Tag: censorship

If a SIDS-vaccine study offends, remove it

In 2021 Toxicology Reports published Neil Miller’s results of his examination of VAERS reports of 2,605 SIDS deaths between 1990 and 2019:

The peer-reviewed paper found that 75% of SIDS reports occurred within seven days of vaccination, with the highest number on day two. [snip] The journal removed the paper April 9, 2026, citing “serious methodological flaws” and “potential implications for medical practice.” Miller said the journal never specified what those flaws were, despite repeated requests.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) wrote a letter on June 29 demanding that “Toxicology Reports and its parent company Elsevier release all records related to the decision to remove the paper. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. HHS also wrote to the journal June 11 seeking clarification.”

Neil Miller is careful to say that his paper correlating vaccines with SIDS does not prove causation. But reclassifying ICD codes to remove vaccine-related deaths and purging papers that expose shocking statistics to the contrary smacks of the deliberate suppression of information unfavorable to the vaccine industry.

This is not to damn vaccines: in the first half of the 20th century alone, smallpox is credited with killing 254 million people. Vaccines eliminated that disease. Although tuberculosis can be treated by medicine, the scourge of that devastating disease was largely vanquished by vaccines.

Multi-billion-dollar industries engender powerful — some may say insurmountable — incentives to grow and continue to grow, continuously. The vaccine industry is no exception.

The CDC maintains that children need vaccines starting within 24 hours of birth through age 18, comprising approximately 15-17 vaccines across 26-30 doses. The CDC fails the public when they create the impression of stacking the deck in favor of the industry by “reclassifying” or withholding contradictory information. Absence of absolute proof of harm is no excuse when the degree of safety remains unproven. Parents are entitled to access to all available information regarding the risks as well as the benefits of vaccines.

Keep reading

Brian Hooker’s paper showing vaccines increase mortality was REMOVED from preprints.org

They censored this paper as a danger to public safety. This means they know the paper is incorrect and can explain the observed data. But they are keeping their analysis a secret. From everyone, including the authors.

So Karl wrote the entire advisory board. Only ONE member bothered to respond with the reasoning. The rest ghosted him.

But the BIG problem is that the “reasoning” does not EXPLAIN what the study observed. At all. We are left clueless. If the vaccines didn’t increase the mortality, then what did? All we have is COMPLETE SILENCE.

In this article I’ll post what the Advisory Board member wrote and what I wrote back.

Keep reading

Brussels Has Opinions About Your Social Media Feed

The European Commission wants the power to force a redesign of the apps on your phone. Regulators in Brussels said Friday that Instagram and Facebook break European law because the products are built to hold your attention. They are ready to fine Meta as much as 6 percent of its global revenue, more than $12 billion, until the company rebuilds the apps to Brussels’ liking.

The preliminary findings target the ordinary machinery of a modern feed, from infinite scroll and autoplay to push notifications and the recommendation systems that decide what you see next. The Commission’s proposed remedy seems like a product spec written by a government. It wants autoplay and infinite scroll switched off by default, real screen time breaks built in, and the algorithm retuned so it stops working so hard to keep you around.

The finding falls under the Digital Services Act, the law Brussels uses to police what Europeans can post and see online.

The machinery now aimed at button placement and video autoplay is the same machinery built to decide which content stays up and which comes down. Once a regulator can order how an app is designed, the distance between design and speech runs short.

Someone has to define “addictive,” and under this law that someone is the government. The Commission says Meta pushes users into “autopilot mode” and failed to weigh the risks its design poses to minors and what it calls vulnerable adults.

The behavior it describes, opening an app and scrolling longer than you meant to, is familiar to anyone with a phone. The question is who gets to name it a harm and prescribe the cure.

“Protecting the physical and mental health of Europeans must be a priority for social media platforms. The Digital Services Act provides a clear framework to hold platforms accountable for the addictive design and effects of their services. We are fully committed to enforcing our legislation in Europe,” said Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s executive vice-president for tech sovereignty, security and democracy.

The title alone shows how wide the mandate has grown. One official holds a brief that spans “tech sovereignty, security and democracy,” and from that chair rules that a scrolling feed threatens public health.

Meta rejects the finding. “We disagree with these preliminary findings, which don’t accurately take into account the significant steps we’ve taken to protect teens.

Keep reading

Court rules Ontario violated Charter by censoring Covid criticism on billboard

The Ontario government tried to silence a citizen for criticizing its Covid-19 response. Now a court has ruled it broke the Constitution.

The Ontario Divisional Court has found the Ontario Ministry of Transportation violated the Charter rights of George Katerberg by preventing him from displaying a political billboard criticizing public officials over their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Katerberg was represented by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), whose constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury successfully argued that the Ministry’s actions violated section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects freedom of expression.

Katerberg’s billboard, erected along Highway 17 near Thessalon, featured photographs of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Premier Doug Ford, former Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam and other officials above the messages, “They knowingly lied about safety and stopping transmission” and “Canadians demand accountability.”

The Ministry first demanded the sign be removed after claiming one image on the billboard was linked to white supremacy. Katerberg immediately removed the disputed image, explaining it was inspired by Pink Floyd’s The Wall, and submitted a revised version. The Ministry then shifted its reasoning, claiming the billboard promoted hatred.

When that justification failed, the government changed the rules instead.

After Katerberg launched his Charter challenge, the Ministry amended its Highway Corridor Management Manual in 2025 to broadly prohibit political messaging on billboards along certain northern Ontario highways. It then relied on that newly created policy to reject the sign once again.

The Divisional Court wasn’t persuaded.

Justice Schreck found there was “no rational connection” between prohibiting political speech while allowing commercial advertising on the very same highways. The Court declared the Ministry’s policy unconstitutional, quashed its decision, and ordered the application to be reconsidered.

The Court also criticized the Ministry’s “shifting justifications” throughout the dispute, making clear the case was never about whether Katerberg’s views on Covid-19 were right or wrong. It was about whether the government could censor political speech because it disliked the message.

Following the ruling, JCCF lawyer Chris Fleury called the decision “a welcome affirmation of the importance of political expression,” saying governments cannot ban political speech while allowing businesses to advertise beside the same roads.

Keep reading

‘So Many Threats’: UK Outlines Plan to Control What Public Can See on YouTube

The U.K. is pushing a proposal that could give government officials unprecedented influence over what people see on YouTube and other digital platforms, medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D., warned this week.

“My concern is that the state is going to mandate what videos are promoted on YouTube,” Campbell said. “That’s basically what this seems to be about.”

In a recent podcast, Campbell examined the U.K. government’s new media green paper, “Watch this space: a new strategic direction for UK media,” and what it could mean for online speech.

He said the proposal could fundamentally change how people discover videos. Instead of seeing content based primarily on their interests or what other viewers are watching, government-backed sources could receive preferential placement.

“It wouldn’t be popularity that determines what videos become top of the YouTube feed, therefore most likely to be watched,” Campbell said. “It’s going to be the ones that the state mandates as appropriate for you because you can’t judge for yourself. … At least that’s the threat from this paper.”

The green paper, published in June by the U.K. Department for Culture, Media & Sport, proposes exploring a “prominence regime” that would ensure public service broadcasters and other designated “trusted” news providers remain easy to find as audiences increasingly consume news online rather than through traditional television.

Campbell suggested the proposals go far beyond the U.K. media industry. “This is going to affect everyone,” he said.

‘If this doesn’t send a bit of a shudder down your spine … it certainly should’

Keep reading

YouTube Warns Independent UK Creators of Impending Censorship Push From Labour Government

American video-sharing platform YouTube told users in Britain that, under pressure from the left-wing Labour Party government, independent creators will likely see their content suppressed.

The British government has been accused of attempting to silence political opposition, with YouTube telling UK creators that proposed new rules would include a “prominence regime” that would force sites like YouTube to give a “privileged position” to the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, and other legacy media.

The notice said that artificially propping up establishment media would naturally result in independent media being downranked and obscured from view, as “pushing this group forward means pushing everyone else downward. Mandatory prioritisation of broadcasters would affect how your content reaches your audience, regardless of what your audience actually wants to see.”

“Mandating prominence for established media networks would push the UK’s diverse mix of independent journalists, educators, and digital-first businesses down the line,” YouTube added.

Creators were also told that this would impact their ability to grow their communities, generate views, and ultimately earn money as a business.

