I know a guy who is adamant that everyone be “vaccinated” – which is to say, forced to take drugs that palliate symptoms of a sickness they haven’t got, but might get.
I told him in that case he ought to be required to take AZT, the drug given to AIDS patients. “But I haven’t got AIDS,” he replied. “And besides, I’m not gay.”
“Well,” I said, “I haven’t got the ’Rona – and I’m not likely to get it, either, since I am not old, obese or in poor health.” I also don’t take birth control pills, not being a woman – nor demand that my girlfriend wear condoms, to “stop the spread.”
It didn’t register. In fact, it made him mad.
We haven’t talked since.
One cannot talk sense with people who get mad when you say something that calls into question their beliefs. Especially when they insist you share them.
Why should anyone be pressured to take drugs that do not cure a sickness they haven’t even got? Do you take aspirin before you get a headache? Out of worry that you might get a headache?
Would you take aspirin every day, just in case you got one?
Is it not putting the cart before the proverbial horse? Especially in view of the fact – it’s not in dispute – that in the case of these drugs, the “headache” isn’t even prevented? Take the drugs anyway?
Wouldn’t it be more rational to wait until you actually got a “headache”? And then took drugs that actually worked . . . to cure it?
In prior times, people who took drugs for illnesses they didn’t have were accurately described as drug abusers – and those who pushed them on people described as just that, i.e., drug pushers. What is different now? Except that these drugs being pushed are legal and being pushed on people with the acquiescence- the complicity – of the law?
But these drugs “stop the spread,” it is insisted. Clearly – abundantly – they do no such thing. Indeed, they do the opposite thing. Rates of infection are highest in areas that have the highest rates of “vaccination.”
It’s indisputable. Just not mentionable.
Either “vaccines” do not “stop the spread.” Or they enhance the spread. Probably by palliating the symptoms of sickness, thereby encouraging the “asymptomatic spread” everyone was told they must wear a “mask” to prevent.
At least those who wore the “mask” could tell they were sick, via symptoms they felt – and on account of that, do the decent thing and stay home (as people sick with the flu used to generally do). The “vaccinated” don’t know they’ve got the sickness, the symptoms of it having been suppressed by the “vaccines,” which – again – do not immunize but only tamp down the feelings one gets when one gets sick.
It’s like the drugs they give people who have AIDS that make their AIDS “undetectable.” That’s just great – for the people they have sex with.
But don’t worry – the chances are “low.” So long as your AIDs-riddled partner takes his symptom suppressing meds.
There is a third alternative, suggested by correlation. The “vaccines” may be the drugs getting people sick. There is more than a little evidence this is true, including the new sickness, Sudden Adult Death Syndrome. Especially of previously healthy young athletes who are (well, who were) statistically and actually the least likely to die, suddenly. Such deaths were formerly extremely rare and thus prompted expressions of disbelief. That has been replaced by a sigh of normalcy – while the deaths of 95-year-olds with cancer are treated as avoidable, unnatural tragedies that must be prevented in future by any means necessary.
Potentially dangerous theme park rides usually have a sign placed at the gate that reads, Ride at Your Own Risk. Imagine your employer demanding that you ride a rickety roller coaster with a record of being actually dangerous as a condition of employment.
But the drugs – the “vaccines” (in air fingers quotes to emphasize the fact (again) that they aren’t because they do not immunize – are “safe.” Well, according to the assertions of the companies that produce them and who are using the government to force people to take them.
Well, in that case, why not back that up with a warranty of some kind? If they are in fact “safe,” as claimed, then what harm could possibly arise from agreeing to assume liability in the extremely unlikely if not all-but-nonexistent case (as asserted) of someone being harmed as a provable result of having taken these drugs – especially in view of the fact that people are under duress to take them?
The fact that there is no warranty – and no recourse – is apparently no problem. Which is quite true – for the companies pushing the drugs. A street dealer in drugs – who does not push them – can be charged with murder if he peddles drugs to someone who ends up dead as a consequence of taking them.
But legalized drug pushers simply cash the check – which we’re forced to honor.
I sent the above to the guy I mentioned earlier who is adamant that everyone take these drugs preemptively, for the sickness they don’t have – to palliate the symptoms, if they should happen to get it (and thus, be more likely to spread it).
I still haven’t heard back from him.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)