Vaccine Ineffectiveness Questioned

More than one visitor to our blog has questioned, among other things, our contention that the H1N1 vaccine was admitted by the drug company manufacturer to be "effective less than 30% of the time", as well as our inference that most other vaccines are similarly ineffective, or worse. Consequently, since we feel that for the few people that inquire about something like that, thousands simply do not bother to ask, but of course still question it, or simply do not accept or believe it, incorrectly assuming that we are just "conspiracy theorists" making stuff up -- we assure we can't make up stuff like this -- nor would we if we could...

Consequently, we felt compelled to address the matter in this post.

First note, backing up a little, that the FDA only requires that vaccines be "effective" for THREE out of TEN injected victims. Most people are unaware of that and are shocked by it, particularly anyone that is aware that the vaccines contain damaging toxins, realizing that the converse is that SEVEN out of TEN victims are being injected with the damaging toxins for no reason, for no benefit, and conversely to the detriment of their health and well being. Are you asking yourself why isn't the effectiveness requirement 10 out of 10, or 100% effective? You should also be asking why the useless, needless, unexplained plethora of damaging toxins are in the vaccine when there is no logical explainable reason for them being there.

Next, consider that the drug company inserts provided with the H1N1 vaccines -- which are an admission/disclaimer of the dangers and the lack of "efficacy" of the vaccines -- stated the aforementioned "effective less than 30% of the time" admission (consider that LESS THAN 30% could be ZERO percent). So, the FDA "mandates" [sic] that the vaccine work for only 3 out 10 victims, which happens to be 30%, and the drug companies use the FDA's 30% "keyword" regarding ineffectiveness, yet they also slip in the "less than", which of course should be construed to mean that the vaccines fall below the 30% and therefore do NOT meet the mandated requirement. So, keep this in mind and remember that the FDA is just a hypocritical smokescreen bully-pulpit mirage of unconscionable deceit, which of course is a crucially imperative attribute for any certifiably corrupt health agency.

Further, consider this. All of the drug company shills are now ranting that our good old health agencies, the bribed marketing front for drug companies, recently announced that anyone that was brainwashed enough to be injected with a dose of H1N1 vaccine should now get another. Hey, they got all those unused doses sitting around in warehouses, most of them officially "expired" long ago and now classified as "hazardous waste" by our good old FDA, and the original injections were admitted to only work for 3 out of 10 victims if that, so maybe you really ought to get two more injections, or to be extra safe just get three or four more shots, and maybe you will get lucky and actually get shot with an "effective" dose, if you manage to live that long with all those vaccine toxins in your body. Hey, you already been shot up 50 or 60 times, what's just one or two more doses of toxic effluvient amount to? Realize that all of these demonic charlatanistic reports -- for emphasis we repeat all of them -- that want to trick you into danger did not interject any conjecture at all as to just why in the hell you SHOULD get another injection. Nothin, nada, zilch; no justification whatsoever. However, we did belatedly note one spewing the reason for a second shot was "in order to be fully protected" (um, going from 3 of 10 to possibly 6 of 10 STILL leaves 4 of 10 NOT fully protected). But YOU know why, because only 3 of 10 (if any) of those vaccin-itcims had even the slightest chance of perchance being injected with a hopefully effective vaccine. So, hay sheeples (aka, sheep peoples), if you're not yet diseased or dead from vaccine injections, how 'bout another round of toxic poisons injected directly into your body, all for the possibility of avoiding a little old flu which you may well already have acquired immunity from (THAT INCLUDES SOME UNVACCINATED CHILDREN!).

Lastly, rather than rant on and on, we suggest that you simply conduct a search on pertinent keywords like "vaccine ineffective", which we did, and the results yielded 3,270,000 hits. Millions of assertions that vaccines are not effective. Go ahead peruse a few of the hits if you have time. Link for search on "vaccine ineffective".

Point. As with the above search, if anyone questions anything that we state, just do a search on some of the keywords, or just key in a question. Again, we are not making anything up, and most of the time we are not stating anything about which millions of others state precisely the exact same thing. Lastly, we want to assure viewers that we may walk a fine line, but consider minimally that we must only state the facts because if it were not all proven, then we would have been shut down (that IS going on...).