The Shocking Truth About Vaccines

Two good and co-coffee creamers are made with farm fresh cream, real milk, and contain

three grams of sugar per serving.

That's 40% less than the five grams per serving and leading traditional coffee creamers

for a rich, delicious experience.

Whether you enjoy your coffee hot, cold, bold, or frothy, two good coffee creamers make

every sip a good one.

Two good coffee creamers, real goodness in every sip.

Find them at your local croaker in the creamer aisle.

President Barack Obama.

Virginia, we are counting on you.

Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to raid the next election and wield

unchecked power for two more years.

But you can stop them by voting yes by April 21st.

Help put our elections back on a level playing field and let voters decide not politicians.

Vote yes by April 21st.

Paid for by Virginians for fair elections.

Hopefully this video will not get banned.

But today I want to talk about the shocking truth about vaccines.

On one hand, you know, I want to trust the science.

I want to trust the experts.

But on the other hand, science is about sharing viewpoints.

At the very foundation of science, you have disagreement.

This is a normal thing.

In fact, nearly every single scientific discovery came out of some disagreement with some mainstream.

Now it's a little bit better.

You can talk about these things, but four years ago.

If I talked about this and it opposed medical consensus, it was considered misinformation.

Somehow they changed the definition of misinformation.

I thought it meant incorrect or false information, but that's not what medical misinformation

means.

Medical misinformation means if you pose medical authority, medical consensus, who is this

authority, this all-knowing body that maybe sits in an ivory tower and pushes out the

truth about health?

One is the World Health Organization and the other is the CDC.

However, I just have a little problem with the potential conflict of interest with the

drug companies influencing those two organizations.

It's really sometimes hard to find the flow of money flowing into the World Health Organization,

as well as the CDC.

The CDC actually has patents and certain vaccines.

They get royalties.

My big problem with trusting the science is not the science part.

It's who's behind the science part, primarily in the area of vaccines for children.

Because I hear this over and over and over in social media and the news, they've been

tested for safety.

It's been proven that these vaccines are safe and effective.

Normally, when you study a drug, you compare it with a placebo.

So that way, you can truly test the side effects on something.

But that is not how they test children's vaccines.

What they'll do is they'll test an active vaccine with another active vaccine.

So this so-called placebo control is not really a true placebo control because it's not

inert.

It's an active vaccine with something called an adjuvant.

This is something they add to vaccines to create more of an immune reaction.

The big one that they've been using for a long time is aluminum.

Think about this for a second.

If I were to test the safety studies on whiskey, of course, I'd want to test that against

water, right?

But what if I tested whiskey against bourbon?

And I looked at the side effects of each, okay?

So whiskey will create fatty liver, creates inflammation of liver, cirrhosis, all sorts

of other problems like dementia, et cetera, et cetera.

So if I were to tell you, well, the bourbon had roughly about the same side effects as

the whiskey, so it's not any worse, that would be considered safe.

Yeah.

That's how they test these vaccines in children.

The argument that they make against this to justify it is they don't want to give a

true placebo with children because they consider that harmful, right?

Because they're not giving something that can save their life.

My question is how can you really truly test the safety and effectiveness of something?

If you're looking at the relative safety of an active vaccine to another active vaccine

with adjuvants, that just muddies the water to this whole safety and effective claim that

you keep hearing over and over and over again.

Has there ever been any drugs that were safe and effective by the general consensus that

then turned out to be dangerous?

And the answer is a big fact, yes, I'll give you a few, viox 60,000 excess deaths.

Paxil was considered safe and effective until they found out it really spiked self-harm

incidents.

And that company who actually had Paxil was sued for $3 billion.

What about trans fats, spent around for 90 or 100 years, you have asbestos.

Just like now, you have the gross, generally recognized as safe, right?

The industry controls that.

It's not even an independent...

Exema is unpredictable, but you can flare less with epglist, a once-monthly treatment

from moderate to superior exema.

Fiber and initial form mother longer dosing phase, about 4 and 10 people taking epglist,

achieved itch relief and glare are almost glare skin at 16 weeks.

And most of those people maintain skin that's still more glare at one year, with monthly

dosing.

EMPGLIS, LibriKizumap, LBKZ, a 250mg per 2ml injection is a prescription medicine used

to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 lbs or

40kg with moderate to severe exema.

Also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies

used on the skin, or topicals, or who cannot use topical therapies.

Epglist can be used with or without topical corticosteroids.

Don't use if you're allergic to EMPGLIS, allergic reactions can occur that can be severe.

Eye problems can occur.

Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems.

You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with EMPGLIS.

Before starting EMPGLIS, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection.

Ask a doctor about EMPGLIS and visit EMPGLIS.lily.com or call 1-800-LilyRX or 1-105-4-5-9-7-9.

In an FDA review at all, how can something so safe end up to be so dangerous?

When research is done, the raw data that that research is based on is not openly disseminated.

It's withheld.

So a big firm does a study and they have this raw data and they can kind of keep it confidential.

How do we know that the summary of that data that ends up in some research project is

not minimizing the harms and maximizing the benefits?

We don't.

We can't know that until it's subpoenaed and we can eventually get the information.

The other loophole which I think should really be addressed is this.

Did you know that 87% of all big, farma-sponsored studies are unpublished?

If a study doesn't turn out maybe how they want it, they don't have to publish it.

Potentially they could actually just publish the positive studies.

The ones that turn out good for that particular drug, new health guidelines are based on that.

How doctors perform medicine is based on that data?

How are we supposed to trust a science when we can't get all of the science?

Just think about one thing, astroturfing.

Astroturfing is setting up fake front groups that appear to be the general public talking

about it.

I actually want to share some of the names with these front groups because boy, they just

sound so amazing, right?

Here's one.

Citizens for patient safety sounds wonderful.

Here's one.

Partnership to protect patient health.

America Action Network.

Doctors for America, and a lot of them are coordinated to put various PR campaigns out

against RFK.

You need radical transparency all over the place.

This way, it'll make it very difficult to manipulate data.

I mean, it's just wild to me.

They'll say that RFK is not a doctor.

He's not fit to be in charge of HHS.

He's just an attorney that went after corrupt big pharma corporations and sued them for

billions of dollars.

Hello, isn't that what we need?

So my viewpoint is we don't really have a science problem.

We never did.

Ethics problem, please comment down below and tell me your thoughts and opinions about

this topic.

And since we're on the topic of corruption, if you have not seen this video on the corruption

in the food industry, you have to check it out.

Click right here.