This week, the arrest of British Catholic woman for ‘praying’ outside an abortion clinic has attracted international attention. However, the jailing of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, director of anti-abortion group March for Life UK, is neither surprising nor particularly rare as a denial of free speech in Great Britain. While this form of “protest” is uncommon as the basis for an arrest, free speech has been in a free fall in the UK for years. It is also a cautionary tale for those in the United States, which is facing arguably the largest anti-free speech movement in its history.
Pictures from Birmingham show Vaughan-Spruce, 45, simply standing near the abortion clinic silently praying when an officer confronts her. She was not blocking access or displaying any protest signs or material. Nevertheless, she was arrested, jailed, interrogated, and ultimately charged with four counts of violating the abortion clinic “buffer zone.”
According to reports, the West Midlands Police officer asked her “are you praying?” She responded “I might be praying in my head, but not out loud.”
That was it. She was arrested for praying “in her head” near an abortion clinic.
A recent order from September 7 made clear that praying near an abortion clinic is now a criminal act in the country. The Birmingham City Council order says that prohibited acts includes “but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling.”
Various individuals heralded the arrest. Dr. John Michael Leslie went on Twitter to declare “No, you’re in violation of it you repeatedly harass women going to a Family Planning Clinic who might be asking for Abortion Advice. “Praying in her head” is the spin from her supporters.”
However, legally, that is itself a dangerous pin. She was not arrested for past conduct but her current conduct, which was praying in her head.
Another poster objected that “It’s so obvious she’s martyring herself in the glare of the public as a way of publicising her beliefs, she knowingly went into that area to get arrested. You must think we’re all crackers.”
Indeed, though “crackers” does not quite capture the free speech crisis in the UK. This is not the first thought crime prosecuted in the country.
Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.
After the sentencing Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
“Toxic ideology” also appears to be the target in Ireland with the recently proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) law. It would criminalize the possession of material deemed hateful. The law is a free speech nightmare. The law makes it a crime of possession of harmful material” as well as “condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.” The law expressly states the intent to combat “forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.”
What is so striking about the law is that it allows for the prosecution of citizens for “preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or hatred against persons on account of their protected characteristics.” That could sweep deeply into not just political but literary expression.
The expansion of such prosecutions to thought crimes is a natural extension of the anti-free speech movement that took hold of much of Europe decades ago. The decline of free speech in the United Kingdom has long been a concern for free speech advocates. A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police teeshirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”
Once you start as a government to criminalize speech, you end up on a slippery slope of censorship. What constitutes hate speech or “malicious communications” remains a highly subjective matter and we have seen a steady expansion of prohibited terms and words and gestures.
It is easy for Americans to wave off such European prosecutions by pointing to our First Amendment. However, there is a growing movement in the United States to replicate such European laws. Indeed, Democratic leaders such as Hillary Clinton have enlisted European governments to force Twitter to censor fellow citizens. Likewise, Democratic members have pushed for a new law that could be used to crackdown specifically on right-wing groups based on their ideology.
The United Kingdom is an example of the slippery slope of speech criminalization that inevitably took them to “thought crimes,” even criminal prayers. These cases should be a wake up for all who value free speech. If such prosecutions stand, free speech literally does not have a prayer in the Western world.
There are only two reasons someone would mislabel National Socialists as ‘right wing’. One is to promote National Socialism by conflating it with something more acceptible. The other is to defame right-wing politics by associating it with the far-left National Socialists.
The National Socialists identified themselves as right wing. Apparently you can’t deal with the fact that they were right wing.
The National Vanguard movement (National socialists) disagree with you. They no longer want to hide on the right. They clearly admit they are on the left and want you to know it.
“The National Socialists identified themselves as right wing. Apparently you can’t deal with the fact that they were right wing.”
+++
Forget ‘wings’. They identified as socialists. It’s even in their name. They were socialists and acted like socialists do everywhere, including those in the Richard Jewell Building.
I’ll believe that you want to forget wings when you tell that to people who call Nazis left wing.
As for your claim, no, the Nazis were not socialists: https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
Just like koala bears aren’t bears.
And light years aren’t a measure of time.
And king crabs aren’t crabs.
And fireflies aren’t flies.
And …
I bet you, too, can think of other examples of misnomers. But I doubt that you want to.
Prominent Nazis boasted of being socialists in their private writings and in their communications with each other. It isn’t just that they chose ‘socialist’ in the name of their party, [but that alone should be significant evidence that they thought of themselves as socialists] they named themselves as socialists, and they were socialists. The Italian Fascists were socialists too. Get rid of the ‘wings’ and try to think clearly. The left and right wings made sense in the French Revolution where it derived from their actual physical locations, but it is only used to obscure the truth these days.
“Get rid of the ‘wings’ and try to think clearly.”
Exactly.
Classify political parties by reference to political philosophy — not by where they happened to be sitting during the french Revolution.
The Nazis identified themselves as right wing and conservative, so don’t pretend that right and left wing references only legitimately describe parties during the French Revolution. And you don’t shy away from complaining about “leftists” elsewhere, so your complaint rings a bit hollow here.
“[Y]ou don’t shy away from complaining about ‘leftists’ . . .”
I’ll let pass the implied ad hominem.
For me, “leftist” is a short-hand tag that stands for: socialists and fascists in the democratic party (both of which concepts are from political philosophy).
For you, “right” is an intellectually stunted tag, used to smear Amercian conservatives.
(My gosh, you are skilled at dropping the context.)
And what do you call the fascists on the right?
“And what do you call the fascists on the right?”
