My 'divisive' input on this: infowars, naturalnews, jordan peterson, ben shapiro, dave rubin, milo, lauren southern, candance owens, someblackguy, lee camp, brittany pettibone and such folks
..that google, twitter, facebook, cnn, huffpost, time, salon, buzzfeed, snopes, guardian, university professors, billionaire-funded ngos, BLM, antifa et al are hell-bent on exterminating,
have the principles discussed in this article at their core,
and it has everything to do with whether we focus on individuals and common rules, liberties for all,
or on group identities where we want to pick and choose and put aside basic principles based on our subjective emotions, blame everything on some generic group, punish people arbitrarily for the crimes of their ancestors' ruling elte oppressors, and pit people against each other with no recourse to peace.
The people being ad nauseum labeled as 'alt right', 'far right', 'nazis', 'racists', 'mysoginists', 'homophobes' etc (including blacks, women, gays) are imho far more likely to champion localism than the people calling for highly centralized, privatized, unaccountable tech giants and govts to censor them and eliminate their voice out of an artificially induced fake news and hate psychosis.
Two leading paediatricians in India have urged the World Health Organization (WHO) to urgently revise its manual on classification of Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI), warning that the new guidelines put children's life at risk.
This needs to be done "urgently in the interest of child safety," Doctors Jacob Puliyel at St Stephen's Hospital in Delhi, and Pathik Naik of Children Hospital in Surat, say in a report published in the prestigious journal 'F1000Research'
Under WHO's revised manual on AEFI, only those adverse reactions observed during clinical trials of a vaccine, should be classified as vaccine related. All new serious adverse reactions, including deaths seen during post-marketing of the vaccine should be considered as 'coincidental' or 'unclassifiable', and the vaccine should not be blamed.
The WHO has also changed the definition of "causal association," the doctors say. Under the revised guidelines, if there is an alternate explanation for the adverse event, or another factor is involved, causative association with vaccine should not be made.
"In other words, if after vaccination, a child with an underlying congenital heart disease develops cardiac failure, it would not be considered causally related to the vaccine."
The revised classification by WHO "is a major step backward for patient safety," the authors say, adding, "This could embolden vaccine manufacturers to be more reckless with regard to adverse reactions."
Puliyel and Naik note that the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has documented many deaths in children with pre-existingheart diseaseafter they were administered the pentavalent vaccine (combined diphtheria, tetanus,pertussis, Hib, andhepatitis-Bvaccine).
Under WHO's new definition of causal association, these deaths would not be acknowledged as related to vaccination.
Both Sri Lanka and Vietnam governments withdrew the pentavalent vaccine, following the deaths of five children in Sri Lanka and 12 in Vietnam, soon after vaccination. But WHO investigating teams declared that the deaths were 'unlikely' to be related to vaccination, the report says.
The authors point out that a new study in India, showed that the switch fromDPT(diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) to pentavalent vaccine almost doubled the deaths following vaccination.
A large number of these deaths could have been avoided had the AEFI manual not been revised.
According to their report, the consequence of India adopting WHO's new classification can be seen from the causality assessment of 132 serious AEFI cases uploaded on the website of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Of the total AEFI cases, 54 babies died and 78 survived,
but not even one death was classified as vaccine-related. Nearly all the deaths were simply classified as unclassifiable or coincidental.
Vaccines are drugs used as a preventive measure, given to healthy persons. Adverse events following immunization must be monitored more carefully than other drugs, the authors note.
A credible immunization safety evaluation and monitoring system is essential for the success of immunization programmes.
Adverse reaction and deaths may not show up as significantly increased in small safety studies. However, records of all deaths and serious adverse events following vaccinations should be maintained and periodically reviewed for safety signals.
According to the authors, WHO's new AEFI classification scheme "that allows for an outright denial of any new causative association with vaccination" could fall foul of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Adverse reaction and deaths may not show up as significantly increased in small safety studies. However, records of all deaths and serious adverse events following vaccinations should be maintained and periodically reviewed for safety signals.
Paradoxically, the AEFI algorithm is said to be for vaccine safety," says Puliyel. "Perhaps we need a scheme for public safety rather than vaccine safety.
I'm seeing what these folks are saying since more than 10 years now. Consistent. Not haters, not evil, not shilling for big corporates. Opposed every war. Disagreeing with bad government policies whether its a Republican doing it or a Democrat.
Till some time back all these folks were called liberals / libertarians, and now they're called far-right extremists. What they're saying hasn't changed; what the mainstream is saying about them has. The people who justified countless wars are now telling us that these people who opposed all those wars are evil.
Oh, and no matter how desperately you try to convince me that there is no such thing as "mainstream", I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there IS a mainstream, there IS a collective that believes it knows better than anyone else and is in pole positions to override other people's opinions and push its own, and it can be recognised by the synchronicity, the moral policing, the sheer repeatedness in what its members do, say and omit. The other side, in comparison, is constantly disagreeing with each other and is never supporting forcing things on people.
This particular guy, Mike Adams, whose clips come in practically every alternative health documentary for his work on alternative cancer treatments and heavy metals detection and runs a certified lab specialising in the latter, at the same time opposes the mainstream climate change narrative AND promotes sustainable living, anti-pollution, renewable energy, anti-pesticides. So that tears apart the conventional climate change narrative for me, because I've been told that anybody who objects to climate change must be a shill for big oil or coal companies.
I don't have to agree with everything they say to respect them, and I'm not expecting them to be unbiased or objective : I know that's as irresponsible as expecting a perfect wife or husband or job. I'm a lot more comfortable knowing what the source's beliefs and worldviews are, so that I know where they're coming from when they report things.
So for some time, I beg you, please lower your guard and flirt a little with those you've been trained to see as your enemy. If nothing else, you should at least familiarise yourself with what the other side is thinking and talking about, instead of being blindingly ignorant of about 99% of it and imagining they're all just Trump worshippers and there's nothing more to them. Do you know anything at all about Count Dankula? Milo? Lauren Southern? Candance Owens? Jordan Peterson? Prager U? Ben Shapiro? Dave Rubin? PJ Watson? GamerGate? Ayan Ali Hirsi? Yasmine Mohammad? Lee Camp? Some Black Guy? Steven Crowder? Health Ranger? (some of these people hate Trump btw. But since they're anti-Hillary too they've been branded as right-wing just the same!)
If you've already been instructed by your most trusted "unbiased" sources to hate all these people who collectively don't make more than what a top CNN or BBC anchor would make (isn't that an oxymoron : an unbiased source being able to transfer a hatred into you? Are they truly unbiased then, or were they sneaking in their undeclared opinions under the guise of objectivity??) and most of whom have budgets much tinier than what CNN or BBS do, , have you bothered independently investigating what they themselves have to say?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: NaturalNews<> Date: Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 1:35 AM Subject: Facebook bans the Declaration of Independence as "hate speech"
Facebook bans the Declaration of Independence as "hate speech"
As further proof of the tech giants' war against America and the freedom to speak, Facebook banned a post containing actual text from the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
The tyranny, censorship and anti-American hatred of the left-wing tech corporations is now on full display. They truly despise America, and they openly seek to silence anyone who supports our shared history.
Transgenderism is Ideology NOT Science! (Dr. Leonard Sax Uncut) | Louder With Crowder -StevenCrowder, 2018-07-06
"2000+ years of men using differences between men and women to justify limiting opportunity for women. I get that. And so many of these modern social justice warriors feel that the only virtuous thing is to deny that there's any differences... the only way we're going to ensure equal opportunity for women is to insist that male and female are social constructs, people invent them, they can create them, change them any way they like, and that might fit a certain social justice warrior kind of worldview, but it happens to be false. It's not true."
"it seems as though a social agenda is driving in many ways science and medicine and not the other way around"
"20 years ago when a girl wanted to roll in the mud and wrestle a hog, that was fine. Now, the parents are asked, maybe your daughter is trans. Have you thought about transitioning her to the male role?"
"there's a lot of ways to be a boy or a girl. And the ironic results of social justice warriors is that ... they are ironically creating stereotypes. A girl who doesn't want to play with dolls, she must be trans : No she's not trans! There's more than one way to be a girl."
"it is asinine to me to argue that a child should be able to transition before they've reached the age of consent. So I can only consent sexually at 16. But I'm going to make a decision that permanently affects my sexual wellbeing and my sexual lifestyle by the time I'm 8 because chaz jennings had a show.."
.. and there's so much more on the core topic of transgenderism itself including how it can harm the natural expression of homosexuality, but these parts were important for me as they show the inter-connection from where the gender equality movement begins with noble intentions and how it then manifests into:
1. Scores of little children having irreversible harmful operations and dangerous chemicals done on them playing havoc with their bodies with the assumption that screwing up somebody's hormones, preventing the natural onset of puberty in a human being's body isn't going to have any effect on the rest of the health.,
2. In law and civil discourse where it's led to mass and arbitrary censorship regimes that are entirely subject to the whims of the people at the helm and follow no proper rules or structures and have no grievance redress mechanisms,
3. increased polarisation where anyone dissenting with the "noble" narratives is branded with some or the other "hatist" label, is painted by reputed institutions with large followings as a target for mob violence, and all chances for dialogue are shut down,
4. enforced speech laws that can send people to prison for not simply not saying the approved things,
5. and setting up of mechanisms, including all-encompassing digital kill-switches and AI programs that will attack whatever they're told to attack, for totalitarianism to come in and get entrenched, under the guise of social justice and declared noble intentions as any totalitarian in history ever has.
So here's what I'm seeing:
Extreme A: There are extreme differences and the twain shall never meet
Extreme B: There are absolutely no differences
Ideas emerging from the middle :
There are some differences and some similarities and some inter-changeabilities. Denying that those differences exist is as harmful to us as insisting that only the differences exist.
I'll put it in another way:
Insisting that there are no differences at all between men and women, harms women.