• “Misinformation” Increasingly Means Facts and Questions That Challenge Power; Are Science and Choice Dead?

    • The greatest perpetrators of misinformation, historically, have been the government, e.g, see information on "wars," and the media who ignore harmful or illegal products or practices in banking,
      pharmaceutical drugs, technology, wars, etc.
    • Over the past few years, censorship and other silencing or intimidation, have been used to stop
      publication of low profit alternatives to protect our health. During this time of global decline – and
      a so-called “emergency” – the public surprisingly received little information, despite 4/5 of the East using non-pharmaceutical cures for health (this presumably excludes food).
    • Currently, we are in the midst of a global health crisis that governments are not explaining, even
      while rolling out extensive, invasive and illegal artificial campaigns based on information
      technology censored during the pandemic.

    Before most highly harmful actions – from approval of dangerous pharmaceutical products, to an
    invasion or war effort, to a bank-created economic depression – there are always those who warn of
    risks. They warn before, during, and after the effort, to prevent it again. If the industry-friendly effort
    generates enough profit or has enough government support, these ethical actors are often accused of
    peddling “misinformation.”

     

    The current power structure includes products -- tied to greater inequality, labor insecurity, and poorer
    food and electrical environment – dependent upon extensive campaigns of misinformation. This is used
    to indicate lying about what is true, or leaving out other pertinent information.

     

    Charitable and or political gatherings like the MarketWorld circuit, Davos, Clinton Global Initiative do not
    embrace solutions that return power to the people. The experts are, by definition, in the room. (This is
    the only reason for them to get together; if they were working with the people, they would be in that
    country).

     

    Asking questions without conclusive answers is framed as misinformation instead of First Amendment
    guaranteed freedom of expression.

     

    Providing information that may not agree with government initiatives based on power structures is
    framed as conspiracy and censored (until the government or other power changes their position).

     

    Silencing those who describe risks and ethical violations prevents action in the public interest, until it is too
    late (or other “Merchants of Doubt” scenario).

     

    Most American wars have relied on extensive misinformation (see my earlier published wars document with justification, debunked justification, dead, etc. for those on the list.)

     

    One reason why COVID (discussed elsewhere) is such a pertinent example is because it was held up as
    preventing misinformation. The billionaires got together in the spring of 2020 to solve COVID. Yet the
    media, early on, censored articles on solutions, for example, those on Vitamin C or other techniques for
    prevention or cure. The standard of care promulgated by our government was often described as
    “staying home til you are blue in the face” – something particularly harmful now that we see long-term
    illnesses from COVID (and vaccines.)

     

    Unsurprisingly, it was shown simply to be a power grab. The information was not censored in order to
    stop the promulgation of inaccurate information. It was simply a delay tactic, til those same solutions
    could be pushed by artificial intelligence.

     

    Today we are told to take certain medicines, supplements, actions etc., by artificial intelligence which
    does not even conform to the basic minimum for human experimentation of Nurembourg Code, much
    less any code of ethics of the medical profession. While the medical model in the United States is highly
    flawed, it has protections of privacy of communication and data, standards for prescription which, even
    if not consistent with evidence-based medicine, provide some basic rationale for care. With artificial
    intelligence, there is none.