Can’t unsee this superimposed AI face.
Has anyone seen this sim in the flesh?
Coronavirushoax has made it so we may never need to see “it” in person again.
No tags for this post.
Sim Zuckerberg
Leave a reply
Author Archives: Fakeologist
Covax isn’t even a vaccine – it’s chemotherapy
Start at 2:35:00
2021-01-14 by Adam Curry & John C. Dvorak
Web player: podcastaddict.com/episode/1177…
Episode: mp3s.nashownotes.com/NA-1312-2…
www.bitchute.com/video/amSLD9u… via bitslide
No tags for this post.BREAKING! SICK PEOPLE ARE IN HOSPITAL
likes thisIf you’re old, you’re a target
Because the 1 is invisible
likes thisIt’s always what you can’t see that can fool you.
No tags for this post.PEG and other poisons
These stories (real or not), never seem to end.
Did you know that the Covid vaccine injured aren’t entitled to the usual poor recourse for damage?
Extreme Allergic Reactions to Covid mRNA “vaccine” Continue- PEG Nanno Particles and No Legal Recourse Under Emergency Authorization pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot…
No tags for this post.Where they got their 95% efficacy lie
It’s not a lie, but it’s a completely meaningless number.
It’s called lying with statistics.
No tags for this post.Using Pfizer’s figures, the relative risk reduction is 100(1 – (0.044/0.88)). Which is 95%. Voila!
This sounds fantastic and is a much better marketing strategy than reporting the absolute risk reduction. The absolute risk of developing COVID 19 symptoms without the vaccine is supposedly 0.88% and with the vaccine 0.044%. In absolute terms, the effectiveness of the vaccine is (0.88-0.044)%.
A risk reduction of 0.84%. Oh! A barely perceptible “efficacy.”
By using the relative instead of absolute risk reduction, the mainstream media (MSM) were free to market the mRNA vaccine for Pfizer and BioNTech (and other interested parties) with impressive sounding claims. These weren’t remotely truthful, not only because they relied upon statistical manipulation but because no one had a clue about BNT’s safety or efficacy. To this day, there are no clinical trial results.
The DNA deceit
From Sharpstuff:
No tags for this post.Thesis:
If you remove any substance from a ‘living’ organism it may be part of that original but immediately must become something else.We cannot, then, therefore make any reference to it as a ‘part’ of the original (since the original is now also a part of the original and deplete of its ‘wholeness’ and the removed ‘part’ is now a separate entity). Any results of ‘experiments’ or studies upon the removed part can (in simple) only be a form of conjecture as to its part in the original .
If, for example, let us make an analogy, say, making a fruit cake. We may work from a known recipe or create one from any several parts, which we call ingredients. We take those ingredients and mix them into a bowl. Now we have a ‘dough’ comprised of the ingredients all mashed up, therefore not recognised as separate entities. We then place this into a cooking vessel (e.g. a cooking oven, or even an ice-box) and after a given period of time we are presented with a structure (comprised of the individual ingredients but now not recognisable as such) which we might say is a complete object we will call it a ‘cake’.