Kansas Crimson

newsrescue is like a totally legit source you guys.

they're the ones who accurately broke the news about the major housing crash this winter, or sooner

Well the video was from Cspan. I guess they are not real news, right?

no bro. didn't you hear?

the only actual credible "real news" sources left are kansascrimson.com and onlyfans.

I found nothing wrong with anything that was said there.

Yeah, nothing suspicious here.

Fauci: "In order to make the transition from the tried and true...to something that has to be much better....you have to prove it works, then go through all the clinical trials...that alone if it works perfectly will take a decade...it's going to be very difficult to change that and do it from within and say, I don't care what your perception is, we are going to address the problem."

Rick Bright (Other guy): "There might be a need or an urgent call for an entity of excitement out there that's completely disruptive that's not beholding to beaurocratic strings, it is not to crazy to think that an avian outbreak could occur in China or somewhere..."

Like I said yesterday, you are clearly Stay Q urious.

"suspicious". Ok, I'll give you that but let's be real.
There are different levels of suspicion. You're choosing to put it at a high level. I take what they said at a low level of "suspicion".
So which of us is right? Me? You? Both? Neither?

Yes, the video is from CSpan but the second video in the article is from Alex Jones/INFO WARS commenting on the Span video - and the article (as ousdahl pointed out) is from a brainwashing/manipulating site that was able to grab you by your balls and suck you in. You don't think they have a strong agenda?
You yourself even pointed out that the headine/byline was - Explosive Video of Fauci, HHS in 2019 Plotting “Disruptive” New Outbreak in “China Somewhere” to “Blow the System Up” and Enforce Universal mRNA Vaccination.
You don't think they know there are gullible people who would believe basically anything they said? If they said Fauci's plan was to kill everyone in the USA except those who had some secret formula to survive, some/many/most people would believe them.

In the article it clearly states things such as......
Three clips from the hour-long video of the summit from C-SPAN - ARE EXTRACTED BY ALEX JONES - in this shorter video to show how the COVID-19 pandemic WAS MOST EVIDENTLY PLANNED a-forehand and how Big Pharma worked with the UN and other corrupt US government officials to develop and release the COVID-19 virus to spearhead the ‘Great Reset’.

And so now we know why the flu just “disappeared” in the 2020-21 flu season. It was simply replaced by COVID-19, in a worldwide CLEVERLY PLANNED “pandemic” to roll out the world’s first universal mRNA vaccines.

This was always the goal, and previous efforts through various influenzas, AIDS, Ebola, and other “viruses” were all unsuccessful in leading to the development of a universal vaccine to inject into the entire world’s population.

I don't believe it was their goal to kill everyone. I do think it's highly likely they did want to make people sick so that they would need more pharma drugs just to survive. Killing everyone would destroy their customers, so I doubt that was the plan.

The clips speak for themselves.

StayCurious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 11:35 am I don't believe it was their goal to kill everyone. I do think it's highly likely they did want to make people sick so that they would need more pharma drugs just to survive. Killing everyone would destroy their customers, so I doubt that was the plan.

The clips speak for themselves.

The problem is in your translation from what the clip says to what the clip means.

StayCurious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 11:35 am I don't believe it was their goal to kill everyone. I do think it's highly likely they did want to make people sick so that they would need more pharma drugs just to survive. Killing everyone would destroy their customers, so I doubt that was the plan.

The clips speak for themselves.

As someone who admits too often I don't know who and what to believe, I'm going to respectfully ask you a few questions.

If I am understanding you correctly, it seems you are basically saying you think it's highly likely the goal was to make people sick enough that they would die without pharma drugs. If that's the case, then are the anti-covid vaxers not as smart as some people choose to make them out to be? Or did they realize they would be stupid to take the vax and other "pharma drugs" wouldn't necessarily protect them from Covid but would cure them?
Another related question, do you think the covid vax was purposely developed to make people sicker - because they could do more research on the effects of the vaccine and how it destroys the body?

