"...It seems to me ridiculously grandiose to even imagine that I would stir and arouse the interests of such powerful agencies and groups that the British government, if indirectly, would spend considerable sums on observing and amplifying content. That true information shared through our platforms in the period of the pandemic was censored, was cited as high risk that companies like Moderna had spent considerable revenue tracking our content and agenda, amplifying it. That Dame Caroline Diana, whose husband is a psyops expert that worked abroad in terrorism before deploying those methods and techniques, and to some degree, those teams to observe what they called disinformation and misinformation in the UK. I recognize that the new emergent media spaces present a lot of possibilities.
I'm not sure if anybody could be sure of where this is all heading, what the exact teleology is. But it seems to be to do with mass centralization, globalization, significant attempts to control the information space that are so rigorously adhered to and protected that even what you might imagine to be a marginal voice is considered a significant enough threat to warrant coordinated media attacks, expenditure on peculiar, clandestine non-government organizations, and think tanks that take their money from the military industrial complex, from the legacy media who, by the way, when they critique critiquing independent media, they got skin in the game.
...
We’re being kept in a state of constant anxiety in order to induce compliance," Brand continued. "That the ongoing stoking of cultural tension is to ensure that people don’t begin to recognize that actually we have far more in common with one another than we do with these curious sets of the establishment interests that seems to be transcendent of national democracy. To be explicit, I’m talking about organizations like the WHO, NATO, the WEF and their astonishing influence."
Anyone know what or who this Levi paper is that it references, I don’t disbelieve it but? Tried to look it up but didn’t come up with anything. Agree science is questionable & should be, but is this paper fact I wonder??? Anyone know????
The easiest way to tell if you are talking to someone who is intellectually honest about the COVID vaccines is to ask them for their assessment of the Levi paper.
If they claim, like UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris does, that there is nothing to see here, then you are dealing with someone who is intellectual dishonest. The AI analysis of Morris’s attack on the Levi paper is absolutely devastating.
What the paper found
37% higher non-COVID mortality in people who got Pfizer.
That’s a train wreck.
There is no other way to spin this.
Possible explanations for the results:
The Pfizer/Moderna groups weren’t really matched
Moderna reduces non-COVID all-cause mortality by 37%
The problems:
They were matched. Barbra Dickerman wrote 2 papers on COVID vaccines and VA data showing that crude ...