Except its NOT about being pro-vax/anti-vax. It's the fact that he isn't heavily going against the vax passports/social credit score and mandates. He occasionally puts in a very soft "there shouldn't be mandates.... but the vaccine is really good and you should take it".
He should shut up about whether its good or bad and focus on the important thing... freedom. His base on both the pro and anti vax side support freedom of individual choice. The mandates and passports should be a MAJOR thing that he is basically completely avoiding talking about and it will lose him a shit ton of support.
It's normal for six year olds to have heart attacks too! Especially when that winter weather comes, damn global warming.
Look at it this way, if you want kids you did the right thing.
Oh cool. I didn't know about that feature. Thanks!
Link to paper?
I'm a scientist but no one believes me... I'm too focused on this silly thing called data. I should have become a interpretative dance major then everyone would believe me.
Go woke, go get fucked in the ass.
Just yet more shutdown of vaccine mandates... even if the fine RINO Abbott imposed is a joke.
Going to be a shortage of healthy hearts available for transplant.
After dying they recovered quickly.
It does not. Just federal contractors. Here is the original order that got expanded: https://cdn.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/120121cb1.pdf
Exactly. I'm seeing my company getting trashed already from people leaving in droves even before the mandate has hit.
The fact that vaxxed are catching COVID now at much higher rates than unvaxxed (e.g. see any of the weekly UK reports) is a good indicator of one of two things happening:
(1) Vaccine is preventing people from developing natural immunity, meaning they will keep getting reinfected over and over again and/or
(2) Vaccine is suffering from Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE).
Oh, I think I was confused. The military members injunction was denied so it looked like they had lost the case, so I wasn't sure why it was being referenced. It looks like although they were denied the injunction, they also won on the claim that they are in fact not "interchangeable".
Ummm look at what you just wrote. "DENIED... injunction". That was the service members getting rejected. Where is the actual ruling saying that they aren't equivalent.
Options:
- Find a new job. Realize that there is a large chance that the 1/4 date will be pushed back if you're in a red state. If you're in a place like commiefornia don't expect this.
- Apply for a religious exemption. Don't ever mention anything scientific or political in your exemption. 2a) Get approved for your religious exemption (potentially with testing that you can also fight with another religious exemption). Keep job or keep looking without being under pressure. 2b) Get denied for your religious exemption and have option to sue within timeframe (usually 6 months to file "charge of discrimination")
Don't get the jab, it will never end until they are dead. And I sure hope you aren't planning on ever having kids with them.
Where is the actual ruling from the judge. The childrenshealthdefense link doesnt actually link or even say who the judge is. Anyone have it?
Lets build upon your burger example. Assume you have a 100 burgers eaten by 100 people, 10 cooked rare and 90 cooked well done. 8 people catch food poisoning eating your burgers. Assume all 8 people who got food poisoning also ate a rare burger.
You can either say "8% of the people that ate a burger got food poisoning" or "80% of the people that ate a rare burger got food poisoning" depending upon what you are looking at.
So yes, you remove the "700" because they are people who received the vaccine during the third trimester. The entire point of the infowars article is that the risk was in the early trimesters (1st and 2nd). If you remove the 700 and only look at the 124 the ratio is abysmal.
The conclusion should be do not vaccinated during first or second trimester as there is a very high chance of losing the baby.
Umm you clearly misread the entire article. Most of the article is about why the 700 are removed.
The entire purpose is that the evidence is showing a ridiculously high miscarriage/spontaneous abortion rate for the first (and second) trimesters but not in the third trimester.
Therefore if you look only at first trimester it has an 82% chance of losing the baby.
I'm not disagreeing especially for a lot of their videos, but this particular article is a good article looking at firm data.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/ is actual journal publication. Note that the authors are intentionally misleading so if you read the summary it "appears" to say the exact opposite.
Infowars did a pretty good article on this a while back: https://www.infowars.com/posts/depopulation-alert-shocking-new-study-reveals-covid-vaccine-terminates-4-out-of-5-pregnancies-via-spontaneous-abortions/
George Soros
It's simple actually a pretty simple test. Where do they need to use the fear?
"well my immunocompromised wife"... maybe she shouldn't have gotten the vaccine!