It could be an issue of lot variability. Which has already been noted for COVID vaccines and was seen in anthrax vaccines.
Should we call these vaccines "unsafe" or should we use a more explicit term such as "poisonous" or "had various toxicities engineered in" or specify how they increase the cancer risk or the clotting risk? Unsafe is an anemic word for what these vaccines were meant to do
It could be an issue of lot variability. Which has already been noted for COVID vaccines and was seen in anthrax vaccines.
Should we call these vaccines "unsafe" or should we use a more explicit term such as "poisonous" or "had various toxicities engineered in" or specify how they increase the cancer risk or the clotting risk? Unsafe is an anemic word for what these vaccines were meant to do
It could be an issue of lot variability. Which has already been noted for COVID vaccines and was seen in anthrax vaccines.
Should we call these vaccines "unsafe" or should we use a more explicit term such as "poisonous" or "had various toxicities engineered in" or specify how they increase the cancer risk or the clotting risk? Unsafe is an anemic word for what these vaccines were meant to do
You can't beat a good adjective. Our choice of descriptive words is too timid, time to lambaste 'em with constructive vituperatives.
Spot on Meryl тШ║я╕П
Meryl, you know the truth. Poisonous is the accurate term, and why they were created and Gates' role here too.
SATAN GATES!
With pharmaceuticals, particularly new ones, correlation should be treated as causative until proven otherwise.
Correlation is acknowledged; it is why the correllation does not equal causation jingle has become such a chorus.