now browsing by category
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked April 02, 2021
Reproduced from original article:
- The goal post for “public safety” has been moved further and further away. At regular intervals during the COVID-19 pandemic, there’s been another Chicken Little warning that the sky is still falling and that we must not let down our guard
- In a Wall Street Journal essay, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis urges readers not to trust “the elites,” pointing out that “Influential people in public health, government and the media” have “failed to rise to the moment”
- In a recent Senate hearing, Sen. Rand Paul confronted Dr. Anthony Fauci, calling him out for the “theatre” of wearing a mask after being vaccinated
- BBC News reports mask wearing and social distancing in the U.K. may need to continue for “several years;” Britons must wait for other nations to get fully vaccinated before they can go back to any sense of normalcy
- The more you give in and obey, the more you have to give in and obey
While COVID-19 can hardly be called a major public health threat anymore, having now reached endemic status (like the seasonal flu), the fearmongerers who need this crisis to continue in order to complete the implementation of a Great Reset of the global economy and social structure aren’t letting up.
In a mid-March 2021 appearance on MSNBC News, National Institutes of Health director Dr. Francis Collins expressed dismay at the public’s display of independence, saying:
“Oh my God, Florida, stay out of the bars with your masks off! What are you doing? This is exactly the wrong thing to be doing unless you want to end up where Europe is.”
He’s referring to a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 that is, allegedly, now “causing so many problems” in Europe. But is it really? To be clear, there will be many new variants of this virus, just as the seasonal flu changes and evolves from year to year. The thing is, as viruses mutate within a population over time, they tend to become more benign.
Mutations: ‘Much Ado About Nothing’
As reported by Mary Petrone, Ph.D., and Nathan Grubaugh, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology and microbial diseases at Yale, in a March 2020 CNN Health article:1
“A recent scientific article suggested that the novel coronavirus responsible for the Covid-19 epidemic has mutated into a more ‘aggressive’ form. Is this something we need to worry about? No, and here’s why …
The effects of mutation in real life are nuanced and generally innocuous. Using the idea of mutation to incite fear is harmful, especially in the midst of an epidemic like COVID-19 …
The genetic material of the virus is RNA, not DNA like in humans. Unlike with human DNA, when viruses copy their genetic material, it does not proofread its work. Because RNA viruses essentially operate without a spell-check, they often make mistakes.
These ‘mistakes’ are mutations, and viruses mutate rapidly compared to other organisms. While this might sound frightening, mistakes during replication usually produce changes that are neutral or even harmful to the newly generated virus. Neutral mutations, which neither improve nor hinder viruses’ survival, may continue to circulate without any noticeable change in the people they infect.
Mutations that are harmful to the viruses are less likely to survive and are eliminated through natural selection. Fortunately, when mutations occur that help a virus spread or survive better, they are unlikely to make a difference in the course of an outbreak.
Viral traits such as infectiousness and disease severity are controlled by multiple genes, and each of those genes may affect the virus’ ability to spread in multiple ways. For example, a virus that causes severe symptoms may be less likely to be transmitted if infected people are sick enough to stay in bed.
As such, these traits are like blocks in a Rubik’s cube; a change in one characteristic will change another. The chances of a virus navigating these complex series of trade-offs to become more severe during the short timescale of an outbreak are extremely low.”
The Ever-Moving Goal Post
If you’ve paid attention, you’ve likely noticed that the goal post for “public safety” has been moved further and further away as we’ve gone along. At regular intervals, there’s been another Chicken Little warning that the sky is still falling and that we must not let down our guard.
First it was the number of deaths that was cause for alarm. Now we know that many of the so-called COVID-19 deaths were not, in fact, caused by the virus, while erroneous epidemiological models predicted millions of deaths lest drastic measures were taken.
As PCR testing took off, rising “case” loads seemed to confirm such dire predictions, sparking widespread panic. With 20/20 hindsight, we now realize that the cycle thresholds of these tests were set so high that even healthy, uninfected and noninfectious people tested positive.
This, in turn, allowed for the myth of asymptomatic spread to take root, and that then became the fear trigger, with everyone being a potential threat, no matter how healthy they appear.
The solution offered was for everyone to wear a mask at all times. Or two. Or perhaps three. Fortunately, even the experts backed off from suggestions of four layers. Yet, from the start, we knew, based on published science, that masks don’t work against viruses.
As “cases” skyrocketed in tandem with fraudulent PCR testing, we were then told the best thing to do is shut everything down for two weeks to prevent overloading hospitals. Stay home, save a life, let the virus die out.
But even though hospitals remained at functional capacity in most areas, as “cases” (read false positives) continued to rise, two-week lockdowns were turned into three weeks, then four. In some areas, lockdowns dragged on for months, yet it didn’t seem to have the desired effect on the case load. By this time, hospital capacity was entirely forgotten.
As lockdowns continued and people started to grumble, the “experts” in charge of this global organization (or more accurately, reorganization) warned that this was the new normal. Settle in. Get used to it. The virus doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, so our only hope is a vaccine. We just have to keep it together until then, and then we’ll all be safe again.
Alas, flies in the ointment appeared in the form of inexpensive treatments that worked just fine, and scientists and medical doctors sharing concerns about these novel “vaccines” that really aren’t and the public health dangers of lockdowns.
Censorship unlike anything the world has ever seen before was launched, and vaccine-deniers became the new enemy — worse even than those pesky asymptomatic healthy people that refuse to wear a mask.
Something had to be done about free thinkers and question-raisers, and so the goal post was moved again. The whole world, all 7-plus billion people, must get vaccinated, or else we’re all toast. This way, people will turn on each other and force each other to comply and stop with the questioning.
And so it continues. The sky hasn’t fallen yet, but we’re promised that unless we comply, it surely will. Any day now. Just a matter of time. Obey, and the experts will make sure we survive the inevitable pandemonium. Now, vaccine passports are being rolled out, and both private companies and entire nations are considering restricting any sense of normalcy to vaccinated-only. Aren’t you tired of chasing the goal post yet?
Chicken Little’s Puppet Masters
In a Wall Street Journal essay2 published March 18, 2021, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis urges readers not to trust “the elites,” pointing out that “Influential people in public health, government and the media” have “failed to rise to the moment.” He goes on:
“The COVID-19 pandemic represented a test of elites in the U.S., from public-health experts to the corporate media. The results have been disappointing. Policy makers who bucked the elites and challenged the narrative have been proven right to do so.
To begin with, highly publicized epidemiological models were as consequential as they were wrong … The lockdowns failed to stop the virus but did a great deal of societal damage along the way — damage that a more targeted approach, seeking to reduce total harms, would have been able to avoid (and did, in places like Sweden and Florida) …
Elites sent conflicting messages about the efficacy of cloth masks, the uniformity of risk across age brackets, the danger of outdoor transmission … Perhaps most damaging to public trust was the public-health campaign urging ‘15 Days to Slow the Spread’ … Going from ‘save the hospitals’ to ‘zero COVID’ represents one of the greatest instances in history of moving the goal post …
While it was abundantly clear by May that schools represented low-risk environments for the spread of COVID and that the consequences of prolonged school closures were potentially catastrophic, the corporate media did its best to obscure the data and stoke fear and panic among parents and teachers.
Had the media presented the data on schools in a rational fashion with proper context and perspective … millions of students would be in markedly better shape academically and socially.
For months we were told to ‘trust the experts,’ but far too often over the past year those who were most influential in our society — in public health, government and media — proved incapable of rising to the moment … We cannot simply undo the harm caused by flawed policies advocated by our elites, but we can resolve that we never let this happen to our country again.”
Who’s in Charge, Really?
DeSantis’ definition of “elites” is basically prominent public health and corporate media leaders. That may be appropriate for the critique offered in his article, but even these influential individuals are mere foot soldiers in the bigger scheme of things.
Above them towers a pyramidical power structure populated by globalist entities — nongovernmental organizations, think-tanks, private corporations and billionaire philanthropists — many of which we’ve never even heard of, and who rule without being seen.
In fact, one of the most influential yet universally overlooked global powerhouses, the Swedish Wallenberg family dynasty’s motto is “Esse non videri,” or in Swedish, “Att verka utan att synas,”3 which translates into “To operate without being seen.”
The Wallenbergs’ involvement in banking, and technological and power infrastructure grants them immense power over entire nations, not to mention the global intelligence and surveillance apparatus as a whole.
I suspect that in the final analysis, we will find the little country of Sweden may actually be a most significant power player in the Great Reset. The hope, of course, is that by exposing this nefarious global takeover plan, we can stop it and reverse course.
Fauci Called Out for His Theatrical Performance
More locally we have Dr. Anthony Fauci, who surely qualifies as an elitist pharmaceutical priest whose advice we ought to balance with more rational perspectives. In a recent Senate hearing over the COVID-19 pandemic, Sen. Rand Paul confronted Fauci about his mask recommendations, saying:4,5
“You’re telling everybody to wear a mask, whether they’ve had an infection or a vaccine. What I’m saying is that they have immunity, and everybody agrees they have immunity.
What studies do you have that people that have had the vaccine or have had the infection … are spreading the infection? If we’re not spreading the infection, isn’t it just theater? You’ve had the vaccine and you’re wearing two masks, isn’t that theater?”
When Fauci tries to defend his position by bringing up the issue of new variants that the vaccine may or may not defend against, which he says necessitates the use of a mask even if vaccinated, Paul strikes back saying:
“What studies show significant reinfection, hospitalization and death from the variants? None in our country. Zero. You’re making your policy based on conjecture. You have the conjecture that we’re going to get variants so you want people to wear a mask for another couple of years.
You’ve been vaccinated and you parade around in two masks for show. You can’t get it again … You’re defying everything we know about immunity by telling people to wear masks who have been vaccinated … If you have immunity, [wearing a mask] is theatre. You’re wearing a mask to give comfort to others. You’re not wearing a mask because of any science.”
Masks and Social Distancing Here to Stay?
In related news, BBC News reports mask wearing and social distancing in the U.K. may need to continue for “several years.”6 So says Mary Ramsay, head of immunization at Public Health England. Another extension on the foreign holiday (vacation) ban is also being considered.
The reason, again, is that no one can be free until the whole world has gotten vaccinated. The idea being presented, as DeSantis pointed out, is that we now have to reach a COVID-free state before we can start living life again. Meaning, as long as there’s a single specimen of SARS-CoV-2 anywhere on the planet, the whole world is at risk, as it will spread and grow, so no one can live as they please until the virus has been eradicated.
The goal post is now so far in the future, we can’t even see a glimmer of it in the distance anymore. The old saying, “Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile,” seems apt at this point.
At some stage, you must realize that the more you give in and obey, the more you have to give in and obey. There really is no end to what they can take from you, and holding on to the belief that your government would never [fill in the blank] is becoming more dangerous by the day.
It’s also important to realize that your government isn’t the ultimate power. Our government officials take orders too, believe it or not, from what is now commonly known as the deep state. It’s not a government at all, but a global, hidden power structure that is accountable to no one, while influencing and manipulating everyone to bring about a new world order.
The New World Order
In years past, this shadowy cabal of power brokers were referred to under the term the New World Order. In 2020, the World Economic Forum came out on the public stage and announced the Great Reset, which is nothing but the NWO rebranded. So, it’s a conspiracy no more.
In the video above, investigative journalist Harry Vox talks about disease outbreaks, quarantines and curfews being essential tools in the ruling class’ toolkit, and how these tools were planned to be used to usher in the next phase of control.
The interview, which took place seven years ago, sounds more than a little prophetic today, as these three indispensable tools for totalitarian control have been part of our reality for the past 12 months. In it, Vox also refers to “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development,” a document by the Rockefeller Foundation, in which they lay out their “Lockstep” scenario, which details the global response to a lethal pandemic.
The Lockstep Scenario
While the name and origin of the virus differs, the scenario laid out in this document matches many of the details of our present. A deadly viral pandemic. A deadly effect on economies. International mobility coming to a screeching halt, debilitating industries, tourism and global supply chains. “Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers,” the document reads.
“In the absence of official containment protocols,” the virus spread like wildfire. In this narrative, the U.S. administration’s failure to place strict travel restrictions on its citizens proved to be a fatal flaw, as it allowed the virus to spread past its borders. China, on the other hand, fared particularly well due to its rapid imposition of universal quarantines of all citizens, which proved effective for curbing the spread of the virus.
Many other nations where leaders “flexed their authority” and imposed severe restrictions on their citizens — “from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries of communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets” — also fared well.
Listen to the disbelief in the interviewer’s voice when he asks if Vox actually believes that such a thing could happen, that we would have to stand in line to get our temperature checked before entering a building.
Well, every single one of us has now had to do this at least a few times, so we know it’s possible. And if that’s possible, why not the rest of the Lockstep plan, which tells us that: “Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck, and even intensified.”
We can no longer afford to disbelieve the lengths to which the globalist elites, the unelected deep state, can and will go to seize total control over our global resources and people. They’ve already told us what the ultimate plan is — to use bioterrorism to take control of the world’s resources, wealth and people.
All we need to do is to believe it, and realize that the only thing giving them the power to impose their will is our fear. As long as we choose fear and demand our government keep us safe from pathogens, they have every chance of winning.
To learn more about the hidden power structure running this global reorganization toward authoritarian control, see “Bill Gates Wants to Realize Global Vision in His Lifetime,” “The Great Reset and Build Back Better,” “Technocracy and the Great Reset” and “Who Pressed the Great Reset Button?”
