I don't much care about the data. It assumes there is a positive and healthy reason to inject yourself with mRNA poisons. There is NO amount of data that will ever change my mind about taking big pharma drugs, vaccines and mRNA poisons. I refuse to engage with any big pharma product.
Great work Joy. I've just downloaded the study. I'll read it this week and share with family members who have young children. They are the ones who have the power to destroy the vaccine industry. You look fabulous btw.
Thank you Joy. I share your control group info often. I agree that 'safe and effective' is a marketing jingle and not remotely the language of science.
I have a question about newer statistic on chronic disease in our country. Often we hear the quote that there are 54 percent chronic illnesses in children. This 54 number is from either 2006 or 2011. Did the number get so much larger that the CDC does not report new numbers? Does getting this info require bunches of FOIA requests and going to court -- or a fairy godmother? Would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this topic.
When they don't age scotch whiskey long enough to be labelled as scotch whiskey, they call it rare. J & B Rare Scotch Whiskey. In steak, rare means illegal to serve in a restaurant. In vaccines, rare means whatever they say it means. Certainly it doesn't mean that side effects are uncommon.
You should factor in the influence of ultrasound, it seems quite possible that ultrasound initiates a vulnerability that a secondary stressor (vaccines) exploit:
Just as important as keeping clear of P-Harma, is the idea of keeping POSITIVE, and keeping our hearts full of Love. LOVE IS ALL YOU NEED, said my namesake... ^_^
Hernandez suggests that theists who construe God as an object of knowledge have a special culpability for God's death since they not only promote an idea of God that plays directly into atheism but also "contribute to the problems facing humanity . . . by undermining the mystery that Marcel thinks underlies the relationship between God and humans" (p. 32). Further, Hernandez argues that, for Marcel, the way in which one responds to the death of God is the defining existential issue for all individuals. "Marcel's position," she writes,
is that for any given individual, regardless of their belief, the death of God presents an unavoidable moral obstacle that must be wrestled with in order for freedom (and then, moral responsibility and virtue) to be able to take hold. The obstacle of the death of God is not something that can be overcome; it is an existential dilemma that can only be struggled over and grappled with until, ultimately, one's life is defined by it. (p. 48)
The first step in the Marcelian ethical life, then, is to recognize one's own participation in the destruction of meaning and value embodied in the death of God. This participation is rooted in one's functional, materialist, and rationalist stance toward existence. Even if this destruction of meaning and value cannot be finally and definitively overcome, Hernandez argues, the lived struggle against it can form the basis for the creation of existential meaning.
I think this is a great idea. I would also in the future like to see some numbers of how many murderers have been found guilty (and hung) broken down by profession, age and extent of their participation in the genocide. That would be so nice.
So what is the problem here is almost insurmountable. If we trust why is there trust even with transparency? Facts we collect require context. If the transparency is by the magic filter of course alternative contexts arise.
I don't much care about the data. It assumes there is a positive and healthy reason to inject yourself with mRNA poisons. There is NO amount of data that will ever change my mind about taking big pharma drugs, vaccines and mRNA poisons. I refuse to engage with any big pharma product.
Great work Joy. I've just downloaded the study. I'll read it this week and share with family members who have young children. They are the ones who have the power to destroy the vaccine industry. You look fabulous btw.
Thank you Joy. I share your control group info often. I agree that 'safe and effective' is a marketing jingle and not remotely the language of science.
I have a question about newer statistic on chronic disease in our country. Often we hear the quote that there are 54 percent chronic illnesses in children. This 54 number is from either 2006 or 2011. Did the number get so much larger that the CDC does not report new numbers? Does getting this info require bunches of FOIA requests and going to court -- or a fairy godmother? Would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this topic.
When they don't age scotch whiskey long enough to be labelled as scotch whiskey, they call it rare. J & B Rare Scotch Whiskey. In steak, rare means illegal to serve in a restaurant. In vaccines, rare means whatever they say it means. Certainly it doesn't mean that side effects are uncommon.
Excellent! I have sent on your study and graphs countless times. Thank you for this honest work and appraisal of these poison injections!
You should factor in the influence of ultrasound, it seems quite possible that ultrasound initiates a vulnerability that a secondary stressor (vaccines) exploit:
https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Conducted-Indicate-Prenatal-Ultrasound/dp/1941719031/ref=sr_1_1?crid=36IZ9SADBHSYC&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.H0xsVboncUsrTAjAn5C_ij1Wurr2vxfb5aDML-iZSi_oD5DlCbJ2z7C0iqzTqgV3.P6uwVFnN7NUwe_PKwO9JRUxEkp6PXuq-aWkoRcEXpNo&dib_tag=se&keywords=jim+west+ultrasound&qid=1714329961&sprefix=jim+west+ultrasoun%2Caps%2C153&sr=8-1
Just as important as keeping clear of P-Harma, is the idea of keeping POSITIVE, and keeping our hearts full of Love. LOVE IS ALL YOU NEED, said my namesake... ^_^
GOOD WORK, and THANK YOU.
xo xo
https://realnewsaustralia.com/2021/08/14/covid-19-adverse-event-under-reporting/
https://i-base.info/qa/812 definition of rare
Hernandez suggests that theists who construe God as an object of knowledge have a special culpability for God's death since they not only promote an idea of God that plays directly into atheism but also "contribute to the problems facing humanity . . . by undermining the mystery that Marcel thinks underlies the relationship between God and humans" (p. 32). Further, Hernandez argues that, for Marcel, the way in which one responds to the death of God is the defining existential issue for all individuals. "Marcel's position," she writes,
is that for any given individual, regardless of their belief, the death of God presents an unavoidable moral obstacle that must be wrestled with in order for freedom (and then, moral responsibility and virtue) to be able to take hold. The obstacle of the death of God is not something that can be overcome; it is an existential dilemma that can only be struggled over and grappled with until, ultimately, one's life is defined by it. (p. 48)
The first step in the Marcelian ethical life, then, is to recognize one's own participation in the destruction of meaning and value embodied in the death of God. This participation is rooted in one's functional, materialist, and rationalist stance toward existence. Even if this destruction of meaning and value cannot be finally and definitively overcome, Hernandez argues, the lived struggle against it can form the basis for the creation of existential meaning.
https://i-base.info/qa/812 Clinical definition of rare
I think this is a great idea. I would also in the future like to see some numbers of how many murderers have been found guilty (and hung) broken down by profession, age and extent of their participation in the genocide. That would be so nice.
So what is the problem here is almost insurmountable. If we trust why is there trust even with transparency? Facts we collect require context. If the transparency is by the magic filter of course alternative contexts arise.