This Just In, Booster Shots Aren't Required After All

Okay....
Leave it to MSM to completely ignore the pertinent information... nothing abnormal here.

There are several issues when vaccinating with boosters that went completely ignored.

From narrowing the focus of the vaccine to absolutely destroying any immunity you currently have. Both of these are real issues...so is the increased risk of having an allergic reaction to a booster shot.

Those are the main reasons not to get them.

I love the new mRNA vaccines...but they have their limitations. Boosters also need to be of the same brand as the initial vaccinations. (Complicated reasons exist for this)

The reasons in this channel 7 report are bovine fecal material. Not worth the time mentioning them.
My reasons are extremely more of a priority.




So then you're saying to ignore them and to get the booster that hasn't even been approved yet? I'm just trying to understand what you're getting at. :/
 
So then you're saying to ignore them and to get the booster that hasn't even been approved yet? I'm just trying to understand what you're getting at. :/

Getting a booster shot is NOT a good idea mostly unless it is necessary or a variant booster of the same name brand as your original vaccine. Both of which are not going to be able to be accomplished at Walmart or Walgreens. We are talking about blood tests and other complicated stuff to accomplish.
 
I'm going to get a Variant vaccine booster when it becomes available... otherwise....nada.

This is something Joe is not going to understand and needs to just stuff a sock in it about....

I've not changed my stance on this since I studied it months ago back in June. No boosters for me.
 
I just wonder if they're sure this time.




Remember when they were trying to figure out what was going wrong with people receiving the second dose “too early” and winding up with bad outcomes, so they recommended waiting longer before the second but still having “too many” bad outcomes? The WHO has stepped back from the discussion altogether and with good reason about boosters.

Drug companies have been messing around with combining two different concoctions (that are still in use even if extremely questionable for healthy people). They determined that mixing was actually preferential compared to a back to back dose of the same drug company’s product. They know there’s a problem, they’re doing their best to figure it out to try to use what they have in stock to get rid of it.

Over 150 other drug companies are testing better products/actual solutions including nasal sprays to target the virus quicker and non-vaccine options. I’ll be looking into the better options myself.
 
that you are fired if you don't comply, you going to tell them, no?
You can sue if they cannot prove that you are a danger to the other employees OR just go down the road and find another job--it is not like there aren't 500 Help Wanted signs in any five mile stretch of road in America--I know it is an exaggeration. These companies are already hurting for employees and I don't see a lot of them putting up any real effort to fire you. Unions are pushing hard against these ridiculous mandates. BTW, mandates are not laws.
 
So if you have a job that requires the jab, and they tell you, that you are fired if you don't comply, you going to tell them, no? They can't fire you? :heehee:

If you are are attending a school that tells you that you can't register and enroll until you prove you are jabbed, are you going to tel them that you are going to anyway? That they can't do that to you? :heehee:

If you want to board a plane, or enter a concert or sporting event that requires proof of jab. . you just going to rush on through? :auiqs.jpg:

You aren't listening to what I am saying.

Of course you can refuse to participate in those areas of life. . . I am not saying that. But you can't just ignore them if you want to participate in everything the cabal controls requiring the jab.
Religious and philosophical exemptions are also in play along with the ADA.
 
You can see that they're not making a decision based on medical necessity they're making it based on financial gain instead which is why you see it changing so rapidly and so frequently.

Jo
I can hear the greedy lawyers getting their heads together to figure how and who they are going to sue when people are denied the right to work for a virus that has a more than 99% recovery rate.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top