17 Comments

I didn't read beyond the end of the utterly risible line quoted below. To start an article based on it discredits all which follows:

"One example comes from a recent Reuters investigation which uncovered the fact that,"

Expand full comment

It's obvious you didn't read the article!

Expand full comment

Which is what I said in the first sentence of my reply, so it should be obvious.

Do you have a point?

Expand full comment

My point is, you can email the the Department of Defense to verify this story, they will do so as they already did publicly and provided commentary on the program...Don't make the mistake of ignoring information because you don't like the outlet, simply check the sources the outlet is using and make your decision....Most people these days simply read titles etc, and don't bother taking the time to read and examine sources....They simply revert to ridicule right away...The article also goes a little deeper into the propaganda we've seen over the past few years regarding information warfare...

Expand full comment

When an article starts with a nonsense sentence I choose not to spend my time reading it.

My choice, not yours.

I have no knowledge or opinion on the source. I just don't read beyond obvious crap. Get over it.

There are lots of sources out their which don't need to preface "the message" with nonsensical garbage.

If you trust Reuters, think again.

Expand full comment

I don't trust Reuters. I don't really trust anybody, I simply examine what's being said and investigate the sources of the claims for myself, something we should all do!

Expand full comment

There is a lot of good information out there. I don't have time to read everything and then investigate it.

I view it like starting a new novel - you pretty much know in the first few pages whether it is something you are going to enjoy.

If an article starts off with rubbish I simply move to another one which doesn't. Much like authors, you get to trust certain outlets and simply dispense of the others.

It's why there is a subscribe option. Sadly, Substack is contaminated with hysterical hyperbole and personal agendas, rather than reasoned argument.

Expand full comment

Ample evidence of the past pandemic shows that the fear generated by government and media is far out of proportion to the real risks and dangers of the virus. Many in power know that the more the public is in fear, the easier it is to manipulate emotions and direct public money into the coffers of Big Pharma and other elite groups who have much to profit from this fear mongering and intimidation.

"I have been a doctor for more than twenty years. I have never witnessed so many vaccine related injuries until this year. There was no plausible explanation for these injuries other than the fact that the patients had recently been vaccinated. I have spoken with colleagues who have also had similar experiences. While some seem willing to accept these vaccine injuries as unavoidable collateral damage in a mass vaccination program, many do express dismay. None of them would speak publicly about their experience." 

  ~~  Dr. Patrica Lee with 20 years as an ICU MD and surgeon, 10/28/2021

More alarming yet, she relates how fellow doctors who were seeing similar results were unwilling to share their experiences for fear of the potential backlash. If doctors are not willing to share the severe problems with these vaccines, who can we trust?

The High Court in New Zealand ruled vaccine rollout illegal. The lawyer didn’t argue civil rights, democracy or discrimination, instead her argument was simple - the vaccines are in a trial phase until 2023. So the Court ruled that medical trials can only be carried out on a select number of people and that by logic the entire population cannot be considered a select group!

Why do some people decline the COVID vaccine? According to the New York Times, it must be that their thinking is deranged. It can’t possibly be because vaccines are less safe and less effective as a COVID preventive than traditional, well-tested measures such as vitamin D, zinc, ivermectin, and hydroxychloroquine. It can’t have anything to do with the fact that twice as many people have died from the COVID vaccines compared to the sum total of all other vaccines in the history of the VAERS reporting system. [This simple numerical statement has been fact-checked by all the usual suspects and ruled “false”. What does this say about the fact-checkers?]

America’s most popular expert on natural medicine received death threats when he posted evidence on his blog that vitamin D lessens the severity of COVID. Treatments are still being suppressed by government, by social media, and by medical authorities. This has cost millions of lives worldwide. It is being done to keep fear of COVID alive, and to make sure that vaccines are the only game in town. Many more people have died of COVID in the last year than if the world’s governments had done nothing at all, imposed no restrictions on commerce or culture, and allowed the medical system to operate without interference as it has in the past.

Make no mistake about it: The “fake news” campaign is not about protecting the public from lies; rather it is about establishing a state-sanctioned news network, which has been a central pillar for the stability of every totalitarian regime in history. Despotic leaders can only remain in power by hiding the truth of what they are doing from the people they govern. Conversely, there can be no meaningful democracy if there is only one source of centrally-managed information.

But the story of vaccines is in a class by itself, by far the most successful corporate propaganda campaign in history. In every other field, we define pathological fanaticism by its extreme dogma, taking an absolute position, with no recognition of subtlety and no regard to evidence. This is the attitude of the religious zealot. But in the case of vaccines, the propaganda narrative has turned this common sense on its head. The dogmatic view is deemed to be “science”. All vaccines are safe. All vaccines are effective. Full stop. Anyone who questions a particular vaccine, or identifies a side-effect, or claims that getting the disease provides better protection than taking the vaccine, is an “anti-vaxxer”, a science-denier, a menace to the universal social good of herd immunity. BTW, the term, “herd immunity” used to be defined in the world of public health as a condition of a population which had been through the disease, and so was resistant to future epidemics. In the age of COVID, “herd immunity” has been re-defined by WHO as a benefit that can only be conferred by vaccines (by the way, you won’t get herd immunity with this vaccine because once the population has been jabbed in the hundreds of thousands in a short space of time, herd immunity disappears. The community of medical researchers is long overdue for a full and nuanced examination of vaccines, one-by-one, their short- and long-term effects both on the target disease and other aspects of health, including the ecological and evolutionary effects that develop only over decades.

Quotes from an interview of Leemon McHenry:

The suppression of true knowledge begets dependence. The masses become increasingly dependent on the “scholars” and “experts”.

McHenry discusses medical ghost-writing in great detail. Freelance medical writers are hired to produce “scientific papers” based upon a template. Then the companies look for a trusted scientist who would be happy to put his/her name on the article. In other words, “key opinion leaders” often lend their names to articles they didn’t write. (They may have read and made some suggestions, according to McHenry.)

This is not a new phenomenon either. Several editors of medical journals have warned of this, such as Dr. Marcia Angell:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

Unfortunately, the problem is not confined to medical journals. Dr. Ulfakatte admits, “I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth.

“Telling the mainstream media to do their job and report the news truthfully is like walking into a shoe factory and telling them to do their job and make dentures. It isn’t the mass media’s job to tell the truth, it’s their job to administer propaganda. And they do a great job.”

Mark Twain understood the way this works a hundred years ago:“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you’re misinformed.”

But, Twain might not have imagined the lengths to which those who would like to misinform us now go. Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson explains in a Ted Talk about “astroturfing,” which she describes as “fake grassroots:”

“Astroturfing is when political, corporate or other special interests disguise themselves and publish blogs, start Facebook and Twitter accounts, publish ads, letters to the editor, or simply post comments online, to try to fool you into thinking an independent or grassroots movement is speaking. The whole point of astroturfing is to try to give the impression that there is widespread support for or against an agenda when there is not. Astroturfing seeks to make you change your opinion by making you think that you are an outlier when you are not.”

She gives the example of astroturfing being used to “drown out a link between a medicine and a harmful side-effect, such as vaccines and autism, by throwing a bunch of conflicting studies, surveys and experts into the mix, confusing the truth beyond recognition.”

So, how do you spot astroturfing? Attkisson says the hallmarks of astroturfing include use of inflammatory language and words such as: crank, quack, nutty, lies, paranoid, pseudo, misfits and malcontents, conspiracy and myth.

In the case of Covid the use of the term “astroturfing” seems almost quaint. What we are seeing is more akin to an entire fake forest and, in that forest, we are told is … Bigfoot. See that blurry picture … that’s proof of Bigfoot. See that blurry photo of “the virus” … well, that’s proof of the thing that has changed the world … even though the test for it doesn’t look for the thing in the blurry photo … it just finds indirect evidence via a chemistry test (PCR, aka Covid test) … even though the count of people who die from “the virus” includes people who, according to the CDC, have an average of four co-morbidities when they die (and the flu has magically disappeared and, there were fewer suicides in 2020 than there were in 2019, but you should follow the science!).

That’s the thing to notice … when you get up close to those astro-trees and tap on the trunks, don’t be surprised to find that the they sound hollow.

Just remember,  the deadliest vaccine ever made is the smallpox vaccine, which killed 1 in 1 million vaccinated people. The COVID shots kill 822 per million fully vaccinated, making it more than 800 times deadlier than the deadliest vaccine in human history. Did you hear Fauci is looking at smallpox for our next “pandemic” (you won’t read that in the papers).

Excerpts taken from Experimental Frontiers, with Josh Mitteldorf

Expand full comment

"Astroturfing" in this application is truly, gaslighting.

Expand full comment

To borrow and adjust McLuhan (to the extent I understand the 'Medium is the message'):

False flags ARE the message.

Expand full comment

Excellent measured account of the situation to share with the normies

Expand full comment

I was really surprised to learn that only 250,000 Australians did not get the mRNA experimental jab. According to the raw data at Medicare where the jab would have been recorded, this is so.

Expand full comment

.

Even Pavlov’s Dog

Would Have Figured Out This Charade

And Turned On Its Owner.

Now The Salient Question Is:

How Many Vicious Bites

Would It Take The Doctor

To Turn On Its Owner ?

.

Expand full comment