If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Pre-bunking information‚ pre-crime‚ etc. etc. – it all could easily spell out post-democracy‚ observers critical of the trends keep saying. None of their arguments‚ however‚ seem to be reaching or affecting top EU bureaucrats‚ VÄ›ra Jourová – vice president of the European Commission for none other than “values and transparency” – being one of them. Vera’s in Davos this week – where else – and has been telling a World Economic Forum (WEF) panel about things like deploying law enforcement to deal with “conspiracy theories‚” pre-bunking information considered as disinformation‚ censorship of that‚ but also of hate speech” – and then‚ to top it off‚ about her alleged love of “freedom of speech.” https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/wef-2024-defending-truth-1.mp4 The moderator cited WEF’s own “global risk report” for this year which allegedly found that “disinformation is actually the top risk which people cited for the next couple of years” – to ask Jourova about the EU strategy in this respect. She quickly launched into branding “this information” – i.e.‚ disinformation as a “security threat” and listed a number of things the EU is doing to mitigate it: strengthen “strong professional media‚” and‚ “work with (online) platforms.” That‚ Jourová quickly explained‚ means mainly “fact-checking.” And‚ she added‚ “We have all the big tech under the commitment of the Code of Practice against this information.” And then she arrived at “pre-bunking.” According to Jourova‚ it means forcing the raising of awareness‚ and at the same time‚ “lowering of the absorption capacity in the society to believe the lies.” https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/wef-2024-defending-truth-5.mp4 Very interesting wording‚ especially going from the usual‚ “lowering absorption” to‚ lowering the capacity for it. “Pre-bunking” is usually defined as a preemptive measure (Vera used the word‚ predictive)‚ so as to discredit an account or information‚ and “refute” information even before it gets disseminated. A fairly convoluted censorship game here‚ and the EU bureaucrat had more good news for the WEF attendees: the bloc‚ she assured them‚ is taking care (by means of censorship) of “hate speech and disinformation.” Then‚ as if to also reassure everyone hypocrisy is alive and well in the EU‚ she talked about supporting freedom of speech. Jourová‚ who is Czech‚ referred to “living half her life in an authoritarian regime” (a reference to the Cold War). Judging by the policies she is promoting‚ she is sadly determined to spend the rest of it the same way. The post EU’s Vera Jourová Brags About “Pre-Bunking” and Using Law Enforcement To Target “Conspiracy Theories” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The BMJ is not short for “Behavioral Medical Journal” – but it might as well be. Now this publication‚ owned by the British Medical Association‚ is exploring how to deploy no less than “behavioral interventions” to bring about less “vaccine hesitancy.” And the article doesn’t stop at medical arguments. The hesitancy here is specifically linked with social media driven “misinformation.” The recommendations don’t differ greatly from what those Big Tech social subsidiaries have been including for years in their policies – and these “guidelines” were probably cooked in the same kitchen‚ so to speak. Things like‚ boosting the visibility of “reliable health information” and more “pro-action” on these platforms “in dealing with the proliferation of misinformation.” First‚ the authors of the piece seek to define the way in which social media affects vaccination campaigns. The take is basically entirely negative – asserting that this effect amounts to misinformation only. Paying lip service to genuine safety concerns playing a role in low uptake‚ the BMJ instantly switches back to playing up the danger of hesitancy. Thus – there’s been a “return of measles” as of late. And‚ the implication is‚ the World Health Organization (WHO) used that among other things to issue an extreme “decree” to the world – that vaccine hesitancy is “among the greatest threats to global health‚” WHO said. And while the article positions the concern about vaccination in general – including decades-long used and tested ones – the highly controversial Covid jab eventually makes an appearance. And it is mentioned as that point where this general “hesitancy” gained momentum‚ with the social media – rather than the sketchy nature of these particular vaccines – to blame. Now for the “solutions‚” specifically those based on behavioral interventions methods‚ or let’s say‚ “reprogramming.” Here’s what BMJ says are standard behavioral approaches: encouraging vaccination by “(including) mandatory vaccination and