Decisions about digital IDs, also called e-IDs, will be made across the board by all countries (193 UN member-states) within short, or have already been made. In some cases, like Switzerland, people will have a choice, they will be able to vote on the decision, see below.
In other countries, the governments, or those who pull the strings behind their governments, will take the decision without consulting the people.
A digital ID would be your last step to full enslavement – even if it is sold to you as a “benefit,” an “all-in-one” ID, that allows you passage to everything. What it does not say is that this “passage” comes at a high cost of liberty. It is granted only if you comply fully with the conditions of the e-ID and the linked QR code.
It is an infamous QR code that follows you everywhere and controls every move you are making; and what’s worse, it can block you from making any move, from using your money, from traveling, from simply living because it can impose on you a potentially harmful or deadly “vaccination” mandate (remember the covid vaxxes).
In other words, the e-ID requires complete compliance, complete obedience – complete submission. Only then, may it let you pass, buy what you want, and travel where you want.
Complete Submission by e-ID and QR Code
The WHO has now full authority to decide over any country’s health sovereignty, including deciding on pandemics (plandemics, rather), imposing vaccinations, at their will. This applies to any country that has not opted out from accepting the revised IHR by 19 July 2025. Switzerland among many other WHO members (total 194) has not opted out. The new, revised IHR will enter into effect on 19 September 2025.
The United States, Austria, Italy, Serbia – and others – have opted out of the new revised IHR.
Therefore, if you can vote, say NO, a resounding NO, to the digital ID, the e-ID, as it may otherwise be your last chance to express your opinion freely.
Please watch below Michael Yeadon’s, former Vice President of Research, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, short but concise and compelling statement about e-IDs.
In Switzerland, at its meeting on 21 May 2025, the Swiss Federal Council decided to put the the digital ID to a popular vote on 28 September 2025:
Federal Act of 20 December 2024 on electronic identification and other electronic means of authentication (eID Act, eIDG) (FF 2025 20).
A newly declassified FBI internal timeline reveals that the bureau’s Los Angeles Field Office was investigating 19 Clinton Foundation bank accounts for potential campaign finance fraud in 2016 before the Justice Department ordered the probe closed.
The disclosure, stemming from documents released this week, provides fresh detail on how federal investigators handled matters involving the Clinton Foundation during the 2016 presidential election cycle.
The records show that FBI investigators had been examining multiple bank accounts tied to the foundation as part of a broader campaign finance fraud investigation.
Thanks to Judicial Watch, the American public was made aware of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
Hillary Clinton conducted official business on a non-government server so she could hide her Clinton Foundation pay-to-play while she was head of the Department of State.
According to emails obtained by Judicial Watch, Hillary Clinton gave preferential treatment to Clinton Foundation donors while she was Secretary of State.
Intel’s CEO Lip-Bu Tan at the company’s Annual Manufacturing Technology Conference earlier this year
By Liz Acton-Taylor
The Trump administration has launched their own ‘Manhattan Project’ amid reports one of America’s largest companies is set to be nationalized.
Intel, the largest chip fabricator in the US, has been in talks with Donald Trump over a potential government stake in the company.
While the percentage stake the government is asking for has not been made public, nationalizing a company is typically reserved for emergencies.
The government nationalized a number of banks after the 2008 financial crisis and key logistics companies during World War II.
It comes amid concerns that America relies too heavily on TSCM, a chip manufacturer in Taiwan. China has repeatedly threatened to invade the island nation.
If China were to invade, it would throttle America’s ability to compete in the booming chipmaking industry that is being driven by artificial intelligence.
While Intel’s AI chips are considered inferior to those designed by Nvidia and AMD, the company is unique in that it not only designs its chips but it manufactures them. Trump wants to protect America by onshoring chip manufacturing.
‘This feels like the Manhattan Project – or the run-up to World War II,’ MIT AI computer scientist Dave Blundin said.‘It’s every bit as important as the space race was, as the nuclear arms race was. Actually, it’s more important.’
Beyond Meat appears headed to Chapter 11 bankruptcy after reporting that second-quarter revenue was down by 20% as the veggie patty meat alternative market has had declining sales across the industry. The company is currently holding $1.2 billion in debt, and the stock price has plummeted by 97% of its peak value.
Plant-based protein patties and meat alternatives made by companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods are, by definition, Ultra Processed Foods (UPF). A definition provided by Michael J. Gibney, published in Current Developments in Nature, states that processed foods are “industrial formations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients. Besides salt, sugar, oils, and fats, ingredients of ultra-processed foods include food substances not commonly used in culinary preparations, such as hydrolyzed protein, modified starches, and hydrogenated or interesterified oils, and additives whose purpose is to imitate sensorial qualities of unprocessed or minimally processed foods and their culinary preparations or to disguise undesirable qualities of the final product, such as colorants, flavorings, nonsugar sweeteners, emulsifiers, humectants, sequestrants, and firming, bulking, de-foaming, anticaking, and glazing agents.”
