In a seismic political shift, Republicans have laid claim to an issue that Democrats left in the gutter—the declining health of Americans. True, it took a Democrat with a famous name to ask why so many people are chronically ill, disabled and dying younger than in 47 other countries. But the message resonated with the GOP.
We have a proposal in this unfolding milieu. Let’s have a serious, nuanced discussion. Let’s retire labels that have been weaponized against Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nominated for Health and Human Services Secretary, and many people like him.
Start with discarding threadbare words like “conspiracy theory,” “anti-vax,” and the ever-changing “misinformation.”
These linguistic sleights of hand have been deployed—by government, media and vested interests—to dismiss policy critics and thwart debate. If post-election developments tell us anything, it is that such scorn may no longer work for a population skeptical of government overreach.
Although RFK has been lambasted for months in the press, he just scored a 47 percent approval rating in a CBS poll.
Americans are asking: Is RFK on to something?
Perhaps, as he contends, a 1986 law that all-but absolved vaccine manufacturers from liability has spawned an industry driven more by profit than protection.
Maybe Americans agree with RFK that the FDA, which gets 69 percent of its budget from pharmaceutical companies, is potentially compromised. Maybe Big Pharma, similarly, gets a free pass from the television news media that it generously supports. The U.S. and New Zealand, incidentally, are the only nations on earth that allow “direct-to- consumer” TV ads.
Finally, just maybe there’s a straight line from this unhealthy alliance to the growing list of 80 childhood shots, inevitably approved after cursory industry studies with no placebo controls. The Hepatitis B vaccine trial, for one, monitored the effects on newborns for just five days. Babies are given three doses of this questionably necessary product—intended to prevent a disease spread through sex and drug use.
Pointing out such conflicts and flaws earns critics a label: “anti-vaxxer.”
Misinformation?
If RFK is accused of being extreme or misdirected, consider the Covid-19 axioms that Americans were told by their government.
The first: The pandemic started in animals in Wuhan, China. To think otherwise, Wikipedia states, is a “conspiracy theory,” fueled by “misplaced suspicion” and “anti-Chinese racism.”
Not so fast. In a new 520-page report, a Congressional subcommittee linked the outbreak to risky U.S.-supported virus research at a Wuhan lab at the pandemic epicenter. After 25 hearings, the subcommittee found no evidence of “natural origin.”
Is the report a slam dunk? Maybe not. But neither is outright dismissal of a lab leak.
The same goes for other pandemic dogma, including the utility of (ineffective) masks, (harmful) lockdowns, (arbitrary) six-foot spacing, and, most prominently, vaccines that millions were coerced to take and that harmed some.
Americans were told, wrongly, that two shots would prevent Covid and stop the spread. Natural immunity from previous infection was ignored to maximize vaccine uptake.
Yet there was scant scientific support for vaccinating babies with little risk, which few other countries did; pregnant women (whose deaths soared40 percent after the rollout), and healthy adolescents, including some who suffered a heart injury called myocarditis. The CDC calls the condition “rare;” but a new study found 223 times more cases in 2021 than the average for all vaccines in the previous 30 years.
Truth Muzzled?
Beyond this, pandemic decrees were not open to question. Millions of social media posts were removed at the behest of the White House. The ranks grew both of well-funded fact-checkers and retractions of countervailing science.
The FDA, meantime, created a popular and false story line that the Nobel Prize-winning early-treatment drug ivermectin was for horses, not people, and might cause coma and death. Under pressure from a federal court, the FDA removed its infamous webpage, but not before it cleared the way for unapproved vaccines, possible under law only if no alternative was available.
An emergency situation can spawn official missteps. But they become insidious when dissent is suppressed and truth is molded to fit a narrative.
The government’sfailures of transparency and oversight are why we are at this juncture today. RFK—should he overcome powerful opposition—may have the last word.
The conversation he proposes won’t mean the end of vaccines or of respect for science. It will mean accountability for what happened in Covid and reform of a dysfunctional system that made it possible.
Dr. Pierre Kory, M.D., a pulmonologist and critical care specialist, is president emeritus of the FLCCC Alliance. Mary Beth Pfeiffer is an investigative reporter and author.
CISA is part of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which has a “foreign disinformation” unit, the Countering Foreign Influence Task Force (CFITF).
However, as early as mid-February 2020, CISA (via CFITF) had already started to monitor domestic speech about Covid – nearly a month before the pandemic was officially declared by the UN’s WHO, and before orders started to be issued to shut down schools and businesses in the US.
Even though several layers deep, CFITF was still a government entity, and in order to circumvent constitutional issues related to censorship of online speech, the document indicates that the unit turned to what AFL brands “the censorship industrial complex” – specifically, its private sector component.
These were “fact checkers,” “bias raters” and similar that keep cropping up in revelations about the Covid-era censorship: Atlantic Council DFR Lab, Media Matters, Stanford Internet Observatory, Alliance for Securing Democracy, Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) (a UK-based group, which now passes as “British-American”), Global Disinformation Index (GDI), and even an openly foreign government project, EU’s “EU vs. Disinfo.”
Among the kinds of speech CFITF would monitor and/or flag was that of President Trump, his comments about Hydroxychloroquine going back to 2020. The document reveals that CFITF (via Atlantic Council, DFR Lab) knowingly chose to give itself the right to flag even accurate information, justifying a thing as serious as censorship by presenting hypothetical scenarios:
“Once-accurate information can become misinformation as it ages, leading to erroneous conclusions and misinterpretation of the current situation,” the document reads. This was put in the context of the rapidly changing “nature” of the pandemic.
However, it took years for the same awareness – that information related to Covid was constantly changing – to start reversing some censorship decisions (e.g., the Covid origin theory).
As for CISA/CFITF early pandemic activities affecting online speech, AFL believes that they may represent “a violation of what’s known as the Supreme Court’s ‘major questions’ doctrine, which holds that government agencies must not stray from the specific legal authorities given to them by Congress.”
Children vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were 159% more likely to get infected and 257% more likely to develop symptomatic COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated children without prior infection:
Hazard Ratio (HR) for infection: 2.59 (95% CI: 1.27–5.28).
HR for symptomatic COVID-19: 3.57 (95% CI: 1.10–11.63).
Prior Infection Offers Robust Protection:
Children with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (unvaccinated) had a significantly lower risk of reinfection compared to unvaccinated, infection-naïve children:
HR for infection: 0.28 (95% CI: 0.16–0.49).
HR for symptomatic COVID-19: 0.21 (95% CI: 0.08–0.54).
No Protective Effect from Vaccination Alone:
There was no significant reduction in the risk of infection or symptomatic COVID-19 for vaccinated children (Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech) compared to unvaccinated children:
HR for infection with vaccination alone: 1.23 (95% CI: 0.69–2.16).
HR for symptomatic COVID-19 with vaccination alone:1.61 (95% CI: 0.65–4.03).
Boosters Show No Significant Protection:
Among children who received at least one bivalent booster dose, there was no significant reduction in infection or symptomatic COVID-19:
HR for infection with a bivalent booster: 0.74 (95% CI: 0.37–1.48).
HR for symptomatic COVID-19 with a bivalent booster: 1.04 (95% CI: 0.37–2.96).
In other words, these injections do the opposite of what they’re supposed to do. Instead of protecting against COVID-19, these genetic injections either fail or increase the risk. The CDC should immediately revoke their recommendations for children aged 6 months and older to receive a COVID-19 booster injection.
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Most political differences in America today aren’t a result of moral differences, or even policy opinions. Rather, they are generated by divergent media consumption. There’s a huge difference between those whose news comes primarily from the corporate Big Five (CBS-Viacom, ABC-Disney, NBC-Universal, Fox-NewsCorp, and CNN-TimeWarner) and that handful of midsize legacy publications like PBS, The New York Times and Washington Post, than from those who get their news from independent media.
While the independent media can be inaccurate, it’s often when they contradict themselves. On the other hand, when the Big Five and its satellites are inaccurate, it’s typically in union, as a bloc, and always in defense of the Washington establishment.
I could detail one hundred of these blatant lies spun by the unified, corporate media over the past two decades, but for purposes of brevity let’s take a quick look at just ten widely reported lies in three sentences or less (and I’ll include extra links to news stories with the same false take, to total five sources for each story), refuted by primary sources or recanted by these same establishment media organs.
Lie #1: Wearing cloth masks helps prevent COVID. “Public health messages should target audiences not wearing cloth face coverings and reinforce positive attitudes, perceived norms, personal agency, and physical and health benefits of obtaining and wearing cloth face coverings consistently and correctly,” the CDC inveighed on July 17, 2020, even though the same report acknowledged “widespread use of cloth face coverings has not been studied among the U.S. population.” The captive media dutifully lectured the public (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) about the alleged benefits of cloth masks in preventing COVID, even though the CDC had just re-published a meta-study of all nineteen public scientific studies of mass masking in May 2020 which concluded there was no scientific benefit for mass public cloth masking. And a giant study by Yale and Stanford researchers in Bangladesh in 2021 confirmed the earlier research, finding a very small benefit in wearing surgical masks “but see no statistically significant effect for cloth masks.”
