Alex (Sasha) Krainer's warning,
Please heed Krainer's warning. She is not a serious researcher or historian or the Joan of Arc of the third wave of feminism. But I have to say that I got caught up in this presentation of hers about China's involvement in the production of LNPs for the vaccines. And because she offers no docuementation, no reference to any journals or authors, it leaves me mainly with questions.
Alex added that
So I checked further, and Wikipedia delivered. On the accuracy of facts and details in her 1991 book, The Beauty Myth, Wikipedia states that
Christina Hoff Sommers [who does good work as an anti-feminist but has gone off the rails at times] criticized Wolf for publishing the estimate that 150,000 women were dying every year from anorexia. Sommers said she traced the source to the American Anorexia and Bulimia Association, who stated that they were misquoted; the figure refers to sufferers, not fatalities. Wolf's citation came from a book by Brumberg, who referred to an American Anorexia and Bulimia Association newsletter and misquoted the newsletter. Wolf accepted the error and changed it in future editions. Sommers gave an estimate for the number of fatalities in 1990 as 100–400.[39][40] The annual anorexia casualties in the US were estimated to be around 50 to 60 per year in the mid-1990s.[41] In 1995, for an article in The Independent on Sunday, British journalist Joan Smith recalled asking Wolf to explain her unsourced assertion in The Beauty Myth that the UK "has 3.5 million anorexics or bulimics (95 per cent of them female), with 6,000 new cases yearly". Wolf replied, according to Smith, that she had calculated the statistics from patients with eating disorders at one clinic.[32]
Caspar Schoemaker of the Netherlands Trimbos Institute published a paper in the academic journal Eating Disorders demonstrating that of the 23 statistics cited by Wolf in Beauty Myth, 18 were incorrect, with Wolf citing numbers that average out to 8 times the number in the source she was citing.[42]
This is not the work of a serious journalist or researchers. But it doesn't end there. While the accuracy of her book and arguments were found questionable, the reception of her book as an argument to advance women's strength failed too. Wikipedia again,
However, Camille Paglia, whose Sexual Personae was published in the same year as The Beauty Myth, derided Wolf as unable to perform "historical analysis", and called her education "completely removed from reality."[45] Her comments touched off a series of debates between Wolf and Paglia in the pages of The New Republic.[46][47][48]
Caryn James in The New York Times stated:
"No other work has so forcefully confronted the anti-feminism that emerged during the conservative, yuppified 1980's, or so honestly depicted the confusion of accomplished women who feel emotionally and physically tortured by the need to look like movie stars. Even by the standards of pop-cultural feminist studies, The Beauty Myth is a mess, but that doesn't mean it's wrong."[49]
James also wrote that the book's "claims of an intensified anti-feminism are plausible, but Ms. Wolf doesn't begin to prove them because her logic is so lame, her evidence so easily knocked down."[49] Marilyn Yalom in The Washington Post called the book "persuasive" and praised its "accumulated evidence".[50]
Revisiting Beauty Myth in 2019 for The New Republic, literary critic Maris Kreizman recalls that reading it as an undergraduate made her "world burst open". However, as she matured, Kreizman saw Wolf's books as "poorly argued tracts" with Wolf making "wilder and wilder assertions" over time. Kreizman "began to write (Wolf) off as a fringe character" despite the fact that she had "once informed my own feminism so deeply."[11]
So by her very work, she discredits herself. Which begs the question: is Naomi Wolf a serious researcher and can her work be credible? What I have not liked about her presentations is that she is all over the map, offers little to no documentation, reference to journals or articles, but leaves it up to the viewer to do the research to confirm what she's saying. Not good. But I liked what she said here on Bannon's War Room, but it only left me with questions.
Well guess what? It's China and not only is China a company called WuXi pharmaceuticals in Shanghai producing the Wuxi Biologics (thank you) producing the lipid nanoparticles, but Karen Kingston pointed out that the CDC had their trials for the vaccines. Nine of the trial locations and trial oversights in 2020 were in China and one of them was believe it or not overseen by the People's Liberation Army of China.
I'm going to say that again, our CDC, our Rachel Walensky, when they were running the trials for this mRNA injection that everyone was forced to get mandated to get, nine of the sites, nine of the oversight of what was happening, were in China. One was overseen by the military of China. I'm going to remind you that I keep saying this is a bioweapon.
This is a bioweapon. I'm going to move on. WuXi Biologics of Shanghai doesn't just manufacture the lipid nanoparticles that are in all of these mRNA injections, they actually bought a chunk of Pfizer. They bought a Pfizer production plant in China, so they bought a part of the company of Pfizer. Remember I reported that there was a memorandum of understanding.
Well, they are actually now a Chinese company meaning a CCP managed company as everything is in China owns a chunk of Pfizer. Not only that, in this past month, September of 2022 our FDA, that complicit FDA that signed off on all of the atrocities and mass murders and disabilities and horrors and poisoning of women and babies in the Pfizer documents, our FDA and European Medicines Association which is their FDA signed off on an agreement, they okayed WuXi to produce drugs and injections for Europe and America. And then WuXi opened plants in Germany, Switzerland and now in Worcester, Mass (Massachusetts) to manufacture Pfizer injections and other drugs. That’s the third plant owned by China.
