Thank you for your great coverage, as always. I know you haven't emphasized the details of Buckhaults' testimony, but I would like to make a few observations about it.
To be blunt, to me, the testimony of Buckhaults looks like a whitewash. On the surface he says all the right things - so dangerous to have these DNA capsids, you know. (Well, at this point, who doesn't know that.) But look at the subtext of this entire conversation that Buckhaults has with the committee. First Buckhaults is very careful to emphasize that this was accidental. Everyone was so rushed. There's even a law (a heuristic type, not a legal type) that says don't call something malfeasance when stupidity can explain it. Now there's deception, masquerading as a law, that can be used to whitewash almost anything. Doesn't anyone else find themselves saying, "thou dost protest too much?" No, no malfeasance, he says. He is just so prepared on this particular point. And as a reward, the spokesman for the committee just gushes and assures him he will be protected for being almost a whistleblower. What that means is, not that he's a whistleblower, but that he's a player.
By comparison, Dr. Lindsay, whose testimony follows that of Buckhaults, calls out the malfeasance, but gets no such enthusiastic affirmation. She's clearly not a player. So she gets a staid and polite interaction - the type you reserve for someone who has said just a bit too much - a conspiracy theorist, perhaps. No, nobody said that. Nobody had to. Ninety percent of communication is reading between the lines.
Notice, also, how Buckhaults' testimony comes across as a carefully orchestrated dialogue that absolves the state from doing ... anything at all, really. The committee is just trying so hard to figure out what it can do on behalf of the residents of their little great state. But in their dialogue with Buckhaults, they just can't seem to find the right path, find a way to take the bull by the horns. Poor little state. They are so dependent on the feds. It's such a big project. No, you can't just have my lab run a test, Buckhaults says. Well, technically I could do it, but that wouldn't be smart. We need lots and lots of tests for credibility - it has to be a big project, too much for our state to handle. Well, we tried. It's on the record, how hard we tried to find something to do.
Most importantly, however, is that Buckhaults' testimony places all of the blame for adverse events with respect to these injections on the plasmids. Hey, just clean that up and you can take the injections with full confidence, right? The contrast is so stark that Buckhaults won't get jabbed until the plasmids are gone, but if you get rid of the nasty plasmids, then he's good to go. So there you have it - the adverse events are real, the danger is real. That's what everyone wanted to hear, right? It's the plasmids, stupid. They ARE the issue. Just tweak the concoctions in your vats, and you will have a safe and effective vaccine, the way it was supposed to be. Because nobody here acted with anything but good faith. So we can fix it. We can save the shots. We might have been a bit careless, perhaps, but we've all done that, haven't we? We know what it's like to be in a hurry. And now that we've caught it, pinned the tail on the proverbial donkey, we can get on with the program.
“The minimum and maximum time at which PP-Spike was detected after vaccination was 69 and 187 days, respectively.”
Does this mean that the researchers looked for but were unable to find the vaxx induced spike protein beyond vaccination + 187 days or that they did not study or look for the protein in individuals 187 days post vaccination?
Appreciate your tenacious work! I look forward to every Highwire episode. Keep up the great reporting! 👍
Thank you for your great coverage, as always. I know you haven't emphasized the details of Buckhaults' testimony, but I would like to make a few observations about it.
To be blunt, to me, the testimony of Buckhaults looks like a whitewash. On the surface he says all the right things - so dangerous to have these DNA capsids, you know. (Well, at this point, who doesn't know that.) But look at the subtext of this entire conversation that Buckhaults has with the committee. First Buckhaults is very careful to emphasize that this was accidental. Everyone was so rushed. There's even a law (a heuristic type, not a legal type) that says don't call something malfeasance when stupidity can explain it. Now there's deception, masquerading as a law, that can be used to whitewash almost anything. Doesn't anyone else find themselves saying, "thou dost protest too much?" No, no malfeasance, he says. He is just so prepared on this particular point. And as a reward, the spokesman for the committee just gushes and assures him he will be protected for being almost a whistleblower. What that means is, not that he's a whistleblower, but that he's a player.
By comparison, Dr. Lindsay, whose testimony follows that of Buckhaults, calls out the malfeasance, but gets no such enthusiastic affirmation. She's clearly not a player. So she gets a staid and polite interaction - the type you reserve for someone who has said just a bit too much - a conspiracy theorist, perhaps. No, nobody said that. Nobody had to. Ninety percent of communication is reading between the lines.
Notice, also, how Buckhaults' testimony comes across as a carefully orchestrated dialogue that absolves the state from doing ... anything at all, really. The committee is just trying so hard to figure out what it can do on behalf of the residents of their little great state. But in their dialogue with Buckhaults, they just can't seem to find the right path, find a way to take the bull by the horns. Poor little state. They are so dependent on the feds. It's such a big project. No, you can't just have my lab run a test, Buckhaults says. Well, technically I could do it, but that wouldn't be smart. We need lots and lots of tests for credibility - it has to be a big project, too much for our state to handle. Well, we tried. It's on the record, how hard we tried to find something to do.
Most importantly, however, is that Buckhaults' testimony places all of the blame for adverse events with respect to these injections on the plasmids. Hey, just clean that up and you can take the injections with full confidence, right? The contrast is so stark that Buckhaults won't get jabbed until the plasmids are gone, but if you get rid of the nasty plasmids, then he's good to go. So there you have it - the adverse events are real, the danger is real. That's what everyone wanted to hear, right? It's the plasmids, stupid. They ARE the issue. Just tweak the concoctions in your vats, and you will have a safe and effective vaccine, the way it was supposed to be. Because nobody here acted with anything but good faith. So we can fix it. We can save the shots. We might have been a bit careless, perhaps, but we've all done that, haven't we? We know what it's like to be in a hurry. And now that we've caught it, pinned the tail on the proverbial donkey, we can get on with the program.
Dr. Lindsay told the truth.
“The minimum and maximum time at which PP-Spike was detected after vaccination was 69 and 187 days, respectively.”
Does this mean that the researchers looked for but were unable to find the vaxx induced spike protein beyond vaccination + 187 days or that they did not study or look for the protein in individuals 187 days post vaccination?