What a sinister government we have.

[The Irish Ram]

Would you take chemo gene therapy if you didn't have cancer? Would you make your child take it? Then why let our lying government insist we take their gene therapy?
Read this before you subject your family to government experimentation:

The Epoch Times | Breaking News, Latest News, World News and Videos

Get the latest breaking news, in-depth reporting, and insightful analysis on a wide range of topics, including politics, culture, and world events | The Epoch Times is a trusted source for real news and information that is free from influence and bias.

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Death-Ninja]

Would you take chemo gene therapy if you didn't have cancer? Would you make your child take it? Then why let our lying government insist we take their gene therapy?
Read this before you subject your family to government experimentation:

The Epoch Times | Breaking News, Latest News, World News and Videos

Get the latest breaking news, in-depth reporting, and insightful analysis on a wide range of topics, including politics, culture, and world events | The Epoch Times is a trusted source for real news and information that is free from influence and bias.

www.theepochtimes.com

Can't read your link as you MUST have a subscription!

 

[Moonglow]

Can't read your link as you MUST have a subscription!

To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies. Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, mRNA vaccines use mRNA created in a laboratory to teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies.

Understanding mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines | CDC​

 

[konradv]

Would you take chemo gene therapy if you didn't have cancer? Would you make your child take it? Then why let our lying government insist we take their gene therapy?
Read this before you subject your family to government experimentation:

The Epoch Times | Breaking News, Latest News, World News and Videos

Get the latest breaking news, in-depth reporting, and insightful analysis on a wide range of topics, including politics, culture, and world events | The Epoch Times is a trusted source for real news and information that is free from influence and bias.

www.theepochtimes.com

Fake news from a fake news site. Should we be surprised? This has been debunked repeatedly over the last two years. Why would Trump have demanded warp speed, if it wasn’t the best solution?

 

[MisterBeale]

Can't read your link as you MUST have a subscription!

The Difference Between mRNA Injections and Vaccines​

The Difference Between mRNA Injections and Vaccines

If the US government would call the COVID-19 'vaccines' by what they really are, far fewer people would ...

web.archive.org

The Moderna & Pfizer Covid jabs are legally NOT Vaccines!!!​

 

[toobfreak]

Read this before you subject your family to government experimentation:

Thanks for the Paywall--- --- it was fascinating!

 

[MisterBeale]

Thanks for the Paywall--- --- it was fascinating!


View attachment 613793


Thanks for the Paywall--- --- it was fascinating!

Can't read your link as you MUST have a subscription!

The Difference Between mRNA Injections and Vaccines​

The Difference Between mRNA Injections and Vaccines

If the US government would call the COVID-19 'vaccines' by what they really are, far fewer people would ...

web.archive.org

(Paywall work around)

The Moderna & Pfizer Covid jabs are legally NOT Vaccines!!!​

 

[MisterBeale]

From that article;

"What Constitutes ‘The Greater Good’?​

Martin points to the 1905 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, which essentially established that collective benefit supersedes individual benefit. To put it bluntly, it argued that it’s acceptable for individuals to be harmed by public health directives provided it benefits the collective.

Now, if vaccination is a public health measure that is supposed to protect and benefit the collective, then it would need to a) ensure that the individual who is vaccinated is rendered immune from the disease in question; and b) that the vaccine inhibits transmission of the disease.

Only if these two outcomes can be scientifically proven can you say that vaccination protects and benefits the collective — the population as a whole. This is where we run into problems with the mRNA “vaccines.”

Moderna’s SEC filings, which Martin claims to have carefully reviewed, specifies and stresses that its technology is a “gene therapy technology.” Originally, its technology was set up to be a cancer treatment, so more specifically, it’s a chemotherapy gene therapy technology.

As noted by Martin, who would raise their hand to receive prophylactic chemotherapy gene therapy for a cancer you do not have and may never be at risk for? In all likelihood, few would jump at such an offer, and for good reason.

Moreover, states and employers would not be able to mandate individuals to receive chemotherapy gene therapy for a cancer they do not have. It simply would not be legal. Yet, they’re proposing that all of humanity be forced to get gene therapy for COVID-19.

