Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Here’s How Much Senate’s Loudest RFK Jr Critics Have Been Paid by Big Pharma

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 02.02.2025

The fiery viral exchange between RFK Jr and Senator Bernie Sanders on Big Pharma money in politics has cast a new light on the Trump HHS pick’s uphill confirmation battle.

Among senators grilling Kennedy hardest in this week’s grueling confirmation hearings, here’s who’s gotten the most pharma money via PAC contributions and employee donations between 1990-2024, per calculations by OpenSecrets:

  • Bernie Sanders: $1.9 mln
  • Ralph Warnock: $1.76 mln
  • Patty Murray: $1.6 mln
  • Chuck Schumer: $1.55 mln
  • Elizabeth Warren: $1.2 mln. Ironic that she’s recently accused Kennedy of “profiting from anti-vaccine conspiracies.”
  • Ron Wyden: $1.2 mln
  • Bill Cassidy: $1.2 mln
  • Mark Warner: $654,000
  • Maggie Hassan: $467,000
  • Catherine Cortez Masto: $537,000

Bipartisan Consensus

And it’s not just Democrats. OpenSecrets records, which have 307 names on file, show former GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell got $2 mln, Mitt Romney $3.3 mln, Richard Burr $1.6 mln, the late John McCain $1.4 mln, Bill Cassidy $1.2 mln, and Roy Blunt, John Cornyn and Tim Scott $1.1 mln each over the past three-and-a-half decades.

A 2021 STAT study found that over two-thirds of Congress got a pharma check in 2020, with Pfizer alone contributing to 228 federal campaigns and over 1,000 state races. By last August alone, Big Pharma’s 2024 election PAC war chests hit $37 mln, per BioSpace.

OpenSecrets partial list of top Big Pharma donations to current and former US senators.
© Photo : OpenSecrets

Besides lobbying, lawmakers have taken advantage of their jobs to get rich off pharma-related insider trading, with a 2021 Business Insider report finding that 75 made timely investments into the federal Covid response.

Then there’s the combined payouts of healthcare industry, which includes pharma but also insurance, medical device suppliers, etc.

By these accounts, Sanders alone got $23+ mln since 1990, Warnock $14.7 mln, Warren $10.4 mln, Wyden $6.7 mln, Tim Kaine $3.3 mln, Ed Markey $2.3 mln, Patty Murray $5.8 mln, Tammy Baldwin $4.9 mln, etc.

Chart compiled by @MidwesternDoc based on OpenSecrets data on healthcare industry contributions to US lawmakers.
© Photo : X / @MidwesternDoc / OpenSecrets

Media Onboard Too

Major outlets aren’t running anti-RFK hit pieces for free. Dr. Leana Wen, author of a recent WaPo piece trashing Kennedy, received over $1.1 mln from Big Pharma over her career.

In 2021, MintPress News calculated that active Big Pharma cheerleader Bill Gates has given nearly $320 mln to media over the years to ensure favorable coverage of himself and the initiatives he’s pushing, including as it relates to the pharmaceutical industry.

February 2, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

The CIA Report: Why a Low Confidence Finding is the Height of Hypocrisy

By Jonathan Turley | January 27, 2025

Every modern president seems to promise transparency during their campaigns, but few ever seem to get around to it. Once in power, the value of being opaque becomes evident. We will have to wait to see if President Donald Trump will fulfill his pledges, but so far this is proving the cellophane administration. Putting aside his constant press gaggles and conferences, the Administration has ordered wholesale disclosures of long-withheld files from everything from the JFK investigation to, most recently, the CIA COVID origins report. That report is particularly stinging for both the Biden Administration and its media allies.

Newly-confirmed CIA Director John Ratcliffe released the report, which details how it views the lab theory as the most likely explanation for the virus. Expressing “low confidence,” the agency still favored that theory over the natural origins theory, which was treated as sacrosanct by the media and favored by figures like Anthony Fauci. (Other recent reports have contradicted the equally orthodox view on the closing of schools, showing no material benefit in terms of slowing the transmission of COVID).

Even a low-confidence finding shows the height of hypocrisy in Washington where politicians and pundits savaged any scientist who even suggested the possibility that the virus was man-made and likely originated in the Wuhan lab near the site of the outbreak.

This follows a recent disclosure in the Wall Street Journal of a report on how the Biden administration may have suppressed dissenting views supporting the lab theory on the origin of the COVID-19 virus. Not only were the FBI and its top experts excluded from a critical briefing of President Biden, but government scientists were reportedly warned that they were “off the reservation” in supporting the lab theory.

As previously discussed, many journalists used the rejection of the lab theory to paint Trump as a bigot. By the time Biden became president, not only were certain government officials heavily invested in the zoonotic or natural origin theory, but so were many in the media.

Reporters used opposition to the lab theory as another opportunity to pound their chests and signal their virtue.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace mocked Trump and others for spreading one of his favorite “conspiracy theories.” MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt insisted that “we know it’s been debunked that this virus was manmade or modified,”

MSNBC’s Joy Reid also called the lab leak theory “debunked bunkum,” while CNN reporter Drew Griffin criticized spreading the “widely debunked” theory. CNN host Fareed Zakaria told viewers that “the far right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory” in the lab leak.

NBC News’s Janis Mackey Frayer described it as the “heart of conspiracy theories.”

The Washington Post was particularly dogmatic. When Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark) raised the theory, he was chastised for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”

Likewise, after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned the lab theory, Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler mocked him: “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”

As these efforts failed and more information emerged supporting the lab theory, many media figures just looked at their shoes and shrugged. Others became more ardent. In 2021, New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was still calling on reporters not to mention the “racist” lab theory.

In Kessler’s case, he wrote that the lab theory was “suddenly credible” as if it had sprung from the head of Zeus rather than having been supported for years by scientists, many of whom had been canceled and banned.

As these figures were attacking reports, Biden officials were sitting on these reports. Figures like Fauci did nothing to support those academics being canceled or censored for raising the theory.

The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.

The suppression of the lab theory proves the ultimate fallacy of censorship. Throughout history, censorship has never succeeded. It has never stopped a single idea or a movement. It has a perfect failure rate. Ideas, like water, have a way of finding their way out in time.

Yet, as the last few years have shown, it does succeed in imposing costs on those with dissenting views. For years, figures like Bhattacharya (who was recently awarded the prestigious Intellectual Freedom Award by the American Academy of Sciences and Letters) were hounded and marginalized.

