It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AIDS Is Only Weeks Away For Some Tripple Vaxxt Brits

page: 2
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: WraithOfEva777

I believe an earlier strain got us as well, back in the summer of 2020. No one lost their sense of smell/taste that time, though, so I cannot say with any certainty. It was a strange little bug, though; I can say that much.

No one around here wants to be tested. At one time, a positive test meant two weeks of pure hell and restricted medical services. I will oppose any test on me that can cause such, either now or in the future. A friend who contracted it got tested and was positive... after he spent an entire day buying up supplies for his potential two week isolation. He knew the test was required and he had the symptoms, so he took reasonable precautions based on his upcoming isolation. But Lord only knows how many people he infected trying to comply with and survive the government restrictions. And Lord only knows how many other people did the same thing. I can't blame any of them; I would have done the same as well.

Every single action taken to supposedly fight this virus has resulted in increased spread. Every single one. So why should this vaccine be any better? At this point, listening to government officials or prominent celebrity medical people strikes me as akin to taking financial advice from a known fraud. Don't do it.

Local doctors (not administrators) seem to be the exception, although they are struggling to balance patient health with keeping their license.


by the new definition

Ah, but you see, there's the problem! Redefinition!

"Vaccine" is a technical term with a specific definition, and since the CDC is considered (somehow) a professional organization, it can officially redefine what the word "vaccine" means on a technical level. Of course, the CDC cannot change the connotation of "vaccine"; most people wouldn't even know the actual definition, but rather go by the connotation: an injection that keeps one from getting sick from a bad disease.

"Anti-vax" is not a technical term, though. It cannot be redefined unless people allow it to be redefined. I do not allow that. "Anti-vax" since the first time I heard it has meant someone who opposes all vaccines on principle. I will not accept someone on the Internet deciding that they do not like that definition and want to change it. I will instead call them out for their improper use of the term... as I did above.

As long as we allow our language to be manipulated, the forces of evil win.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 02:44 AM
link   
This is a eugenics operation. Agenda 21, (was that its' name?), is not out of the realm of possibility. If the number of jab'd is correct, then 2030 should see that come to fruition, just as projected. May the Lord have mercy on us all...



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

And yet actual AIDS patients aren't having additional problems, funny that. You'd think that one of the many monitoring programs would have picked this up.

This is 100 percent fake and given the history of this OP for posting doom porn I'm going to stow this one away on my big fat I told you so file.



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: infolurker


I thought most Brits got the Aztrazenica vaccine which was not the MRNA and works a bit differently?

While I understand it is vogue and all the rage to attack the mRNA process, it actually works well. The problem seems to be the spike protein itself... in creating a light infection of the same protein that the virus itself uses to cause major health issues, we are effectively injecting ourselves with the worst part of the virus directly.

The spike protein itself is the problem, not the mRNA process.

TheRedneck


Could you please elaborate on that, for example can you show us a study detailing which aspects of covid are down to the protein rather that the payload?



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 02:50 AM
link   
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics", as someone once said.

The article is a good example of selective interpretation of official statistics to support a particular viewpoint. With all those charts, the article certainly looks like someone can use Excel and stitch together a narrative with more holes than Blackburn, Lancashire.

The viewpoint is that the vaccine is suppressing the immune system, thus making all those who are vaccinated vulnerable and are likely to develop AIDS. The report ends, just after dire warnings of death to all who have been foolish enough to believe the vile government propaganda...


Unfortunately, UKHSA data shows that triple vaccinated Brits are just weeks away from developing Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, (AIDS) or a novel condition with similar attributes that can only be described as Covid-19 Vaccine Induced Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS).


Sadly, no author of the article, so cannot check on his/her credentials to make such a judgement. It could have been written by the neighbours' hamster for all we know.



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies


And yet actual AIDS patients aren't having additional problems, funny that.

Not really. If the innate immunity is already reduced substantially, it becomes difficult to reduce it farther.

It's like trying to suck water from an empty cup.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

nah dude youre not anti-vaccines-that-do-not-prevent-the-disease-and-carry-additional-health-risks.

You are anti corporate greed

this vaccine wasnt made to help anyone , just made to drain our tax wealth for the politicians and their pals in pharma



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: BigfootNZ

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: BigfootNZ


i LOVE the little in red disclaimer the source put up...

 

The Exposé is now heavily censored by Google, Facebook, Twitter and PayPal. Let’s not lose touch, subscribe today to receive the latest news from The Exposé in your inbox…
 


I wonder why that is, HHMmmmmmm... are they possibly lying, making bogus graphs from bogus data while siting legitimate government department documents...

Or they are possibly telling the truth. Are you seriously claiming that Google, Facebook, and Twitter do not censor data that runs counter to official government narratives?

Oh, and I am not an "anti-vaxxer"... please stop throwing that term around. I am anti-vaccines-that-do-not-prevent-the-disease-and-carry-additional-health-risks. Let's try to at least get that much straight, shall we?

TheRedneck


So your saying your anti vaccine then... since this "anti-vaccines-that-do-not-prevent-the-disease-and-carry-additional-health-risks" is literally applicable to any vaccine, as vaccines dont prevent disease, it simply gives you anti bodies prior to a real infection that allow your body to fight and rid you of it quicker should you get it and usually avoiding most of the long term symptoms which could result in serious health issues otherwise... and all vaccines have a chance for potential side effects from mild to sever, if very rare.


I wasn't going to dignify the shoddy job they did doctoring the OP graph with a response here, but I'm so sick of people not understanding the words they're using while chastising others for abusing science. Especially ironic since you were ranting about that very thing.

Vaccines, prior to the bumbling circus that has been the public health response to COVID, prevented a very high percentage of diseases as intended. This is fact and it is indisputable.

They did not, nor have they ever, prevented you from acquiring the virus. The viral agent is not the same thing as the disease.

The disease IS the symptoms. If the "vaccine" does not prevent you from experiencing the symptoms that define the disease condition, they are not vaccines because they are not preventing disease.

It's bonkers that people don't understand this. If it coughs like COVID, and it has a fever like COVID, and it tests positive for COVID, then it is COVID. It's a preventative therapy, that's the best you can say for it. It is not a vaccine by any prior standard. They changed the definition to erase their failure. It's shocking that seemingly normal people have just dropped off the deep end and accept this rewriting of definitions to satisfy the children in government that can't handle reality.

This is pretend, this isn't real, you don't win the game by changing the rules and definitions after your turn is over. The upper echelons of public health in the US had their turn. They failed. They changed the rules, now they won, and damn near 70% of the people turned their heads and pretended it never happened. Not only that, but now they're putting this (lie agreed upon) vaccine in their kids. This is Lord of the Flies kinda crazy.
edit on 2/21/22 by Ksihkehe because: Typo



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82


nah dude youre not anti-vaccines-that-do-not-prevent-the-disease-and-carry-additional-health-risks.

You are anti corporate greed

Let's just say I'm anti-both.



TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: BigfootNZ

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: BigfootNZ


i LOVE the little in red disclaimer the source put up...

 

The Exposé is now heavily censored by Google, Facebook, Twitter and PayPal. Let’s not lose touch, subscribe today to receive the latest news from The Exposé in your inbox…
 


I wonder why that is, HHMmmmmmm... are they possibly lying, making bogus graphs from bogus data while siting legitimate government department documents...

Or they are possibly telling the truth. Are you seriously claiming that Google, Facebook, and Twitter do not censor data that runs counter to official government narratives?

Oh, and I am not an "anti-vaxxer"... please stop throwing that term around. I am anti-vaccines-that-do-not-prevent-the-disease-and-carry-additional-health-risks. Let's try to at least get that much straight, shall we?

TheRedneck


So your saying your anti vaccine then... since this "anti-vaccines-that-do-not-prevent-the-disease-and-carry-additional-health-risks" is literally applicable to any vaccine, as vaccines dont prevent disease, it simply gives you anti bodies prior to a real infection that allow your body to fight and rid you of it quicker should you get it and usually avoiding most of the long term symptoms which could result in serious health issues otherwise... and all vaccines have a chance for potential side effects from mild to sever, if very rare.


I wasn't going to dignify the shoddy job they did doctoring the OP graph with a response here, but I'm so sick of people not understanding the words they're using while chastising others for abusing science. Especially ironic since you were ranting about that very thing.

Vaccines, prior to the bumbling circus that has been the public health response to COVID, prevented a very high percentage of diseases as intended. This is fact and it is indisputable.

They did not, nor have they ever, prevented you from acquiring the virus. The viral agent is not the same thing as the disease.

The disease IS the symptoms. If the "vaccine" does not prevent you from experiencing the symptoms that define the disease condition, they are not vaccines because they are not preventing disease.

It's bonkers that people don't understand this. If it coughs like COVID, and it has a fever like COVID, and it tests positive for COVID, then it is COVID. It's a preventative therapy, that's the best you can say for it. It is not a vaccine by any prior standard. They changed the definition to erase their failure. It's shocking that seemingly normal people have just dropped off the deep end and accept this rewriting of definitions to satisfy the children in government that can't handle reality.

This is pretend, this isn't real, you don't win the game by changing the rules and definitions after your turn is over. The upper echelons of public health in the US had their turn. They failed. They changed the rules, now they won, and damn near 70% of the people turned their heads and pretended it never happened. Not only that, but now they're putting this (lied agreed upon) vaccine in their kids. This is Lord of the Flies kinda crazy.


Exactly all we need to ask about COVID vaccines is did TPTB change the definition of what a vaccine is after 2019?

In that creepy Joe Biden whisper for effect, "they did"



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Can you clear this up? First I was told vaccinated people will die within 6 months. Didn't happen. Pushed to a year, didn't happen. Then I was told there's been a 400% increase in cancer, that hasn't panned out. Then 62 million deaths in a year. That hasn't panned out. Then 1 in 33 will die from the Vax. That hasn't panned out. So, now vaccinated should expect AIDS within weeks? And this should be believed over the charts and graphs and whistle blowing doctors of the other claims?

I mean, if this does keep up eventually vaccinated people will die, but if I die at 70 of cancer are people still going to claim 30 years later, "see I said the Vax was deadly!"



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: frogs453

100% of vaccinated people will die. Eventually.



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: v1rtu0s0



They don't want to show their data for 70 years.


If you'd bothered to read the judicial review, you would know that 70 years isn't how long they want to keep things secret, it's how long it would take a team of 28 people to catalog, classify, and release 100 percent of all relevant documentation gathered at that time under the FIOA act in batches of 50,000 pages per month.

But of course you already knew that as I explained it to you on several previous occasions.



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

mRNA is the gun, not the bullet?



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Lol.

What a load of nonsense.

I know this is a conspiracy forum, but is the op really that dim witted.

Maybe he is sick enough to wish it were true.



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

But regarding infolurker’s original question - are folk as worried about the AstraZeneca vaccines as they are about the mRNA vaccines causing VAIDS.



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

If you read the OP's source, most of the charts a actually say that he vax is absolutely nailing it.

Yes, that's right, the graphs on the source demonstrate that the vaccine is safe and effective.

This data is form the UK, where the majority of the population is vaxxed, and it shows that the small minority of people who are unvaxxed have the same critical care rates as the total combined population of fully vaxxed people.



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Don't tell him that, he will think that it's some kind of murder conspirace.



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: frogs453




Can you clear this up? First I was told vaccinated people will die within 6 months. Didn't happen. Pushed to a year, didn't happen. Then I was told there's been a 400% increase in cancer, that hasn't panned out. Then 62 million deaths in a year. That hasn't panned out. Then 1 in 33 will die from the Vax. That hasn't panned out. So, now vaccinated should expect AIDS within weeks? And this should be believed over the charts and graphs and whistle blowing doctors of the other claims?

I mean, if this does keep up eventually vaccinated people will die, but if I die at 70 of cancer are people still going to claim 30 years later, "see I said the Vax was deadly!"


I don't believe I can trust anyone's conclusions on this "vaccine" treatment, but you make an observation that can't be ignored.

It comes down to what you are willing to believe based on your own experiences and who you might trust to have accurate and unbiased information. The question becomes, "Whose data do you trust and what conclusions can you make from it?"

I drill down to the original sources and make a determination at that point, but it has to past the smell test first to bother with. For me, if it has too many red flags, esp. the lack of a firm source, it gets screened out.
edit on 21-2-2022 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Added extra comments




top topics



 
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join