Category Archives: Covid

UK Government Conspired with Social Media, A.I. Firms to Monitor and Censor Lockdown Critics – Report

Originally in the Telegraph, reported by Breitbart

Writes Peter Caddle:

The UK government worked with social media and A.I. firms to surveil and censor critics of coronavirus lockdowns, a report has claimed.

Officials within the UK government reportedly worked clandestinely with social media companies, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter as well as A.I. firms to monitor critics of the lockdown regime, as well as to identify and ultimately censor speech criticising the draconian government policy.

Published by The Telegraph, the claims bear many similarities to the so-called “Twitter files”, which revealed how U.S. authorities worked hand-in-glove with social media firms to censor criticism of government COVID-19 policy.

Continue reading here.

Here is some more about Covid revisionism:

We’ve been firmly in the grips of Covid revisionism for a while. Celebrities and pundits and politicians have all taken steps to downplay their complicity or talk about how “crazy” the pandemic was, as if it was impossible not to get caught up in it.

Further, there is an onslaught of policy “re-evaluation” that ranges from nit-picking to sweeping but is united in its reinforcement of Covid myths. The re-writing of the role ventilators played was especially unpleasant.

However, this one might be more grating, simply for the smallness of it.

A couple of days ago the Telegraph ran a “scoop”, revealing that the UK government’s counter-disinformation unit censored lockdown critics at the height of the pandemic (This really isn’t news, but more on that in a few days). Former editor of the Sunday Times Andrew Neil tweeted about it, neglecting to mention (or apologise for) his column in the Daily Mail calling for “vaccine refuseniks” to be “punished”.

A willing spreader and consumer of propaganda, suddenly claiming to realise propaganda was terrible…pretty nauseating.

As the UK gears up for the latest hearing in its farcical “Covid Inquiry” we can expect more and more of this rewriting of history.

The war on disinformation is just a war on dissent

The British state’s monitoring of lockdown sceptics is a democratic outrage.

Writes Tom Slater:

We need to retire the word ‘disinformation’, the apparent dread of governments, BBC specialist reporters and NGOs everywhere. Or at the very least we need to remember what it actually means. The definition of disinformation is ‘false information which is intended to mislead’. Until recently, it was largely used to describe propaganda pumped out by hostile foreign states. But in the great disinformation panic of our time, sparked by the populist revolts of 2016 and sent into hyperdrive by the paranoia of the pandemic, the word has come to mean something very different among our elites. It has come to mean inconvenient facts, or a differing opinion. Tackling disinformation is now just a euphemism for demonising and silencing dissent.

Just take a look at the latest revelations about the British state’s monitoring of lockdown sceptics during the pandemic. A new blockbuster investigation by the Telegraph and civil-liberties group Big Brother Watch details the shady activities of the Counter-Disinformation Unit, which is still operating and was set up by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and the now-closed Rapid Response Unit, which was run out of the Cabinet Office. They compiled reports about prominent lockdown sceptics including Carl Heneghan, director of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and Molly Kingsley, co-founder of UsForThem, which valiantly campaigned against Covid school closures. The government also employed an artificial-intelligence firm to ‘scour social-media sites’ for wrongthink.

Read on here.

Video: World Health Organisation ‘desperate’ to have global pandemic treaty

Sky News Australia

Sky News Australia discuss the WHO’s drive to a global pandemic treaty and correctly recognise that this is a crucial world government building block. A path towards a new Tower of Babel. They also correctly recognise the fact that the pattern resembles the discussion on climate change. It’s not left vs. right but authoritarianism vs. freedom. The collective “greater good” vs. individualism. (6 min)

Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms Fatal Flaw in PCR Testing

42% False Discovery Rate for SARS-CoV-2 nonQ-RT-PCR Test. This means COVID-19 Vaccine Outcomes Rate Data are Unreliable and Invalid

Writes James Lyons-Weiler:

All COVID-19 Vaccine Studies Used nonQ-RT-PCR to determine case status. All of the estimates of outcome are unreliable. This is the most important study we will ever likely publish in our journal.

Read on here.

If You Get More Doses, You Put Others at Higher Risk

The Cleveland Clinic Study is Now Published as Peer Reviewed Science

Writes James Lyons-Weiler:

Finally, after peer review, the Cleveland clinic study that report that “The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19” has been properly published.

“Risk of COVID-19… increased with time since most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received.’

Continue here.

Like the Curious Bride in “Bluebeard”

Investigating the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex leads inexorably to a place of horror.

