You’ve probably seen this tweet. It’s immortal.

Thanks to some overzealous censors and the Streisand effect, this tweet will be written into the history books alongside Nostradamus and Plato. Depending on who wins this very strange war, these words will either be filed under “self-evident truths” or “dangerously misleading information”. Our actions now will determine which.

This is one of the most censored tweets to exist on Twitter.

You can’t like it.

You can’t share it.

You can’t comment on it.

You can’t even copy the link to the tweet through the UI, or add it to your Twitter bookmarks.

There is only one way to interact with this tweet – by quote-tweeting it. A quote-tweet, for those who aren’t familiar with Twitter, is sort of like a retweet, but you have to add a message of your own on top of it – you cannot share this message without commenting in some way, even if just with an emoji or punctuation mark. But when you go to quote-tweet Roadtoserfdom’s tweet, you are confronted with an ominous warning. “This Tweet is misleading,” the curators of the world assert. “Learn more about how vaccines work.”

The truth of it is, this is relatively new technology and there is a lot of room for nuance when it comes to the lexicon society adopts to refer to it. The public health authorities at Twitter seem to take issue with Roadtoserfdom’s characterization of mRNA tech as “gene therapy,” which is weird, since the FDA considers it exactly that. This is from Moderna’s own SEC filings, warning their stakeholders that this novel technology might never be approved by the FDA:

We learn from Moderna’s tax filings that the FDA considers these products “gene therapy,” but Moderna’s accountants make it clear that they take issue with the FDA’s assessment of what they prefer to call “investigational medicines,” because unlike some gene therapies, theirs isn’t designed to irreversibly change cell DNA. They don’t say that they don’t modify DNA, just that they aren’t designed to permanently alter it. Even one of the earliest pioneers of mRNA technology admits that “non-viral RNA is occasionally reverse transcribed and integrated back into the genome,” but he suggests it’s nothing we need to worry about right now. We shouldn’t worry about treating our genome — the very thing that makes us who we are today —  like one of Gates’ operating systems, and we should just accept the unskippable upgrade, because this software wasn’t designed to overwrite us. Diotisalvi didn’t design his tower in Pisa to lean, either.

Twitter’s warning goes on, imploring their users: “Help keep Twitter a place for reliable info. Find out more before sharing this tweet,” with a big button compelling readers to “Find out more.” If you really must persist in sharing this tweet, the “Quote tweet” option hangs at the bottom of the warning box in gray text alongside a little pencil icon that reminds users: you will have to type something if you want to share this content. Clicking this pulls up the quote-tweet message box, allowing you to say something, and after you do that, you can finally share the tweet. The curators seem to hope you use this opportunity to say something disparaging about its contents.

How many people have gone through these tedious and unnecessary steps in order to share Roadtoserfdom’s allegedly “misleading” tweet? Unfortunately, we will never know. All tweets quote-tweeting content that has been suppressed in this way will only be seen fleetingly on the quote-tweeter’s timeline and the timelines of his followers, and promptly shuffled into the void. These tweets will not be able to be promoted, and they will not come up in a search. They will not be collated and presented to users – even the original posters, with hashtags they contain. Although you can still “View Quote Tweets” and see recent interactions, there is no way to tell how many there are without scrolling through and counting each, one by one. In effect, there is no way to observe the spread or measure the impact of this tweet. Even Roadtoserfdom3 himself may never know how many times his words have been shared – because even statistics and analytics on this tweet are being suppressed.

If Twitter administrators are concerned about the spread of misinformation, as they claim to be, inhibiting the ability of users to share “misleading” content can, perhaps, be justified, especially under a new draconian paradigm that has fostered this climate of extreme censorship. These protocols can be explained and understood by most people, and most people will go along with it, because after all it is Twitter’s platform and Twitter’s prerogative to act as a publisher, while still enjoying Section 230 protections meant to shelter public forums from liability for their users’ content, apparently. Americans generally respect the right of private industry to refuse service to clients at their discretion, so a social media platform crippling its own functionality to control content seems within their purview, and is tolerated.

Taking the additional step of suppressing statistics for a tweet that is allowed to remain on the platform escalates this to a whole nother level, and betrays the motivations of the censors. Prior to the “The Messaging” campaign, every other tweet on Twitter – even those appended with Orwellian warnings, as far as we can tell – had little numbers next to the interaction icons, indicating how much play a particular tweet has gotten. Completely suppressing the statistics of a Tweet has nothing to do with curbing the spread of misinformation. How could it?

