From JC .

Fully’s Comment : One of the best things about our new Awareness is we can now understand the “Corporate” media and how it is used against us . NEVER take anything they Push at face value . By scrutinizing these Stooges …like Jeff Childers is doing here…we can get to understand the Agenda and predict where it is going in real time . This is a great example. We Tenters KNEW about this and other issues with the mass vaxx program LONG before it became a thing in the MSM.

………………..

It’s easy to feel frustrated with corporate media, ever since government killed it, skinned it, and is wearing its skinsuit walking around pretending to be a reporter and demanding respect.

But in a way, the government’s assassination of corporate media is a blessing. It’s now easier to see what the current narrative is supposed to be, how they’re trying to manipulate us, both by what corporate media says — all together now — and by which ‘experts’ they clumsily cherry pick to comment on their one-sided, narrative-advancing stories.

You can always tell when corporate media can’t figure out how to use a particular subject to further the narrative, when it actually reports both sides of an issue. If the article quotes opposing experts, that means they don’t care about the subject, except maybe as camouflage in which to hide the real rhetorical payload.

So, while what they DO say is instructive, I actually learn the most about how to counter the narrative by noticing what they DON’T cover.

A great example was how, during covid, there was a corporate media blackout on the topic of original antigenic sin, which independent scientists were screaming bloody murder about from the jump. In a normal, pre-narrative world, media would’ve snatched up a subject like OAS and used it to torture government agency scientists at press conferences. So it was a dead giveaway when corporate media all plugged their ears and pretended like they never heard of that totally fringe, conspiracy theory, OAS.

? The OAS embargo has obviously lifted, telling us much about the current state of the narrative. Yesterday, ABC News ran a story headlined, “What You Need to Know About ‘Original Antigenic Sin’ With Fall COVID Boosters Around the Corner.”

It’s IN THE HEADLINE. I bet you never thought you’d see THAT headline. Here’s the very first paragraph from ABC’s article:

With new COVID variant-specific booster shots set to roll out in the coming week, vaccine scientists argue that more research is needed to understand how a person’s early immune response — either through vaccination or infection itself — may impact future protection against a constantly evolving virus.
My goodness. That might make some people hesitate! They might wait to see what happens! And … guess who is on the OAS bandwagon now? Vaccine expert Dr. Paul Offit, that’s who. He was quoted for the story:

”Where this matters is if you keep giving booster doses with [original] strain, and continue to lock people into that original response, it makes it harder for them to respond then to essentially a completely different virus,” says Dr. Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Philadelphia.
Of course, Offit knew about OAS all along. He’s acting like he suddenly discovered it now, though. But what does it mean? Have a gander at this alarming little nugget from about midway down ABC’s article:

Some experts say they are concerned that frequent boosting with the original version of the vaccine may have inadvertently exacerbated immune imprinting. At this point in the pandemic, some adults have received four or more doses of the same vaccine.
Although still theoretical, some scientists worry about a potential backfire, with frequent boosting handcuffing the body’s natural immune system and leaving it exposed to radically different variants that might emerge in the future.
A potential backfire! That doesn’t sound too good. And then — throwing all vaccine hesitancy caution to the wind — the article quoted an expert who pondered about exactly how often people should be boosting anyways:

”It is true that the best boosts typically are the ones that are given infrequently, that immunologically, if you boost too much and too frequently, then you often have a lower immune response at the end,” said Barouch.
The BEST boosts are INFREQUENT! That’s not good for business. And it’s not what the CDC says, either.

Then, for balance, the article quoted some experts who waved off the OAS concerns, explaining that if we have a variant-specific booster, OF COURSE we would want to use that. That doctor also said she doesn’t “really think immune imprinting poses a threat.” She doesn’t THINK so; not exactly a strong position. Another expert, Dr. Paul Goepfert, told ABC, “I suspect that we’re still going to do very well against severe disease and hospitalization” — even if OAS does take a toll.

He SUSPECTS. That sounds a lot more hopeful than certain. Science.

C&C discussed original antigenic sin over a year ago, while the corporate media embargo on OAS chatter was in full effect. Something’s obviously changed in the narrative, we can see that, in a slew of other current events including Fauci’s abrupt resignation.

But what can we learn from ABC’s OAS article, about the NARRATIVE? I’ll make three observations.

First — obviously — the embargo is now lifted on facts that might cause “vaccine hesitancy.” That’s interesting.

Second, corporate media clearly hasn’t been compelled to push the new hybrid booster shots every chance they get. That’s also interesting, and probably not what you thought was coming.

But third, the article was “balanced” — in the pre-covid media tradition — in that it raised a provocative issue, and then quoted QUALIFIED expert opinions on both sides, leaving the thinking part up to the reader. Imagine that, they DO believe we can think for ourselves. At least, about this. And what THAT means is that the current narrative payload no longer includes covid theater.

In other words, it looks like the narrative makers have abandoned covid as a way to manipulate our feelings, leaving corporate media to do what it wants with the virus.