Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a plaintiff in the case of Murthy v Missouri (pending before the U.S. Supreme Court), a man who was censored by a highly coordinated group of organizations financed and instigated by the U.S. Government, notices a purported news organization applauding censorship (of X, run by Elon Musk):
Now that signals are pouring in on the VAERS system (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) that the COVID vaccinations are temporally associated with deaths and injuries, the Gates Foundation shows up right on schedule to attack the integrity of VAERS, warning of "Misinformation and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System."
Dr. Peter McCullough explains his concerns:
Every week in clinic I make entries into the US CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as I catch up on years of injuries, disabilities, and deaths that have occurred after vaccination. Because federal fines and penalties are severe for false reporting, I only enter cases in which I have the vaccine card, the full clinical vignette, and my clinical impression that the vaccine either directly caused the problem or significantly contributed in the causal pathway to the new disease or injury suffered by the patient. I did a PUBMED search today and there are > 500 papers that have relied on VAERS for epidemiologic studies of vaccine side effects including death in 126 manuscripts.
As the data mount, it should come at no surprise that the Gates Foundation, a major player in the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex has come out with an attack on the integrity of VAERS. It came through a JAMA editorial from Kathleen Hall Jamieson, PhD, that implied VAERS is “misinformation” in the title uses the adjective “unverified.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Jamieson, whose Annenberg Center is funded in part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, goes on to propose a name change to VAERS to further diminish its importance. . . I expect at some moment, the data on vaccine safety will be so overwhelming in VAERS that the CDC will simply shut down access the system for queries and research. As sponsors of the program, the agency will refuse to tell America or the world anything on the safety of the novel, genetic biological products.
For the record, U.S. public health officials have used and trusted the VAERS system for decades. From the current VAERS About Page:
About VAERSBackground and Public Health Importance
Medical professionals working with vaccines Established in 1990, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S.-licensed vaccines. VAERS is co-managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of adverse events (possible side effects) after a person has received a vaccination. Anyone can report an adverse event to VAERS. Healthcare professionals are required to report certain adverse events and vaccine manufacturers are required to report all adverse events that come to their attention.
VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. This way, VAERS can provide CDC and FDA with valuable information that additional work and evaluation is necessary to further assess a possible safety concern.
Let's see whether this self-description of VAERS, or even fundamental aspects of the VAERS system, changes in response to new suspicious pressures . . .
I've often discussed the importance of speaking up, even if you are the only person in the room with a particular belief or opinion. I've referred to the powerful tendency to sit on your hand and NOT speak up, based on social psychology experiments run by Solomon Asch in the 1950s.
Bret Weinstein has repeatedly spoken up when others dared not. After others blasted him and censored him for speaking out, he has often been proven correct. He discussed the need to speak out in a long-form disussion with Tucker Carlson. I transcribed the following part of that discussion:
[Bret Weinstein] But let's just put it this way, we have a large, global population. Most people have no useful role, through no fault of their own. They have not been given an opportunity in life to find a useful way to contribute. And I wonder if the rent-seeking elites that have horded so much power, are not unhooking our rights because, effectively, they're afraid of some global French Revolution moment as people realize that they've been betrayed and left without good options. Is that what we're seeing?
It certainly feels like we're facing an end-game where important properties that would once have been preserved by all parties because they might need them one day, are now being dispensed with and we're watching our governmental structures and every one of our institutions captured, hollowed out turned into a paradoxical inversion of what it was designed to do. It's not an accident. The thing that worries me most actually, is that whatever is driving this is not composed of diabolical geniuses who at least have some plan for the future, but it's being driven by people who actually do not know what kind of hell they are inviting. They are going to create a kind of chaos from which humanity may well not emerge. And I get the sense that unless they have some remarkable plan that is not obvious, that they are just simply drunk with power and putting everyone including themselves in tremendous jeopardy by taking apart the structures on which we depend.
[Tucker Carlson]: You're you're speaking in in Grand terms that three years ago, I might have laughed at and I'm not laughing at all. And I think you're absolutely right. But you're also choosing as you know, as a 50-ish year-old man, to say this stuff out loud, and to pursue the truth as you find it and then to talk about it? Why did you decide to do that? And how do you think that ends?
[Bret Weinstein] Well, you know, we are all the products of whatever developmental environment produced us. And as I've said, on multiple topics where my family has found itself in very uncomfortable and sometimes dangerous circumstances, because we speak out, I don't think I had a choice. I just, I, I literally cannot understand how I would sleep at night, how I would look at myself in the mirror, if I didn't say what needed to be said.
I heard a very good speech by Bobby Kennedy Jr. Though neither of us are libertarians, he was at the Liberty conference in Memphis. And the last thing he said in that speech struck me to my core, something I've thought often and said almost never. But there are fates far worse than death. And I think, for my part, I have I have lived an incredible life. There's plenty I still want to do and I am not eager to leave this planet any earlier than I have to. I have a marvelous family. I live wonderful place and I've got lots of things on my bucket list. However, humanity is depending on everybody who has a position from which to see what is taking place to grapple with what it might mean, to describe it so that the public understands where their interests are, is depending on us to do what needs to be done if we're to have a chance of delivering a planet to our children and our grandchildren that is worthy of them. If we're going to deliver a system that allows them to live meaningful, healthy lives, we have to speak up.
And I don't know. I don't know how to get people to do that. I'm very hesitant to urge others to put themselves or their families in danger. And I know that everybody's circumstances are different. Some people are struggling to simply to feed a family and keep a roof over their heads. Those people obviously, have a great deal less liberty with respect to standing up and saying what needs to be said.
But this is really, it's what we call in game theory a collective action problem. Everybody responds to their personal well being. If everybody says that's too dangerous to stand up, you know, "I'm not suicidal, I'm I can't do it," then not enough people stand up to change the course of history. Whereas if people somehow put aside the obvious danger, their ability to earn and maybe their lives of saying what needs to be said, then we greatly outnumber those we are pitted against. They are ferociously powerful, but I would also point out this interesting error.
[More . . . ]
Excellent points made in the 6-minute video by Bret and Heather:
Robert Malone cites the work of Paul D. Thacker, who describes how powerful entities such as corporations and governments deceive us through propaganda. It was a technique developed by cigarette companies and it has been used ever since, including by COVID grifters. Here's an excerpt:
In December 1953, the CEOs of America’s leading tobacco companies cast aside competitive rancor and gathered at New York City’s Plaza Hotel to confront a menace to their incredibly profitable industry. An emergent body of science published in elite medical journals cast doubt on the safety of cigarettes and threatened to destroy a half-century of corporate success. Joining them at the Plaza was John W. Hill, the president of America’s top public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton. Hill would later prove a decisive savior.
Hill had closely studied Edward Bernays, whose work on propaganda in the 1920s and 1930s laid the foundation of modern public relations and defined common techniques to manipulate popular opinion. Hill understood that any traditional campaign would fail to sway society, which perceived advertising as little more than corporate propaganda. Effective public relations required comprehensive off-stage management of the media. At its best, it left no fingerprints.
Instead of ignoring or denigrating new data that found tobacco dangerous, Hill proposed the opposite: embrace science, trumpet new data, and demand more, not less research. By calling for more research, which they would then fund, tobacco companies could harness academic scientists in a battle to confront a major scientific controversy and amplify skeptical views of the relationship between tobacco and disease. Such a scheme would let companies shroud themselves in doubt and uncertainty—core principles of the scientific process, in which every answer leads to new questions.
Hill & Knowlton’s campaign for the five largest US tobacco companies corrupted science and medicine for decades to follow, laying the foundation for financial conflicts of interest in science, as other industries mimicked tobacco’s techniques to protect their own products from government bans and regulations—later, from consumer lawsuits. While tactics have varied over time, the core strategy has changed little since tobacco wrote the playbook, providing a menu of techniques now employed across industries.