newsarticles.media: Science Corruption News

These Weaponized Germs Are Deadly, Unstoppable and Very Real

[Annie] Jacobsen's new book, "Biological War: A Scenario" ... is a heavily researched book about contagious and potentially civilization-ending pathogens. Though banned by international treaty, these germs have been weaponized and hoarded by countries that include Russia, North Korea and Syria. Jacobsen has interviewed everyone, from former high-ranking members of the military, the C.I.A., FEMA and NATO to former secretaries of defense, counterterrorism experts, epidemiologists and Sam [expletive] Altman. That so many were willing to talk to her, and have their names affixed to this book, indicates the esteem in which she is held. "Biological War" is fact-based except for Jacobsen's assumption that our leaders have experience, knowledge, integrity and empathy. The infectious killer this book describes, I am sorry to say, exists. It's what's referred to as a chimera pathogen, alive and airborne, a booby-trapped hybrid of two or more viruses. In this case, the infected person first experiences a long wave of euphoria, of the sort that makes one want to rush out and dance with somebody. Later, the suffering begins. Bubbly pink sputum, hacked up bits of lung, "bestial noises," stenches on airplanes mistaken for dirty diapers. This pathogen is engineered to destroy trust in medicine. If a patient is given antibiotics – these would barely help anyway – the disease mutates into a form of deadly encephalitis.

Note: In 1977, a US Senate investigation revealed that, during the Cold War, the Army had secretly conducted at least 239 biological warfare tests by releasing bacteria into American cities and public transportation systems. In one experiment, a bacterial cloud released over the San Francisco Bay Area exposed hundreds of thousands of people, contributing to illnesses and death, and lasting changes to the region's microbial ecology. For more, read our concise summaries of news articles on weapons of mass destruction, biotech dangers, and science corruption.

A.I. Bots Told Scientists How to Make Biological Weapons

A small group of experts [were] enlisted by A.I. companies to vet their products for catastrophic risks. Some have shared with The Times more than a dozen chatbot conversations revealing that even publicly available models can do more than disseminate dangerous information. The virtual assistants have described in lucid, bullet-pointed detail how to buy raw genetic material, turn it into deadly weapons and deploy them in public spaces, the transcripts show. The U.S. government has long planned for powerful adversaries unleashing deadly bacteria, viruses or toxins in the American population. Since 1970, there have been a few dozen, fairly small biological attacks around the world, such as the anthrax-laced letters that killed five Americans in 2001. Despite perennial warnings, a major catastrophe has not happened and remains unlikely, most experts say. But even if the probability is low, an effective biological weapon could have an enormous impact. Dozens of experts told The Times that A.I. is one of several recent technological advances that have meaningfully increased that risk by expanding the pool of people who could cause harm. Still, A.I. users would need some real-world expertise to follow a bot's instructions. Some research, including a study backed by A.I. companies, has found that while chatbots can help novices learn certain lab skills, the technology isn't particularly helpful for carrying out the range of complex tasks needed to make a virus from scratch.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on AI, biotech dangers, and science corruption.

False positives, real profits: the dark side of cancer screening

Medical care has overinvested in screening, to the detriment of human health. It doesn't reduce the overall number of deaths among those who are screened, and there are real human costs to getting ahead of symptoms. Patients are diagnosed with diseases not destined to bother them, and are subsequently harmed by unnecessary treatment, the side-effects of medication and complications of pointless procedures. Many more face abnormal test results, triggering cascades of more testing, procedures, complications and anxiety. Some are told that, while they don't have the disease, they are at "high risk" for it. More generally, screening relies on fear. To persuade asymptomatic people to be screened, they must first be made to worry about diseases they might get in the future. This undermines our sense of well-being, which lies at the very core of health. All of this costs time and money–and a lot of it. Cancer screening alone in the US has been estimated to cost $43 billion annually. For a variety of reasons, I think this is a low-ball estimate: the real number is closer to $100 billion. That kind of money could go a long way toward improving treatment for symptomatic patients or, more broadly, tackling the social determinants of health. And then there is a lot of magical thinking: not only do we assume that more screening will save more lives, but that testing large swaths of the population will somehow ... reduce disparities in healthcare outcomes.

Note: Read more about how harmless cancers are being overdiagnosed in the us. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on health and Big Pharma profiteering.

Modern Ag Alliance is a Bayer lobbying and PR group

The Modern Ag Alliance, launched by Bayer in 2024, enables the company to lobby and campaign through an entity that looks like a coalition of farm organizations, not a single giant chemical corporation. MAA represents itself as a "diverse coalition, founded by Bayer, that today represents more than 110 agricultural organizations." But public records suggest it functions as a front group for Bayer's interests. Tax records reveal that a Bayer vice president sits on the board of directors, and nearly all of its budget has gone to a public relations firm that also works for Bayer. Bayer itself describes the MAA as a key part of its lobbying. The company has portrayed the MAA – whose tagline is "Pesticides power America's ag" – as its strategy for "fighting back" against glyphosate concerns and lawsuits. MAA is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, a structure that allows it to raise unlimited funds for advocacy or lobbying while keeping donors secret. Disclosed members of the Modern Ag Alliance include large agribusiness trade groups, and national and state commodity crop growers' groups. Many of these groups have financial relationships with Bayer and other pesticide firms, via sponsorships, partnerships or direct funding, though these ties are often opaque. The MAA lobbies for legislation that ... would make it harder for Americans to use state-law failure-to-warn claims to sue pesticide manufacturers for cancer and other injuries.

