New Paper: Masks Achieve Nothing In Terms Of Spread
By Damian D. Guerra and Daniel J. Guerra | medrxiv.org | May 29, 2021
Latest analysis shows yet again – yet again – what we already knew from 40 years of published research. And also empirically from simply glancing over the past year’s real-world data. Masks don’t work!
Our main finding is that mask mandates and use are not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 spread among US states. 80% of US states mandated masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mandates induced greater mask compliance but did not predict lower growth rates when community spread was low (minima) or high (maxima). We infer that mandates likely did not affect COVID-19 case growth [15], as growth rates were similar on all days between actual or modeled issuance dates and 6 March 2021. Higher mask use (rather than mandates per se) has been argued to decrease COVID-19 growth rates [11].
While compliance varies by location and time, IHME estimates are robust (derived from multiple sources [17]) and densely sampled (day-level precision). Higher mask use did not predict lower maximum growth rates, smaller surges, or less Fall-Winter growth among continental states.
Mask-growth rate correlation was only evident at minima. This may be an artifact of faster growth at fewer normalized cases, as well as regional differences in case prevalence early in the pandemic. States in the high mask quintile grew at similar rates as states in the low mask quintile after maxima (when interstate total case differences were smaller than before minima).
In addition, mask use did not predict normalized cases at minima, and low mask growth curves trailed those of high mask (particularly Northeast) states before minima. Growth maxima and Fall-Winter surges did not differ between Northeast and other states. Northeast states exhibited the highest seroprevalence up to at least July 2020 [24] and constituted 80% of the top quintile of mask use, which may explain their comparatively lower Summer growth.
Overall, mask use appears to be an intra-state lagging indicator of case growth. There is inferential but not demonstrable evidence that masks reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Animal models [25], small case studies [6], and growth curves for mandate-only states [16] suggest that mask efficacy increases with mask use [11]. However, we did not observe lower growth rates over a range of compliance at maximum Fall-Winter growth (45-83% between South Dakota and Massachusetts during maxima) [17] when growth rates were high.
This complements a Danish RCT from 3 April to 2 June 2020, when growth rates were low, which found no association between mask use and lower COVID-19 rates either for all participants in the masked arm (47% strong compliance) or for strongly compliant participants only [8].
Masks have generally not protected against other respiratory viruses. Higher self-reported mask use protected against SARS-CoV-1 in Beijing residents [26], but RCTs found no differences in PCR confirmed influenza among Hong Kong households assigned to hand hygiene with or without masks (mask use 31% and 49%, respectively) [27].
Medical and cloth masks did not reduce viral respiratory infections among clinicians in Vietnam [9] or China [10], and rhinovirus transmission increased among universally masked Hong Kong students and teachers in 2020 compared with prior years [28].
These findings are consistent with a 2020 CDC meta-analysis [29] and a 2020 Cochrane review update [30].
Our study has implications for respiratory virus mitigation. Public health measures should ethically promote behaviors that prevent communicable diseases. The sudden onset of COVID-19 compelled adoption of mask mandates before efficacy could be evaluated.
Our findings do not support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates decrease with greater public mask use.
As masks are required in public in many US states, it is prudent to weigh potential benefits with harms. Masks may promote social cohesion as rallying symbols during a pandemic [31], but risk compensation can also occur [32]. Prolonged mask use (>4 hours per day) promotes facial alkalinization and inadvertently encourages dehydration, which in turn can enhance barrier breakdown and bacterial infection risk [33].
British clinicians have reported masks to increase headaches and sweating and decrease cognitive precision [34]. Survey bias notwithstanding, these sequelae are associated with medical errors [35]. By obscuring nonverbal communication, masks interfere with social learning in children [36]. Likewise, masks can distort verbal speech and remove visual cues to the detriment of individuals with hearing loss; clear face-shields improve visual integration, but there is a corresponding loss of sound quality [37, 38].
Future research is necessary to better understand the risks of long-term daily mask use [30]. Conversely, it is appropriate to emphasize interventions with demonstrated or probable efficacy against COVID-19 such as vaccination [39] and Vitamin D repletion [40]. In summary, mask mandates and use were poor predictors of COVID-19 spread in US states. Case growth was independent of mandates at low and high rates of community spread, and mask use did not predict case growth during the Summer or Fall-Winter waves.
Strengths of our study include using two mask metrics to evaluate association with COVID-19 growth rates; measuring normalized case growth in mandate and non-mandate states at comparable times to quantify the likely effect of mandates; and deconvolving the effect of mask use by examining case growth in states with variable mask use. Our study also has key limitations. We did not assess counties or localities, which may trend independently of state averages.
While dense sampling promotes convergence, IHME masking estimates are subject to survey bias. We only assessed one biological quantity (confirmed and probable COVID-19 infections), but the ongoing pandemic warrants assessment of other factors such as hospitalizations and mortality. Future work is necessary to elucidate better predictors of COVID-19 spread. A recent study found that at typical respiratory fluence rates, medical masks decrease airway deposition of 10-20μm SARS-CoV-2 particles but not 1-5μm SARS-CoV-2 aerosols [41].
Aerosol expulsion increases with COVID-19 disease severity in non-human primates, as well as with age and BMI in humans without COVID-19 [42]. Aerosol treatment by enhanced ventilation and air purification could help reduce the size of COVID-19 outbreaks.
Massive turnout in Syria election was loud shout of victory over terrorists, their sponsors, says analyst

Press TV – May 28, 2021
A political commentator has lauded the massive voter turnout in Syria’s presidential election as an outstanding sign and loud cry of victory notched up by people in the war-stricken Arab nation over Takfiri terrorist groups and their sponsors.
“Voters turned out in stunning numbers. Millions are said to have cast their votes. They were gleeful; the atmosphere was triumphant. The massive turnout was a shout of victory over foreign terrorists and the powers that backed them,” Richard Black, a former Republican member of the Virginia State Senate told Press TV in an exclusive interview on Friday.
He added that the election allowed Syrians to symbolically reject the horrors imposed on them by the United States, United Kingdom, France and their regional allies, stressing the latter have been relentlessly seeking to intimidate the Syrian nation by waging a reign of terror for more than a decade.
“The US, the UK, and France have been the unwavering supporters of al-Qaeda-linked terrorists since the moment that the war began [in Syria in March 2011]. To this day, they have been supporting terrorists controlling [Syria’s northwestern] Idlib Province,” the pundit said.
Black went on to dismiss criticism of Syria’s president election, stating that Western powers did not let voters in militant-held parts of Syria head to the polls and cast ballots because “they do not really care about elections or about freedom. Their objective is terror and conquest.”
“The occupying powers never gave a thought to holding elections, because their puppets would have been ousted. They are much too busy looting the wealth of Syrian people than to worry about elections in the areas they rule,” he pointed out.
The analyst also stated that Washington can by no means denounce Syria’s May 26 presidential election, as a large percentage of Americans believe that the 2020 US presidential poll was fraudulent and invalid.
He rejected as “ludicrous” demands by the United States and a number of European nations that Syria’s election should have been convened under UN supervision.
“If the UN needs to conduct elections in Syria, why shouldn’t they supervise them in the US, the UK, France, Germany, and Italy? By what authority does the UN run the internal affairs of sovereign nations?
“It is ironic that nations working to overthrow Syria’s government with a naval blockade, brutal sanctions, and armies of terrorists are now trying to tell Syrian people how to vote,” Black argued.
He underscored that Syria was in a much better position to hold presidential poll compared to the last round of election in 2014.
“During the 2014 election, foreign powers did everything possible to block Syrians from voting. Just before the election, many countries closed down Syrian embassies to prevent expatriates from expressing their will. The closure of the embassies was orchestrated by the US, which feared that an overwhelming vote in favor of Bashar al-Assad would embarrass the State Department and undermine its campaign against Syria,” the political analyst said.
Black concluded that Syrians have now driven out foreign-backed terrorists from most of their cities and towns, and could vote this time without having to brave explosives sent by Western powers to disrupt their election.
The Syrian parliament announced on Thursday that President Assad won his fourth seven-year term in the 2021 presidential race.
Hamoudeh Sabbagh, the parliament speaker, said that Assad won 95.1 percent of the vote as opposed to 88.7 percent in the 2014 election.
He said that about 14 million of the estimated 18 million eligible voters inside and outside Syria cast their votes, with a turnout rate of 78.64 percent.
Assad’s competitors, former Deputy Cabinet Minister Abdallah Saloum Abdallah and head of a Syrian opposition party, Mahmoud Ahmed Marei, won 3.3 and 1.5 percent of the vote respectively.
Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:
Vax Passports: Where Your State Stands
Alliance for Natural Health | May 27, 2021
As more Americans get vaccinated against COVID-19, and vaccination recommendations extend to younger and younger Americans, we are starting to see more efforts to require vaccination as a condition of receiving services, as we’ve seen at American universities. This endangers autoimmune patients who are more at risk of serious adverse events following COVID vaccination. States can take a stand for medical freedom and privacy rights. To prevent de facto vaccine mandates that endanger millions of patients, we must encourage state leaders to take action to protect our health.
Ten states, so far, have taken steps to restrict or ban the use of vaccine passports, electronic applications that display an individual’s vaccination status or COVID lab test results. Many have done so through executive orders signed by the governor: Arizona, Florida, Texas, South Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. Three states have passed legislation along similar lines, including Utah, Indiana, and Arkansas.
These policies have important differences. In Florida and Montana, executive orders prevent businesses, in addition to state institutions, from requiring patrons to provide proof of vaccination to gain entry or service from the business. In Idaho, Arizona, South Dakota, Utah, South Carolina, Arkansas, Indiana, and Texas, the ban on vaccine passports is generally limited to entities of the state government or (in the case of Texas) any business that receives state funds.
Legislation is pending in the following states to prevent discrimination based on vaccination status and/or to prevent the use of vaccine passports: FL, NC, OK, HI, OR, RI, TX, WI, PA, and VT.
Texas State Senator Bob Hall, one of the sponsors of a bill preventing discrimination in Texas, had eloquent words to share about vaccine passports: “[My bill] aims to give Texans the peace of mind of knowing that their ability to navigate, participate, and function without being required to undergo an experimental medical procedure as a condition of that engagement is protected by law.”
Some governors have made positive statements, though have not yet taken action to prevent vaccine passports. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp tweeted, “I do not and will not support any kind of state-mandated vaccine passport… the decision to receive the vaccine should be left up to each individual.” Governor Pete Ricketts of Nebraska said “Nebraska will not participate in any vaccine passport program. This concept violates two central tenets of the American system: freedom of movement and healthcare privacy.” Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced “I oppose vaccine passports. The COVID-19 vaccine should be a personal health choice, not a government requirement.”
Some states are moving in the other direction. Hawaii is allowing fully vaccinated Hawaiians to travel between islands without quarantine and other testing rules, with plans in the works to launch a vaccine passport system. New York has already launched the Excelsior Pass, a voluntary app that allows people to upload negative COVID-19 test results or proof of vaccination. Governor Ned Lamont of Connecticut said he expects “some type of passport or validation … probably led by the private sector,” and that more planning will occur once vaccinations are open to everyone. Governor Roy Cooper of North Carolina said his administration is exploring the development of vaccine passports.
We’re already seeing how this can play out. In Israel, for example, the government issues “green passes” allowing access to social, cultural, sporting events, gyms, restaurants, etc., to individuals who have either recovered from COVID or have had the vaccine. Green passes must be renewed every six months.
We are all eager for life to return to “normal” following extended lockdowns and isolation. But vaccine passports are not the answer. We cannot deny rights and privileges to those, such as autoimmune patients, who choose not to receive a medical procedure due to a legitimate medical concern.
Action Alerts!
- Florida and Montana residents, thank your legislators for banning vaccine passports. Take Action!
- If you live in a state that banned vaccine passports only in state institutions (AZ, AR, ID, IN, SC, SD, TX, and UT), thank lawmakers for taking action but urge them to extend the ban on passports to businesses in the state. Take Action!
- All other states: urge your lawmakers to take action to ban vaccine passports in your state. Take Action!
YouTube deletes video of Georgia mom’s testimony against mask mandates for kids
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net | May 27, 2021
YouTube has once again deleted a video showing Courtney Ann Taylor speaking out against the mask wearing mandate imposed on children in schools in the US state of Georgia.
This time, the viral video recorded during a school board meeting got taken down from the YouTube channel of Grabien, Tom Elliot’s distributed news prep service.
Elliot revealed in a thread on Twitter that YouTube censored the video for a violation of community guidelines and medical misinformation rules.

However, Elliot, who unsuccessfully appealed the decision, believes not only that parents should have the right to voice their opinion on whether their children wear masks – but that Taylor’s comments did not actually violate YouTube’s policy quoted in the removal notice.

YouTube insists that its coronavirus-related moderation and censorship is based on the position of health authorities, most notably the WHO, yet not even this organization recommends that children must wear masks.
Elliot links to the WHO website where the topic of children and masks is discussed, with the UN agency concluding that there is no scientifically-based reason to make children wear masks.
Even though this is the argument Elliot used in his appeal, YouTube remained steadfast in its intention to prevent users from seeing the video, insisting that it does violate the medical misinformation policy, and justifying this as the need to be “a safe place for all.”
For those wondering what Taylor said and how it might be interpreted as spreading Covid misinformation, he provided a link to the Grabien website that has the video, uploaded on another platform, and a transcript.
Taylor is heard urging the school board to end the mandatory wearing of masks by children as unjustified, considering not only the availability of vaccines for adults, but also the fact that the virus does not affect young children. Taylor then shares that her 6-year-old had asked her to tell the school that she doesn’t want to wear a mask any longer.
Previously, YouTube deleted the same video uploaded by journalist Kyle Becker, but left it on large corporate channels like CBS and Fox, once again affirming the trend of catering to this type of users over independent creators.
No going back to Open Skies, US tells Russia ahead of Biden-Putin summit
RT | May 27, 2021
The US State Department has communicated to Moscow that the Biden administration has no intention of rejoining the Open Skies treaty, which was one of the topics expected to come up at the Geneva summit in June.
Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman sent the message to her Russian counterpart Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Thursday, AP reported, citing US officials speaking on condition of anonymity. Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has confirmed receiving the message.
It was a rare case of President Joe Biden not reversing a decision made by his predecessor Donald Trump, who had taken the US out of the treaty in May 2020.
The US officially left the treaty in November, but when Biden came to power he ordered a review of the decision, holding out the possibility that Washington might rejoin. The subject was expected to come up at the June 16 meeting between Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Geneva.
Earlier in the day, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov had told reporters that time to salvage the arms control agreement was running out fast.
“This topic can surely be touched upon somehow, but time is running out fast. We are already carrying out procedures for leaving the treaty, and the US has little time to change its previous decisions,” Peskov said.
Last month, Moscow announced it would begin the procedure of withdrawing from the treaty, concerned that the US has continued to receive intelligence through overflights conducted by other NATO members still party to it.
With the US definitely out, further presence of Russia in Open Skies no longer makes sense, Russian Senator Andrey Klimov – who sits on the foreign relations committee – told RIA Novosti following the announcement from Washington.
The Open Skies treaty was intended to build trust between Russia and the West following the Cold War. Signed in 1992 and going into effect in 2002, it allowed signatories to openly fly unarmed surveillance planes over the territory of other participants. More than 1,500 such flights have taken place since.
Russia Laments Washington’s Failure to Strictly Adhere to New START Treaty Provisions
By Henry Batyaev – Sputnik – 26.05.2021
Russia is calling on the United States to keep their end of the bargain with respect to the New START Treaty after Moscow found that the United States had converted some of its strategic offensive arms, making it impossible to verify whether they can be now used to carry nuclear weapons.
The representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, said on Wednesday that Moscow will continue to demand that Washington comply with the terms of the treaty.
She added that Moscow is closely monitoring US efforts to modernise its strategic offensive arms, including through the increase of funding.
According to the New START Treaty, the sides must notify each other on the elimination of treaty‑accountable systems or conversion to non‑nuclear or non‑accountable status.
In February, Russia and the United States agreed to extend the New START treaty for five more years without renegotiating any of its terms. The treaty, now set to expire on February 5, 2026, is the only arms control agreement between two countries that is still in force.
