When Elon Musk bought Tw!tter for $44 billion in October, he promised to scrutinise the previous administration. Whether this was because he genuinely wanted to emancipate the company or because he was annoyed at being forced to pay the price he paid (after being sued), who knows but it provides for some interesting reading.
Musk enlisted the help of several journalists, including Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Michael Shellenberger and Lee Fang. Apparently, his one request was that any information found must first be revealed on Tw!tter. On 2 December, the first installment of the Tw!tter files was released with the most recent, ninth part, published on Christmas Eve. So, what have we learnt so far? Benjamin Carlson provides a good summary:
You may agree with each decision. But there is no denying that halting information flow and free debate had real consequences.
One difference: his embrace of public polls to set policy.
This is how you get Billy Baldwin in the crosshairs. Once you silence a president, who has a right to speak? This is all massive stuff but nothing most of us didn't already know or suspect. And the Fauci files that Musk keeps saying he will release haven't been published yet. But the important question is, why have the Main Stream Media barely reported on it? If we had learnt that the secret services in another country had meddled with elections in their country, it would be everywhere. But happens in the West and nothing. I keep getting adverts from the BBC popping up telling me to trust them. So what have the BBC written about the Tw!tter files to earn my trust? It seems they have only written a brief article, two weeks ago, merely touching on the issues mentioned above. The article titled " Tw!tter Files spark debate about 'blacklisting'" says we are missing the context as to whether other accounts have faced similar treatment. Furthermore, they question whether the restricted accounts were in breach of rules for example spreading false claims about C0v!d. The BBC continues, "restricting accounts can be a useful tool if they are spreading harmful material." and "there have been various reports suggesting marginalised groups including trans and plus size people were more likely to have their accounts restricted." So, unfortunately, I can't trust you BBC, you haven't written one sentence on the implications such meddling could have had on the US elections. If there had been an equivalent Russian Tw!tter Files, you would have been on the case every single day. Marianna Spring, the BBC's infamous disinformation correspondent analyses the situation at the end of the article. Unsurprisingly, but predictably, her main point is that how you interpret the " Tw!tter Files" depends on how you think misinformation should be dealt with. She also says that those caught up in the revelations have received backlash online. Again, nothing about how the misinformation and censorship may have changed the outcome of the US election. But that's about it from the BBC. Next on to the Guardian. They have one article called "I read Elon Musk's ' Tw!tter Files' so you don't have to" which pretty much sums up their position. The article describes the censorship as "individual examples of rightwing users being on the end of light-touch moderation" and Jay Bhattacharya as a " C0v!d sceptic". And again, other than this, the Guardian haven't reported on the issue since. The more right wing leaning newspapers have a few more stories. The Times and Telegraph reported on how Tw!tter aided the Pentagon, how Donald Trump was banned and a Republican claim that the Biden family is the most corrupt in history. The Daily Mail is probably the only UK paper to have covered this story in detail. So why, after all of the revelations from the " Tw!tter Files" is much of the Main Stream Media so happy to ignore what had been going on? It's a rhetorical question. I know the answer and you know the answer but one which erodes any remaining trust we might have in MSM reporting. Most people, especially older people, trust the BBC, read the odd headline and watch the evening news. So, when the real scandals revealed in the " Tw!tter Files" are never reported on, the general population don't have a clue. Even with well-read people, I have tried to discuss the topic but they haven't even heard of the " Tw!tter Files", let alone what has been revealed. And this is before the Fauci files are released, if they ever are. But if they are, then don't for one second think that the general public will hear about them or change their position on anything to do with Covid. It just won't happen unfortunately. If the MSM do report on the Fauci files, it will be brief and they will conclude that lockdowns were necessary to prevent deaths and vaccines are a miracle from God. You're currently a free subscriber to The Naked Emperor's Newsletter. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
Monday, December 26, 2022
Tw!tter Files - The important question
Friday, December 23, 2022
governor who wants to protect citizens
Tuesday, December 20, 2022
Babies With Zero Data
In mid-June 2022, the United States became the first country in the world to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for COVID jabs for toddlers as young as 6 months.1
Then, October 20, 2022, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) shocked the nation even more by unanimously (15-0) voting to add the unlicensed COVID-19 shots to the U.S. vaccine schedules for children, adolescents and adults.2
December 8, 2022, the U.S. government outdid itself yet again, authorizing bivalent COVID jabs for babies as young as 6 months old. These reformulated bivalent shots were authorized for adults, based on nothing more than antibody levels in mice, just three months earlier, at the end of August.3 According to the FDA's December 8, 2022, press release:4
"Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of the updated (bivalent) Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines to include use in children down to 6 months of age …
Children 6 months through 5 years of age who received the original (monovalent) Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine are now eligible to receive a single booster of the updated (bivalent) Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine two months after completing a primary series with the monovalent Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.
Children 6 months through 4 years of age who have not yet begun their three-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine or have not yet received the third dose of their primary series will now receive the updated (bivalent) Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine as the third dose in their primary series following two doses of the original (monovalent) Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
Children 6 months through 4 years of age who have already completed their three-dose primary series with the original (monovalent) Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will not be eligible for a booster dose of an updated bivalent vaccine at this time."
No Data Showing Shots Are 'Safe and Effective'
- 1 FDA June 17, 2022
- 2 Rumble October 20, 2022
- 3 New York Times August 31, 2022 (Archived)
- 4 FDA December 8, 2022
- 5, 7 RW Malone Substack December 10, 2022
- 6 CDC ACIP Meeting Slide Deck September 1, 2022
- 8 CDC Provisional COVID-19 Deaths 0-18 Years
- 9 Rumble Vaccine Safety Research Foundation June 9, 2022
- 10 Rumble How Pfizer Twisted Clinical Trial Data June 17, 2022
- 11 medRxiv May 6, 2021
- 12 Daily Wire October 21, 2022
- 13 Reuters October 20, 2022
- 14, 17 Childrens Health Defense Pennsylvania Chapter June 22, 2022
- 15 Bailiwick News April 28, 2022
- 16 Bailiwick News June 9, 2022
Monday, December 19, 2022
New Catastrophic Contagion
Trianing African Leaders to Go Along With the Narrative
Tellingly, the Catastrophic Contagion exercise focused on getting leadership in African countries involved and trained in following the script. Participants included 10 current and former Health Ministers and senior public health officials from Senegal, Rwanda, Nigeria, Angola, Liberia, Singapore, India and Germany, as well as Gates himself.
African nations just so happened to go "off script" more often than others during the C0V!D pandemic, and didn't follow in the footsteps of developed nations when it came to pushing the jabs. As a result, vaccine makers now face the problem of having a huge control group, as the C0V!D jab uptake on the African continent was only 6%.7
Not surprisingly (for those in the know), Africa has fared far better than developed nations with high C0V!D jab rates in terms of C0V!D-19 infections and related deaths.8
Now, the Catastrophic Contagion exercise predicts SERES-25 will kill 20 million people worldwide, including 15 million children, and many who survive the infection will be left with paralysis and/or brain damage. In other words, the "cue" given is that the next pandemic will likely target children rather than the elderly, as was the case with C0V!D-19.
This is an interesting coincidence, seeing how rates of toddlers and young children hospitalized with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is already spiking.
- 1 SPARS Pandemic Scenario
- 2 Anthony Fauci Deposition Transcript November 23, 2022
- 3 Catastrophic Contagion
- 4 Catastrophic Contagion Videos
- 5 CDC Enterovirus D68
- 6 CDC Enteroviruses
- 7 First Post November 19, 2021
- 8 Yahoo News November 19, 2021
- 9 medRxiv May 6, 2021
- 10 Infectious Diseases Now August 2021; 51(5): 418-423
- 11 Twitter Helen Branswell December 13, 2022
- 12 Asia Pacific Today August 4, 2022
- 13 Twitter Robert Malone August 7, 2022
- 14, 15, 16 Politico September 14, 2022
Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Politicians Make New Attempt to Ban Supplements
The U.S. supplement market was valued at $48.4 billion in 2021, with an expected compounded annual growth rate of 8.9%.1 In the U.S., where 80% of Americans use dietary supplements, the industry is viewed as trustworthy by the majority of adults (79%).2 However, access to high-quality supplements is continually being threatened by legislation, along with corporate mergers and acquisitions.
Proposed legislation is calling for a federal database for dietary supplements, which could pave the way for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to gain premarket approval power — changing access to supplements as we know it.
Mandatory Product Listing for Supplements May Be Coming
In April 2022, Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Mike Braun, R-Ind., introduced the Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2022.3 The Act would require supplement makers to provide information about their products to the FDA, including (but not limited to):4
- Multinational companies like Bayer, Nestle, Unilever, Proctor & Gamble and Clorox have also been buying up supplement companies at a frenzied pace. In 2018, there were 83 such transactions; this rose to 137 in 2021
- 1, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Alliance for Natural Health USA November 15, 2022
- 2 Nutraingredients-usa.com October 22, 2021
- 3, 5 Natural Products Insider November 22, 2022
- 4 Dick Durban April 26, 2022
- 6, 7, 9, 10 Nutritional Outlook May 31, 2022
- 11 FDA, New Dietary Ingredients in Dietary Supplements, Background for Industry
- 13 Dicentra November 14, 2022
- 14 Natural Products Insider November 10, 2022
- 15, 16 Twitter, Chris Masterjohn November 14, 2022