Vaccine Censorship Thread

[EvMetro]

Canadian doctors censored. Don't lefties claim to believe the doctors? Oh, these ones don't support the right political narrative...

Loading... | iPolitics

ipolitics.ca

 

[EvMetro]

Who wouldn't want to read an article about how a vaccine would destroy millions of lives, if they were thinking about taking that vaccine? Apparently, the MSM doesn't want anybody to do their own research...

How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions

Dr. Mercola Interviews the Experts This article is part of a weekly series in which Dr. Mercola interviews various experts on a variety of health issues. To see more expert interviews, click here. …

niapurenaturecom.wordpress.com

 

[Slade3200]

And yes in the heat of a pandemic with false and dangerous narratives flying around everywhere certain outlets decided to ban or flag posts spreading unverified medical misinformation. The adults in the room were trying to act safely and responsibly. It’s what got Trump Banned from Social media. He’s a child

I have seen that you do have an ability to look at things more objectively than most lefties do, but what you have posted here is quite subjective. This thread is not about debating reasons why censorship is good, it is just meant to archive the censorship that really is happening. The more informed you are of what is really going on in our political landscape, the better it is to debate with you.

While you may be glad that all the forced suppression of negative vaccine info is a good thing, at least you are now aware that it really is happening. Doctors, scientists, and experts are being silenced. When you see people post that they listen to doctors, scientists, and experts, be aware that they are only listening to the ones who support the vaccine narrative.

Of course I know it’s happening. The president of the USA got banned from social media. It was national news.

 

[EvMetro]

Here is an article that the MSM should be interpreting to everyone they can reach, but this info is being hidden from their viewers

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis

With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?…

off-guardian.org

 

[DrLove]

This thread is meant to archive information about the suppression of negative information about vaccines. If you have more to add, please do so. I'll start by adding the first few:

Facebook trying to censor posts from COVID-19 vaccine skeptics: report

Facebook is reportedly trying to silence COVID-19 vaccine skeptics by using an algorithm that targets and demotes their comments on the site, the latest in Big Tech’s woke censorship push.

nypost.com

CENSORED: National Vaccine Information Center | Sharyl Attkisson

Dec. 23, 2021 UPDATE: Paypal censors NVIC on behalf of vaccine industry interests May 4, 2021 UPDATE: https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/05/vaccine-info-site-censored/ A highly-rated nonprofit vaccine safety charity has been censored by Facebook on behalf of pharmaceutical industry interests in a...

sharylattkisson.com

Twitter and Facebook to censor vaccine discourse — this must stop

Social media firms must not be allowed to control our information, nor our country. Today, they are doing both.

thehill.com

Censors jump into action as China's latest vaccine scandal ignites

Chinese censors on Sunday deleted articles and postings about the vaccine industry as an online outcry over the country's latest vaccine scandal intensified. Regulators said last week that they had halted production of a rabies vaccine at a large pharmaceutical company in the northeast after...

news.yahoo.com

Translation: I have nothing!

 

[Slade3200]

Here is an article that the MSM should be interpreting to everyone they can reach, but this info is being hidden from their viewers

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis

With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?…

off-guardian.org

What specifically does this article present that you think is important and being covered up. Give me your top point or top few.

 

[EvMetro]

Here is an article that the MSM should be interpreting to everyone they can reach, but this info is being hidden from their viewers

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis

With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?…

off-guardian.org

What specifically does this article present that you think is important and being covered up. Give me your top point or top few.

The msm suppresses negative information about vaccines. The article contains negative information about vaccines. Worse yet, it promotes comparing the bad to the good. The MSM is intolerant of objective analysis. All roads MUST lead to the vaccine being good.

 

[Slade3200]

Here is an article that the MSM should be interpreting to everyone they can reach, but this info is being hidden from their viewers

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis

With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?…

off-guardian.org

What specifically does this article present that you think is important and being covered up. Give me your top point or top few.

The msm suppresses negative information about vaccines. The article contains negative information about vaccines. Worse yet, it promotes comparing the bad to the good. The MSM is intolerant of objective analysis. All roads MUST lead to the vaccine being good.

