How the Vaccine Investors May Have Signaled to Me That COVID-19 Vaccines Poison Children

The Chloroquine Wars Part LIV

Sometime between Part I and Part II of my Estimating Vaccine-Induced Mortality article series (which isn't finished), Facebook delivered to me my third 30-day ban of the year, and my seventh ban overall in less than nine months. The first two 30-day bans took place as I reported on ivermectin usage (somewhat like here and here) in India, which is what first spurred me to start this substack. Understand that I spent hours in calls, meetings, and exchanging emails with Indian doctors, researchers, and analysts, and substantially more reading dozens of research papers coming out of India before making those Facebook posts. The other bans were also for sharing information about early medical treatment for COVID-19. Having run a public community for sharing research and analysis of COVID-19 treatments on Facebook, I've had a bit of a target on my back.

But this time I was really asking for it. My post was short and simple. Here is the fragment they allow for me to still see:

While I cannot recall the exact wording, I went on to describe the offending authority as standing over you (the parent of a poisoned child) and gaslighting you over the cause of your child's demise. The setup here is clear and unquestionable evil. I then suggested that it is morally okay for the parent to shoot the psychopath who knowingly tricked them into poisoning their own child, then badgered them about it.

Understand that I am fully aware that there are people who agree with this position and also those who disagree with it. I strongly suspect that most people---particularly parents---agree with the general premise. What would a parent not do to defend their child from the worst evil?

Understand also that if the setup to such a scenario took place, I would most strongly recommend discernment in seeking the best resolution, whatever that might be under the circumstances. The wise keep their swords sheathed until necessary. And your mileage may vary with the relevant judicial system per geography. My preferences for fighting evil involve first educating myself (yourself, everyone) as economically as possible in order to understand all options, and how to execute solutions. In the best cases, justice works just fine. Those in the Bitcoin world hope to pull off a coup d'etat to unseat the bankers who fund war and conflict throughout the world using a decentralized computing network, for instance. There are those who spend their entire lives setting up the moment of pointing to a deer and calling it a horse.

But if the alternative is to let that psychopath go and maybe trick more parents into poisoning their kids, I think shooting that psychopath in the face is a clearly superior alternative to doing nothing---a Pareto improvement, so to speak. I could draw a trolley car problem diagram for this, but somebody beat me to it.

Apparently my belief in using force to execute justice violates Facebook community standards---and in a rather severe way. After all, Facebook allows terrorists to openly use their platform as a tool for celebrating "puddles of blood" and other intimidating communications. For reasons I don't yet understand, my promotion of a parent's right to defend their children with deadly force puts me in a ring of hell closer to the flames than al-Qaeda and Daesh.

But doesn't Facebook host all manner of guns rights groups, law enforcement groups, and military groups that strongly signal the use of force in resolving ugly conflicts? What exactly was it about my statement of the moral allowability of shooting a murderous psychopath in the instance that they act as an authority (official, expert, leader,...) and use poison to kill your child that results in such a reaction by the Facebook censorship team?

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

Who watches the watchers?

Follow the money.

All that kind of stuff. If it's not your habit to ask questions, well, you're probably already fully vaccinated, anyhow. But I'd urge you to read on one way or another.

So, who shut me down, and why? I mean...I could just say that Facebook banned me down for the 30 days and walk away, but is that the whole story?

About three minutes after restricting nearly all features of my account, Facebook saw fit to put this video at the very top of my feed. This source lays out the story a little more clearly. Here is an excerpt (emphasis mine):

Who pays the paychecks of the fact-checkers? The vaccine fact-checkers at Fact Check dot org, who claim to be independent, are funded by an organization that holds over $1.8 billion of stock in a vaccine company and is run by a former director of the Center for Disease Control.

The fact-checking account responded to accusations by making clear its funding sources. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is one of those benefactors and owns billions in Johnson & Johnson stock. The foundation's CEO is Richard Besser who is a former acting Director for the Center for Disease Control. Yet Fact Check dot org claims there's no interference in its editorial decisions and the Foundation's views aren't necessarily reflected in its decisions. But author and liberal studies expert Michael Rectenwald believes such connections pose risks to the public.

This really doesn't do much for the perception that the CDC is subject to regulatory capture as a corrupt agency serving their corporate masters.

Note that the fact checkers don't even claim that the donating foundation's views aren't reflected in its decisions---just...not necessarily.

According to Facebook, its fact checkers are (apparently) faceless "independent...signatories to the non-partisan Fact-Checking Network Code of Principles".

I saw it on YouTube, so I know it must be true. I feel so much better now!

But let's be realistic. Facebook's fact checking crew did not restrict my account for a month because I'm scarier than terrorist organizations that take slaves and train suicide bombers. But there was something specific about my post beyond advocating the right of a parent to defend their child. It was the specific mention of poison and gaslighting that set the post apart---though my post made no mention of vaccines whatsoever.

Can you think of anyone aside from vaccine investors who might feel defensive about poison and gaslighting?

On another note: Twitter disabled my account for 12 hours yesterday for tweeting about my research team's email exchanges with FDA and CDC officials.