What you don't know can't hurt them.
https://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/
https://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?t=41979
Doctors, Scientists Call On Mississippi Officials To Take COVID Vaccines Off The Market
On Monday and Tuesday, the medical freedom organization MS Against Mandates (MAM) held the Mississippi Medical Freedom Conference in Jackson, Mississippi, which included over a dozen physicians, several whistleblowers, six physician-confirmed vaccine-injured patients, and two parents whose sons died after receiving the vaccines.
Which seems quite a clear statement for the moment. The Chinese government created the Corona virus according to this commentary. No mention of American money or even Fauci's role as the source of funding, or his role as head of NIH or NIAID, or their offspring, Eco health Alliance. And certainly no investigation of which lab, whether Fort Dietrick, or Wuhan, or some other entity. No mention of the military games held in Wuhan just before the 'outbreak' in 2020 at which dozens of Fort Dietrick staff participated giving them every oportunity to seed the virus, even though Covid19 seems to be present in sewage samples from around the world as far back as march 2019. And absolutely no mention of Event 201.... So, control of the house has flipped and finally there's an investigation, long overdue, of where Covid came from... Tony Fauci deliberately covered up the origins of the virus by silencing questions and dissent, watch...
This'll probably all get lost and no one will ever be held accountable for destroying the US economy and killing a million people but the facts don't matter. Jamie metzl also testified, Metzl was one of the very first people to suggest what pretty much everyone now acknowledges is true, that this virus came from a Chinese government lab in Wuhan...
And so we see Tucker reverting to his basic function as a Murdoch employee, an apologist for everything he claims to be against. Not because China, but because Murdoch.Harvey » Sun May 19, 2019 1:30 am wrote:The answer to that is fairly simple. If the brand is toxic, such as Banon, an endorsement from him can damage an opponent far more effectively than anything else he can do directly, especially in combination with low level smear campaigns from the other direction via PR proxies, astroturfing and social media bots. Supporters on the far right, entrenched in reactionary identity politics are unlikely to follow any such endorsement, especially if you're working them at the other end. It's a relatively easy win.Elvis » Sat May 18, 2019 2:37 pm wrote:Gabbard sounds really good on some important issues, and it's encouraging that she takes the biggest media hit for "meeting with Assad." But I'm not fully convinced; is she really "progressive"? I'm still unclear on why Bannon would like her. Links & more pics at original.
By way of example, I realised what Murdoch was up to some years ago (having seen it all before in the UK where Murdoch built his first media empire*) when Fox began kite flying alternative positions as the toxicity of his brands spread beyond repair. Many reasons but here's a few, to potentially broaden the audience of course, but mainly to run interference among audiences unlikely ever to trust fox. They can still be heavily influenced. If Tucker Carlson says Syria was partly the result of western backed terrorists for example, and that those terrorists are carrying out false flag attacks, loyal Fox viewers won't necessarily follow him but a growing body of 'liberal' opinion will, and they'll encounter other political positions drawing them further to the right. More to the point, other liberal opinion entrenched in reactionary identity politics can be pushed away from positions they might naturally hold if they hear them coming from fox. For example, I saw a number of RI'ers over the last few years take positions against otherwise widely acknowledged information, because they said, they'd heard Fox pushing those same views. It can't work for long, but usually it works long enough to derail any system change possibility, or instal a deeply unpopular president...
*Where his basic approach evolved. Buy up exclusive rights to sporting events, popular music events, television shows, publishing events and also publishers. Fund the arts, support cultural venues and sell access fairly cheaply as a bundled loss leader to draw average punters deeper into the political output through repeated exposure, catering for a wide range of opinion at first then slowly drawing the audience into ever smaller political spaces. When opinion is too poisoned begin a slow swing back along the pendulum of political expression and appear to be changing position, then when enough are hooked, reel them in and head back in the other direction. He's been doing variations of this for five decades.
Good question or rhetorical q?Yeah, all of a sudden there seems to be quite a bit of chatter about the "vaccines "being a Department of Defense project. How did I miss that during the last 3 years?
Belligerent Savant » Fri Mar 10, 2023 8:39 am wrote:.
This is a very critical point to raise, and part of the reason so many remain steadfast in their ignorance/unwillingness to recognize just how egregiously they've been misled.
Despicable, to say the least.
(Though as previously alluded I find the 'lab leak theory', as propagated currently in the press, to be another limited hangout)
https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya/sta ... 45600?s=20Jay Bhattacharya
@DrJBhattacharya
·
Instead of investigative reporting and objective news on the covid origins debate, #scicomm journalists played the part of narrative enforcers for Tony Fauci and others. Top journals like Science, Nature, and Lancet did the same. Their editors failed.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... e-journalsTreason of the Science Journals
How Anthony Fauci manufactured consensus on the origins of COVID-19 with the help of science writers and the media
Excerpts from the piece:(The Bolded bit is not relegated to Covid alone, needless to say)At the government level, pandemic preparedness is as much about protecting critical supply chains as it is about administering medical treatments. What the COVID-19 pandemic showed is that the flow of information, which may be the single most vital resource in the supply chain, is utterly broken. In many cases, it was actively undermined by senior public health officials including the former chief medical adviser to the president, Dr. Anthony Fauci.
