Professor Harvey Risch talks with author John Leake about how hydroxychloroquine — a safe, effective, and inexpensive drug — was fraudulently misrepresented and suppressed by public health agencies, academic journals, and the mainstream media. This propaganda campaign has resulted in the preventable deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Some people oppose lockdown on principle, arguing that the government should never infringe on fundamental liberties like the freedom to leave our home or open our business, regardless of the impact this may have on disease transmission.
It’s a reasonable position, but I’m more drawn to the consequentialist case against lockdowns. This can be summed up as “benefits small, costs large”. In other words, even if lockdowns do reduce mortality from COVID-19 (under some circumstances), they don’t do so by anywhere near enough to justify their costs.
As I noted recently, several cost-benefit analyses of the UK’s lockdowns have been published, and each one concluded that the costs almost certainly outweighed the benefits. (Which may explain why the Government has thus far refrained from publishing any estimates itself.)
A rather elegant demonstration of the consequentialist case against lockdown was provided back in May, in the form of a Twitter thread by the data scientist Youyang Gu.
Comparing the 50 US states, Gu obtained data on the COVID-19 death rate, the change in unemployment rate, and the average Government Stringency Index. The latter is a measure of the number and severity of restrictions imposed during the course of the pandemic (school closures, stay-at-home orders, etc.). Gu’s two main charts are shown below:
He found that the Stringency Index was not associated with the COVID-19 death rate (left-hand chart), but was strongly associated with an increase in unemployment (right-hand chart). In other words, US states with longer and more stringent lockdowns haven’t had fewer COVID-19 deaths, but they have seen higher unemployment.
In the replies to Gu’s thread, some critics argued that restrictions were often imposed in response to large outbreaks, so you can’t assume that causation only goes from restrictions to deaths and unemployment. However, Gu points out that the relative ordering of restriction levels is fairly constant over time, so this is unlikely to be a major issue.
His analysis adds to a large body of evidence indicating that – for the vast majority of Western states – the benefits of lockdown were small, but the costs were very large. Gu’s thread is worth reading in full.
WOW! What a Year! That’s a sentiment none of us would disagree with. Except that this is the title of a primary school musical production promoting Covid vaccines and face masks to children aged four to 11.
The Key Stage II musical, performed by the leavers of year 6, has been condemned as ‘unethical’ by some parents. They have complained to Leicestershire-based Edgy Productions, who charge schools £39 for a script.
Two songs in the production, which is about living in times of Covid, prompted the most outrage. One is A Shot In The Arm, the chorus of which cheerily tells children: ‘We’ll all roll up our sleeves and send it on its way . . . Because with just a little prick, we won’t get sick, And that will be an end to it!’ The other is Put That Mask On, with the chorus: ‘Put that mask on your face, Give each other some space, Wash your hands every chance you get. We’ll beat this yet! Ha! No sweat!’
Sorrel Scott, a physiotherapist from south-west London, said in a letter to Dr David Lewis, the director of Edgy Productions: ‘My immediate reaction to reading these lyrics was horror. The UK Government have not made the decision to vaccinate children currently and so it is hard to understand why your musical is trying to normalise and push vaccines for children when there is no medium or long term safety data, and these vaccines are still very much in experimental stages (none of the vaccines finish their experimental stage until 2023).
‘To promote vaccinations for young children who are unable to understand the real harms that may affect them in the short and long term is unethical.
‘To promote face masks for young children goes against current Government guidelines and it is important to note that there are very real harms that can come from wearing face masks, especially in children. These harms include headaches from a build-up of CO2, respiratory and heart problems, microbial contamination, and psychological harms. It has also been noted that facemasks offer little or no protection from tiny virus particles.
‘Have we come to a point where we want to promote mask wearing in small children who are not at risk of the virus and do not pass it on? Have you given a second thought to what effect these songs could have on young children by pushing these messages?’
The musical is not the only way in which children are being bombarded with vaccine propaganda for a jab many experts say they don’t need.
