Ian – the following statement in your article inadvertently ends up saying the very opposite of what you intended:
“Here are the 18 biggest falsehoods, lies and deceptions promoted by Australian, American, UK and other public health leaders…”
The list you provide are NOT the deceptions – they are the reality of what actually happened. I recommend that you revise the wording to read something along these lines:
“The following are the true facts about the 18 biggest falsehoods, lies and deceptions… etc”.
(As a former editor of complex technical documents, I can tell you this sort of unintended reversal of meaning in the first draft of technical documents is not all that uncommon).
I also have significant editorial experience. My advice would be to state clearly each of the 18 lies and deceptions, and to then make clear in the same item what is wrong with them. E.g., for number 3, the actual lie is "Covid injections are safe and effective." (Research has since made clear that Covid injections are in fact neither safe nor effective. Covid injections were never properly tested for safety and efficacy. Subsequent research has revealed many adverse side effects. Governments lied when they said these injections would stop the spread of infection.)
Thanks Ian - a good catalogue of lies and deceptions. However, I think you need to write the final list more carefully, as the 18 listed items are described as lies (suggesting that they are false) but the semantics is incorrect for several. For example, the first three are not in fact lies or deceptions - what you have stated is the true version and not the lie. In number 3, for example, "Covid injections are neither safe nor effective." is not a lie ... it is the truth. Some wordsmithing seems necessary to avoid risks of misunderstanding.
Australian Federal Health are pushing to get Retirement complexes to increase the rate of Boosters, which is apparently, currently around 10-20%. Can we then expect an increase in the 80+ deathrate.
Thanks for the editing of the list, Ian. It is now generally less problematic, although Number 16 is incorrect, as the risks were clearly not the same for everyone.
Ian – the following statement in your article inadvertently ends up saying the very opposite of what you intended:
“Here are the 18 biggest falsehoods, lies and deceptions promoted by Australian, American, UK and other public health leaders…”
The list you provide are NOT the deceptions – they are the reality of what actually happened. I recommend that you revise the wording to read something along these lines:
“The following are the true facts about the 18 biggest falsehoods, lies and deceptions… etc”.
(As a former editor of complex technical documents, I can tell you this sort of unintended reversal of meaning in the first draft of technical documents is not all that uncommon).
Thanks you very much. I will amend :))
I also have significant editorial experience. My advice would be to state clearly each of the 18 lies and deceptions, and to then make clear in the same item what is wrong with them. E.g., for number 3, the actual lie is "Covid injections are safe and effective." (Research has since made clear that Covid injections are in fact neither safe nor effective. Covid injections were never properly tested for safety and efficacy. Subsequent research has revealed many adverse side effects. Governments lied when they said these injections would stop the spread of infection.)
Ian Barry has made a good suggestion. In the interests of clarity I would also encourage you to edit this section of your post.
I agree, Barry.
Thanks Ian - a good catalogue of lies and deceptions. However, I think you need to write the final list more carefully, as the 18 listed items are described as lies (suggesting that they are false) but the semantics is incorrect for several. For example, the first three are not in fact lies or deceptions - what you have stated is the true version and not the lie. In number 3, for example, "Covid injections are neither safe nor effective." is not a lie ... it is the truth. Some wordsmithing seems necessary to avoid risks of misunderstanding.
Author Paul Weston on the initial Pfizer data of 2021. (Thanks to Rosemary Marshall for sharing this.) 4 minutes: https://rumble.com/v52nwzc-paul-weston-is-pfizer-ceo-albert-bourla-a-mass-murderer.html?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR134rVR32MBymh4lEcz4uSBeoNnEsa7GHBRtJ9E1t2zkLlqmhp-V64r1d4_aem_g6U9GzAiV4Qz4MY7sn-K1w
Australian Federal Health are pushing to get Retirement complexes to increase the rate of Boosters, which is apparently, currently around 10-20%. Can we then expect an increase in the 80+ deathrate.
Thanks for the editing of the list, Ian. It is now generally less problematic, although Number 16 is incorrect, as the risks were clearly not the same for everyone.
I totally agree with these comments and wonder how the writer could not see these errors. Hmm!
He may need a good editor.