Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Complaint to Ofcom

Source: BIT
By Laura Dodsworth | 21st December 2021

Dear Melanie Dawes,

We are writing to alert you to a broadcast license complaint we have made about Sky UK. Our complaint concerns a partnership between Sky and Behavioural Insights U.K., Known as the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), a limited company partly owned by the Government. We believe this partnership – and, in particular, Sky’s adoption of BIT’s recommendations about how to help the Conservative Government successfully implement one of its most political contentious policy, namely, Net Zero – contravenes the Broadcasting Code.

The partnership we’re referring to resulted in the publication of ‘The Power of TV: Nudging Viewers to Decarbonise their Lifestyles’ and the launch of Sky’s ‘Sky Zero’ campaign, which recommended that broadcasters make use of “behavioural science principles”, including subliminal messaging (“nudging” in the parlance of BIT, which is colloquially known as the Nudge Unit), to encourage viewers to endorse and comply with Conservative Government policy. Alarmingly, the report recommends broadcasters utilize sophisticated psychological techniques to change the behaviour of children “because of the important influence they have on the attitude and behaviours of their parents”.

Summary

We are concerned that this partnership and Sky’s adoption of BIT’s recommendations:

  • Will affect the political impartiality of news and wider programming on Sky’s channels;
  • Reveals an inappropriate relationship between a company which, when the report was published, was part owned by the U.K. Government, and a licensed U.K. broadcaster. Sky referred to BIT as “independent” in its video to promote this partnership, yet Sky will be aware that BIT was at the time part owned by the U.K. Cabinet Office. Until the Cabinet Office’s share was bought by NESTA earlier this month, the company was commonly referred to as “the Government’s Nudge Unit” and advised the Government on how to influence the public using sophisticated psychological techniques, particularly when it comes to getting people to comply with Government policies;
  • Is an attempt to affect viewers’ attitudes and behaviour, including those of children, through the use of indirect, subliminal messaging (“nudging”) with a view to securing their support and compliance with one of the most politically contentious policy of the Conservative Government, namely, Net Zero.
  • Reveals a historic relationship between behavioural scientists employed by the U.K. Government and broadcasters to promote Government policies: “behaviour change via broadcasting and traditional media has historically been aimed at improving public health, boosting gender equality, and reducing violence. Imagine the potential for emissions reductions if the same methods were used to encourage sustainable behaviours!” This historic relationship warrants further investigation since it may include historic breaches of the Broadcasting Code by Sky and other broadcasters.

The Complaint

Below are the specific contraventions of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code that we are concerned about:

2.11 Broadcasters must not use techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred. [Section two: Harm and Offence, The Broadcasting Code.]

The jointly-published report by BIT and Sky reveals their intention to subtly influence viewers’ attitudes and behaviour in indirect, subliminal ways by using sophisticated psychological techniques based on behavioural science. The aim is to change viewers minds, including the minds of children, about a politically contentious issue by using these techniques so viewers aren’t fully aware that an attempt is being made to change their minds. The underlying assumption is that this subtle, indirect messaging is a more effective way of changing people’s attitudes and behaviour than more overt messaging since the messages will be absorbed semi-consciously – catching viewers off guard, as it were, and bypassing their critical faculties. The use of this “nudging” would be less objectionable if these techniques were being recommended to promote an apolitical, uncontentious agenda. But the recommendation of the joint report is that these sophisticated psychological techniques be used to persuade viewers to endorse one of the Conservative Government most politically contentious policies, namely, Net Zero.

The foreword to the report, authored by David Halpern, the CEO of BIT, says:

Societal-level behaviour change is needed to tackle climate change… From changing what we buy and what we eat, to changing the technologies we use to heat our homes and travel, reaching Net Zero is conditional on large numbers of people taking up green behaviours and products.

Broadcast organisations and content creators therefore have a unique opportunity to make a difference for the planet. Through the programs that they produce, the characters that they create, the plot-lines that they develop, and the adverts that they broadcast, content creators have the potential to have a far-reaching impact on the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of citizens, and to spark conversations in boardrooms and political arenas alike. They are also pivotally placed to help people sift through the maze of choices and claims, to adopt behaviours – and products – that can get us to a greener future.

The BIT report goes on to recommend a variety of subtle psychological techniques that broadcasters can use to promote this agenda, including using celebrities, on-screen presenters and dramatic characters as “role models”, e.g. advocates for the Net Zero policy, plot-lines, product placement, and editorially endorsing the Net Zero policy in news and current affairs programmes, as well as in drama programmes, travel programmes, DIY programmes and cookery programmes. Indeed, no area of Sky’s output across its various channels is to be left unaffected by this agenda.

Dana Strong, Group Chief Executive, Sky, agrees with this aim. She says in her foreword:

As Europe’s largest media and entertainment organisation, we also want to accelerate our industry’s efforts to drive global progress towards net zero.

However, it is now widely accepted that we must shift the behaviour of millions of people to deliver on our collective net zero goals…

We know that what we broadcast has the power to change how we as consumers feel and act. What we see on our screens can shock us, inspire us, educate us, and entertain us. [Our emphasis.]

5.1: News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. [Section five: Due impartiality and due accuracy, The Broadcasting Code.]

The report suggests that, “Audiences’ knowledge on what to do and how can be improved by documentaries; DIY, travel, and cookery shows; and news coverage.”

This is an explicit call for broadcasters to encourage viewers to comply (“what to do and how”) with a controversial Conservative Government policy in news programmes, which is a breach of the Broadcasting Code’s “due impartiality” requirement.

In addition, the Climate Content Pledge (undertaken by 12 major U.K. media companies, including Sky) promises:

We will incorporate climate change considerations into all our editorial processes, informed by science and behavioural insight.

It is a breach of the “due impartiality” requirement for “climate change considerations”, e.g. promotion of the Government’s Net Zero policy, to be woven into all editorial processes, which include those in news and current affairs.

5.5: Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service (listed above). This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole. [Section five: Due impartiality and due accuracy, The Broadcasting Code.]

As well as news and current affairs, other programming – such as DIY, travel and cookery programmes – must maintain “due impartiality on matters of political and industrial controversy and matters relating to current policy”. Yet the joint report by BIT and Sky encourages broadcasters to persuade viewers to comply with a controversial political (and industrial) policy, namely, Net Zero, which is a breach of this requirement. No balance of views and opinions or debate about this controversial Government policy is proposed, only suggestions as to how best to get viewers to change their attitudes and “behaviours” to align with the policy.

5.12: In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented. [Section five: Due impartiality and due accuracy, The Broadcasting Code.]

A commitment to promoting the Conservative Government’s goal of Net Zero will necessitate the exclusion of a wide range of alternative views, including those of numerous members of Parliament, other elected representatives, as well as distinguished climate scientists, experts on energy policy and environment correspondents. Excluding or marginalizing people who dissent from the Net Zero policy is surely a breach of this requirement. Broadcasters have an obligation to ensure viewers are exposed to a wide range of different viewpoints about this politically contentious policy.