They’re not just doing this on the front-end, either. Roadtoserfdom has noticed that they’re manipulating the statistics on the backend, as well. They’re cooking the books.

This might be filed under “publisher’s prerogative” as well, except Twitter sells exposure to clients who have purchased “promoted tweet” or other marketing services from them – and those clients rely on Twitter Analytics to see that they’re getting their money’s worth. If Twitter is manipulating statistics while charging clients for engagements that may be being manipulated – I’m no expert, but that sounds a lot like fraud.

Why would the curators go to such lengths to suppress the stats of a tweet? Suppressing the statistics for a tweet could only have one possible motivation, as far as we can tell. Controlling the appearance of consensus.

Twitter isn’t doing this in a vacuum, either. If they were, there would be massive public outcry heard on other channels. Facebook, Google, YouTube, every TV network, most major corporations – they, apparently, are still allowed to develop a consensus, and they’ve exercised this prerogative by pooling their vast resources to silence those with less power. We used to call this kind of thing a conspiracy, or at least collusion, but that implies some kind of back-room dealings. The folks who wield the power we have bestowed upon them with our ever dwindling attention spans are doing this all right out in the open in the full light of day, under a banner of moral imperative and globalist supremacy. These are the same heartless, ruthless players they’ve always been – only now, because they’ve cultivated a stranglehold on narrative, the consensus seems to be that these are our benevolent benefactors, fighting a crusade for social justice and good in the world. Do we really think anybody on this planet believes that?

Consensus is the foundation of democracy. The curators of the world used to manufacture the appearance of consensus on TV, but legacy media just isn’t holding up its end of the bargain. The “noise” of civic discourse on social media is inhibiting the curators’ ability to control the collective consciousness of the world, and they can’t stand it.

When Twitter first began appending warnings to tweets, you could capture the warnings on the page with archiving utilities such as the WayBack Machine. You can see this demonstrated by pulling up a random archive of Donald Trump’s twitter feed on prior to November 12th, 2020, (when they started to get really worried that he might actually manage to secure his election night victory) and see the warning labels dotting his feed.

After November 12th, there is a conspicuous absence of warning labels on archived Twitter feeds. Twitter appears to have implemented functionality on their platform as of November 13th that evades capture of their warning labels on web archive, ensuring that they can manipulate the discourse with impunity, without leaving a trace of how they manipulated the public mind on the public record. And since the National Archives decided to stop keeping an archive of the public discourse on Twitter in 2017, there is no official, verifiable way of documenting their manipulation. We can take screenshots and save HTML pages, but since both of these can be spoofed, there is no longer a solid way to prove that Twitter appended this warning to that tweet and when, or when the warning was quietly removed after it had served its purpose.

Twitter frequently removes the warning label when it has outlived its usefulness or becomes politically inconvenient, as they did with this Candace Owens tweet. After several countries halted certain “vaccines” due to high incidence of blot clots and heart attacks — when it became self-evident that these products were actually harming an inordinate amount of people — Twitter yanked its “Learn why vaccines are safe for most people” warning, without a word – still yet an apology. We didn’t see the “safe for most people” assertion for awhile after that, for some reason. Now it has started making the rounds again, as the curators feel the collective attention is so transient, most people have probably forgotten why they might have stopped pasting the Big Lie of “safe for most people” over concerns expressed by real individuals. 

In this climate of pervasive censorship and propaganda, there is no objective way to reflect on our immediate history in full context. Ironically, that’s what the curators of the world often suggest their fact-check warning labels are all about: context. Usually, their appended warnings say “This tweet may be misleading,” leaving room for the possibility that it might not be. Roadtoserfdom’s tweet was allegedly so incontrovertibly wrong, the curators couldn’t even allow for the possibility that they might be mistaken. No wishy-washy “may be” for this tweet. Nope. This tweet simply is wrong, no two ways about it. Not even a possibility in an alternate universe that the guy may have had a point here. What was his point?

Roadtoserfdom made several definitive statements in his controversial tweet. He said, “They’re not ‘vaccine passports,’ they’re movement licenses.” He asserted that “Lockdown is at best completely pointless universal medical isolation, and at worst ubiquitous public incarceration,” an eloquently put statement clearly at odds with the baffling guidance of government and public health officials, but the curators didn’t have much to say about that, either. They didn’t append a warning label to his tweet that said “Learn more about how lockdown saves lives,” or “Learn how vaccine passports will allow society to return to some semblance of normalcy” – maybe because those statements would be categorically untrue. 

