Legalese and the "craft" of scientific propaganda
We are going to breakdown the "Legalese" in one fine example of science flavored propaganda.
To demonstrate how we are being led to a belief, despite actual evidence using a well crafted formula of human programming.
To begin, you will want to read this report.
On the surface it looks like a pile of science to support their theory.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article?fbclid=IwAR2xaZclPdcuigqPyWPXno3HzWH-_cCwVOTB0IvyRhd9wzuPhpyTdOtemGg#:~:text=Recent%20epidemiologic%2C%20virologic%2C,symptoms%20never%20develop
Now find the underlying truths one has hidden... Like needles buried in this haystack of bovine feces.
“Although these reports did not identify actual virus transmission"...
"cannot determine whether infectious virus is present"...
If you read the fine print, that’s what it all breaks down to. ......
There are no studies that prove viral transmission from human-human contact using the "Scientific Method"... I know that's hard to grasp having been indoctrinated to believe otherwise with countless repetitions of the official narrative...
But repeating a big lie over and over, still doesn't make it true.
This is not even a study, it's a report based primarily on modeling/most of which was based on unconfirmed/undocumented reports and assumption.
There is no scientific evidence presented to prove the reports of “transmission” were factual. And they tell you that...
“Although RT-PCR identifies viral RNA and cannot determine whether infectious virus is present, infectiousness can be inferred from cycle threshold (Ct) values. “
They can’t even define whether an infectious virus is present and must rely on inferred infectiousness… based on modeling, which is assumption...
“Although these reports did not identify actual virus transmission while presymptomatic or asymptomatic, the low RT-PCR Ct values (i.e., high viral load) and ability to isolate infectious SARS-CoV-2 provide plausible virologic evidence for SARS-CoV-2 transmission by persons not demonstrating symptoms.”
They tell you, there is NO actual evidence... buried under all that speculation and modeling they call "evidence"...
This is Science flavored propaganda.... To lead one to believe a narrative, despite evidence to the contrary, or lack thereof...
OOOOhhh the magik of “Science”.
If you just really want to believe the narrative, there's piles of this $#!^ to support it.
If you want to discern truth, read the fine print... and focus on what they are not including... and everything they tell you is “crazy”…
Meanwhile here's an actual study that found zero evidence to support the theory of human-human contact as a means of viral transmission.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219423/?fbclid=IwAR1ZYqMtKlKj2nl41YfLDKxKS5Av-U8VIXEQoD5pDScQz_4I3UzMCdp5bLY
"Scientific evidence"... to further indicate viral transmission from
human-human contact is a well-orchestrated myth... to support a
multi-trillion dollar "invisible enemy" industry.
Never buy the [cure] from the one who sold you the disease.
To demonstrate how we are being led to a belief, despite actual evidence using a well crafted formula of human programming.
To begin, you will want to read this report.
On the surface it looks like a pile of science to support their theory.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article?fbclid=IwAR2xaZclPdcuigqPyWPXno3HzWH-_cCwVOTB0IvyRhd9wzuPhpyTdOtemGg#:~:text=Recent%20epidemiologic%2C%20virologic%2C,symptoms%20never%20develop
Now find the underlying truths one has hidden... Like needles buried in this haystack of bovine feces.
“Although these reports did not identify actual virus transmission"...
"cannot determine whether infectious virus is present"...
If you read the fine print, that’s what it all breaks down to. ......
There are no studies that prove viral transmission from human-human contact using the "Scientific Method"... I know that's hard to grasp having been indoctrinated to believe otherwise with countless repetitions of the official narrative...
But repeating a big lie over and over, still doesn't make it true.
This is not even a study, it's a report based primarily on modeling/most of which was based on unconfirmed/undocumented reports and assumption.
There is no scientific evidence presented to prove the reports of “transmission” were factual. And they tell you that...
“Although RT-PCR identifies viral RNA and cannot determine whether infectious virus is present, infectiousness can be inferred from cycle threshold (Ct) values. “
They can’t even define whether an infectious virus is present and must rely on inferred infectiousness… based on modeling, which is assumption...
“Although these reports did not identify actual virus transmission while presymptomatic or asymptomatic, the low RT-PCR Ct values (i.e., high viral load) and ability to isolate infectious SARS-CoV-2 provide plausible virologic evidence for SARS-CoV-2 transmission by persons not demonstrating symptoms.”
They tell you, there is NO actual evidence... buried under all that speculation and modeling they call "evidence"...
This is Science flavored propaganda.... To lead one to believe a narrative, despite evidence to the contrary, or lack thereof...
OOOOhhh the magik of “Science”.
If you just really want to believe the narrative, there's piles of this $#!^ to support it.
If you want to discern truth, read the fine print... and focus on what they are not including... and everything they tell you is “crazy”…
Meanwhile here's an actual study that found zero evidence to support the theory of human-human contact as a means of viral transmission.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219423/?fbclid=IwAR1ZYqMtKlKj2nl41YfLDKxKS5Av-U8VIXEQoD5pDScQz_4I3UzMCdp5bLY
Never buy the [cure] from the one who sold you the disease.
Comments
Post a Comment