Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

YouTube censors Dr Noorchashm, a retired cardiac surgeon with a PhD in immunology, for “misinformation”

By Christina Maas | Reclaim the Net | June 13, 2021

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson slammed YouTube for removing his interview with a cardiology and immunology expert who said immunizing young people who have recovered from COVID is a mistake.

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm appeared on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show where he said that vaccinating the youth was risky, calling it “a colossal error in public health judgment.” Dr. Noorchashm is a retired cardiac surgeon and Harvard Medical School professor, who also holds a PhD in immunology.

According to Noorchashm, young people should not be vaccinated, because of the fact that most of them have already been infected with the virus and recovered, meaning they already have antibodies. Additionally, young people are at a low risk of dying from the virus.

“If a person does not need or stand to benefit from a vaccine, or any medical treatment, they should not be given it because it only opens the door to harm,” he said.

“In addition, we’re doing something unprecedented during this pandemic, which is that we’re vaccinating people in the middle of an outbreak where a lot of people are either asymptomatically infected or have had recent infections.

“And that’s just a recipe for disaster as the data is bearing out.”

On Friday night’s show, Carlson explained that Noorchashm uploaded their exchange on YouTube, which was removed for violating the Google-owned platform’s policy on COVID-19 misinformation.

“Other parents have an absolute right to know these facts,” Carlson said. “But the tech monopolies would no longer allow that discussion.”

The video he uploaded on YouTube was taken down on Friday. YouTube sent him an email stating: “Our team has reviewed your content and unfortunately we think it violates our misinformation policy. We have removed the following content from YouTube.”

The doctor took to Twitter to announce the censorship, saying the video was removed because he was “contradicting expert consensus.” He then added that “in America one can no longer express a dissenting professional opinion or a personal experience.”

Carlson said: “For reasons that we can’t know for certain but are clearly sinister and certainly incompatible with the functioning democracy, Big Tech will no longer allow any questions about vaccines, even from Harvard trained immunologists, who are quoting government data.”

“They censor everything but happy talk and propaganda about vaccines, period,” he added before proceeding to give other cases of censorship of experts that have appeared on his show.

June 13, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Hydroxychloroquine supporters who were censored online feel vindicated by new study

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net | June 11, 2021

It’s no secret that the Covid pandemic was in many instances weaponized to censor former President Donald Trump, by his political opponents and traditional and social media companies.

Trump’s position and policy on a number of issues – from the origin of the virus to the best way to treat the disease – was consistently censored online as misleading and dangerous misinformation, even though the WHO’s main objection to using the drugs Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin was that they are allegedly ineffective rather than harmful.

The censorship of many ideas over the last year and the speed at which social media companies labeled them “conspiracy theories” to get them censored, highlighted how much power these companies have over public discourse and how there’s little accountability when they’re found to be wrong.

While the lab theory of the origin of the coronavirus was originally censored online, and then allowed a year later when more information was released to back up what was last year called a conspiracy theory, it’s not the only topic that suffered the same fate.

One of the topics that became “forbidden” in this context was the use of the Hydroxychloroquine combined with zinc, in treating Covid patients – something that Trump publicly endorsed and even said took himself.

Doctors that promoted this treatment and were even actively prescribing it to their patients were quickly banned from the likes of TwitterFacebook, and YouTube.

Researchers even had trouble trying to study the effect this combination of drugs has and publish their findings, facing obstacles from scientific journals who were on board with the censorship of the topic. But now one such study has seen the light of day, and seems to be vindicating those who said Hydroxychloroquine is in fact beneficial in coronavirus treatment.

New Jersey’s Saint Barnabas Medical Center published the observational study that included 255 patients in medRxiv, stating that Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and zinc can increase the survival rate by close to 200 percent. This scenario required higher doses administered to severely ill Covid patients who had to be put on ventilators.

Once again, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is among those opposed to using the combination of drugs, is being called out for what many see as a series of missteps he has made during the pandemic.

“How many people died because Dr. Fauci said trust the science and Hydroxychloroquine isn’t effective?,” Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene was blunt on Twitter, at the same time citing the study’s findings, and concluding, “Trump was right.”

But last summer, Twitter appeared to be certain that Trump and others promoting the use of hydroxychloroquine were wrong. In July 2020, the company went as far as to limit Donald Trump Jr’s account features, accusing him of posting false information by tweeting a video claiming the drug was effective in Covid treatment.

June 12, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

YouTube bans Senator Ron Johnson for seven days over hydroxychloroquine video

Another elected official censored by the tech giant

By Tom Parker | Reclaim the Net | June 11, 2021

YouTube has removed one of Senator Ron Johnson where he criticized health agencies for their rejection of hydroxychloroquine and banned him from uploading to the platform for seven days.

In the removed video, Johnson shared his support of both Operation Warp Speed, which fast-tracked the development of COVID-19 vaccines, and early coronavirus treatments.

“I thought it was brilliant the way the Trump administration squeezed all of the economic efficiencies out of producing the vaccine, but I think we’re still going to need early treatments,” Johnson said in the video.

He added that “world-renowned experts… have come to a different conclusion than our health agencies” and said the health agencies had “pretty well sabotaged the ability for many doctors to even consider hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, or other of these multi-drug generic repurpose drug approaches here.”

Johnson’s comments follow a recent study that stated hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc can increase COVID survival rates by almost 200%.

But even with the publication of this study, YouTube insisted that what Johnson said violated its “medical misinformation” policies “which don’t allow content that encourages people to use hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin to treat or prevent the virus.”

“YouTube’s ongoing COVID censorship proves they have accumulated too much unaccountable power,” Johnson told Fox News. “Big Tech and mainstream media believe they are smarter than medical doctors who have devoted their lives to science and use their skills to save lives. They have decided there is only one medical viewpoint allowed, and it is the viewpoint dictated by government agencies. How many lives will be lost as a result? How many lives could have been saved with a free exchange of medical ideas?”

Johnson is the latest of several elected officials to be censored by Big Tech for discussing hydroxychloroquine with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and US President Donald Trump also being censored for talking about the drug.

Outside of elected officials, numerous doctors have been censored by the tech giants for advocating for hydroxychloroquine.

And despite more evidence becoming available that vindicates those who were censored by Big Tech, the tech giants continue to stand by their rigid policies that prohibit support of hydroxychloroquine.

June 12, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

Why I spoke out against lockdowns

Martin Kulldorff on the necessity of challenging the Covid consensus

Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard University.
By Martin Kulldorff | spiked | June 4, 2021

I had no choice but to speak out against lockdowns. As a public-health scientist with decades of experience working on infectious-disease outbreaks, I couldn’t stay silent. Not when basic principles of public health are thrown out of the window. Not when the working class is thrown under the bus. Not when lockdown opponents were thrown to the wolves. There was never a scientific consensus for lockdowns. That balloon had to be popped.

Two key Covid facts were quickly obvious to me. First, with the early outbreaks in Italy and Iran, this was a severe pandemic that would eventually spread to the rest of the world, resulting in many deaths. That made me nervous. Second, based on the data from Wuhan, in China, there was a dramatic difference in mortality by age, with over a thousand-fold difference between the young and the old. That was a huge relief. I am a single father with a teenager and five-year-old twins. Like most parents, I care more about my children than myself. Unlike the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, children had much less to fear from Covid than from annual influenza or traffic accidents. They could get on with life unharmed — or so I thought.

For society at large, the conclusion was obvious. We had to protect older, high-risk people while younger low-risk adults kept society moving.

But that didn’t happen. Instead, schools closed while nursing homes went unprotected. Why? It made no sense. So, I picked up a pen. To my surprise, I could not interest any US media in my thoughts, despite my knowledge and experience with infectious-disease outbreaks. I had more success in my native Sweden, with op-eds in the major daily newspapers, and, eventually, a piece in spiked. Other like-minded scientists faced similar hurdles.

