Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff demands Facebook censor “disinformation”

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 26, 2021

Salesforce CEO, and Time Magazine owner, Marc Benioff has criticized Facebook allowing the spread of “disinformation” on its platforms.

In an interview on CNN, Benioff said: “This digital revolution really kind of has the world in its grip. And in that grip, you can see the amount of mistrust and misinformation that is happening.”

According to the tech billionaire, what he says is misinformation on social media is making it harder to solve climate change.

“Look at how it is affecting the world. You can talk about the political process. You can talk about climate. You can talk about the pandemic,” Benioff said. “In each and every major topic, it gets connected back to the mistrust that is happening and especially the amount of it being seeded by the social networks. It must stop now.”

Benioff singled out Facebook as the platform with the greatest misinformation problem. He has been one of Facebook’s most vocal critics and has previously called for the breaking up of the Zuckerberg empire, which is now worth approximately $1 trillion.

“Some of these social media companies, especially Facebook, you can see that they don’t really care that their platform is filled with all of this disinformation,” Benioff said.

He continued to suggest that Congress should do something to address the disinformation problem on Facebook.

“I own Time and I am held accountable for what is produced on my platform,” Benioff said, adding that mainstream media outlets are also held accountable. “In regards to Facebook, they are not held accountable. So they do not have an incentive from the government. That has to change.”

September 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

What Does It Mean to ‘Trust the Science’?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 24, 2021

In the featured video,1 James Corbett of The Corbett Report explores what it means to “trust the science,” demolishing along the way the notion that science can ever be “settled” and beyond question. This is important, because scientific deception will continue to be used in the biosecurity state being built around us.

What Science Should You Trust?

With increasing frequency, we’re told to “trust the science” and “follow the science.” Yet what science are we supposed to follow? Exactly who’s an expert and who’s not, and who decides which is which? As I’ve been writing about for nearly two years now, there’s plenty of scientific evidence refuting everything we’re being told to accept as “fact.”

This includes the claim that masks protect against viral infection, that lockdowns slow down the spread, that school closures protect children, that there are no effective early treatments for COVID-19, and that the fast-tracked COVID shots are safe, effective and necessary even if you have natural immunity.

Whistleblowers Expose Corruption at the EPA

Corbett starts out by reviewing a recent Intercept story, published in two parts: “Whistleblowers Expose Corruption in EPA Chemical Safety Office,”2 published July 2, 2021, and “Leaked Audio Shows Pressure to Overrule Scientists in ‘Hair-On-Fire’ Cases,”3 published August 4, 2021.

According to four whistleblowers — Elyse Osterweil, Martin Phillips, Sarah Gallagher and William Irwin, all of whom are scientists employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and hold doctorates in toxicology, chemistry, biochemistry and medicinal chemistry — managers and career staffers in the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention have tampered with the risk assessments of dozens of chemicals to hide their dangers. According to The Intercept :4

“The whistleblowers, whose jobs involve identifying the potential harms posed by new chemicals, provided The Intercept with detailed evidence of pressure within the agency to minimize or remove evidence of potential adverse effects of the chemicals, including neurological effects, birth defects, and cancer.

On several occasions, information about hazards was deleted from agency assessments without informing or seeking the consent of the scientists who authored them.

Some of these cases led the EPA to withhold critical information from the public about potentially dangerous chemical exposures. In other cases, the removal of the hazard information or the altering of the scientists’ conclusions in reports paved the way for the use of chemicals, which otherwise would not have been allowed on the market.”

At the EPA, Following the Science Is a Punishable Offense

The EPA, according to these whistleblowers, is violating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and when staffers actually do follow the science wherever it leads, they are punished.

In a statement to The Intercept and Rep. Ro Khanna, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the EPA whistleblowers state that they fear “their actions (or inactions) at the direction of management are resulting in harm to human health and the environment.”

They certainly have cause for concern. For example, one recent study5 warns exposure to organochlorine pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers during pregnancy can cause the chemicals to accumulate in multiple fetal organs and contribute to chronic health problems. This is the first study to demonstrate that toxic chemicals can be present in the fetus even if the mother does not have detectable levels in her blood. As noted by Beyond Pesticides:6

“… studies like these help government and health officials better identify fetal exposure contaminants and subsequent health concerns otherwise missed by current chemical monitoring methods.”

In Part 27 of its report, The Intercept discusses a particular chemical that Irwin had been assessing. He had concerns that the unnamed chemical in question was analogous to bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical now recognized for its detrimental effects on reproduction, fertility and human hormones.

When he refused to sign off on the chemical as safe, he was removed from the assessment, and the chemical was approved, despite the potential harms he’d uncovered.

So, what scientists should we trust? Scientists like these four whistleblowers? Or “the EPA” as a catchall designation, where corrupt career managers have overruled the scientists doing the actual work and who have the actual science credentials?

Believing (the Wrong) Science Now Proves You’re Racist

As noted by Corbett, this issue is no small matter. Determining what science is “valid” and what’s not has enormous repercussions for society. To illustrate his point, he goes on to review the issue of hormone-disrupting chemicals and their reproductive effects.

Some scientists have sounded the alarm, saying our reproductive capability is so severely impacted by toxic environmental factors that by 2045, all couples will require fertility treatment if they want to conceive. Sperm counts have dropped precipitously ever since the 1970s, and the trend is showing no signs of leveling off.

If true, this signals a true existential emergency, but as has become the norm over the past couple of years, the declining sperm count issue is now being reframed as a racist, “far right” issue. This in and of itself ought to signal that we’ve left science and moved into ideology, but no.

