• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Discussion about pandemic censorship

a quick question for those who care a bit about the laws. It seems that traditional Chinese medicine is recognized by the O.M.S., except that:

Women[edit]


The act of diagnosing women was not as simple as the diagnosing of men in traditional Chinese medicine. This was for several reasons: first, the treatment of sick women was expected to be called in by and take place under male authority.[SUP][87][/SUP] The visiting physician would then discuss the female's problems and diagnosis through the male. Second, women were often silent about their issues with doctors and male figures due to the societal expectation of female modesty and the presence of a male figure in the room.[SUP][87][/SUP] Third, the presence of male authority in the sick room and the patriarchal dominated society also caused doctors to reference their women and children patients "the anonymous category of family members (Jia Ren) or household (Ju Jia)"[SUP][87][/SUP] in their journals. This anonymity and lack of conversation between the doctor and woman patient led to the inquiry diagnosis of the Four Diagnostic Methods[SUP][88][/SUP] being the most challenging. Male doctors in China traditionally used a figurine known as a Doctor's lady, on which female patients could indicate the location of their symptoms. [SUP][89][/SUP]

The study of medicine for women was called Fuke[SUP][87][/SUP] (known as gynecology and obstetrics in modern science and medicine); however, it has little to no ancient works based on it except for Fu Qing-zhu's Fu Qing Zhu Nu Ke (Fu Qing-zhu's Gynecology).[SUP][90][/SUP] The most challenging part of a woman's health in Traditional Chinese Medicine was pregnancy and postpartum, this is because there were many definitions of pregnancy in traditional Chinese medicine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine




so the O.M.S. accepted that or ?

What suggests that the U.N. has admitted this as well?
 
ethics in sport, especially the Olympic.

Today in France we are told that the French delegation, so 1400 people have all received a first dose, to be able to receive the second 4 weeks later. This is therefore done, by special dispensation ...

We are talking about the Olympic Games:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeux_olympiques

therefore, for this summer:

The IOC is recommending the vaccination of athletes if they are available, but vaccines will not be required, and the IOC is recommending against athletes "jumping the queue" in order to obtain priority over essential populations. [50] On 12 March 2021, Thomas Bach announced that in nations where they are approved for use, the Chinese Olympic Committee had offered to cover the costs of the Chinese CoronaVac and Sinopharm vaccines for athletes competing in the 2020 Summer Olympics and 2022 Winter Olympics, and purchase two doses for their nation's general public for each vaccinated athlete

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Summer_Olympics

I think this subject should be treated with the greatest care, because it shows a lot ...
 
Pathfinder said:
Reposted from the thread "Discussion: Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Wuhan has been working with bats and coronavirus for many years - DNA manipulations, cloning...."
https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/...cloning/page24
...
As Petrovsky considered whether SARS-CoV-2 may have emerged in lab cultures with human cells, or cells engineered to express the human ACE2 protein, a letter penned by 27 scientists appeared suddenly on Feb. 19 in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. The authors insisted that SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin, and they condemned any alternate hypotheses as conspiracy theories that create only "fear, rumors, and prejudice."

Petrovksy says he found the letter infuriating. Conspiracy theorists is "the last thing we were, and it looked to be pointing at people like us," he says.
...
But in late April 2020, as Petrovsky's group was thinking about where to publish their work, "Trump blurted out" that he had reason to believe that the virus came out of a Chinese lab, Petrovsky says. And at that point, he adds, much of "the left-wing media decided they were going to paint the whole lab thing as a conspiracy theory to bring down Trump." When Petrovsky approached administrators of the preprint server bioRxiv, the paper was refused. BioRxiv staff replied that it would be more appropriately distributed after peer review, "which stunned us," Petrovksy says. "We thought the whole point of preprint was to get important information out quickly."