Instead of understanding the pandemic, we were encouraged to fear it. Instead of life, we got lockdowns and death. We got delayed cancer diagnoses, worse cardiovascular-disease outcomes, deteriorating mental health, and a lot more collateral public-health damage from lockdown. Children, the elderly and the working class were the hardest hit by what can only be described as the biggest public-health fiasco in history.

Throughout the 2020 spring wave, Sweden kept daycare and schools open for every one of its 1.8million children aged between one and 15. And it did so without subjecting them to testing, masks, physical barriers or social distancing. This policy led to precisely zero Covid deaths in that age group, while teachers had a Covid risk similar to the average of other professions. The Swedish Public Health Agency reported these facts in mid-June, but in the US lockdown proponents still pushed for school closures.

In July, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article on ‘reopening primary schools during the pandemic’. Shockingly, it did not even mention the evidence from the only major Western country that kept schools open throughout the pandemic. That is like evaluating a new drug while ignoring data from the placebo control group.

With difficulty publishing, I decided to use my mostly dormant Twitter account to get the word out. I searched for tweets about schools and replied with a link to the Swedish study. A few of these replies were retweeted, which gave the Swedish data some attention. It also led to an invitation to write for the Spectator. In August, I finally broke into the US media with a CNN op-ed against school closures. I know Spanish, so I wrote a piece for CNN-Español. CNN-English was not interested.

Something was clearly amiss with the media. Among infectious-disease epidemiology colleagues that I know, most favour focused protection of high-risk groups instead of lockdowns, but the media made it sound like there was a scientific consensus for general lockdowns.

In September, I met Jeffrey Tucker at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), an organisation I had never heard of before the pandemic. To help the media gain a better understanding of the pandemic, we decided to invite journalists to meet with infectious-disease epidemiologists in Great Barrington, New England, to conduct more in-depth interviews. I invited two scientists to join me, Sunetra Gupta from the University of Oxford, one of the world’s pre-eminent infectious-disease epidemiologists, and Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University, an expert on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. To the surprise of AIER, the three of us also decided to write a declaration arguing for focused protection instead of lockdowns. We called it the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD).

Opposition to lockdowns had been deemed unscientific. When scientists spoke out against lockdowns, they were ignored, considered a fringe voice, or accused of not having proper credentials. We thought it would be hard to ignore something authored by three senior infectious-disease epidemiologists from what were three respectable universities. We were right. All hell broke loose. That was good.

Some colleagues threw epithets at us like ‘crazy’, ‘exorcist’, ‘mass murderer’ or ‘Trumpian’. Some accused us of taking a stand for money, though nobody paid us a penny. Why such a vicious response? The declaration was in line with the many pandemic preparedness plans produced years earlier, but that was the crux. With no good public-health arguments against focused protection, they had to resort to mischaracterisation and slander, or else admit they had made a terrible, deadly mistake in their support of lockdowns.

Some lockdown proponents accused us of raising a strawman, as lockdowns had worked and were no longer needed. Just a few weeks later, the same critics lauded the reimposition of lockdowns during the very predictable second wave. We were told that we had not specified how to protect the old, even though we had described ideas in detail on our website and in op-eds. We were accused of advocating a ‘let it rip’ strategy, even though focused protection is its very opposite. Ironically, lockdowns are a dragged-out form of a let-it-rip strategy, in which each age group is infected in the same proportion as a let-it-rip strategy.

When writing the declaration, we knew we were exposing ourselves to attacks. That can be scary, but as Rosa Parks said: ‘I have learned over the years that when one’s mind is made up, this diminishes fear; knowing what must be done does away with fear.’ Also, I did not take the journalistic and academic attacks personally, however vile – and most came from people I had never even heard of before. The attacks were not primarily addressed at us anyhow. We had already spoken out and would continue to do so. Their main purpose was to discourage other scientists from speaking out.

In my twenties, I risked my life in Guatemala working for a human-rights organisation called Peace Brigades International. We protected farmers, unionised workers, students, religious organisations, women’s groups and human-rights defenders who were threatened, murdered, and disappeared by military death squads. While the courageous Guatemalans I worked with faced much more danger, the death squads did once throw a hand grenade into our house. If I could do that work then, why should I not now take much smaller risks for people here at home? When I was falsely accused of being a Koch-funded right-winger, I just shrugged – typical behaviour by both establishment servants and armchair revolutionaries.

After the Great Barrington Declaration, there was no longer a lack of media attention on focused protection as an alternative to lockdowns. On the contrary, requests came from across the globe. I noticed an interesting contrast. In the US and UK, media outlets were either friendly with softball questions or hostile with trick questions and ad hominem attacks. Journalists in most other countries asked hard but relevant and fair questions, exploring and critically examining the Great Barrington Declaration. I think that is how journalism should be done.

While most governments continued with their failed lockdown policies, things have moved in the right direction. More and more schools have reopened, and Florida rejected lockdowns in favour of focused protection, partly based on our advice, without the negative consequences that the lockdowners predicted.

With the lockdown failures increasingly clear, attacks and censorship have increased rather than decreased: Google-owned YouTube censored a video from a roundtable with Florida governor Ron DeSantis, where my colleagues and I stated that children do not need to wear masks; Facebook closed the GBD account when we posted a pro-vaccine message arguing that older people should be prioritised for vaccination; Twitter censored a post when I said that children and those already infected do not need to be vaccinated; and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) removed me from a vaccine-safety working group when I argued that the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine should not be withheld from older Americans.

Twitter even locked my account for writing that:

‘Naively fooled to think that masks would protect them, some older high-risk people did not socially distance properly, and some died from Covid because of it. Tragic. Public-health officials/scientists must always be honest with the public.’

This increased pressure may seem counterintuitive, but it is not. Had we been wrong, our scientific colleagues might have taken pity on us and the media would have gone back to ignoring us. Being correct means that we embarrassed some immensely powerful people in politics, journalism, big tech and science. They are never going to forgive us.

That is not what matters, though. The pandemic has been a great tragedy. A 79-year-old friend of mine died from Covid, and a few months later his wife died from cancer that was not detected in time to initiate treatment. While deaths are inevitable during a pandemic, the naive but mistaken belief that lockdowns would protect the old meant that governments did not implement many standard focused-protection measures. The dragged-out pandemic made it harder for older people to protect themselves. With a focused-protection strategy, my friend and his wife might be alive today, together with countless other people around the world.

Ultimately, lockdowns protected young low-risk professionals working from home – journalists, lawyers, scientists, and bankers – on the backs of children, the working class and the poor. In the US, lockdowns are the biggest assault on workers since segregation and the Vietnam War. Except for war, there are few government actions during my life that have imposed more suffering and injustice on such a large scale.

As an infectious-disease epidemiologist, I had no choice. I had to speak up. If not, why be a scientist? Many others who bravely spoke could comfortably have stayed silent. If they had, more schools would still be closed, and the collateral public-health damage would have been greater. I am aware of many fantastic people fighting against these ineffective and damaging lockdowns, writing articles, posting on social media, making videos, talking to friends, speaking up at school board meetings, and protesting in the streets. If you are one of them, it has truly been an honour to work with you on this effort together. I hope that we will one day meet in person and then, let’s dance together. Danser encore!

June 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

YouTube censors Brett Weinstein ivermectin clip

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net | June 3, 2021

Big Tech’s social media platforms, as well as a plethora of corporate media, must still be nursing what is highly likely to feel like some very unpleasant “fresh and raw” egg on their face – after they were “forced” to take an abrupt U-turn in the wake of months of draconian censoring of any mention, and even the very possibility that coronavirus might have been human-engineered – instead of occurring naturally, randomly among China’s wildlife – as the previously approved narrative went.

What “forced” them to do it – (in reality, in a true democracy, nothing should ever be able to force a media outlet to do anything) – was the imperative of always aligning their editorial/moderation/censorship policies with a “preferred” narrative.

But after “the Wuhan lab theory” suddenly gained legit “citizenship status” in the media – it became clear that when the government says “JUMP” – this particular class of social and legacy media will only ever have this one “journalistic” question: “How high?”

It warrants keeping this big, overall picture in mind when considering how other Covid-related censorship topics are now being treated on the internet – and how quickly and seemingly inexplicably the tide may or may not turn on those as well. Whatever that tendency may be – it surely is not a “symptom” of free and independent journalism. Quite the opposite.

And as we wait to see where the “brave new world” might take us next, here’s an example: the censorship evolutionary biologist and DarkHorse Podcast host Brett Weinstein is now facing on YouTube – for exploring another previously outlawed as “heresy” topic – that of the drug Ivermectin’s merit, or lack thereof, in treating Covid patients.

YouTube has deleted a video of Weinstein discussing the topic with one of his peers, Heather Heying. More precisely, the video, “Why is Ivermectin not being used in other countries?,” is now gone from Weinstein’s “podcast clips” channel – while the full-length video still remains available on the main channel.

Does YouTube’s left censorship hand not know what the right hand is doing?

All joking aside, YouTube normally operates on a “three strikes” system – and it’s not at all clear how this might affect Weinstein’s channel, going forward.

June 3, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

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.

May 27, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Google blocks ads from Italian author who suggested coronavirus could have originated in a lab

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net | May 26, 2021

Facebook, YouTube and other major social media platforms have been enforcing extremely strict rules around what their users can and cannot say about coronavirus and the pandemic for over a year now, to make sure only messages and narratives aligned with state authorities and the WHO made it through.

But at this point, it looks like those rules are even more stringent than what officials are saying, to the point that, if applied consistently, Facebook would have to ban Dr Fauci for not ruling out the possibility that the virus was engineered by humans.

This has so far been considered the type of “misinformation” that is sure to get posts deleted and accounts suspended, as Facebook says it prohibits any discussion around coronavirus possibly being man-made.

Facebook is not alone, since YouTube has a similar censorship policy. Only last week, Google prevented Italian journalist Fabrizio Gatti from advertising his book that explores much the same topic that Fauci did in his recent comments. Google said Gatti – whose book also criticizes China’s role – was guilty of creating content with “speculative intent.”

“Once the infection is overcome with vaccines, as I write in my book, we will have to defend our democracies from totalitarianism and the digital monopoly,” Gatti said, reacting to the blacklisting, and urged Google to reverse the decision.

Other contentious rules enforced by YouTube concern any questioning of the usefulness of masks, regardless of the fact official recommendations and guidelines on this topic have been changing throughout the pandemic.

Along the same line, saying that coronavirus vaccines might cause serious harm to people will get content and/or users banned on Facebook – even if medical authorities in Europe and in other places say that at least two of them – AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson – can cause blood clots, though rare.

Even though tech giants behind the largest social media sites defend their policies as a way to prevent misinformation and promote official sources, those who have been on the receiving end – everyday users, medical professionals, journalists – see this as unwarranted censorship that stifles any debate.

And as former New York Times journalist Alex Berenson observed, this vigorous suppression of opposing views around Covid is a cause for concern, but is also emblematic of the general direction we’re headed in.

“This isn’t about Covid, it’s about whether or not as a society we’re going to allow people who have views that are sort of outside what the mainstream media want you to believe, to present those views. It’s becoming harder and harder to have honest conversations,” said Berenson, whose book skeptical of lockdowns and masks Amazon had temporarily banned.

May 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Steven Crowder gives YouTube legal notice, intends to seek injunction against deplatforming

By Tom Parker | Reclaim the Net | May 17, 2021

Comedian Steven Crowder has announced that last Thursday (May 14, 2021), his company, Louder with Crowder LLC, gave a legal notice to YouTube announcing its intent to file a lawsuit and seek an injunction to stop YouTube deplatforming his channel.

Crowder has one of the most popular conservative channels on YouTube with more than five million subscribers. However, over the last few months, YouTube has removed his videosdemonetized his channel, and most recently, suspended him from uploading or live streaming for two weeks.

“Once we hit the new year and a new president ascended, the landscape of social media shifted in favor of the left,” Louder with Crowder’s editor at large, Courtney Kirchoff, noted in a blog post announcing the legal action against YouTube. “Democrats took control of the presidency and now have control of both houses of Congress. As such, YouTube and other Big Tech platforms feel emboldened, with very few lawmakers standing in their way.”

In a video about the legal action they plan to take against YouTube, Crowder and his lawyer Bill Richmond discussed how the channel is now just one strike away from being deleted after receiving a warning strike and two hard strikes this year.

The warning strike was issued on a coronavirus lockdown anniversary video where someone in the studio said “young children are more likely to die of the flu than COVID.”

The statement reflects Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics but YouTube deemed the video to be in violation of its “medical misinformation” policy.

“It is tantamount to saying that no conservatives or people who cite the CDC and believe that relevant information like young children have a different immune response to COVID than the standard flu, and it is significantly less lethal to young people but more lethal to old people, which we’ve always talked about, YouTube is saying anyone with that point of view is not welcome on this channel, on this platform, I guess,” Crowder said when discussing this warning strike.

The first hard strike was issued on a March 29 video where Crowder provided examples of a vote being cast from a fake address in Nevada in 2020. YouTube deemed this to be “content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.”

Crowder said he didn’t make any such claims and described this first strike as “investigative journalism being a violation of the policy if someone doesn’t like it.”

The second hard strike was issued on a May 10 video where Crowder described the Columbus police shooting of Ma’Khia Bryant as “an example of a justified police shooting” that was “necessary to save the life of someone who is in the process of being stabbed.”

According to YouTube, this video violated its rules around “content reveling in or mocking the death or serious injury of an identifiable individual.”

Crowder noted that Big Tech platforms allowed posts that were favorable to Bryant and critical of the police officer to remain up. But when he challenged the criticism of the police officer and argued that the shooting was justified because she had a knife in her hand and was about to swing at another girl, his video was removed and he was suspended.

“That means that the lie is allowed and the truth is not because the truth is simply from a point of view which is impermissible,” Crowder said.

“It’s an incredible indictment of how YouTube enforces its policies and, and really the reason why we’ve had to give the notice, serve the notice of moving for an injunction, to prevent the deplatforming,” Richmond added.

Richmond continued by discussing how he and Crowder’s team are concerned about YouTube actively looking for violations that aren’t actually violations and explained that this is why they’ve moved forward with this injunctive notice which will request immediate relief to protect the existence of Crowder’s YouTube channel.

“This is something that concerns every person who values any type of democracy,” Richmond added. “What they’re saying is ‘these ideas are so dangerous that we can’t address them and rebut them, we can’t criticize them, we just have to extinguish the opinions entirely, we have to eradicate these opinions from the planet because we can’t deal with them.’ But the reality when everyone looks at this is, this is a comedy show that takes on important issues. Commentary, politics, issues that are facing everyone in every part of the nation in the world. And we have to be able to talk about them.”

May 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

YouTube restrictions on medical information are a public health concern

By PeterYim | TrialSiteNews | May 16, 2021

Recently, the American Journal of Therapeutics reported that there was strong evidence that a treatment for COVID-19 had been found:

“Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.”

The American Journal of Epidemiology also reported on strong evidence of a different treatment for COVID-19:

“Five studies, including 2 controlled clinical trials (of hydroxychloroquine), have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy.”

What these reports have in common is that YouTube explicitly forbids these therapies to be discussed on its platform. It’s policy states:

“Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes ….. Claims that Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine are effective treatments for COVID-19”

Furthermore, YouTube characterizes any information that dissents from the view of the “local health authorities” or the World Health Organization as “misinformation”:

“YouTube doesn’t allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19.”

Under YouTube policy, the peer-review medical literature has lost its place as the source of medical information to governmental and para-governmental organizations. In the US, the relevant organizations are the FDA and the NIH. The FDA currently recommends against the use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 except in clinical trials.

The FDA does not, however, offer any evidence to support this recommendation. In fact, the FDA clarifies:

“The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19 …”

Nor does the FDA claim that any formal procedure was followed. It doesn’t even identify the individual or individuals who developed that recommendation.

The case of the NIH recommendation on Ivermectin is even more troubling. The NIH formally does not recommend for or against the use of Ivermectin but does make it clear that there are “insufficient data” to make that recommendation. The NIH names the medical experts who form the Panel and explains the procedures for developing the COVID-19 recommendations. Then, apparently, the NIH deceptively bypassed both in arriving at its recommendation.

Our reporting on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines has found that the NIH cannot state whether a vote was held to endorse the latest recommendation on Ivermectin. The NIH even decided to fight a complaint in federal court simply to avoid answering that question. This reporting shows that the NIH cannot be trusted.

Aside from the NIH’s deceptive ivermectin recommendation, the American public is generally skeptical of public health authorities. As reported earlier, a survey was recently conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health on the public’s views of the US public health authorities. The top line finding was:

“The public lacks the high level of trust in key public health institutions necessary to address today’s and future challenges.”

Why then is YouTube adhering so uncritically to the views of “local health authorities”? In so doing, it is obstructing patients and health care providers from accessing the best medical information.

May 16, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 3 Comments

‘They’re coming to kill us’: Canada’s Rebel News CANCELED by PayPal without notice

RT | May 6, 2021

Rebel News co-founder Ezra Levant announced that payment processor PayPal has canceled their account without an explanation. The Canadian outlet has been critical of the Covid-19 lockdowns and the government of PM Justin Trudeau.

“Look, this isn’t a mistake. It’s a cancel culture attack on the largest independent news agency in Canada. It’s censorship,” Levant announced on Thursday, in a fundraising appeal for legal fees to sue PayPal.

“They’re finally coming to kill us,” the Rebel News account tweeted.

According to Levant, PayPal sent a “form letter” by email last Friday after business hours, informing the outlet that their account – which processed over 150,000 transactions for 8 million Canadian dollars over the past six years – was canceled. The email had no signature, contact information, explanation or way to appeal, Levant said.

“We’re a big client. But with no notice at all, they just breached the contract. They ambushed us,” he wrote. Levant maintains Rebel News never breached PayPal’s terms of service, and that the company has simply ignored multiple letters from his lawyers.

Levant argues this is a coordinated effort, pointing to the fact that Google-owned YouTube handed Rebel News a week-long suspension before PayPal made its move. Moreover, in addition to the Rebel News account, PayPal shuttered Levant’s personal account, as well as that of the For Canada nonprofit, used to fundraise for charity projects.

“That’s why I don’t think this is a mistake. They’re trying to destroy us. And they don’t have the courage to even tell us to our face,” said Levant, who co-founded the outlet in 2015.

While identifying as conservative, Rebel News has been critical of both the Liberal Trudeau government and the conservative provincial leaders such as Jason Kenney in Alberta and Francois Legault in Quebec.

Levant even speculated that PayPal’s action may have been related to the recent Rebel News revelation that Trudeau had funded the Anti-Hate Network – an offshoot of the US-based SPLC – to “lodge malicious complaints against Trudeau’s enemies.”

He says Rebel News has lost about a million dollars as a result of the PayPal and YouTube actions, and wants to raise $150,000 to sue.

While PayPal is yet to comment on the matter, denial of service by banks and payment processors has been a popular way of shutting down unpopular outlets and online platforms over the past several years. Back in March, Gab CEO Andrew Torba revealed that several banks have refused to do business with his company citing bad coverage in the corporate press, urging like-minded Americans to “cancel them all before they cancel us.”

May 6, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 1 Comment

The internet once offered a promise of free speech for everyone; Big Tech has since turned it into a prison

By Nebojsa Malic | RT | May 5, 2021

I once thought the internet would have the same effect on corporate media gatekeepers as the AK-47 had on colonial empires in Africa. That was before Big Tech turned that promise of freedom into the second coming of feudalism.

Wednesday’s decision by Facebook’s “oversight board” – a transparent attempt to outsource responsibility for censorship to an international committee – to extend the ban on 45th US President Donald Trump is just the latest example, but by no means the most egregious. Earlier this week, the banhammer descended on RT’s digital project Redfish over posts criticizing… Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini and the Holocaust, of all things.

How did it come to this? Years ago, in an argument over media censorship, I had brought up the internet as the modern version of the AK-47. While the European colonial armies were able to conquer Africa in the 19th century, using machine guns and repeating rifles, they became unable to hold it once the Kalashnikov automatic rifle put the peasants in places like Congo, Angola and Vietnam on equal footing with Western armies seeking to keep them down.

Or, if you want a more peaceful metaphor, it was the promise of open pasture extended to people who had previously been treated like cattle, penned up in factory barns and fed slop from a trough.

That was in March 2011. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter were already around, but they were challenging the gatekeepers and offering their platforms to the common people like myself. In 2016, everything changed. That was the year Trump was able to bypass the corporate gatekeepers, using those platforms to speak to the American people directly.

Having consolidated the internet between them, and under pressure from politicians they already supported, the corporations running these platforms began censoring content and users – first gradually, then suddenly. The pretext for this was “Russiagate,” the conspiracy theory pushed by Democrats and their corporate media allies to explain Hillary Clinton’s 2016 fiasco, delegitimize Trump’s presidency, and – as it turns out – justify censorship.

As demonstrated by the recent example of Twitter’s clash with Russia over illegal content, or Facebook’s standoff with Australia over paying for news, these mega-corporations aren’t opposed to censorship or committed to property on principle. Rather, their only “principle” is the Who-Whom reductionism, a world in which they and those they agree with can do no wrong, while anyone else can do no right.

The long march from banning Alex Jones in 2018 to banning the sitting president of the United States in 2021 was completed with surprising alacrity. The collusion within Silicon Valley to ban Trump on the blatantly false pretext of “inciting insurrection” on January 6 may have been the political Rubicon, but Big Tech had begun putting their finger, fist and even elbow on the political scales long before.

Does banning the New York Post over Hunter Biden ring any bells? How about the “pre-bunking” of the 2020 election outcome, arranged by Democrat activists more than a year prior? It’s in the infamous February TIME article, the one about the heroic “fortifiers” of the “proper” election outcome, buried among other bombshells and easy to miss. There was also Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg literally donating millions to Democrats in certain key cities and counties, to help collect and count mail-in ballots. The list goes on.

“But my private company!” facetiously proclaims the brigade that literally cheered Barack Obama’s “you didn’t build that” speech just a few short years before. Corporations shouldn’t be people, no one is above the law, Citizens United is bad – except when it helps us get into power, in which case it’s just fine, carry on.

These are the same “experts” on the US Constitution who believe the Second Amendment applies only to muskets, the First only to the government, the Fourth is optional, the Fourteenth trumps all of them, and the Tenth is vestigial and doesn’t apply to anything.

Believing that “American values” ought to apply to businesses incorporated in the US, under protection of US laws – Section 230, looking at you here – and benefiting from US power when muscling governments abroad is downright quaint, considering these companies don’t actually care about that constitutional republic, but back Our Democracy that has replaced it instead.

I still think I was correct in 2011, arguing that the internet had broken the information monopoly of cable channels and newspapers. The plummeting ratings and newspaper revenues have borne that out. Unfortunately, Big Tech figured it out as well – and succumbed to the temptation to turn the promise of open pastures into the very factory farms it was supposed to replace.

Now we’re not just back to eating slop from the corporate trough, but everything we’ve said while believing in freedom has been harvested and can and will be weaponized to “cancel” us at any time. One might call this called techno-feudalism, except the overlords have no obligations and the serfs have no rights.

Way back in 2019, Trump had tweeted a meme: “In reality, they’re not after me, they’re after you. I’m just in the way.” Can you honestly say now that he was wrong?

Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Telegram @TheNebulator 

May 6, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment