The Hidden Dangers of Antidepressants and Why It’s So Hard to Stop Taking Them

[…]

Whenever I ask a holistic physician which commonly used medication classes they believe cause the most harm to society, SSRIs always are one of the top five.

Note: Statins (discussed here), NSAIDS like ibuprofen (discussed here), and PPI acid reflux medications (discussed here) frequently make the top five as well.

This is because SSRIs rarely benefit patients (only a minority of depressed patients have a metabolic type that responds to SSRIs) and the drugs have a large number of severe and often life-changing side effects. For example, in a survey of 1,829 patients1 on antidepressants in New Zealand:

  • 62% reported sexual difficulties
  • 52% felt not like themselves
  • 47% had experienced agitation
  • 60% felt emotionally numb
  • 39% cared less about others
  • 39% had experienced suicidal ideation

Many of these can be immensely impactful for individuals (e.g., SSRI sexual dysfunction is often permanent and frequently causes severe depression, while emotional anesthesia takes away the joy of life and can cause people to spend years, if not decades, in emotionally toxic situations).

Worse still, the SSRIs are somewhat unique in that they can also harm those not taking the drugs as they can trigger psychotic violence, which results in either suicide, homicide, and tragically, in numerous cases, mass shootings (discussed further here). Furthermore, the pharmaceutical industry was aware of this from the start, but chose to conceal all that evidence to sell the drugs (and only revealed it after lawsuits forced them to).

Note: Another example of a pharmaceutical that harms others is the COVID vaccine as it causes certain recipients to shed the vaccine and then significantly harm those around them who are sensitive to shedding — to the point numerous sensitive readers have shared COVID vaccine shedding has greatly impacted their lives (discussed further here).

Maximizing Sales

Much of the medical industry’s appalling conduct makes sense once its actions are viewed through a business lens that seeks to maximize sales. This for instance, is why the SSRIs, rather than being outlawed, were able to become some of the most successful drugs in history (e.g., in 2027, they are projected to be an 18.27 billion dollar global market2) and why almost all of their appalling side effects have been hidden from the public. Let’s review some of those unconscionable tactics.

Sales Funnels

A classic principle in marketing is to cast as wide a net as possible for your customers and then gradually pull some of those customers into costlier and costlier products. Since funnels gradually shrink as you go further down them, similar to how fewer customers will buy a product as it becomes more expensive, this method is often referred to as a “sales funnel.” With the SSRIs, a robust sales funnel exists as:

  • Through years of almost unbelievable marketing (discussed further here), depression was redefined to include the normal negative emotions of life. As such, depression became so subjective it became possible to market it to most of the population and patients frequently will ask their doctors to prescribe SSRIs after they encounter an emotional obstacle.
  • Numerous mass screening programs exist for doctors to diagnose if someone is depressed (e.g., this is routinely done for pregnant women and the elderly).
  • Once a patient is “depressed,” rather than using natural approaches that effectively treat depression, the medical system will aggressively push them to start SSRIs.
  • The SSRIs frequently cause a variety of psychiatric issues which require taking even stronger psychiatric medications.

This skit for example illustrates many of the sad absurdities behind a common SSRI sales funnel used on pregnant women:

.

Watch on X

.

Bipolar Disorder — An Unintended Outcome

Since the SSRIs antidepressants are stimulants, they often trigger mania. In turn, one of the most common problems associated with their use is bipolar disorder (a disease where you alternate from a depressed to a manic state).

To put this into context, in 1955, 1 in 13,000 people were disabled for bipolar, and the majority of patients who presented to the hospital for a manic episode permanently recovered. Now, bipolar affects 1 in every 20 to 50 people, and 83% of them are severely impaired in some facet of their lives.3 A significant amount of data has linked bipolar disorder to SSRIs. For example:

  • Yale researchers reviewed the records of 87,290 patients diagnosed with depression or anxiety between 1997 and 2001 and determined those treated with antidepressants converted to bipolar at the rate of 7.7% per year (three times greater than the rate for those not exposed to the drugs), ultimately resulting in between 20% to 40% of depressed patients becoming bipolar.4
  • A survey found 60% of bipolar patients only developed their illness after receiving SSRIs for depression.5
  • Peter Breggin reported that of 184 patients in the hospital starting Prozac, Zoloft, or Paxil, 11 developed mania and 8 became psychotic, and in Yale, 8% of 533 consecutive admissions were for mania or psychosis caused by antidepressants, and two patients heard voices commanding them to kill themselves.6

Note: The psychiatric field gets around this issue by claiming SSRIs “unmask” latent bipolar a patient always had — even though it likely would have never been “unmasked” had they never taken the SSRI in the first place.

