Let's explore what happens if 98% of vax recipients (or more) are actually getting injected with only saline.
They get compliance, because the death/injury rate is artificially very low (less resistance).
They get large-scale test results, because they know who actually got the vax.
(This is the big one) --> In order to maximize societal and business disruption, the death/injury rate should be at a certain 'sweet spot' (just high enough to warn those that are awake, but low enough to keep the brainwashed masses asleep). If they add/reduce saline to artificially stay at that 'sweet spot', they create two (somewhat) equal camps -- continuously at war with one another.
Note: Once they get compliance, the booster program lets them 'finish off' the plan at any time they choose - (just stop giving out saline).
They may (or may not) be doing this, but it makes for a 'perfect evil plan'.
Agreed - but that assumes the vax is a 'time bomb' of sorts. (Which is certainly possible, but seems much harder to design and implement.)
A 'saline now, vax later' plan gives them far more control over the roll out.
It's not that it's a time bomb at all. Consider that most recalls and lawsuits of drugs take years if not decades to prove. A lot of that is due to injuries and deaths that can't be really seen until years afterwards. It would be the same principle here: it takes time for the damage to accumulate to a point of death.
As I said - the idea of a 'delayed reaction' is definitely possible.
I just think a 'saline now, vax later' plan matches what we see, and provides them precise control over death/injury rates during the rollout.
Dr Z called it a time bomb too
It doesn’t , though. Tens of thousands of people don’t die from a 2% rollout, in summer, with vitamin D levels peaked.
It’s much more likely damage accumulation. And it’s going to accumulate at different rates for different groups and people. And that’s what we are seeing with what we know so far.
I didn't suggest I knew the exact percentage breakdown. It could be 98%, 95%, 90% or whatever. The idea is that there is enough harm to create (some) resistance, but not enough harm to awaken too many sheep.
Again - either theory can account for what we are seeing.
Not hard to implement if they already know how mRNA works. Look up the ferret studies. Works for the specific virus but exposure to wild viruses later is the kill shot.
Also there are known interval times for reactions in humans vs lab animals. Like a mouse week is a human year type deal
Time for 2024.... They fear the great awakening.