One Article, One Title, A Dozen Lies!

The official narrative falls apart in the title of a single article...

Hello, friend!

---

Robert Kennedy, Jr., as a “vaccine”-injured from an affluent family, has been running the site, Children’s Health Defense, since 2016, supposedly towards the purpose of preventing injuries like the one he had suffered as a child. His heart is in the project for a good reason and his motivation is justified.

At this point, the following question arises: How far can you accept information from a “well-meaning” source?

Today, on September 14, 2022, he is pushing an article by “Dr. Mercola,” whose site has been compromised at least a year ago, fully banning long-time members from commenting, and publishing a truckload of misinfo and disinfo. Why on Earth did Kennedy go along with the Mercola line baffles me, but here is the title of the article in question:

‘Stunning’: The Real Reason Health Officials Won’t Let Independent Scientists Examine mRNA Vaccine Vials

Normally, I have some respect for Robert Kennedy, Jr., because he has managed to win some court cases in favor of children, which at least postponed the inevitable.

The very title of this article today, however, is setting a good example of lies in implications. To make matters worse, once you like the author (and many, including me, care for Kennedy and for the old Mercola), you become more prone to go all the way and accept the implied lies as well.

Questions and negations can include exactly the same number of lies through implications as statements. My very first Substack article from May 5, 2022, elaborates on the tricks and treats of common forms of mass manipulation, so feel free to apply some of my original cautionary examples to the article itself; for me, addressing the title will suffice for this post.

What Can Be Done against Manipulation?

So, how many lies are implies in the Mercola title?

‘Stunning’: The Real Reason Health Officials Won’t Let Independent Scientists Examine mRNA Vaccine Vials

So far, I have counted twelve:

1. There is nothing “stunning” about the information;

2. The very word, “stunning,” is geared towards stunning the reader in order to end independent thought. After all, you can’t think for yourself, if you are stunned;

3. If you can’t think for yourself, you might as well rely on the article;

4. Using the word “real” is manipulative: it implies that there are reasons that are not real, but doesn’t specify them;

5. Once the “stunned” reader is presented with the “real” reason, there is another form of pressure applied to the reader’s gray matter in order to prevent independent thought. The uneducated slob had better go along with the “science”!

6. Using the word “health” implies that there is a standard for health. Obviously, there isn’t (“mental health” exacerbates the dilemma even more!);

7. The word “officials” suggests that there are responsible parties for the already-debunked concept of “health.” There are certainly people with power, empowered by goodness-knows-who, but nobody is ever responsible;

8. “Won’t let” imposes the lie on the reader that the executive branch exercising judicial powers is legitimate. It is not.

9. “Independent” invokes a myth: nobody is ever independent. People exist, think, and act in specific contexts, and usually observe their affiliations;

10. “Scientists” confirms the myth of the “omniscient” and, lately, infallible person, whose judgment must be respected above all others. These days, “scientists” don’t possess the means to conduct independent research. Moreover, the fundamental principles of “science” are anything but particularly respectable:

    Freaks of Science

11. mRNA is another myth:

mRNA?

mRNA is peddled in order to divert people’s attention from the toxins, pathogens, parasites, and graphenes that have been, and are, in the vials, although in unique combinations. The term “mRNA” itself suggests the necessity of “experts” or “scientists,” because the reader’s understanding is supposed to be hopelessly miserable without authoritative sources and/or explanations.

Of course, you don’t have a license to think:

Do You Need A License To Think?

12. The word “vaccine” implies that the products that are meant to meet its definition are useful. After careful examination of the history of administering “vaccines,” it turns out that all of them have been toxic, although some more than others.

Here is something about “vaccines” during pregnancy:

Asthma and Traditional Vaccines During Pregnancy

There have been some giveaways about the “covid ‘vaccines’” that allow for conjecturing that might result in logical conclusions:

"Vaccines" Expire?

The delivery systems have also been expanded to the point that actual injections are now unnecessary, but are still used as a side show and as confirmations of the the official mandates of all current and former “vaccines”:

No Need for Any More "Vaccinations"!

Strangely, the conclusion of the article that each batch is different, is accurate.

However, it’s a bit too little, too late, because the cyclical delivery of batches that maimed/killed in specific manners, irrespective of manufacturers, was already obvious in November, 2021 from VAERS data, :

What Is Your Lot?

So, why is at least some of the truth allowed to finally hit the surface? Well, partial truth always works well towards gaslighting people. Moreover, there is plausible deniability for the manufacturers and people are taunted again:

“Yes, you are being poisoned, maimed, and killed, and you cannot do anything about it!”

Wrong again. Do not succumb to the lies by believing that your predicaments are unique and even your fault! You are not alone:

The Monsters Want To Isolate You!