Pandemic threat? Anyone else concerned?

‘Criminal’: Confidential EU Documents Reveal Thousands of Deaths From Pfizer-BioNTech Shots
“Confidential” documents released by BioNTech to the European Medicines Agency reveal tens of thousands of serious adverse events and thousands of deaths among people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during a time period when the vaccine makers insisted they saw no “safety signals.”

‘Criminal’: Confidential EU Documents Reveal Thousands of Deaths From Pfizer-BioNTech Shots

Documents released by BioNTech to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) reveal tens of thousands of serious adverse events and thousands of deaths among people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The documents, dated Aug. 18, 2022, and marked “confidential,” show that cumulatively, during the clinical trials and post-marketing period up to June 18, 2022, a total of 4,964,106 adverse events were recorded. The documents included an appendix with further details about the specifics about the identified adverse events.

Among children under age 17, 189 deaths and thousands of serious adverse events were reported.

The documents present data collected between Dec. 19, 2021, and June 18, 2022 (the “PSUR #3 period”), in addition to cumulative data on adverse events and deaths that occurred among those who received the vaccine during clinical trials and during the post-marketing period, beginning December 2020 up until June 18, 2022.

During this time, Pfizer-BioNTech said it identified almost no safety signals and claimed the vaccine demonstrated over 91% “efficacy.”

The Documents
 
  • Sad
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Oceanslider, gwminor48, David L and 1 other person
COVID-19 Vaccines and Boosters Were Never Made With mRNA
The truth behind RNA-based vaccine technology (Part 1)
Klaus Steger
Klaus Steger, Ph.D.

COVID-19 Vaccines and Boosters Were Never Made With mRNA


For the first time in human history, the gene regulatory program of healthy people has been manipulated on a massive scale.
Despite everything we’ve been told, RNA-based COVID-19 injections were manufactured with modified RNA—not messenger RNA (mRNA).

Modified RNA (modRNA) poses substantial risks to our health. These risks come not only from COVID-19 injections and boosters but—unless we speak up now—also from all future RNA-based vaccines.

mRNA and modRNA Are Not the Same

The two—mRNA and modRNA—are completely different.

mRNA occurs naturally, lives in our cells for only a short time, and is relatively fragile. It is a specific type of RNA that carries instructions or “messages” from our genes to help make proteins, the building blocks of our cells. It is constantly produced as part of normal cellular processes. Once mRNA delivers the messages, its work is done, and it is broken down in the body.

When RNA from another source enters our cells—virus RNA, for example—these cells can generate virus proteins.

We have been told that COVID-19 injections are made with mRNA. However, a vaccine using “natural” mRNA would not last long enough to initiate an immune response before being destroyed by our immune system.

To make mRNA useful for routine medicine, scientists had to artificially modify mRNA to increase both its efficiency and lifetime. The result: modRNA.
modRNA has been optimized for long life and maximal translation. While mRNA exhibits a cell-specific expression pattern, modRNA can invade nearly every cell type.

...................Despite the large number of deaths and serious adverse events, Pfizer and BioNTech wrote, “Based on the available safety and efficacy/effectiveness data from the reporting interval for BNT162b2, the overall benefit-risk profile of BNT162b2 remains favorable” and that “no further changes … or additional risk minimization activities are warranted.”

The EMA appears to have agreed with this conclusion. In its “assessment report,” its Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) wrote that “The benefit-risk balance for the use of Comirnaty in its authorized indication remains unchanged.”

“The PRAC considers that the risk-benefit balance of medicinal products containing tozinameran (Comirnaty) remains unchanged and therefore recommends the maintenance of the marketing authorisation(s),” the PRAC added.

However, Horowitz argues that the documents “show that Pfizer knew about a sickening level of injury early on,” yet continued to distribute its COVID-19 vaccine.
Earlier this month, BioNTech was sued in Germany by a woman alleging injuries from the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The lawsuit demands at least 150,000 euro ($161,500) in damages for bodily harm and unspecified compensation for material damages.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: gwminor48 and David L
bigredfish said:
COVID-19 Vaccines and Boosters Were Never Made With mRNA
The truth behind RNA-based vaccine technology (Part 1)
Klaus Steger
Klaus Steger, Ph.D.

