Censorship code tricked Australians into reckless medical policy, coerced injections
Censorship code tricked Australians into reckless medical policy, coerced injections
Big Tech has been hiding true stories of mRNA injuries, suppressing scientists who warned of risks - and the government won't say if it directed the oppression
Respected scientists smeared, blacklisted by Big Tech to push failed covid policies
Facebook hides true stories of mRNA injuries, Google manipulates searches
Censorship bureau ACMA and Big Tech giants collude with code of practice
Did Australia’s government ask Google to manipulate searches? They won’t say
US cardiologist Peter McCullough to tour Australia in February: Craig Kelly
Respected scientists are being suppressed to promote reckless covid policies with the censorship leading directly to needless mRNA injuries and deaths.
The screenshot (below) tweeted by journalist Bari Weiss shows the actual internal Twitter dashboard that turned the visibility down on Stanford University professor of medicine Jay Bhattacharya.
Professor Bhattacharya was put on Twitter’s “Trends Blacklist” so his tweets could never trend and Twitter users - mostly journalists and policy makers - would be unlikely to see them.
He was blacklisted because he co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in 2020, which said the best covid strategy was to protect the elderly (a thousand-fold higher death risk) while allowing the young to develop herd immunity from natural infection.
His co-authors were Harvard University professor of medicine Martin Kulldorff and Oxford University epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta: hardly “fringe” scientists.
Thanks to Elon Musk’s release of internal Twitter files we can see what they did.
The same censorship is playing out at Google, where the search results appear to be rigged (see below) to vilify Canadian viral immunologist Byram Bridle, an associate professor at the University of Guelph who develops cancer vaccines.
Dr Bridle was publicly shamed for warning the public in early 2021 that the design of the covid mRNA products may cause inflammatory problems such as myocarditis.
He had obtained a pre-clinical bio-distribution study provided by Pfizer to the Japanese health regulatory agency in May 2021 that showed the mRNA product did not stay in the arm as we were all told. Instead, the lipid nanoparticle coating guaranteed that it went everywhere in the body, including all the organs.
Other countries had not bothered to ask Pfizer for such a study, but Japan did, and Dr Bridle obtained the data and spoke out about it.
Google search results are now stacked against him.
The top five Google results against Dr Bridle include three slanders: an impersonator, a Twitter parody, and a “fact check” that wrongly undermines his (correct) stance that the spike protein encoded in the mRNA products was toxic.
It is clear he was right, but nobody apologised. He continues to speak intelligently on the risks of the vaccines and the dangers of censorship - but is he being heard?
On December 9, only Google returned this fake profile in the top five returns. But on December 15, DuckDuckGo and Yahoo also returned it - indicating search history can affect the algorithms. However, Google’s search responses are so heavily stacked, and so consistently, as to be suspicious.
And it’s not just Dr Bridle. Look how a December 13 search for mRNA in breast milk turns out.
Yahoo search engine reveals a stack of recent studies showing yes, mRNA does cross into breast milk - as you might expect since it’s now established fact.
Google’s search produces “No trace of mRNA vaccine found in breast milk - Reuters”, outdated and wrong, months old, at number one. The number three result is a “no evidence suggests” furphy to promote the mRNA, when everyone knows “absence of evidence” is not “evidence of absence” of harms.
It looks like Google is trying to promote the mRNA product against the evidence with search manipulation in Australia. Why?
Letters From Australia has asked both Google, the censorship bureau ACMA and the federal government’s Department of Home Affairs whether this is deliberate or government-directed, what the censorship policy is regarding critics of the mRNA vaccine, and whether the Australian Government has directed Google to manipulate search results.
If any response on the record is received, this story will be updated to include it.
It cannot be over-stated how damaging this censorship is. Journalists turn to Google to research and fact-check. If they can’t find published science or dissenting academics, it has a massive impact.
The ability to find, interpret and report facts freely is the most important check on bad government policy we have. It’s what stops us having disastrous Five-Year Plans like Stalin, whose stupid policies killed millions by starvation. That is why censorship is poisonous. You can’t vet bad ideas without free speech.
This vaccine censorship has caused ordinary people to recklessly inject an mRNA product that most of us did not need, without proper consideration of the risks.
Facebook is the same. It suspended respected UK cardiologist Aseem Malhotra for three days in October.
