Day: October 1, 2021

YouTube will ban all “harmful vaccine content” from its platform, including claims that vaccines are ineffective at reducing disease transmission. The ban comes after a year of escalating censorship by the Google-owned company.

© Reuters / Stephane Mahe

“We’ve steadily seen false claims about the coronavirus vaccines spill over into misinformation about vaccines in general, and we’re now at a point where it’s more important than ever to expand the work we started with Covid-19 to other vaccines,” YouTube said in a blog post on Wednesday.

The new rules prohibit content alleging that vaccines “cause chronic side effects,” that they “do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease,” and that they contain unlisted ingredients like fetal cells. The rules apply to all currently approved and administered vaccines, and not just Covid-19 shots.

At first glance, the rules are open to interpretation. YouTube’s moderators will have to decide, for instance, whether content discussing side effects strays beyond the “rare side effects that are recognised by health authorities.”Likewise, multiple studies and real-world data have suggested that Covid-19 vaccines are less effective at preventing transmission and infection than previously thought, and some suggest that this efficacy wanes with time.

And, while YouTube explicitly bans claims that vaccines contain fetal tissue or fetal cell lines, shots for various diseases – including Hepatitis A, Rubella and Chickenpox – are actually manufactured using cell lines started in aborted fetal tissue, but individual doses do not contain any of this tissue.

Content violating these new rules will receive a series of “strikes” from YouTube, with three strikes resulting in the termination of the offending channel.

The new policy adds to YouTube’s existing ‘Covid-19 medical misinformation policy,’ which sets out a wide range of forbidden topics regarding the coronavirus. These include videos “encouraging home remedies,” content claiming “that masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of Covid-19,” and content “that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of Covid-19.”

The latter two topics are controversial, as there is no scientific consensus that masks prevent transmission of the virus, and Ivermectin has shown some promise in studies as a treatment for Covid-19.

Nevertheless, YouTube stated on Wednesday that over 130,000 videos have been removed since last year for violating this policy.

Earlier this week, RT’s German-language channels (RT DE and Der Fehlende Part) were permanently deleted by YouTube. The company took down the channels after handing out a strike to RT DE over alleged “medical misinformation” in four videos.

Among these cases of supposed “misinformation” was an interview with German epidemiologist Friedrich Puerner, who was critical of his government’s methods of battling the pandemic. He, however, was in favor of vaccination and never doubted the Covid-19 pandemic.

Starting September 21, RT DE was no longer allowed to upload any videos or conduct live streams on its YouTube channel. RT DE content, albeit not the flagged videos, was shared through another channel, the DFP (also owned by RT in Germany).

This, YouTube claimed, was a violation of the strike issued to RT DE and the Google-owned platform took down both channels.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, told journalists on Wednesday that the banning amounted to “a case of censorship, and of obstructing the dissemination of information by the media,” and would be investigated by Russian media regulators, adding “there must be zero tolerance for such violations of the law.”

https://humansarefree.com/2021/10/youtube-bans-all-anti-vax-videos.html

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has blasted the site for its slide into “leftist propaganda,” accusing it of long since abandoning impartiality and simply becoming an amplifier for mainstream news narratives.

Sanger co-founded Wikipedia with with Jimmy Wales in 2001.

SOPA Images via Getty Images

During an interview with the Epoch Times, Sanger noted that the online encyclopedia began with noble intentions but is now just another tool to demonize people who challenge the consensus.

“Wikipedia made a real effort at neutrality for, I would say, its first five years or so,” said Sanger, adding, “And then … it began a long, slow slide into what I would call leftist propaganda.”

Wikipedia is run by around 125,000 volunteer editors, the vast majority of whom are leftists, with a further 1,000 administrators who enjoy special privileges to block others who go against the grain.

Sanger explained how Wikipedia now serves not just to skew information, but to viciously demonize anyone on the right or anyone deemed to be a “contrarian.”

Wikipedia “casts them as conspiracy theorists, are far right or whatever, when they and their friends and people who know them well would never describe them in that way,” Sanger said.

After banning sources such as Fox News or the Daily Mail, Wikipedia now relies almost entirely on far-left outlets and legacy media sources to determine truth.

“More recently, they’ve gotten rid of almost all conservative news sources as sources for their articles,” he said

“And so as the news media has shifted, and as the establishment, frankly, has shifted more to the left or to the left, the content of Wikipedia has followed suit.”

As we previously highlighted, a perfect example of Wikipedia’s extreme political bias was evident when the website’s editors deliberately sought to bury links between convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton.

The fact that Clinton flew on Epstein’s ‘Lolita Express’ private jet at least 26 times, which was reported by the media multiple times back in 2016, disappeared from Wikipedia before it was added back in after an outcry.

Editors also sought to scrub any of Epstein’s links to Clinton while amplifying his links to Donald Trump, which were less direct and less damaging.

https://humansarefree.com/2021/10/wikipedia-co-founder-leftist-propaganda.html

Written By Michael Pearl at No Greater Joy

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pearl,

First of all, praise God for Created to Be His Help Meet! A woman at my church recommended this book to me. I started reading it and it has changed my life and my marriage! I told a few other women about it and they are reading as well, and their marriages are much better. Thank You. Thank God.

Recently, I have gone back to work full-time and my husband is at home with the kids and homeschooling them. My question is how can I still be a help meet in this situation? My husband is having health issues and thought it best for us to switch. He loves to cook and has been cooking. What are your thoughts on this situation?

Thank you,

A Reader

Michael Pearl Answers:

Dear Reader, understand that I use your question as a springboard to address this issue in a broader way. Some of the things I say may not fit your situation at all. I am not attributing attitudes or actions to either you or your husband. Use my comments to gather principles that might apply to your situation.

It is never ideal for the woman to be the breadwinner and the man to be the home-keeper for the simple reason that the role reversal (a role dictated by our created natures) places each in a position contrary to their nature. A single woman may fit into the workplace as well as a man. A single man with children may function as the housekeeper, cook, homeschool teacher, etc., and do a fair job of it—all consistent with human nature. But the marriage relationship is unique. The man by nature is the savior, provider, and protector who braves the cruel world and carries the responsibility to protect and nourish his wife and family. It is in a man’s genes to take the command-and-control position. To become a dependent rather than the provider wreaks havoc on a man’s self-esteem. In our modern world, the one whose name is on the paycheck is the head of all finances, the one to be thanked and appreciated. That person is the fountain of the family, possessing the right of veto over all spending, and controlling the direction of the family where it involves finances.

The one who comes home tired from a day’s work is entitled to the recliner until dinner is served. It is the one who says, “Why aren’t my socks in the drawer?” and “This house is a mess; what have you been doing all day?” The breadwinner decides what kind of bread to eat and whether or not spending is foolish or necessary.

A bread-winning woman is not vulnerable and finds it difficult to come home and be a submissive, servant wife. To be forced to do so breeds resentment and a feeling of being used. I need not go on; you know these things and more to be true to nature and experience.

But sometimes life throws unnatural curves and turns our world upside-down. We have to make do like a one-legged man. We get around and get along in the best way we can. When a man is disabled and cannot enter the labor force, the wife may be thrown into an unnatural role of breadwinner. Sometimes the children are forced to work to provide for the family. It is not natural but it is necessary. A dependent man will have to accept a different worldview and a different role. He will have to accept not being fulfilled in the normal manner. And the bread-winning wife will need to learn humility and to try to maintain a feminine demeanor at home, giving deference to the man, allowing him to be a handicapped king in his limited domain. The dependent man will also need to learn humility and to accept his dependency with thanksgiving and grace. Like any unnatural handicap, it will not be easy, but it is entirely manageable, and each can find fulfilment in their role reversals.

However, when a couple reverses roles because the wife is able to make more money, or when the man is lazy and incompetent, or when she just likes to work and he just likes to hang out at home, you can be certain that neither is going to find fulfilment in their relationship, and their marriage is likely to end in the woman divorcing the man.

When both the man and woman are reconciled to the reality that the man is handicapped out of the work force through no choice of his own, and not having to do with incompetence, it takes the edge off of blame and the discomfort of role reversal; but when they both know it is a choice, expect the man to shrink in his self-respect and the woman to grow masculine in her demeanor—leaving the marriage to suffer.

God said to Adam, not Eve, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground” (Genesis 3:19).

Paul declared, “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Timothy 5:8).

“That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Titus 2:4–5).

When Husbands and Wives Roles are Reversed