I'm not buying your "no photos" thing. It's Paul McCartney BS. There are no photos of me working at Whitaker Newsletters. There is just one of me at the Echoes Sentinel. No photos of Student Leader News Service team. These were all extended, important phases of my career. To show fraud, you need evidence of fraud.
I'm not buying your "no photos" thing. It's Paul McCartney BS. There are no photos of me working at Whitaker Newsletters. There is just one of me at the Echoes Sentinel. No photos of Student Leader News Service team. These were all extended, important phases of my career. To show fraud, you need evidence of fraud.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of fraudulent intent. And like McCartney/Beatles/ Travistock, and "flat Earth," you are pursuing an angle that is merely a hobby. It is not provable and not useful. My life as a reporter is populated with documents and interviews. I can document, in documents, everything I say is so as a reporter. I question people who are involved and I get them onto the record.
You are merely taking some existing (seeming) puzzle pieces and saying "they look this way this way" when in fact that is merely an interpretation that, conveniently, cannot be refuted (for the same reason it cannot be proven). Meanwhile you are distracting people from the known fraudulent use of the PCR starting in Dec. 2019, which lets the real actors off the hook. After Dartmouth, PCR's sad career as a diagnostic tool was over. From there, it became a false-positive tool and please don't give me this rhetoric about "no false since there are no true." You know what I am talking about and I have made clear in my abundant writing on this issue that there are no true positives.
We are up against limitations of language in this realm of deception. Yet this is not a word game. The PCR is being used to deceive people to the present day on many illnesses it cannot "diagnose."
Well we generally agree about all the PCR fraud and if you mean Fake Positive=False positive ok sure. Your article to Rancourt used false and while I hear you mean fake to me personally, an official scientific letter to Rancourt should really use fake/artifact whatever word is best not false though but I hear you now, ok we dont need to harp on it.
About Mullis, it is true I'm making a Journalistic opinion of him as "actor", not a proof of fraud. Did I use fraud in the post? If I did, I will promptly remove that (cant find it), if I didnt you are putting words in my mouth which isn't right. I quoted Omar as saying, "the entire concept of the PCR test is fraudulent". I never called Kary a fraud. So with the data I have collected from MUCH MORE THAN JUST THE PHOTO ISSUE, looking and reading his papers on Wiki and on Pub Med, seeing his video interviews (on the post) and Ted Talks, and importantly the very long Omar data sheet, I have the journalistic right to opine he is a front man and actor, just like you can read same about Musk, Trump, Zuck, Gates, etc. Writers have the right to opine on public figures, I suppose defamation or slander aside. Again, if you want to debunk the Omar doc that's great-there's too much in it I'm not gonna repeat in this comment, I would be happy you make a comment on it here, and if you post it, of course you can leave a link on this comment section and I will restack it. I don't think it's valuable for us to argue how much he was frontage for a bigger org as we generally agree to the PCR issues.
Journalism is not about an opinion. It is about a set of facts presented that add up to either a balanced presentation or an irrefutable conclusion, where the other sides are presented fairly. You are on solid ground if you assert publicly that you are presenting your personal viewpoint. Yet you are also accusing a person whom you cannot call and ask for comment. Mullis cannot defend himself and that makes him an easy target. While he cannot sue you for libel, in my view it is still hitting below the belt. He has no way to defend himself or his reputation.
However, I continue to assert that this whole field of discussion is irrelevant **in contrast to who determined that the PCR would be used for the "covid" project in 2019**. We need to be going after the parties who were ON NOTICE that the system threw 100% "fake positives" meaning that there were no true positives and that false epidemics were documented to have been caused three times c. 2006. This was widely published at the time, and my work connected it to "covid" or it might have been entirely forgotten.
One last; in my view as an editor, there are no anonymous investigative reporters. The very essence of investigative reporting, and of authentic news reporting generally, is accountability, including internal accountability. While the lack of accountability does not assure lack of integrity, it becomes exceedingly easy to let standards slip (if they ever existed) when you can change your name and reincarnate tomorrow.
Therefore, you must hold yourself to the very highest standards of multiple sourcing of facts and minimal conclusions about what those facts might point to, and presenting alternative points of view. This is not a game, unless you want to play the game that in the postmodern world there is no truth. You certainly seem to imply that there is such a thing.
We're not trying to do the same thing. I'm giving opinion or data with proofs where I collected it (like FOIA or screen shots of what someone says on an email or SS), or just links from others you can see who they are.
This is just vounteer, completely unmonetized so i can write freely and without professional complications. Imagine if I worked in a law firm, a govt agency, the military, or as an MD with a licensing board. You do understand this don't you? You collect money from your work, I dont. People can take me or ditch me. This is only to share info with my fellow humans. Me and you dont need to argue about it and on that topic we are at the end of our rope. But I do like your work.
There is a reason you like my work. Despite being queer, I walk a straight and narrow path. And I answer my phone, which is a veracity standard. Also, whether I am paid or not is irrelevant. I spent far more doing the "covid" and PCR stories than I ever took in. Monetization does not appear in my Editorial Policy except as relates to conflict of interest, and I have none.