The government is said to have told the site that legacy broadcasters had the “trust” of the state to provide accurate reporting, which YouTube noted implies that “digital-first voices are less credible, damaging the foundational trust that sustains the creator economy.”

This comes despite the BBC recently facing significant scandals involving the accuracy of its reporting, including last year when it was forced to apologise to U.S. President Trump after a documentary produced by the public broadcaster deceptively spliced together different sections of his speech on January 6th 2021, to falsely give the impression that he had encouraged supporters to riot, when he did the exact opposite.

Keep reading

Australia’s Top Censor Wants Power Over The “Ratio”

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner wants legal power to order social media companies to shield favored users from criticism and to suspend everyone piling on against them. Julie Inman Grant made the pitch on July 2, testifying to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, the government probe set up after the Bondi Beach terror attack.

She calls the tool a “notification power.” What it does is let her office tell a platform that a particular Australian account is under heavy criticism and demand that the platform punish the accounts responsible.

Her own description of the trigger runs to “insulting” and “ugly” comments stacking up beneath someone’s posts. “If there’s a pile-on, if there’s a brigade, if it’s meant to be an avalanche of online hate, we put the onus back on the platform to say, this Australian is being targeted,” she told the commission.

“We expect you to protect their account and take action against all of those people that you can see… whether it’s you just suspend them or you take them away.”

Watch the video here.

She wants the power to reach across platforms, too. The current adult cyber-abuse rules frustrate her because they force her office to “look at that specific tweet” rather than the whole swarm of replies beneath it. The fix she wants hands platforms a standing order to police disapproval on her behalf.

Grant does not think of this as censorship, of course. Asked about companies that frame their resistance as free speech, she said “it’s easy to slip a censorship label on just about anything,” and offered a softer account of her own work. “What we’re trying to do is minimize harm. Encourage as much speech as possible, but when it veers into the lane of hurting individuals, hurting communities, hurting society and undermining democracy, I think we all need to band together and take more of a stand.”

The regulator asking for authority to suspend users in bulk says her goal is more speech.

Who defines the harm that flips speech from protected to punishable? She does. Phrases like “hurting communities” and “undermining democracy” stretch far enough to cover most heated political argument, and the office reaching for them writes the definition.

Much of her testimony was a complaint that the companies keep winning. eSafety has eight cases running against X Corp, and Grant said six of them were “led by X.” She cast the legal pushback as commercial greed dressed up in principle, accusing platforms of fighting “to be able to serve, share and monetize horrific content.”

Asked whether she had actually seen platforms fight to monetize such material, she answered “I can’t imagine any other reason they would want to put it up there.”

The clearest example she offered cuts against her. After the Wakely church stabbing of Assyrian bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, eSafety sent formal removal notices to Meta and X. “Meta applied within the hour, and then of course, X Corp said, ‘We’re not taking it down, we’ll see you in court,’” Grant said.

X won the legal challenge. And the bishop whose stabbing she cited as the reason to censor went on to back Elon Musk and defend free speech from the pulpit in his first sermon after surviving the attack.

The person eSafety said it was protecting did not want her protection.

Keep reading

Turkish comedian Deniz Göktaş detained at Istanbul airport over political satire

Turkish stand-up comedian Deniz Göktaş was detained at passport control at an Istanbul airport on Thursday while returning to Türkiye from abroad. Since June 24, Göktaş had been targeted by pro-government media and right-wing circles, with open calls for his arrest over his widely acclaimed political comedy special “Ölü Deniz” (Dead Sea). His detention marks a dangerous escalation of attacks on art and freedom of expression in Türkiye.

The World Socialist Web Site and the Sosyalist Eşitlik Partisi – Dördüncü Enternasyonal (Socialist Equality Party – Fourth International) demand the immediate release of Deniz Göktaş, the dropping of the investigation against him and a halt to all attacks on art and freedom of expression.

The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office had launched an investigation into Göktaş on the baseless charge of “publicly denigrating the religious values embraced by a section of the population” over jokes in the show, which was staged on June 1 at the Harbiye Cemil Topuzlu Open-Air Theatre and released on YouTube on June 24. The prosecutor’s office publicly announced the investigation, describing Göktaş as a “suspect” in whose social media content “elements of a crime” had been identified. Earlier, posts on X containing excerpts from the show had been blocked by court order on the grounds of “protecting national security and public order.” In a statement before his detention, Göktaş said that “no official information” had reached him and that he had no plans to live outside Türkiye.

The roughly 90-minute show was viewed more than 1 million times within 24 hours of its release and had surpassed 8.5 million views as of July 2. Notably, Göktaş made the show freely available to everyone on YouTube rather than on a paid digital platform, with monetization turned off and no ads. Reaching millions of workers and young people, the show became “dangerous” in the eyes of the ruling elite. At the same time, this immense public interest was itself a mass response to the attempt to suppress Göktaş.

“Ölü Deniz” is a satire directed not at individuals but at the political and media establishment as a whole. Göktaş’s subjects included the 32-year political career of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan; the revocation of the university diploma of Ekrem İmamoğlu, the jailed Istanbul metropolitan mayor from the Kemalist Republican People’s Party (CHP); the police raid on the CHP’s headquarters following a court’s “absolute nullity” ruling against the party; the mass protests that erupted against İmamoğlu;s arrest; the ensuing widespread arrests; and mainstream media figures. While directing his sharpest political barbs at Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), in power since 2002, he did not spare the CHP, and he also satirized Turkish nationalism and its contradictions on the Kurdish question.

One of the most striking features of the show was that censorship is itself its subject. Göktaş recounts that the legal opinion he received from lawyers on “Selam Selam,” his first show, was: “Never release it.” On stage, he satirizes a nightmare in which he sees himself on the gallows, and the ranks of the “intellectuals” in his family—the intellectual in exile, the intellectual in prison, the dead intellectual. He is fully aware of the historical price of being a dissident artist in Turkey.

Keep reading

4Chan trolls UK government with another AI hamster as fines hit $800k

4Chan has continued to troll the UK government and Ofcom after they hit the website with fines of over $800,000, and they’re answering with more AI hamsters.

Over the last year, a number of governments have been cracking down on what online content can be accessed by children under the age of 18. That includes the United Kingdom, which is working on a social media ban similar to the one that Australia implemented. 

The UK has implemented age safety verification checks for certain material too and has hit a number of websites with takedowns, as well as fines. 4Chan has been caught up in the latter, being issued with fines that now total over $800,000.

While Ofcom, the UK regulator, is still seeking payment from 4Chan, their lawyer has once again responded with an AI hamster.

4Chan hits back at UK government’s latest fine

“Ofcom wrote. Again. Demanding that 4chan pay its fine. Sent us bank details and everything. Oh no. Super scary. We replied with a hamster. Again,” Preston Byrne, the website’s lawyer, posted on X. 

Byrne also showed off the email response he sent to the regulator. “You want money, huh? Come get it,” he started, with an AI hamster wearing a Thug Life hate being surronded by mountains of dollar bills.

“As 4Chan has no assets in the United Kingdom (given that it has no connection to the United Kingdom), that would require you to show up in a US court as a platiff, waive soreign immunity, and overcome existing U.S. doctrine regarding the non-enforcement of foreign regulatory penalties. 

“We suspect that isn’t going to happen. We suspect you know it isn’t going to happen, too.”

Keep reading

‘Citizen Vigilante’ broadcast on X to combat censorship

The controversial new film “Citizen Vigilante” received a free-to-stream debut on X in the wake of reports that some European nations would not approve the action flick for distribution.

German Director Uwe Boll spoke about the film’s journey in an interview with The Telegraph, noting that “Citizen Vigilante” was banned by his home country due to its violence and “anti-migrant” content, which displays the struggles of current culture clashes between peaceful European natives and the violence brought through mass migration from incompatible cultures like Islam.

He detailed how distribution rights have been delayed in Britain, blocking a film release there as well. Boll explained that the film was based on a true case of migrant violence, which entailed the gang-rape and murder of a fourteen-year-old girl by migrants in Hamburg ten years ago, and flips the script, where a vigilante punishes the perpetrators, after the legal system allowed them to walk free (as it did in real life).

“It’s as if we’re living in a completely insane and absurd political environment, especially in Europe, where people have completely lost track,” Boll stated during his interview. “There is a huge difference between so-called ‘hate speech’ and stabbing people in the neck. But facts don’t matter any more.”

Keep reading