Yep. The most important demographic is actually the one that was fooled the first time, got the jab, and are now like: WTF? This doesn't work any better than a flu shot?
You don't even have to convince them that the shot may be dangerous. Just talk to them about how the government is incompetent / lied to them about the shot being 95%…
Yep. The most important demographic is actually the one that was fooled the first time, got the jab, and are now like: WTF? This doesn't work any better than a flu shot?
You don't even have to convince them that the shot may be dangerous. Just talk to them about how the government is incompetent / lied to them about the shot being 95% effective but now they're supposed to get a booster every 6 months. Many (most) of them are probably super pissed by now that the government wants them to get an ineffective jab every 6 months.
There's a book right in there. How many of them even as they quote the figure know what '95% effective' is supposed to mean?
How many of them realise they're already at 95% 'proof' against the virus?
How many of them know Pfizer (for instance) offered (it claimed) 99.96% 'proof' against the virus as against your existing 99.86% 'proof'?
i.e. they're lining up for a 0.1% increase in their 'safety', their 'proof against the virus', the 'size of their shield'.
How many of them have even the faintest idea of that?
How many of them have the faintest idea of the cost they themselves, their nation, their compatriots, the very democracy they're supposed to live in and the people all around the world effected by their actions have paid for this '0.1%' increase in the size of their 'shields'?
The faintest idea?
And part of the cost was to take into their bodies a risk factor of its own with potentialities as yet unknown - how many have the faintest idea of that?
Lastly:
My idea nowadays is we should refuse to talk 'vaccine'. The real factor here is 'Immune system'. we should always couch the debate in terms of the 'immune system'.
i.e. 'why provoke the immune system with an unknown quantity that poorly imitates the real threat and therefore cannot initiate a full response?
or 'why refuse to allow the immune system the things it needs to strengthen itself? Like sunshine, fresh air, freedom of movement, exercise, company of friends and relatives, etc. etc, etc... ALL the things the govt bans ?
or: 'why refuse to help the immune system by providing potent anti-virals, chemicals that actually DO fight viruses rather than surreptitiously
attack your system while depending upon your system to do the fighting alone ?'
or: 'why keep prodding and prodding an exhausted immune system obviously incapable of responding adequately and probably due to an inappropriate prodding in the first place accompanied by a total lack of support in the second place?'
That sort of thing. It really is the issue, is it not? Our immune systems is where the 'war' takes place. That is where/what it is all about.
We are so hoodwinked, along with everyone else, by the spurious narrative of brain dead politicians and mercenary drug lords we've fallen into the trap of discussing vaccines.
I've put it this way. It is like the fire bell at the fire station that startles the firemen into action and the Firemen themselves, the Fire brigade.
The firebell is the vaccines. The Firebrigade is the Immune system.
All the discussion and wasted effort is going into the bloody Firebell, the 'alarm bell'.
No discussion, no help, no effort, no understanding going to the Firebrigade.
Yes, I agree about shifting the focus from the jabs to the immune system. Especially now that winter is here in the Northern Hemisphere. I just got the first newsletter from Dr. Robert Malone's website and he was pushing Vit D at the end of it. Yes! Go sign up for it if you've not already. Steve Kirsch published "The Malone Doctrine" on his Substack, but it was in this email from Malone as well.
Yes. Thanks for that. I will sign up with Malone. Yes the more I think about it the more I think it was a terrible blunder in the first place to let the narrative be about the vaccines.
They are there to 'start the machine'. 'The machine' is clearly what the story should all be about.
There is a subtext about the most effective 'starter'.
There is one about 'starters' that damage the machine at the same time (like perhaps putting ethanol in a family saloon car).
There is one about 'starters' that don't really start the machine (like maybe starting with ethanol and full choke and never pushing the choke in again).
But they are subtexts.
The story should be about the machine. If we want to get rational. Question is: Do we?
I can't answer the rational question because that has probably been my biggest struggle through this: I have zero tolerance for irrationality.
McCullough encourages people to not get hung up on the masks as he thinks that's a distraction, but I think it's also been the first step in medical tyranny and getting people to comply. So I appreciate his point, but I'm still not complying.
