Dr. Francis Boyle, Author of the 1989 Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act, States Covid19 Jabs are Bioweapons
Dr. Joseph Sansone seems to be a clear and rational thinker. You could do worse than to give him a follow. In this article on Substack he reports that Dr. Francis Boyle, the author of the 1989 Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act - which passed both houses of Congress unanimously - states that the Covid19 jabs meet the definition of biological weapons.
"Dr. Boyle asserted that ‘COVID 19 injections’, ‘COVID 19 nanoparticle injections’, and ‘mRNA nanoparticle injections’ are biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction and violate Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023)."
"Dr. Boyle provided this affidavit in a Florida case involving an Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus that seeks to compel Governor DeSantis to prohibit the distribution of ‘COVID 19 injections’, ‘COVID 19 nanoparticle injections’, and ‘mRNA nanoparticle injections’, in the state of Florida. It also seeks to compel Attorney General Ashley Moody to confiscate the vials."
IMG source - JosephSansone.Substack.com
If you have any questions, try re-reading that. The only question I am left with is why would anyone allow themselves to be injected with a biological weapon for the flu?
Dear @valued-customer !
I assumed that ‘COVID 19 injections’ and ‘COVID 19 nanoparticle injections’ were intended to reduce the population by making humans infertile.😮
Then they were utterly incompetent. The jabs killed <1:1000 of recipients. If I wanted to make a poison that killed people, I could easily make one that killed 100% of them. The very few deaths that resulted from the jabs given to ~5B people, some ~20M, were simply adverse effects of the jabs. Perhaps that result wasn't particularly unwelcome, but it clearly was NOT the primary purpose of the jabs.
Other information reveals that there were several formulations of jabs people received. Different lot numbers had different adverse events, and very different numbers of deaths associated with them. These were different formulations, with very different impacts on recipients. There is no way to legally arrange to test medical devices with such significant adverse effects, including death of subjects. But the creators of these jabs wanted to be able to achieve whatever the purpose of the jabs was, and to design their jabs to attain those purposes, they needed to test them on live people.
The creation of the SARS2 virus by Ralph Baric and Shi Zhengli in WIV enabled terrorist propaganda to be used by China, other governments, and the enemedia to lie to people and convince them it was a plague. The WHO reported that the death rate from Covid19 was 3.4%, which was orders of magnitude higher than the actual .003% death rate. The early video out of China showed bodies (or black body bags stuffed with something) stacked up in cargo trucks. There were reports of mass cremations going on, with military mobile crematoria being secretly used that people claimed to detect using air quality downwind of Wuhan. Videos from China showed people keeling over in mid-stride, blood streaming from their mouth, nose, eyes, and ears. As we later learned, Covid19 did not cause such symptoms.
The jabs did though. We saw videos of people dropping immediately after being injected with Covid19 jabs. We saw videos of people spasming uncontrollably after being jabbed, of horrific effects on blood, with massive clots causing deadly infarctions and heart attacks, even in very young people. The enemedia blamed anything but the jabs on those symptoms, like climate change, daily showering, eating eggs for breakfast, driving SUV's, etc. Anything TPTB wanted to suppress was blamed for the adverse events caused by the jabs.
Therefore it seems highly likely that SARS2 was engineered as a relatively mild cold, comparable to annual flu, so that the families of the operators that were behind the psyop were not actually at risk of dying in a pandemic from it. The terrorist propaganda convinced people to submit to the 'experimental' jabs, the definition of vaccine was changed in dictionaries, and captured government officials claimed the jabs were perfectly safe and would protect people from the 'horrible plague' that SARS2 did not actually cause, but all the fake news convinced people it did. This enabled these unacceptably dangerous medical devices to be tested on masses of live people, so that the creators could learn how to achieve the desired effects from their jabs. Infertility may well be one of the goals of the jab creators. We don't know because their actual goals and formulations remain covert.
This information has now enabled refining their technology, and the medical devices have been improved based on that test data. The next pandemic will likely see those 'new and improved' vaccines rolled out and deployed on the global population.
