"The S protein generated by or incorporated into vaccines is an effective immunogen but does not alter DNA, does not induce infertility or pass through breast milk, and is not a toxin."
O the heady days when they could simply deny all the evidence with abandon, knowing their compatriots in all the controlled information outlets like scientific bodies and Twitter and Facebook would echo and suppress as required. The top down control of info has lost much of it's grip since then.
Over a year ago, when I first heard Robert Malone talk about mass formation psychosis, I thought it sounded pretty far fetched but I also had to admit I didn't have a better explanation for what I was seeing all around me. I have since come to except it because I still don't have a better explanation. I don't believe these quiet admissions are an indication that the vaccinators are coming out of their trance. And I think it would be dangerous to let them pull a Birx and pretend they knew all along but it was it was necessary to say otherwise for reasons they don't need to explain, just deal with it. I'm not a vengeful person but these people NEED to apologies. Only acknowledging what they have done will make things right not only for us but for them.
It’s already happening. Remember 0Micron variant? Apparently right before mid terms, we are to go into lock down again with forced vaccinations this time for that deadly variant. This I’ve seen a couple blurbs of on television, but it’s actually coming from the mask zealots more than television. It’s insane how people think Covid-19 itself is still deadly. Even when shown information from the CDC itself that whatever assumption they have is not true, the level of mental gymnastics they jump through to refute the information.
I’m still called a conspiracy theorist, which I gladly wear the title albeit with tongue firmly planted in cheek. I just wish that being a conspiracy theorist wasn’t modern nomenclature for Prophet. I don’t wish to be one of those. Prophets seem to wind up dead by someone else’s hand.
There are worse things than death... And besides, what most of us are doing is theorizing about conspiracy, so... why not just accept the title and wear it as a badge of pride? lol
It's always good to keep a sense of humor: If there's one thing psychopaths (or most anyone, really) hate, it's being laughed at. Especially when they want you to be terrified. Ha! ^_^
"Mass Formation Psychosis" is the term used and explained by Mattias Desmet, a Belgian psychologist and professor. Robert Malone has nothing whatsoever to do with that term, and in my opinion, Malone is Controlled Opposition at worst, and at best a duplicitous, self-serving tool who is trying to save himself, no one else as far as I can see. I probably sound quite harsh, but that's a guy who was working in the mRNA field for many years, knew what it was (basically evil and nonsense, too), and waited nearly TWO YEARS after "Covid" started to come out and say something. Besides there is little evidence that "mRNA" anything is even real. Just as virology is a false field of study. This is my take after reading two and a half years of science around all this... Terrain Theory is the thing.
The Covid shot is not a "vaccine." Changing a definition is not kosher. ALL vaccines are suspect as being utterly unhelpful, if not harmful, on their face. This is the Word of Dog.
I was permanently suspended by Twitter in February 2021 for warning of COVID vaccine toxicity. Now I am suing Twitter and the Biden administration for collusion to violate the 1st Amendment, and resulting widespread morbidity and mortality, for suppressing my warnings.
Here I showed the mechanisms of the shots' cardiotoxicity:
The ❤ is for the lawsuit against Twitter and Biden. I am too uneducated to make my way entirely through your article, but this part summed it up for me:
When asked in June 2021 about the risk of myocarditis following the COVID vaccines, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, pathologist, replied:
“Myocarditis is never mild, particularly in young healthy males. It’s an inflammation of the heart muscle, the pump of the body. And we don’t know what percent of the heart muscle cells would have died in any one attack of myocarditis. The big thing about heart muscle, heart muscle fibers, is that they do not regenerate, . . . so you’re stuck with an unknown percentage of your heart muscle cells having died. We can’t estimate the number, and therefore the long-term results are utterly unpredictable. We do know . . . that myocarditis can present decades later, with premature onset of heart failure that would otherwise not have been expected. So it’s a terrible worry for these people to know what’s going to happen to them in the future. . . . It’s not trivial.”
guess this means that the veracity of a statement gets decided by the identity of the speaker and how it affects the dominant narrative. it is essentially punitive enforcement of the pack, nothing matters more than marching in lockstep and displaying loyalty to the larger cause: that cause of course being our rulers and their sycophant class maintaining their exalted status.
you would think this mountain of lies and social damage would be too enormous to cover up, but dont worry it will be.
conformity and inertia plus it being better to be an insider w egg on your face (a la Iraq) than to be a weird outsider will snuff most of it.
