These hospital employees admit to this man that the COVID "vax" can cause heart damage, but when he challenges them to make this known on the news, they call security on him. Also, check the two comments. Pharma is dangerously powerful.
Lost any friends for saying what you actually think? None of them have return even after the legacy news finally catches up with the truth.
Things like these:
Many more COVID lies here.
People addicted to legacy news insist that the above untruths were only mistakes, not lies. My response: if a expert in the field claims that they know something that they don't know, and that they know they don't know it, it is a lie.
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
And in the meantime, I have met and befriended numerous courageous thinkers, those who say what they think regardless of the fact that we are surrounded by fact-police, opinion-police and language police.
It's sometimes disorienting, disappointing and hurtful, but eventually you will be part of a much improved social network: people who think for themselves rather than huddling with sheep, people run in tribes. Steve Kirsch and Brett Weinstein independently described this turnover of friends here.
If your kids' pediatrician fails to tell you pharma is PAYING them to foist the massive vaccine schedule on your children, you are being denied informed consent. It's as bad as your attorney failing to disclose to you that they have a massive conflict of interest in handling your case.
Parents of young children, when your child’s pediatrician (or spouse) admonishes you for “vaccine hesitancy” towards the massive amount of vaccinations “strongly recommended” or mandated against now largely non-existent diseases due to sanitation and hygiene practices (the science of which is undeniable), know they will next resort to citing strictly, and often legally, enforced guidelines issued by brazenly captured regulatory agencies and professional societies by vaccine manufacturers.
The worst case is when you just want to delay or spread out the governments unconscionably aggressive schedule of innumerable vaccinations to small children, the pediatrician will then go so far as to refuse your child to be a member of their practice because you are not “compliant.” This chart below will tell you largely (but not completely) why they behave the way they do.
I did not appreciate this distinction. Until I saw Bari Weiss' interview of Jay Bhattacharya, I assumed that all gain of function research was dangerous.
I created this transcript of the above interview:
Bari Weiss: Should gain a function research be banned, okay?Jay Bhattacharya: So you have to be careful here. There's some gain of function research which is entirely benign, has no chance of causing a pandemic and would advance a use that is vital tool for advancing human health, right? So, for instance you have some protein you want expressed so that you can use it as a treatment, like insulin, is a good example of this. You change the DNA of a of an E coli, use the E coli bacteria to produce the insulin cheaply. That's gain of function work. There's nothing wrong with that.
But there is gain of function work that has the potential to cause a pandemic. You take a virus you find in a bat cave in China, Coronavirus, you add a biochemical element. This Is not theoretical. You add an element to it that makes it more transmissible among human cells and then you do that in a setting where it might infect the lab technician who takes it home without knowing it infects their family and causes a pandemic that causes so much damage.
That kind of research, or any research that has any capacity of causing a pandemic through gain of function, work should be banned. I think it has no place among the toolkit of scientists. You have a few scientists taking risks on behalf of the entire human population, and they do it in an unregulated way that makes absolutely no sense to me. Even if you don't agree that that is what led to this past pandemic--I happen to think it does--But even if you don't agree going forward, why would you say yes, you should take that risk? There aren't enough benefits to that kind of research to warrant causing a pandemic that can kill 10 million, 20 million people, if you include the lockdown harms and caused trillions of dollars of damage and set society back for so long. What knowledge gain would be worth that?
