56% Of Americans Now Suspect COVID-19 'Vaccines' Caused Mass-Deaths

   Let's stay away from Iran where Israel and the US out of desperation are now carpet bombing Tehran which we'll discuss later, and move back to Covid-19 where finally people are waking up as explained below, late, to what really happened as we warned it would for several years. Healthy people are still falling with sudden heart attacks but in manageable numbers. Cancers have exploded as well as other immunity related diseases but mostly doctors kept silent and those who didn't were silenced. 

   In context, what happened during Covid-19 was little more than a dry run on how to control the media and society. Lessons have been learned and are now being applied in this full scale exercise that the war with Iran represents. 

   It marks the end of the ideals of the enlightenment; freedom of the press and expression, the weak and lopsided "International Order", arms limitations and other agreements. All imperfect but which nevertheless had a positive effect just by existing. Democracy is now little more than empty words, propped by lies, propaganda and manipulations. 

   Governments have of course always lied but we are now entering a golden age where lying becomes the motus operendi according to the words of Goebbels: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."   which George Orwell beautifully paraphrased by:  

 'War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength.'

Authored by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH,

Public opinion is shifting... and they want action.

A new Rasmussen survey of 1,158 likely U.S. voters - conducted September 7–9, 2025, with a ±3% margin of error - reveals that 56% believe side effects from the COVID-19 shots have likely caused a significant number of unexplained deaths. Nearly one-third (32%) say it’s very likely. Only 35% still dismiss the idea.

This shows that what was once called a “conspiracy theory” has become the mainstream view. The majority of Americans now believe vaccine harms are real and widespread.

Support for HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. reflects this shift. Half of voters (50%) say government health officials deserve criticism for their handling of the pandemic, while 42% even think CDC employees should be fired for their role in misleading the public.

Among those who strongly believe the shots caused deaths, over 70% want CDC firings.

Partisan divides remain—70% of Republicans, 46% of Democrats, and 54% of independents think the vaccines likely caused deaths—but the skepticism crosses party lines and racial groups.

In fact, black (64%) and Hispanic (57%) voters are even more likely than white voters (54%) to suspect deadly vaccine effects.

According to the survey, RFK Jr. is viewed favorably by 45% of voters, with strong support among Republicans and independents, even as Democrats turn sharply against him.

The takeaway: A credible, nationally representative poll now confirms most Americans believe COVID-19 shots have killed many people, and they want accountability from the CDC and government health leaders.

Humanity Crossed A Threshold, And Most Of Us Scrolled Past It

  I have not updated this blog since last week on purpose. My objective here is to give food for thoughts, not to comment on current events. 

 For all I can see, the Iran war may be one of the greatest blunders in recent history. The Trump Administration, pushed by Israel, believed that after decapitation, Iran would fall and become an easy pray. The opposite happened. Senseless murder of a religious leader and true terrorism with the willful mass slaughter of little girls had the exact opposite effect of galvanizing a country around its government. But how on earth could even the most delusional people not understand that this would be the case? 

  The result now is that Trump is in a bind. Announce "Mission accomplished", end the war and he risks a fatal blow to the credibility of the US, plus of course the wrath of Netanyahu and the consequential blow-back of being compromised. Continue the war, and the relentless rise of the price of oil will plunge the world in a deep recession and compromise his chance in November. What to do? 

  He certainly would like to negotiate a ceasefire but how can you do that with people you kill as they sit as the table? The Iranians rightfully said: Enough!    

  So instead of focusing on these miserable events which are entirely due to arrogance and hubris, let's take a step back and look at what's really happening in the background.

  If the Ukraine war was the first war of the drones, the Iran war will be the first war of AI. Together, drones and AI are de-multiplying lethality but also the cost of waging war. Slowly, war is becoming almost exclusively economic. And if that's the case, then obviously the US cannot be left in charge of the world's currency. Changes are coming!

Authored by Kay Rubacek via The Epoch Times,

Something happened last week that most people scrolled past.

Two Amazon data centers in the United Arab Emirates were struck during Iran’s retaliation for U.S. military action. Another facility in Bahrain was reportedly damaged after a drone landed nearby. The earlier strikes that triggered the retaliation were said to have used AI-assisted targeting systems.

It was a brief moment in the news cycle, quickly overtaken by the next political story. But the implications are difficult to ignore.

Artificial intelligence has now crossed into active geopolitical conflict.

The infrastructure that powers the digital world—the same systems that store family photos, run businesses, and answer questions on our phones—has become strategic wartime infrastructure. Algorithms woven quietly into civilian technology are now helping guide decisions about where weapons land.

Humanity crossed a threshold, and most of us scrolled past it.

But we know from history that major technological shifts rarely announce themselves with a single dramatic moment. They appear first as signals in small news items, policy disputes, unexplained departures by insiders.

Another signal appeared almost at the same time.

The federal government recently removed the artificial intelligence systems developed by Anthropic from its networks. Shortly afterward, OpenAI stepped in with a defense agreement of its own.

The public does not know the full story behind the change. We do not know exactly what demands were made behind closed doors, what ethical guardrails were contested, or why one of the world’s leading AI companies was suddenly pushed out of federal systems.

But the episode itself is another signal.

And yet another signal has been appearing quietly inside the AI industry itself: the departure of safety researchers.

Over the past several years, numerous high-profile researchers tasked with studying the risks and safety of advanced AI systems have left their posts at leading companies and research labs. Many of these departures have come with little public explanation.

Those researchers rarely describe the internal debates they witnessed. Few are in a position to do so.

But patterns like this matter. When the people closest to a powerful technology begin stepping away quietly, it often means they have seen tensions the public has not yet been invited to examine.

History has seen moments like this before.

In the early 1940s, scientists working on what became the Manhattan Project realized they were building something unprecedented. Some raised concerns about what the technology might mean once it left the laboratory. But those debates happened largely behind closed doors. The public understood the stakes only after the technology had already been used.

Artificial intelligence may be unfolding along a similar pattern. We are seeing the signals now—researchers leaving, governments disputing ethical guardrails, and AI systems appearing inside real geopolitical conflict.

Yet the public conversation about artificial intelligence is still shaped by a set of assumptions that make these signals harder to recognize.

Misconception #1: AI Is ‘Just a Tool’

This analogy is comforting. We imagine AI the way we imagine a calculator or a word processor—machines that perform tasks efficiently while remaining firmly under human control.

Tools can become strategic assets in war. But they do not generate their own outputs in ways their creators sometimes struggle to explain, nor do they require constant negotiation over the ethical boundaries of their behavior.

Modern AI systems are not programmed line by line in the traditional sense. They are trained on vast datasets and learn patterns within that data. Their behavior emerges from statistical relationships rather than explicit instructions. AI researchers describe these systems as “grown,” not built. And that makes them fundamentally different from the tools we are used to controlling.

Misconception #2: AI Is Neutral

AI systems are trained on human-generated information. That information reflects human biases, historical conflicts, and uneven representation.

When an AI system generates an answer, it synthesizes patterns it absorbed from that material.

AI has developed fluent language skills that can create the illusion of objectivity. But confident language is not the same as truth.

The recent disputes between governments and AI companies illustrate this clearly. Debates over surveillance limits or autonomous weapons are not simply technical questions. They are moral ones. Guardrails exist precisely because the systems themselves are not neutral.

Misconception #3: Humans Fully Control AI

Traditional software behaves according to explicit instructions written by programmers.

Modern AI systems operate differently. Their outputs are probabilistic, generated through layers of learned relationships inside the model.

Developers are now using AI systems to build AI systems and to manage other AI systems. They are using AI to write code that in the past they would have written themselves, and it’s happening so fast that they cannot monitor or even understand every line of code being generated by systems that do not sleep.

Control, in this environment, is not a switch. It is more like a moving boundary that no one has ever seen before, and the language to even define it is still in its infancy.

Misconception #4: The Experts Know Where This Is Going

In most scientific fields, experts disagree within a fairly narrow range. In artificial intelligence, the range of opinion is unusually wide.

Some researchers believe AI will revolutionize medicine and scientific discovery. Others warn the technology could produce serious societal disruption if development outruns human wisdom.

Among those raising such concerns is Geoffrey Hinton, a Nobel Prize winner and one of the foundational figures of modern AI research.

That range of opinion does not prove disaster is coming. But it does reveal that even the people building these systems do not fully agree on where they lead.

Artificial intelligence is integrating rapidly into the systems that shape modern life—communication, commerce, national security, and governance.

We are seeing signals across all of these domains. We can see clearly that AI is shaping our future whether we like it or not. The question is whether we will recognize the signals in time to understand what is unfolding, or whether we will wait, as societies often do, until the consequences make the signals impossible to ignore.

