87 Replies to “Safe and Effective®”

  1. “The C.D.C. does not recommend taking pain relievers before getting your shot. The medications may affect how your immune system responds to the vaccine.”

    Indeed, it’s important the immune system be decimated. Check out Bret Weinstein on Rogan talking about it.

      1. And continue to take these godforsaken clot slots, despite the WooFlu being nothing more than a cold. Well, at least it’s taking out the hypochondriacs and the paranoid leftists, dead rat notwithstanding.

    2. I agree.

      The Reverend Jim Jones would probably make the jabs his second choice after the cyanide laced grape Kool Aid he gave his followers, and be proud of either.

  5. “Is there anything I can do to lessen the side effects?”

    Yes. Do not be surprised by the surge of obituaries which read “suddenly”, “died suddenly”, or “died too young” in your daily social media feeds, or local newspapers that conveniently appear whenever we push a vaccination campaign.

    These are NO WAY linked. Something something fake news, alt-right, conspiracy etc etc ad nauseam.

        1. That’s what gaslighting is supposed to do — drive you crazy with lies and deceptions! (I haven’t seen the movie, but I read a lot about it.)

          1. I did see the movie free on Roku. It was good.

            I just want to get to the great awakening and vengeance phase…….

  6. The fact that they still completely ignore the possibility of serious side effects raises a big red flag.

    1. That they even dared to mention it is all the red flag I need to see. Somebody needs a hearty bankrupting.

  7. NY Slimes going full retard, I see.

    I guess they didn’t get the memo. You never go full retard.

  8. “Very similar to”, “close to”, but not identical to, the disease it is suppose to protect you from? Is it close enough to actually protect you? Why not? You are very similar to being alive, close to being alive, but not alive, when you die of “suddenly”.
    And what is this “COVID” you speak of? Is it “very similar” to current Omicron, the current strains formerly known as COVID, which are no more deadly than the common cold? So, why do I need to be vaccinated against something like that?

  9. My sister passed two weeks ago after a 6 month battle with pancreatic cancer. Was literally the healthiest person I knew prior to the diagnosis. Twice vaccinated with the “cancer enhancer”. Thanks Fauci/China!

    1. The vaccine doesn’t immunize you against cancer, you know. People will continue to get strokes and heart attacks and cancers with or without the vaccine.

      1. No kidding. People are calling the vax the “cancer enhancer” because it’s been found to turbocharge cancers.

        1. People are calling the vax the “cancer enhancer” because it’s been found to turbocharge cancers.

          The myth of “turbo cancers” seems to have been started by Peter McCullough, a once respected cardiologist who’s gone bananas in his old age. But there’s no scientific evidence for the turbo-cancer phenomenon, despite countless studying the safety of the COVID vaccines.

          https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/do-covid-19-vaccines-cause-turbo-cancer/

          1. The idiot marmot has good things to say at times but when it comes to covid his brain does not function.

          2. I’ve read your post.
            Of course, I’m biased, but after a cursory reading, the author spends a vast majority of the article dismissing and refuting the “anti-vaxxer” claims, but I didn’t see any hard evidence to support the author’s claims, and to this reader, that’s all these statements are… unsubstantiated CLAIMS.

            Maybe I didn’t look hard enough, but frankly, I’ve already seen enough evidence about the “vaccines”, and I wasn’t prepared to put in the time and the effort to break down the article to repudiate the claims.

            What really turned me off on the article was when the author referred to Dr. McCullough as going bonkers. He not only trashes Dr. McCullough, but also Dr. Charles Hoffe, and many other scientists. Then there’s the citation of the author’s previous articles.

            You can make all the claims and counter-claims you want, but what nobody can deny with any credibility is the spike in excess deaths that occurred only after the roll out of the “vaccines.”

          3. fc:

            Here’s another article which includes references:

            https://www.factcheck.org/2024/05/still-no-evidence-covid-19-vaccination-increases-cancer-risk-despite-posts/

            I’ve already seen enough evidence about the “vaccines”

            I’ve followed this evidence as well, and almost none of it stands up to serious scrutiny. Most of it is just plain bad. What would you consider sound evidence of the vaccines causing cancer, turbo or otherwise? Just one good example will do.

