Categories
Intelwars National Archives presidential library trump Website

National Archives launches official website for Trump presidential library, highlights impeachments

The National Archives and Records Administration went live with the official website for President Donald Trump’s presidential library on Wednesday, the same day he left office.

But unlike his recent predecessors, there is a notable difference. The 45th commander in chief does not have a glowing biography, compared to Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

What are the details?

The biographies for Obama and Bush are roughly 18 paragraphs each in length, with gushing reviews of accomplishments and no mention of any scandals marring either administration.

Trump’s biography, in contrast, comes in at a brief seven paragraphs, two of which are dedicated to his two impeachments. They read:

In 2019 President Trump was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives for abuse of power by soliciting the interference of Ukraine in the 2020 U.S. presidential election and obstruction of Congress by directing defiance of certain subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives. A trial in the U.S. Senate found the President not guilty of the charges brought against him.

In 2021 President Trump was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives for having incited an insurrection against the government of the United States.

It is unclear at this time who wrote the biography for Trump, but the author was likely not a supporter.

As Anthony Clark wrote for Politico Magazine in 2016, “presidential libraries are perfect examples of just how far presidents will go to control their own legacies,” while noting that exhibits are typically “whitewashed” and created by presidential boosters.

In another break from protocol, the National Archives is also working to publish messages from the personal social media accounts of public officials, including Trump’s, who was infamous for his Twitter messages and eventually banned by the platform.

Politico reported Wednesday:

During his presidency, Trump was a prolific tweeter at all times of the day. However, his tweets were largely from his personal account, @realdonaldtrump, which was permanently suspended by Twitter as a consequence of his role in the Capitol riots on Jan. 6. Although personal accounts have not been archived, the National Archives is working to make such accounts of administration officials, including the former president, “publicly available as soon as possible,” according to the website.

What else?

According to the Washington Post, plans for Trump’s brick and mortar presidential library are already on the mind of the president.

The outlet reported that a top campaign fundraiser for Trump “said the president has told supporters he wants to raise $2 billion for the library — a far greater sum than has been raised for past presidential libraries — and thinks he can collect it in small-dollar donations from his grass-roots supporters.”

Share
Categories
Censorship common cold Coronavirus COVID-19 Dystopian face masks Headline News herd immunity human rights Immunology Intelwars liberty Masks Masters media source political parasites propaganda public health authorities rulers ruling class slaves Virus Website WHO World Health Organization

WHO Deletes Naturally Acquired Immunity from Its Website

This article was originally published by Jeffrey A. Tucker at The American Institute for Economic Research.

Maybe you have some sense that something fishy is going on? Same. If it’s not one thing, it’s another.

Coronavirus lived on surfaces until it didn’t. Masks didn’t work until they did, then they did not. There is asymptomatic transmission, except there isn’t. Lockdowns work to control the virus except they do not. All these people are sick without symptoms until, whoops, PCR tests are wildly inaccurate because they were never intended to be diagnostic tools. Everyone is in danger of the virus except they aren’t. It spreads in schools except it doesn’t.

On it goes. Daily. It’s no wonder that so many people have stopped believing anything that “public health authorities” say. In combination with governors and other autocrats doing their bidding, they set out to take away freedom and human rights and expected us to thank them for saving our lives. At some point, this year (for me it was March 12) life began feeling like a dystopian novel of your choice.

Well, now I have another piece of evidence to add to the mile-high pile of fishy mess. The World Health Organization, for reasons unknown, has suddenly changed its definition of a core conception of immunology: herd immunity. Its discovery was one of the major achievements of 20th-century science, gradually emerging in the 1920s and then becoming ever more refined throughout the 20th century.

Herd immunity is a fascinating observation that you can trace to biological reality or statistical probability theory, whichever you prefer. (It is certainly not a “strategy” so ignore any media source that describes it that way.) Herd immunity speaks directly, and with explanatory power, to the empirical observation that respiratory viruses are either widespread and mostly mild (common cold) or very severe and short-lived (Ebola).

Why is this? The reason is that when a virus kills its host, it cannot migrate. The more aggressively it does this, the less it spreads. If the virus doesn’t kill its host, it can hop to others through all the usual means. When you get a virus and fight it off, your immune system encodes that information in a way that builds immunity to it. When it happens to enough people (and each case is different so we can’t put a clear number on it) the virus loses its pandemic quality and becomes endemic, which is to say predictable and manageable. Each new generation incorporates that information through more exposure.

