The rest of the press laughed at FOX losing viewers because they were skeptical about Powell's election claims. Yet we're supposed to forget that and pretend that Tucker didn't go on the air and basically call Powell a liar.
The goal is to chill speech, and they've done it.
All for a "trial" in which discovery was denied and Dominion didn't actually have to prove their machines worked.
"All for a "trial" in which discovery was denied and Dominion didn't actually have to prove their machines worked."
What trial are you referring to? The recent one that Fox lost and had to pay? I really didn't follow that at all, so I'm wondering. I didn't really care that Fox was going to court.
I never watched Fox news. But I did watch Tucker Carlson.
I remember the first time I saw an electronic voting machine.
I was working on a college campus and the had some cute little bit of fluff there handing out leaflets and telling anyone who would listen how perfectly safe and secure those machines were. As a long-time worker in IT I just laughed at her and told her she had no idea what she was talking about.
Tom Scott is an excellent YouTuber'er. He is UK-based but he posts a lot of things that explain how things work and how they don't work. His videos are well worth watching. He's not going to tell you the secret to happiness (Don't argue with fools...) but he does explain how things are done and has a lot of quite esoteric information about things that most people, including me, aren't even going to know to ask about. CGPGrey is another good one for that.
Tom has a video on microwave ovens that is titled, "I promise this story about microwaves is interesting." And, in fact, it is. And rather touching, too.
Occasionally I see clips from Laura Ingraham or Jesse Waters. They seem OK for mainstream news, but I don't have much expectations for mainstream news. Tucker was the closest I'd get to mainstream news. Nowhere near the trust I have for you wonderful substackers, but I'm glad I was listening to Tucker for the last few months. My Mom would be devastated and disgusted if she knew. Probably most of the people who hate him have never even heard a segment.
Someone on your twitter responded with this: “SARS-CoV2 is not SARS-CoV-2. First is a version of SARS-CoV.”
I got 2 similar answers from my source (not ChatGPT) that dispute her claim:
ANSWER 1
There is no difference between SARS-CoV2 and SARS-CoV-2, as they both refer to the same virus. The term "SARS-CoV-2" is the official name given by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) to the novel coronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. The name stands for "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2."
The difference in the terms is just a matter of formatting, with "SARS-CoV-2" being the more commonly used and accepted format. The hyphen in "SARS-CoV-2" serves to separate "SARS" from "CoV" and the "2" at the end, indicating that it is the second coronavirus of this type to be identified, with the first being the virus responsible for the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 (SARS-CoV).
What is the reason for the difference in formatting between SARS-CoV2 and SARS-CoV-2?
ANSWER 2
There is no difference in meaning between the terms "SARS-CoV2" and "SARS-CoV-2," as they both refer to the same virus. The difference is in their formatting, with "SARS-CoV-2" being the more commonly used and accepted format. The hyphen in "SARS-CoV-2" serves to separate "SARS" from "CoV" and the "2" at the end, indicating that it is the second coronavirus of this type to be identified, with the first being the virus responsible for the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 (SARS-CoV). This information was obtained from my previous answer, as well as from nature.com.
It is worth noting that the formatting of scientific names can vary depending on the context and the organization responsible for naming the virus. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) uses "SARS-CoV-2" in their official documents, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States use "SARS-CoV-2" and "COVID-19" interchangeably. However, these differences in formatting do not change the meaning of the terms. This information was obtained from my previous answer.
Here’s a 3rd:
What is the significance of the hyphen in SARS-CoV-2?
ANSWER
The hyphen in "SARS-CoV-2" serves to separate "SARS" from "CoV" and the "2" at the end, indicating that it is the second coronavirus of this type to be identified, with the first being the virus responsible for the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 (SARS-CoV). This information was obtained from aafp.org and merriam-webster.com.
