"Negative Efficacy" Or Damaged Immune Systems?
Wow. While I haven't fully read this, a brief skim gives me the impression that it's a great introduction to the implications of these findings.
I intend to come back to this later.
Thanks for the work you do.
Well documented and well written. Thank you for fighting
Isn’t it also “relative” protection, as opposed to “absolute” protection, the standard otherwise?
I think I heard jikky and Jessica Rose describe it
66.69% ■ flip to 99.96% not effective; still meets [t]heir benchmark of success in their line of business; it is all about the number.
I don't think they care if they get caught. They've got used to getting away with unspeakable things.
Hi Tim, I just wrote a new article on SUDEP. You might like to check it out. I know you do a lot of work with VAERS... would you mind doing a search for it, and epilepsy? I'm just wondering WHAT ELSE people are becoming more susceptible to....
https://fullbroadside.substack.com/p/sudep
Wow. While I haven't fully read this, a brief skim gives me the impression that it's a great introduction to the implications of these findings.
I intend to come back to this later.
Thanks for the work you do.
Well documented and well written. Thank you for fighting
Isn’t it also “relative” protection, as opposed to “absolute” protection, the standard otherwise?
I think I heard jikky and Jessica Rose describe it
66.69% ■ flip to 99.96% not effective; still meets [t]heir benchmark of success in their line of business; it is all about the number.
I don't think they care if they get caught. They've got used to getting away with unspeakable things.
Hi Tim, I just wrote a new article on SUDEP. You might like to check it out. I know you do a lot of work with VAERS... would you mind doing a search for it, and epilepsy? I'm just wondering WHAT ELSE people are becoming more susceptible to....
https://fullbroadside.substack.com/p/sudep