The “Great Reset” Is an Alive, Active, Real Conspiracy Against You
The US Supreme Court Has Aligned With Democrats and Big Pharma Against the American People
Censorship is obviously nothing new. YouTube, which might win First Prize in today’s Censorship Sweepstakes, has banned thousands of channels for no other reason than challenging the official narrative on various topics—especially COVID. My interview with Spiro Skouras was deleted by YouTube in less time than the podcast itself lasted, and it had to be transferred to Bitchute. An interview I did some time ago with Eric Gajweksi of TradCatKnight—before he moved his podcast from YouTube to private—received 226,000 views after 5 days. Then YouTube simply stopped counting. After a month, the interview still listed “226,000 views.” Other hosts have told me their YouTube views actually went down—a physical impossibility.
Subscriber numbers have also been monkeyed with—as can be confirmed by Sean of SGT Report, who “officially” had over 600,000 subscribers before YouTube yanked him. Demonetization of videos (removing ads) is yet another way of squeezing the “politically incorrect.” Censorship comes in many forms.
My own paperback on COVID was banished by Amazon, after selling more than 3,500 copies in less than two months, even though every statement it made was supported by end-notes to scholarly and/or mainstream sources, and despite Amazon’s lack of qualified medical professionals on its staff, plus its inability to name, upon request, a single misstatement that the book had made.
There is, however, a more subtle form of censorship than outright deletion: “shadow banning.”
I joined Twitter in 2014, and, as a result of a stream of Tweets and memes, saw a steady increase of followers from zero to 22.3 thousand in 2020. Theoretically, anyone who follows you is supposed to automatically receive your Tweets in their own Twitter feed. (Of course, not everyone will actually have time to see all the Tweets of accounts they subscribe to, especially if they follow a large number of people.) However, I began to notice strange happenings.
In 2020, I was gaining an average of about 30 followers a day, meaning I should have added about 10,000 more in the past year. Instead, my new followers have increased from 22.3K to just 22.5K followers over the past year, a total of about 200, or an average less than one per day. Part of this—but certainly not all—was attributable to systemic purges of other Twitter accounts, which sometimes saw hundreds of my followers vanished overnight.
But there was more to it than this. What I post on Twitter mostly consists either of memes (samples here) or links to posts and news articles. But something odd occurred. I was getting significantly fewer “retweets” and “likes” with 22,000 followers than I used to with 7,000 or so followers. There was a time when a Tweet of mine could get a thousand retweets, but now I was lucky to get 20.
Added suspicion grew when some of my followers wrote to me and asked why I wasn’t Tweeting any longer. I replied: “I haven’t stopped Tweeting at all; I Tweet every day; visit my feed at https://twitter.com/jamesperloff.”
The banning was reciprocal, by the way. My Twitter feed (Tweets I see from other people) was also shrinking. It was taking less and less time to scroll to where I had finished viewing the day before.
One day I realized I hadn’t seen a Tweet from my old friend Henry Makow in weeks. When I visited his page, not only did I discover that Henry had been Tweeting regularly, but someone had removed me as one of his followers (And it was certainly not Henry; he had not “blocked” me). So I hit the “follow” button again. By the way, Henry, with over 30,000 followers, was eventually removed altogether by Twitter, though he is now back as Henry M @TheNewHenryM.
About a month ago, I grew more skeptical when I posted a meme that received perhaps a dozen retweets. Two days later, someone else posted the exact same meme, and it got about 60 RTs (retweets). I assumed the person had a larger following, but on checking their profile, I saw they had about 1,000 followers, about 5 percent of mine.
So I decided to perform a test. I posted a meme. After about an hour or so, it had 3 RTs and 6 “likes.” I then asked a friend on Twitter, who has a comparable following (but is clearly not shadow-banned) to retweet it.
Within another hour or so, it jumped to over 70 RTs, and subsequently climbed to the stats you see in the screenshot below—over 100 RTs and over 300 likes.
These were numbers I had not seen in months, but used to see rather typically.
So I now had confirmation of what I had suspected was going on: shadow banning. Only a small handful of my 22,000 followers were actually being permitted to view my Tweets.
Things could be worse, of course—one can be banned from Twitter altogether. I have already been in Twitter Jail twice—once for simply linking to a story in the mainstream news media about a healthy 28-year-old who died after getting a COVID shot.
However, shadow banning may be more destructive in its own subtle way. It makes you labor under the illusion that you are reaching a large number of people, when in fact you aren’t. Some individuals have sent me news, information, announcements about protest marches, etc., commenting to this effect: “You have wide influence; could you please share this?” I have obliged them, but unfortunately the outreach was far more limited than hoped for.
I have been advised, of course, to try switching platforms. I have never joined FaceBook (which has the largest subscriber base in social media) because of its Draconian censorship (last year FB began blocking every single post on my old website as “abusive,” prohibited any mention of jamesperloff.com on FaceBook Messenger, and reset the history of all my posts previously shared on FB from (in cases, several thousand) to zero. I have joined Gab (https://gab.com/JamesPerloff)—touted to be censorship-free—but have yet to post there. I know there are many other media platforms, but it is time-consuming to simultaneously post in multiple places, and on some of these platforms, censorship still waits in the wings.
In the meantime, most people who follow me on Twitter must unfortunately check my feed (https://twitter.com/jamesperloff) on a regular manual basis–unless I get booted off permanently.
On Tuesday the 26th October 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel voted to formally recommend that children between the ages of 5 and 11 years old be authorised to receive Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccineunder emergency use authorization (EUA).
The committee was posed with the following question:
‘Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine when administered as a 2-dose series outweigh its risks for use in children 5-11 years of age?‘
Unbelievably, although it perhaps should be predictable by now, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 17-0 with one doctor abstaining, clearing the way for the full FDA authorisation.
THE JCVI – “THERE IS LITTLE RISK OF COVID IN YOUNG PEOPLE”
The U.K. government’s vaccine advisory panel — Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisationsays that a first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine could prevent 87 COVID-related hospital admissions per million children but comes with a risk of 3 to 17 cases of vaccine-induced Myocarditis. A second dose prevents a further six hospitalizations per million but risks an additional 12 to 34 cases of myocarditis.
The JVCI deliberated on the risk and benefits of children and young people receiving the vaccination and have said that the evidence strongly indicates that almost all children and young people are at very low risk from COVID-19. Where symptoms are seen in children and young people, they are “typically mild, and little different from other mild respiratory viral infections which circulate each year”.
Although the government had given missed education as a good reason to vaccinate, the JCVI addressed this arguing that young people who have “SARS-CoV2” infection do not become so unwell that they need to take time off school. Should the government wish to consider vaccinating children aged less than 18, the known benefits are limited.
In September the JCVI declined to recommend vaccine for adolescents 12 upwards, there would be no reason to think they would recommend the vaccine for the younger 5 – 11-year-olds. They instead passing the decision to Britain’s chief medical officers, preferring to wait for more data to be accrued.
VACCINATE THEM TO SAVE THE ADULTS?
That is all well and good, but arguably, sufficient data and evidence has been accrued, for instance, the modelling used by the British government taken from the University of Warwick and from Public Health England, have indicated that vaccinating young people and children, may have some impact on hospitalisations and even deaths in older adults but even by their own admission, “the extent of such benefits is highly uncertain.”
What we are certain of is that the children should not be made to feel responsible for deaths of adults who have had adverse reactions, or simply died of the “co morbidities” that they would have died of anyway.
According to Professor David Livermore, a medical microbiologist at the University of East Anglia ‘Vaccinating children to protect adults via herd immunity is ethically dubious and is scientifically weak.’ There are also still fears about myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation detected in children, mostly boys, in around one in 10,000 cases after vaccination.
VACCINATE THEM DESPITE THE ADVERSE REPORTS
We are also certain that there are post vaccination risks for children and it is the adults that should be keeping them safe. The certainty of risk can be clarified as a result of the reports of adverse reactions in the UKs Yellow Card Scheme and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) of the United States.
Just one study alone examined the VAERS data, the researchers found that post-vaccination incidences of cardiac adverse event (CAE) rate for boys 12 – 17 equates to 162.2 per million children without medical comorbidities and are highest in young boys aged 12-15.
The event rate far exceeds the expected 120-day COVID-19 hospitalisation rate at both moderate (August 21, 2021 rates) and high COVID-19 hospitalisation incidence. This evidence is further strengthened by the latest assessment published by the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) on Aug. 30, “data available to date suggest association of myocarditis with mRNA vaccination in adolescents and young adults.”
