Because they don't know jack or shit, and they refuse to learn anything.
“Vaccines do not require demonstration of the prevention of infection or transmission,” according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official Dr. Peter Marks in a newly released memo.
Stop. Stop right there. If they don't demonstrate the prevention of infection or transmission, then WHY THE FUCK SHOULD WE TAKE THEM???????
If you're going to inject me with a substance that does me absolutely no good, I'm going to refuse.
This is all political maneuvering because of the Kung Flu jab. Do I think that vaccines like polio, hepatitis, typhoid and others are still a good thing? Yes I do. But when you read a statement like the one made by Dr (of what?) Peter Marks up there?
That's how you get a massive wave of anti-vaxxers. When some fucking government drone says that vaccines don't actually have to prevent an infection, then you've just given everyone who doesn't want to take a shot the perfect excuse to not get the shot. All so that you can push the phony narrative that the Kung Flu shot was somehow moral, ethical or legal. And the Kung Flu jab was not moral, ethical or legal. And they know it. Otherwise you wouldn't have that statement being put out.
1 comment:
One of the things established at the post-WW2 Nuremberg Trials was that ANY medical experimentation must be both fully informed and fully consented to, and anyone who does not follow that guideline is subject to prosecution for war crimes and hung by the neck until dead. (Firing squad is an acceptable alternative.) Forcing people to accept the clot shots, at the cost of their freedom (house arrest), jobs, bank accounts and social standing if they refuse, qualifies as "lack of informed consent".
Maybe it's time to reestablish the Tribunals.
Post a Comment