Hijacking the word “rare” in the new geopolitical medical research and health news
Hijacking the word “rare” in the new geopolitical medical research and health news
A curious change that I’ve noticed over the last two years since the start of the globalist pandemic is increased use of the word “rare” in describing catastrophic consequences of experimental drugs
I have been intensely scouring research now for 30 years, and this experience has provided me the perspective of noticing changes and trends in the so-called biomedical research literature often times several years in advance of these changes making headline news. See my 2019 Pharma Power Vortex and Echo Chamber for a near-perfect description of the structure that supports the 2020 pandemic (also linked below).
A curious change that I’ve noticed over the last two years since the start of the globalist pandemic is increased use of the word “rare” in describing catastrophic consequences of experimental vaccines.
The use of the word “rare” in this context is completely inappropriate as I will describe for the following two reasons:
The word “rare” is being used as a meaningless descriptor, because the people using this term have no numerical basis for its use, specifically because systems of vaccine injury surveillance (eg, VAERS in the United States) are practically nonexistent and have never exceeded 10% reliability. As such, any attempts to estimate the true frequency/incidence of adverse effects is fraudulent from the start because – especially in the United States – we have no way of capturing this information accurately.
The word “rare” is being used as a meaningless distractor to misplace attention away from these catastrophic consequences from unnecessary drug mandates; by starting a conversation with the word “rare” the authors are trying to change the emphasis of the conversation which should be emotional, medical, legal to one of numbers, frequency and statistics. What makes the fraud all the more obvious is that they never discuss the actual frequency or incidence of these events they simply describe them as “rare” which means they’ve already made the decision for the reader while at the same time they are depriving the reader of actually accessing the data that qualifies such an event as “rare.” The word “rare” should actually mean something: it should mean a certain percentage or a certain ratio for example “1%” or “1 per 1 million”, etc. Describing things as rare but then failing to provide the actual numerical data deprives the reader of understanding what the word means in a given context. As such, the word is meaningless and therefore the word is simply a distractor to change the focus of the conversation away from the personal and ethical consequences to one of numbers and ultimately a person’s just encountering their own “bad luck.”
By starting a conversation with the word “rare” the authors are trying to change the emphasis of the conversation which should be emotional, medical, legal to one of numbers, frequency and statistics.
If a mother is killed because she was forced to comply with illegal drug mandates from bribed politicians, the the emphasis of the conversation should be on corruption, political change, anger, sadness and protective action to prevent this from occuring again; the emphasis should not be a distraction and neutralization of the news by describing it as “rare” as if she was killed from her own bad luck.
As drug-tech companies have come to dominate all conversations, “rare” has suddenly become a common word when describing too-common devastating adverse effects from drugs/vaccines.
The new aberration I’ve noticed is that common and killer consequences from drugs and vaccines are suddenly being mislabeled and buffered as “rare”, even when—especially in the case of experimental vaccines—the authors openly acknowledge (and everyone knows) that:
No effective structure exists for capturing these events; the current systems are passive and optional, so obviously most doctors/nurses will opt out from the extra work.
Doctors receive no standardized training in vaccine pharmacology, nor in recognizing adverse drug/vaccine reactions, nor in how to report these events to national/international databases.
Doctors are actively discouraged from making reports.
Drug companies hide data and lie about risks.
Most doctors/nurses remain silent and fail to file a report even when they have surely witnessed an adverse vaccine reaction (according to the CDC in 2019).