What specifically? Pick the most important point that you think is being suppressed

 

[EvMetro]

What specifically does this article present that you think is important and being covered up. Give me your top point or top few.

​

Can you picture CNN running a story like this, other than an attack style "fact check" that destroys the author, every person in his family tree, and the media source? The following is just the introduction to the article:

​

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?​

 

[EvMetro]

Here is an article that the MSM should be interpreting to everyone they can reach, but this info is being hidden from their viewers

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis

With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?…

off-guardian.org

What specifically does this article present that you think is important and being covered up. Give me your top point or top few.

The msm suppresses negative information about vaccines. The article contains negative information about vaccines. Worse yet, it promotes comparing the bad to the good. The MSM is intolerant of objective analysis. All roads MUST lead to the vaccine being good.

What specifically? Pick the most important point that you think is being suppressed

Before I get into this too deep, please take a brief objectivity test by giving me your thoughts on post 45.

 

[Slade3200]

What specifically does this article present that you think is important and being covered up. Give me your top point or top few.

​

Can you picture CNN running a story like this, other than an attack style "fact check" that destroys the author, every person in his family tree, and the media source? The following is just the introduction to the article:

​

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?​

I read the article. I’m wondering what specific point you think it’s making that is being censored by the media.

 

[Slade3200]

Here is an article that the MSM should be interpreting to everyone they can reach, but this info is being hidden from their viewers

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis

With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?…

off-guardian.org

What specifically does this article present that you think is important and being covered up. Give me your top point or top few.

The msm suppresses negative information about vaccines. The article contains negative information about vaccines. Worse yet, it promotes comparing the bad to the good. The MSM is intolerant of objective analysis. All roads MUST lead to the vaccine being good.

What specifically? Pick the most important point that you think is being suppressed

Before I get into this too deep, please take a brief objectivity test by giving me your thoughts on post 45.

Are you referring to Love responding to your OP saying that you have nothing?

Not sure what to say about that. Seems like a bit of a lazy reply so I’d ask for a deeper explaination if I wanted to engage

 

[EvMetro]

What specifically does this article present that you think is important and being covered up. Give me your top point or top few.

​

Can you picture CNN running a story like this, other than an attack style "fact check" that destroys the author, every person in his family tree, and the media source? The following is just the introduction to the article:

​

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?​

I read the article. I’m wondering what specific point you think it’s making that is being censored by the media.

I havent seen your response to post 49 yet, so I will assume that you agree with it.

Have you seen the media clarify the primary efficacy endpoints discussed in the article, and make sure that their audience all understands these calculations?

 

[Slade3200]

What specifically does this article present that you think is important and being covered up. Give me your top point or top few.

​

Can you picture CNN running a story like this, other than an attack style "fact check" that destroys the author, every person in his family tree, and the media source? The following is just the introduction to the article:

​

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?​

I read the article. I’m wondering what specific point you think it’s making that is being censored by the media.

I havent seen your response to post 49 yet, so I will assume that you agree with it.

Have you seen the media clarify the primary efficacy endpoints discussed in the article, and make sure that their audience all understands these calculations?

This was my response to 49.

So it’s the primary efficacy endpoints you think the media is censoring? Is that right?

 

[EvMetro]

What specifically does this article present that you think is important and being covered up. Give me your top point or top few.

​

Can you picture CNN running a story like this, other than an attack style "fact check" that destroys the author, every person in his family tree, and the media source? The following is just the introduction to the article:

​

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?​

I read the article. I’m wondering what specific point you think it’s making that is being censored by the media.

I havent seen your response to post 49 yet, so I will assume that you agree with it.

Have you seen the media clarify the primary efficacy endpoints discussed in the article, and make sure that their audience all understands these calculations?

This was my response to 49.

So it’s the primary efficacy endpoints you think the media is censoring? Is that right?

I haven't been finding the articles that I have been posting on this thread by watching and listening to the MSM. I've had to use alternative browsers and lots of search terms to locate them. I watch and read the MSM as well, so I see the absence of negative vaccine information.

I get the sense that you may be subjectively wanting to debate the article because of your subjective resentment of the notion that information is being suppressed. If you do not look for material like what I am presenting, which I doubt that you do, you will not find it. That's how censorship works. If you only consume what the MSM puts in front of you, then all you will understand is what the MSM feeds you. You and I can't have objective debate as long as the limits of your perception of the political landscape are what the MSM feeds you.

Big tech, Google, social media, and the MSM are most certainly suppressing and censoring negative information about the vaccine in a BIG way. Until YOU hunger to find out what is being kept from you, they own your perception of the political landscape. When you are trying to marginalize the premise of this thread, it isn't even you. It is just an agent of big tech.

 

[Slade3200]

What specifically does this article present that you think is important and being covered up. Give me your top point or top few.

​

Can you picture CNN running a story like this, other than an attack style "fact check" that destroys the author, every person in his family tree, and the media source? The following is just the introduction to the article:

​

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?​

I read the article. I’m wondering what specific point you think it’s making that is being censored by the media.

I havent seen your response to post 49 yet, so I will assume that you agree with it.

Have you seen the media clarify the primary efficacy endpoints discussed in the article, and make sure that their audience all understands these calculations?

This was my response to 49.

So it’s the primary efficacy endpoints you think the media is censoring? Is that right?

I haven't been finding the articles that I have been posting on this thread by watching and listening to the MSM. I've had to use alternative browsers and lots of search terms to locate them. I watch and read the MSM as well, so I see the absence of negative vaccine information.

I get the sense that you may be subjectively wanting to debate the article because of your subjective resentment of the notion that information is being suppressed. If you do not look for material like what I am presenting, which I doubt that you do, you will not find it. That's how censorship works. If you only consume what the MSM puts in front of you, then all you will understand is what the MSM feeds you. You and I can't have objective debate as long as the limits of your perception of the political landscape are what the MSM feeds you.

Big tech, Google, social media, and the MSM are most certainly suppressing and censoring negative information about the vaccine in a BIG way. Until YOU hunger to find out what is being kept from you, they own your perception of the political landscape. When you are trying to marginalize the premise of this thread, it isn't even you. It is just an agent of big tech.

I could write an article making the case that the vaccine actually grows an alien baby inside of the hosts. But I don't expect it will get coverage in a significant way. Things need to be vetted and verified and newsworthy for the most part to make national news. Either that or they need to be viral and buzz worthy.

 

[EvMetro]

What specifically does this article present that you think is important and being covered up. Give me your top point or top few.

​

Can you picture CNN running a story like this, other than an attack style "fact check" that destroys the author, every person in his family tree, and the media source? The following is just the introduction to the article:

​

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?​

I read the article. I’m wondering what specific point you think it’s making that is being censored by the media.

I havent seen your response to post 49 yet, so I will assume that you agree with it.

Have you seen the media clarify the primary efficacy endpoints discussed in the article, and make sure that their audience all understands these calculations?

This was my response to 49.

So it’s the primary efficacy endpoints you think the media is censoring? Is that right?

I haven't been finding the articles that I have been posting on this thread by watching and listening to the MSM. I've had to use alternative browsers and lots of search terms to locate them. I watch and read the MSM as well, so I see the absence of negative vaccine information.

I get the sense that you may be subjectively wanting to debate the article because of your subjective resentment of the notion that information is being suppressed. If you do not look for material like what I am presenting, which I doubt that you do, you will not find it. That's how censorship works. If you only consume what the MSM puts in front of you, then all you will understand is what the MSM feeds you. You and I can't have objective debate as long as the limits of your perception of the political landscape are what the MSM feeds you.

Big tech, Google, social media, and the MSM are most certainly suppressing and censoring negative information about the vaccine in a BIG way. Until YOU hunger to find out what is being kept from you, they own your perception of the political landscape. When you are trying to marginalize the premise of this thread, it isn't even you. It is just an agent of big tech.

I could write an article making the case that the vaccine actually grows an alien baby inside of the hosts. But I don't expect it will get coverage in a significant way. Things need to be vetted and verified and newsworthy for the most part to make national news. Either that or they need to be viral and buzz worthy.

You are not hungry to know what you aren't being told.

 

[Slade3200]

What specifically does this article present that you think is important and being covered up. Give me your top point or top few.

​

Can you picture CNN running a story like this, other than an attack style "fact check" that destroys the author, every person in his family tree, and the media source? The following is just the introduction to the article:

​

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?​

I read the article. I’m wondering what specific point you think it’s making that is being censored by the media.

I havent seen your response to post 49 yet, so I will assume that you agree with it.

Have you seen the media clarify the primary efficacy endpoints discussed in the article, and make sure that their audience all understands these calculations?

This was my response to 49.

So it’s the primary efficacy endpoints you think the media is censoring? Is that right?

I haven't been finding the articles that I have been posting on this thread by watching and listening to the MSM. I've had to use alternative browsers and lots of search terms to locate them. I watch and read the MSM as well, so I see the absence of negative vaccine information.

I get the sense that you may be subjectively wanting to debate the article because of your subjective resentment of the notion that information is being suppressed. If you do not look for material like what I am presenting, which I doubt that you do, you will not find it. That's how censorship works. If you only consume what the MSM puts in front of you, then all you will understand is what the MSM feeds you. You and I can't have objective debate as long as the limits of your perception of the political landscape are what the MSM feeds you.

Big tech, Google, social media, and the MSM are most certainly suppressing and censoring negative information about the vaccine in a BIG way. Until YOU hunger to find out what is being kept from you, they own your perception of the political landscape. When you are trying to marginalize the premise of this thread, it isn't even you. It is just an agent of big tech.

I could write an article making the case that the vaccine actually grows an alien baby inside of the hosts. But I don't expect it will get coverage in a significant way. Things need to be vetted and verified and newsworthy for the most part to make national news. Either that or they need to be viral and buzz worthy.

You are not hungry to know what you aren't being told.

Haha, I guess not... Thats an endless appetite and I don't have time for that kind of meal

 

[EvMetro]

What specifically does this article present that you think is important and being covered up. Give me your top point or top few.

​

Can you picture CNN running a story like this, other than an attack style "fact check" that destroys the author, every person in his family tree, and the media source? The following is just the introduction to the article:

​

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?​

I read the article. I’m wondering what specific point you think it’s making that is being censored by the media.

I havent seen your response to post 49 yet, so I will assume that you agree with it.

Have you seen the media clarify the primary efficacy endpoints discussed in the article, and make sure that their audience all understands these calculations?

This was my response to 49.

So it’s the primary efficacy endpoints you think the media is censoring? Is that right?

I haven't been finding the articles that I have been posting on this thread by watching and listening to the MSM. I've had to use alternative browsers and lots of search terms to locate them. I watch and read the MSM as well, so I see the absence of negative vaccine information.

I get the sense that you may be subjectively wanting to debate the article because of your subjective resentment of the notion that information is being suppressed. If you do not look for material like what I am presenting, which I doubt that you do, you will not find it. That's how censorship works. If you only consume what the MSM puts in front of you, then all you will understand is what the MSM feeds you. You and I can't have objective debate as long as the limits of your perception of the political landscape are what the MSM feeds you.

Big tech, Google, social media, and the MSM are most certainly suppressing and censoring negative information about the vaccine in a BIG way. Until YOU hunger to find out what is being kept from you, they own your perception of the political landscape. When you are trying to marginalize the premise of this thread, it isn't even you. It is just an agent of big tech.

I could write an article making the case that the vaccine actually grows an alien baby inside of the hosts. But I don't expect it will get coverage in a significant way. Things need to be vetted and verified and newsworthy for the most part to make national news. Either that or they need to be viral and buzz worthy.

You are not hungry to know what you aren't being told.

Haha, I guess not... Thats an endless appetite and I don't have time for that kind of meal

Indeed

 

[EvMetro]

FDA Declares 60 Million COVID Vaccine Doses Are Potentially Contaminated, Can't Be Used: Report

'Tens of millions of doses of each company's vaccine have been in limbo while federal regulators tested them.'

www.westernjournal.com