fides' Jack's Mega Anti-Vax Thread

[mommas_boy]

On 10/15/2022 at 6:43 PM, fides' Jack said:

This news is a couple weeks old now.  

"This removes the entire legal basis for the COVID passport"

https://gloria.tv/post/hm7WxoPCdE47613rh1eC4TBJJ

 

And from the Croatian representatives who want to know when Pfizer execs are going to be prosecuted, and their European contracts terminated:

Why did Australia order 255 million covid shot doses for 26 million people?

Other countries show even more outlandish numbers.  In December of 2020 (as the shots were coming out), Canada had secured 400 million doses, for 37 million people.

Perhaps because COVID shots last only a short period of time, and because people avoid getting them? Therefore, in order to administer 26 million doses, they must purchase ten times that amount over a period of time (ie. not all at once) in order to have vaccine on hand when people become convinced to head in for their next dose. They are calculating in waste, and they can't buy doses individually; they have to buy doses by the vial. Once the vial has been made, it has an expiration date. They apparently know that on average, only a tenth of a vial is being used before the vial expires. Look at how consistent that 10% number is between Australia and Canada; that's pretty telling.

 

11 hours ago, little2add said:

Vaccinated people now make majority of COVID deaths in US: Report

For the first time since the beginning of the pandemic in early 2020, a majority of Americans dying from Covid were at least partially vaccinated, according to the new analysis of federal and state data.

In a startling revelation, a Washington Post analysis has found that more vaccinated people are now dying of the Covid disease and 58 per cent of coronavirus deaths in August in the US "were people who were vaccinated or boosted".

For the first time since the beginning of the pandemic in early 2020, a majority of Americans dying from Covid were at least partially vaccinated, according to the new analysis of federal and state data.

"We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated," said Kaiser Family Foundation vice president Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis on behalf of the Washington Post.

 

This is because a virus is an evolving organism. There is no one COVID. There never has been. Each individual, microscopic virion is its own organism with its own (potentially) unique RNA and surface proteins. Had everyone been vaccinated immediately (even if people were willing, this would still have been a logistical nightmare, especially in third-world countries which represent a sizable reservoir of virus), the virus would have stopped mutating and evolving. Unfortunately, some people chose not to get vaccinated, and others could not be vaccinated due to logistical constraints. The result is that the virus has and will continue to mutate. Some strains will be more or less resistant to immunities acquired from vaccines or prior infections.

I'm not sure if this is the goal of @little2add in posting this, but for anyone to use data such as these in order to conclude that "therefore vaccines are ineffective" is disingenuous. For in this instance, it was those who were not vaccinated who enabled the evolution and spread of mutated variants.

[little2add]

9 hours ago, mommas_boy said:

disingenuous

 

[little2add]

 

 

14 hours ago, mommas_boy said:

"therefore vaccines are ineffective"

the most heavily targeted demographic for this vaccine are elderly and still dropping dead because of an ineffective vaccine, thus the chart showing the vaccinated elderly demographic deaths are more than for unvaccinated is misleading.

 

[mommas_boy]

5 hours ago, little2add said:

 

Facts, without context.

1 hour ago, little2add said:

 

 

the most heavily targeted demographic for this vaccine are elderly and still dropping dead because of an ineffective vaccine, thus the chart showing the vaccinated elderly demographic deaths are more than for unvaccinated is misleading.

 

Thank you for providing more context with the video.

I had some difficulty understanding the bolded text at first until I watched the video. For the benefit of subsequent readers who may not watch the video, there is a chart making its way around the internet that is being used to say that vaccines aren't effective because more people are dying with the vaccine than without it. The way that the video puts it, this is because most people who are dying are older, and most of the people who are older are vaccinated because they are more at-risk.