Do not recommend. Avoid like the plague, IMHO.
Your argument is shocking!😨
I didn't get any Covid19 jabs.
Yay! I'm very happy about that, my friend.
As a scientist, you can't learn anything concretely useful from this matter, from my limited point of view.
To find out how effective and what degree of mild to severe to fatal a medical agent is, you need a long-term observation of selected test subjects who undergo the observation as such (under the condition "still running"). To my knowledge, this has not been done or I have no knowledge that thousands of people have made themselves available as steady test subjects for long-term observations. IF that is the case (imaginable) then scientists cannot refer to present time but would only be able to make conclusions in a future to come.
How I see it, it is not possible to draw good conclusions from a population generally exposed to one substance. No reliable conclusions can be drawn if I, as a researcher, do not collect data that meets scientific standard. I suspect that there is no such reliable data collection - I don't know anyone who would have said that they would knowingly take part in a long-term study. Now, that is not something, I can make a bet on.
But the general public is not involved in this, it cannot be otherwise, is what I think. Only selected groups who consented being test persons. Which raises the question if people who were very much against what happened during that era, would have even be willing to put themselves in as test subjects for long term studies as the "non jabbed". ... I don't know, of course.
Even where patients have consulted their GPs or other doctors about side effects, it has been reported doctors have refused to document the injection as the cause of the side effects. Others who have had injections have also not gone to their doctors and reported the effects to them, it seems to me. They were told that they would have side effects and so they expected them.
Only really severe cases of near death or actual death would probably be documented. But even that is not certain. Since putting "death by injection" as the main cause for death, seemed to be somewhat dangerous to doctors and pathologists, I think.
Since there are constant contradictions in this affair and a reliable study did not take place before the mass administration of the substance, in which two groups were compared in a blind test procedure representing a period of five or eight or more years, the question is justified: How is it even possible to make statements about the effects of a substance if there is no real basis on which to do so?
Especially since the test group of non-jabbed people must not only not have received a Covid ‘vaccination’, but not any vaccination at all? Since other ‘vaccinations’ could already have an influence on a person's health constitution.
This leaves me with the question:
How can
I generally distrust video sources.
On the psychological level, it may be even more difficult to tell for the future how people will behave. Since a persons outlook on the affair most likely was/ is changing. Those who followed the measurements might not follow them again. And those who did not, might do so. Maybe, more people, after having the 2020 and following years as experience might now be more able to sniff it out when things begin to smell foul. ... Well, all speculative.
How I see it, it is that you will never have ALL people to be on one side. Statistics are extremely difficult to put together.
One of the more interesting aspects of the adverse events reported are the MAC addresses, various self-assembling devices, and etc. Were some of these formulations intended to test how to inject self-assembling antennae, circuits and tiny chips into radios and reporting devices, then successful tests would not require any willful participation of the test subject, because the injection would report it's successful assembly itself.
Failures would also self-report their failure, by not reporting, and this for any number of self-assembling technologies where radio transmissions were from injectables were functional. Radios are VERY simple, and would be extremely likely to be one of the first devices to reliably be able to inject.
Whether or not individuals thought they agreed to participate in a study, all the jabbed were in fact participating in safety trials, according to Pfizer. IIRC that trial ended in July, 2023. Since the injection recipients were all identified by name, which then is linked to their medical history and GP, and associated with lot numbers and date of injection, there is a baseline of data that can be used to assess performance, depending on subsequent medical outcomes for those individuals. The data would include if they survived, how long they survived, and what subsequent medical issues they did or did not suffer. Depending on the specifics of the injections, data the subjects provide regardless of intending to participate can support a variety of tests.
Success at some of the trials might be achieved by only metrics subjects cannot avoid providing, such as whether they lived or not, and whether the radio devices in them (and whatever is connected to them) can be contacted remotely. We can't really know without knowing what is being tested. I am also confident that HIPAA (medical privacy laws) is ignored, so any symptoms or changes to baseline subjects report to their GP's may well provide nominal data for researchers into specific medical devices, such as elevation or decline in any of a number of metrics.
I am in agreement.
Thanks!
I went down the rabbit hole a bit regarding RFID chip technology and emerged after two hours with the conclusion that things are unstoppable.
People who grow up in affluent societies develop a kind of paranoia, in my opinion. All control and tracking methods are based on the greatest possible future threats and argue on the basis of killings that have already occurred, such as terrorist attacks. With all negative assumptions made as ‘very likely’ and therefore ‘potentially dangerous’, as well as positive assumptions as ‘demonstrably useful’ and ‘potentially protective’.
None of these assumptions deal with the generally peaceful people in the centre, who pay no attention to one or the other and are therefore considered ignorant by both camps.
In their favour, I rather suspect a kind of unconscious intuition that human beings are ultimately constantly entangled in contradictions and that there is an inherent paradox at the heart of things. This dilemma becomes more pronounced the more you look into the subject. The amount of time and energy needed to become fully informed towards technology is mind crippling.
However, the use of nanochips in the human body, from how I understand it, is ultimately not a diagnostic tool, it is one that connects data with end readers and can enable this data to be merged. The tracking possibilities are immense, as is the misuse of data. RFID is already being used on a large scale by both the government and the private sector. Processes might be slowed down through activist groups who use influence on politics but I doubt they will stop them.
I would say that I am a sceptic and since I am, I am oftentimes astounded by peoples quick attachment to either glorify or condemn progressiveness when confronted.
Even rather reasonable people have tendencies to celebrate possible methods of "fighting old age" or other forms of augmentation. Oh well... I am tired talking of it.
It's really really alarming to think about the potential consequences of these injections. It makes you wonder about the true intentions behind their distribution.
What is even more alarming to me is the global coordination of corrupt governments, particularly those of the West, with supposedly democratically elected representatives. Clearly, democracy has utterly failed in enabling government to represent their populations through democratic elections, because democracies enacted the same policies military despotisms did. The massive psyop that has been executed through the enemedia, government, and corporations acting in concert to deceive populations has been almost completely immune to just prosecution. Only now, in Florida, are reasonable attempts being made to withdraw these medical devices from the market, and that is a prerequisite to prosecution of the profiteers and creators of the jabs for their crimes against humanity.
It's been 4 years, and ~20M people have died. That's more than the population of some countries. These crimes have been able to be continued - in fact the FDA just stamped with approval and is now promoting a new round of boosters. Clearly, the FDA doesn't expect to be justly prosecuted and hanged for war crimes against humanity.
We should surprise them.
Thanks!
Wait what.... I never know the statistics big bro... Did you say 20 million in 4 years... Imagine if people weren't giving birth.... This is going out of hand and there's a serious need for radical change immediately.. I hope things turn around quickly otherwise the whole world is in trouble
We're in trouble. Klaus Schwab, who until recently chaired the WEF, even wrote a book saying that the plandemic was a great opportunity to remold global financial mechanisms. While he and his minions always pay lip service to fairness and equity for all, they never EVER mention how THEY'RE going to share THEIR wealth.
Because they're not. The real change they want to undertake in the global financial markets is for them to get more of the money, and the rest of us to settle for less. That's what's actually happened in the last four years, and they happily gobbled up their slop at the troughs at which they feed on it, as excreted from governments.
They're killing us and taking our stuff, just like murdering robbers always have. There is a just sanction for such criminals: hanging by the neck until dead, and that's what I reckon will be necessary to stop their depredations. They'll stop killing and robbing us when they're dead, and not until then.
Although I never wanted anyone to die... I'm starting to think that's the only way to rid our world of such evil people.. they simply won't stop hurting and cheating and stealing so they shouldn't be alive
We need to take such preventative measures as are necessary to prevent us from being criminally harmed. It's just what we have to do to survive.
You're absolutely right on this big brother
Congratulations @valued-customer! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 800 posts.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts: