Tucker Carlson did a totally kick ass monologue last night, and I really recommend listening to the whole thing. As is usual with media outlets, different pages offer different titles. I should state up front that the titles for this Tucker segment are somewhat misleading from a rigorously legal standpoint. Here are the two variations that I'm aware of:
* Tucker: Reading government data will get you censored
* Tucker Carlson: If you read government data, you'll be thrown in jail and censored by Big Tech
We knew this was coming, how long can it continue?
The problem with these is that, strictly speaking, from a legal standpoint only the government can censor you. The First Amendment deals with government action--or, as it turns out, actions supported by the government. Yep, I'm being a bit misleading two, because it's a complicated topic--and that's part of the point.
The point is that we all know what Tucker is talking about, and social media (aka Big Tech) has gotten such a stranglehold over online communication--meaning, really, communication generally--that America stands in need of a robust debate on the role of social media and its standards for policing content. Are social media platforms publishers? Are they public utilities? These really are complicated questions, and we should think twice before we invite government involvement. Maybe Trump's new social media initiative is the best solution. Honest people can disagree.
On the other hand, there isn't much doubt about the partisan and ideological bent of much of the social media policing and "fact" checking. There has long been the suspicion of these private companies colluding with politicians. Now, however, with the release of the Fauci emails, we have actually seen a social media company (Facebook) offering its services to a government entity for the purpose of policing messaging about Covid response and vaccines. Not, be it noted, for the purpose of "getting the message out" in a public service sense but for the purpose of preventing any dissenting message from getting out. That's pretty clearly a problematic position to be taking, both for government and for social media companies. Ted Cruz, among others, has suggested the companies may face legal liability.
Be that as it may be, Tucker gets into a really forceful discussion of the way the public narrative is being shaped around the vaccines, particularly as applied to young people. Of course, this is in the context of the "emergency meeting" that the CDC has announced regarding the very high rate of heart inflammation for young men post-vax. OK, let me clarify that last bit. If you look at the data--which you can find here--it's true that the numbers appear to be small on a percentage basis. However, the point which Tucker makes by quoting a doctor is that the increase over what was to be expected is quite drastic--raising the very real possibility that the vaccines are more dangerous to young people than is the disease. More on that below.
So, with all that in mind, HERE is the page at which you can view the video, as well as what appears to be a very full transcript--it may actually be a complete transcript, which isn't the usual practice. You won't regret the 15 minutes or so spent on it.
Now, for purposes of what will follow, here are some brief excerpts from the Tucker monologue. In the first excerpt Tucker begins by quoting himself. The Israeli report has been out for some time--at least a couple of weeks:
TUCKER: Israeli health officials released a report showing that vaccinated young people, particularly young men, were developing a potentially fatal complication — a heart inflammation called myocarditis — and they were developing it at extremely high rates. Researchers determined that the incidence of myocarditis in vaccinated young men was fully 25 times the usual rate. Some of them died.
Twenty-five times the rate of potentially fatal heart inflammation. That is a huge jump. If those numbers are right — and we have no reason to think they’re not — healthy young people are far more likely to be injured or killed by the vaccine against COVID than by COVID itself. That is a huge ‘stop the presses’ moment, and it raises all kinds of very obvious questions, beginning with why are colleges across the country requiring students to take it?
From this you can see that it's not surprising--despite the low percentage basis of this side effect--why the CDC has scheduled an "emergency" meeting. It also raises huge questions about why in the world "colleges across the country [are] requiring students" to be vaxxed. It seems like an extremely risky legal position, given that this is an experimental treatment.
Now another related excerpt:
Yesterday, a physician called Tracey Hoeg, who has a Ph.D. in epidemiology, qualified to discuss this, logged on Twitter to discuss the data on heart inflammation among young people.
"Post-vax myocarditis was clearly above baseline at the end of May. We are standing on shaky ground if we say the risk to otherwise healthy kids from COVID-19 is higher than it is from the vaccine." Get it? That is rooted in scientific data. It is an obvious observation, and it has profound public health implications for tens of millions of people in this country. Yet, within seconds, Twitter flagged her tweet as "misleading." Tracey Hoeg, who is a scientist, seemed stunned.
"I'm quoting the CDC's own slides," she wrote.
That used to be allowed. As of just months ago, as long as you quoted credentialed experts or government data, you were allowed to discuss science. Those were the rules YouTube wrote. Now even quoting the Biden administration’s own vaccine numbers harm numbers will get you censored immediately.
Now, some might find it refreshing that Twitter should label government statistics as misleading. Still, they seem to be opening a can of worms. One wonders what Twitter's real agenda is here and who decided upon it.
The bottom line really does seem to be something like this:
Sen. Ron Johnson was just suspended from YouTube because he suggested hydroxychloroquine might be a treatment for the coronavirus. He also said you might not need the vaccine if you've had and recovered from COVID. Those aren't crazy positions, they’re rooted in science. Many researchers now agree with Ron Johnson, including Nature Magazine. Are they banned? We don’t know. Because now, in the United States, you're no longer allowed to be anything less than an enthusiastic booster of vaccines for everybody.
Nature magazine is about as mainstream scientific establishment as you can get. Moreover, Germany is hardly a hotbed of anti-science reaction, especially at the government level, yet:
Germany is now recommending that healthy young people avoid the vaccine, period. It’s too dangerous.
Stay with me--I know that was a long buildup.
The other day Emerald Robinson launched this tweet:
According to the CDC's own data, more than 750 people DIED from taking the experimental vaccines in ONE WEEK in May.— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) June 10, 2021
ER was roundly criticized by low info online stalkers who questioned her honesty and understanding. But ...
Today we get the full story, and it's pretty disturbing. Tucker referred to this larger issue:
TUCKER JUNE 11, 2021: Between July 1, 1997, and the end of 2013 — five and half years — there were 2,149 deaths reported in the U.S. for all vaccines combined. Yet in just six months, there have been more than 5,160 deaths associated with the covid vaccine, as reported to VAERS. More than double, in less than one-tenth the time. Oh, but those numbers are wrong, claim the usual liars with maximum hysteria. OK. So what are the real numbers? How many people have been killed or injured by the COVID vaccines? Does anyone know the answer?
TGP published the current VAERS numbers today (voluntary reporting alert). Not only was ER right, but the numbers overall are a bit stunning:
VAERS COVID Vaccine Data (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, USA)
329,021 Reports Through June 4, 2021
Urgent Care: 43,891
OFFICE VISITS: 58,800
BELL’S PALSY: 1,737
Life Threatening: 5,885
Heart Attacks: 2,190
Thrombocytopenia/Low Platelet 1,564
Severe Allergic Reaction: 15,052
Finally, an interesting legal development. A federal lawsuit has been filed challenging the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Covid vaccines. The complaint is 113 pages long, so I haven't read it yet. However, this is what it's basically about:
The Complaint alleges that the Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) under which various “unapproved, inadequately tested, experimental, and dangerous” COVID-19 vaccines have been sold and administered are unlawful on multiple grounds and must be terminated immediately. The multiple grounds supporting termination of the EUAs, and by extension, administration of all COVID-19 vaccines, follows.
First, the Complaint alleges that the Emergency Declaration upon which the EUAs are all based was unjustified. Second, that the DHHS Secretary has failed to satisfy the “criteria for issuance” of the EUAs set forth in Section 546 of the Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(c). Third, that the DHHS Secretary has failed to satisfy the “conditions of authorization” mandated by § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A). If the District Court finds any of these grounds to be legally sustainable, the EUAs must as a matter of law be terminated.
The Plaintiffs are asking the District Court to review whether there was a true “public health emergency” and to find that, since there was no such actual emergency, that DHHS did not have the authority to declare such an emergency, which would likewise nullify the EUAs.
The Plaintiffs are also asking the District Court to determine that the EUAs and extensions thereof are unlawful based on the grounds set forth above, that the Defendants have violated customary international law by engaging in non-consensual human medical experimentation, and that they have unlawfully failed to implement protections for human subjects in medical experimentation.
They are further asking the District Court to enjoin the enforcement of the overall “public health emergency” declaration and renewals, enforcement of the EUAs, and extension of the EUAs to children under the age of 16.
What's notable in this, or so it seems to me, is that this is a civil lawsuit. Therefore discovery will not be subject to the constraints of FOIA, as were the Fauci emails.
"TUCKER JUNE 11, 2021: Between July 1, 1997, and the end of 2013 — five and half years — there were 2,149 deaths...."
doesn't add up.
Between July 1, 1997, and the end of 2013, is fifteen and a half years.
Or, did he mean a start date of 2007, or an end date of 2003?
Once the period covered is clarified this might be more meaningful if it compared deaths based on the number of vacs each period. Over five and a half or fifteen and a half years how many were vaccinated?Delete
And, the folks suing vs. the EUA had previously sued in May, vs. vaccine's distribution to kids, seeReplyDelete
CDC Report on Hospitalization Rates in Teens Misleading, Says DoctorReplyDelete
Rather surprising that you have to read so far down to get a contrary view. Steve Sailer likes to point out that few readers go past the first couple of paragraphs. So here we have to get to paragraph 21 to read:Delete
"There’s a view out there that serious side effects always occur within six weeks of dosing,” Doshi said at the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meeting on June 10. “Well, it’s just not so simple.”
What he's saying is precisely why VAERS is regarded as unreliable.
For my part, I assume that CDC had a damned good reason for what they did, or they wouldn't have announced an "emergency" meeting.
To add... Many over look that VAERS is 100% voluntary in reporting which makes it's complete crap. I've heard many times that it's considered to be only about 4% of the overall numbers... But that is also a horrible statement if you've got no data to support it. Why vax injury is not a mandatory reporting type situation is flabbergasting!ReplyDelete
My fear with these alt-social media platforms popping up is that we will end up with a completely hypocritical juxtaposed version of a censored Facebook. Sites like CFP and TCH rage against the left censorship while at the same time using the exact same shadow banning, blocking or stealth deletions techniques on their users.
Like the Alt-MSM journalism situation biggovernment.com and TGP went from trying to be alt media to data collection and narrative steering over hyped propaganda outlets.
Frank speech.com's first press announcement was about their "free speech" principles, in the same breath within the announcement... Also how they were going to censor their users.
Parlor both spins narratives while vacuuming their users data and repackaging it for the GOPe's massive propaganda war against it's conservative base.
You don't have a leg to stand on in calling Facebook and Google evil when you're absolutely engaged in the EXACT same practices.
Lastly on the Frontline lawsuit, I hope it successfully gets into discovery. There is a very similar suit filed in Hague but on a wider scale of worldwide Government narratives. The uptick of actual production is the brightest point, the downside will be even with evidence you'll have very little actual accountability. The burdens of getting past qualified immunity are just to damn difficult and costly!!! Fingers crossed!
I censor comments.Delete
"I censor comments."Delete
Yes, and you also bait!!! (Quite well, I'm currently taking it!!!) and have a profound knack for slapping the stupid out of comments with impossibly accurate one liners that can't be replied to! (It's a positive)
Blogger is a completely manual process and I'm guessing you mean filtering out trolling and ludicrous; hence protecting your work product vs the killing of free thought and open debating for the purposes of steering narrative control?
And / or filtering the legal issues of user statements within the confines of liability, else face having your site shut down?
(Honestly curious to know)
What I am seeing or referring to is a very intentional movement within the right to squash conservative discontent on dozens of subjects via controlled narratives. I'm seeing it happen, have experienced it and hearing about it from various people.
It seems there are several "right" orientated sites in the infancy of developing their own processes (manual or otherwise) in the most hypocritical of ways why in the same breath chastising Facebook, Twitter and championing anti censoring measures.
I may be overly sensitive on the subject as we've been working on taking Brandenburg / Spence and coding it into software logic. It isn't an easy task to accomplish from a neutral standpoint it's much much easier to code for key word or phrase and use it as a tool for bolstering ones personal belief system... It's not an easy task.
Florida has also thrown a zinger into social media legal landscape, being that were based here it's prudent to pay attention to the challenges given in their arguments though I'm not completely sure it's going to hold up in court.
However if you take it on face value by legal definition as it's being explained to us. (Publication of >200k words per month = social media platform) Many of the sites championing the statue, but engaged in the hypocrisy by Florida's definition of "social media" fall right into the pile.
Yes, those are my reasons.Delete
This might be a good tag along story for CDC bashing and a means to an end in mask "non science".ReplyDelete
I hate when writers reference court cases but don't give the case details!!! However if you follow the link posted you'll get to the Tampa Bay Times article with case info. (Note, the Times is a very liberal rag)
The judge asking about scientific evidence supporting the CDC claims of mask efficiency / lock down ability is a big point that I hope he keeps hammering on.
Yes, read that earlier. You beat me to this.Delete
It's brutal, that similar suits (incl. vs. lockdowns) didn't spring up like weeds over a year ago.Delete
Yes. New post on that subject.Delete
Did anybody else give up trying to actually play the video of Tucker's show? I turned off Adblocker on three different pages and took a complete circular tour of the Faux site before giving up. I get that Flipping Fox wants a pound of flesh, but there are huge reasons why I endeavor not to give them any clicks: 1) the Murdoch Morons and 2) the totally user hostile interface that they present to the non-subscriber. I need to go back to my Zero Tolerance for Fox policy. If I can't view on Rumble or YouTube I'm just going to have to go without. Too bad Tucker can't move elsewhere.ReplyDelete
Fox is very frustrating with those videos, but unfortunately Blogger only allows me to embed Youtube or Twitter.Delete