Coronavirus: Thread

[grarpamp]

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-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808
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-covid-19
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8327047/More-competitors-reveal-ill-World-Military-Games.html

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.