I have had an ongoing battle with LinkedIn trying to report facts that LinkedIn does not want its users to know. I was once outright banned from LinkedIn literally for citing the CDC's own data to show how a claim the CDC had made was contradicted by the CDC's own data.
See, I revealed how the CDC had lied, which in LinkedIn's view violates the clause of their Professional Community Guidelines on spreading "misinformation", which in practice is euphemistically defined as any information, no matter how factual, that "directly contradicts guidance from leading global health organizations and public health authorities".
I managed to regain my account, but LinkedIn continues to occasionally remove posts for ostensible "misinformation".
There's a faux "appeal" process where you request they take a second look, and they just get back to you to maintain their false accusation. You have no opportunity to even learn what information they are claiming to be false or misleading, much less to explain why the information you are sharing is verifiably true.
That practice puts LinkedIn in the position of violating its own Terms of Use with users.
But what's a guy supposed to do, sue them?
Anyhow, the latest instance of LinkedIn blocking my post for ostensible "misinformation" was the following about the authoritarian lockdown regime and its coerced mass vaccination endgame:
During the lockdown regime in 2020, before the experimental COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out, I warned the world about the risk of the shots causing an immunological phenomenon known as "original antigenic sin".
After the rollout, as the data came in, it became evident that the vaccines were indeed causing this problem.
Here's a detailed report about the accumulating evidence that I published on this day in 2022:
One of my early warnings about the risk of original antigenic sin with COVID-19 vaccines was provided in UN General Assembly document A/HRC/49/NGO/66 (Sept. 14, 2020), which I authored on behalf of the submitting NGO:
I was able to predict the risk of original antigenic sin with COVID-19 vaccines because of my research into flu shots. Here's a 4-part in-depth series I wrote pre-Covid:
The Flu Shot Fraud: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about the Influenza Vaccine But the CDC Didn't Tell You
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/articles/collections/flu-shots/
I posted the same information to Facebook and X, neither of which gave me a hard time about it.
Since LinkedIn refuses to inform you what, specifically, they are claiming to be untrue, you have to guess. So, let's speculate!
They could be objecting to my description of the vaccines as "experimental". During the peak of the censorship regime accompanying the lockdowns, Facebook had a policy literally prohibiting you from telling the truth that the vaccines were authorized for emergency use, not FDA approved.
Reuters ran a "fact check" article claiming it was misinformation to say the vaccines were "experimental" because they'd been "approved" by the FDA. After later correcting themselves by acknowledging that the vaccines were being administered under "Emergency Use Authorization" (EUA) status, they persisted in maintaining the faux "fact check" claim that the shots weren't experimental.
Never mind the fact that EUA is literally a status for products still considered "experimental" or "investigational" by the FDA.
LinkedIn has also blocked posts of mine before on potential grounds of accurately describing these particular products granted "Emergency Use Authorization" (EUA) status as "experimental", so it's once again an excellent candidate for supposed "misinformation" that is actually true.
They could be objecting to my main point that "original antigenic sin" is a real problem with COVID-19 vaccines. But, then, literally documenting admissions of this problem's existence in the scientific literature — including one study funded by Moderna itself — was the whole point of the article I was trying to share on LinkedIn.
They could be raising the same objection to the same point about flu shots, but ditto the link to my series of articles documenting the disparity between public messaging and the literature.
They could be objecting to my claim of having publicly warned about the risk of original antigenic sin with COVID-19 vaccines. Maybe they think I was making up the UN General Assembly document containing that warning. But, then, I linked to my article about that document, which contains the direct link to the source, UNGA document A/HRC/45/NGO/43, titled "Vaccine Mandates Violate the Right to Informed Consent". Here it is at UNdocs.org.
(I also authored a second UNGA document, A/HRC/49/NGO/66, titled "COVID-19: Vaccine Mandates Are Not About Public Health”, which you can find here at UNdocs.org.)
They could be objecting to my claim of having authored that UN document, but, then, they have precisely zero basis to claim I didn't. (And I did. I was contacted by someone from the submitting NGO and wrote both of those on that organization's behalf. I received no compensation for that work and despite hard times considered it an unmissable opportunity to perform a public service.)
They could be objecting to my characterization of the CDC as not forthcoming about the risks and benefits of flu shots. But, then, in that series of articles, I literally cite the scientific literature about the demonstrable bias and dishonesty of the CDC.
"The CDC authors clearly do not weight interpretation by quality of the evidence, but quote anything that supports their theory." — Jefferson et al, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, July 7, 2010
True to form with the mainstream media and its faux "fact check" industry, that very same systematic review was cited by the New York Times as having shown that flu shots confer "a big payoff in public health", which was a brazen lie.
In fact, the review authors found "no evidence" to support the fundamental assumptions underlying the CDCuniversal flu shot recommendation, "that vaccines prevent viral transmission or complications" from influenza resulting in hospitalization or death; they found that the scientific data "seem to discourage the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure"; and they went so far in their criticism of the CDC's policy as to accuse the agency of deliberately misrepresenting the science.
It's a superb example of how what the government and media say science says about vaccines and what science actually says are two completely different things.
So, I'm on solid ground here in terms of the supporting documentation for the claims contained in the social media post that LinkedIn insists, after making me go through the process that LinkedIn grossly misrepresents as an "appeal", contains "misinformation". I'm willing and able to defend every assertion I made in the censored post.
So, what "misinformation" is LinkedIn alleging to exist in my banned post?
And how was the determination made that this information is false or misleading?
I cannot tell you, of course, because LinkedIn, as ever, refuses to tell me.
The lesson I'm supposed to learn is to just not try to challenge official disinformation on LinkedIn. But stupid me, I keep trying just to tell people the truth in plain language and expecting that if someone wants to accuse me of spreading "misinformation", they will at least attempt to identify what it is they are claiming to be untrue.
Hence, I keep talking about how the endgame of the authoritarian lockdowns was always coerced mass vaccination, and how the the medical tyranny and harmaceutical injections were sold to the public based on lies.
Here's my collection of featured articles about the ongoing censorship of truth.
