All View News

Under the proposals, some trade union members would be required to continue working during a strike.

Far-right former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro was admitted to a hospital in Florida on Monday with stomach pains as 1,500 of his supporters were rounded up in Brasilia after storming key buildings in the capital over the weekend.

Post Content

Internal communications obtained by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry show that the White House lobbied Facebook to censor Tucker Carlson and others for expressing skepticism about the COVID-19 vaccine.

White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty wrote an email to an unnamed Facebook employee on April 14, 2021 complaining about posts that were negative towards the vaccine appearing prominently on Facebook.

“Since we’ve been on the phone – the top post about vaccines today is [T]ucker Carlson saying they don’t work. Yesterday it was Tomi Lehren [sic] saying she won’t take one,” the email stated.

Here, the Biden White House directs Facebook to shut down conservative voices @TuckerCarlson and @TomiLahren (4/9) pic.twitter.com/BlFunGWc3Z

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

“This is exactly why I want to know what ‘Reduction’ actually looks like – if ‘reduction’ means ‘pumping our most vaccine hesitant audience with [T]ucker Carlson saying it doesn’t work’ then… I’m not sure it’s reduction!” Flaherty added.

This is clearly related to the Biden White House’s frustration that Facebook wasn’t rigging its algorithm enough to ensure that such posts were censored from being seen by a large enough majority of Facebook users.

The Facebook staffer responded to the email by assuring Flaherty that the company was “running this down,” meaning acquiescing to the censorship demand.

The communication was unearthed in response to a lawsuit filed by Landry and Missouri’s AG Eric Schmitt seeking to determine whether the Biden administration coerced social media networks to censor content related to the 2020 presidential election and COVID-19.

The files once again prove that Big Tech censorship was carried out at the behest of the government, meaning it was a direct violation of the First Amendment.

As part of discovery, other communications also show Flaherty expressing his frustration with Facebook for not censoring on a broad enough scale.

Read More: White House Lobbied Facebook to Censor Tucker Carlson Over Skepticism Towards COVID-19 Vaccine

Nicola Sturgeon was slammed for ‘making excuses’ about NHS chaos in Scotland today as she urged people to wear masks on public transport and if they have a cold.

Facing questions at a pandemic-style press briefing, the SNP leader admitted hospitals were nearly full and urged people to use helplines instead.

But she faced a backlash for blaming ‘extraordinary’ Covid and flu pressures for the crisis – saying the number of patients with coronavirus had doubled in the past four weeks.

Conceding that for some health workers the situation might feel even worse that at stages during the pandemic, Ms Sturgeon urged Scots to take ‘basic’ precautions, such as washing hands more frequently.

She said people should stay at home where possible if they have a cough or cold, and wear a mask if they do need to leave the house. The First Minister also stressed advice for all over-12s to wear face coverings on trains and buses.

Under an intense grilling, Ms Sturgeon claimed that the situation was still better than in England. ‘We are facing exceptional problems that are not unique to Scotland,’ she said.

‘In a relative sense, NHS Scotland is dealing with some of these pressures in a better way than we would see elsewhere and some of the statistics bear that out’.

SNP health spokesman Humza Yousaf admitted yesterday that the health service north of the border is in turmoil, with warnings that record A&E waits and delayed discharge numbers are costing patients their lives.

Scottish Conservative shadow health secretary Dr Sandesh Gulhane said: ‘When it comes to viruses, wearing an appropriate mask can help to play a part in not spreading them further.

‘However, the public should be left to make up their own minds when it comes to protecting their own health and that of others, rather than having to be guided by officials.’

‘Nicola Sturgeon was full of sympathy for let-down patients and warm words for over-stretched staff – but there were precious few concrete measures to turn things around.

‘This PR exercise was too little, too late.

Read More: Nicola Sturgeon is slammed for ‘making excuses’ about NHS chaos in Scotland as she urges people to wear face masks on public transport

A ‘modest’ charge to see a GP and have minor procedures could help save the NHS, according to veteran Tory Ken Clarke.

Lord Clarke, who was Health Secretary under then-PM Margaret Thatcher, claimed the controversial prospect of charging some patients was now reasonable given the current crisis.

The two-tier idea goes against the very founding principal of the health service, in that treatment should be provided free at the point of delivery or all, whatever their means.

His comments come as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak insisted the Government had not left it too late to take action on easing pressure on the NHS.

Lord Clarke, speaking on Times Radio, said he would have ‘reacted ferociously’ to the idea of charging well-off Brits to use some NHS services but the current crisis facing the health service had partly changed his mind.

He said: ‘As health demands of the population, an aging population, get ever higher, and more expensive, it’s taking up an ever-increasing amount of GDP.

‘We may have to look at some means of making the better off patients making some modest contribution to their healthcare.’

He pointed to the current prescription charges in England for most people, with pensioners and those on low incomes exempt, as an example of a system that could be expanded.

Lord Clarke said a similar means test, with exemptions, which could see wealthier Brits charged a flat fee to attend a GP appointment or some routine NHS operations, could help fund the health service.

We can’t rule it out,’ he said.

However, he added he was not yet fully ‘converted’ of the merits of this system and said it would need far more research before implementation.

Lord Clarke also ruled out the prospect of introducing a US-style health insurance system in the UK, saying he remained ‘flatly opposed’ to the idea.

The current crisis in the NHS, fuelled by a multitude of factors, including record levels of bed-blockers, sky-high rates of flu and a resurgence of Covid,  has led to inhumane waits in emergency departments.

Read More: Middle-class families could face ‘modest’ charges to see GP and have routine ops under plans put forward by veteran Tory Ken Clarke to save the NHS

Several scientific studies have emerged that call into question the safety and effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines, raising alarm bells about the potential harm they may cause and their ability to prevent infection and transmission.

The findings of these studies are disturbing and suggest that vaccinated individuals may be at higher risk of contracting and spreading the alleged Covid-19 virus.

They also suggest that the “vaccines” may increase susceptibility to infection.

These revelations have serious implications for the still ongoing vaccination efforts and call into question the wisdom of ever mandating the public to take these experimental injections.

Because the evidence is now clear.

According to three individual studies published by the US Centers for Disease Control, the UK Government, and Oxford University, Covid-19 vaccines are harmful and ineffective.

CDC Study

A shocking CDC study reveals that vaccinated individuals are more likely to contract and spread Covid-19 than unvaccinated individuals.

Out of 469 cases studied among Massachusetts residents who attended public gatherings, a staggering 346 were among vaccinated individuals, with 74% of them experiencing Covid-19 symptoms and 1.2% being hospitalized.

In contrast, the remaining 123 cases were among the unvaccinated population, with only 1 person being hospitalized (0.8%), and no deaths occurring in either group.

The study also found that viral loads were very similar among the vaccinated and unvaccinated, indicating that both groups were equally infectious.

Read More: CDC, UK Gov. & Oxford University confirm COVID Vaccination DOES NOT WORK & has potentially Lethal & Fatal Consequences

Professor Ivan Katchanovski, as you may recall, is the Ukrainian-Canadian academic who’s done all the work on Maidan massacre. Briefly, he argues that the massacre of police and protestors on the Maidan Square in February of 2014 was a false flag operation carried out by the Ukrainian far-right.

To date, Katchanovski has published one paper on the massacre in an academic journal and another in an academic book. He has also presented his work at academic conferences. However, the professor’s latest and most detailed study remains unpublished.

This was about to change, Katchanovski thought in November, when it was accepted for publication at an academic journal. Indeed, the paper was accepted “after minor revision” – which means the reviewers didn’t recommend any fundamental changes.

Yet about ten days later, Katchanovski received an email from the journal informing him that the paper had been rejected – without any further peer review.

Needless to say, this is highly irregular. Once a paper has been accepted, that’s it; there’s no final stage of submission where it can be rejected after having already been accepted.

In fact, the editor was very complimentary. Upon accepting the paper for publication, he (or she) said, “There is no doubt that this paper is exceptional in many ways.” He went on to describe “the evidence” as “solid”, adding that “on this” there is “consensus among the two reviewers”. In other words, both reviewers and the editor found the empirical part convincing.

We know the initial acceptance wasn’t a clerical error. The editor explicitly stated in his message of November 2nd that “I would rather side with referee 2 and suggest that the article is acceptable for publication”, pending some minor changes.

As Katchanovski noted in a Twitter thread, he tried to appeal the decision by soliciting support from a “world-famous scholar”, who described the paper as “very important, rigorous and substantial”. But his efforts were unsuccessful.

Remarkably, the editor then wrote to the journal demanding to know why the paper had been rejected “despite the review and editorial decision in support of publication”. He noted that it was “excellent according to both reviewers”. This suggests that other members of the journal’s editorial board overruled his prior decision.

Katchanovski’s studies are already available for free online, and have been read thousands of times. The only benefit of publishing them in a journal (aside from small improvements thanks to peer reviewers) is to give the papers ‘legitimacy’. Until they’re published in a journal, critics can dismiss them as ‘not peer reviewed’ (even though many of the claims are based on publicly available videos).

Read More: Maidan Massacre Study Accepted and Then Rejected by Journal

This is a slightly modified version of a speech I gave at the inaugural meeting of the Icelandic Free Speech Society on Saturday January 7th. You can watch a video of me giving it here.

In the run-up to Christmas, the journalist Christopher Snowdon posted a lengthy Twitter thread that reproduced the projections of various U.K. modelling teams in December 2021, many of them linked to SAGE, showing  a range of outcomes in terms of infections, hospitalisations and deaths the new Omicron variant was likely to result in if the British Government failed to lock down over Christmas. These were, in the jargon of the modelling trade, ‘reasonable worst case scenarios’, or, as the U.K. Health Security Agency put it, “a range of plausible scenarios”.

As Christopher gleefully pointed out, none of these scenarios materialised, even though Boris Johnson held his nerve and refused to impose another lockdown (although, to the consternation of Lord Frost, he did impose ‘Plan B’, making masks mandatory in some indoor venues, access to large venues contingent on a negative test result and advising people to work from home). Not only did these ‘plausible scenarios’ fail to materialise, but the actual numbers of infections, hospitalisations and deaths that did occur weren’t even close to the lowest end of the range.

Neil Ferguson, for instance, told the Guardian that “most of the projections we have right now are that the Omicron wave could very substantially overwhelm the NHS, getting up to peak levels of admissions of 10,000 people per day”.

The U.K.HSA released a report on December 10th that included a model showing daily Omicron infections reaching 1,000,000 a day by December 24th.

In fact, only two million people were infected in the whole of December and hospital admissions peaked at less than 2,500 a day.

SAGE submitted a report, based on the work of its modelling subcommittees SPI-M and SPI-M-O, showing a ‘range of plausible scenarios’ in which deaths from Omicron would peak at between 600 and 6,000 a day.

In the event, deaths peaked at 210 a day.

Christopher’s reason for posting this thread, I suspect, was to encourage people to ignore the drumbeat for another lockdown in the run-up to Christmas 2022. If the doom-mongers had got it so badly wrong last Christmas, why should we take their projections about this Christmas seriously?

But, from the point of view of the lockdown lobby, this wasn’t a knock-down argument. Yes, the infections, hospitalisations and deaths from Omicron at the end of 2021 weren’t even in the lower range of SAGE’s ‘reasonable worst case scenarios’, but that didn’t prove the models had been wrong or that the Government was right to ignore them.

The definition of ‘reasonable worst case’ is not the scenario that will probably emerge if the government does nothing, merely a ‘plausible’ one, if the assumptions plugged into the model are correct – although, to confuse matters, the modellers do sometimes describe the outcomes they’re projecting as ‘likely‘ if the government does nothing, or only imposes light-touch restrictions, as Neil Ferguson and his co-authors did in Report 9.

Read More: Pascal Has Made Slaves of Us All