Nothing To See Here
Evidence of Increase in Mortality After DPT

Our Brave New World: Pharma's Political Straw Men, Lies and Censorship

image from buzznews.it by John Stone

We are reaching a critical point (and historic moment) which resembles in some ways both WMD and the banking crisis of 2008: the burden of scientific evidence and personal testimony weighs heavily against the industry (everyone has been lied to and the products have been over-sold) and what we are seeing is a pre-emptive strike to stop people talking – to stop them  at all cost. The evidence is that the industry and governments are afraid of exposure and are going for broke. This was the message of the industry spokeswoman Heidi Larson on 1 January 2018 in her column ‘Let Freedom Ring’. It was a very odd kind of freedom – Larson who works closely with the World Health Organization and Bill and Melinda Gates, as well as Merck and GSK – seemed to be trying to trade vaccine compulsion (distancing herself and the Vaccine Confidence Project from moves around the world towards draconian mandates) for silence on vaccine safety.

“The growing challenge in the vaccine landscape is that it is no longer isolated individuals who are thinking twice or refusing vaccination, but that there are growing groups of people who are not only expressing their individual right to question and to choose, but are increasingly connected with others and demanding the right to choose as part of a larger movement.  These movements are about principles of freedom and rights, not about specific vaccines, or specific safety concerns.”

Larson is not wrong about rights but she is about people not having “specific safety concerns”: only a few months before she had declared on a Johnson and Johnson website:

 “Yes, there are potential risks—there will always be potential risks with any medical treatment. And we don’t talk enough about that.” 

Anybody might reasonably be worried about safety of something over which they are being threatened with censorship. And, of course, now there are many people writing and speaking on the web, who want to talk about the risks both from personal experience and published science who are not poorly informed, malicious or engaging in irresponsible talk. Of course, there are clickbait sites that put out deliberately false information but it does not seem likely that they are the ones that industry or government are really scared about.

When the European Parliament balances the bald assertion that vaccines are “safe” with condemning “ the spread of unreliable, misleading and unscientific information on vaccination aggravated by media controversies” and calling “on Member States and the Commission to take effective steps against the spread of such misinformation and to further develop awareness and information campaigns, especially for parents…” they are themselves being misleading, naive or worse – and they are trying to forestall public examination of what the industry and surrogate government bureaucracies are doing, and suppress the ever growing body of evidence that vaccines are not safe. They are declaring falsehoods, engaging in innuendo and calling for socially repressive measures. This sadly is all too likely to dovetail with French President Macron’s proposed legislation on Fake News, following on his extension vaccine mandates.

Simultaneously, we have the alarming spectacle of Senator Pan who having notoriously piloted the notorious SB277 school vaccine mandates bill through the Californian legislature has now filed SB1424 to censor social media with the appointment of state “fact checkers” to decide which facts are true.

This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site. The bill would require the plan to include, among other things, a plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

 (a) Any person who operates a social media Internet Web site with physical presence in California shall develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Internet Web site.

 (b) The strategic plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:

 (1) A plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories.

 (2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories.

 (3) Providing outreach to social media users regarding news stories containing false information.

 (4) Placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

 (c) As used in this section, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.

Not surprisingly there is already a fine article about this by John Rappoport. The bill does not of course specify vaccine related stories but obviously we can see where this going – of course it is altogether terrifying to envisage the scale and cost of this new bureaucracy, not to mention its potential for arbitrariness, incompetence and vindictiveness: perhaps above all to stop people talking about their own experiences. Is this so mad, grandiose, so Un-American that even California’s legislature might back off? In this brave new world no one could be confident.

These are not of course random events. Our new rulers are the pharmaceutical industry hiding behind men of straw.

