1

Facebook Lied — It’s Reading Your Private WhatsApp Messages

By Peter ElkindJack Gillum and Craig Silverman | ProPublica | The Defender

When Mark Zuckerberg unveiled a new “privacy-focused vision” for Facebook in March 2019, he cited the company’s global messaging service, WhatsApp, as a model.

Acknowledging that “we don’t currently have a strong reputation for building privacy-protective services,” the Facebook CEO wrote that “I believe the future of communication will increasingly shift to private, encrypted services where people can be confident what they say to each other stays secure and their messages and content won’t stick around forever. This is the future I hope we will help bring about. We plan to build this the way we’ve developed WhatsApp.”

Zuckerberg’s vision centered on WhatsApp’s signature feature, which he said the company was planning to apply to Instagram and Facebook Messenger: end-to-end encryption, which converts all messages into an unreadable format that is only unlocked when they reach their intended destinations.

WhatsApp messages are so secure, he said, that nobody else — not even the company — can read a word. As Zuckerberg had put it earlier, in testimony to the U.S. Senate in 2018, “We don’t see any of the content in WhatsApp.”

WhatsApp emphasizes this point so consistently that a flag with a similar assurance automatically appears on-screen before users send messages: “No one outside of this chat, not even WhatsApp, can read or listen to them.”

Those assurances are not true. WhatsApp has more than 1,000 contract workers filling floors of office buildings in Austin, Texas, Dublin, and Singapore, where they examine millions of pieces of users’ content. Seated at computers in pods organized by work assignments, these hourly workers use special Facebook software to sift through streams of private messages, images, and videos that have been reported by WhatsApp users as improper and then screened by the company’s artificial intelligence systems.

These contractors pass judgment on whatever flashes on their screen — claims of everything from fraud or spam to child porn and potential terrorist plotting — typically in less than a minute.

Policing users while assuring them that their privacy is sacrosanct makes for an awkward mission at WhatsApp. A 49-slide internal company marketing presentation from December, obtained by ProPublica, emphasizes the “fierce” promotion of WhatsApp’s “privacy narrative.”

It compares its “brand character” to “the Immigrant Mother” and displays a photo of Malala ​​Yousafzai, who survived a shooting by the Taliban and became a Nobel Peace Prize winner, in a slide titled “Brand tone parameters.” The presentation does not mention the company’s content moderation efforts.

WhatsApp’s director of communications, Carl Woog, acknowledged that teams of contractors in Austin and elsewhere review WhatsApp messages to identify and remove “the worst” abusers. But Woog told ProPublica that the company does not consider this work to be content moderation, saying: “We actually don’t typically use the term for WhatsApp.” The company declined to make executives available for interviews for this article but responded to questions with written comments.

“WhatsApp is a lifeline for millions of people around the world,” the company said. “The decisions we make around how we build our app are focused around the privacy of our users, maintaining a high degree of reliability and preventing abuse.”

WhatsApp’s denial that it moderates content is noticeably different from what Facebook Inc. says about WhatsApp’s corporate siblings, Instagram and Facebook. The company has said that some 15,000 moderators examine content on Facebook and Instagram, neither of which is encrypted. It releases quarterly transparency reports that detail how many accounts Facebook and Instagram have “actioned” for various categories of abusive content. There is no such report for WhatsApp.

Deploying an army of content reviewers is just one of the ways that Facebook Inc. has compromised the privacy of WhatsApp users. Together, the company’s actions have left WhatsApp — the largest messaging app in the world, with two billion users — far less private than its users likely understand or expect.

A ProPublica investigation, drawing on data, documents, and dozens of interviews with current and former employees and contractors, reveals how, since purchasing WhatsApp in 2014, Facebook has quietly undermined its sweeping security assurances in multiple ways. (Two articles this summer noted the existence of WhatsApp’s moderators but focused on their working conditions and pay rather than their effect on users’ privacy. This article is the first to reveal the details and extent of the company’s ability to scrutinize messages and user data — and to examine what the company does with that information.)

Many of the assertions by content moderators working for WhatsApp are echoed by a confidential whistleblower complaint filed last year with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint, which ProPublica obtained, details WhatsApp’s extensive use of outside contractors, artificial intelligence systems, and account information to examine user messages, images, and videos. It alleges that the company’s claims of protecting users’ privacy are false. “We haven’t seen this complaint,” the company spokesperson said. The SEC has taken no public action on it; an agency spokesperson declined to comment.

Facebook Inc. has also downplayed how much data it collects from WhatsApp users, what it does with it and how much it shares with law enforcement authorities. For example, WhatsApp shares metadata, unencrypted records that can reveal a lot about a user’s activity, with law enforcement agencies such as the Department of Justice.

Some rivals, such as Signal, intentionally gather much less metadata to avoid incursions on its users’ privacy and thus share far less with law enforcement. (“WhatsApp responds to valid legal requests,” the company spokesperson said, “including orders that require us to provide on a real-time going forward basis who a specific person is messaging.”)

WhatsApp user data, ProPublica has learned, helped prosecutors build a high-profile case against a Treasury Department employee who leaked confidential documents to BuzzFeed News that exposed how dirty money flows through U.S. banks.

Like other social media and communications platforms, WhatsApp is caught between users who expect privacy and law enforcement entities that effectively demand the opposite: that WhatsApp turns over information that will help combat crime and online abuse.

WhatsApp has responded to this dilemma by asserting that it’s no dilemma at all. “I think we absolutely can have security and safety for people through end-to-end encryption and work with law enforcement to solve crimes,” said Will Cathcart, whose title is Head of WhatsApp, in a YouTube interview with an Australian think tank in July.

The tension between privacy and disseminating information to law enforcement is exacerbated by a second pressure: Facebook’s need to make money from WhatsApp. Since paying $22 billion to buy WhatsApp in 2014, Facebook has been trying to figure out how to generate profits from a service that doesn’t charge its users a penny.

That conundrum has periodically led to moves that anger users, regulators, or both. The goal of monetizing the app was part of the company’s 2016 decision to start sharing WhatsApp user data with Facebook, something the company had told EU regulators was technologically impossible.

The same impulse spurred a controversial plan, abandoned in late 2019, to sell advertising on WhatsApp. And the profit-seeking mandate was behind another botched initiative in January: the introduction of a new privacy policy for user interactions with businesses on WhatsApp, allowing businesses to use customer data in new ways. That announcement triggered a user exodus to competing apps.

WhatsApp’s increasingly aggressive business plan is focused on charging companies for an array of services — letting users make payments via WhatsApp and managing customer service chats — that offer convenience but fewer privacy protections. The result is a confusing two-tiered privacy system within the same app where the protections of end-to-end encryption are further eroded when WhatsApp users employ the service to communicate with businesses.

The company’s December marketing presentation captures WhatsApp’s diverging imperatives. It states that “privacy will remain important.” But it also conveys what seems to be a more urgent mission: the need to “open the aperture of the brand to encompass our future business objectives.”

I. “Content moderation associates”

In many ways, the experience of being a content moderator for WhatsApp in Austin is identical to being a moderator for Facebook or Instagram, according to interviews with 29 current and former moderators. Mostly in their 20s and 30s, many with past experience as store clerks, grocery checkers and baristas, the moderators are hired and employed by Accenture, a huge corporate contractor that works for Facebook and other Fortune 500 behemoths.

The job listings advertise “Content Review” positions and make no mention of Facebook or WhatsApp. Employment documents list the workers’ initial title as “content moderation associate.” Pay starts at around $16.50 an hour. Moderators are instructed to tell anyone who asks that they work for Accenture, and are required to sign sweeping non-disclosure agreements.

Citing the NDAs, almost all the current and former moderators interviewed by ProPublica insisted on anonymity. (An Accenture spokesperson declined to comment, referring all questions about content moderation to WhatsApp.)

When the WhatsApp team was assembled in Austin in 2019, Facebook moderators already occupied the fourth floor of an office tower on Sixth Street, adjacent to the city’s famous bar-and-music scene. The WhatsApp team was installed on the floor above, with new glass-enclosed work pods and nicer bathrooms that sparked a tinge of envy in a few members of the Facebook team.

Most of the WhatsApp team scattered to work from home during the pandemic. Whether in the office or at home, they spend their days in front of screens, using a Facebook software tool to examine a stream of “tickets,” organized by subject into “reactive” and “proactive” queues.

Collectively, the workers scrutinize millions of pieces of WhatsApp content each week. Each reviewer handles upwards of 600 tickets a day, which gives them less than a minute per ticket. WhatsApp declined to reveal how many contract workers are employed for content review, but a partial staffing list reviewed by ProPublica suggests that, at Accenture alone, it’s more than 1,000. WhatsApp moderators, like their Facebook and Instagram counterparts, are expected to meet performance metrics for speed and accuracy, which are audited by Accenture.

Their jobs differ in other ways. Because WhatsApp’s content is encrypted, artificial intelligence systems can’t automatically scan all chats, images, and videos, as they do on Facebook and Instagram. Instead, WhatsApp reviewers gain access to private content when users hit the “report” button on the app, identifying a message as allegedly violating the platform’s terms of service.

This forwards five messages — the allegedly offending one along with the four previous ones in the exchange, including any images or videos — to WhatsApp in unscrambled form, according to former WhatsApp engineers and moderators. Automated systems then feed these tickets into “reactive” queues for contract workers to assess.

Artificial intelligence initiates the second set of queues — so-called proactive ones — by scanning unencrypted data that WhatsApp collects about its users and comparing it against suspicious account information and messaging patterns (a new account rapidly sending out a high volume of chats is evidence of spam), as well as terms and images that have previously been deemed abusive.

The unencrypted data available for scrutiny is extensive. It includes the names and profiles images of a user’s WhatsApp groups as well as their phone number, profile photo, status message, phone battery level, language and time zone, unique mobile phone ID and IP address, wireless signal strength, and phone operating system, as a list of their electronic devices, any related Facebook and Instagram accounts, the last time they used the app and any previous history of violations.

The WhatsApp reviewers have three choices when presented with a ticket for either type of queue: Do nothing, place the user on “watch” for further scrutiny, or ban the account. (Facebook and Instagram content moderators have more options, including removing individual postings. It’s that distinction — the fact that WhatsApp reviewers can’t delete individual items — that the company cites as its basis for asserting that WhatsApp reviewers are not “content moderators.”)

WhatsApp moderators must make subjective, sensitive, and subtle judgments, interviews, and documents examined by ProPublica show. They examine a wide range of categories, including “Spam Report”, “Civic Bad Actor” (political hate speech and disinformation), “Terrorism Global Credible Threat”, “CEI” (child exploitative imagery), and “CP” (child pornography).

Another set of categories addresses the messaging and conduct of millions of small and large businesses that use WhatsApp to chat with customers and sell their wares. These queues have such titles as “business impersonation prevalence,” “commerce policy probable violators” and “business verification.”

Moderators say the guidance they get from WhatsApp and Accenture relies on standards that can be simultaneously arcane and disturbingly graphic. Decisions about abusive sexual imagery, for example, can rest on an assessment of whether a naked child in an image appears adolescent or prepubescent, based on a comparison of hip bones and pubic hair to a medical index chart.

One reviewer recalled a grainy video in a political-speech queue that depicted a machete-wielding man holding up what appeared to be a severed head: “We had to watch and say, ‘Is this a real dead body or a fake dead body?’”

In late 2020, moderators were informed of a new queue for alleged “sextortion.” It was defined in an explanatory memo as “a form of sexual exploitation where people are blackmailed with a nude image of themselves which have been shared by them or someone else on the Internet.” The memo said workers would review messages reported by users that “include predefined keywords typically used in sextortion/blackmail messages.”

WhatsApp’s review system is hampered by impediments, including buggy language translation. The service has users in 180 countries, with the vast majority located outside the U.S. Even though Accenture hires workers who speak a variety of languages, for messages in some languages there’s often no native speaker on-site to assess abuse complaints.

That means using Facebook’s language-translation tool, which reviewers said could be so inaccurate that it sometimes labeled messages in Arabic as being in Spanish. The tool also offered little guidance on local slang, political context, or sexual innuendo. “In the three years I’ve been there,” one moderator said, “it’s always been horrible.”

The process can be rife with errors and misunderstandings. Companies have been flagged for offering weapons for sale when they’re selling straight shaving razors. Bras can be sold, but if the marketing language registers as “adult,” the seller can be labeled a forbidden “sexually oriented business.” And a flawed translation toolset off an alarm when it detected kids for sale and slaughter, which, upon closer scrutiny, turned out to involve young goats intended to be cooked and eaten in halal meals.

The system is also undercut by the human failings of the people who instigate reports. Complaints are frequently filed to punish, harass or prank someone, according to moderators. In messages from Brazil and Mexico, one moderator explained, “we had a couple of months where AI was banning groups left and right because people were messing with their friends by changing their group names” and then reporting them. “At the worst of it, we were probably getting tens of thousands of those. They figured out some words the algorithm did not like.”

Other reports fail to meet WhatsApp standards for an account ban. “Most of it is not violating,” one of the moderators said. “It’s content that is already on the internet, and it’s just people trying to mess with users.” Still, each case can reveal up to five unencrypted messages, which are then examined by moderators.

The judgment of WhatsApp’s AI is less than perfect, moderators say. “There were a lot of innocent photos on there that were not allowed to be on there,” said Carlos Sauceda, who left Accenture last year after nine months. “It might have been a photo of a child taking a bath, and there was nothing wrong with it.” As another WhatsApp moderator put it, “A lot of the time, the artificial intelligence is not that intelligent.”

Facebook’s written guidance to WhatsApp moderators acknowledges many problems, noting “we have made mistakes and our policies have been weaponized by bad actors to get good actors banned. When users write inquiries pertaining to abusive matters like these, it is up to WhatsApp to respond and act (if necessary) accordingly in a timely and pleasant manner.” Of course, if a user appeals a ban that was prompted by a user report, according to one moderator, it entails having a second moderator examine the user’s content.

II. “Industry leaders” in detecting bad behavior

In public statements and on the company’s websites, Facebook Inc. is noticeably vague about WhatsApp’s monitoring process. The company does not provide a regular accounting of how WhatsApp polices the platform. WhatsApp’s FAQ page and online complaint form note that it will receive “the most recent messages” from a user who has been flagged.

They do not, however, disclose how many unencrypted messages are revealed when a report is filed, or that those messages are examined by outside contractors. (WhatsApp told ProPublica it limits that disclosure to keep violators from “gaming” the system.)

By contrast, both Facebook and Instagram post lengthy “Community Standards” documents detailing the criteria its moderators use to police content, along with articles and videos about “the unrecognized heroes who keep Facebook safe” and announcements on new content-review sites. Facebook’s transparency reports detail how many pieces of content are “actioned” for each type of violation. WhatsApp is not included in this report.