The Stephen Hawking Foundation has produced a slide presentation for schools called Are Vaccines Safe? Slide 11 shows horrific pictures of a child locked in spasm suffering ‘painful muscle contractions of tetanus’, a boy covered in smallpox pustules and a child post-polio in callipers. In almost all cases, Covid is mild or unnoticed in healthy under-18s, so these scare stories are totally irrelevant.
Former headteacher Nigel Utton, education co-ordinator for the World Freedom Alliance, one of a number of organisations fighting for medical freedom, wrote an open letter in May debunking the presentation slide by slide.
He said: ‘Scientists, doctors, lawyers, teachers and citizens are alarmed at the way schools are being used as a vehicle for taking away parental responsibility for the well-being of their children.
‘By allowing this propaganda in your school, you would be acting in loco parentis and you would therefore be morally responsible for any ill effects that the vaccine has on the children in your care. Children have already died in the vaccine studies and others have had life-threatening side effects.’
Adding weight to the campaign to prevent under-18s being vaccinated, Professor Robert Dingwall penned an eight-part heartfelt Twitter post last Wednesday. Professor Dingwall is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination (JCVI) who advise the government on vaccination.
His post said: ‘Teenagers are at intrinsically low risk from Covid. Vaccines must be exceptionally safe to beat this. Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine.
‘Covid is now a long way from being an important cause of mortality.
‘A reminder: medicine cannot deliver immortality and it is profoundly damaging to society to imply that it can, if only we try hard enough.
‘As Rene Dubos [French-American microbiologist and Pulitzer Prize winning author of So Human An Animal] noted 60 years ago, humans, viruses and bacteria form an ecosystem which has evolved over millennia.
‘Surely we have enough experience of the unintended consequences of humans reshaping other ecosystems to suit their own ends not to rush into reshaping this one without really understanding what it would mean for human lives and immune systems.’
Edgy say that ‘hundreds’ of schools across the country are busy rehearsing Wow! What a Year!
Director Dr Lewis defended the production. He said: ‘It celebrates heroes: nurses, doctors, shop assistants, teachers, delivery drivers, parents who home-schooled their children, (and the children who were home-schooled), those who struggled financially but still managed to feed their families, those who missed closeness to their loved ones, and those that led by example to show resilience in the face of adversity. This is the message that children are presented with.’
He said that if teachers do not like any of the songs, they may remove them: ‘If the teachers don’t like the content or don’t deem it appropriate, their children will not perform it.’
He added: ‘Any accusations that this musical is propaganda for a vaccine or mask agenda, have come exclusively from individuals who have not read the entire script or heard the songs in context. We encourage them to do so.’
Peter Cansell, spokesman for the National Association for Primary Education, said: ‘We would be unwise to offer an opinion as it is straying into requiring medical knowledge rather than educational understanding, but we feel that you have done the right thing in contacting the producers/publishers in this instance.’
In a letter to CEO Mark Zuckerberg, GOP Rep. Ken Buck, from Colorado, criticized Facebook’s content moderation policies. Buck pointed out, among other things, how Facebook’s content moderation practices are biased against some opinions.
“During the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Facebook removed more than 7 million posts that purportedly spread misinformation about the virus, and your company placed contextual notes on more than 98 million posts it deemed as potentially misleading,” Buck wrote. “Monitoring posts across Facebook and Instagram for misinformation about COVID has been an undoubtedly herculean task, but Facebook has vigorously taken on this challenge.”
Buck said that the platform censored content on the origins of the pandemic and the Hunter Biden story for “the supposed interest of public informational safety.”
“Your company is only able to selectively moderate content based on the political agenda of your company and its employees because Facebook possesses monopoly power over the market,” Buck wrote. He warned that “stifling ideas can backfire if it leads people to believe there’s a ‘real story’ that is being suppressed.’”
In both cases (the Hunter Biden story and the origins of the pandemic), “Facebook has had the embarrassing position of having to defend its censorship of legitimate content.” In recent months, more evidence has emerged that supports the lab leak theory. Additionally, “the unconditional erasure of reports that were damaging to the-candidate Joe Biden regarding his son, Hunter Biden, has since proved to be unfounded.”
