YouTube has continued to enforce and expand its censorship of opposing views on its site — enforcing what it considers to be the truth on various issues. The latest subject is Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who has been suspended from the site for expressing his opposition to Covid mandates. One does not have to agree with Paul on his view of Covid or mandates to see the danger of such corporate control over public discourse in the United States. However, politicians (including President Joe Biden) are calling for even greater censorship to silence those with opposing views on such subjects.
Rand posted a video on Sunday in which he lashed out at the calls for mandates and the “petty tyrants and bureaucrats” supporting them, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Joe Biden. He called for people to stand up against these efforts:
“It’s time for us to resist. They can’t arrest all of us. They can’t keep all of your kids home from school. … We don’t have to accept the mandates, lockdowns and harmful policies of the petty tyrants and bureaucrats. We can simply say no. Not again.
Nancy Pelosi, you will not arrest, or stop me or anyone on my staff from doing our jobs. We have either had Covid, had the vaccine, or been offered the vaccine. We will make our own health choices. We will not show you a passport. We will not wear a mask. We will not be forced into random screenings so you can continue your drunk with power reign over the Capitol.
“President Biden, we will not accept your agencies’ mandates or your reported moves towards a lockdown.”
YouTube took down the video leading Paul to post a response to the censorship. That response was also reportedly taken down but can be viewed on Rumble.
Sen. Paul has been criticized for this and other statements on Covid but many agree with him. This is part of our political debate. People have a free speech right to oppose the mandates and question the science cited by the government. In this case, a corporation is preventing a major political figure from being able to use its platform to engage others on this subject. It is picking and choosing who can speak and what they can say. It has a right to do so as a private company but it is wrong to do so. It is a denial of free speech and we need to address the corporate control over political speech in the United States.
I have previously and repeatedly said that I believe people should be vaccinated. I and my family are vaccinated. However, I will not accept arguments that my public health concerns should negate the free speech rights of others, including Sen. Paul. I also do not accept that these corporations should hold such a strangle hold over public debate.
The rise of corporate censors has combined with a heavily pro-Biden media to create the fear of a de facto state media that controls information due to a shared ideology rather than state coercion. That concern has been magnified by demands from Democratic leaders for increased censorship, including censoring political speech, and now word that the Biden Administration has routinely been flagging material to be censored by Facebook.
This is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist:
The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.
If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.
I am making a good MONEY (500$ to 700$ / hr )online on my Ipad .Last month my pay check of nearly 30 k$.This online work is like draw straight-arrow and earn money. Do not g0 t0 office.uRw I do not claim to be others,I just work. You will call yourself after doing this JOB,It’s a REAL job.Will be very lucky to refer to this WEBSITE.
I hope,you can find something………..► http://money32.ezyro.com/
Their biggest fear is A*** J**** (Hint: not John Galt). He was first to be censored and the reason they will never return to internet originalism. Don’t ask me why. Must be what he says.
This is absolutely unacceptable.
Every American has the right to hear a second opinion on anything and everything especially to do with ones own health and body. And we certainly have a right to hear from our legislators and their opinions.
The more they censor anyone daring to utter a second or alternative opinion or who raises any questions or doubts, the more it starts to smell like a rat.
Succinct and correctly so.
The problem is that governments go too far.
We want to avoid getting to the point that many other Western countries find themselves in – having the government prohibit you from visiting your relatives when they have cancer or some other calamity.
The news is full of instances where people were not allowed to visit with ailing, dying relatives. Not allowed to care for relatives with cancer. Not allowed to travel to help relatives. The stories are tragic and myriad.
When you give this much power away to the government, you may not like the decisions they make on your behalf.
I have asthma, and I take Covid very seriously. I got the vaccine. I severely limited my social contacts. I didn’t go on vacation, or travel, and I conscientiously wore a mask. Yet I oppose forcing anyone to get a vaccine. I think it’s unethical to mandate that anyone get any vaccine that is under Emergency Use Authorization, as it has not completed its FDA review. We need common sense, but as usual, government has a tendency to go too far in its zeal.
Here’s another thing about the mandates – the losses. Shutdowns should never prohibit people from seeing their own relatives because once they’re lost, it can’t be fixed. Encourage common sense, even though some won’t use it.
When mandates and shutdowns get too aggressive, there are losses that cannot be made whole again. Meanwhile, the rules don’t seem to apply to the ruling elites. They drop the price of a car at the French Laundry, they have a 400 person soirée at Martha’s Vineyard, they got their hair done when everyone else was puzzling out DIY haircuts, they break quarantine and go out in public while they have Covid… They always have their reasons why it’s OK not to follow the rules they set for others.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54107251
When you give this much power away to the government, you may not like the decisions they make on your behalf. — Karen,
We agree…
I, too, have asthma and take C-19 seriously. Although I haven’t gone on vacation, I do travel regularly, rarely wear a mask and am unvaccinated. With elderly relatives living several states away (about a thousand miles), I have travelled several times since C-19 precautions and lockdowns began, often through areas considered “hot”.
Simply put, I refuse to give government any more power. I research information on C-19 for myself, from a wide range of credible sources including those which challenge or contradict “official health authorities” and make my own decisions regarding my health and the risks associated with possible exposure to C-19 and vaccination. This is no abstract exercise — family members and close family friends have contracted C-19 (according to both PCR tests and differential diagnosis), including several requiring hospitalizations and one death.
Recently I was exposed to *something* and fell ill for a few weeks. I’m not sure what that *something* was, exactly, since it was not necessary to seek treatment and I have since recovered. While ill, I did my best not to expose others and remained home for its duration, including an extra ten days or so for good measure.
My reticence for being vaccinated might be construed, by some, as evidence I am uneducated and/or a “Trumpist” — neither is accurate. In actuality, I have allergies, or more specifically chemical sensitivities, severe enough to cause anaphylactic reactions. Since the specific make-up of the experimental vaccines are unknown, even to practicing medical doctors, and their side effects, both short and long-term, are not fully understood, I’ve decided to wait and see, for as long as necessary, to protect my health.
I recommend that every person do the same — consider your own specific circumstances and health, research C-19 and its risk factors as well as those of the experimental vaccines, consult your doctor, and decide for yourself what is best. One size fits all pronouncements by “official health authorities” and politicians must be taken with a (large) grain of salt — only you will suffer the consequences of either a C-19 infection or vaccine side effect.
Well stated. Your reasoning should be applauded by the ‘health authorities’, not condemned because you put your own well being ahead of their ‘because we say so’ temperament. Many people have also noticed there’s very little peer-reviewed, long-term data that supports ‘health authorities’ statements. And god-forbid if one of their own asks for the supporting evidence. “To the stockade with ye!’, they’d probably over-scream.
A Trump-appointed judge is allowing Dominion’s defamation suit against Sidney Powell, Giuliani, and Mike Lindell to move forward. He’s rejected the motion to dismiss. Should be interesting.
‘Transcript: Dr. Scott Gottlieb on “Face the Nation,” July 25, 2021’
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-dr-scott-gottlieb-on-face-the-nation-july-25-2021/
“DR. GOTTLIEB: Well, the first thing I would urge Americans to do is to get vaccinated. We know the vaccines are highly effective, even against this Delta variant. There was data in the New England Journal of Medicine out this week showing that the vaccines are 88% effective against symptomatic disease. And certainly anyone who goes out and gets vaccinated right now is going to have a vaccine that protects them through the fall in the winter. So they’re going to have broad, durable protection from that vaccine, whether you’re vaccinated or unvaccinated. If you want to add an additional measure of protection, if you’re in a high prevalence environment where there’s a lot of infection a mask can still be helpful against this new variant. The physical characteristics of this virus has- has not changed. The reason it’s more transmissible is that there’s simply more of it. When people get infected, they get more virus, higher viral levels and they exude more virus, so they’re more contagious. But the characteristics of the virus haven’t changed as far as we know. So it’s not more airborne. It’s not more likely to be permeable through a mask. So a mask can still be helpful. I think, though, if you’re going to consider wearing a mask, the quality of the masks does matter. So if you can get your hands on a KN95 mask or an N95 mask, that’s going to afford you a lot more protection. Initially at the outset of this epidemic, we were encouraging people not to use N95 masks because there weren’t enough of those masks for medical workers. Now there’s plenty of masks. There’s plenty of N95 masks in the system. The Biden administration has done a good job ramping up supply. There’s also KN95 masks available. So I would encourage people to look at the quality of the mask and try to get their hands on a better quality of mask. The final piece of advice I would give and the question I get a lot is if you are vaccinated, can you still spread the virus? We had pretty good data with the old strains of the coronavirus that if you were vaccinated, you were far less likely to transmit the virus. That’s probably still true. You’re probably less likely to transmit the virus. But if you are vaccinated and you do- you do develop an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic infection, there probably is a higher chance that you can transmit this Delta virus than some of the old strains because there’s just more of this virus. The viral levels are higher earlier in the course of the infection. So if you’re around vulnerable people, if you’re taking care of a newborn or an elderly patient and you’re vaccinated, you don’t feel well, you should probably get yourself checked out, not assume that you’re impervious to any kind of infection, even if you’re vaccinated.”
In a nutshell:
Get vaccinated.
Get an N95 or KN95 mask.
Protect those who are vulnerable.
Now you’re pushing your agenda. America is the last FREE SOCIETY. If we aren’t allowed to choose for ourselves we are dead – LOL – most of us are dead in about 2 years anyways, take the BIO-WEAPON SHOT and join us won’t you!
“Who should/shouldn’t get a COVID-19 vaccine?”
https://www.ksby.com/homepage-showcase/who-should-shouldnt-get-a-covid-19-vaccine
Most people **should** get vaccinated.
That said:
Patti says: “America is the last FREE SOCIETY”
I’ve got news for you, Patti:
“10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free”
https://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/15/10-reasons-the-u-s-is-no-longer-the-land-of-the-free/
Most people… persons have preexisting or naturally acquired robust and durable immunity, which may be compromised with the vaccines that have no long-term safety data and are reported in close correlation with excessive adverse events including death. Most people… persons are eligible for inexpensive, effective, long established safe therapeutic and prophylactic drugs that inhibit infection and disease progression.
Masks offer no source control. The vaccinated are spreaders, and, with symptom suppression, and higher viral titers, may be super spreaders. The evidence confirms that cross-reactive and naturally acquired immunity are both robust and durable.
That said, close planned Parent/hood facilities and end their practice, which are the singular source of year-over-year excess deaths (more than war and other anthropogenic causes combined). Also, “fat is beautiful”, “healthy at any weight”, “no judgement” and “no labels” are probable, not merely plausible, comorbidities and orientations of infection and disease past, present, and progressive.
REGARDING ABOVE:
Covid Now Infecting Children As Republicans Fight Mask Mandates By School Districts
Nearly 1,600 kids with Covid-19 were hospitalized last week, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — a new seven-day record and a 27 percent increase from the week before. Tennessee’s health commissioner expects the state’s children’s hospitals to be full by the week’s end. Louisiana reached that point more than a week ago. And Arkansas’ only children’s hospital has just two ICU beds remaining.
As dire as the situation is now, hospital leaders and public health officials predict it will get even worse in the coming weeks. They are already contending with unseasonably high levels of RSV, a respiratory virus that can be dangerous for young children and infants. Flu season is on the horizon. And schools across the country are welcoming children back, creating opportunities for Covid-19 and other viruses to spread even faster.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/11/covid-children-hospitals-schools-reopen-503885
REGARDING ABOVE:
Now I wonder who that is, Mr. Shill!
Rand Paul is right. Whether the issue is masks, vaccines, lockdowns or whatever else the Communists dream up, it’s time for people to refuse to comply, just because they want us to. It’s time for civil disobedience! If some individuals believe these things are right for them then fine but it is not the right of government to decide what we will ALL do. Everyone keeps getting stuck in the weeds of whether or not masks work or whether or not vaccines work, etc., instead of the bigger picture, which is the issue of our individual liberties and freedoms as individuals.
No doubt you object to speed limits too.
What do speed limits have to do with what she said?
Trolling again?
Dems enriching the Big Pharma big Pharma cant be sued over vaccines
Paul’s post is wrong on so many levels and is so riddled with politically-motivated attacks on public health officials that it should be removed. Paul claims: “They can’t arrest all of us. They can’t keep all of your kids home from school. … We don’t have to accept the mandates, lockdowns and harmful policies of the petty tyrants and bureaucrats. We can simply say no. Not again.”
Well, he’s just wrong. First of all, who is threatening to arrest people for refusing to wear a mask or get vaccinated? And, if local health officials decide there is a public health crisis that is severe enough, then they have the right and obligation to impose lockdowns. Schools have an absolute duty to protect children from unnecessary infections. The worst thing is for Paul, a physician, to claim that public health mandates for masks and social distancing is “harmful”, and the name-calling: “petty tyrants and bureaucrats”. Name some public health official who has acted in bad faith, if you can. What is “tyrannical” about following the guidance of the CDC, the WHO and local health officials if they recommend wearing masks and other measures to keep kids safe? But, that’s not the point, which is to add fuel to the fire.
Paul also goes after Nancy Pelosi, which is totally calculated to be a politically-motivated hook for the disciples, according to Rick Wilson’s book “Everything Trump Touches Dies”. Wilson says that the white, non college educated disciples have a rabid hatred of Pelosi because of her power and authority (hence the “drunk with power” comment and use of the word “reign” in Paul’s rant) and her family wealth. That’s why they use her image in print and TV ads for Republican candidates, accusing her of all sorts of nefarious intentions in alignment with Democratic candidates. Watch for it in 2022, and when you see it, you’ll understand Wilson’s point. And, it works. Paul claims: “you will not arrest, or stop me or anyone on my staff from doing our jobs. We have either had Covid, had the vaccine, or been offered the vaccine. We will make our own health choices. We will not show you a passport. We will not wear a mask. We will not be forced into random screenings so you can continue your drunk with power reign over the Capitol.” He’s wrong again, because the Speaker does have the right to impose rules for the safety of members of Congress and their staffs. But that’s not the point of his tirade, which is more red meat for the disciples. Pelosi has always been guided by public health officials, as well as the Congressional attending physician. She has made that clear. Rand Paul does know better. But, that’s not the point–it’s to attack Pelosi and maintain the anger of the disciples.
The only thing this post proves, along with the misconduct of DeSantis, is that vaccine and mask resistance is a hook to snare the disciples. They both absolutely know better. Paul is a physician and DeSantis is a graduate of Harvard. This is purely political, and because it helps spread COVID, it will help kill people.
Turley’s post is all about keeping the disciples fired up–keep them pissed off over unfair “censorship” and help maintain the theme that they are correct in resisting vaccination, masks and other COVID measures.
This is the son of the president of the United States. What a disgusting family.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9881213/Unearthed-video-shows-naked-Hunter-Biden-claiming-Russian-drug-dealers-stole-laptop.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top
OMG, you are ripe for the picking, you are!. If government told you to stand outside your local courthouse at high noon, drop your pants and bend over… for the good of the community, you’d be all too willing! You’re a real “patriot!, PS. I can’t believe minions like you exist.
NO WHERE DID I FIND ANY REFERENCE TO FACT BASED CENSORSHIP
LII U.S. Code Title 47 CHAPTER 5 SUBCHAPTER II Part I § 230 from “Cornell Law School (47 U.S. Code § 230 – Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material)”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
(a)Findings
The Congress finds the following:
(1)The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2)These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3)The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4)The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5)Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b)Policy
It is the policy of the United States—
(1)to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2)to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4)to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5)to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d)Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
(e)Effect on other laws
(1)No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2)No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4)No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(5)No effect on sex trafficking law
Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
(A)any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
(f)Definitions
As used in this section:
(1)Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2)Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(4)Access software provider
The term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A)filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B)pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C)transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 230, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, § 509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 137; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, § 1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739; Pub. L. 115–164, § 4(a), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254.)
“…taken for public use…”
____________________
All social media and internet search engines must be “…taken for public use…” under the 5th Amendment.
Social media and internet search engines must be operated as state-regulated monopoly utilities, per the Constitution, including the implementation of all constitutional rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities.
The Danish study Rand Paul references does not say what he claims it says. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817
From the authors:
“the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting. It is important to emphasize that this trial did not address the effects of masks as source control or as protection in settings where social distancing and other public health measures are not in effect.”
Additionally, the authors only measured the direct effect of mask wearing on the wearer, not on the spread of Covid more generally. In the response to comments, the authors state, “In our study we assessed if masks offer a protective effect to uninfected wearers – and not if masks reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from infected mask wearers out into the community.” Therefore, even if the results were conclusive, they do not demonstrate what Rand Paul suggests, namely “A Danish study of 6000 participants found that wearing a surgical mask did not significantly reduce a person’s risk of COVID-19 infection, compared to the risks facing those who did not wear masks.”
Finally, the obvious caveat: this study was published in March 2021, meaning it does not measure the Delta variant at all. So, why would he even refer to it in August 2021?
Once Again Turley Revels In Victimhood
At least 5 times per week Professor Turley writes these preachy columns concerning some poor conservative who was censored by the mean, corporate media. Then all the Turley regulars comment with manufactured outrage using the term ‘fascist’, of course, to describe their indignation. These are telltale signs that Turley panders to a cult-like group-think.
Currently the whole world is facing a resurgence of the coronavirus pandemic; this time by the Delta Varient. There is a very real chance that schools and businesses will have to shut down again; unending the recovery currently in progress. Amid this challenge, we, as a nation, scarcely have time to indulge opponents of masking and vaxing.
Therefore Professor Turley is most mistaken in framing this as a free speech issue. This is a public health issue and followers of Donald Trump are essentially at war with the rest of us in trying to prolong this crisis with disinformation.
Trump, one should note, had coronavirus. What’s more, the vaccines were developed during Trump’s last year as president. Yet Trump, and his followers, want to prolong this crisis just out of spite as payback for their defeat.
Anonymous says:
“Yet Trump, and his followers, want to prolong this crisis just out of spite as payback for their defeat.”
I wouldn’t go that far, but I would agree that the Trumpists do not want to credit the Democrats for ANY success because it defeats their overriding narrative that the Democrats are destroying this country. Some on Fox News are denouncing those 18 Republican Senators who just voted to pass the Infrastructure bill as traitors because they compromised with Democrats. And you don’t compromise with the enemy.
This is a battle of competing narratives, and Trumpists can never concede that Democrats can do anything right. As a liberal, I can readily acknowledge that Trump’s presidency was an enormous benefit to this country, namely, he demonstrated how not to conduct oneself as a President and served as a potent warning for future generations. The threat of Trumpism is not over, but it would appear that it is waning given the 18 Republican Senators who turned their back on Trump’s demand not to support the Infrastructure bill. Moreover, Fox is giving short shrift to Trump these days by not broadcasting his election lies any longer, e.g., Fox executives edited out Trump’s election lies recently given in an interview with Dan Bongino.
Trump is slowly losing his hold on the party and Fox News. And his influence with the Republican establishment will only dissipate as more damning revelations come to light. Still the hard-core Trumpists will deny everything until the bitter end because they have no place to run- having demonized all Never-Trumpers. They can never admit that they knew he was a liar, and they won’t ever admit that they were taken-in by him.
In the end, I predict the dead-enders will face the inevitable prospect of forming a dissident Far Right Nativist party much like they have in Europe. And I wouldn’t be surprised if most if not all the contributors on this blog will be among its ranks. Unfortunately for them, Turley will not be there to stand shoulder to shoulder.
Why aren’t we getting daily COVID death number as reported last year? Are these reports censored? Would it show these mandates aren’t necessary any more?
“Why aren’t we getting daily COVID death number as reported last year?”
We are.
…in the main, you can still say what you want to government. — mespo
Might want to ask the people being held in jail without bail for marching to the Capitol on 1/6/21 to petition the government for a redress of their grievances about that…
Now where have we seen that happen before? Oh, that’s right:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. DoI
Isn’t censorship unconstitutional? Or can Congress, both Houses, impose censorship? The President? How can censorship be imposed after the fact? Are UTube and CNN using censorship when they leave part of their information out or already available via Senate records? How would they be chastised? They have become another arm of the Left; or news media of any sort. Shouldn’t there be contradiction by conservatives?
Learn the difference between the government and a private company.
Before criticizing what Sandra should learn, you should learn what privitizing government censorship is.