When dealing with legislators, Facebook Inc. officials also offer few details — but are eager to assure them that they don’t let encryption stand in the way of protecting users from images of child sexual abuse and exploitation. For example, when members of the Senate Judiciary Committee grilled Facebook about the impact of encrypting its platforms, the company, in written follow-up questions in January 2020, cited WhatsApp in boasting that it would remain responsive to law enforcement.

“Even within an encrypted system,” one respondent noted, “we will still be able to respond to lawful requests for metadata, including the potentially critical location or account information… We already have an encrypted messaging service, WhatsApp, that — in contrast to some other encrypted services — provides a simple way for people to report abuse or safety concerns.”

Sure enough, WhatsApp reported 400,000 instances of possible child-exploitation imagery to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in 2020, according to its head, Cathcart. That was ten times as many as in 2019. “We are by far the industry leaders in finding and detecting that behavior in an end-to-end encrypted service,” he said.

During his YouTube interview with the Australian think tank, Cathcart also described WhatsApp’s reliance on user reporting and its AI systems’ ability to examine account information that isn’t subject to encryption. Asked how many staffers WhatsApp employed to investigate abuse complaints from an app with more than two billion users, Cathcart didn’t mention content moderators or their access to encrypted content.

“There’s a lot of people across Facebook who help with WhatsApp,” he explained. “If you look at people who work full time on WhatsApp, it’s above a thousand. I won’t get into the full breakdown of customer service, user reports, engineering, etc. But it’s a lot of that.”

In written responses for this article, the company spokesperson said: “We build WhatsApp in a manner that limits the data we collect while providing us tools to prevent spam, investigate threats, and ban those engaged in abuse, including based on user reports we receive. This work takes extraordinary effort from security experts and a valued trust and safety team that works tirelessly to help provide the world with private communication.”

The spokesperson noted that WhatsApp has released new privacy features, including “more controls about how people’s messages can disappear” or be viewed only once. He added, “Based on the feedback we’ve received from users, we’re confident people understand when they make reports to WhatsApp we receive the content they send us.”

III. “Deceiving users” about personal privacy

Since the moment Facebook announced plans to buy WhatsApp in 2014, observers wondered how the service, known for its fervent commitment to privacy, would fare inside a corporation known for the opposite.

Zuckerberg had become one of the wealthiest people on the planet by using a “surveillance capitalism” approach: collecting and exploiting reams of user data to sell targeted digital ads. Facebook’s relentless pursuit of growth and profits has generated a series of privacy scandals in which it was accused of deceiving customers and regulators.

By contrast, WhatsApp knew little about its users apart from their phone numbers and shared none of that information with third parties. WhatsApp ran no ads, and its co-founders, Jan Koum and Brian Acton, both former Yahoo engineers, were hostile to them.

“At every company that sells ads,” they wrote in 2012, “a significant portion of their engineering team spends their day tuning data mining, writing better code to collect all your personal data, upgrading the servers that hold all the data, and making sure it’s all being logged and collated and sliced and packed and shipped out,” adding: “Remember when advertising is involved you the user are the product.” At WhatsApp, they noted, “your data isn’t even in the picture. We are simply not interested in any of it.”

Zuckerberg publicly vowed in a 2014 keynote speech that he would keep WhatsApp “exactly the same.” He declared, “We are absolutely not going to change plans around WhatsApp and the way it uses user data. WhatsApp is going to operate completely autonomously.”

In April 2016, WhatsApp completed its long-planned adoption of end-to-end encryption, which helped establish the app as a prized communications platform in 180 countries, including many where text messages and phone calls are cost-prohibitive. International dissidents, whistleblowers, and journalists also turned to WhatsApp to escape government eavesdropping.

Four months later, however, WhatsApp disclosed it would begin sharing user data with Facebook — precisely what Zuckerberg had said would not happen — a move that cleared the way for an array of future revenue-generating plans.

The new WhatsApp terms of service said the app would share information such as users’ phone numbers, profile photos, status messages, and IP addresses for the purposes of ad targeting, fighting spam and abuse, and gathering metrics. “By connecting your phone number with Facebook’s systems,” WhatsApp explained, “Facebook can offer better friend suggestions and show you more relevant ads if you have an account with them.”

Such actions were increasingly bringing Facebook into the crosshairs of regulators. In May 2017, EU antitrust regulators fined the company 110 million euros (about $122 million) for falsely claiming three years earlier that it would be impossible to link the user information between WhatsApp and the Facebook family of apps. The EU concluded that Facebook had “intentionally or negligently” deceived regulators. Facebook insisted its false statements in 2014 were not intentional but didn’t contest the fine.

By the spring of 2018, the WhatsApp co-founders, now both billionaires, were gone. Acton, in what he later described as an act of “penance” for the “crime” of selling WhatsApp to Facebook, gave $50 million to a foundation backing Signal, a free encrypted messaging app that would emerge as a WhatsApp rival. (Acton’s donor-advised fund has also given money to ProPublica.)

Meanwhile, Facebook was under fire for its security and privacy failures as never before. The pressure culminated in a landmark $5 billion fine by the Federal Trade Commission in July 2019 for violating a previous agreement to protect user privacy. The fine was almost 20 times greater than any previous privacy-related penalty, according to the FTC, and Facebook’s transgressions included “deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information.”

The FTC announced that it was ordering Facebook to take steps to protect privacy going forward, including for WhatsApp users: “As part of Facebook’s order-mandated privacy program, which covers WhatsApp and Instagram, Facebook must conduct a privacy review of every new or modified product, service, or practice before it is implemented, and document its decisions about user privacy.” Compliance officers would be required to generate a “quarterly privacy review report” and share it with the company and, upon request, the FTC.

Facebook agreed to the FTC’s fine and order. Indeed, the negotiations for that agreement were the backdrop, just four months before that, for Zuckerberg’s announcement of his new commitment to privacy.

By that point, WhatsApp had begun using Accenture and other outside contractors to hire hundreds of content reviewers. But the company was eager not to step on its larger privacy message — or spook its global user base. It said nothing publicly about its hiring of contractors to review content.

IV. “We kill people based on metadata”

Even as Zuckerberg was touting Facebook Inc.’s new commitment to privacy in 2019, he didn’t mention that his company was apparently sharing more of its WhatsApp users’ metadata than ever with the parent company — and with law enforcement.

To the lay ear, the term “metadata” can sound abstract, a word that evokes the intersection of literary criticism and statistics. To use an old, pre-digital analogy, metadata is the equivalent of what’s written on the outside of an envelope — the names and addresses of the sender and recipient and the postmark reflecting where and when it was mailed — while the “content” is what’s written on the letter sealed inside the envelope. So it is with WhatsApp messages: The content is protected, but the envelope reveals a multitude of telling details (as noted: timestamps, phone numbers, and much more).

Those in the information and intelligence fields understand how crucial this information can be. It was metadata, after all, that the National Security Agency was gathering about millions of Americans not suspected of a crime, prompting a global outcry when it was exposed in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

“Metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life,” former NSA general counsel Stewart Baker once said. “If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.” In a symposium at Johns Hopkins University in 2014, Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of both the CIA and NSA, went even further: “We kill people based on metadata.”

U.S. law enforcement has used WhatsApp metadata to help put people in jail. ProPublica found more than a dozen instances in which the Justice Department sought court orders for the platform’s metadata since 2017. These represent a fraction of overall requests, known as pen register orders (a phrase borrowed from the technology used to track numbers dialed by landline telephones), as many more are kept from public view by court order.

U.S. government requests for data on outgoing and incoming messages from all Facebook platforms increased by 276% from the first half of 2017 to the second half of 2020, according to Facebook Inc. statistics (which don’t break out the numbers by platform). The company’s rate of handing over at least some data in response to such requests has risen from 84% to 95% during that period.

It’s not clear exactly what government investigators have been able to gather from WhatsApp, as the results of those orders, too, are often kept from public view. Internally, WhatsApp calls such requests for information about users “prospective message pairs,” or PMPs.

These provide data on a user’s messaging patterns in response to requests from U.S. law enforcement agencies, as well as those in at least three other countries — the UK, Brazil, and India — according to a person familiar with the matter who shared this information on the condition of anonymity. Law enforcement requests from other countries might only receive basic subscriber profile information.

WhatsApp metadata was pivotal in the arrest and conviction of Natalie “May” Edwards, a former Treasury Department official with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, for leaking confidential banking reports about suspicious transactions to BuzzFeed News. The FBI’s criminal complaint detailed hundreds of messages between Edwards and a BuzzFeed reporter using an “encrypted application,” which interviews and court records confirmed was WhatsApp.

“On or about August 1, 2018, within approximately six hours of the Edwards pen becoming operative — and the day after the July 2018 Buzzfeed article was published — the Edwards cellphone exchanged approximately 70 messages via the encrypted application with the Reporter-1 cellphone during an approximately 20-minute time span between 12:33 a.m. and 12:54 a.m.,”

FBI Special Agent Emily Eckstut wrote in her October 2018 complaint. Edwards and the reporter used WhatsApp because Edwards believed the platform to be secure, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Edwards was sentenced on June 3 to six months in prison after pleading guilty to a conspiracy charge and reported to prison last week. Edwards’ attorney declined to comment, as did representatives from the FBI and the Justice Department.

WhatsApp has for years downplayed how much-unencrypted information it shares with law enforcement, largely limiting mentions of the practice to boilerplate language buried deep in its terms of service. It does not routinely keep permanent logs of who users are communicating with and how often, but company officials confirmed they do turn on such tracking at their own discretion — even for internal Facebook leak investigations — or in response to law enforcement requests. The company declined to tell ProPublica how frequently it does so.

The privacy page for WhatsApp assures users that they have total control over their own metadata. It says users can “decide if only contacts, everyone, or nobody can see your profile photo” or when they last opened their status updates or when they last opened the app. Regardless of the settings a user chooses, WhatsApp collects and analyzes all of that data — a fact not mentioned anywhere on the page.

V. “Opening the aperture to encompass business objectives”

The conflict between privacy and security on encrypted platforms seems to be only intensifying. Law enforcement and child safety advocates have urged Zuckerberg to abandon his plan to encrypt all of Facebook’s messaging platforms.

In June 2020, three Republican senators introduced the “Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act,” which would require tech companies to assist in providing access to even encrypted content in response to law enforcement warrants. For its part, WhatsApp recently sued the Indian government to block its requirement that encrypted apps provide “traceability” — a method to identify the sender of any message deemed relevant to law enforcement. WhatsApp has fought similar demands in other countries.

Other encrypted platforms take a vastly different approach to monitoring their users than WhatsApp. Signal employs no content moderators, collects far less user and group data, allows no cloud backups, and generally rejects the notion that it should be policing user activities. It submits no child exploitation reports to NCMEC.

Apple has touted its commitment to privacy as a selling point. It has no “report” button on its iMessage system, and the company has made just a few hundred annual reports to NCMEC, all of them originating from scanning outgoing email, which is unencrypted.

But Apple recently took a new tack and appeared to stumble along the way. Amid intensifying pressure from Congress, in August the company announced a complex new system for identifying child-exploitative imagery on users’ iCloud backups.

Apple insisted the new system poses no threat to private content, but privacy advocates accused the company of creating a backdoor that potentially allows authoritarian governments to demand broader content searches, which could result in the targeting of dissidents, journalists, or other critics of the state. On Sept. 3, Apple announced it would delay the implementation of the new system.

Still, it’s Facebook that seems to face the most constant skepticism among major tech platforms. It is using encryption to market itself as privacy-friendly while saying little about the other ways it collects data, according to Lloyd Richardson, the director of IT at the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.

“This whole idea that they’re doing it for personal protection of people is completely ludicrous,” Richardson said. “You’re trusting an app owned and written by Facebook to do exactly what they’re saying. Do you trust that entity to do that?” (On Sept. 2, Irish authorities announced that they are fining WhatsApp 225 million euros, about $267 million, for failing to properly disclose how the company shares user information with other Facebook platforms. WhatsApp is contesting the finding.)

Facebook’s emphasis on promoting WhatsApp as a paragon of privacy is evident in the December marketing document obtained by ProPublica. The “Brand Foundations” presentation says it was the product of a 21-member global team across all of Facebook, involving a half-dozen workshops, quantitative research, “stakeholder interviews” and “endless brainstorms.”

Its aim: to offer “an emotional articulation” of WhatsApp’s benefits, “an inspirational toolkit that helps us tell our story,” and a “brand purpose to champion the deep human connection that leads to progress.” The marketing deck identifies a feeling of “closeness” as WhatsApp’s “ownable emotional territory,” saying the app delivers “the closest thing to an in-person conversation.”

WhatsApp should portray itself as “courageous,” according to another slide because it’s “taking a strong, public stance that is not financially motivated on things we care about,” such as defending encryption and fighting misinformation. But the presentation also speaks of the need to “open the aperture of the brand to encompass our future business objectives. While privacy will remain important, we must accommodate for future innovations.”

WhatsApp is now in the midst of a major drive to make money. It has experienced a rocky start, in part because of broad suspicions of how WhatsApp will balance privacy and profits. An announced plan to begin running ads inside the app didn’t help — it was abandoned in late 2019, just days before it was set to launch.

Early this January, WhatsApp unveiled a change in its privacy policy — accompanied by a one-month deadline to accept the policy or get cut off from the app. The move sparked a revolt, impelling tens of millions of users to flee to rivals such as Signal and Telegram.

The policy change focused on how messages and data would be handled when users communicate with a business in the ever-expanding array of WhatsApp Business offerings. Companies now could store their chats with users and use information about users for marketing purposes, including targeting them with ads on Facebook or Instagram.

Elon Musk tweeted “Use Signal,” and WhatsApp users rebelled. Facebook delayed for three months the requirement for users to approve the policy update. In the meantime, it struggled to convince users that the change would have no effect on the privacy protections for their personal communications, with a slightly modified version of its usual assurance: “WhatsApp cannot see your personal messages or hear your calls and neither can Facebook.” Just as when the company first bought WhatsApp years before, the message was the same: Trust us.

Originally published by ProPublica.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




HUGE! Joe Rogan Just Blew The Lid Off the Mainstream Media Lies About Ivermectin

Video Source: WeAreChange

By Luke Rudkowski

The mainstream media has absolutely lost it over the ivermectin treatment that Joe Rogan successfully used to recover from COVID.

And now that Rogan is back to hosting his podcast he is rightfully going on the offensive, even jokingly threatening to sue CNN over the garbage they are making up about him.

This is making the MSM lose it even more.

Even though ivermectin was declared a “wonder drug” and was put on the list of essential substances by the WHO, and its creators won a Nobel prize…

According to the MSM, it is just a horse dewormer. An anti-parasite horse paste. Etc.

In this video, I get into how Rogan has revealed his doctors told him to take this treatment and how there may even be a Big Pharma plot to make everyone who uses the treatment look crazy.

Something the AP, NPR, MSNBC, and Rolling Stone are engaging in, as they have all run completely bogus stories on the treatment.

Meanwhile, Jimmy Kimmel is regurgitating the fake story that people couldn’t get treatment for gunshot wounds because of horse paste.




20 Years of Government-Sponsored Tyranny: The Rise of the Security-Industrial Complex from 9/11 to COVID-19

The 20th anniversary of 9/11 provides us with another opportunity to look back at that horrifying false flag operation, now the basis for so much tyranny & war.

By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute

“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”—Osama bin Laden (October 2001), as reported by CNN

What a strange and harrowing road we’ve walked since September 11, 2001, littered with the debris of our once-vaunted liberties. We have gone from a nation that took great pride in being a model of a representative democracy to being a model of how to persuade a freedom-loving people to march in lockstep with a police state.

Our losses are mounting with every passing day.

What began with the post-9/11 passage of the USA Patriot Act has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption, and abuse.

The citizenry’s unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has resulted in a society where the nation has been locked down into a militarized, mechanized, hypersensitive, legalistic, self-righteous, goose-stepping antithesis of every principle upon which this nation was founded.

Set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole-body scanners, stop and frisk searches, police violence, and the like—all of which have been sanctioned by Congress, the White House and the courts—our constitutional freedoms have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded.

The rights embodied in the Constitution, if not already eviscerated, are on life support.

Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s war on the American people, a war that has grown more pronounced since 9/11.

Indeed, since the towers fell on 9/11, the U.S. government has posed a greater threat to our freedoms than any terrorist, extremist, or foreign entity ever could.

While nearly 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government and its agents have easily killed at least ten times that the number of civilians in the U.S. and abroad since 9/11 through its police shootings, SWAT team raids, drone strikes, and profit-driven efforts to police the globe, sell weapons to foreign nations (which too often fall into the hands of terrorists), and foment civil unrest in order to keep the security industrial complex gainfully employed.

The American people have been treated like enemy combatants, to be spied on, tracked, scanned, frisked, searched, subjected to all manner of intrusions, intimidated, invaded, raided, manhandled, censored, silenced, shot at, locked up, denied due process, and killed.

In allowing ourselves to be distracted by terror drills, foreign wars, color-coded warnings, pandemic lockdowns, and other carefully constructed exercises in propaganda, sleight of hand, and obfuscation, we failed to recognize that the U.S. government—the government that was supposed to be a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”—has become the enemy of the people.

Consider that the government’s answer to every problem has been more government—at taxpayer expense—and less individual liberty.

Every crisis—manufactured or otherwise—since the nation’s early beginnings has become a make-work opportunity for the government to expand its reach and its power at taxpayer expense while limiting our freedoms at every turn: The Great Depression. The World Wars. The 9/11 terror attacks. The COVID-19 pandemic.

Viewed in this light, the history of the United States is a testament to the old adage that liberty decreases as government (and government bureaucracy) grows. Or, to put it another way, as government expands, liberty contracts.

This is how the emergency state operates, after all, and we should know: after all, we have spent the past 20 years in a state of emergency.

From 9/11 to COVID-19, “we the people” have acted the part of the helpless, gullible victims desperately in need of the government to save us from whatever danger threatens. In turn, the government has been all too accommodating and eager while also expanding its power and authority in the so-called name of national security.

This is a government that has grown so corrupt, greedy, power-hungry, and tyrannical over the course of the past 240-plus years that our constitutional republic has since given way to idiocracy, and representative government has given way to a kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves) and a kakistocracy (a government-run by unprincipled career politicians, corporations and thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of American citizens).

What this really amounts to is a war on the American people, fought on American soil, funded with taxpayer dollars, and waged with a single-minded determination to use national crises, manufactured or otherwise, in order to transform the American homeland into a battlefield.

Indeed, the government’s (mis)management of various states of emergency in the past 20 years has spawned a massive security-industrial complex the likes of which have never been seen before. According to the National Priorities Project at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies, since 9/11, the United States has spent $21 trillion on “militarization, surveillance, and repression.”

Clearly, this is not a government that is a friend to freedom.

Rather, this is a government that, in conjunction with its corporate partners, views the citizenry as consumers and bits of data to be bought, sold, and traded.

This is a government that spies on and treats its people as if they have no right to privacy, especially in their own homes while the freedom to be human is being erased.

This is a government that is laying the groundwork to weaponize the public’s biomedical data as a convenient means by which to penalize certain “unacceptable” social behaviors. Incredibly, a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.

This is a government that routinely engages in taxation without representation, whose elected officials lobby for our votes only to ignore us once elected.

This is a government comprised of petty bureaucrats, vigilantes masquerading as cops, and faceless technicians.

This is a government that railroads taxpayers into financing government programs whose only purpose is to increase the power and wealth of the corporate elite.

This is a government—a warring empire—that forces its taxpayers to pay for wars abroad that serve no other purpose except to expand the reach of the military-industrial complex.

This is a government that subjects its people to scans, searches, pat-downs, and other indignities by the TSA and VIPR raids on so-called “soft” targets like shopping malls and bus depots by black-clad, Darth Vader look-alikes.

This is a government that uses fusion centers, which represent the combined surveillance efforts of federal, state, and local law enforcement, to track the citizenry’s movements, record their conversations, and catalog their transactions.

This is a government whose wall-to-wall surveillance has given rise to a suspect society in which the burden of proof has been reversed such that Americans are now assumed guilty until or unless they can prove their innocence.

This is a government that treats its people like second-class citizens who have no rights and is working overtime to stigmatize and dehumanize any and all who do not fit with the government’s plans for this country.

This is a government that uses free speech zones, roving bubble zones, and trespass laws to silence, censor, and marginalize Americans and restrict their First Amendment right to speak truth to power.

This is a government that persists in renewing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the president and the military to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely based on the say-so of the government.

This is a government that saddled us with the Patriot Act, which opened the door to all manner of government abuses and intrusions on our privacy.

This is a government that, in direct opposition to the dire warnings of those who founded our country, has allowed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a standing army by way of programs that transfer surplus military hardware to local and state police.

This is a government that has militarized American’s domestic police, equipping them with military weapons such as “tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; a million hollow-point bullets; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars, and aircraft,” in addition to armored vehicles, sound cannons and the like.

This is a government that has provided cover to police when they shoot and kill unarmed individuals just for standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

This is a government that has created a Constitution-free zone within 100 miles inland of the border around the United States, paving the way for Border Patrol agents to search people’s homes, intimately probe their bodies, and rifle through their belongings, all without a warrant. Nearly 66% of Americans (2/3 of the U.S. population, 197.4 million people) now live within that 100-mile-deep, Constitution-free zone.

This is a government that treats public school students as if they were prison inmates, enforcing zero-tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, and indoctrinating them with teaching that emphasizes rote memorization and test-taking over learning, synthesizing, and critical thinking.

This is a government that is operating in the negative on every front: it’s spending far more than what it makes (and takes from the American taxpayers) and it is borrowing heavily (from foreign governments and Social Security) to keep the government operating and keep funding its endless wars abroad. Meanwhile, the nation’s sorely neglected infrastructure—railroads, water pipelines, ports, dams, bridges, airports, and roads—is rapidly deteriorating.

This is a government that has empowered police departments to make a profit at the expense of those they have sworn to protect through the use of asset forfeiture laws, speed traps, and red light cameras.

This is a government whose gun violence—inflicted on unarmed individuals by battlefield-trained SWAT teams, militarized police, and bureaucratic government agents trained to shoot first and ask questions later—poses a greater threat to the safety and security of the nation than any mass shooter. There are now reportedly more bureaucratic (non-military) government agents armed with high-tech, deadly weapons than U.S. Marines.

This is a government that has allowed the presidency to become a dictatorship operating above and beyond the law, regardless of which party is in power.

This is a government that treats dissidents, whistleblowers, and freedom fighters as enemies of the state.

This is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest, the acquisition of greater wealth, scientific experimentation, and technological advances, all packaged in the guise of the greater good.

This is a government that allows its agents to break laws with immunity while average Americans get the book thrown at them.

This is a government that speaks in a language of force. What is this language of force? Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. less-than-lethal weapons are unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality. Contempt of cop charges.

This is a government that justifies all manner of government tyranny and power grabs in the so-called name of national security, national crises, and national emergencies.

This is a government that exports violence worldwide, with one of this country’s most profitable exports being weapons. Indeed, the United States, the world’s largest exporter of arms, has been selling violence to the world in order to prop up the military-industrial complex and maintain its endless wars abroad.

This is a government that is consumed with squeezing every last penny out of the population and seemingly unconcerned if essential freedoms are trampled in the process.

This is a government that routinely undermines the Constitution and rides roughshod over the rights of the citizenry, eviscerating individual freedoms so that its own powers can be expanded.

This is a government that believes it has the authority to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation, the Constitution be damned.

In other words, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, this is not a government that believes in, let alone upholds, freedom.

WC: 2184

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is the founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.




U.S. Indifferent to Human Experimentation and Biological and Chemical Weapons — New Book Points to a Monstrous Agenda

By | Activist Post

At the Breaking Point of History: How Decades of U.S. Duplicity Enabled the Pandemic by Activist Post contributor Janet Phelan details the US government’s indifference to the welfare of individuals and to its legal obligations under national and international accords prohibiting human experimentation and biological and chemical weapons. (The book is available at TrineDay and elsewhere.)

From lead pipes in Flint, Michigan to a duplicitous water commission in Medford, Oregon to a secret psychiatric ward at UCLA to the elegant halls of the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, Breaking Point reveals deceitful machinations executed at the highest and lowest levels of power.

Ms. Phelan recently said,

“We are embroiled in a pandemic which has collapsed economies, caused death by starvation and has resulted in severe new restrictions on civil rights in the US and elsewhere. Yet many medical professionals and researchers are questioning the genesis of Covid-19. Was it bioengineered? Was it deliberately released? They’re also questioning the numbers alleged to have died from it, pointing to dictates from the CDC to list deaths not directly caused by the virus as virus-caused deaths.”

Many of the articles were written prior to the Covid-19 pandemic and point to a monstrous political agenda, implicating media, government, and foreign nations in the plan to launch this. Details as to other vectors which may be deployed in a pandemic scenario, details that have been suppressed by other media, are fully disclosed here.

Janet Phelan is an investigative reporter. Her articles have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the San Bernardino County Sentinel, Orange Coast Magazine, New Eastern Outlook, and elsewhere. She currently writes for Activist Post and has previously published an intelligence exposes, Exile, and two books of poetry.

TrineDay is a small publishing house that arose as a response to the consistent refusal of the corporate press to publish many interesting, well-researched, and well-written books with but one key “defect”: a challenge to official history that would tend to rock the boat of America’s corporate “culture.” TrineDay believes in our Constitution and our common right of Free Speech.




Epstein, Gates, Vaccine Heist & Mainstream Media’s CONSPIRACY Of Silence | Russell Brand & Dr. Mercola

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

  • Judy K. Brown’s book, “Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story,” details the conspiracy of silence surrounding the biggest alleged pedophile and sex trafficking mogul of our time, Jeffrey Epstein, and his network of rich and powerful people, which includes Bill Gates
  • Corruption is rampant throughout our public health agencies and medical organizations. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funds the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. and the Medicine & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the U.K.
  • The Gates Foundation also owns shares in Pfizer and BioNTech, raising questions about corruption in the FDA and IHMA, both of which appear to have given Pfizer’s COVID shot preferential treatment despite overwhelming safety concerns and questionable effectiveness
  • The Gates Foundation is also a primary funder of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which was responsible for the grossly inaccurate modeling that led to several governors ordering COVID patients to be sent into nursing homes
  • Gates is now calling on the western world to sacrifice itself in order to stave off climate change. But the climate change crisis, like the COVID pandemic, is a red herring, used to justify the implementation of the Great Reset

In the video above, Russell Brand discusses Judy K. Brown’s book, “Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story,” which details the conspiracy of silence surrounding the biggest alleged pedophile and sex trafficking mogul of our time, Jeffrey Epstein.

The media’s refusal to dig into the Epstein story, Brand says, suggests the media are part of a corrupted establishment that protects the rich and powerful, no matter what. One rich and powerful person who enjoys the legacy media’s protection is Bill Gates.

Gates and Epstein

Brand cites an article in The Daily Beast,1 claiming Gates had dozens of meetings with Epstein between 2011 and 2014 alone, typically at Epstein’s Manhattan home. When news of Gates’ relationship with Epstein emerged in 2019, Melinda Gates reportedly contacted a divorce attorney.

According to The Daily Beast, Gates “encouraged Epstein to rehabilitate his image in the media.” If true, this suggests Gates may indeed have been closer to Epstein than he’s been letting on. An anonymous source who claims to have been present at several of the meetings has said the two were “very close.”

The Daily Beast also claims that “people familiar with the matter said Gates found freedom in Epstein’s lair, where he met a rotating cast of bold-faced names and discussed worldly issues between rounds of jokes and gossip — a ‘men’s club’ atmosphere that irritated Melinda.”

Speaking with CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, Gates dismisses his relationship with the notorious sex trafficker of minors as nothing more than a naïve attempt to secure funding for his public health efforts.

Seeing how the extent of Epstein’s interest in public health seems to have been an obsession with the idea of creating his own race of superhumans by having sex slaves give birth to his babies,2 this excuse seems flimsy at best. Epstein also donated money to the Worldwide Transhumanist Association.3

Gates is now trying to wiggle out from beneath Epstein’s dark shadow, calling their meetings “a mistake.” Brand may be right, however, when he says that the story of Gates’ relationship with Epstein really highlights the importance of retaining our autonomy, and not blindly follow people who claim superiority over us.

Gates is as flawed as anyone else, and perhaps more so, as wealth and power breed corruption, and allow people to pursue interests that would not or could not be pursued unless you have the money and influence to ensure secrecy.

Gates Funds UK and US Public Health Organizations

If we’ve learned anything over the past year and a half, it’s that corruption is rampant throughout our public health agencies and medical organizations. As reported by Armstrong Economics, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funds — and therefore has significant influence over — public health agencies in both the United States and the U.K.:4

“The [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] has given full approval to Gates’s vaccines because it has been under tremendous political pressure to do so. Even CNBC reported that ‘Federal health officials had been under mounting pressure from the scientific community and advocacy groups to fully approve Pfizer and BioNTech’s vaccine …’

Meanwhile, in London, an investigation has revealed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are the primary funders of the UK’s Medicine & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency just as they are [of] the FDA in the United States.

The SEC has done absolutely NOTHING about insider information since Gates is also a MAJOR shareholder in Pfizer / BioNTech mRNA. There are reliable medical organizations opposing these vaccines despite the approval by two regulatory agencies that are taking money from Gates which only introduces conflicts of interest and potential corruption …

The FDA has NEVER approved a completely new type of medicine in less than one year, which raises serious questions about corruption. The average time it takes to get approval from the FDA is 12 years!”

The London investigation they’re referring to was published in The Daily Expose August 20, 2021.5 The MHRA, the British version of the U.S. FDA, actually receives most of its funding from the Gates Foundation, the investigation found.

June 4, 2021, the MHRA extended its emergency use authorization of the Pfizer jab to children between the ages of 12 and 15, despite known risks of heart inflammation. The Daily Expose writes:6

“At the time, the Chief Executive of the MHRA, Dr. June Raine said the MHRA had ‘carefully reviewed clinical trial data in children aged 12 to 15 years and have concluded that the Pfizer vaccine is safe and effective in this age group and that the benefits outweigh any risk.’

We are left wondering if Dr. June Raine and the MHRA have even read the results of the extremely short and small study.7 If they have then they would have seen that 86% of children in the study suffered an adverse reaction ranging from mild to extremely serious.8

Just 1,127 children took part of the trial, however only 1,097 children completed the trial, with 30 of them not participating after being given the first dose of the Pfizer jab. The results do not state why the 30 children did not go on to complete the trial … Can we really trust the MHRA to remain impartial when its primary funder is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who also own shares in Pfizer and BioNTech? We don’t think so.”

Gates Is Heavily Invested in Drug Companies

The Gates Foundation also owns “major shares” in both Pfizer and BioNTech, which jointly developed a COVID shot that August 23, 2021, was granted full approval9 for use in people 16 years of age and older by the FDA.

The Gates Foundation started shifting its investments into pharmaceuticals in 2002. That year, Gates invested $205 million into nine large drug companies, including Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. “The decision to take stakes in individual firms appears to be a shift in strategy, and for the first time aligns the charity’s interests with those of the drugs firms,” The Guardian reported at the time.10

According to The Motley Fool,11 Gates initially invested in Pfizer “with the stated intention of ‘expand[ing] access to the pharmaceutical company’s all-in-one injectable contraceptive.” Once the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, Gates predicted early on that Pfizer would be the first to get emergency use approval.

The Gates Foundation didn’t pick up BioNTech shares until September 2019, just three months before the COVID pandemic emerged, when it bought $55 million worth of shares.

Gates-Funded Forecasting Led to Nursing Home ‘Death Warrants’

The Gates Foundation has also shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), which was responsible for the ill-fatedly inaccurate modeling that led to several governors issuing “nursing home death warrants.” The Strategic Culture Foundation writes:12

“New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is finally facing the heat for his botched and criminally negligent coronavirus response policies, yet no one seems to be asking why Cuomo and select governors made the fateful decisions that led to the excess deaths …

In March and early April, politicians were informed by the modeling ‘experts’ at Gates-funded IHME that their hospitals were about to be completely overrun by coronavirus patients.

Modelers from IHME claimed this massive surge would cause hospitals to run out of lifesaving equipment in a matter of days, not weeks or months. Time was of the essence, and now was the time for rapid decision making, the modelers claimed. On two separate April 1 and April 2 press conferences, Cuomo made clear that his policy decisions were based off of the IHME model.”

In one of those press conferences, Cuomo thanked the Gates Foundation “for the national service that they’ve done.” The Pennsylvania Health Department also used IHME models to navigate its response. Even federal bureaucrats like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx, both of whom have personal ties to Gates as well, leaning on the IHME forecasts to justify lockdowns, business closures, and curfews.

In the end, the IHME models didn’t pan out. They weren’t even close. “For example, IHME used a 3+% death rate when the real number ‘from’ COVID-19 is only around 0.1%,” Strategic Culture Foundation writes, adding:13

“The buck does indeed stop with the elected leaders who made the fateful decisions to send sick COVID patients into nursing homes, lock down their states, and mask up their citizens in perpetuity, but that’s only half of the story.

The bad data they used almost exclusively came from the Gates network, which has trafficked in pseudoscience and has demonstrated complete incompetence and reckless forecasting since the beginning of last year.”

Not surprisingly, Gates has stayed mum on the gross failures of the IHME. As noted by the Strategic Culture Foundation,14 he has “seamlessly washed his hands of COVID mania and has moved on to demanding that the western world sacrifice itself in the name of the latest ‘crisis’ that is climate change.”

COVID-19 — A Launch Pad for the Great Reset

Of course, Gates’ “green” plans will also grow his own wealth, just like the COVID pandemic has done. Indeed, the so-called “climate change crisis” is nothing but another tool to implement the Great Reset, which will forever alter the face of society and commerce, shifting virtually all wealth and ownership to a few technocrats at the top, leaving regular people with no wealth or freedom to speak of.

Considering Gates’ position within the technocratic elite, it’s no surprise his fingerprints can be found on all the necessary chess pieces of this global chess game. As you may recall, the Gates Foundation co-sponsored the pandemic preparedness simulation for a “novel coronavirus,” known as Event 201, in October 2019 along with the World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

The event eerily predicted what would happen just 10 weeks later, when COVID-19 appeared. Both the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum are also partnered15 with the United Nations which, while keeping a relatively low profile, appears to be at the heart of the globalist takeover agenda.

The World Economic Forum, while a private organization, works as the social and economic branch of the U.N. and is a key driving force behind modern technocracy and the Great Reset agenda. Its founder and chairman, Klaus Schwab, publicly declared the need for a global “reset” to restore order in June 2020.16

Technocratic rule, which is what the Great Reset will bring about, hinges on the use of technology — in particular, artificial intelligence, digital surveillance, and Big Data collection (which is what 5G is for) — and the digitization of industry, banking and government, which in turn allows for the automation of social engineering and social rule (although that part is never expressly stated).

Beyond pandemic preparedness and response, the justification for the implementation of the Great Reset agenda in its totality will be climate change. The Great Reset, sometimes referred to as the “build back better” plan, specifically calls for all nations to implement “green” regulations and “sustainable development goals”17,18 as part of the post-COVID recovery effort.

But the end goal is far from what the typical person envisions when they hear these plans. The end goal is to turn us into serfs without rights to privacy, private ownership, or anything else. In short, the pandemic is being used to destroy the local economies around the world, which will then allow the World Economic Forum to come in and “rescue” debt-ridden countries. The price for this salvation is your liberty.

The Great Reset

The Great Reset is not some wild conspiracy theory but a publicly released agenda that is moving forward, whether we like it or not.

Many world leaders have spoken about it in an official capacity, and in June 2020, Zia Khan, senior vice president of innovation at the Rockefeller Foundation penned the article19 “Rebuilding Toward the Great Reset: Crisis, COVID-19, and the Sustainable Development Goals,” reviewing the “social crisis” necessitating the world’s acceptance of new world order.

The article was co-written with John McArthur, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, which is one of several technocratic think-tanks. Keeping in mind what I’ve just said about what the Great Reset is really all about, and the justifications used to implement the theft of wealth and freedom, read how they posit these changes as being in your best interest:

“Upheaval can yield new understanding and opportunity. Outdated or unjust norms can succumb to society’s pressing need for better approaches. For example, the need for massive and urgent government intervention has drawn fresh attention to social safety nets and the possibility of dramatic policy enhancements.

Tragic consequences of racial discrimination have catapulted awareness of systemic problems and triggered prospects for much-needed social reforms. Rapid environmental improvements linked to economic shutdown have rekindled consciousness of the profound interconnections between ecosystems, economies, and societies …

Rather than passively allowing norms to evolve through inertia or randomness, we can all pursue actions for Response and, soon enough, Recovery in a manner that improve the odds of a Reset toward better long-term outcomes.

Fortunately, we already have a strong starting point for what the world’s economic, social, and environmental outcomes should be. Five years ago, in 2015, all 193 UN member states agreed on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a common set of priorities to be achieved in all countries by 2030.”

I believe the only way to stop it is through our collective responses to the various pieces and parts of the plan that are being rolled out. They want you to believe that none of the things being introduced have anything to do with each other but, in fact, they are all pieces of the same puzzle.

It would be a tragic mistake to trust Gates or any of the other players that are being brought before us as saviors of the day. They’re all wolves in sheep’s clothing. The Great Reset is at our doorstep, and your freedom, and that of future generations, hinges on you fighting to keep it.20

Our best bet right now is to involve ourselves in local governance, be it your child’s school board or local government, and engaging in peaceful civil disobedience.

Gates may be presented as an all-knowing genius whose mission is to keep us healthy and safe, but his activities are inconsistent with and fail to match his carefully manufactured persona. Again and again, Gates has wielded influence in matters where lies have been told and public health and human rights have been decimated for profit.

Sources and References



Why Coverage On Pandemic Tyranny Is So Important

Op-Ed by Patrick Wood | Activist Post

As editor of Technocracy News & Trends, I am not particularly satisfied in reporting story after story, day after day, on various aspects of the so-called Covid pandemic. Why fight the propaganda machine? Does it really matter? Aren’t other sites covering it anyway?

After replaying these questions every morning in light of Technocracy, I always come to the same conclusion:

IT’S NOT JUST A STORY, IT IS THE ONLY STORY!

This is Technocracy’s coup d’état. It specifically started on January 30, 2020, when the World Health Organization declared that COVID-19 was a pandemic, calling for emergency powers, lockdowns, social distancing, masks, vaccines, etc.

I flatly predicted this coup in 2015 in Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation. There was no way at that time to understand the means of the coup, but it was clear to me that it was coming, that it had a timetable and intention:

“When studying the progression of Nazi Germany leading up to Hitler’s assumption of complete power, I have often theorized that there was very likely a specific point in time when he realized that he had all the political, military, organizational and economic power necessary to declare himself dictator. Hitler had declared his intentions in his 1925 book, Mein Kampf, which was mostly ignored at the time because it was written by a trouble-making rabble-rouser who was serving time in jail for what he claimed were political crimes. But, Hitler had a dream and a strategy to get there, and then he embarked on implementing that strategy. In 1933, after he clawed and connived his way into power, he pulled the plug and declared himself dictator; there was nothing anyone could do about it. To oppose him meant certain death or imprisonment. His work and strategy, like moving the pieces on a chessboard, had resulted in a doomsday checkmate. My point is that it didn’t happen by accident or even by a series of random events where one day he just woke up and thought, “I think I will announce my dictatorship after lunch today.” Rather, Hitler was certainly gathering pieces of his empire all along, analyzing and plotting his victory with excruciating detail. As the necessary assets were lined up in a row under his control, Hitler knew exactly what it would take to get to the top, and he knew that he would know when he had arrived. Well, that day arrived, and history was changed forever.

“Based on this thinking, if today’s technocrats are meticulously working toward a scientific dictatorship and applying a specific strategy to get there, wouldn’t you think that they have a specific list of criteria that must be met before “game over” can be called? Wouldn’t you think that they are comparing such a list to the actual progress they are making in the world? Wouldn’t you think that they are monitoring their progress and will recognize when the list has been fulfilled? If you can see my point here, then there are only two questions left: When that day comes, will the Technocrats have the guts to shut the old world order down and simply declare the “system” as a dictator? If so, how long will it take them to act?”

Well, of course, they have the guts to shut down the old world order! They have done it, haven’t they?

They have declared the “system” as a dictator. Isn’t this exactly what Big Tech and Big Pharma are telling us?

So, what about all the other initiatives that Technocracy has been known for?

  • Smart grid – controlling the use and distribution of energy
  • Internet of Everything – What can be connected will be connected
  • 5G – to connect the IoE
  • Surveillance – Everything is monitored and tracked
  • Smart Cities – Using IoE to socially engineer the entire city

Those are all advancing on other fronts, but the main column – medical tyranny – is the “shock and awe” phenomenon that is sucking all the oxygen out of the room. Globally. Nationally. Locally. In the workplace. In the hospitals and clinics. In the corporate world. In churches. In neighborhoods. In families.

As such then, the pandemic and all of its surroundings is the ONLY STORY that counts right now, and that’s why Technocracy News & Trends will continue to report on it.

Source: Technocracy News & Trends

Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda, and historic Technocracy. He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.




COVID-19 and the Shadowy “Trusted News Initiative” – How it Methodically Censors Top World Public Health Experts

What do the inventor of mRNA technology; the lead author of the most downloaded paper on Covid-19 in the American Journal of Medicine; a former editor of the American Journal of Epidemiology; renowned epidemiologists at Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford; and France’s leading microbiologist – have in common? They have all been censored by a repressive media network that most people have never heard of. This network has outrageously conceived and conveyed a “monopoly of legitimate information.”[i] 

Exposing this uncanny censorship of eminent voices is especially vital to the fate of children and youth, who are being aggressively targeted for low-benefit, sometimes lethal, inoculations.

Since early in the COVID-19 pandemic, which according to the World Health Organization kills only 0.23% of those infected[ii], enormous fear and panic have been fuelled by the hourly drumbeat of a “one-voice” media.

An international process of editorial standardization has delivered unprecedented news coverage of the monopolized message:

  1. The pandemic threatens the survival of all humanity
  2. There is no therapy to cure the sick
  3. It is necessary to confine the whole population, and
  4. The delivery will come only from a vaccine.[iii]

Many people have been dismayed by the singularity of this propaganda, and how it could possibly have been achieved.  That is the subject of this study.

Introduction:  How the TNI Got Started

On June 24, 2021, a report from the Oxford-based Reuters Institute revealed that trust in the US media – ranking last among 46 countries – had descended to an all-time low of 29%.  Meanwhile, Canadian trust in media has sunk to 45%.[iv]

This downward spiral can only mean that people are going elsewhere for their news – a trend that has likely been accelerated by the emergence of a shadowy global censorship network called the Trusted News Initiative (TNI).

In July 2019, before the pandemic, the UK and Canadian governments hosted the FCO Global Conference on Media Freedom,[v] where then BBC Director-General Tony Hall announced:

“Last month I convened, behind closed doors, a Trusted News Summit at the BBC, which brought together global tech platforms and publishers. The goal was to arrive at a practical set of actions we can take together, right now, to tackle the rise of misinformation and bias….I’m determined that we use that [BBC] unique reach and trusted voice to lead the way – to create a global alliance for integrity in news. We’re ready to do even more to help promote freedom and democracy worldwide.”[vi]

The initial Trusted News partners in attendance were the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google, The Hindu, and The Wall Street Journal.

This was the embryonic start of a soon-to-become global media-wide Early Warning System that would rapidly alert members to “disinformation which threatens human life or disrupts democracy during elections.”[vii]

Where did the idea come from?

The BBC had earlier responded[viii] to a call for evidence from the House of Lords Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technology, citing in its first footnote a June 3, 2019, BBC blog entitled “Tackling Misinformation.”[ix]

The first point of that blog referred to a pre-pandemic March 3, 2019, BBC news report that anti-vaxxers were gaining traction on social media as part of a “fake news” movement spreading “misleading and dangerous information”.[x]

The June 3 blog also claimed a “mammoth” online scale of deceitful business practices and hate speech as problems needing “algorithmic interventions”. The online “information ecosystem” was “polluted”; the size of the problem “unprecedented.”  The BBC and other organizations would be looking at interventions “to address misinformation across the media landscape”.

Looking back at this perception of pre-Covid problems, the motives of the TNI network appear to have been constructive and reasonable.  However, there was no inkling at the time of how vast, repressive, and darkly persuasive these interventions were soon to become.

The action started. CBC/Radio-Canada publicly announced its participation in the TNI in September 2019, saying “this includes a commitment to collaborate on source authentication, civic information, media education, and other responses to disinformation.”[xi] The Hindu announced the Indian program simultaneously.[xii]

Two weeks after WHO announced the Covid-19 pandemic on March 11, 2020, Canada’s CBC reported that the Trusted News Initiative had announced plans “to tackle harmful coronavirus disinformation.”

“Starting today, partners in the Trusted News Initiative will alert each other to disinformation about coronavirus, including ‘imposter content’ purporting to come from trusted sources. Such content will be reviewed promptly to ensure that disinformation is not republished.” [xiii]

The media partners had now expanded to include Twitter, Microsoft, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Reuters, and the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

The TNI next agreed to engage with a new verification technology called Project Origin, led by a coalition of the BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, Microsoft, and The New York Times – with a mandate to identify non-authorized news stories for suppression.

In July 2020, Eric Horvitz, Chief Scientific Officer for Microsoft, remarked about authorizing the news: “We’ve forged a close relationship with the BBC and other partners on Project Origin, aimed at methods and standards for end-to-end authentication of news and information.”[xiv]

By December 2020, the BBC had reported that disinformation was “spreading online to millions of people,” and included minimizing COVID-19 risks along with impugning the vaccine developers’ motives.[xv]

In a June 25, 2021 summary article by investigative staff, TrialSiteNews asked the question, “COVID-19 Censorship: Trusted News Initiative to Decide the Facts?” and began its reply with:

“Since time immemorial, those with power have used it to control those without. In the modern world, big government and big tech represent the seats of power when it comes to who is allowed to say what. Of course, many think that “private companies” can regulate speech in any way they see fit. But from either an ethical or legal point of view, this is false. The argument from the societal benefits of free speech works equally for posting YouTube videos and handing out flyers on a corner.

Legally, the [U.S.] Supreme Court has long held that when a private company creates something that functions as a public square (think of a company town), the First Amendment comes into play. Way back in April 2020, it was already clear that the then-existing online socio-political censorship was going to expand into the world of science, medicine, and academia in the new COVID-19 era.”[xvi]

What is Disinformation?  

This question has been sloppily handled by the mainstream media, which often confuses “misinformation” (unintentionally misleading information) with what they mean, “disinformation,” which is deliberate.

Several dictionary definitions agree on that point:

American Heritage: “Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation.”[xvii]

Merriam-Webster:  “False information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.”[xviii]

The OED (Oxford English Dictionary): “The dissemination of deliberately false information, esp. when supplied by a government or its agent to a foreign power or to the media, with the intention of influencing the policies or opinions of those who receive it.”[xix]

Given that these definitions specify deliberate government action, it seems odd that the TNI has identified a scattered online public as the source of intentionally false information and propaganda – especially concerning elections and health policy.

What are the TNI’s Public Health Sources?  Are They Trustworthy? 

The TNI reports Covid-19 health policy from the world’s major public health agencies, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH).

This policy is passed down through national and state governments, who convey it to the public via their media and websites, along with local case reports (based on the questionable PCR test) and deaths.

Unfortunately, this top-down leadership has at best been illogical and inconsistent, and at worst corrupted by the vast profits of the vaccine industry.

Examples of either incompetent or corrupt public health leadership include NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci’s extraordinary contradictions concerning the protection offered by masks.[xx]

More astonishing is the fact that on July 21, 2021, the CDC quietly recalled the use of the WHO-supported PCR test, which since February 2020 has been the global standard for measuring Covid-19 case numbers.  This recall was eventually reported about a week later, yet it had appeared on the CDC website[xxi] the first day after the news that George Soros and Bill Gates had acquired the UK Covid test company, Mologic.[xxii]

The PCR test had already had a checkered history:  Its recommendation had been very suddenly approved by WHO after being hurriedly rushed to publication in Eurosurveillance,[xxiii] one day after its submission date of January 22, 2020.  Incredibly, it lacked peer review – an irregularity that was formally challenged by 22 scientists seeking its retraction.[xxiv]

Worse yet, this global PCR test, which amplifies fragments of live or dead virus found in nose swabs, shows many false positives (which are officially deemed “cases,” regardless of symptoms). A study conducted last year by the Infectious Diseases Society of America found that at 25 cycles of amplification, “up to 70% of patients remain positive in culture” tests.  Fine, but at 30 cycles culture verification dropped to 20%, and by 35 cycles, less than 3% of cultures remained positive.[xxv]

Misleadingly, most European and US labs have been basing their frightening “case” numbers – published 24/7 through the TNI – on 35 cycles or higher.[xxvi]

The most shocking – if not criminal – Covid leadership failure of all is that the WHO, NIH, CDC, and FDA have consistently denied the existence of the 85%-effective, cheap, safe, and abundant early treatments for Covid-19.

Their only recommended option until November 2020 – a month before the vaccines arrived – was to sicken at home until you couldn’t breathe;  then go to the hospital. (In November the FDA and the NIH allowed anti-SARS-2 monoclonal antibody products for mild outpatient disease in high-risk patients – but nothing else.[xxvii])

There was to be no government-sanctioned cure until a vaccine arrived.

The obedient TNI – not into investigative journalism – followed suit.  In spite of extensive evidence supporting early treatment efficacy,[xxviii] and although 56 countries have adopted early treatments,[xxix] there have been no TNI-approved media statements that any early treatments, including hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), ivermectin (IVM), quercetin, zinc, budesonide, or Vitamins C and D, are effective in treating Covid-19 outpatients during the first 5-7 days of flu-like symptoms.

The denial has been so strong that in early 2020 many US state pharmacy boards –in unprecedented disrespect for the authority of physicians – banned pharmacies from filling HCQ prescriptions to treat outpatient Covid-19.[xxx]

In August 2020, it came to light that pre-licensure Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for the mRNA vaccines could not be legally approved if there was an available alternative – that is if the FDA had already issued a EUA for outpatient use of HCQ, as shown in the final item of this in-house FDA slide.[xxxi]

Apart from early op-ed exposés by eminent Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch,[xxxii] where was the investigative journalism?

Who and What Have Been Most Censored by TNI’s Early Warning System?

To support individual acts of censorship, the social media giants refer to the WHO, CDC, FDA, and NIH policies as their justification.  Discussions such as the source of the virus, early treatments, and vaccine adverse effects – if they originate outside of these agencies – are quickly suppressed by the coordinated TNI network.

We will look at seven of these suppressions, in order of their first occurrence:

Suppression #1:  The Source of SARS-2

The Trusted News Initiative very quickly got to work silencing “disinformation” about a SARS-2 connection to the inadequate Wuhan levels 2 and 3 biosafety labs. However, since former NYT writer Nicholas Wade’s thorough investigation in May 2021,[xxxiii] and the FOIA dump of Dr. Fauci’s emails[xxxiv] in June, the TNI partners, including Facebook and Twitter, have given up censoring free speech about a Wuhan lab escape.

Suppression #2:  Denial of Early Treatments for Covid: 

As we have seen, the medical literature is full of peer-reviewed published studies showing both the prophylactic and early treatment efficacy of a range of safe, inexpensive, readily available drugs and substances.

During the March-December 2020 period, these were claimed to be ineffective by the government and the media in order to pave the way for FDA Emergency Use Authorizations for remdesivir (whose efficacy is now under question[xxxv]) and the mRNA vaccines.

Scandalously, hundreds of thousands of people died while waiting for the vaccines to arrive in December 2020. Why did they die?  Because their doctors were blocked from prescribing the repurposed drugs HCQ and IVM that have long been on the WHO list of essential medicines.

The TNI, by censoring the truth that the public so desperately needed, has been a primary enabler of this catastrophic, vaccine-friendly policy.

During July 2021, instead of acknowledging the early treatment evidence they had housed[xxxvi] all along (thus being directly complicit in these deaths), the government-media complex doubled down on its intense campaign to vaccinate every one of us.

Incredibly, on August 3, 2021, 16 months and 612,386 deaths too late, Anthony Fauci, in an excerpt supplied by TNI partner Reuters, “floats [a] pill to ‘knock out’ COVID early”, given once daily for seven to ten days.[xxxvii]

Suppression #3:  The Voices of Dissenting Health Professionals

While major health policy-makers such as WHO, CDC, FDA, and Anthony Fauci have careened from one unprecedented society-killing edict to the next, many eminent public health professionals at the tops of their fields have stepped forward to offer sane, traditional, contagion-control measures.

However, they have not been welcome in the media or social media. TNI Director Jessica Cecil explained why, at the Trust In News Conference,’ in April 2021:

“First, those pushing disinformation…are using apparently trustworthy sources. Anti-vax content often uses interviews with people who have medical degrees for instance.

And there is frequently a grain of truth to what is claimed. That makes untangling the true from the false harder…”[xxxviii]

In “untangling the true from the false”, untrained media personnel have censored the following prominent professors and researchers with outstanding publication histories[xxxix] and conflict-of-interest-free credentials. Each is linked to his or her Google Scholar publication record:

The TNI has also vigorously censored frontline physicians who have saved thousands of lives with early Covid-19 treatments:  Dr. Zev Zelenko in New York,[xl] Drs. George Fareed and Brian Tyson in California;[xli] America’s Frontline Doctors,[xlii] founded by Dr. Simone Gold; and the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FCCCA),[xliii] led by ICU/critical-care physician Dr. Pierre Kory.

A member of FCCCA, Dr. Joseph Varon, who is chief of staff at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston, has had more than 1,600 media interviews, yet he told local Fox reporter Ivory Hecker that reporters will never discuss his highly successful MATH+ hospital treatment protocol – “because the news producers will not allow it.”[xliv]

Why not? Because his hospital-based protocol using cheap, safe, plentiful drugs such as methylprednisolone, fluvoxamine, thiamine, heparin, and ivermectin, combined with zinc, ascorbic acid, and vitamin D,[xlv] has yielded about half the inpatient death rate reported by the CDC.[xlvi]

And that is not allowed by those who direct the media – those whose inferable mission is a vaccine policy based on millions of questionable PCR tests, followed by a vaccine passport that by all appearances is the endgame.

Suppression #4: The Record Number of Serious Post-Vaccine Side Effects and Deaths

Record post-vaccine side effects and deaths have been reported online by the US CDC VAERs (Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System), by the UK Yellow Card System, by the EU Vaccine Injury Reporting System, and by Israel.

In the United States, VAERS reported 491,218 adverse effects and 11,405 deaths from February 10 until July 24, 2021.[xlvii]

However, connecting these deaths directly to the vaccines is not straightforward.

In England, Dr. Tess Lawrie of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy (EbMC), stated in June 2021 that there were “at least 3 urgent questions that need to be answered by the English equivalent to CDC, the MHRA:

“How many people have died within 28 days of vaccination?

How many people have been hospitalized within 28 days of vaccination?

How many people have been disabled by the vaccination?”[xlviii]

Also in June, Dr. Lawrie wrote a highly-referenced 11-page letter to the MHRA Chief Executive showing that “the MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card System to declare the COVID-19 vaccine unsafe for use in humans.”[xlix]

Suppression #5:  Natural Immunity Stronger than Vaccinated Immunity

Very simply put, the mRNA vaccines only generate antibodies against the single synthetic spike protein that they instruct the body first to make, and then to provide immunity against. But if the original wild SARS-2 spike mutates, the altered virus is less easily recognized by the immune system and often escapes its antibodies.

Meanwhile, natural immunity, which has fought off the whole virus and remembers it through both antibody and T-cell immunity, is much more robust and effective – in spite of minor spike mutations.[l]

Given this fact, the world’s governments and media should have allowed proof of immunity through tests such as T-Detect, which is authorized “for detecting and identifying the presence of an adaptive T-cell immune response to SARS-CoV-2”[li] – in lieu of being vaccinated, for those who preferred them.

Instead, the confusing, superficially informed TNI has pushed only the highly profitable but increasingly failed experimental vaccines, which now, although they reduce risk in high-risk people, have “almost no value as a way of protecting others, so there is no benefit in vaccinating children, introducing vaccine passports domestically or internationally, or coercing young people to get a vaccine which to them is almost all risk and no benefit.”[lii]

Suppression #6:  Worrying Evidence of Pathogenic Priming/ADE

During early mRNA clinical trials, cats, ferrets, monkeys, and rabbits have experienced Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE), also known as pathogenic priming or a cytokine storm. This occurs when the immune system creates an overwhelming, uncontrolled inflammatory response upon being confronted with the virus in the real world, and then dies.

The director of the Pathological Institute of the University of Heidelberg, Peter Schirmacher, has carried out over 40 autopsies on people who had died within two weeks of vaccination.  Schirmacher was alarmed to cite on August 3, 2021, “rare, severe side effects of the vaccination – such as cerebral vein thrombosis or autoimmune diseases”.[liii]

On August 5, 2021, Israeli Dr. Kobi Haviv, at the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, reported that “95% of the severe patients are vaccinated…85-90% of the hospitalizations are in fully vaccinated people…We are opening more and more COVID wards…The effectiveness of the vaccine is waning/fading out.”[liv]

Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA technology, has explained that the susceptibility to ADE is greatest precisely during the long phase in which the vaccine tapers off:  “The vaccine in its waning phase is causing the virus to replicate more efficiently than it would otherwise, which is called Antibody-Dependent Enhancement,” adding that all previous coronavirus vaccine development programs led to ADE.[lv]

It is essential that informed consent for Covid-19 vaccines include notification of the possibility of ADE, especially with regard to parents, whose children should be protected at all costs:

“The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.”[lvi]

How many people receiving mRNA vaccines have been told this?  Certainly, their Trusted News Initiative has not told them.

Suppression #7:  The Central Role of Co-Morbidities in Serious Covid Disease 

Only 4% of Covid deaths in England died without pre-existing conditions.[lvii] In the US, 94.9% had pre-existing conditions.[lviii]

How often has the pharma-backed media hinted that 78% of US Covid hospitalizations are overweight or obese? Or suggested that “hey folks, you might save your life by dieting”?[lix]

How often have we been warned that 59% of hospital admissions are deficient in Vitamin D?[lx][lxi]

Has the government-media complex ever mandated Vitamin D intake standards to take pressure off Intensive Care Units?

Has Tony Fauci ever told people to take enough Vitamin D when – according to his FOIA’d emails – he takes 6,000 IUs a day himself?[lxii]

Or would it have created insufficient fear to drive people to unguaranteed experimental vaccines for the TNI to let us know?

Conclusion: The Media and Democracy 

A primary motive behind the formation of the TNI may have been to eradicate the so-called “disinformation” that an insulted, indignant public prefers to the creatively irrelevant corporate-led media, aka “the presstitute”.

It’s not as if the media has a track record of being right about pandemics. For example, it trusted worst-case scenario modeler Neil Ferguson and the pharma-controlled World Health Organization over the 2009 swine flu “pandemic”– which fizzled out leaving governments to incinerate millions of dollars in vaccines.[lxiii]

Such industry achievements use “influencers” – falsely independent “experts”, including specialist journalists, think tank facilitators, and academics whose research is funded by industry or government.

Regarding Covid-19, Dr. Piers Robinson, co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, has judged, “It wouldn’t be an underestimation to say that this is probably one of the biggest propaganda operations that we have seen in history,” concluding “what happens is down to how people resist and how much force and coercion the authorities use.”[lxiv]

Indeed, the very foundation of democracy is that public wisdom should be consulted and given its head in self-rule. The public has the constitutional right to full information to form and express its own conclusions and does not need a coordinated TNI to corral and contain it.

It is utterly outrageous that the voices the public needs from the top public health figures at its best universities are being denied to its hearing.

A far superior job of investigative reporting is being done by the hard-working alternative media researchers without Big Pharma’s blood-stained advertising dollars.

Perhaps the TrialSiteNews staff has said it best:

“We think that disallowing good-faith medical information because the public can’t be presumed to properly weigh claims is infantilizing said public, along with dismantling the free speech culture that perhaps peaked in the 20th Century. The efforts now underway to completely suppress positive data associated with early-onset treatment prospects such as ivermectin or the squelching of any discussion of vaccine safety issues is completely unacceptable in a civilized, democratic market-based society. Those perpetuating such offenses are in fact on the wrong side of history.”[lxv]

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

[1] Pierre Bourdieu, Sur la télévision, Paris, Seuil, 1996, 82.

[2] Ioannidis J. “The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data,” Bull World Health Organ., Epub Oct. 14, 2020 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33716331/).

The British Medical Journal, citing this article, reported: “Clearly, mortality is age-stratified from covid-19. The corrected median estimates of IFP [Infection Fatality Rate] for people aged lower than 70 years is currently 0.05%, [2] which, for the population less vulnerable to deaths, is similar to influenza. However overall estimates for covid-19 are higher [i.e., 0.23%], due to the higher fatality rate in elderly people.” BMJ October 6, 2020 (https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3883/rr).

[3] Laurent Mucchielli, “How is built the ‘legitimate information on the Covid crisis,” UMR 7305, CNRS and Aix-Marseille University, April 2020 (https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/MS-Mucchielli.pdf). Translation from French.

[4] Rick Edmonds, June 24, 2021, by Rick Edmonds, “US ranks last among 46 countries in trust in media, Reuters Institute report finds,” June 24, 2021 (https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2021/us-ranks-last-among-46-countries-in-trust-in-media-reuters-institute-report-finds/).

[5] Global Conference for Media Freedom: London 2019 (https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/global-conference-for-media-freedom-london-2019). The Conference website states that “It is supported by Luminate,” (https://luminategroup.com/) which in turn was founded by the Omidyar Group (omidyargroup.com ).

[6] Tony Hall, “Media Freedom: What is it and why does it matter?” BBC, 11 July 2019 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/speeches/2019/tony-hall-fco).

[7] Leila About, “Newsgroups and tech companies team up to fight disinformation; BBC-led project aims to build an ‘early warning system,’” Financial Times, September 6, 2019 (https://www.ft.com/content/6857149a-d0b2-11e9-99a4-b5ded7a7fe3f).

[8] BBC – written evidence (DAD0062), undated (https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/429/html).

[9] Ahmed Razek, “Tackling Misinformation,” June 3, 2019 (https://medium.com/bbc-design-engineering/tackling-misinformation-30d39f6d02e9).

[10] “Vaccination deniers gaining traction, NHS boss warns,” BBC News, 1 March 2019  (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-47417966).

[11] “CBC/Radio-Canada joins global charter to fight disinformation,” 9 September 2019 (https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/media-centre/trusted-news-charter-fight-disinformation).

[12] “News majors to fight disinformation,” 07 September 2019 (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/news-majors-to-fight-disinformation/article29356124.ece).

[13] “Trusted News Initiative announces plans to tackle harmful coronavirus disinformation,” 27 March 2020 (https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/media-centre/trusted-news-initiative-plan-disinformation-coronavirus).

[14] EBU: Operating Eurovision and Euroradio, “Trusted News Initiative steps up the global fight against disinformation and targets US presidential election,” 13 July 2020  (https://www.ebu.ch/news/2020/07/trusted-news-initiative-steps-up-global-fight-against-disinformation-and-targets-us-presidential-election).

[15] BBC, “Trusted News Initiative (TNI) to combat the spread of harmful vaccine disinformation and announces major research project,” 10 December 2020 (https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative-vaccine-disinformation).

[16] TrialSiteNews Staff, “COVID-19 Censorship:

Trusted News Initiative to Decide the Facts?” 25 June 2021 (https://trialsitenews.com/covid-19-censorship-trusted-news-initiative-to-decide-the-facts/).

[17] (https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=disinformation)

[18] (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation)

[19](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2015/571332/EPRS_ATA(2015)571332_EN.pdf)

[20] A video compilation from Justin Hart, @justin_hart, San Diego, embedded in his tweet, 26 July 2021 (https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1419833290421272580?s=12).

[21] CDC. Division of Laboratory Systems. “07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing. Audience: Individuals Performing COVID-19 Testing” (https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html).

[22] Alex Ralph, “Bill Gates and George Soros buy out UK Covid test company Mologic,” The Times, 20 July 2021 (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bill-gates-and-george-soros-buy-out-uk-covid-test-company-mologic-70c3r736b).

[23] Victor M. Corman, et al., “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR,” Eurosurveillance, Vol. 25, Issue 3, 23 January 2020 (https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045).

[24] CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT. CURATED BY AN INTERNATIONAL CONSORTIUM OF SCIENTISTS IN LIFE SCIENCES (ICSLS). “Retraction request letter to Eurosurveillance editorial board,” 8 November 2020 (https://cormandrostenreview.com/retraction-request-letter-to-eurosurveillance-editorial-board/)

[25] Rita Jaafar et al, “Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Vol. 72, Issue 11, 1 June 2021, page e921 (https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/11/e921/5912603). 28 September 2020 at https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491

[26] Swiss Policy Research, “The Trouble With PCR Tests,” updated June 2021 (https://swprs.org/the-trouble-with-pcr-tests). The authors note: “From a lab perspective, it is safer to produce a ‘false positive’ result that puts a healthy non-infectious person into quarantine than to produce a ‘false negative’ result and be responsible if someone infects their grandmother.”

[27] NIH. “Therapeutic Management of Nonhospitalized Adults with COVID-19, last updated July 8, 2021” (https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/management/clinical-management/nonhospitalized-adults–therapeutic-management/).

[14] Peter A. McCullough, et al., “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection,” Am J Med. 2021 Jan; 134(1): 16–22 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7410805/).; Published online 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.07.003.  See also the very extensive website, c19study.com; see https://swprs.org/on-the-treatment-of-covid-19; and see PubMed for further outpatient Covid early treatment, (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%28%22early+outpatient+treatment%3A%29+AND+%28covid-19+OR+sars-2%29&sort=).

[29] “Global adoption of Covid-19 early treatments” (as of July 30, 2021), (https://c19adoption.com/).

[30] “State Rules and Recommendations Regarding Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine and Other Drugs Related to COVID-19,” posted March 2020 (https://www.nashp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/State-covid-drug-chart-3-27-2020.pdf).

[31] FDA. “Considerations for FDA Licensure vs. Emergency Use Authorization of COVID-19 Vaccines,” July 29, 2020; see 10:20 min. (https://youtu.be/UkXQ09T6f94).

[32] Harvey A. Risch, “The Key to Defeating Covid-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It,” Newsweek, 23 July 2020 (https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535); “FDA obstruction: Patients die, while Trump gets the blame,” Washington Examiner, 19 October 2020 (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/harvey-risch).

[33] Nicholas Wade, “Origin of Covid – Following the Clues: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?” May 2, 2021 (https:/nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038).

[34] See Dr. Chris Martenson’s Fauci takedown videos, episodes 7, 8, and 9 (https://www.youtube.com/user/ChrisMartensondotcom).

[35] Owen Dyer, “Covid-19: Remdesivir has little or no impact on survival, WHO trial shows,” BMJ2020; 371 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4057 (Published 19 October 2020) (https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4057).

[36] For example, it was reported in 2005 that “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread,” Martin J. Vincent et al, Virology Journal, vol. 2, no. 69, 2005 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69). Virology Journal is well known to the NIH and is available on its website: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/273/

[37] Interview with J. Stephen Morrison, Senior Vice President, Center for Strategic & International Studies, Reuters excerpt, 3 August 2021 (https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idOVEOQEL7J).

[38] Trust In News Conference. BBC, April 8, 2021 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/articles/2021/trust-in-news-conference).

[39] A scientist’s credibility can be estimated by how often his/her published articles are cited in the indexed, peer-reviewed literature. This is quantified as the h-index number and can be found by searching an author’s name on Google Scholar, e.g., Harvard Medical School biostatistician and epidemiologist, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, has been cited 26,087 times and has an h-index of 77. (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=WNEj34MAAAAJ&hl=en).

[40] Board Certified Family Physician Vladimir Zev Zelenko, M.D. (https://vladimirzelenkomd.com/about/).

[41] Brian Tyson and George Fareed, “Doctors story of Light and Life: the Covid-19 Darkness Overcome,” The Desert Review, 2 August 2021 (https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/local/doctors-story-of-light-and-life-the-covid-19-darkness-overcome/article_97b53ca6-f3b7-11eb-8773-c7ecbb9070e7.html).

[42] (https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/).

[43] (https://covid19criticalcare.com/).

[44] “Ivory Hecker Exposes Fox News Managers Censoring Her for Reporting on Hydryoxychloroquine,” 16 July 2021; see 1-2 min. (https://www.bitchute.com/video/8y5VHbdFfkji/).

[45] (htpps://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/math-plus-protocol/).

[46] Holmquist, Annie, “The Media May Be Responsible for Countless COVID Deaths,” Chronicle: A Magazine of American Culture, 29 June 2021 (https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/blog/the-media-may-be-responsible-for-countless-covid-deaths/). Dr. Varon’s bio and awards are shown on Dr. Been, July 2021( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGKD8c51UmU).

[47] The United States.  CDC. VAERS (https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html), via Karen Selick, 25 July 2021 (https://www.bitchute.com/video/3bmfKOGpkuGD/).

[48] Kathy Gyngell, “Expert’s damning vaccine evidence,” The Conservative Woman, 14 June 2021 (https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/doctors-damning-evidence/),

[49] Lien Davies, “Open Letter from Dr. Tess Lawrie to Chief Exec MHRA Dr. Raine – URGENT Report – COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans,” 10 June 2021 (https://freedomalliance.co.uk/2021/06/10/open-letter-from-dr-tess-lawrie-to-chief-exec-mhra-dr-raine-urgent-report-covid-19-vaccines-unsafe-for-use-in-humans/).

[50] Sharyl Attkisson, “Covid-19 natural immunity compared to vaccine-induced immunity: The definitive summary,” 6 August 2021 (https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/08/covid-19-natural-immunity-compared-to-vaccine-induced-immunity-the-definitive-summary/).

[51] (https://www.t-detect.com/).

[52] Will Jones, “Devastating New Data From PHE Shows Vaccine Effectiveness Down to 17% and No Reduction in Infectiousness – But Mortality Cut by 77%,” The Daily Sceptic, 6 August 2021 (https://dailysceptic.org/2021/08/06/devastating-new-data-from-phe-shows-vaccine-effectiveness-down-to-17-and-no-reduction-in-infectiousness-but-mortality-cut-by-77/).

[53] Free West Media, “German chief pathologist sounds alarmed on fatal vaccine injuries,” 3 August 2021 (https://freewestmedia.com/2021/08/03/german-chief-pathologist-sounds-alarm-on-fatal-vaccine-injuries/).

[54] “Israel: “85-90% of the hospitalizations are in fully vaccinated people,” 5 August 2021 (https://www.coronaheadsup.com/coronavirus/israel-85-90-of-the-hospitalizations-are-in-fully-vaccinated-people/).

[55] Robert Malone, “The Vaccine Causes The Virus To Be More Dangerous,” 29 July 2021 (https://www.eastonspectator.com/2021/07/29/the-vaccine-causes-the-virus-to-be-more-dangerous/).

[56] Timothy Cardozo and Ronald Veazey, “Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease,” Int J Clin Pract. 2021 Mar;75(3):e13795. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13795. Epub 2020 Dec 4. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/).

[57] Table: “COVID-19 deaths by age group and pre-existing conditions”, 4 February 2021 (England.covid19dailydeaths@nhs.net).

[58] The United States. CDC. “Underlying Medical Conditions and Severe Illness Among 540,667 Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19, March 2020–March 2021,” 1 July 2021 (https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2021/21_0123.htm).

[59] Berkeley Lovelace Jr., “CDC: 78% of people hospitalized for Covid were overweight or obese,” The Journal of Nursing, 1 March 2021 (https://www.asrn.org/journal-nursing/2517-cdc-78-of-people-hospitalized-for-covid-were-overweight-or-obese.html).

[60] Dieter De Smet, et al., “Serum 25(OH)D Level on Hospital Admission Associated With COVID-19 Stage and Mortality,” Am J Clin Pathol., 2021 Feb 11;155(3):381-388. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa252 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33236114/).

[61] Mustafa Demir, et al., “Vitamin D deficiency is associated with COVID-19 positivity and severity of the disease,” J Med Virol. 2021 May;93(5):2992-2999. doi: 10.1002/jmv.26832. Epub 2021 Feb 9 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33512007/).

Vitamin D deficiency is associated with COVID-19 positivity and severity of the disease

Mustafa Demir  1 , Fadime Demir  2 , Hatice Aygun  3

[62](https://vitamindwiki.com/Dr.+Fauci+takes+6%2C000+IU+of+Vitamin+D+daily+%E2%80%93+Sept+2020).

[63] CBS News, “$260M of Swine Flu Vaccine to be Incinerated,” 1 July 2010 (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/260m-of-swine-flu-vaccine-to-be-incinerated/).

[64] Piers Robinson, “Covid is a Global Propaganda Operation,” Asia Pacific Today, 4 August 2021 (https://rumble.com/vkppo0-covid-is-a-global-propaganda-operation.html).

[65] TrialSiteNews Staff, “COVID-19 Censorship: Trusted News Initiative to Decide the Facts?” 25 June 2021 (https://trialsitenews.com/covid-19-censorship-trusted-news-initiative-to-decide-the-facts/).




The Internet Archive Has Been Fighting for 25 Years to Keep What’s On the Web From Disappearing – and You Can Help

This year the Internet Archive turns 25. It’s best known for its pioneering role in archiving the internet through the Wayback Machine, which allows users to see how websites looked in the past.

Increasingly, much of daily life is conducted online. School, work, communication with friends and family, as well as news and images, are accessed through a variety of websites. Information that once was printed, physically mailed, or kept in photo albums and notebooks may now be available only online. The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed even more interactions to the web.

You may not realize portions of the internet are constantly disappearing. As librarians and archivists, we strengthen collective memory by preserving materials that document the cultural heritage of society, including on the web. You can help us save the internet, too, as citizen archivists.

Disappearing act

People and organizations remove content from the web for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it’s a result of changing internet culture, such as the recent shutdown of Yahoo Answers.

It can also be a result of following best practices for website design. When a website is updated, for example, the previous version is overwritten – unless it was archived.

Web archiving is the process of collecting, preserving, and providing continued access to information on the internet. Often this work is done by librarians and archivists, with assistance from automated technology like web crawlers.

Web crawlers are programs that index web pages to make them available through search engines, or for long-term preservation. The Internet Archive, a nonprofit organization, uses thousands of computer servers to save multiple digital copies of these pages, requiring over 70 petabytes of data. It is funded through donations, grants, and payments for its digitization services. Over 750 million web pages are captured per day in the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.

Why archive?

In 2018, President Donald Trump wrongly claimed via Twitter that Google had promoted on its homepage President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, but not his own. Archived versions of the Google homepage proved that Google had, in fact, highlighted Trump’s State of the Union address in the same manner. Multiple news outlets use the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine as the source for fact-checking these types of claims since screenshots alone can be easily altered.

A 2019 report from the Tow Center for Digital Journalism examined the digital archiving practices and policies of newspapers, magazines, and other news producers. The interviews revealed that many news media staff either do not have the resources to devote to archiving their work or misunderstand digital archiving by equating it to having a backup version.

When a news story disappeared from the Gawker website a year after the publication shut down, the Freedom of the Press Foundation became concerned with what might happen when wealthy individuals purchase websites with the intent to delete or censor the archives. It partnered with the Internet Archive to launch a web archive collection focused on preserving the web archives of vulnerable news outlets – and to dissuade billionaires from purchasing such material to censor.

A webpage from the Wayback Machine showing 9971 available search results for 'Black Lives Matter' between October 8, 2014, and August 2, 2021.
The web crawls for blacklivesmatter.com in the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.
Internet Archive Wayback Machine

Archiving websites that document social justice issues, such as Black Lives Matter, helps explain these movements to people of the present and the future.

Archiving government websites promotes transparency and accountability. Especially during times of transition, government websites are vulnerable to deletion with changing political parties.

In 2017 the Library of Congress announced it would no longer archive every single tweet, because of Twitter’s growth as a communication tool. Twitter supplies the Library of Congress with the texts of tweets, not shared images or videos. Instead of comprehensive collecting, the Library of Congress now archives only tweets of significant national importance.

A pastel colored early home page that reads 'Welcome to the OFFICIAL website of: ty'
Screen capture from the Dec. 18, 1996, archived version of the Ty website, creator of.
Beanie Babies, in the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.

Internet Archive Wayback Machine

Archived websites that document the culture and history of the internet, like the Geocities Gallery, not only are fun to look at but illustrate the ways early websites were created and used by individuals.

Citizen archivists

Archiving the internet is a monumental task, one that librarians and archivists cannot do alone. Anyone can be a citizen archivist and preserve history through the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. The “Save Page Now” feature allows anyone to freely archive a single, public website page. Bear in mind, some websites prevent web crawling and archiving through special coding or by requiring a login to the site. This may be due to sensitive content or the personal preference of the web developer.

Local cultural heritage institutions, such as libraries, archives, and museums, are also actively archiving the internet. Over 800 institutions use Archive-It, a tool from the Internet Archive, to create archived web collections. At the University of Dayton, we curate collections related to our Catholic and Marianist heritage, from Catholic blogs to stories of the Virgin Mary in the news.

Through its Spontaneous Event collections, Archive-It partners with organizations and individuals to create collections of “web content related to a specific event, capturing at-risk content during times of crisis.”

Similarly, it created the Community Webs program, in partnership with the Institute of Museum and Library Services, to help public libraries create collections of archived web content relevant to local communities.

The websites of today are the historical evidence of tomorrow, but only if they are archived. If they are lost, we will lose crucial information about corporate and government decisions, modern communication methods such as social media, and social movements with significant online presences, such as Black Lives Matter and #MeToo.

Together with librarians and archivists, you can help ensure the survival of this evidence and save internet history.The Conversation

Kayla Harris, Librarian/Archivist at the Marian Library, Associate Professor, University of Dayton; Christina Beis, Director of Collections Strategies & Services, Associate Professor, University Libraries, University of Dayton, and Stephanie Shreffler, Collections Librarian/Archivist and Associate Professor, University Libraries, University of Dayton

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.




LIES! ‘Media’ Falsely Claims FL Morgues Overflowing, Refrigerator Trucks Used for Bodies

https://rumble.com/embed/viaxw3/?pub=omyzz

Source: Stew Peters Show

Boca Raton, FL – FLAT OUT LIES are being told by “Boca News Now”, and ‘journalist’ Andrew Colton, who said that there were so many bodies hitting the floor that two hospitals (Boca Raton Regional and the Baptist Bethesda East) had to bring in refrigerator trucks to store all of the dead bodies. Dr. Jane Ruby visited the the two hospitals and reports to Stew Peters that there were NO refrigerator trucks at the hospitals in question, and in fact they were peaceful and quiet – like a Zen garden. Two police officers told Jane that the Colton’s news report was bogus. Watch for yourself and please share.

The bogus news report is clearly meant to scare people into getting the jab. This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. Others have filmed hospitals that were reported to be overflowing with COVID patients and showed that they were nearly empty (see HERE and HERE).




Columnist Tells CNN that US Is WRONG to Pursue ‘illusory victory’ Over COVID and Says Kids Are 18 Times More Likely to DROWN Than Die From Virusirus

Video Source: CNN; Article Source: DailyMail

  • Author Andrew Sullivan says that Americans need to stop expecting the government to defend them against the coronavirus
  • He argues that since the vaccine is readily available ‘there’s no reason to enforce lockdowns again or mask mandates or social distancing any longer’
  • He cites several costs to lockdowns, arguing that ‘the goal is not to pursue an illusory victory over the virus, but to learn how to live with it’
  • Sullivan’s comments came as COVID cases continue to surge and the Delta variant has reignited the mask mandate debate in the United States

By NATASHA ANDERSON FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

A leading journalist has called on Americans to get a grip and learn to live with COVID-19, rather than attempting to win an ‘illusory’ victory over the virus.

Speaking to Anderson Cooper on CNN Monday night, Andrew Sullivan said it was time to lift lockdown measures, encourage people to take vaccines, and stop letting federal and state governments continue to impose lockdown rules on Americans’ lives.

Explaining his philosophy on the virus, Sullivan said: ‘Government isn’t there to hold your hand every day. The government has a responsibility to give you the means to protect you and your family from this. Once they’ve done that, as a free country. You get to live.’

Sullivan lives in Provincetown, Massachusetts, which saw one of the biggest outbreaks of COVID among fully-vaccinated people last month.

Earlier this month, he wrote on his blog The Dish that seeing how mild the symptoms were among his vaccinated friends convinced him that it was time to shrug off the fear of the virus.

Sullivan told Cooper: ‘The goal is not to pursue an illusory victory over the virus, but to learn how to live with it, and actually live fully alongside it,’ he said.

While the Delta variant remains on the rise, Sullivan argues that COVID has become ‘less of a plague and more of a disease you live with’.

‘In a free society, once everyone has access to a vaccine that overwhelmingly prevents serious sickness and death, there’s no reason to enforce lockdowns again or mask mandates or social distancing any longer. In fact, there’s every reason not to,’ he said.

Sullivan, who was born in the UK and has enjoyed an illustrious career as a journalist in the US added: ‘There are costs to not living. There are costs to having a year of your life taken away from learning and developing as a child. There are costs of not being with your family. There are costs of not being with your fellow workers,’ he explained.

‘We are a social animal. We cannot live isolated like this. We’ve never done this before. You can’t wrap yourself up in cotton wool for the rest of your life and you mustn’t let children not live.’

He argues that while communities around the nation are experiencing case surges, citizens need to resume normal life.

Grilled by Cooper about the risks to children because under 12s cannot yet have  COVID vaccines, Sullivan said that under fives were in more danger each time they went for a swim.

The writer, who is strongly pro-vaccine, explained: ‘If you’re 18 times more likely to drown if you’re aged one to five than to die of COVID.

‘I think putting it in some sort of perspective for children, which is it’s not that serious a disease at all. It’s like a bad cold.

‘The immunocompromised are going to be unfortunately vulnerable for a long time. This now, we now know, is a virus that transmits from vaccinated people. So we’re going to have to live with this thing. We’re going to have to be vaccinated consistently against it.

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE….




They Want To Shut Down The Internet | INSPIRED 2021

Video Source: Inspired

A global internet shutdown might be imminent. We have seen preparations and signs for this and it might be time to get ready and prepare – also, a great & inspiring alternative is in the works!




The Panic Pandemic: How Media Fearmongering Led to ‘Unprecedented’ Censorship of Scientific Research

Story at-a-glance:

  • John Tierney, a former reporter for The New York Times, looks back over the pandemic, providing a timeline of the media-induced viral panic that led to censorship and suppression of scientific research on an unprecedented scale.
  • Experts who spoke out against the official narrative were attacked and accused of endangering lives by questioning lockdowns.
  • Numerous research journals refused to publish the results of studies that featured data questioning lockdowns, masks, and other COVID policies.
  • Certain states have stood out for their refusal to buy into the draconian public health measures that were adopted throughout much of the U.S. — Florida is chief among them and has a COVID mortality rate that’s lower than the national average.
  • The “crisis crisis,” or the ‘incessant state of alarm fomented by journalists and politicians,’ is one reason why so many government, academic and policy leaders could support rampant censorship and suppress scientific debate for so long, all while propagating panic.

Now that we’re more than a year into the pandemic, it’s crystal clear that the panic that ensued was unnecessary and the draconian measures put into place for public health were unwarranted and harmful.

John Tierney, a former reporter for The New York Times, looked back over the pandemic, providing a timeline of the media-induced viral panic that led to censorship and suppression of scientific research on an unprecedented scale.

In his article for City Journal, where he is a contributing editor, he explained that the “moral panic that swept the nation’s guiding institutions” during the pandemic was far more catastrophic than the viral pandemic itself.

Media-induced panic set off in March 2020

The panic was started by journalists beginning in March 2020, when the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team released “Report 9” on the impact of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPSs) to reduce deaths and health care demand from COVID-19.

The report’s computer model projected that intensive care units in the U.S. would be overrun, with 30 COVID-19 patients for every available bed, and 2.2 million dead by summer. They concluded that “epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time,” which led to lockdowns, business, and school closures, and population-wide social distancing. But as Tierney noted:

“What had originally been a limited lockdown — ‘15 days to slow the spread’ — became long-term policy across much of the United States and the world.

“A few scientists and public-health experts objected, noting that an extended lockdown was a novel strategy of unknown effectiveness that had been rejected in previous plans for a pandemic. It was a dangerous experiment being conducted without knowing the answer to the most basic question: Just how lethal is this virus?”

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford, was an early critic of the response, who argued that long-term lockdowns could cause more harm than good. Ioannidis came under intense fire after he and colleagues revealed that the COVID-19 fatality rate for those under the age of 45 is “almost zero,” and between the ages of 45 and 70, it’s somewhere between 0.05% and 0.3%.

In Santa Clara County, in particular, he and colleagues estimated that in late March 2020, the local COVID infection fatality rate was just 0.17%. “But merely by reporting data that didn’t fit the official panic narrative, they became targets,” Tierney explained. “… Mainstream journalists piled on with hit pieces quoting critics and accusing the researchers of endangering lives by questioning lockdowns.”

Journals refused to publish solid, anti-narrative research

The discrediting and censorship of researchers who spoke out against the official narrative — even if they included supportive data — became a common and alarming theme over the last year, one that extended to virtually every aspect of the pandemic-related policy, including masks.

The “Danmask-19 Trial,” published Nov. 18, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found that among mask wearers 1.8% (42 participants) ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8% (40 people), which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.

Initially, numerous research journals refused to publish the results, which called widespread mask mandates into question. Tierney said:

“When Thomas Benfield, one of the researchers in Denmark conducting the first large randomized controlled trial of mask efficacy against COVID, was asked why they were taking so long to publish the much-anticipated findings, he promised them as ‘as soon as a journal is brave enough to accept the paper.’

“After being rejected by The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA, the study finally appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the reason for the editors’ reluctance became clear: the study showed that a mask did not protect the wearer, which contradicted claims by the Centers for Disease Control and other health authorities.”

A similar experience was had by Dr. Stefan Baral, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist with 350 publications, who wanted to publish a critique of lockdowns. It became the “first time in my career that I could not get a piece placed anywhere,” he told Tierney.

Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff also wrote a paper against lockdowns and couldn’t get it published, noting that most other scientists he spoke to were also against them but were afraid to speak up.

Kulldorff and colleagues soon banded together to write the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for “focused protection” of the elderly and those in nursing homes and hospitals, while allowing businesses and schools to remain open. Soon after, they too were attacked:

“They managed to attract attention but not the kind they hoped for. Though tens of thousands of other scientists and doctors went on to sign the declaration, the press caricatured it as a deadly ‘let it rip’ strategy and an ‘ethical nightmare’ from ‘COVID deniers’ and ‘agents of misinformation.’”

Physicians targeted, labeled heretics

Dr. Scott Atlas of Stanford’s Hoover Institution was another common target, as he also suggested that protections should be focused on nursing homes and lockdowns would take more lives than COVID-19. According to Tierney:

“When he joined the White House coronavirus task force, Bill Gates derided him as ‘this Stanford guy with no background’ promoting ‘crackpot theories.’ Nearly 100 members of Stanford’s faculty signed a letter denouncing his ‘falsehoods and misrepresentations of science,’ and an editorial in the Stanford Daily urged the university to sever its ties to Hoover.

“The Stanford faculty senate overwhelmingly voted to condemn Atlas’s actions as ‘anathema to our community, our values and our belief that we should use knowledge for good.’”

Similarly, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which regulates the practice of medicine in Ontario, issued a statement in May prohibiting physicians from making comments or providing advice that goes against the official narrative.

Actor Clifton Duncan shared the Orwellian message on Twitter, urging his followers to “Read this. Now. And then share it as much as you can.”

Because, equally as disturbing as the notion of publicly dictating to physicians what they’re allowed to say, is the fact that, as Duncan said, the statement has a glaring omission, “The health and well-being of the patient.”

Florida’s mortality rate from COVID is lower than average

Certain states have stood out for their refusal to buy into the draconian public health measures that were adopted throughout much of the U.S. Florida is chief among them. After a spring 2020 lockdown, Florida businesses, schools, and restaurants reopened, while mask mandates were rejected.

“If Florida had simply done no worse than the rest of the country during the pandemic, that would have been enough to discredit the lockdown strategy,” Tierney said, noting that the state acted as the control group in a natural experiment. The results speak for themselves:

“Florida’s mortality rate from COVID is lower than the national average among those over 65 and also among younger people so that the state’s age-adjusted COVID mortality rate is lower than that of all but ten other states. And by the most important measure, the overall rate of ‘excess mortality’ (the number of deaths above normal), Florida has also done better than the national average.

“Its rate of excess mortality is significantly lower than that of the most restrictive state, California, particularly among younger adults, many of whom died not from COVID but from causes related to the lockdowns: cancer screenings and treatments were delayed, and there were sharp increases in deaths from drug overdoses and from heart attacks not treated promptly.”

The crisis crisis

It defies reason how so many government, academic and policy leaders could support rampant censorship and suppress scientific debate for so long, all while propagating panic. One of Tierney’s explanations is what he calls “the crisis crisis,” or the “incessant state of alarm fomented by journalists and politicians”:

“It’s a longstanding problem — humanity was supposedly doomed in the last century by the ‘population crisis’ and the ‘energy crisis’ — that has dramatically worsened with the cable and digital competition for ratings, clicks, and retweets.

“To keep audiences frightened around the clock, journalists seek out Cassandras with their own incentives for fearmongering: politicians, bureaucrats, activists, academics, and assorted experts who gain publicity, prestige, funding, and power during a crisis.

“Unlike many proclaimed crises, an epidemic is a genuine threat, but the crisis industry can’t resist exaggerating the danger, and doomsaying is rarely penalized. Journalists kept highlighting the most alarming warnings, presented without context. They needed to keep their audience scared, and they succeeded.”

The politicization of research is another major issue that contributes to groupthink and the suppression of scientific debate in order to support one agenda. Meanwhile, while the media advertised that we’re all in this pandemic together, some were clearly more affected than others — namely the poor and less educated, who lost jobs while professionals were mostly able to keep working from the “safety” of their homes.

Children from disadvantaged families also suffered the most from year-long school closures. “The brunt was borne by the most vulnerable in America and the poorest countries of the world,” Tierney wrote, while many of the elite got richer. The reality is, lockdowns have caused a great deal of harm, from delays in medical treatment and disrupted education to joblessness and drug overdoses, and for little, if any, benefit.

Data compiled by Pandemics ~ Data & Analytics (PANDA) also found no relationship between lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths per million people. The disease followed a trajectory of linear decline regardless of whether or not lockdowns were imposed. Yet, this is the type of information that has been censored from the beginning. As Tierney put it:

“This experience should be a lesson in what not to do, and whom not to trust. Do not assume that the media’s version of a crisis resembles reality. Do not count on mainstream journalists and their favorite doomsayers to put risks in perspective. Do not expect those who follow ‘the science’ to know what they’re talking about.”

Originally published by Mercola.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




Why I Am Deleting All Content After 48 Hours

Today, I have the most important announcement in the quarter of a century history of this newsletter. My goal and passion have always been about supporting you and helping you take control of your health. I am beyond thrilled that there are tens of millions of people who have benefited from what I have shared over the years.

I am filled with joy and gratitude every time I travel and lecture as invariably many people tell me how I’ve changed their lives by providing vital information they couldn’t find anywhere else and even better that was completely free.

These were the times when many of the views I presented were criticized, but that’s to be expected. That was one of the great freedoms we enjoyed. We could have different views and we could speak openly about these views without fear of retribution.

But we are now in a different time. A much darker time. The silence of free speech is now deafening.

Not only is blatant censorship tolerated, but it is also being encouraged by the very people who were to be entrusted with protecting our freedom of speech.

We are not living from the lessons we’ve learned before. Never in my life, would I believe the sitting President of the United States calls out 12 Americans in a McCarthyism-like attack in the United States. As you are aware, I was placed at the top of this list.

The last week has brought a tremendous amount of reflections to me, and a lot of unacceptable threats to a company full of amazing people that have helped me support you in this journey.

By now I am sure you know that there was a recent NY Times article attacking me and it was one of the most widely distributed stories in the world. The article was loaded with false statements made about me and my organization.

The report would be laughed at if it were to be submitted for peer review, the groups that created it are funded by dark money and operated by an illegal foreign agent. The press never questioned it but ran with their orders from above.

I can deal with the CNN crews that chase me by a car while I bicycle from my home. I feel sorry for the people in the media that have to follow the orders they are given.

It is easy to dismiss the media pawns, but the most powerful individual on the planet has targeted me as his primary obstacle that must be removed. Every three-letter agency is at his disposal, and the executive powers have grown beyond what an individual American’s rights can protect against.

A dissenter of medical mandates is now a target and obstacle to be removed. I know – that’s 25 years’ worth of blood, sweat, and tears coming down.

I can hardly believe these words are coming out of my mouth. It’s a testament to just how radical things have degenerated in the recent past. However, I will continue to publish new articles, BUT going forward, each article I publish will be available for only 48 hours and will then be removed from the website.

We are at the crossroad where change is unavoidable. We all must make choices that determine our future. To many, this looks like a war … but what we need to find is peace. I am going to find peace through this sacrifice.

Just to be clear, ALL my content will be removed. This includes articles on:

  • Great Reset
  • General nutrition
  • The coronavirus
  • My interviews with experts

These will be removed to appease the individuals in power who have an arsenal of overwhelming tools at their disposal, and are actively engaged in using them. COVID-19 has activated and authorized emergency powers that have weakened our constitutional rights. Sadly, cyberwarfare and authoritarian forces are beyond our abilities to withstand, and this is now our only way forward.

Over 15,000 articles full of vital information that has helped tens of millions across the world take control of their health, will be removed. There was a time when people could debate and respect each other freely. That time is now gone. I believe laws are best applied like medicine – locally and specifically.

Local food, local democracy – our local community strength is the best way to achieve peace moving forward and to stop authoritarian technocracy. I also believe we are at our strongest when we can care and maintain respect for each other. This is how we can make our most important decisions in life.

Again I will still be writing my daily articles that I started 25 years ago BUT they will only be available for 48 hours before they are removed. In this way, I hope to continue my mission to help you take control of your health – but it’s up to you to download, share and repost this content. I will not be enforcing my copyright on this information so that you may freely share it.

Please also encourage others to read “The Truth About COVID-19,” where you will find much of the information from the past two years that people need to read to wake up and open their eyes. I am donating all earnings to the National Vaccine Information Center.

I want to thank all of you that have supported me over the years. I hope you can understand why I have decided to make this dramatic decision and hope the remaining ephemeral articles will be useful for those who wish to read them.

We will continue through these challenging times together, and remember this:

Your body was designed to stay healthy.

You hold in your hands the power to take control of your health.

Never let anyone take your right to health away from you.




‘They’re Criminal!’—Establishment Now Dangerously Dehumanizing the Vaccine Hesitant

By Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project

Last week, President Joe Biden took to his pulpit to read from the teleprompter and announced mandatory vaccinations for government workers. Without citing any evidence, Biden claimed that “We have a pandemic because of the unvaccinated.” He must have missed the part where the pandemic started before there was a vaccine.

After this claim, Biden further lambasted those who haven’t gotten the COVID-19 jab, telling them, “If in fact, you’re unvaccinated, you present a problem to yourself, to your family, and to those with whom you work.”

Before going on any further, to dispel any claims that the Free Thought Project is “anti-vax” it is important to point out that we feel people should have a right to informed consent. There are many who can benefit from the COVID-19 vaccine and they should consult their doctors and make the best choice for themselves, individually. The same goes for those who may suffer potential harm from receiving the vaccine. No one here is anti-vaccine, we are, however, pro-safety, and pre-informed consent as anything else is tyranny.

With that being said, the scolding of Americans for asserting their medical freedom has reached a fever pitch and it has shifted from ridicule to outright dehumanization.

Recently, CNN took to calling for “the unvaccinated” to be banned from buying food, going out in public, or even having jobs.

“I’m sure a lot of people are not going to agree with this, but [if you] don’t get the vaccine, you can’t go to the supermarket. Don’t have the vaccine, can’t go to the ball game. Don’t have a vaccine, can’t go to work. You don’t have a vaccine, can’t come here. No shirt, no shoes, no service,” said Don Lemon.

“I think that’s where we should be right now because we continue to waste our breath on people who are just not going to change. You know, circular logic, they keep going back and saying, ‘Well, it’s my freedom.’ ‘It’s whatever.’ ‘I’m free.’”

After CNN’s attack on the vaccine-hesitant, MSNBC followed suit, having NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio on to take it to the next level.

Let me tell you, Joe, the anti-vaxxers are criminal at this point. What they are doing to this country is undermining our future. They really are. They’re taking away the future of this country, because if we go backwards, if we go back to restrictions and shutdowns, this country’s going to be in a horrible, dangerous place in terms of our lives, our livelihoods, our economy. And if we don’t get it right on vaccination, we’re going to lose a huge number of Americans. There are people out there peddling this message, this anti-vax message for their own profit and then attacking people who try and do it the right way like the small businesses you’re talking about. We got to confront them. That’s why I think these mandates are so crucial.

This type of demonization in the media not only flies in the face of everything a free society is about but it is also extremely dangerous. Demonizing or dehumanizing the enemy is a propaganda tactic used by regimes throughout history to make it easier to accept the persecution and even mass murder of those who disagree with a certain principle.

The technique of dehumanizing a perceived enemy — even if they are entirely peaceful and pose no threat — promotes an idea about the enemy being a threatening, evil aggressor with only destructive objectives. In the above media clip, all of these traits are on display.

The demonization of the “vaccine-hesitant” or those concerned about the safety of the vaccine makes it easier for “the other side” to hate them, thereby eliminating the possibility of a diplomatic or trust-based solution and inevitably leads to the worsening of the situation.

Those in the media, who continue to push this tactic of demonization are doing far more harm than they think as the ultimate goal of governments dehumanizing their enemy is to make killing them more acceptable.

These tactics made it easy for most Americans to sit back and watch — and even revel in — the wholesale slaughter of innocent men, women, and children in the Middle East over the last two decades. Now, it’s being used inside our own country.

Demonization, politicization, and lack of transparency are the moves that have gotten us to this point. Employing more of the same will only worsen the situation. No successful freedom-promoting policy has ever been implemented by dividing society and pitting them against each other. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

Had politicians not been caught in lie after lie and deception after deception, rest assured, we would not be in this situation. Unfortunately, however, because the establishment is unable to use honesty, transparency, reason, and logic, this situation will only devolve.

It is entirely possible that the United States as we know it may be over — and all it took was a virus with a 99% survival rate.




Biden Gives “Five Eyes” What It Always Wanted: Access To Everyone’s Social Media

By MassPrivateI | Activist Post

For years, Americans have largely ignored corporate social media surveillance. But that all of that is about to change, thanks to President Biden.

No one has taken the White House’s plan to turn Big Tech into a quasi-Five Eyes censorship program seriously despite repeated warnings from journalists and news websites.

Journalist Caitlin Johnstone warned that the White House is pushing for Facebook and Microsoft to censor any social media stories the Feds don’t like.

“After Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted on Thursday that the administration has given Facebook a list of accounts to ban for spreading misinformation about the Covid vaccine, she has now doubled down saying that people who circulate such materials online should be banned from not just one but all social media platforms.”credit: GIFCT

The Feds want Big Tech to ban stories and people they do not approve of from social media.

“You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others for providing misinformation out there,” Psaki told the press on Friday.

Reuters revealed some of America’s biggest tech companies will let “Five Eyes” and the U.N. decide whose stories the “Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism” should censor.

“Until now, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism’s (GIFCT) database has focused on videos and images from terrorist groups on a United Nations list and so has largely consisted of content from Islamist extremist organizations such as Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban.”

Big Tech’s GIFCT is essentially a Five Eyes censorship program, masquerading as a Big Tech social media forum to stop terrorism and extremism.

“Over the next few months, the group will add attacker manifestos — often shared by sympathizers after white supremacist violence — and other publications and links flagged by U.N. initiative Tech Against Terrorism. It will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes, adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.”

Twitter and YouTube are also helping help Five Eyes spy on the world’s social media.

“The firms, which include Twitter and YouTube, share “hashes,” unique numerical representations of original pieces of content that have been removed from their services. Other platforms use these to identify the same content on their own sites in order to review or remove it.”

Other companies that have access to the GIFCT database are Reddit, Snapchat, Instagram, Verizon Media, LinkedIn, Dropbox, MailChimp, and Airbnb.

Three years ago the mass media warned us about Five Eyes demanding that tech companies give them backdoors to users’ encrypted data, and now they finally got their wish.

The dangers of Big Tech giving URLs, PDFs and personal information to a global intelligence agency will allow governments to secretly track and ID people and organizations they deem a threat.

Radio New Zealand said if one government has access to this information, then other governments will request it as part of doing business with another country.

New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner also warned that there is nothing stopping governments from abusing their access to people’s social media posts. And that is the real danger of letting Big Tech, Five Eyes, and the U.N. decide who is a terrorist or extremist.

“Even then you don’t solve the technical challenge of allowing access for legitimate purposes while maintaining a secure network, and people in the tech industry tell me this is impossible” Privacy Commissioner John Edwards said.

The GIFCT claims to “bring together the technology industry, government, civil society, and academia to foster collaboration and information-sharing to counter terrorist and violent extremist activity online.” But what it does not tell you is how they decide to brand someone a terrorist or extremist.

GIFCT admits that Big Tech has been secretly compiling a database of “hashes” or unique digital fingerprints of suspected terrorist/extremist social media posts since 2016.

Big Tech also uses their in-house “Content Incident Protocol” (CIP) to justify sharing hashes of an extremist’s video, and other related content with Big Tech companies, Five Eyes, and the U.N.

If the GIFCT’s secret social media database and CIP sound familiar, that’s because it is.

The United States Postal Service and Fusion Centers across the country have been secretly spying on Americans’ social media for years.

Earlier this week, PayPal announced that they are working with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to investigate how extremist and hate movements in the United States take advantage of financial platforms to fund their criminal activities.

PayPal is basically setting up its own version of GIFCT to justify monitoring people’s transactions under the terrorist/extremist umbrella. As the article mentioned, PayPal and the ADL will “uncover and disrupt the financial flows of anti-government and white supremacist organizations” on their own!

“The information collected through the initiatives will be shared with other firms in the financial industry, law enforcement and policymakers, PayPal said.”

It is only a matter of time before GIFCT censorship will be used to monitor and stop protests that corporations and the White House disapprove of.

As Caitlin Johnstone so eloquently put it:

  • They said we need internet censorship because of Russia.
  • They said we need internet censorship because of COVID.
  • They said we need internet censorship because of election security.
  • They said we need internet censorship because of the Capitol riot.
  • They said we need internet censorship because of domestic extremism.
  • Pretty sure they just want internet censorship.

Using the GIFCT to allow corporations and Five Eyes to ban and censor whoever they want, puts everyone’s freedom at risk.

Source: MassPrivateI Blog