"The Battle of the Censors"
by Jim Rickards
"Two sides are attacking free speech, but their arguments are so irrational they end up attacking each other. On one side are Facebook, Google, and the Google-owned YouTube channel. All three have engaged in censorship and suppression of free speech and open debate about the pandemic and vaccines. Legitimate questions are squashed, and treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, cannot be mentioned without the risk of being banned from social media.
On the other side is the Biden administration, which also wants to ban discussion of alternate treatments and completely block any information that raises concerns about so-called COVID "vaccines."
If social media and the Biden administration both favor censorship, what could they be arguing about? It turns out that Biden is criticizing Facebook and Google for not censoring enough. Even though social media has squashed legitimate questions and debate, the Biden administration says they should do even more to block "misinformation." Of course, what Biden calls "misinformation" is actually legitimate information that Americans should be able to see. Here are some facts…
“Misinformation?” - or Information? The COVID vaccines have not been approved by the FDA; (they are administered under an Emergency Temporary Standard, ETS). COVID "vaccines" are not true vaccines in the legal or historical sense because they do not prevent the disease; they simply reduce the response to the disease. The COVID "vaccines" are experimental gene modification treatments that permanently alter certain gene production functions. How many vaxxed people understand that?
Most of what you've heard in the great vaccine debate is whether everyone will get the vaccine (and possibly be forced to) or whether people will be allowed to choose not to get the vaccine for a variety of reasons. There are over 30-million Americans who have had COVID and recovered. They have natural antibodies that are likely stronger protection against new infection than any so-called vaccine.
Why should they be required to get the vaccine? Why are they never mentioned when mainstream commentators talk about the "unvaccinated?” Good science and common sense say that COVID survivors don't need the vaccine, so they should not be lumped in with those who choose not to get the vaccine, but they are. There are serious side effects to the vaccines, including death. And the death toll from the vaccines may be dramatically underreported, at least according to one whistleblower.
Could the Vaccines Have Killed 45,000 People? Named Jane Doe in the filing, the whistleblower is described as “a computer programmer with subject matter expertise in the healthcare data analytics field, and access to Medicare and Medicaid data maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).” Here’s what she claims:
"It is my professional estimate that VAERS (the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) database, while extremely useful, is under-reported by a conservative factor of at least 5. On July 9, 2021, there were 9,048 deaths reported in VAERS. I verified these numbers by collating all of the data from VAERS myself, not relying on a third party to report them. In tandem, I queried data from CMS medical claims with regard to vaccines and patient deaths, and have assessed that the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. This would indicate the true number of vaccine-related deaths was at least 45,000."
Now, VAERS only reports deaths; it doesn’t establish that the vaccines necessarily caused them. Therefore, it doesn’t provide definitive data, and trying to extrapolate the true number of vaccine deaths based upon the VAERS database involves guesswork. But even if the true number is half what the whistleblower alleges, that’s still an extraordinarily high number of vaccine-induced deaths.
In 1976, the Swine Flu vaccine was pulled from the market, even though it resulted in only 53 deaths. It’s true that many more Americans have taken the COVID vaccines than took the Swine Flu vaccine in 1976, but deaths from these experimental vaccines are still several times greater. You just won’t hear about that from the government or the mainstream media.
Does that mean you shouldn’t take the vaccine or that you’re going to die or have serious side effects if you’ve already taken it? No, I’m not saying that. And I’m not an “anti-vaxxer.” Whether or not you choose to be vaccinated is your business.
Why Shouldn’t You Be Able to Make an Informed Decision? It may be the case that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the detriments, at least for the elderly and those with preexisting conditions. But it's still a discussion worth having. You should be able to make an informed decision based upon the risks and benefits. Unfortunately, you can't have that discussion on social media because you'll be blocked, jammed or de-platformed.
Dr. Robert Malone*, a leading pioneer of the mRNA vaccine technology upon which the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are based, has effectively been disappeared by Wikipedia because he’s expressed concern about the safety of these particular vaccines. This isn’t some quack or fringe conspiracy theorist; Dr. Malone is an impeccably credentialed scientist who, again, pioneered the very technology upon which these COVID vaccines are based.
Meanwhile, some people are being fired from their jobs just for raising the question. And there has been no candid recognition that the vaccines are not FDA approved. They are part of an experimental gene modification treatment. If you want to participate in the experiment, that's fine, but don't pretend it's not an experiment. It may take years or longer to find out what the real cost/benefit trade-offs are. Now a new debate has erupted...
How Many Shots Will You Need? It turns out that even two jabs of the vaccine may not be enough. In many people, the ability of the vaccine to prevent the worst effects of the virus wears off quickly. Many who have had the vaccine are being reinfected and becoming quite ill. Some are even dying. Of course, Big Pharma has a solution for that. You need a third jab euphemistically called a "booster." It's not really a booster. It means the effect of the original jabs has worn off, and you need a new jab.
Don't expect that to be the end of it. There's no reason why this pattern won't repeat itself given the original sequence. This means you'll need a fourth jab in another six months and possibly a jab every six months for the rest of your life. This means billions of dollars for Big Pharma (mostly paid for by you as a taxpayer).
It also turns Americans into a nation of drones obediently following orders to get more jabs of the gene modification medicine. What you're doing to your body with the vaccine is like rewriting the operating system of a computer. Every rewrite of computer code involves errors (called "bugs") that call for more rewrites and so on in a never-ending sequence. The vaccine sequence is lining up the same way. Without drawing definitive conclusions, why shouldn't Americans at least be able to weigh the risks and benefits based on accurate information instead of propaganda? Letting both sides express views has been our First Amendment standard since 1787.
But as I noted above, now we have an argument between Big Tech, which favors censorship, and the Biden White House, which favors more censorship. As Shakespeare wrote, "A plague on both your houses."