From ... in Literature — Jun 12, 2024

Dr. Naomi Wolf’s statement to the Royal Courts of Justice in Mark Steyn v. Ofcom

Yesterday, Mark Steyn took the UK’s ~~media regulator~~ state censor Ofcom to court.

The Royal Courts of Justice heard the case of Steyn v. Ofcom, which centres on Ofcom having penalised former GB News presenter Mark Steyn for having Dr. Wolf on his show and allowing her to tell Britain about reproductive damage reported in the Pfizer documents.

In October 2022, Dr. Naomi Wolf appeared on GB News’ Mark Steyn Show. Ofcom said it received 422 complaints that alleged Wolf’s comments were “dangerous” and included misinformation that went unopposed. In May 2023, Ofcom concluded its investigation and said it was particularly concerned by Wolf’s “significant and alarming claim” that mass murder was taking place through vaccinations, which she repeated three times without significant inclusion of challenge or context.

You can watch the offending clip from The Mark Steyn Show below.

If you are unable to watch the video above on Rumble you can watch the interview on BitChute HERE, which includes a second interview of Dr. Wolf on the Mark Steyn Show.

Further reading: Mark Steyn and Dr. Naomi Wolf have Become Targets of Ofcom Censorship, The Exposé, 16 October 2022

“Even the BBC is now acknowledging covid-19 injection damage as is the New York Times. Our findings have brought Pfizer to pre-2016 revenue levels and forced the most powerful institutions in the world, from major media outlets to Britain’s media regulator body, to be held accountable for lying and harming people,” Naomi Wolf and Amy Kelly wrote in a Substack article last month.

After leaving GB News, Steyn began his own media outlet called Steyn Online. Before the hearing yesterday, Mark Steyn wrote:

As you know, last year my first and second Statements of Claim against the UK media censor Ofcom were accepted for judicial review by the High Court of England. The hearing was supposed to be held in March, but Ofcom were washing their hair that month so it was postponed for a few weeks – until today.

I seriously doubt any members of the press will be in attendance. Certainly, GB News (despite being named as an “interested party”) will not be. But my friend Naomi Wolf, likewise convicted by Ofcom with no right to defend herself, will be there.
Ofcom in the Dock, Mark Steyn, 11 June 2024

Yesterday, Dr. Wolfe published her response to Ofcom.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

Statement of Dr. Naomi Wolf to the Royal Courts of Justice, London, United Kingdom

Dear Mrs Justice Farbey

I am here today because Ofcom, the media watchdog agency, concluded that my presentation of information from scientific reports about the Pfizer injection, on Mark Steyn’s TV show in October 2022, caused “harm.” Ofcom also referred to me in public documents as a “conspiracy theorist,” using that discrediting characterisation of my work, as part of its decision to penalise Steyn for airing the show in which I brought forth the evidence I did.

I wish to describe to the court please the nature of the evidence I presented on GB News. I then wish to describe my credentials, and lastly, I wish to make some points about the history of censorship.

The material I described to Mark Steyn is not my work. I am a non-fiction writer and journalist. I am not a medical doctor or a scientist. The material I presented is from scientific reports compiled by 3,250 highly credentialled doctors and scientists, the WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis research team (see addendum), that convened from 2021 to the present, to read through and issue reports based upon the 450,000 internal documents released under court order due to a successful lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration by US attorney Aaron Siri. These are internal Pfizer documents submitted to the FDA for the purpose of securing the Emergency Use Authorisation that allowed for the rollout in the US of an experimental injection that bypassed normal trials. They are primary internal documents produced by Pfizer-BioNTech, that date from November 2020 to February 2021 and that record the 43,000 plus adverse events and more than 1,220 deaths recorded by Pfizer in those three months.

The documents go into detail about serious side effects and explain their mechanisms; the Pfizer documents contain internal reports on stroke, liver damage, kidney damage, many forms of blood clotting and blood damage (including the thrombotic thrombocytopenia that recently triggered the withdrawal of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK in 2024; we broke that story in 2022); many neurological events including dementias, epilepsies and Guillain-Barre syndromes, and serious respiratory issues.

The documents include a section in which 80 per cent of the pregnant women lost their babies and another section in which two babies’ deaths in utero were due to “maternal exposure” to the vaccine, in Pfizer’s words. There is a great deal of information in the Pfizer documents, including charts, showing damage to women’s menstrual cycles, including serious damage such as haemorrhaging, passing tissue and bleeding every day. There is documentation of lipid nanoparticles (the fatty casing for the mRNA) accumulating in the ovaries of women — more with each injection. There is documentation of damage to babies from nursing from vaccinated mothers and of one baby who died of multi-organ system failure after ingesting a vaccinated mom’s breast milk. The Pfizer documents contain a warning to vaccinated men not to have intercourse with women of childbearing age. These are just some of the findings that our doctors and scientists summarized in their now 104 reports.

