"If you look at under the reign of Fauci for 40 plus years, where childhood chronic diseases and illnesses have gone from 6% to about 54% as we've added more and more layers of shots onto those schedules. And again, they'll say 'Correlation isn't causation.' Well, not a single childhood vaccine was ever tried in their clinical trials against placebo."
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1629888923282427912?s=20
Let's take The Jab out of this equation for just a moment, as I believe we're all agreed that it's an intentionally deadly shot.
And I agree that we should be questioning childhood vaccinations. And based on the data that's starting to firm up, people who don't get childhood vaccinations are healthier in the long term than ones who don't.
The question that I continue to wonder about (and do not have an answer to) is this:
Are childhood vaccinations having a negative health impact because the vaccines are formulated intentionally to cause health issues (mercury, formaldehyde, etc) or is there something else happening that puts into question vaccine methodology in general?
Is it as simple as vaccines in general having a negative impact because these bastards have been knowingly formulating them with damaging chemicals, or is there something more than that?
I don't think this question has been definitively answered yet and I think it's critical that it does get answered. In theory, vaccines should be a good thing when used in limited scope, with clean ingredients and using weakened or dead virus (no mrna gene therapy bullshit). But are they? There's a lot of noise covering up the signal.
To be honest tweety, my questions were intentionally a bit leading in my original comment. You're intelligently expanding in a way that I hoped someone would.
Bottom line, I think it's going to be really important in the long run for us to get that noise to signal ratio down a LOT so in the future, we can make good decisions on vaccination for our kids.
If we strip away all the poisons and toxins being put into these vaccinations, are they a good thing? I suspect they are as well (when used in a measured manner) but I also want to be very careful of avoiding my own preconceived notions here.
We have so little data on vaccines now that aren't tainted by the poisons put into them, it's difficult to know for certain.
I was not aware of homeopathic vax options. Thank you for sharing .
Side note, while I am completely against CV-19 jabs and I do think a number of the jabs currently on the schedule need to be eliminated , I do think some need to be considered carefully, only because I don't think we realize what it is to live in a world with polio or smallpox. The baby/bathwater argument. It very well may be the issues have more to do with the makeup of ingredients and if that is the case, then it appears we have homeopathic options. But it also may be the vaccinations themselves and if that is the case, we need to weigh the options carefully. I know there are arguments against the smallpox vaccine and they have validity, but it is also a disease with a 30% chance of dying. Are we ready to commit to that?
I realize this may not be a popular stance, but I think the discussion needs to be had without the manipulation of bad actors.
I think the first step is determining whether there is a need for mass vaccination or not.
When I was a toddler in the 60s I contracted Scarlet Fever. There are many from my generation and before, that contracted this childhood illness. There is no vaccine for Scarlet Fever but it has completely disappeared the same as the illnesses we vaccinate our children against.
Why is that?
The disappearance of measles, mumps, polio, scarlet fever and other childhood diseases more closely correlates to increasing water quality, better waste disposal and personal hygiene than to any vax program. In heavily vaxxed areas that dont have these first world clean water advantages, these diseases still run rampant.
IMO it wasnt vaccines, it was modern plumbing. When people dont shit in the street, dont shit in the rivers and then allow their children to play in these areas and draw water from these places, they dont get sick.
https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/first-med-inc-is-researching-how-to-combat-shingles-with-ivermectin-as-cases-rise-globally
Excellent point, LTL.
Immunity is not gained at the end of a needle.
But we don't get real answers via platitudes. I understand why you say this, but in some cases, that's simply not true.
Do some looking around. The needle as a delivery for anything bypasses the body's own immune system, for starters. If that's a platitude to you, that's great but you have to look further than what the msm and medical cartel has been saying for decades. In what cases would this not be true?
Likely both.
If you were a big pharma company (known criminals who have been convicted many times, including the largest fine ever given) would you want your vaxxes to keep people healthy? Or would you want your vaxxes to cause poor health which require people to subscribe to a lifetime of needing your various drugs?
Of course. But I think you might be missing the point. What you're stating is a foregone conclusion. The question revolves around taking that component out of the equation.
Does vaccination in general (if we use untainted vaccines, free of intentionally damaging chemicals) promote better health on a macro level? We need to eventually answer this question because the data is extremely muddy due to big pharma intentionally trying to injure and kill the populace.