Anti-abortionists.
Not fascism
Words actually have meaning.
Mangling them as you wish merely impairs your thought and ability to communicate.
Fascism is a form of socialism.
Pro-life is neither fascist not socialist.
Fascism does not mean – views I do not like.
Fascism: Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state – Benito Mussolini
An accurate description of socialism, not even close to a description of pro-life.
I would note actual fascists murdered people. Women, Children, babies pregnant women and their fetus’s.
The pro-life movement does not murder people – it even opposes the death penalty.
Pro-life = anti-fascist.
You don’t. Fascism is a form of socialism.
Socialism is on the left.
The Nazi’s were nationalists, socialists and racists.
The modern left is socialist and racist.
“Everything in the state, nothing outside the state . . .”
Including a woman’s body, procreation choices, finances, future, happiness.
You left out a key element: Under fascism, an individual holds title to property and rights, but the government controls the use and disposition of that property and right. Under anti-abortion laws, a woman holds title to her life and body, but the government controls how she uses her body.
That is textbook fascism.
“a woman holds title to her life and body,”
Sam, can a woman place an explosive inside her body if she desires? You say, “she holds title to her life and body.”
You have to say yes based on your words. Accepting such a position, does the woman have a right to walk into Grand Central Station where she could explode?
That is a yes or no answer.
If the answer is no, justify it concerning your statement, “she holds title to her life and body.”
“That is a yes or no answer.”
If you want to engage with me, I suggest you not try to set the terms of my response.
>>“That is a yes or no answer.”
>If you want to engage with me, I suggest you not try to set the terms of my response.
Sam, I didn’t tell you how you had to answer. I suggested that the answer was yes or no. You can answer the question any way you wish, but I think your own words trapped you and put you in a position you could not defend. Let me propose the question again without the yes and no, noting I am providing my opinion, not yours, and no force is involved.
“You have to say yes based on your words. Accepting such a position, does the woman have a right to walk into Grand Central Station where she could explode?”
Do you have a response?
The Abortion debate is NOT over a woman’s control of her own body.
Though I would note the court has not recognized a broad right to control of your own body.
Buck V Bell is unfortunately still good law, as are innumerable public health cases – both in the past and recently afirming the rights of government to control other peoples bodies.
But if we assume that a person actually has a right to control of their own body – something right and left actually SHOULD agree on.
With respect to abortion the fundimental question is what is a woman’s rights regarding the Fetus ?
A fetus is NOT a part of a woman’s body. It is an independent living thing IN a woman’s body.
“. . . your own words trapped you . . .”
Actually, you trapped yourself into equivocating between a potential and an actual.
I have no more interest in this topic.
The nazi’s did not identify themselves as either right wing of conservative.
They identified as socialist, and progressive.
Aside from their nationalism they strongly resemble the modern left.
They were strong advocates for science – chained to ideology,
They were advocates for state power for the greater good.
They placed the state above the individual.
They had a highly developed system of race based merit.
With respect to left and right – you are bother wrong and irrelevant.
Right now on several important values democrats and republicans are exchanging values.
Does that make republicans left and democrats right ?
Republicans are rapidly becoming the party of the working class and minorities.
While democrats the party of usually white elites, and big business.
Have right and left changed ?
“The Nazis identified themselves as right wing and conservative”
Nope, they were progressive.
The link below was written in 1940, by an austrian it explains that not only was Hitler a socialsist and a progressive,
But that he was anti-capitalist.
Bussinesses chose Hitler as the lessor of two evils, as a choice of survival, life and death.
https://mises.org/library/progressive-attacks-capitalism-were-key-hitlers-success
The Britanica article is more distorted media.
Please familiarize yourself with the actual programs of the Nazi’s
Both in Germany and Italy government while not owning the means of production – directed it, by force.
Hitlers’s Germany pioneered many of the social programs now associated with the modern socialism.
Nazi’s and Italian Fascists were anti-free market.
Their policies outside of their nationalism and militarism were indistinguishable from Subsequent European socialists.
You can start here
https://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Documents-Definitive-Collected/dp/0226320553
Then here
https://www.econlib.org/how-socialist-was-national-socialism/
Then here
“Both books look at the German roots of centralized planning and the nature of the people who rise to power when the State is powerful. The conversation includes discussion of the these topics as well as the rule of law and the amount of state control of the economy in Nazi Germany.”
https://www.econtalk.org/caplan-on-hayek-richter-and-socialism/
https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian
https://fee.org/articles/were-the-nazis-really-socialists-it-depends-on-how-you-define-socialism/
https://fee.org/resources/the-economic-policy-of-the-nazis/
Why is it that we constantly have to keep shooting down this a historical nonsense.
2 + 2 != 5 just because some left wing academic says so.
Physics is not racist because some left wing academic says so.
Socialists have taken over our institutions, and are busy rewriting history, because the history of socialism is so vile and bloody.
But rewriting history does not change it.
2 + 2 != 5
And the Nazis weren’t socialists. They imprisoned socialists.
“And the Nazis weren’t socialists. They imprisoned socialists.”
They also imprisoned (and murdered) Nazis. Does that mean they weren’t Nazis?
It’s called a political purge. Happens all the time in dictatorships.
Sam, Good point. During the Night of the Long Knives the Nazis mostly murdered other Nazis, though there was at least one mistake where someone who had the same name as a Nazi was murdered.
During Stalin’s purges it was mostly faithful Communist party members who were murdered.
As you say, it happens all the time in dictatorships. Long history of it if we remember Sulla.
These left wing nuts are thoroughly ignorant of their own history.
Even today – you are more likely to get cancelled for slight deviations on the left than for actually being conservative.
They didn’t go on a campaign against other Nazis. They did go on a campaign against socialists. There’s a reason that Niemöller’s quote starts “First they came for the Socialists…”
“Among the earliest victims of discrimination and persecution in Nazi Germany were political opponents—primarily Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, and trade union leaders.”
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/mosaic-of-victims-in-depth
Shirer was shocked that so many street fighter Communists found comfortable spots in the Nazi party. He was also shocked when Nazis and Communists joined to fight the Weimar authotities. Nazis in the DDR managed to do reasonably well in the Communist state. They aren’t poles apart; they are gangsters and thugs competing for the same turf.
Absolutely – this remains true today.
The left near universally is at war with itself.
You are far more likely to get “cancelled” today if you are on the left than on the right.
Ideological purity and ideological purges are common place on the left.
The Cultural Revolution was Mao’s purge of one group of competing socialists.
The History of the USSR is a history of purging deviant forms of marxism.
Under Stalin things got so bad you could end up in the gulags for quoting the wrong Stalin quotes.
These are just a few of many examples of various socialist groups purging competing socialist groups.
You are really ignorant of history.
The enemy of a socialist is historically far more likely to be another socialist than anything else.
They imprisoned communists.
They were socialists.
They called themselves socialists.
Their ideology was a nationalist variant of Socialism – which should be self evident as their party was the
National Socialist German Workers Party.
Saying that the Nazi’s were not socialist is exactly the same as saying 2 + 2 = 5.
You do not think that different socialist groups have never fought with each other or even gone to war with each other ?
In 1978 the Vietnamese Communists invaded the Cambodia rules by the Khmer Rouge Communists.
Two groups killing each other does not make them distinct ideologies.
Stalin murdered more communists than Hitler.
ATS: ” I bet you, too, can think of other examples of misnomers. But I doubt that you want to.”
+++
I doubt that ATS is a misnomer.
Thanks for substantiating my claim.
I have my weaknesses, but stupidity isn’t one of them.
Maybe not stupid, but in the grip of delusions.
I wonder if you are going to get the Covid booster, “following the science”, or have you finally realized you were suckered into taking a toxic, experimental substance without fully informed consent. Cases of vax injuries in the many thousands are leaking out despite the government’s stranglehold on social media and the legacy media.
You once raged about the Tuskegee Study [study, not experiment] and you lack the self awareness to recognize that you were drawn into an actual, dangerous medical experiment that is much worse than anything done in Tuskegee.
Participants in Tuskegee were given nothing more dangerous than lunch and they could quit whenever they wanted. But not you. You can’t. Once injected, you can’t get it out, you know. Lab rat forever.
Some studies are experimental; others aren’t. The Tuskegee study was an immoral experiment without informed consent.
Lab rats cannot consent or withhold consent, so drop that stupid comparison.
Keep moving the goalposts, it shows how weak your claims are.
“Tuskegee study was an immoral experiment without informed consent.”
+++
Tuskegee was an observational study, not an experiment like the experimental Covid vaccines.
They had a measure of informed consent framed in their language, ‘bad blood’ rather than scientific or medical language. Look at Bang v Charles T Miller Hosp to see how informed consent based on precise medical terminology was inadequate. The consent should have been obtained in that case using language the patient could understand. The Tuskegee participants understood ‘bad blood’. It was one of their own terms for syphilis.
With the Covid vax you were not informed of risks, consequences, outcome without the vax, or treatment alternatives. Nor were you told how shabby the rushed studies were before manufacturing the vax. The drug companies wanted to hide them for about 75 years. A judge had to order their release.
Treatments like HCQ and Ivermectin were suppressed and you were not you told that with early treatment a relatively healthy person could avoid hospital and death.
Late in the Tuskegee study the participants were not offered penicillin when it was available but they were not denied it. They stood on the same footing as any other member of their community who could elect to go to his doctor and get it.
In the case of Covid the government threw its weight into suppressing medications shown many times to treat Covid. Doctors were punished for offering it and major drug chains removed it from their shelves. A safe, effective alternative medication was demonized and suppressed. Nothing like that happened in the Tuskegee study. Criminal.
Enthralled by the delusions used to pressure people into getting this dangerous experimental substance you were incapable of meaningfully giving or withholding consent. You were [are] a lab rat in a dangerous medical experiment. If we had caught one of the Nazi doctors injecting inmates with this stuff we would have hanged him.
My question was whether you have shaken free of this particular delusion and elected not to get the many boosters these Nuremberg type criminals are selling now.
“A total of 600 men were enrolled in the study. Of this group 399, who had syphilis were a part of the experimental group, and 201 were control subjects.”
https://www.tuskegee.edu/about-us/centers-of-excellence/bioethics-center/about-the-usphs-syphilis-study
It was an experimental study. The researchers didn’t infect the men in the experimental group, but that doesn’t change the fact that there were both experimental and control groups. The withholding of information throughout the study and withholding of treatment were both central to the experiment. You seem not to understand that such withholding is itself an experimental intervention.
“They had a measure of informed consent”
Total BS. It is unethical not to inform participants of the potential negative effects of participation in the study. If that information is missing, the consent cannot be informed consent.
“They stood on the same footing as any other member of their community who could elect to go to his doctor and get it.”
More BS. If your doctor fails to clearly discuss your diagnosis and routine treatment with you, they’re guilty of malpractice.
“With the Covid vax you were not informed of risks, consequences, outcome without the vax, or treatment alternatives.”
Still more BS. Don’t pretend that you know better than I do what information I was given prior to my consent. The real problem is that a lot of people likely don’t read it, so their consent isn’t informed, but in this case by their own choice.
My question to you is: when will you stop spouting BS?
“Total BS. It is unethical not to inform participants of the potential negative effects of participation in the study. If that information is missing, the consent cannot be informed consent.”
+++
At the time of the study there were no negative effects for participation because there were no non-toxic treatments available. They got the same treatment everyone not in the study got plus lunch.
You say that “It is unethical not to inform participants of the potential negative effects of participation in the study. If that information is missing, the consent cannot be informed consent.”
You don’t seem to understand that doctors conducting a study such as this are not in a doctor/patient relationship with fiduciary duties owed to the patient. There is a very big legal difference between the two. Something similar arises if a doctor is conducting an employment exam. He is not in a physician/patient relationship. If he sees a problem he reports it to the employer but he can’t treat the person without triggering the obligations of a physician/patient relationship. He should advise the subject to see his own physician about the problem.
The difficulty you are having is that you don’t know what you are talking about. Also, you want to think of the Tuskegee blacks like Rhesus monkeys in cages who are unable to make their own rational decisions. You have something of a white-saviour complex. You hunger for this to be an experiment rather than a study. It isn’t. Your Covid vax is an experiment, however.
So, Rhesus Anonymous, are you going to get the booster for the next stage of the Covid vax experiment?
Anon,
I looked at your citation. You obviously missed this part:
“The intent of the study was to record the natural history of syphilis in Black people. The study was called the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” When the study was initiated there were no proven treatments for the disease.”
Does “no proven treatment” mean anything to you? What negative consequences were they supposed to warn about when there were no proven treatments?
This is the type of issue that led to your ATS moniker.
You seem not to understand that **researchers** have a fiduciary duty to study participants. There are human subjects institutional review boards (IRBs) at all institutions that engage in human subjects research to make sure that the consent is informed consent, that the potential risks aren’t too great, …
As for your lie that “At the time of the study there were no negative effects for participation,” the study continued until 1972, and you damned well know that there were negative effects from not being informed about diagnosis and treatment for decades.
“The difficulty you are having is that you don’t know what you are talking about.”
I’ve carried out research involving human subjects, so actually I do know. I’ve gotten IRB approval for studies. I’ve had to write informed consent forms and make sure that the people I was asking to participate understood the potential harms.
You insult me and then turn around and expect me to treat you like a good faith discussant. Don’t hold your breath.
“I’ve carried out research involving human subjects, so actually I do know. I’ve gotten IRB approval for studies. I’ve had to write informed consent forms and make sure that the people I was asking to participate understood the potential harms.”
Congratulations, ATS, you qualify as a government secretary checking the paper word. You could probably take that knowledge and work in a medical office as a medical assistant.
“You seem not to understand that **researchers** have a fiduciary duty to study participants.”
ATS, do you know that a government agency performed the Tuskeegee study? Do you realize the government has done other studies on people without telling them both in the military and non-military? Do you forget the biggest study ever, the Covid vaccine study of an unapproved vaccine forced on people? Unlike the study you are complaining about, the government used force to make people take the vaccine and intentionally prevented information from being disseminated to the public.
If the Tuskegee study, done before ethics were as firmly in place, disturbs you then you should be much more disturbed about how the government handled Covid. Don’t call yourself a moral or ethical person because your concern is purely ideological, and you could care less about the people involved.
I don’t like these ethical failures, but I am consistent. I am bound by moral and ethical concerns, not ideological ones. I wonder what the ethical guidelines were when the Tuskegee Study began.
Anon,
Did you miss the opening statement in the Tuskegee report you cited?
At the time of the study there were no effective treatments for syphilis.
“You seem not to understand that **researchers** have a fiduciary duty to study participants.”
+++
Actually, I am not sure they do. A duty to exercise reasonable care is not the same as a fiduciary duty to act solely in the best interests of the participant as that duty exists in a physician/patient relationship. There is a legal distinction there that seems to elude you. For example, are you acting in the best interests of the participant in Stage I trials of a new and potentially harmful drug? Probably not. Would you take it? Let your child take it? Let your patient take it? But as a researcher you would administer it to a volunteer. As to Tuskegee you are straining to find offence where it scarcely exists but ignore it with the experimental Covid vax.
Getting the next booster? Afraid to answer?
Young, you ignore that just sentences later they note “When penicillin became the standard treatment for the disease in 1947 the medicine was withheld as a part of the treatment for both the experimental group and control group.” The study continued until 1972. Researchers have an ongoing responsibility to study participants. You’re quite the moral degenerate.
ATS: “Young, you ignore that just sentences later they note “When penicillin became the standard treatment for the disease in 1947 the medicine was withheld as a part of the treatment for both the experimental group and control group.”
+++
Of course the treatment was withheld. The study was originally designed to study untreated cases.
They were not in a physician/patient relationship with an affirmative duty to treat. They were more akin to a doctor conducting an employment physical who should not undertake treatment lest he engage the legal obligations of an actual physician/patient relationship.
This is where you treat the participants, rather insultingly, not to mention racist, as if they were Rhesus monkeys. They weren’t. They lived in the community with folks not in the study where they had the same access to information about treatment as everyone else and were free to drop out of the study and get treatment from their own doctor just like everyone else. They weren’t basically experimental monkeys as you seem to think. That is very racist and demeaning.
Meanwhile, you haven’t said a word about the dangerous and ongoing medical experiment with the Covid vaccines. Won’t your probable masters in the Richard Jewell Building let you mention it?
They were in a researcher/participant relationship, where the researchers had an affirmative duty to inform them of treatment and to end the study.
You lack an understanding of research ethics, and moral degenerate that you are, you are uninterested in developing an understanding.
This is where you act lie a troll, and I call you out on it and walk away.
ATS: “This is where you act lie a troll, and I call you out on it and walk away.”
+++
They must be turning out the lights in the Richard Jewell Building.
Cases of vax injuries in the many thousands are leaking out despite the government’s stranglehold on social media and the legacy media.
Try to keep the hyperbole in check
Over 260 million RNA COVID vaccines were administered. If 50% of those had had injuries, that would equate to 130 Million, 10% = 26 million 1% = 2.6 million. None of these happened. RNA is synthesized in the nucleus of every nucleated cell but it is ejected / transported out of the nucleus via its nuclear pore complexes (NPC) and into the cytoplasm so that it can synthesize proteins. The administration of an RNA vaccine never reaches the cell nucleus because the NPC is unidirectional, the NPC is strictly regulated by various other proteins, RNA is nonmotile, and RNA must be transported via multiple adaptor protein factors. RNA can not swim like a sperm, it can not permeate membranes via osmosis or down concentration gradients (nothing permeates cell membranes nor nuclear membranes without proteins), RNA is degraded by enzymes in the cytoplasm if it is not carried by its assigned adaptor proteins.
The injuries you mention happened just like they also happen with aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, penicillin, etc. These injuries occur not because of the drug itself but because the person receiving the drug has genetically altered proteins that play a role in molecular mechanisms, metabolic pathways, cell signaling, etc that the drug utilizes.
The immune system is the most complex biological system we humans have, that frankly no one truly understands. The CDC failed miserably in their messaging regarding COVID in general and the RNA vaccines specifically. But to say the COVID RNA vaccine was toxic, never mind your above characterizations of it being used on human guinea pigs like me, only confirms you do not understand these things. You could if you educated yourself by studying immunology.
Medicine is difficult. Knowing that medical paradigms are mutable is key
see: Köhler A, Hurt E. Exporting RNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007 Oct;8(10):761-73. doi: 10.1038/nrm2255.
Exporting RNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm
NB: Robert Malone may have some legitimate concerns but to elevate him is the same mistake others did with Fauci. Malone is no more “science” than Fauci.
“Malone is no more “science” than Fauci.”
+++
Malone is a bit more science than Fauci. He discovered the root technology for the mRNA ‘vaccines’ and holds a number of the patents on it.
It isn’t a question of ‘elevating him’, whatever that means, but of according his opinion greater weight because of his discoveries and practical experience, just as one would do with an expert in court.
Moreover, Malone would never declare himself to be Science. He backs his views with arguments based on actual studies and leaves others free to dispute with him, a process he deems essential to the advance of science. Fauci doesn’t tolerate disagreement.
Senator Ron Johnson held a roundtable discussion with many experts, including clinicians and people injured by the vaccine. It is well worth watching if you haven’t seen it yet.
There is no legal justification for using an experimental drug when there are effective and safe repurposed drugs available, and for Covid there are.
“Try to keep the hyperbole in check”
+++
The VAERS reports for vaccine injury and death reportedly far exceed ALL of the reports for ALL of the other vaccines combined since reporting began.
Are you sure I am engaging in hyperbole?
Tsunami more coming.
https://usawatchdog.com/fda-criminally-approved-bioweapon-as-safe-effective-vaccine-karen-kingston/
The VAERS reports for vaccine injury and death reportedly far exceed ALL of the reports for ALL of the other vaccines combined since reporting began.
In God we trust. All others must have data
– Bernard Fisher
show me data, not global statements
Are you sure I am engaging in hyperbole?
Yup. its how Americans speak today, largely divorced from dispassionate discussions where members seek truth. Now people just want to insult, pounce and virtue signal, e.g. Oky1 statement below and this from a man in his 80s. Then folks wonder why our nation is imploding
“Yup. its how Americans speak today, largely divorced from dispassionate discussions where members seek truth.”
Estovir, in a dispassionate manner and as one who took the Covid vaccine and under the same circumstances would do the same, I wonder what the proof is that:
1) A mandate was necessary to such an extent people lost their jobs if they didn’t take the vaccine.
2) Proof that taking the vaccine protected others.
3) Proof that children should get the vaccine.
4) Proof pregnant women should get the vaccine.
5) Proof that people under the age of 40 required the vaccine.
6) Proof that the military, mostly less than 40 years old, should get the vaccine.
7) Proof that the vaccine providers provided all the materials to the public that involved the safety of the vaccines.
8) Proof that our government wasn’t lying to us about whether or not the vaccine was warranted.
9) Proof that alternate opinions shouldn’t be available.
10) Proof that the CDC, Fauci, and others did not intentionally lie to the American public.
I took the vaccine and would do so again based on my age. I was permitted to see the selective science that advanced the use of the vaccines, but no dispassionate evidence of honesty by much of the scientific community, along with our government agencies.
Maybe you can provide some dispassionate answers.
The Post in the form of Tweets provides more questions along with the very big question: Why did the “Biden admin pushed to bar Twitter users for COVID ‘disinformation,’ “
A lot of legitimate things were mentioned based on fact or science.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/26/biden-admin-pushed-to-ban-twitter-users-for-covid-disinformation/?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_alert&utm_content=20221226?&utm_source=sailthru&lctg=62680bbe38a279b1870b18c5&utm_term=NYP%20-%20News%20Alerts
Estorvir,
I hope you enjoyed what many believe is Jesus’ birthday.
Hi Estovir.
“Now people just want to insult, pounce and virtue signal, e.g. Oky1 statement below”
I’ve a little vertigo thing that’s a moving target going on for a bit. I read & post as I can.
You said you like research Material, maybe you should’ve viewed this link I posted for Young.
***********
https://usawatchdog.com/fda-criminally-approved-bioweapon-as-safe-effective-vaccine-karen-kingston/
********
Now about those 10 Banana boats full of Cuban Cigars you promised?, I’m going to need them in 2023 as I intend to knock up every pretty gal that buys into my slick talking legalese, Robert Redford hair & good looks. I’m very optimistic of my chances. LOL;)
INTRODUCING INFOWARS PLATINUM!
40% Off At InfowarsStore.com
Skip Ad in 7
Watch The Vax Drop In “Effectiveness” As They Keep Pushing
2,936 views
·
Dec 13, 2022
5
Share
Download
Hit The Breaks
Hit The Breaks
Watch as Dr. Fauci keeps pushing vaccine as Alex Jones is proved right that the shots will never end.
https://banned.video/watch?id=6398e1ed285552204c186c66
VIDEO: Dr. Yeadon Calls Out Satanic Cult Behind Deadly Covid Vax Push
130,806 views
·
Dec 21, 2022
67
Share
Download
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show
Alex Jones breaks down the video of PhD Michael Yeadon calling out the satanic cult behind the deadly Covid vax push.
https://banned.video/watch?id=63a38c743120b402ae247ff0
Anonymous the Stupid, based on some of your comments over the past two days that I haven’t answered, you have proven yourself stupid. Just read them. You also have a lack of imagination.
And you would have evidence of that ?
“Why Are We Socialists?” Joseph Goebbels 1929 447 pages
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55370496-why-are-we-socialists
Yes, but what did he use that word for?
“We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state. … The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism’s nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism… We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. … We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!”
He’s very clearly distinguishing the meaning that he attributes to “socialism” from the meaning attributed by Marxists.
No one has claimed that the fascists were Communists.
Only that they were socialists.
The assorted socialists in Europe post war were with few exceptions not communists.
The fundamental distinction between the NAZI’s and the modern american Progressive Left is the absence of nationalism.
While I will agree that Fascists are not Marxists,
I do nto think any actual marxist would accept Goebbels characterization of Marxism,
and would claim that Marxism is the true socialism and everything Goebels defines and Socialism is also true of Marxism.
When true socialism neither possible nor desireable I am not interested an arbitrating petty squables between various socialist groups including Nazi’s as to who the True socialists are.
Distinction without difference.
I find it interesting that left wing nuts pretty much always seem to play word games rather than make arguments.
Lets define jaberwocky as the “everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”
Marxists, communists, fascists, Nazi’s, European Socialists are all sets that significantly intersect with each other and with Jaberwocky.
I am not interested in the no true socialist version of the no true Scotsman falacy.
Nope. Goebbels litterally wrote a 447 page tome entitled “Why We are Socialists ?” about the Nazi Party in 1929
yup. Nazis have always been far left but then again today’s left finds the former uncomfortable hence their rewriting the meanings of words
National Socialist (German: Nazionalsozialist) Workers’
Socialism = left
Workers rights = left
Ask China nationalism. hint: Marxist left
That’s why we continue to fight for out 1st Amendment Rights in the US. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to you and yours Jonathan!
There is no mystery in sex and conception. The Pro-Choice ethical religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities, again, and again, and again.
Human rites, whether planned parenthood, planned parent/hood, or planned personhood, should not be performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes.
That said, pro-Life, pro-Liberty, and pro-pursuit of Happiness. #HateLovesAbortion
Since the radicals love to game immigration, I suggest a game of our own. Any Europeans who resent the growing tide of leftist tyranny and barbarism in Britain, France, and Germany should be granted automatic refugee status and fast-track citizenship should they want to escape to the US. They would be settled by the millions in NYC, Chicago, Seattle, and LA.
In other words, force the Democrats to negotiate. If you trolls think you hate immigrant buses, just wait until the ships dock. A tough GOP President would do it with executive orders and that’s something to vote for in 2024.
Actually, with “anyone can publish” tech, we’ve witnessed the greatest EXPANSION of expression in recorded history — so much so that the darkest, misanthropic thoughts of the non-self-actualized are freely given voice. This has resulted in a brazen assault of norms of civility across the board. Political activists of all stripes have taken up militant tactics (doxxing, anonymous intimidation, death threats) — these tactics have silenced opposing points of view in all but the most courageous among us. Isn’t that a constriction of free speech norms?
Maximizing freedom of thought and expression requires diligent enforcement of respect and civility.
In the UK, shows of intimidation at the abortion clinic (even silent presence) are roped off as lacking in respect
for the privacy of patients.
JT, if you haven’t noticed, norms are making a comeback. We’ve had quite enough of “loudest voice” politics.
The strident fringes have had their day. The moderate center is reclaiming power to define and enforce norms.
Those with radical/fringe viewpoints are still entitled to them, but not to militant tactics of intimidation.
So, you would describe a silent prayer as “Militant tactics of intimidation?” I’m pretty sure “maximizing freedom of thought and expression requires diligent enforcement of respect and civility” is the most chilling thing I’ll hear all day.
If the woman stayed home and prayed, or stood a block away from the clinic and prayed, how is that limiting her right to pray? Her choice of time and place is a way of not praying, but preying. She is seeking to intimidate those who work or get services at the clinic. It’s the “getting in people’s faces” that makes her style of communication disrespectful. There are other, more dispassionate, civil ways to express her opinion.
I will grant you that civility is a fuzzy standard, and hard for many to separate from the cause of the aggrieved voice. But the alternative, to jettison standards of civility entirely leaves society’s infospace to be dominated the meanest, most cutthroat, relentless activists. Then, the chances of wise policy choices evolved through dispassionate consideration of alternatives evaporates into thin air.
I hope you never have to go into a courtroom as a litigant, defendant or juror. The rules of speech are quite strict, and refereed in realtime by a presiding Judge. It’s absolutely “chilling”.
Pbinca, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was standing on a sidewalk across the street from a closed abortion clinic. She did this for 20 years without incident. She threatened no one, didn’t obstruct anything, wasn’t protesting, and was silent and alone, not creating a crowd.
Does this change anything you said?
When I am in NYC, I go to where The twin Towers were. I stand in front respectfully like that woman. I do that in person at the site, not at my home. Who are you to dictate where I can pay my respect for those lost on 9/11?
The picture is at, https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-erupts-clip-uk-woman-arrested-silently-praying-across-abortion-clinic-terrifying
ATS writes:
>>“Who are you to dictate where I can pay my respect for those lost on 9/11?” –S. Meyer
>Who said anything about you and 9/11?
I brought the discussion back home. You do not understand why, but that is understandable and why you were named Anonymous the Stupid.
You are ATS, talking to and about yourself.
Anonymous the Stupid, do you hate yourself so much that you have to pretend another is you? We already know that you don’t like your identity and that is why you post under anonymous.
—
I brought the discussion back home. You do not understand why, but that is understandable and why you were named Anonymous the Stupid.
You are ATS, talking to and about yourself.
We all know that you think that merely disagreeing with you is a criminal form of intimidation.
We can not stop England from arresting people for thought crimes.
But we can stand aghast when they do, and vow to assure that people like you are deprived of power so that can not possibly happen here.
1984 is a WARNING not a howto manual.
A sidewalk is not a courtroom.
A judge’s tight control of a courtroom is still governed by rules.
The judge can dictate when you can speak.
His control of what a criminal defendant or their advocate can say in their defense is much more limited.
Not as limited as it ought to be but still limited.
Whatever you say, say nothing. Irish Republican Army (IRA)
The British do have a “constitution” but it’s not laid out in form like ours. It’s supposed to the mass accumulation of law over the centuries. The people are not the ultimate authority. Parliament is the ultimate authority and specifically the House Of Commons. When Brexit was approved, many people in the UK thought that was enough to get the exit started but their somewhat Supreme Court said the House of Commons had to pass the law to enable Brexit otherwise it was not constitutional. The House of Lords could for a time delay legislation and amend legislation but those rights have been removed by the House of Commons primarily in the 20th Century. Thats the whole reason we have a written constitution.
There was a right to keep and bear arms “as proscribed by law” and thus it has been slowly removed over the 20th century in the UK. So you might say the parliament almost rules without control. Other states in Europe have written constitutions, many of which came post WW2, but almost all let the constitution be amended by super majorities in the legislative branches, where as we start ours with a 2/3 majorly in each house or in a constitution of the states and then require 3/4 of the states to vote in favor of an amendment. Huge difference.
It appears the British have learned little to nothing in the last 246+ years. They did have their own revolution in the 17th century and then ours a little over a century later. Apparently the lessons did not stick.
There was a line in “the Patriot” said by Mel Gibson when he was thinking about throwing in with the rebels. “Why should I trade a single tyrant from 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away. Legislatures can take away your rights as fast as any King”.
Almost makes you want to get your rifled musket out, clean it up, start melting down your lead for rifle balls with a caliber of 0.50 – 0.6. Get you powder horn all cleaned out, or just buy one of those satanic AR 15’s. There are some good deals for Christmas on ammunition.
.Perfect example of what happens when people are disarmed.
A study of war is really a study of humanity.
GEB, Good comment. Not many know that unlike the US in the UK ultimate sovereignty lies with Parliament rather than with the people. They don’t have a foundation document that begins with “We the people…” Not many Brits seem to know it either, but they may be getting a visceral sense of it as politicians corrupt their constitution and destroy their lives, much as our own government by bureaucrats seems to be doing in the US.
Another example of Western Civilization imploding. Atheists, haters of life (unborn as well), communists, masses of Lefties, Marxists et al, thanks a million…
There can be no greater Nazi value than that which imprisons persons for their thoughts.
One of the January 6 trials in DC?
Another Deep Deep State false flag op?
Talk about Orwellian. Literally the thought police .I have no doubt that many on the Left support this. Not only do I believe in total free speech,( not when EXPLICITLY calling for violence) this takes things to a new level. Now Law enforcement are mind readers? Total insanity.
While this is extremely concerning, it should come as no surprise to true Christians. Jesus, Himself, as well as Paul and the Apostles said it would be like this in the last days as the world turns to the Antichrist and his false prophet. Tonight and tomorrow the “world” celebrates His first coming. Get ready for His second.
The pope likes to stick his nose into the war issue, where he is grossly uninformed, but when it comes to the issue of the Catholic Church’s doctrine on abortion, he waffles. Religion has become a popularity contest.
This pope is absolutely disgusting!!!! He vile and EVIL—IN-DISGUISE!!
