Dear Dr. Bridle, Thank you so much for all the good work that you have been doing.
Speaking of censorship:
Censorship, Fauci + the Truth About Big Pharma With Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. + Brian Rose
https://rumble.com/v1mseig-censorship-fauci-the-truth-about-big-pharma-with-robert-f.-kennedy-jr.-bria.html
October 5, 2022
BRIAN ROSE: Robert, let me ask you a question because with the evening news we can see the direct correlation with the pharmaceutical industry and say what Anderson says, and we know that's where a lot of the American public and the world get their information. The government obviously has its own ties to the business through these health officials. What about Big Tech? Because I got strike after strike on my YouTube channel back in 2020. I was forced to create this digital freedom platform because we could not stream episodes with you, with all sorts of other people that were saying the same things you were saying. You have been banned, shadow-banned and blocked by FaceBook, by Instagram, I watched over the years. How does Big Tech fit into this whole piece of the pie? Because obviously it's very hard to see a direct correlation. So yeah. How does that work?
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR: There are three, there are three reasons why Big Tech is censoring us, that, you know, that I can see.
One is the technology companies have deep, deep relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. So Google owns three vaccine companies. Google's parent company which is called Alphabet is a vaccine maker. They own three companies that are making vaccines including universal flu vaccines and covid vaccines. And all of these companies make a substantial part of their revenue by, with the side-deals with pharmaceutical companies by, you know, one thing they do is that they're monitoring your health. They're watching you with, you know, Siri, and with what you order, and those algorithms are telling them if you're sick, if you're likely to buy a drug, and then they do targeted advertising. And that's a partnership. But in some cases they're actually letting the pharmaceutical companies, like Glaxo-Smith Cline has a deal with Google where they, and I think it's a 76 million dollar deal, where they are actually running part of that program to mine the users for medical vulnerabilities that they can exploit. That's one issue.
The other issue is that they're under tremendous pressure from the government to censor any information that is, ah, that challenges government orthodoxies. And I know this because I'm suing FaceBook right now and we're in discovery and we're very attuned to what they've done. But you know, they're, Alex Berenson who used to work for the New York Times is in discovery and got a document for the same kind of case that I have, and he got a document [inaudible] a couple of months ago or couple of weeks ago that shows that there's been direct communications, in fact a regular meeting between the Big Tech groups and the White House about censoring people like me. Specifically, anybody who's part of the disinformation dozen where, which is a group of people that they say, you know, broadcast misinformation.
But, and I want to say the word misinformation as they use it has nothing to do with factual accuracy. They admit this. It is any statement, this is how they define it, that challenges government orthodoxies on vaccines or medical intervention. So anything that diminishes vaccine uptake or that tends to cast the CDC or the WHO in a bad light, or challenges their public assertions, those are regarded as misinformation no matter what. The factual accuracy is irrelevant.
And let me just say this about myself. We have a huge fact-checking department. You know, you mentioned my book [The Real Anthony Fauci]. My book is essentially a 900 page book that has 250,000 words, it has it has 2200 footnotes, and a lot of it, it's been censored. There's also a lot of people we have to presume from the industry that are looking at the book and looking for vulnerabilities, looking for places where I made a misstatement. We have a huge fact-checking operation at CHD [Children's Health Defense], we have 320 PhD scientists and MD physicians, I have an advisory board, uou know, Luc Montaigner was one of those, who was a Nobel Prize winner. We have former head of the national toxicity program. So these are real scientists and they look at what I put out and criticize and if they don't think it's sustainable. So everything, every statement I make in that book is cited or sourced to peer-reviewed publication, government data bases. And we did a good job because nobody's found— there's going to be inaccuracies. You can't write a book that long and that dense without doing something. But if here's an inaccuracy and people point it out, I invite people to point it out at the beginning of the book. What is our reaction? Our reaction is not going to be to dig in, it's going to be to change it, and apologize and move on. And with The Defender, you know, our newsletter, we probably have the most extensive fact-checking operation of any, of any, like, daily paper now in the country because nobody else does fact-checking now. And, and you know, if I was making a lot of mistakes, like really factual errors, none of those people would stay with me. We're very, very careful about it.
But what they use that term vaccine misinformation not to denote something that is factually inaccurate, but rather something that challenges government orthodoxy. And you know that is a very, very odd, as you point out, posture for the press. The press is supposed to be in a constant posture of skepticism towards government, towards powerful conglomerations of wealth and power. Fierce criticism, fierce skepticism. But that is gone now and the role has been reversed where they're supposed to be speaking truth to power, they are defending power to people who challenge it. It's really extraordinary. It's not a good thing in democracy. And it's not, a democracy is not sustainable when you have this level of global media malpractice.
Democracies only function where there is a free flow of information where the best governing policies rise to the top in the marketplace of ideas. And if you stop people from talking about their ideas, it's, you know, what happens? You've got a tyranny and totalitarianism, and you know, the, you know, a uniformity of ideas which is like you know, a religion. It's not democracy and it's not science, it's religion. It's faith and blind faith in undeserving authorities, rather than people doing critical thinking, which you need to do in a democracy.
So those are two of the issues, is the government putting pressure. And the government has tremendous leverage over these companies because the government itself is threatening to remove their section 230 immunity which is an existential threat to those companies. That's the immunity that says you can't sue them for libeling you. So they can print lies and libel and slander about people on their site and nobody can sue them because they say, well we're just a common carrier. We're carrying all this information and we can't fact check everything, so people have to understand, people are going to be putting things on our site that aren't true, misinformation or libelous, you can't sue Mark Zuckerberg for it if somebody puts something libelous about me on his site, I can't sue him. Section 230. And so the government is threatening to take that from them if they don't censor people like me.
BRIAN ROSE: Right.
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR: And that's an existential—[inaudible]. And then the third thing I, you know, I think this is the toughest thing for people to swallow, but you really need to read my book and particularly last chapter of the book, but there's a deep involvement of the intelligence agencies in this project.
Thanks for sharing this. Shows how factual his organization is trying to be: "we have 320 PhD scientists and MD physicians, I have an advisory board, uou know, Luc Montaigner was one of those, who was a Nobel Prize winner" The main stream news media should take note. I truly hope that Dr. Bridle and company can finally get their message out.
Dear Dr. Bridle, Thank you so much for all the good work that you have been doing.
Speaking of censorship:
Censorship, Fauci + the Truth About Big Pharma With Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. + Brian Rose
https://rumble.com/v1mseig-censorship-fauci-the-truth-about-big-pharma-with-robert-f.-kennedy-jr.-bria.html
October 5, 2022
TRANSCRIPT - EXCERPT
30:00
BRIAN ROSE: Robert, let me ask you a question because with the evening news we can see the direct correlation with the pharmaceutical industry and say what Anderson says, and we know that's where a lot of the American public and the world get their information. The government obviously has its own ties to the business through these health officials. What about Big Tech? Because I got strike after strike on my YouTube channel back in 2020. I was forced to create this digital freedom platform because we could not stream episodes with you, with all sorts of other people that were saying the same things you were saying. You have been banned, shadow-banned and blocked by FaceBook, by Instagram, I watched over the years. How does Big Tech fit into this whole piece of the pie? Because obviously it's very hard to see a direct correlation. So yeah. How does that work?
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR: There are three, there are three reasons why Big Tech is censoring us, that, you know, that I can see.
One is the technology companies have deep, deep relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. So Google owns three vaccine companies. Google's parent company which is called Alphabet is a vaccine maker. They own three companies that are making vaccines including universal flu vaccines and covid vaccines. And all of these companies make a substantial part of their revenue by, with the side-deals with pharmaceutical companies by, you know, one thing they do is that they're monitoring your health. They're watching you with, you know, Siri, and with what you order, and those algorithms are telling them if you're sick, if you're likely to buy a drug, and then they do targeted advertising. And that's a partnership. But in some cases they're actually letting the pharmaceutical companies, like Glaxo-Smith Cline has a deal with Google where they, and I think it's a 76 million dollar deal, where they are actually running part of that program to mine the users for medical vulnerabilities that they can exploit. That's one issue.
The other issue is that they're under tremendous pressure from the government to censor any information that is, ah, that challenges government orthodoxies. And I know this because I'm suing FaceBook right now and we're in discovery and we're very attuned to what they've done. But you know, they're, Alex Berenson who used to work for the New York Times is in discovery and got a document for the same kind of case that I have, and he got a document [inaudible] a couple of months ago or couple of weeks ago that shows that there's been direct communications, in fact a regular meeting between the Big Tech groups and the White House about censoring people like me. Specifically, anybody who's part of the disinformation dozen where, which is a group of people that they say, you know, broadcast misinformation.
But, and I want to say the word misinformation as they use it has nothing to do with factual accuracy. They admit this. It is any statement, this is how they define it, that challenges government orthodoxies on vaccines or medical intervention. So anything that diminishes vaccine uptake or that tends to cast the CDC or the WHO in a bad light, or challenges their public assertions, those are regarded as misinformation no matter what. The factual accuracy is irrelevant.
And let me just say this about myself. We have a huge fact-checking department. You know, you mentioned my book [The Real Anthony Fauci]. My book is essentially a 900 page book that has 250,000 words, it has it has 2200 footnotes, and a lot of it, it's been censored. There's also a lot of people we have to presume from the industry that are looking at the book and looking for vulnerabilities, looking for places where I made a misstatement. We have a huge fact-checking operation at CHD [Children's Health Defense], we have 320 PhD scientists and MD physicians, I have an advisory board, uou know, Luc Montaigner was one of those, who was a Nobel Prize winner. We have former head of the national toxicity program. So these are real scientists and they look at what I put out and criticize and if they don't think it's sustainable. So everything, every statement I make in that book is cited or sourced to peer-reviewed publication, government data bases. And we did a good job because nobody's found— there's going to be inaccuracies. You can't write a book that long and that dense without doing something. But if here's an inaccuracy and people point it out, I invite people to point it out at the beginning of the book. What is our reaction? Our reaction is not going to be to dig in, it's going to be to change it, and apologize and move on. And with The Defender, you know, our newsletter, we probably have the most extensive fact-checking operation of any, of any, like, daily paper now in the country because nobody else does fact-checking now. And, and you know, if I was making a lot of mistakes, like really factual errors, none of those people would stay with me. We're very, very careful about it.
But what they use that term vaccine misinformation not to denote something that is factually inaccurate, but rather something that challenges government orthodoxy. And you know that is a very, very odd, as you point out, posture for the press. The press is supposed to be in a constant posture of skepticism towards government, towards powerful conglomerations of wealth and power. Fierce criticism, fierce skepticism. But that is gone now and the role has been reversed where they're supposed to be speaking truth to power, they are defending power to people who challenge it. It's really extraordinary. It's not a good thing in democracy. And it's not, a democracy is not sustainable when you have this level of global media malpractice.
Democracies only function where there is a free flow of information where the best governing policies rise to the top in the marketplace of ideas. And if you stop people from talking about their ideas, it's, you know, what happens? You've got a tyranny and totalitarianism, and you know, the, you know, a uniformity of ideas which is like you know, a religion. It's not democracy and it's not science, it's religion. It's faith and blind faith in undeserving authorities, rather than people doing critical thinking, which you need to do in a democracy.
So those are two of the issues, is the government putting pressure. And the government has tremendous leverage over these companies because the government itself is threatening to remove their section 230 immunity which is an existential threat to those companies. That's the immunity that says you can't sue them for libeling you. So they can print lies and libel and slander about people on their site and nobody can sue them because they say, well we're just a common carrier. We're carrying all this information and we can't fact check everything, so people have to understand, people are going to be putting things on our site that aren't true, misinformation or libelous, you can't sue Mark Zuckerberg for it if somebody puts something libelous about me on his site, I can't sue him. Section 230. And so the government is threatening to take that from them if they don't censor people like me.
BRIAN ROSE: Right.
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR: And that's an existential—[inaudible]. And then the third thing I, you know, I think this is the toughest thing for people to swallow, but you really need to read my book and particularly last chapter of the book, but there's a deep involvement of the intelligence agencies in this project.
38:57
[END OF EXCERPT]
Thanks for sharing this. Shows how factual his organization is trying to be: "we have 320 PhD scientists and MD physicians, I have an advisory board, uou know, Luc Montaigner was one of those, who was a Nobel Prize winner" The main stream news media should take note. I truly hope that Dr. Bridle and company can finally get their message out.
The World Council for Health published this article on their analysis of several country's vaccine reporting databases in June 2022 but there has not been any widespread dissemination. Not one of the databases showed that the injections were safe. https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/resources/covid-19-vaccine-pharmacovigilance-report/