RE: Will The “Dirty 16” Be Convicted of Genocide?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I very much appreciate the unexpected courtesy and substance of your reply. I am very happy you undertake to pay some attention to the information. I will point out a slight misunderstanding you have regarding the 'hot lots' of jabs. It is not one bad lot, but several, and split amongst manufacturers.
As you note, were it just one bad batch, that could certainly be a manufacturing problem. It's not.
Here's an article that provides specifics which seem to nominally show intent and deliberate harm. I note that folks who are dependent on their support for the jab agenda for the suppression of their inchoate anxiety will find facts that show that agenda is a crime against humanity will find such facts an intolerable threat to their felicity. Your comment I originally replied to indicated to me you were amongst that number, but this one indicates I may have misinterpreted your situation. I do hope I was wrong, and that you remain capable of being right rather than dependent on defending your position at all costs.
While we seem to write rather similarly, I note we seem to come to different conclusions. I think that's fine. I'm happy about it. If you only agree with me on everything you will never teach me anything I don't know, and that would be tragic. You have already taught me things I didn't know, and I am grateful. I hope I return the favor, and you are benefited thereby.
Thanks!
Thank you for that article link, which had everything I'm typically looking for (except links to the studies themselves) in a publication that claims to be news.
The information here wouldn't be enough for a conviction in my opinion, but it should be enough to get warrants. A good angle for them to use (which even the article didn't mention) is how 'conveniently' the bad batches end up in poor communities, even when it presents a significant logistical hurdle to deployment of that batch. It is likely that somebody sorted batches that were outside (or barely within) spec to areas where there would be less blowback from higher than average adverse reactions. If they could find some proof that this happened, they could probably get some state AGs to take up criminal charges. AG James here in NY seems to have a real hard-on for big pharma.
Unfortunately, what I think is most likely to happen is that at best, there will be some civil liability suits, they'll settle out with NDAs, and some of the victim's families will recieve small checks.
I can't thank you enough for your well written reply. So far, everyone I've had these kind of discussions with has muted me. It's normal for reasonable people to see the same things through the same fileters and STILL come to different conclusions. Everybody has to weigh their knowledge against their experience and their desires, to come to their conclusions. Even people who see facts the same way will have different experiences, and desires, and won't necessarily agree on how they react to those facts. The important thing is to remember that we don't have to agree on everything to get along, we just have to agree to respect each other's decisions.