Every time we start to think we’ve overcome censorship in America, it comes raging back again. Censorship in America, especially when it comes to alternative health information, is getting out of hand.
But, it used to be the religious right that wanted to censor teaching children about evolution in schools (because it conflicted with the idea that God created the universe) and wanted to censor sex education (because they believed it might lead to promiscuity and premarital sex). Then there were the authoritarian governments, like Saudi Arabia, a country that actively censors access to information and has media restrictions written into their bylaws.
Censorship coming from the left
That’s no longer true. We’re now seeing active censorship coming from those who identify as liberals or leftists. Many of these people also happen to be technocrats who are actually also using their platforms in myriad invasive and privacy-scorching ways, mostly to sell us things we don’t need.
To make matters worse, the new censors are pretending to be justices of “truth,” “real news,” and “factual” information.
These days it is people who consider themselves progressives who are the most vocal and active champions of censorship. It’s strange to think of progressives and liberals calling for censorship. But that’s what’s happening. Those in control of information dissemination—running the technological platforms we rely on every day for communication and information, including Facebook, LinkedIn, Mailchimp, YouTube—are aggressively limiting access to any information that doesn’t fit the mainstream narrative. Free speech apparently doesn’t apply to online forums.
As one commentator stated, in a time of significant worry over the loss of personal freedoms, “The most chilling suggestion, however, comes from the politicians and academics who have called for the censorship of social media and the internet. The only thing spreading faster than the coronavirus has been censorship and the loud calls for more restrictions on free speech.”
So why is it now those on the left leading the charge to censor information?
A look at censorship in America
Let’s be clear. Our current administration is no champion of civil rights. But government officials, both past and present, have defied legal standards, wielded the power of the justice department for political gains, and even pushed censorship in the media. The media’s crime? Exercising its badly needed First Amendment rights.
While Donald Trump issued a decree against the political left’s misguided attempts to censor social media, the problem has remained.
The ongoing boycott of Facebook over its hypocritical approach to censorship incited a massive protest joined by global corporations. While their intent is good, if it leads to more censorship, we’re going in the wrong direction.
I’m a science journalist. A book author, and one of nine volunteers who run a health and wellness page called Your Baby, Your Way on Facebook. Our page has over 45,000 followers and reaches upwards of 500,000 people on a good week. The goal of the page is to share news and information to help people make informed choices about children’s health.
Sure, we have a decidedly natural slant. We want to empower families. Our mission is to help women meet their breastfeeding goals, encourage families in healthy eating, and give parents the most up-to-date peer-reviewed science so they can make informed decisions.
Controversial topics suppressed
At Your Baby, Your Way, we aren’t afraid of controversial subjects. We post regularly about vaccine safety, glyphosate and other environmental toxins, and the harms of baby Tylenol. We also write about the benefits of home birth, gentle parenting, and leaving baby boys intact.
Information like this is useful. Even for those who don’t agree with it. Perhaps especially for those who don’t agree.
Well, Facebook—a prime driver of censorship in America—doesn’t agree.
Despite the page’s popularity and usefulness, you’ll be hard-pressed to find the page on Facebook. It’s “cloaked” now, and our reach has been intentionally squashed by Facebook, a company that has repeatedly announced it will crack down on alternative health information, as well as on information others have deemed “fake.”
A reader of my website once tried to repost a science-backed story I wrote on Medium, a platform designed for substantive discourse. The platform is designed for thoughtful resourcing of information and long-form storytelling. But this story, which was sharing the research of a Yale-educated immunologist, was rejected by the Medium censors.
Censorship in America: a “religious” left?
Like Medium, Facebook has decided, apparently, that only one source of medical information is “reliable” and “accurate”: government-sanctioned medical organizations.
But there’s the rub. What does reliable mean? Who defines what’s accurate? How do we separate fact from fiction when it comes to our children’s health and wellbeing? And do we want to leave the answers to these questions and the decisions about our children’s health to Facebook? A for-profit company run by a multi-billionaire who’s 38 years old?
The answer is a resounding no.
Why not? Because the status quo medical establishment is failing our children.
In fact, this is where America’s mainstream health establishment has led us:
- We have one of the highest maternal mortality rates of any country in the industrialized world.
- We have a rate of at least 1 in 54 children with autism, which carries a life expectancy of only 36 years. Experts suspect the actual rates of autism, encephalitis, and encephalopathy are even higher.
- We have a falling life expectancy rate, one that declined for three years in a row.
- And we live in a country where 54 percent of children today suffer from chronic disease.
Those who defend this failing status quo medical system use talking points generated by the pharmaceutical industry. And Big Pharma and Big Medicine profit tremendously.
What they call “medical misinformation” we call “medical missing information.”
When you do happen upon our Your Baby, Your Way Facebook page, it comes with a warning label, urging you to go to the World Health Organization for information about vaccines.
Is the World Health Organization a reliable source?
Medium, Facebook, Google, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest, Wikipedia, and other media sites—including newspapers like USA Today and the New York Times—are actively and relentlessly censoring scientific information and opinion pieces from medical doctors, researchers, and parents that contradicts or nuances status quo medicine, as well as other topics.
Instead, Facebook refers my readers to the World Health Organization as a reliable and unbiased source of information.
The WHO is a questionable source of reliable information at best. An in-depth investigation by the Alliance for Human Research Protection, a non-profit organization committed to upholding ethical standards in medicine, reveals that the WHO has an unfortunate history of letting corruption and politics overshadow their role as the gatekeepers of public health.
According to the AHRP, where I am a member of the Board of Directors:
“The World Health Organization provides public health recommendations about the use of pharmacologic drugs and vaccines and provides guidelines and assistance in public health emergencies. Founded in 1948, the WHO relied on funding from its member states. Their contributions were assessed based on their national income and population. The funds weren’t earmarked for any particular policy. In those days, the WHO was an independent organization. But over time, the WHO leadership traded its independence and with it, its integrity, for big money.”
The influence of the Gates Foundation
Speaking of big money influences, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second biggest funder of the WHO, giving more money to the WHO than any country in the world besides the United States.
Mark Zuckerberg is the fourth richest person in the world, according to Business Insider. Bill Gates is the second, according to Forbes. But a multi-billionaire like Bill Gates is a businessman whose specialty is computer viruses not corona viruses, and yet Gates wields vastly more influence over the WHO than the hundreds of scientists and medical doctors who have been sounding a note of caution about COVID-19, pointing out that it may not be possible to create a safe vaccine against it.
According to David Nabarro, a professor of global health at Imperial College in London, who is also a special envoy to the World Health Organization on Covid-19:
“There are some viruses that we still do not have vaccines against. We can’t make an absolute assumption that a vaccine will appear at all, or if it does appear, whether it will pass all the tests of efficacy and safety.”
William Haseltine, an American scientist who has worked in cancer research and on AIDS, agrees. As reported by NBC News:
Haseltine cautioned that vaccines developed for other types of coronavirus in the past failed to protect mucous membranes in the nose, where the virus typically enters the body. And while tests of some experimental COVID-19 vaccines on animals were able to reduce the viral load in organs like the lungs, the infections remained.”
A gross lack of safety behind certain scientific trials
The early human trials have yielded concerning results. One participant reported feeling sicker than he’s ever been after the second dose of the trial vaccine. He was one of three participants who suffered severe “systemic adverse reaction[s].”
Trials in primates have yielded confusing and unclear results.
The Oxford University vaccine trial was a stunning failure, unable to protect even a single rhesus macaque monkey from getting infected with coronavirus. In light of all this, Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier has warned the public that a safe and effective vaccine is most likely not possible before the end of this year.
At the same time, Bill Gates has insisted we need 7 billion doses of this still non-existent vaccine before the COVID-19 crisis can end and we can come out of lockdown. If that isn’t unicorn chasing and fake news, I’m not sure what is.
A conflict of interests: Bill Gates invests heavily in the vaccine industry
He also funds circumcision campaigns in Africa, in spite of the lack of credible science showing circumcising adult men is beneficial. In fact, medical organizations around the world have come out with statements against circumcision (you can find links to over a dozen at Doctors Opposing Circumcision). Botched circumcision is the tragic cause of acute complications, suffering, painful erections, and even penile amputation, and death for thousands of boys and men around the world, including in the United States, each year.
Interestingly, one of the main issues Facebook is concerned about is accurate information about vaccines, vaccine safety, and safe vaccination. Yet, as the AHRP points out in another article, WHO scientists themselves recently admitted there is a gross lack of vaccine safety science behind decision-making.
This is what censorship in America looks like. Technocrat multi-billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates wield influence over what is “correct” information. And what isn’t.
Progressives should be fighting censorship of all forms. Instead, they’re championing the efforts to silence healthy debates. Especially about hot button topics. This stems from a liberal (and uninformed) bias against “anti-vaxxers.”
(As I’ve said before, when you see the words “anti-vaxxers,” know that the journalist or politician has misspelled “vaccine safety advocates.”)
Don’t let the censors think for you
Censorship has no place in a free and open society. The courts have already ruled that elected officials may not block critics on social media (though they continue to do so anyway, in violation of federal law).
Free speech is a core value in the United States. This includes allowing people with unpopular views to speak as well.
“The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted,” these thought leaders argue in an open letter published in Harper’s magazine that has garnered both international praise and condemnation.
Intolerant of opposing points of view
The letter continues:
While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.
More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.
Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We’re already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists. They fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.”
What happened to the First Amendment?
Still, the First Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Status quo health apologists and politicians are pressuring Big Tech to crack down on views they disagree with. They may have forgotten America’s core values. That’s why it’s up to us to rise above the monoliths of Google, Facebook, and other censorship-friendly on-line media.
Politicians and others used to admonish their followers to be honest, open, and available to the press. “Don’t pick a fight with the people who buy ink by the barrel” is how the saying goes.
The good news is that in today’s age we can all buy the “ink” for ourselves. Citizen journalism is thriving. Websites like mine, as well as this one, this one, and this one, despite the Google search engine downgrades, are thriving too. Newsletters allow subscribers direct access to the information. I recommend you switch to DuckDuckGo, connect with me on Sphir where your information is protected, join Parler, which is a new social media site that has an anti-censorship slant built into its mission statement, and also sign up for my emails.
Let’s agree to disagree. And then let’s do our own research. We can respect each other’s differences, stay connected, and stay in the conversation. It’s with these goals in mind that I encourage readers from all sides of these issues to subscribe to my newsletter. Join the respectful, uncensored, fact-based conversation on many important issues that impact us today.
We can beat the bots and stand up against censorship. We just have to fight censorship and champion freedom of speech and freedom of the press together.
Science is Never Settled
It’s Hard to Know What to Believe
Wondering About Vaccines, Not Sure Where to Start?
Published: July 21, 2020
Last update: November 16, 2022
Thank you for being a strong and independent voice. I’ve been questioning the direction of liberal ideology lately. They have long accused the Right of using religion to tell people how to live. It seems there is a Left “religious” ideal that everyone must adhere to these days or be accused of selfishness, lack of patriotism, etc. What a strange universe we are in.
Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D. says
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, Dana. I agree that we are living in a very strange universe right now. The good news is that maybe it can help us all shift away from entrenched ideologies… A girl can hope…
USA warrior says
It is very dangerous times when our major media channels are so obviously parroting each other and afraid to challenge, even in the slightest way, the narrative of upper management who want to preserve that revenue stream from big pharma. Our only hope, it currently appears to me, is to ignore main stream media entirely and search for not only accurate information but thought provoking dialogue among scientists and others who are seeking the truth and trying to understand what is happening in our society and country through sites such as yours. Keep up the battle because we are fighting a war I want to win.
Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D. says
I agree. I had a call the other day from a college professor who said that she used to tell her students that the NYT was a reliable source of information but they should not pay attention to Fox News. Now she’s come to realize that the NYT and the Washington Post and other mainstream media sites are only telling a small part of the story, are often getting things wrong, and really aren’t reliable. She feels she’s done a disservice to the young people she was helping to educate. Seeking out INDEPENDENT sources of information, especially places that do not take any advertising, as well as carefully reading the peer-reviewed science (not just the abstracts) may be the best way to get accurate information.
Nick Goiburn says
And now Fox News is about the ONLY media outlet where I believe that I’m hearing true facts!
Thanks for your sharing! 🙂
Thank you for writing this article! I’m in total agreement.
Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D. says
Thanks for taking the time to read it and leave a comment Susan.
They are censoring on behalf of Big Pharma, and even right-wing organizations like the ADL, which is most certainly not a “religious Left” or any “left.”
This adoption of baseless right-wing talking points is where you lose the plot and undermine the First Amendment and medical choice causes you purport to support.
This torpedoes the effectiveness of your appeal to critical thinking readers.
Intellectual integrity and philosophical consistency are important. Sacrificing those for inaccurate right-wing zingers is counter-productive.
Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D. says
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Mary. I am afraid I don’t entirely understand your criticism of the article. Can you explain where and how I have adopted “baseless right-wing talking points” and how you would correct them?
Thank you for speaking out about this. I now have an intelligent piece of information on this topic to share with others. Exactly what you’ve spelled out has been a growing concern of mine, one that seems exponentially worse even in the last few days with many websites cutting off their comments section on all articles. This new world is so bizarre and surreal, and I’ve taken a drastic detour with my political thinking and affiliations since Covid-19 came on the scene.
I feel the same way, K. As a matter of fact the attacks from my circle of Dems/Liberal friends is so intense that I’ve chosen to keep my opinions about most COVID-related subjects to myself. I do follow lots of critical thinkers and make sure to engage my teenagers in conversations about censorship, corruption, vaccine issues, and all manner of controversial topics. I figure that in my home, I get to decide and will make sure that my teenagers (16 and 18) are aware of the trend towards a totalitarian government.
Laura Tomell says
To anyone who has been paying attention, the left has become increasingly less and less tolerant over a period of many years. That some on the left are just now realizing it simply means that the weapons the left has used for years against those on the right and often, even in the middle, are finally being turned on those who identify as being on the same side. So, welcome to our world. Perhaps something will change now that some on the left recognize this. It has long been my experience that the left has never been all that tolerant of anyone with a differing worldview, and any attempts at constructive debate have been met with rhetoric and name-calling.
Bill Bradford says
This is far mor relevant than it might seem at first: About “BLM”: Here in my liberal/Democrat party majority small hometown, the “BLM” phenomena blew in a few weeks ago. They held a large, obviously well-funded and organized rally, that was mostly NOT local folks. “BLM” signs sprouted up in yards all over town. So I actually went to the “BLM” website. Their founders include self-proclaimed “trained marxists”, and they are avowedly anti-family. They use “ActBlue” for online fundraising, which is the Democrat party money machine. They are NOT a 501(c)3 or any other type of legitimate organization, apparently. They are under the sponsorship wing of “Thousand Currents”, whose leaders include a violent domestic terrorist who was convicted and imprisoned on several Federal weapons and explosives charges, but then released by then-President Clinton after serving less than 20 of an 85year sentence. “BLM” is NOT accurately and fully portrayed in the media. Opposition to “BLM” is very widespread in the black community. Brandon Tatum and Anthony Brian Logan are only 2 of many black youtubers who denounce “BLM”. But the “white progressive liberal Democrats” in my town are mostly cluelss about the TRUTH of “BLM”. Are you aware that Colin Kapernick was adopted and raised in “white privilege”? Are you aware that Bubba Wallace, who the media claims is “Nascar’s only black driver”, actually has a white Jewish father? My point is the FAKE NEWS MEDIA is LYING to the American people on a daily basis. Yes, that includes ALL major media outlets. It’s almost scary to think about how we are being manipulated on an emotional level. As for covid19, the Media wants us to be ignorant, uneducated, compliant and obedient. They want us scared, anxious, confused, and emotional. They do NOT want us to be educated, informed, healthy, and free. They use race, and covid, and facemasks to “divide&conquer” us. It all ties in together. This is NOT “conspiracy theory”, or “anti-vaxxxer” paranoia. It’s about “THEM” taking OUR money, power, health, freedom, and control, for THEIR money, power, and control. To be NAIVE is a luxury I’m afraid we can no longer afford….
Good to see you again, Lynn
….KEEP UP the GOOD WORK.
Sally Ladd says
Excellent article helping to connect the dots and expose the web of corruption. Thank you!
maybe because we liberal religious folk have been through rigorous critical thinking education for a minimum of 3 years post graduate. We can spot faulty and conspiracy thinking and postulations. So disappointed.
The root of all this crap is psychopathy. I’ve been trying to understand the why of psychopathy for a long time, endeavoring to find the root of it, and how to deal with it.
According to geneticist Jennifer Graves, males are an evolutionary accident. The y chromosome is an aberration of Nature and is almost gone 🙂
Not all males are obviously regressed baboons, but the y is still nearly extinct. Graves has a few great articles online about it.
A great website is https://trustyourperceptions.wordpress.com. (I’m on a cell phone so may not be able to do a direct link, my apologies.)
How to deal with psychopaths (man-babies and the female variety as well):
The 4 books by Viktor Schauberger, translated by Callum Coats, get to the root of human idiocy. It’s true science, you’ll find nothing like this anywhere: the titles are Nature As Teacher, The Fertile Earth, The Water Wizard, and The Energy Evolution. Callum Coats’ translations are good, just ignore his attempt to lead readers to his stupid Theosophical Society/Freemasonry BS philosophies which Schauberger has nothing to do with and never would – Coats wrote these books long after Schauberger left this world).
Males are genetic parasites. Their semen is largely an RNA virus and the placenta a tumor/cancer injected into the female by the male. See works by David Haig on the placenta, first discovered over 100 years ago by Scottish zoologist John Beard.
The war isn’t about political parties or races, the war is the male parasite (death/viruses/cancer) against the female host – woman, life, Earth.
Nature holds all the cards. She will prevail. Schauberger is the only man in all known history who knows. I cannot recommend his writings enough for anyone with a shred of intelligence, empathy and intuition.
Thank you for letting me comment.
To “Debbie’s” comment….This is truly the most disturbing line of thinking I’ve ever encountered. Terrible. And just depressing & sad 🙁
You are sure sarcasm is off?
Censoring comments on a censorship article. LOL
Oh, you could take the censored comment out of queue and make some excuse, or claim it’s inappropriate somehow, or any of a number of textbook tactics to try to hide the fact that You are the censor. I’m having such a laugh!
Doreen S McCafferty says
Thanks for sharing. We need to wake up soon and see the truth or we will find ourselves living without any freedoms or civil rights.
Ian Allan says
I get the impression that many people are worried about the manipulability of the media. So am I.
In such discussions it is often necessary to distinguish the media one from another in order to say things like “most media can’t be trusted on the subject, but medium X mostly can”.
This cannot be intelligibly said in a minimum of time, as is the case above, without first internalising, and then taking advantage of, the following agreed facts:
1. The form ‹media› is plural.
2. The form ‹medium› is its singular.
The last thing a reformist should be doing is sabotaging his own chief weapon, language.
Cindy Perlin says
I was recently forwarded this article by a friend. I agree with everything you said except that it is “the left” that is doing the censorship. Google, Facebook, Pinterest and Bill Gates, etc are not “the left”. They are greedy, corrupt entities that have nothing to do with the ideals of the left, which include a respect for freedom of speech, human rights and bodily autonomy. I run a website, the Alternative Pain Treatment Directory at http://www.paintreatmentdirectory.com that is focused on safe, effective, nonpharmacologic options for pain relief and I am also very concerned about this kind of censorship.
Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D. says
Thanks for weighing in. I appreciate this correction. It is true that these moguls are entities that are fueled by greed all the while pretending to be better or smarter or more ethical than the rest of us. Unfortunately in our state it is the left-leaning Democrats who are trying to shut down the conversation, take away medical freedom, and bully everyone into accepting the status quo. I’ve seen that throughout the United States of late. It’s disturbing. That said, I’m glad you have not seen the censorship coming from the left.
Margaret Bartley says
The reason I call Google, Facebook, Pinter, Gates, etc “the left” is that they are acting like school yard bullies not allowing any dissent from their insistance around critical race theory that being white is something to appologize for, they hire degenerate sexperformance men dressed as clown women reading “story time” to toddlers, and insist that men be able to go into teen-age girl locker rooms, they want to de-industrialize the US to the point where we will become a nation of illiterate tenants, open the borders to anyone who wants to come in, offering free housing, food, money, medical treatments etc, release hardened violent criminatl out of jail early while defunding the police and removing my ability to defend myself from them, and any attempt to challenge these policies is called “hate speech” and any attempt to provide informatin is called “fake News”.
These are leftist positions, and these are the positions of Big Tech, as well as the banks and globalist corporations who are funding these leftists groups.
This comment was disgusting to read. Just pure intolerance and narrow mindedness and ignorance. Yuck.
Jeremy Ashton says
As student of history, I know that groups who at one stage are for change, once they become established or accepted, do eventually resist change. Human nature does not like corrections or challenges. So the left, once in the margins and now much more mainstream, jumps on board the world health bandwagon because it looks like social justice- but when choices are taken away, it’s not.
It’s funny that you speak out so much about censorship, although you totally blocked me from your Facebook page for expressing different viewpoints. Isn’t that censorship?
I thought you would be up for a healthy debate, and I don’t recall ever being rude or offensive. If you found anything I said offensive you could have deleted a comment and told me to cool it. But it seems that what you didn’t like was that I argued with you about how serious covid-19 is. I guess censorship can be a two-way street sometimes.
Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D. says
Twyla, which FB page are you referring to? I have not blocked you. I do block trolls who insult my followers and use profanity. I always welcome other points of view. I usually err on the side of being tolerant of people who are really only there to derail the conversation but when those people become disruptive and show a disinterest in dialogue I will ban them from my personal page. This is not about disagreeing. It’s about ad hominem attacks. If you have been blocked by one of the 9 volunteers that run the Your Baby, Your Way page it would only have been for using profanity or insulting other followers, not for sharing a different point of view. It is the mainstream media agenda to keep Americans living in fear of this virus. I certainly agree that it is not something to take lightly and that for some people it can be truly devastating. I’m reassured by the data showing that over 99 percent of the people who get it do fully recover. But I also recognize that the reassuring data doesn’t negate the terrible tragedy of deaths from the virus, or of the suffering of “long haulers.”
Margaret Bartley says
You wrote “Facebook has decided, apparently, that only one source of medical information is “reliable” and “accurate”: government-sanctioned medical organizations.”
One thing you left out is that Facebook is using FactCheck to decide what is allowed to be published. Yet FactCheck is funded by the vaccine lobby! And the CEO of FactCheck was the Director of the CDC!
This is a blatant confict of interest that shows how corrupt Big Tech is.
Thank you for this article Jennifer. Here is my comment which accompanied the link to your article to my friends in the academe:
I was gaged too… observations of this journalist match mine in What’s the truth about modern medicine, and my own investigative reporting of both Swine Flu in 2009 and Bat Flu aka Covid-19 in 2020. Unlike this journalist who appears to exclusively hold the perspective of iatrogenic side-effects (unintended side effects), I have studied with sufficient due diligence to also “hold deliberate intention to harm” and not just skepticism for unintended consequences, as being part of the drive to censorship. My bold letters to several prominent virologists at CDC and worldwide through Promed asking them uncomfortable questions is evidence in point why my entire Project Humanbeingsfirst was suddenly de platformed by “liberal” Google:
This article by the journalist is empirical… but misses the overarching point that the agenda is to move towards a very controlled society with harsh limits put on human independence… and that necessitates strictly limiting the range of debate to within the officially sanctioned narrative for thought control which is the sine qua non for behavior control… it is the global drive towards standardizing and homogenizing human beings (hear Aldous Huxley describe the impetus in his talk at U C Berkeley as the Ford Research Professor, calling technological behavioral controls in development “the ultimate in malevolent revolution”:
I spent two decades writing on this subject and only now when I touched upon Covid as the pretext for vaccinating the planet (see Bill Gates and WEF Event 201 simulation exercise held months prior to the pandemic breaking in 2019; and Pandemic foresight by CDC in Nov 2019:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200323192450/http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2020/03/coronavirus-foresight-by-cdc-in-nov-2019.html ), the state’s public-private apparatuses for controlling public opinion to “united we stand” with the official narratives, shut me down.
I am likely one of the few leftists alarmed at the trend towards authoritarianism going on. Do I trust WHO and the CDC? yes, but at the same time, I think it is better to debunk what seems wrong to you, not silence it. I am for fact checkers, but I am against what I fear is next: deletion of posts that do not agree with the CDC and WHO so that nobody sees them and of another issue I see, selective disabling of sharing covid related posts. with a fact checker on who opposing views, one can get both sides of the story. On the other hand full blown internet censorship, hell no. I think the right to free speech should be protected even if misinformation gets through because the people themselves can respond and fact check what gets through and the voice still needs to be heard.
George Conrad says
I’m concerned with China (CCP) gaining control of many UN agencies (especially WHO).
I wish you had included this in your article along with China’s possible motives.