• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Covid Vaccine

Cont'd....


Floyd’s death was a match dropped into a tinderbox of humanity confined to veritable house arrest. People blocked from restaurants and bars were suddenly granted a societal waiver to venture out into enormous crowds, where they found excitement, socialization and, far too often, a senselessly destructive means of venting months of pent-up energy, anxiety and frustration. It stands as the costliest civil unrest episode in American history.

Public health erred on the side of confining people where the virus is transmitted most. Lockdowns ordered people away from workplaces, schools, restaurants and bars and into their homes, where New York contract tracers found 74% of Covid spread was happening, compared to just 1.4% in bars and restaurants and even less in schools and workplaces.

Public health erred on the side of obesity. According to the CDC, the risk of severe COVID-19 illness increases sharply with higher BMI [Body Mass Index].” So what happens when public health “experts” shut down schools, workplaces and recreation options and told people to stay home to stay “safe”?

The CDC found that, in 2020, the rate by which BMI increased among 2- to 19-year olds doubled. Another study found that 48% of adults gained weight during the pandemic, with those who were already overweight most likely to add even more. Among other factors, the study pointed to psychological distress and having schoolchildren at home.

Public health erred against fresh air, exercise and Vitamin D. Governments raced to shut down playgrounds, basketball courts and other outdoor recreation facilities. In a move that’s profoundly emblematic of heavy-handed, counterproductive authoritarianism in the age of Covid, the city of San Clemente, California filled a skate park with 37 tons of sand.

Public health erred on the side of impaired child development. “We find that children born during the pandemic have significantly reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance compared to children born pre-pandemic,” say the authors of a study from Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland (PERUKI).

“Results highlight that even in the absence of direct SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 illness, the environmental changes associated [with the] COVID-19 pandemic [are] significantly and negatively affecting infant and child development.”

Public health erred on the side of learning loss. Children are less vulnerable to Covid-19 than they are to the flu, and rarely transmit it to teachers. Unfortunately, American public health officials and teacher unions prevailed in halting in-person instruction (and socialization) in favor of “remote learning.”

It was a poor substitute that fell hardest on the youngest learners. For example, according to curriculum and assessment provider Amplify, the percentage of first-graders scoring at or above the goals for their grade in mid-school-year dropped from 58% before the pandemic to just 44% this year.

Public health erred on the side of pointlessly masking schoolchildren. When schools did open, mask mandates abounded—despite children’s relative invulnerability to the virus and the documented rarity of in-school transmission. A Spanish study showed no discernible difference in transmission among 5-year-olds—who aren’t required to mask—and 6 year olds, who are.

“Masking is a psychological stressor for children and disrupts learning. Covering the lower half of the face of both teacher and pupil reduces the ability to communicate,” wrote Neeraj Sood, director of the Covid Initiative at USC, and Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford. “Positive emotions such as laughing and smiling become less recognizable, and negative emotions get amplified. Bonding between teachers and students takes a hit.”

“Most of the masks worn by most kids for most of the pandemic have likely done nothing to change the velocity or trajectory of the virus,” writes University of California associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics Vinay Prasad. “The loss to children remains difficult to capture in hard data, but will likely become clear in the years to come.”

Public health erred on the side of giving masked people a false sense of security. As I wrote in August, “Covid-19 particles are astoundingly small. Hard as it is to imagine, the imperceptible gaps in surgical masks can be 1,000 times the size of a viral particle. Gaps in cloth masks are well larger.” That’s to say nothing of the respirated air that simply goes around the mask’s edges.

Earlier in the pandemic, questioning cloth masks triggered outrage and swift social media censorship. Now, even mandate-happy CNN medical analyst Leana Wen has declared they’re “little more than facial decorations.” Mask skepticism is sprouting elsewhere in mainstream media; the Washington Post and Bloomberg even published an essay titled “Mask Mandates Didn’t Make Much of a Difference Anyway.”

When public health officials exaggerated the power of masks, they did more than promote pointless discomfort and a dystopian way of life. “Naively fooled to think that masks would protect them, some older high-risk people did not socially distance properly, and some died from Covid-19 because of it,” said epidemiologist, biostatistician and former Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff.

Public health erred on the side of killing small businesses. Thanks in large part to government’s targeting of so-called “non-essential businesses,” the first year of the pandemic brought an additional 200,000 business closures over prior levels.

Public health erred on the side of harming women’s careers. Women comprise a greater proportion of the sectors hid hardest by lockdowns, and the closing of schools and child care centers prompted many more women than men to put their careers on hold.

Public health erred on the side of inflation. To offset the massive economic destruction inflicted by public health shutdowns, the federal government plunged into an astounding spending spree, handing out cash to individuals, businesses and city and state governments.

It was money the government didn’t have, so the Federal Reserve essentially created it out of thin air. Pushing all that new fiat money into circulation debases the currency, fueling today’s surging price inflation—which is a stealth tax with no maximum rate, which hits poor people hardest.
 
Cont'd....


Note: Lockdowns and other mandates weren’t the exclusive driver of many of the various harms I’ve described; general fear of the virus also contributed to some of them. However, it should also be noted that public health officials—and media that overwhelmingly emphasized negative stories—whipped up a level of fear that led people to overstate the level of danger actually posed by the virus.

There’s one more way in which characterizing lockdowns and other mandates as “erring on the side of caution” plays a psychological trick: Since the phrase is embedded with the notion of good intentions, it conditions citizens to be forgiving of the bureaucrats and politicians who imposed them.

Note, however, that in most everyday usage of “erring on the side of caution,” the choice to “err” is made voluntarily by individuals who bear the consequences of their own decisions—or by others, like an airplane pilot or a surgeon, to whom we’ve voluntarily and unmistakably granted control of our well-being.

The grim impacts of lockdowns and other mandates, however, were coercively imposed on society, to say nothing of the fact that so many of the edicts represented gross usurpations of power and violations of human rights.

On top of all that, the edicts were reinforced by Orwellian censorship and ostracism leveled at those who dared raise questions that have now proven valid.

So make no mistake: Overreaching public health officials and politicians—and the journalists-in-name-only who served as their mindless, unquestioning megaphones—have fully earned our withering condemnation. Indeed, holding them accountable is essential to sparing ourselves and future generations from repeating this dystopian chapter of human history.
 
Public Health Erred on the Side of Catastrophe

In a coercive mass experiment, governments opened a Pandora’s box of harms​


Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, proponents of lockdowns, shelter-in-place orders, mask mandates and other coercive government interventions have characterized these measures as benevolently “erring on the side of caution.”

Now, as the grim toll of those public health measures comes into ever-sharper focus, it’s increasingly clear those characterizations were terribly wrong.

What’s less readily apparent, however, is how the very use of the “erring on the side of caution” framing was injurious in itself—by thwarting reasoned debate of public health policies, diverting attention from unintended consequences, and buffering the Covid regime’s architects from accountability.

To understand how the misuse of “erring on the side of caution” performed a sort of mass hypnosis that coaxed populations into two years of submission to disastrous, overreaching policies, consider how the expression is typically used.

In everyday life, one might err on the side of caution by:
  • Leaving for the airport an extra 30 minutes early
  • Carrying an umbrella when there’s a 25% chance of rain
  • Opting for a less-challenging ski slope
  • Going back into the house to make sure the iron is unplugged
  • Getting a second medical opinion
Generally speaking, “erring on the side of caution” in everyday life means lowering risk with a precaution that has a negligible cost.

When mandate proponents portrayed their edicts as “erring on the side of caution,” it had the effect of tacitly assuring the public—and themselves—that there’d be little or no harm associated with extreme measures like:
  • Shutting down businesses for months at a time
  • Knowingly forcing millions of people into unemployment
  • Halting in-person attendance at schools and colleges
  • Ordering people of all ages and risk profiles to wear masks
  • Denying people opportunities to socialize, recreate and enjoy living
That implicit low-downside assurance not only fostered unthinking support for draconian measures among citizens and experts alike, it also cultivated an atmosphere of intolerance toward those who questioned the wisdom of these interventions and predicted the great many harms that have resulted.

“Overconfident, unnuanced messaging conditioned us to assume that all dissenting opinions are misinformation rather than reflections of good faith disagreement or differing priorities,” write Rutgers professors Jacob Hale Russell and Dennis Patterson in their essay, The Mask Debacle. “In doing so, elites drove out scientific research that might have separated valuable interventions from the less valuable.”

Of course, in addition to its implicit assurance that a risk-reduction measure comes at little cost, “erring on the side of caution” conveys an assumption that the precaution will actually be effective.

