You are probably aware of the baby bust. But you may not know how bad it has gotten. Since Covid, birth rates have fallen off a cliff.
more below…
Why Are Death and Disability Rising Among Young Americans?
Disability claims are causing a labor crisis, and no one knows why
more below…
Interview About Pfizer's Adulterated COVID-19 Shots
below…
"Vaccine" killed 3.5X more Americans than COVID virus
Executive summary
The irresponsible attacks by an LA Times journalist on MSU Professor Mark Skidmore’s paper motivated me to run my own survey of my readers to see what the actual harm numbers really are.
Over 10,000 readers responded.
The survey clearly showed that the COVID vaccines have killed 3.5 times as many people as COVID. This is a disaster.
I’ve had expert statisticians and epidemiologists review the survey, the methodology, and the results. None could find any errors.
I’m willing to put a million dollars on the table that this is right and that the vaccines have killed more people than COVID. Any takers? If not, why not?
When I called Professor Norman Fenton and informed him of the 3.5X figure he calmly replied “I’m not surprised.”
The results of this survey are entirely consistent with the surveys by others as well as individual anecdotes that would have been very unlikely for me to have located if the vaccine didn’t kill at least 3.5X more people than the virus.
Therefore accusations of “the survey was biased” are simply “hand-waving” arguments with absolutely no evidentiary basis of support. Could there be bias? Of course. Is the bias significant is the question! Since these people are anti-vaxxers, they are simply less likely to vaccinate and so the number of vaccine injuries will be LOWER than an unbiased group who vaccinates. So yes, there may be bias, but if anything the bias suggests that the actual ratio is higher than 3.5. I’m happy to have that discussion. Bring it on.
The best way to challenge these results is to show data that is 100% independently verifiable (which government statistics are not). So they will have to show us their survey and their verifiable anecdotes supporting their hypothesis. No one has any interest in doing that for some reason. These people are all perfectly content with having the number be “unknown.” I have a big problem with that.
Finally, if any epidemiologist(s) with a h-index of 20 or more wants to publicly challenge the 3.5X result in an open public discussion, it’s easy to contact me. The h-index is simply a way to ensure we have a meaningful level of discourse. The people on my side of the debate table will have a combined h-index of over 100.
Everyday I am miffed on how widely divergent our views are on the same realities. On October 11, 2023, our third pandemic CDC Director, Dr. Mandy Cohen took a photo shoot getting her shot from a pharmacy CEO for the LA Times. Why a CEO? Why LA Times? It’s is an obviously staged product promotional event pushing the XBB.1.5. boosters.
Slightly Insane, self sabotage adult-child alert:
The data
Having record level data available where every record can be independently verified is critical. The other critical thing is making all the record level data publicly available.
I’ve done both. The health authorities NEVER do either.
Here are the links:
The survey responses (over 10,000)
The Excel analysis of the first 9,620 responses which shows the responses are consistent with a Poisson distribution and also that hundreds of random 10% draws from the data do not change the outcome that the vaccines have killed at least 2.5X more people than COVID.
The survey had 10,000 responses.
Analysis of the first 9,620 found 804 deaths from COVID and 2,830 deaths from the COVID vaccine. Those results were generated from a minimum of 108,000 people covered by the survey (some extended families were over 25 people and the survey didn’t track this so the number of total family members covered by the survey is a lower bound). We also didn’t ask about the age of each family member as this would have made the survey unmanageable. We were primarily interested in simply the ratio of COVID deaths to vaccine deaths in the extended family (excluding the immediate household). The reason for excluding the immediate household is to reduce the bias effect since most of the respondents didn’t vaccinate themselves or their household. This is reflected in the lower ratio for the household statistics (and even then, the vaccines killed more people than COVID which is astonishing).
The analysis
No fancy math is needed to calculate the ratio: 2830/804=3.5X.
It is simple and straightforward. No sleight of hand. No trickery. No Cox Proportional Hazard manipulation. It’s all verifiable raw data.
