Well, Vindman does have a twin . . .
Perceptive! Dogs are all emotion, no intellect getting in the way (or close enough). They love with their whole heart and they are loyal to the point of dying for you. Too few humans measure up in that fashion.
Willingly torturing dogs -- puppies, no less -- no matter the excuse, is a crime the public will never excuse.
Those ghastly beagle experiments are the perfect crowbar into the hearts and minds of the Fauci-blinded normies.
In addition to individual human differences, there are at least three obvious possibilities that muddy the waters here:
1. Placebo shots. WERE there any (we've heard so, but . . . were there really?) If so, when and how many, etc.
2. Variations in the dosage and composition of the shots -- not just between the different brands but within a given brand. We've heard that several different levels of potency were used (these ARE "experimental" drugs after all); true or not? If so, what are the details? And what different RESULTS will obtain from the different versions in the real world?
3. It appears that those who die suddenly or soon RIGHT AFTER GETTING THE SHOT may have had some or all of the "vax" injected into a vein or artery -- just from random placement of where the needle's opening came to rest -- which would spread the poison through the body quickly and move it into places it might never get to if it were all deposited in the muscle. How does this affect long-term health for the experimental subject, for example your family member?
As spookyjumper says, "We don't have enough information to answer (those) question(s)."
D-dimer test is suggestive but one can have a positive test without being "vaxxed."
D-dimer tests for clotting activity AND for some cancer activity; a positive test calls for further testing to determine what exactly is going on.
Your point is quite valid though: We really don't know how many "vaxxed" people actually GOT the "vax", and what CONCENTRATION of the "vax", and so on. Multiple concentrations including placebo versions were administered, we hear, and certainly a few lots have caused far more deaths and other adverse events than most have. It's cause for a little optimism, I think, because an unknown number of people who submitted to this nightmare may not be having their cardio and other systems destroyed by it.
Yes, the damage continues non-stop. Also: Those who already died from the vax didn't take the poll, so . . . 7% is low any way you look at it. I suspect in the long run, the premature death rate for the vaxxed will approach 100%.
Hope I'm wrong, but I don't have any reason to be optimistic at this point.
Interesting thought, 00101101. I think there's a good chance you're right.
Also: it won't just be Twitter or even other social media companies this will impact; Twitter material being released is already implicating individuals involved in government agencies, other social media companies, the MSM broadcast and cable companies, and more. Before this is all over, evidence dug out and presented from Twitter will have provided more than enough evidence to take the whole, vile, gaslighting propaganda network down and to put away a host of bad guys. That's my take, anyway.
A post just below that one on 8kun is also worth passing along:
need to start naming them "fraud deniers"
the "denier" label has a powerful psychological effect. just take, "holocaust denier", for example. we've been conditioned to assume anything that is the subject of that phrase is gospel.
so, i say, use their weapons against them:
"fraud denier"
"laptop denier"
"pfizer denier"
"corruption denier"*
You're Greekish but your English is of the British variety, I assume. 😄
de·pend·ent noun (British also dependant)
a person who relies on another, especially a family member, for financial support: a single man with no dependents.
Well, general thoughts:
You'll want enough for daily use, shopping, unexpected expenses, and so on, but for how long? A month? A year? A lifetime? You've got to decide about that on your own. Clearly, how much wealth you have available will be a major factor in your decision.
You'll also want something for savings as opposed to just daily living. If you have wealth beyond being able to eat paycheck to paycheck, and if you don't expect the fiat we now use to survive, how will you protect your savings?
Plenty of other things can be used for that (ammo, vodka in glass bottles, etc -- anything there's a strong market for and which doesn't go bad) but precious metals have stood the test of time for a reason, and thus deserve strong consideration. Having a mix of assets is common advice.
URL needs attention, dog. 😐