As court challenges are being filed and the official narrative about the “pandemic” begins to crack, information war in public domain intensifies and becomes more pointed. Recently, somebody sent me a link to a PR article published by the FactCheck organization in August of 2020. The article is a typical smear campaign attempting to destroy the credibility of scientists and businessmen who express opinions that differ from the official narrative. It uses typical tactics: attacking the messenger instead of debating the message, using short quotes out of broader context, using counter-opinions of experts, pretending a serious and scientific debate while presenting a demagogy that “does not hold water”. A few examples:
The authors and their “experts” insist that patenting the virus and its selected genetic sequences was done to enable access to this material in order to support research that could lead to prevention and treatment. It was, of course, done in the best public interest. Then why are the same players blocking the use of effective treatments and medications that help those infected get well and help save lives? Why are doctors who publicly talk about it being silenced, threatened and fired? (I am not even asking why the same people who are on record advocating for the necessity of depopulation are today investing in and promoting vaccines to save more lives. Obvious contradiction, isn’t it?)
The authors quote selected experts, not any randomly chosen experts but only those experts who share their point of view. We know that scientists are divided on the topic of the “pandemic”. Some of them depend on grants, some are “owned” or hired by different lobbies and groups of interest. So, there is a conflict of interest embedded in their opinions. I prefer to believe those who don’t benefit and often pay a price for expressing their views, rather than those who have invested interest and profit from supporting a specific narrative. For example, Anthony Fauci is closely associated with Big Pharma, the Gates Foundation, and other players who stand to make billions of dollars on global mass vaccinations. This is why they block effective medications. If there is a treatment, we don’t need the vaccines, right?
Another example, this time on the topic of the origin of the SARS-Cov-2 virus: The authors say that scientists don’t know exactly how the virus transmitted to humans but the consensus is that it was naturally occurring. Anthony Fauci has confirmed this opinion. He added that this consensus is based on the fact that in most known cases animal viruses were transmitted to humans naturally, without any gain of function manipulation in a lab. Maybe Fauci is right but the question I have is this: Let’s assume that in 90% of cases there is a natural transmission. This means that in 10% of cases the transmission is helped by other factors. This, in turn, means that other factors are possible. Even if the probability of these other factors is only 10%, we should still take them under consideration instead of dismissing them entirely and forbidding any discussion on this topic. And yet, this is what is happening. Why?
To me the explanation is simple. The C-19 experimental vaccines have been approved for use under emergency authorization only. Ending the “emergency” would mean that vaccination with these vaccines becomes illegal. This is why our corrupted governments keep prolonging emergency measures. This is what they need alleged “waves” and “variants” for. It is all about mass vaccination. What is so special about these vaccines that they are being pushed on us even when their alleged effectiveness and the “pandemic” narrative are falling apart in front of our eyes?