          4. @km: Gee, you only want one? Well, let me check my library of literally DOZENS if not hundreds of references, so I’ll just pick one at random…
            https://openvaers.com/covid-data

            I know “scientists” aren’t big on anecdotal evidence, but I’d rather believe my lying eyes rather than rely on “experts” who, as you know, have been spot on during the whole Covid fiasco .
            (of course that was sarcasm.)

          6. fc: I posted this in the wrong place, so I guess I’ll post it again…

            Here’s what VAERS says about its database:

            VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. This way, VAERS can provide CDC and FDA with valuable information that additional work and evaluation is necessary to further assess a possible safety concern.

            In short, the database is not reliable enough to draw definite conclusions from. Rather it’s meant to indicate where further scientific studies might be warranted.

            OpenVAERS doesn’t tell you that, of course. It would intefere with their anti-vaxx messaging.

            This is what I mean by the anti-vaxx evidence being consistently bad. And no, having a LOT of bad evidence doesn’t make it credible.

      2. Except the clot shots have boosted the number of strokes and heart attacks. That´s why people in the know, unlike the rodent assasin, are so concerned.

        1. The COVID vaccines increase the likelihood of certain types of heart inflammations. But it’s a rare, and greatly overwhelmed by the number of heart inflammation cases caused by COVID infection.

          There is no evidence that COVID vaccines increase the likelihood of heart attacks. It’s a myth.

          https://www.healthline.com/health/covid-vaccine-heart-attack

          One of the earlier COVID vaccines increased the incidence of blood clots, but again it was rare, and again was far less than the danger of blood clots due to COVID infection itself. That vaccine has long since been discontinued.

          https://healthcare.utah.edu/healthfeed/2022/09/blood-clotting-covid-19-and-vaccines

          1. Again, garbage publications that are anywhere from 1-2 years old. Just shut up or get better material.

          2. RedPop:

            First, I won’t shut up for anyone.

            Second, my material beats your material, which is comprised of absolutely nothing.

          3. “There is no evidence that COVID vaccines increase the likelihood of heart attacks. It’s a myth.”

            So why did AstraZeneca pull their vaccine product? Johnson and Johnson?

          4. Dead Rat, you’re a shill for Pharma, nothing more than a horrible troll. It’s transparent to all. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

            Got your 10th clot shot yet? If not, why not?

          5. DanBC:

            In your world, the guy that maintains a moderate tone and works from the evidence is a troll, and the guy who insults anyone who they disagree with is the hero.

            I’m going to live in my world. You can keep yours.

          6. “So why did AstraZeneca pull their vaccine product?”

            Why did AstraZeneca discontinue their vaccine this May? Because it was designed for early strains of COVID. It didn’t work well on current strains. Seriously, it’s not difficult to find that out on the interweb.

            But some countries discontinued the use years early due to reports of a rare blood clot. The Canadian authorities could not find evidence of that themselves — suggesting it was indeed rare — but I guess erred on the side of caution.

          7. @KM…
            “Why did AstraZeneca discontinue their vaccine this May? Because it was designed for early strains of COVID. It didn’t work well on current strains.”

            You’re claiming that AZ removed their product because it became ineffective?
            Well, that response just about shot down your credibility on the subject in flames, because that’s not how I remembered it.
            I’ll let fellow SDA readers correct me if I’m wrong.

          8. Here’s what VAERS says about its database:

            VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. This way, VAERS can provide CDC and FDA with valuable information that additional work and evaluation is necessary to further assess a possible safety concern.

            In short, the database is not reliable enough to draw definite conclusions from. Rather it’s meant to indicate where further scientific studies might be warranted.

            OpenVAERS doesn’t tell you that, of course. It would interfere with the anti-vaxx messaging.

            This is what I mean by the anti-vaxx evidence being consistently bad.

          10. So Killer (apropos name by the way) why should anyone get vaxed? My entire family had COVID and the ones who were the most sick were the vaxed ones. Since the vaxes were rolled out I know of one who died from blood clots, two from heart attacks, two from turbo cancers. Of the unvaxed no deaths have been reported. Among the vaxed I know of 3 heart attacks (non fatal) two strokes (non fatal) myocarditis, neuropathy, adenopathy bells palsy and shingles. Again none of those were evident in the unvaxed. Among the vaxesd there were repeated COVID out breaks several requiring hospitalisation or other medical treatments. Among the unvaxed COVID was little more than a cold. So again why should anyone get vaxed?