Others opposed Bhattacharya’s right to offer his scientific views, even under oath. For example, in one hearing, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) expressed disgust that Bhattacharya was even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”

Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik decried an event associated with Bhattacharya, writing that “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford University allowed dissenting scientists to speak at a scientific forum. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.”

One of the saddest aspects of this story is that many of these figures in government, academia and the media were not necessarily trying to shield China. Some were motivated by their investment in the narrative while others were drawn by the political and personal benefits that came from joining the mob against a minority of scientists.

The CIA report does not resolve this debate, but it shows that there is a legitimate debate despite the overwhelming message of the media and the attacks on scientists. Of course, the same media and political figures responsible for this culture of intimidation have simply moved on. The value of an alliance with the media is that such embarrassing contradictions are not reported. At most, these figures shrug and turn to the next subject for groupthink and mob action.

January 27, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Donald Trump Is Protecting Free Speech

By Norman Singleton | The Libertarian Institute | January 27, 2025

Donald Trump wasted no time implementing his agenda by issuing a series of executive orders just hours after being sworn in as the 47th president. The orders covered subjects ranging from immigration, to energy production, to a freeze on both new federal regulations and hiring federal employees. One order that has not gotten nearly as much attention as it deserves is the one Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship. This order states that it is federal policy to “ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” It also requires the government to “ensure that no taxpayer resources” are used to “violate the First Amendment rights of American citizens.”

In order to carry out these pro-free speech policies, the order states that “no federal department, agency, entity, officer, employee, or agent may act or use any Federal resources” to violate the First Amendment rights of any American citizen. It also directs the Attorney General to work with “the heads of other executive agencies and departments” to investigate “the activities of the Federal Government over the last 4 years that are inconsistent” with the First Amendment. The Attorney General must then prepare a report for President Trump and his Chief of Policy that contains recommendations for “remedial actions for any violations of the First Amendment taken by the prior Administration.”

The explicit prohibition on federal officials violating the First Amendment may seem redundant since federal employees already take an oath to uphold the Constitution; thus they swore not to violate American citizens’ constitutionally protected rights. However, Biden administration officials, including the big guy, routinely violated the free speech rights of American citizens. As federal Judge Terry A. Doughty wrote in a July 4, 2023 preliminary injunction forbidding government officials from having any contact with social media companies, “the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.”

Leaked emails between officials and employees of social media companies back up Judge Doughty’s statement. The communications went beyond mere suggestions, constitutng threats of retribution if the social media companies did not comply with the administration’s “requests” that they censor their customers. For example, then-Surgeon General Vivek Murthy suggested that the administration may have to take “appropriate legal and regulatory” measures to stop the spread of COVID “misinformation.” Facebook creator and CEO of Meta (parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Whats App) Mark Zuckerberg, while appearing on the popular Joe Rogan Show described how Biden officials “would call up our team and, like, scream at them and curse.” Zuckerberg also told Joe Rogan that Biden administration officials brought up the possibility that the White House would support imposing new regulations on social media platforms, including modifying Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

This is the section of federal law that protects those who run online platforms like Facebook and Twitter/X from being held liable for the posts their users make. Section 230 has been instrumental in the growth of social media. Repealing or weakening Section 230 would hurt the big companies but the main victims would be small and start up companies who would find it more difficult to attract investors if there were the possibility the company could be held liable for posts by the site’s users. Government employees threatening private companies and treating them like subordinates should be unacceptable in a free society—and should be criminalized if done to coerce the companies to violate their customers’ constitutionally protected rights.

Fortunately, at least one cabinet member, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, has pledged to cooperate in an investigation into the Biden administration’s assault on free speech. When government officials pressure private social media companies to take down or suspend posts they violate the First Amendment just as much as if they had directly blocked the posts. Therefore, all who value free speech should be grateful to President Trump for his executive order stopping government officials from violating the First Amendment and trying to discover the full truth about the Biden administration’s efforts to silence those using social media to post “unapproved” news and opinions. Hopefully, Congress will ensure no future administration can reverse President Trump’s executive order by passing legislation forbidding federal employees from “suggesting” that social media companies censor American citizens.

January 27, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Will Any Federal Officials Pay for What They Did?

By James Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | December 31, 2024

The biggest scientific con of the century is finally being exposed. But will any politicians or government officials ever be held responsible for the carnage they unleashed on Americans?

In early 2020, when the Covid pandemic was starting to ravage America, federal bureaucrats and politicians rushed to suppress any suggestion that the pandemic originated from a Chinese government lab bankrolled by US government agencies. Key Biden administration officials effectively exonerated the Chinese government even though the Chinese completely stonewalled any outside investigation into the origin of the Covid virus, as the Wall Street Journal recently revealed in a front-page scoop.

The FBI’s top expert concluded that the virus leaked from the lab but he was derailed by the Biden administration, blocked from presenting his evidence at a key White House meeting in August 2021. Three scientists at the National Center for Medical Intelligence, part of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, concluded that Covid leaked from a lab but they were muzzled. The Inspector General is conducting an investigation to determine why those experts were silenced. The Department of Energy also concluded that Covid originated in a lab. In September 2023, a senior CIA analyst told a Congressional committee that six key CIA analysts had been bribed by the agency to abandon their conclusion that Covid originated in a lab leak.

The Chinese government first admitted that a pandemic had broken out in the city of Wuhan in early 2020. Though the Chinese military-affiliated Wuhan Institute of Virology had been experimenting with bats for years, the Chinese government insisted the new virus came from a nearby marketplace. But the lead scientists involved with bat research had all been struck down by Covid-19 symptoms shortly before the Chinese government denied any responsibility. There was a deluge of circumstantial evidence quickly linking the new virus to the lab.

The outbreak of Covid-19 spurred one of the most brazen cover-ups in modern US history. The National Institute for Health had been financing gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That type of research seeks to genetically alter organisms to enable the spread of viruses into new species. Such research is extremely dangerous; as MIT professor Kevin Esvelt asked in 2021, “Why is anyone trying to teach the world how to make viruses that could kill millions of people?” The risks were compounded because the Wuhan Institute had a very poor safety rating. Two years earlier, the State Department confidentially “warned other federal agencies about safety issues at Wuhan labs studying bat Covid,” but the public disclosure of that alert was delayed until 2022.

