"The Experts" now Claim the Vulnerable NEED Boosters, Despite Saying They Don't 16 Days Ago

www.nytimes.com...

So, the other day I created a post referencing data from The Israeli Times that showed the effectiveness of preventing infection was down to 39/41%

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In this post, I stated:

I think what we're seeing here is a concerted effort by Pfizer to push their recently-requested "Booster." I believe we'll start seeing news reports coming from different places showing lower and lower effectiveness, which will then offer a 'cure' to waning efficiency in the form of a 'booster'.

The day AFTER that post, HawkEyi posted a link talking about Biden's purchase of 'additional' doses of 'Pfizer' and talking about 'Booster shots coming' for children: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So I wake up this morning (after being at work most of the day) to a NYT article clearly stating that:

The growing consensus that at least some Americans will need a booster is partly tied to research suggesting that Pfizer’s vaccine is less effective after about six months.

It appears my assumption was correct and that it's going to first start in the "vulnerable" population, but you'll see -- within a month of "success!" in vulnerable populations, perhaps 2, they'll claim that "science" has said "the booster works!" and then demand that all Americans receive a third shot.

Given that they're now talking about how it's okay to mix'n'match, I see them buying up extras of one or two (probably Pfizer & Moderna) and no matter which shot you received first, offering you this third shot.

And I just want to point out that they're clearly gaslighting us. Pfizer suggested - a couple of weeks ago - that booster shots were needed and they applied for authorization for a 3rd shot.

Almost immediately, the FDA & CDC came out and said the booster shots were not needed but did point out that they:

prepared for booster doses if and when the science demonstrates that they are needed

Based on the NYT article, the "science" has taken all of 16 days to determine that booster shots ARE needed. They cite no sources, offer no explanation for the constant flip-flop and remain consistent in their inconsistent remarks.

I personally believe they are doing this on purpose to make everyone so confused that they simply give up and acquiesce to the rantings of the self-proclaimed "experts." I mean, when you say the science doesn't support a booster shot, while at the same time you purchase MORE shots and claim it's for kids and "possible booster shots" ... ya' know ... just in case, then wait 16 days for a single, conflicting report that its effectiveness has dropped, only to come out and once again use 'vulnerable' as your reason ... because after all, who wants to kill grandma, amiright ... then it becomes clear to anyone with more than a few brain cells left that they were pro-booster shot from the beginning and only CLAIMED "the science doesn't support it" so they can pretend to be "following the science."

Those shots they purchased for kids and possible booster shots, while saying we don't need boosters, will no doubt end up in the blood vessels of grandma & grandpa. Maybe this is the government's way of solving the social security problem without making wealthy people merely pony up the SS for ALL income gains instead of just the first ~$100k?

And when grandma & grandpa start dying, they'll blame the unvaccinated for 'forcing' them to need boosters.

Once they've pushed a month of boosters, they'll most likely start moving to fast-track full FDA approval for the vaccines. Once FDA approval comes, there is Supreme Court precedent to uphold the mandatory vaccinations. In 1905, Jacobson v Massachusetts very clearly stated that all individual rights may be restrained in times of emergency:

There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution. But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.

Source

That case has not been overturned yet and I have no faith in the current SCOTUS to overturn it either. The logic is sound enough that it will most likely be upheld and the government will be able to put a gun to your head and force you to inject this into your body.

It may be a good time to start double-checking the contents of your bug-out bag. Make sure your batteries are good, your items are not broken or expired, and keep it ready. I have a feeling that when they do this, life in the US will become very ... interesting.

As I've stated elsewhere, once you've taken the injection, you are essentially sold. You have to continue believing everything they tell you and doing whatever they say. There seems to be something of a Stockholm Syndrome like effect at play amongst those who have been infected ... uh, I mean injected.

Last years young adults and children were all but immune but now they are being targeted for vaccines.

a reply to: BatSars

I personally believe they are doing this on purpose to make everyone so confused that they simply give up and acquiesce to the rantings of the self-proclaimed "experts.

I have said this since March 2020. All of the conflicting instructions, "facts," edicts and mandates were never due to incompetence or stupidity. Confused people are easier to control. Inducing a sense of instability and uncertainty makes people more susceptible to manipulation.

If one is desperately lost in the woods and somebody comes along who seems to be informed, the lost person will probably take instruction from that individual without actually knowing whether the instruction is legitimate. They have gotten most of the population "lost in the woods" through constant misdirection and lies and people are willing to do whatever they are told to feel safer.

originally posted by: wdkirk
Last years young adults and children were all but immune but now they are being targeted for vaccines.

amazingly the studies haven't changed on that, just the directives.

Can confirm, the vaccines are telling me to do what ever I am told. Oh wait, no, it just makes logical and rational sense. Efficacy is not 100% and it was never claimed that protection would be indefinite. This makes sense with the emergence of variants ( from unvaccinated?) and I see it as similar to flu shots which are available each year to jump start your immune system again.

Congrats to everyone that became a permanent lab rat for big pharma. I’m sure they’re more concerned with your health than their trillions you’ve set them up to make off a virus that barely kills like the flu.

originally posted by: MDDoxs
Can confirm, the vaccines are telling me to do what ever I am told. Oh wait, no, it just makes logical and rational sense. Efficacy is not 100% and it was never claimed that protection would be indefinite. This makes sense with the emergence of variants ( from unvaccinated?) and I see it as similar to flu shots which are available each year to jump start your immune system again.

and yet, natural immunity has been known to last 90 years. Win for nature!

www.cidrap.umn.edu...

a reply to: network dude

Lol, tell that to everyone that died from Spanish plague, polio, etc…

And yet the flu shot isn't mandatory. If you think the vaccines are working, then I think we're done with the vaccine push, yeah?

The only way the mandatory (or continual propaganda for vaccine) push holds up is if the vaccines don't work, but I keep hearing they do and that grandma is saved!

Then let's be done with it. It's working and grandma is saved!
a reply to: MDDoxs

a reply to: BatSars

The common flu has not killed as much, proven to be as contagious and as capable of producing variants as C19.

This a continuing fight to save grandma, don’t let her down.

a reply to: MDDoxs
And yet those who did contract Spanish Flu and survived were still found to have immune defence to it 70-80 years later
Linky dinky
Rainbows
Jane

PS...Network...apologies, see I posted same link as yourself.

a reply to: angelchemuel

Sounds like you are saying that the fact millions upon who millions who died was no big deal.

Additionally, this article supports the idea of vaccination and boosters. Thank you for supporting my position.

And when a novel version of the flu pops up, we end up with another 1918. But once it becomes endemic, vaccines will be unnecessary, aside from the vulnerable population.

At the beginning of the pandemic, I was all for being protective of everyone while we studied it and learned how to treat it, and we figured it out. The death rate plummeted (even before the vaccine) because treatment protocols worked.

But because of the vaccine propaganda, those treatment protocols were ignored, censored (everywhere), and instead, an experimental vaccine was used, despite evidence of repurposed drugs being able to end the pandemic.

The flu was bad, then our collective, natural immunity resolved that issue, and now we're fine. This is how COVID-19 will turn out, unless it was created for some other nefarious purpose, and if it WAS created for some other nefarious purpose, do you think the vaccine wasn't also created for some nefarious purpose?

We'll be fine. End the propaganda and let's move on. Deal with spikes as they come to save hospital room (as we've been doing) and everything will be fine. 95% of everyone that died were older, which is no different from pretty much all infectious diseases.
a reply to: MDDoxs

And here we go with the "but GRANDMA" arguments again.

Sorry to tell you, but grandma is still dying while vaccinated. You cannot save everyone. More people died during this pandemic than was necessary, but if what you say is correct, then we're done. Problem solved.

People will get sick; people will die. That's life.
a reply to: MDDoxs

I don’t trust anyone the media labels an “expert” on anything.

Most of the time they are some weird consultant, public relations staff, political lobbyist or focus group advocate who hasn’t worked practically in their alleged field of expertise for years, if ever.

a reply to: MDDoxs
Seriously? You managed to get that from my comment?
Where on earth did I give any impression that 50 (approx) million deaths were a nothing burger? Hmmmm?
Second, yes it does support vaccines, did I say I didn't? Also the vaccines stated in the article are actual vaccines, not a unlicensed medication that only reduces your symptoms.
Try better next time

I’m not going to say that the new vaccines are dangerous. Honestly we won’t know the long term effects for many years.
But there is no debate that making a vaccine for this type of virus has been damn near impossible.

“ More than 30 years after scientists isolated HIV, the virus that causes Aids, we have no vaccine. The dengue fever virus was identified in 1943, but the first vaccine was approved only last year, and even then amid concerns it made the infection worse in some people. The fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps. It took four years.”

Now with modern technology it makes sense that the development time frame can be shorter but let’s also remember that multiple big pharma companies have made a vaccine in record time.

“Companies that our government gave protection from prosecution”



The term vaccine is being used but that is not what these should be called.

originally posted by: BatSars
And here we go with the "but GRANDMA" arguments again.

Sorry to tell you, but grandma is still dying while vaccinated. You cannot save everyone. More people died during this pandemic than was necessary, but if what you say is correct, then we're done. Problem solved.

People will get sick; people will die. That's life.
a reply to: MDDoxs

Meh, it doesn't work on me, they can look the fool all they want. My grandparents finished kicking off over 6 years ago, I don't give a flying crap about theirs,. THEY can mind them, I'm not the home nurse and I'm not getting paid to give a damn. I wouldn't be so pompous as to expect anything remotely like that as an At-Risk, so they can find someone else to get on their knees in front of. They are not my allies, and certainly not my heroes.

Why is a vaccine modified to include a new variant or variants a difficult concept to understand?

originally posted by: wdkirk
Last years young adults and children were all but immune but now they are being targeted for vaccines.

This remains to be seen with the delta variant. Early indications are not so good.