Why are the Elites freaking out over free speech? In a mass-email to subscribers, Catherine Herridge explains:
The new super consumers of news are flocking to X and other platforms that support independent journalism, diverse voices, and embrace transparency which can strengthen democracy. This is nothing short of an industrial revolution driven both by technology and by loss of trust in corporate media. In 2023, Human Rights lawyer Jacob Mchangama wrote about the upheaval and resulting, 'elite panic.
Elite panic is this recurring phenomenon throughout the history of free speech, where whenever the public sphere is expanded, either through new communications technology, or to segments of the population that were previously marginalized, the traditional gatekeepers, the elites who control access to information, tend to fret about the dangers of allowing the unwashed mob — who are too fickle, too unsophisticated, too unlearned — unmediated access to information. They need information to be filtered through the responsible gatekeepers and it may be even more dangerous to allow them to speak without adult supervision. That's a phenomenon that we see again and again. And we're seeing it play out now on social media. … [Elite panic is] one contributing factor to the free speech recession.
Hepatitis B can only be transmitted sexually or by needles, yet the CDC insists that it is needed by newborn babies. What safety tests were run on the Hepatitis B vaccine by the manufacturer before it was released for children (including infants)? Only 147 children were injected and they were followed for only 5 days. There are so very many problems with this "testing," as explained by attorney Aaron Siri and Del Bigtree. Here is an excerpt:
Aaron Siri and Del Bigtree about hepatitis B vaccine: "Let's say you have a 1 in 200 issue, right? Let's say a 1 in 200, which would be very high. If we talk about like vaccine injury, they'll say, oh, it's 1 in a million. Well, let's just say it's like 1 in 200. If you only have 150 children in a study, you may not even see that issue, right?
Isn't that sort of like? Yeah, that's ridiculous. No clinical trial would ever have 150 children. Right, I mean. That's, you know what that sounds like, Del? That sounds like an anti-vaccine conspiracy theory. You're right, you're right. That's what it sounds like. We don't wanna do that. Yep. So how many people were in this study? Oh, it was 147. Yeah.
Let's go through it. It's one of my favorite things to do in depositions when I depose pediatricians, I'll ask. So tell me some of the false things you've heard about vaccines. What are those folks, got issued vaccines, saying? I just let them go and it's amazing how many times, many things they say are true. Right. And, you know, and that's... So they'll say that we haven't done proper safety studies.
Really, they've said that, huh? Like, how long would be a proper safety study, right? I could tell you some very interesting ones, but I don't want to digress. In three clinical studies, and here it is, here's the sentence summarizing by the FDA, you know, it's written by the company, approved by the FDA, summarized in clinical trial, relied upon to license for Comvax HB before it was injected into millions of babies. Here it is.
In three clinical studies, 434 doses of RecomVax HP5 micrograms were administered to 147 healthy infants and children up to 10 years of age who were monitored for five days after each dose. If I would have told anybody that, they would have said I'm crazy. There's no way. They tell us that they properly study these vaccines before they go on the market. They are robustly, the most thoroughly and robust study products ever.
But there it was, black and white, on the FDA website. So let's go through the three variables. First, what was the control? None listed. Meaning, what was the group that didn't get it that you compared them to track them for the same four days five days five days and said well look you had more fevers or more headaches or how much you'd see in five days you know but did the group that didn't get it got the placebo did they have the same amount of any those things obviously five days.
The Washington Post is concerned that the new public health officials are untested, failing to mention that the Biden public health officials got almost everything wrong about COVID, often lying to us and covering up their lies and missteps ever since. Excerpt:
Some health experts worry that those poised to assume prominent positions have gone too far in criticizing the pandemic response. “When we get into another firefight with a microbe, we need all hands on deck, and we need the best science and the best public health practice to come forward,” said Michael T. Osterholm, a University of Minnesota infectious-disease expert who advised President Joe Biden’s transition team. “I’m not confident at this point that this administration can do that.”
Fascinating discussion about Ukraine, censorship and the insanity of the neocons (of the U.S. and western Europe). Here's an excerpt from a much longer conversation titled "Gambling with Nukes" by Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn.
Matt Taibbi 0:16
There's a gamble implicit in it. You are firing missiles at a nuclear power and you are gambling that they are not going to fire them back, right? And there was, there were actually quotes from American officials talking about how, you know the real irresponsible people were the Russians. They were the ones you know, who were being irresponsible. Let's see what was the quote? The EU foreign policy chief Joseph Burrell said it's not the first time that Putin plays the nuclear gamble, okay? And this was before the launch of the British missiles, and after the launch of the of the ATACMS missiles. And then, and then this guy, [British Prime Minister, [Keir] Starmer, who comes out, and he looks like a cross of Max Headroom and Noel Coward. I mean, like, I can't even that the whole presentation is so disturbing. This like kind of blinking creature who speaks in that bizarre accent, just repeating catch phrases over and over again while he talks about firing missiles at Russia. It just seems crazy, right? And then that is succeeded by new news that came out that, apparently, the French are going to be next, and they're going to, they're going to be sending something called SCALP missiles into Russia. And, you know, then we get the ICBM fired back.
Walter Kirn 1:59
Well, they're, they're all they're all making themselves targets, aren't they? I mean, they're lining up. Should there be any doubt about the legitimacy? Who cares about legitimacy? Who cares about all the rules anymore these? Who cares about the norms? Dude, they just broke the biggest norm in history, which was to send our missiles into a nuclear state to land and explode. That's the biggest norm in American or world history, since those kind of things were invented, frankly, so the rules based international order--that's out the window. Norms are out the window, not shooting missiles into the home territory of the greatest nuclear power next to the United States is out the window. All of this being led by a lame duck American president who is all week in South America, while his vice president, who just ran for president, is vacationing in Hawaii. Well, Aloha. The whole mask is off.
The thing that scares me is how these people ever expect that they and their party will be taken seriously for five seconds should they ever try to float a peace message or a humanitarian message. Again, the party of social justice, and in England, the left wing party, the Labor Party, to which Starmer belongs, are at a moment when we have actually, in the United States, the center, the crown, of this power structure, voted out our executive It is beyond insane, and it will not end well. Matt, just as I was upset on Monday, I can tell you that next week we will be even more upset. Things are going to happen, and things are already happening every day, when this missile went off this morning. Every power in the world that has modern warning systems had an alarm go off right for the first moments after its launch. The United States had to assume that it was under nuclear attack.
[MORE . . .]
There was something truly surreal about President Biden suddenly changing course and agreeing to give Ukraine advanced long-range missiles to attack deep inside Russian territory in the last two months of his administration. There was no speech to the nation; no debate in the Senate; just a quiet demonstration of unilateral presidential fuck-you power. You know: the kind we’ve long worried about with Donald Trump. The missiles up the ante considerably against a nuclear power for a simple reason. As Putin noted:
[E]xperts are well aware, and the Russian side has repeatedly emphasized this, that it is it is impossible to use such weapons without the direct involvement of military specialists of the countries producing such weapons ... We consider ourselves entitled to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow to use their weapons against our facilities. And in case of escalation of aggressive actions we will respond also decisively and mirrored.'
There was a time when a NATO missile strike on Russian territory, followed by a Russian threat to attack NATO “military facilities” in response, would have caused the world to stop dead, paralyzed by the fear of nuclear armageddon. Yet here we are, blithely preoccupied by Pete Hegseth’s sexual exploits and Congressional bathrooms.
Others are not so sanguine. “I believe that in 2024 we can absolutely believe that the Third World War has begun,” Ukraine’s former military chief, Valery Zaluzhny, warned yesterday, noting both the new involvement of NATO troops and the involvement of North Korea. Our own president, having brought us much closer to the brink as a lame duck, seemed unconcerned. He was last seen wandering off-stage in the vague direction of the Brazilian rainforest. Not optimal.
The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, was even punchier, and pledged to allow Ukraine to use British long-range missiles as well: “We need to double down. We need to make sure Ukraine has what is necessary for as long as necessary, because we cannot allow Putin to win this war.” When asked if he was prepared to risk the UK forces or Ukraine or a third country like Poland being nuked in response, as Putin has threatened, Starmer simply ignored the question. ...
The brinksmanship over Ukraine will set a precedent for brinksmanship over Taiwan. What Putin and Biden have done — by allowing this conflict to persist, despite no chance of a conventional military victory for either side — is to render the world far less stable and far more dangerous than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Quite a legacy for a president we were assured was a foreign-policy master.