Supreme Court Appears Wary of Blocking Biden Admin-Big Tech Censorship Collusion
By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | March 18, 2024
During oral arguments in a major First Amendment case on Monday, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about restricting interactions between the Biden administration and social media platforms. This concern emerged during the Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden) case, which delves into the extent of governmental influence over online content.
Brian Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, presented oral arguments for the petitioners in the case, Biden’s Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy and several other current and former members of the Biden administration.
The respondents in the case, the States of Missouri and Louisiana, and several other individuals who were subject to social media censorship, allege that the federal government had pressured platforms to block or downgrade posts on various topics, including some related to Covid and the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Several lower courts agreed with the respondents, with a district judge describing the Biden administration’s Big Tech-censorship collusion as “Orwellian” and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the Biden admin likely violated the First Amendment when pushing for social media censorship.
During the oral arguments today though, the justices displayed skepticism towards a broad prohibition on governmental communications with social media platforms. They raised concerns that such a ruling could unduly restrain the government’s ability to address pressing issues.
Fletcher defended the Biden admin’s actions and framed them as the government exercising its right to “speak for itself by informing, persuading, or criticizing private speakers.” He argued that the government is entitled to communicate with social media companies to influence their content moderation decisions, as long as these interactions do not veer into coercion. According to Fletcher, the litmus test for legality should be the presence or absence of threats from the government, asserting that using the bully pulpit for exhortations is a right protected under the First Amendment.
Fletcher also tried to argue for the significant power and autonomy of social media companies, noting their capability to resist governmental pressures.
The solicitor general of Louisiana, Benjamin Aguiñaga, representing one of the Republican-led states behind the lawsuit, argued that the government’s actions amounted to coercion, effectively leading to censorship by social media platforms. He highlighted a significant shift in the focus of government-led content moderation. Initially aimed at tackling foreign interference and misinformation, these efforts increasingly targeted speech by American citizens, particularly around the contentious topics of the 2020 election and the pandemic.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga’s viewpoint. “And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country. And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So, can you help me? Because I’m really worried about that.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett also voiced concerns, questioning whether the FBI could legally request social media platforms to remove content, such as posts revealing personal information about officials.
Aguiñaga’s argument was that such actions could potentially suppress constitutionally protected speech.
The oral arguments went off into the weeds and into the nuances of what constitutes “coercion” by the government in its interactions with social media platforms, rather than directly addressing the core text of the First Amendment. This focus on “coercion” rather than the First Amendment’s explicit wording – prohibiting the “abridging” of the freedom of speech, or of the press – played into the Biden administration’s hands.
Justices Kavanaugh and Kagan drew a comparison between the case and the interactions that often occur between administration officials and news media. They proposed that efforts by officials to shape media coverage should be seen as constructive dialogue, not necessarily an attempt at censorship, and suggested such actions don’t violate the First Amendment’s provisions.
Kagan challenged the lawyer from Louisiana to demonstrate that the removal of the contentious posts was the result of government intervention rather than actions taken by the social media companies themselves.
“What distinguishes this as an act of the government rather than a decision made by the platforms?” Kagan inquired.
The discussion among the justices also ventured into the standing of the plaintiffs – Missouri and Louisiana, accompanied by five individuals – to bring the lawsuit. They questioned whether these parties had experienced a direct injury that would justify their legal challenge. Furthermore, the justices expressed doubts about the appropriateness of a wide-ranging injunction that would bar various officials from contacting social media platforms as a remedy to the alleged issue.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor specifically addressed concerns regarding the approach taken by the plaintiffs in presenting their case. Directing her comments to Aguiñaga, Justice Sotomayor criticized the framing of their argument. She pointed out that the plaintiff’s brief seemed to leave out crucial information, thereby altering the context of certain claims, a point which she found particularly troubling.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appeared to concur with the notion that the federal government’s diverse array of agencies, which often lack a unified stance, weakens the argument of coercion. During a dialogue with the attorney from Louisiana, he observed, “It’s not monolithic.” He then posed a question that implied this multiplicity of voices in the federal government could substantially diminish the idea of coercion: “That has to dilute the concept of coercion significantly. Doesn’t it?”
While the justices mostly appeared skeptical of prohibiting the federal government from pressuring social media platforms to censor speech, there were some moments where they questioned the Biden admin’s arguments.
Justice Sotomayor pressed Fletcher to give her specifics on how the injunction that prohibits officials from coercing or significantly encouraging a platform’s content-moderation decisions would harm the government.
Fletcher responded by claiming that the injunction would prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from flagging foreign “disinformation” to platforms, prevent White House officials from criticizing the platform’s practices on “misinformation,” and prevent officials complaining about or flagging various other types of legal content on social media.
Justice Samuel Alito also noted that two lower courts have found or accepted that some examples of Big Tech censorship that were highlighted in this case were “traceable to the government’s actions.”
He added: “We don’t usually reverse findings of fact that had been endorsed by two lower courts.”
Additionally, Justice Alito expressed skepticism about the White House and other federal officials constant “pestering” of Facebook and other social media platforms.
