It’s remarkable how quickly every aspect of this narrative falls apart upon the even the most rudimentary examinations of the numbers and claims underpinning this con, which are repeated ceaselessly, uncritically, and devoid of context in the media. But in every instance when you soberly and critically look at the factual and scientific basis for isolation, asymptomatic transmission, masks, PCR tests, death certificates, the efficacy/safety of these injections, etc. etc., you find nothing but fraud, lies, and corruption.

Which is why they have to resort to using fear and applied psychology so that people become emotionally invested in the propaganda and are deterred from questioning it, so as to avoid conflict, or admitting they’ve been duped, getting called names like “selfish”, or labeled an “anti-vaxxer”, or being associated with Trump and the right. And also blanket censorship in order to manufacture a false consensus which is happily provided by Pharma-funded “experts”.

You have to hand it to the conspirators, they understand the human mind/behavior and mass psychology very well, and have weaponized it incredibly successfully against the rest of us, many of whom simply didn’t/don’t have the intellectual tools - due to our historically unrivaled, all-pervasive, cradle-to-grave propaganda machine - to defend themselves against the onslaught. There’s a sort of learned helplessness that’s been cultivated which also exploits childhood trauma many of us have experienced, and most have never addressed let alone resolved. It amounts to fear of becoming conscious and responsible for our own minds, bodies, and lives; thinking and deciding for ourselves, rather than blindly trusting authority figures - first our parents, then teachers, then our bosses, politicians, and media pundits.

It’s not easy, and disillusionment is a painful process, but it’s the only way we’re going to stop this global crime against humanity and ongoing genocide, because to “trust the experts” and “ follow the science” means allowing ourselves to be led to the modern-day gas chambers (injection sites) and concentration camps (blockchain digital ID).

Because yes, it really is that serious.

Looking at this entire picture one can apply Hanlon's Razor ("never apply to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity").

BUT...

If you wanted to either kill off a significant portion of a population or test a plan for doing so, what this article and your post describe seems like a very good way of going about it.

Either way, I will never take a "vaccine" or anything else when people lie about it. If they are lying, there is something to hide even if we do not know with certainty exactly what that is. Simple rule.

See, I'm not sure it is explained by adequately by stupidity. just as one example....gates had to know about hydroxy. here is a guy trying to eliminate malaria in africa with vaccines. africa, where hydroxy is widely used for malaria. and then you have these groups of doctors treating covid with hydroxy and this never came to his attention? it came to everyone's attention with trump and america's frontline doctors.

a lot of times i see people say things like "it doesn't make sense" or "i don't understand". what i encourage people to do is change the lense or framework they are using to understand something. propose a different framework that allows these puzzling actions to make sense.

so, if bill did know, if he did suppress, if he is lying..why? well that's an easy one. for starters follow the money. the oldest one in the book. early treatment competes with vaccination. Pfizer is making a killing with one of the most profitable drug (or insert whatever name you like) ever. Fauci is allowed to take part in the profits of drugs he helped patent at the NIAID. i would love to see how much these people pushing vaccines are actually making.

there used to be this guy in the 90s that made a software product that people disliked. the product had lots of security issues, strong armed people into using it, dominated the market, broke antitrust laws. That guy was a cut throat capitalist. glad he's not in charge of global health. : )

Joopy well reasoned comment I agree 100%. There really is a Matrix at work and either you continue taking the blue pill and go along with this nonsense and get what you get which is the short end of the stick just about every time or take the red pill and really see what is happening. I know the red pill can be disheartening because we have been on a diet of blue pills our whole life but the red pill will wake you up and your life will probably be more difficult but you will know bullshit when you see and hear it and be able to protect yourself better.

Extremely well expressed. Let's not forget about the hypnotic effect the mainstream media has on many. Not only by its one-sided propaganda, but also by how it constantly repeats certain phrases, like 'It's perfectly safe, no steps have been skipped in the development/testing process, vaccinations are the only way out of the covid lockdowns enabling us to return to normal". It's best to listen to that brainwashing as little as possible because they've made it way too easy to get drawn into it. I've also assumed all along that those behind all of this have psychologists on their payroll.

Read Jerry mander's 'FOUR AREUMENTS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF TELEVISION'. Written in the 70's, The man was a prophet. No kidding - the book is amazing and timeless.