It is worth noting that the formatting of scientific names can vary depending on the context and the organization responsible for naming the virus. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) uses "SARS-CoV-2" in their official documents, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States use "SARS-CoV-2" and "COVID-19" interchangeably. However, these differences in formatting do not change the meaning of the terms. This information was obtained from my previous answer.
BLACK ROCK is the primary shareholder of FOX.....AND CNN....AND PFIZER....despite the fact Tuckers show had the highest viewership...by far...of all the cable "news" shows they could no longer let him expose all their Ukraine/ COVID/ VACCINE propaganda...so they CENSORED him....welcome to the twilight zone
Apr 24, 2023·edited Apr 24, 2023Liked by Tessa Lena
Same thought occurred to me. Who has a video platform? Tulsi Gabbard had Tucker on her show last November, a good episode, but not enough. He won't have deep-pocket legal backing wherever he goes, but he is now quite a fixture in American news.
The second short film was pretty much perfect. Look at what happened to Matt Taibbi when he spoke up. Look at what happened to Julian Assange. Look at what happened to Edward Snowden. And that is only three. The list is endless and many of those who have raised their voices have been permanently silenced.
On the school films... I feel like it’s the second that more accurately captures the moment and that the first is correct: the school system are the ones pushing the fantasies these days
https://patents.justia.com/patent/6399307 "This property may be useful in using Armored RNA® as molecular markers to trace the origin of pollutants. For instance, the Armored RNA® could be spiked into the waste containers of different companies. The Armored RNA® for each company would contain a unique nucleotide sequence which would identify that company. In the event of a spill, a sample would be taken, RNA would be isolated and RT-PCR™ performed to determine the unique sequence of the Armored RNA® and identify the company responsible for the spill. In a related application, the Armored RNA® could be used by environmentalists to trace the flow of groundwaters."
so - was covid 1.0 simply a globally deployed biomarker to trigger a useless pcr test and the illusion of a pandemic?
tucker talks a good game but he's a limited hangout. fox took as much money from the truth ministry as the other networks and shilled shamelessly for the death shot. i'll never forget tucker musing out loud that "if you don't take it you can't (pregnant pause) do anything."
and if he's right about the zaphorizhe plant, it validates my contention that nato and putin are just playing their preassigned roles in the globalist horror movie.
thanks for finding the short films. most of us have traded in our dignity for survival at some point. trouble is, it's not a longterm strategy.
"...if he's right about the zaphorizhe plant, it validates my contention that nato and putin are just playing their preassigned roles in the globalist horror movie."
What did he say? Do you have a link to it?
I have to confess that the forever war of Orwell's 1984 comes to mind when I think about everything that is going on right now. All of the sabre-rattling over China, particularly.
"The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labor. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent."
Re: #1. SARS-COV-2 mentioned in a 2006 paper. It was and still is misdirection, because there is no real scientific proof that any virus exists, because the "isolation" of virology is not science, but rather sophistry. There is no routine parallel processed control group of equally poisoned uninfected cells, to verify the centrifuged alleged results. If the same stuff can be found from the control group, which it probably will be, then there is no proof!
The Ukraine biolabs are more likely Black-ops bio/chemical weapons development labs.
I think the early SARS-CoV-2 references are nothing. There are other papers with SAR-CoV-3 references but it was just different names scientists were giving to various strains of SARS-CoV at the time.
You could be right. I do think that when something is proclaimed to be "novel," it better be novel at least aspirationally or theoretically and not be mentioned in literature decades earlier. That said, I welcome the opinions!!
Apr 24, 2023·edited Apr 24, 2023Liked by Tessa Lena
As someone who lived in Toronto which was an epicentre for SARS1, I can tell you it was mostly a media creation. The pictures coming out of CNN was nothing like what was happening on the ground. Interestingly, there was a major power failure that lasted for days after pandemic declared over.
Apr 25, 2023·edited Apr 25, 2023Liked by Tessa Lena
There is a paradox in these two videos. One correctly mocks authoritarian truth--2+2=5. The other mocks the reactionary response to 2+2=22, and then demonstrates the social pressure to conform to a single interpretation or adopt a relativistic view. This is what science grapples with all the time. "Settled Science" is the socially accepted truth--call it a working platform, for better or worse. "Unsettled Science" is the disruption of social conventions to enable new knowledge. Both have a purpose. But can they be integrated in a healthy social framework? It's an open question.
the secret message of the 1st movie is when it comes to issues of money, even the professor integrity can be lost to satisfy the capital, that's the way Journalists are functioning these days, better, is the way that all society works, everyone has a price, even Maths. (I'm kidding and maybe I'm not)
Here's a math lesson the ghouls want to teach the plebs: it doesn't make a difference if you're a commentator who has the highest number of viewers on all MSM TV channels we'll still "fire you" because we're the boss and we can. So the goblins remind the proles that no one is indispensable.
Robert Kennedy Jr's stance on vaccines is passe. The issue is past tense since a significant majority has already been jabbed. So, it's on to the next "pandemic": climate change. And, Kennedy is an outspoken environmentalist. I have no doubt he will support crackdowns, fines and worse for those who don't follow the climate change rules.
Add to this his stance on gun control. He has stated that we must "keep guns out of the hands of criminals." Well, we saw during the Covid scam just how easily a law-abiding citizen can be deemed a criminal. Hence, the crackdowns on freedoms will continue under a different guise; it's just the next phase of the globalist;s plan.
Tucker's firing is nothing but theatrics, perfectly timed to convince Americans that Kennedy is opposed to the globalist's agenda, and is here to save us. But, he's just a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Stay on your toes, America. The world is counting on you.
RFK Jr's platform has a notable gap where climate-change might be expected, speaking only in favor of "good environmental policy being good economic policy".
That is a thoughtful change for him. He has been paying attention and he is paying attention and honorable, intelligent people are eager to help him. He is a truth-seeker, and he appears willing to die on this hill.
I pray you are right. However, the timing of Tucker's firing makes the whole performance suspicious; even that he's been allowed to speak out for so long had me questioning the reality of it all. I think it's all part of a very carefully scripted plan. And, they're all in on it.
Thanks for the link. It's a long video. Since I already doubt the legitimacy of Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone, I probably won't watch the full six hours. As for Bret Weinstein, I thus far believe he's on the up and up... though, not necessarily cued in as to who is and isn't controlled opposition.
The rest of the press laughed at FOX losing viewers because they were skeptical about Powell's election claims. Yet we're supposed to forget that and pretend that Tucker didn't go on the air and basically call Powell a liar.
The goal is to chill speech, and they've done it.
All for a "trial" in which discovery was denied and Dominion didn't actually have to prove their machines worked.
"All for a "trial" in which discovery was denied and Dominion didn't actually have to prove their machines worked."
What trial are you referring to? The recent one that Fox lost and had to pay? I really didn't follow that at all, so I'm wondering. I didn't really care that Fox was going to court.
I never watched Fox news. But I did watch Tucker Carlson.
They didn't lose at trial, they settled. One of the reasons they settled is because they were denied discovery.
If Dominion wants to say their machines work, they should be forced to prove that in court.
Remember, it wasn't that long ago that the Democrats were blowing the whistle on Dominion machines.
I remember the first time I saw an electronic voting machine.
I was working on a college campus and the had some cute little bit of fluff there handing out leaflets and telling anyone who would listen how perfectly safe and secure those machines were. As a long-time worker in IT I just laughed at her and told her she had no idea what she was talking about.
I'm probably preaching to the converted here but here's some good information on electronic voting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs
And there's literally no use for them.
1) Count all ballots by hand in public.
2) Votes are read publicly when count is finished.
3) Ballots do not leave polling station until counting is finished, then sealed and taken to central storage in case they must be recounted.
This is how the GOP should run its primary, but they won't because they're the Washington Generals.
"I'm probably preaching to the converted here..."
1. Thank you for posting this link.
2. Please never feel like you're posting something redundant. It helps ppl like me understand what you already know!
Tom Scott is an excellent YouTuber'er. He is UK-based but he posts a lot of things that explain how things work and how they don't work. His videos are well worth watching. He's not going to tell you the secret to happiness (Don't argue with fools...) but he does explain how things are done and has a lot of quite esoteric information about things that most people, including me, aren't even going to know to ask about. CGPGrey is another good one for that.
Tom has a video on microwave ovens that is titled, "I promise this story about microwaves is interesting." And, in fact, it is. And rather touching, too.
Here's one about AI that is worth watching: I tried using AI. It scared me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPhJbKBuNnA&pp=ygUTdG9tIHNjb3R0IG1pY3Jvd2F2ZQ%3D%3D
Is there anyone else at Fox News besides Tucker? Asking for a friend :-)
I would like to ask that same question. For a friend, without a doubt!!! And thank you again for digging out that paper!! It's most fascinating!
🙌🏼😁
Occasionally I see clips from Laura Ingraham or Jesse Waters. They seem OK for mainstream news, but I don't have much expectations for mainstream news. Tucker was the closest I'd get to mainstream news. Nowhere near the trust I have for you wonderful substackers, but I'm glad I was listening to Tucker for the last few months. My Mom would be devastated and disgusted if she knew. Probably most of the people who hate him have never even heard a segment.
Someone on your twitter responded with this: “SARS-CoV2 is not SARS-CoV-2. First is a version of SARS-CoV.”
I got 2 similar answers from my source (not ChatGPT) that dispute her claim:
ANSWER 1
There is no difference between SARS-CoV2 and SARS-CoV-2, as they both refer to the same virus. The term "SARS-CoV-2" is the official name given by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) to the novel coronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. The name stands for "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2."
The difference in the terms is just a matter of formatting, with "SARS-CoV-2" being the more commonly used and accepted format. The hyphen in "SARS-CoV-2" serves to separate "SARS" from "CoV" and the "2" at the end, indicating that it is the second coronavirus of this type to be identified, with the first being the virus responsible for the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 (SARS-CoV).
What is the reason for the difference in formatting between SARS-CoV2 and SARS-CoV-2?
ANSWER 2
There is no difference in meaning between the terms "SARS-CoV2" and "SARS-CoV-2," as they both refer to the same virus. The difference is in their formatting, with "SARS-CoV-2" being the more commonly used and accepted format. The hyphen in "SARS-CoV-2" serves to separate "SARS" from "CoV" and the "2" at the end, indicating that it is the second coronavirus of this type to be identified, with the first being the virus responsible for the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 (SARS-CoV). This information was obtained from my previous answer, as well as from nature.com.
It is worth noting that the formatting of scientific names can vary depending on the context and the organization responsible for naming the virus. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) uses "SARS-CoV-2" in their official documents, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States use "SARS-CoV-2" and "COVID-19" interchangeably. However, these differences in formatting do not change the meaning of the terms. This information was obtained from my previous answer.
Here’s a 3rd:
What is the significance of the hyphen in SARS-CoV-2?
ANSWER
The hyphen in "SARS-CoV-2" serves to separate "SARS" from "CoV" and the "2" at the end, indicating that it is the second coronavirus of this type to be identified, with the first being the virus responsible for the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 (SARS-CoV). This information was obtained from aafp.org and merriam-webster.com.
It is worth noting that the formatting of scientific names can vary depending on the context and the organization responsible for naming the virus. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) uses "SARS-CoV-2" in their official documents, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States use "SARS-CoV-2" and "COVID-19" interchangeably. However, these differences in formatting do not change the meaning of the terms. This information was obtained from my previous answer.
I heard somewhere Sean Hannity wears a lapel pin that says CIA.......
BLACK ROCK is the primary shareholder of FOX.....AND CNN....AND PFIZER....despite the fact Tuckers show had the highest viewership...by far...of all the cable "news" shows they could no longer let him expose all their Ukraine/ COVID/ VACCINE propaganda...so they CENSORED him....welcome to the twilight zone
Where will all of Tucker's viewers go now? One of two places: they'll resort to reading books, or head over to Substack! Thoughts anyone?
Same thought occurred to me. Who has a video platform? Tulsi Gabbard had Tucker on her show last November, a good episode, but not enough. He won't have deep-pocket legal backing wherever he goes, but he is now quite a fixture in American news.
Maybe Trump will get him a platform?
The second short film was pretty much perfect. Look at what happened to Matt Taibbi when he spoke up. Look at what happened to Julian Assange. Look at what happened to Edward Snowden. And that is only three. The list is endless and many of those who have raised their voices have been permanently silenced.
On the school films... I feel like it’s the second that more accurately captures the moment and that the first is correct: the school system are the ones pushing the fantasies these days
“Than that the first is correct” I meant to say.
https://patents.justia.com/patent/6399307 "This property may be useful in using Armored RNA® as molecular markers to trace the origin of pollutants. For instance, the Armored RNA® could be spiked into the waste containers of different companies. The Armored RNA® for each company would contain a unique nucleotide sequence which would identify that company. In the event of a spill, a sample would be taken, RNA would be isolated and RT-PCR™ performed to determine the unique sequence of the Armored RNA® and identify the company responsible for the spill. In a related application, the Armored RNA® could be used by environmentalists to trace the flow of groundwaters."
so - was covid 1.0 simply a globally deployed biomarker to trigger a useless pcr test and the illusion of a pandemic?
tucker talks a good game but he's a limited hangout. fox took as much money from the truth ministry as the other networks and shilled shamelessly for the death shot. i'll never forget tucker musing out loud that "if you don't take it you can't (pregnant pause) do anything."
and if he's right about the zaphorizhe plant, it validates my contention that nato and putin are just playing their preassigned roles in the globalist horror movie.
thanks for finding the short films. most of us have traded in our dignity for survival at some point. trouble is, it's not a longterm strategy.
"...if he's right about the zaphorizhe plant, it validates my contention that nato and putin are just playing their preassigned roles in the globalist horror movie."
What did he say? Do you have a link to it?
I have to confess that the forever war of Orwell's 1984 comes to mind when I think about everything that is going on right now. All of the sabre-rattling over China, particularly.
"The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labor. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent."
Re: #1. SARS-COV-2 mentioned in a 2006 paper. It was and still is misdirection, because there is no real scientific proof that any virus exists, because the "isolation" of virology is not science, but rather sophistry. There is no routine parallel processed control group of equally poisoned uninfected cells, to verify the centrifuged alleged results. If the same stuff can be found from the control group, which it probably will be, then there is no proof!
The Ukraine biolabs are more likely Black-ops bio/chemical weapons development labs.
I think the early SARS-CoV-2 references are nothing. There are other papers with SAR-CoV-3 references but it was just different names scientists were giving to various strains of SARS-CoV at the time.
You could be right. I do think that when something is proclaimed to be "novel," it better be novel at least aspirationally or theoretically and not be mentioned in literature decades earlier. That said, I welcome the opinions!!
As someone who lived in Toronto which was an epicentre for SARS1, I can tell you it was mostly a media creation. The pictures coming out of CNN was nothing like what was happening on the ground. Interestingly, there was a major power failure that lasted for days after pandemic declared over.
Tucker is a negative to the system now because he's scaring away ad companies that tend to pay more, like pharma and military contractors.
More viewers, but less revenue because of the less paying clients.
But they forgot how Tuckers viewership bleeds onto the shows before and after him.
Anyway, it's a good sign that they finally realized that they're out of selling propaganda to those who question authority.
The limited hangout is over and now those people will look elsewhere and learn more than Tucker would even say.
maybe fox needed a cash offset for the payout to dominion?
March 18th I sent out this message: I think Tucker is leaving Fox
There is a paradox in these two videos. One correctly mocks authoritarian truth--2+2=5. The other mocks the reactionary response to 2+2=22, and then demonstrates the social pressure to conform to a single interpretation or adopt a relativistic view. This is what science grapples with all the time. "Settled Science" is the socially accepted truth--call it a working platform, for better or worse. "Unsettled Science" is the disruption of social conventions to enable new knowledge. Both have a purpose. But can they be integrated in a healthy social framework? It's an open question.
Edited.
New Study Suggests Carbon Dioxide Buildup from Wearing Face Masks Increase Risk of Stillbirths, Testicular Dysfunction, & Cognitive Deterioration
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/new-study-suggests-carbon-dioxide-buildup-from-wearing-face-masks-increase-risk-of-stillbirths-testicular-dysfunction-cognitive-deterioration/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=the-gateway-pundit&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=2023-04-24
the secret message of the 1st movie is when it comes to issues of money, even the professor integrity can be lost to satisfy the capital, that's the way Journalists are functioning these days, better, is the way that all society works, everyone has a price, even Maths. (I'm kidding and maybe I'm not)
Here's a math lesson the ghouls want to teach the plebs: it doesn't make a difference if you're a commentator who has the highest number of viewers on all MSM TV channels we'll still "fire you" because we're the boss and we can. So the goblins remind the proles that no one is indispensable.
Thanks Tessa, so enjoyed the clips and your keen observations, Yah Bless <3
Thank you, Mart!!
Robert Kennedy Jr's stance on vaccines is passe. The issue is past tense since a significant majority has already been jabbed. So, it's on to the next "pandemic": climate change. And, Kennedy is an outspoken environmentalist. I have no doubt he will support crackdowns, fines and worse for those who don't follow the climate change rules.
Add to this his stance on gun control. He has stated that we must "keep guns out of the hands of criminals." Well, we saw during the Covid scam just how easily a law-abiding citizen can be deemed a criminal. Hence, the crackdowns on freedoms will continue under a different guise; it's just the next phase of the globalist;s plan.
Tucker's firing is nothing but theatrics, perfectly timed to convince Americans that Kennedy is opposed to the globalist's agenda, and is here to save us. But, he's just a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Stay on your toes, America. The world is counting on you.
RFK Jr's platform has a notable gap where climate-change might be expected, speaking only in favor of "good environmental policy being good economic policy".
That is a thoughtful change for him. He has been paying attention and he is paying attention and honorable, intelligent people are eager to help him. He is a truth-seeker, and he appears willing to die on this hill.
I pray you are right. However, the timing of Tucker's firing makes the whole performance suspicious; even that he's been allowed to speak out for so long had me questioning the reality of it all. I think it's all part of a very carefully scripted plan. And, they're all in on it.
We should all do our best.
This is not a time to fail to engage as changes sweep over our world.
I don't believe everything will be alright or that everything is hopeless.
I believe that there are some things that I can do to help us work out reasonable ways to live and cooperate together.
I agree.
"I think it's all part of a very carefully scripted plan. And, they're all in on it."--Yeah, my take too. I trust nothing these days. There's a lot that seems scripted--J.J. Couey did a very interesting analysis of a video that he thinks was scripted https://gingerbreggin.substack.com/p/robert-kennedy-steve-kirsch-and-robert/comment/15127766
Thanks for the link. It's a long video. Since I already doubt the legitimacy of Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone, I probably won't watch the full six hours. As for Bret Weinstein, I thus far believe he's on the up and up... though, not necessarily cued in as to who is and isn't controlled opposition.
Yes, that's basically my take too. Thanks for saving me time!