We did other tests to see if the data looked like it was generated from a Poisson distribution (which is what deaths look like statistically) and we took random 10% draws to ensure that the data was consistent throughout all 10,000 responses. We found that was the case.
Fact checkers welcome here… come on in… I have nothing to hide
I’m happy to have independent fact checkers validate each of the entries with the submitter directly (subject to their consent of course).
The deal though is that if you want to validate the data, you have to agree to publish your findings.
Independent validation / Sanity checks
At first, you may think “3.5X… that’s way too high. Surely these anti-vaxxers are misclassifying normal deaths as “vaccine deaths.”
There are 10,000 different people making these assessments. We can randomly draw 20 names and check on the details of each death to assess whether this is the case.
But there is a much easier method to validate that the 3.5X number is sane: a single anecdote that is 100% verifiable.
I reported earlier on a high tech sales executive Jay Bonnar who told me 15 of his friends “died suddenly” after getting the vax. His life experience otherwise is devoid of deaths. The stories are all in the public domain and are verifiable. They were all his friends; they all died suddenly after the vaccine. Jay also had 1 friend who died in the hospital from COVID after receiving Remdesivir (which is probably what really killed his friend, but let’s just give the COVID virus a death).
So if Jay saw one COVID death, with a 3.5 multiple, Jay should have seen 3.5 vaccine deaths. But he saw 15. The probability of that happening is 4.26e-6 which means that only 1 person in 234,515 would have observed a story like Jay’s.
This would mean that I’d have to have chatted with nearly 250K people to find Jay. I can assure you, that was not the case. Jay is one of my Substack readers (a typical article has around 100K readers) and Jay responded to a survey about something I was asking at the time. Only around 10K people respond to surveys. I called only 10 people to validate the survey results from the 10K respondents. When Jay and I were talking, he let me know about the 15 friends and that got my attention and resulted in an article about Jay’s friends.
Jay’s story is a powerful anecdote that simply would not have been found if the ratio of vaccine deaths to COVID deaths wasn’t at least 3.5x.
So that is a powerful validation that my survey, if it is wrong, is underestimating the factor, rather than over estimating it.
There are 3 other powerful validators in addition to Jay’s anecdote:
Wayne Root has numbers that are even more skewed: 30 to 1. The probabilities here are so astronomical that if the ratio isn’t at least 3.5X, a Wayne Root example couldn’t exist even if I interviewed every person on earth.
The Rasmussen survey found the COVID vaccine killed as many people as COVID. This was done by an independent firm with an impeccable reputation. But this was done on the American public and 75% of the public believes the narrative, took the jab, and wouldn’t be able to spot a vaccine death (they would be gaslit by their doctors into believing it was just a coincidence, even if the death happened on the same day as the vaccine). So the deaths should be multiplied by around 4X so we are in the same 3.5:1 ballpark after the “blue pill” correction.
I’ve done surveys on both Gab and Twitter, four months apart. These are on different platforms, done at different times, I have different followers on each platform, but the results of the surveys were nearly identical, finding a 3X to 4X higher death count for the vaccine deaths vs. COVID deaths.
So why are the Gab results lower than the X numbers?
The answer is simple: my Gab followers are mostly unvaccinated as you can clearly see below. If you don’t take the vaccine, it’s really hard to die from the vaccine. This anti-vax bias extends to family members so the numbers are lower than “reality.”
Denis Rancourt’s recent work (180 pages) shows that the vaccine kills about 1.2K people per 1M doses. “He found no evidence that the Covid-19 vaccine has reduced overall deaths in any of these countries. In fact, the opposite seems to be true.” There have been 650M doses in the US, which would imply 780K deaths which is close to my 650K death estimate. The number of COVID deaths in America is vastly over inflated. A recent JAMA paper showed COVID is about 2X deadlier than the flu, and since flu deaths per year average 37,800 (which I got from Bard so I can’t be accused of cherry picking the number), an estimate of actual COVID deaths over 3 years (since Omicron is very mild), we can estimate that around 226,800 people (37800×3 years ×2 the death rate) were actually killed by COVID, so 780K/226800 = 3.44 which is remarkably close to the 3.5X factor from our surveys.
