This incident sheds light on the broader implications of the fight against online “misinformation,” particularly how premature labeling of claims can potentially suppress legitimate grievances and criticisms that later prove to have been based on some truth, something that happened often in 2020 and the Covid era.

The controversy surrounding a FEMA employee who allegedly directed a relief team to ignore homes displaying support for then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has sparked outrage and demands for a thorough investigation by legislators. As first reported by The Daily Wire, the employee, who has now been fired, instructed team members to bypass these homes, an action condemned by FEMA administrator Deanne Criswell as a “clear violation of FEMA’s core values & principles to help people regardless of their political affiliation.”

Criswell’s confirmation of the dismissal came through a post on X, following online reports about the employee’s conduct. While she didn’t specify which hurricane’s relief efforts were affected, ABC News and The New York Times reported it was during the aftermath of Hurricane Milton in Florida. This hurricane struck shortly after the catastrophic Hurricane Helene.

The rush to curb the spread of misinformation online is a top priority for many pro-censorship platforms and legacy institutions claiming to protect public discourse from false narratives. However, this incident exemplifies the complexities and risks inherent in these efforts. Initially, the claims regarding any of FEMA’s discriminatory practices were quickly categorized as baseless and part of an online misinformation campaign. This not only stifled debate but potentially delayed the scrutiny necessary to uncover and address any wrongdoing.

In conversation with the State Department’s chief data and AI officer Matthew Graviss, he cited a number of initiatives – such as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and Washington’s Enterprise AI Strategy as the foundations for the ultimate goal – using AI to “advance our foreign policy.”

The second part of the push to equip the State Department with AI tools is to – “strengthen this institution.”

According to Blinken, his department is a leader within the government when it comes to testing and “harnessing” the technology. Some reports speak about this as combating whatever happens to be considered foreign disinformation.

And while on the subject of meddling, the Washington Times says AI tests are “part of an ambitious media monitoring and analysis project that spans the globe.”

As sinister as that may sound, packaging the message as the need to combat (only) “foreign disinformation” certainly makes the policy more palatable at home, where the department’s past activity features in congressional probes into government-orchestrated online censorship.

This scrutiny is presented as something hindering the Department of State’s “anti-disinformation” work – while the tools now in development are quite openly described as a possible different means “to pursue the same goals.”

Blinken’s remarks reveal how the technology is used seemingly innocuously as a (translation and summarization) tool “in multilateral organizations;” but then he praised the ability of AI-powered tools to make mass surveillance (“monitoring”) cover a much larger number of media, making its scope and scale “vast,” as the report put it.

And also – combat “disinformation” – which Blinken quite dramatically refers to as “one of the poisons in the international system today.”

“We have one program that we’re using that is able to basically ingest a million articles every day from around the world — to be able to do that in a couple hundred countries in over a hundred languages — and then immediately translate, synthesize and give you a clear picture of what’s happening in the information space immediately,” the secretary is quoted as saying.

But given the scale of the operation, and the shortcomings of the current limitations of AI – those in the know might wish Blinken good luck with the accuracy and reliability of getting that “immediate, clear picture.”

However, when the “AI weapon” is pointed at online platforms as a means of identifying and censoring “disfavored” speech, it is objectively more likely to be efficient.

And the State Department is no stranger to such – strange given its mission – activities: after all, it is the home of the investigated-by-Congress and highly controversial Global Engagement Center.

A short way to describe it is as a dystopian version of debunking false or incorrect information. But here the idea is to stop users (“help them identify”) unwanted content, before they can even see it.

A short way to describe what’s wrong with the “war on misinformation” is that it all too easily turns into a smokescreen for plain censorship of lawful and factually correct speech.

And now, prebunking is moving from ideations pushed by murky “fact-checking” and similar outfits, to the very top of the mainstream – Google.

The company that in effect controls the search market and some of the largest social platforms in the world (outside China) has announced that its latest anti-misinformation campaign will incorporate prebunking.

No doubt with an eye on the US election later in the year, Google’s attention is now on Europe, specifically the EU ahead of the European Parliament vote in June.

Google is acting in unison with the EU and its Digital Services Act which require tech giants to act on whatever is chosen to be considered “misinformation” and suppress it. Much of this is (at least they say so) driven by “Russia Scare,” and so both Google’s Jigsaw unit and the EU are talking about “democracy at risk.”

As for Google’s version of “prebunking,” it, at least in Europe, comes in the form of animated ads, reports say. They will play not only on YouTube but also other platforms like TikTok, and target Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and Poland – the EU countries with the largest number of voters.

Jigsaw says prebunking bypasses “polarized debates” and “works equally effectively across the political spectrum.”

User experience may suffer at the expense of this “pre-reeducation.”

“Viewers watching the ads on YouTube will be asked to fill in a short multiple-choice questionnaire, designed to gauge what they have learned about misinformation,” Reuters describes Google’s prebunking technique.

These days, agencies like Reuters describe Jigsaw as an internal Google unit “which operates to tackle threats to societies.”

How noble of Jigsaw, and obliging towards Google of Reuters – but in 2016, reports were still talking about Jigsaw as rather what it really is – a rebrand of Google Ideas.

And, The Guardian explained at the time, this was “the web giant’s controversial diplomatic arm, founded in 2010 and headed by ex-US State Department policy wonk Jared Cohen,” adding – “Jigsaw’s stated mission is to use technology to tackle geopolitics.”

(Geo)politics may these days have been rebranded as “misinformation.”

But otherwise, little has changed.

Now, they’re advancing their efforts by preparing monstrous leaps in technology. A new patent paints and ominous picture as they appear to have the ability to find “misinformation” before it happens. I covered this on the latest episode of The JD Rucker Show. Here’s the news itself from Didi Rankovic from Reclaim The Net…

Google’s New Patent: Using Machine Learning to Identify “Misinformation” on Social Media

Google has filed an application with the US Patent and Trademark Office for a tool that would use machine learning (ML, a subset of AI) to detect what Google decides to consider as “misinformation” on social media.

Google already uses elements of AI in its algorithms, programmed to automate censorship on its massive platforms, and this document indicates one specific path the company intends to take going forward.

The patent’s general purpose is to identify information operations (IO) and then the system is supposed to “predict” if there is “misinformation” in there.

Judging by the explanation Google attached to the filing, it at first looks like blames its own existence for proliferation of “misinformation” – the text states that information operations campaigns are cheap and widely used because it is easy to make their messaging viral thanks to “amplification incentivized by social media platforms.”

But it seems that Google is developing the tool with other platforms in mind.

The tech giant specifically states that others (mentioning X, Facebook, and LinkedIn by name in the filing) could make the system train their own “different prediction models.”

Machine learning itself depends on algorithms being fed a large amount of data, and there are two types of it – “supervised” and “unsupervised,” where the latter works by providing an algorithm with huge datasets (such as images, or in this case, language), and asking it to “learn” to identify what it is it’s “looking” at.

(Reinforcement learning is a part of the process – in essence, the algorithm gets trained to become increasingly efficient in detecting whatever those who create the system are looking for.)

The ultimate goal here would highly likely be for Google to make its “misinformation detection,” i.e., censorship more efficient while targeting a specific type of data.

The patent indeed states that it uses neural networks language models (where neural networks represent the “infrastructure” of ML).

Google’s tool will classify data as IO or benign, and further aims to label it as coming from an individual, an organization, or a country.

And then the model predicts the likelihood of that content being a “disinformation campaign” by assigning it a score.

Dubbed “Cybersecurity Futures 2030: New Foundations,” the report, which is based on a study, puts forth the notion that one of the biggest cybersecurity concerns for the establishment is free speech that threatens the existing world order.

“The study postulates the future of cybersecurity lies rather in safeguarding the integrity and source of data,” reports Reclaim the Net about the study.

“This introduces a novel perspective on the significance of locating and quashing fabricated information, cynically tagged as ‘mis’- or ‘dis-information’ held in the cybersecurity domain.”

The study was shaped based on the contents of numerous international conferences, both virtual and geo-located. Sessions held all around the world in conjunction with an online gathering of participants across Europe played an instrumental role in shaping “the futuristic, hypothetical scenarios catapulting cybersecurity to 2030.”

