Quote:
Originally Posted by irv
They are still doing everything in their power to discredit and deny the vaccines have/had anything to do with all of these strokes, heart attacks and deaths.
Doctor's have been appointed up here, (by guess who), to be on a panel that investigates these vaccine injuries and deaths. Imagine what Carter's doctor would tell you or your loved ones if you had a heart attack or died?
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...ight-1.5946249
https://www.westernstandard.news/new...de2c5c4e9.html
I've read quite a few stories where people, who are requesting autopsies, are being denied under the guise of being understaffed and overworked, so, if true, will we ever find out the real numbers? It goes on and on but I know one thing, if it were the unvaccinated who were dying like we are seeing with the vaccinated, it would be on the news 24/7, guaranteed.
https://www.trillions.news/news/1687...e-Victims.html
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...ine-deaths-et/
https://www.globalresearch.ca/post-c...ed-why/5749994 |
I mean, it's very suspicious that they don't want to release anonymized autopsy data. Just as it was suspicious that they completely lied about what it does, evidently tested little, and immediately gave the makers broad immunity as they turned it into a political weapon to force injections. But suspicious behavior isn't proof; when there is smoke there is not always a fire. Can we prove a fire?
The vaccine has definitely harmed people and I think even those who believe anything the state says won't seriously try to deny this. The problem is that we need a basis of comparison - how large is the problem? Is it a serious problem, that this vaccine (which is not an actual vaccine and they struggle to even pretend it even functions as a vaccine anymore) is MORE dangerous than not taking it for people not in the at-risk groups? Is it similar danger? I don't know the answer. I haven't seem compelling data yet. There should be indicators in the data. I doubt there's any genuine study comparing myocarditis rates in the "vaccinated" and non-compliant population of young males, as to study that would risk finding something that harms their funding. But there should be indicators in the general population data, if, on the whole, it has created a significant spike in these categories, in myocarditis, strokes, heart attacks. Statistical proof, especially when the gatherers of the dataset want to produce the opposite conclusion, is difficult to deny and when it is denied it makes those doing it look like idiots. Singular examples of anecdote and suspicion are easy to deny or dismiss, because they aren't really proof at all. It's the same tactic the advocates of the fear narrative use - singular examples about people they know, about a particular case, because they know that the statistics, especially for those under 60 without 3+ comorbidities, do not make the case that there is much to fear at all.