I laughed out loud when i got to this part: "What happens physiologically to a child between the ages of 11 years, 364 days and 11 years, 365 days to justify the child now needing a second dose that is three times larger than his/her first dose?"
You are hitting some excellent points!! I'll do my part and call and email and urge them to provide answers to all journalists' questions, and will cite some of these questions directly if that's OK. I just hope I don't start seeing black vans outside my house or following me when I leave the house...
I was particularly triggered hearing Rochel Walensky's testifying saying she did not know what % of her/CDC employees are vaccinated. I wish to goodness that senator would have said, "OK, ok. I get you do not know what it is right this second, but what was it the last time you heard?" She would of course say, I dunno I'll have to get that for you, then if only he would have pressed once more "well what was it the last time you recall hearing anything along these lines". I was shocked and disgusted she shirked that question. If she can't answer anything along those lines in real time that is really telling.
As much as I would LOVE to see answers to all this, I wonder this is biting off more than they can chew. I wonder if you asked one simple question would they maybe see that as less threatening and easier to respond to? Like what's the justification for the differing dose requirements for 11 and 12 prepubescents, across the board regardless of everything other than one day of age in some situations.
I called Scott Pauly's office number that you provided and asked him some questions. I was surprised to get his voice on the voicemail. I think that'd be great if we had a bunch of people calling and asking some of these questions, or any others that we have. 👍🏼
Awesome work Darby Shaw! I'm in Australia but if it's ok with you, I will ask our own corrupt version of CDC- The TGA and ATGI. One question i would REALLY REALLY like answered, from the very beginning of the whole vaccine campaign, by ANY of these regulatory bodies and Pharmaceutical companies, -
What's the cut limit number? Ie.
What was the number of deaths specified within the clinical trial documents, as being the acceptable loss limit? What number did they set as a signal to end the trial for safety reasons?
I've heard in the past it was 26. Dr Jessica Rose mentioned this number in a podcast but I can't find any documentation to support this.
No reason for doctors to refuse medical exemptions these days for a covid-19 vaccine, otherwise it's willful misconduct with all the legal protection they currently enjoy.
Excellent questions, Darby. I would like to add the question: Why are children not being tested for natural immunity before being jabbed with this gene therapy agent since it is estimated that 70% of children have already had covid? Dr. Harvey Risch had an excellent interview with Jan Jekielek at Epoch Times' American Thought Leaders. I highly recommend it. I've heard the 70% number several times - it may have been in the ATL interview (in 2 parts) with Dr. Paul Alexander. He has an article about 135 studies about natural immunity and is very outspoken about not injecting children. https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/ If you're not familiar with the Brownstone Institute, it is a good site. I will contact the CDC with my questions. Steve Kirsch has a link on his Substack newsletter to comment on the OSHA mandates which I also did tonight.
Also, on another advocacy note, people need to call/write their senators and ask them to vote against HR 550 which was passed in the House with 80 Republican (RINO) votes. It is named the Immunization Infrastructure Modernization Act and is pure surveillance of Americans' vaccination status which violates our medical liberty.
The crickets you’re hearing are the CDC’s way of disclosing what they really think about us. Those are all excellent questions deserving of answers.
I laughed out loud when i got to this part: "What happens physiologically to a child between the ages of 11 years, 364 days and 11 years, 365 days to justify the child now needing a second dose that is three times larger than his/her first dose?"
You are hitting some excellent points!! I'll do my part and call and email and urge them to provide answers to all journalists' questions, and will cite some of these questions directly if that's OK. I just hope I don't start seeing black vans outside my house or following me when I leave the house...
I was particularly triggered hearing Rochel Walensky's testifying saying she did not know what % of her/CDC employees are vaccinated. I wish to goodness that senator would have said, "OK, ok. I get you do not know what it is right this second, but what was it the last time you heard?" She would of course say, I dunno I'll have to get that for you, then if only he would have pressed once more "well what was it the last time you recall hearing anything along these lines". I was shocked and disgusted she shirked that question. If she can't answer anything along those lines in real time that is really telling.
As much as I would LOVE to see answers to all this, I wonder this is biting off more than they can chew. I wonder if you asked one simple question would they maybe see that as less threatening and easier to respond to? Like what's the justification for the differing dose requirements for 11 and 12 prepubescents, across the board regardless of everything other than one day of age in some situations.
I called Scott Pauly's office number that you provided and asked him some questions. I was surprised to get his voice on the voicemail. I think that'd be great if we had a bunch of people calling and asking some of these questions, or any others that we have. 👍🏼
FOIA, and legal action. Otherwise just an exercise in futility.
Awesome work Darby Shaw! I'm in Australia but if it's ok with you, I will ask our own corrupt version of CDC- The TGA and ATGI. One question i would REALLY REALLY like answered, from the very beginning of the whole vaccine campaign, by ANY of these regulatory bodies and Pharmaceutical companies, -
What's the cut limit number? Ie.
What was the number of deaths specified within the clinical trial documents, as being the acceptable loss limit? What number did they set as a signal to end the trial for safety reasons?
I've heard in the past it was 26. Dr Jessica Rose mentioned this number in a podcast but I can't find any documentation to support this.
No reason for doctors to refuse medical exemptions these days for a covid-19 vaccine, otherwise it's willful misconduct with all the legal protection they currently enjoy.
https://guessname.substack.com/p/checkmate-doctor?
Excellent questions, Darby. I would like to add the question: Why are children not being tested for natural immunity before being jabbed with this gene therapy agent since it is estimated that 70% of children have already had covid? Dr. Harvey Risch had an excellent interview with Jan Jekielek at Epoch Times' American Thought Leaders. I highly recommend it. I've heard the 70% number several times - it may have been in the ATL interview (in 2 parts) with Dr. Paul Alexander. He has an article about 135 studies about natural immunity and is very outspoken about not injecting children. https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/ If you're not familiar with the Brownstone Institute, it is a good site. I will contact the CDC with my questions. Steve Kirsch has a link on his Substack newsletter to comment on the OSHA mandates which I also did tonight.
Also, on another advocacy note, people need to call/write their senators and ask them to vote against HR 550 which was passed in the House with 80 Republican (RINO) votes. It is named the Immunization Infrastructure Modernization Act and is pure surveillance of Americans' vaccination status which violates our medical liberty.
Fantastic list! I've had many of the same questions!