Roadtoserfdom said, “It’s not a vaccine, it’s experimental gene therapy.” Of all the statements he made in that tweet, this is the one that the curators of the world singled out to make an example of. That’s misleading, they curators warned. You should really learn more about how vaccines work, they chided.

If the user follows their guidance and clicks the big blue button to “Find out more,” they’re taken to a page that assures the reader that like any other vaccine throughout modern medical history, these products have undergone extensive rigors, being tested, and trialed, and proven effective prior to being forced on the world. They don’t mention that as the products of “Operation Warp Speed,” many standard safety protocols and safeguards have been waived, or that other vaccines have historically been studied for at least three years, at an absolute minimum, before being rolled out to the masses. Nor do they mention what happened with all the other coronavirus vaccines that have been attempted over the years, or what happened to the lab rats in those trials. Nary a word about ADE. Certainly not a peep about antibody escape or CD8 evasion. But lots of pretty pictures!

The entire Twitter “event” is amazing, and if you haven’t yet clicked that button, you should, just to gape at how absolutely stupid they assume most of their users are. Let’s just parse the first paragraph and take a look at what they’ve done here, shall we?

Sentence by sentence: “There are multiple types of vaccines either being administered or in development to build immunity against COVID-19.”

Multiple types? There are multiple types in development, but only two types have received EUA to be administered in the US. Why are they muddying the waters by making it sound as if there are myriad vaccine options available to people? There aren’t. There are two: mRNA and adenovirus.

“Messenger RNA vaccines, also called mRNA vaccines, were some of the first to be rolled out.”

This is true; mRNA “vaccines” were the first to receive EUA by the FDA. What they don’t mention here is that this is also the first time mRNA “vaccines” have ever been deployed outside of a clinical trial. Moderna’s SEC filing is illuminating on this point. They are constantly lamenting that they’re in the red and bemoaning FDA protocols, just chomping at the bit to put this experimental tech into play to solve all their financial woes. They make it very clear in their own paperwork that they aren’t entirely confident in these products, saying “Unexpected safety issues, including any that we have not yet observed in our Phase 1 or 2 clinical trials for mRNA-1273, could lead to significant reputational damage for Moderna and our technology platform going forward” – and that was filed less than one year ago. But the curators seem pretty confident.

Back to dissecting the fact-check.

“Similar to other vaccines, they have undergone trials and testing involving thousands of volunteers before being approved.”

Interesting to note here that only the J&J “vaccine” had a trial published prior to receiving EUA. Moderna and Pfizer both published their trials after being granted EUA by the FDA, so technically, it’s the curators of the world being misleading here. Pfizer got EUA on December 11th, 2020, while their trial was published December 31st. Moderna got EUA December 18, 2020, while their study was published December 30th.

This may be academic, presuming that the FDA was privy to the studies in advance of their publication. These trials involved about 30,000 volunteers each, and tested the efficacy and impact of their products for about two months. Pfizer’s trial concluded, “A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines.” Based on this, the FDA is happy to conclude that this experimental product is “safe for most people,” even pregnant women, and now children over twelve years of age – despite a complete void of testing on these groups, and no long term data. 

Moderna’s trial concluded, “The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified.” Aside from transient local and systemic reactions? Transient optic nerve inflammation? Transient pathogenic antibodies? Aside from those, though, “no safety concerns were identified,” they say. Which is weird, since every coronavirus vaccine ever trialed on animals has resulted in physical harm of one sort or another. But Big Pharma, in collaboration with Big Tech, say that these “vaccines are safe for most people,” and those hoping to profit from this novel technology aren’t concerned about safety. Maybe because governments are granting these companies blanket immunity from any liability for these experimental “investigative medicines”?

If I go look on my social media feeds right now, there are many safety concerns being identified. Those don’t count, of course, because my mutuals aren’t necessarily all experts in the field of vaccinology. If I go read Geert Vanden Bosshe, Gates’ old vaccinologist, he’s identified a few safety concerns. He’s an expert in this field, does he count? Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier seems to have identified several safety concerns, does he count? Scientific absolutists are pushing “The Messaging,” exist in an echo chamber, and can hear nothing if it isn’t coming from their own pool of “approved” experts. Our concerns aren’t heard and addressed. The concerns of many scientists and medical professionals are not addressed. Instead, all of these concerns are maligned, mischaracterized and dismissed. Then they wonder why they have to offer people free donuts, weed, beer, sex, groceries, scholarships, and even a shot – no, five shots – no, ten shots, at a million dollars, if they just go get their damn shot already. Oh, and get your kid one, too.

The curators go on. “Scientists, immunologists, health experts and authorities from around the world explain how mRNAs and other types of vaccine are safe and effective.” Then there’s a mile long list of tweets from corrupt organizations like the WHO, trying to ELI5 basic science with cartoonish infographics and manipulative language, not one of them meaningfully addressing any of our real concerns about these experimental products. This is interesting, though:

Oh, viral vector vaccines, you say? I wonder what the FDA has to say about those.

That’s what I thought. Both the Johnson & Johnson and the Astra Zeneca products are described by the FDA as viral vector gene therapies. The Moderna and Pfizer products are mRNA adenovirus vector gene therapies. Adenovirus “vaccines” are similar to the “Plasmid DNA” gene therapies, except they aren’t circular and they aren’t DNA – they’re lipid nanoparticles, strands of mRNA encapsulated in a fatty membrane that bypass the transcription process and drop off their mRNA payload directly into the cytoplasm of the cell. All of these products are still described by the FDA as gene therapies.

So what, exactly, is misleading about Roadtoserfdom’s tweet?

For that matter, why should the disembodied voice of an authoritarian superpower (because that’s effectively what Twitter has become) have autonomy over our civic discourse? Why are we allowing US tech companies to control the appearance of consensus? The suppression of Roadtoserfdom’s tweet is not an isolated incident of censorship. As we’ve documented, this all-out assault on our inalienable rights and fundamental liberties started in 2015 and has escalated since, with escalations spiking around the 2020 election and the COVID crisis. Since we continue to use these platforms despite their assault on our inalienable civil liberties, because that’s where our connections are and because it’s convenient, Big Tech continues to operate with impunity, usurping our right to speak and be heard and even supplanting our voices with their own.

From “fortifying” elections to suppressing effective treatments and cures during a pandemic, to cajoling and bullying people into accepting “investigational medicines” or “gene therapies” or “viral vector vaccines,” or whatever you want to call these experimental products, these malicious and powerful forces are clearly conspiring to cause harm and control populations. They’ve also made it a violation of their Acceptable Use Policy to wonder aloud if they might be doing that.

We recall that early last year, the curators of the world made a similar decision to censor all discussion around a particular topic, under the same guise of protecting the public from supposed “misinformation.”

In fact, immediately after we were attacked with the release of the clown bug plague, social media giants rolled out a slew of new rules with which they promised to control the spread of fake news on their platforms. Zero Hedge was one of the first casualties of this new paradigm of unfettered, draconian speech control “for the public good.” After they published research into the scientists working on gain-of-function at Wuhan lab, Twitter suspended the @zerohedge account, claiming Zero Hedge was guilty of a arcane infraction they call “platform manipulation,” which is weird, since they notified Zero Hedge that the account was terminated for “targeted harassment and abuse.” Why would Twitter tell the user that he was suspended for one reason, while telling the press that the account was suspended for another? Perhaps because they found it hard to publicly justify suspending a journalist for “targeted harassment” of exposing some of the scientists who manufactured the abomination we had been attacked with. 

Scientists? Abomination? What is this conspiracy mill going on about? you might wonder. You might wonder, because the curators of the world have obliterated any semblance of discussion around the topic of how the clown bug plague came to be. From early last year up until this week, it’s been a banishing offense to contemplate the origin of the bioweapon we’ve been attacked with. Hundreds – probably thousands of doctors, scientists, researchers and medical professionals have had their social media accounts permanently terminated, while likely tens of thousands of well-intentioned people learned the hard way that freedom of speech is no longer valued by US tech platforms. Legacy media only touched the fringes of this “conspiracy theory,” getting just close enough to mock its proponents with wild derision. Why would they do this?

In February 2020, the WHO released their “guide to preventing and addressing social stigma,” explicitly instructing government, media and local organizations not to speak about the virus in terms of its origin. 

They also suggest that “influencers” like religious leaders, celebrities, or a Mayor, for example, should “go live on social media” and shake hands with leaders of the Chinese community in order to reduce potential stigma. 

Interestingly, the very same day that the WHO put out this document, Nancy Pelosi made an uncharacteristic departure from DC to visit Chinatown in her district. “That’s what we’re trying to do today is to say everything is fine here. Come, because precautions have been taken. The city is on top of the situation,” she assured the world. She also seemed to slip – catching herself nearly saying “what’s on the horizon” and amending her language to say “what is out there in other places.”

Just over month later, Nancy took a different tone when explaining away the implication that her second failed impeachment might have hindered the nation’s ability to recognize coronavirus for the imminent threat it presented. “It was self-evident. Most people knew about it, and certainly those of responsibility” knew that the most deadly pandemic in modern history was “on the horizon,” Nancy insisted, when just a month before she couldn’t acknowledge the real threat it presented to her constituents.

The curators of the world and shifters of goalposts, taking cues from the WHO, which has been shuffling CCP propaganda into their health guidance deck from the very start of this crisis, carefully crafted a world wherein most everyone on the planet would be locked in their homes, dependent on social media as their primary means of communicating with the world at large, and then prohibited us from discussing the nature of the thing that created the crisis, and God forbid you try to point a finger at Wuhan lab. That was crazy, tinfoil hat conspiracy nut stuff, and could not be tolerated because we wouldn’t want to stigmatize the nation that apparently attacked the world.

The WHO declared that it would be dehumanizing to people of Asian descent if we suggested that the Chinese Communist Party could have possibly been conducting unethical scientific research, and so US tech companies intervened in the natural ebb and flow of American civic discourse and dammed the flood of questions, theories and hypotheses that dared to suggest that the novel virus may have been deliberately engineered. Not just whether it was engineered at Wuhan lab, but whether it had been manipulated at all. Not just stifling the conversation, but suspending the accounts of any proponents of further scrutiny into the matter, during a time when those social media platforms were the only lifeline to the world for most people – at a time of unspeakable horror and dread for almost all people.

Imagine if it had not been a bioweapon but bombs being dropped on our neighborhoods, and we were told to shelter in place and at the same time forbidden from wondering aloud who was attacking us. It’s unimaginable that this could ever be allowed to happen. 

But now that economies across the world are in ruin, now that China is five years closer to overtaking the US by almost every metric and being held out by our own unscrupulous news agencies as a model to emulate, now that Fauci has all but incriminated himself in front of the Senate trying to pretend that he never funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan, now that there is a 94% probability that the clown bug was engineered, “fresh reports are swirling around US media” raising “fresh concerns” about shit we knew a year ago, now that “the experts” have expressed “fresh openness” to the idea, now we are allowed to talk about it.

While Twitter refuses to say whether they still consider lab origin theory misleading, and wouldn’t even comment on whether they will censor information about the scandal, Facebook has generously announced they will stop arbitrarily penalizing accounts that discuss the lab origin theory. Facebook also eventually expressed remorse for being so heavy-handed with their censorship of content about hydroxychloroquine, a drug that was quickly politicized after Trump touted it in March of 2020. No matter that the “controversial drug” has been proven to significantly reduce mortality in COVID victims when used early and in combination with Zinc and azithromycin, and no mention of that in subsequent mainstream reporting that continues to maintain it doesn’t work, but Facebook’s “independent” oversight board regrets that the company was so strict in suppression of any mention of the drug’s efficacy.

We can understand how HCQ was politicized, because it escaped Trump’s lips. But what about other treatments? It has now been conclusively demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that treating COVID early, like we would any other disease, can mitigate mortality almost completely. But every drug shown to effect tremendous success in treating COVID victims has been made “controversial” by a dubious press just as soon as it gained any traction. Ivermectin, a drug popularized by the unrelenting efforts of a few survivors who believed in its ability to end the plague til it was finally taken up by some outspoken medical professionals, was similarly maligned. Even the very idea of early treatment itself has been placed in Tinfoil Hat Land, in favor of wacky approaches to the disease like “why not give men female hormones so they’re less likely to die of COVID?” that were promoted by The New York Times.

How many people might’ve been spared excruciating deaths on ventilators if information about early treatment hadn’t been suppressed? Oh, only almost all of them.

But at least for now we’re allowed to talk about how the thing that has turned all of our lives upside-down came to be, so we’ve got that going for us, which is nice. At least, that is, until “the experts” form another “consensus,” and all debate and dissent must be silenced again. 

It took over a year for Big Tech to allow us to discuss something many of us knew a year ago. If our evidence were taken seriously and investigated rather than used to mock us, we could’ve isolated the culprits and held them to account by now. If we had done that, the propaganda campaigns and draconian censorship would no longer be necessary. We can determine that beyond a reasonable doubt just by analyzing the campaigns themselves. What were they trying to accomplish?

They keep us from stopping to reflect on the last year with an onslaught of constantly hyping fear. Remember how we didn’t even do the annual barrage of Top Ten lists at the end of 2020? They do not want any retrospection – for good reason. For if we stop just long enough to look back at what just happened to us, many self-evident truths are bubbling to the surface. These are so numerous and so buoyant, they can no longer be kicked underneath the foamy, murky, muddy film of fear and oppression without raising further suspicion.

We just have to ask ourselves: What has been suppressed over the last year? The answers are right there in the “controlling COVID misinformation” section of the curators’ AUPs: The nature of the virus, the origin of the virus, how the virus is spread, effective prevention, effective prophylaxis, treatments, and cures. Oh, and the truth about the last two major US elections, but that’s another story for another time.

Now, we might be able to forgive the curators of the world for obfuscating the origin of the virus, after all, we wouldn’t want to start a war or anything – and since Fauci appears to be neck deep in it, it’s complicated. We might even be able to look past their muddying the waters about the nature of the virus, because of course they wouldn’t want to throw the entire world into a hysterical panic. How the virus is spread could also fall under this category, which is probably why they are still to this day confusing the definition of “aerosolized” with that of “airborne,” even after finally acknowledging that it is, in fact, aerosolized. We might even be capable of understanding why they might suppress HCQ, since they couldn’t have Trump coming out with a cure for their bioweapon plague in advance of an election they felt they desperately needed to win for the fate of humanity. It’s not ethical, and it’s certainly not right, but it is understandable.

They didn’t stop there though, did they? Nope, even after deposing the bad orange man, they continued to leverage the pandemic against the people, suppressing early treatment, prophylaxis and effective means of prevention. We presume they did this to secure EUA for their gene therapies, a designation that could not have been afforded Big Pharma if there were any treatments acknowledged to work by the FDA. To this day, you are not allowed to say that ivermectin or HCQ are effective treatments for COVID on YouTube or Twitter. They’ve expressly forbidden it.

And you are definitely not allowed to say that the COVID vaccines don’t work – but you’re also not allowed to say that the vaccines definitely do work. I guess the curators of the world just want to hedge their bets.

If you’re not allowed to say they don’t work, you’re certainly not allowed to say they might actually cause harm. That might dissuade the “vaccine hesitant” from signing on to play lab rat in the largest medical experiment in human history, and the curators wouldn’t want that. Even as story after story of post-jab mortalities and severe side effects drip out, and VAERS and Yellow Card systems showcase off-the-charts incidents of death and crippling side effects, the curators insist that these experimental gene therapies are “safe for most people.”

Just as Google, Facebook, and Twitter coordinated to suppress the truth about the origin and nature of the virus, they have now banded together to work with certain governments to manage “the messaging” around COVID vaccines. This is effectively the same campaign, as the effect will be the same: getting the COVID spike into as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.

Here’s the thing: the spike is fucking pathogenic, like the auto-antibodies being produced by spike homologies (similarities) to human protein. Many of the vaxxed have become Typhoid Marys, pumping out variants of concern just as Adam Gaertner warned about a month ago, infecting those they spend time near – those the curators told you to get vaxxed to protect – with escape mutations. Not only that, the vaccinated are generating 1,000-10,000% more bioweapon spike protein than COVID victims with natural infections. These soluble spikes exhibit a much higher level of biological activity, due to being unanchored to the viral membrane, and, unbound from viral baggage, are free to roam about the body, wreaking havoc.

See, a new study demonstrates that the spike doesn’t stay localized in the muscle tissue at the injection site of the vaxxed as was expected, but instead seeps into the blood where it combines with receptors on platelets and cells that line blood vessels, causing clumping, clotting, bleeding, and heart problems. Or the spike can leech through the blood brain barrier and create neurological problems. This study shows the spike over-activating ACE2, causing the body to downregulate the receptor, leading to inflammation and a number of other serious issues that can occur at some point down the line. When a study found that 10% of vax recipients may have cancer, the takeaway appears to be that we shouldn’t bother biopsying those individuals. “You really don’t know if what you are seeing is from cancer or vaccination, because they look exactly the same on imaging,” but even this doesn’t seem to be cause for consternation.

