Less decency and honesty in science than in politics, these days.
I didn’t think there’s a few levels below politics.
You know when your juice bottle says “100% orange” and the small prints say it’s just 50% of fruit “concentrate”? They should be arrested for that.
Now concentrate on this:
If I were to sum it up in words, I’d quote the source of this revelation:
“It is like saying that there were 700 men and 127 women studied and only a small percent got pregnant. Well, from the start 700 could not have gotten pregnant in the first place.”British oncologist Dr. Carmen Wheatley
Wheatley has just tipped LifeSite News on this, and I immediately did my own verification, anyone can and should do it.
The result became the cover image for this article, which really is the beginning and the end of the debate, sums up Covidiocracy for me.
The data was collected and “arranged” by a team of “CDC experts” who published it in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2021. It remained overlooked until mid July, when NEJM followed up with a shameless editorial that questioned nothing, just furthered the lie. And that’s when the small prints caught some diligent eyes and went to become our big headline today, as they deserve.
Evil is in the small prints, again, that’s why they hate you when you carefully read inserts and labels.
This is Covidiocracy Science for you, this is the highly esteemed New England Journal of Medicine, up there, close to the British Medical Journal as reputation.
Mind that 82% is 3x the normal rate. All that extra dead babies blood is on the hands of CDC, NEJM and the likes of.
A reader pointed out that Jeffrey Jaxxen too blew the lid on this, on Del Bigtree’s show, a few days back, and they reached precisely the same conclusion.
BUT I noticed one very interesting detail that Del brought up and single-handedly proves intention in this fake narrative:
The study hast no less than 54 authors. There is no chance in heaven and hell that they all missed this.
If it’s not by mistake, it’s by intention.
And we really have to extrapolate this example to all walks of life, because they are all infected with the same corruption. None as blatantly as science, but you still can’t rely on anything you can’t research and verify yourself.
To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them