In January 2020, top federal scientists recognized that the pandemic could obliterate their reputations. Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes for Health, wrote in an email that “a swift convening of experts in a confidence-inspiring framework is needed or the voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate, doing great potential harm to science and international harmony.” The “conspiracy” was the facts of the matter.

Anthony Fauci, the chief of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), speedily enlisted a handful of trusted scientists to gin up a paper supposedly “proving” that the virus could not have originated in the lab. A top NIAID scientist accepted the task of debunking the lab-leak story because, as he emailed a colleague, “Tony doesn’t want his fingerprints on origin stories.” The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, enlisted in the cover-up with an op-ed by 27 scientists who proclaimed: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin.” Maybe the same scientists also sent an addendum to NIH: Keep giving us grant money or your reputation will “swim with the fishes.”

Further “proof” was provided by a torrent of accusations of racism against anyone who publicly suggested that the virus originated in a Chinese lab. The State Department’s Global Engagement Center added a federal fist to the debate, pressuring Twitter to suppress hundreds of thousands of accounts (including thousands of average Americans) in early 2020 for the crime of suggesting that Covid originated in a lab. Bureaucrats secretly decided that wildly exaggerated forecasts of pandemic mortality made the First Amendment null and void.

If Covid-19 had been initially recognized as the result of one of the biggest government boondoggles in history, it would have been far more difficult for American politicians and government scientists to pirouette as saviors as they seized sway over daily life.

The virus that the NIH financed provided push-button dictatorial power to politicians at every level of government. In the name of saving lives, politicians entitled themselves to destroy an unlimited number of livelihoods. Most governors responded to Covid-19 by dropping the equivalent of a Reverse Neutron Bomb — something that destroys the economy while leaving human beings unharmed. But the only way to assume people were uninjured was to presume that their lives were totally detached from their jobs, bank accounts, mortgage and rent payments, and friends and family.

A virus with a 99+% survival rate spawned a 100% presumption in favor of despotism. From the start of the pandemic, many people who swore allegiance to “science and data” also believed that absolute power would keep them safe. Doubters became dissidents who deserved to be covertly silenced.

Shutdown advocates appealed to science like righteous priests invoking God and the Bible to sanctify scourging enemies. But the “science” was often farcically unreliable. Mandatory mask mandates became the new version of the Emancipation Proclamation. Fauci and other top officials deceived Americans into believing that cloth masks offered far more protection than they delivered. Do Americans finally recognize that the federal government was the biggest source of disinformation during the pandemic?

A century ago, historian Henry Adams declared that politics has “always been the systematic organization of hatreds.” Covid-19 policies were so disruptive in part because politicians intentionally sought to maximize fear and rage against anyone who refused to submit to any dictate. After the efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines collapsed, Biden responded by dictating that a hundred million American adults must get injected based on his personal decree.

A few weeks later at a CNN town hall, Biden derided vaccine skeptics as murderers who only wanted “the freedom to kill you” with Covid. A few months later, a Rasmussen poll found that 59% of Democratic voters favored house arrest for the unvaccinated, and 45% favored locking the unvaxxed into government detention facilities. Almost half of Democrats favored empowering the government to “fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing Covid-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.” But hatred proved to be as ineffective as the Pfizer vaccine when it came to fighting Covid-19.

Fauci, who was also Biden’s chief medical advisor, justified Covid mandates because average citizens “don’t have the ability” to determine what is best for them. But Congressional investigations revealed that Fauci was at the center of string-pulling to shirk responsibility for the Wuhan debacle. After Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) suggested prosecuting Fauci for false testimony on bankrolling “gain-of-function” research, Fauci howled that his critics are “really criticizing science because I represent science. That’s dangerous.” But not nearly as dangerous as vesting vast power in secretive federal agencies.

On September 20, 2023, the Biden administration belatedly banned the Wuhan Institute of Virology from receiving any US government research funding for 10 years as punishment for its unauthorized gain-of-function experiments on bat coronaviruses. But why did the Biden administration omit the same condemnation and similar prohibitions from any American scientist, institute, or government officials that had any role in this debacle?

Instead of Tony Fauci bobbleheads, the slogan “Your Government at Work” superimposed atop a million American caskets captured the reality of Covid-19.

January 25, 2025 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

World Council for Health responds to the US Government’s proposed withdrawal from the WHO

World Council for Health | January 22, 2025

The recent decision of the United States government to announce an intended withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) marks a significant shift in international relations and health policy. This move comes amid ongoing debates about the WHO’s role in managing global health crises, financial transparency, and influence on national sovereignty.

Introduction to World Council for Health

In 2021,the World Council for Health (WCH) emerged as a prominent organization that challenges the WHO’s pervasive and damaging influence. The WCH is a coalition of independent health organizations, medical professionals, and advocacy groups that emphasizes a more decentralized, holistic, and patient-centered approach to health care. It advocates for local health sovereignty, individual choice, and the decentralization of power away from large international organizations like the WHO. The WCH has been particularly vocal about opposing what it sees as the WHO’s overreach, particularly in terms of its management of public health policies during crises like the COVID-19 chapter, while ignoring real health issues like heart health, cancer, diabetes, and mental health.

A better way forward for health, rooted in our Better Way Principles, would focus on strengthening local and national health systems, ensuring that decision-making is transparent, accountable, and driven by scientific evidence rather than political or financial interests. This approach would involve greater collaboration between governments, health professionals, and communities, rather than relying on a centralized body like the WHO to dictate policy internationally. By prioritizing national sovereignty, autonomy, and local expertise, a more resilient and responsive international health framework can be developed, one that respects individual freedoms and prioritizes people over institutional power.

A. Concerns about WHO’s monopoly through Collaborating Centres

Our extensive research has revealed WHO collaborating centres in the US, including the CDC and the NIH. As a matter of urgency and priority, to effectively exit the World Health Organization, it is essential to have both critical awareness and transparent knowledge of the arguably binding agreements made between the secretive USA WHO Collaborating Centres and USA GOARN Partner Institutions, with the World Health Organization.

To truly exit the WHO, we must acknowledge the vast network and reach of the designated WHO Collaborating Centres and GOARN Partner Institutions. We must investigate the potential conflicts of interest in public – private collaborations / collaborations that may exist, which affect the delivery of the ultimate healthcare available for the people and the planet.

World Council for Health calls for an Urgent Independent International Review / Investigation of the World Health Organization and its established collaborations and ‘binding’ agreements with WHO Collaborating Centres. This is an essential requirement to assess an honest and transparent benefit and risk of WHO policies being utilised in and against sovereign nations through these established WHO networks. WCH is ready to advise.

B. WCH Country Councils leading the way for health freedom

WCH has established over 30 and growing independent Country Councils around the world.

These Country Councils are linked to over 200 local advocacy organisations in the fields pertinent to health, including medical choice and rights, 5G, sexual engineering, food supplies, agribusiness and climate ‘change’, all of which are tools being used by shadowy globalist corporations to usurp rights and freedoms of people around the world.

These Country Councils and allied grass-roots organisations are a critical counterbalance to the WHO and its puppeteers, advocating for a new, human and planetary wellbeing-focused vision for health care, prioritising the well-being and human rights of men, women and children. Country Councils are driven by ethical individuals, standing together to create the new healthcare paradigm, rooted in transparency and autonomy. This by definition includes freedom and sovereignty. Our country councils recognise that peace is central to health.

C. Our Legal Briefs and Policy Briefs

The WCH published a groundbreaking Legal Brief on Preventing the Abuse of Public Health Emergencies. It explains how governments used the declaration of an unjustifiable state of emergency as a legal instrument to deny people their basic human rights and freedoms and grant themselves extraordinary powers. WCH also published comprehensive policy briefs on Rejecting Monopoly Power Over Global Public Health, as well as Effects of Unregulated Digitalization on Health and Democracy, and Human Trafficking: A Call for Action

Our Resources Include:

Cooperation is the key to achieving shared goals

The WCH recognises the intention of the US government to withdraw from the WHO, urges investigation into the WHO’s collaborating centres, and is open to engage around the work of our country councils, our legal and policy briefs, and our pioneering detox study and guide.

January 22, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Practicing Physician’s Case for Kennedy

By Clayton J. Baker, MD | Brownstone Institute | January 20, 2025

I am a practicing physician. I see patients, and I diagnose and treat their illnesses. I have been doing so for more than a quarter of a century. It is how I earn my living.

I heartily endorse Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The fact that I take care of patients distinguishes me from the overwhelming majority of the captured politicians, legacy media pundits, and Pharma lobbyists who are trying to torpedo Mr. Kennedy’s nomination.

The uproar surrounding this nomination is telling in itself. Since when has there been such crying and gnashing of teeth over a nomination for the Secretary of Health and Human Services? How many Americans can even name the last three HHS Secretaries? I’m a physician who follows these things, and off the top of my head, I could only recall the last two – former Congressman Xavier Becerra and former Pharma executive and lobbyist Alex Azar.

When a public figure is being viciously attacked from all sides, as Mr. Kennedy is at present, we should consider the attackers. Depending on who they are, such extreme disapproval may in fact represent the strongest possible endorsement.

Consider Mr. Kennedy’s Attackers

On the Democrat side, Kennedy has been attacked by the likes of Massachusetts Congressman Jake Auchincloss. On CNN, he said that if Kennedy were named HHS Secretary, with respect to American children, Kennedy would “give them polio.”

Auchincloss is a lawyer, so his total ignorance of pathophysiology might be forgivable. However, his father is Dr. Hugh Auchincloss, who served as none other than Anthony Fauci’s right-hand man at NIAID, the NIH agency over which Fauci wielded immense and almost complete power for decades, and through which he funded Ralph Baric and the Wuhan Institute’s genetic manipulations of the SARS CoV-2 virus that caused Covid, using our tax dollars. If there is one HHS department that best exemplifies the capture, corruption, and unaccountability of the present medical-industrial complex, it is NIAID. Hugh Auchincloss left NIAID in 2024.

But wait, there’s more. Auchincloss’s mother is Dr. Laurie Glimcher, former president and CEO of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. In 2021, the Boston Globe exposed her simultaneously serving on the boards of multiple Big Pharma companies, including Bristol Myers Squibb and GlaxoSmithKline, while in charge of Dana-Farber. Furthermore, in 2024, multiple research papers Glimcher had authored were exposed for falsification of data, and at least 6 of the papers were retracted. Laurie Glimcher resigned as head of Dana-Farber in 2024.

On the Republican side, there is Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who stated on television that a Kennedy HHS “will cost lives in this country.”

Many may recall Gottlieb as the FDA commissioner during much of the first Trump administration. Gottlieb left the FDA in 2019, shortly before the pandemic, and quickly joined the Board of Directors at Pfizer, where he remained throughout the pandemic and still is today. A more thorough review of his history shows multiple prior stints at the FDA. Over the years, he has bounced back and forth between that key HHS regulatory agency and Big Pharma and healthcare venture capital firms – the exact industries the FDA should be overseeing.

These are the kinds of people who want to stop Mr. Kennedy from leading HHS. Their prime motivation, it seems, may not be positive reform of medicine or the well-being of patients.

If prominent figures such as these revile Mr. Kennedy, why do I endorse him?

Because medicine desperately needs reform. Mr. Kennedy has been nominated to be a quintessential reformer. He has deep knowledge of the problem, and he has a proven track record of success in reforming corrupt systems. He is being viciously attacked because the last thing that those currently in control of medicine want is meaningful reform.

Medicine Is a Mess, and Desperately Needs Reform

I can tell you from nearly three decades of first-hand clinical experience what the state of medicine is right now.

It’s a mess.

Medicine has been in decline for decades. Autonomy has been gradually stripped away from physicians and patients, as protocols and guidelines have replaced clinical decision-making. Doctors have become employees rather than independent professionals. The doctor-patient relationship has been eroded as care has been fragmented and as the Electronic Medical Record has intruded. Most importantly, control of the entire medical industry has been seized by Big Pharma, captured and corrupt government agencies, and the insurance industry.

Then Covid happened, with two results – one intentional, the other accidental. First, the entire medical system was intentionally hijacked by what was really a military operation. The pretense of a medical emergency was used to shut down both society as a whole, and the routine practice of medicine in particular. Second, this takeover accidentally revealed who actually controls the medical industry – and it sure isn’t doctors and patients.