regulation for healthcare professionals‚ incentives‚ public health communication campaigns‚ and engaging trusted leaders.” Don’t feel bad if the term “orchestrated campaign” occurs to you as you read the BMJ mentioning “pre-bunking” information as one way to deal with this problem of its own making. “Pre-bunking” enthusiasts are now cropping up all over the place. And there’s more ways to inoculate people than just against viruses – there’s also manipulative “inoculation” against broad-minded consideration of all available information. The BMJ says: “Other intervention types include warning (‘inoculating’) people about manipulation tactics using non-harmful exposure as a tool to identify misinformation‚ and using accuracy prompts to trigger people to consider the truthfulness of material they are about to share on social media platforms‚ without stopping them from posting.” The post BMJ Report Recommends “Behavioral Interventions” To “Reduce Vaccine Hesitancy Driven by Misinformation on Social Media” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Moscow’s parliament is set to contemplate the introduction of a regulation that may grant the authority to seize assets‚ such as financial resources‚ valuable goods‚ and real estate from individuals accused of disseminating “knowingly false narratives” concerning the Russian military operations‚ according to a prominent legislator’s statement on Saturday. Vyacheslav Volodin‚ the presiding officer of the State Duma‚ the lower house of the Russian parliament‚ posted a note on Telegram explaining that the proposal would target individuals advocating for “extremist behaviors” or suggesting sanctions against Russia. Reports that undermine the reputation of the Russian military‚ currently classified as a criminal act under newly implemented stringent regulations post Russia’s deployment of forces in Ukraine in February 2022‚ will also face the same consequences. “Everyone who tries to destroy Russia‚ betrays it‚ must suffer the deserved punishment and compensate for the damage inflicted on the country‚ at the cost of their property‚” Volodin said. He added that under the law‚ those found guilty of “discrediting” the army also face being stripped of any honorary titles. The legislative proposal was scheduled for review in the State Duma on Monday‚ according to Volodin’s statement. Narratives slandering the reputation of the Russian military‚ including those classified as promoting terrorism and spreading fictitious reports about Russian forces‚ are currently checked under an existing legal framework. The post Russia Considers Seizing Property From People Who Spread “Disinformation” About Military appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In a year marked by dwindling public trust in key institutions and heralded by the theme “Rebuilding Trust” at the World Economic Forum’s annual Davos assembly‚ Emma Tucker‚ the Wall Street Journal’s Editor in Chief‚ has called for a reevaluation of how traditional media operates. Recalling a point when the mainstream press was the chief adjudicator of information and facts‚ she highlighted its demise that came with the rise of alternative media platforms. Tucker‚ during a Davos panel supposedly dedicated to the preservation of truth‚ offered a lament for the era when the press held exclusive dominance over news and facts. “If you go back not that long ago‚ We owned the news. We were the gatekeepers‚ and we very much owned the facts as well‚” Tucker said. “If it said it in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times‚ then that was a fact. Nowadays‚ people can go to all sorts of different sources for the news‚ and they’re much more questioning about what we’re saying.” https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/wsj-control-media.mp4 Not only do her comments reveal a lot about how mainstream media figures see their role in society‚ her comment painted a clear picture of the power shift that has marked the recent history of the media landscape. “So it’s no longer good enough for us to say this is what happened‚ or this is the news. We almost have to explain our working. So readers expect to understand how we source stories‚ they want to know how we go about getting stories‚” she continued. “We have to sort of lift the bonnet as it were in a way that newspapers aren’t used to doing‚ and explain to people what we’re doing. We need to be much more transparent about how we go about collecting the news‚” Tucker added. The post “We Owned the News…We Were the Gatekeepers” – WSJ Editor-in-Chief Laments Mainstream Media Power Loss appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Trump Campaign Denies NBC News Pool Reporter Access to Campaign Event in New Hampshire

Hamas Leader: We Reject a Two State Solution. We Demand It All.

Ron's Parting Gift to Nikki May Be a Poison Pill

Distrust in science has become an ever-growing theme across the globe‚ not least in the US where the public perception of some scientific topics – notably COVID-19 and climate change – has become dominated by partisanship‚ politicization‚ and conspiracy theories. According to a new study‚ support for former President Donald Trump is a major variable that can predict whether a person will reject the scientific consensus on these subjects.In other words‚ buying into populist Conservative ideology and “Trumpism” increases the chances of a person not believing the accepted science of COVID-19 and climate change.These two subjects were the most outstanding sticking points‚ but Trumpism was also associated with people believing in a whole load of wildly anti-scientific ideas‚ albeit to a less significant extent. “Trump approval correlates with other conspiracy or science-rejecting views. Trumpists indicate higher agreement not only with flat Earth and Moon landing conspiracies‚ but also that vaccinations implant tracking microchips‚ and COVID-19 dangers have been exaggerated by scientists‚” the study reads. “At the same time‚ they express lower agreement with scientific conclusions that the Earth is billions of years old‚ humans evolved from earlier forms of life‚ human activities are changing the climate‚ or vaccines are mostly beneficial‚” it adds.Some other interesting insights from the new study include:Women are more likely than men to reject COVID-19 vaccines‚ but climate change denial was equally common among both men and women.Science rejection is less common among people with higher levels of education.Vaccine rejection is more common in low-income households‚ although income has no impact on climate-change views.The probability of climate change denial increases with age‚ while the probability of vaccine rejection decreases as people get older.Around 10 percent of the total people surveyed thought the Earth is flat‚ while a further 9 percent were unsure whether the Earth is flat. The new study was carried out by Professor Lawrence Hamilton‚ a sociologist at the University of New Hampshire‚ whose work uses statistical analysis to understand public perceptions of the environment‚ energy sources‚ and climate change. To reach these findings‚ he analyzed data from an online survey called POLES 2021‚ answered by 1‚134 US adults in the summer and early fall of 2021. The survey contains a variety of questions that asked about the respondents’ sociopolitical identity and background‚ as well as their views on things like the world’s climate and COVID-19. The study notes that conservative political identity has long been associated with lower concern about environmental problems and traditionally rejects strong state interventions‚ such as lockdowns‚ vaccine mandates‚ etc. However‚ these themes have become supercharged over the past decade through populist politics‚ which has exploited a growing distrust of “the establishment” (whatever one perceives that to be).“In the case of climate change and COVID‚ preexisting biases against scientists were reinforced by messaging from economic and political elites serving interests such as fossil fuel use or Trump’s re-election‚” the study adds. The study did not offer any ideas on how to regain the public’s trust in science‚ nor how this anti-science trend might develop in the years ahead. Trump was voted out of the White House in 2020‚ but he remains a dominant force in US politics and his 2024 presidential campaign is gaining substantial traction. Whatever the future may hold‚ it seems like the rise of anti-science is far from over. “Although Trump’s personal future is uncertain‚ his deep effects on US society are unlikely to go away soon; under some scenarios they could intensify. Even if support for Trump himself narrows‚ for example‚ elements of conspiracism and science rejection might become more pronounced among his core believers‚ or attach to new grievances and leaders‚” the study concludes.The new study is published in the journal PLOS One.

“In this world nothing can be said to be certain‚” wrote Ben Franklin in a letter to his pal Jean-Baptiste Le Roy in 1789‚ “except death and taxes.” This tells us two things: firstly‚ that Franklin knew a quotable turn of phrase when he saw one‚ and secondly‚ that he lived before the invention of the BMI.In the last 50 years‚ the body mass index (BMI) has gone from a relatively obscure demographic tool to an ever-present gauge of personal worth. BMI over a certain number? Say goodbye to that life-changing surgery – in fact‚ good luck getting treated equally in pretty much any medical setting. Prepare to be undervalued and underpaid at work – if you can even get hired in the first place – and if you’re still at school‚ expect to be graded more harshly and perceived by your teachers as “more burdensome” than your thinner peers. Frankly‚ it’s no wonder that a higher BMI correlates with lower self-esteem‚ higher rates of depression and anxiety‚ and a higher likelihood of facing abuse from family and romantic partners.And the real kicker in all of this? The BMI is bunk.The BMI was not meant for youWith the level of importance we tend to impart upon the metric‚ you might expect the BMI to be the result of years of research by health experts. It’s not. In fact‚ it was never meant to be used on individuals at all.