Replies

I don’t think this article is over the top, Easy.

I do agree there’s an information war going on and things are not always as they seem and there is an effort to cloud real data.

A key decision by TheExpose’s Covid Reporting is sound, but overlooked or poorly understood.

The “vaccine” companies lied and made promises using Relative Risk calculations which are relatively useless when talking about ‘vaccines’. The CDC/NIH/Fauci/Walensky/FDA oligarchy allowe and encouraged the use of Relative Risk numbers.

Then I would see medical people, doctors simpering that ‘no vaccine is perfect’ and that ‘95% effective’ means 5 out of 100 people will get Covid - this is false. That ‘5 out of 100’ refers to the calculations that the pharmas should have used, but never did. Those are Absolute Risk values.

So it was bad enough that supposedly our ‘medical elites’ all agreed to use the wrong calculation (Relative Risk), but then in the media accounts, doctors and nurses chide the public while misleading them into believing they used the right calculations (Absolute Risk).

So the writers at Expose.uk and elsewhere are faced with what numbers to report. They’d like to use Absolute Risk, but if they did they would have to compare their data to the distorted Relative Risk data put out initially in the form of promises to the public.

TheExpose.uk needed to use Relative Risk to ensure the comparison is accurate “apples to Apples” comparison - what the pharmas promised updated with information about what the pharmas delivered, using the pharma’s choice of calcuation (Relative Risk).

Some people didn’t understand that, and some vax pushers helped push the FALSE assertion that the data TheExpose.uk was publishing was ‘meaningless’ because it uses Relative Risk. By finding fault with the Expose.UK’s data, they were indirectly pointing to the deception of the pharmas and our medical elites in marketing the fake ‘vaccines’ with a calculation that made the ‘shots’ look far better than they ever were.

This disinformation tactic of ridiculing reports on pharma’s ‘promises’ (Relative Risk) verses what they delivered has been has been deployed so often that now some readers confused and don’t know whether to trust TheExpose.uk. Some on more recent threads point back to their prior inaccurate denunciations to create a false history of supposed failure for TheExpose.uk which is in reality the treasonous actions of the pharmas and our medical elites.

Even on this thread, disinformationists are trying to distort theExpose.uk’s reportage by quoting the CDC, pointing to the NYT and MSN, and a lab that Fauci’s NIAID supports as ‘debunkers’. It’s the dog whistle meant to return us all to the narrative, over and over again, when the NYT/CDC/MSN/UAB are all corrupt and serving China’s interests.

SO in this instance, it’s not the ‘poison the well’ tactic (inject false over the top reporting). But it’s all psyop still working to conceal the truth and protect traitors.