The Results are In. Why oh why!? And controlled opposition
An interesting post from Michael Senger
I try to keep as much of my content as possible free because most of the issues are extremely important and need input from everyone. But please try to subscribe as if it were not and support independent journalism.
First of all, a look at the results to my ‘12 Covid Questions of Christmas’. What do the majority, of the over 1,200 of you who voted, think?
87% of you think that Covid originated in a lab (not one person believes the zoonosis hypothesis!) and just over 50% think that it was intentionally leaked.
The reason for an intentional leak was not as clear cut. 38% thought it was to allow lockdowns and control over the population, whilst 19% thought it was some kind of bioweapon attack. 17% thought the leak was used to disguise a financial or energy crisis and 15% were of the opinion that it was just a vaccine money making scheme. Many of you commented that you thought it was all of the above.
When it comes to what the scientists were working on, the majority (77%) think it was a bioweapon with the actual thing that was released being a genetically modified virus (89%).
Again, 77% thought the leak occurred in Wuhan in late 2019 (54%). 36% of you thought it was probably in early 2019.
The majority thought that Covid is only dangerous for the elderly and vulnerable (57%) whilst 31% thought no one was in danger with access to early treatment.
50% of you thought the vaccines were first developed in 2019 with 37% believing it to have been earlier.
When it comes to excess deaths, 57% of people think vaccines are the main cause, whilst 39% think Covid and lockdowns are also playing a major role.
As to 2023, 50% think Covid will mutate to affect the vaccinated, 21% think the mutation will affect everyone and 18% think it will disappear all together. The overwhelming majority (89%) think vaccine passports will try and make a show again this year.
Why, oh why?
You may have seen it already but unfortunately I did so I will make you suffer with me.
Controlled Opposition
Michael Senger wrote an interesting (and controversial to many) thread on Peter McCullough today.
He states that Peter “is the most overrated ‘Covid Skeptic’ account” because he often uses flagrant statistical manipulations and didn’t oppose lockdowns before 2022. In fact, Michael says his narrative was never about easing the hysteria but instead made money out of it by selling “early treatment” drugs.
Mr. Senger also provides evidence of Peter embellishing the truth by claiming a recent award he received was from a “major medical society”. Instead, it was from an organisation of dentists opposed to amalgam fillings.
Senger thinks that McCullough is an example of controlled opposition. He thinks the right-wing media give him a lot of air time because he can be relied upon to not rock the boat and call out their failure to challenge lockdowns.
What is your view on Peter McCullough. Do you think he is controlled opposition?
In this day and age it is important to have reliable sources, who provide information that you trust, so who else do you consider to be controlled opposition (feel free to add me on that list, although I’m not and might be a lot richer if I were!).
No, I do not think Dr. McCullough is controlled opposition. I don't think he is in it for the money. He is old world, old school professor of medicine. You cannot expect the old (I am one) to change their entire world view, although I think he is getting there.
It is almost impossible for most people to comprehend the extent of the EVIL that is being perptrated on us by our own governments...who have been effectively captured.
The question of who planned this (this was a long conceived plan that tech now makes possible) to turn us into a controlled and ID'd and CBDC managed population after the cull...is still up in the air.
The question we need to be asking is what can we do about it?
“controlled opposition “ is the slur du jour used against anyone and everyone who isn’t in 100% agreement with wherever the accuser stands at any particular moment
Dr McCullough comes across as a old fashioned, careful, thoughtful scientist in the old school tradition. He doesn’t Leap on Twitter to endorse the latest fad without carefully considering all possibilities. So yes he can sometimes be seen as a Johnny come lately to the movement but he has given up a very prominent career to speak out against the butchery that is going on and to call him controlled opposition is absolutely crazy.