News

New assembly would lead bloc’s de-dollarization efforts and bolster its global influence.

The BRICS group of nations is continuing its development into a geopolitical world power. On Thursday, the bloc announced its plans to create its own parliament to oversee the alliance and its initiatives. 

BRICS, originally founded in 2006 as a group for investment strategies for emerging nations by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, has since expanded and now includes South Africa and—since January 2024—Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. An additional 40 nations have expressed interest in becoming members, including Serbia and Turkey. Over 20 countries have formally applied for membership.

At a BRICS meeting in St. Petersburg on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said, “Thus far, BRICS does not have its own institutionalized parliamentary structure. But I believe that in the future this idea will definitely be realized.” He said formalizing a parliament would help the bloc “achieve the maximum implementation of the economic, investment, technological, and human potential of our countries, and strengthen the constructive influence of BRICS on global processes”—while making the world “safer and more harmonious.”

The BRICS bloc is in the process of creating its own payment system, an alternative—and a challenge—to trading in U.S. dollars. Iran told Russian state media that it has completed connecting national payment systems with Russia and its central bank, and will “extend this mechanism” to other BRICS nations. On Wednesday, India announced plans to integrate its RuPay with the same Russian payment system. 

The motivation for BRICS’ de-dollarization efforts, The European Conservative’s economic expert said last year, is “a combination of economic growth and a desire to shield one’s own country from the wrath of dollar-attached sanctions, should one’s domestic policies happen to displease the American government.”

---

Emergency Alert: Deep State Could Attack The RNC And Assassinate Trump By Any Means

---

In a Senate hearing Thursday, ex-CDC Director Robert Redfield said mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are “toxic” and should not have been mandated. He also called for a pause on gain-of-function research.

Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield confirmed the dangers of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in a U.S. Senate hearing Thursday, calling them “toxic” and saying they should never have been mandated.

Redfield’s admissions came during a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on government oversight of taxpayer-funded high-risk virus research.

The late admission of vaccine injuries underscores the failure of public health agencies and the medical establishment to provide informed consent to the billions of vaccine recipients worldwide.

“It’s important that he is telling the truth now,” vaccine researcher Jessica Rose, Ph.D., told The Defender. “Adverse events were hidden and still are being hidden to prevent injection hesitancy.”

Redfield, who led the CDC from 2018 to 2021, didn’t stop there. He declared biosecurity “our nation’s greatest national security threat,” calling for a halt to gain-of-function research pending further debate.

The hearing, which featured contentious exchanges between senators and witnesses, also touched on controversial topics such as the COVID-19 origins lab-leak theory and allegations that health agencies suppressed data.

mRNA vax ‘should have been open to personal choice’

During the hearing Redfield, who oversaw the CDC during the crucial early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, elaborated on his recent statements about mRNA vaccine safety.

“I do think one of the greatest mistakes that was made, of course, was mandating these vaccines,” Redfield said. “They should have never been mandated. It should have been open to personal choice.”

Redfield went further, admitting that the spike protein produced by mRNA vaccines is “toxic to the body” and triggers “a very strong pro-inflammatory response.”

He noted that in his own medical practice, he doesn’t administer mRNA vaccines, preferring “killed protein vaccines” instead.

Redfield’s statements stand in stark contrast to the CDC’s official stance during his tenure, which strongly promoted mRNA vaccine uptake as safe and effective.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) pressed Redfield on the issue, highlighting concerning data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Johnson presented figures showing over 37,000 deaths reported following COVID-19 vaccination, with 24% occurring within two days of injection.

Redfield acknowledged there was “not appropriate transparency from the beginning about the potential side effects of these vaccines.” He criticized attempts to “underreport any side effects because they argued that would make the public less likely to get vaccinated.”

‘FDA should release all of the safety data’

Redfield’s criticism of data withholding extended beyond vaccine side effects. He expressed disappointment in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration‘s (FDA) handling of vaccine safety information.

“The FDA should release all of the safety data they have,” Redfield said. “I was very disappointed to hear that they were planning to hold on to that until 2026. That really creates a sense of total lack of trust in our public health agencies towards vaccination.”

Johnson echoed these concerns, revealing his frustration with the lack of follow-through by health agencies and the committee itself.

“I’m not getting cooperation out of the chairman of the permanent subcommittee investigation to issue subpoenas to get this,” Johnson said, referring to unreleased data and documents.

