Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
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!
Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
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 - nakedemperor.substack.com
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 - nakedemperor.substack.com
"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.
Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
“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
Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
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 - nakedemperor.substack.com
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.
Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
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 - nakedemperor.substack.com
"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.
Oct 14, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
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 - nakedemperor.substack.com
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 - nakedemperor.substack.com
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 - nakedemperor.substack.com
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!
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 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."
"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.
“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....
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.
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.
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!