How could they possibly know the effectiveness of this DNA corrupter when they never did a scientific study giving some the jab & others a placebo then exposing both groups to the COVID???? How it’s been done for decades.

vaccines NEVER get gold standard placebo tests + who knows what they have tested re this, and how long for to get the very outcome planned!!!

I believe US trials for Covid vaccines were against saline placebo, but for this reason were not blinded since it would be evident to most participants which they had received - you would therefore expect to see the placebo effect in the vaccinated arm.

Just a thought. If something as simple as knowing you were getting the placebo is enough to eliminate disease symptoms, do we need the shot or am I missing something here.

How can they know the facts ? Why do you think facts are important to them ?

@ Joopy----NAILED IT !!!! Thank you, and God Bless you, for your intelligent input----WE HAVE ALL BEEN BRAIN-WASHED OUR ENTIRE LIVES !!!!!

Very well said! Thank You!

In other words vax companies LIE.
The numbers of deaths is alarming!! WHY is nothing being done??
It is KILLING ME that our CHILDREN are next. God help us all!

Nothing new, I'm afraid. It's been going on for years. This:
https://childrenshealthdefe...

Parents need to stand up and say NO!

What is happening in Seychelles? It is the most vaccinated country in the world (69 % at least one dose, 62 % two doses, 85 % adults etc. https://ourworldindata.org/... ). However they have now incredible surge in number of cases https://www.worldometers.in...https://www.newscientist.co...https://www.japantimes.co.j... What is even more interesting is that they did not have Covid cases at all for almost a year, and everything started just after vaccination.

I have heard that about 130 countries haven't even given one injection to their populations.

The kiII shot$$$ are giving them the bad super flu, as designed.

In T. Dalrymple's recent book 'False Positive', he mentioned absolute and relative risk so many times that I got curious and read up on it. If patients would ask: "Say, doc, what's the absolute risk of this drug you'd like me to try?" and if the doctor knew the answer and told you that the drug reduced your risk of dying from 2 in 1 million to 1 in 1 million - would you take the drug with its side effects of insomnia, loss of appetite, depression, etc, for which your doctor would prescribe more drugs to reduce the side effects? It's no wonder drug makers don't tell the public what the absolute risk is.

They argue about using absolute risk, but doctors along with everybody else do this implicitly, because of course they do. We don't just generally perform masectomies on all women, yet for sure they greatly reduce the risk of breast cancer, and breast cancer is not rare. They are using fear and threats to make sure everyone gets a vaccination because it is so critical. Why are there not lines around the block to get bottles of fish oil? According to their logic, we should mandate that people take fish oil because it reduces cardiac failure by about 25% and heart disease is not rare and kills more than COVID every year. Instead, the FDA makes sure that information like that cannot be put on the bottle for safety reasons. Pfizer, Moderna vaccines safe... Fish oil, vitamin C, Zinc... hey not so fast, wouldn't want to lure people into a false sense of security.

Trillions being made

My GP had no idea of the difference between relative and absolute risk when I asked him about it. The large University hospital he works for continues to offer me vaccines (shingles, COVID). On one teleconference, when I told another doctor in the practice that I was not interested in the jab, she said she hoped I would reconsider. At least she was diplomatic.

I think when most people hear that the vaccine was shown to be 95% effective they think that when they are exposed to the virus after vaccination, they only have a 5% chance of getting the Infection. Unfortunately, that is not what the studies were testing.
All the vaccine studies report the same statistic in the media which is relative risk, not absolute risk which you find deeply buried in the fine print of the study.
In the studies, they did not expose each participant to the virus.(that would be unethical) They released them into the community and had them tested if they became symptomatic.
For the Pfizer vaccine, Out of roughly 22,000 participants in each group, 8 became infected in the Vaccine group and 162 became infected in the Control group.
Relative Efficacy Ratio: 8/22,000 divided by 162/22,000 is .049, meaning 95% relative efficacy.
The Absolute difference is 162/22,000 (0.0074) Minus 8/22,000 (0.00036) for an absolute risk reduction of only 0.007 or 0.7%.
This is because the vast majority of people in the study (99.1%) did not get infected.
For the vaccine to have 95% Absolute risk reduction, 20,988/22,000 people in the control group would come down with the infection while only 8/22,000 people in the vaccination group
(0.95-0.004=0.946)
0.7% improvement (absolute risk) doesn’t sound as nice as 95% protection (relative risk), does it? When it comes to Big Pharma, it is all about marketing.
Drug companies like to use relative risk for their drug studies all the time. If heart attacks occur in 2/100 people but a new drug can reduce that to 1/100, that results in a 50% reduction in relative risk (1% divided by 2%) when the Absolute risk reduction is only 1%.
It is a sad legacy of deception when Medical studies headline their reports using Relative risk and bury the Absolute risk statistics deep with in the fine print of the study

A vaccine is not intended to prevent you from coming into contact with the virus, but to protect you from infection if you DO come into contact with it, just as a seatbelt is intended to save your life in a car crash but is useless if you don't crash. Would you measure the effectiveness of seatbelts by comparing the difference of people killed in a car crash not wearing a seatbelt vs wearing a seatbelt to the total number of people driving? No. Say in a study of random serious car crashes that resulted in 1000 deaths there were 100 deaths of people wearing a seatbelt vs 900 who weren't wearing a seatbelt. During the time these car crashes happened, 10 million people made it to their destination safely. What is the effectiveness of wearing seatbelts? If you're reasonable, you'd say they are 90% effective. If you are unreasonable, you calculate the "absolute risk reduction" of (900-100)/10,000,000 or 0.008%. This so-called "absolute risk reduction" is meaningless.

Seatbelt use does not have a side effect. It will not cause subarachnoid hemorrhage, Cerebral venous thrombosis or Guillain Barre syndrome with it's use. A drug or vaccine's benefit but be weighed against its side effects... and in regards to honest statistical analysis, relative risk reduction must always be viewed in relation to the change in absolute risk to give perspective to each set of data.

You are absolutely right.

I have to respond to you DFDalton. You’ve done the exact thing the article is pointing out; taking statistics out of context. Here’s an simple question to refute your hypothesis: Does putting on a seat belt increase the chance of side-effects or death like the vaccine does? Apples and oranges.

We should always question "experts" when they are pushing so hard for something. Throw in the unctuous Bill Gates into the mix and your suspicion antenna should rise.

Yeah, I call this the common sense test, but unfortunately most people do not possess any or refuse to use it.

I'd like to share what I feel. I go to the pub. With my friends. A good night ahead. I buy the first round. Then a friend of a close friend buys the next. He buys me a Guiness. "I bought you a Guiness", he says. I thank him. I have a few gulps left in my original pint. I carry on chatting with the group. The man then reminds me "I said I bought you a Guiness". I look at him and politely thank him, wondering if he didn't hear me the first time. A few moments later he says "Aren't you going to drink the Guiness I bought you?". I say "Yes, I'll just finish mine first, if that's okay?" I suddenly don't feel good about the Guiness. I don't know the guy that well, and my mind flashes back to all the stories I have heard about all the people who have been poisoned at a bar. Next, he taps me on the shoulder. This time he is holding the Guiness, and waving it in my face. "Go on, drink the Guiness. I bought it for you". I reply "If you don't mind, I'd like to drink it in my own time". He replies immediately, with an impatient voice "Drink the Guiness".

Would you drink it? Because this is where the media and their sales effort have taken us so far. Not only do I not want to drink the Guiness, but I am concerned about the first one I drank, and I think I will just have water from now on, and call it an early night. Is it just me?

No. It's not just you. Excellent analogy.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Mark Twain 1835-1910

Or. And this is Twain. It is a lot easier to fool people, than to then convince them they've been fooled.

You're welcome. I've been vaccinated. I'm regretting it now.

Twain attributed it to Disraeli

I believe the true test will be in about a year or two from now. Unfortunately, we will have to wait and see how things turn out between the people that got the jabs and those that didn't. We can actually say we are in the conscious placebo group :)

If the cases continue to go down, the supposedly variants do not trigger another tsunami then we know this was all a big lie. If it gets quiet, illness wise, then we know for sure the virus was here a year ago and gone a few months later. Not a year and a half later.

I anticipate a boring summer since I have not been jabbed but I will continue to look around and observe. This I have become very good at. :)

The virus was on it's way to a dribble last summer. The illusion of case rates went up in the fall following an uncharacteristically early influenza vaccination campaign that started in August instead of November. The non-specific PCR tests(one of 10 fatal flaws) have been testing positive for numerous viruses. It's documented that the vaccinated shed viruses at 12x the rate of unvaccinated. The FDA admitted the PCR tests could mistake influenza and other viruses or even bacteria for a positive case of coronavirus in the beginning.

Now here's the problem. The COVID gene modified people(injected) are going to be testing positive for a long time, and spreading their bioweapons to the rest of us. These will be called variants and they will keep the pandemic game alive.

They say the shots are effective against the variants. But they also say at the same time we need a booster every six months because of the variants. Which is it? I'm sure booster route for more $$. And more harm.

https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Thank you for this article. Not only is it needed to explain things people don’t regularly deal with, but it does so in a way that is relatively easily understood. What it really does and should do for anyone who reads it, is to shine a bright light on the fact that at the very least, this whole supposed pandemic has been a huge and rather cataclysmic failure and implosion of competence among our supposed experts.

We must come to terms with the fact that, again, at the very least; the experts in control of things or that have been permitted to speak, have been utterly wrong at just about every turn and every decision. What makes it so damaging and horrible though is not that they made … again assuming good will, an extremely generous assumption at this point … mistakes, but rather that they simply refuse and appear to be incapable of admitting fault or error, even as they simply change their words like any clinical pathological liar and psychopath does.

That is the RRR, or relative risk reduction. The more important ARR, or absolute risk reduction is far more telling. Instead of 95%, that number is closer to 1%. Of course, you could never convince people to get an injection using the truth.

Never mind that the 170 some people used to determine safety and efficacy were the healthiest and already in the least risk category as far as dying from CoV-2. The FDA allowed the absolute bare minimum of risk assessment in order to please Big Pharma's massive and uncontrollable desire to inject the entire world's population. And to reap gigantic profits in the 100's of billions, no matter how many die from these injections. That is of no concern to gates, fauci, the FDA or CDC.

Again, never mind that we have no distinct and proven information regarding how long your body will be replicating these new spike proteins (again totally foreign to your natural immune system), whether or not they will eventually die off, how many different types might be manufactured over time, whether or not your immune system will be swamped with new spike proteins that take over the immune system and/or shed through bodily excretions, or how safe these poisons are over many years and about a thousand other unanswered questions everyone should be asking.

There is absolutely no verified and truthful proof that these mRNA potions will be effective or not cause long term damage and deaths. Since every coronavirus vaccine has failed miserably over the last 20 years when tested, any rational human would assume that these are no safer until proven otherwise...over the next 10 years.

Does it make sense? 100% effective. There is no such thing. 95% effective there is no such thing. Thousands dying and hundreds of thousands being debilitated. Yeah...that makes sense.

Yet the local media is asking questions like should students be allowed to be in sports if not vaccinated. Now...who prompted this question? We all know the media is paid to propagandize but it would be very telling if we could track who tells the media to ask these asinine questions?

With at least 5500 Americans getting covid AFTER two shots, efficacy must be questioned. Like flu shots, its the shot that prevented the flu, NOT the fact you weren't exposed to it that is highlighted.

I suppose if I get the vaccine and then die as a result, that means the vaccine gave me 100% protection from ever getting or spreading Covid.

Thanks for the gotcha moment and subsequent chuckle. I have been on the pc now for 3 hours reading about all that is going and I now have symptoms of covid. Am going to take a walk.

Thank you for being a free test subject and protecting your neighbors. R.I.P. LOL!

95% death rate.

Pair this with the excess mortality rates that show comparable excess mortality to other years and you will see the total deaths do not add up. Although our CDC data from the US can be hard to process, the Europeans maintain a database of countries with easily parsed stats going back several years. One quickly sees that COVID did very little to increase the number of actual deaths. If you compare the same quarters of different years, you would not be able to pick which year the deadly pandemic hit if you did not know the context. Was it in 2017, 2018, 2020? You could never tell. hundreds of thousands of people that make up predictable trends in excess mortality were added to the COVID death scores. Taking this into consideration, and the fact that pandemics kill the most vulnerable first, you could likely cut the absolute risk reduction at least in half.

It would be nice to have a simple and clear explanation of how the 95% effectiveness was determined. For example, in the Pfizer trial, only 8 out of 22,000 developed a PCR confirmed case of Covid-19 in the vaccinated arm of the trial. Did they only test people who came down with Covid-like symptoms? If so, how did they decide who had symptoms?

Its means its great marketing to claim that, true or not.

A purportedly accurate statistic that I saw recently declared that a person of my age and general health has above 99% chance of surviving COVID should I contract it. My response to those pushing vaccination is, "What, me worry"?