Lie #2: Donald Trump is a Russian spy. “A New Report Adds Evidence That Trump Was a Russian Asset,” a Slate.com headline blared in 2021, adding in the subtitle, “He helped Putin manipulate the U.S. election in 2020, as he did in 2016” (2, 3, 4, 5). But the reality is that the Durham Report of the special prosecutor concluded on May 12, 2023 that “neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation” and found the entire affair was devoid of evidence and had been a joint operation between the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and friendly senior FBI officials, spread by a compliant media.
Lie #3: COVID vaccines have no serious side effects. “No serious safety concerns were found in the clinical trials of the vaccines that have been authorized for use in the United States,” FactCheck.org claimed on March 4, 2021 (2, 3, 4, 5), but within months the same “fact-checker” site had amended its claim to include deadly reactions in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (later pulled from the market for these reasons) and several serious side effects including myocarditis from the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. Likewise, the CDC has now published a long list of side effects, including myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, and anaphylaxis.
Lie #4: Russia put bounties on American soldiers in Afghanistan. “American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan—including targeting American troops,” New York Times reporter Charlie Savage claimed on June 26, 2020, in the heat of the election campaign, adding that President Trump “has yet to authorize any step” to counter it (2, 3, 4, 5). But, after the election, even NBC News admitted the whole story was fake from the beginning, as did other establishment-controlled outlets that echoed Biden administration admissions of the lack of proof for the highly politicized claim.
Lie #5: Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation. “More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter,” Politico claimed of the Hunter Biden laptop story in October 2020, “outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son ‘has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation’” (2, 3, 4, 5). But the reality is the FBI testified under oath that the laptop story, which was suppressed on Facebook, Twitter and other social media before the election, was legitimate all along. And a congressional investigation revealed the “Russian disinformation” story was a result of the Joe Biden presidential campaign colluding with senior CIA officials.
Lie #6: Donald Trump said there were “good people on both sides” of a white supremacist rally. “Trump Defends White-Nationalist Protesters: ‘Some Very Fine People on Both Sides’” blared the headline in The Atlantic, adding “The president backtracked from his remarks on Charlottesville just a day earlier” (2, 3, 4, 5). Even the fact-checkers observed this claim that Trump’s “both sides” quote was false from the start, and that the “both sides” quote was about a totally different topic, though establishment organs continue to repeat the lie to this day.
Lie #7: Donald Trump said Liz Cheney should face a firing squad. “Now he’s talking about a firing squad,” Joe Scarborough ranted on MSNBC, on November 4, 2024, “for a Republican who is long ranked as one of the most conservative Republicans in Washington, DC” (2, 3, 4, 5). But Trump did no such thing. He simply called former Congresswoman Cheney a chicken-hawk, saying she’d have a less bellicose worldview if she were on the front lines. This is why the fact-check sites quickly called out this lie, and even uber chicken-hawk Jonah Goldberg had to recant the same claim as Scarborough.
Lie #8: Hamas decapitated dozens of babies on October 7. “Dozens of babies were reportedly found dead, including some that had been beheaded,” NBC reported, “in an Israeli kibbutz Tuesday after the terrorist organization Hamas stormed the community” (2, 3, 4, 5). The reality that emerged from the widely spread story of Israeli propaganda was that no babies were beheaded, according to a France 24 investigation that looked through the names of the victims of the terrorist attack several weeks later, though one ten-month-old baby was killed by gunshot wounds in the combat crossfire.
Lie #9: Joe Biden is in the best shape of his life and sharp as a tack. “F you if you can’t handle the truth,” Joe Scarborough lashed out on MSNBC on March 5, 2024, “This version of Biden, intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever” (2, 3, 4, 5). Progressive YouTuber Matt Orfalea did a nice compilation of how official Washington dutifully recited the lines from the “sharp as a tack” talking points memos circulated by the DNC. But the reality was admitted almost universally after Biden’s disastrous June 27 debate with Donald Trump, ending talk about “cheap fakes.” CNN and the Associated Press published stories in July admitting the media ran cover for “forgetful” Biden as they tried to ramp up pressure to unceremoniously dump the winner of all the Democratic primaries that year and replace him with Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention in August.
Lie #10: Internet censorship was just corporations being responsible. “Twitter permanently suspended President Donald Trump’s account on Friday,” NBC news reported January 8, 2021, citing “the risk of further incitement of violence” and not mentioning that the decision was based on extraordinary pressure from the FBI and Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The removal of the sitting president of the United States from social media and many other prominent people was widely reported as entirely a corporate decision across the establishment media spectrum (2, 3, 4, 5). But the #TwitterFiles revealed these decisions were primarily the result of government pressure and not organic corporate decisions, with the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in Missouri v. Biden that the censored plaintiffs “presented extensive evidence of escalating threats—both public and private—by government officials aimed at social-media companies concerning their content-moderation decision.”
These lies help explain why independent media personalities like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan, a comedian with a microphone, regularly get more than twenty million viewers for two-hour interviews with few commercials while CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, with their billion-dollar studios and networks, rarely crack one million viewers with their forty-four minutes of content in an hour. The American people no longer trust what I’ve come to label the “captive media,” and consume far more independent media content. The captive media can call Trump a rapist, a fascist, a threat to democracy, and, as the November election revealed, most Americans will simply no longer believe their claims.
And the #TwitterFiles reveal why the media organs pushing official lies are best labeled the “captive media” and not the mainstream media, legacy media or the corporate media. They have been captured by the U.S. intelligence agencies, often with dozens or even hundreds of “former” intelligence officers in place on-air and on staff.
The American national mental health crisis that emerged as a result of Trump’s election in 2024 was entirely one-sided; the people who raged like infants on social media and said Trump voters were horrible people were limited to those who digested nothing but captive Media outlets like CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, Fox, The New York Times,TheWashington Post, and the censorious Big Tech companies.
Why is it only the Democrats who are saying they can’t have Thanksgiving dinner with their family? Why didn’t Republicans have the same reaction after their loss to Joe Biden in 2020? Although many Republicans who watch Fox News did avoid Thanksgiving as a result of fear-mongering over the COVID vaccine skepticism.
Part of the answer to the question “Why just the Democrats?” is the structure of the media which political partisans consume. Democrats consume media solely within the FBI, CIA, ODNI matrix that the #TwitterFiles revealed to the public and rarely or never encounter media that contradicts the official narrative being sold. Google searches, like Facebook and most other social media, are curated by precisely the same intelligence agencies. So it’s possible for Democrats to live entirely within the captive media echo chamber (even as they earnestly believe they are getting “both sides” by listening to Republican Senator Lindsay Graham talk about Israeli babies being slaughtered on October 7 or former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney talk about Trump as a Putin asset) and assume that anyone with a heterodox opinion gets his information from some sketchy “dark web.” Republicans get a slightly different take with Fox News, and more importantly have trended toward relying progressively less on the captive media.
Republicans and independents hear something other than the captive media narrative.
The captive media echo chamber can occasionally be bipartisan, however. Back in 2020, in the throes of the COVID hysteria, Fox News viewers were also running around like fools with cloth masks on, viewing family members as ambulatory disease vectors, and judging those who took rational risks (or in the case of the experimental vaccine on young people who were getting myocarditis, avoided risks rationally) as bad or selfish persons.
Many Democrats are increasingly engaged in classic cult-like behavior as a result of the captive media drumbeat. “If you are going into a situation where you have family members, where you have close friends who you know have voted in ways that are against you,” Dr. Amanda Calhoun of Yale University told ABC’s The View, “it’s completely fine to not be around those people and to tell them why.” The idea that Democrats should separate themselves from family and friends because they have different political opinions has become widespread in the captive media (2, 3, 4, 5). And it’s part of the very definition of cultish behavior, which includes when “subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends.”
The way to bring your friends and family out of the cult of the captive media matrix is to cut cable television out of your home, and to track the lies of the captive media and discuss them with family and friends as they’re exposed and recanted. Nobody likes being lied to.
Many of these captive media organs are engaging in a campaign against “disinformation” (as a ruse to resume government social media censorship), and this can be used to the advantage of people trying to rescue friends and family from the cult. Explaining in detail how the captive media reliably lies on behalf of the military-industrial-complex, the intelligence community and Big Pharma can bring them out as it has brought hundreds of millions of others out of the captive media matrix already.
Pfizer-BioNTech did not disclose the deaths of two vaccinated participants in its COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, according to a team of Daily Clout researchers who analyzed documents related to the Pfizer clinical trials.
