Disinfo agents have long run amok in the truth community with the purpose of discrediting real concerns. Cointelpro has allegedly ended long ago, but the methods and tactics are still very much in use. Doesnt help that the majority only read headlines and an equally large majority couldnt properly analyze data if their lives depended on it.

Expand full comment

Please cite a handful of the most-damaging reports that you believe are so far from the unstudied truth that they bring into disrepute those campaigning to wake people up to the wider global deception.

I agree that misrepresenting the risks of injury & death damages the credibility of those opposing the perpetrators’ plans.

However, I would say that, if those of us on this side are guilty of anything, it is to have pulled our punches almost all the time.

I despair at how uncommon it is that a critical review makes the claim that it’s being done on purpose, that we’ve been told things which aren’t true are lies & that it’s impossible for example for any of the c19 vaccines have completed an appropriate package of non-clinical & clinical tests (there’s been far too little time; the regulatory filings are appallingly skinny & those who understand the complexity of process R&D are certain that their award of EUAs is strong evidence of fraud).

When there’s error, I believe it’s that critics of policy have been far too cautious.

Please also note that some rather extreme views about what % of c19 vaccinated people will die have been attributed to me. To be clear, I have never made any prediction of this. We’ve no proper basis to make a prediction.

Expand full comment

Interesting, but I didn't see any discussion about the risk of the virus to babies. Most decisions are based on degrees of benefit or risk. Why vaccinate babies or risk genetic problems during gestation if the risk to mother and baby from the virus is so very small. At least we know what that risk is, while we really don't know what the risk is to embryos and babies.

Expand full comment