- Re: As Sinister Burt writes the inverse percentages are a significant part of the population
Posted by Jamie
on November 11, 2021, 11:18 am, in reply to "Re: As Sinister Burt writes the inverse percentages are a significant part of the population"
|
Well, that ignores human error (don't get me started on medical errors), reported financial incentives, etc. The CDC figures for those who die of/with Covid are massively slanted in the other direction to those you state. How can that be? Look at what John Ioannidis has to say. Also Mike Yeadon, Robert Malone, Prof. Bhakdi, Luc Montaigner etc. Why they are saying what they are, I cannot know for sure, but they are saying some truly devastating things. These experts, preeminent in their fields, have been pilloried and totally excluded from the debate. Why? Do you really believe that a virus with an overall mortality rate of about 1%, where the average age of those dying is about the same as life expectancy (although, since the jabs, no longer the case apparently); a virus whose prevalence has been 'proven' by a test not fit for purpose; where the solution ignores existing therapeutics in favour of a new, rushed, gene-manipulating technology put out by proven charlatans and liars that are totally protected from liability; a 'vaccine' that requires boosters almost immediately to get any sort of supposed protection and all but ignores natural immunity, but that can have extremely serious, well-documented side effects and all supposedly to protect us in a society that has a long track record of not giving a shit. Do you really believe that the global response; the authoritarianism, the assault on liberties, the threats, the medical fascism etc; do you believe it to be proportionate to the threat in any sane world? Two weeks to flatten the curve, my arse. |