I believe Rand Paul was censored for saying that ordinary cloth masks are ineffective. Michael Osterholm has also said several times that those kinds of masks have a “very limited impact”. He is an epidemiologist and a senior advisor to Biden. As I understand the science on the microscopic level, the virus is too small to be caught by an ordinary cloth mask, unless it is being carried by a droplet large enough to be caught. And many studies have shown that mask mandates have little if any effect on spread. So far as I can tell, it is not “settled” science that ordinary cloth masks have a material effect on transmission. So how is it “misinformation” to say that?
The new rule is that it’s misinformation if [Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.] say it’s misinformation…
I am curious, to what studies do you refer? Please provide. Remember: the study must show a cloth mask’s effect on the spread of Delta, including secondary effects (not just effects on the wearer directly). Also the conditions of the study must be similar to the areas of the country where spread is occurring the fastest, i.e., in areas where there is no social distancing or other policies intended to reduce the spread of Covid. Without such a study, you cannot make the claim you have just made.
It is ok though if you don’t have such a study because it seems like even ophthalmologists can’t accurately read a scientific journal these days…
“Michael Osterholm has also said several times that those kinds of masks have a “very limited impact”. He is an epidemiologist and a senior advisor to Biden.”
Thank you Daniel for placing the name with Biden and the cloth mask. Now we can all see that what Svelaz and some others say are made out of whole cloth.
Not always a Paul fan, but one could make a strong argument that Congress needs to expand the “public accommodations” clause of the Civil Rights Act to protect First Amendment activity. Like the original Civil Rights Act this could also be a Fourteenth Amendment issue as well.
The Civil Rights Act’s “public accommodations” clause basically was prevent some private businesses from treating some citizens as 2nd Class Citizens. Facebook and Twitter have so much market share that this is essentially a “public accommodation”.
What if Martin Luther King, Jr or Louis Brandeis or Gloria Steinem were censored and not entitled to the same speech rights as other citizens? Not allowed to participate in the competition of ideas and debate.
A United States member of Congress (representing millions of voters) is not allowed to speak to those constituents? Don’t agree with him but this is outrageous.
Ashcroft at 1:11. Your even handed assessment of YouTube’s censorship is appreciated. One must also consider what members of what political party are calling for even more censorship by social media. Are they members of your party and do you bolster their efforts? Being so even handed, maybe you should asses a new evaluation.
Ashcroft you are making some very good points and coming from the left I agree with Thinkitthorough, it is appreciated. But I have a prediction that you may not care to hear…you will not be a lefty for long. Ashcroft, you will join the likes of Glenn Greenwald and Bari Weiss as you start to see the fascism taking place on the left these days.
If you are bothered today about a sitting United States Senator getting censored it means that you are awakening to what the left is doing and of course with the left it ALWAYS gets worse.
The left goes from marriage equality for gays (something I was for before Obama and Hilary) to screaming for trans “men” being allowed to use women’s locker rooms and bathrooms.
The left goes from support for women’s sports (which has wide approval) to people born as men being allowed to wrestle against people born as women.
The left goes from wanting to cut back on carbon output to trying to ban or cripple our energy sector. The left goes from wanting China to join in global trade to supporting China and parroting every argument they make internationally.
The left goes from civil rights for Black to forced classes for employees that tell whites that they are oppressors and that they are evil.
The left goes from prison reform to making robbery of under $1,000 no longer a crime and ending cash bail for everyone so that criminals are back on the street committing the same crime on the same day.
The left goes from “let’s support DACA students to let’s open the border. They go from sanctuary cities to nobody should be deported, even criminals.
The left goes from Geraldine Ferraro, Walter Mondale and Bill and even Hilary Clinton to AOC, Tlaib, Omar and the newest genius, Cori Bush. They go from Sam Nunn to Swalwell. From Daniel Patrick Moynihan to Schiff.
Just think in about 7 years we will voting fervently against AOC for president as we plead with Democrats to nominate a moderate like Liz Warren!!!!
Understand this, “peer reviewed studies” have no place in America any longer, unless those studies coincide with the Alt-lefts agenda.
He was suspended for giving wrong and dangerous lies about mask wearing g. He was not suspended for being against mandates , you idiots.
Er … the idiots are the slaves wearing the ineffective masks.
“Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients. Prior evidence that surgical masks effectively filtered influenza virus (1) informed recommendations that patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 should wear face masks to prevent transmission (2). However, the size and concentrations of SARS–CoV-2 in aerosols generated during coughing are unknown. Oberg and Brousseau (3) demonstrated that surgical masks did not exhibit adequate filter performance against aerosols measuring 0.9, 2.0, and 3.1 μm in diameter. Lee and colleagues (4) showed that particles 0.04 to 0.2 μm can penetrate surgical masks. The size of the SARS–CoV particle from the 2002–2004 outbreak was estimated as 0.08 to 0.14 μm (5); assuming that SARS-CoV-2 has a similar size, surgical masks are unlikely to effectively filter this virus.”
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-1342
This is why presumably honest brokers panned the droplet spread theory, which failed to materialize in significant numbers, where conventional masks have at least limited utility in a very limited frame of reference (e.g. time).
About that study/article:
“This article has been retracted. See Notice of Retraction.”
Retractions7 July 2020
Notice of Retraction: Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/L20-0745
If you clicked on the link that you posted, you would see that the article was retracted. Per the linked Notice of Retraction:
According to recommendations by the editors of Annals of Internal Medicine, we are retracting our article, “Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2. A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients,” which was published at Annals.org on 6 April 2020 (1).
We had not fully recognized the concept of limit of detection (LOD) of the in-house reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction used in the study (2.63 log copies/mL), and we regret our failure to express the values below LOD as “<LOD (value).” The LOD is a statistical measure of the lowest quantity of the analyte that can be distinguished from the absence of that analyte. Therefore, values below the LOD are unreliable and our findings are uninterpretable. Reader comments raised this issue after publication. We proposed correcting the reported data with new experimental data from additional patients, but the editors requested retraction.
Trust, but verify.
The retraction states:
“Reader comments raised this issue after publication. We proposed correcting the reported data with new experimental data from additional patients, but the editors requested retraction.”
That the editors would request a retraction is concerning. In medical research, and COVID-19 is too fresh, too new, too fluid, to fall under any other umbrella, we are always slicing and dicing data. Corrected data is not only welcomed but demanded when authors publish. Yet, the ACP editors would have none of it. Wow. They are no better than Twatter & Facelessbook
The motives of the editors….big question mark. But alas, we are no longer working in medicine with evidenced based data paradigms. It’s all emotion. Medicine today is politics.
The “retracted” article is directly in line with the following commentary from Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota:
“A cloth mask or face covering does very little to prevent the emission or inhalation of small particles. As discussed in an earlier CIDRAP commentary and more recently by Morawska and Milton (2020) in an open letter to WHO signed by 239 scientists, inhalation of small infectious particles is not only biologically plausible, but the epidemiology supports it as an important mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
In summary, though we support mask wearing by the general public, we continue to conclude that cloth masks and face coverings are likely to have limited impact on lowering COVID-19 transmission, because they have minimal ability to prevent the emission of small particles, offer limited personal protection with respect to small particle inhalation, and should not be recommended as a replacement for physical distancing or reducing time in enclosed spaces with many potentially infectious people. We are very concerned about messaging that suggests cloth masks or face coverings can replace physical distancing. We also worry that the public doesn’t understand the limitations of cloth masks and face coverings when we observe how many people wear their mask under their nose or even under their mouth, remove their masks when talking to someone nearby, or fail to practice physical distancing when wearing a mask.”
Yeah the corrupt CDC found a speck of paint thinner on the Mona Lisa and took down the whole picture. And the dopes around here cheered them on saying they saved art!
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
Court Orders Release of January 6 Defendant – After 5 MONTHS PRETRIAL DETENTION! Viva Frei Vlawg
33,216 views
Aug 11, 2021
5.4K
17
Share
Save
Viva Frei
376K subscribers
It shouldn’t matter what side of the isle you find yourself on. The injustice being committed to the January 6 defendants is an affront to the Constituton.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
“He was suspended for giving wrong and dangerous lies about mask wearing g. He was not suspended for being against mandates , you idiots.”
Only idiots call others idiots if they can’t prove their case.
Your proof?