At what point are you accountable for your own idiocy? Ignorance is not an excuse in law, for anyone. Unless you either are the law or are above it.
As Carlson points out, effects of gene therapies on human fertility are at best unknown, and at worst, partially known.
What was definitely known, before and at the point of roll out, was that no significant human fertility testing had been done. This was known by manufacturers and regulators, who were in possession of manufacturer documentation and who set the standards of the tests. Therefore, any agent of the state who had access to or was briefed by the regulators and/or manufacturers knew, at least, what was not known.
As roll out went ahead, people experienced fertility impacts in various forms and to various degrees. There were open scientific questions over the impact on syncytin-1, a protein involved in placental development. Those questions were “fact checked” away using the phrase “there is no evidence of vaccine effects on syncytin-1/human fertility” which meant “no testing has been done, so no evidence either way exists”. Women were reporting abnormal bleeding. It is fair to say that vaginal or uterine bleeding, including the phenomenon of decidual casts, is very, very likely to be related to fertility and the reproductive cycle. How could it not be?
This is not rocket science. Fundamentally, applying one’s reading ability to any regulatory EUA/CMA/EPAR document that states that some fertility study was done on a handful of Wistar Han rats, in which degrees of defect were seen and in which no second generation fertility study was conducted, will tell you that next to no human significant fertility testing was carried out.
Are you a rat? Clue: lack of fur and a tail, combined with bipedal stance and opposable thumbs confirms you’re not.
So, if you’re not a rat, why are you willing to stake your total health on the basis of a study which determines next to sweet FA about your overall health?
When Fauci says, “we should study it more,” that means “we don’t know enough about it.” This means that the statement “there is no evidence of the effects on human fertility” means “we don’t know what it does to human fertility”.
Note: no training in rocket science or brain surgery is required to work out the above.
Curiosity killed the cat. Lack of it may have killed you
https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-deborah-birx-knew-covid-vaccines-not-protect-against-infection
Dr. Deborah Birx has said that the administration “hoped” that the vaccines would work, while telling everyone specific things about them, none of which turned out to be true. She is also saying that she knew all along that the vaccines wouldn’t work.
Let’s just work out how stupid you have to be to say both of those things. Why wouldn’t you just say, “to the best of our knowledge, the statements were true at the time we said them”?
Could it be that there is provably no evidence that the statements were ever true? If so, one would struggle to provide any empirical evidence that the science supported those statements. When was the last time anyone in authority showed anyone any actual evidence? It’s never happened. Saying, “the data shows…” without showing the data doesn’t prove anything. Dr. Malone uses this phrase a lot, but he more frequently provides enough reference to research that one can find as to be more credible. Dr. McCullough, on the other hand, can’t stop quoting papers and first authors that show that no one in authority has any credibility.
So if you are comfortable following instructions off the TV, what exactly do you deserve?
If smokers don’t deserve any treatment from the health services for cancer, by that logic dosed people don’t deserve anything either, unless they were provably forced by the state to get dosed.
And if people do get supported after injury, who pays for that? All citizens, from public funds. What an interesting mechanism by which to lock people into another them/us, divide and conquer, inflationary, wealth transfer paradigm.
See how all this works?
The truth was out there, on public and official websites. It was said and it was not said. The truth is in both of those things. All that is required is the ability to read, comprehend and ask, “what does that mean” and “why?” and “why not?”.
Rocket science requires all of that, plus a lot of maths.
This. Is. Not. Rocket. Science.
An extremely obvious question
Why is Tucker Carlson allowed to say what he says, on a network that is as corporate and bought off as all the others?
Share this post