I don't even think speaker identity is terribly relevant. The piranha swarm will tear into their own the moment one of their number speaks out of turn. The line between credentialed expert in good standing with the expertocracy, and wild eyed aluminum foil'd conspiracy schizo, is as thin as a single off-message public statement.
Slightly different angle; If I were a member of the expertocracy, i would reformulate my "on-message" to blur the two, so the public would view it as a distinction without difference. After all, on balance, a handful of things we've learned over the last two years don't even come close to such and such sides, one or two grave "errors".
...look folks I made a few minor mistakes....drip, drip, drip....but, being the expert that I am, my boo-boo's were inconsequential compared to these wild claims you've heard about x,y,z.
Additionally recent polling shows 50%+ believe major damage/effects over the next 10 years from climate change. Which, of course, will coincide with the economic carnage cast by the insane c19 measures.
I wonder if masks will be required to curb CO2 emissions? People don't know difference between CO2 & CO...Let alone what are the 3 branches of government.
But this is a pack of soft, sniveling, venal, idiot cowards.
This is hardly the howl of wolves.
I know I keep raising this point, I shall live in hope contempt shall lead to anger and dare I dream they get slapped, which I’m certain didn’t happen to them as a child.
Meanwhile, there are now ads for treatments for child myocarditis, because that's just a thing that sort of happens now, apparently commonly enough that it's worth making ads about, but no biggie, don't ask questions:
Thanks for bringing that to our attention. That's really interesting and sad. I'd love it if more MDs, especially cardiologists, would comment on this new phenomenon of childhood myocarditis.
My prediction: a bunch of cardiologists will make a joint statement that they've never seen so many childhood myocarditis cases and they're baffled. So, they'll demand that the government fund major studies to find the cause. Eventually they'll conclude it's caused by global warming or the lack of gender affirming care.
That ad's been making the rounds on substack. It's nauseating on multiple levels.
Normalizing child myocarditis! Reinforcing the cultural message that all you need to do is let modern medicine poke and prod and medicate and voilà, all better! Not to mention the emotional manipulation of having it narrated by a child.
I'm reading *Raven* because of the column you wrote about it. I'm up to January 1978. I don't know if you recall the part in September 1977 when Reiterman (working for the *Examiner* at this point) interviews Joyce Shaw (Bob Houston's widow, who has left the cult) and Phyllis Houston (Bob Houston's ex-wife, who is still in the cult, but living in San Francisco). Both teen daughters of the Houstons are in Jonestown, Guyana, 6000 miles away from their mother. Their father is dead (mysterious railroad accident). Phyllis tells Reiterman that the girls like it there and could come home if they wanted to, and he can't decide whether something bad is going on.
A lot of terrible things happen in part because journalists and their editors are reluctant to believe that something truly awful is true. Nobody wants to be the first to say the terrible, world-rocking thing out loud, so the general public doesn't find out until it's too late, and 900 people are dead (or in the case of mRNA shots, tens of thousands).
I say this as a journalist who has written about bad stuff that I wish weren't true.
"Nobody wants to be the first to say the terrible, world-rocking thing out loud ..."
I'm not saying this statement is false. But how do we reconcile this statement with the fact that most of the headlines and announcements we hear nowadays are unbelievably sensationalistic?
I mean, I've come to the opposite conclusion based on reading the news: reporters, journalists, media outlets, and substack writers ABSOLUTELY LOVE to announce that our very democracy is on the brink of collapse, the planet's on fire, Putin now runs our government, our president is a Nazi, Covid jabs will kill every single vaccinated person, Covid itself will kill every single UNvaccinated person, nuclear war is imminent, monkeypox cannot be stopped, half the country has no more water, a giant glacier in Antarctica is about to collapse and raise global ocean levels by 23 feet, Martha's Vineyard is in a crisis, and a thousand other things. It seems that, not only do they love to tell us that awful things are true, it's their business model.
How do we reconcile these two opposing tendencies?
I personally reconcile these notions by considering the sensational claims that get promoted (our precious democracy is threatened by Trump’s very existence) in order to create manipulable doubt, while the true claims (the largely untested vaccines are damaging tens of thousands and we aren’t even tracking those who are killed by it) get suppressed to ensure the continuity of the governing junta placed in charge of the US.
The tl;dr is that the claims are promoted or suppressed in the wider media based exclusively on how they serve the government. But then I’m pretty cynical.
Yes. CO2 is a horrible toxin, so we have to empower the government to ration energy and create tradable carbon markets for their fat-cat banker friends. On the other hand, actual toxins are winked at for decades, because everyone at EPA needs to be sure he can later work at Monsanto, Dow, etc., if he wants to.
I think most (maybe all) of the things you name are things that whoever said them today was *definitely* not the first person to say. I've heard about Republican presidents being "literally Hitler" for decades; the global warming scaremongering has been going on for my entire adult life (preceded by the "hole in the ozone layer" when I was around 12--what's up with that now?); the Russians have been "out to get us" for literally my parents' entire lives; this or that infectious disease is coming for everyone!! and has been since God was a boy. So literally no one saying those things in 2022 is the first person to say them.
What I mean is actually something different. I'm talking about an actual bad thing, not a could-happen fearporn thing. I mean, you interview a mom whose three children were taken away from her by an overzealous child protective services apparatus, and it's like, Wow, I have to back this up with court documents and witnesses, because blowing the lid on this by saying in a newspaper that CPS sometimes takes kids away from good parents and keeps them away for 15 months without proving a damned thing is reputationally risky. You get tagged as that idiot reporter who's soft on child abuse, or who believes crazy moms, or whatever. I'm not talking about, Hey, an asteroid could hit the Earth, according to some physicist--should I write a mostly speculative piece on it?
And when I say "Nobody" wants to be the first, I mean, "No credentialed journalist." Moms whose kids were injured by vaccines in the 1980s have been talking about it nonstop. Other than Sharyl Attkisson, however, no credentialed reporter wanted to talk about the fact that the sacred cow of the public health system actually harms people--the fact that we're talking about *societal* risks and benefits and might include a "greater good" calculation that is OK with your particular child getting encephalitis and neurological sequelae. Ditto with Substackers and Bobby Kennedy talking about corona shots being pushed into the marketplace with very little testing, therefore posing all sorts of risks that we can't even imagine. No credentialed reporter wanted to say those things.
Thank you for documenting another solid example. 20 years ago I had faith in the CDC as a body of experts arriving at scientific consensus. But the last few years only show lies and deceit constructed to manipulate Americans. They and the MSM and the gov't writ large have lied so often and so vociferously that only a fool would believe them now.
I wonder how demented the spin will have become by the time the wheels finally fall off. I sense they will try to redirect the avalanche of rage at the unvaccinated, but how? Could their narrative suddenly turn ultra weird, once the bodies pile up high enough? I'm talking "you-unvaxxed-are-all-literally-witches" weird?
Unvaxxed privilege: it's not fair that the unvaxxed have normal sized hearts just because they had the moral strength necessary to resist all the emotional pressure to get jabbed. We're all supposed to be in this together, and remaining stubbornly healthy is just obnoxiously antisocial.
Did you catch the weasel wording in the fact check? "There is no evidence the spike protein causes a toxin to be produced..." The spike protein IS the toxin, it doesn't produce one. So the fact check is technically correct. They're playing with people's lives by playing with words.
Don't you love that Politico mentions Bridle by name but those refuting him are anonymous "experts"? It's details like that everyone should be on lookout for when reading or watching so called news.
“Everything in medicine is about taking the choice that puts you at lowest risk. Whether that's the surgery you're about to get or medicine you're about to take. There are no risk-free choices,"
Agreed...except federal and local governments and many businesses didn’t want it to be a choice, they wanted a mandate. That’s a different risk equation.
