It's the vaccine, stupid.
I performed a duckduckgo search on the high profile football (soccer) player Adama Traore yesterday and was surprised to find no results that said he had collapsed on the pitch. I wasn't just surprised but flabbergasted, because I was unprepared for this.
His collapse had been headline news and had also trended on social media, yet here I was searching on the first and last names of a high profile football player who had collapsed on the pitch in eerie circumstances and there wasn't a flurry of results on the incident.
I checked if the spelling was correct, and certified that it was. To be perfectly sure, I copied and pasted his full name from Wikipedia into the search field, and the same thing happened.
The top result was of a different Adama Traore who was killed by police in France in 2016, and the rest included the Wikipedia article from which I copied the name earlier, which was a biography on the Adama Traore in question. The rest of the results were about his exploits as a football player.
The search results for Adama Traore on a mobile phone screen showing the top result (left) followed by the latest news on the name below that (right).
Only when I added the word "collapse" to the search terms did news results on the incident three days ago appear.
This is clear censorship of news on his collapse by this search engine. If you are familiar with the manner search engines fetch results then you would know that the sensational nature of the incident in question, and the fact it occurred to a high profile football player, not to mention the fact the game had Champion's League status and was being watched live worldwide, then you would know that there is something very odd about the search results. More unusual is the fact an Adama Traore is being prioritized in the results who died a violent death. I don't deny that this too is a newsworthy article. But it was only worthy of media attention 5 good years ago and is far less relevant than the collapse of a star on a football pitch while clutching his chest in a championship game three days ago.
I shouldn't have been amazed that search results have become this censored and refined at the art. This is something that should be expected to happen in this system. They should be expected to be expending a lot of time, resources and manpower into ensuring the censorship isn't too obvious. I use the term "refined" to refer to the fact search engines are now also using programing that is making them give out results intelligently.
What do I mean by this? I mean that they have been programmed to only give results that include that which should be kept hidden when it appears that the searcher already knows the truth.
If a search engine only gives the correct results after a word that shouldn't be relevant for events to be displayed that have been headline news for the past three days (such as the word "collapse" after his full name), then it is following lines of code that only allows it to show the truth when it is apparent that the one searching has already heard the news.
When the collapse of a high profile football player was headline news and also trending, a simple.search on his name alone should have topped the results off with this incident. Collapsing on a pitch as a high profile player in the midst of a high profile game with worldwide coverage is very newsworthy. It's quite akin to a sudden and unexpected death of a celebrity during a high profile event, and if we go back in time to the sudden tragic deaths of high profile sportsmen, we find that we didn't need to type what had happened to them to be directed, via the search results on their name alone, to articles that say they died.
These articles would have topped the results, and for good reason too.
It just goes to show how far the people running this pandemic will go to ensure anything remotely related to vaccine adverse events is kept out of view of the public. They really want people jabbed, and if you read between the lines you realize quite quickly that the intent of the vaccinations is sinister.
It's not public health that they are interested in. They just want people to be injected with their vaccine. The incentive is clearly as much financial as it is something else that is, as I already mentioned, sinister. And there can be no extenuating circumstances for this either. There can be no slack cutting for them, even when we attempt to see things differently.
There are indeed exigencies that call for drastic measures in order to ensure a right course of action is maintained in the face of a major threat, and it would be reasonable to assume that in the face of a pathogen that threatens the extinction of the species, that can only be survived with the help of vaccines, the last thing you want are reports that the solution can also be as threatening if not moreso than the disease itself.
We don't want to do anything that could potentially discourage people from taking a vaccine in the case it's the only way out, because this would hamper the maintenance of the right course of action.
But it isn't true that only vaccines can save humankind from the virus dubbed Covid-19. Nor is this virus the ultimate threat to human survival anymore than tuberculosis that claims way more lives per year. It isn't as such justifiable in this instance that governments censor truths about the vaccine in order to serve the greater good because then the very governments may be guilty of pushing on the citizenry a solution to a crisis thats as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than the threat. It is in fact way past the point when official data clearly shows that this is the case. The censorship is thus law breaking in process because it is incumbent upon governments to let people know the side effects of any medication they are given so they can make informed choices.
This whole Covid-19 pandemic affair is replete with instances of governments breaking the law. For instance, it is illegal for a doctor to prescribe medication for somebody they don't know, which is why it is also illegal for somebody other than a doctor to do the same. Yet, we are seeing governments the world over more or less mandate the vaccine, which is the same as issuing a blanket prescription for people they don't know at all, and they aren't even doctors, and it's illegal for them to act as medical professionals when they do not have the qualification.
It isn't for nothing that it says in the Nuremberg Code: article 6, section 3, that "No government can mandate or force medical treatment without individual consent". We all should know by now what the Nazi's were doing to people in Germany during the last major war, and shouldn't have allowed it to happen again. But it is happening right in front of our eyes, and globally to boot.
When this all blows over, if it does blow over, the questions that will be asked the defendants will be plentiful. Salient among them will perhaps be the question of when it became logical to use a vaccine to control a pandemic that, based on the spread vector, the effectiveness of the measures used to prevent infection, the transmissibility of the pathogen, the timing of its spread globally and what this says about global infection rates, the variants that have appeared thus far and what this also says about infection rates, the chronology of casualty counts and what this says about global infection rates ... has long since already infected most of the world population, young and old? What use is a vaccine in a scenario where the actual pathogen is already present in the bodies of those to be vaccinated? Shouldn't it have long since been time for herd immunity to take hold?
The only extenuating circumstance for the defendants would be if vaccines make the immune system better at defeating the pathogen than exposure to the actual pathogen itself would.
Which is neither true nor scientific.
No comments:
Post a Comment