Ping!................
Tens of billions of dollars in profits later and Big Pharma still laughing all the way to the bank.
Drive-by Dugway Duke arriving in 5, 4, 3,...
Thanks, Red Badger.
*PING*!
In before the $hot $hill$.
Get the jab, get the cold slab.
inoculation or indoctrination?
the dam is slowly breaking.
I had a long and lovely email exchange yesterday with my friend in Italy Giovanna, MD, PhD. She had just nursed her 89-year-old mother through a bad case of Covid.
She was happy to hear that I had only one Prizer shot, as she and her husband won’t take them. “They are too dangerous.”
jim jones: they are not drinking the kool-aid
dr fauci: put it in a syringe
jim jones: genius!
bkmk
”The researchers estimate that 22,000-30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29
must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent just one COVID-19 hospitalisation. (Empahsis mine)
In the study, which is currently undergoing peer-review, the authors analyse CDC and reported adverse event data and find that booster mandates are likely to cause a net expected harm.
They estimate that for every COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, 18 to 98 serious adverse events will occur,
including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of serious injury which interferes with daily activities."
"The authors add that given the high level of natural immunity following infection now present in the population, the actual risk-benefit profile is even less favourable.
”On the basis of this evidence they argue that university booster mandates are unethical because:
1. no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for the age group;
2. vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;
3. mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits
given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
4. U.S. mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and
5. mandates create wider social harms."
"They consider counterarguments, such as a desire for socialisation and safety, and show that such arguments are weak and lack scientific and ethical support."
If this is true, then what happens when some future, true deadly virus arrives, and the public ignores CDC and MSM recommendations, and refuse to get some "experimental vaccine" that ended up saving more people from the virus? Which are you more willing to do: risk your life with some possible deadly virus, or take some vaccine - that might be more harmful than the virus? If they come up with three different vaccines, which one will you choose?
Would you trust CDC or your doctors' advice when they highly recommend getting next year's flu shot? Are you going to ignore some future health recommendations that might end up being a REAL disaster - and not just a hoax - like Covid-19's vaccines?
Why do you think I took a chance and refused to get last year's flu vaccine?
ping!