“The BMI was introduced in the early 19th century by a Belgian named Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet‚” explained Stanford University mathematician and well-known science communicator Keith Devlin to NPR all the way back in 2009. “He was a mathematician‚ not a physician‚” Devlin pointed out. “He produced the formula to give a quick and easy way to measure the degree of obesity of the general population to assist the government in allocating resources. In other words‚ it is a 200-year-old hack.”To a mathematician‚ or statistician‚ the metric kind of makes sense: over a large enough sample size‚ after all‚ the mean does indeed tend towards truth. But it was never intended to be a measure of health‚ or even of obesity – it was originally just an observation aimed at classifying some theoretical “average man”. And yes‚ it was almost entirely men that Quetelet based his figures on – specifically‚ European men‚ mostly from France and Scotland‚ and if you’re starting to see a problem here then whew boy‚ hold on to your hats‚ because we’re not done yet. The concept doesn’t just assume you’re a white guy born in 19th century Ghent; it also presupposes a mostly sedentary lifestyle‚ a working age and able body‚ an average income and education level – hell‚ even an average complexion (three guesses as to what that was).This is despite the fact that “our bodies‚ by nature‚ have some distinct characteristics driven by our gender‚ including that females generally have less muscle mass and more fat mass than males‚” pointed out Nick Fuller‚ Charles Perkins Centre Research Program Leader at the University of Sydney‚ in a 2022 article for The Conversation. “We also know muscle mass decreases and shifts around the body as we age.”Similarly‚ “research has also confirmed significant differences in body weight‚ composition and disease risk based on ethnicity‚” he continued. For example‚ “people of Asian ethnicity should have a lower BMI‚ and people of Polynesian ethnicity could be healthier at higher BMIs‚” he wrote.Even in more modern variations of the index‚ though‚ the base data has been overwhelmingly white and male. In other words: not only is the BMI a population measure rather than an individual one‚ but you’re probably not even a member of the population it’s measuring.The BMI does not measure healthSo how does a relatively obscure population-wide statistical data point become a ubiquitous proxy for individual health? Well‚ it becomes a little clearer when you learn the identities of two of the main supporters of the metric’s use in healthcare: insurance companies‚ and drug companies.“By 1867 the first American life insurance company created height and weight tables with the purpose of charging fat customers more‚” explained author and journalist Aubrey Gordon in a 2021 episode of the podcast Maintenance Phase. “The entire history of the thing is a dude who thought he was doing a population analysis and then a series of people who grabbed onto it largely for-profit motives – first insurance companies and then drug companies.”Working out a person’s BMI is cheap‚ and easy‚ and reduces a whole host of questions down to one relationship between two measurements – no wonder it took off. Looking at it from this perspective‚ its flaws as a health metric become even more glaringly obvious.For proof of that‚ look no further than your favorite sportspeople. “[The BMI] makes no allowance for the relative proportions of bone‚ muscle and fat in the body‚” noted Devlin. “But bone is denser than muscle and twice as dense as fat‚ so a person with strong bones‚ good muscle tone and low fat will have a high BMI.”It’s why using the BMI alone will give you such unintuitive results as Tom Brady (BMI: 27.4; overweight‚ obese using pre-1998 definitions)‚ Jonah Lomu (BMI: 34.5 at his prime; obese)‚ or Shaquille O’Neal (BMI: a stonking 40.3 at his prime; severely obese) – or why Chris Hemsworth (BMI: 29.0) was playing a near-obese character in Thor: Love and Thunder even (perhaps especially) after the eponymous character’s buffing-up montage.“Because of how Quetelet came up with it‚ if a person is fat or obese‚ he or she will have a high BMI‚” Devlin explained. But "it doesn't work the other way round. A high BMI does not mean an individual is even overweight‚ let alone obese.”And it’s when the BMI is compared against other ways of measuring health that its weaknesses really show through. Take‚ for example‚ the 2016 study of more than 40‚000 Americans which concluded that “nearly half of overweight individuals‚ 29 percent of obese individuals and even 16 percent of obesity type 2/3 individuals were metabolically healthy” while “over 30 percent of normal weight individuals were cardiometabolically unhealthy.”Similarly‚ the index cannot account for body fat distribution – and that matters a lot more than you might think. “If you have fat stored around your stomach‚ your risk of chronic disease is much higher than people who have fat stored around their hips‚” explained Fuller‚ “because this is an indicator of how much visceral fat you have – the type of fat deep inside the belly that increases your risk of stroke‚ type 2 diabetes and heart disease.”“[The BMI] lacks accuracy and clarity and‚ in its current form‚ misses measuring the many important factors that influence your risk of disease‚” he wrote. “It should never be the only measurement you use.”The BMI is statistical nonsenseBut why‚ you might ask‚ is the BMI so useless? Well – why wouldn’t it be?The legitimacy of the BMI as a meaningful metric is on shaky ground from the get-go: after all‚ “there is no physiological reason to square a person's height‚” noted Devlin. That’s something Quetelet decided to do for more-or-less aesthetic reasons – he wanted the data collected to follow a Gaussian curve‚ and that was the ratio that provided one. (“If you can't fix the data‚ rig the formula!”‚ says Devlin.)And‚ having calculated your BMI‚ things get even more esoteric. According to the CDC‚ a BMI of 25 or above makes a person “overweight”; 30 or more and the classification is “obese”. But nobody really knows where those cut-offs come from: “these are arbitrary numbers‚” Katherine Flegal‚ a consulting professor in obesity epidemiology at Stanford University‚ told The Washington Post.As such‚ it’s pretty useless for measuring health – and‚ frankly‚ it’s weird that we still use it. “Imagine a sales rep comes to your clinic office to pitch a new gadget to gauge your patients' health‚” wrote S. Bryn Austin‚ a professor of social and behavioral sciences at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health‚ and Tracy K. Richmond‚ an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School‚ in a 2022 MedPageToday article on the BMI’s shortcomings as a diagnostic tool. “They tell you that it's not nearly as good as the measures you already have. It performs even worse with older people and athletes. It will drive large numbers of patients away‚ while it worsens symptoms in others. Then the sales rep adds sheepishly‚ at least it's cheap and easy to use‚” they suggest. “Would you buy it? Of course not‚ who in their right mind would?”The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice‚ diagnosis‚ or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions.  All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current.  

Hang around any supermarket for long enough and you’re sure to be approached by a mature shopper with a request to pass them a top-shelf item. And while it may seem impossible to imagine our future selves experiencing similar grocery woes‚ the reality is that your spinal column can start shrinking from as early as your 30s‚ leaving you staring up helplessly at those high-stacked objects in your later years.The causes of this gradual demise are varied‚ with perhaps the most obvious being an increase in spinal curvature. Age-related slouching is known as kyphosis‚ and occurs as our muscle fibers dwindle over the years. As a result‚ the muscles surrounding the spine become weaker and we start to lose the battle against gravity‚ eventually becoming unable to stand up straight.Fortunately‚ however‚ kyphosis is not an inescapable destiny‚ and can be avoided by maintaining an active lifestyle and getting regular exercise. Ideally‚ this is something we should all be aiming at throughout our lives‚ and it’s much easier to avoid kyphosis by staying active as we age than to reverse it by taking up exercise once we’re elderly.And while slouching isn’t the same as shrinking‚ other age-related processes do cause us to literally become smaller. Among the most significant drivers of this shortening is a reduction in bone density‚ which is believed to be triggered by decreases in estrogen and testosterone as we get older.Vitamin D deficiencies and a decrease in renal calcium absorption in older age can exacerbate this process‚ sometimes leading to a bone disease known as osteoporosis. As the bones become weaker and more porous‚ the vertebrae that make up our spine can become crushed under our own weight‚ producing breaks that are known as compression fractures.Surprisingly‚ most compression fractures are pain-free‚ which is why we tend not to notice as our spines become increasingly compact over time. However‚ as these fractures accumulate and more of our vertebrae get squished‚ that top shelf may become more and more difficult to reach.This effect is often compounded by the degeneration of spinal disks‚ which sit between our vertebrae and act as shock absorbers. From our 30s onwards‚ these disks can start to dry out‚ becoming less and less firm as they lose water.With 23 disks in our spinal column‚ it only takes a few of these to decrease in height by a couple of millimeters before we start to notice ourselves shrinking. Unfortunately‚ stretching probably won’t make you any taller‚ although living a healthy lifestyle can prevent excessive shrinking. A diet rich in vitamin D and calcium‚ for instance‚ can help bones stay young and minimize the risk of compression fractures‚ while regular exercise also keeps bones strong and reduces the possibility of developing osteoporosis.The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice‚ diagnosis‚ or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions. All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current.