>>1625

Another.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/07/02/huge-covid-case-counting-deception-at-the-cdc/

For this piece, we have to enter the official world (of the insane)—where everyone is quite sure a new coronavirus was discovered in China and the worthless diagnostic tests mean something and the case numbers are real and meaningful. Once we execute all those absurd maneuvers, we land square in the middle of yet another scandal—this time at our favorite US agency for scandals, the CDC.

The Atlantic, May 21, has the story, headlined, “How could the CDC make that mistake?”

I’ve read the Atlantic article forwards, backwards, and sideways, and it appears the experts believe only PCR viral tests should be used to count the number of COVID cases.

So here is a takeaway I find nowhere in the Atlantic article: COMBINING THE TWO TESTS WILL VASTLY INFLATE THE NUMBER OF CASES.

The number media and government and related con artists deploy to scare the people and justify lockdowns and use to stop reopening the economy.

Therefore, I’m not characterizing what the CDC is doing as a mistake. They’ve managed to create the illusion that absolute case numbers are higher than they should be.

Somehow, these “mistakes” always seem to result in worse news, not better news. The “errors” are always on the high side rather than the low side.

My headline for the Atlantic article would read: SO HOW MANY COVID CASES SHOULD WE SUBTRACT TO GET THE ACTUAL NUMBER?

And the first paragraph would go this way: “Just when governors are trying to reopen their economies, a gigantic case-counting deception at the CDC is taking the wind out of their sails. The millions of Americans suffering financial devastation could be pushed back into a hole. Who is screaming to high heaven about THAT on the nightly news? No one. Why not?”

>>2065

>>1527

"BE THE NEWS" is a proactive process, not solely a reactive one.

One has to be able and willing to detect the narrative in the early stages and formulate a fact-based argument to counteract it in order to minimize the damage that the narrative is intended to create.

Since it is ahead of the curve, by nature, it is going to take flak and be subject to disinformation, diversionary & demoralization attacks. If the argument is solid, it should be able to withstand those attacks given adequate support.

The objective being to speed up public awareness and understanding of the facts that are being hidden so as to minimize the damage of the narrative that is being deployed.

It is not waiting around for "experts" to validate the argument once damage has already been inflicted. "Experts" by nature are not ahead of the curve (except on the rare occasion), they are either on the accelerating slope of it, on top of it or behind it depending on their willingness to go against establishment dogma.

Not a fan of the supposed author of this quote, but there's plenty of wisdom in it.

<“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

The question everyone should be asking is whether they want to create their own reality or whether they want to judiciously study someone else's.