The standard three-shot dosing regimen did not help young kids avoid medical care for Covid. Why does the Centers for Disease Control continue to push jabs on them?
The time for turning the other cheek has long since passed. Prosecute any and all government/public health officials and/Elected Things/doctors who were and continue to spin the COVID grift. Additionally, lift the civil immunity and let the litigation fly. Revenge is a dish best served cold...
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.
Well of course it doesn't work. Three is clearly not enough!
"Seven is the key number. Think about it. Seven eleven. Seven dwarfs. Seven man, that's the number. Seven chipmunks twirling on a branch eating lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch ...you know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you are dreaming about gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby."
Alex I’m an early big fan but at some point you need to start connecting the facts.
The people running the regulatory agencies all worked for the drug companies. They funded the research to develop the virus for the purpose of selling the drugs. (You can’t call them vaccines).
They literally killed millions of people.
These same people control the worldwide media. This is why there is no critical analysis of what they did in the media.
Of course they’re going to try and get this poison into the children.
They know what they’re doing.
Fortunately the rest of the world is figuring it out too.
I know it kind of hard to fathom, but when you keep asking why, it becomes the only logical conclusion.
At 60-69 they claim 0.501% so 70 and over was 1% or maybe a bit higher.
Now, as the Pfizer scientists admitted in Australia, every vaccine has side effects. The question is does the benefit outweigh the risk.
The CDC is advising people that they should get the modRNA gene therapy every year, perhaps twice a year.
The risk is additive.
So, a baby at 6 months old is advised to get at least 70 of those shots by the time they are 70, perhaps even 140. If we go with the 10-20% risk of a serious side effect per shot (from one of your previous posts) and be generous by assuming only a 10% risk of a serious side effect, the probability of a serious side effect by age 70 is: 1 - (0.9)^70.
That is: 0.99937.
You are ensuring a child will have a serious side effect in order to reduce their risk of dying from Covid-19 at age 70?
And, let's not forget that the modRNA Gene therapy wears off quickly.
It's amusing to also calculate when they should wait until to get the modRNA Gene Therapy.
If they wait until age 35, the probability of a serious side effect drops to 0.99127. Such a huge reduction in risk.
If they wait until age 30 the probability of a serious side effect drops to 0.957.
If they wait until age 50 the probability of a serious side effect drops to 0.878.
Of course, if the actual risk of a serious side effect is larger than 10% then it is even worse.
I think I will wait until I am dead ... ha ha ha.
Hmmm, someone who is more familiar with statistics claims that it is not that simple ... so I would like to see a better argument.
I can really only say this ONE way top make the point. A rapist will rape until IT is not allowed too. This is and never has been rocket science. Its all simply "allowed" to continue. ZERO accountability is the greatest existential crisis we face and, yet there are still people who ask WHY. Its truly astonishing!
The CDC/current administration will never admit defeat. That is what defines a true autocracy. They cannot be defeated because they invent the definitions.
The time for turning the other cheek has long since passed. Prosecute any and all government/public health officials and/Elected Things/doctors who were and continue to spin the COVID grift. Additionally, lift the civil immunity and let the litigation fly. Revenge is a dish best served cold...
They would rather continue to recommend a drug that injures children than admit they have been wrong since the beginning.
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.
While the shots may not be effective medically for kids, they are 100% effective in signalling you are not republican.
Evidently children under 5 are useless.
To billionaires.
Money and greed is one hell of a drug also.
Well of course it doesn't work. Three is clearly not enough!
"Seven is the key number. Think about it. Seven eleven. Seven dwarfs. Seven man, that's the number. Seven chipmunks twirling on a branch eating lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch ...you know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you are dreaming about gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby."
AND WE'RE THE CRAZY ONE'S FOR CARING!
Alex I’m an early big fan but at some point you need to start connecting the facts.
The people running the regulatory agencies all worked for the drug companies. They funded the research to develop the virus for the purpose of selling the drugs. (You can’t call them vaccines).
They literally killed millions of people.
These same people control the worldwide media. This is why there is no critical analysis of what they did in the media.
Of course they’re going to try and get this poison into the children.
They know what they’re doing.
Fortunately the rest of the world is figuring it out too.
I know it kind of hard to fathom, but when you keep asking why, it becomes the only logical conclusion.
What? The killshots do not stop COVID in children?? The hell you say?
Mind.Blown.
Who is a vaxxers favourite inventor?
Alexander Graham Bell’s Palsy --Farrrrrrout
Can't admit defeat, much culling still needed.
It's been too good a grift to give up on.
Alex, it is worse than that. A recent paper suggests that the IFR for the virus is much lower than was claimed: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.11.22280963v1
At 60-69 they claim 0.501% so 70 and over was 1% or maybe a bit higher.
Now, as the Pfizer scientists admitted in Australia, every vaccine has side effects. The question is does the benefit outweigh the risk.
The CDC is advising people that they should get the modRNA gene therapy every year, perhaps twice a year.
The risk is additive.
So, a baby at 6 months old is advised to get at least 70 of those shots by the time they are 70, perhaps even 140. If we go with the 10-20% risk of a serious side effect per shot (from one of your previous posts) and be generous by assuming only a 10% risk of a serious side effect, the probability of a serious side effect by age 70 is: 1 - (0.9)^70.
That is: 0.99937.
You are ensuring a child will have a serious side effect in order to reduce their risk of dying from Covid-19 at age 70?
And, let's not forget that the modRNA Gene therapy wears off quickly.
It's amusing to also calculate when they should wait until to get the modRNA Gene Therapy.
If they wait until age 35, the probability of a serious side effect drops to 0.99127. Such a huge reduction in risk.
If they wait until age 30 the probability of a serious side effect drops to 0.957.
If they wait until age 50 the probability of a serious side effect drops to 0.878.
Of course, if the actual risk of a serious side effect is larger than 10% then it is even worse.
I think I will wait until I am dead ... ha ha ha.
Hmmm, someone who is more familiar with statistics claims that it is not that simple ... so I would like to see a better argument.
They are pushing hard for vaccination,masking, testing and isolation if positive for Covid. Even National Geographic is pushing it https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/sick-covid-refresher-tests-masking-isolation-medicine
I can really only say this ONE way top make the point. A rapist will rape until IT is not allowed too. This is and never has been rocket science. Its all simply "allowed" to continue. ZERO accountability is the greatest existential crisis we face and, yet there are still people who ask WHY. Its truly astonishing!
Three clot Shots sure did a lot to ensure many kids would be hospitalized for side effects of the Clot Shots.
The CDC/current administration will never admit defeat. That is what defines a true autocracy. They cannot be defeated because they invent the definitions.