9.1: Broadcasters must maintain independent editorial control over programming. [Section nine: Commercial references on TV, The Broadcasting Code.]

The report’s suggestion – that U.K. broadcasters incorporate the recommendations of a company partly owned by the U.K. Government, as it was at the time – implicitly undermines independent editorial integrity.

Product placement

The report recommends product placement to encourage people to support the Net Zero policy. Below are two examples:

Product placement directly impacts behaviour, it can influence key outcomes such as brand attention, knowledge, interest, recall, recognition, and purchase intent, which is encouraging for the potential impact that background green content could have on viewers. This can be explained by the “mere exposure effect”, where people often develop preferences for things simply because they are familiar with them.

Use green product placement and model green actions in the background to improve familiarity, create positive attitudes and norms.

This contravenes Ofcom’s rules which state that “product placement must not impair broadcasters’ editorial independence and must always be editorially justified. This means that programmes cannot be created or distorted so that they become vehicles for the purposes of featuring product placement.”

Conclusion

We find the collaboration between a major U.K. broadcaster and a company that was part-owned by the Cabinet Office until earlier this month to promote one of the most politically contentious policies of the current Conservative Government deeply alarming. The report jointly published by BIT and Sky seems to be unaware of the obligations imposed on broadcasters by the Broadcasting Code to maintain “due impartiality” across all their output, particularly news and current affairs, and the need to expose viewers to a wide range of views when it comes to “matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy”. On the contrary, Sky recommends that all U.K. broadcasters adopt a hard editorial bias when it comes to the promotion of the Government’s controversial Net Zero policy, and proudly boasts that it is adopting these recommendations itself.

We are particularly concerned about Sky’s enthusiastic embrace of subtle and sophisticated psychological techniques, rooted in behavioural science, to promote endorsement of and compliance with the Net Zero policy, as well as its evangelism in trying to get other broadcasters to use these techniques. To take just one example, the use of product placement to try and influence viewers’ attitudes and behaviour towards this controversial policy is a flagrant breach of Section Two of the Broadcasting Code, which explicitly prohibits the use of “techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred”. Far from being concerned that the use of product placement may persuade viewers to endorse a politically controversial policy without their being fully aware of it, BIT and Sky appear to be recommending its use for precisely that reason. The recommendation in the report that such techniques are deployed to change the behaviour of children – and the implication that Sky is currently doing precisely that across all its channels – is unconscionable.

We hope you will investigate our complaint with the urgency we believe it merits.

Yours sincerely,

Laura Dodsworth

Toby Young

CC: The RT Hon Nadine Dorries MP, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; Lucy Powell MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

December 21, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

British Medical Journal slams Facebook’s ‘inaccurate & incompetent’ fact check

RT | December 21, 2021

The British Medical Journal and Lead Stories, a fact checker in the employ of Facebook, are engaged in a war of words over a report on a Pfizer whistleblower that was deemed by the social network to have “missing context.”

On November 2, the British Medical Journal (BMJ), one of the world’s most prestigious medical periodicals, published a whistleblowing report that called into question the integrity of data and highlighted issues with regulatory oversight of phase-three trials of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.

The report was based on testimony by the former regional director of the Ventavia Research Group, a contractor that had assisted in the trials. Brook Jackson claimed several trial sites in Texas had experienced major issues, and alleged that Pfizer had falsified data, broken fundamental trial rules, and been “slow” to report adverse reactions.

The BMJ said the report had been published only after being subjected to both a legal review and an external peer review, and had met the periodical’s exacting editorial standards.

However, from November 10, readers reported that they were having trouble sharing the report on Facebook. Those attempting to share it saw their post flagged with the message “Missing context … Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Others were informed that users who repeatedly shared “false information” would see their posts sent to the bottom of Facebook’s feed.

The BMJ has since raised the issue with Lead Stories, which fact checked and labeled the story. In an open letter, the journal asserted that the “fact check” performed had been “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.”

The letter noted a number of flaws in the fact check, including that it did not qualify in what manner the BMJ’s article was inaccurate. It said the fact check report had been given a “nonsensical title” and took issue with Lead Stories having described the BMJ as a “news blog.” The medical publication, one of the world’s oldest and most respected, also took offense at the story having been published on Lead Stories’ own website under a URL that contained the phrase “hoax-alert.”

In its response to the BMJ, Lead Stories said, “The piece carries a scare headline that oversells the whistleblower and overstates the jeopardy.” It said the whistleblower’s claims had concerned just three of the 153 sites at which the vaccine had been tested on 44,000 participants, adding that a less misleading headline would have been more appropriate.

It also questioned the credibility of the whistleblower. “By her own account, Brook Jackson holds a 30-hour certification in auditing techniques focused on proper electronic medical records and data capture as well as lab procedures,” it noted.

Lead Stories said the article has been shared by many anti-vaxxers as proof that the entire Pfizer clinical trial was fraudulent and the vaccine unsafe. It also noted that publication of the story had inadvertently coincided with fake-news reports that Pfizer’s CEO had been arrested for fraud.

Despite this, it said, the piece had only been labeled “Missing Context” – the lightest measure Facebook can apply of several – and that no user traffic to the article had been restricted.

December 21, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Orwell was Right: Control the Language, Control the World

By Bill Rice, Jr. | American Thinker | December 18, 2021

Of all the elements of today’s “New Normal,” the most ominous is the “reform” that effectively changed the meanings of previously accepted words or terms. The following glossary illustrates how changes to our vocabulary played a central role in making the world a more dangerous and frightening place.

New Normal – “Normal” is something that has long been the norm and is accepted as the norm. The key point is that the “old” normal no longer applies. This change in thinking provided authority figures the license to enact reforms that would not have been widely accepted in the past.

In the old normal, a citizen might not have complied with authoritarian mandates, but in the New Normal, most will… that is, if one accepts the premise that we now have a New Normal, a premise most people now accept.

Vaccine — Previously a vaccine was an injection that provided “immunity” or prevented diseases, as well as the spread of diseases. Today, at least as it involves the COVID “vaccines,” vaccines simply (and allegedly) reduce the probability someone will develop a severe case of this disease or die from this disease.

Safe — An activity that is not dangerous or does not cause harm.

According to public health officials and almost all doctors, COVID vaccines are “safe and effective.” According to VAERS, approximately one million Americans believe they have suffered adverse medical reactions to COVID vaccines, with approximately 20,000 deaths possibly caused by the vaccines. Several studies have concluded that VAERS captures only a small fraction of such adverse events.

Effective — Certainly today “effective” does not mean COVID vaccines prevent infection or virus spread. In many heavily vaccinated countries, the vaccinated comprise a greater percentage of new COVID cases than the unvaccinated.

