Pets are a HUGE money maker for them also. Pet vaccines and pet food cause them to break out in "allergies" that they will happily prescribe expensive drugs for the rest of their lives.
I think they want to MAXIMIZE that revenue stream. People are figuring out that big pharma is BS and that revenue stream is dropping off. So if they can force "vaccinate" your pets, herd, wild animals so that they need future medical attention, it's guaranteed profits in the near future.
If grandma's cherished Maltese "Muffin" suddenly starts crapping all over Mildred's lap, Muffin is going to the vet's right away. Senior Citizens will certainly dip into their retirement to save Muffin even if that means emergency surgery.
Absolutely. Just wanted to point out how the two things couldn't co-exist. Your post just happened to be the most recent one, so was the one I responded to. ✌️
I don't think they want to eliminate people having pets, but they want the pets to take the place of kids. Then, when people have their "baby" in clothing and vaccines... their "baby" gets sick from vaccines. People get insurance for their "baby" (which honestly, I laughed at pet insurance for a long time, now that it's become mainstream, vet prices are skyrocketing so you NEED it.... sounds familiar...) anyhow, they get insurance, and get unlimited healthcare for their "baby".
Then their pets die, and the cycle starts all over. You have a huge trauma response from the illnesses and care from people, and they spend more on the next pet when it's sick so they can hopefully heal it. It's a cycle... keep people grieving or struggling with their "baby" pet, spending way more money on it than we spent on our beloved dog when we were kids. I don't even think we had a "regular" vet for our dog, and she lived to 16! Now we are lucky if they make it a decade. Pets equal cash and control. They control you with your emotions for sure.
They also want to eliminate pets.
Pets are a HUGE money maker for them also. Pet vaccines and pet food cause them to break out in "allergies" that they will happily prescribe expensive drugs for the rest of their lives.
Wonder where they got that idea? 👆
So if pets are a huge moneymaker for them...why would they want to eliminate people having pets?
🤨
I think they want to MAXIMIZE that revenue stream. People are figuring out that big pharma is BS and that revenue stream is dropping off. So if they can force "vaccinate" your pets, herd, wild animals so that they need future medical attention, it's guaranteed profits in the near future.
If grandma's cherished Maltese "Muffin" suddenly starts crapping all over Mildred's lap, Muffin is going to the vet's right away. Senior Citizens will certainly dip into their retirement to save Muffin even if that means emergency surgery.
Absolutely. Just wanted to point out how the two things couldn't co-exist. Your post just happened to be the most recent one, so was the one I responded to. ✌️
Senior citizens? You mean the ones that haven't been offed already...the ones on 10 prescriptions?
I don't think they want to eliminate people having pets, but they want the pets to take the place of kids. Then, when people have their "baby" in clothing and vaccines... their "baby" gets sick from vaccines. People get insurance for their "baby" (which honestly, I laughed at pet insurance for a long time, now that it's become mainstream, vet prices are skyrocketing so you NEED it.... sounds familiar...) anyhow, they get insurance, and get unlimited healthcare for their "baby".
Then their pets die, and the cycle starts all over. You have a huge trauma response from the illnesses and care from people, and they spend more on the next pet when it's sick so they can hopefully heal it. It's a cycle... keep people grieving or struggling with their "baby" pet, spending way more money on it than we spent on our beloved dog when we were kids. I don't even think we had a "regular" vet for our dog, and she lived to 16! Now we are lucky if they make it a decade. Pets equal cash and control. They control you with your emotions for sure.