That hasn’t been the case with Covid mandates. Though many continue embracing the illusion of government control over Covid, the contrary studies and real-world observations are stacking far too high to be denied any longer by the intellectually honest among us.

Public Health Threw Out the Playbook and Threw Pandora’s Box Wide Open​

The masses who’ve chanted “I trust science,” as they praise each government intervention and idolize those who impose them, are likely unaware that, before Covid-19, the well-considered scientific consensus was against lockdowns, broad quarantines and masking outside of hospital settings—particular for a virus like Covid-19 that has a 99% survival rate for most age groups.

For example, a 2006 paper published by the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center—focusing on mitigation measures against another contagious respiratory illness, pandemic influenza—reads like a warning label against many of the policies inflicted on humanity in the face of Covid-19:
  • “There is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals. The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences…are likely to be considerable.”
  • “Widespread closures [of schools, restaurants, churches, recreations centers, etc] would almost certainly have serious adverse social and economic effects.”
  • “The ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of small droplets bearing influenza virus…There are few data available to support the efficacy of N95 or surgical masks outside a healthcare setting. N95 masks need to be fit-tested to be efficacious.”
The point of that and other pre-2020 research into pandemic mitigation was to be prepared, in times of crisis, with policies that reflected a well-reasoned and dispassionate weighing of costs and benefits.

However, when the pandemic arrived, panicking public health officials and academics threw out the playbook and took their policy inspiration from the government that was first to confront the virus. Sadly for the world, that was communist China.

The breadth of the resulting harms from the ensuing plunge into public health authoritarianism is staggering. Far from erring on the side of caution…

Public health erred on the side of a mental health crisis. Anxiety and depression have surged, particularly among adolescents and young adults, where symptoms have doubled during the pandemic.

“I have never been as busy in my life and I’ve never seen my colleagues as busy,” New York psychiatrist Valentine Raiteri told CNBC. “I can’t refer people to other people because everybody is full.”

Public health erred on the side of juvenile suicide attempts. In the summer of 2020, emergency room visits for potential suicides by children leapt over 22% compared to the summer of 2019.

Public health erred on the side of drug overdoses. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, overdose deaths surged 30% in 2020 to a record-high of more than 93,000. Among the factors cited: social isolation, people using drugs alone, and decreased access to treatment.

Public health erred on the side of auto fatalities. Traffic deaths had been on a general downtrend since the 60s, reaching a near-record low in 2019. However, even with shutdown-lightened traffic, deaths jumped 17.5% in the summer of 2020 compared to 2019, and kept rising into 2021.

Blame increased drug and alcohol use, along with psychological fallout from people being denied life’s fundamental pleasures. University of Texas cognitive scientist Art Markman told The New York Times that anger and aggression behind the wheel in part reflects “two years of having to stop ourselves from doing things that we’d like to do.”

Public health erred on the side of domestic violence. A review of 32 studies found an increase in domestic violence around the world, with the increases most intense during the first week of lockdowns. “The home confinement led to constant contact between perpetrators and victims, resulting in increased violence and decreased reports,” the researchers found.

Public health erred on the side of riots, arson and looting. It’s my own conviction that 2020’s eruption of summer violence following a Minneapolis police officer’s callous homicide of George Floyd was greatly magnified by the period of forced mass confinement that preceded it.
All,

Please read this article that finally starts to articulate some of the human costs of the Covid flu policies. This is a fundamental step in empowering the people not to let this happen to them again.
 
Funny how doctors are now coming around, saying exactly what we did over 2 years ago. Yeah, no. **** you. You're damned right you were ignorant.

Dr. Joseph Fraiman — ‘These policies were harmful. I was ignorant.’



Public Health Erred on the Side of Catastrophe​

In a coercive mass experiment, governments opened a Pandora’s box of harms​


Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, proponents of lockdowns, shelter-in-place orders, mask mandates and other coercive government interventions have characterized these measures as benevolently “erring on the side of caution.”

Now, as the grim toll of those public health measures comes into ever-sharper focus, it’s increasingly clear those characterizations were terribly wrong.

What’s less readily apparent, however, is how the very use of the “erring on the side of caution” framing was injurious in itself—by thwarting reasoned debate of public health policies, diverting attention from unintended consequences, and buffering the Covid regime’s architects from accountability.

To understand how the misuse of “erring on the side of caution” performed a sort of mass hypnosis that coaxed populations into two years of submission to disastrous, overreaching policies, consider how the expression is typically used.

