"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.
I really think your questions answer themselves. The vaccines are INTENTIONALLY formulated to cause health issues...poisoning the body ALWAYS has adverse effects. It isn't just chemicals and heavy metals...cell lines from aborted babies are used to make the vaccines and can contaminate the vaccines, although they claim there is not foreign human cells in the vaccines.
https://theconversation.com/cells-from-human-foetuses-are-important-for-developing-vaccines-but-theyre-not-an-ingredient-157484
The theory of the law of similars is a homeopathic foundational theory...whatever causes a disease cures a disease and actually has a valid basis for the concept of a vaccination. The problem is what they use (live vs. dead) or what they additionally put into vaccines that make them so problematic.
Don't forget this is a money making institution that is known to lie and fabricate in order to push an agenda...what agenda...death and destruction. Vaccine companies are not accountable for the damage their vaccines cause...thanks to legislation passed by our wonderful, protective, caring government. Any vaccine injury cases that make it to a settlement comes from a fund paid by our government (you and me).
So the concept of vaccines has validity, but they way they are formulated is deadly for all time for all people...INTENTIONALLY...
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.
There are vaccinations prepared homeopathically that are the only ones I would ever consider taking or giving to children. Newton Labs is a smaller company that provides this alternative to traditional vaccination...
Also some of the homeopathic flu remedies use some the original material from different flus (1918) in their preparation. I wish the truth could be known far and wide...these vaxxes are decimating the children who grow up to be less than healthy adults...
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.
My daughter had scarlet fever...really wasn't a very big issue. I would be more concerned about shingles later in life if you have had chicken pox.
https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/first-med-inc-is-researching-how-to-combat-shingles-with-ivermectin-as-cases-rise-globally
My husband had shingles and I tried several different treatments to gauge their effectiveness and I ended up seeing the quickest healing with a combination of the essential oils Ravintsara and Tamanu, which was recommended by Dr. Kurt Schnaubelt who runs the Pacific Institute of Aromatherapy. This links a combo product he sells, but I just bought them seperately and blended them myself. The healing was dramatic and there were no scars.
https://www.originalswissaromatics.com/Shingles-Magic
The treatment of Shingles (Herpes zoster) with essential oils is as successful as that of Herpes simplex. A notable difference is, however, that because of the pain and aggravation often involved with an outbreak of Shingles, the essential oils utilized need to be totally non-irritant and gentle on the skin.Which oils are used: A combination of equal parts of Ravintsara (Cinnamomum camphora) essential oil and Tamanu (Calophyllum inophyllum) fatty oil has become the standard treatment option for outbreaks of Shingles. Especially with elderly patients this treatment, more often than not, offers stunning relief from the excruciating pain and even more so offers renewed quality of life to patients living with the continuous threat of yet another painful outbreak. Experience has it that once a patient is able to successfully control an outbreak, the frequency and severity of subsequent outbreaks are reduced drastically. Ravintsara is the anti-viral agent within this blend and Calophyllum inophyllum has the unusual, but the highly valuable quality of stimulating phagocytosis. How the oil is used: The oil blend is applied directly on to the lesions. This can be done with a Q-tip or simply by dabbing a few drops onto the lesion with the finger. This is repeated frequently at the beginning of the treatment. (Doing this 4 or 5 times on the first day of treatment is fine).*
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.