Proof anti vaccine arguments are better

He said any hematologist can see it within seconds under a microscope, and even more readily under an electron microscope. "The percentage of blood affected [or contaminated] by or with Graphene Oxide is the reciprocity of the End of Cycle calculation," he divulged.

In other words, an "inoculatee" [as he calls anyone jabbed with the Experimental Use Authorization Eugenics Depopulation Lethal Injection Bioweapon] having 20% Graphene Oxide deterioration in their blood will, barring any other input criteria, live for 8 years. [10 years less 20%].

Someone with 70% Graphene Oxide deterioration will not live more than 3 years. [10 years less 70%].

Dr. Jane Ruby recently was interviewed by Stew Peters on his podcast and showed examples of what the deteriorated blood looks like when exposed to Graphene Oxide.

Graphene Oxide, for those who are unaware, is the component of Messenger RNA spike proteins and prions, which is at war with the heart, lungs, brain and blood for oxygen.

Graphene Oxide is an oxygen sponge which deprives the body of necessary oxygen and causes many complications, including but not limited to anaphylactic shock, toxic blood clotting, fatal lung paralysis, mitochondrial cancer, and endothelial cancer."

Dr. Mylo Canderian's viewpoint is much the same as Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, and the Big Pharma CEO's: LET THEM ALL DIE!

I asked Mylo what the effect of second and third shots and boosters do and how that changes the End of Cycle table.

Mylo replied: "It is all measurable through hematological testing. The more shots and boosters the imbeciles get, the worse their blood will look under a microscope, and the quicker they will turn to fertilizer."

Finally, I asked him how the plot to kill so many billions of people could be kept so secret by such a group of elites.

His answer was: "You don't know much about Freemasonry, do you, Steve?" And there you have it.

Serious side effects that could cause a long-term health problem are extremely unlikely following any vaccination, including COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine monitoring has historically shown that side effects generally happen within six weeks of receiving a vaccine dose. For this reason, the FDA required each of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines to be studied for at least two months (eight weeks) after the final dose. Millions of people have received COVID-19 vaccines, and no long-term side effects have been detected.
CDC continues to closely monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. If scientists find a connection between a safety issue and a vaccine, FDA and the vaccine manufacturer will work toward an appropriate solution to address the specific safety concern (for example, a problem with a specific lot, a manufacturing issue, or the vaccine itself).

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."

Conspiracy theorists have long pointed to the collapse of the 47-story structure as key evidence that the U.S. government orchestrated or abetted the 9/11 attacks. No planes struck the building, and the commonly available views of the exterior didn't show significant damage. Yet, at 5:20 pm, 7 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2), WTC 7 rapidly fell in on itself. Since WTC 7 housed Secret Service and CIA offices, conspiracy theorists claimed that the building was destroyed in a controlled demolition in order to obliterate evidence of the U.S. government's complicity in the terrorist attacks. "It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell of ABC's The View in March 2007. "For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said

Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.

World Trade Center 7 building did not collapse due to fire: Report

OTHERSWorld Trade Center 7 building did not collapse due to fire: Report

Ian Harvey May 20, 2020

Agroup of engineers and architects is demanding the American National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) retract and correct a 2008 report that concluded one of three World Trade Center buildings collapsed because fire weakened the steel supporting it in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911T) has formally filed a Request for Correction with the NIST following a new and detailed four-year analysis by a team at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF).
It says the World Trade Center (WTC) building 7 collapse was a “near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building” and dismissed the NIST finding that heat from the fire caused beams to “walk off” their moorings.
Sept. 11, 2001 is the tragedy of when two hijacked planes hit the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers sending debris tumbling onto WTC 7. The NIST claimed that embers ignited a fire which then caused the 47-storey building to collapse on itself at 5:20 p.m., hours after the initial incident that morning.
“We have filed a request for correction because the NIST report is wrong,” says Ted Walter, spokesperson for AE911T, which is a group of 3,000 engineers, scientists and architects, including more than a dozen Canadians ones, that paid US$316,000 for the study.
“From an engineering perspective it is imperative to understand how and why this building came down under design load conditions,” said Walter.
The study says NIST made some fundamental errors in how engineers estimated the rigidity of the outside building frame and that the heat generated by the fire did not trigger “thermal movements” at a critical base plate support.
Further, the group, which includes families of those killed, asserts that the investigation is flawed and that the conclusions as to what happened must be based on “science and engineering” and accept that controlled demolition is a plausible cause.
For expediency and because it was not hit by a plane, the study looked only at WTC 7 not the other two but AE911T has long claimed all three were subject to something beyond heat induced failure.
“The report notes that the outside frame was more flexible than the inside framing which is where the elevator shafts were,” says McMaster University professor emeritus of civil engineering, Robert Korol, a fellow of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering who is also one of two peers who reviewed the UAF study.
“Under the conditions described, the displacement of the outside steel would have been only one inch, not the 6.25 NIST claimed and not enough to cause failure.”
Further, he says, the debris from WTC 1 which fell 943 feet to WTC 7 did not attain sufficient mass to cause structural damage to the steel in that building.
The bottom line, he says, is that the NIST report is flawed and of no value to future engineering or architectural learning.
The Alaska report adds new momentum to long standing claims by the AE911T that all three of the buildings should not have collapsed in the spectacular and deadly manner they did. Further, and Korol underlines this, there was nothing in the offices beyond basic desks, chairs, computers and paper that would be of such a combustible nature so as to feed a fire and raise the temperature to above 1,400 degrees Celsius and melt the steel structure.
“We don’t even know if the steel was fireproofed,” says Korol.

which article gives better premises, uses more scientific jargon and sounds more educational?

Let's ignore which one is correct. Wh u is the CDC less informative than the quack?

Shouldn't the organizations pushing for vaccines be providing arguments equally as good as their opponent's, 

and if not why do they get upset if the anti vaxxers are listened to more?

They do and a thousand times more sensible and comprehensive and tested and reviewed by serious people.

flat earth physics models.

At the center of the Earth is the core, which has two parts. The solid, inner core of iron has a radius of about 760 miles (about 1,220 km), according to NASA. It is surrounded by a liquid, outer core composed of a nickel-iron alloy. The outer core is about 1,355 miles (2,180 km) thick. The inner core spins at a different speed than the rest of the planet. This is thought to cause Earth's magnetic field. When charged particles from the solar wind collide with air molecules above Earth's magnetic poles, it causes the air molecules to glow, causing the auroras — the northern and southern lights.

The point of this thread is not that anti vaccine arguments are better. The point is that if you are searching anti vaccine stuff, you are reading more thorough looking stuff. Why is that being ignored.