impose too many restrictions on people's freedom. In parts of California, people got gun permits if they donated to a sheriff's campaign.

It's one more reason why Gottlieb is excited about this new Supreme Court case. Court watchers predict his side will win, especially because there are now more originalist judges on the court.

That means it's likely that soon, almost all Americans will be legally able to carry guns.

Some people say that will be terrible.

"Women are less safe!" says professor Lisa Moore of the University of Texas on TV. "Every vulnerable population, LGBT people, students of color, has more to fear!"

But then why are 58% of new gun owners Blacks, and 40% women?

"An awful lot of women bought a firearm to protect themselves and feel a whole lot safer!" says Gottlieb. "Eight hundred thousand times a year, a person uses a firearm to protect themselves. If you call 911, the police usually get there after the crime is over.

Over the last decades, most states liberalized their gun laws. More allow concealed carry. Gun control advocates predicted that would lead to an epidemic of shootings.

The opposite happened. As concealed carry was legalized, violent crime went down. Especially telling, crime dropped in each state right after the law was changed.

Gottlieb says that's because "an armed society is a polite society."

As a reporter who attended only liberal schools and worked in liberal newsrooms, I'd been taught that more guns means more violence. Even after interviewing violent criminals in prison and hearing many say that what they feared most was "not the police" but that the person being robbed "might be armed," I still believed that more guns meant more crime.

Only when I started researching gun crime and studying the data did it become clear that most of my anti-gun assumptions were wrong.

More guns really does mean less crime.


The post Are Supremes about to strengthen your gun rights? appeared first on WND.


The destructive 'religion' of safetyism



As many observers have noted, staying safe has become a religion. "Safetyism," as it is sometimes called, like all religions, places what it values – in this case, being safe – above other values. Safetyism explains the willingness of Americans to give up their most cherished values – including liberty – in the name of safety for the last year and a half.

Millions of Americans not only gave up their right to go to work, earn a living, attend church or synagogue, and visit friends and relatives, but they even gave up their right to visit dying relatives and friends. One can assume that nearly every person recorded as having died of COVID-19 died without having a single loved one at their bedside from the moment they entered a hospital until their death. The acceptance of such cruelty – irrational and unscientific cruelty, one might add – can only be explained by the failure of generations of schools and parents to teach liberty, while successfully teaching the worship of safety. If your father had to die alone, it was worth it for the sake of safety; if your mother had to be in what amounted to solitary confinement in a nursing home for more than a year, that, too, was worth it for the sake of safety. And, of course, if political leaders and leaders in science and medicine have to lie for the sake of safety, so be it; truth, too, is less important than safety.

None of this is new. Twenty-five years ago, I wrote and broadcast about the willingness of Americans to watch individual rights crushed in the war against smoking, and especially in accepting the absurdity of the allegedly lethal dangers of secondhand smoke. No one denies that intense exposure to secondhand smoke can exacerbate preexisting illnesses such as asthma. But the anti-smoking zealots' claim that 50,000 Americans die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke is nonsense. For example, in 2013, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported that there was no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke.

Yet, in the name of that nonsensical 50,000-a-year claim, people were forbidden not only to smoke on airplanes – which on courtesy grounds alone was appropriate – but even in smoke shops. In the city of Burbank, California, run for decades by leftists who, like all leftists, have contempt for personal liberty, smoking is banned even in cigar shops. Despite the fact that no one is forced to work in any cigar shop, and even if the shop is well-ventilated, no smoking is permitted.

What is important to note is that these irrational prohibitions on personal liberty bothered no one except smokers. The number of nonsmoking citizens of Burbank who objected to these laws was probably zero. Had Burbank announced a ban on alcohol, there would have been a revolt – despite the fact that at least half the instances of spouse- and child-abuse are accompanied by alcohol, and every instance of death, brain damage, paralysis and other permanent injury caused by a drunk driver is caused by alcohol. Has anyone been killed by a smoking driver? Has anyone been murdered, or any child or spouse been molested or beaten because the murderer or abuser had been smoking?

So, the safety zealots learned from the anti-smoking and anti-secondhand smoke crusade the great lesson that if you told Americans something wasn't safe, you could deprive them of their rights and they would willingly go along with it. And, for the record, this is equally true in virtually every country in the world. "Safety uber alles."

They didn't only learn this lesson from the anti-smoking fanatics. For two generations now, safety has increasingly deprived Americans of joys as well as freedoms. Children, in particular, have been so coddled that American children of the last two generations have probably had far less joy and far more fear than children of any previous American generation. Young children cannot take walks on their own lest child protective services be called; diving boards, once found on nearly every home swimming pool, are widely banned; and monkey bars and seesaws have been removed from playgrounds. As an article in the Australian website Babyology headlined: "Monkey bars are dangerous and must be removed from playgrounds, experts say."

Young people up to age 15 cannot fly without adult supervision by the airline. Why not? I flew alone from Miami to New York when I was 7 years old, and no one thought my parents acted in any way irresponsibly.

Two Norwegian scientists, Ellen Sandseter (Queen Maud University College of Early Childhood Education) and Leif Kennair (Norwegian University of Science and Technology), wrote a study on children and risky play published in Evolutionary Psychology in which they concluded: "We may observe an increased neuroticism or psychopathology in society if children are hindered from partaking in age-adequate risky play."

The desire to lead as safe a life as possible is a major factor that explains why fewer and fewer young Americans are getting married and even fewer are having children. Neither marriage nor having children is safe. Both are filled with risks. The headline of an article this past week on NBC's "Today" show website reads, "Child-free adults are just as happy as parents, study finds." Aside from the question of whether one can compare the happiness of two groups of people with entirely different experiences (would it be meaningful to say that most dogs are happier than human beings?) – or even whether one can expect honest answers (how many people claim their choices in life made them unhappy?) – the article well illustrates the point of this column. "Be safe" would certainly include not getting married and not having children.

