In August 2020, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and two of Facebook’s “fact checkers.” The lawsuit asserts claims of illegal censorship in violation of the First Amendment, illegal “taking” in violation of the Fifth Amendment and corporate fraud in violation of federal law — Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and Lanham Acts.
On Nov.13, 2020, CHD filed a 150-page first amended complaint in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, detailing factual allegations regarding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CDC Foundation and World Health Organization’s (WHO) extensive relationships and collaborations with Facebook and Zuckerberg.
CHD has made significant progress in the case against Facebook and Zuckerberg since the last court filing — including filing a second amended complaint on Dec.15, 2020, which contained considerable factual amplification of the allegations set forth in our initial filings.
As set forth in the second amended complaint, CHD believes children are being exposed to health and life-threatening injuries by the multi-billion-dollar vaccine industry and that 5G technology, promoted by behemoth internet interests, poses similarly severe risks.
To alert the public to these serious potential dangers, CHD posts links to articles in reputable scientific journals, and publishes opinions expressed by doctors, scientists and others, including CHD Chairman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. This material is constitutionally protected speech on matters of serious public concern.
As alleged in our second amended complaint, since early 2019, Facebook and Zuckerberg have engaged in a deliberate, systematic effort to degrade and destroy CHD by fraudulently branding our Facebook content as false, directing users to competitors’ sites and preventing Facebook users from donating to CHD.
The complaint specifically identifies 15 instances of defendants falsely labeling CHD content as inaccurate.
The complaint also sets out in detail the reason behind the defendants’ animus against CHD: CHD is a nonprofit organization dedicated to warning the public about the potential risks of certain vaccines and technologies in which the defendants have immense financial interests and investments.
The complaint also outlines how federal actors and agencies encouraged and pressured defendants to engage in their censorship scheme against CHD and jointly participated in that scheme.
The resulting threat to free speech is especially serious because government agents have in essence “deputized” Facebook to do what the government itself is constitutionally forbidden to do.
As the latest complaint details, the defendants were pressured by a prominent Congressman to suppress so-called vaccine “misinformation” — incredibly defined to include content that “casts doubt on the safety or efficacy of vaccines.”
The complaint also alleges that in censoring CHD, the defendants acted with the joint participation of the CDC — a federal agency — and its proxy, the World Health Organization, with which Facebook partnered to create its “fact-checking” protocol.
As a consequence, and as CHD has consistently argued, Facebook and Zuckerberg were not acting merely as private parties, but were functioning as government actors — and thus are subject to the First Amendment’s strictures against government censorship.
As anticipated in this hard-fought litigation, on Dec. 21, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Facebook apparently seeks special dispensation, not available to other parties, to dismiss CHD’s allegations of government joint action and of Facebook’s responsibility for its “fact-checks” because Facebook claims that it isn’t working with the government or with these same “fact-checkers.”
Facebook also claims that its “fact-checks” aren’t statements of fact at all, but merely protected “opinions,” and that Facebook is merely labelling CHD’s content as “potentially” misleading. …
The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It’s free.
Research on SARS-CoV-2 RNA by scientists at Harvard and MIT has implications for how mRNA vaccines could permanently alter genomic DNA, according to Doug Corrigan, Ph.D., a biochemist-molecular biologist who says more research is needed.
Over the past year, it would be all but impossible for Americans not to notice the media’s decision to make vaccines the dominant COVID narrative, rushing to do so even before any coronavirus-attributed deaths occurred.
The media’s slanted coverage has provided a particularly fruitful public relations boost for messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines — decades in the making but never approved for human use — helping to usher the experimental technology closer to the regulatory finish line.
Under ordinary circumstances, the body makes (“transcribes”) mRNA from the DNA in a cell’s nucleus. The mRNA then travels out of the nucleus into the cytoplasm, where it provides instructions about which proteins to make.
By comparison, mRNA vaccines send their chemically synthesized mRNA payload (bundled with spike protein-manufacturing instructions) directly into the cytoplasm.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and most mRNA vaccine scientists, the buck then stops there — mRNA vaccines “do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way,” the CDC says. The CDC asserts first, that the mRNA cannot enter the cell’s nucleus (where DNA resides), and second, that the cell — Mission-Impossible-style — “gets rid of the mRNA soon after it is finished using the instructions.”
A December preprint about SARS-CoV-2, by scientists at Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), produced findings about wild coronavirus that raise questions about how viral RNA operates.
The scientists conducted the analysis because they were “puzzled by the fact that there is a respectable number of people who are testing positive for COVID-19 by PCR long after the infection was gone.”
Their key findings were as follows: SARS-CoV-2 RNAs “can be reverse transcribed in human cells,” “these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed” (a phenomenon called “retro-integration”) — and there are viable cellular pathways to explain how this happens.
According to Ph.D. biochemist and molecular biologist Dr. Doug Corrigan, these important findings (which run contrary to “current biological dogma”) belong to the category of “Things We Were Absolutely and Unequivocally Certain Couldn’t Happen Which Actually Happened.”
The findings of the Harvard and MIT researchers also put the CDC’s assumptions about mRNA vaccines on shakier ground, according to Corrigan. In fact, a month before the Harvard-MIT preprint appeared, Corrigan had already written a blog outlining possible mechanisms and pathways whereby mRNA vaccines could produce the identical phenomenon.
In a second blog post, written after the preprint came out, Corrigan emphasized that the Harvard-MIT findings about coronavirus RNA have major implications for mRNA vaccines — a fact he describes as “the big elephant in the room.” While not claiming that vaccine RNA will necessarily behave in the same way as coronavirus RNA — that is, permanently altering genomic DNA — Corrigan believes that the possibility exists and deserves close scrutiny.
In Corrigan’s view, the preprint’s contribution is that it “validates that this is at least plausible, and most likely probable.”
As the phrase “reverse transcription” implies, the DNA-to-mRNA pathway is not always a one-way street. Enzymes called reverse transcriptases can also convert RNA into DNA, allowing the latter to be integrated into the DNA in the cell nucleus.
Nor is reverse transcription uncommon. Geneticists report that “Over 40% of mammalian genomes comprise the products of reverse transcription.”
The preliminary evidence cited by the Harvard-MIT researchers indicates that endogenous reverse transcriptase enzymes may facilitate reverse transcription of coronavirus RNAs and trigger their integration into the human genome.
The authors suggest that while the clinical consequences require further study, detrimental effects are a distinct possibility and — depending on the integrated viral fragments’ “insertion sites in the human genome” and an individual’s underlying health status — could include “a more severe immune response … such as a ‘cytokine storm’ or auto-immune reactions.”
In 2012, a study suggested that viral genome integration could “lead to drastic consequences for the host cell, including gene disruption, insertional mutagenesis and cell death.”
Corrigan makes a point of saying that the pathways hypothesized to facilitate retro-integration of viral — or vaccine — RNA into DNA “are not unknown to people who understand molecular biology at a deeper level.”
Even so, the preprint’s discussion of reverse transcription and genome integration elicited a maelstrom of negative comments from readers unwilling to rethink biological dogma, some of whom even advocated for retraction (though preprints are, by definition, unpublished) on the grounds that “conspiracy theorists … will take this paper to ‘proof’ that mRNA vaccines can in fact alter your genetic code.”
More thoughtful readers agreed with Corrigan that the paper raises important questions. For example, one reader stated that confirmatory evidence is lacking “to show that the spike protein only is expressed for a short amount of time (say 1-3 days) after vaccination,” adding, “We think that this is the case, but there is no evidence for that.”
In fact, just how long the vaccines’ synthetic mRNA — and thus the instructions for cells to keep manufacturing spike protein — persist inside the cells is an open question.
Ordinarily, RNA is a “notoriously fragile” and unstable molecule. According to scientists, “this fragility is true of the mRNA of any living thing, whether it belongs to a plant, bacteria, virus or human.”
But the synthetic mRNA in the COVID vaccines is a different story. In fact, the step that ultimately allowed scientists and vaccine manufacturers to resolve their decades-long mRNA vaccine impasse was when they figured out how to chemically modify mRNA to increase its stability and longevity — in other words, produce RNA “that hangs around in the cell much longer than viral RNA, or even RNA that our cell normally produces for normal protein production.”
It is anyone’s guess what the synthetic mRNA is doing while it is “hanging around,” but Corrigan speculates that its enhanced longevity raises the probability of it “being converted over into DNA.”
Moreover, because the vaccine mRNA is also engineered to be more efficient at being translated into protein, “negative effects could be more frequent and more pronounced with the vaccine when compared to the natural virus.” ….
Many viewers write in to ask about broken links in the archives. In the spirit of finding solutions, today James runs through a few basic methods you can use to replace broken links when you encounter the dreaded 404 error online.
How to Find Broken Links Online
The mouthpieces of the scientific establishment have identified the latest global security threat: antiscience. So what does that mean, exactly? Whatever they want it to mean, of course! This week on The Corbett Report podcast, James explores the game of Science Says that the self-appointed experts are playing with the public and outlines how that game is about to get a whole lot darker.
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
With so much news about an economic reopening, a border crisis, massive government spending and exploding deficits, it’s easy to overlook the ongoing war on cash.
That’s a mistake because it has serious implications not only for your money, but for your privacy and personal freedom, as you’ll see today.
Cash prevents central banks from imposing negative interest rates because if they did, people would withdraw their cash from the banking system.
If they stuff their cash in a mattress, they don’t earn anything on it; that’s true. But at least they’re not losing anything on it.
Once all money is digital, you won’t have the option of withdrawing your cash and avoiding negative rates. You will be trapped in a digital pen with no way out.
What about moving your money into cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin?
Governments Won’t Surrender Their Monopoly Over Money
Let’s first understand that governments enjoy a monopoly on money creation, and they’re not about to surrender that monopoly to digital currencies like Bitcoin.
Libertarian supporters of cryptos celebrate their decentralized nature and lack of government control. Yet, their belief in the sustainability of powerful systems outside government control is naïve.
Blockchain does not exist in the ether (despite the name of one cryptocurrency), and it does not reside on Mars.
Blockchain depends on critical infrastructure, including servers, telecommunications networks, the banking system, and the power grid, all of which are subject to government control.
But governments know they cannot stop the technology platforms on which cryptocurrencies are based. The technology has come too far to turn back now.
So central governments don’t want to kill the distributed ledger technology behind cryptos. They’ve been patiently watching the technology develop and grow — so they could ultimately control it.
Anyone who controls the money controls political power, the economy, and people’s lives.
Enter the central bank digital currency, known as CBDC…..
- One of the frontrunners in the comprehensive attack on freedom of speech online is a U.K.-based group with opaque funding called the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)
- The CCDH has been one of the most vocal organizations calling for the deplatforming of anyone who might have the ability to influence public opinion about vaccines
- The CCDH recently posted a hit list on Twitter, listing the “Top 10 anti-vaxxers” it wants digital platforms to eradicate, including yours truly and the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), which worked with the U.S. Congress to establish the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986
- March 2, 2021, Facebook complied with CCDH’s request, removing NVIC’s account. CCDH is also calling on Facebook to eliminate NVIC from Instagram, which Facebook owns
- While you wait for a decentralized, censorship-free internet, consider ditching all social media networks that erode our civil liberties, and to join those that promote freedom of speech instead….
Opacity is their most strategic tool. Without knowing financial sources one must go through the tedium of sorting the wheat from the chaff based on content. And they’re very good at producing content which seems superficially truthful but obscures deeper meaning. There isn’t enough time in the universe for working people to sort through it all. Money (it is an entity, might as well call it one) utilizes anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, mathematicians, demographers, computer modelers, informants, provocateurs, even mind-control … there’s no end to the havoc that money can buy. And much of this apparatus of subversion was developed on the taxpayer dime and honed to a fine edge in places like south vietnam and el salvador. The chickens have returned.
Corporate foundations are the “legal” structures which create all this illegality. There’s no such thing as a “non-profit”, even amnesty international and human rights watch have persistent blind spots (such as the hugely destructive medical child abuse industry, which actually sells parts of human genitals to cosmetics and biological research industries) in accordance with their culture and funders. Naturally, any self-respecting organized crime group would seek to infiltrate the organizations which might otherwise expose it or impair its business.
- A number of elected government officials are using their positions of power to pressure tech platforms into silencing voices of the opposition, or simply those whose speech they don’t agree with
- In less than a year, we’ve gone from massively censoring COVID-19 treatment information, the origin of the virus and COVID-19 vaccine information, to censoring election disputes and conservative news networks, to now calling for the censoring of climate information
- Censorship will continue to expand until all bases of human thought are covered. Our speech is the expression of our thoughts. To end free speech is to end the individual, which is the totalitarian end-game
- Twelve state attorneys general, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — which recently warned me to stop writing about vitamin D for COVID-19 prevention — and elected officials in Congress who are calling for censorship are all breaking the law
- According to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”
March 23, 2021, Senator Bernie Sanders diverted from party lines and spoke out against Twitter’s ban of former President Trump, saying “yesterday it was Donald Trump who was banned and tomorrow it could be somebody else who has a very different point of view.” He also noted that it is risky to have a “handful of high tech people” controlling speech in America.1
Indeed, Trump is far from alone in being censored these days, but Sanders is not telling the whole truth when he lays all of the blame for censorship on Big Tech. Disturbingly, a number of elected government officials are using their positions of power to actually pressure tech platforms into silencing voices of the opposition, or simply those whose speech they don’t agree with. As reported by Jonathan Turley:2
“… Sanders’ … view … is in sharp contrast to his Democratic colleagues who celebrated the ban and called for more censorship. One of the leading voices of censorship in the Senate is Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) [who] chastised Big Tech for waiting so long to issue such bans: ‘The question isn’t why Facebook and Twitter acted, it’s what took so long and why haven’t others?’ …
Democrats have abandoned long-held free speech values in favor of corporate censorship … When Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey came before the Senate to apologize for blocking the Hunter Biden story before the election as a mistake, senators pressed him and other Big Tech executive for more censorship.”
Public Officials Call for Selective Elimination of Free Speech
Other public officials calling for the selective elimination of free speech include:
- Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, who pressed Facebook and Twitter to make their bans of Donald Trump permanent
- California U.S. House Democrats Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, who went so far as to demand a dozen cable, satellite and streaming TV companies censor or remove entire news networks (Fox News, Newsmax and OANN)3
- Pennsylvania Congressman Mike Doyle, who asked Facebook and Twitter to remove a dozen accounts, including mine, from their platforms during a House hearing on disinformation and extremism4
- Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, who recently urged Twitter to expand its censorship categories to prevent the sharing of “climate denialism” views5
See how quickly things escalate? In less than a year, we’ve gone from massively censoring COVID-19 treatment information, the origin of the virus and COVID-19 vaccine information, to censoring election disputes and conservative news networks, to now calling for the censoring of climate information. And, believe me, it will not stop there either. It’ll go on and on until all bases of human thought are covered.
Doyle isn’t the only one calling for the illegal elimination of my First Amendment rights. A dozen state attorneys general are also urging social media platforms to remove my content,6 and this based on the opinions of two small, mysterious groups that no one knows anything about. As reported by The Hill, March 27, 2021:7
“Public health officials have been warning about the dangers of vaccine misinformation as the country seeks to inoculate enough Americans to reach herd immunity. Just this week the CEOs of Facebook, Google and Twitter were questioned before Congress on their responsibility to combat disinformation spread on their platforms …
Ahead of the hearing, a group of 12 state attorneys general sent a letter to Facebook and Twitter calling for ‘immediate steps to fully enforce your companies’ guidelines against vaccine misinformation.’
A recent report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate and Anti-Vax Watch found that most of the anti-vaccine content circulating online can be tied to 12 people, several of whom are figures in the health and wellness spheres.”
Journalism Has Died an Ignoble Death ….
Journalism lives on. Wherever there is life there is truth. I suppose that says something about the censor’s ultimate goal doesn’t it? Everything hitler did was legal under the state of emergency created by his reichstag fire false flag, not at all unlike the current emergency under the scamdemic.
With the members of the WEF apparently preparing to stage some kind of network false flag, I thought it was time to explain why I put this site’s IP number in the header. The quickest and most targeted way to take a site offline is to delete its DNS entry. Fortunately, this is also the easiest attack to bypass.
The vast majority of sites on the net, especially the smaller sites, share a physical host with other web sites. All the sites on a given host share the same IP number, which is the network address of the host. When you access such a site the physical host’s OS has to figure out which site you’re talking to among all the web sites on that host. Your browser supplies that information when opening the connection. But if the DNS name-to-IP service is down or censored for that site, your computer won’t know the IP of the physical host to begin with, so even if the network routers could route the traffic properly, you won’t be able to connect.
If DNS is down but you have the IP for the site, you can type it in to your browser to get to the physical host but the browser won’t supply the site name when it opens the connection (because you didn’t type the name, you typed the number) , so the host will throw up its hands and give up. The solution is to create your own little DNS on your computer to make the linkage between the site name and the host IP so you can refer to the site by name as usual.
This is where it gets tricky for a newbie. You need to edit an important system file without wrecking it. On the mac, the file is /etc/hosts . On windows, the file is C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts .
Looking at the file you’ll see the format:
with the columns separated by tabs or spaces. If a line starts with “#” then it’s just a comment. This is a plain-text file, you want to edit it with a plain-text editor like vi (mac) or notepad (windows). Don’t use a word processor! This is the quickest way to wreck it. Naturally you’ll need admin privileges. (sudo on mac, “run as administrator” on windows)
For this site you could add this line:
There’s lots of good tutorials on the net explaining how to edit your hosts file.
This will work as long as the routers are functional, but corrupting the routers would be significantly more disruptive to the mainstream net so taking that step might not be in the cards, at least at first. But we’re talking about the satanic oligarchy here, so anything is possible.
Of course you should collect the IP numbers of the sites you visit while you can. On a mac you can open a terminal window and type, for instance “host thoughtcrimeradio.net”. For windows, you could use nslookup.