The Pfizer Documents

The Best Way To Convince a “Normie”? A contender, at least, for this prize position

“To change the World, we don’t need a few people to know even more information; we need many more people to know the basics.”

[Me]

“The truth movement doesn’t have an evidence problem; it has a communication problem”.

Feargus O’Connor Greenwood.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a video or article which would make almost anyone wake up to what is happening?

If it wasn’t obvious to you before the world-wide coup d’état in 2020, I imagine it is now, that not only are there a lot of people who can’t discern the truth about what is going on, but - more disturbingly - there are many who don’t want to. Perhaps the truth is just too uncomfortable for them to face, given the resources (mental and physical) at their disposal.

It’s frustrating, isn’t it, how difficult it is to persuade people to inform themselves further. It feels rather like being a spectator at a magic trick like this one¹: the target person is mystified, but not those with a wider perspective. (Of course a crucial difference is that he has not been trained to think that a disappearing bottle of water is normal, so he WANTS to understand, unlike people who mistakenly think they do understand what’s going on in the World)!

So I’m perpetually searching for two things:

• arguments cogent enough to convince people – whether in the form of video, podcast, presentation, or essay;

• and I keep up the hope that I shall come across someone open-minded enough for me to help them see what is going on.

When I read or watch something which makes me think “well this makes it really easy for anyone to see; perhaps this should be the first thing I should show someone who might understand”, I save it onto a drive, and make a little mental note. It is remarkable to me just how many (many!) times my reaction to watching a video or reading an article is “Ahah! This is the one: it’s as clear as day”!

To be clear, I’m not satisfied yet. Earlier candidates for “The Eyeopener!” were mainly clarifying for the audience that it was a bad idea to take “the vaccine”: an important step in the right direction, but it does not include the facet that it was a long-standing plan - part of a larger agenda.

My latest contender should wake a lot of people up but it’s far from perfect. It’s a free-style interview, and succeeds in being easy to follow, potentially authoritative, and convincingly revelatory. But it doesn’t come with references for the sceptical to peruse.

There are (it seems to me) about three Levels of rigour, or difficulty of explanation, which need to be available.

1. Rhetoric that anyone will understand, that will motivate and inspire … (like Naomi Wolf’s talk that I shall come to) … with “links” to how to verify the assertions in it.

   

   Dr. Naomi Wolf
   

2. Justification of the assertions in 1, an explanation of the research or historical facts: the sort of thing John Campbell produces, with links to the actual papers for those who want to see the data.

3. The actual scientific papers, or historical documents confirming the facts.

Level 1 - the rhetoric - will engage maximum people; and Level 3 will provide the fundamental firm foundation; but links to a clear explanation of how it works and where to find the data is also essential, to convince those whose reaction to a Level 1 polemic is “that can’t be true – can it?”.

There are now quite a few people trying to produce “Level 2” helpful explanations, aimed at people of varying levels of scientific education or historical knowledge. John Campbell does a splendid job of explaining the significance of scientific papers to (many more than) his three million subscribers. E.g. there’s this video of his (called “One in 35 myocardial injury”)

which makes clear from the start the significance of this scientific paper² the significance of which would be VERY easy to miss if you just grappled with the scientific paper first.

He’s not perfect of course: it was very frustrating to drop in on his videos for the – what was it? - first 18 months or so of the covid episode. Judging from his recent interview with Triggernometry, he still hasn’t cottoned on to a couple of basics like the deliberate conspiracy (it sounds as if he still thinks it is purely greed and graft).

Personally I like to hear the nitty-gritty biochemical detail, such as from exemplars like Jessica Rose, Walter Chestnut, John Dee or Ivor Cummings; but John Campbell’s style is better for aiming at a much wider audience, which is what we need.

---

As a personal aside, I have been rather pessimistic, I’m afraid, about people understanding things. So when I say that I was in the fortunate position of knowing that the coup was coming more than a decade ago (thanks in large part to investigative journalist James Corbett) it is not a boast – it is a shameful confession. I feel ashamed that I did such a poor job of preparing those near and dear to me for what was coming. It is not that I didn’t try: I did, but not hard enough; and I was far too complacent about how effective I had been. Wishful thinking!

