Denied due process.
Denied the asylum he was granted.
Denied the rule of law.
All to hold him in the UK for a show trial and effective death sentence in the US… for publishing the truth.
“It is time for the US government to end its prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing secrets. Publishing is not a crime” | Editors and publishers of @guardian @nytimes @el_pais @derspiegel @lemondefr #FreeAssangeNOW
The ongoing release of the “Twitter Files” has been a fascinating subplot to Elon Musk buying the social media giant.
Musk took over with the intention of making the company free speech friendly and has already made progress towards that goal.
But perhaps just as importantly, he’s been releasing information from inside the company showing how Twitter censored its users.
The first release of information uncovered an extremely concerning dynamic between Twitter and government.
READ: ELON MUSK, ‘TWITTER FILES’ DISMANTLE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DYNAMIC BETWEEN TWITTER, GOVERNMENT
Musk recently fired the company’s top lawyer, who had been surreptitiously vetting the documents as they were released.
READ: ELON MUSK FIRES TWITTER’S TOP LAWYER FOR INVOLVEMENT IN HIDING HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY
But the now-former employee wasn’t able to prevent the second batch of filesfrom hitting the internet Thursday night.
Independent journalist Bari Weiss posted a lengthy thread with internal screenshots. Her posts revealed how employees used specific policy actions to censor prominent users without their knowledge.
Fox host Dan Bongino is one such individual. He was placed on a “search blacklist,” designed to make it harder for users to find his account.
According to Weiss, the company also engaged in “visibility filtering.”
That meant internal policy teams would put notations on user accounts like “do not amplify.”
It also meant more direct blacklisting, described by Weiss as their ability to “block searches of individual users; to limit the scope of a particular tweet’s discoverability; to block select users’ posts from ever appearing on the ‘trending’ page; and from inclusion in hashtag searches.”
Several years ago, the company specifically denied that they limited account or post visibility.
Weiss quoted Vijaya Gadde, former Head of Legal Policy and Trust and Kayvon Beykpour, Head of Product, saying: “We do not shadow ban. And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology,” they added.
Turns out that was a complete lie.
Libs of TikTok was another frequent target, as an internal committee suspended her repeatedly despite no specific violations of company policy.
But that’s not remotely surprising, is it?
It’s long been apparent to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention that Twitter favors certain viewpoints over others.
The overwhelming majority of employee donations, nearly 100% in some cases, went to Democrats.
So they used their power and influence in one of the world’s most important companies to prioritize enforcing left wing ideology.
OutKick founder Clay Travis discussed the one-sided blacklisting with Sean Hannity.
The creation of so-called “trust and safety” teams were really a front to give cover to politically-motivated censorship.
Exposing absurd behavior of radical activist teachers, as Libs of TikTok did, could now be described as “dangerous.”
Twitter also enforced these policies to silence dissent against government-promoted COVID mandates.
Questioning the efficacy of masks or need for vaccine passports became grounds for suspensions or permanent bans.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an eminently qualified public health expert, was another target of Twitter shadow banning.
Credentials and accuracy are irrelevant; Bhattacharya ascribes to the wrong ideological viewpoint. The CDC director, Biden officials, and many other liberal “experts” were repeatedly wrong and spread disprovable disinformation.
That didn’t matter to Twitter, because they were on the left.
While the extent of the censorship at the company is unsurprising, it’s still shocking that it was so organized and consistent.
Everything people assumed Twitter was doing to help their political allies happened. They shadow banned people they disagreed with, and then lied about it in public. Repeatedly.
Seeing this released was unquestionably worth $44 billion. And it’s already been announced there’s a third part coming.
Get ready.
By JASON DEAREN and MICHAEL REZENDES
September 28, 2022
It was a frigid Sunday evening at the Catholic Newman Center in Salt Lake City when the priest warned parishioners who had gathered after Mass that their right to private confessions was in jeopardy.
A new law would break that sacred bond, the priest said, and directed the parishioners to sign a one-page form letter on their way out. “I/We Oppose HB90,” began the letter, stacked next to pre-addressed envelopes. “HB90 is an improper interference of the government into the practice of religion in Utah.”
In the following days of February 2020, Utah’s Catholic diocese, which oversees dozens of churches, says it collected some 9,000 signed letters from parishioners and sent them to state Rep. Angela Romero, a Democrat who had been working on the bill as part of her campaign against child sexual abuse. HB90 targeted Utah’s “clergy-penitent privilege,” a law similar to those in many states that exempts clergy of all denominations from the requirement to report child abuse if they learn about the crime in a confessional setting.
ADVERTISEMENT
Utah’s Catholic leaders had mobilized against HB90 arguing that it threatened the sacred privacy of confessions. More importantly, it met with disapproval from some members in the powerful Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known as the Mormon church, whose followers comprise the vast majority of the state Legislature. HB90 was dead on arrival.
In 33 states, clergy are exempt from any laws requiring professionals such as teachers, physicians and psychotherapists to report information about alleged child sexual abuse to police or child welfare officials if the church deems the information privileged.
This loophole has resulted in an unknown number of predators being allowed to continue abusing children for years despite having confessed the behavior to religious officials. In many of these cases, the privilege has been invoked to shield religious groups from civil and criminal liability after the abuse became known to civil authorities.
Over the past two decades state lawmakers like Romero have proposed more than 130 bills seeking to create or amend child sex abuse reporting laws, an Associated Press review found. All either targeted the loophole and failed to close it, or amended the mandatory reporting statute without touching the clergy privilege amid intense opposition from religious groups. The AP found that the Roman Catholic Church has used its well-funded lobbying infrastructure and deep influence among lawmakers in some states to protect the privilege, and that influential members of the Mormon church and Jehovah’s Witnesses have also worked in statehouses and courts to preserve it in areas where their membership is high.
In Maryland a successful campaign to defeat a proposal that would have closed the clergy-penitent loophole was led by a Catholic cardinal who would later be defrocked for sexually abusing children and adult seminarians.
In other states, such as California, Missouri and New Mexico, vociferous public and backroom opposition to bills aimed at closing the loophole from the Catholic and Mormon churches successfully derailed legislative reform efforts.
“They believe they’re on a divine mission that justifies keeping the name and the reputation of their institution pristine,” said David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, speaking of several religious groups. “So the leadership has a strong disincentive to involve the authorities, police or child protection people.”
ADVERTISEMENT
LOOPHOLE PROTECTS CHURCHES FROM SURVIVORS AND PROSECUTORS
Last month, an AP investigation found that a Mormon bishop in Arizona, at the direction of church leaders, failed to report a church member who had confessed that he sexually abused his 5-year-old daughter. The AP found that Rep. Merrill Nelson, a church lawyer and Utah Republican lawmaker, had advised the bishop not to report the abuse to civil authorities because of Arizona’s clergy privilege law, according to documents revealed in a lawsuit. That failure to report allowed the church member, the late Paul Adams, to repeatedly rape his two daughters and allegedly abuse one of his four sons for many years.
In response to the case, state Sen. Victoria Steele, a Democrat from Tucson, on three occasions proposed legislation to close the clergy reporting loophole in Arizona. Steele told the AP that key Mormon lawmakers including a former Republican state senator and judiciary committee chairmen thwarted her efforts before her proposals could be presented to the full Legislature.
“It’s difficult for me to tell this story without talking about the Mormons and their power in the Legislature,” Steele said. “What this boils down to is that the church is being given permission to protect the predators and the children be damned. … They are trying with all of their might to make sure this bill does not see the light of day.”
Latter-day Saints and Catholics hold a number of influential positions as leaders and committee chairmen in the Arizona Legislature, including the speaker of the House, and have been known to advance or block legislation in line with the church’s priorities and values.
In one high-profile example, two Republican legislators took a stand in 2019, refusing to vote for a budget until lawmakers passed a measure allowing past victims of child sexual abuse to sue churches or youth groups that turned a blind eye to the abuse. Legislative business ground to a halt for weeks amid fierce opposition from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Roman Catholic Church and insurers along with their allies in the Legislature, which finally approved the measure.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Adams case is not the only example of the privilege being invoked in cases where a clergy member’s failure to report led to prolonged abuse. In Montana, for example, a woman who was abused by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the mid-2000s won a $35 million jury verdict against the church for failing to report her abuse. But in 2020 the state Supreme Court reversed the judgment, ruling that church leaders were under no obligation to report, citing the state’s clergy-penitent privilege.
TOP HEADLINESRussia grinds on in eastern Ukraine; Bakhmut ‘destroyed’Soccer writer Grant Wahl dies at World Cup match in QatarSinema party switch highlights 2024 obstacles for DemocratsRural voters ‘in the trenches’ on climate, leery of Biden
The privilege can also be used to protect religious organizations from criminal liability. In 2013, a former Boise, Idaho, police officer turned himself in for abusing children, something he had reported to 15 members of the Mormon church, none of whom notified authorities. But prosecutors declined to file charges against the church because of Idaho’s clergy-penitent privilege law.
The Mormon church said in a written statement to the AP that a member who confesses child sex abuse “has come seeking an opportunity to reconcile with God and to seek forgiveness for their actions. … That confession is considered sacred, and in most states, is regarded as a protected religious conversation owned by the confessor.”
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops did not immediately return a request for comment about its campaigns against state bills seeking to do away with the clergy-penitent privilege.
But supporters of the clergy privilege say abolishing it will not make children safer. Some go so far as to say that the ability of abusers to report privately to clergy encourages them to confess and often leads to stopping the abuse.
“It’s considered essential to the exercise of religion to have a priest-penitent privilege that will allow people to to approach their clergy for the purpose of unburdening themselves, their mind, their soul … to seek peace and consolation with God as well as with their fellow beings,” Utah state Rep. Nelson told the AP. “Without that assurance of secrecy, troubled people will not confide in their clergy.”
Jean Hill, the government liaison for Utah’s Catholic Diocese who helped organize opposition to Romero’s bill, pointed to a single research paper to argue that laws that target privileged, confessional conversations in the context of child abuse have not increased reporting in those communities.
“When you take away every opportunity for people to get help, they go underground and the abuse continues,” Hill said.
But the authors of the study Hill cited, published in 2014, have cautioned about reaching such conclusions based on their research.
Frank Vandervort, a law professor at the University of Michigan, and his co-author, Vincent Palusci, a pediatrics professor at New York University, told the AP that the study was limited, partly because churches often wouldn’t give them access to data on clergy reporting.
“A single article should not be the basis for making policy decisions,” said Vandervort, lead author of the study. “It may be entirely the case that there’s no connection between the changing of the laws and the number of reports.”
PRIVILEGE NOT ‘CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED’
Efforts to rid state laws of the privilege have been successful in only a handful of states, including North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia. Records and interviews with lawmakers in the 33 states that still have the privilege show that intense opposition from powerful religious organizations is more often too much to overcome.
Former California state Sen. Jerry Hill said a bill he introduced in 2019 to require clergy members to report suspicion of child sex abuse or neglect by co-workers was killed after opposition from the Catholic and Mormon churches, as well as other religious groups.
“The opposition of the Catholic Church was instrumental in creating a lot of controversy around the bill and a lot of questions related to religious freedom,” Hill said. The Catholic Church made it clear it would sue if the bill passed, Hill said.
Michael Cassidy, a professor at Catholic-affiliated Boston College Law School and a former state prosecutor, said it’s not clear how a religious freedom case regarding the clergy privilege would turn out.
Some supporters believe the privilege is securely rooted in the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion. But Cassidy said “there is no firm precedent that says the clergy-penitent privilege is constitutionally required.”
“The Supreme Court has never held that,” Cassidy said.
He’s proposed a middle path: allow clergy to maintain the secrecy of the confessional but carve out an exception for “dangerous persons” including child sex abusers.
Often, legislative efforts to close the clergy loophole run up against lawmakers who are also church members, as well as intimidation from advocacy groups aligned with various religions. It’s a one-two punch that has killed many bills quietly before they are even introduced, and has led to the privilege loophole being deemed by child welfare advocates as a poison pill included in mandatory reporting bills, the AP’s review found.
In Utah, after religious officials publicly opposed her bill seeking to close the loophole, state Rep. Romero, a lifelong Catholic, received ominous voicemails and emails. Fearing for her staff’s safety, she reported some of them to state law enforcement.
“It’s utterly despicable that you think that this is all right,” said one anonymous caller claiming to represent a group called Young Americans for Liberty. “If you care to, return my message. If not, I’m going to call you every day until you do.”
The blowback also got personal: Devout Catholic members of Romero’s own family stopped talking to her. “They thought I was trying to attack the Catholic Church and get rid of confession, one of our sacraments,” Romero said. “That’s how it was presented to them.”
In 2003, as the Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal swept the nation, a bill seeking to rid Maryland of the privilege in child abuse cases evoked a strong rebuke from Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, then the powerful archbishop of the Diocese of Washington, D.C.
“If this bill were to pass, I shall instruct all priests in the Archdiocese of Washington who serve in Maryland to ignore it,” McCarrick wrote in a Catholic Standard column. “On this issue, I will gladly plead civil disobedience and willingly — if not gladly — go to jail.”
The bill withered under McCarrick’s attack and never emerged from committee. Similar legislation proposed in 2004 suffered the same fate. Today, the clergy-penitent privilege in Maryland remains intact, even though McCarrick has been defrocked for sex crimes.
Virginia updated its mandatory reporting law in 2006. While the bill started out with clergy among those listed as reporters with the privilege intact, they would be removed from the final bill. The privilege, oddly, was left in. The state went on in 2019 to add ministers, priests, rabbis and other religious officials to the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse, but again protected the clergy-penitent privilege.
State Del. Karrie Delaney, a Virginia Democrat who sponsored the bill in 2019 that added clergy to the list of mandated reporters, said that including language to close the privilege would have doomed the bill.
“We wanted to pass the bill,” Delaney said. “And we knew that not having that (exemption) in there would have drawn an enormous amount of resistance from particular faith communities that really would have put the bill in jeopardy.”
In heavily Catholic Pennsylvania, 40 bills have included changes in mandatory child sex abuse reporting laws over the past two decades. None of them has challenged the clergy-penitent privilege. That comes as no surprise to child sex abuse survivors and their advocates, who have seen the Catholic Church and its lobbyists spend millions in a battle in Pennsylvania over a proposed two-year legal window for survivors to file lawsuits against their alleged abusers.
In other states, legislators said they didn’t know clergy had a way around reporting abuse. After learning of the loophole from the AP, Vermont state Sen. Richard Sears, a Democrat, said he would introduce a bill in the next legislative session to try to close it. “I wasn’t even aware it existed,” Sears said.
In 2003, amid the uproar over the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandals, several states added clergy to their child sex abuse reporting laws, often with the exception for clergy who learn about child sex abuse during spiritual confessions.
That’s what happened in New Mexico.
With the privilege protected, the bill sailed easily through both houses and was even supported by The Archdiocese of Santa Fe, which was embroiled in its own church sexual abuse scandal.
Since then, there have been several bills introduced in the New Mexico Legislature aimed at clarifying language in the reporting law. Only one would have eliminated the clergy-penitent privilege. It died in committee.
“We have repeatedly asked the Legislature to strengthen reporting requirements in schools and religious institutions,” state Attorney General Hector Balderas told the AP. He said unreported child abuse is a major problem “resulting in tremendous amounts of trauma.”
___
Associated Press writers Kim Chandler in Montgomery, Alabama; Becky Bohrer in Juneau, Alaska; Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas; Sophie Austin in Sacramento, California; Jim Anderson in Denver, Colorado; Randall Chase in Dover, Delaware; Brendan Farrington in Tallahassee, Florida; Sudhin Thanawala in Atlanta; Keith Ridler in Boise, Idaho; John O’Connor in Springfield, Illinois; Dylan Lovan in Louisville, Kentucky; Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; David Sharp in Portland, Maine; Brian Witte in Annapolis, Maryland; Steve LeBlanc in Boston; Joey Cappelletti in Lansing, Michigan; Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis; Summer Ballentine in Jefferson City, Missouri; Amy Hanson in Helena, Montana; Gabe Stern in Carson City, Nevada; Susan Montoya Bryan in Albuquerque, New Mexico; James MacPherson in Bismarck, North Dakota; Andrew Welsh-Huggins in Columbus, Ohio: Andrew Selsky in Salem, Oregon; Mark Scolforo in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Sam Metz in Salt Lake City; Wilson Ring in Montpelier, Vermont; Sarah Rankin in Richmond, Virginia; Rachel La Corte in Olympia, Washington; and Todd Richmond in Madison, Wisconsin, contributed to this report.
___
Follow Jason Dearen and Michael Rezendes on Twitter at @jhdearen and @MikeRezendes. Contact AP’s global investigative team at Investigative@ap.org or https://www.ap.org/tips/.
___
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
AP NEWS
DOWNLOAD AP NEWS
Connect with the definitive source for global and local news
MORE FROM AP
FOLLOW AP
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
All contents © copyright 2022 The Associated Press.All rights reserved.
By Jeff Charles | 7:39 PM on December 09, 2022
AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura
Elon Musk has released the third installment of “The Twitter Files,” detailing the decision to ban former President Donald Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Only a day after the company dropped the second installment related to the company’s content moderation practices, the company is now divulging the forces surrounding the decision to remove the former president from the platform.
What is noteworthy about this release is that it also discusses Twitter’s collaboration with the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) when it comes to moderating the platform. Journalist Matt Taibbi, who released the first part of the series, notes that “the internal communications at Twitter between January 6th-January 8th have clear historical import” and that the company’s employees “understood in the moment that it was a landmark moment in the annals of speech.”
5. Whatever your opinion on the decision to remove Trump that day, the internal communications at Twitter between January 6th-January 8th have clear historical import. Even Twitter’s employees understood in the moment it was a landmark moment in the annals of speech. pic.twitter.com/tQ01n58XFc
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
The journalist explains how Twitter executives “started processing new power” after they banned Trump and laid the groundwork for future decisions regarding the banning of presidents.” The employees said the Biden administration would “not be suspended by Twitter unless absolutely necessary.”
6. As soon as they finished banning Trump, Twitter execs started processing new power. They prepared to ban future presidents and White Houses – perhaps even Joe Biden. The “new administration,” says one exec, “will not be suspended by Twitter unless absolutely necessary.” pic.twitter.com/lr66YgDlGy
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
Twitter executives said they removed Trump because of the “context surrounding” the actions of Trump and his supporters throughout the 2020 election season.
