Aggregatore di feed

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Cradle

The post ‘Our worst ally’: Top Pentagon official sacked for criticizing US support to Israel appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin. 

Indi.ca

The post Cracks in Israeli Censorship Regime appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Rick Rozoff. 

Reporting from Indian news media presents a picture of the ongoing crisis/catastrophe that is far more nuanced and informative than anything in the Western establishment media, from the U.S. to Germany, Australia to Britain, Canada to Argentina.

The post Netanyahu will do everything to drag US into conflict with Iran: Israeli political analyst appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Will Trump Pull The Trigger? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Bruce McLane.

The post A father’s wisdom appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Responsible Statecraft

The post Welcome to Iraq War 2.0 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Al Jazeera

The post The history of Netanyahu’s rhetoric on Iran’s nuclear ambitions appeared first on LewRockwell.

Sheldon Hayer wrote:

Good Morning Lew,

Many years ago, I recall Murray was a professor at University of Nevada.  He hosted several seminars which I attended.  Now Murray did not know my name, which is understandable. 

One seminar was in SanFrancisco.  In the evening I went out  to see the town.. When I came back to the hotel Murray was in a large room near the lobby.  He was enjoying a conversation with an individual who I think was hired by a branch of the Federal Reserve Bank.

I walked up to the table and asked if I could join in.  Murray smiled, and he pulled a single chair over and I sat down. It was an unforgettable evening. 

The post Murray Rothbard appeared first on LewRockwell.

Il manoscritto fornisce un grimaldello al lettore, una chiave di lettura semplificata, del mondo finanziario e non che sembra essere andato "fuori controllo" negli ultimi quattro anni in particolare. Questa è una storia di cartelli, a livello sovrastatale e sovranazionale, la cui pianificazione centrale ha raggiunto un punto in cui deve essere riformata radicalmente e questa riforma radicale non può avvenire senza una dose di dolore economico che potrebbe mettere a repentaglio la loro autorità. Da qui la risposta al Grande Default attraverso il Grande Reset. Questa è la storia di un coyote, che quando non riesce a sfamarsi all'esterno ricorre all'autofagocitazione. Lo stesso è accaduto ai membri del G7, dove i sei membri restanti hanno iniziato a fagocitare il settimo: gli Stati Uniti.

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/bitcoin-non-ha-un-massimo-perche)

La svalutazione si riferisce all'azione o al processo di riduzione della qualità o del valore di qualcosa. Quando si parla di valute fiat, la svalutazione si riferisce tradizionalmente alla pratica di ridurre il contenuto di metalli preziosi nelle monete mantenendo invariato il loro valore nominale, diluendo così il valore intrinseco della moneta stessa. In un contesto moderno, la svalutazione si è evoluta fino a indicare la riduzione del valore o del potere d'acquisto di una valuta, ad esempio quando le banche centrali aumentano l'offerta di moneta, riducendo nel contempo il valore nominale di ciascuna unità.

COMPRENDERE LA SVALUTAZIONE

Prima dell'avvento della cartamoneta e delle monete in metalli come il nichel, la circolazione era costituita da monete realizzate in metalli preziosi come oro e argento. Questi erano i metalli più ricercati all'epoca, il che conferiva loro un valore che andava oltre i decreti governativi. La svalutazione era una pratica comune per risparmiare sui metalli preziosi e utilizzare al loro posto una miscela di metalli di minor valore.

Questa pratica di mescolare metalli preziosi con metalli di qualità inferiore consentiva alle autorità di creare monete aggiuntive con lo stesso valore nominale, ampliando l'offerta di denaro a una frazione del costo rispetto alle monete con un contenuto maggiore di oro e argento.

Oggi monete e banconote non hanno un valore intrinseco, sono semplicemente gettoni che rappresentano valore. Ciò significa che la svalutazione si basa sull'offerta, ovvero sul numero di monete o banconote che l'ente emittente consente di far circolare. La svalutazione ha attraversato processi e metodi diversi nel tempo, pertanto possiamo distinguere tra vecchi e nuovi.

METODO TRADIZIONALE

Fino all'introduzione della cartamoneta, i processi di svalutazione più comuni erano il taglio, la sudorazione e la “tosatura”. Tali metodi venivano impiegati sia da malintenzionati che falsificavano monete, sia dalle autorità che ne aumentavano il numero in circolazione.

La “tosatura” consisteva nel “limare” i bordi delle monete per rimuovere parte del metallo. Come nel caso della sudorazione, i frammenti tagliati venivano raccolti e utilizzati per creare nuove monete.

La sudorazione consisteva nell'agitare energicamente le monete in un sacchetto finché i bordi non si staccavano e si depositavano sul fondo. I pezzi venivano quindi raccolti e utilizzati per creare nuove monete.

Il taglio consisteva nel praticare un foro nella parte centrale della moneta, colmando il vuoto con il resto della moneta martellandolo. La moneta poteva anche essere segata a metà con un tassello di metallo estratto dall'interno. Dopo aver riempito il foro con un metallo più economico, le due metà venivano nuovamente fuse.

METODI MODERNI

L'aumento dell'offerta di moneta è il metodo moderno utilizzato dagli stati per svalutare la valuta. Stampando più moneta, si ottengono più fondi da spendere, ma ciò si traduce in inflazione per i cittadini. La valuta può essere svalutata aumentandone l'offerta, abbassando artificialmente i tassi d'interesse, o implementando altre misure che incoraggiano l'inflazione; sono tutti modi “buoni” per ridurne il valore.

PERCHÉ IL DENARO VIENE SVALUTATO?

Gli stati svalutano la propria moneta per poter spendere senza aumentare ulteriormente le tasse. Svalutare il denaro per finanziare le guerre era un modo efficace per aumentare la massa monetaria e impegnarsi in costosi conflitti senza incidere sulle finanze pubbliche – o almeno così si credeva.

Che si tratti di svalutazione tradizionale o di moderna stampa di denaro, l'aumento dell'offerta ha benefici a breve termine nel rilanciare l'economia; a lungo termine, però, porta a inflazione e crisi finanziarie. Gli effetti di ciò sono avvertiti in modo più acuto da coloro che non possiedono beni durevoli e che potrebbero compensare la perdita di valore della valuta.

La svalutazione può essere causata anche da malintenzionati che introducono monete contraffatte in un'economia, ma in alcuni Paesi essere scoperti può portare alla condanna a morte.

Gli stati possono adottare alcune misure per attenuare i rischi associati alla svalutazione e prevenire economie instabili e deboli, ad esempio controllando l'offerta di moneta e i tassi d'interesse entro un intervallo specifico, gestendo la spesa ed evitando prestiti eccessivi.

Qualsiasi riforma economica che promuova la produttività e attragga investimenti esteri contribuisce a mantenere la fiducia nella valuta e a prevenirne la svalutazione.

ESEMPI DAL MONDO

Impero romano

Il primo esempio di svalutazione monetaria risale all'Impero romano, sotto l'imperatore Nerone, intorno al 60 d.C. Durante il suo mandato, Nerone ridusse il contenuto d'argento nelle monete dal 100% al 90%.

L'imperatore Vespasiano e suo figlio Tito affrontarono spese enormi per progetti di ricostruzione post-guerra civile, come la costruzione del Colosseo, il risarcimento alle vittime dell'eruzione del Vesuvio e il grande incendio di Roma del 64 d.C. Il mezzo scelto per sopravvivere alla crisi finanziaria fu quello di ridurre il contenuto d'argento del “denario” dal 94% al 90%.

Il fratello e successore di Tito, Domiziano, vide abbastanza valore nella “moneta forte” e nella stabilità di una massa monetaria credibile tanto da aumentare nuovamente il contenuto d'argento del denario fino al 98%, una decisione che dovette cambiare quando scoppiò un'altra guerra e l'inflazione incombeva di nuovo sull'impero.

Questo processo continuò gradualmente fino a quando, nei secoli successivi, il contenuto d'argento non superò il 5%. L'Impero iniziò a sperimentare gravi crisi finanziarie e inflazione a causa della continua svalutazione della moneta, in particolare durante il III secolo d.C., periodo a volte definito “crisi del III secolo”. In quel periodo, che va dal 235 al 284 d.C. circa, i romani chiesero salari più alti e un aumento del prezzo dei beni venduti per far fronte alla svalutazione. L'epoca fu caratterizzata da instabilità politica, pressioni esterne dovute alle invasioni barbariche e problemi interni come il declino economico e la peste.

Fu solo quando l'imperatore Diocleziano e in seguito Costantino adottarono diverse misure, tra cui l'introduzione di una nuova moneta e l'attuazione di controlli sui prezzi, che l'economia romana iniziò a stabilizzarsi. Tuttavia questi eventi misero in luce le vulnerabilità del sistema economico romano, un tempo potente.

Impero ottomano

Durante l'Impero ottomano l'unità monetaria ufficiale ottomana, l'akçe, era una moneta d'argento che subì una costante svalutazione, passando da 0,85 grammi nel XV secolo a 0,048 grammi nel XIX secolo. La misura volta a ridurne il valore intrinseco fu adottata per coniare più monete e aumentarne l'offerta. Nuove valute, il kuruş nel 1688 e poi la lira nel 1844, sostituirono gradualmente l'akçe ufficiale a causa della sua continua svalutazione.

Enrico VIII

Sotto Enrico VIII, l'Inghilterra aveva bisogno di più denaro, così il suo cancelliere iniziò a svalutare le monete utilizzando metalli meno costosi come il rame per coniarne di più a un costo più accessibile. Alla fine del suo regno, il contenuto d'argento delle monete scese dal 92,5% a solo il 25%, un modo per guadagnare di più e finanziare le ingenti spese militari che la guerra europea in corso richiedeva.

Repubblica di Weimar

Durante la Repubblica di Weimar degli anni '20, il governo tedesco fece fronte ai suoi obblighi finanziari legati alla guerra e al dopoguerra stampando più moneta. La misura ridusse il valore del marco da circa otto marchi per dollaro a 184. Nel 1922 il marco si era deprezzato a 7.350, per poi crollare in una dolorosa iperinflazione quando raggiunse i 4200 miliardi di marchi per dollaro.

La storia ci offre toccanti promemoria dei pericoli dell'espansione monetaria. Questi imperi, un tempo potenti, servono tutti da monito per il moderno sistema fiat. Mentre questi imperi espandevano la loro offerta di moneta, svalutando le loro valute, erano, per molti versi, come la proverbiale aragosta nell'acqua bollente. La temperatura – o in questo caso, il ritmo della svalutazione monetaria – aumentava gradualmente e non riuscivano a riconoscere il pericolo imminente finché non fu troppo tardi. Proprio come un'aragosta non sembra rendersi conto di essere stata bollita viva se la temperatura dell'acqua aumenta lentamente, questi imperi non compresero appieno la portata delle loro vulnerabilità economiche finché i loro sistemi non divennero insostenibili.

La graduale erosione del loro valore monetario non era solo una questione economica; era il sintomo di problemi sistemici più profondi, che segnalavano il declino della forza di imperi un tempo potenti.

LA SVALUTAZIONE NELL'ERA MODERNA

Lo scioglimento del sistema di Bretton Woods negli anni '70 segnò un momento cruciale nella storia economica globale. Istituito a metà del XX secolo, il sistema di Bretton Woods aveva vincolato in modo flessibile le principali valute mondiali al dollaro, a sua volta coperto dall'oro, garantendo un certo grado di stabilità e prevedibilità economica.

Tuttavia la sua dissoluzione slegò di fatto il denaro dalle sue radici auree. Questo cambiamento garantì a banchieri centrali e politici maggiore flessibilità e discrezionalità nella politica monetaria, consentendo interventi più aggressivi nelle economie. Se da un lato questa ritrovata libertà offrì strumenti per affrontare le sfide economiche a breve termine, dall'altro aprì la strada a un uso improprio e a un graduale indebolimento dell'economia.

Sulla scia di questo cambiamento monumentale, gli Stati Uniti subirono modifiche significative nella loro politica monetaria e nell'offerta di moneta. Entro il 2023 la base monetaria sarebbe salita a $5.600 miliardi, con una crescita di circa 69 volte rispetto agli $81,2 miliardi nel 1971.

Riflettendo sull'era moderna e sui significativi cambiamenti nella politica monetaria statunitense, è fondamentale tenere a mente queste lezioni storiche. La continua svalutazione e l'espansione monetaria incontrollata possono protrarsi solo per un certo periodo prima che il sistema raggiunga il punto di rottura.

EFFETTI DELLA SVALUTAZIONE

La svalutazione può avere diversi effetti significativi sull'economia, la cui portata varia a seconda dell'entità della svalutazione e delle condizioni economiche sottostanti.

Ecco alcune delle conseguenze più significative che la svalutazione può generare nel lungo termine.

Tassi d'inflazione più elevati

I tassi d'inflazione più elevati sono gli effetti più immediati e significativi della svalutazione. Man mano che il valore della valuta diminuisce, servono più unità per acquistare gli stessi beni e servizi, erodendone il potere d'acquisto.

Aumento dei tassi d'interesse

Le banche centrali possono rispondere alla svalutazione e all'aumento dell'inflazione rialzando i tassi d'interesse, il che può avere un impatto sui costi di prestito, sugli investimenti aziendali e sui modelli di spesa dei consumatori.

Deterioramento del valore del risparmio

La svalutazione può deteriorare il valore dei risparmi detenuti nella valuta nazionale. Ciò è particolarmente dannoso per gli individui con attività a reddito fisso, come i pensionati che dipendono dalle pensioni o dagli interessi.

Importazioni più costose

Una valuta svalutata può rendere le importazioni più costose, con conseguenti costi più elevati per le imprese e i consumatori che dipendono dai beni esteri. Tuttavia può anche rendere le esportazioni più competitive a livello internazionale, poiché gli acquirenti stranieri possono acquistare beni nazionali a un prezzo inferiore.

Indebolire la fiducia della popolazione nell’economia

La continua svalutazione della valuta può indebolire la fiducia della popolazione nella valuta nazionale e la capacità del governo di gestire l'economia. Questa perdita di fiducia può ulteriormente aggravare l'instabilità economica e causare persino iperinflazione .

SOLUZIONE ALLA SVALUTAZIONE

La soluzione alla svalutazione risiede nella reintroduzione di una moneta sana, ovvero una moneta la cui offerta non può essere facilmente manipolata. Sebbene molti anelino nostalgicamente a un ritorno al gold standard, che si può sostenere fosse superiore ai sistemi contemporanei, non si tratta della soluzione definitiva. Il motivo risiede nella centralizzazione dell'oro da parte delle banche centrali. Se dovessimo tornare al gold standard, la storia probabilmente si ripeterebbe, portando alla confisca e alla svalutazione ancora una volta. In parole povere, se una valuta può essere svalutata, lo sarà.

Come Bitcoin evita la svalutazione

Bitcoin offre una soluzione definitiva a questo problema. La sua offerta è limitata a 21 milioni, un numero codificato e protetto dalla Proof-of-work e da una rete decentralizzata di nodi. Grazie alla sua natura decentralizzata, nessuna singola entità o governo può controllare l'emissione o la governance di Bitcoin. Inoltre la sua scarsità lo rende resiliente alle pressioni inflazionistiche che si verificano tipicamente con le valute fiat.

Essendo un sistema distribuito, gli utenti di Bitcoin possono garantire che l'offerta non si discosti mai dal limite predeterminato eseguendo il software che scarica e convalida l'intero registro delle transazioni. Verificando ogni transazione nella storia di Bitcoin, da dove proviene ogni moneta e dove è andata, gli utenti possono essere assolutamente certi che l'offerta non sarà svalutata e che non saranno create monete che non dovrebbero essere create.

Un full node è essenzialmente una macchina per il rilevamento di contraffazioni che chiunque può usare. Garantisce che l'offerta sia intatta, che le monete spese siano state correttamente autorizzate e che non si verifichino illeciti. Qualsiasi software per wallet Bitcoin può anche garantire che nessuno possa limitare l'accesso ai vostri fondi.

In periodi di incertezza economica, o quando le banche centrali si impegnano in un'intensa attività di stampa di moneta, gli investitori spesso si rivolgono ad asset come oro e Bitcoin per le loro proprietà di riserva di valore. Col passare del tempo, c'è il potenziale per far sì che le persone riconoscano Bitcoin non solo come una riserva di valore, ma come la prossima evoluzione del denaro.

[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/

Supporta Francesco Simoncelli's Freedonia lasciando una “mancia” in satoshi di bitcoin scannerizzando il QR seguente.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah. 

The Vigilant Fox

The post Japan Releases Bombshell Vax vs. Unvax Data on 18 Million People appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Rick Rozoff:

On a report that the USS Gerald Ford carrier strike group is headed to the Mediterranean:

If so, the USS Gerald Ford will join the USS Carl Vinson and USS Nimitz carrier strike groups. All 11 American carriers are supercarriers. Only France, with the Charles de Gaulle, has a supercarrier outside the U.S. The strike groups include anti-missile interceptor as well as Tomahawk cruise missile destroyers and cruisers. I’ve never known three carrier strike groups to converge on one location before.

The post Why U.S. and Israel May Use Tactical Nuclear Weapons Against Iran appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah. 

The Gateway Pundit

The post Not So Fast, Netanyahu… appeared first on LewRockwell.

There is absolutely no excuse for buying into the war propaganda about Iran after what we all saw with Iraq.

“OMG nuclear weapons!” Shut up, idiot. If you’re a grown adult with internet access still swallowing this load of bull spunk in the year 2025 you’re either stupid or evil.

❖

President Donald Trump is now saying he has no intention of seeking or facilitating a ceasefire with Iran, telling reporters that he’s after a “complete give-up” from Iran instead.

“I’m not too much in a mood to negotiate,” Trump said.

Asked by the press if he’s worried about US troops being targeted by Iran in the coming days, the president said “We’ll come down so hard if they do anything to our people. We’ll come down so hard. The gloves are off. I think they know not to touch our troops.”

This is a stupid, crazy lie. Iran has explicitly said it will strike US bases in the region if the US attacks Iranian territory. If you punch someone, you expect to be punched back.

If Trump orders US forces to bomb Iran, it will be because he wants to start a war and knowingly chose to do so.

❖

One of the dumbest narratives we’re currently being fed about Iran is the claim that Israel is precision-striking high-level targets in Iran while Iran is just bombing civilians all over the place in Israel.

A casual glance at the death tolls shows this is clearly false. As of this writing the current official death count sits at 24 Israelis killed by Iran and 224 Iranians killed by Israel — most of whom are reportedly civilians. On Friday they bombed a residential building and killed 60 people, including 20 kids.

❖

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz thumped his chest on Twitter about an IDF strike on an Iranian television station on Monday, saying “The Iranian regime’s propaganda and incitement broadcasting authority was attacked by the IDF after a widespread evacuation of residents in the area.”

I wonder how the western press who are currently deceiving the public to promote Israel’s information interests feel about this new rule that it’s okay to bomb media outlets if someone decides they’re propaganda?

❖

People shouldn’t be so hard on Trump about all this. You’d probably start a war with Iran too if someone was threatening to leak your child molestation video.

❖

The war on Iran isn’t really about nuclear weapons — if it was they would’ve kept the nuclear deal in place, which was working as intended. The Gaza holocaust isn’t really about Hamas or hostages — if it was they would’ve just targeted Hamas or negotiated a hostage deal.

It’s all lies. The war on Iran is about regional hegemony and the genocide in Gaza is about Israel’s longstanding desire to remove all Palestinians from a Palestinian territory. It’s not about self-defense, it’s about land and power, and it always has been.

❖

This is one of the reasons antiwar people have been focusing so hard on Gaza, by the way. It wasn’t just because it’s a horrific genocide happening right in front of us, it was because it always risked blowing up into a regional war involving Israel’s western allies. We’ve been watching it expand into the West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and into Iran for a bit last year, and now it’s blown up into all-out war between Israel and Iran with the US poised to join in.

For 20 months I’ve been getting people asking me why I’ve been so laser-focused on Gaza while paying less attention to this or that conflict or foreign policy issue. This is why. It’s a waking nightmare in and of itself, but it’s also always been a powderkeg that could explode into something much, much worse.

_________________

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Click here for links for my mailing list, social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post After Iraq There’s No Excuse for Buying the War Lies About Iran appeared first on LewRockwell.

For over 70 years, the American public has been called upon annually to join the fight against cancer.

We are urged to make donations with the assurance that progress is being made and innovative breakthrough treatments are just around the corner.

Yet despite decades of financial and institutional investment, recent developments have cast a long shadow over this narrative. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the nation’s most respected cancer institutions—including Memorial Sloan Kettering, Dana-Farber, MD Anderson, and the Mayo Clinic—have been reporting an alarming surge in cancer incidence.

While some attribute this to pandemic-related disruptions in healthcare, including delayed screenings and overwhelmed hospitals, emerging patterns suggest that these factors alone do not explain the scale or nature of this increase. A more disturbing hypothesis gaining traction involves the potential biological effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, and more controversially, the experimental mRNA vaccines deployed globally by Pfizer and Moderna.

Among the most troubling observations from oncologists is the rise of what is being informally termed “turbo cancers”.

These aggressive, fast-moving malignancies are appearing in individuals with no prior history of the disease.

Often they were in complete remission. Moreover these cancers are striking younger demographics once considered very low-risk. These cancers, such as colorectal and pancreatic types in youth in their teens and twenties, display an accelerated growth previously unseen in clinical oncology. Even more perplexing are reports of remission reversals occurring within weeks of immune-triggering events from the mRNA booster shots. Leading oncologists, such as Professor Angus Dalgleish and Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, are sounding alarms about a possible link between immune suppression induced by these vaccines and the sudden proliferation of advanced-stage cancers. If these trends are indeed connected to the novel mRNA technology, as these experts contend, the implications are frightening. It raises urgent scientific, ethical, and legal questions that demand open inquiry and independent investigation.

It has only been during the past 2-3 years that the term “turbo cancer” has emerged in both clinical observations and in critical medical commentaries to describe a deeply disturbing trend. Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, there have been increasing numbers of cases of a rapid, aggressive onset of cancer in individuals who were previously healthy, in remission, or without prior cancer diagnoses. Although turbo cancer is not a formally recognized medical classification, such as the ICD-10 or the World Health Organization’s oncology taxonomies, the term has been increasingly used to characterize a distinct clinical pattern cancers observed since the onset of the pandemic and the widespread rollout of mRNA-based vaccines. Turbo cancers are being described as malignancies that manifest and metastasize within days, weeks, or a few months of first detection. These cancers develop far faster than conventional tumor growth patterns. Not only do these cancers display unexpected severity, they also seem to respond poorly to treatment.

Another factor that seems to set them apart is their demographic profile. Otherwise healthy individuals, often much younger than expected, with no significant risk factors, present signs of this rapidly fatal disease shortly after an immune-triggering event such as SARS-CoV-2 infection or an mRNA COVID vaccination.

While there is no consensus on this phenomenon in the mainstream medical community, and there are no specific histological markers or biomolecular signatures to define a turbo cancer, this absence of classification should not be mistaken for evidence against it or that it is a purely speculative conspiracy. Medical history is replete with initially anecdotal observations that were later validated through rigorous scientific scrutiny. One such example is Helicobacter pylori’s role in ulcers. To the chagrin of oncologists and physicians, turbo cancer cases often appear shortly after immune system activation, which suggests a probable immunological or inflammatory mechanism. Some hypotheses are being proposed including impaired T-cell and/or NK-cell surveillance, persistent cytokine signals, and stress-induced oncogenesis. Scientific integrity now demands that these cancer trends be investigated regardless of whether or not they challenge prevailing pro-Covid vaccine narratives and pharmaceutical interests. This post-2020 pattern of highly aggressive cancers urgently demands open-minded and independent longitudinal research.

Professor Angus Dalgleish is a globally respected oncologist and professor emeritus at St George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London. He has issued one of the strongest and most unambiguous warnings to date about the dangers of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Known for his groundbreaking co-discovery of the CD4 receptor’s role in HIV infection and for authoring over 500 peer-reviewed studies, Dr. Dalgleish brings the weight of decades of virology, immunology, and cancer research to his critique. In his own words, the use of mRNA vaccine technology in healthy populations is “unbelievably dangerous” and “should never, ever have been thought of,” especially for a virus that primarily threatens individuals already at significant risk. His evaluation goes beyond theoretical speculation; rather it is grounded in clinical evidence, immunological assays, and first-hand patient cases. Dalgleish repeatedly asserts that the mRNA vaccines do not only fail to provide effective immunity but actively suppress key components of the immune response, most notably the T-cell system after booster doses.

During our recent interview with Dr. Dalgleish, he explained that in his laboratory research, published in Frontiers in Immunology, booster doses were shown to completely shut down the T-cell response thereby rendering patients immunologically vulnerable.(1) He warns of antibody-dependent enhancement: the phenomenon of vaccine-induced antibodies attaching themselves to viral variants without neutralizing them.

But most concerning is the surge in highly aggressive and rapidly progressing cancers, which he colloquially calls “turbo cancers,” that arise in his long-term patients after receiving mRNA booster shots. He recounts melanoma patients who had been stable for years suddenly relapsing with metastatic disease within weeks of vaccination. Rather than dismiss these as coincidental, Dalgleish investigated the common denominator: all his patients had received mRNA booster shots shortly before the relapse. “I was the first to spot that my patients who were bullied into having booster messenger RNA viruses… started to relapse,” he stated. This pattern is not isolated. Many other oncologists and clinicians are now reporting similar aggressive cases of relapse and newly emergent cancers in patients post-vaccination.

In several detailed cases, Professor Dalgleish described how two of his personal friends, who were both healthy and cancer-free, developed explosive, metastatic cancers within weeks of receiving mRNA booster shots. Both men experienced unusual symptoms initially mistaken for long COVID, but quickly progressed to severe bone metastases. One of the patients was diagnosed with an aggressive recurrence of melanoma, while the other with rapidly advancing multiple myeloma. A third case developed widespread lymphoma shortly after a booster vaccination. Dalgleish emphasized that these were not typical cancer trajectories:

“In 40 years of doing oncology, I’ve probably seen two explosive cancers. Now we’re seeing lots of them.”

These cancers, according to him, are unresponsive to conventional therapies, including immunotherapy that would normally offer an 80% response rate in melanoma. In one case there was no response whatsoever therefore further underscoring the abnormal nature of turbo cancers’ disease progression.

Emerging clinical reports and reviews support Dr. Dalgleish’s experience. For example, there is now warranted concern about a possible association between the mRNA vaccines and the onset or reactivation of hematologic malignancies, particularly lymphomas and leukemias. Several studies describe patients who developed aggressive B-cell lymphomas shortly after receiving mRNA vaccines.(2, 3) A systematic review conducted in 2024 identified multiple cases of cutaneous lymphoma recurrence following vaccination. The authors from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland propose that vaccine-induced immune stimulation may reactivate dormant neoplastic cells in susceptible individuals.(4) To explain the sudden rise in cancers post-Covid vaccination, Drs. Angues and Bustos at Oregon Health and Sciences University School of Medicine have proposed the “multi-hit hypothesis,” which states that repeated immune activation via mRNA vaccines could induce oncogenic stress in genetically vulnerable individuals.(5) While much more needs to be done to belter understand the oncogenic characteristics of mRNA vaccines, these initial observations nevertheless underscore the urgent need for rigorous epidemiologic studies and long-term monitoring of vaccinated populations.

Dalgleish’s warnings extend beyond individual cases to systemic failures. He denounced the roles played by national health authorities, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Cancer Society, for their silence. “Not a word,” he said, referencing the absence of institutional acknowledgment despite mounting anecdotal evidence. He described the public health response as a “massive cover-up” where causes of death are systematically being mislabeled and exaggerated to sustain phony pandemic narratives. According to Dalgleish, the risk posed by mRNA vaccines stems not only from their long-term immunosuppressive effects but also from their very design.  Stabilized synthetic RNA with contaminants such as DNA capsids and SV40 promoter sequences pose severe oncogenic risks.

“This is no ordinary RNA,” he warned. “It is being stabilized… It shouldn’t even be considered for another human being.”

Dr. Dalgleish concludes with a harsh moral judgment:

“I basically think all these people I mentioned should be in jail… This is not just crimes against individuals or even a family. This is crimes against humanity.”

His position, grounded in decades of scientific and clinical experience, is clear: the mRNA vaccines pose a real and immediate oncogenic danger, and their continued use especially in healthy, low-risk populations should be halted immediately. 

Between 2022 and 2024, a marked and concerning rise in cancer incidence has been documented across numerous peer-reviewed studies with a mounting evidence that this trend may be linked to exposures unique to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the widespread administration of mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. These increases are not only significant in magnitude but also alarming in the demographics affected. Cancers are increasingly diagnosed in younger adults. This trend deviates sharply from historical baselines. Data from the UK, for instance, revealed a 6.7% rise in breast cancer diagnoses in 2022, particularly among women under 50.(6) In Canada, breast cancer diagnoses rose by 13% and colorectal cancers by 8% in 2022. Younger adults aged between 20–39 well surpassed pre-pandemic levels.(7) The US SEER registry and CDC data also report an accelerated increase in cancer incidence since 2021, especially among individuals aged 20–39 with overall rates growing 1.15% annually since 2005 but the rising more dramatically post-2020.(8). Similarly, a large Nordic registry analysis identified a significant increase in advanced-Stage III–IV cancers in 2021–2022 following diagnostic delays in 2020. Breast, lung, and colorectal cancers sharply exceeded pre-pandemic levels.(9) Finally, a Polish cohort study covering 3.5 million individuals reported a similar surge in late-stage breast, head and neck, and colorectal cancers by late 2022.(10) 

Importantly, these alarming rebounds are not confined to high-risk or elderly populations but are disproportionately impacting younger cohorts who traditionally face lower cancer risk. In the US, men aged 30–50 are experiencing the sharpest increases in head and neck cancers.(11) Furthermore, a study analyzing Google Trends identified a surge in public internet searches for cancer symptoms beginning in 2022. This very likely reflects a very real increase in symptom burden or a rapid inexplicable onset of the disease.(12) This trend is being most observed in highly vaccinated nations with otherwise robust healthcare access. While the medical establishment’s and government health agencies’ explanations center around disrupted screening and delayed diagnosis, the continued rise in cancer cases—despite the official end of the pandemic—suggests the involvement of far more insidious biological drivers. The only globally ubiquitous novel exposures during this time were SARS-CoV-2 viral infections and the unprecedented deployment of mRNA vaccine platforms, which operate through systemic lipid nanoparticle delivery and synthetic RNA constructs that are capable of modifying host immune responses for unknown time durations.

The possibility that either or both of these agents are contributing to unusual cancer progressions and immune dysregulation must now be seriously entertained. Unfortunately, the health authorities at home and abroad fail consistently to acknowledge or act upon these red flags with the urgency they demand. The CDC and FDA has largely focused on vaccine safety in the short term, while neglecting long-term surveillance. They intentionally fail to initiate independent, unbiased investigations into potential links between mRNA vaccine technologies and cancer pathogenesis. The ongoing administration of mRNA COVID-19 boosters further compounds these concerns as cancer rates continue to climb. In this context, it is imperative that comprehensive, transparent, and corporate-independent research initiatives be launched immediately to evaluate the causal role of both SARS-CoV-2 infection and mRNA vaccine exposure in the ongoing cancer epidemic. The evidence can no longer be dismissed as coincidental or attributed solely to healthcare delays. 

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong is a renowned cancer researcher, a former faculty member at UCLA’s medical school, biotechnology innovator and a pioneer in pancreatic and stem cell transplantation. In recent interview, he expressed deep concern over the unprecedented rise in aggressive cancers among younger populations, which he has observed firsthand in his clinical practice.(13) Dr. Soon-Shiong reports witnessing metastatic pancreatic cancer in a 13-year-old boy; it was a case he describes as “devastating” and historically unheard of in his decades of experience. The young boy had exhausted all available therapies despite widespread metastasis and finally passing away. These cases, he explains, are not isolated. He notes a significant increase in colon, ovarian and pancreatic cancers among individuals as young as 8, 10, and 11 years old, and women in their 30s and 40s.

“We’re seeing now 30-year-old, 40-year-old ladies, young ladies with ovarian cancer,” he stated.

These aggressive, fast-progressing malignancies bear the hallmarks of turbo cancers. According to Dr. Soon-Shiong, patients previously in remission are now returning with rapidly advancing cancers that resist standard treatment protocols.

“I’m getting reports of that now… people that have been in remission before are now getting back cancers and very rapidly progressing.”

His accounts neatly parallel what Dr. Dalgleish is observing on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

Dr. Soon-Shiong links this oncogenic phenomena to a fundamental breakdown in body’s immune regulation. In particular, we are witnessing the suppression of natural killer cells and T-cells, which are the key components of the body’s cancer-fighting arsenal. He warns that both SARS-CoV-2 infection and the mRNA vaccines developed by Moderna and Pfizer may be responsible for this immune suppression and the resulting cancer surge. “COVID is oncogenic,” he plainly stated while citing multiple mechanisms through which viral persistence and inflammation drive cancer growth. Dr. Soon-Shiong explains that persistent spike protein from either the virus or the vaccines enters cells via the ACE2 receptor that are present in the brain, lungs, colon, pancreas, heart. This can result in mitochondrial dysfunction, inflammation and immune cell suppression. This, he says, is no coincidence.

“Is it by coincidence that post-COVID infection, post-COVID vaccine, we’re seeing all these events where we know the spike protein goes? I don’t think so. I think it’s not a coincidence.”

Research from the University of California at San Francisco has revealed SARS-CoV-2 virus replicating in colon tissue up to two years post-infection in addition to the suppression of natural killer cells thereby contributing to unchecked tumor growth.

In addition to concerns over the mRNA vaccines’ probable oncogenic adverse effects, a growing body of peer-reviewed research also suggests links between SARS-CoV-2 infection and an uptick in cancers and their rapid progression. Evidence confirms Dr. Soon-Shiong’s own observations that the virus can promote oncogenic processes through immune dysregulation, chronic inflammation and epigenetic remodeling. Similar to the vaccines, the virus’s persistence in immune-compromised cancer patients also exacerbates hematologic malignancies.(14) In one study the impairment of DNA capacity to repair itself that has been observed in Covid infections resembles the mechanisms of established oncoviruses such as HPV and EBV.(15) Moreover the virus has been shown to significantly impair lymphocyte populations, particularly CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, through a variety of immunopathological mechanisms. By suppressing T cells, the body’s tumor immunosurveillance is weakened thereby increasing long-term cancer risks.(16) Given the now widespread consensus that the virus originated from engineered manipulation at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the global surge in cancer cases may ultimately reflect the downstream consequences of a human-made virological crisis.

Dr. Soon-Shiong is sharply critical of the mRNA vaccine approach and the federal government’s regulatory process that approved them. He warns that mRNA vaccines convert into DNA; they can potentially continue to produce viral proteins long after administration.

“The idea of giving an antibody vaccine and then creating another antibody vaccine… I don’t know what that’s doing,” he said.

He denounced the decision to use the spike protein as the target for vaccination. In his analysis they “went after the wrong protein.” He believes that instead researchers should have focused on a product to stimulate T-cell responses by using a nucleocapsid protein. This approach he believes would have provided long-term immunity for up to 17 years, which is crucial for long term clearing of viruses and for preventing future immune suppression.

“The only vaccine that’s important is a T-cell vaccine,” he insisted.

In his own personal experience there has been institutional suppression of the medical science he is advocating.  Federal health officials such as Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci have made efforts to prevent trials of his T-cell vaccines. 

In his final assessment, Dr. Soon-Shiong underscores the dangerous intersection between an oncogenic virus and a vaccine strategy that may replicate and amplify its immune-suppressive properties.

“You see young people with pancreatic cancer all of a sudden. You see young people with colon cancer all of a sudden,” he warned.

In his view, both the virus and the mRNA vaccine may be driving a new, alarming epidemic of immune failure and new cancers. His call for halting immediately Pfizer’s and Moderna’s spike-based mRNA vaccines is implicit in his warnings because they are fundamentally flawed, poorly tested and probably responsible for the turbo cancers increasing globally and especially in younger populations.

Given the striking rise in cancer incidence and the emergence of turbo cancers, during the same period as the global rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, it is scientifically prudent and ethically imperative to mandate, at a bare minimum, a black box warning on these experimental products. The convergence of demographic shifts and geographic parallels across highly vaccinated countries raises serious concerns that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines’ unprecedented biological mechanisms are very likely contributing to this growing oncogenic crisis. Although causality has yet to be definitively proven, the scale and severity of reported cases far exceed the safety thresholds that have triggered black box warnings and market withdrawals for other pharmaceutical products with far lower injury and death burdens. Public health credibility depends not on blind endorsement, but on data-driven vigilance. In this context, a black box warning would serve as an initial critical step toward restoring scientific accountability.

Notes

(1)  Null, G. Interview with Dr. Angus Dalgleish, Progressive Radio Network, April 29, 2025.

(2)  Zamfir MA, Morearu L, Dobrea C, et al. Hematologic malignancies diagnosed in the context of the mRNA Covid-19 vaccination campaign: a report of two cases. Medicina. 2022; 58(7). Doi.org/10.3390/medicina58070874

(3)  Gentilini P, Lindsay JC, Konishi M, et al. A case of acute lymphoblastic leukemia following the second dose of Comirnaty: an analysis of the potential pathogenic mechanism based on existing literature. Med Pharmacol. (preprint). DOI:10.20944/preprints202403.1661.v1

(4)  Olszewska B, Zaryczanska A, et al. Rare Covid-19 vaccine side effects got lost in the shuffle: primary cutaneous lymphomas following Covid-19 vaccination, a systematic review. Front Med. 2024 Apr 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1325478

(5)  Angues RV, Bustos YP. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and the multi-hit hypothesis of oncogenesis. Cureus. 2023 Dec; 15(12): e50702. DOI 10.7759/cureus.50703

(6)  Barclay NL, Moncusi MP, Jodicke AM, et al. The impact of the UK Covid-19 lockdown on the screening, diagnostics and incidence of breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancer in the UK: a population based cohort study. Front Oncol. 2024 Mar 26;14. doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1370862

(7)  Decker KM, Feely A, Bucher O, et al. New cancer diagnoses before and during the Covid-19 pandemic. JAMA Net Open. 2023; 6(9): e2332363. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.32363

(8)  Howlader N, Chen HS, Noone AM, et al. Impact of Covid-19 on 2021 cancer incidence rates and potential rebound from 2020 decline. JNCI 2025 Mar; 117(3): 507-510. doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae180

(9)  Johansson ALV, Skog A, Johannesen TB, et al. Changes in cancer incidence and stage during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020-2021 in the Nordic countries. Acta Oncol. 202 Feb 12;64: 42079. doi: 10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42079

(10)  Trojanowski M, Radomyski P, et al. Decrease in the number of new cancer diagnoses during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic—cohort study of 3.5 million individuals in western Poland. Front Oncol. 2023 Dec 21. DOI 10.3389/fonc.2023.123028

(11)  Semprini J, Pagedar NA, Boakye EA, et al. Head and neck cancer incidence in the US before and during the Covid-19 pandemic. JAMA Otolaryn. 2024 Jan 11;150(3): 193-200. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2023.4322

(12)  Kaminski M, Skrzypczak P, Staszewski R, et al. Effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the interest of Google queries in cancer screening and cancers: a retrospective study. Cancers. 2023;115: 617. doi.org/10.3390/cancers15030617

(13)  Carlson T. Interview with Patrick Soon-Shiong. Tucker Carlson Show. March 26, 2025.

(14)  Passamonti F, Cattaneo C, Arcaini L, et al. Clinical characteristics and risk factors associated with COVID-19 severity in patients with haematological malignancies in Italy: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Haematology. 2020;7(10): e737–e745.

(15)  Ghosh, R., et al. (2021). Genotoxic stress in COVID-19 and cancer: Converging pathways. Int J Molecular Sci. 2021;22(17): 9105.

(16)  Antonyuk O, Oleksii S. Predicting models of inpatient death risk accompanied by coronavirus disease in healthcare establishments as an additional tool for decision making. Ukra Sci Med J. 2025; 1(152). doi.org/10.32345/USMYJ.1(152).2025.97-113

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post Are COVID Vaccines Accelerating Deadly Cancer Epidemics? appeared first on LewRockwell.

If you go the the Middle East and fight for Trump, the neocons, and Netanyahu, then those are the only people that you will be fighting for. You will not be fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. You will not be fighting for the American people. You will not be fighting to defend and protect the Constitution. You will not be fighting for our freedoms. You will not be fighting to defend America. If you die, then you will die in vain and for the lie that Iran was a threat to America, that Iran was a threat to Israel, and that Iran was close to getting a nuke. You will not die a hero, but a sucker and a pawn. 

The post Hey Soldiers appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Antiwar.com

The post Trump Shares Private Text From Mike Huckabee That Compared Iran Situation To Truman in 1945 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Al Jazeera

The post The real reason Israel attacked Iran | Israel-Iran conflict appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm. 

Daily Wire

The post USAID Official, Three Contractors Plead Guilty To Halfy-Billion Dollar Bribery Scheme appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Jerusalem Post

The post Tehran Jewish Committee says Iran Jews live in ‘complete security’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Rick Rozoff:

How apt that Trump went on a rant against Carlson with the Atlantic magazine, a rag that never misses a chance to compare him (Trump) to Hitler. Now he’ll be redeemed with that repugnant crowd.

The post Glenn Greenwald: Trump turns against Tucker Carlson over Iran appeared first on LewRockwell.