As far as the clips, unless they are specifically saying in those exact words that was their plan - then the clips don't really/actually "speak for themselves" in the manner you choose to believe they do. Or am I just not getting it? Which of course it entirely possible. I kind of hope that's the case.

i admire your patience, gutman

i think you “get it” just fine

@Rainbows: Well, you can decide for yourself. We already know this country has more people on meds than anywhere else in the world. It's a booming business to have people unwell and on drugs. If people are hurt from the shots, it will create more demand for other drugs or vaccines. Did you know that Pfizer is already developing a vaccine to help fix heart damage? Pretty suspicious given that heart damage is common among young persons (especially men) who took the shots.

PDub,

if it helps to expedite things:

pretty sure StayCurious is a Vega sock.

StayCurious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:38 pm @Rainbows: Well, you can decide for yourself. We already know this country has more people on meds than anywhere else in the world. It's a booming business to have people unwell and on drugs. If people are hurt from the shots, it will create more demand for other drugs or vaccines. Did you know that Pfizer is already developing a vaccine to help fix heart damage? Pretty suspicious given that heart damage is common among young persons (especially men) who took the shots.

here we go again…facts be damned

KUTradition wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:40 pm

StayCurious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:38 pm @Rainbows: Well, you can decide for yourself. We already know this country has more people on meds than anywhere else in the world. It's a booming business to have people unwell and on drugs. If people are hurt from the shots, it will create more demand for other drugs or vaccines. Did you know that Pfizer is already developing a vaccine to help fix heart damage? Pretty suspicious given that heart damage is common among young persons (especially men) who took the shots.

Interesting thoughts.

I had high blood pressure and high cholesterol before I took meds for both issues. Thankfully both are under control with meds. Wouldn't it be more finically beneficial for the "health care industry" if I had to have open heart surgery than if I am "healthy" by using meds?

As far as people getting "hurt" from shots, I completely understand how it would be beneficial (again - financially) for the drug companies if that's true (unless of course it was proven there was malicious intent and they got the shit sued of of them - and lost). My semi educated guess is that it's more beneficial (health wise) for people to get vaccines than it is harmful to get them but as I have said before - perhaps I'm wrong.

I admit I did NOT know Pfizer is developing a "vaccine" to help fix heart damage. Sounds promising.
I'm interested to know what types of heart damage the "vaccines" will help fix.
Anyways, you claim heart damage is "common" among young people (especially men) who have taken the "shots" (I assume you are referring to Covid vaccines). I can't prove one way or the other if my recent (August) heart issues were caused by the Covid vaccine but I have a strong feeling that your claim that heart damage is "common" among people who have been vaccinated for Covid isn't really true - unless by "common" you really mean rare - but still a side effect for some. Then I may agree.
To me, one is too many but "common" is very vague and your use of it seems to imply a decent if not high - (define decent and high as you will) percentage. I don't believe that but yet again I will say, of course I could be wrong.

Do you know how many people in the world get struck by lightning on a given day? There are a shit ton of people on the Earth. So many it made the news this week. Something as "rare" as getting struck by lightning. But it happens.


>650 per day.
240,000 per year

is it snowing yet, DP?

DrPepper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:58 pm Do you know how many people in the world get struck by lightning on a given day? There are a shit ton of people on the Earth. So many it made the news this week. Something as "rare" as getting struck by lightning. But it happens.


>650 per day.
240,000 per year

So you're saying my chances of winning the lottery are better than I previously thought...

DrPepper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:58 pm Do you know how many people in the world get struck by lightning on a given day? There are a shit ton of people on the Earth. So many it made the news this week. Something as "rare" as getting struck by lightning. But it happens.


>650 per day.
240,000 per year

I don't know if you're aware, but the rates of heart damage are extremely high in these shots vs traditional vaccines. In fact, older vaccines did not cause these kinds of problems in the heart. There are even some countries that are recommending men of younger age not to take them. Everything seems rare until it happens to your friend or someone you know. If you want to see countless examples, read some of these true stories:

http://realnotrare.com

Or go to Reddit and read how people are posting everyday, desperately looking for some kind of help.

http://reddit.com/r/vaccinelonghaulers

mRNA has been around a while, it isn’t some kind of voodoo

30 years isn't all that long in the big picture, and this is the first they ever tested it on a large subject group.