This week saw the events of James O'Keefe being suspended on twitter and that of J&J vaccination being paused due to concerns of blood clots (1)(2). One might wonder how the two issues can intertwine to relate to one another however if one thinks broadly, they might see the potential within the political risk for tech and media companies (3)(4). As tech companies work to censor what they think as misinformation and media work to counter said misinformation with their own framing, they embraced the risk in which pharmaceutical companies (from here on out referred to as pharma's*) are exempt from (5). All the while stories of individuals with adverse events begin to take shape culminating in the pause of J&J. The focus broadly is on J&J yet ignores the information about the other two EUA vaccines Pfizer and Moderna (6). How these overlaps into risk for tech and media one must consider the history of big tobacco and what the 33rd Attorney General of Florida once noted of the industry which "made a decision that they would withhold valuable information from the American public, information that the consumer would need to make a[n] intelligent decision" (7)(8). By censoring and reframing, tech and media have become the de facto risk holder for pharma's that are exempt from liability.
NPR ran a story about the online reaction of J&J being paused, noting “a stark example of what experts warn could be a coming deluge of false or misleading information related to the one-shot vaccine” and that “some state lawmakers used the news to imply vaccines aren't safe. One Pennsylvania state legislator, Rep. Rob Kauffman, posted to his 13,700 Facebook followers that ‘we don't fully understand these vaccines’” (9). NPR attempts to address what it sees as misinformation and frame it as such. However, if the network wanted to remain unbiased it would have been able to easily find review articles as recent as March noting “The major unresolved issue in current anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine strategies is that the immunological correlates of protection against the virus in humans remain unknown” and that the “strategies employing adenoviral vectors are controversial in terms of efficacy and safety” (10). Shortly after the pause and NPR’s publication, Wall Street Journal published an exclusive mentioning that J&J wanted to work with other pharma's to probe the problem of blood clots (11). It would seem then indeed the state representative was correct in noting” we don't fully understand these vaccines.” NPR attempts to sell itself as a non-partisan network however this becomes distorted when they fail to consider certain arguments outside of the consensus (12)(13). However, this is just one example of the media framing a narrative to inform their viewer/reader towards what they perceive as the grounding of reality and thus withholding valuable information.
Media is just one culprit (14). The bigger culprit is tech. YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook have become more aggressive in banning accounts that share counter consensus narratives (15)(16). Tech companies are aligned with White House in their attempt to undermine the counter consensus narrative (17). In fighting what it considers misinformation, do these companies inadvertently remove “information that the consumer would need to make a[n] intelligent decision”? (7) The problem becomes the way in which the media and tech sell their specific product as. A source for the exchange of ideas, a search engine to discover knowledge (Google scholar’s motto: Stand on the shoulders of giants) and part of the fourth estate that tries to ask questions and place accountability within the public framework (18)(19). This is not so much about undermining the fourth estate but of holding it accountable. While the fourth estate holds the government in check, there too needs to be a check on the fourth estate which in turn is the broader public that may act as plaintiffs if they have been in turn injured by irresponsible actions of said companies. When does a product that an organization sells be it by subscription or ad based become liable to damages it may have done in its process of combatting something it viewed as a nemesis? How can these large companies and alliances be held accountable?
It is important to prove whether any information was intentionally hidden, ignored or even “debunked” that may have otherwise been of use in consumer decision making. The intent here is to show concern from a broader spectrum over that of just specific more mainstream consensus types. As noted above, Maurizio Federico wrote a good piece addressing the various concerns that are more within the establishment framework (10). Outside of the established framework is JB Classen who published a piece in the journal Microbiology & Infectious Disease, warning of the risk of prion disease from said vaccines (20). Dr. Kira Smith has a preprint that notes similar concerns, which is more or less well summarized in the article’s title “possible codons misreading, errors in protein synthesis and alternative splicing’s anomalies” (21). Adnan EROL M.D. noted in his pre-print, “let us consider the question of whether vaccine-induced antibodies can trigger paradoxical negativities? In fact, some studies suggest that these possibilities are not far at all” (22). In a comment published under FDA, Patrick Whelan MD PhD warns, “there are pieces to this puzzle that have yet to be worked out, it appears that the viral spike protein that is the target of the major SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is also one of the key agents causing the damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung, and kidney” (23). In a letter to the editor, Rossella Talotta warns “the administration of a nucleic acid vaccine may instead put these individuals at risk of unwanted immu- nological side effects by either sensitizing the PRRs or generating cross- reactive cell clones and antibodies” (24). Agreeing with Talotta et al., Akinosoglou et al note “we hypothesize that, even though, COVID-19 vaccination does not provoke de novo immune mediated adverse events, it is possible that, the immunologic response triggers pre- existing underlying dysregulated pathways” (25). Velikova & Georgiev highlight that “there is uncertainty among patients with AIIDs and clinicians about the effectiveness and safety of the new vaccines” and “At this stage of the trials, patients with rheumatic diseases are included only by exception. Clinical data extracted from these single cases cannot be applied to all patients with AIIDs” (26). For brevity, the issues that Geert Vanden Bossche proposes will not be noted here as I assume the reader by now knows of him (27)(28).
These concerns echoed on social media were often removed and accounts banned. Some became specific bot magnets e.g., Classen. Media fact checkers would ‘debunk’ the concerns by claiming “Neither Pfizer nor Moderna, both of which manufacture mRNA-based vaccines, reported cases of prion or other neurodegenerative diseases. The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System also has not received any such reports” (29). While true, there have been no issues of prion disease, yet the debunking is misleading in that prion disease can take several years to develop. Further this being just an example of the many efforts to discredit counter consensus narratives. The case of J&J raises the issues of what was known and not known, what was ignored and buried. It raises the question of whether there has been a form of deceit in order to coerce the public into following the script or as Bill Maher noted “when all of our sources for medical information have an agenda to spin us, yea, you wind up with a badly misinformed population” (30). If deceit has occurred, then the question is what is there to be done about it. Pharma’s are shielded from legal actions (31). However perhaps another form of legal avenue can be considered. Through tech and media’s attempt to crush and silent counter consensus narratives the question must be considered whether they misused the product in which they sell to their consumers and whether it can be proven that a conspiracy appeared which would enable a violation under the RICO act akin to that of the US. v. Philip Morris case (32).
The best way to refresh on this case is to watch Public Health Law Center’s YouTube presentation titled “U.S. v. Philip Morris: The Big Win Against Big Tobacco” (33). Pertaining to RICO violations as quoted in the presentation, “It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt” (33)(34) and that “It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section” (33(34). The case against Philip Morris is expanded on within Judge Kessler's final ruling which follows below in block quotes. These are presented within the presentation however copied from the ruling itself (32).
Note: They are lifted directly from said case law (32). ‘/’ indicates a separate part of the ruling. ‘//’ stands for end of block quote section:
over the course of more than 50 years, Defendants lied, misrepresented, and deceived the American public, including smokers and the young people they avidly sought as "replacement smokers," about the devastating health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke, they suppressed research, they destroyed documents, they manipulated the use of nicotine so as to increase and perpetuate addiction, they distorted the truth about low tar and light cigarettes so as to discourage smokers from quitting, and they abused the legal system in order to achieve their goal to make money with little, if any, regard for individual illness and suffering, soaring health costs, or the integrity of the legal system.
/
Defendants jointly participated at various times and to various degrees in creating, funding, directing, and controlling Defendants CTR, TI and other entities and causing Defendants CTR and TI to commit numerous racketeering acts to further those shared objectives. Furthermore, the frequent oral and written communications between and among Defendants illustrate their joint efforts to pursue their shared objectives. Significantly, Defendants worked together continuously, in many different venues and through many different entities, to disseminate their agreed upon deceptive public position denying the link between smoking cigarettes and adverse *905 health effects, denying the addictiveness of smoking cigarettes and nicotine, and denying their marketing of cigarettes to young people.
/
each Defendant also agreed to facilitate the substantive RICO violation by concealing or suppressing information and documents which may have been detrimental to the interests of the members of the Enterprise. Such information might well have been discoverable in smoking and health liability cases against Defendants and therefore could have constituted, or led to, evidence of the link between smoking cigarettes, addiction, and adverse health effects.
/
Defendant knew the goals of the Enterprise, the general nature of the conspiracy, and that other members of the conspiracy would commit at least two Racketeering Acts in furtherance of the Enterprise's scheme to defraud. Indeed, each Defendant took substantial steps to facilitate the scheme to defraud that was the central purpose of the conspiracy, including committing numerous Racketeering Acts in furtherance of the Enterprise's affairs. Hence, each Defendant entered into the requisite conspiratorial agreement.
//
The question one must consider is how this could apply to tech and media companies. Probably because of the nature of law, it is unlikely there needs to be direct linkage of communication between tech companies and media. Remember, in Citizen United it was found that money was speech. Actions that a company takes should be considered speech and that of communication. Because of the direct efforts to work with the White House there is likely some form of direct communication. Even if this is not considered, then the efforts to jointly deplatform individuals like Laura Loomer and Alex Jones across platforms could be used as evidence of communication (35)(36).
Judge Kessler's finding of liability could thus be the path in which opponents of censorship and power of big tech and media can move forward on. One intriguing avenue to consider will be that of implied warranty and fitness for particular purpose (37). Were the products that these companies sold harmful to the consumers by shielding them from information that may have been pertinent for them to make an informed decision? To which form of liability would these companies be found? Intentional, negligence or strict liability? By intentional, did the defendant know or should have known the harm which would result? By negligent, did the defendant intentionally engage in unsafe actions or failed to perceive risk of said unsafe actions. By strict liability, despite the defendant being not at direct fault they however still hold liability (38). Another avenue is the realm of deceptive marketing strategies in the form of examples of promotional violations as defined by the FDA such as. unsubstantiated effectiveness claims, omitted risk information, and unsubstantiated superiority claims (39). Did these companies hold a duty of care? Through censorship and that of withholding “valuable information from the American public, information that the consumer would need to make a[n] intelligent decision” (7) …was there a breach in said duty of care that led to the proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries?(40) These questions should be considered by more seasoned lawyers and scholars to better formulate the path forward in holding said companies responsible for any negligence that they may be liable for.
Often it is claimed that via Masterpiece Cakeshop that a company can allow what they want on their platform (41). In this regard the Masterpiece Cakeshop is saying he does not want to offer that specific service to clients (42). Facebook, Twitter et al offer their services to anyone however they decide which information is allowed on their platform thus “withhold valuable information” while contracting itself as an open place for exchange of ideas via that of being a ‘public square.’ Masterpiece Cakeshop is selling cakes but will not do same sex marriage wedding cakes. The consumer would like to apply information onto a product that is for them, while the baker does not want to apply that information. The baker is not withholding information that the consumer does not have as they would like it applied to the cake. The consumer has that information and is not being withheld that information so to help make a choice of consumption that may or may not harm them. Liability is likely to be found for tech and media companies, to prove this there needs to be an army of good lawyers and qualified plaintiffs (43). Lower tier cases must be embraced as chips in what is an ultimate end goal of a Kessler kind of ruling against tech and media which will help recover damages done by these companies while reigning in their dominance. US v Philip Morris was just one case of many. The master settlement agreement is what was the financial reprimand for tobacco companies. This was the result of states suing for Medicaid costs incurred from the product at hand (44)(45). This is the second half of the puzzle. The product liability in question is a product provided to consumers that was used to misinform and deceit them. The Medicaid costs that are incurred by the states are that which emerge from vaccine injury. These consumers were devoid of the opportunity to make an informed decision because tech and media “made a decision that they would withhold valuable information from the American public, information that the consumer would need to make a[n] intelligent decision” (7). This in turn will likely cost states considering the 72,204,587 that are enrolled in Medicaid (46). The other important aspect to consider are the states that have lifted their mask mandates and likely to ban vaccine passports. This will likely be a split between red and blue America. Red states will likely initiate specific claims if they see the merit in this opportunity as a way to reign in tech and media that are unfriendly to them. If successes are reached, then blue states desperate for cash will likely come aboard rekindling memories of the master settlement agreement.
The ideal here is to propose reigning in companies that have become dangerous to the public via their dominance to the point where their partisan tilt is leading people not to consider additional evidence before taking the risk of being vaccinated. States sue through Medicaid mechanisms and fiscally do damage to those companies that are liable for misinforming the public against the knowns and unknowns of the vaccinations. Further a US v. Philip Morris' kind of case against tech and media would ideally not require fiscal remedy akin to Kessler’s ruling. In this specific scenario, tech and media companies should be required to aid in the development of a market system that allows gambling on news stories. Further there should be transparency as to whether reporters and media/tech organizations have skin in the game on news events. This would help clarify what may be spin and what may not be spin. The news story of Covington kids would have been settled a lot faster as the fiscal incentive for the bet would encourage the truth to appear faster (47). Robin Hanson proposed a similar idea, that of a betting market for science (48). The ideal to have a science betting market as well. This will not solve everything but will help create a data source for bias and unbiased and help people decide how much weight to give something. The task at hand seems challenging, however one must remember such was considered daunting against big tobacco. One also must not forget the fight to ban DDT and how society was so brainwashed into thinking it was a miracle chemical of modernity (49).
Small update: Civil RICO is RICO pursued in civil cases outside of government (51). Blue Cross Blue Shield settlement focused on class action around antitrust without government taking action (52). RICO via class action is entirely within the realms of possibility as collusion is further shown to be evident (53)(54).
I pre-context this in that I know the source is bias however does a decent job summarizing the VAERs data. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-reports-clotting-disorders-all-three-emergency-use-authorization-vaccines/
For purpose of balance, I add this piece that critiques Bossche https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/doomsday-prophecy-dr-geert-vanden-bossche
Additional read: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/health/johnson-vaccine-blood-clot-case.html
General note, using this for the purpose of transcript. The source site itself is not the greatest but being short on time to source the original video or a better source for now, this will work due to the transcript being available. I may update this later with a better source. Nonetheless point conveyed: https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/08/facebook-covid-vaccine-fact-checker-funded-by-company-with-billions-in-vaccine-stocks-video/
Though international focused, this could be used as evidence of collusion per domestic partners/sources via showing their biased intent. https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative-vaccine-disinformation