by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH – originally published on Focal Points substack

VERSIONE SINTETICA IN ITALIANO

All links to previous Gospa News posts have been added in the aftermath by virtue of the ties with topics covered

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has filed a sweeping lawsuit against Pfizer and its CEO, Albert Bourla, accusing them of deceiving the public about the safety and transmission-prevention capabilities of Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA injection.

The 49-page complaint was filed on October 1, 2026, in St. Lucie County, Florida, and targets Pfizer and Bourla personally under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The complaint opens with a striking line: “Those people are criminals.”That is how Bourla described people who publicly raised safety concerns about Pfizer’s COVID-19 injection.

After COVID-19 Vaccination 85-Million-Person Study Finds Increased Risks of Stroke, Heart Attack, Coronary Artery Disease, and Arrhythmia

At the center of the case is an explosive allegation: Pfizer publicly assured Americans that its COVID shot was safe while the company possessed internal and external safety information involving myocarditis, miscarriages, strokes, adverse events, and deaths.

158,893 adverse events in just 10 weeks

According to the complaint, Pfizer’s own adverse-event database contained 158,893 adverse events from 42,086 case reports by February 28, 2021—only about 10 weeks after the vaccine received emergency authorization.

Yet in January 2023, Bourla publicly stated that Pfizer had seen “not a single [safety] signal” despite billions of doses having been administered.

Florida argues that statement was fundamentally incompatible with information already known about myocarditis and pericarditis.

Myocarditis: Massacre after mRNA Vaccines! Other 28 Deaths Confirmed by Autopsies (Study), 18,000 Adverse Reactions, 10,000 Mysterious Heart Attacks

1,223 reported deaths

The complaint also states that Pfizer’s database contained 1,223 reported fatalities following vaccination as of February 28, 2021.

76,253 Dead Recorded in Europe and US Following COVID Vaccines. 4,358 Fetal Deaths: Pfizer Hid Disturbing Data on Pregnant Women Risks

Florida argues that the existence of this volume of serious adverse-event information undermined Pfizer’s sweeping public safety messaging.

The volume of reports became so large, according to the filing, that Pfizer hired 600 additional full-time employees and expected to hire another 1,800 workers to process adverse-event reports.

Pregnancy and miscarriages

Another major section of the lawsuit concerns pregnancy.

The complaint states that by February 28, 2021, Pfizer had reports involving 458 pregnant women exposed to its COVID vaccine. Of those reports, 248 involved an adverse event and 52 involved miscarriage, according to the filing. Nearly all of the reported miscarriages occurred during the first trimester.

The lawsuit also points to Pfizer’s planned clinical trial involving pregnant women.

Pfizer initially sought approximately 4,000 participants, but the complaint states that only 348 mothers and 335 infants were ultimately enrolled and that the study was terminated early. The women vaccinated in that study were 24–34 weeks pregnant, meaning the trial did not directly provide first-trimester vaccination data.

FAUCI & CDC KNEW THAT COVID VACCINES COULD TRIGGER MISCARRIAGE (5 videos). As Denounced by Gospa News in 2021 on 3,573 Cases of Fetal Death among Vaccinated Women

The complaint further cites the Comirnaty package insert as stating that there are no available data on use before 24 weeks sufficient to inform risks for major birth defects and miscarriage.

Pfizer pushed transmission claims without testing transmission

The second enormous pillar of Florida’s case concerns transmission. Pfizer and Bourla repeatedly told the public that vaccination would protect other people.

In December 2021, for example, Pfizer said that getting as many people vaccinated and boosted as possible remained the best course of action to “prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

But according to the complaint, Pfizer’s pivotal clinical trial did not test whether vaccination prevented person-to-person transmission.

The FDA itself stated in December 2020 that there was no evidence at that time that the vaccine prevented SARS-CoV-2 transmission from one person to another, and transmission was not an objective of Pfizer’s trial protocol.

COVID: THE HUGE LIE! During EU Hearing Pfizer Director Admits Vaccine was Never Tested on Preventing Transmission

A Pfizer executive later publicly acknowledged that the vaccine had not been tested for stopping transmission before entering the market.

Florida alleges that Pfizer nevertheless used the idea of protecting loved ones as a powerful marketing tool to increase vaccine uptake.

More than $80 BILLION in COVID vaccine revenue

The financial stakes were enormous. The complaint states that Pfizer turned approximately $1.5 billion in research and development spending into more than $80 billion in COVID vaccine revenue.

Pfizer’s vaccine captured nearly 70% of the U.S. and European COVID vaccine markets, according to figures cited in the complaint.

Meanwhile, Bourla received approximately $101.8 million in compensation from Pfizer between 2020 and 2023.

PFIZER VACCINE, THE HUGE BINGE! Inside Big Pharma Board Boss of Coca-Cola, Reuters, Gates Foundation, Goldman Sachs, FDA & FB

Florida’s complaint goes beyond safety claims and accuses Pfizer of engaging in broader unfair business practices to dominate the COVID vaccine market.

Florida wants the money back

Florida is seeking far more than a symbolic judgment. The Attorney General is asking the court for civil penalties, a permanent injunction against deceptive or unfair representations concerning Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, attorneys’ fees and other relief.

Most significantly, Florida is also seeking disgorgement—legal language meaning Pfizer could be forced to hand back profits connected to conduct the court ultimately determines violated Florida law.

FOUR other US STATES in Lawsuits vs “BIDEN’s VACCINE (Pfizer)”. None against the PENTAGON-FAUCI’s One (Moderna)

Finally, a government is attempting to hold Pfizer and Albert Bourla accountable by at least some degree for their gross deception.

For years, the company’s false safety and transmission claims helped drive mass vaccine uptake. Now those fraudulent claims are headed to court.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

Support our mission: mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

---

MAIN SOURCE

ATTORNEY GENERAL LAWSUIT DOCUMENT

Attorney General James Uthmeier Files Lawsuit Against Pfizer and its CEO Dr. Albert Bourla

October will see almost all global ocean carriers make a tentative return to Suez transits on Asia-Europe sailings, after revised pro forma shipping schedules show the Premier Alliance is set to send one of its vessels on the route through the Red Sea and Egyptian waterway.

(Bloomberg) — Turkey and the United Nations have set up fresh talks in Russia and Ukraine to discuss a Black Sea ceasefire, trying to coalesce scattered efforts to protect grain...

Cuando se abre una zanja para un canal de 106 kilómetros, lo normal es encontrarse con restos sueltos, un tramo de camino o una granja aislada. En Sermaize, un pueblo de la región francesa de Hauts-de-France, los arqueólogos del Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Preventivas (Inrap) se han topado con algo bastante menos habitual, un […]

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | October 1, 2026

US President Donald Trump has officially announced a formal withdrawal of American troops from Iraqi territory, yet the economic, social and diplomatic hold on the nation remains. If US troops are going to be permanently booted out, it necessitates an Iraqi national resistance that is capable of operating as a guarantor.

On October 21, 2011, former US President Barack Obama announced that the United States had withdrawn its remaining occupying forces from Iraqi territory. Then, only two and a half years later, the US re-deployed its forces back into the country under the guise of fighting the Daesh insurgency.

Iraq, having experienced a regime change operation followed by a brutal occupation and nationbuilding project, was left incapable of defending itself from the ISIS takeover, let alone pushing back against the United States redeploying its forces. First, the Obama administration deployed forces that it said were there to protect its diplomatic staff, in addition to advisors to the Iraqi armed forces.

Later it would expand this presence, expanding its “Operation Inherent Resolve” into Syrian territory, providing it with supply routes and a platform from which to de facto occupy northeastern Syria. The US operation in Syria and Iraq helped them eventually achieve their longtime goal of regime change in Damascus by depriving the Syrians of their access to the nation’s oil resources and fertile agricultural lands.

In 2020, Donald Trump had agreed to remove his forces from Iraqi territory, re-iterating this pledge during a meeting with then Iraqi PM Mustafa al-Kadhimi. The following year, former President Joe Biden then declared the official end of his nation’s combat mission inside the country. Only now, in 2026, and after extensive attacks on US military facilities by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, has the pledge to withdraw American forces been followed through on.

When the US and Saudi Arabia recently blamed Iraqi forces for carrying out an attack on Riyadh’s East-West Pipeline, launching a large-scale bombing campaign across the country, some Iraqi officials instead issued statements against Iraq’s armed factions that had vehemently denied involvement in the incident.

The Trump administration is openly pushing for the disarmament of all military factions within the country, a project Washington has also sought to impose on all Resistance groups across the region. The United States has not allowed for there to be a reasonable integration of Resistance forces like Hezbollah in Lebanon with the Lebanese Armed Forces, nor allowed time for formal agreements to be struck in Iraq of a similar nature. Their goal is simply to disband these groups and then exert control over the armed forces of Lebanon and Iraq, leaving them all but defenseless and without access to strategic weapons capable of deterring violations of national sovereignty.

In the case of Baghdad, the nation’s government was a construct of US occupation; Washington still holds the economic cards that are capable of pressuring any leadership, no matter how well-intended its goals are, while it maintains an enormous soft-power pull through its extensive NGOisation project inside the country. Iraq was not allowed to rebuild its nation’s military following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s rule in 2003, leaving it defenseless against ISIS terrorism a decade later.

On the ground, this is why there was a need for the Hashd al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilisation Forces) to emerge. It was the Hashd that was chiefly responsible for defeating the terrorist invasion and purging its militants from Iraqi cities. Many of these groups that fought under the banner of the Hashd then went on to develop considerable military power and an extensive arsenal.

As revealed during the Ramadan War earlier this year, the Israeli Mossad was able to develop bases inside Iraqi territory, while numerous militant groups still exist across the country’s territory, including various armed factions that are backed by the CIA and the Mossad.

If the Islamic Resistance in Iraq is disbanded and disarmed, then Iraq will be in the exact same defenseless position that allowed for ISIS to sweep through the nation so rapidly and seize so much territory, leaving behind a trail of blood in their wake. This poses a threat to not only Iraq, but other neighbouring countries, including Iran. It threatens Syria’s fragile status quo too.

An Iraq without the Islamic Resistance would be like a Lebanon without Hezbollah, completely left at the mercy of the United States and their Israeli allies. Washington and Tel Aviv have a project that aims to totally dismantle regional sovereignty; this is why they have dedicated trillions of dollars and countless resources to destroying the armed forces of both Iraq and Syria over a period of nearly 30 years now. They are not about to simply sit by and allow Iraq and Syria to rebuild capable militaries, allowing them to follow the will of their people and to defend their own national interests.

The United States still maintains its air defence systems inside Iraqi territory, can use the country’s airspace at will and, as we saw only months ago, will launch airstrikes across the nation at the drop of a hat.

In order to deter a return of American occupation forces, under the guise of fighting whatever future threat they choose to use, there must be an Iraqi military force that is capable of acting in defense of the country, both on the ground and through the use of its long-range munitions if need be. A nation without a real military force cannot enjoy sovereignty. And a nation that is not able to go against the will of the United States, will serve as its proxy and will suffer the blowback that is inherent in complicity.

The US withdrawal from Iraq did not happen without a long history of resistance against its forces and public opinion that also opposes American interference. Protecting the achievement of ridding the country of the majority of US forces takes real military deterrence. Otherwise, the Israelis and the US will simply use the country’s territory for whatever projects they wish.

