The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine

The Most Revolutionary Act

About stuartbramhall

Retired child and adolescent psychiatrist and American expatriate in New Zealand. In 2002, I made the difficult decision to close my 25-year Seattle practice after 15 years of covert FBI harassment. I describe the unrelenting phone harassment, illegal break-ins and six attempts on my life in my 2010 book The Most Revolutionary Act: Memoir of an American Refugee.

Fracking Company Admits Criminal Responsibility, Will Pay $16.29 Million to Build Pennsylvania Water System

Coterra Energy (formerly Cabot Oil & Gas), the gas-drilling company made famous by the documentary “Gasland,” will pay $16.29 million to connect the homes of residents in the rural Pennsylvania community of Dimock to a clean water source.

The gas-drilling company made famous by the documentary “Gasland” will pay $16.29 million to connect the homes of residents in the rural Pennsylvania community of Dimock to a clean water source. The company also will pay the residents’ water bills for 75 years.

In a landmark decision announced Tuesday, Houston-based Coterra Energy (formerly Cabot Oil & Gas) pleaded no contest to a slate of criminal environmental charges. The deal culminated 14 years of frustration and uncertainty for hundreds of residents in rural northeastern Pennsylvania.

In Pennsylvania, a no-contest plea means the company has accepted criminal responsibility.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who announced the plea deal, filed the original charges against the drilling company in June 2020, after a grand jury investigation found the company’s gas wells were “faulty,” resulting in flammable methane leaking into aquifers in Dimock and the surrounding area.

In what The Associated Press described as “one of the most prominent pollution cases ever to emerge from the U.S. drilling and fracking boom,” prosecutors and local residents claimed that not only did the company’s fracking activities pollute the community’s groundwater, but that Coterra tried to evade responsibility.

Craig Stevens, a resident of the affected region and advocate for local residents, said Coterra faced 15 criminal charges, including nine felonies and six misdemeanors.

Despite the company’s claims that the gas in local groundwater was “naturally occurring,” the company faced — and ultimately pled no contest to — charges that included the illegal discharge of industrial wastes and unlawful conduct under Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law.

Commenting on the plea deal, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief litigation counsel at Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender:

“I visited Dimock in 2010 and watched fires come from people’s faucets while the gas companies were denying everything. A dozen of the activists who hosted my visit have since died of cancer and other diseases that are plausibly related to contamination.

“I’m grateful for this victory and Attorney General Josh Shapiro for standing up to the fracking industry. This is the first time that an active driller has ever been held responsible for poisoning water and ruining people’s lives.”

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, applauded the deal, but also called on elected officials to do more.

“After more than a decade of glaring inaction from state and federal leaders, finally the people of Dimock have a measure of justice thanks to the work of Attorney General Shapiro,” Hauter said.


Settlement better than a guilty verdict, attorney general says

The plea deal includes a plan to deliver “a clean, reliable supply of drinking water” to the affected area. The plan stems from tests that were ordered by the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office for dozens of homes in the region.

Affected residents were briefed on the plan Nov. 21. Pennsylvania American Water will drill two wells — a “public groundwater system” — and a treatment plant that will remove contaminants from the water. The water will be piped to approximately 20 homes.


The grand jury in 2020 was critical of the company’s “long-term indifference to the damage it caused to the environment and citizens of Susquehanna County,” where many residents used bottled water, bulk water purchased commercially, or water “drawn from creeks and artesian wells” instead of their own well water.

Faucets on fire caught attention of international politicians, documentary filmmakers — but not local officials

Troubles for the residents of Dimock — about 150 miles north of Philadelphia — and the surrounding area began Sept. 11, 2008, according to Stevens.

“That’s when Cabot Oil & Gas was drilling, fracking vertical wells, and they had three private water wells go bad in a 24-hour period. That was 14 years ago,” said Stevens.

An exploding water well caught the public’s attention, as did reports by area residents of symptoms such as dizziness, rashes and vomiting, which they blamed on their well water.

Awareness of the events in Dimock soon spread beyond the boundaries of this rural area. The Emmy Award-winning documentary “Gasland,” released in 2010, showed residents of the region setting their tap water on fire.

Largest-ever investigation of environmental crimes in Pennsylvania 

Stevens told The Defender he called the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office “every week for seven-and-a-half years, from the time I moved here in 2010, until 2017.”

During that entire time, he got no response, until Shapiro — the current attorney general and governor-elect of Pennsylvania — entered office.


“[Shapiro] offered Ray Kemble and myself to go to Harrisburg back on May 4, 2017, to present our case to the Environmental Crimes Division, which we did. They gave us three hours that turned into five.

“Those five hours turned into the largest investigation of environmental crimes in the history of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And that turned into, I believe, six grand juries. We know of three or four already, but there might be another couple more. One of the grand jury presentations was about Cabot Oil & Gas harming and destroying the water of the people in Dimock.”


Dimock’s water contaminated with methane, bacteria, radium

Pennsylvania American Water, the firm that will develop a new “public groundwater system” as part of the plea agreement reached with Coterra Energy, previously was involved in Pennsylvania’s abandoned efforts to connect Dimock residents to an existing municipal water system from a nearby town, approximately six miles away.


This changed, however, when a new governor took office in Pennsylvania in 2011, Republican Tom Corbett.

“When he was sworn in, he basically told the DEP [Department of Environmental Protection] secretary that if you build it [the water pipeline], he would tear it out. He wasn’t kidding. They knew he wasn’t kidding.

“By Nov. 30, 2011, he had the water deliveries stopped, even though the groundwater was still bad. As governor, he ordered the DEP to stop delivering water or having Cabot deliver water.”

The solution later proposed by Cabot and state prosecutors was far different — and less expensive. Cabot agreed to pay residents $4.1 million to install individual water treatment systems in each affected home, as part of a settlement between the state and Cabot.

The settlement, however, was “struck without residents’ input or consent” and “infuriated those who had made it clear they did not trust Cabot with their water,” even though “many residents took the money — and the treatment systems.”

According to many residents who accepted this deal, the systems never worked properly, forcing them to go back to purchasing water or having it delivered to their homes as before. As a result, they rejected a December 2021 proposal by the attorney general’s office that the company pay for replacement treatment systems.

Highlighting the lack of functionality of the treatment systems, water tests showed high levels of methane, an explosive gas that can cause asphyxiation. Bacteria were found in the water in other homes, with an expert biochemist reporting that the natural gas created conditions where bacteria “could survive and proliferate.”

In addition to methane and bacterial contamination, Stevens says that the gas — and therefore the groundwater — in the Dimock area also contains radon.


‘This stuff is poison,’ but federal environmental agencies took no action

In the midst of all of the above, federal agencies came to the region, but did not acknowledge that there was any problem or any dangerous threat to public health or local residents.

“We got the ATSDR [Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry] and the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] involved,” Stevens said. “We got them to come in. Barack Obama’s EPA came in. They spent six months living in Dimock, and they tested 63 private water wells. And every month, they declared there was no problem … they kept saying ‘oh, the water is great.’



French study looks at potential for fully covid jabbed to “shed” byproducts onto others

Dr Eddy Betterman

New research published in the journal Infectious Diseases Research unpacks what is currently known about the “shedding” of Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines.”

Helene Banoun from the Independent Scientific Council in France addresses the excretion of messenger RNA (mRNA) and spike proteins from the jabs, which we know do not remain at the site of injection as was initially claimed. Not only do they circulate throughout the body of the recipient, but they also shed onto others, it would seem.

“The mRNA vaccines correspond exactly to the definition of gene therapy of the American and European regulatory agencies,” Banoun writes. “The regulations require excretion studies of these drugs and their products (the translated proteins). These studies have not been done for mRNA vaccines (nor for adenovirus vaccines).”

“There are numerous reports of symptoms and pathologies identical to the adverse effects of mRNA vaccines in unvaccinated persons in contact with freshly vaccinated persons. It is therefore important to review the state of knowledge on the possible excretion of vaccine nanoparticles as well as mRNA and its product, the spike protein.” (Related: Check out this interview with Dr. Christian Northrup who talks about covid jab spike protein “shedding.”)

The law requires investigation into the secretion of gene therapy, so why was it never done?

Banoun further explains how animal studies show that mRNA-carrying lipid nanoparticles circulate throughout the body and lodge their way into the bloodstream. The jab vial contents have also been found to excrete in bodily fluids such as sweat, sputum and breast milk, as well as through the transplacental barrier.

“These EVs are also able to penetrate by inhalation and through the skin (healthy or injured) as well as orally through breast milk (and why not during sexual intercourse through semen, as this has not been studied),” Banoun adds.

“It is urgent to enforce the legislation on gene therapy that applies to mRNA vaccines and to carry out studies on this subject while the generalization of mRNA vaccines is being considered.”

Banoun does clarify in her paper that “vaccine shedding” refers to the potential for jab chemicals to excrete and pass on to others after a person has been “freshly vaccinated,” the implication being that the shedding window might be relatively small.

Since no full-scale studies have been conducted, though, there is really no way to know just how long a fully jabbed person can shed after the needle has left the arm, hence why she and others are now looking into it.

“… this is valid only for live attenuated virus vaccines (measles / mumps / rubella [MMR], chickenpox, rotavirus, nasal spray influenza),” she writes.

“No COVID-19 vaccine uses this formula. Therefore, there is no risk that a vaccine recipient will transmit a vaccine virus. However, mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are the first to be used commercially in humans on a global scale and no studies have been conducted regarding the possible excretion of the vaccine itself (lipid nanoparticles containing mRNA) of the vaccine mRNA or of the vaccine product, the spike protein translated by the cells of the vaccinee.”

Banoun says that upon first hearing about the possibility of covid jab shedding, she was skeptical. However, upon investigation, she discovered that there have been verifiable cases in which nanoparticles and other jab substances have transmitted from the jabbed to the non-jabbed.

“There are many testimonies of non-vaccinated persons who experienced symptoms identical to the adverse effects of the vaccine after having been in contact with freshly vaccinated persons,” she concludes.



New Zealand Health Authorities Try to Medically Kidnap Four-month Old Needing Surgery Because Parents Want Unvaccinated Blood

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

Health Authorities in New Zealand are trying to take custody of a 4-month-old baby that needs heart surgery, because the parents don’t want the baby to receive blood from someone who has been vaccinated against COVID-19.

According to an interview with the parents, the parents are not refusing medical treatment, and agree with the doctors who state that their baby needs immediate heart surgery.

They just want to donate their own blood from their own donors, and they claim they already have more than 20 pediatric donors who have been screened and could donate their blood for the needed surgery.

But doctors are refusing, because they claim the parents’ beliefs are unfounded and that vaccinated blood is perfectly safe. The corporate media in New Zealand is branding the parents as crazy anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists.

I have read two articles in the corporate news, one from The Guardian, and one from, and both sources make it sound like the parents are refusing “life-saving treatment” for their baby due to their “conspiracy” beliefs.

But a former TV news reporter, Liz Gunn, who is now with FreeNZ Media, attended a meeting the parents had with health authorities and also interviewed the parents afterwards, so that the public can hear directly from the parents themselves regarding what their desires are.

They state that they want what’s best for their 4-month-old baby, and that they agree with the doctors, but simply want unvaccinated blood.

According to Liz Gunn, doctors bullied the mother and tried to get her to see a psychologist.

This is something I warned the public about a few days ago, when I reported how medical authorities are now trying to label antivaxxers as mentally insane and dangerous, and that one of the results of doing so would be to take away their children if they refused vaccines. See:

The surgeon scheduled to do the surgery on the baby allegedly said, “I will not call the blood bank” to make a request that they collect blood from unvaccinated donors

When asked why, he allegedly responded: “Because I don’t believe in what you’re saying.”

To which Liz Gunn replied: “We don’t need your belief, we just need you to listen to the parents and what they want.”


There was a court hearing today in Auckland, November 30, 2022, but it was just an “administrative” hearing to set the date for an “urgent hearing.”

Protesters showed up to demonstrate, so apparently Liz Gunn’s video is having some effects in countering the negative press of the corporate media.

I know we have readers in New Zealand, so please share this video with as many people as you can and help stand with these parents against medical tyranny.

The title of the video is appropriately titled: Freedom to Choose Clean Blood.

These kind of “blood wars” over vaccinated and unvaccinated blood are just going to get worse, as are medical kidnappings from parents who choose not to vaccinate their children.

If you are not yet familiar with the blood clot issues with those who receive COVID-19 vaccines, please see:

FreeNZ Media has also published an update on this story from the court hearing earlier today.





Abandoning Vaccine Safety Testing

'SAFE & EFFECTIVE' - Realistic illustration of a word made by wood and ...


Story at-a-glance

  • In recent months, two Pfizer officials have bragged about moving vaccine science forward at a speed that disallows proper scientific protocols from being followed, and the release of reformulated mRNA COVID boosters without testing is now the norm
  • In November 2022, recently retired head of vaccine R&D at Pfizer, Kathrin Jansen, said “we flew the aeroplane while we were still building it. We couldn’t wait for data, we had to do so much at risk.” Pfizer compressed its vaccine development timeline from 10 years to a mere nine months by simultaneously developing and testing the product in human trials
  • Pfizer and other COVID jab makers hid side effects by eliminating the control groups long before the studies were over
  • Vaccine makers are readying to release other mRNA shots, many of which are being fast-tracked and predicted to receive authorization in months rather than years. Moderna is working on a three-in-one shot for COVID, flu and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), and they seem to expect releasing it before clinical trials are finished
  • Pfizer quoted and relied on data from Israel when it sought approval from the FDA, and as it turns out, the Israeli government hid information about side effects. It didn’t even implement its surveillance system until a year after the shots rolled out, and when the data were analyzed, researchers concluded there were causative links between certain side effects and the jabs

Video Link

In the video above, Del Bigtree with The Highwire reviews how the precautionary principle and long-standing safety guidelines in medicine have been eliminated with the COVID shots, and how data showing harms are being ignored, suppressed and manipulated to hide the truth.

In recent months, no less than two Pfizer officials have bragged about moving vaccine science forward at a speed that virtually guarantees that proper scientific protocols will be abandoned.


As noted in that interview, Pfizer compressed its vaccine development timeline from 10 years to a mere nine months. Well, you cannot do that unless you cut certain corners and develop and test the product more or less simultaneously. In this case, human trials began even though the preliminary testing was extremely minimal.


They Did Everything at Your Risk

“We got creative — we couldn’t wait for data, we had to do so much ‘at risk,’” Jansen said. There are those words again — doing everything “at risk.” In other words, the risks were not part of the equation, and let’s be clear, the risk they’re referring to is the risk a person takes when they take the shot.

Pfizer’s primary focus was to create a shot that minimized the symptoms of infection, but aside from that, there was no time to assess side effects or long-term drawbacks of the technology, such as antibody-dependent enhancement, myocarditis, or spontaneous abortions.

This is probably why Pfizer and the other COVID jab makers all decided to eliminate the control groups long before the studies were even over. This way, side effects could be hidden, and we see the effects of that decision now. 

Myocarditis, blood clots, lethal heart attacks, strokes, cancer and sudden death are all skyrocketing, but since there’s no official control group to compare with, those trends are written off as either normal or coincidental. You’ve probably seen that heart attacks are now blamed on everything from hot weather and cold showers to soil microbes in your garden, climate change and loud noises.


Other mRNA Approvals Expected With Little or No Data

For example, Moderna is working on a three-in-one shot for COVID, flu and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), and they seem to fully expect releasing it before clinical trials are finished. As reported by CBC News:4

In addition to fast-tracking mRNA injections for a variety of respiratory viruses, vaccine makers are also loading their pipelines with mRNA shots for diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis (MS), birth defects and rarer diseases.

Curiously, while mRNA shots are being hailed as the new and improved answer for every ill, Moderna president Stephen Hoge and chief technical officer Juan Andres cashed out hundreds of millions of their stock options earlier this year,5 which seems odd if everything is going well and no future trouble is expected.

Government and Corporate Interests Have Become One

Aiding and abetting the circumvention of the precautionary principle are contract research firms that run medical research trials for drug companies and federal agencies alike, thereby giving the drug companies the inside track on drug approvals.6,7

As noted by investigative journalist Paul Thacker, the COVID pandemic has erased the boundaries between corporate interests and those of our government, and with that, there are few left to with the National Institutes of Health to determine how companies run some drug trials; Pfizer hired a CRO to run their COVID-19 vaccine trial; a CRO calmed fears about the safety of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine after the FDA and NIH


Making an already dangerous situation worse, vaccine companies and governments are working overtime to hide and suppress data showing the COVID jabs are a medical disaster, and have hidden unfavorable data from the very beginning. The basic data gathering has also been shockingly lax across the world, considering the stakes.

As noted by MIT professor Retsef Levi in The Epoch Times interview above,9,10 Pfizer quoted and relied on data from Israel when it sought approval from the FDA, and as it turns out, the Israeli government hid information about side effects.

Even more surprising, Levi claims the Israeli government lied when it said it had a robust system for monitoring and tracking side effects from the start. That surveillance system wasn’t launched until a year after the rollout of the shots, Levi says. A research team was eventually hired to analyze the data, and their findings were disconcerting.

Unlike what was told to the public, many of the side effects were both common and long-lasting. The Ministry of Health was advised to think in terms of “medical-legal” when communicating this to the public, as the Ministry might be held liable for telling the public side effects were rare and of short duration.

In other words, they were informed they’d grossly misinformed the public and could be held accountable for injuries. The Ministry’s solution? Fire the research team and alter the report’s data and conclusions.

In the interview, Levi explains how some of the data manipulation was done. For example, they massively lowered the number of post-jab menstrual irregularities by counting both women and men. You don’t need to be a scientist to realize that by counting men, who cannot menstruate, you end up with a wild misrepresentation of the incidence of menstrual irregularities.


Most egregious of all, the Ministry hid the fact that the research team found clear evidence of causality, as patients, when rechallenged with another dose, would experience a resurgence of symptoms and/or a worsening of symptoms. Adding insult to injury, even though the Ministry knows exactly who these patients are, they have not reached out to help them medically or compensate them for injuries that have been clearly linked to the shots.



New Zealand Booster Campaign Linked to Excess Deaths

Similarly, an earlier study13,14,15 published June 28, 2022, found that, in New Zealand, the age groups that were most likely to have received a COVID booster in the winter of 2021 had 7% to 10% more excess deaths than age groups that were ineligible for boosters.



Birth of the Peoples Republic of China

Sun Yat-sen - Kids | Britannica Kids | Homework Help

First President of China Sun Yat-sen

Episode 43: People’s Republic of China

Foundations of Eastern Civilization

Dr Craig Benjamin (2013)

Film Review

According to Benjamin, China was under continuous upheaval during the first four decades of the 20th century. Sun Yat-sen became provisional Chinese president after the emperor abdicated. He resigned in 1911 in favor of General Yuan Shikai. Under Shikai, China’s central government ran the post office and a few other agencies, for most of Shikai’s tenure, the country was run by warlords who revived the opium trade.

After Shikai died in 1916, Sun Yat-sen was unsuccessful in restoring order. In 1919 after the Versailles Treaty granted Japan control of China, the May 4th Movement erupted throughout China demanding an end to foreign control. In 1921 an offshoot of May 4th formed the Communist Party of China.

Following a brief alliance with the CPC, Sun Yat-sen allied himself with General Chiang Kai-shek to form the Chinese National Party (Kuomintang). In 1927, the general’s troops. brutally attacked the communist-led labor movement in Shangai, forcing the communists into an isolated region in southeast China.

In 1928 Chiang Kai-shek wrested control of Beijing from Japan and established a central government in Nanjing. He ruled for nine years as a one-party dictatorship “readying China for democracy.” Despite enacting trade tariffs and revoking many foreign concessions, he never gained the peasants’ support.

After invading Manchuria in 1932, the Japanese established the puppet state of Manchuko with the former emperor Puji as the puppet ruler.

In 1934, Chiag Kai-shek launched a full scale war against the Chinese communists, killing a million members and sympathizers. Becoming president of the CPC, with Zhou En Lai his deputy, Mao led the 86,000 remaining members on a 8,000 mile strategic retreat (which he named the Long March).

In 1937, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao agreed to unite against Japanese invaders with a total military force of 1.3 million. Engaging mainly in guerilla tactics, Mao became very popular with the Chinese peasants.

Following Chiang Kai-shek’s withdrawal to Taiwan in 1943, Mao declared the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949. In December 1949, he left China for the first time to meet with Stalin.

Benjamin gives a very cursory overview of the rapid industrialization of the People’s Republic of China, their Great Leap Forward (1959-62) which collectivized Chinese farms (resulting in three years of famine and the death of 20 million people), their break with the Soviet Union in 1964, and the Cultural Revolution in 1966. The latter endeavored to root out pro-capitalist party members by beating and killing them and sending them to labor camps. According to Benjamin, the Cultural Revolution didn’t formally end until Mao’s death in 1976.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

CDC Report: COVID Bivalent Booster Falls Flat in First ‘Real-World’ Test

By  Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. Madhava Setty, M.D.

Results from a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report suggest the COVID-19 bivalent booster does little more than restore protection levels to pre-vaccination levels.

The only “emergency” was that collapsing demand for Pfizer’s original shots had caused a lapse in the drugmaker’s windfall profits.

Responding to this embarrassment, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last week published the first data on efficacy of the bivalent boosters.

Using the agency’s own data and methodology, we calculate an effectiveness of 9% compared to no vaccine at all. However, inexplicably, the CDC reported an effectiveness in the range of 19% to 50%, depending on previous vaccination history.

Even accepting the CDC’s computation, the FDA’s authorization was illegal because their rules demand a minimal efficacy of 50% for emergency use authorization.

It gets more interesting when we look at subjects in the study who were fully vaccinated but did not get the new booster. They did much worse than the unvaccinated. This is more evidence of something we reported in the past: Modest efficacy of the COVID-19 “vaccines” lasts a short while, then falls to zero and continues falling well below zero. A few months after vaccination, the vaccinated are more likely to get COVID-19 than the unvaccinated.

Breaking down the study

The study in question is a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) released Nov. 22 by the CDC that purportedly demonstrated a protective benefit of the bivalent COVID-19 booster that was authorized for emergency use on Sept. 1 of this year.

The CDC authors offered some rare transparency up front:

“Postauthorization immunogenicity studies have shown similar neutralizing antibody titers to BA.4/BA.5 after receipt of either a monovalent or BA.4/BA.5–containing bivalent vaccine as a fourth dose; however, immunogenicity studies are not generally designed to measure clinical impact.”

Let’s break that down …

First, “immunogenicity” refers to an immune response in the form of antibody production that can be detected in a blood test. It’s a further leap to draw conclusions about how your body will respond when it is exposed to an actual virus.

Nevertheless, there is no requirement for Pfizer and Moderna to demonstrate that their new booster formulation will prevent COVID-19 or any other clinical outcome.

Second, the studies have not shown that the bivalent booster produces an antibody response to the new Omicron subvariants that is any better than an additional booster with the original COVID-19 shot.

Given these first two points, evidence of any form of booster effectiveness would be a remarkable finding from the start.

Third, the studies were conducted after authorization was granted, i.e. “post-authorization.” This is the Alice in Wonderland script, where the trial takes place after the execution.

And this new after-the-fact “trial” is not a double-blind placebo-controlled study of the type that was done two years ago for the original mRNA products. The MMWR study was based on data from people who came in for COVID-19 testing at their local drug stores.

All “participants” were sick. Every person had a respiratory disease with symptoms similar to COVID-19. So the study was capable only of distinguishing people who were sick with COVID-19 from people who were just as sick but tested negative for the virus.

If people are equally sick, why do they care if they test positive for COVID-19? People opt for preventive therapies not to prevent a positive test, but to keep them from getting sick. This study design offered no information about the only interesting question.

Thus, as a test of “vaccine efficacy,” this study design was dead on arrival. It was a non-starter.

What the CDC data show


The CDC reported that the bivalent booster offered a modest benefit in avoiding a positive COVID-19 test compared to those who received the primary series with or without one or two monovalent boosters. The estimated bivalent booster effectiveness ranged from 14% to 61%, depending on age, number of monovalent boosters and elapsed time since last dose.


We were unable to replicate their findings because the authors did not share the raw numbers for each subgroup in their report.

However, our own calculation, based on their methodology applied to the aggregate data of all subgroups, resulted in a bivalent booster effectiveness of only 9%.

Read between the lines: negative efficacy


This clearly implies — though it was not stated — that the vaccinated are more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than the unvaccinated.

According to our calculation (based on the CDC’s data and methodology), the vaccine effectiveness in preventing a positive COVID-19 test was -17% for people who had received two shots, -36% for three shots and -45% for four shots.

This is prima-facie evidence that the more monovalent shots people had, the less protected they were.

To reiterate: Vaccination with the monovalent booster resulted in negative effectiveness. The greater the number of doses, the greater the risk of contracting COVID-19. This constitutes a dose-dependent effect, one of the hallmarks of causality.

As stated above, the effectiveness of the bivalent booster across all ages and prior monovalent doses was a mere 9% compared to those who were unvaccinated. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the bivalent booster does little more than restore immunity to pre-vaccination levels.

And this meager 9% protection is not without cost. These mRNA products have far higher rates of severe adverse reactions, including death, than any vaccines in the past.

Nevertheless, the CDC authors summarized it this way:

“In this study of vaccine effectiveness of the U.S.-authorized bivalent mRNA booster formulations, bivalent boosters provided significant additional protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in persons who had previously received 2, 3, or 4 monovalent vaccine doses.”


“Protecting from severe COVID-19” is exactly what people considering the new booster would want to hear. But it is utterly baseless. The report did not measure the incidence of severe COVID-19. “Severe COVID-19” is not mentioned anywhere in the report.

Nevertheless, billions of taxpayer dollars have already been used to purchase 170 million doses of the new bivalent product.

Some other mainstream reports have been more skeptical of the new boosters. The New York Times, a reliable bullhorn for the CDC’s “recommendations” did not cover this story. However, several days prior to the MMWR release, the Times ran this story, “Will Covid Boosters Prevent Another Wave? Scientists Aren’t So Sure.” Dr. Meryl Nass dissected this remarkable critique from the Times.

