Editorials 360

News from 360 Degree

YouTube Bans Mercola Movies

The noose of censorship continues to tighten. I just lately reported how Twitter now falsely labels Mercola article hyperlinks as unsafe and malicious, warning potential readers my website would possibly steal passwords and different private knowledge, or set up malware in your pc.

It’s completely false. Quite the opposite, my website now has a firewall stopping Google analytic scripts from operating on our pages, thereby defending you from Google’s intrusive knowledge mining. Sadly, by declaring our pages harmful, they efficiently suppress about 95% of our Twitter views.

Google, in fact, began banning Mercola content material from its searches mid-2019. I wrote about this in “Stunning Proof How Google Censors Well being Information” and “Google Buries Mercola in Newest Search Engine Replace.” Fb additionally suppressed our attain, and in August 2019, I made the choice to cease supporting their unscrupulous knowledge mining efforts by leaving Fb.

Extra just lately, NewsGuard (once more) categorized mercola.com as faux information as a result of we reported proof suggesting SARS-CoV-2 virus could possibly be a artifical virus leaked from the biosafety stage Four laboratory in Wuhan Metropolis, China, and two of my COVID-19 interviews have additionally been deleted off Spotify with out recourse.

Spotify claims it solely prohibits unlawful content material, hate content material and infringing content material. My interviews about coronavirus with Brian Hoyer and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., clearly don’t fall underneath any of those classes, but they have been eliminated anyway.

YouTube Bans Competing Well being Views

As anticipated, YouTube has now descended upon us and has began banning our movies, a majority of that are interviews with well being consultants sharing their medical or scientific experience and viewpoints on COVID-19. They embody the next movies which you can watch in full on the uncensored Bitchute that many various media websites are actually utilizing for his or her video content material.

Obtain Interview Transcript
Obtain Interview Transcript

YouTube additionally banned my video discussing the World Well being Group, and one through which I present details about and directions on learn how to use hydrogen peroxide remedy as a prophylactic towards COVID-19.

YouTube Fulfills Promise to Censor on Behalf of the WHO

Whereas disappointing, this censorship was not sudden, contemplating YouTube’s CEO went on file saying they will censor anybody talking towards the World Well being Group. In an April 23, 2020, article,1 Enterprise Insider reported statements made by YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, spouse of Google product director Dennis Troper:

“Wojcicki says the platform will ban content material peddling faux or unproven coronavirus treatments. In an interview with CNN, she additionally prompt that video that ‘goes towards’ WHO steerage on the pandemic will likely be blocked.

For instance, she mentioned, content material that claimed vitamin C or turmeric would remedy individuals of COVID-19 would be ‘a violation of our coverage’ and eliminated accordingly. She continued: ‘Something that goes towards WHO suggestions can be a violation of our coverage …'”

It is vital to appreciate that by banning something that contradicts the WHO’s suggestions, Wojcicki asserts that the WHO is infallible, which it clearly isn’t. There is not any scarcity of examples proving WHO has been unsuitable on many events, and shouldn’t be relied upon because the premier, not to mention sole, supply of data and medical instruction.

The WHO is past conflicted, and due to its current funding fails to finish its preliminary mandate to advertise the attainment of “the best doable stage of well being” by all peoples. For the reason that U.S. authorities has withdrawn its assist from the WHO, Invoice Gates — with all of his drug firm pursuits — is now its largest funder.

The WHO Has Deep Conflicts of Curiosity

The concept the WHO is infallible and needs to be the only real supply of data is extremely harmful. The place are the checks and balances to its energy and affect? And why ought to we swallow all the things it says with out query, when it has beforehand been strongly criticized for its dealing with of different pandemics, such because the 2009 swine flu pandemic?2

In June 2010, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Meeting (PACE) concluded “the dealing with of the pandemic by the World Well being Group (WHO), EU well being companies and nationwide governments led to a ‘waste of huge sums of public cash, and unjustified scares and fears in regards to the well being dangers confronted by the European public.'”3

Primarily based on the information we now have, can anybody severely say that enormous sums of cash have not been wasted and that the narrative of the pandemic response has not pushed unjustifiable fears about SARS-CoV-2 well being dangers, because it pertains to a majority of the inhabitants?

Again in 2010, PACE concluded that the drug trade had influenced the group’s decision-making and had been a driving pressure behind its fearmongering.4 Once more, there will be little doubt we’re seeing the identical affect in motion proper now, as we proceed to be advised life can not return to regular till we get a vaccine and inoculate the complete world.

In the meantime, Huge Tech — the surveillance capitalists backing the WHO and the drug trade and doing their bidding — are suppressing and outright banning preventive and various methods, the obvious examples being vitamin C, vitamin D, ozone remedy, hyperbaric oxygen and hydroxychloroquine, all of which I’ve mentioned in current articles.

There’s completely no assure that the WHO is making right, unbiased selections. In truth, the proof factors in the other way, and that is exactly why one should not silence consultants who problem and level out flaws within the narrative.