(Related: You know what else the globalists are afraid of? Mass adoption of Bitcoin cryptocurrency.)

If you disagree with WEF, you’re “illiterate”

One of the key elements of the WEF’s position concerning so-called “misinformation” is that it stems from illiteracy. In other words, if you disagree with something the WEF says is true, then you are illiterate.

Because of this, the WEF stresses in the report a desire to push digital security “literacy training,” which the globalist body puts forth as a weapon to ward off “misinformation” and “disinformation” from spreading online.

Mis- and disinformation are the “core of cyber concerns” at the WEF. They are similarly feared by the mainstream media, which also has its own “media literacy” brainwashing tools to manipulate government officials into cracking down on free speech.

This is somewhat of a problem in the United States due to that pesky First Amendment, which guarantees all Americans the right to free speech. The WEF hates the First Amendment, but can only do so much to thwart it before the law gets involved.

To make it seem like the group only opposes “wrong” information as opposed to free speech in general, the WEF is heavily pushing an “internet literacy” narrative that presents the problem of mis- and disinformation as something that can be fixed through “education.”

“The report’s writers unfold an interesting perspective where ‘stable governments,’ with long-term tech and cybersecurity strategies up their sleeves, morph into reliable and trustworthy information gatekeepers,” Reclaim the Net explains, noting that the WEF now lumps mis- and disinformation into the same categories as data fraud and “run-of-the-mill cybercrime.”

“The study also puts the roles of government and the private sector in preserving trust under its lens, particularly in the U.S. context, deliberating who should be entrusted with the key censorship task.”

Earlier this year, the WEF released another report highlighting seven trends that it says could shape the future of cybersecurity in 2030. These trends include:

1. Cybersecurity access and progress being widened, including through the elimination of passwords and the implementation of something else to verify one’s identity – perhaps an implantable microchip?
2. A worsening crisis in online trust as advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) blur distinguishing line between humans and machines online
3. The growth of AI and ML to the point that most formerly human-run systems become controlled by robots
4. An increase in “digital sovereignty” and internet fragmentation
5. A growing tug of war between the right to privacy and the government’s lust for more power and control
6. Uncertainty about the “metaverse” and what it might entail
7. Shifting power dynamics concerning the sovereignty of nations and how they individually handle free speech and online privacy

The latest news about the globalist love affair with censorship can be found at Censorship.news.

Sources for this article include:

• WEForum.org
• ReclaimTheNet.org
• NaturalNews.com
• WEForum.org

The misinformation wars continue, this time with a mixed-methods study published in JAMA Network Open.¹ The study itself is a prime example of misinformation propaganda, yet claims to have collected evidence of “widespread, inaccurate, and potentially harmful assertions made by physicians across the country” during the pandemic.

The physicians made comments counter to the status quo on the topics of four major themes, which you’ll recognize as those commonly targeted by pro-narrative outlets:

• Disputing vaccine safety and effectiveness
• Medical treatments “lacking scientific evidence”
• Disputing mask-wearing effectiveness
• Other “unsubstantiated claims” relating to virus origin, government lies and conspiracy theories

Often, this inaccurately labeled “misinformation” turned out to be true, but that didn’t dissuade the study’s authors from publishing the misleading paper. One indication that the JAMA “study” is far more propaganda than science? Even the mainstream Washington Post took issue with it, in an article titled, “Not all COVID ‘Misinformation’ Is Equal — or Even Misinformation.”²

Harmful JAMA Study ‘Overdiagnoses Misinformation’

“Overdiagnosing “misinformation” — as the study does — will do more harm than good,” The Washington Post reported. The six University of Massachusetts, Amherst, researchers who wrote the featured paper therefore only contributed to circulating misinformation by trying to, inaccurately, point the finger at others.

“The study undermines its own purpose by wrongly classifying value judgments and some scientifically valid points as misinformation,” the Post continues.³ According to the study authors, “The most common theme identified was physicians discouraging the public from receiving COVID-19 vaccines. Promoting fear and distrust of the vaccine and reliance on “natural” immunity were common subthemes.”⁴

One social media post from February 2022 specifically called out by the study stated, “It’s time to recognize natural immunity as at least as good as vaccination and end the mandates.”⁵ Even vaccination proponent Dr. Paul Offit, director of the vaccine education center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, took issue with the study’s attempt to call this misinformation. The Washington Post reported:⁶

“Paul Offit — who has decades of experience fighting anti-vaccine misinformation — called foul at the JAMA study author’s classification of this statement as misinformation. The first part about natural immunity is true, he said. And the call to end vaccine mandates was one view in a legitimate debate — a value judgment, not a fact.”

It seems the JAMA researchers aren’t aware that COVID-19 infection — i.e., natural immunity — offered better protection against symptomatic omicron infection more than one year later than three doses of COVID-19 shots did after one month.

To put it into numbers, previous infection was 54.9% effective against symptomatic omicron infection after more than 12 months, while three doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot was only 44.7% effective a month later. The same held true for three doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 shot, which was only 41.2% effective after one month, compared to 53.5% effectiveness for natural immunity more than a year later.⁷

Yet, bringing up natural immunity’s effectiveness is still being targeted. Why? The denial of natural immunity during the pandemic was, in fact, deemed unprecedented by Dr. Scott Atlas, a former White House COVID-19 Task Force adviser, who told The Epoch Times:⁸

“Our continued denial of superior protection in recovered individuals, with or without vaccination, compared to vaccinated individuals who’ve never had the infection … the denial of that is simply unprecedented in modern history. Proven fact and decades of fundamental immunology are somehow denied. If we are a society where the leaders repeatedly deny the fact, I’m very concerned about the future of such a society.”

True Statements Labeled Misinformation

The JAMA study is packed with outrageous examples of truths being targeted as misinformation. Suggestions of COVID-19 shot risks is a category in itself. In one instance, a family medicine physician posted this on Facebook on October 31, 2021:⁹

“Super safe and super effective. Especially in children (insert sarcastic eyeroll). So safe that JAHA [Journal of the American Heart Association] published two articles about jab induced myocarditis this month.”

Misinformation? Hardly. Soon after mRNA shots for SARS-CoV-2 became widespread, reports of myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, began to emerge.¹⁰ The British Columbia Centre for Disease Control wrote in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ):¹¹

“[P]ostmarketing studies have suggested an association between mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) and myocarditis, among other adverse events after immunization, which has raised concern regarding the safety of mRNA vaccines, specifically among younger populations.”

Data published in JAMA Cardiology by physicians from the Navy, Army and Air Force also revealed a higher-than-expected rate of myocarditis in U.S. military personnel who received a COVID-19 jab.¹²

And a real-world case-control study from Israel¹³ revealed that the Pfizer COVID-19 jab is associated with a threefold increased risk of myocarditis,¹⁴ leading to the condition at a rate of 1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons.¹⁵

Ivermectin — Now Vindicated — Also Targeted

“Promoting unapproved medications for prevention or treatment” was another theme the JAMA authors tried to pass off as misleading. Claims about ivermectin were chief among them, including a YouTube video posted by an anesthesiologist October 20, 2021, which stated:¹⁶

“A couple I knew came down with COVID-19 … I recommended ivermectin, wrote a prescription for it. And again, you know it’s a off-label use, we use off-label drugs all the time as physicians. The FDA has not contraindicated ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.

It does not have a black-box warning or anything, so it is ridiculous to make any issue of a physician prescribing ivermectin as an off-label use. Especially given the data from India and other countries in the world where ivermectin has been found quite effective in curtailing their COVID problems.”

Flagging this sharing of information and attempting to censor it by labeling it misinformation stifled the effective care of many with COVID-19. “Respectful scientific discourse and debate is how science was done prior to COVID, and something broke when COVID arrived,” Shira Doron, an epidemiologist at Tufts University Medical Center, told The Washington Post.¹⁷

Meanwhile, in August 2023, a study published in Cureus¹⁸ vindicated ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. “Reductions in excess deaths over a period of 30 days after peak deaths averaged 74% in the 10 states with the most intensive IVM [ivermectin] use,” the study found.¹⁹ It used Peruvian national health data from Peru’s 25 states to evaluate ivermectin’s effects.

A natural experiment was set in motion in May 2020, when Peru authorized ivermectin for COVID-19. The significant reduction in excess deaths noted “correlated closely with the extent of IVM use,” the researchers noted.

Adding further support for its effectiveness, “there was a 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths” when ivermectin was freely available, “and then a 13-fold increase” in excess deaths in the two months after, when ivermectin use was restricted.²⁰

Questioning Mask Effectiveness? Also Misinformation

Another sentient point wrongly singled out in the study came from a family medicine physician, who stated on YouTube, “One of the most heartbreaking things about the pandemic has been what’s happening to the social interactions, the nonverbal cues … masks are not a natural thing for babies to have to interface with …”²¹

It’s hard to argue against this point, but the study authors did, despite the fact that many experts raised concerns that masks are likely to cause psychological harm to children and interfere with development.²² The Washington Post reported:²³

“The JAMA paper also labeled as misinformation statements questioning the efficacy of masks — but that’s just one side of a complex debate, argues [Monica] Gandhi [an infectious disease doctor at University of California San Francisco] … there’s disagreement about the costs and benefits of universal masking, especially masking children in day care or at school.”

COVID Lab-Leak Theory Still Being Targeted

February 26, 2023, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Energy Department had revised its assessment of the origin of SARS-CoV-2, concluding the pandemic “most likely arose from a laboratory leak.”²⁴

I first raised the lab leak theory February 4, 2020, but it wasn’t until June 2021 that Facebook finally reversed its censorship policy on this topic, stating, “In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps.”²⁵

Yet, the JAMA paper is still promoting the misleading propaganda that discussing the origins of SARS-CoV-2 is off limits. One of their targeted pieces of misinformation stated, “they made it so that anyone who questioned that theory, the idea of a lab leak, was treated as a fringe scientist … a conspiracy theorist. When they knew full well that so many of the top virologists in the world believed that the lab leak was a real possibility.”²⁶

This, again, is true. In April 2020, NewsGuard classified mercola.com as fake news because we reported SARS-CoV-2 virus as potentially having been leaked from the biosafety level 4 laboratory in Wuhan City, China, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak.

The Biggest Attack on Free Speech in US History

The misinformation bullies are getting their day in court, and it seems justice will finally be served. In what’s being described as “the most important free speech lawsuit of this generation,” the federal government was sued for working with social media companies to censor Americans during the pandemic.²⁷

U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a preliminary injunction, siding with the Plaintiffs that the U.S. government colluded with social media companies to censor free speech.

“If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” Doughty wrote. “In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.”²⁸

Topics that were clearly censored by the government, which “used its power to silence the opposition,” included many of those targeted by the JAMA study:²⁹

• Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines
• Opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns
• Opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19
• Opposition to the validity of the 2020 election
• Opposition to President Biden’s policies
• Statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true
• Opposition to policies of the government officials in power

It’s important to be aware that when academic journals, media or organizations talk about tackling “misinformation” and “disinformation,” it’s a code phrase for censorship. It’s also part of a globalist agenda to control free speech, alter the perception of truth and reality, and spread its carefully orchestrated propaganda.

Will truth and free speech ultimately prevail? At least one media outlet has taken a step in the right direction by calling out the numerous inaccuracies in the JAMA misinformation study. Hopefully many others will follow suit.

• ¹ JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(8):e2328928. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28928
• ^{2, 3, 6, 17, 23} The Washington Post August 19, 2023 (Archived)
• ⁴ JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(8):e2328928. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28928, Qualitative Analyses
• ^{5, 9, 16, 21, 26} JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(8):e2328928. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28928, Table 4
• ⁷ N Engl J Med 2022; 387:21-34 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2203965, Figure 3
• ⁸ The Epoch Times January 16, 2022
• ¹⁰ Rumble, Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion September 28, 2022, 37:18
• ¹¹ CMAJ November 21, 2022, 194 (45) E1529-E1536; DOI: doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.220676, Interpretation
• ¹² JAMA Cardiology, 2021; doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2021.2833
• ^13, 15 The New England Journal of Medicine August 25, 2021
• ¹⁴ MedPage Today August 25, 2021
• ^18, 20 Cureus August 8, 2023
• ¹⁹ Cureus August 8, 2023, Results
• ²² Express April 11, 2021
• ²⁴ Wall Street Journal February 26, 2023 (Archived)
• ²⁵ Reason June 4, 2021
• ²⁷ Fox News March 29, 2023
• ²⁸ State of Missouri, Et al. Versus Joseph R. Biden Jr., Et al. Memorandum Ruling on Request for Preliminary Injunction July 4, 2023, Page 2
• ²⁹ State of Missouri, Et al. Versus Joseph R. Biden Jr., Et al. Memorandum Ruling on Request for Preliminary Injunction July 4, 2023, Page 154

Article cross-posted from Dr. Mercola’s site.

The informal Switzerland-based group gathering representatives of global elites has repeatedly shown interest in coming up with a variety of essential standards that should, from its point of view, be universally accepted and implemented as the last word on any of these subjects.

When it comes to justifying online censorship, Big Tech’s social platforms habitually avoid explaining what it is they mean when they delete content and deplatform people because of “misinformation,” “hate speech,” etc, where such things begin and end, and who makes such decisions, based on what authority.

Not least because of this lack of clarity, many people suspect that these sites avoid explaining themselves because there is nothing to explain – the censorship decisions are arbitrary, designed to serve a policy or a narrative rather than combat “misinformation” and the like.

All this undermines their trustworthiness – but, WEF to the rescue, or at least so it hopes. The organization said on its website that it – or rather, what it calls its Global Coalition for Digital Safety – has produced a document called, “Typology of Online Harms.”

The stated goal is to define six categories of harmful content, and thus create definitions that facilitate “multi-agency and cross-border action.”

There is also praise of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) in this context, but also talk of WEF’s Coalition providing “common foundational language” that is still lacking through DSA’s limited reach (namely, it is not global, whereas the “Typology” aims for just such impact.)

Observers wary of WEF’s actions and intentions need not be concerned, however; it will all not only be balanced in terms of “legal, ethical, social, technological, and policy considerations,” as Coalition Project Lead Agustina Callegari put it, but will also – WEF promises – manage to be “rooted in international human rights frameworks.”

With this “disclaimer” out of the way, the writeup on the WEF’s website proceeds to detail the six categories, in order in which you’d expect them (from worst to – “misinformation.”)

They are, “Threats to personal and community safety (including Child sexual exploitation), Harm to health and well-being, Hate and discrimination, Invasion of privacy,” and, “Deception and manipulation” (i.e., disinformation and misinformation).

Article cross-posted from Reclaim The Net.

(Article cross-posted from Reclaim The Net)

This unelected intergovernmental organization, which wields significant influence over its 193 member states, recently published the final draft of its Political Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response.

The final draft contains several agreements from heads of state and government to crack down on lawful speech. Additionally, it contains pledges from these heads of state and government to back two instruments that will give the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) enhanced powers to target “misinformation” and build out its surveillance networks.

These instruments, the international pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), have been in the works since 2021 and despite facing major pushback, are on track to be completed by May 2024.

The final draft of this political declaration is being developed for the UN’s High-Level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response which will take place on September 20, 2023 in New York. The political declaration outlined in this draft will be finalized at this meeting.

While UN political declarations aren’t usually legally binding, they do wield significant legal influence. According to the UN, declarations “represent the dynamic development of international legal norms and reflect the commitment of states to move in certain directions, abiding by certain principles.”

The proposed speech crackdowns are outlined in several sections of the final draft of this political declaration.

In section OP35, the heads of state and government agree to “take measures to counter and address the negative impacts of health-related misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and stigmatization, especially on social media platforms” and counter “vaccine hesitancy in the context of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.” Additionally, section OP42 includes an agreement to combat “misinformation.”

The UN member states back the pandemic treaty in section OP15 and agree to encourage the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (the group that’s responsible for drafting and negotiating the pandemic treaty) to conclude their negotiations on the “WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response” (the full name of the WHO’s pandemic treaty).

Not only do UN member states give explicit backing to the pandemic treaty and push for it to be finalized but they also encourage the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to prioritize the “need for equity.” Equity is framed by its proponents as something that encourages fairness but critics have warned that equity policies can lead to bias and the injection of “radical ideology.”

The support for the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) is contained in section OP16 of the final draft. This section encourages the working group that’s focused on these amendments to continue its work with respect to the intended finalization date of May 2024.

This political declaration is one of the many ways the UN is tightening its grip on speech. This year alone, it has started building a “digital army” to fight against “deadly disinformation”, encouraged people to snitch on each other for “hate speech”, and claimed that censoring “disinformation” and “hate speech” will protect “free speech.”

The UN has also consulted with several governments and blocs on their censorship work. Specifically, it has attended multiple “disinformation sessions” with a UK government censorship agency and held discussions with the European Union on how to address “disinformation” on digital platforms.

But as with so many bad things happening in the world today, we’re confident this isn’t over. Whether we see a resurgence of Covid, a renewed push for more jabs, or something new, we expect there to be more gaslighting and medical tyranny in our near future. That’s why the post below by Dr. Simon Goddek is so important. We cannot forget what they did. We cannot ignore what they continue to do. And we cannot become complacent as the next states of their plan unfold.

Here’s the list from Dr. Goddek:

1. Fear-mongering the Public: Instead of reassuring the populace during the crisis, our media and politicians had them living in perpetual dread, contradicting historical wisdom.
2. Vaccine Data Manipulation: A brave whistleblower recently exposed the distorted data behind the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine approval. Rather than probing the vaccine’s benefits and efficacy, nations rushed to make booster shots mandatory.
3. Pressurizing the Healthy: Despite minimal risk to children, teens, and healthy adults from Covid, they were strongly urged to take an experimental drug to “protect others.” Non-compliance often led to job loss, and some countries even considered detention.
4. Shifting Vaccine Narrative: Vaccines, once advertised for self-protection, were suddenly everyone’s obligation to “protect yourself and others,” despite similar transmission rates amongst the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Troublingly, getting vaccinated seemed to raise the likelihood of dying with or from Covid.
5. Questionable PCR Test Peer-Review: The speedy peer-review process for the Covid PCR test publication, whose author was conveniently on the journal’s editorial board, raised eyebrows. Circumventing the peer-review process might be classified as scientific fraud. Furthermore, the author, Christian Drosten, was reported to receive external briefings, casting a shadow on his credibility.
6. Mask Misinformation: A historical study during the Spanish Influenza deemed masks ineffective and potentially unhygienic if worn all day. Recent research mirrored these findings, concluding that masks might pose significant health risks without reducing transmission. It seemed like an attempt to muzzle the public under a politically motivated guise.
7. The Death-Age Paradox: The average age of those who died with or due to Covid matched the general life expectancy, unlike during the Spanish Influenza where these figures greatly differed.
8. Demonizing Dissenters: Publicly branding dissenters as “terrorists” and “tyrants” felt like a ploy to revoke the unvaccinated individuals’ rights to bodily integrity and human dignity.
9. Undermining Immunity: Governments closed gyms, sports clubs, and banned social interactions during lockdowns, thus neglecting essential factors for a strong immune system such as sunlight (Vitamin D), physical exercise, social interaction, gut health, and exposure to pathogens.
10. Silencing the Experts: Social media platforms were actively blocking and restricting accounts of scientists and experts who disagreed with the mainstream narrative, curbing their freedom of speech in a flagrant affront to the principles of an open society.

Ten Explosive Revelations that Unmask the Covid Pandemic as an Orchestrated Event!

1. Fear-mongering the Public: Instead of reassuring the populace during the crisis, our media and politicians had them living in perpetual dread, contradicting historical wisdom.

2. Vaccine Data…

— Dr. Simon Goddek (@goddeketal) June 12, 2023

Sound off about this on our End Medical Tyranny Substack.