VACCINATE THEM DESPITE THE WARNINGOF DEATHS ASSOCIATED WITH IT?
Again simply by looking at the reported adverse events in VAERS a bold note accompanying the reports can be clearly seen stating *Notethat the total number of deaths associated with the COVID-19 vaccines is greater than the number of deaths associated with all other vaccines combined since the year 1990. That statement alone should mean end of discussion, particularly when that discussion is referring to the roll out of the emergency use authorisation of what is termed “COVID Vaccine”.
OR JUST VACCINATE THEM AND THEN WE CAN FIND OUT IF IT IS SAFE?
It therefore would make anyone wonder why there is a need for deliberation and more data, after one voting member of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee admitted that it won’t be known fully whether Pfizer’s vaccine is safe for 5 to 11-year-old children, until it begins being administered.
Dr Eric Rubin of Harvard university admitted “We’re never going to learn how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it, and that’s just the way it goes”.
Despite Dr. Rubin’s admission, the panel’s decision was unanimous in favour of recommending it under emergency use authorisation (EUA). Unbelievably, although it perhaps should be predictable by now, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 17-0 with one doctor abstaining, clearing the way for the full FDA authorisation.
The question is, will parents of young children agree to them being guinea pigs for their agenda?
Thousands of protesters gathered in Melbourne’s CBD on Saturday calling on Premier Daniel Andrews to resign as they rallied against the Victorian government’s new pandemic legislation.
Chants erupting from the crowd included: “End the mandates,” “Stop medical apartheid,” and “We need Bill of Rights!”
“Kill the bill,” protesters chanted.https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1454279774596067335&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fhumansarefree.com%2F2021%2F10%2Faustralia-protests-draconian-pandemic-powers-bill.html&theme=light&widgetsVersion=e1ffbdb%3A1614796141937&width=550px
The declaration will give the health minister “broad powers to make pandemic orders” on the chief health officer’s advice and will replace the current state of emergency, which expires on December 15.
A similar process is in place in NSW and New Zealand, where the health minister is directly accountable to parliament.
As 7News reports, the laws also introduce safeguards around protecting contact tracing and QR code information, while an aggravated offence will be created to “deter … the most egregious pandemic-related behaviors”.https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1452596162863636483&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fhumansarefree.com%2F2021%2F10%2Faustralia-protests-draconian-pandemic-powers-bill.html&theme=light&widgetsVersion=e1ffbdb%3A1614796141937&width=550px
Mr Andrews has also warned unvaccinated Victorians will be subject to COVID-19 restrictions “well into 2022”.
People found guilty of “intentionally and recklessly” breaching public health orders would also face two years in jail or a $90,500 fine and businesses could be fined up to $452,500.
While Melbourne was placed under lockdown on six separate occasions beginning in March 2020, spending nearly nine months under stay-at-home orders cumulatively, the city’s restrictions were again eased on Friday, with travel bans and outdoor mask mandates lifted, among other things. Victoria as a whole, however, remains under some Covid-19 measures, including 75% capacity rules at indoor entertainment venues and limits on outdoor gatherings to just 30 people.
Authorised workers must be fully vaccinated by November 26.
The vaccine mandate has since been extended to social settings in Victoria, with harsh restrictions stopping the unvaccinated from entering restaurants, bars and events.
“This is critically important to keep case numbers down,” Mr Andrews said.
“This is not about stopping people going to work, it’s about making sure we can open up.
“It’s about making sure people can go to work, that they can be safe, and that we can defend and deliver our road map for opening.”https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-2&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1454271472973664257&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fhumansarefree.com%2F2021%2F10%2Faustralia-protests-draconian-pandemic-powers-bill.html&theme=light&widgetsVersion=e1ffbdb%3A1614796141937&width=550pxhttps://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-3&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1454323937836298246&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fhumansarefree.com%2F2021%2F10%2Faustralia-protests-draconian-pandemic-powers-bill.html&theme=light&widgetsVersion=e1ffbdb%3A1614796141937&width=550px
Protesters were met with a heavy police presence “to ensure the safety of the community and no breaches of the peace,” but interestingly – for now – in contrast to previous protests in the city,despite breach the law limiting outdoor gatherings to just 30 people, police did not appear to have a forceful presence and it is unclear if any arrests were made.