One horrible issue doesn't make the other horrible issue irrelevant. What are you saying? Is it wrong to find out why chronic diseases are rampant since a certain date when certain medical interventions were implemented on the public?
I'm saying that there is a huge focus on food and very little on vaccines.
Even rfk was on Fox News talking about food, but his biggest issue are the vaccines.
I hope they do address vaccines but I have a feeling that they might not.
But don't fret, people will be asking questions as they're learning that corporations and the govt lied to them. It's inevitable that they look into vaccines!
The concern is that this very sharp pivot to food is to hide the injury from vaccines and pharmaceuticals
There is evidence food legislation is already a done-deal. Soooooo perfect time to jump ok thr bandwagon and "Ra Ra" for it while ignoring the greater evil
If Trump skips the vaccine reform, what do you think Kennedy will do? Will he roll over or do you think he got something in writing from Trump or is he blindly going on what he says, which a lot of times is not what he does?
All True! It's a huge project, interconnected and convoluted and it will get worse before it gets better. The Memory Hole is pervasive and deep, so It's important to keep these issues in the open and Once they get "memory holed" barf them back out, repeatedly until more people wake up.
It may be wishful of me, but I see Trump as sincere and wanting to redeem his legacy. He didn't get a fair shake, made mistakes, and now he will do better. His alliance with Kennedy and Gabbard is evidence that his intentions are honorable. The question is...
Questions 1 and 2 ask about “medical interventions”, whereas question 3, about “vaccine or medical intervention”.
Why the difference?
Should there be this difference?
One may contemplate: Is vaccination a medical intervention? (Many may argue, and based on endless evidence, that they are only alleged or claimed - by their proponents - medical interventions.)
Would it not be better to remove the emotionally inflammatory, and in these contexts, somewhat ‘leading-the-witness’ term “vaccine” given a distinct possibility that entirely different responses, and to not just the one but to all three questions, may be elicited with it in, versus out?
Is a ‘medical intervention’ merely the act of inserting a needle into someone, or does the needle have to contain an agent, that gets injected, and does something beneficial to the person?
By the latter criteria, for many, ‘placebos’, where the agent may be only water, or saline for example, impart benefit. A ‘placebo effect’. So, even mere placebos may be claimed as being medical interventions.
Conversely, for many, agents touted by their proponents as being ‘vaccines’ in reality impart zero benefit: no enhancement of immunity, no protection from infection, no blocking of infection transmission to others. So if such agents do nothing, they may be regarded at best as NOT a medical intervention, NOT a vaccine, (and at worst, as medical fraud, and as medical assault).
The CDC has recently shifted the goal posts, changing the very definition of what a so-called ‘vaccine’ is, or does. US states are currently following suit, via legislation changes. Evidently because of repeated failures of the agents claimed as being ‘vaccines’, to impart any tangible benefit, (and the reality for many recipients, that they instead impart serious harms).
For all medical history since so-called ‘vaccines’ were first conceived of and introduced to the world, they have been defined as, or claimed to be, and understood as being, agents that confer immunity against the specific disease for which they are intended. These are the CDC’s own words as recently as 2018, which one may revisit by viewing their own website over time via the WayBack machine. Now, (post-COVID), the CDC’s revised definition of what a so-called vaccine is or does, is only that it triggers an immune response.
So what? So do poisons. So do many other chemical, physical and radiation assaults to the body. Triggering an immune response does not necessarily equate to imparting specific benefit against a specific given disease.
If the word ‘vaccine’ is introduced to discussion, narratives change, beliefs become polarised, and switch. Hence, you will get different if not dishonest answers to your three Questions, depending on whether the term is included or excluded from any of them.
Criticise medical interventions, and harms from them, one gets empathy. Criticise so-called ‘vaccines’, one gets denial.
Even if you are correct, it doesn't matter. We need elected officials who will say "YES, IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU TAKE A VACCINE OR NOT." If they won't say that it is unlikely they deserve our votes
#TeaachersforChoice is non-partisan Medical Freedom association. Our questions are only Medical Freedom focused. We have both pro-Choice and pro-Life people in our organization, religious and non-religious, etc...
Notice how the new maha thing is lead by Calley Means and it's focused on food?
It seems like they're trying to distract from vaccines causing chronic diseases.
One horrible issue doesn't make the other horrible issue irrelevant. What are you saying? Is it wrong to find out why chronic diseases are rampant since a certain date when certain medical interventions were implemented on the public?
I'm saying that there is a huge focus on food and very little on vaccines.
Even rfk was on Fox News talking about food, but his biggest issue are the vaccines.
I hope they do address vaccines but I have a feeling that they might not.
But don't fret, people will be asking questions as they're learning that corporations and the govt lied to them. It's inevitable that they look into vaccines!
The concern is that this very sharp pivot to food is to hide the injury from vaccines and pharmaceuticals
There is evidence food legislation is already a done-deal. Soooooo perfect time to jump ok thr bandwagon and "Ra Ra" for it while ignoring the greater evil
Pretty ingenious plan but it will backfire.
If Trump skips the vaccine reform, what do you think Kennedy will do? Will he roll over or do you think he got something in writing from Trump or is he blindly going on what he says, which a lot of times is not what he does?
Kennedy can't get anything in writing from Trump. That would be illegal.
No, I don't think Kennedy will "roll over" but he will be serving at the pleasure of the President..
All True! It's a huge project, interconnected and convoluted and it will get worse before it gets better. The Memory Hole is pervasive and deep, so It's important to keep these issues in the open and Once they get "memory holed" barf them back out, repeatedly until more people wake up.
It may be wishful of me, but I see Trump as sincere and wanting to redeem his legacy. He didn't get a fair shake, made mistakes, and now he will do better. His alliance with Kennedy and Gabbard is evidence that his intentions are honorable. The question is...
How long will the Deep State let them live?
Right, otherwise we don't have leaders but rather rulers.
1,000% agree.
Questions 1 and 2 ask about “medical interventions”, whereas question 3, about “vaccine or medical intervention”.
Why the difference?
Should there be this difference?
One may contemplate: Is vaccination a medical intervention? (Many may argue, and based on endless evidence, that they are only alleged or claimed - by their proponents - medical interventions.)
Would it not be better to remove the emotionally inflammatory, and in these contexts, somewhat ‘leading-the-witness’ term “vaccine” given a distinct possibility that entirely different responses, and to not just the one but to all three questions, may be elicited with it in, versus out?
A vaccine IS a medical intervention. We added it to make sure it was explicit
Is a ‘medical intervention’ merely the act of inserting a needle into someone, or does the needle have to contain an agent, that gets injected, and does something beneficial to the person?
By the latter criteria, for many, ‘placebos’, where the agent may be only water, or saline for example, impart benefit. A ‘placebo effect’. So, even mere placebos may be claimed as being medical interventions.
Conversely, for many, agents touted by their proponents as being ‘vaccines’ in reality impart zero benefit: no enhancement of immunity, no protection from infection, no blocking of infection transmission to others. So if such agents do nothing, they may be regarded at best as NOT a medical intervention, NOT a vaccine, (and at worst, as medical fraud, and as medical assault).
The CDC has recently shifted the goal posts, changing the very definition of what a so-called ‘vaccine’ is, or does. US states are currently following suit, via legislation changes. Evidently because of repeated failures of the agents claimed as being ‘vaccines’, to impart any tangible benefit, (and the reality for many recipients, that they instead impart serious harms).
For all medical history since so-called ‘vaccines’ were first conceived of and introduced to the world, they have been defined as, or claimed to be, and understood as being, agents that confer immunity against the specific disease for which they are intended. These are the CDC’s own words as recently as 2018, which one may revisit by viewing their own website over time via the WayBack machine. Now, (post-COVID), the CDC’s revised definition of what a so-called vaccine is or does, is only that it triggers an immune response.
So what? So do poisons. So do many other chemical, physical and radiation assaults to the body. Triggering an immune response does not necessarily equate to imparting specific benefit against a specific given disease.
If the word ‘vaccine’ is introduced to discussion, narratives change, beliefs become polarised, and switch. Hence, you will get different if not dishonest answers to your three Questions, depending on whether the term is included or excluded from any of them.
Criticise medical interventions, and harms from them, one gets empathy. Criticise so-called ‘vaccines’, one gets denial.
Even if you are correct, it doesn't matter. We need elected officials who will say "YES, IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU TAKE A VACCINE OR NOT." If they won't say that it is unlikely they deserve our votes
Are you opposed to abortion?
Do you support President Trump?
Who granted to us our human rights?
#TeaachersforChoice is non-partisan Medical Freedom association. Our questions are only Medical Freedom focused. We have both pro-Choice and pro-Life people in our organization, religious and non-religious, etc...
Thank you.