I received another hilarious “fact check” request from Reuters, based on the article where I discussed an email from Air Bnb:
From: reutersfactcheck@thomsonreuters.com <reutersfactcheckthomsonreuters.com@thomsonreuters.com>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 5:22 AM
To: latypova@hotmail.com <latypova@hotmail.com>
Subject: Reuters request for commentHello,
I’m contacting you from the fact-checking desk at Reuters. We investigate false and misleading claims spreading on social media.
We’re currently looking into the claim that "the government will impose severe travel restrictions after June 6".
We plan to write a fact check to set the record straight. It appears an Airbnb email about updates to its Major Disruptive Events Policy has been misinterpreted.
It appears your Substack article is the source - or one of the sources - of the claim. Before we publish anything, we wanted to give you the chance to put your side of the story across. Please reply to this message and send us your statement.
Kind regards,
Reuters Fact Check team
My response:
From: Alexandra Latypova <latypova@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 11:09 AM
To: reutersfactcheck@thomsonreuters.com <reutersfactcheckthomsonreuters.com@thomsonreuters.com>
Subject: Re: Reuters request for comment
Dear Reuters Fact Check team,
Thank you for your interest in my Substack. You are making a false and misleading claim ascribing the following quote to me: "the government will impose severe travel restrictions after June 6".
Please stop. The quoted sentence is not from my article.
Here is the entire article (minus the Air BnB email) that was published by me on my Substack:
It seems that the insurance policies of the corporations are being revised to anticipate large-scale government actions, couched as “weather events”. It looks like new lockdowns for whatever pretenses are expected starting after June 6. This is why this policy update reads like: “you might not be able to travel for your booked vacation, but if you are already somewhere, you will be allowed to return home”.
Stay alert and do not comply!
As you can see, my article does not contain the claims that you are trying to falsely ascribe to me. English words "it seems", "expected" have very different meaning vs the words "will impose severe travel restrictions". The former formulates a hypothesis, while the latter asserts certainty.
Furthermore, if Reuters believe that the governments will NEVER impose or attempt to impose travel restrictions based on false pretenses, such as global warming, pandemics, and other imaginary "public health emergency" concepts, it indicates journalistic incompetence on your part. I have to point out to you that the ability to do so is firmly enshrined in the US public health law, and similar law in other countries.
Specifically, my hypothesis that Air BnB's email was indicative or their (or their insurance providers') realization that the governments of many countries have given themselves authority to interfere with lawful international travel under false pretenses of public health and climate threats is based on the following legal history in the US (this is only a brief summary, for details see the link below):
Emergency-predicated centralization of government authority within the federal executive branch has a long history in the United States. Examples of Congressional acts signed by US Presidents to consolidate executive power in response to circumstances construed as national emergencies include the Trading with the Enemy Act (1917), Emergency Banking Act (1933), Reorganization Act (1939), Public Health Service Act (1944), War Powers Resolution (1973), National Emergencies Act (1976), Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (1988), PATRIOT Act (2001), Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act (2002), Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act (2002), Homeland Security Act (2002).
Executive legislation has also been enacted to expand executive emergency power, taking the form of executive orders and agency regulations published in the Federal Register. Many US states have also enacted state-level general emergency management laws, mostly during and since the 1970s. In 2001, public health lawyers affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Georgetown University and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA). The MSEHPA was drafted to further override constitutional separation of powers and centralize state-level executive authority on public health emergency predicates, including communicable disease outbreaks. The ensuing lobbying campaign drew momentum from false-flag anthrax attacks in September 2001. Several related model acts are in circulation, including the Model State Public Health Privacy Act (1999); Model State Public Health Act (2003) and Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act (2007).
These model acts, combined with deception campaigns providing false information to federal and state lawmakers and the public about biological threats, biodefense, biosecurity, bioterrorism, emerging infectious diseases and related topics, have been used to lobby state lawmakers to expand government authority to apprehend, detain, injure and kill people and seize private property during declared public health emergencies. Since 2001, state legislatures and governors have updated and amended state legal codes to enact many provisions of the MSEHPA.
Since January 2020, federal and state public health, military and law enforcement officials have demonstrably used federal and state public health emergency laws to commit acts of fraud, extortion, theft, torture, homicide, and other crimes, by characterizing Covid-19 as a global pandemic of a life-threatening communicable disease, and by characterizing criminal acts as components of a lawful, coordinated, necessary, life-saving government emergency response program. Under existing federal and state laws, fraudulent, non-validated government claims about the existence, transmissibility and virulence of communicable disease pathogens form the legal basis for government declarations, determinations, executive orders, expenditures, policies and programs.
Under existing federal and state laws, fraudulent, non-validated diagnostic tests form the legal basis for government acts classify, apprehend, detain and treat tested persons as public health threats, as 'asymptomatic,' 'precommunicable,' or symptomatic carriers of non-validated communicable disease pathogens. Note: Presidential Executive Order 13295, as amended by EO 13375, 13674 and 14047, currently in force under 42 USC 264,4 classifies non-specific respiratory diseases as "quarantinable" diseases, including "Severe acute respiratory syndromes, which are diseases that are associated with fever and signs and symptoms of pneumonia or other respiratory illness, are capable of being transmitted from person to person, and that either are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic, or, upon infection, are highly likely to cause mortality or serious morbidity if not properly controlled" and "influenza caused by novel or reemergent influenza viruses that are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic."
Under existing federal and state laws, fraudulent, non-validated data about the safety, efficacy, purity, potency and sterility of drugs, devices and biological products form the legal basis for government officials to contract with pharmaceutical companies to develop, manufacture, purchase and deploy emergency "medical countermeasures" used to intentionally injure and kill recipients. Federal and state government acts legalized by public health emergency laws include but are not limited to issuance of public health emergency declarations, determinations and executive orders; establishment of fraudulent diagnostic testing programs and epidemiological 'dashboards;' imposition of school and business occupancy limitations and closures; mask mandates; hospital homicide protocols (sedation, dehydration and starvation); and military-pharmaceutical homicide protocols (vaccine mandates). Public health law, and especially civil and criminal liability exemptions under the Defense Production Act (1950), "Good Samaritan" laws, National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (1986), and the PREP Act (2005), have given public health and military officials, manufacturers and regulators of biological products, drugs and devices, pharmacists, nurses, doctors, school administrators, public and private employers and other individuals, license to kill.
For more information on how the government can legally interrupt your travel, detain and kill you under fabricated excuse of a public health emergency, I invite you to read my colleague Katherine Watt's publication, Bailiwick News:
Best Regards,
Sasha
Art for today: Sunset over the Golden Horn, watercolor, 9x12 in. Original available for sale here.
 |
| ||||||||||
| |||||
| |||||
Uncovering Fraud in Pharmaceutical R&D and Manufacturing. By popular demand, I will include my art pieces that have nothing to do with Pharma. If you are interested in my art, visit www.sashalatypova.com |
| |||
| |||
Excellent response by Sasha to misleaders at Reuters. |
No comments:
Post a Comment