• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Was the Vaccine Designed to kill

Why haven't mods deleted this for spreading dangerous misinformation?
are you joking?
no one can explain the excess deaths in THOSE countries where the vaccines have been deployed the most, whoever who can use logic and it's not self-deceived would at least consider the possibility...
 
It's not, because you are nothing more than a number, they could think in terms of EUGENICS, that's what they aim for, in fact., since at least a century ago, you just need to trace back their origins, to see there's eugenicists all around the vaccine production big names (Gates, AstraZeneca...)

If they think they can deploy that shit to kill some millions or lowering fertility of those who are stupid enough to inject that crap, then they think they'll be smart enough to control the rest, those who at least deserve reproductive rights for not being so dumb to inject that... with some kind of blackmail: digital control like digital identity, that digital tattoo, or whatever.

there's other possibilities, maybe the vaccine has something that will protect SOME of those who receive it from another virus ( that I SWEAR they are going to throw in the next 2-3 years, take my bet if you want here, I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna own it..) in the future.
it's eugenics, they want to keep some people alive, not everyone, we just don't know their criteria, but it's pretty obvious they don't want "useless eaters" because the machines/AI will take control of a lot of shit so the unemployment would be too big to deal with, so they will use the "universal basic income" just for a few, that few people that they could control, not billions and billions.


You guys that are all paranoid the government or whatever is using the vacs for population control.. why would they kill off us vaccine sheeple and let you obstinate decenters live?

Seems counterproductive to me
 
are you joking?
no one can explain the excess deaths in THOSE countries where the vaccines have been deployed the most, whoever who can use logic and it's not self-deceived would at least consider the possibility...
correlation does not imply causation

Follow me for more life advice and my morning routine videos. Like and subscribe.
 
correlation does not imply causation

Follow me for more life advice and my morning routine videos. Like and subscribe.
with that "correlation does not imply causation" one could deny everything,
because, as David Hume explained, centuries ago, there's nothing in the events that one could point as being the "cause",
it's ALWAYS, correlation, and never causation, even in scientific terms, that's why Popper's falsificationism makes sense, there's always the possibility of "other stuff" to explain whatever, otherwise, it's just a trick (a dogma).
 
with that "correlation does not imply causation" one could deny everything,
because, as David Hume explained, centuries ago, there's nothing in the events that one could point as being the "cause",
it's ALWAYS, correlation, and never causation, even in scientific terms, that's why Popper's falsificationism makes sense, there's always the possibility of "other stuff" to explain whatever, otherwise, it's just a trick (a dogma).
"Nobody can explain all these excess deaths, therefor it must be the vaccine"

...Is directly contradicting itself in it's own logic. It's almost a paradoxical statement.
 
"Nobody can explain all these excess deaths, therefor it must be the vaccine"

...Is directly contradicting itself in it's own logic. It's almost a paradoxical statement.
Not really, its just saying there is nobody can explain away the excess deaths, other than the fact that a bunch of people took a experimental vaccine in the last couple years so it’s highly likely to be the culprit
 
"Nobody can explain all these excess deaths, therefor it must be the vaccine"

...Is directly contradicting itself in it's own logic. It's almost a paradoxical statement.
No,
it's not,
where DID I say that it must be the vaccine? but the real thing is that it SEEMS to be the reason or at least the best explanation available, considering the data we have, it COULD be anything else. In fact, considering falsificationism, science can NEVER say something IS the case as a dogma, but as the best explanation currently available, and sincerely, not wanting to even comtemplate the possibility of the vaccine being the cause it's what makes people self-deluded, at least as much as those that consider it a dogma.
 
with that "correlation does not imply causation" one could deny everything,
because, as David Hume explained, centuries ago, there's nothing in the events that one could point as being the "cause",
it's ALWAYS, correlation, and never causation, even in scientific terms, that's why Popper's falsificationism makes sense, there's always the possibility of "other stuff" to explain whatever, otherwise, it's just a trick (a dogma).
What? Are you saying its impossible to find casual links? Because it absolutely is not. You just need the right evidence, you need a mechanism. Saying these people took a vaccine and then got xxxx disease isn't enough, especially when 80% of the population has had a vaccine, or whatever the number is now.
 
What? Are you saying a causal link cannot be found? Because it absolutely can. You just need the right evidence, you need a mechanism. Saying these people took a vaccine and then got xxxx disease isn't enough, especially when 80% of the population has had a vaccine, or whatever the number is now.
"Cause" it's not a fact, cause it's a type of relationship that humans have to explain reality. Hume was considering that, when we see something, we find relationships and rules, but rules are types of relationships. We see facts, and then we find a rule that "explains" that with some kind of regularity, that we could apply in certain conditions, but we cannot see the "cause" itself, just facts that repeat themselves under some logic (and the logic it's real, but as real it's only a temporary linguistic description of the world). Then there's the eternal scientific discussion between realists and idealists, what's more real, the mathematical relationships or the facts we could grasp and see? The fact it's that both are filtered through language and human brain limits.

For example, a mathematical relation between objects and series it's not "a thing" but a linguistic translation of a rule. We see an apple falling, we see that it accelerate at a certain way, and the we find a mathematical relation (gravity) to explain that event, but it's gravity the "cause" of the fall of the apple?. Yep, we say that, but, where it's the "cause" there? we see the correlation between facts and some regularity, when the regularity stops working, then we need a new rule/relationship to find.
This shit it's Wittgenstein-ian way of looking to Hume, so maybe it seems overly complicated, I'm sorry if that's the case, not my intention.
 
Saying these people took a vaccine and then got xxxx disease isn't enough
For any evidence to appear first it's needed to be taken seriously an hypothesis, otherwise, it's not to be found. There's quite enough scientific papers on pubmed or nlm, etc to start investigating about both the spike protein in the vaccines and the vaccines itself, those problems that have appeared with the vaccines.
I understand that those who took the jab are not willing to consider the possibility of it to be dangerous, oncogenic, toxic, gene damage inducing or whatever... I get that, but the only thing I'm saying it's that scientists should be open and not censored (social pressure it's a form of censorship) to research about that possibility.

Now, picture this: they say that covid it's the cause of all problems, (instead of the vaccine). They "oblige" a certain amount of population to inject the vaccine and at the same time the vaccines are so fucking useless that all that people end up having covid. So then, if the case is that the vaccine causes x problems, it's always easy to blame covid, cause everyone ended up with covid.. it's almost a win-win situation.
It would be easier to compare the problems on those countries that didn't have a big amount of population injected, that's for sure, but as you see, most people are not brave enough to do such big N studies yet. Mainly because those studies need quite a bunch of money, to be done seriously.
 
"Cause" it's not a fact, cause it's a type of relationship that humans have to explain reality. Hume was considering that, when we see something, we find relationships and rules, but rules are types of relationships. We see facts, and then we find a rule that "explains" that with some kind of regularity, that we could apply in certain conditions, but we cannot see the "cause" itself, just facts that repeat themselves under some logic (and the logic it's real, but as real it's only a temporary linguistic description of the world). Then there's the eternal scientific discussion between realists and idealists, what's more real, the mathematical relationships or the facts we could grasp and see? The fact it's that both are filtered through language and human brain limits.

For example, a mathematical relation between objects and series it's not "a thing" but a linguistic translation of a rule. We see an apple falling, we see that it accelerate at a certain way, and the we find a mathematical relation (gravity) to explain that event, but it's gravity the "cause" of the fall of the apple?. Yep, we say that, but, where it's the "cause" there? we see the correlation between facts and some regularity, when the regularity stops working, then we need a new rule/relationship to find.
This shit it's Wittgenstein-ian way of looking to Hume, so maybe it seems overly complicated, I'm sorry if that's the case, not my intention.
Thats an interesting philosophical statement, and I get it, nothing can ever be proven 100%, it can only have evidence for or against it. Nevertheless In science there definitely is a difference between correlation and causation. Eventually a shade of gray gets so dark that the possibility of it being white is no longer taken seriously.
 
where DID I say that it must be the vaccine?

you didn't. but there are plenty of people here who do.

a sportscaster collapses on air due to dehydration. LIES! it was caused by the vaccine.

it's irrelevant that, in these cases, those people don't know even know the vaccination status of the sufferer in question.

alasdair
 
Last edited:
Now, picture this: they say that covid it's the cause of all problems, (instead of the vaccine). They "oblige" a certain amount of population to inject the vaccine and at the same time the vaccines are so fucking useless that all that people end up having covid. So then, if the case is that the vaccine causes x problems, it's always easy to blame covid, cause everyone ended up with covid.. it's almost a win-win situation.
It would be easier to compare the problems on those countries that didn't have a big amount of population injected, that's for sure, but as you see, most people are not brave enough to do such big N studies yet. Mainly because those studies need quite a bunch of money, to be done seriously.
It’s almost like that’s why they typically do long term trials before releasing something to the population…….but we don’t have any long term data with a control group so good luck pinning anything to the vaccine directly, it’s almost like they did that on purpose :/ fuckin head scratcher
 
Yea the wise people clearly took the vaccine and still believe it to be totally safe bahahaha
By commenting before even watching the video you've helped prove my point.

"You can't change the mind of someone who doesn't want their mind changed. Most people's beliefs are not based on logic or reason. Most people's beliefs are based on identity and group affiliation."

Cheers
 
Top