Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🇺🇸 PARTNERSHIP INTERVIEW: BIG PHARMA CENSORSHIP MACHINE EXPOSED - "WE CAN'T TRUST ANYTHING ANYMORE" James C Heckman, former high-level executive at News Corp, Fox, and Yahoo, reveals how two PhD/MDs collected COVID data from every major treatment center showing under 1% death rate (“all patients over 80 with diseases”),...

MarioNawfal's profile picture

Mario Nawfal

3,295,741 subscribers

675,315 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & PolitikGesundheit & WellnessWissenschaft & Technologie
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Coinbase's James Morek: The media's fatal mistake was giving Silicon Valley ownership of the audience while journalists did all the work Journalists no longer own their audience, their data, their revenue, their distribution, or increasingly, even their own work. Think about how insane that is. The people creating the content don't control the business built around it. That's a crisis that's far bigger than left versus right, censorship, or media bias: the entire economic model underpinning journalism is broken. A reporter can risk their life covering a war in Ukraine, corruption in Africa, or political unrest in the Middle East, generate millions of views, and still have no idea how much money their work made, when they'll get paid, why one story performed better than another, or whether the platform will bury them tomorrow. Meanwhile, the platforms know everything. They see every click, every view, every dollar, and every trend. The creators see almost none of it. Coinbase is trying to solve what may be the biggest problem in journalism itself: Ownership. Who owns the audience, the data, the monetization, and most importantly, the relationship with readers? Because for the last decade, the answer has largely been Silicon Valley. And that's exactly why so many journalists, newspapers, creators and independent outlets have been slowly suffocated. His argument is that journalism doesn't have a content problem; it has a control problem. And unless journalists take back ownership of their audiences, their data, their revenue, and their IP, the people producing the information society depends on will continue getting weaker while the platforms built on top of them get stronger. It's one of the most important conversations I've had about the future of media. Because if journalism can't figure out how to survive economically, then eventually there won't be any journalism left to save. 01:14 - Major media is becoming a political institution, and the talent doesn't have to stay trapped inside it 01:51 - The whole system is a guessing game, right down to when you actually get paid 05:01 - One person can control what billions of people see 08:46 – It’s all about bringing professional journalism back 11:39 - Watch your earnings tick up live in the app, like a debt clock for your own work 12:30 - Shadow bans, slashed CPMs, pulled advertisers, debanking: censorship has a lot of tools 16:46 - Soon you'll be able to stake journalists, and the bidding war for the world's best begins 19:25 - Professional journalism got left behind by Silicon Valley, and the mission is to help it thrive again Disclaimer: This content was produced in collaboration with the other party and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute financial or investment advice. Always conduct your own research before making any decisions.
20:19

Coinbase's James Morek: The media's fatal mistake was giving Silicon Valley ownership of the audience while journalists did all the work Journalists no longer own their audience, their data, their revenue, their distribution, or increasingly, even their own work. Think about how insane that is. The people creating the content don't control the business built around it. That's a crisis that's far bigger than left versus right, censorship, or media bias: the entire economic model underpinning journalism is broken. A reporter can risk their life covering a war in Ukraine, corruption in Africa, or political unrest in the Middle East, generate millions of views, and still have no idea how much money their work made, when they'll get paid, why one story performed better than another, or whether the platform will bury them tomorrow. Meanwhile, the platforms know everything. They see every click, every view, every dollar, and every trend. The creators see almost none of it. Coinbase is trying to solve what may be the biggest problem in journalism itself: Ownership. Who owns the audience, the data, the monetization, and most importantly, the relationship with readers? Because for the last decade, the answer has largely been Silicon Valley. And that's exactly why so many journalists, newspapers, creators and independent outlets have been slowly suffocated. His argument is that journalism doesn't have a content problem; it has a control problem. And unless journalists take back ownership of their audiences, their data, their revenue, and their IP, the people producing the information society depends on will continue getting weaker while the platforms built on top of them get stronger. It's one of the most important conversations I've had about the future of media. Because if journalism can't figure out how to survive economically, then eventually there won't be any journalism left to save. 01:14 - Major media is becoming a political institution, and the talent doesn't have to stay trapped inside it 01:51 - The whole system is a guessing game, right down to when you actually get paid 05:01 - One person can control what billions of people see 08:46 – It’s all about bringing professional journalism back 11:39 - Watch your earnings tick up live in the app, like a debt clock for your own work 12:30 - Shadow bans, slashed CPMs, pulled advertisers, debanking: censorship has a lot of tools 16:46 - Soon you'll be able to stake journalists, and the bidding war for the world's best begins 19:25 - Professional journalism got left behind by Silicon Valley, and the mission is to help it thrive again Disclaimer: This content was produced in collaboration with the other party and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute financial or investment advice. Always conduct your own research before making any decisions.

Mario Nawfal

323,649 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen

🚨🤖 PARTNERSHIP INTERVIEW: 51% OF THE INTERNET IS BOTS, CAN HUMANITY STILL WIN? More than half of online traffic today is not human. It is bots, and a third of them are malicious. AI is generating fake profiles, fake comments, even fake people. And if Big Tech owns your identity, one hack could erase you from the internet entirely. , founder of our portfolio company, Humanity Protocol, is building a system to change that, giving people control of their digital identities through blockchain verification. We talk about: •⁠ ⁠What happens when bots outnumber humans online •⁠ ⁠How Apple, Google, and Facebook control who we are •⁠ ⁠Why digital ID could be the most important tech of the decade •⁠ ⁠How the Mastercard partnership could redefine online identity •⁠ ⁠And why the next big war might be between real humans and fake ones Terence Kwok says the future of the internet depends on one thing. Knowing who is real and who is not. 00:00 – Over half of all web traffic is now bots 01:00 – Why identity matters in an AI-driven world 01:45 – Terence Kwok on losing trust in digital life 03:59 – When social media can’t tell what’s real 04:20 – Big Tech controls your existence 05:26 – The Humanity Protocol solution 08:02 – The “dead internet” is already here 08:45 – Bot traffic and the $100B fraud economy 10:15 – AI-generated content is replacing humans 12:00 – AI dependence erodes human skill 13:10 – Verifying truth through credentials 14:01 – What it means to be human online 15:17 – When AI agents need identities too 17:56 – Can AI resist shutdown or blackmail 19:19 – Why every AI needs a human “owner” 21:23 – Self-driving cars as potential weapons 22:09 – Infrastructure under AI control 23:30 – Artificial muscles stronger than humans 24:26 – Teaching AI values like a child 25:40 – Training on humanity’s worst data 26:44 – Does intelligence lead to compassion 26:46 – Who’s winning the AI race: U.S. or China 28:42 – China’s real-world AI advantage 29:31 – Everyday life inside China’s AI economy 31:46 – U.S. regulation vs. China’s speed 32:21 – Different strengths, different outcomes 32:50 – Bringing AI ethics back to Humanity 33:02 – Building Humanity with blockchain partners 35:21 – Mastercard and on-chain verification 36:26 – Control and monetize your own data 37:38 – Real-world utility over hype tokens 39:50 – Decentralized identity for a human-led web 39:59 – “Digital identity is the foundation of the next internet” Disclaimer: We are investors in this project and receive benefits from our involvement. This content is for promotional purposes only and is not financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency carries significant risk, and you should always do your own due diligence before making any decision.
40:00

🚨🤖 PARTNERSHIP INTERVIEW: 51% OF THE INTERNET IS BOTS, CAN HUMANITY STILL WIN? More than half of online traffic today is not human. It is bots, and a third of them are malicious. AI is generating fake profiles, fake comments, even fake people. And if Big Tech owns your identity, one hack could erase you from the internet entirely. , founder of our portfolio company, Humanity Protocol, is building a system to change that, giving people control of their digital identities through blockchain verification. We talk about: •⁠ ⁠What happens when bots outnumber humans online •⁠ ⁠How Apple, Google, and Facebook control who we are •⁠ ⁠Why digital ID could be the most important tech of the decade •⁠ ⁠How the Mastercard partnership could redefine online identity •⁠ ⁠And why the next big war might be between real humans and fake ones Terence Kwok says the future of the internet depends on one thing. Knowing who is real and who is not. 00:00 – Over half of all web traffic is now bots 01:00 – Why identity matters in an AI-driven world 01:45 – Terence Kwok on losing trust in digital life 03:59 – When social media can’t tell what’s real 04:20 – Big Tech controls your existence 05:26 – The Humanity Protocol solution 08:02 – The “dead internet” is already here 08:45 – Bot traffic and the $100B fraud economy 10:15 – AI-generated content is replacing humans 12:00 – AI dependence erodes human skill 13:10 – Verifying truth through credentials 14:01 – What it means to be human online 15:17 – When AI agents need identities too 17:56 – Can AI resist shutdown or blackmail 19:19 – Why every AI needs a human “owner” 21:23 – Self-driving cars as potential weapons 22:09 – Infrastructure under AI control 23:30 – Artificial muscles stronger than humans 24:26 – Teaching AI values like a child 25:40 – Training on humanity’s worst data 26:44 – Does intelligence lead to compassion 26:46 – Who’s winning the AI race: U.S. or China 28:42 – China’s real-world AI advantage 29:31 – Everyday life inside China’s AI economy 31:46 – U.S. regulation vs. China’s speed 32:21 – Different strengths, different outcomes 32:50 – Bringing AI ethics back to Humanity 33:02 – Building Humanity with blockchain partners 35:21 – Mastercard and on-chain verification 36:26 – Control and monetize your own data 37:38 – Real-world utility over hype tokens 39:50 – Decentralized identity for a human-led web 39:59 – “Digital identity is the foundation of the next internet” Disclaimer: We are investors in this project and receive benefits from our involvement. This content is for promotional purposes only and is not financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency carries significant risk, and you should always do your own due diligence before making any decision.

Mario Nawfal

192,143 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

This is the most important post I’ve made to date, by far . It’s an interview with journalist Whitney Webb explaining - Digital ID, where the idea came from, who are the stakeholders and beneficiaries of it, the immense power and control you will cede to Govt and corporations. I have spliced in NZ video to illustrates the points that Webb makes throughout the video. In it she explains how Digital ID is necessary for digital currency to be used, which in turn will create a river of wealth and control for corporations and global bodies. It explains how the public (including here in NZ) is being gaslit about the bill for restricting social media - this requires us all to be biometrically scanned and it will be linked to the new Whakatuturu or verify me digital ID. It features outtakes from select committee submissions from Mattr NZ a subsidiary of Spark who have designed the digital ID architecture, and has previously developed the Covid App plus worked with spy agencies in the US at the dept of Homeland & security. It also features footage of the Co -Chair of the Digital Trust Framework Anna Marie Cavanagh on a UN sustainable Goals discussion, along with Ardern stating the digital ID is built for interaction with Carbon Markets and with the UN SDG’s in mind. Larry Fink (Blackrock) and Jamie Dimon (JP MorganChase) discuss the future of finance and tokenising assets, including your house and even natural assets. Dimon has publicly said that banks should be able to seize public property in the name of climate change. The UN a will force us all to use carbon markets the take up so far has been woeful. Ever wonder why the UN has pushed for legal personhood for natural sites such as Mt Taranaki? It’s because they need to be loaded on the digital ledger. Ngati Wai activist Aperahama Edwards (best known for taking Davis Seymour’s mic away at Waitangi) has so far gathered $70m USD with the backing of King Charles & Richard Branson to make a blue carbon market from NZ’s EEZ and are developing a electronic ‘rāhui’ in the waters to ‘protect the whales’ and the whales will be given a digital ID. The project steered by an Ex IMF director will then ‘take control of the migratory sea channels’ and sell bonds in the ocean. News items covering this bizarre scheme is included. When they say Data is the new oil they were wrong. Data is much more valuable, when you have total tracking of everyone in society. If this all sounds far fetched. Watch the video and get back to me. For nearly two decades I worked internationally in funds management, including working on projects for the biggest Tech companies in the world. I was there when banking institutions pushed CDO’s sheer lunacy that nearly wrecked the financial system in 2008. saw ESG and DEI together with new technology like digital Currency take over the industry and the most preposterous ideas floated, believe me I am very aware of how big Investment banks operate. The UN who entrenched such great ideas such as Transgenderism, Climate change alarmism, mass immigration, internet censorship and globalised centralised control are at the bass line of digital ID and asset tokenisation. Those some progressive woke lunatics who locked us up for months in our houses have designed a new digital prison. Expect it to be insane. The Digital ID architecture is built and ready to go, they just need a mass onboarding process where they can pair your biometrics to your digital ID & digital wallet - enter Luxon’s social media ban. This is nearly an hour long I know, and it’s taken me hours to make in the hope it will inform as many people as possible . Please do yourself and your family a favour, watch and share it. — Rhys Williams.
56:37

This is the most important post I’ve made to date, by far . It’s an interview with journalist Whitney Webb explaining - Digital ID, where the idea came from, who are the stakeholders and beneficiaries of it, the immense power and control you will cede to Govt and corporations. I have spliced in NZ video to illustrates the points that Webb makes throughout the video. In it she explains how Digital ID is necessary for digital currency to be used, which in turn will create a river of wealth and control for corporations and global bodies. It explains how the public (including here in NZ) is being gaslit about the bill for restricting social media - this requires us all to be biometrically scanned and it will be linked to the new Whakatuturu or verify me digital ID. It features outtakes from select committee submissions from Mattr NZ a subsidiary of Spark who have designed the digital ID architecture, and has previously developed the Covid App plus worked with spy agencies in the US at the dept of Homeland & security. It also features footage of the Co -Chair of the Digital Trust Framework Anna Marie Cavanagh on a UN sustainable Goals discussion, along with Ardern stating the digital ID is built for interaction with Carbon Markets and with the UN SDG’s in mind. Larry Fink (Blackrock) and Jamie Dimon (JP MorganChase) discuss the future of finance and tokenising assets, including your house and even natural assets. Dimon has publicly said that banks should be able to seize public property in the name of climate change. The UN a will force us all to use carbon markets the take up so far has been woeful. Ever wonder why the UN has pushed for legal personhood for natural sites such as Mt Taranaki? It’s because they need to be loaded on the digital ledger. Ngati Wai activist Aperahama Edwards (best known for taking Davis Seymour’s mic away at Waitangi) has so far gathered $70m USD with the backing of King Charles & Richard Branson to make a blue carbon market from NZ’s EEZ and are developing a electronic ‘rāhui’ in the waters to ‘protect the whales’ and the whales will be given a digital ID. The project steered by an Ex IMF director will then ‘take control of the migratory sea channels’ and sell bonds in the ocean. News items covering this bizarre scheme is included. When they say Data is the new oil they were wrong. Data is much more valuable, when you have total tracking of everyone in society. If this all sounds far fetched. Watch the video and get back to me. For nearly two decades I worked internationally in funds management, including working on projects for the biggest Tech companies in the world. I was there when banking institutions pushed CDO’s sheer lunacy that nearly wrecked the financial system in 2008. saw ESG and DEI together with new technology like digital Currency take over the industry and the most preposterous ideas floated, believe me I am very aware of how big Investment banks operate. The UN who entrenched such great ideas such as Transgenderism, Climate change alarmism, mass immigration, internet censorship and globalised centralised control are at the bass line of digital ID and asset tokenisation. Those some progressive woke lunatics who locked us up for months in our houses have designed a new digital prison. Expect it to be insane. The Digital ID architecture is built and ready to go, they just need a mass onboarding process where they can pair your biometrics to your digital ID & digital wallet - enter Luxon’s social media ban. This is nearly an hour long I know, and it’s taken me hours to make in the hope it will inform as many people as possible . Please do yourself and your family a favour, watch and share it. — Rhys Williams.