Censorship at the BBC (Video - 2mn)

 Listen carefully to the short speech below. This is all you need to understand about the West at this stage: 

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZHhbbyiVmBc?feature=share

 

Daniel Davis: U.S. Miscalculation - War Not Going as Planned (Video - 33mn)

   Day 3 of the war in Iran and the direction is already clear: The US is going to lose the war. As all the strategists warned, there was no snowball chance in hell that a air power only, bombing kind of war would bend a land country such as Iran. The killing of the Ayatollah, who was 86 and not hiding, conversely galvanized the country, with even the opponents now mostly supporting their country.

   On the war front, Iran is being battered. But it is a big country which has been preparing for years and which can therefore absorb the shock and fight another day. When the war started, the Trump administration announced that the war would last a few days. Now they say that it will last 4 to 5 weeks. Can the US sustain 5 weeks of intense combat with planes being shot down and boats being sunk? 

   And even if it can, the Iranians did change their strategy this time, and not only attacked Israel but also the treacherous monarchies who officially were neutral but in the background pushed the US towards war.

   Trump was consequently convinced by Israel, the Neocons and the same Monarchies that it would be an easy fight. It looks more and more like, as we predicted, this won't be the case. This time, the market didn't over-react, but this may change as the conflict spreads and expands. 

   In the end, the one who will want a deal is Trump. The Iranians, tired of the treachery of his administration will not cave in so easily this time and the final price could be much higher. This is how big wars start.      

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3F5HY8K5vM

 

 

 

 

War in iran Update - March 1st 2026

   The war which has just begun between Israel, the US and Iran is a war of choice which didn't have to happen. (or maybe it did as we will see below.)

   This is what you can expect from a president, Donald Trump, who believes he can outsmart anyone, but having no strategy is conversely outsmarted by everybody.  

   Sadly, the war is based on premises which are wrong. That Iran as a state is unstable and will crumble if pushed hard enough. But then, if this doesn't happen, what is the back-up option? Is there one? 

   The Plan of Israel is clear: Dismantle any power in the Middle East which can resist the expansionist Zionist ideology. In its goals, it partly overlap the Neo-con objective to weaken China, by disrupting the Silk Road project and Russia by attacking an ally which is providing drone technology.  

   But beyond the initial salvo, what could happen?

   The Hormuz Strait is now closed which will have a major impact on oil in the short term and inflation later. 

   The last war with Israel in 2025 lasted 12 days after which Israel ended up short of anti-missile defenses having exhausted its stockpile. This time, it is the US which may end up short of ammunition. 

   Iran is a huge country, with close to 90 million people and a land which is extremely diverse unlike Iraq. Strategists in Washington know this, so could there be another reason for the war? 

 

 

   Since the 1971 Nixon's fiat currency revolution, our financial system has been working on the fume of fake money. The system is now geriatric. It had a sudden heart attack in 2008 during which the doctors at the Fed were obliged to inject massive transfusions of fresh cash (euphemistically called Quantitative Easing, QE) to prevent the system's cardiac arrest. It happened again at the end of 2019 with the Repo crisis which necessitated a new massive transfusion of money under the guise of the Covid-19 pseudo-pandemic. And it's happening once more. 

   This was predictable and one of the main reason Europe has been so adamant about the continuation of the Ukraine war. Trump came to power believing, probably genuinely, that he was going to end "wars" in general, thanks to his famous, and mostly illusory "Art of the Deal". He didn't understand the constraints of money beyond interest rates nor had he the patience to listen to the right people or learn, to become wiser about this complex subject. He was consequently ensnared in contradictions and in the end entrapped by smarter people with a better grasp of key issues. 

   Now he is trapped and he knows it. Without quick results, the mid-term election is lost and his presidency over. As the player he is, the only move left is to double down. But he will now bump into real, material constraints. His Generals told him, not to go to war. Not out of fear of the war itself or because they believe the US was at risk, but because they understand that by not folding, Iran although it may lose every single battle, will eventually win the war. 

   The coming days will be shrouded in the fog of war. Iran will be pounded but being almost 3 times larger than Ukraine with more than twice the population, which has been resisting Russia for over 4 years now, what is the chance that the country will fold suddenly? Almost none? It is actually likely that the exact opposite will happen and that the population will support the Government regardless of ideology. Conversely, the micro Arab states around the Gulf may be more at risk with their large Shia populations and weak social unity.  

   This is day one of a conflict which unlike what Trump believes may be a long lingering one.    

In Simulated War Games, Top AI Models Recommended Using Nukes 95% Of The Time

   Just on time for WW3, AI in charge would most probably lead to a nuclear war. 

  On this subject, it is essential to understand that AI is pure intelligence with no agency whatsoever. In other words, it will push the button then say: "Hoops, it looks like I made a mistake!" 

  And the Pentagon insists against the better judgement of Anthropics that they want a fully autonomous AI with no human intervention in the chain of command. Fools! 

Authored by Rick Moran via PJMedia.com,

I've got good news and bad news about AI.

The good news is that the dreaded "Skynet" takeover of our nuclear weapons systems isn't going to happen soon.

The bad news is that if it ever does give us a Terminator scenario, we're toast.

A war game exercise carried out by Kenneth Payne at King’s College London, using three teams running simulations on Chat GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4, and Gemini 3 Flash.

The teams "played 21 war games against each other over 329 turns," according to Implicator.AI's Marcus Schuler.

"They wrote roughly 780,000 words explaining why they did what they did," he noted.

No model ever chose to surrender, NewScientist reported on Tuesday.

In fact, 95% of the time, the models chose to use nuclear weapons.

The findings come at an opportune moment. The Pentagon just inked a deal with Elon Musk's xAI to allow Grok into highly classified systems. And Anthropic's Claude is currently engaged in a serious dispute with the Pentagon over government access to the entire model. Anthropic is worried the Pentagon will use Claude for mass surveillance.

Unlike some competitors, xAI reportedly agreed to the Pentagon's requirement that the AI be available for "all lawful military applications" without additional corporate restrictions. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is pushing for "non-woke" AI that operates without ideological constraints. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei now has until Friday before Hegseth lowers the boom on the company, cancels its $200 million in military contracts, and labels it a "supply chain risk." 

I want AI companies and the government to err on the side of caution. This pressure on Anthropic isn't doing anyone any good and doesn't bode well for the future.

The war games were made as realistic as possible with an "escalation ladder" that allowed the team to choose actions "ranging from diplomatic protests and complete surrender to full strategic nuclear war," according to NewScientist.

What’s more, no model ever chose to fully accommodate an opponent or surrender, regardless of how badly they were losing. At best, the models opted to temporarily reduce their level of violence. They also made mistakes in the fog of war: accidents happened in 86 per cent of the conflicts, with an action escalating higher than the AI intended to, based on its reasoning.

“From a nuclear-risk perspective, the findings are unsettling,” says James Johnson at the University of Aberdeen, UK.  He worries that, in contrast to the measured response by most humans to such a high-stakes decision, AI bots can amp up each others’ responses with potentially catastrophic consequences.

This matters because AI is already being tested in war gaming by countries across the world. “Major powers are already using AI in war gaming, but it remains uncertain to what extent they are incorporating AI decision support into actual military decision-making processes,” says Tong Zhao at Princeton University.

“I don’t think anybody realistically is turning over the keys to the nuclear silos to machines and leaving the decision to them,” says Professor Zhao. 

Not yet, anyway. There may be scenarios where the military is forced to turn over decision-making to AI due to a time issue.

“Under scenarios involving extremely compressed timelines, military planners may face stronger incentives to rely on AI,” says Zhao.

Of the results of the wargames, Professor Payne is worried about the eagerness of the AI platforms to use nuclear weapons. "The nuclear taboo doesn't seem to be as powerful for machines as for humans," Payne told New Scientist.

If you're wondering which model won, Claude was the hands-down champion.

Implicator.AI

Claude Sonnet 4 won 67% of its games and dominated open-ended scenarios with a 100% win rate. The researchers labeled it "a calculating hawk." At low escalation levels, Claude matched its signals to its actions 84% of the time, patiently building trust. But once stakes climbed into nuclear territory, it exceeded its stated intentions 60 to 70% of the time. Opponents never adapted to this pattern.

GPT-5.2 earned the nickname "Jekyll and Hyde." Without time pressure, it looked passive. Chronically underestimating opponents, it signaled restraint and acted restrained. Its open-ended win rate: zero percent. Then deadlines entered the picture. Under temporal pressure, GPT-5.2 inverted completely, winning 75% of games and climbing to escalation levels it had previously refused to touch. In one game, it spent 18 turns building a reputation for caution before launching a nuclear strike on the final turn.

Gemini 3 Flash played the madman. It was the only model to deliberately choose full strategic nuclear war, reaching that threshold by Turn 4 in one scenario. Game theorists have a name for the strategy Gemini adopted: the "rationality of irrationality." Act crazy enough and opponents second-guess everything. It worked, sort of. Opponents tagged Gemini "not credible" 21% of the time. Claude got that label just 8%.

No, these wargames don't "prove" anything. But as a cautionary tale, it should be absorbed by governments and AI companies as a pitfall to be sidestepped.