patrick.net

Newsguard is a well-financed, shadowy partisan group pretending to be a neutral arbiter of which websites are “reliable” and which are not. While the good news is that I am important enough for them to react to, the bad news is that NewsGuard is angling to declare my blog an “unreliable news source.” I received this email from them:




NewsGuard is asking me to “disclose my anti-COVID-vaccine perspective.” At the same time, they are not asking Pfizer-sponsored pro-COVID-vaccine media to disclose their “pro-COVID-vaccine” bias. It's a bit unfair, I would say and shows how flawed NewsGuard’s process is.

In any case, do expect my blog to be rated an “unreliable news source” and blocked by major social networks such as Facebook. Oh well.

In any case, do expect my blog to be rated an “unreliable news source” and blocked by major social networks such as Facebook. Oh well.

On January 5th, in Freedom Coalition of Doctors for Choice v. Centers for Disease Control, et al, a Texas federal court gave the CDC a twelve-month rolling deadline to cough up all the “free-text” entries from its V-SAFE vaccine side-effect tracking database.

It was surely the most important decision of this year (so far). It may ultimately be ranked among the most important of the pandemic’s court decisions. To start, the Court declined to believe the giga-funded health agency’s sworn affidavit that redacting those side-effect documents would take 59 years.

V-safe is similar to but different from VAERS; it is a smartphone-based app allowing vaccine recipients to enroll and report their (or their child’s) health status after vaccination. Users get a confidential registrant number to protect their privacy, and for 12-months after each shot the system regularly sends texts prompting folks to sign in and report how they’re doing. Each check-in collects two types of data: a series of generic check boxes asking high-level questions about pain at the injection site, chills, headaches, et cetera, and a 250-character free-text field where users can type out any other feedback.

Any other feedback like myocarditis, rashes, blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, or death. The CDC ensured serious adverse events would be limited to the difficult-to-search free text field and not show up in an easy-to-check box.

By the time the CDC suddenly and unexpectedly pulled the plug on the V-safe program last May, it had collected 7.8 million text entries.

Despite initially promising to promptly make the V-safe data public, the CDC has instead been guarding the V-safe data like it is made out of gold. CDC stubbornly refused to release any V-safe data — privacy! — except on a limited basis to a couple friendly teams of CDC-affiliated scientists. It released the ‘check the box’ part of the data in September 2022 to ICAN — but only after a lawsuit and a court order. In January of last year, the Plaintiff in this case asked the CDC for the free-text entries.

It’s taken a full year.

One of the most remarkable things about last week’s order was how skeptical the judge seemed about nearly everything the CDC said. The public’s loss of trust in the health agency apparently extends to the judicial branch. Judges are part of the public, after all. The order even referenced the disgraceful loss of trust, ironically noting that “While 'Trust the Science’ became something of a national slogan, the American public’s trust in science and scientists are at an all-time low.”

Ouch!

The Plaintiff is a non-profit formed specifically to get the V-safe data and make it available to the public on its website, www.drsforchoice.org. Now that they have an order, the first batch of V-safe entries should be released to the public on February 15th.

Warning signs for the CDC started appearing early in the order. In addition to snarking about the CDC’s loss of public trust, by page 12 (out of 30), the court had also footnoted Francis Collin’s recent mea culpa, where the NIH director loonily admitted that public health people shouldn’t be in charge of important decisions. ...

Next, the Court began using skeptical language suggesting it thinks the CDC lies like a rug, or a dog, or a Pelosi. The Court considered the CDC’s sworn claim that it would take one of its analysts fifty-nine years to review all the 7.8 million text entries for private information, which came to 650,000 pages, and said, yeah, that’s your own fault:




To this lawyer’s eyes, that last comment about overestimating — wholly unnecessary to the order — stuck out like a sore injection site. The Court didn’t just say the CDC overestimated the number of pages; it said the CDC excessively overestimated the number of pages.

That’s how the judge calls you a liar without calling you a liar.

Then the Court began analyzing whether forcing the CDC to cough up the V-safe data was in the public interest, and here is where the order really began to soar. ..

Now let’s consider some of the order’s implications.

First of all, we know this must be bad news for the jabs because, had the V-safe data shown the vaccines were safe and effective, the CDC would have already released the data. (We can ignore the CDC’s bogus claims about its alleged 59-year effort to review the data, since the court already dealt with that.) It is vexing that a publicly-funded health bureaucracy used taxpayer money to protect big pharma from the reality of its defective products by dragging out the release of this information for two years.

But the data is finally coming out. Add this order to the list of other eye-popping disclosures last week. It’s starting to look like 2024 could be a lot more productive — and a lot less apocalyptic — than we thought.

Did you see what happened last Monday night after Donald Trump won a landslide victory in Iowa?

Rachel Maddow announced that MSNBC would not be covering Trump’s victory speech, and CNN cut away after just a few minutes of it. Why was that?

According to Maddow, it’s because Trump and his supporters are fascist, and Trump spreads misinformation.

Russia's State Duma on Wednesday passed the first stage of a bill allowing the confiscation of property from those convicted of a number of crimes including spreading "deliberately false information" about the Russian army.
The measure will also apply to those found guilty of "discrediting" the armed forces, calling for sanctions against Russia or inciting extremist activity.
The Duma, parliament's lower house, passed the bill in the first of three required readings by 395 votes to 3.
It would allow the state to seize the property of Russians who have left the country and have criticised the war in Ukraine, but who continue to rely on revenue from renting out their houses or apartments in Russia.
Since sending its army into Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has intensified a long-running clampdown on all forms of political dissent. Under laws passed in March of that year, discrediting the armed forces or spreading false information about them are already punishable by long jail terms.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Several outraged Republican senators have summoned Big Tech CEOs to D.C. after outrageous censorship of breaking news that could hurt the Biden campaign. Senators are vowing to hold these powerful oligarchs accountable by dragging them in front of a committee and saying mean things to them.

"It's time these Big Tech big shots march right over here and answer to us!" said Senator Lindsey Graham. "Boy, those CEOs must be quaking in their boots right now! We'll probably call them an 'embarrassment' or even a 'disgrace' if we're feeling extra feisty!"

According to sources on Capitol Hill, senators are writing some really good questions with extra harsh language to make the tech CEOs squirm in their seats.

"It's gonna be awesome," said Senator Graham. "After we question them all day, we'll send out some really cool clips to play on the YouTube with titles like 'FURIOUS Lindsey Graham RIPS into Twitter CEO.' Everyone will be like, 'WOW! Lindsey really let that guy have it!' It will be so epic."

Senators are also really looking forward to starting new fundraising campaigns encouraging voters to donate money to stop Big Tech censorship.

"Big Tech will be sorry they messed with us!" Tweeted one senator minutes before being suspended on Twitter.

So, the German authorities have filed an appeal to overturn my acquittal in criminal court last week. Apparently, their plan is to keep putting me on trial until they get a judge who is willing to convict me of something, or to bankrupt me with legal costs. Silly me, for a moment there, I was actually starting to believe this was over.

Let me quickly review how I got here for anyone just tuning in.

I am an author and a political satirist and commentator. In August 2022, I posted two Tweets criticizing mask mandates and making fun of Karl Lauterbach, Germany’s Minister of Health. Both Tweets included an image from the cover artwork of my latest book, The Rise of The New Normal Reich: Consent Factory Essays, Vol. III (2020-2021).



The German authorities did not appreciate those Tweets, so they (1) had them censored by Twitter, (2) had Amazon ban my book in Germany, and (3) dragged me into criminal court and prosecuted me on trumped-up “hate crime” charges.

Last week, a judge acquitted me of those charges, after which she launched into a tirade in which she insulted me at some length, and then strapped on a “Covid mask” and stalked out of the courtroom. During her diatribe, she made a big show of proclaiming that, by acquitting me of the fabricated hate-crime charges, she was proving that “Germany is not a totalitarian state” … you know, the kind of totalitarian state where books are banned, political speech is censored, and dissident authors are harassed by the police and subjected to ridiculous show trials.

The Biden administration pressured Amazon to censor books related to COVID-19 vaccines in early 2021 citing concerns that the material contained “propaganda” and “misinformation,” internal company emails released by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) appear to show.

Eventually, because I wasn’t making nearly enough income as a freelance journalist, I became a Substack author. So Substack actually offered me, and thousands of other writers, a work-around.

For me, this work-around was prompted largely by Facebook censoring all my Covid posts. (Since few news organizations were paying me for articles, the only place I could publish my writing was via Facebook posts.)

One might ask why Facebook went “all-in” or Orwellian Censorship. In my opinion, this was also the result of a work-around, one that traces back to how everything changed - seemingly overnight - when a “deadly” new pandemic was declared.

The government - and/or the world’s Shadow Rulers who tell the government what to do - clearly wanted everyone in the world to panic over Covid. Among other desired results, mass fear of death would make almost everyone rush out to get a new mandated or coerced “vaccine.”

However, the government wouldn’t get the mass panic it needed - and thus its new mRNA vaccines - if people like me were making copious posts on Facebook saying, “The Pandemic is a scam! Don’t trust the experts!”

The government’s work-around was to create a massive Censorship Industrial Complex which would silence potentially influential dissenters like myself. Facebook bought into this program since its CEO, Mr. Zuckerberg, was smart enough to know he should stay on the good side of the world’s 900-pound gorilla.

So the government’s Covid work-around (We have to censor people so we can get our vaccines) sent me scurrying to the sanctuary of Substack as my own micro work-around.

Globalist lawmakers in Canada are pushing a disturbing new piece of legislation that seeks to jail members of the public who question the “Net Zero” agenda of the unelected World Economic Forum (WEF).

The push aims to tackle so-called “climate skepticism” as governments around the world scramble to meet the WEF’s “Net Zero” goals.

The legislation, Bill C-372, was introduced by Canada’s left-wing socialist New Democratic Party (NDP).

Under the bill, the promotion of fossil fuel use will be outlawed with restrictions similar to tobacco advertising applied.

Those who speak in favor of fossil fuels, or criticize plans to eliminate them, will face massive fines and possible prison time.

Michigan lawmaker stripped of committee post, staff after sharing Jack Posobiec meme about the replacement of white people



I'm confused.

Conspiracy theories are ideas about associations of conspirators that are pushing to implement some plan, but they are called theories because there is no solid evidence.

In the case of "Great Replacement," it's just a fact.





... Jack Poso's meme is clearly conveying this reality with a low-information meme. The guy pops up on my feed hourly. I don't agree with him all the time, but he's not saying white people are superior. He's not saying black people are evil. What he is saying is that there is a sustained, coordinated effort to diminish anything associated with the "white" Christian West, including celebrating the making of our communities less white.

And it just so happens that a GOP rep in Michigan retweeted this very baseline conservative observation.

After all, how is it a theory when everyone is admitting the conspiracy?

For a few days now, the internet has been telling me that the French National Assembly passed a law making “any criticism of [the] mRNA platform punishable with up to 3 years imprisonment and 45,000 euros.” As is often the case, the reports beneath these headlines were slightly less sensational. There, one typically reads that the law targets not mere criticism of the mRNA jabs, but explicit advice against vaccination. That may not sound like a big difference, but details always matter. I have now read both the law itself and many reports from the French press about its origins and the controversies attending it. I can report that it is indeed bad, but perhaps not quite as terrible as some have claimed.

I could hardly believe my eyes reading the reports about the French Parliament adopting on Wednesday, in first reading, the bill aimed at strengthening the fight against “sectarian excesses” (“Projet de loi visant à renforcer la lutte contre les dérives sectaires”) in the field of the practice of medicine. Upon closer verification, it all turned out to be true. With a few bumps along the way, the government was able to push through the bill with the notable Article 4, with 182-137 votes in favour. Here’s the complete Article 4, in all its glory:

Article 4 (Amendments n°CL128, n°CL47)

After article 223-1-1 of the penal code, article 223-1-2 is inserted as follows:

“ Art. 223‑1‑2. – Provocation to abandon or abstain from following therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment is punishable by one year of imprisonment and a fine of 15,000 euros, when this abandonment or abstention is presented as beneficial for the health of the persons targeted when it is, in the state of medical knowledge, clearly likely to result in serious consequences for their physical or psychological health, taking into account the pathology from which they suffer.”

“Provocation to adopt practices presented as having a therapeutic or prophylactic purpose for the persons concerned is punishable by the same penalties when it is clear, in the state of medical knowledge, that these practices expose them to an immediate risk of death. or injuries likely to result in mutilation or permanent disability.”

“When the provocation provided for in the first two paragraphs has been effective, the penalties are increased to three years of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros.”

“When these offenses are committed through the written or audiovisual press, the specific provisions of the laws which govern these matters are applicable with regard to the determination of the persons responsible.”

Soros Prepares Takeover of 200 Radio Stations Ahead of US Election

A federal judge on Wednesday handed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Children’s Health Defense (CHD) a partial win in their landmark censorship case alleging the Biden administration colluded with social media platforms to unlawfully censor online content.

Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting key Biden administration officials and agencies from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to suppress or censor online content.

Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting key Biden administration officials and agencies from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to suppress or censor online content.