This ppppe is a commie.
Do the brits have a constitution? A monarchy is a fancy name for dictatorship. What happens in England should stay in England.
But it won’t. That is the real threat to democracy they want us to ignore
The U.S. Constitution is natural and God-given, and, as such, universal.
Tyranny, oppression and “the dictatorship of the proletariat” are the illicit antithesis.
Some have not yet received the memo.
Freedom and Self-Reliance is the thesis.
“From each according to his ability [to pay confiscatory and punitive taxes], to each according to his [parasitic and dependent] needs” is the antithesis.
Formerly Great Britain, not anymore.
Sent to jail for “holding extremist views.” Who’s the bigger Nazi?
Well at least she wasn’t working out her “pro life” view by blowing someone up or taking names to threaten and intimidate them later.
Hey Holmes, any opinion about the actual issue at hand? I notice you aren’t critical of the police arresting this woman for praying near the clinic…and I find that typical of you and your leftist friends. Or should I say fiends?
As you work on your “pro murder” view?
Did your mother teach you that killing people is a good thing or was it a lesson tendered by the “village?”
__________________________________________________________________________________
If a perpetrator murders a pregnant woman, he is charged with TWO homicides, aka “man” and “kill.”
I presume you retain a functioning cognitive process.
An embryo-cum-fetus-cum-baby is a very young, developing human being.
Abortion is murder or homicide.
Alas for our British cousins. It boggles the mind to think what the government would do to Churchill today
He’d have to move to the US and then fight like heck to stop the madness here.
In the West, or Doublestandardstan as I call it, praying silently outside an abortion clinic is a crime that will result in prison time but chaining yourself in the middle of a highway and thus preventing people from getting to work, school, doctor appointments, including chemo therapy, is just a cute protest and throwing soup on priceless art is just a prank.
Are we just talking to ourselves?
Lots of discussion. Lots of support for free speech.
But the politicians (yes some Republicans are also anti free speech), much of the media, and most lefties continue their attacks.
This is a hill to fight for.
If we lose this one, all else goes.
Right on.
Be careful Professor. What you have written here is clearly “hate speech” and Brandon’s FBI now has you in their sights.
@ wiseoldlawyer
Careful “We the People” have had enough nonsense.
When enough of “We the People” realize the elections are rigged it won’t be the ballot box but the ammo box.
According to the ATF 700 million guns from in circulation. “Gun Control” is about control. Registration, Confiscation, Genocide the Marxist history of the Twentieth Century.
The FBI is corrupt and beyond reforming. ABOLISH the FBI and the IRS. Enemies of “We the People”!
zzclancy:
Good idea but you know it will never happen. We are too far down that road to 1984.
As the National Socialist Democrat WOKE Party continues to suicide America all bets are off. 2023 will be a year of chaos. Civil War is inevitable as America collapses.
zzclancy,
We are witnessing western civilization circling the drain and nothing seems able to stop it.
It reminds me of the DoI and how carefully Jefferson chose each word. He said That whenever [not if ever] any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
In other words, collapse is inevitable. The form our government has taken will be altered or abolished. And we’ll reset the clock. The only question is at what price?
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
_____________________________
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
________________
It’s time, men.
It’s long past time.
2023 will be very chaotic and down right dangerous. Both domesticly and outside US.
Bob, I think your assessment is correct. We face the possibility of 3 wars, all, for a large extent, due to Biden.
Least likely: War with Russia. There would be no war in Ukraine but for Biden.
War with China over Taiwan. More likely because of Biden’s foreign policy, but less likely because of China’s economic problems.
Most likely: War in the Middle East. Israel will attack Iran before they have a completed rocket with a nuclear war head attached. If they wait too long Iran will attack Israel with nuclear weapons. no matter what, America will be drawn in to some extent.
I am not sure that I agree with you that these will happen.
But what is certain is that the risk is much higher than it would have been but for the Biden Presidency.
Something bad and violent is near certain in the mideast and possibly elsewhere.
We have nearly identical economic conditions to those that caused the violence in 2011/2012.
The economic, energy and food problems make the entire world more dangerous
I also think there’s a significant risk of rising inflation. Up to now, the BRIC’s have been unable to dump the dollar as a reserve currency, but $1.65 trillion deficits are very problematical. You add to that having a foreign policy run by a bunch of Harvard sophomores plus a financial system run by a bunch of SBF wannabees, and now even Brazil and India are looking for a “multipolar” currency.
At the moment, the dollar is the prettiest hooker in a saloon of bad currencies, but Biden is racing to the bottom. The BRIC’s only have to be partially successful at undermining the dollar for US inflation to takeoff, again.
And Biden has to start refilling the strategic oil reserve soon. That will give support to energy prices, even during a recession.
Nothing concentrates the mind like a bad misery index.
The collapse of the Dollar as the World’s reserve currency will be a disaster for the US, and it may be inevitiable.
But it is not likely soon, despite global grumbling.
As Bad as the problems in the US are, those in the rest of the world are worse.
No one is leaving the dollar until there is somewhere better to go.
But when they do – the US is in Deep Schiff.
” even Brazil and India are looking for a “multipolar” currency.”
As you stated, they tried but failed. I don’t think such success will come in the near future as a stable currency is an international desire complicated by jealousy.
The change might be an accepted international cryptocurrency, a danger to us.
Fourth Turning.
I hope you’re wrong, but I fear you’re right. Biden is proving very divisive and incompetent, and the Democrats actually believe the midterms gave them a mandate to keep tormenting us.
Zzclancy, we are there now.