Buck continued to point out that Facebook has been keen on censoring legal content, but has failed to remove “illegal and sexually abusive content.”
“The company appears to have an astonishing lack of concern about illegal and sexually abusive content that is rampantly permitted on your company’s platforms,” Buck wrote to Zuckerberg.
“Facebook has established a rigorous system for policing speech that is Constitutionally protected, yet your company’s failure to effectively screen illegal and exploitative content represents a misalignment of values that is deeply disconcerting.”
Buck’s letter also highlights Zuckerberg’s recent testimony in Congress about reforms to Section 230, expressing disapproval of Zuckerberg’s recommendation of what the Congressman described as “counterproductive actions.”
“Recently, you testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. In this hearing, you advocated for vaguely defined Section 230 reforms, saying that the law should ‘condition immunity for the larger platforms on having a generally effective system in place to moderate clearly illegal types of content,’” Buck wrote.
“Simply because a company has established a system to review potentially illegal content does not create any standard for ensuring such content is systematically removed from the platform,” he explained. “I agree with you that no system is perfect, but if Congress were to adopt your recommendation, it would codify the status quo and fail to address the issues that are pervasive across Facebook.”
The letter concluded with a plea to Zuckerberg: “I urge you to take necessary steps to ensure your platform is an open platform for the free and open exchange of ideas and an unwelcoming place for illegal and exploitative content.”
Dr. Kory just bared it all on Joe Rogan. But there’s more from this world famous doctor…
What tips can increase your odds of surviving your next trip to the hospital? And will Vitamin C be the next banned topic? Get 40 minutes here, then come to our site www.PeakProsperity.com for the rest.
Dr. Pierre Kory is an ICU and lung specialist who is an expert on the use of the drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19. Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist, visiting fellow at Princeton, host of the DarkHorse podcast, and co-author (with his wife, Heather Heying) of the forthcoming “A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century.”
Before the coronavirus pandemic, ivermectin was described as a “wonder” drug by the medical community. And in 2015, Dr. Satoshi Ōmura and Dr. William C. Campbell were awarded half the Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work that led to the development of ivermectin.
“The importance of Ivermectin for improving the health and wellbeing of millions of individuals with River Blindness and Lymphatic Filariasis, primarily in the poorest regions of the world, is immeasurable,” the Nobel Assembly stated in its press release for the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
But after the pandemic began, the tech giants have gone all out to purge content that recommends ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
And today, these Big Tech policies against ivermectin resulted in one of Ōmura’s speeches where he discussed ivermectin being struck down for “violating YouTube’s community guidelines.”
“When the fascists at YouTube censor the Noble Prize winner Dr. Satoshi Omura, a man whose discoveries have saved a hundred million + from blindness, the world has entered a very, very dark place,” Australian Member of Parliament Craig Kelly tweeted. “I cannot express in words how angry & sad this makes me & fearful for the future.”
Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care, an alliance of physicians and scholars that has committed to “research and develop lifesaving protocols for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in all stages of illness,” also spoke out against the censorship and warned that “brilliant scientists and lifesaving science are systematically being gagged.”
I WOULD like to describe the last 16 months from the point of view of a critical care nurse; I also did some work as a community nurse last year. My views differ from those of most NHS workers I come into contact with.
Community nursing was already a disaster. Nurses get lists of up to 30 visits per nine-hour shift, with more coming in hourly. No staff. Constant stress. But then came the ‘pandemic’, if that’s what it was, the peak of which was April 8, 2020.
Once the pandemic was declared all but essential visits stopped. Families took over wound care, B12 injections ceased, carers took on basic nursing roles to keep district nurses out of care homes, and so on.
Swathes of staff were redeployed to the district nurse teams, and spent most of the time in base. Several cried for much of their stay.
Early on most nurses accepted the situation but as months passed the mood changed and they wanted to get back out there, particularly as GPs had all but deserted their patients. If this was a battle, the GPs turned and ran.
