What does the "science" say?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (63)
sorted by:
Listen, bud, I don't want to get in a spat. Others seem to be jumping on you anyway, so I'll just make it quick.
The Globalists like Schwab, Soros and Gates have been going on for decades how they want to reduce the world population.
They all have financial interests in vaccine companies.
Vaccines that have been produced by them have left many in 3rd world countries sterile or producing children with great deformities.
Cutting all the science theories, studies, research and what ifs aside, if you follow the money, it's clear A, B, and C are the primary goals for, in their mind, a successful vaccination(apartheid) campaign.
So, assuming they made something that fits the "Bill", I'm gonna boldly say, yeah, vaccinated people aren't in for a good time.
Yup, and not one of them addressed a single thing I actually said, but rather addressed suppositions of things that had not one thing to do with what I said.
When one gets into a debate, one should address the argument presented and not a made up argument that was not presented. That is called a strawman.
Yup. I've written a fair bit about this.
I have substantial evidence to support this statement and have written about it many times. I am writing what is turning into a book about these very facts.
Not a single argument from me about this. I agree 100%.
And again, we have no argument here.
This is 100% speculative. Basing "the standing theory" on something that is 100% speculative is not a theory it is a hypothesis. It can become a theory if it has evidential support. There is none. When you try to make a hypothesis into a theory without presenting evidence but just by calling it a "standing theory" that is an appeal to authority to make it into a stronger argument than it is, because it has no actual evidence to support it.
We have a metric FUCKTON of data on these vaccines. None of it supports the hypothesis of infertility, genetic damage to sperm/eggs, etc.. Promoting an idea that there is, without such evidence, is exactly what "fear mongering" is. You are trying to make people afraid of something for which there is no evidential support within the large body of data that we have.
You think that just because they have motive to do so that they have done it. That is supposition. If, within the mountain of evidence that we have there was supporting evidence for the theory, then I would be agreeing that the evidence does support it, but there isn't any, and that is why I disagree with it.
You are spreading a fear that all the evidence for the vaccines that we have does not support.
I think you're hung up on semantics.
I count miscarriages along with general sterility.
I've heard a TON of anecdotal stories about how pregnant women are having miscarriages as well as pregnant women who are simply in proximity with someone who was recently vaccinated. Hell, I've been getting prayer requests from Church by pregnant mothers having severe complications.
Oh, and by the way, we don't have evidence because it is being suppressed. All we have is anecdotes, so if those aren't good enough for you, then by your metrics we can't form ANY theories because the people in charge won't let us. Which is all sorts of a mind fuck of circular logic to me.
You gotta chill with the semantic arguments, is all I'm saying. All those rules you're hell-bent on following were put in place by bad actors to make sure the Truth is always quashed by those who have a precious degree and seek to lord it over us.
Common sense calls them as they see them, and I've seen a fair share of people say, yeah, it's making it hard to make babies.
Nicki Minaj's current affair with her friend's testicles growing to pop is a marked case I'm surprised you don't count among pertinent evidence. Is she a fear-monger?
There is substantial evidence that the vaccines interfere with pregnancy. The problem is, the vaccine causes an autoimmune response. That is its entire design purpose. It also causes substantial shock to the human body. Both of those also cause spontaneous abortion in the first 6 months of pregnancy, which is the time period where the evidence suggests the pregnancy problems are occurring (there is no substantial evidence that I have seen that it is occurring in the final trimester).
Just because you count miscarriages along with general sterility doesn't mean that biologically they are the same idea. Losing a baby due to a system shock and autoimmune response, and not being able to get pregnant and/or later having pregnancy issues are biologically very different things. There is data to support the first, not the second.
Maybe, maybe not. I have a TON of evidence for all sorts of things that are being suppressed. I have no evidence of this. We go with what we have, not what we can suppose. We can suppose all sorts of untrue things. That is the capacity of the human mind. That is why it is essential that we use actual evidence in the decision making process.
See above.
I honestly don't think I am doing that at all. Using the phrase "standing theory" really does give an unsubstantiated idea more support than it deserves. It also causes fear in others by using that appeal to authority.
I am basically writing a book on how the Cabal uses words to cast spells (its a report on the Matrix in which we live, but it boils down to that statement, and its become so long its practically a book). I have become pretty critical of how people use rhetoric to support their ideas. People are constantly casting spells on each other without realizing it. It has become our culture. I am pointing it out because it is harmful to use unbased fears to influence others decisions. That is how we got here in the first place.
Yup, that is all part of the report. You will understand my perspective much better when I am done. Hopefully very soon.
"Common sense" is an illusion of truth. Common sense is actually more often a lie designed to control the population than anything having to do with the truth. Common sense is exploitable and it pretty much always is exploited by the Cabal to mislead.
I've seen no other reports of this in the VAERS reports. One piece of anecdote does not count as substantive evidence, no matter how much anyone might want it to. Anecdotes are great, for pointing in the direction of an investigation, but by themselves they are meaningless as evidence. If you get enough anecdotes you can create a statistical argument, but one anecdote is, outside of a direction for investigation, otherwise completely meaningless.
Here's the deal, and I've given this great thought.
Let's say I'm going over to a my wife's friend's house.
The friend has gotten into a ton of weird health stuff, and it's been getting weirder.
I enter the house with my wife and the friend has made some pie.
The pie looks a little rough, but no different than any other home-made pie.
The only thing is, the friend's hands are covered in shit. It smells, and looks like shit.
The friend offers my wife and I some pie.
Now, here's the deal. I have no evidence that shit is in the pie. The shit on the friend's hands could be completely coincidental, even though the friend seems to be making no effort to clean it off.
I maintain hesitation, not fear, and refuse to eat the pie.
Continuing with the scenario -- despite, my hesitation and my recommendation that she not eat the pie, my wife eats some of the pie, assuring me that her friend would not put shit in it. The friend is silent on the matter.
She seems to enjoy it, but this is my wife's friend, not mine. I don't know enough about the friend to make any conclusions on whether or not my wife has or has not become a shit eater. I only have anecdotal evidence that the friend has been getting into some weird stuff.
I do trust my wife, however, but I can't trust her judgement because it could be blinded by the trust she has with her friend.
Finally, we move past the shit pie segment and later in the evening my wife goes in for a kiss.
Now, I still don't know for certain if she ate a shit pie. The ultimate question I have for you is this:
Am I fear mongering to resist the kiss? Would I be fear mongering if another friend came over and I suggested they not eat the pie or kiss someone who has?
I personally have no capacity to prove whether or not the pie has shit in it, and I think it is safe to not trust my wife's friend on account of their previous behavior before the event.
So, my ultimate point is this: I absolutely do not need to formally declare a hypothesis or substantiate that hypothesis with physical proof or evidence to come to the conclusion there is a non-zero chance shit is in the pie, even if by accident due to the carelessness of the friend.
Oh, and if there is shit in the pie, I really don't care that the science of baking would result in the germs being killed off. Personally, regardless of its sanitary nature, I don't want to eat a shit pie or kiss someone who has.
Personally, I do not see it as fear mongering.
Rather, it's justifiable hesitation. I'm not afraid of the pie, I simply just don't trust it and as such cannot make a recommendation for anyone else to either. The only way I would trust to eat the pie is if I saw it made from scratch, which, in the case of the "vaccines" they flagrantly refuse to disclose, which only adds to my hesitation.
Okay, as an aside, I tried to make a post about 2 months back and it got ate because it was too long.
I think I'm 100% with you on this point.
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jJe3ag0y/layers-of-lies-how-magic-works/
If you can't read it, I'll copy-paste in a comment. Tell me what you think.