Thread by @rooikat51

South African mainstream journalists and self styled media analysts and watchdogs have been prating loudly about how to protect journalists from online harms. There is not much discussion about who will protect the public from these politically untouchable modern media mavens.

The people who have decided to police the information are the same ones who are feeding the public a diet of dark and smelly. Who will speak for the children?

Somebody should scrutinise Bhekisisa. Two of their lowlights include "SA teens, you’re up for a vaccine, without your parents’ permission" and "The Pfizer palpitations: What exactly are the risks to teens’ hearts from this COVID vaccine?"

In the first article on October 18, 2021 we are told that there are enough "vaccines" to jab the teenagers partly as a result of low uptake from the older groups. Teenagers will only be given one dose. They are aware of risks.

In the next article on November 16, 2021 we learn that two shots are now recommended, even though myocarditis was a known side effect.

If we follow the link to the science we learn that the study was still in preprint. The last update was on 21 March 2022 and the study is still in preprint. It's now Dec 8 2022. It should not be used to guide clinical practice. This is not award winning journalism.

What do the silenced scientists have to say. At least they're up to date and their science is more method than religion. Dr Edeling discusses the risks and benefits of the "vax" for the younger demographic. watch to the end.

https://twitter.com/The_Redlist1/status/1598320366807572480

If you prefer text, the Journal of Medical Ethics just published this extended essay. jme.bmj.com/content/early/…

https://twitter.com/KevinBardosh/status/1599866819988578304

Or you could look at some of the latest data coming from the health insurers. The Vigilant fox does a breakdown here where we see mortality may be 145% higher.That's "something like 600,000 excess deaths per year in the US. ” vigilantfox.substack.com/p/the-one-char…

People are beginning to ask how many Discovery may have killed in South Africa? Their data suggest a higher number of 200%.

And the more people look into the foundational studies the worse they look. The screenshot below is from the spectator article '170 patients that changed everything". It ends with a suggestion that "the basis upon which the EUA was issued needs to be revisited."

South African experts Marc Mendelson, Nathan Geffen and Francois Venter were quick to man the media ramparts whenever any common sensical person tried to launch some logic at these obviously fake claims. The SA trial was 100% effective. Where are these South African patients?

For experts like Venter, the speed of science is now negative. It's going backwards. It may be time to start over, with new experts.
theatlantic.com/science/archiv…

While South Africa has been distracted with news spin about Ramaphosa's corruption and government cowardice, the WHO have been busy little bees behind the scenes. James Roguski discusses it here.
jamesroguski.substack.com/p/three-days-t…

And in New Zealand the government is assaulting rights that have traditionally been sacrosanct and reserved for parents merely to prove a point.
jamesroguski.substack.com/p/the-kiwis-to…

Kwanele! Genoeg! Enough! Once you've voted in the referendum to protect the children from the short term danger...
referendums.co.za/@ProtectTheChi…

.. please consider voting to protect them from the long term danger and exit the WHO. #ProtectTheChildren #WeSayNo #StoptheShots #ReinstateScientists

referendums.co.za/@NoWHO

@threadreaderapp unroll