You can live a safe life. Or you can live a full life. You can't live both.


The post The destructive 'religion' of safetyism appeared first on WND.


Experts Confirm Extremely Low Levels of Fluoride Reduce IQ


A landmark study by Grandjean, et al.,1 has been published confirming that very low levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy impair the brain development of the child and at a population level may be causing more damage than lead, mercury or arsenic.

The study found that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of 0.2 mg/L, which is exceeded four to five times in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities, was enough to lower IQ by one point. The authors stated that even this impact is likely underestimated and:

“These findings provide additional evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant … and the benchmark results should inspire a revision of water-fluoride recommendations aimed at protecting pregnant women and young children.”

A urinary fluoride (UF) concentration of 0.2 mg/L is far below what a pregnant woman in a fluoridated community would have, as confirmed by two recent studies.

A study of pregnant women in fluoridated San Francisco, California,2 found a mean UF concentration of 0.74 mg/L, and one with participants in fluoridated communities across Canada3 found a mean UF concentration of 1.06 mg/L. Both levels were significantly higher than those found in women in nonfluoridated communities.

Grandjean, et al.'s study, published in Risk Analysis, was a benchmark dose (BMD) analysis of the pooled data from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded ELEMENT and MIREC birth cohorts in Mexico and Canada. These are the birth cohorts that were used in the studies that found exposure to low levels of fluoride during pregnancy is linked to cognitive impairment in children.4,5,6,7

A Benchmark Dose is used to identify a dose or concentration that would likely cause a defined amount of harm, in this case a loss of one IQ point.

What makes this paper so important is that BMD is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) risk assessment methodology, and the paper’s authors used a one IQ point drop as the adverse effect amount because the EPA has used this same level of IQ loss in their own risk assessments and has recommended use of such a level.

It has been well established that a loss of one IQ point leads to a reduced lifetime earning ability of $18,000. Summed over the whole population we are talking about a loss of billions of dollars of earning ability each year.

It is estimated that over 72% of public drinking water systems in America are fluoridated; thus, millions of pregnant women are currently being exposed to levels of fluoride that have the potential to lower their children’s IQ by at least four points and probably more.

Moreover, it’s important to point out that in risk assessments using BMD methodology, it’s standard practice to apply a safety factor on top of the calculated BMD in order to determine a safe reference dose (RfD) to protect the whole population (including the most vulnerable) from harm.

If that safety factor used was the standard safety margin of 10, to account for the variables in population-wide sensitivity, then the EPA might conclude that any urine fluoride concentration above 0.02 mg/L would be unacceptable and “unsafe.” This is 35 times lower than what the American Dental Association and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend for fluoridated communities.

Study Submitted to Judge in Federal Fluoridation Lawsuit

Michael Connett, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA, has sent a copy8 of this BMD analysis to the judge presiding over the case currently in federal court. The Fluoride Action Network is involved in an ongoing federal lawsuit9 against the EPA seeking to prohibit the deliberate addition of fluoride to drinking water because of its neurotoxicity.

A trial was held in June 2020, which featured world-renowned experts10 testifying in court that fluoridation posed a danger on par with lead. At the conclusion, the judge stated that we had presented “serious evidence” that presents “serious questions” about the safety of fluoridation, and said, “I don’t think anyone disputes that fluoride is a hazard.”

The judge also noted that the EPA had used an incorrect standard for assessing the available science and offered them a second chance to review it accurately, which they have declined repeatedly.

Since last summer, we have also won several legal victories, including rulings against EPA motions to dismiss the case and a recent ruling in April 2021 granting our motion to amend our original 2016 petition to include the latest studies and a more detailed listing of plaintiffs.

In the written order,11 the court dismantles the EPA’s arguments one by one, showing that the judge is committed to ensuring that all of the science is considered and remains the focus, which is a very good sign for our side.

The ruling also sets a precedent for future environmental cases under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by allowing petitioners to update and amend complaints to include the most up-to-date science during the trial, rather then restart the multiyear petition process over as the EPA attorneys wanted.

The court will hold the trial in abeyance until the final National Toxicology Program monograph on fluoride’s neurotoxicity is published possibly later this year. The judge was also awaiting the release of the benchmark dose analysis mentioned above and at least one additional study due out later in 2021.

Once all of this new research is available to the court, the judge could potentially hold a second phase of the trial, allowing additional discovery and testimony only on this new evidence. In fact, during the April 22, 2021, status hearing, the judge said this was his preference, and in the court order it is written, "As this Court has indicated, the evolving science warrants reopening of expert discovery and trial evidence."

The court order indicated that once the judge has had the opportunity to see the new evidence and hear from both sides, the Fluoride Action Network will be able to resubmit our amended petition to the EPA for what will likely be one last opportunity for their reconsideration before a final ruling is made by the judge.

The next court hearing will be August 26, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. (Pacific U.S.). To get additional updates and links to view the hearing, follow FAN on Facebook and Twitter or sign up for our weekly bulletin.

For those wanting to catch up on this precedent setting trial, we have several resources available for you. First is a 16-minute video featuring our attorney, Michael Connett, providing a detailed background on the case and trial. Second, we have a 30-minute interview of Connett by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Third, FAN has a comprehensive database of documents, timelines, media coverage and materials about the lawsuit on our website.

fluoride awareness week

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

Damning Deposition Videos

The talking point we probably hear the most from proponents at council hearings, and repeated by policy makers, is that government agencies like the CDC and EPA vouch for fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness, and regulate the practice responsibly, so therefore it must be true and we must be wrong.

