House votes to declassify info about origins of COVID-19
By LISA MASCARO
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted unanimously Friday to declassify U.S. intelligence information about the origins of COVID-19, a sweeping show of bipartisan support near the third anniversary of the start of the deadly pandemic.
The 419-0 vote was final congressional approval of the bill, sending it to President Joe Biden’s desk. It’s unclear whether the president will sign the measure into law, and the White House said the matter was under review. … If signed into law, the measure would require within 90 days the declassification of “any and all information relating to potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of the Coronavirus Disease.”
That includes information about research and other activities at the lab and whether any researchers grew ill.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
Folks like Siderio are killed by police at nearly double the rate each year as black people.
Dead Caucasians, however, do not score political points for perpetually angry left-wing bigots. The activists and media usually ignore their deaths because facts interrupt the outrage machine’s Big Lie that police are “systemically racist.”
Walter Wallace, for example, was a black Philadelphian killed by police 17 months ago after attacking them with a weapon. Following a domestic dispute call, Wallace rushed toward the police officers arriving at the scene. Backing away, the cops demanded he drop his weapon, yet he refused. Since police eventually killed Wallace, the incident made national news and led to hooligans rioting and looting in large cities.
For young Siderio, there was no outrage.
As for further particulars, police say he fired a gun at them while they sat in a car, injuring one officer. Police returned fire as Siderio, and a friend ran away. Like the Wallace case, police only used their guns because they felt threatened. Police officers — at least those I know — want to protect us.
Big Tech, as usual, is also culpable via its bigotry and biases.
Internet searches for the Wallace incident show his race in almost every news story; whereas, a search for Siderio rarely lists his race in headlines. Race is clearly only mentioned to vilify police or augment “systemic racism” claims for the New York Times and CNN’s ratings. This is why people enormously overestimate how many blacks are killed annually by U.S. police officers.
“This happened less than a mile from where I live, and I did not know about it until you emailed me,” a Philadelphia resident told me on Tuesday morning. “Thankfully, there was no looting, I guess. It seems more accurate information could destroy the Black Lives Matter and associated movements, which are mostly kept alive by ensuring we the people remain ignorant of truths.”
Kakistocracy: noun, government by the worst persons; a form of government in which the worst persons are in power.
The old saying goes that even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally. So you might think that during a 50-year political career, the odds would dictate that Joe Biden would, once in a blue moon, make a correct decision — just based on the odds. But you’d be mistaken. Biden has stumbled and bumbled from one disastrous decision to the next. Disastrous, that is, for America. Biden himself has prospered handsomely in spite of his glaring incompetence and corruption.
Biden’s long Senate career was based on being the credit card companies’ man in Washington. While crowing endlessly about the working class being “his people,” Biden sponsored bills allowing bank issuers to charge egregious interest rates and to make it harder for working men to escape the credit trap through bankruptcy.
When Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, he turned the confirmation of Clarence Thomas into a political smear campaign that descended into a degenerate three-ring circus. In his first campaign for president, he failed to garner a single percentage point before having to withdraw when confronted with his past lies and blatant plagiarism. He literally stole a speech detailing a British politician’s life story. He ran again in 2008 but again failed to reach even one percent of the vote.
By the time he ran for president again in 2020 he was a spent husk of his former corrupt and incompetent self, delivering asinine performances in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. When the Democrat establishment propped him up to once again stop Bernie Sanders, Biden was set up for the strangest presidential campaign in modern history. While Donald Trump barnstormed the nation with packed, enthusiastic rallies, Biden cowered in his basement, occasionally venturing out to speak with a few dozen voters sitting in circles drawn on the floor.
For his vice presidential pick, he chose — if you can believe it — an even more buffoonish candidate than himself.
Had it not been for Mark Zuckerberg buying and staffing government election offices in swing states, and the media and Big Tech’s censorship of the Biden family’s corruption, Biden would now be enjoying his dotage in Delaware, creeping on unsuspecting children with yarns of Corn Pop and South African arrests.
Instead, the man with one of the most astonishing records of abject failure in Washington was installed in the White House, and he has remained true to form. As one of a hundred senators and then as vice president, there was a limit to how much damage he could do. But as president, the shackles have been removed.
His first agenda item was to throttle our oil and gas sector, offshoring tens of thousands of good paying jobs to Russia and the Middle East — along with our energy independence. He threw open our southern border and encouraged virtually unlimited illegal immigration — during a global pandemic.
