Dr. Uzma Khan sought an urgent hearing of her contempt petition over the government’s decision to transfer the PTI founder to PIMS instead of Shifa International Hospital.
The post Supreme court rejects early hearing in PTI founder’s hospital case appeared first on BOL News.
Inquiry report identifies shortcomings in hospital facilities, emergency response and staff presence.
The post PIMS inquiry finds major gaps in hospital safety appeared first on BOL News.
Tulsi Gabbard declassifies an explosive report
The Director of National Intelligence has revealed the existence of more than 120 U.S.-funded biological laboratories in over 30 countries, including several dozen in Ukraine. This revelation has reignited the debate on transparency and biosafety.
Today, on my final day as Director of National Intelligence, I’m releasing never-before-seen communications and documents exposing how Dr. Fauci provided millions in US taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, worked with politicized elements… pic.twitter.com/ZMdliW4zyS
— DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) June 19, 2026
After several months of reviewing intelligence archives, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard released new information indicating that the United States has long funded more than 120 biolaboratories in over 30 countries.
Gabbard described the release as one of her final actions before leaving her post as Director of National Intelligence. On May 22, she announced her resignation in order to care for her husband, who has been diagnosed with cancer.
The declassified documents, which remain partially redacted, detail the locations and functions of various laboratories that “likely housed dangerous pathogens.”
According to the documents, the United States “built and supported” 40 biolabs in Ukraine that worked on “particularly dangerous pathogens,” including anthrax, avian influenza, Ebola, plague, and tuberculosis. At least 12 of these laboratories conducted research involving human subjects.
According to an official ODNI statement, “many of these U.S.-government-funded biolabs conducted research on dangerous and highly contagious pathogens, in some cases including studies designed to enhance the functions of these pathogens, with virtually no oversight or supervision.”
The declassified map notably shows that a laboratory in Odesa—a city of one million residents—stored biological agents inherited from the former Soviet biological weapons program, including anthrax, tuberculosis, SARS, Marburg virus, Ebola, Lassa fever, and plague.
Gabbard emphasized that some of these laboratories in Ukraine could be compromised because of the ongoing conflict with Russia. According to her, intelligence agencies had previously warned internally that a U.S.-linked biolaboratory in Ukraine “likely housed dangerous pathogens” and remained vulnerable to Russian attack, seizure, or damage.
In a statement, Gabbard said that Dr. Fauci and members of the Biden administration’s national security team “lied to the American people about the existence of U.S.-funded and U.S.-supported biolaboratories and threatened those who attempted to expose the truth.”
The ODNI stated that this information had been “intentionally concealed” by previous administrations.
In March 2022, Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland acknowledged under oath that “Ukraine has biological research facilities,” while denying that those facilities worked on biological weapons and asserting that “the United States does not own or operate any chemical or biological laboratories in Ukraine.”
Gabbard also confirmed a major policy shift under the Trump administration: Washington is ending decades of federal funding for gain-of-function research overseas. The move follows Executive Order 14292, signed by President Trump in May 2025, which aimed to terminate such international funding.
It should be noted that the declassified documents, while exposing serious shortcomings in oversight, risky gain-of-function research, and vulnerabilities in conflict zones, concern programs many of which supported legitimate disease surveillance efforts. The report does not confirm the existence of an illegal offensive biological weapons program, but it does document a striking lack of transparency and oversight spanning several decades.
Sources: ODNI (Official Release No. 10-26, June 12, 2026), Newsweek, Daily Caller, and BizPac Review.
L’article U.S. biolabs abroad: Tulsi Gabbard declassifies an explosive report est apparu en premier sur FrenchDailyNews.
OGM (DR)
On June 17, 2026, the European Parliament formally adopted regulations governing “New Genomic Techniques” (NGTs), marking a major turning point for European agriculture.
The decision paves the way for a new generation of genetically modified crops capable of withstanding drought and disease, but it has also raised legitimate concerns about the privatization of living organisms and potential environmental risks. The debate has divided the continent, pitting supporters of technological innovation against advocates of traditional farming.
NGTs, or New Genomic Techniques, represent a significant advance in plant genome editing. Unlike first-generation genetically modified organisms, which involve introducing foreign DNA from different species, NGTs operate on a fundamentally different principle.
These techniques allow scientists to modify a plant’s genome using only genes originating from the same species. For example, it may now be possible to make a tomato more resistant to aphids by transferring a gene from another naturally resistant tomato variety. Although these plants are technically genetically modified organisms, seeds produced through NGTs are not transgenic—a distinction that plays a key role in European regulations.
The compromise negotiated by the European Commission and member states established a two-tier classification system. Category 1 NGTs, involving a limited number of naturally occurring mutations, will be treated as equivalent to conventional varieties and will benefit from partial deregulation.
By contrast, NGTs engineered for herbicide resistance or designed to produce insecticides will not be authorized for commercial use, in the interest of sustainability and environmental protection.
Another major restriction is that no NGT crops will be allowed in organic farming, creating a clear divide between agricultural production using these technologies and certified organic agriculture.
Supporters of NGTs—including major farming organizations such as Copa-Cogeca and leading European seed companies—argue that these technologies are essential for maintaining competitiveness and adapting to climate change. NGTs could significantly accelerate the development of crop varieties capable of tolerating severe drought and extreme heat, both of which are becoming increasingly common across Europe.
For some farmers, particularly in the French Caribbean territories, NGTs offer a practical solution to existing plant diseases. Banana plantations, for example, have been devastated by black Sigatoka, a destructive fungal disease against which NGTs could provide natural resistance. Such practical applications have helped mobilize support within the agricultural sector for the new regulations.
Advocates also emphasize that the European Union is creating a “sovereign European model” distinct from those of the United States and Brazil, with specific safeguards governing approved techniques and strict oversight of the sector.
Critics of NGTs raise fundamental concerns about agricultural sustainability and intellectual property rights. According to opponents, the safety of NGTs for human health and the environment has not been sufficiently established through democratic processes. They are calling for mandatory traceability and a ban on patenting living organisms.
Farmers’ unions such as the Confédération Paysanne view NGTs as a “Trojan horse” for major seed and agrochemical corporations. Their primary concern is the gradual monopolization of seeds by a handful of agribusiness giants, forcing smaller seed companies and farmers to pay licensing fees. Critics argue that such a trend could accelerate crop uniformity and reduce agricultural biodiversity.
They also warn that increasing corporate control over genetic resources could marginalize small farmers and undermine their autonomy. Thomas Gibert, a market gardener in Haute-Vienne and spokesperson for the Confédération Paysanne, has described the issue as a “major risk” involving the “privatization” of life driven by the “ultra-powerful agribusiness lobby.”
The European Parliament approved the NGT regulation on June 17, 2026, after rejecting all amendments proposed by Green and Socialist lawmakers. These amendments sought to make traceability mandatory and prohibit patent protection for NGTs, two measures strongly supported by left-wing parties and environmental groups.
The legislation ultimately received broad political support, ranging from the centrist Renew group to the far right, with backing from the European People’s Party. This unusual coalition illustrates how NGTs have transcended traditional political divisions, bringing together pro-competitiveness forces around a technological agenda.
Centrist Member of the European Parliament Pascal Canfin defended the measure, saying, “We have created a sovereign European model for new genomic techniques that will serve our farmers,” underscoring Europe’s geopolitical ambitions in the face of global agricultural powers.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) endorsed the European Commission’s approach to authorizing NGTs. However, other scientific bodies have adopted a more cautious stance. In 2024, France’s National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (ANSES) recommended case-by-case evaluations of potential health and environmental risks before any products are marketed.
These differing approaches reflect the lack of a complete scientific consensus regarding the long-term implications of NGTs. Despite the swift adoption of the legislation, several years are expected to pass before foods produced using NGTs actually reach European consumers. The interval between the testing of new varieties and their commercial release will remain substantial.
The legalization of NGTs marks a significant shift in Europe’s agricultural strategy in response to climate change and increasing global competition. Yet the move also highlights unresolved tensions between the drive for technological innovation and legitimate concerns regarding the environment, public health, and the concentration of economic power within the food sector.
The challenge now lies in the practical implementation of the NGT regulations. Safeguards such as the prohibition of herbicide-resistant NGTs and their exclusion from organic farming represent important protective measures. Nevertheless, the issue of mandatory traceability remains highly controversial, with major implications for consumer transparency and the protection of small farmers’ interests.
Ultimately, the success or failure of Europe’s NGT experiment will depend largely on the ability of regulators to ensure rigorous oversight, maintain transparent communication with the public, and continuously adapt regulations in light of emerging scientific evidence. Europe has embarked on a narrow path between necessary technological innovation and the precautionary principles that have long defined its approach.
L’article NGTs: Europe legalizes a new generation of GMOs est apparu en premier sur FrenchDailyNews.
Login