          11. Joe the Albertan:

            And here’s my experience. Everyone I know got vaccinated multiple times. Many of them are elderly, as I’m getting on myself. Almost everyone got COVID at least once, but no one got seriously ill, much less went to the hospital. Over the last three years, one 95 year old woman died from cancer and a 60 year old had a stent put in.

            In short, nothing out of the ordinary.

          12. So again Killer you can’t give any evidence in favour of the vaxes. I am not a spring chicken either. Most of my friends have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. None of the unvaxed died from COVID. Again you failed to make your case. Since no one died among the unvaxed what was the purpose of the vax? Among the vaxed there are all kinds of deaths from various diseases as I stated before. So unless you can show some tangible evidence in favour of the vax there is no need to get vaxed.

          14. What is your reason for trusting any publication? Honest question. I know I certainly don’t trust them. I understand science. It is nothing like you seem to believe. It is a power game. It is all about creating evidence in favour of your hobby horse. In fact relying on such studies is a logical fallacy. It is simply an appeal to authority. Who determines which authority is authoritative? I rely on the evidence I SEE. I do not rely on what others tell me. Call me cynical but I have never been let down when I trust the evidence I see.

          15. I don’t fully trust “science”. It’s a flawed process at the best of times. I know. I’ve been a researcher for four decades, and have published, reviewed, and edited many papers. Science is very much a two steps forward, one step back, sort of enterprize.

            But it’s the best thing we’ve got for arriving at the truth. Our increasing prosperity, life expectancy, and technological advances over the last century is a testimony to its power. There was a time when polio left tens of thousands of children crippled, and mumps left tens of thousands of children deaf every year. There was a time when one in two children never reached the age of 15. Those things didn’t go away on their own. They were a direct result of systematic medical research.

            Many here have accused the medical community of a grand conspiracy to sell COVID vaccines to the public, all under the thumb of big pharma. That’s preposterous. The COVID vaccines now are among the most studied in history, and those studies were carried by countless independent institutions from around the globe. Trying to corrupt that entire process would have been a monumental task. Further, many scientists are too honest to be corrupted in that way. Not all, of course, but far too many to make the scientific community dance to anyone’s music.

            What do the anti-vaxxers have on their side? Mostly guys on the internet butchering facts and statistics beyond recognition, but in ways that those inexperienced in scientific data analysis find persuasive. OpenVAERS is a good example of that. Scientists feel like astronauts who are being lectured that the earth is flat by people who have never travelled more than 10 miles from home.

          16. What a load of codswallop. You are way to sophomoric to ever have edited science papers. That much is very much in evidence. Anyone who is honest about science can see the flaw in your thinking including the false statement that the COVID vaxes are ‘the most studied’. They have never even been given an honest trial. They were rushed into production and jammed into people’s arms without anyone having a clue about how effective or how potentially harmful they are. Only now are we beginning to realise that the jabs are both ineffective and deadly. Simple observation by unbiased people show over and over and over again that the jabs are deadly. Those same unbiased observers notice that the jabs are completely ineffective. They simply don’t work. There are hundreds of reasons why they don’t work but blind individuals like you will deny those reasons exist. You have been scammed and look extremely foolish trying to defend your scammers.

          17. It’s apparent you are completely ignorant of the extent of research on COVID. The number of papers written is over 400,000:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/

            And many tested the safety and efficacy of the vaccines independently of the pharmaceutical companies. Here’s one example. I would give many more, but that throws posts into moderation. You can easily find some by googling “COVID vaccine safety paper”, and variations thereof:

            https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

            You are typical of the anti-vaxx community. You sit in your closeted little world, accepting all the anti-vaxx BS thrown your way, without investigating what the science community has to say.

          18. “They have never even been given an honest trial. ”

            This paper reviews the results of 30 studies assessing the effectiveness of COVID vaccines:

            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34269175/

            This is a more recent paper that does a literature review of studies that assess both the safety and effectivness of COVID vaccines:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9552389/

            Both conclude that the vaccines work. The second paper also concludes that the vaccines are acceptably safe, but with some problems.

            Of course, if your definition of an “honest trial” is that the results support your beliefs, you’re probably out of luck.

          19. KM: “One of the earlier COVID vaccines increased the incidence of blood clots, but again it was rare, and again was far less than the danger of blood clots due to COVID infection itself”

            Well, since the C vax did/does not prevent getting infected by C nor spreading it, this argument is fairly irrelevant , is it not?

            Also, looking at the best data there is, i.e. excess deaths, it seems very clear that the millions of excess deaths can be blamed on the C vax and/or the idiotic C lockdowns.

          20. Johan:

            Well, since the C vax did/does not prevent getting infected by C nor spreading it, this argument is fairly irrelevant , is it not?

            No vaccine can prevent you from getting infected. They don’t generate an impenetrable bubble between you and the rest of the world. What they can do is prevent that infection from developing into a full-blown disease, or mitigate the severity of the disease, perhaps saving your life. And on that front the vaccines were successful.

            https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2117128

            Regarding excess deaths, it’s not known what caused that phenomenon, or even if the phenonemon is completely real. Part of it is undoubtedly that excess deaths were poorly calculated by comparing the current number of deaths to the number of deaths between 2016 and 2019. This does not compensate for rising and aging populations. When you do compensate for that, the number of excess deaths decreases.

            But there are other possible causes of excess deaths: one is COVID itself. This disease can do lasting damaging to the major organs such liver, heart, lungs, brain, and so on, and it’s reasonable to assume that such damage would contribute to mortality well after the disease has passed.

            In short, you’re taking a situation that is murky, and declaring you know the final answer.

    2. Sorry to hear. I lost a dear work colleague, who was athletic and played hockey twice a week. Just a couple months after his stellar executive physical and his covid shots, he was diagnosed with sudden, “turbo” one might say, stage 4 pancreatic cancer.

      Of course it’s not just cancer. I gave CPR to a neighbour who collapsed on his dock. The only advance indication was that he told his wife he was feeling off all of a sudden. They walked down to the dock to head out to a hospital and he collapsed. His wife revived him with CPR. I heard her scream and saw he went down again and I rushed over and administered CPR until an ambulance crew arrived. His wife (who heads a university phys ed program) advised the medics that she just didn’t understand, he was only 60, never smoked, didn’t drink, ran three times a week, had a clean complete physical 3 weeks earlier with perfect cholesterol and, get ready, just got all up to date on his Covid boosters. Sadly, he passed.

      The NY Times should have to disclose the amount of payments it received from Pfizer in the past five years. There is a clear conflict of interest in this reporting. The one who pays the piper calls the tunes.

      1. My sister was only 63, never smoked, drank wine a wee bit, and was a workout fiend. The body of a person in her twenties. No family history of PC and very few instances of cancer in general. I’m blaming the vax until someone convinces me otherwise.

        1. Yeah, I’d like to see some unbiased, independent data on death rates and newly diagnosed, serious diseases between the never vaccinated and the ever vaccinated in age matched cohorts. Cancer, cardiac, immune system disorders, neurological disorders etc. Raw data not adjusted data.

          *All* the raw data should be given to opposing research teams to examine and then cross-examine each team in a courtroom style hearing. It won’t happen but it should happen. That’s the only way to get the truth out to (possible) vaccine victims and their families plus it might be the only way to attempt to rebuild trust in the public health and pharamaceutical regulatory system.

          This cannot be done in Canada, obviously, because everything is corrupted by politics in Canada

          2. The argument that “there is no proven evidence of …” is invalid, imo.

            Why? Because the authorities aren’t looking for the evidence. The best metaphor I read is that it’s like a crime suspect and police saying “There is no proven evidence of bodies in the suspect’s back yard” while refusing to actually look for evidence of bodies in the suspect’s backyard and/or digging up the front yard and declaring “look, no bodies”. By avoiding looking for evidence at all or purposefully looking in the wrong spot, they can pretend everything is fine.

      2. KillerMarmot is a shill for the pharmaceutical industry. He continues ad hominem and cherry-picking, as well as straw man arguments, because he is either too lazy, too incompetent, or too well paid(!!!) to follow actual data analysis. He isn’t even aware that the induction hypothesis is part of his worldview.

