patrick.net

The worst fact of this is that the benefits of the vaccine are not proven either.

The studies failed to prove that the vaccine reduces risk of getting the virus, let alone transmitting the virus. The only thing that hasty studies show is that the vaccinated participants in the rushed trials were less likely to self report symptoms of infection.

So in fact vaccinated people are more likely to remain ignorant of their infection and therefore more likely to go about their normal business of work and life. The vaccinated people are more likely to be assymptomatic carriers of the disease. How does this make anyone safer or justify the risks of participating in this experiment? This is especially an important question considering the near 100% survival rate for those infected who are otherwise healthy.

Onvacation says

I'm going to wait for my shot

If enough others get immunized you won't need to get the shot (unless your employer requires it).

B.A.C.A.H. says

Onvacation says

I'm going to wait for my shot

If enough others get immunized you won't need to get the shot (unless your employer requires it).

Or the government requires it before allowing airline travel, passports, or even driver license renewal.

HeadSet says

Or the government requires it before allowing airline travel, passports, or even driver license renewal.

If immunizatioin campaign is successful (as in "no more covid cases") there won't be a justification for any of these draconian measures long term. And if it's not, there won't be a justification to continue rolling out failed vaccine.

So the consensus here was that many groups of people are not actually at risk from Covid and the hundreds or thousands of exceptions don’t disprove the rule.

I agree.

However when it comes to the vaccine you are immediately against it because a few people experience mostly temporary side effects.

How exactly does that work?

The Covid vaccine has been proven to be a safe and effective, litigation free profit center for Gates and Fauci.

FuckTheMainstreamMedia says

So the consensus here was that many groups of people are not actually at risk from Covid and the hundreds or thousands of exceptions don’t disprove the rule.

I agree.

However when it comes to the vaccine you are immediately against it because a few people experience mostly temporary side effects.

How exactly does that work?

I'm more like in "wait and see" camp. Covid has been with us longer than the vaccine, so, naturally, we know more about the former than the latter.

From Amazing Polly. Note the date of 2005, that they have had these psyops for years:

FuckTheMainstreamMedia says

However when it comes to the vaccine you are immediately against it because a few people experience mostly temporary side effects.

I'm more concerned about the young healthy people that have died after taking the vaccine. I'll wait.

DR ERIC A NEPUTE - 40,000 ADVERSE VACCINE REACTIONS

Onvacation says

I'm more concerned about the young healthy people that have died after taking the vaccine. I'll wait.

Young and healty people should not have taken the vaccine in the first place. They are not the ones dying from the virus.

https://sonsoflibertymedia.com/bombshell-moderna-chief-medical-officer-admits-mrna-alters-dna/

At one minute in, Zaks states, “In every cell there’s this thing called messenger RNA or mRNA for short, that transmits the critical information from the DNA in our genes to the protein, which is really the stuff we’re all made out of. This is the critical information that determines what the cell will do. So we think about it as an operating system. …. So if you could actually change that, … if you could introduce a line of code, or change a line of code, it turns out, that has profound implications for everything, from the flu to cancer.”

Technically it's not altering DNA, it's just getting between the DNA -> RNA -> protein mechanism. But it's genetic engineering either way.

Just what you want: a bunch of antigenic stimulating proteins stuck inside all the cells that the mRNA can reach. 'Old fashioned' vaccines just injected these proteins loosely around the injection site to stimulate the reaction. They didn't imbed them in healthy cells and tissues all over the body to become antigenic targets for the immune response, and keep manufacturing them as long as the mRNA is around.

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1716939762614026243



So the contract itself said "We don't know if they're safe" and "We don't know if they're effective" and yet all government and media were screaming "safe and effective" for years.

The guilty parties must hang for this.

And why don't they want serial numbers on the toxxine?

From chatgpt:

In the context of vaccines, "Product shall not be serialized" means that the vaccine or its packaging should not have a unique serial number or identifier assigned to individual units of the product. Serialization in the pharmaceutical industry refers to the assignment of unique codes or serial numbers to individual units of a product, allowing them to be tracked and traced throughout the supply chain.

Serialization is essential for ensuring the authenticity and integrity of pharmaceutical products, including vaccines. It helps in tracking the movement of vaccines from the manufacturer to distributors, wholesalers, pharmacies, and ultimately to patients. Serialization systems provide a way to verify the authenticity of the product and prevent counterfeit or substandard vaccines from entering the market.

https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/word-crimes

Do NOT fall for the propaganda that attempts to trick you into focusing on the RELATIVE RISK REDUCTION, because it is massively deceptive.

Relative Risk Reduction versus Absolute Risk Reduction

Risk ratios are widely misused in ways that exaggerate both the benefits and harms of drugs. This is especially true regarding the term “relative risk reduction”.

Despite the fact that “relative risk reduction” is commonly cited, it does not really measure “risk” at all.

If a drug or injection changes risk from 2 deaths per 10 people to 1 death per 10 people, the relative risk reduction (50%) is the same as if the drug or injection changes risk from 2 deaths per 1,000,000 people to 1 death per 100,000,000 people.

Saving 1 out of every 10 lives is obviously different than saving 1 our of every 100,000,000 lives so, while it may be accurate, it is deceptive to say that both of these changes represent a 50% “relative risk reduction.”

The height of deception occurs when a drug or injection SHIFTS the risk of dying from the disease of concern by causing more deaths that are diagnosed to have been caused by OTHER diseases. In every case, one must look at the OVERALL death rate.

If a drug or injection causes one to be more likely to die from any cause, it is effective, but in an obviously negative way.

Whenever you hear the pharma or medical complex using the words 'safe and effective', invert it as usual with Satanic decoder ring to read "unsafe and ineffective".

Nobody sane in science would call something even tested 'safe and effective' because biologic response is inherently varied and unpredictable. It would never be 'safe and effective' for everybody who receives it. 'Safe and Effective' is always a Satanic sales pitch for the gullible.

Some things may be lower risk than others, but that's about it, assuming proper testing is done, which it doesn't appear to be any more since they have captured the peer review apparatus with payola.

Condoms are safe and effective. Many home and over the counter remedies are also safe and effective. Just because liars use words, doesn’t mean everyone who uses those words is a liar, or that the words are lies.

But you are on the right track crediting Satan for lies. He is the father of lies. He wants lies to be so prolific that people can’t sort fact from fiction. Sadly most will believe Satan’s lies.

Hopefully you are not one of the deceived. Only Jesus can free us from the bondage of sin and lies that lead us astray into captivity and death.