It's truth laundering, to avoid angry mobs. The reality that everybody instinctually knows is that the people responsible (who know this most keenly) should probably face a firing squad. But if by degrees they can get back to acknowledging the obvious truth without ever acknowledging the wrongness of their actions, they can reconstruct a new warped reality where nobody did anything wrong. 'So what if she knew vaccines didn't stop transmission? Everyone always knew that. Vaccines have never been about stopping transmission.'
Even this reveal is a reveal of limited liability since she's admitting to knowing about 'breakthrough infections', which in the context of covid is another fiction. There is no real world data in any highly vaxxed country that suggests there was ever any protection to 'break through'. But if you talk about the mRNA jabs failure to stop transmission in terms of 'breakthrough infections' you can pretend that there was, and that vaxxed transmission was rare at some point. So all that's happened is that behind the scenes she was caught sharing one of their popular fictions which doesn't quite match the timeline of their more public fictions, but was still nevertheless a popular fiction afterwards. None of it the truth.
The entire Covid & injection argument was rhetorical and semantic only.
Even when it comes to the actual scientific data, most of the studies were not falsified or fabricated. They said exactly the truth: the injections did little except potentially reduce hospitalizations. Masks were damaging. The lockdowns were utterly destructive. There was never any debate even needed. The entire scam was simply about spinning rhetoric and semantics to create a world wide moral panic.
It's truth laundering, to avoid angry mobs. The reality that everybody instinctually knows is that the people responsible (who know this most keenly) should probably face a firing squad. But if by degrees they can get back to acknowledging the obvious truth without ever acknowledging the wrongness of their actions, they can reconstruct a new warped reality where nobody did anything wrong. 'So what if she knew vaccines didn't stop transmission? Everyone always knew that. Vaccines have never been about stopping transmission.'
Even this reveal is a reveal of limited liability since she's admitting to knowing about 'breakthrough infections', which in the context of covid is another fiction. There is no real world data in any highly vaxxed country that suggests there was ever any protection to 'break through'. But if you talk about the mRNA jabs failure to stop transmission in terms of 'breakthrough infections' you can pretend that there was, and that vaxxed transmission was rare at some point. So all that's happened is that behind the scenes she was caught sharing one of their popular fictions which doesn't quite match the timeline of their more public fictions, but was still nevertheless a popular fiction afterwards. None of it the truth.
"Breakthrough"
The entire Covid & injection argument was rhetorical and semantic only.
Even when it comes to the actual scientific data, most of the studies were not falsified or fabricated. They said exactly the truth: the injections did little except potentially reduce hospitalizations. Masks were damaging. The lockdowns were utterly destructive. There was never any debate even needed. The entire scam was simply about spinning rhetoric and semantics to create a world wide moral panic.