This is truly shocking. A GP receptionist spills the beans on what is going on.
Talking Really Blog
Talk is NOT cheap, just plentiful
Talk is NOT cheap, just plentiful
This is truly shocking. A GP receptionist spills the beans on what is going on.
https://brandnewtube.com/v/9ODIZo horrendous story
1: http://www.talkingreally.co.uk/membersarea/htmly/content/images/20210413110918-tn1.jpg
https://www.infowars.com/posts/this-information-could-destroy-the-covid-hoax-forever/
The full text of what Jones goes into detail over can be found below:
Here are 12 important questions and answers before considering getting vaccinated:
●”If I get vaccinated can I stop wearing a mask(s)?”
Government: “NO”
●”If I get vaccinated will the restaurants, bars, schools, fitness clubs, hair salons, etc. reopen and will people be able to get back to work like normal?
Government: “NO”
●”If I get vaccinated will I be resistant to Covid?”
Government: “Maybe. We don’t know exactly, but probably not.”
●”If I get vaccinated, at least I won’t be contagious to others – right?”
Government: “NO. the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission.”
●”If I get vaccinated, how long will the vaccine last?”
Government: “No one knows. All Covid “vaccines” are still in the experimental stage.”
● “If I get vaccinated, can I stop social distancing?”
Government: “NO”
● “If my parents, grandparents and myself all get vaccinated can we hug each other again?”
Government: “NO”
● “So what’s the benefit of getting vaccinated?”
Government: “Hoping that the virus won’t kill you.”
●”Are you sure the vaccine won’t injure or kill me?”
Government: “NO”
●”If statistically the virus won’t kill me (99.7% survival rate), why should I get vaccinated?”
Government: “To protect others.”
●”So if I get vaccinated, I can protect 100% of people I come in contact with?”
Government: “NO”
● “If I experience a severe adverse reaction, long-term effects (still unknown) or die from the vaccine will I (or my family) be compensated from the vaccine manufacture or the Government?”
Government: “NO – the government and vaccine manufacturer’s have 100% zero liability regarding this experimental drug”
So to summarize, the Covid19 “vaccine”…
Does not provide immunity
Does not eliminate the virus
Does not prevent death
Does not guarantee you won’t get it
Does not stop you from passing it on to others
Does not eliminate the need for travel bans
Does not eliminate the need for business closures
Does not eliminate the need for lockdowns!!!
A man with severe learning difficulties should have a Covid-19 vaccine, despite his family's objections, a judge ruled.
Specialists said the man, who is in his 30s, was "clinically vulnerable" and in a "priority group" for vaccination.
But the man's parents objected and raised a number of concerns about alleged side-effects.
Judge Jonathan Butler agreed with NHS Tameside & Glossop Clinical Commissioning Group that vaccination was in his best interests.
The judge, who is based in Manchester, considered the case at a hearing in the Court of Protection, where issues relating to people who lack the mental capacity to make decisions are analyzed.
He did not name the man in his written ruling, published on Friday.
A number of specialists involved in the man's care all thought he should be vaccinated but his father claimed the vaccine had not been tested sufficiently and did not stop people contracting Covid-19.
He added the long-term side effects on people with severe health issues were unknown.
The man's mother and brother agreed.
Judge Butler said the man's father had outlined his concerns with "conviction and great clarity".
'No clinical base' He added: "I have no doubt whatsoever that his objections are founded on a love for (his son) and a wish to ensure that he comes to no harm.
"His objections were not intrinsically illogical. They were certainly not deliberately obstructive.
"They were made upon the basis as to what he regards as being in the best interests of (his son).
"That concern for his son does him credit."
But he said the family's objections had "no clinical evidence base".
He said the man was vulnerable and said there was "overwhelming objective evidence of the magnetic advantage of a vaccination".
The judge said he had ruled that vaccination was in the man's best interests, but had not authorized "physical intervention".
Health authority bosses had said the vaccine would not be administered if any "form of physical intervention" was required.
A Tameside and Glossop Clinical Commissioning Group spokesperson said: "Our primary concern will always be the best clinical interests of our patients and we work closely with patients, families, and clinicians, and care providers to understand any concerns or judgments made about their care."