Biden’s “defund the police” rhetoric delivered us soaring violent crime in Democrat-run cities, while he sicced federal law enforcement on parents who object too strenuously to their children being indoctrinated with anti-White racism and LGBTQIA+ ideology.
It can truly be said that as president, Biden’s record of failure remains unblemished.
But now comes what may be the capstone on Biden’s long history of buffoonery and corruption. In Ukraine, we have an armed conflict that threatens to plunge the world into an economic depression and raises the specter of nuclear war. Not only did Biden set the stage for this calamity when, as vice president, he was in charge of Ukraine policy and led Kiev to believe that NATO membership was in Ukraine’s future, but on the eve of the Russian invasion, he refused to admit that it was not. Then Biden all but admitted to Vladimir Putin — on live TV, no less — that NATO would not defend Ukraine if Russia chose to invade.
In the aftermath of Russia’s invasion, Biden and his administration have crafted sanctions that seem almost designed to boomerang on America’s and Europe’s fragile post-pandemic economies, while forcing Russia into a deeper alliance with China.
With the U.S. over $31 trillion in debt, Biden seems totally oblivious to the perilous position of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency and the consequences should that privileged position end.
Economists predict that food and gasoline will cost the average U.S. household an additional $3,000 this year, and inflation threatens to push millions of lower-middle income-earners into abject poverty.
And bumbling, corrupt Joe Biden isn’t yet halfway through his first — and please God, last — term.
It’s The Biggest FDA Scandal In History: Interview With Whistleblower Linda Martin, Ph.D.
Got Science? Are you sure?
Dr. Brian Hooker invites some of the leading voices in science and medicine to break down the studies and weigh in on the controversies so the rest of us have an opportunity to understand the science that drives public health policy and medical progress. Watch at link Below:
CDC Has Not Been Transparent With the American Public on COVID
An article published this past weekend in The New York Times highlights a glaring problem with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its policy recommendations related to the pandemic during the past two years. The problem has to do with lack of transparency regarding hospitalizations for COVID-19 and the effectiveness of vaccinations for the illness.12 The Times article, written by Apoorva Mandavilli, starts out:
For more than a year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has collected data on hospitalizations for Covid-19 in the United States and broken it down by age, race and vaccination status. But it has not made most of the information public. When the C.D.C. published the first significant data on the effectiveness of boosters in adults younger than 65 two weeks ago, it left out the numbers for a huge portion of that population: 18- to 49-year-olds…13
The article continues:
Two full years into the pandemic, the agency leading the country’s response to the public health emergency has published only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected, several people familiar with the data said.
The CDC has shared only a “tiny fraction” of its COVID data with the American public?
Former CDC Director Thinks Agency Should Let COVID Data Speak for Itself
According to CDC spokesperson, Kristen Nordlund, one of the reasons for the lack of data transparency is because “basically, at the end of the day, [the data is] not yet ready for prime time,” noting that the CDC’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.”1 In an interview with Fox News, former CDC director Robert Redfield, MD confirmed this view, saying…
One of the things is that CDC has a tendency to look at data and make sure that they believe that data is accurate. They call it curating the data. So very frequently the data is out of sync to be able to be in real-time to respond.4
But Dr. Redfield suggested that he disagreed with this practice. He said that he believes whatever data the CDC collects should “absolutely get out there in real-time.” He added:
I think the best thing for CDC to do is to tell the American public the truth and let the data there. I’m sure the American public is intelligent enough to understand the explanations. I know there’s a concern that they have that the data may somehow be misinterpreted to determine the efficacy of the vaccines, rather than just tell people the truth.4
CDC Reluctance to Track COVID “Breakthrough Cases” Due to Fear of Contributing to Vaccine Hesitancy
Nordlund reportedly said that another reason for the CDC’s hesitancy to be more transparent was due to fear that its data might be misinterpreted–that information about the number of fully vaccinated people “breakthrough” SARS-CoV-2 infections, for example, could lead to concerns about the effectiveness of the COVID shots.12
Epidemiologist Jessica Malaty Rivera, MS, who was a member of the team that ran The COVID Tracking Project,5 dismissed the CDC worries about incomplete data being misinterpreted. She said, “We are at a much greater risk of misinterpreting the data with data vacuums, than sharing the data with proper science, communication and caveats.”
During the past two years, the CDC has frequently been criticized for its COVID and COVID vaccine data collection practices, its mixed and confusing messaging and a growing perception that the agency has not been fully transparent with the American public regarding the pandemic.678910111213141516
Perhaps one of the clearest examples of the CDC’s failure to provide timely and accurate COVID-related information is the agency’s inability or unwillingness to adequately track the number of cases in which fully vaccinated (and boosted) individuals have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Because of this, it is not known how many “breakthrough cases” there have been in the United States. Consequently, there is no way to know for sure how effective the COVID shots have been in preventing the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID illness.
This represents a huge and fundamental scientific knowledge gap underlying the primary tool the U.S. government has aggressively pushed on the American people to deal with COVID. But this is only part of the problem. That other part has to do with the lack of reliable information regarding the number of people in the U.S. who have been hospitalized with COVID.
In April 2021, the CDC arbitrarily decided to stop tracking coronavirus breakthrough cases so that it could focus on tracking only breakthrough cases that resulted in hospitalization or death. The assumption was that this major change in policy would allow the agency to more accurately gauge the number of vaccinated people being hospitalized for COVID and, by extension, the overall number of people hospitalized for the illness.12
CDC System for Tracking COVID Hospitalizations in Need of Overhaul
But it has recently come to light that the system the CDC has been using to count COVID hospitalizations is deeply flawed. According to an article in Politico on Feb. 7, 2021 titled “Biden officials trying to recalculate U.S. Covid-19 hospitalizations,” the U.S. government has established a task force to work with “hospitals nationwide to improve COVID-19 reporting.” The task force wants hospitals to report the number of patients who are hospitalized because they have COVID and separate those from the patients who are hospitalized for other reasons but test positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus after being admitted.1718
As reported by The Vaccine Reaction earlier this month:
What this suggests is that, in the past, U.S. hospitals have been counting people hospitalized for reasons other than COVID as COVID patients if they happened to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 after admission. This would have the effect of increasing hospital COVID case counts, making the effects of COVID on U.S. hospitals appear worse than they actually were. Remember all those media reports about how overwhelmed hospitals were with COVID patients? It now appears that at least some of that reporting may have been inaccurate, even grossly inaccurate.18
So not only do we not know how effective the COVID shots have been in real-world circumstances, we do not know how many vaccinated (or unvaccinated) people have been hospitalized for COVID–which means that we really do not know how many people have actually died of COVID, in general. It is no wonder the CDC has consistently found it so difficult to be forthcoming.
66% of self-defined “swing” voters in competitive districts believe that “Democrats in Congress have taken things too far in their pandemic response.”.
👆This is exactly why Democrats are suddenly lifting restrictions👆
White and Hispanic voters were in equal agreement.
80% of these same swing voters believe that “Democrats in Congress support defunding the police and taking more cops off of the street.”
78% of these swing voters believe that “Democrats in Congress have created a border crisis that allows illegal immigrants to enter the country without repercussions and grants them tax-payer funded benefits once here.”
61% of these swing district voters believe that “Democrats in Congress are spending money out of control,”
“Democrats are teaching kids as young as five Critical Race Theory, which teaches that America is a racist country and that white people are racist.”
👉The poll was conducted from mid-January to early February, had approximately 1,000 respondents and a 3.1% margin of error.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is concerned that Republican attacks on the Democrats’ handling of the COVID-19 pandemic have “alarming credibility,” according to a slide deck obtained by SFGATE.
The DCCC, which is the main campaign arm for House Democrats and is currently chaired by New York Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, worked with outside consulting groups to conduct an online poll of voters in the 60 most competitive House districts for the upcoming 2022 midterms. The poll was conducted from mid-January to early February, had approximately 1,000 respondents and a 3.1% margin of error.
Findings from the poll were presented to DCCC officials Thursday morning. One slide in the presentation, which was shared with SFGATE by someone who attended the presentation and was granted anonymity in accordance with Hearst’s ethics policy, states, “Many of the Republican attacks tested have alarming credibility,” including Republican attacks on COVID-19 policy. (The presentation does not clarify what it means by “credibility.”)
The poll found that that 57% of voters in competitive congressional districts agree with the statement, “Democrats in Congress have taken things too far in their pandemic response,” and 66% of self-defined “swing” voters in competitive districts agree with that statement. White and Hispanic voters in competitive districts were equally as likely to agree (59%), while Black voters (42%) and Asian voters (46%) disagreed with the statement. The poll also did not define what “taken things too far” means.
The DCCC found that critiques of COVID-19 restrictions were slightly less potent than other issues. In swing districts, 64% of voters agreed with the statement that “Democrats in Congress support defunding the police and taking more cops off of the street.” The internal poll found that 80% of self-defined swing voters in competitive districts agreed with the same statement. Politico previously reported on the DCCC warning about the effectiveness of what they refer to as conservative “culture war attacks.”
Sixty-two percent of voters in contested districts agreed with the statement, “Democrats in Congress have created a border crisis that allows illegal immigrants to enter the country without repercussions and grants them tax-payer funded benefits once here.” Seventy-eight percent of swing voters in those districts agreed.
Sixty-one percent of swing district voters agreed with the statements, “Democrats in Congress are spending money out of control,” and, “Democrats are teaching kids as young as five Critical Race Theory, which teaches that America is a racist country and that white people are racist.” And 59% agreed with the statement, “Democrats are too focused on pursuing an agenda that divides us and judging those who don’t see things their way.”
The slide deck provides a snapshot into some of Democrats’ strategies as their outlook for the 2022 midterms growsincreasinglygrim.
The DCCC presentation also contained a slide showing that the top two concerns of voters in competitive districts are inflation and health care, with the COVID-19 pandemic coming in third. Medicare/social security and climate change rounded out the top five. At the bottom of the list were voting rights, taxes and racial justice/equality.
Big Tech Censored Dozens of Doctors, More Than 800 Accounts for COVID-19 ‘Misinformation,’ Study Finds
Ailan Evans / @AilanHEvans / February 09, 2022
Twitter, Google, Google+, Gmail, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat are among the platforms arrayed on the screen of an Apple iPhone. Many of them have used their largely unregulated power to censor information they don’t approve of as “misinformation.” (Photo: Chesnot/Getty Images)
Major technology companies and social media platforms have removed, suppressed or flagged the accounts of more than 800 prominent individuals and organizations, including medical doctors, for COVID-19 “misinformation,” according to a new study from the Media Research Center.
The study focused on acts of censorship on major social media platforms and online services, including Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Ads, and TikTok.
Instances of censorship included Facebook’s decision to flag the British Medical Journal with a “fact check” and “missing context” label, reducing the visibility of a post, for a study delving into data-integrity issues with a Pfizer vaccine clinical trial.
Facebook also deleted the page of the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter led by dozens of medical professionals, including Dr. Jay Battacharya, a Stanford epidemiologist, and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a former employee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which advocated for less restrictive measures to address the dangers of COVID-19.
“Big Tech set up a system where you can’t disagree with ‘the science’ even though that’s the foundation of the scientific method,” Dan Gainor, MRC vice president of Free Speech America, told the Daily Caller National Foundation. “If doctors and academic journals can’t debate publicly, then it’s not science at all. It’s ‘religion.’”
Big Tech also scrubbed podcast host Joe Rogan’s interviews with scientists Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Robert Malone, the latter of whom was instrumental in pioneering mRNA technology. Twitter banned Malone from its platform permanently in late December over the virologist’s tweets questioning the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccine.
“We tallied 32 different doctors who were censored, including mRNA vaccine innovator Dr. Robert Malone,” Gainor said. “Censoring views of credentialed experts doesn’t ensure confidence in vaccines. It undermines faith in government COVID-19 strategies.“
In addition to medical doctors, the study examined instances in which members of Congress were censored by tech platforms.
These included an incident last August in which YouTube suspended Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for posting a video arguing that “cloth masks” are not effective against the coronavirus, a view later echoed by many prominent medical commentators. Twitter also flagged a tweet from Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., in which he wrote “studies show those with natural immunity from a prior infection are much less likely to contract and spread COVID than those who only have vaccine-induced immunity.”
The study also examined Big Tech censorship of prominent media personalities, such as Rogan, Tucker Carlson, and Dan Bongino.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, contact email@example.com.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>
A massive freedom convoy was organized on Friday outside parliament in Helsinki, Finland demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s government, cutting 50% of fuel prices, and an end to all COVID restrictions.
Finlandwas enthusiastic about the Canadian convoy and the Finns set up a Facebook group that has gathered more than 45,000 members in just two days. The group name was called “CONVOYFINLAND2022.”
CONVOYFINLAND2022″ is expected to resume daily through Wednesday, February 9, 2022, from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. each day.