> Bill Gates and WHO peddle vaccines on dubious science. (nostr:npub1r55pwxcv8gay2tx8zqkq9f24u4usp7au2l2g6834skprsurf960q0qmxk9's note)
And as response I commented, that this is a simplification, whi...
Bill Gates + WHO is a verifiable connection, and when there's that much money at stake the studies to justify them ... well, let's say that the starting assumption should be that they are not to be trusted.
If you want to look closely at the effectiveness (and safety) of vaccines, there's plenty of information out there. Someone stating a verifiable fact does not need to show evidence; it's out there for anyone who is willing to dig beyond mainstream sources.
One interesting starting point before even looking at the studies is the basic logical framework: when you have a product that
-is enormously profitable (annual revenue around 90 billion USD)
-whose uptake is enforced by government
-and for which there is no accountability
the moral hazard is huge. That system does not incentivize safe and effective products. Does that mean there are no safe and effective vaccines? No, of course not. Does it mean that you should approach the entire field with a dose of health skepticism? yes, obviously.
In the US, vaccines used to be the only product for which companies enjoyed complete freedom from liability (thus no accountability) and sadly the pesticide glyphosate is now entering that club: as long as the agency assigned to test the safety of the pesticide is ok with it, citizens cannot sue for the cancer and other health effects that it causes.
The natural, totally predictable next step is full agency capture by Bayer/Monsanto, just as has been true for US health agencies and pharmaceutical companies.
If you want to look closely at the effectiveness (and safety) of vaccines, there's plenty of information out there. Someone stating a verifiable fact does not need to show evidence; it's out there for anyone who is willing to dig beyond mainstream sources.
One interesting starting point before even looking at the studies is the basic logical framework: when you have a product that
-is enormously profitable (annual revenue around 90 billion USD)
-whose uptake is enforced by government
-and for which there is no accountability
the moral hazard is huge. That system does not incentivize safe and effective products. Does that mean there are no safe and effective vaccines? No, of course not. Does it mean that you should approach the entire field with a dose of health skepticism? yes, obviously.
In the US, vaccines used to be the only product for which companies enjoyed complete freedom from liability (thus no accountability) and sadly the pesticide glyphosate is now entering that club: as long as the agency assigned to test the safety of the pesticide is ok with it, citizens cannot sue for the cancer and other health effects that it causes.
The natural, totally predictable next step is full agency capture by Bayer/Monsanto, just as has been true for US health agencies and pharmaceutical companies.
4
