I've never heard of these people. Do they have any actual qualifications? And if so, is there a reason to believe that they're not just run-of-the-mill cranks - because you'll find a Ph.D. to say almost anything crazy that you want.

All of them are PhDs I think with the exception of Meryl Nass who nevertheless has an extensive CV and Robert Malone seems quite fond of her. I mention them in comparison to Bret Weinstein because you seem to be under the impression that Bret's a route to legitimisation of a dissident theory. Actually he's the goofy youtuber compared to people like this. Rose and Nass talk frequently to Robert Kennedy's Children's Health Defence org, which is involved in actual legal action against medical censorship and covid mandates including some wins. Rose has also been on Highwire, hosted by Del Bigtree who is the founder of another org (ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network) involved in anti-mandate lawsuits. Stephanie Seneff has co-authored a key paper with Peter McCullough. If there's a crank in the bunch it's JJ Couey, who gives off autist vibes, but he also has some of the most interesting and insightful perspectives which sooner or later everyone in the dissident circle seem to end up echoing to varying degrees. There are more than those, who I listed off the top of my head. The guests in the various videos in the last link are also kind of an overflow drawer of other covid dissident figures, almost all biologists or scientists of some stripe and probably worth listening to (apart from Marc Girardot who I think is completely full of shit, in contrast to Coeuy's opinion of him). Rounding the Earth podcast and Housatonic (bitchute) are I think where you'll find some of those guys, but I don't check those.

I like Bret more than his brother, but I'm not aware of him really doing anything of note during the pandemic other than stating the obvious (usually far too late) or getting in eceleb spats due to his elevated profile. There's a clip I can't find right now of Bret in 2019 nodding along to Sam Harris, as Sam goes off the deep end, saying that anti-vaxx sentiment is equivalent to Islamic Jihadism and completely incompatible with society. Now when I search Bret all I get is Harris vs Weinstein bullshit because Weinstein became more jab-sceptic and Harris now considers him an apostate, or else some Lex Fridman wank. It's all theatre. In searching just now I see he was recently on Rogan and Rogan had to censor his podcast archive due to discussing a fake tweet. Great.

But killer placebos would be a big lie even by their standards.

Not necessarily - they already lie about using placebos at all. ICAN's letter to the US HHS lays out how they boast about having placebo controlled studies for childhood vaccines when it's not the case (the table goes on for longer - full letter here ). Basically they consider other childhood vaccine products as so standard that they have no compunction about using them for the control group - but that does not mean the previously accepted vaccines are equivalent to placebo.

If they are nevertheless treating them as placebo, or if they are making some other arrogant assumption such as 'fukkit, a lipid nanoparticle with no mRNA is basically placebo right? plus we get data on the use of empty LNPs', and if those controls have any death signal at all, then there are your 'killer placebos' and I don't think it's a much bigger lie than they've been telling these past 2 years. A very useful one since it narrows the adverse event gap between mRNA results and placebo, which would be the whole point.

Another possibility (which J. Rose mentions in her random blog) is that the placebo is placebo and the adverse events and bad outcomes are just from the childhood vaccines babies are receiving outside the study. Damning either way.

I've never heard of these people. Do they have any actual qualifications? And if so, is there a reason to believe that they're not just run-of-the-mill cranks - because you'll find a Ph.D. to say almost anything crazy that you want.

All of them are PhDs I think with the exception of Meryl Nass who nevertheless has an extensive CV and Robert Malone seems quite fond of her. I mention them in comparison to Bret Weinstein because you seem to be under the impression that Bret's a route to legitimisation of a dissident theory. Actually he's the goofy youtuber compared to people like this. Rose and Nass talk frequently to Robert Kennedy's Children's Health Defence org, which is involved in actual legal action against medical censorship and covid mandates including some wins. Rose has also been on Highwire, hosted by Del Bigtree who is the founder of another org (ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network) involved in anti-mandate lawsuits. Stephanie Seneff has co-authored a key paper with Peter McCullough. If there's a crank in the bunch it's JJ Couey, who gives off autist vibes, but he also has some of the most interesting and insightful perspectives which sooner or later everyone in the dissident circle seem to end up echoing to varying degrees. There are more than those, who I listed off the top of my head. The guests in the various videos in the last link are also kind of an overflow drawer of other covid dissident figures, almost all biologists or scientists of some stripe and probably worth listening to (apart from Marc Girardot who I think is completely full of shit, in contrast to Coeuy's opinion of him). Rounding the Earth podcast and Housatonic (bitchute) are I think where you'll find some of those guys, but I don't check those.

I like Bret more than his brother, but I'm not aware of him really doing anything of note during the pandemic other than stating the obvious (usually far too late) or getting in eceleb spats due to his elevated profile. There's a clip I can't find right now of Bret in 2019 nodding along to Sam Harris, as Sam goes off the deep end, saying that anti-vaxx sentiment is equivalent to Islamic Jihadism and completely incompatible with society. Now when I search Bret all I get is Harris vs Weinstein bullshit because Weinstein became more jab-sceptic and Harris now considers him an apostate, or else some Lex Fridman wank. It's all theatre. In searching just now I see he was recently on Rogan and Rogan had to censor his podcast archive due to discussing a fake tweet. Great.

But killer placebos would be a big lie even by their standards.

Not necessarily - they already lie about using placebos at all. ICAN's letter to the US HHS lays out how they boast about having placebo controlled studies for all childhood vaccines when it's not the case (the table goes on for longer - full letter here ). Basically they consider other childhood vaccine products as so standard that they have no compunction about using them for the control group - but that does not mean the previously accepted vaccines are equivalent to placebo.

If they are nevertheless treating them as placebo, or if they are making some other arrogant assumption such as 'fukkit, a lipid nanoparticle with no mRNA is basically placebo right? plus we get data on the use of empty LNPs', and if those controls have any death signal at all, then there are your 'killer placebos' and I don't think it's a much bigger lie than they've been telling these past 2 years. A very useful one since it narrows the adverse event gap between mRNA results and placebo, which would be the whole point.

Another possibility (which J. Rose mentions in her random blog) is that the placebo is placebo and the adverse events and bad outcomes are just from the childhood vaccines babies are receiving outside the study. Damning either way.

I've never heard of these people. Do they have any actual qualifications? And if so, is there a reason to believe that they're not just run-of-the-mill cranks - because you'll find a Ph.D. to say almost anything crazy that you want.

All of them are PhDs I think with the exception of Meryl Nass who nevertheless has an extensive CV and Robert Malone seems quite fond of her. I mention them in comparison to Bret Weinstein because you seem to be under the impression that Bret's a route to legitimisation of a dissident theory. Actually he's the goofy youtuber compared to people like this. Rose and Nass talk frequently to Robert Kennedy's Children's Health Defence org, which is involved in actual legal action against medical censorship and covid mandates including some wins. Rose has also been on Highwire, hosted by Del Bigtree who is the founder of another org (ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network) involved in anti-mandate lawsuits. Stephanie Seneff has co-authored a key paper with Peter McCullough. If there's a crank in the bunch it's JJ Couey, who gives off autist vibes, but he also has some of the most interesting and insightful perspectives which sooner or later everyone in the dissident circle seem to end up echoing to varying degrees. There are more than those, who I listed off the top of my head. The guests in the various videos in the last link are also kind of an overflow drawer of other covid dissident figures, almost all biologists or scientists of some stripe and probably worth listening to (apart from Marc Girardot who I think is completely full of shit, in contrast to Coeuy's opinion of him). Rounding the Earth podcast and Housatonic (bitchute) are I think where you'll find some of those guys, but I don't check those.

I like Bret more than his brother, but I'm not aware of him really doing anything of note during the pandemic other than stating the obvious (usually far too late) or getting in eceleb spats due to his elevated profile. There's a clip I can't find right now of Bret in 2019 nodding along to Sam Harris, as Sam goes off the deep end, saying that anti-vaxx sentiment is equivalent to Islamic Jihadism and completely incompatible with society. Now when I search Bret all I get is Harris vs Weinstein bullshit because Weinstein became more jab-sceptic and Harris now considers him an apostate, or else some Lex Fridman wank. It's all theatre. In searching just now I see he was recently on Rogan and Rogan had to censor his podcast archive due to discussing a fake tweet. Great.

But killer placebos would be a big lie even by their standards.

Not necessarily - they already lie about using placebos at all. ICAN's letter to the US HHS lays out how they boast about having placebo controlled studies for all childhood vaccines when it's not the case (the table goes on for longer - full letter here ). Basically they consider other childhood vaccine products as so standard that they have no compunction about using them for the control group - but that does not mean the previously accepted vaccines are equivalent to placebo.

If they are nevertheless treating them as placebo, or if they are making some other arrogant assumption such as 'fukkit, a liquid nanoparticle with no mRNA is basically placebo right? plus we get data on the use of empty LNPs', and if those controls have any death signal at all, then there are your 'killer placebos' and I don't think it's a much bigger lie than they've been telling these past 2 years. A very useful one since it narrows the adverse event gap between mRNA results and placebo, which would be the whole point.

Another possibility (which J. Rose mentions in her random blog) is that the placebo is placebo and the adverse events and bad outcomes are just from the childhood vaccines babies are receiving outside the study. Damning either way.

I've never heard of these people. Do they have any actual qualifications? And if so, is there a reason to believe that they're not just run-of-the-mill cranks - because you'll find a Ph.D. to say almost anything crazy that you want.

All of them are PhDs I think with the exception of Meryl Nass who nevertheless has an extensive CV and Robert Malone seems quite fond of her. I mention them in comparison to Bret Weinstein because you seem to be under the impression that Bret's a route to legitimisation of a dissident theory. Actually he's the goofy youtuber compared to people like this. Rose and Nass talk frequently to Robert Kennedy's Children's Health Defence org, which is involved in actual legal action against medical censorship and covid mandates including some wins. Rose has also been on Highwire, hosted by Del Bigtree who is the founder of another org (ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network) involved in anti-mandate lawsuits. Stephanie Seneff has co-authored a key paper with Peter McCullough. If there's a crank in the bunch it's JJ Couey, who gives off autist vibes, but he also has some of the most interesting and insightful perspectives which sooner or later everyone in the dissident circle seem to end up echoing to varying degrees. There are more than those, who I listed off the top of my head. The guests in the various videos in the last link are also kind of an overflow drawer of other covid dissident figures, almost all biologists or scientists of some stripe and probably worth listening to (apart from Marc Girardot who I think is completely full of shit, in contrast to Coeuy's opinion of him). Rounding the Earth podcast and Housatonic (bitchute) are I think where you'll find some of those guys, but I don't check those.

I like Bret more than his brother, but I'm not aware of him really doing anything of note during the pandemic other than stating the obvious (usually far too late) or getting in eceleb spats due to his elevated profile. There's a clip I can't find right now of Bret in 2019 nodding along to Sam Harris, as Sam goes off the deep end, saying that anti-vaxx sentiment is equivalent to Islamic Jihadism and completely incompatible with society. Now when I search Bret all I get is Harris vs Weinstein bullshit because Weinstein became more jab-sceptic and Harris now considers him an apostate, or else some Lex Fridman wank. It's all theatre. In searching just now I see he was recently on Rogan and Rogan had to censor his podcast archive due to discussing a fake tweet. Great.

But killer placebos would be a big lie even by their standards.

Not necessarily - they already lie about using placebos at all. ICAN's letter to the US HHS lays out how they boast about having placebo controlled studies for all childhood vaccines when it's not the case (the table goes on for longer - full letter here. Basically they consider other childhood vaccine products as so standard that they have no compunction about using them for the control group - but that does not mean the previously accepted vaccines are equivalent to placebo.

If they are nevertheless treating them as placebo, or if they are making some other arrogant assumption such as 'fukkit, a liquid nanoparticle with no mRNA is basically placebo right? plus we get data on the use of empty LNPs', and if those controls have any death signal at all, then there are your 'killer placebos' and I don't think it's a much bigger lie than they've been telling these past 2 years. A very useful one since it narrows the adverse event gap between mRNA results and placebo, which would be the whole point.

Another possibility (which J. Rose mentions in her random blog) is that the placebo is placebo and the adverse events and bad outcomes are just from the childhood vaccines babies are receiving outside the study. Damning either way.