I'm not buying your "no photos" thing. It's Paul McCartney BS. There are no photos of me working at Whitaker Newsletters. There is just one of me at the Echoes Sentinel. No photos of Student Leader News Service team. These were all extended, important phases of my career. To show fraud, you need evidence of fraud.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of fraudulent intent. And like McCartney/Beatles/ Travistock, and "flat Earth," you are pursuing an angle that is merely a hobby. It is not provable and not useful. My life as a reporter is populated with documents and interviews. I can document, in documents, everything I say is so as a reporter. I question people who are involved and I get them onto the record.
You are merely taking some existing (seeming) puzzle pieces and saying "they look this way this way" when in fact that is merely an interpretation that, conveniently, cannot be refuted (for the same reason it cannot be proven). Meanwhile you are distracting people from the known fraudulent use of the PCR starting in Dec. 2019, which lets the real actors off the hook. After Dartmouth, PCR's sad career as a diagnostic tool was over. From there, it became a false-positive tool and please don't give me this rhetoric about "no false since there are no true." You know what I am talking about and I have made clear in my abundant writing on this issue that there are no true positives.
We are up against limitations of language in this realm of deception. Yet this is not a word game. The PCR is being used to deceive people to the present day on many illnesses it cannot "diagnose."
Well we generally agree about all the PCR fraud and if you mean Fake Positive=False positive ok sure. Your article to Rancourt used false and while I hear you mean fake to me personally, an official scientific letter to Rancourt should really use fake/artifact whatever word is best not false though but I hear you now, ok we dont need to harp on it.
About Mullis, it is true I'm making a Journalistic opinion of him as "actor", not a proof of fraud. Did I use fraud in the post? If I did, I will promptly remove that (cant find it), if I didnt you are putting words in my mouth which isn't right. I quoted Omar as saying, "the entire concept of the PCR test is fraudulent". I never called Kary a fraud. So with the data I have collected from MUCH MORE THAN JUST THE PHOTO ISSUE, looking and reading his papers on Wiki and on Pub Med, seeing his video interviews (on the post) and Ted Talks, and importantly the very long Omar data sheet, I have the journalistic right to opine he is a front man and actor, just like you can read same about Musk, Trump, Zuck, Gates, etc. Writers have the right to opine on public figures, I suppose defamation or slander aside. Again, if you want to debunk the Omar doc that's great-there's too much in it I'm not gonna repeat in this comment, I would be happy you make a comment on it here, and if you post it, of course you can leave a link on this comment section and I will restack it. I don't think it's valuable for us to argue how much he was frontage for a bigger org as we generally agree to the PCR issues.
Journalism is not about an opinion. It is about a set of facts presented that add up to either a balanced presentation or an irrefutable conclusion, where the other sides are presented fairly. You are on solid ground if you assert publicly that you are presenting your personal viewpoint. Yet you are also accusing a person whom you cannot call and ask for comment. Mullis cannot defend himself and that makes him an easy target. While he cannot sue you for libel, in my view it is still hitting below the belt. He has no way to defend himself or his reputation.
However, I continue to assert that this whole field of discussion is irrelevant **in contrast to who determined that the PCR would be used for the "covid" project in 2019**. We need to be going after the parties who were ON NOTICE that the system threw 100% "fake positives" meaning that there were no true positives and that false epidemics were documented to have been caused three times c. 2006. This was widely published at the time, and my work connected it to "covid" or it might have been entirely forgotten.
Please email me the "Omar doc" at efc@planetwaves.net
One last; in my view as an editor, there are no anonymous investigative reporters. The very essence of investigative reporting, and of authentic news reporting generally, is accountability, including internal accountability. While the lack of accountability does not assure lack of integrity, it becomes exceedingly easy to let standards slip (if they ever existed) when you can change your name and reincarnate tomorrow.
Therefore, you must hold yourself to the very highest standards of multiple sourcing of facts and minimal conclusions about what those facts might point to, and presenting alternative points of view. This is not a game, unless you want to play the game that in the postmodern world there is no truth. You certainly seem to imply that there is such a thing.
I sent it to you 2 comments above
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbpYott1Mdw_BuuiE6_rjO_7Xr5Z_PdoxtK3fNZI9Gc/edit
We're not trying to do the same thing. I'm giving opinion or data with proofs where I collected it (like FOIA or screen shots of what someone says on an email or SS), or just links from others you can see who they are.
This is just vounteer, completely unmonetized so i can write freely and without professional complications. Imagine if I worked in a law firm, a govt agency, the military, or as an MD with a licensing board. You do understand this don't you? You collect money from your work, I dont. People can take me or ditch me. This is only to share info with my fellow humans. Me and you dont need to argue about it and on that topic we are at the end of our rope. But I do like your work.
There is a reason you like my work. Despite being queer, I walk a straight and narrow path. And I answer my phone, which is a veracity standard. Also, whether I am paid or not is irrelevant. I spent far more doing the "covid" and PCR stories than I ever took in. Monetization does not appear in my Editorial Policy except as relates to conflict of interest, and I have none.