The deaths occurred before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine in December 2020. However, it wasn’t until September 2023, nearly three years later, that the FDA publicly released documents revealing the deaths of a 63-year-old Kansas woman and a 58-year-old Georgia woman who participated in the trials.
The revelations prompted Dr. Jeyanthi Kunadhasan — an Australian anesthesiologist and perioperative physician and one of the researchers analyzing the Pfizer documents on behalf of Daily Clout — to write to Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, requesting his office investigate the death of the 63-year-old Kansas woman.
“If the additional two deaths had been disclosed at the time of the EUA, it would have shown that the BNT162b2 mRNA COVIDvaccine intervention provided no reduction in deaths,” Kunadhasan wrote in her letter.
In June, Kobach sued Pfizer, alleging the company misled the public by marketing its COVID-19 vaccine as “safe and effective” while concealing known risks — including myocarditis and pericarditis, failed pregnancies and deaths — and critical data on limited effectiveness.
Pfizer also did not disclose the deaths — both classified in the documents as “sudden cardiac death” unrelated to the victims’ vaccination — in a December 2020 New England Journal of Medicine paper touting the “safety and efficacy” of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
Kunadhasan told The Defender :
“The death highlighted in Kansas is significant as it occurred well within the reporting period considered for the EUA, and as my letter shows was not disclosed. There was every opportunity to disclose this death at the VRBPAC meeting.
“This death even had an autopsy, which I show was probably available before the VRBPAC meeting, and again was not disclosed.”
According to The Sentinel, “The fact that both participants died of heart attacks becomes more important when other studies showed risks of myocarditis and pericarditis — particularly after a second shot and particularly in young men under 25, but among other patients as well.”
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), told The Defender the actions of Pfizer and the FDA are “duplicitous at best.” He said:
“All death data for clinical trials needed not only to be made available to the FDA but also to the public. Otherwise, informed consent is completely missing, regardless of whether the product is EUA or [fully] approved.
“It is also particularly devious that Pfizer lied about a reduction in deaths in the vaccination arm when, with these data, the opposite was true.”
Naomi Wolf, Ph.D., CEO of Daily Clout and author of “The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity,” told The Defender the documents show that the “FDA covered up the unlawfully concealed deaths” of the trial participants and that these records “may well reveal a direct connection to the mRNA injection.”
“The details that Dr. Kunadhasan and her colleagues revealed about the death of this poor woman could theoretically allow Kobach to demand the autopsy reports and interview witnesses with information about her passing,” Wolf said.
Dr. Chris Flowers, a retired radiologist and member of the Daily Clout team that examined the Pfizer documents, told The Sentinel that the two undisclosed deaths should have been enough to halt the clinical trial.
“If you put it in context, yes, there’s a small number of deaths,” Flowers said. “Normally, the FDA calls a stop to those clinical trials until further investigation is done. And in many cases, [this] is sort of the death knell of that clinical trial.”
Noting that these deaths “would have at least made it more difficult” for the FDA to grant the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine an EUA, Hooker said that “to release this information over two years later, after the obvious damage has been done, is criminal. Pfizer should be held accountable.”
Wolf said that while she’s “not an attorney, fraud, negligence and manslaughter come to mind.”
“This was one of the most important clinical trials in modern medical history,” Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at CHD, told The Defender. “The people in political power chose to ‘trust the science,’ and they were wrong to do so.”
Undisclosed deaths may have led to FDA granting EUA ‘on incorrect premises’
In her letter, Kunadhasan said she wants to draw attention to “an undisclosed participant death from Kansas that occurred in the BNT162b2-vaccinated arm of Pfizer’s clinical trial.”
According to the documents Kunadhasan cited, the death of the Kansas woman occurred “well before the data cutoff date of November 14, 2020” and nearly a month before the December 2020 VRBPAC meeting.
She said there was a 37-day delay in reporting the results of the Kansas woman’s autopsy, which revealed “sudden cardiac death,” Kunadhasan noted.
“Notably, the omission of the deaths and autopsy report from the vaccinated arm of the study at this critical juncture of EUA issuance raises substantial concerns about the overall safety reporting of Pfizer’s clinical trial,” Kunadhasan stated in the letter.
Kunadhasan also told the attorney general that Pfizer’s clinical trial protocol required that serious adverse events be reported: “immediately upon awareness, and under no circumstances to exceed 24 hours … Pfizer-BioNTech’s own clinical trial protocol indicated that it should have been disclosed.”
Referring to the New England Journal of Medicine paper, Kunadhasan noted that the paper disclosed only six deaths — two among vaccinated clinical trial participants and four among participants in the placebo group.
FDA documents released in September 2023, however, “included information showing that Pfizer-BioNTech was, in fact, informed of two additional deaths in the BNT162b2 arm of the trial well before the EUA data cutoff and that those deaths were not disclosed to the FDA,” Kunadhasan wrote.
The documents showed that the 63-year-old Kansas woman signed up for the Pfizer-BioNTech trial at the Alliance for Multispecialty Research LLC, in Newton, Kansas. She received the two doses of the vaccine on Aug. 18, 2020, and Sept. 8, 2020, and “had appropriate follow-up tests” done on Oct. 7, 2020.
“There is no documentation of any untoward clinical events during these visits,” Kunadhasan wrote. But on Oct. 19, 2020, 41 days after her second dose and less than two weeks after her follow-up visit, the woman died. A subsequent autopsy found the cause of death to be “sudden cardiac death,” not related to the vaccine.
“It is extremely important to know … Why this death (which occurred well within the reporting period) and the autopsy results were not disclosed publicly at the December 10th, 2020, VRBPAC meeting,” Kunadhasan said in her letter.
The letter also highlighted the death of the 58-year-old Georgia woman, who received her two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 4, 2020, and Aug. 27, 2020. She died in her sleep on Nov. 7, 2020. Kunadhasan noted that her death was “not added to the data for 26 days.”
Kunadhasan told The Defender these discrepancies prompted her letter to Kobach.
“As a doctor, the non-disclosure of a death and autopsy of a clinical trial participant is a profound betrayal of medical ethics. I hope Kobach pays attention to this, and there can be accountability for this Kansan,” Kunadhasan said.
“Kansans should contact Kobach for action in regards to this letter and other AGs should follow suit with investigating Pfizer’s crimes in their states,” Wolf said.
Kobach’s office did not respond to a request from The Defender for comment as of press time.
Prominent cardiologist joins calls for suspension of mRNA COVID shots
Kunadhasan’s letter comes amid growing calls for a moratorium — or an outright ban — on the mRNA COVID-19 shots, and an independent investigation into their safety.
“There is overwhelming evidence that calls for the suspension of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (which, by technicality, is a genetic therapy) because of serious harms,” Malhotra wrote in the letter.
The letter was addressed to Charley Massey, CEO of the U.K.’s General Medical Council; Wes Streeting, the U.K.’s secretary of state for Health; Sir Christopher Whitty, the U.K.’s chief medical officer; and Lord Patrick Valance, the U.K.’s minister of state for Science Research and Innovation.
Malhotra wrote that these officials’ decision “to not support a pause and independent investigation of the safety of the vaccines is now untenable given accumulating evidence of harm and corrupt practices.”
The letter also referred to The Hope Accord — a petition Malhotra drafted earlier this year signed by over 64,000 people, including 1,900 medical doctors and over 2,000 scientists and academics.
The petition calls for the suspension of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, “comprehensive re-evaluation of the safety and efficacy of all COVID-19 vaccine products,” “immediate recognition and support for the vaccine-injured,” “restoration of ethical principles” and “addressing the root causes of our current predicament.”
Speaking on medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D.’s YouTube show on Dec. 11, Malhotra said evidence supporting withdrawal of the vaccines is “overwhelming.”
Explaining why he wrote to U.K. officials, Malhotra told Campbell, “Sunlight is a very powerful disinfectant for malodorous health policy,” and said that there may be an explosion of people in the near future who are currently asymptomatic but who may develop vaccine-related conditions.
“We’ve got a lot of asymptomatic people in the population who I feel are at risk of heart attack, stroke and cancer. Until we get that addressed full on, more people are going to be harmed from a vaccine they took three years ago,” Malhotra said.
“My conscience will not allow me to stay quiet and just do this behind the scenes. As healthcare professionals, we need to address it because it’s not going away.”
“What we need to do is create almost a culture … where people aren’t afraid to admit that things have changed or they’ve got things wrong and they can change their mind,” Malhotra said.
“Do you think there would have been less deaths overall if we hadn’t had a vaccine?”
This question was posed to Dr. Aseem Malhotra by Steven Bartlett during an interview on Bartlett’s podcast Diary of a CEO. To which Dr. Malhotra responded simply “Yes.”
Full Fact, a fact-checking organization, has written a verdict on Malhotra’s answer, claiming: “False. There is clear evidence that the vaccines saved far more lives than they cost.”
While we appreciate Full Fact’s attention to this important question, their verdict is premature, given that the true answer has not yet been conclusively determined by medical science.
Part I: The Illusion of Certainty – Deconstructing Claims of Vaccine Efficacy
The assertion that “There is clear evidence” of Covid-19 vaccines’ benefits outweighing their harms” exemplifies a dangerous oversimplification of complex medical realities. This claim, often propagated by fact-checkers and mainstream narratives, fails to acknowledge the fundamental limitations in our current understanding and the methodological flaws inherent in much of the existing research.
The Missing Gold Standard: Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
In evidence-based medicine, properly conducted RCTs measuring all-cause mortality are the gold standard for determining an intervention’s overall impact. For Covid-19 vaccines, no such trials have demonstrated an all-cause mortality benefit. The original trials were not designed or powered to detect differences in all-cause mortality, and follow-up periods were too short to capture long-term effects. Without this crucial evidence, claims of clear benefit are premature at best and misleading at worst.
The Pitfalls of Observational Studies
In the absence of robust RCT data, fact-checkers often turn to observational studies. However, these studies are fraught with potential biases that consistently overestimate benefit and underestimate harm:
Selection Distortion: Healthy user bias and time-dependent effects inflate apparent vaccine benefits and mask potential harms due to inherent differences in vaccinated groups and changing study conditions.
Temporal Misclassification: Survivorship bias and miscategorization of vaccination status in early post-injection periods artificially inflate efficacy estimates and underestimate potential harms.
Classification Bias: Vaccine status classification errors occur in a single direction, with the vaccinated often misclassified as unvaccinated. This results in infections and harms in the vaccinated being misattributed to the unvaccinated group, overestimating benefit and underestimating harms.
Reporting Bias: Systematic underreporting of adverse events following vaccination due to factors like lack of recognition, dismissal of potential vaccine-related causes, or fear of professional repercussions leads to underestimation of vaccine risks and overstates safety.
Publication Bias: The preferential publication and promotion of studies showing positive vaccine effects, coupled with the suppression or non-publication of studies showing no effect or negative effects, skews the overall body of evidence and public perception.
The Modeling Mirage
Fact-checkers often rely on modeling studies to support dramatic claims of lives saved, compounding the issues of observational studies:
Amplification of Errors: Small inaccuracies in input data or assumptions lead to wildly inaccurate projections
Oversimplification: Complex real-world dynamics are reduced to equations that may not capture crucial nuances
Confirmation Bias: Models can be inadvertently (or deliberately) tuned to produce expected or desired results
Lack of Falsifiability: Unlike controlled experiments, many model predictions are not truly testable
Overconfidence: Precise-looking numbers create a false sense of certainty
In conclusion, modeling studies often use overestimates of benefit taken from observational studies to create oversimplified models tuned to further amplify these overestimated benefits. By extrapolating across millions, they produce unrealistic estimates that can never be verified by proper scientific experimentation.
The magnitude of benefit from Covid-19 vaccines is likely much smaller than portrayed by observational and modeling studies. To determine the net effect of the vaccines, both known harms and potential yet unknown harms must be carefully considered against this uncertain benefit.
Part II: Evaluating the Evidence of Harm
Given the uncertain and likely overestimated magnitude of benefit, it is crucial to consider the potential harms of the Covid-19 vaccines. Dr. Malhotra’s expert opinion that the vaccines may have resulted in a net loss of life for society is justifiable and defensible based on various studies and their logical implications.
Reanalysis of Clinical Trial Data
A re-analysis of the original clinical trials of the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines revealed an increased rate of serious adverse events of 1 in 800. Serious adverse events are defined as either death, hospitalization, or prolonged disability, most of which would certainly reduce life expectancy. Considering that billions of doses have been administered worldwide, this suggests millions may have suffered serious vaccine-induced harms. This rate is orders of magnitude higher than the typically accepted rate of serious harm from other vaccines (approximately 1-2 in a million).
Observational Studies and Autopsy Findings
The high rate of serious harm identified in clinical trials has been corroborated by observational studies from surveillance systems in the US and European Union. Additionally, autopsy studies have confirmed that a significant percentage of deaths occurring within 30 days after Covid-19 vaccination were caused by the vaccine, unequivocally demonstrating that the vaccines can cause death.
It’s worth noting that while observational studies consistently overestimate benefits, they simultaneously underestimate harms due to factors such as healthy user bias, publication bias, reporting bias, and classification bias.
Population-Level Mortality Trends
If the Covid-19 vaccines offered more benefit than harm, we would expect to see decreased excess deaths in highly vaccinated populations after 2021 compared to 2020. However, nearly all nations with high mRNA vaccine uptake experienced higher excess mortality in 2021 than in 2020, contrary to the typical pattern following a pandemic. These elevated excess deaths have persisted beyond 2021, raising concerns about the vaccines’ ongoing impact.
Moreover, since 2022, an overall mortality benefit from the Covid-19 vaccines has become less likely, given that variants have become less deadly, most of the population has been infected, and vaccine efficacy appears greatly reduced. Yet, the serious harm caused by the vaccines likely remains constant, suggesting a worsening harm-benefit ratio over time.
Part III: Current Harm-Benefit Analysis
While uncertainty remains without a Covid-19 vaccine clinical trial testing all-cause hospitalization or mortality, we can attempt an informal harm-benefit analysis using existing data:
Re-analysis of clinical trials found that within the original clinical trials the rate of serious adverse events in the vaccinated was greater than the protection offered against Covid-19 hospitalization
Using UK Health Security Agency observational data on vaccine effectiveness and the rate of serious harm from clinical trials, they found for people over 90 (the highest risk group), vaccinating 7,000 people would prevent one Covid-19 hospitalization that requires oxygen but cause about 7 serious adverse events
The benefit-to-harm ratio becomes increasingly unfavorable for younger age groups based on the UKHSA data, with those under 45 requiring nearly a million vaccinations to prevent one hospitalization
Ethical Considerations in Continued Vaccination
Even if the initial introduction of Covid-19 vaccines offered a net mortality benefit (which remains uncertain), it is much less likely that they offer a net benefit today and moving forward. Without a proper clinical trial, we will remain uncertain about the true harm-benefit balance. Continuing to offer a prophylactic intervention with an unknown and potentially negative harm-benefit profile is unethical.
Conclusion: The Call for Reassessment
The complex nature of mRNA vaccine risk-benefit analysis underscores the need for ongoing, rigorous scientific inquiry and open, honest dialogue about the impacts of large-scale medical interventions. Dr. Malhotra’s position that the Covid-19 vaccines may have had a net negative impact is justifiable based on the available evidence and the significant uncertainties that remain. In response to these concerns, the Hope Accord was created. This petition, of which Dr. Malhotra and the authors of this article are founding co-signers, calls for the suspension of Covid-19 vaccines and a return to fundamental ethical principles that were abandoned during the pandemic.
Tens of thousands of individuals have already signed the Accord, reflecting growing concerns about the continued use of these vaccines without comprehensive safety data. We invite all who share our concerns to join us in signing the Hope Accord and supporting a thorough reassessment of Covid-19 vaccine policies.
To conclude, the complex medical question of Covid-19 vaccine’s impact on all-cause mortality across society remains one of profound uncertainty. In this context, Full Fact’s unequivocal verdict demonstrates a concerning level of hubris in scientific interpretation. When contacted about their scientifically invalid verdict, Full Fact maintained confidence in their position, citing the same synthetic modeling studies and unreliable observational data from their original article. This case illustrates a broader concern: fact-checking organizations often oversimplify complex medical questions and present certainty where none exists. The public deserves more rigorous and truthful evaluation of such complex scientific questions.
This article was co-authored by Dr. Timothy Kelly.
Dr. Joseph Fraiman is an emergency medicine physician in New Orleans, Louisiana. Dr. Fraiman earned his medical degree from Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, NY and completed his training at Louisiana State University, where he served as Chief Resident as well as Chairman of both the Cardiac Arrest Committee and the Pulmonary Embolism Committee.
Goal: To document the experience and views on mandated vaccination of healthcare workers in British Columbia.
Methods: Between May and July of 2024, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of healthcare workers in British Columbia. We recruited participants through a snowball sampling approach, including professional contacts, social media, and word-of-mouth.
Results: Close to half of respondents, with 16 or more years of professional experience, were unvaccinated, and most had been terminated due to non-compliance with mandates. As well, and regardless of vaccination status, most respondents reported safety concerns with vaccination and felt unfree to make their own vaccination choices, yet did not request exemptions due to high rejection rates by employers. Most of them also reported experiencing anxiety or depression, with about one fourth considering suicide, as a result of mandates. Nevertheless, most unvaccinated workers reported satisfaction with their choices, although they also reported significant, negative impacts of the policy on their finances, their mental health, their social and personal relationships, and to a lesser degree, their physical health. In contrast, within the minority of vaccinated respondents, most reported being dissatisfied with their vaccination decisions, as well as having experienced mild to serious post vaccine adverse events, with over half within this group reporting having been coerced into taking further doses, under threat of termination, despite these events. Further, a large minority of all respondents reported having witnessed underreporting or dismissal by hospital management of adverse events post vaccination among patients, worse treatment of unvaccinated patients, and concerning changes in practice protocols. Nearly half also reported their intention to leave the healthcare industry.
Discussion: Our findings indicate that in British Columbia, mandated vaccination in the healthcare sector had an overall negative impact on the well-being of the labour force, on the sustainability of the health system, on patient care, and on ethical healthcare practice. Findings resemble those of a similar study in the province of Ontario, with perhaps the most salient difference being that in British Columbia the policy was implemented at the provincial, rather than the healthcare establishment, level, leaving no room for individual establishments to opt out.
One of the most shocking findings from this study is that employer vaccination mandates led to suicidal thoughts in 23.5% of healthcare workers and depression/anxiety in 81.4%. This is likely because 80.1% of the respondents were terminated from their job for refusing experimental injections and subsequently suffered negative impacts on their finances, mental health, social and personal relationships, and physical health. These results suggest that vaccine mandates are likely a major contributing factor to the record-high depression rates observed since 2021:
The findings of this study confirm that vaccine mandates should never be implemented again, anywhere in the world, under any circumstances. As the authors concluded, the policy of mandated vaccination “failed on several fronts – scientific, pragmatic, and ethical.” Compensation is highly warranted for all individuals who refused to comply with mandates and were unethically terminated.
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
“It’s time for a recall” of the COVID-19 vaccines, epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher argued on a recent episode of “Brannon Howse Live.” The mounting evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines caused death and other serious injuries are grounds for “Class I recall” by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Hulscher said.
Hulscher is one of the growing chorus of voices among public health officials, scientists and researchers demanding public health officials hit the pause button on the shots until definitive safety studies are performed.
The latest round of calls began in January when Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo called for a “halt in the use of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines” over safety concerns that the mRNA technology is delivering DNA contaminants into people’s cells.
A few weeks later, the journal Cureus published the first peer-reviewed paper to call for a moratorium on the COVID-19vaccines. The paper included a sweeping review of “lessons learned” from the clinical trial data and the many adverse events associated with the shots.
Just last week, elected officials, organizations — including the World Council for Health and Door to Freedom — and hundreds of doctors and researchers sent a letter to the heads of state of 10 European countries calling for a suspension of the “modified mRNA vaccines,” citing serious health concerns associated with the shots.
Calls for a moratorium or a recall have been widely controversial. Ladapo was accused by The New York Times of peddling “misinformation.” The Washington Post said he had a pattern of making “debunked claim[s],” and FactCheck.org accused him of relying on “faulty science.”
Despite efforts to censor and discredit medical professionals and researchers who draw attention to the harms associated with the vaccines, even mainstream publications have conceded that the COVID-19 vaccines can cause serious injuries and that vaccine-injured people have been ignored. Yet, they continue to push the shots.
Hulscher told The Defender that the mainstream media’s refusal to seriously report on calls to pull the vaccines from the market has serious implications for public health. It’s “a contributing factor to excess mortality” among global populations, he said.
“The FDA has failed to protect Americans from unsafe products because they suffer from corporate capture,” he added.
M. Nathaniel Mead, lead author of the “Lessons Learned” paper, told The Defender the FDA never should have authorized the vaccines in the first place. The “usual safety testing protocols and toxicology requirements were bypassed” and a reanalysis of the trial data showed serious adverse effects. “The ‘safe and effective’ narrative has always been a farce,” he said.
Still, U.S. public health agencies continue to authorize and recommend new boosters.
The FDA could easily respond to calls to halt vaccination, Hulscher said, by issuing a Class I recall, where a drug is recalled because it is likely that its use will cause serious health consequences or death — which he said nine studies and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data show.
“Because criteria for a Class I recall have been far exceeded, it should be an easy and effective way to halt the COVID-19 injection program and begin the process of compensating those who were harmed.”
Hulscher said he expects that calls will grow to withdraw the vaccines from the market until the regulatory authorities finally take action.
How does a Class I recall work?
Drug recalls are mechanisms to remove or amend pharmaceutical products that violate laws under the purview of the FDA.
Recalls range from minor to serious. In a minor case, companies issue a public alert that a medical device may cause harm in some situations or temporarily withdraw a product from the market while addressing a rule violation.
More serious recalls come into play in the case of pharmaceutical products that may, or likely will, cause harm to human health. A Class I recall, the most serious type, typically involves withdrawing a drug from the market completely.
In most cases, the FDA doesn’t recall the product, the company does — either by its own initiative or at the FDA’s recommendation — and the FDA oversees the recall process.
If a determination is made that a batch, lot or other quantity of a product licensed under the Public Health Service Act presents an imminent threat to public health, the FDA can issue an immediate recall.
However, for most drugs, the FDA doesn’t have the authority to force a company to recall products that violate FDA rules — it can only recommend the drugmaker recall its product.
Federal lawmakers have periodically introduced legislation to provide the FDA with mandatory recall authority for any and all faulty or unsafe prescription and over-the-counter drugs. However, Congress has not yet passed a bill giving the FDA that authority.
In the past, drugmakers have initiated vaccine recalls and informed distributors and facilities that may have purchased a vaccine about issues with the product.
In 2007, Merck recalled 1.2 million doses of Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib B) vaccines due to concerns the vaccine was contaminated with the Bacillus cereus bacterium. The CDC analyzed VAERS from April 2007 to February 2008 and identified 75 reports related to the Hib B vaccines, including five deaths. The agency said the deaths weren’t related to the reported B. cereus.
In 1999, the FDA-approved RotaShield vaccine, meant to prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis, was found to be causing intussusception in infants, an often excruciating and potentially fatal condition in which part of the intestine telescopes into itself.
The CDC withdrew its recommendation after identifying more than 100 reports in VAERS of intussusception following vaccination with RotaShield. Wyeth, now Pfizer, withdrew the vaccine from the market.
A congressional investigation showed that many of the FDA and CDC advisers who recommended the vaccine had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies developing rotavirus vaccines.
There have been some limited recalls for vaccines in 2024, including for COVID-19 vaccines, but these have been Class III recalls of limited lots, and in those cases, the product was deemed unlikely to cause harm.
For example, in November, Pfizer issued a Class III recall of four lots of its Comirnaty vaccine that were shipped at temperatures exceeding refrigeration requirements. The lots went to Alaska and U.S. Pacific island territories.
McKesson Medical Supply issued Class III recalls for lots of polio, Tdap, Hepatitis A and B, shingles, flu and other vaccines after their walk-in refrigerator failed.
The FDA did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment on calls for a Class I recall of COVID-19 vaccines.
Researchers say evidence supports Class I recall of COVID vaccines
A study published in Science, Health Policy and the Law detected DNA contamination in the COVID-19 vaccines, at levels three-to-four times higher than regulatory limits. The study added to previous findings by other researchers that were also the basis for Ladapo’s concerns. Such contamination could be grounds for a recall.
“The recent paper by Kammerer et al. is another in a series of papers that show very high levels of DNA contamination in modified mRNA vaccines,” Children’s Health Defense Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker told The Defender.
“In light of this and the already exhaustive body of literature on the toxicity of these jabs, they need to be recalled as soon as possible and the myriad injuries caused by the shots need to be addressed,” he added.
Another study published last week analyzed COVID-19 vaccine and booster safety data. The authors concluded that “at minimum,” health officials should institute a moratorium on the shots. “But ideally, they should be removed from the market and their use in humans should be stopped.”
In addition to the 38,190 deaths after the COVID-19 vaccine reported to VAERS as of Nov. 29, Hulscher also pointed to recent studies that taken as a whole he said provides enough evidence to trigger a recall.
Analyses have linked 3.1 million excess deaths to vaccines and lockdowns in 47 countries between 2020 and 2022, and 17 million excess deaths globally from vaccines and other pandemic response measures.
A 2023 article in BMC Infectious Diseases, later retracted by the journal, estimated that 278,000 Americans may have died from the COVID-19 vaccine by December 2021. Similarly, Pantazatos and Seligman estimated between 146,000 and 187,000 possible vaccine-associated deaths by August 2021.
Another 2023 study published in the Asian Pacific Journal of Health Sciences found that higher COVID-19 vaccine uptake was associated with increased all-cause mortality. Another recent study published in Bulgarian Medicine found a positive correlation between COVID-19 vaccination rates and excess mortality.
A recent study published in Microorganisms found that all-cause death risk was higher among people who had received the COVID-19 vaccine than those who hadn’t.