Harm — Something that injures, perhaps even kills, or causes someone pain or discomfort. The key change here is that “harm” can now be caused by speech. The nexus that would definitively trace any alleged harm to any piece of speech is nebulous and impossible to prove.

Still, a person who composes words determined to include “misinformation” or “disinformation” is held guilty of causing potential harm to people who might read these words. Such a person can be censored, maligned, lose their jobs, or even be prosecuted. In our Old Normal, this rarely happened. In our New Normal, it happens daily.

Misinformation or Disinformation — In its simplest terms, this would be information that is provably false.

In our “New Normal,” misinformation or disinformation is simply any information that challenges the veracity of pronouncements made by authorized experts or authorities. That is, Dr. Anthony Fauci, America’s leading public health authority, cannot be charged with producing “disinformation,” but skeptic Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. can and should be.

Also, in today’s New Normal, many people censor their own thoughts as they know “free speech” can result in personal or professional harm. By now, the censors don’t even have to censor everyone.  People do it themselves.

Science and “The science” — A theory largely accepted by the scientific community and public.

“Science” used to be the process of testing a hypothesis and was almost never “settled.” In the past, a skeptic who examined or challenged the conclusions of peers was himself engaging in science. Today, “The Science” is what the authorized scientists and officials at public health bureaucracies say it is, and cannot or should not be challenged by other “scientists…” who perhaps should not even be called scientists and should now be labeled as “science deniers.” Or as…

Anti-vaxxer — Technically, this would be a person who opposes all vaccines. In Newspeak, it means anyone who is against mandatory COVID vaccines. In practice, this term is used as a slur to denigrate anyone who questions the pronouncements of authorities.  If you oppose mandatory COVID vaccines for whatever reason, you are a “science denier” or “anti-science…” and, as such can and should be punished or censored because you could be causing “harm” to the public.

Free or freedom — In “the land of the free” the definition of freedom has also been radically changed.

Today, some Americans are “free” to keep their jobs or go to a restaurant or see a play if they can prove they have received at least two injections of an experimental vaccine (a vaccine where the vaccinated waive their right to sue if they later suffer harm). Americans may be allowed to engage in “free speech” on social media… if they say the right things.

It’s not just “COVID” topics that are now being regulated by speech monitors. If you publish “extremist” speech or politically incorrect speech that can be labeled as “harmful” or “dangerous,” you also can lose your job or speech privileges.

With the precedent established that speech can cause “harm” and that the primary role of government is to protect people from harm, the harm of being “offended” by speech is now a sanctionable offense.

Patriotism or patriot — In the past, a “patriot” was one who stood up to tyrannical governments and/or displayed a great love for their country. Today, for many Americans, a patriot is one who complies with the edicts of their government and helps attack or embarrasses those who challenge governmental authority.

Just this week, President Biden proclaimed that Americans who get vaccinated are doing their patriotic duty. This statement builds on the “us-against-them” theme, the good American vs. bad American narrative.

Public health — This term once meant the state of overall health in hundreds of millions of people who comprise “the public.” In the last two years, it’s come to mean the “health” of people who may or may not have COVID-19.

Today, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental health, obesity – all the conditions that kill and harm people — are afterthoughts when compared to “COVID health.”

All of the above was made possible by changes in accepted language. George Orwell was right. If you want to control people, first control the language.

COVID, a virus that poses no significant health risk to 98 percent of the population, has given us a “New Normal” where “vaccines” are not vaccines, where “freedom” is now a privilege granted to those who obey, and where unelected public health officials have made billions of dollars for pharmaceutical companies.

Bill Rice, Jr. is a freelance writer in Troy, Alabama. He can be reached by email at wrjicejunior@gmail.com.

December 20, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Piers Corbyn arrested for ‘inciting violence’

RT | December 19, 2021

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s brother Piers has been arrested for allegedly calling for the offices of pro-lockdown MPs to be burnt down during a protest against vaccination mandates in Westminster.

Corbyn was arrested in Southwark, London on Sunday at 1.45am local time, according to The Guardian, which cited Metropolitan police sources. Police had previously mentioned they were investigating a video in which the anti-lockdown protest leader appeared to be advocating arson.

The brother of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn can be seen on the video, shot at Saturday’s protest outside Downing Street, calling on supporters to “hammer to death those scum who have decided to go ahead with introducing new fascism.” Informing his audience that there are websites with lists of MPs who fit that description, he recommended their constituents “go to their offices and — well, I would recommend burning them down, but I can’t say that on air.”

Audience members laugh in response, suggesting the remark was not made in seriousness, but Corbyn appears to realize he’s gone too far, repeating, “I hope we’re not on air.”

Corbyn also calls for anti-mandate protesters to “get a bit more physical,” urging demonstrators to “take down these lying vaccinators and we’ve got to take down these lying MPs.” Protesters, he said, should “support and welcome” those who have rebelled against PM Boris Johnson’s Covid-19 control measures in either party. Legislation to introduce vaccination certificates passed on Tuesday despite 99 Conservative MPs breaking with the party line to vote against it.

The protest attracted thousands of demonstrators who subsequently marched through the capital. Doctors have characterized the Omicron variant as comparatively mild, but that has not prevented governments from undergoing the now-routine process of locking down, renewing calls for vaccination and/or boosters, denouncing the unvaccinated, and unleashing the police on protesters.

Home Secretary Priti Patel demanded that police investigate the “sickening” video, urging them to “take the strongest possible action” against Corbyn. The 74-year-old was arrested on “suspicion of encouragement to commit arson.” A fixture at anti-lockdown protests since London began implementing Covid-19 restrictions, Corbyn has been arrested several times for breaching government pandemic orders.

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

OK, I admit I was wrong about the Democratic party

By Steve Kirsch | December 19, 2021

Here are the things I believe in:

  1. Freedom to speak the truth without censorship
  2. Science
  3. Facts
  4. Medical freedom/choice
  5. The Nuremberg Code / informed consent
  6. Allowing the public to hold people accountable
  7. Open discourse and debate to settle differences
  8. Caring for those who the government has injured

The Democrats believe (written from the perspective of the Democratic party):

