Dear Dr. Bhattacharya - Thank you for your strength and leadership in the name of Truth. Stanford saved a dear friend's life, but my time in the Bay Area brought me to disdain many of the things Stanford has come to stand for. YOU are brilliant and have a lot to Teach those who run Stanford. I don't hold much hope they will listen to you, but THANK YOU again for being who you are and doing what you do. God Bless you.
Censorship is disinformation. "dis" is an intentional force to "dis-miss," "dis-credit," and "dis-appear" information.
No. It's worse. Most censorhip is not even about information, it's about the speaker. Censorship is designed to "dis-count," "dis-able," and "dis-appear" speakers, not speech, to generate "dis-respect." Dis-information. Censorship is not discussion, it is "not discussion."
To your health, Tracy
Censorship is not done by secure people. David Icke.
I share the perspectives, sentiments and concerns. The Government appealed the 5th Circuit opinion. The Supreme Court has the matter on a fast tract for this next week. In the meantime they've lifted the ban on the Gov's contacting MSM and social media sites. The this part makes me uneasy. Nonetheless, hoping for a positive outcome for all of us .
The 5th circuit court also lifted the ban temporarily. But then decided 3-0 for the ban. So this temporary lifting of ban by SCOTUS is not indicative of the final ruling.
Virtue is in short supply in the 21st century, but Dr. Bhattacharya has demonstrated wisdom, courage and determination to help others for no reason other than it’s the right thing to do regardless of the harmful consequences to himself. I consider him a 21st century hero and a true American patriot. Thank you for thinking of us and fighting on in our behalf.
Another freedom of speech warrior named Mark Steyn a canadian of MarkSteyn online is due to fight the pathetic Ofcom (uk regulator) charge against him for discussion of excess death figures on GBNews in UK october 2022. We shall see what the supreme court in UK in November 2023 is capable of. Both Mark and Jay deserve medals for their principaled stance. We MUST continue the fight to have the real truth out there for everone to make informed consent.
Hooe is a small village hidden in the Sussex countryside about 75 miles from London where I grew up in the 50s & 60s.
Fortunately, the 'overreach' by our Muslim London Mayor is a problem I don't have to get involved with. But I also admire those who resist his arrogant and dictatorial Travel restrictions and authoritarian attempts to remove our Freedoms!
I'm old now but try to make time to have an impact on the farce that is all part of the WEF's (New World Order) intentions to blatantly remove our freedom and intent to help those that resist the DEADLY Covid Vax scam, understand what has really been going on, most blatantly - over the past 4 years.
The more we speak, the more might wake up and listen to reality!
Awesome read and video. Thank you Dr. Malone, Dr. Bhattacharya , and many others, for your tireless efforts to save our freedoms! It does NOT go unnoticed or unappreciated.
@53rd Chapter, an entirely hypothetical scenario for your consideration. No disrespect or mal-intent, only a step into a hypothetical other's shoes with an inquiry. Apologies as I use your immediate and extended family in the hypothetical for clearly I know not of any relationship. I admit I may err in using family in the example. Perhaps you can forgive my error.
Your mother, a capable person, has a health scare, diagnosed with Condition X. She is understandably fearful. She has some treatment options, one of which you know to be potentially damaging to people with some similarities to your mother's general profile, but that her physician is pushing for. You are adamantly against this one particular treatment option; your mother is on the brink of choosing it. The clock is ticking. You fear for your mother's well being.
You use Facebook to reach out to extended family and friends all of whom love your mother. You speak to your feelings asking for support. You don't ask for direct intervention by anyone. Still, you suspect that, because these people dearly love your mother, they may of their own accord discreetly reach out to her with both the understanding of your feelings and, after having researched your assertions find that they are well founded. What they say, of course, and any conversation that ensues, you have no control over. You know that your network relies primarily on their feed to receive communications. (They don't routinely check directly at the accounts of dozens of friends and family.)
Facebook allows your post to stand but cuts off its feed to anyone in your network for reasons of government origin deciding that your opinion is not in line with their views. Consequently, no one in your network receives your message on their feed. Neither, since it is not their habit to directly check your account, do they receive any word of your outreach.
