Kansas Sues Pfizer Over Misleading COVID Vaccine Safety and Efficacy Claims
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 20, 2024
The State of Kansas on Monday sued Pfizer, alleging the pharmaceutical giant misled the public by marketing its COVID-19 vaccine as “safe and effective” while concealing known risks and critical data on limited effectiveness.
The lawsuit, filed by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach in the District Court of Thomas County alleges that beginning in 2021, shortly after the vaccine rollout, Pfizer covered up the fact that the vaccine was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, failed pregnancies and deaths.
The complaint also alleges the company falsely claimed that its original vaccine retained high efficacy while knowing that efficacy waned over time and didn’t protect against new variants.
Pfizer also misled the public by claiming the COVID-19 vaccine would prevent transmission, even though the company never studied the vaccine’s capability to prevent transmission.
By marketing the vaccine as safe and effective despite its known risks, Pfizer violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act because millions of Kansans heard those misrepresentations, the complaint alleges.
More than 3.3 million Kansans received the Pfizer shot, accounting for more than 60% of all vaccine doses given in the state.
Pfizer denied the allegations, telling The Hill, that the case has “no merit” and that the company plans to respond to the suit in “due course.”
“We are proud to have developed the COVID-19 vaccine in record time in the midst of a global pandemic and saved countless lives. The representations made by Pfizer about its COVID-19 vaccine have been accurate and science-based,” the company said.
Covering up data on vaccine’s safety for pregnant women
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) monitor adverse events in several ways, including through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive reporting system that healthcare providers and patients can use to report vaccine injuries.
A total of 1,898,829 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines have been submitted to VAERS between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 31, 2024. Of those, 983,178 are associated with the Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines.
The complaint said that in addition to VAERS, Pfizer maintained its own database that “contained more adverse event data than VAERS.” The data were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit after Pfizer refused to release it publicly.
That database, the case alleged, contained 1,223 reported fatalities as early as Feb. 28, 2021.
Pfizer concealed or omitted data related to the vaccine’s safety for pregnant women, its association with heart conditions, its effectiveness against variants and its ability to stop transmission, the lawsuit alleges.
“Pfizer marketed its vaccine as safe for pregnant women,” Kobach said in a press statement posted on X. “However, in February of 2021 Pfizer possessed reports for 458 pregnant women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. More than half of the pregnant women reported an adverse event, and more than 10% reported a miscarriage.”
Early reporting in 2021 by the CDC’s Dr. Tom Shimabukuro in the New England Journal of Medicine claiming the shots were safe for pregnant women based on the CDC’s own VAERS and vaccine safety monitoring system (V-safe) data has been shown to be statistically flawed.
Kobach also referred to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla’s comment in January 2023 about myocarditis. Bourla said, “We have not seen a single signal, although we have distributed billions of doses.”
That was after internal documents showed the company had detected a safety signal and the FDA in June 2021 added a warning regarding myocarditis and pericarditis, both rare heart inflammation conditions, to Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines.
The CDC has acknowledged that those conditions have most frequently been seen in adolescent and young adult males.
Kobach said that while Pfizer was claiming the vaccine was effective against variants, the company had data showing that effectiveness was less than 50%.
“Pfizer urged Americans to get vaccinated in order to protect their loved ones, clearly indicating a claim that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccination stopped transmission,” Kobach said. “Pfizer later admitted that it never even studied transmission after the recipients received the vaccine.”
Pfizer engaged in ‘civil conspiracy’ with government agencies
The lawsuit also alleges Pfizer engaged in censorship attempts with social media companies to silence people criticizing its safety and efficacy claims.
The lawsuit charges “civil conspiracy” between Pfizer, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Virality Project and others “to willfully conceal, suppress, or omit material facts relating to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.”
During a press conference, Kobach pointed to comments Bourla made on “Face the Nation,” explaining why Pfizer declined to accept government funding for developing the vaccines under Operation Warp Speed.
Bourla said he didn’t want to have to submit to the government oversight that would be required.
