What Do The CDC Censorship Emails Show?
Who got censored and could they sue?
Disclaimer: This article is not legal advice, it is a political analysis article highlighting the possible ramifications of the actions by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control). If you are seeking legal advice, speak with an actual legal professional who is able to best understand your case.
Following on from CDC employees fleeing a sinking ship, the Washington Free Beacon recently released a list of emails they managed to obtain from the CDC by FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request. The same quack astrology, teen sex promoting CDC.
On page 9 of the PDF, one of the emails lists specific Tweets by people, and it is the non-legal, unevidenced opinion of The Daily Beagle that these people likely have First Amendment grounds by which they can sue the CDC for infringing on their speech.
They also very likely, in our also non-legal opinion, to have very strong defamation grounds, because the CDC basically slandered their reputation by saying to a third party that what they had been writing was false, damaging their reputation, and inducing the third party - and others - to move against them, causing the irreparable emotional, reputational and public harm.
Unlike with public figures, where the addition of ‘actual malice’ has to be proven (arguably already exceeded given the CDC literally conspired to have these posts removed in secret), most of these Twitter accounts appear to be the writings of private individuals (private in the sense of ‘not famous’, not private in the sense of ‘not public’).
The Daily Beagle has tried to transcribe the Twitter accounts of those affected, however, fair warning: due to low resolution, pixellated images, we may have made mistakes, and we encourage checking the emails to verify.
The Twitter accounts we believe are mentioned in the emails are (in order of transcription where possible):
orangecone21 (Deleted; Twitter says it doesn't exist but there's evidence it did, see below in the URL header next to ‘twitter.com’)
By our count, there are 7 Suspensions, 1 Deleted, and 5 Active, for 13 accounts total, which based on this small sample, there was roughly a 61.5% account removal rate, or almost 2/3rds of all accounts the CDC suggested got removed.
The Tweets In Question
The Daily Beagle also attempted to transcribe the post URLs from the low resolution images of the emails. Besides issues with low resolution, given there are a lot of numbers, there may also be typographical errors in the post URLs too. In testing, most of the posts had archived copies, bar the one we suspected of being deleted.
Unfortunately, at time of writing, Substack annoyingly - without prompt - auto-embeds any and all Twitter URLs. We have put up a CSV file with the list and relevant details, which can be opened in free-to-use LibreOffice Calc.
Government Targeted Facebook and Instagram Users Also
The emails also lists posts by Facebook and Instagram users nearer to the bottom of the PDF (pages 33 to 35), however these do not clearly identify the user, and are much more difficult to transcribe accurately, so The Daily Beagle not opted to do so. More patient individuals with more free time on their hand can likely try to tackle the issue.
CDC Trying To Censor People Posting Factual Information
One of the examples of censorship by the CDC include them attempting to silence factually accurate dissent. One example was the mentioning of any posts highlighting the Moderna mRNA shot has SM-102, something the government already admits it has:
The part CDC gets agitated about? People factually referencing chemistry site Cayman Chem where it clearly states, down the right-hand side of the page, that SM-102 is used in mRNA shots as a lipid nanoparticles (LNPs, something The Daily Beagle covered before), and that SM-102 is not fit for use in humans or animals:
“WARNING This product is not for human or veterinary [animal] use.”
The evidence that leaves so-called “fact” checking sites frothing at the mouth, unable to deny that SM-102 is in Moderna’s mRNA shot, with one even going so far as to invent a false misleading equivalency out of thin air, rambling on about an incoherent irrelevancy that it’s “not chloroform”. No-one said that it was, well, besides whatever crazed writer at “Full Fact” did.
The toxic chemical cynanide isn’t chloroform either. Will Full Fact be injecting that into their bloodstream too?
WHO “Infodemic Manager Unicorns”
What could only be described as from the land of the crazy, the emails also talk about putting up a video for WHO “Infodemic Manager Unicorns”. No, that isn’t a typo.
Just showing their complete ignorance of basic anatomy, however, their image depicts a… rhino. With pink felt-tip drawings and doodles more akin to the blushing immaturities of a high school teenager. These are the people censoring you.
The video can be found here, and at time of writing is still up. It’s a mundane, drab, lazily put-together slideshow presentation of some corporatist nonsense in relation to the job, put to awful, tasteless corporate music.
The description from the video page tepidly reads:
The training is geared towards freelance consultants and national/international civil servants with experience responding to the infodemic and health misinformation, from a variety of working areas (epidemiology, risk communication and community engagement, health service delivery/health care workers, digital health, policy-makers (in health and intersectoral), international policy).
Yeah? Who gets to decide what is and isn’t “misinformation”? These weirdos with an obsession for pink ink, apparently:
The term “infodemic” is cringe inducing, invented in 2003 by Washington Post columnist David Rothkopf, a term better suited to an out-of-touch business corporatist with no real world experience, which, ironically is true, given Rothkopf is a CEO of The Rothkopf Group (alt. TRG Media).
TRG Media hosts a radio show called… Deep State Radio, a radio show that, despite describing itself as “[…] the insider perspective on American national security and foreign policy that you can’t find anywhere else”, ironically publishes nauseatingly predictable, bland, mainstream media s***e.
Rothkopf also sold open-source intelligence to governments, as founder and CEO of Intellibridge Corporation, served as deputy undersecretary of commerce for international trade policy in the Clinton administration in 1999, and is a “digital member” for the globalist World Economic Forum.
He was called out by SpectatorWorld for shamelessly selling out to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to the tune of $1.62 million, earning $540,000 per year.
[…] filings under the Foreign Agents Registration Act reveals that Rothkopf is being paid a healthy sum to help launder the reputation of the United Arab Emirates, a theocratic dictatorship.
The UAE is indeed a dictatorship. There is distinct evidence of Rothkopf’s meddling worldwide, the real question is, why are the WHO trying to hire “manager unicorns” to enforce their censorship policies against the public, citing an imaginary “infodemic” invented by a profiteering government corporatist foreign agent who benefits financially from oppressive regimes?
But Wait, There’s More!
It turns out the US Census Bureau and the Office of the Associate Director for Communication (the latter under the CDC) are also involved in this oppressive censorship shindig.
If we isolate the email headers, and pay careful attention to the To field:
We can cherry pick a few names - and titles - of interest.
Lynn Sokler (CDC/OD/OADC)
Kate Galatas (CDC/OD/OADC)
What’s particularly interesting is Kate Galatas’ name cropped up before, during a US government Coronavirus House Select Subcommittee where she complains about having to disclose emails for transparency. This document gives us a clue, because in that investigation, it lists the job title:
Adding emphasis to the key parts of interest: “Acting Associate Director for Communication Centres for Disease Control and Prevention”. Notice she’s acting - meaning she is temporarily filling the role of ‘Associate Director’.
The part about “Associate Director” helps us to verify what the OADC part of the job title stands for: Office of the Associate Director for Communication (OADC), which can be found on the CDC page.
We can confirm this via Lynn Sokler - who has the same set of acronyms - by looking at her LinkedIn page, which means “Office of the Assoc Dir for Communication”:
And if not able to access LinkedIn, maybe their CDC Comfex page.
Now, for the other acronyms showing the US Census Bureau is involved:
Thomas Lewitzke (CENSUS/ADCOM CTR)
Jennifer Shopkorn (CENSUS/ADCOM FED)
According to the US Census Bureau page on staff roster abbreviations, ADCOM is short for Associate Director for Communications:
We can confirm “CENSUS/ADCOM” is for the US Census Bureau with additional analysis, because the same acronym appears on US Census Bureau FOIA documents, here’s one example of Stephen Buckner, whose title is “CENSUS/ADCOM FED” and they’re listed as the Assistant Director for the Communications Directorate:
Now the question to ask, why is the US Census Bureau getting neck deep in censorship of Americans Free Speech?
If you like my work, be sure to support it by sharing the article link with other people, subscribing or even becoming a supporter.