"The willingness of doctors to stand aside and allow the enshrined principles of medical ethics to be trampled by outsiders who have no moral authority to do so has not gone unnoticed by the general public," Dr Ajaz notes. "Never before has there been such distrust and scepticism directed against doctors and the medical fraternity as a whole."

"A handful of doctors have tried to speak out individually, to fulfil their duty as outlined by the General Medical Council for doctors to take prompt action when they see that patient safety is being compromised. Many have received a devastating backlash from colleagues, senior managers and the mainstream media."

"Historical concerns raised by previous medical studies were disregarded, in favour of a narrative driven by authorities lacking medical expertise. This approach prioritised conformity and compliance over rigorous scientific scrutiny and open debate."

While Israel continues to be defamed by blood libels about famine and its war of self-defence in Gaza, some five million are facing actual famine in Sudan where up to 150,000 have been killed and up to 10 million displaced. Some 25 million are estimated to need humanitarian assistance as a result of a 14 month-long civil war.

Yet this vast and catastrophic scale of human suffering is being almost totally ignored. On Fox News, Hadeel Oueis, editor-in-chief of the pan-Arab media outlet Jusoor, said: “Sudanese [people] are asking why the world turns a blind eye as the third-largest country in Africa is laid to waste while at the same time fixating on the smaller conflict in Gaza.”

Good question. The answer is as obvious as it is brutal: the world only cares about suffering humanity when it can blame the Jews. That malevolent prism shapes a fixed and murderous narrative about Israel and the Jewish people that no actual facts can be allowed to disturb.

Reasonable enough. After all, we don't negotiate with terrorists. But the bungling of officialdom is inexcusable. This is not the time for the White House to be sending mixed signals. This week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview that his defense forces will soon wind down the 'intensive' phase of their offensive in Gaza – and ramp up operations in the country's north, on the border with Lebanon. For seven months, Hezbollah terrorists have been raining thousands of rockets and missiles on communities in northern Israel forcing some 60,000 residents to evacuate.

Hezbollah is now equipped with thousands of high-tech drones and mortars, and an arsenal of more than 200,000 additional rockets and missiles. That's ten times the munitions that Hezbollah had during its last major war with Israel in 2006.

So make no mistake: The Middle East is now closer to all-out regional war than it was when Israel traded direct strikes with Iran in the months after Hamas's October 7 terror attacks. And if this primed Lebanon-border powder keg explodes, it will make the current conflict in Gaza seem like a walk in the park. War with Hezbollah would result in thousands of both Israeli and Lebanese casualties.

But after waiting twenty years for the international community to follow through on its resolutions mandating the disarmament of Hezbollah, Israel may not be able to wait any longer. As Iran musters its regional proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen to enact its ultimate goal of eliminating the Jewish State, Israel is fast reaching a point where it has no choice but to fight for its survival.

In any other context, Hezbollah’s almost daily strikes on northern Israel, which have seen an estimated 100,000 Israeli civilians flee their homes, would constitute a clear-cut casus belli. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have already been responding to this provocation, routinely attacking locations occupied by Hezbollah and their Iranian backers in both Lebanon and Syria, where the terrorist movement has established an elaborate network of bases.

Western weakness is no doubt a key factor in Iran’s calculation that now would be a good time to escalate hostilities on Israel’s northern border. German chancellor Olaf Scholz has been weakened by the rise of the hard-Right in recent elections, while French president Emmanuel Macron is facing similar challenges in France’s bitter election campaign. Britain remains consumed by its own electoral dynamic, while US president Joe Biden’s failure to implement his ceasefire plan in Gaza has seriously diminished his stature in the Middle East.

If Iran, then, does decide this is a good moment to test Israel’s mettle, then a new Labour government must be ready to give Israel its unequivocal backing, and not indulge in the constant dithering and prevarication that has characterised Sir Keir Starmer’s response to the Gaza crisis to date.

Paul, a retired lawmaker from Texas, described the strike as “a Ukrainian and American attack on Russia” on Monday’s Ron Paul Liberty Report. He added that some kind of escalation was inevitable after the US supplied long-range missiles to Ukraine and gave Kiev permission to use them for strikes deep inside Russia.

“What’s Russia going to do about this?” Paul asked. “Are they going to twiddle their thumbs and walk away? They might – for a day or two – ponder it, but there will be something that they’re going to do.” Russian Foreign Ministry officials summoned US Ambassador Lynne Tracy on Monday and told her that the “bloody atrocity” in Crimea would “not go unpunished.”

When Nato enlargement first loomed, both George Kennan and Henry Kissinger warned of the likely disastrous effects for Russia-West relations. US secretary of state James Baker’s notorious 1990 promise that enlargement would not go “one inch” beyond the incorporation of East Germany was a clear acknowledgement of the likely Russian blowback, and his subsequent retraction left an abiding Russian conviction of Western chicanery.

In Russian eyes, Nato enlargement was bad, the inclusion of Ukraine (the nation they viewed as closest to them in the world) made it immeasurably worse. The US embassy in Moscow reported that all Russians saw this as the “Brightest of Red Lines”. I was there as British ambassador and was told by one well placed contact that it would “destroy the trust of the entire Russian security sector”. The demand that Ukraine should not join Nato has since been front and centre in all Russian contacts with the West.

So the Western belief in the irrelevance of Nato enlargement is wrong. Could we be wrong on other things? You bet. The war is currently stalemated. The battlefront has barely moved for 18 months. The public war aims of the two sides both effectively require the total defeat of the other.

The nature of the personal information that the likes of Mastercard get with every transaction you make is not only the number but also the location, the content of a purchase… and then behavioural patterns start emerging. But it doesn’t stop there.

Most people might expect this to be happening online, but Mastercard is very hungry for “biometric behavioral data” (the very phrase sounds almost as frightening as the thing is – and it is described by Mastercard itself in this way: “Tracking personal actions such as typing style and how you hold your phone, as well as habits such as the time of day you usually login or your usual IP address”).

Widely considered the benchmark source for data on energy trends across the globe, the “Statistical Review” has been published every year since 1952. The report was originally produced by BP, until the British energy company announced last year it was passing off the task to the Energy Institute, a United Kingdom-based energy nonprofit.

Mark Mills, senior fellow with the National Center for Energy Analytics, told Just the News that he didn’t find the data on hydrocarbon use — another name for fossil fuel — surprising. He’s been predicting for years that, despite claims to the contrary, use and production of fossil fuels would go up as energy demand rises. “This is not a blip. It’s a feature of society, not a bug,” Mills said.

Of the 620 exajoules consumed globally last year, another 25 exajoules were produced by nuclear reactors, 40 exajoules were produced by hydroelectric facilities, and 51 exajoules were produced by renewables other than hydroelectric, which includes wind and solar energy.

Then there’s this whopper of a lie in the Axios story: “Why it matters: Extreme heat is the top weather-related killer in the US”. The story links to a Weather.gov page, which says right at the top that “Extreme heat is the number one weather-related killer.” But the very next sentence takes that back, saying “Extreme heat and humidity is one of the leading weather-related killers in the United States.” The truth is that extreme cold, not heat, is more lethal, as data from the Environmental Protection Agency (the biggest climate crisis propagandist of them all) make clear.

The same is true for other claims that “climate change” is causing more extreme and more deadly weather. Every time a tornado hits, the media say that twisters are getting more frequent and more violent. Except that’s a lie!

Here’s what National Geographic said about tornadoes: “There is no real evidence that tornadoes are happening more often. A lot more are being recorded now than in 1950, but a closer look at the data shows the increase is only in the weakest category, EF0. There’s been no increase in stronger twisters, and maybe even a slight decrease in EF4s and EF5s.”

The editorial pointed out that claims about more frequent heat waves, tornadoes, hurricanes, and wildfires – claims that get repeated ad nauseam by the mainstream press and by climate activists – are not supported by the official data. We included charts and cited the sources of the data – sources such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Interagency Fire Center, the government-run GlobalChange.gov, etc. Here’s how Google defines “unreliable and harmful.”

[Included under the heading "unreliable and harmful claims", Google says:] "information that contradicts authoritative scientific consensus on climate change". [That's the phrase] that Google uses to censor any content that doesn’t toe the climate “crisis” line. Anything that “contradicts authoritative scientific consensus” just means whatever the climate change fanatics say it means, since there is in truth no “consensus” about many of the claims made about global warming.

In truth, the very notion of an “authoritative scientific consensus” violates the basic principle of science. “Doubt in science is a feature, not a bug,” notes an article in Scientific American. “Indeed, the paradox is that science, when properly functioning, questions accepted facts and yields both new knowledge and new questions — not certainty,”

Imagine if Google had been around when Einstein contradicted the “authoritative scientific consensus” about Newtonian physics. Or when Copernicus contradicted the “authoritative scientific consensus” that the Sun revolved around Earth. Or when, in 1543, Andreas Vesalius challenged the “authoritative scientific consensus” about human anatomy that had been in place for 1,300 years.

What Google is doing here (supposedly on behalf of advertisers who use its ad network) isn’t protecting the public against false information – it is attacking true information that undermines climate change dogma. It is, in other words, just a thinly veiled attempt to enforce a pseudo-religious orthodoxy. Google is nothing more than a 21st-century version of the Spanish Inquisition.

Real masculinity is a threat to the cowardice within totalitarian governments. Totalitarian governments like Australia’s are already rife with weak men and women who seek to restrain, control and abuse others. Throughout the past five years, Australia has proven to be a nation of cowardly leaders, regardless of gender. Not only has this government conspired to eradicate the rights of individuals, but they have also destroyed the very moral fabric of society in the name of "keeping people safe."

Masculine men are the answer to Australia's woes. To streamline their totalitarian agenda and maintain control, the ruling elite want to target the segment of the population most likely to challenge their authority: traditionally masculine men. Masculinity is now a threat, because the Australian government is long overdue for reform, for a return to sound principles and ethics. The ruling elites have abandoned constitutional principles, and no longer possess any moral authority on any relative cultural issues. Historically, masculinity has been the driving force behind these changes, defending traditional values.