https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm
As decision time approaches for billions of unsuspecting people scared to death of Covid -19, here is an answer to one question that never seems to make the Top-10. What’s in the vaccine you’re going to shoot into my blood — bypassing all my God-given defenses against foreign matter that might make me sick or kill me?
When confronted with a new food at a party or restaurant it’s always good to ask: What is it? Where did it come from? Wouldn’t that seem like an appropriate natural response to a new vaccine developed at “Warp Speed” to counteract a “virus” that has not been identified properly?
We can begin here:
Q: “How does FDA evaluate adjuvants for safety and efficacy?:”
A: “When evaluating a vaccine for safety and efficacy, FDA considers adjuvants as a component of the vaccine; they are not licensed separately.”
The FDA has a similar list of vaccine ingredients and narrative. Please read these texts carefully before you decide whether or not you want any of these known ingredients injected directly into your blood. Aluminum is one ingredient that deserves a lot more scrutiny, and less cheer-leading, IMO.
Piece of Mindful 
“bypassing all my God-given defenses against foreign matter that might make me sick or kill me?”
Excellent! This is my first argument when friends talk about vaccines.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mine too.
And the “argument” of “dose” is tackled by “it doesn’t matter the dose, it has an effect”. I don’t want that effect, nor for me, nor for Molly. Stay off our Gaia given immune systems, our bodies don’t need to be “trained”, thank you very much schwabbers.
Vaccination = rape
Unmasking = hope
LikeLiked by 1 person
Appropriate post in light of the times. We knew it was coming and now it is here. The perfect cherry on top of the “Decade of Vaccines.” I’m also a huge fan of our natural immune system. A few additional points of note:
1) Scientists are still learning things about our immune system and how adaptive it is with many of the current vaccines developed using technology that is over 30 years old at a time when the immune system was largely not understood. (I would argue that our best scientists are still largely ignorant about many of the amazing things our bodies do.);
2) Many companies do NOT share the specific ingredients that make up the adjuvants in the vaccine (such as Merck’s AS04) as the adjuvant is proprietary information (a “trade secret”); and
3) I have yet to hear a vaccine producer give a good answer to this question: “If the vaccine is to produce an immune response to a foreign antigen, how does the vaccine know what is foreign and when to stop producing the immune response?” (the mRNA vaccines which have received all of the recent pub from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech are especially concerning along these lines).
LikeLike
Indeed a good question, but the ingredients in question have been common for decades, and accepted. Mandatory vacation goes back to 1904, at least.
The elephant in the room is the new technology, making people GMOs. In Germany, the Green Party opposed any gene manipulation, but vaccination that way is Ok now.
LikeLike
Horst, “common” and “accepted” is true. Those words do not reassure in the slightest, knowing what we now know. Is the intent of vaccines to heal or to harm? I do not think that question has been discussed nearly enough. Also, what has not been properly evaluated in my mind is the delayed, combined and/or cumulative effects of these known toxic metals and chemicals injected in minute amounts. Know of an studies? Could we even muster a “control group” which we could compare immune systems against if a researcher was inclined to find out?
LikeLike
The virus is a lie. The vaccine can ONLY cause harm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Coming at it from a different angle. One question that should be on exams for first year med students.
Q. What is essential in order to develop a widely accepted, mandated, and lucrative vaccine?
A. A virus.
LikeLike
The vaccine will be here before we know it. Emergency Use Authorization will allow for the manufacturers to begin shipping it out before the Phase II/III trials are even completed based upon “silly” interim data.
Moderna says its vaccine is 95% effective. Dr. Thomas Cowan correctly points out that the true effectiveness is actually 0.57% (based upon the interim trial data to this point). The “95% efficacy” is a relative risk reduction, while the absolute risk reduction is less than 1%. Will the masses even understand this as they take on the risk of side effects and adverse events (not to mention long-term effects of mRNA technology which nobody has any clue about).
LikeLike
Hello. I was under the impression that Relative Risk is the ratio of an outcome in patients with a risk factor compared to the risk in patients without the risk factor. Wouldn’t that naturally include the “absolute risk”? I just want to make sure that I am correct on this is. Thank you!
LikeLike
https://anchor.fm/iamiradio/episodes/Mollycast-14-4-49—the-Gaia-Guidestones-intro-emnluu
I spent 33 hours on the 3:11 intro.
Full free 129 min Mollycast coming soon!
LikeLike
The cover should say it all;
listen and give feedback!
LikeLike