In the past few days I made the mistake of getting involved in a “discussion” on Facebook, in which I was accused of not understanding outbreak control. By people unable to provide a single piece of research literature supporting their entrenched stance that “lockdowns work” as an epidemic control measure. Someone challenged me to “prove” that Australia’s PCR test cycle threshold is more than 40. I found the evidence at the NSW government’s own website and provided it. Facebook responded with this.
So Australia’s own government websites “go against community standards” according to Facebook “fact checkers”? Is that a little bit odd? What the website says:
On another occasion I shared an article from the British Medical Journal to UNICEF Cambodia, who are busy supporting the removal of children including newborns from their families “because Covid”. I asked them to promote calm instead of fear, evidence instead of panic. Why is Covid-19 less severe in children? is written by infectious disease and paediatric specialists and published by the British Medical Journal. But it is considered unsafe for Facebook, who removed it as threatening “community standards”.
Organisations with public health power, such as World Health Organisation, UNICEF and Centers for Disease Control continue to publish pandemic related data such as cycle thresholds, infection fatality rates, age gradiated risk, increasing levels of starvation and disease, etc. Rather than referencing their own information they have spokespeople who stand in front of television cameras and say the exact opposite of their published data, and of established public health.
Gone are the days when this type of media and online censorship, propaganda and disinformation was unique to citizens living in places such as North Korea and China. We are all living under similarly “protected” rule now. Eminent public health experts are at highest risk of mainstream media blackouts and social media “fact checking”, which appears to be associated with follower numbers. It is extremely bizarre to see a world renowned infectious disease epidemiologist “fact checked” on their own specialist subject by anonymous social media employees.
When PANDA publish information on any Big Tech platform (YouTube, Twitter, Facebook…), it often remains online until it reaches a certain readership (around 500,000), before being removed. As another example of the propaganda onslaught, in New Zealand Voices for Freedom are falsely labelled on Google searches as an “anti vaccination group”. Thankfully – for now – there remain other avenues, and many are congregating at alternative sites to communicate and share information. Which turns Big Tech sites who (for now) continue to have the biggest numbers, into echo chambers of official narrative and ongoing fear.
Our freedoms are being eroded, and eventually we will be neither safe nor free. Unless we speak up now, for democracy, free speech and the scientific method. None of these philosophies are “anti-vax”, “dangerous”, or need to be removed from us for our “protection”.
Dr Sam Bailey from Christchurch in New Zealand vlogs about issues relating to Covid-19. She is one of New Zealand’s growing body of doctors standing up to the official narrative we are being bombarded with by mainstream media and Big Tech. Once trusted sources, of course many continue to trust them unquestioningly. Dr Bailey has faced censorship, scorn, false accusations and job loss. Her fate is shared with many medical doctors and public health professionals daring to speak out with valid concerns, globally. In Safe and Effective – Then and Now, she gives an informative 16 minute historical insight into pharmaceutical industry corruption and crime.
Caroline Hartnell, the Editor of UK philanthropy and social investment magazine, Alliance Magazine (2011) on “Living with the Gates Foundation”, said in her editorial: “It is a truism that foundations lack accountability…… The justification for this – in the eyes of the philanthropy world, and presumably the wider world – is the assumption that foundations probably do quite a lot of good, and almost certainly don’t do any harm”.
Hartnell (2011) goes on to state that the emergence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is beginning to undermine this assumption. “It’s not that Gates isn’t doing good, or that it is doing harm; it’s more that the resources the foundation brings to bear are so huge and the scale of its ambitions so great that it clearly could do serious harm – by distorting the fields in which it works”.