Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
One of the most disgusting slogans was about getting jabbed to protect others. Emotional blackmail, nothing more, nothing less. All that clever nudging about wearing a mask to protect others (like your mask had a one way filter or something) morphed into taking an experimental medical product with no long term safety data to somehow protect other people. And any suggestion that vaccines don't work that way was (and still is) met with outrage. And the gentle gliding from "take the jab and you won't catch covid" to "take the jab and you won't be terribly ill with covid" and all the twats merrily agreeing as though the jabs had actually taken their memory away. I know many people who are still convinced the jabs have saved millions of lives, that they personally have saved lives by being jabbed (as they had saved others by being masked), that the jabs have stopped them dying of covid (even though none of them had covid until they started being jabbed and now they are on their 3rd or 4th round of it). And naturally, they believe every word the BBC says!
Indeed, it was emotional blackmail all the way. And it was patently false all along. The jabs, obviously. They were far too leaky to protect others. And the masks were indeed "one way"--but only for N95 ones or greater, and only in the opposite direction of what the mask narrative claimed.
(And no, wearing them inside out has never been proven to work, lol. Which is good, because you wouldn't be able to breathe.)
The propaganda was not only inaccurate, but virtually 100% wrong.
Not merely emotional blackmail, but a *license* for "others" to demand your "vaccine" status and then *attack* you for lack of it. A tool to enable mass shaming and even violence against the "uncaring". It's a dehumanizer and an enabler for further outrage.
Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
So, where are the studies showing transmission is different with different strains as she says?
Rachel Schraer is a propagandist. She is not interested in basing the message on the information, but on selecting/fabricating information to help support the pre-determined message.
Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
The people who pedaled this public messaging misinformation have harmed many more people than did Alex Jones. The each should be sued for billions in damages.
Oct 14, 2022·edited Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
"The vaccines were tested for whether they reduced people’s chances of catching Covid - they seemed to, giving less chance of the virus being passed on."
I've been wondering if this was just a Bill Clinton style word game from the outset. What does "COVID" mean? Technically, I think "COVID" is the disease caused by sars-cov-2 virus, right? And, what is "disease"? If you look up the definition in Merriam Webster, for example, you get this:
"a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms"
So, if you are carrying an infectious load of sars-cov-2, but aren't impaired and have neither signs nor symptoms, do you have COVID? I think Pfizer could argue you do not.
All the people "in" on the scam said it prevented COVID, or prevented disease. They left it up to the imaginations of the populace and idiot politicians to equate that to infectiousness. And, so occurred the greatest con job in human history.
So, the million dollar question for me is whether Rachel Schraer *intentionally* conflated COVID, the symptomatic disease, with "less chance of the virus being passed on", or whether she fell for the con. Would love to be able to ask her.
Thank you for spelling that out. (No sarcasm.) Why I required you to intellectually hold my hand, I do not understand. In my defense, parsing words is anathema to me.
But still, "giving less chance of the virus being passed on" does not follow.
As the quote by Griffin explains: "This leaves open the chance that those who are vaccinated could remain susceptible to asymptomatic infection - and could transmit that infection to others who remain vulnerable. In the worst-case scenario, you have people walking around feeling fine, but shedding virus everywhere"
Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
“BBC fact checking at it’s finest. They should be renamed to the BBC backtracking department or better still the BBC gaslighting department. “ they should be named The Ministry of Truth
remember in 1984, the Ministry of Truth...the main character in the book was all about changing and rewriting history. In our case the flotsam of the global propaganda exists all over the WWW. its worth finding it and keeping it safe while we still can so if we make to genocide trials, all the evidence can come forward.
Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
Maybe introducing a new vaccine in the middle of the main run of a pandemic isn't wise, giving the virus at full reproductive heaven the most opportunity to survive the vaccine's attempt at suppressing it. Vaccines when the infectious spread is low has to be lower risk of mutations that succeed.
Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
That whole propaganda line about getting vaccinated to protect others who can't be vaccinated is BS. What has happened in California and several other states is that, even with a medical reason to not be vaccinated, children can't attend public (and most private) schools unless they get the jabs. That's their goal. Everyone - EVERYONE - will have to accept the poison.
The goal was and still is top down enforced eugenics—loss of fertility, early death. The goals from the very top of this genocidal agenda relied on millions of useful idiot vectors: media, teachers, doctors, police, corporate CEOs, government bureaucrats to create the pressure to bombard the public to The Coercion. Yes they relied on the dupes to carry out mass murder.
Well that's news to me, having read the full fine-print legal terms here for who was allowed to receive a medical exemption. Might it be people with end-stage leukemia and no functioning immune system? Nope, not a contraindication. Might it be people with severe heart damage and recent myocarditis? Nope, no contraindication. Etc.
The only legal contraindication was: if you travel to a special immunologist / allergy center and they test and watch you have an anaphylactic reaction to one of the ingredients. But then Boston published a paper saying, well, some of the people with anaphylactic reactions really only had 15 minutes of severe suffering, so just supervise it.....
Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
Your collection included in this article should be shown/ played as commercials in place of all the pharma ads non-stop. Maybe the MSM viewers will notice? Wouldn't hold my breath, but......🤔🙄
Oct 15, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
"If a trial participant got Covid symptoms, they had a PCR test and if positive, an antibody test." - it was much worse than that, they tested *some* of the participants who developed COVID symptoms, at the experimenter's discretion; in the Pfizer trial the proportion of symptomatics actually tested was about 5%. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/ This is how the Pfizer trial showed a substantial increase in "suspected COVID" cases in the treatment group over the placebo group in the first two weeks after the vax, that wasn't included in the trial results.
Had they tested everybody who showed COVID symptoms, it's quite possible that the trial would have failed to meet the 50% efficacy threshold. Somehow a 16% reduction in "suspected COVID" in the trial translated into a reported 95% efficacy!
Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
The denial keeps going like this
- "The vaccines were never meant to stop transmission" - oh, yes they did
- "They stop you from going to the hospital because of covid, so the people who really need this hospital bed can take it. That's how you protect others" - this is so wrong in so many ways. I guess, the best way to avoid taking this precious hospital bed where they put the needy people on ventilators, is to go jump in a volcano and be done with it. Welcome to the clown world where every pharma shill can blame you for being selfish when you do not buy their crap.
Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
For the greater good is a form of ’noble cause corruption”. Conning good people into thinking they’re doing good, while they’re contributing to other’s nefarious projects.
Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
Of course there are awards for the best propaganda peddlers to tab to their bylines!
"The BBC News journalists Rachel Schraer and Jack Goodman have won the inaugural Sarah Hughes Trust Prize for their exposé of the false science that fuelled belief in ivermectin as a ‘miracle drug’ for treating COVID-19."
Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
My immunity to covid (annual antibody blood tests), and it’s nearly 3years since my last respiratory illness in Nov’19, of any kind, comes from vitamins, minerals, and supplements, and significantly from not watching the BBC or believing it at face value.
Not since the Brexit referendum campaign, when their bias was so very obvious.
And quite by coincidence doing my own research and seeking out alternative views has the bonus of providing resistance to this ‘disease’. So lucky.
One of the most disgusting slogans was about getting jabbed to protect others. Emotional blackmail, nothing more, nothing less. All that clever nudging about wearing a mask to protect others (like your mask had a one way filter or something) morphed into taking an experimental medical product with no long term safety data to somehow protect other people. And any suggestion that vaccines don't work that way was (and still is) met with outrage. And the gentle gliding from "take the jab and you won't catch covid" to "take the jab and you won't be terribly ill with covid" and all the twats merrily agreeing as though the jabs had actually taken their memory away. I know many people who are still convinced the jabs have saved millions of lives, that they personally have saved lives by being jabbed (as they had saved others by being masked), that the jabs have stopped them dying of covid (even though none of them had covid until they started being jabbed and now they are on their 3rd or 4th round of it). And naturally, they believe every word the BBC says!
Indeed, it was emotional blackmail all the way. And it was patently false all along. The jabs, obviously. They were far too leaky to protect others. And the masks were indeed "one way"--but only for N95 ones or greater, and only in the opposite direction of what the mask narrative claimed.
(And no, wearing them inside out has never been proven to work, lol. Which is good, because you wouldn't be able to breathe.)
The propaganda was not only inaccurate, but virtually 100% wrong.
Not merely emotional blackmail, but a *license* for "others" to demand your "vaccine" status and then *attack* you for lack of it. A tool to enable mass shaming and even violence against the "uncaring". It's a dehumanizer and an enabler for further outrage.
In the UK: Don't Kill Granny. Said to terrify kids.
So, where are the studies showing transmission is different with different strains as she says?
Rachel Schraer is a propagandist. She is not interested in basing the message on the information, but on selecting/fabricating information to help support the pre-determined message.
The job of scientists now is to generate material that supports the Nudges.
First a nudge, then a push, then a shove, then full blown force.
Velvet glove, meet iron fist.
Keep in mind the MSM is a propaganda machine. That is it's sole purpose.
We need to get our heads around this --- trust nothing from them
The people who pedaled this public messaging misinformation have harmed many more people than did Alex Jones. The each should be sued for billions in damages.
You just earned a subscription for this:
"Your subscription protects others."
Lol thanks - you've saved a a few unsubscribed lives!
"The vaccines were tested for whether they reduced people’s chances of catching Covid - they seemed to, giving less chance of the virus being passed on."
I've been wondering if this was just a Bill Clinton style word game from the outset. What does "COVID" mean? Technically, I think "COVID" is the disease caused by sars-cov-2 virus, right? And, what is "disease"? If you look up the definition in Merriam Webster, for example, you get this:
"a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms"
So, if you are carrying an infectious load of sars-cov-2, but aren't impaired and have neither signs nor symptoms, do you have COVID? I think Pfizer could argue you do not.
All the people "in" on the scam said it prevented COVID, or prevented disease. They left it up to the imaginations of the populace and idiot politicians to equate that to infectiousness. And, so occurred the greatest con job in human history.
Exactly, COVID-19 is the disease, SARS-CoV-2 is the virus. It's almost as if they constantly confused the two on purpose,
So, the million dollar question for me is whether Rachel Schraer *intentionally* conflated COVID, the symptomatic disease, with "less chance of the virus being passed on", or whether she fell for the con. Would love to be able to ask her.
Even if you talked to her, pretty sure she would just puke a word salad all over your shirt that means nothing.
Thank you for spelling that out. (No sarcasm.) Why I required you to intellectually hold my hand, I do not understand. In my defense, parsing words is anathema to me.
But still, "giving less chance of the virus being passed on" does not follow.
As the quote by Griffin explains: "This leaves open the chance that those who are vaccinated could remain susceptible to asymptomatic infection - and could transmit that infection to others who remain vulnerable. In the worst-case scenario, you have people walking around feeling fine, but shedding virus everywhere"
“BBC fact checking at it’s finest. They should be renamed to the BBC backtracking department or better still the BBC gaslighting department. “ they should be named The Ministry of Truth
It’s not backtracking, it’s called LYING....
remember in 1984, the Ministry of Truth...the main character in the book was all about changing and rewriting history. In our case the flotsam of the global propaganda exists all over the WWW. its worth finding it and keeping it safe while we still can so if we make to genocide trials, all the evidence can come forward.
Maybe introducing a new vaccine in the middle of the main run of a pandemic isn't wise, giving the virus at full reproductive heaven the most opportunity to survive the vaccine's attempt at suppressing it. Vaccines when the infectious spread is low has to be lower risk of mutations that succeed.
That whole propaganda line about getting vaccinated to protect others who can't be vaccinated is BS. What has happened in California and several other states is that, even with a medical reason to not be vaccinated, children can't attend public (and most private) schools unless they get the jabs. That's their goal. Everyone - EVERYONE - will have to accept the poison.
The goal was and still is top down enforced eugenics—loss of fertility, early death. The goals from the very top of this genocidal agenda relied on millions of useful idiot vectors: media, teachers, doctors, police, corporate CEOs, government bureaucrats to create the pressure to bombard the public to The Coercion. Yes they relied on the dupes to carry out mass murder.
Others who can't be vaccinated?
Well that's news to me, having read the full fine-print legal terms here for who was allowed to receive a medical exemption. Might it be people with end-stage leukemia and no functioning immune system? Nope, not a contraindication. Might it be people with severe heart damage and recent myocarditis? Nope, no contraindication. Etc.
The only legal contraindication was: if you travel to a special immunologist / allergy center and they test and watch you have an anaphylactic reaction to one of the ingredients. But then Boston published a paper saying, well, some of the people with anaphylactic reactions really only had 15 minutes of severe suffering, so just supervise it.....
Your collection included in this article should be shown/ played as commercials in place of all the pharma ads non-stop. Maybe the MSM viewers will notice? Wouldn't hold my breath, but......🤔🙄
"If a trial participant got Covid symptoms, they had a PCR test and if positive, an antibody test." - it was much worse than that, they tested *some* of the participants who developed COVID symptoms, at the experimenter's discretion; in the Pfizer trial the proportion of symptomatics actually tested was about 5%. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/ This is how the Pfizer trial showed a substantial increase in "suspected COVID" cases in the treatment group over the placebo group in the first two weeks after the vax, that wasn't included in the trial results.
Great point!
Had they tested everybody who showed COVID symptoms, it's quite possible that the trial would have failed to meet the 50% efficacy threshold. Somehow a 16% reduction in "suspected COVID" in the trial translated into a reported 95% efficacy!
The denial keeps going like this
- "The vaccines were never meant to stop transmission" - oh, yes they did
- "They stop you from going to the hospital because of covid, so the people who really need this hospital bed can take it. That's how you protect others" - this is so wrong in so many ways. I guess, the best way to avoid taking this precious hospital bed where they put the needy people on ventilators, is to go jump in a volcano and be done with it. Welcome to the clown world where every pharma shill can blame you for being selfish when you do not buy their crap.
For the greater good is a form of ’noble cause corruption”. Conning good people into thinking they’re doing good, while they’re contributing to other’s nefarious projects.
Of course there are awards for the best propaganda peddlers to tab to their bylines!
"The BBC News journalists Rachel Schraer and Jack Goodman have won the inaugural Sarah Hughes Trust Prize for their exposé of the false science that fuelled belief in ivermectin as a ‘miracle drug’ for treating COVID-19."
https://web.archive.org/web/20221012110743/https://www.rsm.ac.uk/media-releases/2022/bbc-journalists-win-award-for-exposing-false-science-behind-covid-miracle-drug/
My immunity to covid (annual antibody blood tests), and it’s nearly 3years since my last respiratory illness in Nov’19, of any kind, comes from vitamins, minerals, and supplements, and significantly from not watching the BBC or believing it at face value.
Not since the Brexit referendum campaign, when their bias was so very obvious.
And quite by coincidence doing my own research and seeking out alternative views has the bonus of providing resistance to this ‘disease’. So lucky.
Oh THANK YOU for this! I was Sooooo wishing today that someone would write in response to the going arguments!!! And voila!