Pakistan rejects US request for military bases
By Javed Rana | Press TV | May 27, 2021
Islamabad – As the US is negotiating with countries in Central and South Asia to set up its military bases in the region to carry out possible airstrikes on Afghanistan after later this year withdrawal from the country, Pakistan says it won’t ink any similar agreement with the US once again.
The US is fast pulling out its troops from Afghanistan under a peace deal with Afghan Taliban. However, before completing its withdrawal by September 11 this year, Washington is desperately negotiating with regional countries in Central and South Asia to set up military bases to retain its political clout in this part of the world.
The US used Pakistan’s military bases for years to carry out over 57,000 sorties on Afghanistan which killed tens of thousands of Afghan civilians. Similarly as many as 4,000 Pakistani civilians were killed in the bordering region with Afghanistan in US drone attacks most of which were carried out from the secret southern locations of Pakistan.
Not long ago, under public pressure Pakistan shut down the US military bases. Now the US is once again struggling hard to be allowed to have military bases in this part of the world.
Prime Minister Imran Khan’s government, which won the 2018 general elections partially exploiting anti-American sentiments, has vowed not to allow the US to have military bases again in Pakistan.
Earlier the Foreign Office denied the presence of any US military or air base in Pakistan, stating that any speculation is “baseless and irresponsible” and should be avoided.
If nothing works, the Pentagon says it can use its aircraft carriers already stationed in the West Asia and Persian Gulf to carry out any possible airstrike on Afghanistan in future.
Despite shutting down the US military bases in Pakistan, the Pentagon continues to use air corridors of Pakistan to support its shrinking military presence in Afghanistan. And Pakistan has yet to clarify on whether or not it would allow the US to retain its air space facility for any possible airstrike in Afghanistan after the US completely exits from Afghanistan later this year.
Biden Regime Support for Palestinian Unity and Conflict Resolution with Israel?
By Stephen Lendman | May 27, 2021
Since Hamas won the last democratically held Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006, the US and Israel pursued a divide and control strategy.
In January 2005, Israel installed Mahmoud Abbas as puppet Palestinian Authority (PA) president.
A figure with no legitimacy, he serves Israeli/Western interests and his own at the expense of millions of Palestinians he long ago betrayed for special benefits afforded him.
Despite his term of office expiring in 2009, he remains in office, refusing to hold new elections for one invented reason after another, none legitimate.
Throughout at least most of his illegitimate tenure, he’s been hostile toward Hamas and indifferent toward millions of Palestinians he doesn’t give a damn about and it shows.
He’s a quisling leader hostile to what democratic rule is all about.
A former aide once called him the “sultan of Ramallah” — thin-skinned and vengeful, tolerating no opposition, remaining in power as long as Israel considers him useful.
In 1993, he was part of the Oslo team that negotiated unilateral Palestinian surrender to Israeli interests, his signature on the capitulation.
In office over 16 years, he did nothing to interfere with Israeli theft of Palestinian land — nothing to contest their dispossession, nothing to support their rights beyond meaningless lip service.
Collaborating with the enemy is treason — the highest of high political crimes.
Abbas has been guilty at least since abandoning Palestinian liberation efforts in September 1993.
In service to Israeli interests, he prevented Palestinian unity by supporting Israeli opposition to what’s important in pursuing their liberating struggle.
On Monday, Haaretz dubiously reported that “a new US approach to Hamas could be in the making (sic).”
It cited a 2018 report by the Washington-based Center for a New American Security (CNAS) in cahoots with the Brookings Institution. See below.
According to former Congressman Ron Paul, CNAS is the “neocon wing of the” undemocratic Dem party, adding:
It “argu(es) against US troops ever leaving Iraq and has endorsed the…doctrine of preventative warfare” — aka naked aggression against invented enemies.
“The Center is perhaps best known for pushing the failed counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
It supports US global dominance by brute force — no matter the cost — if less extreme methods don’t work.
The CNAS/Brookings report expressed support for “pursu(ing) the political and physical reintegration of Gaza and the West Bank, in a manner that promotes a two-state solution and avoids the permanent separation of the two territories,” adding:
It also called for “stabiliz(ation) (of) Gaza, address(ing) the dire humanitarian and economic conditions, and prevent(ing), or if necessary shorten(ing), any future conflicts between Hamas and Israel.”
CNAS and Brookings one-sidedly support all things Israel, what’s always been at the expense of long-suffering Palestinians.
CNAS supported Hillary’s presidential ambitions because of her rage for military solutions in pursuit of Washington’s hegemonic aims
In October 1997, the Clinton co-presidency falsely designated Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah as foreign terrorist organizations in deference to Israeli interests.
Hamas is historic Palestine’s legitimate government.
In 2018 legislative elections, Hezbollah candidates and allies won a 67-seat majority.
They’re not terrorist organizations, not earlier or now.
It’s inconceivable that Israel would go along with supporting or at least permitting Palestinian unity to include an end to its Gaza blockade — in place since 2007.
Given US/Israeli rage for endless wars and instability to advance their hegemonic agendas, it’s also inconceivable that they’d go another way on what relates to over half a century of Occupied Palestine.
The Jewish state has longstanding rock-solid bipartisan support in Washington that’s highly unlikely to change for the foreseeable future.
The CNAS report also expressed concerns about Palestinian unity. Contradicting what it appeared to endorse, it said:
Unity “could partially legitimize Hamas or, worse, give it an opening to gain power in, or even seize control of, the West Bank.”
“Reintegration could also lead to a model like that of Lebanese Hezbollah, in which Hamas remains a heavily armed militia, free from the burdens of civilian governance but wielding veto power in government.”
Hamas and Hezbollah maintain military wings for self-defense, their UN Charter right — what the CNAS report left unexplained.
Both Israel and the US have always opposed a legitimate peace process and Palestinian self-determination — while pretending otherwise.
It’s why over half a century of Israeli/Palestinian negotiations on these issues always failed.
With dominant hardline US/Israeli regimes in power, a sea-change from longstanding support by both nations for divide, control, and perpetual war by hot and/or other means to endorsing Palestinian unity, self-determination and conflict resolution sounds more like Hollywood fiction than reality.
A Final Comment
During 11 days of Israeli terror-bombing and shelling of Gazan residential areas — causing large-scale mass slaughter and destruction — the Biden regime blocked four Security Council statements that expressed mild criticism of Israel.
One-sided US support for the Jewish state and indifference toward Palestinian rights reflect longstanding bipartisan policy in Washington.
It remains unchanged.
Facebook says it will stop banning claims Covid-19 is man-made, citing ‘new facts and trends’
RT | May 27, 2021
Having spent months mercilessly removing any claims that the novel coronavirus may not have evolved naturally, Facebook said it will no longer do so. The move comes as Wuhan lab leak theory is gaining mainstream attention.
“In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of [Covid-19] and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that [Covid-19] is man-made from our apps,” a Facebook spokesperson told Politico on Wednesday evening, in an emailed statement.
“We’re continuing to work with health experts to keep pace with the evolving nature of the pandemic and regularly update our policies as new facts and trends emerge,” Facebook added.
Back in February, “following consultations with leading health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO),” Facebook said it was banning a number of “debunked” and “false” claims – including saying that the virus was “man-made or manufactured.”
So far, it appears Facebook (which also owns Instagram) is the only one to reverse course. Twitter and Google’s YouTube did not respond to Politico’s request for comment about their own policies.
The change of heart comes after the White House announced a 90-day deadline for the US intelligence community to produce a “definitive” assessment of where the novel coronavirus originated, with President Joe Biden claiming the spies were torn between “human contact with an infected animal” and “a laboratory accident.”
Until just a few weeks ago, however, merely suggesting the possibility of a “laboratory accident” – not even claiming that the virus was man-made – was grounds for getting censored on social media.
ZeroHedge, a news blog famously censored for daring to suggest the man-made origin of the virus, reacted to the Facebook volte-face with a meme used to express annoyance.
Twitter banned ZeroHedge for “abuse and harassment” in February 2020, following a hit piece by BuzzFeed. They were allowed to return in June, after Twitter said it had “made an error in our enforcement action.”
The previously heavily-enforced orthodoxy about the origin of the virus was that it naturally evolved in animals and somehow jumped to humans in an incident involving the wet market in the Chinese city of Wuhan. Any mention of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, conducting research into the bat coronavirus family, was off-limits.
US corporate and social media alike have spent the past year insisting that the mere suggestion the virus may have escaped from the WIV – even by accident, as Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed – was a conspiracy theory with zero merit. A State Department inquiry into the origin of the virus, which began under Trump, was ordered shut by Biden in March, CNN reported this week citing a Foggy Bottom spokesman.
Facebook exec Nick Clegg says Facebook should spread “free expression” around the world
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim the Net | May 26, 2021
Facebook’s Vice President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg, in a tone-deaf opinion piece, encouraged America to spread not only its technologies but also its values, including “free expression.”
While the remarks are commendable, they are also ironic coming from an executive of a giant social media platform with a very poor record of respecting the freedom of speech.
“The US risks becoming a nation that exports incredible technologies, but fails to export its values,” Clegg wrote in the op-ed published on CNBC.
Clegg also offered a recommendation on how the US can regulate Big Tech platforms and spread American values around the world.
“By focusing on the areas where there is agreement on both sides, Congress can break the deadlock and create the most comprehensive internet legislation in a generation. In doing so, it can help to preserve the American values at the heart of the global internet.”
The Facebook exec rightfully condemned China’s massive internet censorship:
“The Chinese internet model — segregated from the wider internet and subject to extensive surveillance.”
He also noted Turkey, Vietnam and Russia, as countries that “have taken steps in a similar direction.”
Clegg continued to suggest that, “The open, accessible and global internet we use today has been shaped by American companies and American values like free expression, transparency, accountability and the encouragement of innovation and entrepreneurship. But these values can’t be taken for granted.”
Clegg’s piece was objectively commendable from a free speech stand point. However, it is hard to ignore the fact that he did not call out Big Tech platforms for their continued disregard for freedom of speech. The company he works at, for example, repeatedly censored the former president and millions of other American, and has refused to reinstate Trump’s accounts.
The Bogus January 6 Commission Poses a Real Threat to Freedom

By James Bovard – Mises Wire – 05/25/2021
“Truth will out” is the most popular fairy tale in Washington. Members of Congress are clashing over whether politicians will appoint an “independent” commission to reveal the facts behind the January 6 Capitol ruckus. Proponents are portraying the issue as a simple choice between “truth or Trump.”
Recent history provides no reason to expect a politically controlled process to expose facts that undermine powerful politicians. Congress has long been worse than useless as a fact-finding agency. “Oversight” is a euphemism for stupefying congressional procedures designed to avoid discovering information that might embarrass their allies. A senior House Republican admitted in 2004: “Our party controls the levers of government. We’re not about to go out and look beneath a bunch of rocks to cause heartburn.” Most members of Congress are more likely to grovel before federal agencies than to challenge their power. “How are you so great and how can we help you?” is the usual response when the FBI director testifies, as Guardian columnist Trevor Timm noted in 2016.
There is no reason to presume that a commission investigating January 6 would not be hogtied official stonewalling. Former Senate Intelligence Committee staff director Andy Johnson observed in 2014: “The fog of secrecy made a mockery of oversight” of the CIA torture scandal. The Obama administration did not object even when the CIA illegally spied on a congressional committee to thwart the torture investigation. Both Bush and Obama administration officials repeatedly lied during congressional testimony on war on terror policies but faced no consequences. But everything would be different in this investigation, right?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her team want a congressionally appointed commission in lieu of disclosing what actually happened on January 6. Cameras posted in and around the Capitol recorded fourteen hundred hours of film on January 6, but very little of the evidence has been publicly disclosed. Fourteen news organizations have requested that the Justice Department publicly release key videos on the federal court’s electronic dockets but no such luck. Capitol Police chief lawyer Thomas DiBiase warned that “providing unfettered access to hours of extremely sensitive information to defendants who already have shown a desire to interfere with the democratic process will … [cause that information to be] passed on to those who might wish to attack the Capitol again.” But it is also “interfering with the democratic process” to withhold evidence of actions which have been endlessly demonized by the president, top congressional leaders, and their media allies.
