I don't think you and I are far from each other in terms of our positions. I thoroughly despise 'Big Pharma' because they profit from disease and have little incentive to produce actual 'cures'; healthy people don't need expensive drugs.
Regarding the special liability protections, I agree with you in general but I do accept that for Covid, a 'fast track' solution was desired under the circumstances and liability protections were a natural consequence. All drugs understandably require lengthy trial periods and no pharm company would commit to a 'fast track' without protections - so that just 'goes with the territory'.
Where I differ from 'many' of the people here on GA is that - while I hate 'big pharma' - I don't think they would intentionally develop a poisonous vaccine, and I don't think that our doctors and nurses are involved in some giant conspiracy to deploy a dangerous vaccine. Yes, a hospital may get some incentive to classify a patient as 'Covid', but beyond that, I simply don't see the vast, independent network of hospitals and medical groups collectively exerting the level of control that would be necessary to pull something like that off. Maybe in the UK (where I grew up), where they have a somewhat monolithic healthcare system, but not in the US, which has a loose association of private, independent businesses.
Doctors, like lawyers, are an arrogant, pain-in-the-ass group of people but for all the criticisms I'd lay at their feet, being easily manipulated is not one of their characteristics. I simply cannot conceive of a situation where the vast majority of doctors and nurses, worldwide, would collectively agree to a) push something that is bad, and/or b) suppress something that is good. Doctors and nurses are, as a whole, truly committed to the health and wellbeing of their patients.
Regarding the special liability protections, I agree with you in general but I do accept that for Covid, a 'fast track' solution was desired under the circumstances and liability protections were a natural consequence.
Totally agree with you. Hence my position all along that these vaccines, under EUA, should never be pushed by anyone in anyway. People should be adequately explained this is an experimental trial. There should be no vaccine mandates. There should be no coercions. There should be no censorship. People who are so damns scared of covid can go and take the vaccines all they like - I have no objections to that.
As for the sentiment that there is no grand conspiracy - I would have felt exactly the same last year. But having found Q and doing some research I cannot even imagine for a moment that there exists many professionals in the world who are niether actively ignorant not consciously going along with the Elite agenda, who are still at higher levels in the system - and I am not even talking about just medical profession.
Of course that sentiment is something each person needs to find out for themselves, and I believe we are not too far away from that.
Just curious - whats your thoughts on the gain-of-function research? Have you done any digging into Fauci and his connection to HIV? Do you believe this virus came from a lab or do you believe it was of natural origin?
I have to say I don't know enough about the 'gain of function' research to have an informed opinion. I certainly don't doubt that such research took place; the 'motivation' for such research is where the question lies (in my opinion). As for the virus 'coming from a lab' vs 'natural origin'. Again, I don't have an informed opinion but I don't doubt that it 'could' have come from a lab. And again, it's not whether it came from a lab or not, but rather, was it intentionally released.
I think it is fairly likely that labs do such research, and it's certainly possible that accidents happen. The real question is, was it released on purpose, and if so, why. I personally find it hard to accept that it was released intentionally but I remain open to suggestion.
When talking about grand conspiracies, I remain skeptical that there is a coordinated world-wide attempt to implement a global agenda of the nature proposed in this forum (population reduction, etc). I accept that in our capitalist society, 'big business' is in general driven by profit over and above concern for human welfare, and with global corporations, the 'scope' of this 'drive' will transcend conventional borders. But I don't believe there is a coordinated effort by 'the elite' to kill people off.
Regarding:
There should be no vaccine mandates. There should be no coercions
I understand and agree with the sentiment overall. But I do also see the 'why'. In the mainstream view, the vaccine is like the speed limit or the 'drunk driving' restrictions. You are required to limit your alcohol intake while driving, and also limit your speed, not for your OWN protection but for the protection of others (primarily). People generally accept these restrictions and understand that it is for the benefit of everyone. In the case of the vaccine, the only way the virus will be stamped out is if more than 'x' percent of the population have immunity - either through vaccine or infection. In order to reach 'x', the majority have to take the vaccine and thus - the mandates/incentives are implemented. I understand this from an epidemiological perspective. I don't personally think mandates are good, but I'm less opposed to 'coercions'/'incetives'. If in fact the virus is 'real', and if in fact the vaccine reduces transmission, then - limiting entrance to public spaces does make some sense. You aren't being forced to take the vaccine, you are allowed to choose. But if you choose not to, you can't enter a public space. I can see the logic of that.
I don't think you and I are far from each other in terms of our positions. I thoroughly despise 'Big Pharma' because they profit from disease and have little incentive to produce actual 'cures'; healthy people don't need expensive drugs.
Regarding the special liability protections, I agree with you in general but I do accept that for Covid, a 'fast track' solution was desired under the circumstances and liability protections were a natural consequence. All drugs understandably require lengthy trial periods and no pharm company would commit to a 'fast track' without protections - so that just 'goes with the territory'.
Where I differ from 'many' of the people here on GA is that - while I hate 'big pharma' - I don't think they would intentionally develop a poisonous vaccine, and I don't think that our doctors and nurses are involved in some giant conspiracy to deploy a dangerous vaccine. Yes, a hospital may get some incentive to classify a patient as 'Covid', but beyond that, I simply don't see the vast, independent network of hospitals and medical groups collectively exerting the level of control that would be necessary to pull something like that off. Maybe in the UK (where I grew up), where they have a somewhat monolithic healthcare system, but not in the US, which has a loose association of private, independent businesses.
Doctors, like lawyers, are an arrogant, pain-in-the-ass group of people but for all the criticisms I'd lay at their feet, being easily manipulated is not one of their characteristics. I simply cannot conceive of a situation where the vast majority of doctors and nurses, worldwide, would collectively agree to a) push something that is bad, and/or b) suppress something that is good. Doctors and nurses are, as a whole, truly committed to the health and wellbeing of their patients.
Totally agree with you. Hence my position all along that these vaccines, under EUA, should never be pushed by anyone in anyway. People should be adequately explained this is an experimental trial. There should be no vaccine mandates. There should be no coercions. There should be no censorship. People who are so damns scared of covid can go and take the vaccines all they like - I have no objections to that.
As for the sentiment that there is no grand conspiracy - I would have felt exactly the same last year. But having found Q and doing some research I cannot even imagine for a moment that there exists many professionals in the world who are niether actively ignorant not consciously going along with the Elite agenda, who are still at higher levels in the system - and I am not even talking about just medical profession.
Of course that sentiment is something each person needs to find out for themselves, and I believe we are not too far away from that.
Just curious - whats your thoughts on the gain-of-function research? Have you done any digging into Fauci and his connection to HIV? Do you believe this virus came from a lab or do you believe it was of natural origin?
BTW, I would strongly suggest this book - its very old and gives you a great history of the origin of western medicine: https://www.bitchute.com/video/B8GEYvqPDjXc/
I have to say I don't know enough about the 'gain of function' research to have an informed opinion. I certainly don't doubt that such research took place; the 'motivation' for such research is where the question lies (in my opinion). As for the virus 'coming from a lab' vs 'natural origin'. Again, I don't have an informed opinion but I don't doubt that it 'could' have come from a lab. And again, it's not whether it came from a lab or not, but rather, was it intentionally released.
I think it is fairly likely that labs do such research, and it's certainly possible that accidents happen. The real question is, was it released on purpose, and if so, why. I personally find it hard to accept that it was released intentionally but I remain open to suggestion.
When talking about grand conspiracies, I remain skeptical that there is a coordinated world-wide attempt to implement a global agenda of the nature proposed in this forum (population reduction, etc). I accept that in our capitalist society, 'big business' is in general driven by profit over and above concern for human welfare, and with global corporations, the 'scope' of this 'drive' will transcend conventional borders. But I don't believe there is a coordinated effort by 'the elite' to kill people off.
Regarding:
I understand and agree with the sentiment overall. But I do also see the 'why'. In the mainstream view, the vaccine is like the speed limit or the 'drunk driving' restrictions. You are required to limit your alcohol intake while driving, and also limit your speed, not for your OWN protection but for the protection of others (primarily). People generally accept these restrictions and understand that it is for the benefit of everyone. In the case of the vaccine, the only way the virus will be stamped out is if more than 'x' percent of the population have immunity - either through vaccine or infection. In order to reach 'x', the majority have to take the vaccine and thus - the mandates/incentives are implemented. I understand this from an epidemiological perspective. I don't personally think mandates are good, but I'm less opposed to 'coercions'/'incetives'. If in fact the virus is 'real', and if in fact the vaccine reduces transmission, then - limiting entrance to public spaces does make some sense. You aren't being forced to take the vaccine, you are allowed to choose. But if you choose not to, you can't enter a public space. I can see the logic of that.