Luc Montagnier’s Views on COVID Vaccines Are Latest Of His Wrong, Vexing Ideas – The Wire Science

Comment by tonytran2015: Arguments ftom both sides should be heard.

…The B.1.617 variant of SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in Maharashtra on December 7, 2020… In India, vaccination started on January 16, 2021.

…All approved vaccines have been evaluated to ensure that they make high
levels of neutralising antibodies. Further, no ADE has been documented
from cases of reinfection or breakthrough infections.

What did Luc Montagnier really say?

The origin of this news is traced to an article on the website of a right-wing group called the RAIR Foundation USA,…

* He did not say vaccinated people would die in two years.

* He asserted that variants are a consequence of natural selection due to vaccinations.

* He says that ADE would lead to much stronger infection by variants in vaccinated people.

* He calls massive vaccination a ‘medical mistake’.

German High Court Rules Facebook Illegally Censored Content
Germany’s high court ruled that Facebook broke the law by removing alleged “hate speech” without explanation, a move that could force the social media giant to change how it moderates content. The Federal Court of Justice ruled on July 29 that Facebook violated German law when it removed posts from a German user that were…

What do we want? South-facing windows! | Aletho News

By Ivor Williams | The Conservative Woman | August 2, 2021

YOU may have read recently that ‘Britain is failing to protect its vulnerable citizens. Thousands of preventable deaths could be triggered every year.’ You may have supposed that some road safety organisation was at it again, worried about silent electric cars. Or maybe it was the RNLI having a go about inflatables on the beach. Possibly the opposition playing safe and attacking the crime rate or the NHS?

There’s a clue in the next sentence. ‘As global heating worsens and heatwaves become more frequent, the problem is likely to worsen significantly.’ This is Baroness Brown of Cambridge, a member of the Climate Change Committee (CCC), and she goes on to claim that by 2050 there could be three times as many heat-related deaths as there are today.

This is a Guardian piece about the CCC’s comments on a Met Office warning about hotter summers, so let’s stop here and take a deep breath of reality.

The number of heat-related summer deaths are monitored by Public Health England. The three years 2017-19 averaged 847, but in 2020 there were 2,556, in line with 2003 (2,334) and 2006 (2,323). Let’s be fair and assume global warming will continue, so over the next few years we may have a yearly average of 2,500, then (according to the CCC) on to 7,500 by 2050.

Back in Wonderland there’s apparently no need to worry. The Telegraph has reassuring news from its Environment Editor, Emma Gatten. The CCC, she says, ‘called for the introduction of new regulations to ensure developers were not building homes that are uninhabitable as temperatures rise . . . Measures that can easily be incorporated when building new homes include avoiding large south-facing windows, including external shutters, trickle vents, green roofs, and green walls covered in vegetation.’

There we are, then, problem solved. However, the world that you and I live in has a season called winter when it gets cold even here in the UK, and there is, of course, an opposite effect. Again Public Health England has the data: ‘Cold-related deaths represent the biggest weather-related source of mortality in England, and on average, there are approximately 35,000 excess winter deaths each year in England and Wales.’

Being kind and using the CCC’s figure for 2050, there are still over four and a half times as many excess deaths in winter as in summer. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation looked at the problem some time ago. Not surprisingly, they found that ‘the magnitude of the winter excess was greater in people living in dwellings that appear to be poorly heated. The percentage rise in deaths in winter was greater in those dwellings with low energy-efficiency ratings, and those predicted to have low indoor temperatures during cold periods’.

There are wide variations on recommended indoor warmth in winter. The Met Office must employ all young, hot-blooded people, because they say ‘you should heat your home to the temperature of at least 18°C. This is particularly important if you have reduced mobility, are 65 or over, or have a health condition, such as heart or lung disease.’

For the last twenty years I have been cold from October to March, and have recently become a nonagenarian so will probably be even colder this winter. The figure of 18 is ridiculous. I live in a reasonably well-insulated house with gas central heating; the winter thermostat setting is 21 or above and even then the winter clothing level is four layers.

The heat pump threat has receded by five years, but these things are notorious for their inability to warm a house properly. The CCC want smaller south-facing windows but the cheapest source of additional heat even in winter is the sun. Any day that it’s available let it shine in through south-facing windows. Have shutters for summer.

The CCC say possibly 7,500 excess summer deaths by 2050. But they seem to be relying on our climate warming unbelievably quickly to save 35,000 of us going shivering to our doom every winter.

Climate Change: An Excuse For Political Incompetence | PA Pundits – International

By Dr. John Happs

Climate change received little or no mention by the media or politicians during the inundation of Queensland floodplains in 1974:

After this event, houses were rebuilt only to suffer later flooding. There were floodplain inundations in Queensland during 2011, 2012, 2013, 2018, 2019 and 2020. The more recent floods were met, not with expressions of regret for allowing building to continue in these areas, but with the anticipated cries of “global warming” and “climate change” from the media, green zealots and politicians….

Twitter Suspends Science Writer After He Posts Results Of Pfizer Clinical Test – JONATHAN TURLEY

Just yesterday, we discussed the censoring of a commentator by Twitter for merely expressing an opinion over the need for a “pause” on any federal mandates on Covid-19 as new research is studied. Now, a former New York Times science reporter, Alex Berenson, has been suspended for simply citing the results from a clinical trial by Pfizer and raising questions over any vaccine mandate. In the meantime, the White House accused both the Washington Post and New York Times of irresponsible reporting on Covid, but surprisingly Twitter has not suspended those accounts. It is the license of the censor. Twitter is unwilling to let people read or discuss viewpoints that it disagrees with as a corporation. Many on the left, however, have embraced the concept of corporate speech and censorship. It turns out that the problem with censorship for many was the failure to censor views that they opposed. With the “right” censors at work, the free speech concerns have been set aside.

I have little ability to judge the science on such questions. Moreover, I was eager to be vaccinated as was my entire family. I would get the vaccination today with equal enthusiasm. However, I welcome the debate for data. Yet, rather than answer such critics and refute their arguments, many people focus on silencing anyone with dissenting viewpoints like Berenson.

Berenson has been effectively confined to Substack by Big Tech due to his discussing dissenting views on the science surrounding Covid-19. His latest offense against Big Tech came when he posted the results published by Pfizer of its own clinical data. He claimed that the research showed little difference in mortality between those in the trial with a vaccine and those given a placebo.

In the meantime, the White House sent out an all caps condemnation for “completely irresponsible” reporting on the infliction of vaccinated people according to another study.

Ben Wakana, deputy director of strategic communications and engagement for the White House, blasted the Washington Post over its headline about a study of a COVID-19 outbreak in Provincetown, Massachusetts on July 4th. The Post tweet read “Vaccinated people made up three-quarters of those infected in a massive Massachusetts covid-19 outbreak, pivotal CDC study finds.” Wakana responded “Completely irresponsible,. 3 days ago the CDC made clear that vaccinated individuals represent a VERY SMALL amount of transmission occurring around the country. Virtually all hospitalizations and deaths continue to be among the unvaccinated. Unreal to not put that in context.”

Wakana addressed the same issue with a New York Times tweet stating “Breaking News: The Delta variant is as contagious as chickenpox and may be spread by vaccinated people as easily as the unvaccinated, an internal C.D.C. report said.” That sent Wakana into all caps: “VACCINATED PEOPLE DO NOT TRANSMIT THE VIRUS AT THE SAME RATE AS UNVACCINATED PEOPLE AND IF YOU FAIL TO INCLUDE THAT CONTEXT YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.”

Now all three posters (Berenson, The Post, and The Times) were citing studies and accused of not putting them into context. However, only Berenson was suspended.

Obviously, none of these posters should be suspended and Twitter should not be enforcing one of the largest censorship programs in history. However, the silence of free speech supports, academics, and journalists to this hypocrisy is deafening.

The rise of corporate censors has combined with a heavily pro-Biden media to create the fear of a de facto state media that controls information due to a shared ideology rather than state coercion. That concern has been magnified by demands from Democratic leaders for increased censorship, including censoring political speech, and now word that the Biden Administration has routinely been flagging material to be censored by Facebook.

This is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist:

The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.

If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.

How the CDC Betrayed Victims of Agent Orange – by Techno Fog – The Reactionary – Trump:The American Years

There are few things in this world with the long-term toxicity of Agent Orange, the chemical herbicide used in Vietnam. Polonium-210 in a cup of tea will kill you – just ask former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko – but, unlike Agent Orange, its damage isn’t generational.For the uninitiated, Agent Orange is the moniker given to the “mixture of butoxyethanol esters of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T).”1 It was a nasty chemical compound manufactured primarily by Dow Chemical and Monsanto (and others) at the instructions of the United States government during the Vietnam war.From 1962 to 1971, the US Air Force sprayed at least 11 million gallons of Agent Orange in Vietnam. The purpose of Agent Orange, primarily distributed through Operation Ranch Hand, was defoliation to improve visibility for military operations and the destruction of enemy food supplies. It was mostly sprayed by plane, although it was also sprayed through helicopters, truck, boat, and backpacks to clear foliage around bases and landing zones.

Continue Reading Here: How the CDC Betrayed Victims of Agent Orange – by Techno Fog – The Reactionary

Biden’s readiness to scream ‘Russian interference!’ while staying silent on Big Tech’s meddling is astounding cognitive dissonance — RT Op-ed

As the 2022 midterm election season approaches, Joe Biden and
the Democrat Party are already repeating their 2016 claims of “Russian
interference,” which they falsely spewed throughout the entire first
term of Donald Trump.
This week, Joe Biden
accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of trying to disrupt the 2022
US congressional elections by “spreading misinformation,” going as far
as saying Russia was undermining and violating US sovereignty.

interference is real. However, Biden, who appears to be in a state of
constant mental decline and confusion, demonstrates the
election-interference cognitive dissonance that has become commonplace
within the Democrat Party and among Democrat voters. As a Republican
voter and Congressional candidate myself, I am very concerned about
election interference in the 2022 congressional elections, just not from
Russia. I agree with Biden’s concerns about the 2022 congressional
elections being disrupted by election interference. In fact, the biggest
issue currently facing the United States of America and the future of
our elections process is election interference – just not by Russia.

Also on
Big Tech behaves as if they’re the new rulers of the world, and they need to be stopped. At last, the pushback has begun

The election interference that Americans must be weary of, heading into 2022, is Big Tech interference.

Biden and the Democratic Party, Russia has become an easy scapegoat and
political boogeyman for very real political issues that are affecting
the integrity of our elections. As we saw during the four years that
Donald J Trump was President, the Democrats have zero qualms about
accusing their political opponents of being Russian bots, Russian
agents, or about dividing the entire nation over a feverish conspiracy
of Russian election interference.

What they are not willing to
do, however, is admit that the biggest threat to the integrity of US
elections is Big Tech tyranny. When it comes to interfering in
elections, the evidence makes it very clear that Russia is of no
concern, while Big Tech companies like Facebook and Twitter are
deplatforming US Congressional candidates like myself and banning a
sitting US President during the certification process of the 2020
elections. Political censorship and Big Tech election interference has
created widespread distrust of America’s elections process, but Joe
Biden refuses to address it because Big Tech companies and their
executives are Democratic Party mega-donors and their election
interference efforts are aimed at aiding and electing Democrat

Speaking at the Geneva Summit last month following
his meeting with Vladimir Putin, Biden said he told Putin there would be
consequences to any election interference in the United States, adding
that those who engage in election interference will have shrinking

“Let’s get this straight. How would it be if the
United States was viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with
the elections directly of other countries, and everyone knew it? It
diminishes the standing of a country that is desperately trying to
maintain its standing as a major world power.”

Biden is right, but his severe case of cognitive dissonance has
prevented him from recognizing and properly addressing the fact that the
most egregious election interference that is happening in the world is
actually originating from the United States. It is happening in Silicon
Valley, California, where a handful of billionaires have taken it upon
themselves to decide which political candidates in America, and around
the world, will be able to have a voice during elections.

United States desperately wants to remain the arbiter of truth,
morality, and to set the standard for what it means to have free and
fair elections, but the Democratic Party’s acceptance of Big Tech’s
blatant interference with the 2020 elections and recent admissions by
Biden’s administration that he is actively working with Facebook to
censor content he views as “misinformation,” has created a severe
credibility issue.

Not only does Biden have a credibility issue
regarding his accusations against foreign nations of election
interference but, since the 2020 elections, the United States has a
credibility issue in the eyes of other world leaders who have been told
for generations that the United States is the leading world power.

Facebook, Google, and Apple are American companies. While these
companies certainly have an international and global consumer base, they
were created and founded in the United States of America.

Also on
In an era in which the left dominates both the media and the halls of power, the only way to rebel is to lean right

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, “Employees of Google’s parent, Alphabet Inc., and Microsoft Corp. , Inc., Apple Inc. and Facebook
Inc. were the five largest sources of money for Mr. Biden’s campaign
and joint fundraising committees among those identifying corporate
employers, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of campaign
finance reports. Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign received at least
$15.1 million from employees of those five tech firms, records show.”

is no denying that Biden received significant financial support from
both the employees of and the executives of these powerful Big Tech
companies that are now curating political discourse and communication
all around the world.

For this reason, Biden has refused to hold
Big Tech to the same standard regarding election interference that he
wishes to hold Putin.

Even more disturbing is the fact that Putin
himself has been more vocal about Big Tech’s election interference than
the US leader, which has further diminished the United States standing
as an authority on fair elections

Following Trump’s ban from
nearly every Big Tech social media platform in January 2021, Putin
himself, who the Democrats have spent years vilifying and falsely
accusing of election interference, used his platform to call out Big
Tech’s out-of-control power. During his speech at the Davos World
Economic Forum this year, Putin argued that Big Tech is undermining free
and fair elections through their monopolistic business practices.

“Digital giants have been playing an increasingly significant role in wider society,” Putin said via videolink. “In
certain areas they are competing with states… Here is the question, how
well does this monopolism correlate with the public interest? Where is
the distinction between successful global businesses, sought-after
services and big data consolidation on the one hand, and the efforts to
rule society[…] by substituting legitimate democratic institutions, by
restricting the natural right for people to decide how to live and what
view to express freely on the other hand?” he asked.

Also on
New York Times reporter deletes tweets calling Trump supporters ‘enemies of the state’

As I previously wrote in a previous Op Ed: “Big
Tech and the Democrats love virtue-signaling about fake news and
foreign-election interference, but it’s a classic case of projection,
because spreading fake news and interfering in democratic elections is
exactly what they are guilty of doing.”

While there may be
no cure for Biden and the Democratic Party’s debilitating case of
cognitive dissonance, which will surely worsen as time goes on, it will
be up to the American people during the 2022 midterm elections to adopt
the task of curtailing Big Tech’s election interference so that America
can continue to remain a respected world leader and set the global
standard for free and fair elections.

Mark Zukerberg Is Positioning Facebook To Take Over Online Worship Services And His First Line Of Attack Is Partnership With Laodicean Hillsong — Now The End Begins | Truth2Freedom’s Blog

Mark Zuckerberg believes the coronavirus pandemic has created a new opportunity for Facebook to grow. His plan involves incentivizing churchgoers — who have become familiar with virtual services over the past year due to lockdowns — to permanently move their religious worship online.

Just a short while ago, Facebook removed my post because it went against their Community Standards, and was something that could potentially ’cause harm’ to certain groups of people. What was in that post that was so egregious and offensive to the Facebook censors? It was Proverbs 20:1 warning against the corrupting influence of alcohol. Now Facebook wants to control the Christian worship service, and to that end, they have found the perfect first willing victim. Laodicean Hillsong.

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” Revelation 3:15,16 (KJB)

Charles Spurgeon once prophetically remarked that ‘A time will come when instead of shepherds feeding the sheep, the church will have clowns entertaining the goats’.Hillsong Church and all their ilk are the living, breathing fulfillment of that statement from the 19th century. The fact that they are partnering with Facebook to create a ‘modern worship experience to engage 21st century technology-savvy users’ shows me the falling away from 2 Thessalonians is now complete. And then some.


Mark Zuckerberg Wants Laodicean Churchgoers to Connect with God on Facebook

FROM BREITBART NEWS: The company is intensifying its formal partnerships with faith groups across the United States…

The Flying Dutchman How a blogger’s devotion to anti-colonialism became an obsession with MH17 that led to a police raid on a Russian journalist’s home | Ukraine Today .org
Early on July 28, police officers raided the home of investigative journalist Roman Dobrokhotov, The Insider’s creator and editor-in-chief. After searching his apartment, the officers escorted him to a local station for questioning about defamation charges filed back in April. For now, the authorities have named Dobrokhotov as a witness in their investigation. The available evidence suggests that the case’s victims are “undetermined persons within the Russian Defense Ministry’s Military Intelligence Directorate,” as well as the Dutch blogger Max van der Werff, whom The Insider and Bellingcat investigated last November, finding that he coordinated his efforts with Russia’s military intelligence to publicize “alternative narratives” about the causes of the July 2014 crash of MH17. This joint report (or rather, Dobrokhotov’s tweet promoting the article) is what van der Werff calls defamation. Meduza explains how an amateur researcher went from exposing Dutch war crimes committed during Indonesia’s decolonization to helping the Russian authorities cover up how a passenger plane crashed in Ukraine...

“The Enemies of the State”: The New York Times and The Fluidity of Advocacy Journalism – JONATHAN TURLEY

We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. The New York Times has been at the forefront of this shift away from traditional reporting but has increasingly found that the fluidity of advocacy journalism leaves it without any clear framework or standards. Consider the latest scandal at the Times. Justice Department reporter and MSNBC contributor Katie Benner went on a rave about Republicans and called Trump supporters “enemies of the state.” She also made a not-so-veiled call for readers to vote against them. The Times has been in total radio silence over what, just a few years ago, would have been viewed as an outrageous violation of journalistic standards. Yet, just recently, it fired another reporter for a comparatively mild tweet supporting Biden. Professional ethics, it seems, has become entirely impressionistic in the age of advocacy journalism.

Notably, many of us denounced Donald Trump for calling the New York Times and other media outlets the “enemy of the people.” The media was aghast and the Times publicly condemned such rhetoric as “inflammatory.” Now, however, journalists like Benner are engaging in the same inflammatory rhetoric and the Times is conspicuously silent.

We have have been discussing how writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. This movement includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy. Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll has denounced how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that the journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”

Benner tweeted on Tuesday during the first hearing of the Democrat-led Jan. 6 select committee was underway: “Today’s #January6thSelectCommittee underscores the America’s current, essential natsec dilemma: Work to combat legitimate national security threats now entails calling a politician’s supporters enemies of the state.” The MSNBC contributor also declared:

“As Americans, we believe that state power should not be used to work against a political figure or a political party. But what happens if a politician seems to threaten the state? If the politician continues to do so out of office and his entire party supports that threat?”…That leaves it up to voters, making even more essential free, fair access to the polls.”

Benner’s comments are indistinguishable from the Democratic members that she is covering. The problem is that, while the Times has embraced advocacy journalism, its has not updated its guidelines which state that “Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively.”

While the tweets were deleted, the Times refused to respond to other reporters asking about the tweets.

Just recently, we discussed the firing of Lauren Wolfe, who was fired for saying that she had “chills” in watching Biden land at Andrews Air Force base. Wolfe later penned a column declaring “I’m a Biased Journalist and I’m Okay With That” — a full-throated endorsement of the new journalistic model of open bias and advocacy.

I was critical of Wolfe but the two cases leave many completely confused on the standards applied by the Times. The confusion has been growing for years.

A year ago, the New York Times denounced its own publishing of an editorial of Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) calling for the use of the troops to restore order in Washington after days of rioting around the White House. It was one of the one of the lowest points in the history of modern American journalism. While Congress would “call in the troops” six months later to quell the rioting at the Capitol on January 6th, New York Times reporters and columnists called the column historically inaccurate and politically inciteful. Reporters insisted that Cotton was even endangering them by suggesting the use of troops and insisted that the newspaper cannot feature people who advocate political violence.

While insisting that it will never again publish someone like Cotton, it has published columns from figures like one of the Chinese leaders crushing protests for freedom in Hong Kong. Cotton was arguing that the use of national guard troops may be necessary to quell violent riots, noting the historical use of this option in past protests. This option was used most recently after the Capitol riot. Yet the Times has no problem publishing someone called “Beijing’s enforcer” who mocked pro-Democracy protesters as her government beat them and arrested them.

Likewise, almost on the one-year anniversary of its condemning its own publication of Cotton (and forcing out its own editor), the New York Times published an academic columnist who previously defended the killing of conservative protesters.

If none of this makes sense to you, that is because it does not have to make sense. Starting with the Cotton scandal, the New York Times cut its mooring cables with traditional journalist values. It embraced figures like Nikole Hannah-Jones who have championed advocacy journalism.

The problem with Benner was not that she is actively supporting Democrats or viewing Trump supporters as enemies of the state. The problem is that she said it a bit too openly. There remain slight sensibilities to be observed even the age of advocacy journalism. So she deleted the tweet and no one is much interested in how such biased reporters continue to cover such stories. Indeed, just this week, NBC’s Chuck Todd denied that there is a problem of biased journalism despite the long criticism of his own overt partisanship on the air.

In the end, it does not matter what happens to Benner. The lesson for others is to confine any such bias to framing coverage rather than directly calling for votes for Democrats or joining in on the condemnations of Trump supporters. One must keep up appearances even in the age of advocacy journalism.