Great synopsis. Also, scientists like Geert Vanden Bossche have pointed out that mass vaccination with a non-sterilizing vaccine for a mutating respiratory coronavirus can only lead to immune escape and more infectious variants.
Have been following this for over two years and working to help protect our families and communities. Good discussion. Good science requires maximum creativity, total honesty with ourselves and open communication. “Science” devised to control, to deceive, isn’t science. Please keep investigating.
I know I am preaching to the choir but it is not a vaccine, it’s an injection, at best a theoretical therapy for some, and likely toxic and detrimental for most.
It is my hope that all ProVax will begin to see the light and choose to identify as “ChoiceVax,” a term which I created and defined for them, hopefully in a way that makes it a defensible and sensible position for them to transition to. (See my post)
I'll try my best to explain. Yes, I know the definition of vaccine was changed to fit the new type of injections and/or their end goals. I try to speak in more general terms for more than one reason. First, there are actually real vaccines out there that are more like the traditional vaccines we are used to. J&J did not use mRNA technology, but the development was still rushed. Covaxin from India was the one I always felt seemed most promising, but the FDA stalled on approving the start of clinical trials... how do I put this? Space Race turned Vaccination Competition (and yes Russia has their own as well, which is ironically called Sputnik V,where V stands for Victory not the number five). The U.S. wanted to make their own and wanted to export to other countries, just like many other countries did.
Whether or not we call it vaccine, jab, drug, injection, shot, etc. matters less than: (1) is it safe? (2) is it effective? (3) should i take it? (4) are you making me take it?
I'm approaching more from the perspective of changing law to not infringe on our Constitutional rights and holding people accountable for fraud. At this point, I don't think the law is capable of distinguishing vaccine from injections/jabs/etc. because they changed the definition. At some point in the future, they may also want the ability to put preventative medicine into one's body or admittedly gene therapy, by injection, mouth, nose, or even by touch, and call them vaccines (unfortunately). Instead I feel the focus should be on removing liability protection, providing true informed consent, and always giving choice without mandates or coercion, even under emergencies, regardless of the method or definition.
I agree with you on the use of ChoiceVax. I fall in that category and I will remember to use it. I am not pro-vax, but I am not anti-vax either.
The distinction between ForceVax and ChoiceVax, or ForceMask and ChoiceMask, or Force vs Choice anywhere else is really Force (no right to choose) and Choice (a right to choose).
Force erases “informed consent”, erases “opposition / objection”, erases “biological integrity” and can safely ignore bioethics.
Stage 1 Thinking: "It's Safe and Effective" (because that is what comes to mind when the question "is it safe or effective crops up).
Stage 2 Thinking: It's an Experimental Vaccine (because they haven't had time to do proper studies yet).
Stage 3 Thinking: It's not even an experiment. That involves careful experimental design; collecting reliable data; a control group; presenting the data clearly. All of which have been assiduously avoided.
Great synopsis. Also, scientists like Geert Vanden Bossche have pointed out that mass vaccination with a non-sterilizing vaccine for a mutating respiratory coronavirus can only lead to immune escape and more infectious variants.
Done!
Excellent yes, I'll try to add that. Thank you!
Truth!1 Thank you.....“Don't ever let anyone put out your light because they are blinded by it.”
― Shannon L. Alder
Have been following this for over two years and working to help protect our families and communities. Good discussion. Good science requires maximum creativity, total honesty with ourselves and open communication. “Science” devised to control, to deceive, isn’t science. Please keep investigating.
I know I am preaching to the choir but it is not a vaccine, it’s an injection, at best a theoretical therapy for some, and likely toxic and detrimental for most.
It is my hope that all ProVax will begin to see the light and choose to identify as “ChoiceVax,” a term which I created and defined for them, hopefully in a way that makes it a defensible and sensible position for them to transition to. (See my post)
I'll try my best to explain. Yes, I know the definition of vaccine was changed to fit the new type of injections and/or their end goals. I try to speak in more general terms for more than one reason. First, there are actually real vaccines out there that are more like the traditional vaccines we are used to. J&J did not use mRNA technology, but the development was still rushed. Covaxin from India was the one I always felt seemed most promising, but the FDA stalled on approving the start of clinical trials... how do I put this? Space Race turned Vaccination Competition (and yes Russia has their own as well, which is ironically called Sputnik V,where V stands for Victory not the number five). The U.S. wanted to make their own and wanted to export to other countries, just like many other countries did.
Whether or not we call it vaccine, jab, drug, injection, shot, etc. matters less than: (1) is it safe? (2) is it effective? (3) should i take it? (4) are you making me take it?
I'm approaching more from the perspective of changing law to not infringe on our Constitutional rights and holding people accountable for fraud. At this point, I don't think the law is capable of distinguishing vaccine from injections/jabs/etc. because they changed the definition. At some point in the future, they may also want the ability to put preventative medicine into one's body or admittedly gene therapy, by injection, mouth, nose, or even by touch, and call them vaccines (unfortunately). Instead I feel the focus should be on removing liability protection, providing true informed consent, and always giving choice without mandates or coercion, even under emergencies, regardless of the method or definition.
I agree with you on the use of ChoiceVax. I fall in that category and I will remember to use it. I am not pro-vax, but I am not anti-vax either.
Love it! Well said.
The distinction between ForceVax and ChoiceVax, or ForceMask and ChoiceMask, or Force vs Choice anywhere else is really Force (no right to choose) and Choice (a right to choose).
Force erases “informed consent”, erases “opposition / objection”, erases “biological integrity” and can safely ignore bioethics.
Please see: https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/legalized-bioterrorism with respect to your other comments
Clear thinking. Bravo!
(We won't quibble about the "purple wavelength". Apophasis.
Sorry). ;-)
You make it very clear.
Stage 1 Thinking: "It's Safe and Effective" (because that is what comes to mind when the question "is it safe or effective crops up).
Stage 2 Thinking: It's an Experimental Vaccine (because they haven't had time to do proper studies yet).
Stage 3 Thinking: It's not even an experiment. That involves careful experimental design; collecting reliable data; a control group; presenting the data clearly. All of which have been assiduously avoided.
This is drug-pushing, rolled out willy-nilly.