18 thoughts on “Meme of the Day #61”

  1. Reuters Rushes in to Protect Government, Informing Us Nobody Promised Vaccines Would Prevent Spread of COVID

    In an audacious change in the script, Reuters’ latest fact-check informs us rabble we were wrong to think the vaccine would stop the virus.

    It is not necessary to rehash much of what we heard over the past few years regarding the efficacy of the COVID vaccines. We were lectured ad nauseam about not only the effectiveness of the shots to halt the spread, but how it was all but required of us to get the shot. Twice. Then the booster. Then the next boosters. All were assured these would stop the outbreak, and anyone daring to question things was considered heretical–and in need of retribution.

    Well, now comes some rather shocking news from Reuters: It was all a load of crap. The news outlet performs a staggering. revisionist history fact-check to tell us that it was all our own fault for believing the vaccines would save us from infection. We somehow came up with this conclusion on our own because, according to the news syndicate, nobody promised us the vaccines would work. Imagine everyone’s surprise.

    This all stems from a European Parliament committee that called Pfizer executives to testify, and the drug company experts actually came out to declare they had no idea if their vaccine would, in fact, halt the spread of COVID. Testifying was Janine Small, appearing in place of the company’s CEO, Albert Bourla. Unknown was whether Bourla’s absence was a result of his contracting COVID himself–for the second time, it needs to be pointed out.

    As a result of this testimony, Reuters has chosen to not explore the history of authorities, medical experts, and the media telling us that we needed to get vaccinated to halt the spread. Instead, they take the easy route of declaring no one made such a promise, and it is our own fault for believing this possibility.

    To get emergency approval, companies needed to show that the vaccines were safe and prevented vaccinated people from getting ill. They did not have to show that the vaccine would also prevent people from spreading the virus to others. The misleading posts imply that national restrictions such as vaccine passports were based on a promise of vaccines blocking virus spread that neither the companies nor EU regulators made before the vaccines were marketed.

    This is quite the revisionist history. I recall Dr. Anthony Fauci touting the need to vaccinate to create people becoming “dead ends” for the spread. Joe Biden repeatedly made the claim the vaccine halted the spread. As for the press itself, there are countless submissions to note, of non-medically-trained journalists lecturing the public in condescending fashion over the effectiveness and need of the Pfizer injections.

    REUTERS FACT CHECK

    OCTOBER 15, 20226:33 AM

    Fact Check-Preventing transmission never required for COVID vaccines’ initial approval; Pfizer vax did reduce transmission of early variants


    Report comment

    8
  2. Social media users are circulating video clips of testimony by a Pfizer executive, who is said to “admit” that the company and its partner BioNTech did not test whether their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine reduced virus transmission prior to rolling it out – which is something the companies were not required to do for initial regulatory approval, nor did they claim to have done.

    To get emergency approval, companies needed to show that the vaccines were safe and prevented vaccinated people from getting ill. They did not have to show that the vaccine would also prevent people from spreading the virus to others. Once the vaccines were on the market, independent researchers in multiple countries studied people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and did show that vaccination reduced transmission of variants circulating at the time.

    As these results on transmission were emerging in early 2021, national health authorities in many countries implemented or proposed vaccine-passport-style regulations that prompted ongoing debate (here) over the ethical and legal basis of the rules.

    The misleading posts imply that national restrictions such as vaccine passports were based on a promise of vaccines blocking virus spread that neither the companies nor EU regulators made before the vaccines were marketed.

    ‘COMPLETE NONSENSE’


    Report comment

    3
  3. Oz @8:31
    (From Reuters)To get emergency approval, companies needed to show that the vaccines were safe and prevented vaccinated people from getting ill.

    So how do they answer the question of why bully the unvaxxed?, – “the unvaccinated won’t have any rights” etc.

    If the jabs did in fact prevent the recipients from getting sick – and that was all they were designed to do and govts and citizens had been informed of that,
    1) there should have been no reason to need multiple jabs over a short space of time and,
    2) no justification to force the taking of a jab and “Nanna would have been fine.”


    Report comment

    9
  4. Do these clowns ever listen to themselves spruiking their goofball animist religion? Do they ever wonder what it sounds like in the outer suburbs of the real world?


    Report comment

    13
  5. If the jabs prevented the vaxed getting sick and not dying from Covid does that mean the ones who died died from the Jab.
    The Covid death count suddenly went quite when Vax injuries raised their ugly heads.


    Report comment

    6
  6. Cancer deaths are exploding.

    Yes, I suspect we will be seeing much more cancer over the next 5-10 years.

    I’m no doctor, but cancer is cell mutations and degradation causing problems.

    Definitely no chance of something designed to modify your DNA and change things at a cellular level causing cancer, none at all….


    Report comment

    4
  7. Definitely no chance of something designed to modify your DNA and change things at a cellular level causing cancer, none at all….

    In the one case I can say confidently, the jab was much delayed and I dont think it reasonable to attribute lung cancer in an 85 year old smoker, to a jab 4 months before her death. The delays in going to the doctor, on the other hand…


    Report comment

    3
  8. FWIW on the covid scene

    “el gato malo- yes, pfizer marketed the vaccines as stopping spread”

    https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/yes-pfizer-marketed-the-vaccines?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play

    Via http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2022/10/17/film-at-11/

    “You sons of bitches — every single one of the political, medical and pharmaceutical folks involved in making, distributing and coercing, whether through word or deed and whether actual coercion or simply “advocating” for the use of non-sterilizing, S-only jabs should be indicted, tried, convicted and executed for setting the stage for a mass-death event that would never happen if only natural infection was allowed to course through the population.

    I have previously documented through multiple published studies that the jabs appear to inhibit, in many people, production of “N” antibodies if you get jabbed before you’re infected. It is not known (to my knowledge in the literature anyway; I might have missed it) whether or not being infected first, then jabbed, impacts your “N” response.”

    More at

    https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=247200

    One way of looking at that

    https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0b4Fju1iBUhBSR7V_orRlv3P0Cw9iZgIhBeXuYF4fdg8hLZQ5au—Dd37Hb-1ZIj_cjtksCH9F9smKZLsCXoASvM9gic5UCnOLKTL0FqnTAri4DIQEXySh-f315R7ZeSCb04apidyLv8TTL7cF2TGLVd_fk6B145vt3aN9yxmRRpl7sYZKK2mbTG/w400-h376/Meme%20-%20tinfoil%20hat%20better%20than%20vaccine.png


    Report comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.