COVID-19 Vaccines and Boosters Were Never Made With mRNA


For the first time in human history, the gene regulatory program of healthy people has been manipulated on a massive scale.
Despite everything we’ve been told, RNA-based COVID-19 injections were manufactured with modified RNA—not messenger RNA (mRNA).

Modified RNA (modRNA) poses substantial risks to our health. These risks come not only from COVID-19 injections and boosters but—unless we speak up now—also from all future RNA-based vaccines.

mRNA and modRNA Are Not the Same

The two—mRNA and modRNA—are completely different.

mRNA occurs naturally, lives in our cells for only a short time, and is relatively fragile. It is a specific type of RNA that carries instructions or “messages” from our genes to help make proteins, the building blocks of our cells. It is constantly produced as part of normal cellular processes. Once mRNA delivers the messages, its work is done, and it is broken down in the body.

When RNA from another source enters our cells—virus RNA, for example—these cells can generate virus proteins.

We have been told that COVID-19 injections are made with mRNA. However, a vaccine using “natural” mRNA would not last long enough to initiate an immune response before being destroyed by our immune system.

To make mRNA useful for routine medicine, scientists had to artificially modify mRNA to increase both its efficiency and lifetime. The result: modRNA.
modRNA has been optimized for long life and maximal translation. While mRNA exhibits a cell-specific expression pattern, modRNA can invade nearly every cell type.

...................Despite the large number of deaths and serious adverse events, Pfizer and BioNTech wrote, “Based on the available safety and efficacy/effectiveness data from the reporting interval for BNT162b2, the overall benefit-risk profile of BNT162b2 remains favorable” and that “no further changes … or additional risk minimization activities are warranted.”

The EMA appears to have agreed with this conclusion. In its “assessment report,” its Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) wrote that “The benefit-risk balance for the use of Comirnaty in its authorized indication remains unchanged.”

“The PRAC considers that the risk-benefit balance of medicinal products containing tozinameran (Comirnaty) remains unchanged and therefore recommends the maintenance of the marketing authorisation(s),” the PRAC added.

However, Horowitz argues that the documents “show that Pfizer knew about a sickening level of injury early on,” yet continued to distribute its COVID-19 vaccine.
Earlier this month, BioNTech was sued in Germany by a woman alleging injuries from the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The lawsuit demands at least 150,000 euro ($161,500) in damages for bodily harm and unspecified compensation for material damages.
Click to expand...
Would love to hear from Robert Malone about this. Maybe he has been raising the flag about this all along but was not referring to it as modRNA...

Wikipedia is a cesspool of Lies...
1690801326464.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gwminor48, samplenhold and TonyR
Indeed, I’ve followed Malone and he’s a very smart guy who had a major hand in creating mRNA technology. He’s strongly against the “vaccines”.
I think it’s more of a definition thing in this instance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gwminor48 and David L
Pediatrician Fired After Raising Alarm On COVID Vaccines During US Senate Event

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com

I have a government telling me that I have to say 'safe and effective' and if I don't, my license is at threat. We're seeing an uptick in myocarditis. We're seeing an uptick in adverse reactions. We have trusted these regulatory agencies—I have—for my entire career up until now," Dr. Moon testified.
"Something is extremely wrong, and that is the anecdotal story that I have."

Myocarditis is caused by the COVID-19 vaccines, U.S. officials have confirmed. The heart inflammation primarily affects younger males and can cause death.

"It's my obligation to speak out. It's the obligation of any physician who thinks that there is a problem with a product to speak about that product, whether, honestly, whether they're right or wrong," Dr. Moon said on EpochTV's "ATL: Now."
"And in this case, everything I said was completely factual."


Original story
www.theepochtimes.com

Pediatrician Fired After Raising Alarm on COVID-19 Vaccines During US Senate Event

“This is not about my personal situation with the school. This is about freedom of speech for all Americans.”
www.theepochtimes.com www.theepochtimes.com
 
  • Angry
Reactions: mat200, gwminor48, samplenhold and 1 other person
What is sad, our Physicians today are owned by Big Pharma and are Drug Pushers for them. They even give samples out like Drug Dealers do. Anyone that goes against them are being canceled/ostracized...
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigredfish
  • Like
Reactions: samplenhold, bigredfish and David L
  • Like
Reactions: bigredfish, gwminor48 and Oceanslider
Glaring example of deciept and outright lies by 'The Science" TM

This Pro-Mask "Study" Is Why You Should Never "Trust The Science"
This Pro-Mask "Study" Is Why You Should Never "Trust The Science" | ZeroHedge

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,
Last week it was reported that the Australian state of Victoria may be considering “permanent” facemask mandates to achieve “zero-Covid”.
Now, we don’t need to get into the personal liberty implications of such a law, or the near-infinite supply of evidence that masks don’t work to prevent the transmission of respiratory disease.
They don’t work, they never worked. Mandating them was a political move designed to make the fake Covid “pandemic” appear real, and their continued use is a symptom of brainwashing or a by-product of chronic virtue signaling.

The mask debate, such as it was, is over.


No, the only aspect of this development worth talking about is the “evidence” used to support the position – and trust me, the quotes are entirely justified.
The “study” which claims to demonstrate the benefits of permanent masking was published in the Medical Journal of Australia last week and titled “Consistent mask use and SARS‐CoV‐2 epidemiology: a simulation modelling study”.

“Simulation modelling study” is very much the key phrase there. For those who don’t know, “simulation modelling studies” involve feeding data into a computer programme, then asking it to form conclusions.
Clearly, they are only as reliable and useful as the data you use. In fact, you can very easily make them produce any result you want by feeding in the “right” (bad) data.
In this particular modelling study they started out by telling the computer that cloth masks reduce transmission by 53% and respirators reduced it by 80%:
Odds ratios for the relative risk of infection for people exposed to an infected person (wearing a mask v not wearing a mask) were set at 0.47 for cloth and surgical masks and 0.20 for respirators
Click to expand...
Essentially, they told their computer that masks prevent disease…and then said “ok, computer, since you now know masks prevent disease – what would happen if everybody wore them all the time?”
The computer then told them – obviously – that nobody would get sick.
Because they made it logically impossible for it to say anything else.
But there’s a bit more to it.

The next layer of interest is where they got their input data from.
After all there have been dozens of studies done on masks over the years, 98% of which say masks don’t work.
So, did our guys they choose a peer-reviewed real-time control trial relying on lab-tested double-blind results?
Perhaps one of the dozen or so such trials listed in our 40 facts article?
Did they maybe average the results of multiple studies?
No, they used a phone survey.
One phone survey.

This phone survey, published last year and conducted in late 2021.
In this ahem “scientific study”, they had people randomly call up those who had recently been tested for “Covid”, ask them “did you wear a mask?” and then published the conclusion – “masks reduce transmission by 53%” – as if they meant something.

Interestingly, if you scroll down to the “affiliations” section you can see that one of the authors is a Pfizer grant recipient.
Rather more troublingly – and for some reason not mentioned as a conflict of interest – is that the whole study was produced by the California Board of Public Health.
California had already had a mask mandate in place for almost a year before this “study” was even started.

What we have here is not “science” it’s a computer model based on the results of a subjective phone survey conducted by a government agency with a vested interest. It is entirely meaningless, and yet is published in journals and cited by “experts”, perhaps even used as the basis of introducing new laws.

This is how “The ScienceTM” works. And, although Covid has maybe opened many people’s eyes to this issue, it is far from unique to “Covid”. You are just as likely to find this kind of “research” published on any topic – especially those that serve a political purpose – and have been for years if not decades.
Stanford Professor of evidence-based medicine, John Ioannidis wrote a paper called “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”, and that was back in 2005.
This has nothing to do with the “pandemic”, and everything to do with the difference between science and “The Science”. So let’s examine that distinction.

“Science” is an approach to the world. A rational method for gathering information, testing new ideas and forming evidence-based conclusions.
“The Science” is a self-sustaining industry of academics who need jobs and owe favours.
An ongoing quid pro quo relationship between the researchers – who want honors and knighthoods and tenure and book deals and research grants and to be the popular talking head explaining complex ideas to the multitudes on television – and the corporations, governments and “charitable foundations” who have all of those things in their gift.

This system doesn’t produce research intended to be read, it creates headlines for celebrities to tweet, links for “journalists” to embed, sources for other researchers to cite.
An illusion of solid substantiation that comes apart the moment you actually read the words, examine the methodology or analyse the data.
Self-reporting surveys, manipulated data, “modelling studies” that spit-out pre-ordained results. Affiliated-authors paid by the state or corporate interests to provide “evidence” that supports highly profitable or politically convenient assumptions.

This mask study is the perfect example of that.
Interlacing layers of nothing designed to create the impression of something.
That’s why they want you to trust it, rather than read it.
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: gwminor48, samplenhold and David L
bigredfish said:
Glaring example of deciept and outright lies by 'The Science" TM

This Pro-Mask "Study" Is Why You Should Never "Trust The Science"
This Pro-Mask "Study" Is Why You Should Never "Trust The Science" | ZeroHedge

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,
Last week it was reported that the Australian state of Victoria may be considering “permanent” facemask mandates to achieve “zero-Covid”.
Now, we don’t need to get into the personal liberty implications of such a law, or the near-infinite supply of evidence that masks don’t work to prevent the transmission of respiratory disease.
They don’t work, they never worked. Mandating them was a political move designed to make the fake Covid “pandemic” appear real, and their continued use is a symptom of brainwashing or a by-product of chronic virtue signaling.

The mask debate, such as it was, is over.


No, the only aspect of this development worth talking about is the “evidence” used to support the position – and trust me, the quotes are entirely justified.
The “study” which claims to demonstrate the benefits of permanent masking was published in the Medical Journal of Australia last week and titled “Consistent mask use and SARS‐CoV‐2 epidemiology: a simulation modelling study”.

“Simulation modelling study” is very much the key phrase there. For those who don’t know, “simulation modelling studies” involve feeding data into a computer programme, then asking it to form conclusions.
Clearly, they are only as reliable and useful as the data you use. In fact, you can very easily make them produce any result you want by feeding in the “right” (bad) data.
In this particular modelling study they started out by telling the computer that cloth masks reduce transmission by 53% and respirators reduced it by 80%:

Essentially, they told their computer that masks prevent disease…and then said “ok, computer, since you now know masks prevent disease – what would happen if everybody wore them all the time?”
The computer then told them – obviously – that nobody would get sick.
Because they made it logically impossible for it to say anything else.
But there’s a bit more to it.

The next layer of interest is where they got their input data from.
After all there have been dozens of studies done on masks over the years, 98% of which say masks don’t work.
So, did our guys they choose a peer-reviewed real-time control trial relying on lab-tested double-blind results?
Perhaps one of the dozen or so such trials listed in our 40 facts article?
Did they maybe average the results of multiple studies?
No, they used a phone survey.
One phone survey.

This phone survey, published last year and conducted in late 2021.
In this ahem “scientific study”, they had people randomly call up those who had recently been tested for “Covid”, ask them “did you wear a mask?” and then published the conclusion – “masks reduce transmission by 53%” – as if they meant something.

Interestingly, if you scroll down to the “affiliations” section you can see that one of the authors is a Pfizer grant recipient.
Rather more troublingly – and for some reason not mentioned as a conflict of interest – is that the whole study was produced by the California Board of Public Health.
California had already had a mask mandate in place for almost a year before this “study” was even started.

What we have here is not “science” it’s a computer model based on the results of a subjective phone survey conducted by a government agency with a vested interest. It is entirely meaningless, and yet is published in journals and cited by “experts”, perhaps even used as the basis of introducing new laws.

This is how “The ScienceTM” works. And, although Covid has maybe opened many people’s eyes to this issue, it is far from unique to “Covid”. You are just as likely to find this kind of “research” published on any topic – especially those that serve a political purpose – and have been for years if not decades.
Stanford Professor of evidence-based medicine, John Ioannidis wrote a paper called “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”, and that was back in 2005.
This has nothing to do with the “pandemic”, and everything to do with the difference between science and “The Science”. So let’s examine that distinction.

“Science” is an approach to the world. A rational method for gathering information, testing new ideas and forming evidence-based conclusions.
“The Science” is a self-sustaining industry of academics who need jobs and owe favours.
An ongoing quid pro quo relationship between the researchers – who want honors and knighthoods and tenure and book deals and research grants and to be the popular talking head explaining complex ideas to the multitudes on television – and the corporations, governments and “charitable foundations” who have all of those things in their gift.

This system doesn’t produce research intended to be read, it creates headlines for celebrities to tweet, links for “journalists” to embed, sources for other researchers to cite.
An illusion of solid substantiation that comes apart the moment you actually read the words, examine the methodology or analyse the data.
Self-reporting surveys, manipulated data, “modelling studies” that spit-out pre-ordained results. Affiliated-authors paid by the state or corporate interests to provide “evidence” that supports highly profitable or politically convenient assumptions.

This mask study is the perfect example of that.
Interlacing layers of nothing designed to create the impression of something.
That’s why they want you to trust it, rather than read it.
Click to expand...
Wow this was a very good read. Create a society where no one questions anything and they never read past the headlines and they will believe anything.


Even God's Word tells us to test/question. Just think about that for a moment...

biblia.com

Romans 12:2 ESV - Do not be conformed to this… | Biblia

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God,...
biblia.com biblia.com

Testing = Questioning...
 
  • Like
Reactions: gwminor48 and bigredfish
bigredfish said:
Glaring example of deciept and outright lies by 'The Science" TM

This Pro-Mask "Study" Is Why You Should Never "Trust The Science"
This Pro-Mask "Study" Is Why You Should Never "Trust The Science" | ZeroHedge

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,
Last week it was reported that the Australian state of Victoria may be considering “permanent” facemask mandates to achieve “zero-Covid”.
Now, we don’t need to get into the personal liberty implications of such a law, or the near-infinite supply of evidence that masks don’t work to prevent the transmission of respiratory disease.
They don’t work, they never worked. Mandating them was a political move designed to make the fake Covid “pandemic” appear real, and their continued use is a symptom of brainwashing or a by-product of chronic virtue signaling.

The mask debate, such as it was, is over.


No, the only aspect of this development worth talking about is the “evidence” used to support the position – and trust me, the quotes are entirely justified.
The “study” which claims to demonstrate the benefits of permanent masking was published in the Medical Journal of Australia last week and titled “Consistent mask use and SARS‐CoV‐2 epidemiology: a simulation modelling study”.

“Simulation modelling study” is very much the key phrase there. For those who don’t know, “simulation modelling studies” involve feeding data into a computer programme, then asking it to form conclusions.
Clearly, they are only as reliable and useful as the data you use. In fact, you can very easily make them produce any result you want by feeding in the “right” (bad) data.
In this particular modelling study they started out by telling the computer that cloth masks reduce transmission by 53% and respirators reduced it by 80%:

Essentially, they told their computer that masks prevent disease…and then said “ok, computer, since you now know masks prevent disease – what would happen if everybody wore them all the time?”
The computer then told them – obviously – that nobody would get sick.
Because they made it logically impossible for it to say anything else.
But there’s a bit more to it.

The next layer of interest is where they got their input data from.
After all there have been dozens of studies done on masks over the years, 98% of which say masks don’t work.
So, did our guys they choose a peer-reviewed real-time control trial relying on lab-tested double-blind results?
Perhaps one of the dozen or so such trials listed in our 40 facts article?
Did they maybe average the results of multiple studies?
No, they used a phone survey.
One phone survey.

This phone survey, published last year and conducted in late 2021.
In this ahem “scientific study”, they had people randomly call up those who had recently been tested for “Covid”, ask them “did you wear a mask?” and then published the conclusion – “masks reduce transmission by 53%” – as if they meant something.

Interestingly, if you scroll down to the “affiliations” section you can see that one of the authors is a Pfizer grant recipient.
Rather more troublingly – and for some reason not mentioned as a conflict of interest – is that the whole study was produced by the California Board of Public Health.
California had already had a mask mandate in place for almost a year before this “study” was even started.

What we have here is not “science” it’s a computer model based on the results of a subjective phone survey conducted by a government agency with a vested interest. It is entirely meaningless, and yet is published in journals and cited by “experts”, perhaps even used as the basis of introducing new laws.

This is how “The ScienceTM” works. And, although Covid has maybe opened many people’s eyes to this issue, it is far from unique to “Covid”. You are just as likely to find this kind of “research” published on any topic – especially those that serve a political purpose – and have been for years if not decades.
Stanford Professor of evidence-based medicine, John Ioannidis wrote a paper called “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”, and that was back in 2005.
This has nothing to do with the “pandemic”, and everything to do with the difference between science and “The Science”. So let’s examine that distinction.

“Science” is an approach to the world. A rational method for gathering information, testing new ideas and forming evidence-based conclusions.
“The Science” is a self-sustaining industry of academics who need jobs and owe favours.
An ongoing quid pro quo relationship between the researchers – who want honors and knighthoods and tenure and book deals and research grants and to be the popular talking head explaining complex ideas to the multitudes on television – and the corporations, governments and “charitable foundations” who have all of those things in their gift.

This system doesn’t produce research intended to be read, it creates headlines for celebrities to tweet, links for “journalists” to embed, sources for other researchers to cite.
An illusion of solid substantiation that comes apart the moment you actually read the words, examine the methodology or analyse the data.
Self-reporting surveys, manipulated data, “modelling studies” that spit-out pre-ordained results. Affiliated-authors paid by the state or corporate interests to provide “evidence” that supports highly profitable or politically convenient assumptions.

This mask study is the perfect example of that.
Interlacing layers of nothing designed to create the impression of something.
That’s why they want you to trust it, rather than read it.
Click to expand...
I've said to coworkers many times that if you wear a mask and smell someone smoking, smell someone heating fish in the microwave or someone that farted, the mask will not protect you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigredfish, gwminor48, David L and 1 other person
Gargoile said:
I've said to coworkers many times that if you wear a mask and smell someone smoking, smell someone heating fish in the microwave or someone that farted, the mask will not protect you.
Click to expand...

Silly man, you can't use logic, reason, and common sense on the pathetic sheep
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: samplenhold and gwminor48
'COVID-Karen' Installed As Fauci's Replacement At NIAID
'COVID-Karen' Installed As Fauci's Replacement At NIAID | ZeroHedge

She shares many similarities with her predecessor.

Both come from the HIV/AIDS world, neither saw a patient ever again after completing their respective residencies, and neither has ever achieved anything scientifically significant.

Unsurprisingly, Dr Fauci, who is worshipped as a deity in the Government Health world, gave his blessing to Marrazzo.

Marrazzo is “very well-liked, very respected” and experienced, Fauci told STAT News on Wednesday.

“She’s going to be a good fit. It’s a great challenge that she’s going to be facing; it’s going to be exciting for her.”
Click to expand...
Fauci is far from the only person to applaud Dr. Marrazzo’s elevation to a Government Health head honcho post.

Her appointment received much praise from the famed pseudoscientist Peter “Regional Fauci” Hotez.



She also received praise from the communist fake doctor who leads the World Health Organization.



Marrazzo is loyal to the narrative, which is why she got the job in the first place.

For example, she has continued to claim that coronavirus hysteria kicked off thanks to a bat and/or pangolin doing some weird stuff and then next thing you know, pandemic!

Another necessary “prerequisite” for the job is her complete and total allegiance to the mRNA mafia.

In advancing her apparent side gig as a pharma saleswoman, she has repeatedly promoted the false notion mRNA shots stop viruses from mutating.

Showcasing her big brain energy during the covid hysteria era, Marrazzo made it clear that she believed masks worked magnificently to stop all viruses… except Covid of course!



And if you disagree with Dr. Marrazzo, it’s probably because you hate lesbians. What a win for diversity!



Justin Hart of Rational Ground has even more info on the troubling new appointee: This is slap in the face to those of us who really, REALLY, wanted to repair things with our healthcare institutions.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: gwminor48 and David L
Worst fears coming true...

New Evidence Suggests Vaccinated Can Transmit Covid-19 Vax Antibodies Through The Air
New Evidence Suggests Vaccinated Can Transmit Covid-19 Vax Antibodies Through The Air | ZeroHedge

....Mr. Hooker said the study suggests that if Ig antibodies can be transmitted person-to-person, there is a possibility the spike protein generated by COVID-19 vaccines could be transmitted as well.
“This could cause immunization of the bystanders as well as problems associated with spike protein toxicity to bloodstream components and other tissues,” he added.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Parley, gwminor48 and David L
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom