Another thought to consider is how to make a weapon that doesn't raise suspicions. Or if it does, will take too long for the alarms to be raised that by the time they are raised... Most will be infected by the weapon?
With the known risks associated with the vaccine design. Eg a shotgun type effect of different biological mechanisms.
First off, most adverse events will be delayed by years. Meaning exposure won't trip off many alarms. If we dropped dead quickly uptake would not be feasible.
Secondly lightning seldomly strikes twice in the same place... So many mechanisms mean most doctors on a case by case basis won't see a pattern emerging. Cancer here. Dementia there. Heart attack. They seem unrelated.
Thirdly. Create distrust and break social cohesion. This way people won't even listen to the raised alarm without attacking those who raised it.
When managing risks. My advice is simple and is field tested.
First you must consider the most significant hazards or risks known. No matter how likely or unlikely. And establish controls to eliminate or otherwise minimize those particular hazards.
Secondly you consider the most common or expected hazards and risks. And do the same for those.
Thirdly you consider the remainder of the hazards and risks. And develop processes for them.
By mitigating the most catastrophic hazards and the most common hazards you can most effectively reduce the risk to the whole. With the least effort or force. It is somewhat like the use of the 80:20 rule but employed for risk management purposes.
In our current climate. What do you think is the most significant or catastrophic risk? And what safeguards do we have available to prevent or otherwise minimize those hazards? Is it getting better and easier or harder and more difficult? Because I think it is the latter. But that all makes sense if the plan was to deny the ability to mitigate the impact.
Death is the goal. When people are gleefully setting out to kill as many people as they can, they WANT people to DIE. It's our inability to understand this that is keeping us from revolution. DEATH IS THE GOAL. The sooner we can get our heads around that, the sooner we can start some serious disruption of the plan.
Sep 26, 2022·edited Sep 26, 2022Liked by Conway Judge
Hiya,
The perfidy is even deeper than she says. There is no evidence that even one death was caused by a virus. There is NO risk from a viurs. All they did was find some RNA sequences, also found in healthy people.
There is no gain of function virus. The spike protein they have been developing and is produced from the mRNA code may indeed cause inflammation, bind to ACE2 receptors and be neurotoxic. But there is no evidence that it comes from a transmissible, pathogenic entity.
They have persuaded millions, and coerced the military into being injected with mRNA coding for this apparently harmful protein for absolutely no scientifically. based reason.
It can only. be explained by malign intent.
And yes- take out the young fit men and women first; who understand how to use mechanical weapons, least they turn them on the technocracy.
Another thought to consider is how to make a weapon that doesn't raise suspicions. Or if it does, will take too long for the alarms to be raised that by the time they are raised... Most will be infected by the weapon?
With the known risks associated with the vaccine design. Eg a shotgun type effect of different biological mechanisms.
First off, most adverse events will be delayed by years. Meaning exposure won't trip off many alarms. If we dropped dead quickly uptake would not be feasible.
Secondly lightning seldomly strikes twice in the same place... So many mechanisms mean most doctors on a case by case basis won't see a pattern emerging. Cancer here. Dementia there. Heart attack. They seem unrelated.
Thirdly. Create distrust and break social cohesion. This way people won't even listen to the raised alarm without attacking those who raised it.
See the pattern emerging?
When managing risks. My advice is simple and is field tested.
First you must consider the most significant hazards or risks known. No matter how likely or unlikely. And establish controls to eliminate or otherwise minimize those particular hazards.
Secondly you consider the most common or expected hazards and risks. And do the same for those.
Thirdly you consider the remainder of the hazards and risks. And develop processes for them.
By mitigating the most catastrophic hazards and the most common hazards you can most effectively reduce the risk to the whole. With the least effort or force. It is somewhat like the use of the 80:20 rule but employed for risk management purposes.
In our current climate. What do you think is the most significant or catastrophic risk? And what safeguards do we have available to prevent or otherwise minimize those hazards? Is it getting better and easier or harder and more difficult? Because I think it is the latter. But that all makes sense if the plan was to deny the ability to mitigate the impact.
Death is the goal. When people are gleefully setting out to kill as many people as they can, they WANT people to DIE. It's our inability to understand this that is keeping us from revolution. DEATH IS THE GOAL. The sooner we can get our heads around that, the sooner we can start some serious disruption of the plan.
Hiya,
The perfidy is even deeper than she says. There is no evidence that even one death was caused by a virus. There is NO risk from a viurs. All they did was find some RNA sequences, also found in healthy people.
There is no gain of function virus. The spike protein they have been developing and is produced from the mRNA code may indeed cause inflammation, bind to ACE2 receptors and be neurotoxic. But there is no evidence that it comes from a transmissible, pathogenic entity.
They have persuaded millions, and coerced the military into being injected with mRNA coding for this apparently harmful protein for absolutely no scientifically. based reason.
It can only. be explained by malign intent.
And yes- take out the young fit men and women first; who understand how to use mechanical weapons, least they turn them on the technocracy.
JO