I know that initially a lot of people in my hospital department were saying they were going to opt out, but then they “talked to a doctor” and now they’re thinking about getting it.
Kind of like how I was concerned that cat treats might not be safe but then two out of two of my cats assured me that they were not only safe, but good for cats.
It all goes back to believing the fundamental lie, that a new virus was discovered and it’s causing a new disease.
What's your proof that it's not new?
I spent all of the past year on Voat posting all kinds of evidence of lies and fakery involving the Covid hoax, some of which I’ve observed at a hospital myself, but it was never convincingly isolated, described, demonstrated, and never fulfilled Koch’s postulates of infectious disease.
Also, the testing kits were never corroborated by large scale electron microscope studies.
The CDC admitted in July that they don’t have a pure virus sample. I have seen multiple FOIA requests sent to multiple universities and labs around the world that have all been answered with the statement that no records exist at that facility of the CV19 virus being isolated anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus#Infection_in_humans
>Coronaviruses vary significantly in risk factor. Some can kill more than 30% of those infected, such as MERS-CoV, and some are relatively harmless, such as the common cold.[50]
What about MERS? Is there any proof of its existence or does it also fail to show up when you actually look for proof of its existence?
Where I'm getting at, is that, why use a non existing virus while one could very well "update" an existing one? I mean it's more convincing when people actually get sick
Also there's this
>“With my colleague, bio-mathematician Jean-Claude Perez, we carefully analyzed the description of the genome of this RNA virus,” explains Luc Montagnier, interviewed by Dr Jean-François Lemoine for the daily podcast at Pourquoi Docteur, adding that others have already explored this avenue:
>Indian researchers have already tried to publish the results of the analyses that showed that this coronavirus genome contained sequences of another virus, … the HIV virus (AIDS virus), but they were forced to withdraw their findings as the pressure from the mainstream was too great.
>In a challenging question Dr Jean-François Lemoine inferred that the coronavirus under investigation may have come from a patient who is otherwise infected with HIV.
>"No," says Luc Montagnier, "in order to insert an HIV sequence into this genome, molecular tools are needed, and that can only be done in a laboratory."
...
I mean, I find it hard to believe, that all those medics and researchers, people with completely different views and backgrounds, would all be part of one and the same total lie, not just a scam, a pure invention, a myth
How do you explain that away?
(post is archived)