Evidently "They know what side their bread is buttered on", as my father used to say. Maintaining the illusion that all reasonable people avoid consideration of vaccine harm evidence was key to perpetuating The Narrative. Get on board or be cast out of the Managerial Class?
I think a fairer and more accurate assumption/criticism would be that they sense what is acceptable in the main circles they run in--and sell their publications to--and what is not. And most of all, that they sincerely stumbled in assessing (I assume VERY quickly) the evidence. As for "butter on bread" pointing to money, what I say in the piece is "...I will again state my firm belief that corruption by way of monetary gain/interest is quite unlikely with the Institute, even marginally." I am serious about that--it's always impossible to rule out any economic interest at the less-conscious level, but I think that these editors and publishers, whenever they make an editorial decision, hold themselves to the highest standards. What worries me far more in their case is the possibility of threats behind the scenes from deep-staters, or of pressure from the Trump camp which they feel they must yield to.
All speculation...they should issue a statement themselves.
Agree. I can't know what they believe in their heart of hearts, nor can I know what pressure(s) may have been applied behind the scenes. In my model of their situation, they were given indications of what questions are acceptable and what questions are not. If such indications are not enough, there are reports of "secret laws", weaponization of the classification of secrets, and non-disclosure agreements requiring those so muzzled to keep quiet about it. https://circlesandsquares.asia/2023/06/04/how-to-take-down-the-billionaires-a-manual-in-eleven-chapters-by-emanuel-pastreich/ chapter 5
When I referenced "which side their bread is buttered on", I did not mean to imply any direct economic influence. Rather, I meant the more subtle ways that the money powers have used their control of the "conservative" movement, since ~1947, to shut down voices deemed incompatible with the agenda of the money powers. An example of this was the promotion of William F. Buckley Jr. as gatekeeper, and the use of the National Review to deplatform and cast out the America First patriots, from the 1950's through Pat Buchanan in the 1990's. (I welcome you showing me a platformed conservative voice that is not Israel-first. Trump, DeSantis and RFK Jr. all clearly signaled are, no?) Similarly, I judge the pandemonium zeitgeist clearly signaled the political punditry segment of the Managerial Class that questioning the "safe and effective" Narrative was reputational suicide.
FWIW, here is an article from February 2023 showing different methods for URF estimates
https://peterhalligan.substack.com/p/refresher-on-the-under-reporting Factor (URF) – The Giant Syringe in the Room
Very helpful--supplements footnotes 6-7, I believe.
Yes. There's reference to a few others as well as SK's and JR's combined and separate work.
Evidently "They know what side their bread is buttered on", as my father used to say. Maintaining the illusion that all reasonable people avoid consideration of vaccine harm evidence was key to perpetuating The Narrative. Get on board or be cast out of the Managerial Class?
I think a fairer and more accurate assumption/criticism would be that they sense what is acceptable in the main circles they run in--and sell their publications to--and what is not. And most of all, that they sincerely stumbled in assessing (I assume VERY quickly) the evidence. As for "butter on bread" pointing to money, what I say in the piece is "...I will again state my firm belief that corruption by way of monetary gain/interest is quite unlikely with the Institute, even marginally." I am serious about that--it's always impossible to rule out any economic interest at the less-conscious level, but I think that these editors and publishers, whenever they make an editorial decision, hold themselves to the highest standards. What worries me far more in their case is the possibility of threats behind the scenes from deep-staters, or of pressure from the Trump camp which they feel they must yield to.
All speculation...they should issue a statement themselves.
Agree. I can't know what they believe in their heart of hearts, nor can I know what pressure(s) may have been applied behind the scenes. In my model of their situation, they were given indications of what questions are acceptable and what questions are not. If such indications are not enough, there are reports of "secret laws", weaponization of the classification of secrets, and non-disclosure agreements requiring those so muzzled to keep quiet about it. https://circlesandsquares.asia/2023/06/04/how-to-take-down-the-billionaires-a-manual-in-eleven-chapters-by-emanuel-pastreich/ chapter 5
When I referenced "which side their bread is buttered on", I did not mean to imply any direct economic influence. Rather, I meant the more subtle ways that the money powers have used their control of the "conservative" movement, since ~1947, to shut down voices deemed incompatible with the agenda of the money powers. An example of this was the promotion of William F. Buckley Jr. as gatekeeper, and the use of the National Review to deplatform and cast out the America First patriots, from the 1950's through Pat Buchanan in the 1990's. (I welcome you showing me a platformed conservative voice that is not Israel-first. Trump, DeSantis and RFK Jr. all clearly signaled are, no?) Similarly, I judge the pandemonium zeitgeist clearly signaled the political punditry segment of the Managerial Class that questioning the "safe and effective" Narrative was reputational suicide.