When I left my last job earlier this year I told the top guy, a friend, that they were going to have massive personnel problems. In this particular line of work, I called working from home a technological fantasy. Employees are still not back to work full time, ridiculous.
Yea I've said that about several people that are over the target, like Dr. Robert Malone and others. I've posted her videos before without much response, but she does read the FDAs own documents to inform people what is really happening. Classic.
If she is a "top biotech analyst," it's funny that she doesn't mention it in her LinkedIn or her company bio.
If You Will Not Fight…
Hello, all. Yes, I’m STILL alive. First post in, what, 17 months and change…? Please allow me mental wandering, before I move to my main point… It’s been a LONG time since I wrote…capitalisteric.wordpress.com
A good read.
Thanks for sharing! Couldn’t find the “mind blown” emoji.
Already happening kind of... At least they're thinking about the consequences.
www.8newsnow.com
I don't think you understand how the word analyst is used. You're picturing her in a white coat with a microscope and beakers developing drugs which isn't the case. For one 'biotech' is just a word for an industry and analyst can mean anything from crunching numbers and study data to looking at market trends. So even for sales and marketing you could be a 'biotech analyst'. I'm not sure what the point is for attacking her job role, it doesn't mean she doesn't have useful information, it could very well be nonsense but you'll have to do better than that. She owns a company that works with the pharmaceutical and medical device industry i'm not sure what this new hustle would do for her?If she is a "top biotech analyst," it's funny that she doesn't mention it in her LinkedIn or her company bio.
Unless "biotech analyst" is conspiracy-speak for sales rep.
Founder
varitage.com
A sales and marketing expert. Color me surprised.
Looks like she's got a new hustle.
The term implies some kind of knowledge or authority over a subject. She was a sales rep for Pfizer. And her background is in marketing and sales. Hardly someone I would go to to learn about the chemical makeup or side effect of vaccines that she never had anything to do with.
www.reuters.com
You're still confused on the terminology, a 'biotech analyst' will not know about the chemical makeup of the drugs, and likely very few even would. That doesn't mean there isn't knowledge there. For what you expect there would be terms in the title like 'research' or 'scientist' or 'chemist' etc. It could be very likely that someone that's senior in sales or marketing has access to some dirty laundry. I'm not a surgeon but I design our studies and measure our outcomes. I couldn't tell you details about the OR or the surgical process but I have access to what's really important.The term implies some kind of knowledge or authority over a subject. She was a sales rep for Pfizer. And her background is in marketing and sales. Hardly someone I would go to to learn about the chemical makeup or side effect of vaccines that she never had anything to do with.
Not that this matters to those who swallow poorly photoshopped images on the internet, or think that microchips are actually being injected into people to track them. But some actual analysis on her bogus claims:
Fact Check-No evidence graphene oxide is present in available COVID-19 vaccines via lipid nanoparticles
Allegations that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines currently available in the United States (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) are toxic because they contain graphene oxide on their lipid nanoparticles (which help transport the mRNA through the body) are baseless.
Now I think I'll go fix me a microwave sausage biscuit, as I am a Culinary Electromagnetic Radiation Analyst and them maybe use my expertise as a Personal Financial Analyst to balance my checkbook.
Correct, and that’s the entire issue. People use those terms because they know the people they are seeking to dupe will give more credibility to her claims based on that misunderstanding of what it actually means. The question becomes whether her information is accurate based on independent assessment of it rather than giving more credence to her background than it’s worth. Or, automatically discounting it because she is was in marketing and not in any sort of scientific role. Likewise with the Reuters article Route posted. People will automatically try to discredit it “because Reuters” but will make no attempt to discredit the actual argument they make. I assume it’s because they can’t...
So unless the author of the Reuters article is a research scientist with experience in this field we have to discount everything they write? Why is a reporter believable but the analyst isn't? Essentially is comes down to confirmation bias, you believe one but not the other because of the message being conveyed.
It's all in a days work for Ingo lol. You have the pro freedom side posting things and the vaccine lovers countering and then vice versa.
You misunderstood what I wrote. Kingston isn’t automatically right or wrong. Reuters isn’t automatically right or wrong. What is wrong is giving more credibility to someone by implying things about their background that you know will be used to try to make them an authority on something they aren’t an expert on in order to avoid closer inspection of their claims. People have been doing it with this pandemic for the past two years. Anyone with PhD or MD after their name gets held up higher as some kind of unquestionable expert, even if their education isn’t in that area of study. The bottom line is she posted an opinion. Reuters analyzed it and pointed out potential flaws. It’s up to us to decide which seems more credible based on arguments alone. My issue with Kingston is she keeps popping up and people say “but she was an analyst for Big Pharma!” Do her claims pass the smell test or not?
I don't think my inference was too far off target. You were critical of one side specifically and spared criticism of the other, until I pointed it out, for what I can only assume are preconceived notions about which is more believable. I'm not saying I believe Kingstons claims, only that I find it slightly humorous that people don't apply the same level of skepticism to both sides. We live in a deluge of propaganda, and skepticism should be applied liberally, especially since its incontrovertible that the institutions we once trusted to supply us objective information have been coopted by the disseminators of propaganda.
Just to clarify, you think I was being too kind to Reuters? My comment about “but Reuters” was about what I assumed would be the response to that article: “it’s automatically nonsense because it’s from a mainstream source.” But, you’re also correct about me being skeptical of the Kingston article. Anytime someone is trying to subtly mislead me, I always wonder why. Is it possible I’m being too critical of the information since the article started off on the wrong foot? Maybe so.
Arguments over whether the vaccine is "poison" or not have nothing to do with freedom. I've yet to see anyone on INGO seriously advocating for a mandate. Also not seeing any "vaccine lovers," whatever the heck that means. This kind of binary thinking is not helpful.
If you're constantly on here everyday defending the vaccine and doing what you can to discredit any criticism of it then yeah you're a vaccine lover lol. While adverse reactions to vaccines tend to show up quickly it hasn't even been in widespread use for a year yet so you can't really say anything definitive about it yet. The only reason there's so much ongoing contention about the vaccine to begin with is because of the mandates. It's not a leap to think that those that are fighting so hard to convince others about the vaccine are likely convinced that it's actually necessary and hence a mandate is the best way to do that.
Yes, but it's somewhat understandable. The crown jewels of the art and science of propaganda is the co-option of institutions that have historically garnered trust, the press, science, and education being a few examples. We're just to a point now where the mask has been pulled away to a degree that continued faith in such institutions is beginning to strain the credulity of those who still find them believable with little to no questioning.
And all of this is summed up perfectly in the simple phrase, "Let's Go Brandon!"