Even the U.S. Facilities for Illness Management and Prevention, which usually will get high billing relating to infectious illness experience, has issued suggestions that battle with these issued by the WHO over the course of this pandemic, equivalent to whether or not wholesome individuals ought to5 or mustn’t6 put on a masks in public.

Egregious Examples of Censorship

The examples of censorship are so quite a few at this level, it is unattainable to current a full image of simply how a lot data is being ruthlessly eliminated. Right here is however a small handful of current examples that happily have obtained some measure of consideration:

  • The documentary “Plandemic” by Mikki Willis, that includes Judy Mikovits, Ph.D. was banned from social media platforms and hidden by Google. In the event you do a web-based seek for it, all you discover are dozens of pages with articles calling it a hoax, a fraud or the dreaded previous “conspiracy idea.” Google Drive even eliminated downloaded copies of the movie from customers’ private recordsdata.7
  • A video by Knut Wittkowski, Ph.D., DSc, an epidemiologist and former head of biostatistics, epidemiology and analysis design at Rockefeller College, was eliminated by YouTube. In it, he challenges the knowledge of lockdown orders.8
  • A Full Measure Information report9 through which award-winning information reporter Sharyl Attkisson interviewed medical doctors reporting good outcomes with hydroxychloroquine was eliminated by YouTube. The section additionally seemed on the potential monetary motives driving the mass media’s disdain for the drug, whereas selling remdesivir and as-of-yet-unavailable vaccines.10
  • In April 2020, Twitter suspended the account of the publicly traded biotech firm AYTU BioScience after it shared details about its novel UV gentle remedy for COVID-19, which it’s growing in collaboration with Cedars-Sinai medical middle.11 YouTube additionally eliminated a video demonstrating how the know-how works.
  • YouTube additionally took down a viral video12 by Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, co-owners of Accelerated Pressing Care in Bakersfield, California, through which they questioned the accuracy of COVID-19 mortality statistics and the logic behind California’s stay-at-home order. 

All of those examples are a part of Silicon Valley’s surveillance capitalism equipment. It is actually all about controlling whole populations and shaping public opinion to learn sure firms, industries and/or political events. And it is shockingly efficient. Google’s search algorithms alone have the ability to shift 15 million votes main as much as the 2020 presidential election, based on calculations.

You’ll be able to study extra about this in “Google — A Dictator In contrast to Something the World Has Ever Identified,” through which I interview Robert Epstein, Ph.D., a senior analysis psychologist for the American Institute of Behavioral Analysis and Expertise, the place for the final decade he has helped expose Google’s manipulative and misleading practices. 

Free Speech Being Decimated — Can We Dwell Free With out It?

Can well being be maintained in the event you solely have entry to at least one perspective? Can democracy be maintained the ultimate entry to all sides of a problem? Can what is correct for people and the nation as an entire be ascertained with out having the ability to hear differing factors of view? I do not suppose so. Censorship is anathema to well being and freedom throughout the board.

Now, even those that just a few months in the past did not care in regards to the censoring of sure people or teams are beginning to get up to see the risks of our present trajectory. Clearly, motion have to be taken if we’re to take care of any semblance of private liberty.

Might 28, 2020, President Trump took the preliminary step of signing an Government Order on Stopping On-line Censorship,13 which requires the Federal Communications Fee to make clear laws underneath Part 23014 of the Communications Decency Act.

Part 230 of the Communications Decency Act is what, to this point, has allowed social media platforms to choose and select what they permit on their website whereas nonetheless being afforded authorized protections. 

In easy phrases, if you are an web service supplier, you are not answerable for what customers are posting in your platform, however you continue to have the correct to dam dangerous content material (equivalent to pornography) offered it is accomplished in good religion. In the event you’re a writer, however, you will be held legally accountable for the content material you publish, and due to this fact have free reign over the viewpoints you’ll or is not going to permit.

Social media giants like Twitter and Fb have lengthy asserted that they’re web service suppliers, and due to this fact not answerable for content material. But they systematically censor solely sure factors of view, which is the exact opposite of what Part 230 sought to realize.

Inside 60 days, the Secretary of Commerce, “in session with the Lawyer Normal, and appearing by way of the Nationwide Telecommunications and Info Administration (NTIA),” is required to file a petition for rulemaking with the FCC, and the FCC is requested to behave “expeditiously” in presenting its laws.

Who Decides What’s Proper and What’s Not?

It is laborious to fathom that on this 21st century we’re on a fast-track into a brand new mental and scientific Darkish Age. Simply who is definitely certified sufficient to determine what content material is deceptive or what well being practices are dangerous?

Unequivocal scientific consensus is difficult to seek out, it doesn’t matter what we’re speaking about, and relating to a novel virus that’s nonetheless being actively investigated, it appears silly to ban any view, irrespective of how unpopular it is perhaps with the scientific, industrial, navy and political institutions.

How else can we presumably ever get to the reality and discover out what works? So long as we’ve got scientists trying into issues, the science on any given subject won’t ever be totally settled. Because of this, avoiding conflicting viewpoints and differing scientific findings will likely be nearly unattainable. The choice is to stop scientific inquiry altogether and give up to opinion alone.