I agree with Berenson regarding Fauci, but it is easier to demonize a single human than a multi-billion dollar organization. I follow Alex Berenson and while I originally was ok with what he said, almost all of his predictions are wrong.
The intentional misleading of the Danish vaccine results in nursing homes was when I finally said this guy is just scavenging for anything he can get ahold of, and like most, hopes people never actually read what he puts out as reference.
Those of us that do read, and do the math see the lies. Read this and tell me there was a 40% increase in deaths in nursing home due to the vaccine. Show me exactly how that math works. This is what Berenson offers as "proof" yet nobody who looks at it can replicate his results:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.08.21252200v1.full.pdf His blatant mischaracterization of what "Suspected but Unconfirmed" is obvious spin on facts. Again hoping people accept his interpretation and never look at how that definition is actually reached.
It's important to understand that Berensen is saying if you got vaccinated, then never got Covid, but later had a runny nose, you are listed as being infected with Covid 19. Does that make sense? It does if you need to skew data to make vaccines look like they gave you Covid.
When he tosses out stuff like "vaccines transiently suppress lymphocytes" he again hopes nobody knows what that actually means. and won't look it up. Drops in lymphocyte blood count is a good thing for an immune response, but make it sound bad hoping people won't know better. A permanent loss is the issue, and no record exists that Berenson can use.
His claim that Israel is an example that vaccines don't work is opposite of what is actually happening. He offers a Hebrew article as "proof" but if you translate it or have someone who can read Hebrew they would indicate most of the fatalities in that report
did not receive a vaccine.
https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/B13FB1TMO The issue with Berenson is he is very selective in how he presents misleading data. He was right to scrutinize the system of reporting, and administration but I think he gets too much revenue to admit he was wrong, or to report in a way that reflects the outcomes of the references he offers. He has done this for a while now, I most often find him misrepresenting correlating data as causation and imagining up unrelated scenarios to prove inconsistent or incorrect math.
Pages: 
