Archive
The hidden harms in the UK’s Online Safety Bill.
By Jonathan Sumption 20th August 2022. Find Article Here:-
Weighing in at 218 pages, with 197 sections and 15 schedules, the Online Safety Bill is a clunking attempt to regulate content on the internet. Its internal contradictions and exceptions, its complex paper chase of definitions, its weasel language suggesting more than it says, all positively invite misunderstanding. Parts of it are so obscure that its promoters and critics cannot even agree on what it does.
Nadine Dorries, the Culture Secretary, says that it is all about protecting children and vulnerable adults. She claims it does nothing to limit free speech. Technically, she is right: her bill does not directly censor the internet. It instead seeks to impose on media companies an opaque and intrusive culture of self-censorship – which will have the same effect.
As things stand, the law distinguishes between online publishers (like The Spectator) that generate content and can be held responsible for it; and online intermediaries (Google, Facebook, etc) that merely provide online facilities and have no significant editorial function. Mere intermediaries have no obligation to monitor content and are only required to take down illegal material of which they are aware.
The Online Safety Bill will change all this. The basic idea is that editorial responsibility for material generated by internet users will be imposed on all online platforms: social media and search engines. They will have a duty to ‘mitigate and manage the risks of harm to individuals’ arising from internet use.
A small proportion of the material available on the internet is truly nasty stuff. There is a strong case for carefully targeted rules requiring the moderation or removal of the worst examples. The difficulty is to devise a way of doing this without accidentally suppressing swaths of other material. So the material targeted must be precisely defined and identifiable. This is where the Online Safety Bill falls down.
Some of the material targeted by the bill is obviously unacceptable. Illegal content, such as material promoting terrorism or the sexual exploitation of children, must be moderated or taken down. Such content is already banned under existing legislation. It is defined by law and can be identified with a fair degree of accuracy. Some material, notably pornographic images, must be restricted to adults: in practice, this requires online age verification. So far, so good.
The real vice of the bill is that its provisions are not limited to material capable of being defined and identified. It creates a new category of speech which is legal but ‘harmful’. The range of material covered is almost infinite, the only limitation being that it must be liable to cause ‘harm’ to some people. Unfortunately, that is not much of a limitation. Harm is defined in the bill in circular language of stratospheric vagueness. It means any ‘physical or psychological harm’. As if that were not general enough, ‘harm’ also extends to anything that may increase the likelihood of someone acting in a way that is harmful to themselves, either because they have encountered it on the internet or because someone has told them about it.
This test is almost entirely subjective. Many things which are harmless to the overwhelming majority of users may be harmful to sufficiently sensitive, fearful or vulnerable minorities, or may be presented as such by manipulative pressure groups. At a time when even universities are warning adult students against exposure to material such as Chaucer with his rumbustious references to sex, or historical or literary material dealing with slavery or other forms of cruelty, the harmful propensity of any material whatever is a matter of opinion. It will vary from one internet user to the next.The whole concept of restricting material which is entirely legal is a patronising abuse of legislative power
If the bill is passed in its current form, internet giants will have to identify categories of material which are potentially harmful to adults and provide them with options to cut it out or alert them to its potentially harmful nature. This is easier said than done. The internet is vast. At the last count, 300,000 status updates are uploaded to Facebook every minute, with 500,000 comments left that same minute. YouTube adds 500 hours of videos every minute. Faced with the need to find unidentifiable categories of material liable to inflict unidentifiable categories of harm on unidentifiable categories of people, and threatened with criminal sanctions and enormous regulatory fines (up to 10 per cent of global revenue). What is a media company to do?
The only way to cope will be to take the course involving the least risk: if in doubt, cut it out. This will involve a huge measure of regulatory overkill. A new era of intensive internet self-censorship will have dawned.
The problem is aggravated by the inevitable use of what the bill calls ‘content moderation technology’, i.e. algorithms. They are necessarily indiscriminate because they operate by reference to trigger text or images. They are insensitive to context. They do not cater for nuance or irony. They cannot distinguish between mischief-making and serious debate. They will be programmed to err on the side of caution. The pious injunctions in the bill to protect ‘content of democratic importance’ and ‘journalistic content’ and to ‘have regard to’ the implications for privacy and freedom of expression are unlikely to make much difference.
As applied to adults, the whole concept of restricting material which is entirely legal is a patronising abuse of legislative power. If the law allows me to receive, retain or communicate some item of information in writing or by word of mouth, how can it rationally prevent me from doing the same thing through the internet? Why should adult internet users be infantilised by applying to them tests directed to the protection of the most sensitive minorities? There are surely better ways of looking after the few who cannot look after themselves.
It is bad enough to be patronised by law, but worse to be patronised by official discretion. The bill will empower Ofcom, the regulator, to publish codes of practice with ‘guidance’ and ‘recommendations’, which will become the benchmark for regulatory action against internet intermediaries. All this will happen under the beady eyes of ministers. Ultimate power lies with the secretary of state, who can direct them to change their guidance and specify categories of material which she regards as harmful.
What might these categories be? The government’s White Paper and public statements by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport suggest that they will include ‘misinformation and disinformation’. There have been suggestions that this might include climate change denial and Covid disinformation. Ministers will say, citing section 190(4), that their policies are aimed at the public good, so that material which undermines them causes harm. It is no good saying that Ms Dorries is a nice lady who would never do anything so horrid. Her successors may not be. In a society which has always valued freedom of expression and dissent, these are powers which no public officer ought to have.
We had a glimpse of this brave new world during the pandemic. Facebook, YouTube and the like were keen to curry favour with the government and stave off statutory regulation by taking a ‘responsible’ view of controversial questions. YouTube’s self-censorship policy was designed to exclude ‘medical misinformation’, which it defined as any content which ‘contradicts guidance from the World Health Organisation or local health authorities’. Criticism of government policy by David Davis MP and Talk Radio were temporarily taken down. The Royal Society, Britain’s premier scientific society, proposed ‘legislation and punishment of those who produced and disseminated false information’ about vaccines. This kind of thing is based on the notion that intellectual enquiry and the dissemination of ideas should be subordinated to authority. What the Royal Society meant by ‘false information’ was information inconsistent with the scientific consensus as defined by some recognised scientific authority, such as themselves.
The Online Safety Bill has been put on hold until the new prime minister takes office. So it is worth reminding the successful candidate why Britain has traditionally rejected attempts by the state to control the flow of information. In part, it is an instinctive attachment to personal freedom. And in part it is a recognition of the politically dangerous and culturally destructive results.
All statements of fact or opinion are provisional. They reflect the current state of knowledge and experience. But knowledge and experience are not closed or immutable categories. They are inherently liable to change. Once upon a time, the scientific consensus was that the sun moved around the Earth and that blood did not circulate around the body. These propositions were refuted only because orthodoxy was challenged by people once thought to be dangerous heretics. Knowledge advances by confronting contrary arguments, not by hiding them away. Any system for regulating the expression of opinion or the transmission of information will end up by privileging the anodyne, the uncontroversial, the conventional and the officially approved.
We have to accept the implications of human curiosity. Some of what people say will be wrong. Some of it may even be harmful. But we cannot discover truth without accommodating error. It is the price that we pay for allowing knowledge and understanding to develop and human civilisation to progress.
WRITTEN BYJonathan Sumption
Jonathan Sumption is an author, medieval historian and former Supreme Court judge
Ukraine in the time of Covid.
By Catte Black 17th July 2022. Find Article Here:-
Can we trust “horizontal conflict” in the post-pandemic age?
The biggest mistake the elites made with the scamdemic was to let us see what good buddies they really are, because this instantly and inadvertently presented the 99.9% with a shocking and previously quite carefully hidden reality about the true nature of power and geopolitics.
Horizontal conflict narratives have for centuries been a major part of how elites control their populations. Catholic v Protestant, Moslem v Christian, black v white, male v female, gay v straight etc etc. It’s a tried and trusted method of channeling frustrations, shaping minds and keeping people’s minds off the real authors of their misfortunes.
Behind the facade of conflict the elites have always shared a common bond of mutual interest. Kings (mostly) knew to honor the divinity of other kings even in defeat. Even when they killed each other they did it reluctantly and in the guise of “natural causes”. They knew their own populations were the real common enemies against which they knew to make common cause.
War was just another method of achieving this as well as gratifying some degree of personal pride.
Nothing much has changed in the modern era. And a great deal of the legacy media’s energy has long been devoted to helping to conceal the reality of the “big (supranational) club” that we ain’t in.
Until, that is, the recent huge error of judgement by the world’s leaders when they chose to abandon the carefully maintained “horizontal divisions” narrative in favor of some New Age, New Normal narrative of “international solidarity and co-operation to beat the virus”.
They were clearly going for some “Independence Day” type hug-fest psychic effect. Humanity falling into each other’s arms and deciding to work together in WHO-created mutual New Normal benevolence to defeat an invisible enemy that will, of course, never be defeated.
It did not go over as planned.
They just tried to sell it too hard too fast. And they blew it.
Gordon Brown reacting to a few hundred “COVID” deaths by saying we needed a world government (not yet, Gordon, too soon!).
Goldfinger Schwab and his stupid book of “happy peasant” delusional raving.
Insane overkill on the “nothing will ever be the same” meme based on a few flu cases.
Those pix of people falling over backwards because “covid” in China.
All our lovely leaders being seen at their international junkets ignoring their own mask rules (except for the flunkies), while forcing their populations into isolation and psychological torture.
All pushing their own magically produced untested toxic concoctions, all unctuously mouthing the same lies in a hundred different languages.
They goofed and made it just too obvious how closely in sync they are.
Sure they did also seed a few “alternative” deadly virus narratives that halfheartedly muddied the waters by blaming China, or maybe the US, but it wasn’t enough to counter the truly stunning images of international elite solidarity. Most particularly east-west solidarity.
Why were the Chinese elites spearheading this lie? Why were the Russian elites promoting it?
This was a big wake up moment for many many people all over the world.
Not for the majority, of course. For the majority there was nothing but zombified lockstep, absolute obedience, bizarre levels of willing self-destruction.
But for a large and growing minority the very opposite began to happen.
This growing minority began realizing, not only that the pandemic was a massive lie, but also began to discern that most carefully hidden and most explosive truth — that the elites of the world – all the world – owe allegiance to each other above and beyond any trapping of national identity.
And that convincing us this is not true had heretofore been a huge part of retaining their power.
Faced with this awakening some people began to see they had no choice but to take control of their own destiny rather than wait for their governments to save them.
Small grass roots and spontaneous rebellions began sprouting. First it was just a very few but then more and more people began challenging the pandemic lie. There were mass marches in cities across the globe and small local “stand in the park” protests. People were speaking out, reaching out. The truckers began their convoy.
Suddenly from a place of darkness there was real hope. Not invested in some phony hero politician or some noisy celebrity populist, but in ourselves. Groups of ordinary people began realizing they could take back their lives.
And simultaneously the pandemic narrative began to falter.
Vaccine uptake was not meeting expectations. Even people who had one jab were getting reluctant to have another. Some of those who had once been compliant began to feel they’d had enough.
By autumn 2021 the New Normal – and, more importantly, the system promoting it – were actually in some trouble. The worst trouble they had known for a while.
Faced with overwhelming resistance the “Independence Day hug-fest”, and indeed the whole pandemic narrative, began to go into panic-reverse. Mask mandates began to be canceled. Quarantines abandoned. QR codes likewise.
And the elites began to recall the benefits of those good old tried and true horizontal conflict narratives.
The US began accusing Russia, China began accusing the US. Israel began bombing everyone again.
But not because they wanted to distract you from that awkward realization about how chummy they really are behind the scenes!
No. Never. Not at all.
It was because Russia suddenly got extra scary. And those Nazis in Ukraine suddenly became seriously worrying. And Israel got all worried about terrorists and Iran again. And Taiwan….yada yada.
And, obviously, those elites who can all agree to tell the same lies in the same words at the same time and produce the same “response” and promote the same “solutions” in lockstep over covid just can’t agree at all over anything else.
Because deep seated ideological and strategical differences make it impossible.
Oops.
So, the US had no option but to start provocations in the China Sea and flood Ukraine with weapons and advisors, and Russia had no option but to invade Ukraine.
It was all inevitable. Like death and taxes. Just something that wise people know had to happen.
And the fact it rescued the power structure from a dicey little moment is absolutely and totally a coincidence.
Yes, it did reinstate all the old conflict narratives and allow the media to make a lot of noise and distract people while the embarrassing “Independence Day co-operation” narrative snuck out the room.
And yes, it did rescue the New Normal and provide a lovely new reason for potential rationing, belt-tightening, forever shortages, travel restrictions and all the other things Goldfinger Schwab and his billionaire supranational globalist chums really like.
But coincidences are like that.
Coincidental. Convenient. And no need to look any further.
I mean – would your favourite world leader really start or provoke a war just for convenience or profit? Would they really sacrifice lives just to benefit themselves?
Ok, maybe the Americans would, because Imperialism.
But Russia? China? They’re more moral, right. Higher ethical plain.
I mean sure, they are all equally happy to let their citizens get injected with untested toxic sludge, and sure they just worked with the West to joint-perpetrate an unprecedented global scam that may have killed or maimed millions.
And sure there is quite a lot to be gained from “winning” in Ukraine, aside from defeating Nazis. Fat rebuilding contracts. Access to a lot of resources.
And of course the same convenient distraction equally serves West and East.
But no, come on. Sure they were all in lockstep in 2020. And, ok they still are in lockstep in 2022 – but only over the pandemic lie!
They are absolutely opposed and forced into conflict about everything else, and we need to take a side, support the good guys who are rooting for a better world.
The only alternative is to recognize that horizontal divisions benefit them not us. That neither side is good, or rooting for anything but their own advantage, and that fundamentally, as ever, the global 0.1% take care of their own interests while striving hard to deter and divert us from doing the same.
I suggest we stop being diverted and deterred, remember the lesson of 2020 and continue on the path of personal and collective awakening they are doing their best to lure us from.
THE “COST OF LIVING CRISIS” = THE GREAT RESET.
By Dave Cullen from Computing Forever. Posted 13th August 2022. Find 17min Video Here:-
Dave mentions some very valid points. I agree with him about the fact we are already in the ‘Great Reset’. The ‘smoke and mirrors’ machines are working overtime to distract the masses.
Drought, drought, wildfires…. don’t turn on that fan Eugene.!
Don’t eat meat, so don’t worry about that disposable BBQ
Don’t shower…use a wet flannel and only flush that toilet once a week…
I’m going to set up a postcode lottery for which UK street gets the first standpipe. 😂 The winner gets a tanker full of water and a large bin to drown the CEO of their failing water company…
The tyranny of Justin Trudeau has finally been exposed – and by two Brits, no less.
By RUPA SUBRAMANYA 12th August 2022. Find Article Here:-
A lawsuit has shown Canada’s travel vaccine mandate had little to do with science and everything to do with politics.
On August 13, 2021, two days before Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau called a federal election, his government made a major announcement that “as early as at the end of September” federal government employees would be subject to a vaccine mandate. Further: “no later than the end of October” a vaccine mandate for travellers would also be implemented.
The prime minister’s tough position in the fall of 2021 was a far cry from what he said in March 2021, when Trudeau asserted that every Canadian who wanted to be vaccinated would have a dose available by the fall, implying that it would be voluntary – at a time when Canada was struggling to procure enough vaccine doses and was lagging far behind the UK, US, and other major Western countries in its vaccination campaign.
The vaccine mandate proposal was to become a cornerstone of Trudeau’s re-election bid. Speaking in a suburb of Toronto, home to Canada’s largest, and one of the world’s busiest airports, the prime minister reiterated his government’s intention – presumably if re-elected – to impose vaccine mandates on all sectors under the federal government’s control, which boils down to federal employees and travel.
Trudeau always maintained his government’s Covid policies were based on the science and the latest evidence. Yet, his shifting rhetoric, before and after his election call, tells a different tale. Thanks to a civil lawsuit against the travel mandate by two British immigrants, we’ve now seen inside the guts of part of Trudeau’s Covid machinery, and it’s become abundantly clear that it has little if anything to do with science and everything to do with politics.
From recently released court documents, which I broke in a story for Bari Weiss’s Common Sense, show us senior government bureaucrats scrambling to find a scientific rationale for the travel mandate mere days before it was due to come into force. We’ve had the opportunity to see into the inner workings of Trudeau’s vaccine machinery thanks to two British immigrants, Shaun Rickard and Karl Harrison, who filed a civil suit against the Trudeau government in the Federal Court. Thanks to their efforts, and that of their attorney, Sam Presvelos, the affidavits, testimonies, and cross-examination of key government witnesses are now in the public domain.
These documents clearly show us that the bureaucrat charged with holding the pen, under repeated cross-examination, refused to go into details on who ordered the mandate, citing, “Cabinet confidentiality”. Exactly why the rationale for a public health mandate should be so confidential raises the disturbing possibility that there really was no rationale at all. It’s evident that a political decision was taken by Trudeau and his cabinet to go ahead with the mandates, and the hapless bureaucrats were charged with coming up with some rationale, any credible rationale after the fact.
As it happens, the bureaucrat in charge of crafting one of the world’s “strongest vaccination mandates in the world”, according to the bureaucrat herself and Trudeau, has an undergraduate degree in English literature and self-evidently didn’t have the scientific knowledge to take a call. Neither were there any doctors, epidemiologists and scientists on her team, a secretive panel whose membership is nowhere published, and which rates a passing mention on the government’s website.
The federal government’s vaccine mandates were only the icing on the cake on top of provincial vaccine mandates, masking and distancing requirements, and some of the harshest lockdowns in the Western world. Under Canada’s federal system, these fall under provincial jurisdiction, although they certainly had the moral support of Trudeau’s federal government. Canadians, especially the unvaccinated, were virtually prisoners in their own homes and in their own country. Except, of course, unvaccinated Ukrainians, who were allowed to enter Canada after the war started, even when unvaccinated Canadians were barred from travel. Perhaps, if they tried hard enough, someone could come up with a “scientific” rationale for this as well. They might also need to work a bit to find a scientific basis for why, if the vaccine mandate was necessary, it wasn’t imposed before the election, but afterwards.
The five million or so unvaccinated Canadians were, ultimately, pawns in a political chess game. Trudeau cleverly latched onto vaccination, and government mandates flowing from them, as a potent wedge issue in the lead up to the fall 2021 snap election he called. He was hoping to win his Liberal government a majority, which was languishing in a minority position in the House of Commons, having squandered a previous majority thanks to public disgust at corruption and cronyism scams in his government.
As it happened, Trudeau’s gambit didn’t pay off, and his Liberals returned, again, with a minority — although, given the quirks of Canada’s Westminster system, the Conservatives, two elections in a row, won the popular vote, but lost the election. Trudeau now clings on to power in an alliance with the Socialist New Democratic Party and likely won’t face the voters again until 2025.
The tale of Trudeau’s vaccine mandates has ramifications far outside Canada. The world over, governments have invoked draconian powers, heretofore only used in wartime, to control and regulate their people and curtain fundamental individual liberties, such as the right to gather or the right to mobility. Everywhere, people are told by their governments, much as Trudeau told Canadians, we’re so sorry, we hate to restrict your freedoms, but we’re just following the science and the evidence. We know, in the case of Canada’s travel mandate, that this is simply false. In the Canadian case, Trudeau’s ministers have made it clear that the suspended mandates could come back, as, indeed, could Covid-based restrictions the world over.
Thanks to two British immigrants, we now know how the Covid policy sausage is made in Canada, and it isn’t pretty.
Rupa Subramanya is a columnist with the National Post in Canada
THE FINANCIAL AGENDA BEHIND THE CURTAIN DAVE CULLEN TALKS WITH MELISSA CIUMMEI
Posted by Computing Forever 12th July 2022. Find 57min Video Here:-
Dave and Melissa discuss the effects of the last two years upon the population, Lockdown, Vaccines, Digital ID’s and the coming Financial Collapse.
Scottish Parliament votes to make Covid “emergency powers” permanent.
By Kit Knightly 30th June 2022. Find Article Here:-
Yesterday, Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) voted to make some the emergency measures – initially instated to “combat the pandemic” – permanent features of Scottish law.
Originally passed in March 2020, the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act established all sorts of powers never before claimed by the devolved parliament.
Now it is rebranded as the “Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill”, and codifies a number of those “emergency” powers into permanent law.
These powers include permanently conducting criminal trials over video-link, registering deaths remotely, and other practices wide open to corruption.
Others grant parliament (or health bodies) the power to “restrict or prohibit access in respect of the whole or a specified part of an
educational establishment or of relevant premises”, as well as “make different provision for different purposes (for example, for different descriptions of people attending an educational establishment)”
For those who haven’t learned “bureaucrat” on Duolingo, that means ordering schools to close and/or exclude or segregate students of “different descriptions”. Unvaccinated ones, for example.
The justification for extending the powers is as weaselly as you’d expect, Deputy First Minister John Swinney told the BBC:
…the passing of this bill maintains those [powers] that will ensure we are better prepared for future public health threats, pragmatic reforms that have enabled more efficient or convenient public services, and some temporary changes to mitigate the impact Covid has had on our justice system.
So, just like that, emergency powers allegedly put in place to fight this “pandemic” are suddenly reasonably public health practices preparing us for the next “pandemic”.
The bill passed into law by 66 votes to 52 at its first reading.
After the UK passed its nationwide Coronavirus Act in March 2020, one defence the emergency powers granted to parliament were “only temporary”.
This was always totally untrue. Well over a quarter of the clauses in the Coronavirus Act specifically had no expiration date, and will last forever. On top of that, many of the “temporary” clauses were extended too.
Now the Scottish MPs have joined with their bosses in Westminster. And the UK is far from alone.
In France, President Emmanuel Macron has already extended the “state of emergency” on covid once, and is expected do so again before it expires at the end of next month.
South Africa has already extended its “state of disaster” twice.
Biden extended the USA’s “state of emergency” on Covid in February, in the long tradition of American “emergencies” that literally never end.
New Zealand’s COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 has a clause in it requiring extension by parliamentary vote every 90 days…and it passes every time.
Welcome to “emergency powers”. This is what happens. Every time.
Jacinda, cheerleader for a world of liars.
By Guy Hatchard June 30th, 2022. Find Article Here:-
The writer is in New Zealand
JACINDA Ardern, who has escaped the continuing restrictions in New Zealand to visit Europe and speak at Nato, has met her counterparts in France and Spain to suggest a global alliance to combat disinformation. Ardern spoke to them about the ‘riot’ in the New Zealand capital grounds, and played to her gullible audience by suggesting the threat to social cohesion and public health in New Zealand society was originating in Russia and might result in war.
Ardern has had talks with President Macron at which the two reportedly discussed disinformation. I am not sure that the events in Wellington would have qualified as a riot in France. There were no Molotov cocktails of the kind you see in the frequent French protests; mostly people were playing music, engaging in conversations and enjoying camping out whilst standing up for their rights – something legally allowed in New Zealand.
How is it possible that a lame-duck prime minister can drift around the military circles of Europe making outrageous claims about New Zealand society without being challenged by our press? Easily. Stuff newspaper seemed to enjoy reporting Ardern’s sensational characterisations of NZ protests.
It seems to me that many of the world’s current leaders are busy winding each other up with more and more outrageous exaggerations which serve only to raise the fear factor among themselves. They are victims of disinformation, but it appears to be of their own making – acting like villagers rushing about in a panic when someone shouts out ‘snake’ when they have seen only a rope.
In such a panicked atmosphere, it is hard to strike up a rational conversation with our politicians. All parties have firmly closed the door to two-way communication with their constituents on pandemic policy. Public information has become limited to a succession of carefully-crafted, government-approved soundbites, fading rapidly together into an aggregation of false interpretations and assumptions which inevitably take root in our social psyche.
We are daily schooled to be afraid. We are in the middle of a ‘pandemic’ which is clearly now milder than flu, promoting a ‘vaccine’ which doesn’t work and causes severe adverse effects. We are trained religiously to wear masks which studies show are ineffective and whose constant use is proved to cause headaches and respiratory defects. Our every move is being tracked by apps collecting our personal data which can be and is being misused.
For six months I have been writing at the HatchardReport.com long-format refutations of disinformation being promoted by our government. I have consistently referenced my work to published scientific work in learned journals. Unfortunately solid information in the modern age has become fleeting and quickly forgotten.
No sooner have you shot down one canard such as the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines (they are not effective and don’t deserve the name vaccine) through reference to many studies, than a government advertising campaign starts up, as it did this week, telling the public in 30 seconds that mRNA vaccination provides greater protection than anything (yes anything) natural immunity can provide. Clearly the government’s advertising copywriters did not read this BMJ article and couldn’t care less about the truth.
It is a rather one-sided battle if the government has paid the media to report a false story and exclude your referenced discussion. It becomes an organised campaign to deceive the public when the referenced work of scientists is labelled by our prime minister disinformation likely to start a war. The absurdity should make us laugh, but the depth of modern psychological propaganda is being exploited to the full. It is no laughing matter.
The Hatchard Report is available as a record and referenced source of science reporting intended to alert the public to the risks of novel biotechnology. Our public health authorities have never informed us honestly about the long-term risks. Despite the effective collapse of early evidence compiled and widely publicised by Pfizer PR campaigns, our government has doubled down on mRNA vaccine use. Apparently our health czars have decided to follow the government and ignore the accumulating evidence of harm. It can’t be ignored any longer. They have to stand up to the disinformation storm.
Last week I reported on a paper co-authored by Professor Sander Greenland, one of the most experienced statisticians/epidemiologists in the world. He found a 50 per cent increase in serious adverse events in the vaccinated compared with the unvaccinated group in the Pfizer trial. The authors point out that this finding is consistent with the findings of pharmacovigilance databases in Europe and the US. They also show that the risk of these adverse outcomes exceeds any possible benefit from reduced Covid-19 hospitalisation.
Another article along the same lines is a case-control study from France, which found an eightfold increase in myocarditis after the second Pfizer injection, compared with millions of controls from the French population.
This is consistent with findings in other areas of the world. For example, a recent study of myocarditis and pericarditis from Hong Kong found a rate of myopericarditis of 37 per 100,000. This is equivalent to one case per 2,700 male adolescents injected with dose two of Pfizer mRNA vaccine.
There are always going to be many unknowns associated with evolving scientific assessment, but evidence of substantial harm from the Pfizer injection is accruing from several independent sources. The long-term risks should not and cannot be hidden from the public any longer. Nor should the government be allowed to continue making false assertions of safety and efficacy contrary to scientific fact. The misleading saturation-advertising and the public posturing of Jacinda Ardern has become a scandal and an embarrassment to our nation.
Guy Hatchard PhD is a former senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food testing and certification company. He lives in New Zealand.
John O’Looney talks with Clive de Carle on Covid, being hospitalised and vaccine deaths and injuries.
Posted June 23rd 2022. Find 58min Video Here:-
In this talk between John O’Looney and Clive de Carle, one thing John says made my ears prick up. It was, ‘I almost sent away my Embalming Pump to be serviced because it wasn’t pumping the fluid/formaldehyde through the veins as they appeared blocked. A process that normally needs two incisions in a body’s arteries/veins at times needed six incisions.’
He says these blockages are occurring more and more and are evident in the corpses of many people.
Truly, scaringly shocking.
Monkeypox upgraded to same severity level as leprosy and plague.
By Sarah Newey. 7th June 2022. Find Article Here:-
UK Doctors given legal requirement to inform authorities of suspected cases in possible sign that disease is spreading beyond at-risk groups.
Since early May, more than 1,100 confirmed and suspected infections have been detected in 40 countries – including 302 in the UK CREDIT: Cynthia S. Goldsmith, Russell Regner/CDC via AP
Monkeypox has been upgraded to the same category as diseases including plague and leprosy, with doctors required to notify health authorities of every case.
As of Wednesday, it will be a legal requirement for doctors to inform their local council or health protection team if they suspect a patient has the virus, while labs must tell the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) if a sample tests positive.
The move elevates monkeypox to the same legal status as 33 other diseases – including leprosy, malaria, rabies, plague and yellow fever – which are designated as “notifiable” under the UK’s health protection regulations.
Covid-19 was first made a notifiable disease on 5 March 2020, before the UK went into lockdown. But Dr Meaghan Kall, an epidemiologist at the UKHSA, said the latest move has “no direct link to [disease control] measures” and should not be interpreted as a precursor to coronavirus-like restrictions.
“It just means that clinicians and laboratories have a statutory requirement to report cases,” she told The Telegraph. “We need to monitor cases for surveillance and [epidemiological] purposes.”
The change also means all overseas visitors who are diagnosed or treated for monkeypox will be exempt from charges.
“This is important as a cost to access testing and treatment from NHS can be a huge barrier and stop people from coming forward – increasing risk of transmission,” Dr Kall added.
It comes amid mounting concerns about the global spread of monkeypox outside west and central Africa, where the disease is endemic. Since early May, more than 1,100 confirmed and suspected infections have been detected in 40 countries – including 302 in the UK.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) says that the “sudden and unexpected” explosion of cases suggests the virus has been spreading silently for months, possibly even years. The agency’s latest update also warned that some countries were reporting cases unlinked to confirmed patients, “suggesting that chains of transmission are being missed”.
Prof David Heymann, a former WHO director and professor of infectious disease epidemiology, said the UK’s decision to make monkeypox a notifiable disease may reflect a concern that transmission is taking place outside the most at-risk groups.
So far, the bulk of cases have been among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men. Although monkeypox is not normally a sexually-transmitted infection, it is transmitted through close contact, and the latest outbreak appears to be driven by sexual networks.
“Making it a notifiable disease means that they want to be sure to have reporting from all sectors and all parts of the NHS,” he told the Telegraph. “It suggests that they want to focus surveillance on the entire population – not only on the risk groups identified so far.”
The Telegraph understands that health authorities do not expect cases to significantly increase as a result of the legal change, although it is difficult to predict. The UKHSA has asked all registered medical practitioners to tell them about cases since the early days of the outbreak, but the latest move formalises that process.
“Rapid diagnosis and reporting is the key to interrupting transmission and containing any further spread of monkeypox,” said Wendi Shepherd, monkeypox incident director at the UKHSA. “This new legislation will support us and our health partners to swiftly identify, treat and control the disease.”
So far, the Government has not scaled up contact tracing units, instead relying on existing local health protection teams to track down potential contacts.
“In any outbreak, the actual number of infections will be higher than the ones diagnosed,” said Prof Francois Balloux, director of the University College London Genetics Institute.
“This is particularly the case for a disease which can often be mild with fairly unspecific symptoms such as monkeypox. It is difficult to work out at the moment whether cases are going up, down or plateauing worldwide … but this is not a ‘Covid-level’ health scare.”
The UKHSA added on Tuesday that cases in the UK will be announced on a Monday, Wednesday and Friday going forward.
SMART SURVEILLANCE AND PLASTIC FISH.
Posted By Max Igan from TheCrowhouse 7th June 2022. Find 41min Video Here:-
The Truth is Where? 