Despite the CDC’s schizophrenic guidance that pregnant women should definitely get vaccinated but don’t really need to talk with their doctor about it, there are many indicators that the spike is detrimental to reproductive health. A leaked Pfizer study demonstrates that an inordinate amount of that spike will be sequestered in women’s ovaries. This may or may not have anything to do with why some women are reporting bizarre, heavy, or neverending periods post-vaccination, while other women are reportedly experiencing sudden early-onset menopause. Identical amino acid sequences in syncytin and the spike are also likely to be be a contributing factor to these weird cycles – in some women, the immune system is almost certainly shredding placenta, confusing it for the spike that the vax trained the immune system to attack. As if all that isn’t bad enough, it’s being shown that pathogenic antibodies can be transferred through breast milk, potentially causing bleeding disorders in the gastrointestinal tract of nursing infants suckling on their vaxxed mothers. 

Women’s reproductive health is not the only casualty of the spike, though. We’ve known for a long time that coronavirus targets ACE2, but now we know that it also goes after and damages mitochondria. Researcher Walter Chestnut suggests it is very likely that some men will also be rendered infertile through exposure to the spike – whether via natural infection, or by way of the vax. Chestnut’s work seems to indicate this won’t be much of a problem for most people, however, because we’ll be too busy succumbing the effects of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.

All of that might sound far-fetched, til you read internal Pfizer documents that just leaked, exposing hand-wringing over “commercial manufacturing not producing vaccines to the specifications expected.” Vaccine manufacturers are declining to comment on what percentage mRNA integrity their products are even aiming for, and refusing to address questions about the cause of “the unexpectedly low percentage mRNA integrity in certain batches” of their EUA gene therapies. In this shocking testimony to the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Krueger analyzes the Pfizer documents, and reveals that some batches of these experimental products had only 55% mRNA integrity. Fifty-five percent!

Anything less than 100% mRNA integrity is just begging for the prion disease Walter describes, as well as a host of other potential maladies – and Walter he is right, it’ll probably be about nine months til many vax recipients begin experiencing Alzheimer’s-like symptoms. Chestnut’s is a particularly black pill that will be hard for many to swallow til the impacts he has predicted have crippled our society (along with hundreds of millions of human beings), but every day more information comes to light that seems to validate his findings.

In addition to all that, we can just compare the mortality rates of many countries prior to and after starting their mass-inoculation campaigns to paint a pretty grim picture. In England, more people have died of COVID after the vax rollout than before. Same story in Malaysia, Fiji, India, Thailand, Paraguay, East Timor, Cape Verde, Taiwan, etc, etc, and even here in the USA. Doctors are testifying that most, if not every, COVID case they are seeing in their ICUs now are what they call “breakthrough cases” – people who have been vaccinated presenting with COVID symptoms. 

Moreover, a comment posted to the Lancet last month suggests that the manufacturers of all these experimental gene therapies are basing their “99% effective” claims on the 1% of people with natural infections who develop severe symptoms or suffer mortality, rather than an honest analysis of a beneficial effect on risk groups’ outcomes. If we un-fuck their statistical algorithm, actual “efficacy” is closer to 1% – about the same rate of natural serious disease, assuming everyone in the sample all had COVID. Considering the use of this inaccurate metric to report results, results such as AstraZeneca’s are suddenly cast in a much darker light. If only one in a hundred COVID victims will suffer serious disease, and yet AstraZeneca has reported 62% efficacy by this metric – are 38 out of 100 AstraZeneca vax recipients suffering serious adverse events from that vaccine?! And this is without any long-term data – who knows what the long-term impacts may be.

Not to worry though, insist the curators of public health, “health officials consider COVID-19 vaccines safe for most people.” Notice now they’ve dropped “public” from “health officials” this time, as the public health authorities of many countries that are getting wise to this scam might take issue with the assertion.

Just this week, for example, the Indian Bar Association has filed a lawsuit against WHO stakeholders, demanding accountability for its disinformation campaign against ivermectin. India was, if you recall, doing famously well managing the COVID crisis with early treatment and prophylaxis with off-label drugs like ivermectin and HCQ – until, that is, they traded away their prerogative to prescribe ivermectin for vaccine ingredients, stopped using ivermectin and began their mass-vaccination campaign. Finally last month they gave the go-ahead for doctors to prescribe ivermectin again, and what do you know, the crisis was mitigated, again. Fact-checkers have an answer for this too, however dull it may be, quick to point out that there is no solid evidence between correlation and causation. They would like us to keep in mind that “Neither HCQ or ivermectin is approved in the US for COVID-19 (as if that should be reason enough for India not to save their population with it), and the FDA and WHO recommend against using them to prevent or treat COVID-19.”

Just as the engineers of this abomination coated the spike with sugar, the curators of the world are offering a big spoonful of sugar to help the spike go down. They’ll assuage all of these serious concerns with comforting statements of certainties from “official sources,” and bright, colorful graphics. They’ll assure us that the virus evolved naturally, until they can’t suppress the truth any longer, and they’ll insist the vax is “safe and effective for most people” until most people are suffering from “rare, severe side effects” of the vaccine, and then they’ll act as if they didn’t know – because they didn’t know it was a bioweapon – how could they have known – and so how could they have known it was a bad idea to inject everyone on the planet with the bioweapon’s spike. Then they’ll say “Oops, sorry” and carry on trying to kill us all. Why? Because we continue to allow them to get away with it.

Facebook just released their quarterly report, highlighting that they have removed over eighteen million “misleading” posts about COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic. The company boasted that they have appended these Orwellian warning labels on almost two hundred million posts related to COVID-19, and promise to suppress accounts that discourage participating in the experiment. They are also proud to have removed five million posts related to suicide or self-harm, almost all of which will be censored from the discourse before ever being seen by a person. Nearly 200,000 of these posts, they acknowledge, were removed “due to an error” in February of this year, when their “media matching technology removed a large amount of non-violating content,” eventually restoring the posts. Strikingly, appeals to restore content related to suicide or self-harm are almost non-existent after March – something the curators would like to think indicates their algorithms are operating on-point, but which we believe could be a pointer to a much darker truth.

If you happened to be locked down by COVID restrictions, frightened and alone in an uncertain world as the plague ravaged your community and “media-matching technology” on the only platform on which you could communicate with your friends, family, and peers mistook your questions about the virus for misinformation, or your desperate cry for help for a threat of self-harm? Sorry, the curators have stretched themselves too thin acting as the arbiters of acceptable speech and couldn’t be bothered to spare a pair of human eyes to review your appeal. 

The deeply cynical policies of the curators of the world appoint their authors the final authority on the very nature of reality, to the detriment of everything that we’ve ever held dear.

If we are wrong about all of these things, and we really, really, really hope we are wrong, let us voice our concerns, and counter them with facts, not with censorship and derision. By suppressing truths that appear self-evident, the curators only betray themselves as the malicious and powerful forces they’ve forbidden us from accusing them of being. By disallowing us from wondering aloud whether all of this might be a conspiracy to harm and control populations, they expose their agenda to do exactly that. If it weren’t a gene therapy, Roadtoserfdom would be allowed to say it’s a gene therapy, and he would be ratioed accordingly. By continuing to share his tweet despite their interventions, we are ratioing the curators of the world, and by suppressing even the truth about that ratio, they expose the soft underbelly of their frailty and cowardice.

Where should we stick the knife in? Roadtoserfdom believes we should mass-recall our “elected” leaders, starting on the local level. It makes a lot of sense, but nobody pays much attention to local politics, preferring to focus on the gaping, blatant corruption witnessed at the top of the power player’s pyramid scheme. Before we can even think about pulling off a mass-recall, the first thing that has to happen is we all must get on the same page about what’s going on – we need to form the consensus that the curators have been desperately trying to circumvent, and it needs to be indisputable. Are we capable of polling the people to determine the nature of our collective disposition anymore, when we’ve lost faith in our ability to carry out free and fair elections? How can we prove that most people aren’t on board with sacrificing their sovereignty for the promise of a “new normal,” when even if we all affirm that truth, the message will be supplanted by the curators?

Start by downloading Roadtoserfdom’s tweet as a PDF, print it, and post it up all over your neighborhood. Order some stickers and put them up everywhere, or wear one of these T-shirts everywhere to spread the word. Share this information with your neighbors. Post it on bulletin boards at parks, markets, and community spaces. Wherever we still have a right to free speech, share these words – before it is too late.

TL;DR: If censors hadn’t suppressed the truth about the virus, we might’ve known better than to allow ourselves and our children be injected with the deadly spike of the bioweapon we were attacked with. Now they’re finally conceding lab origin while suppressing the truth about their mRNA “vaccines,” which is even worse. 

Contents

Navigate This Article