The morning that hurricane Ian hit the coast of southwest Florida, the dramatic images of the raw power of Mother Nature blowing apart structures built by human hands and sweeping them into the sea were unbelievable.1 After hours and hours of wind, rain and a catastrophic water surge that left a trail of destruction in its wake, I thought about how very different this natural disaster was compared to the one unleashed on the world in 2020 that also left a trail of destruction in its wake.
Two disasters, one a natural disaster legally termed an “act of God,” and the other a disaster that, three years later, people are still asking: was it natural or manmade?2,3
Whether or not the SARS-CoV-2 virus spontaneously jumped out of a bat and into a human being4 or was created by scientists in a biohazard lab,5,6,7 one thing is clear: the chaotic response by the experts in charge has been a disaster in itself.8
And the people, whose lives were impacted by that chaos, experienced the same kind of sudden shock, fear,9 disorientation, isolation and powerlessness that many people, who experience a hurricane, tsunami, tornado, earthquake or fire, feel when the unexpected happens.
In the middle of this hurricane, I found myself thinking about why fear of the unknown10 brought on by this emergency was so familiar.
It was familiar because we had just experienced fear of the unknown in the winter of 2020,11 when we were told by public health officials that a weirdly mutated coronavirus was on the loose and would kill us if we didn’t hide in our homes, wear cloth over our faces, cut off physical contact with our family and friends, keep our children out of school, and stop getting our hair cut or going to church, exercising in a gym, entering restaurants or certain stores, and be OK with the government labeling many workers and private businesses as “non-essential,” which shut down our economy and threatened to plunge families into bankruptcy.12,13,14
The people in Florida facing this real life-threatening emergency were suddenly having to call upon emotional and physical reserves already depleted by having recently gone through another emergency, in which some lost their health or their loved ones to the mutant virus, or were injured by disabling COVID vaccine reactions, while others lost their jobs, homes or businesses during the 2020 lockdown that, thankfully, was cut short in Florida compared to many other states.
The fallout from destructive federal COVID response policies on the mental health, child development and economic stability of our nation is still being assessed.15,16,17,18,19,20,21
Two disasters: a natural one, and one that the world is still having trouble defining. Post-hurricane Ian, there is a lot of analysis going on in Florida by those, whose job it is to prepare for and respond to hurricanes.22 By most accounts, it is an honest analysis by state officials working hard to help people deal with what happened rather than politicizing what happened.23,24,25
Last month, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control once again extended the COVID pandemic public health emergency declaration, this time until January 11, 2023.26
To justify keeping us living in fear,27,28 federal health officials are warning ominously that a “twindemic” of a more transmissible SARS-CoV-2 virus mutant strain, combined with an especially bad influenza season, is poised to make more of us very sick this fall and winter if we don’t all get a COVID shot and a flu shot at the same time.29,30
One high ranking government doctor said with a straight face — “I really believe this is why God gave us two arms — one for the flu shot and the other one for the COVID shot.”31
But Americans have grown weary of virus porn and, while the majority of Americans have gotten at least one COVID shot, polls show that just 14 percent of children under age five have gotten one.32,33,34 There are signs that Americans are questioning the ever-changing number of COVID booster shots being aggressively advertised by Big Pharma and government officials, who are trying hard to convince us we will need to get a COVID shot every single year.35,36,37,38
In this very lucrative marketing campaign, the two mRNA COVID vaccine manufacturers, Pfizer and Moderna, raked in 50 billion dollars in 2021 and 2022 alone, with a promise of billions more in profits in the years to come.39,40,41,42
Those two drug companies are selling a cell disrupter biological product that is called a vaccine, but in no way resembles any other vaccine that has ever been injected into humans to theoretically combat a weirdly mutated coronavirus, which is acting like no other virus that has ever infected humans.
The mRNA biological has been described as “transforming the body into a vaccine-making machine,”43 while one scientist explains that the rapidly mutating SARS-CoV-2 virus is “essentially viral evolution on steroids.”44
But, still, nobody in charge of the COVID pandemic response seems to know exactly where this virus on steroids came from or exactly what kind of damage it — or the genetically engineered components of the mRNA product — are doing to the biological integrity of human populations.45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53
The mRNA COVID vaccines are associated with many ugly side effects, especially ones that compromise the blood and heart and can cause death.54,55 Online it has been dubbed the “clot shot,”56,57 even as owners of social media platforms try to shut down all conversations about serious COVID vaccine reactions being reported online,58,59,60,61,62 in the medical literature,63 and to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).64,65
There have been more than 1.3 million adverse events reported to VAERS after mRNA COVID vaccinations, including heart, brain and immune system damage and death. These 1.3 million reports represent more than half of all vaccine reactions reported for all vaccines since VAERS became operational in 1990 under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act,66 while less than one percent of all vaccine reactions are reported to VAERS.67
The mRNA COVID vaccine is the most reactive one ever distributed in the U.S. to the entire population.
Yet, as soon as the mRNA COVID products were released in December 2020 under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), public health officials told people to celebrate adverse reaction symptoms, trying to convince them that those reaction symptoms means the vaccine is doing its job and would prevent them from getting sick with COVID.68
Nothing could be further from the truth.69 That lie not only persuaded people to accept COVID vaccine reactions as normal and a good thing, but it persuaded doctors to dismiss COVID vaccine-related injuries and deaths as just a “coincidence.”70,71
Which brings us to perhaps the biggest elephant in the room, and that is how blatantly the people were lied to from the beginning about just how effective the mRNA COVID vaccines would be, as government officials allowed people to believe that getting vaccinated would protect them from being infected with the new coronavirus and transmitting it to others, when that was never true.
In fact, it was so untrue that, in 2021, CDC officials changed the centuries-old definition of a vaccine from a “product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases,” and they convinced Merriam Webster Dictionary to do the same.72,73,74
That’s because the FDA only required drug companies to demonstrate the COVID vaccine had at least 50 percent efficacy in preventing severe symptoms of COVID disease, rather than preventing infection.75
There is a difference between a product producing immunity that prevents infection and one that stimulates an immune response but does not prevent infection, especially when you can be infected with the coronavirus and not show symptoms.
With vaccine induced immunity off the table and vaccine adverse reactions viewed as a good thing, by the end of October 2022, the global mass vaccination campaign had convinced about 70 percent of the world’s population to get at least one COVID shot.76
The sales force for Big Pharma’s COVID vaccine marketing campaign is headquartered at the United Nation’s World Health Organization,77,78,79 with de facto satellite offices in government agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Gavi Alliance, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, World Economic Forum, major universities, and financial and other institutions ideologically and politically committed to imposing “The Great Reset” on all countries.80
According to Klaus Schwab, who in 1971 founded an “international organization for public-private cooperation” called the World Economic Forum, the world is in the middle of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” which is “characterized by a range of new technologies that are fusing the physical, digital, and biological worlds, impacting all disciplines, economies and industries and even challenging ideas about what it means to be human.”81
In June 2020, Schwab proclaimed, “Now is the time for a great reset” because, he said, in order for the world to effectively respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments “must act swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.”82
To prepare the way for The Great Reset, on October 18, 2019, the World Economic Forum, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Johns Hopkins University sponsored a simulated global pandemic planning exercise in New York City called Event 201.83
A “Pandemic Emergency Board” was assembled for Event 201 that included representatives of the United Nations, World Bank, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the China Centers for Disease Control, and leaders from the travel, banking, pharmaceutical and healthcare industries.84
The virus selected for use in the simulated “worst case scenario” global pandemic planning exercise held three months before the World Health Organization declared a coronavirus “public health emergency of international concern” was: the coronavirus.85,86
The nagging question is: was that just a coincidence? Clearly, it will take a lot of coordination and agreement between all governments to pull off a global Great Reset. Three years into the global COVID health emergency, it appears the global public health elite are leading the way.
In September 2022, the once respected medical journal, The Lancet, published a 56-page report called “The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic.”87
The first big red flag in the report is the long list of financial conflicts of interest authors have with drug companies; government health agencies; the United Nations and its public health agency arm, the World Health Organization; Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and other institutions that fund or conduct vaccine research and development and promote mandatory use of vaccines.
Once family owned, The Lancet is now owned by the publishing conglomerate, Elsevier, and concerns have been raised about editorial independence, in light of investor ties to major banking, pharmaceutical and biotech corporations. One critique of the Lancet Commission report was written by a public health physician, who previously called out the journal in July 2022 for publishing what he described as “a weakly-evidenced opinion advocating medical fascism.”88
That opinion, written by well-known compulsory vaccination proponents, called for strict enforcement of COVID vaccine mandates in the U.S., and loss of employment and school education for those who refuse to comply.89
The Lancet Commission was originally assembled in the summer of 2020 as an international group of global “experts,” primarily doctors and professors at prestigious universities, who were charged with addressing the COVID pandemic. One of their first tasks was to investigate the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, an endeavor they quickly abandoned because of what the authors described as “divisive public discussion” and “unprecedented attack and pressure” on Commission members.
Leaving that inconvenient “where did the virus come from” question on the table, the Lancet Commission went on to publish a self-aggrandizing political manifesto that fails to honestly analyze what went wrong with the global COVID pandemic response and, instead, basically calls for doing more of the same more quickly in the future.
In a stunning demonstration of hubris and ideological bias, Commission members stray from their areas of expertise and call on governments to devalue individual rights and adopt a collectivist orientation that forces individuals to comply with multi-lateral health policies and laws adopted by the United Nations.
They said, “all governments, regulators and institutions must be reoriented toward society as a whole rather than the interest of individuals — a concept the Commissioners call prosociality.”
This “prosociality” reorientation would, of course, require that much more money and power be given to the United Nations and the World Health Organization so global populations can be controlled by a central authority, especially during global pandemic responses.
Defending their slogan “no one is safe until everyone is safe,” which they claim “is not mere rhetoric, or a moral truth, but an epidemiological reality,” they viciously attack U.S. lawmakers for being guilty of “neglecting scientific evidence and needlessly risking lives with a view to keeping the economy open,” and for promoting “anti-science rhetoric and disinformation about COVID 19.”
Refusing to acknowledge legitimate public concerns about authoritarian COVID response policies that led to catastrophic social and economic chaos and damage to mental and physical health of child and adult populations, the Commission complains that the World Health Organization and most governments did not move fast enough to test, identify and isolate the infected while simultaneously putting all people in masks and locking them in their homes — for a long, long time.
There is no critical analysis of faulty COVID tests that did not work;90,91 or bogus COVID death estimates that failed to distinguish between dying from COVID and dying with COVID;92,93,94,95,96 or ineffective COVID treatment protocols in hospitals that made people sicker or killed them when they were inappropriately put on ventilators.97,98,99
While praising the “public-private partnerships” that fast tracked development of COVID vaccines as a “triumph,” the Lancet Commission weaponizes the failed COVID pandemic response by placing most of the blame for COVID-related deaths on — you guessed it — those independent thinkers the Pharma’s sales force calls “anti-vaxxers.”
Infuriated that a lot of people in the U.S. and Europe questioned the competence of public health officials and defied their orders to mask up, isolate for months on end and take the COVID shot, the Lancet Commission authors alleged that anti-vaxxers — which according to Webster’s Dictionary now includes anyone who opposes mandatory vaccination100 — caused an “epidemic of misinformation and disinformation” that fostered “low public trust” in government officials and persuaded millions of people to repeatedly take to the streets in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Netherlands, Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Greece, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Poland, Romania and other nations in 2020 and 2021 to protest lockdowns and vaccine passports.101,102,103
They said “anti-vaccine propaganda in the Americas” caused “tens of millions of people to refuse vaccines and hundreds of thousands to needlessly lose their lives.”
Obsessing over the lack of “solidarity” among governments to force everyone everywhere to march to the beat of the same drum, they express special hatred for what they describe as the “hostile and coordinated anti-vaccine movement that has spread dangerous and false information about the health risks of vaccines and has campaigned against vaccine mandates.”
Climbing up on very high horse, the Lancet Commission members put “climate change deniers” and “parents who refuse or delay routine childhood vaccinations” in the same basket. They repeatedly condemn political leaders and the digital media for the “deliberate spread of misinformation and disinformation … that fosters distrust in health officials and promotes the idea that individual opinions have equal weight to the best available scientific evidence.”
They called for application of “behavioral science” to convince people to engage in “prosociality” that leads to “optimal behaviors for pandemic control,” pointing out that people living in societies with “tight” or collectivist social norms follow public health orders much better than people living in societies with “loose” or individualistic social norms that champion freedom of individual choice.
They claim future pandemics would be so much easier to handle if everyone in the world can be muzzled and locked down tight whenever government health officials fly the utilitarian flag for “the greater good” and demand we salute smartly and roll up our sleeves.
Their diatribe against societies allowing individuals to exercise freedom of thought, speech, conscience and autonomy would be amusing if they weren’t so deadly serious about what they want done about it.
Although there were some public demonstrations here in the U.S., they were not as big as they were in countries without a Constitution that ensures a balance of power between local, state and federal government. Americans stopped COVID vaccine mandates in 2021 and 2022 because state legislators, who make public health laws, looked at the science, listened to concerns of their constituents, and refused to mandate the vaccine.104
Although several U.S. Governors and city mayors issued Executive Orders mandating COVID vaccine and the federal government attempted to mandate the vaccine for all federal employees and contractors, not one state legislature voted to mandate the vaccine this year.105
The online NVIC Advocacy Portal, launched in 2010 to help citizens in every state defend vaccine informed consent rights and exemptions in public health laws had a lot to do with holding back COVID vaccine mandates and passports in the U.S. when populations in other countries with centralized political control could not.106
It doesn’t take a PhD in political science to figure out that what the public health elite is calling for would require Americans to reject the cultural values and beliefs and governmental structure outlined in the US Constitution, which provides decentralized checks and balances on political power and guarantees individuals God given natural rights that limit the power of government.107,108
The Public Health Empire is all about appropriating centralized power that can be wielded without accountability.
That is why the Lancet Commission demands that the United States of America “reorient” toward a collectivist society, which would require disempowering local and state governments so that only the federal government — in “solidarity” with the United Nations, of course — has the authority to make public health laws and tell citizens what to think about and believe and do with their bodies and the bodies of their children.
Accompanying the Lancet Commission report was a Lancet editorial entitled “COVID-19: the case for prosociality.” And if you do a Google search using the words “prosociality and communism,” what you find at the top is an article published in Frontiers in Psychology in September 2022 entitled, “How prosocial behaviors are maintained in China: The relationship between communist authority and prosociality.”109
The authors note how prosocial behavior is associated with religious belief and argue that communist authority wielded by the ruling Communist Party of China has a positive effect on promoting prosocial behaviors in a secular atheist society. They say studies show that “the psychological functions of gods and governments are interchangeable.”
Thank you, Lancet Commission, for making the political goals of the Public Health Empire so crystal clear.
I have been saying for many years that mandatory vaccination is the tip of the spear in the culture wars taking place in this country and others in the 21st Century. Because if the state can tag, track down and force individuals against their will to be injected with biologicals of known and unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the state can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.
Register today to use the NVIC Advocacy Portal at NVICAdvocacy.org and take action in your state to protect civil liberties in this historic Vaccine Culture War that will determine whether we will live free or die as slaves in a collectivist authoritarian state.
Be the one who never has to say you did not do today what you could have done to change tomorrow. It’s your health, your family, your choice. And our mission continues: No forced vaccination, not in America.
The 13th Annual Vaccine Awareness Week from November 13 to November 19, 2022, will feature important information about vaccine science, policy and law that you can share with your family and friends.
With every donation you make during Vaccine Awareness Week, you can help support the legal right to make an informed, voluntary decision about vaccinations. During this week, we’ll match your donations up to $100,000 to the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), a nonprofit charity advocating for vaccine safety and informed consent rights since 1982.
During the COVID pandemic, government has collaborated with pharmaceutical corporations, medical trade groups and businesses to promote COVID-19 vaccine mandates and has partnered with Silicon Valley and corporate media to censor public conversations about vaccination and health. It is critical that you take action now to protect your legal right to make informed, voluntary vaccine choices.
Thankfully, for 40 years NVIC has been providing the public with independent, well-referenced information on vaccination and advocating for the inclusion of vaccine safety and informed consent protections in public health policies and laws.
NVIC’s work in state legislatures over the past decade through the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal is one big reason why no state legislature mandated the COVID vaccine in 2021 or 2022.
Just before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted vaccine manufacturers an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to distribute experimental mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in December 2020, NVIC sponsored the groundbreaking 5th International Public Conference on Vaccination: Protecting Health & Autonomy in the 21st Century featuring 51 speakers. You can watch or listen to the conference for free here.
NVIC Advocacy Portal — Become a registered user of this unique free online communications network that electronically connects you directly with your own legislators and emails you action alerts with talking points so you can be an effective vaccine choice advocate in your state. You can use it to inform your legislators about why it is necessary to protect vaccine exemptions and your legal right to make voluntary vaccine decisions for yourself and your children. |
Ask 8 Vaccine Information Kiosk — Download brochures and reports on vaccination and how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms, as well as posters and web badges that you can share with your family and friends. Access the illustrated and fully referenced “Guide to Reforming Vaccine Policy & Law” to educate your legislator when you advocate for vaccine informed consent rights. |
State Law & Vaccine Requirements — You can easily obtain your state’s current vaccine policies and laws here. |
Vaccine Reaction Reporting — Search for and read descriptions of vaccine reaction reports made to the federal vaccine adverse events reporting system (VAERS). Make a vaccine reaction report to NVIC. |
Cry for Vaccine Freedom Wall — Read real life stories from people who have been threatened, bullied and sanctioned for trying to make voluntary decisions about vaccination for themselves or their minor children. Post your own experience. |
Guide to Flu & Flu Vaccines — This “Mini Guide to influenza & Flu Vaccines” is a brief summary of facts about influenza and influenza vaccines. |
Comments are closed for this blog post
Restriction of free speech excelled during the COVID-19 pandemic, when efforts to shut down public discussions and information that countered the official narrative were in full force. In the summer of 2022, a lawsuit was filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana against the federal government, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).1
The lawsuit alleges that the U.S. government colluded with Big Tech giants Twitter, Meta (Facebook), YouTube, Instagram and LinkedIn to censor certain viewpoints by labeling them “misinformation” or “disinformation.” In September 2022, a federal judge ordered Fauci and other officials to turn over emails with five social media firms.2
Fauci initially refused, stating that the communications were protected by executive privilege. However, the judge ordered that the documents be turned over within 21 days nonetheless. Fauci was also ordered to answer questions posed by the plaintiffs in full. Mary Holland, president and general counsel of Children’s Health Defense, explained:3
“Up until now, Dr. Fauci has operated under this cloak of ‘untouchableness,’ thinking he has been above the law. He likely didn’t expect his emails to be made public. We can only imagine what this tranche of emails will likely reveal about Dr. Fauci’s bare-knuckled censorship — it won’t be pretty.”
Now, a federal court has taken it a step further, ruling that Fauci and other officials must testify under oath at depositions about whether they colluded with Big Tech to censor certain users.4
The original lawsuit was filed in May 2022 by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry.5 A joint statement regarding witness depositions reads:6
“Plaintiffs allege Defendants have colluded with and/or coerced social media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms by labeling the content “dis-information,” “mis-information,” and “mal-information.”
Plaintiffs allege the suppression of disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and contents constitutes government action and violates Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Several examples are given of suppression of free speech. Among them:7
•The Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 presidential election — Evidence found on Hunter’s laptop suggests he helped secure “millions in funding” for Metabiota, a U.S. contractor in Ukraine “specializing in deadly pathogen research,” which is what the Russian government had claimed during a press conference March 24, 2022.8
In addition, one of Metabiota’s investors is Rosemont Seneca,9 an investment fund co-managed by Hunter Biden.10
Metabiota is also a core partner in the USAID PREDICT program, which funded laboratory equipment for the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China through grants to the EcoHealth Alliance, and Shi Zhengli, a top coronavirus researcher at the WIV, also worked with PREDICT.11 The media, however, largely dismissed the story.12
Daniel Schmidt, a freshman at the University of Chicago and writer for the university’s student-run newspaper The Chicago Thinker, even confronted Anne Applebaum, a staff writer for The Atlantic, about the media dismissal, stating:13
“In 2020 you wrote, ‘Those who live outside the Fox News bubble do not, of course, need to learn any of the stuff about Hunter Biden,’ referring to his laptop, of course. A poll later found that if voters knew about the contents of the laptop, 16% of Joe Biden voters would have acted differently.
Now, of course, we know ... that The New York Times confirmed that the content is real. Do you think the media acted inappropriately when they instantly dismissed Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation and what can be learned from that in ensuring that what we label as disinformation is truly disinformation and not reality?”
•Speech about the lab leak theory of COVID-19’s origin — The plaintiffs allege that Fauci censored “speech backed by great scientific credibility and with enormous potential nationwide impact.”14 This includes information that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak in Wuhan, China.
One of the major pieces of propaganda is "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,"15 a paper published in Nature Medicine in March 2020 that became the preeminent "proof" that SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin and couldn't possibly have come from a lab. It was later revealed that Fauci, Wellcome Trust head Jeremy Farrar and Dr. Francis Collins, NIH director, had a hand in the paper.16 As Children’s Health Defense reported:17
“If the lab leak theory were true, in turn, it would mean that Fauci could be potentially implicated in funding the research on viruses that caused the COVID-19 pandemic that killed millions of people worldwide, the plaintiffs argued. This is because he funded risky “gain-of-function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through intermediaries such as EcoHealth Alliance.
In late January 2020 and early February 2020, Fauci was also in touch with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in oral communications about the government’s COVID-19 response. Facebook then allegedly went on [to] censor the lab leak theory, according to the plaintiffs.”
•Speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns — Two plaintiffs in the case, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which scientifically critiqued the effects of prolonged lockdowns in response to COVID-19.
Collins sent an email to Fauci stating, “There needs to be a quick and devastating published take-down of its premises.” In response, Fauci began to publicly criticize the Declaration, calling it “total nonsense” and “ridiculous.”18
The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), which is part of the lawsuit, representing Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, stated:19
“Social media platforms, acting at the federal government’s behest, repeatedly censored NCLA’s clients for articulating views on those platforms in opposition to government-approved views on Covid-19 restrictions. This insidious censorship was the direct result of the federal government’s ongoing campaign to silence those who voice perspectives that deviate from those of the Biden Administration.
Government officials’ public threats to punish social media companies that did not do their bidding demonstrate this linkage, as do emails from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to social media companies that only recently were made public.”
The request for depositions was filed October 10, 2022. “After finding documentation of a collusive relationship between the Biden administration and social media companies to censor free speech, we immediately filed a motion to get these officials under oath,” Schmitt said in a news release.
“It is high time we shine a light on this censorship enterprise and force these officials to come clean to the American people, and this ruling will allow us to do just that. We’ll keep pressing for the truth.”20 In addition to Fauci, other officials ordered to testify include:21
The depositions will cover many examples of a collusive relationship uncovered by the email exchanges. Another example includes former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson, who was also a victim of the censorship hysteria; his Twitter account was suspended when he posted this scientifically accurate information about COVID-19 shots:22
“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it — at best — as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity.”
Berenson filed a lawsuit against Twitter for labeling the tweet as misleading and canceling his account. The case has since been resolved, with Twitter acknowledging that the tweets should not have led to a suspension. When his account was reinstated, Berenson tweeted the exact same message, which this time escaped Twitter’s “misinformation” flag.
However, it’s now been revealed that Fauci was involved in Berenson’s suspension. According to the plaintiffs’ joint statement, “Dr. Fauci publicly described Berenson’s opinions on vaccines as ‘horrifying.’ President Biden followed Dr. Fauci’s steps and made a statement that ‘They’re killing people’ by not censoring vaccine ‘misinformation,’ to which Twitter subsequently permanently suspended Berenson from its platform.”23
The request for depositions gave three reasons why Fauci, specifically, should be questioned under oath:24
1.He refused to verify under oath his own interrogatory responses; instead, NIAID responses were verified by Dr Jill Harper, who was not named in the complaint. Fauci has made no statements under oath regarding his communications with social media platforms.
2.Even if Fauci can prove he didn’t communicate with social media platforms, “there are compelling reasons that suggest Dr. Fauci has acted through intermediaries, and acted on behalf of others, in procuring the social-media censorship of credible scientific opinions.”
3.Fauci’s credibility on matters related to COVID-19 “misinformation” has been in question since 2020.
“Plaintiffs state that Dr. Fauci has made public statements on the efficacy of masks, the percentage of the population needed for herd immunity, NIAID’s funding of ‘gain-of-function’ virus research in Wuhan, the lab-leak theory, and more. Plaintiffs urge that his comments on these important issues are relevant to the matter at hand and are further reasons why Dr. Fauci should be deposed.”
August 22, 2022, Fauci announced he will resign from his roles as director of the NIAID — a position he’s held for 38 years — and chief medical adviser to the White House, come December.25 It’s interesting timing.
It appears Fauci is making sure to get out before new Republican Congressional members take their seats and is probably banking on being able to plead the Fifth Amendment as a private citizen, should Republicans decide to investigate his role in the pandemic. This deposition may change that, as well as bring much-needed protection to Americans’ right to free speech. As noted by NCLA:26
“Government-induced censorship is achieved through a wide variety of mechanisms, ranging from complete bans, temporary bans, “shadow bans” (where often neither the user nor his audience is notified of the suppression of speech), deboosting, de-platforming, de-monetizing, restricting access to content, requiring users to take down content, and imposing warning labels that require click-through to access content, among others.
These methods also include temporary and permanent suspensions of disfavored speakers.
This sort of censorship, which strikes at the heart of what the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect — free speech, especially political speech — constitutes unlawful government action. The federal government is deciding whose voices and ideas may be heard, and whose voices and ideas must be silenced.
Moreover, this state action deprives Americans of their right to hear the views of those who are being silenced, a First Amendment corollary of the right to free speech. The government’s policy of coercing social-media companies to censor Plaintiffs’ viewpoints should be declared unlawful and halted immediately.”
© 2024 Created by carol ann parisi. Powered by