Yep. The most important demographic is actually the one that was fooled the first time, got the jab, and are now like: WTF? This doesn't work any better than a flu shot?
You don't even have to convince them that the shot may be dangerous. Just talk to them about how the government is incompetent / lied to them about the shot being 95% effective but now they're supposed to get a booster every 6 months. Many (most) of them are probably super pissed by now that the government wants them to get an ineffective jab every 6 months.
There's a book right in there. How many of them even as they quote the figure know what '95% effective' is supposed to mean?
How many of them realise they're already at 95% 'proof' against the virus?
How many of them know Pfizer (for instance) offered (it claimed) 99.96% 'proof' against the virus as against your existing 99.86% 'proof'?
i.e. they're lining up for a 0.1% increase in their 'safety', their 'proof against the virus', the 'size of their shield'.
How many of them have even the faintest idea of that?
How many of them have the faintest idea of the cost they themselves, their nation, their compatriots, the very democracy they're supposed to live in and the people all around the world effected by their actions have paid for this '0.1%' increase in the size of their 'shields'?
The faintest idea?
And part of the cost was to take into their bodies a risk factor of its own with potentialities as yet unknown - how many have the faintest idea of that?
Lastly:
My idea nowadays is we should refuse to talk 'vaccine'. The real factor here is 'Immune system'. we should always couch the debate in terms of the 'immune system'.
i.e. 'why provoke the immune system with an unknown quantity that poorly imitates the real threat and therefore cannot initiate a full response?
or 'why refuse to allow the immune system the things it needs to strengthen itself? Like sunshine, fresh air, freedom of movement, exercise, company of friends and relatives, etc. etc, etc... ALL the things the govt bans ?
or: 'why refuse to help the immune system by providing potent anti-virals, chemicals that actually DO fight viruses rather than surreptitiously
attack your system while depending upon your system to do the fighting alone ?'
or: 'why keep prodding and prodding an exhausted immune system obviously incapable of responding adequately and probably due to an inappropriate prodding in the first place accompanied by a total lack of support in the second place?'
That sort of thing. It really is the issue, is it not? Our immune systems is where the 'war' takes place. That is where/what it is all about.
We are so hoodwinked, along with everyone else, by the spurious narrative of brain dead politicians and mercenary drug lords we've fallen into the trap of discussing vaccines.
I've put it this way. It is like the fire bell at the fire station that startles the firemen into action and the Firemen themselves, the Fire brigade.
The firebell is the vaccines. The Firebrigade is the Immune system.
All the discussion and wasted effort is going into the bloody Firebell, the 'alarm bell'.
No discussion, no help, no effort, no understanding going to the Firebrigade.
Yes, I agree about shifting the focus from the jabs to the immune system. Especially now that winter is here in the Northern Hemisphere. I just got the first newsletter from Dr. Robert Malone's website and he was pushing Vit D at the end of it. Yes! Go sign up for it if you've not already. Steve Kirsch published "The Malone Doctrine" on his Substack, but it was in this email from Malone as well.
Yes. Thanks for that. I will sign up with Malone. Yes the more I think about it the more I think it was a terrible blunder in the first place to let the narrative be about the vaccines.
They are there to 'start the machine'. 'The machine' is clearly what the story should all be about.
There is a subtext about the most effective 'starter'.
There is one about 'starters' that damage the machine at the same time (like perhaps putting ethanol in a family saloon car).
There is one about 'starters' that don't really start the machine (like maybe starting with ethanol and full choke and never pushing the choke in again).
But they are subtexts.
The story should be about the machine. If we want to get rational. Question is: Do we?
I can't answer the rational question because that has probably been my biggest struggle through this: I have zero tolerance for irrationality.
McCullough encourages people to not get hung up on the masks as he thinks that's a distraction, but I think it's also been the first step in medical tyranny and getting people to comply. So I appreciate his point, but I'm still not complying.
The masks fit quite nicely into the concept of "nudging" people into increasingly more compliance with tyrannical dictates.