⟵ Return to index
Related Gates: taggate
this raises a very important question that relates to freedom of speech in the public interest. in australia this has been looked at before. it's a big problem. governments hate free speech because they hate their corruption being shown up. alrc.gov.au/publication/tr… https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1618794581822423040
so let's take an extreme example. someone on twitter puts out a tweet that says "i have solid information that corporation x has contaminated the water in brisbane" the person makes the disclosure in good faith.
in australia, where the disclosure is made, it would be protected under the public interest disclosure act - provided it is made in good faith (outside of this, other offences might apply) other countries do not have this specific law...legislation.gov.au/details/c2013a…
however it is clearly in the public interest to have whistleblowers (or even lay members of the public) able to freely express safety concerns. @erinbrockovich famously
yet those corporations with unlimited budgets have unlimited power to suppress any public spotlight on their toxicity - hexavalent chromium and pfoa yesterday, lnp-mrna today. do you think it's ok to do this?
so the question is - if an employee of a "public square" organisation suppresses public interest disclosures on behalf of corporations or governments, without the credentials to do so, did they commit a crime? did they endanger the public?
which is why the new @project_veritas #pfizergate story is so important. it doesn't matter what role "jordon" played in the corporation. what matters is that the corporation was able to quash the story within 12 hours. https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1618790037109489664
and by the same token, the suppression of genuine scientific and medical accounts raising safety concerns during 2020-2022 has led to people being fooled or coerced into taking a drug that resulted in their death. many deaths. bbc.com/news/uk-englan…
all these twitter accounts were suspended in a coordinated purge to silence warnings about the rollout of a drug that has the highest rate of reported death of any known preventative medicine. so who ordered the purge?@elonmusk knows.
yet the suppression hasn't stopped - this account is still being shadowbanned which means that you wouldn't have seen the #taggate thread yesterday. so you wouldn't know how the corporations got those fantastic (in the literal sense) results. https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1618470281718423552
the flip side to this is that we also don't want dangerous disinformation to prevail. the answer to "disinformation" though is not suppression and gatekeeping - it is better information. if the price of that is that even "crazy people" get to have their say, so what?
because one thing that history has told us again and again: suppression of speech leads inevitably to totalitarianism, whichever label (fascism, communism, marxism) you want to put on it. and #democide is always the result. always. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1601459016475246593
Related Gates: taggate
breaking stinky cheese🧀🧀 🧀 an excellent analysis by @joshg99 and @openvaet of the missing local pcr tests in the pfizer "trial". just one really important bit of information to add... there were 207 missing local pcr tests (p<0.0001). @iambrookjackson @chrismartenson
this is the substack that is a must-read. the 207 number requires just one more step. it's really important.openvaet.substack.com/p/pfizerbionte…
every person who was symptomatic should have had a central test and a local test. the infamous pfizer "95% prevention of infection" was a farce. but how did they do it? the clue was here. it was a marker. https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1535470923314528256
only the central tests were used in the @nejm paper and the submission to the @us_fda who approved the drug the very next day. as if they *knew* what the result of the trial was going to be.
but if the trial was genuine, there should have been no difference in the number of tests sent both to the central lab and to the local lab. bear in mind that if you had symptoms your central test was not to be used clinically. everybody should have had a local test...
but as is typical for people, not everybody does what they should. however, the vaccine and placebo arms both sent central tests in at the same rate, showing that they didn't behave that differently (p=non-significant)
yet there was a very significant (p=0.000055 probability of happening by chance) difference in the rates of local tests being recorded in the database for the vaccine arm in fact the vaccine arm reported local tests at a 13.3% lower rate
now you have to take that rate drop and apply it to the original number of participants that reported symptoms and sent in a central test, to adjust for the less-than-half testing rate. 1558*0.133 ==> 207 vaccine patients missing in the local testing group well, well...
by how many patients did pfizer claim to have seen a benefit in their trial? 162 vs 8, gave you a "95% reduction in pcr positive symptomatic disease. so 154 patients "benefited". or did they? there were up to 207 missing patients in this exact group.nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
therefore every single patient who supposedly was saved from "covid" by the pfizer vaccine appears to have been accounted for by the number of patients not registered as having a local pcr test, even though the groups were testing centrally at the same rate.
and of course the central test results couldn't possibly have been "adjusted" could they? i mean, pfizer - who were performing them - didn't have any idea whose sample was whose... did they?#taggate https://twitter.com/jikkyleaks/status/1618470281718423552
and just to confirm that there was in fact almost certainly no difference in infection rates between the groups... if you haven't read this great independent work from @phillyharper it's definitely worth a read (and a subscription).philharper.substack.com/p/a-public-ver…
so.. the question that should be being asked of pfizer is: "where are those 207 local pcr test results?"@aaronsirisg @barneslaw @barnes_law#taggate #pfizergate