  1. The truth should be censored if it conflicts with the narrative. It’s totally fine with us if you get deplatformed and/or censored on social media for telling the truth if the truth doesn’t agree with our point of view. It is well established that censorship of the truth is necessary for us to maintain mass formation. Watch this excellent 20 minute After Skool video if you haven’t seen it already. That is why no Democrat has spoken out against the Disinformation Dozen censorship list. RFK Jr. is #2 on that list. Therefore, it follows that censoring people like RFK Jr. should be a national priority and his book never should have been published. We should try to confiscate and destroy all copies of it. Book burning is back. It should be illegal to protest. And you should be thrown in jail if you speak out against the narrative. So sure, you can speak. We’ll put you in jail for 30 years after your speech.
  2. It’s not about science; it is about expert opinion from the authority we are paid to trust. The NIH, FDA, and CDC are the authorities. Democrats support the agencies without question, not what the science or the data says. So for mask wearing, for example, even though there are just 2 randomized trials, both showing masks don’t work, that is not what matters. The CDC will find lower quality studies that support their narrative and that is what we should pay attention to, not the higher quality studies.
  3. Facts don’t matter if they don’t fit the narrative. The fact is that there are hundreds of thousands of people that are vaccine injured in America today. But Facebook removed those groups, so they don’t exist anymore in the mind of Democrats. The Democrats believe what remains (no victims) are what matters. No vaccine injured means no need to meet with them. They don’t exist.
  4. The government gets to determine what you get injected with. If we think it is good for society and want to make you part of an experimental clinical trial, you can say no, but we’ll make it impossible for you to earn a living anywhere. Do what we say. You don’t get to decide what goes into your body. We know best. And we don’t have to produce a cost-benefit analysis showing a net societal benefit. Nobody has seen that because we’ve never produced it. We have the entire population totally captured and their ability to think critically has been disabled.
  5. The Nuremberg Code / informed consent is obsolete. We don’t need informed consent to inject you with a deadly vaccine. That’s so old-fashioned. People should trust the government. The government never makes mistakes. We’d never inject you if it wasn’t good for the drug companies. And despite the liability waiver, we actually don’t want to kill you. That would cut our revenue stream.
  6. Accountability isn’t necessary or desired. Why would you need accountability? If citizens have legitimate issues with government decisions, who cares? They are not in charge. Want to meet with your Representative? Not going to happen. Congressional aids have been instructed not to look at any non-government materials that don’t align with the narrative. The will only trust what the government institutions tell you, nothing else. We tell citizens to pound sand if they don’t like it. Sure, everyone knows that any Democratic chairman could have requested Fauci’s unredacted emails with just a letter to the NIH. Will we ever do that? Are you kidding me? No F@#*%! Way. We do not believe in holding people accountable. We trust Fauci. He’s the expert. After all, he is the creator of the coronavirus. What better authority to be in charge of it? And as for Maddie de Garay the 12-year-old disabled for life in the Pfizer clinical trial? Sure, we know she’s vaccine injured, but to admit that now would destroy the credibility of the FDA. We’ve made sure the press doesn’t cover it. So there is never going to be an investigation of this at the FDA and there is no Democrat who will ever push for an investigation into this clinical trial fraud. We’ve made sure that parents are never going to find out how deadly the vaccines are because they trust us and they are not smart enough to access VAERS.
  7. Open discourse and debate is forbidden. It would expose the corruption of the government institutions. This is why nobody in Congress, the Agencies, or their committees is going to engage in a debate on vaccine safety. Nobody wants the party to end.
  8. We don’t care about vaccine injured because that would blow the narrative. Look, if we admitted the obvious, that there are hundreds of thousands of vaccine injured people, that would be an admission that the vaccines are not safe. So we have to pretend all these injuries are just coincidences. And there cannot be any payouts to victims because doing that would show America that the government acknowledges the vaccines aren’t safe. This is also why no Democrat is ever going to meet with anyone who is vaccine injured: doing so would be a tacit admission that the vaccine injures people. Can’t have that. This is also why no Democrat will meet with the parents of kids and other family members who were killed by the vaccine. Can’t have that.

Am I being too cynical or did I get that right?

Full article

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

The horrifying vaccine damage testimonies of Australia’s silenced nurses

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | December 16, 2021

‘I’ve seen suffering amongst people on a level that I’ve never seen before. In the last week, I went to my 13th death or cardiac arrest and subsequent death post the vaccine’ –Paramedic, Queensland Ambulance Service

LAST week a regular reader of TCW Defending Freedom sent me a film that, despite all I already knew about Covid vaccine adverse reactions, injuries and deaths, shocked me to the core. In it more than a dozen Australian nurses and paramedics give their testimonies of what they’ve been witnessing and dealing with daily. They fear speaking out loud and openly such is the culture of silence and denial, a culture which defies conscience and medical ethics. Their voices and faces are disguised because they fear for their jobs: ‘It’s been made very clear by our registry board AHPRA that any form of speaking out against the narrative could lead to deregistration. And Queensland Ambulance has made that clear as well.’

Their need for anonymity is self-evident but equally clear is their determination to tell the world what is really happening and what the medical authorities are suppressing. I do not know who made the film but nothing about it suggests to me that it is anything but genuine.

It opens with quotes from various nurses’ and paramedics’ testimonies – their first-hand evidence of vaccine harms. Each is identified by number and job title as confirmed, in the film, by a commissioner of declarations.

‘What I’m seeing on the front line is that, you know, these vaccines are not as safe as we were led to believe. And in a lot of cases, they seem to be doing more harm than good.’ Paramedic (over 15 years) QLD Ambulance Service 

‘Four people in wheelchairs present back to the clinics after receiving Pfizer and they were all under 40. These were all people that weren’t able to walk. They had numbness and they couldn’t feel legs and arms.’ Vaccine clinic admin officer, QLD Health  

‘So there was a young person who had his jab three days prior, so he had it on the Wednesday and he was last seen well on Saturday night. Sunday morning, he was found unconscious on the floor in his own vomit, and he was diagnosed as being in septic shock and having a massive cardiac infarct. And he went to ICU. And I don’t think he recovered.’ Clinical nurse (over 15 years) QLD Health

‘To be honest, I just wish that we were allowed to speak about this. It is so frustrating to be in a position where we are seeing this stuff and we are seeing what these vaccines are doing and we’re not allowed to speak about it. Under the threat of losing our registration, we’ve been told that we’re not allowed to talk about these things and it is . . . I can’t even begin to put into words how frustrating it feels to be silenced.’ Paramedic, QLD Ambulance Service

‘Everyone’s living in fear of being reprimanded and losing their job.’ Registered nurse (over 15 years) QLD Health

We are told that as of November 1 there were approximately 7,000 Queensland Health employees yet to follow a direction from their employer requiring them to have their first Covid 19 vaccine. What follows in the film is a long edited sequence of deeply distressing accounts of the range of serious adverse vaccine events the nurses and paramedics  have been faced with, obstruction by their medical seniors and refusal to acknowledge these reactions are vaccine-related, the absence of any treatment protocols to address these ‘novel’ but extreme reaction,  a ‘normalisation’ of such reactions in the form of hospitals discharging patients still in dire need of help and, finally, expressions of deep concern that no one is being told about ‘the horrible side effects’.

You can watch the full film here below. A series of transcribed and representative quotations follow it.

‘I’ve never witnessed anything like this [inaudible], massive rise in strokes, bleed-outs, neurological disorders.’

‘I’ve noticed a big spurt in strokes. I’ve also noticed there’s been a lot of neurological conditions going on, chest pains, there’s been a lot of people presenting with chest pains post-vaccination. Sometimes it’s after the second one, two or three days, five days. Sometimes it’s immediately, the day of.’

