Brilliantly put! I wish even more people read you teams work!

Expand full comment

Unfortunately, the average person is confusing political bias with medical facts. I flew to NY this week, spoke to two different people on the flight. One man was wearing a mask, I asked why, and he said he didn't want to contract covid, I mentioned a very thorough study confirmed recently that mask wearing was essentially futile, and he had a much better chance of protection by using a nasal spray with food grade hydrogen peroxide or povodine iodine according to Dr. Peter McCullough. I also mentioned ivermectin, he reacted to the word, I had to explain it is a medication used for decades and although all medicines have side effects, it is one of the safest and is effective in treating the virus, which meant if accepted by the medical community at large, EUA could not have been implemented for the experimental shots and Pharma would be out billions. He timidly said he was not going to get the next booster, I asked why not, and he said his wife became injured after her second shot. The next woman I spoke with said, as she returned home from receiving the shot, she experienced excruciating pain in her jaw and gums, and a tooth became loose and soon fell out. Another man she knew had a similar experience. These are just two random people I met, how many more stories like this would I have heard if I could have interviewed everyone on the plane? The term anti-vaxxer is ridiculous, but anti-unsafe, ineffective or anti experimental vaxxer applies to those who object to the coercion to inject themselves with anything that is unsafe, ineffective or experimental. Throwing the stone of 'anti-vaxxer' at this stage makes the stone thrower appear weak as they have nothing else to stand upon to support their position and people are sensing that. What amazes me about these shot pushers is their smooth lying about studies on safety and efficacy, and their lying on what these shots actually do, and they throw around the word 'experts' to support their false position, without revealing who the so called 'experts' are, or any studies of scientific significance that could confirm their statements, they don't because there aren't any, so they do a 'smoke and mirrors' trick using verbal sophistry that blind people to the truth. Wu falls into this category.

Expand full comment

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 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.

Expand full comment
Sep 16, 2023Liked by Joe Martino

Today, science is being perverted for political ends to an unprecedented extent. To look for an appropriate analogy, we would have to go back to the authority of the Church in medieval Europe.

“Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science.” — Anthony Fauci

So G-d speaks through the mouth of the Pope, and maybe the Prophet Elijah and Charles Manson. But the Good Doctor of NIAID is the one with a direct line to Science.

My point is not that Fauci has grown too big for his britches, but that science is not religion. The whole reason that we trust science is that it’s a community of open debate. Dr Fauci aspires to be the high priest of epidemiology. But if science carries more weight than the Church, it’s not because its priests are smarter or better qualified, it’s because science has no priests.

Science means arguing the case on its merits, and arguing on the merits is exactly what they are trying to avoid by calling anyone who disagrees with them, “anti-science”.

A real scientist said, “Science is not a set of beliefs. Scientists don’t believe anything… You always have to be ready to have your favorite theory proven wrong, and if you’re not, you shouldn’t be doing science”.

The unstated implication is that vaccines are so obviously and universally safe that the only reason even to study their safety would be an anti-science bias which, incidentally, is common among fanatics of the Far RIght.

Quote from Bretigne Shaffer on settled science :

• Bloodletting for fevers was “settled science”

• Packing the birth canal with dirt after birth was “settled science”

• Flat earth models were “settled science”

• Witch hunts were “settled science”

• Mercury as a cure-all was “settled science”

• Heroin for the common cold was “settled science”

• Cannabis psychosis was “settled science”

 • Lobotomies were “settled science”

• Electroshock therapy was “settled science”

• Trepanation (drilling holes in the skull to release evil spirits) was “settled science”

• Women having inferior intelligence was “settled science”

• Fluoride was “settled science”

• Glyphosate was “settled science”

• Fen-Phen was “settled science” 

With history literally at our fingertips in the information age, how does anyone still believe in “settled science”? 

Science can’t BE settled. That’s what makes it SCIENCE. It’s an investigative tool. Any scientists who claims their answer is the correct answer is a shit scientist. At best, they have evidence to support a theory, but it’s STILL a theory. Consume scientific conclusions at your own risk.

Expand full comment
Sep 16, 2023Liked by Joe Martino

Yet it says on the CDC website that people who have gotten repeated jabs have a GREATER chance of getting Covid. This means the more multiply-jabbed people there are, the more Covid cases there will be so the jab is increasing everyone’s Covid risk. These people are stuck on stupid.

Expand full comment
Sep 15, 2023Liked by Joe Martino

This is worth reading. This lawsuit in Costa Rica takes direct aim at the WHO. It is worth checking into: "2. The CNVE and the health minister have failed to explain how a de-facto definition from the WHO would give CNVE authority over a product that our legislators would not define as a vaccine. In order to use a foreign private de facto WHO definition to grant themselves authority, plaintiffs believe there would first need to be motivated reason which allows them to legally adopt the foreign definition of vaccine. In the absence of proof that the WHO is authorized to define “Vaccine” in contrast to our legislators who already define vaccine in 32722(p), the court has a duty to grant the precautionary measure in order to prevent the manifestly illegal act of COVID- 19 biological agent “vaccines” being used in excess of Costa Rica legal limits." https://interestofjustice.substack.com/p/nuremberg-appeal-filing-judge-rules

They have a court date of Nov 9. They are, in part saying that their legislature does not define a vaccine the same way as the WHO. Instead of health authorities following the legislature, they followed a private entity, a proven liar called the WHO.

To my mind it would be worth contacting these litigators and getting more info as this may be a tactic that other nations can join or at least help the Costa Rican people, or additionally pursue in our own courts.

Expand full comment
Sep 15, 2023Liked by Joe Martino

Intense reading this well written piece, Joe. I appreciate your work and the moral compass of truth being your guide! So much to correct in our world these days, that yes- it can at times be overwhelming. I hope for those open conversations to be had. Especially, the ones where ALL of the real people get to have their say while world “leaders” face the public’s scrutiny. Thank you!

Expand full comment
Sep 15, 2023Liked by Joe Martino

Thank you for this writing, Joe. I drank it in like a glass of pure cool water after a long walk.

I encourage you to continue speaking truth from love.

Expand full comment
Sep 15, 2023·edited Sep 15, 2023Liked by Joe Martino

The Atlantic is totally captured media, like virtually all mainstream and legacy media. Even Rolling Stone, the legendary journal for counterculture has long sold out. The job of each and every one of them is to define and maintain the worldview of the masses - a worldview programmed by the Narrative. Katherine Wu, like all other contributors to corporate media, must promote that lie or seek employment elsewhere. Virtually all honest journalists have been relegated to Substack or the like, as the truth they present does not suit the narrative that is forced upon us all - 24/7. Matt Taibbi (ex-Rolling Stone), Glenn Greenwald (ex-Guardian), and Chris Hedges (ex-NYT), among others, continue to chronicle this descent extensively.

Expand full comment
Sep 15, 2023Liked by Joe Martino

Well said Joe

Expand full comment