Ofcom seeks to portray this material as “harmful.” But can findings be “harmful” if they are true? I am a reporter and I base my opinion on facts.

The reports’ accuracy is not in doubt. They have been published on hundreds of news outlets globally for nearly three years, and we have received no lawyer’s letter from Pfizer of any kind, let alone stating that anything in them is incorrect. The Reports were published in book format: ‘The WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis Reports’, hardcover, PDF and eBook. This book was a Top Ten Amazon Bestseller, including selling in the UK. One of the reports was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. A second volume of these reports, to whose citation Ofcom still objects, is being published in September 2024 by a major US imprint, Simon and Schuster: ‘The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity’. The book is currently for sale on Amazon UK.

My team and I have presented these findings, at the following bodies’ request, to EU Parliamentarians such as MEP Christine Anderson; to MEPs in The Netherlands; to the staffs of US Congressman Tom Massie and US Senator Ron Johnson; to Wyoming State Senators Tim Salazar and Bo Biteman; to the Australian Parliament, twice; to MP Andrew Bridgen of the UK Parliament, and to scores of professional gatherings of physicians and hospital administrators, as well as at universities. Our Volunteers presented the material I shared on Mr. Steyn’s show to the Brazilian Parliament and will soon present it to the Government of South Korea. Our findings are being syndicated and republished by Israeli, British and Dutch news sites.

The evidence I presented on Mr. Steyn’s show is also summarised in a book of mine titled ‘Facing the Beast’, which has been published in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands and was a bestseller in Europe as well as in the US.

In short, all over the world, including in Britain, this same work for which Ofcom has penalised Mark Steyn and attacked me reputationally, has been published and is widely recognised and honoured, including by many governing bodies. So not only is Ofcom out of alignment with other governments in free societies around the world, but it is also pushing back to suppress material that many UK citizens already know to be both factual and important.

As a result of this material, as well as other research, judicial decisions are turning against the manufacturers of this injection and against those governing bodies that suppress people’s right to information about it. Two state Attorneys General, of Missouri and Louisiana, sued the White House for violating the First Amendment in pressuring social media companies to smear and censor critics of the vaccine. This lawsuit showed that the origin of the attacks on my reputation, which Ofcom echoed, started with the US White House unlawfully targeting a tweet of mine about the risk to women from injections. This lawsuit has been successful to date and the US Supreme Court is deciding the case. A California court just ruled that lawsuits against vaccine mandates could proceed.

Last month, the AstraZeneca vaccine was suspended worldwide, including in the UK.

Can all these thoughtful senior government leaders, these parliaments, these judges and courts, these publishers and news outlets outside of Britain, be wrong, and Ofcom alone be right?

Is there a risk that the rest of the world will base common sense reasoning on the important information in our reports, and the UK, whose information stream is held hostage by Ofcom, will be isolated from life-saving information?

Now let me go please to my own CV. Ofcom told the world that I was a “conspiracy theorist”. By doing so, the agency immeasurably damaged my career and reputation.

I am a Yale graduate, a Rhodes Scholar, and was twice a graduate student at Oxford University. I earned a DPhil from Oxford in 2015, in English Literature. I have written eleven non-fiction books, nine of them international bestsellers. I wrote a book, ‘The Beauty Myth’, that is credited with being a key part of the “Third Wave” of feminism, including in Britain. I advised President Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign and was an advisor to VP Al Gore’s campaign for presidency of the US.

I have been published in every major Western European and North American news outlet, including having been a columnist for The Guardian, The Sunday Times of London, and Project Syndicate. My books have been published by major US and UK publishers, including Random House, Simon and Schuster, Chatto and Windus, Penguin, Vintage and Virago Press. I have appeared many times on most major network and radio shows in Britain and North America, from CNN to MSNBC to CBS, NBC and ABC in the US, to BBC, Channel 4, “Women’s Hour”, ITV and countless regional shows. I have published opinion pieces and features for decades internationally – from The Washington Post to Time to The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and in the UK, in The Guardian, The Sunday Times, as mentioned above, in Marxism Today, Oxford Magazine, the Daily Mail, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph, The Express, and Metro.co.uk. I have been asked to lecture worldwide, from Penn to Northwestern to Tufts; I have lectured at New College, Oxford University and to undergraduates of the English Faculty at Oxford, and at St Catherine’s College, Oxford University. I lectured repeatedly at Rhodes House, with a leadership program I designed to train the Rhodes Scholars as public intellectuals. I lectured at the University of Chester, and, in the US, I was a Fellow at Barnard College and a professor at SUNY. I had a Rothermere American Institute Fellowship at Oxford University. My Oxford D Phil re-explored a lost hero of British LGBTQ history, John Addington Symonds. It became a bestselling book, ‘Outrages’, which was a Blackwell’s selection. I brought my work to many UK literary festivals, including the Edinburgh and Hay Book Festivals.

