4
SaltyJollyRoger 4 points ago +4 / -0

They absolutely did.

Unfortunately they're certain to file for dismissal, and likely to receive it after the judge has a chance to consider his post-trial capability to continue breathing.

7
SaltyJollyRoger 7 points ago +7 / -0

This is one of those things that absolutely does not surprise me yet still horrifies me to learn.

2
SaltyJollyRoger 2 points ago +2 / -0

So good I had to undo my updoot just so I could give it another updoot!

2
SaltyJollyRoger 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's really not surprising considering both covid and HIV are detected through the same BS technique that was never meant to be a diagnostic: polymerase chain reaction.

2
SaltyJollyRoger 2 points ago +2 / -0

HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS. -Luc Montagnier

To my knowledge AIDS is the only illness where the presence of specified antibodies means one is irrevocably infected instead of immune. If we accept this premise then surely it would follow that any allopathic remedy for the disease would in fact cause the disease.

AFAIK we still haven't seen a competent medical study that definitively proves HIV has anything to do with AIDS.

1
SaltyJollyRoger 1 point ago +1 / -0

We're obviously of two different minds about this. And that's fine - I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I can be rather harsh and callous to those that have made an oath to do no harm and then make it a daily practice to break that oath.

You claim to want justice and retribution, but it seems you don't want to extract it from the only ones that can it can feasibly be extracted from. Thanks to a piece of 1986 legislation we cannot seek legal redress from vaccine manufacturers. We can apply for compensation from a government program, but it does absolutely nothing to stop the problem because the compensation is paid by taxpayers.

Bringing a class action law suit against the manufacturers gives the optics of something being done about the problem, but the ones that actually pay the fine are taxpayers again.

And yes, we should go after the big 3 letter agencies, the insurance magnates, and the pharma cartels. But good luck finding a judge willing to hear any of it while those targeted are free to spin any argument through media outlets or even create new pandemics as needed.

As I see it, it's nigh impossible to use our current system to hold these monsters accountable to anything unless a precedent is set. And the only chink in the armor is at the doctor-patient level. Doctors have the ability to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable. They are extremely unlikely to do so without pressure however, because it will mean a huge loss of revenue and clout. But they do have the power to not prescribe harmful substances, and they can be made to be more aware of what is harmful if we hold them accountable for not doing it.

Unless we force accountability into these people at every level possible, we will never have justice for this and only ensure the tyranny continues. Simply targeting their leadership is the equivalent of cutting heads of the hydra. The problem must be dealt with at the root. Going from the top down only ensures it gets stopped in court.

4
SaltyJollyRoger 4 points ago +4 / -0

Almost right up until Louis Pastuer comes along, injects pulped organ tissue directly into the brains of dogs and uses their subsequent death as proof of viral pathogenicity, plagiarizes the work of other scientists, outright lies about the outcomes of several of his own experiments (proof is in his journals, donated to Biblioteque Nationale of Paris), and publicly denounces and shouts down anyone who questions his conclusions.

5
SaltyJollyRoger 5 points ago +5 / -0

What a silly question. Might as well ask, "What should be done since 90-95% of the medical community in all practices is unfit to administer to their community's health?"

Find ones that don't cater to pharma and peer pressure. Yeah, they're kinda rare and difficult to find. Might even have to consider the form of health care that was popular before the rise of petroleum pharmaceuticals: what's now called holistic medicine.

1
SaltyJollyRoger 1 point ago +1 / -0

Druggies? I've never before seen that term applied to people taking medical drugs - only the criminal/recreational kind.

I call them vaxophiles.

1
SaltyJollyRoger 1 point ago +1 / -0

I haven't heard this about IRS agents that quit because a tax law couldn't be found. I'm no expert by any means, but doesn't the 16th amendment grant congress the right to levy taxes as they please? I certainly don't think they're above lying in such a manner though, so it definitely deserves a closer look.

4
SaltyJollyRoger 4 points ago +4 / -0

Don't get me wrong. All the sovereign citizen stuff sounds great, and I'd love to be a part of it.

But wouldn't the south have had to win the secessionary (Civil) war in order for this to be applicable?

I could be lassoing lemurs on Lexington, but when the Union won that conflict, didn't state's rights (and by extension their citizens) become subordinate to federal law?

1
SaltyJollyRoger 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's definitely time for people to file malpractice reports if they were not able to give informed consent regarding the injection. Federal government has made it so we cannot hold the manufacturers accountable. This leaves the doctors as the only people in the process that both had an obligation to inform and can be prosecuted for their actions.

2
SaltyJollyRoger 2 points ago +2 / -0

Exactly. 🎯

The biggest problem with vaccines is not the fraud they are based on (Louis Pastuer's fraudulent data), but the unwillingness of any established medical expert to view the information objectively. We have technology for genetic editing, but still no direct evidence for pathogenic of any "virus." And the medical establishment protects the position of indirect evidence by viciously attacking any opposing idea.

MJ Rosenau's series of experiments on modes of transmission of influenza (1918) proved that flu is not spread from person to person via bodily secretion (mucus, blood, tears) or exhaled breath. He could only conclude that more research was necessary to understand the disease.

2
SaltyJollyRoger 2 points ago +3 / -1

Interestingly enough, without adjuvants there would most likely be little to no risk at all from a vaccination. Medical governing boards like the FDA required some form of proof (or at least something they could call proof) that the vaccines were effective before they could be patented and sold. Any rational person would think this would be done through clinical trials, but no. A British doctor discovered that adding aluminum salts triggered an inflammatory response, and this immune system response was enough to prove efficacy of the vaccine itself. Soon all kinds of toxins were added to the ingredient list so they could be sold to the public as safe.

2
SaltyJollyRoger 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's a good point. Most of the people still blinding themselves also firmly believe they hold a moral high ground which galvanizes them to reject unapproved information.

7
SaltyJollyRoger 7 points ago +7 / -0

Most people aren't even doing it for shekels, but rather because an authority told them to. Whether that's better or worse is probably a matter of opinion.

I say it's much worse because it indicates an overall broken mindset that is less interested in risk assessment regarding their offspring than in social acceptance and convenience.

5
SaltyJollyRoger 5 points ago +5 / -0

I agree. No good will come from funding criminal terrorist organizations like our government.

15
SaltyJollyRoger 15 points ago +15 / -0

🎯 As much as this is definitely a win for the veterans, it would really be nice to see the people responsible foot the bill for the injuries they caused instead of taxpayers.

And if not the manufacturers, then the politicians that accepted lobbying money.

2
SaltyJollyRoger 2 points ago +2 / -0

Probably yes. Maybe I'm judging a little harshly. After all, binding oneself out of fear is a common mental survival tactic developed by those in abusive relationships.

But at the same time, it would've been much healthier to have never entered the relationship, or at least to exit it as quickly as possible.

Perhaps looking at it as a failure to raise children properly is incorrect. Maybe more of a failure to keep government in check over many generations.

view more: Next ›