Evil-Genius-Level Gaslighting: Surgeon General Tells the Vaccinated to ‘Mask-Up Outdoors to Protect the Unvaccinated’

The powers-that-be know there are four stages to achieve universal vaccinations in America. Each step is more draconian than the last. Sadly, we’re only entering step two, which means it’s going to get much worse in the future if we don’t stop this nonsense now.

The first stages is currently in progress: Incentives. They knew many would get vaccinated because they truly believe it makes them safer. Others needed a bit of a push, whether that’s free beer at a pub or a chance to win money. In recent weeks, they’ve made the vaccines more appealing by offering special little perks to those who can prove they’ve been jabbed.

While stage one continues, stage two is just ramping up: Threats. The unvaccinated will lose their jobs. The unvaccinated will not be able to travel or go to the store. The unvaccinated will be ridiculed. It’s with this last portion of the stage, what some are calling the “peer pressure portion,” in which the emotional toll from friends, family, and even strangers will pressure us to get vaccinated.

To that end, the U.S. Surgeon General just added a new motivation for the vaccinated to keep pressuring the unvaccinated. According to The Blaze [emphasis added]:

U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy is recommending that fully vaccinated individuals wear face masks outdoors to protect the unvaccinated. Murthy made the suggestion during an appearance on MSNBC, where he said fully vaccinated individuals wearing masks indoors and outdoors was an “extra step” of protection to unvaccinated people.

MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell asked Murthy about “breakthrough cases,” specifically the possibility of a fully vaccinated person being infected with COVID-19 and spreading the virus to unvaccinated individuals, such as young children or immunocompromised adults.

This is Not a Vaccine.

The jab of mRNA (synthesized strand of genetic material) is a package in a nano lipid or fat envelope delivered to a cell. It’s a medical device designed to stimulate a cell into becoming a pathogen creator by creating the known to be harmful S-1 spike protein.

Vaccine is a defined term in law and under CDC and FDA standards. A vaccine has to stimulate an immunity in the person receiving it. And it must also disrupt transmission. That’s not what this is. Even the drug manufacturers admit the jab or its mRNA does not stop transmission.

The jab is a treatment, but if it’s discussed as a treatment it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health officials because people would ask what other treatments there are. And alternative treatments would hamper FDA’s ability to issue emergency approval of the jabs as a vaccine.

Defining the narrative with the term vaccine is a sucker punch to open and free discourse. “Vaccine” throws the discussion into one of pro/con vaccine. The jab is a mechanical device (a bio-weapon) in the form of a very small packet of technology inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogenetic spike protein manufacturing site.

No basis exists to stipulate this is a vaccine. Simply put, this is a chemical pathogen device meant to unleash chemical pathogen production within a cell. It’s a medical device, not a drug. The jab is not a living or biological system, but rather a physical technology that just happens to come in the size of a molecular package.

Stated Objective

As to why the vaccine hype, the most important quote of this SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is a quote made in 2015 by Peter Daszak, head of Eco-Health Alliance and long-time collaborator with Dr. Fauci and NIAID on gain of function research.

In 2015, Duszak said,

“We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage, to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”

See Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events; Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation; Forum on Microbial Threats; Board on Health Sciences Policy; Board on Global Health; Institute of Medicine; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Rapid Medical Countermeasure Response to Infectious Diseases: Enabling Sustainable Capabilities Through Ongoing Public- and Private-Sector Partnerships: Workshop Summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 Feb 12. 6, Developing MCMs for Coronaviruses.

It’s not hard to figure that SARS-CoV-2 was not a public health crisis. This was an opportunistic marketing campaign to address a stated objective. And it’s the easiest thing to describe because they are the ones that said it. And the Occam’s Razor reality is they've said they needed to get the public to accept a pan-coronavirus vaccine countermeasure. And they needed the media to create the hype and investors would follow where they see profit.

When I see a person wearing a ski mask, waving a gun, and standing with a bag of money in front of a bank; I will make the assumption that that person might be a bank robber.

Similarly, if I have somebody who says we need to use the media to hype a medical countermeasure which is in fact the injection of a synthetic, recombinant chimeric protein developed off of a computer simulation, I’m actually going to listen to the motivation for why that might be being done; I will listen to the person doing the manipulation who says investors will follow where they see profit.

You do not have anything else you need to rely on to explain the events of the last 20 months than the actual statement of the actual perpetrators.

Masks

Through April 2020, the official recommendation by the Journal of the American Medical Association was was unambiguous:

“Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill.”

Part of that lack of evidence in fact showed that cloth facemasks actually increased influenza-linked illness.

In contravention to established science, States, municipalities and businesses have violated the legal requirements for the promulgation of medical counter measures during a public health emergency stating a “belief” that face masks limit the spread of SARS CoV-2. To date, not a single study has confirmed that a mask prevented the transmission of, or the infection by SARS CoV-2. Simply stated, a "belief" is not a medical countermeasure.

All parties mandating the use of facemasks are not only willfully ignoring established science but are engaging in what amounts to a whole population clinical trial. This conclusion is reached by the fact that facemask use and COVID-19 incidence are being reported in scientific opinion pieces promoted by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others.

Social Distancing

Social distancing of up to 6 feet has been promoted as a means of preventing person-to-person transmission of influenza-like viruses. While one study (Werner E. Bischoff, Katrina Swett, Iris Leng, Timothy R. Peters, Exposure to Influenza Virus Aerosols During Routine Patient Care, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 207, Issue 7, 1 April 2013, Pages 1037-1046,) hypothesized that infection could happen in a 6 foot range, the study explicitly states that person-to-person transfer was not tested and viability of the virus at 6 feet was not even a subject of the investigation.

That did not stop the misrepresentation of the study to be used as the basis for an unverified medical counter measure of social distancing. To date, no study has established the efficacy of social distancing to modify the transmission of SARS CoV-2. Public health officials have merely referenced this article.

In contravention to established science, States, municipalities and businesses have violated the legal requirements for the promulgation of medical counter measures during a public health emergency stating a “belief” that social distancing of a healthy population limits the spread of SARS CoV-2. To date, not a single study has confirmed that social distancing of any population prevented the transmission of, or the infection by SARS CoV-2.

FTC Act

It is unlawful under the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq., to advertise that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made. As a result, every party promoting the use of face masks is violating the FTC Act.

Further, under 21 CFR § 50.24 et seq., it is unlawful to conduct medical research (even in the case of emergency) without a series of steps taken to:

a. Establish the research with a duly authorized and independent institutional review board;

b. Secure informed consent of all participants including a statement of risks and benefits; and,

c. Engage in consultation with the community in which the study is to be conducted.

All of these laws have been broken. All relevant authorities in the United States must cease and desist the use of face masks until the matters above are rectified.

Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Forcing someone to "believe" that a thing might work not based on facts but based on a belief alone is tantamount to a religion and is prohibited without limitation. Not even the Supreme Court's seminal decision on vaccines, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), alters this fact.

Reason and an ordered society demand the current wall of bravo sierra regarding SARS-CoV-2 be challenged and torn down down brick by brick.

Novel Variant

According the CDC,

To tell which variant might might be present in a specimen, scientists must perform whole genome sequencing (WGS) on that specimen. At this time, WGS is available for surveillance purposes only, not for individual diagnostic purposes.

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) described by CDC does not establish the genome sequence of the "delta variant" is novel from COVID-19.

There is no evidence that the delta variant is somehow distinct from anything else on GISAID. The fact that we are now looking for a thing/variant doesn’t mean that it is a thing/variant because we are looking at fragments of a strand of genetic material and the fact is that we can choose any fragment in the genome sequence and call it a thing/variant.

For example, I could come up with "omega variant" tomorrow and I could say I’m looking for this sub-strand of either DNA or mRNA, or even a protein, and I could run around the world saying “fear the omega variant.”

The problem is because of the nature of the way in which we currently sequence genomes, which is actually a compositing process – it’s what we can call in mathematics an interleaving – we don’t have any point of reference to actually to know whether or not the thing we’re looking at is in fact distinct from either clinical or even genomic sense.

And so we’re trapped in a world where unfortunately if you go and look at the papers that isolated the delta variant and actually asked the question is the delta variant anything other than a selection of a sequence in a systematic shift of an already disclosed other sequence, the answer is it’s just an alteration and when you start and stop what you call the reading frame. There is no evidence of any novel anything.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.