Now she doesn't have to answer questions about adding the jew jab as a mandatory vaccine for kids. This is an excuse. They've done this with Albert Bourla, Trudeau and Biden several times.
We have to stop pretending that the jab is supposed to prevent infection. I think we all now understand that was never the actual purpose of the jab. That was media, and CDC, nonsense. The jab manufacturers stated, specifically, in their application for EUA that it did not prevent infection.
We're not pretending anything. They swore up and down these shots would prevent illness, even though we knew better. We're just throwing it back in their faces.
Yes. Not infection. "Effective" didn't have anything to do with not getting infected.
Clinically, "effective" means you had an immunity response. According to the application for EUA, however, "effective" was catching the virus, but not getting any symptoms. It was only the media, talking heads, and the CDC (but only after a year, Walensky) that suggested you wouldn't get infected with the jab.
"She got the jab, but got infected a month later." misses the point. It was never intended for you to not get infected.
Read the EUA applications. "Getting Covid" is not the same as "getting infected," or "testing positive."
The whole campaign to fire and ostracize people who wouldn't take the shot was based on it stopping transmission. It was fraudulent from the beginning.
The campaign by media and talking heads who are paid to lie and have no accountability.
The manufacturers stated, very clearly, in their application for the EUA, that the jab does not prevent infection, but prevented symptoms if you did get infected.
[ + ] Eligrey
[ - ] Eligrey 1 point 2.7 yearsOct 23, 2022 15:34:57 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Stonkmar
[ - ] Stonkmar 1 point 2.7 yearsOct 23, 2022 11:32:12 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Fascinus
[ - ] Fascinus 0 points 2.7 yearsOct 23, 2022 20:36:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Crackinjokes
[ - ] Crackinjokes 0 points 2.7 yearsOct 23, 2022 18:49:15 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Diggernicks56
[ - ] Diggernicks56 0 points 2.7 yearsOct 23, 2022 18:45:10 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Lordbananafist
[ - ] Lordbananafist 0 points 2.7 yearsOct 23, 2022 11:47:59 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX -1 points 2.7 yearsOct 23, 2022 11:26:34 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] uvulectomy
[ - ] uvulectomy 1 point 2.7 yearsOct 23, 2022 14:32:44 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.7 yearsOct 23, 2022 15:34:21 ago (+0/-0)
Yes. Not infection. "Effective" didn't have anything to do with not getting infected.
Clinically, "effective" means you had an immunity response. According to the application for EUA, however, "effective" was catching the virus, but not getting any symptoms. It was only the media, talking heads, and the CDC (but only after a year, Walensky) that suggested you wouldn't get infected with the jab.
"She got the jab, but got infected a month later." misses the point. It was never intended for you to not get infected.
Read the EUA applications. "Getting Covid" is not the same as "getting infected," or "testing positive."
[ + ] uvulectomy
[ - ] uvulectomy 0 points 2.7 yearsOct 23, 2022 20:33:33 ago (+0/-0)
Try again, faggot.
https://files.catbox.moe/wkb2f8.mp4
[ + ] noonefromnowhere
[ - ] noonefromnowhere 0 points 2.7 yearsOct 23, 2022 15:31:59 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.7 yearsOct 23, 2022 15:36:10 ago (+0/-0)
The manufacturers stated, very clearly, in their application for the EUA, that the jab does not prevent infection, but prevented symptoms if you did get infected.