One small favor to add, please, @little2add. You quoted me as saying "therefore vaccines are ineffective". I did say that, but had quite a bit more context in my post that made it clear that I did not espouse that position. You removed all of that context in your post, and it made it seem to a subsequent reader that I did espouse that position. In the future, when quoting me, if you could please include enough of my quote to make my position clear in your post, I would appreciate it; in this case, something like, "for anyone to use data such as these in order to conclude that 'therefore vaccines are ineffective' is disingenuous". Thanks!

Edited November 27, 2022 by mommas_boy
changed "the full quote" to "enough of my quote"

[little2add]

22 hours ago, mommas_boy said:

please

[Didacus]

On 1/28/2021 at 7:15 PM, Peace said:

First, the vaccine is the antichrist, now Bill Gates created it to destroy mankind.

What's next? Pinky and the Brain are gonna use it to take over the world?

There were no greedy people in communist Russia? Well. That is news to me.

shall Brain finally achieve his life-long goal!?

Stay tuned!

[tinytherese]

On 7/10/2022 at 12:03 PM, Didacus said:

I would more take a chance on the cmmon cold than experimental vaccines that modifies my body permanently.

 

According to Dr. Paul Offit, it's impossible for mRNA vaccines to change your DNA.

 

Here's a response to the claim about the Pfizer vaccine. (You have to scroll down a ways to find it on the page, so I copied and pasted this part.)

https://www.chop.edu/news/feature-article-no-study-does-not-prove-what-you-think-it-does-part3 

No. This study does not prove that RNA from the COVID-19 vaccine changes DNA.

Study

Alden M, Falla FO, Yang D, et al. Intracellular reverse transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 in vitro in human liver. Current Issues in Molecular Biology. 2022;44(3):1115-26.

Brief summary

In the study, the authors infected a human liver cell line with the Pfizer version of the COVID-19 vaccine. They used different concentrations of the vaccine and multiple timepoints to measure:

Conversion of RNA into DNA in the cells

The quantity of a genetic tool called LINE-1

The presence of DNA sequences similar to the vaccine RNA in the nuclei of these cells

Misconception

Some pointed to this paper as proof that COVID-19 vaccines alter DNA. However, this is not an appropriate conclusion from this paper for several reasons:

Perhaps most importantly, this experiment was done on cells being grown in a lab. Said another way, it was an “in vitro” experiment. In vitro experiments are done all the time and they are important for providing information and clues as to what might happen in a person (“in vivo”). However, to make a conclusion about what is happening in people, one must have some evidence that it is actually happening in people, not just that it might be possible. The authors acknowledged this when they wrote, “At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed …” (p. 1122). They go on to suggest two alternative experimental methods for getting more information.

The authors used a cancerous liver cell line. This is important for two reasons; both of which were acknowledged by the authors. First, cancerous cell lines replicate, whereas our liver cells typically are not replicating. As such, even if DNA representing the viral RNA was integrated into the cell, no other cells with the altered DNA would be produced. The authors also pointed out that this cell line has been shown to have genetic and protein expression differences specific to RNA metabolism (p. 1123). This means that what is seen in these cells may not be representative of what would happen in non-cancerous liver cells (or even a different line of cancerous liver cells). Second, they measured LINE-1 activity. Importantly, LINE-1 has been associated with various disease-related conditions, including cancer. It has also been shown to affect immune responses. For these reasons, while the changes related to LINE-1 are interesting, we can’t be sure the effects would be the same in a non-cancerous cell line. The authors also made this point by stating, “The exact regulation of LINE-1 activity in response to BNT162b2 merits further study.” (p. 1123).

Finally, as the authors pointed out, expression of LINE-1 has been shown to increase during viral infections, including with SARS-CoV-2 virus. In fact, some scientists have suggested that integration of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material into human cells could be why some people still test positive by PCR well after they have recovered from their infection. However, it is important to note that more information would be needed to prove this hypothesis as well. The more likely explanation is that the virus is undergoing an incomplete cycle of replication, where the genetic material (RNA) is produced but whole virus particles are not.

