2021-11-02
We have featured articles from the Daily Exposé previously. It has to be said that they are a bit like the "new kid on the block" and have not yet had a good run to establish the veracity of their reporting, but in my assessment they are not out pf line with reports elsewhere. How much credence you choose to give them is up to you, but I think that these two articles are worth consideration.
The first is all about the waning efficacy of the jabs. This is no longer particularly controversial per se, although some might choose to challenge the detail, which is claimed to be sourced from publications of PHE, or the UK Health Security Agency as we must apparently now call them (is that because we have to be encouraged to always obey the "security agencies" that are charged to look after us?).
This article is by "a concerned reader" (and we must remember that in these contentious times a great many such may prefer anonymity in order to retain their livelihoods).
The somewhat disturbing title "Official Government Reports suggest the Fully Vaccinated will develop Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome by Christmas" is indeed alarming. We have read elsewhere that the vaccine efficacy wanes over time (hence the acknowledged 'need for boosters'). If it were merely to revert to the status quo ante (ie: zero efficacy = you might as well not have had the jab) then that by itself would not be catastrophic, just a waste of numerous £billions and a lot of disappointment. But according to the statistics, efficacy eventually seems to stray deep into negative territory - ie: the jabbed become less protected than the unjabbed.
Seriously?
If that is so then a great many people now have a great deal of explaining to do, and the jabbing must be ceased with immediate effect at least until that is done. Or are the MHRA asleep (or worse) on the job?
Worth reading.
Also from the Daily Exposé is an article which looks at the distribution of vaccine lot ids across the United States: "100% of Covid-19 Vaccine Deaths were caused by just 5% of the batches produced according to official Government data"
What has that got to do with the UK? What happens over the pond may well be happening over here.
So what's the big deal? An investigation (sadly we don't know who by) of the USA VAERS adverse events reporting system has identified that the vast majority of the reported adverse events were associated with only 5% of lot numbers, each of which was responsible for a very large number of adverse events.
This is concerning on a number of levels:
- what does it tell us about the manufacturer's quality controls?
- were these lots all made by the same subcontractor?
- were they all of the same size?
- why were they distributed differently?
- was this all accidental or deliberate?
- what does this say about the validity of the results of the trials?
- why did this affect more than one brand of vaccine?
- have Pfizer / Moderna now taken steps to identify the miscreant batches, recall them, and put measures in place to ensure no repetition?
- what do the FDA and CDC (MHRA & JCVI) have to say about this?
Final quotation:
"A Pfizer whistleblower from a Kansas manufacturing facility did after all reveal that 'People are being made to sign off on things that normally they wouldn’t, and then they wonder why their own employees won’t take it' "
