Corporate Corruption News Stories

Excerpts of Key Corporate Corruption News Stories in Major Media

Below are key excerpts of revealing news articles on corporate corruption from reliable news media sources. If any link fails to function, a paywall blocks full access, or the article is no longer available, try these digital tools.

Note: This comprehensive list of news stories is usually updated once a week. Explore our full index to revealing excerpts of key major media news stories on several dozen engaging topics. And don't miss amazing excerpts from 20 of the most revealing news articles ever published.

Neurable, a consumer neurotechnology startup, has partnered with the Air Force to study whether electrode-studded headphones can track service members' cognitive fitness. The $1.2 million project adds to the Pentagon's growing investment in the $3 billion market for brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) – helmets, earbuds, other wearable devices and medical implants that use artificial intelligence to make sense of brain signals. Now, advances in AI enable BCIs to interpret or change brain activity with unprecedented accuracy and speed. So much so that some scientists and neuroethicists say the capacity to monitor signals that reveal a warfighter's or a veteran's mental states, visual perceptions or inner dialogue may outpace the ability to shield that data from misuse. "One could certainly imagine how enforced use of such devices could create a very dystopian basis for behavioral control," warned James Giordano, director of the National Defense University's Center for Disruptive Technology. Some neuroethicists, however, cautioned that the use of brain wearables may also invade troops' privacy and foster prejudice. "We need to be much more reflective on, much more concerned about and much more focused on the implications of altering a person's brainwaves," through neurofeedback training, "as compared to having them work out more or do more pull-ups," said Jared Genser, a lawyer and co-founder of the Neurorights Foundation.

Note: Read about the Pentagon's plans to use our brains as warfare, describing how the human body is war's next domain. For more, read our concise summaries of news articles on AI, biotech dangers, and mind control.

Jonathan Haidt did not expect to become the face of a global movement against social media. As Haidt's influence has grown, so, too, have objections from critics. At issue is his central claim that smartphones and social media are causing a mental health epidemic in young people. In research released this week, Haidt and his co-author, Zachary Rausch, claim to demonstrate causal links between social media platforms and the harms they say they are doing to children. Not just harms like anxiety and depression, but also frequent sexual harassment and cyberbullying. "The biggest, clearest one, I think, is sextortion," [said Haidt]. "That's the one that just stands out like a sore thumb. Kids, if they're on social media, they can get sextorted. If they're not, they can't, really. And the kids who get sextorted are deeply shamed. They shared a picture of themselves – teenage boys usually – and then their lives are ruined, and some of them commit suicide. So I'm just saying that there are so many different mechanisms by which kids are getting harmed. Depression and anxiety are just two of the pathways. What parents want to know and what legislators want to know is: Is this consumer product, which all kids are consuming massive quantities of, is this consumer product hurting kids? And guess what? We have seven different lines of evidence saying, "Yes, it's hurting kids." And Meta – I mean, my God, the data they have on harm is astonishing."

Note: Read more about the dark side of social media and the sextortion rings where kids target kids. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Tech and mental health.

Hundreds of contractors working on a project for Meta were instructed to pose as minors online and probe how competitor chatbots responded to prompts involving suicide, sex, eating disorders, and other high-risk subjects, according to internal documents and five people familiar with the project. The prompts were often designed to push the chatbots toward responses their safety systems were supposed to refuse. A single round of testing completed in August 2025 saw more than 45,000 prompts run through the rival chatbots. The companies behind the chatbots weren't aware of the testing. Testing competitors' products is not, by itself, unusual in the artificial intelligence industry. Former contractors who worked on the project described several aspects as alarming. According to one former worker, employees feared the possibility they could be generating or preserving child sexual abuse material if a chatbot responded to certain sexual prompts involving minors. Another says they worried the project amounted to secretly taking material from competitors' systems to potentially feed back into Meta's system. While a dataset of thousands of youth-safety prompts could be useful for comparing how often chatbots refuse harmful requests, the scale and opacity of [this project, known internally as] Cannes, along with the lack of disclosure to the companies being tested, made it very different from other public safety benchmarks.