I refused to get the jab. Not enough research in my opinion and heard of many people feeling very bad after the 1st injection. I was in good health and having NO comorbidities felt even at 69, I would take the risk. Strong immune system- that's the key. My husband and I both got the Omicron variant (wasn't tested), but I would decribed as a mild cold with a fever. Please, now pushing a booster for that! It's all about the money and retaining control.
The extent to which the taxpayer funded "experts" have gone to suppress true, informed and non-hysterical opinions based on FACT, is astounding! Given an opportunity, they would have suppressed any and all information on the Vaccine Adverse Reaction Data Base, which reports only a fraction of the adverse effects (as estimated by Harvard University) . This is super scary indeed. Thanks again, Chris for taking on the "Fact Checkers" writing about it in such an entertaining and readable form!
Sadly Chris, once again you’re underestimating the importance of being RIGHT! Irrespective of ever evolving facts, one must NEVER admit that one wasn’t RIGHT all along. The corollary, of course, is that anyone who was unfortunate enough not to be RIGHT initially (i.e, wrong), will, always and forever, be unable to achieve that state of grace otherwise known as...RIGHT-ness.
An interviewee in the June 7 article also states: "What people have to understand is....if you look at COVID-19, the myocarditis that the disease gives you occurs at about 30 times higher frequency. So, yes, it's true that the vaccine has a rare adverse event of myocarditis, and we and others are trying to understand how it occurs and how to avoid it[.]" It's important to be clear as to what they are claiming about relative myocarditis risks whether one agrees or not. I don't know if this claim is true but it is certainly relevant.
The great thing about the internet: five years from now, they can "edit" that story and put it in paragraph 2 and pretend it was there all along.
There is a reason why the California bill penalizes doctors acting on or giving information "contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus." It's not that you're acting in an anti-science (little s) way. It's that you're acting in an anti-Science(TM) way against the "consensus" of a bunch of people with self-serving motives and no regard for human life.
'There is a reason why the California bill penalizes doctors acting on or giving information "contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus."'
Politicians should not be allowed to opine about science. Consensus doesn't have anything to do with real science.
"Contemporary scientific consensus" is what got Gallileo and Socrates in trouble. (At that time, religion called the shots instead of science, but the principle stands.)
Here's the attack on Bridle by his own colleagues in July of 2021:
https://www.wormsandgermsblog.com/files/2021/07/20210706-VaccineSafety_UoGuelph.pdf
"The S protein generated by or incorporated into vaccines is an effective immunogen but does not alter DNA, does not induce infertility or pass through breast milk, and is not a toxin."
O the heady days when they could simply deny all the evidence with abandon, knowing their compatriots in all the controlled information outlets like scientific bodies and Twitter and Facebook would echo and suppress as required. The top down control of info has lost much of it's grip since then.
I wonder how many of the folks who endorsed this are dead now, and how many still believe Bridle got it wrong? Show of hands?
Over a year ago, when I first heard Robert Malone talk about mass formation psychosis, I thought it sounded pretty far fetched but I also had to admit I didn't have a better explanation for what I was seeing all around me. I have since come to except it because I still don't have a better explanation. I don't believe these quiet admissions are an indication that the vaccinators are coming out of their trance. And I think it would be dangerous to let them pull a Birx and pretend they knew all along but it was it was necessary to say otherwise for reasons they don't need to explain, just deal with it. I'm not a vengeful person but these people NEED to apologies. Only acknowledging what they have done will make things right not only for us but for them.
Agree. My biggest fear about this nonsense is that they manufacture a new "Delta" variant...you know; "perceived" that way by the public.
Then the peeps will do it all over again not knowing they're inviting brown shirts.
It’s already happening. Remember 0Micron variant? Apparently right before mid terms, we are to go into lock down again with forced vaccinations this time for that deadly variant. This I’ve seen a couple blurbs of on television, but it’s actually coming from the mask zealots more than television. It’s insane how people think Covid-19 itself is still deadly. Even when shown information from the CDC itself that whatever assumption they have is not true, the level of mental gymnastics they jump through to refute the information.