Care home fax machines spewed out DNACPR [do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation] notices and statements of intent for all residents whether ill or not, fit or not. (A statement of intent is a form completed by a GP that states a death is expected, and if it occurs outside surgery hours the doctor will issue a death certificate within the next 14 days. It also removes the requirement of contacting the police. This statement and DNACPRs do not necessarily go hand in hand but often do.)
A carer could now ring a GP and say that a resident had become unwell or was deteriorating and end of life (EOL) drugs would appear. The GP would not visit and assess, and unqualified carers would declare a resident ‘Nil by Mouth’ and for palliative care. When a nurse finally got to see the resident he or she may have been starved for days and was very grateful when the carer was ordered to give nourishment and fluids.
Carers are not nurses but they can have dubious intent just like some nurses we can recall. When family are not allowed in for months on end, who’s to know?
GPs began working from home, or from their cars parked in their surgery car park. They would refuse to enter care homes to ‘protect their family’, as one declared.
There was even an attempt to verify a death with a carer over the phone. The doctor must have been terrified when the manager stepped in and demanded he attend.
Cowards. GPs were not brave. One hoped they would lead the charge in the battle on the home front, but not so.
Then the dying began.
Regular ‘customers’ began to die, but not of Covid. More and more calls would come in informing us that ‘Betty’ had died, then ‘Ronnie’, then ‘Frank’ . . . all long-term patients. Loneliness was killing them.
We knew it. These people had gone from being part of a community: nurses, doctors, physios, family, to suddenly seeing no one.
Other patients died ‘with’ Covid, not many ‘from’ it.
No prophylactic medications or treatment was ever considered to my knowledge.
Comically, nurses were instructed to socially distance from each other and in houses/care homes. Yeah, right!
Not possible.
Also, while GPs hid and quivered, we saw patients whilst having no PPE.
It seems now that the NHS is nothing more than thousands of people indulging in cosplay (dressing up as their favourite characters from film or TV) mistaken for actual healthcare workers who, when asked to actually advocate for patients, turned out to be nothing more than Mr Benn – just wearing fancy dress.
We were instructed by the PM last year to prepare for the worst: every family would lose a member, get used to the daily sight of funeral cars, NHS prepare for the ‘Wave’.
I never saw this. Sure it was a bad few months but not exactly the movie Contagion. Some staff were so pumped they almost appeared disappointed when their job became easier.
Whilst some healthcare professionals have worked hard throughout, even above and beyond, almost all have bought into the government line and applied no critical thinking or done any research.
This has been the great disappointment. The cognitive dissonance is startling.
All have had the vax but still agree with anti-social distancing. Still agree with masks. Still agree with lockdowns. But get angry and upset at patients dying of loneliness.
A vaxxed colleague returned from isolating and said I should have the jab.
‘If it’s not a vaccine and just dampens symptoms why do I need it?’
‘So you don’t spread it.’
‘But apparently I would still be able to spread it. You’d just be ill not dead. I can spread it with or without the jab. It’s only me at risk.’
‘What?’
‘You’re young with no comorbidities, why do you need it?’
Shrug.
‘How does it work?’
Shrug.
It’s the same in my trust’s hospital where nurses and doctors care greatly about their patients but clearly cannot extrapolate that responsibility outwards beyond the hospital doors.
If you are critically ill, nurses and doctors can be ace. Need to fight a tyrannical dictatorship? Hmm, not so ace.
It’s a big ask I know but now’s the time. Maybe years of being bullied (that’s how the NHS manages its staff) has crippled most people.
Instead nurses, physios and others are signing up for extra pennies by giving injections of a vaccine they know nothing about.
And doctors. This is the shocker. Turns out they’re either not that clever, couldn’t care less or are corrupt. In other words, no different from anyone else. Except when given positions of real power. Then they can be dangerous. They must see the lies and yet the ones I work with tell everyone to get jabbed, wear a mask etc.
The NHS should never have this power. When someone claims to know what’s best for you, run!
I love nurses and am saddened that they have failed the test of their lifetime. Very few are cowards, though, just blind, unlike GPs, who are cowards first and foremost.
The NHS is now a religious body with its members needing guidance from above.
