Covid jabs are called "bioweapons" in court!

[Thoughtful3]

The best way to stop harmful brainwashing is by not providing a platform to conspiracy-minded, anti-science individuals, and every other unhinged, paranoid lunatic you deign to present as an expert of some kind. 

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are not biological weapons. There is not one credible global scientific or intelligence body that validates Boyle's nonsensical claims of an engineered, offensive biological weapon.

As one of the stupid people I believed it was best to read what the people who developed those so called "Safe and Effective" vaccines wrote. After all this is in their own words. 

"Moonshot" by Albert Bourla [CEO of Pfizer]

Page 23- Remember when everyone was told 2 jabs and done?

"Mikael knew from previous discussions that the speed and development and the ABILITY TO BOOST OFTEN WERE VERY HIGH PRIORITIES TO ME." Line 10 & 11.

"It was important to have a vaccine that WE COULD BOOST AS OFTEN AS WAS NEEDED...."
This was always the plan.

Page 51 & 52 is very thought provoking. Pfizer had narrowed down to 2 different vaccine candidates b1 & b2, which had different formulations. They had stated with 4 candidates and contrary to normal practices, they were developing them in parralel.

"b1 used only the RBD of the SARS- CoV-2 spike protein. This candidate had the most data and appeared to be an excellent choice.
The second b2 was the one that used the full-length spike protein. It appeared to have a broader immune response..."
"However b2 was more difficult to produce, and with less overall data available , it was a much riskier choice."

"For 10 days we deliberated and fretted, and deliberated some more. Should we pick the one that we knew is good enough, or do we reach for something that might work better? 80% of the data we had for b1, and we couldn't afford the time to develop additional data for b2".

Who in their right mind would select b2?

Bourla made the decision, himself on July 24, 2020.

"Let's go with the b2 candidate and let's hope we are right."

[Thoughtful3]

The best way to stop harmful brainwashing is by not providing a platform to conspiracy-minded, anti-science individuals, and every other unhinged, paranoid lunatic you deign to present as an expert of some kind. 

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are not biological weapons. There is not one credible global scientific or intelligence body that validates Boyle's nonsensical claims of an engineered, offensive biological weapon.

Something else very interesting in Bourla's book.
On page 28 he makes reference to an agreement signed by BioNTech "with a Chinese company for China."

He does not name to company, however in the book "The Vaccine" by Joe Millar starring Ugur Sahin and Ozlem Tureci [CEO of BioNTech], Ugur recounts how in early January he was approached by an executive form Fosun pharmaceuticals with a request that they make a licensing agreement so that they could produce the vaccine in China.

Sahin thought that this was a fabulous idea because Wuhan had Covid ill people that they could test the mRNA vaccine on and they would learn how effective it was.
They signed the agreement in the Canary Islands.

So now China had access to the raw data. What did they learn 

Isn't it curious that China did not use it, especially considering it was so "safe and effective."
In fact they developed their own and promoted it to other countries.

Then there's this- December 17, 2019. Amazing timing.

https://www.eib.org/en/press/all/2019-36...for-europe

https://www.fosunpharma.com/en/content/d...11402.html

[Knows]

You silly billy, you know damn well he was silenced by the mainstream media. 

5 Months to even hear if anything can happen? Dragging their feet as he pushes to disease everyone. Looks like more of the same.   
Any regular citizen would be thrown in jail instantly.

[Thoughtful3]

From the book "The Vaccine" Pages 23, 25 & 26.

Ugur was invited to speak at the Grand Challenges in East Berlin in October 2018 to discuss BioNTech's mRNA technology. He thought it was odd at the time because the Gates foundation's focus was on infectious disease while he was focused on individualized cancer therapies using mRNA technology and at that point in time had only treated a few cases.

He made the presentation and in attendance were some key figures such as Tedros, Director of the WHO who made a strange comment that Sahin would win a noble prize for his technology.
Also  in attendance was Angela Merkel.

"Later that afternoon, however, Ugur found himself in a stuffy hotel room, making his case, face-to-face, with the world's biggest philanthropist."