And I confess that, when it did become clear - after the “two (or three) weeks to flatten the curve” was over - that it wasn’t yet another rehearsal but the actual coup, my reaction was not to stand up and proselytise like Mike Yeadon, Dolores Cahill, Del Bigtree, Tess Lawrie or any number of other heroes, world-wide, but rather to think mainly about how I could escape the attention of the coming tyrants.

So my own attempts to help people understand what is going on have been feeble, reluctant, tardy, and (of course) largely ineffective. OK, self-flagellation ends: but if any part of what I am saying comes across as critical of these amazing people, I hope I’ve made clear my humility and deep respect for all those who seem to be incredibly productive, doing the work of two or three normal people (or four or five of me).

---

My latest “Ah!--This-would-make-it-clear-to-anyone,-if-they-would-just-pay-attention-to-something-other-than-the-TV” is an interview that Dr. Naomi Wolf gave to UK Column, [not to be confused with the one she gave to Hillsdale College, which may have included falling into into a statistical trap]. In this she lays out very simply some of what has been learned from the more than three thousand volunteers combing through Pfizer’s research records (you know – that stuff they wanted to keep secret for 75 years). It’s devastating news (to some people) that Pfizer knew from their own prior research that their injections would kill and disable millions of people. This is a Level 1 presentation by Naomi – aimed at motivating a wide audience.

Now, very commendably, Naomi also had the initiative to to organise those wonderful volunteers – many highly credentialed – to go through the Pfizer documents. The teams of volunteers produce “Reports” aimed at clarifying what is learned, which are similar in tone to scientific papers, in other words Level 3 – the sort of thing that’s necessary for being as certain as possible of the scientific facts. (Or for litigation: Naomi’s organisation – “Daily Clout” - is involved in doing that too)!

Now, consider Naomi’s choice of topics for her short interview. What made her choose those few points to make, out of the huge array of medical, scientific, political, historical, and legal points expounded on the Daily Clout (and elsewhere) that she could have chosen from? Surely it was because those points were an attempt at the most significant, the most emotive, whose significance was easy to understand – good rhetoric in other words. And it was a great choice of points to grab people’s attention, to realise things that they didn’t know, and be highly motivated to share that information.

But in it’s current form Naomi’s prodigious output lacks the links from Level 1 to Level 2. There needs to be at least one hyperlink for each of the major assertions she made in her polemic on the same web-page as the video. On the Daily Clout web page for that talk³ there are no links, nor on the Rumble copy⁴; the UK Column’s web page for the same interview⁵ has lots of related links, but not specific to Naomi’s assertions.

The Daily Clout has condensed information gleaned from the Pfizer documents into their “Reports”. (There are currently more than 70 of them, which include many other topics besides the Pfizer documents). These Reports clarify the significance of the contents of the documents; and quote line and page number in those Pfizer documents; but links from the videos to those Reports are needed. I searched her Daily Clout web site to see how to confirm her assertions - (not because I doubted her, I just wanted to see how to confirm it) - but did not find it easy to locate relevant articles. There are a great many articles as well as the more formal “Reports”, on a wide variety of topics. At the moment it’s far too large a challenge for most people to search and sift through all the information on The Daily Clout, to find the evidence backing up a specific assertion.

(They have compiled a number of their reports into a book, which will serve a number of uses, but suitable for a small number of people compared to how many are needed, and really just those who are already motivated).

For example, in her interview, one of the accusations she made was that Pfizer knew in early 2021 that their mRNA injection caused dire risks to foetus and infant - including death. Pregnant women were then encouraged to get the “vaccine”! (We shall probably not know the full impact of this “vaccine”on fertility for a couple of generations).

Now deliberately putting unborn babies at risk is enough to interest almost anybody; it’s simple to see the significance of it, and it should motivate people to act. It took me a long time, but I found their Report 69⁶, which lays out, in a form that is relatively easy for a motivated person to follow, the details and the original documents concerned.

What the World really needs at the moment is a “critical mass”⁷ of people who understand what is going on. The huge amount of work which Daily Clout (and many others) have spent in compiling information - on the history, the science, the legal and financial shenanigans – is going to be wasted (for the aspect of waking sufficient people up) if enough people don’t look at it. Right now it is too difficult to find, for producing the necessary awareness, the mass movement, the group consciousness, the paradigm shift, the zeitgeist.

To change the World we don’t need a few people to know even more information; we need many more people to know the basics.

Yes, those diligent and honourable researchers are doing essential work for establishing the scientific basis for what is known, and for preparing for legal action.

But to spread the essential information, smoother, easier access to it is needed. It’s as if we have the gun to grab people’s attention (the Level 1 rhetoric); we have the ammunition (the Level 3 facts); we need to get on and actually project it effectively at people.

So the talk or interview videos, which are easily shared, need hyperlinks. And near the top of those explanatory pages, like the Daily Clout “Reports” e.g., there should be a short video explaining the evidence, its significance, and its provenance, at the sort of level of difficulty that John Campbell aims at.

Keep it simple

It’s not a lot of information that people really need.

• People in the US and China conspired to create a bioweapon

• Governments the World over deliberately deceived their populace about the severity of the disease (exaggerating it) and tried to terrorise them

• The conspirators knowingly stopped effective treatment and substituted destructive measures

• The major weapon (correct term) was the “vaccine”: it was known in advance that it was particularly destructive in terms of reproductive capability (with detrimental effects on the female cycle, the foetus, sperm production etc)

• … and that it would kill and maim large numbers of people.

That’s the sort of list, although points might be added or taken away. They don’t e.g. need to know that the agenda has been going on for more than a century. They don’t need to know (immediately) that the anthropogenic contribution to global warming is insignificant – that they are being lied to about it.

If revelations from the Pfizer documents make plain the last two points on the above list, people will be more receptive to considering the others.

Initially they just need to twig that they have been lied to about something really significant, like that the vaccine is a bioweapon. If they are convinced, then enough people will be motivated to look further; enough to create a “critical mass” of people.

---

That is the main point I wanted to make – that we need to grab people’s attention, but make it as easy as possible for them to check the facts; but here are two related background points.

---

Naomi’s Earlier interview

That interview was with UK Column, remember. But it was in the wake of an earlier interview, from which you can see what happens to people who try and disseminate the truth, whilst the mainstream media are all corporate-captured. Naomi had given that earlier interview to Mark Steyn, at GB News, for which Mark Steyn had been found by Ofcom (the body responsible for regulating broadcasting in the UK) to have been in breach of their rules. They found that Mark Steyn, by allowing Naomi Wolf to say her piece unchallenged, had in their judgement “failed to protect broadcast audiences from harmful material”. Naturally, in their investigation Ofcom⁸ did not find it necessary to examine the veracity of what Dr. Wolf had said. They ostensibly assumed - perhaps because it was at variance with government policy - that it must be untrue. They particularly objected to Mark Steyn agreeing when Naomi said that

“Covid-19 vaccines had caused “almost every conceivable kind of damage” and that it is the “biggest public scandal this century if Western governments knew about the damage right at the beginning … and they’re still insisting right now that everybody gets the 37^th booster shot”

It’s hard to see how anyone could genuinely object to that, given that the evidence of all the damage is now overwhelming, and it is a conditional sentence – “IF Western governments knew”. They also (unsurprisingly now) objected to Dr. Wolf’s assertion that if Pfizer or the government knew in advance that the injection was going to kill such large numbers of people that it was “mass murder”. If!

"These claims had the potential to impact on viewers' decisions about their health and were therefore potentially harmful,"

If her assertion is true (i.e. that Pfizer knew in advance that the injections would cause many deaths) then the claims were also “potentially” ENORMOUSLY BENEFICIAL, if they stop more people accidentally poisoning themselves. (… or taking the gamble, since about 70% of the vaccine batches seem to have been orders of magnitude less harmful than the rest).

And if their (Ofcom’s) position is that it is not their rôle to ascertain the truth or falsity of the claims, then as far as they should be concerned, both “potentials” are there – potentially harmful and also potentially beneficial. If there has been a deliberate campaign to poison the World’s population, don’t you think it is of interest and significance to them?

Ofcom accused Dr. Wolf that

“There was no scientific scrutiny of the evidence she claimed to have to support her claims”

Well, the interview would not have been the best medium for citations; and Ofcom may not be aware of the existing scientific scrutiny - if they don’t look. Apparently they were oblivious of the irony of them doing exactly what they accused Dr. Wolf of doing – reaching a conclusion without any need for them - Ofcom - to have any “scientific scrutiny” before pronouncing; they just tacitly assumed and implied - on no stated grounds - that what she said was false.

“The legitimate aim pursued by the 2003 Act and the Code is to protect broadcast audiences from harmful material.”

(… notice not “potentially harmful material”, which is what they claimed had happened). Apparently they didn’t feel the obligation to “protect broadcast audiences from harmful material” (or even potentially harmful material) when they allowed the UK government to broadcast their propaganda about the mRNA injections, despite the government’s implausible claim that they would stop transmission (which turned out to be untrue, unsurprisingly), mitigated symptoms (no evidence for that either) and were safe - without the necessary couple of generations going by demonstrating that this was the case. If ever there was an instance of the populace needing protection from potentially harmful material it was certainly then. Where were you, Ofcom?

Naturally I am aware that this is exactly what one would expect from a bunch of government lickspittles⁹ like Ofcom. Nevertheless, sometimes the obvious does need stating.

One of the upshots of this interview (together with another similar “breech”) was that Mark Steyn (the interviewer) lost his job. Apparently his employer (GB News Ltd.) thought it fair that if there were a fine from Ofcom, that it should be Mark who was liable to pay it, not they. So another excellent source of good information was shut down.

UK Column.

If you haven’t been following UK Column’s output over the last three years, you have missed out on an excellent source of finding out what is really going on. The calibre of the people who make it happen is just extraordinary.

Take Brian Gerrish. The transparency of the lies around covid has caused a huge number of people to wake up to the fact the people in positions of power will abuse it, and lie to them. (And “well done!” to those who have cottoned on). But Brian Gerrish – years before covid - had been perceptive, rigorous, energetic and principled enough to discover what the significance of the organisation in the UK called “Common Purpose” was – essentially to make sure the “right” people (i.e. what you or I would call the wrong people) got into useful positions in institutions lower down the hierarchy (than government e.g.); and he spent a great deal of time trying to alert everyone to this corruption.

Alex Thompson, another mainstay at UK Column, is unmistakably one of the most intelligent people you have ever come across, and has a quite extraordinary grasp of history and geography that pertains to the Ukraine situation for example.

These and all the other stalwarts at UK Column stand out as exceptionally principled, as well as perceptive.

Do give it a try, if you haven’t, whichever country you are in.

https://www.ukcolumn.org/

---

Advice on Waking People Up

The best general advice I've come across on how to wake people up is from Feargus O’Connor Greenwood, which you will find in the following link, and in his book and references:

https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/3f8bmp/2023-07-03_Feargus-O88d7x.mp3

And look - he must be right, because he agrees with me!__;-)

“The truth movement doesn’t have an evidence problem; it has a communication problem”.

Feargus O’Connor Greenwood.

---

Related articles:

1 Coping with Disagreement (and Being Wrong)

This is not quite what you might expect from the title. It’s about something rather fundamental. One commenter described it as “lifechanging”.

2

---

That’s it from me for the moment.

1. https://youtube.com/shorts/B8Pex5WgO-w?feature=share

2. Buergin Natacha (Orcid ID: 0000-0001-6436-0054) Sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination

3. https://dailyclout.io/dr-naomi-wolf-on-uk-column-reproductive-harms-in-the-pfizer-documents/

4. https://rumble.com/v2ybtb0-dr.-naomi-wolf-on-uk-column-reproductive-harms-in-the-pfizer-documents.html

5. https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/did-pfizer-know-a-stark-but-honest-warning-from-dr-naomi-wolf

6. https://dailyclout.io/bombshell-pfizer-and-the-fda-knew-in-early-2021-that-the-pfizer-mrna-covid-vaccine-caused-dire-fetal-and-infant-risks-they-began-an-aggressive-campaign-to-vaccinate-pregnant-women-anyway/

7. “critical mass” is an expression a few people might not know. It doesn’t mean “a mass of people who are whinging”! It comes from the physics of a nuclear bomb: the mass of a metal like Uranium simply has to be large enough: once that “critical mass” has been reached the process will take place by itself.

8. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/261031/Mark-Steyn-GB-News-Decision.pdf

9. In case you are unfamiliar - “a contemptible, fawning person; a servile flatterer or toady” says dictionary.com. To me it sounds more polite yet somehow more denigrating than the American “arse-licker”.