Likewise, since the advent of mass psychiatric medicating, the character of bipolar has changed, becoming much more complicated to treat, characterized by much more rapid cycling between the depressed and manic states, and much more likely to produce severe complications like dementia later on.

Unfortunately, when the foremost experts in bipolar disorder presented these findings at the American Psychiatric Association’s annual conference and urged caution in the over administration of SSRIs, they were met with boos from their increasingly upset audience.7

As such, the link between SSRIs and bipolar disorder is rarely focused on, and instead the dangers of bipolar disorder (e.g., being 4 to 6 times as likely to die prematurely8) are continually emphasized to justify treating it.

This is remarkable given that a strong case can be made that many of the disastrous complications of bipolar disorder result from the highly toxic antipsychotics the disorder is “treated” with, especially since those same drugs are often given to schizophrenic patients, a disorder characterized by similar long-term complications (that are rarely seen in countries which do not use the drugs9).

In short, a robust sales funnel exists to create lifelong psychiatric medication users, best demonstrated by the fact spending an ever increasing amount of money to “treat” mental illness has only resulted more of it.10

.

rising trends lifetime and current depression rate

.

Worse still, this sales funnel is particularly effective in capturing young adults who were raised in it (e.g., a recent post-COVID survey of those aged 18 to 24 found 42% had a mental health condition, including 37.8% with anxiety and 32.8% depression11) — and is particularly predatory towards young women:

.

common response hormonal changes

.

Customer Retention

Since SSRIs “treat” rather than “cure” depression, they typically are a lifelong prescription (which is great for sales). However, since SSRIs have so many intolerable side effects and rarely help those who use them, tactics need to be used to retain those customers and safeguard their recurring revenue.

For instance, patients will often be told (sometimes not only by a doctor but also by a judge) that they lack the judgment to understand their mental illness, and they must hence take the prescribed medication.

Likewise, physicians rarely recognize the adverse effects of SSRIs. Instead, they are often trained to attribute them to the patient’s pre-existing mental illness (which frequently leads to horrendous gaslighting and patients sometimes being forced to take the medications against their consent).

SSRI Withdrawals

Like many other stimulants, SSRIs can be extremely addictive. In fact, SSRIs have such a high risk for withdrawals that merely changing an existing dosage or accidentally missing a pill can be sufficient to trigger severe withdrawals (e.g., this has caused many SSRI suicides12).

Unfortunately, when this happens, rather than recognize that withdrawals are occurring, physicians typically interpret them to mean the SSRI was effectively treating a severe (pre-existing) mental illness — and thus must urgently be resumed, even though the “mental illness” the patient exhibits was not present prior to them initiating the SSRI.

Likewise, since so few physicians know how to recognize the signs of SSRI withdrawals, almost none know how to treat it. As a result, individuals experiencing SSRI withdrawals frequently make the horrifying discovery that the safety net they thought existed simply isn’t there (an experience which likewise has been shared by many of those who developed significant complications from the COVID-19 vaccines).

As such, many who experience these withdrawals are forced to resume the drugs (as this is often all doctors can offer those patients), thereby ensuring customer retention.

Effects of SSRI Withdrawals

When withdrawing from an SSRI, severe withdrawals (e.g., becoming suicidal or violently psychotic) can happen. As such, I always urge readers to be extremely cautious in how they stop the medications.

However, far more frequently, less severe (and often fluctuating) withdrawal symptoms also occur such as:Worse still, these reactions are very common (e.g., I know more people than I can count who’ve experienced brain zaps).

In fact, a recent meta-analysis found that 56% of patients who stop using SSRIs experience withdrawals, that 46% who stop an SSRI experience severe withdrawals, and that these withdrawals last for weeks to months.13 Additionally, it is well known in the SSRI recovery community that the risk of a withdrawal varies greatly depending on the drug (e.g., Paxil is notorious for causing withdrawals, Cymbalta is also a common offender).

Note: A 1996 door-to-door survey of 2003 randomly selected people in England found that 78% of them considered SSRIs to be addictive.14

The pharmaceutical industry is well aware of this, to the point they will often deliberately put “placebo” subjects in SSRI trials into withdrawals (by terminating their existing prescription) so they can make the drug group look “better” than the “placebo” patients.

Note: This is similar to how Merck hid Gardasil’s high rates of severe adverse reactions by using its toxic adjuvant (rather than saline) for the placebo group, resulting in similar injury rates in both groups, which, despite being extraordinarily high, went unquestioned by regulators.

Why Are SSRIs So Addictive?

For the roughly 50% of people who experience SSRI withdrawals, one of the most challenging things is how incredibly slowly they have to stop taking them. A major reason for this is due to the non-linear relationship between an SSRI dose and its binding to the brain.

