31 Reasons To Reject The Jab
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
way 2 go
Well-known member
Variation in Toxicity of Vaccine Batches Across Different States of the USA
Observations
- There is considerable variation in the number dying per 100,000 vaccinated. Some states have 16 x the death rate compared to others.
- Red states tend to cluster towards the top of the chart, whilst blue states cluster towards the bottom.
- Red states occupy 6 of the 7 highest ranking positions for deaths per 100,000 vaccinated
way 2 go
Well-known member
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
"Trust the science"
way 2 go
Well-known member
no half-life to the jab induced spike protein 
.https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/secret-epidemics-friday-september?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
study .https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/prca.202300048
You’ll well remember, I’m sure, all the saccharine promises by federal government officials that the covid shots’ mRNA stayed at the injection site and fully degraded within a few days. It is worth noting that it wasn’t so much Pfizer and Moderna who were making those claims — both companies were super careful to avoid public representations — it was taxpayer-funded officials from captured public agencies like the CDC, FDA, and NIH.
An then all the medical establishment’s grant-groveling, white-coated sock-puppets echoed those same lies in a cascading crescendo of brown-nosing amplification. And then the fact-checkers and social media giants shut down any heterodox doctor asking any inconvenient questions.
The chickens were bound to get back to the roost at some point.
Instead of parroting the tired old “safe and effective” line, the new April study bravely and openly described its purpose as questioning about the wisdom of continued booster campaigns:
But the study’s secondary discoveries turned out to be the real story. First, the researchers found that some vaccinees had persistent jab-spike in their bodies — long after the original jabs.
Nor, also contrary to what was promised, did the PP degrade within a few days.
It was beyond the scope of the study to figure out why the jab spike was hanging around so long. But the researchers offered three hypothesis, and their first idea was a doozy:
.https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/secret-epidemics-friday-september?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
study .https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/prca.202300048
You’ll well remember, I’m sure, all the saccharine promises by federal government officials that the covid shots’ mRNA stayed at the injection site and fully degraded within a few days. It is worth noting that it wasn’t so much Pfizer and Moderna who were making those claims — both companies were super careful to avoid public representations — it was taxpayer-funded officials from captured public agencies like the CDC, FDA, and NIH.
An then all the medical establishment’s grant-groveling, white-coated sock-puppets echoed those same lies in a cascading crescendo of brown-nosing amplification. And then the fact-checkers and social media giants shut down any heterodox doctor asking any inconvenient questions.
The chickens were bound to get back to the roost at some point.
Instead of parroting the tired old “safe and effective” line, the new April study bravely and openly described its purpose as questioning about the wisdom of continued booster campaigns:
The researchers dubbed vaccine-induced spike protein as “PP”, based on the unique genetic characteristics distinguishing the jab version of spike from all the other natural types from the various viral variants. They created a test allowing other researchers to detect jab spikes in people (as distinct from any of the ‘natural’ spikes).
But the study’s secondary discoveries turned out to be the real story. First, the researchers found that some vaccinees had persistent jab-spike in their bodies — long after the original jabs.
When the researchers said “more than 30 days,” they meant up to six months — the duration of the study. So they actually failed to detect the “half-life” of the mRNA spike, since there was no way to determine the upper limit. They also found PP in “any organic tissue.” Meaning — putting the lie to government guarantees — the mRNA spike does not stay after all in the injection site. It spreads throughout the body.
Nor, also contrary to what was promised, did the PP degrade within a few days.
It was beyond the scope of the study to figure out why the jab spike was hanging around so long. But the researchers offered three hypothesis, and their first idea was a doozy:
way 2 go
Well-known member
.https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/secret-epidemics-friday-september?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
After studying a group of Melbourne children who’d gotten the Pfizer jab, as well as unvaccinated kids — both those who’d had covid and those who hadn’t — the researchers found the vaccinated kids had a depressed immune response to bacterial, fungal, and viral infections:
Here is the link to the study: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1242380/full
---------------------------------------------
also add Sepsis
--------------------------------------
Science Daily ran a story published yesterday, headlined “Sepsis -- as common as cancer, as deadly as a heart attack.” Here’s the article’s summary:
After studying a group of Melbourne children who’d gotten the Pfizer jab, as well as unvaccinated kids — both those who’d had covid and those who hadn’t — the researchers found the vaccinated kids had a depressed immune response to bacterial, fungal, and viral infections:
The researchers concluded that the mRNA jabs act to depress immune responses to other “heterologous” infections, apart from covid, which is particularly dangerous to children because they are exposed to so many new germs at school, and because they are constantly being jabbed with other diseases as part of the normal vaccine schedule:
The researchers did not report any long-term recovery from the immune-suppressing effects of the jabs — six months was the extent of the study. They were just being conservative when they said the immune suppression lasted “up to six months after vaccination.” Six months was as far as they got. You have to stop and publish sometime.
Here is the link to the study: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1242380/full
---------------------------------------------
also add Sepsis
--------------------------------------
Science Daily ran a story published yesterday, headlined “Sepsis -- as common as cancer, as deadly as a heart attack.” Here’s the article’s summary:
It can be likened to an epidemic! But not the kind of epidemic they love, which is why it’s not being run wall-to-wall on MSNBC. It’s an epidemic they’d rather broom under an antique rug.
way 2 go
Well-known member
way 2 go
Well-known member
.https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/rats-thursday-september-7-2023-c?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
The newly-disclosed contract between Pfizer and the Republic of South Africa is dated March 30th, 2021 — four months after the jab rollout started in America.
...
The agreement defines “Purchaser” as the government of the Republic of South Africa. Under Section 5.5 (“Purchaser Acknowledgement”), clearly spelled out in black and white, Pfizer admitted it had no idea what the jabs might do or might not do in the long run, or whether they would even work at all, shifting all the risk completely to the South African government.
In Section 5.5’s first sentence, Pfizer admitted it hadn’t even yet finished studying the vaccines’ “components and constituent materials.” Think about that. Turn that around in your mind and pitilessly examine it from every angle. Compare that admission to all the public messaging from the CDC and all its white-coated, grant-grabbing pretend doctors.
In English, Pfizer was saying, look, we’re not even sure what’s in these things.
And South Africa said, sure, that’s cool with us.
Not to belabor the point but, while in its confidential legal agreements Pfizer was saying they weren’t even sure what the shots included, what we were being publicly assured was that the shots were the most studied vaccines in history, not to mention the safest and most effective ones — ever. Ever, ever. Ninety-five percent effective. You remember.
Section 5.5’s second sentence is arguably even worse. It included two different disclaimers. The first disclaimer expressly says that South Africa AGREED that “the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known.”
“Not currently known.” In other words, Pfizer said we have no idea what it’s going to do to people, or whether it even works.
Haha! There it is, in black and white, three months after first responders and healthcare workers in the U.S. had all gotten the jabs and just before the “vaccinate or terminate” mandates started rolling out. Do you remember our vaunted public officials saying anything about unknown long-term effects? Did President Robert L. Peters ever say “the long-term effects and efficacy” were unknown? Did anyone in charge ever say that?
Nope. They said the reverse opposite.
The second disclaimer may be the most reprehensible of all. On behalf of its citizens, South Africa obsequiously agreed that “there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.”
Oh. Thanks for letting us know.
That’s bad enough. But combine the two sentences together, and what you get is Pfizer saying they don’t know what’s in the jabs, what it’s going to do to people, and it might even kill them, for all Pfizer knew.
And South Africa said, Sounds great! How many can we get?
Needless to say, Section 5.5 is not a standard provision in a government contract for goods, even in an emergency. Normally, purchasing contracts contain guarantees of performance standards. Imagine the South African government were buying generators, or solar power stations, and the seller’s contract said “we don’t know whether these generators will work, and they might even explode and take down the power grid when plugged in.”
Who but a drooling moron would sign such a contract? And what lawyer would ever let his moronic client sign it?
p fizer agreement
.https://healthjusticeinitiative.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/OCRPfizer-1_Redacted.pdf
The newly-disclosed contract between Pfizer and the Republic of South Africa is dated March 30th, 2021 — four months after the jab rollout started in America.
...
The agreement defines “Purchaser” as the government of the Republic of South Africa. Under Section 5.5 (“Purchaser Acknowledgement”), clearly spelled out in black and white, Pfizer admitted it had no idea what the jabs might do or might not do in the long run, or whether they would even work at all, shifting all the risk completely to the South African government.
In Section 5.5’s first sentence, Pfizer admitted it hadn’t even yet finished studying the vaccines’ “components and constituent materials.” Think about that. Turn that around in your mind and pitilessly examine it from every angle. Compare that admission to all the public messaging from the CDC and all its white-coated, grant-grabbing pretend doctors.
In English, Pfizer was saying, look, we’re not even sure what’s in these things.
And South Africa said, sure, that’s cool with us.
Not to belabor the point but, while in its confidential legal agreements Pfizer was saying they weren’t even sure what the shots included, what we were being publicly assured was that the shots were the most studied vaccines in history, not to mention the safest and most effective ones — ever. Ever, ever. Ninety-five percent effective. You remember.
Section 5.5’s second sentence is arguably even worse. It included two different disclaimers. The first disclaimer expressly says that South Africa AGREED that “the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known.”
“Not currently known.” In other words, Pfizer said we have no idea what it’s going to do to people, or whether it even works.
Haha! There it is, in black and white, three months after first responders and healthcare workers in the U.S. had all gotten the jabs and just before the “vaccinate or terminate” mandates started rolling out. Do you remember our vaunted public officials saying anything about unknown long-term effects? Did President Robert L. Peters ever say “the long-term effects and efficacy” were unknown? Did anyone in charge ever say that?
Nope. They said the reverse opposite.
The second disclaimer may be the most reprehensible of all. On behalf of its citizens, South Africa obsequiously agreed that “there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.”
Oh. Thanks for letting us know.
That’s bad enough. But combine the two sentences together, and what you get is Pfizer saying they don’t know what’s in the jabs, what it’s going to do to people, and it might even kill them, for all Pfizer knew.
And South Africa said, Sounds great! How many can we get?
Needless to say, Section 5.5 is not a standard provision in a government contract for goods, even in an emergency. Normally, purchasing contracts contain guarantees of performance standards. Imagine the South African government were buying generators, or solar power stations, and the seller’s contract said “we don’t know whether these generators will work, and they might even explode and take down the power grid when plugged in.”
Who but a drooling moron would sign such a contract? And what lawyer would ever let his moronic client sign it?
p fizer agreement
.https://healthjusticeinitiative.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/OCRPfizer-1_Redacted.pdf
way 2 go
Well-known member
way 2 go
Well-known member
.https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/chicken-legs-monday-september-18?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Canadian public-interest research group Correlation published a new study yesterday titled, “COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere.”
The researchers analyzed publicly-available all-cause mortality data from 17 countries in the Southern Hemisphere, statistically comparing those figures with data from the jab rollout campaigns. They found tremendous benefits for people who took the vaccines.
Haha, just kidding! No, their conclusion were stark. Not only did the jabs not save lives, but the shots consistently appeared to be killing people in large numbers. In the researchers’ own words:
Link to the study: COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere
Canadian public-interest research group Correlation published a new study yesterday titled, “COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere.”
The researchers analyzed publicly-available all-cause mortality data from 17 countries in the Southern Hemisphere, statistically comparing those figures with data from the jab rollout campaigns. They found tremendous benefits for people who took the vaccines.
Haha, just kidding! No, their conclusion were stark. Not only did the jabs not save lives, but the shots consistently appeared to be killing people in large numbers. In the researchers’ own words:
The authors concluded, logically, that governments should immediately end the policy of pushing shots on vulnerable elderly people, which is only considered elder abuse when non-government actors do it.
Link to the study: COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere
Phizer was lying to South Afreica. They knew very well what was in the "vaccines". They created them asnd they knew 1200+ people died in the 3 month "safety" study they did before the FDA gave them their EUA. Not a word they ever say can be trusted..https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/rats-thursday-september-7-2023-c?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
The newly-disclosed contract between Pfizer and the Republic of South Africa is dated March 30th, 2021 — four months after the jab rollout started in America.
...
The agreement defines “Purchaser” as the government of the Republic of South Africa. Under Section 5.5 (“Purchaser Acknowledgement”), clearly spelled out in black and white, Pfizer admitted it had no idea what the jabs might do or might not do in the long run, or whether they would even work at all, shifting all the risk completely to the South African government.
In Section 5.5’s first sentence, Pfizer admitted it hadn’t even yet finished studying the vaccines’ “components and constituent materials.” Think about that. Turn that around in your mind and pitilessly examine it from every angle. Compare that admission to all the public messaging from the CDC and all its white-coated, grant-grabbing pretend doctors.
In English, Pfizer was saying, look, we’re not even sure what’s in these things.
And South Africa said, sure, that’s cool with us.
Not to belabor the point but, while in its confidential legal agreements Pfizer was saying they weren’t even sure what the shots included, what we were being publicly assured was that the shots were the most studied vaccines in history, not to mention the safest and most effective ones — ever. Ever, ever. Ninety-five percent effective. You remember.
Section 5.5’s second sentence is arguably even worse. It included two different disclaimers. The first disclaimer expressly says that South Africa AGREED that “the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known.”
“Not currently known.” In other words, Pfizer said we have no idea what it’s going to do to people, or whether it even works.
Haha! There it is, in black and white, three months after first responders and healthcare workers in the U.S. had all gotten the jabs and just before the “vaccinate or terminate” mandates started rolling out. Do you remember our vaunted public officials saying anything about unknown long-term effects? Did President Robert L. Peters ever say “the long-term effects and efficacy” were unknown? Did anyone in charge ever say that?
Nope. They said the reverse opposite.
The second disclaimer may be the most reprehensible of all. On behalf of its citizens, South Africa obsequiously agreed that “there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.”
Oh. Thanks for letting us know.
That’s bad enough. But combine the two sentences together, and what you get is Pfizer saying they don’t know what’s in the jabs, what it’s going to do to people, and it might even kill them, for all Pfizer knew.
And South Africa said, Sounds great! How many can we get?
Needless to say, Section 5.5 is not a standard provision in a government contract for goods, even in an emergency. Normally, purchasing contracts contain guarantees of performance standards. Imagine the South African government were buying generators, or solar power stations, and the seller’s contract said “we don’t know whether these generators will work, and they might even explode and take down the power grid when plugged in.”
Who but a drooling moron would sign such a contract? And what lawyer would ever let his moronic client sign it?
p fizer agreement
.https://healthjusticeinitiative.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/OCRPfizer-1_Redacted.pdf
That was a really good find.