The inquiry to you is, even if it's not to a degree for you to pursue a lawsuit, do you feel you have been harmed?
Before responding to your hypothetical, a bit of preface: Perhaps you did not perceive the sarcasm in my initial comment? Please advise. Secondly, I am at a bit of a disadvantage regarding social media, because I have never been on Facebook, Twitter, X or anything else. My first awareness of Facebook was when Zuckerberg was on the Charlie Rose tv show, followed by Jack Dorsey a few episodes later. My impression was that this social media thing was a big mistake, threatening real relationships in favor of superficial ones, with ranking, blocking and de-friending issues and all the rest. I have never strayed from my initial aversion and now with all the privacy and profiling being exposed, I'm glad I stuck with my initial reaction.
I think we are, however, on the same page, (npi). Free speech sometimes can be messy but it's far better than having gatekeepers who, by nature, like everyone else, have biases that can't be avoided or ignored, which disqualifies them as censors.
Missed the sarcasm. Took it at face value. Rather negates posing the hypothetical. --
Created a FB account here a decade and a half ago in the early days at the insistence of my then high school aged progeny. When FB changed their TOS about a decade ago I actually read the damn thing. Or started to. I might have been 5-10 pages worth into it before my jaw dropped and I said, maybe even out loud, No effin way! (Nobody reads the lengthy terms. They just hit "Accept". Kinda like something else that blindly got accepted around here recently...) --
Anyway, looks like I erred, and that we are pretty much on the same page. I hope you can forgive my jump, and effectively disregard the lengthy (!) message. Working my/our way through the mess. Appreciate your engagement.
"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Abraham Lincoln
Relevant to Dr. Battacharya's statement:
"I have learned the hard way that it is only we, the people, who must hold an overreaching government accountable for violating our most sacred rights. Without our vigilance, we will lose them."
I so appreciate your fight to maintain the freedom of speech. I have no doubt that you will certainly be successful at the Supreme Court. My lack of enthusiasm falls on the penalty phase of a case like this. Surely if Al Capone was found guilty of let’s say the Rico Act, but able to continue to operate his mob, why would he stop? I don’t think the most corrupt attorney general in the history of America, Merrick Garland, will ever go after Biden or any Biden official ever. So with no penalty or repercussions I can’t see things changing. My question is, does the Supreme Court have authority to punish and lay down penalties onto government officials or social media for restricting American citizens first amendment rights? J.Goodrich
Sorry to seem pessimistic Robert, but Big Pharma and their whipping boys, the media, OWN the JUDICIARY! That reduces your chances of a fair and honest hearing.
Vax makers enjoy IMMUNITY from ALL liability for ALL POST-VAX Injuries and Post Vax DEATHS!
No LIABILITY means, no need for Safety Trials or Efficacy. Vax injuries & VAX DEATHS can be ignored! No analysis is necessary for the vax demised. Just as long as the enormous PROFITS CONTINUE to roll in and the World Population is being systematically reduced.
All VAX Contract makers exclude them from all responsibility. Instead, Governments accept all responsibility for VAX RELATED INJURIES and VAX RELATED DEATHS.
What kind of crazy word would allow (encourage) such a deadly but successful risk-free business Plan?
There is hope. An investment of the better part of an hour of your time from two names you are probably familiar with. You might have already seen if you're on top of ongoing developments. BTW, I don't know where Hooe is, but big Kudos to Londoners fighting ULEZ iteration of Big Bro.
People died because of these mafia-like tactics. I could not stop the flow of tears reading, especially the last paragraph. It is shameful how many so-called Americans haven’t a clue about the significance, the necessity for free speech. The blend of your brilliance, passion and humility is a magnificent gift of inspiration and hope to those desperate for this deadly tyranny to stop.
While I appreciate your willingness to fight for your free speech rights and the rights of other doctors and scientists and others with training that is recognized as "expert" I believe it is unwise and discriminatory to only protect their speech on important matters as if only knowledge conferred by the educational system - that we know has become highly politicized - merits standing in public policy debates. Even non-scientists, even self-taught autodidacts and polymaths often have a valuable voice and insights society would be wise to consider.
Most of the nation's founders who wrote our constitution were self-taught. Scientific discovery that changes the world is often led by amateurs. It often takes people who aren't inside the trees to see the forest. If free speech is only secured for those with degrees and pedigrees that are accepted as "expert" then we will surely continue on the path of rule by "experts." As degrees and pedigrees become limited to only those who are card-carrying members of a ruling class and party.
How many dissenters of these past several years have learned more from their own independent scientific research and study than degree'd and recognized so-called experts? Yet under rules of evidence in courts their testimony isn't allowed under Rule 72 Expert Testimony court tests. While the degree'd and recognized "expert" spouts pseudoscientific concocted drivel. This is wrong. Court and public policymaking deference to "experts" allows for willing ignorance of scientific facts. That system that restricts speech ensures only individuals with degrees, professional licenses and certifications controlled by those with political agendas can help inform deciders of the fates of others. Let the strength of the information itself stand or fall on its own accord. And allow that those who hear it to discern its merit. Free speech for all. Even the seemingly crazy man standing atop a soapbox on a street corner.
The Art Of Advocacy must not only take root as the major force to end our society heading into the void of the Abyss. It must endure and embolden those that are weak to higher levels of understanding that we are in fact under a grave manipulation in a planned series of events.
BE AN ADVOCATE FOR YOUR RIGHT OF INFORMED CONSENT AND MEDICAL PRODUCT LIABILITY!
Dear Dr. Bhattacharya - Thank you for your strength and leadership in the name of Truth. Stanford saved a dear friend's life, but my time in the Bay Area brought me to disdain many of the things Stanford has come to stand for. YOU are brilliant and have a lot to Teach those who run Stanford. I don't hold much hope they will listen to you, but THANK YOU again for being who you are and doing what you do. God Bless you.
Censorship is disinformation. "dis" is an intentional force to "dis-miss," "dis-credit," and "dis-appear" information.
No. It's worse. Most censorhip is not even about information, it's about the speaker. Censorship is designed to "dis-count," "dis-able," and "dis-appear" speakers, not speech, to generate "dis-respect." Dis-information. Censorship is not discussion, it is "not discussion."
To your health, Tracy
Censorship is not done by secure people. David Icke.
I share the perspectives, sentiments and concerns. The Government appealed the 5th Circuit opinion. The Supreme Court has the matter on a fast tract for this next week. In the meantime they've lifted the ban on the Gov's contacting MSM and social media sites. The this part makes me uneasy. Nonetheless, hoping for a positive outcome for all of us .
The 5th circuit court also lifted the ban temporarily. But then decided 3-0 for the ban. So this temporary lifting of ban by SCOTUS is not indicative of the final ruling.
That last paragraph rings like a fire bell.
It sure does. Well said!
Virtue is in short supply in the 21st century, but Dr. Bhattacharya has demonstrated wisdom, courage and determination to help others for no reason other than it’s the right thing to do regardless of the harmful consequences to himself. I consider him a 21st century hero and a true American patriot. Thank you for thinking of us and fighting on in our behalf.
Another freedom of speech warrior named Mark Steyn a canadian of MarkSteyn online is due to fight the pathetic Ofcom (uk regulator) charge against him for discussion of excess death figures on GBNews in UK october 2022. We shall see what the supreme court in UK in November 2023 is capable of. Both Mark and Jay deserve medals for their principaled stance. We MUST continue the fight to have the real truth out there for everone to make informed consent.
Thanks Heterodox!
Hooe is a small village hidden in the Sussex countryside about 75 miles from London where I grew up in the 50s & 60s.
Fortunately, the 'overreach' by our Muslim London Mayor is a problem I don't have to get involved with. But I also admire those who resist his arrogant and dictatorial Travel restrictions and authoritarian attempts to remove our Freedoms!
I'm old now but try to make time to have an impact on the farce that is all part of the WEF's (New World Order) intentions to blatantly remove our freedom and intent to help those that resist the DEADLY Covid Vax scam, understand what has really been going on, most blatantly - over the past 4 years.
The more we speak, the more might wake up and listen to reality!
Thanks for your comments!
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed to live longer!
Hero. Simply put.
Subplot:
No compromise on 2A. It is the ONLY backstop to protecting 1A.
"But I can never go back to the uncomplicated faith and naive confidence I had in America when I was young"
I was born here and grew up here. I had total faith in the resilience of the system. I still have faith but it is shaken to the core.
Awesome read and video. Thank you Dr. Malone, Dr. Bhattacharya , and many others, for your tireless efforts to save our freedoms! It does NOT go unnoticed or unappreciated.
But Dr. Bhattacharya, you haven't suffered any harm. Your speech was allowed; only your reach suffered a bother.
Thank you for fighting for all of us!
@53rd Chapter, an entirely hypothetical scenario for your consideration. No disrespect or mal-intent, only a step into a hypothetical other's shoes with an inquiry. Apologies as I use your immediate and extended family in the hypothetical for clearly I know not of any relationship. I admit I may err in using family in the example. Perhaps you can forgive my error.
Your mother, a capable person, has a health scare, diagnosed with Condition X. She is understandably fearful. She has some treatment options, one of which you know to be potentially damaging to people with some similarities to your mother's general profile, but that her physician is pushing for. You are adamantly against this one particular treatment option; your mother is on the brink of choosing it. The clock is ticking. You fear for your mother's well being.
You use Facebook to reach out to extended family and friends all of whom love your mother. You speak to your feelings asking for support. You don't ask for direct intervention by anyone. Still, you suspect that, because these people dearly love your mother, they may of their own accord discreetly reach out to her with both the understanding of your feelings and, after having researched your assertions find that they are well founded. What they say, of course, and any conversation that ensues, you have no control over. You know that your network relies primarily on their feed to receive communications. (They don't routinely check directly at the accounts of dozens of friends and family.)
Facebook allows your post to stand but cuts off its feed to anyone in your network for reasons of government origin deciding that your opinion is not in line with their views. Consequently, no one in your network receives your message on their feed. Neither, since it is not their habit to directly check your account, do they receive any word of your outreach.
The inquiry to you is, even if it's not to a degree for you to pursue a lawsuit, do you feel you have been harmed?
Before responding to your hypothetical, a bit of preface: Perhaps you did not perceive the sarcasm in my initial comment? Please advise. Secondly, I am at a bit of a disadvantage regarding social media, because I have never been on Facebook, Twitter, X or anything else. My first awareness of Facebook was when Zuckerberg was on the Charlie Rose tv show, followed by Jack Dorsey a few episodes later. My impression was that this social media thing was a big mistake, threatening real relationships in favor of superficial ones, with ranking, blocking and de-friending issues and all the rest. I have never strayed from my initial aversion and now with all the privacy and profiling being exposed, I'm glad I stuck with my initial reaction.
I think we are, however, on the same page, (npi). Free speech sometimes can be messy but it's far better than having gatekeepers who, by nature, like everyone else, have biases that can't be avoided or ignored, which disqualifies them as censors.
Missed the sarcasm. Took it at face value. Rather negates posing the hypothetical. --
Created a FB account here a decade and a half ago in the early days at the insistence of my then high school aged progeny. When FB changed their TOS about a decade ago I actually read the damn thing. Or started to. I might have been 5-10 pages worth into it before my jaw dropped and I said, maybe even out loud, No effin way! (Nobody reads the lengthy terms. They just hit "Accept". Kinda like something else that blindly got accepted around here recently...) --
Anyway, looks like I erred, and that we are pretty much on the same page. I hope you can forgive my jump, and effectively disregard the lengthy (!) message. Working my/our way through the mess. Appreciate your engagement.
No harm, no foul my friend; my wife says I could have been clearer - she's usually right. God bless!
😂😅 Credit to the spouse, and the spouse's spouse for acknowledging the spouse. Was that clear?😜
"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Abraham Lincoln
Relevant to Dr. Battacharya's statement:
"I have learned the hard way that it is only we, the people, who must hold an overreaching government accountable for violating our most sacred rights. Without our vigilance, we will lose them."
I so appreciate your fight to maintain the freedom of speech. I have no doubt that you will certainly be successful at the Supreme Court. My lack of enthusiasm falls on the penalty phase of a case like this. Surely if Al Capone was found guilty of let’s say the Rico Act, but able to continue to operate his mob, why would he stop? I don’t think the most corrupt attorney general in the history of America, Merrick Garland, will ever go after Biden or any Biden official ever. So with no penalty or repercussions I can’t see things changing. My question is, does the Supreme Court have authority to punish and lay down penalties onto government officials or social media for restricting American citizens first amendment rights? J.Goodrich
Sorry to seem pessimistic Robert, but Big Pharma and their whipping boys, the media, OWN the JUDICIARY! That reduces your chances of a fair and honest hearing.
Vax makers enjoy IMMUNITY from ALL liability for ALL POST-VAX Injuries and Post Vax DEATHS!
No LIABILITY means, no need for Safety Trials or Efficacy. Vax injuries & VAX DEATHS can be ignored! No analysis is necessary for the vax demised. Just as long as the enormous PROFITS CONTINUE to roll in and the World Population is being systematically reduced.
All VAX Contract makers exclude them from all responsibility. Instead, Governments accept all responsibility for VAX RELATED INJURIES and VAX RELATED DEATHS.
What kind of crazy word would allow (encourage) such a deadly but successful risk-free business Plan?
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed to live longer!
100%.
There is hope. An investment of the better part of an hour of your time from two names you are probably familiar with. You might have already seen if you're on top of ongoing developments. BTW, I don't know where Hooe is, but big Kudos to Londoners fighting ULEZ iteration of Big Bro.
https://twitter.com/gunthertree2/status/1702140946668810462?s=20
https://rumble.com/v3hwcgm-dr.-mcculloughs-speech-at-the-european-parliament.html
In solidarity.
The pharmaceutical industry had to have those protections precisely because they knew how dangerous the COVID-19 vaccines were.
People died because of these mafia-like tactics. I could not stop the flow of tears reading, especially the last paragraph. It is shameful how many so-called Americans haven’t a clue about the significance, the necessity for free speech. The blend of your brilliance, passion and humility is a magnificent gift of inspiration and hope to those desperate for this deadly tyranny to stop.
While I appreciate your willingness to fight for your free speech rights and the rights of other doctors and scientists and others with training that is recognized as "expert" I believe it is unwise and discriminatory to only protect their speech on important matters as if only knowledge conferred by the educational system - that we know has become highly politicized - merits standing in public policy debates. Even non-scientists, even self-taught autodidacts and polymaths often have a valuable voice and insights society would be wise to consider.
Most of the nation's founders who wrote our constitution were self-taught. Scientific discovery that changes the world is often led by amateurs. It often takes people who aren't inside the trees to see the forest. If free speech is only secured for those with degrees and pedigrees that are accepted as "expert" then we will surely continue on the path of rule by "experts." As degrees and pedigrees become limited to only those who are card-carrying members of a ruling class and party.
How many dissenters of these past several years have learned more from their own independent scientific research and study than degree'd and recognized so-called experts? Yet under rules of evidence in courts their testimony isn't allowed under Rule 72 Expert Testimony court tests. While the degree'd and recognized "expert" spouts pseudoscientific concocted drivel. This is wrong. Court and public policymaking deference to "experts" allows for willing ignorance of scientific facts. That system that restricts speech ensures only individuals with degrees, professional licenses and certifications controlled by those with political agendas can help inform deciders of the fates of others. Let the strength of the information itself stand or fall on its own accord. And allow that those who hear it to discern its merit. Free speech for all. Even the seemingly crazy man standing atop a soapbox on a street corner.
The Art Of Advocacy must not only take root as the major force to end our society heading into the void of the Abyss. It must endure and embolden those that are weak to higher levels of understanding that we are in fact under a grave manipulation in a planned series of events.
BE AN ADVOCATE FOR YOUR RIGHT OF INFORMED CONSENT AND MEDICAL PRODUCT LIABILITY!