John Stone is UK and European Editor of Age of Autism

Comments

Morag

John ,theres an article of interest to read at Alliance for Natural Health [ANH ] re same hot topic!
Vaccine hesitancy group censored in Australia .states Health minister to start limiting Austrailian citizens access to information .
Interestingly enough NHS canteen chatter indicates we are moving towards a new NCH National Care Service to replace our disfunctional NHS . A hybrid between an American /Australian model of health care provision . Americal model electronic medical records system established in 2005 with patients being "coded" including billing codes . one Dr applied for a job in Australia had NHS" burnout" attended her GP saying she couldn't sleep well, and was walking the streets at night to relax . Gp recorded Doctor was" Working" the streets at night ! Australian 's said" job offer cancelled, sorry, you have failed the medical test ! "
Any member of NHS staff caught talking or laughing at new care proposals on duty will be getting delegated duties to the bed pan preperation area for the next three months !
As for staff problems/training deficiency re informed consent See Highland comedy sketch Roddy's heart-duration 2.55 aquabilly youtube A perfect example of failure to provide adequate informed consent .

David m burd

Everybody should know that "Jon Rappoport" is his correct name and his blog that goes decades back to the complete fraud of "HIV."

Check him out - he is an ally regards the devastation of vaccines.


John Stone

Aimee

In the UK all parties are pious but none has so far espoused mandates or compulsion - - this may be reflected in the lurch of Heidi Larson who works in London and has connections with our Department of Health. What we have notwithstanding is very high compliance and not very well informed consent. So far the British option is not to have mandates which might be politically unacceptable if there were financial or social sanctions, or compulsion (which obviously would not please the rich and powerful), and also leaves the legal responsibility for vaccinating or not vaccinating with the parent rather than the state. So far, the pressure for compulsion comes from the media (BBC, Guardian etc), and some voices inside the profession. This is not to say that I am confident things will stay this way.

Pietro

And of course this is going on in Italy too.
In a recently proposed bill (Adele Gambaro) spreading misinformation
and causing unfounded alarm on the internet is punished with a fine up to 5000€
and a sentence of no less than a year.
The bill has never been discussed in the parliament
and is still sleeping somewhere but in principle it can still pass.
It is obviously unconstitutional but these days you never know.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time..

What we already have instead is this fake news "red button" you can already push,
if you want, on the State Police ("Polizia Postale") web site.
You can report that you feel like a certain web site is spreading false information
and they will look into it.
No draconian consequences for the web sites owners but to me it sounds already creepy enough
(e.g.: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/19/italians-asked-report-fake-news-police-run-up-election)

Anyway, Italy is having its fair share of fake news discourse just as everywhere else,
not to speak of Putin and his nasty hackers!


Aimee Doyle

@John Stone -"With vaccines the bureaucratic machine has been geared to denying harm for more than thirty years and the population is punch drunk (one way of describing it), it not only denies different opinions it denies fundamental scientific reality."

I'm curious. I know that there are liberal and conservative movements in England, as there are here in the US. How does liberal/conservative play out in Britain? Are conservative governments and prime ministers likely to be move skeptical of vaccines than liberal ones?

pharmster

Free speech is fine as long it does either not reach a critical mass of people or what you say is not a threat to anyone in power.

Apparently free speech on the internet related to vaccines does reach a large enough number of people and someone finds this threatening.

Hans Litten

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-43705088/going-through-the-menopause-at-11-years-old

The BBC at work , covering for Gardasil .
See how the scoundrels conspire !

--------------------------------------------
Going through the menopause at 11 years old
Amanda was 11 years old when she started experiencing symptoms of premature ovarian insufficiency, otherwise known as early menopause.

According to The Daisy Network, early menopause can be caused by genetic issues or auto-immune disease, but in most cases the underlying cause is not known.

Morag

Thanks John ,very serious article on both counts.
[1] Mass vaccination mandates .
[2] Freedom of thought and speech censorship.
They can "Away and get stuffed" with both totatalitarian/dictatorship proposals .
Do inustry leaders think they can" have a go" at replacing a brutal aristocracy behaviour of the 1800's
See Runrig Dance Called America youtube
and
Matt McGinn -Ballad of John MacLean youtube

John Stone

Carol

Yes, it seemed to me that that was the sort of thing he had in mind.

John Stone

Jeannette

If we have failed Larry Kramer we must be doing something right. I have just been reading an excellent article the philosopher John Gray who describes modern liberalism disappearing up itself. Mostly he discusses the intolerance of other opinions but the problem that we perceive with someone like Kramer is the intolerance of the basic facts which govern people's existence. You can tell people what is good for them until it blatantly no longer is. With vaccines the bureaucratic machine has been geared to denying harm for more than thirty years and the population is punch drunk (one way of describing it), it not only denies different opinions it denies fundamental scientific reality.

Carol

China has a setup which probably served as a model:

"The Chinese government employs large numbers of people to monitor and censor China’s media. Experts refer to an October 2013 report in a state-run paper, the Beijing News, which said more than two million workers are responsible for reviewing internet posts using keyword searches and compiling reports for 'decision makers.' These so-called 'public opinion analysts' are hired both by the state and private companies to constantly monitor China’s internet."

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/media-censorship-china

Jeannette Bishop

Twenty-five percent tax (essentially taxing unapproved reading)? Oh, gee, why-ever not!?!?

More from John Rappoport:

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/facebook-censorship-the-grotesque-mainstream-solution/

(quote from link) A 10/11/17 Wired article contains this stunning piece: “’You cannot run a democratic system unless you have a well-informed public, or a public prepared to defer to well-informed elites,’ says Larry Kramer, president of the Hewlett Foundation and an expert in constitutional law. ‘And we are now rapidly heading toward neither. Without one or the other, our constitutional system and our liberal democracy will end, perhaps not imminently, but over time’.” (emphasis added)

Bill

The European Digital Rights website is a good place to find out in some detail what the people of Europe are doing to protect the digital rights of individuals. They publish a regular e-newsletter that's free to sign up for. Yes, some of it is specific to Europe, but with our ever more connected world, it's more relevant all the time. Plus, it's good education!
>edri.org<

John Stone

Jeannette

I don't have full details but I am told that Macron has put a 25% tax on small publishers to subsidise the "mainstream media". It is actually oddly like how the original French revolution started - with an ordinary citizenry having to pay for the extraordinary privileges, franchises, monopolies etc of a predatory and expanding aristocratic class. I am not saying that is what is going to happen, nor would one want the excesses of that revolution again but I feel somehow that Macron will probably not last longer than Sarkozy or Hollande - unless he stages a coup d'etat (I wouldn't put it past him).

Jeannette Bishop

Thank you, Mr. Stone, for highlighting Pan's next bill which would do it's best to monopolize the corporate media IMO, and it probably won't involve the hiring of too many actual flesh and blood "fact checkers." I think they have been beta testing their censorship systems already, and this bill will just give them the official reason something put out by "alternative" media just disappears and stays in a black hole, or only comes out after months of delay with pieces missing or maybe a "this article contains information known to the state of California to be false" stamp upon it.

From another favorite media source (for as long as possible) of mine:

https://constitution.solari.com/why-congressman-marsha-blackburn-will-lose-the-tennessee-senate-race/

"As one extremely wealth venture capitalist said to me recently as we were chatting at the Aspen Institute last fall, 'We are going to replace every worker in American with software and artificial intelligence.' I have serious questions as to whether the telecommunications infrastructure has become a predatory system designed to facilitate that centralization of equity. Are small businesses customers or are we prey?"

If that quote is representative of the mindset of some, how much health and life expectancy, property and personal autonomy does that group think the majority of Americans (and probably the global citizenry) need?

Linda1

"I think George III would be quite benign in comparison with these bullies.

Pathetic that most Americans have no clue.