Reproduced from original article:
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked January 30, 2021
- Journalist Sharyl Attkisson takes on Big Tech and its censorship of the information you see daily on the internet
- Restriction of free speech has accelerated in recent months, when Facebook, Twitter and YouTube took the unprecedented steps of censoring and silencing the U.S. President’s social media accounts
- Regardless of one’s political affiliations, the move highlights the immense control that corporations have over online information and how it can be yielded to support, or dismantle, certain agendas
- Zachary Vorhies, a former senior software engineer at Google and Google’s YouTube, uncovered more than 950 pages of confidential Google documents showing a plan to re-rank the entire internet based on Google’s corporate values, using machine learning to intervene for “fairness”
- As Vorhies realized Google is manipulating public opinion and the political landscape, he resigned so he could warn the public that Google appeared to be attempting a coup on the president
In this episode of Full Measure, award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson takes on Big Tech and its censorship of the information you see daily on the internet.1 Restriction of free speech has accelerated in recent months, when Facebook, Twitter and YouTube took the unprecedented steps of silencing the U.S. president’s social media accounts.
While many welcomed the censorship, others spoke out against the violation of free speech and the precedence it sets for the future. Even Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said he was uneasy about the decision, tweeting on January 13, 2021:2
“Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.”
Regardless of one’s political affiliations, the move highlights the immense control that corporations have over online information and how it can be yielded to support, or dismantle, certain agendas.
Efforts to Combat ‘Fake News’ Ramped Up After Election
Zachary Vorhies was a Big Tech insider for more than eight years. A former senior software engineer at Google and Google’s YouTube, he said everything was great — and then something happened: Donald Trump won the election in 2016. In the first week after the 2016 election, Vorhies told Attkisson, Google had an all-hands meeting.
The company’s CFO broke down in tears over the election results, while founder Sergey Brin said he was personally offended by them. In short, the bosses at Google were devastated by Trump’s unexpected victory, and soon after Vorhies said, “The company took a hard left and abandoned liberal principles and went toward authoritarian management of products and services.”
Eventually, as Vorhies realized Google is manipulating public opinion and the political landscape, he resigned so he could warn the public that Google appeared to be attempting a coup on the president. He echoed these sentiments during our 2019 interview, and shared his inside knowledge of this global monopoly, revealing why Google is not a reliable source of information anymore.
While some of the information revealed is related to politics, you can read about my views about the two-party U.S. federal government. The point of sharing this information is that Google is manipulating search results to reflect its views and influence social behavior while denying this is happening.
How Google Is Altering Reality
According to Vorhies, at the all-hands meeting that took place shortly after the 2016 presidential election, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that one of the most successful things they had done during the election was applying “machine learning” to hide fake news.
Machine learning is a type of artificial intelligence that’s behind Google’s rampant censorship — something they’ve dubbed Machine Learning Fairness, or ML Fairness. “As you imagine,” Vorhies said during our 2019 interview (hyperlinked above), “they’re not going to call their censorship regime something bad. They’re going to call it something like ‘fairness.’”
“So, if you’re against that, you’re against fairness. It’s a euphemism. I discovered there was this umbrella project, ‘ML Fairness,’ and there were these subcomponents like ‘Project Purple Rain,’ which is a 24-hour response team that is monitoring the internet,” he said.
By 2017, Vorhies had uncovered more than 950 pages of confidential Google documents showing a plan to re-rank the entire internet based on Google’s corporate values, using machine learning to intervene for “fairness.” He resigned in June 2019 and turned over the documents to the Department of Justice, then released them to the public via Project Veritas to expose Google’s censorship activities.3 According to Project Veritas:4
“Things got political in June 2017 when Google deleted ‘covfefe’ out of its arabic translation dictionary in order to make a Trump tweet become nonsense. This would have been benign if it weren’t for the coincidence of the main stream media attempting to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from the presidency, a week later.
At this point Zach Vorhies became suspicious that Google might be engaging in a seditious conspiracy to remove the President of the United States. Zach decided that the document cache had to be provided to the appropriate law enforcement agencies (Department of Justice) to disclose the seditious activity, and to the public in order to let them know the full extent of Google’s information control abilities.”
‘Algorithmic Unfairness’ Tackles the Narrative of Reality
Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of YouTube, made pushing down “fake news” and increasing “authoritative news” sound like a good thing, Attkisson reported,5 but when Vorhies looked at Google’s design documents, the fake news they were censoring wasn’t really fake.
“I was apolitical,” he said, “but I started to think, is this really fake news? Why are they defining it as fake news in order to justify censorship?” Part of this involved Google’s efforts at social reconstruction to correct “algorithmic unfairness,” which could be any algorithm that reinforces existing stereotypes.
Could objective reality be algorithmically unfair? Google says yes. Vorhies used the example of doing a Google search for CEOs, and the images returned included mostly men. Although it’s reality, this could be considered algorithmically unfair and, according to Google, justifies intervention in order to fix it. He also uses the example of the autofill search recommendations that pop up if you do a Google search.
Autofill is what happens when you start typing a search query into a search engine and algorithms kick in to offer suggestions to complete your search. If you type “men can,” you may get autofill recommendations such as “men can lactate” and “men can get pregnant,” or “women can produce sperm” — things that represent an inversion of stereotypes and a reversal of gender roles.
We’ve been led to believe that whatever the autofill recommendations are is what most people are searching for — Google has stated that the suggestions given are generated by a collection of user data — but that’s not true, at least not anymore. As Vorhies said during our 2019 interview:
“This story about the autofill first got disclosed by Dr. Robert Epstein, who is a Harvard-trained psychologist and former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today. What he said was that Google had flipped a bunch of votes for Hillary using this autosuggest feature. I’ve investigated this claim. I’ve verified it to be true … It turns out that a lot of the popular searches were being suppressed.
… The most significant thing about this feature is the fact that you don’t expect to have this part of your online experience to be hatched for political reasons. You think that this is legitimately what other people are searching for. As a result, you don’t have your filters on. Your brain puts on these filters when it starts to evaluate politically charged information.
When you read a newspaper article, you may be thinking to yourself, ‘This may be true, this may not.’ You’re skeptical. But when you’re typing into a search, you don’t think that because you don’t think that’s rigged, so whatever bias is inherent in that search result slips through and goes directly into your subconscious. This is what Epstein was explaining.”
Vorhies said his tipping point came when Pichai told Congress the company doesn’t filter based on political bias and blacklist websites. “That’s when I saw that Sundar Pichai was lying to Congress by saying that they don’t use blacklists.”6
Big Tech Fact-Checking Ramped Up
The sudden onslaught of “fact-checking” organizations is another form of censorship that’s interfering with free discourse. Citing data from Duke University Reporters’ Lab, Attkisson says “fact check groups more than quadrupled in number over five years from 44 to 195.” Fact-checking now represents a multimillion-dollar industry that stands to benefit certain interests.
“Facebook and Google are major funders of news organizations and fact check efforts,” Attkisson reports, “spending hundreds of millions of dollars.” The problem with labeling something as “false and misleading information” is the damage that occurs if said information is not actually false or misleading. When a banner pops up on social media warning readers that the content is false, most people will not click through.
According to the Poynter Institute, one of Facebook’s fact-checking partners, which bills itself as a “global leader in journalism” that believes that a free press is essential,7 once a Facebook post is flagged as false by a fact-checker, its reach is decreased by an average of 80%.8
Further, Facebook’s list of trusted fact-checking partners is also heavily conflicted. Children’s Health Defense sued Facebook, its CEO Mark Zuckerberg and three of its fact-checking partners — Science Feedback, Poynter Institute and PolitiFact9 — alleging, in part, that they are not independent or fact-based, even though they describe themselves as such.
Fact Checkers Receive Millions From Political Groups
PolitiFact is a branch of the Poynter Institute that says fact-checking journalism is its “heart,”10 while Science Feedback is a French organization that claims it verifies the “credibility” of “influential” science claims in the media.11
Science Feedback, which often sides with the vaccine industry, was also used to discredit a documentary that tied the coronavirus to a lab in Wuhan, China, but Science Feedback’s source was a U.S. scientist who worked at the Wuhan lab.
Further, according to Attkisson, PolitiFact received millions from groups looking to reimagine capitalism, count immigrants in the U.S. census and change voting processes for presidential elections from the electoral system to a popular vote.
PolitiFact also received $900,000 from the Democracy Fund, which is a major funder of anti-Trump political efforts, while the left-leaning Open Society Foundations and Omidyar Network gave the Poynter Institute $1.3 million for its international fact-checking network.12
Attkisson says fact-checking censorship ramped up in the final weeks of the 2020 presidential campaign with Twitter censoring or labeling Trump’s tweets and a New York Post exposé on Joe Biden’s son, and, after the election, YouTube banning videos disputing Biden’s victory. Ultimately, what’s wrong with companies trying to keep harmful information or conspiracy theories from reaching people?
As Vorhies said, “The problem is that they’re a monopoly. And if they’re going to put their finger on the public narrative, that’s going to be meddling in the election.”13
‘Jumping From the Fireplace Into a Fire’
Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act provides internet platforms liability protection for user-generated content. Big Tech is pushing for the inclusion of protection mirroring Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in various free trade agreements, to protect them from foreign regulations.
While Section 230 makes free speech online possible for everyone, it also allows Google, YouTube and Facebook to filter out and censor whatever they want while still qualifying as a platform rather than a curator of content.
Congress has threatened to punish Big Tech by stripping them of the legal protections in Section 230, but the government stepping in could add another layer of problems, Attkisson says. Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, agreed, noting14:
“Just because you have a problem it doesn’t mean that every solution is the right one. And I think we could really jump from a fireplace into a fire if we then decide that we’re going to let whoever is in charge of the government decide what we see.”
Efforts to shut down public discussions and information are in full force. So, what can you do? Knowledge truly is power, so look beyond fact-checkers’ labels and the top of Google’s canned search results — and the corporations behind them — in your search for truth. There are alternatives for most if not all Google products, and by using these other companies, we can help them grow so that Google becomes less and less relevant.
Reproduced from original article:
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked January 22, 2021
- In recent days and weeks, we’ve seen an unprecedented wave of censorship sweep across the internet. The only solution will be decentralized platforms that virtually eliminate censorship
- In what appears to be a coordinated attack, Google, Apple and Amazon destroyed Parler, a main competitor to Twitter and Facebook, literally overnight by yanking it from their app stores and web hosting service. All of Parler’s vendors, from text message services and email providers to lawyers, also canceled their contracts
- A social media purge began in earnest January 7 and 8, 2021, with the permanent ban of President Trump and a long list of other conservatives from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Twitter reportedly suspended more than 70,000 accounts during its weekend purge
- Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is calling for a racketeering investigation into Big Tech, saying Amazon, Apple and Google’s suspension of Parler is “clearly a violation of antitrust, civil rights and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act”
- According to an October 2020 report by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google all have monopoly power and are using that power to rid themselves of competition
In recent days and weeks, we’ve seen an unprecedented wave of censorship sweep across the internet. As noted by Coindesk.com,1 that we need a decentralized web is more evident than ever, and now’s the time to advance such plans:
“Just as bitcoin redistributed power from the legacy financial system in favor of peer-to-peer electronic cash, the next-generation internet aims to redistribute power from corporate giants like Google and Facebook to sovereign individuals who own and control their own data.
To achieve this monumental goal, changes must be made to the internet’s underlying architecture. Thankfully, the pace of progress is dramatically accelerating in three foundational components: storage, naming and database …
Obviously 2020 will be remembered for the immense amount of pain and suffering endured by millions around the globe. However, throughout history, moments like these are often accompanied by great periods of innovation and creativity.
It is through this hopeful lens that we see a world where the decentralized web eventually becomes ‘the’ web with fairness, freedom and individual sovereignty at its core. And, as the past year has shown, many brilliant people are laboring tirelessly to make this dream a reality.”
Major Decentralization Advances Are in the Works
The Coindesk article points out that movement toward decentralized storage and databases has been fast and furious, and includes an extensive list of developments. Even changes to how the Domain Name System (DNS) functions are in the works. Why decentralize the DNS? As noted in the article:2
“Within the current system, the bottom line is you can be erased from the Internet at any moment, for any reason, by anyone with enough power. Decentralized DNS makes it virtually impossible for authorities to shut down access to the web and gives individuals real ownership over their digital identities, communication channels and means of commerce.”
One decentralized DNS service is UnstoppableDomains.com, which uses blockchain technology. I recognized this early last year, which is why we purchased the mercola.crypto domain that we hope to launch later this year.
Additionally, I am currently in the process of connecting with the founder of Signal, Moxie Marlinspike, probably the best decentralized platform out there, to strategize about how to create a platform for Parler.
Affirming the validity of this approach, one of my favorite crypto analysts that I subscribe to is Anthony Pompliano. In a January 11, 2021, blog post,3 he points out that literally everything for the decentralized web must be rebuilt.
“You can’t simply rely on Amazon’s AWS. You have to leverage Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and self-hosting in combination with each other to drastically improve the resiliency of what you’re building,” he says.
“Private companies can do whatever they want. And they are reminding us of that. But in doing so, they are also reminding millions of people that there can be a better world. A world where no single person or organization gets to dictate what information we receive.
No single person or organization gets to choose who gets amplified and who gets silenced. The power of choice was stripped from the user and is now being monopolized by the platform creators … The beloved tech giants are becoming villains. This will lead to a rise in new challengers.
This is the circle of life in technology. If you can’t influence the status quo, just disrupt it. And I think that is exactly what we need at this point. We can leverage technology to take the power back from these monopolies and allow the user to choose who and what to consume.”
Parler Takedown Proves Necessity of Decentralization
Clearly, many others are in agreement that a decentralized web — one in which monopolies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube cannot rule with impunity — has become an urgent necessity.4 Alternatives cannot be created fast enough.
While tech giants have brushed off accusations of monopolizing services saying that they welcome competition, they have in recent days proven they will accept no such thing.
