7 Comments

Absolutely extraordinary conclusion!

Expand full comment

The only conclusion a scientist can reach looking at the data would be a strong chance a young man will experience myo/pericarditis. Developers of the vaccine can be reassured (if there was any doubt) that their desired outcome(s) are coming to fruition.

They changed the definition of vaccine. You just didn't hear the silent parts of the definition. Relax, dear reader. They have us in their hands.

Expand full comment

I wonder what the conclusions were in the original submitted manuscript, before it was reviewed?

Expand full comment

Well, according to (professor?)Jason Leitch, Scotland’s medical director, heart problems are extremely rare. Some people are allergic to the ingredients in the vaccine but don’t worry because they’ve tinkered with the recipe and there are alternative vaccines to try. Don’t listen to this radio QA session if you’ve got high blood pressure. The man is dangerous. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001qfmk

Expand full comment

Well Scotland along with Wales went full on fascist during the scamdemic.

The Welsh government even instructed supermarkets to tape off the aisle with the period products on.

Behaviour from all was overbearing and disgusting however stopping women from buying tampax they needed was a whole new low.

Expand full comment

In case anyone wanted to make a case of intention...

Expand full comment

Many studies I've looked at where the data clearly shows harms always end with the conclusion that the shot is great etc etc.

This is why I call them vaccine cultists. Only a cult would continue to deceive itself as to the evidence, twisting and turning it into "proof" of good outcomes when we see harms.

Expand full comment