This guy crunched the numbers and essentially proved what your conjecturing:
https://odysee.com/@Outersite.org:7/PatternsintheDeploymentofToxicCovidVaccineBatches:b
Correct me if I’m wrong but-
“• Pregnancy outcomes for the 270 pregnancies were reported as spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies (note that 2 different outcomes were reported for each twin, and both were counted).”
-is not too incredible. I think there is a misunderstanding that 270 cases here means 270 miscarriages but that’s not what’s happening. 1/10 mother’s having spontaneous abortion with the vaccine is alarming but let’s not misrepresent data.
We have free will. God has given us rules to follow to honor Him and to succeed in nation-building. We do have a choice to follow the rules or not.
Exactly, that’s what I was trying to say. It’s totally within they’re capability to create a vaccine that is safer, but they don’t. Which means that there is something about this one/set they are committed to. Obviously it’s not because of it’s effectiveness. Sigh.
Practically, by being present for and committing child rape/sacrifice, you are bound to one another. If you are invited to the event and take part in it, every accomplice now has deep power over you and you over them, in the most vile and disgusting way. You have caused an innocent soul torment and another perpetrator has watched you do it. Now, so what if they instruct you to steal from families in need through predatory housing loans? It’s no biggie. They can trust that they can make this request to you and it’s not like you’ve done worse. If you said to another “create a vaccine that will destroy generations of normal people.” What can they say? Besides, it will make you both rich and powerful to do so. They use this bind to elevate each other and reward each other for their self-serving evil. If there is an occult side then I know nothing about it but practically in my head this is all I can rationalize.
There’s a chance that research was so early that they chose the most obvious antigen: the protein responsible for binding the virus to the cell, which, one could infer, would be recognized by the body. But you ask a good question. Apparently the mRNA tech is easily customizable, and they could develop instructions for ANY antigen. So why not choose something less toxic (pmid:33284859, pmid:33053430, pmid:33232769)? I can only imagine that a marketing campaign built around numbers relating to safety would be more effective than the current “if you don’t take it you’re an antivaxxer and probably a nazi hick” strategy they’re implementing now, but I don’t believe they have those numbers to advertise. So they COULD develop a new one, but haven’t. It would be BENEFICIAL to develop a new one, but they haven’t. If they are not doing something that is both possible and good, what are we to think?
Where can I find the story on this
Any idea how one might get their hands on the list of phone numbers?
I’m all for questioning established science especially in the face of corporate business like pharma, but there is so much wrong information in that video. Nutrient deficiency of ANY type will make you more susceptible to disease, both of a pathological nature and not. Germ theory is well understood and MUCH of biology, from basic evolution to immunology to medicine at large accounts for this. I’m intrigued to look up the points about Spanish flu infectivity but I’m aware of several disease which have shown causation from particular “germs” which should be proof enough for germ theory legitimacy. Right?
Your claim about the Rockefellers is interesting but your contemplation about viruses in general is a little sketch. Viruses are essentially functional housings of genetic material that allows that material to replicate using the “machinery” of other living things, like bacteria or animal cells. This is well documented and an understanding of genetics and evolution will allow you to see this is more than plausible. I’m not sure where you’re looking that a virus was described as similar to a bacteria but because they are so small you need electron microscopes to view them, and by the time this was invented viruses were known not to resemble bacteria. The word “bacteriophage” is just given to some of them because they infect and “devour” bacteria.
HCQ may treat HIV, and seeing some evidence for it I would believe it, but it does so because because of the mechanism of action HCQ has on HIV’s replication inside of T cells, not because HCQ works on organisms of any specific size.
Very sad.