“And I thought, wow, I cannot imagine federal officials taking that approach to the print media,” Justice Alito said. “I thought, you know, the only reason why this is taking place is because the federal government has got Section 230 and antitrust in its pocket, and it’s…to mix my metaphors, and it’s got these big clubs available to it. And so it’s treating Facebook and these other platforms like their subordinates.”
After the hearing, the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), one of the legal groups representing the respondents in this case, urged the justices to recognize that the Biden admin’s censorship pressure violated the First Amendment.
“Our clients, who include top doctors and scientists, were censored for social media posts that turned out to be factually accurate, depriving the public of valuable perspectives during a public health crisis,” Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel at the NCLA said. “We’re optimistic that the majority will look at the record and recognize that this was a sprawling government censorship enterprise without precedent in this country, and that this cannot be permitted to continue if the First Amendment is to survive.”
Big Tech Alliance Targets Covid-19 “Misinformation,” Links it to “Extremism,” Calls for Content Censorship
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | March 16, 2024
Big Tech alliance Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFTC) research “partner” Global Network on Extremism and Technology (GNET) has published an article revisiting the pandemic, always, of course, in the context of “misinformation.”
GIFTC’s founding members are Microsoft, Facebook, X (Twitter), and YouTube (Google), while “general members” include these four and pretty much every tech company you’ve ever heard of, from Amazon and Airbnb to BitChute and Giphy.
GIFTC has previously come under criticism for censorship practices without oversight, whereas GIFTC now goes after “Covid misinformation” – including by conflating it with extremism, and is urging “interventions to address the spread of problematic content.”
The piece claims that its goal is to understand the mechanisms that allow for “problematic information” to disseminate across platforms and then spread between the world’s regions, all for the sake of being able to stop that “diffusion.”
It looks into things like the geographical location of different participants in the “diffusion,” their cultural and linguistic similarities, as well as thematic similarity of content (such as religious and political themes).
The study also clearly positions itself ideologically when it, in passing, refers to former US and Brazilian presidents Trump and Bolsonaro as having “extremist predispositions.”
With that in mind, the choice of topics – the pandemic, misinformation, as well as “methodology and findings” become easier to understand.
Regarding the first, the authors chose to look into Facebook groups and organizations and individuals like Doctors for Truth and microbiologist Didier Raoult, collectively accused of sharing “false and misleading content” about coronavirus, vaccines, masks, hydroxychloroquine, etc., in one form or other.
And, the goal is to find out what helped this information travel from “Global North” to “Global South.”
Soon enough, what’s supposed to be countered thanks to the findings from this “research” is referred to as extremism in online networks, suggesting that Covid “misinformation” qualifies.
Because the “findings” show that interplay tied to language, culture, and themes covered by content shared by various groups is not easy to untangle and go after, the recommendation is to come up with “targeted network-informed interventions” that would prevent information flowing from one part of the world to another.
“By identifying key factors influencing tie formation, policymakers, and platform moderators can implement targeted interventions to mitigate the spread of extremist content,” those behind the article said.
DOJ Asks Court to Toss Whistleblower Lawsuit Alleging Pfizer Defrauded U.S. Government
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 14, 2024
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Tuesday asked to intervene in a lawsuit alleging Pfizer committed fraud during clinical trials for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
The DOJ simultaneously asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed by whistleblower Brook Jackson, against Pfizer.
“The United States should not be required to expend resources on a case that is inconsistent with its public health policy,” the DOJ said in its motion to dismiss.
Jackson told The Defender the DOJ’s motion was “expected” and “will clarify the standards for good cause being applied” regarding the U.S. government’s justification for “allowing Pfizer to commit fraud on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration” (FDA).
“This fraud has undoubtedly cost American taxpayers billions of dollars and has led to an untold number of injuries from the COVID-19 countermeasure, including permanent disability and death among my fellow citizens,” Jackson said.
Jackson is a former employee of the Ventavia Research Group, an independent lab that conducted some of the clinical trials for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
In January 2021, she sued Pfizer, Ventavia and ICON plc, another Pfizer contractor, alleging the companies committed numerous violations of the False Claims Act during the trials.
In September 2022, Jackson filed an amended complaint, which was dismissed in April 2023. She subsequently filed a second amended complaint in October 2023, prompting the DOJ to claim it “has good cause to intervene and is entitled to dismissal” of the case.
Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for April 17 before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division.
Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical industry executive with 25 years of experience in pharmaceutical research and development, told The Defender, “The case alleges that Pfizer committed fraud in order to get the contract for COVID-19 vaccines from the U.S. government while knowingly delivering a defective product.”
“The fraud that Jackson describes … has not been disputed by Pfizer,” Latypova said.
Robert Barnes, one of the lawyers representing Jackson, spoke at a March 8 presentation of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, where he said, “Any and every form of fraud they could commit, they did,” referring to Pfizer.
“[Jackson] discovered it, uncovered it and went through the appropriate internal review protocols and assumed that people would correct the defects,” Barnes said. “And instead of that occurring, she was summarily fired.”
‘Pfizer lied in order to get paid’
The DOJ’s motion to dismiss states that Jackson “alleged that defendants violated the protocol for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial at three study sites in Texas and that defendant Pfizer misrepresented the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”
Jackson filed her lawsuit under the False Claims Act, which allows the government or a party suing on its behalf, such as Jackson, to attempt to recover money for false claims made by parties in an attempt to secure payment from the government.
Those parties, such as Pfizer-BioNTech, can be held liable under the act if they knowingly made a false claim or used a false record or statement to secure payment.
According to the DOJ’s filing, the False Claims Act “requires the United States to notify the court whether it will intervene in the qui tam action or decline to take over the action,” following “a period of investigation.” A qui tam action refers to any legal case where a private citizen initiates legal action on behalf of a state.
The government may choose whether to intervene in qui tam cases. If it does, it may then proceed with the lawsuit instead of the citizen who originally filed the claim — known as a “relator.”
The government may subsequently opt to settle the case or to file a motion to dismiss, which the DOJ did.
The DOJ claims the U.S. “has good cause to intervene for the purpose of dismissal” based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent in a June 2023 ruling, United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources Inc., et al., that said the government may intervene and move to dismiss a False Claims Act case at any time in the life of the case.
The DOJ further claimed that the U.S. government has good cause to intervene in the case because it has access to the same clinical trial data, adverse event data and other scientific research Jackson refers to in her complaint.
To support the DOJ’s claims, the motion cites a Jan. 5, 2024, JAMA editorial authored by FDA Commissioner Robert Califf and the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Peter Marks, claiming that:
“Contrary to a wealth of misinformation available on social media and the internet, data from various studies indicate that since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic tens of millions of lives were saved by vaccination.”
The DOJ also argued that, if the case is allowed to continue, the discovery process and ongoing legal proceedings “will impose a significant burden on FDA, HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services], and DOJ.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s Polansky ruling, Jackson said:
“The government came in at the very last moment and did what they’re doing in this case, trying to get rid of it.
“So, it went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled that based on the False Claims Act, the government has the ultimate authority to do whatever it wants to do in a sense. But again, having to show … good cause.”
Latypova said that once a case is filed under the False Claims Act, “it immediately goes under seal for an initial 60 days.” After this, “The government has 60 days to decide whether to intervene in the case or not. They could have intervened and dismissed or they could have declined to intervene and not dismiss.”
According to Jackson, “In February 2022, after keeping the case sealed and investigating the allegations for nearly 14 months, the government chose not to intervene but did not move to dismiss either. The case was then unsealed, allowing me to proceed with the action on my own, acting on behalf of the U.S.”
“The Justice Department waited until the last minute before the first round of dismissal hearings before the judge, and they made a very rare intervention, but not a full intervention,” Barnes said. “They attempted that and it partially worked,” he added, referring to the initial April 2023 dismissal of Jackson’s lawsuit.
Barnes added:
“We succeeded in getting the judge to reconsider his ruling, and he reinstated the fraud and the inducement claim, because that’s what the claim is fundamentally about — that Pfizer lied in order to get paid. They lied about what they were delivering. They said what they were delivering was safe. It wasn’t.”
Barnes said that under the U.S. government’s contract with Pfizer, the U.S. was “not paying for a therapeutic, they were not paying for a diagnostic, they were paying for something that would inoculate. And of course, this never did.”
According to Latypova, by waiting until now to file a motion to intervene, based on the Polansky ruling, the government opted to wait until “after they had an opportunity to get as many shots in as many arms as they possibly could.”
“This is the second time the DOJ is planning to intervene and to ask the court to dismiss the second amended complaint from Brook,” Latypova said. “This clearly points to the U.S. government’s desire to not investigate the clinical trial fraud for COVID-19 vaccines,” she said.
Jackson said the DOJ still must show good cause, noting that a motion to dismiss “must be done in good faith and they must provide good cause — this is key, and why I am confident that these motions will be denied,” she said.
“The government must show … why they have a reasonable argument that it is more likely than not that the downsides to the case exceed the upsides,” Barnes said. “In a multi-billion-dollar case, what’s that argument going to be from the Justice Department?”
Discovery could show government covered up vaccine adverse events
If the DOJ’s motion to dismiss fails, the process of discovery will proceed and that may reveal more evidence of a possible government cover-up.
“We believe discovery will show the government wasn’t conducting any meaningful investigation at all,” Barnes said. “It was lying to Brook Jackson, it was lying to her counsel, and more importantly, to a certain degree, it was lying to the court.”
“What was really occurring all along is that the Justice Department was deliberately slow-rolling the case for the benefit of Pfizer,” Barnes added.
“We’re going to ask to potentially receive some discovery in what that 14 months of government investigation looked like and why they chose to keep it under seal so long and at that point, dismiss … We want to know why,” Jackson said.
As for what discovery may reveal, Latypova said she is “quite certain” that “it would confirm all allegations of fraud that have been observed by Brook — violations of the clinical trial protocol, unblinding, lack of proper informed consent, manipulation of data, hiding adverse events from the vaccines, and more.”
“I hope that the discovery would also produce unredacted contracts between the Department of Defense and Pfizer,” Latypova added.
The opportunity to file a second amended complaint also allowed more evidence to be incorporated into the case, Jackson said, as the previous complaint only allowed her to “claim what I knew as of September 2020.”
