Cure for Covid Censors

From SaveTheWorld - a project of The Partnership Machine, Inc. (Sponsor: Family Music Center)

Revision as of 02:56, 8 August 2021 by DaveLeach (talk | contribs) (Iowa Law)

Forum (Articles) Offer Partners Rules Tips SaveTheWorld:FAQ Begin! Donate

Featured below: "Sincerely Held Religious Objection" to wearing masks & "social distancing"


     This article was started by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC).
     Please interact! To interact with any particular point made here, simply click "edit", then right after that point, type four dashes (to create a horizontal line), hit "enter" to start on the next line typing your response, then close with four tildes which will leave your real name, time etc. (after you "request account" and "log in"); then on the last line, four more dashes.
     To vote, Like, rate, argue, change your past comment, add a section with a heading that appears in the Table of Contents, start a new article, use colors, write in Greek, etc. find suggestions and codes at Begin!


Is there any website in the world where doctors on all sides of the covid controversy can interact with each other, balance one another, and correct each other, without fear of censorship?

Isn't that the real covid threat? We are told to "trust the science". But where can we find all the science? Half of it is censored.

Tell your governor to base emergency mandates on ALL the science, by establishing a website where experts on all sides of any controversy can interact with each other without fear of censorship, and making that knowledge base the basis for emergency mandates.

Any state governor could successfully establish a website able to bypass the media censors. A governor's covid policies concern enough people to create a readership justifying world experts taking the time to submit and interact, and news reporters covering the site.

The website should invite the posting of all evidence, with a rank boost for experts who address counter claims, who respond to questions from politicians, and to questions from voters who show, by submitting their questions as petitions, that their questions interest several voters.

Tell your governor to be the first to establish such a website, because so long as it remains the world’s only uncensored forum on the emergency, many around the world would come to the site, making your governor a world leader.

The threat is far greater than medical. Censorship, unchecked, of the scientific basis for restrictions on our freedoms, is a profound threat to all our freedoms. To the extent we lose freedom, health systems crumble, if health even still matters. To the extent mainstream and social media censorship is bypassed on any important matter, there is potential to profoundly neutralize censorship on all subjects.

Tell your governor to work with the legislature to embed such a forum in Emergency Powers law. A governor could do any of this without being required by law, but the project is safer with it in law because the governor may be replaced by one less interested in truth, and the governor is safer with it in law because the governor is less vulnerable to criticism for doing what the law requires, than for doing what the governor judges best.

Below: Several authorities that could and should establish such a site <> Why it would most effectively be done by any state governor, <> How to do it <> How this would bypass and neutralize censorship, beginning with covid and spreading to all subjects

Several authorities that could and should establish such a site

Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube have guranteed that THEY will never be such a place, by simply censoring reality they don't agree with! Up to and including a top doctor on President Trump's coronovirus team, Dr. Scott Atlas!

The CDC should do it, but its bureaucrats don't tolerate dissent even from its own top advisors. The Federalist reports: "The Centers for Disease Control pulled a world-renowned expert off a vaccine safety advisory committee after he publicly disagreed with the agency’s pause of the Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccine....Harvard Medical School's Dr. Martin Kulldorff invented key parts of the U.S. vaccine safety system. But the CDC doesn't want his expertise on COVID vaccines." (On April 13, 2021.) A Harvard Medical School colleague called Kulldorff "an international expert in vaccine safety....He’s a pioneer.”

Another problem with the CDC is conflicts of interest. The CDC claims to have none, but it is supported by the CDC Foundation, to which companies which make much profit from CDC guidelines contribute.

Any hospital should do it, as part of its public relations office, to answer the puzzlement of patients who read the censored medical testimony and then wonder why the hospital is requiring masks for everyone, no questions allowed.

The U.S. President should do it, as the knowledge base for his emergency recommendations.

Any news organization should do it as the basis for its editorial recommendations. publishes "more than 32 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites." Doctors are even able to respond to each other, criticizing, correcting.

But there are six features of pubmed that lessen its usefulness as a public forum capable of countering the raw uneducated censorship of disfavored reality by major media:

(1) it is in technical medical language, much of which is unintelligible to medically untrained folk. When doctors are expert witnesses in court trials, they demonstrate their ability to explain in language clear to the uninitiated. But they don’t at A public website able to bypass censors needs to be in language understandable to politicians and voters.

(2) Most articles are not free, and are rather expensive to download.

(3) Because of #1 and 2, the general public doesn’t much go there; indeed has never heard of it. Could a governor make it the knowledge base for emergency powers rulings?

(4) It is limited to peer-reviewed articles. Publishers invite esteemed experts to review articles. (They are not paid, but they consider it an honor to be asked.) While this is a wonderful way to scrutinize claims before publication, the experience of Henning Bundgaard, et al. published in The Annals of Internal Medicine, Nov. 18. 2020, proves that even medical journals are not immune from political pressure.

(The study was ready for publication 6 months before, but journals wouldn't touch it, amid hints that it proved masks don't work. [It is "unethical" to announce publicly what research finds, before it is published in a peer-reviewed journal.] An article October 23 told how remarkable it was that such an important study - the first major direct measure of the effectiveness of mask wearing - could find no publishers in six months of a worldwide health emergency. That article must have shaken something loose, because three weeks later it was published. The study indeed seriously challenges the assumptions supporting public mask wearing. See details below, at The ONLY major Covid mask study.)

(5) The system is not set up so that non-doctors – not even lawmakers or governors – can ask specific questions of the expert authors featured there. Well, OK, email addresses are posted. But any correspondence is private, unable to add to public understanding; not to mention the problem in #1, that a politician would have to be able to understand an expert’s research in order to be able to ask an intelligent question about it.

(6) is a project of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fauci heads NIAID, one of 27 institutes that make up NIH. I’ve not seen any media statements of any nature about pubmed, which indicates they must have a pristine reputation. But considering how NIAID stands accused of funding outlawed covid creation in China, should we look into vested interests in other branches of NIH?

An emerging NIH scandal involves scrubbing from its website the funding through Dr. Fauci to the Wuhan institute in order to weaponize covid. The National Pulse reported on August 1, 2021:

"The National Institutes of Health database tracking U.S. taxpayer-backed research grants – including the controversial award from Mr. Anthony Fauci’s agency to the Wuhan Institute of Virology – can no longer be accessed. When searched, the database, which itemizes the billions of taxpayer-funded grants distributed by various National Institutes of Health (NIH) agencies, yields no results and prompts users with an error message. Among the agencies included in the registry is the Fauci-led National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which has come under scrutiny for funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology."

The article goes on to summarize archived versions of the information.

So the solution is for ANY hospital, governor, legislature, to simply create a website that invites the posting of all evidence, with a rank boost for those who address counter claims, and announce that knowledge base as what the organization draws upon for its policy decisions.

I would be glad to build that website myself, but who would find it? Without viewers, what expert witness would take the time to submit? It needs to be established by an authority whose policies concern enough people to create a readership justifying world experts taking the time to submit and interact, and news reporters covering the site.

Since the value contributed by the site would be interaction between competing views, I don't think relevant studies or articles should be posted by a webmaster, but should be posted by people able and willing to interact intelligently about them. Hopefully in a future emergency, copyrights on studies won't be an obstacle. For the current emergency, Public Health Emergency COVID-19 Initiative is a project to overcome copyright restrictions on medical information vital to understanding Covid.

Iowa Law

This review of Iowa Law regarding the lack of authority of city mayors to enforce Covid restrictions is from the August 31 newsletter of State Representative Sandy Salmon:

Several Iowa cities have announced citywide face mask mandates, among them Waterloo, Iowa City, and Des Moines. Below is a Q&A on what the current law says about mask requirements and the rights of the state, municipalities and citizens:

Can municipalities (cities, counties, etc.) require masks and impose a penalty for noncompliance? No, according to Attorney General Tom Miller. Iowa is under a public health disaster, as proclaimed by the Governor in consultation with the Iowa Department of Public Health (IDPH). Because of this declaration the Governor and IDPH have broad legal authority. The Governor can delegate powers to local authorities to address the current public health emergency, but the Governor can also choose not to delegate the authority. In this case, Governor Reynolds has not given local governments the authority to regulate mask wearing, and therefore they cannot require citizens to wear masks in the community. However, municipalities can require masks on their property and in their buildings. Examples could include: city council meetings, city office buildings, or a public library.

Can public schools require face masks be worn? Yes, public schools can require students to wear masks, even though the state Department of Education does not require it. Schools are given the choice to regulate face masks by teachers and students and to set standards for masks. The Department of Education has a list of concerns regarding health and safety, legal and training issues schools should be prepared to address if face masks are required.

Can private business mandate face masks? Yes, a private business can require persons entering the business wear a face mask and can also require employees to wear them. A person who refuses to wear a mask can be denied entry to the business and can face legal action if they refuse to leave when asked.

The Debate: Do face masks help reduce the spread of COVID-19 in a non-hospital or non-nursing home setting? Evidence exists on both sides of that debate, some demonstrating it is beneficial and other showing it makes no difference or is even harmful. It’s too long to discuss in this newsletter.

Conclusion: This is why at this point it is important to allow freedom for each person to decide this issue based on his own health and risk aversion. The state is not requiring it and local governments should not either. Mask mandates are both illegal (according to the Attorney General) and unenforceable. An unenforceable mandate like this breeds disrespect for the law. We seem to have some cities in Iowa with a positive case of “totalitarian fever”, anxious to regulate more of the lives of their citizens. This is the wrong direction. It breeds fear and distrust between people. It is what citizens hate from our governments. We should have more liberty, not less.

This is not to say government should not make recommendations based on what the science is showing. And it is also not saying people should not look out for and care for the health and safety of others and be encouraged to do so. But liberty means each person should be able to consider all these factors and decide this issue for themselves.

Even though there is a spike at this point in time of positive COVID cases in certain locales, we must keep in mind the big picture:

  • Remember our original goal under the public health disaster emergency proclamation was to keep our hospitals from being overwhelmed and we have achieved that.
  • Now that the virus has been introduced, it will always be with us. We will not be able to stop it.
  • It will work its way through the population, mask or no mask, and eventually we will achieve herd immunity.
  • Even though each death is very sad, we must remember that deaths from COVID are a small fraction of 1% of Iowa’s population.
  • Serious and deadly contagious diseases have been with us a very long time and we have never sought to mandate face masks for healthy people as a response. And we should not do so now