Note: Our Substack, "The Pesticide Crisis Reveals The Dark Side of Science. We Have The Solutions to Regenerate," uncovers the scope of Bayer/Monsanto's media propaganda machine and the widespread conspiracy to poison our food, air, and along with the powerful remedies and solutions to this crisis. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on corporate corruption and toxic chemicals.

Pharma bribery corrupts health care, puts patients at risk, new review warns

Pfizer subsidiaries in multiple countries, including Italy and Russia, were accused by the SEC in 2012 of paying bribes over about a decade to foreign officials to secure regulatory and formulary approvals, boost sales, and increase prescriptions, [an] SEC complaint shows. In China, one subsidiary allegedly created "points programs" that let doctors earn gifts based on prescribing its medications, according to the SEC, while in Croatia, another offered a "bonus program" that reportedly rewarded doctors with cash, international travel, or free products. Pfizer and an indirect subsidiary agreed to pay more than $45 million in separate settlements, without admitting or denying the allegations, the SEC reported. In a parallel action, Pfizer H.C.P., an indirect, wholly-owned healthcare-focused subsidiary, agreed to pay a $15 million penalty to resolve its investigation of FCPA violations after admitting to improper payments to foreign government officials, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. And in Greece, Poland, and Romania, Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries, employees, and agents were accused by regulators of using slush funds, sham contracts, and off-shore companies in the Isle of Man to reward doctors and administrators who ordered or prescribed its products, including surgical implants. The 2011 SEC complaint also accused the company of paying kickbacks in Iraq to obtain business.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Pharma profiteering.

Universities Can't Pursue Truth Without Viewpoint Diversity

The truth-seeking function of universities does not work properly without the presence of diverse viewpoints. This is especially true when it comes to contested social and political questions. Taboos, blind spots, groupthink and the politicization of scientific standards haven't just made academic research narrower and worse, these trends have alienated the general public and reduced public confidence in higher education ... across the ideological spectrum. Unsurprisingly, the increasing ideological conformity of the professoriate is reflected in the decreasing range of ideas that students encounter in the classroom. A recent national study shows a narrow range of perspectives included on undergraduate syllabi on such controversial topics as the conflict between Israel and Palestine, racial bias in the criminal justice system, and abortion. Professional training does not make professors immune to ordinary human biases. Today's cohort of scholarly experts remains vulnerable to the same "tyranny of public opinion" and "uncritical and intemperate partisanship" that the founders of the American Association of University Professors in 1915 warned academia to resist. This means that today's arguments about viewpoint diversity must be considered and judged in their historical and political contexts. [Academic disciplines] have lost a healthy amount of internal contestation, or have turned self-selection and self-governance into ideological capture.

Note: From gender medicine research, the psychology field, social justice movements, to Middle East politics, a recent study tracking 1 million people revealed that two-thirds of us are afraid to say what we believe in public, while other studies reveal a significant decline in people's motivation to share views that are unique or controversial. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on corruption in science.

NIH files reveal broader coronavirus engineering research before COVID-19

The pandemic's most contentious question: Did SARS-CoV-2 emerge through natural spillover from animals to humans, or through a laboratory incident tied to research intended to anticipate the next outbreak? A flashpoint in that debate has been DEFUSE – a 2018 grant proposal submitted to DARPA, the Defense Department's advanced research agency. DEFUSE outlined plans to test spike-protein swaps and cleavage-site insertions in bat coronaviruses. Newly obtained NIH records suggest that the experimental concepts later spotlighted in DEFUSE – tuning bat coronavirus infectivity through spike swaps, receptor-binding changes, and cleavage-site insertions– were already embedded in multiple U.S.-funded coronavirus research projects years before the pandemic. NIH ... reviewers saw potential risk. In an internal "biohazard comment," a grants manager warned that recombinant coronaviruses engineered to enhance spike cleavage or strengthen ACE2 binding "may have novel and unexpected virulence phenotypes" – or, new and unpredictable traits that could make the virus more dangerous. NIH reviewed – and frequently approved – experiments designed to alter receptor-binding domains, swap spike proteins between viruses, or modify cleavage sites that influence how coronaviruses infect cells. American and Chinese researchers shared sequences, experimental ideas and preliminary findings in real time.

Note: Read how the NIH bypassed the oversight process, allowing controversial gain-of-function experiments to proceed unchecked. Watch our Mindful News Brief on the strong evidence that bioweapons research created COVID-19. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on COVID corruption.

The Truth About Roundup Herbicide

In 2000 a study was published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology that deemed the active ingredient in Roundup (glyphosate) was safe and not a human health risk. Since then, that study has been cited consistently as proof of Roundup's safety. Numerous other studies have shown that glyphosate could cause cancer and that the inert ingredients that are part of the patented Roundup formulation increase the toxicity of glyphosate. Further, the practice of using Roundup as a desiccant on small grain crops (oats, wheat and barley) prior to harvest, puts Roundup directly on grain that enters the human food chain. Since acquiring Monsanto in 2018, Bayer has paid out about $11 billion to settle almost 100,000 cancer-related lawsuits, with approximately 61,000 still pending. In December of 2025, another blow to the claimed safety of Roundup when the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal withdrew the 2000 article that had touted Roundup's safety. While the study claimed to be independent and peer reviewed, it has come to light that Monsanto's scientists played a significant role in conceiving and writing the article. Oops. For decades, Roundup has been sold as an effective herbicide, one that was safe to humans and the environment and without it, "consequences would be dire". Companies like Bayer ... claim to produce safe products that help farmers thrive– real independent research refutes that.

