He would have to lay out how he would prove that a vaccine was not obviously damaging as he could never prove it was totally safe. The only way to do that is to take some children and inject them only with that vaccine and nothing else for their whole life and then follow them through their whole life and compare them with a totally unva…
He would have to lay out how he would prove that a vaccine was not obviously damaging as he could never prove it was totally safe. The only way to do that is to take some children and inject them only with that vaccine and nothing else for their whole life and then follow them through their whole life and compare them with a totally unvaccinated group of children you also followed through their whole life. That means that no vaccine could be shown to be largely benign until 80 or 90 years has passed because those studies have never been done even 200 years after vaccination started. Also just because one vaccine seemed to be safe that doesn't mean it would be safe if combined with another one or another two or another ten so lots of different combination studies would have to be done again covering 80 or 90 years. There is no way that Kennedy would demand that be the safety standard he was willing to accept so he is a fraud.
John - More than one childhood vaccine was safety tested/children followed for a full four days! And mainstreamers (CDC, FDA, pharma) will not allow any comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated young people. The main physician I'm aware of who did this in their own practice (compared vaxx vs. unvaxxed) has been stripped of their license and excoriated likely because of the outcomes shown from this internal review of his patients.
I believe that one of the longest studies was on the Measles shots that lasted a whole 28 days with fewer than 20 children in the trial and with zero follow up thereafter and knowing how Pfizer and the others simply throw people off these studies for having the audacity to show side effects I can only assume we are only hearing about those that had no side effects. It is criminal. My sister was a district nurse for the last decade of her nursing career and she went from being an avid jabber to someone who insisted the parents read the leaflets and all the side effects before accepting these jabs as she saw child after child who was well adjusted and healthy become mentally damaged and unhealthy after the jabs and we are not talking a tiny minority here but a very high percentage. She was eventually pushed out of her job and took early retirement because the doctors she worked for around town, who got big government pay-outs if they got over 90% or thereabouts of children on their lists jabbed, felt that she was informing parents all too well what damage these jabs could do. As I say all she was doing was showing them the manufacturer's own insert leaflets and suggesting they do their own research which is what any good medical person should be doing.
How wonderful to hear of your sister's willingness to operate on her principles! How sad that the medical profession will not put up with individuals who are actually upholding their oaths to their profession. Thank you for sharing. The very fact that the pharmaceutical companies who have everything to gain ($) and nothing to lose (no ability to sue them if their product damages/kills someone) are the very ones producing the safety trials is insane - no conflict of interest at all (sarc).
You can never prove a theory, you can only falsify it.
Just can easily falsify the claim that they are 100% safe and you are good to go.
The problem is that "they" dont care about total 100% safety, they want to MANAGE the risk profile for YOU or the general population, so they are totally OK with killing 2 humans if they can save 3, or with another ratio. The basis for all medical treatments, therapies, vaccines should be the FREEDOM to choose (without ANY negative consequences). What they try to do is saying "what we found in this study is that GENERALLY, ON THE WHOLE more are "saved" than harmed" so they go on to mandate it totally OK with killing individuals because ON THE WHOLE the group is better off. Its insanity and they are criminals.
Also RCTs are partly garbage, please dont tell anyone. They can never show you the local-inidivdual and microlevel. They are basically tools to expand and enforce "GROUP" and collectivist thoughts.
He would have to lay out how he would prove that a vaccine was not obviously damaging as he could never prove it was totally safe. The only way to do that is to take some children and inject them only with that vaccine and nothing else for their whole life and then follow them through their whole life and compare them with a totally unvaccinated group of children you also followed through their whole life. That means that no vaccine could be shown to be largely benign until 80 or 90 years has passed because those studies have never been done even 200 years after vaccination started. Also just because one vaccine seemed to be safe that doesn't mean it would be safe if combined with another one or another two or another ten so lots of different combination studies would have to be done again covering 80 or 90 years. There is no way that Kennedy would demand that be the safety standard he was willing to accept so he is a fraud.
John - More than one childhood vaccine was safety tested/children followed for a full four days! And mainstreamers (CDC, FDA, pharma) will not allow any comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated young people. The main physician I'm aware of who did this in their own practice (compared vaxx vs. unvaxxed) has been stripped of their license and excoriated likely because of the outcomes shown from this internal review of his patients.
I believe that one of the longest studies was on the Measles shots that lasted a whole 28 days with fewer than 20 children in the trial and with zero follow up thereafter and knowing how Pfizer and the others simply throw people off these studies for having the audacity to show side effects I can only assume we are only hearing about those that had no side effects. It is criminal. My sister was a district nurse for the last decade of her nursing career and she went from being an avid jabber to someone who insisted the parents read the leaflets and all the side effects before accepting these jabs as she saw child after child who was well adjusted and healthy become mentally damaged and unhealthy after the jabs and we are not talking a tiny minority here but a very high percentage. She was eventually pushed out of her job and took early retirement because the doctors she worked for around town, who got big government pay-outs if they got over 90% or thereabouts of children on their lists jabbed, felt that she was informing parents all too well what damage these jabs could do. As I say all she was doing was showing them the manufacturer's own insert leaflets and suggesting they do their own research which is what any good medical person should be doing.
How wonderful to hear of your sister's willingness to operate on her principles! How sad that the medical profession will not put up with individuals who are actually upholding their oaths to their profession. Thank you for sharing. The very fact that the pharmaceutical companies who have everything to gain ($) and nothing to lose (no ability to sue them if their product damages/kills someone) are the very ones producing the safety trials is insane - no conflict of interest at all (sarc).
You can never prove a theory, you can only falsify it.
Just can easily falsify the claim that they are 100% safe and you are good to go.
The problem is that "they" dont care about total 100% safety, they want to MANAGE the risk profile for YOU or the general population, so they are totally OK with killing 2 humans if they can save 3, or with another ratio. The basis for all medical treatments, therapies, vaccines should be the FREEDOM to choose (without ANY negative consequences). What they try to do is saying "what we found in this study is that GENERALLY, ON THE WHOLE more are "saved" than harmed" so they go on to mandate it totally OK with killing individuals because ON THE WHOLE the group is better off. Its insanity and they are criminals.
Also RCTs are partly garbage, please dont tell anyone. They can never show you the local-inidivdual and microlevel. They are basically tools to expand and enforce "GROUP" and collectivist thoughts.