Lately the entire conversation is being framed around the shots for young people. How about we question the shots for anyone? Can we have those conversations instead of boxing the questions inside the narrow window of children/young people? I'm still waiting for the data that supports getting these injections for anyone. Is there any dat…
Lately the entire conversation is being framed around the shots for young people. How about we question the shots for anyone? Can we have those conversations instead of boxing the questions inside the narrow window of children/young people? I'm still waiting for the data that supports getting these injections for anyone. Is there any data that the injections protect against severe disease? (I think not.) I am also truly stumped--considering the admission that any alleged protection wanes within months--what protection (against severe disease/hospitalization even if these injections do provide protection) is there 3 or 4 months after injection? I am also confused by why we even need these shots for an illness that is something akin to a cold and dangerous only to those who face imminent extinction and are soon to die simply by living. I have a lot of other questions, but no answers.
the article Yuri posted will show you the shots were only good for those that want to eradicate the population of this world, the likes of gates, schwab and soros.
I always wonder if Soros pours many millions into backing all his leftist DA's who hate locking up rapists and killers (and of course never, ever, never releasing them near Soros' neck of the woods with his big giant house and rolling green lawns sitting behind very high walls and ornate iron gates with his well armed private security locked and loaded and ready to ROLL, baby!) because A) he gets a huge kick from watching lower and middle class women and children cowering in fear of roaming repeat offenders in already devastated blue city neighborhoods or B) he just hates America, and his pet DA's throw in the cowering women and children for shits and giggles.
it is difficult to understand normal people. It is totally impossible to understand a sick mind (even if it is from dementia). I think it is also impossible to understand a psychopath.
you might want to check out both Yuri and Steve Kirsch's posts.
Here is yet another article - Epoch times
A scientific journal is rejecting a request to retract a study that found people who received a COVID-19 booster were more likely to become infected when compared to unvaccinated people.
Analyzing numbers from California's prison system, a research group found that those who received one of the bivalent boosters had a higher infection rate than people who have never received a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Their study was published by the journal Cureus following peer review.
Memento, your comment above had questions that many of us have been asking for more than two years, and not only were they not answered by anyone in any official capacity, the mere attempt to ask these questions in mainstream outlets were systematically, efficiently, and quickly banned, censored, and the questioner ridiculed. Yet you were very quick to write that Ingrid's post is "nonsense". Again, answers have been missing for years now, and you'd (apparently) be surprised how often some easy quick research turns up the word "depopulation"; when I saw it coming from a few vaccine zealots like Bill Gates (during a Ted Talk), I quit my knee jerk response of "nonsense" and began thinking "Hmm, this might explain some of these stone cold sociopaths who have been fascinated with all things vaccine and mass populations for years. Or not? Too bad we never get ANY answers".
Thanks RK&TW, but you are more articulate than me, so I'll keep being polite and you keep posting your great articulate comments, and maybe one day my (still unconvinced) friends will also be hitting the "likes".
Actually Fred, although I am no fan WHATSOEVER of Bill Gates and his "health agenda," I watched that TED talk by Gates the other day and here's what I heard: Gates did say population control using vaccines but in context I think he was verbally "short-handing" something like this --
women (presumably in the developing world) who are having a lot of children will have less children if they use birth control and vaccinate the children that they do have so that presumably those children will live longer and maybe women won't continue having more
Look, I know that sounds like a lot of words to put in his mouth, but in fairness, I think people often speak "in lists" and assume that their audience understands the general message. I think getting "overly literal" here is really to misconstrue what he was communicating at the time.
Frankly it could be that Bill just isn't all that bright. He just has a lot of money and a huge ego to sway things in very bad directions. To me he seems mainly about 1) worldwide population reduction through birth control and 2) a "true believer" in every form of vaccination proven or not.
But if he really cared about health, he would have used his wealth to make sure that every village in Africa had clean water. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
So bottomline, we agree Gates does want less people on the planet, but not, I think, by killing them with a vaccine.
I see no evidence that anyone should get the jab. I see too many good scientist saying lazy things like: “well, older people are at more risk from C19” (yes, I agree that was true...is that true in the same way now? I think not.)....but that means nothing if the person gets net net no added protection from the new booster. Show me data that the new booster helps a person incrementally who already has 3 jabs and no (known) infection (so far). Where is that data. 18 mice do not count. We know lots of side effects! (And that NIH still chooses do little or no studies on side effects. WHAT?!)
Agreed to some extent, but vaccinating children to purportedly protect against COVID is sheer insanity. It’s nothing short of outright child abuse. As such, it should indeed engender a bit if a fixation, especially when the subject matter is in the news.
Lately the entire conversation is being framed around the shots for young people. How about we question the shots for anyone? Can we have those conversations instead of boxing the questions inside the narrow window of children/young people? I'm still waiting for the data that supports getting these injections for anyone. Is there any data that the injections protect against severe disease? (I think not.) I am also truly stumped--considering the admission that any alleged protection wanes within months--what protection (against severe disease/hospitalization even if these injections do provide protection) is there 3 or 4 months after injection? I am also confused by why we even need these shots for an illness that is something akin to a cold and dangerous only to those who face imminent extinction and are soon to die simply by living. I have a lot of other questions, but no answers.
the article Yuri posted will show you the shots were only good for those that want to eradicate the population of this world, the likes of gates, schwab and soros.
I always wonder if Soros pours many millions into backing all his leftist DA's who hate locking up rapists and killers (and of course never, ever, never releasing them near Soros' neck of the woods with his big giant house and rolling green lawns sitting behind very high walls and ornate iron gates with his well armed private security locked and loaded and ready to ROLL, baby!) because A) he gets a huge kick from watching lower and middle class women and children cowering in fear of roaming repeat offenders in already devastated blue city neighborhoods or B) he just hates America, and his pet DA's throw in the cowering women and children for shits and giggles.
it is difficult to understand normal people. It is totally impossible to understand a sick mind (even if it is from dementia). I think it is also impossible to understand a psychopath.
Sorry but I think that is nonsense.
you might want to check out both Yuri and Steve Kirsch's posts.
Here is yet another article - Epoch times
A scientific journal is rejecting a request to retract a study that found people who received a COVID-19 booster were more likely to become infected when compared to unvaccinated people.
Analyzing numbers from California's prison system, a research group found that those who received one of the bivalent boosters had a higher infection rate than people who have never received a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Their study was published by the journal Cureus following peer review.
https://drtrozzi.org/2023/09/17/nurse-sarah-choujounian-lighting-up-dark-corners/
here is the testimony of a Canadian nurse, with Dr. Trozzi, of how the elderly in retirement homes faired.
https://hatchardreport.com/the-new-zealand-health-debate-fact-checking-ayesha-verrall-vs-shane-reti/
here are the numbers for New Zealand, and there is a site with those from Australia as well, for which I do not have a link
And here's another important Epoch Times article. US Govt essentially bribed/threatened OB-GYNs into promoting shots for pregnant women.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/government-gave-millions-to-american-college-of-obstetricians-and-gynecologists-to-promote-covid-19-vaccines-to-pregnant-women-5486432?utm_source=Health_vaccine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=vaccine-2023-09-11&src_src=Health_vaccine&src_cmp=vaccine-2023-09-11&est=sFKZGBNiuBLGZDR1JFJwoBG1eD6mSSFKlH4err7vpcQky0Jt5k0rXJAUFJEQKIc6ZQ%3D%3D
Memento, your comment above had questions that many of us have been asking for more than two years, and not only were they not answered by anyone in any official capacity, the mere attempt to ask these questions in mainstream outlets were systematically, efficiently, and quickly banned, censored, and the questioner ridiculed. Yet you were very quick to write that Ingrid's post is "nonsense". Again, answers have been missing for years now, and you'd (apparently) be surprised how often some easy quick research turns up the word "depopulation"; when I saw it coming from a few vaccine zealots like Bill Gates (during a Ted Talk), I quit my knee jerk response of "nonsense" and began thinking "Hmm, this might explain some of these stone cold sociopaths who have been fascinated with all things vaccine and mass populations for years. Or not? Too bad we never get ANY answers".
Your reply to the above mentioned is much more polite than mine would’ve been…thank you.
Thanks RK&TW, but you are more articulate than me, so I'll keep being polite and you keep posting your great articulate comments, and maybe one day my (still unconvinced) friends will also be hitting the "likes".
Actually Fred, although I am no fan WHATSOEVER of Bill Gates and his "health agenda," I watched that TED talk by Gates the other day and here's what I heard: Gates did say population control using vaccines but in context I think he was verbally "short-handing" something like this --
women (presumably in the developing world) who are having a lot of children will have less children if they use birth control and vaccinate the children that they do have so that presumably those children will live longer and maybe women won't continue having more
Look, I know that sounds like a lot of words to put in his mouth, but in fairness, I think people often speak "in lists" and assume that their audience understands the general message. I think getting "overly literal" here is really to misconstrue what he was communicating at the time.
Frankly it could be that Bill just isn't all that bright. He just has a lot of money and a huge ego to sway things in very bad directions. To me he seems mainly about 1) worldwide population reduction through birth control and 2) a "true believer" in every form of vaccination proven or not.
But if he really cared about health, he would have used his wealth to make sure that every village in Africa had clean water. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
So bottomline, we agree Gates does want less people on the planet, but not, I think, by killing them with a vaccine.
I see no evidence that anyone should get the jab. I see too many good scientist saying lazy things like: “well, older people are at more risk from C19” (yes, I agree that was true...is that true in the same way now? I think not.)....but that means nothing if the person gets net net no added protection from the new booster. Show me data that the new booster helps a person incrementally who already has 3 jabs and no (known) infection (so far). Where is that data. 18 mice do not count. We know lots of side effects! (And that NIH still chooses do little or no studies on side effects. WHAT?!)
Agreed to some extent, but vaccinating children to purportedly protect against COVID is sheer insanity. It’s nothing short of outright child abuse. As such, it should indeed engender a bit if a fixation, especially when the subject matter is in the news.