Some vaccine skeptics say "buyer beware" and don't talk about the jabs. Most warn about the basic risks but nothing else. I believe we need to boldly tell the truth even if it's controversial.
The observation of unusual frequency cases of serious hepatitis in young children in Britain raises the question of shedding affecting that un-injected demographic. Commentators in Britain contended that "it couldn't be the jab because this age group was not inoculated" but that overlooks the issue of 'shedding'.
Shedding is absolutely a possibility, and was identified, though not under the name 'shedding' in the trial safety documentation. For example, in the section on pregnancy they give an example of a reportable (to Pfizer) 'exposure': "A male family member or health care provider who has been exposed to the study intervention (inoculation) by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception". In other words, they are concerned about a woman who might have second hand exposure to the breath or touch of someone who was inoculated as part of the trial. A Trial participant produces antigens (spike proteins) [or something else??] which are shed, exposing all contacts, in turn these contacts somehow expose the woman in question by touch or breath. It sounds to me as if they are contemplating some kind of exposure scenario which would logically have to be questioned with regard to unjabbed kids getting exposed in the same manner, by inhalation or skin contact. The example can be found in Section 8.3.5.1 of the Pfizer Trial Clinical Protocol , on p68.
Some things I turn off: transhumanism. There are no viruses. They are hooking people up to giant computer. Once a person gets shot, he's property of pfizer...Pfizer....
The observation of unusual frequency cases of serious hepatitis in young children in Britain raises the question of shedding affecting that un-injected demographic. Commentators in Britain contended that "it couldn't be the jab because this age group was not inoculated" but that overlooks the issue of 'shedding'.
Shedding is absolutely a possibility, and was identified, though not under the name 'shedding' in the trial safety documentation. For example, in the section on pregnancy they give an example of a reportable (to Pfizer) 'exposure': "A male family member or health care provider who has been exposed to the study intervention (inoculation) by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception". In other words, they are concerned about a woman who might have second hand exposure to the breath or touch of someone who was inoculated as part of the trial. A Trial participant produces antigens (spike proteins) [or something else??] which are shed, exposing all contacts, in turn these contacts somehow expose the woman in question by touch or breath. It sounds to me as if they are contemplating some kind of exposure scenario which would logically have to be questioned with regard to unjabbed kids getting exposed in the same manner, by inhalation or skin contact. The example can be found in Section 8.3.5.1 of the Pfizer Trial Clinical Protocol , on p68.
Some things I turn off: transhumanism. There are no viruses. They are hooking people up to giant computer. Once a person gets shot, he's property of pfizer...Pfizer....
There are bizarre stuff out there. But....
DON'T TAKE KILL SHOT. THIS IS A DEPOPULATION PLAN