Stop Pretending Military Spending is about ‘Defense’ and that Soldiers Fight for Our Freedom
/
$1.5 trillion.
With a “t.”
That’s how much US president Donald Trump wants Congress to appropriate for military (falsely called “defense”) spending in 2027.
And that number — there’s no other way to put this — is insane. The only proper date for such a spending request, followed by a winking grin emoji, is April 1.
Let’s compare.
At the height of the US war in Vietnam, in 1969, the US government spent about $85.5 billion ($761 billion in inflated 2026 dollars) on “defense.”
In 1991, when the US deployed hundreds of thousands of troops for Desert Storm, the US government spent about $313 billion, or $750 billion accounting for inflation.
In 2004, while fighting wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, that number was about $450 billion, or $780 billion in 2026 dollars.
Yes, it’s wartime again.
As usual, the war — this time with Iran — is entirely illegal/unconstitutional (only Congress can declare war, and it hasn’t).
And, as usual, the war is entirely optional and serves no defensive purpose whatsoever.
The president keeps telling us THIS war will be over Real Soon Now, and he started talking about a $1.5 trillion military budget months before he launched Operation Epic Fail, so the 40% bump clearly isn’t about Iran. [MORE]
WHO Teams With Singapore Firm Tied to Pfizer, Bill Gates to Roll Out Global Vaccine Passports
/Five years after digital vaccine passports were introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) is partnering with an investment firm linked to COVID-19 vaccine maker BioNTech and the Gates Foundation to roll out “interoperable digital health wallets.”
The WHO announced earlier this week that it is partnering with Temasek, a firm owned by the Singapore government that participated in a $250 million investment in BioNTech in June 2020 — a few months before BioNTech released a COVID-19 vaccine in conjunction with Pfizer.
The initiative “builds on lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, which demonstrated the urgency of reliable, verifiable digital health documentation,” the WHO said.
The initiative will begin with digital international certificates of vaccination or prophylaxis and will later expand to “broader personal health summaries.” It will be piloted in the 11 member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to develop a “replicable model” for potential export to other countries.
The initiative is a result of last year’s amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations(IHR), which called for “globally recognized digital health certificates.” [MORE]
Teens 5 Times More Likely to Develop Heart Conditions After mRNA COVID Injections
/From [HERE] Teenagers were up to five times more likely to develop myocarditis and pericarditis, and up to 10 times more likely to experience an anaphylactic reaction shortly after receiving an initial two-dose series of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new peer-reviewed study.
The study, published last week in Scientific Reports, also found an increased risk of appendicitis, epilepsy and convulsions, and lymphadenopathy — or swollen lymph nodes — in teens who received two doses of the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 shots.
The study was conducted by 13 Norwegian researchers using data from the Norwegian Patient Registry and the Norwegian Cause of Death Registry.
The researchers examined the data for 496,432 teenagers ages 12-19 in Norway — both vaccinated and unvaccinated — to analyze the short- and mid-term safety of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among teenagers.
Key findings included:
A fivefold higher rate of myocarditis and pericarditis among teenagers following the second dose (adjusted incidence rate ratio of 5.27) compared to unvaccinated teens.
A 37-fold higher rate of myocarditis and pericarditis among 12- to 15-year-olds who received the two-dose series, albeit among a small number of cases.
An approximately tenfold higher rate of anaphylactic reactions after the second dose, though based on a small number of cases.
A 65% higher risk of epilepsy and convulsions in infection-free teenagers who received the two-dose series.
A 47% higher risk of acute appendicitis nearly two months (56 days) after completing the two-dose COVID-19 vaccine series.
‘Worldwide Increase in Cancer is No Surprise.’ Comprehensive Study Finds “Smoking Gun” Evidence COVID Injections Trigger Cancers
/
From [HERE] A systematic review of 69 studies and reports on COVID-19 and cancer identified a possible safety signal linking COVID-19 vaccines and SARS-CoV-2 to certain types of cancer.
The study identified safety signals for leukemia, lymphoma, breast and lung cancer. The authors of the paper, published last week in the journal Oncotarget, said their findings suggest the need for further research.
The paper identified mechanisms — including the spike protein and DNA contamination found in some COVID-19 vaccine types — that might be responsible for triggering cancer.
The authors also addressed “several recurrent themes” in the studies they examined:
The “unusually rapid progression, recurrence, or reactivation” of preexisting conditions.
The “atypical” appearance of cancers near the point of vaccination.
The reactivation of dormant tumors.
Wafik El-Deiry, M.D., Ph.D., one of the co-authors, told The Defender that the paper “is the first most comprehensive presentation summarizing the world‘s literature on the subject matter of COVID vaccines, COVID infection and cancer.”
He said some of the review’s findings “look like a smoking gun” linking COVID-19 shots to cancer.
Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, said the review’s findings may represent “the tip of a very damaging iceberg.”
“It is not remotely surprising that a gene-therapy rebranded as a vaccine, never tested for oncogenic safety, with severe immune dysregulating effects, injected into a billion people would correlate with an increased risk of cancers worldwide,” Jablonowski said.
El-Deiry said the review may provide insights into rising cancer rates in recent years, including an increase in so-called “turbo cancers.”
“I believe there is a risk of cancer associated with COVID vaccination,” El-Deiry said. “The magnitude of the risk remains to be more precisely defined, including the risk of hyperprogression.” Hyperprogression refers to cases where “a pre-existing tumor grows more aggressively.”
“The paper doesn’t say that COVID vaccines cause cancer, but it does argue that when the same pattern of aggressive cancer keeps appearing across different cancers and different countries, they can no longer be brushed aside,” investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., said in a video posted Monday on Substack.
Review found link between COVID vaccines, aggressive onset of cancer
According to the review, a “growing number of peer-reviewed publications” have reported the appearance of diverse cancer types following COVID-19 vaccination or infection.
The time between vaccination and the onset of cancers “varied substantially,” according to the review, ranging from within 2-4 weeks to 8 months or more after vaccination or administration of a booster dose.
The authors said they conducted the review because the COVID-19 vaccines were never evaluated for carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.
They reviewed studies conducted between January 2020 and October 2025. About 43% of the studies “reported lymphoid malignancies, encompassing both lymphomas and leukemias.”
Several studies emphasized “unexpectedly rapid progression, atypical presentations, or unusually aggressive courses of disease.”
Forty-one percent of the studies identified a link between the COVID-19 vaccines and solid tumors, including melanoma, breast cancer, lung cancer, sarcomas and “organ-specific carcinomas, such as pancreatic cancer.”
Several studies “described unusually rapid onset, short-latency recurrence, or aggressive clinical progression” for these tumor types. Some of the studies “described tumor formation or recurrence at or near vaccine injection sites.”
The review cited several recent large-scale studies, including a two-year study of 8.4 million South Koreans published last year.
The South Korean study found a statistically significant link between COVID-19 vaccines and six cancer types, including breast, colorectal, gastric, lung, prostate and thyroid cancers, and a 27% higher overall cancer risk.
The review also cited a 2025 study of nearly 300,000 Italians that found cancer hospitalizations were moderately higher among COVID-19 vaccine recipients, with a particularly increased risk of bladder, breast and colorectal cancer.
The authors also cited a U.S. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division report tracking non-Hodgkin lymphoma incidence among active-duty service members between 2017 and 2023. The report found a significant increase in some lymphomas in 2021, the year COVID-19 shots became widely available.
The authors said their findings “underscore the need for rigorous epidemiologic, longitudinal, clinical, histopathological, forensic, and mechanistic studies to assess whether and under what conditions COVID-19 vaccination or infection may be linked with cancer.”
Dr. Denis Rancourt: 'There Was No COVID Pandemic. You Cannot Fake Death Data. Practically all the deaths associated with the CV19 pandemic were caused by the hospital treatment protocols'
/This is an EXCELLENT interview from the Fall of 2023. Denis Rancourt being interviewed by "Dr Drew" and Dr Kelly Victory about his conclusions upon an exhaustive study of all-cause mortality. Although it's 2 years old, I found it terrifically instructive to hear Rancourt’s results from analysis of patterns of all-cause mortality, his main points being:
1. There was no increase in “all-cause mortality” anywhere in the world that coincided with the CV19 pandemic;
2. There was no “viral pandemic” (CV19) that swept the world starting in 2019;
3. Practically all the deaths associated with the CV19 pandemic were caused by the hospital treatment protocols handed down from above in conjunction with other non-viral, known causes of death;
4. There is no epidemiological evidence consistent with there having been a deadly, contagious pathogen.
They cover other topics as well, like the sorry state of "science" in our current world and the corruption of science and medical journals by Big Money. [MORE]
Dr Vernon Coleman: Obedience will Destroy us All
/From [HERE] For more years than most people realise, the conspirators have been training the masses to obey and to comply. They have used endless threats (such as global warming and the fake covid pandemic) to terrify populations around the world.
We cannot fight back with force because the enemy controls our armies.
Throwing apple crumble and custard at the crown jewels, delaying traffic, interrupting sporting events and throwing dye onto the stones of Stonehenge either annoy or trigger contempt. (All of these have been tried.) Such pathetic stunts will not change anything.
We cannot fight back through the ballot box because elections are fixed and the political parties are interchangeable.
So what can we do? Things are now moving very quickly – especially in Britain, where the massive rise in local property taxes means that banks have an excuse to close the remainder of the branches – making online banking inevitable.
A programme of non-compliance is our only choice – the only route to victory.
Here’s how the modern defender of freedom does not comply with the system created by the conspirators (please replace “he” with “she” where appropriate):
He doesn’t vote for any political party. He will always prefer to vote for an entirely independent candidate outside the system.
He refuses to bank online. He insists on using cash and paper cheques as often as possible.
He refuses to accept a digital identity.
He has never worn a face mask in private or in public.
He refused the covid vaccine (and other vaccines he is offered).
He writes regularly to politicians explaining why they should oppose “death by doctor” legislation. (I send them my free book `The Kill Bill’, which is available on my website).
He does not participate in the absurdly wasteful recycling programmes run by local councils.
He does not have a smart meter for electricity or water. (If you have a smart meter, you are vulnerable. If you annoy the authorities, they can cut off your electricity in an instant.)
He does not have a doorbell with a camera (most such bells merely provide the authorities with yet more surveillance cameras).
He will never have a dash camera and if he rides a bike, he won’t have a helmet camera (these are part of the surveillance of the people).
He does not have a TV licence, and if anyone comes from the BBC (“if you don’t give us money for something you don’t want, we will harass you to death”), he will refuse to let them through the door (as is his right).
He uses cash whenever he can. [MORE]
Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla Ordered to Testify in Dutch COVID Shot Injury Lawsuit
/From [HERE] Bill Gates and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla will have to appear in person in the Netherlands to testify at a hearing in a COVID-19 vaccine injury lawsuit, a Dutch court ruled late last month.
The court order relates to a lawsuit filed in 2023 by seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines. One of the victims has since died.
The lawsuit centers around the question “of whether the COVID-19 injections are a bioweapon,” Dutch newspaper De Andere Krant reported. In addition to Gates and Bourla, the suit names 15 other defendants, including former Dutch prime minister and current NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Dutch state, and several Dutch public health officials and journalists.
De Andere Krant said last month’s ruling “is a significant setback for the defendants, who are accused of misleading victims about the ‘safety and effectiveness’ of the vaccines.” However, it “remains to be seen” whether the defendants will comply with the court’s order and appear at next year’s hearing.
The defendants may face additional legal challenges in Dutch courts in the new year. A second lawsuit, filed in March by three COVID-19 vaccine injury victims in the Netherlands, presents a similar set of allegations and names the same defendants.
At a press conference last week, Dutch attorney Peter Stassen, who represents the vaccine-injured plaintiffs in both cases, earlier this month petitioned the courts in both cases to hear in-person testimony by five expert witnesses regarding the safety and efficacy of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
According to Stassen, oral hearings will be held in both cases next year, but hearing dates have not yet been scheduled. Stassen seeks to consolidate the cases.
The expert witnesses include:
Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical research and development executive.
Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., a psychotherapist who is litigating to prohibit mRNA vaccines in Florida.
Katherine Watt, a researcher and paralegal.
Mike Yeadon, Ph.D., a pharmacologist and former vice president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit. [MORE]
"A National Injustice." Large Study Finds that Vaccinated Black Infants Die at Double the Rate of White Infants and All Vaccinated Infants Have a Higher Mortality Rate than Unvaccinated Infants
/
SEE FULL GRAPH BELOW AND HERE
From [HERE] Infants vaccinated in their second month of life were more likely to die in their third month than unvaccinated infants, according to an analysis of data obtained from the Louisiana Department of Health. Female and Black infants died at higher rates than male or white babies.
Children’s Health Defense scientists Brian Hooker, Ph.D., and Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., conducted the analysis, which was published Monday on Preprints.org.
Depending on which vaccines they received, vaccinated children were between 29%-74% more likely to die than unvaccinated children. Vaccinated Black infants were 28%-74% more likely to die, and vaccinated female infants had a 52%-98% greater risk of death.
Overall, children who received all six vaccines recommended for 2-month-olds were 68% more likely to die in their third month of life, the data showed.
Hooker and Jablonowski determined the death rates by analyzing immunization and mortality records from the Louisiana Department of Health for children who died before age 3 months between 2013 and 2024.
“This very important paper represents one of the first studies on the cumulative effect of vaccinesgiven at 2 months of age following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommended schedule,” Hooker told The Defender.
He added:
“The highest infant mortality rates were seen when children received all six of the recommended vaccines in one visit. In addition to elevated mortality, the vaccination schedule also increased the likelihood that children were more likely to die of non-leading causes of death.
“This type of study is needed to guide the efforts of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and especially the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) as they revisit the recommended schedule.”
Hooker and Jablonowski compared infants vaccinated between 60 and 90 days of life — the window corresponding to the CDC’s recommended 2-month immunization visit — with children who were unvaccinated during that same period. Mortality was defined as death occurring between 90 and 120 days of life.
At the 2-month visit, during the period studied, a CDC-compliant infant would likely have received shots for respiratory syncytial virus or RSV; hepatitis B (Hep B); rotavirus; diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis; Haemophilus influenzae type B; pneumococcal; and poliovirus.
“It is the largest single-day antigenic assault a person is ever likely to encounter in their lifetimes, and may be accompanied with 1.225 mg [milligrams] of aluminum adjuvant … even though the … maximum per-dose limit allowable by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is 0.85mg,” according to the authors.
The infant mortality rate in the U.S. is about 1 in 200. However, “in what amounts to one of the greatest health hazards in the entire country, and a national injustice,” according to the authors, the mortality rate for infants born to Black mothers is approximately 1 in 100 — almost double the national rate.
Major departure from the standard narrative
Public health authorities have long maintained that childhood vaccines are safe and effective and that vaccination prevents far more deaths than it could plausibly cause.
However, some doctors and scientists, including some who spoke at recent ACIP meetings, are beginning to acknowledge that these claims are based on limited evidence, that many vaccines were recommended without sufficient safety data and that the expansion of the childhood schedule coincided with a rise in chronic illness among U.S. children.
The authors said their study — although limited to a few thousand children — is, to date, one of the largest studies of its kind. [MORE]
