2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum

GLD 385.42

-0.3%

Dec 8 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: jazzlover2 who wrote (187836)	5/21/2022 1:01:13 AM
From: sense	3 Recommendations Recommended By maceng2 Pogeu Mahone Secret_Agent_Man Read Replies (2) of 218269

So if a person gets a covid-19 mrna shot today, is that protecting them from today's threat, or yesterday's threat, or tomorrow's threat? IMO, no. I haven't seen any evidence the shot provides ANY traditional "protection" from any virus... They've played some word games to change the meaning of words... substituting "symptom suppression" for "immunity"... as the intended outcome of "vaccination"... I think if a person gets a covid-19 mrna shot today... it is protecting the vaccine maker from declining revenue... and that's about all the protection it provides to anyone... Although, getting the shot... should not be considered "only" in relation impact is might have on the virus... Plenty of evidence already that the jab... hurts the people who get it... directly... They're harming you... and conning you into paying for being harmed... Among other known "side-effects"... the jab likely intends to reduce fertility... without having sterility being something that users signed up for... Or, "it should have been obvious to one skilled in the art that would be a consequence"... of the design they've implemented... The blanket "liability waivers" that drug makers have been granted... need to be declared unconstitutional... which they clearly are. But, under the protection of "if you take our shot, we can use it to do whatever we want to you, and you can't do anything about it"... it is likely more useful to think about the need for Nuremberg II... ending with Fauci (et al) swinging at the end of a rope... than it is about the need for a Constitutional challenge... "Just following orders" was the "dodge" in the prior century... "It's just business"... the 2020's version

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next