[Rant] Let’s just label everyone an “Anti-Vaxxer” to win any argument
The smartest “most effective” thing they did was weaponize the word “Anti-Vax”. This clever campaign gives them the ability to lump all the crazy unverified shit in with the experts they want to silence. Just *wave that word* onto anything and we’ll run the other way.
“Anti-Vax” – this weapon even worked on me at the start, and I’m not normally one for being afraid to look outside of the media-version of anything – I’ve stretched my mind to the point of craziness in the past – but this wording did scare me (or scared the side of me that needs approval from my peers and community – that needs “acceptance” – that doesn’t want to be ostracized or jailed or ‘picked-on’ or excluded or dismissed), and my ego likes to be “right” so it also worked on that part of me that “doesn’t want to be wrong”, “that doesn’t want to be dumb” – that kind of thing… this word… this weapon… it really is quite ingenious.
EVEN Double-Jabbed Scientists that make vaccines for a living and whom is on the original patent for both of the new types of mRNA & DNA 💉’s that we’re trying to inject into the arms of the entire planet …. as well as people who CURRENTLY WORK for these organizations who are making or promoting them – these are all “Anti-Vaxxers”?????
“I don’t think that word means what you think it means”
Yep, we can even call all the virologists, scientists, doctors, nurses, bioweapons experts, and anyone we want to silence, “anti-vaxxers” – that’s all it takes to discredit someone in the past couple of years – just this word alone can ‘do the trick’.
- Police Speaking out (01) (02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07) (08) (09) (10)
- Doctors Speaking out (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)
- Virologists & Health Scientists Speaking out (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29)
- Politicians Speaking out (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46)
- Nurses, Paramedics & Health Workers Speaking out (47) (48) (49) (50)
- Funeral Directors, Psychologists and Pilots Speaking out (51) (52) (53)
- Lawyers Speaking out (54) (55) (56) (57) (58) (59)
This ensures people put their frowny face on, summon their darkest demons, and take the side of “against” whatever it is they are saying – no matter who they are and no matter what evidence they have – instead of listening to what he and others have to say and then following up with reading the evidence before forming an opinion.. if any “warnings” beneath the post use the word “Anti-Vaxxer” – even if they have the credentials – even if they are people you really need to investigate closely – even if they are double-or-triple-jabbed – and even if they work for the companies we’re told to trust — the antivax statement suddenly gives people some kind of “moral superiority”.. a golden ticket to abuse or rise-up-together to join in on the “I listen to experts, not idiots” parade – brought to you by BigPharma’s trust-the-science marketing campaign and to hide the forthcoming financial reset.
A permanent pandemic until 2030 or infinity – unless we can get this information through this barb-wired electric fence, and all anyone need do to discredit anyone in society is use “Anti-vax” somewhere in the heading, or use the words “the health advice” or “Experts say” – but if that doesn’t sound convincing – we have fall-backs such as “right-wing extremist” or “idiot”… and I’m starting to see a new one form this week “scare-mongering” (this from the media who have kept people in a state of fear since the beginning – not sharing anything that will help people when sick or how to improve overall health).
So effective, so smart, absolute genius.
- Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection, R W Malone, P L Felgner, and I M Verma PNAS August 1, 1989 86 (16) 6077-6081;
- Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Wolff JA, Malone RW, et al. Science. 1990;247(4949 Pt 1):1465-8. Cited in 4,750 articles, is the result of that work.
- Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA (or RNA) sequence, Patent US5589466A, Priority date 3/21/1989
- A Scientific Education: The Early History of the Discovery of mRNA Vaccines – PDF
- Original data, notes, patents, early papers, lab notes, meeting notes, patent disclosures.
- Dr. Robert W Malone’s Résumé – DOC
They added to said article- and I quote:
“Experts say…”. (What experts? What is the name of these invisible “experts” you keep referring to? Who are they and what knowledge do they have that is more credible than the person you are debunking? Have they treated a single c19 patient – let alone successfully treated thousands like the ones we are sharing? Have they got more of an understanding, and if so – list that – include that – why are they someone we should consider an Expert?).
Well if the “Experts”.. the unnamed, anonymous, and unverifiable “Experts” say it’s misleading or misinformation, then clearly these “invisible, unverifiable and unnamed experts” are who we should be listening to on such matters – not the verifiable ones with the credentials or success record or evidence to back them up.
It’s madness how they get away with just using wordsmithing such as “experts say” or the one I saw today: “antivaxxer claims”. When you say “claims”.. you’re also using a psychological copywriting/nlp/hypnosis and sales marketing technique to prime the reader to negative-bias before they even read the rest of the article – prime them to be “against” whatever the claim is. There is a “claim”.. and we know the punchline – that somewhere in this article we are going to mention some invisible expert that is going to ‘refute’ the claim and we can all get back on our high-horse and dismiss anything they say. There’s a claim, and “we’re gonna debunk this claim” – because a “claim” implies that it is not a “fact”.. a claim is “obviously someone’s ‘wrong or misleading’ opinion”.
Very easily verifiable and I feel like 2 years on, that most are starting to clue onto it and see past it – that these newsfeed posts that I’m seeing is not the majority – that the newsfeed posts are just those who keep the telly or radio on in the background and are maybe unconsciously taking all this information in and repeating it knowing that this bias is the going “accepted societal norm” which will win acceptance and likes from my peers and prove I’m a “good person”?
(But that could be wishful thinking…)
I just think it’s remarkable how well it worked- the way they weaponized and re-defined and attach the word “Anti-Vaxxer” to EVERYTHING they want people to collectively side-with – to use as a golden ticket into society – it’s so clever – it’s worked remarkably well (especially online) to separate and divide and paint a picture of some kind of terrorist or “bad citizen” – to get people to run-away from anything that sounds “anti-vax” – it’s like we’re conditioned now.. a true powerful emotional trigger word that invokes fear and hate and only serves to delay the inevitable.
Especially interesting and sad is how many that rolled up their sleeves 2 or 3 times who are trying to share their personal experience with their friends, who are only now recognizing that all is not sunshine and roses, that it seems that not all batches are the same or react with everyone’s uniqueness the same – because it’s a drug – not something that you can just put into the arms of everyone on the planet at the same time – without years of safety data and expect the same result, who are only now starting to realize there’s so much more to this and how they thought they had a choice but recognize now that there is really no choice if you want to keep your job or friends, or that there is really not that much benefit to taking it when there are far better options available – that is being blocked.
And these guys, who were literally on the golden-ticket path a few months ago are now being told by others “what happened to you doesn’t matter” or “you are lying”, or more commonly “it would’ve been far worse if you’d ended up on a ventilator” when most of the data we have is corrupted because they have screwed up the ability for us to use exact comparison stats on anything because they include those that are less than 14 days from their 2nd shot in their unvaccinated data and are considering changing that to an unending “up-to-date” definition – meaning the problems we have now with reliable comparison is going to become even harder or completely impossible – we will never be able to compare anything because “up-to-date on your 💉” could mean anything in any given week – is it 3, 4, 5? How do you compare when the goal post keeps moving and the definition keeps changing? Already they got rid of the placebo group from the original trial by unblinding them and offering them the 💉, and already each country and hospital can use a different way of reporting depending on political objectives or personal biases from those treating the patient — thereby which data are we looking at with deaths and hospitalizations when you are not considered fully-💉’d for the first couple of months (when currently you are not considered 💉’d until 14 days after the 2nd jab)? When they sometimes report it and sometimes not, when sometimes its included and sometimes left out. What stats can we compare if someone has suddenly got re-emerged cancer, or a neurological condition, rash, or heart problems and don’t consider the possible connection because of their own bias because of this bloody division thing and not being able to question? Does the patient or physician with the bias offer/record the 💉 status if they assume it’s unrelated & is there anyway of seeing a connection if they don’t? Some do, some don’t and it all depends on their beliefs? Is this confusing way of recording / not-recording / sharing the data with the public also another remarkably clever design?
There needn’t be this weird and ugly divide if there was a way to just discuss openly anything without being labelled an “antivaxxer” whenever the conversation strays beyond what anyone wants to believe – like if we were able to talk without this weapon hovering over us – a dark shadow that has been training us to get triggered whenever we something outside of the auto-repeat is brought up.
That bloody weapon makes people too scared to even have the conversation.. we can’t even discuss this?
“Shutup Antivaxxer” – just jump overboard – nevermind all these dead and injured bodies floating down there – don’t ask questions – ignore everything and just jump – close your eyes and you’ll get a free donut and a golden ticket back into society.
Personally my stuff got censored before all that, in April 2020 I posted health advice (this was before we were conditioned to fear any health advice that didn’t involve locking ourselves up and becoming ninja’s – suffocating in our own toxins all day, and slathering on the gel everywhere we go) – before ‘real’ health advice became weaponized as “antivax / primitive / right-wing / some kind of dangerous extremism”.
Again when I realized that I could only get so far with how the new tech worked in our cells before I ran out of pharma-funded cartoon-animations and research that repeated itself but never addressed the inconsistencies and so I tried to ask questions to see if anyone else knew where I could find the missing info I was curious about.
Again for asking questions about the PCR being misused.
Again when the data didn’t match up to what they were saying on the media.
Let’s just label people “antivaxxers” whenever we want to win an argument or segregate and divide – but mostly let’s use this weapon to scare people away from learning what is also going on, and what can truly help people make the right decision for them, and know what to do to prevent severe illness ( 💉 or not ), and to prevent people from learning about the poison (💉 or not), and aside from that, let’s use this “antivax” weapon to prevent you from finding out what’s next.
Sharyl Attkisson: The Term ‘Anti-Vaxxer’ a Very Effective Propaganda Tool | CLIP
‘Anti-Vaxxer’, ‘Conspiracy Theory’, ‘Debunked’, ‘Quackery’, ‘Anti-Vaccine’, are Propaganda Tools that should make you want to find out more. People don’t want to be identified under negative terms & labels and so this is why these definitions are used – to ensure you “think the way they want you to think”.