Note: In addition to increasing cancer risk by 41%, glyphosate is linked to severe depression and cognitive decline. Our latest Substack, "The Pesticide Crisis Reveals The Dark Side of Science. We Have The Solutions to Regenerate," uncovers the scope of Monsanto's media propaganda machine and the widespread conspiracy to poison our food, air, and along with the powerful remedies and solutions to this crisis. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on corruption in science and toxic chemicals.

Jeffrey Epstein victim 'had baby fathered by the paedophile snatched away ten minutes after birth'

Jeffrey Epstein may have fathered a number of secret children, including one by a teenager who alleges her daughter was taken from her just minutes after her birth. The claims have surfaced following the release of the latest instalment of the Epstein files, which appears to include an email sent to the paedophile by the former Duchess of York. In this email, dated September 21, 2011, Sarah Ferguson appears to congratulate Epstein on the birth of a "baby boy" and offer her "love, friendship and congratulations" after hearing about the news from "The Duke", possibly referring to her ex-husband Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. In addition, a 2002 diary entry authored by an Epstein victim alleges that she gave birth to a baby girl at the age of 16 or 17. A child born in 2002 would be 23-24-years-old now. The diary entry includes a copy of a pregnancy scan dated 20 weeks gestation. The child appears to have been taken from her mother 10 minutes after birth, which the woman alleges was done under the supervision of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend. "She was born, I heard her cries!" the victim wrote. "I saw this tiny head and body in between the doctor's hands. Ghislaine said she was beautiful. Where is she?" In a heartbreaking statement, she says: "I miss the person I was before I was made into what feels like a human incubator." The diary was shared by the woman's lawyers, Wigdor LLP, with federal prosecutors investigating Epstein and Maxwell.

Note: In our latest Substack, "Epstein Files Pt. 2: Beyond Sex Trafficking–Zorro Ranch and a Darker Scientific Agenda," we explore the diary entries mentioned in this article and how it fit neatly into the larger picture now emerging from the newly-public information. Specifically, Epstein's deep ties to the scientific elite and their active exploration into eugenics, designer babies, human cloning, social engineering, and other ethically questionable human experimentation practices.

Epstein plotted to create â€superior gene pool' with victims, documents suggest

Jeffrey Epstein may have forced an underage victim to carry his child in a "Nazi"-like effort to create a "superior gene pool," according to documents released by the Department of Justice. Among the more than three million Epstein files released last week is a harrowing diary penned by an alleged victim, who wrote that she was a "human incubator" for Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Minutes after giving birth, she wrote that the child was snatched away from her. The contents of the diary have not been verified, and the woman's accusations against an Epstein associate have been disputed in court. The DOJ has cautioned that the newly published files may contain "fake or falsely submitted" materials. The first-person narrative makes several references to New Mexico, where the deceased sex offender owned a sprawling ranch outside Santa Fe. Epstein planned to use the estate to impregnate women in an effort to "seed the human race with his DNA," The New York Times reported in 2019, citing his acquaintances and public records. The woman claims to have given birth around 2002, when she would have been either 16 or 17 years old. In the entry, she recounts the experience of going into labor, claiming that a doctor and Maxwell were both present, and that her bed was soaked in blood. In her posthumous memoir, Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre also claimed that Epstein and Maxwell asked her to carry their child in 2002.

Note: In our latest Substack, "Epstein Files Pt. 2: Beyond Sex Trafficking–Zorro Ranch and a Darker Scientific Agenda," we explore the diary entries mentioned in this article and how they fit neatly into the larger picture now emerging from the newly-public information. Specifically, Epstein's deep ties to the scientific elite and their active exploration into eugenics, designer babies, human cloning, social engineering, and other ethically questionable human experimentation practices.

At 16, I was experimented on by the CIA and now I'm suing

The first thing Lana Ponting remembers about the Allan Memorial Institute, a former psychiatric hospital in Montreal, Canada, is the smell. That hospital ... would be her home for a month in April 1958, after a judge ordered the then-16-year-old to undergo treatment for "disobedient" behaviour. Ms Ponting became one of thousands of people experimented on as part of the CIA's top-secret research into mind control. Now, she is one of two named plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit for Canadian victims of the experiments. She became an unwitting participant in covert CIA experiments known as MK-Ultra. The Cold War project tested the effects of psychedelic drugs like LSD, electroshock treatments and brainwashing techniques on human beings without their consent. Over 100 institutions – hospitals, prisons and schools – in the US and Canada were involved. At the Allan, McGill University researcher Dr Ewen Cameron drugged patients and made them listen to recordings, sometimes thousands of times. The technique was a form of "psychic driving," says doctoral student Jordan Torbay. "Essentially the minds of patients were manipulated using verbal cues," she says, adding he also looked at the effects of sleep drugs, forced sensory deprivation, and induced coma. Medical records show Ms Ponting was given LSD, as well as drugs like sodium amytal, a barbiturate, desoxyn, a stimulant, as well as nitrous oxide gas, a sedative known as laughing gas.

