'They' have done both from the outset. I don't understand all the implications of the content of this Paper, maybe just a few, but to manufacture at pace and in huge quantities, something they called a vaxx but was a new 'therapy' on a new platform, and say that it was suitable for everyone, including pregnant women, and 6 month old babies ( U.S.A) is incomprehensible! (But, probably not in terms of financial returns).
I think the lies told are worse than the 'not looking', because the lies are indefensible. So big were/are the lies about the 'vaccines', they are matched by the large number of harms and fatalities.
Here's an example of someone who refuses to look at what one 'vaccine' has done....Dr Ellie Canon writes in the Health section in the MoS ( Mail on Sunday). In the May 12th edition, under a title, 'Don't Worry If You Had The Astrazeneca Jab' ( not a 'vaccine' then?), she claims, " The important things to know about the AZ jab is that blood clots were extremely rare, and people who had it don't need to worry about problems developing now. If anything was going to happen, it would have happened pretty much right away." Oh, that's all right then. What a comfort. What a blithe dismissal of all the people injured by the AZ. This doctor has never 'looked', like so many of her peers. How can she possibly say that people who had it "don't need to worry about problems developing now", any more than the pushers of Pfizer, Moderna 'vaccines' can claim that the mrna cannot possibly have long term deleterious effects?
These aren’t regulated pharmaceutical products in the USA but “countermeasures” deployed in a “public health emergency”.
The role of the regulatory agencies is to say “Authorised”, regardless of the properties of the material for which emergency use authorization is sought protected by immunity that comes into force automatically upon declaration of a public health emergency.
It’s theatre that they’re half pretending that they’re holding manufacturers feet to the fire, for there are no criteria whatsoever that apply.
You raise a good point. These injections do contain novel platform technology made using complex manufacturing processes scaled up at unprecedented speed. ie there are many more unknowns and the biology affected is deeper, more fundamental and less well understood.
'They' have done both from the outset. I don't understand all the implications of the content of this Paper, maybe just a few, but to manufacture at pace and in huge quantities, something they called a vaxx but was a new 'therapy' on a new platform, and say that it was suitable for everyone, including pregnant women, and 6 month old babies ( U.S.A) is incomprehensible! (But, probably not in terms of financial returns).
I think the lies told are worse than the 'not looking', because the lies are indefensible. So big were/are the lies about the 'vaccines', they are matched by the large number of harms and fatalities.
Here's an example of someone who refuses to look at what one 'vaccine' has done....Dr Ellie Canon writes in the Health section in the MoS ( Mail on Sunday). In the May 12th edition, under a title, 'Don't Worry If You Had The Astrazeneca Jab' ( not a 'vaccine' then?), she claims, " The important things to know about the AZ jab is that blood clots were extremely rare, and people who had it don't need to worry about problems developing now. If anything was going to happen, it would have happened pretty much right away." Oh, that's all right then. What a comfort. What a blithe dismissal of all the people injured by the AZ. This doctor has never 'looked', like so many of her peers. How can she possibly say that people who had it "don't need to worry about problems developing now", any more than the pushers of Pfizer, Moderna 'vaccines' can claim that the mrna cannot possibly have long term deleterious effects?
These aren’t regulated pharmaceutical products in the USA but “countermeasures” deployed in a “public health emergency”.
The role of the regulatory agencies is to say “Authorised”, regardless of the properties of the material for which emergency use authorization is sought protected by immunity that comes into force automatically upon declaration of a public health emergency.
It’s theatre that they’re half pretending that they’re holding manufacturers feet to the fire, for there are no criteria whatsoever that apply.
.
Three Of My Favorite Words:
Safe And Effective.
My Top 3 Favorite Words:
Compared To What ?
.
Were any pre-2020 shots examined with this level of scrutiny? (I don't mean by you, Jonathan; I mean by researchers, companies, et al)
I ask because I am unclear about the extent to which many shots would surprise us insofar as what they contain, how they function, etc
You raise a good point. These injections do contain novel platform technology made using complex manufacturing processes scaled up at unprecedented speed. ie there are many more unknowns and the biology affected is deeper, more fundamental and less well understood.
Arguably, shots like the flu shot were "novel" in one way or another every year - yet were far less scrutinized.
DNA contaminated or clean as a whistle - stop ALL transfections/transformation in healthy humans.