More on bias
All surveys have bias.
In my case, there is a bias for lower numbers because my followers are very under vaccinated and in many cases, their families are too. So this can result in lower vaccine deaths.
But there might also be a bias in assessing a death to be from the vaccine when it wasn’t caused by the vaccine. Experts can adjudicate these deaths and we can apply a correction factor that might correct in either direction. Here’s the interesting thing about this bias: I don’t think anyone knows which direction this bias is! I don’t. Do you? Were my readers more astute that trained professionals in assessing vaccine deaths? Or less astute? We can adjust for this bias, but the problem will be: who do you trust to make the professional assessments of the death? Any medical expert I suggest who I think is astute can be accused of being biased. So the bias accusation can always be made.
The simplest approach is the Occam’s razor method and assume that the assessments are “close” and consider this as one experiment that generates a value.
Or we can invite our critics to show us their data that properly corrects for all these biases (as if that is possible).
Then you look at the other experiments and look at the values that they produce. If you have 9 values that all strongly agree and 1 that doesn’t, you then can spend more time on the outlier trying to find a source of error. Failing that, maybe it is the 9 that agree that have the error, but that’s less likely.
In my case the numbers lined up well… all the approaches showed that the vaccine killed more people than COVID and should be halted. The numbers I got in this survey didn’t surprise me, they didn’t surprise my colleagues, and the anecdotes are consistent with the numbers. I love anecdotes because you can verify all the facts whereas you cannot do that with government data (the UK data being the perfect example of totally useless and misleading data). For every person who claims “your suvey is biased” I can say in response that “your government data is biased.”
Biases are a part of life. You try to adjust for them when you can do so accurately.
Why is nobody taking my $1M bet? Answer: Because none of them believe their bullshit claims about the vaccine being safe
I’ve offered to bet anyone in the world $1M who thinks that COVID has killed more than the vaccine. What I continue to not understand is why nobody wants to take my money if the case is so obvious that the vaccines have killed fewer people than COVID. The most I got is a $500K bet from one person in Israel. That’s it.
Is he the only guy in the entire world willing to bet me? How come Pfizer and Moderna aren’t taking my challenge? How come none of the experts aren’t raising the funds for this “no risk” opportunity?
The reason nobody will bet me is that they don’t want to lose their money. It’s OK if you lose your life taking their advice, but they are so unsure they are right, they won’t risk their own money on their beliefs. It’s really that simple. They say it, but they don’t believe it. It’s all “big hat, no cattle.”
Summary
My latest survey shows 3.5X as many people were killed by the vaccine as by the virus. That is a train wreck.
Professor Norman Fenton was not at all surprised by this number based on his research. When I told him the number, he didn’t even raise an eyebrow.
In this article, I showed 5 entirely different methods for validating the results.
Not a single pro-vax person, as far as I know, has any clue as to what they think the number is. Whenever I ask, they throw up their hands and say that they don’t know. Even though they have no clue what the ratio is, there is one thing that they are absolutely confident of: I can’t be right and my survey MUST be wrong.
This reminds me of physicians who say, “We don’t know what killed you, but the one thing we do know for sure is that it wasn’t the vaccine.” Have you heard that before?
It’s time for the vaccine advocates to put up or shut up. Show me your numbers, show me at least 5 independent ways you got to the same number, and show me the similar extreme anecdotes showing that your number must be right and mine is wrong (like show me the guy who knows 30 people who died from COVID and only 1 person who died from the vaccine), and let’s get to the bottom of this and find out who is right and who is wrong.
Not showing up with any data or any willingness to resolve this issue is unacceptable.
🔥 You’d think corporate media would have stopped whining and been happy that, at long last, the House finally elected a new Speaker.
You really would think, after all the querulous carping they did all week, that reporters would now be happy to have a new Speaker. But I guess you just can’t please some liberals. This morning’s New York Times headline probably tells you everything you need to know about Representative Mike Johnson (R-La.), our terrific new Speaker of the House:
He’s not just a rightwing conservative. According to the Times, aptly-named Johnson is a hard-right conservative, which is infinitely better than a limp-right conservative, which as the ladies can attest, is more or less useless, not to mention unattractive.
For its part, having recovered from a brief fainting spell, the flaccid Washington Post called Mr. Johnson the very worst name in its entire “Slander for Dummies” playbook: a Trumpian election denier:
And you know what should happen to election deniers! Who are just like insurrectionists and other Civil War treason rats. Well, except for democrat ones, like Hillary Clinton or that plump lady from Georgia, whatshername.
You’ll be forgiven for not having noticed Representative Johnson before. He appears to be one of those quiet, effective ones, who get things done and stays out of the crosshairs. Until now, of course. But don’t underestimate him. It took a lot of respect from his peers and some skillful politicking to land the Speaker gig, especially with everything swirling around the nation’s toilet bowl the way it is these days.
For a sample of his political views, here’s what Mr. Johnson tweeted about censorship and the Twitter files:
“Twitter was basically an FBI subsidiary before Elon Musk took it over... The Twitter files should be a matter of bipartisan concern for every member of Congress and every American citizen because it is a bedrock principle of our Constitution that the government does not get to decide what speech is acceptable or true."
For what it’s worth, President Trump likes Johnson, who got all caps and an exclamation point:
Further confirming Johnson was a great choice, deranged liberals like Ed Krassenstein think Johnson’s election was the worst thing they ever heard of and are hoping it was just a Halloween prank:
The first item incoming Speaker Johnson brought to the House floor yesterday was a popular resolution affirming support for Israel and condemning Hamas that easily passed 412-10. Johnson has got a lot of work to do, what with a controversial budget deadline looming next month, and with Joe Biden sniffing everybody’s hair trying to find even more taxpayer money to send to the billionaire oligarchs losing Ukraine’s war.
After “congratulations,” and “good luck,” my message to the new speaker is: Fix Our Borders First.
🔥 In the overnight news, the New York Times ran a story early this morning headlined, “At Least 7 Dead in Lewiston as Police Put City on Lockdown.” The sub-headline added, “The sheriff of Androscoggin County said the number of fatalities was 'growing.’ The authorities said they were seeking a man who was ‘armed and dangerous.’”
It looks like another shooting spree, this time in Lewiston, Maine — the state’s second largest city after Portland. Early reports say a lone gunman shot seven people in a bowling alley and then went into a bar. Authorities told the general public to hide:
Given various descriptions of the scene, the number of dead seems likely to be much higher than seven. Unconfirmed reports as of posted put it in double digits.
Authorities are searching for Robert R. Card, 40, of Bowdoin, Maine, having identified him as a person of interest but specifically saying he is not a “suspect.” He remains at large. Social media is already going berserk with everyone trying to leverage the shooting politically and to shape the narrative. We are in the “hot takes phase” and having alerted you to the basics, I will now sit back for a day or two, pray for the victims and their families, and wait for some reliable facts to bubble up out of the noisy information swamp before I comment any further.
I suggest you do the same.
🔥 Tell me what you think this interesting information nugget means. Since October 7th, despite hundreds of interim tweets, the World Economic Forum’s twitter feed has mentioned the War in Israel exactly zero times.
Surveying the topics most featured in the WEF’s busy feed, you’d get the impressing the WEF is a teenage boy with a “savior” dating strategy: it’s all climate change, artificial intelligence, and women. And, I’m sorry ladies, but according to the WEF, you are on a rapid downhill slide:
Nothing about Israeli women though. Or even about Palestinian women, for that matter. War can be pretty hard on women, and you’d think with all the WEF’s fascination with the gentler sex it might have snuck in a tweet or two for the hardships of the war moms. But no. And given the vast — nearly incalculable — global economic implications of a regional Middle Eastern war, you would think the World Economic Forum might have something to say.
Instead it’s all just silly, woke buzzwords. The WEF is obsoleting itself, and I say good riddance. Become obsolete faster.
What do you think the WEF’s silence means?
🔥 Earlier this month, Reuters published a massive media status report clocking in over 158 pages, titled Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2023. It’s a stinker.
Reuters is wringing its withered, bloodstained hands over the fact that traditional media — aka corporate media — is getting its butt kicked by random loudmouths on social media. In other words, the largest block of people would now rather get their news from Coffee & Covid than from The New York Times:
For some reason that Reuters thinks involves “misinformation,” global trust in trad-news media is low and still falling. In its conclusion, Reuters called for another bowl of buzzword salad: it said “urgent collective multi-stakeholder action is needed to rebuild trust in the media ecosystem, tackle disinformation and promote media information literacy.”
Haha, these marxists kill me. Collective action! Media ecosystem! They’re not even pretending that the different trad-media outlets are competitors anymore. They are just symbiotic or parasitic members of some kind of gross media hive. Collective action? Back when we were doing capitalism, that kind of thing used to be called “monopolistic action” and was barred by the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Times change, I suppose.
In more bad news, Reuters revealed that only 32% of Americans say they “trust” trad-media. Haha. Of course, Reuters blamed President Trump and goofily claimed that pandemic-era reporting somehow increased trust in media, which made me laugh harder than a hyena who got loose in a cannabis dispensary:
I may have to start reading some Finnish newspapers to see what’s going on there. Google translate works. Kind of. Sometimes it generates some very amusing locutions. Any Finlanders in the house today to explain to the rest of us why Fins trust their trad-media so much? Is it the fresh Finnish air or something?
Anyway, there’s a lot more great stuff in the report, but I’m not suggesting you read it all. Here’s my bottom line: I predict trust in trad-media will continue falling. Why? Because nowhere in Reuters’ mega-report did it suggest TELLING THE TRUTH or FAIRLY PRESENTING BOTH SIDES.
It was even like those concepts were somehow impolite or offensive, like asking whether masks actually work back in 2021 or something. They just aren’t getting it.
🚀 Middle East Update 🚀
💣 Information is starting to trickle out about how Hamas outsmarted Israel’s crackerjack intelligence agencies. On Tuesday, the New York Post ran a story headlined, “Hamas used landline phones in Gaza tunnels to evade Israeli intelligence for 2 years while plotting attack: report.”
Hamas’ vast concrete and metal-reinforced tunnel network, dubbed the “Gaza metro” by Israeli Defense Forces, runs for over 300 combined miles underneath Gaza, allowing the terror group to hide, plot, store supplies, move fighters, weaponry and supplies undetected throughout the region, and carve their initials into the concrete walls. The tunnels are highly sophisticated, offering all the comforts of a terrorist’s home: power, air conditioning, cement roads, rail systems, and apparently, a completely-independent, secure, analog phone system that cannot be monitored by Israeli intelligence.
The Hamas tunnels give a different take on the term, “moles.” They are moles armed with rocket launchers and machetes. Anyway, it is helpful to understand how Hamas used a low-tech solution to avoid Israel’s high-tech monitoring systems.
It made me think of the (friendly) anonymous letter I received this week that had been typed on a typewriter. A real typewriter. With a ribbon and stuff. I had a brief thought that it might be handy to have a typewriter around these days. You know. I’m not saying why.
🚀 In a second story shedding light on the horrifying failures of Israel’s intelligence services, the Wall Street Journal ran an article yesterday headlined, “Weapons Flood West Bank, Fueling Fears of New War Front With Israel.” You may or may not know that the West Bank is a gigantic, Palestine-occupied territory in the middle-west of Israel. The West Bank is much bigger than the tiny Gaza Strip in Israel’s south:
Don’t ask how it got that way, it would take all morning to explain.
According to the Journal, the West Bank has been flooded with weapons this year. Because of the growing perceived threat, the IDF has been focused on the much bigger West Bank, and less so on tiny Gaza. The IDF suspects Iran created a pipeline for smuggling arms into the West Bank, and probably not for any innocent self-defense purposes.
The numbers have significantly spiked over previous years. As examples, the Journal explained that in May, a Jordanian official was caught trying to smuggle over 200 guns into the West Bank. In July, Israeli forces seized about 1,000 weapons and hundreds of explosive devices in the West Bank, and dismantled six bomb-making operations.
“This probably explains part of the intelligence failure , because Israel was more focused on the West Bank than Gaza,” opined Michael Horowitz, head of an Israel-based risk consulting firm, quoted for the story.
What are the odds Israel was distracted on purpose?
💣 There is a developing narrative that the U.S. is the one acting as the “Restrainer” holding Israel back from a Gazan ground invasion. To date, Biden has not stopped coming up with new reasons that Israel should keep waiting. For just a few examples: (1) Biden needs more time for hostage negotiations, (2) the ground invasion would be useless anyway because it would just become a quagmire like Afghanistan, and the latest excuse, (3) the U.S. needs more time to ship air defenses to the region.
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran a story suggesting that Israel had agreed to wait so the U.S. forces, who aren’t in the fight, can get hold of some air defenses, to protect them from an unnamed and identified enemy:
It’s a good thing the U.S. isn’t in a real war that doesn’t wait around for you to ship your air defenses by UPS ground.
On the other hand, also yesterday, PBS said that Israel would probably delay the invasion for hostage negotiations. According to its article, “there are new signs that an Israeli ground invasion may not be imminent after all,” and “the ground invasion appears to be on hold for now, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicated tonight.” Its headline:
So many reasons to delay.
But there were signs yesterday the Israelis may be catching on that their allies could be trying to frustrate their Gazan invasion plans. I’ve been following influencer Amir Tsarfati, an Israeli messianic Jew (a Christian) who has kept his telegram updated with hour-by-hour news. Until yesterday, Amir has lauded Biden for his support. Last night, Amir posted this update, titled “Biden fooled Israel”:
I suspect a lot of Jews are feeling the same way as Amir about Biden. Welcome to our world.
Israel is sitting in a thorny political corner. This morning, the Financial Times ran a story suggesting Israel may have found a third way: a “non-invasion” invasion. Late last night, Israel conducted a large incursion — not an invasion — with troops returning to the border after completing the action.
In a widely-dissected televised address yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu again said Israel was “preparing a ground invasion,” and again he did not offer any timeline. But incursions aren’t invasions. After all, since troops don’t stay there, an incursion nothing like an invasion, with incursions having the additional highly-desirable benefit of not becoming quagmires.
Meanwhile yesterday, according to a White House summary of their call, President Robert L. “Pedo” Peters — who sure is a chatty Kathy about Israel these days — told Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday that he, Biden, is looking for a “pathway for permanent peace” between Israel and Palestine at the end of the conflict, which is probably the last thing Netanyahu wants to think about right now.
Why is Biden talking about “permanent peace” when the invasion hasn’t even started yet and the parties have yet to agree to their first ceasefire? Look, I’m an optimist. I’m not being critical, I really want to know. Does Biden think this could all be magically resolved in the midst of rising hostilities?
👨⚖️ Last week, a Federal Court in the Southern District of California, applying a new 2022 Supreme Court decision, threw out a 1989 California law that banned so-called “assault weapons.” Behold how the marvelous opinion begins. Sometimes, like this time, you can tell judges are about to hand you a massive win right from their very first sentence:
Like the Bowie Knife which was commonly carried by citizens and soldiers in the 1800s, “assault weapons” are dangerous, but useful. But unlike the Bowie Knife, the United States Supreme Court has said, “here is a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals in this country.”
