Hello! This is a bit off topic but I wanted to tell you your articles are really excellent and I put in a nice recommendation for your on my page (I don't rec. that many so the ones I do aren't diluted). The people I've done that for have gotten around 1k subscribers, so I hope this helps what you are doing. Please keep up the good work!
I must've missed at least one memo recently - what's up with Ben Goldacre?
I can tell that from the photo that it's the same Ben Goldacre from "Bad Pharma" and "Bad Science" and "I Think You'll Find It's a Bit More Complicated Than That".
All three of those titles are pretty good reading, and I've been an enthusiastic reader of Goldacre since before 2010.
"Bad Pharma" in particular is revelatory - on a par with
• "Mad in America" and "Anatomy of an Epidemic" by Robert Whitaker;
• "Doctoring Data" and "The Clot Thickens" by Malcolm McKendrick;
• "The River" by Edward Hooper
If Goldacre's gone over to the Dark Side, my black-pill-itude would be even more-strongly justified than it was, and it was always strongly justified.
As I've told anyone who will listen: I was black-pilled on Pharma a decade before the Fauci Bioweapon was even a psychotic impulse in Daszak's amygdala.
And Goldacre's books were a fairly important dot-point in the formation of my view.
Then again, so was Aseem Malhotra's presentation to the European Parliament in 2017 - originally entitled "Big Food & Big Pharma: Killing for Profit?" but now on YouTube as "Profit Over Population Health" -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcnd3usdNxo
And as well all know, "evidence based" Malhotra pimped the Pfizer mud-jabs on national TV in the UK, and only changed his mind after the mud-jabs killed his father. That's the OPPOSITE of an evidence-based approach; it's an ANECDOTE-based approach. A very sad, very personal anecdote - but an anecdote nonetheless.
If only he had read Peter Doshi's editorial in the BMJ on January 4, 2021 - less than three weeks after the EUA was issued for Pfizer's mudshot. Anyone who read that, knew that the "95% efficacy" was a relative risk number, and that the base level of absolute risk was 0.85%.
That editorial would also have led him to the page on the clinicaltrials website for trial NCT04368728... which would have told him that the PRIMARY completion date for the trial for the Pfizer mudshot was (and still IS)... MARCH 15 2023.
If he was like me (say) he would already have known about Pfizer's criminal past.
He would already have known about Pfizer's bovine vaccine - 'PregSure' - that literally made calves bleed to death out of their fucking EYES.
He would have known that Pfizer continued to market PregSure (e.g., in the UK) after they were forced to withdraw it in the EU because of, you know, the whole "calves bleeding to death out of their fucking EYES" thing.
He would have known that 'PregSure' was what got Bourla elevated to CEO.
So he would have had an EVIDENCE-BASED conclusion... that Bourla is a human psychopath and that Pfizer was a corporate psychopath.
And Pfizer's not remotely atypical.
THAT is why there was no chance in hell that I was ever going to roll up my sleeve. Malhotra dropped the ball for some reason, and I was among the first people to upbraid him for doing so and I continue to remind him of the error of his ways.
Still, I missed the fact that Goldacre is now an enemy (anyone who should know better - and Goldacre should - is actively an enemy).
My only defence is that I've been somewhat distracted recently: profile avatar related (that's my latest bone scan... erk!)
The hands are what got my attention and also skin color, especially in the 60 Minutes pic. Yeah, I don't believe he killed himself. It was either a hit or he's in witness protection.
In a world constantly evolving in a web of intrigue, lies and conspiracy, is anything surprising or implausible any more? I think not. As Shakespeare once wrote; "The lady does protest too much, methinks." ( Choose your own pronoun in this case.) Deny, deny, deny and it becomes - journalism.
Whatever happened to "film at 11"? Where are the other reporters? We have one guy who takes 3 photos with a digital camera (or maybe just his phone). A professional photographer from the NY Post, he left his real camera at home, here are the three snaps he took with his phone, of the dying/dead Jeffrey Epstein. And no, he doesn't want to talk about it.
Wow. That is some analysis.
Also been trying to think of what Sunak's frequent expression has been reminding me of - it's the Zoolander model pose look.
The Epstein/Maxwell/Junkermann blackmail involvement in the Great Reset needs looking into.
Funny comment from that YT video of them moving the "body".
John Campbell
3 years ago
These are the same people that found the hijackers passport laying on the sidewalk on 911.
Who knew that lovable dolt Dr. John Campbell was such a cut up?
This post is what Substack is all about. Bravo.
The nose and ears are obviously different.
I am not aware of dead people accessing their bank accounts. Even that judge had queries.
And all cameras inside that big house and observing his cell just had to malfunction on that morning.
I wonder how those foot soldiers feel about their complicity and safety?
Hello! This is a bit off topic but I wanted to tell you your articles are really excellent and I put in a nice recommendation for your on my page (I don't rec. that many so the ones I do aren't diluted). The people I've done that for have gotten around 1k subscribers, so I hope this helps what you are doing. Please keep up the good work!
cointel 101; 'Epstein didn't kill himself' implies he died, which he didn't.
What happened to Ben Goldacre? Thought he was all about exposing ‘Bad Science’ & ‘Bad Pharma’. Has he taken the 30 pieces of silver?
Don’t be paranoid. Its just another one of those coincidences that favours the wealthiest people on the planet. They make their own luck!
Haadid is Epstein’s doppelgänger.
I must've missed at least one memo recently - what's up with Ben Goldacre?
I can tell that from the photo that it's the same Ben Goldacre from "Bad Pharma" and "Bad Science" and "I Think You'll Find It's a Bit More Complicated Than That".
All three of those titles are pretty good reading, and I've been an enthusiastic reader of Goldacre since before 2010.
"Bad Pharma" in particular is revelatory - on a par with
• "Mad in America" and "Anatomy of an Epidemic" by Robert Whitaker;
• "Doctoring Data" and "The Clot Thickens" by Malcolm McKendrick;
• "The River" by Edward Hooper
If Goldacre's gone over to the Dark Side, my black-pill-itude would be even more-strongly justified than it was, and it was always strongly justified.
As I've told anyone who will listen: I was black-pilled on Pharma a decade before the Fauci Bioweapon was even a psychotic impulse in Daszak's amygdala.
And Goldacre's books were a fairly important dot-point in the formation of my view.
Then again, so was Aseem Malhotra's presentation to the European Parliament in 2017 - originally entitled "Big Food & Big Pharma: Killing for Profit?" but now on YouTube as "Profit Over Population Health" -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcnd3usdNxo
And as well all know, "evidence based" Malhotra pimped the Pfizer mud-jabs on national TV in the UK, and only changed his mind after the mud-jabs killed his father. That's the OPPOSITE of an evidence-based approach; it's an ANECDOTE-based approach. A very sad, very personal anecdote - but an anecdote nonetheless.
If only he had read Peter Doshi's editorial in the BMJ on January 4, 2021 - less than three weeks after the EUA was issued for Pfizer's mudshot. Anyone who read that, knew that the "95% efficacy" was a relative risk number, and that the base level of absolute risk was 0.85%.
That editorial would also have led him to the page on the clinicaltrials website for trial NCT04368728... which would have told him that the PRIMARY completion date for the trial for the Pfizer mudshot was (and still IS)... MARCH 15 2023.
Don't take my word for it - look for yourself: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728
If he was like me (say) he would already have known about Pfizer's criminal past.
He would already have known about Pfizer's bovine vaccine - 'PregSure' - that literally made calves bleed to death out of their fucking EYES.
He would have known that Pfizer continued to market PregSure (e.g., in the UK) after they were forced to withdraw it in the EU because of, you know, the whole "calves bleeding to death out of their fucking EYES" thing.
He would have known that 'PregSure' was what got Bourla elevated to CEO.
So he would have had an EVIDENCE-BASED conclusion... that Bourla is a human psychopath and that Pfizer was a corporate psychopath.
And Pfizer's not remotely atypical.
THAT is why there was no chance in hell that I was ever going to roll up my sleeve. Malhotra dropped the ball for some reason, and I was among the first people to upbraid him for doing so and I continue to remind him of the error of his ways.
Still, I missed the fact that Goldacre is now an enemy (anyone who should know better - and Goldacre should - is actively an enemy).
My only defence is that I've been somewhat distracted recently: profile avatar related (that's my latest bone scan... erk!)
The hands are what got my attention and also skin color, especially in the 60 Minutes pic. Yeah, I don't believe he killed himself. It was either a hit or he's in witness protection.
Weird ear is present in the two gurney photos where the side of the face is visible. Was definitely wearing the mask then too.
In a world constantly evolving in a web of intrigue, lies and conspiracy, is anything surprising or implausible any more? I think not. As Shakespeare once wrote; "The lady does protest too much, methinks." ( Choose your own pronoun in this case.) Deny, deny, deny and it becomes - journalism.
Wow is all I can say. !!!
Whatever happened to "film at 11"? Where are the other reporters? We have one guy who takes 3 photos with a digital camera (or maybe just his phone). A professional photographer from the NY Post, he left his real camera at home, here are the three snaps he took with his phone, of the dying/dead Jeffrey Epstein. And no, he doesn't want to talk about it.