Sahin presented him with details of the technology, basically teaching him that the immune system could be hacked.

"But the billionaires most burning question was whether Ugur's team had given much thought to infectious diseases. Was there potential, he wondered aloud, to develop mRNA- based drugs, in record speed, during a pandemic? Ugur might want to consider preparing a "plug-and-play" solution for that moment, Gates said, as a matter of urgency."

The Gates foundation made a substantial investment in BioNTech in September 2019. Billy sold at the high- a classic pump and dump. Best investment he has ever made, so he claimed at the World Economic Forum.

His parents were eugenists so there's that too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioNTech

[Thoughtful3]

5 Months to even hear if anything can happen? Dragging their feet as he pushes to disease everyone. Looks like more of the same.   
Any regular citizen would be thrown in jail instantly.

Can you imagine if we did anything like what they have done? Covid has done a lot of harm along with the jabs. Maybe something is happening behind the scenes. I'm trying to have some hoppium.

Everytime I read through these books I find more connections. I can't see how any court in the land would or could prosecute any of them based on numbers.

We have another 269 connection.
Page 97 in "Moonshot"
Margaret Kkenan took the first shot and William shakespeare [81] took the second shot.

"It had been 269 days since we started the vaccine's development." Line 16.

Billy made 269 tweets in 2021.
Warren Buffett made his first large donation to the Gates foundation when Phoebe was 2, Rory was 6 and Jennifer was 9.

There is a line on the top of page 69 in Billy's Climate manual and a line over pages 6 & 9 in his latest book "Source Code".

Line 26 on Page 17- "The obvious option was NOT [his bold] to use mRNA.

Page 62 "Was the decision to select candidate b2 instead of b1 wise? Maybe we should have chosen boosting with a second dose 28 days later, like everyone else, instead of 21. And why had we chosen to test results 7 days after the the 2nd dose instead of waiting 14 days when the immune response would be higher?
Everyone else was testing at 14 days. Were we brave or arrogant?" Ends on line 17.

Page 27-
This deals with the collaborative agreement signed by Pfizer and bioNTech.
"In addition we were going to provide $113   million in cash to them by buying equity from the company [bringing our total ownership of the company to [2.3%] at the time."


https://x.com/_Mr_Pool_/status/1851419666637328870

1,2,3 -23.


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/commen...t-12-31-98

[Shalhevet]

... edited by moderator ...

When the debate is lost, insults become the loser's tool. — Socrates

[Shalhevet]

As one of the stupid people I believed it was best to read what the people who developed those so called "Safe and Effective" vaccines wrote. After all this is in their own words. 

"Moonshot" by Albert Bourla [CEO of Pfizer]

Page 23- Remember when everyone was told 2 jabs and done?

"Mikael knew from previous discussions that the speed and development and the ABILITY TO BOOST OFTEN WERE VERY HIGH PRIORITIES TO ME." Line 10 & 11.

"It was important to have a vaccine that WE COULD BOOST AS OFTEN AS WAS NEEDED...."
This was always the plan.

Page 51 & 52 is very thought provoking. Pfizer had narrowed down to 2 different vaccine candidates b1 & b2, which had different formulations. They had stated with 4 candidates and contrary to normal practices, they were developing them in parralel.

"b1 used only the RBD of the SARS- CoV-2 spike protein. This candidate had the most data and appeared to be an excellent choice.
The second b2 was the one that used the full-length spike protein. It appeared to have a broader immune response..."
"However b2 was more difficult to produce, and with less overall data available , it was a much riskier choice."

"For 10 days we deliberated and fretted, and deliberated some more. Should we pick the one that we knew is good enough, or do we reach for something that might work better? 80% of the data we had for b1, and we couldn't afford the time to develop additional data for b2".

Who in their right mind would select b2?

Bourla made the decision, himself on July 24, 2020.

"Let's go with the b2 candidate and let's hope we are right."

When faced with a serious, life threatening global pandemic, time is of the essence, and, as a result, certain data-driven calculated risks have to be taken.

During the initial clinical trials, both B1 and B2 showed strong immunogenicity, but B2 stood out for its much better tolerability with markedly fewer severe adverse events. It was the right choice as it ultimately proved 95% effective in clinical trials and became the basis for the global COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

As for it always being the plan to have a vaccine they could boost as often as was needed, why would that be particularly concerning to you? Booster shots are a well-established public health strategy used to restore immunity that naturally wanes over time, so such a plan makes practical sense.

[Thoughtful3]

When faced with a serious, life threatening global pandemic, time is of the essence, and, as a result, certain data-driven calculated risks have to be taken.

During the initial clinical trials, both B1 and B2 showed strong immunogenicity, but B2 stood out for its much better tolerability with markedly fewer severe adverse events. It was the right choice as it ultimately proved 95% effective in clinical trials and became the basis for the global COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

As for it always being the plan to have a vaccine they could boost as often as was needed, why would that be particularly concerning to you? Booster shots are a well-established public health strategy used to restore immunity that naturally wanes over time, so such a plan makes practical sense.

95% effective?   Where have you been? Effective at what exactly?

Here's Pfizer's latest assessment of effectiveness, and I don't see 95%. That was the original claim to hoodwink the public into taking a jab that had been developed on a completely new platform.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/announcement...9-vaccines


I don't know about you but it did not instill any confidence with me that Pfizer tested the booster on only 8 mice. Why bother testing on any or on any one.


https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/...ves-anyway

There is a good book that covers what was discovered in the Pfizer Papers. A judge forced Pfizer to release the detailed clinical study papers that they wanted to keep confidential for 75 years.

"The Pfizer Papers"- Pfizer's Crimes Against Humanity compiled by Naomi Wolf with Amy Kelly.

[Thoughtful3]

Boosting is a big concern. From the second link-

"European Union regulators have already warned that frequent boosting can weaken the immune system."

From the Foreword from the Pfizer Papers-

"By November 2020, the company knew that it's vaccine was neither safe or effective. The Pfizer Papers proves that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration knew about the shortfalls of Pfizer's clinical trials...and looked the other way."

This book covers 450,000 pages of documents that were released. To parse through them scientists and researches world wide donated their services to study them. This was a huge undertaking. They made teams to look at different sections and compile results.

The Pfizer Papers also contains documentation of what happened post marketing- that is the 3 months after the "vaccine" was rolled out to the public.

None of this is positive.

[Thoughtful3]

When faced with a serious, life threatening global pandemic, time is of the essence, and, as a result, certain data-driven calculated risks have to be taken.

During the initial clinical trials, both B1 and B2 showed strong immunogenicity, but B2 stood out for its much better tolerability with markedly fewer severe adverse events. It was the right choice as it ultimately proved 95% effective in clinical trials and became the basis for the global COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

As for it always being the plan to have a vaccine they could boost as often as was needed, why would that be particularly concerning to you? Booster shots are a well-established public health strategy used to restore immunity that naturally wanes over time, so such a plan makes practical sense.

I imagine you have been mainly using the internet to get any information about the whole Covid-19 psyop.
Lots of misinformation out there. I encourage you to read some important books. I have read from both sides of the narrative so that I could formulate my own opinion.

1. The Bill Gates Problem - Reckoning with the Myth of the Good Billionaire by Tim Schwab.
2. The Pfizer Papers- compiled by Naomi Wolf.
3. The Real Anthony Fauci by RF Kennedy.

The Pfizer Papers goes into real details about the clinical trials which makes for some serious reading.

"But what really emerged from the first 46 reports, was the fact that though Covid is ostensibly a respiratory disease, the papers did not focus on lungs or mucus membranes, but rather they center, creepily and consistently, on disrupting human reproduction. 
By the time Pfizer's vaccine rolled out to the public, the pharmaceutical giant knew that they would be killing babies and significantly harming women and men's reproduction."

"In one section of the documents, over 80% of the pregnancies followed resulted in miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. In another section of the documents, 2 newborns died, and Pfizer described the cause of death as "maternal exposure" to the vaccine.

I focus heavily on Bill Gates and family, and his close relationship with Fauci.