The pandemic revealed the most cowardly society of all time

It's really better that people forget, because otherwise we'd have to talk about the Israeli study with 500,000 children. This study also compared vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals and found a 23% increase in autoimmune diseases among vaccinated children during the study period. And in the long term? We'll just have to wait and see.

With the topic in conversation circles, we'd have to discuss another study with 500,000 people, also from South Korea. This one found a 22.5% increase in Alzheimer's cases among the vaccinated compared to those who chose not to take the product. In addition to a 137% increase in mild cognitive impairment - the onset of Alzheimer's - during the study period.

How would newspapers, which are mostly run by the elderly and mostly supported coercing young people to get vaccinated, report another South Korean study published in a Nature group journal with more than 2 million patients that, when comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated, saw brutal increases in psychological disorders - like 68% more depression among the vaccinated, 44% more anxiety, dissociative disorders, stress-related disorders, and 93% more sleep disorders? Hard to make that a headline, let's say.

With the topic still buzzing, we'd all have to talk about another Israeli study that followed more than 220,000 pregnancies and found increases in spontaneous abortions and stillbirths after Covid-19 vaccines among vaccinated pregnant women, compared to unvaccinated pregnant women.

These are large observational studies in reputable journals, with controls. If we reject these, we need to reject the observational studies that "prove" vaccines saved millions of lives. You can't accept one standard and reject the other. After all, the original RCTs (gold-standard studies) for the vaccines didn't show reductions in mortality. Yet in the "official narrative," for benefits like reduced deaths, observational studies are treated as definitive causal proof.

"The vaccines saved X million lives" becomes a headline, and methodological limitations are downplayed. For harms (cancer, myocarditis, etc.), observational studies are dismissed as "just correlation" and RCTs are demanded (which will never be done for ethical reasons). And "We can't claim causality" becomes the mantra. (Here, I'm putting you, the reader, at an honest crossroads: either accept both types of studies or reject both. There's no escaping while maintaining intellectual integrity.)

If recent history were a topic of everyday interest, people would certainly question the curiosity of so many studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated coming only from South Korea and Israel. In that case, the recent news published in the Telegraph from England would probably echo far and wide. They reported that the British government was caught hiding data linking Covid vaccines to excess deaths, and the government's excuse was that it was to "avoid distress or anger."

In other words, there are many more people wanting to research this and other diseases, but most governments are withholding the data. The data already point to an ugly reality and an even worse future, and it may just be the tip of the iceberg.

If we keep talking about the pandemic, we'd have to mention that the Telegraph - official narrative, after all, it's one of the United Kingdom's most important newspapers - recently reported a revision of the numbers, based on a new calculation from Stanford University. " Covid-19 vaccines 'saved far fewer lives than initially thought.'"

Before, the WHO was talking about 20 million lives saved by Covid-19 vaccines. Now they're talking about a fraction of that: just 12.5% of the WHO's estimate. The news article carefully explains that previous calculations were "excessively optimistic." It wasn't misleading propaganda, folks. It was optimism, got it?

And the news goes on: "Aggressive mandates and zealotry to vaccinate everyone at any cost were probably a bad idea." In other words, the passports weren't to create demand and generate profit by selling the product to those who never needed it. It was just a bad idea, understand? A little innocent scientific slip-up, with no advantage for anyone, you know?

But then I ask: would anyone be surprised if, in the next revision down the line, they say it saved no one? Personally, I wouldn't. Or that, in a slightly longer term, in light of studies comparing critical diseases between vaccinated and unvaccinated, the Covid-19 vaccines killed more than they saved, becoming humanity's greatest medical disaster? Personally, I wouldn't.