I believe however that you overcredit the initial “seeming efficacy” of the jabs. The official tallies of vaxxed versus unvaxxed were inherently fraudulent: between the initial jab until 2 weeks after completion of the primal series (so for approximately the first 6 weeks after injection) everyone who was jabbed counted as unjabbed.
Dr. Norman Fenton’s thought experiment shows how this calculation inevitably skewed the results to favor “efficacy of the jab”.
Additionally Dr. Pierre Kory testified to Senator Ron Johnson that hospitalized COVID patients were, by default, registered as unjabbed if they weren’t vaxxed within the admitting hospital system.
It will be impossible for me to believe ANYTHING that "the government" says, since "they" Fauci, etal all lied about funding of GOF research, and the origin of COVID 19. I was blocked on Facebook, in March 2020, when I commented that COVID-19 was most likely lab accident or lab incompetence. (I did my Army War College thesis in 2005 on the countermeasure for Bioterrorism agents. Robert W. Enzenauer, MD, MPH, BG Retired
Thank you as always for the hours and stress you commit to the cause.
Because so much stuff in the USA is seen through a partisan lens I think it would be beneficial to keep a look out for acts of censorship that have taken place that are on bipartisan issues. I understand there are comparatively few of those by design but if one finds even a few then the media blackout about censorship might on those topic might open a crack and even a single topic might shock people into seeing that censorship is a bad thing if it affects both teams.
Right now both teams like censorship because many think it only affects the other team and they are not made aware of how it is affecting the home team in the same or similar situations. Neither side realises it is bad for everyone because they only focus on how it is bad for the opposing side.
I love these conversations with Aaron, he is such a clear and well-informed thinker on a whole range of subjects.
Jay I think you are correct to be somewhat depressed and worried about the precedent set by the Supreme court about how standing is to be established in the future for these types of free speech cases. I think it is important, though admittedly a bit idealistic, to recognize that if legal means are insufficient to prevent this type of government behavior in the future, then it is incumbent upon all free-thinking people who value free speech, to use platforms which specifically do not engage in this type of censorship.
My favorite anti-censorship platform for distributing video content is Rumble, and I would like to see the Illusion of Consensus podcast do more to promote watching and viewing the podcast on censorship-resistant platforms such as Rumble (or even X), rather than the current state of affairs where the first link provided to your podcast is to Youtube, which is one of the platforms heavily engaged in the exact type of government directed censorship which Jay is currently fighting in court.
Aaron's reading -- "Supreme Court [not ruling based on standing] doesn't want to get entangled [with Executive branch]". I never expected the Supreme Court to be AFRAID and COWER instead of doing their job, but we are seeing more hints of this these past few years. This behavior adds more evidence that our Constitutional Republic is becoming a banana republic effectively ruled by an undemocratic administrative state.
Learn your history about blacklisting and creeps in the FBI and CIA working to not only stifle speech, but weaponize it against black and Indian and brown activists.
Can we call a spade a spade? It is not far-fetched to call that mRNA clot and turbo shot The Jew Jab.
So, what is this that intelligence runs wikipedia. Very interesting. Anybody have more info/references]/podcasts I can look at or read to learn more. I have a family member who I can't get to listen to ANYTHING I have to say because he looks at wikipedia and on that basis ALONE decides if someone I want him to listen to is worth listening to or not. It's maddening! Not only that, but he mildly and amicably scolds me for not doing the same--"you really should check your sources before believing them. You're being gullible." Honestly! How does one get through to that kind of (irrational) "reasoning"? Anyway, I do want to learn more about what wikipedia being run by intelligence, just for my own edification. That is so interesting!
Great discussion gentlemen! Regarding the trustworthiness of the public health agencies......the number one problem is Corporate/pharma<>agency INCEST and MONEY!! However, physicians as a profession threw away the "scientific method", their training, their oaths, the standard of care, their authority, their autonomy and their patients health! Cowards, that rolled over for job security and MONEY!! The profession of medicine could have stopped this madness if they had any integrity as a profession and stood together for REAL SCIENCE! Medicine will never regain that authority, autonomy or patient trust! MALPRACTICE on a global scale! - so says this disgusted MD
It reflects a strong concern for preserving free speech and resisting government censorship, especially in the digital age. It also argues that government involvement in regulating online content, particularly when it pertains to public health, can have far-reaching implications for individual freedoms and democracy. While it's important to address misinformation, the balance between public safety and free speech is complex and requires careful consideration to avoid infringing on constitutional rights.
I might argue that public safety is none of the federal government's business, and that individuals should be free to determine what they need to do to "stay safe" for themselves. I'd also argue that medical mandates have shown their insidious nature and should be abolished entirely.
I'd also argue-- not to be too much of a contrarian, but-- that "misinformation" is no one's business but our own, and addressing it merely means offering up counter arguments, not censorship.
Yes but the ideal is rule of law, not of men ("politicians.") The consequences of disregarding law equally-applied and respecting individual sovereignty is chaos and arbitrary power.
Thanks for all you're doing to bring the (repressed) truth forward.
Regarding your August 30th posting: "
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
Suppression of Free Speech by the University of California"
I could not help but notice these statements:
"Government agencies and mass media became proxy advertisers/promoters for vaccine manufacturers’ initial claims that the shots were 95% “safe and effective,” not only to protect oneself, but to prevent transmission to others. Simultaneously, a cynical media campaign vigorously protected Big Pharma advertisers by censoring and suppressing all questions and concerns about the products, including testing data, safety records, the speed and scale with which shots were deployed, selective reporting of adverse events, and absence of explicit procedures for informed consent. Jabs were administered at schools without parental consent, with children and minors offered cash and other incentives to submit. Big Pharma-influenced legacy and social media all but forbade any public debate, and banished highly credentialed medical experts from their platforms for “spreading misinformation”.
Might be worth considering, especially since we're talking about California here, that biased politics (through corrupting forces) might have played a huge role in these actions.
As we all know (according the the Pharma industry), as CA goes, so goes the rest of the Country.
Here's some thoughts posted on Jeff Childer's blog (Coffee & Covid) where he notes that the NYT posted a 'curious' article of political corruption exposed in CA and if there might be a 'bigger' link.
The New York Times of all places ran a top-of-fold story this morning headlined, “How California Became a New Center of Political Corruption. Just wait, it gets much, much better. Or worse, depending on where you live.
The sordid story begins right where you would expect: the mandate-happy Los Angeles City Commission. Commissioner Jose Huizar, 55, who was born in Mexico, educated at Berkeley, Princeton, and UCLA law school, was nicknamed the “King Kong” of LA City Hall. (No, it’s not racist, since he’s Mexican-American.)
Jose controlled the vastly influential Planning and Land Use Management Committee, which approves or denies major real-estate developments across the mega-city. Go big, or go home! Huizar went big:
King Kong Huizar became the third LA City Councilman to be convicted of corruption charges in the last year. A fourth still faces charges. The Times said those four were only part of “a much larger circle of staff aides, fund-raisers, political consultants and real estate developers charged in an extraordinary recent wave of bribery and influence-peddling across California.”
Extraordinary!
Actually, not that extraordinary. It’s kind of ordinary. According to Justice Department reports, during the last 10 years, a whopping 576 public officials in California have been convicted on federal corruption charges, more than New York, New Jersey, and Illinois put together. This explains a lot.
Even more shocking, the Times blamed the corruption superspreader, in part, on —get this— the growing Democrat super-majority:
For Jose’s part, when asking the judge for leniency, Huizar admitted being a bribe-factory, but he was just a poor public servant twisted into a greedy pretzel by crooked bribers:
Apparently, neither Princeton or Berkeley, nor even UCLA law school, prepared King Kong to resist the shiny temptations dangled before him like whatshername, Fay Wray.
California suffers from a complicated corruption problem; coincidentally, it also suffers from a Democrat problem:
It must be pretty bad when things are bad enough for the New York Times to report about bad Democrat behavior. Well, California voters? What are you going to do about it?"
I am so grateful for your taking on this battle to save the First Amendment rights of all Americans.
Your podcast was extraordinarily informative and insightful, and proof that the battle is far from won.
But thanks to brilliant and valiant warriors like yourselves, you give people like myself, the regular American citizen, hope because we have someone in our corner willing to fight for all of us.
It is still hard for me to believe the SC did not find standing in your case. They are setting the bar so high and allowing the censoring to go on. For Justice Barrett to ask if the case was “moot” was also silly. Even if the government declares they are no longer censoring doesn’t mean they won’t in the future. Do we really think Congress would pass something that would inhibit the practice? I don’t have much hope of that.
Thank you for a most illuminating conversation!
I believe however that you overcredit the initial “seeming efficacy” of the jabs. The official tallies of vaxxed versus unvaxxed were inherently fraudulent: between the initial jab until 2 weeks after completion of the primal series (so for approximately the first 6 weeks after injection) everyone who was jabbed counted as unjabbed.
https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/norman-fenton-martin-neil-clare-craig-and-scott-mclachlan-to-ed-humpherson-the-ons-data-on-vaccine-mortality-is-not-fit-for-purpose/
Dr. Norman Fenton’s thought experiment shows how this calculation inevitably skewed the results to favor “efficacy of the jab”.
Additionally Dr. Pierre Kory testified to Senator Ron Johnson that hospitalized COVID patients were, by default, registered as unjabbed if they weren’t vaxxed within the admitting hospital system.
It will be impossible for me to believe ANYTHING that "the government" says, since "they" Fauci, etal all lied about funding of GOF research, and the origin of COVID 19. I was blocked on Facebook, in March 2020, when I commented that COVID-19 was most likely lab accident or lab incompetence. (I did my Army War College thesis in 2005 on the countermeasure for Bioterrorism agents. Robert W. Enzenauer, MD, MPH, BG Retired
Thank you as always for the hours and stress you commit to the cause.
Because so much stuff in the USA is seen through a partisan lens I think it would be beneficial to keep a look out for acts of censorship that have taken place that are on bipartisan issues. I understand there are comparatively few of those by design but if one finds even a few then the media blackout about censorship might on those topic might open a crack and even a single topic might shock people into seeing that censorship is a bad thing if it affects both teams.
Right now both teams like censorship because many think it only affects the other team and they are not made aware of how it is affecting the home team in the same or similar situations. Neither side realises it is bad for everyone because they only focus on how it is bad for the opposing side.
I love these conversations with Aaron, he is such a clear and well-informed thinker on a whole range of subjects.
Jay I think you are correct to be somewhat depressed and worried about the precedent set by the Supreme court about how standing is to be established in the future for these types of free speech cases. I think it is important, though admittedly a bit idealistic, to recognize that if legal means are insufficient to prevent this type of government behavior in the future, then it is incumbent upon all free-thinking people who value free speech, to use platforms which specifically do not engage in this type of censorship.
My favorite anti-censorship platform for distributing video content is Rumble, and I would like to see the Illusion of Consensus podcast do more to promote watching and viewing the podcast on censorship-resistant platforms such as Rumble (or even X), rather than the current state of affairs where the first link provided to your podcast is to Youtube, which is one of the platforms heavily engaged in the exact type of government directed censorship which Jay is currently fighting in court.
Aaron's reading -- "Supreme Court [not ruling based on standing] doesn't want to get entangled [with Executive branch]". I never expected the Supreme Court to be AFRAID and COWER instead of doing their job, but we are seeing more hints of this these past few years. This behavior adds more evidence that our Constitutional Republic is becoming a banana republic effectively ruled by an undemocratic administrative state.
Learn your history about blacklisting and creeps in the FBI and CIA working to not only stifle speech, but weaponize it against black and Indian and brown activists.
Can we call a spade a spade? It is not far-fetched to call that mRNA clot and turbo shot The Jew Jab.
It is the Century of the Jew don't you know.
https://open.substack.com/pub/paulokirk/p/shit-swimsuits-soggy-thinking-august?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5i319
So, what is this that intelligence runs wikipedia. Very interesting. Anybody have more info/references]/podcasts I can look at or read to learn more. I have a family member who I can't get to listen to ANYTHING I have to say because he looks at wikipedia and on that basis ALONE decides if someone I want him to listen to is worth listening to or not. It's maddening! Not only that, but he mildly and amicably scolds me for not doing the same--"you really should check your sources before believing them. You're being gullible." Honestly! How does one get through to that kind of (irrational) "reasoning"? Anyway, I do want to learn more about what wikipedia being run by intelligence, just for my own edification. That is so interesting!
Great discussion gentlemen! Regarding the trustworthiness of the public health agencies......the number one problem is Corporate/pharma<>agency INCEST and MONEY!! However, physicians as a profession threw away the "scientific method", their training, their oaths, the standard of care, their authority, their autonomy and their patients health! Cowards, that rolled over for job security and MONEY!! The profession of medicine could have stopped this madness if they had any integrity as a profession and stood together for REAL SCIENCE! Medicine will never regain that authority, autonomy or patient trust! MALPRACTICE on a global scale! - so says this disgusted MD
It reflects a strong concern for preserving free speech and resisting government censorship, especially in the digital age. It also argues that government involvement in regulating online content, particularly when it pertains to public health, can have far-reaching implications for individual freedoms and democracy. While it's important to address misinformation, the balance between public safety and free speech is complex and requires careful consideration to avoid infringing on constitutional rights.
Check this: https://www.impactfirst.co/id/c/software-erp
I might argue that public safety is none of the federal government's business, and that individuals should be free to determine what they need to do to "stay safe" for themselves. I'd also argue that medical mandates have shown their insidious nature and should be abolished entirely.
I'd also argue-- not to be too much of a contrarian, but-- that "misinformation" is no one's business but our own, and addressing it merely means offering up counter arguments, not censorship.
everything that goes before a judge is political....
it is politicians that make laws, including the constitution when it was created.
Yes but the ideal is rule of law, not of men ("politicians.") The consequences of disregarding law equally-applied and respecting individual sovereignty is chaos and arbitrary power.
Dr. Kheriaty,
Thanks for all you're doing to bring the (repressed) truth forward.
Regarding your August 30th posting: "
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
Suppression of Free Speech by the University of California"
I could not help but notice these statements:
"Government agencies and mass media became proxy advertisers/promoters for vaccine manufacturers’ initial claims that the shots were 95% “safe and effective,” not only to protect oneself, but to prevent transmission to others. Simultaneously, a cynical media campaign vigorously protected Big Pharma advertisers by censoring and suppressing all questions and concerns about the products, including testing data, safety records, the speed and scale with which shots were deployed, selective reporting of adverse events, and absence of explicit procedures for informed consent. Jabs were administered at schools without parental consent, with children and minors offered cash and other incentives to submit. Big Pharma-influenced legacy and social media all but forbade any public debate, and banished highly credentialed medical experts from their platforms for “spreading misinformation”.
Might be worth considering, especially since we're talking about California here, that biased politics (through corrupting forces) might have played a huge role in these actions.
As we all know (according the the Pharma industry), as CA goes, so goes the rest of the Country.
Here's some thoughts posted on Jeff Childer's blog (Coffee & Covid) where he notes that the NYT posted a 'curious' article of political corruption exposed in CA and if there might be a 'bigger' link.
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/kong-thursday-august-29-2024-c-and
The New York Times of all places ran a top-of-fold story this morning headlined, “How California Became a New Center of Political Corruption. Just wait, it gets much, much better. Or worse, depending on where you live.
The sordid story begins right where you would expect: the mandate-happy Los Angeles City Commission. Commissioner Jose Huizar, 55, who was born in Mexico, educated at Berkeley, Princeton, and UCLA law school, was nicknamed the “King Kong” of LA City Hall. (No, it’s not racist, since he’s Mexican-American.)
Jose controlled the vastly influential Planning and Land Use Management Committee, which approves or denies major real-estate developments across the mega-city. Go big, or go home! Huizar went big:
King Kong Huizar became the third LA City Councilman to be convicted of corruption charges in the last year. A fourth still faces charges. The Times said those four were only part of “a much larger circle of staff aides, fund-raisers, political consultants and real estate developers charged in an extraordinary recent wave of bribery and influence-peddling across California.”
Extraordinary!
Actually, not that extraordinary. It’s kind of ordinary. According to Justice Department reports, during the last 10 years, a whopping 576 public officials in California have been convicted on federal corruption charges, more than New York, New Jersey, and Illinois put together. This explains a lot.
Even more shocking, the Times blamed the corruption superspreader, in part, on —get this— the growing Democrat super-majority:
For Jose’s part, when asking the judge for leniency, Huizar admitted being a bribe-factory, but he was just a poor public servant twisted into a greedy pretzel by crooked bribers:
Apparently, neither Princeton or Berkeley, nor even UCLA law school, prepared King Kong to resist the shiny temptations dangled before him like whatshername, Fay Wray.
California suffers from a complicated corruption problem; coincidentally, it also suffers from a Democrat problem:
It must be pretty bad when things are bad enough for the New York Times to report about bad Democrat behavior. Well, California voters? What are you going to do about it?"
You decide, bu here's the links and comments.
Best
Featured this in my latest, "The Purpose of Open Journalism and Free Speech." https://pomocon.substack.com/p/the-purpose-of-open-journalism-and
I am so grateful for your taking on this battle to save the First Amendment rights of all Americans.
Your podcast was extraordinarily informative and insightful, and proof that the battle is far from won.
But thanks to brilliant and valiant warriors like yourselves, you give people like myself, the regular American citizen, hope because we have someone in our corner willing to fight for all of us.
I cannot thank you enough.
It is still hard for me to believe the SC did not find standing in your case. They are setting the bar so high and allowing the censoring to go on. For Justice Barrett to ask if the case was “moot” was also silly. Even if the government declares they are no longer censoring doesn’t mean they won’t in the future. Do we really think Congress would pass something that would inhibit the practice? I don’t have much hope of that.