Consider a recent poll that basically states the “vaccine-hesitant” (aka “experimental drug created by psychopathic marxist eugenicists - averse” by sane individuals) are pretty well dug into their positions. This article states that only 7% of the un-jabbed would consider getting jabbed if Trump told them to. (Is this the same as “they’re safe, but no one should be forced to take anything”? Depends on interpretation, I suppose). Most non-jabbed say they would be looking at data/stats (and that includes those, like us, who have been looking at data that msm has been deliberately censoring).
So, based on the fact (or premise) that probably 93% of the non-jabbed will still refuse to take this drug, I’m thinking POTUS’s “endorsement” in the Owens interview was a safe (as in wartime safe to minimize casualties) strategy to provide their (the Q-team’s) desired optics for the next steps.
From September 2021:
Consider a recent poll that basically states the “vaccine-hesitant” (aka “experimental drug created by psychopathic marxist eugenicists - averse” by sane individuals) are pretty well dug into their positions. This article states that only 7% of the un-jabbed would consider getting jabbed if Trump told them to. (Is this the same as “they’re safe, but no one should be forced to take anything”? Depends on interpretation, I suppose). Most non-jabbed say they would be looking at data/stats (and that includes those, like us, who have been looking at data that msm has been deliberately censoring).
So, based on the fact that probably 93% of the non-jabbed will still refuse to take this drug, I’m thinking POTUS’s “endorsement” in the Owens interview was a safe (as in wartime safe to minimize casualties) strategy to provide their (the Q-team’s) desired optics for the next steps.
From September 2021:
Consider a recent poll that basically states the “vaccine-hesitant” (aka “experimental drug created by psychopathic marxist eugenicists - averse” by sane individuals) are pretty well dug into their positions. This article states that only 7% of the un-jabbed would consider getting jabbed if Trump told them to. (Is this the same as “they’re safe, but no one should be forced to take anything”? Depends on interpretation, I suppose). Most non-jabbed say they would be looking at data/stats (and that includes those, like us, who have been looking at data that msm has been deliberately censoring).
So, based on the fact that probably 93% of the non-jabbed will still refuse to take this drug, I’m thinking POTUS’s “endorsement” in the Owens interview was a safe (as in wartime safe to minimize casualties) strategy to provide their desired optics for the next steps.
From September 2021:
Consider a recent poll that basically states the “vaccine-hesitant” (aka “experimental drug created by psychopathic marxist eugenicists - adverse” by sane individuals) are pretty well dug into their positions. This article states that only 7% of the un-jabbed would consider getting jabbed if Trump told them to. (Is this the same as “they’re safe, but no one should be forced to take anything”? Depends on interpretation, I suppose). Most non-jabbed say they would be looking at data/stats (and that includes those, like us, who have been looking at data that msm has been deliberately censoring).
So, based on the fact that probably 93% of the non-jabbed will still refuse to take this drug, I’m thinking POTUS’s “endorsement” in the Owens interview was a safe (as in wartime safe to minimize casualties) strategy to provide their desired optics for the next steps.
From September 2021: