That's interesting. Pfizer are hiding behind the PREP Act, claiming that individual consumers have no protection from misleading or even fraudulent advertising, but it's the state of Texas itself taking the company to task for this fraudulent marketing behaviour performed AFTER the state had authorised the vaccine for emergency use.
So, as I understand it, those who were jabbed with the AZ were at risk of relatively rapid onset thrombocytopenia while those jabbed with Pfizer etc. were at later risk of inter alia myocarditis and turbo cancer...
My wife and I somewhat reluctantly had two AZs apiece and declined anything else, so on the balance of probabilities as we are both still breathing we are probably OK.
As it happens, this morning I received a letter from the NHS offering me a booster.
I took great pleasure in tearing it up and binning it!
Glad to hear you're both fine. The NHS are offering the Pfizer jabs to SIX MONTH OLD BABIES now! If that's not Holocaust level evil, I don't know what is.
Part of this mass suicide we're all witnessing that mystifies me is how obvious the harms were.
Here in the US they simply "quietly" withdrew 2 of the 4 poison options (AZ and J&J) pretty early in the genocide campaign and there was NEVER any public outrage or concern. The bleating poisoned sheep just simply got into different lines for their boosters of mrna flavored kool aide.
It's one of the most fascinating and yet most terrible things I've ever seen.
The FDA never even authorised AZ in the US, even though it was very similar to J&J. Supposedly, this was because of safety concerns about transverse myelitis in a couple of women who took part in the initial clinical trials. Here in the UK, the MHRA had no such concerns.
As an attorney you will understand this. Will it go?
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/texas-ag-ken-paxton-pfizer-deceptive-marketing-lawsuit/?
That's interesting. Pfizer are hiding behind the PREP Act, claiming that individual consumers have no protection from misleading or even fraudulent advertising, but it's the state of Texas itself taking the company to task for this fraudulent marketing behaviour performed AFTER the state had authorised the vaccine for emergency use.
Seems to be
So, as I understand it, those who were jabbed with the AZ were at risk of relatively rapid onset thrombocytopenia while those jabbed with Pfizer etc. were at later risk of inter alia myocarditis and turbo cancer...
My wife and I somewhat reluctantly had two AZs apiece and declined anything else, so on the balance of probabilities as we are both still breathing we are probably OK.
As it happens, this morning I received a letter from the NHS offering me a booster.
I took great pleasure in tearing it up and binning it!
Glad to hear you're both fine. The NHS are offering the Pfizer jabs to SIX MONTH OLD BABIES now! If that's not Holocaust level evil, I don't know what is.
Part of this mass suicide we're all witnessing that mystifies me is how obvious the harms were.
Here in the US they simply "quietly" withdrew 2 of the 4 poison options (AZ and J&J) pretty early in the genocide campaign and there was NEVER any public outrage or concern. The bleating poisoned sheep just simply got into different lines for their boosters of mrna flavored kool aide.
It's one of the most fascinating and yet most terrible things I've ever seen.
The FDA never even authorised AZ in the US, even though it was very similar to J&J. Supposedly, this was because of safety concerns about transverse myelitis in a couple of women who took part in the initial clinical trials. Here in the UK, the MHRA had no such concerns.