The senator displayed a chart comparing adverse event reports for various drugs, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, to those for COVID-19 vaccines. The stark contrast in reported deaths from these therapeutics — with COVID-19 vaccines showing significantly higher numbers — fueled Johnson’s demand for more transparency.

“As important as the cover-up of the origin story is, there’s a lot more that’s being covered up,” Johnson asserted. “The public has a right to know. We pay for these agencies. We pay their salaries. We fund these studies.”

Redfield agreed with Johnson’s assessment, stating that withholding the information is “counterproductive.”

Redfield doubtful of ‘any benefit from [gain-of-function] research’

Redfield’s testimony took another controversial turn when he called for a pause on gain-of-function research, experiments that involve making pathogens more infectious or deadly.

“I’m not aware of any advanced therapeutic or vaccine that has come to pass because of gain-of-function research,” Redfield said. “I do think there has to be a very aggressive debate of whether there’s any benefit from that research.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) seized on this point, introducing his Risky Research Review Act. The bill aims to establish an independent board within the executive branch to oversee federal funding for high-risk life sciences research.

“If the Risky Research Review Act had been in place, it might have prevented the COVID-19 pandemic,” Paul said, citing Redfield’s endorsement.

MIT’s Kevin Esvelt, Ph.D., inventor of a technique for rapidly evolving proteins and other biomolecules who was also instrumental in developing CRISPR gene-editing technology, reinforced these concerns.

Highlighting gaps in current oversight, he described an experiment where his team — with FBI approval — successfully ordered DNA fragments of the 1918 influenza virus from 36 of 38 providers.

“Everything that we did and the companies did was entirely legal,” Esvelt said, underscoring the potential for misuse. “There are no laws regulating DNA synthesis, even though the industry group, the International Gene Synthesis Consortium, has requested congressional regulation.”

The hearing revealed a growing consensus among witnesses for stricter oversight of potentially dangerous research, with Redfield suggesting such studies should be “highly regulated” to protect national security.

Redfield reaffirms COVID lab-leak theory

The hearing reignited debate over the origins of COVID-19, with Redfield reaffirming his belief in thelab-leak theory.

“Based on my initial analysis, I believe then, and I still believe today, that the COVID infections were the direct result of a biomedical research experiment and subsequent lab leak,” Redfield stated.

This assertion led to a heated exchange between Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Carrie Wolinetz, Ph.D., former chief of staff to then-director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Francis Collins. Hawley accused NIH officials of deliberately suppressing the lab-leak theory.

“Your office, Dr. [Anthony] Fauci and others tried to actively censor them,” Hawley said. “There was a propaganda effort that this paper was the center of, and now everybody says, ‘Oh, well, we just weren’t sure at the time.’”

Hawley referred to the 2020 “Proximal Origin” paper that argued against the lab-leak hypothesis.

Wolinetz defended the NIH’s actions. “I do not believe censorship took place, sir.” She maintained that discussions about the virus’s origins were part of normal scientific discourse.

Redfield, however, criticized the lack of thorough investigation into both natural origin and lab-leak hypotheses. “Unfortunately, this didn’t happen,” he said, adding that four years later, he believes there’s no meaningful evidence supporting a natural origin.

The former CDC director also revealed that he did not learn about concerning biodistribution studiesof the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles until as late as the summer of 2021, suggesting a delay in critical information reaching top health officials.

‘Biosecurity is our nation’s greatest national security threat’

Redfield emphasized the critical importance of biosecurity in national defense.

“In 2024, 2025, biosecurity is our nation’s greatest national security threat,” Redfield stated. “You need to think of it the same way we thought about the verge of nuclear atomic [sic] in the late 40s, 50s, and 60s.”

He called for a proportional response to the threat, suggesting the creation of a dedicated agencywithin the U.S. Department of Energy to address biosecurity concerns.

“We have a $900 billion Defense Department for the threat of China, North Korea and Russia,” Redfield noted. “We don’t have really any systematic agency or network of private sector contractors to help us with the biosecurity threat.”

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) echoed this sentiment. “In my humble mind, a viral biosecurity issue is a bigger issue than China’s military threat to us.”

Gerald Parker, DVM, Ph.D., associate dean for Global One Health at Texas A&M University, supported the call for enhanced oversight, recommending “an independent authority to consolidate secure functions in a single entity with a dedicated mission.”

The hearing also touched on the potential for future pandemics, with Redfield repeating his warningsabout the potential spread of H5N1 bird flu.

As the hearing concluded, senators from both parties expressed concern over the lack of transparency and oversight in high-risk research.

Paul summarized the sentiment: “We cannot stand idly by. We must demand accountability, strive for transparency and ensure the safety of our citizens is never again compromised by negligence or deceit.”

---

Emergency Alert: Deep State Could Attack The RNC And Assassinate Trump By Any Means

---

The historic assassination attempt was either allowed to take place or a result of extreme negligence.

“The American Journal” is live every weekday from 8-11 am CST.

NBC reports the Secret Service knew “the roof was a well known, high priority vulnerability. It was identified just the day before during a security walk through.”

There were two sniper teams on site. They did not need approval to shoot. “Prior protocols were not followed.” pic.twitter.com/rzDRnP0ait

— The American Conservative (@amconmag) July 15, 2024

Follow The American Journal on Telegram:

---

Twitter/X wouldn’t accept under-the-table arrangements censoring content, enraging Eurocrats.

The European Commission and Twitter/X billionaire Elon Musk look like they are once again on a collision course this week, after the billionaire CEO took to the platform to condemn an “illegal secret deal”—where social media companies were allegedly pressured to censor political opinions online.

This is not the first time the tech mogul has gone to war with Brussels bigwigs. His online outburst came after the European Commission charged Twitter with empowering the spread of so-called misinformation under the terms of the Digital Services Act (DSA), which fines companies 6% of their annual income for non-compliance.

The European Union is taking specific umbrage with Twitter’s lenient use of blue ticks for verified users, as Eurocrats also complained that the site was withholding information from EU-sponsored “researchers.”

Despite the threat of EU fines, Musk was jovial at the prospect, saying that “we look forward to a very public battle in court, so that the people of Europe can know the truth.” 

He went on to add that EU regulatory authorities offered Twitter an “illegal secret deal” if it “quietly censored speech,” as French Commissioner for the Internal Market Thierry Breton downplayed the prospect of a legal battle with Twitter. Instead, he accused Musk’s team of trying to cut deals with Brussels.

Since taking control of Twitter (and renaming it X), Musk has been at odds with EU regulatory authorities for his libertarian stances on content regulation. The platform was previously targeted under the DSA, alleged to have enabled the spread of misinformation following the Hamas pogrom against Israel- last year.

Responding to the threats, American journalist Michael Shellenberger—author of the ‘Twitter Files’, which documented collusion between censorious governments and social media platforms—accused the EU of a form of ‘foreign interference,” blasting certain “intelligence officials” for taking charge of a new censorship machine, underpinned by the DSA and similar laws.

Shellenberger then went on to point out publicly the professional links between Commissioner Breton and the French intelligence community, with the EU official making the regulation of American corporations a landmark initiative of his term in office.

It is now expected that Twitter and the Commission will engage in a mediation process to solve the dispute with the EU, which can even seize the company’s assets and ban its operation within the EU should the platform refuse to comply with the DSA.

The regulatory spat could be complicated by Musk’s other economic interests. He influences the electric vehicle industry through Tesla, while the EU itself relies on SpaceX’s satellite system.

The European Commission’s press service did not respond with a comment about its next steps in dealing with Twitter at the time of publication. Any potential legal hearing between the tech platform and the EU would be expected to be aired at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg.

---

Emergency Alert: Deep State Could Attack The RNC And Assassinate Trump By Any Means

---

Grove unmasked! Mystery-busting journalists entered the Bohemian club and filmed the Pagan Druidic ritual before some of the gang was apprehended.

Alex Jones interviewed a team of citizen journalists who exposed the globalist occult ritual Bohemian Grove before being arrested.

Don’t miss:

Emergency Alert: Deep State Could Attack The RNC And Assassinate Trump By Any Means

---

A BlackRock advertisment from 2023 features Thomas Matthew Crooks, the 20-year-old shooter who tried to assassinate Donald Trump at his campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday evening. The investment giant BlackRock Inc. confirmed that […]

The post Trump Shooter Was Featured in 2023 BlackRock Ad appeared first on The People’s Voice.