by Ungekrzte/Think for Yourself [NB – Ungekrzte means ‘unabridged’ in German for those curious; it’s an oblique reference to freedom of speech]
Name calling and censorship
Name-calling and censorship are the two most common responses online. A technical name for the first is the ad hominem fallacy, which refers to name-calling and personal attack as a method for avoiding real debate.
It is one of several rhetorical fallacies. Unfortunately, it’s also one of the most common, routinely used because it easily works to turn public opinion against indviduals and doesn’t require the accuser to provide a rational argument. This is very conventient for liars and those who have something to hide.
Censorship of online comments for supposed violation of so-called “community guidelines” is very common for mainstream media sources (The Epoch Times is a rare and laudable exception). For example, The Guardian regularly censors perfectly valid opinions, which led to some activists forming the ‘OffGuardian‘ in response.
Twitter, Facebook and all the major social media sites regularly censor what they call “medical misinformation” – even if it’s from medical doctors and scientists who know what they’re talking about. The problem is that the so-called misinformation is based on the testimony of biased fact-checkers, many of which are funded by entities with a financial or political agenda.
Unfortunately, name-calling and censorship are the most two common responses to those who challenge Covid restrictions and vax mandates and passports. Both responses expose the paucity of real justification for these restrictions. They show us how fragile this medical tyranny really is: if the restrictions had any scientific or ethical merit, they could be rationally and civilly defended. Challenges to them would not be censored.
There is no real debate allowed online when it comes to Covid-19, due to what has been rightly termed a moral panic: a sense of existential threat so dire that it compels some people to shut down any opposing points of view, even with the threat of violence. What’s remarkable about it is that the sense of threat is entirely irrational and fear-based.
Here is an example: something called Headline Health has recently banned me from online commenting, even though nothing in my comment actually violated their “comment policy.” Here is the screenshot I get when I try to comment:
So what did I say exactly that led to being banned? Did I engage in “personal attack, hoaxes, or profanity?” No, but my critics did call me names, and yet they’re not banned and I am. That’s how ‘community guidelines‘ work these days: only one position is allowed. At least I have a blog to share these views – though for how long is uncertain since Trudeau is planning to censor the Internet even more.
Here is the comment (judge for yourself):
[start of online comment]
“Many of the adverse events reported on VAERS are quite serious, including death. Question: if the recovery rate for children is 99.997% from Covid (CDC figure) and an FDA clinical trial reports 86% adverse events for children, then why is Pfizer and some in the government pushing for giving the jab to children ages 5 to 11, if not to boost pharmaceutical profits? Ridicule and dehumanizing restrictions (such as medical segregation through vax passports) don’t change anyone’s mind. They just make it look like a power-grab by authoritarians.
“Most of the ‘facts’ presented in this article seem more like political propaganda than empirical fact. Why did Israel and now Singapore have high Covid numbers despite high vaccine rates? Could it have something to do with variants caused by the jab itself? And why call it a ‘vaccine’ when it doesn’t provide immunity? The CDC, aware of this, disingenuously changed the definition of “vaccine.”
“Covid restrictions are not about public health at all. If they were, low-cost options such as Ivermectin – which worked for 240 million people Uttar Pradesh – would have been used in the West and there would not have been so much censorship of legitimate physicians who questioned the high rate of adverse events and the many lockdown-included deaths. And pushing the jab for children (who don’t need it) would not be happening right now.”
[end of online comment]
Instead of actually providing a real rebuttal, one person wrote in reply:
“That is antivaxxer bullsht.”
Here is my reply to that slur, which I am not allowed to post now because I am banned:
Calling someone ‘anti-vaxxer’ is not a valid argument. The use of this pejorative term was deliberately planned by those who falsely called the Covid jab a “vaccine” when it is not. The CDC actually tried to change the definition of vaccine to something that does not confer immunity in order to perpetuate this deception. People who are not against the polio vaccine, for example, but are skeptical of the Covid ‘vaccine’ get labeled “anti-vaxxer” in order to discredit them – which is a way to avoid an actual discussion based on facts.
Another such pejorative term we see a lot online is “conspiracy theorist.” The same tactic has been used throughout human history to scapegoat. Calling someone a name dehumanizes them and is used to justify censorship and violence against them. It evokes primitive tribal instincts, the root of all mass violence.
Another comment in response to mine, this one rather self-righteous, stated:
“Get a life loser . . .Admit it pea brain. You try to make Covid political and call doctors and nurses exhausted from jackasses filling up hospitals because, like you, they have that childish “DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO” BS. Your kind are running to hospitals and causing people with heart attacks to wait for medical assistance, That what McMommy taught you? That you are so privileged and special you hold other innocent people’s lives in your hands? Well infect someone with Covid and see how fast they tell YOU what to do. Grow up. Before you DTMWTD [don’t tell me what to do] attitude earns you a snack in the kisser or kick in your ass.”
I doubt this person would dare say that to my face. Their lack of civility is due to online disinhibition: “the lack of restraint one feels when communicating online in comparison to communicating in-person.”
If there is an actual reply embedded in that insult, it seems to be that unvaccinated people are filling up hospitals — which is what the mainstream media likes to tell us. But I am skeptical of that claim. It seems designed to scapegoat the unvaccinated and it runs contrary to this extrapolation of the CDC data on hospitalizations:
“The vaccinated are less healthy and get more non-Covid Covid-like illnesses (CLI) than the unvaccinated. Let’s look at non-Covid CLI. The CDC article actually gives enough numbers to do some useful calculations.
The average fully vaxxed percentage of the population for the period is 47.22% and the average fully UNvaccinated percentage is 43.11%. Calculating the relative risk (RR) of “non-Covid CLI” between vaccinated and unvaccinated reveals that the vaxxed were 20% more likely to have non-Covid CLI.
So much for the claim that the unvaccinated are filling up hospitals. But the truth won’t be revealed except on blogs like this one. It will always be censored, since no debate online is now allowed, due to the moral panic/mass hysteria that has gripped the world (due to the MSM’s propaganda campaign since early 2020).
Here is another reply to my comment, directly quoting ‘fact checker’ called Politifact:
“There is no such 99.997% figure from the CDC or anyone else reputable. It’s a made-up anti-vaxxer internet lie. The CDC has not released COVID-19 survival rates, an agency spokesperson said, and it doesn’t have the data to do so.”
And my reply, which can only appear here, since I am banned from Headline Health:
Actually, the survival rate of 0.003% was stated by CDC: In September 2020, the CDC published the following “best” estimates of Covid-19 infection fatality rates for people of varying ages:
– 0.003 percent for people aged 0–19 years.
– 0.02 percent for people aged 20–49 years.
– 0.5 percent for people aged 50–69 years.
– 5.4 percent for people aged 70+ years.
The hidden bias of the ‘fact-checkers’
Politifact has a discernable bias for the ‘vaccine’ and also, it seems, against Republicans. Here is an example, where the ‘fact-checker’ takes a comment on television out of context regarding the efficacy of the jab.
So why would Politifact lie about this? They (like many other ‘fact checkers’) are funded by the same cabal that is promoting the ‘vaccine.’ Politifact is not politically neutral, as they claim to be.
In the case of Politifact, its owner, The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, is funded in part by Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and TikTok (associated with the CCP). All are politically partisan. There is also an indirect connection to funding by George Soros through a $1.3 million grant to the Poynter Institute from the International Fact-Checking Network, an organization that is funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is deeply involved in vaccine development, is also a funder of the same network.
Soros and Gates are both founding members of the Good Club that met in 2009 to discuss how to achieve world depopulation. Gates admitted that the vaccine would be used in relation to that goal: in 2010, Gates said at a TED talk: “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent.”
The Facebook ‘fact-checker’ is funded by the CCP.
This article debunks Politifact‘s false “fact check” on numerous issues. One of the real whoppers was the claim that the disease did not come out of the Wuhan virology lab. That lie was later disproven and Politifact had to eat crow and remove their false fact-check.
The problem is that the so-called ‘fact-checkers claim to represent the truth, which is then picked up by social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) and used to censor any differing opinion or fact online. But the fact-checkers themselves are often wrong because they are motivated by political bias to skew the facts.
The result is that debate on public policy issues having to do with Covid-19 is all but dead. Medicine has been reduced to partisan talking points in a political contest. Science has been reduced to scientism, which is fundamentally anti-science. This is despite the fact that ‘fact-checkers’ have been proved wrong plenty of times.
As I have stated in a previous article, the fact-checkers have lied to us about the Wuhan lab, hydroxychloroquine, isolation camps built-in Canada, and hundreds of other things. In a court of law, anything they said would be given no weight inasmuch as they’ve lied before and thus are not credible witnesses.
The ‘fact-checkers’ are in a severe conflict of interest, being paid either directly or indirectly by Big Pharma. There’s a good satire of the ‘fact-checkers’ from the Babylon Bee: “Boy Who Pointed Out The Emperor Has No Clothes Banned For Misinformation.”
The Uttar Pradesh-Ivermectin debate that wasn’t allowed to happen
This same person also stated (again quoting a “fact-checker”) that “No evidence suggests a causal link between Ivermectin recommendation and the decline of COVID-19 cases in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh.”
No evidence? The story of 241 million benefiting from Ivermectin has been suppressed by the Big Pharma pundits. This is what happened:
“With a population of 241 million, more than twice that of the Philippines, Uttar Pradesh has been averaging less than 100 new COVID cases daily in the last three months, and less than 20 a day in the last three weeks. The deaths average one a day in the last six weeks. More than half of its districts or provinces have been declared COVID-free with zero active cases. One can’t possibly attribute it to its anti-COVID vaccination, because it’s one of the slowest among the Indian states in its vaccination rollout, with less than 5 percent of its population fully vaccinated.
“Some Indian colleagues we exchanged ideas and clinical experiences with tell us that it’s the firm resolve of the health officials and medical community in Uttar Pradesh that became a game-changer. They defied the stern warning of the World Health Organization (WHO) against the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 cases.
“A few months after the outbreak last year, a medical team at the state’s capital in Agra, led by Dr. Anshul Pareek, gave ivermectin to all members of its rapid response team, which was tasked with the prompt identification and isolation of diagnosed or suspected COVID-19 patients. It was a crude experiment, but after several months, they observed that none of them got infected with COVID-19 despite their high-risk of exposure, with daily contact with their countrymen who tested positive for COVID-19.”
My critic then states: “There are no clinical trials suggesting any efficacy for Ivermectin against Covid-19.”
This is a lie, of course, but one that I’m now not allowed to reply to. Here is one such study, showing a 73 percent success rate:
“Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis at a dose of 300 μg/kg with a gap of 72 hours was associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection.” And this toxicologist gives a favourable review of the safety of the drug, based on a comprehensive review of hundreds of medical articles. The mRNA ‘vaccines’ cannot claim the same level of safety.
He then derisively states that Ivermectin is “a cattle de-wormer.”
I’ve heard this one before because it was originally used for the purpose, but it’s a poor argument. If this drug works on humans, which we know it does, then this pejorative argument only serves to expose the bias of the person commenting. It makes me wonder what his motivation is: financial or political? It’s certainly not to advance public health, that much is clear.
Here is an example of a false report by Rolling Stone against Ivermectin, which was then shamelessly promoted by several Leftist media outlets before finally being debunked: “Gunshot victims left waiting as horse dewormer overdoses overwhelm Oklahoma hospitals, doctor says.”
The same kind of dishonesty in reporting by supposed ‘journalists’ was used against hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) when it came out as a remedy for Covid-19. Their aim at the time was two-fold: to discredit Donald Trump, who had mentinoned the drug as a possible remedy, and to ensure the eventual financial success of the ‘vaccine’ (it had not yet been produced).
A study against HCQ published in The Lancet medical journal was later discredited and the journal had to retract the inaccurate article.
When the original article against HCQ came out, “the news was spread far and wide by the corporate media, many times in a highly politicized fashion. They swiftly convinced the world of the danger of treating the symptoms of Sars-Cov-2 with HCQ.
“In the realm of social media, a wave of censorship against dissenting voices soon followed. A viral video showing a group of physicians called the Frontline Doctors, speaking publicly in favor of HCQ – by sharing their own clinical experience – was removed by most social media giants (but only after millions had already watched it). Could a testimony taken from a physician’s own experience be called “false”? Of course! Today a handful of social media corporations control what we can say or hear.
“Instead of informing their audiences with a balanced discussion about all the scientific research conducted so far regarding the drug, both positive and negative, corporate media directed a barrage of ad-hominems and smear toward the mentioned doctors. An army of “fact-checkers” was opportunely deployed after that to police the web and reassure everyone that HCQ is both useless and dangerous. Everyone who said otherwise was snake oil peddler.” [Source]
The problem with all this is that people who may have benefited from these lower-cost alternatives to the jab didn’t get it, as a result of censorship and laws against these drugs. Censorship, in this case, had life-and-death repercussions.
The debate over Pfizer clinical trials that should have been allowed
My critic also stated, again quoting a ‘fact-checker’, that: “There were no severe adverse reactions in the Pfizer clinical trials” of children (0 to 19-year-olds). But that too is a lie. How are cardiac disorders, including myocarditis, pericarditis, not severe?! The FDA report admits that for heart-related events “some cases required intensive care support” (p. 12). It says that males under 40 were most affected.
The CDC has a fact-sheet on the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis; what’s interesting about it is that it admits the risk exists, but downplays it, and still advises taking the jab for people above 5 years old, despite their almost negligible risk of Covid-19.
In Taiwan, a judge halted “the 2nd-dose of BioNTech vaccinations for ages 12-17 amid concerns of myocarditis.”
Other ‘adverse events’ suffered by children who took the Pfizer jab in the FDA clinical trials included: “gastrointestinal disorders: diarrhea, vomiting” and “Immune System Disorders: severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, and other hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., rash, pruritus, urticaria, angioedema).”
It’s infuriating that they’re purposely pushing children to take a drug they know has a higher risk rate for them the disease it’s meant to remedy. It’s also frustrating to know that they’re the ones who colluded to produce the disease in the first place (i.e., NIH funding of the Wuhan lab, and Pfizer’s patent of SARS-CoV2 in 2015).
They created and released a disease on purpose, killing several million people, all as part of an elaborate plan to sell billions of dollars worth of a drug that has since proved to be ineffective against the disease it’s supposed to remedy (the vaccinated are still catching and dying of Covid-19).
Additionally, people are being forced to take it or lose their job, despite it having negative side-effect, some of them serious. It’s the greatest job loss since the Great Depression, and on that grounds alone, it’s a crime against humanity. Hundreds of thousands have lost their livelihood over this, due to lockdowns and then vax mandates.
A great deal of evidence points to the fact that this was all deliberately orchestrated, years in advance, by a collusion of Big Pharma, the CCP, MSM, and globalists, but we’re considered “criminals” by Pfizer’s CEO if we dare to question any of this.
Online censorship rampant
My comments are now (wrongly) banned on multiple platforms. That’s why I started this blog. I had been commenting online, on Twitter, and to a local newspaper, in the comment section. This is now a common experience for tens of thousands who speak out against medical tyranny.
For example, this reporter who was famously banned from Twitter for ‘medical misinformation.’ Her ‘crime’ was to say that a substance called luciferase is in the jab. As it turns out, it is patented by Moderna for use in the production of their ‘vaccine.’ This is not to say that it is in the ‘vaccine’ itself, but this explains why some people believe it is. But instead of debating her on this point, she was banned from Twitter for life. This is typical of Twitter, which has suspended tens of thousands of conservatives.
One person commented “If I ignored every leftist on this site that used ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual debate, would there be anyone on the left to discuss issues? Well? I’m saying no. There is literally not one leftist on this site that actually debates anything.”
As the old saying goes, in war the first casualty is truth. And this is indeed a war for control of all of humanity by authoritarians and profiteers. And right now, they’re winning, due to censorship, fear, panic, and endless lies.
The truth will prevail
But I also have faith that the truth will prevail. As Gandhi said, “Remember that all through history, there have always been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible. But in the end, they always fall. Always.” And the Bible says, “the ruthless shall come to nothing and the scoffer cease, and all who watch to do evil shall be cut off” (Isaiah 29:20).