Mediaboss Marketing

SciCheck Digest

COVID-19 vaccination is generally very safe, and except for extremely rare cases, there is no evidence that it contributes to death. Social media posts about a now-published, but faulty review of autopsy reports, however, are repeating an unfounded claim from last summer that 74% of sudden deaths are shown to be due to the COVID-19 vaccine.

How safe are the COVID-19 vaccines?

More thanhalf a billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines have now been administered in the U.S. and only a few, very rare, safety concerns have emerged. The vast majority of people experience only minor, temporary side effects such as pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, or muscle pain or no side effects at all. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said, these vaccines have undergone and will continue to undergo the most intensive safety monitoring in U.S. history.

A small number of severe allergic reactions known as anaphylaxis, which are expected with any vaccine, have occurred with the authorized and approved COVID-19 vaccines. Fortunately, these reactions are rare, typically occur within minutes of inoculation and can be treated. Approximately 5 per million people vaccinated have experienced anaphylaxis after a COVID-19 vaccine, accordingto the CDC.

To make sure serious allergic reactions can be identified and treated, all people receiving a vaccine should be observed for 15 minutes after getting a shot, and anyone who has experienced anaphylaxis or had any kind of immediate allergic reaction to any vaccine or injection in the past should be monitored for a half hour. People who have had a serious allergic reaction to a previous dose or one of the vaccine ingredients should not be immunized. Also, those who shouldnt receive one type of COVID-19 vaccine should be monitored for 30 minutes after receiving a different type of vaccine.

There is evidence that the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines may rarely cause inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis) or of the surrounding lining (pericarditis), particularly in male adolescents and young adults.

Based on data collected through August 2021, the reporting rates of either condition in the U.S. are highest in males 16 to 17 years old after the second dose (105.9 cases per million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine), followed by 12- to 15-year-old males (70.7 cases per million). The rate for 18- to 24-year-old males was 52.4 cases and 56.3 cases per million doses of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively.

Health officials have emphasized that vaccine-related myocarditis and pericarditis cases are rare and the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks. Early evidence suggests these myocarditis cases are less severe than typical ones. The CDC has also noted that most patients who were treated responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been linked to anincreased risk of rare blood clots combined with low levels of blood platelets, especially in women ages 30to 49. Early symptoms of the condition, which is known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, can appear as late as three weeks after vaccination andincludesevere or persistent headaches or blurred vision, leg swelling, and easy bruising or tiny blood spots under the skin outside of the injection site.

According to the CDC, TTS has occurred in around 4 people per million doses administered. As of early April,the syndrome has been confirmed in 60 cases, including nine deaths, after more than 18.6 million doses of the J&J vaccine. Although TTS remains rare, because of the availability of mRNA vaccines, which are not associated with this serious side effect, the FDA on May 5 limited authorized use of the J&J vaccine to adults who either couldnt get one of the other authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccines because of medical or access reasons, or only wanted a J&J vaccine for protection against the disease. Several months earlier, on Dec. 16, 2021,the CDC had recommended the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna shots over J&Js.

The J&J vaccine has also been linked to an increased risk of Guillain-Barr Syndrome, a rare disorder in which the immune system attacks nerve cells.Most peoplewho develop GBS fully recover, although some have permanent nerve damage and the condition can be fatal.

Safety surveillance data suggest that compared with the mRNA vaccines, which have not been linked to GBS, the J&J vaccine is associated with 15.5 additional GBS cases per million doses of vaccine in the three weeks following vaccination. Most reported cases following J&J vaccination have occurred in men 50 years old and older.

Link to this

Last July, an unpublished paperauthoredby several physicians known for spreading COVID-19 misinformationbrieflyappearedon a preprint server hosted by the prestigious British medical journal the Lancet.

The paperclaimedto have reviewed autopsy reports and found in the opinion of three of its authors that 73.9% of the selected deaths were directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination. Those conclusions, however, wereoften contraryto the original scientists determinations. Moreover, abundant evidence contradicts the suggestion that the COVID-19 vaccines are frequently killing people.

The preprint repository quicklyremovedthe manuscript because, it said, the studys conclusions are not supported by the study methodology, and indicated that the preprint had violated its screening criteria.

Social media soon flooded with posts highlighting the purported findings and alleging censorship, with many falsely stating that the paper had been published in the Lancet.

Multiplescientistsandfactcheckersdetailednumerous problems with the preprint and the resulting social media posts. As Dr. Jonathan Laxton, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Manitoba who frequently debunks misinformation online,wrote at the timeon Twitter, this is not a conspiracy, the paper was literally biased hot garbage and the Lancet was right to remove it.

Despite these efforts, the same claims are back this summer after the paper waspublishedin the journal Forensic Science International on June 21. Capitalizing on the papers now-published status,numerouspostsareonceagainspreading the reviews supposed findings and realleging censorship.

Largest autopsy series in the world. Censored by what was the most reputable peer reviewed journal, readsonepopular Instagram post. 74% of the 325 Suddenly Died Autopsies point the cause to the dart, it added, using coded language to refer to the COVID-19 vaccines.

Anotherpost, from Dr.Sherri Tenpenny, an osteopathic physician in Ohio known for her opposition to vaccines and her false claim that the COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people, also repeated the falsehood that the paper had been previously published in the Lancet.

Bottom line results: 74% of sudden deaths are shown to be due to the COVID-19 vaccine, the post went on to say. This paper is a game changer. Sadly, it was censored for ONE YEAR. Just think of all the lives that could have been saved.

As weve explainedbefore, publication in a peer reviewed journal does not necessarily mean a paper is accurate or trustworthy, although the process can improve manuscripts and weed out bad science. In this case, the published paper is highly similar to the previously criticized manuscript. Experts say its conclusions are unreliable and misleading.

The vast majority of these cases do not show a causal, but coincidental, effect, wrote Marc Veldhoen, an immunologist at the Instituto de Medicina Molecular Joo Lobo Antunes in Portugal, in a thread on X, addressing the papers central claim. This certainly does not apply to the general population!

When asked about the published paper, Dr. Cristina Cattaneo,co-editor-in-chiefof Forensic Science International, told us the journal was currently looking into the matter.

For their review, the authors searched the medical literature for published autopsy studies related to any kind of COVID-19 vaccination. After excluding duplicates and studies without deaths, autopsies, or vaccination status information, the authors were left with 44 studies comprising 325 autopsies. Three of the authors then reviewed the described cases and decided for themselves if the deaths were vaccine-related; if at least two agreed, the death was counted as being attributable to COVID-19 vaccination.

In the end, the authors thought 240, or nearly 74%, of the reviewed autopsies were vaccine-related (rounded to one decimal, 240 out of 325 is actually 73.8%, not 73.9% as reported in the paper). Among these deaths, 46.3% occurred after a Sinovac vaccine, 30.1% after a Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, 14.6% after an AstraZeneca vaccine, 7.5% after a Moderna vaccine and 1.3% after a Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

As others havepointed outbefore, theres reason to suspect that the authors may have been biased in their determinations. All three adjudicators, including Dr.Peter McCullough, are well known for spreading COVID-19 misinformation. Dr. William Makis, a Canadian radiologist, haspreviously claimed, without evidence, that 80 Canadian doctors died from COVID-19 vaccines. The only pathologist, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, incorrectlyclaimedin 2020 that COVID-19 was a hoax and just a bad flu.

Hodkinson and McCullough, along with five other authors, are also affiliated with and have a financial interest in The Wellness Company, a supplement and telehealth company thatsells unproven treatments, including for purported protection against vaccines.

Perhaps most tellingly, the scientists who conducted many of the autopsy studies came to opposite conclusions than the review authors. Of the 240 cases, for example, 105 come from a singlepaperin Colombia, whose authors found [n]o relation between the cause of death and vaccination.

Similarly, the review authors counted 24 of 28 autopsies from astudyfrom Singapore as vaccine-related, even though the original authors identified no definite causative relationship to mRNA vaccines.

The authors of a Germanstudyalso attributed 13 of 18 autopsy deaths to preexisting diseases, but the review authors decided 16 cases were vaccine-related.

In aLinkedIn postdebunking the preprint, Dr.Mathijs Binkhorst, a Dutch pediatrician, went back to each cited paper, and found that of the 325 autopsies and one heart necropsy the review authors said were vaccine-related, only 31, or 9.5%, were likely related and 28, or 8.6%, were possibly related. The rest 267, or 81.9% were unlikely, uncertainly, or not related to vaccination.

In other words, even among a set of studies that is more likely to identify some vaccine involvement, less than a fifth of deaths were possibly or likely vaccine-related.

Even if the authors arent biased, this type of study is not able to provide information on how frequently COVID-19 vaccination leads to death, and whether the risks outweigh the benefits.

They only looked at published autopsy and necropsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination, Veldhoensaidof the published study on X. If you look only at autopsies of those related (in time) with drugX: X-involvement is then a high proportion of all cases.

Indeed, as Binkhorst noted, the autopsy reports come from 14 countries that collectively administered some 2.2 billion vaccine doses. If the COVID-19 vaccines truly were as dangerous as the review authors contend, this would be evident in other data sources but its not.

Vaccine safety surveillance systems and other studies from across the globe have found that serious side effects can occur, but they are rare.

The Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, for example, can in very rare cases cause a dangerous and sometimes fatal blood clotting condition combined with low blood platelets.

Rarely, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech have caused inflammation of the heart muscle or surrounding tissue, known as myocarditis or pericarditis. In almost all cases, however, those conditions are not deadly.

There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of death and has led to excess deaths or a large number of deaths. Instead, a wealth of data supports the notion that COVID-19 vaccines protect against severe disease and death from COVID-19. The flawed autopsy review doesnt change this.

Roley, Gwen. Misinformation swirls around unpublished paper on Covid-19 vaccine risks. AFP. 14 Jul 2023.

Hulscher, Nicolas et al. A Systematic REVIEW of Autopsy findings in deaths after covid-19 vaccination. Forensic Science International. Available online 21 Jun 2024.

Binkhorst, Mathijs. McCulloughs misinformation. LinkedIn post. Archived 4 Sep 2023.

Laxton, Jonathan (@dr_jon_l). McCullough et al attempted upload a preprint to the Lancet server, and it was removed because it was hot garbage. However, I feel going through this paper for you guys will help you spot dodgy science X. 6 Jul 2023.

Payne, Ed. Fact Check: A Lancet Study Does NOT Show COVID Vaccine Caused 74% Of Deaths In Sample Lancet Rejected Paper And Its Methods. Lead Stories. 7 Jul 2023.

Carballo-Carbajal, Iria. Flawed preprint based on autopsies inadequate to demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccines caused 74% of those deaths. Health Feedback. 31 Jul 2023.

Jaramillo, Catalina. Review Article By Misinformation Spreaders Misleads About mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines. FactCheck.org. 16 Feb 2024.

Veldhoen, Marc (@Marc_Veld). Does We found that 73.9% of deaths were directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination. Hold? No. The vast majority of these cases do not show a causal, but coincidental, effect. This certainly does not apply to the general population! X. 22 Jun 2024.

Cattaneo, Cristina. Co-Editor-in-Chief, Forensic Science International. Email to FactCheck.org. 26 Jun 2024.

No evidence that 80 Canadian doctors died from COVID vaccinations. Reuters Fact Check. 22 Dec 2022.

Lajka, Arijeta. Pathologist falsely claims COVID-19 is a hoax, no worse than the flu. AP. 2 Dec 2020.

Yandell, Kate. Posts Push Unproven Spike Protein Detoxification Regimen. FactCheck.org. 21 Sep 2023.

Chaves, Juan Jos et al. A postmortem study of patients vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 in Colombia. Revista Espaola de Patologa. 31 Oct 2022.

Yeo, Audrey et al. Post COVID-19 vaccine deaths Singapores early experience. Forensic Science International. 19 Jan 2022.

Schneider, Julia et al. Postmortem investigation of fatalities following vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 30 Sep 2021.

Yandell, Kate. Study Largely Confirms Known, Rare COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects. FactCheck.org. 27 Feb 2024.

Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination. CDC. Accessed 5 Jul 2024.

COVID-19 vaccines: key facts. European Medicines Agency. Accessed 5 Jul 2024.

Robertson, Lori. A Guide to Johnson & Johnsons COVID-19 Vaccine. FactCheck.org. 27 Feb 2021.

Lai, Francisco Tsz Tsun et al. Prognosis of Myocarditis Developing After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination Compared With Viral Myocarditis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 5 Dec 2022.

Yandell, Kate. No Evidence Excess Deaths Linked to Vaccines, Contrary to Claims Online. FactCheck.org. 17 Apr 2023.

McDonald, Jessica. Flawed Analysis of New Zealand Data Doesnt Show COVID-19 Vaccines Killed Millions. FactCheck.org. 15 Dec 2023.

Here is the original post:
Flawed Autopsy Review Revives Unsupported Claims of COVID-19 Vaccine Harm, Censorship - FactCheck.org

Honoree Usher accepts the Lifetime Achievement Award onstage during the 2024 BET Awards at Peacock Theater onJune 30 inLos Angeles, California.

Ushers confessions about the gratitude he feels for family, friends and fans fell victim to the mute button at the BET Awards on Sunday.

When the R&B icon received the BET Lifetime Achievement Award, he delivered a 13-minute speech that praised the people who helped him find and maintain success over the last 30 years. However, BET omitted large portions of the Confessions crooners acceptance speech, much to viewers and social media fans chagrin.

Soooooo Ushers entire speech is bleeped out, one fan tweeted Sunday evening.

Usher, who received his award from executives Babyface and L.A Reid, kicked off his speech honoring those who had been in his corner, joking about the timing of his award (Im still running and gunning) and getting vulnerable with the audience at the Peacock Theater in downtown Los Angeles about his beginnings.

Im gonna take my glasses off because I want you to see my eyes, he told his peers in attendance. I want you to understand its real.

The Grammy-winning singer talked about how his fathers absence motivated him to seriously pursue his music career and praised the father-like figures he turned to during his ascent. Then came his first censoring.

Who have spoken to me, who have been solid no matter how [expletive] may have been, he said of those father figures. Im sorry, Im cursing to let you know how I really feel.

Usher, full name Usher Raymond IV, continued his speech with a few more expletives, then BET kept the singer muted for several minutes during its broadcast, according to video shared on X (formerly Twitter.) Amid the silence and shots of attendees reacting to Ushers speech, some words would break through seemingly at random. The silent broadcast inspired memes and annoyance on X.

In a statement Monday to The Times, a BET spokesperson attributed the silence to an audio malfunction, adding that portions of Ushers speech were inadvertently muted.

The statement added that fans could watch the uninterrupted speech across BET Platforms and via Mondays encore showing of the BET Awards.

A representative for Usher did not immediately respond to The Times request for comment.

Read the original here:
Usher unmuted: Fans decry censorship of icon's BET Awards speech. Here's what he said - Florida Courier

Russian authorities have implemented new measures to restrict digital communications and control the domestic information environment. On 4 July 2024, several Virtual Private Network (VPN) applications were removed from the Russian version of the App Store at the request of Roskomnadzor, the Russian communications regulator, the British Defense Ministry reported in its intelligence report on 6 July.

On the same day, Russian media reported that the Federal Security Service (FSB) demanded Russian telecom operators cease providing Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Telephony services. The FSB cited fraud prevention as the official reason for this measure.

These measures are part of Russia’s broader strategy to restrict access to independent and foreign media while enhancing government surveillance. This effort has escalated since Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, leading to the shutdown or relocation of independent media and stricter controls on foreign media access.

The Ministry wrote:

Related:

See more here:
UK intel: Russian authorities target VPN apps and VoIP services in latest censorship move - Euromaidan Press

As part of a global process, the Craft Alliance, an arts center in St. Louis, Missouri, has censored two pro-Palestinian artists who dared to make a statement against the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza.

On June 24, officials of the Craft Alliance shut down an exhibition by local artists Dani Collette and Allora McCullough, accusing the pair of using antisemitic slogan[s] and imagery that called for violence and the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.

This smear is based on what?

Collette and McCullough were selected last year to be artists-in-residence at the Craft Alliance. The 11-month program involves choosing two artists to share a private studio, receive a stipend and tuition waivers for workshops, and compose a group exhibition thats presented for a month at the end of the program. (St. Louis Public Radio)

McCullough received her MFA in Ceramics from the State University of New York at New Paltz in 2015 and her BBA in Economics and Finance from McKendree University in 2010. Collette is a glass artist, who graduated with a BFA in Sculpture and Glass from Southern Illinois University, Carbondale in 2013.

Their exhibition at the Craft Alliance, with its pro-Palestinian themes, was entitledPlanting Seeds, Sprouting Hope.

The Craft Alliances censors removed two of Collettes pieces before the exhibitions opening June 21. The artists were not aware of the removal until they arrived at the event. One of the works taken out of the show, according to St. Louis Public Radio, was a bowl with a keffiyeh print, titled Symbol of Solidarity, and the other was several watermelon seed-shaped pieces with the phrase Land Back carved into them.

A few title cards for Collettes pieces were also removed, including for the artworks Indigenous to Palestine and From the River to the Sea. Not only was the exhibition entirely closed down several days later by the Craft Alliance, but McCullough was also fired from her job giving classes at the arts center. I think that the reaction of removing my livelihood and removing Danis work, specifically her Indigenous work, are violent actions, she told St. Louis Public Radio.

The show, fortunately, has been moved to the Fifteen Windows Gallery, which will hold an opening reception forPlanting Seeds, Sprouting Hope: Reduxon July 13. Numerous artists have been added to the exhibition.

The WSWS spoke to McCullough Wednesday afternoon, and she provided this account of the events. We consider it worthwhile to include the full details:

In July 2023, Dani Collette and I were selected to be artists-in-residence at the Craft Alliance. In August we met for the first time, at a Craft Alliance orientation. In September, we moved into our studios. Then, of course, in October the most recent escalation of the conflict in Gaza occurred. It was prominent in the news.

As artists sharing a studio space, we would talk every day about what was going on in the world. The events around Palestine just continued to get worse and worse. We both felt a growing sense of responsibility to do something, but we didnt know what it was. We continued to make our art works in line with what we had been doing as artists. Im an animal sculptor predominantly, and Dani makes kinetic glass works that play with light and refraction.

At the end of April, early May, we were experiencing two things. On the one hand, we were witnessing the student protests across campuses. Im a former educatorthe previous three years, I had been a full-time professor in the arts, and before that, for seven years I had taught in an adjunct capacity.

When I saw the student protests, I felt compelled to participate, but I didnt feel it was appropriate for me to join at a local campus in a community of which I wasnt a part.

I said to Dani, I really want to do something because I know if I were back at school, Id be with my students in those tents.

Simultaneously, our program director at the Craft Alliance had missed three or four meetings with us. It was not a good time, and the communication was not good. We were both frustrated.

It was the first week of May, these meetings had been missed, the protests were continuing, and I said to her, I really feel a moral obligation to do something, to help, and also to be on the right side of history. We are just two young artists in the Midwest of America, what can we do?

We realized we had an exhibition coming up. We had a chance to present our thoughts and feelings. We started to look for opportunities where we could contribute. We found an organization called Operation Olive Branch, a grassroots organization that has been working with people in Palestine to verify families requesting funds either to fulfill their evacuation needs, to pay for border crossing fees or to have funds to potentially rebuild their homes.

We were really excited about the idea of helping, but we wanted to make a larger impact. With Operation Olive Branch, they have this organization called the Perinatal Project. That was specifically for doctors, nurses, therapists, midwives, lactation consultants and people providing formula and diapers to pregnant and nursing mothers, and children under the age of two.

We thought, we want to say something about whats going on, nobody in their right mind could be against helping innocent mothers and children. We had a meeting in the middle of May with the Development & Communications Director at Craft Alliance, and she was very much on board. She and the Marketing & Communications Manager were both very excited about the opportunity to bring in healthcare workers to support the notion of helping mothers and children. They were helping us figure out how we could fund-raise through our exhibition, while still protecting the 501(c)3 non-profit status of the Craft Alliance.

They asked, Has your proposal for this exhibition been approved yet? We said, No, because our past three or four meetings have been cancelled by the program director. So they said, Were going to keep working on this, but we cant really move forward until its approved.

We had a meeting with the program director May 17 and told him of our intentions. He said, Wow, this is a big shift from the work you have been making, I want to see some examples. Dani showed him some plans for a large stained-glass window. I had already been making some watermelons, so I showed him physical examples of the work. We explained we wanted it to be a very peaceful environment, very supportive of protecting children, a beautiful garden space to nurture this discourse.

He said he would take it to the executive director and that we would hear back later that afternoon. We received a text messageat 1:40 p.m. that daythat it had been approved and that we could move forward with it, but that we could not use the Craft Alliance platform for the fund-raising component, we would strictly have to use our personal platforms. We agreed.

Full steam ahead from that time all the way through June 20. We were working until midnight every night, with some all-nighters. We had to produce all the art work, it was just the two of us filling the gallery space. Also, for weeks we were posting videos and clips of the process, and talking about the fund-raising aspect on both Instagram and Facebook. We were very public about it.

June 21, the day of opening, was when everything blew up. We worked all the way through the 19th and the 20th, and we turned in our titles, which later became controversial, on that Thursday [the 20th]. Craft Alliance officials received the titles, printed everything out, mounted them.

Like many artists, we often dont title our works until theyre finished. Its just part of the process. That Thursday night I texted the program director, Hey, these titles dont look right in the gallery space. There are too many of them, theyre too large, theyre distracting from the art work. Wed appreciate revisiting them. They replied curtly that they werent going to make any changes. I pointed out there were some typos. I showed up to the gallery space, and he said, OK, I should reorganize this so it looks better in the gallery space. They reprinted the titles and mounted them that same day. For them to say they didnt have all the information ahead of time is blatantly false.

This is the day of the opening. After the titles were sorted out, Dani and I left to have lunch, to relax a little bit before the opening. When we returned to the gallery at 5:00 p.m., we walked in and some of her artwork had been removed, and the program director was actively in the process of removing the title cards and replacing them with cards that simply had her name, the materials and the date.

Dani was obviously very shocked, and upset. They had our phone numbers, they could have called, or texted. They had all afternoon, no one said anything to us. We walked in to find this going on behind our backs, without any effort at communication.

The executive director, Bryan Knicely, accused Dani of knowingly making a violent statement with the phrase From the river to the sea. He said that it was absolutely unacceptable because this was not a political space. He said, Art is not political. Youre not allowed to be political here. He argued with Dani about the meaning of Land Back, because she is of Indigenous descent and she was making a connection between her familys experience of genocide as a Native American and the plight of the Palestinians. They pulled anything that had the words Indigenous and Land Back from the gallery.

On that Friday night, nothing was said to me about any of my work being problematic. So, after Danis talk with the executive director, that seemed to be the end of it.

The next day, we got an email from Knicely saying Id like to have a meeting with you Monday morning. I said, Id like to know what the meetings about. I thought I was available, but Dani was not. No response whatsoever. Dani also insisted that she be able to record any meeting and that she wanted a statement in writing as to what the meeting was about.

He wrote back that it was imperative we have a meeting and that he appreciated our making the time. Even though Dani had said she wasnt available and she could meet Wednesday.

The exhibition was open for a few hours Saturday morning, and then they closed it early, at 11:00 a.m., and they put a note on the door saying the gallery was closed due to short staffing.

We walked in on Sunday morning to do some work with a videographer. The woman who works on Sundays opened the gallery as usual. She later wrote us that she had gotten into trouble with the director. He arrived and shouted at her for opening up.

I had forgotten that I had agreed to house-sit on Monday, so I wasnt available for a meeting then either. I explained I was available on Wednesday as well.

Monday morning, without talking to us, the Craft Alliance released its statement accusing us of antisemitism and violence. We found out through the Internet that we were being terminated from our positions as resident artists. Then we received an email from the executive director about the public statements and their decisions. This was horrific and shocking to both of us. All we ever wanted to do was help a family in Gaza.

You see, the fundraiser for the Perinatal Project turned out to be entirely funded, so they suggested we choose a family from the Operation Olive Branch spreadsheet. We chose a family. By the time of the opening, we were very connected to this family, we had already spoken to them through Instagram. The mother needs a C-section, she has two children, theyre living in a tent in Gaza without running water. We want to raise the money and hope she can get to a hospital in Egypt as soon as possible.

After the Craft Alliances Monday press release, I had a phone conversation with the executive director and the chair of the board of directors. I was still trying to come to a peaceful agreement, a compromise, perhaps involving changing some labels, but keeping the work up. They doubled down and released another statement to the students and Craft Alliance community members that again accused us of antisemitism and violence.

We then realized there was no peaceful discourse possible. They were continuing to slander us and make claims that simply werent true. Thats when we started talking to the news media and looking for legal representation.

I never thought I would find myself in this situation.

What do I think actually happened? In all of the public statements of the executive director, he keeps referring to a volunteer who objected to the art work. Thats a little misleading. Because the volunteer is the chair of the board of directors, she is a volunteer board member. She is the one who registered the complaint about our work. In order to protect the Craft Alliances donors, they moved forward this way. It comes down to money and, yes, cowardice in the face of money.

We have heard from artists and many supporters. Lots of people have reached out to help us. We are installing our show at a different gallery in St. Louis. Weve expanded the exhibition, weve got some 15 to 20 artists who will be contributing work to help fund-raise as well, which is fantastic.

We spoke to several previous artists-in-residence who said all their exhibitions had been political. For the past seven years the shows have been on contemporary political issues, gun rights, trans rights, immigration, cultural identity, you name it. The notion that somehow ours was out of line is again just blatantly false.

Weve spoken to artists who have had shows shut down before they opened, on the Palestinian issue. Weve seen and heard a lot, so we know were not alone in this. We stand by our actions, and we stand by our commitment to create a peaceful space to have discourse around difficult issues and focus on how we could help, literally, save the lives of a family. Thats all we wanted to do.

The idea that we could be inciting violence is antithetical to our purpose. The accusation of antisemitism has been personally painful because my grandfather is Jewish, and my fianc is Jewish. The way that Craft Alliance officials are conflating being pro-Palestinian with being anti-Jewish, and conflating the Jewish people with the state of Israel is quite dangerous. Were facing a lot of that.

We felt blindsided because in the weeks leading up to the opening we had several meetings with the arts centers leadership teamthey approved it, they supported it, they wanted to host a night dedicated to healthcare workers to get more fund-raising support for us. To go from that to what they eventually did, kicking us out and making us leave immediately, was like whiplash. Also, they terminated my teaching position, so Im unemployed. In the upcoming fall semester, I was scheduled to be teaching four to five classes a week. They havent explained the termination, I havent received anything in writing, any explanation. They simply decided to kick me out.

The administration of Craft Alliance does not represent the community. I have had many faculty members, students and others express support. The faculty makes up the base, the core of the center. The administration is something else entirely separate.

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

Excerpt from:
The anatomy of an act of censorship: St. Louis arts center shuts down pro-Palestinian exhibition - WSWS

Congressman Jim Jordan has demanded that Stanford Universitys Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) clarify its role and activities related to election-related speech monitoring ahead of the 2024 election, citing concerns about potential First Amendment violations and censorship.

The Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government are conducting oversight of how and to what extent the Executive Branch has coerced or colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor lawful speech, Representative Jordan wrote in a June 24 letter, which was obtained by National Review.

As part of the investigation, the committee subpoenaed documents about work relating to content moderation.

[RELATED: Stanford wont continue employment of instructor who allegedly put Jews in a corner during class exercise: Report]

Given the SIOs role in the censorship of Americans in the lead-up to the 2020 election, and your clients repeated false and/or misleading statements to the Committee and the Select Subcommittee, we remain concerned about what actions the SIO or its remnants will take in the lead-up to the 2024 election that are antithetical to the First Amendment and Americans right to free expression, Representative Jordan stated.

Jordans letter concludes his letter by asking whether or not SIO will support any monitoring, analysis, or research of Americans election-related speech in the lead-up to the 2024 election and whether it intends to work with any part of the Executive Branch.

The congressman asked for responses to his queries by July 1.

The purpose of SIO, which is a part of Stanfords Cyber Policy Center, is to investigate disinformation, especially on social media. It has pledged that it will, by monitoring speech online, defend democracy.

However, skeptics say that SIO, more than anything else, results in undue censorship, especially if it acts in coordination with the federal government, as noted by The Stanford Review.

Some commentators say the research center is in decline, with its founding director, Alex Stamos, having resigned from his position in November 2023.

[RELATED: Stanford agrees to four demands after negotiations with students aligned with Hamas]

An article from Platformer on June 13 reported that Stanfords administration is quietly dismantling SIO in response to criticism because the university seems to have calculated that the lab had become more trouble than it is worth. Representative Jordan responded to the Platformer article by posting to X on June 14, Free speech wins again!

However, the universityclarified in a June 17 update that Stanford has not shut down or dismantled SIO as a result of outside pressure. SIO does, however, face funding challenges as its founding grants will soon be exhausted.

Campus Reform has contacted Stanford University for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.

Go here to read the rest:
Jim Jordan demands answers over censorship from Stanford's 'disinformation' center - Campus Reform