Patients have caught on. For patients, trust in physicians and hospitals and acceptance of vaccines have both cratered. This is not due to “anti-science” stupidity or “misinformation.” It is due to the fact that patients have simply been lied to too many times. It doesn’t matter how much money and power you have – you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Patients know – some explicitly, others intuitively – that the official narrative of Covid was riddled with lies. They know that they were deliberately made to live in fear. They have friends and family who suffered and even died from the excesses of the lockdown policies, and others who were injured or even killed by the hospital protocols and the mandated shots. They know that Big Pharma and their Government were behind it. They know that their own local hospitals and even their own healthcare providers were complicit to some extent.

Patients also know that health care is captured. Patients know that Big Pharma and other corporate and ideological forces drive health care policy and messaging – all they have to do is turn on their TVs to see the endless barrage of idiotic commercials for drugs.

Patients know the NIH, CDC, and FDA are corrupt, and captured by Big Pharma. Patients have wearied of the constant fear-mongering about “pandemics” that they now know are almost always man-made. Most importantly, patients realize that none of this is intended to improve their health.

How do I know that patients know all this? They tell me every day.

What about rank-and-file doctors? Most clinical physicians I speak with privately acknowledge the excesses of the Covid era. I’m not aware of a single practicing doctor who has taken all the CDC-recommended Covid boosters. I have copious evidence, both from my patients and from communications with other doctors, that the extreme virophobia and vaccine fervor of 2021 and 2022 has faded among my colleagues just as it has in the rest of the population.

Most doctors have heard the news that public trust in them and their profession has nosedived. Most realize that the system is in chaos in many respects – all one has to do is stop by any emergency room to see that. Many acknowledge that the profession of medicine and the healthcare industry have been hijacked by Pig Pharma and other malign forces. Many who can are leaving the profession altogether.

However, beyond those already speaking out, I see few new colleagues calling out for reform. Like many other people, it seems that most rank-and-file doctors just want the nightmare to end. A great many don’t really know how things got so bad. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, they know something has happened, but they don’t know what it is.

For these reasons, meaningful reform of medicine will not come from a groundswell from the rank and file. They saw what happened to those who spoke out during Covid and want no part of that. They wouldn’t know where to begin to fix a system in which they have very little agency. However, I truly believe the great majority of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals would welcome and support meaningful reform.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the very best choice to lead medical reform. If you doubt his expertise on the subjects of the corruption and capture of medicine, and the regulatory capture of agencies like the CDC, NIH, and FDA, I recommend his books The Real Anthony Fauci and The Wuhan Cover-Up. Not only do these books demonstrate his encyclopedic knowledge of the problem, but as Joe Rogan and others have pointed out, they have never been directly challenged by the medical establishment – because they are factually accurate.

Furthermore, given his experience and successes as an environmental lawyer, including against large corporations such as Monsanto, DuPont, and Ford, Mr. Kennedy has the know-how to affect meaningful reform.

Rest assured that under a Kennedy-run HHS, medicine will not revert to the time of Galen. Polio will not run rampant, although vaccines may finally be held to the same standards as other drugs – which of course should have always been the case. Even a partial reversal of the nearly total capture that Big Pharma and its allies have over medical research, academia, education, medical licensing, and certification will only benefit doctors and patients.

Medicine is in desperate need of thorough reform. It must be decoupled from the control of Big Pharma, captured governmental agencies, and other rich and powerful forces that currently dominate the industry. Patient autonomy and the doctor-patient relationship must be restored as central to the practice of medicine. Informed consent must be re-established as the inalienable and fundamental value of the profession as encoded at Nuremberg.

Humans are autonomous individuals with rights. Patients must not be “managed” like herd animals, as the current population-based public health approach to medicine insists. Covid proved this approach to be a disaster, and it must end.

This is why I, a practicing physician, heartily endorse Robert F. Kennedy as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.

C.J. Baker, M.D. is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.

January 20, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Immunocascade

Why Infectious Diseases are on the Rise

Biopolitiks by Dr. Alejandro Diaz | January 16, 2025

Over the last few years, I’ve had the privilege and honor of speaking in some of the most important global health forums. The topics discussed in these forums are information of the highest level. This information provides a broad epidemiological outlook on global health, but what about the feeling on the ground? I believe treating patients is vital to my understanding of the current state of health.

What I’ve seen in consults recently is alarming—immunosuppression like never before. The rate of infectious diseases, particularly upper respiratory infections, is through the roof this season. The long duration of symptoms is what has caught my attention the most.

I attribute this to widespread immunosuppression, stemming from the toxic injectable materials so-called “COVID vaccines”, and the rest of the pandemic-era “public health” policies. Beginning with the insane restrictive measures that were implemented worldwide and continuing with the rollout of the jab. The result has been an unprecedented immunocascade. It is estimated that approximately 5.5 billion people around the globe took at least one dose of the COVID Vaccine. Imagine the level of widespread harm.

The immune system is composed of a complex and unique set of molecules. It can be described as the summation of all those physiological processes that endow the host with the capacity to recognize “materials” as foreign and neutralize, eliminate, or metabolize them with or without injury to its tissue. This ability to differentiate “self” from “nonself” constitutes the basic hallmark of the immune response. Recently there has been a lot of talk about “new” viruses like avian influenza (H5N1) which has been around since the 1960s. There is also mention of RSV and Human metapneumovirus (HMPV) known since the early 2000s with recent outbreaks in China. All these “outbreaks” are different versions of the same agenda of fear and critical mass formation psychosis.

After the COVID op, everything is sold out as an outbreak. However, few people have realized that all these infections have existed for many years. Due to the different measures taken during the COVID operation, including and especially the jabs, weakened immune systems aren’t able to respond accordingly. This is why we are seeing a rise in respiratory illnesses, and other health problems like turbo cancer.

At scale, people have not yet begun to understand the true consequences of these COVID-era policies. Policies that “experts” implemented to supposedly mitigate the spread of an infectious disease (COVID), forced the entire globe to isolate for nearly an entire year. What resulted has been an entire generation of immunosuppressed individuals, particularly children who were in their age of prime immune system development. The consequences are just barely being shown. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

It’s not as though new pathogens are springing up out of nowhere. Instead, people now have suppressed immune systems incapable of fighting off simple infectious diseases that have been around forever.

What is true, is that infections are up. The UK, for example, reported a ‘tidal wave’ of flu cases in hospitals this season.

QUICK PARENTHESIS

Isn’t it interesting that during the COVID Op, all respiratory infections were labeled as COVID until proven otherwise? In the same time period, the flu seemed to disappear. Interestingly, after a 3-year hiatus, the flu is back. Doesn’t that seem suspicious?

Obviously, this is being used as an excuse to promote further vaccination.

The so-called “novel” viruses, while they may have been around for some time, are being artificially pushed onto the public.

The McCullough Foundation recently published a research paper in the Poultry Fisheries & Wildlife Sciences Journal. This study looks into two laboratories that have been conducting gain-of-function research on H5N1, leading to the possible conclusion that these recent outbreaks may be the result of laboratory leaks.

A “manmade problem”, as Dr. Peter McCullough describes it, just as the COVID Operation was. There seems to be coordination here. They are purposefully pushing these diseases to spread fear and incite information warfare, taking advantage of the fact that there are now more immunocompromised people.

They’re pulling out the same playbook as they did for the COVID Op. They are trying to create a perfect storm in a renewed effort to exert further control of people.

Fortunately, the collective consciousness is elevated, and I’m certain that people won’t fall for it the same way that they did before.

Compromised immune systems are at the heart of the problem here. Strengthening them will be key to fighting off these coordinated bioattacks by utilizing early treatments such as nasal sprays, nutraceuticals, and natural remedies to prevent and treat these diseases effectively.

Trust has been greatly eroded in conventional medicine, as I have mentioned repeatedly in my articles. In the middle of all the chaos that surrounds the constant barrage of fear and health crises, patients must have options. Trusted messengers that they can look to and trust when it comes to their well-being. There is an increased awareness worldwide. People are starting to look for better health options.

There is no doubt that a new shift in attitude is required. An alternative/parallel healthcare system must be built. It should revolve around specialists who understand these basic principles of care, not those who have been captured by rhetoric and indoctrination of the medical religion.

Dr. Alejandro Diaz is a Pediatric Allergist / Immunologist and Global Health Expert with extensive international experience. He has delivered conferences in over 27 countries around the globe on topics of medicine, migration, biosecurity, and related topics. This includes prestigious venues such as the White House, the US Capitol, the Romanian Parliament, the European Parliament in Brussels, the Mexican Senate of the Republic, the United Nations in Geneva, Japanese Parliament, among others.

His career encompasses diverse roles in healthcare including private practice, health systems, and advisory positions for medical service companies, governments, and government entities worldwide.

January 18, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Zuckerberg’s mea culpa – more strategy than sincerity

Maryanne Demasi, reports | January 12, 2025

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has spent years manipulating algorithms to suppress dissent and inconvenient truths. Now, Zuckerberg wants us to believe he’s turned over a new leaf. “Community notes” is his supposed act of contrition—replacing Meta’s infamous “fact-checkers” with what he’s touting as a democratic approach to truth.

The changes will affect Facebook, Instagram and Threads – social media platforms with more than 3 billion users globally. Zuckerberg says the purpose is to outsource fact-checking to the people and let the collective wisdom determine what’s true.

Users can add context or clarification to posts, which won’t vanish into algorithmic oblivion but will instead bear appended “notes” offering a more balanced view.

So, has Zuckerberg suddenly grown a conscience? Hardly. This is less about soul-searching and more about political expediency. We’re meant to believe this is some heartfelt mea culpa, a humbling moment for a company that “got it wrong.”

But to me, this feels insincere. Pure public relations – a cynical scramble to navigate shifting political winds. Meta isn’t repenting; it’s repositioning. After all, this is the same platform that orchestrated an era of unparalleled online censorship, silencing inconvenient truths under the guise of “misinformation control.”

Remember the Biden laptop story? An exposé conveniently buried before the 2020 election because it didn’t fit the desired narrative. Zuckerberg himself admitted to suppressing the story after pressure from the FBI. But that wasn’t an isolated incident.

Over the last four years, Facebook has been the digital embodiment of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Articles questioning the efficacy of masks, the lab leak theory, or COVID-19 vaccine safety were flagged, shadow-banned, or outright erased. Entire communities of vaccine-injured individuals—desperate for support and answers—were wiped off the platform. Real lives were affected; people were isolated. Conversations that could have saved lives were silenced. It’s no exaggeration to say Facebook has blood on its hands.

One example of Meta’s overreach involved The BMJ. Paul Thacker’s piece on Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson which highlighted data integrity issues at a few of Pfizer’s vaccine trial sites, was slapped with a label by Facebook, effectively discrediting it. This wasn’t just heavy-handed; it was a brazen suppression of credible journalism. An open letter from The BMJ’s editors to Meta rightly lambasted the organisation for trying to discredit the vetted information. The damage wasn’t limited to stifling discourse; it eroded public trust in both science and media.

As recently as August 2024, Zuckerberg admitted to the House Judiciary Committee that Meta had been coerced by the government to censor Americans. His letter detailed relentless pressure to silence dissenting views on COVID-19, elections, and more. And yet, despite this supposed epiphany about governmental overreach, Facebook continued censoring content right up until its recent pivot to community notes.

Zuckerberg’s newfound candour isn’t transparency; it’s pre-emptive blame-shifting. The Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v Biden) case has exposed the collusion between tech giants and government officials to suppress online speech. Allegations that the Biden administration pressured platforms to bury certain viewpoints—even when factually accurate—paint a chilling picture. Facebook’s narrative of victimhood feels like a calculated attempt to deflect legal and public scrutiny.

Meanwhile, there are ‘journalists’ in legacy media who are mourning the loss of fact-checkers as though democracy itself is under siege. What kind of journalist defends a system that stifles free speech and debate? Science thrives on questioning and open dialogue, not the orthodoxy imposed by fact-checkers operating with opaque agendas. Their hand-wringing isn’t about truth—it’s about losing control of the narrative.

And now, as the political tide shifts and the Biden administration’s influence wanes, Meta suddenly finds the courage to air its grievances about government meddling. Convenient, isn’t it? Zuckerberg’s newfound spine is less about principle and more about positioning Meta for survival in a new political landscape.

Let’s be real. Community notes is not altruism – it’s damage control. Meta isn’t addressing the harm it caused—it’s deflecting. The platform’s censorship caused real-world consequences: vaccine-injured people left voiceless, critical public health debates silenced, and public trust shattered. If Meta was truly contrite, it would compensate for the damage, support those it deplatformed, and restore erased communities – even compensate those with vaccine injuries who were silenced.

Don’t get me wrong – I think dumping fact-checkers was the right move and its a win for free speech – it just should have happened sooner, and Zuckerberg shouldn’t be let off the hook. Meta’s track record suggests this is just another calculated move.

For years, Facebook wielded its influence with recklessness, deciding who could speak and what could be said. Now, as the tide turns, it wants to rebrand as a champion of open dialogue and transparency. But the damage is done. The trust is broken. And no amount of community notes can erase the scars left by Meta’s years of suppressing truth.

Mark Zuckerberg might try to rewrite history, but history won’t forget.

January 12, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

The Trump Administration Must Bring Moderna to Heel

Brownstone Institute | January 7, 2025

Last week, independent journalist Alex Berenson reported that a preschool-aged child died of “cardio-respiratory arrest” after taking a dose of Moderna’s Covid mRNA vaccine during its clinical trials. Despite federal requirements to report all trial information, the company withheld the truth for years as it raked in billions from its Covid shots.

The extent of the cover-up remains unknown, but Moderna, headed by CEO Stéphane Bancel, disregarded federal law requiring companies to report “summary results information, including adverse event information, for specified clinical trials of drug products” to clinicaltrials.gov. The company, not the government, is responsible for posting all results, and failure to report the death of a child constitutes a clear breach of US law, which threatens civil action against any party that “falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact.”

To this point, pharmaceutical companies have remained largely immune for their role in perpetrating globally-scaled deception resulting in thousands of vaccine injuries and billions in profits. They have enjoyed a liability shield courtesy of the PREP Act, which offers protections for injuries resulting from vaccines; that indemnity, however, does not extend to non-compliance with federal regulations, material misstatements or omissions of fact, or other offenses.

The death of the child only became known because of an obscure European report released last year, which revealed that Moderna has known about the death for over two years while it continues to advertise Covid shots to children as young as six months old.

Moderna’s European filing also revealed that the company withheld trial results demonstrating that children under 12 who received the vaccine were ten times more likely than those who received the placebo to suffer “serious side effects.” Without any evidence, Moderna claimed that the side effects, including the death of a child, were unrelated to the shots.

The incoming Trump administration offers a rare opportunity to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable and to investigate the depth of the cover-up.

The FDA is responsible for enforcing the reporting of vaccine trial results, but recent heads of the agency such as Scott Gottlieb and Robert Califf have been fanatical supporters of Big Pharma. Trump’s choice for FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, presents a stark contrast to his predecessors. Makary has criticized the US Government’s reluctance to acknowledge the role of natural immunity in preventing Covid infection, and he opposed the widespread vaccination of children. He testified to Congress, “In the U.S. we gave thousands of healthy kids myocarditis for no good reason, they were already immune. This was avoidable.”

President-elect Trump has tapped Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., perhaps the most well-known critic of the Covid vaccines, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA. He has named Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an author of the Great Barrington Declaration, as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health. Further, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Berenson that he plans to subpoena the FDA once Republicans become the majority party in the Senate this month.

President Trump’s first term was ultimately defined by his failure to fulfill his pledge to “drain the swamp.” A corrupt bureaucracy, personified in many ways by Dr. Anthony Fauci, aided and abetted by advisors like his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, hijacked the president’s agenda. Now, the Trump administration has an unlikely yet monumental opportunity for health reform, which can start on January 20 with an investigation into Moderna’s cover-up.

The Covid response doomed Trump 1.0. Whether one regards this as a monumental error, the betrayal of a president by his advisors, an event beyond the president’s control, or a deeper and more complex plot involving everything and everyone associated with the government, both in the US and around the world, there is no question of the scale of the calamity for the public. The shots are part of that, the capstone failure of a long line of foreshadowing with lockdowns and all that was associated with pre-pharmaceutical interventions. The antidote came not as a cure but, for many, the disease itself.

There must be truth if not justice.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Mark Zuckerberg Falsely Claims “You Can’t Yell ‘Fire’ in a Crowder Theater” To Justify Covid Censorship

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 11, 2025

In his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended Facebook’s early COVID-19 content moderation policies by invoking the often-quoted but inaccurate legal principle, “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” Zuckerberg cited this rationale to justify the platform’s censorship of certain information during the pandemic’s onset.

“COVID was the other big one where that was also very tricky because, you know, at the beginning, it was – you know, it’s like a legitimate public health crisis, you know, in the beginning. And it’s – you know, even people who were like the most ardent First Amendment defenders, the Supreme Court has this clear precedent. It’s like, all right, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. There are times when, if there is an emergency, your ability to speak can temporarily be curtailed in order to get an emergency under control,” Zuckerberg said.

This statement leans on a widely misunderstood legal argument. The phrase “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” originates from a 1919 Supreme Court opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States, which was later overturned and criticized for its justification of speech suppression. Zuckerberg’s use of this outdated precedent is misleading and offers a flawed defense for restricting speech on Meta’s platforms.

Zuckerberg elaborated on his stance, expressing initial trust in government and health authorities: “So I was sympathetic to that at the beginning of COVID. It seemed like, OK, you have this virus. It seems like it’s killing a lot of people. I don’t know. We didn’t know at the time how dangerous it was going to be. So at the beginning, it kind of seemed like, OK, we should give a little bit of deference to the government and the health authorities on how we should play this.”

However, Zuckerberg acknowledged the shifting narratives from health officials, which complicated content censorship decisions. “But when it went from, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve to, you know, in like – in the beginning, it was like, OK, there aren’t enough masks. Masks aren’t that important. To then it’s like, oh, no, you have to wear a mask. And, you know, all the – like, everything was shifting around. I – it’s become very difficult to kind of follow.”

The discredited legal metaphor has drawn criticism from free speech advocates. Such justification enables tech giants to overstep in moderating content, especially in moments of crisis when diverse perspectives are most crucial.

Equating speech to violence or danger is an easy excuse to censor controversial speech.

See also: Yes, you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

‘Monster’ Fauci should be jailed – Joe Rogan

RT | January 10, 2025

Hollywood star Mel Gibson and presenter Joe Rogan have claimed that former chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci should face prosecution, as they discussed his influence on the American healthcare system over the years. The popular American podcast host labelled the ex-government official a “monster.”

Fauci became the public face of the federal government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic both under President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden. The imposition of restrictive measures and the scientist’s reported involvement in suppressing the theory that the virus may have originated from US-funded gain-of-function research in China have made Fauci a controversial figure.

Gibson was a guest on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast on Thursday. Both men wondered how Fauci was “still walking around,” or “at least free” after his actions during the pandemic.

They were discussing the 2021 book by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. titled ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’. The author, a healthcare campaigner turned politician, described Fauci as an official in cahoots with big pharmaceutical corporations, who had abused his power for decades. The HIV/AIDS epidemic in the US was one of the main topics of the book.

”That book is an accurate depiction of what Anthony Fauci did during the AIDS crisis, which probably was an AZT crisis,” Rogan claimed.

He was referring to the antiretroviral medication azidothymidine. It was the first to be used en masse in the late 1980s to suppress HIV and had serious side effects. Kennedy claimed that Fauci, in his role as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), improperly endorsed AZT and downplayed its side effects while undermining possible alternative treatments.

”I drove up to San Francisco and I listened to it and I had road rage,” Gibson said, recalling his reaction to the book.

”If this is true, what the f**k is going on and how is that monster still loose?” Rogan asked. Meanwhile, the outgoing Biden administration is considering “giving him a full pardon – it’s like f**king crazy.”

Fauci’s name came up as the two were criticizing mainstream media for its “complicity” in protecting for-profit healthcare in the US. Gibson recalled how Rogan was attacked by news outlets for taking the drug ivermectin after testing positive for Covid-19 in 2021.

The medicine is widely used to treat parasites in humans in Africa. But the media dismissed it as a “horse dewormer” – the drug’s usual application in the US – as they urged the public to vaccinate against Covid-19.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Facebook Dumps ‘Fact-checkers’ One Day After CHD Asks Supreme Court to Hear Censorship Case Against Meta

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 7, 2025

Less than 24 hours after Children’s Health Defense (CHD) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its censorship case against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, Mark Zuckerberg announced the company is ending its third-party “fact-checking” program.

“It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” Zuckerberg told viewers in a press release video. Meta also owns Instagram.

CHD sued Meta in November 2020 over the social media giant’s censorship practices. The company de-platformed CHD from Facebook and Instagram in August 2022 and has not reinstated the accounts.

Commenting on today’s news, CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender, “It’s clear that Mark Zuckerberg is worried about new anti-censorship policies of the incoming administration — as he should be. The record in CHD v. Meta clearly shows Facebook’s close collaboration with the White House to censor vaccine-related speech, even pre-COVID.”

Holland added:

“CHD has taken its case to the Supreme Court, and Facebook doubtless realizes there are Justices there that are very dubious about Facebook’s role in censoring speech at the behest of the government in the new public square.

“Zuckerberg may imagine that by making this announcement he is mooting this case, or making it no longer significant. That’s not the situation — the country needs closure that this kind of fusion of state and industry to censor unwanted information will never happen again.”

CHD’s lawsuit against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and its founder and CEO, Zuckerberg, alleges that government actors partnered with Facebook to censor the plaintiffs’ speech — particularly speech related to vaccines and COVID-19 — that should have been protected under the First Amendment.

The suit also named “fact-checking” firms Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute and its PolitiFact website. On Aug. 9, 2024, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against CHD.

Lawyers with CHD urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision. They wrote in their petition, filed Monday:

“This case goes to the heart of our constitutional design, raising critical questions in the Internet Age about the availability of open debate free from government censorship-by-proxy.

“The practical consequences of leaving the decision below intact are enormous: the levers of censorship on the mega-platforms will always be sore temptation for executive office-holders — and not just about vaccines or Covid.”

National healthcare and constitutional practice attorney Rick Jaffe called Meta’s announcement a “very big deal for the country and for CHD.”

Jaffe represents CHD in some of its cases, including cases involving doctors’ right to speak freely about COVID-19. He told The Defender :

“For the last five-plus years, CHD — largely through Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mary Holland, and the group’s supporters — have been at the forefront of defending free speech on social media … Meta’s action today shows the effect of the changing public’s view on censorship by social media companies which Meta could no longer ignore.

“So, congrats to CHD and its legal team who helped this happen. The work isn’t over yet, so onwards.”

Meta shifts to content moderation model used on X

Rather than turning to third parties to fact-check posts, Meta will use a “Community Notes model” in which social users themselves decide when posts are potentially misleading and need more context, said Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan in a statement. “We’ve seen this approach work on X,” Kaplan said.

The change will take a few weeks to implement, Kaplan said.

Meta also will lift restrictions on topics such as immigration and gender identity. “It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms,” Kaplan said.

The Defender asked Meta if it will lift restrictions on discussions about vaccine safety and COVID-19 but did not receive a response by deadline.

Meta is also changing how it enforces its policies. “Up until now,” Kaplan said, “we have been using automated systems to scan for all policy violations, but this has resulted in too many mistakes and too much content being censored that should haven’t been.”

Zuckerberg said there’s “legitimately bad stuff out there — drugs, terrorism, child exploitation.” The company will continue to take those things “very seriously” by using automated systems to scan for them.

However, for less severe violations, Meta will rely on a person reporting an issue before taking action against an account user.

Zuckerberg said he always cared about freedom of expression but that in recent years, his company responded to pressure for stricter speech restrictions. “Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more,” Zuckerberg said. “A lot of this is clearly political.”

He acknowledged that some of the “complex systems” Meta built to moderate content made mistakes. “We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship.”

Will Meta’s policy changes stick?

Zuckerberg said Meta’s policy changes were also prompted by the recent U.S. elections that were a “cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing free speech.”

Jenin Younes, a civil rights attorney who represented some of the plaintiffs in the landmark censorship case Murthy v. Missouri, told The Defender she was “cautiously optimistic” about Meta’s announcement.

Meta appeared to be making the changes because of a new presidential administration, Younes said. “That means that Meta could change course in another four years under a different administration. We need major social media platforms — the modern public square — to adopt principled free speech positions that don’t change with the wind.”

If platforms don’t adopt strong free speech positions, public dialogue suffers, Younes said. “Censorship on Meta, especially during the COVID era, strangled public debate and even went so far as to prevent vaccine-injured individuals from corresponding with each other in private groups.”

Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD general counsel, told The Defender Meta’s announcement does not undo the years of the damage done to CHD and many other individuals and groups.

“What is important is not only that Meta is making these changes but also that steps are taken to make sure this cannot be repeated, which makes our ongoing cases — including the recently filed petition to the U.S. Supreme Court — critically important.”

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.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »