Bill Gates: Rushed marketing of jabs means accepting unknown longer term health risks (Apr. 2020)

1 year ago

Presenter: "As I understand from what you're saying, it may be that there needs to be some compromise in some of the safety measures that would normally be expected to create a vaccine, because time is so crucial."

Bill Gates: "Well, of course. If you wanna wait and see if a side-effect shows up two years later, that takes two years."

Conversely, if you don't wait two years, you have no way of knowing the known and potential risks. Anyone who tells you differently is lying, arrogant, or both.

Some things just can't be sped up. As Warren Buffett jokingly says, "You can't make a baby in one month by getting nine women pregnant". You may be able to DEVELOP a new product at warp speed, but you can't SAFETY TEST it at warp speed, especially for negative side-effect that only show up after a while.

Examples of negative side-effects that only become apparent after years or decades, are cancer caused by for example radiation or asbestos or chemical (e.g. with the production of teflon), or Alzheimer caused by RoundUp.

With the COVID jabs, examples of real medium/long term safety risks are neurodegenerative disease (e.g. Alzheimer, Parkinson), (turbo) cancer, subclinical heart damage, reduced fertility, and defects in offspring.

The justified and healthy fear of negative side-effects which only become apparent in the medium and long term, was one of the many legitimate reasons why the 'refuseniks' declined the jabs. Instead of getting respect for their decision for their own health (my body, my choice) without any coercion as protected by the Nuremberg Code, they were vilified.

After all, everyone 'knew' the injections were safe and effective. They were so safe that the pharmaceutical companies strictly refused to carry any product liability and fought as hard as they could to keep the trial data secret for 75 years.

"A choice is, 'Would you like tea or coffee?', not 'Would you like to be part of a medical trial to keep your job?' That is blackmail."

Some people recognized the health risks of the jabs, but estimated these risks to be lower than those of COVID. This is fine, but their estimation and the decision to get jabbed should be limited to their own body, i.e. without coercing others (your body, my choice).

For anyone who believes that risk of COVID to be greater than the risks of the jabs, I'd suggest that first of all, they make an INFORMED decision of the COVID risks based on the DATA (and not on what the 'experts' say). If they did, they might find out that the known risks of the disease were enormously exaggerated. Said differently, the absolute risk reduction which can be achieved through any intervention can only be relatively small.

Second of all, the basic principle is that if you find yourself in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' trade-off (here: risk of COVID vs risk of negative vaxx side-effects), you should search for better alternatives to get you out of the dilemma.

Harmless and highly effective alternatives were already known (but only to the well-informed due to censorship) and available at the time: fresh air, optimal humidity (40-60%), adequate vitamin D blood levels (>50 ng/ml), early effective combination therapy in case of disease, healthy diet/lifestyle, and voluntary protection of the high risk group.

Third of all, you should question the efficacy of the product and the duration of the protection, if any. It could definitely be that the product is all risk and no benefit. It could be that if you get vaxxed, you have the risk of negative vaxx side-effects AND ALSO the (increased) risk of COVID.


Fauci urges caution when introducing new vaccine: Harms may take decade to become apparent (1999)


Loading 6 comments...