See, this is where GAW goes astray. You guys have no idea what your talking about, provide no evidence other than your supposed anecdotal bull sht.
Ignore the fact that the US is full of shitty parents who neglect their children, ignore the fact that glyphosate is sprayed on almost all of our crops. You wanna see a real corrolation? Go look at the increased use of glyphosate over time, and watch how it maps perfectly with almost every disease as it skyrockets since the 60's.
This website is turning into a flat earth nonsense fest
Watched the video, and have a question about the gene shedding portion he mentioned. I'm not sure how the PDF that was provided is relevant to COVID vaccine testing? It was written in 2015, and does not specifically mention COVID rna vax. Is the correlation that the TYPE of vaccine used is listed in the study, so it inherently requires shedding studies? Just trying to understand his point there
Would it be the actual CCP though? The optics of another superpower invading Afghanistan would be pretty fucked up.
But what if the Taliban was armed in order to defend themselves against ISIS (proxy-army). There are videos on combat footage sites that purport to show ISIS vs Taliban engagements. and there are a shit load of them posted in the last 2 months
How easy would it be for ISIS to replace the Taliban, and then MSM just pretends it was Taliban all along.
This needs to be put into context with 85% vax'd population.
The displayed deaths shows that covid is still killing vax'd at the same rate as purebloods.
The pureblood population is slightly over-represented in the hospital population.
This means that the vax'd population might have a slightly boosted resistance to covid, but if heavily infected almost certain to die (because vax'd are under represented in total hospitalizations, but still hit 80% deaths). Yikes
if read literally, it suggests everyone who was jabbed and went to hospital died, so there is that
it would also depend on the % of people who are jabbed vs those who are not. This was likely generated from a cross-section of hand picked studies and presented in the most deceitful way possible
Here is a study that says we should get mass vaccinated.
Lets take a look at some quotes: "The rate of the most common solicited symptoms was significantly higher among younger adults compared to the elderly"
"Adverse events were more frequent in females and subjects with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and decreased with age"
"Direct comparisons between efficacy data should also be interpreted with caution due to the inconsistency of environmental risk, endpoints, and statistical methods between studies."
"The safety profiles of COVID-19 vaccines are still incomplete, even for those currently in use. The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in certain subpopulations, such as children and adolescents, pregnant woman, and people with multiple underlying conditions, have not yet been fully studied."
"Firstly, we only included data reported at the study level, due to limited access to individual-level data."
"It was worth noting that a total of 7 cases of Bell’s palsy were identified among 36,805 RNA vaccine recipients" (that is 11.4/100k for just Bells Palsy)
"While rare side effects should not derail vaccination efforts, a thorough risk-benefit analysis is required"
"In conclusion, the available evidence indicates that eligible COVID-19 vaccines have an acceptable short-term safety profile. "
Also, 6 of 8 authors worked directly for the chinese government and 3 of these chinese "scientists" actually looked at the data.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byb3ffrBYgU
Link to professor Dutton's video on midwits. Follow along and see which lib-asshole in your family follows these trends!
hey frens... the actual study
https://web.archive.org/web/20210630220634/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/
If you were taught it by a "professional", its probably bullshit. The great pyramids of Egypt have water damage from rain*, which means they are likely 10s of thousands of years older than we think. There are accurate, ancient maps of the ice free coastline of antartica. (Fingerprints of the Gods)
1717 is when the Masonic lodge was founded, and marks the beginning of the 2nd chapter of our conquest. So i'd speculate that the western narrative has been controlled by a single cohort since around 1780's and the French revolution
Depending on where the price of GME settles down at. There will be certain points where even Cohen would be a trillionaire, however if he tried to realize 100% of that equity the price crash right back down. I think they play is to kill the hedge fund parasite that keeps all the long positions down (with fraud). These are the games of the elite.
The GME mess is so complicated and dangerous to the global economy I bet BlackRock is buying properties to keep markets from inverting before the GME fail safes are in place. All these companies and SEC, FINRA, DTC, know exactly what is coming (since January) and are manipulating the market ILLEGALLY, while desperatley trying to hide and protect their own assets. It wouldn't surprise me if this is another play to help kick the can.
Also, don't let GME going to the moon distract from AZ. All eyes on the audit
The New York Times had a reporter in Moscow who actively worked to undermine other journalists trying to report on it. He was given a pulitzer prize, and years later when reviewing his propaganda they choose to let him keep the award. The media is the enemy of the people
Your largest hurdle is the aggressive perception in responses. This idea is to be shit upon and that will be the vast majority of reactions you get.
People want to recite the wiki facts and book chapters, not explore around inconsistency and recorded fallacy. Your position is by default taboo, and the response is literal reflex for 99.99% of people.
You cannot get mad, lash out, and belittle. It underwhelms your idea with character suicide and makes the whole thread appear to lack integrity
Sry, the title was a sarcastic, I was trying to show that play on words "at present". They literally say they need to study risk to understand, and then suggest the risk is less than the benefit. I was trying to highlight how a study that is pro-vax still shows that it is not safe