ANOTHER success for UKIP!

Anonymous

Thanks!

Grace

It may be slightly better - I have to admit I use google translate to speed things up and then make corrections.

I think it is rank hypocrisy - if you want people to pay put up a pay wall. If you want good publicity, grin and bear it. In the last decade I used often to be able to find scientific papers which were behind pay walls freely available from other sites, but this long ago ceased so it obviously can be achieved to limit views to payers, for those who want to without a major change in culture.

But if you want control and tax visitors routinely, the web will become a dead and authoritarian place. I don’t really see any need for radical change, and it seems to be a malicious pretext.

Hans

"Brussels parliament wants doctors' access to two immunization databanks Published Friday, July 6, 2018 at 2:11 pm The Brussels parliament asked Friday, in a resolution unanimously adopted, that the Common Community Commission coordinates access to banks immunization data from the French and Flemish Community, for all doctors in the capital. This has not been the case since the last state reform."

Can anyone speak French ?

http://www.sudinfo.be/id63539/article/2018-07-06/le-parlement-bruxellois-veut-lacces-des-medecins-aux-deux-banques-de-donnees

Le parlement bruxellois veut l’accès des médecins aux deux banques de données vaccination

Publié le Vendredi 6 Juillet 2018 à 14h11

Le parlement bruxellois a demandé vendredi, dans une résolution adoptée à l’unanimité, que la Commission Communautaire Commune coordonne l’accès aux banques de données de vaccination des Communauté française et flamande, pour tous les médecins de la capitale. Ce n’est pas le cas, depuis la dernière réforme de l’État.

Hans

Well, obviously it is good news though not necessarily the end of the story - I gather new proposals from the commission are expected in September. One MEP told me they had had more than 50,000 messages. A lot must have been generated by Wikipedia for whom we have not much love, but nevertheless it would have been rendered unworkable if the directive had come into force. In part the proposals were anyhow technically defective, requiring technology which did not exist to enforce it. I was also somewhat repelled by artists I admire like McCartney and Domingo, who already exist amongst the super-rich trying to enforce their rights, which might not favour less financially successful artists.

I fear that one of the sinister aspects of this episode was the invisibility in mainstream news. The BBC had a couple of low profile reports but very little elsewhere - they were all busy leaving it out of the narrative of public events, and of course they have a competing interest.

Thanks for your hard work reseearch John .Everyone I have forwarded the article to have been most appreciative.

Pharma For Prisson

MMR RIP

Interesting article on how FB is censoring the expression of certain opinions into oblivion. I think the same techniques are being used by Disqus on our comments.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/how-facebook-is-fact-checking-conservative-sites-into-oblivion/

"So I don't have much faith that Facebook isn't putting its thumb on the scales by partnering with fact-checking organizations that have a clear bias against Republicans and conservative values (NB: and vaccines).
Facebook outlines in greater detail what happens when a post is flagged:
First, that content's distribution is reduced. It will appear lower in News Feed (NB: they've been doing that for a long time), and will be accompanied by Related Articles from fact-checkers. If people try to share the content, they will be notified of the additional reporting. They will also be notified if content they have shared in the past has since been rated by a fact-checker.
Second, in order to more effectively fight false news, we also take action against Pages that share, and domains that publish, content which is rated “False.” Such Pages and domains will see their distribution reduced as the number of offenses increases. Their ability to monetize and advertise will be removed after repeated offenses. Over time, Pages and domains can restore their distribution and ability to monetize and advertise if they stop sharing false news.
Publishers who issue a correction or dispute a rating may contact the fact-checker. If their correction or dispute is successful, the strike against them will be eliminated. Note that simply deleting a post or removing a URL is not sufficient to eliminate the strike against the domain or Page.
Again, I ask, who's checking up on the fact-checkers? Facebook's response indicates that they are taking a hands-off approach. If there's a dispute, your only recourse is to contact the fact-checkers and hope they do the right thing. (Incidentally, handing off responsibilities to third parties is what got Facebook in trouble with the Cambridge Analytica scandal. You'd think they'd have learned their lesson on what happens when a company shirks its responsibilities.)
Facebook is already under fire for picking winners in the news wars -- deprioritizing news altogether and giving special considerations for MSM outlets — and conservatives are rightly concerned that processes already in place are ensuring that their content won't be seen by the Facebook Community.
This incident highlights the dangers of letting the "Facebook Mob" and a bunch of allegedly "independent" fact-checkers (many of which lean left) determine what you see and don't see. There's clearly something wrong with the process Facebook is using if factual and well-sourced articles like mine get flagged. It doesn't bode well for the future of conservative media."

I have to admit not being too interested in secret society theories -Bildeberg etc. The main movers such as Gates, the WHO, the CDC, pharma inc., are all too visible. It is all networking, lobbying, bribing, intimidating, telling egregious lies...the rest is just details.

@ Mary
A further signal was also massaged out of significance - for “isolated autism”, that is autism without other symptoms (like my child). Try googling Morgan Verkamp plus William Thompson, see what you can find.

Sorry, Hans Litten, what are the “Thompson revelations?”

Science is Pure

It is a possible reading of the situation but we have so much occluded from our view. I don't dare to be optimistic. But you are right that it is an interesting question what happens to our government institutions when reality dawns.

Important article by Jonathan Arnott, Independent MEP for NE England.

http://www.jonathanarnott.co.uk/2018/06/the-internet-isnt-owned-by-any-government-but-a-tool-which-we-can-all-use-for-whatever-lawful-means-we-wish/

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/vaccinations-the-ongoing-struggle-for-informed-consent/

Informed Consent

BY: SENATOR MIKE FOLMER

PENNSYLVANIA’S 48TH DISTRICT

LEBANON, DAUPHIN AND YORK COUNTIES

The ability to make decisions about what goes into our bodies is a basic human right. This personal autonomy is challenged whenever government requires mandatory vaccinations. Indeed, sticking needles into a human body is the very definition of intrusive.

For this reason, I am introducing “Informed Consent” legislation to require patients and parents be given information before they consent to vaccinations. Consistent with my successful medical cannabis initiative, I believe all medical decisions should be between a patient and their physician – including the right to informed consent or informed refusal in the use of vaccines.

I am also introducing a Resolution calling upon Congress to repeal the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. This federal law prevents those harmed by a vaccine from suing pharmaceutical companies making these products. I believe this Act violates patient’s rights by limiting options to refuse vaccinations or seek due process of law as guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution.

My goal is to ensure people are first given an explanation of the potential benefits and the potential risks whenever a vaccine is administered. Only then are people able to exercise their basic human right to decide whether or not to allow intrusion into their bodies.

Informed Consent is already required for a number of medical treatments and procedures: surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and blood transfusions. My legislation would extend patients’ rights to Informed Consent to vaccinations by requiring them to be informed of the potential risks and benefits of the vaccinations they are being given. More importantly, my legislation will require patients be given this information prior to their consenting to receive a vaccination.

I believe Informed Consent should, at a minimum, mean the person from whom consent is being sought be given the opportunity to understand what they are being given, what the risks and benefits are, and other potential consequences of the procedure they are facing.

Physicians and researchers are divided on the impacts of vaccines on children – especially the relationship of vaccines to autism – plus a number of other conditions and medical circumstances where vaccination may not be considered safe.

From the 1940’s when the first autism cases were diagnosed to the 1980’s when the vaccine schedule was expanded, the rate of autism remained relatively stable. In the early 1990’s, parents and physicians witnessed an alarming rise, which some call an epidemic, in autism rates. In one decade, the rate of autism increased 500%: from one in 2,500 to one in 500.

A reanalysis of a 2004 CDC study showed a higher connection between incidences of autism for children receiving the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine prior to 36 months of age. In 2008, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program awarded a family roughly $1.5 Million for a vaccine’s role in an autism-related diagnosis.

Until these issues are further researched and/or a Vaccine Safety Commission is established, I believe no patient or parent should be required to submit to a vaccination without Informed Consent.

I hope my colleagues in the Senate and House will agree: Informed Consent is a basic human right of consenting or refusing a medical treatment or procedure – including vaccinations.

Will

In the wellknown line from a not so wellknown play (Almansor) by Heinrich Heine: "Where they have burned books, they will end in burning people."

That was written in 1823, before the days of the internet. Heine finally fleed Germany c. 1830 because of the rise in anti-semitism. Many of my American friends are worried about having their guns taken away, but people will find in the end that is nothing compared to having their words taken away. The mainstream media is completely discredited, so now they have to stop people talking and writing in the public medium of the time which is the internet (Almansor btw is set at the time of the expulsion of the Moriscos from Spain, not long after the invention of printing). Governments are not concerned about FAKE NEWS, they are terrified of REAL NEWS: they are deliberately dismantling any means by which the government-corporate machine can be held to account - they pretend this is about the rights of artists but it is about freedom of speech. I promise you if people don't stand up (and sadly perhaps even if they do) we are heading for barbarism and chaos. This is the logic of human history.

The EU bureaucrats interfering with 'free speech" is not the same thing as Nazism. What is the deal with the "right wing" these days overusing those terms like "jack boot thugs". I wish the EU would over turn these speech limiting laws but this is not the same thing as Nazis killing dissidents or minorities. AoA is losing credibility with such outlandish claims.

This is an important and timely article, it is vital that we all write to our MEPs and cause them a real headache over this, apparently they have been misled by corporate propaganda and those with conflicts of interest. The EU’s setup leaves the people of Europe vulnerable, it makes you feel like you have to be a meerkat on watch 24/7.

Now onto the link tax, it is absurd, websites pay link builders to post links to their websites, Google ranks a site higher based on the number and quality of links posted around the Internet to that site. That means more visitors. Each link also brings in visitors directly, many sites are designed to make revenue from the visitors, proving that the whole concept of link tax is nonsensical.

Websites are built to be visited, just like shops are, imagine if people got taxed for giving each other advice on which shops to visit or which books to read, that’s precisely how illogical the link tax is.

Thank you John. Along this same spectrum of mind control. Article dated April 2017:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/delete-thoughts-read-your-mind-without-your-knowledge-neurotechnology-new-human-rights-laws-a7701661.html

"New computers could delete thoughts without your knowledge, experts warn
New human rights laws are required to protect sensitive information in a person’s mind from 'unauthorised collection, storage, use or even deletion' "

Excerpt:

"The same goes for actions involving harm to a person’s mental life or unauthorised modifications of a person’s psychological continuity, which are also facilitated by the ability of emerging neurotechnologies to intervene into a person’s neural processing in absence of the person’s awareness.”

They proposed four new human rights laws:
the right to cognitive liberty,
the right to mental privacy,
the right to mental integrity and
the right to psychological continuity."

These are the thoughts of the Max Planck Institute:

https://www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/stellungnahmen/Answers_Article_13_2017_Hilty_Moscon-rev-18_9.pdf

Jenny

I am sure the trolls will manage, but I suppose what it means is that you need to be a business big enough to have a rights department to share a link, meanwhile these people will be blocking sites using algorithms, or whatever. Basically, it is meant to stop ordinary people sharing information on the web. Of course, once you have the directive it is up to the member nations to implement, but I do not trust our British politicians even out of the EU. In May they passed legislation implementing the EU a previous EU regulation, the General Data Privacy Regulation I think it is) knowing that we would be leaving the EU within the year anyway. So, will they want to harmonise even though we are outside? I would not put is past them. As far as I know this opposed by some influential people: Jimmy Wales, Tim Berners-Lee, Stephen Fry have been mentioned. But I believe it would an error for British readers to not contact their MEPs because they think we will be out of Europe next year. Globally, everyone must fight for the web access continuously because new initiatives to close it down occur in every place all the time. If this one fails there will be new ones, and irrespective of borders.

Horrendous assault on free speech, but EU attempts to shut down 'the web' could backfire spectacularly. I am assuming the sharing of urls would be across the board involving all attempts to publicise articles be they friendly or unfriendly to our causes. This would be bad news for trolls. Also- EU legislation would have no legal standing outwith Europe.
Interesting times!

The term "Jackboots" is apt. And Americans need to be on their guard. The people of the European Union may be friends to the US, sharing a commonality of descent from the many from Europe who migrated to the USA and settled there. But the political institutions of the European Union are controlled by a different kind of animal.

Democracy in Europe died with the birth of the European Union. In the long term the EU is a threat to peace, stability and the freedoms of the citizens of the countries of Europe.

For many reasons the European Union is under the control in practical terms of the Eurocrats of the European Commission. And no one can be sure whose powers influences and control they are under. The only law creators in the EU are the Eurocrats of the European Commission.

Democracy can only work where a free and strong press as the Fourth Estate keeps the electing public informed. In the UK the mainstream media is ineffective, controlled directly and indirectly by third party interests and with journalists and editors being easily manipulable, it provides very little information about what takes place politically in the European Commission, European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Imagine that picture extended across 27 countries many of which have limited resources and impoverished less well educated populations with high unemployment.

The European Parliament originally had no law-making powers and could veto nothing. The eventual extension of some law-making powers to the Parliament was too little, but more importantly, too late.

The European Union is a large complex set of interlinked organisations which is wide open especially in a globalist world to an ease of manipulation on an unprecedented scale from those people or organisations with the money and resources to get the political systems to work for them against the interests of citizens.

In many ways the political systems of the European Union are more open to manipulation than the already corrupt and corrupted "swamp" of Washington DC.

Be on your guard Americans.