I built a successful civic tech company, DailyClout, which makes US legislation transparent to all and socially sharable.

It would take chutzpah, as my grandmother would say, for Ofcom to seek to smear a CV such as mine, as I was one of the most respected female intellectuals in Europe and America, pre-2021/2022. However, Ofcom did, and their megaphone was much bigger than mine. While I was unable to face them to defend myself, Ofcom brought the power of government amplification to bear down against my reputation in Britain and worldwide. As a result, I have lost the devoted and robust following of readers and publishers I had in Britain and other countries, lost investor funds in my company, and lost any possibility to speak to my former audiences or publish in my former UK outlets. The damage to my reputation is incalculable. And Ofcom’s vague smear against me is false. I am not a ”conspiracy theorist” but a reporter and non-fiction writer recognised around the world for decades for my fact-based journalism and non-fiction – though indeed under attack since 2021, when I reported on harms to women from mRNA injections; harms that many peer-reviewed studies have now confirmed.

Lastly, I wish to speak about censorship. My DPhil and the book based on it traced the history of censorship law in Britain and America. What I learned from that research, is that there is ultimately no such thing as censorship because the truth always surfaces eventually. In other words, censorship by the state simply does not work.

The UK used to be the home of free speech. It had some of the most robust debates in the world, until the mid-19^th century, and a long history of relatively strong press freedom. That changed in 1857, with the Obscene Publications Act. With the Comstock Laws in the US almost two decades later, the idea of sweeping state censorship was entrenched in democracies where it had not been before.

Since 1857 to the present, many subjects have been targeted by UK and US censors. In Britain, content about same-sex relationships was unlawful to publish. So was sexually suggestive material of any kind. Then medical information about birth control became targeted by legal punishments. In 1877, Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh were tried for the crime of publishing a decades-old pamphlet on birth control. A great deal of what is now considered classical British and American literature has been censored by the State: from D H Lawrence’s ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’, to ‘The Well of Loneliness’ by Radclyffe Hall; from James Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’to George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’.

My point is that censoring pamphlets on birth control did not stop birth control information from becoming known over time. Censoring discussion on gay men and lesbians did not stop homosexual or lesbian relationships from taking place or eventually from being discussed. Censoring ‘Animal Farm’stopped no one eventually from reading and valuing ‘Animal Farm’.

What you decide in this courtroom will be a decision for history. And history changes. The truisms that were accepted about the mRNA vaccines in 2022 are already out of date in 2024. Eventually, everyone will know that Mark Steyn was right to let me share sober data about risks from an experimental injection, a version of which has already this year been pulled from the UK market. Please decide with this question in mind: will Britain remain a free nation in which people can absorb different points of view, and decide for themselves? Or will they be subject to a nanny agency, whose brief is so wide in “chilling” open debate and serious reporting, that the censors of 1857 could scarcely have foreseen the sweep of its powers?

Britain’s greatest writers, such as John Milton, always argued for free speech. ‘The Aeropagitica’, Milton’s 1644 defence of freedom of speech, was controversial when it was published. But it saw the light of day. With Ofcom chilling ideas before they can even emerge into the light of public consideration, will Britain have John Miltons in the future? Or a James Joyce, or a Radclyffe Hall, or an Orwell? Can such writers and journalists survive now in Britain with Ofcom keeping watch? (We are fighting the same fight for free speech in America too.)

Martin Luther King Jr. argued that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. The arc of a moral media is long as well, but I wager it bends toward truth.

Please may this Court consider how gravely the people of Britain – the birthplace and earliest home of free speech and a free press — deserve free expression, as do the people of mine; so that we can make informed decisions for ourselves, as adults; and so that we can have living cultures at all.

Thank you for the chance to make this statement.

Sincerely,

Dr Naomi Wolf, CEO, DailyClout

[Dr. Wolf’s statement as published on her Substack is followed by an Addendum which describes the WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Group leadership credentials and key appearances, and a sample of the WarRoom/DailyClout research volunteers’ professional experience and education. You can see these lists at the bottom of her Substack article HERE.]

The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…

Can you please help power The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful journalism for the years to come…

Your Government & Big Tech organisations
such as Google, Facebook, Twitter & PayPal
are trying to silence & shut down The Expose.

So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuse to…

We’re not funded by the Government
to publish lies & propaganda on their
behalf like the mainstream media.

Instead, we rely solely on our support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring you
honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy…

Just choose your preferred method
to show your support below support

Read the full article at the original website

References:

Search Results

Bookmarks

Dr. Naomi Wolf’s statement to the Royal Courts of Justice in Mark Steyn v. Ofcom

Statement of Dr. Naomi Wolf to the Royal Courts of Justice, London, United Kingdom

Search Results

Bookmarks

Statement of Dr. Naomi Wolf to the Royal Courts of Justice, London, United Kingdom

Subscribe to The Article Feed