[…]

Because of this, individuals seeking to quit SSRIs often have to go at an incredibly slow pace (e.g., in many cases, sandpaper is needed to slightly decrease the current dose, and it often takes years of daily work to withdraw from an SSRI). To make matters worse:

  • If one withdraws from an SSRI too quickly, the nervous system can become sensitized and require an even slower pace for subsequently weaning off an SSRI. Likewise, once sensitized, individuals can also have strong reactions to a variety of other things in their environment that did not previously affect the individual.
  • When withdrawing from an SSRI, the process (e.g., what gets better and what gets worse) can often come in chaotic and unpredictable waves.
  • In many cases, using a supplement concurrently can often significantly worsen the withdrawal process (as a result they have to be phased in very slowly).
  • Patients are normally put onto multiple addictive psychiatric medications concurrently, so to quit them, typically only one can be withdrawn from at a time, and a great deal of deliberation must go into which one that is.
  • Certain SSRIs can be so difficult to withdraw from it must instead be gradually replaced with another less addictive SSRI.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/hidden-dangers-antidepressants-hard-stop-taking/5879420

 

 

Pentagon raises threat of Israeli spying on US to highest level

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (Photo by AP)

Press TV

The Pentagon has raised the counter-intelligence threat level to its highest level, amid escalating concerns that the Israeli regime had become more aggressive in its US espionage activities.

In a report, NBC News cited US Department of War sources as saying that the Pentagon is increasingly concerned about Israeli spies ramping up their espionage operations on US officials, advising them to take extra precautionary measures with the Israelis.

According to the report, two US officials and one former official, the Pentagon recently raised the counter-intelligence threat level from America’s closest regional ally to the highest degree.

The sources said the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) posted an internal warning message, which one eyewitness had viewed, raising the danger level of the Israeli regime’s agencies spying on the US military to “critical.”

The increased risk level stems from the rising concerns within the War Ministry that the Israeli espionage apparatus is making an added effort to spy on US officials to get information on the Trump administration’s internal deliberations and decision-making processes on the illegal US-Israeli wars in West Asia, the officials said.

According to one of the current US officials cited in the report, a DIA seven-page assessment featured a chart demonstrating the Israelis have the ability to conduct human espionage and technical collection of sensitive data at a “critical level.”

The official said that the assessment also identified a pattern in a series of specific incidents that raises the Americans’ espionage concerns.

The Israeli embassy in Washington, DC, dismissed DIA’s report as “completely false.” Its spokesperson claimed that the Israeli regime’s spies would “not gather intelligence on American …government officials.”

The Israelis have a long and dark history of establishing espionage networks in the US. For years, current and former diplomats and former national security officials have warned against Israeli espionage networks operating in the US.

US Navy intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard was handed a 30-year prison sentence after he was found spying for the Israeli regime in the 80s. Pollard revealed aspects of the US intelligence gathering process, including its “sources and methods”. In 1995, while imprisoned, he was granted Israeli citizenship. Pollard was released from prison on November 20, 2015.

US officials are often advised to take extra precautionary measures when traveling to the occupied territories, sometimes using burner phones and computers and extreme caution when speaking in hotel rooms during official trips, the current and former US officials and experts said.

The Israeli regime has “a hyper-aggressive intelligence service,” said Emily Harding, vice president of the Defense and Security Department and director of the intelligence, national security and technology program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington.

“They are exceedingly interested in what we are up to,” Harding said of the Israelis due to Tel Aviv and Washington not being in full agreement about the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Most analysts believe US President Donald Trump was blackmailed by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamine Naetanyu over the Epstein case to launch war on Iran.

[…]

Via https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/06/06/769930/Pentagon-raised-threat-of-Israeli-spying-on-US-to-highest-level-Report

Iran pounds US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain after drone attacks on Iranian territory

Iranian missiles are seen being launched to strike designated targets.

Press TV

June 6, 2026

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) says it has targeted two US air bases in Kuwait and the remaining facilities of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain in response to the latest US aggression.

In a statement on Saturday morning, the IRGC said that at 1:30 am, four violating oil tankers, instigated and guided by the aggressive American army and without coordination or attention to repeated warnings from the IRGC Navy, attempted to illegally exit the Strait of Hormuz.

Following warnings, one of the tankers was targeted and stopped, and the other violating vessels turned back, it said.

According to the statement, following this incident, at 2:30 am, American drones struck a telecommunications mast on Qeshm Island and another mast in Sirik with two projectiles.

It added that in response to the aggression of the American army, the IRGC’s Aerospace Force immediately launched ballistic missiles toward two US air bases in Kuwait, identifying one of them as Ali Al Salem, as well as important remaining facilities of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.

The IRGC also warned “the aggressive and child-killing enemy that if such acts of villainy are repeated, the response will not be limited.”

“You will be responsible for the consequences of the complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz to the export of your oil and gas,” the statement added.

Earlier, US Central Command wrote in a post on X that “moments ago, CENTCOM forces shot down four Iranian one-way attack drones that were launched toward the Strait of Hormuz.”

The post claimed that the attack drones posed an immediate threat to regional maritime traffic and that US forces subsequently struck Iranian coastal surveillance radar sites in Goruk and on Qeshm Island to defend against further attacks.

It added that American forces remain postured to respond to what it called “unjustified Iranian aggression in self-defense.”

An IRIB reporter in Sirik also reported that around 2:30 am Saturday, the sound of several explosions was heard in the city.

The US and Israel started an aggression against Iran on February 28, some eight months after they carried out unprovoked attacks on the country.

Iran began to swiftly retaliate ag ainst the strikes by launching a barrage of missiles and drone attacks on the Israeli-occupied territories as well as on US bases in regional countries.

On April 8, forty days into the war, a Pakistan-brokered temporary ceasefire between Iran and the US took effect.

Meanwhile, the IRGC Navy has maintained full control over the Strait of Hormuz and has warned that any interference by foreign military forces will be met with immediate retaliation.

[…]

Via https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/06/06/769908/IRGC-reports-missile-strikes-US-Kuwait,-Bahrain-American-aggression

Human Prehistory: In the Beginning

Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis

Episode 2 In the Beginning

Human Prehistory and the First Civilizations

Dr Brian M Fagan (2003)

Film Review

Primates are an order of mammals divided into Anthropoids (apes, humans and monkeys) and Prosimians (lemura and other pre-monkeys).

The suborder hominidae differentiated from chimpanzees 7-5 million years ago. The date can be determined fairly precisely from a genetic mutation found in all hominidae in blood albumin. The most prominent hominidae species was Autralopithicus. It’s believed hominidae evolved as Africa became drier and jungle regions were increasingly transformed into grasslands (savanna). As savanna dwellers, hominidae were exposed to numerous predators and had to stand upright to survive (it helped them run faster). It was also much harder to find food on the savanna, and early hominids became much more dependent on meat than their chimpanzee relatives.

Fossil finds:

  • 1924 – Taung South Africa Australopithecus africanus skeleton dating 3-7 million years ago
  • 2002 – Toumai Chad hominid skull 6-7 millions years ago (debatable whether ape or hominid)
  • 1992 Ethiopia – Ethiopia Ardipithecus ramidis, earliest hominid skeleton discovered (dating from 4 to .5 million years ago) walked upright.
  • 1978 Kenya – Australopithecus afarenis 3.8 million years ago 3.5-4 feet tall. Nicknamed Lucy.
  • 1978 Kenya – Mary Leaky discovered Australopithecus footprints dating 2.5 million years ago show evidence of slow rolling gait (unlike modern humans).

Human brain size increased along with social intelligence as hominids gradually figured figured out how to find and catch meat.

Three million year ago Australopithecus aferenis split into two different lines, with one becoming true humans who made tools.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/15061946/15061950

Military Weather Modification: Has Iran Disrupted A Prolonged Drought by Undermining US-Israel Weather Weapon?

UC-123 airplanes spraying herbicides in central South Vietnam, 1966. (Source)

By Uriel Araujo

The recent end of a prolonged drought in Iran is triggering controversy across West Asia: Iranian and Iraqi authorities claim that the unusually heavy rainfall following Iranian strikes against certain American facilities in the Gulf indicate that Tehran in fact disrupted a covert weather-modification program – allegedly operated by the US and Israel.

Iraqi MP Al-Kaikhani in turn has claimed that Washington and Tel Aviv had been “stealing clouds”, causing droughts regionally.

Some analysts have dismissed the claims as “conspiracy”. The broader issue however deserves serious consideration: the question is not whether Iran has proven the existence of a US-Israeli weather weapon (so far it has not). It is whether such weather modification can be weaponized, whether great and regional powers have explored these possibilities in the past, and whether modern geoengineering technologies could eventually become instruments of geopolitical competition.

Military weather modification is no science fiction: the clearest documented case remains Operation Popeye during the Vietnam War (1967-1972) involving “cloud-seeding” missions to trigger landslides and disrupt North Vietnamese supply lines.

It remained highly classified until exposed in the early 1970s. Operation Popeye then directly inspired the 1977 Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), which prohibits the hostile military use of environmental modification techniques with widespread effects. It would make little sense to negotiate and ratify an international treaty banning a capability that policymakers regarded as impossible back in the seventies.

Almost 50 years later, weather modification initiatives continue to exist in various forms. China operates one of the world’s largest cloud-seeding programs, employing aircraft, and drones to influence precipitation for agricultural and drought-relief purposes. Iran itself has experimented with cloud-seeding operations in recent years and reportedly expanded these efforts in late 2025.

More ambitious geoengineering concepts, including solar radiation management and marine cloud brightening, remain largely experimental – allegedly. Yet they are openly discussed by governments, think tanks, and scientific institutions. No wonder concerns about their potential military applications are growing.

An important warning comes from Professor Nayef Al-Rodhan, head of the Outer Space Security Cluster at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. In a recent piece, Al-Rodhan argues that geoengineering technologies possess an undeniable dual-use character: systems intended to mitigate climate change could also become instruments of coercion, strategic leverage, or geopolitical rivalry.

The point is that whether or not large-scale weather warfare is currently feasible (and to what extent), the perception that states possess such capabilities can itself destabilize international relations. For one thing, efforts to alter rainfall patterns in one region could be interpreted as hostile actions elsewhere. Climate intervention may very well become another arena of great-power competition alongside cyberspace, outer space, and artificial intelligence.

Back to Iranian and Iraqi allegations, one of the counterpoints made is that such has been banned under international law, as mentioned. Alas, the claim that weather warfare is illegal does not prove it is not happening. History, by the way, offers numerous examples of governments engaging in activities that violated international norms, treaties, or human rights standards.

The US experience alone provides several examples: targeted killings through drone strikes in a number of countries have generated longstanding legal controversies in recent years. More famously, the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War caused devastating consequences.

Similarly, Israel faces serious scrutiny from UN experts, Amnesty International, and others regarding conduct in Gaza, including genocide allegations.

The point here is that states sometimes do violate international law: the illegality of weather warfare thus cannot be used as evidence that weather warfare is impossible!

Also, consider the following:

CIA infamous MKUltra experiments evolving mind control and “brainwashing” were once ridiculed as paranoid fantasies before official investigations confirmed them.

The NSA’s mass surveillance programs were likewise dismissed by many until the Snowden revelations.

The COVID-19 laboratory-leak hypothesis was widely rejected as “paranoia” before becoming the serious subject of official investigation as it is today.

Notably, Pentagon investigations now acknowledge the existence of “unexplained aerial phenomena” after decades of ridicule surrounding the topic.

The same pattern occurs regarding military technology:

Stealth aircraft such as the F-117 were often ridiculed as UFO lore or impossible due to aerodynamics (“it won’t fly”).

CIA-operated U-2 spy planes in Area 51 generated UFO rumors, and when the first allegations surfaced many experts believed the altitudes were impossible for manned aircraft – in fact various “UFO” or “UAP” sightings may in fact be phenomena connected to classified tech.

Before 1945, the idea of a single bomb destroying an entire city seemed fantastical to most observers – and yet the atomic bomb was developed in total secrecy during WWII (Manhattan Project).

The point is that what appears impossible to the public today may become routine tomorrow after years of black-budget research and compartmentalized development.

It is true that none of this proves that Iran destroyed an American or Israeli  weather weapon. Droughts and rainfall patterns have many causes, and climate systems are notoriously complex.

Yet the timing of recent events in Iran inevitably raises eyebrows. Combined with growing global interest in geoengineering, all the documented historical precedents, ongoing cloud-seeding programs, and the strategic incentives, the allegations deserve investigation rather than mockery.

Professor Al-Rodhan’s warning should therefore be taken seriously. Weather warfare, conducted in the Vietnam era, remains a potential future domain of competition, addressed by international law.

It is true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is also true that history has repeatedly shown that extraordinary secrecy can produce capabilities that surprise the world when revealed. In an age of hybrid warfare, gray-zone competition, and increasingly sophisticated climate technologies, speculation about covert weather-modification activities is not absurd at all.

Whether Iran’s suspicions ultimately prove justified (regarding drought in the Gulf) remains unknown. In any case, the suspicions themselves indicate the atmosphere is becoming yet another geopolitical battleground.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-ended-drought-destroying-us-israel-weather-weapon/5928864

The Great Prostate Hoax

An expressive oil painting focused on the human prostate and its surgical removal, symbolizing the impact of PSA testing and prostate cancer treatment. The central image is a detailed representation of the prostate surrounded by surgical tools and hands preparing to perform the removal. The prostate is depicted with vulnerable, soft textures, while the background is dark and somber, with muted tones of blue, grey, and red, emphasizing the gravity of the procedure. Bold, dramatic brushstrokes highlight the intensity and emotional weight of the scene, evoking a sense of medical intervention and loss.By Richard Ablin and Ronald Piana – Unbekoming Book Summary

Unbekoming

Oct 16, 2024

It’s not just women that Cartel Medicine feeds on, although it does prefer them.

Men are also meat for the grinder, especially when their privates are involved.

The screening hoax we witnessed with mammograms has a counterpart with prostates and the PSA test.

The predation here is especially synergistic as the maiming and destruction caused by prostate interventions feed two sub-Cartels: those of erectile dysfunction and incontinence. The adult diaper business is thriving because of this butchery.

Urologists, not wanting to be left behind by pediatricianspsychiatristscardiologistsdermatologists and  dentists have their own cozy racket.

With thanks to Richard Ablin and Ronald Piana for telling the truth. [in their book ‘The Great Prostate Hoax.’]

12-point summary

Here’s a 12-point summary of the book, including key data and statistics for those that don’t want to read the longer Q&A below.

  1. PSA (Prostate-Specific Antigen) is not cancer-specific. It’s present in normal, benign, and cancerous prostate tissue. There is no specific PSA level that definitively indicates cancer.
  2. Routine PSA screening leads to significant overdiagnosis and overtreatment. For every 1,000 men screened, only 1 man may avoid death from prostate cancer, while many others suffer unnecessary biopsies and treatments.
  3. Prostate cancer is age-related. About 40% of men aged 40-49, 70% of men 60-69, and 80% of men over 70 have prostate cancer. Most of these cancers are slow-growing and unlikely to cause death.
  4. The lifetime risk of dying from prostate cancer is only 3%, meaning 97% of men will die from other causes, even if they have prostate cancer.
  5. Radical prostatectomy, a common treatment resulting from PSA screening, often leads to significant side effects. Up to 60-80% of men experience erectile dysfunction and 10-20% have long-term urinary incontinence.
  6. PSA screening has not significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality. Studies show similar death rates between screened and unscreened populations.
  7. The PSA test has a high false-positive rate of up to 80%, leading to many unnecessary biopsies and treatments.
  8. Active surveillance is increasingly recognized as an appropriate option for many men with low-risk prostate cancer, potentially avoiding unnecessary treatments and their side effects.
  9. The U.S. healthcare system spends an estimated $3 billion annually on PSA tests alone, with billions more on subsequent procedures and treatments.
  10. New technologies like robotic surgery and proton beam therapy, while heavily marketed, have not shown superior outcomes to traditional treatments but are significantly more expensive.
  11. Conflicts of interest are prevalent in prostate cancer care. Many researchers and physicians promoting PSA screening have financial ties to companies that profit from increased screening and treatment.
  12. The FDA approved the PSA test for screening in 1994 despite significant reservations from its own advisory panel. This decision, along with aggressive marketing by medical companies, led to widespread adoption of PSA screening before its benefits and harms were fully understood.

‘Trade over Aid’: GOP Resolution Introduced to Phase Out U.S. Military Aid to Israel

>Maher Ceasefire - President Donald J. Trump, joined by Vice President Mike Pence, particip

Breitbart

Republican Reps. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) and Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ) have introduced a resolution calling for the phased elimination of the $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel and its replacement with a partnership focused on trade, joint technology development, and strategic cooperation — a proposal endorsed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The nonbinding resolution, introduced Wednesday, urges the United States and Israel to negotiate a memorandum of understanding before the current ten-year agreement expires in 2028. Under the proposal, direct military assistance would be gradually phased out and replaced by a framework centered on joint defense cooperation, co-development, co-production, and mutual investment.

The effort comes with Netanyahu’s backing.

Following a May 27 meeting in Jerusalem with Stutzman and Hamadeh, Netanyahu sent a June 1 letter expressing support for the initiative and embracing its broader vision of transitioning the U.S.-Israel relationship from one based on aid to one based on partnership.

[…]

Via https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026/06/04/gop-resolution-introduced-phaseout-u-s-military-aid-israel/

Gitmo Prosecution Currently in 15th Year

by | Jun 4, 2026

America’s longest current criminal prosecution is in its 15th year, on its fifth judge, and still has no trial date.

The defendants are Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four alleged mass murder co-conspirators. Mohammed is the second person that the government has characterized as the ringleader of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Originally, the feds had labeled Osama bin Laden as the ringleader. Yet, rather than charging and arresting bin Laden, in order to keep him quiet it sent a team of Navy Seals to his home in Pakistan to murder him and his wife and their children.

After that, the feds labeled Mohammed as the orchestrator of 9/11 even though that, by the time of bin Laden’s death, Mohammed had been in US custody for eight years. During that time, he was brutally tortured by CIA officers and other US civilian agents.

His torture was truly repellant. He was waterboarded 183 times. He was hanged by his wrists while naked and in well-lit walk-in refrigerators such that he was freezing and denied sleep for days. His head was smashed repeatedly against wooden walls. His rectum, through which he was fed, was so brutalized that he bled for months, often ingesting into his intestines his own blood and fecal material.

At the end of three years of these criminal attacks at foreign sites operated by cooperating intelligence agencies with the torture administered by Americans, he told his torturers what he thought they wanted to hear. Then he was transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he has remained since 2007.

Upon his arrival at Gitmo, a different set of interrogators took over. The video tapes of his hundreds of torture sessions were destroyed but not the transcripts of his confession. The purpose of the second round of interrogations was to elicit another confession by agents who could testify to a judge that they did not torture him, and that his confession to them was not coerced.

Though some of these interrogators at Gitmo were FBI agents, no one read him his Miranda warnings, advising him of his right to silence, to counsel and to the legal implications of anything he told his new interrogators. Mohammed made admissions to this second group of interrogators substantially similar to those he made to his torturers.

The government, which once denied but now admits to the torture, nevertheless was prepared to argue that his second confession was voluntary. Then, the feds had a change of heart. And, two years ago, his lawyers entered into plea negotiations, at the request of the government because the military lawyers and their Department of Justice legal colleagues concluded that they could not ethically defend torture in an American courtroom.

Federal law, the federal rules of criminal procedure, the canons of legal ethics and state bar licensing authorities all prohibit lawyers from using coerced testimony in a courtroom.

The government and all defense lawyers entered into a plea agreement that provided for full public confessions, a public confrontation by family members of 9/11 victims during which the defendants agreed to reply truthfully to their questions, and, of course, life in prison at Gitmo.

The Army general in the Pentagon in charge of all Gitmo prosecutions — herself a former military judge — approved the plea agreement, as did the military trial judge, and all five defendants.

Then, the Biden administration Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin fired the general who approved the plea agreement and revoked the Pentagon’s approval. A federal appeals court upheld his revocation. At that point, Mohammed was on his fourth military judge and his fifth team of prosecutors.

After the court affirmed the Pentagon’s change of heart, the military judge who had approved the plea agreement retired. The current and fifth judge has presumably read the 44,000 pages of documents and transcripts that 15 years of litigation has generated as he announced last week that he will rule on the admissibility of the second round of confessions this summer.

The present judge, who did not preside over any of the hundreds of hours of proceedings in the case, including those during which the horrific tortures described above were related in an American courtroom, must now decide if the second confession was voluntary. Though the government now admits that the first confession was not voluntary, its relevance here is not the words Mohammed told his torturers but the degradation of his mental faculties due to the egregious tortures such that the second confession was also not voluntary.

Was Mohammed so conditioned to the power of his interrogators that his will was attenuated?

The standard of proof that the government must meet to get the second confession admitted is voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. That’s the same high standard for proving guilt in all American courts. If the feds fail to meet this standard to the satisfaction of the judge, the case will proceed to trial without the jury hearing the confession.

This is a two-edged sword for the government. If the confession is read to the jury, then the defendants and their experts can relate to the jury all the horrific things the government did in order to produce the confessions. But if the confession does not come into evidence, then the jury will not hear of the tortures unless there is a conviction and the torture testimony is presented in mitigation of punishment.

What we have here is a lawless system of brutality. Torture and all it produces is a profound violation of natural rights, the Constitution’s guarantee of due process, as well as federal law. Even practitioners of this medieval behavior have acknowledged it produces unreliable statements. It is the tool of monsters.

[…]

Via https://ronpaulinstitute.org/gitmo-and-torture-revisited/

Mass protests grip Albania over Trump family-linked resort project

RRT
June 5, 2026
The $1.6 billion high-end development has sparked anger over the planned location near a protected coastal area

Thousands of Albanians took to the streets of the capital, Tirana on Thursday for the fourth consecutive day of protests against a controversial luxury resort project linked to Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump.

The €1.4 billion ($1.6 billion) development is being spearheaded by Kushner’s investment firm, Affinity Partners, and includes projects on Sazan Island and an undeveloped stretch of coastline near the Vjosa-Narta protected area in the south of the country. The wetland is home to flamingos, seals, and sea turtle nesting sites.

The Albanian government has defended the investment as a way to attract high-end tourism, support the economy, and achieve its long-standing goal of joining the EU. Environmental groups warn that the project threatens the fragile ecosystem and exposes broader governance issues.

Speaking to RT, political analyst Nikola Vujinovic said the controversy goes beyond environmental concerns and reflects wider political tensions in Albania. He argued that the project has become tangled up in debates over Prime Minister Edi Rama’s ties to Washington and support for the Trump administration.

According to Vujinovic, the protests also stem from broader allegations against Rama’s government, including claims of corruption and authoritarianism.

[…]

Via https://www.rt.com/news/641040-mass-protests-albania-trump/

 

Major Journal under Fire for Omitting Pfizer’s Failed Flu Data in Seniors

Major Journal under Fire for Omitting Pfizer’s Failed Flu Data in Seniors

By

reported that Pfizer’s mRNA flu shot offered almost no clinical benefit in adults aged 18–64 — and that the harms were more significant than the headlines suggested.