        I suspect he or a close loved one is either in the employ of a BigPharma company, in the employ of a government health agency, or is a marketer for a pharma company. I follow up on a lot of his “debunking” links, and a few minutes’study of what he links to reveals nothing but ad hominems, blanket assertions, and massive underlying assumptions neither justified, nor revealed.

        He is NOT a disinterested party in this, and most likely has big money wrapped up in his belief system. Ignore him and his screeching. Trust those who do NOT stand to gain financially from their positions.

        You will stay healthier that way.

        2. So you call me incompetent, lazy, bought off, and (by VOWG) stupid, all the while accusing me of employing ad hominems.

          You may want to think that one through.

          1. Yes, they left out “creepy”. We should not be content with mere hypocrisy. We should aspire to thorough, detailed hypocrisy.

  11. Killer Marmot, the jab doesn’t immunize you, it hurts you. Heart damage, blood clots, strokes, are a few of the acknowledged side effects. So it’s really worth the risk!

    1. KillerMarmot is a shill for the pharmaceutical industry. He continues ad hominem and cherry-picking, as well as straw man arguments, because he is either too lazy, too incompetent, or too well paid(!!!) to follow actual data analysis. He isn’t even aware that the induction hypothesis is part of his worldview.

      I suspect he or a close loved one is either in the employ of a BigPharma company, in the employ of a government health agency, or is a marketer for a pharma company. I follow up on a lot of his “debunking” links, and a few minutes’study of what he links to reveals nothing but ad hominems, blanket assertions, and massive underlying assumptions neither justified, nor revealed.

      He is NOT a disinterested party in this, and most likely has big money wrapped up in his belief system. Ignore him and his screeching. Trust those who do NOT stand to gain financially from their positions.

      You will stay healthier that way.

      1. No, I’m a schill for scientific evidence as opposed to unsubstantiated BS.

        The anti-vaxx phenonemon is a social contagion that many people have been caught up in. But when you look at the evidence they present, almost none of it holds up to scrutiny.

        Look at the “turbo-cancer” myth. There is no hard evidence for it. People present anecodotes, but it’s impossible to determine if those anecdotes are true, and even if they were, they wouldn’t prove anything. Only systematic studies can settle the question, and those have not found that the vaccines cause cancer of any sort, much less “turbo-cancers”.

        1. KM… I may be guilty of bias in this area, but at least my head isn’t in the sand.
          As I said earlier. There are claims, and counter-claims, and the debate will rage on, but NOBODY can dispute the spike in sudden deaths or cancer diagnoses.
          You may suggest that the vax has nothing to do with these events, but then if that’s the case, I ask you the question “what is causing this phenomenon?” Can you give us even a hint?
          If you can’t, then I will rely on my original judgement, and my own gut instincts, and personal experience.

          1. There are claims, and counter-claims, and the debate will rage on, but NOBODY can dispute the spike in sudden deaths or cancer diagnoses.

            Yes they can. The “sudden death” meme was manufactured by anti-vaxxers by cherry picking the headlines, ignoring the fact that sudden deaths among young athletes have always occurred. They are rare, but when there are 9 billion people in the world, you can amass quite a list.

            And some of the sudden deaths they presented were before COVID, suggesting these guys had no compunction about lying.

            https://www.factcheck.org/2023/01/scicheck-no-surge-in-athlete-deaths-contrary-to-widespread-anti-vaccine-claims/

          3. “The “sudden death” meme was manufactured by anti-vaxxers by cherry picking the headlines, ignoring the fact that sudden deaths among young athletes have always occurred.”

            Just WOW!
            You know, KM, one can accuse you of “cherry-picking” data.
            We’ve talked about this before. Yes people have “died suddenly” before, but the question is “can you explain the SPIKE in sudden deaths AFTER the roll-out?
            You didn’t exactly answer THAT question! I thought I was being clear.

        2. Hey, Mr. Pfizer, data = anecdotes + time.

          And actually, anecdotes are also data. The difference between you and the rest of us is that you still take Pfizer’s and your government’s claims at face value. The rest if us require proof of both of those parties’ good intentions.

          Hearing and seeing none, we continue to hold our current t views.