Note: Learn more about the MKUltra Program in our comprehensive Military-Intelligence Corruption Information Center. For more, read our concise summaries of news articles on intelligence agency corruption and mind control.

Landmark glyphosate safety study retracted for Monsanto ghostwriting, other ethics problems

A scientific study that regulators around the world relied on for decades to justify continued approval of glyphosate was quietly retracted last Friday over serious ethical issues including secret authorship by Monsanto employees – raising questions about the pesticide-approval process in the U.S. and globally. The April 2000 study by Gary Williams, Robert Kroes and Ian Munro – which concluded glyphosate does not pose a health risk to humans at typical exposure levels – was ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, and was "based solely on unpublished studies from Monsanto," wrote Martin van den Berg, co-editor-in-chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. It also ignored "multiple other long-term chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies" that were available at the time. Some of the study authors may also have received undisclosed financial compensation from Monsanto, he noted. The retraction came years after internal corporate documents first revealed in 2017 that Monsanto employees were heavily involved in drafting the paper. "What took them so long to retract it?" asked Michael Hansen, senior scientist of advocacy at Consumer Reports. The ghostwritten paper is in the top 0.1% of citations among academic papers discussing glyphosate. The retraction exposes the flaws of a regulatory system that relies heavily on corporate research, and an academic publishing system that is often used as a tool for corporate product defense.

Note: Our latest Substack, "The Pesticide Crisis Reveals The Dark Side of Science. We Have The Solutions to Regenerate," uncovers the scope of Monsanto's media propaganda machine and the widespread conspiracy to poison our food, air, and along with the powerful remedies and solutions to this crisis. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on toxic chemicals and corruption in science.

Study 329: The Big Fraud Is Finally Under Review

In 2001, the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP) published a paper declaring that the antidepressant paroxetine (Paxil) was "generally well tolerated and effective" for adolescent depression. That conclusion was false. The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), knew from its own data that the drug failed to outperform placebo and carried a serious risk of suicidal behaviour. Instead of telling the truth, GSK hired a public-relations firm to ghostwrite the paper, enlisted academic co-authors who never saw the raw data, and used the publication to promote Paxil to doctors treating children. It became known as Study 329 – one of the most infamous cases of scientific fraud in modern psychiatry. The paper remained in circulation – cited hundreds of times, shaping prescribing habits, and legitimising a lie that cost young lives. The paper listed 22 authors – two were GSK employees, and most had never reviewed the raw data or disclosed their financial ties to the company. Once the article appeared in print, GSK's sales force distributed it to thousands of doctors as "proof" that Paxil worked in teens. Within three years, the company made more than a billion dollars from what it called the "adolescent market." In 2003, the FDA concluded: "There is currently no evidence that Paxil is effective in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder." In 2012, GSK pleaded guilty and paid a $3 billion settlement to resolve criminal and civil charges.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Pharma profiteering and mental health.

Why the for-profit race into solar geoengineering is bad for science and public trust

As scientists who have worked on the science of solar geoengineering for decades, we have grown increasingly concerned about the emerging efforts to start and fund private companies to build and deploy technologies that could alter the climate of the planet. The basic idea behind solar geoengineering, or what we now prefer to call sunlight reflection methods (SRM), is that humans might reduce climate change by making the Earth a bit more reflective, partially counteracting the warming caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases. Many people already distrust the idea of engineering the atmosphere–at whichever scale–to address climate change, fearing negative side effects, inequitable impacts on different parts of the world, or the prospect that a world expecting such solutions will feel less pressure to address the root causes of climate change. Notably, Stardust says on its website that it has developed novel particles that can be injected into the atmosphere to reflect away more sunlight, asserting that they're "chemically inert in the stratosphere, and safe for humans and ecosystems." But it's nonsense for the company to claim they can make particles that are inert in the stratosphere. Even diamonds, which are extraordinarily nonreactive, would alter stratospheric chemistry. Any particle may become coated by background sulfuric acid in the stratosphere. That could accelerate the loss of the protective ozone layer.

Note: Modifying the atmosphere to dim the sun involves catastrophic risks. Regenerative farming is far safer and more promising for stabilizing the climate. In our latest Substack, "Geoengineering is a Weapon That's Been Rebranded as Climate Science. There's a Better Way To Heal the Earth," we present credible evidence and current information showing that weather modification technologies are not only real, but that they are being secretly propagated by multiple groups with differing agendas.

Dimming the sun â€could make climate change worse'

Deflecting the sun to fight climate change could trigger droughts and hurricanes, the Royal Society has warned. In a new report, experts argued solar radiation modification (SRM) could reduce global temperatures but "worsen rather than ease" climate change and make the sky look less blue. In May, the Government's Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria) announced Ł56.8m for 21 "climate cooling" projects, which include injecting aerosols into the sky to reflect sunlight away from Earth. However, the report found there were "major uncertainties" and argued the plan may have devastating knock-on effects, particularly if deployed by rogue groups. Prof Jim Haywood, of atmospheric science at the University of Exeter, said: "What you do in one place can cause climate change in a different place. "Stratospheric aerosol injection deployment in the northern hemisphere could impact the position of the tropical monsoon and lead to droughts in sub-Saharan Africa. "Everyone there relies on subsistence farming, so it quickly devastates if there is a drought there. "In the southern hemisphere, it could lead to an increase in North Atlantic hurricane frequency and intensity, it could lead to winter droughts over the Mediterranean and the Iberian Peninsula." A "termination effect" whereby sun dimming technology was suddenly stopped, could also lead to rapid warming of up to 2C in decades, and cause devastating effects for ecosystems.

