Dr. Martin Kulldorf on vaccine passports, Delta, and the "public health fiasco"

For the past year, you've had three kinds of sources to consult about what's happening.

  • The professional and "reputable" media. By now, information is plainly available that these are not just lying; they do not just want us ignorant; they are acting in disregard of our deaths.

  • A rag-tag constellation of resistance. These sources look disreputable at first. They're amateurs, they lack production quality, they exaggerate, they guess, and the presenters seem to be really upset.

    These people and websites get demonized and censored. You can't post a Facebook link to these sources.

    These are the people you should listen to. If you do not, then you have biases about what's "trustworthy".

  • There are a few outlets who walk the line. They present information you should know in a way that comforts biases, understates serious things, and does not scare.

The Epoch Times is one of these. They created this interview with Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff:

"Dr. Martin Kulldorff is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a biostatistician and epidemiologist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He helped develop the CDC’s current system for monitoring potential vaccine risks, and he is also one of the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which argued for “focused protection” of the most vulnerable, instead of lockdowns."

I recommend this interview. It's important.

But if you need this kind of presentation, then I have some suggestions. If you have biases such as the following:

  • Information is trustworthy if it has high production quality.
  • Information is trustworthy if the presenter wears a tie and suit.
  • Information is trustworthy if the presenter is well-spoken.
  • Information is trustworthy if it's carefully spelled and grammatically correct.
  • Information is trustworthy if it's associated with a name like "Harvard".
  • Information is trustworthy if it comes from an established outlet.
  • Information is trustworthy if it's understated and unemotional.
  • Information is trustworthy if the presenter doesn't try to wildly guess.

If you have these biases, this makes you one of the first victims if – or when! – the professional media, governments and institutions end up actually coordinating against you and want you dead.

Consider that this could be exactly what's happening. In such a situation, sources with low production quality, not wearing suits, who are not smoothly spoken, who are screeching at the top of their lungs that it's the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, and they're conspiring to inject us with toxins so they can pick us off one by one over a few years:

These people are very possibly correct.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nothing about the "novel" coronavirus is new: Dr. David Martin with Reiner Fuellmich

Mentally preparing for mass burials: In which I forecast the vaccinated to die

The US corporatocracy: A proto-totalitarianism