Mercola is an OG of alternative medicine, and I've been following him since almost two decades ago - back when most of his work seemed to center around MCT and coconut oil. Happier times.
Here he is now, outlining some of the myriad ways the public may be coerced into becoming experimental GMO's:
What needs to happen first is to make most people out of work and broke; and they seem to be making a bang-up business at that.
The compulsory vaccination as a condition of employment is where they are going to get a lot of people who would otherwise not get vaccinated. I already saw this morning on a consensus media outlet this morning that they are doing what looks like monthly updates showing how many vaccines where shipped/sent out and how many where actually administered. It was like a scoreboard. Usually I can understand the "other side's" argument in situations like this. The conspiracy narrator vs. the mainstream or consensus narrative, w.e you want to call it, but I'm genuinely confused right now. I don't understand the narrative of this mass vaccination campaign, 90% of the population needs to get vaccinated to reach "herd immunity", etc., etc., when the vaccine does not stop infection or transmission. Is the narrative that you get the vaccine so if you do get covid your symptoms are not as pronounced so then you have less of a chance of spreading it to someone else?
Did they really say that 90% of people need to be vaccinated in order to reach herd immunity? I thought the whole idea behind herd immunity was that it was reached *without* vaccines. There's a lot here to be unraveled but with things going the way they are with the "justification" behind something as stupid as masks, my hopes are not too high. Here are some numbers anyway:
I'm gathering that pre-"vaccine" -
CV-19 Morbidity: 10% of population was infected
Infection fatality rate/IFR: 0.26% overall (and still not considering .02% or less for under 50 y/o)
**Non-vaccinated mortality rate for CV19 - not critical for this argument - is a heavily-weighted-towards-the-elderly (.26% * .1) = .026%, or 3/10,000 people; all while medical-cause mortality (including prescriptions and vaccines) hovers between 3 and 5/10,000 people across a much more evenly weighted demographic. Just sayin'**
They are saying the "vaccines" are "95% effective", when just living life is already 90% effective - with well over a 99% recovery rate from the 10% that have caught it? What constitutes that 5% vaccine ineffectiveness against catching CV19? And who would market a vaccine that is only 50% more effective than a placebo? And again, what IS that 5%: Catching CV19 or a severe adverse reaction and/or permanent vaccine injury?
So a serious "conversation" is being had on whether to take a risky, experimental, undertested, untrusted vaccine that is only 50% more effective than doing nothing at all (considering that masks/no masks and lockdowns/no lockdowns doesn't make any difference)? Sometimes I really think we are all being trolled big time.
But for all I care it could be magical unicorn tears, my issue is with the choice or lack thereof. That's why I'm saving my big pile of FU money right now.
https://www.rt.com/usa/512830-griner-mother-pfizer-vaccine-video/
More and more articles and videos like this one are popping up (no surprises).
I hope people will pay attention that you don't have to be an anti-vaxer to be skeptical of this non-vaccine mRNA poison.