The newest findings demonstrate that anywhere from two to five doses later, those who have dutifully followed the CDC’s “guidance” are back to square one. However, media coverage of this two-year-long exercise in futility may finally be shifting.



Google, YouTube Invest $12 Million in Global Fact-Checking Media Network

By  Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.

Reacting to Tuesday’s announcement that Google and YouTube will fund a global fact-checking network through the media institute Poynter, media expert Mark Crispin Miller, Ph.D., said, “This is grotesque — almost to the point of comedy, except it’s not funny.”

The money is part of a $13.5 million grant the tech companies awarded the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), a division of the nonprofit media institute Poynter, according to Mashable.

The money will go toward scaling up existing operations of Poynter’s IFCN, and also toward launching new initiatives to elevate what the IFCN deems to be “information” and reduce what it deems to be “misinformation,” the companies said.

“The world needs fact-checking more than ever before,” said Baybars Örsek, executive director of the IFCN. “This partnership with Google and YouTube infuses financial support to global fact-checkers and is a step in the right direction.”

However, Mark Crispin Miller, Ph.D., professor of media studies at New York University, told The Defender he found the development to be “grotesque — almost to the point of comedy, except that it’s not funny.”

Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., author of “Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom,” also criticized Google and YouTube’s financial partnership with the IFCN, telling The Defender:

“Google and YouTube are not purveyors of information; they are tools for the totalitarian control of information. They have engaged in censorship, down-ranking, and black-listing information, likely since their inception.


Are fact checks statements of opinion or statements of fact?

The distinction between what constitutes “information” versus what constitutes “misinformation” is arbitrary and depends on whether it aligns with the preferred narrative of those in power, Rectenwald said.

“‘Misinformation’ means anything that runs counter to the regime’s narratives on any number of issues, including international policy and warfare, economics and recession, pandemics and vaccines, politics and elections, the global elites, climate change and The Great Reset that is being ushered in as we speak.”

Moreover, according to Facebook, “Fact checks” are statements of opinion, and as such, are protected under the First Amendment  — that’s what the social media giant argued when, after it was sued for defamation, the company claimed its “fact checks” aren’t factual assertions.

In November 2020, Children’s Health Defense filed a First and Fifth Amendment lawsuit against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and two of Facebook’s “fact-checkers” for illegal censorship and false promotion/false misrepresentations under federal law (the Lanham Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act).

Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, told The Defender Google and YouTube have suppressed free speech on key issues.

Younes is involved in a lawsuit against the Biden administration alleging government officials — including Dr. Anthony Fauci — colluded with Big Tech to censor the opinions of the scientists who wrote the “Great Barrington Declaration.”

Google manipulated its algorithm to ensure the Great Barrington Declaration was more or less hidden from the public,” Younes said. “YouTube has been among the worst offenders in censoring expression of non-government-approved views on COVID-19 and thereby stifling debate.”

She added:

“The company even went so far as to censor a video of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, epidemiologists Jayanta Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta, and Martin Kulldorff — the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration — and former White House COVID-19 advisor Scott Atlas, in which they discussed efficacy (or lack thereof) of masks and other COVID-19 restrictions.

“We know through public statements made by high-ranking members of the Biden administration, and internal documents obtained through discovery in Missouri v. Biden and other cases, that the government has been behind much of this censorship.

“We look forward to learning more about just how much YouTube and Google have been colluding with, and coerced by, the government as these cases progress through the court system.”

Crispin Miller said Google and YouTube’s financial partnership with the IFCN reminded him of the “Ministry of Truth” in George Orwell’s novel, “1984.” He also pointed out that Orwell based the book’s central character — Winston Smith, who works at the Ministry of Truth — on Orwell’s own experience working at the BBC during World War II writing propaganda broadcasts.

“That’s significant because the Ministry of Truth is a satire version of the media in wartime, constantly pumping out lies,” he said, referencing Google’s involvement with the U.S. military.

“Google itself is a fount of propaganda — not only in what it chooses to foreground but, more importantly, in what it suppresses or buries,” he said.

What is happening here?

The government’s collusion with Big Tech is not a matter of privatizing government functions, Rectenwald said — it’s the opposite of that.

“As I wrote in ‘Google Archipelago,’” he said, “the issue with Big Tech’s information control is not the privatization of governmental functions but rather the governmentalization of private enterprise.”


According to Crispin Miller, “The Poynter Institute represents itself as a disinterested, realistic watchdog but is not anything of the kind. It’s just as prone to untruths and just as protective of the major propaganda narratives as the corporate media is.”

Poynter in 2015 launched IFCN to “bring together the growing community of fact-checkers around the world and advocates of factual information in the global fight against misinformation.”

According to its website, IFCN now works with more than 100 organizations worldwide via “advocacy, training and global events” and takes it upon itself to monitor “trends in the fact-checking field” while providing “resources to fact-checkers.”

With the new grant from Google and YouTube, IFCN will “directly strengthen and expand fact-checking” efforts around the world, Poynter said in a press release, adding:


According to a 2021-2022 report, Poynter’s revenue increased 150% since 2017, and in 2022, its revenue surpassed $15 million.

Among its major funders in 2021 and early 2022 were Meta (the parent company of Facebook), TikTok and the Google News Initiative.



NATO Running Out of Weapons for Kiev Regime

Drago Brosnic


Months before Russia launched its counteroffensive against NATO’s crawling encroachment on its western borders, the political West started sending massive amounts of weapons and munitions to the Kiev regime. Initially, the deliveries primarily included tens of thousands of man-portable missiles for various purposes, including ATGM (anti-tank guided missiles) and MANPADS (man-portable air defense systems) weapons. Even then, it already became clear that NATO’s stocks couldn’t provide enough weapons for a long-term conflict, while it would take years to ramp up deliveries by expanding production lines. This was further exacerbated when the Kiev regime started asking for more advanced weapons and systems amid mounting battlefield losses.

Many NATO member states were (and still are) forced to send weapons and munitions which were already in short supply for their own militaries. This is particularly true when it comes to former Warsaw Pact member states of the belligerent alliance, many of whom were forced to give up their Soviet-era weapons. Old NATO powers promised to send their weapons to replace these older arsenals of the alliance’s Eastern European members, although this process proved to be quite slow. On the other hand, the Kiev regime’s ever-growing demands are putting additional pressure. As NATO’s current production capacity simply cannot meet these requests, the Neo-Nazi junta’s battlefield prospects look grimmer by the day. “If this does not happen, we won’t be able to win — as simple as that,” Dmytro Kuleba, the Kiev regime chief diplomat warned during a recent meeting.

On November 26, the New York Times reported that approximately two-thirds of NATO members have effectively run out of weapons by sending them to the Kiev regime. Even the more prominent alliance members with big MICs (Military Industrial Complexes) are having major issues keeping up with the Kiev regime’s demands. According to an unnamed NATO official, 20 out of 30 member states are “pretty tapped out” in terms of additional weapon and munition supplies to the Neo-Nazi junta. While members such as the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy still have the ability to arm the Kiev regime with basic weapons, even they are refraining from sending specific weapons systems requested by the junta.

The demands include various types of strategically impactful weapons, including surface-to-surface guided missiles such as ATACMS, a weapon with a 300 km engagement range. The US officially rejected such demands, supposedly “out of concern” the missiles could be used to attack targets deep within Russia. However, the more likely reason is that the Pentagon is fully aware of the fact that it would take years to replace its current stocks of such missiles and it’s not very keen on expending them all without certain replacement. The same is true for many other types of weapons and systems which are equally needed to maintain optimal military power.

Artillery is especially important in this regard. As soon as the Kiev regime started burning through its Soviet-made stocks, many of which were also destroyed in Russia’s long-range strikes, NATO was forced to provide both artillery pieces and shells. As the alliance’s post-(First) Cold War doctrine shifted toward a more interventionist style of warfare, artillery became less important, resulting in ever-shrinking stocks.

According to various reports, the enormous demand for artillery munitions is putting tremendous pressure on NATO members trying to meet the Kiev regime’s requests. At present, the Neo-Nazi junta forces are firing at least five thousand shells per day, but the US, by far the most heavily armed NATO member state, can only produce 15,000 shells per month. Camille Grand, a defense expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told the New York Times that “[a] day in Ukraine is a month or more in Afghanistan.”

On the other hand, the soaring demand is extremely profitable for the Military Industrial Complexes of the political West.

“Taking into account the realities of the ongoing war in Ukraine and the visible attitude of many countries aimed at increased spending in the field of defense budgets, there is a real chance to enter new markets and increase export revenues in the coming years,” according to Sebastian Chwalek, CEO of Poland’s PGZ, a corporation that owns a number of weapons manufacturers.

However, the US MIC has been experiencing by far the largest windfall in this regard. Arms industry giants such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon already made billions in the opening months of the Ukrainian crisis.

Back in May, during a visit to a Lockheed Martin plant, US President Joe Biden stated that the US would ramp up weapons production, but that “this would not come cheap.” However, most US officials and experts agree that this is not only a question of funding, as it will take years to increase production in order to meet the current demand, which is expected to grow exponentially in the foreseeable future.

“If you want to increase the production capability of 155 mm shells. It’s going to be probably four to five years before you start seeing them come out the other end,” according to Mark F. Cancian, a former White House weapons strategist and current senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The US and NATO have already stated that they’re committed to fighting a long proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. In October, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin openly admitted this is the plan that Washington DC and its satellites have. He said that the US and NATO would “boost Ukraine’s defensive capabilities for pressing urgent needs and for the long term.” However, as the US is profiteering from the crisis, especially at the EU’s expense, the bloc is becoming increasingly frustrated, a feeling even the most senior officials in Brussels are now ready to express more freely than ever before.



Australia: The Narrative is Imploding. Unlawful Covid Fines Will Now Be Refunded


UK Assumes Full Control of Libya’s Oil

An oil and gas platform off the coast of Libya. (Photo: Antonio Sempere via Getty)

Internationalist 360º

British oil giants BP and Shell are returning to the oil-rich north African country just over a decade after the UK plunged it into chaos in its 2011 military intervention, which the British government never admitted was a war for oil.

  • BP controls exploration areas in Libya covering nearly three times the size of Wales 
  • UK company Petrofac, convicted of bribery last year, has secured new oil contract in Libya and sponsored British embassy there
  • UK is combining its interest in accessing Libya’s oil with increasing military involvement

Last month Libya’s National Oil Corporation (NOC) agreed for BP to start drilling for and producing natural gas in a major project off the coast of the north African country.

The UK corporation, on whose board sits former MI6 chief Sir John Sawers, controls exploration areas in Libya equivalent to nearly three times the size of Wales.

British officials have long sought to profit from oil in Libya, which contains 48 billion barrels of reserves – the largest oil resources in Africa, accounting for 3% of the world total.

BP is one of the few foreign oil and gas companies with exploration and production licences in Libya. Its assets there were nationalised by Muammar Gaddafi soon after he seized power in a 1969 coup that challenged the entire British position in the country and region.

After years of tensions between the two countries, prime minister Tony Blair met Gaddafi in 2004 and agreed the so-called ‘Deal in the Desert’ which included a $900m exploration and production agreement between BP and Libya’s NOC.

BP re-entered the country in 2007 but its operations were scuppered by the war of 2011 when British, French and US forces with the support of Qatar and Islamic militants overthrew Gaddafi.

Terrorism and civil war subsequently engulfed the country and oil company operations were put on hold.

The restart of BP’s operations follows the signing in 2018 of a memorandum of understanding with the NOC and Eni, the Italian oil major, to resume exploration, with Eni acting as the operator of the oil fields. BP chief executive Bob Dudley hailed the deal as an important step “towards returning to our work in Libya”.

The BP-ENI project, an $8bn investment, involves two exploration areas in the onshore Ghadames basin and one in the offshore Sirte basin, covering a total area of around 54,000 km2. The Sirte basin concession alone covers an area larger than the size of Belgium.

The UK’s other oil major, Shell, is also “preparing to return as a major player” in Libya, the company has stated in a confidential document. After putting its Libyan operations on hold in 2012, the corporation is now planning to explore for new oil and gas fields in several blocks.

Oil bribery

A third British company, Petrofac – which provides engineering services to oil operations – secured a $100m contract in September last year to help develop an oil field known as Erawin in Libya’s deep southwest.Petrofac was at the time under investigation for bribery by the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO).One of its executives, global head of sales David Lufkin, had already pleaded guilty in 2019 to 11 counts of bribery.

The month following the award of the Libya contract, the SFO convicted and fined Petrofac on seven counts of bribery between 2011 and 2017. Petrofac pleaded guilty to its senior executives using agents to bribe officials to the tune of £32m to win oil contracts in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

“A key feature of the case”, the SFO noted, “was the complex and deliberately opaque methods used by these senior executives to pay agents across borders, disguising payments through sub-contractors, creating fake contracts for fictitious services and, in some cases, passing bribes through more than one agent and one country, to disguise their actions”.

Petrofac works with BP in several countries around the world, including Iraq, Azerbaijan and Oman and in the North Sea.

All three British companies re-entering Libya have strong links to the UK government. In some of the years during which Petrofac was paying bribes, the company was led by Ayman Asfari, who with his wife donated almost £800,000 to the Conservative Party between 2009 and 2017.In 2014, Asfari, who is now a non-executive director of Petrofac, had been appointed by David Cameron to be one of his business ambassadors.Petrofac, which is incorporated in the tax haven of Jersey, has also benefited from insurance provided by the UK taxpayer via UK Export Finance (UKEF).In May 2019, when Petrofac was under investigation by the SFO, UKEF provided £700m in project insurance for the design and operation of an oil refinery at Duqm in the dictatorship of Oman, a project in which Petrofac was named as the sole UK exporter.In June this year Petrofac was one of five companies sponsoring the official reopening of the British embassy in Tripoli. Ambassador Caroline Hurndall told the audience: “I am especially proud that British businesses are collaborating with Libyan companies and having a meaningful impact upon Libya’s economic development. Many of those businesses are represented here tonight”.BP and Shell are especially close to Whitehall, with a long standing revolving door of personnel between the corporation and former civil servants.


Frank Baker, then the ambassador to Libya, wrote in 2018 that the UK was “helping to create a more permissible environment for trade and investment, and to uncover opportunities for British expertise to help Libya’s reconstruction”.Since then, new ambassador Hurndall has held meetings with Libya’s oil minister, Mohammed Aoun, to discuss the return of UK oil companies to Libya, and the NOC has set up a hub in London, its only one outside Libya and the US.The NOC’s London unit, launched in early 2021, is poised to “award consultancy and asset management contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds over the next several years to British companies”, the Times reported.Also heavily promoting British oil interests is the Libyan British Business Council (LBBC), whose president is Lord Trefgarne, a former minister under Margaret Thatcher, and which is chaired by former British ambassador to Libya, Peter Millett.

The LBBC, which sent a delegation to Libya earlier this month, says it acts “as an influential and informed advocacy group on behalf of UK business in Libya – in dialogue with the British government” and others.

In October 2018, the LBBC and the NOC signed a ‘statement of intent’ on the subject of “enhanced cooperation in the development of Libya’s oil and gas industry”. It also called for “mutually satisfactory contracts”.

The chair of the NOC, Mustafa Sanalla, said at the time that “the UK is a key partner for Libya in boosting oil production” and welcomed “strengthening this partnership”. The LBBC pledged to “facilitate Chairman Mustafa Sanalla’s access to British government ministers”.

Control of oil

Last year, Libya was the UK’s third largest source of oil, after Norway and the US, supplying 7.8% of all British oil imports. Oil is Libya’s lifeline, providing over 90% of the country’s revenues.

But the country’s civil war has provoked a battle for control over the oil industry which has been described as being in “disarray”, with “little clarity on who really is in control of the nation’s most valuable resource”. The UN-backed Government of National Unity, which is supported by the UK, sits in the capital, Tripoli, while in the east of the country sits a rival government.



%d bloggers like this: