Before I jump in, I want to point to a film that hacks away the leaves, the branches, the trunk and the roots of the poisonous tree of vaccination all at once: VAXXED II (at vaxxed2[dot]com), directed by Brian Burrowes. I urge you to watch it. "Urge" is too light a word. What is coming down the pipeline at us, in terms of attempts at vaccine mandates...this film will only strengthen your resolve, even if you're quite sure you don't need strengthening. The film contains many interviews with parents of vaccine-devastated children, and the children are there, too. The children who have died are there as well. Nobody has ever made a film like this.
A month or so ago, a reader made a crucial point: researchers and writers should make it clear whether they are operating from WITHIN the official paradigm of the epidemic, in order to reveal gross inconsistencies and internal contradictions; or whether they are standing OUTSIDE that paradigm and attacking its basic foundations.
Going further, we need to drill down to the roots of the poisonous tree.
Some people make this calculation: "I don't want my view to appear too radical. That would drive the audience away. So I'll cut myself off at a certain point and try to give the audience pieces of the puzzle they can digest..."
For example, they would assert: "I'm not against vaccines. I just want to make them safer."
They would say: "We have to agree there is a new virus spreading around the world. If we don't, people will reject everything we say. So let's focus on whether the virus is as dangerous as health officials claim it is."
They would say: "We have to accept official case numbers as a starting point, even if untold numbers of people are being diagnosed with COVID by a casual glance at their symptoms, and even if the tests are inaccurate..."
Bit by bit, and piece by piece, people would be accepting the official COVID story, until there is very little to argue about.
Let's take the issue of safer vaccines. How are they going to be made safer? Manufacturers are going to throw in the towel and just eliminate the toxic adjuvants? They'll eliminate the injected germs which are the very basis of the exercise? They'll make vaccines in outer space, where, hopefully, contamination with random viruses would be avoided?
Deeper still, why do immune systems need a "rehearsal for the real thing"---which is the foundational hypothesis underlying vaccination. Nature isn't sufficient? We must fight off every conceivable germ with a shot in the arm?
Why not try to improve the strength of immune systems through non-medical means? Nutrition, for instance, was the key reason for the historical decline of traditional diseases. Along with improved sanitation. No matter how many vaccines you inject in a person with a weak immune system, he is going to get sick (aside from the obvious toxic effects of the vaccines).
"No, let's not go there. Too many people will reject us if we reject vaccines."
I beg to differ. We are in a long-term war against the medical cartel. It's not going away. Think ten thousand years into the future. That's a reasonable estimate of the length of the battle.
Posts
