If the current FDA and CDC have anything to say about it, information about the pre- and postnatal adverse effects of these genetic treatments will be suppressed. God willing, the next administration under Trump with the assistance of RFK, Jr., will clean house. You know, for sure, that Harris, who was part of an administration that mandated the shots, would do no such thing. After all, she said she could not think of a thing that she would do differently than Biden.
Years ago I remember reading from Pfizer that it wasn't tested on pregnant moms or children and to stay stay away from them if infected err jabbed because of shedding.
But the media and politicians say it was safe because "science"
Stalin said something like one life ruined is a tragedy and a million a statistic. What do you call billions ruined in big pharma's great cull or maiming?
Something I don't understand is why the Davos gang thinks they and their progeny will come through the great culling alive and unscathed.
Do they really think the human population will collapse "neatly"? Without real plagues taking hold in the wake of their plandemics?
Are they carefully plotting to keep alive enough people, educated and trained enough, to operate all the nuclear power plants, or decommission ones for which there aren't operators? Do they have failsafe plans to keep enough electricity flowing to these plants to maintain the ponds in which spent fuel rods are stored?
Given the evidence that their mRNA weapons "shed", how do they think they and their descendants will be unaffected by their nasty gene-fouling bioweapon?
I cut my OBGYN off before he even got started. He started to say something about it and I told him I never took it. I’m not taking it. Just stop right there before we argue so we can continue a good relationship.
Peter, I'm genuinely surprised you would use the first page of *Google* to offer up reassurance of 'safe and effective' when we know their results are only those that are 'approved.' Unless you're illustrating how the 'average' person might seek results, without your commenting on its bias.
Typing the same request into, say, Yandex, offers a far more-balanced listing of sources on their first page of results. I hope you use search engines other than Google for your professional research!
If the current FDA and CDC have anything to say about it, information about the pre- and postnatal adverse effects of these genetic treatments will be suppressed. God willing, the next administration under Trump with the assistance of RFK, Jr., will clean house. You know, for sure, that Harris, who was part of an administration that mandated the shots, would do no such thing. After all, she said she could not think of a thing that she would do differently than Biden.
Years ago I remember reading from Pfizer that it wasn't tested on pregnant moms or children and to stay stay away from them if infected err jabbed because of shedding.
But the media and politicians say it was safe because "science"
Stalin said something like one life ruined is a tragedy and a million a statistic. What do you call billions ruined in big pharma's great cull or maiming?
How about calling it an extinction event?
Something I don't understand is why the Davos gang thinks they and their progeny will come through the great culling alive and unscathed.
Do they really think the human population will collapse "neatly"? Without real plagues taking hold in the wake of their plandemics?
Are they carefully plotting to keep alive enough people, educated and trained enough, to operate all the nuclear power plants, or decommission ones for which there aren't operators? Do they have failsafe plans to keep enough electricity flowing to these plants to maintain the ponds in which spent fuel rods are stored?
Given the evidence that their mRNA weapons "shed", how do they think they and their descendants will be unaffected by their nasty gene-fouling bioweapon?
I cut my OBGYN off before he even got started. He started to say something about it and I told him I never took it. I’m not taking it. Just stop right there before we argue so we can continue a good relationship.
It looks to me like the graphic art summarizing the results was deliberately made difficult to read and interpret.
Given Dr. Thorp's reports of what he's seen among his patients, I don't believe the data presented by this study.
Peter, I'm genuinely surprised you would use the first page of *Google* to offer up reassurance of 'safe and effective' when we know their results are only those that are 'approved.' Unless you're illustrating how the 'average' person might seek results, without your commenting on its bias.
Typing the same request into, say, Yandex, offers a far more-balanced listing of sources on their first page of results. I hope you use search engines other than Google for your professional research!