Case in point: In what appears to be a coordinated attack, Google, Apple and Amazon destroyed Parler, a main competitor to Twitter and Facebook, literally overnight by yanking it from their app stores and web hosting service.5,6,7,8
January 10, 2021, Parler CEO John Matze announced the company had been “dropped by virtually all of its business alliances after Amazon, Apple and Google ended their agreements … Every vendor from text message services to email providers to our lawyers all ditched us too on the same day.”9 As reported by the St. Louis Discussing the recent social media purge and the destruction of Parler, Glenn Greenwald writes:10
“So much of this liberal support for the attempted destruction of Parler is based in utter ignorance about that platform, and about basic principles of free speech … The platform’s design is intended to foster privacy and free speech, not a particular ideology.
They minimize the amount of data they collect on users to prevent advertiser monetization or algorithmic targeting. Unlike Facebook and Twitter, they do not assess a user’s preferences in order to decide what they should see …
Of course large numbers of Trump supporters ended up on Parler. That’s not because Parler is a pro-Trump outlet, but because those are among the people who were censored by the tech monopolies or who were angered enough by that censorship to seek refuge elsewhere.
It is true that one can find postings on Parler that explicitly advocate violence or are otherwise grotesque. But that is even more true of Facebook, Google-owned YouTube, and Twitter.”
Greenwald is one of my absolute favorite journalists. His brilliant and deep insights into the progressive tyrannical destruction that is occurring is an important perspective that will open your eyes to what is happening to our world.
Glenn actually quit the publishing company he founded, The Intercept, because they censored him.11 This is a man of integrity, committed to the highest ethical principles. He started a substack newsletter to help fund his efforts and you can subscribe to it for $5/month.
Standards Not Applied to Big Tech Apply to Competition
The justification given by Google, Apple and Amazon for their takedown was that Parler had “the potential of spreading violent content” and had refused to censor its users over and above taking down posts that violate its stated terms of service.
However, can anyone with a straight face claim that violent content cannot and has not been disseminated via any other social media platforms or telecommunications services?
All communications services have the ability to carry this kind of information. It’s inevitable, seeing how bad actors will use one service or another to communicate ill intent with others. They’re hardly using carrier pigeons or paper bulletin boards anymore.
As reported by Vision Times,12 Apple told Parler it is “responsible for all the user generated content present on your service and for ensuring that this content meets App Store requirements for the safety and protection of our users.” In response, Matze stated:13
“Apparently they believe Parler is responsible for ALL user generated content on Parler. Therefor [sic] by the same logic, Apple must be responsible for ALL actions taken by their phones.
Every car bomb, every illegal cell phone conversation, every illegal crime committed on an iPhone, Apple must also be responsible for,” adding that “Standards not applied to Twitter, Facebook or even Apple themselves, apply to Parler.”
Indeed, crimes occur on big tech platforms every day. The April 5, 2018, ABC News article14 “Mayhem and Murder: 10 Most Shocking Facebook Live Moments Ever” detailed some of the most stunning ones.
In 2012, The Guardian reported15 that social media-related crime reports had risen 780% in four years. Data from the British police showed 4,908 crimes in 2012 had been committed in which Facebook or Twitter was a factor. According to a June 4, 2012, article16 in Mail Online, 12,300 crime cases had been linked to Facebook, with a crime happening on the platform every 40 minutes.
News reports from 201417 and 201518 noted the number of crime cases linked to Facebook and Twitter was continuing to climb precipitously, including sexual offenses, harassment and outright death threats.
Of course, when we start talking about intelligence agencies’ use of big tech services the stakes get even higher. The CIA, for example, which has a history of mind control abuses and secret assassination programs,19 uses Amazon web services, Microsoft, Google, Oracle and IBM.20
Are these companies taking responsibility for atrocities committed by the CIA, such as its “deadly double tap” drone strikes in Pakistan that caused outrage in 2012?21 Is Amazon taking responsibility for the actions of DARPA, since it’s hosting DARPA and provides them with cloud services?22
Parler Refuses to Censor Constitutional Rights
Matze also pointed out that the allegation that Parler can or should be held responsible for the January 6, 2021, violence in Washington, D.C., is false for a number of reasons. First of all, Parler does not have a group feature that will allow people to organize. In fact, Facebook groups were used to plan that and other protests that turned violent.
Secondly, peaceful protests are protected under the U.S. Constitution, and therefore blocking the planning of such events would be unconstitutional. “Bad actors” turned what was a peaceful protest into a riot. Incidentally, the same happened during many BLM protests held during 2020, which were downplayed as a protected civil rights issue.
In response to the Parler ban, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is calling for a racketeering investigation into Big Tech, saying Amazon, Apple and Google’s suspension of the Twitter competitor is “clearly a violation of antitrust, civil rights and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.”23
Indeed, according to an October 2020 report24 by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google all have monopoly power and are using that power to rid themselves of competition.
The Great Social Media Purge
Then there’s the great social media purge, which began in earnest January 7 and 8, 2021, with the permanent ban of President Trump and a long list of other conservatives from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. According to some reports, Twitter suspended more than 70,000 accounts during its weekend purge.
Again, the primary excuse given was that these individuals may incite violence. Other justifications include posting “misleading information about the election outcome” or statements suggesting there was election fraud.25 Even signed witness affidavits and live testimony have been censored since election day.26 As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:27
“In the Trump tweets cited by Twitter, Trump stated that he will not be attending the inauguration and referred to his supporters as ‘American Patriots,’ saying they will have ‘a GIANT VOICE long into the future.’
Twitter said these statements ‘are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so’ …
In a lengthy monologue,28 Zuckerberg claims: ‘[Trump’s] decision to use his platform to condone rather than condemn the actions of his supporters at the Capitol building has rightly disturbed people in the U.S. and around the world.
However, Zuckerberg’s statement seems to deviate from reality. In an increasingly hard-to-find video29 by Trump on the day of the Electoral College count, the outgoing president asked both his supporters and the rioters to be peaceful:
‘We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order and we have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt.'”
Contrast this scenario with all the violence and property destruction that was done by the Black Lives Matter movement this past summer and was clearly orchestrated over the Google, Apple and Twitter platforms. The violence and damage was exponentially worse, yet not a word of censoring these platforms was ever mentioned.
Gab Strikes Back Against ‘Mockingbird Media Complex’
The Gab social network also claims to be under coordinated attack. According to Gab CEO Andrew Torba, there’s been a suspicious rise in violent content on the site that doesn’t appear to be generated by real users. In a January 8, 2021, statement, Torba said:30
“Over the past several weeks I have been openly warning the Gab community to be on the lookout for fedposters and threats or encouragement of violence on Gab.
This PSYOP campaign started back in early December with newly created accounts popping up out of nowhere and making threats of violence. We have zero tolerance for this behavior and it is absolutely not free speech.
This has always been our policy. We have thousands of volunteers, customers, and longtime community members who helped us stomp out this PSYOP campaign over the past several weeks and expose it. After this week, it’s clear why this PSYOP was started: to take down alt-tech platforms and frame them for the January 6th protests that ended with the police killing an unarmed woman.
Almost instantly after police allowed protestors into the Capitol the New York Times started a baseless narrative that this protest was organized on alt-tech sites, and in particular on Gab, without offering any proof, screenshots, usernames, or evidence to back these baseless claims.
I’ve recorded a video highlighting how this all played out. I hope you’ll take some time to watch it to learn how the CIA Mockingbird Media complex operates. The way we fight back is with truth and by speaking truth to their power, which is quickly fading.”
Antiwar Conservative Banned
While “incitement of violence” is being used as the justification for banning social media accounts, Facebook’s suspension of Dr. Ron Paul, a former Republican congressman for Texas and presidential candidate in 2011, punctures that narrative. He’s one of the most peaceful antiwar personalities out there.
Make no mistake. Eventually, all will be targeted. Acceptable speech will continue to narrow until everyone has something to lose by opening their mouth and expressing an opinion.
However, he’s also an outspoken defender of civil liberties and health freedom. In September 2020, he interviewed me for his Liberty Report, discussing strategies to boost your immune system.31 Paul also promotes sound money and exposes political and financial corruption, so perhaps this is where the problem lies. In a January 11, 2021, Twitter post, Paul noted:32
“With no explanation other than ‘repeatedly going against our community standards,’ Facebook has blocked me from managing my page. Never have we received notice of violating community standards in the past and nowhere is the offending post identified. The only thing we posted to Facebook today was my weekly ‘Texas Straight Talk’ column, which I have published every week since 1976.”
The article in question apparently discussed “shocking increase in censorship on social media,” though,33 which may have tripped Facebook’s blocking apparatus. Discussing the incident in an article on RonPaulInstitute.org, Jonathan Turley writes:34
“Paul, a libertarian leader and former presidential candidate, has been an outspoken critic of foreign wars and an advocate for civil liberties for decades … His son, United States Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted, ‘Facebook now considers advocating for liberty to be sedition. Where will it end?’
Even before the riot, Democrats were calling for blacklists and retaliation against anyone deemed to be ‘complicit’ with the Trump Administration.
We have been discussing the rising threats against Trump supporters, lawyers, and officials in recent weeks from Democratic members are calling for blacklists to the Lincoln Project leading a national effort to harass and abuse any lawyers representing the Republican Party or President Trump.
Others are calling for banning those ‘complicit’ from college campuses while still others are demanding a ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ to ‘hold Trump and his enablers accountable for the crimes they have committed.’
Daily Beast editor-at-large Rick Wilson has added his own call for ‘humiliation,’ ‘incarceration’ and even ritualistic suicides for Trump supporters in an unhinged, vulgar column … Also, a top Forbes editor Randall Lane warned any company that they will be investigated if they hire any former Trump officials.
The riots are being used as a license to roll back on free speech and retaliate against conservatives. In the meantime, the silence of academics and many in the media is deafening …
The move against Paul, a long champion of free speech, shows how raw and comprehensive this crackdown has become … It is like having a state media without state control … As we have seen in Europe, such censorship becomes an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech control.”
In the video35 featured at the top of this article, Paul discusses the dangers of big tech censorship. Unfortunately, he falls short on solutions in that video. In my view, one key strategy that we must focus on is to uphold the Constitution. If you want to live in a free society, you must first understand what a free society is, so educate yourself about your Constitutional rights. As noted by Greenwald:36
“On Facebook and Twitter, one finds official accounts from the most repressive and violent regimes on earth, including Saudi Arabia, and pages devoted to propaganda on behalf of the Egyptian regime. Does anyone think these tech giants have a genuine concern about violence and extremism?”
What’s Behind the Push for Censorship?
According to Big Tech, free speech is “dangerous.” I guess a follow-up question to such a statement would be: “To whom?” As mentioned earlier, agencies such as DARPA are using the online services of private companies, and according to independent journalist Whitney Webb,37 the COVID-19 pandemic has given “a dangerous boost to DARPA’s darkest agenda.”
“Given this foreknowledge and the numerous simulations conducted in the United States last year regarding global viral pandemic outbreaks, at least six of varying scope and size, it has often been asked — Why did the government not act or prepare if an imminent global pandemic and the shortcomings of any response to such an event were known?” Webb writes.38
“Though the answer to this question has frequently been written off as mere ‘incompetence’ in mainstream media circles, it is worth entertaining the possibility that a crisis was allowed to unfold. Why would the intelligence community or another faction of the U.S. government knowingly allow a crisis such as this to occur?
The answer is clear if one looks at history, as times of crisis have often been used by the U.S. government to implement policies that would normally be rejected by the American public, ranging from censorship of the press to mass surveillance networks.”
She goes on to review some of these historical events, and some of the DARPA-developed technologies that are now likely to come into play, from DNA and RNA vaccines to implantable biosensors and nanoplatforms said to detect disease.
If history is our guide, could the clamp-down on free speech be part of a bigger control and manipulation agenda — one that is directed not toward foreign enemies but the local population?
Might it be part of the Great Reset agenda, with its transhumanist bend? As explained by Webb in her article, DARPA has a transhumanist vision for the military, so why not for the general population? Especially seeing how its “health based” biotechnologies end up meshing so seamlessly with new surveillance technologies.
I believe there may be some truth in that. Most certainly, big tech and social media monopolies are playing a central role in the social engineering currently taking place to pave the way for the technocratic “reset” of the global economy and way of life. That plan simply cannot occur without a sufficient number of the population being onboard with authoritarian conduct.
Greenwald has been a longstanding progressive and no fan of the Republican party, yet he notes that Silicon Valley giants may also be catering to the Democratic party in the hopes they won’t be regulated.
“The Democrats are about to control the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress, leaving Silicon Valley giants eager to please them by silencing their adversaries,” Greenwald writes.39
“This corrupt motive was made expressly clear by long-time Clinton operative Jennifer Palmieri: ‘It has not escaped my attention that the day social media companies decided there actually IS more they could do to police Trump’s destructive behavior was the same day they learned Democrats would chair all the congressional committees that oversee them.'”
Just Wait — You’re Next
While many appear to be caught up in the schadenfreude of the moment, basking in the perceived power of cancel culture, make no mistake — the censorship will not be limited to conservatives. Years ago, I warned that online censorship would not end at alternative health sites like mine, and guess what? It didn’t. Then I warned it would not stop at questioning vaccine safety, and of course, it didn’t.
In 2020, discussions about certain medical treatments for COVID-19, the sensibility of mask wearing and the origin of the virus all became targets for massive censoring and deplatforming. Next came bans on criticism against BLM and the protests that frequently turned violent. Now one political party is being silenced en masse.
Make no mistake. Eventually, all will be targeted. Acceptable speech will continue to narrow until everyone has something to lose by opening their mouth and expressing an opinion. It’s inevitable, which is why supporting censorship is so ill advised. As noted by Greenwald:40
“The liberal New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg pronounced herself ‘disturbed by just how awesome [tech giants’] power is’ and added that ‘it’s dangerous to have a handful of callow young tech titans in charge of who has a megaphone and who does not.’
She nonetheless praised these ‘young tech titans’ for using their ‘dangerous’ power to ban Trump and destroy Parler. In other words, liberals like Goldberg are concerned only that Silicon Valley censorship powers might one day be used against people like them, but are perfectly happy as long as it is their adversaries being deplatformed and silenced …
That is because the dominant strain of American liberalism is not economic socialism but political authoritarianism. Liberals now want to use the force of corporate power to silence those with different ideologies.
They are eager for tech monopolies not just to ban accounts they dislike but to remove entire platforms from the internet. They want to imprison people they believe helped their party lose elections, such as Julian Assange, even if it means creating precedents to criminalize journalism.
World leaders have vocally condemned the power Silicon Valley has amassed to police political discourse, and were particularly indignant over the banning of the U.S. President … Even the ACLU — which has rapidly transformed from a civil liberties organization into a liberal activist group … found the assertion of Silicon Valley’s power to destroy Parler deeply alarming …
Yet American liberals swoon for this authoritarianism. And they are now calling for the use of the most repressive War on Terror measures against their domestic opponents. On Tuesday, House Homeland Security Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) urged that GOP Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley ‘be put on the no-fly list’ …
No authoritarians believe they are authoritarians. No matter how repressive are the measures they support — censorship, monopoly power, no-fly lists for American citizens without due process — they tell themselves that those they are silencing and attacking are so evil … that anything done against them is noble and benevolent, not despotic and repressive.
That is how American liberals currently think, as they fortify the control of Silicon Valley monopolies over our political lives, exemplified by the overnight destruction of a new and popular competitor.”
Take Control of Your Online Presence
So, while you wait for a decentralized, censorship-free internet, what can you do to protect your online privacy and your right to free speech? Here are a few suggestions:
|Switch from Facebook and Twitter to free-speech alternatives41 such as Gab, MeWe, Minds (and Parler if they manage to come back).|
|Switch from YouTube to uncensored alternatives42 such as Bitchute, Brighteon, Banned.video and Thinkspot.|
|Download the Signal or Telegram app to encrypt your text messages. Telegram also allows you to subscribe to channels (read-only messages are sent to your phone from any channel you subscribe. This feature is starting to be increasingly used by individuals who have been banned on other social media platforms).|
|Use a VPN on your desktop, laptop and mobile devices to preserve your privacy.|
|For content creators and alternative news sources that no longer have a social media presence due to censoring, subscribe to their newsletter if available, and/or mark their website in your favorites and check back on a regular basis.|
|Boycott Google by avoiding any and all Google products:
- 1, 2 Coindesk January 11, 2021
- 3, 4 The Pomp Letter January 11, 2021
- 5, 10, 36, 39, 40 Glenn Greenwald January 12, 2021
- 6 The Verge January 11, 2021
- 7 Input Magazine January 8, 2021
- 8 Legal Insurrection January 9, 2021
- 9 Deadline January 11, 2021
- 11 New York Post October 29, 2020
- 12, 13 Vision Times January 9, 2021
- 14 ABC News April 5, 2018
- 15 The Guardian December 27, 2012
- 16 Mail Online June 4, 2012
- 17 BT March 13, 2014
- 18 Sky news June 4, 2015
- 19 FFF.org August 13, 2020
- 20 Nextgov.com November 20, 2020
- 21 Independent September 26, 2012
- 22 Data Center Dynamics February 6, 2020
- 23 Fox News January 10, 2021
- 24 House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets 2020 (PDF)
- 25 Zerohedge January 12, 2021
- 26 Newswars December 1, 2020
- 27 Stltoday.com January 8, 2021
- 28 Facebook Mark Zuckerberg January 7, 2021
- 29 The Epoch Times January 6, 2021
- 30 Gab January 8, 2021
- 31 Ron Paul Institute September 24, 2020
- 32 Twitter Ron Paul January 11, 2021
- 33, 34 Ron Paul Institute January 12, 2021
- 35 The Daily Coin January 11, 2021
- 37, 38 The Last American Vagabond May 4, 2020
- 41, 42 Vision Launch 2020 List of Free Speech Social Media and Video Platforms
- 43 Fast Company, Inside DuckDuckGo
- 44 Opera Browser
- 45 ProtonMail
- 46 Digital Trends April 28, 2017
Reproduced from original article:
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked January 15, 2021
- The COVID-19 pandemic has provided many governments with an excuse to crack down on journalists who counter government narratives. Globally, at least 14 journalists have been arrested for “unfair and imprecise coverage” of the pandemic
- Worldwide, 387 journalists were detained during 2020. Thirty journalists were killed in relation to their work. Of those, 21 were murdered in retaliation for their reporting. Most were covering political topics
- China tops the list of countries where suppression of journalism is taking place. As of December 1, 2020, 117 Chinese journalists had been arrested
- One of them is Zhang Zhan, a former Shanghai lawyer who was detained May 15, 2020. She’d been posting daily video reports about the Wuhan outbreak on YouTube and Twitter since early February
- December 28, 2020, the Shanghai Pudong People’s Court sentenced Zhang to four years in prison for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”
Journalism has long been a risky profession, but the COVID-19 pandemic has provided many governments with an excuse to increase its crackdown on journalists who counter government narratives about the virus and their handling of the pandemic.1,2
Globally, at least 14 journalists have been arrested for “unfair and imprecise coverage” of the pandemic.3 Courtney Radsch, advocacy director for the Committee to Protect Journalists, told U.S. News4 that “COVID is a very convenient excuse to target journalists that regimes did not like before.”
Information War 2020
According to two media rights groups — the CPJ5 and Reporters Without Borders6 — China tops the list of countries where suppression of journalism is taking place. Worldwide, 387 journalists were detained during 2020, just two fewer than were detained in 2019. Of those, 54 are being held hostage and four are missing in action.7 More than half — 61% — are held in China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Syria.8
Attacks on female journalists has seen a particularly strong increase, with 35% more women journalists being imprisoned in 2020 compared to 2019.9 There’s also been a fourfold increase in “arbitrary arrests” of journalists this year, a majority of which appear to have been related to their coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Reporters Without Borders:10
“While most arrested journalists were held for just a few hours or, in some cases, a few days or weeks), 14 journalists who were arrested in connection with their coverage of the pandemic are still being held at the end of the year.”
Murders of Journalists Doubled in 2020
CPJ also reports11 that murders of journalists more than doubled in 2020, compared to 2019. The murders are labeled as “retaliatory killings” by gangs and militants in “violent but democratic nations,” and the murdered journalists were most often covering political issues.
Corona laws are often being used as a façade for the decline of democratic institutions … ~ Uladzislau Belavusau, Asser Institute’s Centre for International and European Law
In all, 30 journalists were killed, worldwide, in 2020 in relation to their work. Of those, 21 were murdered, a significant jump from the 10 murdered in 2019. An additional 15 deaths are also still under investigation by the CPJ to ascertain whether journalism was the motive, so the end tally could be higher still.12
The countries with the highest numbers of retaliatory murders in 2020 were Mexico, Afghanistan and the Philippines.13 Adding insult to injury, in the vast majority of these murders, the killers go free.
China Sentences Citizen Journalist to Four Years in Prison
As mentioned, China detained the greatest number of journalists in 2020. As of December 1, 2020, 117 Chinese journalists had been placed behind bars.14 One of them is Zhang Zhan, a former Shanghai lawyer who was detained May 15, 2020.
She’d been posting daily video reports about the Wuhan outbreak on YouTube and Twitter since early February. While these social media platforms are blocked in mainland China, Zhang was using a virtual private network (VPN) to access the sites. According to Vice:15
“Her videos stood in stark contrast to state media’s reports on the outbreak, which initially glossed over the severity of the virus and sought to highlight the heroic efforts of medical workers in treating patients.”
December 28, 2020, the Shanghai Pudong People’s Court sentenced Zhang to four years in prison for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” According to Vice,16 this “vaguely-defined charge” is one “that the Chinese government often uses to silence critics.”
Zhang reportedly went on a hunger strike in June and has been force-fed through a nasal tube since then. One of Zhang’s defense attorneys told Vice17 she began the hunger strike because “she couldn’t accept the fact that she was punished for exercising her freedom of speech, a right laid out in the Chinese constitution,” adding that “she views compliance as an insult to herself.”
Chinese Citizen Journalists Still Missing
In addition to Zhang, at least three other citizen journalists who had been covering the pandemic in Wuhan — Chen Quishi, Fang Bin and Li Zehua — are also either detained or missing. Chen, who disappeared in February 2020,18 is now believed to be in the custody of Chinese authorities, although his precise location is still unclear.19
A similar fate appears to have befallen Li, who in his last YouTube video, posted in April, said he had been detained by police but not charged. No additional videos have been posted to his account since, so it’s unclear whether he’s been released or remains in custody. The whereabouts of Fang are also unknown.
Many Countries Weaponized the News in 2020
According to a June 5, 2020, article20 by Courthouse News, at least 16 countries had by then passed laws “targeting misinformation about the coronavirus.” According to Uladzislau Belavusau, senior researcher at the Asser Institute’s Centre for International and European Law, “Corona laws are often being used as a façade for the decline of democratic institutions …”21
Countries that now have laws on the books that restrict reporting of news about COVID-19 and call for fines and/or the arrest of journalists accused of spreading misinformation about the virus are shown in the graphic22 below, created by the International Press Institute (IPI).
IPI, which has been monitoring press freedom restrictions during the pandemic, also released the following image,23 showing the number of press freedom violations recorded across the world.
According to Barbara Trionfi, executive director of the IPI, “In all cases, the laws have been used to limit critical, legitimate reporting” about the pandemic.24 Marko Milanovic, professor of public international law at the University of Nottingham School of Law, agreed, telling Courthouse News the approach “is not effective,” as the laws are “broadly used to limit criticism of the government rather than stop bad actors from spreading misinformation.” Courthouse News added:25
“Yordanka Ivanova, a researcher in international law at Sofia University in Bulgaria, argues that privacy regulations could curtail the spread of fake news. Limiting the amount of targeting social media companies could do, she said, could keep information from spreading widely and minimizes so-called filter bubbles, where people only see news information that aligns with their existing beliefs.”
China’s Extensive COVID Cover-Up
Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, has been outspoken about China’s apparent efforts to hide information about the source of SARS-CoV-2. In a December 28, 2020, Twitter post, Chan listed a number of suspicious approaches taken by Chinese authorities since the initial outbreak in Wuhan:26
“Imprisoning journalists looking into what happened in Wuhan, obstructing inquiries into mysterious pneumonia cases in Yunnan miners in 2012, failure to describe what should have been a stunning discovery of a novel FCS [furin cleavage site] in a SARS virus, removal of an extensive pathogen database …”
As detailed in “Top Medical Journal Caught in Massive Cover-Up,” Nature, one of the most prestigious medical journals, allowed authors to secretly alter SARS-CoV-2 data sets in their papers without publishing notices of correction. Chan was the one who discovered that scientists had renamed samples, failed to attribute them properly, and produced a genomic profile that didn’t match the samples in their paper.
According to Chan,27 the database on bat and mouse viral pathogens, which had been managed by Shi Zhengli from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, has also been taken offline, further restricting scientists and researchers’ ability to analyze the potential origins of SARS-CoV-2.
We’re in an Information War
All in all, China does appear intent on maintaining tight control over the pandemic narrative. Clearly, the Chinese government does not want to release anything that might implicate it in the release of a lab-created virus, whether accidental or intentional.
But China is far from alone in this quest. Many countries around the world are clearly hell-bent on controlling the narrative as well, and are increasing attacks on journalists who dig deeper and question the logic of it all.
As reported in “Spy Agencies Threaten to ‘Take Out’ Mercola” and “Mercola Defamed by Digital ‘Anti-Hate’ Group,” this includes yours truly. According to recent media reports,28,29,30 intelligence agencies in both the U.K. and U.S. are now working to eliminate “anti-vaccine propaganda” from public discussion using sophisticated cyberwarfare tools.
That we are in an information war could not be any clearer. And, in a war where information is the key weapon, journalists are akin to soldiers. There will be casualties. Yet we cannot, we must not, stop. The freedom of every person in the world is at stake.
- 1 CPJ.org December 15, 2020
- 2, 3, 4, 14 US News December 15, 2020
- 5 CPJ.org Reports
- 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 RSF.org December 11, 2020, Updated December 14, 2020
- 11, 12, 13 CPJ.org December 21, 2020
- 15, 16, 17 Vice December 28, 2020
- 18 The Guardian February 10, 2020
- 19 The Guardian September 24, 2020
- 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 Courthouse News June 5, 2020
- 23 IPI Media Number of Media Freedom Violations by Region
- 26, 27 Twitter Alina Chan December 28, 2020
- 28 The Times November 9, 2020
- 29 UK Defense Journal November 10, 2020
- 30 The National News November 9, 2020
Reproduced from original article:
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked December 01, 2020
- British and American intelligence agencies are collaborating to eliminate “anti-vaccine propaganda” from public discussion using sophisticated cyberwarfare tools
- According to Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, anti-vaxxers are “an extremist group that pose a national security risk,” because “once someone has been exposed to one type of conspiracy it’s easy to lead them down a path where they embrace more radical world views that can lead to violent extremism”
- In September, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seized 92 online domains suspected of belonging to Iraqi government-backed militia. Seizures were done in collaboration with the FBI, Google, Facebook and Twitter
- In November, the DOJ seized 27 online domains — including the American Herald Tribune — suspected of being founded by Iranian interests
- Among the websites cited by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate as promoting extremism that poses a national security risk to the U.K. are Mercola.com, Children’s Health Defense, the Informed Consent Action Network, the Organic Consumers Association and the National Vaccine Information Center
I’ve been warning you about the seeming inevitability of mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for several months now, and have discussed the ever-tightening grip of media and online censorship even longer. As an independent source of health news, Mercola.com has been in the crosshairs of globalist interests for years, and the attacks are intensifying with each passing day.
While, on the surface, health recommendations and geopolitics may appear to have nothing in common, they are in fact intertwined.
As more and more information about the Great Reset and the 4th Industrial Revolution is starting to surface, we can clearly see that eliminating medical freedom is a central part of the plot, and mandatory vaccination will be used as a tool to usher in biometrical surveillance and enslavement through a centrally-controlled all-digital finance and identification system.
Intelligence Collective Unleashes Cyberwarfare on Public
While censorship has reached new heights this year, that’s likely only the tip of the iceberg. According to recent media reports,1,2,3 intelligence agencies are now collaborating to eliminate “anti-vaccine propaganda” from public discussion using sophisticated cyberwarfare tools.
As reported by independent investigative journalist Whitney Webb in an article for Unlimited Hangout:4
“British and American state intelligence agencies are ‘weaponizing truth’ to quash vaccine hesitancy as both nations prepare for mass inoculations, in a recently announced ‘cyber war’ to be commanded by AI-powered arbiters of truth against information sources that challenge official narratives …
Cyber tools and online tactics previously designed for use in the post-9/11 ‘war on terror’ are now being repurposed for use against information sources promoting ‘vaccine hesitancy’ and information related to COVID-19 that runs counter to their state narratives …
The UK’s GCHQ [Government Communications Headquarters5] ‘has begun an offensive cyber-operation to disrupt anti-vaccine propaganda being spread by hostile states’ and ‘is using a toolkit developed to tackle disinformation and recruitment material peddled by Islamic State’ to do so.6
In addition, the UK government has ordered the British military’s 77th Brigade, which specializes in ‘information warfare,’ to launch an online campaign to counter ‘deceptive narratives’ about COVID-19 vaccine candidates.
The newly announced GCHQ ‘cyber war’ will not only take down ‘anti-vaccine propaganda’ but will also seek to ‘disrupt the operations of the cyberactors responsible for it, including encrypting their data so they cannot access it and blocking their communications with each other.’
The effort will also involve GCHQ reaching out to other countries in the ‘Five Eyes’ alliance (U.S., Australia, New Zealand and Canada) to alert their partner agencies in those countries to target such ‘propaganda’ sites hosted within their borders.”
Vaccine Discussion — A National Security Risk?
According to a November 9, 2020, report in The Times,7 the British “government regards tackling false information about inoculation as a rising priority as the prospect of a reliable vaccine against the coronavirus draws closer.”
In July 2020, chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, told The Independent8 he considers anti-vaxxers “an extremist group that pose a national security risk,” because “once someone has been exposed to one type of conspiracy it’s easy to lead them down a path where they embrace more radical world views that can lead to violent extremism.”
In other words, Ahmed implies that people who question the safety and necessity of a COVID-19 vaccine might be prone to violent extremism. His statement is no small matter, considering Ahmed is also a member of the Steering Committee on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force under the British government’s Commission for Countering Extremism.
“It seems that, from the perspective of the UK national-security state, those who question corruption in the pharmaceutical industry and its possible impact on the leading experimental COVID-19 vaccine candidates (all of which use experimental vaccine technologies that have never before been approved for human use) should be targeted with tools originally designed to combat terrorist propaganda,” Webb writes.9
Government With Help of Big Tech Is Seizing Online Domains
U.S. intelligence is also part of this campaign. According to Webb, the U.S. government will help the GCHQ determine whether a website is part of a foreign disinformation operation or not. While the GCHQ claims that only foreign state actors will be targeted, and not “ordinary citizens,” there’s little evidence to suggest citizens won’t be swept up in this information blackout operation.
For example, November 4, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it had seized 27 online domains — including that of the American Herald Tribune — suspected of being founded by Iranian interests.10,11 The domain seizures are said to be part of the U.S. enforcement of sanctions against Iran.
In early September 2020, 92 online domains suspected of belonging to Iraqi government-backed militia were similarly seized.12 All of these DOJ seizures were done in collaboration with the FBI, Google, Facebook and Twitter.13 As reported by Webb:14
“The U.S. government made this claim about the American Herald Tribune after the cybersecurity firm FireEye, a U.S. government contractor, stated that it had ‘moderate confidence’ that the site had been ‘founded in Iran’ …
It is certainly plausible that GCHQ could take the word of either an allied government, a government contractor, or perhaps even an allied media organization such as Bellingcat or the Atlantic Council’s DFRLab that a given site is ‘foreign propaganda’ in order to launch a cyber offensive against it.
Such concerns are only amplified when one of the main government sources … bluntly stated that ‘GCHQ has been told to take out antivaxers [sic] online and on social media. There are ways they have used to monitor and disrupt terrorist propaganda,’ which suggests that the targets of GCHQ’s new cyber war will, in fact, be determined by the content itself rather than their suspected ‘foreign’ origin.
The ‘foreign’ aspect instead appears to be a means of evading the prohibition in GCHQ’s operational mandate on targeting the speech or websites of ordinary citizens.”
Clues that U.S. intelligence supports this cyberwar against the public can also be found in a white paper15 published in the InfraGard Journal in June 2019. InfraGard, founded in 1996, is a nonprofit national security group affiliated with the FBI.16 They collaborate on a variety of educational and information-sharing initiatives “that help mitigate threats.”17
The InfraGard paper18 claims the American anti-vaccine movement is being orchestrated by Russian government-aligned organizations seeking to “sow discontent and distrust in topics and initiatives that serve U.S. interests,”19 and that “The biggest threat in controlling an outbreak comes from those who categorically reject vaccination.”20
Does InfraGard speak for the FBI? Not directly, but considering it serves as “a public-private partnership among U.S. businesses, individuals, and the FBI,” according to an FBI spokesperson,21 it’s bound to have some degree of influence.
According to The Guardian, the unnamed FBI spokesperson noted that “It is important to distinguish among the statements, views and comments made by official FBI representatives and InfraGard Members.” He or she declined to comment on or clarify the FBI’s stance on whether vaccine safety advocates might be classified as a national security threat.
This Site Identified as a Cyberwar Target
Five sites specifically targeted by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate as promoting extremism that poses a national security risk to the U.K. are:
- Children’s Health Defense (run by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.)
- The Informed Consent Action Network
- The Organic Consumers Association
- The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)
In fact, the organization specifically named yours truly as being one of just two people responsible for funding the “anti-vaxx nonprofits” that have the greatest reach. Financier Bernard Selz is the other. Selz allegedly finances The HighWire and Physicians for Informed Consent, as well as “some of the tech giants that make the modern anti-vaxx movement possible.”22
It was really entertaining to read what the Centre for Countering Digital Hate wrote about me in their report, as I consider their disparagement a badge of honor. I encourage you to read it.23 For example, they commented that we have a decreasing Facebook following. Well that isn’t surprising at all as we haven’t posted for 18 months as a part of our “Forget Facebook” campaign. As noted by Webb in her article:24
“It is worth pointing out that many so-called ‘anti-vaxxers’ are actually critics of the pharmaceutical industry and are not necessarily opposed to vaccines in and of themselves, making the labels ‘anti-vaxxer’ and ‘anti-vaccine’ misleading.
Given that many pharmaceutical giants involved in making COVID-19 vaccines donate heavily to politicians in both countries and have been involved in numerous safety scandals, using state intelligence agencies to wage cyber war against sites that investigate such concerns is not only troubling for the future of journalism but it suggests that the UK is taking a dangerous leap toward becoming a country that uses its state powers to treat the enemies of corporations as enemies of the state.”
Intelligence Apparatus Weaponizes ‘Truth’
Indeed, it certainly appears as though the U.K. and U.S. are now lumping enemies of the state and enemies of private companies into the same category. If you criticize one you criticize the other. In short, if you impede or endanger the profitability of private companies, you are now viewed as a national security threat.
Primer’s ultimate goal is to use their AI to entirely automate the shaping of public perceptions and become the arbiter of ‘truth,’ as defined by the state.
Importantly, the right and freedom to critique one’s government is a hallmark of democracy, so this state-sponsored war against truthful information is in turn evidence of a radical detour from democratic rule. Technocratic totalitarianism is quite literally banging at our front door. As reported by Webb:25
“Similar efforts are underway in the United States, with the U.S. military recently funding a CIA-backed firm — stuffed with former counterterrorism officials who were behind the occupation of Iraq and the rise of the so-called Islamic State — to develop an AI algorithm aimed specifically at new websites promoting ‘suspected’ disinformation related to the COVID-19 crisis and the U.S. military-led COVID-19 vaccination effort known as Operation Warp Speed …
In early October, the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Special Operations Command announced that they had awarded a multimillion-dollar contract to the U.S.-based ‘machine intelligence’ company Primer. Per the press release,26 ‘Primer will develop the first-ever machine learning platform to automatically identify and assess suspected disinformation …
Primer’s ultimate goal is to use their AI to entirely automate the shaping of public perceptions and become the arbiter of ‘truth,’ as defined by the state …
According to Primer’s director of science, John Bohannon, ‘Primer will be integrating bot detection, synthetic text detection and unstructured textual claims analysis capabilities into our existing artificial intelligence platform currently in use with DOD … This will create the first unified mission-ready platform to effectively counter COVID-19-related disinformation in near-real time …
Given that the Covid-19 vaccine candidate produced by Pfizer is expected to be approved by the end of November, it appears that the U.S. national-security state, which is essentially running Operation Warp Speed, along with ‘trusted messengers’ in mass media, is preparing to enter the second phase of its communications strategy, one in which news organizations and journalists who raise legitimate concerns about Warp Speed will be de-platformed to make way for the ‘required’ saturation of pro-vaccine messaging across the English-speaking media landscape.”
Protect Your Human Rights
As mentioned at the beginning, health and geopolitics are far from separate issues. One is feeding into the other, as mass vaccination is being used as a way to implement a whole host of “new world order” directives, including the introduction of an all-digital centralized currency model tied to digital IDs and a social credit system.
Together, all of these bits and pieces will allow an unelected technocratic elite to dictate every facet of your life, from where you live to what you own (which according to the World Economic Forum will be nothing). For an introduction to this globalist takeover, which is now being rolled out at a rapid clip, see James Corbett’s report featured in “What You Need to Know About the Great Reset.”
As for the sharing of information, it seems inevitable that the attacks on Mercola.com will intensify. Already, Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have either throttled down or banned our online presence, making it very difficult to find and share our content.
So, if you find value in these articles, be sure to subscribe, encourage your friends and family to subscribe, and share articles via email. At the bottom of each page, you’ll find an “Email Article” button that makes it easy to share. Also consider eliminating Facebook and all Google-based services from your life to cut down on their data mining of your personal information.
Remember, your personal data is being used against you. It’s fed into machine learning programs that train artificial intelligence, which is then used to manipulate you and shape your perception of the world. This technology is so sophisticated, most don’t even realize it’s happening in general, let alone that it’s happening to them specifically.
To say that we’re living in extraordinarily dangerous times would be an understatement, but if we keep our wits about us and continue to share the facts and coordinate our resistance, we still have a chance to turn away from the dystopian future that has been planned for us. For some encouragement, listen to Kennedy Jr.’s speech in “Hope Despite Censorship.”
- 1, 6, 7 The Times November 9, 2020
- 2 UK Defense Journal November 10, 2020
- 3 The National News November 9, 2020
- 4, 9, 14, 24, 25 Unlimited Hangout November 11, 2020
- 5 GCHQ.gov.UK
- 8 The Independent July 7, 2020
- 10, 13 Justice.gov November 4, 2020
- 11 Antiwar.com November 4, 2020
- 12 Antiwar.com September 3, 2020
- 15, 18 The Infragard Journal June 2019; 2(1) (PDF)
- 16 InfraGard
- 17 InfraGard About Us
- 19 The Infragard Journal June 2019; 2(1) (PDF), page 27
- 20 The Infragard Journal June 2019; 2(1) (PDF), page 25
- 21 The Guardian April 27, 2020
- 22, 23 CCDH, The Anti-Vaxx Industry (PDF), Page 9
- 26 PR Newswire October 1, 2020
© 18th November 2020 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC.
Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here:
Reproduced from original article:
Posted on: Tuesday, November 17th 2020 at 10:15 am
Written By: Ann Rosen
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2020
There’s a lot of talk about the threat “anti-vaxxers” pose to public health and what should be done about them. Last year, the World Health Organization named vaccine hesitancy one of the top 10 global health threats[i] alongside Ebola, HIV and antimicrobial resistance and the mainstream media kicked into high gear as it bemoaned the stubborn and growing population of people who were unwilling to roll up their sleeves.
As a result, some health officials and legislators have started recommending punitive measures, like preventing vaccine refusers from receiving public educations, getting on airplanes or entering restaurants. Others want to consider criminalizing the sharing of what they consider “vaccine misinformation.”[ii] On community Facebook pages, posts deemed to be dangerous conspiracy theories are taken down and people mock and vilify their own neighbors if they dare to question the “safe and effective” vaccine narrative.
Organizations like the New Jersey Public Health Association (NJPHA) have even enlisted the help of Joe Smyser and the Public Good Project (PGP) to use algorithms to help make sense of these resistors. PGP’s Project VCTR (Vaccine Communication Tracking & Response) uses artificial intelligence monitoring to collect and analyze publicly available media data in the hopes of amplifying pro-vaccination messages.[iii]
PGP encourages the use of influencers and social media to better access specific populations. Its Stronger campaign takes a more aggressive approach. The organization claims to be “the first vaccine advocacy campaign to focus on the root cause of vaccine hesitancy – misinformation.”[iv]According to its website, “exposure to vaccine opposition content grew 60% during Covid-19” (and that data appears to be from May). They consider this “misformation” to be directly responsible for a considerable drop in vaccine compliance.
Their solution is to recruit people to fight back by blocking and reporting people from social media feeds, making comments, such as “not true” to invite others to be skeptical and following “experts” like former CDC director Tom Freiden and WHO director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
Another organization, Shots Heard Round The World, describes itself as a “digital cavalry dedicated to protecting the social media pages of health care providers and practices.” Founded by pediatrician Todd Wolynn, the organization’s motto is “When Anti-Vaxxers Attack, We Fight Back.”[v] These practitioners describe the vaccine hesitant as “anti-science, anti-vaxx terrorists” and offer a downloadable toolkit for fighting back.
But treating those who challenge the vaccine paradigm like the enemy is unlikely to enlist the cooperation of parents or promote vaccine confidence. And Stronger.org may have missed the mark with its misinformation claims. Other public health authorities are finally beginning to acknowledge that resolving vaccine hesitancy is more than a matter of messaging. And some even lend legitimacy to the concerns of reluctant parents.
At the 2019 Global Vaccine Safety Summit, Dr. Heidi Larson, director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, acknowledged:
“There’s a lot of safety science that’s needed and without the good science we can’t have good communication… you can’t just repurpose the same old science to make it sound better if you don’t have the science that’s relevant to the new problems. So we need much more investment in safety science.”[vi]
WHO’s Chief Scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, seems to agree. At the same event, she said:
“I don’t think we can overemphasize the fact that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring in many countries, and this adds to the miscommunication the misapprehensions because we’re not able to give clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine. And this always gets blown up in the media.”
Given this, perhaps it’s time for a different approach. So far, virtually every attempt to address vaccine hesitancy has relied on denial, dismissal, censorship, shaming and even coercion, and most have resulted in louder voices and a growing number of people asking questions.
If our legislators and public health authorities are truly concerned about improving vaccine compliance without resorting to coercion, they will have to stop and examine the concerns of the vaccine hesitant. Here are some ways that public health agencies and media can begin a process to restore trust in the vaccination program:
1. Ditch the Name-Calling and Gaslighting
For starters, the term “anti-vaxxer” is misinformation, as most of these people start out believing that vaccines are the public health panacea they claim to be. “Pro-Informed Consent” is a much more accurate designation, which is why this community is so active in sharing what they know about adjuvants, clinical trials, legislation and science related to vaccines.
The majority of these people simply believe that people have the right to do their own risk/benefit analysis before injecting something into their bodies. Many, if not most, of these people have received vaccines and have given at least some to their children. Some continue to give vaccines, but want to do so on their own terms, while still others simply oppose vaccine mandates. At some point, most of them have witnessed vaccine injury with their own eyes or heard accounts of adverse events from people they trust.
For some, there’s an undeniable and direct connection while others carry suspicions that are gradually confirmed as they read studies and learn more about vaccine ingredients. Many are mothers who have suffered profoundly and are still healing from the guilt of ignoring their own instincts and subjecting a child to harm. While insults and ridicule may successfully silence people temporarily, those same people tend to learn very quickly that there’s no science behind those insults and they’re often motivated to learn more.
2. Stop Using Fear
At a 2017 panel titled “Communicating Vaccine Science and Advancing Vaccine Impact,” pro-vaccine advocate and co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine Paul Offit asserted that “fear sells” [vii] and suggested that an outbreak was the most successful way of bringing about vaccine compliance. But fear works both ways.
And as more people learn about the real risks associated with vaccines and cultivate a deeper understanding of the immune system and its ability to navigate common childhood infections, fears become focused on the potential harm of neurotoxic adjuvants and a rapidly growing CDC-recommended vaccination schedule. Furthermore, the fastest way to lose the trust of a patient or parent is to use fear to elicit consent for a vaccine that ultimately produces harm. And once experienced, the fear of another vaccine injury never goes away.
3. Hear Out the Concerns
People have legitimate questions about vaccine safety. Over the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, many people are learning about the adverse events associated with vaccines and they have questions. Some are just learning that vaccines are liability-free products that may contain fetal cells and ingredients from various animals. Many are discovering that “safe and effective” claims are based on flawed clinical trials that use comparator vaccines instead of inert placebos and only track adverse events for a very short period of time.
Still others have been told that their experiences are “coincidences” only to discover that their ailments are listed among reported adverse events in vaccine manufacturer inserts. Shutting down conversations about these concerns and censoring information only serves to fuel a growing mistrust of “experts” and regulatory agencies. If “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” imagine trying to silence a mother who has watched her child suffer a debilitating and life-altering injury. When it comes to the health of their children, parents will not be silenced, particularly once they’re properly informed.
4. Acknowledge Shortcomings and Address the Concerns
It’s becoming increasingly apparent that there are problems with our vaccination program. At this point, the holes in the science are large enough to fit tens of thousands of children (and adults) who now suffer from chronic disease and “mystery” ailments. And while we may not agree on the cause of this chronic illness epidemic, we can likely agree that “We don’t know what causes it, but it’s NOT the vaccine” is neither science nor progress.
Despite all of the mantras about science, there is very little scientific discourse when it comes to defending vaccines. Science has taken a backseat to messaging in the vaccine debate. As a result, we have prestigious institutions like Yale University opting to focus its research efforts on a clinical trial designed to see which persuasive messages were most likely to produce Covid-19 vaccine compliance.[viii]
But without a truly safe and effective product, these efforts are in vain. As Dr. Heidi Larson suggested, “We need much more investment in safety science.” We also need to have thoughtful conversations about other ways to address health. It would serve us all to remember that health, not compliance, is our ultimate goal. It’s time to have hard conversations about how a vaccination program truly fits in with regards to reaching that goal and whether our heavy reliance on it has served us.
5. Don’t try to Beat Them — Join Them
Skeptics are a valuable resource. People who demand progress are the ones who drive it and these folks are challenging the scientific community to improve on a paradigm that has been coasting on our faith in it for decades. Surely we can all acknowledge there is room for improvement. While we may not come to the same conclusions on our risk/benefit analyses of vaccines, we can probably agree that one-size-fits-all is an imperfect way of applying medical interventions.
Find ways to join them in supporting good ideas and better science, perhaps by working together to protect and strengthen the doctor-patient relationship or making manufacturer inserts more readily available to vaccine recipients. Work with them to eliminate conflicts of interests so that we don’t always have to wonder whether our news outlet or legislator is simply regurgitating the agendized message of a pharmaceutical sponsor.
Join them in calling for the use of inert placebos in vaccine clinical trials and pausing to study alarming correlations between vaccines and a multitude of health conditions (instead of saying “correlation is not causation”). Initiate discussions about the expansion and protection of medical exemptions so that no one who is vulnerable to vaccine injury is required to get a vaccine. Surely not ALL of these concerns are limited to “conspiracy theorists”?
The people who raise concerns about vaccines are not enemies of science. They are its conscience. Listen to them.
[vii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxN7EVWyQzA – Paul Offit “Fear Sells”
[viii] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04460703?term=Vaccine&cond=Covid19&cntry=US&draw=2 – vaccine messaging
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
© 15th November 2020 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC.
Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here:
Reproduced from original article:
Posted on: Thursday, November 12th 2020 at 1:45 pm
Written By: GreenMedInfo Research Group
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2020
Social media fact-checking organizations are not the independent public health watchdogs they’re made out to be. Fact checkers for Facebook are funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has given more than $250 million in grants to steer media outlets
In what it describes as a commitment to “fighting the spread of misinformation,”[i] Facebook claims to work with “independent, third-party fact-checking organizations” to review content and take action against that deemed to be “viral misinformation” or fake news.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has stated that when a post is identified as misinformation, meaning it’s given a warning label as such by Facebook, it results in users not clicking through 95% of the time.[ii]
While presented as a tool to protect the public, what it amounts to is blatant censorship, which can easily push certain agendas into public view while silencing others. Facebook, again, claims to be unbiased, but several of its fact-checking partners receive funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, raising serious questions about conflicts of interest.
Gates Foundation Funds Prominent ‘Fact Checkers’
Who’s behind Facebook’s fact-checking? Africa Check is one fact-checking organization, which launched in 2018 across five sub-Saharan Africa countries. In 2019, they announced they were expanding coverage to prevent fake news from spreading across 10 more languages, including Swahili in Kenya, Wolof in Senegal and Afrikaans in South Africa.[iii]
In August 2019, the Gates Foundation paid $1,478,700 to Africa Check, for the reported purposes of advocacy to increase the accuracy of health claims made by public figures and promote the use of evidence-backed information by the media and others in terms of public health and development issues.[iv] An additional $445,760 grant was also paid to Africa Check by the Gates Foundation in 2017.[v]
Yet, in the Columbia Journalism Review, journalist Tim Schwab said he found 16 examples of Africa Check fact-checking media claims about Gates, and all of them — save one correction about an incorrect malaria statistic — were supportive or defensive of Bill and Melinda Gates and/or their foundation.[vi]
The Poynter Institute is another of the Gates’ Foundations beneficiaries, receiving a $382,997 grant from Gates in November 2015 “to improve the accuracy in worldwide media of claims related to global health and development.”[vii]
The Poynter Institute’s International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) certifies Facebook’s fact-checking organizations, which must adhere to their code of principles.[viii] And, adding in one more layer of conflict, Facebook is also a major donor to Poynter and its subsidiary PolitiFact.[ix]
Is Bill Gates Media’s Puppet Master?
Bill Gates has emerged as a powerful figure in public health, despite holding no medical degree. Aside from being a top funder of the World Health Organization (WHO),[x] the Gates Foundation funds a number of mainstream media outlets, yielding a potentially disturbing level of control over the free press.
According to Schwab, “I recently examined nearly twenty thousand charitable grants the Gates Foundation had made through the end of June and found more than $250 million going toward journalism.”[xi] Recipients of Gates Foundation grants include:[xii]
The Financial Times
The Texas Tribune
The Center for Investigative Reporting
Throwing money at the media means favorable press is a given, and the internet is awash in pieces praising the Gates Foundation’s charitable endeavors. Gannett’s USA Today is one example that has been quick to defend Gates from criticism, including claims that he would profit from the drug remdesivir.[xiii]
The Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact, another one of Facebook’s fact-checking partners,[xiv] also pushed back against claims that the Gates foundation would profit from a COVID-19 vaccine, stating, “False claims about the Gates Foundation’s connection to the novel coronavirus know no borders” and adding that such “fake news” posts on social media would be “flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.”[xv]
Just how far Gates’ puppet strings over the media extend remain unknown, Schwab reported, because the foundation only discloses charitable grants, not contracts, except for one with media outlet Vox.
“In the same way that the news media has given Gates an outsize voice in the pandemic, the foundation has long used its charitable giving to shape the public discourse on everything from global health to education to agriculture — a level of influence that has landed Bill Gates on Forbes’s list of the most powerful people in the world,” Schwab wrote.[xvi]
Facebook Sued for Censorship
In a lawsuit filed against Facebook, Zuckerberg and the fact-checking organizations Science Feedback, Poynter Institute and its subsidiary Politifact, nonprofit group Children’s Health Defense (CHD) alleges that Facebook censored information it shared regarding vaccine safety and 5G health concerns.[xvii]
In their lawsuit, they compared Facebook to the printing presses of 17th century England, through which the government controlled free speech. They allege that government actors, namely the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and WHO, actively partnered with Facebook to censor CHD’s speech critical of government policy.
In regard to Facebook and Zuckerberg, the suit alleges, “At a time when the social media platform and its creator claim to be exponents of free expression and the scientific method for discovering truth, this case reveals the opposite: that they are indeed censors, and opponents of real science and open debate.”[xviii]
As the line between what constitutes real and fake news becomes increasingly, and perhaps intentionally, blurred, be sure to look beyond mainstream and social media’s seal of approval in your own search for truth.
[ii] Reclaimthenet.org May 21, 2020 https://reclaimthenet.org/zuckerberg-defends-censoring/
[iii] Africa-Newsroom August 14, 2019 https://www.africa-newsroom.com/press/facebook-together-with-africa-check-expands-its-local-language-coverage-as-part-of-its-thirdparty-factchecking-programme?lang=en
[iv] Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Grants, Africa Check https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2019/08/OPP1214960
[v] Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Grants, Africa Check https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2017/09/OPP1176188
[vi] Columbia Journalism Review August 21, 2020 https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php
[vii] Gates Foundation, Grants, The Poynter Institute for Media, Studies https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2015/11/OPP1138320
[ix] Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook August 17, 2020 https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/FACEBOOK-COMPLAINT-DKT-1-08-17-2020-a.pdf
[xi] Columbia Journalism Review August 21, 2020 https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php
[xii] Columbia Journalism Review August 21, 2020 https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php
[xiv] Reclaimthenet August 21, 2020 https://reclaimthenet.org/gates-foundation-funds-facebook-fact-checkers/
[xvi] Columbia Journalism Review August 21, 2020 https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php
[xvii] Reclaimthenet August 19, 2020 https://reclaimthenet.org/childrens-health-defense-sues-facebook/
[xviii] Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook August 17, 2020 https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/FACEBOOK-COMPLAINT-DKT-1-08-17-2020-a.pdf
Reproduced from original article:
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked November 06, 2020
- To transform government so that it will reward the rich with more wealth, the elite must eliminate civil rights, and the first civil right that must be eliminated is the freedom of speech
- Totalitarian takeovers always begin with censorship of speech because all other civil rights depend on the ability to speak freely. Censorship is also required for the subversion of democracy
- The COVID-19 pandemic is being used to subvert democracy and implement a long-held plan to transition society into a technocratic society governed by unelected leaders
- To win, we must stand united. We must put aside our quibbles over nonessential things like race, religion and political affiliations, and focus on the real enemy
- To prevent this global takeover, we must work through the democratic process. We must reclaim our democracy from the globalists who are subverting it and imposing totalitarian controls over society
October 24, 2020, Robert F. Kennedy, founder of Children’s Health Defense, gave this online “International Message of Hope for Humanity” speech.1
The speech was a kickoff of sorts to an international day of protest against the coup d’état by big tech, big oil and chemical companies, and “the global public health cartel” led by Bill Gates and the World Health Organization that seeks to magnify its wealth and power over our lives, remove our liberties, subvert democracy and “destroy our sovereignty and our control over our lives and our children’s health.”
Fear Is the Tool of Tyrants
Kennedy reminds us of Franklin Roosevelt’s famous quote: “The only thing that we have to fear is fear itself,” as it speaks directly to the fact that the only way this global takeover can occur is if we remain in fear. As noted by Kennedy:
“We grow up hearing that but people don’t really understand what it means. It was a very, very profound warning by Roosevelt, because he saw what the Great Depression was doing in eastern Europe, Italy, Germany and Spain. That crisis was turning people towards fascism in the eastern countries.
The same crisis was turning citizens and governments towards communism and also causing the collapse of governments all over the world. In the United States … almost a third of the people were completely disillusioned with capitalism and wanted to turn to communism. Another third wanted to turn to fascism.
Franklin Roosevelt wanted to preserve our country for democracy, for free market capitalism, for civil rights and to preserve our constitution. He recognized that the weapon of authoritarian control was going to be fear.”
Fearmongering and false propaganda about the risks posed by COVID-19 has led many to unquestioningly abdicate their civil liberties over the past eight months. Yet, when you look at the facts, there’s really no reason to live in fear, and even less reason to give up our rights and liberties to protect us from the relatively minor risks that do exist. Kennedy says:
“When I spoke a few weeks ago in Berlin, I reminded the people of Germany of a famous story that happened during the Nuremberg trials after World War II when Hitler’s closest Lieutenant, the head of the Luftwaffe, Hermann Goering, was asked by one of the prosecutors:
‘How did you get the German people, the most educated people in the world, some of the most tolerant people in the world — the Weimar republic was one of the strongest democracies in the world — how did you take these people who were so well educated, so awakened and so tolerant, and turn them into obedient slaves who committed some of the worst atrocities in human history?’
Goering said, ‘Oh, that’s a simple thing … and it works not just in a fascist government but it works in a democracy, in a monarchy, in a communist government, in any government … The job of the government is to put the people in fear, and if you can keep them in fear, you can get them to do anything that you want them to do. They will turn into sheep.’”
The Shock Doctrine
Kennedy recommends reading Naomi Klein’s book, “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,” which provides a chronology of instances in American and global history when authoritarian elements exerted and augmented their control by capitalizing on disaster.
In order to transform the government so that it will reward the rich with even more wealth, the people who want to do that, in the large corporations … have to get rid of civil rights. And the first civil right they begin with is freedom of speech. ~ Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
A handful of examples include the Great Depression, the 1973 financial collapse in Chile, the World Trade Center bombing, the 2008 financial collapse and 9/11. These crises allowed large corporations and wealthy oligarchs to transfer wealth upward, obliterating the middle-class in the process, and implement more totalitarian controls of the population. The exact same thing is happening now, and it’s clear for anyone willing to look at the facts.
“Of course, it’s an obvious thing that people who are used to voting for their governments are not going to vote for policies that make rich people richer, that give corporations even more power over their lives, that reduce democracy and reduce civil rights.
In order to transform the government so that it will reward the rich with even more wealth, the people who want to do that, in the large corporations … have to get rid of civil rights. And the first civil right they begin with is freedom of speech,” Kennedy says.
Censorship Erodes and Eliminates All Human Rights
The reason why totalitarian takeovers always begin with the censorship of speech is because all other rights depend on the ability to express your views and concerns freely. That’s why freedom of speech is the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Remove the First Amendment, and all the others are automatically nullified.
For example, without free speech, you cannot exercise your freedom of assembly. Indeed, today, people are being arrested for being in groups larger than six, or 10, or whatever arbitrary number has been dictated by the local or state leadership to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
And without freedom of assembly, your freedom of religion goes down the tubes. As noted by Kennedy, all human rights can be and are subverted once you impose censorship. Censorship is also anathema to democracy.
“If a government can hide what it’s doing, it can get away with anything it wants. If a corporation can lie to you and conceal information, if there’s no transparency, you do not have a democracy,” Kennedy warns.
Indeed, democracy requires freedom of speech. How can you have a democratic society if only one side of any argument is allowed to be heard? The media and online censorship we’re now seeing is really an unprecedented attack by nonelected corporate leaders on democracy around the world.
“The coup d’état that we are all fighting today is a coup d’état that starts with a conspiracy between the government agencies and the big technology companies, the Silicon Valley billionaires.
People like Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, the people who run Google, Facebook and Pinterest and all of these other Silicon Valley corporations are now in this conspiracy to make sure that we cannot talk about our grievances,” Kennedy says. “We cannot say bad things about pharmaceutical products, we cannot question government policies that make no sense to us.”
Essential Questions That Must Be Answered
He points out there are important questions that must be asked and answered. Among them, what is the origin of SARS-CoV-2? Why do we still not have an answer to this question?
“We need to know that. This is the worst calamity in history and nobody seems curious about where this actually comes from? We know it didn’t come from a bat in the wet market in Wuhan. That story was a fable that has no basis in fact.
We have Nobel laureates, we have large institutions, investigative agencies and prosecutorial agencies saying ‘We think it came from the Wuhan lab and we think it may have come from studies that were funded by Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci’ …
Why, instead of sending their police to suppress dissent, are they not sending the police to question people who may know the answer to that question?” Kennedy says.
Another question that demands an answer is, why are face masks being mandated if there is no science to show that they reduce infection rates? As noted by Kennedy:
“I’m very willing to accept it if the masks work … But the studies I’ve seen indicate that they do not work against viral transmission, for the most part. There are some that say they may work under limited circumstances. What I don’t want to be told is: ‘They work, you’re going to wear them and you better not ask questions about it.’
Most Americans, and most of the people on this planet, want leadership. We don’t want bullying. And we know the difference between bullying and leadership. We want to know the truth about hydroxychloroquine. We want to know, why are we spending $18 billion on vaccines and only $1.4 billion on therapeutic drugs? What is the sense of that?
There are many, many other questions that we, in a democracy, have a right to have answered without being called conspiracy theorists. Without being vilified as being ‘inconsiderate’ or being ‘bad citizens.’”
How to Win This Battle
We’re fighting a technocratic machine that has enormous resources, including the surveillance technology to shut down a vast majority of dissenters. So, how can we possibly win? The answer, Kennedy says, is through the democratic process.
“The only way we can win it is with democracy,” he says. “We need to fight to get our democracy back, to reclaim our democracy from these villains who are stealing it from us. You notice the people who are getting richest from this quarantine are the same people who are censoring criticism of the quarantine.
Who is becoming the richest? Jeffrey Bezos; $83 billion he’s made. He owns Amazon and he is censoring books that criticize the quarantine. Zuckerberg, who owns Facebook, who’s made tens of billions of dollars by this quarantine, he is censoring information that is critical of the quarantine.
He censors my Instagram. He censors my Facebook. My Twitter page is also censored. And all of these people are the people who are making billions of dollars on the quarantine. And what I want to know is a simple question: Is the quarantine actually effective?”
There have been many pandemics in the past. In 1968 and 1969, the Hong Kong flu pandemic2 killed 100,000 people in the United States, which is equivalent to 200,000 people today when you adjust for population growth — about the same number allegedly killed by COVID-19.
There were no lockdowns or mask mandates back then. On the contrary, people attended Woodstock and the Democratic Convention in Chicago in large numbers. We also sent the first manned mission to the moon.
Keeping a Sane Perspective
Kennedy also reminds us to maintain perspective on the pandemic by remembering there are many other infectious diseases that claim far more lives than COVID-19, yet do not disrupt normal life at all, and never have.
“We have 1.6 million people die every year from tuberculosis,” he says. “We’re not wearing masks. We’re not on lockdown. What’s the difference between tuberculosis and coronavirus?
Tuberculosis has a vaccine and the vaccine costs about $3. That’s why we’re not on lockdown. Because nobody is making $39 a vaccine or $300 a vaccine, the way Moderna and AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are making from this catastrophe. That is the only reason that I can think of. I’m happy if somebody tells me there’s another reason. But let’s hear it. Don’t just shut me up. Don’t just tell me that I can’t debate.”
United We Win, Divided We Lose
Kennedy also stresses another crucial point, namely the need to stick together. We must put aside our quibbles over nonessential things like race, religion and political affiliations, and focus on the real enemy.
“We need to come out on the street and we need to stick together,” Kennedy says. “What the Big Tech villains and scoundrels — Mark Zuckerberg, Jeffrey Bezos, Bill Gates and Tony Fauci — want us to do is fight with each other.
They want Blacks fighting against whites. They want republicans fighting against democrats. They want everybody polarized. They want everybody fragmented because they know that if we all get together, we’re going to start asking questions and those are questions they can’t answer.
‘Why are you getting rich and why are we all getting poor?’ ‘Why are we not wearing masks for tuberculosis but we are for the coronavirus?’ ‘Where did it all come from?’ All of those questions we deserve an answer to, and we’re not getting answers.
We need to stick together. If you’re a republican or democrat, stop talking about that. Stop identifying yourself.
The enemy is Big Tech, Big Data, Big Oil, Big Pharma, the medical cartel, the government totalitarian elements that are trying to oppress us, that are trying to rob us of our liberties, of our democracy, of our freedom of thought, of our freedom of expression, of our freedom of assembly and all of the freedoms that give dignity to humanity.”
Stay Informed and Join the Fight
Lastly, we need to get educated and stay informed. Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to start seeing the big plan. Look at the facts, and look where that takes us. I’ve written several in-depth articles about the technocratic agenda, surveillance capitalism and the global takeover, also advertised as the Great Reset. If you missed them, set aside some time to go through it all.
In his speech, Kennedy also announced the launch of a new online daily journal — The Defender — by the Children’s Health Defense.
“We are going to weaponize information for you,” he says. “We’re going to tell you what the newest science is. We’re going to take all the information that is censored everywhere else and we’re going to reprint it in our publication, and you can get that every day.
So, if you see something that is censored, we want to hear about it. We are going to be the enemies of censorship. We are going to be the refuge. And we’re going to allow debate. We’re going to encourage people to be non-partisan, but we’re going to allow people to have different opinions than us.
We are not scared of debate the way pharmaceutical companies, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeffrey Bezos and Tony Fauci are terrified of debate.
We welcome debate … and I want to see your science. I want the public to hear us talking about it, debating about it, because the free-flow of information, the cauldron of debate, is the only thing that allows governments to develop rational policies in which self-governance will actually work and triumph.
You are on the front lines of the most important battle in history — the battle to save democracy, freedom, human liberty and human dignity from this totalitarian cartel that is trying to rob us, simultaneously, in every nation in the world, of the rights that every human being is born with.
So, thank you for your courage, thank you for your commitment, and thank you for your brotherhood. And I pledge to you: I will go down dying with my boots on, fighting side-by-side with all of you to make sure that we return these rights and preserve them for our children.”
Reproduced from original article:
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked September 29, 2020
- In a September 2020 interview, Melinda Gates said “It may be time for a reckoning” with social media’s role in spreading disinformation, yet the Gates Foundation has a history of funding disreputable science
- What the Gates call “disinformation” and “conspiracy theories” are often information exposing the Gates Foundation’s own disinformation campaigns
- The Gates Foundation funds the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, a leading body advising world governments and the World Health Organization about infectious disease outbreaks
- MRC Centre was co-founded by Neil Ferguson, a professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College London. Ferguson has produced a string of pandemic predictions over the past two decades that have turned out to be incorrect, including his Imperial College model for COVID-19, which predicted 2.2 million Americans would die if no action was taken
- Based on the experiences of certain countries that chose not to lock down or mandate draconian disease prevention measures, such as Sweden, we can now see that authoritarian pandemic responses have had little if any beneficial impact
In a September 2020 interview with Axios on HBO, Melinda Gates said “It may be time for a reckoning” with social media’s role in spreading disinformation. According to Axios:1
“Bill and Melinda Gates … [have] seen firsthand the impact of disinformation, as they’ve become targets of conspiracy theories amplified and spread via social media … [Melinda] Gates … said society may need to start holding social media companies to account for their role in helping such disinformation spread.”
It’s ironic, to say the least, considering the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funds and influences mainstream media companies, which in turn write whatever the Gates desire, be it truthful or not, without disclosing their conflict of interest.
Through its grants to the Leo Burnett Company, an ad agency owned by Publicis, the Gates Foundation is also financially linked to NewsGuard and HealthGuard, as both of these “fact-checking” sites are funded by Publicis. As such, Gates already has the power to pull strings and censor content they don’t like.
Gates Foundation Funds Scientific Disinformation
The Gates Foundation also has a history of funding disreputable and flawed to the point of being fraudulent science. What they call “disinformation” and “conspiracy theories” are to a large extent merely information exposing the Gates Foundation’s own disinformation campaigns.
Case in point: The Gates Foundation funds the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis to the tune of millions of dollars per year. The MRC Centre is the leading body advising world governments and the World Health Organization about infectious disease outbreaks.
Neil Ferguson, a professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College London and co-founder of the MRC Centre, has produced a string of pandemic predictions that have turned out to be spectacularly incorrect:2,3
• In 2001, Ferguson’s team produced a model for the spread of foot and mouth disease in British livestock, concluding that even in cases where there was no evidence of infection, animals had to be culled to curtail the outbreak.
The projection led to the slaughter of more than 6 million cattle, sheep and pigs in the U.K. that year, costing the national economy an estimated £10 billion. As reported by Spectator:4
“It has been claimed by experts such as Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, that Ferguson’s modelling on foot and mouth was ‘severely flawed’ and made a ‘serious error’ by ‘ignoring the species composition of farms,’ and the fact that the disease spread faster between different species.”
• In 2002, Ferguson predicted that by 2080, beef tainted with mad cow disease could kill up to 50,000 people, with a worst-case scenario killing 150,000.5 As of 2015, there had only been 177 human deaths attributable to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the U.K., the human version of mad cow disease.6
• In 2005, Ferguson forecasted that 200 million people would die from bird flu. Meanwhile, in the real world, just 282 people died from bird flu, worldwide, between 2003 and 2009.7
• In 2009, Ferguson predicted the swine flu would have a case fatality rate of 0.3% to 1.5%, with the most likely fatality rate being right around 0.4%. Based on this model, the U.K.’s projected death toll was 65,000. Once the pandemic ended, it turned out to have a death rate of just 0.026%, killing just 457 Britons.8
• In 2020, Ferguson’s Imperial College model for COVID-19, relied on by governments around the world, led to the most draconian pandemic response measures in modern history. It predicted9 the U.K. would be looking at a death toll of more than 500,000, and the U.S. some 2.2 million, if no action was taken.
Based on the experiences of certain countries that chose not to lock down or mandate draconian disease prevention measures, such as Sweden, we can now see that authoritarian pandemic responses have had little if any beneficial impact.
According to Ferguson, his woefully incorrect prediction was based on “undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic,” the National Review reported.10
Analyses11,12 of the problematic bugs in the code have been published by a software engineer on LockdownSceptics.org. According to the author, the Imperial College has made a number of false statements and claims about this code.
In May 2020, Ferguson — nicknamed “Professor Lockdown” — resigned as government adviser to the U.K. after being caught breaking the very lockdown and social distancing rules he so strongly advocated for, to meet up with his married lover.13
Science for Hire
Ferguson’s predictions have been so far off the mark, fellow academics have started referring to him as “The Master of Disaster.”14 Jan Schnitzer, a vascular biology expert and former scientific director of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in San Diego is quoted15 saying Ferguson “dances on the edge of being a publicity-seeking charlatan.”
You’d think that with this kind of abysmal track record, funding would have dried up long before COVID-19 hit. But no. This is precisely the kind of convenient disinformation and gross overestimation of risk that Gates needs and relies on to drive his own vaccine and tech agendas forward.
The coronavirus pandemic and lockdown have revealed even more clearly how we are being reduced to objects to be controlled, with our bodies and minds as the new colonies to be invaded … The extended coronavirus lockdown has been a lab experiment for a future without humanity. ~ Vandana Shiva
Gates also has close links to Dr. Anthony Fauci, a key member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, so it’s hard to imagine Fauci has not been given a few talking points here and there to help shepherd the masses.
Fauci was a member of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Grand Challenges scientific board16 (described as a “family of initiatives fostering innovation to solve key global health and development problems”17) from 2003 until 2010, at which time he joined the Leadership Council of the Gates Foundation’s Decade of Vaccines Collaboration.18
In 2012, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, of which Fauci has been the director since 1984, also began forging close ties with GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance.19 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation founded GAVI in 1999 and has permanent seats on its board of directors.20
Gates’ War on Life
In a September 2020 article,21 environmental activist Vandana Shiva reviews Gates’ global agenda and “war on life,” highlighting the March 2015 TED Talk22 he gave in which he showed an image of a coronavirus. This, he said, was what “the greatest catastrophe of our time would look like,” Shiva writes, adding:
“When the coronavirus pandemic swept over the earth like a tsunami five years later, he revived the war language, describing the pandemic as ‘a world war’ … In fact, the pandemic is not a war. The pandemic is a consequence of war. A war against life …
The health emergency of the coronavirus is inseparable from the health emergency of extinction, the health emergency of biodiversity loss … [T]hese emergencies are rooted in an economic model based on the illusion of limitless growth and limitless greed, which violate planetary boundaries, and destroy the integrity of ecosystems and individual species
According to the International Labour Organization,23 ‘1.6 billion informal economy workers (representing the most vulnerable in the labor market), out of a worldwide total of 2 billion and a global workforce of 3.3 billion, have suffered massive damage to their capacity to earn a living. This is due to lockdown measures and/or because they work in the hardest-hit sectors.’
According to the World Food Programme,24 a quarter of a billion additional people will be pushed to hunger and 300,000 could die every day … Killing cannot be a prescription for saving lives.
Health is about life and living systems. There is no ‘life’ in the paradigm of health that Bill Gates and his ilk are promoting and imposing on the entire world. Gates has created global alliances to impose top-down analysis and prescriptions for health problems.
He gives money to define the problems, and then he uses his influence and money to impose the solutions. And in the process, he gets richer. His ‘funding’ results in an erasure of democracy and biodiversity, of nature and culture. His ‘philanthropy’ is not just philanthrocapitalism. It is philanthroimperialism.
The coronavirus pandemic and lockdown have revealed even more clearly how we are being reduced to objects to be controlled, with our bodies and minds as the new colonies to be invaded … The extended coronavirus lockdown has been a lab experiment for a future without humanity.”
Cryptocurrency System Based on Human Body Activity
Shiva goes on to review a patent granted to Microsoft the last week of March 2020, for a cryptocurrency system based on human body activity. Everything from brain activity and body fluid flows to organ activity and various muscle movements is to be used to mine for cryptocurrency in this system.
Coincidentally, the number on this patent is 060606. Remove the zeros and you end up with the ill-fated number “666,” which also happens to show up in the monstrously unconstitutional U.S. surveillance bill H.R. 6666.
“The patent is an intellectual property claim over our bodies and minds,” Shiva writes.25 “In colonialism, colonizers assign themselves the right to take the land and resources of indigenous people, extinguish their cultures and sovereignty, and in extreme cases exterminate them.
Patent WO 060606 is a declaration by Microsoft that our bodies and minds are its new colonies. We are mines of ‘raw material’ — the data extracted from our bodies.
Rather than sovereign, spiritual, conscious, intelligent beings making decisions and choices with wisdom and ethical values about the impacts of our actions on the natural and social world of which we are a part, and to which we are inextricably related, we are ‘users.’ A ‘user’ is a consumer without choice in the digital empire.”
Ultimately, Gates vision, Shiva says, includes the colonization of our children’s minds and bodies “before they even have the opportunity to understand what freedom and sovereignty look and feel like.” To this end, Gates is working on reinventing education.
“The dystopia is one where children never return to schools, do not have a chance to play, do not have friends. It is a world without society, without relationships, without love and friendship,” she writes.
Indeed, the COVID-19 lockdowns and social distancing rules have repeatedly been referred to as “the new normal.” If the technocrats get their way, there will essentially be three kinds of people in the world: The uber-rich top echelon to whom rules don’t apply, digital slaves, and disposables — people who have no value in this new digital empire. If this doesn’t sound like the life we want to live, we must, as Shiva proposes, resist. And we must start now.
“We can seed another future, deepen our democracies, reclaim our commons, regenerate the earth as living members of a One Earth Family, rich in our diversity and freedom, one in our unity and interconnectedness. It is a healthier future. It is one we must fight for. It is one we must claim,” Shiva writes.
Are We in a Deadly Dilemma?
We now face what, for some, is a choice between two evils: Living with SARS-CoV-2, or continue hiding from it. I say “for some,” because others have accepted the data showing that COVID-19, in terms of lethality, is no worse than influenza, poses an exceptionally low risk for people under the age of 40 and virtually no risk at all to young adults and children.
The WHO has published data showing the overall infection mortality rate COVID-19 is about 0.6%,26 and according to CDC data27 released August 26, 2020, only 6% of the total COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate.
A September 2, 2020 study28 found the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio was a mere 0.26%. Among those under the age of 40, the infection fatality ratio is 0.01%, while those over 60 have an infection fatality ratio of 1.71%.
The estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza is 0.8%,29 so this shows the only people for whom SARS-CoV-2 infection is more dangerous than influenza is those over the age of 60. Everyone else has a lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than they have of dying from the flu.
White House coronavirus task force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx also confirmed a lower than typically reported mortality rate when she, in mid-August 2020, stated that it “becomes more and more difficult” to get people to comply with mask rules “when people start to realize that 99% of us are going to be fine.”30
In her August 16, 2020, Doctor for Disaster Preparedness31 lecture, Dr. Lee Merritt points out that based on deaths per capita, the death rate for COVID-19, worldwide, is a minuscule 0.009% (709,000 people have died from or with COVID-19 around the world, and the global population is 7.8 billion). So, the average person’s chance of surviving this disease is 99.991%.
Live Life or Hide Until You Die
Under normal circumstances, these data would convince just about everyone that COVID-19 is not a significant threat. Certainly, not sufficient to meekly relinquish our most basic human rights. Unfortunately, months of hardcore fear-mongering and censorship, largely spearheaded by Gates and the WHO, which Gates is the largest funder of, has led to a situation where people fear COVID-19 more than just about everything else.
It is with that mindset that some people find themselves having to make a choice to either live with the threat of COVID-19, or continue hiding from it, which means ceasing to live indefinitely. As noted in an “open letter to world leaders” published on Secret-Retreats.com, the path of hiding:32
“… has but one outcome, to condemn entire populations to misery, poverty, hunger, economic ruin and physical death. There is no hope in this path. COVID is here to stay. We will probably never have an effective vaccine (viruses by their very nature constantly mutate) and so there is no hope of a safe exit from this strategy …
The endgame of this strategy of closing a country, is the total destruction of that country’s economy, immense damage to the health and welfare of society, and plunging that country’s future into darkness.”
Meanwhile, the other path, the path of accepting the risks associated with life, COVID-19 included:
“… offers a path where there is hope for the future. Where life can go on as normal for the vast majority. It is a path where the rewards will far outweigh the cost … [It] has become clear that for the vast majority of people COVID presents no real risk of harm or even symptomatic illness.
But is it possible to live without risk? Clearly not. A life without risk is impossible. Is it possible to escape death? No. It is the very condition of living; life is terminal for us all. And death comes to us in 1000s of forms, not simply COVID. We cannot hide from death. How many people have died through hiding in fear from a perceived threat from COVID?
How many people are dying daily as a direct result of COVID policies through limited access to hospitals, health screening not happening, cancer treatments not happening in a timely manner, economic ruin driving people to make poor life choices and turning to alcohol, drugs or suicide as the solution to the problems dealt to them by COVID policies? …
What do we gain from these lockdowns, border closure policies? Between a certain death and a hypothetical risk, isn’t it better to choose the risk? The risk of living life. Why do you, our world leaders, continue to choose to keep us all locked within this eel trap of your own making?
Why don’t you make what is clearly, and backed by the science … the only sensible choice, of learning to live with COVID and allowing us to get back to living LIFE? …
Let’s dare to live with risk, as humans have done successfully since the dawn of time. We are at risk of jeopardizing the vast majority in the name of possibly protecting the few people who are at risk of serious illness or death from COVID.
And it is only ‘possibly protecting’ as even with these policies in place the risk of infection is still there and always will be. COVID is here now, and it is going nowhere, it is time we learned to LIVE with it.”
Bill and Melinda Gates’ fight against “disinformation” is really a fight against facts showing that the technocratic takeover is not an inevitable outcome of a global pandemic, but rather the result of a long-term well-planned effort.
If you haven’t taken steps to extricate yourself from their digital grasp as of yet, now’s the time to do it. For tips and guidance, see “Harvard Professor Exposes Surveillance Capitalism.”
- 1 Axios September 15, 2020
- 2, 4, 7, 8 Spectator April 16, 2020
- 3 Twitter Saifedean.com
- 5 Nature January 24, 2002 ;415(6870):420-4
- 6 Independent October 1, 2015
- 9 Nature April 2, 2020
- 10 National Review May 6, 2020
- 11 Lockdown Sceptics Updated May 10, 2020
- 12 Lockdown Sceptics May 9, 2020
- 13 Insider May 5, 2020
- 14, 15 KFiam640.iheart.com May 7, 2020
- 16 Gates Foundation Global Grand Challenges Scientific Board
- 17 Global Grand Challenges, About
- 18 Gates Foundation, Global health leaders launch decade of vaccines collaboration
- 19 GAVI.org, Fauci: Forging closer ties with GAVI
- 20 Viable Opposition Blog May 2020
- 21, 25 Independent Science News September 21, 2020
- 22 Bill Gates Ted Talk 2015
- 23 ILO.org COVID-19: Stimulating the economy and employment
- 24 The Washington Post April 22, 2020
- 26 Tate N. What Changing Death Rates Tell Us About COVID-19. WebMD Sept. 1, 2020.
- 27 CDC.gov August 26, 2020
- 28, 29 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
- 30 Eldorado News-Times August 18, 2020
- 31 Doctors for Disaster Preparedness
- 32 Secret-retreats.com September 17, 2020
© 18th September 2020 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc.
Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense.
Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Reproduced from original article:
SEPTEMBER 18, 2020
In the second episode of our second season of “TRUTH” with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Mr. Kennedy interviewed life coach and internet comedian J. P. Sears. The two had a lively and thought-provoking conversation that centered on several themes relevant to the COVID crisis including:
- How censorship leads to totalitarianism and the importance of the First Amendment
- Children’s Health Defense’s lawsuit against Facebook
- Keeping a healthy attitude in troubling times
- The toll on human life from deaths of despair vs. the coronavirus
- The physical and societal impacts of mask mandates
- The consequences of living in fear
(All episodes can be found on CHD’s social media, and on the CHD Channel found on Peeps TV, a network on Roku. Roku is accessible from any Smart TV and can be purchased separately for older TVs.)