New emails released in a congressional probe show that Fauci helped direct the publication of “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” an influential scientific paper published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, that claimed COVID-19 could not have leaked from a laboratory. Fauci then cited the paper—in effect quoting himself, since he coordinated the article behind the scenes and was given final approval before it published—as if it was an independent source corroborating his assertions that COVID could only have come from a bat and not from a lab.
“There was a study recently that we can make available to you, where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve,” Fauci said at a presidential briefing on April 17, 2020, exactly one month after “Proximal Origin” was published. “And the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”
But why would Fauci go to so much trouble to control the information surrounding the origins of the virus while sending the message to Americans that the idea that COVID had come from a lab was a conspiracy theory? And why would science journalists and peer-reviewed science publications go along with the effort?
Fauci, it appears, may have been trying to hide his connections to the Wuhan Laboratory of Virology (WIV). For years, according to a report at The Intercept, the National Institutes of Health (where Fauci served as a director) directed government grants to the Chinese facility where multiple investigations by federal agencies have now concluded the virus likely originated
—specifically to fund the controversial gain of function (GoF) research that intentionally engineers deadly viruses in order to study them. Even if this was all merely a coincidence, it certainly looked bad. Fauci seemed so alarmed by the optics that in January 2020, he sent an email to his deputy, Hugh Auchincloss, with the single-word, all-caps subject line “IMPORTANT”—something he does not do in the hundreds of pages of other emails released to the public via FOIA requests. The email Fauci sent contained a link to a scientific study that was then spreading across the internet, which had originally been published in 2015 at the Wuhan Institute of Virology by the WIV’s Shi Zhengli and pioneering American GoF researcher Ralph Baric. In the body of the email, Fauci wrote to Auchincloss, “It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on …You will have tasks today that must be done.”
From the beginning of the pandemic, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and other leading mainstream outlets were taking their cues—including their facts and their seemingly unflappable certainties—from peer-reviewed publications with authoritative professional reputations like Nature, Science, and The Lancet.
It was this small handful of peer-reviewed science and medical journals—and to a shocking extent just these three—on which the consumer media based key narratives, like the idea that SARS-CoV-2 could not possibly have come from a lab. Boiled down, “the science” on a given issue was often conclusively reduced to whatever these journals published.
But for the establishment science publishing community, the pandemic also had an unintended consequence. Through journalistic investigations, often powered by FOIA requests that ensnared hundreds of email exchanges with scientists and science writers, a spotlight was turned on science journalism itself. Writers like Paul Thacker, a contributor to The BMJ, Emily Kopp, a reporter for the watchdog group U.S. Right to Know, Michael Balter, who has contributed dozens of pieces to Science magazine, and the powerful decentralized group of COVID investigators called DRASTIC, exposed the inner workings of an industry that claims to speak for science but often works for political and corporate interests.
More at link, as well as embedded hyperlinks.
Etc., Etc...1.TWITTER FILES #19
The Great Covid-19 Lie Machine
Stanford, the Virality Project, and the Censorship of “True Stories”
2.“The release of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Spring 2020 emails… has been used to exacerbate distrust in Dr. Fauci.”
“Increased distrust in Fauci’s expert guidance.”
3.“Reports of vaccinated individuals contracting Covid-19 anyway”; “natural immunity”; suggesting Covid-19 “leaked from a lab”; even “worrisome jokes”:
4.All were characterized as “potential violations” or disinformation “events” by the Virality Project, a sweeping, cross-platform effort to monitor billons of social media posts by Stanford University, federal agencies, and a slew of (often state-funded) NGOs.
6.We’ve since learned the Virality Project in 2021 worked with government to launch a pan-industry monitoring plan for Covid-related content. At least six major Internet platforms were “onboarded” to the same JIRA ticketing system, daily sending millions of items for review.
7.Though the Virality Project reviewed content on a mass scale for Twitter, Google/YouTube, Facebook/Instagram, Medium, TikTok, and Pinterest, it knowingly targeted true material and legitimate political opinion, while often being factually wrong itself.
8.This story is important for two reasons. One, as Orwellian proof-of-concept, the Virality Project was a smash success. Government, academia, and an oligopoly of would-be corporate competitors organized quickly behind a secret, unified effort to control political messaging.
9.Two, it accelerated the evolution of digital censorship, moving it from judging truth/untruth to a new, scarier model, openly focused on political narrative at the expense of fact.
10.THE BEGINNING: On February 5, 2021, just after Joe Biden took office, Stanford wrote to Twitter to discuss the Virality Project. By the 17th, Twitter agreed to join and got its first weekly report on “anti-vax disinformation,” which contained numerous true stories.
...
14.VP told Twitter that “true stories that could fuel hesitancy,” including things like “celebrity deaths after vaccine” or the closure of a central NY school due to reports of post-vaccine illness, should be considered "Standard Vaccine Misinformation on Your Platform."
15. In one email to Twitter, VP addressed what it called the “vaccine passport narrative,” saying “concerns” over such programs “have driven a larger anti-vaccination narrative about the loss of rights and freedoms.”
This was framed as a "misinformation" event.
16.VP routinely framed real testimonials about side effects as misinformation, from “true stories” of blood clots from AstraZeneca vaccines to a New York Times story about vaccine recipients who contracted the blood disorder thrombocytopenia.
...
23.VP was repeatedly, extravagantly wrong. In one email to Twitter on “misinformation,” it spoke of wanting to “hone in” on an “increasingly popular narrative about natural immunity.”
