While I am in complete agreement on the bioweapon aspect of the shots, your poll is most definitely skewed, since your readers, I'm sure, are the awakened of the awake.
And, as I commented before, the reasons for Steve's and others reticence to connect the final dots are not insignificant; action is always more dangerous than study:
While I am in complete agreement on the bioweapon aspect of the shots, your poll is most definitely skewed, since your readers, I'm sure, are the awakened of the awake.
And, as I commented before, the reasons for Steve's and others reticence to connect the final dots are not insignificant; action is always more dangerous than study:
"That’s the problem, isn’t it? Do we really need more data and analysis presented to show the bioweapon nature of the shots?
No, we don’t. The totality of the evidence is overwhelming.
But gathering more evidence is “safe”.
It’s the follow up course of actual action that is too frightening and absolutely fraught with danger that keeps those like Steve in the “investigation” stage.
“The future’s uncertain and the end is always near.”"
While I am in complete agreement on the bioweapon aspect of the shots, your poll is most definitely skewed, since your readers, I'm sure, are the awakened of the awake.
And, as I commented before, the reasons for Steve's and others reticence to connect the final dots are not insignificant; action is always more dangerous than study:
"That’s the problem, isn’t it? Do we really need more data and analysis presented to show the bioweapon nature of the shots?
No, we don’t. The totality of the evidence is overwhelming.
But gathering more evidence is “safe”.
It’s the follow up course of actual action that is too frightening and absolutely fraught with danger that keeps those like Steve in the “investigation” stage.
“The future’s uncertain and the end is always near.”"