Mikovits' claims are bold-faced lies regardless of your opinions on the pandemic.
Probably the most hilarious claim from that video was the line: "The controversial article sent shockwaves through the scientific community, as it revealed that the common use of animal and human fetal tissue were unleashing devastating plagues of chronic diseases".
None of that is true, her [research](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3073172/) had nothing to do with autism or vaccines. Many people tried to replicate her research, which contradicts her claim that she was being shut down by the government/big pharma/the boogeyman.
The fact that people don't care to distinguish between Mikovits and someone like Tyrone Hayes just shows how easy it is for grifters to take advantage of people's strongly-held opinions about the health system. Sorry to say, but if you buy into Plandemic just because you're critical of vaccines/shutdowns/whatever then you fall into that group, and you hurt your position rather than reinforce it by buying into such garbage.
"Hmm this information goes against my world view, and might threaten this ego I've built up over time based on finding a way of thinking I'm right about everything. Must be disinformation."
One thing I can say in my defense is that I’d absolutely love to be wrong. I’d love to believe this will all be over soon with (0 covid?) and then they give us back everything they’ve taken and we’re back to normal.
The side insisting not to take the pandemic at face value has no institutional power, in a sense no ego to lose. With no institutional power, they are always held to account.
The corporate media, pharmaceutical companies, almost all officials, social media companies, universities, police forces all insist people unquestioningly accept their viewpoint. Their "ego" is built on years of solidifying their position of authority. With all institutional power, they are not held to account. If they were to be held to account, their house of cards tumbles.
You could start with the article itself. I read it (well skimmed some parts). It looks like an honest attempt to assess Plandemic spread and understand the marketing strategy. There is an interesting claim about the deliberateness of the marketing, which led me to two questions:
1.) If the thesis is correct and the strategy was indeed as coherent as claimed, how did the authors learn these techniques?
2.) If the thesis is not correct, to what extent was the success due to serentipity?
Returning to my original point this does not seem like an attempt to promote disinformation.
That's a low quality sub if I've ever seen one. Most comments on the few posts i opened devolve into name calling, refusal of anything not fitting the commenters narrative, etc. Anything passes as "sources".
