News Round-Up: Censoring the Study about Vaccine Deaths, Biden's Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" and Transideological Push at Bank of England
Every week, the editorial team of Freedom Research compiles a round-up of news that caught our eye, or what felt like under-reported aspects of news deserving more attention.
Over the past week, the following topics attracted our attention:
Joe Biden's Orwellian "Ministry of Truth"
Science journal removes a research paper on vaccine deaths that published uncomfortable information
Britain has no money for climate aid in developing countries
Asking questions about vaccines can make even billionaires "Qanon conspiracists"
UK's central bank says all genders can become pregnant
Joe Biden's Orwellian "Ministry of Truth"
US Federal Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a landmark injunction on Tuesday, temporarily barring officials from President Joe Biden's administration from communicating with social media companies. The judge's decision was based on the fact that the White House had been working with social media companies to curtail the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, particularly in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic.
"During … a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth”,” Doughty wrote in his 155-page order.
Doughty's injunction is a development in a lawsuit in which the plaintiffs, led by the states of Louisiana and Missouri, say the government has restricted free speech through social media companies in violation of the Constitution. The lawsuit cites numerous examples of censorship under pressure from officials, ranging from how truthful information about Covid-19 was stamped false and prevented from being disseminated under pressure from officials, to how articles based on materials found on Biden's son Hunter Biden's laptop, which among other issues pointed at Joe Biden's corrupt activities, were not allowed to be shared before the last US presidential election in 2020.
In addition to the two states, a number of private individuals are also plaintiffs in the same case – for example, authors of the Great Barrington Declaration which was calling for a sensible pandemic policy, namely scientists Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, who suffered censorship as a result.
Judge Doughty's examination of the material led him to conclude that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claims and led to an injunction temporarily banning communication between officials and social media companies.
We've covered the workings of the same censorship machine through several different stories. E.g., here we descirbed it based on what the Twitter files revealed.
We have also analysed the ever-widening spread of censorship in a two-part in-depth article - Part 1 and Part 2.
Scientific study reveals worrying statistics on deaths following Covid vaccination, journal removes it from its page
This Wednesday, scientific medical journal The Lancet put out a pre-print of a research study that looked at the autopsy reports of 325 people who had died after being vaccinated against Covid. The result was alarming, as in 74% of the cases examined, deaths were found to have been caused by the vaccine.
The researchers estimated that the Covid-19 vaccine had been either a significant contributory or a direct cause of death in 240 cases out of 325. 53% of the vaccine-related deaths were caused by cardiovascular problems, followed by hematological system problems (17%) and then respiratory problems (8%). 7% of the cases involved multiple organ system problems. Most of the deaths occurred within a week of the last vaccination, but there were some that were much later.
The study was allowed to be released on The Lancet's server for less than 24 hours before being taken down. The page now says "this preprint has been removed by Preprints with The Lancet because the study's conclusions are not supported by the study methodology."
The authors of the study are renowned US cardiologist Peter A. McCullough, Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Yale University Harvey A. Risch and several of their colleagues. As these are doctors and scientists who, throughout the pandemic, often criticised the government policy, spoke out about serious side-effects of the vaccines, and suffered constant censorship and labelling as a result, the withdrawal of the study is not surprising. Rather, it is surprising that it was up there at all.
UK will not have enough money to pay climate aid it had promised to pay to poor countries
Wealthier countries already agreed in 2009 to allocate at least $100 billion, or €92 billion, of public and private money each year by 2020 to help the developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the effects of the so-called climate crisis. As part of this, the UK committed to contribute £11.6 billion, or €13.6 billion, from its own budget. However, these financial targets have never been met. For example, from 2016 to 2021, the UK spent only £5.8 billion, or €6.8 billion, of its budget each year for this purpose. In 2019, the target was set to be reached by 2026. Now, that pledge is being reneged on as there is simply no money to double this climate aid.
According to The Guardian, the government's paper on the issue explains that the commitment was made before Covid and that meeting it by the deadline would be a "huge challenge" in the current economic climate, with the addition of the aid given to the Ukraine as a major new source of spending. Raising climate funding to the current pledged level would mean that 83% of the Foreign Office's development aid budget would be spent on that, leaving little for other projects. Officially, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's government has not confirmed the target's abandonment.
Billionaire fund manager supports asking the important questions about vaccines
At the beginning of 2021, billionaire investor and CEO of fund manager Pershing Square Capital Management, Bill Ackman, took to Twitter to call for faster and better organised vaccination of the elderly population.
However, he now believes that questions need to be asked about the safety of vaccines. Recently, the popular Joe Rogan podcast was visited by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is campaigning to become the Democratic presidential nominee. Kennedy is known for his critical stance on vaccines and this was one of the topic's in Rogan's podcast – e.g. the link between vaccines and autism. In the aftermath of the show, an argument erupted on Twitter, in which vaccine scientist Peter Hotez criticised Rogan, and Kennedy's participation on his show. Rogan and other Twitter users then offered a large sum of money to be donated to a charity of Hotez' choosing if the latter agreed to come and debate Kennedy about the vaccines on the show. Hotez did not accept, as we wrote in our news round-up two weeks ago.
Ackman was one of those who pledged to donate $250 000 if the debate would happen. In addition, Ackman wrote a lengthy post in which he said Kennedy and others "have raised important questions about the safety of some vaccines and have sought explanations for the dramatic increases in the incidence of childhood allergies, autism, and other health issues". "These are good questions that have not been adequately answered. And I say this from the perspective of someone who is fully vaccinated along with my kids," he wrote. He added that Kennedy may or may not be right in his theories, but his concerns are shared by millions of parents. "Rather than censor RFK (Kennedy - HS) and the skeptics, shouldn’t we instead seek to understand the causes for the massive increase in autism and allergic diseases in our children over the last 30 or so years?" he asked.
On Thursday, Ackman admitted that he had been labelled a “Qanon conspiracist by some and a member of the alt-right by others”. But he nonetheless continued to ask the questions, concluding that vaccines should be treated like any other medicine, "particularly when we are deciding whether or not to inject a one-day-old infant or a three-year-old child". "We need to assess what is the benefit to the children in protecting them from a disease versus the potential risk of side effects from each vaccine," he wrote.
Bank of England: a person of any gender can be pregnant
The Bank of England has come under media scrutiny for introducing a new 'family leave' policy in June 2021, which includes the gender-neutral term 'birthing parent'. According to the clarifications, it means "the parent who is/was pregnant with the child but includes persons of any and all gender identities”.
The bank's approach was revealed in a bank's submission to the charity Stonewall, which defines itself as an advocacy group for gay, lesbian and transgender rights, to be included in their list of the 100 best employers. The submission also included a pledge to ensure that only gender-neutral toilets are provided on the seventh floor of the bank's London headquarters.
At the same time, the Bank of England is under heavy criticism for failing to do its core job of monetary policy-making while creating gender inequality. It is still failing to curb the excessively high inflation.