Aletho News

Aletho News
21 Sep 2023 | 5:40 am

1. ‘Definite Causal Link’ Between COVID Vaccine Rollouts and Peaks in All-Cause Mortality, New Study Finds

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 20, 2023

new study of 17 countries found a "definite causal link" between peaks in all-cause mortality and the rapid rollouts of the COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.

Researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest found more than half of the countries analyzed had no detectable rise in all-cause mortality after the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic on March 11, 2020 — until after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.

They also found that all 17 countries, which make up 10.3% of the global population, had an unprecedented rise in all-cause mortality that corresponded directly to vaccine and booster rollouts.

Through a statistical analysis of mortality data, the authors calculated the fatal toxicity risk-per-injection increased significantly with age, but averaged 1 death per 800 injections across all ages and countries.

By that calculation, with 13.5 billion injections given up to Sept. 2, 2023, the researchers estimated there were 17 million COVID-19 vaccination deaths (± 500,000) globally following the vaccine roll-out.

"This would correspond to a mass iatrogenic event that killed 0.213 (± 0.006) % of the world population and did not measurably prevent any deaths," the authors wrote.

This number, they noted, is 1,000 times higher than previously reported in data from clinical trials, adverse event monitoring and cause-of-death statistics gleaned from death certificates.

In other words, "The COVID-19 vaccines did not save lives and appear to be lethal toxic agents," they wrote.

The shots were the most toxic for the most elderly across all 17 countries analyzed.

The authors concluded governments should "immediately end the baseless public health policy of prioritizing elderly residents for injection with COVID-19 vaccines, until valid risk-benefit analyses are made."

The 180-page paper, by Denis Rancourt, Ph.D. former physics professor and lead scientist for 23 years at the University of Ottawa, Marine Baudin, Ph.D., Joseph Hickey, Ph.D. and Jérémie Mercier, Ph.D. was published Sept. 17.

Using all-cause mortality to identify deaths caused by vaccines

All-cause mortality (ACM) — a measure of the total number of deaths from all causes in a given time frame for a given population — is the most reliable data used by epidemiologists for detecting and characterizing events causing death and for evaluating the population-level impact of deaths from any cause, the authors wrote.

Unlike other measures, ACM data are not susceptible to reporting bias or to biases that may exist in subjective assessments of the cause of death. Any event, from a natural disaster like an earthquake to a wave of seasonal or pandemic illness appears in ACM data.

Using methodologies developed in their previous research on COVID-19 and vaccination in IndiaAustralia, Israel, the U.S. and Canada, the authors used changes in all-cause mortality rates to identify deaths associated with mass vaccination.

Rancourt told The Defender that after identifying the "stunning" correlation between vaccines, boosters and rising ACM in those five countries, the authors looked for other countries that had similar data so they could repeat the analysis to determine if the same synchronicity occurred.

They tracked and statistically analyzed the temporal relationship between spikes in national all-cause mortality rates, stratified by age where data were available, and the COVID-19 pandemic period and the vaccine and booster rollouts.

In other words, they analyzed whether "excess mortality" appeared following the announcement of the COVID-19 pandemic and following the introduction of initial vaccines or booster shots relative to previous all-cause mortality rates.

Excess mortality is a term used in epidemiology and public health that refers to the number of deaths from all causes during a crisis above and beyond what we would have expected to see under 'normal' conditions, according to Our World in Data.

Controlling for confounding factors such as seasonality, the authors calculated the vaccine-dose fatality rate (vDFR) — the ratio of vaccine-attributable deaths to the number of vaccines given. They found it ranged from 0.02 to 5%, depending on country, age and number of shots given and that the overall, all-ages vDFR for all 17 countries averaged 0.126 ± 0.004%.

"These findings appear to confirm arguments made by biologists including Mike Yeadon and Sucharit Bhakdi that the dangers for adverse autoimmune reactions would be predicted to increase with each subsequent exposure to the transfection," said Childrens' Health Defense Staff Scientist J. Jay Couey.

Factors such as seasonal illnesses can complicate analysis of all-cause mortality rates, because deaths from things like respiratory illnesses tend to peak in winter.

To eliminate seasonality as a possible confounding factor, the Correlation researchers, examined all available data for countries that rolled out the vaccines but where there was no seasonal fluctuation (equatorial countries) or the vaccines/boosters were rolled out during the summer and so the effects of the rollouts could be seen most clearly.

Those countries, all located in the equatorial region or the Southern Hemisphere where the rollouts were in the summer, included  Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand and Uruguay.