‘Since the vaccine has been rolled out on the front line, we are seeing what I would call the effects of this vaccine. We’re seeing, well, I personally have seen an increased number of cardiac cases. In the almost 20 years I’ve been a paramedic, I’ve never before attended six back-to-back cardiac cases in one shift. In all of these patients, all six had been vaccinated.’

‘Never had a seizure before in her life. Again, healthy, well, normal 20-odd-year-old and presented with seizures, post her first Covid shot. That was two days after her Covid shot she presented with seizures on the back of no history of the same.’

‘The thing that bothers me the most is that we’re lying to the patients and we’re telling them that this is going to keep them safe and this is going to keep them out of hospital and this going to prolong their life. And everyone has taken the vaccine under false pretences, no one has been told that there are horrific side effects.’

‘When a patient comes to the hospital, they’e accompanied by a Presenting Problem paperwork and that paperwork clearly says they’ve had the vaccine and they’re now having what appears to be a stroke or bleedouts, bleedouts from the bowel and the . . . noses and just bleedouts, blood clots, passing large blood clots. Neurological disorders, unable to control their body. Patients are having strokes, where they’ve completely lost half the use of their body. Painful tingling in their peripheral nerves that over the next . . . over a period of time become so debilitating they need a wheelchair. I have seen on the paperwork at least four young people that . . . weren’t documented as having any co-morbidities, like . . . health issues, that had have had the vaccine and died within a short timeframe. One of them was 48 hours later. People under 50. And according to the paperwork, there was no paperwork accompanying it to say that they had other health issues.’

‘There was a lady that presented to the hospital with a severe catastrophic stroke. In the end, unfortunately, she did pass away, and her husband was of the firm belief it was the vaccine that had caused this. She had had two doses of AstraZeneca and was well, fit and active until two weeks post the vaccine.’

‘One example of a vaccination injury, which is very concerning, is young mums in their thirties ringing up and . . . or contacting us and saying they’d had a Pfizer vaccine or whatever vaccine they’ve had prior, like three days, one week, shortness of breath, chest pain. They’re generally very healthy. No issues in the past at all. And then suddenly they’ve got these issues.’

‘So often after they’ve waited their 15 minutes and the nurses have checked them off that they’re right to go, they come to the Admin at the checkout and more times than not people are very dazed and they can’t even tell me their names. And they’re sweating and they don’t look good. And we’ve had a number of people actually just drop and faint at checkout. And then they’ll need to be taken to the resus bay and monitored.’

‘What I’ve really noticed is that when this all began, everyone was quite stringently noting that the patient had had a vaccine. In the last [number of] weeks, that history-taking has dropped off. So the vaccine isn’t mentioned alongside with that presentation, it’s found out through other means.’

‘And we’ve had patients who had the first injection and died and there’s been nothing reported. No autopsy, no . . . reporting.’

‘So when these presentations first started happening, we had a team meeting and I just raised the question as to why we thought we were having so many presentations for, you know, this particular . . . you know, pleural effusion or be it the strokes. And everyone just got a little bit nervous. No one wanted to address the concerns. I just . . . I don’t know why. I think we all know it’s happening. There’s been no education as to how to even report these. Usually, you know, if anything comes . . . anything new happens, we would get these big emails of, “This is how you report. This is who you report through.” There’s been no communication at all regarding that.’

 ‘We’ve been told not to worry about it, because it’s rare. And when you’re doing one every shift, minimally, you know in your heart that it’s not rare.’

‘So many of us have wanted to come forward in regards to what we’ve been witnessing in the hospitals, the adverse reactions from these vaccines. However, any conversation around the viruses [sic, means ‘vaccines’?] within the hospital and amongst colleagues is strongly looked down upon. And that’s mostly due to the fact that we can be reprimanded by AHRPA.’

‘There was a noticeable change in approximately June or July, when there was no documentation about a person’s vaccination status. In fact, this question was not even being asked by the doctors when patients were presenting.’

‘I did speak to a doctor one day and asked if, during the admissions, if they were asking the patients if they had received the vaccine. And his reply was, “No.” When I probed further and asked him, “Why?” – because to me, that’s part of the patient’s medical . . . medication history – his reply was that, ‘Doesn’t everyone? Doesn’t everyone have the vaccine?’ To which I replied, “No.” And he just shrugged it off.’

 ‘Yeah, the wards are busier, to do with nurse-patient ratio, because we’ve got an increase of elderly patients coming in with upper gastric bleeds and they’re having scopes, but they’re not finding out what’s causing these bleeds. We’ve also seen an increase of pericarditis within elderly patients and young patients. And an increase in shingles in patients since the vaccination.’

‘It’s so under pressure because of the types of patients that are coming in now. When people come in with strokes and brain bleeds and pleural effusions, that’s not a quick stay – that’s a 28-days in ICU and a long stay on the wards. And these people are coming in not because of Covid, but because of the vaccines. They’re short-staffed because they’ve chosen to pay the people working at the vaccination hubs more than the award wage. And so every person who’s ever worked in a nursing pool or is a casual or works for agency has chosen to take up a station in the vaccination hubs. And therefore we have no staff to fall back on. That’s probably the key factor. The second factor is that our staff members that have been vaccinated are very unwell, and so there’s very high sick leave in the hospital setting.’

‘I do an eight-hour shift and we see around 300 to 400 people per day. And we have from three to five adverse reactions every day. ‘

‘I’ve seen four people develop pericarditis, post this vaccine. I’ve seen two women who develop neurological issues. One of them lost control of her legs, one of them lost control of her hands. I’ve seen a marked increase in patients who become septic days after getting the vaccine with no obvious cause of infection. I’ve seen 30-year-olds have massive strokes that shouldn’t be having strokes. They’re healthy, well, 30-year-olds. You know, there’s a marked increase in patients presenting with stroke-like symptoms, patients presenting with cardiac issues that shouldn’t have cardiac issues – healthy, well people who are presenting with arrhythmias and other cardiac problems that everything . . . the only common denominator that they all have is that these things have started post them getting this vaccine.’

‘And then we started seeing the bilateral pitting oedema to the legs. So if you have an underlying condition of heart failure or you’ve got renal failure, you can get swelling in your legs. These people that were coming in had neither of those background illnesses. Yet we couldn’t work out why they had this gross pitting oedema up on to their knees. And there was no inflammatory markers. There was nothing. And these poor people were quite debilitated because the swelling was painful and they couldn’t walk. So they would come in and we would be doing a whole heap of testing on them to find out what was causing it.’

‘And then the strokes started coming in. So we’ve had the intracranial haemorrhages in a wide variety of people. Intracranial haemorrhage, usually, is driven by underlying blood pressure that’s not being controlled, so you’ve got underlying hypertension or you’re on blood thinners and you have a head strike, you hit your head and then you have this intracranial bleed. But with the patients that I’ve observed, they’ve got none of those underlying conditions at the bottom of it. They just have an acute bleed. When you have an acute bleed and it’s a large volume bleed, you don’t recover from that, you end up with a brain injury.’