Holyhekatuiteka

126,086 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

It's All Much Worse Than I Thought The corporate media are all-in on government censorship Over the last three years, we have come to learn of the role that our own government officials have played in demanding censorship by social media platforms. Some of this censorship was overt, particularly as it related to COVID. However, some of it was also done in secrecy, as we discovered in the Twitter Files. Many of us thought that once we had uncovered the censorship, governments would be sufficiently embarrassed to stop doing it. And to some extent, that has been the case. But now, governments around the world are stepping up their efforts to demand more censorship. Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation quietly announced it had resumed its outreach to social media companies. Scotland’s Police could even investigate comedians under a new hate speech law if someone complains about a joke. Major media outlets are currently working with government-funded censorship activists at the University of Washington and Stanford Internet Observatory to demand greater censorship in the name of “saving Democracy.” Without a doubt, those of us who have uncovered censorship have had an impact. On “60 Minutes” last Sunday, the government-funded advocates of censorship at the University of Washington said they have stopped demanding censorship of social media platforms. Simply drawing awareness to who is demanding censorship and who is funding them has weakened their power. But governments, government-funded NGOs, and the news media have been relentless in their demands for a crackdown on speech they deem hateful and false. At the Supreme Court last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed unironic concern that the First Amendment restricts the government’s ability to censor. And everyone from the New Yorker to the New York Times to NBC is suggesting that the only people who are worried about government censorship are Trump supporters, which is obviously false. The 60 Minutes segment was particularly shocking. Lesly Stahl never mentioned the mass censorship of accurate information about COVID’S origins, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. She falsely suggested that shining a light on the censorship activists was tantamount to persecution. And she suggested that if the government didn’t do more to censor misinformation, Trump supporters would overthrow the government, which is a form of disinformation aimed at scaring people into giving up our first and most fundamental freedom. There are many reasons why they are doing this....
2:48

It's All Much Worse Than I Thought The corporate media are all-in on government censorship Over the last three years, we have come to learn of the role that our own government officials have played in demanding censorship by social media platforms. Some of this censorship was overt, particularly as it related to COVID. However, some of it was also done in secrecy, as we discovered in the Twitter Files. Many of us thought that once we had uncovered the censorship, governments would be sufficiently embarrassed to stop doing it. And to some extent, that has been the case. But now, governments around the world are stepping up their efforts to demand more censorship. Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation quietly announced it had resumed its outreach to social media companies. Scotland’s Police could even investigate comedians under a new hate speech law if someone complains about a joke. Major media outlets are currently working with government-funded censorship activists at the University of Washington and Stanford Internet Observatory to demand greater censorship in the name of “saving Democracy.” Without a doubt, those of us who have uncovered censorship have had an impact. On “60 Minutes” last Sunday, the government-funded advocates of censorship at the University of Washington said they have stopped demanding censorship of social media platforms. Simply drawing awareness to who is demanding censorship and who is funding them has weakened their power. But governments, government-funded NGOs, and the news media have been relentless in their demands for a crackdown on speech they deem hateful and false. At the Supreme Court last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed unironic concern that the First Amendment restricts the government’s ability to censor. And everyone from the New Yorker to the New York Times to NBC is suggesting that the only people who are worried about government censorship are Trump supporters, which is obviously false. The 60 Minutes segment was particularly shocking. Lesly Stahl never mentioned the mass censorship of accurate information about COVID’S origins, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. She falsely suggested that shining a light on the censorship activists was tantamount to persecution. And she suggested that if the government didn’t do more to censor misinformation, Trump supporters would overthrow the government, which is a form of disinformation aimed at scaring people into giving up our first and most fundamental freedom. There are many reasons why they are doing this....

Michael Shellenberger

21,897,828 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

The UK Government Just Lost Its War on Your Privacy. Here's How America Stopped It. A chilling precedent was just set—and then defeated. The UK government, under its authoritarian Online Safety Act, made an unprecedented global power grab. They demanded Apple create a "backdoor" to break into the encrypted data of ANY user, ANYWHERE in the world. iCloud photos, messages, notes—nothing would be safe. They wanted the keys to the kingdom. Apple's response? They refused to compromise their users' security and instead REMOVED Advanced Data Protection entirely for UK citizens. They chose to deny a service rather than build a tool for tyranny. This is how they always operate: they sell these draconian measures by targeting "pedophiles" and "criminals." But in reality, who do they arrest? People criticizing the government. People questioning protests. People sharing "wrong" memes. It was never about safety; it was about control. But here's the update that proves the global stakes of this fight: The UK has BACKED DOWN. Why? Because of direct intervention from the United States. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, alongside the President and VP, engaged in high-level talks to protect AMERICAN citizens from this foreign overreach. The result? The UK has DROPPED its mandate. For now, our private data remains private. Our constitutional rights were defended on the world stage. This is a stark reminder: ➤ The fight for free speech and privacy is now global. Digital borders are meaningless to authoritarians. ➤ Your security was protected because a company (Apple) said NO and a government (the U.S.) had the will to stand up for its principles. ➤ The UK's Online Safety Act is still active, creating a digital dark age for British citizens. Platforms like Gab have already completely BLOCKED all UK users to protect them from government coercion and jail time for "hate speech." The question every American must ask: Would this have happened under an administration that openly advocates for censoring "misinformation" and monitoring online speech? The UK's best hope, according to free speech advocates there, now lies with the Trump administration. The beacon of freedom is still burning, but it is under constant attack. This victory is critical, but the war for the soul of the internet is far from over.
7:25

The UK Government Just Lost Its War on Your Privacy. Here's How America Stopped It. A chilling precedent was just set—and then defeated. The UK government, under its authoritarian Online Safety Act, made an unprecedented global power grab. They demanded Apple create a "backdoor" to break into the encrypted data of ANY user, ANYWHERE in the world. iCloud photos, messages, notes—nothing would be safe. They wanted the keys to the kingdom. Apple's response? They refused to compromise their users' security and instead REMOVED Advanced Data Protection entirely for UK citizens. They chose to deny a service rather than build a tool for tyranny. This is how they always operate: they sell these draconian measures by targeting "pedophiles" and "criminals." But in reality, who do they arrest? People criticizing the government. People questioning protests. People sharing "wrong" memes. It was never about safety; it was about control. But here's the update that proves the global stakes of this fight: The UK has BACKED DOWN. Why? Because of direct intervention from the United States. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, alongside the President and VP, engaged in high-level talks to protect AMERICAN citizens from this foreign overreach. The result? The UK has DROPPED its mandate. For now, our private data remains private. Our constitutional rights were defended on the world stage. This is a stark reminder: ➤ The fight for free speech and privacy is now global. Digital borders are meaningless to authoritarians. ➤ Your security was protected because a company (Apple) said NO and a government (the U.S.) had the will to stand up for its principles. ➤ The UK's Online Safety Act is still active, creating a digital dark age for British citizens. Platforms like Gab have already completely BLOCKED all UK users to protect them from government coercion and jail time for "hate speech." The question every American must ask: Would this have happened under an administration that openly advocates for censoring "misinformation" and monitoring online speech? The UK's best hope, according to free speech advocates there, now lies with the Trump administration. The beacon of freedom is still burning, but it is under constant attack. This victory is critical, but the war for the soul of the internet is far from over.

Camus

12,945 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Powerful testimony by dr. Jessica Rose... "Thanks. I'd like to thank senator Johnson for this incredible opportunity to speak today. It is in fact the third invitation extended to me, but only the first that I could attend due to draconian impositions on freedom of movement that we've all been subjected to over the past four years." "Thank you all for attending and caring, so much about each other and the injured. Today, I speak for the people injured by the COVID-19 injectable products through VAERS data." "Analysis of the VAERS pharmacovigilance database in the context of the COVID nineteen injectable products has revealed strong emergent safety signals from myocarditis to death that are not being acknowledged by the owners of the data." "This goes against standard operating procedures and begs the question, why are the injured being hidden? Fact. The Bradford Hill criteria are used to assess causality in epidemiological data such as the VAERS pharmacovigilance system." "Fact. The proportional reporting ratio is used to assess whether or not a particular adverse event is more commonly reported in the context of a particular drug. If the PRR is greater than one, a causal effect is indicated. Fact. The PRR calculation for death from VAERS in the context of the COVID nineteen shots using current VAERS data is 3.6." "Fact. The underreported number of deaths successfully filed to VAERS by 01/20/2021 was six hundred and thirty four. Based on historical guidelines, this was a sufficient this was sufficient as a signal not only to prompt an investigation but to shut down the rollout of the COVID nineteen shots." "Fact, in 1999, a rotavirus vaccine designed to prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis was pulled from the market due to an intussusception signal emanating from VAERS, which comprised 584 cases. Question, if five hundred and eighty four cases of intussusception were enough to prompt product removal, then why weren't six hundred and thirty four cases of death not enough to prompt COVID nineteen product removal?" "Fact. The early death count was hidden. Fact. Currently, 1,615,998 reports of adverse events have been successfully filed to VAERS in the context of the COVID nineteen injectable products with a staggering one million thirteen thousand four hundred and forty two reports filed in 2021 alone when considering both the foreign and domestic datasets." "The number of adverse events reported to the domestic VAERS data set for all vaccines combined has been on average thirty nine thousand in total per year and has been very slowly and steadily increasing in direct proportion to the increasing number of vaccine products on the market. See slide one." "In 2021, however, a fourteen hundred and seventeen percent increase in reporting occurred whereby ninety three percent of these reports were in the context of the COVID-19 products." "Fact. Age is not deterministic for adverse event reporting. Since administration of the COVID nineteen products to the zero to four age group commenced, the rate of adverse event reporting has been increasing faster than for any other age group." "Fact. The argument that this spike protein the spike in reporting spike protein this spike in reporting is due to increased shot administration is false. Slide two shows the comparison of the number of adverse events per million doses in the context of influenza vaccines and the COVID-19 injectable products in 2019 and 2021 respectively." "On the left are the total adverse events, on the right are the deaths. The COVID nineteen injectable products are associated with a twenty six and a 100 fold increase in total adverse events and deaths respectively when compared per million doses with influenza vaccines in the same time frame." "Fact. The Bradford Hill criterion reversibility is satisfied. When a drug is withdrawn, the side effects disappear. A strong correlation of r equals point eight and a high covariance exist between shot rollout data and myocarditis reports filed according to our world and data, new vaccination data, and various data respectively. As shot demand wanes, so do the myocarditis reports. See slide three a." "Fact, the Bradford Hill criterion specificity is satisfied. A very specific population at a specific site and disease is reported with no other likely explanation. Dose two is associated with a fourfold increase in reporting of myocarditis in 15 year old boys. This indicates specificity with regard to age and gender. See slide three b." "Fact. The Bradford Hill criterion dose response is satisfied. Greater exposure leads to greater incidence of the effect. Following dose two, an increase in signal occurs. See slide three b." "Fact, myocarditis is not transient or mild. A new paper published by Rose et al in the journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety shows that myocarditis is associated with hospitalization in seventy six percent of reports. There are seven more Bradford Hill criterion criteria that are satisfiable. That's a 10 out of 10. Bingo." "Conclusion. Standard operating procedures for analysis of safety signals emergent from VAERS when utilized reveal causal links between the COVID nineteen injectable products and the adverse events investigated." "Standard operating procedures are not being followed by the owners of the data, namely CDC, HHS, and FDA, and this equates to hiding the millions of people reporting not only adverse events but injuries in the context of the COVID nineteen injectable products."
5:54

Powerful testimony by dr. Jessica Rose... "Thanks. I'd like to thank senator Johnson for this incredible opportunity to speak today. It is in fact the third invitation extended to me, but only the first that I could attend due to draconian impositions on freedom of movement that we've all been subjected to over the past four years." "Thank you all for attending and caring, so much about each other and the injured. Today, I speak for the people injured by the COVID-19 injectable products through VAERS data." "Analysis of the VAERS pharmacovigilance database in the context of the COVID nineteen injectable products has revealed strong emergent safety signals from myocarditis to death that are not being acknowledged by the owners of the data." "This goes against standard operating procedures and begs the question, why are the injured being hidden? Fact. The Bradford Hill criteria are used to assess causality in epidemiological data such as the VAERS pharmacovigilance system." "Fact. The proportional reporting ratio is used to assess whether or not a particular adverse event is more commonly reported in the context of a particular drug. If the PRR is greater than one, a causal effect is indicated. Fact. The PRR calculation for death from VAERS in the context of the COVID nineteen shots using current VAERS data is 3.6." "Fact. The underreported number of deaths successfully filed to VAERS by 01/20/2021 was six hundred and thirty four. Based on historical guidelines, this was a sufficient this was sufficient as a signal not only to prompt an investigation but to shut down the rollout of the COVID nineteen shots." "Fact, in 1999, a rotavirus vaccine designed to prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis was pulled from the market due to an intussusception signal emanating from VAERS, which comprised 584 cases. Question, if five hundred and eighty four cases of intussusception were enough to prompt product removal, then why weren't six hundred and thirty four cases of death not enough to prompt COVID nineteen product removal?" "Fact. The early death count was hidden. Fact. Currently, 1,615,998 reports of adverse events have been successfully filed to VAERS in the context of the COVID nineteen injectable products with a staggering one million thirteen thousand four hundred and forty two reports filed in 2021 alone when considering both the foreign and domestic datasets." "The number of adverse events reported to the domestic VAERS data set for all vaccines combined has been on average thirty nine thousand in total per year and has been very slowly and steadily increasing in direct proportion to the increasing number of vaccine products on the market. See slide one." "In 2021, however, a fourteen hundred and seventeen percent increase in reporting occurred whereby ninety three percent of these reports were in the context of the COVID-19 products." "Fact. Age is not deterministic for adverse event reporting. Since administration of the COVID nineteen products to the zero to four age group commenced, the rate of adverse event reporting has been increasing faster than for any other age group." "Fact. The argument that this spike protein the spike in reporting spike protein this spike in reporting is due to increased shot administration is false. Slide two shows the comparison of the number of adverse events per million doses in the context of influenza vaccines and the COVID-19 injectable products in 2019 and 2021 respectively." "On the left are the total adverse events, on the right are the deaths. The COVID nineteen injectable products are associated with a twenty six and a 100 fold increase in total adverse events and deaths respectively when compared per million doses with influenza vaccines in the same time frame." "Fact. The Bradford Hill criterion reversibility is satisfied. When a drug is withdrawn, the side effects disappear. A strong correlation of r equals point eight and a high covariance exist between shot rollout data and myocarditis reports filed according to our world and data, new vaccination data, and various data respectively. As shot demand wanes, so do the myocarditis reports. See slide three a." "Fact, the Bradford Hill criterion specificity is satisfied. A very specific population at a specific site and disease is reported with no other likely explanation. Dose two is associated with a fourfold increase in reporting of myocarditis in 15 year old boys. This indicates specificity with regard to age and gender. See slide three b." "Fact. The Bradford Hill criterion dose response is satisfied. Greater exposure leads to greater incidence of the effect. Following dose two, an increase in signal occurs. See slide three b." "Fact, myocarditis is not transient or mild. A new paper published by Rose et al in the journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety shows that myocarditis is associated with hospitalization in seventy six percent of reports. There are seven more Bradford Hill criterion criteria that are satisfiable. That's a 10 out of 10. Bingo." "Conclusion. Standard operating procedures for analysis of safety signals emergent from VAERS when utilized reveal causal links between the COVID nineteen injectable products and the adverse events investigated." "Standard operating procedures are not being followed by the owners of the data, namely CDC, HHS, and FDA, and this equates to hiding the millions of people reporting not only adverse events but injuries in the context of the COVID nineteen injectable products."

Camus

51,299 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Ep. 22 | Free The Money | The Fight for Digital Integrity with Alexis Roussel In this episode, I sit down with privacy activist Alexis Roussel who is the co-founder and COO of Nym Technologies to explore one of the most important ideas of our time: the right to digital integrity. Alexis argues that in a world where our lives are increasingly online, personal data should not be treated as a commodity to be collected, bought, and sold—but as an extension of the individual. Drawing from his background in law, the United Nations, and digital rights advocacy, he explains why protecting human rights in the digital age requires a fundamental shift in how we think about data ownership and privacy. We dive into how governments around the world are tightening control over the internet, from shutdowns in Iran to deep packet inspection, black-box surveillance systems, and forced apps in Russia—and why even EU regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation may be “broken by design.” Alexis makes the case that once data is treated as something that can be collected it opens the door to exploitation. Instead, he’s actively working to enshrine digital integrity into law—pushing to amend the Swiss Constitution so that extracting or misusing personal data without consent is recognized as a violation of human rights. We also explore what comes next: the role of encryption, the dangers of metadata surveillance, and how technologies like Nym’s mixnet aim to make privacy the default. From mesh networks to censorship resistance, this conversation challenges the idea that surveillance equals safety and instead lays out a future where individuals retain control over their digital lives. Check out the most anonymous VPN in the world! Sign up for ITrustCapitol with this link for $100 funding bonus. See why people are opening a tax-advantaged Crypto, Gold & Silver IRA for their future: 0:00 Intro 1:04 Alexis’ background: law, open-source roots & path into privacy 8:43 Co-founding Bity: early Bitcoin brokerage in Switzerland 10:58 Meeting Harry Halpin & joining Nym in Neuchâtel 12:23 Why control of network infrastructure matters: censorship, mesh networks & “anonymous by default” internet 21:09 How governments censor the internet: Iran shutdowns, Russia’s DPI, black box & man-in-the-middle attacks 30:59 Russia’s “Max” app: state-backed super app for surveillance & control 32:29 Europe’s surveillance creep: ISPs storing metadata, backdoors & “Chat Control” 36:34 Privacy vs law enforcement: why mass surveillance doesn’t stop real crime 43:02 Nym Mixnet explained: hiding metadata & why “we kill based on metadata” matters 53:55 Palantir infiltration 56:22 The Right to Digital Integrity & the Cambridge Analytica scandal 1:00:37 Why General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is “broken by design” & treats data like a commodity 1:06:23 zkNym: unlinking identity, payments & network usage 1:13:42 Switzerland’s surveillance laws: VÜPF & BÜPF explained 1:30:07 Book recommendations: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, The Sovereign Individual & Petite Poucette
1:38:31

Ep. 22 | Free The Money | The Fight for Digital Integrity with Alexis Roussel In this episode, I sit down with privacy activist Alexis Roussel who is the co-founder and COO of Nym Technologies to explore one of the most important ideas of our time: the right to digital integrity. Alexis argues that in a world where our lives are increasingly online, personal data should not be treated as a commodity to be collected, bought, and sold—but as an extension of the individual. Drawing from his background in law, the United Nations, and digital rights advocacy, he explains why protecting human rights in the digital age requires a fundamental shift in how we think about data ownership and privacy. We dive into how governments around the world are tightening control over the internet, from shutdowns in Iran to deep packet inspection, black-box surveillance systems, and forced apps in Russia—and why even EU regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation may be “broken by design.” Alexis makes the case that once data is treated as something that can be collected it opens the door to exploitation. Instead, he’s actively working to enshrine digital integrity into law—pushing to amend the Swiss Constitution so that extracting or misusing personal data without consent is recognized as a violation of human rights. We also explore what comes next: the role of encryption, the dangers of metadata surveillance, and how technologies like Nym’s mixnet aim to make privacy the default. From mesh networks to censorship resistance, this conversation challenges the idea that surveillance equals safety and instead lays out a future where individuals retain control over their digital lives. Check out the most anonymous VPN in the world! Sign up for ITrustCapitol with this link for $100 funding bonus. See why people are opening a tax-advantaged Crypto, Gold & Silver IRA for their future: 0:00 Intro 1:04 Alexis’ background: law, open-source roots & path into privacy 8:43 Co-founding Bity: early Bitcoin brokerage in Switzerland 10:58 Meeting Harry Halpin & joining Nym in Neuchâtel 12:23 Why control of network infrastructure matters: censorship, mesh networks & “anonymous by default” internet 21:09 How governments censor the internet: Iran shutdowns, Russia’s DPI, black box & man-in-the-middle attacks 30:59 Russia’s “Max” app: state-backed super app for surveillance & control 32:29 Europe’s surveillance creep: ISPs storing metadata, backdoors & “Chat Control” 36:34 Privacy vs law enforcement: why mass surveillance doesn’t stop real crime 43:02 Nym Mixnet explained: hiding metadata & why “we kill based on metadata” matters 53:55 Palantir infiltration 56:22 The Right to Digital Integrity & the Cambridge Analytica scandal 1:00:37 Why General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is “broken by design” & treats data like a commodity 1:06:23 zkNym: unlinking identity, payments & network usage 1:13:42 Switzerland’s surveillance laws: VÜPF & BÜPF explained 1:30:07 Book recommendations: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, The Sovereign Individual & Petite Poucette

Bri Teresi

32,197 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, And Barack Obama Back Brazil-Style Censorship Next Democratic president and vice president may implement sweeping plan for "fighting misinformation" and "hate speech" Brazil’s banning and blocking of the social media platform X is far more extreme than anything being proposed in the United States, social media regulation experts are telling the New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications. One implication is that we need not be concerned that Brazil-style censorship will ever happen in the US. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz both repeatedly endorsed the three main censorship tactics used by the Brazilian government: censorship of election “misinformation,” de-platforming political opponents, and cross-platform bans, which ban a person not just from one social media platform but from many or even all of them. Harris repeatedly called for the US government to deplatform then-President Donald Trump. In an October 2019 debate, Harris said, “His Twitter account should be shut down.” After the debate she said, “You can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply. There has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites…They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.” When Walz in 2022 called for censorship of election misinformation, he claimed, falsely, that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech and misinformation. “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” said Walz on MSNBC, “and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, or deliberate lying are allowed in most circumstances. First Amendment scholar Jeff Koseff last year published a book, Liar In A Crowded Theater, documenting this history. It’s true that Harris and Walz have not recently repeated their calls for government censorship and that what they called for was not as extreme as what Brazil is doing. They made their statements two to five years ago. And neither Harris nor Walz called for completely banning and blocking social media platforms as the Brazilian government did. But none of that takes away from the severity of their calls for industry-wide, cross-platform deplatforming through government regulation of social media platforms. Before the Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes banned and blocked X in Brazil, he sought cross-platform deplatforming of opposition politicians and independent journalists. Indeed, it was precisely his demands for such cross-platform bans that X owner Elon Musk rejected, which led to Moraes’ decision to block the whole platform. For years, Democrats have sought to regulate social media platforms both directly through the executive branch and through Congress. In 2021 and 2022, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the “Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act,” “Algorithmic Justice Act,” and the “Social Media NUDGE Act” to require social media companies to censor content that could cause “emotional injury,” ban algorithms that result in “discrimination or similar harms,” and impose “limits on account creation and content sharing” of disfavored individuals and their views. While some of these bills have good goals, including protecting privacy, preventing harassment, and increasing transparency, they all give the government far too much power to censor disfavored speech. In the spring of 2022, the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a “Disinformation Governance Board.” One week prior, former President Barack Obama advocated for sweeping US government censorship of social media platforms in a major speech at Stanford University, which appeared timed to support the Disinformation Governance Board and advocate for Congress to regulate social media content for disfavored content. Obama’s speech gave a clear picture of the censorship a Harris-Walz administration may impose. He claimed that “social media platforms tend not to wanna do anything,” and “a regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place” for “slowing the spread of harmful content.” Obama stressed that government “regulation has to be part of the answer.” In his speech, Obama praised the aggressive social censorship that the European Union is currently pursuing through its Digital Services Act (DSA). For decades, the Democrats were the party of free speech in the United States. What changed? How did Harris, Walz, Obama, and dozens of Democratic Senators and members of Congress come to support Brazil-style censorship? Please subscribe now to support Public's investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!
4:56

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, And Barack Obama Back Brazil-Style Censorship Next Democratic president and vice president may implement sweeping plan for "fighting misinformation" and "hate speech" Brazil’s banning and blocking of the social media platform X is far more extreme than anything being proposed in the United States, social media regulation experts are telling the New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications. One implication is that we need not be concerned that Brazil-style censorship will ever happen in the US. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz both repeatedly endorsed the three main censorship tactics used by the Brazilian government: censorship of election “misinformation,” de-platforming political opponents, and cross-platform bans, which ban a person not just from one social media platform but from many or even all of them. Harris repeatedly called for the US government to deplatform then-President Donald Trump. In an October 2019 debate, Harris said, “His Twitter account should be shut down.” After the debate she said, “You can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply. There has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites…They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.” When Walz in 2022 called for censorship of election misinformation, he claimed, falsely, that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech and misinformation. “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” said Walz on MSNBC, “and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, or deliberate lying are allowed in most circumstances. First Amendment scholar Jeff Koseff last year published a book, Liar In A Crowded Theater, documenting this history. It’s true that Harris and Walz have not recently repeated their calls for government censorship and that what they called for was not as extreme as what Brazil is doing. They made their statements two to five years ago. And neither Harris nor Walz called for completely banning and blocking social media platforms as the Brazilian government did. But none of that takes away from the severity of their calls for industry-wide, cross-platform deplatforming through government regulation of social media platforms. Before the Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes banned and blocked X in Brazil, he sought cross-platform deplatforming of opposition politicians and independent journalists. Indeed, it was precisely his demands for such cross-platform bans that X owner Elon Musk rejected, which led to Moraes’ decision to block the whole platform. For years, Democrats have sought to regulate social media platforms both directly through the executive branch and through Congress. In 2021 and 2022, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the “Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act,” “Algorithmic Justice Act,” and the “Social Media NUDGE Act” to require social media companies to censor content that could cause “emotional injury,” ban algorithms that result in “discrimination or similar harms,” and impose “limits on account creation and content sharing” of disfavored individuals and their views. While some of these bills have good goals, including protecting privacy, preventing harassment, and increasing transparency, they all give the government far too much power to censor disfavored speech. In the spring of 2022, the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a “Disinformation Governance Board.” One week prior, former President Barack Obama advocated for sweeping US government censorship of social media platforms in a major speech at Stanford University, which appeared timed to support the Disinformation Governance Board and advocate for Congress to regulate social media content for disfavored content. Obama’s speech gave a clear picture of the censorship a Harris-Walz administration may impose. He claimed that “social media platforms tend not to wanna do anything,” and “a regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place” for “slowing the spread of harmful content.” Obama stressed that government “regulation has to be part of the answer.” In his speech, Obama praised the aggressive social censorship that the European Union is currently pursuing through its Digital Services Act (DSA). For decades, the Democrats were the party of free speech in the United States. What changed? How did Harris, Walz, Obama, and dozens of Democratic Senators and members of Congress come to support Brazil-style censorship? Please subscribe now to support Public's investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

131,350 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

In the spring of 2022, former President Barack Obama gave a major policy addressat Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, where he laid out a sweeping proposal for government censorship of social media platforms through the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. Six days later, President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security announced that it had created a “Disinformation Governance Board” to serve as an Orwellian Ministry of Truth with the clear goal of controlling the information Americans could access online. At the heart of Obama’s vision for Internet censorship was legislation that would have authorized the US government’s National Science Foundation to authorize and fund supposedly independent NGOs to censor the Internet. The DHS and Stanford Internet Observatory, which was part of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, pioneered this censorship-by-proxy strategy as a way to get around the First Amendment in 2020 with posts raising concerns about the 2020 elections and in 2021 with “narratives” expressing concern about the Covid vaccine. The 2024 election of President Donald Trump significantly reduced the threat of Obama, DHS, and NSF censoring the American people. Trump defunded much of the Censorship Industrial Complex. The Platform Accountability Act is going nowhere in Congress. Elon Musk fired most of the censorship staff at Twitter and has allowed a significantly wider range of speech on the platform. And even before Trump’s election, Stanford donor Frank McCourt stopped funding the Stanford Internet Observatory after Public, Racket News, and House Weaponization Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan exposed its central role in the DHS censorship-by-proxy scheme. But now, foreign governments, including Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia, and others are demanding censorship, including of the American people. The risk is that US tech companies will find it significantly less expensive to have a single global censorship regime and just go along with foreign censorship requests. Facebook complied with Biden administration demands to censor because it needed Biden’s help in dealing with European censorship officials. And the Brazilian government forced Elon Musk to continue censoring the Brazilian people after it froze Starlink’s assets. And Public has discovered that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, which is led by Obama’s former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, is at the heart of a new, secretive, and possibly illegal censorship initiative that appears even more ambitious than the one Obama proposed in 2022. On September 24, the Cyber Policy Center hosted a secret dinner between its leaders and top censorship officials from Europe, UK, Brazil, California and Australia. The meeting was titled “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.” Frank McCourt, the same person behind the Stanford Internet Observatory, financed the gathering through his “Project Liberty Institute,” (PLI), toward which he gave $500 million to “strengthen democracy” and “foster responsible technology.” Public emailed all 21 participants and organizers and only heard from four, PLI, the Australian government, the UK government, and the European Union, which declined to comment because, even though Public gave it over 24 hours, a spokesperson said, “We would need several days.” The UK government said, “The legal framework gives Ofcom power to enforce the duties in the Act which are related to securing protections for people in the UK; it does not give Ofcom powers to enforce under any other legal regimes…. Ofcom has always engaged with various international forums and networks across all of the sectors we regulate, including online safety, spectrum, telecommunications, post, and broadcast and media. Regulators around the world regularly exchange insights, experience, and best practice.” A spokesperson for PLI said it “has made unrestricted gifts to several academic research programs, including Stanford University” and that “PLI does not receive funding from governments, intergovernmental organizations, or large technology companies.” But PLI’s own policy “blueprint” reveals that it is demanding a single total global censorship regime and intends to use the EU’s market power, known as the “Brussels effect,” to force big tech companies to comply. The blueprint calls for governments to “Recommit to a Single, Global Internet,” with “regulatory interoperability and oversight, to achieve a single unified market” and use the large size of the EU market to “drive bilateral and multilateral agendas to formally enshrine reciprocal guarantees.” A spokesperson for the Australian government said, “Whilst in attendance at Stanford for the 2-day conference, some attendees, including trust and safety researchers, industry, civil society, and government representatives, were also invited to attend an informal evening roundtable event organised by Stanford University entitled, ‘Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.’ This roundtable did not involve any discussion of compliance coordination or regulatory information sharing.” The Australian spokesperson claimed that “eSafety has no role in regulating hate speech or disinformation. eSafety has no remit or interest in regulating the affairs of other nations, nor does it have any role in diplomatic, trade or other government-to-government relations.” But it also said, “As the internet is global and functions irrespective of national borders, by necessity eSafety collaborates with law enforcement, other government agencies, and non-government partners around the world, including in the United States.” The leaked agenda’s stated purpose was to “discuss the state of compliance and enforcement” in order to “identify where data, research, and expertise can enable more effective compliance with and enforcement of existing policy.” Much of the following two days of the public conference were focused on coordinating government censorship (“regulation”) of social media platforms, and the other nations that attended the meeting are all intensively involved in censoring their citizens and US tech companies. And, the head of Australia’s eSafety, Julie Inman-Grant, who was a keynote speaker at Stanford’s foreign censorship meeting, is also the head of a global government censorship network that serves as forum, she told the World Economic Forum, “to help us coordinate, build capacity and do just that…. We use the tools that we have, and can be effective, but we know we’re going to be, go, much further, when we work together with other like-minded independent statutory authorities around the globe.” As such, the people who are demanding censorship are once again spreading disinformation about what they are doing. All of this is happening in a context of global censorship intensifying. The UK government arrests 30 people per day for “offensive” social media posts, is attempting to censor 4Chan, which has no servers in the UK, and will mandate digital IDs for employment, which may give unprecedented control to politicians and bureaucrats to censor. The Brazilian government has, for year,s been censoring journalists and policymakers, incarcerating people for legal social media content, and threatening prosecution of journalists, including this author. And several European nations are censoring and arresting their citizens, preventing opposition political candidates from running for office, and preparing to implement digital IDs. Why did Stanford Cyber Policy Center hold this meeting, what is its strategy for global censorship? Who leaked the agenda to Public and why? And what can be done to stop Stanford, Brazil, Australia, the EU and others from realizing their totalitarian censorial vision? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigatie journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!
7:34

In the spring of 2022, former President Barack Obama gave a major policy addressat Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, where he laid out a sweeping proposal for government censorship of social media platforms through the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. Six days later, President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security announced that it had created a “Disinformation Governance Board” to serve as an Orwellian Ministry of Truth with the clear goal of controlling the information Americans could access online. At the heart of Obama’s vision for Internet censorship was legislation that would have authorized the US government’s National Science Foundation to authorize and fund supposedly independent NGOs to censor the Internet. The DHS and Stanford Internet Observatory, which was part of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, pioneered this censorship-by-proxy strategy as a way to get around the First Amendment in 2020 with posts raising concerns about the 2020 elections and in 2021 with “narratives” expressing concern about the Covid vaccine. The 2024 election of President Donald Trump significantly reduced the threat of Obama, DHS, and NSF censoring the American people. Trump defunded much of the Censorship Industrial Complex. The Platform Accountability Act is going nowhere in Congress. Elon Musk fired most of the censorship staff at Twitter and has allowed a significantly wider range of speech on the platform. And even before Trump’s election, Stanford donor Frank McCourt stopped funding the Stanford Internet Observatory after Public, Racket News, and House Weaponization Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan exposed its central role in the DHS censorship-by-proxy scheme. But now, foreign governments, including Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia, and others are demanding censorship, including of the American people. The risk is that US tech companies will find it significantly less expensive to have a single global censorship regime and just go along with foreign censorship requests. Facebook complied with Biden administration demands to censor because it needed Biden’s help in dealing with European censorship officials. And the Brazilian government forced Elon Musk to continue censoring the Brazilian people after it froze Starlink’s assets. And Public has discovered that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, which is led by Obama’s former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, is at the heart of a new, secretive, and possibly illegal censorship initiative that appears even more ambitious than the one Obama proposed in 2022. On September 24, the Cyber Policy Center hosted a secret dinner between its leaders and top censorship officials from Europe, UK, Brazil, California and Australia. The meeting was titled “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.” Frank McCourt, the same person behind the Stanford Internet Observatory, financed the gathering through his “Project Liberty Institute,” (PLI), toward which he gave $500 million to “strengthen democracy” and “foster responsible technology.” Public emailed all 21 participants and organizers and only heard from four, PLI, the Australian government, the UK government, and the European Union, which declined to comment because, even though Public gave it over 24 hours, a spokesperson said, “We would need several days.” The UK government said, “The legal framework gives Ofcom power to enforce the duties in the Act which are related to securing protections for people in the UK; it does not give Ofcom powers to enforce under any other legal regimes…. Ofcom has always engaged with various international forums and networks across all of the sectors we regulate, including online safety, spectrum, telecommunications, post, and broadcast and media. Regulators around the world regularly exchange insights, experience, and best practice.” A spokesperson for PLI said it “has made unrestricted gifts to several academic research programs, including Stanford University” and that “PLI does not receive funding from governments, intergovernmental organizations, or large technology companies.” But PLI’s own policy “blueprint” reveals that it is demanding a single total global censorship regime and intends to use the EU’s market power, known as the “Brussels effect,” to force big tech companies to comply. The blueprint calls for governments to “Recommit to a Single, Global Internet,” with “regulatory interoperability and oversight, to achieve a single unified market” and use the large size of the EU market to “drive bilateral and multilateral agendas to formally enshrine reciprocal guarantees.” A spokesperson for the Australian government said, “Whilst in attendance at Stanford for the 2-day conference, some attendees, including trust and safety researchers, industry, civil society, and government representatives, were also invited to attend an informal evening roundtable event organised by Stanford University entitled, ‘Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.’ This roundtable did not involve any discussion of compliance coordination or regulatory information sharing.” The Australian spokesperson claimed that “eSafety has no role in regulating hate speech or disinformation. eSafety has no remit or interest in regulating the affairs of other nations, nor does it have any role in diplomatic, trade or other government-to-government relations.” But it also said, “As the internet is global and functions irrespective of national borders, by necessity eSafety collaborates with law enforcement, other government agencies, and non-government partners around the world, including in the United States.” The leaked agenda’s stated purpose was to “discuss the state of compliance and enforcement” in order to “identify where data, research, and expertise can enable more effective compliance with and enforcement of existing policy.” Much of the following two days of the public conference were focused on coordinating government censorship (“regulation”) of social media platforms, and the other nations that attended the meeting are all intensively involved in censoring their citizens and US tech companies. And, the head of Australia’s eSafety, Julie Inman-Grant, who was a keynote speaker at Stanford’s foreign censorship meeting, is also the head of a global government censorship network that serves as forum, she told the World Economic Forum, “to help us coordinate, build capacity and do just that…. We use the tools that we have, and can be effective, but we know we’re going to be, go, much further, when we work together with other like-minded independent statutory authorities around the globe.” As such, the people who are demanding censorship are once again spreading disinformation about what they are doing. All of this is happening in a context of global censorship intensifying. The UK government arrests 30 people per day for “offensive” social media posts, is attempting to censor 4Chan, which has no servers in the UK, and will mandate digital IDs for employment, which may give unprecedented control to politicians and bureaucrats to censor. The Brazilian government has, for year,s been censoring journalists and policymakers, incarcerating people for legal social media content, and threatening prosecution of journalists, including this author. And several European nations are censoring and arresting their citizens, preventing opposition political candidates from running for office, and preparing to implement digital IDs. Why did Stanford Cyber Policy Center hold this meeting, what is its strategy for global censorship? Who leaked the agenda to Public and why? And what can be done to stop Stanford, Brazil, Australia, the EU and others from realizing their totalitarian censorial vision? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigatie journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

