Replies

I have as much trust and faith in our government public health experts as I do in our military, intelligence and foreign policy experts who brought us the Fall of Kabul.

I expect I am far from alone.

Even if the EUA “vaccines” (they aren’t vaccines in the traditional sense, they had to redefine the word to use it) are safe and effective, there’s a steep hill to climb to get people to believe the public health authorities because of the lack of trust they’ve generated by overselling the vaccines, suppressing therapies using off-label inexpensive drugs, and the like.

On top of all that, you’ve got what is clearly an organized effort between government, media, and tech to suppress discussion of any of this. Yeah, that really builds trust. Oh, and BTW, all of those entities are dependent at one level or another on money flows from Big Pharma, or the leadership is looking for a future job with or grants from Big Pharma.

So why should I trust anything being said about safety vs. efficacy of this EUA “vaccine”?

I don't think you should trust anything. But I would suggest looking at facts, and not youtube videos full of innuendo (not saying you did the latter). No vaccine is perfect and certainly there are more problems with these new vaccines. There are two types, mRNA with the nano-lipid coating and altered adenovirus. Interestingly the third type, novovax, is just the spike protein and seems to be very effective.

Spike proteins have received a lot of innuendo. Getting spike proteins in your blood is far less serious than most COVID infections. I think that is an objective fact. For example: the small number of pediatric myocarditis from vaccines versus a much larger number from COVID. The questions are how effective spike proteins are as an antigen. Second question what are the health effects of spike proteins.

There will be objective science on those two questions in coming years. You could argue that we should do science first, then jabs, but poltics overrode that this time.