Oregon Muse writes,
It used to be that when you got vaccinated against a disease (polio, tetanus, smallpox), that meant you didn't get the disase. But now, we're being told that what vaccines do is to mitigate the effects of the disease if you get it and reduce your chances of being hospitalized. And when you say, no, that's not the way it was understood previously, they insist yes, it was, and I hate this gaslighting! Why can't they just say, well yes, that may have been true, but this is the best we can do under the circumstances.
In other words, we used to have 'strong' vaccines, now we have 'weak' vaccines. And, for that matter, why call them 'vaccines' at all? I think it would be more honest if you called them 'theraputic drugs'. Perhaps 'drugs' isn't the medically correct term, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference between the mNRA vaccines and, say, remdesivir. Or, for that matter, ivermectrin.
So let's do something scientific:
Take one population and get them all vaccinated with the currently available mRNA vaccines, and then boosted however many times you like, and then, for a second population, do not use vaccines. Instead, The focus should be on early-treatment, using one of the early-treatment protocols that other doctors have developed that make us of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and other drugs, and then see which group is better off in a year.
I think this would be a good test. And then, if they both come out the same, or nearly the same, we should be allowed to select which protocol we think would work better for us, based on our own individual needs and considerations rather than the dictates of Dr. Fauci, the CDC, the pharmaceutical companies, and the medical-industrial complex.
Read more here: http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=397062
No comments:
Post a Comment