Message to Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey: you have to ban the NY Times. Now.
I’ve got the hard evidence.
The
Times, on at least three separate occasions, has published terribly
corrosive information that would destroy the official COVID narrative.
Do
you realize what that means? People could form a different picture of
the pandemic. They could, after reading the Times, decide the situation
ISN’T DANGEROUS, AND THE LOCKDOWNS AREN’T NECESSARY. THEY COULD DECIDE
ONLY A FOOL WOULD LINE UP FOR THE VACCINE.
I’ll lay it all out for you, dear reader. I’m sure you’ll agree Twitter and FB must take action at once.
ONE: September 22, 2020, the Times: “These Coronavirus Trials Don’t Answer the One Question We Need to Know”:
“If
you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that
you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19,
or one that would prevent its serious complications?”
“The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.”
“But
that’s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus
vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is
on hold, are approaching the problem.”
“According
to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week,
a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered
the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or
severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions
to the intensive care unit or death.”
“To
say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk
of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will
determine.”
TAKEAWAY
FROM THE TIMES: The vaccine clinical trials are ONLY designed to show
effectiveness in preventing mild cases of COVID, which nobody should
care about, because mild cases naturally run their course and cause no
harm. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.
Therefore, the leading vaccine clinical trials are useless, irrelevant, misleading, and deceptive.
Therefore, what rational human would choose to receive the COVID vaccine?
TWO: On August 29, 2020, the New York Times published a long article headlined, “Your coronavirus test is positive. Maybe it shouldn’t be.”
Its
main message? “The standard [COVID PCR] tests are diagnosing huge
numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts
of the virus…Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…”
“In
three sets of testing data…compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New
York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried
barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”
“On
Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases,
according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of
contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide,
then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and
submit to contact tracing.”
TAKEAWAY
FROM THE Times: The 90% of people tested, who “carry barely any virus,”
are FALSE POSITIVES. Up to 90% of ALL people who have been labeled
“COVID cases” are not COVID cases. This fact would downgrade the
pandemic to “just another flu season.” And there would be no reason for
lockdowns.
THREE: NY Times, January 22, 2007, “Faith in Quick Tests [PCR Tests] Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.”
“Dr.
Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center,
could not stop coughing…By late April, other health care workers at the
hospital were coughing…”
“For
months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a
huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000
health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a
preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in;
142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the
disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for
protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some
in intensive care.”
“Then,
about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to
receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing
them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”
“Now,
as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious
disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith
in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them
astray.”
“There
are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on
such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns
Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care
Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all
the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one the largest, but it was
by no means an exception, she said.”
“Many
of the new molecular [PCR] tests are quick but technically demanding,
and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called
‘home brews,’ are not commercially available, and there are no good
estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false
positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested,
as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is
an epidemic.”
“’You’re
in a little bit of no man’s land,’ with the new molecular [PCR] tests,
said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief
scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a
nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
‘All bets are off on exact performance’.”
“With
pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, ‘there are probably 100
different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the
country,’ and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. ‘We have
had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of
P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,’ Dr. Kretsinger
added.”
“Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.”
“’The
big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,’
Dr. Petti said. ‘No single test result is absolute and that is even
more important with a test result based on P.C.R’.”
TAKEAWAY
FROM THE TIMES: No large study validating the uniformity of PCR
results, from lab to lab, has ever been done. At least a dozen very
large studies should have checked for uniform results, before unleashing
the PCR on the public; but no, this was not the case. It is still not
the case.
Now
imagine the scandalous information in these three NY Times articles
appearing everywhere---on Twitter, FB, Instagram, etc. It would be
terrible for Bill Gates, Fauci, and other great leaders in the Holy
Church of Biological Mysticism.
Political
leaders and public health experts would have, on their hands, a major
refutation of their whole narrative about the “deadly pandemic.”
We can’t allow that.
We must protect the public from the Times.
The only way to achieve this is through censorship.
Ban the NY Times from Twitter and Facebook.
Do it now.
If Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg refuse, Attorneys General of all 50 states should sue them at once.
Freeze their personal and corporate bank accounts.
Place them on a special list of “COVID insurrectionists.”
As
for the Times, seize their assets, remove them from online platforms,
stop the distribution of their newspapers---using military force, if
necessary---and cut off all communication from their wire service to
other news outlets.
Keeping the public safe is paramount. This is our duty.
CENSORSHIP IS FREEDOM.
MIND CONTROL IS LOVE.
LOCKDOWNS LEAD TO PROSPERITY.
That is all for now.
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here -- with sources.)
No comments:
Post a Comment