Replies

Of course their are more than two possibilities, but far too many posters immediately conclude that every sudden, serious health condition is attributable to the vaxx, without knowing anything about the person's health history, including vaxx status, family health history, lifestyle, drug use, etc.

This is of course true, but I am of two minds about people doing this. In normal circumstances we should not simply jump to a conclusion, but on the other hand, if hyping these cases draws attention to the issue, and makes people look closer at the possibility these vaccines (experimental gene therapies) are causing injury and death, is this not a better result than allowing people to remain oblivious to the danger?

I'm reminded of Harry Reed talking about the lies he spread about Mitt Romney's taxes. "Well it worked didn't it?"

Some would say "This isn't who we are." My thinking is that "Who we are" is losing the fight.

I now tend to turn a blind eye to things people say that have the potential to hurt the enemy. I may not believe the things people say, but I don't see any benefit to counteracting it.

I have seen speculation, but no scientific, peer-reviewed proof.

Have you kept up with the value of what "peer review" has in the way of credibility nowadays? I've seen several articles detailing all the papers that had to be withdrawn because of falsified data, inability to replicate results, and just out and out bullsh*t.

"Peer reviewed" doesn't mean what it used to mean.

Perhaps certain people think the "numbers have seemingly increased dramatically since the Vax" simply because there are more outlets reporting things that were not worthy of reporting pre-covid.

I seem to recall reading articles regarding insurance companies noticing the same thing. Also articles from Germany, Sweden and some other countries. I think the Philippines has announced they are no longer granting immunity to "vax" makers.

I don't know if heart attacks and strokes are just getting reported more, or if they've actually increased.

But I don't see how spreading that claim is detrimental to us. I think the forced Vax was a bad idea, and a bad idea to let the government get away with the stuff they did under Covid.

Giving the public a bad taste in their mouth from all of this is a good thing regardless of whether or not the vaxes do increase strokes and heart attacks.

Letting the public think the vaccines cause strokes and heart attacks instills distrust in these corporations and the government, and I count that as a beneficial thing.

In normal circumstances we should not simply jump to a conclusion, but on the other hand, if hyping these cases draws attention to the issue, and makes people look closer at the possibility these vaccines (experimental gene therapies) are causing injury and death, is this not a better result than allowing people to remain oblivious to the danger?

I can easily transform your statement into a mantra for the climate change kooks: In normal circumstances we should not simply jump to a conclusion, but on the other hand, if hyping climate events (heat, cold, floods, drought, tornados, hurricanes, etc.) draws attention to the issue, and makes people look closer at the possibility that man-made actives (use of fossil fuels, consuming meat products, opposing abortion on demand) are causing injury and death to the environment, is this not a better result than allowing people to remain oblivious to the danger?