“We found out more about the approval process through the FDA’s release of the clinical trial documents. As more people came forward, as science evolved, we learned more,” Jackson said.
According to Latypova, this new information includes preclinical studies from Pfizer and Moderna, human adverse event data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and other databases, and “reports and published studies from thousands of physicians and injured people.”
“The data is overwhelming, showing severe damage caused by these products,” Latypova said. “The documentation also demonstrates that the manufacturers knew that the product is extremely dangerous … Yet, they lied about the product’s safety, efficacy and manufacturing quality and took billions of dollars in taxpayers’ money.”
According to Barnes, constitutional issues will also be at play if the lawsuit proceeds. This includes “whether or not impermissible First Amendment issues are motivating the Justice Department in pursuing this case, a case that might embarrass the current administration that was in bed with Pfizer as to this vaccine.”
“It’s been four years of fighting a system that I thought was on our side,” Jackson said. “We’ve lost sight of what, or rather who, the government serves. It’s the people.”
“I’ll remind the powers-that-be in Washington once again that according to the U.S. Constitution, the government’s job is to protect and serve the people. We are the sole interest, and we demand vindication.”
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.”
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.
Confusion reigns between “indemnity” and “immunity”
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | March 12, 2024
We sporadically hear of vaccine injury cases in the UK being contemplated or even launched against covid vaccine manufacturers. We also frequently hear people say that “the covid vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued as they have an indemnity”.
It is very important that this be clarified. An indemnity is not the same as immunity.
In the USA manufacturers have immunity (which can potentially be attacked under certain circumstances – such as in the presence of fraud) imposed by a law known as “The PREP Act”. Immunity is a legal shield. The law simply provides that “these manufacturers shall not have any civil liability”.
But in the UK the manufacturers do not have such immunity. What they have – in their contracts with the UK government – is an indemnity. An indemnity is an agreement that one party shall cover the losses of the other.
In this case it provides that the UK government will pay any damages which the manufacturers are liable to pay to claimants if they are sued. But it doesn’t stop anyone actually suing the manufacturers – it just means that any damages awarded are actually paid by the government (and ultimately by the beleaguered taxpayers). In exchange for this, the government gets to control and direct the defence to any claim – as well as paying the legal bills!
This has a number of implications including these:
- If the government is “on the hook” it may well either directly or indirectly pressure the judicial system so that these cases are impeded in some way. We can hope this is not the case, but experience of other legal cases over the past few years suggests this might be naive.
- If the government sees many claims incoming they may try to “pick off” some more obvious ones and put a “line in the sand”, setting quite a high bar for claimants in an attempt to limit the size of the eventual claims.
- On the other hand, if they see a huge number of claims, they may choose to “fight to the death”.
- One other scenario is that they eventually decide they were duped and they then just tell the manufacturers they are no longer honouring the indemnity.
It is also important to recognise that in the UK Parliament makes, amends, and annuls laws at will. There is nothing – except politics – to stop them just going to the manufacturers and threatening to change the law so as to hold them responsible for claims, and that they will make them easier for claimants (perhaps by extending the “limitation period” – normally 3 years – by which a claim has to be lodged or else it become time-barred). This could, for example, be used as leverage to get the manufacturers to set up schemes of compensation.
Generally speaking, retroactive changes to laws are considered undesirable as they could make companies reluctant to do business in a particular country, since companies prefer legal certainty before committing capital; in this case however it is possible that the political imperative becomes so great that the government is effectively forced into ensuring that the injured receive proper recompense and that the manufacturer – not the taxpayer – foots the bill.
Harvard Fires Professor Who Co-wrote Great Barrington Declaration
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 12, 2024
Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., an epidemiologist and professor of Medicine at Harvard University, on Monday confirmed the university fired him.
Kulldorff has been a critic of lockdown policies, school closures and vaccine mandates since early in the COVID-19 pandemic. In October 2020, he published the Great Barrington Declaration, along with co-authors Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta, Ph.D., and Stanford epidemiologist and health economist Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D.
In an essay published Monday in City Journal, Kulldorff wrote that his anti-mandate position got him fired from the Mass General Brigham hospital system, where he also worked, and consequently from his Harvard faculty position.
Kulldorff detailed how his commitment to scientific inquiry put him at odds with a system that he alleged had “lost its way.”
“I am no longer a professor of medicine at Harvard,” Kulldorff wrote. “The Harvard motto is Veritas, Latin for truth. But, as I discovered, truth can get you fired.”
He noted that it was clear from early 2020 that lockdowns would be futile for controlling the pandemic.
“It was also clear that lockdowns would inflict enormous collateral damage, not only on education but also on public health, including treatment for cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health,” Kulldorff wrote.
“We will be dealing with the harm done for decades. Our children, the elderly, the middle class, the working class, and the poor around the world — all will suffer.”
That viewpoint got little debate in the mainstream media until the epidemiologist and his colleagues published the Great Barrington Declaration, signed by nearly 1 million public health professionals from across the world.
The document made clear that no scientific consensus existed for lockdown measures in a pandemic. It argued instead for a “focused protection” approach for pandemic management that would protect high-risk populations, such as elderly or medically compromised people, and otherwise allow the COVID-19 virus to circulate among the healthy population.
Although the declaration merely summed up what previously had been conventional wisdom in public health, it was subject to tremendous backlash. Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Dr. Francis Collins, then-director of the National Institutes of Health called for a “devastating published takedown” of the declaration and of the authors, who were subsequently slandered in mainstream and social media.
Collins and other figures, including Dr. Rochelle Walensky who would go on to head up the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the pandemic, sought to undermine their credibility, Kulldorff wrote.
His tweets contradicting CDC policy that people with natural immunity must be vaccinated were flagged by the Virality Project, a government front group, and censored by Twitter.
“At this point, it was clear that I faced a choice between science or my academic career,” Kulldorff wrote. “I chose the former. What is science if we do not humbly pursue the truth?”
Kulldorff said he was also fired from the CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group because he disagreed with the decision to completely pause the Johnson & Johnson adenovirus COVID-19 vaccine after a safety signal was detected for blood clots in women under 50.
He spoke out in op-eds and social media to argue the Johnson & Johnson shot should remain available for older Americans alongside the Pfizer and Moderna shots — the only other shots available in the U.S. market.
While Kulldorff’s arguments advocating the Johnson & Johnson vaccines may be flawed, investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel wrote today on his Substack, Kulldorff’s story reveals a “more powerful truth.”
“He found out the hard way that there is no crossing the tracks of the institutional freight train that is the Big Pharma-Government Health system of institutional capture that persists in America today,” Schachtel wrote.
“He threatened the gravy train that produced hundreds of billions of lawsuit-protected taxpayer dollars that were making their way to Pfizer and Moderna,” Schachtel added. “And for that sin, he was swiftly removed from his role on the CDC working group.”
Harvard also denied Kulldorff’s vaccine exemption requests. He publicly opposed the Harvard mandates and pushed for the university to rehire those who were fired and to eliminate its mandate for students.
The university last week dropped its COVID-19 mandate for students.
“Veritas has not been the guiding principle of Harvard leaders,” Kulldorff concluded. “Nor have academic freedom, intellectual curiosity, independence from external forces, or concern for ordinary people guided their decisions.”
To right the wrongs that have been done, he said, the broader scientific community must restore academic freedom and end “cancel culture.”
“Science cannot survive in a society that does not value truth and strive to discover it,” he wrote. “The scientific community will gradually lose public support and slowly disintegrate in such a culture.”
Harvard Medical School did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
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.
“WHAT THE NURSES SAW” NOW A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE (WELL, A SHORT VIDEO)
For more info go to www.WhatTheNursesSaw.com
Based on the book by Ken McCarthy.
Artwork by Anne Gibbons.
Video editing by Paul Morrison and Ken McCarthy.
BRASSCHECK
So what about “What the Nurses Saw”?
Over 7,000 copies sold so far. Not only that, the book is now being circulated among staff in TWO different U.S. Senators office: Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
What the Nurses Saw
You can order the book here
The Poisoning
Thou shall…
Lies are Unbekoming | March 10, 2024
Thou shall be poisoned.
My estimate points to 1 in 20 injections going IV accidentally. By that account, 670 million people worldwide would have been harmed, to a degree or another. And studies of accidental IV injections suggest that 127 million people have been harmed clinically.
Thou shall poison others.
There is a saying in military circles: once is a mistake. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action. I have no doubt that given an hour, the people on this panel could point to a hundred examples of the pattern I have just described, while finding even a handful of exceptions would pose a significant challenge.
–
The CDC has become an excellent guide to protecting your health, but only for people who realize you should do the opposite of whatever it advises.
Thou shall disguise The Poisoning.
Popular SSRIs include Fluoxetine (Prozac), Escitalopram (Lexapro), and Sertraline (Zoloft). Something well established about these drugs is that they have sexual side-effects. In fact, between 40 and 65% of people who take an SSRI are thought to experience some form of sexual dysfunction. What few people know, though, is these side effects can persist even after coming off of the drugs—a condition called Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD).
–
There is no treatment. Despite PSSD being in the medical records since the ‘90s, patients are rarely warned of the risk. A risk thought to be 1 in 216.
–
In fact, according to this Stonewall report, more Gen Z Brits identify as asexual (5%) than gay (2%) or lesbian (3%).
Thou shall not tell the truth about The Poisoning.
And it is still happening. We are being surveilled and censored. We are being bullied and browbeat. We are goaded, taxed, nudged, and forced into accepting that which we do not want, whether it is EVs or CBDCs or mRNA. These efforts started with the rejection of science in favor of myth and the myths are still governing the world.
Whatever else we can say about these astonishing developments, this much we can pronounce. We were wrong to trust the authorities. We were wrong to put faith in leaders. We were wrong to look to the universities, the media, and journals, and the experts generally. They failed us. They lied to us.
Thou shall silence those that wish to tell the truth about The Poisoning.
In a world where ‘equity’ is the catch-cry of corporatists accumulating unprecedented wealth, the return of colonialism should not surprise. Colonialism, after all, brings great benefits to those whom it disempowers and pillages. Success requires a highly centralized approach to achieve mass control, restricting freedom ‘for the greater good’ whilst silencing those who disagree.
