I've picked up on another technique the CDC uses. They often publish their own papers at their own site. The Red Cross antibody study, The USS Teddy Roosevelt antibody study and the "study" that showed the novel coronavirus didn't begin to "spread" in America until "latter January" 2020 are three examples of this. They write their own dubious studies with their own dubious conclusions (and none of these papers are "peer reviewed.") And everyone just accepts these conclusions as the gospel truth…

For example, that Red Cross antibody study doesn't mention WHEN the vials of blood were actually tested for antibodies. It also doesn't tell readers how many donors were "positive" for the IgM antibody. That's the antigen that shows "recent" infections. Significantly, a negative IgM result and positive IgG results ... means those people were infected at least one month before they donated their blood. Both the Red Cross paper and the Roosevelt antibody study don't answer why those who tested po…

I"ve read from several reliable sources that 98 to 99% of peer reviewed articles are corrupt. This comes from several reliable sources, wish I could remember exactly where but it was from reputable researchers. Those who peer review can be bribed/threatened. Before peer reviewing, scientists could write up their experiences and the court of public opinion could hold sway. With peer review, the public is basically told what to think. Most scientists are pretty honest in my experience with huge r…