Glancing at this article you have posted, I am genuinely intrigued and look forward to reading it today or tomorrow.
The thing about the IgG4 topic overall, is it's not just a small handful of papers that are discussing it, along with other immune issues that have resulted from the mRNA shots.
> It would be good to point out William Makis is a disgraced
Can you give us a solid citation on exactly how? I would like to see this.
> He worked at a cancer center as a radiologist but continues to misrepresent his expertise as an oncologist.
This means he had a front row seat to how cancer develops in patients, how cancer is successfully neutralized (or not) in patients, and also the internal politics and realpolitik imperatives of such a place. Given that cancer is a multi-hundred billion dollar industry, and a patient cured or prevented from having the disease in the first place is not profitable, unironically his work history could provide insight into how institutions that employ fleets of oncologists actually operate.
The "fine people" hoax and "drink bleach" hoax are not open to interpretation, not by a long shot.
Even Snopes, fucking Snopes, confirmed the "fine people" thing is false.
Obama, Kamala, and Joe Biden all pushed "Trump said Nazis were fine people" with complete confidence, this is the literal definition of a hoax.
The original video credited with "drinking bleach", was Trump openly speculating on disinfection approaches. And, the approach he verbalized out loud, disinfecting lungs with UV light, was at the time a relatively new and completely valid medical treatment. Trump was ahead of the curve on that one.
Anyone who interprets his open questions about the UV light treatment as "drink bleach" is either a victim of a hoax (and an irresponsible moron) or has no qualms pushing hoaxes.
I did not miss this. I followed this closely as it happened. And this "gotcha" right here, that he does not have perfect memory of all of his text messages sent over the two years previous, was the most significant allegation that has been brought to light against him.
And, those text messages revealed nothing of substance, they had nothing to charge with him with. They didn't even attempt to charge him. They didn't even go after the supposed perjury charge because it was weak. If it wasn't weak, they would certainly go after him for it.
Nobody has a perfect memory of all text messages they have sent over the last couple of years. If you think you have a perfect memory of all text messages you have sent over the last couple of years, you don't understand your own memory. Let alone a guy who runs a business with 20+ employees reading a deluge of news articles and whitepapers from when he gets up to when he goes to sleep.
> It's about giving over the documents that are requested by the other side.
Right, 100%. The point of contention is that documents that don't exist were demanded and those documents that don't exist are what the court claimed a default judgement over. This is per the court's own records.
> the parents could not see that evidence.
What evidence do we believe we are talking about here? If this evidence was never entered into the trial, why should us spectators believe it existed?
> the "consistent pattern of discovery abuse" (quoting the decision)
This here is what gives Alex ground to say "the court was on trial", in the greater context that an undercover journalist caught someone who works for the CIA on video admitting that the suits against Jones are lawfare. If you have not seen this video, you may not know how much information you are missing on this topic. If you dismiss the video because a particular group filmed the video, then we're not playing a game of mutually pursuing the truth here.
Throughout the entire process, Alex alleged a consistent pattern of discovery abuse on the part of the court. Deprivation of rights under color of law is a very serious crime that carries a 10+ year prison sentence. And yes, judges do sometimes have federal lawsuits filed against them for it.
> caused harm to many families
The other major point of contention, is this was never demonstrated in court, let alone meaningfully argued in court.
> He did this while knowing he was lying.
This also was never demonstrated. The court records don't show anything like this ; perhaps they show something like this on a procedural matter around discovery, but not anywhere on the topic of the supposed substance of the case.
> and is now getting punished for it
The other so-called echo chambers, the ones that don't have a shadowbanning and censorship problem, the one one the side that won the majority vote in the recent election, don't see it this way at all.
"The mRNA injections" referred to the ones marketed for covid specifically.
I did not, and would not, dismiss the use of mRNA gene therapies (that's what it is), categorically.
> this just sounds like my mum saying "I know this one doctor
By "legitimate" / "authoritative" voices, I am referring to "mainstream" media. I put "mainstream" in quotes because long-form podcasts and even Alex Jones himself have a larger audience than CNN/MSNBS etc.
> I'll freely admit that I might have completely missed such an admission from a major authority - care to enlighten me please?
I respect this sincere pursuit of truth, very much so. I will leave this thread open in a tab and bring resources I am aware of to you in the near future.