Genocide in sight and planned depopulation?

[Obamot]

!	Message by Obamot
	Seen like that .... A question for the BAC: - "Nonsense / egoism / autism" are they wills to harm? " In this file: the “will harm"Is it established, yes or no, or even"grossly indirect" or not?

Let's see ... let's see ...
If one of the adjuvants would have been deliberately implemented to create side effects for a specific purpose other than the fight against the virus - there yes, there would be “will to harm” - but still it will be necessary to prove it. .

If the formulas would not have been planned a priori to eradicate the virus, but to maintain “the lucrative bastringue of lifelong vaccinations”(Leaving the back door (s) so that the variants can multiply themselves (always with the burden of proof, but there, scientific hypotheses have been put forward).

If “off label” molecules (old and not initially intended to fight against the forms of covid), but which would have been really effective against them, and would make it possible to effectively treat covid early, but that a deliberate undertaking would have was organized, financed, methodically executed, to conceal its effectiveness in order to promote the juicy business of vaccinations (I put it on the conditional although we know from a reliable source, that neither ivermectin nor hydroxychloroquine, nor azytromicine would not have caused as many side effects as all the vaccinations put together) there “the will to prevent the virus from doing harm *”Would be easier to prove ...

If fake studies have been set up with the aim of deceiving the scientific community on hydroxychloroquine in particular, in order to deliberately discredit the molecule (in particular by crude artefacts such as: overdose, forgetting to associate it with azytromicine , or by deliberately not using the right early treatment protocol (for example Surgisphere and the Lancet scandal) and that we manage to trace the funding channels to the labs (there I think it's done. ..) there would be well established will to harm ...

If what Richard Horton of The Lancet says is true, that is, almost 50% of scientific studies are biased for commercial purposes ...

If it could be proved that the stats, and therefore the possible test methods in the data collection, would have been deliberately manipulated (regardless of the method and the means) always with the same aim of scaring the populations to lead to the lucrative business of vaccinations, there would be will to harm (many criminal cases are being set up / instructed in this direction ... we will see the result ...)

If it is proven (and this is so big as it is) that neither the WHO, nor the health authorities, have carried out massive TRUE PREVENTION campaigns, in order to limit the impact of covid: like fight against the causes of comorbidities: obesity, huge consumption of sugar, better encourage the practice of 'low impact' sports, or even encourage the monitoring by mothers of the families' food bolus to add what should be s. '' find there in order to avoid deficit (and not only to wash your hands and put on a mask, the benefit of which is ridiculous in view of the above ...) but damn, where are such campaigns that should be massive? It is not only the “will to harm” of simple ordinary criminality, but I even consider that it is a criminal and guilty will not to have done so ...

I'm not even talking about the liberticidal measures and or control of citizens, introduced by the gang ...

In short, the whole file is so huge, that it becomes eminently political (and it always has been) so that the “will to harm” is no longer only detectable here or there ... it exists. , but perhaps not the will (political or judicial) to shed light on this, it really touches on a social problem ...

*) and therefore indirectly harm.

[pedrodelavega]

I was still discussing it today with a professor, not only there would have been will to harm, but in an organized gang.

A teacher of what?

[ABC2019]

I was still discussing it today with a professor, not only there would have been will to harm, but in an organized gang.

A teacher of what?

may be from psychiatry, his attending physician?

[Obamot]

This is what these twists have found to raise the debate. Childish. What the hell are you doing?

We are talking about substantive issues here, such as “isn't society too embroiled in the uncontrollable whirlwind of human activity to find solutions to such a health crisis ”

You're an ABC fool, and even a big asshole, who uses four-penny manipulation techniques,

like Végaz, for lack of argument on the essentials, you try to piss off the world, instead of seeing the essential ...

And this why? Because you did not like my view of the problem and you do see some unpleasant causes for the sponsors of your harmful lobbying behavior here. Otherwise you would seek the debate. Manure.

Pov 'type, you dumbass. I understand that your provocation is sanctioned by a month of ban.

[pedrodelavega]

If what Richard Horton of The Lancet says is true, that is, almost 50% of scientific studies are biased for commercial purposes ...

Knowing that it is in his journal that was published wakefield and more recently surgisphere ......
He may well make this kind of declaration to clear himself ...

[Janic]

obamot

*) and therefore indirectly harm.

the same adventure concerned tobacco when manufacturers found themselves before the American congress concerning additive products added to cigarettes. Business and ethics have never gone hand in hand. Did the industrialists have a will as a direct to harm where the profits outweighed known risks: "ltobacco kills ". Business won over ethics, however stressing that the will to harm was present, but underlying!

[Obamot]

Indeed, well seen Janic, it is the same barrel!

If what Richard Horton of The Lancet says is true, that is, almost 50% of scientific studies are biased for commercial purposes ...

Knowing that it is in his journal that was published wakefield and more recently surgisphere ......
He may well make this kind of declaration to clear himself ...

You are frankly not up to the thread initiated by Gégyx. Yes, the same for Professor Raoult, whom I do not praise unnecessarily, he has a long career of conformism to the doxa (which should have pleased you imbecile ...). So Horton? So what...? It's the same ... you don't understand a thing, you're not up to the task. Truly not. ABC is almost worse. As soon as you go a little deep, you are dropped.

[Janic]

pedroabcon» 25/09/21, 09:19

Obamot wrote:
If what Richard Horton of The Lancet says is true, that is, almost 50% of scientific studies are biased for commercial purposes ...

Knowing that it was in his journal that wakefield was published

all the more! You are obsessed with the Wakefield case, even when all your bogus arguments fell through because they were just a bunch of fakenews from a journalist put in his place by the president of the tribunal!

[Obamot]

We will see what the investigation will give.

What did the 911 investigation give?

Ah! was there an investigation? I thought there was only the “report”

[sen-no-sen]

Why do you want to organize a global genocide when the demographic decline is starting naturally?

Continued global population growth is no longer the most likely path for the world's population.

According to this study, twenty-three countries would lose more than half of their population, including Japan, Thailand, Spain, Italy, Portugal and South Korea. While in 25 other countries, including China, the number of inhabitants would decrease by 50 to XNUMX%.
Declining fertility rate

Why such a drop? Because of the decrease in the fertility rate. According to Washington researchers, by 2100, almost all countries (183 out of 195) will have a fertility rate (average number of children per woman) below the generation replacement threshold (2,1 births per woman) .

It is true that fertility rates have already started to fall all over the world since 1950, and Europe in particular has already fallen below the replacement threshold.

https://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_demographie-la-population-mondiale-sera-t-elle-bientot-en-declin?id=10732164

Moreover (or rather less) his studies do not take into account the decrease in fossil energy production, nor the consequences of the degradation of the biosphere ...