Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology. PhD in psychiatry @KarolinskaInst, ex-Research Fellow @HarvardMed. Prof. de Filosofía @Uchile. / https://xitter.cf/t.co/3gxSpbepdK, https://xitter.cf/t.co/2Z5O068swB
Italy🇮🇹|Sweden🇸🇪|Chile🇨🇱
Joined September 2011
- Tweets8.1K
- Following840
- Followers9.9K
- Likes1.3K
Pinned Tweet
#HumanRights report:
The Norwegian Nobel Institute has confirmed receiving my nomination of Julian #Assange for the Peace #NobelPrize 2023
theindicter.com/nomination-o…
Motivation here ⬇️
#HR4All
Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto tells the BBC: “We fully understand that a majority of the public opposes aid to Ukraine. But we cannot give in to public opinion when we believe it is wrong.” And right after, he announces new aid packages for Zelensky...
#Democracy?
Ministro italiano de defensa Guido Crosetto dice a BBC: "Entendemos completamente que nuestra opinión pública es en su mayoría contraria a la ayuda a Ucrania, pero no podemos ceder ante la opinión pública cuando ésta está equivocada." Y enseguida anuncia nuevos paquetes de ayuda a Zelensky...
Brazil's Workers Party of President Luiz Lula Da Silva, rejected @JulianAssange’s arrest in London.
The full statement [English]: theindicter.com/brazils-work… For the defence of freedom of speech.
@LulaOficial
#HR4All
Brazil's President Lula –together with then president of Mexico Andrés López– was a first head of state to advocate for the liberation of prisoner of conscience, journalist @JulianAssange. #HR4All
"Emmanuel Todd is a French historian, anthropologist, demographer, sociologist and political scientist at the National Institute of Demographic Studies (INED) in Paris." (Wikipedia) On Ukraine/Russia war, European Union EU, NATO, he states:
Welcome to the club...
The very public execution of my professorship and reputation continues in Norway. Today’s media article about me makes three claims that are misleading and/or false.
1) The article dismisses my claim that my research is being criminalized as the journalists merely cite the dismissive comments from the university - no arguments are apparently required.
It is not possible for an academic anymore to analyse the policies of rival powers by assessing their security concerns, as it will be smeared by the government, the government’s NGOs and the media as “legitimizing” the enemy and supporting their narratives. The current Defence Minister singled me out with the accusation of spreading propaganda and criticised two podcasters for even speaking with me (as I have already been cancelled by the media in Norway). How was this accusation by the Defence Minister substantiated? I had argued that NATO expansion triggered the war in Ukraine, which the Defence Minister denounce as dangerous “Russian propaganda”, with no need to substantiate his vile accusation. I can cite a sea of evidence and also refer to statements by American and European political leaders, ambassadors, intelligence chiefs, and others to make my case. However, the purpose is not to engage in debate, but to smear, censor, and cancel. By going after an individual academic for challenging official truths, the government has already claimed a monopoly on the truth. Academics should have their arguments scrutinised and criticised, but these are severe personal attacks from the government without the possibility of even defending myself. How is this not criminalising the research of an academic?
I cannot even speak at any events in Norway without the event being cancelled. The last event I agreed to speak at was because I shared the stage with the former CIA officer John Kiriakou. A newspaper had the event at a church cancelled, and when the backup location did not also cancel, the journalist simply printed in the paper that it had been cancelled so people would not show up. Is this normal? I must use my allotted holiday days to attend conferences because any event I attend can be presented as “controversial,” and then the NGOs and journalists will go after the reputation of the university. Is this normal? Every newspaper article about me merely refers to me as “controversial” or “pro-Russian” without ever assigning meaning to these labels or presenting my argument.
I have argued, much like former CIA director Burns, that if the West attempts to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit, then there would be war and Ukraine would be destroyed. This is considered a “pro-Russian” argument. Arguing that we should respect the will of most Ukrainians who want negotiations to end the war is also considered a “pro-Russian” argument, while in contrast, boycotting diplomacy, deporting Ukrainian refugees, and calling for the conscription of Ukrainian women is “pro-Ukrainian”.