Miller v. Bonta, 2023 WL 6929336 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2023).
The opinion just got better after that. Well, not in everyone’s point of view. California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta will, of course, appeal the decision:
Given the Supreme Court just gave the Second Amendment more breathing room last year, I have my doubts about Bonta’s appellate chances. Stand by.
💉 Uh-oh! This won’t be any good for the dwindling covid jab business. Tuesday, The New York Times ran a story with the stingy headline, “ Covid Shots May Slightly Raise Stroke Risk in the Oldest Recipients. Shots! Not vaccines. The linguistic sleight-of-hand didn’t stick past the headline, but I’d like to shake that rebellious headline editor’s hand.
It was a double-whammy. The Times just admitted there’s a teeny-tiny, slight problem with the jabs, nothing to worry about, you’ll barely notice it, but they might occasionally cause you to stroke out or possibly, rarely, very rarely, probably never happen, but you might get epilepsy. Strokes and seizures, oh my.
According to a brand-new analysis by the FDA, the mRNA jabs may slightly (after all possible adjustments were made) increase the risk of stroke when combined with the flu shot. You never know. Specifically, the researchers detected an increased stroke signal among folks 85 years or older who got the Pfizer jab, and those 65 to 74 who got the Moderna shot.
People in those groups who got both covid and flu shots saw a +20% increase in the risk of ischemic stroke after the Pfizer booster, and a +35% increase in stroke risk after Moderna.
And they were trying really hard not to find anything.
A separate FDA analysis, published at the same time last week, found a “small” but statistically significant increase in seizures after covid vaccination in children ages 2 to 5.
When you add up all these “small” and “slight” and “rare” additional risks, at the end of the day, when you put it all together, does it maybe total to numbers that aren’t actually “small” or “slight?” Is the mRNA shots’ demonic confounder the fact that they injure people in so many different ways?
The Times blandly reported the FDA would not make the researchers available for interviews. For some reason.
💉 Get ready! They’re starting it up again, and I just can’t bring myself to run the same exact post for a third year in a row. So I’ll just show you. Behold the terrifying, annual, Fall “tripledemic:”
Bottom line, they want you to start taking three annual shots now, at least two of which are for their lab-created bugs that escaped (covid and RSV, probably). No, thank you. You keep those ones. My question is, where does this jab mania finally end? This delusion that mankind can invent a better immune system in a needle than the human immune system?
At some point will they have a 72-jab annual shot schedule, like the poor school children?
^^^^^^^^ They don’t know what Irony is, do they? ^^^^^^^
Forty thousand dollars per every hundred babies injected with deadly poisons
OCT 25
For many years doctors have received bonuses for adherence to the latest drug therapy protocol. Drugs that are known to be dangerous such as statins and anti-depressants. And now we know that insurance companies are paying doctors to fully vaccinate your children.
This incentive program for vaccinating babies can be found in the Blue Cross Blue Shield doctor incentives booklet. And specifies that every patient under the age of two that receives the currently prescribed twenty-four inoculations is worth a four-hundred dollar payout to that doctor.
For further motivation, they get paid by the hundred and they have to vaccinate a certain percentage of their total patients or they don’t get anything. Blue Cross Blue Shield rules say that a doctor needs to vaccinate sixty-three percent of their patients in order to qualify.
The average American pediatrician has about fifteen hundred patients and would have to have nine hundred and forty-five of them fully vaccinated in order to get paid. At forty-thousand for every hundred this works out to three-hundred and sixty thousand dollars.
This is why most pediatricians won’t provide care for families who don’t completely submit to the latest childhood vaccine schedule protocol. We are talking over a quarter million dollars which is more than the average pediatrician’s yearly salary.
Research shows that an unvaccinated child’s risk of death increases by over five thousand percent when they receive the current vaccine schedule.
And Doctors are now beginning to use virtual reality to help them administer these poisons to children who instinctively know better.
.