Internet giants cover-up for Big Pharma, suppress alternative medicine and bury inconvenient facts.
According to research done by We Are Social, the average internet user spends over 6 and half hours online every day.
The internet is both a blessing as a curse. On the one hand, it gives us access to knowledge and technology that improves our lives, but on the other hand, it’s an addictive and dangerous mind-control tool that can be exploited to influence your choices and manipulate your thinking.
The COVID pseudopandemic has seen internet censorship rise to an unprecedented level. The controllers and their minions are scrambling to silence anyone who dares to question the efficacy of vaccines or the existence of Sars-Cov-2.
Let’s recap: In the space of a few months, thousands of YouTube channels and millions of Facebook posts have been deleted. The former president of the United States’ Twitter account was removed, and, Greenmedinfo, a site that aggregates research on natural remedies, had both their Facebook and Instagram accounts deleted losing over half a million followers.
LinkedIn also joined in on the action by deleting the account of Dr. Robert Malone after he questioned the safety of the mRNA vaccines, the technology for which he himself played a huge part in creating.
Parler was removed from the internet and so was the website of America’s Frontline Doctors after they endorsed non-agenda-approved treatments to combat COVID-19. More recently, in a move that’s disturbing yet predictable, Facebook has begun sending users creepy messages relating to “extremist content”.
So content that goes against the mainstream agenda is either censored or outright deleted. We know that. But what about the content that goes against corporate interests but isn’t quite insidious enough to be removed? What does Google, the largest search engine in the world, processing over 40,000 search requests per second, do about such content?
The first thing to understand about Google is that it’s more than just a search engine. Google develops and maintains a network of applications that all work together to collect, analyze, and leverage your data. Each application feeds data into the next, forming a global chain of information exchange.
For example, Google’s driverless car initiative powers Google Maps, which in turn powers Google’s local listings. It is this network effect that has made Google such a powerful and unrivaled force in the search engine space.
As a search engine, Google decides what information you see and what information you don’t. It goes without saying, but any tool with such power needs to be responsibly managed and repeatedly scrutinized.
Anyone who chooses to use such a tool should also be aware that they are seeing the internet through a lens created by Google’s mysterious algorithms and the information they’re receiving doesn’t necessarily come from an objective or neutral source.
Google’s ability to affect people’s thinking was demonstrated by the work of Dr. Robert Epstein when his team found that Google was profoundly influencing the results of elections. Epstein writes that:
Our research leaves a little doubt about whether Google has the ability to control voters. In laboratory and online experiments conducted in the United States, we were able to boost the proportion of people who favored any candidates by between 37 and 63 percent after just one search session. […] Whether or not Google executive see it this way, the employees who constantly adjust the search giants algorithms are manipulating people every minute of every day.”
It would also appear that Google is inherently biased towards pro-drug, pro-vaccine, Big Pharma medicine. In 2019, the search engine made an update to its algorithm that just so happened to shadow-ban health websites not affiliated with billion-dollar corporates.
The websites affected included GreenMedInfo, SelfHacked, and Mercola.com. Some of these sites lost over 90% of their organic traffic, overnight.
When searching for most health-related topics on Google, the first page is almost always filled with content from websites like WebMD, whose history is filled with conflicts of interest and open collaborations with Monsanto, Merck, and other corporates.
In 2017, the search engine blacklisted naturalnews.com, a natural health advocacy organization that reports on controversial health topics including vaccine safety, GMOs, and pharmaceutical experiments, de-indexing over 140,000 of their webpages.
In a 2019 article, the founder of NaturalNews, Mike Adams, had this to say about Google (emphasis in original):
Make no mistake: Google is pro-pharma, pro-Monsanto, pro-glyphosate, pro-pesticides, pro-chemotherapy, pro-fluoride, pro-5G, pro-geoengineering and fully supports every other toxic poison that endangers humankind.”
Google’s ties to Big Pharma are well-known. In 2016, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, partnered with GlaxoSmithKline to create a new company focused on research into bioelectronics – a branch of medical science aimed at fighting diseases by targeting electrical signals in the body. GSK also works directly with Google thanks to a deal between the two companies that allows GSK full control over the data that they use. What data? Whose data? That isn’t disclosed.
Alphabet is also heavily invested in Vaccitech, a UK-based vaccine company founded by researchers at Oxford University’s Jenner Institute, the Vatican (vaxxican?) of vaccine research.
Finally, it has recently come to light that Google’s charity arm, Google.org, provided funding for research and studies carried out by Peter Daszak and his charity, EcoHealth Alliance – the same charity that previously worked with the Wuhan lab involved in so-called ‘gain of function’ research.
These conflicts of interest alone should call into question the search engine’s ability to provide an unbiased view of health content on the internet.
Google’s “autocomplete” algorithm is another source of manipulation that works to affect people’s perceptions about the danger of vaccines and the efficacy of natural treatments.
For example, if you type “vaccines cause” into Google, the top suggestion is “vaccines cause adults”. I mean, seriously? In contrast, if you search “Chiropractic is”, the top suggestions are “quackery”, “pseudoscience” and “dangerous”.
Autocomplete is supposedly based on data collected from real Google searches, especially common and trending ones. However, data from Google trends clearly show that ever since 2004, “vaccines cause autism” has been searched far more times than “vaccines cause adults”, and “Chiropractic is good” has received a far higher popularity score than “Chiropractic is quackery”, the top suggestion.
A similar trend can be observed for terms such as “supplements are”, “GMOs are”, “glyphosate is”, “organic is”, “homeopathy is”, and “holistic medicine is”.
Looking at the way Google favours Big Pharma content, it’s reasonable to suspect that their “data lakes” are being poisoned. In fact, this was confirmed in 2019 when former Google software engineer, Zack Vorheis, leaked 950 pages of internal company documents providing evidence that Google was shaping election results, implementing stealth censorship programmes, and maintaining undisclosed blacklists.
Google’s algorithms are shrouded in mystery, based on black-box machine learning models that few people understand.
Machine learning models must be “trained” and as long as Google feeds them data to say “non-drug medicine is bad, Big Pharma is good”, the algorithms will continue to re-bias the internet in that direction, altering people’s perceptions of natural health and presenting drug-based medicine as the shining light in a dark world filled with invisible enemies.
When it comes to psychological manipulation, Google’s “partner in crime” is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia operated by the Wikimedia Foundation.
If you’ve ever searched for anything on the internet, you’ve likely seen Wikipedia show up towards the top of the search results. When it comes to questions without any commercial impact, such as “What’s the capital of Turkey?”, Wikipedia does a pretty good job.
But when it comes to multibillion-dollar industries, things get a little murky. Big corporates have big pockets and they aren’t opposed to the concept of “pay-to-play”. This was highlighted in 2012 when British PR firm, Bell Pottinger, was exposed for its involvement in manipulating Wikipedia entries for paying clients.
The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, is no saint, either. In 2008 he used the platform as his personal relationship break-up tool by updating his relationship status on his Wiki entry before telling his girlfriend. And in 2010, he was embroiled in a Wikipedia pornography-removal scandal that saw him “voluntarily” relinquish certain editing and admin privileges.
One of the industries where Wikipedia’s bias is most noticeable is healthcare. In an article for the Orthomolecular News Service, Howard Strauss, Grandson of Max Gerson, MD (the creator of the Gerson cancer therapy) states that:
This writer and many others in the field of alternative medicine and natural healing have experienced Wikipedia bias personally when contributing well-documented, carefully researched articles to the site, only to have them be radically altered and deleted, by anonymous “editors,” then being banned from further editing or contributions. This is impossible to reconcile with a free flow of information.”
And this can be verified as Wikipedia keeps a public record of all edits made to an article over time. He goes on to comment on the history of Wikipedia and states that:
At first, it was interesting to see uncensored information flow through the site, and even contribute to it. Then corporate America realized that Wikipedia, and similar sites, were distributing information they had carefully and thoroughly suppressed in the media, and set about correcting that omission. Soon, Wikipedia entries about natural healing, holistic medicine, and other subjects began to resemble publicity blurbs from Monsanto, or Merck, or the NIH. Contributors are supposed to be anonymous, “volunteer” editors were supposed to be both anonymous and neutral. But it was clear that for certain sensitive subjects, this was far from the case.”
If you want to see Wikipedia’s bias for yourself, just search for any medical discipline that isn’t drug-based. And if you want to make things really fun, take a shot of whiskey every time you see the word ‘pseudoscience’.
Here are real snippets from Wikipedia entries on alternative forms of medicine and natural healing, taken from the first few sentences of the entry…
- Chiropractic: “Chiropractic is a pseudoscientific alternative medicine…”
- Chinese medicine: “Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is a branch of traditional medicine in China. It has been described as “fraught with pseudoscience.“
- Homeopathy: “Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine.”
- Ayurveda: “The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific.”
- Acupuncture: “Acupuncture is a pseudoscience.”
- German New Medicine: “Germanic New Medicine (GNM), also formerly known as German New Medicine and New Medicine, a system of pseudo-medicine.“
- Functional Medicine: “Functional medicine is a form of alternative medicine that encompasses a number of unproven and disproven methods and treatments.“
The editors display a shocking level of bias by cherry-picking references, many of which are not peer-reviewed or scientific, and make hollow claims which they portray as facts.
The entry on Functional Medicine is particularly difficult to get through. Functional Medicine is a form of medicine focused on identifying and addressing the root cause of disease. It often involves treatments to correct nutritional imbalances and gut dysbiosis.
However, the author claims that functional medicine encompasses a number of ‘unproven’ and ‘disproven’ treatments and cites two articles on sciencebasedmedicine.org, a notorious ‘Skeptic’ publication, both written by the same author.
The articles, far from scientific or scholarly, read as opinion pieces written by an MD with a chip on his shoulder, who clearly has no understanding of what functional medicine really is. The author, Dr. Wallace Sampson, passed away in 2015. Here’s his author bio:
Retired hematologist/oncologist, presumptive analyzer of ideological and fraudulent medical claims, claimant to being founding editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, and to detecting quackery by smell.”
Incidentally, the Wikipedia entry for the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, says that it is a discontinued medical journal and that it was evaluated at least three times by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for indexing in MEDLINE, but rejected each time. What a shame.
Furthermore, in 2003, a California Appeals Court found Dr. Sampson “to be biased and unworthy of credibility.” Yet these are the kind of charlatans that Wikipedia endorses as “experts”.
Instead of citing ‘quackbuster’ publications written by biased, outdated, and nutritionally uneducated MDs, the editors would do well to dive into Alan Gaby’s Nutritional Medicine (over 16,000 scientific references), or Dr. Alex Vasquez’s Inflammation Mastery. That’s presuming they have the intelligence to read high-level, academic texts, based on real, unbiased science (not opinions).
If I were an editor at Wikipedia, I may choose to rewrite the article on chemotherapy, claiming it is a pseudoscience by citing this 2004 study which found the overall contribution of chemotherapy to cancer survival to be barely over 2%, or this study in Nature Medicine that found chemotherapy to increase tumour growth and survival.
Wikipedia made its stance on alternative health quite clear in 2014 when founder Jimmy Wales ridiculed an 8,000-signature petition on Change.org calling for a fairer discussion of alternative and complementary medicine on the encyclopedia. The petition stated that:
As gatekeepers for the status quo, they [Wikipedia] refuse discourse with leading-edge research scientists and clinicians or, for that matter, anyone with a different point of view”
Instead of recognizing his lack of expertise in the area of healthcare and re-evaluating the fraudulent and dubious wiki entries, Wales demonstrated his lack of awareness by stating that:
What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of ‘true scientific discourse’. It isn’t.”
Quite frankly, it’s not surprising to hear such a response from the man who heads an organization that serves the interests of the Big Money Machine and its quest to dumb down the populace. As Dr. Vasquez puts it, in a recent critique of a New York Times propaganda piece on the “danger” of nutritional supplements to fight coronavirus:
The scaffolding of our institutionalized ignorance requires structural support from publications and organizations that pretend to inform and empower us while simply leaving us dumber and weaker than before.”
So when did Wikipedia become an extension of Big Pharma? The truth is that the health section of Wikipedia was commandeered by a bitter group of skeptics who live within their own, egoic constructs of reality and health.
This anti-health movement ramped up in 2006 when Paul Lee, then the listmaster of Quackwatch, made a forum post inviting skeptics to come forward and begin writing content on Wikipedia about natural and complementary health topics.
Quackwatch, a “Skeptic” website aimed at “debunking” and smearing non-drug medicine, was founded by Steven Barrett, an unlicensed MD who failed his psychiatric board exam, and has authored zero published research (at least I haven’t been able to find any). During a court proceeding, he admitted ties to the AMA, the Federal Trade Commission, and the FDA (though his sources of funding are likely far more expansive).
Lee was in full violation of Wikipedia’s neutrality policy and knowing this, he stated:
Any coordination of efforts should be done by private email, since Wikipedia keeps a very public history of every little edit, and you can’t get them removed. We don’t need any accusations of a conspiracy.”
Needless to say, a coordinated effort over private email IS a conspiracy. And not a very sophisticated one at that.
Then, in a move demonstrating both the organization’s ethical and moral standards, Wikipedia made Paul Lee a senior editor with special rights and privileges.
The influence that both Google and Wikipedia have is astonishing when you consider that Google receives more than 1 billion health-related questions per day. How many of those people have turned away from effective treatments due to the information Google fed them? How many people wrongly believe that COVID vaccines are safe effective?
