The past few weeks I have repeatedly argued against censorship, often targeting Joe Rogan, who I initially said I disagreed with on many issues, but thought he should be refuted, not censored. Prior to this I made similar arguments about attempts to censor critics of election results, even though I never believed the election was stolen from Trump. However, even though the election wasn't stolen from Trump that doesn't mean it was close to being fair, since only candidates that are approved by mainstream media ever get medical coverage or name recognition they need to win.
Now, after I look a little closer at Joe Rogan's record and beliefs, it's becoming increasingly obvious that this is a massive smear campaign against him and a large portion of the justification for censoring him are distortions and outright lies, and many progressives are fighting against many other progressives without realizing what they're fighting about. Furthermore, the mainstream media is a leading factor in this smear campaign, yet they distort the truth and lie much more than Joe Rogan.
We should all keep in mind that what they're doing to Joe Rogan they can do to anyone of us, and although the oligarchs might gain a little power in the short term using this tactic, in the long term everyone, including the wealthy, will lose if we keep fighting each other!
Previously, when Alex Jones was censored, and Trump was banned from Twitter and other Social media, some of us warned that even though we don't support either, that this precedent would be used against the rest of us, and it has, increasing the blocking of hundreds of people on Social Media, often including those that cheered on demands for censorship of Jones, Trump, and now Joe Rogan, and many opponents of Rogan don't seem to know they agree with him on many issues, and that the media is distorting his record. Now progressive supporters of Joe Rogan are arguing with progressive supporters of Neil Young, and in some cases those opposing censorship, without supporting Rogan are also arguing with supporters of Young, even though we previously supported Young before he demanded censorship.
There's been an enormous amount of propaganda indicating that Rogan is a right wing fanatic, but growing evidence shows this isn't close to the truth; there's a now famous clip of him using the N-word in an obviously censored tape taking everything out of contest, but they fail to mention that some of it was him quoting other people in a harmless manner, and even if some of it is a legitimate concerns they fail to mention many other times where he spoke out against racism, including one clip cited by Jimmy Dore where a guest of his makes an obviously racist comment and Rogan refutes it saying that many white people are more responsible for violence than minorities, yet those smearing him omitted that portion of the conversation to make him look racist. And even if Ivermectin isn't as effective as the vaccine, it was prescribed for humans, not horse dewormer, studies show there was some benefit, and there's still a chance that it has fewer side effects, possibly making it safer. I'm not guaranteeing this is true; however, smears and censorship isn't the way to either confirm or refute it. They smeared Rogan for having positive results with Ivermectin and telling his viewers about it, and smeared Eric Clapton when he took the vaccine and having a bad reaction, then after being informed it was in his best interest despite the side effects he took the booster and had another bad reaction before telling people to be skeptical of it, and he was also smeared to discussing his experience, this included digging up past dirt for both of them. Neither Joe Rogan or Eric Clapton should be considered statistically representative, and they could be the rare exceptions, but that doesn't mean smears are justified.
There have been several studies on Ivermectin, which has been approved for other uses for thirty-five years with minimal side effects, including Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines July/August 2021, which says, "Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis." There are of course many other studies claiming that the vaccine is more effective than Ivermectin, but with all these smears and distortions some might doubt if they can trust those as well. Furthermore, we're now almost at the point where we were told we should reach herd immunity with almost 70% of the public fully vaccinated and over 80% of the public partially vaccinated, yet despite their original claims the deaths from COVID aren't going down, making some doubt the studies.
Sanjay Gupta also admitted that CNN had made false claims as shown in Joe Rogan & CNN Sanjay Gupta Podcast Transcript: Ivermectin 10/14/2021, when he said, "If you got a human pill, because there were people that were taking the veterinary medication and you’re not, obviously. You got it from a doctor, so it shouldn’t be called that. Ivermectin can be a very effective medication for parasitic disease and as you say, it’s probably... I think, what? A quarter billion people have taken it around the world. I get that." He also said that the FDA "was snarky," when they tweeted “'You are not a horse, you are not a cow, stop taking this stuff,' or something like that." Furthermore, not only was the FDA "snarky" when they tweeted this, but they should have been aware of the fact that there were numerous studies in the works, with some of them showing partial success approved by the FDA, although they weren't fast tracked for emergency use like the vaccines.
The fact that they fast tracked approval for the vaccines, which were new and relatively untested before the pandemic, under what they called "Operation Warp Speed" for emergency purposes, and not Ivermectin, which had been proven safe after thirty-three years of previous use for other purposes should raise some questions. At the beginning of the pandemic they had no way of knowing how effective either of them would be; however, at least they had research showing there was little or no chance that Ivermectin would have serious side effects, since it had been tested and used for thirty-three years, now after the pandemic is two years old it's thirty-five years. Furthermore, since it's off-patent, it's much less expensive. This isn't limited to vaccines, it's a very common practice to promote patented drugs, which are much more expensive, and often have a shorter track record, than it is to market drugs that have been around longer and may be just as effective. This is one of the things Rogan was warning his listeners about, although he didn't claim to be an expert. Harriet Washington author of "Deadly Monopolies," Marcia Angell author of "The Truth About Drug Companies," and Peter Duesberg "Inventing the AIDS Virus" all also warned about drug companies using practices that put their own profits ahead of the health of patients as well, although these were all published before the pandemic.
The CDC has acknowledged that there are Possible Side Effects After Getting a COVID-19 Vaccine; Updated Jan. 12, 2022 and in some cases as reported by Dr. John Campbell: Myocarditis after vaccination, may also be a side effect, firm data. 02/11/2022 If you Google it, you'll find that the CDC also acknowledges this possibility, although the media hardly mentions it at all. But even if you agree with the establishment that everyone should get vaccinated, it's still in your best interests to base your decisions on facts without censorship; if Joe Rogan or some of his guests are wrong they should be refuted with facts, not censored. By demanding censorship the establishment has only strengthened his support, since his viewers know more about how he's being smeared than his critics and a growing number of people who weren't previously familiar with him, including me, are learning this is a massive smear effort.
But, of course the smears against Joe Rogan aren't limited to his views on Covid, they also include misrepresenting his views on race, climate change and other issues as shown in this video, Millions Fall For Deceptively Edited Joe Rogan Video 02/09/2022 where both Jimmy Dore and Glen Greenwald expose an edited video of a guest of his making racist about African Americans having violent genes, but it fails to show Rogan's response pointing out that it's actually white people instigating most wars. Another video shows some more smears accusing him of being racist, Joe Rogan vs Joe Rogan Smears 02/14/2022, but this counters these claims with more compelling evidence including numerous interviews with African Americans, at least one with a trans woman and his claims that Barack Obama was the greatest president in our lifetime and that he hopes Michelle would run so he could support her, claiming she would win easily. Personally I have to disagree with his support for the Obama's, not because of their race, but because they caved to corporate interests that financed their campaign. One of these interviews was with Dr. Cornel West on Socialism who he seems to agree with, and who also raised doubts about Barack Obama because of his positions on the issues and the fact that he betrayed minorities once in office to serve corporate interests. Cornel West didn't seem to consider him racist and Ajamu Baraka recently tweeted "Hands down-Joe Biden is more racist than Joe Rogan," and I could easily provide evidence to support this claim.
For every celebrity African American that's criticizing Joe Rogan for using the N-word there's probably another one defending him including Israel Adesanya who said:
The UFC fighter then revealed his suspicions about the origin of the Rogan slur video. “Do you know how much manpower it takes to go through every single episode of the JRE?” he asked. “They probably had a whole team on that s**t. Trying to find every time he used the word. They would have had like 10 people on that s**t. And it’s just like, why now? Just use your brain.”
The Middleweight Champion clarified that while Rogan was wrong to have said racial slurs, he believed his apology was sincere. “Yeah, he was wrong. He shouldn’t have said that. He said “I’m sorry” and that was the most sincere apology I’ve ever seen. Not some scripted, Hollywood, my manager wrote this down for me. I’m like, what more do you want?!”
Israel Adesanya also shared his theory on why the JRE podcast was being cancelled. “He has the biggest platform on planet earth. He can’t be controlled,” he said. “So the people, the powers that be, are like let’s cancel him.” The star predicted that another wave of controversy around Rogan would pop up as his critics will keep trying to get him removed from Spotify.
There were similar misrepresentations recently when Joe Rogan interviewed Jordan Peterson and dozens of sources tried to smear them indicating both of them were Climate Change denialists including the Young Turks Hosts Destroy ‘Most Insane Word Salad You Will Ever Hear’ From Joe Rogan’s Podcast 01/29/2022 at least one of them, John Iadarola indicated that “Yeah, even Rogan didn’t really seem super on board with that.” Yes, while ridiculing someone for using an "insane word salad," one of them used the phrase, "super on board with that.” But a minimal amount of research would show that Joe Rogan was never a Climate Change denialist as indicated in at least a couple easy to find interviews on the subject, Joe Rogan & Candace Owens ARGUE Over Climate Change 05/31/2018 and a more recent one which his critics chose to ignore NEW! Joe Rogan on Climate Change! 02/08/2022 Personally, I wouldn't have invited Candice Owens on the show, but that's beside the point; in both interviews he made it clear that he took Climate Change seriously.
Amazingly there are dozens if not hundreds of people or groups claiming to defend science while demanding that Joe Rogan be censored, or as some people call it, "deplatformed," yet they haven't checked the facts and realized that a large portion of this demand is based on lies about him, not necessarily his lies about COVID or various other subjects.
I don't know whether Neil Young or many other people repeating the smears against Joe Rogan, including a Facebook moderator of a group that censored and blocked me for speaking out against censorship ever checked the facts before joining in on efforts to demand censorship and repeat the smears, but wittingly or unwittingly they helped repeat these smears, claiming to defend science. They didn't succeed in censoring the truth from Rogan supporters, but they may have succeeded in censoring the truth from themselves.
There's a growing effort to convince us that we should trust the leading so-called experts on science without question, even though good science has to allow a reasonable amount of dissent, and address it with factual arguments not ridicule. In most cases the highest profile so-called experts are subtle enough not to openly support censorship, but there are some exceptions, Including when Anthony Fauci said "Attacks On Me, Quite Frankly, Are Attacks On Science" 06/09/2021 which goes too far, since legitimate criticism is needed to sort through the facts, although I get as frustrated as anyone else with irrational attacks from the GOP against science, good or bad, which is what he was responding to. However, he has made similar efforts to censor good academics including Peter Duesberg, and at least four or five other academics who have questioned his handling of AIDS. The number of people in the medical profession questioning this is probably much higher, but as some of Fauci's critics point out, many scientists are dependent on centralized organizations like NIAID or the FDA for funding.
This also includes a lower profile academic that recently supported attempts to censor Joe Rogan who recently told me, "as for your rights, you have none," after I criticized MG's colleague, SH for demanding censorship. I won't mention names here without the full context, but I previously reported this in a Facebook post saying, "Amazingly a so-called scientific group, “S. W.” which used to be very credible and adamantly opposing censorship, while supporting Noam Chomsky, who is one of the leading opponents of censorship, is now defending censorship, instead of refuting opponents. 12/2/2021; this was followed by members of this group who defended censorship while making numerous false claims themselves because they didn't check the facts, and their comments were designed to harass me to delete my criticism of their group and attempt to have me blocked from Facebook, often deleting their own comments as they went along, but once I realized they were doing this I saved screen shots to show they were attempting to use intimidation to support censorship off their own forum and posted them on a separate page, Deleted comments about censorship
MG also said,
"We don't have a culture of censorship. We are not a group for free speech. We are here to actively fight against false claims and slander. In doing so we will actively censor, and that is a good and necessary thing."
"The concept of free speech presupposes that people are not liars and engage in honest debate. The real world however is full of them. That is why journalists are taught to fact-check and get fired when they make up stories."
The problem with this belief is the same one that has happened in every debate about censorship, who determines what the real truth is. The clear implication is that he thinks the moderators of his group do, yet they didn't fact check their own sources, leading them to encourage the censorship of some people that were at least partially telling the truth, while defending those that are at least partially lying, not engaging in honest debate. It also leads to a situation where there are multiple groups that don't listen to each other and assume their own leaders are always right and those that disagree with them are always wrong, which routinely leads to unnecessary conflicts.
Furthermore, the journalists which helped repeat these smears didn't do the fact-checking this moderator seems to think they did; and this isn't uncommon at all. This was supposed to be an environmentalist group; implying that they must know much better sources for environmental news and recognize traditional media, which he partially trusted for his smears against Joe Rogan, often fails to report on many of the biggest environmental damage or research, and even makes false claims about some of them, while selling an enormous number of ads to energy companies making them seem environmentally friendly, although there aren't quite as many of these as there used to be. But instead of demanding that they report more, or demanding that others misrepresenting the environment be "deplatformed" he's supporting those demanding censorship of Joe Rogan, even though his alleged opposition to environmental protection is based on distortions or outright lies.
However, if the people calling to have Joe Rogan censored, or deplatformed, were calling for reform across the board, so that all of us would have equal rights to free speech, or perhaps in some cases, give preferential treatment to good academics on various subjects, including those that disagree with the majority, more than the average right to free speech, I might partially agree with them. Why does Joe Rogan get so much more attention than the rest of us? Why do mainstream media pundits get paid millions of dollars per year even though they do a terrible job reporting the news and provide little or no educational material on any given subject, often getting things wrong when they do provide educational material? Why don't the best academic sources on any given subject get any media coverage, or, in many cases, do much better with the highest profile podcasts or other alternative media outlets?
The vast majority, well over 90%, of national media is controlled by six corporations; and many of the most popular other sources are also controlled, directly or indirectly by billionaires or the same corporations, and to some degree this even includes Joe Rogan! If you look up the most popular podcasts, or other alternative media outlets, in most, if not all cases you may find that many of these podcasters, including Joe Rogan initially gained their popularity from some degree of coverage from mainstream media. Joe Rogan apparently got his start as a MMA fighter then went on to star in several TV shows, including six or seven years hosting Fear Factor before he began his podcast, enabling him to get name recognition and a much bigger audience than he would have otherwise. Why would anyone even watch this pathetic show? What kind of asshole would host a pathetic show like this?
If we had a better educated public there's little or no chance that a pathetic show like this would ever become as popular as it was. Why can't good academic sources on any given subject get media coverage? In a functioning democracy we need to make good educational material available to the public so they can make rational decisions when they participate in the Democratic process. Robert McChesney went into this in a couple of his best books, "Rich Media Poor Democracy" and "The Problem of the Media," where he explained that this precedent was set when they began regulating radio before television was even developed. There were plenty of teachers and other community activists that thought that when developing regulations for radio they should require some good educational content to benefit the majority of the public, but commercial interests that wanted to maximize profits didn't want to provide this and preferred to fund it with advertising, which uses typical propaganda tactics that can't be trusted. There was some additional discussion during the Clinton presidency, but support for educational material accepted the most pathetic excuses for content that was heavily biased, which may not have been possible before the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned by the Reagan administration.
My initial comment that was deleted from a Facebook group claiming to represent a scientific organization which I reposted in my response on my own page said, "Now that support for censorship is growing, with help from Neil Young, who used to oppose it, it's being used against academics and critics of corporate conflicts of interests!" This was actually my greater concern at the time, but declining to give adequate coverage to good academic sources began long before that, and if it hadn't happened many social problems could have been prevented, including reduction of violence, which I often cover, and improved health care, which would be more related to the demand for censorship against Rogan, as well as the best researchers on environmental protection, which scientific supporters warning us about Climate Change, like the moderator that deleted my comment must be aware of.
There has always been plenty of evidence showing that medicare for all will save billions of dollars and thousands of lives every year, and other countries proved how it can be implemented. But instead of demanding more coverage of this, Rogan's opponents are demanding he be censored, even though he supports this. There's also a lot of research showing patent reform will save an enormous amount of money and lives, including books by Marcia Angell, "The Truth About Drug Companies," Harriet Washington, "Medical Apartheid" and "Deadly Monopolies;" these researchers also provide good and credible research showing many conflicts of interests for corporations and politicians. Yet instead of demanding more coverage for good researchers like these, they're demanding Rogan be censored, even though he's shown he's sympathetic to their research even though he doesn't present it as well.
Harriet Washington and Marcia Angell haven't been smeared by commercial media and the pharmaceutical industry that I know, at least not yet, but they hardly get much coverage either, so few people are familiar with their work and how good it is. However, some of the of critics of the medical industry, including some researchers exposing distortions about COVID, or before that other issues, like AIDS, have, even though a lot of their work is very good, although I wouldn't guarantee that all of it is. Both Robert F. Kennedy, author of "The Real Anthony Fauci," and Peter Duesberg, author of "Inventing the AIDS Virus," did some very credible research in their books, although they've been badly smeared by the media and medical establishment. They both provide good coverage of major conflicts of interests, which might explain why their critics resort to smears and attempted censorship instead of scientific rebuttals. In RFK's case he made a few regrettable comments during public speeches, which enabled those trying to smear him, but the quality of his book is much better than his speeches. I wouldn't be surprised if he had more help researching it than he acknowledges, but whether this is the case or not, many of his claims are well sourced and can be easily confirmed. Even if they are wrong about some things, which they almost certainly are, then their critics should respond with fact based rebuttals, not smears; however, this tactic might show that they're right about many other things.
There are also many good experts researching the most effective ways to reduce violence, and they often find that it's much more cost effective for everyone to treat the root causes long before violence escalates, yet, outside of the academic world they hardly get any media coverage at all! I've looked into this much more than the pandemic or AIDS, so I can safely say that many of the best academics absent from the media are very credible, and unlike some academics, like Peter Duesberg, they're not marginalized by the rest of the academic world, but still they get no media coverage and policy decisions aren't based on their research, which could save many lives and billions of dollars. Some of these academics include Barbara Coloroso, Murray Straus, Stacy Patton, and many more, including James Garbarino, who has cited studies showing a home visitor program saves lives and money, Zagar's study which shows that for every dollar spent on treatment programs to at risk children at least six or seven dollars are saved in other expenses, mentor programs in the ghettos that dramatically reduce murder rates in high risk areas, and many other studies showing it saves far more lives and money than they cost, yet few people are aware of it, because they get little or no media coverage. There are similar studies from Portugal showing it's much more effective to treat drug addition than criminalize it, and Finland where they've shown it's cheaper to house the homeless than to deal with long term social consequences. Even though Rogan doesn't do as good a job as these researchers, he's said he supports these types of programs, yet instead of demanding more coverage for these academics they're demanding censorship of Rogan.
And of course, there are many other academics from many other subjects that can't get media coverage, including the best research on Climate Change or other environmental problems, that can't get any media coverage. I could point out many sources for this as well, but you can find them easily in libraries or alternative media outlets, but not in the mainstream media, nor are policy decisions being made based on the best research. Many good activists on a variety of subjects, including environmentalists, are as aware of this if not more aware of this than me, and contrary to some of the smears Joe Rogan agrees, yet some of these environmentalists are jumping on the bandwagon to have him censored.
Then who gains from all this petty bickering? In the long run, no one, especially if we ignore escalating threats from environmental destruction, including Climate Change, wars based on lies and many other social problems that get worse as a result of censorship and bickering, eventually this will come back to haunt even those increasing profits in the short run.
The pharmaceutical companies are increasing their short term profits in the short term since this is distracting from any discussion of Medciare for All or patent reform, and they can continue gouging consumers and tax payers; large media outlets have demonstrated to others that might think of speaking out against the establishment that they might face major retaliation, keeping many in line with the establishment thought process, and since Neil Young moved his music from Spotify to Amazon which is an even bigger oligarchs and other musicians followed suit the consolidation of control of the media has increased, benefiting the oligarchs. Ironically, even though there are more people outraged with Joe Rogan as a result of this smear effort, there are also a lot more people that know about his show and support him, so Joe Rogan will be one of the short term winners from this. His older viewers knew all along that this was a smear based on exaggerations distortions and outright lies and are supporting him more than ever. In addition to that there are a lot more people taking a closer look at him, including me, and learning that he's being smeared, and many of them have become his new supporters.
This means that the efforts to smear him had the opposite effect, and those participating in it should have known this. It's amazing that while so many people were laughing about how attempts to censor Maus were having the Streisand Effect, including many that supported censorship of Joe Rogan, yet they couldn't see that demanding censorship of Rogan would do the same thing, and lead to senseless bickering! Edward Snowden pointed out that the people with the strongest opinions about Joe Rogan are those that never watched his show, which is partly true and this explains why many of them didn't realize that a large portion of the demand for censorship was based on exaggerations, distortions, lies and smears. Just about everyone else will lose from this including many progressives that had to deal with petty bickering instead of pursuing their causes, often also supported by Joe Rogan. Even though Neil Young might also get a short term increase of support from those that agree with him, he has also lost a lot of support from many fans that still support free speech and saw through this; furthermore, not surprisingly, some people did the same thing to him that Rogan's critics and searched through his past to find comments like him worrying about "the faggot behind the register" at the grocery store. In the long run he may pay a much higher price than Rogan.
Fauci Rips ‘Very Disturbed’ RFK Jr.’s Attacks on His Career: ‘It’s a Shame’ Because He’s a Kennedy 12/22/2021 In the interview Kennedy called Dr. Fauci "an abject failure" and accused him of "turning that agency into an incubator for pharmaceutical products... Now, under his watch, we take more drugs than anybody in the world, we paid the highest prices for them, and we have the worst health outcomes, and that is all Tony Fauci."
Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug? 07/28/2021
WHO advises that ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials 03/31/2021
Joe Rogan Is NOT Right Wing - He’s A Lefty 02/06/2022
Ivermectin shows ‘antiviral effect’ against COVID, Japanese company says 01/31/2022 Mexico has 20% lower COVID deaths than the USA; however, Mexico City may be significantly higher. Part of the reason for thier high rate might be high concentration of people, which was a leading factor early in the pandemic. Other studies allegedly show sucess with IVM, but, if anything this may be negative.
Joe Rogan & CNN Sanjay Gupta Podcast Transcript: Ivermectin 10/14/2021 Sanjay Gupta: (02:17) If you got a human pill, because there were people that were taking the veterinary medication and you’re not, obviously. You got it from a doctor, so it shouldn’t be called that. Ivermectin can be a very effective medication for parasitic disease and as you say, it’s probably… I think, what? A quarter billion people have taken it around the world. I get that.
Eric Clapton says he had a “disastrous” reaction to COVID-19 vaccine after experiencing side-effects 05/17/2021
Eric Clapton's Covid vaccine conspiracies mark a sad final act 10/15/2021
COMPILATION: Debunking Media's 'Right Wing' Rogan Narrative |Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar 02/10/2022
As Biden's Pandemic Response Fails, Democrats Scapegoat Podcasters and the Public 02/08/2022
Krystal Ball: Inside End Game of Rogan SMEAR Campaign 02/07/2022
Joe Rogan Corners CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta On Smear Campaign Against Him & Ivermectin 10/14/2021
Joe Rogan Smear Campaign in Full Force 02/07/2022
Johns Hopkins University study reveals COVID lockdowns prevented just 0.2% of deaths 02/03/2022
Dr. Peter McCullough: Official COVID ‘narrative has crumbled’ 01/14/2022
Jimmy Dore:No, 270 “Doctors” Didn’t Criticize Joe Rogan 01/18/2022 3:19
How Much Influence Did Pfizer Have Over Neil Young's Decision to Try to Cancel Joe Rogan on Spotify? Owners of His Music Rights Are Advised By Pfizer! 01/29/2022
California nurses report ‘overwhelming’ number of heart attacks, clotting in vaccinated patients 12/24/2021
CDC Study: Natural Immunity Beats Vax Against Delta Variant 01/20/2022
CDC Study: Natural Immunity Provides Significantly More Protection Against COVID Than Vaccination Only 01/20/2022
Massive increase in Myocarditis after vaccines. 01/23/2022
Clinical Considerations: Myocarditis and Pericarditis after Receipt of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Among Adolescents and Young Adults 11/09/2021
Bill Gates Wants To Release Genetically Modified Mosquitoes To Inject You With Vaccines 03/26/2021
23 die in Norway after receiving Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: officials 01/15/2021
Jimmy Dore: Supreme Court Justice Spreads COVID Misinformation About Basic Facts 01/09/2022 Kids in hospitals for other reasons are automatically tested for COVID, but not hospitalized because of it.
Harriet A. Washington on the Narrative Around Vaccine Hesitancy in the African American Community 03/19/2021
Medical Apartheid Goes Viral: History, Ethics and the COVID-19 Pandemic 04/08/2021
Louisiana Nurse Blows the Whistle: “We Have Had More Children Die from the COVID Vaccine Than of COVID Itself” 01/01/2022
Fauci DEMANDS Fox Host Be 'Fired On The Spot' | Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar 01/01/2022 Berman and Fauci take comments about "Kill shot," which refered to asking a hard hitting question, from Jessie Waters out of context, implying it was really a kill shot.
US cardiologist makes false claims about Covid-19 vaccination 04/09/2021 “People under 50 who fundamentally have no health risks, there’s no scientific rationale for them to ever become vaccinated,” Dr Peter McCullough says in testimony to the Senate of the US state of Texas around the 13-minute mark of this video.
Dr. John Campbell: Myocarditis after vaccination, firm data 02/11/2022
Dr. John Campbell: Infection generates natural immunity 02/14/2022
80% of Hawaiis drinking water is contaminated with jet fuel. 02/12/2022
US military faces crisis in Hawaii after leak poisons water 02/05/2022
To: President Biden, Secretary of Defense Austin, Secretary of the Navy Del Toro; Hawai’i Congressional Delegation; Governor of State of Hawai'i; Director, Hawaii’s Department of Health; Environmental Protection Agency 93,000 in Honolulu With Water Contaminated by Fuel-Shut Down 20 Massive 79 Yr. Old Jet Fuel Tanks
Jet fuel in Hawaii’s drinking water the latest example of military’s negligence 12/13/2021
Dem SuperPAC Behind Rogan Smear Campaign 02/08/2022
Damning Video of Media Lying About Ivermectin 02/03/2022
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines July/August 2021 Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis.
Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen 06/12/2020
The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial 01/19/2021 My sumation: Large portions of this study may be inconclusive, butt here are some positive results from the drug in some circumstances, and little risk. Read the study to draw your own conclusions.
Jon Stewart warns Joe Rogan’s critics 02/13/2022
Neil Young quits Facebook in response to 'false information given to public' 11/22/2019
TikTok CENSORS Breaking Points For Defending Joe Rogan | Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar 02/21/2022
Opinion | The Dangerous Appeal of Neil Young’s Righteous Censorship 01/31/2022 Neil Young seemed ready to trade civil liberties for the illusion of safety when he backed the passage of the Patriot Act. “Even though we have to protect freedoms, it seems we’re going to have to relinquish some of our freedoms for a short period of time,” Billboard quoted him saying at an award ceremony.
Did Neil Young Use Homophobic Slurs When Talking About AIDS? 02/02/2022 “It is scary. You go to a supermarket and you see a faggot behind the fuckin’ cash register, you don’t want him to handle your potatoes.”
No comments:
Post a Comment