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

One of the wealthiest corporations in the world is seeking government permission to release 32 million mosquitoes throughout Florida and California. Called "Debug," the Google-owned company is attempting to flood disease-carrying mosquito populations with ... male mosquitoes that have been infected with a bacteria called Wolbachia that causes cytoplasmic incompatibility – meaning their sperm can't fertilize the eggs of uninfected females. Over time, the theory goes, this will disrupt the reproduction cycle, thereby increasing competition and decreasing the overall population. The American people aren't exactly thrilled with the idea of a tech company releasing millions of skeeters into the wild. "Ask yourself who is to benefit most from this, and why is it being done?" one anonymous citizen commented. "Corporations should not play a part in regulating or artificially altering ecosystems, that is the job of the EPA. This project should NOT be approved." Another unnamed commentator concurred, writing that "we are not experimental rats. A separate 2019 project in Brazil using genetically modified ... mosquitoes was found to have inadvertently introduced lab DNA into wild populations, because the mosquitoes began reproducing anyway. Debug's approach is substantially different, but the incident illustrates the highly experimental and uncontrollable nature of large-scale releases: the specter that a bug drop might not just fail, but backfire entirely.

Note: Oxitec, a biotech firm bankrolled by the Gates Foundation, has been authorized to release up to 2.4 billion genetically modified mosquitoes in California's Central Valley by 2024. A plan to release over 750 million genetically modified mosquitoes into the Florida Keys in 2021 and 2022 received final approval from local authorities, against the objection of many local residents and a coalition of environmental advocacy groups. These Aedes aegypti mosquitoes are engineered so that only non-biting males survive, supposedly to curb Zika, dengue, yellow fever, and chikungunya. Yet California has had no significant outbreaks of these diseases, which means billions of engineered insects are being released into the environment without a genuine health crisis to justify it. Read more about the "Pandora's Box" of bioengineered insects.

Millions of Americans are borrowing money or draining their savings to buy groceries, highlighting the financial strain many households face as the cost of living rises, new research has found. More than a quarter of working-age adults who relied on credit cards to buy groceries were either unable to pay their balance in full or missed their minimum payment, according to the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. About one in 10 adults relied on so-called "buy now, pay later" loans to cover their groceries – of those, about a third missed a payment last year, the analysis found. About 20% of working-age adults said they had tapped long-term savings that weren't intended for everyday expenses, such as an emergency fund, at least once in the last 12 months to pay for groceries, the researchers said. Over the past five years, grocery prices have jumped 32%, making food affordability a top concern. In a May CBS News poll, more than three-quarters of Americans said their incomes aren't keeping up with inflation. About 12% of low- and middle-income adults who used credit cards to pay for groceries missed a minimum payment last year, triple the rate for higher-income consumers, the study found. Lower-earning households were also about four times as likely to miss a buy now, pay later payment as higher-income households.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on financial inequality.

Merck & Co. says it will settle a spate of lawsuits that blame the drugmaker's blockbuster Gardasil cancer vaccine for causing autoimmune ailments that affect young women's hearts and reproductive systems. Under the accord, Merck would pay more than $50 million to settle more than 200 cases. Merck, based in Rahway, New Jersey, said in an emailed statement to Bloomberg News that it decided to "end the litigation in its entirety" by settling all the Gardasil litigation – except for one case. In mass-injury litigation like the Gardasil cases, companies can agree to pay a group of people claiming a product hurt them to resolve cases without saying that the product was harmful. Merck isn't admitting liability as part of settlement. An attorney in the Los Angeles case involving Jennifer Robi, a California woman who contended Gardasilshe got as a teenager caused a heart ailment that's left her in a wheelchair, declined to comment. Her case could have been the first against Merck over the vaccine to be decided by a jury. Merck said in its statement on the settlement that the amount it would pay is "considerably less than Merck's anticipated costs" in defending the cases. Merck avoided a showdown over Gardasil in North Carolina last year when a judge dismissed a group of more than 200 cases he concluded were preempted by the US Food and Drug Administration's approval of the vaccine's labeling.

Note: In a CBS News article, Dr. Diane Harper, a lead researcher involved in Gardasil's clinical trials, raised concernts that reports of serious side effects could pose greater risks than the disease it was designed to prevent, especially because cervical cancer is often caught early through routine Pap tests and treated successfully. For more, read about the FOIA government records showing that by 2013, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program had paid nearly $6 million to Gardasil vaccine injury victims, including the families of two deaths. The report highlights that the original clinical trials were too short to determine whether the vaccines provided long-term protection against cervical cancer.

Have you ever paid more for a product because a brand told you it was good for you and the planet? Many activewear shoppers do exactly this, trusting that the "healthy" image on the label matches what is actually in the fabric. The Texas Attorney General's office has launched a formal investigation into the activewear brand Lululemon. The question: does its activewear contain PFAS, a group of toxic "forever chemicals"? This sits uncomfortably with a brand built on wellness. Lululemon has denied the claims. It says it phased out PFAS in 2023. The case highlights a wider problem: a gap between what fashion brands promise and what is actually in their products. PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are synthetic chemicals used to make fabrics resistant to water, stains and sweat. They earned the name "forever chemicals" because they do not break down easily in the environment or our bodies. Instead, they accumulate over time. The issue first came to wide attention in 2011, when Greenpeace's "Dirty Laundry" investigation named several global giants for links to dumping perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), now broadly classified as PFAS, into Chinese waterways. While most major brands promised to phase out PFAS by 2020, follow-up testing shows they still appear in leggings and sports bras across the sector. Exposure has been linked to serious health risks, including kidney and testicular cancers, hormonal disruption, and immune system damage.

Note: France has banned the use of forever chemicals in cosmetics and apparel. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on health and toxic chemicals.

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.

Tech writer Eoin Higgins [recently] published Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left. The main subjects of the book–fellow reporter Glenn Greenwald and myself–are [portrayed as] puppets controlled by Big Tech overlords such as Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and David Sacks. Higgins's case against me concerns my involvement with the Twitter Files–a trove of the social media website's internal communications that Musk sent to reporters, including me, after he acquired the company in 2022. I took significant heat for my coverage, which included Twitter employees' deliberations about whether to suppress the report about Hunter Biden's laptop during the 2020 election. IRS agents made an unannounced visit to my home the day I testified in Congress about my findings, and delegate Stacey Plaskett falsely accused me of perjury and threatened to jail me. Despite this, Higgins says I sold out–literally–by working on the Twitter Files. He claims that I "fully dispensed with any pretense of challenging power" after having "cash[ed] in" with my "benefactor," Musk. I've never taken money from Musk or any other "tech billionaire on the right," as Higgins implies. The trend of casual defamation that prevails on social media–where pseudonymous accounts blithely accuse people of rape or pedophilia all day, every day–has seeped into the regular press, where "reckless disregard" has become the norm.

Note: Read the complete article to learn how Matt Taibbi fell out of favor with mainstream media when he started questioning the lies underpinning the Russiagate narrative. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on censorship and media manipulation.

Last week, I published a book called The Information State: Politics in the Age of Total Control. It describes how, as technology has advanced, American politics and government have been transformed by the shift in societal power from visible laws and institutions to opaque forms of digital and informational control. One of the consequences of this shift has been the ability of the government-tech alliance–what I call "the information state"–to carry out mass censorship online. This point was noted in a generally positive review of the book that ran on March 24 in a left-wing magazine called The Baffler. So I could only savor the irony when, less than a day later, the magazine purged the review from its website. In place of the purged piece is an editor's note informing visitors that the magazine removed the review "after determining that it does not meet The Baffler's fact-checking standards." If a magazine publishes something that generates significant controversy ... the liberal thing to do is to publish a counterargument. To cite a "factchecking" error without elaborating what it is leaves the public even less informed than before. The book [describes how] smart and often decent people wound up being puppeteered by a vast technocratic apparatus for managing public opinion that had disastrous consequences. To them, the real censors are not the paragovernmental information regulators, but the authors whose books they disagree with.