In everyday life, one might err on the side of caution by:
  • Leaving for the airport an extra 30 minutes early
  • Carrying an umbrella when there’s a 25% chance of rain
  • Opting for a less-challenging ski slope
  • Going back into the house to make sure the iron is unplugged
  • Getting a second medical opinion
Generally speaking, “erring on the side of caution” in everyday life means lowering risk with a precaution that has a negligible cost.

When mandate proponents portrayed their edicts as “erring on the side of caution,” it had the effect of tacitly assuring the public—and themselves—that there’d be little or no harm associated with extreme measures like:
  • Shutting down businesses for months at a time
  • Knowingly forcing millions of people into unemployment
  • Halting in-person attendance at schools and colleges
  • Ordering people of all ages and risk profiles to wear masks
  • Denying people opportunities to socialize, recreate and enjoy living
That implicit low-downside assurance not only fostered unthinking support for draconian measures among citizens and experts alike, it also cultivated an atmosphere of intolerance toward those who questioned the wisdom of these interventions and predicted the great many harms that have resulted.

“Overconfident, unnuanced messaging conditioned us to assume that all dissenting opinions are misinformation rather than reflections of good faith disagreement or differing priorities,” write Rutgers professors Jacob Hale Russell and Dennis Patterson in their essay, The Mask Debacle. “In doing so, elites drove out scientific research that might have separated valuable interventions from the less valuable.”

Of course, in addition to its implicit assurance that a risk-reduction measure comes at little cost, “erring on the side of caution” conveys an assumption that the precaution will actually be effective.

That hasn’t been the case with Covid mandates. Though many continue embracing the illusion of government control over Covid, the contrary studies and real-world observations are stacking far too high to be denied any longer by the intellectually honest among us.

Public Health Threw Out the Playbook and Threw Pandora’s Box Wide Open​

The masses who’ve chanted “I trust science,” as they praise each government intervention and idolize those who impose them, are likely unaware that, before Covid-19, the well-considered scientific consensus was against lockdowns, broad quarantines and masking outside of hospital settings—particular for a virus like Covid-19 that has a 99% survival rate for most age groups.

For example, a 2006 paper published by the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center—focusing on mitigation measures against another contagious respiratory illness, pandemic influenza—reads like a warning label against many of the policies inflicted on humanity in the face of Covid-19:
  • “There is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals. The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences…are likely to be considerable.”
  • “Widespread closures [of schools, restaurants, churches, recreations centers, etc] would almost certainly have serious adverse social and economic effects.”
  • “The ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of small droplets bearing influenza virus…There are few data available to support the efficacy of N95 or surgical masks outside a healthcare setting. N95 masks need to be fit-tested to be efficacious.”
The point of that and other pre-2020 research into pandemic mitigation was to be prepared, in times of crisis, with policies that reflected a well-reasoned and dispassionate weighing of costs and benefits.

However, when the pandemic arrived, panicking public health officials and academics threw out the playbook and took their policy inspiration from the government that was first to confront the virus. Sadly for the world, that was communist China.

So once again, going back to the original pandemic plan put together during bush the sequel’s reign, the two week lockdown was never meant to stop or fix the virus situation… it was a known fact that such a process was simply going to drag it out… it was only meant to slow down the initial spread until hospitals could prep for the incoming surge.

A total quarantine was never enacted, and even that would ultimately simply spread the illness thoroughly in an area so that the majority of the people weee either immune or dead from it…

The half measure extended lockdown just added six months to a year to the pandemic crest…

Good job “Science Believers” for not following actual science you “assfuck backward ignorant cultists”… you know, exactly what they all say to anyone who questions them …

It’d be nice if for once someone spouting follow the science actual followed the real science instead of the political science bullshit
 

‘Pfizer knew mRNA Vaccine leaked into ovaries and covered it up’​


 
Dr. McCullough testifies at Pennsylvania Senate hearing Friday.

 
All of that information coming to light is great, but if no one is held to account, what difference does it make? They'll just keep making up the rules as they go, mandating **** of you and not for them. I'd be stunned if any of the so-called elites even took the vaccine. Pretty sure they knew this ****, and if they did, no way they injected themselves with that poison.

This whole thing is criminal to say the very least. I'm not sure how we manage to put up with this stuff. Not sure how the media can just stay quiet. This whole episode is beyond the pale.
 
All of that information coming to light is great, but if no one is held to account, what difference does it make? They'll just keep making up the rules as they go, mandating **** of you and not for them. I'd be stunned if any of the so-called elites even took the vaccine. Pretty sure they knew this ****, and if they did, no way they injected themselves with that poison.

This whole thing is criminal to say the very least. I'm not sure how we manage to put up with this stuff. Not sure how the media can just stay quiet. This whole episode is beyond the pale.
all those televised injections?

yeah... you know those were legit

saline solution is a legit injection. a placebo injection.
 

‘Pfizer knew mRNA Vaccine leaked into ovaries and covered it up’​



Once more… the FDA scrapped a long standing policy about not oking emergency meds for pregnant women without extensive testing for this vaccine based off of a study that was disproven within weeks of release for faulty math and conclusions… yet they still use that study to say it was safe to this day.. again disproven study, rejected by that peer review process they adore… still holding to it because its all they have….
 
It's almost as if...we knew what we were talking about 2 years ago, 1 year ago, 6 months ago. Covid is here to stay, our measures are not working, our measures cause more harm than good, and Covid just isn't that deadly.

Today: Is Covid gone? Nope. We still have close to 40K cases per day and are still averaging over 1,100 deaths a day. Yet Democrats are now saying 'it's over.' Hell, even @Troglodyte told us if we are still having 1K deaths per day, we are still stuck in a Tibsticles-level raging inferno that should require the harshest of measures.

Yet as we predicted...the SOTU came, the midterms are approaching, and the Left would declare Covid gone. When in fact it's no different today than it was last year. In fact, our 7 day deaths average now is higher than it was for 6 full months of 2021.

What's changed? One thing: the political science.

"The Science" = Political Science. It has since day one.

 
i remember scoffing at this...


Very early in the pandemic doctors began tracking the association between COVID-19 disease severity and a patient’s blood type. Now researchers have validated those early observations, finding several blood proteins are causally linked to an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

Some of the earliest observational studies to come out of Wuhan in 2020 pointed to a correlation between a person’s blood type and their risk of serious illness from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. The general observation was that those with type A blood seemed to be at a much higher risk of hospitalization and death compared to those with type O blood.

A new study published in the journal PLOS Genetics has offered the clearest insight to date into the causal relationship between blood type and COVID-19 severity. The research used an analytical method called Mendelian randomization to assess the relationship between the gene variants that govern levels of blood proteins and COVID-19 disease outcomes.

“Causality between exposure and disease can be established because genetic variants inherited from parent to offspring are randomly assigned at conception similar to how a randomized controlled trial assigns people to groups,” explained co-first author on the new study Vincent Millischer. “In our study the groups are defined by their genetic propensity to different blood protein levels, allowing an assessment of causal direction from high blood protein levels to COVID-19 severity whilst avoiding influence of environmental effects.”

The researchers screened over 3,000 blood proteins, and COVID-19 severity was determined by either hospitalization or death.

One of the key findings was a causal association between COVID-19 severity and an enzyme known as ABO, which determines a person’s blood type.

Christopher Hübel from King’s College London said the new research did not interrogate the relationship between specific blood types and COVID-19 severity. However, he does point out the ABO findings do validate prior observational studies linking type A blood with an increased COVID-19 risk.


“The enzyme helps determine the blood group of an individual and our study has linked it with both risk of hospitalization and the need of respiratory support or death,” said Hübel, co-last author on the study. “Our study does not link precise blood group with risk of severe COVID-19 but since previous research has found that proportion of people who are group A is higher in COVID-19 positive individuals, this suggests that blood group A is more likely candidate for follow-up studies.”

Of course, there are a number of risk factors beyond blood type known to play a role in COVID-19 severity, from age to pre-existing illness. So these findings should not be a cause for concern to those with type A blood.

Instead, as co-last author on the study Gerome Breen explains, these findings help researchers investigate novel therapeutic pathways to help treat COVID-19. For example, several blood proteins were identified in the study as causally linked to a decreased risk of severe disease.

These proteins, known as adhesion molecules, play a role in the interactions between immune cells and blood vessels. The researchers hypothesize these adhesion molecules may be helping moderate the severity of late-stage COVID-19 and it may be possible to turn this discovery into a therapy to prevent sick patients deteriorating in hospital.

“What we have done in our study is provide a shortlist for the next stage of research,” said Breen. “Out of 1,000s of blood proteins we have whittled it down to about 14 that have some form of causal connection to the risk of severe COVID-19 and present a potentially important avenue for further research to better understand the mechanisms behind COVID-19 with an ultimate aim of developing new treatments but potentially also preventative therapies.”

The new study was published in the journal PLOS Genetics.
 
i remember scoffing at this...

Maybe these folks could look into all the soccer player deaths/injuries for blood factor correlation.
 
i remember scoffing at this...


Woot, woot, Type O baby! Yeah, get down....rock on...uh huh, uh huh. Typo O!

200.webp
 
All,

Please read this article that finally starts to articulate some of the human costs of the Covid flu policies. This is a fundamental step in empowering the people not to let this happen to them again.

Sadly, significant, almost irreparable damage has already been done. They were able to do all of this over a virus with a very low mortality rate. I shudder to think of something of actual consequence actually happening. This continent's most powerful showed it's true colors, to the disgust of many of us. Should now be all of us. And what did the SCOTUS etc. do during any of this?
 

Reminds me of an old clip of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. Watch a supermodel get giggly and blush at this old chap. Talk about a boss. Just trying for some levity in this whole ****-show:

 
I remember the discussion about blood types and defense against Covid more than a year ago. Wife and I are both type O and have never had the Chinese flu. Mother-in-law is about a billion years old, NOT type O, got the 17 vaccines, got Chinese flu and we never got it.

I genuinely believe the medical ****-ups and mistakes regarding the Chinese flu are going to be a text book in about five years. And I hope Fauxci is exposed as and excoriated for being a complete lying fraud pharma shill.
 

The Pfizer Vaccine Only Has 1,291 Side Effects!​

A judge forced the FDA to release Pfizer's clinical data and it's worse than you can possibly imagine​


The FDA was forced by a judge to release clinical data on the COVID vaccines back in January and so 55,000 pages of documents were just released. The FDA had originally wanted to hide the data for 75 years and release it in 2096 because, of course, the FDA is basically engaged in a criminal conspiracy. The COVID vaccines should never have been approved. This was obvious from the very beginning when animal trials were skipped in the Trump Administration’s ill-fated “Operation War Speed.” And now it’s undeniably true. We have the clinical data, and it’s horrific.
Hiding out in one appendix is the clinical data for Pfizer’s vaccine — which lists 1,291 adverse side effects in alphabetical order. Let’s give you just the bad things that can happen to people who took the Pfizer vaccine that start with the letter “a” to enjoy:

You get the idea. There are 9 pages of side effects in small print.
You already know that children, especially young boys, can get myocarditis from the vaccines but you should add to that list the serious possibility of them getting: a brain stem embolism, acute kidney injury, cardiac failure, frontal lobe epilepsy, Hashimoto's encephalopathy, herpes, interstitial lung disease, or Type 1 diabetes mellitus — just to pick a few very serious side effects from a very sobering list.
And don’t tell me that your chances are slim of getting injured. The U.S. government’s own database, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), has over 1 million reports of “adverse events” to the new vaccines — with 24,000 events listed as “death.” Pfizer was aware of more than 158,000 “adverse events” when they asked for approval from the FDA. People had serious issues after taking the Pfizer vaccine and Pfizer knew it before it sought approval for its vaccine. Look at this chart compiled by Pfizer itself.

Why would the FDA approve a new vaccine when 15,000 people had serious disorders of the nervous system after taking it?
There’s simply no good reason.
Tell your friends and tell your family: the vaccination of children must stop immediately. The U.S. government has bought 50 million doses of this poison for children under the age of 5 pedning FDa approval and it must never be allowed to use them.
Call your elected representatives, call your senators, call everyone you know to put a stop to this today.
Do not allow anyone to jab a child with this stuff.
Can I get this link.
 
So basically I was exposed dozens of times during the pandemic including such bad exposures as being in the same vehicle as someone with it, socializing with several people that came down with it immediately afterwards, having a roommate who had it while i was home, and having sex with an ex who was diagnosed with it a couple days later… I also traveled the country during the lockdown and never caught anything

Do you know when i caught it, when during the height of allergy season I was exposed to a ton of sulfur dioxide and my lungs developed bronchitis…then i got exposed after i was already sick… because covid was rarely affecting people whose immune system was healthy… it mostly was fought off without incident by the majority of the exposed
 
Top