Joe Biden the Tyrant and Destructor claims to want a full military, but then is firing at least 40,000 military on June 30 2022 for refusing the vax, thus outright destroying military capability, tripling costs and more deficit into debt to hire, train, deploy replacements that won't be full ready till long over a year from now, and many of those he fired will end up on welfare marked with bad military record for life. http://howbadismybatch.info/ Book: The Real Anthony Fauci by Robert F Kennedy Jr https://childrenshealthdefense.org/fauci_info/ https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kenne... https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/58063409-the-real-anthony-fauci https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oEciovyT44 Jordan v Birx Disinfo Govt guessing, hoping, lying, presenting bad science to the American People. The vax does not work, the risk are very high, and the benefit are none. https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/328102 A “vaccine” for an upper respiratory virus that is capable of causing heart problems, strokes, blood clots, paralysis, reproductive problems, immune disorders, neurological disorders and “sudden adult death syndrome” while offering absolutely no protection for the intended virus is not a “vaccine”. This is gene therapy and this is a weapon! Coronavirus weapon was released months earlier on Oct 18 2019 into the Military World Games event. https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1094347/world-military-games-illness... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8327047/More-competitors-reveal-ill... https://www.fda.gov/media/144246/download The actual results of the clinical trials never showed shedding in any of the tested cases. "
Always listen the heretical scientist, no matter how crazy the media makes them out to be.
You made me realise something. Consider two heretical positions here :- 1. "The earth is flat" This idea is not censored at all on ANY platform, and it's openly debated. I believe this is the case because the flat earth theory can be debunked so thoroughly. There's a rather large cohort who spend an inordinate amount of time debunking it, as well as those supporting it. The "heretic" (in this case, the flat earther) has as much platform as they like, because (I believe) the opposing view know they can debunk it thoroughly. This is the scientific method through and through. 2. "C19 vaccines are more dangerous than advertised, and less effective than advertised" This idea is massively censored. There is no truly open debate here. Instead the above claims are heavily censored, and then the debunking is done summarily, often without any real evidence to the contrary. It seems that when a claim can be thoroughly debunked with irrefutable evidence, the heretical claim itself can be fully platformed and promoted without any impedance. If someone says "2+2=5" with absolute conviction, there is a strong compulsion to counter this claim because there is irrefutable evidence that disproves the claim. When people make such an easily disprovable claim with absolute conviction, it's often met with glee and enthusiasm because the evidence to disprove it is so overwhelming, those on the other side of the argument can look forward to a comprehensive "victory" in the argument. However, if someone says "C19 vaccine adverse events are being suppresed", this is a far more equivocal claim. It might be true, it might not be. However, the scientific method should allow that claim to be made in full public view. Can this claim be disputed? Of course it can! VAERS data is only reported data. The CDC and FDA manage this data. The CDC are supposed to investigate each and every reported death on VAERS for example (now nearly 30,000). Have they publicly reported their findings on their investigations? NO, THEY HAVE NOT. Imagine you had a ton of evidence disproving the earth is flat. Would you hold that evidence back? Of course not. And so I'm highly suspicious of authorities that summarily dismiss claims out of hand without any evidence to say why they dismiss them. " Further, anything that can be easily debunked is not a threat to power, while evidence supported and debateable topics present major assailable holes in power's chosen narratives.