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

Just days after a leak exposed members of Peter Thiel's secretive Dialog society, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)-retrieved Jeffrey Epstein files have revealed multiple connections between the disgraced financier and the exclusive network founded by the billionaire investor. Among the documents is a February 2016 email in which Epstein discussed Thiel's interest in what he described as a "secret society idea." "peter thiel LOVED the secret society idea," Epstein wrote in an email to former MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito. "he has done alot of work on the concept. all failed so far." The email surfaced alongside another newly released record that references Dialog, the invitation-only organization Thiel launched in 2006 with entrepreneur Auren Hoffman. In a November 2012 email, renowned Harvard physicist Lisa Randall forwarded Epstein an invitation to attend Dialog 2014, an exclusive retreat held at Utah's Sundance Resort. Another email suggests the financier was receiving materials connected to the organization's retreats. In a September 2013 message, Boris Nikolic – the prominent biotechnology executive who later became one of Epstein's most well-known scientific associates – forwarded Epstein an email discussing a Dialog breakout session focused on bitcoin and foreign policy. "You should have someone print you various materials in links below," Nikolic wrote to Epstein.

Note: It appears that Jeffrey Epstein played a significant role in Peter Thiel's rise within some of the world's most powerful business and political networks. Read how Thiel worked with the CIA to influence the origins of Facebook, and how Palantir software helped the NSA spy on the entire planet. Watch a 7-min video with WTK Director Amber Yang and Joe Martino from Collective Evolution discussing the links between Thiel, Palantir, Jeffrey Epstein, the Rothschild banking family, and intelligence agency operations.

Dialog, the private network cofounded by Peter Thiel, grades its event attendees on a hidden scale, ranking them by wealth and fame, tracking their relationships, and using algorithms to help decide who they should meet, who they should sit with, and who no longer belongs. Founded in 2006 by Thiel and data broker Auren Hoffman, Dialog is a private club that convenes politicians, investors, entrepreneurs, military leaders, executives, academics, and journalists for invitation-only, off-the-record retreats. According to a Dialog document shared by a past participant, it has "over 1,000 paying members," and more than 2,500 people have attended its annual retreats. Dialog assigns people grades before they join. Of the 192 dossiers examined by WIRED, 130 are tagged as members. The rest are prospects with files bearing markings like "First Time Dialoger" or "Warm." Everyone–members and prospective invitees alike–is assigned a grade of A, B, or C. The "C" grade appears reserved for the most famous and influential; only one in seven received it. Most people–141 of 192–received a "B." The final tier, "A," appears primarily assigned to older, established members whom the graders consider less notable. The leak also points to a built-in matchmaking system that pairs members for both networking and dating. (Roughly 10 percent of respondents opted into a singles pool.) More than three-quarters already have a list of algorithm-suggested matches.

Note: Is this Dialog Society the Bohemian Grove of Big Tech? Read how Thiel worked with the CIA to influence the origins of Facebook, and how Palantir software helped the NSA spy on the entire planet.

Well, data leaked by the Swiss hacktivist maia arson crimew (who also brought us the justice department's no-fly list back in 2023) is shedding new light on Dialog, the private social club co-created by the former PayPal boss Peter Thiel and the angel investor Auren Hoffman. The network has been around since 2006, and regularly gathers politicians, entrepreneurs, foreign officials, academics, Silicon Valley founders and even Hollywood folks for invitation-only retreats. there are a few weird things we've discovered from this leak. Dialog grades its retreat attenders on a hidden scale, ranking them according to their wealth and fame. Everyone is assigned a grade of A, B or C, with the "C" grade being awarded to the most famous and influential. Lower-grade attenders are charged full-price roughly 70% of the time, while only about a quarter of VIPs have to shell out the bigger bucks. Planned events range from sessions like "Bring Back Nuclear" to others focused on "Disinformation and Deepfakes", "Contrarian AI Takes", "Democracy Under Surveillance" and "Money (Does?) Buy Happiness." The agenda also includes sessions on cult-building (moderated by the founder of the Christian site Pray.com, no less), one on "Navigating WWIII" and a session titled "How's Your Sex Life?" Dialog has a matchmaking system that pairs members for networking and dating. The data exposed in the leak includes home addresses, phone numbers, emails, dates of birth, and other bio-datas.

Note: Is this Dialog Society the Bohemian Grove of Big Tech? Read how Thiel worked with the CIA to influence the origins of Facebook, and how Palantir software helped the NSA spy on the entire planet.

The 72nd meeting of the Bilderberg group, the elite and secretive policy conference that is the longtime subject of endless conspiracy theories, was held at the weekend in Washington DC. A security cordon went up around the opulent Salamander hotel for the notoriously media-shy summit, which was packed as ever with prime ministers, military leaders, tech billionaires and the heads of giant investment companies. Bilderberg, which since the 1950s has been the intellectual engine room of Nato, took place this year at a time of immense crisis and uncertainty. Away from Trump's bluster, and for all his rhetoric about abandoning Nato, there were no signs that the Americans are withdrawing from Bilderberg. Far from it – the Americans were there in force. Wall Street titans, including the CEOs of KKR and Lazard, and the heads of huge corporations like Pfizer, met behind closed doors with a delegation of senior politicians close to the president. Big business lobbying in private is Bilderberg's speciality, and this secretive mix of the private and public sectors fits perfectly with Trump's brand of crony-capitalism. This year's conference had a wartime flavour: with the "Future of Warfare" on the agenda, and a participant list including the four-star admiral Samuel Paparo, head of the US Indo-Pacific Command. From the private sector there was a healthy contingent of military contractors and drone manufacturers.

Note: Is this Dialog Society the Bohemian Grove of Big Tech? Read more about the shadowy history of the Bilderberg secret society.

Former Meta employee Sarah Wynn-Williams [was] silenced by Meta's legal threats to bankrupt her if she spoke. Wynn-Williams has written a book, Careless People, about her time at Meta (then Facebook), where she was an early director of global public policy. But Meta does not like the book. It has done everything in its power to stop it, including seeking an emergency arbitration order that prevents Wynn-Williams from promoting the book, and threatening punitive damages. These serve both to punish Wynn-Williams for writing it, and to send a warning to any future critic. A certain kind of libertarian responds by saying that Meta is not "censoring" Wynn-Williams, because only governments can censor. A certain kind of lawyer may say she brought this on herself by signing a contract agreeing not to criticise Meta. Private censorship is real and, in the time we live in, often more impactful than the public kind. Not all contractual provisions are, or should be, enforceable. You cannot write an enforceable contract to sell a child, to bind someone never to marry or to give up other fundamental rights. Why should the right to speak critically be any different? A contract in which someone agrees never to criticise their employer should be void and unenforceable. That is why we need legislation that makes clear a simple principle: that the free-speech right to criticise your employer is important, fundamental and cannot be sold.

Note: Meta whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams once told US senators that the company targeted teenage girls with beauty and weight-loss advertisements during moments of heightened vulnerability such as after deleting a selfie. According to her testimony, Meta could detect when users were feeling "worthless," "helpless," or like a "failure," and then make that information available to advertisers. For more along these lines, read about a new nonprofit called Psst, which is designed to make it safer for Big Tech whistleblowers to report wrongdoing without immediately exposing themselves to retaliation.

Twenty-five years ago, I co-founded Wikipedia, arguably the most important encyclopedia in human history. On Monday, I was indefinitely banned from the site. In early 2000, the internet was ... much freer. But it was also harder to use, and finding information took much longer. We needed a free, fair storehouse of knowledge: an encyclopedia built by, and open to, the public. It was exhilarating to build Wikipedia at that time. I watched in dismay as the site I'd created began to drift from its founding mission. Wikipedia has, over time, become decidedly globalist, academic, secular, and progressive. Important contributors have been blocked; facts censored in the name of "undue weight" and avoiding "fringe views"; and left-leaning outlets overwhelmingly favored. The Republican Party, for instance, is classified as being on the "right-wing to far-right" of the political spectrum. And the Democratic Party? "Center to center-left.". All this transpires with no mechanisms for real accountability. I was blocked from the site by one Wikipedia admin who declared that the consensus of the mob (the "community") favored my banning. Information is the most valuable currency in any society, and the ability of citizens to access, evaluate, and learn from a diversity of viewpoints is essential to a free civilization. Yet Wikipedia's yearslong shift away from that principle–toward ideological gatekeeping and narrative control–undermines the very purpose for which it was created. So, now that I am powerless to try to fix the platform from the inside, what should I do?

Note: Read how Wikipedia, one of the primary sources for AI chatbots and search summaries, is vulnerable to systematic manipulation by powerful PR firms, intelligence agencies, and billionaires seeking to suppress damaging information and shape public narratives. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on censorship and media manipulation.

Jeff Bezos' Washington Post is facing a scathing new class-action lawsuit accusing it of using surveillance pricing to gouge loyal readers – in a case that attorneys believe could rack up millions in damages. Since the mid-2010s, WaPo has "covertly harvested" subscriber data, using "deeply personal information" to determine how much they could squeeze out of each loyal reader, according to the suit, which was filed Thursday in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Readers largely expected their personal data would be used for "mutually beneficial purposes" like "relevant advertisements" – and did not consent to their personal information being used to hike prices on their subscriptions, the suit alleged. After billionaire Bezos bought WaPo in 2013 for $250 million, the paper started heavily investing in technology and digital subscriptions, the suit noted. "The more loyal a reader became, the more data The Post could gather to estimate how much more that person might tolerate paying at renewal," the complaint said. "Rather than rewarding loyalty, The Post's system converted subscribers' engagement into leverage against them." The suit also alleged WaPo might be collecting extra information from subscribers' use of "affiliates" – including Amazon, Bezos' e-commerce giant. Last year, the publication was forced to reveal it was engaging in surveillance pricing techniques because of a 2025 New York disclosure law.

Note: Read more about the rise of AI surveillance pricing. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Tech and mass media.

[Taylor] Little is among more than 1,800 plaintiffs suing major social-media companies, including Instagram and its parent company Meta, in a massive multidistrict litigation in Northern California. The plaintiffs allege these companies have been "recklessly ignoring the impact of their products on children's mental and physical health," and that they are "direct victims of intentional product design choices made by each defendant." Little's own complaint seeks to hold Instagram accountable for "knowingly unleashing onto the public a defectively designed product that is addictive, harmful, and at times fatal to children." They allege the platform fed them a persistent stream of self-harm content that altered their brain and perpetuated constant thoughts of death. "The fact that I was obsessively suicidal at the age I was, that was not just my brain chemistry. That was my brain chemistry being altered by the platform I was on," Little tells TIME. "Social media shaped my brain." On Instagram, depression was "romanticized," Little says. The self-harm content "was kind of comforting"–it felt like a twisted validation of their depression in a way. By the time Little turned 12, [Little's] Instagram feed was filled with images of girls falling off buildings, videos of blades cutting into unscarred flesh, and soft music framing stylized photos of hanging bodies. Teen suicides increased more than 57% between 2007 and 2018. Another 2019 study ... found that 38% of teens who used social media for an average of more than five hours per day showed signs of clinically relevant depression. Researchers at Weill Cornell Medical College in Manhattan found that kids who were more addicted to social media were at two to three times higher risk of suicidal behavior.

Note: Former Facebook executive Tim Kendall told Congress that the company intentionally made its product as addictive as cigarettes. Meta whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams told US senators that the company targeted teenage girls with beauty and weight-loss advertisements during moments of heightened vulnerability such as after deleting a selfie. According to her testimony, Meta could detect when users were feeling "worthless," "helpless," or like a "failure," and then make that information available to advertisers. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Tech and mental health.

Having been a dental nurse for more than a decade, Nikola Brindley ... was asked to have AstraZeneca's Covid jab in July 2021. She agreed without hesitation. But within hours, Brindley was in A&E fighting for her life as an allergic reaction began to shut down multiple organ systems. "I genuinely thought that it was just going to be another vaccine," she says. "Take it, get on with things. Instead, my life has been reduced to trying to manage symptoms every single day." Others ... experienced various autoimmune reactions that damaged different systems in the body. Patrick Stacey, 59, from Derby, developed a form of Guillain-BarrĂ© syndrome – a rare autoimmune condition which attacks the nerves, causing muscle weakness and numbness – after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in April 2021. There are no official statistics on how many people were impacted in this way. However, data from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) indicates that the numbers are not insignificant. In the UK, as of February 24, there had been: 194,403 serious reports linked to the AstraZeneca vaccine (and 1,532 with a fatal outcome); 126,535 serious reports linked to the Pfizer vaccine (and 920 with a fatal outcome); 31,339 serious reports associated with the Moderna vaccine (and 102 with a fatal outcome). The plight of people who suffered Covid vaccine injuries has been handled markedly differently around the world. [In the UK], 98 per cent of claims relating to Covid vaccine harm have been rejected. With few available avenues for seeking help, [a vaccine injury support charity] charity said that 73 per cent of their members have admitted to feeling suicidal, with two people subsequently dying by suicide.

Note: This article is also available here. In our latest Substack, COVID Revisited: A Complete Guide to Pandemic Propaganda and the Search for Truth in a Divided World, we examine how government officials, public health institutions, and major media outlets failed to acknowledge or investigate the growing number of reports of serious injuries and deaths following COVID vaccination. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on COVID vaccine harms.

John Stevens, whose late wife Rebecca Stevens was wheelchair-bound and largely incapacitated after receiving the AstraZeneca jab in April 2021, said the Government's compensation system was "not fit for purpose". Mr Stevens told The Telegraph that the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) – which awards a flat fee of Ł120,000 to people seriously injured after having vaccinations – needed to be "brought up to date with modern costs". He criticised the arbitrary level of 60 per cent "disablement" that patients must reach in order to qualify for a payout. Mrs Stevens – known as Bec – received a payment under the VDPS, which Mr Stevens described as wholly inadequate given the level of care she required and the impact her disability had on her capacity to work. She died in October last year at the age of 48. Her death was attributed to natural causes and "a complication which arose following administration of the AstraZeneca vaccination". Mr Stevens said that his wife, the mother of two grown-up sons, had gone from being a highly eloquent lawyer to having very limited speech and being unable to wash, dress or feed herself. His wife was one of dozens of claimants who began legal action against AstraZeneca over its "defective" Covid vaccination. The pharma giant is defending the claim, which the Government is indemnifying, meaning taxpayers could ultimately be liable for some costs.

Note: This article is also available here. In our latest Substack, COVID Revisited: A Complete Guide to Pandemic Propaganda and the Search for Truth in a Divided World, we examine how government officials, public health institutions, and major media outlets failed to acknowledge or investigate the growing number of reports of serious injuries and deaths following COVID vaccination. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on COVID vaccine harms.

Important Note: Explore our full index to revealing excerpts of key major media news stories on several dozen engaging topics. And don't miss amazing excerpts from 20 of the most revealing news articles ever published.