But who do we blame for the increasing power and influence that Google and Wikipedia hold? Perhaps we are to blame. Blindly trusting in “authorities” to have our best interests at heart is the kind of infantile thinking that got us into this mess.
As the number one visited website in the world, Google controls ~90% of global search traffic. Our minds, health beliefs, political stances, and world views are inseparably linked to information we read on the internet and neither Google nor Wikipedia is an objective source for this information.
It is time that we take responsibility for our own health. We have to develop the ability to read and assess health knowledge objectively and intuitively.
Do you suffer from depression? Maybe you need to get your vitamin B12 or vitamin D levels checked, maybe you need to cut out processed and neuroinflammatory foods from your diet.
The internet is not a miracle worker. The internet doesn’t know what’s best for you, no one does. Your body is different from mine. Treatments that work for you may not work for me. But as long as we learn to listen to our bodies, to understand our own, unique inner landscape, we can begin to seek treatments and practitioners that truly make a difference.
The lesson is this: You are the authority. Read, learn, understand, and don’t take anything at face value. We need to learn to develop our intuition in parallel with our critical thinking skills.
Discernment is our secret weapon. We’re fighting an information war. Arm yourself with knowledge and be free.
Ryan Matters is a writer and free thinker from South Africa. After a life-changing period of illness, he began to question mainstream medicine, science and the true meaning of what it is to be alive. Some of his writings can be found at newbraveworld.org, you can also follow him on Gab.
July 12, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | Google, Wikipedia |
Leave a comment
For some years now, Wikipedia has had a libellous smear entry on me that cannot be edited to be less of a smear. So, imagine my surprise to learn a co-founder of the site accuses it of not being neutral.
In February 2021, Larry Sanger, one of the founders of the online encyclopedia, said, “The days of Wikipedia’s robust commitment to neutrality are long gone.” This was not his first time speaking out against Wikipedia. Personally, I was surprised to learn that Wikipedia was ever neutral.
In his more recent post, ‘Wikipedia Is More One-Sided Than Ever’, Sanger wrote:
“Wikipedia, like many other deeply biased institutions of our brave new digital world, has made itself into a kind of thought police that has de facto shackled conservative viewpoints with which they disagree. Democracy cannot thrive under such conditions: I maintain that Wikipedia has become an opponent of vigorous democracy.”
I would extend his criticism to note that it is not only conservative views that are censored, but anti-Imperialist views, health care, and, specifically in the case of Syria, voices who have reported extensively from on the ground and contest official narratives about the country. These include myself and British journalist Vanessa Beeley. Not coincidentally, we have both been subjected to relentless smear pieces from the Western media and the self-proclaimed fact checkers of Snopes, branding us cheerleaders for terrorists in Syria.
Unsurprisingly, the bulk of the wiki-smears on us consists of those character assassination articles.
There are of course many more voices who have reported honestly on Syria but, for some reason, I couldn’t find smear entries on them. On the contrary, some have what appear to be glossy PR entries of a more biographical nature, lauding their work.
But for Vanessa Beeley and I, although much biographical information on each of us is widely available online, the Wiki entries remain devoid of the usual bios and instead are just designed to discredit us.
Sanger noted that, “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia,” declares a policy page, “must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV).”
He went on to detail what this “neutrality” means or should mean.
“From a truly neutral article, you would learn why, on a whole variety of issues, conservatives believe one thing, while progressives believe another thing. And then you would be able to make up your own mind.
Is that what Wikipedia offers? As we will see, the answer is No.”
He went on to give numerous examples of Wikipedia’s stark lack of neutrality on critical issues. For the sake of brevity, I would encourage readers to check out Sanger’s article for the full list.
However, let’s look at the entries on myself and Vanessa Beeley.
Mine refers to me as “a Canadian activist and blogger who is known for promoting conspiracy theories about Syria.” Relegating me to a “blogger” was clearly intended to dispute my credentials as a journalist. Credentials which the Mexican Journalists’ Press Club deemed journalistically credible enough to award. Likewise, award-winning journalist and filmmaker John Pilger more recently deemed my latest article on the Douma chemical hoax an “outstanding report.”
The Wiki smear also states that I “write op-eds for the television network RT.” For a while, that line read, “She blogs for the Russian-controlled outlet RT”, a bogus claim that many journalists (including the fact checkers of Channel 4) have copy-paste repeated without bothering to see that, like tens of other journalists, what I write is actually for the op-edge section of RT’s website.
The entry goes on to cite from the litany of smear articles against me since 2016, smears which I have refuted, and which always read the same: copy-paste character assassinations that whitewash terrorism in Syria.
Then, there is the clear instance of libel: Wikipedia’s assertion that I, “went on a government-sponsored trip to North Korea.”
In fact, my August 2017 trip to the DPRK was not paid for by any government, but by myself, with some support from a colleague who knew I lived on a shoestring.
This lie was most recently regurgitated by British journalist (and I use that term generously) Brian Whitaker.
Any defamation lawyers out there?
Similarly, the Wiki smear entry on Vanessa Beeley relegates her to mere “blogger” status (although John Pilger thinks highly enough of her, and myself, to have highlighted our “substantiated investigative work”) and in 2018 she was included on a list of the most respected journalists in the UK.
It includes the same“conspiracy theories and disinformation” line that mine does, as well as the usual, predictable anti-Russia rhetoric.
But even I was shocked to see Wikipedia’s claim that Beeley has, “been a frequent guest on InfoWars.” When I asked her about this, she replied: “This is an outright lie. I have never been a guest of Infowars. I challenge Wikipedia to publish the multiple interviews they claim exist. They can’t.”
So there we have it. Not only are the entries not even close to neutral, each contains outright fabrication in addition to the character assassinations.
At some point in 2018, I shared an email I had received from a Wikipedia editor, which noted:
“Dear Eva, I’m writing to inform you that we have taken action against a banned user who evaded their ban to create an article about you. The article has been removed. I do not have the full context here, but the content seems to have been extremely problematic and from your Twitter and the flood of supporter emails we received yesterday, I gather this has been an issue for some time.”
And indeed, supporters told me they had contacted Wikipedia to challenge the smear entry on me and were successful in making changes to read more fairly. Yet, in short time, the entry returned to nearly exactly as it had originally been.
The Wikitalk portion of the smear entry on me points out: “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.”
But no, that hasn’t happened in my entry.
On the same page, supporters called Wikipedia out: “It’s bordering on WP:ATTACK. Nothing about her early life, education or volunteer activities etc, which you’d expect to find in a Biography. It’s just a monologue of critical opinion pieces, with a couple of lines thrown in at the end to cover her response & with a selective focus on the usual slanted key words used to disparage.”
Another critic of the entry pointed out the sources used were “questionable”, including noting that one source, Al Jazeera, is, “owned by the Qatari Royal family… and Qatar has been funding some of the Salafi rebels in Syria. Seriously, does anyone think they will report even remotely fairy on Eva Bartlett?”
In his June post on Wikipedia, Larry Sanger wrote:
“Democracy requires that voters be given the full range of views on controversial issues, so that they can make up their minds for themselves. If society’s main information sources march in ideological lockstep, they make a mockery of democracy. Then the wealthy and powerful need only gain control of the few approved organs of acceptable thought; then they will be able to manipulate and ultimately control all important political dialogue.”
Similarly, Vanessa Beeley had this to say on the matter: “The Jimmy Wales Wikipedia enterprise is little more than a McCarthyite echo chamber that is weaponized to discredit journalists and academics who are influential in challenging US or UK Imperialist policies. There is virtually no redress for the targeted individuals, ‘editors’ scrub any corrections almost immediately. Wikipedia is effectively a gatekeeper for the ruling class.”
In any case, for those interested in a fairer rendition of who is Eva Bartlett, someone created an entry on a site called Everpedia, and otherwise I have an about me section on my blog.
Unfortunately, many will first come across the wiki entries on myself and colleagues, and many will stop there. But, after all the smears, my skin has grown thick and I’m at peace with the fact that I know I’ve reported honestly.
I highly doubt the editors behind such Wiki smears can say the same of their edits.
Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years).
July 12, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | Wikipedia |
Leave a comment
The FBI has asked Americans to examine their own family members for signs of “homegrown violent extremism,” and report them. The call for snitches comes as the FBI turns its surveillance powers on regular Americans.
“Family members and peers are often best positioned to witness signs of mobilization to violence,” read a tweet from the FBI on Sunday. To help prevent “homegrown violent extremism,” the agency advises Americans to visit its website, “to learn how to spot suspicious behaviors and report them to the FBI.”
The link provided by the FBI brings visitors to a 2019 document listing “mobilization indicators” that may suggest an individual is preparing to engage in terrorism – for example, “preparing and disseminating a martyrdom video,” “communicating directly with violent extremists online,” and “preparing to travel to fight with or support terrorist groups.”
The indicators and imagery used in the document suggest that its focus was on radical Islamic terrorism, but the FBI, along with the rest of the US security apparatus, has in recent months has turned its surveillance powers on white, conservative America.
Since the pro-Trump riot on Capitol Hill in January, FBI Director Christopher Wray has testified before Congress that the anti-government sentiment responsible for the affray has been “metastasizing” in the US for years, and that “the problem of domestic terrorism … is not going away anytime soon.” Former Assistant Director Frank Figliuzzi was more explicit last month when he called for the arrest of high-level Republicans to “really tackle terrorism, this time domestically.”
President Joe Biden has linked the Capitol mob to “white supremacism,” which he called “the most lethal terrorist threat to our homeland today” during his first speech to Congress in April. Against this supposed “threat,” the Justice Department has asked for new powers of prosecution, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has claimed that right-wingers and conservatives, “inspired by foreign terrorist groups” and “emboldened by the breach of the US Capitol Building,” are “plotting attacks against government facilities” and “threatening violence against critical infrastructure.”
In addition to their own powers, the DHS, FBI, and National Security Council also want to hire third-party ‘researchers’ to spy on Americans, recent reports have claimed.
Though the riot on Capitol Hill was broken up in a matter of hours and Congress returned to work the same evening, the FBI has left no stone unturned in finding and prosecuting hundreds of Trump supporters who took part. Out of more than 500 arrested already, some were turned in by their own family members and co-workers, with those who merely entered the building charged alongside militia members in what prosecutors are terming a “shock and awe” campaign of arrests and charges.
The agency’s latest call for snitches didn’t sit well with some pundits and commenters online, who drew uncomfortable parallels with the totalitarian dystopia of George Orwell’s ‘1984’, and with the real-life surveillance and repression of East Germany’s dreaded Stasi.
Amid the ongoing domestic terror crackdown, questions remain unanswered as to the FBI’s suspected foreknowledge of, and potential involvement in organizing, the Capitol Hill riot.
July 11, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | DHS, FBI, Human rights, Joe Biden, United States |
Leave a comment
I HAD the pleasure of interviewing Dr Robert Malone, an industrial scientist and the authoritative voice on mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) technology since he invented it when he was a graduate student at the Salk Institute in 1988.
US-based Dr Malone is not a conspiracy theorist and he’s not an anti-vaxxer. He’s spent the past three decades building vaccines and vaccine technology.
He has more than 20 years of management and leadership experience in academia, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, as well as in governmental and non-governmental organisations.
The fact that he is now being ‘ghosted’ for speaking about the adverse effects of the mRNA vaccines reflects the dark era of censorship that we’ve been experiencing for far too long.
Even my interview with him was pulled off YouTube in the space of just three hours. Fortunately, I posted it on alternative video-sharing platforms, such as Rumble and BitChute.
Here are some of the highlights he revealed in the interview. Firstly, Dr Malone stated: ‘In the Security and Exchange Commission filings for both Pfizer and Moderna, there’s explicit statements that acknowledge that these are gene therapy-based (vaccines) and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) perceives them as such.’
He brilliantly explained the science behind the vaccines by using the metaphor of an industrial robot used to build cars. The RNA in this metaphor is the code that a hacker is inserting into the bit stream to make these robots (your cells) make something they would not have otherwise made. In this case, it’s the spike protein that’s recognised by the immune system triggering a response.
‘In a conventional vaccine you can precisely calculate how much protein goes into your shoulder because it’s fixed and predictable, but in the case of these genetic vaccines you can’t,’ he warned.
‘You can’t calculate how long it produces this protein and how much protein it makes and exactly what cells in your body the protein goes into. Conventional vaccines go around your cell, but for these gene therapy-based vaccines the target is your cell.’
When I asked whether he thought the UK (which was the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine on December 2, 2020) rushed through their approval of it, Dr Malone quickly responded: ‘I wouldn’t say maybe, I would say they did. You can’t take a process that normally takes a decade and push it down into nine months and not cut corners.’
He explained that regulatory agencies such as America’s FDA and Britain’s MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) have different safety check lists for vaccines and gene therapies. Typically, genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity studies are not done with vaccines, but are done with gene therapy products.
Dr Malone revealed that in the face of the crisis, apparently there was a global consensus with these regulatory agencies that they were going to suspend their gene therapy checklist, or if they were done, they were not done in a ‘vigorous’ way. He said this was the biggest mistake of the regulatory agencies.
Children are at very low risk of hospitalisation and death from Covid-19, Dr Malone confirmed. In their age group, the risks overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits from the vaccine.
The risks are the cardiotoxicity events (pericarditis and myocarditis) being recorded in the adverse event databases coming out of Israel, Norway and the Netherlands, to name but a few.
Given that the MHRA and FDA have approved the Pfizer vaccine for 12 to 15-year-olds and have been actively encouraging the use of it across multiple age groups, Dr Malone likened this application to the situation where ‘if you give a three-year-old a hammer, everything becomes a nail’.
He talked intently on bioethics and whether it’s ethical to encourage the young (including children) who are currently healthy to take on the responsibility of being exposed to the risks associated with the vaccines in order to protect the vulnerable (the elderly and those with a compromised immune status).
For him, the answer was a categorical, no – it’s not ethical. When I asked him why there’s such a push to get children vaccinated, he answered: ‘A cynic might mention the financial compensation at stake.’
He raised more alarm bells by suggesting there’s bias in the data stating there’s no effect of the vaccine on pregnant women, causing spontaneous abortion. In fact, many of the women in those studies were in the third trimester, where the risk of miscarriage is much lower.
Dr Malone said if you took out the third trimester data and reanalysed it, just looking at those women in the first and second trimester, then the risk of spontaneous abortion jumps to above 50 per cent.
The topic of censorship was raised, as at the time of the interview the doctor had been ‘erased’ from LinkedIn and his full interview with Brett Weinstein and Steve Kirsch had been removed from YouTube.
One of the reasons LinkedIn gave him was because he mentioned that a chairman on the board at Reuters had links to Pfizer.
Dr Malone stressed that Reuters is a member of the Trusted News Initiative, led by the BBC, which was first formed to combat the spread of misinformation during the US presidential election, but now its attention is on combating vaccine misinformation.
Its other members include AFP, CBC/Radio-Canada, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, the Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft , Twitter, and the Wall Street Journal.
Dr Malone warned that ‘the only version of scientific truth that’s allowed to be discussed are those truths endorsed by large bureaucratic public health agencies’. He was very concerned about ‘this integration between Big Tech, government and biopharma’.
On a final note, he raised the insidious question of whether ‘there is a group of people that could be exploiting this window for their own purposes, whether it’s financial, political or power.’ That, he said, would be ‘a huge travesty’.
Here is a link to my full interview with Dr Malone.
July 11, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
A test of a new feature that asks users to report friends they suspect may be becoming an extremist has been greeted with horror from Facebook users. It’s a bizarre precedent that we should all be concerned about.
Over the past few days, some Facebook users have reported seeing prompts asking them if they are concerned that someone they know might be becoming an extremist. Other users are being notified they may have been exposed to extremist content as they were naively reading political articles or watching videos on the platform.
Screenshots of the alerts have surfaced on social media.
Understandably, the move has shocked users. US representative for Colorado Lauren Boebart ironically tweeted, “Facebook just warned me that I may have been subjected to extremist content and asked me to report anyone I may know that is becoming an extremist. I have more than 200 coworkers I need to report.”
In a bid to calm concerns, Facebook issued a statement about the testing. It read, “This test is part of our larger work to assess ways to provide resources and support to people on Facebook who may have engaged with or were exposed to extremist content, or may know someone who is at risk.”
Ultimately, what this means is that if the policy is implemented, Facebook is quite literally going to encourage people to report their friends for committing thought crimes. Even worse, Facebook will punish its own users who may have potentially committed wrongthink.
It’s quite the dystopia Facebook is leading us through, and begs the question: has society, as a whole, got to the point where reporting friends can be deemed as appropriate? And are we becoming docile and easier to control?
For example, individuals’ thoughts on issues such as mass migration should be free to be expressed on Facebook without fear of consequences. It is worrying that what could be interpreted as codes of political correctness are being implemented across the platform.
This is especially problematic as big tech like Facebook and the other giants are now the new public square. And the immense power they hold means they are behaving like monopolies. This raises the important question of why they are apparently involving themselves in the political opinions of its users.
Facebook’s claim that it is aiming to clamp down on “extremist content” by using new policies is questionable. In an era dominated by woke thinking, “extremist content” could mean anything, from something mildly offensive to a crude joke. So, the term is too subjective and vague, as the platform provides little indication of what it considers to be “extremist content”.
Of course, most of us do not want to witness extremist content or hateful behaviour. However, policing people in this way is a slippery slope, especially in a society where we value freedom of speech and diversity of opinions.
This is especially pertinent as Facebook is a powerful platform used by more than a third of the planet’s population, which has bestowed owner Mark Zuckerberg with massive influence and power. He essentially controls the timelines and newsfeeds of 2.7 billion people. Ultimately, in future it could be that in order to be allowed to use the platforms, one must completely oblige Facebook’s policies revolving around speech, which presumably will be determined by Zuckerberg. This is a chilling prospect and precedent.
Thankfully, the bizarre behaviour is being called out by some prominent people. Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters slammed Zuckerberg during a recent press conference, describing Facebook’s policies as “insidious movement… to take over absolutely everything.” He’s absolutely right.
The truth of the matter is that Zuckerberg, who is now the fifth richest man in the world, probably has more influence over what information the masses are able to read and watch than any publication or media entity.
Facebook’s sharp algorithms are able to direct its billions of users towards any idea, organisation or partisan ideology in an instant. This power is immense. And its ability to effectively censor people, no matter how influential, has been seen in its treatment of President Trump.
It’s unclear how Facebook went from being a fun, quirky website to socialise on to being such a powerful player in the age of information. Day by day, it really does seem strange that tech oligarchs want to control our posts on their platforms by policing content.
What’s next? Could Facebook socially engineer the timelines of people suspected of being ‘extremists’ by the company itself? Who knows? Who thought we’d be where we are now?
If you don’t believe that Facebook’s latest test policy is a dangerously worrying precedent in a free society in 2021, then it is time to wake up.
Ramsha Afridi is a writer and a journalist based in the UK, she has written for publications such as the Telegraph and the Daily Express amongst others.
July 10, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Facebook, United States |
Leave a comment
No longer associated with Wikipedia as it now operates, its co-founder Larry Sanger called its original “neutral point of view” (NPOV) dead in a 2020 op-ed, explaining:
Its unacceptable new policy “endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what (Wiki) call(s) “false balance.”
The notion drove a stake through the heart of truth and full disclosure on all issues, especially on most important cutting-edge ones.
One of many political examples is Wiki material on Trump — a figure I sharply criticized for legitimate reasons, not invented ones.
One-sidedly bashing him, Wiki excludes supporting views, Sanger explained.
In stark contrast, “glowing Hillary” material extols the unprosecuted war goddess, racketeer, perjurer — a member of the notorious Clinton crime family with husband Bill and daughter Chelsea.
Sanger stressed the importance of neutrality, saying the following:
It’s vital on all things “political and many other topics because we want to be left free to make up our own minds” based on unfiltered facts, adding:
“Reference, news, and educational resources aimed at laying out a subject in general should give us the tools we need to rationally decide what we want to think.”
“Only those who want to force the minds of others can be opposed to neutrality.”
Corrupted by abandonment of neutrality bias, Wiki failed the test.
It falsely calls alternative medicine information based on science “pseudoscience (sic),” saying:
“Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility (sic) and is untested (sic), untestable (sic) or proven ineffective (sic).”
The above claim turned scientific truth-telling on its head in support of anti-science.
It’s notably true on all things related to flu/covid.
State-sponsored/media and Wiki-supported Big Lies and mass deception back the mother of all scams — genocide on an unparalleled scale. More on this topic below.
Sanger called for Wiki “to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV” in favor state-approved bias and suppression of what’s most important for everyone to know, adding:
“Wikipedians are unlikely to make any such change.”
“They live in a fantasy world of their own making.”
What’s needed is “an independent and decentralized encyclopedia network, such as I proposed with the Encyclosphere” — free from bias and suppression of contrary views and dissent from the official fabricated narrative.
Days earlier, Sanger called Wiki “more one-sided than ever,” saying:
There’s “a crucial difference between propaganda and information that supports individual deliberation. The difference is neutrality.”
“So does Wikipedia meet its own ideals of neutrality? Hardly!
It fails dismally on all issues mattering most.
It defied reality by calling toxic flu/covid jabs “95%” effective (sic) — while slamming science-based views otherwise as “misinformation.”
It calls legitimate concern about their hazardous side effects “overblown.”
“(I)nformation from the many skeptical physicians and medical researchers” explaining otherwise is suppressed, said Sanger, adding:
Wiki “openly repudiates neutrality…”
Its “editors embrace their biases sometimes so fervently that their articles emerge more as propaganda than as reference material.”
Operating as “a kind of thought police,” unbiased truth and full disclosure is banned on its pages.
The official narrative message is featured exclusively on all issues mattering most.
A Final Comment
On Tuesday, Joseph Mercola reported that “Wikipedia scrub(bed) inventor of mRNA… technology (Robert Malone’s) scientific contributions” in response to its mass-jabbing dangers he explained on a YouTube posted podcast, now deleted.
He expressed concern “about government not being transparent about risks, and that people are being coerced into taking these experimental injections, which violates bioethics laws,” Mercola explained, adding:
Through mid-June, his “contributions were extensively included in the historical section on RNA vaccines’ Wikipedia page.”
They’re now deleted, along with his other scientific accomplishments.
Mercola explained that officially reported deaths from flu/covid jabs — the tip of an exponentially greater total — exceed numbers from “more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years…”
They’re “about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine…”
Flu/covid jab drugs were designed to harm health, not protect and preserve it as falsely claimed by US/Western dark forces, their press agent media and Wikipedia.
July 10, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Wikipedia |
Leave a comment
Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Idan Roll met with the German Ambassador, Susanne Wasum-Rainer, on Monday along with visiting German parliamentarians. Roll thanked the German guests for their country’s strong support for Israel during its major military offensive against the Palestinians in Gaza from 10-21 May.
Germany’s unlimited support and cooperation make it a special friend of Israel. Among EU members it is the second-biggest supplier of weapons to the occupation state. Between 2009 and 2020, 24 per cent of Israel’s arms imports came from Germany.
When Israel treats international law, human rights, democratic principles, and liberal beliefs with contempt, Germany automatically takes its side, even when the result is the killing of innocent children and women. During the latest Israeli offensive, Germany supported Israel’s “right to defend itself” although it was killing civilians and destroying civilian buildings and infrastructure. The fact that an occupying state has no right to claim “self-defence” against the people under occupation was ignored by the Germans.
On 12 May, a German government spokesman, Steffen Seibert, refused to condemn Israel’s killing of 14 Palestinian children. He referred to the legitimate Palestinian resistance as “terrorist attacks” and that the resistance groups had to stop their action against Israel so that “people do not die”.
Seibert ignored the Israeli warplanes pounding the besieged Gaza Strip. He ignored the Israeli tanks firing indiscriminately towards densely-populated areas across Gaza. He ignored weeks of Israeli harassment and attacks on Palestinians worshipping in Al-Aqsa Mosque throughout Ramadan, and the residents of Jerusalem facing attacks by illegal settlers, which prompted the resistance groups to act. He ignored all of that.
On the same day, the deputy spokesman of the German Foreign Ministry, Christofer Burger, angered journalists when he said that the Palestinians had no right to self-defence. His claim that this right is only guaranteed by international law to sovereign states and Palestinians are not a state was palpable nonsense. All people living under occupation, collectively and individually, have the right to defend themselves and resist military occupation. Israel’s occupation of Palestine is a military occupation.
On day ten of the Israeli offensive, when the occupation state had killed 66 children, 40 women, and 16 elderly people out of 266 Palestinians killed in total, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas insisted that, “Germany stands with Israel and its right to defend itself.” He even visited Israel to prove that his country’s support was not limited to words. “I came to Israel to show solidarity and support Israel. Israel’s security and that of the Jewish residents here are not negotiable.”
![German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas in Berlin, Germany on June 23, 2021 [Abdulhamid Hoşbaş/Anadolu Agency]](https://i2.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/20210623_2_48889287_66351096.jpg?resize=500%2C331&quality=85&strip=all&zoom=1&ssl=1)
German FM Heiko Maas, June 23, 2021 [Abdulhamid Hoşbaş/Anadolu Agency]
Two days earlier, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and “sharply condemned the continued rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel and assured the prime minister of the German government’s solidarity.” She showed great interest in Israel’s security and safety of its people and condemned only the legitimate Palestinian resistance.
Germany’s verbal support for Israeli brutality and aggression against the Palestinians was backed up by officials who claimed that peaceful protests during which Palestinian flags were flown and anti-Israel slogans were chanted were “anti-Semitic”. Calls for Israel to be held accountable for its breaches of international law were described as “hate speech”.
According to Seibert, “Anyone who uses such protests to shout out their hatred of Jews is abusing the right to protest [in Germany].” He described the pro-Palestine protests which raised awareness about the ongoing Israeli crimes as “anti-Semitic rallies”, and stressed that they “will not be tolerated by our democracy.”
During a debate in the German parliament during the Israeli offensive on Gaza, Maas condemned the pro-Palestine demonstrations and called for a violent crackdown on them. “There shouldn’t be one centimetre of space for anti-Semitism on our streets. Never again.”
Germany has since banned the Hamas flag in the country in response to pro-Palestine demonstrations. “We do not want the flags of terrorist organisations to be waved on German soil,” Thorsten Frei, a lawmaker for Merkel’s CDU, told Die Welt. A ban, he added, would send “a clear signal to our Jewish citizens.”
President Frank-Walter Steinmeier told Israeli daily Haaretz that Germany believes that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has no jurisdiction to investigate Israeli war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories because of the “absence of the Palestinian state”. Germany is not only unconcerned about Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, but also does not even want those crimes to be investigated. Palestine was, of course, granted the status of a “non-member observer state” by the UN in November 2012, a move described as “de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine”.
Writing in Open Democracy, activist and sociologist Inna Michaeli said that Germans are against the entirely peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement which seeks to end the Israeli occupation. Moreover, apparently, they do not like to hear anyone accusing Israel of killing children, despite this being “a description of horrendous reality — one in three Palestinians that Israel kills in Gaza are children.”
She asked rhetorically: “What should people chant when Israel is killing children? How can the victims express their rage and sorrow, how can they mourn their children who are killed again and again by Israel?”
Even the German mainstream media ignores Israeli brutality against the Palestinians. “Much of the mainstream media coverage of Nakba Day demonstrations did not even mention nor explain to the readers what the Nakba is, and its continuation in the form of ethnic cleansing and denial of Palestinians’ right to return,” Michaeli pointed out. “Berlin, with the largest Palestinian population in Europe, is home to people whose family members have been murdered by Israel in recent days. These protests are often framed as ‘anti’ Israel, but the fact that they are primarily ‘for’ Palestinian life is omitted.”
Omri Boehm is an Israeli philosophy lecturer in New York. “Whenever one attempts to raise this subject, one is immediately accused of anti-Semitism,” he noted. “It is impossible to simply state the facts. For example, that within Israel’s borders, three million Palestinians live under brutal military law without being recognised as Israeli citizens. The Germans do not want to see this.”
When pro-Palestine protesters burned an Israeli flag in Germany, Interior Minister Horst Seehofer described the act as “anti-Semitic” and said that Germany would crack down hard on anyone found to be spreading “anti-Semitic hatred” because “We will not tolerate Israeli flags burning on German soil.”
Commenting on this, Michaeli said: “Israeli flags matter, Palestinian lives do not. When people, politicians, and the media, care more about the burning of national flags than the burning of homes and neighbourhoods and the killing of entire families, they should really have a hard look at themselves.”
German support for Israel goes back to the early 1950s when reparations were paid to the state as the “heir” to the Holocaust victims who had no known surviving family. Billions of German marks and euros have been handed over in the intervening decades, helping to build Israel as a state. The fact that this is largely to the detriment of the people of occupied Palestine has, shamefully, been lost on successive German governments. Those parliamentarians who met Israeli officials earlier this week need to be educated about international laws and conventions, and the reality of Israel’s brutal military occupation which they and their colleagues in Berlin endorse so willingly.
July 8, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | Germany, Human rights, Israel, Palestine |
Leave a comment
The American people have increasingly become aware that government surveillance and corporate censorship have combined to keep people ignorant and controlled. What is taking place has generated some dark humor. A friend of mine, also a former CIA officer, wrote to me recently and said tongue-in-cheek that he retains a lot of respect for the Agency because it is the only major government national security entity that does not read our mail and emails. Those jobs are the responsibility of the NSA and FBI. I responded that I would imagine that CIA does in fact read quite a lot of mail where it operates overseas but it is probably done the old-fashioned way by recruiting an underpaid mail clerk as an agent.
The whole issue of the government spying illegally on its own citizens has again made the news with the claims by conservative commentator Tucker Carlson that NSA has been spying on him, presumably because he has connections that the government regards either as subversive or, in the new reckoning, as “extremists” who are potential “domestic terrorists.” Given the reasonable assumption that anyone who voted for Donald Trump might well fall under those categories, that means that something like half the U.S. population could be under suspicion.
Mass electronic surveillance of literally trillions of phone calls and messages worldwide without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment restrictions on searches without probable cause or a proper warrant issued by a judge has been the regular NSA authorized procedure at least since 9/11 and there is no reason to assume that it is no longer the practice. It basically is initiated by the agency involved (normally NSA or FBI) going to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court or to some other appropriate judge to get a warrant on an individual where there is some probable cause. Probable cause can consist of “someone searching the web for suspicious stuff.” The Court then gives its approval, which it does in the case of FISA 99% of the time. When that individual is then surveilled, the names of his or her contacts are also added to the investigation. And it goes on from there, expanding and growing until it includes thousands of phone numbers and email addresses, individuals who are overwhelmingly innocent of any wrongdoing.
So, it is safe to assume that many of us are right at this moment eligible for being monitored electronically by the federal government. If one combines that with the Biden Administration’s June 1st announcement of a war on “domestic terrorism,” which it clearly considers to be a function of “white supremacists,” it is easy to see where all that is going. Biden pulled no punches, describing the threat from “white supremacy” as the “most lethal threat to the homeland today,” so that would mean that the government is doing all in its power to stamp it out, whatever it takes and whatever that means.
Surveilling ordinary Americans for what they might be thinking, which is what this comes down to, would be a George Orwellian 1984 tale for our times, updated from when Winston Smith was doing mandatory daily exercises in front of his television set. He slacked off a bit and the TV instantly admonished him. He then wondered whether it was possible that he and all the other residents of Airstrip One (once called Britain) are surveilled all the time. He concluded that they were.
So, if your television set suddenly speaks to you in the next few months, it might not be Alexa. The other development that has surfaced in the past couple of weeks is the increased corporate cooperation with what the government is saying and doing. Mainstream media has certainly done its share of obfuscation, including the current near total suppression of the story that a key witness who provided false testimony against journalist Julian Assange languishing in a British prison has turned out to be a pedophile, diagnosed sociopath and serial liar. But the major player is inevitably social media, which has enormous power in the United States and also elsewhere to shape opinions and propagate false information that serves the government agenda. The media has banned numerous groups, individuals, and links to sites from its pages, a barrier to free speech and freedom of expression. And it has, for example, enthusiastically cooperated fully with the essentially fraudulent government claims of Russian interference in the two most recent U.S. elections. It is censoring or denigrating material that is at variance with official policies, including, for example, Facebook’s pop-ups that appear whenever there is any article that contests the approved version of the response to the COVID virus.
Back in June, the Biden administration said it would also be working with some of the large high-technology and social media companies to “increase information sharing” to assist in combatting radicalization. Biden announced that his Justice Department would create ways for Americans to report radicalized friends and family to the government. One senior official put it this way: “We will work to improve public awareness of federal resources to address concerning or threatening behavior before violence occurs… If you see something, say something. This involves creating contexts in which those who are family members or friends or co-workers know that there are pathways and avenues to raise concerns and seek help for those who they have perceived to be radicalizing and potentially radicalizing towards violence.”
In other words, in plain English, the Biden Administration is calling on Americans to spy on friends, neighbors and family and reporting any “extremist” views to the authorities. Well, Facebook is now fully on board with more of the same, engaged in the “hot” war against the “white supremacists/extremists/domestic terrorists.” It has blocked or shut down many former contributors and also begun posting at least two versions of warnings to users. One targets individuals who might have personally been visiting an “extremist” site while the other encourages users to snitch on friends or family who might be enticed by such material. The personalized pop-up reads as follows: “[Name of Recipient], you many have been exposed to harmful extremist content recently – Violent groups try to manipulate your anger and disappointment. You can take action now to protect yourself and others.-Get support from experts-Spot the signs, understand the dangers of extremism and hear from people who escaped violent groups.”
The snitch on friends version reads: “Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist?-We care about preventing extremism on Facebook. Others in your situation have received confidential support. How you can help. Hear stories and get advice from people who escaped violent extremist groups-Get support.”
To be sure, one has to ask how Facebook knows that one has visited an “extremist” site since they have blocked such material. Are they somehow hacking into the personal accounts of their own users? The situation is dire, no doubt about it, but it has provoked a backlash, including this post: “Become the extremist Facebook warned you about!” One also has to wonder how Facebook will deal with individuals who complain about some other groups with a demonstrated history of promoting violence, including black lives matter, that are not white supremacist related. It will almost certainly do nothing, just like the federal government’s demonstrated “racially sensitive” supine response to a year of riot, burning, looting and homicide. In truth Americans are standing at the edge of a precipice with just one more “crisis” possibly coming that will tip everyone over the edge so we wind up with a totalitarian government which works hard to keep everyone safe by doing the opposite. We are almost there, and if you doubt it just go take a look at Facebook.
July 8, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | CIA, FBI, Human rights, NSA, United States |
Leave a comment
In a letter to CEO Mark Zuckerberg, GOP Rep. Ken Buck, from Colorado, criticized Facebook’s content moderation policies. Buck pointed out, among other things, how Facebook’s content moderation practices are biased against some opinions.
“During the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Facebook removed more than 7 million posts that purportedly spread misinformation about the virus, and your company placed contextual notes on more than 98 million posts it deemed as potentially misleading,” Buck wrote. “Monitoring posts across Facebook and Instagram for misinformation about COVID has been an undoubtedly herculean task, but Facebook has vigorously taken on this challenge.”
Buck said that the platform censored content on the origins of the pandemic and the Hunter Biden story for “the supposed interest of public informational safety.”
“Your company is only able to selectively moderate content based on the political agenda of your company and its employees because Facebook possesses monopoly power over the market,” Buck wrote. He warned that “stifling ideas can backfire if it leads people to believe there’s a ‘real story’ that is being suppressed.’”
In both cases (the Hunter Biden story and the origins of the pandemic), “Facebook has had the embarrassing position of having to defend its censorship of legitimate content.” In recent months, more evidence has emerged that supports the lab leak theory. Additionally, “the unconditional erasure of reports that were damaging to the-candidate Joe Biden regarding his son, Hunter Biden, has since proved to be unfounded.”
Buck continued to point out that Facebook has been keen on censoring legal content, but has failed to remove “illegal and sexually abusive content.”
“The company appears to have an astonishing lack of concern about illegal and sexually abusive content that is rampantly permitted on your company’s platforms,” Buck wrote to Zuckerberg.
“Facebook has established a rigorous system for policing speech that is Constitutionally protected, yet your company’s failure to effectively screen illegal and exploitative content represents a misalignment of values that is deeply disconcerting.”
Buck’s letter also highlights Zuckerberg’s recent testimony in Congress about reforms to Section 230, expressing disapproval of Zuckerberg’s recommendation of what the Congressman described as “counterproductive actions.”
“Recently, you testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. In this hearing, you advocated for vaguely defined Section 230 reforms, saying that the law should ‘condition immunity for the larger platforms on having a generally effective system in place to moderate clearly illegal types of content,’” Buck wrote.
“Simply because a company has established a system to review potentially illegal content does not create any standard for ensuring such content is systematically removed from the platform,” he explained. “I agree with you that no system is perfect, but if Congress were to adopt your recommendation, it would codify the status quo and fail to address the issues that are pervasive across Facebook.”
The letter concluded with a plea to Zuckerberg: “I urge you to take necessary steps to ensure your platform is an open platform for the free and open exchange of ideas and an unwelcoming place for illegal and exploitative content.”
July 4, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Covid-19, Facebook, United States |
Leave a comment
Facebook users are blocked from the hashtag #Revolution. The timing of the censorship is rather suspect considering this the 4th of July Weekend, a commemoration of the declaration of independence, which was brought about by the revolutionary wars.
If you search #Revolution on Facebook, you get the following message:
“Posts with #Revolution are temporarily hidden here. Some content in those posts goes against our Community Standards.”
Clicking the “Learn more” link on the warning redirects you to Facebook’s long page of Community Standards, not an explanation on why #Revolution is censored.
Even more confusing is that the platform allows you to include #Revolution in your post. What is the point of being allowed to type something you cannot see/search?
“Welcome to the re-education of America on Independence Day weekend…” Congressman Thomas Massie commented, showing the censorship.
I
July 4, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Facebook, United States |
Leave a comment
Right Side Broadcasting Network has been announced that it has been banned from broadcasting on YouTube for seven days, just hours before a Trump rally that it planned to cover.
Also, many of the channel’s videos of President Donald Trump’s events and rallies have been deleted from its popular channel.
YouTube deleted videos that had several million views.
Footage of Trump at the first “Save America” rally in Ohio last week was deleted, as well as footage of his speech at the North Carolina GOP Convention.
YouTube says the videos violate its “Community Guidelines” of “spam, deceptive practices and scams,” an increasingly given reason when videos are deleted on the platform these days.
RSBN will be using its own app and Rumble to broadcast the July 3rd rally.
RSBN was founded in 2015 by Joe Seales. The conservative media company rose in popularity for live streaming Trump’s rallies on YouTube. The over 3,000 videos on RSBN’s YouTube channel have millions of views.
July 3, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | United States, YouTube |
Leave a comment
Before the coronavirus pandemic, ivermectin was described as a “wonder” drug by the medical community. And in 2015, Dr. Satoshi Ōmura and Dr. William C. Campbell were awarded half the Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work that led to the development of ivermectin.
“The importance of Ivermectin for improving the health and wellbeing of millions of individuals with River Blindness and Lymphatic Filariasis, primarily in the poorest regions of the world, is immeasurable,” the Nobel Assembly stated in its press release for the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
But after the pandemic began, the tech giants have gone all out to purge content that recommends ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
And today, these Big Tech policies against ivermectin resulted in one of Ōmura’s speeches where he discussed ivermectin being struck down for “violating YouTube’s community guidelines.”
“When the fascists at YouTube censor the Noble Prize winner Dr. Satoshi Omura, a man whose discoveries have saved a hundred million + from blindness, the world has entered a very, very dark place,” Australian Member of Parliament Craig Kelly tweeted. “I cannot express in words how angry & sad this makes me & fearful for the future.”
Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care, an alliance of physicians and scholars that has committed to “research and develop lifesaving protocols for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in all stages of illness,” also spoke out against the censorship and warned that “brilliant scientists and lifesaving science are systematically being gagged.”
Ōmura joins the ranks of many other senators, lawmakers, medical journals, biologists, and YouTubers who have been censored by Big Tech for discussing ivermectin.
July 3, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Ivermectin, YouTube |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 