Instead of verifying any of these claims, policy makers have put their blind trust in these agencies. The media outlets, on the other hand, which should be the nation’s watchdog, have suspended their professionalism by not only blindly trusting these agencies, but also by discrediting those opposed to fluoridation.

Under oath, representatives from these agencies proved that their mantra of “safe and effective” is only a baseless claim used to promote a failed policy. In this first video, Casey Hannan, the director of the CDC’s Oral Health Division, testifies that the CDC has no data12 establishing the safety of fluoride’s effect on the brain, despite decades of touting the safety of fluoridation for all citizens, including children.

In this second video, Hannan admits there is no prenatal or early-life benefit13 from fluoride despite its known neurotoxicity to this same sub-population. In the third video, Joyce Donohue, Ph.D., a scientist from the EPA’s Office of Water, admits that the EPA’s current fluoride risk assessment, and thus fluoridation regulations, are out of date and should be updated14 in response to the collection of studies showing neurotoxicity published over the past several years.

These three videos are just a small taste of what was admitted under oath by representatives of the government agencies responsible for protecting the health of Americans.

For example, during the trial we also watched a video of CDC’s Hannan agreeing with the finding that “fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain … and increase risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” as well as agreeing with the National Research Council finding that “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the function of the brain and body by direct and indirect means.”

FAN will be able to share much more of this video content with you after a ruling is made in the trial, exposing the failure of these agencies to protect the public from overexposure to fluoride.

Former NTP Director Warns Parents in Op-Ed

Along with the avalanche of new peer-reviewed studies showing harm and the lawsuit exposing government negligence, there has been an ever-growing chorus of warnings to the public and opposition to fluoridation from researchers and public health experts. This includes the former director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health.

Toxicologist and microbiologist Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., co-authored an op-ed appearing in Environmental Health News with Christine Till, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada, and Dr. Bruce Lanphear, MPH, a physician, clinical scientist and professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada.

Till is a co-author of several significant fluoride studies including the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride neurotoxicity study15 and others finding lowered IQ, increased diagnosis of ADHD and thyroid impairment. She received a leadership award from York University, in part, for this groundbreaking research.

Lanphear is also an award-winning researcher who has been a member of two National Academies of Science committees, is a member of the EPA’s Lead Review Panel and is renowned for his research on low-level lead exposure and many other environmental neurotoxins.

The op-ed, titled “It Is Time to Protect Kids' Developing Brains From Fluoride,”16 highlights the mounting evidence that fluoride is impairing brain development and compares the response from the public health community to its delayed response to the obvious harm caused by lead. The authors call for the U.S. "to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children," and state:

"Given the weight of evidence that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain, it is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to review their recommendations and regulations to ensure they protect pregnant women and their children ... We can act now by recommending that pregnant women and infants reduce their fluoride intake."

The op-ed is accompanied by a powerful animated short video17 on the impact of fluoride on brain development produced by Little Things Matter, a nonprofit scientific organization composed of children’s environmental health professionals. Dr. Till was also recently filmed giving an hour-long “must watch” presentation and Q&A on her fluoride neurotoxicity research.18

FAN has compiled quotes19 (and produced a video) from a variety of experts warning about fluoride’s neurotoxicity, as well as a list of opinion pieces and journal articles20 warning of harm.

From Womb to Tomb

An April 2021 study from Sweden found 50% higher rates of hip bone fractures in post-menopausal women in an area with up to about 1 mg/L fluoride in drinking water.21 It also found 10% to 20% higher rates of fractures for all types of bone fractures and for those types commonly associated with osteoporosis.

The high-quality cohort study used detailed information from more than 4,000 older Swedish women enrolled starting in 2004 and followed through 2017. Their largest source of exposure was from naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water, at concentrations at or below 1 mg/L. Their total exposures fell within the same range as women living in areas with artificial fluoridation.

Concern for fluoride’s effect on bone quality was raised 25 years ago based on animal studies: “[O]ne cannot help but be alarmed by the negative effects of fluoride on bone strength consistently demonstrated in animal models.”22,23 The animal findings prompted human studies. This new Swedish study builds on previous studies that found increased risk of bone fractures in older people with long-term fluoride exposure.24,25,26

It is also consistent with extensive experience from randomized controlled trials (RCT) done in the 1990s that attempted to decrease fracture risk for those with osteoporosis by giving patients relatively high doses of fluoride.

Instead of decreasing fracture risk, those studies found increased risk, especially for hip fractures, and the attempts to use fluoride as a medication against osteoporosis have been largely abandoned. Researchers concluded that although fluoride can increase bone mineral density (BMD), it simultaneously decreases bone quality and bone strength, despite the greater density.

This ought to have serious implications for the practice of fluoridation. The study’s findings suggest that long-term consumption of fluoridated water may be responsible for 50% or more of the hip fractures experienced by older people. There are about 2 million osteoporotic fractures in the U.S. per year, of which about 300,000 are hip fractures.27 Hip fractures in the elderly are a leading cause of disability and death.

“About 30% of people with a hip fracture will die in the following year.”28 “Of those who survive, many do not regain their prefracture level of function. About 50% of patients with hip fractures will never be able to ambulate without assistance and 25% will require long-term care.”29

Water fluoridation may literally be killing older people, taking years off their lives or leaving them confined to wheelchairs. “Treating hip fractures is also very expensive. A typical patient with a hip fracture spends US $40,000 in the first year following hip fracture for direct medical costs and almost $5,000 in subsequent years.”30

Widespread fluoridation in the U.S. might help explain why, “Hip fracture rates among the U.S. population are the highest in the world.”31 Just as with the fluoride neurotoxicity studies that are finally being taken seriously, and funded by government agencies, this new study could help spur more high-quality studies on bone effects of fluoride.

But there is already more than enough evidence of risk to the brain, and now to bone health, that there is no justification to continue intentionally adding fluoride to drinking water for the sole purpose of trying to reduce tooth decay.

Fluoridation Lobby Is Doubling Down

Unfortunately, in response to the abundance of new research, the landmark lawsuit, growing concern in the scientific community and the sustained advocacy and education efforts of FAN, the promoters of fluoridation have doubled-down on their efforts to expand the practice further in an effort to gaslight public officials into believing the practice isn’t on the brink of extinction.

The United Kingdom and New Zealand32 are both being threatened with nationwide fluoridation mandates. In the U.K., the fluoridation lobby alongside the health secretary, Matt Hancock, are urging the government to take the power33 over fluoridation from local councils so he can mandate it throughout the country.

While this threat is very real, the proposal doesn’t seem to have made much progress since March, but FAN is tracking it and working with U.K. residents to mount opposition.

In New Zealand, the government has revived and amended a bill that was introduced in 2016 but lacked enough support for passage. As introduced, the bill would have moved fluoridation decisions from local councils — where they reside presently – to district health boards.

However, the current government has amended the language to centralize fluoridation authority even further, by giving full control34 to the director-general of health, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield. Using this process has defied the normal democratic process, with no select committee, community consultation or public input.

Supporters of this proposal are trying to pass it into law by the end of the year, at which time local councils (and local taxpayers) will be responsible for all capital and operational costs. While a number of mayors have come out in opposition, as well as citizens and professionals led by Fluoride Free NZ,35 the proposal appears to be moving forward. Learn more in this new video from FAN.

The dental lobby is also targeting large cities in North America. This past summer, a coalition led by Delta Dental worked behind the scenes to pressure the city council in Spokane, Washington, to pass a resolution to fluoridate their drinking water, despite the public voting three times to reject fluoridation. Part of their sales pitch was that COVID was presenting an oral health emergency, to which this would be a solution.

It was eventually revealed that implementation would take at least five years, making their exploitation of the pandemic to sell their fluoridation chemicals apparent. A local citizens group assisted by FAN, Safe Water Spokane,36 has fought this effort, and as a result the council has tabled their fluoridation resolution and will study the issue for the next year. Click here to learn more about Spokane.

Calgary, Alberta, is also being threated with fluoridation despite voting numerous times to reject the practice. After hearing from the O’Brien Institute for Public Health that the practice causes cognitive impairment,37 the cowardly council decided to put the issue to a public vote this October, rather than make a decision. FAN is working with local campaigners Safe Water Calgary38 to ensure the public votes “no” on reintroducing fluoridation chemicals.

The CDC has even partnered with private industry, using your tax dollars to develop new fluoridation products39 for rural water systems and private wells to expand the practice to every corner of the country (and likely beyond).

We can’t count on the mainstream media or the public health authorities to tell the public or decision makers about what is happening. It’s up to us to make this information go viral! It’s up to us to bring it to our elected leaders and demand action! We need your support more than ever. Please help us get to the finishing line of a world without fluoridation.



FBI Fabrication Against Assange Falls Apart



On the final day of the Assange extradition hearing, magistrate Vanessa Baraitser refused to accept an affidavit from Assange’s solicitor Gareth Peirce, on the grounds it was out of time. The affidavit explained that the defence had been unable to respond to the new accusations in the United States government’s second superseding indictment, because these wholly new matters had been sprung on them just six weeks before the hearing resumed on 8 September 2020.

The defence had not only to gather evidence from Iceland, but had virtually no access to Assange to take his evidence and instructions, as he was effectively in solitary confinement in Belmarsh. The defence had requested an adjournment to give them time to address the new accusations, but this adjournment had been refused by Baraitser.

She now refused to accept Gareth Peirce’s affidavit setting out these facts.

What had happened was this. The hearings on the Assange extradition in January 2020 did not seem to be going well for the US government. The arguments that political extradition is specifically banned by the UK/US extradition treaty, and that the publisher was not responsible for Chelsea Manning’s whistleblowing on war crimes, appeared to be strong. The US Justice Department had decided that it therefore needed a new tack and to discover some “crimes” by Assange that seemed less noble than the Manning revelations.

To achieve this, the FBI turned to an informant in Iceland, Sigi Thordarson, who was willing to testify that Assange had been involved with him in, inter alia, hacking private banking information and tracking Icelandic police vehicles. This was of course much easier to portray as crime, as opposed to journalism, so the second superseding indictment was produced based on Thordarson’s story, which was elaborated with Thordarson by an FBI team.

The difficulty was that Thordarson was hardly a reliable witness. He had already been convicted in Iceland for stealing approximately $50,000 from Wikileaks and with impersonating Julian Assange online, not to mention the inconvenient fact he is a registered sex offender for online activities with under-age boys. The FBI team was in fact expelled from Iceland by the Icelandic government, who viewed what the FBI was doing with Thordarson as wholly illegitimate.

Notwithstanding all of that, in June 2020 we had the extraordinary position of the US government, 18 months since the start of extradition proceedings and six months after opening arguments had been heard by the court, being permitted completely to change the charges and alleged crimes which were the grounds for extradition, in the second superseding indictment.

On 8 September 2020 I was in court to report Mark Summers QC addressing the question of these new superseding charges:

The court resumed with a new defence application, led by Mark Summers QC, about the new charges from the US governments new superseding indictment. Summers took the court back over the history of this extradition hearing. The first indictment had been drawn up in March of 2018. In January 2019 a provisional request for extradition had been made, which had been implemented in April of 2019 on Assange’s removal from the Embassy. In June 2019 this was replaced by the full request with a new, second indictment which had been the basis of these proceedings before today. A whole series of hearings had taken place on the basis of that second indictment.

The new superseding indictment dated from 20 June 2020. In February and May 2020 the US government had allowed hearings to go ahead on the basis of the second indictment, giving no warning, even though they must by that stage have known the new superseding indictment was coming. They had given neither explanation nor apology for this.

The defence had not been properly informed of the superseding indictment, and indeed had learnt of its existence only through a US government press release on 20 June. It had not finally been officially served in these proceedings until 29 July, just six weeks ago. At first, it had not been clear how the superseding indictment would affect the charges, as the US government was briefing it made no difference but just gave additional detail. But on 21 August 2020, not before, it finally became clear in new US government submissions that the charges themselves had been changed.

There were now new charges that were standalone and did not depend on the earlier allegations. Even if the 18 Manning related charges were rejected, these new allegations could still form grounds for extradition. These new allegations included encouraging the stealing of data from a bank and from the government of Iceland, passing information on tracking police vehicles, and hacking the computers both of individuals and of a security company.

“How much of this newly alleged material is criminal is anybody’s guess”, stated Summers, going on to explain that it was not at all clear that an Australian giving advice from outwith Iceland to someone in Iceland on how to crack a code, was actually criminal if it occurred in the UK. This was even without considering the test of dual criminality in the US also, which had to be passed before the conduct was subject to extradition.

It was unthinkable that allegations of this magnitude would be the subject of a Part 2 extradition hearing within six weeks if they were submitted as a new case. Plainly that did not give the defence time to prepare, or to line up witnesses to these new charges. Among the issues relating to these new charges the defence would wish to address, were that some were not criminal, some were out of time limitation, some had already been charged in other fora (including Southwark Crown Court and courts in the USA).

There were also important questions to be asked about the origins of some of these charges and the dubious nature of the witnesses. In particular the witness identified as “teenager” was the same person identified as “Iceland 1” in the previous indictment. That indictment had contained a “health warning” over this witness given by the US Department of Justice. This new indictment removed that warning. But the fact was, this witness is Sigurdur Thordarson, who had been convicted in Iceland in relation to these events of fraud, theft, stealing Wikileaks money and material and impersonating Julian Assange.

The indictment did not state that the FBI had been “kicked out of Iceland for trying to use Thordarson to frame Assange”, stated Summers baldly.

Summers said all these matters should be ventilated in these hearings if the new charges were to be heard, but the defence simply did not have time to prepare its answers or its witnesses in the brief six weeks it had since receiving them, even setting aside the extreme problems of contact with Assange in the conditions in which he was being held in Belmarsh prison.

The defence would plainly need time to prepare answers to these new charges, but it would plainly be unfair to keep Assange in jail for the months that would take. The defence therefore suggested that these new charges should be excised from the conduct to be considered by the court, and they should go ahead with the evidence on criminal behaviour confined to what conduct had previously been alleged.

Summers argued it was “entirely unfair” to add what were in law new and separate criminal allegations, at short notice and “entirely without warning and not giving the defence time to respond to it. What is happening here is abnormal, unfair and liable to create real injustice if allowed to continue.”

The arguments submitted by the prosecution now rested on these brand new allegations. For example, the prosecution now countered the arguments on the rights of whistleblowers and the necessity of revealing war crimes by stating that there can have been no such necessity to hack into a bank in Iceland.

Summers concluded that the “case should be confined to that conduct which the American government had seen fit to allege in the eighteen months of the case” before their second new indictment.

Baraitser refused to rule out the new charges, and then did rule out the immediate defence request for an adjournment to give them time to respond to the new charges. At the end of the hearings she refused to accept the Peirce affidavit explaining why the defence was unable to respond. The court had by then spent nearly a month lsteniing to witnesses refuting the first superseding indictment, as prepared by the defence, but nothing addressing the second superseding indictment.

Summers was absolutely furious when Baraitder refused to accept Peirce’s affidavit on the subject, to the extent he was still explosive in the street outside after the hearings had concluded.

While Baraitser’s eventual decision barred extradition on the grounds of Assange’s health and US inhumane prison conditions, the second superseding indictment and Thordarson’s accusations were accepted as a valid basis for extradition.

Thordarson has now told Icelandic magazine Stundin that his allegations against Assange contained in the indictment are untrue, and that Assange had not solicited the hacking of bank or police details. This is hardly a shock, though Thordarson’s motives for coming clean now are obscure; he is plainly a deeply troubled and often malicious individual.
Thordarson was always the most unreliable of witnesses, and I find it impossible to believe that the FBI cooperation with him was ever any more than deliberate fabrication of evidence by the FBI.

Edward Snowden has tweeted that Thordarson recanting will end the case against Julian Assange. Most certainly it should end it, but I fear it will not.

Many things should have ended the case against Assange. The First Amendment, the ban on political extradition in the US/UK Extradition Treaty, the CIA spying on the preparations of Assange’s defence counsel, all of these should have stopped the case dead in its tracks.

It is now five months since extradition was refused, no US government appeal against that decision has yet been accepted by the High Court, and yet Julian remains confined to the UK’s highest security prison. The revelation that Thordarson’s allegations are fabricated – which everyone knew already, Baraitser just pretended she didn’t – is just one more illegality that the Establishment will shimmy over in its continued persecution of Assange.

Assange democratised information and gave real power to the people for a while, worldwide. He revealed US war crimes. For that his life is destroyed. Neither law nor truth have anything to do with it.


Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations
2 Pounds : £2.00 GBP – monthly5 Pounds : £5.00 GBP – monthly10 Pounds : £10.00 GBP – monthly12 Pounds : £12.00 GBP – monthly15 Pounds : £15.00 GBP – monthly20 Pounds : £20.00 GBP – monthly30 Pounds : £30.00 GBP – monthly50 Pounds : £50.00 GBP – monthly70 Pounds : £70.00 GBP – monthly100 Pounds : £100.00 GBP – monthly


Paypal address for one-off donations:

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

The post FBI Fabrication Against Assange Falls Apart appeared first on Craig Murray.


When A President Lies

When A President Lies

Authored by David Rosen via,

“Did you, too, O friend,
suppose democracy was only for
elections, for politics, and for a party name?”

– Walt Whitman, “Democratic Vistas” (1871)

Joe Biden received much media praise for his meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin on June 16th. However, little attention has been paid to an issue posed by an Associate Press reporter in a press conference following the meeting: “U.S. intelligence has said that Russia tried to interfere in the last two presidential elections, and that Russia groups are behind hacks like SolarWinds and some of the ransomware attacks you just mentioned.”

In response, Biden answered:

Let’s get this straight: How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries, and everybody knew it?  What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he is engaged in?

He concluded,

“It diminishes the standing of a country that is desperately trying to make sure it maintains its standing as a major world power.”

Sadly, Biden was lying, whether intentionally or out of false claim of ignorance.

It appears that NBC News was the only mainstream media outlet that raised concern about Biden’s assertion. It noted, “the United States does interfere in foreign elections. We’ve done it for decades.” It added, “denying this basic historical reality does us no favors with the rest of the world; indeed, it hampers our ability to continue to champion democracy and human rights.” It follows outlining numerous incidents in which the U.S. intervened in the domestic electoral affairs of other countries.

A quick search for information about U.S. backing of coups and military interventions in foreign elections is revealing. Wikipedia identifies 77 “U.S. involvement[s] in regime change” from the late-19th century through the 2010s; William Blum identifies 57 “instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War.” The political scientist Dov Levin notes, “between 1946 and 2000, the United States and the USSR/Russia intervened in this manner 117 times, or, put another way, in about one of every nine competitive national-level executive elections during this period.” In a 2013 study, Foreign Policy magazine detailed seven CIA orchestrated coups in the post-WW-II era.

The follow list details some of incidents when the U.S. – to use Biden’s words — “interfering with the elections directly of other countries” since World War II.

Syria, 1949 – as reported by Time magazine, it is “’one of the first covert actions that the CIA pulled off,’ since it had been created in 1947, according to Douglas Little, professor of history at Clark University.”

Iran, 1953 — CIA orchestrated a coup against Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh; according to the CIA: “It was the potential … to leave Iran open to Soviet aggression — at a time when the Cold War was at its height and when the United Sates was involved in an undeclared war in Korea against forces supported by the U.S.S.R. and China — that compelled the United States [REDACTED] in planning and executing TPAJAX [the code name of the coup operation].”

Guatemala, 1954 – the U.S. State Department moved against Guatemalan Pres. Jacobo Árbenz after he introduced land reforms that threatened the holdings of the U.S.-owned United Fruit Company; the coup forced Árbenz from power.

Cuba, 1959-present – the U.S. government supported Fulgencio Batista, a former soldier and Cuban dictator from 1933 to 1944, who seized power for a second time in a 1952 coup. On January 1, 1959, the 26th of July Movement, led by Fidel Castro, forced Batista to flee the island. In April 1961, the U.S. launched the Bay of Pigs invasion, an unsuccessful attempt to remove Castro from power. The U.S. followed with an embargo of the island that lasted 60 years. In 1983, Pres. Ronald Reagan labeled Cuba a “terrorist state” and, in 1996, the Helms-Burton Act was adopted, further tightening the embargo. In 2009, Pres. Barack Obama eased some of the restrictions but, in 2017, Pres. Donald Trump reinstated the embargo.

Congo, 1960 – the U.S. Senate’s 1972 Church Committee found that the CIA “continued to maintain close contact with Congolese who expressed a desire to assassinate [Patrice] Lumumba,” and that “CIA officers encouraged and offered to aid these Congolese in their efforts against Lumumba.”

Dominican Republic, 1961 — the Church Committee found that the CIA backed the assassination of the dictator, Rafael Trujillo, through the provision of “[m]aterial support, consisting of three pistols and three carbines, was supplied to various dissidents…. United States’ officials knew that the dissidents intended to overthrow Trujillo, probably by assassination…”

South Vietnam, 1963 – following the defeat of French forces in Dien Bien Phu in 1954 to Vietnamese nationalist forces led by Ho Chi Minh, the U.S. military sought to contain communist from the North; as detailed in the Pentagon Papers, in 1963, South Vietnamese generals — with CIA support — seized and assassinated country’s leader, Ngo Dinh Diem.

Brazil, 1964 – U.S. Ambassador Lincoln Gordon feared that Brazilian Pres. Joao Goulart would “make Brazil the China of the 1960s” and Pres. Lyndon Johnson told CIA officials planning the coup, “I think we ought to take every step that we can, be prepared to do everything that we need to do.” President Lyndon Johnson told his advisors planning the coup,

Chile, 1973 – the CIA backed the Chilian military’s violent overthrowing of the democratically elected leader, Salvador Allende, paving the way for the brutal — and U.S.-friendly — Augusto Pinochet

Afghanistan, 1979-present — during the 1980s, the CIA funded military operations to frustrate the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Fighting between CIA-funded Afghans and the Russians continued through 1988 when the Russians decided to withdraw, and the CIA ended its aid in 1992. However, the attacks of September 11, 2001, led the Bush administration to conduct operations against terrorists throughout the world.  Osama bin Laden, the apparent mastermind behind the September 11th attacks, was based in Afghanistan where a U.S. military occupation will last until September 11, 2021.

Nicaragua, 1981-1990 – in November 1981, Pres. Reagan signed National Security Directive 17, authorizing the CIA to back “democratic” leaders and take actions against the Sandinistas to stop the spread of “communism” in Nicaragua; in October 1986, Congress approved $100 million in funds for the Contras; the following year, after the discovery of private resupply efforts orchestrated by the National Security Council and Oliver North, Congress ceased all but “non-lethal” aid in 1987. The war between the Sandinistas and the Contras ended with a cease-fire in 1990.

Russia, 1996 – as originally reported in the Los Angeles Times, “a team of American political strategists who helped Gov. Pete Wilson with his abortive presidential bid earlier this year said this week that they served as Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin’s secret campaign weapon in his comeback win over a Communist challenger.” Following the recent Biden-Putin summit, The Guardian notes,” without the chaos and deprivation of the US-backed Yeltsin era, Putinism would surely not have established itself.”

Venezuela, 1998-present — since Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1998, the bipartisan Washington establishment has been out to put an end to what has been dubbed Latin America’s “pink tide” of socialism. As The Intercept reported, “In 2002, the Bush administration encouraged and supported a (failed) coup against Chavez. … In 2015, the Obama administration made the absurd decision to formally declare Venezuela an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat’ to U.S. national security.” In 2019, the Trump administration called Nicolás Maduro, “illegitimate” and recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the interim president.

Presidents lie – it goes with the job. If Biden lied about the U.S.’s role in innumerable coups and regime changes, one can only wonder what else he is lying about.

More troubling, with the exception of NBC News and The Guardian, the mainstream media chose to ignore or avoid challenging Biden, thus reinforcing their role as echo chambers of Democratic-corporate establishment agenda.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/29/2021 - 00:10


Monday, June 28, 2021

Jason Whitlock: Dear Black America, We Are Being Lied To...

Jason Whitlock: Dear Black America, We Are Being Lied To...

Authored by Jason Whitlock via, (emphasis ours)

Dear Black People:

We are being lied to and set up. The mainstream media, Democratic politicians, social justice activists, and perhaps even your church pastor have led you to believe America is in the midst of a racial conflict similar to the Civil War and the civil rights movement.

They have pitted us against the Proud Boys, the KKK, rural militia groups, and Trump supporters in a made-for-TV race war. Just five years after Barack Obama completed two terms as president of the United States, we're supposed to believe America has been overrun by violent white supremacists determined to reinstate segregation, Jim Crow laws, and maybe even slavery.

Evidence of this massive wave of 1920s-style bigotry amounts to three things:

1) Republicans want all voters to show a government-issued ID;

2) On January 6, unarmed Trump supporters crashed the Capitol and took pictures inside Nancy Pelosi's office;

3) Across the nation, police kill on average 250 black men and 450 white men per year.

Oh, I almost forgot. There's a fourth piece of evidence. Colin Kaepernick failed to land a job as a starting quarterback after pissing off a large segment of football fans by taking a knee during the national anthem.

Those are the main smoking guns proving that white supremacy is the most dangerous domestic threat America faces. George Floyd, a habitual criminal and drug addict, is the Crispus Attucks of this raging race war. He is our rallying cry and hero.

It's a setup. We're being used as decoys and distractions in a war that has nothing to do with race.

The real war is about global power and the future of America's system of government. This country's elite, global citizens, and corporations prefer communism over capitalism and democracy. They prefer China's system over our system.

America has been the world's leader in racial progress and fairness. The mainstream media are not allowed to explain this to you. Advertisers, aka major corporations, will no longer support media outlets that back our current democratic and capitalistic systems of governance.

You say, what about Fox News? Turn it on. It's filled with a bunch of MyPillow and wounded soldier commercials. America's big, global corporations, the ones looking to improve their market share in China, are not financially supporting Fox News. The most popular voices at Fox News dislike China.

The faux race war the mainstream media have promoted is a tool being used to convince you and non-black Americans that our system of government has been a giant failure.

They want you to believe that a great reset is necessary to achieve fairness.

The reset is communism, which starts with the gateway drug of socialism and ends in full-blown Marxism. China is run by the Communist Chinese Party. Communism has no respect for individual freedom or religion of any kind. Communism has no tolerance for political dissent.

Your religion and free speech will not survive the reset. Communism is racial oppression's best friend. When a nation is stripped of religious faith and free speech, few people have the courage to defend the rights of minorities. The elites cozying up to China do not care about you. They are aware of how despicably China treats black people. They are aware of how China squashes dissent.

Do your own research on communism and what it stamps out and how it oppresses. Don't take my word.

You might be wondering why Oprah Winfrey or LeBron James or some other super popular black celebrity isn't telling you what I am. They're global elites. The reset won't hurt them or their loved ones. Communism favors wealthy elites far more than capitalism and democracy do. Oprah, LeBron, and the other uber-wealthy black tokens will thrive under socialism and communism.

You won't. Unless you're a 6'6" basketball star or some other black entertainer capable of entertaining the people in power. That's a tiny percentage of black people.

Why won't your favorite white cable newsman or newswoman tell you what I'm telling you? Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo, Joe Scarborough, aren't they our allies? No. They're not. They're political lobbyists working on behalf of the corporations and politicians pushing the reset.

OK. What about me? You might think I'm a political partisan working on behalf of conservative Republicans. That is certainly how I've been painted by left-leaning media outlets and social media platforms. And I'm now partnered with Blaze Media, a platform that leans right.

Judge my career. I have been at this for more than 30 years. I have been equally despised by the left and the right. I have publicly feuded with Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann. I've been a guest on their old Fox News and MSNBC shows. I've worked and/or written for ESPN, Fox Sports, the Huffington Post, Playboy Magazine, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal. I spent years bashing Sarah Palin.

I don't play for any political team. I've never voted. I go wherever I believe I can speak, follow, and write the truth. The truth I believe the most is that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior.

I believe Jesus is under attack. That's why I'm at Blaze Media. You can't defend Jesus at corporate media outlets. Advertisers won't allow it. You can discuss the religion of racism every day at ESPN, CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox Sports. But it's taboo to discuss the cure for racism — Jesus — on those platforms.

I'm not saying any of this because there's a big paycheck for black men espousing my views. The money for black broadcasters and journalists is connected to preaching the race-bait religion.

Let me be clear. I'm not broke by any stretch. I've earned and saved a substantial sum of money. But I've bypassed far more money than I've earned with the choice I've made to follow the truth wherever it leads and my refusal to support the racial groupthink dictated by global elites.

My faith won't allow me to jump on board with the lunacy, racism, and sacrilege of Black Lives Matter, a movement founded by three lesbian self-admitted trained Marxists. BLM is an atheist movement in support of LGBTQ issues and the reshaping of America into a communist country. BLM is part of the deception.

Black people tell me all the time: "I don't support the BLM organization, but I support the slogan and sentiment."

Let me translate that. You despise the devil's tree but love the fruit it produces. That's some Don Lemon-Lori Lightfoot-Van Jones-Colin Kaepernick level of hypocrisy. You know, all the Malcolm X-wannabe, anti-white radicals in relationships with white partners. They hate the white tree but can't live without the white fruit.

We have to stop letting everyone use us. We're being played. We're all being played, black and white working-class people. It's all a giant setup. Look at what they did to Trump supporters. They were manipulated into storming the Capitol, and then the corporate media portrayed it as a bloody, violent KKK rally intended to overthrow democracy. The so-called "insurrection" is an excuse for the government to seize more power and crush dissent.

We, black people, have been convinced the crushing of working-class white people is good for us.

It's not. Working-class white people, Christian white people, are our true allies, not the elites. We can't see that because of the made-for-TV hyper-focus on racial conflict.

The defunding and demoralizing of police are tactics deployed to increase violence in major cities. Local media outlets are focusing on this rise in crime, national media outlets have followed suit, and social media platforms are generating viral videos exposing the crime wave.

Guess who are the stars of this content. Black perpetrators.

It's all a massive setup. The stirring of racial animus between Obama worshippers and Trump worshippers is orchestrated by billionaire elites, executed by trained Marxists, promoted by millionaire influencers in the media, sports, and entertainment worlds, and co-signed by religious leaders pursuing popularity.

Black America, print this letter and share it with family, friends, co-workers, and, most importantly, your pastor.

My critics will tell you: "Oh, Jason Whitlock is a sellout. He hates black people."

That's laughable. It's part of the deception. I despise the people deceiving us, manipulating us to participate in a racial clash that will be used to destroy the religious and individual freedoms that liberated us.

There's a reason black and brown people across the globe fight to get into this country and excel when they do. They love the American tree and the fruit it produces.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/28/2021 - 21:30


NSA Whistleblower Reveals To Tucker Carlson That Biden Admin Spying On His Communications


Via ZeroHedge

Tucker Carlson says an NSA whistleblower has stepped forward and provided evidence that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been spying on him.

“Yesterday we heard from a whistleblower within the US government, who reached out to warn us that the NSA (National Security Agency) has been monitoring our electronic communications and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take this show off the air,” said Carlson.

The whistleblower, who is in a position to know, repeated back to us information about a story that we are working on, that could have only come directly from my texts and emails. There’s no other possible source for that information, period. The NSA captured that information without our knowledge, and did it for political reasons.

The Biden administration is spying on is. We have confirmed that. This morning we filed a FOIA request asking for all information that the NSA and other agencies have gathered about this show.”


Tucker Carlson says a whistleblower told him that he is being spied on by the NSA and that he filed a FOIA request for information:

"The Biden administration is spying on us. We have confirmed that."

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 29, 2021


Snowden declares 'end of case against Julian Assange' after newspaper reveals LIES by key witness in US extradition case

Key accusations in the case against Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange, who faces up to 175 years in prison if extradited to the US, are reportedly based on testimony from convicted fraudster who admitted to media he was lying.


Lisbon court rules only 0.9% of ‘verified cases’ died of COVID, numbering 152, not 17,000 claimed

Following a citizen’s petition, a Lisbon court was forced to provide verified COVID-19 mortality data, reports According to the ruling, the number of verified COVID-19 deaths from January 2020 to April 2021 is only 152, not about 17,000 as claimed by government ministries.


WHO reinstates mask recommendations for fully vaccinated, as Delta variant

The World Health Organization is recommend face coverings for people vaccinated for COVID-19 amid concerns about the spread of the Delta variant, thought to be more contagious than strains earlier in the pandemic. "Vaccine alone won’t stop community transmission," Dr.


Sunday, June 27, 2021

The 1918 Rockefeller-US Army Worldwide Pandemic — December 18, 2020

One new historical development that has been evolving over a few years and now brought into focus because of COVID-19, is the so-called “Spanish Flu” of 1918.


LARRY ROMANOFF — Propaganda and the Media: Part 1 – Introduction — May 10, 2021

For a period of about ten years, I operated a website of political commentary that contained thousands of articles, many of which were content from various media, but many being my own work. That website experienced occasional but persistent DDOS and other attacks by forces unknown.