Nostr Web Client

The reason both mercury and aluminum were added into vaccines was specifically because they didn’t work without them.

When these were added (which was originally a mistake because it was a cleaning agent that they failed to remove from a horse antibody vaccine), it would create a HUGE immune response. Something like 100x or more immune reaction in the body. And it would treat everything with it as an intruder, and learned to fight it all off. This is why such a small, weakened amount of some virus can be added, but your body will build antibodies for it.

The crazy thing is, they were so happy with the success, that they just ignored any possible damage that these additions would cause. They excused it away, defended it with bad science, used studies of *ingested* aluminum to defend it being directly injected to the bloodstream (hilariously not the same thing), and have done everything they can to cover it up, while also ensuring that they aren’t liable for **any** of the horrible consequences of aggressive over vaccination.

The simple, and common sense question should be, WHY does the body have such a vicious immune reaction to these metals? The simple answer: they are horrible for the human body. They cause neurological damage and are carried through the lymph nodes all over the body. And the immune response is so aggressive that it causes the body to overreact to other, innocuous things. It’s not a coincidence that the very concept of food allergies were literally nonexistent, until mess vaccination became a thing. Vaccines work against their claimed disease, but they have a long, horrible list of chronic, neurological, and immune diseases that should be obvious if we weren’t so blind with “normality.”

Normal and accepted means neither safe, nor truthful. The very creation of vaccines and what made them work suggest the very side effects that are now rather thoroughly proven. I mean shit mother’s with autistic children have literally been paid damages in court in multiple cases. It’s only that people are too afraid of looking like a fool (understandably), because they know others will react poorly, or they are too afraid to let themselves believe something so widespread could be so wrong.

Time will reveal the truth, it’s just sad how many, and specifically how many children, will pay and have already paid for such a horrible lie to be uncovered.

Dr. Bob 2y ago

nostr:npub1l2h50te8u00qd6plx3hudn82p24lcafqmqhlayxy3h7dwsxxnj4q28n2lz nostr:npub185cl0jg373tl9hqaa000z0znzw7r5c909nkc2ndf9mvmgenqxpjqf4x93y

nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev isn't reasoning well but the gestalt of his argument is valid. If vax administration causes system-wide inflammation, then what if the cure is worse than the disease? This hasn't been adequately studied. Lifelong allergies for 50% of population, and continuing propogation of weak genetics, and way too many old people dying of chronic diseases that need long term care, vs 20% of your sickly people dying and leaving the gene pool, and folks dying younger but more quickly and not taxing the system. What if that's what we're looking at? Nobody asks that question. Half (made up stat) of my younger colleagues want people to live forever and are afraid of death. My older colleagues are bleeding hearts and want to eliminate suffering.

Doctoring needs to focus on relieving the suffering of the individual, not groups. There is a fine line between using evidence to guide care for an individual (i.e. which med works for this?), and using it to dictate public health. The key is in admitting you don't know what you don't know. And you don't know what you didn't measure.

The corruption and hubris of the scientigic community and medical system in the US is sickening. I happen to have dipped toes in both pools, and internationally. The vast majority of us who are actually caring for people don't have the bandwidth to adress even a fraction of the problems. We usually can't even verify the quality of evidence handed to us, instead outsourcing that to a third party.

Lastly, it's okay to call out poor reasoning, sensationalism, etc., but I find it poor form to assign another human a "lane". Really, this lane of health is everyone's.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

mattybs 2y ago

Great post, thank you. This one isn't overconfident and rushing to conclusion. There's really no area of health that couldn't always use more study. But we can only go with what we have pending additional study -- perpetually.

Dr. Bob 2y ago

We don't have to "go" with anything.

Scientific neglect is a real thing, and a good thing.

mattybs 2y ago

Re: the "lane" comment - I still stand by that. Influencers (not unlike drs in academia) are often found making statements about subjects that are not their area of study or expertise. Not my cup of tea regardless of whether or not I agree with the statement on its own merits. It's one of the nasty parts of social media and I like nostr for its typical lack of it.

Sourcenode 2y ago

You may notice that you have assigned Guy with a title 'influencer', which has no real definition and Guy probably doesn't identify with that title.

I don't take what he says as true or false because of who he is, but because I understand what he is saying.

He has a following because he creates quality content and dedicates himself to what he is researching.

Guy Swann 2y ago

“Influencer” is just a term to use against people who have an audience to dismiss what they have to say as “he’s just doing it for clout” or whatever.

I neither spout bullshit for attention, nor did I even think this would get a positive response. On Twitter it’s almost nothing but derision and insults. Granted I bet a ton of people agree now, but I think many are afraid of liking or retweeting because it almost invariably means a shadow ban.

That said I don’t think of myself as an “influencer” and find it a vapid term.

Though, I suspect anybody that calls me one just doesn’t listen to anything I produce or chooses to ignore anything I say or do because it’s a convenient term for many to dismiss an argument without having to make one themselves.

And I don’t mean to be insulting to anyone despite obviously being a bit standoffish about all this. Hard not to be.

Sourcenode 2y ago

I understand. These are difficult times.

We all just want safety and good health for ourselves and those we love.

It doesn't have to be like this.

average_bitcoiner 2y ago

Some just aspire to inspire. Nothing more.

Gigi 2y ago

The guy who has influenced more people about Bitcoin than anybody else you know.

Guy Swann 2y ago

🤣🤣

Dr. Bob 2y ago

Unclear that you're in your lane lol. I'm going to disagree with you here. Who decides what lanes people get to play in? Who decides what level of expertise merits lane-admittance? And can't an outsider make salient points? And can't an insider make imbecillic mistakes?

A cool thing of having fresh preclinical med students on the wards is their distinct lack of expertise. They're uncomfortable and "out of their lane" so they think differently and often provide valuable insight.

Docs telling others to stay in their lane has caused pain through history. I'm grateful for nonexperts who speak up.

Again, healthcare is everyone's lane.

Hoshi 2y ago

I hate the idea of vaccine adjuvants, too. But, the benefits of vaccination on the population level are greater than any possible side effects when there is a descent chance to get infected. If I have to choose between taking a vaccine or a virus (with high probability) I will take the vaccine. The idea (that I often hear) that viruses are natural and therefore good is wrong. There is nothing natural about modern city live. Also, viruses cause inflammation. Sometimes for the rest of your life.

Guy Swann 2y ago

Claiming the benefits outweigh the side effects is a blanket and unsubstantiated claim that has nothing to do with the science. Because the science has completely failed to quantify the degree and severity of the side effects.

To the contrary it has ignored and covered it up. Again, find me the controlled clinical long term trials of vaccinated vs unvaccinated. If you make broad, declarative claims you need to back it up. You can’t just lean in “a bunch of people say this” as evidence.

Hoshi 2y ago

Vaccines got us rid of smallpox among other things. Any possible effects vaccines *might* have are small in comparison on the population level. You may get a vaccine that kills you for a disease that you weren’t at risk of acquiring. But that is rare. Nevertheless, more research is welcome. You are looking for serious adverse reactions for a massive amount of people that show no signs in the first year after vaccination. Sounds unlikely to me. There is little pressure to fund such studies.

Guy Swann 2y ago

Also I would ask. Are you suggesting that whatever the side effects are, that “vaccinating” literally baby girls for “cervical cancer when they are like 80 years old” with an HPV shot is worth it? Even though there’s literally no possible way they can now giving this to an infant will have any effect whatsoever with a patient that has absolutely no risk for the issue. It’s such an absurdity of interventionism without any risk assessment that common sense alone should make it non viable.

allen 2y ago

reasonable, but depends on the illness, the timing, the combinations, and the dosage.

Zach⚡️ 2y ago

If you really feel that way, I think you’re misinformed, but I respect the honest approach to the subject.

You’re free to take any vaccines or medicine you wish, just don’t force it by mandate onto me, my future children, or any other people who do not consent.

Hoshi 2y ago

Don‘t worry, I don‘t vote for anything or anyone.