The authors are working on extending this analysis to all countries across the world where data is available, Rancourt told The Defender.

Vaccination associated with high all-cause mortality regime in all countries

In nine of 17 countries analyzed, there was "no detectable excess mortality in the year or so between when a pandemic is announced on 11 March 2020 and the starting time of the first vaccine rollout in each country," the paper reported.

In Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paragua, Philippines, Singapore, Suriname, Thailand and Uruguay, excess mortality appeared only after the vaccine rollout.

In the other eight countries — Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and South Africa — excess mortality can be seen prior to the vaccine rollout.

However, the researchers said, "In all 17 countries, vaccination is associated with a regime of high mortality, and there is no association in time between COVID-19 vaccination and proportionate reduction in ACM."

Also, all 17 countries showed a strong correlation with higher rates of ACM in early 2021, following the initial vaccine rollout and in early 2022, when the boosters were rolled out.

The authors underscore the finding that where age-stratified data were available, there were "remarkable temporal associations" between rapid first dose and booster rollouts and immediate peaks in all-cause mortality, and the transition to what Rancourt called "a new regime in mortality, where the mortality just stayed high for a long time."

The paper includes reporting, graphs and data analysis by a number of different methods showing the temporal relationships between the pandemic announcement, vaccines and spikes in all-cause mortality for each individual country.

Transitions between regimes of mortality — ACM by time (blue), vaccine administration by time (orange) and the average ACM by time (red). The March 11, 2020 pandemic declaration date is shown by a vertical grey line in each panel. The data sources are specified in Appendix A of the study. Credit: Rancourt, Baudin, Hickey and Mercier.

Causation, not just correlation

The authors argue the evidence collected supports a causal link between vaccines and high mortality rates.

First, they cite autopsy studiesadverse event monitoring and peer-reviewed publications, studies of vaccine-induced pathologiesanalysis of adverse events in industry clinical trials and payouts from global vaccine injury compensation programs, which together they say demonstrate the COVID-19 vaccines caused many individual deaths.

Then they point to several population-level studies, including their own prior research, that demonstrated a likely causal link.

And they cite principles of immunology that explain the mechanisms from severe harm from the COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors also addressed and discounted several proposed alternative explanations for the spikes in ACM, including that those changes are due to seasonal variation, heat waves, earthquakes, conflict, COVID-19 countermeasures, underlying health conditions or the appearance of COVID-19 variants.

They argued that COVID-19 variant "waves" cannot explain the spikes, they wrote.

For that to occur, the new variants would have to cause simultaneous peaks and surges in mortality in 17 countries, "which is a statistically impossible occurrence if we accept the theories of spontaneous viral mutations and contact spreading of viral respiratory diseases; and all the resulting peaks of mortality would have the remarkable coincidence of occurring precisely when vaccine boosters were rolled out."

The authors concluded that the strong correlation between vaccine rollouts and the new higher regimes of ACM shows causality, according to the "experiment, temporality and consistency" criteria laid out by Dr. John Ioannidis in a  2016 paper.

The same phenomenon, they write, is observed in different age and geographical settings (experiment), the rises in all-cause mortality are synchronous with the vaccine rollouts (temporality) and the phenomenon is qualitatively the same each time it occurs (consistency).

Prioritizing elderly people for vaccination was 'reckless'

These "conclusive" findings contradict the common claims that the vaccines, despite their adverse effects, actually saved lives.

Instead, the authors write:

"We have found no evidence in our extensive research on ACM that COVID-19 vaccines had any beneficial effect. If vaccines prevented transmission, infection or serious illness, then there should be decreases in mortality following vaccine rollouts, not increases, as in every observed elderly age group subjected to rapid booster rollouts."

To the contrary, the study confirmed the authors' previous findings that vDFR grows exponentially with age. They found the risk of dying from the COVID-19 injection doubled with every 4-5 years of age, which is approximately half the doubling age of dying of all causes of mortality, including cancer, pneumonia and heart disease.

They found large and age-dependent values of vDFR in elderly people that included, for example, a rate of 0.55% (one death per 180 injections) for people 80 and over in Israel to 5% (one death per 20 injections) for people 90 and over in Chile and Peru.

That means, the authors said, that there is not and was never any age-stratified risk of fatality data to support the public health policies that prioritized elderly people for vaccination.

"Prioritizing elderly people for COVID-19 vaccination, in the absence of relevant data, was reckless."

Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin.

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

Aletho News
20 Sep 2023 | 11:46 pm

2. MMR and threats to quarantine perfectly healthy children

A coercive scare story to increase vaccine uptake?

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | September 20, 2023

On 14th September BBC News reported London measles warning 'Outbreak could hit tens of thousands'

Reading on, you discover this is based on our favourite dislocation from the real world: computer modelling.

'Mathematical calculations suggest an outbreak could affect between 40,000 and 160,000 people… This is a theoretical risk, rather than saying we are already at the start of a huge measles outbreak. There have been 128 cases so far this year, compared with 54 in the whole of 2022.'

Theoretical is one word for their calculations, scare-mongering is another. Figures for the last 25 years vary widely with the highest being 2000 cases in 2012.

'The UKHSA also says a large outbreak could put pressure on the NHS, with between 20% and 40% of infected people needing hospital care.'

Ring any PROTECT THE NHS bells?

But worse was to follow. On 15th September, it was reported:

'Councils in London have written to households to say the capital could be facing a major outbreak unless MMR inoculation rates improve… Measles is highly contagious and severe cases can lead to disability and death… Any child identified as a close contact of a measles case without satisfactory vaccination status may be asked to self-isolate for up to 21 days.'

This threat of sending children home for a disease they don't have, will resonate with parents whose children were repeatedly sent home for 10 days at a time, for one child with a positive covid test. As also will the inducement of:

'Parents have been urged to check children's health records to ensure that their vaccines are up to date.'

A 'nudge' technique not a million miles from the threat of vaccine passports for nightclubs, used to increase covid vaccine uptake in 18-25-year-olds but never actually implemented.

MMR vaccine uptake levels have been variable ever since its inception. Herd immunity levels of 95% are quoted as the level required to stop measles completely. But measles has never been a condition listed for total eradication. Cases fluctuate with mini outbreaks every 5-6 years and this was always the case before the availability of the measles and later the MMR vaccine. So how real is the current threat and how could it possibly justify such a discriminatory measure as excluding unvaccinated children from school?

From the headlines, parents may think that measles has a high death rate and whilst that was certainly true in the past and remains true in developing countries, improved nutrition and widespread access to health care in the UK was associated with a huge decline in measles deaths. The death rate declined from over 1,100 per million in the mid nineteenth century to a level of virtually zero by the mid-1960s.

Ninety-nine percent of the reduction in measles deaths in England & Wales occurred before the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1968 and deaths have continued to fall since then.           

Figure 1 Twentieth Century Mortality CDROM Office for National Statistics. Measles mortality

More recent figures show case reports fluctuating widely and deaths of children from measles varying between 0 and 2 per annum. For example, in 2013 when there were over 6000 reported cases, there was 1 adult and 0 child deaths.

That is not to say that deaths cannot occur and other serious complications such as pneumonia or hearing loss. But for the vast majority of children, measles is what it was always described as, namely a 'childhood illness'. It is noteworthy that WHO recommends

'All children or adults with measles should receive two doses of vitamin A supplements, given 24 hours apart. This restores low vitamin A levels that occur even in well-nourished children. It can help prevent eye damage and blindness. Vitamin A supplements may also reduce the number of measles deaths.'

In a systematic review published in 2002, two doses of water based vitamin A were associated with a 81% reduction in risk of mortality (RR=0.19; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.85). Nowhere is this simple measure mentioned in UK guidance.

The parents who have chosen not to get their children vaccinated will accept the possibility of them catching measles, but sending them home for 3 weeks isn't going to make this go away. A policy which writes in educational discrimination against unvaccinated children is hardly going to improve trust in public bodies. Moreover, the GMC Guidance on Decision making and Consent states in paragraph 48:

'If you disagree with a patient's choice of option:  You must respect your patient's right to decide. … you must not assume a patient lacks capacity simply because they make a decision that you consider unwise'

Introducing carrots and sticks is not compatible with NHS Constitution. The seven key principles includes the following:

1. The NHS provides a comprehensive service, available to all

4. The patient will be at the heart of everything the NHS does

Health choices should always be free from coercion and the failure to uptake whatever is on offer should never result in punitive consequences disguised as being 'for your safety'.

Aletho News
20 Sep 2023 | 11:22 pm

3. Rumble Rejects UK Government’s Pressure to Demonetize Russell Brand Amidst Allegations

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | September 20, 2023

Amidst a growing controversy surrounding comedian Russell Brand, video platform Rumble has taken a stand against the UK government's push to penalize the content creator based on recent allegations.

Last week, The Times and Channel 4's Dispatches covered serious allegations of assault against Russell Brand. While the comedian has yet to be convicted of any wrongdoing and whether the anonymous accusers are victims is yet to be determined, several major platforms, including YouTube, Netflix, and BBC iPlayer, took swift action, either demonetizing or removing Brand's content.

"We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform," wrote Dame Caroline Dinenage, in the brazen letter.

"We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour."

Rumble, however, has chosen a different route from the other platforms. In response to an inquiry by the UK's "Culture, Media and Sport Committee" regarding Brand's monetization on the platform, Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski issued a statement emphasizing the company's commitment to a free internet.

In a clear stance against cancel culture and rushes to judgement, Pavlovski responded, stressing that allegations against Brand have no connection with his content on Rumble. He pointed out the importance of a free internet, "where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard."

From Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski:

"Today we received an extremely disturbing letter from a committee chair in the UK Parliament. While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, rape, and all serious crimes, and believes that both alleged victims and the accused are entitled to a full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with content on Rumble's platform. Just yesterday, YouTube announced that, based solely on these media accusations, it was barring Mr. Brand from monetizing his video content. Rumble stands for very different values. We have devoted ourselves to the vital cause of defending a free internet – meaning an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform.

"We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so. Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble. We don't agree with the behavior of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalize them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform.

"Although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company's values and mission. We emphatically reject the UK Parliament's demands."

While the letter from Rumble did acknowledge the seriousness of crimes like sexual assault, it underscored the importance of not penalizing creators for allegations unrelated to the platform. Pavlovski also raised concerns over the UK government's attempt to influence who is allowed to speak or earn on Rumble, especially singling out individuals based on allegations.

The unfolding situation surrounding Russell Brand draws attention to broader discussions on cancel culture, the role of tech platforms, and the overreach in governments in regulating online content.

For now, Rumble remains committed to its principles, rejecting the call to join the growing number of platforms penalizing Brand based on accusations. As the story progresses, the debate over freedom of speech online and the impact of allegations on creators' livelihoods is likely to intensify.

Aletho News
20 Sep 2023 | 11:10 pm

4. YouTube Censors Barrister’s Testimony on Vaccine Injuries at Official Covid Inquiry

But it's for your own safety

The Naked Emperor's Newsletter | September 20, 2023

YouTube are excelling themselves at the moment.

Yesterday they demonetised all of Russell Brand's videos after a joint Channel 4, Times and Sunday Times investigation. For those who have not heard anything about this, Russell Brand is a UK comic with a troubled past full of sex, drugs and rock and roll. He managed to conquer Hollywood and marry pop star Katy Perry before settling down, having children and starting a great podcast.

The joint investigation accused Brand of sexual assault and rape which he strongly denies. Nobody knows what the truth is so there is no point in speculating on whether he is guilty or not. The key point is that he is innocent until proven guilty.

Unfortunately, YouTube have set this principle aside. They have dispensed with police gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses and bypassed going to court. Instead, they have decided that Brand is guilty and that his punishment is the inability to earn a living.

Who cares if he has a team to pay and a family to provide for. YouTube have listened to the mob and decided that Brand needs punishing. And of course they are able to do this because Big Tech is more powerful than most countries. Who is Brand going to complain to? The police?…they couldn't care less. Politicians?…they are more fickle than Big Tech.

So now we are in a position where Big Tech companies have the power to decide whether you can earn a living or not. A police investigation may takes months or years. And then there will be a further wait until it goes to court. Should somebody have their wages withheld for years on end, perhaps being innocent the whole time? That's not how innocent until proven guilty works.

Of course YouTube haven't removed Brand's videos, they still make a lot of money out of them, they have just stopped Russell getting a share of any of that revenue. 'We think you're guilty and we are morally superior so you shouldn't be able to make a living but we are very happy to still earn money from your videos staying on our platform'.

To be honest, I'm surprised that Russell's videos have been allowed on YouTube for so long, with so many other smaller accounts being censored over the same topics, but that is for another conversation.

Secondly, Stephen Bowie, who was injured after an adverse reaction to the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine, has had one of his videos removed from YouTube. Nothing strange with that you might think, happens all the time.

What is strange and sinister, is that the video he posted was a YouTube live stream of the official UK Government Covid Inquiry. During the inquiry, Anna Morris KC, a Kings Counsel barrister, gave a testimony on vaccine related injuries. But YouTube didn't like this.

"We reviewed your content carefully, and have confirmed that it violates our medical misinformation policy. We know this is probably disappointing news, but it's our job to make sure that YouTube is a safe place for all"

Phew, so long as I'm safe.

Even a UK Government Inquiry can't get past the YouTube censors if it involves a verboten subject.

Andrew Bostom, MD, MS on X: "@diana_west_ Orwell, from 1984: "every statue & street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. & the process is continuing day by day &

Aletho News
20 Sep 2023 | 10:32 pm

5. The UK Passes Sweeping New Surveillance and Censorship Measures in The Online Safety Bill

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | September 20, 2023

The UK has passed its controversial online censorship act known as the Online Safety Bill. The bill, one of the widest sweeping attacks on privacy and free speech in a Western democracy will become law.

The bill seeks to shield internet users, especially youth, from the slingshots of malicious online content. But the bill goes beyond forcing platforms to remove illegal content. It calls upon social media giants to act as custodians, safeguarding users against ill-intent messages, cyberbullying, and explicit material.

Shrouded in a veil of safetyism and paying only lip service to privacy and free speech rights, we cannot cower from highlighting the bill's overt undertone of censorship, veering into a territory where freedom of speech and privacy might be sacrificed at the altar of digital safety.

Michelle Donelan, Technology Secretary, voiced her support for the bill, branding it as an "enormous step forward in our mission to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online." Under the proposed law, social media corporations will be forced into swift action, not just for removing violative content but also for hindering its emergence.

The implementation sword will be wielded by Ofcom, the communications regulator, with the law setting a stringent punishment pathway for non-compliers, inclusive of colossal fines and even incarceration.

The bill further pioneers new criminal offenses to its roster, like cyber-flashing and the distribution of manipulated explicit content, or deepfake pornography.

The bill imbues the government with tremendous power; the capability to demand that online services employ government-approved software to scan through user content, including photos, files, and messages, to identify illegal content. Non-compliance can result in severe penalties such as facing criminal charges.

From a free speech and anti-censorship perspective, this legislation is fundamentally disturbing. Critics argue this bill could enhance potential censorship on the pretext of safety.

The backdoor scanning system poses significant threats. It may be exploited by those with malicious intent, mishandled which could lead to false positives, resulting in unwarranted accusations of child abuse.

These alarming flaws render the online safety bill incompatible with end-to-end encryption – a staple for ensuring user privacy and security – and human rights.

The UK government has subtly conceded that it might not harness some elements of this law to their full potential. During the concluding discussion about the bill, a representative confirmed that the government would only order scans of user files when "technically feasible," and these orders would be subject to compatibility with UK and European human rights law. This acknowledgment seems a subtle retreat from a previously aggressive stance taken by the same representative.

On the same day of these declarations, it surfaced that the UK government conceded privately that technology capable of examining end-to-end encrypted messages while observing privacy rights does not exist.

But, citizens who value their privacy shouldn't have to rely on weak assurances from the government. The official safeguarding of privacy rights should be a priority. Rather than relying on murmurs of amendments, the government should offer comprehensive assurance through clear regulations and explicit protection policies for end-to-end encryption.

The bill, as it stands, allows the government to scan messages and photos, posing significant threats to security and privacy to internet users globally. These powers are enshrined in Clause 122 of the bill.

Several end-to-end encrypted service providers like WhatsApp, Signal, and UK-based Element have threatened to pull out their services from the UK if Ofcom demands examination of encrypted messages – an extreme but important move. This reaction is a testament to the perceived invasive nature of the Online Safety Bill.

Aletho News
20 Sep 2023 | 7:33 pm

6. Meet Ukrainian Military’s American Spokesman

Transgendered Sarah Ashton-Cirillo advocates free speech and killing journalists


As our world gets weirder by the second, it has become ever harder to know if what we are presented with is real. Every time someone sends a report or video that is purportedly a representation of factual reality, I try to evaluate if it's indeed real or if it's propaganda, black propaganda, satire, or the creation of a mentally ill person.

This morning I saw a story about an American transgendered woman named Sarah Ashton-Cirillo who claims to be a soldier and an official spokesman of the Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces. She is in the news because of a publicized spat she is having with Senator JD Vance of Ohio who has made an inquiry to determine is Sarah Ashton-Cirillo really is an official English language spokesman for the Ukrainian TDF. Spoiler Alert: She really is.

Vance became aware of Ashton-Cirillo after he saw a video of the spokesman announcing that journalists who disseminate Russian propaganda will be hunted down and killed. In this video, she proclaims:

Next week, the teeth of the Russian devils will gnash ever harder, and their rabid mouths will foam in uncontrollable frenzy as the world will see a favorite Kremlin propagandist pay for their crimes. This puppet of Putin is only the first. Russia's war criminal propagandists will all be hunted down and justice will be served.

In response to Senator Vance's query, Ashton-Cirillo posted yet another video in which she proclaims her support of the First Amendment, but hastens to add that reporting Russian propaganda is not protected by the First Amendment.

Who adjudicates what is Russian propaganda and what is merely critical reporting of the Ukrainian government and its U.S. government supporters?

The question touches on something I have frequently written about on this Substack—namely, the strange rise of ORTHODOXY in recent years. There are, we are told, certain major issues in which the ORTHODOX—that is, official U.S. government and MSM representations—cannot be questioned or criticized. Those who do question these orthodoxies will be censored, censured, or—if Ashton-Cirillo has her way—hunted down and killed.

The top four orthodoxies are what I call the Holy Quadripartitus of Piffle. They are:

1). COVID-19 vaccines are saving mankind. Anyone who questions the safety and efficacy of the vaccines is guilty of heresy.

2). The U.S. proxy war in Ukraine is a sacred mission and no negotiated settlement with Russia shall be countenanced. Anyone who criticizes the Ukrainian and U.S. governments, and any attempt to understand the war from the Russian point of view, is guilty of heresy.

3). Human induced climate change will soon destroy the earth if trillions aren't spent to overhaul our entire energy policy. Anyone who questions this proposition is guilty of heresy.

4). The concept of biological sex is a mere "construct." Skilled surgeons and endocrinologists can transform a boy into a girl or vice versa. Anyone who questions this assertion is guilty of heresy.

I reject the Holy Quadripartitus of Piffle as fanatical, obscurantist, mentally ill nonsense.

Aletho News
20 Sep 2023 | 4:40 pm

7. G7 believes Ukraine conflict will last until end of decade – Bloomberg

RT | September 20, 2023

The Russia-Ukraine conflict may extend for another six to seven years, according to a senior G7 official who spoke with Bloomberg. The official emphasized that Kiev's allies will confront various challenges as they endeavor to sustain their support for Ukraine.

In an article released on Tuesday, multiple officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, indicated that the prolonged timeline resulted from Ukraine's much-heralded counteroffensive progressing slowly, which has led to "tempered expectations."

Continuing to provide military and financial aid to Kiev for such a long conflict "won't be easy," said Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky. "It'll put a lot of pressure on societies, on governments, through different elections in Europe," he added, stressing that there has to be a "midterm strategy of long-term support to Ukraine."

One top European official informed Bloomberg that even with the support provided, Ukraine will likely grapple with challenges stemming from insufficient Western weapons supplies and the escalating toll of manpower losses.

Regardless of this dire outlook, Kiev and its allies remain opposed to negotiations and are unwilling to accept any resolution that does not include the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from territories Ukraine claims as its own, the officials told the outlet.

Kiev, for its part, has consistently emphasized its unwillingness to make any territorial concessions to Russia as part of potential peace agreements. In an interview with CBS News on Sunday, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky affirmed that despite the counteroffensive's slow pace, Ukraine remains committed to it regardless of adverse weather conditions or other factors.

Ukraine initiated its offensive in June; however, territorial gains have proven elusive, with heavy casualties being the predominant outcome. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ukraine has incurred substantial losses during this push, including over 71,000 troops, 543 tanks, and nearly 18,000 armored vehicles.

Last year, four former Ukrainian territories – the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics and the Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions – voted to join Moscow after holding public referendums. Kiev and its allies have refused to recognize the votes, while Zelensky has signed a decree banning any negotiations with the current Russian leadership.

Moscow, meanwhile, has repeatedly said that it has not closed the door on negotiations with Kiev but has urged the Ukrainian leadership to recognize the "realities on the ground."

Aletho News
20 Sep 2023 | 4:12 pm

8. Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh Agree on Ceasefire Through Coordination of Russian Peacekeepers – MoD

Sputnik – 20.09.2023

Azerbaijan and representatives of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh have agreed on a complete cessation of hostilities through the mediation of Russian peacekeepers, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Wednesday.

"Through the mediation of the command of the Russian peacekeeping contingent, an agreement was reached between the Azerbaijani side and representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh on a complete cessation of hostilities. The implementation of these agreements will be carried out in coordination with the command of the Russian peacekeeping contingent," the ministry said in a statement.

The Russian peacekeeping contingent in Nagorno-Karabakh is in contact with both Yerevan and Baku, discussing the prevention of bloodshed in the region, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Wednesday.

"The command of the Russian peacekeeping contingent is in close contact at the appropriate level with the Azerbaijani and Armenian sides, representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh. The prevention of bloodshed, compliance with the norms of humanitarian law in relation to the civilian population, as well as ensuring the safety of the Russian peacekeeping contingent are discussed," the ministry said in a statement.

Russian peacekeepers continue to perform their duties in Nagorno-Karabakh in aggravated conditions, the ministry said, adding that 2,261 civilians, including 1,049 children, are currently located in a base camp of peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh.

On Tuesday, Baku announced the launch of "local-level anti-terrorist activities" in Nagorno-Karabakh aimed at "restoring the constitutional order." It also said Azerbaijani forces only targeted military objects in Nagorno-Karabakh, while Armenian state media reported multiple casualties among civilians as a result of Azerbaijani strikes. Yerevan described the operation as aggression and reiterated that it had no military presence in the disputed region.

In 1923, the region was granted the status of an autonomous area called the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) within the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic.

In 1988, a movement for reunification with Armenia began in Nagorno-Karabakh. On September 2, 1991, it declared independence from Azerbaijan and changed its name to the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. From 1992 to 1994, Azerbaijan attempted to regain control over the self-declared republic, resulting in full-scale military hostilities in which up to 30,000 people lost their lives.

In 1994, the parties agreed to a ceasefire, but the status of the republic remained undetermined. In late September 2020, hostilities resumed in Nagorno-Karabakh. On the night of November 10, Azerbaijan and Armenia, with Moscow's support, reached a comprehensive ceasefire agreement, maintaining their respective positions and exchanging prisoners of war and the bodies of the deceased. Russian peacekeepers were deployed in the region, including the Lachin Corridor.

In 2022 with the mediation of Russia, the United States, and the European Union, Yerevan and Baku began discussing the terms of a future peace agreement. In late May of this year, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan declared that Yerevan was ready to recognize Azerbaijan's sovereignty within its Soviet-era borders, including Karabakh.

In September 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin noted that the Armenian leadership had essentially recognized Azerbaijan's sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijani leader Ilham Aliyev said that Azerbaijan and Armenia could sign a peace agreement by the end of the year if Yerevan did not change its stance.

Aletho News
20 Sep 2023 | 3:43 pm

9. Lavrov’s claim that America is at war with Russia is no ‘exaggeration’

By Drago Bosnic | September 20, 2023

Since the start of Russia's special military operation (SMO) against NATO's crawling encroachment on its borders, the United States has been adamant that it's "not a party to the conflict" and that it supposedly "doesn't want escalation with Moscow". However, time proved both of these statements to be patently false. According to the claims of the Neo-Nazi junta itself, the US controls the targeting of every long-range weapon deployed by the Kiev regime forces. On the other hand, the falsehood of the laughable claim that Washington DC "doesn't want war" is painfully obvious to anyone remotely familiar with its neverending escalation aimed against Russia.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is certainly aware of all this, although basic diplomatic etiquette prevented him from stating the obvious in the past. And yet, after well over a year and a half of being exposed to the blatant hypocrisy of the political West, it seems that even the usually reserved Lavrov has stopped holding back, as trying to follow diplomatic protocols when dealing with someone who openly breaks them is simply futile and ultimately self-defeating. Namely, in recent remarks for the press, the Russian Foreign Minister said that the US is waging war against Russia. Strong statement, one might say, but who could possibly refute it given the ongoing events?

Even if we don't count statements made by top-level US officials, including Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin's admission that Washington DC wants to see a "strategic defeat" inflicted on Russia and President Joe Biden's Freudian slip that "Putin cannot stay in power", the evidence that supports Lavrov's claim is simply overwhelming and we're seeing it every single day. He also pointed out the fact that the US is not only transferring enormous amounts of so-called "lethal aid" to the Neo-Nazi junta (worth hundreds of billions at this point), but is actually controlling these weapons through direct decision-making while maintaining plausible deniability.

Lavrov himself also reiterated Austin's admission that this is because the belligerent thalassocracy wants to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia. The statements about US belligerence were given while he was speaking on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum on the morning of September 17, where he pointed out that "no matter what it says, it [the US] controls this war, it supplies weapons, munitions, intelligence information, data from satellites, it is pursuing a war against us". Lavrov also stated that Ukraine is simply being used as a springboard to achieve American strategic goals, as it was being prepared for the ongoing conflict years in advance.

"There is a real plot around the topic of the so-called (peace) negotiations, as well as attempts to turn everything upside down through pseudo diplomacy," he said just two days prior, adding: "The West has been saying for months that this 'peace formula' is the only basis for negotiations. It starts from innocent topics … and then comes to the purpose for which it was concocted – inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia, to restore the borders of Ukraine as they were in 1991, court-martial the Russian leadership, force Russia to pay reparations, and then 'mercifully' agree to sign a peace agreement."

Lavrov made the said comments on September 15, referring to the abortive Saudi-hosted "peace talks" and added that this pattern of double standards and hypocrisy is also used when dealing with most other countries.

"These are exactly the dirty methods that the West uses not only in relation to Ukraine but in many other areas of global politics," he stated.

The recent direct endorsement US Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave for the Kiev regime's long-range strikes on targets within Russia is yet another proof of Lavrov's claims. Namely, during an interview with ABC News on September 10, Blinken stated that it was supposedly "up to Ukraine" whether or not it should target Russia proper with US-made long-range weapons. The idea that the Kiev regime could ever make such a decision on its own is beyond laughable, which means that it's the belligerent thalassocracy itself that ordered the Neo-Nazi junta to target areas deeper within Russia in order to inflict maximum damage with minimal investment or risk for itself.

Blinken's statement came only a day after ABC News reported that the US would provide the ATACMS to the Kiev regime. The range of these missiles, while hardly groundbreaking, is enough to jeopardize not only Russian supply lines, but also civilian infrastructure hundreds of kilometers behind the frontlines. And yet, this isn't the only danger Lavrov pointed out thus far, as back in early June, he warned that nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets could lead to an uncontrollable escalation that Russia will certainly not tolerate. He stressed that Moscow would be forced to respond militarily, meaning that NATO would also be held directly responsible in that case.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Aletho News
20 Sep 2023 | 1:46 am

10. Unrest grows in US-occupied Syria after Kurdish proxy hikes fuel prices by 300 percent

The Cradle | September 19, 2023

Syrians living under the de-facto rule of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) in Hasakah governorate have launched mass demonstrations and a general strike to oppose a fuel price hike of over 300 percent for public transport and industrial vehicles.

The unprecedented protests have grown in scope after Kurdish authorities announced that reversing the decision is "almost impossible," citing the country's deteriorating economic situation. While fuel prices for vehicles were hiked from 525 to 2,050 Syrian pounds, the fuel price for heating, agriculture, and electric generators remains the same.

Protesters have been blocking roads and shutting down businesses for several days in the towns of Qamishli, Rumailan, and Mabada, accusing the US-backed authorities of plundering Syria's wealth for their own benefit. Demonstrations have also been called in the regions of Raqqa, Manbij, and Ain al-Arab, which could lead to significant economic repercussions in all areas under the control of the AANES and its official military force – the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

"The people went out to express their rejection of the policies of AANES, which aim to impoverish the people and push them to migrate," a demonstrator in Qamishli told Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar.

"There was a consensus to provide and improve the quality of diesel in exchange for increasing its prices," the head of the AANES fuel management authority, Abeer Khaled, recently told reporters, adding that "it is difficult to retract or modify the decision to increase [considering that] raising prices will contribute to reducing fuel smuggling operations outside areas under the control of AANES.

In 2021, AANES reversed a similar decision to hike fuel prices after intense clashes between locals and the SDF left several dead.

The territory occupied by the SDF and the US army in Syria's northeast houses the country's largest oil and gas fields, as well as vast wheat fields.

Washington's forces regularly smuggle these resources via convoys to their bases in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR), where the oil and gas are sold to fund the operations of US proxy militias and de facto authorities.

The protests in Hasakah come as armed operations continue in neighboring Deir Ezzor governorate by Syrian Arab tribes who have been staging a rebellion against Kurdish forces. While heavy clashes have subsided for the most part, the region is still seeing sporadic attacks targeting the SDF.

Text to Speech by: ResponsiveVoice-NonCommercial licensed under 95x15
strona nie używa cookies, nie szpieguje, nie śledzi
do obsługi strony sprawdzamy:
kraj: US · miasto: North · ip:
urządzenie: computer · przeglądarka: CCBot 2 · platforma:
licznik: 1 · online:
created and powered by: - profesjonalne responsywne strony internetowe
 proszę czekać ładowanie danych...