The great divide between the “vaccinated” – and those who were prudent enough to avoid the “vaccines,” being wary of the “safe and effective” assurances of the government and the pharmaceutical cartels – extends beyond the intellectual into the reproductive.
A recent article – which, interestingly, is impossible to find using Google to search for it – written by a woman who laments not being able to find a man to date who isn’t “vaccinated” – is worth reading.
If you can find it.
She writes that she – and other women of reproductive age she knows – are reluctant to get involved with men who might not be capable of reproducing, having been “vaccinated.”
They are reasonable because what we already know about the “vaccines” is that they aren’t, for openers. That people were not only subjected to immense pressure to take them, but were lied to about them. They weren’t just led to believe that if they took the “vaccines,” they would not get and could not spread the “virus.” They were explicitly told exactly that. A case of fraud – as by gross misrepresentation of the facts. Of a piece with the way the “case” fatality rate wasn’t adjusted to reflect the infection fatality rate; i.e., the fact that most of the people who got the infection did not die from it. This truth was systematically withheld from the population – to protect the lie that a “deadly pandemic” was afoot.
It was once the case – so to speak – that a pandemic required a large number of deaths in order to be declared one. Then, the definition of “pandemic” was changed. Now, it was defined as one if a large number of people were affected. According to that definition, there is also a “pandemic” . . . of acne. Of indigestion.
In the same way, the attribute that had formerly been the defining quality of a vaccine – that it conferred immunity upon the vaccinated individual – was slyly changed such that a “vaccine” is now something that “reduces your chances of being hospitalized.” Supposedly. It is a dubious assertion given the admitted-to fact that the “virus” causes mild symptoms in most people, including those not “vaccinated.” Perhaps the “vaccines” make these mild symptoms even milder – assuming the “vaccines” don’t give the recipient symptoms of heart disease.
We now know the “vaccines” aren’t – in terms of providing immunity. That the “vaccinated” can get and spread the “virus.” We know we were lied to about this. Just as we were lied to about the risks of heart disease we now know are related to being “vaccinated.”
What else have they not told us about these “vaccines”? What else do we not know about these “vaccines” that will become known in the future? BY which time it will be too late? Will “vaccinated” people develop reproductive problems? Can you be affected by intimate contact with a “vaccinated” person?
Just as it was prudent to be “hesitant” about lining up to be injected with drugs peddled by drug companies known to be liars and known to have recklessly endangered people in the past and been criminally prosecuted for it.
Who have used their immense financial resources to buy something worse than the complicit silence of the federal regulatory apparat that has become an adjunct pusher of these very drugs. It is the very definition of prudence to be “hesitant” about getting involved with someone who has taken these drugs in spite of these facts.
You don’t know what you might get.
If you were to put aside prudence – due diligence – and risk dating someone who lined up to get “vaccinated.” Whatever you might catch from them, you would be getting someone who lacked the spine – or the brain – to be “hesitant” about lining up to get “vaccinated.” Someone who didn’t pause to question the trustworthiness of known-to-be-untrustworthy drug-pushing cartels. Who wasn’t disturbed by the pressure tactics nor the galling fact that the companies pressuring people to get “vaccinated” stood to make billions thereby and were themselves immunized from liability for any harms caused by their “vaccines.”
Would you consider dating someone who bought used cars that way? Consider hitching your financial well-being to their demonstrated irresponsibility?
Of course, it’s even worse than mere irresponsibility, laziness – and/or stupidity. There is also the matter of poltroonery. The cowardice manifested via their servility – even at the cost of their own health. If they value theirs so little, what value do you suppose they attach to yours?
And – do you suppose a person who valued a job (or being able to go out to eat at restaurant) more than their own health would place much, if any value, on your decision to sacrifice those things in order to preserve your health – and your self-respect?
Imagine being bound to such a person, by law and blood. Possibly, with children involved (assuming they’re capable in that regard).
It sounds even worse than the “vaccines” themselves.
Best to avoid both.
. . .
Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! Or email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com if the @!** “ask Eric” button doesn’t work!
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!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!