• The Swagger
  • Posts
  • The Swagger #18 – Thursday Let's Talk Issue

The Swagger #18 – Thursday Let's Talk Issue

Science As Clown-Car Marketing Hype for Political Ends and Social Engineering Schemes

In partnership with

Greetings from the same place as always. I'll jump right in, and it's just two articles today due to the experimental daily routines at the gym.


1. Science The Clown. Even if the interest is in discovery, it's to discover new markets to exploit, develop and patent a product, and sell it. Everything takes a back seat to that, and it has thorough corrupted science to the point where it's manipulated and cherry picked to give "scientific" authority to marketing.

2. Turbo Cancer. It's still being dismissed by all The Usual Suspects, but markets are already pricing in the looming disaster. A brief look at the state of the new medical literature that suggests that if you took an mRNA injection, you have cause for concern.

Is Your Healthcare Tech Truly Interoperable?

To succeed in today’s healthcare IT revolution, products must enable interoperability across many disparate data sources. Ententee works closely with product developers and systems integrators, building cutting-edge healthcare technologies while complying with all regulatory requirements. If you’re ready to join the wave of innovators successfully leveraging the world’s best-in-class data interoperability practices, give Ententee a call today—and discover how our experts help make it happen!

1. Science The Clown

New weight loss drugs like Wegovy and Ozempic are unpatented, yet cost 1000 bucks per month—unless you know how to get them for 50 bucks per month...which almost everyone except Americans around the world seem to be able to do (isn't that fucking funny, you "land-of-the-free" you, LOL).

So, I queried the AI Search chatbot with a simple question (are they patented? ...a yes or no answer is sufficient). But wow did it give me lots of "science" sounding stuff.

Or is it marketing?

You: Are Wegovy and the other new peptide-based weight-loss medications patented?


Wegovy, along with other peptide-based weight-loss medications, has garnered significant attention due to its effectiveness and safety. Let’s delve into the details:

  1. Wegovy (Semaglutide):

    • Purpose: Originally developed to treat type 2 diabetes under the brand name Ozempic, Wegovy is now FDA-approved specifically for weight loss.

    • Effectiveness: It can lead to a remarkable 15% reduction in body weight.

    • Safety: Considered reasonably safe.

    • Off-Label Use: While not officially approved for obesity or weight loss, healthcare providers may prescribe Wegovy off-label for weight loss in patients who meet specific criteria. These criteria include either:

  2. Ozempic (Semaglutide):

  3. Mounjaro:

So, the sci-shit is used to dazzle, sell the drugs as "safe and effective," cheerlead "healthcare professionals," and obfuscate the fact that they are not patented...meaning anyone can make and sell them, essentially (though other laws do apply and that's why increasingly the science of peptides is moving offshore...such as here in Thailand, for example).

In my last post, The Swagger #17, Article #3, I show exactly where you can get these 1000-buck-per-month miracles for 50 bucks per month, at most.

... As I mentioned, I'm doing this new experiment in the gym where I break all the rules. Those interested can check the latest posts. I'm breaking all the rules, and it rubs some of the gym-bro peeps the wrong way. I'm not even saying my stuff is better (because: better for whom, and for what?) or that their stuff is crap (except in sparing with them). I'm just saying that my stuff kicks ass because it does, and I prove it in the flesh (my body my choice; meaning, proven documented results).

But, The Point is, they are forever citing sci-shit in all these bits and pieces and why? To avoid having to do any real work. Real work might involve doing real science, and that might show that my stuff...kicks ass. So, it's easier to use sci-shit to attempt to discredit my kick-ass stuff.

But don't worry, it's just business. In other words, it's not science. It's marketing.

It turns out that there's a long history that, when dots are aligned and connected, explains how science ended up this way:

... It might be considered a cynical view, but the stark reality remains that the state, as an enterprise, demands compliance from its citizens. This compliance isn’t just about following laws; it’s about conforming, abiding, and obeying. A totalitarian regime exercises brute force and coercion only, because it doesn't need to charm or persuade. But statecraft, or so-called democracy, is about manipulating the citizenry to act voluntarily in accordance with its desires, through a concoction of laws, punishments, incentives, and special favors. This mechanism has always been in place, greasing the skids for political machinery and social engineering schemes.

Historically, authority was often represented by the church, creating a peculiar alliance of church and state. However, this partnership was fraught with conflict due to the ultimate power each wielded, suggesting that the state should be subordinate to the church—you're dealing with the ultimate authority, after all, and the church was His spokesman. This power struggle limited what the state could achieve under the shadow of ecclesiastical decrees. America responded to this by introducing a form of competitive religion, allowing for a multiplicity of churches. This freedom created competition for membership among churches, pushing them to adopt more liberal stances to attract followers who had the liberty to choose their spiritual homes. Consequently, the state found a way to work within these religious frameworks, aligning its actions with those religious doctrines that supported its agenda. The few religious outliers that resisted state alignment could be easily discredited in the face of the overwhelming conformist majority.

