Goddess

Yes, we did. This one comes late to the party and demands everybody stop and fill him in on what's been going on for the last 3 years. I put the work in. Waded through mounds of 💩 lies to find things out. It's all here, mostly on threads you or I started. He can catch up on his own. He won't, though.

I've read the book and looked up quite a lot of the references to verify. I've also read the claims that something is untrue in the book and seen the rebuttals, to which the claimant then disappears. What have you done about the claim you're making? I mean, besides hastily googling a Wiki page that you didn't even verify if what they're saying is true.

You're not the first person to try and infer that I'm against all modern medicine. It's getting to be a tired and old accusation, though.

Of course not. Pharmaceuticals have their place in medicine. It's your Wiki page that's wrong. No money has been paid to anyone.

It's why I have little patience with the whiney, "But WHY don't you trust Big Pharma?" crowd these days.

Everyone should watch that movie. THEN we'll have a talk about how much Pfizer loves you.

I take each claim individually. For instance, when natural immunity for covid was loudly denied, even by "experts", I compared it to what we already knew about coronaviruses/colds/flus and virology/epidemiology and concluded they were full of 💩. And I was right. When they said if you got the jab you would not get covid or pass it on to others and that's why we needed mandates, I compared it to what we already knew about cornonaviruses and flu vaccines and also knew right away they were full of 💩 And I was right again. When the studies first came out about myocarditis and the "experts" were saying no such thing as vax-induced myocarditis, I compared it to what we already knew about myocarditis being an adverse event for jabs in general, again - I knew they were full of 💩. When the 6-foot distancing thing came out and made everyone's life miserable, I compared it to what we knew about the physics of aerosols and dispersals and knew they were full of 💩. So when Fauci admitted under questioning that he just made it up, I was like, "No 💩, Sherlock." I guess I'm a person who, if you lie to me continuously, I check out everything you say afterwards.

No, I'm not. You're deliberately and consciously uninformed and use MSM headlines and hastily googled Wiki pages to rebut with and seem too think they are superior sources of information than well-researched books on the subject (which you refuse to consider) and medical studies and datasets. You don't leave much room for discussion. And you demand explanations for things like why I don't trust CNN over independent scientists. Which I think is fairly obvious. That's crazily frightening.

What do you think of this take to explain what happened?

FFS Are you THAT completely and utterly uninformed of the many scandals, frauds, billion dollar fines, and dangerous drug approvals that Pharma needs to be hauled kicking and screaming that take years to revoke?

Back to the issue of censorship (Nice that Zuck finally admitted it.) This is from Jeff Childer's substack: (He's a lawyer I follow.) On Wednesday, podcaster Chris Williamson (2.6 million subscribers) interviewed “intellectual dark web” member Eric Weinstein in an electrifying videocast episode titled, “Eric Weinstein - Are We On The Brink Of A Revolution?” It’s worth watching, especially the first 40 minutes or so, but since it’s over 3 hours long, I’ll hit the high points for you. Eric Weinstein is a multi-talented mathematician, economist, physicist, and managing director at Thiel Capital. A classic liberal, he became deeply critical of conventional physics, particularly “string theory,” which Weinstein considers an unfalsifiable, fake, deep-state invention enforced by government grant-driven orthodoxy and groupthink. And it’s dumb. Although not labeled “anti-vaxx,” during the pandemic, Weinstein broke with conventional covid narratives, questioning the lack of transparency, the rushed vaccine development, and the destructiveness of lockdowns and other forced mitigation measures. He was among the first scientists to question the now-debunked “natural origins” narrative for the virus. As a result of his intolerable heterodoxy, like the Biblical scapegoat of old, Weinstein was professionally banished to the academic wilderness. He now publishes his work in his own podcasting and direct-to-public venues. Ironically, having been excommunicated from academic circles, Weinstein now enjoys more freedom to criticize the creaking, ossified, bureaucratic establishment. In the podcast I linked above, Weinstein provided one of the most insightful, well-described analyses of the current woeful state of our ‘democracy’ that I have yet seen collected in one place. Fair warning, Weinstein is not optimistic. But he admitted that the best thing Trump ever did was prove in 2016 that The System is not omnipotent or omniscient, but can screw up and can be beaten. Weinstein has a broad and more discrete view of what the ‘deep state’ is. He describes it as an alliance of government, academic, and corporate interests that live off the established “rules based order.” Weinstein suggested NAFTA as an example. However “bad” a deal the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) was for America, government actors and big corporate interests feast off advantages and benefits cleverly buried in the text of the incomprehensibly complicated laws. When someone like Trump comes along, and threatens to toss the whole deal out and replace it with something simpler (and less amenable to exploitation), it threatens to disrupt a carefully balanced ecosystem of benefits and sinecures that elite groups have spent decades building. Not surprisingly, this coalition of elite interests fights more ferociously than a pack of starving coyotes to preserve their rewarding sinecures. In other words, Weinstein suggested that the "deep state" isn't an ill-defined, shadowy cabal, but instead is a vast and intricate network of incentives — an alliance between bureaucracy and capital that thrives on complexity. This makes it devilishly difficult to dismantle, because even modest proposals for reform can trigger widespread institutional rebellion. It’s not super controversial. Over the last four years we have seen that battle violently erupt onto the social and political stage. With that in mind, Weinstein believes this deep state coalition has completely captured an increasingly bizarre and unhinged corporate media, which slavishly serves the interests of its corporate controllers. This brings us to Weinstein’s explanation for why corporate media pushes absurd narratives like “Republican Liz Cheney endorses Harris” on people like my relative, and why they uncritically and unquestioningly cling to those ridiculous narratives more tightly than an old man gripping his bus ticket. Weinstein proposed that captured corporate media’s only job is to publish orthodoxy. In other words, stories like “Republican Liz Cheney endorses Harris” aren’t actually meant to convince anybody that there is some rising groundswell of Republican opposition to Trump. Rather, corporate media is signaling to the orthodox establishment’s members what is permissible for them to think and say. People whose careers depend on established institutional structures implicitly understand this. If, like Weinstein, someone decides to challenge or break with the approved narrative, they risk losing their careers and reputations. Questioning the narrative means losing invitations, opportunities, promotions, and killing your career. In this way, the corporate media serves as the day-to-day mechanism for rapidly disseminating ‘safe’ groupthink. The participants —especially those in government, academia, and international corporations— know that straying from media-established boundaries means risking scapegoat status and excommunication. After all, Weinstein should know. That’s what happened to him. Over time, corporate media has evolved from being a source of investigative journalism and watchdog reporting into a mechanical device for reinforcing consensus among elites. Weinstein’s theory helps us understand how in 2023, Time could rail against ultraprocessed foods, but one year later in 2024, after the Trump-Kennedy alliance, can turn on a dime and publish silly headlines like “What if Ultra-Processed Foods Aren’t as Bad as You Think?” It also explains why corporate media seems blithely unconcerned about its historically low levels of trust. There is a simple explanation. It doesn’t care about public trust, because its mission is to maintain cohesion among the elite class, not to provide honest, transparent information to the masses. Thus, publishing false or exaggerated stories that serve a particular political or corporate interest are useful for keeping the right people in alignment. In other words, the general population’s trust is secondary or even irrelevant because the real power brokers —decision-makers in government, business, and academia— are still receiving and aligning with the messages the media sends. As long as the right people (those with influence and authority) continue to trust and engage with corporate media, the public can be safely ignored. Even more dystopian, the erosion of media trust doesn’t even hurt its mission at all. If anything, it might even help maintain the status quo, by keeping the unwashed general public out of the conversation. When we see media’s narrative spin machine working, like when it tells us ultraprocessed foods aren’t really that bad, or that Republican Liz Cheney is breaking with the party, or that America is systemically racist, we must not frame those narratives in terms of how horrible the media is, but rather understand that media is telling Democrats and captured elites how to think. The best vaccine for these virus-like mind-control narratives is mockery. Every narrative has a simple anti-narrative waiting to be discovered. That’s why memes are effective, and it’s why the deep state coalition cannot tolerate free speech.

I can't believe I'm required to explain to these people why Wikipedia and MSM headlines are not better than actual independent, non-Pharma-funded medical studies and real life datasets. But here we are. 🙄

How do I engage with this level of laziness? I mean you quickly google a Wiki article that says what you want it to say and then think I'm the person who has to verify Wiki is correct. No, dumbass. You referenced Wiki. YOU check it out. YOU verify your sources. I'm sick to death of this intellectual laziness - quickly googling an opposing view and strutting around like "AHA! I got you!" FFS It's either stupid or lazy.

Did you check out those claims? Compare them to the references in the book? Wow, you're really fast, that only took you what? About 3 minutes to check that all out? Seriously, you're lazy. You don't want truth. You want to be told what to think and believe.