Problem with interpretation

Logical fallacy called hasty generalization (It is important to note in this case, that the misconception was not because of the quality of the science or the messaging of the authors, but rather because others took the findings out of context.)

Edited November 29, 2022 by tinytherese

[little2add]

Very enlightening piece.  
thank you for posting 

 

[little2add]

It has been theorized that when Gabriel informed Mary that she was with child she was 12 weeks along.

The heart of a fetus is fully developed by the 10th week of pregnancy.

(if your from Texas, you know that already)

[fides' Jack]

8 hours ago, tinytherese said:

According to Dr. Paul Offit, it's impossible for mRNA vaccines to change your DNA.

And according to actual, unpolitical science, this theory has been debunked.  Not only is it possible, it's been confirmed that it is happening.

The article you linked only dealt with one study, and frankly, the arguments there lack cohesiveness.  For instance, your argument is that: 

8 hours ago, tinytherese said:

According to Dr. Paul Offit, it's impossible for mRNA vaccines to change your DNA.

That's really the position that many have taken.  But the article you quoted doesn't even claim that - it merely claims that one specific study (out of several that have shown that mRNA vaccines can and do change DNA) doesn't prove that they are changing DNA.  Here is the line in the article:

Quote

However, to make a conclusion about what is happening in people, one must have some evidence that it is actually happening in people, not just that it might be possible. 

Clearly even this article is accepting that the study it's arguing against shows that it is possible - even if only in a petri dish.  It's a reaction piece; a reaction against people who were using it to claim that the study proves that the vaccines are changing peoples' DNA. 

I actually agree with the conclusion of the article - the study DOES prove that it's possible.  

Other studies have shown that it's happening.

The other studies, and this one, and the article you linked to, all give evidence that Dr. Paul Offit is wrong. 

But that's not saying much.  For 70 years the science had been settled on the effectiveness of cloth masks in fighting against viruses.  Dr. Fauci, who claimed to embody science, spouted that established science in March of 2020.  Then, magically, 1 month later, reversed his position to the extent that much of the world was required to wear useless masks at all times, then, several months after that, reversed his position again and restated the science, and some states in the US started backing off, then doubled down on masks again 2 weeks later, and has now reversed yet again and backed off the mask position.  

I'm sorry, science does change, but not that frequently.  The science of cloth masks is settled, and they are useless.  Even n95 masks, which were designed specifically for use by doctors around tuberculosis patients, are mostly useless against other viruses.

Therefore, I stand with the doctors who have more prudent positions.  Experimental vaccines should be proven for decades before being administered.  In the past, that was expected.  Thanks largely to Trump, millions of people are now dead because he gave pharmaceutical companies an easy path around the red tape.

https://rumble.com/v1wac7i-world-premier-died-suddenly.html

On 11/26/2022 at 5:21 PM, mommas_boy said:

Unfortunately, some people chose not to get vaccinated, and others could not be vaccinated due to logistical constraints.

Those were the people with stronger moral consciences.  For the vast majority, it was sinful to take the vaccine.  It still is. 

[fides' Jack]

On 11/26/2022 at 5:35 AM, little2add said:

For the first time since the beginning of the pandemic in early 2020, a majority of Americans dying from Covid were at least partially vaccinated, according to the new analysis of federal and state data.

Of course you already know my opinion, but I believe this has been the case since the majority of Americans were vaccinated.  The more accurate statement would be, "For the first time since the beginning of the pandemic in early 2020, even major media companies agree that a majority of Americans dying from Covid were at least partially vaccinated[...]"

[mommas_boy]

7 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

That's really the position that many have taken.  But the article you quoted doesn't even claim that - it merely claims that one specific study (out of several that have shown that mRNA vaccines can and do change DNA) doesn't prove that they are changing DNA.

Again, you are not qualified to read studies.

Please explain the biochemical pathways, complete with the organic chemical mechanism illustrations, by which mRNA is supposed to alter DNA. Don't simply state "a study"; I want words, I want illustrations of molecules, and I want arrows drawn showing where the electrons are moving. Give me the mechanism. For example, the final product will look something like this, but probably A LOT more complicated (since these molecules are tiny in comparison to DNA):

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Those were the people with stronger moral consciences.  For the vast majority, it was sinful to take the vaccine.  It still is. 

Please explain precisely how taking the vaccine is supposedly sinful so that I may respond by reducing your argument to absurdity.

[KnightofChrist]

Say what you will, but as far as I can tell this thread is the 7th most viewed of all time for Open Mic.

[mommas_boy]

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Say what you will, but as far as I can tell this thread is the 7th most viewed of all time for Open Mic.

[fides' Jack]

On 11/29/2022 at 5:24 PM, mommas_boy said:

Again, you are not qualified to read studies.

Please explain the biochemical pathways, complete with the organic chemical mechanism illustrations, by which mRNA is supposed to alter DNA. 

No.  I'm not qualified.

Just because I'm not qualified doesn't mean I'm wrong.

It's a stronger argument, in my opinion, to not rely on the official political stance that the vaccines do not alter DNA, simply because the official position is not trustworthy, than to say that it's more believable because they are more qualified.

The qualifications argument is now rubbish.  It was rubbish the moment they advocated for baby murder.  It was rubbish the moment they advocated for gay marriage.  It was rubbish the moment they advocated for transsexualism and transgenderism.

They (the "official science") are not trustworthy.  Nor are they truly scientists.

Believing them over the truth just because they have "qualifications" is breaking the first commandment by worshipping the false idol of "science", and is ultimately an argument from authority, which is meaningless.

12 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Say what you will, but as far as I can tell this thread is the 7th most viewed of all time for Open Mic.

In fairness, this thread is literally a dozen threads combined.

[fides' Jack]

On 11/29/2022 at 5:24 PM, mommas_boy said:

Please explain precisely how taking the vaccine is supposedly sinful so that I may respond by reducing your argument to absurdity.

I have already done so multiple times, but I would be glad to do so again.  I don't expect you to go back through 33 pages of this monstrosity to try to find those arguments.

I won't have time to expound on every argument there is, because the evidence of the immorality of the covid shots for the majority is more than overwhelming.  I'll hit some of the major highlights.

In your attempts to argue reductio ad absurdum, I urge you not to make the mistake of arguing by "whataboutism", which does nothing to show that the shots are morally licit.  I would also urge you not to make the argument from scientific authority.  Authoritative arguments do make a difference in Catholic morality, but not the authority of scientists or government leaders, alone.  I have argued below from a standpoint of Catholic morality, which supersedes any and all arguments to a non-magisterial authority, and even most arguments from individuals within the magisterium, excepting that they show my application of Catholic moral teaching to be incorrect in principle.

#1: The covid shots are a sin against the virtue of prudence

The vaccines were rushed, and experimental.  We had ZERO knowledge ahead of time regarding their safety or effectiveness, especially long term, but even short term.  For all we knew, it could have been more or less dangerous than covid itself.  It could have been less dangerous than driving a car, or more dangerous than a game of Russian Roulette.  All we had to go on was the fact that the government, and government-paid doctors, insisted it was "safe and effective".  More than that, we were forbidden from knowing the actual ingredients of the shots.  We still are - officially.  Even more than that, 2 of the 3 in the US were created using a brand new technology (brand new in terms of never having been approved for use in the US for any vaccine before).  Even more than that, Trump enacted Operation Warp Speed, which allowed this never-before-used technology to go to full public use without spending the time that was required for the not-so-experimental technologies to get approved.  Even more than that, we were told that it was going to be free for everyone, which means that these big-pharma corporations were going to get billions of taxpayer dollars out of the whole thing.  Even more than that, we were told that these same big-pharma corporations were not going to be held liable if, in fact, their vaccines turned out to not be safe (which even Biden and Harris admitted ahead of time might be the case).  All of these things, and much more, we knew before the first person ever received one of them.  And that's not even touching the trustworthiness of the people pushing the vaccines.  You can choose to trust the "safe and effective" line, but it is imprudent to do so when there are so many unknowns, and so many things working against them being truly safe and effective.  For those who were unaware of these conditions before getting the shots, they still sinned against prudence because they had a moral obligation to learn for themselves.  

The covid virus, by the numbers given to us by the same politicians who claimed the shot is "safe and effective", was already shown to only be dangerous for those who were past the average life expectancy age, or those who had 2 or more comorbities. (these often ended up being the same people - old and multiple comorbities)

Therefore, unless you were pretty sure that covid was going to kill you, it was a sin against prudence to take the covid shots.

#2: The covid shots maintain a connection to abortion

We were told, of the 3 covid shots available in the US, only 1 was not derived from or tested using aborted fetal tissue.  We later found that was a lie - all 3 are connected to abortion (we had no real evidence that the pfizer shot wasn't, except their word, but that's an argument related to the "prudence" section).  It was revealed a year later through official documents linked to Project Veritas that Pfizer had lied about their shot not having a connection to abortion.

There are some arguments against this position:

2a: Remote material cooperation - in order to justify the use of the shots, even though they were connected to abortion, we were reminded by Church hierarchy of the moral theory of remote material cooperation (not an accepted doctrine).  However, those who used this argument did so incorrectly.  They argued that the connection to abortion is so remote that it was really a non-connection.  Most of the time we saw a number of years posited between when the babies were aborted and the making of these vaccines.  For those paying attention, theologians reminded us that remote material cooperation is not about a number of years, but about degrees of separation.  If I pay an assassin to kill someone there is no moral difference between me paying them now or in 100 years.  Others argued with "whataboutism", bringing up that almost any product you see or can buy out there has some connection to abortion, which, while arguably true (to a more or less extent, depending on the good or service), it doesn't excuse us from avoiding the connection to abortion in the case of the shots.  Indeed, all of us are morally obligated, as far as we are reasonably able, to avoid any good or service with any connection to abortion.  

Other theologians, and clergy, reminded us that even accepting the theory of remote material cooperation (which doesn't apply as much as was touted), the shots could still only be morally accepted under certain circumstances, according to papal encyclicals and the CCC.  Some of those conditions regarding taking the morally-tainted shots are that: 

a. There must be an immediate grave danger to the health of the individual getting the shot (i.e. they must be reasonably sure they will be severely injured without it)
b. They must be reasonably sure that the morally-tainted shot won't do more harm than good (I've already shown that nobody could have been remotely sure about that)
c. They must object to the morally-tainted means by which the shot was made; they must make it clear they object morally to the connection to abortion
d. There must be no other morally licit option available (you can make the argument for the US that since it wasn't initially clear that pfizer was guilty of using aborted fetal tissue in their production, that this specific point wouldn't apply - and even bishops were telling people to go with pfizer if they could because it wasn't supposed to be connected to abortion - but points a and b still apply, regardless)

2b: We have a moral, Christian obligation to bury the dead

Most people overlook other moral considerations when considering abortion-derived fetal cells lines.  Murder is not the only sin involved, specifically with regard to shots made with, or tested during production with, abortion-derived fetal cell lines.  Even if the connection to murder was remote (it's more remote than actually killing the baby yourself, but not as remote as opening a chase bank account), there is still the active sin of supporting a practice that encourages the exploitation of human remains.  We have a duty to bury the dead.  The cells harvested from the abortion, though they have been replicated and reproduced, still belong to the dead body of the baby they took them from, just as surely as your skin cells, which have also replicated and reproduced, belong to you.  Those cells are part of the remains of the murdered infants, and should be treated with dignity, and put to rest and buried, not used for additional scientific advancement.

#3: The covid shots are a sin against the first commandment

"I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before me"

3a: 2 of the 3 shots available in the US use mRNA technology.  The whole idea is that they manipulate a person's RNA in order to make the person's own body start creating spike proteins to stimulate an immune system reaction.  As at least one priest has brought up, we don't have the moral authority to start playing God with our own bodies like that.  We now have advanced scientifically far enough that we know some of the underlying mechanisms, such as DNA and RNA, that God uses to design us.  We have no right to do anything to our bodies that would or could affect those underlying mechanisms, just as men have no moral right to call themselves women, and women have no moral right to call themselves men.  The only exception to this rule is in the case that there is need to restore the natural order, and then only in cases of severe risk to health if that restoration is not made, and even after that only in cases where we are certain that the action won't affect those cells that have to do with reproduction (i.e. we're sure that what we do won't affect offspring).  It is gravely sinful to scientifically enhance the human body with any means that makes the body do something outside of the natural order.

3b: The Church maintains that all persons must be given freedom of conscience.  Saintliness requires an extra level of self-sacrifice - the ability to choose to avoid offending God, even at extreme personal risk. Given the moral objections raised in #2 above, the obvious "saintly" choice would be to choose God above "scientific" measures.  By not doing so, all other moral considerations besides, we choose ourselves and our own knowledge and understanding over God.  That may not be the intention in all cases, but it's certainly a consideration.  It may not always be gravely sinful in all situations, but it remains an act of idolatry, and at least a venial sin - based on this argument.

#4: The covid shots are a sin against the virtue of patriotism

Patriotism, being a sub-virtue to that of piety, requires that people reject authoritarian power-moves that oppress the poor and limit their personal freedoms.  Especially in the US, we value the freedoms of religion, association, expression, speech, etc....   Specifically, the freedom of religion aside in this argument, we have a moral duty to act to preserve the virtues and values this country was founded on (at least those that don't conflict with the moral teaching of the Church).  That's why we're morally obligated to vote.  The shots came well after the shutdowns, which were also gravely immoral.  But the shots themselves were a continuation of that authoritarian mode of thinking.  The proof of this is that the shots were eventually mandated for much of the population (and continue to be mandated for much of the population).  We must have the freedom to choose according to our conscience NOT to receive something we believe is immoral.  By taking the shot, you are weakening the freedoms you currently enjoy for yourself and for others.  It is as much a sin of omission, by going with the flow instead of taking a stand and doing your part as a citizen, as it is anything else.  The US was founded on the self-sacrifice of people who recognized their moral obligations to serve their country.  It has been defended and served by others of the same mindset.  It's only now that we stop caring.

Of course, I'm arguing using language specific to the United States of America here, but it could be just as easily applied to any other country, at least in the Western world.

#5: The covid shots further the spirit of the antichrist

Whether or not you choose to believe that we are nearing the end times, the Church teaches that the devil has been fighting against the Church since her founding.  We know the demonic spirit of the antichrist and the antichurch is alive and well.  Every pope has said it for over a hundred years.  "The smoke of satan has entered the Church".  The fact that it's alive particularly throughout the pandemic is evidenced by the claim throughout the Western world in 2020 that churches were not "essential services", but abortion clinics were.  Add to that the fact that covid happened very shortly after the pachamama scandal, and that a mark of some kind became required either over your mouth or as an injection in your arm, in order to buy or sell, and I don't see how anyone can deny not just that they are in the spirit of the antichrist, but that we are nearing the end times.  There can be no greater indication of this than the bishops throughout the entire world temporarily suspended the public Continual Sacrifice.  Still, even if you only admit the former, having anything to do with it cannot constitute anything less than spiritual treason against God and His Church.

#6: Rebuttals in advance of other arguments

People have brought up the moral consideration of our duty to protect the health and well-being of our neighbor.  There are various way to apply this logic, from wearing a mask or taking the shot to prevent others from getting sick, to a nurse choosing to accept the risks of the masks or the shots in order to continue helping and serving the sick and infirm who legitimately need medical care, whether their maladies are a result of covid, or the shots, or something else entirely.  

While I can understand and even sympathize with these positions, I'm afraid they do not negate the other considerations already brought up.  Nor are these positions morally equivalent.  It's one thing to risk your personal health to help other people due to possibly catching a virus (such as St. Damien of Molokai), but don't equate that actual self-sacrifice to the act of choosing to offend God (or even possibly offend God) in order to tend to the sick and suffering.

On the matter of avoiding spreading covid by wearing masks or taking shots, I think it's pretty clear at this point that it was never the case that the shots helped do that.  That's admitted by the government, by the left media, by nearly everyone at this point.  So if you still believe you're being charitable by taking the shot, you're not just wrong, but it's a lesser argument than the moral considerations above, anyway, so it's moot.  It never was the case.  But I know some people really believed that initially.  

There you have it.

This is not a comprehensive set of arguments.  It's one of the more nuanced that I've written up, but it's been a while, so it was a good exercise.  Any one of these is enough, on its own, to make the action of taking a covid shot immoral for almost all people.  

That being said, I make no judgements about any specific person who has taken the shots.  As I've stated, I don't know anybody's particular situation, especially people I've only spoken to online.  My position regarding the morality of the shots is a general one.  I don't apply it to specific people - that's not my job.

I choose to forgive those who have persecuted me and my family, and who will persecute me and my family in the future, over this and the next thing, which might actually be the mark of the beast.  

The Mass will be shutdown again, even across the entire world.  That is guaranteed by our Faith.  Many will be forced to accept compromises and apostatize, or will be put to death.  We are also guaranteed this by our Faith.  Those who persevere in the Faith and in the Commandments unto the end will receive their reward.  In the end, Christ will triumph.

Edited December 1, 2022 by fides' Jack

[fides' Jack]

On 11/29/2022 at 9:17 AM, fides' Jack said:

https://rumble.com/v1wac7i-world-premier-died-suddenly.html

https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-12-02-stew-peters-footage-fraud-died-suddenly-ruby.html

If this is true, then I apologize for posting the link to the Died Suddenly false documentary, and I now distance myself from anything related to Stew Peters.  If this is true, this kind of misinformation helps nobody.

That being said, I don't know if it's true or not.  I suppose it would be just as easy to take his footage, put it on something else, and claim that it was an earlier video.  Certainly that kind of discretitation is going on elsewhere.  But if I'm honest, in this case I'm more likely to disbelieve Stew Peters than to believe him.

[fides' Jack]

FDA is finally admitting the covid vaccines cause blood clots:

https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-linked-to-blood-clotting-fda_4930377.html

Some embalmers are claiming that half of all bodies they are embalming lately have these extremely long and unusual blood clots.  

I've been sitting on this for over a year and not saying anything about the clots, because I wanted proof before I started posting on it here. 

Now it's undeniable.

Excess deaths in some countries are as high as 500%, and they appear to be climbing.  Massive die-offs could happen in 1-3 years.

[cruciatacara]

I know I shouldn't be doing this but for some reason I am in a posting mood today so here goes...

Who are you trying to convince here? Your thread goes on and on and on and on and says basically the same thing over and over and over again. You don't need to convert those to your way of thinking who already agree, and those of us who disagree will never be converted so what actually is the point? I mean, you certainly have the right to express your opinion but there can't be anyone on this forum who doesn't know what that is already.

Anyway, I have said this to you before so I am being redundant as well, but 

VACCINES SAVE LIVES

- despite the side effects (which are inherent in all medications) and all your 'facts' and 'figures' won't change that. 

Peace.

[Nunsuch]

Also, the "Epoch Times" is an extremist website (not a source for scientific information), sponsored by the Chinese Falun Gong. It should not be given credence on anything.