195,959 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🚨 With this platform China’s security apparatus can track foreigners and anyone deemed “of interest” to the state within the country. Foreign students, foreign spouses of Chinese citizens and even foreign journalists, including The Telegraph’s, were included in the sensitive data points as part of the “Dynamic Control Platform for Foreigners” programme. The data allow the state to instantly track where American, British and other foreign citizens are located within China, who they come into contact with, their past movements and who they regularly associate with. This confirms the nature of China’s intrusive physical and digital surveillance, and raises serious questions about civilian privacy and threats to press freedom. China is ranked third-worst on the World Press Freedom Index, just above North Korea and Eritrea, and is the biggest jailer of journalists with 121 media professionals behind bars. The platform was first discovered by NetAskari, an independent cybersecurity researcher focused on China, and has been shared with and analysed by The Telegraph. “In the Chinese context, it makes sense that they’re tracking journalists who they consider an ‘enemy of the state’, or at least worth keeping an eye on, and that’s been around since the inception of the People’s Republic of China under communist rule.” “They’ve never liked journalists from the get-go. Journalists are seen as just another actor in this big game of controlling the narrative, controlling the minds of the people, controlling the reality of history — because that’s how the party operates; that’s how they think.” A deep dive into the platform, branded with the government’s security insignia, offers a rare look at how Chinese authorities are integrating millions of data points pulled from surveillance cameras, visa details and travel booking apps — amongst other information — to holistically track people. China is quickly transforming into a dystopian authoritarian state after investing over the past two decades in physical and digital surveillance capabilities, creating the world’s largest and most comprehensive security infrastructure. Dissidents and foreign journalists are routinely harassed in China and abroad. Aside from human informants, the government has built a digital dragnet using surveillance cameras that blanket the country. Some cameras pivot to capture entire streets while others are equipped with facial recognition. The government has boasted about these programmes, such as Skynet, launched in 2005, and Sharp Eyes, launched in 2015, aimed at achieving 100 per cent coverage of public areas. The latter programme, called 雪亮 in Chinese, is a reference to Mao Zedong, the chairman, who once said “the people have sharp eyes”. Officials and state media routinely cite these as examples of China’s advanced technological prowess. As far back as 2018, Chinese tech firms were working to develop “gait recognition” software. China now has more than 700 million surveillance cameras — averaging at least one device per two people in the country — to eliminate blind spots in its “grid-style” security monitoring, including in rural and remote areas. China’s fast consumer-technology adoption — from QR-code payments to digital ID scans, which were all already in place a decade ago — also means that the government has collected years’ worth of data. All mobile apps, for instance, whether for booking taxis, ordering takeaway, or digital subway tickets, require real-ID registration. The surveillance dragnet received a further boost during the coronavirus pandemic, when the Chinese state unleashed draconian measures for contact tracing, requiring people to install tracking apps purportedly to gauge potential exposure to Covid. In some cases, the authorities installed security cameras inside people’s homes and motion sensors at their front doors. 1/2
2:30

🚨 With this platform China’s security apparatus can track foreigners and anyone deemed “of interest” to the state within the country. Foreign students, foreign spouses of Chinese citizens and even foreign journalists, including The Telegraph’s, were included in the sensitive data points as part of the “Dynamic Control Platform for Foreigners” programme. The data allow the state to instantly track where American, British and other foreign citizens are located within China, who they come into contact with, their past movements and who they regularly associate with. This confirms the nature of China’s intrusive physical and digital surveillance, and raises serious questions about civilian privacy and threats to press freedom. China is ranked third-worst on the World Press Freedom Index, just above North Korea and Eritrea, and is the biggest jailer of journalists with 121 media professionals behind bars. The platform was first discovered by NetAskari, an independent cybersecurity researcher focused on China, and has been shared with and analysed by The Telegraph. “In the Chinese context, it makes sense that they’re tracking journalists who they consider an ‘enemy of the state’, or at least worth keeping an eye on, and that’s been around since the inception of the People’s Republic of China under communist rule.” “They’ve never liked journalists from the get-go. Journalists are seen as just another actor in this big game of controlling the narrative, controlling the minds of the people, controlling the reality of history — because that’s how the party operates; that’s how they think.” A deep dive into the platform, branded with the government’s security insignia, offers a rare look at how Chinese authorities are integrating millions of data points pulled from surveillance cameras, visa details and travel booking apps — amongst other information — to holistically track people. China is quickly transforming into a dystopian authoritarian state after investing over the past two decades in physical and digital surveillance capabilities, creating the world’s largest and most comprehensive security infrastructure. Dissidents and foreign journalists are routinely harassed in China and abroad. Aside from human informants, the government has built a digital dragnet using surveillance cameras that blanket the country. Some cameras pivot to capture entire streets while others are equipped with facial recognition. The government has boasted about these programmes, such as Skynet, launched in 2005, and Sharp Eyes, launched in 2015, aimed at achieving 100 per cent coverage of public areas. The latter programme, called 雪亮 in Chinese, is a reference to Mao Zedong, the chairman, who once said “the people have sharp eyes”. Officials and state media routinely cite these as examples of China’s advanced technological prowess. As far back as 2018, Chinese tech firms were working to develop “gait recognition” software. China now has more than 700 million surveillance cameras — averaging at least one device per two people in the country — to eliminate blind spots in its “grid-style” security monitoring, including in rural and remote areas. China’s fast consumer-technology adoption — from QR-code payments to digital ID scans, which were all already in place a decade ago — also means that the government has collected years’ worth of data. All mobile apps, for instance, whether for booking taxis, ordering takeaway, or digital subway tickets, require real-ID registration. The surveillance dragnet received a further boost during the coronavirus pandemic, when the Chinese state unleashed draconian measures for contact tracing, requiring people to install tracking apps purportedly to gauge potential exposure to Covid. In some cases, the authorities installed security cameras inside people’s homes and motion sensors at their front doors. 1/2

Byron Wan

22,506 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The Hidden Crisis in Modern Medicine: A Call for Change Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a renowned cardiologist and outspoken advocate for medical transparency, has sounded the alarm on a deeply troubling crisis in modern medicine—one that claims countless lives and undermines the trust patients place in the healthcare system. Speaking with urgency and clarity, Dr. Malhotra reveals how the pharmaceutical industry’s influence has corrupted the integrity of medical practice, leaving millions of patients uninformed and at risk. His message is a wake-up call: the system is broken, and it’s time for the public to demand accountability. Dr. Malhotra highlights a staggering statistic: prescribed medications are the third leading cause of death globally, trailing only heart disease and cancer. This grim reality, which predates the COVID-19 pandemic, stems not from medical errors but from the side effects of drugs prescribed under a flawed system. Patients, he argues, are not receiving fully informed consent because the information they and their doctors rely on is tainted by bias and corruption. While doctors themselves are not to blame—they are conditioned by a system fed with manipulated data—the consequences are devastating. At the heart of this crisis lies the pharmaceutical industry’s stranglehold on regulatory bodies. Dr. Malhotra points to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK, which receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), funded 50-65% by Big Pharma. These agencies, tasked with protecting the public, often fail to independently evaluate the data provided by the very companies they regulate. The result? Drugs are approved and marketed based on incomplete or manipulated evidence, leaving patients vulnerable to harm. Dr. Malhotra doesn’t mince words when describing the pharmaceutical industry’s behavior. As legal entities, he argues, these corporations exhibit psychopathic traits: a callous disregard for safety, an incapacity for guilt, and a pattern of lying and manipulation for profit. He cites the chilling case of Vioxx, a blockbuster painkiller marketed by Merck in the late 1990s. Touted as a safer alternative to ibuprofen, Vioxx was linked to heart attacks and strokes—risks Merck’s executives knew about but concealed. Internal emails uncovered during litigation, as revealed by Dr. John Abramson, a former Harvard physician, showed Merck’s chief scientist acknowledging the cardiovascular risks while callously predicting the drug’s financial success. The toll? An estimated 60,000 deaths in the U.S. alone. Merck was fined nearly $1 billion for fraud, yet no executives faced personal consequences, and the company continued business as usual. Even more shocking, when the FDA instructed Merck to add a black box warning to Vioxx’s packaging to alert the public of its risks, Merck ignored the directive. Instead, they ramped up marketing, purchasing reprints of a New England Journal of Medicine article—initially suggesting the drug’s safety—for nearly $1 million. These reprints were used as marketing tools to mislead doctors and patients, doubling down on the false narrative of safety. Dr. Malhotra calls this behavior “nothing short of psychopathic.” This is not an isolated incident. Over decades, pharmaceutical companies have paid billions in fines for hiding data on harms, manipulating research, and engaging in fraudulent practices. The cumulative impact? Millions of lives lost to preventable drug-related harms. Yet, most doctors remain unaware of the extent of this misconduct, relying on guidelines and studies influenced by the same industry. Patients, in turn, are left in the dark, trusting a system that prioritizes profit over safety. Dr. Malhotra emphasizes that change is possible—and urgently needed. He points to the efforts of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and Dr. Marty Makary, the new head of the FDA, who are working to reform the system. Their mission is to restore integrity to medical research and regulation, ensuring that patients receive transparent, evidence-based care. But they cannot do it alone. Dr. Malhotra calls on the public to raise awareness, refuse to stay silent, and demand accountability from regulators, institutions, and the pharmaceutical industry. The path forward requires a collective awakening. By exposing these injustices and supporting leaders who prioritize public health over corporate interests, we can rebuild a medical system that truly serves patients. Dr. Malhotra’s message is clear: the time for complacency is over. Share this truth, make noise, and join the fight for a safer, more ethical future in medicine.
5:20

The Hidden Crisis in Modern Medicine: A Call for Change Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a renowned cardiologist and outspoken advocate for medical transparency, has sounded the alarm on a deeply troubling crisis in modern medicine—one that claims countless lives and undermines the trust patients place in the healthcare system. Speaking with urgency and clarity, Dr. Malhotra reveals how the pharmaceutical industry’s influence has corrupted the integrity of medical practice, leaving millions of patients uninformed and at risk. His message is a wake-up call: the system is broken, and it’s time for the public to demand accountability. Dr. Malhotra highlights a staggering statistic: prescribed medications are the third leading cause of death globally, trailing only heart disease and cancer. This grim reality, which predates the COVID-19 pandemic, stems not from medical errors but from the side effects of drugs prescribed under a flawed system. Patients, he argues, are not receiving fully informed consent because the information they and their doctors rely on is tainted by bias and corruption. While doctors themselves are not to blame—they are conditioned by a system fed with manipulated data—the consequences are devastating. At the heart of this crisis lies the pharmaceutical industry’s stranglehold on regulatory bodies. Dr. Malhotra points to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK, which receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), funded 50-65% by Big Pharma. These agencies, tasked with protecting the public, often fail to independently evaluate the data provided by the very companies they regulate. The result? Drugs are approved and marketed based on incomplete or manipulated evidence, leaving patients vulnerable to harm. Dr. Malhotra doesn’t mince words when describing the pharmaceutical industry’s behavior. As legal entities, he argues, these corporations exhibit psychopathic traits: a callous disregard for safety, an incapacity for guilt, and a pattern of lying and manipulation for profit. He cites the chilling case of Vioxx, a blockbuster painkiller marketed by Merck in the late 1990s. Touted as a safer alternative to ibuprofen, Vioxx was linked to heart attacks and strokes—risks Merck’s executives knew about but concealed. Internal emails uncovered during litigation, as revealed by Dr. John Abramson, a former Harvard physician, showed Merck’s chief scientist acknowledging the cardiovascular risks while callously predicting the drug’s financial success. The toll? An estimated 60,000 deaths in the U.S. alone. Merck was fined nearly $1 billion for fraud, yet no executives faced personal consequences, and the company continued business as usual. Even more shocking, when the FDA instructed Merck to add a black box warning to Vioxx’s packaging to alert the public of its risks, Merck ignored the directive. Instead, they ramped up marketing, purchasing reprints of a New England Journal of Medicine article—initially suggesting the drug’s safety—for nearly $1 million. These reprints were used as marketing tools to mislead doctors and patients, doubling down on the false narrative of safety. Dr. Malhotra calls this behavior “nothing short of psychopathic.” This is not an isolated incident. Over decades, pharmaceutical companies have paid billions in fines for hiding data on harms, manipulating research, and engaging in fraudulent practices. The cumulative impact? Millions of lives lost to preventable drug-related harms. Yet, most doctors remain unaware of the extent of this misconduct, relying on guidelines and studies influenced by the same industry. Patients, in turn, are left in the dark, trusting a system that prioritizes profit over safety. Dr. Malhotra emphasizes that change is possible—and urgently needed. He points to the efforts of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and Dr. Marty Makary, the new head of the FDA, who are working to reform the system. Their mission is to restore integrity to medical research and regulation, ensuring that patients receive transparent, evidence-based care. But they cannot do it alone. Dr. Malhotra calls on the public to raise awareness, refuse to stay silent, and demand accountability from regulators, institutions, and the pharmaceutical industry. The path forward requires a collective awakening. By exposing these injustices and supporting leaders who prioritize public health over corporate interests, we can rebuild a medical system that truly serves patients. Dr. Malhotra’s message is clear: the time for complacency is over. Share this truth, make noise, and join the fight for a safer, more ethical future in medicine.

Camus

112,631 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has moved swiftly to dismantle the federal censorship infrastructure. In his first week, he signed an executive order barring agencies from funding or facilitating the monitoring or removal of lawful domestic speech. His administration has phased out censorship-related NSF grants, eliminated the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which had coordinated with outside groups to shape online narratives, and shut down USAID, which funded censorship advocacy in Europe and Brazil. And Trump’s 2026 budget proposes cutting $491 million from the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency, which oversaw election and Covid censorship in 2020 and 2021. But the threat to free speech remains and has even grown stronger around the world, particularly in Europe. The UK is arresting 30 people per day for speech crimes. In Germany, 14 little-known state media agencies (SMAs) empowered by the 2020 “Media State Treaty” now monitor private journalists for compliance with vague “journalistic diligence” standards while exempting public broadcasters from the same scrutiny. French authorities want mandatory digital identification for users of social media platforms. The European Commission appears to desire the power to ban or censor whole platforms, particularly Elon Musk’s X. And an Irish newspaper this week reported that the European Commission accused Ireland of “failing” to comply with laws regulating hate speech. The wind remains at the back of free speech lovers. The change of government in the U.S. is already influencing Europe, where officials appear to be reconsidering some of the most aggressive censorship policies. In the UK, American negotiators have raised concerns about free speech tied to the Online Safety Act. At the same time, in the EU, the Digital Services Act enforcement faces legal and logistical delays. France has drawn criticism for prosecuting satirical speech, and in Germany, a CBS 60 Minutes segment has fueled backlash against selective speech policing. Meanwhile, some in Brussels worry that the EU’s growing alignment with censorship risks its credibility as a champion of liberal democracy. Even so, there is reason to be alarmed by what’s happening in Europe, says the Foundation for Freedom Online’s Mike Benz. “The most existential threats are now shifting around the international landscape and how that boomerangs back to the U.S.,” he said in a new podcast. American censorship leaders are working with European governments and NGOs to impose European censorship on social media platforms. “The University of Cambridge Social Decisionmaking Lab works with the Global Engagement Center at the State Department,” he said. “It works with CISA at DHS. It works with the entire USAID network and USAID funds dozens of these funds — University of Cambridge’s censorship work, London School of Economics, King's College, Sheffield College, Oxford Internet Institute — the State Department and USAID fund all these. And they effectively are a foreign group that is paid for by taxpayers to subvert the agenda taxpayers voted for. It's an incredible scandal.” And Europe is reacting to the Trump administration by seeking to replace the financing it cut for censorship. “Just this week,” Benz said, “the EU announced a a giant science research fund, $500 million, as an initial pool of funding and said they are actively recruiting researchers from the United States who USAID funded to come get their funds so they can continue their work by going to the EU. And this is happening in tandem with a tense standoff between the Trump administration and the EU over everything from Russia-Ukraine to tariff policy to tech regulation to you name it. And so the EU is basically pumping up the shadow diplomacy aspect of the US.” All of this is happening at a time when the ruling parties in Germany, France, and Romania are resorting to increasingly undemocratic tactics in what appear to be desperate attempts to hold onto power as populist challengers surge in the polls. In Germany, the domestic intelligence service has officially labeled the AfD “extremist” a transparent response to the new government’s weakness and the AfD’s new status as the nation’s most popular political party. In France, prosecutors banned Marine Le Pen from running for president at a time where she too is polling first nationwide. And in Romania, the high court disqualified the leading opposition candidate from running for president, which most believe is a reaction to his opposition to a new NATO base in Romania. “What's happening in Europe right now is simultaneously highly optimistic, white-pilling, inspiring, but also dark, twisted, sadistic, calamitous, catastrophic, and apocalyptic,” said Benz. Populist political success has caused NATO and the EU establishment to have “prosecutors and judges nullifying or barring candidates from running when they're winning, and prosecutors taking them out so they can't run again or can't make their voices heard or can't campaign because they're in prison or outright barred.” Why is this happening? What can be done about it? Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!
10:48

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has moved swiftly to dismantle the federal censorship infrastructure. In his first week, he signed an executive order barring agencies from funding or facilitating the monitoring or removal of lawful domestic speech. His administration has phased out censorship-related NSF grants, eliminated the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which had coordinated with outside groups to shape online narratives, and shut down USAID, which funded censorship advocacy in Europe and Brazil. And Trump’s 2026 budget proposes cutting $491 million from the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency, which oversaw election and Covid censorship in 2020 and 2021. But the threat to free speech remains and has even grown stronger around the world, particularly in Europe. The UK is arresting 30 people per day for speech crimes. In Germany, 14 little-known state media agencies (SMAs) empowered by the 2020 “Media State Treaty” now monitor private journalists for compliance with vague “journalistic diligence” standards while exempting public broadcasters from the same scrutiny. French authorities want mandatory digital identification for users of social media platforms. The European Commission appears to desire the power to ban or censor whole platforms, particularly Elon Musk’s X. And an Irish newspaper this week reported that the European Commission accused Ireland of “failing” to comply with laws regulating hate speech. The wind remains at the back of free speech lovers. The change of government in the U.S. is already influencing Europe, where officials appear to be reconsidering some of the most aggressive censorship policies. In the UK, American negotiators have raised concerns about free speech tied to the Online Safety Act. At the same time, in the EU, the Digital Services Act enforcement faces legal and logistical delays. France has drawn criticism for prosecuting satirical speech, and in Germany, a CBS 60 Minutes segment has fueled backlash against selective speech policing. Meanwhile, some in Brussels worry that the EU’s growing alignment with censorship risks its credibility as a champion of liberal democracy. Even so, there is reason to be alarmed by what’s happening in Europe, says the Foundation for Freedom Online’s Mike Benz. “The most existential threats are now shifting around the international landscape and how that boomerangs back to the U.S.,” he said in a new podcast. American censorship leaders are working with European governments and NGOs to impose European censorship on social media platforms. “The University of Cambridge Social Decisionmaking Lab works with the Global Engagement Center at the State Department,” he said. “It works with CISA at DHS. It works with the entire USAID network and USAID funds dozens of these funds — University of Cambridge’s censorship work, London School of Economics, King's College, Sheffield College, Oxford Internet Institute — the State Department and USAID fund all these. And they effectively are a foreign group that is paid for by taxpayers to subvert the agenda taxpayers voted for. It's an incredible scandal.” And Europe is reacting to the Trump administration by seeking to replace the financing it cut for censorship. “Just this week,” Benz said, “the EU announced a a giant science research fund, $500 million, as an initial pool of funding and said they are actively recruiting researchers from the United States who USAID funded to come get their funds so they can continue their work by going to the EU. And this is happening in tandem with a tense standoff between the Trump administration and the EU over everything from Russia-Ukraine to tariff policy to tech regulation to you name it. And so the EU is basically pumping up the shadow diplomacy aspect of the US.” All of this is happening at a time when the ruling parties in Germany, France, and Romania are resorting to increasingly undemocratic tactics in what appear to be desperate attempts to hold onto power as populist challengers surge in the polls. In Germany, the domestic intelligence service has officially labeled the AfD “extremist” a transparent response to the new government’s weakness and the AfD’s new status as the nation’s most popular political party. In France, prosecutors banned Marine Le Pen from running for president at a time where she too is polling first nationwide. And in Romania, the high court disqualified the leading opposition candidate from running for president, which most believe is a reaction to his opposition to a new NATO base in Romania. “What's happening in Europe right now is simultaneously highly optimistic, white-pilling, inspiring, but also dark, twisted, sadistic, calamitous, catastrophic, and apocalyptic,” said Benz. Populist political success has caused NATO and the EU establishment to have “prosecutors and judges nullifying or barring candidates from running when they're winning, and prosecutors taking them out so they can't run again or can't make their voices heard or can't campaign because they're in prison or outright barred.” Why is this happening? What can be done about it? Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

189,345 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Very powerful testimony by dr. Sabine Hazan "Thank you, senator. It's an honor to be here. The microbiome, our microbes in our guts, is our immunity and tells the story and will tell the story of COVID nineteen. And this is why as a gastroenterologist, I stepped into the pandemic. Through my experience, I will show you how difficult it was to conduct research and publish when the research goes against the national public health narrative." "Interference and delay in research happened and affects all of us. In early twenty twenty, my research genetic sequencing laboratory was the first lab to document the entire sequence of the virus in the stools as opposed to the PCR which is just a little piece of the virus." "We discovered that the virus lingered in the stools for up to forty five days. It took six months to publish this publication at a time where everybody needed to know that it was in your stools. My lab also showed that COVID nineteen in the stools was killed by hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin." "But unfortunately, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine killed the microbiome. So therefore, vitamin c, d, and zinc was added. Three protocols were submitted to the FDA from our findings. Three studies were also put into in full transparencies to help doctors more effectively treat COVID because I knew data that nobody knew. 04/02/2020, FDA gave us an exempt letter for doing a clinical trial." "In other words, we did not need to do a clinical trial on hydroxychloroquine, z pack, vitamin c, d, and zinc as treatment or hydroxychloroquine, vitamin c, d, and zinc as prophylaxis. April 4, somebody must have called the FDA and said, I got another letter saying, I'm sorry, doctor Hazan. Exemption is denied. You must do a full on clinical trial. Here's the letter." "System pressures delayed us, and we got a green light to start recruiting by May 2020. By then, the media created fear around hydroxychloroquine. It was impossible to recruit. This drug was safely given for years for arthritis and lupus with no problems. My clinical trials companies were also banned and censored from advertising on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter." "Remember, I do clinical trials for a living and never as a clinical trial doctor have I not been able to advertise to recruit for a trial on social media. I kept collecting stools of patients and noticed that patients with severe COVID had a certain bacteria that was missing compared to people that were highly exposed to COVID but never got COVID. That bacteria is called bifidobacteria. Bifidobacteria is an important and key microbe for immunity. It represents your trillion dollar industry of probiotics." "In fact, when you turn the bottle and you see the ingredient, it says bifidobacteria. It is present in newborns. This is why your newborns did not get a problem from COVID at the beginning, and it is absent in old people. The process of aging is loss of bifidobacteria. We published this paper, the lost microbes of COVID nineteen." "It took eight months to publish. If you follow the bifidobacteria like I did, you will notice, and we did notice anyways, that vitamin c actually increases bifidobacteria. This is why vitamin c is important when you take when you take care of viruses and, you know, you've all experienced taking vitamin c for a cold." "Well, we published this data where we showed vitamin c, if we give it to patients before and after, it increased the bifidobacteria. Ivermectin was also an interesting drug because Ivermectin, we noticed, also increased the bifidobacteria within twenty four hours of taking it." "Why Ivermectin? If you look at what Ivermectin is, it is a fermented product of a bacteria that is similar to bifidobacteria. In fact, they're in the same continent of microbes. They live. They're like sisters, brothers in the microbiome." "So I published. I knew that ivermectin increased bifidobacteria, but I said, nah. I can't go out there and start publishing that. That's gonna be too controversial. So I published a hypothesis that maybe what I was observing on the frontline treating patients with COVID, noticing that their oxygen saturation was increasing from ivermectin, was basically maybe ivermectin increased bifidobacteria." "The hypothesis on ivermectin was the most read hypothesis in the pandemic and was retracted after eight months of being on. When we cannot make a hypothesis, this is not science. December twenty twenty, at the same time that I was treating patients with COVID, I began collecting stools of my colleagues that were at home and started going into the hospital. And I said, can I get your stools before and after you get vaccinated? Because to me, this new technology of vaccines, I wanted to see what it was doing on the microbiome." "I discovered that messenger RNA vaccines killed the bifidobacteria. I knew I would never be able to publish this because it goes against the narrative. So I submitted it to my college, the American College of Gastroenterology, and presented it in October 2022. This abstract won a research award at the American College of Gastro beating 6,000 abstracts. That's from academic centers like Harvard and Mayo Clinic and MD Anderson." "This abstract got the attention of 18,000 GI doctors who all of a sudden started realizing maybe killing bifidobacteria is why I got COVID after my vaccine to begin with. Worse than that, and another abstract we presented, was the persistent damage of bifidobacteria from the vaccine." "What is going on here that the vaccine continues to kill the bifidobacteria? At the same time, we presented a link between loss of bifidobacteria and Crohn's disease, loss of bifidobacteria in Lyme disease, and loss of bifidobacteria in invasive cancer. It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative." "If doctors cannot publish the data, they cannot find solution to fix the problems. So in conclusion, I will finish with showing this. This represents clinical trials that I've done for pharmaceutical companies prior to COVID. Amongst them are vaccine studies. Yes." "I brought vaccines to the market. Proton pump inhibitors, cardiac drugs, biologics for all sorts of conditions. First, postpartum depression drug, drugs that never made it to the market because they killed people. Clinical trials doctors follow guidelines that allows the industry to provide safe drugs. These guidelines were not followed during the pandemic." "And because of that, everyone is affected. COVID should have been a time where humanity joined forces together and doctors needed to come together. It's a shame that it didn't happen. Interference with research affects all of us. This should not be political." "Science is a story that evolves. It's a multitude of experiments that allow us to see medicine, to give hopes to patients. Skepticism, challenging the current state of knowledge. Having an open mind must be allowed if we have any hope of moving science forward. What I saw this pandemic was not science. Thank you."
8:56

Very powerful testimony by dr. Sabine Hazan "Thank you, senator. It's an honor to be here. The microbiome, our microbes in our guts, is our immunity and tells the story and will tell the story of COVID nineteen. And this is why as a gastroenterologist, I stepped into the pandemic. Through my experience, I will show you how difficult it was to conduct research and publish when the research goes against the national public health narrative." "Interference and delay in research happened and affects all of us. In early twenty twenty, my research genetic sequencing laboratory was the first lab to document the entire sequence of the virus in the stools as opposed to the PCR which is just a little piece of the virus." "We discovered that the virus lingered in the stools for up to forty five days. It took six months to publish this publication at a time where everybody needed to know that it was in your stools. My lab also showed that COVID nineteen in the stools was killed by hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin." "But unfortunately, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine killed the microbiome. So therefore, vitamin c, d, and zinc was added. Three protocols were submitted to the FDA from our findings. Three studies were also put into in full transparencies to help doctors more effectively treat COVID because I knew data that nobody knew. 04/02/2020, FDA gave us an exempt letter for doing a clinical trial." "In other words, we did not need to do a clinical trial on hydroxychloroquine, z pack, vitamin c, d, and zinc as treatment or hydroxychloroquine, vitamin c, d, and zinc as prophylaxis. April 4, somebody must have called the FDA and said, I got another letter saying, I'm sorry, doctor Hazan. Exemption is denied. You must do a full on clinical trial. Here's the letter." "System pressures delayed us, and we got a green light to start recruiting by May 2020. By then, the media created fear around hydroxychloroquine. It was impossible to recruit. This drug was safely given for years for arthritis and lupus with no problems. My clinical trials companies were also banned and censored from advertising on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter." "Remember, I do clinical trials for a living and never as a clinical trial doctor have I not been able to advertise to recruit for a trial on social media. I kept collecting stools of patients and noticed that patients with severe COVID had a certain bacteria that was missing compared to people that were highly exposed to COVID but never got COVID. That bacteria is called bifidobacteria. Bifidobacteria is an important and key microbe for immunity. It represents your trillion dollar industry of probiotics." "In fact, when you turn the bottle and you see the ingredient, it says bifidobacteria. It is present in newborns. This is why your newborns did not get a problem from COVID at the beginning, and it is absent in old people. The process of aging is loss of bifidobacteria. We published this paper, the lost microbes of COVID nineteen." "It took eight months to publish. If you follow the bifidobacteria like I did, you will notice, and we did notice anyways, that vitamin c actually increases bifidobacteria. This is why vitamin c is important when you take when you take care of viruses and, you know, you've all experienced taking vitamin c for a cold." "Well, we published this data where we showed vitamin c, if we give it to patients before and after, it increased the bifidobacteria. Ivermectin was also an interesting drug because Ivermectin, we noticed, also increased the bifidobacteria within twenty four hours of taking it." "Why Ivermectin? If you look at what Ivermectin is, it is a fermented product of a bacteria that is similar to bifidobacteria. In fact, they're in the same continent of microbes. They live. They're like sisters, brothers in the microbiome." "So I published. I knew that ivermectin increased bifidobacteria, but I said, nah. I can't go out there and start publishing that. That's gonna be too controversial. So I published a hypothesis that maybe what I was observing on the frontline treating patients with COVID, noticing that their oxygen saturation was increasing from ivermectin, was basically maybe ivermectin increased bifidobacteria." "The hypothesis on ivermectin was the most read hypothesis in the pandemic and was retracted after eight months of being on. When we cannot make a hypothesis, this is not science. December twenty twenty, at the same time that I was treating patients with COVID, I began collecting stools of my colleagues that were at home and started going into the hospital. And I said, can I get your stools before and after you get vaccinated? Because to me, this new technology of vaccines, I wanted to see what it was doing on the microbiome." "I discovered that messenger RNA vaccines killed the bifidobacteria. I knew I would never be able to publish this because it goes against the narrative. So I submitted it to my college, the American College of Gastroenterology, and presented it in October 2022. This abstract won a research award at the American College of Gastro beating 6,000 abstracts. That's from academic centers like Harvard and Mayo Clinic and MD Anderson." "This abstract got the attention of 18,000 GI doctors who all of a sudden started realizing maybe killing bifidobacteria is why I got COVID after my vaccine to begin with. Worse than that, and another abstract we presented, was the persistent damage of bifidobacteria from the vaccine." "What is going on here that the vaccine continues to kill the bifidobacteria? At the same time, we presented a link between loss of bifidobacteria and Crohn's disease, loss of bifidobacteria in Lyme disease, and loss of bifidobacteria in invasive cancer. It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative." "If doctors cannot publish the data, they cannot find solution to fix the problems. So in conclusion, I will finish with showing this. This represents clinical trials that I've done for pharmaceutical companies prior to COVID. Amongst them are vaccine studies. Yes." "I brought vaccines to the market. Proton pump inhibitors, cardiac drugs, biologics for all sorts of conditions. First, postpartum depression drug, drugs that never made it to the market because they killed people. Clinical trials doctors follow guidelines that allows the industry to provide safe drugs. These guidelines were not followed during the pandemic." "And because of that, everyone is affected. COVID should have been a time where humanity joined forces together and doctors needed to come together. It's a shame that it didn't happen. Interference with research affects all of us. This should not be political." "Science is a story that evolves. It's a multitude of experiments that allow us to see medicine, to give hopes to patients. Skepticism, challenging the current state of knowledge. Having an open mind must be allowed if we have any hope of moving science forward. What I saw this pandemic was not science. Thank you."

Camus

127,765 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Around the world, the crackdown on free speech is accelerating. In Britain, the courts are sentencing people to years in prison for things they posted on X, formerly Twitter. In the United States, the architects of the Censorship Industrial Complex are raising money for Kamala Harris in hopes of re-imposing government censorship on social media platforms after she wins. And in Brazil, the government has forced X to end its operations after threatening to arrest X’s employees in Brazil if the company continues to refuse to permanently ban disfavored journalists, influencers, and elected political leaders from its platform. The Brazilian government may soon block access to X in Brazil, forcing its citizens to rely upon VPNs, or virtual private networks, in order to access X illegally. On the one hand, none of these events appear to have anything in common. In Britain, there were riots triggered by misinformation that the killer of two children was an illegal immigrant. In the United States, the Censorship Industrial Complex emerged in reaction to the 2016 election of Donald Trump. And in Brazil, a single Supreme Court justice has taken it upon himself to demand extreme levels of censorship in reaction to the election of a populist president in 2018. But at another level, all of these events are connected. Starmer, Harris, and Lula have all embraced the first and most important step toward totalitarianism, which is censorship. This is even more alarming given the events of the last few days, when Harris announced that she would seek price controls on food and a housing agenda that would significantly expand the role of the government without increasing supply. I don’t think the labels of communist or fascist accurately describe the systems that Starmer, Harris, and Lula are creating. In some ways, those three leaders are drawing upon elements of both totalitarian systems. But trying to compare what’s happening now to what happened in the early 20th Century risks confusing us as to what is happening before our very eyes. But I do think the label of totalitarianism is accurate to describe what these leaders are doing and where they appear to be headed. Part of what’s so alarming about what they are doing is that they are melding together the demands of global capital and of Woke Leftists at the grassroots level. Both are driven by intolerance of free speech and free expression. Scarcely a day passes without the mainstream media attacking Elon Musk as a threat to democracy because he has allowed freedom of speech on X. Why are they doing that? Because the mainstream media are financed by and should be thought of as global capital’s marketing and propaganda operation. And, as alarming, there is strong evidence that those leaders are and have been working together to impose a censorship industrial complex worldwide. Europe, Australia, and Brazil have all sought to ban and censor disfavored views and individuals not just in their home countries but worldwide. Over the last decade, these governments, politicians, and political parties have worked to coordinate their work at the United Nations, World Economic Forum, and other NGOs that operate across borders. And reporting by Public and others has uncovered collaboration between intelligence agencies in all three nations. Media disinformation that populism poses a threat to democracy has increased the public’s support for online censorship. From 2018 to 2023, the share of Democrats who told Pew they wanted the government to engage in more censorship of disfavored online speech rose from 40% to 70%. An identical dynamic is occurring in Brazil and Britain, whereby the mainstream news media and Left-wing political activists have called for the censorship of their political enemies. Friends, I’m sorry to say, but this is what the global transition to totalitarianism looks like. Big businesses, left-wing governments, and the legacy news media have made clear that they cannot tolerate free speech online. They grew accustomed to controlling public opinion first through the legacy media and then through Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Global elites have made clear that they believe that freedom of speech on a single social media platform, and one that is far smaller than Facebook or Google, is intolerable. This desire for total control is the central characteristic of the totalitarianism that is presently emerging from elites at the corporate and political levels around the world. In addition to pushing censorship, these leaders and global elites are seeking to overturn liberal democracies and impose a radically different system of iliberal rule in the Western world. Rather than meritocracy and equal justice for all, elites are seeking to impose a Woke racialist hierarchy that gives preferential treatment to some groups and prejudicial treatment to other groups supposedly based on historic oppression. There are signs of hope. Recently, a group of censorsial advertisers called the group of advertisers, called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) disbanded after X sued them. But X cannot defend freedom of speech alone. We need a global free speech movement to defend our fundamental freedom against tyranny. If we lose free speech we will lose everything else, including our civilization. The step between censorship and price controls and shortages will be a very small one. We are working with our allies around the world to raise the alarm. In June we gathered free speech advocates from the United States, Britain, Brazil, and other countries, and we are now working together on a combined effort to stand up for freedom and against the tyrants. If you’d like to support our work, please subscribe now to Public. If you can do more than that, please consider a tax-deductible donation to support the free speech movement. The moment we have been warning about is approaching more rapidly than any of us expected.
5:58

Around the world, the crackdown on free speech is accelerating. In Britain, the courts are sentencing people to years in prison for things they posted on X, formerly Twitter. In the United States, the architects of the Censorship Industrial Complex are raising money for Kamala Harris in hopes of re-imposing government censorship on social media platforms after she wins. And in Brazil, the government has forced X to end its operations after threatening to arrest X’s employees in Brazil if the company continues to refuse to permanently ban disfavored journalists, influencers, and elected political leaders from its platform. The Brazilian government may soon block access to X in Brazil, forcing its citizens to rely upon VPNs, or virtual private networks, in order to access X illegally. On the one hand, none of these events appear to have anything in common. In Britain, there were riots triggered by misinformation that the killer of two children was an illegal immigrant. In the United States, the Censorship Industrial Complex emerged in reaction to the 2016 election of Donald Trump. And in Brazil, a single Supreme Court justice has taken it upon himself to demand extreme levels of censorship in reaction to the election of a populist president in 2018. But at another level, all of these events are connected. Starmer, Harris, and Lula have all embraced the first and most important step toward totalitarianism, which is censorship. This is even more alarming given the events of the last few days, when Harris announced that she would seek price controls on food and a housing agenda that would significantly expand the role of the government without increasing supply. I don’t think the labels of communist or fascist accurately describe the systems that Starmer, Harris, and Lula are creating. In some ways, those three leaders are drawing upon elements of both totalitarian systems. But trying to compare what’s happening now to what happened in the early 20th Century risks confusing us as to what is happening before our very eyes. But I do think the label of totalitarianism is accurate to describe what these leaders are doing and where they appear to be headed. Part of what’s so alarming about what they are doing is that they are melding together the demands of global capital and of Woke Leftists at the grassroots level. Both are driven by intolerance of free speech and free expression. Scarcely a day passes without the mainstream media attacking Elon Musk as a threat to democracy because he has allowed freedom of speech on X. Why are they doing that? Because the mainstream media are financed by and should be thought of as global capital’s marketing and propaganda operation. And, as alarming, there is strong evidence that those leaders are and have been working together to impose a censorship industrial complex worldwide. Europe, Australia, and Brazil have all sought to ban and censor disfavored views and individuals not just in their home countries but worldwide. Over the last decade, these governments, politicians, and political parties have worked to coordinate their work at the United Nations, World Economic Forum, and other NGOs that operate across borders. And reporting by Public and others has uncovered collaboration between intelligence agencies in all three nations. Media disinformation that populism poses a threat to democracy has increased the public’s support for online censorship. From 2018 to 2023, the share of Democrats who told Pew they wanted the government to engage in more censorship of disfavored online speech rose from 40% to 70%. An identical dynamic is occurring in Brazil and Britain, whereby the mainstream news media and Left-wing political activists have called for the censorship of their political enemies. Friends, I’m sorry to say, but this is what the global transition to totalitarianism looks like. Big businesses, left-wing governments, and the legacy news media have made clear that they cannot tolerate free speech online. They grew accustomed to controlling public opinion first through the legacy media and then through Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Global elites have made clear that they believe that freedom of speech on a single social media platform, and one that is far smaller than Facebook or Google, is intolerable. This desire for total control is the central characteristic of the totalitarianism that is presently emerging from elites at the corporate and political levels around the world. In addition to pushing censorship, these leaders and global elites are seeking to overturn liberal democracies and impose a radically different system of iliberal rule in the Western world. Rather than meritocracy and equal justice for all, elites are seeking to impose a Woke racialist hierarchy that gives preferential treatment to some groups and prejudicial treatment to other groups supposedly based on historic oppression. There are signs of hope. Recently, a group of censorsial advertisers called the group of advertisers, called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) disbanded after X sued them. But X cannot defend freedom of speech alone. We need a global free speech movement to defend our fundamental freedom against tyranny. If we lose free speech we will lose everything else, including our civilization. The step between censorship and price controls and shortages will be a very small one. We are working with our allies around the world to raise the alarm. In June we gathered free speech advocates from the United States, Britain, Brazil, and other countries, and we are now working together on a combined effort to stand up for freedom and against the tyrants. If you’d like to support our work, please subscribe now to Public. If you can do more than that, please consider a tax-deductible donation to support the free speech movement. The moment we have been warning about is approaching more rapidly than any of us expected.

Michael Shellenberger

88,025 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

THE BIDEN MANDATE DISASTER: Estimated 17 Million Deaths from the Covid Vaccines. President Trump acknowledges excess deaths. "Remember more people died under his administration than our administration and we were right in the middle of it. He did the mandate which is a disaster." The European Parliament asked Pfizer this direct question. "Was the Pfizer Covid Vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market?" Janine Small, a Pfizer President replied "NO" we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market. At that point of view we had to do everything at risk." They forced you and manipulated you through illegal coercion in order for you to take a dangerous technology never given to humans before. They said you would not get Covid if you took the injection. They said you would not transmit Covid to anyone else if you took the injection. It was all a deliberate criminal lie to deceive you and coerce you into taking a toxin and poison that has now killed an estimated 17 million innocent people worldwide. Over 17,000 physicians and scientists globally confirm that the Covid vaccinated are more likely to become infected or have disease or even death if they have been Vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated people. The Covid Vaccines damage your heart, brain, reproductive tissue, lungs, increase cancer and permanently damage your immune system. The Biden Administration is captured by Corporations and NGOs. U.S. Doctors warn the world to stop taking the Covid Vaccines and Boosters, they are toxic, lethal, ineffective and must be stopped. They damage the brain, heart, liver, bone marrow and fetus causing all sorts of harm in the human body. The CDC and the FDA's misinformation is causing death and injury in pregnant women and newborn babies around the world. PFIZER IS BEING SUED IN 5 U.S. STATES: Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach is suing Pfizer for misleading claims it made related to the COVID vaccine. According to the complaint filed on June 17, 2024 in Thomas County District Court, Pfizer misled Americans about the vaccine risks, including for pregnant women and for myocarditis. Additionally, Pfizer claimed its vaccine protected against COVID variants, despite data showing otherwise. The pharmaceutical giant also suggested its vaccine prevented COVID transmission, but later admitted it had never studied whether its vaccine had stopped transmission. The complaint also alleges that Pfizer coordinated with social media officials to censor speech critical of COVID-19 vaccines and declined to participate in the federal government’s vaccine development program, Operation Warp Speed, to avoid government oversight. Dr. David Martin says President Trump was misled and conned by Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx, the CDC, FDA and Alex Azar, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services who was under criminal investigation at the time Operation Warp Speed was signed. Worldwide over 17,000 Physicians and Scientists demand that Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, AstraZeneca and their enablers be immediately indicted for fraud for willfully withholding and omitting Covid Vaccine safety information from patients and physicians which led to toxic death and injury to millions of innocent people worldwide. There is excess mortality and death all over the world and populations are suddenly collapsing. A Top U.S. Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough says I'm going to be very clear about this. "The Vaccine is Killing people and it's Killing large numbers of people." Every person around the world must demand criminal charges for illegal advertising by the Media, the CDC, NIH, the FDA and the Biden Administration which all advertised the Covid Vaccines as safe and effective with no side effects. This was a criminal lie that led to the death of millions of innocent people. They deliberately broke the law and committed federal crimes of fraud, wrongful advertising and mass negligent homicide. All government officials, health officials and all pharmaceutical corporate executives must be indicted and brought to justice. Dr. Peter McCullough also states Albert Bourla and other Pfizer Executives are committing Domestic Terrorism. They are criminally lying that there are no safety warning signals from the Covid Vaccines. Pfizer's own data showed 1223 deaths within 90 days of the vaccine trials. U.S. Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. states the death rates from the Covid Vaccines exceed billions of combined vaccines from the last 30 years. Studies from 2023 show 680,000 deaths in the U.S. from the Covid Vaccines. The Pfizer trial showed a 500% increase in heart attack deaths. He goes on to say that Pfizer is guilty of criminal deception. U.S. Harvard Law Professor Dr. Francis Boyle confirms through an Official Court Affidavit that the Covid Vaccines are "Bioweapons of Mass Destruction." He says all the people who pushed these "Frankenshots" such as the Media, FDA, CDC, WHO, DOD Officials, the Biden Administration and Covid Vaccine Executives should be charged with premeditated mass murder. Professor Boyle goes on to say that the FDA was involved in the development of Covid-19 as an offensive biological warfare weapon at UNCBSL3. The Pentagon bought and paid for the toxic mRNA shots and helped create Covid-19. All are guilty of Nuremberg crimes, murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Dr. Francis Boyle believes the end goal of the criminal perpetrators is population control and population reduction while making billions of dollars. He says new reports show worldwide excess deaths of 12 million innocent people. Now, it is estimated to be over 17 million innocent people worldwide. He encourages all citizens around the world to go to their local Sheriff's Office, Police Office and District or State Attorney General's Office and file criminal charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, demanding that the people responsible be arrested and prosecuted. This must be done, be brave, share this truth and act now. IN THE U.S. ON JUNE 17, 2024: The Vires Law Group, in conjunction with the Edward L. Tarpley Jr., Officially Sent Criminal Referrals of Murder, Terrorism, Human Trafficking, Kidnapping, Manslaughter, Racketeering, Acts of Cruelty, False Imprisonment, Battery and Kidnapping for Anthony Fauci, Rochelle Walensky, Francis Collins, Deborah Birx, Peter Daszak, Rick Bright, Robert Redfield, Stephen Hahn and Cliff Lane. Many more people are involved in these atrocious crimes of mass murder and deliberate deception, such as Alex Azar, Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, Mike Pence, Ralph Baric and many more. There are over 350 U.S. names involved in various crimes against America and against all of humanity. They must be stopped and they must brought to justice, no matter how long it takes.
46:43

THE BIDEN MANDATE DISASTER: Estimated 17 Million Deaths from the Covid Vaccines. President Trump acknowledges excess deaths. "Remember more people died under his administration than our administration and we were right in the middle of it. He did the mandate which is a disaster." The European Parliament asked Pfizer this direct question. "Was the Pfizer Covid Vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market?" Janine Small, a Pfizer President replied "NO" we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market. At that point of view we had to do everything at risk." They forced you and manipulated you through illegal coercion in order for you to take a dangerous technology never given to humans before. They said you would not get Covid if you took the injection. They said you would not transmit Covid to anyone else if you took the injection. It was all a deliberate criminal lie to deceive you and coerce you into taking a toxin and poison that has now killed an estimated 17 million innocent people worldwide. Over 17,000 physicians and scientists globally confirm that the Covid vaccinated are more likely to become infected or have disease or even death if they have been Vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated people. The Covid Vaccines damage your heart, brain, reproductive tissue, lungs, increase cancer and permanently damage your immune system. The Biden Administration is captured by Corporations and NGOs. U.S. Doctors warn the world to stop taking the Covid Vaccines and Boosters, they are toxic, lethal, ineffective and must be stopped. They damage the brain, heart, liver, bone marrow and fetus causing all sorts of harm in the human body. The CDC and the FDA's misinformation is causing death and injury in pregnant women and newborn babies around the world. PFIZER IS BEING SUED IN 5 U.S. STATES: Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach is suing Pfizer for misleading claims it made related to the COVID vaccine. According to the complaint filed on June 17, 2024 in Thomas County District Court, Pfizer misled Americans about the vaccine risks, including for pregnant women and for myocarditis. Additionally, Pfizer claimed its vaccine protected against COVID variants, despite data showing otherwise. The pharmaceutical giant also suggested its vaccine prevented COVID transmission, but later admitted it had never studied whether its vaccine had stopped transmission. The complaint also alleges that Pfizer coordinated with social media officials to censor speech critical of COVID-19 vaccines and declined to participate in the federal government’s vaccine development program, Operation Warp Speed, to avoid government oversight. Dr. David Martin says President Trump was misled and conned by Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx, the CDC, FDA and Alex Azar, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services who was under criminal investigation at the time Operation Warp Speed was signed. Worldwide over 17,000 Physicians and Scientists demand that Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, AstraZeneca and their enablers be immediately indicted for fraud for willfully withholding and omitting Covid Vaccine safety information from patients and physicians which led to toxic death and injury to millions of innocent people worldwide. There is excess mortality and death all over the world and populations are suddenly collapsing. A Top U.S. Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough says I'm going to be very clear about this. "The Vaccine is Killing people and it's Killing large numbers of people." Every person around the world must demand criminal charges for illegal advertising by the Media, the CDC, NIH, the FDA and the Biden Administration which all advertised the Covid Vaccines as safe and effective with no side effects. This was a criminal lie that led to the death of millions of innocent people. They deliberately broke the law and committed federal crimes of fraud, wrongful advertising and mass negligent homicide. All government officials, health officials and all pharmaceutical corporate executives must be indicted and brought to justice. Dr. Peter McCullough also states Albert Bourla and other Pfizer Executives are committing Domestic Terrorism. They are criminally lying that there are no safety warning signals from the Covid Vaccines. Pfizer's own data showed 1223 deaths within 90 days of the vaccine trials. U.S. Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. states the death rates from the Covid Vaccines exceed billions of combined vaccines from the last 30 years. Studies from 2023 show 680,000 deaths in the U.S. from the Covid Vaccines. The Pfizer trial showed a 500% increase in heart attack deaths. He goes on to say that Pfizer is guilty of criminal deception. U.S. Harvard Law Professor Dr. Francis Boyle confirms through an Official Court Affidavit that the Covid Vaccines are "Bioweapons of Mass Destruction." He says all the people who pushed these "Frankenshots" such as the Media, FDA, CDC, WHO, DOD Officials, the Biden Administration and Covid Vaccine Executives should be charged with premeditated mass murder. Professor Boyle goes on to say that the FDA was involved in the development of Covid-19 as an offensive biological warfare weapon at UNCBSL3. The Pentagon bought and paid for the toxic mRNA shots and helped create Covid-19. All are guilty of Nuremberg crimes, murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Dr. Francis Boyle believes the end goal of the criminal perpetrators is population control and population reduction while making billions of dollars. He says new reports show worldwide excess deaths of 12 million innocent people. Now, it is estimated to be over 17 million innocent people worldwide. He encourages all citizens around the world to go to their local Sheriff's Office, Police Office and District or State Attorney General's Office and file criminal charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, demanding that the people responsible be arrested and prosecuted. This must be done, be brave, share this truth and act now. IN THE U.S. ON JUNE 17, 2024: The Vires Law Group, in conjunction with the Edward L. Tarpley Jr., Officially Sent Criminal Referrals of Murder, Terrorism, Human Trafficking, Kidnapping, Manslaughter, Racketeering, Acts of Cruelty, False Imprisonment, Battery and Kidnapping for Anthony Fauci, Rochelle Walensky, Francis Collins, Deborah Birx, Peter Daszak, Rick Bright, Robert Redfield, Stephen Hahn and Cliff Lane. Many more people are involved in these atrocious crimes of mass murder and deliberate deception, such as Alex Azar, Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, Mike Pence, Ralph Baric and many more. There are over 350 U.S. names involved in various crimes against America and against all of humanity. They must be stopped and they must brought to justice, no matter how long it takes.

Truth Justice ™

3,063,187 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Elon Musk isn't running a 'free speech' platform; he’s running a propaganda machine for the far-right. Watch MEP Alexandra Geese blast the way X and TikTok are being used as weapons of war to divide the Europeans and boost putin’s puppets. She’s 100% right—why do we let these tech bros do things online that would be illegal on any TV station? Massive respect to her for calling out the empty seats in the room, too. Alexandra Geese, German politician and Member of the European Parliament: "putin, Trump and Musk have declared war against you. The destruction of the European Union has been putin’s goal for years. And now, with a national security strategy, Trump has joined the club. And their goals are clear. A weak and divided European continent, a polarized society and far-right parties of power. And I'm looking at every group in this house, except the far-right corner where the putin’s friend sits. And I'm looking at the European Commission. putin, Trump and Musk have declared war against you! They want you out. They want everybody out who fights for democracy. And they have a powerful weapon. And they're using it. Social Media. Elon Musk systematically downranks, that means censors, speech of pro-European political parties, violating our freedom of expression. In turn, he boosts pro-putin parties that want to destroy the European Union. And the evidence from Germany, Poland and UK is overwhelming and we want finally the European Commission to investigate this. And X is not the only one. TikTok force-feeds far-right content to people who do not choose it. Would we tolerate one party getting 80% of the TV space in a democracy? No, we would not! Then why do we accept that social media oligarchs impose this on our citizens in the online world? Why do we accept that the whole business model of social media is hate? Commissioner McGrath [commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection] you just said peace comes from respecting people, not from dividing them. So why do we accept the business model of an information online ecosystem that is built on dividing people? That is built on spreading hate? Colleagues, Commissioner, my constituents are deeply concerned about these attacks on our democracy. They're asking Europe to fight. But the person who could do that today is not even in the room. Executive Vice-President Virkunnen has something more urgent to do than to listen to the concerns of citizens in parliament, and I hope she's not meeting a big tech company. Tyranny requires our fear and our silence. Democracy requires courage and it requires us to speak up. And I'm speaking up. I will not be silent and I'm asking the European Commission to stand up for Europe.”
2:11

Elon Musk isn't running a 'free speech' platform; he’s running a propaganda machine for the far-right. Watch MEP Alexandra Geese blast the way X and TikTok are being used as weapons of war to divide the Europeans and boost putin’s puppets. She’s 100% right—why do we let these tech bros do things online that would be illegal on any TV station? Massive respect to her for calling out the empty seats in the room, too. Alexandra Geese, German politician and Member of the European Parliament: "putin, Trump and Musk have declared war against you. The destruction of the European Union has been putin’s goal for years. And now, with a national security strategy, Trump has joined the club. And their goals are clear. A weak and divided European continent, a polarized society and far-right parties of power. And I'm looking at every group in this house, except the far-right corner where the putin’s friend sits. And I'm looking at the European Commission. putin, Trump and Musk have declared war against you! They want you out. They want everybody out who fights for democracy. And they have a powerful weapon. And they're using it. Social Media. Elon Musk systematically downranks, that means censors, speech of pro-European political parties, violating our freedom of expression. In turn, he boosts pro-putin parties that want to destroy the European Union. And the evidence from Germany, Poland and UK is overwhelming and we want finally the European Commission to investigate this. And X is not the only one. TikTok force-feeds far-right content to people who do not choose it. Would we tolerate one party getting 80% of the TV space in a democracy? No, we would not! Then why do we accept that social media oligarchs impose this on our citizens in the online world? Why do we accept that the whole business model of social media is hate? Commissioner McGrath [commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection] you just said peace comes from respecting people, not from dividing them. So why do we accept the business model of an information online ecosystem that is built on dividing people? That is built on spreading hate? Colleagues, Commissioner, my constituents are deeply concerned about these attacks on our democracy. They're asking Europe to fight. But the person who could do that today is not even in the room. Executive Vice-President Virkunnen has something more urgent to do than to listen to the concerns of citizens in parliament, and I hope she's not meeting a big tech company. Tyranny requires our fear and our silence. Democracy requires courage and it requires us to speak up. And I'm speaking up. I will not be silent and I'm asking the European Commission to stand up for Europe.”

Yasmina

70,641 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten