I'm reading through it right now. If anything, this is an extremely thorough article and I'm surprised it was published, although it appears that the journal (SNI) is an open-access journal which may have allowed an avenue to publication.
There are a few interesting parts in this article. It starts off rather tame and really calls out pharmaceutical manufacturers and the entire debacle of the COVID policies.
Then it dives deeper into things such as the "hot lots", which is a rather interesting area to go into.
I may write about this later today and dissect some parts of the article. I think more important than anything would be the public perception from this article.
I haven't yet done a deep dive either on the article. The highlights line up with several of my previous writings, so I am of the opinion there is at least some substance to what he says.
And even if one can challenge some or all of his conclusions, he gives us his sources. People can independently interrogate his evidences and form their own conclusions. That alone makes it worth sharing.
I'm not sure how much public reaction he's getting so far, although a Twitter debate I just had with one of the blue-pilled "zombies" certainly gives some insight into how "the other side" is reacting.
How much of a breakthrough this is remains to be seen.
I rather doubt the Pandemic Panic Narrative will change course in response. Too many players are too heavily invested in the Narrative for them to just abandon it.
My hope is that, by getting such articles maximum social media distribution, at least a few people will ask questions they have not previously asked.
One reason I make an effort to ground my articles in facts, evidence, and data is that I really don't have to be afraid to be wrong. If new data disproves a prior analysis, so be it--that's what new data tends to do.
The Faucists, on the other hand, do not dare admit even the tiniest error.
That it even was published is a step forward. If others see the Dr is not smeared or license to practice revoked, they will gain courage & add their voices.
It is pretty comprehensive. One might almost say the good doctor was "triggered" (and not without ample justification!).
It's been rather comical....I got into a Twitter argument with a defender of the Pandemic Panic Narrative over Dr. Blaylock's article, and she kept telling me I should be verifying his claims instead of challenging her derogation thereof.
Of course, anyone who's read just a smidgen of my COVID articles here knows that a fair number of his claims are topics I've already researched! It's not exactly "confirmation bias" when someone else's factual assertions dovetail with your own independent research and analysis.
Thanks for pointing to this article!
I'm reading through it right now. If anything, this is an extremely thorough article and I'm surprised it was published, although it appears that the journal (SNI) is an open-access journal which may have allowed an avenue to publication.
There are a few interesting parts in this article. It starts off rather tame and really calls out pharmaceutical manufacturers and the entire debacle of the COVID policies.
Then it dives deeper into things such as the "hot lots", which is a rather interesting area to go into.
I may write about this later today and dissect some parts of the article. I think more important than anything would be the public perception from this article.
I haven't yet done a deep dive either on the article. The highlights line up with several of my previous writings, so I am of the opinion there is at least some substance to what he says.
And even if one can challenge some or all of his conclusions, he gives us his sources. People can independently interrogate his evidences and form their own conclusions. That alone makes it worth sharing.
I'm not sure how much public reaction he's getting so far, although a Twitter debate I just had with one of the blue-pilled "zombies" certainly gives some insight into how "the other side" is reacting.
https://allfactsmatter.substack.com/p/what-passes-for-debate-among-wokesters
"Yet it is significant that Dr Blaylock has had both his original article and this lengthy updated piece published in a peer reviewed journal"
Breaththrough invective!
How much of a breakthrough this is remains to be seen.
I rather doubt the Pandemic Panic Narrative will change course in response. Too many players are too heavily invested in the Narrative for them to just abandon it.
My hope is that, by getting such articles maximum social media distribution, at least a few people will ask questions they have not previously asked.
One reason I make an effort to ground my articles in facts, evidence, and data is that I really don't have to be afraid to be wrong. If new data disproves a prior analysis, so be it--that's what new data tends to do.
The Faucists, on the other hand, do not dare admit even the tiniest error.
That it even was published is a step forward. If others see the Dr is not smeared or license to practice revoked, they will gain courage & add their voices.
That much is true.
Which alone was reason to write about its publication. People need (and deserve) all the facts and all the data, so they can make their own choices.
"Death Panels" have replaced doctors just like "administrators" have before them.
Read a good chunk of this in the wee hours this morning. It is a nice compendium of what has been, from the beginning, the Covid circus
It is pretty comprehensive. One might almost say the good doctor was "triggered" (and not without ample justification!).
It's been rather comical....I got into a Twitter argument with a defender of the Pandemic Panic Narrative over Dr. Blaylock's article, and she kept telling me I should be verifying his claims instead of challenging her derogation thereof.
https://twitter.com/allfacts_matter/status/1527146653882454017?s=20&t=EKDbEv_hwt2ffjLWKpEeeQ
Of course, anyone who's read just a smidgen of my COVID articles here knows that a fair number of his claims are topics I've already researched! It's not exactly "confirmation bias" when someone else's factual assertions dovetail with your own independent research and analysis.
That's certainly my take on it