YouTube has continued its censorship of those with opposing positions on Covid 19 and vaccines. This week it prevented users from hearing the views of Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Despite Kennedy running on the failures of the pandemic response, YouTube will not allow users to hear what it considers harmful thoughts.
On Sunday, both Kennedy and podcast host Jordan Peterson tweeted that they were the latest to be censored by the company. Kennedy tweeted: “What do you think… Should social media platforms censor presidential candidates? My conversation with [Peterson] was deleted by [YouTube].”
He added: “Luckily you can watch it here on [Twitter] (thank you [Elon Musk]).”
The incident shows why many on the left continue an unrelenting attack on Musk and Twitter. Musk eliminated most of the company’s censorship system and, despite a few censorship controversies, the site is now the most open social media site among the major companies.
A Google spokesperson told Fox News Digital YouTube “removed a video from the Jordan Peterson channel for violating YouTube’s general vaccine misinformation policy, which prohibits content that alleges that vaccines cause chronic side effects, outside of rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities.”
Rather than allow experts and others to debate that question, Google and YouTube will not allow the debate to occur. It is consistent with calls from Democratic leaders for dissenting voices to be removed on subjects ranging from Covid to gender identity to climate control.
We have been discussing efforts by figures like Hillary Clinton to enlist European countries to force Twitter to restore censorship rules. Unable to rely on corporate censorship or convince users to embrace censorship, Clinton and others are resorting to good old-fashioned state censorship, even asking other countries to censor the speech of American citizens.
President Joe Biden has at times acted as a virtual censor-in-chief, denouncing social-media companies for “killing people” by not censoring enough. Recently, he expressed doubt that the public can “know the truth” without such censorship by “editors” in Big Tech. There is growing evidence of long-suspected back channels between government and Democratic political figures and Big Tech. Some of those contacts were recently confirmed but Congress again refused to investigate.
For years, scientists faced censorship for even raising the lab theory as a possible explanation for the virus. Their reputations and careers were shredded by a media flash mob. The Washington Post declared this a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times’ Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was calling any mention of the lab theory “racist.”
When a Chinese researcher told Fox News that this was man-made, the network was attacked and the left-leaning PolitiFact slammed her with a “pants on fire rating.”
The mask mandate and other pandemic measures like the closing of schools are now cited as fueling emotional and developmental problems in children. The closing of schools and businesses was challenged by some critics as unnecessary. Many of those critics were also censored. It now appears that they may have been right. Many countries did not close schools and did not experience increases in Covid. However, we are now facing alarming drops in testing scores and alarming rises in medical illness among the young.
The point is only that there were countervailing indicators on mask efficacy and a basis to question the mandates. Yet, there was no real debate because of the censorship supported by many Democratic leaders in social media. To question such mandates was declared a public health threat and what the WHO called our “infodemic.”
A lawsuit was filed by Missouri and Louisiana and joined by leading experts, including Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya (Stanford University) and Martin Kulldorff (Harvard University). Bhattacharya previously objected to the suspension of Dr. Clare Craig after she raised concerns about Pfizer trial documents. Those doctors were the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdown as well as the real value of masks and the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination. Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others.
The media has quietly acknowledged the science questioning mask efficacy and school closures without addressing its own role in attacking those who raised these objections.
Yet, the censorship continues to the point that even a presidential candidate is now being silenced on social media.
The censorship of Kennedy is a national disgrace. Despite the proven legitimacy of prior censorship of viewpoints like the lab theory and natural immunities, Google continues to silence those with opposing views.
YouTube is signaling that this election will be another exercise in corporate approved messaging and ideas.
If you want to use YouTube, you will now have to engage in self-censorship, eliminating views that Google disagrees with. You may be able to “Broadcast Yourself” but you must first “Censor Yourself” . . . or YouTube will do it for you.
𝐇𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐣𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬’ 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞
Officials couldn’t force reporters to turn over data that might reveal sources.
News gatherers in the US may soon have safeguards against government attempts to comb through their data. Bipartisan House and Senate groups have reintroduced legislation, the PRESS Act (Protect Reporters from Exploitive State Spying), that limits the government’s ability to compel data disclosures that might identify journalists’ sources. The Senate bill, would extend disclosure exemptions and standards to cover email, phone records, and other info third parties hold.
By: Jon Fingas | @jonfingas | June 21, 2023
https://www.engadget.com/house-and-senate-bills-aim-to-protect-journalists-data-from-government-surveillance-192907280.html
@ Estovir
Perhaps this will help your confusion about the safety of the Covid ‘vaccine’:
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/a-report-on-myocarditis-adverse-events
“These findings suggest a markedly higher risk for myocarditis subsequent to COVID-19 injectable product use than for other known vaccines, and this is well above known background rates for myocarditis. COVID-19 injectable products are novel and have a genetic, pathogenic mechanism of action causing uncontrolled expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein within human cells. When you combine this fact with the temporal relationship of AE occurrence and reporting, biological plausibility of cause and effect, and the fact that these data are internally and externally consistent with emerging sources of clinical data, it supports a conclusion that the COVID-19 biological products are deterministic for the myocarditis cases observed after injection.’
And on ‘effectiveness’ of the jab: https://jessicar.substack.com/p/in-case-you-thought-getting-more
“A new preprint is out entitled: “Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) among Those Up-to-Date and Not Up-to-Date on COVID-19 Vaccination”1
and it concludes from a multivariate analysis of 48,344 individuals (Employees of Cleveland Clinic) that ‘those not “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination had a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “up-to-date”’.
The increased risk of infection with Covid as jabs are increased is the same Cleveland Clinic study I referred you to before that you apparently did no look at.
NOT SAFE
NOT EFFECTIVE
What RFK Jr. Gets Right—and What He Gets Wrong
Dr. Vinay Prasad fact-checks the presidential candidate on vaccines, regulatory capture, and more.
https://www.thefp.com/p/what-rfk-jr-gets-rightand-what-he
Childhood Vaccines Cause Autism: Got It Wrong
When it comes to vaccines, I often feel Kennedy sees only harms and never sees benefits. This is dangerous. Vaccines are one of the great medical innovations in human history, one that has saved countless lives. This is not to say all vaccines are the same as far as safety and risk are concerned. But far too often, Kennedy paints with a broad brush, and broadly disparages all vaccines. More than that, he makes unfounded leaps of logic to blame vaccines for a variety of ills.
I vehemently disagree with Kennedy’s belief that early childhood immunizations with the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the Diptheria-Tetanus-Pertussis (DTaP) vaccine causes autism. These vaccines have been thoroughly investigated, and there is no proof of any connection to autism. Over the decades, these vaccines have also prevented many cases of disability and death. Their net impact is overwhelmingly positive.
Dr. Tom Cowan: RFK, Jr. = trustworthy.
You Tube stopped info on COVID remedies early on by many doctors saying to take HQC+Ivermectin+Zinc that was low cost that was quick to fix it if you had COVID. These doctors were quickly banned from You Tube within a week. This was months before the vaccines came out. You Tube had no reason to block doctors except they wanted COVID to infect more people and the country to go into shutdown, leading to Big Pharma and Big Med to make more money while people were hurt. I do not trust for You Tube.
I have watched with interest how the wheels have been coming off traditional ways of seeking information. The big networks, news papers, and magazines do not pull the large audiences (viewership, readership) that they once enjoyed. In fact, some of the audiences of the major network news shows are less than one million. Many of them have proven to be little more than biased opinion shows. They have their use. Those on one side seek the shows that reinforce their beliefs and those on the other do the same thing. The hard reporters are still out there but they are not employed by the big companies who tell them what to say or do; a growing number are going out on their own. What is tragic is censorship or simply blacking out a news story that is not favorable and that is dictated from the powerful few who control the flow of information.
What is increasingly difficult is to triage the massive amount of information and categorize it, evaluate it and make an informed decision while still keeping an eye out for untruth, is a similar fashion as a court of law. Hear all sides of the argument, see the evidence, etc.
Like the Berliners and those behind the Iron Curtain once did, state sponsored news was taken with a big grain of salt. They sought their information elsewhere and eventually the truth made its way behind the walls. Meanwhile, we are to pretend that we do not have a diminished, creepy President who likes to touch and sniff women and little kids, who thinks we are building a railroad from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean and as he recently said, “God Save the Queen, man!”
4-5 min:
https://www.infowars.com/posts/over-a-billion-people-awaken-to-the-lies-of-big-pharma-globalist-gremlin-peter-hotez-has-sunk-the-nwo-
***********
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rachel-hunt-north-carolina-twitter-video-abortion_n_648b4257e4b0756ff8631dec
Twitter is censoring pro-choice content, but that wouldn’t fit Turley’s narrative I guess because Musk is the supposed protector of free speech.
Every company does it, as is their right.
When those companies act as agents of the government, and when they act in concert, then censorhsip is not purely a matter of personal choice, but rather a conspiracy to control the intellectul climate of the country. In other words, it is state propaganda.
Exactly right, edward. Imagine the endless howling by Leftists when their own government-approved tactics being applied today are used against them in the near future…and they’ll never see it coming.
How is Twitter acting as an agent of the guvmint?
YouTube values diversity in all aspects of its operations except thought.
Yep, its despicable YT algorithm heavily shadow-bans responses to comments, esp mine it seems. If it sees one word it doesn’t like (even regular non-slur words like “Islamic” or “hate”) the entire post goes, at least for some. Often see the response comment number much larger than the actual count. YT is not interested in having conversations on controversial topics.
Always have to check on another browser if one’s response appears.
Again turley gets 80% of the way there and then he loses his way he loses the plot…chickens out…. must be his moral relativism
Anonymnous
People CAN do all kinds of things that they SHOULD NOT.
As to your argument – no censoring racism is NOT the same as censoring science.
The left likes to make the argument that allowing some speech results in violence to others.
There is not any evidence of that, and in fact the suppression of viewpoints tends to increase the anxiety and depression and that leads to violence.
Regardless, it should be obvious to people now that censorship can lead to far greater harms.
There is a growing body of evidence that 2/3 of the excess deaths during covid are the consequence of the policies – not the disease.
That people died as a result of suicide, drug overdoses, delayed medical care. the negative impacts of job losses, rising crime, …
at rates twice as larges as from covid itself.
There is some complexity – it is night easy to isolate all individual causes of excess deaths. There are many claiming that nearly all excess deaths that are not covid deaths are deaths from adverse reactions to the vaccine. It is highly unlikely that adverse vaccine deaths account for most of the non-coid increases in death rates.
At the same time – it does not matter much. Whether you died from an adverse reaction to a vaccine or cancer or heart disease do to delays in medical treatement – you are still dead as a result of bad covid public policy choices.
The fact is that the censorship of Covid related information KILLED people.
It was argued that Kennedy was censored for having no real data to back up his claims. I have doubts about some of his positions. However, many of the things he says in ‘The Real Anthony Fauci…” are carefully footnoted to studies and experts. Kennedy has lots of first rate data.
But look at the other side. You don’t need to be a scientist to see the problems of the official line pushed by You Tube, Facebook, FDA, CDC, and big pharma.
They tell us that a pregnant woman should not have half a glass of wine or be near second-hand smoke but being injected with an experimental, Emergency Use, novel substance with no documented safety is perfectly okay. See! You don’t need to be a scientific genius to see the problem with that. You just need to pay attention.
They insist that church or synagogue gatherings, even when outside, are terribly dangerous and must be stopped with arrests and penalties, but BLM rioting poses no Covid health risks.
They insist that the Covid vaccine is ‘safe and effective’ but Fauci and Walensky have been [they say] fully vaccinated and masked and both of them got the disease at least twice. In Fauci’s case his illness lasted significantly longer than mine and was harsher judging by reports. Offhand, as an ignorant ordinary person, I can still see there is something wrong with that argument just by paying attention.
A recent Cleveland Study showed that the more of these shots you get the more likely you are to get Covid.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/will-the-anti-anti-vaxxers-ever-acknowledge
That sounds like the reverse of ‘effective’.
As for safety, I argued with ATS on these pages about a year ago that the Covid vaccine poses cardiac risks and now even the Pfizer Fact Sheet admits it may cause myocarditis and pericarditis and that they don’t know what will happen in the longer term. Meanwhile we have watched video after video of young men on the playing field falling over with heart attacks. Did that happen before mass vaccination? It did not. Meanwhile, insurers whose chips are on the table have seen a sharp rise of ‘all cause deaths’ since mass Covid vaccination. They don’t assign a cause, just note the fact because they are betting on lower mortality rates. Isn’t it curious that nobody in the world governments is even curious about what might be causing a sharp increase in all cause deaths since mass vaccination? I think they already know what is causing the mass deaths. They just don’t want us to know.
They told us that ivermectin was dangerous and ineffective in treating Covid despite the fact that it has been taken by many millions over decades and has one of the safest profiles of any drug in the armamentarium. And doctors who are successfully treating Covid patients without hospitalization swear by it.
Whom would you rather care for you if you contract Covid, Dr. Fareed who has successfully treated more than 10,000 Covid patients using ivermectin and HCQ or Dr Fauci who has treated exactly ZERO patients?
Mention that on You Tube and you will be censored.
I think there is name for a political system in which huge corporations join with strong central governments to control information and to control people. It isn’t ‘democracy’ because in rule by the people the people need all the information they can get. Something else. What was it called?
The data is there to apply a Nuremberg Rule penalties for uninformed consent of the victims and he should use that as building block. I have yet to see informed consent for the vaccine.
@ Imamensch,
“I have yet to see informed consent for the vaccine.”
+++
Too true. They can’t warn of the risks and consequences because they don’t know what they are.
They should tell of the alternatives.
If you are relatively young and healthy your risk of injury from Covid is pretty low, particularly if steroids are available to deal with lung inflammation.
They should also tell you that if you are treated with Ivermectin or HCQ you likely will recover quickly. They won’t say that, though, because once it is admitted that there are safe, FDA approved, medications used off label to treat Covid they can no longer use the jab under an emergency use authorization. How do I know they work? Partly from research but mostly seeing them work with many friends and associates. Most [maybe all] reported feeling better within 24 hours but took the treatment for about a week. Prairie Rose and I have reported the same here on this blog from personal experience.
Traditionally the standards of care evolve up from physicians treating actual patients and learning what works and what doesn’t. This time the ‘standards of care’ were imposed by bureaucrats who do not treat patients and who didn’t seem to adjust to new information.
We, and a few million who died unnecessarily, have seen how that has worked. Dr. Mengele would be proud.
There are many sides to the Covid question bouncing us in many directions. You might be interested in this.
https://www.dossier.today/p/24-year-cdc-lab-director-blows-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=69009&post_id=129785688&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email
@ S. Meyer,
Thank you for that. That was a very good interview. Naturally I agree with him. I was surprised to see that the pneumonia vax was so ineffective. I got that one. In fact I used to get pretty much all of them but passed on Swine Flu [good thing] and Covid [better thing] for reasons I have already given.
Now they have lost my trust..completely…and I am going to pass on any new vaccinations regardless of what they are for.
Thank God for substack. A lot of very good people are posting there and getting past the Facebook and FDA type censors. As time passes I see they are usually right [lab leak for example] and the Fauci types are frequently wrong or deceitful.
Young, then you had better hope that as you grow older you do not contract shingles. It is reported to be most painful.
David, I got the original shingles vaccine and later got the two-shot updated version. I know shingles is painful. I have friends who have gotten shingles. And now I have friends who were going to get the shingles vax and changed their minds after witnessing the corruption behind the Covid vax. It’s a shame. I wanted to trust the FDA and pharma.
I will still get tetanus and antibiotics if injured as I have done before…unless they start dicking around with the old reliables too. We aren’t lab rats and we didn’t volunteer for a vast, uncertain medical experiment.
We aren’t lab rats and we didn’t volunteer for a vast, uncertain medical experiment.
Yes we are, willingly and knowingly.
I reported on here several months ago that I got the shingles vaccine (Im in my late 50s). It made me very sick, put me out of circulation for 2 days including fever, chills, sweating, body aches and swollen axillary lymph nodes on the arm where I received the injection. Two months later I received the 2nd dose, and I got worse symptoms, out of circulation of 3 days. If I had to do it over again, I would but be more prepared. My spouse received the same vaccine 2 years prior: no symptoms, not even a sniffle. I am fit as a stallion and yet….. I received the COVID vaccine x 2, no reactions, my spouse had a bad reaction for the 2nd dose and I took to the Emergency Dept to get a chest X-ray to rule out pneumonia.
Pharmacological intervention is a gamble. The mechanism of action (MOA) of all drugs is less than certain. Aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, naproxen, hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension (first line tx), ace inhibitors, beta blockers, metformin, statins, etc. All of them have risks, none of them have 100% efficacy on everyone. Drug relief for seasonal allergies is a prime example. One nasal spray brand (e.g. Nasacort) may work for one person, but not for another who may get better results with Flonase. I never had seasonal allergy problems in the Caribbean nor Miami, but I get really bad allergies here in VA. Absolutely nothing works for me: sprays, pills, nasal lavage, except Sudafed which is a vasoconstrictor – it does nothing for allergies per se since its MOA is an agonist to alpha 1 receptors in arteries.
Every single drug we take, be it OTC or prescribed, has risks and uncertainty. The new fad in America for weight loss is Wegovy. However people (celebrities) are flocking towards Ozempic which is for Type II Diabetes. Same molecule, semaglutide, but Ozempic is a higher dosage. MOA is anyones guess since as a peptide it serves as an agonist for receptors located throughout the entire body: lungs, brain, kidney, stomach, heart, and adipose tissue. One of the benefits of semaglutide is increase mental concentration. So there you go
OTC and Rx drugs are molecules that once administered can behave like a round discharged from a shotgun: pellets accelerate at high efficiency but scattered. The drug molecule, like shotgun pellets, hits everything. Drugs work only in as so far they have a receptor to activate (agonist) or inhibit (antagonist). Problem is there are receptors and then there are receptors. Molecular medicine is a new discipline. We know far more today at the molecular, mechanistic, level than 10 years ago. This is my area of expertise: molecular medicine. Most drugs are brought to market so as to inhibit a protein receptor on a specific tissue (e.g. ACE Inhibitors, Hydrochlrothiazide, Beta Blockers, Calcium Channel Blockers, Statins inhibit an enzyme involved in cholesterol synthesis, cardiac antiarrhythmics, etc). However the targeted receptor may be found in other tissues as well. We did not know about these a decade ago. Worse, the receptor may be involved in one molecular cascade in one tissue like the artery, but it may activate a very different molecular cascade in a different tissue like the lungs. Neuropathic pain relievers like gabapentin are a case in point. Hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension is another. Both are somewhat effective for many patients but not for all. Additionally, both have a troubling adverse effect for men: impotence or inability to get an erection. Receptors in the male organ are activated by these drugs, which was not part of the original drug profile. Yet, it happens. This is why also ACE Inhibitors (ACEI) produce cough for some patients but not all. As a class of drugs ACEI lower blood pressure by inhibiting an enzyme (Angiotensin Converting Enzyme) in the RAAS (Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone System) which is a very important system that controls blood pressure, fluids and electrolytes in our body. However these drugs also cause a higher accumulation of a protein in the lungs known as Bradykinin, which causes inflammation. Yet these drugs have been around for decades but no particular brand will work for everyone. Why? Expression of receptors varies from person to person, metabolism of drug is highly varied from race to race, ethnicity to ethnicity, age, weight, mutations of receptors occur at birth that may not be lethal but will respond differently to drugs, and more
You and I have been down this path a previous time, e.g. HIV and AZT. Stop banging your drum and tooting your horn about COVID Vaccines as being dangerous, experimental or ineffective. You know little of which you purport to know. As already stated with my shingles vaccine experience, vaccines are like drugs, discharged like pellets from a shotgun or needle syringe. The drugs work fine. What might not be working is a person’s physiology, their genetic expression of proteins, or any number of molecular protein conformations that likely no one knows even exists. We just arent there yet in medicine. You are lucky Pharma has even brought these drugs to market which we Americans can use to extend and enhance life, unlike Third World countries. Show some gratitude and appreciation for those in medicine and pharmaceutical companies who do the very daunting work of scientific research, write studies, read like maniacs incredibly complex scientific concepts, that are continually evolving, so that folks like you can benefit. Yes, the CDC, NIH and FDA did a disastrous launch of the COVID vaccines, and mitigating strategies like masking, school closures, lockdowns, etc, all were catastrophic of many levels. I have said as such many times. However, whenever man is involved, personal defects like pride, greed and evil are bound to distract from what is an otherwise noble profession.
Estovir, well written!
@ Estovir
Young: “We aren’t lab rats and we didn’t volunteer for a vast, uncertain medical experiment.”
Estovir: “Yes we are, willingly and knowingly.” “Stop banging your drum and tooting your horn about COVID Vaccines as being dangerous, experimental or ineffective. You know little of which you purport to know.”
+++
As a physician you are caring and naturally inclined to your point of view, which does you credit. I think nearly everyone here understands that and favors you for that reason. Certainly I do.
Consider that it is possible that you are less focused on the legal implications of what is happening.
First think of the legal requirement for informed consent when even ordinary, allopathic medicine is being practiced. Certainly with any significant treatment with surgery or drugs the standards for informed consent generally follow these lines:
The patient must be informed of both risks and consequences.
The patient must be informed of the probability of success.
The patient must be informed of alternative treatments.
The patient must be informed of the likely outcome if nothing is done.
There are cases where doctors have been successfully sued for failure to obtain proper informed consent even when the procedure was successful but the consequences weren’t fully explained in terms the patient could understand.
When a procedure or drug is experimental–and the Covid vax is experimental–the requirements may be even more strict. Consider the Helsinki Declaration: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/
Anything less than even basic informed consent means the patient/subject has been placed in potential peril without his legal, informed consent. Harm can result in a winning suit.
At the very least we should have been told that the Covid vax is new and its consequences and risks are unknown but it is hoped that it would prevent Covid infection.
Instead we were told from every direction and from every agency that it was “safe and effective”. Different expert medical and researcher opinions were censored, vilified and the doctors faced punishment in loss of jobs, loss of board certification and even loss of license. No opinion other than ‘safe and effective’ was allowed.
How safe? The Pfizer Fact Sheet admits that the vaccine can cause pericarditis and myocarditis. There are many other bad consequences being reported but I will leave you to find them on your own. Whatever you may say, even Pfizer admits that the vaccine is not entirely safe.
How effective? We were first told that it would stop Covid in its tracks. Then that it would lessen symptoms. But we have seen Fauci and Walensky, both presumably vaccinated fully, get Covid twice. More importantly, the Cleveland Study I cited above shows that the more vaccinated you are the more likely you are to get infected.
The Risk/Benefit is inverted.
Perhaps, as you say, I don’t know what I am talking about when I say it isn’t safe and effective, but I think you must concede that Pfizer and the authors of the Cleveland Study actually do know what they are talking about. It isn’t safe. It isn’t effective.
By the way, one of the inventors of the mRNA technology used in the vaccine, Dr. Malone, says it isn’t safe. I suspect he knows what he is talking about too.
Legally and ethically there are also very big problems with the coercion used to compel people to get vaccinated. Canada was one of the most totalitarian countries when it came to coercion, but parts of the US were not far behind. People lost their jobs, were dishonorably discharged from the military, were barred from transportation, etc if they exercised their right not to participate in a massive medical experiment with unknown and unknowable dangers. Many people were not simply asked to volunteer for this big experiment; they were compelled to do so. The Pharma companies are smugly safe from most legal action, but I am not so sure about the agencies and companies that compelled their staff to get vaccinated.
Your compassion is admirable. Don’t let it lead you into trouble. For many people, the vax experiment was not undertaken willingly and was certainly not undertaken knowingly because not everything could have been known with something so new and something for which all expert warnings, and the cries of those injured, were censored, vilified and crushed. I think Castro would have approved of these procedures. The government is all. The people are nothing. The people must do what they are told and they were told to get injected with a newly created experimental substance, and so they must. That’s not a society I like.
You are all over the place. The topic at hand, as you framed it, was the medical science involving vaccines, specifically Covid vaccine. You dodge and weave about law, compassion, ethics, consent, none of which have been mentioned. The discussion was between you and me, not Robert Malone, Paul Offit, Louis Pasteur (rabies and cholera vaccines inventor), Edward Jenner (small pox), Jonas Salk (polio) or anyone else.
If you are going to argue against the efficacy, adverse events or mechanism of action of COVID vaccines, you personally have to support your scientific arguments. You did none of these proving everything I presented
RFK Jr has some great points but vaccines as being dangerous is not one of them
@ Estovir
You evidently missed it. I put the subject at the top of my comment. Here it is again:
“We aren’t lab rats and we didn’t volunteer for a vast, uncertain medical experiment. [my statement]
Yes we are, willingly and knowingly.” [your statement]
It was my contention that we did not volunteer for the Covid ‘vaccine’ medical experiment versus your contention that we did, ‘willingly and knowingly’.
Given that point and counterpoint it is reasonable for me to discuss the legal and ethical standards for determining whether a subject in an experiment using a novel vaccine with unknown risks and consequences is, in fact, participating ‘willingly and knowingly’.
By the standards for informed consent established by statute and case law together with international standards it is clear that those receiving the jab did not have sufficient information to give proper informed consent. Your ‘willingly’ sounds particularly hollow in light of the massive, world-wide coercion to which we were subjected in an effort to compel people to get the jab. For awhile there was even discussion of arrest and forceful injection.
Now that you know the subject, it may be easier for you to follow the discussion.
Young, as a side issue to being compelled to take the vaccine, I guess that the life years lost due to the vaccine and our handling of Covid through authoritarian government action is that many more life-years were lost due to these actions.
I go back to the original statement I made when the virus first appeared. Voluntary isolation of the sick and elderly. No special precautions for the young unless they desired them, and for those in between, perhaps a bit more caution.
I supported the elderly and sick in getting the vaccine. I thought it was not advisable for the young.
We have directly and indirectly caused the death of many young people. If we use the age of 85 and figure the average person older doesn’t live that long, we can see that the death of a five-year-old from the vaccine loses 80 life years. The death of a person aged 80 is only a couple of life years lost. Therefore one child’s death is the equivalent of many deaths of the aged.
The American public can make better decisions over their health than the government. The government should have stayed out of personal decisions.
With everything we know today, I might recommend a higher age for the vaccine than I did earlier. If the octagenarians had all taken the vaccine, it would have saved many lives, but how many lives were lost due to the potential for an increased number of incidents? As the age falls, the death rate from the vaccine compared to the non-vaccinated rises.
One theme of Bobby Kennedy’s vaccine public information campaign is the harm that can occur when an intrusive federal government starts making healthcare decisions for ordinary Americans. What we have with vaccines is a small group of self-anointed experts telling everyone else how to conduct their lives.
This philosophy can quickly get out of hand. Next thing you know, the government is telling people that they eat too much, eat the wrong things, need to exercise, need to sleep, need to quit smoking, or any number of oppressive intrusions into personal freedom.
If the argument is that those who don’t take care of themselves are raising the healthcare costs of those who do, that will first have to be proven. Let’s see the data and listen to the debate. If it is true that healthcare costs are, indeed, being shifted to those who take care of themselves, how about partially deregulating state health insurance markets and letting the free market decide whether higher insurance premiums are in order for those who don’t take care of themselves. Insurance companies would likely respond in different ways, giving consumers a choice. At the federal level, how about replacing Medicare and Medicaid with private insurers and, when necessary, vouchers so that the benefits of a free market extend throughout the healthcare system.
The government needs to get out of the business of telling people how to live.
The sole worthwhile comment here is the one by Estovir.
Returning to our previous discussion on climate change, recall that sea level atmospheric partial pressure of Oxygen (PO2) = 160 mm Hg, PO2 in lung alveolar blood = 104 mm Hg, and PO2 in tissues = 40 – 50 mm Hg, while adipose tissues in some anatomical locations approaches 0 mm Hg. That is hypoxia which leads to a cascade of compensatory mechanisms by the body but are never sufficient because the WAT (whire adipose tissue) never disappears. WAT then provokes more and more compensatory mechanisms. This is similar to what happens in a cytokine storm. Think about that. Obesity literally leads to hypoxic tissues.
Darren, UpState Farmer, and perhaps others might enjoy reading the following dated but free link from an excellent science journal, that provides further data on our previous discussion on cardiovascular disease and obesity. Darren it is a good thing you took action when you did. All Americans should make this a priority as well.
The initial proposition that adipose tissue depots are hypoxic as tissue mass expands, clusters of adipocytes becoming distant from the vasculature, with this initiating the inflammatory process, was based on the following a priori propositions (198): 1) despite the substantial expansion of adipose tissue mass in obesity, the proportion of the cardiac output and the extent of the blood flow to the tissue are not increased (7, 93, 202); 2) while blood flow to adipose tissue rises postprandially in lean subjects, it does not increase in the obese (60, 95); and 3) large adipocytes, which may be up to 150–200 μm in diameter (182), are larger than the normal diffusion distance of O2 of 100 – 200 μm (13). It is emphasized that in some tissues and situations the PO2 may be close to zero at only 100 μm from the vasculature (13, 48, 55).
Trayhurn P. Hypoxia and adipose tissue function and dysfunction in obesity. Physiol Rev. 2013 Jan;93(1):1-21. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00017.2012.
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/physrev.00017.2012
The article is very well referenced (over 230 cites) so one could easily spend hours if not days becoming familiar with these cites and learn at the molecular and genetic levels how obesity leads to death. Talk about suffocation. Gruesome way to “live”.
Estovir — Not about climate change. Certainly of interest for other reasons. Thank you.
Greta said awhile back that we will all be dead tomorrow because of climate change.
Climate science would make more of an impression if any of their models actually worked and any of their predictions came true. Horoscopes are more accurate and they are pure b.s. it takes a real talent, and a lot of money, to be wrong all of the time.
Young, climatological models actually work and the main prediction, of hotter temperatures, is indeed becoming ever more severe.
Greta is not a climatologist.
Perhaps climatological work somewhat – but it is still an art and not a science yet, and at the same time – who’s to say that the majority of the climate changes aren’t due to external (external of humans) causes? Solar intensity increasing on it’s own? Increased internal core temps? This earth has been a LOT hotter than it is now LONG before humans populated it….so, it is extremely hard to nail down climate changes simply on the gasses we produce (not to mention that the “hockey stick” graphs were shown to be bogus with cherry picked data). I suspect the causes may be both…humans contribute, absolutely, but THE cause, not likely….plus, the Earth is very resilient in how it handles changes as history has shown through all the previous “ages”. Why are we so arrogant to think that something we’ve been doing for over 100 years suddenly now dooms us to devastation that as was said previously, has been predicted in the next ten years….for as long as I’ve been living (> 60 years). That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be more responsible than in the past, just that we don’t have to totally upend our lives for the sake of tomorrow – rather, we should start moving in a more sustainable direction for the long term future our our entire planet….IMHO.
David,
Here is Greta telling us climate change will kill all of us tomorrow.
https://instapundit.com/589870
Now I wonder if I should bother to set the timer on my coffeemaker for tomorrow morning.
David: “The sole worthwhile comment here is the one by Estovir.”
+++
Nice paradox. Your sweeping condemnation necessarily includes your comment which, by virtue of not being worthwhile, is not true so that it may be true so that it is not true which means…
Young, that is clever. I should have included a qualifying phase of “up to now”.
Gosh and all this time I thought that political speech was extra super duper protected! Well! YouTube knows best.
Why is there no serious competition with YouTube? Inquiring minds want to know.
Rumble is a start up that is trying to offer an alternative. It can only ne successful if people migrate over and use it.
Bobby Kennedy certainly addresses the dangers and questionable effectiveness of many vaccines. More important, however, is his focus on why this situation is upon us. The process used by the federal government to oversee corrupt drug companies is, itself, corrupt, with massive amounts of money flowing like water to all parties involved. Only Kennedy combines great knowledge of the ins and outs of what’s going on with the courage to do something about it.
Kennedy did a long interview with Joe Rogan that is well worth watching. Unlike YouTube, Spotify will not take things like this down.
Kennedy supports all his statements about vaccines by reference to peer- reviewed studies and other publicly available information. One statement he made that surprised me was that none of the modern era vaccines have had safety proved through a randomised controlled test against a placebo group. He said he once challenged Fauci with this and Fauci failed to come up with one. I have seen Kennedy take issue with the HPV vaccine safety trials because the so-called placebo actually contained aluminium rather than saline, and so the injury reports for the control group were inappropriately elevated.
It is astonishing that no one will debate Kennedy on this topic.
Tracy Hoeg has now refuted Kennedy’s statement about vaccine safety trials in an interesting Twitter thread.
Not so much refutes as she discusses. There is a difference.
Surely by now everyone questions the efficacy and continuing cost of the massive lockdown as well as the efficacy of experimental vaccination and rejection of natural immunities as the better alternative. But then again one can recall from history how effective government propaganda can be on imprudent and unwary masses.
I just want to know which BRILLIANTLY idiotic dumba$$, at YouTube gets to decide what “harmful thoughts” might be and what basis is used for such nonsense? Here is a worthwhile notion, if it’s Constitutional, it’s published period.