There needs to be a big comeuppance for Big Tech. Due to their censorship, writers like myself have lost revenue for covering things we now know to be true. They continue to censor information that could be vital to the health and well-being of Americans and people around the world. At what point will they be held accountable for their politicized censorship of scientific information over the last 18 months?
Censorship during the pandemic is the best argument ever for breaking up Facebook, YouTube, Google, and Twitter. The silencing of well-researched articles that contain data and scientific information has been unreal. That is why the majority of what I write about COVID-19 sits behind our paywall. I rely on our loyal readers to share the findings with people in their lives, free from censorship, like this one about the availability of the T-detect test to see if you or your child has immunity before being vaccinated. This is so important when so many colleges are requiring vaccines.
If placed in front of the paywall, these articles would have been censored, retracted, or given bogus fact checks that suggested I didn’t understand what I had read. When I wrote about cycle thresholds on PCR tests, the fact-checkers claimed I had misinterpreted the articles and research papers I read. Now, if I use that term, our VIP subscribers are the only readers to see it.
Even more disturbing, Big Tech’s fact-checkers are now censoring well-respected doctors and researchers discussing evidence about repurposed generic drugs to treat COVID-19. It is not just hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) anymore. Now ivermectin is in their sights:
My June 1st discussion with Dr. Pierre Kory of @Covid19Critical on the DarkHorse Podcast has been removed by @YouTube for allegedly violating their Community Guideline against “Spam, deceptive practices and scams”. The channel was given a warning, the first step toward removal. pic.twitter.com/svISJEKjjt
— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) June 12, 2021
YouTube has also censored doctors testifying before congressional committees about these medications. They’ve censored Sen. Ron Johnson and clips of Tucker Carlson interviewing doctors speaking about vaccine side effects. This information is backed up by studies and the data collected in other countries or by our own CDC. But you are not allowed to hear it and make your own evaluation.
Related: ‘The Crime of the Century’: New HCQ Study Proves We Need to Reform the Drug Approval Process
To understand how absurd this is, ask yourself why these doctors and researchers would be speaking out on treatments and potential harm from vaccines. After the treatment of Dr. Scott Atlas, who advised President Trump, and Dr. Harvey Risch, who advocated for hydroxychloroquine after performing a meta-analysis, why would they risk it?
As far as I can tell from the numerous interviews I have watched, these doctors speak out anywhere they can because they have to look patients who are suffering in the eyes. Since the pandemic arrived, they have been driven to find ways to relieve the suffering of their patients. They believe they have found effective ways to do this and want patients and families to know. Researchers at their core seek answers to problems. They are convinced the signals of benefit they are seeing are strong enough to support the use of repurposed drugs.
But you aren’t allowed to hear them make their case on major platforms. You also can’t listen to doctors discussing vaccine safety. Even in light of the news that young men between 16 and 24 are experiencing severe cardiac side effects and despite an emergency meeting on the topic this week at the CDC, Facebook still flagged a father’s post telling his own son’s tragic story:
On the FDA and NIH websites, you will find cautions against using HCQ and ivermectin in treating COVID-19. Both are decades old with such excellent safety records that they are approved for use in children. Meanwhile, the drug Lupron is used off-label to treat transgender children and prevent normal puberty without evidence of safety, efficacy, or long-term studies of side effects. It prevents the development of secondary sex characteristics and impairs bone density. It is prescribed after the child self-diagnoses and is affirmed by treating clinicians too scared to explore their assertion. In some states, the child can do this without a parent’s permission. The FDA has issued no warning against its use, and Big Tech will allow any activist to encourage its use in children.
Related: Censored Doctors Fight Back on Fauci Disinformation
Big Tech is preventing clinicians and patients from hearing well-supported scientific information on treatments for COVID-19 and vaccines. They are flagging posts regarding potential vaccine side effects saying the vaccines are safe, which even the CDC isn’t saying right now for men and boys aged 16-24. Every Big Tech platform justifies its censorship and flagging by appealing to internal fact-checkers. They choose these censors, and in one case, Facebook used Dr. Peter Daszak, who has ties to the Wuhan lab, as their “expert” regarding posts about the lab-leak theory. Here is YouTube’s response to Bret Weinstein, who raised questions about ivermectin
In this tweet YouTube is spreading deadly misinformation. It is creating the false impression that Ivermectin is ineffective against COVID. The evidence is discussed in the video. If there is disagreement on the evidence discussion is required. #FollowTheSilence #CensorshipKills https://t.co/uF7BjZ3tRP
— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) June 12, 2021
Who are these basement-dwelling tech bros to overrule a researcher capable of evaluating evidence and one who collected it and analyzed it? As a COVID-19 survivor, I would not have known that ivermectin has shown to be effective in relieving the long-haul symptoms, except that I knew where supporters had moved the interview. Now, I just need a doctor to prescribe it. You can listen to the information on Bit Chute. It could help you or someone you love.
These companies need to be held to account. Lawsuits sound like a good idea, though proving damages would be difficult. After censoring posts about the lab-leak theory for over a year and having to reverse themselves, you would think they might have learned a lesson. It doesn’t appear they have.