Whistleblower #1: “So this would be considered “vaccine hesitant” because they don’t want people to see someone had a bad effect. They’re not saying, “Don’t get the vaccine,” but they’re saying, “Look at all this negative stuff that happened after I got the vaccine.”
James: “Okay, they’re reporting facts, but truth doesn’t matter.”
Whistleblower #1: “No, because it doesn’t match the narrative. So, and the narrative being: Get the vaccine, the vaccine is good for you. Everyone should get it. And if you don’t, you will be singled out… as an enemy of society.
So the VAERS is a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. It looks like they’re measuring the comments where they’re mentioning, you know, that the patient died.”
James: “So is VAERS a CDC supported program?”
Whistleblower #1: “Yes, I think so. Really they support all of this because you know, they released the standards, the CDC themselves. And that’s really one of, one of the primary things that facebook is basing their policy off of is, well, if you looked at their public policy, it would be according to the authoritative health pages.”
James: “So they are open about the fact that they essentially coordinate with the CDC, here.”
Whistleblower #1: “Of course.”
James: “From the internal document, ‘Content pointing to the Vaccine Adverse Effects [Events] Reporting System data that suggest extreme risks without providing full context’ – full context… What do they mean by that?”
Whistleblower #1: “I think so, like in the previous comments, like she said, “Oh, during this study 653 people died” and then they don’t put the rest of the study in there. It’s like, okay, so you want me to write like a 10-page comment? What’s full context? Another ambiguous term. If they saw a study from someone they didn’t like, would they say, “Well, that’s not the full context because ABCDEFG.”
James: “Ultimately it seems like any facts that escape a particular narrative are omitted, demoted, deboosted, banned…”
Whistleblower #1: “Absolutely. Yes.”
James: “Considered dangerous to society.”
Whistleblower #1: “Suppressed in any way possible.”
James: “Where do you think this is headed? Does it get worse from here?”
Whistleblower #1: “Yes.”
James: “How so?”
Whistleblower #1: “I think people accept it and they see people like twitter, facebook, google, and stuff like that, they see that this is accepted by the public and then they go, that’s like a green light to be like, “Oh, well we can go ahead and do this more.” So not only are we going to start doing vaccines stuff, we’re going to spread it to everything. So we’re going to start saying, “Oh if you make a post that could put somebody in danger or it could compromise someone’s safety,” whatever that means, “then we’re going to go ahead and look at that and assign that a score of some unknown classifier.” Who knows what it could be. They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page before you even see it. And when you’re scrolling on your phone, I think they’re afraid of what people would conclude.”
James: “Tell me they don’t think about the underlying value.”
Whistleblower #1: “Yeah. Or what could, what it could turn into: the slippery slope.”
James: “They’re not even thinking about that.”
Whistleblower #1: “Nope.”
James: “And do you think there’s a lot of people inside facebook that agree with you or some percentage? What would you estimate that number of people to be?”
Whistleblower #1: “Yes. I would say at least 25%.”
James: “So you’re telling me, that 25% of the people there, agree that what they’re doing with this vaccine hesitancy coding and algorithms, is morally wrong?”
Whistleblower #1: “Yes. That would not surprise me at all. The policy is going to keep expanding until anything can violate it. What would happen if this was scaled larger and scaled to twitter and the internet as a whole is way worse than anything that could happen from me getting fired from my job. To me, that, it far outweighs that. Because it’s about more than me. It’s about really everyone in the world.”