‘What I noticed at the beginning of the rollout of the vaccine was a pattern emerging where people, younger people, were coming in that we’re not used to seeing on our stroke ward. We do get young people sometimes, but a majority are, you know, older people with other co-morbidities. And the pattern that we were seeing was younger people coming in that had recently had the Covid vaccine and they were coming in and they were shocked that they’d, you know, had a stroke because they were previously well, they had no prior conditions that could possibly have led to a stroke.’

‘So, since the rollout of the Covid vaccines, initially we had a much higher volume of elderly patients presenting with a description of “fall from standing height”, which basically means it’s a loss of consciousness. And that, I think, is what really caught my eye first, because you might have one or two people present with this fall from standing height, but you don’t get seven or eight or ten of them coming in, all in the same day. So when they have that fall from standing height, they will either have a head injury or might break a bone or they’re just genuinely quite unwell. And I started having a look at what was this presenting cause, and most of them had just had their vaccine that week.’

‘There’s also been days where there was just one after the other, after the other, after the other of people who just can’t breathe, get the oxygen in their lungs. We’ve never seen anything like that in health. There are a lot of people getting really chronically sick and having life-changing events, and there’s nowhere for them to report it.’

 ‘I feel devastated. It’s conscience for me. Every day we go to work and we’re in total denial about what’s happening. Should this be any other drug in any other time, any other place, it would be removed from the market. Why are we not removing this drug from the market? Why are we not able to speak out? Why are we being silenced on social media? In our workplace it’s taboo, we don’t discuss it. ‘

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

British Medical Journal criticizes Facebook over “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible” “fact-check” used to censor

The article covered “data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial” and is being censored on Facebook

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | December 17, 2021

The editor of The British Medical Journal (BMJ), one of the world’s oldest and most respected medical journals, has written a letter to Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg to bring to his attention an “incorrect” fact-check on one of its reports.

The report was titled: “Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial.”

A former employee at Ventavia, a research company that helped with the trials of the Pfizer Covid vaccine, provided The BMJ with dozens of internal documents, photos, email, and recordings, that revealed “a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety,” according to the letter.

“We also discovered that, despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites,” the letter, written by BMJ editor Fiona Godlee, further claims.

The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to write the story, which was published on November 2. The article had been peer reviewed, legally reviewed, and subjected to The BMJ’s high editorial standards.

However, starting November 10, Facebook users started reporting problems when trying to share the article. Some said they were unable to share, others said their posts were flagged with a warning saying, “Missing context… Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Others were warned about the consequences of repeatedly sharing “false information.”

The BMJ’s article was fact-checked by Lead Stories, a Facebook contractor. The BMJ described the fact-check performed by Lead Stories as “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.”

The letter adds:

  • It fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong.
  • It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials.”
  • The first paragraph inaccurately labels The BMJ a “news blog.”
  • It contains a screenshot of the article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ article.
  • It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert.”
  • The BMJ contacted Lead Stories about the issue, but they allegedly refused to change their fact-check.
  • The medical journal also contacted Facebook directly about removing the fact-check.

The editors also noted that this was not the first time a credible article by an authoritative source of medical information has been censored by Meta. Instagram censored an article by Cochrane, which provides high quality reviews of medical evidence.

The letter concluded by urging Zuckerberg to “act swiftly” to correct the error relating to The BMJ’s article and to review the processes that led to the error.

December 17, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Russia demands YouTube restore RT’s German broadcast channel

RT | December 17, 2021

Russia’s media regulator has warned that it could curtail or block access to YouTube unless the American tech giant restores the “RT auf Sendung” channel. The platform deleted RT DE’s newly launched service on Thursday.

Regulator Roskomnadzor, has sent a notice to Google, YouTube’s parent company demanding that the platform lift all restrictions on the channel, which allowed internet audiences to watch RT’s newly launched around-the-clock German-language broadcasts live.

YouTube took down RT auf Sendung (RT On the Air) five hours after it began showing content. As a result, Roskomnadzor blasted YouTube’s “unprecedented” actions as “an act of censorship” that violates Moscow’s law.

If the platform fails to comply, it could receive a formal warning and then be “partially or completely” blocked in Russia, the regulator warned.

YouTube said it deleted the channel for what it considered a violation of its terms of service. It later explained that owners of previously deleted accounts are barred from launching and operating new ones.

The platform took down two of RT DE’s accounts in September, over what it claimed was a violation of community guidelines for alleged “medical misinformation” in four videos, without elaborating further or providing specific examples.

RT’s editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, called the move at the time a “declaration of media war against Russia by Germany.”

Before its removal, RT DE was the fourth-most influential German-language news source on the platform, surpassing Deutsche Welle and a number of other news broadcasters, according to Tubular Labs.

You can WATCH the live broadcast of the new channel on RT DE’s official website.

December 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Head of European media authority says RT in Germany ‘will be taken care of’

RT | December 17, 2021

Tobias Schmid, the European Representative of the Directors’ Conference of the Media Authorities, in an interview to a German media outlet NDR baselessly disputed the validity of RT’s broadcasting in Germany, but said that the channel “will be taken care of.”

German-language television channel RT DE – part of the RT network – began its broadcasting from Moscow and to multiple European countries, via a Serbia-issued license on 16.12.2021. The license had been obtained in accordance with all applicable European laws and regulations, under the European Convention on Transfrontier Television. Schmid falsely claimed that the new channel is based in Berlin – perhaps missing the extensive coverage of RT DE’s launch from RT’s Moscow headquarters, where RT DE’s newsroom, VCR, on-air studio, post-production facilities, broadcasting complex etc. are all located. He further said, that despite the utmost transparency and legality of all of RT activities in Germany, the new channel is an irritant but “will be taken care of.”

Now Schmid is attempting to use his authority, as well as that of his and other German organizations, to pressure independent European satellite operators to breach contract and terminate RT DE’s broadcasting – an action that we consider not just misguided but grossly inappropriate and in violation of RT DE’s legal rights.

December 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Twitter locked out think tank policy director for opposing “chemical castration” of kids

“Hateful conduct”

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | December 16, 2021

Twitter temporarily suspended Jon Schweppe, the director of American Principles Project (APP), for encouraging governors to support legislation that would ban the chemical castration of kids with gender dysphoria. Twitter claimed that the tweet violated its rules against hateful conduct.

APP is a pro-family think tank. Its director, Jon Schweppe, took to Twitter to applaud South Dakota’s Gov. Kristi Noem for pressing the state lawmakers to pass a law that will restrict the participation of trans individuals in female sports at the K-12 and collegiate levels.

Shweppe wrote: “Now we hope that governors will likewise be emboldened to continue the fight against the evil gender ideology being forced on America’s children by joining Arkansas and Tennessee in banning the chemical castration and surgical mutilation of minors suffering from gender dysphoria.”

Twitter suspended him for that tweet, which it said went against its “rules against hateful conduct.”

APP’s account tweeted that Schweppe appealed the suspension arguing that he was “advocating for protecting children from violence.” Twitter rejected the appeal.

December 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Digital Surveillance — the Real Motive Behind Push to Vaccinate Kids

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | December 15, 2021

COVID-19 may have caught much of the planet by surprise in late 2019 and early 2020, but much of the groundwork for the technology now widely used as a “response” to the pandemic was conceptualized and developed years prior.

In the U.S. and throughout the world, there has been a recent push to implement a variety of “vaccine passport” regimes, many of which rely on digital technologies such as mobile applications to carry a record of — so far, at least — one’s COVID-19 vaccination records.

These “tools” are presented by public officials and significant sections of the media in recent weeks and months as an inevitability of sorts, a technological progression as natural as breathing.

They are also presented as a “new” response to an unprecedented crisis.

These technological applications are touted as a means of keeping businesses open and ensuring “peace of mind” for members of the public who remain wary about entering public spaces.

But just how new is this “new” technology? And will the use of technology be limited to COVID vaccinations, or for purposes of “health?”

International ‘alliances’ backing the melding of ‘Big Tech’ and ‘Big Health’

It was the beginning of the preceding decade, January 2010, when Bill Gates, via the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, proclaimed “[w]e must make this the decade of vaccines,” adding that “innovation will make it possible to save more children than ever before.”

In launching this so-called “Decade of Vaccines,” the Gates Foundation pledged $10 billion in funding. But Gates wasn’t the only actor behind this initiative.

For instance, the “Decade of Vaccines” program used a model originating from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to project the potential impact of vaccines on childhood deaths throughout the decade to come.

And the announcement for the “Decade of Vaccines” initiative was made at that year’s annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF).

These same actors — the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the WEF — organized the now-notorious Event 201 pandemic simulation exercise, in October 2019, just before COVID entered our lives.

Moreover, in 2010, a “Global Vaccine Action Plan” was announced as part of this initiative. It was a collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), with Dr. Anthony Fauci serving on the leadership council.

As the Gates Foundation stated at the time:

“The Global Vaccine Action Plan will enable greater coordination across all stakeholder groups — national governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, the private sector and philanthropic organizations — and will identify critical policy, resource and other gaps that must be addressed to realize the life-saving potential of vaccines.”

The steering committee for the “Global Vaccine Action Plan” included a member from the GAVI Alliance. Notably, the initial announcement for the “Decade of Vaccines” was made in the presence of Julian Lob-Levyt, then-CEO of the GAVI Alliance.

What, or who, is the GAVI Alliance? Also known as the “Vaccine Alliance,” it proclaims a mission to “save lives and protect people’s health,” and states it “helps vaccinate almost half the world’s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases.”

GAVI goes on to describe its core partnership with various international organizations, including names that are by now familiar: the WHO, UNICEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Bank. (Far from helping the world’s poor, the World Bank has been described by a former insider, John Perkins, as an organization that uses “economic hit men” to subjugate financially crippled countries).

In 2018, GAVI, through its INFUSE (innovation for update, scale and equity in immunization) Initiative, put forth the following “food for thought”:

“Imagine a future in which all children have access to life-saving vaccines no matter where they live — a future in which parents and health workers ensure their timely vaccination, a future in which they have their own digitally stored health record that cannot be lost or stolen, a future in which, regardless of gender, economic or social standing, this record allows each child (and parents) to have access to a bank account, go to school, access services and ultimately build a prosperous life.

“This future is possible today. With the latest advances in digital technologies that enable more effective ways to register, identify births and issue proof of identity and authentication for access to services — we are on the brink of building a healthier and more prosperous future for the world’s most vulnerable children.”

This would be accomplished, according to GAVI, through the INFUSE initiative, specifically by “calling for innovations that leverage new technologies to modernize the process of identifying and registering the children who are most in need of life-saving vaccines.”

As described by investigative reporter Leo Hohmann:

“Don’t be confused by the bit about ‘building a healthier and more prosperous future.’ That’s just window dressing. This is all about data collection and has nothing to do with health.

“The real purpose behind the historic, unprecedented push to vaccinate the very young, even against diseases like COVID that do not pose a threat to them, is to fold the current generation of children into the blossoming global digital identity system.”

GAVI itself confirmed the above statement, as it has described potential uses of these “new technologies” as going beyond the issuance of a “digital child health card” toward encompassing “access to other services,” including the broadly defined “financial services.”

Limitations on “access” to such “other services” are already apparent in jurisdictions where COVID passports restrict access to businesses, banks and other private spaces for the non-vaccinated

The GAVI Alliance also closely collaborates with the ID2020 Alliance, founded in 2016, which claims to advocate in favor of “ethical, privacy-protecting approaches to digital ID,” adding that “doing digital ID right means protecting civil liberties.

Unsurprisingly, there is no clarification provided regarding the potential loss of civil liberties for individuals who choose, for any reason, not to be vaccinated and who are therefore excluded from large swaths of society in areas where COVID passports have been implemented and enforced.

Such rhetoric on the part of ID2020 is reminiscent of the public statements put forth by the European Union (EU) as it was preparing to launch its so-called “Green Pass” earlier this year.

EU officials, such as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen — who recently called for a “discussion” on mandatory vaccinations in the EU — went to great lengths to stress how individuals’ privacy would be protected.

In a manner which some may consider tone-deaf, they further emphasized that such a digital pass would enable people to “move safely” for “work or tourism,” as if such free movement is a new concept that only a digital pass could make possible.

Again, restrictions on the unvaccinated, including those involving “work or tourism,” were entirely absent from the public rhetoric surrounding this new measure.

Highlighting the possibilities that the GAVI-ID2020 collaboration could bring, the INFUSE call for innovation states:

“According to the ID2020 Alliance — a public-private partnership that includes Gavi — the use of digital health cards for children could directly improve coverage rates by ensuring a verifiable, accurate record and by prompting parents to bring their children in for a subsequent dose.

“From the parents’ perspective, digital records can make it convenient to track a child’s vaccines and eliminate unnecessary paperwork.

“And as children grow, their digital health card can be used to access secondary services, such as primary school, or ease the process of obtaining alternative credentials. Effectively, the digital health card could, depending on country needs and readiness, potentially become the first step in establishing a legal, broadly recognized identity.”

All of these proposals and initiatives appear, in turn, to be closely aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, and in particular, Goal 16.9, which calls for the provision of a digital legal identity for all, including newborns, by 2030.

To this end, the UN established the UN Legal Identity Agenda Task Force in 2018. In May 2021, this task force, alongside the United Nations Development Programme and a variety of private sector actors, organized the “Future of Technology and Institutional Governance in Identity Management” roundtable sessions.

The final report from these sessions indicates, among other things, a desire from the stakeholders for the expansion of public-private partnerships for the further development and implementation of digital ID regimes worldwide, including in the Global South.

One of the stakeholders present, the not-for-profit Secure Identity Alliance, touts its support for “the provision of legal, trusted identity for all and driving the development of inclusive digital services necessary for sustainable, worldwide economic growth and prosperity.”

A paper published in July by the Security Identity Alliance discusses “making health certificates a workable reality.”

One of the five principles the paper puts forth for such health passports is that they are “futureproofed,” by offering “multi-purpose functionality” in order to “ensure ongoing value beyond today’s current crisis.”

The Secure Identity Alliance counts among its observers governmental authorities from countries such as Germany, The Netherlands, Estonia, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Nigeria and Guinea.

Moreover, one of its founding members and current board members is the Thales Group, a private company involved in aerospace, defense and security — in short, a defense contractor.

On its website, the Thales Group proudly promotes its “smart health card” and Digital ID Wallet technology. Amidst utopian language claiming “we’re ready for change” and “putting citizens in control,” the Digital ID Wallet promises the public the ability to “access the rights and services to which we are entitled.”

Indeed, the documents that would be available via this Digital ID Wallet go beyond “health credentials” and include national identification cards, driver’s licenses and any number of other items of official documentation.

Numerous countries worldwide, including the U.S., currently find themselves in varying stages of implementing exactly this sort of “digital wallet.”

Taking ‘health passports’ a step (or more) further: digital wallet regimes take shape

The U.S. House of Representatives on Nov. 30 passed H.R. 550, the Immunization Infrastructure Modernization Act of 2021.

If passed by Congress, this law would provide $400 million in funding to expand vaccine-tracking systems at the state and local level, enabling state health officials to monitor the vaccination status of American citizens and to provide this information to the federal government.

Vaccine passports and no-fly lists for the unvaccinated — a concept for which Fauci expressed his support — could be created under the law.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Annie Kuster (NH-02), passed the U.S. House of Representatives with 294 votes, including all Democrats and 80 Republicans. It is now before the Senate, where it is being reviewed by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Since being passed by the House, the bill has garnered a fair amount of attention — other recent digital identification developments in the U.S., however, seem to have remained relatively under the radar.

In September, for instance, Apple announced a partnership with eight states — Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma and Utah — to make those respective states’ driver’s licenses available in digital form via the Apple Wallet platform.

Meanwhile, several states, including New York (via its “Excelsior Pass”) and Connecticut introduced their own digital COVID vaccination certificate.

Similar to how the EU has promoted vaccine passports, these state-level initiatives in the U.S. are touted as a means of “safely” reopening the economy and encouraging travel and movement.

Indeed, New York went so far as to make a “blueprint” of its vaccine pass platform available, “as a guide to assist other states, territories, and entities in the expansion of compatible COVID-19 vaccine credential systems to advance economic development efforts nationwide.”

Looking at the EU, one of the bloc’s priorities as part of its 2019-2024 five-year plan is to create a “digital identity for all Europeans.” Namely, each EU citizen and resident would have access to a “personal digital wallet” under this initiative.

This “personal digital wallet” could include documentation such as national ID cards, birth certificates, medical certificates and driver’s licenses.

The EU subsequently presented its plans for the “European Digital Decade,” where under the EU’s “Digital Compass,” 100% of key public services will be available digitally, with a target of 80% uptake of digital identification documents.

Already, several EU member states are getting into the act.

Germany, which had electronic national ID cards (via biometric chips) since 2010, introduced digital versions of these ID cards this past fall, via the AusweisApp2. The same app makes German driver’s licenses available digitally.

Germany and Spain also recently signed an agreement to launch a cross-border program for digital identification, which would entail mutual recognition of each other’s official digital documents

France also recently announced its intention to integrate its national identification card with smartphones.

Greece received praise from the global press when it introduced particularly draconian digital tools during its two COVID lockdowns, such as a government SMS platform to which residents would have to send a text message in order to circulate in public for a limited set of “reasons.”

More recently, Greece announced the forthcoming creation of a digital wallet that will contain documents such as one’s national ID card, driver’s license and health documentation.

Estonia, viewed as a world leader in introducing digital e-governance and which has had digital identification cards in place since 2002, is preparing its own digital wallet system while expressing support for the EU’s “Digital Compass.”

Outside of Europe, several other countries also have expanded their digital identification regimes in various ways.

In Australia, for instance, states such as New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland introduced or trialed digital driver’s licenses.

It is in India, though, where such digital documents appear to have generated the greatest degree of controversy thus far.

The Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission was announced in 2020 and launched as a pilot program in six regions of India in 2021. It is an app that provides a unique digital health ID to each citizen and is linked to their personal health records.

Its establishment comes on the footsteps of the development of Aadhaar, India’s national digital identification card system.

Aadhaar generated controversy over the government’s plans to link it to the national voter database, while it has also been the target of hackers.

Questions arise as more digital platforms rolled out for ‘official purposes’

The rollout of digital platforms gives rise to questions about the safety of individuals’ data on these digital platforms, despite government reassurances to the contrary regarding privacy.

Moreover, it remains unclear how long “COVID passports,” whether in digital or paper form, will remain enforced, or if governments plan to make such a regime permanent.

A recent article in The Atlantic, “Why Aren’t We Even Talking About Easing COVID Restrictions?” questioned why vaccine passport mandates in the U.S. have no sunset date.

Indeed, if the proclamation of the Secure Identity Alliance regarding the need to “futureproof” such digital documents is any indication, it may be the case that governments have no intention to scrap vaccine passports.

Even if such specific uses of digital “passports” eventually go away, the range of ways in which digital wallets can potentially be utilized is staggering, including, for instance, via the tracking of “personal carbon allowances,” as previously reported by The Defender.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

© 2021 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.

December 16, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

FDA Colludes with US Postal Service to Destroy Ivermectin Shipments

InfoWars | December 15, 2021

The US Food and Drug Administration is colluding with the US Postal Service to intercept inbound international shipments of Covid wonder drug ivermectin, reports circulating on social media claim.

According to letters from the FDA being shared online, the federal regulatory agency blocked shipments of ivermectin from reaching their intended recipients as they came through ports of entry.

“A shipment addressed to you from a foreign country is being held by the post office at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration,” reads one letter shared by attorney Aaron Siri.

According to the letter, the package containing 200 tablets of “Iverheal ivermectin tablets” was intercepted at the JFK Airport Port of Entry on November 9, 2021.

In another letter, the FDA intercepted 300 tablets of “Iverpac12” back in August, which they said were “subject to refusal of admission into the United States and are subject to administrative destruction.”

News of the FDA’s collusion with the US Postal Service comes as more people seek the effective drug and other preventative early treatments to remedy Covid-19 symptoms.

Meanwhile, the FDA has continued it’s fear-mongering campaign advising Americans not to consume the “horse dewormer” drug to treat Covid, as it has not been formally approved [for COVID use].

December 15, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »