Vaccine or not?

I responded post above this. State by state data reported to CDC.
Well the CDC, such arbitrators of truth, and no history of collusion of censorship (twitter files), certainly we can trust them. I mean I am sure no one from the Tuskegee Syphalis Study has regrets about trusting the CDC.
 
Well the CDC, such arbitrators of truth, and no history of collusion of censorship (twitter files), certainly we can trust them. I mean I am sure no one from the Tuskegee Syphalis Study has regrets about trusting the CDC.
The WHO and CDC did bungle up things quite a bit in all of this, that is true
 
Also true.. there was a lot of stuff I witnessed I am taking to my grave, personally
Before you had the Nurnberg trials you had to expose the death camps. The same holds true here. Especially because of all the so called "no liability" clauses. Only through mass exposure will there ever be any justice, and only after that will there be any serious resources for the remedy, and reversing damage. Until then everyone involved is in CYA mode. Some of that is legal CYA, but probably just as much guilty conscience CYA mode.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne
Well the CDC, such arbitrators of truth, and no history of collusion of censorship (twitter files), certainly we can trust them. I mean I am sure no one from the Tuskegee Syphalis Study has regrets about trusting the CDC.

It'S actually state data reported to the CDC. I'm sure you'd like to know the state with the biggest bust in mis-reporting data was TN....
 
It'S actually state data reported to the CDC. I'm sure you'd like to know the state with the biggest bust in mis-reporting data was TN....


Ask @NurseGoodVol on reporting data. the hoops a physician or nurse would have to go through, and the career issues with doing so. If 50% of vaccine related deaths were recorded as such I would be in shock and awe of jobs well done. The reality is the system is designed to make reporting the events hard. Then often times without an autopsy how can you be sure? All the nurses and doctors are overwhelmed, and spread thin, and it's much easier to give a simple code for the actual result, heart attack, stroke etc.... The problem with the data is there is no mechanic currently to cause remotely accurate data gathering in the first place. THIS is why looking at the numbers on sudden deaths or "additional deaths" per demographic besides previous years is so important. Because you're not going to get accurate data, rather you have to sift the data that is beyond dispute. Then there's the anecdotal data that while anecdotal is pretty damning. Such as a mortician in the buisiness for 50 years and suddenly they start seeing something in the blood and veins they have never seen, and they do have the chance sometimes to speak to loved ones and inquire if they were vaxed etc.... is this the sort of info that will be gathered for a study? Not likely, but you'd have to be a damned fool to ignore it. I posted a link as to the recent study done using the freedom of information on the phizer studies.....it's probably the closest we have to an unbiased review and it was pretty damning, the stuff they wanted to prevent us from seeing for 75 years.... But such studies are expensive and they are mostly funded by those most likely to be culprits and co-conspirators in this fiasco.
 

VN Store



Back
Top