🙄 Ya, OK, Mr. Critical Thinker Who Only Believes MSM Headlines. I'll get right on that.

This is the problem every time with vax fanatics - without even reading the book, you dismiss it out of hand, as unworthy of any attention because an MSM article or Wiki tells you to. Reject any medical studies, not because you've sourced the scientists or read the study to check for flaws in the methodology or researched what other scientists are saying about it, but only because it disagree with your opinions and the MSM headlines. And then you claim to want truth. You don't. You want to be a sheep. You want to be told what to think and believe. I get it - that's so much easier than learning critical thinking.

Do you ever check your sources? Wikipedia's 20, but how credible is it? – DW – 01/14/2021 The Hunt for Wikipedia's Disinformation Moles | WIRED Some researchers believe that Wikipedia could be an overlooked venue for information warfare, and they have been developing technologies and methods similar to the ones used on Facebook and Twitter to uncover it. A team from the UK-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) and the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media (CASM Technology) published a paper today exploring how to uncover disinformation on Wikipedia. They also believe that the data mapping may have uncovered a strategy that states could use to introduce disinformation. The trick, they say, is playing the long and subtle game. What’s Wrong with Wikipedia? | Harvard Guide to Using Sources Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field —or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. While Wikipedia editors do correct misinformation, observers have found that they don’t catch everything—at least not right away. Sometimes inaccurate information is posted to Wikipedia on purpose, as a hoax. In some well-documented cases, this inaccurate information continues to spread when people take it from Wikipedia and use it in books and articles. You gave MSM headlines. I've seen the data and stats. It's why Congress is investigating. i see you are a person who believes whatever is in MSM. That's a shame.

I guess we'll see how accurate your MSM headlines are when Cuomo is hauled in front of Congress later this month. You don't think there's a reason why that's being done? Could it be because what was reported in the MSM is being found to be the opposite of data and records?

At the very least you should read RFK Jr.'s book on Fauci. It is extremely well documented, you can check all the references yourself. He's offered money to anyone who finds a falsehood. No takers so far.

Ok. And that's fine. But since you refuse to look at any information that doesn't worship Fauci or Big Pharma and only rely on MSM for information, then what do we really have to discuss? I mean, I posted soooooo many studies showing the incidence of myocarditis long before Big Pharma would even admit it was a problem - in fact, they denied it. Until they couldn't any more. When people believe MSM headlines over medical studies, I mean....where do I go from there?

Yes or No question: Would you ever in a million years read "The Real Anthony Fauci" or Celia Farber's book on Fauci and AIDS or anything by Charles Ortleb, who has many books on the corruption in the Pharma industry? There's tons of books out there for YOU to inform yourself on, IF YOU CHOSE TO DO SO. You don't' need me to sum everything up into a 2 sentence soundbite for you. Get off your arse.

Haha, no. You're not. Not when your "sources" are all MSM, which have admitted was highly censored and they spun everything to deceive the public.

You seem to have trouble with comprehension. I've replied repeatedly to you that I believe they should ALL be re-researched by independent, not Pharma-paid-for labs and scientists. I believe this is urgent, due to the massive amount of corruption in the industry and the desperation in their attempts to cover things up. I disagree. You seem to be nothing more than a shill for Big Pharma and reject any information that contradicts your already decided upon views.

My direct answer is: I've spent a lot of time researching the corruption, reading books, reading studies, paying attention. You want this all summed up in one or two sentences. My direct answer is: Find out for yourself. Or don't. It's entirely up to you.

It's essential to question the information presented to us, seek out the truth beyond the surface, and understand that sometimes, the pursuit of profit overshadows the genuine quest for knowledge and health. If you don't look back on the last few years and question it and think it's some of the weirdest times we've ever lived through, then you're not paying attention. The medical industrial complex is just as evil as the military industrial complex. What happened in NYC at the beginning of the "pandemic" is being questioned in the US Congress now. Refrigerated trucks were never used, field hospitals set up and never used. In spite of there being 4 other hospitals in the area of Elmhurst, they all sat empty and every patient was sent to Elmhurst. Guess which hospital was featured on the news? 20,000 deaths are claimed, yet they are refusing to release death certificates or names. Where did 20,000 bodies go? Imagine the intense effort needed for that. There is a spike of 20,000 deaths and nothing before or after that "event". It's looking more and more suspicious. The data literally looks like this: People are wising up. We better start demanding answers before they do this again.