I am not medically trained. I have nothing to contribute regarding the safety of COVID vaccines or the efficacy of potential alternative treatments such as the use of Ivermectin. I am writing this article because I am concerned about censorship of these issues, especially when these discussions involve well-accomplished experts. This article is a follow-up of my earlier article discussing the censorship of Brett Weinstein and medical experts by Big Tech, "Adverse Side Effects from COVID Vaccines." We need to have these conversations in order to break through the official gated policy narrative on these issues. I will tell this story in tweets. It will never be the case that censorship will improve the quality of the conversations on these issues. Click on these images and dig in:
Full disclosure: I have been doubly vaccinated with the Modern Vaccine. I have trusted ubiquitous assertions by government and health care providers, that the vaccines are safe. I knew that the vaccines were extraordinary quick to market. I wondered about their safety, but I considered the COVID virus itself to be a much greater risk. I am extremely concerned about the existence of COVID and the devastation it has caused, medical and economic. I am extremely concerned about the potential emergence of variants and COVID.
Also, I have long been suspicious about the effects of tribal affinities on the free flow of information (on many topics). On topics related to the pandemic, there have been major reversals by medical authorities in the past 1 1/2 years that concern me. Some of these relate to the alleged efficacy (and non-efficacy) of mask-wearing, where government mandates were issued in the absence of controlled studies. I am also aware that we have seen very little in the way of data regarding adverse side effects regarding the general population, as well as populations of adolescents and immune-compromised and pregnant individuals. It is also apparent that the misinformation relating to the wearing of masks could be motivated by an inclination to downplay vaccine-related deaths (in order to encourage people to get the vaccines on a nationwide basis).
It is in this context that I am sharing the following materials. I have no medical expertise. I find the following information intriguing. I hope that this information (which has possibly been suppressed) is further developed in the public sphere. Here is the basis for my concerns, a discussion hosted by Brett Weinstein, who has a long history of fearlessly discussing topics that run counter "preferred" public narratives.
The guests suggest that we need an honest conversation regarding use of the the COVID vaccines regarding certain populations where there is natural immunity (children, young teenagers and those who have already had COVID) and where there is alarming data (pregnant women). They also advocate that we badly need honest national dialogue regarding the promising data based on the prophylactic use of repurposed Ivermectin.
Here are two key points made during this deeply engaging discussion:
Point 1. An ongoing course of Ivermectin, long-shown to be a safe drug, is fantastically effective in protecting people from COVID. Brett notes that he and his wife Heather were not vaccinated, but have chosen to use Ivermectin prophylactically. Brett and the guests argue that where a safe alternative to the vaccines is available, this information should be available. The guests are convinced, based on discussed evidence, that Ivermectin is a potentially a "miracle drug" that should be widely repurposed and made available to the public. They are gravely concerned that discussions regarding Ivermectin have been suppressed on the Internet, for social and financial motives they discuss.
Today, I spotted these graphs regarding Ivermectin usage in India. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information in this June 1, 2021 article by Justus R. Hope, a doctor, but it is eye-popping and compels me to know more:
Another excerpt from this article:
A 97% decline in Delhi cases with Ivermectin is decisive - period. It represents the last word in an epic struggle to save lives and preserve human rights. This graph symbolizes the victory of reason over corruption, good over evil, and right over wrong. It is as significant as David’s victory over Goliath. It is an absolute vindication of Ivermectin and early outpatient treatment. It is a clear refutation of the WHO, FDA, NIH, and CDC's policies of "wait at home until you turn blue" before you get treatment.
Point 2. On the vaccine side, the guests express concern that there are significant adverse side-effects to the COVID vaccines that are not being discussed widely. In fact, the information is being suppressed, the group strongly suggests, because it doesn't fit the ongoing narrative that the COVID vaccines are "safe." Further, the data regarding adverse side effects is not systematically being collected, much less discussed. The conversation suggests that the VAERS database (voluntary reports) significantly under-reports incidents. Data suggest that the rate of deaths so far from the COVID vaccines in the U.S. might be in the range of 5,000-20,000, the lower end which is greater than the number of deaths from all other vaccines in the U.S. over the past 70 years. For further information on this point, consider Steve Kirsch's recent article at TrialSiteNews, where you will see many details on which he based his concerns in the above video: "Should You Get Vaccinated." The guests also argue that silicon valley is actively suppressing youtube videos and other information. Adverse vaccine-related bloodwork seems to resemble the bloodwork of those who have COVID. The biggest alarm here, the guests agree, is the lack of an alarm.
Here are a few excerpts:
However, based on what I now know about the vaccine side effects, current COVID rates, and the success rate of early treatment protocols, the answer I would give today to anyone asking me for advice as to whether to take any of the current vaccines would be, “Just say NO.”
The current vaccines are particularly contraindicated if you have already been infected with COVID or are under age 20. For these people, I would say “NO! NO! NO!”
In this article, I will explain what I have learned since I was vaccinated that totally changed my mind. You will learn how these vaccines work and the shortcuts that led to the mistakes that were made. You will understand why there are so many side effects and why these are so varied and why they usually happen within 30 days of vaccination. You will understand why kids are having heart issues (for which there is no treatment), and temporarily losing their sight, and ability to talk. You will understand why as many as 3% may be severely disabled by the vaccine.
What I find deeply disturbing is the lack of transparency on how dangerous the current COVID vaccines are. Healthy people could end up dead or permanently disabled at a rate that is “off the charts” compared with any other vaccine in our history. Look at the death report in our government’s official Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) summarized in the tweet below. This is the most deadly vaccine we’ve ever made by a long shot. That’s why they have to give you incentives to get vaccinated. They need to vaccinate everyone BEFORE people read this article or watch this video of Dr. Peter McCullough explaining clearly why the current COVID vaccines are unsafe and completely unnecessary for our children.
82% miscarriage rate in first 20 weeks (10% is the normal rate). It is baffling that the CDC says the vaccine is safe for pregnant women when it is so clear that this is not the case. For example, one our family friends is a victim of this. She miscarried at 25 weeks and is having an abortion on 6/9/21. She had her first shot 7 weeks ago, and her second shot 4 weeks ago. The baby had severe bleeding of the brain and other disfigurements. Her gynecologist had never seen anything like that before in her life. They called in a specialist who said it was probably a genetic defect (because everyone buys into the narrative that the vaccine is safe it is always ruled out as a possible cause). No VAERS report. No CDC report. Yet the doctors I’ve talked to say that it is over 99% certain it was the vaccine. The family doesn’t want an autopsy for fear that their daughter will find out it was the vaccine. This is a perfect example of how these horrible side effects just never get reported anywhere.
I invite you to listen to the detailed conversation in the video above. I'm writing this as I watch the live discussion. I will update with more after I finish viewing the entire video . . .
[June 12 2021 two updates]
I love this exchange between Steve Kirsch and hundreds of Youtube Subscribers who told him that they appreciated his passion and his message but warned him that his manners were rude and that he was getting in the way of his own message.
Free speech was created under the false notion that words and violence are distinct, but we now know that certain speech is more akin to violence.
Free speech rests on the faulty notion that words are harmless.
Free speech is the tool of the powerful, not the powerless.
The right to free speech means the government can’t arrest you for what you say; it still leaves other people free to kick you out.
But you can’t shout fire! in a crowded theatre.
The arguments for freedom of speech are outdated.
Hate speech laws are important for reducing intolerance, even if there may be some examples of abuse.
Free speech is nothing but a conservative talking point.
Restrictions on free speech are OK if they are made in the name of civility.
You need speech restrictions to preserve cultural diversity.
Free speech is an outdated idea; it’s time for new thinking.
I believe in free speech, but not for blasphemy.
Visit Areofor Lukianoff's responses to each of these fallacies.
In response to the fallacy that free speech is an outdated concept, Lukianoff gave this succinct defense of John Stuart Mill, from On Liberty (available from free at this link):
John Stuart Mill’s central arguments in On Liberty remain undefeated, including one of his strongest arguments in favour of freedom of speech—Mill’s trident—of which I have never heard a persuasive refutation. Mill’s trident holds that, for any given belief, there are three options:
A) You are wrong, in which case freedom of speech is essential to allow people to correct you.
B) You are partially correct, in which case you need free speech and contrary viewpoints to help you get a more precise understanding of what the truth really is.
C) You are 100% correct. In this unlikely event, you still need people to argue with you, to try to contradict you, and to try to prove you wrong. Why? Because if you never have to defend your points of view, there is a very good chance you don’t really understand them, and that you hold them the same way you would hold a prejudice or superstition. It’s only through arguing with contrary viewpoints that you come to understand why what you believe is true.
Lukianoff ends his article with this:
Free speech is valuable, first and foremost, because, without it, there is no way to know the world as it actually is. Understanding human perceptions, even incorrect ones, is always of scientific or scholarly value, and, in a democracy, it is essential to know what people really believe. This is my “pure informational theory of freedom of speech.” To think that, without openness, we can know what people really believe is not only hubris, but magical thinking. The process of coming to knowing the world as it is is much more arduous than we usually appreciate. It starts with this: recognize that you are probably wrong about any number of things, exercise genuine curiosity about everything (including each other), and always remember that it is better to know the world as it really is—and that the process of finding that out never ends.
How widespread is Woke ideology? To what extent are Americans willing to discuss the issues of Wokeness? Glenn Loury discusses with Nikita Petrov. Here is an excerpt from their recent discussion:
It wasn't that long ago that Democrats were suspicious (if not hostile) to the CIA and America's other spy agencies. There was good reason for that, given the long history of propaganda, lies and manipulation by the CIA, FBI and NSA. Perhaps the peak of this DNC anti-spy state feeling occurred during Edward Snowden's revelations.
But then something happened. The Spy State became useful to the DNC, driven by their mutual hostility to Donald Trump. This was brought on by Trump himself by his ridicule of the spies. This makes for terrible political strategy, as highlighted in this short interview from 2017, Rachel Maddow interviewing Chuck Schumer: "When you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you." The CIA and NSA have immense resources for getting back at you by fueling campaigns of disinformation:
We know remarkably little about the nature of the nation’s intelligence spending, other than its supposed total, released in a report every year. By now, it’s more than $80 billion.
This brings us to Glenn Greenwald's most recent article about the bubbly friendship involving the spy state, the DNC and the DND-allied "news" media. Corruption doesn't happen in the abstract. Rather, it is furthered by the conduct of real-life human beings, often by people who willingly betray the principles that should be guiding them in exchange for money and career advancement. CNN's Natasha Bertrand is one for those people. Greenwald's article is titled: "CNN's New "Reporter," Natasha Bertrand, is a Deranged Conspiracy Theorist and Scandal-Plagued CIA Propagandist: In the U.S. corporate media, the surest way to advance is to loyally spread lies and deceit from the U.S. security state. Bertrand is just the latest example."
Glenn Greenwald continues to be a lightning rod for abuse from many political directions. These ad hominem attacks stem from his reporting because he has a problem: he follows facts where they lead, regardless of who this pisses off. His resulting and undeservedly untarnished reputation makes many people (including many of my FB "Friends") viscerally hostile to Greenwald and hesitant to read or believe what he has written. Here is the solution to that (unwarranted) hostility: Greenwald's article contains numerous links allowing you to read the underlying evidence and weep. Here is an excerpt, but I urge you to read the full article, to follow Glenn Greenwald at his Substack account and, further, to financially support his courageous journalism.
Natasha Bertrand has spent the last five years working as a spokesperson for the alliance composed of the CIA and the Democratic Party, spreading every unvetted and unproven conspiracy theory about Russiagate that they fed her. The more loyally she performed that propagandistic function, the more rapidly she was promoted and rewarded. Now she arrives at her latest destination: CNN, not only Russiagate Central along with MSNBC but also the home to countless ex-operatives of the security state agencies on whose behalf Bertrand speaks.
Once again we see the two key truths of modern corporate journalism in the U.S. First, we have the Jeffrey Goldberg Principle: you can never go wrong, but only right, by disseminating lies and propaganda from the CIA. Second, the organs that spread the most disinformation and crave disinformation agents as their employees are the very same ones who demand censorship of the internet in the name of stopping disinformation.
I've long said that if you want to understand how to thrive in this part of the media world, you should study the career advancement of Jeffrey Goldberg, propelled by one reckless act after the next. But now the sequel to the Goldberg Rise is the thriving career of this new CNN reporter whose value as a CIA propagandist Goldberg, notably, was the first to spot and reward.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