Thou shall target The Poisoning at The Spirit and Connection.
The introduction of fluoride into the drinking water supply in the 1950s caused perturbations in this social magnetic field (calcifying the pineal gland amongst other harms).
The introduction of mass vaccination campaigns caused further disruptions of the magnetic field thus throwing confusion into the relationships between people.
The widespread use of SSRI’s starting in the early 1990s and the vast deployment of electromagnetic fields for wireless (mobile phone) communication expanded this assault on the social magnetic field.
Over time the field weakened.
In 2019/2020 we got hit with a triple whammy — the release of SARS-CoV-2, the largest propaganda campaign in history, and the rollout of 5G. By this point, most progressives no longer had a working moral compass because the social magnetic field that formerly guided them was gone. They no longer felt a connection with the poor, working class, or the disadvantaged. The subaltern was objectified and viewed as unclean. The working class was turned into delivery drivers so that the laptop class could continue on with their Elysium lifestyle.
–
I argue that this disconnection is what happened to all knowledge production fields as a result of the waves of mass poisonings over the last seventy-five years.
Thou shall recruit and develop The Stupid, as they are the necessary soldiers of The Poisoning.
Stupidity is an obnoxious, frustrating and yet very constant and obtrusive feature of the systems that rule us. I emphasise this quality because I think the accent of much dissident commentary is too much on the malicious, authoritarian and often evil nature of government in the West. Don’t misunderstand me. The powers that be are very bad too, but it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that their collective actions and statements are often just astoundingly dumb. Probably never in the history of humanity has stupidity been so abundant, and so apparently ineradicable, as it is now.
Thou shall make your living by poisoning.
With the world turning full circle, post-World War Two concepts of human rights, equality, and local agency are exiting the international stage. The veiled colonialism currently dressed up as vaccine equity looks like a bunch of colonial bureaucrats forcing their sponsors’ wares on those with less power, whilst building policies to ensure this imbalance remains. Malnutrition, infectious disease, child marriage, and generational poverty are side issues to the East India Pharma and Software Company’s bottom lines. This will stop when those being colonized once again unite and refuse to comply. In the meantime, the enablers could open their eyes and understand who they are working for.
Thou shall poison the poisoned.
Which terrifies me given the surge in SSRI prescriptions among Gen Z. In the UK, 1 in 3 teenagers aged 12 to 18 has been prescribed antidepressants. In 2022 alone, the number of children aged 13 to 19 taking antidepressants rose by 6,000 to 173,000. That’s kids taking drugs known to cause sexual dysfunction—drugs that the Royal College of Psychiatrists admits to using to castrate sex offenders—right during puberty.
–
This seems especially true for girls and young women. In the US, 86% of those identifying as asexual are female, and 91% are aged between 18 to 27. Which is also the demographic with some of the fastest-rising rates in the use of mental health medication. Women and adults aged 18 to 29 in America have the highest rates of current depression or depression treatment. Women are also twice as likely to take antidepressants than men.
Thou shall profit from poisoning the poisoned.
These are all in the top 20 blockbuster drugs in the world.
Then there is Risperdal for autism, Ritalin for ADHD, and Epi pens for severe allergic reactions, and these drugs generate several billion dollars a year in revenue as well.
What most people don’t realize is that these are all treatments for vaccine injuries. The childhood vaccine schedule creates customers for life.
Thou shall receive the wealth of the poisoned.
My specialty is modeling the costs of autism. A study I conducted with Mark Blaxill and Cynthia Nevison showed about $300 billion a year in current costs rising to over a trillion dollars a year in costs by the early 2030s and $5.5 trillion a year by 2060.
The costs of autism will cause the economic and political collapse of the United States in our lifetime.
Thou shall not punish The Poisoning.
As for the producer side, it hasn’t been truly free since 1910. That’s when the so-called Flexner Report came out to push for an allopathic cartel that came to control medical schools, driving up the price of services through a credentialing racket, while blocking alternative forms of care. The wisdom of the ages was toast.
As for pharma, it has not operated in a free market for nearly half a century. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 allowed private companies to keep “intellectual property”—a wholly unnecessary monopoly—and pay patent royalties to government agencies, thus integrating the two sectors in a financial racket.
The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act was also a catastrophe, allowing mass distribution of untested products on people who have no recourse when they go wrong. The PREP Act of 2006 expanded that to all medical countermeasures used in an emergency.
Thou shall punish those that prevent The Poisoning.
On February 14, the French National Assembly passed article 223-1-2 du code pénal. Contained therein, in Article 4 of that law, Robert Kogon writes:
Article 4 introduces a new crime into the French penal code: incitation to abandon or refrain from medical treatment or to adopt a would-be treatment, if, “in the current state of medical knowledge”, doing so “clearly” may cause harm to the person or persons in question. This crime is made punishable by one year in prison and a fine of €30,000 (£26,000) or, if the “incitation” has effect, i.e. the medical advice is followed, three years in prison and a fine of €45,000 (£39,000).
In effect, this is an extreme gag order on physicians, other health care personnel, and indeed anyone who dares speak out against official medical orthodoxy. In terrifyingly broad wording, it criminalizes – with hard time and crippling fines – advising against the received medical wisdom, even if the advice is not followed.
It does not take a doctor, lawyer, or medical ethicist to imagine the effect this will have on medical practice. Put simply, this law will destroy the doctor-patient relationship.
Trump Makes a Statement on COVID Vaccines, Brags About Nine Month Approval Time
Are you Tired of Winning Yet?
BY IGOR CHUDOV | MARCH 8, 2024
Trump released the following statement on Truth Social, responding to Joe Biden’s State of the Union:
In the TruthSocial post above, Trump mentioned his nine-month approval time for Covid vaccines.
I am frankly shocked by the stupidity of both statements.
The vaccines did not “save us from the pandemic” – they made the pandemic worse. And being proud that such vaccines were pushed through in just nine months is perhaps a bit misguided.
New Law Would Make COVID Vaccine Makers Liable for Injuries, Deaths
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 6, 2024
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) on Tuesday introduced a bill that would allow Americans to sue the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines for vaccine-related adverse events, including deaths by removing the vaccine makers’ liability shield.
The Let Injured Americans Be Legally Empowered Act, or the LIABLE Act, would “allow Americans who took vaccines that were misleadingly promoted and forced onto many Americans via federal mandates to pursue civil litigation for their injuries,” according to a summary of the bill publicized by Fox News.
“These vaccines were given emergency use authorization unilaterally and did not go through the normal FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] approval process,” the summary stated.
Commenting on the proposed legislation, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President Mary Holland said:
“The damages and fatalities caused by the COVID-19 vaccine demand accountability. This legislation represents a critical milestone in rectifying these injustices and paving the way for a more accountable future. This legislation is crucial for holding vaccine manufacturers accountable.”
CHD is among the organizations supporting the legislation.
According to Roy’s office, “COVID-19 vaccines are considered ‘countermeasures’ under the Public Readiness and Preparedness (PREP) Act, which broadly shields their manufacturers from civil liability related to losses stemming from the vaccines.”
“Instead, injured Americans must seek relief under the onerous Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) — but only 11 COVID-19-related claims have been paid out of CICP.”
Holland said the CICP is “wholly inadequate and inconsistent with constitutional principles in providing just redress.”
The proposed legislation would remove all federal liability protections for the COVID-19 vaccine, preserve the ability of injured Americans to access pre-existing compensation programs, such as the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), and would be retroactive, allowing Americans vaccinated and injured before the bill’s passage to sue.
In a statement, Roy said, “The long train of abuses committed by the government and public health establishment in response to COVID-19 will continue to impact the American people for years to come.”
As a result, Roy said he is “introducing the LIABLE Act to empower Americans to remove crony federal liability protections for COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers and empower injured Americans. The American people deserve justice for the infringement on their personal medical freedom and those medically harmed deserve restitution.”
React19, a nonprofit organization that advocates on behalf of vaccine injury victims, also welcomed the proposed legislation. Dr. Joel Wallskog, a Wisconsin orthopedic surgeon who no longer practices due to injuries he sustained from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, is co-chair of the organization. He told The Defender:
“React19 supports the LIABLE Act. The COVID-19 public health emergency ended in 2023. Despite this, pharmaceutical companies, the government, and health care organizations are still protected from all liability through the PREP Act until at least Dec. 31, 2024.
“This blanket immunity provided by the PREP Act robs the American public injured by the COVID-19 shots of their right to due process and jury trial. We are relegated to CICP, which is an obvious failure.”
‘Hindsight will show this was absolutely necessary’
According to Fox News, the PREP Act “limits liability for the manufacturing, development and distribution of medical countermeasures related to a public health emergency.” COVID-19 vaccines were distributed in the U.S. on this basis.
In turn, the PREP Act created CICP, “which has a one-year statute of limitations and only provides compensation in the event of death or serious injury,” Fox News reported. As a result, COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers “are mostly immune from civil lawsuits, even if those seeking money damages have medical proof of their vaccine-related injuries.”
“Millions of Americans were forced to take a COVID-19 shot out of fear of losing their livelihoods and under false pretenses,” Roy told Fox News on Tuesday, contrasting the 11 claims compensated by CICP with the 700 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines which have been administered in the U.S.
Wallskog said CICP “has a 98% denial rate” and, as of Jan. 1, has issued a total “of about $41,000” for the 11 claims it has compensated — an average of approximately $3,700 per claim.
Ray Flores, senior outside counsel for CHD, is an expert on the PREP Act and CICP. He told The Defender he “would be thrilled” to see PREP Act manufacturer protection removed. “Someday, hindsight will show this was absolutely necessary,” Flores said.
Flores noted that U.S. government guarantees made to vaccine manufacturers early during the pandemic prohibited the government from “using or authorizing COVID-19 vaccine” unless they were “protected from liability under a declaration issued under the PREP Act, or a successor COVID-19 PREP Act declaration of equal or greater scope.”
“If this bill proceeds, this will be the battleground,” Flores said.
Lawsuits will help determine if COVID vaccines were as ‘safe and effective’ as claimed
Big Pharma did not welcome the proposed legislation. In a statement shared with Fox News, Andrew Powaleny, senior director of public affairs for PhRMA [Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America], an industry trade group, said:
“COVID-19 has been a reminder of why we need safe and effective vaccines. All vaccines, including those for COVID-19, are subject to a rigorous safety and efficacy review process and post-market monitoring.
“By upending the existing liability framework manufacturers rely upon to provide predictable vaccine development, our ability to address future public health threats will be at risk.”
But other experts disagreed. Writing Tuesday in The Blaze, commentator and author Daniel Horowitz asked, “Should a product that is completely funded, marketed, monopolized, and then mandated by government be less liable than Toyota is for its airbags?”
Horowitz added, “Ideally, the NCVIA [the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986] and the PREP Act should be repealed entirely.”
Still, he welcomed Roy’s proposed legislation. “Giving consumers their day in court will be the perfect way to sort out whether Pfizer’s and Moderna’s products are as safe and effective as they claim,” he wrote.
“It’s highly likely that tens of millions of people are currently without recourse for compensation from a product that was fraudulently foisted upon the American people by these companies in collusion with the federal government,” Horowitz said. “Knowing that, Roy’s bill comes as welcome relief.”
According to Fox News, “Roy has led the charge against those vaccine mandates, including leading efforts to roll back COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the U.S. military.”
Co-sponsors of the bill include Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.), Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), Michael Cloud (R-Texas), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), Bob Good (R-Va.), Clay Higgins (R-La.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Barry Moore (R-Utah), Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Randy Weber (R-Texas), Troy Nehls (R-Texas), Andy Harris (R-Md.), Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho), Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.).
“Americans injured by the COVID-19 shots deserve better,” Wallskog said. “They did what they thought was the right thing for themselves, their families and the nation. Now, they are left abandoned. This legislation gives them a chance at fair and just compensation.”
“The time has come for our nation to recognize these injuries and allow them legal recourse,” he added.
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.”
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.
Featured Video
The American Retreat from Vietnam
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Iran UN ambassador calls for destruction of all nuclear weapons
Iran’s ambassador to the UN Gholamali Khoshroo
Press TV – March 29, 2017
Iran’s ambassador to the UN Gholamali Khoshroo has called for the total eradication of nuclear weapons.
Khoshroo reiterated Iran’s call during a UN conference aimed at creating a nuclear weapons ban treaty in New York on Tuesday.
“Iran, as a victim of chemical weapons, strongly feels the danger posed by the existence of weapons of mass destruction and is determined to engage actively in international diplomatic efforts to save humanity from the menace of nuclear weapons,” he said.
Khoshroo stressed that Iran is committed to its Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, which include negotiations based on effective nuclear disarmament measures.
He added that several countries continue to ignore international calls and treaties for nuclear disarmament and even continue to increase their nuclear stockpiles. “They do not have political determination to abandon doctrines of nuclear deterrence and nuclear terror,” he went on to say.
Iran’s UN ambassador noted that boycotting the talks by many countries, including the US, shows that the world’s nuclear powers are by no means committed to the eradication of nuclear arms. Britain and France were also among the some 40 countries that did not join the talks.
“We note that prohibition of nuclear weapons must be accompanied by the elimination of such weapons. There can be no doubt that without complete abolition of nuclear weapons, there will be no absolute guarantee against the danger of nuclear war and the use of such weapons,” Khoshroo added.
Blog Roll
Aletho News- India signals rethink over West Asia
- Israeli Ex-Navy Chief admits massive damage from Iran missiles
- The strategic arsenal US lost in war against Iran – and why replenishment will take years
- Documents Suggest Fauci Knew COVID Was Created in Wuhan Lab, and mRNA Vaccines Wouldn’t Work
- No return to pre-war status for Strait of Hormuz – Iran’s top diplomat
- Ex-South Korean President sentenced for trying to provoke conflict with Pyongyang
- US publishes docs on ‘dangerous’ Ukrainian biolabs
- Trump’s ERAM cruise missiles for Ukraine blow up his peace overtures to Russia
- EU state lifts arms embargo on Israel after spy scandal
- French watchdog reveals Israeli propaganda firm meddled in New York, Scottish, African elections
- If Americans Knew
- US-Iran ceasefire may be imminent, but will Israel blow it up? – Daily Update
- The Issue of Israel Is Ending Democracy In Michigan
- Israel is stealing homes, livelihoods, and lives in West Bank
- Gaza is not an aberration – Israel planned this genocide decades ago
- Israel is changing the face of Lebanon, mainstream media is normalizing it – 3 articles
- Genocide lobby benefits from EU anti-racist fund
- Watching the World Cup from Gaza
- Israel to Blame for 56% of 22,600+ Civilians Killed by Explosive Weapons Globally Last Year
- Tucker Carlson and John Mearsheimer on Gaza, Ukraine, Iran, Russia & a Potential Nuclear Strike
- 88 attacks against Palestinian Christians recorded since start of year
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
- Germany’s AfD Party Calls Debunked Climate Scenarios “Greatest Fraud In Human History”
Aletho News 