New: Government Whistleblower Signs Sworn Affidavit Saying Over 45,000 Have Died from Vaxx!

submitted by send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It’s also notable, the motion continued, “that in the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine campaign (in which 25% of the U.S. population at that time, 55 million Americans, were vaccinated), the Swine Flu vaccine was deemed dangerous and unsafe, and removed from the market, even though the vaccine resulted in only 53 deaths.”

If 25% of the American population hasn't dropped dead in the last 45 years from the Swine Flu vaccines, I'm not sure what kind of message are they sending? It's dangerous because the government made most people live at the end of the day, and not die?

[–]sylla94 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

vaccines =/= "vaccines"

not that i'd take either

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So you're saying the 1976 vaccine served a completely different purpose? What was that? To scare people?

Sounds like it had the completely opposite effect if the government never actually got away with sterilizing the masses.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Obviously it was brought up as an example of a responsible government taking a dangerous vaccine off the market at the 56 death mark. They didn't bring up the incident to say the swine flu vaccine was a crypto sterilization or culling weapon.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why authorize the vaccine at all if they knew it was deadly? If the government was working with the assumption it was going to save lives, then that's basically the exact same knowledge being used with current vaccinations and why it's not being pulled.

If it were some pre-meditated bioweapon, then we have an example that most people didn't die the last time they rolled it out to the majority population.

it was brought up as an example of a responsible government taking a dangerous vaccine off the market at the 56 death mark.

Even if we were to play into the "responsible government" idea, very little about U.S politics has changed all these years that makes politicians more trustworthy in the past.

Like hell, we had President Nixon lie a few years prior to keep the U.S in Vietnam. Or they were running the Tuskegee experiments on Black people up until 1972. But somehow, they drew a moral line with vaccines after already injecting 55 million people with it because...?

[–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

very little about U.S politics has changed all these years that makes politicians more trustworthy in the past.

There's a very relevant difference between trustworthy and trusted. One could argue that politicians of any time and place are never trustworthy, but that doesn't mean that people don't trust them anyway. The fact is that Americans trust their government at pretty much the lowest rate ever, which could just mean that they're wising up to what has always been true.