The map, which contradicts international law, shows no West Bank or Gaza, and appears to include the occupied Syrian Golan Heights.

From displaced Dalit farmers in Andhra Pradesh to water-stressed communities elsewhere, India’s data centre boom is advancing with weak safeguards and little public scrutiny. It’s time to set rules before more land and resources are committed.

By Buğra Sarı | MEMO | October 1, 2026

Israel’s pursuit of security increasingly rests on a destabilizing proposition: that its neighbours become less threatening when their capacity to exercise sovereignty is diminished. Since the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, this approach has become particularly visible across several distinct arenas. Military operations, territorial incursions and restrictions on political and economic autonomy suggest a conception of security dependent on keeping others vulnerable. The consequences extend beyond individual confrontations. When states cannot control their territory, rebuild institutions or protect their populations, the regional conditions necessary for durable security begin to erode.

The argument is not that Israel created every conflict in the Middle East. Authoritarian rule, sectarian violence, armed groups and competing regional interventions have all contributed to the region’s instability.

The question is whether the means Israel uses to pursue its own security deepen that instability. Repeatedly weakening neighbouring states and political communities may bring short-term military gains, but it can also erode their ability to contain violence and maintain order, making the region more dangerous—including for Israel itself.

This pattern can be understood as the denial of sovereignty. Sovereignty involves more than diplomatic recognition: it requires institutions capable of governing, providing services and exercising legitimate authority over the use of force. When these capacities are persistently degraded, formal independence becomes increasingly hollow.

The cases differ in their circumstances and severity, but together they reveal a troubling hierarchy: Israeli freedom of military action repeatedly takes precedence over other societies’ ability to govern and secure themselves.

Syria offers a particularly revealing example. Following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, Israel launched extensive attacks against Syrian military infrastructure and moved into the separation zone established under the 1974 disengagement agreement. Israel justified the destruction of military assets as necessary to prevent advanced weapons from falling into extremist hands. Yet the targets included airfields, air-defence systems and naval facilities—capabilities relevant to the functioning of a state, whatever government eventually controls them.

The longer-term problem is that preventing a hypothetical future threat can obstruct the reconstruction of an already devastated country. Syria needs accountable security institutions capable of controlling territory, containing armed factions and protecting communities. Destroying military capabilities without a credible framework for rebuilding legitimate state authority risks leaving those functions unfulfilled. In July 2025, Israeli strikes on Damascus, including the defence ministry, further demonstrated Israel’s willingness to impose military limits on the new authorities.

Syria’s transitional authorities must themselves answer for abuses and protect minorities; state consolidation cannot justify repression. Nevertheless, externally imposed military vulnerability is no substitute for accountable governance.

A government expected to prevent threats from emerging within its territory must have the capacity to exercise authority there. Undermining that capacity can preserve the fragmentation through which armed groups survive.

Lebanon exposes a related contradiction. Hezbollah’s independent military power has long constrained the Lebanese state’s authority and its ability to determine questions of war and peace. Reducing that parallel authority could, under appropriate political arrangements, strengthen state sovereignty. But Israeli military action does not automatically transfer power from Hezbollah to the Lebanese government. Bombardment, displacement and violations of Lebanese territory can weaken the institutions expected to assume responsibility for national security.

The distinction is crucial: weakening an armed organization and strengthening a state are separate outcomes. In March 2026, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called both for respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty and for stronger support to its armed forces so that they could become the country’s sole military force. That combination identifies what repeated unilateral intervention overlooks: security requires an institutional successor capable of governing after military operations end.

Where that capacity remains inadequate, another cycle becomes possible. Armed groups invoke external attacks to justify retaining their weapons; the state struggles to establish authority; Israel cites the continuing armed presence to justify further intervention. Hezbollah bears responsibility for its own decisions, but Israeli policies can reinforce the conditions sustaining its claim that the Lebanese state cannot protect the population.

The attack on Doha on September 9, 2025 extended this logic into the diplomatic sphere. Qatar was mediating negotiations involving Israel and Hamas when Israel struck Hamas representatives on its territory. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights condemned the attack as a breach of international law and an assault on mediation. The significance exceeded the violation of Qatari sovereignty: even a state facilitating negotiations could find its territory treated as an extension of the battlefield.

Mediation depends on practical assurances that communication with an adversary will remain possible. Targeting interlocutors in a mediating country makes those assurances harder to provide. It raises the costs of hosting negotiations and can undermine channels needed for ceasefires, hostage releases and humanitarian arrangements. Military reach may expand while opportunities for a political settlement contract.

Israel’s recognition of Somaliland in December 2025 raises a different sovereignty question along the region’s Red Sea periphery. Somaliland has maintained separate institutions for decades, and its claim to recognition has its own history. Nevertheless, Israel’s recognition challenged Somalia’s internationally recognized territorial framework. The African Union rejected the move and warned that such recognition could undermine peace and stability.

Recognition is not equivalent to bombardment, and the cases should not be collapsed into a single legal category. Their connection is political: the territorial arrangements on which other governments rely become subject to unilateral decisions shaped by Israeli interests. In an already contested regional environment, such decisions risk adding another dispute to fragile processes of state consolidation.

The confrontation with Iran illustrates the danger of extending preventive military logic to a powerful regional adversary. On February 28, 2026, Guterres condemned the use of force by the United States and Israel against Iran and Iran’s subsequent retaliation across the region. He warned that these actions undermined international peace and security. The escalation demonstrated how efforts to eliminate threats militarily can expose additional countries to attack.

Iran’s support for armed groups and its own military conduct cannot be excluded from this assessment. Nevertheless, degrading an adversary’s capabilities does not necessarily resolve the political incentives driving confrontation. It may instead encourage dispersal, rearmament or greater reliance on asymmetric methods. Tactical destruction can coexist with a more dangerous strategic environment.

The Palestinian case represents the most profound expression of this problem because it concerns both collective self-government and the conditions of human survival. In the West Bank, withholding revenues owed to the Palestinian Authority weakens the institutions expected to administer daily life.

The World Bank documented how the suspension of transfers in 2025 intensified fiscal distress, reduced salary payments and placed pressure on essential services. These measures undermine the practical foundations of Palestinian self-government.

A political authority cannot provide credible governance indefinitely while lacking reliable access to its own revenues. Weakening public administration also weakens its legitimacy, potentially benefiting actors who argue that institutional politics offers no meaningful route to Palestinian rights. The resulting dysfunction can then be invoked as evidence that Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves. Restrictions on capacity thus risk producing the very incapacity used to justify continued control.

In Gaza, the destruction has reached beyond institutional viability. The devastation of housing, healthcare, water systems and livelihoods, compounded by restrictions on humanitarian access, has endangered the material conditions necessary for life. In August 2025, a joint statement by UN agencies confirmed famine in Gaza Governorate and described a crisis involving starvation and preventable deaths. The issue was no longer merely whether Palestinians could build a state, but whether civilians could survive.

Hence, in Gaza, the denial of sovereignty has escalated into a denial of survival. In September 2025, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Earlier, on November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu, finding reasonable grounds to believe that he bore criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. These findings expose the devastating human consequences of denying a population access to the essentials of life. The systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure and deprivation of food, water and medical care undermine Palestinians’ ability to survive as a community in their homeland. Viewed through this analysis, the genocide identified by the UN commission represents the most extreme manifestation of denial: a progression from obstructing a people’s capacity to govern themselves to destroying the conditions necessary for their continued existence.

Taken together, these cases suggest a self-reinforcing cycle. Military intervention and institutional weakening can generate insecurity, displacement and political fragmentation. Those conditions create opportunities for armed actors, whose activities then provide further grounds for intervention. This is a causal risk, not an inevitable outcome of every operation. Its importance lies in the contradiction between immediate military advantage and the requirements of lasting security.

Breaking that cycle requires a different measure of success: whether policies leave behind institutions capable of governing, populations able to live securely and diplomatic arrangements that reduce incentives for violence. Protecting Israeli civilians and respecting neighbouring societies’ sovereignty are mutually reinforcing necessities.

A regional order built around one state’s freedom to intervene and everyone else’s enforced vulnerability cannot offer durable peace. By denying others the capacity to govern—and, in Gaza, devastating the conditions necessary to survive—Israel risks perpetuating the insecurity from which it seeks protection.

Ukraine is now using a fence-like device designed to snag and cut the cables of fiberoptic drones, weapons that have confounded militaries throughout the world.

Quer receber os textos desta coluna em primeira mão no seu e-mail? Assine a newsletter Ligando os pontos, enviada toda quinta-feira. Para receber as próximas edições, inscreva-se aqui.

Não tenho boas pesquisas de opinião para provar o argumento. Tenho uma percepção. Pode ser até mesmo uma crença, uma questão de fé…

Eu acredito que o tema do meio ambiente nos une. Não importa a coloração política ou a religião que você professa; em princípio, estamos irmanados na preocupação com a água que vamos beber, o ar que respiramos e a boa comida em nossos pratos.

A polêmica sobre Nossa Senhora Aparecida, que agora domina o debate eleitoral, me fez lembrar de um exemplo em que a questão ambiental ajuda a unir mundos diferentes. Existe uma iniciativa inter religiosa para a proteção das florestas. Criada há sete anos por várias organizações não governamentais e a seção de meio ambiente das Nações Unidas, esta aliança tem colocado lado-a-lado pastores, padres, rabinos, pais-de-santo e pajés para discutir a proteção do meio ambiente, em especial da Amazônia.

Quem me contou os resultados desta iniciativa foi seu facilitador no Brasil, Carlos Vicente, engenheiro florestal acreano que por muitos anos foi um dos assessores mais próximos da ex-ministra do Meio Ambiente e atual candidata ao Senado por São Paulo, Marina Silva. Em muitas conferências nas quais nos encontramos, ele me relatou com um brilho nos olhos como estes líderes religiosos aparentemente tão distantes em seu dia-a-dia convergiam em uma visão sobre a importância de respeitar a vida e a sacralidade da natureza.

Algo que Carlos destacou foi o profundo impacto que uma visita ao Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) causou a um pastor evangélico. A viagem à sede da instituição, em São José dos Campos, no interior de São Paulo, ocorreu na época em que Bolsonaro e membros de seu governo, como o General Heleno e o então ministro do Meio Ambiente, Ricardo Salles, atacavam o INPE. Os cientistas apenas faziam seu trabalho ao divulgar os dados que mostravam aumento do desmatamento. Depois de entender como funcionavam os sistemas de monitoramento, o pastor defendeu a proteção da Amazônia em um de seus sermões.

A lembrança do que me contou Carlos Vicente em meio a este turbilhão que mistura Nossa Senhora com eleições me deu um pouco de esperança. Me confirmou algo que eu já havia sentido nas eleições de 2018 e logo no início do governo Bolsonaro, quando houve a crise das queimadas. O tema da Amazônia e do combate ao desmatamento é um caminho de diálogo com indecisos. Em conversas casuais, é difícil encontrar alguém que defenda abertamente derrubadas, poluição e maus-tratos aos animais.

Minha impressão se tornou então mais forte com o que aconteceu em 2019, logo após o fatídico dia 18 de agosto, quando a fumaça das queimadas na Amazônia transformou em noite uma tarde de São Paulo. Aquelas imagens, seguidas por investigações jornalísticas que mostraram uma articulação de produtores rurais para celebrarem um Dia do Fogo, geraram uma mobilização nacional e internacional frente aos descalabros da política anti-ambiental de Bolsonaro.

Esta pressão da opinião pública fez com que Bolsonaro tivesse que recuar. Lembrem-se que o vice-presidente Hamilton Mourão foi designado para apaziguar os ânimos, fazendo a interlocução com parceiros históricos do Brasil nos investimentos em conservação, como a Alemanha e a Noruega. 

Enquanto o mundo estava cobrando o governo Bolsonaro, a questão ambiental e a Amazônia estavam também no centro da Igreja Católica. O Papa Francisco fez das mudanças climáticas e da proteção à Amazônia uma das principais marcas de seu pontificado. Realizou o primeiro encontro de bispos para propor uma ação conjunta com os povos indígenas, o Sínodo da Amazônia. Estendeu os braços aos melhores cientistas do mundo no tema. Os brasileiros Carlos Nobre, do INPE, e Ima Vieira, do Museu Emílio Goeldi, foram alguns dos que tiveram o ouvido atento de Francisco.

Por isso, não me parece aleatório que Flávio Bolsonaro tenha resolvido atacar a Confederação Nacional dos Bispos do Brasil (CNBB) para achar um culpado ao dano que lhe faz a polêmica da Nossa Senhora. Os bispos sempre estiveram antenados com a questão ambiental e suas campanhas, ao longo dos anos, destacaram temas como o direito à terra, a proteção das terras indígenas e contra a estatização do acesso à água. A CNBB sempre foi uma defensora do meio ambiente como algo primordial na conduta de uma instituição religiosa.

Durante a presidência de Bolsonaro foram muitos os embates com a CNBB e outras alas da Igreja Católica, como a Comissão Pastoral da Terra e o Conselho Indigenista Missionário. Estes braços da igreja foram fiéis à sua missão e apontaram os desmantelamentos que estavam sendo promovidos por Bolsonaro. Assim como fez seu pai, Flávio ataca a CNBB pois sabe que ela será uma instituição que não deixará ocultas as maldades planejadas contra os territórios.

Cientes de seu papel em defender “a Casa Comum”, os bispos da Região Norte 1 da CNBB, que inclui as dioceses do Amazonas e de Roraima, divulgaram no último dia 23 um comunicado para conclamar aos brasileiros que levem em consideração as questões socioambientais no momento do voto. “O cardeal Leonardo Steiner, Arcebispo Metropolitano de Manaus e presidente do Regional Norte 1, nos recorda que na Carta encíclica Laudato Sí, publicada em 2015, Papa Francisco defende que o cuidado com o meio ambiente é inseparável da justiça social, da dignidade humana e da vida em sociedade”, diz um dos trechos da carta aberta.

Eu arrisco dizer que a Amazônia é tão icônica como uma santa. E não só para os brasileiros: o mundo venera a Amazônia. Infelizmente, e isso não é fake news, há muitos dispostos a destruir essa maravilha da natureza. Divina? Não sei. Aí, vai de cada um.

Esta rotunda fica situada em plena Estrada Nacional 125, numa cidade algarvia.

O conteúdo Foto do dia: esta cidade algarvia tem uma rotunda que dá uvas aparece primeiro em Algarve Marafado.

It is fitting that DreamWorks’ “Forgotten Island” carries a title that evokes memory and loss. The film, released globally in September, is on the surface a coming-of-age adventure about friendship. Look a little closer and it is a poignant meditation on separation – a theme that speaks deeply to the Philippines and its diaspora, whose […]

The post ‘Forgotten Island’: joyous, painful love note to Filipino diaspora appeared first on Asia Times.

O Designer Outlet Algarve, situado no concelho de Loulé, anunciou a expansão da sua oferta comercial com a abertura de duas novas lojas de marcas internacionais de referência.

O conteúdo Duas novas lojas em grande espaço comercial do Algarve  aparece primeiro em Algarve Marafado.

La Giornata Mondiale degli Insegnanti, si celebra, ogni anno, il 5 ottobre  e rappresenta un’importante occasione di riflessione sul ruolo strategico dei docenti nella costruzione di una società equa, inclusiva e culturalmente avanzata. Istituita nel 1994 dall’UNESCO insieme all’Organizzazione Internazionale del Lavoro (ILO), all’UNICEF e a Education International, essa richiama l’attenzione sull’importanza della professionalità docente, delle condizioni di lavoro e della formazione continua quale fondamento della qualità dell’istruzione.

L’insegnante costituisce una delle figure professionali con il maggiore impatto sullo sviluppo cognitivo, emotivo e sociale delle nuove generazioni. La scuola contemporanea è chiamata ad affrontare sfide sempre più articolate: inclusione, multiculturalità, innovazione digitale, educazione alla cittadinanza, benessere psicologico e sviluppo delle competenze trasversali.

La Giornata Mondiale degli Insegnanti, quindi, non rappresenta soltanto una ricorrenza celebrativa, ma un momento di riflessione scientifica e istituzionale sul valore della professione docente, riconosciuta quale elemento imprescindibile per il raggiungimento dell’Obiettivo 4 dell’Agenda 2030 delle Nazioni Unite: garantire un’educazione di qualità, equa e inclusiva.

La professionalità docente nella pedagogia contemporanea

La letteratura pedagogica evidenzia come l’efficacia dell’insegnamento non dipenda esclusivamente dalle competenze disciplinari, ma dalla capacità del docente di costruire contesti significativi di apprendimento. Secondo John Dewey (1938), l’apprendimento nasce dall’esperienza e dalla riflessione critica; Jerome Bruner (1996) sottolinea il valore della scoperta guidata e della costruzione condivisa della conoscenza; Lev Vygotskij (1978) individua nella relazione educativa e nella mediazione dell’adulto il motore dello sviluppo cognitivo. Parallelamente, Howard Gardner (1983) richiama l’attenzione sulla pluralità delle intelligenze, mentre Edgar Morin (2000) invita la scuola a sviluppare un pensiero complesso, capace di affrontare la multidimensionalità della realtà. In questa prospettiva,  il docente assume il ruolo di facilitatore, mediatore culturale, guida educativa e promotore di comunità di apprendimento. Le neuroscienze educative e la psicologia dello sviluppo confermano che l’apprendimento è fortemente influenzato dalla qualità della relazione insegnante-studente. Carl Rogers (1969) evidenzia come autenticità, empatia e accettazione positiva favoriscano ambienti educativi capaci di sostenere motivazione, autonomia e crescita personale. L’insegnante efficace diventa, pertanto, colui che integra competenze metodologiche, sensibilità relazionale e capacità riflessiva, promuovendo un clima di fiducia, cooperazione e partecipazione.

Il contributo del Metodo ACA® nella pratica educativa

All’interno di questa prospettiva pedagogica può essere collocato il Metodo ACA® inteso come proposta metodologica orientata alla centralità della persona e alla costruzione di percorsi educativi personalizzati.

Il Metodo ACA®  pone particolare attenzione a:

• ascolto attivo, ematico e come strumento osservativo;
• comunicazione autentica tra docente e studente;
• valorizzazione delle potenzialità individuali;
• apprendimento partecipativo;
• sviluppo delle competenze emotive e relazionali;
• promozione dell’autonomia e della responsabilità.

In tale prospettiva il docente non trasmette semplicemente conoscenze, ma accompagna l’allievo nella costruzione del proprio progetto di crescita personale e culturale, fedele al motto “L’esperienza genera competenza”.

L’adozione di metodologie attive, coerenti con i principi del Metodo ACA®, può contribuire a rendere l’ambiente scolastico maggiormente inclusivo, motivante e orientato al benessere educativo.

Nel panorama delle metodologie educative italiane, il Metodo ACA® (Ascolto, Comunicazione e Azione), elaborato dalla scrivente, propone un modello pedagogico fondato sulla qualità della relazione educativa. Presentato nell’opera ACA. Ascolto, Comunicazione e Azione (Carabà Editrice, 2016), il metodo individua tre dimensioni fondamentali dell’agire educativo: l’ascolto, inteso come osservazione attenta e comprensione dei bisogni della persona; la comunicazione, quale strumento privilegiato per costruire relazioni educative autentiche; e l’azione, come traduzione concreta dell’intenzionalità pedagogica in esperienze di apprendimento significative.

In occasione della Giornata Mondiale degli Insegnanti, il Metodo ACA® offre una prospettiva coerente con una scuola inclusiva e orientata alla crescita integrale dello studente, riconoscendo nel docente un professionista riflessivo, capace di promuovere ambienti di apprendimento partecipativi, rispettosi delle differenze individuali e finalizzati allo sviluppo armonico della persona.

La formazione continua degli insegnanti

L’UNESCO richiama costantemente l’importanza della formazione iniziale e permanente dei docenti come elemento essenziale per garantire la qualità dell’istruzione.

Le trasformazioni sociali, culturali e tecnologiche richiedono professionisti capaci di aggiornarsi continuamente, sviluppando competenze pedagogiche, digitali, inclusive e relazionali.

La formazione continua rappresenta, oggi, non soltanto un diritto professionale, ma una responsabilità etica nei confronti degli studenti e della società.

Anche in questo caso, il Metodo ACA® trova il proprio spazio formativo riconosciuto dal Campus HETG di Ginevra dove, inserito dei corsi ACADEMY della facoltà di Scienze Pedagogiche, ci si può iscrivere al primo e secondo livello del corso “METODO ACA® – Ascolto, Comunicazione, Azione”.

Conclusioni

Celebrare la Giornata Mondiale degli Insegnanti significa riconoscere il valore di una professione che contribuisce quotidianamente alla crescita democratica, culturale ed economica delle comunità.

Investire nella qualità della formazione docente, nella ricerca pedagogica e nell’innovazione metodologica significa investire nel futuro delle nuove generazioni.

Approcci educativi orientati alla centralità della persona, come il Metodo ACA®, possono offrire ulteriori spunti di riflessione per promuovere una scuola sempre più inclusiva, partecipativa e capace di valorizzare ogni studente nella sua unicità, nel rispetto dei principi della pedagogia scientifica e della ricerca educativa.

Riferimenti bibliografici

Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Harvard University Press.

 Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. Macmillan.

 Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books.

 Morin, E. (2000). I sette saperi necessari all’educazione del futuro. Raffaello Cortina.

 Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Merrill.

Segrada, H. (2016). ACA. Ascolto, Comunicazione e Azione. Milano: Carabà Editrice.

 Vygotskij, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press.

 UNESCO. (1966). Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers.

 UNESCO. (1997). Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel.

 UNESCO. World Teachers’ Day.

L'articolo La Giornata Mondiale degli Insegnanti: il valore della professione docente tra innovazione pedagogica, inclusione e centralità della relazione educativa su Vanilla Magazine scritto da Haidi Segrada

On the evening of Wednesday, September 30, Bolivian police arrested Attorney General Roger Mariaca and raided the Attorney General’s Office in Sucre and Santa Cruz. The police action comes just days after the US State Department sanctioned and revoked the visas of Mariaca and 21 other Bolivians.

Analysts suggest that the timing of the US sanctions, Mariaca’s arrest, and the raids, are no coincidence, calling it “political pressure” related to a high-profile case.

Mariaca is leading the investigation into Argentine political consultant Fernando Cerimedo. The influential political advisor to Latin America’s far right allegedly influenced elections through social media bot farms, may be involved in drug trafficking, and was accused of ordering an assassination attempt on his ex-partner, Nadia Beller. She was shot three times but survived after undergoing emergency surgery.

Cerimedo has been in custody in Bolivia after attempting to leave the country by plane following the attack on Beller. Messages were found on his cell phone that, according to the prosecution, directly link him to the attempt on her life. Despite the emerging evidence against him, not only in ordering the hit on Beller, but also in crimes of corruption and drug trafficking, Cerimedo seems to have friends in high places, both in the Bolivian president’s office, and in the United States, that may have set the stage for the arrest of his investigator, Attorney General Roger Mariaca.

Read more: Attempted murder accusations, troll farms, and presidential connections: the notorious case of Fernando Cerimedo

Argentine outlet Página 12, reported that, according to Beller, the sanctions against Mariaca were “a move by Donald Trump’s team to protect Cerimedo. As the Washington Post noted this week: ‘Cerimedo is the MAGA (Make America Great Again, Trump’s slogan) man across the entire continent.’”

In the report, Beller is quoted as saying: “Is this decision by the United States part of the fight for the Shield of the Americas or is it about protecting the MAGA network?…If the reason is corruption and drug trafficking, then they need to explain why the visa is being revoked for the attorney general who is investigating a network of that nature. Are they going after the investigator, or are they protecting part of the network?”

As evidence mounts against Cerimedo, the US instead accused his investigator, Mariaca, of allegedly soliciting and accepting bribes to facilitate drug trafficking and helping people involved in violent crimes escape justice.

After news broke of the US actions against him, Roger Mariaca had said he will not back down and will continue the investigations until the end: “[I received the news] with great surprise … I will not back down even one centimeter from the investigations that fall under my jurisdiction.”

He highlighted that while it is clear that the Cerimedo case has generated international intrigue, “no political pressure, whether national or international, can become an impediment to clarifying the facts which must be investigated.”

He was arrested two days later.

Involvement in the drug trade?

In addition to Cerimedo’s well-documented ties to high profile right-wing politicians across Latin America, including in Bolivia, recent revelations from ex-partner Beller, suggest that the powerful political consultant may have also been involved in the drug trade. In a leaked audio message, Cerimedo is allegedly speaking with a woman with whom he is arranging payment so that several flights can operate without excessive pressure from the authorities. Cerimedo mentions a man named Cabrera, whom the Bolivian media suspect is Franz Cabrera, the former head of the Special Force to Fight Against Drug Trafficking (FELCN), who was recently dismissed.

According to the investigations, they allegedly “were paid” for nearly 45 flights, amounting to $700,000, raising significant suspicions about the source of the funds that the political consultant is said to have handled.

The timing of the sanctions against Mariaca and his arrest have raised questions about US interference in the Bolivian justice system. But, as pressure escalates over the investigation into Cerimedo, the case is also revealing a far deeper web of political connection and influence than was initially known, placing it under renewed scrutiny. Wether the investigation is further disrupted or allowed to proceed, what happens next could expose even more about Cerimedo and the network of the Latin American far right.

A PSP deteve, na madrugada de 29 de setembro, um homem de 43 anos, suspeito de ter agredido um cidadão com uma arma branca e de ter dirigido ameaças de morte a outras pessoas, no centro da cidade de Lagos.

O conteúdo Lagos: PSP detém homem suspeito de agressão com faca e ameaças de morte na via pública aparece primeiro em Algarve Marafado.

How seriously should we take the latest AI doom warnings from the technocrats? It's unclear, says Matt Ridley – but it's hard to give much credence to those who have ignored the very real threat from man-made viruses.

The post How Seriously Should We Take AI Doom Warnings? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Entre todos los animales que aparecen en las tumbas y en el arte del Antiguo Egipto, muy pocos llevan nombre propio, y casi todos los que lo llevan son perros. También hubo caballos con nombre, aunque se conservan muchos menos. De los gatos, tan ligados hoy a la imagen de Egipto, la bibliografía solo maneja […]

Georgia has summoned Iran’s ambassador after his plans to publish a personal interpretation of Queen Ketevan’s history sparked criticism from ruling party lawmakers. Revered as a saint in Georgia, Ketevan was tortured and killed in Persia in the 17th century after refusing to renounce Christianity.

By Leonid Ragozin | The American Conservative | September 30, 2026

Britain’s Labour Party is not traditionally thought of as a bastion of militarism or authoritarianism. Yet listening to some of what its top figures have been saying recently might cause one to doubt the conventional wisdom on that.

Consider what Labour Party strategist Paul Richards said in a GB News interview earlier this month. Asked how the UK might respond to an increased Russian threat, Richards—who has worked for two Labour governments—gave a disturbing answer. “We’d have to lock some people up,” he said, “some of the pro-Russian voices, people who say there isn’t a threat, [and say] ‘Don’t fight for your country, don’t go to war for Burnham.’”

His comments are not a one-off. They reflect a worrying trend among Britain’s political mainstream—the old parties, media, and think tanks—which has increasingly adopted a siege mentality informed by the far-fetched expectation of imminent war with Russia.

Nor is the trend restricted to Britain. It spans the entire Western world. And it helps explain why the centrist political forces previously seen as “reasonable” are losing ground to the supposed “fringe.” Apocalyptic millenarianism is no longer the domain of radical obscurantists, but of people like NATO’s secretary-general Mark Rutte, who in 2025 seemed to foretell with relish a conflict between Europe and Russia on the scale of  the Second World War. “Imagine it,” he said, “a conflict reaching every home, every workplace, destruction, mass mobilisation, millions displaced, widespread suffering and extreme losses.”

It is politicians branded as far right or far left radicals who, surprisingly, have emerged as the main opposition to this unhinged bellicosity.

What’s largely prompting this trend is the very logic of the liberals competing with the populists. Western societies display a demand for performative “toughness,” which caters both to the infantilism of their political classes and the gamification of war in far off countries.

Things seem to have begun in earnest in 2016, when the prospect of liberals losing to rivals like Donald Trump led the former to embrace conspiracy theories like Russiagate and double down on foreign policy hawkishness as a way of evading responsibility for their own failures. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine served a similar function, providing a theater for “toughness” even as the West has gotten bogged down in what has increasingly turned into a proxy conflict.

Trying to outdo the populists along a different axis, rather than doing the hard work of opposing them with value-based positions, has led the centrists into a trap. It left a vacuum in the center, into which the populists—ever alert to political opportunities—have deftly stepped.

Here is how it plays out in Germany. When the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered an embarrassing defeat in Saxony-Anhalt earlier this month, the party’s leader and premier in North Rhine-Westphalia, Hendrik Wüst, said the government should consider banning the AfD (which won the election by a landslide). Wüst is eyed as a potential replacement for the unpopular chancellor Friedrich Merz.

The CDU went on to suffer additional defeats in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and in Berlin. The former is particularly symbolic, because this is where the Nord Stream gas pipelines make landfall—a fact that makes this state a direct beneficiary of the German-Russian joint venture to supply cheap Russian gas to the German economy.

When Nord Stream 2 was blown up in September 2022, the immediate consensus in the West was that Moscow was responsible. Yet the culprits turned out not to be Russian, but Ukrainian. German police investigators eventually charged individuals associated with Ukraine’s military intelligence service for the attack. (It’s worth noting that this Ukrainian spy agency was rebuilt in 2015 with considerable assistance from America’s CIA.)

Germany’s rejection of Russian gas supplies after Putin’s all-out invasion in Ukraine can be seen as a noble gesture, perhaps, but it had dire consequences for the country’s economy, which contracted in 2023 and 2024 before showing anemic growth in 2025. Even more importantly, it hit every household in Germany with skyrocketing heating and power bills. Interestingly, Germany wasn’t receiving Russian gas at the time of the explosion, which means the attack was aimed at preventing the resumption of supplies after the end of war rather than interrupting ongoing exports.

The German government has never properly addressed the issue at the federal level. On the eve of September elections, Merz’s sharp reaction to the Leipzig drone incident, which he instantly blamed on Russia, contrasted sharply with the virtual absence of a response to the perpetrators of the Nord Stream attack.

Voters in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania slaughtered Merz’s party, excluding it entirely from the state’s legislature for the first time in nearly 80 years. The big winner was the AfD—a party unafraid to ask questions about Nord Stream and which muses about restoring gas supplies after the Ukraine War ends. Voters also largely spared the Social Democrats, under whose leadership Nord Stream was built in the first place (although they had to disown it after Russia’s invasion).

The early days of tension between post-Soviet Russia and the West, which culminated in the war in Ukraine, were marked by squabbles over pipeline projects delivering gas to Europe (remember South Stream or Nabucco?). The unyielding opposition of centrist politicians to such projects has led voters to wonder whether their political establishment is more interested in catering to armsmakers and shale gas producers than in providing for its citizens. It’s hard to think of a better illustration of NATO’s unofficial mission to “keep the Germans down and the Russians out” than the fate of Nord Stream.

The perception of abandonment is what fuels the popularity of the AfD’s sovereigntist stance. And despite accusations of extremism, it is the AfD who sounds the most moderate and reasonable on the vital issues of war and peace.

Indeed, their foreign policy stance provides AfD leaders with one bulletproof rebuttal to accusations of fascism. A defining component of the fascist ideology is aggressive militarism—a trait exhibited by the German political establishment, not its hard-right challengers. The AfD fills the shoes of the old-school left-wing peaceniks when it comes to Ukraine, while the Merz government staunchly supports further escalation while discreetly undermining Trump’s efforts to bring the conflict to a close. The AfD also condemns the war on Iran (which Merz initially supported, before making a U-turn under public pressure).

(Ex-)centrists also advocate an enormous defense spending hike Germany can ill afford, as well as compulsory military service (this latter move has sparked youth protests across the country). The way mainstream German politicians are courting the far right in Ukraine—members of Azov movement prominently featured at the prestigious Munich Security Conference this year, for example—make the charges of nazism levelled against the AfD look especially lame.

Opposing Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which the AfD does, is one thing. Supporting an endless proxy war with a nuclear-armed great power—and committing to fight this “to the last Ukrainian”—is quite another.

And the polls suggest German voters have little appetite for risking their country’s future in such a gambit.

The AfD and other insurgent parties thrive when their opponents lean into hawkishness and authoritarianism, but so far there is little evidence the establishment understands this. Indeed, European political elites are doubling down. They recently invited Zelensky’s former press secretary, Iulia Mendel, to speak in front of the European Parliament. But Mendel is a vocal critic of her former boss, and so the parliament’s centrist leadership banned her from entering after Zelensky’s government imposed sanctions on her (an extrajudicial punishment he is routinely applying to political rivals). By banning Mendel from speaking and turning a blind eye on Zelensky’s abuse of power, the center once again chooses delusion and bellicosity over a genuine commitment to democracy.

Meanwhile, alternatives like the AfD will continue to fill the vacant space left in the middle of the political spectrum.