The narrative we’re asked to swallow is the complete opposite: That the scientists who made these discoveries used sham science to fit an ideological narrative rooted in white supremacy. Meanwhile, “the science” offered by nonscientists says there’s no problem here, and that’s that.

Corbett cites a Quillette article by Geoffrey Kabat, “The Sperm Count Culture War,” published mid-June 2021, which states:8

“The latest entry in the sperm count debate comes from a Harvard-MIT research team led by philosophy professors Marion Boulicault and Sarah Richardson.

They recently published a paper in the journal Human Fertility entitled ‘The Future of Sperm Variability for Understanding Global Sperm Count Trends.’ They also published an article in Slate9 summarizing their findings for a lay audience.

While the scientific paper is dense and difficult to navigate, the Slate article gets straight to the point with its title: ‘The Doomsday Sperm Theory Embraced by the Far Right.’

Its subheading elaborates: ‘The idea that male fertility is on the decline is an old myth dressed up as science.’ The authors tell us why they believe the accepted science on declining sperm counts should be rejected:

‘The human species is in grave reproductive danger, according to recent headlines. Some scientists say that sperm counts in men around the world have been plummeting, with Western men approaching total infertility by 2045.

Far-right ‘Great Replacement’ theorists, who fear that people of color are ‘replacing’ the white population, have taken up the research with gusto …

The narrative that white, Western men are in danger of emasculation and disappearance has deep roots in white nationalist discourse. It is tied to a nostalgic cultural myth of a past in which white men held unchallenged power.'”

Human Extinction Concerns Dismissed as Fearmongering

As noted by Kabat, the two philosophy professors “all but ignore the science to focus on what they believe is more important — the ideological framing of the issue in socio-cultural discourse.”

Interestingly, the paper they published is in response to “what is widely considered to be the most definitive research on science of sperm count decline,” Kabat notes, and perhaps that’s why they did it. It’s real science being debunked as “science driven by ideology,” by nonscientists who have an ideological agenda but pretend not to!

Here we have two philosophy professors trying to debunk 50 years of research by some of the most respected researchers in the field — by declaring the whole investigation racist, misogynistic and “overtly white supremacist.” They roundly dismiss concerns about impending global infertility and thus human extinction, stating:10

“What these anxieties have in common with the threat of sperm count decline is the premise that, in an environmentally clean and appropriately-gendered social past, there existed an optimal and natural manifestation of masculinity …

It is all too easy for scientific institutions, with majority-white researchers, to center white people and further these myths, which circulate often unconsciously … The recent sperm count decline research demonstrates how racist, sexist, and Eurocentric ideas can get embedded in the categories that scientists use to analyze data.”

In their paper, Boulicault et.al. offer their own hypothesis to explain and dismiss the decline in sperm count as a natural variation that has no bearing on fertility or health — none of which is accurate or true.

Expertise Matters

The take-home message here is that philosophy professors can depose (or at least attempt to depose) a team of reproductive health scientists who have spent their entire careers looking at this issue, simply by interjecting their own ideology into the mix, all while accusing the actual scientists of ideology-based hype. And here’s how mainstream media covered this clearly insufficient debunking attempt:11

  • Yahoo! News — “Freaking Out About Declining Sperm Count? Don’t, Harvard Researchers Say.”
  • The Telegraph — “Threat of Human Extinction from Falling Sperm Counts Greatly Exaggerated.”
  • Haaretz — “Spermaggedon in the West? Relax, Harvard Has Good News for You.”
  • Vox — “Sperm Counts Are Falling. This Isn’t the Reproductive Apocalypse — Yet.”

Kabat writes:12

“None of the news stories … so much as remarked on the inflammatory rhetoric of the Boulicault paper, which will appear to the fair-minded reader as an activist manifesto masquerading as a scientific hypothesis. Even the New York Times fumbled this. It provided a useful discussion of some of the questions raised by the Harvard study and presented different points of view …

But it treated the study as a serious critique of the sperm count controversy, giving no indication of Boulicault and colleagues’ ideological framing of the issue or that their alternative hypothesis has little to do with science …

It is difficult to explain the deference paid to the Harvard paper by various commentators. Perhaps we are in a time in which even trained scientists are reluctant to call out an uninformed but ideologically fashionable treatment of a high-profile issue.”

Are You Seeing How This Applies to the COVID Narrative?

These stories tell us a lot about our current situation, where ideological gatekeepers are commanding us to “look here, not there.” Actual, reproducible science by bonafide scientists is being dismissed as “ideology masquerading as science,” while fake or flimsy science is being held up as the only science worthy of that designation.

If you chose to trust science that counters the technocratic transhumanist Deep State narrative, well, then you’re labeled a racist, a misogynist, a white supremacist, a domestic terrorist or some other unpleasant and derogatory term, the only purpose of which is to shame and shut you up.

As noted by Corbett, when politicians and health authorities urge us to “trust the science,” they are referring to select agency-branded science, meaning science that has the stamp of approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the World Health Organization, for example.

The assumption we’re supposed to accept is that these organizations aren’t tainted by the kind of corruption we’re now told exists within the EPA — financially driven corruption that sidelines actual scientists, even within those organizations, that may have serious concerns. But regulatory capture is a longstanding problem, and there’s no evidence to suggest it’s been rooted out of the agencies we’re now told to trust without question. As noted by Corbett:

“As ‘The Science’ more and more dictates whether you can step outside your own home, or what kind of experimental interventions you are forced or coerced into putting into your body against your will, I hope you understand that the stakes have been raised to the point where this is not some mere philosophical concern. This is the heart of the biosecurity state that we are being steeped in.”

Sources and References

September 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

FLORIDA’S RADICAL NEW COVID PLAN

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | September 24, 2021

FLORIDA’S RADICAL NEW COVID PLAN

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has chosen a new Surgeon General, America’s Frontline Doctor, signatory of the Great Barrington Declaration, a UCLA doctor and expert in health policy, Dr. Joseph Ladapo. Listen to his radical plan for the Sunshine State.

IS THERE A COVID VACCINE / CANCER CONNECTION?

Multiple sources in The HighWire’s network of Frontline Physicians, have reported an alarming uptick in aggressive cancers post-Covid vaccination. Could there be a link? Pathologist Ryan Cole, MD, discusses the available science and his lab’s findings.

September 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , | Leave a comment

YouTube backtracks on censorship of Illinois school board meeting over COVID comments

Public meetings on YouTube are still struggling

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | September 24, 2021

YouTube deleted videos of an Illinois school board meeting, allegedly over the violation of its strict COVID-19 rules.

The Springfield District Board said YouTube removed videos of a June 21 meeting over the violation of “medical misinformation policy, presumably due to the public comment portion.”

A parent in the school district, Ryan Jugan, said that his public comments on COVID-19 policies, made on the board’s meetings videos, had been censored by YouTube. In a statement to Cities929, Jugan said “as a parent [and] concerned citizen, witnessing censorship, suppression of medical professionals, science and data is appalling.”

The board’s president Anthony Mares said while the board welcomes public comments, it also has a desire for “public business we conduct at board meetings be widely available through YouTube.” For that reason, the board would “no longer include public comment in our YouTube meeting videos so that public business is available to distant families.”

The board’s spokesperson Bree Hankins said that they appealed the decision to delete the video, but YouTube declined.

“This counted as a warning, but further violations could result in an official strike and we would be unable to upload, post or live stream to YouTube for any purpose for at least one week upon another infraction,” Hankins said. “This has happened to other school districts in Illinois and elsewhere.”

“We never regained access to the removed video via YouTube,” Hankins said. “However, we do have the full versions of the board meeting video.”

Meanwhile, the board is exploring other alternatives where the public would be able to comment without censorship.

However, a spokesperson for YouTube confirmed that the video had been reinstated and the channel was not slapped with a strike.

“Upon further review, we’re reinstating the Springfield School District’s meeting video,” the spokesperson said in a statement to Reclaim The Net.

September 24, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

WHO Published Guidelines for Governments to Implement Vaccine Passports

21st Century Wire | September 23, 2021

This flew under the radar at the time, but it’s important to shine a light on it now.

Back on August 27, 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) quietly published a detailed directive which instructs governments around the world how to standardise and implement the digital segregation system which they are calling a ‘digital COVID-19 certificate’ aka vaccine passport, immunity passport, health pass, green pass, or digital wallet (as the EU has since renamed it).

By positioning itself in this way, the WHO has elevated itself to de facto global government status, with little or no interest in the democratic processes of individual sovereign nations and their people. Instead, they are simply pushing forward with their own globalist agenda – clearly run on behalf of the transnational pharmaceutical cartel – in concert with a cadre of billionaire elites (led by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation which funds the WHO to the tune of $265 million per annum) and another key unelected non-state actor, the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland.

It clearly states its primary function in guiding governments:

“The primary target audience of this document is national authorities tasked with creating or overseeing the development of a digital vaccination certificate solution for COVID-19. The document may also be useful to government partners such as local businesses, international organizations, non- governmental organizations and trade associations, that may be required to support Member States in developing or deploying a DDCC:VS solution.”

The following is taken directly from the WHO’s own website:

Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: vaccination status: technical specifications and implementation guidance, 27 August 2021

Overview

This is a guidance document for countries and implementing partners on the technical requirements for developing digital information systems for issuing standards-based interoperable WHO-2019-nCoV-Digital-certificates-vaccination-2021.1-eng digital certificates for COVID-19 vaccination status, and considerations for implementation of such systems, for the purposes of continuity of care, and proof of vaccination.

Download the full PDF document here. 

September 24, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Leave a comment

New York’s New Gov Threatens To Replace Unvaccinated Hospital Workers With ‘Foreigners’

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | September 23, 2021

New York’s first female governor Kathy Hochul, who took the reins in the Empire State after her predecessor and former boss, Andrew Cuomo, finally resigned, is showing the state’s recalcitrant healthcare workers just how understanding and progressive she can be.

During a press briefing with reporters in Rochester Wednesday, Hochul told a group of reporters that she hoped all unvaccinated workers would meet Monday’s deadline to get the jab, or lose their jobs.

For those who continue to resist – including nearly 20% of the state’s hospital and nursing-home workers – they will be replaced. Possibly by foreign workers.

Faced with this, it makes sense to wonder how NY State, which has no immigration-related authority, could even credibly make such a threat? But Hochul says there have been conversations with the Department of State (albeit on a “limited basis”) about the possibility of doling out emergency visas to foreign workers.

“To those who won’t, we’ll be replacing people. And I have a plan that’s going to be announced very shortly,” she said.

“We’ve identified a whole range of opportunities we have to help supplement them.”

Hochul said state officials were “working closely with various hospital systems to find out where we can get other individuals to come in and supplement places like nursing homes.”

“We’re also reaching out to the Department of State to find out about visas for foreign workers, on a limited basis, to bring more nurses over here,” she said.

Per the Department of Health’s records, 19% of the state’s hospital workers remained unvaccinated as of Sept. 15, and 18% of nursing home employees remained unvaccinated as of Wednesday.

Starting Monday, employers can fire unvaccinated workers who don’t have a “valid medical exemption” (though employees who claim religious exemption are also immune until Oct. 12 due to a temporary injunction issued by a federal judge in Utica).

The plaintiffs in that case, almost all of them Catholic, oppose vaccines because they “employ aborted fetus cell lines in their testing, development, or production.”

Though the US Conference of Bishops says it’s okay for Catholics to take these vaccines if no alternatives are available, and Pope Francis has of course spoken out in favor of vaccination.

Circling back to the situation in New York, while Hochul is probably reveling in her first opportunity to play “hardball” – a game for which her predecessor was famous – New York health workers can probably rest easy – at least when it comes to the foreign worker threat. The State Department couldn’t process all those SIVs for Afghan collaborators in a timely manner. What makes you think they’ll be able to dole them out to foreign workers, who probably also haven’t been vaccinated. Where does Hochul think these foreign workers are going to come from? Europe?

September 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Pending International Treaty Empowering The WHO

By Dr Urmie Ray B.A., M.A., Mmath, Ph.d. | Principia Scientific | September 23, 2021 

Between 29 November and 1 December 2021, member states are meeting in a special session with the World Health Organisation to discuss, possibly sign, a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response.

This decision was taken in March 2021 and backed by 26 nations, among which Australia, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay and Member States of the European Union.1

To be noted is the absence of Russia, China, and India among these 26.

The International Health Regulations (2005)[i] signed by 196 countries already provide States the legal right to:

“– review travel history in affected areas;

– review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis;

– require medical examinations;

– review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;

– require vaccination or other prophylaxis;

– place suspect persons under public health observation;

– implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;

– implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;

– implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;

– refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;

– refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and

– implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.”

In other words, all the measures applied round the world since 2020, including mandatory vaccination, are in effect legal under this former treaty.

In particular, it critically changes the definition of “quarantine”  from that in the 1969 IHR. There, it is used only in the expression “in quarantine” defined to be a “state or condition during which measures are applied by a health authority to a … means of transport or container, to prevent the spread of disease, reservoirs of disease or vectors of disease from the object of quarantine”.[i]

The 2005 revised IHR use the term by itself, and define it as “the restriction of activities and/or separation from others of suspect persons who are not ill or of suspect baggage, containers, conveyances or goods in such a manner as to prevent the possible spread of infection or contamination”.

This represents a subtle but critical shift from protection of the community to restriction of individual liberties.

The implementation of quarantine and other coercive measures on all, including surveillance and vaccination, is legalized: the expression “suspect persons” criminalizes every individual, both healthy and unhealthy.

Indeed, it covers anyone “considered by a State Party as having been exposed, or possibly exposed, to a public health risk and that could be a possible source of spread of disease”. Of significance is the use of “possibly” and “possible”, hence not just anyone definitely known to be a risk factor.

So Why The Need For A New Treaty?

The answer was given by WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.  “It’s the one major change, Tedros said, that would do the most to boost global health security and also empower the World Health Organization.”[i]

The 2005 revised IHR  still leave some authority to States and require certain conditions for a health event in a particular State to be considered sufficiently serious globally for the State to be forced to communicate it to WHO.   Once communicated, it becomes the prerogative of the director general of WHO to determine whether it “constitutes a public health emergency”, but in collaboration with that particular State.

Although it should be added that in case of disagreement, the director general decides after consultation with the emergency committee of WHO, and passed a certain period no State can reject or emit reservations about the IHR or any later amendments.    Still, to some extent, measures implemented remain the result of a dialogue between  “IHR focal points” in each country and “WHO IHR contact points”.

What is particularly important is that the above listed measures, although rendered legal by the IHR, can under this treaty, only be recommended by the WHO, not imposed, and that it is up to the States to proceed towards their imposition, and to verify they are followed by means already existing in their respective countries.[ii]

The new treaty would address the above “weaknesses” of the IHR as they are considered to be, by ensuring “independent verification, monitoring, and compliance”.  Given the clearly expressed end of empowering the WHO,  should one conclude that “independent” means under the authority of WHO rather than the States themselves?[i]

Further the IHR cover “public health hazards and public health emergencies of international concern”,  whereas the treaty will concern “all hazards”, not just pandemics.  In the latter case, it would take over from the IHR once a pandemic is officially declared by the WHO.[ii]

This said, the treaty would presumably also make clear the idea expressed in the 2007 CDC “Interim Pre-pandemic planning guidance”,[i] namely overruling the need of a pandemic to implement restrictive measures.  All that would be needed would be for an event to be declared a “public health emergency of pandemic potential”.

Given that any future event is always hypothetical, does this enable the maintenance of the measures for an indeterminate period? For it can always be claimed that a pandemic will occur especially were the measures lifted.   This raises many questions, all the more so as the event would no long need to be of “international concern as in the current IHR”. “Measures”, as advised, should also go beyond the current scope of IHR”, in particular to cover the production and supply of vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments”.[ii]

The treaty would unlike the IHR also go beyond sanitary issues and allow the implementation of measures against “social and economic disruptions” as well as “broader disaster risk”.[i]

Would this in effect not only make it legal to put an end to criticisms, and thus to the freedom of expression, and make it possible to control any public antagonism against restrictive measures through “urgent international assistance”,[ii] namely not just by national police or military forces, but international ones?  

In short, would the treaty not provide the international legal framework for derogation from the civil and political rights guaranteed “even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation” by The Syracuse Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights drafted in 1984,[iii] namely:

“the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude; the right not be be imprisoned for contractual debt; the right not to be convicted or sentenced to a heavier penalty by virtue of retroactive criminal legislation; the right to recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.  These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation”?

For the Syracuse Principles only ensure that “No state party shall” in any circumstance “derogate from the Covenant’s” above guarantees”.  However, according to the new treaty, would the WHO, possibly together with the help of other international bodies, not become an occupying planetary power, with each State a collaborating subservient unit, like France in 1940, and hence without any power to ensure that non-derogable rights are protected?

Last but not least,  “[t]rying to revise the IHR would be a long process and take several years. … In addition, any amendment made to the IHR will enter into force only two years after its adoption. A world in crisis cannot afford to wait this long.”[i] Why such a rush to get the treaty ratified?

It should not be forgotten that among the main contributors of WHO are the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and the vaccine alliance (GAVI). It established in 2000 and whose initial funding it essentially provided – a “unique public-private partnership … bring[ing] together key UN agencies, governments, the vaccine industry, private sector and civil society”.[i]

References

[1]     https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA74/A74_ACONF7-en.pdf

[1]     https://www.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations#tab=tab_1

[1]     https://www.who.int/csr/ihr/WHA58-en.pdf

[1]     https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/05/31/1001943709/the-time-has-come-for-a-global-pandemic-treaty-whos-tedros-says?utm_source=dailybrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyBrief2021Jun1&utm_term=DailyNewsBrief

[1]     https://www.who.int/csr/ihr/WHA58-en.pdf

[1]     https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/05/23/how-would-a-pandemic-treaty-relate-with-the-existing-ihr-2005/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork&utm_term=DailyNewsBrief

[1]     Ibid.

[1]     https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/cbn/2007/cbnreport_02072007.html

[1]     https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/05/23/how-would-a-pandemic-treaty-relate-with-the-existing-ihr-2005/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork&utm_term=DailyNewsBrief

[1]     Ibid.

[1]     Ibid.

[1]     https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1984/07/Siracusa-principles-ICCPR-legal-submission-1985-eng.pdf

[1]     https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/05/23/how-would-a-pandemic-treaty-relate-with-the-existing-ihr-2005/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork&utm_term=DailyNewsBrief

[1]     https://www.gavi.org/history-gavi

September 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fighting Vaccine Mandates – #SolutionsWatch

Corbett • 09/22/2021 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

While the UK is supposedly dropping their vaccine passport idea (for now), things are looking bleak in country after country as people all around the world are facing the threat of vaccine mandates. Today on #SolutionsWatch James explores the array of solutions that are on the table to thwart this threat.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Minds / Odysee or Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES:
What’s Going on in Japan? – Questions For Corbett #078

Japan’s vaccine passports: Here’s what you need to know

Suga challenger in LDP leadership race vows huge COVID relief package (Kishida calls for vaccine passport)

UK Government drops plans for domestic vaccine passports

Did Ayn Rand defeat vaccine passports?

President Biden Announces Vaccination Mandate for Employers

Australian Premier Dan Andrews: “we are going to lock out the unvaccinated”

Italy makes COVID-19 pass mandatory for all workers | DW News

Surging Delta variant: France and Greece introduce mandatory vaccinations for healthcare workers

Alberta to launch proof-of-vaccination program, declares health emergency

Introducing #SolutionsWatch

Form for Employees Whose Employers Are Requiring Covid-19 Injections

HomeRemedySupply comment on September Open Thread

America’s Frontline Doctor’s Legal Team’s “Vaccines and the Law” page

Vaccine religious exemption template downloads from Gab.com

Doctors for COVID Ethics example forms, templates, letters and other resources

Legal principle of non discrimination

The COVID-19 “Vaccine” and the Nuremberg Code. Crimes Against Humanity, Genocide

No, COVID-19 vaccines do not violate the Nuremberg Code

Bioethics and the New Eugenics
United Airlines warns of unpaid leave for staff given religious vaccine exemptions

Religious exemption to vaccine mandates may be difficult to obtain, as Amish case shows

How To Meet Like-Minded People

Unjected

TheFreedomPages

The No Vax Mandate Job Board

Here’s How To Still Dine At A Restaurant UNVAXXED!! Suss Them Out & Find Out Who’s Cool!!

Together Declaration

1000s take over Time Square in NYC for the protest against the mandatory shot

“This Is Not Political!” — Thousands Gather At “Freedom Rally” In New York City To Oppose Vaccine Passport

Beware of Fake “Resistance” to Mandates

Executive Orders and How to Stop Them

James Corbett – Ernest Hancock with Arizona Dara (Solutions; BlackMarketFridays.com)

The Revolution of the Mind

September 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Video | , | Leave a comment

New Proof Emerges of the Biden Family Emails: a Definitive Account of the CIA/Media/BigTech Fraud

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer warns that emails and other documents reported on by The NY Post about Joe Biden’s activities in Ukraine and China may be “Russian disinformation,” Oct. 16, 2020.
By Glenn Greenwald | September 22, 2021

A severe escalation of the war on a free internet and free discourse has taken place over the last twelve months. Numerous examples of brute and dangerous censorship have emerged: the destruction by Big Tech monopolies of Parler at the behest of Democratic politicians at the time that it was the most-downloaded app in the country; the banning of the sitting president from social media; and the increasingly explicit threats from elected officials in the majority party of legal and regulatory reprisals in the event that tech platforms do not censor more in accordance with their demands.

But the most severe episode of all was the joint campaign — in the weeks before the 2020 election — by the CIA, Big Tech, the liberal wing of the corporate media and the Democratic Party to censor and suppress a series of major reports about then-presidential frontrunner Joe Biden. On October 14 and then October 15, 2020, The New York Post, the nation’s oldest newspaper, published two news reports on Joe Biden’s activities in Ukraine and China that raised serious questions about his integrity and ethics: specifically whether he and his family were trading on his name and influence to generate profit for themselves. The Post said that the documents were obtained from a laptop left by Joe Biden’s son Hunter at a repair shop.

From the start, the evidence of authenticity was overwhelming. The Post published obviously genuine photos of Hunter that were taken from the laptop. Investigations from media outlets found people who had received the emails in real-time and they compared the emails in their possession to the ones in the Post‘s archive, and they matched word-for-word. One of Hunter’s own business associates involved in many of these deals, Tony Bobulinski, confirmed publicly and in interviews that the key emails were genuine and that they referenced Joe Biden’s profit participation in one deal being pursued in China. A forensics analyst issued a report concluding the archive had all the earmarks of authenticity. Not even the Bidens denied that the emails were real: something they of course would have done if they had been forged or altered. In sum, as someone who has reported on numerous large archives similar to this one and was faced with the heavy burden of ensuring the documents were genuine before risking one’s career and reputation by reporting them, it was clear early on that all the key metrics demonstrated that these documents were real.

Despite all that, former intelligence officials such as Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan and his Director of National Intelligence James Clapper led a group of dozens of former spooks in issuing a public statement that disseminated an outright lie: namely, that the laptop was “Russian disinformation.” Note that this phrase contains two separate assertions: 1) the documents came from Russia and 2) they are fake (“disinformation”). The intelligence officials admitted in this letter that — in their words — “we do not know if the emails are genuine or not,” and also admitted that “we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.” Yet it repeatedly insinuated that everyone should nonetheless believe this:

Letter from 60 former intelligence officials about the New York Post reporting, Oct. 19, 2020

But the complete lack of evidence for these claims — that even these career CIA liars acknowledged plagued their assertions — did not stop the corporate media or Big Tech from repeating this lie over and over, and, far worse, using this lie to censor this reporting from the internet. One of the first to spread this lie was the co-queen of Russiagate frauds, Natasha Bertrand, then of Politico and now promoted, because of lies like this, to CNN. “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say,” blared her headline in Politico on October 19, just five days after the Post began its reporting. From there, virtually every media outlet — CNN, NBC News, PBS, Huffington Post, The Intercept, and too many others to count — began completely ignoring the substance of the reporting and instead spread the lie over and over that these documents were the by-product of Russian disinformation.

On October 21 — exactly one week after the Post‘s first report — The Intercept published a false story under the melodramatic headline “We’re Not a Democracy” about these materials from former New York Times reporter James Risen. This propaganda assault masquerading as “news” mindlessly laundered the CIA’s lies about the laptop. This is what appeared in this outlet that still claims to do “adversarial” reporting:

Their latest falsehood once again involves Biden, Ukraine, and a laptop mysteriously discovered in a computer repair shop and passed to the New York Post…. This week, a group of former intelligence officials issued a letter saying that the Giuliani laptop story has the classic trademarks of Russian disinformation.

Note that even the intelligence officials, who acknowledged they had no evidence to support this claim, were more honest than The Intercept, which omitted that critical admission. Days later, this very same outlet — which I co-founded seven years earlier to be adversarial, not subservient, to evidence-free assertions from the intelligence community, and which was designed to be an antidote to rather than a clone of The New York Times — told me that I could not publish the article I had written about the Biden archive because it did not meet their lofty and rigorous editorial standards: the same lofty and rigorous editorial standards that led to uncritical endorsement of the CIA’s lies just days earlier. It was that episode, as Matt Taibbi recounted at the time, that prompted my resignation from the outlet I created in protest of this censorship, in order to report instead only on free speech platforms such as this one.

But the media disinformation about the Post‘s documents — obviously designed to protect Joe Biden in the lead-up to the election — were not the worst aspect of what happened here. Far worse was the decision by Twitter to prohibit any discussion of this reporting or posting of links to the story both publicly and privately on the platform. Worse still was the immediate announcement by Facebook through its communications executive Andy Stone — a life-long Democratic Party operative — that it would algorithmically suppress the story pending a “fact check” by “Facebook’s third-party fact-check partners.” Despite multiple requests from me and others, Facebook never published the results of this alleged fact-check and still refuse to say whether it ever conducted one. Why? Because the documents they blocked millions of Americans from learning about were clearly true and authentic.

As indicated, there was ample proof from the start that these documents were genuine and that the only ones engaged in “disinformation” and lies was this axis of the CIA, corporate media, and Big Tech. Yet the most dispositive proof yet emerged on Tuesday — not from a right-wing news outlet that liberals have been trained to ignore and disbelieve but from one of the most mainstream news institutions in the country.

A young reporter for Politico, Ben Schreckinger, has published a new book entitled “The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power.” To his great credit, he spent months investigating the key documents published by The New York Post and found definitive proof that these emails and related documents are indisputably authentic. His own outlet, Politico, was the first to publish the CIA lie that this was “Russian disinformation,” but on Tuesday — without acknowledging their role in spreading that lie — they summarized Schreckinger’s findings this way: the book “finds evidence that some of the purported Hunter Biden laptop material is genuine, including two emails at the center of last October’s controversy.” In his book, the reporter recounts in these passages just some of the extensive work he did to obtain this proof:

A person who corresponded with Hunter in late 2018 confirmed to me the authenticity of an email in the cache. Another person who corresponded with Hunter in January 2019 confirmed the authenticity of a different email exchange with Hunter in the cache. Both of these people spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing fears of being embroiled in a global controversy.

A third person who had independent access to Hunter’s emails confirmed to me that the emails published by the New York Post related to Burisma and the CEFC venture matched the substance of emails Hunter had in fact received. (This person was not in a position to compare the published emails word-for-word to the originals.)

The National Property Board of Sweden, part of the Swedish Finance Ministry, has released correspondence between Hunter and House of Sweden employees to me and to a Swedish newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, under the country’s freedom of information law. Emails released by the property board match emails in the cache.

Excerpts from POLITICO reporter Ben Schreckinger’s new book: “The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power”, Sept. 2020

Given what I regard as the unparalleled gravity of what was done here — widespread media deceit toward millions of American voters in the weeks before a presidential election based on a CIA lie, along with brute censorship of the story by Big Tech — and given that so much of what was done here took place on television, we produced this morning what I regard as the definitive video report of this scandal. I realize this report is longer than the standard video — it is just over an hour — but I really believe that it is vital, particularly with the emergence of this new indisputable proof, to take a comprehensive look at how the intelligence community, in partnership with Big Tech and the corporate media, disseminated massive lies and disinformation, using censorship and other manipulative techniques, to shape the outcome of what was a close election. (We will very shortly institute our new feature of producing transcripts for all videos above ten minutes in length, but I really hope that as many people as can do so will watch this video report).

After observing what they did, I hope and believe you will have a similar reaction to the one I had after spending the day compiling and reporting it all. No matter how much you despise this sector of the corporate media, it is nowhere near close enough to the level of contempt and scorn they deserve. You can watch our video report on my Rumble page.

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Energy poverty is not an option for India’s 360 million poor

By Vijay Jayaraj | American Thinker | September 22, 2021

The global call to impose climate shutdowns akin to the COVID-19 lockdowns fails to recognize that there are millions of poor people for whom there is no room to compromise on energy liberty.

Political organizations like the World Economic Forum see the pandemic-driven economic pause as an opportunity to impose energy restrictions to address climate change. Many organizations now want to “save the planet” by implementing policies that will help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or at least make them appear sensitive to the issue. However, the poor in the developing world cannot forgo access to fossil-driven economic development just because of the climate delusions of politicians in luxurious European offices.

Speaking for my own country, India, the 360 million people living in poverty should have more of an option than continued deprivation. Presenting as morally superior their choosing to sacrifice the use of fossil fuels for the sake of a faux battle against climate change is itself immoral.

I know a family’s sole breadwinner whose only livelihood is stitching clothes in a poor neighborhood of India‘s most populated city. For her, the electrical sewing machine — recently bought with help — is an absolute essential. Any intermittency in power supply is likely to make her lose out on precious money.


File photo.

For this woman, who is already below the poverty line, the real possibility of not being able to buy basic groceries is a much larger problem than a few degrees’ change in global temperature. In fact, the United Nations has forecasted that even a large rise in global average temperature during the next 80 years will result in a loss of less than five percent in global GDP (gross domestic product).

So why would this impoverished woman give up her access to cheap and reliable coal-powered electricity just because of a theoretical loss of GDP postulated as a worst-case scenario by the year 2100? How dare anybody — least of all affluent jet-setters — ask her to?

While governments in the U.S., Canada, and Europe offered cash payment during the economic lockdown, the poor in developing parts of the world suffered without any help.

Yes, many small businesses in the West suffered during the COVID-19 lockdown. But the situation in developing countries was worse. A majority of the poor in these countries work in a sector of the economy that requires no documentation or proof of identification, making it difficult to get aid to them.

We are talking about numbers larger than the entire U.S. population who do not have a home or a vehicle or people to help them.  Studies have shown that India lost years of progress against poverty during the four-month initial COVID-19 lockdown in 2020. For this reason, the country‘s federal government refused to impose a nationwide lockdown during the second wave. Economic restrictions were mostly imposed by state governments.

The proposed climate lockdowns would be not at all different from the brutal COVID-19 lockdowns. They would deny the poorest hope of climbing the socio-economic ladder.

Even worse are stealthy energy restrictions that international political bodies have been imposing on developing economies. Climate alarmists have made a consistent effort to disrupt the fossil-fuel sector during the past two decades.

Oil, coal, and natural gas are requisites for the sustenance of the poor. Without them, there is no cooking fuel for billions of people in the Third World. Even a slight interruption of the coal supply will result in blackouts for more than a billion people on an everyday basis.

It makes absolutely no sense for governments to switch to intermittent renewables like wind and solar in the name of climate change. Firstly, there is no backup solution (other than fossil) that can substitute for intermittent sources in real time during peak hours. Secondly, even advanced economies like the U.K. are unable to cope with the power demand when their renewables fail. Why would developing countries fare any better? Thirdly, wind and solar are proven contributors to a rise in electricity prices globally.

Oh, yes — we should mention that there is no climate emergency. The world has been warmer for most of the last 10,000 years, and predictions of a warming catastrophe are based on consistently wrong computer models.

The clarion call from the world’s poor is not a climate SOS! Rather, they desperately need economic growth that can be fostered only through extensive use of fossil fuels.

Vijay Jayaraj is a research associate for the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a master‘s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, England.  He resides in Bengaluru, India.

Photo credit: Jorge Royan, CC BY-SA 3.0 license.

If you would like to comment on this or any other American Thinker article or post, we invite you to visit the American Thinker Forum at MeWe.

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

IMF report suggests credit scores could soon be based on web browsing history

Dystopian future

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | September 21, 2021

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has published the results of research conducted into how lenders are likely to be doing their business in the future, and what new information and personal data these companies plan to start asking from borrowers in order to determine their credit score.

The biggest takeaway is the seemingly inevitable shift from merely accessing credit information to also incorporating people’s online behavior into the process of deciding whether to lend them money necessary, for example, to buy a house.

Compared to the way the system now works in most countries – these changes, which are expected to be coming soon, look fairly invasive privacy-wise, and with no “vision” of proper safeguards. Banks and others will go as far as to access personal browsing and shopping history. This would be done by allowing automated systems, powered by algorithms, to harvest the data and turn it into credit reports.

From the report:

“The use of non-financial data will have large effects on the provision of financial services. Traditionally, banks rely on the analysis of customer financial information from payment flows and accounting records. The rise of the internet permits the use of new types of nonfinancial customer data, such as browsing histories and online shopping behavior of individuals, or customer ratings for online vendors.”

Currently, those hoping to take out a loan can expect to have their repayment and credit history length, as well as total debt checked, but going forward, the IMF study suggests, this will be expanded to include what’s known as people’s digital footprint – either collected from data already publicly available, or that obtained by credit bureaus.

The stated goal is to improve “loan default predictions” – and the upcoming trend is sold as a way to give access to money to people who have previously been unable to use loans because their status is “unscorable.” Also known as “credit invisibles,” these are mostly low-income minorities and immigrants, and having access to their personal habits and behavior as exhibited on the internet is supposed to help banks and other lenders “profile” them precisely enough to determine if they should be given a loan.

On the other hand, citizens who are “scorable” but whose score is low might suffer in the new system now in the making, as their online activity could persuade lenders to cut them off from access to money.

Although the move in this direction looks inevitable, some key answers are missing: what data scraped from the internet will be used to determine someone’s credit rating, and how it will be secured.

IMF’s post warns, however, to expect an “efficiency-privacy trade-off.”

September 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption | | Leave a comment

Alabama Hospital Defies Biden Administration, Ends COVID Vaccine Requirement for Staff

By Jack Davis | Western Journal | September 20, 2021

Bowing to the threat of legal action against it, one Alabama hospital has rescinded its requirement that all staff be vaccinated against the coronavirus.

UAB Hospital in Birmingham said it will wait to learn how the federal vaccine mandates announced by President Joe Biden play out before imposing any requirement, according to WBRC-TV.

Last week, the Alabama Center for Law and Liberty said the hospital was violating state law, according to Al.com.

The letter said the state’s ban on vaccine passports means government entities cannot require anyone to disclose vaccine information.

“As the Supreme Court of Alabama has recognized, UAB Hospital is a state-run hospital,” the letter said.

“Consequently, UAB Hospital may not require its employees to disclose whether they have been vaccinated or not. Likewise, the Alabama Attorney General has examined the law and concluded that ‘no government, school, or business in Alabama may demand that a constituent, or customer, respectively, be vaccinated for COVID-19 or show proof of his or her vaccination for COVID-19,’” the letter said.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall also questioned the legality of the Biden administration mandate, saying he had received complaints about privacy violations, according to the Alabama Political Reporter.

“The Attorney General’s Office has received complaints from healthcare employees who believe their COVID-19 immunization status was obtained by their employers through the ImmPRINT registry for the purpose of verifying compliance with the employer’s immunization requirement,” Marshall said, referring to a statewide immunization database.

“In several of those cases, a shared employer specifically acknowledged accessing the state immunization database for this purpose. This privacy violation is unlawful,” he said.

Marshall said other health care providers should also take note and not be asking employees about their immunization status.

He has said that when the vaccine mandate takes place, Alabama will file a lawsuit against it, according to Al.com.

“The vaccine mandate is unprecedented in its audacity and unlawful in its application,” Marshall said. “The Biden administration knows this full well. The State of Alabama will not allow such an authoritarian power grab to go unchecked.”

Dr. Don Williamson, president of the Alabama Hospital Association, said voluntary efforts have produced vaccination rates of 50 percent to 80 percent depending upon the facility.

“It’s not a small issue if we have unvaccinated employees,” Williamson said. “Hospitals have successfully navigated the waters of getting people vaccinated and for the most part, they have been able to do it without mandates.”

The UAB Hospital in Birmingham issued a statement explaining why a mandate imposed one month was scrapped the next.

“The UAB Health System’s policy requiring COVID vaccines for its workers was implemented in August prior to the announcement of forthcoming federal directives,” it said.

“President Biden issued an executive order Sept. 9 indicating that federal rules and regulations will be issued in the coming weeks that will require COVID vaccines for workers at health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid dollars.

“Because UAB Health System must follow federal law, UAB Health System will remove its vaccine policy at this time. UAB Health System will wait for the detailed federal guidance to develop a replacement vaccine policy in order to ensure full compliance with federal law.”

The statement noted that a voluntary incentive that rewards employees who get vaccinated with $400 remains in place.

September 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »