Visit our Re-post guidelines
On September 29th, YouTube announced a new "vaccine misinformation policy" on a blog post titled "Managing harmful vaccine content on YouTube," which was immediately followed by hundreds of mainstream news articles declaring this a major victory against so-called "anti-vaccine content."
The news cycle included further amplification of defamatory statements made by the foreign dark money group the Center for Countering Digital Hate against the so-called "disinformation dozen" -- a now fully debunked campaign of attack against 12 prominent health freedom advocates; an attack that Facebook itself described as based on a "faulty narrative" with "zero evidence," according to an August 18 statement made by Monika Bickert, Facebook's vice president of content policy.
YouTube's blog post opened up with the following revealing paragraph:
"YouTube doesn't allow content that poses a serious risk of egregious harm by spreading medical misinformation about currently administered vaccines that are approved and confirmed to be safe and effective by local health authorities and by the World Health Organization (WHO). This is limited to content that contradicts local health authorities' or the WHO's guidance on vaccine safety, efficacy, and ingredients."
Next, YouTube explained, "What this policy means for you [content creators]":
If you're posting content
Don't post content on YouTube if it includes harmful misinformation about currently approved and administered vaccines on any of the following:
- Vaccine safety: content alleging that vaccines cause chronic side effects, outside of rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities
- Efficacy of vaccines: content claiming that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease
- Ingredients in vaccines: content misrepresenting the substances contained in vaccines
Here are some examples of content that's not allowed on YouTube:
- Claims that vaccines cause chronic side effects such as:
- Other chronic side effects
- Claims that vaccines do not reduce risk of contracting illness
- Claims that vaccines contain substances that are not on the vaccine ingredient list, such as biological matter from fetuses (e.g. fetal tissue, fetal cell lines) or animal byproducts
- Claims that vaccines contain substances or devices meant to track or identify those who've received them
- Claims that vaccines alter a person's genetic makeup
- Claims that the MMR vaccine causes autism
- Claims that vaccines are part of a depopulation agenda
- Claims that the flu vaccine causes chronic side effects such as infertility
- Claims that the HPV vaccine causes chronic side effects such as paralysis
YouTube's Orwellian statements above represent highly concerning forms of state-sponsored misinformation and disinformation that claim to protect its users from the very acts they are imposing upon the public.
For example, if the only content allowed on its platform is that which reiterates or reifies the WHO's or CDC's claims that the COVID-19 vaccines are unequivocally and a priori "safe and effective," yet the U.S. government's own post-marketing surveillance system for vaccine harms -- the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which is notorious for not representing up to 99% of the actual adverse events the public is experiencing1 -- shows there have been over 15,000 deaths as a result of the vaccines thus far, then YouTube's policies and actions themselves constitute a form of "egregious harm" by actively participating in, along with the health authorities it references (e.g. WHO), the minimization and/or coverup of the true side effects of these experimental vaccines.
In essence, by witholding or suppressing information on, or discussion about, the vaccines' true risks, they are interfering with the mandatory medical ethical principle of informed consent, resulting in untold, but likely immense, harm to public health, civil liberties and human rights.
If the vaccines were, in fact, "effective," then why is there already a push for boosters? And why are the vaccinated getting "breakthrough" cases if the vaccines are truly "effective"? According to YouTube's new policies, simply asking these questions will get you deplatformed, and you and your content labeled as "dangerous" and harmful to the public.
YouTube's official position that the exercise of free speech and open discussion on topics of grave importance to human health, such as the nature, origin, or risks and benefits of treating COVID-19 with vaccines, are causing "egregious harm by spreading medical misinformation" is a boldface assault on the truth. And considering that YouTube is owned by Google's parent company Alphabet, Inc., which funds the WHO and the CDC, owns pharmaceutical and biomedical companies, and itself receives hundreds of millions of dollars from vaccine manufacturers like GlaxoSmithKline, their actions go beyond conflict of interest to collusion.
Perhaps even more concerning is what YouTube's new policy will do to hundreds of millions of users who face either censoring themselves or being entirely de-platformed. Millions who previously would have spoken up and out will now remain in silent complicity with an agenda deadset on covering up the harms being done by the COVID-19 vaccines, or covering up safer, natural alternatives. I cannot tell which is more egregious when it is all said and done: overt censorship or covert self-censorship?
Fundamentally, YouTube's latest decision is a declaration of war against the truth and the public's right to informed consent. But it will require the tacit consent and/or complicity of millions of users for them to be successful.
Will you remain or become part of the solution?
Sign up to be the first to know when our FREE SPEECH platform BE SOVEREIGN goes live soon HERE!