Huh. Sounds like it came from the "Center for Countering Digital Hate".
The Chairman of the Board there according to their own web page, was a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress where he led their work on combating violent white supremacy that informed the White House’s Domestic Terrorism strategy. One should also note that one of the people pushing against vaccine disinformation is Dr. Peter Hotez, who in an editorial in Nature, mentioned the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
He wrote (excerpts)
The United States hosts the world’s largest and best-organized anti-vaccine groups. According to the London-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, these are influential groups, not a spontaneous grass-roots movement. Many far-right extremist groups that spread false information about last year’s US presidential election are doing the same about vaccines.
and
Efforts must expand into the realm of cyber security, law enforcement, public education and international relations. A high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the UN secretary-general could assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced measures. The task force should include experts who have tackled complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril.
I think it was the Center for Countering Digital Hate who originated or popularized the deBOOOOOOOOONKing talking points the that dirty dozen made up to $36 million from their efforts. Now do Moderna, who IIRC was like a billion in debt in their June 2022 SEC filing, and whose executives were crowing about, what was it, a $1.8 billion or something 1st quarter in 2021. It was a video presentation and I can't remember if I bookmarked it, and I'm too busy at the moment to try to look it up.
Or there's always Pfizer, who has petitioned a judge to throw out with prejudice, a False Claims Act lawsuit against them. The people suing Pfizer, have filed a statement with the judge in response, which reads in part:
Respondents seek dismissal without discovery, amendment, or trial. Their fundamental premise: even if honestly reported data showed their product caused more illness than it cured, inflicted more injury than it prevented, and took more lives than it saved, America’s military would still have given them billions of dollars and mandated it be injected into America’s military. Respondents claim fraudulent certifications, false statements, doctored data, contaminated clinical trials, and firing of whistleblowers can be ignored based on the theory that they contracted their way around the fraud.
Finally, there is no such thing as Q theory. Q did not mention ANY of the people you list (text search on a Q post archive).
...and Mercola is highly respected and has been around a long time. He was forced by the Derps to remove all content after an initial posting period of 48 hours, because he had also been selling nutritional supplements or somesuch on his website.
Your bad faith (or at best intellectual laziness) is shown by you and some of the other pro-jab posters, constantly linking rejection of the clot shots, to mindlessly following conspiracy theories: in keeping with the strategy suggested by Hotez and the Center for Countering Digital Hate (their other bug-a-bears according to their own website, are antisemitism, climate change, and climate change misinformation).
Deep State Derpishness all the way.
Q theory is the term I have coined to avoid other language that would be more pejorative. So you not believe that there is a general theory adhered to by members who seem to post on Q forums or host them?
What is the problem with defining it this way?
Certainly assertions about data are made. This is the definition of a theory. Where have I mispoken, sir?