The paper was subsequently posted on a different preprint server called arXiv.org, based out of Cornell University.
...
Petrovsky describes himself as politically neutral, and according to sources, he is highly regarded in the vaccine world. Maria Elena Bottazzi, a microbiologist at Baylor College of Medicine, in Houston, says Petrovsky doesn't make scientific claims that aren't fully supported by evidence. And yet, simply following the science, Petrovsky suggests, had become too politically fraught. "We were dealing with global forces," he says, "that are way more powerful than a scientist trying to tell a science-based story."
...
BY LATE SPRING of 2020, scientists in the natural origins camp had taken the upper hand in shaping opinions. Only a few researchers have looked deeply into SARS-CoV-2?s origins, and according to the Broad Institute's Chan, the vast majority of those who did not investigate the question simply accepted what they perceived to be the prevailing view.
...
In Australia, Petrovksy says he is trying to stay above the fray. He says he was warned to avoid speaking publicly about his modeling findings. "A lot of people advised us "even if it's good science, don't talk about it. It will have a negative impact on your vaccine development. You will get attacked; they will try to discredit you."
...
"If we are at the point where all science is politicized and no one cares about truth and only being politically correct, " he says, "we may as well give up and shut down and stop doing science."

https://undark.org/2021/03/17/lab-le...t-in-politics/
Click to expand...

Beijing’s useful idiots

Science journals have encouraged and enforced a false Covid narrative

BY IAN BIRRELL


Just over a year ago, I stumbled across an intriguing scientific paper. It suggested the pandemic that was ripping around the world was “uniquely adapted to infect humans”; it was “not typical of a normal zoonotic infection” since it first appeared with “exceptional” ability to enter human cells. The author of the paper, Nikolai Petrovsky, was frank about the disease when we spoke back then, saying its adaptability was either “a remarkable coincidence or a sign of human intervention”. He even broke the scientific omertà by daring to admit that “no one can say a laboratory leak is not a possibility”.

But even though Petrovsky has excellent credentials — professor of medicine at a prominent Australian university, author of more than 200 papers in scientific journals and founder of a company funded by the US government to develop new vaccine technologies — I was still anxious when my story went global. His original document had been posted on a pre-print site, so had not been peer reviewed, unlike if it had been published in a medical or scientific journal. These sorts of sites allow researchers to get findings out quickly. Petrovsky told me his first attempt to place these seismic findings was on BioRxiv, run by prominent New York laboratory. But it was rejected; eventually he succeeded on ArXiv, a rival server run by Cornell University. Last week, however, he told me this important origins modelling paper had finally been accepted by Nature Scientific Reports after “a harrowing 12 months of repeated reviews, rejections, appeals, re-reviews and finally now acceptance”.
...
Petrovsky has had to endure what he calls “the legitimacy” of his paper as a peer-reviewed publication being denied for a critical 12 months — and he is far from alone.“I have heard all too many tales from other academics who have been equally frustrated in getting their manuscripts dealing with research into the origins of the virus published,” he said.
...
Many scientists have been dismayed by their actions. “It is very important to talk about the scientific journals — I think they are partially responsible for the cover-up,” said Virginie Courtier-Orgogozo, a leading French evolutionary biologist and key member of the Paris Group of scientists challenging the established view on these issues. The rejection of the lab leak hypothesis, she argues, in many places was not due to Trump’s intervention but the result of “respectable scientific journals not accepting to discuss the matter”.

...
https://unherd.com/2021/06/beijings-useful-idiots/
 
Why Has "Ivermectin" Become a Dirty Word?
At the worst moment, Internet censorship has driven scientific debate itself underground
Matt Taibbi
17 hr ago


On December 8, 2020, when most of America was consumed with what The Guardian called Donald Trump’s “desperate, mendacious, frenzied and sometimes farcical” attempt to remain president, the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on the “Medical Response to Covid-19.” One of the witnesses, a pulmonologist named Dr. Pierre Kory, insisted he had great news.

“We have a solution to this crisis,” he said unequivocally. “There is a drug that is proving to have a miraculous impact.”

Kory was referring to an FDA-approved medicine called ivermectin. A genuine wonder drug in other realms, ivermectin has all but eliminated parasitic diseases like river blindness and elephantiasis, helping discoverer Satoshi Ōmura win the Nobel Prize in 2015. As far as its uses in the pandemic went, however, research was still scant. Could it really be a magic Covid-19 bullet?

Kory had been trying to make such a case, but complained to the Senate that public efforts had been stifled, because “every time we mention ivermectin, we get put in Facebook jail.” A Catch-22 seemed to be ensnaring science. With the world desperate for news about an unprecedented disaster, Silicon Valley had essentially decided to disallow discussion of a potential solution — disallow calls for more research and more study — because not enough research and study had been done. Once, people weren’t allowed to take drugs before they got FDA approval. Now, they can’t talk about them.

“I want to try to be respectful because I think the intention is correct,” Kory told the committee. “They want to cut down on misinformation, and many doctors are claiming X, Y, and Z work in this disease. The challenge is, you’re also silencing those of us who are expert, reasoned, researched, and extremely knowledgeable.”

Eight million people watched Kory say that on the C-SPAN video of the hearing posted to YouTube, but YouTube, in what appears to be a first, removed video of the hearing, as even Senate testimony was now deemed too dangerous for public consumption. YouTube later suspended the Wisconsin Senator who’d invited Kory to the hearing, and when Kory went on podcasts to tell his story, YouTube took down those videos, too. Kory was like a ghost who floated through the Internet, leaving suspensions and blackened warning screens everywhere he went.

One of the challenges of the pandemic period is the degree to which science has become intertwined with politics. Arguments about the efficacy of mask use or ventilators, or the viability of repurposed drugs like hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, or even the pandemic’s origins, were quashed from the jump in the American commercial press, which committed itself to a regime of simplified insta-takes made opposite to Donald Trump’s comments. With a few exceptions, Internet censors generally tracked with this conventional wisdom, which had the effect of moving conspiracy theories and real scientific debates alike far underground.

A consequence is that issues like the ivermectin question have ended up in the same public bucket as debates over foreign misinformation, hate speech, and even incitement. The same Republican Senator YouTube suspended for making statements in support of ivermectin, Ron Johnson, has also been denounced in the press for failing to call the January 6th riots an insurrection, resulting in headlines that blend the two putative offenses.

“You have these ideas about the need to censor hate speech, calls for violence, and falsity,” Kory says, “and they’ve put science on the same shelf.”...

Read more: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-has-ivermectin-become-a-dirty
 
Meet the Censored: Bret Weinstein
Canceled on campus for speaking his mind, he's now going through a sequel at the hands of Silicon Valley
Matt Taibbi
3 hr ago

On May 23, 2017, not so long ago in real time but seemingly an eternity given the extraordinary history we’ve lived through since, a group of 50-odd students at Evergreen State College arrived at the classroom of a biology professor named Bret Weinstein, demanding his resignation. He stepped into the hall to talk, believing he could work things out.

He was wrong. Weinstein’s offense had been to come to work during an event called the “Days of Absence,” in which white students, staff, and faculty were asked to stay home. This was an inverted version of a longstanding Evergreen event of the same name that, based on a Douglas Turner Ward play, invited students of color to stay home voluntarily, to underscore their value to the community. As he would later explain in the Wall Street Journal, Weinstein thought this was a different and more negative message, and refused to comply. When that group of 50 students he’d never met arrived at his door and accused him of being a racist, he assumed he could find common ground, especially when his own students (including students of color) spoke on his behalf.

“I was one of Evergreen’s most popular professors,” he later testified to the House of Representatives. “I had Evergreen’s version of tenure. Did they really think they could force my resignation based on a meritless accusation? They did think that, and they were right.”

Weinstein was a Bernie Sanders supporter who described his politics as unabashedly liberal, even leftist. Like many, he’d grown up steeped in the imagery of sixties protest culture, probably imagined himself on its side, and therefore thought he could find solidarity with protesters. He didn’t realize was that he was the canary in a coal mine for a new movement that understood free speech as a stalking horse for the exercise of institutional power. When Weinstein opened his mouth to defend himself, what the crowd heard was him attempting to exercise authority, and they exercised theirs back.

They’d won over Evergreen’s new president, George Bridges, who refused to intercede in Weinstein’s behalf and later even asked college police to stand down, when protesters began stopping traffic and searching cars for someone, presumably Weinstein. The police told Weinstein they couldn’t guarantee his safety, and ultimately he was, in fact, forced to resign.

Frequently portrayed as the involuntary protagonist of the first of a series of campus free speech crises, in fact Weinstein was one of the first to understand that a rollback of “free speech” in cases like his was incidental to the larger aims of the movement.

“What is occurring on college campuses is about power and control. Speech is impeded as a last resort,” he told the House Oversight Committee.

He described the new movement as like a cult, in which members sincerely believed they were acting to stop oppression, but leaders understood they were simply “turning the tables” on oppression. They were exercising authority to achieve what may be presented as social justice goals, while the actual end is the authority itself, with the teardown of due process and other protections a critical part of the picture. “This committee,” he said, “should take my tale as cautionary.”

Fast forward three years. Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have become prominent figures in independent media, co-hosting a popular podcast called DarkHorse. Identified in the New York Times as one of the main dramatis personae of the so-called “Intellectual Dark Web,” a group of heterodox intellectuals not aligned with the traditional right or left, he appeared for a time to find a home on YouTube. Maybe he would never go back to academia, but this seemed a more secure replacement. After all it’s one thing to be dependent on the whims of a college president or even a faculty board, but surely there’s safety in subscriber numbers?

Not so fast. As detailed in “Why Has ‘Ivermectin’ Become a Dirty Word?”, Weinstein is on the verge of becoming one of the more prominent casualties to a censorship movement that it’s hard not to see as part of a wider Evergreening of America. He and Heying’s two YouTube channels have been hit with multiple warnings for two brands of speech offenses, and are on the verge of having their business shut down entirely as a result (YouTube has a “three strikes and you’re out” policy). One offense involves interviews with the likes of Dr. Pierre Kory about the potential benefits of the repurposed drug ivermectin, and the other involves interviews with guests like Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology used in the Covid-19 vaccines. One video with Malone this week had 587,331 views before it was shut down...

Read more: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-bret-weinstein
 
Pursuing Truth in COVID Drug Treatment Amid a Censored Media Landscape
The death rate from COVID-19 is dramatically low at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston, TX compared to other hospitals across the nation and the world. Despite Dr. Joseph Varon's popularity on TV, news personalities avoid questions of why he's having success treating his patients. As it turns out, he's using drugs the WHO and CDC recommend against.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frwkkeH6mwM
 
Last edited:
Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...ing-Chinas-dirty-work-writes-IAN-BIRRELL.html


World's most famous medical journal The Lancet is accused of doing China's dirty work - by denouncing the Covid lab leak theory as a conspiracy, writes IAN BIRRELL
By Special Investigation By Ian Birrell For The Mail On Sunday
Published: 17:01 EDT, 26 June 2021 | Updated: 06:56 EDT, 27 June 2021

Earlier this year, the prominent German psychiatrist Thomas Schulze sent a proposal to Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of world-renowned medical journal The Lancet, suggesting they start a debate over the complicity of Chinese scientists in the persecution of Uighurs.

His idea arose amid alarm over repressive surveillance, garnering of genetic data, enforced sterilisation and organ harvesting of prisoners locked away in brutally repressive concentration camps.

'We believe that the human rights situation in China has become unbearable and of unprecedented scope that we cannot stay silent any longer and at least need to have an open discussion in the best academic tradition,' wrote Prof Schulze.

He knew The Lancet did not shy away from political controversy, having signed a statement published by the journal last year calling on Britain to end the 'torture and medical neglect' of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, held in prison over US extradition demands.

But he was staggered by the response from Horton who said he did not 'wish to do anything that might imperil' his editor in China.

'Publishing a call for a boycott might well make her situation untenable,' he wrote.

As Schulze says, this was 'clear admission of kowtowing' to Beijing.

'Scientific independence and freedom of speech are integral to Western society and influential journals should not be in situations that compromise their integrity.'

He is right. Yet few scientists dare voice criticism in public given the power of journals like The Lancet to make or break careers – despite many others sharing his alarm over its editor's seeming enthusiasm for the Chinese regime.

This 198-year-old journal is now at centre of growing global questions over the role of supposedly authoritative scientific media in appeasing China's Communist regime and stifling debate on suggestions that Covid could have leaked from a Wuhan lab.

And the heat is on Horton, a combative character who has edited The Lancet for 26 years. He has been prominent in the pandemic, lashing out at the British and US governments for policy failures, while defending China – even insisting it was unfair to blame it as the virus source or to hunt for Patient Zero.

At the core of the concern is possibly the most controversial article in any science journal since the pandemic's start: what The Lancet billed as a 'statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals and medical professionals of China' published last February....
 
They all must have gotten an A+ in Arrogance 101.

Steward | Definition of Steward by Merriam-Webster
Steward definition is - one employed in a large household or estate to manage domestic concerns (such as the supervision of servants, collection of rents, and keeping of accounts).


https://www.pnas.org/content/118/27/e2025764118

Stewardship of global collective behavior

Abstract

Collective behavior provides a framework for understanding how the actions and properties of groups emerge from the way individuals generate and share information. In humans, information flows were initially shaped by natural selection yet are increasingly structured by emerging communication technologies. Our larger, more complex social networks now transfer high-fidelity information over vast distances at low cost. The digital age and the rise of social media have accelerated changes to our social systems, with poorly understood functional consequences. This gap in our knowledge represents a principal challenge to scientific progress, democracy, and actions to address global crises. We argue that the study of collective behavior must rise to a “crisis discipline” just as medicine, conservation, and climate science have, with a focus on providing actionable insight to policymakers and regulators for the stewardship of social systems.

Joseph B. Bak-Coleman, Mark Alfano, Wolfram Barfuss, Carl T. Bergstrom, Miguel A. Centeno, Iain D. Couzin, Jonathan F. Donges, Mirta Galesic, Andrew S. Gersick, Jennifer Jacquet, Albert B. Kao, Rachel E. Moran, Pawel Romanczuk, Daniel I. Rubenstein, Kaia J. Tombak, Jay J. Van Bavel, Elke U. Weber
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2021, 118 (27) e2025764118; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2025764118
  • [SUP]a[/SUP]Center for an Informed Public, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195;
  • [SUP]b[/SUP]eScience Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195;
  • [SUP]c[/SUP]Ethics & Philosophy of Technology, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands;
  • [SUP]d[/SUP]Institute of Philosophy, Australian Catholic University, Banyo Queensland 4014, Australia;
  • [SUP]e[/SUP]Earth System Analysis, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Member of the Leibniz Association, 14473 Potsdam, Germany;
  • [SUP]f[/SUP]Tübingen AI Center, University of Tübingen, 72074 Tübingen, Germany;
  • [SUP]g[/SUP]Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195;
  • [SUP]h[/SUP]Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544;
  • [SUP]i[/SUP]Department of Collective Behaviour, Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, 78315 Radolfzell am Bodensee, Germany;
  • [SUP]j[/SUP]Centre for the Advanced Study of Collective Behaviour, University of Konstanz, 78464 Konstanz, Germany;
  • [SUP]k[/SUP]Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, 78464 Konstanz, Germany;
  • [SUP]l[/SUP]Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, 11419 Stockholm, Sweden;
  • [SUP]m[/SUP]Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501;
  • [SUP]n[/SUP]Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544;
  • [SUP]o[/SUP]Department of Environmental Studies, New York University, New York, NY 10012;
  • [SUP]p[/SUP]Institute for Theoretical Biology, Department of Biology, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, 10115 Berlin, Germany;
  • [SUP]q[/SUP]Department of Anthropology, Hunter College of the City University of New York, New York, NY 10065;
  • [SUP]r[/SUP]Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003;
  • [SUP]s[/SUP]Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, NY 10003;
  • [SUP]t[/SUP]Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544;
  • [SUP]u[/SUP]Andlinger Center for Energy and Environment, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
 
Here is a fascinating podcast, Trish Wood is Critical https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas...=1000531970083

(her website here), https://www.trishwoodpodcast.com/about .

"The man at the centre of the storm over COVID-19 treatment is still standing but just barely. Over a year in, Dr. Pierre Kory has learned that the best interest of the patient is no longer paramount and that science has been overtaken by cowardice and corruption."

She discusses censorship and mis/ disinformation campaigns with FLCCC founder Dr. Pierre Kory. This in depth two hour discussion offers sobering and up to date insights into the silencing of any debate from heterodoxy surrounding CoVid 19 treatment protocols and and vaccine toxicity. They discuss powerful agenda driven media, polarized and politicized science, manipulated studies used to sway public opinion, attacks on legacy repurposed drugs, and the discrediting of credible and previously respected scientists and doctors. It is well worth a listen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top