See how they are the ones who get to choose what the claim is? What I hear being claimed is that she has inexplicably vanished from public view for months.
The other disturbing thing I see is that these fact checkers have nominated her workplace as the official source of information on this subject.
Here's a more in-depth fact check (from December 2020):
If people knew she had a "faints when feels pain" health condition, why put her in the public sphere to get injected in order to prove your injection is safe?
Yeah, I hear you. It's like they picked a very small number of people to be the demonstration. They could have had a much larger group to interview after the fact and months later. This "one person to watch" passes out and it is now forbidden to verify they are alright.
Part of this is because the people in charge of the U.S. are trying to make things more opaque. They want it to be the norm that some authority is the arbiter of truth and people can't verify anything for themselves. That's why nobody was allowed to see physical evidence from the Sandy Hook shooting.
Another (completely different) scenario I came up with is where the people deciding these things (at the top level) had no idea if an unknown biological agent from a Chinese lab was weaponized and came up with a plan where some of the population would get mRNA jabs and some would abstain. The reason being that they legitimately did not know which would be worse, so they had to hedge their bets.
My thinking was inspired by an old question: You have a choice between two missile defence systems. System A will block 80% of the missiles, while the remaining 20% will get through. System B has an 80% chance of blocking all of the missiles and a 20% chance of blocking none of them. Which do you implement?
The issue has since become so politicized and monetized that it is impossible to untangle.
Source:
There’s still no evidence a Tennessee nurse who fainted after getting the vaccine is dead https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/20/instagram-posts/theres-still-no-evidence-tennessee-nurse-who-faint/
See how they are the ones who get to choose what the claim is? What I hear being claimed is that she has inexplicably vanished from public view for months.
The other disturbing thing I see is that these fact checkers have nominated her workplace as the official source of information on this subject.
Here's a more in-depth fact check (from December 2020):
Fact check: Nurse who fainted after COVID-19 vaccination is alive and well https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/23/fact-check-nurse-who-fainted-after-being-vaccinated-alive/4024424001/
If people knew she had a "faints when feels pain" health condition, why put her in the public sphere to get injected in order to prove your injection is safe?
The whole thing makes me ask even more questions.
Isn't that sort of reckless endangerment???
Yeah, I hear you. It's like they picked a very small number of people to be the demonstration. They could have had a much larger group to interview after the fact and months later. This "one person to watch" passes out and it is now forbidden to verify they are alright.
Part of this is because the people in charge of the U.S. are trying to make things more opaque. They want it to be the norm that some authority is the arbiter of truth and people can't verify anything for themselves. That's why nobody was allowed to see physical evidence from the Sandy Hook shooting.
Another (completely different) scenario I came up with is where the people deciding these things (at the top level) had no idea if an unknown biological agent from a Chinese lab was weaponized and came up with a plan where some of the population would get mRNA jabs and some would abstain. The reason being that they legitimately did not know which would be worse, so they had to hedge their bets.
My thinking was inspired by an old question: You have a choice between two missile defence systems. System A will block 80% of the missiles, while the remaining 20% will get through. System B has an 80% chance of blocking all of the missiles and a 20% chance of blocking none of them. Which do you implement?
The issue has since become so politicized and monetized that it is impossible to untangle.