Dr. Peter McCullough, MD, MPH says he has found strong indicators of “eminent Scripps Institute virologist, Kristian Andersen”, changing his tune on the possibility of the Covid virus having been engineered. On 31st January 2020 he still thought parts of the genome “(potentially) look engineered”. Then, on 4th February 2020, “shortly after a phone conference with Dr. Fauci and others—Dr. Andersen completely changed his tune. By then, the decision had been to submit a letter to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2.”

For more than a year thereafter, anyone suggesting an artificial, lab-engineered source of the virus was vilified mercilessly in the press. Then suddenly and strangely, it became an allowed opinion. Despite however the enormity of this suggestion, the media are strangely silent about it.

McCollough comments:

What on earth could inspire a virologist to adopt a posture of such Machiavellian duplicity about an infectious agent that—as he well knew—was about to inflict a catastrophe on all of mankind? He had to have known that such pronouncements—coming from a virologist of his eminence—would likely retard a thorough and impartial investigation of the virus’s origin.

Contemplating this question this evening, I thought Bluebeard’s young bride when she discovers the chamber of horrors in her husband’s castle. I suspect that Tess Lawrie felt the same way in her encounter with Dr. Andrew Hill, which she recounted in the short documentary film Dear Andy.

I have blogged about that documentary film here.

“Can you name >5 unvaxxed Amish who died from COVID?” 

Why not? They are "supposed to be" dying in droves!

Writes Steve Kirsch:

The Amish didn’t lockdown, social distance, mask, or take a vaccine. It was business as usual. Few died. I offered $2,500 for anyone who could name >5 Amish who died. No takers. Just excuses.

Update (video, see also text here): The Amish followed none of the guidelines, didn’t vaccinate etc. And had, according to Steve Kirsch, an at least 90% lower death rate from Covid.

The real “misinformation” peddlers

Here’s someone the BBC in its zeal to root out “mis- and disinformation” surprisingly missed.

From Tom Woods‘ newsletter from today:

If the world would stop being insane for five minutes, I could get things done around here.

Howard Forman, a prime spreader of Covid misinformation at Yale, just posted this:
Apoorva Mandavilli, the woman in the picture, spread nonstop misinformation about Covid via her New York Times columns, exaggerating the numbers and death rate to the point that even the Times itself had to correct her. She claimed without evidence that schools were especially dangerous sources of illness. She also said it was “racist” to consider the origins of Covid.

It was nonstop lies and lunacy from her pen — and now a Yale professor endorses her as someone qualified to fight against medical misinformation.

Sometimes I wonder if the absurdity of it all is deliberate, and intended to demoralize us.

At any rate, the comments slightly restored my faith in mankind. There were many, many of them, and as far as I can see they were all from people aghast at this. Examples:
The great Harvey Risch is at Yale, so I hate to say that everyone from Yale obviously needs to be ignored at this point, but let’s say everyone except Harvey Risch.

“Misinformation,” whether medical or otherwise, has obviously come to mean: information we don’t want you to have.

Another thing a lot of these people didn’t want you to have was, you know, a job — unless they decided you were “essential.” So maybe it’s not such a bad idea to have something in your back pocket for in case they come after us again.

The truth about the BBC’s war on ‘disinformation’

The new BBC Verify project reflects the cultural elites’ paranoid fear of free speech.

Article by Fraser Myers

The BBC not only inflates the dangers of social-media falsehoods, it has also applied the disinformation label to stories that are actually true. So if you cause a fuss about anti-car traffic restrictions coming to your local area, if you protest against eco-plans for a ‘15-minute city’, you could find yourself branded a ‘conspiracy theorist’ on the BBC – even though these illiberal traffic schemes really are happening across the UK. All too often, the charge of ‘disinformation’ is used as another way of demonising those with dissent opinions.

Meanwhile, the BBC has been known to spread untruths of its own. Take its coverage of the trans issue. The BBC website regularly describes predatory men, including rapists, paedophiles and murderers, as ‘women’ – purely because they ‘identify’ as such. It has produced news reports and whole documentaries about ‘men’ getting pregnant. When licence-fee payers are told to ignore the evidence of their own eyes in this way, we shouldn’t be surprised that the BBC is losing trust.

Climate change is another major blindspot for the Beeb. Despite their apparent concern about climate misinformation, BBC journalists and presenters frequently make alarmist and false claims about the environment. A recent Panorama documentary, fronted by the BBC’s climate editor, said in its opening sequence that extreme weather events are killing more people. The truth is the precise opposite: the death toll from weather events has actually fallen considerably in recent decades. But this does not fit the established, fear-driven narrative.

[Links to various other websites in the original text.]