COVID-19 Vaccines — A Case of False Advertising​

Now, if the COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine, why are they calling it that? While the CDC provides a definition of “vaccine,” the CDC is not the actual law. It’s an agency empowered by the law, but it does not create law itself. Interestingly enough, it’s more difficult to find a legal definition of “vaccine,” but there have been a few cases. Martin provides the following examples:

• Iowa code — “Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.” Again, the COVID-19 vaccines make no claim of providing immunity. They are only designed to lessen symptoms if and when you get infected.
• Washington state code — “Vaccine means a preparation of a killed or attenuated living microorganism, or fraction thereof …” Since Moderna and Pfizer are using synthetic RNA, they clearly do not meet this definition.Being a manmade synthetic, the RNA used is not derived from anything that has at one point been alive, be it a whole microorganism or a fraction thereof. The statute continues to specify that a vaccine “upon immunization stimulates immunity that protects us against disease …”

So, in summary, “vaccine” and “immunity” are well-defined terms that do not match the end points specified in COVID-19 vaccine trials. The primary end point in these trials is: “Prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease.” Is that the same as “immunity”? No, it is not.

There Are More Problems Than One. . . "​

Interesting stuff. . .

 

[Burgermeister]

There is no point in showing people any information about this jab. The denial is really weird.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

This is a very valid point.

So, if I have a heart attack, stroke, or need a kidney, instead of going to the hospital or going to some STUPID doctor, I'll consult a dentist, a talk show host, a podcaster, a singer, a politician or a blog.

GOOD tip.

 

[konradv]

From that article;

"What Constitutes ‘The Greater Good’?​

Martin points to the 1905 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, which essentially established that collective benefit supersedes individual benefit. To put it bluntly, it argued that it’s acceptable for individuals to be harmed by public health directives provided it benefits the collective.

Now, if vaccination is a public health measure that is supposed to protect and benefit the collective, then it would need to a) ensure that the individual who is vaccinated is rendered immune from the disease in question; and b) that the vaccine inhibits transmission of the disease.

Only if these two outcomes can be scientifically proven can you say that vaccination protects and benefits the collective — the population as a whole. This is where we run into problems with the mRNA “vaccines.”

Moderna’s SEC filings, which Martin claims to have carefully reviewed, specifies and stresses that its technology is a “gene therapy technology.” Originally, its technology was set up to be a cancer treatment, so more specifically, it’s a chemotherapy gene therapy technology.

As noted by Martin, who would raise their hand to receive prophylactic chemotherapy gene therapy for a cancer you do not have and may never be at risk for? In all likelihood, few would jump at such an offer, and for good reason.

Moreover, states and employers would not be able to mandate individuals to receive chemotherapy gene therapy for a cancer they do not have. It simply would not be legal. Yet, they’re proposing that all of humanity be forced to get gene therapy for COVID-19.

COVID-19 Vaccines — A Case of False Advertising​

Now, if the COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine, why are they calling it that? While the CDC provides a definition of “vaccine,” the CDC is not the actual law. It’s an agency empowered by the law, but it does not create law itself. Interestingly enough, it’s more difficult to find a legal definition of “vaccine,” but there have been a few cases. Martin provides the following examples:

• Iowa code — “Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.” Again, the COVID-19 vaccines make no claim of providing immunity. They are only designed to lessen symptoms if and when you get infected.
• Washington state code — “Vaccine means a preparation of a killed or attenuated living microorganism, or fraction thereof …” Since Moderna and Pfizer are using synthetic RNA, they clearly do not meet this definition.Being a manmade synthetic, the RNA used is not derived from anything that has at one point been alive, be it a whole microorganism or a fraction thereof. The statute continues to specify that a vaccine “upon immunization stimulates immunity that protects us against disease …”

So, in summary, “vaccine” and “immunity” are well-defined terms that do not match the end points specified in COVID-19 vaccine trials. The primary end point in these trials is: “Prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease.” Is that the same as “immunity”? No, it is not.

There Are More Problems Than One. . . "​

Interesting stuff. . .

If it provides protection, it IS a vaccine. This “legally” stuff is just gaslighting. There is no such a law saying the mRNA preparation isn’t a vaccine.

 

[playtime]

The Epoch Times​

Last updated on March 7th, 2022 at 11:58 am

---

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE​

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate The Epoch Times Right Biased and Questionable based on the publication of pseudoscience and the promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories, as well as numerous failed fact checks.

---

Detailed Report​

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Fake News, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

The Epoch Times

 

[The Irish Ram]

If it provides protection, it IS a vaccine. This “legally” stuff is just gaslighting. There is no such a law saying the mRNA preparation isn’t a vaccine.

No, it is not a vaccine by any description. And it does NOT provide protection. It makes you a carrier. You are being lied to. Go on a vax only cruise if you believe otherwise.
It does however make covid a part of your DNA. Your child's DNA. Our children are going to have a very hard time conceiving when the time comes. Spike proteins end up in the gonads and ovaries after you were assured that the proteins stay at the injection site. That was a lie.

The CDC actually changed the definition of a vaccine because covid didn't do what a vaccine requires. To find out the alarming truth and some gain of functions, Sen. Johnson held a 2 hour hearing of Drs, scientists, nurses, that ended up 5 hours long. 5 hours of expert testimony on how bad this particular gene therapy actually is for humans.

VIDEO RELEASE Sen. Ron Johnson COVID-19: A Second Opinion Panel Garners Over 800,000 Views in 24 Hours

www.ronjohnson.senate.gov

If you have children, watching that hearing should be mandatory. They are one of the targets. And pay attention to the testimony of the scientists telling us about the serum binding the cells that kill roaming cancer cells in our bodies.

Gain of function is such a sinister practice, that Obama had to un-ban it to get the serum to do what they wanted and did it 11 days before Trump took office to insure Trump got the blame.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The Epoch Times​

Last updated on March 7th, 2022 at 11:58 am

---

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE​

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate The Epoch Times Right Biased and Questionable based on the publication of pseudoscience and the promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories, as well as numerous failed fact checks.

---

Detailed Report​

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Fake News, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

The Epoch Times

In order to deflect the "questionable source" bullshit, I look for corroborating evidence for proof. There is 5 hours of expert testimony that you can compare to the source I provided, to check it's credibility.
Don't let the left's "fake news" attempts keep you from the truth, because this isn't the last serum they plan to inject into your child's body...

 

[The Irish Ram]

This is a very valid point.

So, if I have a heart attack, stroke, or need a kidney, instead of going to the hospital or going to some STUPID doctor, I'll consult a dentist, a talk show host, a podcaster, a singer, a politician or a blog.

GOOD tip.

How about the creator of the mRNA serums? Can you believe him? How about 5 hours of EXPERT testimony? Can you believe the dr. and nurses and scientists that do this for a living??

Want a good tip?
Find out what they are pushing before they push it into your DNA...

 

[MisterBeale]

The Epoch Times​

Last updated on March 7th, 2022 at 11:58 am

---

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE​

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate The Epoch Times Right Biased and Questionable based on the publication of pseudoscience and the promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories, as well as numerous failed fact checks.

---

Detailed Report​

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Fake News, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

The Epoch Times

You should be leery of "Fact Checker," sites, the tend to reinforce the narrative of government and corporate elite billionaires that rule over you, and quash any questioning of the prominent epistemology, with out any regard to truth.

This Media Bias/Fact Check site, does not have a lot behind it to prove that its rating are, in fact, true. Have you noticed, only in the era when wealth concentration has become almost to obscene levels, and the emergence of the "Tea Party," and the "Occupy Movement," IOW popular populist movements questioning the ruling elites, do they need to roll out "fact checking," sites to gas light anyone who questions government or corporate power?

"Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is an American fact-checking website founded in 2015 by editor Dave M. Van Zandt.[1] It uses a 0-10 scale to rate sites on two areas: bias and factual accuracy. It has been criticised for its methodology and accuracy.[2]

<snip>

Criticism​

According to the Poynter Institute, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific,"[2] something that Media Bias/Fact Check does admit and, according to their website, their method is frequently updated.[8] In 2018, the Columbia Journalism Review described Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and characterized their assessments as "subjective assessments [that] leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in".[3]"

Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Criticism​

An image from the critical report by the Palmer Report

Various sites have criticised MFBC.[7] The Palmer Report published an article in April 2017 entitled Scam site “Media Bias Fact Check” caught cribbing its ratings from Wikipedia.[8]

The Poynter Institute, itself recommended by MFBC, wrote that "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[9]

The site was #2 on a list of Zero Hedge's Top 9 “fakest ‘fake-news’ checkers.”[3]

Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikispooks

wikispooks.com

Exposing The 9 Fakest Fake-News Checkers​

Exposing The 9 Fakest Fake-News Checkers | Zero Hedge

"Trust us," they say. "We’ll help you navigate Facebook and filter out the fake news stories,” they promise. But just who are these self-appointed gatekeepers who claim to be the ultimate arbiters of what is or is not “fake news”?

web.archive.org

2. Media Bias Fact Check​

"MediaBIasFactCheck.com describes itself as “the most comprehensive media bias resource in the Internet.” The site is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: “Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting” and, “Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”

WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.

Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.”

Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website. That was removed a year ago when I first started the website. All of the writing I did was small print news zines from the ’90s. I felt that what I wrote in the ’90s is not related to what I am doing today so I removed it. Again, I am not a journalist. I simply have a background in communications and more importantly science where I learned to value evidence over all else. Through this I also became interested in research of all kinds, especially media bias, which is difficult to measure and is subjective to a degree.”

WND asked: Were your evaluations reviewed by any experts in the industry?

“I can’t say they have,” Van Zandt replied. “Though the right-of-center Atlantic Council is using our data for a project they are working on.”



Van Zandt says he uses “three volunteers” to “research and assist in fact checking.” However, he adds that he doesn’t pay them for their services.

Van Zandt lists WND on his “Right Bias” page, alongside news organizations such as Fox News, the Drudge Report, the Washington Free Beacon, the Daily Wire, the Blaze, Breitbart, Red State, Project Veritas, PJ Media, National Review, Daily Caller and others.

“These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes,” Van Zandt writes. “They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy.”

His special notes concerning WND link to Snopes.com and PolitiFact.com, websites that have their own questionable reputations and formulas as so-called “fact checkers.” (See the “Snopes” and “PolitiFact” entries below.)

Van Zandt says he uses a “strict methodology” in determining which news sources are credible, but his website offers vague and typo-ridden explanations of his criteria, such as the following:



Asked if his own political leanings influence his evaluations, Van Zandt said: “Sure it is possible. However, our methodology is designed to eliminate most of that. We also have a team of 4 researchers with different political leanings so that we can further reduce researcher bias.”

Bill Palmer of the website Daily News Bin accused Van Zandt of retaliating when the Daily News Bin contacted him about his rating. Palmer wrote:

“t turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous ‘rating’ – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as ‘has been accused of being satire.’ Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ scam.

“But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is ‘real’ or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated ‘ratings’ they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. …

“‘Media Bias Fact Check’ is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing.”

But Van Zandt accused Palmer of threatening him, and he said MediaBiasFactCheck welcomes criticism. If evidence is provided, he said, the site will correct its errors.

“Bottom line is, we are not trying to be something we are not,” he said. “We have disclaimers on every page of the website indicating that our method is not scientifically proven and that there is [sic] subjective judgments being used as it is unavoidable with determining bias.”

 

[MisterBeale]

If it provides protection, it IS a vaccine.

Nope, not according to the community immunization argument theory ruling back in the early 1900s, in Cambridge, Massachusetts based on resident Henning Jacobson. If it doesn't provide immunization to the community, than, a person need not be subjected to the possible harms. It is a personal choice then.

Wow, you really missed the whole point of the article and those various state laws.

 

[surada]

Would you take chemo gene therapy if you didn't have cancer? Would you make your child take it? Then why let our lying government insist we take their gene therapy?
Read this before you subject your family to government experimentation:

The Epoch Times | Breaking News, Latest News, World News and Videos

Get the latest breaking news, in-depth reporting, and insightful analysis on a wide range of topics, including politics, culture, and world events | The Epoch Times is a trusted source for real news and information that is free from influence and bias.

www.theepochtimes.com

So did your children get the polio vaccine?

 

[surada]

World net daily? Those crooks announced the world's largest oilfields in Israel in 1998 and sold stock for a decade screwing a lot of Jewish widows out of their money. They never sank a single borehole

 

[surada]

Let There Be Light Crude

Evangelical preachers claim that a giant oil find in Israel will usher in the end of days. Enter the con men and penny-stock hustlers.

www.motherjones.com