Sorry title of that video is "DO YOU KNOW THE SCIENTIFIC HISTORY OF LOCKDOWNS? A MUST WATCH" and it's about the 40 page document "Request for Expedited Federal Investigation Into Scientific Fraud in Public Health Policies — Open Letter" https://dryburgh.com/federal-investigation-into-scientific-fraud-in-public-health-policies/

The New Normal Documentary by Happen.Network (January 2021) , https://lbry.tv/@Dryburgh:7/The-New-Normal--happen-network:8

53 mins, I'm sure many will like it.

A Frontline Nurse Whistleblower In Australia Talks To Sacha Stone | Jan 18, 20210 - https://lbry.tv/@Dryburgh:7/Frontline-Nurse-Whistleblower:7 (9 mins)

People pinged me asking where I got my daughter a perforated mask for school so that she can breath properly and not keep suffering the headaches from re-inhaling what her body is exhaling, and yet comply with tyranny.

Other parents are at liberty to retard their own child's development both neurological and social, under the completely politically driven mythology that it saves the lives of grannies.

Her one I got from Amazon.co.uk but Americans can get a wide selection from https://www.minimallycompliantmasks.com/

PS the exact UK one I got her was https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08FBHL1XY

Fight back against big tech censorship of medical and health information?

An alarm bell went off last spring, when big tech started censoring medical and health information.
Entirely lawful content (and besides, they are not liable under S230).
Big tech would only cite that you must not post content that contradicts the World Health Organization, or local health authorities.
Which begged many questions, starting with why?
Which executives participated in the decision? Do they have conflicts of interest?
How can it be ethical that an information/communications platform censors content about topic/s (e.g. lockdowns) it stands to commercially benefit?
Why did big tech not consult their users first?
Why such a tyrannical change, rather than simply giving users the choice to opt-in to WHO/health authority approved filtering of what they will hear, see or read. At the very minimum, an opt-out (of filtering).
Who determines if there is a contradiction? By what process?
Who at big tech stays informed of WHO and health authority positions, bearing in mind positions change frequently?
What happens when positions change - as I’ve witnessed - to be in agreement with what was previously banned? Do users get an apology and their content reinstated?
As health authorities are not in agreement, do I pick Folkhälsomyndigheten or CDC for example?
->
I’m considering putting together a coalition, or some other means (e.g. crowd funding/membership platform) to push-back. It would comprise three related goals:
1) Campaign on issues – for example seek official answers to questions highlighted above, push for transparency, push for user choice, and challenge ideology and legal status of contact tracing apps, medical passports etc.
2) Aid the exodus from big tech by providing education and tools - for example thins like how disable Bluetooth being used without your awareness for contact tracing, how to de Google a phone (such that it still runs Android OS and Play Store apps but no longer acts as a surveillance device), how to remove Facebook from mobile if there is no uninstall option, how to stop device fingerprinting as you surf the web, how to move email to Swiss datacenters, provide alternatives to Twitter and so forth.
3) Publish, promote and disseminate censored medical and health information deemed to be worthy of being included in public discourse. Provide a means of communication between members.
On that last point, for example today YouTube gave me a strike for posting Dr Pierre Kory giving evidence before the Senate regarding the success of the coronavirus therapeutic, ivermectin. A drug that the WHO has long included ivermectin on its "List of Essential Medicines".
I think that it is exceptionally dangerous to sit back whilst this confluence of governments, tech giants, mainstream media and pharma/medical companies decide on every aspect of our lives, from how and when we socialise, how our children learn, to what we are allowed to see, hear and read. I specifically want to strike back at big tech in relation to medical and health information censorship.
However without at least 100 people willing to back it initially through say subscription, I simply can’t. Even with 500 people I’d be taking a personal monetary hit on my time. But with >=100, because of the candour and camaraderie, I’d do it.

The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier
This document is prepared for humanity by Dr. David E. Martin. [I've not had a chance to read yet]

UK Column News - Years before SARS-CoV-2, the UK's "Exercise Cygnus" had a set of narratives that match exactly the media narratives in the UK for #coronavirus. Oddly enough present media narratives are often not backed by the actual data., i.e. narrative trumps data.



Full 71 Mins ▷https://open.lbry.com/@Dryburgh:7/UK-Column-News---18th-January-2021:3 (Clip is 32:22-34:22)



Exercise Cygnus Article: - https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/exercise-cygnus-uk-government-exercise-justifies-covid-19-lockdown



Exercise Cygnus Report: - https://web.archive.org/web/20201101033241/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/927770/exercise-cygnus-report.pdf

2020 UK MORTALITY WAS 9TH WORST (!) BETWEEN 1971-2020.

(UK Column News)

Full 71 Mins ▷https://open.lbry.com/@Dryburgh:7/UK-Column-News---18th-January-2021:3 (Clip is 23:55-25:55)

ONS ASMR's 1971 - 2016: - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/adhocs/008520agestandardisedmortalityratesstandardisedusingtheboth2013and1976europeanstandardpopulationsbysexengland1971to2016

ONS ASMRS's 2000 - 2020 (download December 2020 Data Set): - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/monthlymortalityanalysisenglandandwales

This comment on my LinkedIn had 16k views by last night and I woke today to my LinkedIn gone, with no warnings or email from LinkedIn.

I'm posting nothing lately beacuse I've been spending the last 5 days trying to reconfigure personal and business life with less interconnectedness to big tech, I.e. on the run.

Almost one year late and with suspicious timing:

"PCR positive is no longer = Covid. You are not Covid now unless you get a second test to confirm it, and are presenting clinical symptoms. We shall see what the net impact of this indeed is.

Released 20/21 Jan 2020" @EthicalSkeptic

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05

Martin Kulldorff, PhD, is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a biostatistician and epidemiologist in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Woke yesterday to find LinkedIn account was gone and with it 18K critical business contacts across health, wellness and aging.

I can only guess my "crime" was to have a post in which a 1st deg connection, a surgeon commented that his electronic medical record system had cause of death locked to COVID-19 (you can view a screenshot [1]).

Or it was this post, ironically questioning big tech censorship ---> (click comment to see)

Today, the threat that Milton faced has changed. Gatekeeping is no longer performed by states, but by Big Tech companies. Like the printing press, the internet initially brought a rapid decentralization and ground-level networking of human communication. But after the initial freedom of the World Wide Web, "web 2.0" made us all reliant on centralized operators—Big Tech companies that amass our data for profit.

In Poland, we have watched with alarm as a consortium of ever more powerful, monopolistic Big Tech companies have done what was once unthinkable: de-platforming a sitting U.S. president. For us, this example—which has alarmed presidents and prime ministers across Europe and, indeed, the world—is merely the straw that broke the camel's back. The debate about who and what social media companies should be able to ban is now firmly in the public eye.

For the citizens of Poland and other countries that value true democratic accountability, we have concluded that this situation can go on no longer. As media across the world have noted, Poland has proposed a law establishing a "Freedom of Speech Council" to guarantee that Polish citizens are not arbitrarily manipulated by Big Tech companies.

At the heart of our proposal is an effort to guarantee Polish citizens their constitutional right to freedom of speech on major internet platforms. The Freedom of Speech Council we propose will decide what Big Tech can and cannot remove from its platforms, lest they attempt to impose restrictions beyond the laws that govern and protect speech in Poland. Far from a partisan or factional initiative, the Freedom of Speech Council will convoke members for six-year terms after they have been nominated by a three-fifths majority in Parliament.

The remedy befits the magnitude of the problem. Two thousand years ago, the Roman comedian Juvenal asked, "Who will watch the watchers?" In the case of Big Tech, I believe that the answer lies with the people—not nameless moderators operating with no transparency and no ability for recourse. The Freedom Act I have proposed in Poland is not only a law that would guarantee Polish citizens their constitutional right to freedom of speech, but it provides a blueprint for how to confront the problem of unaccountable speech regulation by Silicon Valley oligarchs.

Poland suffered under Soviet-imposed Communism for 45 years and endured decades of censorship. We are particularly sensitive to any attempts to curtail freedom of speech: We do not seek the power to remove any content from social media; rather, we simply want to ensure that lawful content is not removed.
...
The political volatility in the United States may obscure what Big Tech has now done. But viewed from abroad, the rapid imposition of a censorship regime by virtually every social media company—from Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, YouTube, Reddit and Instagram to Snapchat and many providers of internet infrastructure—has now put the world on alert.

Big Tech's decisions with respect to President Trump have give governments around the world cause for concern. Big Tech's power and overreach are inspiring leaders to guarantee their citizens' rights in the face of an encroaching giant.
...
Guaranteeing citizens recourse against Big Tech arbitrariness is a first step in the direction of orienting the internet toward the public good. Polish citizens—and, hopefully, citizens of other countries as well—will soon be able to conduct themselves responsibly online without fearing that an unknown, unseen censor will suspend their account in the middle of the night.

The arbitrary exclusion of voices, and even companies, from the internet makes it clearer than ever that social media companies are not just platforms, but publishers—and not merely publishers either, but monopoly gatekeepers for the rapid transmission of information to the public at large.

- Sebastian Kaleta is a deputy minister of justice in the Polish government and a member of the Polish parliament.

https://www.newsweek.com/why-i-decided-regulate-big-tech-poland-opinion-1562819