According to newly-released discovery documents, Andy Slavitt, acting as Senior Advisor to the COVID-19 Response under President Biden, specifically targeted Alex Berenson for censorship due to his views on Covid mRNA vaccines.
If you have the time and the stomach for it, here's 225-pages of insight into the minds of these arrogant, self-righteous, self-proclaimed "good stewards" of humanity. This is how the enemies of free people think.
(The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is funded jointly by the Medical Research Council, the Nuffield Foundation and the Wellcome Trust [Glaxo-Wellcome, Big Pharma])
It goes into how they decide what is ethical government policy. Areas mentioned are Infectious Disease, Obesity, Alcohol and Tobacco, Fluoridation of Water. They claim to balance the competing interests of individual free choices and collective public health. Pronouncing their King Solomon-like wisdom as "good stewardship." Never mind that they give short shrift to individual free choices and worship collective public health policies. Never mind that they dispose of the same ethical considerations they determine are necessary as the policies they describe are applied. It's a mental masturbatory exercise in "see how wonderful and benevolent we are" with grand pronouncements they routinely ignore in the same document.
This is precisely how these people think. This is a source document for many public policy analysts and decision makers in the UK, US and western liberal democracies. Cited and referred to in open and closed-door hearings and roundtables. Convincing themselves they are protecting freedom by applying authoritarianism. Or rather, rationalizing and justifying authoritarianism to help make that bitter pill go down the throats of free people a little easier.
They believe the only types of decisions we're capable of making and can be trusted to make without their guidance (which they call "good stewardship" in their behavioral science ethics publications used by public policymakers) is what color drapes we hang inside our homes. That's it, nothing more consequential than decor preferences.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I understand how to hurt evil companies like Amazon and Facebook -- just stop using their products. But aside from refusing to pay taxes (largely infeasible, especially now) how do we hurt the government? How do we push back in a concrete and tangible way?
Aug 12, 2022·edited Aug 12, 2022Liked by Michael P Senger
What do you want to bet that the MIT study visual Andrew Slavitt used to justify violating First Amendment rights by the Biden administration was an outgrowth of another infamous MIT study - by the exact same researchers?:
Andrew Slavitt's referenced MIT study:
The Data Visualizations Behind COVID-19 Skepticism
Researchers: Crystal Lee, Tanya Yang, Gabrielle Inchoco, Graham M. Jones, Arvind Satyanarayan
For those who will say TL/DR, the 16-page study basically finds that individuals who do top-notch scientific research, even credentialed experts, worthy of publication in prestigious scientific journals are purveyors of dangerous mis/disinformation and must be shouted down or censored. Not because they are wrong, but because the findings are "unorthodox" and differ from the consensus. Because critical thinking skills leads to independent thought and that is dangerous, best left to the experts who are in that consensus.
Now, we all know that a consensus of Marxists will have different findings than a consensus of Libertarians, so the invitation list to form that consensus is a pretty important part of the findings.
Read the report for yourself. As a "Skeptic" reading through it I found myself overcome by joy many times, the Sally Fields in me often jumped up and said, "They get me, they really, really get me!" Validated, so many compliments and findings that validated us, were virtues and things to aspire to...back when science was science and critical thinking skills were encouraged and developed, honed. Now declared dangerous. Needing to be censored. The world turned upside down type of stuff. Just read it. Then you'll know all you need to know about the mindset of those deigning to run our world and lives today. And their justifications for censoring us.
The message from the Biden administration is:
"Independent, critical thinking is Verboten! Nein!"
Right. But it's actually fascinating to get into their minds. Worth the read. Must know ones enemies to defeat them. That's actually what their study is trying to do of "skeptics," get into our minds to defeat us. Allows us to get to study them.
Ok, I followed your guidance until I read the second sentence of the abstract:
"Defying public health officials, coronavirus skeptics on US social media spent much of 2020 creating data visualizations showing that the government’s pandemic response was excessive and that the crisis was over."
Then I stopped reading again. How can the authors think that "creating data visualizations" is "defying public health officials"?!!
Have we now reached a point where public health officials issue orders and decrees to the general public about how to make data visualizations? Is that what the authors think public health leaders do? What are they teaching people at MIT?
Ok, yeah, you're right. I'm gonna read more .... because it's so absurd....
It's quite fascinating getting inside their minds, how they reason. They see us as dangerous freaks because we use our own highly proficient reasoning and sciencing. Instead of just obeying them, the experts. Don't we know, us little ignorant lower apes, that they, the superior intellect and more evolved aristocracy, are the keepers of knowledge? And that we should keep our grubby, hairy Neanderthal fingers off the scepter of knowledge? Dangerous in the hands of lower primates like us. That's how they think. Condescending little twits. Half our IQ's. Yet convinced of their superior intellect and morality and drunk on self-imagined virtue. Their parents never spanked them and they got participation medals. Now deigning to dictate to the world they consider beneath them. Rude awakening ahead for them.
"Both Levitt and these anti-mask groups identify the dangerous convergence of science and politics as one of the main barriers to a more reasonable and successful pandemic response, and they construct their own data visualizations as a way to combat what they see as health misinformation."
Yes, glad you caught that. They can't help themselves.
I thought it was rather flattering how they characterized us. But they use words we understand as flattering, like "critical thinking" and "highly capable and credentialed science that belongs in any prominent science journal" and all types of compliments as we hear them but they mean as pejoratives. What you read as neutral they write as a slam, call those same characteristics dangerous and deadly, and want to silence us lest we share our knowledge with others who trust them, the experts. The unmitigated, unearned and undeserved arrogance of these people. Who should be hanging their heads in shame and crawling back under the rocks they crawled out from under for being so wrong and destructive to society, and I dare say murderous. The references to things like J6 reveal they speak at different language with the same words we use. Which means we must use their language translator to understand what they really mean using words we understand differently. Like Gavin Newsome saying Ron DeSantis is a dictator, Floridians live under tyranny but he stands for democracy and Californians have freedom. Same words. We thinks they do not know what they mean.
another reason not to use Facebook and Twitter. They not only don't allow free speech (our right) they actively blocked everyone who did not consent with the narrative. All on board on Substack and other platforms, that allow discording sounds !!
Aug 12, 2022·edited Aug 12, 2022Liked by Michael P Senger
One billion bucks to persuade vaccine uptake. Included in the price was to wipe out 'dissenters'. There is far more to this, as in the why. Why was there the 100% CCP style repression of scientific debate? One billion paid for coerced compliance and the attempted destruction of rule of law, open debate. All censored, criminalised and politicised. One billion dollars.... and agents of this like Slavitt, Birks, Fauci. Useful dangerous idiots.
I posted this on bad cat's post but more or less the comment applies as well: someone ought to do the work to determine the costs per state via medicaid that the vaccines have inflicted. from which states can then go after tech and media akin to master tobacco settlement; ie they (tech) give up 230 protections with state action doctrine. further class action rico should take form from another angle as they would be two different lawsuits that form together like tributaries meeting their mother rivers. https://madisonian.substack.com/p/to-kill-leviathan
I suspect they figured he'd made himself a pariah in the circles that ordinarily ought to have at least made feeble gestures of support, and he'd be an easy kill. His temperament works against an excess of sympathy. Been enjoyable to see what's coming out, but we'd all better gird up our loins for what's gonna lie ahead. "Lie" being an important word here.
When does the public get relief from the criminal CCP bio attack? Our federal govt does not seem too interested in investigating their actions for the most part. Who and what are they protecting? Fauci? Gates? CDC? NAIH? All of them ?
“Persuadable public”… social engineering, coercion, people who need US to think for them.
You’re only good enough to pay the bills but we will decide what you can see, think or feel.
If you have the time and the stomach for it, here's 225-pages of insight into the minds of these arrogant, self-righteous, self-proclaimed "good stewards" of humanity. This is how the enemies of free people think.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Public health: ethical issues
November, 2007
https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Public-health-ethical-issues.pdf
(The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is funded jointly by the Medical Research Council, the Nuffield Foundation and the Wellcome Trust [Glaxo-Wellcome, Big Pharma])
It goes into how they decide what is ethical government policy. Areas mentioned are Infectious Disease, Obesity, Alcohol and Tobacco, Fluoridation of Water. They claim to balance the competing interests of individual free choices and collective public health. Pronouncing their King Solomon-like wisdom as "good stewardship." Never mind that they give short shrift to individual free choices and worship collective public health policies. Never mind that they dispose of the same ethical considerations they determine are necessary as the policies they describe are applied. It's a mental masturbatory exercise in "see how wonderful and benevolent we are" with grand pronouncements they routinely ignore in the same document.
This is precisely how these people think. This is a source document for many public policy analysts and decision makers in the UK, US and western liberal democracies. Cited and referred to in open and closed-door hearings and roundtables. Convincing themselves they are protecting freedom by applying authoritarianism. Or rather, rationalizing and justifying authoritarianism to help make that bitter pill go down the throats of free people a little easier.
They believe the only types of decisions we're capable of making and can be trusted to make without their guidance (which they call "good stewardship" in their behavioral science ethics publications used by public policymakers) is what color drapes we hang inside our homes. That's it, nothing more consequential than decor preferences.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I understand how to hurt evil companies like Amazon and Facebook -- just stop using their products. But aside from refusing to pay taxes (largely infeasible, especially now) how do we hurt the government? How do we push back in a concrete and tangible way?
What do you want to bet that the MIT study visual Andrew Slavitt used to justify violating First Amendment rights by the Biden administration was an outgrowth of another infamous MIT study - by the exact same researchers?:
Andrew Slavitt's referenced MIT study:
The Data Visualizations Behind COVID-19 Skepticism
MIT, March 1, 2021
http://vis.mit.edu/covid-story
Researchers: Crystal Lee, Tanya Yang, Gabrielle Inchoco, Graham M. Jones, and Arvind Satyanarayan
The Original MIT study that begot the study Slavitt referenced:
Viral Visualizations: How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Orthodox Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science Online
MIT , January 20, 2021
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07993.pdf
Researchers: Crystal Lee, Tanya Yang, Gabrielle Inchoco, Graham M. Jones, Arvind Satyanarayan
For those who will say TL/DR, the 16-page study basically finds that individuals who do top-notch scientific research, even credentialed experts, worthy of publication in prestigious scientific journals are purveyors of dangerous mis/disinformation and must be shouted down or censored. Not because they are wrong, but because the findings are "unorthodox" and differ from the consensus. Because critical thinking skills leads to independent thought and that is dangerous, best left to the experts who are in that consensus.
Now, we all know that a consensus of Marxists will have different findings than a consensus of Libertarians, so the invitation list to form that consensus is a pretty important part of the findings.
Read the report for yourself. As a "Skeptic" reading through it I found myself overcome by joy many times, the Sally Fields in me often jumped up and said, "They get me, they really, really get me!" Validated, so many compliments and findings that validated us, were virtues and things to aspire to...back when science was science and critical thinking skills were encouraged and developed, honed. Now declared dangerous. Needing to be censored. The world turned upside down type of stuff. Just read it. Then you'll know all you need to know about the mindset of those deigning to run our world and lives today. And their justifications for censoring us.
The message from the Biden administration is:
"Independent, critical thinking is Verboten! Nein!"
"Unorthodox Science" That's all I need to read.
Right. But it's actually fascinating to get into their minds. Worth the read. Must know ones enemies to defeat them. That's actually what their study is trying to do of "skeptics," get into our minds to defeat us. Allows us to get to study them.
Ok, I followed your guidance until I read the second sentence of the abstract:
"Defying public health officials, coronavirus skeptics on US social media spent much of 2020 creating data visualizations showing that the government’s pandemic response was excessive and that the crisis was over."
Then I stopped reading again. How can the authors think that "creating data visualizations" is "defying public health officials"?!!
Have we now reached a point where public health officials issue orders and decrees to the general public about how to make data visualizations? Is that what the authors think public health leaders do? What are they teaching people at MIT?
Ok, yeah, you're right. I'm gonna read more .... because it's so absurd....
It's quite fascinating getting inside their minds, how they reason. They see us as dangerous freaks because we use our own highly proficient reasoning and sciencing. Instead of just obeying them, the experts. Don't we know, us little ignorant lower apes, that they, the superior intellect and more evolved aristocracy, are the keepers of knowledge? And that we should keep our grubby, hairy Neanderthal fingers off the scepter of knowledge? Dangerous in the hands of lower primates like us. That's how they think. Condescending little twits. Half our IQ's. Yet convinced of their superior intellect and morality and drunk on self-imagined virtue. Their parents never spanked them and they got participation medals. Now deigning to dictate to the world they consider beneath them. Rude awakening ahead for them.
Defiance is not really a negative. Most movie heroes probably have that quality.
Yep. They take words we know as sometimes necessary and desirable and use them as pejoratives. Same language, different meaning.
I guess I'm happy to see some common ground:
"Both Levitt and these anti-mask groups identify the dangerous convergence of science and politics as one of the main barriers to a more reasonable and successful pandemic response, and they construct their own data visualizations as a way to combat what they see as health misinformation."
I thought it was sort of neutral until the last bit about the J6 "coup".
Yes, glad you caught that. They can't help themselves.
I thought it was rather flattering how they characterized us. But they use words we understand as flattering, like "critical thinking" and "highly capable and credentialed science that belongs in any prominent science journal" and all types of compliments as we hear them but they mean as pejoratives. What you read as neutral they write as a slam, call those same characteristics dangerous and deadly, and want to silence us lest we share our knowledge with others who trust them, the experts. The unmitigated, unearned and undeserved arrogance of these people. Who should be hanging their heads in shame and crawling back under the rocks they crawled out from under for being so wrong and destructive to society, and I dare say murderous. The references to things like J6 reveal they speak at different language with the same words we use. Which means we must use their language translator to understand what they really mean using words we understand differently. Like Gavin Newsome saying Ron DeSantis is a dictator, Floridians live under tyranny but he stands for democracy and Californians have freedom. Same words. We thinks they do not know what they mean.
another reason not to use Facebook and Twitter. They not only don't allow free speech (our right) they actively blocked everyone who did not consent with the narrative. All on board on Substack and other platforms, that allow discording sounds !!
One billion bucks to persuade vaccine uptake. Included in the price was to wipe out 'dissenters'. There is far more to this, as in the why. Why was there the 100% CCP style repression of scientific debate? One billion paid for coerced compliance and the attempted destruction of rule of law, open debate. All censored, criminalised and politicised. One billion dollars.... and agents of this like Slavitt, Birks, Fauci. Useful dangerous idiots.
this is dynamite. great job!
Please tell me these gov’t officials can go to prison for this.
This is going to be quite the ride. I believe THIS is the visual Slavitt was referring to. https://covidreason.substack.com/p/did-white-house-advisor-use-mit-study
Yes. Your Covid Reason Substack story link cites a front-facing MIT story published in March, 2021
http://vis.mit.edu/covid-story
of THIS detailed MIT study published in January, 2021 by the same exact authors:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07993.pdf
Which I also posted on your Rational Ground Substack story comments! :)
I posted this on bad cat's post but more or less the comment applies as well: someone ought to do the work to determine the costs per state via medicaid that the vaccines have inflicted. from which states can then go after tech and media akin to master tobacco settlement; ie they (tech) give up 230 protections with state action doctrine. further class action rico should take form from another angle as they would be two different lawsuits that form together like tributaries meeting their mother rivers. https://madisonian.substack.com/p/to-kill-leviathan
I suspect they figured he'd made himself a pariah in the circles that ordinarily ought to have at least made feeble gestures of support, and he'd be an easy kill. His temperament works against an excess of sympathy. Been enjoyable to see what's coming out, but we'd all better gird up our loins for what's gonna lie ahead. "Lie" being an important word here.
When does the public get relief from the criminal CCP bio attack? Our federal govt does not seem too interested in investigating their actions for the most part. Who and what are they protecting? Fauci? Gates? CDC? NAIH? All of them ?
Ryan Horath has been discussing this and wrote a piece on section 230. Above my pay grade but maybe you may find it worthwhile.
https://rthorat.substack.com/p/eff-section-230-claims-vs-reality?r=88dyo&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Wow, the government targeted individual citizens for censorship.
Above my purview but ryan horath wrote on section 230. I think this is the problem.
https://rthorat.substack.com/p/eff-section-230-claims-vs-reality?r=88dyo&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email