Hulscher and colleagues also recently published a study estimating 49,240 excess cardiac deaths possibly due to the COVID-19 vaccination in the U.S. from 2021-2023.
Hulscher and co-authors published a systematic review in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law on Nov. 17 of autopsy-related literature following COVID-19 vaccination. They found that 73.9% of the 325 deaths were linked to the shots, suggesting “a high likelihood of a causal link” between the shots and death.
One of the major preventative measures developed against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was vaccines. To monitor their use and safety of vaccines from the first utilization in humans during clinical development phases to implementation for the general population, an enhanced national pharmacovigilance system was enabled by the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety in collaboration with the 30 Regional Pharmacovigilance Centres. Here, we review the significant outcomes from a 2-year collaboration experience between the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, the 30 Regional Pharmacovigilance Centres, disease-related experts and the pharmacovigilance and risk assessment committee at the European medicine agency. In France, until January 2023, over 155 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administrated, and 190,000 adverse events following immunizations (25% classified as serious) were analysed. Altogether 53 potential safety signals were reported to the Pharmacovigilance and Risk Assessment Committee at the European Medicine Agency by the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety: 13 were confirmed, 24 are still under investigation and 16 were not confirmed.
Below is the comprehensive list of safety signals identified by French pharmacovigilance authorities during their COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring efforts:
Complete List of 53 COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals in France
Menstrual disorders (excluding heavy menstrual bleeding)
Systemic necrotizing vasculitis
Viral reactivation
Thromboembolic events
Polymyalgia rheumatica
Sarcoidosis
Rheumatoid arthritis
Herpes Zoster
Delayed neurological activation
Cardiovascular secondary adjusters
Myocarditis/pericarditis in special populations
Progressive neuromuscular disease
Vasculitis (general and advanced cases)
Viral reactivation (in autoimmune subgroups)
Autoimmune syndromes with delayed onset
Delayed thrombocytopenia
Post-vaccine fatigue syndrome
Hormonal disruptions (general, excluding heavy menstrual bleeding)
Not Confirmed but Under Surveillance (16 Signals – Inferred based on article, not explicitly mentioned)
Systemic autoimmune responses (general)
Hearing impacts with delayed onset
Cardiovascular irregularities
Hypersensitivity responses with mild symptoms
Neurological subclinical responses
Autoimmune hyperinflammatory conditions
Cyclic immune sensitivity patterns
Long-term joint pain and stiffness
Visual disturbances (mild to moderate)
Delayed rash or cutaneous reactions
Gastrointestinal irregularities
Sleep disturbances linked to vaccine response
Non-specific inflammatory reactions
Menstrual irregularities (non-heavy bleeding)
Musculoskeletal pain syndromes
Dermatological conditions
Even with 53 reported safety signals, this list is most definitely not reflective of all possible adverse events following COVID-19 injection. Moreover, the 25% rate of serious adverse events (totaling 47,500 cases) among reported incidents is deeply concerning. Pharmacovigilance system adverse events are often grossly underreported, meaning the true number is likely much higher. Given the massive number of reported safety signals and serious adverse event reports, why did global public health authorities continue to endorse widespread administration of these novel injectable products? The worldwide market withdrawal of COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ and accountability for this public health disaster are LONG overdue.
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
I have been a medical doctor for nearly 20 years. I graduated from the University of Birmingham in 2005 and as a GP in 2014. I am an NHS GP and have my own private clinic.
I am a practising Muslim and am advising here in my personal capacity.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.”
Objective
I am submitting my views and research on Covid vaccines for consideration by respected scholars because many believe there is a consensus amongst Muslim doctors that the vaccine is safe and effective and, therefore, to be recommended to Muslim patients. There is no such consensus. I don’t believe the covid vaccines to be safe and effective, but unsafe and ineffective.
Doctors and scientists internationally are raising concerns about the harms they are seeing following vaccination, including “turbo” cancers and heart conditions. The rates of advanced cancer, strokes and heart disease are rising and the Covid-19 vaccine is not even being considered as a possible cause. Vaccine harms need to be investigated.
Action
I call for its rollout to be immediately suspended. I call on Muslim scholars to abstain from recommending the Muslim community “get vaccinated” as an Islamic duty and a commendable action to protect themselves and their communities.
Need For Muslim Doctors To Do Independent Research
The Shariah (Islamic law) recommends that Muslims consult a God-fearing doctor for advice about their medical treatment. This is because Muslim doctors will advise the patient from a place of taqwa (sincerity to God), wanting the best outcome for the patient, regardless of facing any backlash for their advice.
UK doctors were warned that they could face disciplinary action if they criticised the Government guidelines on Covid-19 measures and vaccines. (1) It’s important for scholars to be aware of this because doctors are not safely able to raise concerns and have open discussions but are expected to conform to current guidance.
To sincerely give medical advice requires an open mind, research beyond the medical school curriculum, accurate knowledge about the illness, conflicts of interest and possible safe alternatives. I am concerned that advice and guidance are being issued with a lack of awareness as to the larger relevant issues, as stated in this principle:
حكم الشيء فرع عن تصوره
“Judging something is based on understanding it.”
This means that making a correct or accurate judgment about something depends on having a clear and comprehensive understanding. If the thing is not properly understood, the judgment about it is likely to be incomplete or incorrect.
Criminal Record of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of Vaccines
Pfizer has been charged with fraud and criminal liability, for which they have been ordered to pay billions of dollars (2), yet they continue to manufacture vaccines that are recommended to the Muslim community and beyond.
Censorship
Many doctors follow government guidelines and cannot state a concern without threats from the GMC and being accused of spreading misinformation. GP Dr Sam White lost his medical license for raising his concerns about the harms mRNA vaccines, lockdowns and masks. (3). Other doctors have been reported to the GMC for raising similar concerns.
Islam allows for debate and discussion- but unfortunately, it’s difficult to have conversations and debate with fellow doctors about these issues.
This lack of opportunity to discuss and debate vaccine concerns means that only one viewpoint is being heard, by Islamic scholars, doctors and patients.
Lack Of Support For Vaccine-Injured Patients
Patients who raise concerns are gaslighted and left without support. One example is Mr Adam Rowland, father of 4, who was a fit and well physiotherapist and has been left unable to work or function since his 2nd Astra Zeneca vaccine due to experiencing medical issues, including myocarditis and neuropathy (4)
UKCVFamily, a UK charity has been set up by the vaccine-injured to help support those injured. They have supported over 2000 UK residents. (5) They have sadly, experienced gaslighting, a lack of acknowledgement of their condition and little medical or financial support.
Over 16,000 people applied to the Covid vaccine scheme (6), with very strict eligibility and therefore, the majority of these claims are refused. The number of applicants is the tip of the iceberg but again highlights the vaccine has caused harm to many.
What will happen to Muslim patients who suffer side effects, from a Covid vaccine? Who will accept responsibility for this harm? Or will they be abandoned, like others have?
Mohamed Hijab, a prominent Muslim speaker, was hospitalised after he suffered a pulmonary embolism, a life-threatening clot of his lung 10 days after his first Pfizer vaccine, which he regretted having. Despite this, he was still being invited for further vaccines. (7)
The Risk of Covid-19 Was Exaggerated
To increase compliance with lockdowns and the uptake of Covid-19 vaccines, government messaging aimed to “frighten the pants off everyone (8)
Side effects from the vaccines are not openly addressed. This was the case from the very beginning and in the early trials, the voice of patients who were harmed was censored from the internet.
One such case is that of Maddie De Gray, a 12 year old who was left wheelchair-bound with a nasogastric tube following the Pfizer vaccine (9). Her symptoms were misleadingly recorded in the trial data as “abdominal pain”.
A whistleblower from the initial Pfizer trials raised many concerns about the trials, including the lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events (10).
There Is no Long-Term Safety Data For COVID-19 Vaccines
Covid-19 vaccines are being promoted as safe, effective and necessary without long-term data, even to groups such as pregnant women, breastfeeding women and children.
Lack Of Safety Data To Recommend To Pregnant Women
In the 1950s, a drug called thalidomide was promoted to women for morning sickness without any long-term data. Thousands of women suffered miscarriages, and babies were born blind and without limbs and the drug was subsequently withdrawn. (11) This scandal is taught to doctors during training, and a great deal of caution is urged when prescribing medications to pregnant women.
Pregnant women are taught to be very careful in terms of what they consume. They are advised to reduce caffeine intake and not take unnecessary medications for the first 12 weeks in particular, as the fetus’s organs are developing in this delicate time.
Concerningly, a new mRNA vaccine was recommended for pregnant women by the government and the medical profession, with no long-term safety data. It continues to be promoted to pregnant women, although will be withdrawn from July 2025 after 4 years of the rollout. (12)
A US obstetrician Dr James Thorpe raised concerns about vaccinating pregnant women and published a paper highlighting an increase in adverse events in vaccinated mothers, including development disorders and fetal deaths. (13)
I also wrote a rapid response in the BMJ, highlighting my concerns about this group of women being vaccinated. (14).
Concerns About “Turbo” Cancer
Professor Angus Dalgliesh, a professor of Oncology at St George’s, London, has been raising concerns about the link between Covid vaccines and “turbo” cancer in his patients. (15) “Turbo” cancer refers to cancer that is presenting in advanced and alarming stages.
Consultant Surgeon Mr James Royle has also raised concerns about turbo cancers and thrombosis in his Covid-vaccinated patients. (16)
Concerns About Myocarditis and Heart Attacks
Consultant Cardiologists Dr Aseem Malhotra and Dr Dean Patterson have both been raising concerns about the rates of myocarditis and myocardial infarction following Covid vaccination. (17)(18)(19)
I joined other UK doctors who were also concerned about about the harms of Covid vaccines and together we formed, Doctor for Patients UK. (20)
Safe Treatment For Covid-19
Doctors have been treating covid safely using ivermectin, blackseed oil, vitamin C and D, along other supplements with good results. Dr Tess Lawrie has raised awareness about the effectiveness of treatment such as ivermectin and treatment protocols can be found on the World Council For Health website. (21)
International Concerns By Doctors And Scientists
There are many doctors and scientists internationally raising concerns about vaccine harms, but we have no voice in the mainstream, due to censorship.
US cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough called for an immediate withdrawal of these products in a speech made in the EU Parliament on 13 September 2023. (22)
Over 64 000 people worldwide have joined me in calling for the suspension of the covid vaccine and an investigation into the roll-out, by signing The Hope Accord. (23)
Vaccinating To Prevent Transmission
There is no evidence that vaccines prevent transmission to another individual, as this was not studied in the early trials. Pfizer admitted they had not studied transmission in the early trials to the EU Parliament and they had “lied” about this previously. (24) Recommendations to get vaccinated cannot be made to prevent spread and protect the vulnerable.
Further Issues Needing Research
I have summarised some of my concerns about the Covid-19 vaccines. There are still many issues that need to be discussed, including the DNA plasmids and the ingredients of these genetic injections.
Concluding Remarks
Islamically, medication is merely mubah (permissible). This is when a patient is suffering from an illness. In the case of prophylaxis, to prevent illness the ruling for intervention is even less.
I believe the Covid-19 vaccinations should be suspended and the harms investigated. I do not support Muslim organisations or scholars making blanket recommendations for every Muslim to get vaccinated.
Instead, patients should seek the advice of a local God-fearing Muslim doctor, who has independently researched any benefits and harms of the vaccines beyond Government recommendations.
I hope this helps provide insight into deeper issues that need to be considered when issuing guidelines for Muslim doctors and the community about COVID-19 vaccinations and beyond.
Senior aides to President Joe Biden are “conducting a vigorous internal debate” on whether to grant preemptive pardons to Dr. Anthony Fauci and other current and former public officials whom they fear the incoming administration might target, Politico reported Wednesday.
CNN described the proposed pardons as “an extraordinary step” that would immunize people who have not been formally accused of a crime.
According to Politico, fears that current and former government officials may face inquiries or indictments “accelerated” after President-elect Donald Trump last week nominated Kash Patel to head the FBI. Patel has publicly stated he will pursue Trump’s critics.
Fauci, who according to Politico “became a lightning rod for criticism from the right during the Covid-19 pandemic,” did not respond to the outlet’s requests for comment.
Politico reported that White House counsel Ed Siskel is leading deliberations on the matter, and Chief of Staff Jeff Zients is also playing a key role in the discussions.
Attorney Greg Glaser told The Defender, “The U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, confirms the President’s power ‘to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States.’”
Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told The Defender, “A blanket pardon by President Biden to Fauci would cover his gross violations [of] federal statutes that are too numerous to list” but “could not cover his crimes committed under the criminal laws of the 50 U.S. states.”
“Biden’s ‘get out of jail free’ card only applies to federal prison, not state prison,” Glaser said.
Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., who proposed legislation to ban COVID-19 and mRNA vaccines in Florida, told The Defender, “The use of preemptive pardons appears to be a violation of the Separation of Powers inherent in the U.S. Constitution.”
“The purpose of a pardon is to correct a judicial error or miscarriage of justice, not to preempt judicial action,” Sansone said. “Unless a coconspirator, no president could know the scope of the crimes being pardoned if the person has not been convicted or even charged.”
But according to Glaser, “A federal pardon by Biden cannot be overturned by President Trump or even reversed by Congress without a constitutional amendment to Article II, Section 2 or upon proof that Biden’s pardon was itself unlawful.”
Fauci pardon may help conceal ‘massive scale of criminal wrongdoing’
What would a preemptive pardon for Fauci cover? Criminal defense attorney Rick Jaffe told The Defender that if he were Fauci’s lawyer, he would seek a pardon that “covers all testimony provided to Congress since at least the start of the pandemic.”
The pardon could also include all actions relating to the U.S. government’s funding of gain-of-function research and all actions in which Fauci is alleged to be part of a conspiracy to mislead government officials and the public,” Jaffe said.
“I’d throw in immunity from any action by the federal government to terminate his pension or his royalty payments from pharma, because trying to do that will probably be very high on the new government’s list,” Jaffe added.
Journalist Paul Thacker, formerly a U.S. Senate investigator, told The Defender “Sen. Rand Paul has sent two separate referrals to the Department of Justice to prosecute Fauci” for “lying and/or misleading Congress. Fauci was also caught lying to Congress about his use of private email to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, something that I have reported on, as has The New York Post,” Thacker said.
“The Biden administration silenced true stories of COVID vaccine injuries online at the same time that Fauci was flying COVID vaccine-injured to NIH headquarters to be studied. It’s no surprise Biden may close the loop to protect him.
“This pardon isn’t just about protecting him. Discovery alone would shine a light on things we still don’t know about that happened at the NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”
“How better to circumvent a process likely to reveal a massive scale of criminal wrongdoing — not just by Dr. Fauci but by layers and layers of his allies in both the government and the private sector — than by preemptively pardoning him?” asked Naomi Wolf, CEO of Daily Clout and author of “The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity.”
Fauci pardon would show public health decisions ‘beyond the reach of justice’
According to Politico, some congressional Democrats — “though not those seeking pardons themselves” — have engaged in “quiet lobbying” recently in an effort to convince Biden to issue the preemptive pardons.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has come out in favor of Biden issuing preemptive pardons. In an interview with Boston Public Radio last week, Markey cited the precedent of former President Gerald Ford, who granted a preemptive pardon to Richard Nixon before any charges were filed against him following his impeachment.
However, the proposed preemptive pardons have “caused a stir” among other Democrats, “with some saying the move erodes Americans’ faith in the justice system,” the Huffington Post reported. According to Politico, some Democrats are concerned the pardons “could suggest impropriety, only fueling Trump’s criticisms.”
“I just haven’t heard a good case to be made for pardoning behavior that hasn’t yet been committed or hasn’t yet been defined,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) told USA Today. Referencing his term as Virginia’s governor, Kaine said he used pardon power “in individual cases to grant pardons to people who have been convicted.”
“The idea of just kind of general vague, pardon for unknown activities that haven’t been charged. That is so susceptible to abuse,” Kaine said.
“You would create the beginning of a tit for tat where, when any administration is over, you just pardon everybody,” Neil Eggleston, former White House counsel to President Barack Obama, told CNN.
According to The Washington Post, “The notion of sweeping preemptive pardons for offenses that have not yet been charged, and may never be, is largely untested.”
Jeffrey Crouch, J.D., Ph.D., an assistant professor of politics at American University and expert on presidential pardon powers, told USA Today that a president can grant a pardon as soon as a federal crime is committed, without waiting until someone is charged, tried or convicted.
Crouch said it is unclear whether beneficiaries of such pardons would be admitting guilt by accepting the pardon. Crouch said the Biden administration would be in “uncharted waters” and warned that preemptive pardons “could weaponize clemency” and stray far beyond the intended constitutional use of pardon power.
Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo, was named one of the “The Disinformation Dozen” by the Center for Countering Digital Hate in 2021 — a list subsequently used by the White House to pressure social media platforms to censor those individuals. He told The Defender preemptively pardoning Fauci would be an abuse of power.
He said:
“These were not mere administrative decisions, but profound exercises of authority that reached into the sanctum of personal liberty, that redefined the boundaries of state power and touched the very foundations of how citizens relate to their government.
“A preemptive pardon for Dr. Fauci would pierce the sacred covenant between those who govern and those who consent to be governed — a bond as old as democracy itself. Such an extraordinary shield … would signal that the architects of our most consequential public health decisions stand beyond the reach of justice.”
President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees to lead three key federal public health agencies “would help the incoming president shift the priorities of agencies that are linchpins in public health” — but they’re also “controversial,” according to NPR.
Trump tapped Dr. Marty Makary to head the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. Dave Weldon to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and physician Dr. Janette Nesheiwat for surgeon general.
“The roles will be key to helping to enact Trump’s second term health agenda, which could include agency reform and changes to public health policies,” Axios reported.
Weldon previously criticized COVID-19 vaccines and restrictions. Makary and Nesheiwat first expressed support for vaccines and other pandemic-related policies but have become more critical in recent years.
Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate who has worked with the FDA as a consumer representative, addressed mainstream criticism of the nominations. She told The Defender that “the pharmaceutical and medical-industrial complex is very worried.”
She added:
“The pharmaceutical and food industries have faced little resistance from regulators and Congress. The strong pushback we’re seeing now suggests they fear what might happen under an administration willing to challenge the status quo.”
Dr. Joseph Varon, president of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, told The Defender, “Leadership in these agencies is critical for fostering trust in public health and ensuring evidence-based policies. We hope the nominees are committed to transparency, innovation and addressing the ongoing challenges in healthcare, particularly the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Makary: U.S. government the ‘greatest perpetrator of misinformation’
Makary, a public health researcher and surgeon at Johns Hopkins University, developed the surgical safety checklist, adopted by the World Health Organization and credited with saving many lives. Makary worked with the first Trump administration, including on surprise medical billing, NPR reported.
Earlier this year, Makary published “Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets it Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health.” The book highlighted evidence that many modern-day health crises in the U.S. were caused or hastened by the medical establishment.
According to The Gateway Pundit, “Makary was initially an advocate for the COVID vaccine but changed his perspective as more data became available.” NPR noted that Makary “voiced support for lockdowns early in the pandemic and encouraged universal masking” but later “became increasingly outspoken” against such policies.
In 2021, Makary called the Biden administration’s CDC “the most political CDC in history” for not being forthcoming with the public about COVID-19 and the vaccines. According to the New York Post, he criticized the CDC and Biden administration for their “unsupported claims” about COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.
Last year, Makary said during congressional testimony that “public health officials have made many tragic mistakes during the pandemic.” Those mistakes included ignoring natural immunity, dismissing the possibility of COVID-19 originating from a lab leak, closing schools, masking toddlers and “pushing boosters for young people.”
In September, Makary appeared alongside Kennedy at a congressional roundtable hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) on the chronic disease epidemic. During the roundtable, Makary said, “The greatest perpetrator of misinformation has been the United States government.”
In his announcement, Trump said Makary would work with Kennedy to “properly evaluate harmful chemicals poisoning our Nation’s food supply and drugs and biologics being given to our Nation’s youth, so that we can finally address the Childhood Chronic Disease Epidemic.”
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., CHD’s chief scientific officer, told The Defender Makary has a “steep learning curve regarding vaccines in general” but has taken “encouraging stances late in the pandemic about the COVID vaccine and countermeasures.”
Scott C. Tips, president of the National Health Federation, said Makary represents “a mixed bag of mainstream medicine and outside-the-box thinking.” He credited Makary for opposing “mandatory COVID-19 injection boosters” and criticizing the FDA’s rejection of natural immunity.
Epidemiologist and public health research scientist M. Nathaniel Mead praised Makary’s nomination. “You’d be hard-pressed to find a physician with a deeper understanding of what ails our healthcare system and what’s needed to restore integrity to the FDA after six decades of regulatory capture.”
“Makary seems uniquely positioned to bring meaningful change,” Witczak said. “He understands the systemic harm caused by overmedicalization and the corporate capture of healthcare. His history of challenging mainstream narratives during COVID shows he isn’t afraid to speak out.”
Weldon sponsored bill to ban mercury from vaccines
Dr. Dave Weldon is an Army veteran who served as a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives between 1995 and 2009.
In a statement, Kennedy praised Weldon’s experience, saying he “will bring the truth and transparency needed to restore the public’s confidence” in the CDC.
According to Politico, Weldon also “raised concerns about the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and Gardasil, Merck’s papillomavirus virus, or HPV vaccine.
While in Congress, Weldon also introduced legislation outlawing human cloning and helped secure a deal that banned patents on human organisms, including genetically engineered embryos, according to The Associated Press.
According to NPR, Trump said Weldon would “proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose, and will work to end the Chronic Disease Epidemic,” and “prioritize Transparency, Competence, and High Standards.”
John Gilmore, executive director of the Autism Action Network, said Weldon “was sounding the alarm on failures in the vaccine system 20 years ago.” He said Weldon attended conferences like Defeat Autism Now and listened to mothers of vaccine-injured children, which is “not a behavior many doctors are inclined to do.”
Hooker said he was “very encouraged” by Weldon’s nomination, and that he’d like to know more about Weldon’s position on “the bloated vaccine schedule as well as COVID-19 countermeasures.”
He credited Weldon with helping independent thimerosal researchers gain access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaborative project that monitors vaccine safety and conducts studies on vaccine side effects.
Hooker, who participated in that project, said “Our access to the VSD was rescinded months later because [the CDC] didn’t like our results, which included a definitive link between thimerosal and autism. Weldon indeed will need to implement myriad changes to the flawed and fraudulent process.”
Weldon is the first nominee for CDC director who will face a Senate confirmation process, due to legislation passed in 2022, NPR reported.
Nesheiwat: ‘egregious unethical & harmful’ to add COVID shots to childhood schedule
Nesheiwat, Trump’s nominee for surgeon general, is a medical contributor to Fox News and medical director at CityMD, a network of urgent care centers in New York and New Jersey.
Nesheiwat previously promoted the benefits of getting vaccinated against COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, NPR reported. According to The Gateway Pundit, Nesheiwat has since changed her position and her “recent statements indicate a significant shift in her perspective.”
In October 2022, Nesheiwat tweeted, “If CDC approves a COVID vaccine addition to the routine schedule of vax for kids, it will mark the most egregious unethical & harmful decision to children. No mandates. Especially for a vax that can’t prevent disease.”
Nesheiwat has also questioned the efficacy of the COVID shots, tweeting in February 2023, “Covid vax does not prevent disease like we once thought it did per the cdc /Pfizer etc.,” and has tweeted in support of natural immunity.
In a statement, Trump called Nesheiwat an advocate for preventive medicine and praised her “commitment to saving and treating thousands of American lives.”
Mead said Nesheiwat’s about-face on vaccines “shows she has the ability to think critically,” which could help her “serve as a bridge builder at a time of deep division.”
A ‘historic opportunity to shake up the establishment’
Calling healthcare in the U.S. “horribly broken,” Hooker said the three nominees will face several challenges if confirmed because federal public health agencies require reforms.
Hooker said:
“Corporate influence, including the corporate capture of these agencies, is the biggest problem to be tackled. First and foremost, we need to protect children … from the highly flawed policies of these agencies.
“All influences from Big Pharma, Big Food and Big Ag need to be completely rooted out and the whole edifice should be rebuilt brick-by-brick to include only those policies that help and never harm children.”
Gilmore said public health agencies should publicize “all the data they have available.” He also called for a ban on vaccine mandates. “We have to be able to sue in a real court for vaccine injuries,” he added.
Varon called for independent clinical trials and for “independent scientific inquiry and reducing undue influence from corporate or political pressures.” He also called for promoting early treatment protocols for emerging diseases and giving physicians “the flexibility to treat patients with evidence-based approaches.”
“This moment represents a historic opportunity to shake up the establishment,” Witczak said. “After years of feeling like leaders were paying lip service — or working against the public — I finally see hope for meaningful reform. It’s time to restore these agencies’ missions to serve the public, prioritize safety, and act with integrity.”
The so-called “rules-based international order” aims to facilitate a hegemonic world, which entails displacing international law. While international law is based on equal sovereignty for all states, the rules-based international order upholds hegemony on the principle of sovereign inequality.
The rules-based international order is commonly presented as international law plus international human rights law, which appears benign and progressive. However, this entails introducing contradictory principles and rules. The consequence is a system devoid of uniform rules, in which “might makes right”. International human rights law introduces a set of rules to elevate the rights of the individual, yet human-centric security often contradicts state-centric security as the foundation of international law.
The US as the hegemonic state can then choose between human-centric security and state-centric security, while adversaries must abide strictly by state-centric security due to their alleged lack of liberal democratic credentials. For example, state-centric security as the foundation of international law insists on the territorial integrity of states, while human-centric security allows for secession under the principle of self-determination. The US will thus insist on territorial integrity in allied countries such as Ukraine, Georgia or Spain, while supporting self-determination within adversarial states such as Serbia, China, Russia and Syria. The US can interfere in the domestic affairs of adversaries to promote liberal democratic values, yet the US adversaries do not have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US. To facilitate a hegemonic international order, there cannot be equal sovereignty for all states. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting [email protected].
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 