John Stone

Mark

I have studied the Federalists too and that is certainly my view, that given this was a society who could not possibly have imagined our technological advance that this was just the kind of thing - protecting themselves from over-powerful interests - they were trying desperately to stop happening. I seem to remember Madison did not even want roads to be built across state borders. That’s trivial, but intellectual freedom obviously is not.

I think George III would be quite benign in comparison with these bullies.

Mark Wax

Pure Democracies always commit suicide. Ask Mr. Adams, a Founding Father of the U.S.A. That is why we were founded as a Republic. It was to prevent a majority ( of thought) from preventing dissent. Many have argued with me unsuccessfully in my thesis of the Federalist Papers. The Founders clearly understood the “general welfare” to mean the good of all citizens, not an open-ended mandate for Congress. The only "good" that applies to all citizens is freedom, and government’s proper role is the protection of that freedom. That was the meaning intended by the Founders. There never was a "greater good". As they are commonly used, terms such as “general welfare”, or “common good,” or “public interest” are undefinable.

There is no such entity as “the public”, there are only individuals. These terms actually mean that some individuals take precedence over other individuals, that some may impose their values on others. The Founders knew this and we are learning it continuously. They remind us to guard against the usurping of liberty.

David Weiner

John,

I would say that it would be impossible to undertake such an effort in any sort of objective way. If such a regime came into effect, the bureaucrats would by necessity have wide discretion over what and whom to police. Needless to say, it does not bode well for those whose views are a threat to the ruling elite.

Angus Files

Reminds me of the great singer Ella Fitzgerald in the Memorex advert

"Is it Ella or is it Memorex?"or should it be `is it real or is it Pharma`...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjV0DswlXeo

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

Jonathan Rose

Yes, John, and you'll notice that Pan's bill doesn't apply to print or broadcast media (owned by huge corporations) only to websites (which are too damned democratic). The proposal is clearly absurd (will websites devoted to Lewis Carroll have to fact check assertions that a smile can exist without a cat?). It is also a gross abrogation of the First Amendment, and will hopefully be struck down in the courts, if it is ever enacted.

In addition to Macron's proposal, there's a bill before the British Parliament which would make it a crime merely to *read* a terrorist website, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. I don't have to tell you, John, that during the Second World War, when Britain faced a far deadlier threat, Mein Kampf was freely available in every bookstore, and Britons were free to tune into the Nazi propaganda broadcast by Lord Haw Haw. But back then you had a Prime Minister who actually believed in freedom.

Meanwhile, back here in "the land of the free", Mark Zuckerberg boasts to Congress that he has hired 15,000 censors to police Facebook. But that must be an awfully expensive payroll, so Zuckerberg is already thinking of a cheaper and more effective means of thought control: "You can imagine some sort of structure, almost like a Supreme Court, that is made up of independent folks who don't work for Facebook, who ultimately make the final judgment call on what should be acceptable speech in a community that reflects the social norms and values of people all around the world." But there are no values shared by everyone in the world. Does this mean in practice that the values prevailing in China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran will be imposed through a system of global censorship? And who will choose these "independent folks"?

So yes, we see here a general assault, on several fronts, on the freedom of the web. It's a direct threat to everyone operating a dissident website, regardless of their politics. On this issue, we should reach out and ally ourselves with the global community of internet journalists to expose and resist censorship regimes of every kind.

John Stone

David

A number of thoughts.

How do you hire a bureaucracy large enough?

It is possible simply to stop a report which is substantially true by being over-literal ie a good and reasonable paraphrase won’t meet the demands of the “fact-checker”.

Can people even refer to events in their own lives without verification by the “fact-checker”?

Obviously, if you contradict totemistic facts like “vaccines are safe” this will automatically fall foul of the “fact-checker”.

Any discussion of what the facts are, is immediately pre-empted by the “fact-checker” (who knows what the facts are.

These are the realms of Stalin and Mme Mao.

Gary Ogden

John Rappaport has a fun article today about famous people who should be banned on Facebook for their incendiary words. The list is impressive, with select quotations: President John F. Kennedy, President John Adams, Hannah Arendt, George Orwell, Oscar Wilde, Thomas Paine, Noam Chomsky, and (drum roll), the puppet-master himself, Mark Zuckerberg!

David Weiner

If such a law were to take effect, it would (like most government interference with free exchange) do disproportionate harm on the smaller websites and lead to greater dominance of the big boys, who would be better equipped to handle the additional paperwork.

Gary Ogden

John: As craven and cowardly, and, above all, ignorant, as the majority of the California Legislature are, not to mention our governor, I predict that this Orwellian nonsense will go nowhere. It would create a system so blatantly unconstitutional that it would be hobbled before it ever left the starting gate. What it represents is how desperate and frightened for their bank accounts these terrorists with their snake oil have become. On a related note, Zuckerberg's great great great grandfather, the father of John D. Rockefeller, was an honest to goodness snake oil salesman who was run out of every town in which he plied his trade. Zuckerberg is a gazillionairre because he is a member of that infamous family. The private censors of knowledge, such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc., can get away with it, but courts have always interpreted the First Amendment broadly, and it is so central to what we are as a nation, I doubt he'll get a co-sponsor, or pass muster in a single committee hearing.

John Stone

Patricia

Of course, in principle you are right but unfortunately laws are to keep citizens down, not corporations or government bureaucracies which do just as they please.

John

Patricia

Doesn’t this ludicrous Bill cut both ways?

Angus Files

Freedom of speech and the biggest double standards of the ones imposing the rules on the CITIZENS but no surprise,not on THEMSELVES.

Zuckerburg anti gun but surrounds himself with armed guards ..
Offit still to take his 1000 or even one vaccine and the list goes on..

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

John Stone

One point I did not make is that as far as I know vaccine mandates were never a declared part of the agenda of Macron or his party while trying to be elected, it just appears immediately afterwards.

bob moffit

"These are not of course random events. Our new rulers are the pharmaceutical industry hiding behind men of straw."

I would consider many, if not most of elected legislators, state and federal .. BOTH PARTIES .. would be just one segment of "men of straw" .. behind which the pharmaceutical industry is hiding.

Indeed, denying CDC whistleblower Dr. Thompson the opportunity to testify in a public hearing of Congress .. has unfortunately become "THE course of random events" in our Brave New World.

We are constantly told we are living in the "information age" .. where we are supposed to gain whatever information we need by a single click of the mouse. Obviously, our new rulers within the pharmaceutical industry know the only way they can continue to "control" the people .. is to first gain control of the information the people will have access to.

In the real world of free speech and communications .. the pharmaceutical industry would have to provide irrefutable scientific evidence that vaccines are as "safe and efficient" as the pharmaceutical industry pretends they are. Lacking such evidence the pharmaceutical industry has no other choice but to rely upon shutting down both .. free speech and communications.

If the pharmaceutical industry were that confident their vaccines are truly modern miracles .. the pharmaceutical industry would be the loudest voice demanding a scientific, independent study of "vaccinated v. unvaccinated" populations .. to show irrefutable evidence that BOTH populations have suffered the same inexplicable increase in chronic autoimmune disorders.

Instead .. the pharmaceutical industry constructs "straw men" arguments .. the first ridiculous argument being it would be "unethical" not to vaccinate children to create the "unvaccinated" control group .. exposing those "unvaccinated" children to deadly childhood diseases. This argument at the very same time the industry is constantly worrying over the ever increasing numbers of VOLUNTARY UNVACCINATED POPULATION.

It is encouraging to recognize the ongoing, growing public efforts to squelch "free speech" is proving to be their LAST RESORT. Think about that for a moment .. in our Brave New World .. SCIENCE is no longer permissible unless the pharmaceutical industry CONTROLS all conversation and information related to it.


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)