Neither medicine or religion should run a country.
NOTE: My extensive research and interviewing / video/sound editing and much more does require support – please consider helping if you can with monthly donation to support me directly, or one-off payment: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_…
– alternatively join up with my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/IvorCummins
PIERS Corbyn is a well-known committed campaigner in the fight to stop the New Normal / New World Order / World Economic Forum being imposed on us all. He’s also a physicist, astro-physicist, long-range weather forecaster and former councillor.
Daniel Miller: You’ve been campaigning against the lockdowns and related matters since the very beginning. When did you first realise the pandemic narrative was a deliberate lie?
Piers Corbyn: About a week. I was always wary of these things because of the climate issue and I looked into what was happening and I understood these lockdowns were about control. I organised a few demonstrations in Glastonbury town centre and got back to London and met others (around May 9, 2020) who were attempting to do things in London. But things developed quite slowly at first, before we had a big breakthrough in August, getting 50,000 people to Trafalgar Square.
DM: The launch of the pandemic narrative was obviously very shocking and confusing . . .
PC: It was cleverly done. They had all corners covered.
DM: Do you feel you have a good theoretical understanding of the forces driving it forward?
PC: I think so. There are different interest groups coming together to make this and there could be splits between them. The Chinese want to carry on building their economy, and world domination in due course. Wall Street and the mega corporations want to defend their rate of profit. And at the same time, there’s the depopulation agenda of Bill Gates and others. I don’t think the big pharmaceutical companies want to simply depopulate everybody, they want to sell more vaccines. But Gates and others do want to reduce world population. They openly talk about that.
DM: There seems to be a strong connection with the green agenda with what used to be calling global warming and now is called climate change.
PC: Yes, that is their underlying religion, if you like . . . it’s an ideology that justifies anything that they want to do.
DM: This ideology is focused specifically on carbon emissions. It isn’t a holistic concern with the environment but only with this metric. In fact the green revolution is going to lead to massive environmental destruction, because they going to need to mine huge quantities of raw materials to create the new green infrastructure. But as you say, the climate change narrative is clearly useful from the point of view of centralising power. It means that governments can regulate in a way that will enable them to expand their control over society and the economy, in partnership with corporations. And this is also the point of the pandemic narrative.
PC: All governments love a crisis, and this one is a fantastic crisis for the governments of the world. And countries in Africa which have stood out against of course have found their Presidents murdered, in Tanzania and Burundi.
DM: One wonders who is handling that side of the operation.
PC: Yes, who is it? I haven’t seen any attempt to determine that.
DM: There are parts of America now which are much more clearly opposed, in particular in Florida. For whatever reason DeSantis was able to take that position, at least for now. In Britain on the other hand they seem very firmly in control, not only of the government, but also the parliamentary opposition led officially by Sir Keir Starmer, who seems to have been been ordered to support the government in whatever they decide to do.
PC: That’s right, and they even call for stronger measures. What is Starmer all about? I think he’s a hyper-globalist and has been supporting this agenda for a long time. I first met him years ago in a Red-Green alliance meeting in Camden, and he just waffled, he made no sense at all.
DM: Beyond Starmer, the wider Left hasn’t offered any opposition. It seems to me they’ve been co-opted. You see this in the United States where ‘Leftism’ became the ideology of the professional managerial class. It evacuated the worker dimension, and shifted to policing cultural issues.
PC: Hate speech and identity politics have destroyed the Left, and I think it’s deliberate. Because class analysis is now completely absent, which is why American workers were supporting Trump. When that began to happen I was quite bemused. But it makes sense because the Democratic Party is now just serving Wall Street interests . . .
DM: And Silicon Valley interests, and military industrial interests . . .
PC: And anything goes. The idea that a Leftist party can support the indiscriminate bombing and destruction of a country like Libya is just unbelievable, but that’s what they did.
DM: Some see the current political climate as an expression of the triumph of Leftism, or some form of Marxism. On the other hand, the Marxism now taught in universities or advanced in Leftist media appears to have been modified to support Democratic Party interests, and the people still committed to a more classical Marxist analysis are sidelined and repressed. This occurs from the Left, which is concerned with disciplining activism and channeling it into directions that create divisions and antagonism.
PC: The question must be, with respect to the Left, what percentage of activity is actually instigated by infiltrators and police agents.
DM: There almost seems to be a natural law of infiltration where eventually you reach a point where the Chief of Police is also the Head of the Anarchists . . .
PC: Yes!
DM: I want to ask you about your own background. Many people know you as Jeremy Corbyn’s brother, but your training is in meteorology, and you’ve been an activist for a long time.
PC: Yes, I’m a physicist, a theoretical physicist and astrophysicist, and I run a long range weather forecasting operation which sells forecasts to farmers, commodity traders, the energy industry and others, and has been quite successful. As for my brother, I’m older than him for a start. And I was better known around the world than he was until he started to attempt to be the leader of the Labour Party. He was always a member of the Labour Party, whereas I was in groups more involved in direct action. He was always more involved with the trade unions. But we worked together in the miners’ strike for example, where there was a lot of direct action, and he was coming from a trade union point of view. But at the start of his leadership campaign I said to him, you should make it clear that the other candidates are ‘Tory light’ and you’re different. And he said, that’s right, and that’s what he did, and that succeeded. And it’s true, because he does have a different perspective from the others. But he failed at the last hurdle because he was forced into a complete muddle over Brexit. And that was really the end of his great story at the upper levels of the Labour Party, although he still has a very important following.
DM: Your brother’s silence in the last eighteen months has been quite noticeable.
PC: No, he’s acquiesced basically and made minor comments . . . A lot of people in the anti-lockdown movement were, and some of them still are, supporters of Jeremy, and they come up to me in demonstrations and say, Piers, we supported your brother, where is he? Does he believe in all this? And I tell them, well, he’s a prisoner of the trade unions. And you’ve seen what’s happened. The authorities have been very clever. They thought about it a long time ahead, how to control the Labour movement, and because the Labour movement in Britain, all Labour movements, but especially Britain, is what I would call ‘economistic’. They don’t think very politically, they just think, where’s the money coming from? Anybody’s who has done any analysis, and Jeremy should have done this too, should have realised that this is the slow death of British industry, and those jobs will be destroyed. But they are just not facing up to it.
DM: The future of public services in Britain looks bleak. It seems that the government’s plan is to destroy them, and then package the market to corporations like Microsoft. And this is how the post-automation underclass is going to be managed in the future, with digital communications, UBI [universal basic income] and pharmaceutical interventions to ensure compliance.
PC: Yes, total privatisation. You can see that people are going to be asked to defend the NHS by people like Starmer and my brother, and they are going to reply, ‘What are we defending? The NHS has been failing to help people with cancer, injecting people with a lethal vaccine, there’s been a suppression of treatment, what are we defending?’
DM: From a Machiavellian perspective I suppose you have to hand it to them, because the government has in effect destroyed the NHS while repeating all the time we have to save it. Meanwhile they are making it as difficult as possible to have a good experience in schools. Here at least there is a possible path which might actually be quite positive, from the point of view of a more decentralised education system. But only for some.
PC: A lot of parents are actually taking their children out. And that’s interesting because if you get a high percentage of parents who take their children out and home-school I wonder where that will go, because you have private enterprises that will pop up and say we can look after your kids and have a private independent schools then the whole thing will become privatised.
DM: What do you think is politically the path forward for people who want to resist what’s happening?
PC: The main way to stop this is not begging the government; we do actually have to break their impositions and if we don’t break them we’re going to lose. People have to go to work when they’re not supposed to, they’ve got to rip down all the signs. If people defy in sufficient numbers the whole agenda of the other side becomes irrelevant because people will be working, and will be having an economy, and so forth. What happens then, I don’t know. Formally the main decisions are made in Parliament even if Johnson and others are being told what to do. So we’re building a party in order to compete on the level but of course we’re tiny compared to existing forces. Politically the key issues now are accountability and democracy versus globalist diktats, and the Left and Right issues are really a diversion. The way forward has to be massive grassroots resistance, physical, legal resistance, and stopping the implementation of the New World Order. This also requires political organisation which is why we set up Let London Live. The primary thing is that we have to be a movement and build a movement and that’s what we’re doing.
DM: The vaccine passports is now clearly the aim that they’re trying to pursue.
PC: Yes, the vaccine seems to be at the centre of their strategy. Now what is the vaccine programme about? It’s not about public health. It is about control, mental control, ideological control, and they do want to kill people, I have no doubt about that. I think a lot of people will die. The powers that be are desperate now to rush out more vaccines, and to vaccinate children, before people realise what’s going on.
DM: Already the casualties from the new experimental vaccines are unprecedented compared with other vaccination programmes.
PC: Yes, in America more people have died from this vaccine than have died from all of the other vaccines in the USA in the past.
DM: Probably one should be generous to their position intellectually, as it’s unusual for people to self-consciously pursue evil. People want to believe that what they’re doing is necessary. What they seem to believe in is the rational, scientific management of global populations. You see this already with the formation of the Fabian Society in the nineteenth century, which is still very active, and later with people like Julian Huxley, H G Wells and others. A lot of this seems to have been in the works for a long time and suddenly switched on. Evidently not everybody knows all the steps, but only some.
PC: That’s right.
DM: It is very difficult to speak to many of our contemporaries about this matter. It seems like there is a kind of mental block . . .
PC: Exactly, it’s difficult to believe they want to kill us. But I’ve come to the conclusion that actually they do, they really are trying to kill a lot of the population. We need to have a principled united front against all these measures. And the vaccines have to be stopped altogether.
A Northern District of California court has dismissed a complaint claiming that the First Amendment had been violated when Facebook started censoring the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) page.
CHD, an activist group chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., asked to proceed with the case that alleges government-sponsored censorship, therefore making the First Amendment relevant even if Facebook is a privately-owned company. The complaint also cited false disparagement and wire fraud.
The issues that are the subject of censorship concern vaccines and public health agencies, and the plaintiff focused its argument on how the First Amendment was being challenged here by “the authorities openly censoring unwanted critique of its narrative.”
The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California, after hearing both sides’ arguments on Wednesday, decided to accept.
Where it concerns the First Amendment, the ruling states that the allegations failed to show that “Zuckerberg personally” was involved in censoring CHD – clearly, the court does not believe in the “command responsibility” of a CEO.
Next, the US federal government is exonerated, as the judge established that it did not form a “joint enterprise” with the social media company for the purpose of censoring the page.
“Emails between Zuckerberg and Dr. Fauci about a COVID information ‘hub’ on Facebook do not relate to any actions taken regarding CHD’s Facebook page,” the ruling stated.
And Judge Illston didn’t understand some members of Congress speaking publicly about the need for companies like Facebook to censor “misinformation,” including about vaccines, to constitute government coercion – and says she found no evidence that Facebook was pressured specifically into censoring CHD.
Regarding the filing’s count addressing wire fraud, the judge threw the case out saying that CHD had no valid argument either under the Lanham Act or RICO.
CHD sought to link Facebook’s censorship with more than a political or ideological matter, but one of monetary value, effectively accusing the giant of collusion for monetary gains with government’s health agencies, vaccine manufacturers, and the telecommunications industry.
Specifically, CHD has been strongly critical of the WHO, CDC and FCC, accusing them of corruption.
A while ago, I received an email from a friend who asked:
How can many, many respected, competitive, independent science folks be so wrong about [global warming] (if your [skeptical] premise is correct). I don’t think it could be a conspiracy, or incompetence. … Has there ever been another case when so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?
The answer to the second part of my friend’s question—“Has there ever been another case where so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?”—is easy. Yes, there are many such cases, both within and outside climate science. In fact, the graveyard of science is littered with the bones of theories that were once thought “certain” (e.g., that the continents can’t “drift,” that Newton’s laws were immutable, and hundreds if not thousands of others).
Science progresses by the overturning of theories once thought “certain.” … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.