“When you get money from someone that always comes with strings,” Bourla said. “They want to see how we are going to progress, what type of moves you are going to do. They want reports. I didn’t want to have any of that.”
Similar case filed in Texas last year, more coming
Kansas isn’t the first state to sue Pfizer over alleged false marketing claims. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in 2023 sued the drugmaker alleging it made “false, misleading and deceptive claims” about its COVID-19 vaccine and tried to intimidate and censor critics who questioned those claims or cited facts that countered them.
According to that lawsuit, Pfizer’s marketing claims about the efficacy, duration of protection and ability of its COVID-19 vaccine to prevent transmission violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Pfizer moved to dismiss the case, claiming it is protected under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which grants protections to drugmakers who make “medical countermeasures” authorized for emergency use.
However, in his opposition to Pfizer’s motion, Paxton said the immunity protection provided under PREP and invoked by Pfizer in this case extends only to possible personal injury claims, not to deceptive marketing claims brought by a state.
Ray Flores, senior outside counsel to Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender the major difference in the Kansas case is that Kansas alleges a conspiracy with officials at the HHS and others to conceal or suppress information about the shot.
He also said the monetary damages Kansas seeks could be hundreds of times more than what is sought in the Texas suit.
Flores said Kansas has a strong case, based on the evidence of previous payments the company was ordered to make to multiple states for marketing violations related to other drugs.
He said:
“The exhibits alone should give pause to us all: the chronology of Pfizer’s false statements, a payout $137.9M to resolve previous violations, three separate stipulations that Pfizer not engage in deceptive promotions of its products, censorship and Pfizer’s denial of any wrongdoing.
“It is astonishing that the U.S. Government does business with Pfizer and grants special protections when Pfizer has a proclivity to flout the law.
“The allegations in the complaint are referenced-citation gems that every lawyer around the country should incorporate in this war for our health freedoms.”
Kobach told the press that five other states will be filing similar lawsuits, the Kansas Reflector reported.
“More suits may follow, depending on Pfizer’s reaction,” Kobach said.
As of April of last year, over 400,000,000 Pfizer COVID-19 shots had been administered in the U.S. according to Statista.
Watch John Campbell, Ph.D., discuss the latest lawsuit against Pfizer:
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
UK Labour Party ditches candidate for sharing RT content in 2018
RT | June 20, 2024
The UK Labour Party has suspended one of its parliamentary candidates just two weeks before the general election, after senior members were made aware of his apparent sharing of RT content, six years ago, on his social media.
Andy Brown is campaigning to represent the Aberdeenshire North and Moray East constituency in northeast Scotland. The party’s decision to remove him was reported on Tuesday by The Press and Journal, a local newspaper, and has since become a national news story.
The posts that got Brown in trouble relate to the 2018 Salisbury poisoning case, which the British government claimed to be a Russian assassination attempt on Sergey Skripal, a defector spy. The politician reportedly shared a link to an RT article, which questioned London’s narrative, as well as a social media post suggesting that then-prime minister Theresa May was hiding vital information about the incident.
Brown has claimed in an interview with the BBC that he did not share the posts, and that his account “may have been corrupted at some point.” He rejected the suggestion that he may have forgotten sharing them.
Labour Party bosses were also “spooked” by another post apparently shared by Brown, which questioned claims that anti-Semitism was widespread in the Labour Party, the Scottish newspaper said. The allegation was instrumental in the ouster of Jeremy Corbyn, a vocal pro-Palestinian figure, as Labour party leader. His whip in parliament was later removed by his successor, Keir Starmer, meaning effective expulsion from the party.
Commenting on the Andy Brown case, Labour’s shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves told Sky News on Wednesday: “I hadn’t heard of this guy until this morning, and I’m very, very pleased that I will hopefully not have to hear of him again because he’s been suspended as a Labour candidate.” She added that unlike Corbyn, Starmer takes “swift action when people misbehave”.
“People who do not share our values in the changed Labour Party get kicked out,” Reeves stressed.