          Now , … bye.

          1. Except you have no way of verifying if the poster is being honest, or if he accurately remembered, or if he fully and accurately recounted. Further, these anecdotes are highly selective. Only those people who think they’ve seen an inordinate amount of sickness or death will chime in. This is why anecdotes are mostly useless, and systematically acquired data has no substitute.

  12. “Side effects? Side effects? Wha’you talkin ’bout, Leroy! There ain’t no side effects. Mr. Science hisself told us, these here injechuns was perfectly safe and effective!” Pardon me for blatantly copying a spoof line from Twenties American culture but you have to admit a few of the commentators here ( you know who you are, wink, wink, nod, nod) are about as astute as the audiences that lapped up the entertainment back then. One in particular reminds me of Edith, nuff said.

  14. As reported in The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research….

    “Real-Time Self-Assembly of Stereomicroscopically Visible Artificial Constructions in Incubated Specimens of mRNA Products Mainly from Pfizer and Moderna: A Comprehensive Longitudinal Study”

    “Observable real-time injuries at the cellular level in recipients of the “safe and effective” COVID-19 injectables are documented here for the first time with the presentation of a comprehensive description and analysis of observed phenomena.

    In addition to cellular toxicity, our findings reveal numerous — on the order of 3~4 x 106 per milliliter of the injectable — visible artificial self-assembling entities ranging from about 1 to 100 µm, or greater, of many different shapes. THERE WERE ANIMATED WORM-LIKE ENTITIES, DISCS, CHAINS, SPRALS, TUBES, RIGHT-ANGLE STRUCTURES CONTAINING OTHER ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES WITHIN THEM, AND SO FORTH.

    They resembled carbon nanotube filaments, ribbons, and tapes, some appearing as transparent, thin, flat membranes, and others as three-dimensional spirals, and beaded chains. Some of these seemed to appear and then disappear over time. OUR OBSERVATIONS SUGGEST THE PRESENCE OF SOME KIND OF NANOTECHNOLOGY IN THE COVID-19 INJECTABLES.”

    https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/102

      1. Highly dubious? This from the guy who still quotes JAMA.

        My dear Marmot, what would happen if a spinal neuron got infected by the MRNA vaxx and began churning out spike proteins? How about an ovarian cell?

        Some cells last your whole life, those being two examples. What happens when one of those “immortal” cells gets modified by the RNA carrying virus that is the vaxx and keeps on making spike protein?

        I have yet to see you do anything but pooh-pooh that question. Unfortunately the number of people dying of “suddenly” as mentioned above makes the question rather important, and I see the public health and “scientific” authorities rushing to shout-down anyone asking it.

        Is it still science when the authors are lying as hard as they can, and objectors get threatened with jail?

        1. JAMA is a thousand times more credible that the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, which has been around for just over three years, has a linguist for an Editor In Chief, and which claims to be peer reviewed but in so doing is stretching the term to the breaking point.

          https://www.metabunk.org/threads/need-help-further-debunking-ijvtpr-international-journal-of-vaccine-theory-practice-and-research-paper-titled-worse-than-the-disease.12201/

          https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/physician-vaccine-payments-another-article-from-james-lyons-weiler/

      1. Just curious, what is your plan/recommendation for boosters this fall? Do you have a preference among the three? Or take all three to play it safe?
        Do you risk the wait for the flu shot combo?

        1. Just curious, what are you going to do the next time a pandemic sweeps through?

          You’ll be older, and more vulnerable to pathogens. Do you risk a vaccine, almost certainly developed by a large pharmaceutical company? Or do you risk the full brunt of the disease?

          1. No novel vaccines in my future plans. I’m on a pretty good routine for exercise, diet and some supplements (including ivermectin). I’m older, but generally healthier than 5 years ago. I’ve changed my beliefs on many things, especially government and power. The truth of the gospel has become clearer to me.

  18. “It is appointed unto man once to die, but after this, the judgement.” Hebrews 9:27

    Choose wisely. Death is inevitable, living is optional. And being vaccinated or not is still your personal choice, and should always be your personal choice, societal coercion aside. If abortion is “My body, my choice”, and it ends a life of another, then vaccination should have the same rules, even if it may not save your own life.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation