I remember those early days of flu shot. Pregnant women should never be jabbed. It used to be known that NO CHILD UNDER AGE 6 MINIMUM SHOULD EVER BE JABBED. Their immune systems aren't developed enough to handle it, thus we see huge rates of autism when there used to be hardly any cases of it when I was a kid. Part of immune system is in…
I remember those early days of flu shot. Pregnant women should never be jabbed. It used to be known that NO CHILD UNDER AGE 6 MINIMUM SHOULD EVER BE JABBED. Their immune systems aren't developed enough to handle it, thus we see huge rates of autism when there used to be hardly any cases of it when I was a kid. Part of immune system is in the brain, which is adversely affected when given the jab before age 6. Pregnant women share their immune system with unborn child they carry so the unborn baby doesn't need to be vaxed and instead it gives them all sorts of serious problems. Is this why so many miscarriages are happening? It used to be that immunologists, doctors, etc. all knew that you NEVER give a child under 6 the jab. Makes me wonder if this is deliberate? It has to be because they don't want anyone to know this and keep censoring lots of people like me.
Please address this. I doubt PREP shields vaccine manufacturers etc for fraud, though I can never get an answer on that. Attorneys, liberty groups, and you, seem to assume it shields for any behavior whatsoever without questioning the assumption.
Per Dr Paul Marik, the body repairs itself over time. “We have enormous potential of self-repair through an evolutionary process called autophagy, which is truly astonishing.”
Makes sense in my experience, as opposed to no-hope perma-damage, assuming you take it easy & don't "push it" while injured - probably why so many sports players and younger folks dropped. "Push through it" may work with a normal cold or a ligament injury, but not with spike protein damage and maybe spike proteins still floating around.
I agree. Excellent work, many thanks, but a few nits & a question:
"The jabs have *permanently* (or at least long term) weakened the immune system of *all* the recipients, young and old..." Asterisks added. For the following reasons I think that goes a bit too far:
1. Boosters. It may only appear to be perma-damage because harm is frequently inflicted again or worsened by "boosters", overcoming or masking recovery (if any) from prior "vaccine" or "booster" damage.
2. Genes. Some may be disposed to survive the "vaccine" without significant or permanent harm. Others may be especially vulnerable.
I think it can be concluded that a significant % of recipients are perma-damaged or damaged again by "boosters"; perpetuated or worsened by "boosters" is more likely than perma-damage & no chance of recovery. That has the advantage of providing hope, and incentive to stop "boosting". Otherwise, "if I'm perma-F'd anyway, I might as well stay boosted to keep my doc & lefty pals happy."
"The PREP act protects against civil liability only. This behavior is criminal. These people are not protected...I plan on filing a complaint..."
Good, but does PREP shield against *all* civil liability? e.g. Normally fraud can be grounds for civil damages too. Does PREP shield civil liability for things like intentional fraud?
I remember those early days of flu shot. Pregnant women should never be jabbed. It used to be known that NO CHILD UNDER AGE 6 MINIMUM SHOULD EVER BE JABBED. Their immune systems aren't developed enough to handle it, thus we see huge rates of autism when there used to be hardly any cases of it when I was a kid. Part of immune system is in the brain, which is adversely affected when given the jab before age 6. Pregnant women share their immune system with unborn child they carry so the unborn baby doesn't need to be vaxed and instead it gives them all sorts of serious problems. Is this why so many miscarriages are happening? It used to be that immunologists, doctors, etc. all knew that you NEVER give a child under 6 the jab. Makes me wonder if this is deliberate? It has to be because they don't want anyone to know this and keep censoring lots of people like me.
NO CHILD SHOULD EVER BE JABBED (with any of the current vaccines or K-shot).
Please address this. I doubt PREP shields vaccine manufacturers etc for fraud, though I can never get an answer on that. Attorneys, liberty groups, and you, seem to assume it shields for any behavior whatsoever without questioning the assumption.
Per Dr Paul Marik, the body repairs itself over time. “We have enormous potential of self-repair through an evolutionary process called autophagy, which is truly astonishing.”
https://dailyclout.io/de-spike-naturally-recovery-insights-from-dr-paul-marik/
Makes sense in my experience, as opposed to no-hope perma-damage, assuming you take it easy & don't "push it" while injured - probably why so many sports players and younger folks dropped. "Push through it" may work with a normal cold or a ligament injury, but not with spike protein damage and maybe spike proteins still floating around.
I agree. Excellent work, many thanks, but a few nits & a question:
"The jabs have *permanently* (or at least long term) weakened the immune system of *all* the recipients, young and old..." Asterisks added. For the following reasons I think that goes a bit too far:
1. Boosters. It may only appear to be perma-damage because harm is frequently inflicted again or worsened by "boosters", overcoming or masking recovery (if any) from prior "vaccine" or "booster" damage.
2. Genes. Some may be disposed to survive the "vaccine" without significant or permanent harm. Others may be especially vulnerable.
I think it can be concluded that a significant % of recipients are perma-damaged or damaged again by "boosters"; perpetuated or worsened by "boosters" is more likely than perma-damage & no chance of recovery. That has the advantage of providing hope, and incentive to stop "boosting". Otherwise, "if I'm perma-F'd anyway, I might as well stay boosted to keep my doc & lefty pals happy."
"The PREP act protects against civil liability only. This behavior is criminal. These people are not protected...I plan on filing a complaint..."
Good, but does PREP shield against *all* civil liability? e.g. Normally fraud can be grounds for civil damages too. Does PREP shield civil liability for things like intentional fraud?
EXACTLY! Agreed!