He had shared official covid vaccine data analysis from Florida’s Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo that recommended against men aged 18-39 years taking the product due to cardiac risk: Facebook declared it “didn’t follow our community standards”.
Facebook also actively censors true stories from mRNA-injured Australians and shuts down their support groups.
If anyone tries to share the Facebook video posted by Senator Gerard Rennick in support of 16-year-old Tasmanian girl Faith Ranson they find nobody can see their Facebook post. It “goes against Community Standards on misinformation”. Faith developed uncontrollable muscle spasms after the second Pfizer shot.
This censorship has directly led to mRNA vaccine injuries. If Faith had seen the censored posts on Maddie de Garay, the 12-year-old child paralysed in the original Pfizer trial, she might not have taken the product and might not have been injured.
YouTube, owned by Alphabet (which also owns Google), published a list of covid policies in May 2020 which as of yesterday still banned:
The mention of ivermectin as an effective treatment or safe prophylaxis for covid. This is despite 93 high-quality studies showing Ivermectin is a protease inhibitor that reduces viral replication, as well as being an excellent anti-inflammatory that accumulates in the lungs precisely where needed to help pre-omicron covid sufferers. YouTube’s ban meant medical professionals had difficulty discussing peer-reviewed research without getting a channel strike.
“Claims that COVID-19 vaccines kill people who receive them” - when they have killed people such as 26-year-old New Zealand plumber Rory Nairn.
“Claims about COVID-19 vaccinations that contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or WHO”. Because, like the Pope, they are infallible.
Corporate media has closed ranks and bent over. When the metric of success is how widely stories are shared and clicked on, then “visibility filtering” by Big Tech is a powerful punisher.
Serious criticisms of the mRNA products that undermined bipartisan government policy were ignored, shadow-banned, vilified, mocked as “fringe” or conflated with the eye-rolling extremes like “the shots make you magnetic”.
Doctors and scientists who tried to warn the public about the downsides of the mRNA product were not heard, distorting the risk assessment.
This fed back into bad government policy in a self-reinforcing feedback loop - because for governments an important motivator is positive media coverage.
CENSORSHIP IS THOUGHT CONTROL
The real danger of total censorship is thought control. It becomes impossible to imagine facts outside the approved parameters could be true.
Before 2021, health care professionals could not imagine a vaccine could cause significant damage even if they didn’t work particularly well.
And that is exactly why it was called a “vaccine” and not a “genetic-based therapy”, repurposed to provoke an immune response - which is what it is.
UK cardiologist Aseem Malhotra was one of the first to be injected and went on Good Morning Britain to advocate against “vaccine hesitancy”, unaware of the side-effects.
He had not done his homework on the mRNA harms because traditional vaccines had been so safe in the past that he could not imagine any “vaccine” could cause damage, even if they turned out not to be particularly effective.
Cardiologist Aseem Malhotra talks to Robert Kennedy Jr: “Many doctors like me only 18 months ago can still not conceive that a vaccine can cause this level of harm”. Backup here
After the unexpected death of his father he went back to the data. What he found, shocked him.
“The randomised controlled trials that led to the approval by the regulators of the vaccine in the first place revealed you were more likely to suffer a serious adverse event from the vaccine than you were to be hospitalised by covid,” he told the Epoch Times on December 10.
He has now called for the total suspension of the mRNA products on safety grounds.
If an experienced cardiologist could not imagine a vaccine could be so bad, then how could ordinary people?
This is the greatest harm: it is not your speech that is controlled but your thoughts.
The censorship wave started in 2018 when US shock jock Alex Jones was banned from Twitter, Apple, Spotify and Facebook in just one day.
It did not stop with Infowars. Did you think it would? Now it’s the silencing of Oxford, Harvard, Stanford academics and the manipulation of Google search results.
It doesn’t stop there - it’s de-banking ordinary dissidents. Paypal blocked Alex Jones, ever the canary in the coal mine, back in 2018. But in 2022, Justin Trudeau froze the bank accounts of hundreds ordinary Canadians who donated to the Trucker Protests against vaccine mandates.
AUSTRALIA’S CENSORSHIP BUREAU
Australia’s censorship bureau is the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, TikTok, Apple, Adobe and Redbubble all agreed to a voluntary code of practice in February 2021 after the Federal Government threatened to legislate.
In June 2021, ACMA wrote a report for government on how well the digital platforms were handling their “disinformation” and “news policy” measures.
The very first issue mentioned was “covid misinformation”, followed up with “vaccine hesitancy” as a problem to be solved.
No reflection that the government and/or the WHO might not be right. Sometimes “vaccine hesitancy” is the right thing to do.
“Australian misinformation conversations peaked in March 2021, driven almost entirely by growth in the anti-vaccine narrative over the previous 3 months,” the report said.
ACMA concluded that it did indeed need more power - surprise!
So in March 2022, the federal government announced it would establish a “Misinformation and Disinformation Action Group” and grant ACMA more powers.
ACMA could gather information, force online platforms to remove any content they deem "misinformation” or “disinformation", and set industry codes.
“These will provide ACMA with the ability to hold platforms to account should their voluntary efforts prove inadequate or untimely,” the Department of Infrastructure said in its release.
Institute of Public Affairs director Gideon Rozner noticed how sinister this was, telling Sky News: “The notion the federal bureaucracy should be given sweeping internet censorship powers – designed to stifle the opinion of mainstream Australians – to protect democratic institutions, is as bizarre as it is terrifying … God knows what the bureaucracy is capable of when it attempts to "protect" us from free thought.”
ACMA would also be given the power to regulate through industry codes. If you want to see how dangerous this is just look at how health workers are controlled.
The Medical Boards and AHPRA used their regulatory power to threaten the medical licenses of any health workers who criticised the mRNA products, which they were forced to take unlike Britain’s NHS workers. They had to comply or be economically suffocated because without a license, they can’t work.
Now imagine that power over social media. The Government gets complete Orwellian censorship outsourced to ACMA.
It is not clear whether these powers were passed - there has been an election and change of government since that proposal.
What is clear is that the digital platforms have been urged to control information and have messed up the public understanding of covid thanks to their censorship efforts.
Note how Facebook kicked off federal MP Craig Kelly, Member for Hughes, in April 2021. This hard-working representative lost his seat in the 2022 election after being demonised for his (correct) stance of caution for the mRNA shots.
He is now organising US cardiologist Peter McCullough to tour Australia in February, testing Australia’s censorship state.
Dr McCullough is one of the most famous, qualified and vocal critics of the mRNA products. The question is whether he will even get into the country because - national security. Dissidents get denied entry or messed with like tennis ace Novak Djokovic.
Asio’s Director-General of Security Mike Burgess said in his annual threat assessment in February that the imposition of vaccination mandates had led to radicalisation.
“The introduction of vaccine requirements for some forms of employment, social engagement and travel will continue to drive anger, uncertainty and fear within a small section of society,” he said.
But what is it that has been suppressed? The real risks of new mRNA products that have now been injected into the majority of Australians.
An open public debate was never had, leading to reckless policy, uncorrected.
There are things worse than terrorism: like being kept perfectly calm while you and everyone you know get trustingly dosed with a harmful product.
If ASIO is to protect the public perhaps it should turn its attention to the undue influence that large pharmaceutical companies have over the TGA, policymakers and academia, and the Big Tech firms that meddle in our democracy.
Pfizer and Google might get a mention in the 2023 threat assessment instead of the few citizens who protested and were crushed.
UPDATE: 30 December 2022 - story updated to include the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) reply, received via email.
The TGA responded on 16 December. Letters From Australia thanks the TGA for its response and includes their response below.
Question: In light of the perception of a conflict of interest in the covid response, will the Department of Health consider removing drug industry funding from the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and instead fund it from Departmental resources?
Therapeutic Goods Administration response
The TGA has a world-class regulatory framework under which regulatory decisions are made based on the risks and benefits of a therapeutic good rather than on TGA’s funding sources. We apply scientific and clinical expertise to our decision-making to ensure that the benefits of a therapeutic good outweigh any risk. The fees and charges and level of regulatory control increase with the level of risk of a therapeutic good. The 2022-2023 Cost Recovery Implementation Statement (CRIS) provides information on how the TGA, within the Department of Health and Aged Care, implements and cost recovers its regulatory activities. The TGA’s regulatory activities are associated with the registration and listing of medicines and biologicals, and inclusion of medical devices onto the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) and the ongoing monitoring and surveillance of them.
True investigative journalism from someone who is altruistic and not sold her soul, an “untouchable “.
Thank you Alison for shining a light of hope in an seemingly ever darkening world.
Brilliant Investigative journalism, will get sensored on Facebook for sure....let's find out.