Posted on 7/4/2021, 1:22:23 PM by E. Pluribus Unum
Three Important Questions contained in the article...
“There’s something called medical necessity. So, let’s analyze if there’s any medical necessity for this vaccine, and you have to do that in a systematic way based on demographics.
If you look at the CDC’s data, anyone 18 and younger has a 99.998% chance of recovery from COVID-19 with no treatment. [Their risk of dying is] 1 in a million. It’s safer than influenza virus. If you gave me a choice, I would rather my kids have COVID-19 than influenza. So, why would I immunize a demographic that has close to 100% chance of recovery with an experimental vaccine that has already killed more kids than the virus?
If you look at the demographic between 18 and 45, people who are healthy have a 99.95% chance of recovery with no treatment … according to the CDC. Same question, why would I vaccinate a demographic that recovers on its own with no treatment?
Third question, if someone has antibodies — and there’s a plethora of evidence [showing] naturally produced antibodies are much more effective in clearing future viruses than vaccine-induced antibodies … Natural immunity is much better, more effective and safer, than vaccine-induced immunity. So, someone who has antibodies already from having COVID before, why would I vaccinate them? …
I see nothing childish in this article.
This thread has been pulled.
Pulled on 07/04/2021 2:59:01 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
childishness