Although he has been deselected, Brown can still stand as a candidate for the election on July 4. Paper ballots will still carry his original description and a Labour logo, according to the British press. If elected, he will be an independent MP – not unlike Corbyn, who is running to represent the constituency of Islington North.
The UK banned RT from broadcasting in March 2022, after the Ukraine conflict escalated into open hostilities.
House Committee Subpoenas State Department on Proxy Censorship Claims
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | June 19, 2024
The Chairman of the US House Committee on Small Business Roger Williams last week subpoenaed the State Department and Global Engagement Center (GEC) after they refused to turn over requested documents related to accusations of “censorship-by-proxy.”
We obtained a copy of the subpoena for you here.
GEC was used to flag posts that would then get censored by social media platforms and was also involved in giving grants to fund online blacklisters.
The documents and communications the committee requested but failed to obtain concern the latter activity, specifically an investigation into government bankrolling companies that hindered US small businesses from competing simply because they engaged in lawful online speech.
The material the committee wants for its probe goes back to grants awarded since 2018. The request names almost two dozen entities – the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) and NewsGuard among them.
In a statement, Chairman Williams explained that the investigation has been ongoing for a year, with the focus on how the US government may be using taxpayer money to put roadblocks in the way of the country’s small business development – namely, by hampering them online.
“All Americans deserve a fair shot to compete in the marketplace, and the government should not be tipping the scales against any business for their legal speech on the internet,” Williams is quoted as saying while explaining the need to hit the GEC and the State Department with a subpoena after they repeatedly refused to cooperate.
Williams described this attitude by the government as unacceptable, given that (with the importance of unhindered presence on the internet), “the livelihoods of many small businesses are on the line.”
The Committee’s investigation focuses on how what is described as “censorship-by-proxy” (i.e., the government circumventing constitutional prohibitions to censor online speech by looking for “friendly” non-governmental entities to put pressure on social platforms) – affects US small businesses’ bottom line.
And logically, impeding them from gaining exposure and reach online, especially, but not only, during the pandemic, would have caused serious consequences.
The House Committee said that over the year of the investigation, GEC “slow-rolled document production and ignored legitimate oversight document requests.”
And so, 12 months into it, and after repeated accommodations – such as giving GEC extra time and even narrowing the scope of the requests – the Committee now feels it’s time to “escalate the issue at hand, and issue the subpoena.”
As they say – “nice just doesn’t work with some people.”
Germany lists BDS movement as ‘extremist’ for questioning ‘Israel’
Al Mayadeen | June 19, 2024
A new report issued by Germany’s Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser on Tuesday revealed that it was dealing with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement as a “suspected extremist case,” noting that it had “links to secular Palestinian extremism.”
The report claimed that the BDS is not a homogeneous association, party, or organization.
German news site Watson cited the report as saying that “there is sufficient, strong, factual evidence to suggest that [the] BDS thereby violates, among other things, the idea of international understanding” by questioning “Israel’s” existence.
The report said, “After the terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel on October 7, 2023, BDS-affiliated groups mobilized and participated in many anti-Israel gatherings and intensified their demands for an end to an alleged ‘Israeli apartheid’ as well as called for a boycott of companies and goods related to Israel.”
German news site Judische Allgemeine quoted Faeser as stating, “We must oppose internal threats from extremism just as decisively as [we do] external threats,” adding, “We absolutely have to break the spiral of escalations in the Middle East, leading to even more disgusting hatred of Jews here.”
“Security authorities are reacting with great vigilance to the latest developments and are actively taking action against any kind of anti-Israel and antisemitic agitation,” she continued.
German-Israeli Society welcomes decision
Meanwhile, German public-broadcasting radio station Deutschlandfunk confirmed reports that Germany’s federal domestic intelligence agency labeled the BDS movement as an extremist movement – and the German-Israeli Society (DIG) welcomed the decision.
DIG’s president Volker Beck released a statement applauding the announcement.
“For the first time, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution names the anti-Israeli boycott movement BDS as a suspected extremist case in its annual report,” stressing, “This supports the assessment of the German Bundestag in its ‘confront the BDS-Movement Resolutely – Fighting Antisemitism’ resolution in 2019.”
According to Beck, “All forms of antisemitism must be fought equally – consistently. The trivialization of or even sympathy by some cultural institutions with [the] BDS must finally stop.”
“We welcome the recent bans on associations issued by Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, which weakened the infrastructure of significant extremist-antisemitic organizations. We call for this course to be consistently continued,” she concluded.
This comes only days after more than 2,000 German academics signed a letter calling for the resignation of the country’s Education Minister Bettina Stark-Watzinger criticizing her efforts to penalize scholars supporting pro-Palestinian students.
The scholars emphasized in a statement that “academics in Germany are experiencing an unprecedented attack on their fundamental rights, on the 75th anniversary of the Basic Law.”
They emphasized that Stark-Watzinger’s recent actions have made her position “untenable”.
“The withdrawal of funding ad personam on the basis of political statements made by researchers is contrary to the Basic Law: teaching and research are free. The internal order to examine such political sanctions is a sign of constitutional ignorance and political abuse of power,” the statement pointed out.
House Probes NewsGuard’s ‘Fact-checking’ Operations, Citing Federal Funding
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 18, 2024
NewsGuard, a “fact-checking” firm that provides “journalist-produced ratings and ‘Nutrition Labels’ for thousands of news and information websites” to advertisers hoping to steer clear of sites that publish “misinformation,” is under congressional scrutiny for its practices.
Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Accountability, last week launched an investigation into the fact-checking firm, a recipient of federal funding.
The probe will examine “the impact of NewsGuard on protected First Amendment speech and its potential to serve as a non-transparent agent of censorship campaigns,” the committee said.
In a letter to NewsGuard co-CEOs Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz, Comer highlighted federal funding NewsGuard received “and possible actions being taken to suppress accurate information.”
The letter also questions the potential political bias of NewsGuard’s editorial team.
According to a statement accompanying Comer’s letter, “NewsGuard markets its analytical services to businesses, including technology companies and other advertisement advisors, who direct the advertising buys that provide financial support for much of the news media.”
“Questions now surround the influence of NewsGuard’s business relationships and other influences on its ratings process,” the statement adds.
In an interview Thursday, Comer told One America News that NewsGuard “appears to be a very biased, very unfair service that’s getting federal funds.”
“We want to know why they’re doing this, what the basis is for the criteria that they use to determine these grades,” Comer said. “Because then they turn around and they offer their grades to advertisers, and this is a form of, I believe, trying to discourage advertisers from advertising on conservative networks.”
‘Society doesn’t need hall monitors telling us where we can and cannot go’
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) in 2021 awarded a contract to NewsGuard. The contract raises questions about the involvement of federal agencies in potential censorship campaigns, according to Comer’s letter.
The $749,387 contract was directed to NewsGuard’s “Misinformation Fingerprints” database. According to NewsGuard, the database is “a catalogue of known hoaxes, falsehoods and misinformation narratives that are spreading online.”
The DOD funding led The Federalist, in a November 2023 article, to report that “NewsGuard is selling its government-funded censorship tool to private companies.”
Also in November 2023, Lee Fang, one of the journalists involved with the “Twitter Files” release called NewsGuard a “surrogate the Feds pay to keep watch on the Internet and be a judge of the truth.”
Although not mentioned in Comer’s letter, other federal agencies also provided support to NewsGuard.
For example, an August 2020 NewsGuard press release states the firm won a “Pentagon-State Department contest for detecting COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation.”
The contest, known as the Countering Disinformation Challenge, sought “to offer solutions to hoaxes related to the COVID-19 pandemic” by helping the U.S. Department of State and the DOD “evaluate disinformation narrative themes in near real time” and to flag “hoaxes, narratives, and sources of disinformation as they emerge.”
NewsGuard, which received $25,000 as part of the contest, worked with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center “to scope and develop a test in support of the DoD’s Cyber National Mission Force.’’
According to a March 2023 “Twitter Files” release, Twitter — now known as X — worked with the Global Engagement Center to brand numerous accounts that posted “legitimate and accurate COVID-19 updates” but which “attacked” U.S. and European politicians as “Russia-linked.”
In December 2023, the State of Texas, The Daily Wire, The Federalist and the New Civil Liberties Alliance sued the State Department, alleging it was using and promoting technology intended to “covertly suppress speech of a segment of the American press.”
In May, a federal judge rejected the State Department’s efforts to dismiss the case.
The Countering Disinformation Challenge also “stressed the need for identifying hoaxes and misinformation in advance — what NewsGuard calls its ‘prebunking’ of hoaxes.”
Twitter began employing the pre-bunking strategy in 2022 before Elon Musk bought the platform.
According to The Daily Wire, one of the “hoaxes” NewsGuard helped the State Department identify “was that COVID might have come from a Chinese lab, a scenario now viewed by U.S. agencies to be likely.”
Bill Rice Jr. is a freelance journalist and blogger who investigated NewsGuard’s operations. He told The Defender, “Four years into our new abnormal, nothing should surprise me.” Yet, he said NewsGuard’s collaboration with government agencies “stuns” him, describing it as “a new level of brazen.”
Although not mentioned in Comer’s letter, NewsGuard also collaborated with the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), authors of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen” list, which includes Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman on leave of Children’s Health Defense (CHD). CCDH’s sources of funding have been called into question.
Journalist Paul D. Thacker has investigated CCDH for The Disinformation Chronicle. He told The Defender that groups like CCDH and NewsGuard “always censor people on the left and conservatives because their job is to enforce center-left ‘conventional wisdom.’”
Jeffrey Tucker, president and founder of the Brownstone Institute, agreed. He told The Defender that such groups “are there to censor us … to discredit us, basically. That’s their power, and that’s supposed to make me afraid.”
“These groups work together in a layering fashion, confirming and supporting each other in a web of nonsense,” Thacker said. “These groups add nothing to public discourse except shutting down journalism and silencing people from voicing an opinion. Society doesn’t need hall monitors telling us where we can and cannot go.”
Writing on Substack, Rice noted that NewsGuard has not created “Nutrition Labels” for agencies such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the World Health Organization (WHO), or for figures such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, even after many of their COVID-19-related pronouncements have been proven false.
NewsGuard already had ‘agenda and conclusion’ when reviewing sites
According to Comer’s letter, news outlets have noted frustrations about interactions with NewsGuard representatives over exchanges they “perceive as aiming to suppress information that may challenge widely held views but is not itself inaccurate.”
The letter cited a March 2022 Daily Sceptic article summarizing a Johns Hopkins meta-analysis finding that COVID-19 lockdowns were unnecessary and harmful.
According to the letter, NewsGuard took issue with the story. The Daily Sceptic addressed specific NewsGuard criticisms, but NewsGuard then “reportedly expressed that only retraction would address its concerns” and “subsequently lowered the outlet’s reliability rating shared with advertisers after the outlet chose to stand by its published story on the study.”
Tucker told The Defender he has had similar interactions with NewsGuard:
“NewsGuard has been a constant and censorious annoyance from the very beginning of our operations. At first, I attempted to engage earnestly. I spent hours on the phone with their reporters and researchers and attempted to answer every inquiry. I did this because Brownstone strongly believes in accuracy and truth, whatever it is. So of course, I believed we would pass whatever tests they offered up.
“Over time, it became very clear that they already had their agenda and conclusion. There never really was a point to wasting an instant of time with this organization.”
Tucker referred to NewsGuard and other “fact-checking” sites as “the shallow state.”
“They appear to be these objective organizations that are trying to clean up the internet for misinformation. But then it turns out they’ve got their own sources of funding, and they’ve got strong biases, and their purpose is censorship. That’s their goal. It’s surreptitious censorship, as you know. That’s all they’re about,” he said.
In September 2021, NewsGuard announced it found “more than 500 ‘news’ sites peddling COVID-19 misinformation,” including CHD, in this list. NewsGuard’s statement included praise from a WHO official for “NewsGuard’s tireless efforts to reveal sources of misinformation online.”
‘Who is funding NewsGuard?’
Comer’s letter also addressed concerns about NewsGuard’s most significant corporate backer,” Publicis Groupe, one of the world’s largest advertising agencies. According to the letter, “NewsGuard markets its analytical services to businesses … who direct the advertising buys that provide financial support for much of the news media,” even as Publicis “is itself an advertising holding company.”
“From the beginning, it was ludicrous to think that a ‘fact-checking’ company could be trusted when they are funded by Publicis Groupe, one of the largest PR firms on the planet,” Thacker said. Publicis clients include Burger King, Nestlé, Heineken, auto companies and banks, Thacker said.
“What do you think NewsGuard is going to promote: truth, or messaging for these corporations?” Thacker asked.
In his letter, Comer demanded NewsGuard turn over “Complete versions of all current and past contracts with government entities,” “records of all disciplinary or corrective actions” related to staff violations of its own editorial policy, “policy documents and guidance on managing conflicts of interest related to its investors and other outside influences,” and all documents or data “on corrections, retractions, or the changes to news or opinion articles … associated with inquiries made by NewsGuard.”
Some journalists believe Comer’s letter does not go far enough.
“I would have asked for all financial support over their entire existence, as well as all records involving outreach for financial support,” Thacker said. “I want to know what they are offering sponsors.”
“Follow the money. Who is funding NewsGuard? Also, someone needs to show all the claims of NewsGuard that were and are preposterous,” Rice said.
They also called for Comer’s investigation to lead to drastic action.
“If this company is intentionally trying to harm companies or citizens who are practicing free speech, criminal and civil charges should be brought against this company,” Rice said.
“I don’t care whether they offer censorship programs for industry or governments. These groups are dangerous and need to be shut down,” Thacker said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
The Defender on occasion posts content related to Children’s Health Defense’s nonprofit mission that features Mr. Kennedy’s views on the issues CHD and The Defender regularly cover. In keeping with Federal Election Commission rules, this content does not represent an endorsement of Mr. Kennedy, who is on leave from CHD and is running as an independent for president of the U.S.
With Stanford Out, UW Steps Up for 2024 Election “Disinformation” Research
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | June 17, 2024
If it looks like a duck… and in particular, quacks like a duck, it’s highly likely a duck. And so, even though the Stanford Internet Observatory is reportedly getting dissolved, the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public (CIP) continues its activities. But that’s not all.
CIP headed the pro-censorship coalitions the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) and the Virality Project with the Stanford Internet Observatory, while the Stanford outfit was set up shortly before the 2020 vote with the goal of “researching misinformation.”
The groups led by both universities would publish their findings in real-time, no doubt, for maximum and immediate impact on voters. For some, what that impact may have been, or was meant to be, requires research and a study of its own. Many, on the other hand, are sure it targeted them.
So much so that the US House Judiciary Committee’s Weaponization Select Subcommittee established that EIP collaborated with federal officials and social platforms, in violation of free speech protections.
What has also been revealed is that CIP co-founder and leader is one Kate Starbird – who, as it turned out from ongoing censorship and speech-based legal cases, was once a secret adviser to Big Tech regarding “content moderation policies.”
Considering how that “moderation” was carried out, namely, how it morphed into unprecedented censorship, anyone involved should be considered discredited enough not to try the same this November.
However, even as SIO is shutting down, reports say those associated with its ideas intend to continue tackling what Starbird calls online rumors and disinformation. Moreover, she claims that this work has been ongoing “for over a decade” – apparently implying that these activities are not related to the two past, and one upcoming hotly contested elections.
And yet – “We are currently conducting and plan to continue our ‘rapid’ research — working to identify and rapidly communicate about emergent rumors — during the 2024 election,” Starbird is quoted as stating in an email.
Not only is Starbird not ready to stand down in her crusade against online speech, but reports don’t seem to be able to confirm that the Stanford group is actually getting disbanded, with some referring to the goings on as SIO “effectively” shutting down.
What might be happening is the Stanford Internet Observatory (CIP) becoming a part of Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center. Could the duck just be covering its tracks?
Germany dismisses undersecretary who ordered investigation into academics for pro-Palestinian support
MEMO | June 17, 2024
German authorities have dismissed an undersecretary who started an investigation into whether financial support for academics who defended students protesting Israel’s attacks on Gaza should be cut, Anadolu news agency reported.
Education and Research Minister Bettina Stark-Watzinger announced Sunday the dismissal of Sabina Doring, the undersecretary responsible for higher education.
Underlining that initiating an investigation to cut financial support for academics contradicts the principles of academic freedom, Watzinger said: “In May of this year, a group of university lecturers wrote an open letter regarding the protest camps at universities. This is a legitimate part of debate and freedom of thought. Having a different opinion is equally natural,” she said.
Watzinger affirmed there is no doubt about the high value of academic freedom and its rightful protection under constitutional law.
“I defend academic freedom in all its aspects. Funding for science is based on scientific criteria, not political ideology. This is a fundamental principle of academic freedom,” she said.
Candace Owens and Briahna Joy Gray reveal media ‘red line’ on Israel
If Americans Knew | June 16, 2024
Conservative Candace Owens interviews progressive Briahna Joy Gray about their experiences getting fired because of their criticism of Israel. This clip is from the Candace Show on June 14, 2024.
Background information:
Krystal Ball, Saagar Enjeti, Glenn Greenwald reveal details of the campaign against her:
Biden Team Calls For Social Media “Disinformation” Censorship Action After G7 Mishap Goes Viral

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | June 16, 2024
The Biden administration is grappling with backlash as a video depicting President Joe Biden appearing vacant and wandering off, separating from his G7 peers circulated widely online. The footage, in which Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni directs President Biden back in the right direction for the planned photo opportunity, quickly gained traction and has spurred accusations from the media that conservative outlets are disseminating the clip without adequate context, suggesting a deliberate skewing of Biden’s actions.
In response to the spreading video, Adrienne Elrod, a spokesperson for Biden’s campaign, labeled the footage “disinformation” and has called on social media platforms to remove or limit its distribution.
“Disinformation is alive and well,” she told MSNBC. “… And, look, we’re gonna see more of this. I mean, this is just the reality of campaigning in 2024. So we have to combat that disinformation. We have to hit it hard when it happens and make it clear that these are dirty tactics that MAGA Republicans are using because they can’t run on the issues.”
Elrod also said, “We’re going to do what we can to combat it but it does take the voices of surrogates across the country. It does take the media to call it out.” Elron also called on social media platforms to do something about it, “It does take social media platforms where a lot of Americans are getting their information to point it out as well.”
This move aligns with previous instances where the Biden team has sought to manage narratives, notably during the October 2020 pre-election period when allegations regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the censorship demands of the COVID era.
With Elon Musk’s platform X refusing to censor the content, the Biden camp’s concern has intensified, facing the challenge of countering the narrative without the aid of content suppression on this major social media outlet.
Critics argue that such attempts to control media narratives through censorship are detrimental to public discourse, emphasizing the importance of transparency and the free exchange of ideas, even if they are unfavorable to those in power.
Full video in context:
Cancelling “Controversial” Scholars
BY GLENN DIESEN | JUNE 16, 2024
In response to an article in Khrono, I want to challenge the label “controversial” that was used to describe me. Controversial means that there are strong and conflicting opinions to what I am arguing.
But academics should use scientific methods to challenge established truths. This is particularly important in international conflicts where consensus in society is to a large extent shaped by the human instinct to respond to threats with conformity and solidarity.
Every time there are attempts to censor and cancel me, it is based on the fact that I have “controversial” arguments about Russia and the war in Ukraine. If my arguments are based on hard facts that are important for understanding the war in Ukraine, then it can still be labeled as “controversial” if it contains information that has been left out of the public debate.
Let me give one example of how reality can become “controversial”. There is now a strong consensus in Norwegian society that Russia’s invasion was not a reaction to NATO expansionism, but motivated by territorial expansion. Was this established truth shaped through the scientific method where freedom of speech allowed us to present all the facts? Or has society been under enormous pressure to present this conflict as a battle between good and evil forces, where even explaining is condemned as defending? There is overwhelming evidence that Russia invaded to prevent NATO expansion, yet it is never reported in the media. How is it possible that none of our journalists report on facts that can be proven and are of the highest relevance to the public to understand this conflict?
In war, the human instinct to seek safety in the group is strengthened. We only discover in retrospect that the war narratives were full of errors, and that the poor analysis led to a bad policy that harmed our own security interests. Since the demand for conformity is great and we punish dissent and deviation from the group, academia is an important balance as ignoring reality undermines the possibilities for peace.
If we believe that Russia will continue to invade new countries, then it supports the argument that “weapons are the path to peace” – even if it could result in a major war. But if Russia wants limitations on NATO’s presence along their borders, then there are possibilities for peaceful solutions.
When the word “controversial” is combined with “pro-Russian”, it becomes impossible to discuss arguments. Suspicion of the person becomes the main focus. The term “pro-Russian” is a charged and tendentious term as it suggests that the person concerned has chosen a side against our country, that there is loyalty with the out-group against the in-group.
I argue that the West’s policy towards Russia over the past 30 years has put us on a collision course and undermined our own security. Should this be labeled as “pro-Russian” and “anti-Western” arguments? The point of departure for conflict resolution is understanding the other party’s security concerns. Is it possible to analyze international security with such restrictions on freedom of expression?
It is possible that I am wrong in my analysis of Russian intentions and there are obviously counter-arguments, but in academia and in an open society, arguments must be allowed to compete in order to get the best possible understanding of reality.
Labeling dissenters as “controversial” is a method of legitimizing censorship and cancellation. This is particularly problematic as the strong consensus in society was formed by leaving out very basic information.
Russian news photographer killed in Ukrainian drone strike

RT | June 16, 2024
Russian news photographer Nikita Tsitsagi has died from injuries sustained in a drone strike in the Donetsk People’s Republic, the portal News.ru reported on Sunday. According to the publication, the correspondent was killed in an attack by Ukrainian drones in the area of the Nikolsky Monastery near the Donbass city of Ugledar, where he was filming a report.
The tragedy was confirmed by Tsitsagi’s colleagues working in the area and local operational services. The details of the incident are unclear so far.
Tsitsagi collaborated with several Russian media outlets, including TASS and Lenta.ru. In June last year, he received the ‘Editorial Board’ journalistic award for a report he did on the Ukraine conflict and its repercussions in the Russian border town of Shebekino in Belgorod Region.
Earlier this week, another photojournalist, NTV crew member Valery Kozhin, died from wounds he suffered in a Ukrainian drone attack on Gorlovka, also in the Donetsk People’s Republic. Kozhin was filming in the area when a mortar round exploded on top of his crew. Journalist Aleksey Ivliev and an accompanying Russian military officer were also injured.
At least 30 Russian journalists have lost their lives in the Ukraine conflict since it began in February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a press briefing during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) earlier this month. Among them are Boris Maksudov, who worked for Russia 24 TV, RIA Novosti’s Rostislav Zhuravlev, Tavria TV’s Oleg Klokov, and RuBaltic’s Aleksey Ilyashevich.
Moscow has repeatedly accused Ukrainian forces of deliberately targeting members of the Russian press who are reporting from the frontline. Earlier this week, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova lashed out at international human rights organizations, including the UN, for remaining silent in the face of Ukrainian attacks. She accused them of becoming Kiev’s accomplices in “this monstrous hunt for our correspondents” and encouraging further atrocities.


