‘Jessica Berg Wilson, a 37-year-old stay-at-home mother from Washington, was a healthy and vibrant woman who passed away suddenly on Sept. 7. According to Jessica’s obituary, doctors diagnosed her with vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).
VITT is a rare, and sometimes fatal, blood-clotting condition triggered by COVID vaccines.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Tom Wilson, Jessica’s husband, and Thomas Ivancie, her uncle, said Twitter’s fact-checkers — who have never spoken with their family to verify Jessica’s story — affixed “misleading” and “misinformation” labels to her obituary.
Because of the Twitter labels, people couldn’t interact with Jessica’s obituary, or share the story.
On Aug. 29, Jessica went to a Seattle pharmacy to get her COVID vaccine and was told she would be receiving the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) shot. Jessica had no underlying health conditions, her husband said.
Jessica was “vehemently opposed” to taking the vaccine, “considering her stay-at-home mom status, state of good health and young age in conjunction with the known and unknown risk of an unproven vaccine,” Wilson said.
But Jessica was pressured to get the vaccine due to a vaccine mandate at their child’s school requiring “room moms” who wished to serve in the classroom be fully vaccinated.
According to Ivancie, Jessica became ill after receiving J&J’s vaccine, and went to the emergency room at UW Medical Center.
Ivancie said Jessica had been vaccinated and was suffering various severe symptoms. But attending doctors insisted on giving Jessica a COVID test and sent her home. They did not pursue any other treatment.
Once at home, Jessica lost consciousness and was taken by ambulance to UW Medical Center in Seattle, where doctors diagnosed her with VITT, Ivancie explained. A team of doctors worked to relieve pressure on Jessica’s brain, but ultimately, it was too late.
As a young mother, Jessica was a dedicated listener to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “RFK, Jr. The Defender” podcast. She was well-informed about COVID vaccines and adamantly opposed to getting the injections, Ivancie said.
In Ivancie’s eulogy he said:
“Jessica died as a direct result of an experimental vaccine — a vaccine that she vehemently opposed taking. Jessica felt coerced. She felt robbed of her ability to choose. Her ability to say ‘no’ — to say no to a medical procedure she did not want — was taken from her.”
Her obituary said:
“During the last weeks of her life, the world turned dark with heavy-handed vaccine mandates. Local and state governments were determined to strip away her right to consult her wisdom and enjoy her freedom.
“Her passion to be actively involved in her children’s education — which included being a room mom in her child’s classroom — was, once again, blocked by government mandate.”
Jessica’s husband said he received Pfizer’s vaccine “several months back” because his work involved traveling and being around a lot of people.
“It was best for our family that I got the vaccine,” Wilson said. But Jessica was “in a limited bubble as a stay-at-home mom, was of a young age and was concerned about the unproven nature of these vaccines.”
“She didn’t feel it was needed for her,” Wilson said. “But then as the mandates came out, Jessica and those mothers who are very very involved in their children’s lives — she wanted to be involved in every step of their lives. That was her main priority, her kids.”
In a memorial to his wife, Wilson wrote:
“Ultimately, this one-size-fits-all government policy cost Jessica her life, my children their mother, me my forever love and resulted in the loss of a very special person who touched many and was just making her dent felt on this world.”
Wilson told The Defender:
“My view on this whole story is — I want the world leaders to take notice because Jessica’s life is irreplaceable. There was a high value on her life and what she did for our family and for others. She touched a lot of people and there’s no replacing Jessica.
“I just hope that those people who are in control, who are setting these mandates at the top, are listening to her story and how we can protect the next Jessica from having to take this vaccine should they not think it’s necessary for them.”
Wilson said physicians at the hospital “100%” recognized she had a vaccine adverse event and told him they reported it to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Jessica’s VAERS report was entered into the agency’s system on Sept. 8. Her VAERS ID number is 1683324. Her family to date has not been contacted by any government officials.
Twitter censors Jessica’s obituary attributing her death to J&J’s vaccine
The tribute, published by The Oregonian, said the mother of two died from “COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia.” It was marked as “misleading” by the social media giant over the weekend, according to Twitter users.
Twitter fact-checkers put a “misleading” label on Jessica’s obituary and prevented people from replying to, sharing or liking the tweet.
The fact-check warning was removed by Twitter on Monday morning following the backlash.
Wilson said he’s not on social media, but said he was disgusted when he learned from others that his wife’s obituary was being censored by big tech companies for being “misleading” or for containing “misinformation.”
Ivancie said he also received reports that Facebook was censoring Jessica’s obituary, and confirmed the family had not been contacted by fact-checkers from either tech company to verify Jessica’s story.
Ivancie said, “When you can’t have the truth come out, you’re thwarting people’s ability to make decisions. It is scary how these entities have the power to censor.”
Ivancie said it feels like a second death — a death of the truth at the hands of these massive powerful entities. “Imagine if we had a free and open exchange of truth, how this could change the narrative for others,” Ivancie said.
“We aren’t telling people not to get vaccinated,” Jessica’s husband said, “that’s not what we’re doing. We want people to understand Jessica’s story and her right to choose, and in her mind, she had no choice in the matter with all these mandates.”
“We’re just hoping people in these positions of power setting these mandates will listen to our story,” he said.
UPDATED: This piece was updated, adding Jessica’s VAERS ID number and a link to her VAERS report. The date Jessica received the J&J COVID vaccine was also updated to the confirmed date of Aug. 29.‘https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/jessica-berg-wilson-dies-covid-vaccine-twitter-censors-obituary/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=80f280a6-25ec-41a0-9f2d-ea36d6bcb35e
Alex Berenson ‘Sent this to a lawyer who specializes in cases about the First Amendment and government overreach this morning:
Sorry to bother you out of the blue, but we talked years ago when I was a reporter for the NY Times. I don’t know if you have heard of my work since last year raising questions about the usefulness of our anti-Covid measures and in the last few months the vaccine.
Whether or not you agree with my arguments, I would like to think I have the right to make them on supposedly politically neutral social media platforms that are now working openly with the federal government to advance support for state-chosen policies around Covid and vaccinations.
But in the last two weeks Twitter has banned me three times, supposedly for spreading “misinformation.” It is not clear to me how Twitter defines misinformation – the data I provide is both true and accurate, and I provide primary source references for it.
I am currently under a weeklong Twitter ban for accurately reporting the results of Pfizer’s pivotal clinical trial about its Covid vaccine. The legal scholar Jonathan Turley criticized Twitter for the ban over the weekend.
I believe that the next time I do something Twitter does not like, I will be banned from the platform entirely. Worse, because Twitter’s rules are opaque, I have no way of knowing what is or is not likely to lead them to censor or expel me.
Although Twitter is a private company, its censorship of me has increased dramatically in the last month, since the Biden administration demanded that social media companies take action against people discouraging efforts to mandate or quasi-mandate vaccinations.
Before July, I was essentially allowed to write freely. In fact, I have an email from a Twitter executive in March saying that my “name has never come up” in regards to being someone who posted information Twitter considered false or problematic. I can only assume that Twitter is responding to this explicit federal pressure.
(Brandon was the head of communications for Twitter until June, when he left.)
Obviously, I cannot continue to post under these circumstances. I don’t really want to have to sue, as doing so will be a huge distraction from the work I am doing, but I am starting to feel like I don’t have a choice.
I am hoping a federal judge might be brave enough to step in and require Twitter to allow me to post factual and accurate information, or at the least to set clear rules for what content it will and will not censor.
Hope you find this interesting -‘https://alexberenson.substack.com/people/12729762-alex-berenson
Again Twitter is acting like a publisher for ‘Twitter temporarily suspended a Spanish politician last week, after he tweeted a man “cannot get pregnant” because he has “no womb or eggs.”
Although the post was scientifically accurate, Twitter suspended Francisco José Contreras’ account for 12 hours, according to Fox News.
The Vox Party politician shared the comment in response to an article about a biological female who identifies as male announcing she would be giving birth to a baby girl.’https://www.faithwire.com/2021/05/17/this-is-fascist-biology-twitter-suspends-politician-for-saying-men-cannot-get-pregnant/?utm_source=cbn&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news-eu-faithwire&utm_content=20210517-2349404&inid=5f29ebc0-7f5b-eb11-b823-005056af0da1
Are we in the West living under CCP tyrannical cancel culture when it comes to Facebook and Twitter? These two social media platforms want only what they believe is truth and not what you might believe or know for certain is truth! These two CCP oriented social media giants will cancel your voice if they believe you are giving false information just as ‘Wang Jingyu didn’t think he would become an enemy of China for his online comments.
The 19-year-old left his hometown of Chongqing in July 2019 and is now traveling in Europe. On February 21, netizens on the popular micro-blogging website, Weibo reported him to Chinese authorities for questioning the actions of the China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) as official media reported an incident in the disputed Himalayan border regions.
On February 19, China revealed that four of its soldiers died during a bloody Himalayan border clash with Indian troops in June last year. State media said the men “died after fighting foreign troops who crossed into the Chinese border.”
On the same day, China’s military news outlet PLA Daily named the “heroic” Chinese soldiers who “gave their youth, blood and even life” to the region. China’s official media outlet, the People’s Daily, said the soldiers were posthumously awarded honorary titles and first-class merit citations.
Wang posted his comments on February 21, questioning the number of deaths and asking why China had waited nearly eight months before making the deaths public.
“That very night, around 6:50 p.m., Chongqing police and some people without uniforms knocked on the door of my parent’s condo,” Wang told VOA.
In a statement, police in Chongqing city said Wang had “slandered and belittled the heroes” with his comments, “causing negative social impact,” according to The Guardian. “Public security organs will crack down on acts that openly insult the deeds and spirit of heroes and martyrs in accordance with the law.”
According to Wang, the police handcuffed his parents, and confiscated an iPad, cash and computers. Then they took his parents to the local police station, where the couple was told to tell their son to delete his Weibo posts.
“And since then, they take my parents to the police station every day around 6 a.m., put them in separate interrogation rooms without providing any food, and only let them return home around 6 or 7 p.m.,” he said about being “pursued online.”
“The police keep asking them one thing: ‘When will your son come back?’ ‘Think twice before you answer me.’”
“The police even texted me directly, asking me to return to China within three days, otherwise my parents [situation] ’won’t end well,’” Wang said.
In 2018, China passed the Heroes and Martyrs Protection Law. According to the official English-language outlet, the China Daily, the law “promotes patriotism and socialist core values, bans activities that defame heroes and martyrs or distort and diminish their deeds.” An amendment set to take effect this month could mean those who violate the law could be sentenced to up to three years in jail.’https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/china-expands-tracking-online-comments-include-citizens-overseas
I wonder if the cultural sensitive checkers at Twitter will allow this article through? We’ll see. The following article is adapted from a speech delivered February 18, 2021, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona.
‘The COVID pandemic has been a tragedy, no doubt. But it has exposed profound issues in America that threaten the principles of freedom and order that we Americans often take for granted.
First, I have been shocked at the unprecedented exertion of power by the government since last March—issuing unilateral decrees, ordering the closure of businesses, churches, and schools, restricting personal movement, mandating behavior, and suspending indefinitely basic freedoms. Second, I was and remain stunned—almost frightened—at the acquiescence of the American people to such destructive, arbitrary, and wholly unscientific rules, restrictions, and mandates.
The pandemic also brought to the forefront things we have known existed and have tolerated for years: media bias, the decline of academic freedom on campuses, the heavy hand of Big Tech, and—now more obviously than ever—the politicization of science. Ultimately, the freedom of Americans to seek and state what they believe to be the truth is at risk.
Let me say at the outset that I, like all of us, acknowledge that the consequences of the COVID pandemic and its management have been enormous. Over 500,000 American deaths have been attributed to the virus; more will follow. Even after almost a year, the pandemic still paralyzes our country. And despite all efforts, there has been an undeniable failure to stop cases from escalating and to prevent hospitalizations and deaths.
But there is also an unacknowledged reality: almost every state and major city in the U.S., with a handful of exceptions, have implemented severe restrictions for many months, including closures of businesses and in-person schools, mobility restrictions and curfews, quarantines, limits on group gatherings, and mask mandates dating back to at least last summer. And despite any myths to the contrary, social mobility tracking of Americans and data from Gallup, YouGov, the COVID-19 Consortium, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have all shown significant reductions of movement as well as a consistently high percentage of mask-wearing since the late summer, similar to the extent seen in Western Europe and approaching the extent seen in Asia.
With what results?
All legitimate policy scholars today should be reexamining the policies that have severely harmed America’s children and families, while failing to save the elderly. Numerous studies, including one from Stanford University’s infectious disease scientists and epidemiologists Benavid, Oh, Bhattacharya, and Ioannides have shown that the mitigating impact of the extraordinary measures used in almost every state was small at best—and usually harmful. President Biden himself openly admitted the lack of efficacy of these measures in his January 22 speech to the nation: “There is nothing we can do,” he said, “to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.”
Bizarrely, though, many want to blame those who opposed lockdowns and mandates for the failure of the very lockdowns and mandates that were widely implemented.
Besides their limited value in containing the virus, lockdown policies have been extraordinarily harmful. The harms to children of suspending in-person schooling are dramatic, including poor learning, school dropouts, social isolation, and suicidal ideation, most of which are far worse for lower income groups. A recent study confirms that up to 78 percent of cancers were never detected due to missed screening over a three-month period. If one extrapolates to the entire country, 750,000 to over a million new cancer cases over a nine-month period will have gone undetected. That health disaster adds to missed critical surgeries, delayed presentations of pediatric illnesses, heart attack and stroke patients too afraid to go to the hospital, and others—all well documented.
Beyond hospital care, the CDC reported four-fold increases in depression, three-fold increases in anxiety symptoms, and a doubling of suicidal ideation, particularly among young adults after the first few months of lockdowns, echoing American Medical Association reports of drug overdoses and suicides. Domestic and child abuse have been skyrocketing due to the isolation and loss of jobs. Given that many schools have been closed, hundreds of thousands of abuse cases have gone unreported, since schools are commonly where abuse is noticed. Finally, the unemployment shock from lockdowns, according to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research study, will generate a three percent increase in the mortality rate and a 0.5 percent drop in life expectancy over the next 15 years, disproportionately affecting African-Americans and women. That translates into what the study refers to as a “staggering” 890,000 additional U.S. deaths.
We know we have not yet seen the full extent of the damage from the lockdowns, because the effects will continue to be felt for decades. Perhaps that is why lockdowns were not recommended in previous pandemic response analyses, even for diseases with far higher death rates.
To determine the best path forward, shouldn’t policymakers objectively consider the impact both of the virus and of anti-virus policies to date? This points to the importance of health policy, my own particular field, which requires a broader scope than that of epidemiologists and basic scientists. In the case of COVID, it requires taking into account the fact that lockdowns and other significant restrictions on individuals have been extraordinarily harmful—even deadly—especially for the working class and the poor.
Optimistically, we should be seeing the light at the end of the long tunnel with the rollout of vaccines, now being administered at a rate of one million to 1.5 million per day. On the other hand, using logic that would appeal to Lewis Carroll’s Mad Hatter, in many states the vaccines were initially administered more frequently to healthier and younger people than to those at greatest risk from the virus. The argument was made that children should be among the first to be vaccinated, although children are at extremely low risk from the virus and are proven not to be significant spreaders to adults. Likewise, we heard the Kafka-esque idea promoted that teachers must be vaccinated before teaching in person, when schools are one of the lowest risk environments and the vast majority of teachers are not high risk.
Worse, we hear so-called experts on TV warning that social distancing, masks, and other restrictions will still be necessary after people are vaccinated! All indications are that those in power have no intention of allowing Americans to live normally—which for Americans means to live freely—again.
And sadly, just as in Galileo’s time, the root of our problem lies in “the experts” and vested academic interests. At many universities—which are supposed to be America’s centers for critical thinking—those with views contrary to those of “the experts” currently in power find themselves intimidated. Many have become afraid to speak up.
But the suppression of academic freedom is not the extent of the problem on America’s campuses.
To take Stanford, where I work, as an example, some professors have resorted to toxic smears in opinion pieces and organized rebukes aimed at those of us who criticized the failed health policies of the past year and who dared to serve our country under a president they despised—the latter apparently being the ultimate transgression.
Defamatory attacks with malicious intent based on straw-man arguments and out-of-context distortions are not acceptable in American society, let alone in our universities. There has been an attempt to intimidate and discredit me using falsifications and misrepresentations. This violates Stanford’s Code of Conduct, damages the Stanford name, and abuses the trust that parents and society place in educators.
It is understandable that most Stanford professors are not experts in the field of health policy and are ignorant of the data about the COVID pandemic. But that does not excuse the fact that some called recommendations that I made “falsehoods and misrepresentations of science.” That was a lie, and no matter how often lies are repeated by politically-driven accusers, and regardless of how often those lies are echoed in biased media, lies will never be true.
We all must pray to God that the infamous claim attributed to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels—“A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth”—never becomes operative in the United States of America.
All of the policies I recommended to President Trump were designed to reduce both the spread of the virus to the most vulnerable and the economic, health, and social harms of anti-COVID policies for those impacted the most—small businesses, the working class, and the poor. I was one of the first to push for increasing protections for those most at risk, particularly the elderly. At the same time, almost a year ago, I recognized that we must also consider the enormous harms to physical and mental health, as well as the deaths attributable to the draconian policies implemented to contain the infection. That is the goal of public health policy—to minimize all harms, not simply to stop a virus at all costs.
The claim in a recent Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) opinion piece by three Stanford professors that “nearly all public health experts were concerned that [Scott Atlas’s] recommendations could lead to tens of thousands (or more) of unnecessary deaths in the U.S. alone” is patently false and absurd on its face. As pointed out by Dr. Joel Zinberg in National Review, the Great Barrington Declaration—a proposal co-authored by medical scientists and epidemiologists from Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford—“is closer to the one condemned in the JAMA article than anything Atlas said.” Yet the Great Barrington Declaration has already been signed by over 50,000 medical and public health practitioners.
When critics display such ignorance about the scope of views held by experts, it exposes their bias and disqualifies their authority on these issues. Indeed, it is almost beyond parody that these same critics wrote that “professionalism demands honesty about what [experts] know and do not know.”
I have explained the fact that younger people have little risk from this infection, and I have explained the biological fact of herd immunity—just like Harvard epidemiologist Katherine Yih did. That is very different from proposing that people be deliberately exposed and infected—which I have never suggested, although I have been accused of doing so.
I have also been accused of “argu[ing] that many public health orders aimed at increasing social distancing could be forgone without ill effects.” To the contrary, I have repeatedly called for mitigation measures, including extra sanitization, social distancing, masks, group limits, testing, and other increased protections to limit the spread and damage from the coronavirus. I explicitly called for augmenting protection of those at risk—in dozens of on-the-record presentations, interviews, and written pieces.
My accusers have ignored my explicit, emphatic public denials about supporting the spread of the infection unchecked to achieve herd immunity—denials quoted widely in the media. Perhaps this is because my views are not the real object of their criticism. Perhaps it is because their true motive is to “cancel” anyone who accepted the call to serve America in the Trump administration.
For many months, I have been vilified after calling for opening in-person schools—in line with Harvard Professors Martin Kulldorf and Katherine Yih and Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya—but my policy recommendation has been corroborated repeatedly by the literature. The compelling case to open schools is now admitted even in publications like The Atlantic, which has noted: “Research from around the world has, since the beginning of the pandemic, indicated that people under 18, and especially younger kids, are less susceptible to infection, less likely to experience severe symptoms, and far less likely to be hospitalized or die.” The subhead of the article was even clearer: “We’ve known for months that young children are less susceptible to serious infection and less likely to transmit the coronavirus.”
When the JAMA accusers wrote that I “disputed the need for masks,” they misrepresented my words. My advice on mask usage has been consistent: “Wear a mask when you cannot socially distance.” At the time, this matched the published recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). This past December, the WHO modified its recommendation: “In areas where the virus is circulating, masks should be worn when you’re in crowded settings, where you can’t be at least one meter [roughly three feet] from others, and in rooms with poor or unknown ventilation”—in other words, not at all times by everyone. This also matches the recommendation of the National Institutes of Health document Prevention and Prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: “When consistent distancing is not possible, face coverings may further reduce the spread of infectious droplets from individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection to others.”
Regarding universal masks, 38 states have implemented mask mandates, most of them since at least the summer, with almost all the rest having mandates in their major cities. Widespread, general population mask usage has shown little empirical utility in terms of preventing cases, even though citing or describing evidence against their utility has been censored. Denmark also performed a randomized controlled study that showed that widespread mask usage had only minimal impact.
This is the reality: those who insist that universal mask usage has absolutely proven effective at controlling the spread of the COVID virus and is universally recommended according to “the science” are deliberately ignoring the evidence to the contrary. It is they who are propagating false and misleading information.
Those who say it is unethical, even dangerous, to question broad population mask mandates must also explain why many top infectious disease scientists and public health organizations question the efficacy of general population masking. Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, for instance, wrote that “despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.” Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta says there is no need for masks unless one is elderly or high risk. Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya has said that “mask mandates are not supported by the scientific data. . . . There is no scientific evidence that mask mandates work to slow the spread of the disease.”
Throughout this pandemic, the WHO’s “Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19” has included the following statement: “At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.” The CDC, in a review of influenza pandemics in May 2020, “did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.” And until the WHO removed it on October 21, 2020—soon after Twitter censored a tweet of mine highlighting the quote—the WHO had published the fact that “the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider.”
My advice on masks all along has been based on scientific data and matched the advice of many of the top scientists and public health organizations throughout the world.
At this point, one could make a reasonable case that those who continue to push societal restrictions without acknowledging their failures and the serious harms they caused are themselves putting forth dangerous misinformation. Despite that, I will not call for their official rebuke or punishment. I will not try to cancel them. I will not try to extinguish their opinions. And I will not lie to distort their words and defame them. To do so would repeat the shameful stifling of discourse that is critical to educating the public and arriving at the scientific truths we desperately need.
If this shameful behavior continues, university mottos like Harvard’s “Truth,” Stanford’s “The Winds of Freedom Blow,” and Yale’s “Light and Truth” will need major revision.
Big Tech has piled on with its own heavy hand to help eliminate discussion of conflicting evidence. Without permitting open debate and admission of errors, we might never be able to respond effectively to any future crisis. Indeed, open debate should be more than permitted—it should be encouraged.
As a health policy scholar for over 15 years and as a professor at elite universities for 30 years, I am shocked and dismayed that so many faculty members at these universities are now dangerously intolerant of opinions contrary to their favored narrative. Some even go further, distorting and misrepresenting words to delegitimize and even punish those of us willing to serve the country in the administration of a president they loathe. It is their own behavior, to quote the Stanford professors who have attacked me, that “violates the core values of [Stanford] faculty and the expectations under the Stanford Code of Conduct, which states that we all ‘are responsible for sustaining the high ethical standards of this institution.’” In addition to violating standards of ethical behavior among colleagues, this behavior falls short of simple human decency.
If academic leaders fail to renounce such unethical conduct, increasing numbers of academics will be unwilling to serve their country in contentious times. As educators, as parents, as fellow citizens, that would be the worst possible legacy to leave to our children.
I also fear that the idea of science as a search for truth—a search utilizing the empirical scientific method—has been seriously damaged. Even the world’s leading scientific journals—The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Science, and Nature—have been contaminated by politics. What is more concerning, many in the public and in the scientific community have become fatigued by the arguments—and fatigue will allow fallacy to triumph over truth.
With social media acting as the arbiter of allowable discussion, and with continued censorship and cancellation of those with views challenging the “accepted narrative,” the United States is on the verge of losing its cherished freedoms. It is not at all clear whether our democratic republic will survive—but it is clear it will not survive unless more people begin to step up in defense of freedom of thought and speech.’https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/science-politics-covid-will-truth-prevail/?utm_campaign=imprimis&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=114208080&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8b21bXCTHXX_sitz0PMuLe9UZa-xdmIpT-My9tfEISmSG6Ok97wfw58KVv91JNgBjVt5QNzNL77omnMfWudL4duf5qOg&utm_content=114197923&utm_source=hs_email
When will the madness of cancel culture cease? The answer is; Not anytime soon!
‘Facebook today wrongly flagged a cartoon from College Fix cartoonist Pat Cross that lampooned recent cancellations of the works of Theodor Geisel, known as Dr. Seuss.
“Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people,” says a pop-up message (right) on the Facebook post, first published yesterday morning.
Underneath the post, a message takes the reader to a statement from a Facebook fact-checker that fact checks claims about Dr. Seuss being cancelled by Dr. Seuss Enterprises. It correctly points out that “Cat in the Hat” is not one of the six books that the company will no longer publish.
Fair enough. But that’s not the whole story.
As noted by The College Fix, Loudon County Public Schools in Virginia said some of Seuss’ works have “strong racial undertones” and it will no longer link his name with its annual celebration of reading.
His books have not been removed from school libraries, but “Dr. Seuss and his books are no longer the emphasis of Read Across America Day in Loudoun County Public Schools,” district officials said.
Underscoring that, eBay will no longer allow sellers to list the six books deemed by Dr. Seuss Enterprises as containing racially insensitive imagery, the Washington Examiner reports.
Leading the pack is President Joe Biden, who did not mention Dr. Seuss in his “Read Across America Day” statement on Tuesday. In contrast, both Presidents Trump and Obama did mention the children’s author in previous proclamations while in office. The celebration of reading day coincides with the birthday of Geisel.
In effect, the general effort to memory hole or cancel Dr. Seuss is now underway, and it goes all the way to the White House. It comes just two years after academics began to call his works problematic and racist.
Dear Facebook, let’s not pretend Dr. Seuss is not the target of cancel culture. There is a deep irony that a cartoon on the cancellation of Seuss is now being censored by Big Tech.
That is what The College Fix’s editorial cartoon aimed to convey. The image (i.e. not news story) expressed a sentiment on the headlines of the day by using a clever play on words from one of Dr. Seuss’ most recognizable works, “The Cat in the Hat.”
And while that particular book has yet to find it’s way to the chopping block, the key word is “yet.”
One scholar has argued that the cat character has “minstrel stereotypes. … The Cat’s physical appearance, including the Cat’s oversized top hat, floppy bow tie, white gloves, and frequently open mouth, mirrors actual blackface performers.”
Another, Kansas State University English professor Phillip Nel, wrote: “Was the Cat in the Hat Black? The Hidden Racism in Children’s Literature, and the Need for Diverse Books.”
In other words, today it’s “Mulberry Street” and tomorrow it’s “The Cat in the Hat.”
The Fix has reached out to several contacts at Facebook this morning to ask for a removal of the pop-up, which incorrectly tells people that the cartoon lacks context.’https://www.thecollegefix.com/facebook-slaps-warning-on-college-fix-cartoon-that-lampooned-criticism-of-dr-seuss/
Oh, by the way I removed my article ‘Experimental vaccine death rate for Israel’s elderly 40 times higher than COVID-19 deaths’ from Twitter because not that many Twitterites come to the blog anyway so why fight it? Anyway, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook are publishers pushing the Communist CCP agenda! Now, ‘YouTube has temporarily suspended the Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN) for covering President Trump’s recent speech at CPAC.
The network has recently had to self-censor in order to remain on YouTube after YouTube banned any conversations suggesting that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen from President Trump – a concern held by 68% of Republicans.
As the allegations are popular among conservatives, RSBN has had to censor its broadcasts multiple times, telling guests not to mention allegations of election discrepancies.
This week, RSBN received a strike for carrying President Trump’s speech.
Violating YouTube’s guidelines thrice results in permanent banning.
RSBN was founded in 2015 by Joe Seales. The conservative media company rose in popularity for live streaming Trump’s rallies on YouTube. The over 3,000 videos on RSBN’s YouTube channel have millions of views.
In a recent interview, RSBN’s Liz Willis had to cut off Mike Lindell (aka MyPillow Guy) when he tried to steer the conversation to coronavirus vaccines.
“We have to be careful,” Willis said to Lindell. “I hate to do it, you know I love you, but due to YouTube’s guidelines, we will get our whole platform shut down if you talk about vaccines.”
Following the Jan 6 riot in the US Capitol, YouTube updated its misinformation policies.
“Due to the disturbing events that transpired yesterday, and given that the election results have now been certified, starting today *any* channels posting new videos with false claims in violation of our policies will now receive a strike,” YouTube announced on January 7.
The Google-owned platform is also clamping down on COVID-19 dissent. Those policies put the Pro-Trump YouTube channel in a very awkward position, especially since Trump himself has promoted the idea of election discrepancies and coronavirus information that goes against the World Health Organization, YouTube’s north star.
Another example of an awkward moment was when RSBN’s Mike Nificent was interviewing attendees of CPAC, held last weekend in Orlando, was asked by a woman about votes changing in Biden’s favor.
“We can’t go there,” Nificent responded. “We’ll lose our entire platform. We have to play by the rules.”
RSBN reporters are not shutting down allegations necessarily because they do not believe them. They’re being forced to do so to avoid Big Tech censorship.’https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-suspends-right-side-broadcasting-network/
You couldn’t make this up! ‘eBay is facing backlash after removing listings of used copies of the six Dr. Seuss children books that will no longer be published because they are considered “insensitive.”
Two days ago, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, the company responsible for reprinting his books, announced that it would stop reprinting six books because they contain racial stereotypes. The six books are: The Cat’s Quizzer, If I Ran a Zoo, McElligot’s Zoo, Scrambled Eggs Super!, And to Think I Saw It on Mulberry Street, and On Beyond Zebra.
Dr. Seuss Enterprises’ announcement was met with criticism, with people calling it another example of cancel culture.
Realizing that the six books would soon become rare, people who own the books started listing them for sale on eBay at exorbitant prices. The price of a Copy of “If I Ran the Zoo” went as high as $510 after 54 bids.
However, on Thursday, eBay began removing listings of the books. An email to sellers claimed that the listings were removed for violating the online store’s “Offensive material policy.”
eBay’s move was met with heavy criticism on social media. The online store is being accused of censorship, tech book burning, and virtue signaling.
“You can’t make this stuff up. @eBay is blocking my listings of @DrSeuss’s “The Cat’s Quizzer” & citing it as offensive material. Yet anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan’s books are okay? #cancelcancelculture.” one angry Twitter user wrote.
“You can buy Mein Kampf on eBay easy, but you can’t buy Dr. Seuss books,” another Twitter user wrote. “Virtue signaling tires me out dude.”
People angry at the cancellation of the book also pointed out that President Biden did not mention Dr Seuss on Read Across America Day, which is held annually on the deceased author’s birthday. Former presidents, including Obama and Trump, recognized Theodor Seuss Giesel’s contribution in the children’s books in their proclamations every year.
“[Dr Seuss’] tales challenge dictators and discrimination. They call us to open our minds, to take responsibility for ourselves and our planet,” Obama said in his Read Across America Day proclamation in 2014.
In Trump’s proclamation in 2018, he encouraged Americans to “always remember the still-vibrant words of Dr. Seuss: ‘You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself in any direction you choose.”
The White House is yet to explain why Biden left out Dr. Seuss in his proclamation on Read Across America Day.’https://reclaimthenet.org/ebay-bans-listings-of-some-used-dr-seuss-books/
|Hi David Bennett,|
|Your account, @aussiedubbo1 has been locked for violating the Twitter Rules.|
|Violating the policy on spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.|
|We understand that during times of crisis and instability, it is difficult to know what to do to keep yourself and your loved ones safe. Under this policy, we require the removal of content that may pose a risk to people’s health, including content that goes directly against guidance from authoritative sources of global and local public health information.|
For more information on COVID-19, as well as guidance from leading global health authorities, please refer to the following links:
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public from the WHO
FAQs about COVID-19 from the WHO
|David Bennett@aussiedubbo1Experimental vaccine death rate for Israel’s elderly 40 times higher than COVID-19 deaths|
|Please note that repeated violations may lead to a permanent suspension of your account. Proceed to Twitter now to fix the issue with your account.|
|Go to Twitter|