Project Veritas released the first video of its COVID vaccine investigative series today featuring an interview with U.S. Health and Human Services [HHS] insider, Jodi O’Malley, who works as a Registered Nurse at the local Indian Medical Center.
O’Malley told Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe about what has been going on at her federal government facility. She recorded her HHS colleagues discussing their concerns about the new COVID vaccine to corroborate her assertions:
Dr. Maria Gonzales, ER Doctor, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “The problem in here is that they are not doing the studies. People that had [COVID] and the people that have been vaccinated — they’re not doing any antibody testing.” Jodi O’Malley, Insider and Registered Nurse, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “Nope.” Dr. Gonzales: “Everybody is quiet with that. Why?” O’Malley: “Now, you got this guy in Room Four who got his second dose of the [COVID] vaccine on Tuesday and has been short of breath. Okay? Now his BNP is elevated. D diver elevated, ALT, all his liver enzymes are elevated. His PTPTINR is elevated.” Dr. Gonzales: “He’s probably got myocarditis!” O’Malley: “Yes!” Dr. Gonzales: “All this is xxxxxxxx. Now probably myocarditis due to the vaccine.”
Malley: “Right.” Dr. Gonzales: “But now, they [government] are not going to blame the vaccine.” O’Malley: “Well and you know what — but he has an obligation to report that doesn’t he? It happened right — what is it — sixty days after if you see anything?” Dr. Gonzales: “They have got to.” O’Malley: “But how many are reporting?” Dr. Gonzales: “They are not reporting.” O’Malley: “Right!” Dr. Gonzales: “Because they want to shove it under the mat.”
No.
The vaks is safe I tell you.
The percentage of bad reactions is miniscule compared to all the good ones.
You are just trying to make political trouble.
Those are paid actors.
Disclaimer: The positions I argue may not be my own.
Project Veritas mostly has videos that run continuously with no interruptions. The candid conversations tell the truth. When evil people speak not knowing they are being filmed they do not falsify. You're getting the unadulterated truth --in all its ugliness.
Evasive - are you challenging me to substantiate the claim in post 4 about Project Veritas with more evidence?
This is how the people on the two sides of this issue differ:
- we pro-vaxxers generally substantiate our claims with specific information from reputable sources.
- the anti-vaxxers very often just slap in a link to a laughably disreputable and, when challenged, make vague tribal asersins such as "Wikipedia is leftist".
Want to debate facts, and leave the rhetoric to the politicians? Happy to oblige - I will prove with facts that Project Veritas is disreputable. I guarantee you will not be able to do this for wikipedia.
I am more than happy if you guys all block me - I am here to act as a corrective on all the outright lies and misinformation we see here. It is the lurkers that I am speaking to.
Now, I don't have a horse in this race, and I don't know much about Veritas, but out of curiosity I just looked at the Wikipedia article you source, and footnote 28 which you reference. That footnote turned out to be footnoted itself with 13 references, something that as a professor I would never allow. Anyway, every single one of those 13 references uses "far right" to describe Project Veritas in an adjectival way--"far right Veritas."
Not a single one of those 13 told why they were labeling Veritas in that way. This is what is called "begging the question" in logic. It is one of several reasons why our college does not allow Wikipedia to be used as a source for research papers, and why genuine scholars don't use it as a source (and I have several genuine scholars as friends--not to mention my son, who has had two scholarly books published and some articles in the theological journals).
I am fully aware of the begging the question issue. And I agree that the devil is in the details - I have more work to do to support my assertion that Project Veritas is a sham organization. But I trust you will agree that this goes both ways - if and when I provide solid evidence that Project Veritas is disreputable, my opponents should not merely issue a summary dismissal of such evidence seasoned with vague claims about how my sources are "leftist". Note that, by contrast, I am making specific, verifiable claims such as that PV doctors their videos.
The proof then should be evidence that they work on the videos in such a way as to deceive people. Simply editing videos (leaving something out) does not prove doctoring, but only bias.
I don't know that they are a sham organization (although they have been caught using unethical and illegal methods).
They are, however, a political organization and have edited videos in the past to "catch" political opponents.
When it comes to covid and the vaccine it is probably better to use an objective source (regardless to one's position on the vaccine).
That does not mean they are misrepresenting the info in this OP.
It is, however, something that should be considered when deciding on who to believe.
They are a political organization.
I guess you’d rather nobody, except the correct ‘trusted’ agency of the government, do the dangerous investigating to get to the truth. I am waiting for the day when you don’t take up for the left in every one of your actions. Of course your words always attempt to mollify with talk of supporting something other than that. Actions speak louder than words.