A climate scientist questioned his findings. It didn't go well.

Last year, a climate scientist named Patrick Brown, along with seven co-authors, published a study in the journal Nature about the connections between wildfires in California and global warming. Dr. Brown confessed in a Free Press article that he had framed his research not just to reflect the truth, but to fit within what he described as the climate alarmist storyline preferred by prestigious journals in the United States. He did this, he says, by intentionally focusing only on climate as a factor in wildfires, and not on the myriad other causes that contribute to the blazes consuming ever more land across the country. The formula for getting published, he wrote, "is more about shaping your research in specific ways to support pre-approved narratives than it is about generating useful knowledge for society." And when it comes to climate science, he alleged, that preapproved narrative is that "climate change impacts are pervasive and catastrophic." [Climate scientist] Dr. Pielke argues that many of the widely cited cost estimates connecting weather disasters to climate change are mistaken. (Climate advocates regularly assert that climate change is costing the U.S. billions of dollars every year.) His research, he says, shows that extreme weather appears costlier because properties are more valuable. In other words, wealth increase is the real story. He regularly takes issue with media portrayals of extreme weather. The reality is more complex, he says. If climate science doesn't make space for alternative viewpoints, it risks its foundational ideals of open inquiry and debate and rigorous, evidence-based critiques,

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on climate change and corruption in science.

Top Scientists Deliberately Misrepresented Sea Level Rise For Years

For years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has claimed that human-caused climate change has accelerated sea level rise. But that claim is false. This does not mean that climate change isn't happening. It is. It simply means that it has not caused the sea level to rise. Top scientists know this fact and have deliberately misrepresented it for years, deceiving the public. In September, I reported on one of the first global studies of sea level rise that used tide-gauge data, which is the only real-world data that goes back long enough, to the mid-19th Century, that would allow one to detect whether sea level rise had accelerated, decelerated, or remained steady. The only reliable long-term real-world data is tide gauge data, and they do not show acceleration. Since then, I exchanged over 50 emails with one of the world's leading sea level rise scientists, Robert Kopp from Rutgers University, and heard back from IPCC, NASA, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What I learned shocked me. For years, the world's top scientists have known that they cannot prove there has been an acceleration of sea level rise, and yet they have told the public that they can. We've known since 2018 that 89% of the atoll islands that scientists and the media claimed would be destroyed by sea level rise had instead grown or stayed the same size. Sea level rise is not "observably accelerating" over time horizons that would show a trend. The only scientific basis for claiming it is accelerating is through modeling. The observable tide-gauge data do not show this.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on climate change and corruption in science.

Blue Butterfly: Inside the Diary of an Epstein Survivor

TrineDay Books announces the release of Blue Butterfly: Inside the Diary of an Epstein Survivor, a gripping memoir of Survivor Juliette Bryant that exposes Jeffrey Epstein's previously unreported medical crimes. Juliette's firsthand testimony ... unravels Epstein's deep ties to the shadowy intelligence community that controlled him. It explores how the two-time college dropout amassed a fortune of half a billion dollars while spending his days abusing young girls. Twenty-three years ago, on September 26, 2002, Jeffrey Epstein touched down in Cape Town with a high-profile entourage. That night, 20-year-old Juliette Bryant, a psychology student and aspiring model, was recruited and promised a future with the lingerie retailer Victoria's Secret. Instead, she found herself ensnared in a global network of abuse. Juliette was trafficked across continents and American states, taken to all of Epstein's luxury residences, and introduced to co-conspirators who enabled his operations to flourish in plain sight. The sexual abuse and psychological manipulation Juliette endured were pervasive as she made her final trip to Epstein's remote Zorro Ranch in New Mexico. There, in June 2004, Juliette awoke paralyzed in a laboratory, while a female doctor operated on her–without her knowledge or consent. While other books have documented his trafficking network, Blue Butterfly explores his obsession with elite eugenics, artificial intelligence, transhumanism, cryogenics, and cloning.

Note: Read our comprehensive Substack investigation covering the connection between Epstein's child sex trafficking ring and intelligence agency sexual blackmail operations. For more, read our concise summaries of news articles on Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise.

â€Geoengineering Fails Again': Coalition Cheers End of Arctic Ice Project

Environmental and Indigenous activists declared Thursday that "geoengineering fails again," welcoming the shutdown of a project that aimed to use "a reflective material to protect and restore Arctic sea ice." "While our climate impact simulations have shown promising results ... recent ecotoxicological tests have revealed potential risks to the Arctic food chain," the [Arctic Ice Project] team said. Panganga Pungowiyi, climate geoengineering organizer at Indigenous Environmental Network, called the decision "long overdue." "We are concerned for the community members in UtqiaÄˇvik who were made to spread football fields of this material onto their frozen lake," Pungowiyi explained. "Our concerns about the reckless use of harmful materials were dismissed. We continually showed up in defense of free prior and informed consent, and made our presence known." "We continue to state firmly that nature is not a laboratory; it is a living entity we are in relationship with," the organizer added. "Geoengineering approaches do nothing to address the root causes of the climate crisis and instead delay real solutions, offering a free pass to polluters," [said Mary Church at the Center for International Environmental Law]. "Following the recent reaffirmation of the global moratorium on geoengineering at the U.N. biodiversity summit in Colombia, governments need to act to prevent harmful outdoor experiments."

Note: In our latest Substack, "Geoengineering is a Weapon That's Been Rebranded as Climate Science. There's a Better Way To Heal the Earth," we present credible evidence and current information showing that weather modification technologies are not only real, but that they are being secretly propagated by multiple groups with differing agendas. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on geoengineering.

WHO Foundation's growing â€dark money' problem raises conflict of interest concerns

The transparency of donations to the World Health Organization (WHO) Foundation–an independent body that seeks funds from across industry, civil society and governments, and awards grants to the WHO – has plummeted over its first 3 years of operations, a new analysis has found. The analysis found that the majority of donors are not publicly disclosed, including some unnamed gifts as big as $11 million, which raises concerns about the potential "level of outside influence and role of commercial interests in setting WHO priorities," the researchers wrote. In 2020, the foundation was set up to solicit funds from a wider range of donors than the WHO can directly accept, including wealthy individuals and corporations. Some academics and civil society organizations are concerned that accepting donations from industry, such as businesses selling alcohol and infant formula, poses a conflict of interest. Evidence suggests that some companies use donations "as opportunities to distract or reframe product harms.., and assist wider lobbying efforts against public health regulation," wrote the authors of the new analysis. Using a scale to judge transparency in donations developed by Open Democracy, an independent international media platform, the researchers gave the WHO Foundation a D grade. This grade is for organizations that only name a minority of funders and not in a systematic way, putting it on par with some â€dark money' think tanks.

Note: Concerns about WHO's growing dependence on opaque funding are not abstract. Past investigations show how Purdue Pharma influenced WHO opioid guidelines to expand sales globally and how Coca-Cola–linked consultants shaped WHO's aspartame reviews. Bill Gates' hundreds of millions to WHO now give him outsized influence to prioritize corporate interests under the guise of public health philanthropy, which have led to mass suicides in India, worsening environmental degradation and poverty in Africa, and increasing corporate control over the media.

Assassinations? Defamation? How genetic technology could destabilize the world

The forensic scientist Claire Glynn estimated that more than 40 million people have sent in their DNA and personal data for direct-to-consumer genetic testing, mostly to map their ancestry and find relatives. Since 2020, at least two genetic genealogy firms have been hacked and at least one had its genomic data leaked. Yet when discussing future risks of genetic technology, the security policy community has largely focused on spectacular scenarios of genetically tailored bioweapons or artificial intelligence (AI) engineered superbugs. A more imminent weaponization concern is more straightforward: the risk that nefarious actors use the genetic techniques ... to frame, defame, or even assassinate targets. A Russian parliamentary report from 2023 claimed that "by using foreign biological facilities, the United States can collect and study pathogens that can infect a specific genotype of humans." Designer bioweapons, if ever successfully developed, produced, and tested, would indeed pose a major threat. Unscrupulous actors with access to DNA synthesis infrastructure could ... frame someone for a crime such as murder, for example, by using DNA that synthetically reproduces the DNA regions used in forensic crime analysis. The research and policy communities must dedicate resources not simply to dystopian, low-probability threats like AI designed bioweapons, but also to gray zone genomics and smaller-scale, but higher probability, scenarios for misuse.

Note: For more, read our concise summaries of news articles on corruption in biotech.

How Conflicts of Interest Shape Trust in Academic Work

Trust in academic research is crucial. This trust, however, could be affected by the presence of conflicts of interest (CoIs), situations where a specific interest of the researcher could compromise the researcher's impartiality. Academic research in fields such as economics, medicine, and many others is becoming more costly and often depends on funding or access to databases controlled by private parties. To what extent do these relationships undermine trust in research? In our new NBER working paper, we address this ... by examining how different types of CoIs shape perceptions of the trustworthiness of economic research. Trust in the results declined across all groups (on average by 30%) following the disclosure of a CoI, despite the research being peer-reviewed and published in a prestigious academic journal. This decline was moderated by expertise, with average Americans experiencing greater declines in trust than "elite" economists (who publish in the top journals). Nonetheless, even elite economists experienced a drop in trust. Financial incentives (such as funding) were not the sole or the most significant factor influencing trust. Instead, privileged access to data had the most pronounced effect. When research utilized private data aligned with the interests of the data provider, trust in the results decreased by over 20%. Trust dropped by approximately 50% if the data provider retained review rights over the research outcomes.

Note: "Trust the science" sounds noble–until you realize that even top editors of world-renowned journals have warned that much of published medical research is unreliable, distorted by fraud, corporate influence, and conflicts of interest. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on corruption in science.

"Defend or be damned" – How a US company uses government funds to suppress pesticide opposition around the world

Financed partly with US taxpayers dollars, [a] firm in Missouri called v-Fluence [was] founded by former Monsanto executive Jay Byrne. [v-Fluence] established a "private social network" to counter resistance to pesticides and genetically modified (GM) crops. A profile of former New York Times food writer Mark Bittman ... includes a description of where he lives, details of two marriages and personal hobbies, and an extensive Criticisms section. Bittman said that it was a "terrible thing," for taxpayer dollars to be used to help a PR agency "work against sincere, legitimate, and scientific efforts to do agriculture better." Syngenta signed a contract with v-Fluence in 2002 to help the company deal with negative information coming to light about its paraquat herbicides. v-Fluence went on to help Syngenta create false or misleading online content that was "Paraquat-friendly," used search engine optimization to suppress negative information about paraquat in Internet searches and investigated the social media pages of victims who reported injuries to Syngenta's crisis hotline. Syngenta's internal research found adverse effects of paraquat on brain tissue decades ago but the company withheld that information from regulators, instead working to discredit independent science linking the chemical to brain disease and developing a "SWAT team" to counter critics. In its response to those stories, Syngenta asserted that no "peer-reviewed scientific publication has established a causal connection between paraquat and Parkinson's disease."

Note: Read more about how v-Fluence was used to censor the web and silence dissenting voices. "Trust the science" sounds noble–until you realize that even top editors of world-renowned journals have warned that much of published medical research is unreliable, distorted by fraud, corporate influence, and conflicts of interest.

â€The situation has become appalling': fake scientific papers push research credibility to crisis point

Tens of thousands of bogus research papers are being published in journals in an international scandal that is worsening every year, scientists have warned. Medical research is being compromised, drug development hindered and promising academic research jeopardised thanks to a global wave of sham science that is sweeping laboratories and universities. Last year the annual number of papers retracted by research journals topped 10,000 for the first time. Most analysts believe the figure is only the tip of an iceberg of scientific fraud. The startling rise in the publication of sham science papers has its roots in China, where young doctors and scientists seeking promotion were required to have published scientific papers. Shadow organisations – known as "paper mills" – began to supply fabricated work for publication in journals there. The practice has since spread to India, Iran, Russia, former Soviet Union states and eastern Europe, with paper mills supplying fabricated studies to more and more journals as increasing numbers of young scientists try to boost their careers by claiming false research experience. In some cases, journal editors have been bribed to accept articles, while paper mills have managed to establish their own agents as guest editors who then allow reams of falsified work to be published. One study, by Nature, revealed that in 2013 there were just over 1,000 retractions. In 2022, the figure topped 4,000 before jumping to more than 10,000 last year.

Note: According to The Lancet, half of all scientific literature may simply be untrue. "Trust the science" sounds noble–until you realize that even top editors of world-renowned journals have warned that much of published medical research is unreliable, distorted by fraud, corporate influence, and conflicts of interest. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on corruption in science.

Fauci was told by Feb. 2020 that COVID was already â€adapted' to humans, messages show

U.S. and Chinese government officials knew as early as February 2020 that the emerging novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 had already been well-adapted to humans – an early signal not only that it would spread efficiently, but also that it may not have emerged at the Wuhan wet market. Recently released chat messages indicate that former National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci was informed by early February 2020 by then-China Center for Disease for Disease Control and Prevention Director George Gao that the emerging novel coronavirus had already "adapted to human hosts well." It was not until approximately three months later, on May 21, 2020, that this alarming characteristic of the novel coronavirus, starkly different than the SARS virus that circulated from 2002-2004, first generated widespread discussion and debate in the U.S. Critics included authors of an earlier March 2020 publication in Nature Medicine titled "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2." While this paper acknowledged the virus was well adapted to humans, it described this feature as assuredly natural. The paper was viewed millions of times within days and made the authors go-to experts in the media on the novel coronavirus. It wasn't until Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits revealed Fauci's emails that the public became aware of his involvement with the conception of that paper. "It is indeed striking that this virus is so closely related to SARS yet is behaving so differently. It seems to have been preadapted for human spread since the get go," coauthor University of Sydney virologist Eddie Holmes said in a message on February 10, 2020.

Note: Watch our Mindful News Brief on the cover-up of COVID origins. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on biotech dangers.

Eisenhower Warned Us About the 'Scientific Elite'

In President Dwight D. Eisenhower's famous 1961 speech about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, he also cautioned Americans about the growing power of a "scientific, technological elite." "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by federal employment project allocations and the power of money is ever present," warned Eisenhower. And he was right. Today, many of the people protesting the Trump administration's cuts to federal funding for scientific research are part of that scientific, technological elite. But there's a good chance that slashing federal spending will liberate science from the corrupting forces that Eisenhower warned us about. Thomas Edison's industrial lab produced huge breakthroughs in telecommunications and electrification. Alexander Graham Bell's lab produced modern telephony and sound recording, all without government money. The Wright Brothers–who ran a bicycle shop before revolutionizing aviation–launched the first successfully manned airplane flight in December 1903, beating out more experienced competitors like Samuel Langley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, who had received a grant from the War Department for his research. Of course, government funding has led to major breakthroughs both during and after World War II. In an influential 2005 paper, Stanford University professor John Ioannidis flatly concluded that "most published research findings are false." He argued that the current peer review model encourages groupthink. "You end up with a monolithic view, and so you crush what's so important in science, which is different ideas competing in a marketplace of ideas."

Note: "Trust the science" sounds noble–until you realize that even top editors of world-renowned journals have warned that much of published medical research is unreliable, distorted by fraud, corporate influence, and conflicts of interest. For more along these lines, read about how the US government turns a blind eye to the corporations fueling America's health crisis.

When the U.S. Military Gave People Radiation Poisoning To Study the Effects of Nuclear War

Uncle Sam conducted several pointless and destructive experiments on his own people during the Cold War. The most infamous was MKUltra, the CIA's project to develop procedures for mind control using psychedelic drugs and psychological torture. During Operation Sea-Spray, the U.S. Navy secretly sprayed San Francisco with bacteria to simulate a biological attack. San Francisco was also the site of a series of radiation experiments by the U.S. Navy. A 2024 investigation by the San Francisco Public Press and The Guardian revealed that the city's U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory had exposed at least 1,073 people to radiation over 24 experiments between 1946 and 1963. The tests came during a time when the effects of nuclear radiation were a pressing concern, and were conducted without ethical safeguards. Conscripted soldiers and civilian volunteers were sent into radioactive conditions or purposely dosed with radiation without their informed consent. The lab didn't bother following up. The Radiological Defense Laboratory ... closed in 1969. In 2013, whistleblowers brought a lawsuit against a decontamination contractor for cutting corners and faking results; in January 2025, the contractor agreed to pay a $97 million settlement. Scientists [there had] developed "synthetic fallout"–dirt laced with radioactive isotopes to simulate the waste created by a nuclear war. They had test subjects practice cleaning it up, rub it on their skin, or crawl around in it.

Note: Read about the long history of humans being treated like guinea pigs in science experiments. Learn more about the MKUltra Program in our comprehensive Military-Intelligence Corruption Information Center. For more, read our concise summaries of news articles on military corruption.

A Mysterious Startup Is Developing a New Form of Solar Geoengineering

In July 2012, a renegade American businessman, Russ George, took a ship off the coast of British Columbia and dumped 100 tons of iron sulfate dust into the Pacific Ocean. He had unilaterally, and some suggest illegally, decided to trigger an algae bloom to absorb some carbon dioxide from the atmosphere–an attempt at geoengineering. Now a startup called Stardust seeks something more ambitious: developing proprietary geoengineering technology that would help block sun rays from reaching the planet. Stardust formed in 2023 and is based in Israel but incorporated in the United States. Geoengineering projects, even those led by climate scientists at major universities, have previously drawn the ire of environmentalists and other groups. Such a deliberate transformation of the atmosphere has never been done, and many uncertainties remain. If a geoengineering project went awry, for example, it could contribute to air pollution and ozone loss, or have dramatic effects on weather patterns, such as disrupting monsoons in populous South and East Asia. Stardust ... has not publicly released details about its technology, its business model, or exactly who works at its company. But the company appears to be positioning itself to develop and sell a proprietary geoengineering technology to governments that are considering making modifications to the global climate–acting like a kind of defense contractor for climate alteration.

Note: Regenerative farming is far safer and more promising than geoengineering for stabilizing the climate. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on geoengineering and science corruption.

Making it rain: How weather manipulation and geoengineering are fueling global tensions

While attempting to control the weather might sound like science fiction, countries have been seeding clouds for decades to try to make rain or snow fall in specific regions. Invented in the 1940s, seeding involves a variety of techniques including adding particles to clouds via aircraft. It is used today across the world in an attempt to alleviate drought, fight forest fires and even to disperse fog at airports. In 2008, China used it to try to stop rain from falling on Beijing's Olympic stadium. But experts say that there is insufficient oversight of the practice, as countries show an increasing interest in this and other geoengineering techniques as the planet warms. The American Meteorological Society has said that "unintended consequences" of cloud seeding have not been clearly shown – or ruled out – and raised concerns that unanticipated effects from weather modification could cross political boundaries. And there have been instances when cloud seeding was used deliberately in warfare. The United States used it during "Operation Popeye" to slow the enemy advance during the Vietnam War. In response, the UN created a 1976 convention prohibiting "military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques". A number of countries have not signed the convention. Researcher Laura Kuhl said there was "significant danger that cloud seeding may do more harm than good", in a 2022 article for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Geoengineering's Risks Need to Be Studied More

More than a dozen private companies around the world are looking to profit from extreme measures to combat global warming – filling the sky with sunlight-blocking particles, brightening clouds or changing the chemistry of the oceans. The problem is that nobody knows how to control the unintended consequences. Some scientists who've studied and modeled the complexity of Earth's oceans and atmosphere say any "geoengineering" scheme big enough to affect the climate could put people at risk of dramatic changes in the weather, crop failures, damage to the ozone layer, international conflict and other irreversible problems. Environmental lawyer David Bookbinder is more afraid of geoengineering than he is of climate change. "The consequences of geoengineering could happen a lot faster and with much less warning," he said. He said the world lacks the legal or regulatory framework to ensure no single government or private entity takes a risky initiative. At the same time, "there's a clamor for tech solutions." Mark Z. Jacobson, an atmospheric modeler ... said we've already seen the results of several natural experiments. Some forms of air pollution have been cooling the planet by about 1 degree C, but that same pollution also kills millions of people from respiratory illnesses. In 1815, the eruption of Tambora injected so many particles into the atmosphere that 1816 was dubbed "the year without a summer." People died from crop failure and famine.