Good thoughts. The people in the mRNA trials were probably given a thorough informed consent. After EUA, the drug was really almost as unknown and just as risky and they were told "safe and effective" rather than a realistic informed consent.
Risk may be acceptable if it's known and agreed to. Most people had no idea the risk they were taking.
Good thoughts. The people in the mRNA trials were probably given a thorough informed consent. After EUA, the drug was really almost as unknown and just as risky and they were told "safe and effective" rather than a realistic informed consent.
Risk may be acceptable if it's known and agreed to. Most people had no idea the risk they were taking.
Most people had no idea ... if true that is a loud condemnation of government education. We are surrounded, it seems, by self-absorbed twits who neither can, nor want to, engage reality.
Nor take the time to actually research a questionable product coming out of pharmaceuticals. I did the research when my gut told me to. Then again I have a brain I put to good use.
The fact that little information was given, the rush to administer these shots and the evidence of censorship of any contrary narrative should have been enough red flags for everyone to say no.
Before mandates, I thought uptake would be 60-70% for high risk groups (elderly and comorbidities), 10% for low risk groups and less than 1% for pregnant/breastfeeding women and for children. I was completely wrong, and so saddened once I learned people I knew had already taken it.
The reason I still speak on this issue is because I know more experimental shots/drugs/treatments are underway, in particular for the flu, combo, or a universal shot.
Good thoughts. The people in the mRNA trials were probably given a thorough informed consent. After EUA, the drug was really almost as unknown and just as risky and they were told "safe and effective" rather than a realistic informed consent.
Risk may be acceptable if it's known and agreed to. Most people had no idea the risk they were taking.
Most people had no idea ... if true that is a loud condemnation of government education. We are surrounded, it seems, by self-absorbed twits who neither can, nor want to, engage reality.
Nor take the time to actually research a questionable product coming out of pharmaceuticals. I did the research when my gut told me to. Then again I have a brain I put to good use.
But plenty of time and interest in carefully checking food labels. But pharmaceuticals? No way!
I know, right. And I'm sure we can completely trust those too. 😂
Reality isn't fun. 😐
The fact that little information was given, the rush to administer these shots and the evidence of censorship of any contrary narrative should have been enough red flags for everyone to say no.
That's what you'd think! I figured uptake would top out at no more than 50%. But that was before the mandates.
Should have been more like 25% or less, but there's a lot of low info people out there
Before mandates, I thought uptake would be 60-70% for high risk groups (elderly and comorbidities), 10% for low risk groups and less than 1% for pregnant/breastfeeding women and for children. I was completely wrong, and so saddened once I learned people I knew had already taken it.
The reason I still speak on this issue is because I know more experimental shots/drugs/treatments are underway, in particular for the flu, combo, or a universal shot.
Agree. Also, was dosage/mix of ingredients experimented with and adjusted before they started administering to young children?
https://leemuller.substack.com/p/did-phase-i-of-clinical-trials-which