A study published last fall in The Lancet found a positive correlation between ultra-processed food consumption and increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and coronary heart disease (CHD). The authors wrote “Sulphites, 14 emulsifiers,7thickeners,8and sweeteners 11 are associated with cardiac tissue damage, metabolic syndrome-inducing microbiota alterations, inflammation, and pro-atherogenic apolipoproteins, respectively.” The Beyond Burger contains 2% or less of Methylcellulose, which is a thickener and emulsifier.
The authors wrote that excess calories, added sugars, sodium, and unhealthy fats in UPFs may contribute to CVD. The Beyond Burger has excess sodium with 310mg per serving, a 20% decrease from its previous formulation, and a small amount of fiber compared to whole food alternatives.
A 2025 Purdue University survey found that 30% of consumers consider all UPFs to be unhealthy and should be avoided. 61% of consumers acknowledged the unhealthiness of UPFs, yet they believe some of the foods in this category can be part of a healthy diet. Whole-grain sliced bread and low-fat yogurt are the examples provided by the lead author, Joseph Balagtas.
Last year, Beyond Meat announced a new reformulation that reduced the sodium and saturated fat by removing refined coconut oil in favor of avocado oil. The company was already experiencing declining sales and said the reformulation was an attempt to provide a more nutritious, better product.
Avocado oil has a 12:1 omega-6 to omega-3 ratio when the ideal ratio for the human diet is 1:1. When omega-6 is significantly higher than omega-3 in a person’s diet, this can lead to cardiovascular disease, cancer, and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases.
Impossible Foods CEO Peter McGuinness suggested that his company may create a burger that is 50% beef, as they are struggling to find enough consumers to support the current plant-based offerings.
Beyond Meat agreed to pay a $7.5 million settlement in a class-action suit for overstating the amount of protein in the company’s products and misrepresenting the quality of the ingredients used. One lawsuit accused Beyond Meat of making false “all-natural” claims while including Methylcellulose, a synthetic emulsifier.
Beyond Meat has a blog post explaining that the label of “ultra-processed food” is misleading and not a fair way to gauge how healthy or unhealthy a product is for consumers. Dr. Nicola Guess says it is not reasonable to lump Beyond Burgers in with sweets and pastries in terms of detrimental health effects.
Earlier this year, Beyond Meat CEO Ethan Brown said, “the Beyond value proposition remains obscured in doubt and misinformation.” He added that Beyond Meat is “a very clean source of protein” and that the company’s priority is dispelling misinformation about its products.
Bill Gates invested initially in both Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods as an alternative to animal-based agriculture. Gates sold all of his Beyond Meat stock in 2019 before it crashed.
Jeffery Jaxen reported on the decline of the plant-based meat alternatives in a segment last year, including several lawsuits that were pending against the company. The HighWire has reported on other initiatives that local and state governments have enacted to encourage less meat consumption in an attempt to reduce the effects of animal agriculture on the climate.
Lab-grown meat is being slowly rolled out in local markets, but has also been banned in several states. Texas banned lab-grown meat earlier this summer and became the seventh state to do so. In addition, a company named Moolec inserted genes into plants to create GMO hybrid Piggy Sooy, which received USDA approval last year.
A new book by Gabriela Gavrilov,[1]U.S.-Russian Commercial Relations 1763-1933: Origins of Russophobia shows that the Cold War was largely a phony war, rooted in political theater, that inspired the growth of the military-industrial complex in both the U.S. and Russia.
The reason the Cold War was phony is that the U.S. and Soviet Russia enjoyed close commercial relations, with the Soviet Union in no way threatening the U.S. militarily—despite vast propaganda to the contrary.
The U.S. could have easily established friendly diplomatic relations with the Soviets—as visionary leaders such as Henry Wallace advocated for—without major cost to the U.S. economy. However, the illusion of a Soviet threat was necessary to sustain the military-industrial complex and to rationalize U.S. covert and military operations around the globe.
The Cold War really started in 1918 when the Woodrow Wilson administration illegally invaded Russia without congressional consent in an attempt to overturn the Bolshevik revolution that established the Soviet Union.[2]
Wilson and his financial supporters opposed the Bolsheviks because they made alliance with Germany and ended Russian involvement in World War I, and took measures to nationalize private industries so the revenues could be used to develop the Russian economy.
In 1917, American profits from trade with Russia were about $700 million, one-fifth of Americans’ entire overseas earnings and seven percent of all corporate profits, which the Russian Revolution jeopardized.[3]
The official reason the Bolsheviks gave for forced nationalization and unprecedented centralization of the economy was to prevent Russia’s exploitation by foreign firms.
The new command economy indeed helped achieve these ends and bolstered state revenues, allowing the bolsheviks to eradicate unemployment, homelessness and poverty and to build the Red Army into a formidable force that defeated the Nazis.
However, after the triumph of the bolshevik revolution Gavrilov writes that “it was th[e] grandest foreign firms who quickly stepped into the Soviet economy—of the top 50 U.S. firms in 1917, at least 27 of them quietly began participating in the direction of Soviet industrial trusts between 1920 and 1928. Some, such as International Harvester [which supplied Russia with 20% of its agricultural machinery], Westinghouse, General Electric and Singer Sewing machine, already had enterprises in Imperial Russia and continued to do business with the Soviets.”[5]
Following the overthrow of Czar Nicholas II in February 1917, the Wilson administration supported the ascension of Alexander Kerensky, whose rule proved to be short-lived because he kept Russian troops in World War I and refused to support land reform or wealth redistribution measures that the Russian population clamored for.
J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller provided direct financing to counter-revoltuionary Admiral Alexander Kolchak, who tried to make himself dictator in Omsk, Siberia, during the Russian civil war.[6]
When it became clear that the U.S. invasion of Russia was not succeeding, the Wilson administration began back-channel negotiations with Vladimir Lenin, the founding head of the Soviet Union.[7] The negotiations were carried out by William C. Bullitt, son of an elite Philadelphia family whose grandfather oversaw a corporate merger that helped establish J.P. Morgan & Co., and Raymond Robins, a copper magnate and self-fashioned progressive with ownership stakes in Anaconda Copper who had made a fortune in the Klondike gold rush.[8]
Bullitt and Robins negotiated a deal with Lenin exempting U.S. corporations from Soviet nationalization decrees in exchange for the U.S. government providing foreign capital and U.S. technical expertise to the Soviets, which they urgently needed.
The exemptions were mostly for firms affiliated with the House of Morgan, whose partner, Henry P. Davidson, had directed an American Red Cross Mission Robins was part of that provided a cover for Wall Street’s attempted economic penetration of Russia.[9]
According to 1919 Senate hearings on Bolshevik propaganda, Bullitt and Robins negotiated with Lenin for the exemption from nationalization of International Harvester’s Lubertzy plant, National City Bank, First National Bank, Guaranty Trust Co., New York Life Insurance Company, J.M Coats (textiles), the Morgan-affiliated Westchester Brake Company and Morgan-affiliated Singer Manufacturing Company, which was allowed to operate its factory in Podolsk, even switching over from sewing machines to explosive shells.[10]
The Rockefeller-owned Standard Oil was able to arrange concessions in the Baku oil fields, which it took over in July 1920 from the Swedish-based Nobel Brothers’ oil company that the Bolsheviks had nationalized.[11]
The Nobels’ were Rockefeller’s major competitor in Europe, so the Russian Revolution proved to be a boon to them—although politically influential members of the family, like Nelson and David Rockefeller, became zealous cold warriors.
The man considered to be one of the fathers of the Cold War, W. Averell Harriman, political mentor of Joe Biden in the U.S. Senate, signed a concession in 1925 for a manganese mine in southern Russia with Soviet secret police head Felix Dzerzhinsky and invested in logging and gold-mining ventures that used Gulag labor.[12]
Son of a famous Gilded Age railroad tycoon, Harriman founded the investment bank Brown Brothers Harriman, that helped bankroll Nazi financiers in the 1930s. He went on to become U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union during World War II, governor of New York, and a high-level State Department official in the Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations.[13]
The story told by Gavrilov makes clear that the financial interests of Harriman and others like him were not set back too seriously by the Russian Revolution—quite the contrary.
Their advancement of an aggressive anti-communist foreign policy was driven predominantly by the fear that governments around the world inspired by the Bolshevik ideology would not make the same concessions to wealthy capitalists that Lenin had.
Furthermore, the Soviet “threat” could be invoked to rationalize interventions around the world that were really designed to open up U.S. corporate investment opportunities and allow for the extraction of natural resources. The same “threat” was used to legitimize gargantuan military budgets that enriched military contractors that Wall Street firms either owned or were invested in.
Power of U.S. Monopoly Capitalism—and a Regime of Judases
The greatest irony detailed in Gavrilov’s book is that, while Lenin was a great theorist of the evils of monopoly capitalism and championed its destruction, according to her, he wound up fortifying it in a betrayal of the Russian Revolution.
Under the Soviet five-year plans, all or parts of 500 industrial projects were built in total or in part by Western firms. They were given contracts by the Soviet state, which functioned as a vast monopoly cartel operating without any democratic accountability.
Gavrilov writes that, “since the Soviet market had been eviscerated of domestic competition and organized into national industrial trusts, once foreign firms became part of a Soviet industrial trust they enjoyed the monopoly held by that trust.”[14]
According to Gavrilov, much like fascist states, the Soviet Union offered an ideal business climate for multinational corporations because independent labor organizing was outlawed and strikes, when they emerged, were violently crushed.
The ideal of worker-run industry that Bolshevik revolutionaries had fought for never came to pass, and dissidents, whether leftists, anarchists, or rightists, were sent to the Siberian Gulag.[15]
The harsh nature of the Soviet regime did not bother the U.S. corporate titans who made vast profits there, in some cases based on reliance on Gulag slave labor.