Disclosing the video could settle the question of whether most protestors behaved like violent attackers or gaping tourists. Julie Kelly, writing for American Greatness, recently posted a forty-five-second video clip of protestors after they entered the Capitol that day. Capitol Police officer Keith Robishaw tells a group of protestors: “We’re not against … you need to show us … no attacking, no assault, remain calm.” The citizens shown in that clip don’t appear to have been hell-bent on overthrowing the government that day.
The media is touting the fact that Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, the cochairs of the 9/11 Commission, have endorsed a commission to investigate January 6. But invoking Kean and Hamilton is like relying on the Three Stooges as references for a job application at a pie factory.
Kean and Hamilton issued a joint statement boasting about the 9/11 Commission: “We put country above party to examine, without bias, the events before, during, and after the attacks…. The January 6th attack on the US Capitol was one of the darkest days in our history. Americans deserve an objective and accurate account of what happened. As we did in the wake of September 11, it is time to set aside partisan politics and come together as Americans in common pursuit of truth and justice.”
The 9/11 Commission “pursued truth and justice” by permitting the White House to edit the final version of their report before it was publicly released. Despite its canonization inside the Beltway, that report would not be admissible in a court of law, because it relied on torture for many of its key assertions. The New York Times’s Philip Shenon, the author of The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, noted that “more than a quarter of the report’s footnotes—441 of some 1,700—referred to detainees who were subjected to the CIA’s ‘enhanced’ interrogation program.” Shenon reported that commission members “forwarded questions to the CIA, whose interrogators posed them on the panel’s behalf. The commission’s report gave no hint that harsh interrogation methods [including waterboarding] were used in gathering information.” The commission’s report was released months after shocking photos from Abu Ghraib and key Justice Department and Pentagon memos leaked out, exposing the Bush administration’s torture regime. Yet, as Shenon noted, “The commission demanded that the CIA carry out new rounds of interrogations in 2004 to get answers to its questions.” The 9/11 Commission became profoundly complicit in the torture at the same time it pretended to objectively judge the Bush record.
The commission report was released in July 2004 at the same time that Bush was exploiting the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War for his reelection campaign. The commission ignored evidence compiled by a joint House-Senate investigation revealing that Saudi government agents bankrolled multiple Saudi hijackers in the US prior to the attacks (fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis). But the Bush administration suppressed those twenty-eight pages of that congressional report and they were not released until 2016. Bush embraced Saudi leaders while insisting that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was somehow to blame for 9/11. If the 9/11 Commission had quoted the 2002 FBI memo stating that there was “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these [9/11 hijacker] terrorists within the Saudi Government,” Bush might have been seriously damaged, but 9/11 commissioners chose to serve the White House rather than truth. Kean and Hamilton remain venerated by the media, because their kowtowing buttressed public trust in the political system.
Would an investigation of January 6 be more honest than the investigation of September 11? President Biden and Democratic congressional leaders are vested in the “terrorist attack/Pearl Harbor” narrative that they established within hours of the fracas. Democrats still refer to the protestors murdering a Capitol Police officer long after the belated revelation that he died of natural causes. The New York Times noted that that advocates of a January 6 commission insist it is “an ethical and practical necessity to fully understand the most violent attack on Congress in two centuries.” Tell that to the Puerto Rican nationalists who shot up Congress in 1954 or to Congressman Steve Scalise and two other Capitol employees who were shot by a Democratic Party zealot in 2017. If such “facts” are the baseline for accuracy, then citizens can start scoffing long before a commission issues a final report.
The biggest illusion behind the push for a January 6 commission is that there is a political constituency in Washington for truth. But that hasn’t been the case for decades. As French essayist Paul Valery warned long ago, “At every step, politics and freedom of mind exclude each other.”
In the same way that it took almost fifteen years for some key facts about the 9/11 attacks to be revealed, it may be months or years until key damning revelations about the Capitol clash are extracted from federal agencies or private individuals and groups. Creating a pseudoindependent commission is more likely to codify a deceptive but politically profitable storyline than to expose facts that undercut powerful Washingtonians or government agencies.
A façade of political “truth” can be more dangerous than no disclosure at all. Biden and congressional Democrats are seeking to turbocharge their push for a new domestic terrorism law to permit widespread federal crackdowns on their opponents. Any rigged commission would likely pour gasoline on a fire that could singe far more American rights and liberties.