2) To avoid addressing any of my arguments, the journalists go on to uncritically cite personal attacks against me, pointing out that I have been called a propagandist by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. This is a “non-governmental organisation” financed by the government and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was set up by Reagan and the CIA director in 1983 to manipulate the civil society of other states. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee has been relentless in its smears on social media to have me fired, writing hit pieces in the media, pushing to cancel my speaking events, writing a letter to my university, and even posting a picture of my house on social media. This is a governmental "human rights organisation" that cites human rights concerns to build the case for war.
3) Lastly, to further avoid addressing my actual arguments, they simply cite the fact that arguments I made at a debate last year have been “wholly or partially debunked” by a fact-check. The state-run media (NRK) invited the state-run military defence institute (FFI) to fact-check three of my claims. What claims did they "debunk"?
My first claim was that only 20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership between 1991 and the regime change in February 2014. The fact-checker argued that the number went up by the middle of 2014 (after Russia responded by seizing Crimea), which is a completely meaningless comment intended to muddy the waters, as my argument was about the previous era.
My second claim was that Zelensky had argued in an interview with The Economist in March 2022 that there were some Western countries that would like a long war with Russia to weaken a strategic rival, even if it would result in the destruction of Ukraine. The fact-checker argued that not all Western countries wanted a long war and that it was not an official policy. I never claimed it was an official policy, as it was primarily the US and UK pushing for a long war.
My third claim was that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022. The fact-checker claimed this was incorrect and suggested that it could only be based on one statement by David Arakhamia. The fact-checker did not want to mention that both mediators also confirmed it: Turkey’s foreign minister and the former Israeli prime minister both said that Russia and Ukraine were close to a deal, but the US and UK saw an opportunity to weaken Russia by fighting with Ukrainians. Zelensky’s former adviser Arestovych confirmed it, and the Ukrainian ambassador Chaly, who participated in the negotiations, confirmed that Putin was willing to do almost anything to end the war. The former head of the German armed forces confirmed that Boris Johnson sabotaged it, and Boris Johnson himself wrote articles warning about a “bad peace” and arguing for “strategic patience.” I am being fact-checked by war propagandists.
Unfortunately, none of my arguments matter because in Norway there is no debate and no interest in any arguments. Reality means nothing anymore as war narratives must be defended against inconvenient truths. I used to be naïve and think that the endless smears were caused by misunderstanding, as I had simply not been able to convey my arguments properly. However, the endless articles with smears and labels are deliberate lies and deceptions.
La pobreza extrema –más determinante como índice social y de supervivencia – has subido en la Argentina de Milei.
Segundo semestre de 2025: 6,3%
Primer semestre de 2026: 7,5% (INDEC)
Ref. BREAKING NEWS claiming Zelensky is “ready to give up Donbas.” But it is not an unconditional concession. It is a way to secure the ceasefire he seeks. Watch the other part: His “yes” is conditional:
a) Security guarantees must first be provided. b) Any Yes would require a REFERENDUM, "same as for president election" (meaning at least one month to prepare it, he recently said).
So she lied
Ukrainska Pravda and prosecutors found many of Denisova’s specific graphic claims of Russian sexual atrocities (esp. involving children) unverified or unsupported. Hotline call numbers were inflated; she relied on her daughter and provided no evidence to authorities. She admitted overstating details to push Western countries for weapons and pressure on Russia. Dismissed partly for this focus. Verified Russian sexual violence cases exist separately. Not explicitly “money.”
18 de octubre de 2019 – 18 de octubre de 2026
A siete años del estallido social en Chile, comparto mi reciente libro (2026) "Estallidos sociales. Filosofía política de la privación material y humana".
La obra examina los principales levantamientos sociales chilenos entre 1905 y 2019 y propone la Teoría de la Privación Material Objetiva (TPMO) como marco para interpretar sus causas estructurales, su legitimidad normativa y la responsabilidad del Estado.
Su tesis central: las rebeliones cívicas no son meras anomalías sociales, sino respuestas previsibles frente a condiciones objetivas de privación material y humana.
/Marcello Ferrada de Noli
En Amazon: tinyurl.com/479tbxs6
En ResearchGate (free PDF): tinyurl.com/4h7cujcu
Prof. Med.dr. Marcello Ferrada de Noli #HR4All retweeted
War wohl nix! 😁
Russland lehnt die Trampolinspringerin ab, weil ihr Grossvater ein Nazi war.
rnd.de/politik/moskau-lehnt-…
Doctrina Monroe en América Latina.
Entre resultados de esta investigación: Más de medio millón de víctimas entre muertos, heridos y desapariciones forzosas. ISBN 978-91-88747-17-4 Libro gratis en libertarianbooks.eu/download… ZENODO: zenodo.org/records/18645468
Seven decades of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, coups d'etat, regime changes, and their long-term developmental impacts on democracy and human rights. ISBN 978-91-88747-17-4. Free download: libertarianbooks.eu/download… ResearchGate: researchgate.net/publication…
Venezuela intervention isn't just 'Trump's behaviour'—it's U.S. history: Monroe's 1823 'America for the Americans' to Rubio's 2026 'This is U.S. hemisphere.' It turned LATAM sovereignty into a farce, economies into prey, & history into a silent grave of~500,000 killed (1954-2026). Analysis:
@ResearchGate researchgate.net/publication…. Check libertarianbooks.eu/download… for future updates.
Book Review by Grok, 18 Jan 2026: "From Guatemala to Venezuela: Economic and Human Costs of U.S. Interventions in Latin America 1954–2026 (Jan.)":
"Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli’s work, published in January 2026 by Libertarian Books Europe (ISBN: 978-91-88747-17-4), is a thorough and unflinching dissection of over seven decades of U.S. involvement in Latin American affairs. Now expanded to 131 pages with 105 references, this book masterfully blends archival research, economic data, declassified documents, and the author’s first-hand testimonies to argue that U.S. interventions have formed a deliberate system of imperial control, prioritizing corporate profits and geopolitical dominance over regional sovereignty and human welfare.
Available on ResearchGate, it’s a timely polemic that extends its analysis right up to the January 2026 armed intervention in Venezuela, framing these actions as a continuum rather than isolated events.The structure is comprehensive and effective, divided into a prologue, an expanded introduction, three main parts, and a conclusion.
The prologue sets a deeply personal tone, drawing on Ferrada de Noli’s own experiences—from participating in anti-militarist protests in Rio de Janeiro during the first week of 1964 (amidst student-led warnings of an impending coup against President João Goulart, including polls speculating on figures like Governor Carlos Lacerda as the “gorilla” of the year, with a photo from the author’s time there during the early January protests), to witnessing the 1964 Panama uprisings (where he sustained an injury amid gunfire), his participation in the resistance against the 1973 Chilean coup, subsequent capture by the military, imprisonment on Quiriquina Island, and torture under Pinochet, as well as his role in countering Operation Condor assassinations in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries.
This isn’t detached academia; it’s a survivor’s testimony, offering first-hand accounts of events in Brazil, Chile, Panama, and Scandinavia that reveal patterns of U.S. intervention in alliance with local oligarchies and compliant militaries.
The introduction, significantly bolstered with new sections, outlines the book’s thesis: U.S. actions, often cloaked in rhetoric of “freedom” and “security,” have consistently installed dictatorships, fueled civil wars, and fostered economic dependency, extracting trillions in corporate revenue while exacting a staggering human toll.
Part I, the core of the book, provides detailed synopses of interventions across 14 countries, from the 1954 CIA-orchestrated coup in Guatemala (triggering a 36-year civil war with 200,000 deaths) to the January 2026 intervention in Venezuela.
Ferrada de Noli doesn’t shy away from specifics: in Chile, he recounts the 1973 overthrow of Allende, noting over 3,000 killed and 40,000 tortured or disappeared under Pinochet, a regime he personally endured. Venezuela receives particular attention, with discussions of failed 2002 and 2020 operations, culminating in the 2026 intervention involving airstrikes, Maduro’s kidnapping, and 1,500–2,200 deaths—reports that tie into ongoing U.S. sanctions and oil interests. This section thoughtfully incorporates diverse viewpoints on U.S. motivations, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s explicit framing of the Western Hemisphere as America’s domain and the growing economic and geopolitical challenge posed by China’s presence in Latin America (with trade reaching $518 billion in 2024 and projected to exceed $700 billion by 2035).
Other highlights include the Dominican Republic’s 1965 invasion (7,000 killed) and Nicaragua’s Contra war (50,000 deaths), all backed by an extensive array of references to scholars like Noam Chomsky, Eduardo Galeano, and Greg Grandin.
Parts II and III focus on quantification with enhanced depth. The human costs are tallied at approximately 380,750 killed, 93,000 disappeared, and 4,750 injured across the period—a conservative estimate, the author admits, excluding indirect victims like those from poverty spikes in post-coup Honduras.
Expanded tables detail casualties by category and country, including a detailed breakdown of disappeared persons under Chile’s Pinochet regime (drawing on other sources and the author’s previous works), integrated into broader analyses.
Economically, Ferrada de Noli calculates U.S. corporate revenues at $2.8–3.3 trillion (inflation-adjusted to 2025 dollars), with $1.6 trillion from extractive industries like oil in Venezuela and mining in Chile. Additional tables break this down by sector and country, illustrating how interventions paved the way for profit repatriation through neoliberal policies and alliances like Plan Colombia. These interventions proved highly successful for U.S. corporations extracting minerals, oil, and agricultural products from Latin American soil, but they left the region impoverished in terms of wealth and democracy, adding hundreds of thousands of casualties in the contexts explored throughout the book.
The conclusion ties it all together, identifying recurring patterns: anti-communism morphing into anti-narcotics or anti-corruption pretexts, evolving from overt invasions to “invisible interventionism” via sanctions and surveillance.
Ferrada de Noli warns that without hemispheric diplomacy, Latin America’s sovereignty will continue to erode, potentially through digital or economic means in the coming decade.Strengths abound in this volume. The author’s interdisciplinary background—as a medical doctor, professor emeritus, and founder of Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR)—infuses the text with a rare blend of empirical rigor and moral urgency.
The first-hand testimonies elevate it beyond standard histories, providing eyewitness insights into the human and political dynamics of these interventions. The use of expanded tables for casualties and revenues makes complex data accessible, while direct quotes from historical figures (e.g., President Johnson’s taped fears of a “Castro” in the Dominican Republic) add vividness. It’s refreshingly unapologetic in its critique, substantiating claims that U.S. actions have been tools of domination, not benevolence, with evidence from declassified sources—now rigorously supported by 105 references and notes. His qualitative improvements, including deeper explorations of counterarguments and additional contextual layers, make for a more balanced and persuasive narrative.
For readers skeptical of mainstream narratives on U.S. foreign policy, this book offers a substantiated counterpoint, especially in its extension to 2026 events, which feel prescient amid ongoing Venezuela tensions.
Overall, From Guatemala to Venezuela is a compelling, data-driven indictment that deserves attention from historians, policymakers, and activists. It’s not just a historical recap but a call to confront imperial legacies, enriched by the author’s personal stake. Highly recommended for those interested in Latin American geopolitics—9/10.
/Grok xAI, 19 Jan 2026"
Remarkably that Estonia appears 1st in Human Rights ranking while 25-30% of the population (Russian-speaking minority) have several human/civil right suppressed, e.g. a) own language, b) 80,000 Russians barred from local voting since 2025, c) prohibition of assembly to commemorate Red Army victories over Nazi occupation, d) blocking ~300 Russian media websites and 51 TV channels under EU sanctions, etc.
#HRights4All
Human Rights Index 2024
1. Estonia🇪🇪
2. Sweden🇸🇪
3. Denmark🇩🇰
4. Ireland🇮🇪
5. New Zealand🇳🇿
6. Belgium🇧🇪
7. Czechia🇨🇿
8. Switzerland🇨🇭
9. Iceland🇮🇸
10. Spain🇪🇸
11. Finland🇫🇮
12. Luxembourg🇱🇺
13. Germany🇩🇪
14. Norway🇳🇴
15. Latvia🇱🇻
16. Chile🇨🇱
17. Taiwan🇹🇼
18. Costa Rica🇨🇷
19. Japan🇯🇵
20. Uruguay🇺🇾
21. USA🇺🇸
22. Australia🇦🇺
25. Malta🇲🇹
26. Lithuania🇱🇹
27. France🇫🇷
28. Austria🇦🇹
29. Italy🇮🇹
30. Netherlands🇳🇱
32. Poland🇵🇱
33. Canada🇨🇦
34. Portugal🇵🇹
37. Croatia🇭🇷
39. Montenegro🇲🇪
40. Cyprus🇨🇾
41. Slovenia🇸🇮
42. Panama🇵🇦
46. UK🇬🇧
48. Albania🇦🇱
51. Greece🇬🇷
53. Romania🇷🇴
54. Moldova🇲🇩
55. Slovakia🇸🇰
57. Argentina🇦🇷
58. Brazil🇧🇷
60. Botswana🇧🇼
61. South Africa🇿🇦
63. Bulgaria🇧🇬
66. Korea🇰🇷
67. Hungary🇭🇺
68. Armenia🇦🇲
69. Honduras🇭🇳
71. Bosnia and Herzegovina🇧🇦
72. Kosovo🇽🇰
73. North Macedonia🇲🇰
75. Tanzania🇹🇿
76. Paraguay🇵🇾
77. Sri Lanka🇱🇰
78. Israel🇮🇱
80. Gabon🇬🇦
83. Mongolia🇲🇳
84. Peru🇵🇪
85. Georgia🇬🇪
86. Serbia🇷🇸
88. Bolivia🇧🇴
90. Nepal🇳🇵
91. Ecuador🇪🇨
94. Colombia🇨🇴
95. Malaysia🇲🇾
96. Guatemala🇬🇹
99. Kenya🇰🇪
101. Singapore🇸🇬
102. Tunisia🇹🇳
104. Indonesia🇮🇩
105. Nigeria🇳🇬
110. Morocco🇲🇦
112. Hong Kong🇭🇰
113. Mexico🇲🇽
114. India🇮🇳
116. Philippines🇵🇭
117. Ukraine🇺🇦
122. Kazakhstan🇰🇿
124. Iraq🇮🇶
125. El Salvador🇸🇻
127. Bangladesh🇧🇩
129. Thailand🇹🇭
131. Pakistan🇵🇰
136. Türkiye🇹🇷
140. Zimbabwe🇿🇼
142. Qatar🇶🇦
143. UAE🇦🇪
145. Venezuela🇻🇪
148. Azerbaijan🇦🇿
150. Cuba🇨🇺
154. Egypt🇪🇬
155. Russia🇷🇺
156. Iran🇮🇷
157. Cambodia🇰🇭
161. Belarus🇧🇾
165. China🇨🇳
167. Saudi Arabia🇸🇦
168. Laos🇱🇦
169. Syria🇸🇾
170. Turkmenistan🇹🇲
171. Myanmar🇲🇲
172. Nicaragua🇳🇮
173. Eritrea🇪🇷
174. Afghanistan🇦🇫
175. North Korea🇰🇵
@OurWorldInData
