"It really doesn't make sense, it defies logic. Some people get the Pfizer vaccine and feel fine, but they now test positive for covid.
"Other people get the Moderna vaccine and get sick and/or die but, supposedly, it's totally natural and has nothing to do with either covid or the vaccine.
"My contention is that the vaccines are killing people, mostly the elderly.
"The Pfizer vaccine in particular is also causing some people to test positive for covid, which makes it look like the deaths and illness are due to the virus, rather than the vaccine."
What is the California Health Care Foundation? Why Do They Push mRNA Injections on the Elderly and the Sick
Posted By: VaxxterAdmin3 05/27/2021
By John Jones, JD, PhD
And now for something completely different.
What is the California Health Care Foundation, and why do they push mRNA injections for sick, elderly people?
Advice from California Health Line: Get the shots … no matter what
On 27 January 2021, Judith Graham was credited with writing an article pushing the experimental Covid vaccines – the mRNA concoctions from both Pfizer and Moderna.
Titled, “If I Have Cancer, Dementia or MS, Should I Get the Covid Vaccine?” the piece is supposedly serious, but reads like a comedy sketch or string of jokes, which expose the ills of allopathic medicine.
Consistent with the title, Ms. Graham crafts the article to encourage people to take the shots – even those who: (a) are ill with cancer; (b) taking chemotherapy; (c) suffering dementia or other neurodegenerative diseases; or even (d) have an autoimmune disease or multiple sclerosis (which is actually due to a deficiency of vitamin D3).
And rest assured, throughout her piece, Graham insists that being older and having limited life expectancy is a greater cause to get the shots – now.
Graham begins by telling her readers that mainstream allopaths advocate injecting the elderly with these mRNA experiments.
“[Twenty-eight] States are beginning to offer vaccines [sic] to adults over age 65, 70 or 75, including those with serious underlying medical conditions.”
But what about those who have serious health conditions? As Graham says:
“a number of readers [sic] have asked me whether older relatives … should be immunized [sic] … and I solicited advice from several [experts].
As the article moves forward, Graham then presents a series of reader/theoretical questions. Each question and scenario struck me as a list of funny one-liners – and such tickle anyone who knows about health, vaccines, and nutrition. After posing a question, Graham then informs us as to what her experts say.
Scenario 1 – It’s only cancer
“Q: My 80-year-old mother has chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). … her oncologist [said]: “It won’t work for you, your immune system is too compromised to make antibodies.” She asked if she can take the vaccine anyway, just in case it might offer a little protection …”
Why would a woman, age 80, with leukemia, be overly concerned with a respiratory infection that is prevented via high doses of vitamin C, selenium, quercetin, and zinc? According to the American Cancer Society: “CLL can’t be cured, so doctors aren’t sure if further treatment right away will be helpful.”
At age 80 – already having exceeded life-expectancy at birth, and with CLL, there is little likelihood of extending one’s life. And there is no evidence that these experimental shots from Pfizer or Moderna would help. To the contrary, as the Norwegian data shows – elderly people, with comorbidities, who get the shot are likely to take a turn for the worse.
Apparently, the rising reports of deaths and injuries, in those wise enough to get Pfizered, are a mystery to Graham. Citing reports generated by Pfizer and Moderna, Graham claims that:
“Older adults, in general, responded extremely well [sic] to the two Covid-19 vaccines … In large clinical trials, sponsored by drugmakers Pfizer and Moderna, the vaccines [sic] achieved substantial [sic] protection against significant illness, with efficacy [sic] for older adults ranging from 87% to 94%.”
I started laughing after the admission that the data on efficacy came from Pfizer and Moderna. But what of the claim of substantial protection against significant illness? Despite what the drug companies say, we know that there is no evidence, established through a true placebo-controlled study, to show that the vaxxed are 6 to 13 times less likely to have significant Covid illness.
And appreciate the claim. The pharmaceutical companies concede that post-injection you will still get sick, but they want to assure you, just not as much. How could they know that?
Remember, It’s Risk versus Reward!
Graham conveys that an expert, working at a House of Chemo and Radiation, aka Sloan Kettering in New York, has the answer.
“Dr. Tobias Hohl, chief of the infectious diseases … noted that older adults are the people most likely to become severely ill and perish from Covid [sic], accounting for about 80% of deaths to date — a compelling argument for [sic] vaccination.
Graham pushes further, with an opinion from Dr. Armin Shahrokni, a geriatrician and oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering:
“Regarding safety, there is no evidence, at this time, that cancer patients are more likely to experience side effects from the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines than other people. … we are confident that these vaccines are safe for [cancer] patients ….”
Dr. Shahrokni is either a good dissembler – using the qualifier more likely; or blind and deaf to reports from the WHO (which writes: “Further studies are required for the impacts on immune-compromised persons”), and the Norwegian government (mentioned above), American nurses, mainstream news (see Florida doctor dies), etc.
As the Washington Post reported:
“These vaccines have very little [sic] risk, with a small exception for the frailest patients,” [says] Steinar Madsen, medical director with the [Norwegian Medicines] Agency”
To help those with trepidation, Graham throws in a few clarifications:
“Efficacy [sic] is a consideration for patients whose underlying cancer, or treatment, suppresses their immune systems. Notably, patients with blood and lymph node cancers [might] experience a blunted [sic] response to vaccines, along with patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy.”
Thanks Ms. Graham. Now I can trust the science, NOT!
Efficacy is something to be considered?! A vaccine response might be blunted? Blunted must be a new technical term that they teach MDs when they go to those professional training conferences sponsored by Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, etc.
Now we see a suggestion to integrate Covid vaccines with chemotherapy. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
“One approach might be trying to time Covid vaccination “in between cycles of chemotherapy,” said Dr. Catherine Liu, a professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.”
Given her blended approach, I imagine that Dr. Liu encourages students and patients alike with that old allopathic maxim: “better to make yourself sick now, than to risk being healthy later.”
Scenario 2 – diminished capacity? Step right up!.... more found at link above
If their vaccines don’t get you, there’s plenty more tricks up their filthy sleeve. There’s more than one way to kill a pensioner
A war is being waged by the subversive smirking reptiles who have hijacked our government against the citizens of the nation. Through starving you and freezing you, the effort to kill off the elderly continues. The following short article gives you one of the ways it is being done.
If you are hoping to reach old age, then this applies to you.
Fight back or die.
Here’s how the UK Government is Killing the Elderly
Mainstream media journalists frequently report that state pensioners in the UK receive £9,627.89 a year – or £185.15 a week.
This is, as you might expect, not exactly true.
Pensioners only receive this amount if they reached State pension age on or after 6th April 2016 and have paid at least 30 years’ National Insurance contributions.
Anyone who reached the state pension age before that date, and who was, if male born before 6th April 1951 or, if female, born before 6th April 1953, will receive a state pension of £141.85 a week or £7,376.20 a year. They too must have paid at least 30 year’s National insurance contributions.
That’s a massive difference.
So, why do those who are older (and therefore probably in greater need) receive notably less pension income than pensioners who are younger?
I can only think of one possible explanation: because it is bloody impossible to pay for accommodation, food and heating fuel with an income of ÂŁ7,376.20 a year.
I should know. That’s my state pension.
The UK Government is deliberately discriminating against older pensioners – even though they have paid the same amount in National Insurance contributions. The Government presumably hopes most of them will freeze or starve to death.