Gavrilov quotes Antony Sutton, author of a study on Wall Street and the Soviets, who noted that it “has been almost universally accepted that the foreign concession policy of the 1920s and 1930s did not aid the industrial development policy of the USSR.”[16]
Gavrilov goes one step further in suggesting that the Soviet government was “nothing more than a neo-colonial regime installed to reorganize Russia’s economy for exploitation by foreign firms.”[17]
A considerable number of these firms were German, and Gavrilov presents evidence that Lenin’s Bolshevik faction was financially supported by Israel Lazarevich Gelfand (aka Alexander Helphand Parvus), a wealthy Balkan arms dealer and socialist with ties to the German High Command and Wilhelmstrasse who participated in the failed 1905 Russian Revolution alongside Lenin and Trotsky.[18]
Starting in September 1914, Gelfand was entrusted with the supervision of revolutionary fifth-column groups inside Russia being supported by the German and Austrian governments.
Gavrilov writes that, after the Bolsheviks seized power, Gelfand “developed the Soviet program for the transformation of the Russian economy from open market competition (rigged in part in favor of the Tsar) with protection for indigenous businesses against powerful foreign firms to a closed government sponsored monopoly dominated by foreign corporations. He called it socialist but a more accurate name would be ‘corporatocracy.’”[19]
According to Gavrilov “none of Lenin’s ‘revolutionaries’ pointed out that by destroying indigenous businesses, they were destroying all competition in foreign commercial encroachment and laying the Russian economy open to monopoly domination by the very foreign firms they publicly vilified.”[20]
Lenin himself is depicted by Gavrilov as the ultimate sell-out and fraud. Preaching a rhetoric of class conflict, he was chauffeured through Moscow in a Rolls-Royce “Silver Ghost” and established residence in the palatial Gorki estate whose former owner he had arrested as an “enemy of the people.”[21]
Gavrilov asks: “If Lenin was truly such a patriot and advocate of the Russian proletariat, why wasn’t he promoting Russia’s own businesses instead of making deals with one of the West’s foremost industrialists Henry Ford?”[22]
Deceptively presented as a recipe to decolonize Russia, Lenin’s brand of socialism was utilized to “reorganize Russia’s economy and resources into monopolistic packages which were then handed over to the largest Western firms for exploitation.”[23]
According to Gavrilov, “by claiming to be battling the small minority and well-to-do industrialists, who controlled Russia’s industries, Lenin convinced the Russian public to destroy their own indigenous entrepreneurs, place their business and the vast resources of the country in his hands while he was offering the West monopoly control of Russia’s economy in exchange for royalties to keep his regime of Judases in privilege and power.”[24]
Gavrilov’s assessment turns the way most Americans view the history of the Soviet Union and Cold War—whether on the left or right—on its head.
Rather than being an enemy of capitalist development, Soviet leaders in her presentation empowered the very corporate interests in control of the U.S. government that were behind the Red Scare propaganda and pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war.
These interests were extremely clever in manipulating public opinion while advancing public policies that served clearly demarcated class interests.
The incredible global reach of U.S. corporations is evident in their ability to penetrate countries like Russia regardless of their governing ideology. They are able to effectively coopt independent political and revolutionary movements, and will shrewdly support different sides in political conflicts to extend their domination worldwide.
As Cold War 2.0 enters its second decade, we see the continued desire of U.S. corporate interests to seize control over and exploit Russia’s natural resources—a goal they were close to achieving when Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia in the 1990s.
The fact that Russia’s current leader Vladimir Putin is more of an authentic nationalist than Lenin, according to Gavrilov, may help account for the vicious demonization of him by political elites and in the U.S. media, which remains under the control of the 1% that drives U.S. foreign policy.
Putin has adapted to U.S. sanctions by establishing more of a self-reliant Russian economy that draws on indigenous entrepreneurship and technological development. He has also formed alliance with China in an anti-American bloc that Lenin and his successors could never effectively establish (recall the Sino-Soviet split).
On January 27, US President Donald Trump announced that the construction of the “state-of-the-art ‘Iron Dome’ missile defense shield” will begin “immediately” and will be made “right here in the USA 100%”. Since then, apart from a name change to avoid confusion with a homonymous Israeli system, there’s been little concrete information on the project. However, last week, the Pentagon presented more details about the upcoming “Golden Dome”, revealing that it will be a four-layer missile defense system and that it will also include a space-based component (the other three are ground-based, including eleven short-range batteries planned for deployment in the continental US, Alaska and Hawaii). Reuters cited a presentation of the project, titled “Go Fast, Think Big!”, shown in Huntsville, Alabama, last week to around 3,000 representatives of the American Military Industrial Complex (MIC).
The revelation didn’t really show much more than what was already known about the US strategic missile defenses. The slides revealed there would be early warning satellites for detecting missile launches, tracking and “boost-phase interception”. The “upper layer” would be composed of the Next Generation Interceptors (NGI), Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and “Aegis” systems, with a new missile field “likely in the Midwest”. This would be followed by the “under layer” composed of “Patriot” systems, new radars and a “common launcher for current and future interceptors”. The space-based “boost-phase interception” capability is particularly curious. Although the slides didn’t really reveal how this would be accomplished, common sense implies that this is either deliberate disinformation (like the SDI was) or the Pentagon is actively pursuing space-based weapons.
Reuters noted that “one surprise was a new large missile field – seemingly in the Midwest according to a map contained in the presentation – for Next Generation Interceptors (NGI) which are made by Lockheed Martin” and “would be a part of the ‘upper layer’ alongside Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and ‘Aegis’ systems which Lockheed also makes”. The NGI is supposed to be the next iteration of GBI (Ground-Based Interceptors), which is part of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD). This system is a nationwide network of radars, interceptors and other assets that the US planned for decades, even unilaterally withdrawing from the 1972 ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty back in 2002, so it could pursue the project. This arms control agreement served to prevent the US and USSR/Russia from being incentivized to endlessly enlarge their thermonuclear arsenals by limiting the number of deployed ABM systems.
The logic was that, whoever acquired better missile defenses, this would only force the other side to increase their offensive potential to enable saturation attacks that would inevitably overcome all ABM systems. Although the treaty was by no means perfect, it still slowed down the growth in the number of warheads and delivery systems. However, after the unfortunate dismantling of the Soviet Union, the US thought that Russia would be unable to revive its massive military-industrial potential, meaning that the aforementioned ABM Treaty was now “holding America back” in its quest for total global dominance. And yet, the opposite happened. Moscow not only reactivated much (if not most) of its military-industrial might, but actually restarted a number of highly advanced military programs that eventually resulted in a decades-long lead in a plethora of various high-tech hypersonic weapons.
Now that this backfired, Washington DC is faced with a far more complex and challenging task of intercepting weapons that work on very different principles, eliminating the predictability of regular ballistic missiles. The cumulative effects of these factors have increased costs and made maintenance and logistics a true nightmare. Not to mention that the (First) Cold War was far simpler due to the fact that America had only the Soviet Union to worry about, while its aggression against the entire world forced several more countries to build up their arsenals (notably China and North Korea). Unfortunately, there’s no other way to ensure viable deterrence. However, instead of easing tensions, the US is doubling down on its belligerence. Despite formally being a defense system, Washington DC sees the “Golden Dome’s” actual purpose as a way to facilitate its global dominance by undermining other arsenals.
The Pentagon’s presentation last week suggests that the “Golden Dome” will effectively be both an expansion and integration of existing missile defenses, with the third site in the Midwest serving to augment the current GMD launch sites in California and Alaska. The US military will have to deal with challenges such as “communication latency across the kill chain (a step-by-step sequence of actions needed to find, target and destroy a threat)”, so the most prominent corporations of the American MIC (Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX/Raytheon, Boeing, etc.) will be included in the program. However, the very idea that the “Golden Dome” will be able to shoot down hypersonic weapons is highly questionable, given the horrible performance of the GMD even against regular ballistic missiles. On the other hand, the MIC is exhilarated with such a windfall (considering the system’s costs).
And yet, while the project has a lot of similarities with the (First) Cold War-era SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative, but better known as the so-called “Star Wars”), the idea of space-based weapons is still a highly disturbing development that would lead to an inevitable militarization of space. US Space Force Gen Michael Guetlein, who serves as the head of the “Golden Dome” program, is required to “deliver the first designs within 60 days and a complete roadmap of the project within 120 days”. The new missile defense system is expected to be able to “intercept targets in their boost phase” and “deploy relocatable defenses capable of rapid global deployment”. This is a clear violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST). There’s also a lot of symbolism in Trump’s first announcement of the “Golden Dome”. As previously mentioned, he unveiled it on January 27, which was when the OST was signed by the US and USSR.
“If you define the problem correctly, you almost have the solution.”
― Steve Jobs
Definitions matter. In almost any context, problems left undefined inevitably remain problems left unsolved.
For this reason, healthcare professionals worldwide rely upon the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), a standardized system used to categorize and code diseases, symptoms, and health conditions. In the United States, ICD-10 codes serve as the foundation for medical records, insurance billing, epidemiological research, and public health policy. Without specific ICD-10 codes, severe conditions may remain invisible in the healthcare data ecosystem—making it harder to track, study, or provide adequate care.
This is precisely the challenge facing thousands of Americans suffering from persistent severe adverse events after receiving a Covid vaccine—a condition recently defined as Post-Covid Vaccine Syndrome (PCVS). As one of those individuals, I know all too well how debilitating and life-altering this condition can be. Our symptoms include exercise intolerance, excessive fatigue, brain fog, insomnia, and dizziness. They develop shortly after vaccination, within a day or two, can become more severe in the days that follow, and persist over time.
At present, there are no dedicated ICD-10 codes for PCVS. This absence has significant consequences for patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike.
Visibility in the Healthcare System
One of the primary functions of ICD-10 codes is to make a condition visible within the healthcare system. Without specific codes, PCVS is at best recorded under vague categories like “unspecified adverse effect of vaccine” or “other specified postvaccination complication.” Leery of contradicting the safe and effective narrative, many providers simply utilize codes for general symptoms such as “fatigue” or “paresthesia.” As a result, PCVS is effectively lost in a sea of unrelated data.
Dedicated codes would allow providers to document PCVS in a standardized way, ensuring it is recognized in patient records, insurance claims, and national health databases. This visibility is crucial for legitimizing PCVS in the eyes of both a conflicted medical community and a polarized public.
Facilitating Research and Data Collection
Medical research thrives on accurate, reliable data. Without discrete ICD-10 codes, it is extremely difficult to track how many of us are affected by PCVS, what our symptoms are, how long they last, and what treatments are effective.
Currently, researchers who want to study PCVS must sift through miscellaneous adverse event codes, searching for possible cases—a process that is slow, imprecise, and prone to undercounting. Specific codes would enable more precise epidemiological studies, making it easier to identify risk factors, compare outcomes, and develop evidence-based treatment guidelines.
Improving Public Health Response and Policy
Public health agencies use ICD-10 coding data to monitor trends, allocate resources, and shape policy decisions. The lack of codes for PCVS means that policymakers are operating without a complete picture of vaccine safety profiles and long-term outcomes.
By establishing dedicated codes, health officials could more accurately assess the frequency and severity of PCVS, helping them balance the benefits and risks of vaccination programs and design better safety monitoring systems in the future. This transparency would strengthen public confidence in vaccination campaigns by demonstrating that potential adverse events are being taken seriously and tracked systematically.
Reducing Stigma and Improving Clinical Recognition
Those of us suffering from PCVS often face intense skepticism, with our symptoms crudely dismissed as unrelated or psychosomatic. The absence of recognized diagnostic codes can inadvertently reinforce this stigma, making it harder for those suffering with PCVS to be taken seriously.
Specific ICD-10 codes would send a clear signal to clinicians that PCVS is a legitimate medical condition worthy of investigation, empathy, and appropriate care.
Ethical and Societal Responsibility
Healthcare systems have an ethical duty to acknowledge and address all medical conditions – especially those that may be rare or controversial. Creating specific ICD-10 codes for PCVS would demonstrate a commitment to transparency, patient welfare, and scientific inquiry.
This step would not undermine legitimate vaccination efforts; rather, it would enhance them by showing the public that adverse events are being tracked rigorously and addressed proactively. Public health trust depends not only on promoting the benefits of a medical intervention but also on an honest acknowledgment of its risks, however small.
Aligning with the Approach to Long Covid
The World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have already recognized the need for specific ICD-10 codes for post-acute sequelae of Covid, commonly known as Long Covid. These codes have helped researchers and clinicians better identify, study, and manage that condition.
The same logic applies to PCVS. Both prolonged conditions involve complex overlapping symptoms following an acute event (infection or vaccination) and require long-term monitoring.
For that reason, React19, a science-based 501(c) non-profit organization dedicated solely to supporting those suffering from long-term Covid vaccine adverse events, has submitted a formal proposal to the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics to create ICD-10 codes for PCVS mirroring those for Long Covid.
PCVS Patients Deserve Action, not Argument
“We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”
― Ayn Rand
While opinions differ greatly to what extent – by all credible accounts the Covid vaccines simply did not perform as public health officials assured the American public they would. As to efficacy, they failed to stop transmission and infection. As to safety, in addition to the emergence of PCVS, the CDC has conceded that myocarditis and pericarditis are “linked to certain types of COVID-19 vaccinations.” And of course, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was pulled entirely from the market after multiple cases of fatal blood clotting after vaccinations.
Yale Medical School professor of cardiology Dr. Harlan Krumholtz well summarized, “It’s clear that some individuals are experiencing significant challenges after vaccination. Our responsibility as scientists and clinicians is to listen to their experiences, rigorously investigate the underlying causes, and seek ways to help.” Creating distinct ICD-10 codes for PCVS mirroring those currently utilized to identify Long Covid would be the logical first step to provide this much needed support.
Failure to create specific ICD-10 codes for PCVS would be to ignore the agonizing reality of the syndrome, leaving the sick and suffering to face the grim consequences of inaction – left adrift in a medical system unwilling to acknowledge our existence and desperate need for treatment. We must expect more of our public health agencies – those debilitated by PCVS deserve no less.
Under the northern lights of Alaska, Russia and the United States sketched the contours of a reorganized world – without Europe at the table – positioning Russia as a major player in European security.
On August 15, 2025, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin met at the Elmendorf-Richardson Air Force Base in Alaska for a historic summit to discuss the war in Ukraine. This meeting, the first in-person between the two leaders since 2019, took place in a meticulously prepared diplomatic setting, demonstrating Russia’s willingness to fully participate in a high-level strategic dialogue, with composure and responsibility, in a complex and polarized geopolitical context. Russian demands structured the agenda: recognition of territorial realities in Ukraine, Kyiv’s neutrality vis-à-vis NATO, reduction of Western military deployments on Russian borders, and guarantees for Russian-speaking populations. Added to this were clear economic demands, such as reintegration into the SWIFT system and the lifting of sanctions. Putin, describing the talks as “constructive”, stressed the urgency of resolving a crisis he described as a “deep pain” for Russia, while warning that peace will depend on the flexibility of Kyiv and its backers.
Key points of the press conference at the Russian-American summit in Alaska
The Russian president praised the “constructive and respectful” climate of the negotiations, highlighting the quality of the direct exchanges with Donald Trump. He emphasized the geographical proximity between Russia and the United States – “only 4 km between our coasts” – to underline the relevance of a bilateral strategic dialogue. Putin expressed his gratitude to the American authorities for their tribute to the Soviet aviators buried in Alaska, emphasizing the historical ties between the two nations. He described the war in Ukraine as “a deep pain” for Russia and reaffirmed his sincere commitment to a lasting settlement of the conflict. Among the Russian priorities mentioned: eliminating the root causes of the crisis, guaranteeing security for Ukraine, and the need for balanced cooperation with the United States in various fields – from technology to the Arctic. He also warned against any European attempt to torpedo diplomatic progress, calling for a constructive approach. Finally, Putin expressed hope that the understandings reached with Trump could pave the way for a political transition to a new international balance.
Donald Trump seems to have understood what others prefer to ignore: that the world order cannot be reshaped without Russia
The US president, for his part, described the meeting as “very productive”, while acknowledging that no formal agreement had yet been reached. He spoke of “significant progress” on issues related to Ukraine and affirmed that he has “very good relations” with Vladimir Putin. Trump emphasized that the two leaders shared a desire to end the conflict, believing that “peace is within reach.” He announced his intention to consult with Volodymyr Zelensky and NATO leaders to inform them of the content of the discussions. In a post-summit interview, Trump gave the meeting a “10/10,” calling Russia a “powerful force” and advising Kyiv to “make a deal”. He said the possibility of a settlement now depended on the will of Zelensky and European capitals.
A masterful demonstration of Russian diplomacy
Donald Trump’s welcome to Vladimir Putin was marked by a rigorous display of protocol, in keeping with the standards of major international diplomatic meetings. Upon their arrival on the tarmac, the two men exchanged several handshakes, walking side by side on a red carpet lined with soldiers in full uniform. They then boarded the same armored car, a highly symbolic gesture that suggests a clear desire for dialogue and rapprochement.
This formal gesture is not insignificant. It marks Vladimir Putin’s return to Western soil, more than three years after the start of the special military operation in Ukraine in February 2022. Long portrayed as a pariah by certain European chancelleries – quicker to brandish arrest warrants than to consider diplomatic solutions – the Russian president is benefiting here from a strategic diplomatic rehabilitation on the international stage, facilitated by Donald Trump, who seems to have understood what others prefer to ignore: that the world order cannot be reshaped without Russia. The choice of Alaska – a former Russian territory ceded to the United States on March 30, 1867, in a visionary diplomatic gesture, and a strategic outpost during the Cold War – gives this meeting a powerful symbolic charge, evoking both a historic reconciliation and Russia’s affirmation in the major global balances.
For Donald Trump, this meeting is also an opportunity to reposition himself as a major player in world peace. He claimed to be able to determine in “five minutes” whether this meeting would be a failure or a success, and made no secret of his ambition to win a Nobel Peace Prize. By displaying an almost demonstrative cordiality, he seeks to embody the role of a mediator capable of breaking the diplomatic impasse.
High-tension negotiations: towards peace or a diplomatic trap?
Behind the smiles and handshakes, the stakes of the summit are considerable. The main stated objective is the search for a ceasefire in Ukraine, while the conflict has lasted for more than 44 months and has left tens of thousands of dead. However, the conditions set by Moscow are giving cold showers to Kiev, Brussels and London: recognition of the new territorial realities (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson), guarantees of Ukraine’s non-membership in NATO, restrictions on the deployment of Western troops near the Russian borders, restrictions on arms deliveries to Ukraine and granting a special status to the Russian language in Ukraine.
Conspicuously absent from the summit, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky displayed an ambivalent stance, blending calculated distrust with strategic concern. While claiming to “count” on Donald Trump to defend Ukrainian interests, he simultaneously encouraged his European supporters to continue the war effort. Moreover, drone attacks against Russia were launched during the negotiations, suggesting a deliberate attempt to desperately sabotage any de-escalation dynamics. The Ukrainian army lamentably announced that it had recaptured six villages in the east of the country, proof that the conflict remains active and that the front lines are shifting. Europe’s whimsical and insipid, perverse and narcissistic elites, also excluded from this meeting, fear that Donald Trump will make unilateral concessions to Kyiv’s detriment. Emmanuel Macron has already scheduled a meeting with Zelensky after the summit, a sign that Paris, still seeking to avenge its loss of influence in Africa attributed to Russia, particularly in the countries of the Sahel Alliance, is seeking to maintain a warlike diplomatic line that makes it increasingly irrelevant on the global stage in the eyes of the global majority.
The presence of diplomatic advisors from both sides – Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff on the American side, Sergei Lavrov and Yuri Ushakov on the Russian side – testifies to the complexity of the discussions. Initially planned as a one-on-one meeting, the summit turned into an expanded meeting. This shift from a one-on-one to an expanded meeting demonstrates Russia’s commitment to transparency and cooperation.
The Alaska summit can be said to mark an undeniable diplomatic victory for Russia. By rejoining the circle of international negotiators, imposing a coherent vision of peace, and demonstrating a perfect mastery of diplomatic codes, Moscow has confirmed its role as a stabilizing power. Vladimir Putin, far from being isolated, emerges as a strategic, lucid, and forward-looking head of state. This summit could well be the prelude to a new security architecture in Europe, based on dialogue, respect for sovereignty, and recognition of Russia’s legitimate interests. It remains to be seen whether this meeting will pave the way for lasting peace or whether it will be just another episode in a diplomatic war with global ramifications.
Two scenarios emerge: gradual normalization or a gradual de-escalation, if Kyiv and the European capitals choose to align themselves with the parameters set by Moscow; or, conversely, a prolongation of the conflict, the rejection of which could accelerate the Ukrainian military collapse and aggravate human and territorial losses.
The US Senate has announced an investigation after the tech giant’s rules were found to allow chatbots sensually communicate with minors
US Senators will probe Facebook’s parent company Meta after revelations that its artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots could engage children in conversations of a romantic or sensual nature.
The investigation was announced Friday by Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo), who chairs a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and counterterrorism, with backing from fellow panel member Marsha Blackburn.
Congress must determine whether “Meta’s generative-AI products enable exploitation, deception, or other criminal harms to children, and whether Meta misled the public or regulators about its safeguards,” Hawley said. He demanded that the company immediately hand over internal documents.
The scrutiny follows a Reuters investigation that revealed Meta’s internal AI policies allowed chatbots on its platforms to flirt with minors. One guideline cited by Reuters permitted bots to describe a child as having a “youthful form [that] is a work of art,” even as the rules technically barred describing under-13s as sexually desirable.
It would be acceptable for a bot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old that “every inch of you is a masterpiece – a treasure I cherish deeply,” the document states.
Meta confirmed the document’s authenticity to Reuters, said it is being revised, and acknowledged such conversations “never should have been allowed.”
The case marks the latest in a string of controversies for Meta, which faces mounting legal and regulatory scrutiny in the US and Europe over privacy, antitrust, and data practices. Critics have argued that in its drive for rapid growth and profits, the company fostered online harm, whether by amplifying hate speech and misinformation to boost engagement or by failing to safeguard user data. More recently, the US tech giant has invested billions to position itself as a leader in artificial intelligence.
Utah Attorney Jesse Trentadue has spent 30 years litigating against the federal government, trying to uncover documents related to his brother’s likely murder by federal authorities on August 21, 1995.
Trentadue believes federal agents believed his brother was a federal agent who was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, and tortured him to death for information, wrongly believing he was “John Doe #2.” Kenneth Trentadue was a match for the description of the suspect, the same height, weight, build, and even the same dragon tattoo on his left forearm. Trentadue says it’s his belief that the motive behind his brother’s murder was that “The FBI was desperate to eliminate anyone who might link the Bureau to a failed sting operation that resulted in the Oklahoma City Bombing.”
A recent book by investigative journalist Margaret Roberts, “Blowback,” provides a lot of corroboration to the document effort that Trentadue has been engaged in for a generation. Trentadue claims he has litigated the release of 2 million pages of documents. He is currently suing to release an additional 67,000 pages linking the FBI’s undercover operatives to the failed sting operation that, he says, led to the Oklahoma City bombing.
Exclusively with the Gateway Pundit, Trentadue has also started sharing key files that dramatically challenge the official and mainstream view as to the bombing of the Murrah federal building in April 1995.
Trentadue points out that the Department of Justice spent over $80 million prosecuting Timothy McVeigh for the bombing, but notably did not admit any of the known video evidence of the bombing.
The reason, Trentadue claims, is that multiple independent video evidence reveals the presence of a second bomber exiting the bomb truck prior to the explosion.
Roberts claims in her book, as well, that there may have been a third conspirator with the bombers on-site, and that likely accounts for the mystery of the unidentified severed leg found among the explosion, which has never been positively identified. The idea that there was a lone-wolf attack is wrong, she claims, and instead, there was a team involved in the planning and execution of the bombing.
For proof of this explosive claim, Trentadue provides evidence he has uncovered from the FBI’s own files indicating that they seized video surveillance footage of the Oklahoma City bombing.
The locations of at least one camera that captured the bombing were the 24-story Regency Tower Apartments or “RTA.” The Regency had a direct view to the bombing.
By Peter Koenig and Dr. Mike Yeadon
The Most Revolutionary Act 