7. Twitter executives removed Trump in part over what one executive called the “context surrounding”: actions by Trump and supporters “over the course of the election and frankly last 4+ years.” In the end, they looked at a broad picture. But that approach can cut both ways. pic.twitter.com/Trgvq5jmhS
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
Prior to the riot, the company employed a more “subjective moderation” approach.
9. Before J6, Twitter was a unique mix of automated, rules-based enforcement, and more subjective moderation by senior executives. As @BariWeissreported, the firm had a vast array of tools for manipulating visibility, most all of which were thrown at Trump (and others) pre-J6.
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
Taibbi notes that after the riot, communications on Slack showed Twitter executives “getting a kick out of intensified relationships with federal agencies.”
The journalist goes on to discuss a Slack channel in which Twitter would converse about “election-related removals,” particularly related to “ accounts, which are called “VITs,” or “Very Important Tweeters.” He wrote:
On October 8th, 2020, executives opened a channel called “us2020_xfn_enforcement.” Through J6, this would be home for discussions about election-related removals, especially ones that involved “high-profile” accounts (often called “VITs” or “Very Important Tweeters”).
14. On October 8th, 2020, executives opened a channel called “us2020_xfn_enforcement.” Through J6, this would be home for discussions about election-related removals, especially ones that involved “high-profile” accounts (often called “VITs” or “Very Important Tweeters”). pic.twitter.com/xH29h4cYt9
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
The smaller group consisting of former CEO Jack Dorsey, former head of legal, policy, and trust Vijaya Gadde, and former cybersecurity head Yoel Roth, were a “high-speed Supreme Court of moderation,” according to Taibbi. They made content moderation decisions “on the fly, often in minutes and based on guesses, gut calls, even Google searches, even in cases involving the President.”
It appears these individuals did not put much thought into decisions to ban, or otherwise punish, accounts tweeting views with which they disagreed.
16. The latter group were a high-speed Supreme Court of moderation, issuing content rulings on the fly, often in minutes and based on guesses, gut calls, even Google searches, even in cases involving the President. pic.twitter.com/5ihsPCVo62
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
Meanwhile, these executives were “clearly liasing” with federal agencies regarding the moderation of content related to the 2020 election.
17. During this time, executives were also clearly liaising with federal enforcement and intelligence agencies about moderation of election-related content. While we’re still at the start of reviewing the #TwitterFiles, we’re finding out more about these interactions every day.
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
In fact, Roth met weekly with officials from the FBI and DHS, and also the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
This post about the Hunter Biden laptop situation shows that Roth not only met weekly with the FBI and DHS, but with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI):
20. This post about the Hunter Biden laptop situation shows that Roth not only met weekly with the FBI and DHS, but with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI): pic.twitter.com/s5IiUjQqIY
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
In a report to these three agencies, Roth wrote:
We blocked the NYP story, then we unblocked it (but said the opposite) … and now we’re in a messy situation where our policy is in shambles, comms is angry, reporters think we’re idiots, and we’re refactoring an exceedingly complex policy 18 days out from the election.
21. Roth’s report to FBI/DHS/DNI is almost farcical in its self-flagellating tone:
“We blocked the NYP story, then unblocked it (but said the opposite)… comms is angry, reporters think we’re idiots… in short, FML” (fuck my life). pic.twitter.com/sTaWglhaJt— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
The FBI even sent Twitter reports highlighting certain tweets, one of which involved Indiana Councilor and Republican named John Basham in which he said: “Between 2% and 25% of Ballots by Mail are Being Rejected for Errors.”
24. Here, the FBI sends reports about a pair of tweets, the second of which involves a former Tippecanoe County, Indiana Councilor and Republican named @JohnBasham claiming “Between 2% and 25% of Ballots by Mail are Being Rejected for Errors.” pic.twitter.com/KtigHOiEwF
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 10, 2022
Twitter decided that these tweets were “proven to be false” and that one of them was “no vio on numerous occasions.”
25. The FBI-flagged tweet then got circulated in the enforcement Slack. Twitter cited Politifact to say the first story was “proven to be false,” then noted the second was already deemed “no vio on numerous occasions.” pic.twitter.com/LyyZ1opWAh
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 10, 2022
What is also noteworthy is that the journalists did not “see one reference to moderation requests from the Trump campaign, the Trump White House, or Republicans generally.”
27. Examining the entire election enforcement Slack, we didn’t see one reference to moderation requests from the Trump campaign, the Trump White House, or Republicans generally. We looked. They may exist: we were told they do. However, they were absent here.
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 10, 2022
The company also prepared to put a “mail-in voting is safe” warning label on a tweet from Trump calling out a voting mishap in Ohio that involved mail-in ballots. They decided against it after realizing that “the events took place” which means the former president’s tweet was “factually accurate.”
35. In another example, Twitter employees prepare to slap a “mail-in voting is safe” warning label on a Trump tweet about a postal screwup in Ohio, before realizing “the events took place,” which meant the tweet was “factually accurate”: pic.twitter.com/4r6nJ3JDmY
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 10, 2022
Even more damning is that Trump was “visibility filtered” about a week before the election despite not appearing “to have a particular violation.” Employees worked quickly to ensure that any of Trump’s tweets could not be “replied to, shared, or liked.”
Taibbi indicated at the beginning of the thread that more drops would be coming on Saturday and Sunday further explaining the decision to ban Trump as well as other issues. Journalists Bari Weiss and Michael Shellenberger are expected to handle the next batch of information.
We produced this free documentary to alert the populace to the gruesome reality of child trafficking and predators in the USA. The footage provides a glimpse of our tailored operations and arrests, includes interviews with surviving victims and world experts on the subject, and exposes the history and methods predators use to groom and abuse children.
Click here to watch the full documentary
Share our free documentary, posts, and website resources to help us spread the word and raise awareness.
Guaranteed conversation starters! 100% of the proceeds support our mission.
Make a difference in your community and country.
Participate in local programs, elections, laws, funding, schools, prevention education, and events.
Explain what to watch out for. Listen.
Connect us to donors, District Attorneys, elected officials, media, and any businesses, groups, or entities willing to stand with us.
Demand harsher punishment for child predators, as well as laws that enforce justice and safeguard victims.
Get exclusive updates, must-know information, and tips to combat child abuse and trafficking.
Last but NOT least, pray for the victims, for our mission to safeguard them, and for the lid to be torn off this horrible secret of industrial scale harm to the most defenseless among us!
– V4CR Volunteer, Kansas
Be able to provide as many details as possible, including what you saw, the individuals involved, make/model of vehicle(s), license plate number, business name and/or location, date, time, and why it is suspicious.
You can also submit a tip to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at: 800-843-5678, or by reporting an incident on their Cyber Tip Line.
100% of the proceeds go to our mission.
– V4CR Volunteer, New Jersey
null
Choose your monthly donation amount and get access to exclusive, behind the scenes content as well as our Discord server.
Each contribution furthers our mission of eradicating child trafficking in the USA.
All donations are tax deductible
Tax ID: 82-1243908
NameEmail*
Sign up for our email list for updates, promotions, and more.SEND
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
• Click here for educational resources and tools
• Click here to report a missing child
• Click here for the Law Enforcement Official Request Form
Phone: 520-210-7499 Email: info@Vets4ChildRescue.org
Veterans For Child Rescue (V4CR) is a nonprofit dedicated to exposing the epidemic of child trafficking in the USA, rescuing victims, and putting predators behind bars.
Tax ID: 82-1243908
Every contribution furthers our mission of eradicating child trafficking in the USA
• Text V4CR1 to 44321
• Mail Donations to: Veterans For Child Rescue, Inc.
7320 N La Cholla Blvd., Suite 154-302 Tucson, AZ 85741
–
A shocking documentary exposing child trafficking and predators in the USA
–
Sign up for exclusive, must-have information and tips to protect children
–
Copyright © 2021 Veterans For Child Rescue – All Rights Reserved.
October 2022
It would seem that one of the most uniting causes in the world would be to protect children. Specifically: children who are being trafficked, exploited, and abused sexually, physically, mentally, and emotionally.
A recent increase in awareness about the prevalence of child trafficking has led to a concerning counter-movement by large, public platforms. There seems to be a concerted effort to squash the voices of organizations and individuals who are speaking out against child exploitation and sex trafficking.
If children are being trafficked in any significant quantities in our country, shouldn’t the public be made aware? Shouldn’t action be taken, policies changed, and justice served?
Or, what motive would there be to censor people who are raising awareness and demanding action?
Should Big Tech companies have the power to control what information or opinions citizens are allowed to speak about on public platforms?
Is this an intentional effort to suppress or censor this information from being shared with the public? Or are these large platforms simply guarding their users from misleading information?
It would seem that one of the most uniting causes in the world would be to protect children. Specifically: children who are being trafficked, exploited, and abused sexually, physically, mentally, and emotionally.A recent increase in awareness about the prevalence of child trafficking has led to a concerning counter-movement by large, public platforms. There seems to be a concerted effort to squash the voices of organizations and individuals who are speaking out against child exploitation and sex trafficking. If children are being trafficked in any significant quantities in our country, shouldn’t the public be made aware? Shouldn’t action be taken, policies changed, and justice served?Or, what motive would there be to censor people who are raising awareness and demanding action?Should Big Tech companies have the power to control what information or opinions citizens are allowed to speak about on public platforms?Is this an intentional effort to suppress or censor this information from being shared with the public? Or are these large platforms simply guarding their users from misleading information?Let’s discuss the facts.
What Is Child Sex Trafficking?According to the United States Department of Justice:“Child sex trafficking refers to the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a minor for the purpose of a commercial sex act.”According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC):“While any child can be targeted by a trafficker, research, data and survivor lived experience and expertise have revealed traffickers and buyers often target youth who lack strong support networks, have experienced violence in the past, are experiencing homelessness, or are marginalized by society. Traffickers are masters of manipulation and prey upon vulnerabilities using psychological pressure and intimidation to control and sexually exploit the child for their benefit.The issue of child sex trafficking is complex. Understanding the various forms of child sex trafficking and indicators can create opportunities for prevention, identification and response. Most importantly NCMEC embraces and encourages all efforts on this issue to be survivor-informed, child-centered, and trauma-informed. 
Below are some examples of child sex trafficking: Pimp-Controlled TraffickingChild is trafficked by an unrelated individual, male or female, who often develops an intentional relationship with the child which is later used as leverage in the exploitation. Familial TraffickingChild is trafficked by a relative or a person who is perceived by the child to be a family member such as individuals referred to as “auntie” or “uncle” but are not directly related to the child. Gang-Controlled TraffickingChild is trafficked by a member of a gang or trafficked by the gang. Gangs leverage their organizational structure, violence, and local, national and international networks to instill fear and loyalty in the child victim. Buyer-Perpetrated TraffickingChild is being trafficked but does not have an identified trafficker. Instead, the buyer is directly exploiting the child’s vulnerabilities by offering money, food, and/or shelter in exchange for the sexual exploitation. Child sex trafficking can have devastating immediate and long-term consequences, including health impacts, psychological and physical trauma and even death.”
How Many Children Are Trafficked Every Year in the USA?No one knows the real numbers of trafficked children, because most of it is not reported.Child trafficking can happen to any child, regardless of race, gender, education, citizenship, and socio-economic status. Most people think of child trafficking as children bound and beaten in hidden bunkers in 3rd world countries. While that is a reality for many children around the world, most people don’t realize that child trafficking is rampant in the USA and that the victims and perpetrators may be right in front of them. The USA is one of the main destinations and sources of child trafficking.It’s estimated that hundreds of thousands of children go missing in the USA every year. Child Trafficking is estimated to be a $38-50 BILLION dollar a year criminal enterprise in the USA alone.
Why is Child Trafficking Censored on Social Media?
Despite surmounting evidence of child trafficking in all 50 states and every major city, large social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok seem to suppress, censor, and/or remove posts on the topic. In 2020, hashtags such as #SaveTheChildren and #SaveOurChildren were banned or censored on most big social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok. This seemed to be in response to the influx of people who were made aware about the massive scale of child trafficking in America and the amount of posts, questions, and concerns that ensued.While some theories about certain public figures being involved with child trafficking have yet to be proven, the evidence and prevalence of child trafficking in the USA are undeniable. The viral impact of these awareness campaigns arms the public with the information they need to safeguard children and help prevent this gruesome crime from thriving in their communities. It even resulted in hundreds of organized rallies and marches all over the USA, from Washington, to Tennessee, to Michigan to California. Increased public awareness also funds the nonprofit organizations who are taking action to protect and rescue children.Why would anyone want to sabotage efforts to raise awareness about child trafficking? As of the writing of this article, the following hashtags are censored – meaning, banned – on Instagram. #ChildTraffickingAwareness#ChildTrafficking#ChildSexTrafficking#EndChildTrafficking#ProtectChildren #ProtectOurChildren#ProtectTheChildren#SaveChildren #SaveOurChildren#SaveOurChildrenFromPedophiles#SaveTheChildren#StopChildTrafficking#StopChildAbuse
What’s even stranger is: hashtags about human trafficking, such as #HumanTrafficking / #EndHumanTrafficking / #StopHumanTrafficking hashtags are NOT censored.#ChildAbuse and #ChildAbuseMaterial are not banned. #StopChildAbuse is.It’s almost as if it’s an intentional effort to ignore, suppress, or deny this industrial scale harm to children!?Why The Censorship? Who Does It Benefit, and Who Is It Hurting?Big social platforms are known to remove or censor posts and hashtags, shadowban accounts, or even delete or permanently ban accounts who post about child trafficking. When the account creators appeal the platform’s decision, it often leads down an endless maze of unclear responses, such as “We removed this post because it violates our community guidelines.” More often than not, even if the post is factual and does not violate their posted community guidelines, the platform will still refuse to reinstate the content or accounts.As of the writing of this article, Veterans For Child Rescue and the founder, Craig “Sawman” Sawyer have been banned or deleted multiple times from the following platforms:5) Instagram2) Linkedin2) Twitter1) GoFundMe1) YouCaring Below are some examples of the recent Account Warnings and censorship on TikTok, as well as the responses to our appeals to restore the content.
Why Do Some Think Child Trafficking is a Conspiracy Theory?Some reasons may include: High level customers in elite positions of power actively work to enable this criminal industry and keep their behaviors a secret.We’re all familiar with the Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case. Why hasn’t the client list been released? Why have none of their clients been brought to trial? Why is there no justice for the countless victims? As the fastest growing and 2nd most profitable criminal enterprise in the world, there is big money protecting the secrecy of it. Most large online platforms suppress information about child trafficking awareness. They also suppress and censor the messaging and reach of organizations like Veterans For Child Rescue who are dedicated to countering child trafficking and making the USA a safe place for children. Some political and religious groups mixed some truth with some un-factual stories or exaggerations that resulted in misinformation. This has unfortunately caused some to categorize child trafficking as a theory or political talking point. There is a massive lack of public awareness and education on this matter. Most people don’t know what to look for or how to help, and therefore, many victims and situations are overlooked. The reality of this evil is simply too harsh for people to face. If they accept its existence, they’re left with 2 choices: do something, or do nothing. Unfortunately, many people choose to pretend it doesn’t exist so they do not feel responsible to take action. Survivors are often threatened, coerced, slandered, or shamed into silence. Child abuse and trafficking is difficult to prove, and even more difficult to prosecute. Many antagonists will use gaslighting tactics, call the victims liars, and cause them unwanted attention and negative press. This can cause a domino effect of traumatizing experiences and even put the victim in danger. Most child abusers and traffickers are not convicted. Despite solid evidence, many abusers go unpunished, or only serve light sentences.
What Can We Do to End Child Trafficking?1. Raise AwarenessAwareness reduces the predator’s ability to operate. Read: Internet Safety Tools How to Safeguard Children Signs of Child Trafficking How to Identify and Report a Victim What You Need to Know About Child Predators Watch: CONTRALAND: a shocking documentary exposing child trafficking and predators in the USA2. Get Involved in Your Community Attend local events, school board meetings, elections, and get to know who is running your town. Write your elected officials and demand harsher punishments for predators, laws to protect children, and support for victims and survivors. Volunteer at shelters, after school programs, and community events.3. Refer Connect Veterans For Child Rescue with donors, District Attorneys, elected officials, media, and any businesses, groups, or entities willing to stand with us.4. Shop & Support Purchase V4CR merchandise – guaranteed conversation starters! 100% of the proceeds support our mission. Shop on Smile.Amazon.com and choose “Veterans For Child Rescue” as your charity. Amazon will donate a percentage of your purchase to our cause.5. DonateCLICK HERE TO DONATE TO V4CR
, and abused sexually, physically, mentally, and emotionally.
A recent increase in awareness about the prevalence of child trafficking has led to a concerning counter-movement by large, public platforms. There seems to be a concerted effort to squash the voices of organizations and individuals who are speaking out against child exploitation and sex trafficking.
If children are being trafficked in any significant quantities in our country, shouldn’t the public be made aware? Shouldn’t action be taken, policies changed, and justice served?
Or, what motive would there be to censor people who are raising awareness and demanding action?
Should Big Tech companies have the power to control what information or opinions citizens are allowed to speak about on public platforms?
Is this an intentional effort to suppress or censor this information from being shared with the public? Or are these large platforms simply guarding their users from misleading information?
According to the United States Department of Justice:
“Child sex trafficking refers to the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a minor for the purpose of a commercial sex act.”
According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC):
“While any child can be targeted by a trafficker, research, data and survivor lived experience and expertise have revealed traffickers and buyers often target youth who lack strong support networks, have experienced violence in the past, are experiencing homelessness, or are marginalized by society. Traffickers are masters of manipulation and prey upon vulnerabilities using psychological pressure and intimidation to control and sexually exploit the child for their benefit.
The issue of child sex trafficking is complex. Understanding the various forms of child sex trafficking and indicators can create opportunities for prevention, identification and response. Most importantly NCMEC embraces and encourages all efforts on this issue to be survivor-informed, child-centered, and trauma-informed.
Below are some examples of child sex trafficking:
Child is trafficked by an unrelated individual, male or female, who often develops an intentional relationship with the child which is later used as leverage in the exploitation.
Child is trafficked by a relative or a person who is perceived by the child to be a family member such as individuals referred to as “auntie” or “uncle” but are not directly related to the child.
Child is trafficked by a member of a gang or trafficked by the gang. Gangs leverage their organizational structure, violence, and local, national and international networks to instill fear and loyalty in the child victim.
Child is being trafficked but does not have an identified trafficker. Instead, the buyer is directly exploiting the child’s vulnerabilities by offering money, food, and/or shelter in exchange for the sexual exploitation.
Child sex trafficking can have devastating immediate and long-term consequences, including health impacts, psychological and physical trauma and even death.”
Child trafficking can happen to any child, regardless of race, gender, education, citizenship, and socio-economic status. Most people think of child trafficking as children bound and beaten in hidden bunkers in 3rd world countries. While that is a reality for many children around the world, most people don’t realize that child trafficking is rampant in the USA and that the victims and perpetrators may be right in front of them.
The USA is one of the main destinations and sources of child trafficking.
It’s estimated that hundreds of thousands of children go missing in the USA every year.
Child Trafficking is estimated to be a $38-50 BILLION dollar a year criminal enterprise in the USA alone.
Despite surmounting evidence of child trafficking in all 50 states and every major city, large social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok seem to suppress, censor, and/or remove posts on the topic.
In 2020, hashtags such as #SaveTheChildren and #SaveOurChildren were banned or censored on most big social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok. This seemed to be in response to the influx of people who were made aware about the massive scale of child trafficking in America and the amount of posts, questions, and concerns that ensued.
While some theories about certain public figures being involved with child trafficking have yet to be proven, the evidence and prevalence of child trafficking in the USA are undeniable.
The viral impact of these awareness campaigns arms the public with the information they need to safeguard children and help prevent this gruesome crime from thriving in their communities. It even resulted in hundreds of organized rallies and marches all over the USA, from Washington, to Tennessee, to Michigan to California. Increased public awareness also funds the nonprofit organizations who are taking action to protect and rescue children.
Why would anyone want to sabotage efforts to raise awareness about child trafficking?
As of the writing of this article, the following hashtags are censored – meaning, banned – on Instagram.
It would seem that one of the most uniting causes in the world would be to protect children. Specifically: children who are being trafficked, exploited, and abused sexually, physically, mentally, and emotionally.A recent increase in awareness about the prevalence of child trafficking has led to a concerning counter-movement by large, public platforms. There seems to be a concerted effort to squash the voices of organizations and individuals who are speaking out against child exploitation and sex trafficking. If children are being trafficked in any significant quantities in our country, shouldn’t the public be made aware? Shouldn’t action be taken, policies changed, and justice served?Or, what motive would there be to censor people who are raising awareness and demanding action?Should Big Tech companies have the power to control what information or opinions citizens are allowed to speak about on public platforms?Is this an intentional effort to suppress or censor this information from being shared with the public? Or are these large platforms simply guarding their users from misleading information?Let’s discuss the facts.
According to the United States Department of Justice:“Child sex trafficking refers to the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a minor for the purpose of a commercial sex act.”According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC):“While any child can be targeted by a trafficker, research, data and survivor lived experience and expertise have revealed traffickers and buyers often target youth who lack strong support networks, have experienced violence in the past, are experiencing homelessness, or are marginalized by society. Traffickers are masters of manipulation and prey upon vulnerabilities using psychological pressure and intimidation to control and sexually exploit the child for their benefit.The issue of child sex trafficking is complex. Understanding the various forms of child sex trafficking and indicators can create opportunities for prevention, identification and response. Most importantly NCMEC embraces and encourages all efforts on this issue to be survivor-informed, child-centered, and trauma-informed. Below are some examples of child sex trafficking: Pimp-Controlled Trafficking Child is trafficked by an unrelated individual, male or female, who often develops an intentional relationship with the child which is later used as leverage in the exploitation. Familial Trafficking Child is trafficked by a relative or a person who is perceived by the child to be a family member such as individuals referred to as “auntie” or “uncle” but are not directly related to the child. Gang-Controlled Trafficking Child is trafficked by a member of a gang or trafficked by the gang. Gangs leverage their organizational structure, violence, and local, national and international networks to instill fear and loyalty in the child victim. Buyer-Perpetrated Trafficking Child is being trafficked but does not have an identified trafficker. Instead, the buyer is directly exploiting the child’s vulnerabilities by offering money, food, and/or shelter in exchange for the sexual exploitation. Child sex trafficking can have devastating immediate and long-term consequences, including health impacts, psychological and physical trauma and even death.”
No one knows the real numbers of trafficked children, because most of it is not reported.Child trafficking can happen to any child, regardless of race, gender, education, citizenship, and socio-economic status. Most people think of child trafficking as children bound and beaten in hidden bunkers in 3rd world countries. While that is a reality for many children around the world, most people don’t realize that child trafficking is rampant in the USA and that the victims and perpetrators may be right in front of them. The USA is one of the main destinations and sources of child trafficking.It’s estimated that hundreds of thousands of children go missing in the USA every year. Child Trafficking is estimated to be a $38-50 BILLION dollar a year criminal enterprise in the USA alone
Despite surmounting evidence of child trafficking in all 50 states and every major city, large social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok seem to suppress, censor, and/or remove posts on the topic. In 2020, hashtags such as #SaveTheChildren and #SaveOurChildren were banned or censored on most big social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok. This seemed to be in response to the influx of people who were made aware about the massive scale of child trafficking in America and the amount of posts, questions, and concerns that ensued.While some theories about certain public figures being involved with child trafficking have yet to be proven, the evidence and prevalence of child trafficking in the USA are undeniable. The viral impact of these awareness campaigns arms the public with the information they need to safeguard children and help prevent this gruesome crime from thriving in their communities. It even resulted in hundreds of organized rallies and marches all over the USA, from Washington, to Tennessee, to Michigan to California. Increased public awareness also funds the nonprofit organizations who are taking action to protect and rescue children.Why would anyone want to sabotage efforts to raise awareness about child trafficking? As of the writing of this article, the following hashtags are censored – meaning, banned – on Instagram. #ChildTraffickingAwareness#ChildTrafficking#ChildSexTrafficking#EndChildTrafficking#ProtectChildren #ProtectOurChildren#ProtectTheChildren#SaveChildren #SaveOurChildren#SaveOurChildrenFromPedophiles#SaveTheChildren#StopChildTrafficking#StopChildAbuseWhat’s even stranger is: hashtags about human trafficking, such as #HumanTrafficking / #EndHumanTrafficking / #StopHumanTrafficking hashtags are NOT censored.#ChildAbuse and #ChildAbuseMaterial are not banned. #StopChildAbuse is.It’s almost as if it’s an intentional effort to ignore, suppress, or deny this industrial scale harm to children!?Why The Censorship? Who Does It Benefit, and Who Is It Hurting?Big social platforms are known to remove or censor posts and hashtags, shadowban accounts, or even delete or permanently ban accounts who post about child trafficking. When the account creators appeal the platform’s decision, it often leads down an endless maze of unclear responses, such as “We removed this post because it violates our community guidelines.” More often than not, even if the post is factual and does not violate their posted community guidelines, the platform will still refuse to reinstate the content or accounts.As of the writing of this article, Veterans For Child Rescue and the founder, Craig “Sawman” Sawyer have been banned or deleted multiple times from the following platforms:5) Instagram2) Linkedin2) Twitter1) GoFundMe1) YouCaring Below are some examples of the recent Account Warnings and censorship on TikTok, as well as the responses to our appeals to restore the content.
Some reasons may include: High level customers in elite positions of power actively work to enable this criminal industry and keep their behaviors a secret.We’re all familiar with the Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case. Why hasn’t the client list been released? Why have none of their clients been brought to trial? Why is there no justice for the countless victims? As the fastest growing and 2nd most profitable criminal enterprise in the world, there is big money protecting the secrecy of it. Most large online platforms suppress information about child trafficking awareness. They also suppress and censor the messaging and reach of organizations like Veterans For Child Rescue who are dedicated to countering child trafficking and making the USA a safe place for children. Some political and religious groups mixed some truth with some un-factual stories or exaggerations that resulted in misinformation. This has unfortunately caused some to categorize child trafficking as a theory or political talking point. There is a massive lack of public awareness and education on this matter. Most people don’t know what to look for or how to help, and therefore, many victims and situations are overlooked. The reality of this evil is simply too harsh for people to face. If they accept its existence, they’re left with 2 choices: do something, or do nothing. Unfortunately, many people choose to pretend it doesn’t exist so they do not feel responsible to take action. Survivors are often threatened, coerced, slandered, or shamed into silence. Child abuse and trafficking is difficult to prove, and even more difficult to prosecute. Many antagonists will use gaslighting tactics, call the victims liars, and cause them unwanted attention and negative press. This can cause a domino effect of traumatizing experiences and even put the victim in danger. Most child abusers and traffickers are not convicted. Despite solid evidence, many abusers go unpunished, or only serve light sentences.
What Can We Do to End Child Trafficking?1. Raise AwarenessAwareness reduces the predator’s ability to operate. Read: Internet Safety Tools How to Safeguard Children Signs of Child Trafficking How to Identify and Report a Victim What You Need to Know About Child Predators Watch: CONTRALAND: a shocking documentary exposing child trafficking and predators in the USA2. Get Involved in Your Community Attend local events, school board meetings, elections, and get to know who is running your town. Write your elected officials and demand harsher punishments for predators, laws to protect children, and support for victims and survivors. Volunteer at shelters, after school programs, and community events.3. Refer Connect Veterans For Child Rescue with donors, District Attorneys, elected officials, media, and any businesses, groups, or entities willing to stand with us.4. Shop & Support Purchase V4CR merchandise – guaranteed conversation starters! 100% of the proceeds support our mission. Shop on Smile.Amazon.com and choose “Veterans For Child Rescue” as your charity. Amazon will donate a percentage of your purchase to our cause.
Pfizer’s antiviral COVID pill Paxlovid has no measurable benefits for adults age 40 to 65, according to a large study of the drug published Wednesday. The treatment—which has become the go-to COVID medication in the U.S. owing to the fact that it can be administered easily at home—was found to be effective for older people in the 109,000-patient Israeli study. Paxlovid was found to reduce hospitalizations for people age 65 and older by 75 percent when given shortly after infection—a finding consistent with earlier trial results that, in part, led to the Biden administration ordering more than $10 billion of the drug. But those age 40 to 65 in the study saw little or no benefit from Paxlovid, an analysis of their medical records revealed. Biden himself and his wife, Jill, were both given Paxlovid when they developed COVID.
WASHINGTON — Pfizer’s COVID-19 pill appears to provide little or no benefit for younger adults, while still reducing the risk of hospitalization and death for high-risk seniors, according to a large study published Wednesday.
The results from a 109,000-patient Israeli study are likely to renew questions about the U.S. government’s use of Paxlovid, which has become the go-to treatment for COVID-19 due to its at-home convenience. The Biden administration has spent more than $10 billion purchasing the drug and making it available at thousands of pharmacies through its test-and-treat initiative.
The researchers found that Paxlovid reduced hospitalizations among people 65 and older by roughly 75% when given shortly after infection. That’s consistent with earlier results used to authorize the drug in the U.S. and other nations.
But people between the ages of 40 and 65 saw no measurable benefit, according to the analysis of medical records.
The study has limitations due to its design, which compiled data from a large Israeli health system rather than enrolling patients in a randomized study with a control group — the gold standard for medical research.
The findings reflect the changing nature of the pandemic, in which the vast majority of people already have some protection against the virus due to vaccination or prior infection. For younger adults, in particular, that greatly reduces their risks of severe COVID-19 complications. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently estimated that 95% of Americans 16 and older have acquired some level of immunity against the virus.
CAN WE ERADICATE COVID?:
That’s a hard no, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/08/24/paxlovid-pfizer-covid-pill-benefits-adults/7889907001/#lbhla2jbn43rkjo9pfhttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/08/24/paxlovid-pfizer-covid-pill-benefits-adults/7889907001/#lbhla2jbn43rkjo9pf
The Trailblazing Patriot 