AdministratorApril 9, 2021 at 6:40 pm
Posts have been removed from Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other platforms. Doctors have had their accounts banned. Entire groups with thousands of members have been removed. What’s going on here? Can it be that mainstream tech is in cahoots with big pharma to push a single agenda? Why would they do that? What are your thoughts.
MemberApril 10, 2021 at 2:58 pm
It is obvious that they are, given the overwhelming evidence by now of its effectiveness. I think there is no other reason to explain this other than the influence of the billions and possibly trillions of dollars at stake by big pharma and their investors. To hell with the lost lives. Its ALL about the money. Never let a good pandemic go to waste.
MemberApril 10, 2021 at 3:38 pm
Purely factual referenced additions to the Wikipedia ivermectin page are being censored.
MemberApril 10, 2021 at 7:45 pm
I’ve been on Twitter for a decade, during which time I’ve participated in many edgy debates on a wide range of political and cultural issues. Until two days ago I’ve never had my account suspended. That’s when I addressed a tweet to the leader of the Australian Greens asking him to give consideration to Ivermectin, especially in the context of Papua New Guinea’s current surge in COVID-19 cases.
Here’s the tweet that put me in Twitter Purgatory (it was a reply to a tweet by Adam Bandt urging a faster rollout of the Australian Government’s COVID-10 vaccination program):
” @AdamBandt Vaccination is just one medical technology. It shouldn’t be the exclusive focus of public health policy. For instance, in PNG, RIGHT NOW, there’s a compelling case for rapidly distributing safe non-patent medications, notably Ivermectin. #ivermectinworks https://t.co/KGlWiGMrLA “
I’ve appealed Twitter’s decision, and now face a wait of indeterminate length while my case is investigated. In Twitter’s online appeal process, I was permitted only 160 characters maximum to state my case. This is the text of my appeal:
” My tweet was in no way disinformation. It was factually-based and linked to a video discussion between reputable doctors. It was pro-medication – NOT “anti-Vax” “
According to Twitter’s explanatory documentation, I could forgo the appeal and regain access to my account straight away.. But to do so is to tacitly accept that there WAS something unacceptable about the tweet.
In one sense, this is a small problem concerning one short tweet that the world won’t greatly miss. On the other hand, the principle is important. Right now, I’m not sure about the best way forward on this and I’m open to suggestions.
Incidentally, this is my first comment posted on the TrialSiteNews website, and I good time to say how much I appreciate your work.
MemberApril 12, 2021 at 4:23 am
I worry that the scientists who are supporting Ivermectin are too naive. They scratch their heads, puzzled and frustrated about why people are being overly cautious about Ivermectin. They might even excuse it as an overreaction to hydroxychloroquine, which was unfortunately hyped prematurely. But this is not just a battle over caution versus speed, cost-benefit analysis for patients with lethal prognoses. This is not a repeat of the HIV medication battle where gay activists successfully shamed the FDA into loosening their strict standards on experimental drug approval and use. Those activists didn’t have a strong interest group that was threatened by the approval of cheap readily available treatments. But you do.
1) Everyone seems to focus on the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has an incentive to eliminate cheap generic competition to their expensive new patentable therapeutics. That is correct but it is the least of your worries. Journalists do NOT usually get in bed with pharmaceutical companies; the media usually attacks these companies for charging too much, making too much profit. There are much more powerful forces arrayed against you.
2) The government and medical establishment has a strong incentive to deny or at least delay any acknowledgment of a practical therapeutic because that might threaten the vaccination program in two ways: (i) it might increase the resistance to vaccination; (ii) it would remove the justification for accelerated approval of the vaccines. Unfortunately, this is a misplaced worry. People forget that the primary goal is to reduce hospitalization and mortality associated with COVID-19 while eventually allowing herd immunity. If a combination of therapeutics and vaccination can reduce hospitalization and death most efficiently and quickly, then we shouldn’t be concerned if vaccination rates are slowed. After all, a COVID-19 infection contained by therapeutics, like Ivermectin, is essentially a live and cheap vaccination. But for those who believe in the religion of only vaccination, Ivermectin is heresy. That’s why we have scientists supporting Ivermectin, like the FLCCC, who are all PRO-vaxxers, being smeared as anti-vaxxers.
3) There are powerful political forces that want to keep the country in lockdown and preserve the concentration of emergency powers at the federal, state, and municipal level. If you have vaccines and a good drug to cover both unvaccinated people and virus variants, how can you be the CDC director and tell everyone that you have a sense of “impending doom”. Thus, good cheap therapeutics pose a threat to their ability to use the pandemic emergency to pursue their political agenda. These forces will try to muzzle or cancel you, if your pursuit of therapeutics threatens this agenda. Look at how BigTech has been censoring videos on alternative therapeutics because it is “disinformation” (including Senate testimony by Dr. Pierre Kory of the FLCCC). Look at how the only Ivermectin paper the media has publicized is the JAMA article. Don’t underestimate the determination and reach of these forces!
MemberApril 12, 2021 at 5:47 am
Believe it or not, I got a reply from an email I sent to our local (Australian) TGA or Therapeutic Goods Administration which is the equivalent outfit to US’s FDA. I complained to them that their website was wrong in that it stated that “there was no effective treatment currently known to help people with COVID-19”.
Amongst all they responded with was this eye-opening bit: “The TGA would welcome an application to register ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 at any time; however, the TGA cannot compel a company to make such an application”
For the full context see way below:
My complaint was as here:
<b style=”font-family: inherit;”>Report of a perceived breach of the Therapeutic Goods Act or questionable practices relating to therapeutic products
Submitted on Thursday, March 25, 2021 – 10:15pm
Reporter’s name: MR PETER F BELL
Reporter’s email: [email protected]
Reporter’s telephone number: 0408623598
Reporter’s mobile phone number: 0408623598
Reporter’s fax number:
Details of problem
Date problem was encountered: Thu, 12/03/2020
Name of product of concern: ivermectin information
AUST R or AUST L number on product label, if known: N/A
Name of company/person supplying the product: TGA
Address of company/person, if known: Their place
Contact details of company/person, if known (telephone, fax website, etc.): You KNOW this
Details of problem – please be as specific as possible:
TGA consistently advertise on their website that there is no medicine that controls COVID-19.
This is wrong.
Ivermectin has proved to be very effective prophylactically, early treatment and excellent at controlling or suppressing cytoplasm storm.
Dear Mr Bell
Thank you for contacting the Australian Government Department of Health.
In order to provide you with an appropriate response I need to provide you some background information as to therapeutic goods regulation in Australia.
Australia has a robust regulatory process for prescription medicines administered by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), part of the Department of Health. For ivermectin to be registered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) by the TGA to treat COVID-19, a sponsor (usually a pharmaceutical company) is required to submit a comprehensive developmental dossier application for the medicine. This dossier usually consists of clinical studies, non-clinical/toxicology studies, and other information. Once accepted by the TGA, a formal evaluation of the application is undertaken in multiple stages by technical experts.
The process involves obtaining further information and clarification from the sponsor, and may also include seeking advice from an independent committee of external experts prior to finalisation and decision under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. Decisions are based on whether the overall benefit of the medicine is considered to outweigh the potential risks of its use. If a decision is made to approve the medicine, it is included on the ARTG and can be lawfully supplied in Australia for the intended use.
The TGA would welcome an application to register ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 at any time; however, the TGA cannot compel a company to make such an application. Priority and provisional evaluation pathways are available depending on the nature of the application and the supporting data.
Ivermectin has not received regulatory approval in Australia or anywhere overseas for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. More robust evidence is required before it could be considered a safe and effective treatment option.
The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce, consisting of a large group of independent Australian clinical experts, is continuously updating treatment recommendations based on the best available evidence. They are currently not recommending the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment outside of properly conducted clinical trials with appropriate ethical approval. The living guidelines are available online at: http://www.covid19evidence.net.au.
Regulatory Assistance Service
Regulatory Guidance, Assistance and SME Section
Regulatory Engagement, Education and Planning Branch
Phone: 1800 020 653 Fax: 02 6203 1605
Email: [email protected]
Therapeutic Goods Administration
Department of Health
PO Box 100
Woden ACT 2606 Australia
AdministratorApril 13, 2021 at 9:00 am
We very well informed person told me recently, that this is just big tech’s reaction to not wanting to be regulated. IE: They are self regulating, in order to not be accused of spreading miss-information. The result is a heavy handed, algorithmic approach to censor anything that could be considered problematic, and the actual humans doing the processing of this data are low paid, uninformed workers.
This explanation, while problematic given what is at stake, makes more sense to me than all of big tech are in some type of coordinated conspiracy.
MemberJune 18, 2021 at 7:26 am
I think it’s BS. Can Fauci regulate big tech? This is globalism. The great reset. We can’t fully understand what these crazy rich people who meet at the world economic forum want to do with the world’s population. What we now have is mandated gene therapy.
AdministratorApril 27, 2021 at 9:33 am
MemberJune 2, 2021 at 10:19 pm
Exploitation for financial gain is how our system works… they are only painting it up that way because their accusation is what they are already committing. Ebay tried to paint things up the same way. They stopped the price gouging on masks by only letting certain people sell them, and for a high price too! There were boxes of masks selling for $1000 not because there was a shortage (people were stuck with rooms full of masks that Ebay wouldn’t let them sell) but because Ebay was protecting people from price gouging. People like me,who purposely stocked up in the beginning just in case, but then when it seemed apparent I should distribute them, Ebay wouldn’t allow it. I must say, Etsy took the opposite stance and encouraged sales. I sold masks for less than wal mart was selling them for pre pandemic. I was intentionally trying to help my country which is why I noticed that Ebay getting in my way, and claiming to protect my country, was Ebay attacking my country.
MemberJune 2, 2021 at 10:30 pm
content that discourages people from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice
They really want to claim this, huh? They seem to not have a problem with the content discouraging Dr Kory.
MemberJune 5, 2021 at 4:33 am
There’s a brilliant overview of the success in India and her views on the suppression of the facts. Kim Iverson on Youtube. 53 minutes but worth every minute
MemberJune 16, 2021 at 3:36 am
I hope this answers a few questions:🙂
Our evidence-based clinical review article on mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-COV-2 published yesterday in Springer Nature. (Journal of antibiotics).
Please find the link below.
Dr. Asiya Kamber Zaidi
Dr. Puya Dehgani-Mobaraki
MemberJune 16, 2021 at 7:11 pm
MemberJuly 10, 2021 at 2:59 pm
Time for a Bitchute channel
MemberJuly 17, 2021 at 9:10 am
The media is mixed. Odysee vs. You Tube, Paul Craig Roberts vs CNN, Brave browser vs. Google browser, etc.
The really big danger is when the government unconstitutionally goes into tyranny mode:
The treachery of a governmental attitude of authoritarianism is showing…
July 16, 2021
White House: If you’re banned for “misinformation” on one platform, you should be banned from ALL platforms
More calls for censorship from the Federal Government.
After making the shocking admission that the Federal Government is flagging content for Facebook to censor in yesterday’s White House Press Briefing, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki doubled down on the censorship rhetoric in today’s Press Briefing by calling for users to be banned from all platforms if they post “misinformation” and dismissing concerns that the Biden administration is acting as “Big Brother.”
During the Press Briefing, Psaki was asked to elaborate on the Biden administration’s flagging of misinformation to Facebook and to respond to a CNN report about the Biden administration’s “frustration with what they view as Facebook’s failures to uphold its own policies on vaccine misinformation.”
Psaki responded by framing the flagging issue as simply staying in “regular touch with social media platforms” to make them “aware of the latest narratives dangerous to public health” and engaging with them to “better understand the enforcement of social platform policy.”
She insisted that the social media platforms make the decisions when it comes to content moderation.
Of course, Psaki failed to mention that while Facebook is technically free to make its own content moderation decisions, this outreach about so-called dangerous public health narratives is coming from the same Federal Government that is placing huge amounts of pressure on Facebook’s business through an antitrust lawsuit.
When pressed on whether Facebook’s censorship has been as proactive as the White House would like, Psaki said there are “more steps everyone can take” and suggested that one step that “could be constructive for public health” is for social media platforms to coordinate and implement cross-platform censorship when users post alleged misinformation.
“You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others…for providing misinformation,” Psaki added.
After she was told that Facebook had already removed 18 million pieces of “COVID misinformation” and connected more than two billion people to “reliable information,” Psaki was asked whether the White House finds this “sufficient.”
“Clearly not,” Psaki responded.
She added: “They’re a private sector company, they’re gonna make decisions about additional steps they can take, it’s clear there are more that can be taken.”
Psaki also dismissed Fox News reporter Pete Doocy’s question about a lot of people on Facebook being concerned about “Big Brother watching you” now that they know the White House flags posts to Facebook to be censored.
“They’re more concerned about that than people dying across the country because of a pandemic where misinformation is traveling on social media platforms?” Psaki said. “That seems unlikely to me. If you have the data to back that up, I’m happy to discuss it.”
When Doocy raised the double standard with which The White House flags and censors so-called misinformation, Psaki again dismissed the concerns.
“There are videos of Dr. Fauci from 2020 before anybody had a vaccine and he’s out there saying there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask,” Doocy said. “So, is the administration going to contact Facebook and take that down?”
Psaki responded by arguing that Fauci said: “Science evolves, information evolves.”
But when she discussed other claims that she doesn’t approve of during the Press Briefing, such as claims that the vaccines cause infertility, Psaki framed it as “information that is irresponsibly traveling” and pushed social media platforms to let the White House know that they’re “taking steps to address it.”
The White House Press Secretary’s comments are yet another example of the increasing collaboration between public officials and private companies that are raising First Amendment violation flags.
Prior to Psaki’s recent statements, numerous reports have pointed to similar public-private sector censorship collaborations. These include a recent lawsuit showing that Democrats have worked with Twitter to flag tweets and get them taken down and a recent letter from Republicans accusing Fauci of advising Facebook to censor lab leak theories.
If you’re tired of cancel culture and censorship subscribe to Reclaim The Net.
MemberJune 18, 2021 at 7:39 am
Counter Punch was a good news site when Alexander Cockburn was alive. He died from cancer. Someone took the site over and purged all the old articles from a diverse group of contributors. Paul Craig Roberts to Ralph Nader.
I no longer trust this news site, which I used to have a paid subscription to.
I don’t think this article explains why they are trying to force vaccinate people, and keep ivermectin under wraps.
Log in to reply.