On dangerous words and people.
“The ones that get very sick and go to the hospital are the ones that don’t take their vaccine” - Trump
“They said it was safe” – Ernest Ramirez
“Dr Frenck…I wouldn’t trust this guy to bag my groceries at the store”…1 star review of Dr Robert W. Frenck Jr.
Language has been the main weapon of the GMC.
So, I listen to the words used in the video above to describe injury; the maimed and disabled.
“One of the unlucky ones”…emphasis on ONE.
“Rare”…their go-to word.
“Sudden”…their other go-to word.
“If you got sick”… “If” a derivative of “rare”, and “sick” is a great word associated with being sick off work for a few days, it invokes mildness, curability and transience.
“They believe” and “She believes”…it’s probably in their head, their imagination, their belief.
“Shocking reaction”…it’s a total shock that this would have happened. Unexpected. Unlikely. Rare.
“Remarkably safe and successful”…really!?
“Pause”…instead of stop or halt the J&J vaccine. They certainly cannot “recall” it.
I was on the phone yesterday to one of our clients that runs a small business within our network. I had just sent out an email about a new group wide policy and the lady called to tell me she wouldn’t be able to implement it just yet as she was unwell, has been on income protection claim for the last six months and had been in and out of hospital with a range of problems including bleeding in her head and eye. She was looking to sell her business as she couldn’t go on.
She went on to tell me that it was a serious reaction to Covid…
That is what her doctors and the hospital would have told her…repeatedly…why would she believe anything else?
Or she suspects/knows it was the vaccine, but to remain in civil society she has to go along with the lie. “Covid” as an explanation is a frictionless way of getting acceptance and sympathy, while “Vaccine” will get you scorn, disbelief and rejection.
I suspect the poor woman believes it was Covid though. I don’t think she was lying.
One of the interesting aspects of the video above is that in many cases the story is in a mainstream setting. I’m starting to think that these stories, when presented as “anecdote” and snuggly packed within a collection of weasel words act as “limited hangouts” in their own way. A partial truth designed to distract from the real and greater truth.
A "limited hangout" is a propaganda strategy typically used by organizations (often governments or large corporations) to control the narrative around a potentially damaging situation. The term is typically associated with the strategies used to manage information in the face of scandals, cover-ups, or other negative events.
The basic idea behind a limited hangout is to release some information about the issue at hand, but not all of it. This is done in an effort to mitigate damage, prevent further investigation, or redirect attention. The information that's released is often truthful but incomplete, and it's usually delivered in a way that's designed to downplay the severity of the situation.
Here's how it might work:
1. A scandal is about to break that could be damaging to a government.
2. The government preemptively releases some information about the scandal, admitting to a lesser wrongdoing.
3. This 'limited' admission appears transparent, satisfying some of the public and media curiosity.
4. The hope is that this limited hangout will prevent further probing into the issue, or will make any further revelations seem like old news or less shocking.
The term was coined in the context of the Nixon administration during the Watergate scandal. In that instance, the administration attempted to release some information about the scandal to control the narrative, in the hope of preventing the full extent of the operation from coming to light.
What they want you to believe is that to the extent there are problems with the SAFE vaccine, they are rare and certainly “were NOT known” beforehand. It is totally “unexpected”.
This is a key narrative… “we didn’t know”, this is all an “unfortunate accident”.
The pathway to forgiving someone is to accept that there was no bad intent. How can you have bad intent if you didn’t know? So, forgiveness starts to flow…
Those that are waking up are going to have to come to terms with this very painful point about “intent” and what THEY knew and didn’t know.
Here are some interesting and relevant takeaways from Yeadon’s recent public address.
The alleged “vaccines” do not contain anything protective. You don’t design effective drugs by throwing random agents at a disease and hope it does something. Rational drug design means fitting the drug to the purpose you are trying to achieve. The only evident intent behind these treatments is to maim, injure, and kill.
Your body is finely tuned to recognize “self” and attack and destroy invasive “non-self”—that’s how it protects you. The mRNA in these products instructs your body to produce proteins which are “non-self”, and your body responds by attacking it. mRNA products can only produce injury, and the designers knew this.
The lipid nanoparticles which contain the mRNA are designed to move throughout your body and cross membrane barriers (they have been used in other medications expressly for this purpose). The statement that these products will only express at the injection site is a lie. They are designed to express all over the body, and they cause damage wherever they are picked up, which is why we’ve seen brain injuries, heart attacks, renal failure, and even damaged pregnancies.
If the illness is only a threat to the elderly why are they going after children and babies? It has nothing to do with protection against a virus. They want to get these poisonous materials into as many bodies as they can.
The single best way to find your peace with this question, about what they knew beforehand, is to understand the work of Naomi Wolf and her team of several thousand researchers who are reviewing the Pfizer documents and publishing easy to understand reports. That whole project is about coming to terms with what they knew BEFORE they chased everyone in the world with a syringe.
This is their most recent report no. 71:
Report 71: Musculoskeletal Adverse Events of Special Interest Afflicted 8.5% of Patients in Pfizer's Post-Marketing Data Set, Including Four Children and One Infant. Women Affected at a Ratio of Almost 4:1 Over Men. - DailyClout
Highlights of this report include:
3,600 cases of musculoskeletal AESIs were reported, which equates to 8.5% of the post-marketing data set of 42,086 cases/patients.
The 3,600 patients reported 3,640 adverse events. 1,614 (44%) were classified as serious.
The time from administration to adverse event ranged from less than 24 hours to 32 days. 50% of the events started within the first 24 hours after injection.
Of the cases where gender was reported, 2,760 individuals were female, and 711 were male – an almost 4:1 ratio of female to male.
Though mostly adults were affected with these AESIs, two adolescents, four children, and one infant also reported musculoskeletal AESIs during a time frame when Pfizer’s BNT162b2 mRNA COVID “vaccine” was not approved for use in individuals under 16 years of age.
The most common adverse event was arthralgia/joint pain (3,525 or 97%), followed by 70 arthritis AESIs (2%), 26 rheumatoid arthritis AESIs (<1%) and 5 AESIs (<1%) polyarthritis.
Outcome for 3,662 of the adverse events were: 1,801 (49%) resolved or resolving, 959 (26%) not resolved, 49 (1%) resolved with sequelae, and 853 (23%) were unknown.
Pfizer concluded, “This cumulative case review does not raise new safety issues. Surveillance will continue.”
Towards the end of the video above we hear from Maddie de Garay’s mother talk about Maddie’s experience and injuries during the Pfizer trial.
This slide is interesting to me as it outlines the litany of Maddie’s injuries (bottom right).
That were described as “functional abdominal pain” in Pfizer’s report, led by:
Here Robert is given two online reviews:
Finally I want to take a quick look at the Pfizer NEJM paper, mentioned in the slide above, and focus on one word “mainly”.
Results: Overall, 2260 adolescents 12 to 15 years of age received injections; 1131 received BNT162b2, and 1129 received placebo. As has been found in other age groups, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety and side-effect profile, with MAINLY transient mild-to-moderate reactogenicity (predominantly injection-site pain [in 79 to 86% of participants], fatigue [in 60 to 66%], and headache [in 55 to 65%]); there were no vaccine-related serious adverse events and few overall severe adverse events. The geometric mean ratio of SARS-CoV-2 50% neutralizing titers after dose 2 in 12-to-15-year-old participants relative to 16-to-25-year-old participants was 1.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.47 to 2.10), which met the noninferiority criterion of a lower boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval greater than 0.67 and indicated a greater response in the 12-to-15-year-old cohort. Among participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, no Covid-19 cases with an onset of 7 or more days after dose 2 were noted among BNT162b2 recipients, and 16 cases occurred among placebo recipients. The observed vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI, 75.3 to 100).
“With MAINLY transient mild-to-moderate…”
Now let’s slow-think this for a moment.
They injected 1,131 teenagers and let’s accept the framing that the reactions were mainly injection site pain, fatigue, headache etc. (I don’t believe that, but for the point I want to make, let’s go with it). That would mean that it wasn’t EVERYONE that had a mild and transient reaction.
That would mean there was AT LEAST ONE who had a serious and not transient (long term or permanent) reaction.
ONE out of 1,131.
There are about 26m high school aged kids in the US between 12-17.
That equates to about 23,000 young teenagers injured with serious and long-term damage.
That is about the capacity of Delaware Stadium. So, close your eyes and imagine a stadium full of maimed teenagers.
That is what Pfizer is basically saying, or should I say the lead Principal Investigator Robert Frenck, when they use the word MAINLY.
To protect society, especially grandma, we will injure and maim a stadium full of high schoolers.
Slaughter in broad day light…with a smile.
With thanks to Henry Benedict for putting together the video in the masthead.
Off to see Aseem Malhotra starting his Australian tour, this afternoon. Feel like spending the afternoon around a few sane people. Cheap therapy.
Lies are Unbekoming is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Thanks for being here.
Please consider a small paid subscription (donation). The money goes to help covid vaccine injured Australians.
If you are Covid vaccine injured, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment
If you want to understand and “see” what baseline human health looks like, watch (and share) this 21 minutes
Here are three eBooks I have produced so far: