A New Variant of COVID-19 Propaganda

by | Jul 18, 2021 | Editorials

Tags: Covid-19

When the pseudopandemic kicked off, we knew the endgame was mass vaccination. Right from the beginning, Bill Gates told us that the world would only return to normal once the entire population had been vaccinated. For months, there was a concerted effort to rally the public around criminal drug companies who were feverishly working to save the world by producing the first-ever vaccine effective against a coronavirus.

Governments poured billions of dollars into these vaccines and, to help buy public favour, they even came up with catchy names like “Operation Warp Speed”.

They knew they would have to work hard to coax the entire population into taking an experimental mRNA jab for a disease with an IFR of 0.15%. They knew a large majority of the public would be hesitant to roll up their sleeves for a vaccine based on technology that has never been approved before for human use. They knew that some people would question the safety of vaccines created in less than 12 months when it usually takes 5-10 years.

And so they conjured up the most ridiculous, outlandish, and insidious lie of all: the “variant”.

There’s an incredible amount of propaganda being pumped out in the mainstream, claiming that new Sars-Cov-2 variants pose a significant threat and that the unvaccinated are to blame for their evolution.

This article will focus on debunking such claims by analysing this article published by CNN in July 2021. Looking at the title alone, you can tell it’s going to be a scare piece with little substance – Unvaccinated people are ‘variant factories,’ infectious diseases expert says.

Ah… the classic “experts say” line. But which experts are these? The experts that told us not to wear masks and then changed their mind, contradicting decades worth of scientific studies? The experts that said 2 weeks to flatten the curve? The experts that changed the definition of herd immunity to suit their own interests? The experts that told us half a million people would die in the UK unless the country submitted to a brutal, Orwellian lockdown? Those experts?

In logic, this is called an “appeal to authority” fallacy, it’s a type of red herring whereby the opinions of a so-called expert are portrayed as fact. Another way to put it is ‘Person makes X claim, therefore X is true’. A testimony, no matter who gives it, is not a valid argument and it is not a fact.

The way to distinguish between a strong appeal to authority and a weak appeal to authority is by examining the person who is giving the testimony. So let’s do that.

The first “expert” cited is Dr. William Schaffner, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. But typing his name into Google DuckDuckGo, reveals that he is also the medical director of the National Foundation of Infectious Diseases (NFID).

“So what?” you might say. Well, According to the NFID’s 2020 annual report, they have “strategic partnerships” with Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen Therapeutics. Pfizer and AstraZeneca both have a COVID-19 vaccine and Janssen Therapeutics is owned by Johnson and Johnson who also have a COVID-19 vaccine. All of these Pharma giants are listed as gold-level supporters, seemingly indicating that the NFID receives substantial funding from these corporations.

Let’s keep digging.

A glance through Dr. Schaffner’s Curriculum Vitae, reveals that almost his entire career has been focused on immunology and vaccine research. But far more alarming is the fact that he currently works for Pfizer as part of their data monitoring committee.

He has also held roles at the CDC, Merck, and the WHO. So, trustworthy expert or Big Pharma shill? Whatever you decide, it’s obvious that someone so embedded in the vaccine industry, whose livelihood depends on funding from vaccine manufactures, cannot be trusted to give a factual and objective testimony on the “risks” of not vaccinating against COVID-19.

The other “expert” quoted in the article is Andrew Pekosz, a vaccine researcher at the John’s Hopkins School of Public Health, a research unit that is massively funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The mainstream media love Pekosz and quote him extensively on matters to do with virus variants or the “effectiveness” of the COVID-19 experimental mRNA “vaccines”.

Pekosz was a proponent of mRNA technology from the beginning. In a January 2021 episode of the Hopkins Medicine Podcast, he said that:

“The mRNA vaccine platform is tailor-made for a disease like coronaviruses”.

He also hailed the mRNA vaccines for their incredible “95% effectiveness” even though this was nothing more than clever mathematics which relied on using a relative risk reduction as opposed to an absolute risk reduction, which turns out is less than 1% in most cases.

Pekosz also thinks that we can use mRNA technology to create more effective flu vaccines.

“For his part, Pekosz sees potential in this approach for fending off the highly variable influenza virus. Efforts are already underway to develop “universal” flu vaccines based on mRNAs that train the immune system to fight diverse strains of seasonal or pandemic flu.”

The CNN piece goes on to state that areas with low vaccination rates in the US are already displaying increased rates of COVID-19. However, this is not indicative of an effective vaccine, but rather an illusion created by the PCR testing scam. The CDC recommends that vaccinated individuals do not get a COVID test, and if they aren’t testing vaccinated people, cases will obviously drop in areas where more people have been vaccinated. How convenient.

Now let’s tackle the most deceitful part of this article which states that unvaccinated individuals become “variant factories”, breeding more dangerous mutations of the Sars-Cov-2 virus, putting other people, including the vaccinated, at risk.

In previous articles, we’ve shown that the evidence for the existence of SARS-Cov-2 is severely lacking.

So then what are these so-called variants?

As Dr. Kaufman explains in another excellent presentation, “variants” are “discovered” when computer programs conjure up similar genome sequences to the original Sars-Cov-2 sequence. In other words, a “variant” is simply the inability to reproduce the original Sars-Cov-2 sequence that was published by Chinese researchers in Wuhan.

And let’s not forget that the original viral sequence did not come from a purified virus. Instead, it came from a patient sample containing countless other sources of genetic material. In science, replication is an important qualifying step – if something cannot be reproduced, it cannot be deemed true. Virologists, by discovering variants, have essentially disproved their own science by showing that the original viral sequence cannot be reproduced.

As Dr. Kaufman puts it:

“The differences between these variants is very very small, and this is all 100% artificial and imaginary. What essentially happened is they tried to reproduce the genome sequence and they were unable to get the same results.”

He goes on to state that:

“These variants have not been actually studied with clinical correlation. So in other words, they didn’t follow a group of 100 people or 1000 people with this particular variant that they could reliably detect and then follow their clinical outcome […] “So most of the information about what they tell us that a variant is more transmissible, or more severe or less severe or anything like that are based on computer simulations and are purely theoretical.”

Here are the sequences that have been submitted to GISAID – a global science initiative that provides open access to genomic data of the Sars-Cov-2 coronavirus. Each dot represents a different Sars-Cov-2 sequence and therefore a different “variant”. There are over 40,000 in total.

An image from GISAID showing all of the Sars-Cov-2 COVID-19 genome variants

Sars-Cov-2 is an imaginary organism, but even if there was a virus, the crux of the argument that unvaccinated individuals are “variant factories” relies on the incorrect assumption that COVID-19 vaccines protect against infection.

COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials (including those done by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson and Johnson) were not designed to observe infection with Sars-Cov-2 or the effectiveness of the vaccine on the transmission of the virus. Consequently, the FDA states that:

“It is possible that asymptomatic infections may not be prevented as effectively as symptomatic infections” […] “data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination.”

And finally, the last point I want to make about this CNN propaganda piece is the complete lack of any and all scientific references. To sum up, here’s how to identify COVID-19 variant propaganda:

1. It’s filled with logical fallacies, especially red herrings like appeal to authority or appeal to emotion.

2. The “Experts” cited are cherry-picked industry shills.

3. There is a complete lack of references to peer-reviewed scientific studies that back up the assertions made. Instead, all talk of “dangerous” variants is based on computer modeling or the opinions of corporately funded vaccine researchers.

4. The article is dumbed down and filled with emotive language aimed to cause fear and panic, such as this “Like a bank robber whose picture is on wanted posters everywhere, the virus that succeeds will be the virus that makes a random change that makes it look less visible to the immune system.”

Don’t fall for it. The only “variant” you should be concerned about is this new variant of COVID-19 propaganda. They’re coming after us with every dirty trick in the book. Stand strong.

Tags: Covid-19

Did you find this article valuable? Leave a rating below.

Average rating / 5.

Latest Articles

The CBDC gaslighting campaign

The CBDC gaslighting campaign

In an insightful analysis of Central Bank Digital Currencies, “Shinobi” asks some important questions, including whether it’s even feasible to create one? …just to replace the average volume of cash transactions alone a CBDC would need to process 246 times...

The Fed announces “pilot” ESG social credit system

The Fed announces “pilot” ESG social credit system

The fed has announced that 6 of the nation’s largest banks will participate in a climate scenario analysis exercise designed to enhance the ability of supervisors and firms to measure and manage climate related financial risks. So, what’s the big deal? Well… This is...

Join Our Newsletter

Get the 5-minute, weekly newsletter keeping thousands of free thinkers informed and inspired.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This Post

Share this post on social media