Retraction. Doesn’t change much.
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (15)
sorted by:
So- only 40% of hospitalisations are fully vaccinated. Assuming a large portion have probably had one jab It kind of proves the vaccinated/unvaccinated are no different. Idiots.
Ya know this actually makes the vaxed sheep more at risk as expected. Just wait until 90% of hospital beds are filled with vaxed sheep and they try and blame it on us clean un-poisoned people.
Don’t worry they 1,000% will. And the sheep will buy it.
Fuck this timeline.
That still means 40% of vaccinated people got the poke poke for absolutely no reason.
If they got sick enough to be hospitalized, then the argument "But the vaccines don't stop transmission, they only reduce symptoms" falls flat on its face.
They just have to admit it. The "vaccines" were never intended to deal with the virus. The virus was intended to "deal" with the "vaccines." Greed and Murder.
I have also read where doctors in Britain are refusing to see vaccinated patients and aren't referring them to hospitals.
How do you control the #'s? Well... you first start by controlling who you admit to the hospitals in the first place. In a state run medical industry, that's easy.
How many of those hospitalized, vaxed or not, are in a high risk category?
They have everyone looking at the wrong stats all together....
Too many still falling for their slight of hand and misdirection.
This feels a bit like maybe they said 60% first then corrected to 40% just to make 40% seem less bad
What percentage of the particular population this guy is talking about are double-vaxxed? If it is also 40%, then the vax doesn't seem to make any difference.
My friend was admitted to the hospital for routine stuff. He was told they are only testing non-vaxed prior to admitting them. Controlling the numbers much?
So then 40% are from vaccinated?
What’s the diff?
he didn't misquote the number... he went on to detail why it was the case. You don't detail why the opposite way.
A UK Circle Back.
Any day now