I’m still called a conspiracy theorist, which I gladly wear the title albeit with tongue firmly planted in cheek. I just wish that being a conspiracy theorist wasn’t modern nomenclature for Prophet. I don’t wish to be one of those. Prophets seem to wind up dead by someone else’s hand.
There are worse things than death... And besides, what most of us are doing is theorizing about conspiracy, so... why not just accept the title and wear it as a badge of pride? lol
It's always good to keep a sense of humor: If there's one thing psychopaths (or most anyone, really) hate, it's being laughed at. Especially when they want you to be terrified. Ha! ^_^
They might as well practice phrenology.
These people are in occult malice worship
I think a lot of people are getting a bit skeptical.
Let's hope.
You put a mask on all day and smell your own fear that changes behavior. The mask would come back in a hot second.
People will do anything to settle fear...whether that's fear of losing income...or social status...or fear itself, etc.,etc.
People weren't really willing to pay a "price" the first go around.
They think its all "over". That is why I say it's possible. What if its not over?
I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I think they'd do it all over again if they felt like they had no choice.
"Mass Formation Psychosis" is the term used and explained by Mattias Desmet, a Belgian psychologist and professor. Robert Malone has nothing whatsoever to do with that term, and in my opinion, Malone is Controlled Opposition at worst, and at best a duplicitous, self-serving tool who is trying to save himself, no one else as far as I can see. I probably sound quite harsh, but that's a guy who was working in the mRNA field for many years, knew what it was (basically evil and nonsense, too), and waited nearly TWO YEARS after "Covid" started to come out and say something. Besides there is little evidence that "mRNA" anything is even real. Just as virology is a false field of study. This is my take after reading two and a half years of science around all this... Terrain Theory is the thing.
We can stop mocking Salem witch hunts now, we can stop mocking Soviet Show Trials.
Hopefully we shan’t be going all the way...
The Covid shot is not a "vaccine." Changing a definition is not kosher. ALL vaccines are suspect as being utterly unhelpful, if not harmful, on their face. This is the Word of Dog.
I was permanently suspended by Twitter in February 2021 for warning of COVID vaccine toxicity. Now I am suing Twitter and the Biden administration for collusion to violate the 1st Amendment, and resulting widespread morbidity and mortality, for suppressing my warnings.
Here I showed the mechanisms of the shots' cardiotoxicity:
https://colleenhuber.substack.com/p/is-it-possible-to-avoid-heart-damage
The ❤ is for the lawsuit against Twitter and Biden. I am too uneducated to make my way entirely through your article, but this part summed it up for me:
When asked in June 2021 about the risk of myocarditis following the COVID vaccines, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, pathologist, replied:
“Myocarditis is never mild, particularly in young healthy males. It’s an inflammation of the heart muscle, the pump of the body. And we don’t know what percent of the heart muscle cells would have died in any one attack of myocarditis. The big thing about heart muscle, heart muscle fibers, is that they do not regenerate, . . . so you’re stuck with an unknown percentage of your heart muscle cells having died. We can’t estimate the number, and therefore the long-term results are utterly unpredictable. We do know . . . that myocarditis can present decades later, with premature onset of heart failure that would otherwise not have been expected. So it’s a terrible worry for these people to know what’s going to happen to them in the future. . . . It’s not trivial.”
Good! Bankrupt these jerks! I read your early papers on this and you were a canary in the coal mine. I really appreciate you!
Thank you.
GO COLLEEN!
GIT 'EM!!!! xo
guess this means that the veracity of a statement gets decided by the identity of the speaker and how it affects the dominant narrative. it is essentially punitive enforcement of the pack, nothing matters more than marching in lockstep and displaying loyalty to the larger cause: that cause of course being our rulers and their sycophant class maintaining their exalted status.
you would think this mountain of lies and social damage would be too enormous to cover up, but dont worry it will be.
conformity and inertia plus it being better to be an insider w egg on your face (a la Iraq) than to be a weird outsider will snuff most of it.
I don't even think speaker identity is terribly relevant. The piranha swarm will tear into their own the moment one of their number speaks out of turn. The line between credentialed expert in good standing with the expertocracy, and wild eyed aluminum foil'd conspiracy schizo, is as thin as a single off-message public statement.
Good point.
Slightly different angle; If I were a member of the expertocracy, i would reformulate my "on-message" to blur the two, so the public would view it as a distinction without difference. After all, on balance, a handful of things we've learned over the last two years don't even come close to such and such sides, one or two grave "errors".
...look folks I made a few minor mistakes....drip, drip, drip....but, being the expert that I am, my boo-boo's were inconsequential compared to these wild claims you've heard about x,y,z.
I imagine this most be similar to what remaining a breathing and in-good-standing member of the Soviet Politburo must have been like.
Narrative switch...same tactics:
https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/16/the-covid-response-playbook-is-coming-to-an-energy-crisis-near-you/
Additionally recent polling shows 50%+ believe major damage/effects over the next 10 years from climate change. Which, of course, will coincide with the economic carnage cast by the insane c19 measures.
I wonder if masks will be required to curb CO2 emissions? People don't know difference between CO2 & CO...Let alone what are the 3 branches of government.
::shaking head - shrugging shoulders::
But this is a pack of soft, sniveling, venal, idiot cowards.
This is hardly the howl of wolves.
I know I keep raising this point, I shall live in hope contempt shall lead to anger and dare I dream they get slapped, which I’m certain didn’t happen to them as a child.
Some of us ARE wolves.
Mama don’t let your kids grow up to be experts ...🎸🎵🎼🪕...raise em right , don’t spare the rod for we are ruled by spoilt childs...
I think that would work as country or rap, frankly...
But can you....rap?
I cannot.
But I am not of that generation, mebbee that's why I yam a wolf. I was on the Punk Rocker platform. The last of the rock n roll.
Why would a wolf RAP? lol We be howlin' baybuh.
Mama don’t let your kids grow up to be experts ...🎸🎵🎼🪕...raise em right , don’t spare the rod for we are ruled by spoilt childs...
I think that would work as country or rap, frankly...
Meanwhile, there are now ads for treatments for child myocarditis, because that's just a thing that sort of happens now, apparently commonly enough that it's worth making ads about, but no biggie, don't ask questions:
https://twitter.com/anish_koka/status/1571186794644873217
Thanks for bringing that to our attention. That's really interesting and sad. I'd love it if more MDs, especially cardiologists, would comment on this new phenomenon of childhood myocarditis.
My prediction: a bunch of cardiologists will make a joint statement that they've never seen so many childhood myocarditis cases and they're baffled. So, they'll demand that the government fund major studies to find the cause. Eventually they'll conclude it's caused by global warming or the lack of gender affirming care.
That ad's been making the rounds on substack. It's nauseating on multiple levels.
Normalizing child myocarditis! Reinforcing the cultural message that all you need to do is let modern medicine poke and prod and medicate and voilà, all better! Not to mention the emotional manipulation of having it narrated by a child.
I'm reading *Raven* because of the column you wrote about it. I'm up to January 1978. I don't know if you recall the part in September 1977 when Reiterman (working for the *Examiner* at this point) interviews Joyce Shaw (Bob Houston's widow, who has left the cult) and Phyllis Houston (Bob Houston's ex-wife, who is still in the cult, but living in San Francisco). Both teen daughters of the Houstons are in Jonestown, Guyana, 6000 miles away from their mother. Their father is dead (mysterious railroad accident). Phyllis tells Reiterman that the girls like it there and could come home if they wanted to, and he can't decide whether something bad is going on.
A lot of terrible things happen in part because journalists and their editors are reluctant to believe that something truly awful is true. Nobody wants to be the first to say the terrible, world-rocking thing out loud, so the general public doesn't find out until it's too late, and 900 people are dead (or in the case of mRNA shots, tens of thousands).
I say this as a journalist who has written about bad stuff that I wish weren't true.
"Nobody wants to be the first to say the terrible, world-rocking thing out loud ..."
I'm not saying this statement is false. But how do we reconcile this statement with the fact that most of the headlines and announcements we hear nowadays are unbelievably sensationalistic?
I mean, I've come to the opposite conclusion based on reading the news: reporters, journalists, media outlets, and substack writers ABSOLUTELY LOVE to announce that our very democracy is on the brink of collapse, the planet's on fire, Putin now runs our government, our president is a Nazi, Covid jabs will kill every single vaccinated person, Covid itself will kill every single UNvaccinated person, nuclear war is imminent, monkeypox cannot be stopped, half the country has no more water, a giant glacier in Antarctica is about to collapse and raise global ocean levels by 23 feet, Martha's Vineyard is in a crisis, and a thousand other things. It seems that, not only do they love to tell us that awful things are true, it's their business model.
How do we reconcile these two opposing tendencies?
I personally reconcile these notions by considering the sensational claims that get promoted (our precious democracy is threatened by Trump’s very existence) in order to create manipulable doubt, while the true claims (the largely untested vaccines are damaging tens of thousands and we aren’t even tracking those who are killed by it) get suppressed to ensure the continuity of the governing junta placed in charge of the US.
The tl;dr is that the claims are promoted or suppressed in the wider media based exclusively on how they serve the government. But then I’m pretty cynical.
Yes. CO2 is a horrible toxin, so we have to empower the government to ration energy and create tradable carbon markets for their fat-cat banker friends. On the other hand, actual toxins are winked at for decades, because everyone at EPA needs to be sure he can later work at Monsanto, Dow, etc., if he wants to.
Pretty cynical, and 100% correct....
Pretty cynical, and 100% correct....
I think most (maybe all) of the things you name are things that whoever said them today was *definitely* not the first person to say. I've heard about Republican presidents being "literally Hitler" for decades; the global warming scaremongering has been going on for my entire adult life (preceded by the "hole in the ozone layer" when I was around 12--what's up with that now?); the Russians have been "out to get us" for literally my parents' entire lives; this or that infectious disease is coming for everyone!! and has been since God was a boy. So literally no one saying those things in 2022 is the first person to say them.
What I mean is actually something different. I'm talking about an actual bad thing, not a could-happen fearporn thing. I mean, you interview a mom whose three children were taken away from her by an overzealous child protective services apparatus, and it's like, Wow, I have to back this up with court documents and witnesses, because blowing the lid on this by saying in a newspaper that CPS sometimes takes kids away from good parents and keeps them away for 15 months without proving a damned thing is reputationally risky. You get tagged as that idiot reporter who's soft on child abuse, or who believes crazy moms, or whatever. I'm not talking about, Hey, an asteroid could hit the Earth, according to some physicist--should I write a mostly speculative piece on it?
And when I say "Nobody" wants to be the first, I mean, "No credentialed journalist." Moms whose kids were injured by vaccines in the 1980s have been talking about it nonstop. Other than Sharyl Attkisson, however, no credentialed reporter wanted to talk about the fact that the sacred cow of the public health system actually harms people--the fact that we're talking about *societal* risks and benefits and might include a "greater good" calculation that is OK with your particular child getting encephalitis and neurological sequelae. Ditto with Substackers and Bobby Kennedy talking about corona shots being pushed into the marketplace with very little testing, therefore posing all sorts of risks that we can't even imagine. No credentialed reporter wanted to say those things.
Thank you for documenting another solid example. 20 years ago I had faith in the CDC as a body of experts arriving at scientific consensus. But the last few years only show lies and deceit constructed to manipulate Americans. They and the MSM and the gov't writ large have lied so often and so vociferously that only a fool would believe them now.
Please tell me this ends without bloodshed.
Have faith that it ends without bloodshed.
I wonder how demented the spin will have become by the time the wheels finally fall off. I sense they will try to redirect the avalanche of rage at the unvaccinated, but how? Could their narrative suddenly turn ultra weird, once the bodies pile up high enough? I'm talking "you-unvaxxed-are-all-literally-witches" weird?
Unvaxxed privilege: it's not fair that the unvaxxed have normal sized hearts just because they had the moral strength necessary to resist all the emotional pressure to get jabbed. We're all supposed to be in this together, and remaining stubbornly healthy is just obnoxiously antisocial.
Not just "obnoxiously antisocial". PROOF absolute of witchy-ness!
I guess when the bodies pile up high enough, the bang becomes a whimper.
Did you catch the weasel wording in the fact check? "There is no evidence the spike protein causes a toxin to be produced..." The spike protein IS the toxin, it doesn't produce one. So the fact check is technically correct. They're playing with people's lives by playing with words.
Don't you love that Politico mentions Bridle by name but those refuting him are anonymous "experts"? It's details like that everyone should be on lookout for when reading or watching so called news.
Hi Chris,
Thank-you! Your articles are great.
From the reuters article
“Everything in medicine is about taking the choice that puts you at lowest risk. Whether that's the surgery you're about to get or medicine you're about to take. There are no risk-free choices,"
Agreed...except federal and local governments and many businesses didn’t want it to be a choice, they wanted a mandate. That’s a different risk equation.
I refused to get the jab. Not enough research in my opinion and heard of many people feeling very bad after the 1st injection. I was in good health and having NO comorbidities felt even at 69, I would take the risk. Strong immune system- that's the key. My husband and I both got the Omicron variant (wasn't tested), but I would decribed as a mild cold with a fever. Please, now pushing a booster for that! It's all about the money and retaining control.
The extent to which the taxpayer funded "experts" have gone to suppress true, informed and non-hysterical opinions based on FACT, is astounding! Given an opportunity, they would have suppressed any and all information on the Vaccine Adverse Reaction Data Base, which reports only a fraction of the adverse effects (as estimated by Harvard University) . This is super scary indeed. Thanks again, Chris for taking on the "Fact Checkers" writing about it in such an entertaining and readable form!
Sadly Chris, once again you’re underestimating the importance of being RIGHT! Irrespective of ever evolving facts, one must NEVER admit that one wasn’t RIGHT all along. The corollary, of course, is that anyone who was unfortunate enough not to be RIGHT initially (i.e, wrong), will, always and forever, be unable to achieve that state of grace otherwise known as...RIGHT-ness.
Oh, what a world we live in...whoda’ thunk?
An interviewee in the June 7 article also states: "What people have to understand is....if you look at COVID-19, the myocarditis that the disease gives you occurs at about 30 times higher frequency. So, yes, it's true that the vaccine has a rare adverse event of myocarditis, and we and others are trying to understand how it occurs and how to avoid it[.]" It's important to be clear as to what they are claiming about relative myocarditis risks whether one agrees or not. I don't know if this claim is true but it is certainly relevant.
1. "the myocarditis that the disease gives you occurs at about 30 times higher frequency"
Not true:
The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients-A Large Population-Based Study
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/
Just check VAERS for the underreported numbers for myocarditis/pericarditis...
2. Myocarditis from COVID virus versus myocarditis from the vaccine: the latter (from vaccine) is far more dangerous
https://www.drpaulalexander.com/blogs/news/myocarditis-from-covid-virus-versus-myocarditis-from-the-vaccine-the-latter-from-vaccine-is-far-more-dangerous
The great thing about the internet: five years from now, they can "edit" that story and put it in paragraph 2 and pretend it was there all along.
There is a reason why the California bill penalizes doctors acting on or giving information "contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus." It's not that you're acting in an anti-science (little s) way. It's that you're acting in an anti-Science(TM) way against the "consensus" of a bunch of people with self-serving motives and no regard for human life.
'There is a reason why the California bill penalizes doctors acting on or giving information "contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus."'
Politicians should not be allowed to opine about science. Consensus doesn't have anything to do with real science.
"Contemporary scientific consensus" is what got Gallileo and Socrates in trouble. (At that time, religion called the shots instead of science, but the principle stands.)
'The great thing about the internet: five years from now, they can "edit" that story and put it in paragraph 2 and pretend it was there all along.'
I expect someday they will outlaw the WayBack Machine.