Hurrdurr
(media.omegacanada.win)
Comments (16)
sorted by:
You dont decide vaccine safety rate until 5 years of data. Enjoy the fall
Lol 1.8% covid death rate.
Right.
Yeah that's the inflated figure.
But even if you take the most conservative figure (Which is something like .072%), the risk from the vaccine is still drastically lower than the risk from the virus.
You guys have to take a step back from the conspiracism on this one. Nobody's trying to kill/sterilize/program you with vaccines. That's crazy.
All we have here is:
A virus that while seriously overblown in the media and by governments is still moderately dangerous to certain people (killing .072% of the population).
A vaccine that (like all vaccines) carries a small risk of negative side effects which, in very rare cases, can be fatal. (killing .003% of the population, but removing that 0.72% risk for 90% of recipients).
.072% > .003%. I'm sorry that doesn't support the narrative you subscribe to but that's reality.
If you want to chase a conspiracy, you need to be looking at who knew what about this virus and when. Why did the US government lift the ban on gain of function research none days before trump's inauguration? Why was the US funding that kind of research (which is basically bio-weapon engineering) in China of all places? Why did this virus break out at the very moment soon as the establishment's bullshit impeachment attempt failed to remove Trump from office?
As far as I know it was not lifted before Trump was inaugurated. It was lifted during the Trump admin.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08837-7
"White House announces review process for risky virus studies" - Jan. 9, 2017
My bad, it was eleven days before Trump's inauguration, not nine. And they just initiated the process to lift the ban on 9 Jan, since they presumably couldn't just end the ban on a whim with no review process.
That was just a review if the ban on funding gain-of-function research should be lifted or not. In December of 2017, 11 months after Trump's inauguration, it was decided to lift the ban.
Yes, because they presumably have to complete a review process before they can lift such a ban.
And that process to lift the ban was initiated nine days before Trump took office.
And then a pandemic that appears to have been created by the very gain of function research this move authorized appeared at the top of the next election year destroying Trump's economy and necessitating mass mail-in voting which is notoriously vulnerable to fraud.
Oh, and the US deep state apparently funded the engineering of that virus. That's the same US deep state that tried everything short of just killing him to unseat Trump, before he could "drain the swamp (meaning them)". That's the same deep state that killed JFK for largely the same reasons, i.e. because he stood against the deep state.
It's all very fishy.
Trump could have easily won the election if he endorsed mail-in voting like the Democrats. He would have easily gained the votes he was missing to win some key states.
It wasn't a secret that the US lifted the ban. Trump and his handlers could have done something. If Obama was able to ban funding for it, Trump would have been too.
Nobody knew the Washington establishment would go so far as to attack the entire world with a bioweapon to get Trump out of office in 2020.
0.18%, honey, at worst.