They can either trust The Daily Beagle, whom have provided citations, references, endless amounts of evidence -- all compiled, manually, together, taking many months of effort -- and has been non-stop critical of pharmaceutical companies to the point of spearheading lawsuits (several successful), drafting legal proposals, highlighting clinical fraud, presenting the earliest analysis of the EMA leaks and highlighting predictions that ultimately have largely come true (including the warnings of genome integration in sperm and ovary cells)...
...or they can take the word of people who have bandwagoned the criticisms, compiled zero case reports, contribute no new resources to the movement, have ties to untrustworthy groups (E.G. government, pharmaceutical companies, etc), whom rely on verbal attacks and marking everything they disagree with as 'fake' with no critical analysis or effort put in.
===
And if this seems like a hard choice, let The Daily Beagle advance an alternate version of Pascal's wager:
Scenario 1: The Daily Beagle is right, and nukes do get used. Being prepared will keep you safe. Not being prepared means you could die and works in favour of the globalist depopulation agenda.
Scenario 2: The Daily Beagle is wrong, and nukes don't get used. You happen to be prepared for a disaster that doesn't come and suffer some embarrassment. You get to re-use the materials in some other disaster scenario (E.G. food shortage, hurricane, gas leak, etc). TDB's reputation gets obliterated.
No globalist outlet is going to advise you protect yourself and your family, or keep food supplies and be prepared for a war that everybody knows is already happening.
To be fair to Mike, he was one of the first critics of government Covid policy. Here’s an interview on Talk Radio from September 2020. He had been on the show earlier than that according to Julia Hartley Brewer.
I agree that it’s a flawed work and I’m surprised Mike Yeadon has been taken in. Palmer posits that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed like Tokyo but there are no eyewitness accounts of the 300+ bombers that would have been needed to carry out a firebombing raid.
It’s almost as if Rutherford, Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, Oppenheimer, Fermi et al never existed.
Verbal criticism misses the point about total contributions. Anyone can be a verbal critic - Aseem Malhotra, for example, who gingerly pushed the shots until he lost a family member - but not everyone can contribute to forward change.
If we're going by the earliest criticism in general, then he's beat on that too.
I've been a critic of vaccines since at least 2011 (the ingredients listed are nothing new; https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/proving-childhood-vaccinations-are has been a thing for decades). In terms of COVID-19 shots, my earliest written criticism was to the UK government, Feb 2020, warning of Hoskins effect (this was long before the mRNA scandal was known). A later letter was written also to the Trump White House about March 2020, and I had already started behind the scenes political outreach in several political circles by mid-2020 (across all spectrums; including Conservatives, BLM, the vegan society and even Islamic groups).
Publication detailing the issues of the EMA leaks was late Feb 2021, but this was because I had tried to reach 20 different media outlets from December 2020 onwards and got no response - this included alt media outlets and every political spectrum you could think of (Timcast, Fox news, the Guardian, to name a few).
BMJ was March 10th 2021 and only covered one of several issues. Only Project Veritas replied but they required I expose myself, which is how you get yourself killed (just ask the Boeing whistleblowers).
The Daily Beagle Substack exists primarily because of the sheer amount censorship the coverage got. Unlike Yeadon, I did not get the red carpet rolled out by mainstream media for my efforts, and I did not simply just talk in public, I went *balls to the wall* against the vaccine mandate.
Had you caught me in 2019 I would have told you ID2020 and the vaccine mandate were coming.
"A 1990 medical study of Hiroshima-Nagasaki survivors and their descendants, found no noticeable genetic damage or cancer increases, etc."
And yet if they read beyond the cherry picked headline, the article actually states:
"Mr. Boice said the primary health problems faced by the survivors has been cancer. Those who were young children at the time also suffered impaired growth."
To add: remember, it isn't as simple as 'aha, I have proven X explosion isn't nuclear', or 'aha, I have denied this claim'.
You'd have to prove how nuclear reactors actually work. You can't deny the bomb and then ignore the elephant in the room of how >133 nuclear reactors in the US work; each one capable of a Chernobyl explosion if mis-managed, and stuffed with enough concrete as if they expected said explosion.
You'd have to argue something insane like thousands of nuclear engineers studying nuclear physics are not only wrong, but perpetuating a lie every day they go to work in a nuclear power plant, that none of the nuclear reactors (which produce the fissile material for use in bombs) work despite the US having power, that nuclear powered US aircraft carriers and nuclear powered submarines are powered by some sort of non-diesel requiring magic energy source, that countries building giant concrete storage facilities deep underground for nuclear waste are in on it, the entire Geiger counter industry (which was originally invented back in 1908) is fraudulent. The entire ports and border authorities that screen for radioactive materials using Geiger counters. Anyone who has gotten ill from radiation poisoning and died.
It is a massive claim that requires a massive amount of evidence, and a handful of eyewitness accounts -- which frankly can be misinterpretations given the average Japanese citizen at the time had absolutely no idea what radiation or nuclear bombs were -- is just not going to cut it.
And even if we entertain the naive hypothesis nukes aren't real -- the argument is they can drop a bomb that 'basically behaves like a nuke'. So what's the difference? What point does it even prove? Can you imagine how happy the US civilians will be that they got vapourised by a 'definitely not nuke' bomb that behaves 'exactly like a nuke'?
I'm personally disgusted I even have to hold this conversation but I guess conscience died out within the US government eons ago and they will barrel scrape even the most insulting of lies in a desperate bid to cover themselves. And for what? To fool a couple of thousand people there aren't nukes?
No-one ever moved back to Chernobyl. Were those incendiary bombs too?
Essentially folks have two choices before them.
They can either trust The Daily Beagle, whom have provided citations, references, endless amounts of evidence -- all compiled, manually, together, taking many months of effort -- and has been non-stop critical of pharmaceutical companies to the point of spearheading lawsuits (several successful), drafting legal proposals, highlighting clinical fraud, presenting the earliest analysis of the EMA leaks and highlighting predictions that ultimately have largely come true (including the warnings of genome integration in sperm and ovary cells)...
...or they can take the word of people who have bandwagoned the criticisms, compiled zero case reports, contribute no new resources to the movement, have ties to untrustworthy groups (E.G. government, pharmaceutical companies, etc), whom rely on verbal attacks and marking everything they disagree with as 'fake' with no critical analysis or effort put in.
===
And if this seems like a hard choice, let The Daily Beagle advance an alternate version of Pascal's wager:
Scenario 1: The Daily Beagle is right, and nukes do get used. Being prepared will keep you safe. Not being prepared means you could die and works in favour of the globalist depopulation agenda.
Scenario 2: The Daily Beagle is wrong, and nukes don't get used. You happen to be prepared for a disaster that doesn't come and suffer some embarrassment. You get to re-use the materials in some other disaster scenario (E.G. food shortage, hurricane, gas leak, etc). TDB's reputation gets obliterated.
No globalist outlet is going to advise you protect yourself and your family, or keep food supplies and be prepared for a war that everybody knows is already happening.
To be fair to Mike, he was one of the first critics of government Covid policy. Here’s an interview on Talk Radio from September 2020. He had been on the show earlier than that according to Julia Hartley Brewer.
https://youtu.be/MBW16MMtKR4?si=-R1Y5gV81fLRlXUK
As a member of Doctors for Covid Ethics he wrote to EMA in February 2021 warning about the vaccines.
https://doctors4covidethics.org/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-to-the-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-vaccine-safety-concerns/
A fellow member of D4CE is Dr Michael Palmer who wrote Hiroshima Revisited
https://archive.org/details/Hiroshima_revisited
I agree that it’s a flawed work and I’m surprised Mike Yeadon has been taken in. Palmer posits that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed like Tokyo but there are no eyewitness accounts of the 300+ bombers that would have been needed to carry out a firebombing raid.
It’s almost as if Rutherford, Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, Oppenheimer, Fermi et al never existed.
Verbal criticism misses the point about total contributions. Anyone can be a verbal critic - Aseem Malhotra, for example, who gingerly pushed the shots until he lost a family member - but not everyone can contribute to forward change.
If we're going by the earliest criticism in general, then he's beat on that too.
I've been a critic of vaccines since at least 2011 (the ingredients listed are nothing new; https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/proving-childhood-vaccinations-are has been a thing for decades). In terms of COVID-19 shots, my earliest written criticism was to the UK government, Feb 2020, warning of Hoskins effect (this was long before the mRNA scandal was known). A later letter was written also to the Trump White House about March 2020, and I had already started behind the scenes political outreach in several political circles by mid-2020 (across all spectrums; including Conservatives, BLM, the vegan society and even Islamic groups).
Publication detailing the issues of the EMA leaks was late Feb 2021, but this was because I had tried to reach 20 different media outlets from December 2020 onwards and got no response - this included alt media outlets and every political spectrum you could think of (Timcast, Fox news, the Guardian, to name a few).
BMJ was March 10th 2021 and only covered one of several issues. Only Project Veritas replied but they required I expose myself, which is how you get yourself killed (just ask the Boeing whistleblowers).
By October 2021 I was spearheading the lawsuit against the vaccine mandates (you can find proof of that here: https://gitlab.com/TheUnderdog/general-research/-/commits/main/MandateMessages/Georgia.txt?ref_type=heads). I had already done outreach to YouTubers and compiled a massive document with 160 citations raising questions back in September 2021 (found here: https://gitlab.com/TheUnderdog/general-research/-/blob/main/COVID-19-Shot-Questions/Revision-3-2/COVID19ShotQuestionsRevision3_2.pdf?ref_type=heads).
The Daily Beagle Substack exists primarily because of the sheer amount censorship the coverage got. Unlike Yeadon, I did not get the red carpet rolled out by mainstream media for my efforts, and I did not simply just talk in public, I went *balls to the wall* against the vaccine mandate.
Had you caught me in 2019 I would have told you ID2020 and the vaccine mandate were coming.
The article amusingly contradicts itself.
"A 1990 medical study of Hiroshima-Nagasaki survivors and their descendants, found no noticeable genetic damage or cancer increases, etc."
And yet if they read beyond the cherry picked headline, the article actually states:
"Mr. Boice said the primary health problems faced by the survivors has been cancer. Those who were young children at the time also suffered impaired growth."
So: New York Times, known for publishing government propaganda (see: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/media-are-in-bed-with-the-government) falsely claims nuclear bomb doesn't cause genetic damage whilst contradicting itself and saying there's cancer and impaired growth in children.
If their parsing of that article - which has the contradiction at the forefront - is that bad, I'd hate to see what the rest of their work entails.
Most of the article is written in the usual red flag of "SCREAMING ALL CAPS" and is noticeably sparse on actual evidence.
To add: remember, it isn't as simple as 'aha, I have proven X explosion isn't nuclear', or 'aha, I have denied this claim'.
You'd have to prove how nuclear reactors actually work. You can't deny the bomb and then ignore the elephant in the room of how >133 nuclear reactors in the US work; each one capable of a Chernobyl explosion if mis-managed, and stuffed with enough concrete as if they expected said explosion.
You'd have to argue something insane like thousands of nuclear engineers studying nuclear physics are not only wrong, but perpetuating a lie every day they go to work in a nuclear power plant, that none of the nuclear reactors (which produce the fissile material for use in bombs) work despite the US having power, that nuclear powered US aircraft carriers and nuclear powered submarines are powered by some sort of non-diesel requiring magic energy source, that countries building giant concrete storage facilities deep underground for nuclear waste are in on it, the entire Geiger counter industry (which was originally invented back in 1908) is fraudulent. The entire ports and border authorities that screen for radioactive materials using Geiger counters. Anyone who has gotten ill from radiation poisoning and died.
It is a massive claim that requires a massive amount of evidence, and a handful of eyewitness accounts -- which frankly can be misinterpretations given the average Japanese citizen at the time had absolutely no idea what radiation or nuclear bombs were -- is just not going to cut it.
And even if we entertain the naive hypothesis nukes aren't real -- the argument is they can drop a bomb that 'basically behaves like a nuke'. So what's the difference? What point does it even prove? Can you imagine how happy the US civilians will be that they got vapourised by a 'definitely not nuke' bomb that behaves 'exactly like a nuke'?
I'm personally disgusted I even have to hold this conversation but I guess conscience died out within the US government eons ago and they will barrel scrape even the most insulting of lies in a desperate bid to cover themselves. And for what? To fool a couple of thousand people there aren't nukes?
No-one ever moved back to Chernobyl. Were those incendiary bombs too?
"I found some of the COMMENTS interesting"
From what I could see, the comments were heaping praise on the article.
"How many of the nine were not on board with the main article?"
Most were onboard with the article. I'll quote excerpts in order now I have free time for it:
"Keep up the good work." - KN
"Love your site and your work" - HW
"nuclear war could never happen" - Philip
"HE SAID THERE WAS NONE" - Mog
"The nuclear bomb propaganda films were made here" - G
" I have been thinking this same exact thing" - Kevin B
"I also believe that the idea of a nuclear bomb is a hoax" - Doug P
The majority are in-favour of the article (7 out of 9). Please properly read your own site. I did not jump to conclusions. Thanks.