Discover more from Alexander COVID News-Dr. Paul Elias Alexander's Newsletter
How the CDC Coordinated With Big Tech To Censor Americans; what do we do? we punish Twitter, Facebook, and Google by not participating, end your accounts! Spread the word, these are filthy people!
To think that these beasts, these élite entitled technocrats, these leeches, these filthy people think they can decide what you say and read, we must punish them in the pocket book!
Steve Hatfill MD needs huge praise for pushing this and uncovering this startling behind the scenes evidence of the role of Twitter, Facebook, and Google in censoring us.
SOURCE 1
SOURCE 2 Internal Documents Reveal CDC Worked With Big Tech To Censor COVID-19 Speech
TWITTER:
· CDC sends Twitter officials a chart of tweets it deemed to be “misinformation” (p. 7)
· Regular BOLO (Be On the LookOut) meetings where CDC would share what they categorized as “misinformation” with various social media companies, including Twitter and Facebook, and provide slide decks, requesting “Please do not share outside your trust and safety teams.” (pp. 5, 28, 36-52)
· Express requests from Twitter to the CDC for help in identifying “misinformation” (p. 93).
· Twitter stating that coordination with CDC over vaccine misinformation was “tricky” because the Twitter CEO was testifying before Congress that week (p. 99).
· CDC recommends information about the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) be added to tweets. (p. 36)
FACEBOOK:
· Direct engagement between CDC officials and social media companies where CDC sends links to Facebook to flag those posts as disinformation (pp. 55-57).
· $15 Million dollars worth of Facebook ad credits as “non-monetary gift” to HHS and CDC on vaccines, social distancing, travel, and priority communication messages–potentially in violation of the Antideficiency Act’s limitation on voluntary services (31 U.S.C. § 1342) (pp. 104, 116-119)
Later in the letter it states:
· CDC requests to help ensure “verifiable information sources” are not blocked because State Department of Health posts were being blocked as vaccine misinformation. (pp. 101-102).
· Set up a COVID-19 Misinformation Reporting Channel for CDC and Census to make reports to Facebook, and holding a “training meeting” for the Misinformation Reporting Channel (pp. 106, 245)
· Feeding CDC with Facebook-sponsored research on the COVID-Vaccine (pp. 120-205)
GOOGLE:
· CDC requested that Google promote its new vaccine page in its search results (p. 58).
· CDC coordination with Google regarding vaccine “misinformation,” including a “Question Hub thing” the CDC and Google were collaborating on (p. 283)
· CDC sought coordination with Google regarding WHO infodemiology conference in connection with CDC’s creation of the “discipline of infodemiology” to “target” the general public and “push back against the misinformation.” (p. 282)
· Google’s News and Information Credibility Lead, News Lab asked CDC to keep Google posted about anything infodemiology-related, and that employee’s focus at the time was “primarily on election but the two are inevitably related.” (p. 283)
· At CDC request, Google agreed to post an ad for a job position at CDC (pp. 281, 284-285)
· At CDC request, Google “signal boosts” the WHO’s “unicorn program” to provide “comprehensive global training on tracking, analyzing and addressing misinformation” (274-281)
· CDC directly making edits into Google’s code for its “Knowledgebase” (pp. 216-221)
How the CDC Coordinated With Big Tech To Censor Americans; what do we do? we punish Twitter, Facebook, and Google by not participating, end your accounts! Spread the word, these are filthy people!
Time to punish! When I think of all my friends and relatives who have taken the juice, my heart cries!
The employees of these media corporations and their chain of command are practicing medicine without a license. CDC is more complicated, but the general principles still apply. They are not unilaterally exempt from liability arising from malpractice, maladministration or racketeering, or in matters involving collusion with foreign interests or their governments.
The first economic principle and bedrock economic event in medical commerce and practice is information.
When duly licensed medical professionals are speaking with standing from the province of their established expertise, that is medical practice. For a corporation in commerce to engage in a form of commerce by censoring, silencing, unpersoning or monetizing (directly or indirectly) duly licensed medical or scientific professionals, this is an apparent competing form of medical practice, especially where the intent is to advise.
When such actions enter the public commons, patients are being spoken to; patients are being advised. This is little different from financial advice principles.
When that is coupled with campaigns to silence, censor or tortiously interfere with the proper and normal discourse in that commons among duly licensed physicians and scientists and between those persons of professional standing and the general public, sides are being taken by the corporate interlopers as a natural expression their perceived financial interests as they strike a pose as competing arbiter to willfully mislead the public about their role as a decisive authority rather than merely inform the public about a controversy and refer the public to consult with their personal physician about what is medically appropriate for them. Instead the corporate interlopers monetize the controversy, extort their inflammation toward the desired proprietary narrative outcome and overtly mislead the public away from proper individual action so the concerns of the public may be further exploited and monetized.
Apparent conflicts of interest would threaten to be actionable as racketeering where a commingling of financial or other monetized interests and agendas become coordinated or evidence of colluding can be demonstrated. Where the competitive silencing involves the pursuit or taking of third party monies as an apparent reward or incentive for executing the said competitive silencing or can be shown to be involved in other inappropriate quid pro quo, the matter becomes yet more problematic.
At root, there must be prosecution of unconscionable corporate behavior and particularly in instances where the executives (whether by malice or negligence) engage the corporation in their care and trust and commit its resources to the unlawful practice of medicine, unlicensed medical practice, the collusion to do and intent to monetize same for financial gain.
They are the fiduciaries. They direct the behavior of the corporation. When corporations target and censor duly licensed physicians speaking to their expertise use said resources to engage or otherwise participate in narrative racketeering for financial gain or favor, the executives of that corporation are on the hook, professionally and perhaps personally, when arising from their wrongful actions or their wrongful inactions.
Physicians and scientific professionals need to come together and seek the prosecution and penalization of these executive employees and persons for tortious interference, maladministration, unlicensed medical practice and racketeering, where appropriate.
You guys need to get your shit together and start nailing the corporate bimbocracy to the proverbial cross. Go after them professionally and personally and do not relent.
The lawyers will love it. There's a robust domain of financial interest to be adjudicated and defended. Our society is in this mess because of inaction.
Let the push back begin in earnest and on a largest scale possible. The physician community and its relevant scientific cohort are a powerful class with legitimate standing and interest.
Go clean out the barn. Triage the bad actors as you deem appropriate.
This has the makings of the largest and most consequential class action of all time.
The matter is not so much who may speak, but whom may be silenced and whether such silencing may be monetized in a proprietary manner to facilitate or directly extort, defraud or racketeer proprietary interests against the public interest in the public commons.