But that was not the full story.

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) did not publish any data from the older adults in the same trial — the very population most at risk from influenza and the main reason these vaccines exist.

Instead, the over-65 results were quietly uploaded to ClinicalTrials.gov, where they sat buried on a government website, out of sight and far from the scrutiny that comes with publication in a leading medical journal.

When MIT professor Retsef Levi discovered the missing cohort while reviewing the trial documents, he was stunned — not only by what the data showed, but by what it means when a flagship journal selectively reports findings that may directly shape public health decisions.

What he told me calls into question not just this study, but the integrity of the system that allowed it to happen.

Burying Data

Levi said the missing data in the NEJM article was “puzzling,” adding that “it seems like the reason for omitting the older participants was because the results were not favourable for the studied mRNA vaccine.”

The trial enrolled about 27,000 participants aged 65 and older. Their data make it clear: Pfizer’s mRNA flu shot did not outperform the traditional flu shot in the elderly.

On top of that, Pfizer’s shot caused slightly higher rates of mild-to-moderate local and systemic reactions — injection-site pain, fatigue — consistent with the well-known reactogenicity profile of mRNA products.

Levi said omitting data from this group was “unacceptable, especially since the over-65s are among the high-risk populations that influenza vaccines aim to protect.”

He did not soften his criticism of NEJM’s role.

“It’s either gross negligence in the review process, or worse, scientific misconduct,” said Levi, questioning how the public can trust a journal “if its review process either misses or hides major results in the trial.”

Rather than presenting the full dataset in the journal, Pfizer uploaded the unfavourable results on ClinicalTrials.gov, where they remained effectively invisible to clinicians and the public.

Levi said there was no question this was an egregious oversight.

“I do not see how NEJM can argue that the published article is transparent, when results are selectively reported, and moreover, negative results are not reported.”

The failure to publish the older cohort’s results has now placed NEJM — and its Editor-in-Chief, Dr Eric Rubin — under intense scrutiny.

Levi said, “I think that what we see here is a clear failure of the NEJM’s review process and integrity, and the ultimate responsibility rests with the Editor in Chief…Dr Rubin should be expected to provide a clear explanation as to how this has happened.”

The Eric Rubin Problem

Dr Eric Rubin presided over the decision to publish a Pfizer trial stripped of its most important age group, allowing a reputed journal to become complicit in the same selective reporting practices that have long undermined scientific publishing.

Rubin also sits on the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) — the same committee that may one day review Pfizer’s biological licence application for this very product.

His track record during the pandemic has been fraught.

In a 2021 VRBPAC meeting on Covid-19 vaccines for children, Rubin dismissed concerns about unknown safety gaps, saying, “We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it. And that’s just the way it goes.”

NEJM under his leadership also published the pivotal AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine trial — a paper that omitted adverse event data.

One of those missing cases involved participant Brianne Dressen, whose severe neurological complications were removed from the trial records. Dressen personally contacted Rubin asking him to correct the record and update the trial data.

But Rubin refused.

Asked whether someone in Rubin’s position can objectively assess a product when his own journal has published selective data about it, Levi said, “The personal integrity of members in government advisory committees is a critical factor to consider.”

Levi declined to comment on whether Rubin should remain on the committee, saying only that “this type of incident harms public trust in science and more broadly, public health recommendations.”

What Should Happen Next?

Publication ethics are clear.

COPE (the Committee on Publication Ethics) states that retraction is warranted when there is “scientific misconduct or honest error that significantly affects the reliability of the findings.”

Selective reporting of pre-specified primary or secondary outcomes — particularly when it conceals clinically relevant harms — fits that definition precisely. At a minimum, NEJM must issue a formal correction with the full dataset.

Levi would not be drawn on whether the study should be retracted, but he was unequivocal about the principle: “Proper scientific conduct requires scientists and academic journals to be transparent and truthful.”

This case is neither.

The Real Issue Now

What happened here is a textbook case of regulatory capture.

A manufacturer runs a trial. A major journal publishes only the flattering part. The negative data are buried on a federal website. And the journal’s editor-in-chief sits on the FDA committee that may soon decide whether the product should be licensed.

This is precisely the kind of institutional rot that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has vowed to root out.

The question now is whether he will call for Rubin’s resignation from VRBPAC — a test of how far he is willing to go in confronting industry influence and demanding full transparency in medical journals.

Because unless this system is forced into the open, selective reporting will continue to be standard practice in even the most prestigious journals. And the public will keep receiving a polished marketing story instead of the full scientific truth.

 

[…]

Via https://brownstone.org/articles/major-journal-under-fire-for-omitting-pfizers-failed-flu-data-in-seniors/