This is what one would call Virology/Immunology 101. It’s what you read in every textbook. It’s been taught in 9th-grade cell biology for probably 80 years. Observing the operations of this evolutionary phenomenon is pretty wonderful because it increases one’s respect for the way in which human biology has adapted to the presence of pathogens without absolutely freaking out.

And the discovery of this fascinating dynamic in cell biology is a major reason why public health became so smart in the 20th century. We kept calm. We managed viruses with medical professionals: doctor/patient relationships. We avoided the Medieval tendency to run around with hair on fire but rather used rationality and intelligence. Even the New York Times recognizes that natural immunity is powerful with Covid-19, which is not in the least bit surprising.

Until one day, this strange institution called the World Health Organization – once glorious because it was mainly responsible for the eradication of smallpox – has suddenly decided to delete everything I just wrote from cell biology basics. It has literally changed the science in a Soviet-like way. It has removed with the delete key any mention of natural immunities from its website. It has taken the additional step of actually mischaracterizing the structure and functioning of vaccines.

So that you will believe me, I will try to be as precise as possible. Here is the website from June 9, 2020. You can see it here on Archive.org. You have to move down the page and click on the question about herd immunity. You see the following.

That’s pretty darn accurate overall. Even the statement that the threshold is “not yet clear” is correct. There are cross immunities to Covid from other coronaviruses and there is T cell memory that contributes to natural immunity.

Some estimates are as low as 10%, which is a far cry from the modeled 70% estimate of virus immunity that is standard within the pharmaceutical realm. Real-life is vastly more complicated than models, in economics or epidemiology. The WHO’s past statement is a solid, if “pop,” description.

However, in a screenshot dated November 13, 2020, we read the following note that somehow pretends as if human beings do not have immune systems at all but rather rely entirely on big pharma to inject things into our blood.

What this note at the World Health Organization has done is deleted what amounts to the entire million-year history of humankind in its delicate dance with pathogens. You could only gather from this that all of us are nothing but blank and unimprovable slates on which the pharmaceutical industry writes its signature.

In effect, this change at WHO ignores and even wipes out 100 years of medical advances in virology, immunology, and epidemiology. It is thoroughly unscientific – shilling for the vaccine industry in exactly the way the conspiracy theorists say that WHO has been doing since the beginning of this pandemic.

What’s even more strange is the claim that a vaccine protects people from a virus rather than exposing them to it. What’s amazing about this claim is that a vaccine works precisely by firing up the immune system through exposure. Why I had to type those words is truly beyond me. This has been known for centuries. There is simply no way for medical science completely to replace the human immune system. It can only game it via what used to be called inoculation.

Take from this what you will. It is a sign of the times. For nearly a full year, the media has been telling us that “science” requires that we comply with their dictates that run contrary to every tenet of liberalism, every expectation we’ve developed in the modern world that we can live freely and with the certainty of rights. Then “science” took over and our human rights were slammed. And now the “science” is actually deleting its own history, airbrushing over what it used to know and replacing it with something misleading at best and patently false at worst.

I cannot say why, exactly, the WHO did this. Given the events of the past nine or ten months, however, it is reasonable to assume that politics are at play. Since the beginning of the pandemic, those who have been pushing lockdowns and hysteria over the coronavirus have resisted the idea of natural herd immunity, instead insisting that we must live in lockdown until a vaccine is developed.

That is why the Great Barrington Declaration, written by three of the world’s preeminent epidemiologists and which advocated embracing the phenomenon of herd immunity as a way of protecting the vulnerable and minimizing harms to society, was met with such venom. Now we see the WHO, too, succumbing to political pressure. This is the only rational explanation for changing the definition of herd immunity that has existed for the past century.

The science has not changed; only the politics have. And that is precisely why it is so dangerous and deadly to subject virus management to the forces of politics. Eventually, the science too bends to the duplicitous character of the political industry.

When the existing textbooks that students use in college contradict the latest official pronouncements from the authorities during a crisis in which the ruling class is clearly attempting to seize permanent power, we’ve got a problem.

The post WHO Deletes Naturally Acquired Immunity from Its Website first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
algorithms artificial intelligence biases Censorship DISINFORMATION Facebook flaws Headline News Intelwars MISINFORMATION pre-crime Social Media Study Systems Technology thought crime totalitarian Website

Another “Pre-Crime” AI System Claims It Can Predict Who Will Share Disinformation Before It’s Published

This article was originally published at Activist Post. 

We previously have covered the many weighty claims made by the progenitors of A.I. algorithms who claim that their technology can stop crime before it happens. Similar predictive A.I. is increasingly being used to stop the spread of misinformation, disinformation, and general “fake news” by analyzing trends in behavior and language used across social media.

However, as we’ve also covered, these systems have more often than not failed quite spectacularly, as many artificial intelligence experts and mathematicians have highlighted. One expert in particular — Uri Gal, Associate Professor in Business Information Systems, at the University of Sydney, Australia — noted that from what he has seen so far, these systems are “no better at telling the future than a crystal ball.”

Please keep this in mind as you look at the latest lofty pronouncements from the University of Sheffield below. Nevertheless, we should also be aware that — similar to their real-world counterparts in street-level pre-crime — these systems most likely will be rolled out across social media (if they haven’t been already) regardless, until further exposure of their inherent flaws, biases, and their own disinformation is revealed.

AI can predict Twitter users likely to spread disinformation before they do it

A new artificial-intelligence-based algorithm that can accurately predict which Twitter users will spread disinformation before they actually do it has been developed by researchers from the University of Sheffield.

  • University of Sheffield researchers have developed an artificial intelligence-based algorithm that can accurately predict (79.7 percent) which Twitter users are likely to share content from unreliable news sources before they actually do it
  • Study found that Twitter users who spread disinformation mostly tweet about politics or religion, whereas users who share reliable sources of news tweet more about their personal lives
  • Research also found that Twitter users who share disinformation use impolite language more frequently than users who share reliable news sources
  • Findings could help governments and social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook better understand user behavior and help them design more effective models for tackling the spread of disinformation

A new artificial-intelligence-based algorithm that can accurately predict which Twitter users will spread disinformation before they actually do it has been developed by researchers from the University of Sheffield.

A team of researchers, led by Yida Mu and Dr. Nikos Aletras from the University’s Department of Computer Science, has developed a method for predicting whether a social media user is likely to share content from unreliable news sources. Their findings have been published in the journal PeerJ.

The researchers analyzed over 1 million tweets from approximately 6,200 Twitter users by developing new natural language processing methods – ways to help computers process and understand huge amounts of language data. The tweets they studied were all tweets that were publicly available for anyone to see on the social media platform.

Twitter users were grouped into two categories as part of the study – those who have shared unreliable news sources and those who only share stories from reliable news sources. The data was used to train a machine-learning algorithm that can accurately predict (79.7 percent) whether a user will repost content from unreliable sources sometime in the future.

Results from the study found that Twitter users who shared stories from unreliable sources are more likely to tweet about either politics or religion and use impolite language. They often posted tweets with words such as ‘liberal’, ‘government’, ‘media’, and their tweets often related to politics in the Middle East and Islam, with their tweets often mentioning ‘Islam’ or ‘Israel’.

In contrast, the study found that Twitter users who shared stories from reliable news sources often tweeted about their personal life, such as their emotions and interactions with friends. This group of users often posted tweets with words such as ‘mood’. ‘wanna’, ‘gonna’, ‘I’ll’, ‘excited’, and ‘birthday’.

Findings from the study could help social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook develop ways to tackle the spread of disinformation online. They could also help social scientists and psychologists improve their understanding of such user behavior on a large scale.

Dr. Nikos Aletras, Lecturer in Natural Language Processing at the University of Sheffield, said:

Social media has become one of the most popular ways that people access the news, with millions of users turning to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook every day to find out about key events that are happening both at home and around the world. However, social media has become the primary platform for spreading disinformation, which is having a huge impact on society and can influence people’s judgement of what is happening in the world around them.

As part of our study, we identified certain trends in user behaviour that could help with those efforts – for example, we found that users who are most likely to share news stories from unreliable sources often tweet about politics or religion, whereas those who share stories from reliable news sources often tweeted about their personal lives.

We also found that the correlation between the use of impolite language and the spread of unreliable content can be attributed to high online political hostility.

Yida Mu, a Ph.D. student at the University of Sheffield, said:

Studying and analysing the behaviour of users sharing content from unreliable news sources can help social media platforms to prevent the spread of fake news at the user level, complementing existing fact-checking methods that work on the post or the news source level.

The study, Identifying Twitter users who repost unreliable news sources with linguistic information, is published in PeerJ. To access the paper in full, visit: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.325

The post Another “Pre-Crime” AI System Claims It Can Predict Who Will Share Disinformation Before It’s Published first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share