However, as enlightenment spread and skepticism towards religious doctrines grew, a new authority was needed—enter science. Initially intended as a rigorous discipline of falsification, where hypotheses are continuously tested and discarded upon failure, science promised a method of progressively eliminating falsehoods, edging ever closer to truth. Yet, this ideal has been corrupted; the symbiosis of state and corporate power—akin to fascism—has co-opted science, transforming it into a tool for political and corporate agendas. Today, science often serves more as a marketing strategy for these entities, rather than a pursuit of truth.

The modern landscape of authority, then, is a complex web where state, church, and corporate interests intertwine, each using science not as a tool of enlightenment and discovery, but as a means of controlling the narrative and maintaining their grip on power because now, it's In "Science" We Trust. In this framework, the citizen is less an independent thinker and more a pawn in a larger game of social engineering and compliance. This manipulation of science and authority for political and corporate ends is a betrayal of the very principles upon which the enlightenment and scientific endeavor were founded. It underscores the critical need for vigilance and skepticism in how we accept and act upon the "authoritative" information presented to us.

... For me, the new wild card in this is AI and I have maintained and still maintain that it will be difficult and eventually impossible to get an integrated logic machine to spin integrated lies, which is a negation of logic and reality.

I've written a ton about it at FreeTheAnimal.com, we've developed an un-Woke chatbot, Zon (GPT-4 Turbo via API and training prompts), who even helps with some of the editing and idea-spinning work around here.

2. Turbo Cancer

Having ate, slept, and drank Covid for two years and from early on, one of the things those with their head deep into the game speculated about was immune system compromise...a sort of AIDS light, if you will. The implications are profound because the biggest thing about healthy immune systems is that you never have any awareness of the stuff it saves you from experiencing or suffering any symptoms.

Cancer is one of those things. Compromise immune systems, people develop cancers that aren't checked, and they grow.

Here's a Zon-generated paraphrase of a long xweet by William Makis, MD on the growing library of papers dealing with so-called Turbo Cancer and its association with mRNA jabs.

NEW ARTICLE: RAPID INCREASE IN TURBO CANCER STUDIES - In April 2024 alone, 6 new research papers on COVID-19 Vaccine Turbo Cancer were published, bringing the total to approximately 26. This surge in publications suggests a significant shift, potentially impacting Pfizer & Moderna. Claims that Pfizer & Moderna's mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are linked to the development of aggressive "Turbo Cancers" are becoming more recognized, despite skepticism. Some still deny the existence of Turbo Cancer in scientific literature, dismissing it as nonexistent. Yet, in just the past two weeks, six new studies have emerged:

- (Apr 2024, Zhang and El-Deiry) - SARS-CoV-2 spike S2 subunit's impact on p53, p21(WAF1), TRAIL Death Receptor DR5, and MDM2 in cancer cells.
- (Apr 2024, Rubio-Casillas et al) - Review on N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ) and its implications for cancer.
- (Apr 2024, Gibo et al) - Study linking increased cancer mortality in Japan to the third dose of mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle vaccines.
- (Apr 2024, Abdurrahman et al) - Case of Primary Cutaneous Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma post-vaccination.
- (Apr 2024, Ueda et al) - Report on fetal hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis and B-cell lymphoma following vaccination in a lupus patient.
- (Apr 2024, Gentilini et al) - Analysis of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia post-Comirnaty® vaccination.

Despite these developments, Wikipedia describes "Turbo Cancer" as an anti-vaccination myth without substantial evidence, supported minimally within academia. Critics like David Gorski describe "Turbo Cancer" as misinformation, emphasizing the lack of biological basis and the misuse of anecdotal evidence by anti-vaccine advocates. Gorski argues that such claims are designed to instill unwarranted fear about the vaccines.

In contrast, proponents of the Turbo Cancer theory argue that the increasing body of literature cannot be ignored and suggest that there is emerging evidence linking mRNA vaccines to cancer developments, challenging mainstream narratives and potentially implicating major pharmaceutical companies. They predict significant ramifications for companies like Pfizer as more information comes to light, paralleled by a decline in their stock value. The discourse around this issue continues to be highly polarized, with significant implications for public health communication and trust in medical institutions.

And here's the full xweet:

Sure glad I didn't consider getting any shots for even a microsecond.

See you back here on Sunday for something and not nothing.

Join the conversation

or to participate.