YouTube Censors Maiden Political Speech in Australia—Why? Challenge to the COVID-19 Narrative

An Australian’s politician’s maiden speech to Parliament was quickly taken down by YouTube, but the content has gone viral via Twitter and can be found on LinkedIn and other social media such as Rumble.

While on YouTube all sorts of content that could be considered censorable for violence, adult content and the like circulates with ease, newbie Liberal Democrat John Ruddick just found out what many in the media have known for quite a while now: speak out about COVID-19 and you will pay, one way or another.

Australia’s libertarians just got a healthy reminder as to why such a party even exists in the first place. The party paid in this case by having their member’s maiden speech removed from YouTube, but the great irony is that they’ll benefit with even more popularity because of YouTube’s decision.

Based out of New South Wales, Ruddick had been a member of the Australian Liberal party, which are center right in political positions, but he departed that mainstream party in 2021, in protest to that party’s position on COVID-19. Opting for a libertarian-minded party (Liberal Democrat), Ruddick, who launched a mortgage brokerage in 2020 called JR Mortgages, just learned how YouTube censorship works in the age of COVID-19.

In the speech, the libertarian-leaning politician blasted his government for extreme overreach, and although he raised four major critiques of his current governing class, it was his critique of COVID-19 that triggered the YouTube “rules” involving alleged misinformation.

Backed by an unfolding, dynamic and often irrational set of policies, instructions and guidelines, just one wrong word may trigger a YouTube algorithmic review. Based on what we have learned from the Twitter files (government agencies for example had and likely still do have backdoor access to flag certain content, for example), social media is anything but social, and for that matter, neutral.

So, what did Ruddick say that warrants such draconian action?
It all comes down to COVID-19 and the politician’s gall to express what more people by the day are thinking about but for the most part, dare not say.

With a death rate of 0.13% according to the politician, Ruddick committed a blasphemy by calling SARS-CoV-2 a bad flu. It’s not the flu, so technically, that’s misinformation.

The SARS-CoV-2 pathogen, although the case fatality rates now fall down to flu levels (or even lower in some cases), triggered the worst pandemic in a century. With nearly seven million deaths associated with this virus, we cannot conveniently put this pathogen in the influenza category. To start, these viruses are quite different.

This author suggests that for SARS-CoV-2, the evidence points to a human engineered pathogen that more than likely escaped inadvertently, via human error in the lab at Wuhan Institute of Virology. In a memo sent to us with the seal of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a US Marine Corps Major and Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellows DARPA wrote that SARS-CoV-2 is an American developed pathogen. But was it a forgery? It was sent to us via the controversial Project Veritas. We had serious doubts. So, I personally sent an email to DARPA, asking them to please verify the artifact was a forgery.

The DoD’s research agency Chief of Communications could not confirm nor deny the authenticity of the memo’s origins. Frankly, these agencies have policies in place to now share any information. So, why did the DARPA communications lead write back to us “The agency has never funded EcoHealth Alliance directly, nor indirectly as a subcontractor”?

The DARPA communication lead went out of her way with a startup media venture (TSN) to disassociate the DOD research unit from EcoHealth Alliance--known for its focus on coronavirus research; its relationship with Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID); along with the evidence suggesting that the nonprofit served as an intermediary to outsource gain-of-function research halted temporarily in the United States, over to the Wuhan lab.

Of course, we have known for a long while now that there is likely some form of cover up associated with SARS-CoV-2. We cannot be 100% certain. Hence, we cannot claim for certain, and this is why this piece is categorized as an opinion.

Ruddick does forcefully announce he has no intention of forgetting about COVID-19. Noting that other public health emergencies may follow, he calls for a Royal Commission to investigate government performance during COVID-19.

No, Ruddick does not just want to forget about COVID-19, sweeping this part of our history under the carpet, especially not in the case of Australia, a nation with a particularly authoritarian-leaning response. Australia’s response fell under the more extreme of categories, especially among Western cultures—leaning toward the zero-tolerance COVID policy invented in the People’s Republic of China.

The World Health Organization and China were quite cozy at the start of the pandemic, likely one reason why former President Donald Trump pulled American membership. This author didn’t agree at all with Trump’s approach, especially not at the onset of a pandemic, but maybe he knew something.

Reminding Australians that police and even their helicopters were used to enforce rigid pandemic lockdowns—for example, stopping people from going out and getting sunshine, exercise and the like--the evidence points to a significant overreach of government in Australia during COVID-19. Ruddick points to Sweden as a more rational place, where COVID-19 era policies were recommended but not enforced. Ruddick claimed that the Nordic country’s excess death rate is among the lowest. They listened to their people.

On mass COVID-19 vaccination, Ruddick claimed that the one-two pandemic punch Down Under included first, the lockdowns and second, the promise to lift those draconian measures with jabs from what the politician classifies as a rushed and novel class of product. It’s hard to disagree.

TrialSite was the first media to publish articles backed by various evidence suggesting that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine products were in fact, rushed---how could they not be, as they were accelerated under emergency conditions, as countermeasures in the first declared pandemic in a century.

Various potential shortcuts were taken, such as bypassing traditional pre-IND enabling studies as we discovered from European Medicines Agency documents. See “Did Pfizer Fail to Perform Industry Standard Animal Testing Prior to Initiation of mRNA Clinical Trials.”

And then there were the email leaks at EMA revealing concern of some key people there that the vaccines were being rushed. This author personally reviewed information in association with Brook Jackson’s lawsuit against Pfizer and the trial site network Ventavia—such quality mishaps would have shut down any normal study. And in fact, similar mishaps did spur a pause recently during Pfizer’s Phase 3 Lyme disease study.

Reviews of much of the academic and government data (with many selections published in TrialSite) point to the reality that the vaccine products did in fact, help reduce severe infection and death.

Unfortunately, readers and audiences have become incredibly polarized, with one major group not wanting to hear any criticism of the COVID-19 vaccines, and the other not believing that these products have helped at all. In this author’s opinion, both are wrong. Rarely in life are such complex matters so easily reduced to one or the other. It is a false dilemma, led by emotion, material interests and at this point, even ideology.

Regardless, the durability and breadth of the COVID-19 vaccines raised serious concern, meaning the overall effectiveness of these products became questionable to us by early 2021.

That’s why we are up to the fifth dose (third booster) in 2.5 years. No, it’s not correct to blame it on the dynamically mutating pathogen. Top virologists already were aware the virus would mutate like influenza mutates. The vaccines were not of the sterilizing type, meaning they could not effectively stop infection, and thus, forcefully control the spread, especially with the onset of Omicron which had evolved to more easily evade both vaccine and infection-induced antibodies.

The Australian politician pointed out in his now censored speech that most of his fellow Australians have had enough of the vaccines, and that mostly everyone knows someone that has experienced some kind of side effect. Pointing out that the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Australia’s drug and vaccine regulatory body, has received 137,000 adverse event reports, he emphasized that that is likely a severe undercount and that traditionally, only 137 adverse event reports could trigger a product recall, or at least a warning.

At TrialSite, we estimate that between half a million and a couple million people in the United States experienced some kind of material problem with the COVID-19 vaccines, leading to quality-of-life impact. With 270 million fully vaccinated with the two-dose series, that comes out to an injury rate of 0.185% to 0.74%. Regardless, this represents a lot of people that need help. This is why I formed a partnership with React19. I felt we had a duty to help. The vaccines in Australia and in the United States were in many cases, mandated as part of employment requirements, even if the vaccine didn’t stop the viral transmission. This represents an overreach of government, and Ruddick is correct to call for a Royal Commission to investigate the whole affair.

Regarding the TGA, Ruddick raised the specter of regulatory capture, charging that 97% of the agency’s budget comes from the pharmaceutical industry. A review of the TGA Cost Recovery and trade press suggests this claim is likely in the ballpark.

An Australian industry lobby, Medicines Australia, pushes for more direct government funding of TGA, given 93% is funded by industry, which isn’t happy about TGA price increases. Calling out conditions ripe for conflict of interest, how can we disagree: with at least 93% of that regulatory agency’s costs covered by industry.

Ruddick went on to the ultimate of taboo topics: Ivermectin. TrialSite methodically tracked ivermectin studies at the start of the pandemic, starting with the now famous article pointing to how the antiparasitic drug zapped SARS-CoV-2 in a cell culture in a lab environment. In fact, I can assure all that TSN is likely the reason why so many people learned about this drug so fast. At one point during the pandemic before we introduced the paywall, we had hundreds of thousands of people per day on some days reading about the unfolding ivermectin research that wasn’t covered anywhere else. Since then, lots of media, especially right-wing leading media and various Substack authors continuously evangelize the drug.

I personally interviewed physician-scientists all over the world, and even funded a documentary about the adoption of the drug early on in the pandemic in Peru. In Pierre Koy’s “The War on Ivermectin,” the co-founder of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance cites the TSN documentary but doesn’t spend much time about how he learned about the drug’s use around the world in the early parts of the pandemic. That of course, was TSN.

Back to Ruddick, who referred to the “wonder drug” that led to an ultimate Nobel Prize in 2015. Pointing to the fact that the drug has been prescribed 4 billion times, the Australian Liberal Democrat charged that industry seeking to monetize the pandemic shrewdly and methodically went to work pushing governments to denounce the product; branding it as only a horse dewormer and the like. We at TSN know a whole lot about this topic, producing hundreds of articles tracking studies while covering industry and government-led initiatives to discredit the drug, and the like.

We know that the World Health Organization directly censored out the ivermectin contribution to the Uttar Pradesh public health success the agency celebrated in their press release, “Uttar Pradesh Going the Last Mile to Stop COVID-19.”

Is ivermectin a miracle drug in the context of COVID-19? No, it is not. It is not a cure, nor can it consistently produce clinical results in the real world. But did it help a lot of people according to many studies and off label real world use? We have data suggesting that it most certainly did. It has been shown in the lab context to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen, and many dozens of studies demonstrate positive impact (of course some large prominent studies also evidence a lack of effect).

In Bangladesh, doctors such as Dr. Tarek Alom referred to the regimen of ivermectin, doxycycline and zinc as the “people’s drug.” But this was part of a specific regimen at a specific point in time. Evidence suggests that the ivermectin regimen struggled with the mutating SARS-CoV-2 pathogen, going from earlier strains to Delta and then to Omicron. Many reports reveal a mixed to negative track record with the drug’s use. But that doesn’t mean it hasn’t worked from time to time.

In the rich, developed world, targeted vaccines and engineered pharmaceuticals would be the answer—and that’s essentially what happened. But TSN documented what essentially amounted to a coordinated, orchestrated attempt by industry and government to smear the drug.

In Australia, as we reported, the TGA blocked general practitioners from even accessing the drug. This ironically, was recently lifted with the end of the public health emergency.

John Ruddick’s maiden speech may have been censored on YouTube, but the content is available elsewhere including Twitter. Listen to it for yourself. Whether you agree with part of it, all of it or none of it, is the answer to censor the material?

Is that how a society advances, by censoring, cancelling and erasing all opposition? What if a particular position is 80% correct? 50%, correct? 25%, correct? The biggest news media make mistakes all the time, and during COVID-19, as we called out on in responses to flagrant hit pieces, the most prominent media became convenient channels for government and industry—they directed the emergency countermeasure narratives for the masses.

Ironically, the act of censoring others leads to more curiosity, or fear, uncertainty and even anger, thus fueling more polarization and potentially, even forms of extremism. We observe this blossoming in places like Substack, where a complete lack of any standards and accountability essentially allows for a free-for-all that only further accelerates the mass dissemination of misinformation.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/youtube-censors-maiden-political-speech-in-australiawhy-challenge-the-covid-19-narrative-8f62bb12

*************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************************