BOMBSHELL VIDEO: Federal Govt Whistleblower Goes Public, About COVID Vaccine

[Revmitchell]

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.”



BOMBSHELL VIDEO: Federal Govt Whistleblower Goes Public, About COVID Vaccine - The Jewish Voice

 

[SGO]

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.

 

[Wingman68]

Part 2:

James O’Keefe FDA Undercover Sting Part Two — ‘We just need to blow dart Black Americans who are Unvaccinated’…

 

[Andre]

A little more about Project Veritas, the people responsible for the disinformation in the video:

Project Veritas is an American far-right[28] activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010.[32] The group produces deceptively edited videos [15] of its undercover operations,[6] which use secret recordings[7] in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

And who is your source for this information?

 

[Andre]

And who is your source for this information?

Wikipedia, which backs up the claim with numerous citations. Want me to go through them? Trust me, it will not be pretty for Project Veritas.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Wikipedia, which backs up the claim with numerous citations. Want me to go through them? Trust me, it will not be pretty for Project Veritas.

Wikipedia is a disreputable outfit. One of its founders has denounced it. It is decidedly Leftist.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

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.

 

[Wingman68]

Wikipedia is a disreputable outfit. One of its founders has denounced it. It is decidedly Leftist.

I have told him this countless times before blocking him. Don’t waste your time. If everyone blocked him there would be a lot less redundancy here.

 

[Andre]

Wikipedia is a disreputable outfit. One of its founders has denounced it. It is decidedly Leftist.

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.

 

[Andre]

I have told him this countless times before blocking him. Don’t waste your time. If everyone blocked him there would be a lot less redundancy here.

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.

 

[Andre]

Project Veritas mostly has videos that run continuously with no interruptions.

Indeed, the deceptively edited videos do indeed run without interruption.

Want me to prove that they deceptively edit their videos?

 

[John of Japan]

A little more about Project Veritas, the people responsible for the disinformation in the video:

Project Veritas is an American far-right[28] activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010.[32] The group produces deceptively edited videos [15] of its undercover operations,[6] which use secret recordings[7] in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups.

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).

 

[Andre]

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.

 

[SGO]

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.

Another example of calling your brothers liars.

There has been no correction here, only soiling.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Wikipedia, which backs up the claim with numerous citations. Want me to go through them? Trust me, it will not be pretty for Project Veritas.

From what John wrote above, Wikipedia is marginally better than the source I feared you would cite the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center).

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

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).

 

[JonC]

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.

Here is an old example of their reliability:
NPR: O'Keefe 'Inappropriately Edited' Video; Exec's Words Still 'Egregious'

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.

 

[Wingman68]

Here is an old example of their reliability:
NPR: O'Keefe 'Inappropriately Edited' Video; Exec's Words Still 'Egregious'

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.

Are you saying NPR is to be believed as unbiased?

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.