Answers to other possible objections to the theory discussed in our film
ANSWERS TO OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY THAT COVID JABS WILL STERILIZE AND/OR KILL
IMPORTANT NOTES:
* This is only a preliminary version of this article. We intend to augment it weekly.
* If any of the links below are broken, please let us know. Thanks.
INTRODUCTION
Alongside the seven arguments, cited and discussed in our film “Officially Fishy?”, that are often made against the belief by some jab-skeptics that the Covid jabs are designed to sterilize and/or kill many recipients, here are a number of other reasons to question such an outlook – alongside the sort of responses the jab-skeptic community would give to each. If we’ve missed out any sensible objection, please contact us with details. Thanks.
THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION WOULD NEVER PERMIT SUCH A THING
———————————————————————————————————
For the jab-skeptics to be right, the World Health Organization would need to be party to any plan for secret depopulation – and they would surely never agree to it? Conspiracists respond that the WHO is actually an agency of the UN and is therefore fundamentally a POLITICAL organization, not a medical one, and that its current head is not even a medical doctor but an ex-politician. They also note that people in positions of influence within the UN have certainly expressed concern about population levels over the years. We give an example, from Maurice Strong, in Part 2 of our film “Officially Fishy?”, but here are some others:
* The March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief included the question, “What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?”
* In the UN’s ‘UNESCO Courier’ of November 1991, Jacques Cousteau said, “World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.” [Internal Note see sgs ‘unesco courier front’, ‘courier p13’, and ‘cousteau’]
* Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, former UN Under-Secretary-General, said: “We cannot confront the massive challenges of poverty, hunger, disease and environmental destruction unless we address issues of population and reproductive health.”
Besides, the only possible way – in the eyes of jab-skeptics – to achieve all 17 of the “Sustainable Development Goals” the UN has set for attainment by 2030 would be by getting rid of a lot of us very quickly.
————————————
HOW WILL THE ‘POWERS-THAT-BE’ EXPLAIN AWAY SUCH A COLOSSAL INCREASE IN DEATHS?
——————————————————————————————————————————-
In response to those jab-skeptics who believe the jabs are designed to kill a large number of recipients, many people wonder how the powers-that-be hope to explain away, to the survivors, so many deaths over a span of (perhaps) as little as five years. Conspiracists reply that they will probably use a combination of the following excuses:
(a) Long-term damage to the body caused directly by Covid,
(b) Long-term damage caused by the (supposedly unavoidable but unarguably unhealthy) lockdowns – along with all the resulting stress, increase in alcoholism, drug use etc.,
(c) Delays in diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions and diseases other than Covid, due to health authorities being required to focus on Covid for so long, and
(d) The 2 dozen or so different supposed causes of heart attacks, strokes, and blood clots the mainstream media made a big fanfare about in late 2021 and early 2022 to (apparently) steer people away from blaming the jabs for the impending fatalities.
Jab-skeptics are open to the possibility that the authorities will be prepared to blame a FEW of the deaths on the jabs, on the (purported) basis that the jabs saved far more people than they killed, and that the deaths were a sad but unavoidable side-effect of the need to rush a solution through.
Another possible excuse, in the eyes of jab-skeptics, is that at least some of the deaths were due to the intervention of ‘Mother Earth’ or ‘Gaia’. Some conspiracists feel that the powers-that-be have subtly been softening many of us up over the years to accept the ‘Gaia’ principle – which would certainly help explain why, when one does a Google search for the word “Gaia”, one gets more than 130 MILLION hits.
For example, retired diplomat Sir Crispin Tickell has said, “Population [is] … one of the big environmental problems of our time, it’s one animal species out of control, and the awful thing is that if we don’t control it then Mother Nature will do it for us.”
And here is a transcript of part of a BBC interview with the scientist James Lovelock:
Stephen Sackur: “[W]hat do you think is, is a viable figure that, that ‘Gaia’, that the planet, can sustain?”
James Lovelock: “I would guess, living the way we do, not more than 1 billion. Probably less. It’s largely a matter of…”
Stephen Sackur: “But you say that with equanimity, but that, that’s… er, postulating the most dramatic and terrible and unimaginable sort of ‘cull’ of the human species.”
James Lovelock. “Well, I stick by it. I think it will happen. I think it’s very probable.”
Stephen Sackur: “Er, er, what timeframe?”
James Lovelock: “It’ll take almost a miracle to stop it happening. This century.”
In this regard, jab-skeptics also go all the way back to 1959 and to a lecture titled The Population Explosion, delivered at Santa Barbara, California by Aldous Huxley, which included the following statements:
“Let us now ask ourselves what the practical alternatives are as we confront this problem of population growth. One alternative is to do nothing in particular about it and just let things go on as they are, but the consequences of that course are quite clear: the problem will be solved by nature in the way that nature always solves problems of over-population – when any animal population tends (a) to starve and (b) to suffer from severe epidemic and epizootic diseases.
“In the human population, we can envisage that the natural check on the unlimited growth of population will be precisely this: there will be pestilence, famine, and, since we are human beings and not animals, there will be organized warfare, which will bring the numbers down to what the Earth can carry.
“What nature teaches us is that it is extraordinarily dangerous to upset any of its fundamental balances, and we are in the process of upsetting a fundamental balance in the most alarming and drastic manner.
“The question is:
“Are we going to restore the balance in the natural way, which is a brutal and entirely anti-human way, or are we going to restore it in some intelligent, rational, and humane way? If we leave matters as they are, nature will certainly solve the problem in her way and not in ours.”
——————————————-
WHY WOULD UZBEKISTAN HAVE BEEN SECRETLY STERILIZING WOMEN SINCE AT LEAST 2010 IF STERILIZATION WAS ALREADY IN THE PIPELINE THROUGH THE JABS?
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Uzbekistan has had a “policy of secretly sterilizing women” since 2010. See: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17612550 . However, conspiracists reckon this could simply be due to the Elites needing a (reasonably low-key) exception in order to help give them some extra deniability, for the time when conspiracists started ‘cottoning on’ to what was really going on with the jabs. Alternatively, it is suggested that the Uzbek President was unwilling to see quite as many of his countrymen killed by the jab compared to other nations, and so he made a deal with the Elites to jab fewer of them in return for an aggressive sterilization-drive in the decade leading up to the jabs being rolled out.
————————-
“THERE ARE TOO MANY DEATHS, TOO SOON AFTER INJECTION, FOR THE JABS TO BE A *COVERT* ATTEMPT AT DEPOPULATION”
————————————————————————————————————————————
Official government databases have reported a large number of deaths in the hours and days following Covid jabs. It is also true that there is good reason to believe the actual figure is being under-reported. However, in the eyes of jab-skeptics, the very fact that the mainstream media is staying so quiet on both these things tends to suggest the existence of a conspiracy. And the fact that the jabs are causing unprecedented rates of death and other very serious adverse events in people is, to jab-skeptics, a good reason not to take the jabs – which is the primary point being made by anti-jab conspiracists.
Further, an analysis of the VAERS system in the USA established that 100% of the deaths were caused by just 5% of the jab batches. This indicates to conspiracists that these few batches were deliberately corrupted (and made lethal on purpose) by workers at the manufacturing plants in a desperate effort to retain their jobs (and perhaps their lives) whilst simultaneously alerting the public to the true agenda behind the jabs.
——————–
“THEY ELITES WOULD END UP KILLING PEOPLE THEY NEED”
——————————————————————————-
We respond to this argument in our film “Officially Fishy?”, noting that it would make sense for the powers-that-be to have created an antidote for the jabs for just such an eventuality. However, it is also worth noting that, since the mid-1990s at least, there has been a strong push across the globe to accurately document in great detail how every significant process in every significant company works (see the history of ISO-9001 accreditation). Some conspiracists think this has been done in order to make sure, in the event that tasks that the Elites still need performing, but were previously done by people who’d been taken out of action by the jabs, will have been rigorously documented such that others can step in and do those jobs.
(Further, as we discuss elsewhere in this document, jab-skeptics think it unlikely that the powers-that-be were expecting deaths from the injections to occur so soon. (Skeptics believe the early jab-deaths were possibly due to accidental errors at jab manufacturing plants or were – more likely – due to staff at those plants deliberately altering certain batches in a desperate attempt to secretly alert the world to the real purpose of the jabs.))
——————————–
IF THE JABS ARE PURELY DESIGNED TO STERILIZE AND/OR KILL, WHY WOULD THERE BE ANY NEED FOR THE JABS TO CONTAIN, AS SOME CONSPIRACISTS ADAMANTLY CLAIM, TECHNOLOGY TO INCREASE THE CONTROL THE POWERS-THAT-BE HAVE OVER JAB RECIPIENTS?
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
Here are three points that jab-skeptics make in response to this point:
(1) The jabs aren’t necessarily capable of killing every recipient. And, if the jabs are indeed unable to do so, then the powers-that-be would want to maximize their control over those who don’t die. In particular, if the mRNA jabs are not kept at the right temperature during storage (a serious problem in many developing countries, for example), the lipid nanoparticles may well have broken down and the jabs will have been unable to deliver the mRNA inside. In this sort of instance, adding technology into the jab to control recipients would provide a useful ‘back up’ position.
(2) Some jab recipients may start taking medications that ‘mop up’, or neutralize, the toxins in the jabs, delaying – or perhaps even permanently suspending – the toxic effect of the jabs. Again, the powers-that-be would want to maximize their control over such people.
(3) Certain people, even if they take no steps to mitigate the effect of the jabs, may not die for some years. Once again, the powers-that-be would want to maximize their control over such people. Indeed, the powers-that-be would want to maximize their control over *every* jab recipient, regardless of how long or short a time they will last.
Just one of the various ways in which a jab could, at least theoretically, increase the control the authorities have over us is: ‘Cryptocurrency via body activity data’ [see https://twitter.com/i/status/1571340263477448705]
————————
THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS FAR TOO COMPETITIVE FOR SUCH A CONSPIRACY TO STAY HIDDEN/UNREPORTED
———————————————————————————————————————-
Conspiracists respond to this argument with several of their own:
Firstly, they note that a (small, admittedly) number of media outlets have *indeed* exposed aspects of the project, but have apparently put those problematic aspects down to corruption or incompetence and haven’t recognized the need to look beyond such simplistic explanations to the possibility of something more organized going on. It seems to be a genuine case of a “failure of imagination”.
Secondly, you do not need every reporter to be ‘in’ on the conspiracy. All you need is for the EDITOR to be in on it. (Indeed, you don’t even necessarily need that. All you need is for the editor to be willing to unquestioningly obey orders (e.g. “Do not report on x or y, and make sure you play down z”).) Few journalists are going to be prepared to investigate a story their editor will never publish.
Thirdly, the very act of investigating any story which would imply a huge conspiracy is likely to lead to the journalist in question getting the sack – or at least being demoted and ridiculed for being a ‘tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy nut’.
Fourthly, a few brave reporters DO report what’s going on – e.g. Sally Beck – but the MSM simply won’t report their stories. And people who start to threaten the whole Covid jab project have a nasty habit of being silenced (often permanently, as we show in our articles on ‘convenient deaths’ [Link] and ‘privileged access to explosive information’ [Link]).
Fifthly, conspiracists urge every member of the public to recognize that he or she almost certainly already knows of one or more topics (unrelated to Covid) about which the MSM cannot be trusted to tell the truth (e.g. the death of Diana, or that of JFK). Conspiracists then follow up with the question, ‘If you know the MSM can’t be trusted on such-and-such a matter, why do you assume they can be trusted on the issue of Covid?’
—————————–
WHY WOULD PHARMA COMPANIES AGREE TO CUTTING THEIR OWN FINANCIAL THROATS BY KILLING OFF ALMOST ALL THEIR CUSTOMERS?
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Jab-skeptics respond this way:
(1) If the powers-that-be are right that the planet is headed for absolute environmental disaster if we do not take drastic steps, then it would be pointless having wealth if you’re going to be trying to enjoying that wealth on an uninhabitable planet.
(2) Pharma companies are able to ‘make up’, at least to some extent, for long-term losses through the colossal short-term income from the jabs – not to mention the income from the boosters AND also from the medications that will be needed (and ARE ALREADY being needed) by the vaccine injured.
(3) Given the scores upon scores of ‘unnervingly convenient’ deaths we document elsewhere on this website [Link] and [Link], is it not possible that some pharma bosses are – out of fear – simply following the orders of whoever is leading the project?
—————————
“IF THE JABS ARE ALREADY DESIGNED TO STERILIZE OR KILL, WHY WOULD ANY BOOSTERS BE NECESSARY?”
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Jab-skeptics reply that there could be several reasons why boosters would be sensible:
(1) Boosters may help spread out the deaths and sterilizations, rather than have everyone die at the same sort of interval after they took the shot. The powers-that-be need the deaths to be staggered if they are realistically going to convince the public that the jabs are not responsible.
(2) Boosters may make up for any deaths that were avoided due to (a) manufacturing errors during the original roll-out, or (b) the original jabs becoming much less harmful due to being stored at too high a temperature (see earlier).
(3) Boosters could be an inducement to pharma companies who will gain financially from them, to make up for the fact that such companies will lose out (in financial terms alone) in the long-term by killing off many potential customers.
(4) Boosters may be a way to speed up the ‘formation’, in the body of each recipient, of any control mechanisms in the jabs (see earlier).
—————————
“THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WOULD NEVER PROMOTE THE JABS IF THEY WERE BAD.”
————————————————————————————————————————-
(1) Some jab-skeptics argue that, perhaps Rome’s leaders have only been told of the sterilizing effect of the jabs. They also note that Rome’s leaders have started talking about the need to curb population growth.
(2) Jab-skeptics also argue that a truly balanced study of Rome’s history will show that the Vatican is far from infallible. They ask, for example, if Rome always handled Hitler and Nazism aright? And, was the Vatican right about the way to handle pedophile priests? And, was it right to give communion to Nancy Pelosi in view of her stance on abortion? In this regard, jab-skeptics also note that, even those Covid vaccines that contain cell lines derived from aborted fetuses are acceptable to the Vatican.
(3) Some jab-skeptics have also collected examples of Roman Catholics, including bishops, archbishops and even cardinals, who do not agree with Rome’s position on the jabs. See, for instance…
* https://religionnews.com/2021/08/22/cardinal-burke-off-ventilator-still-hospitalized-with-covid/
* Various Catholics (Bro. Bugnolo, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Bishop Athanasius Schneider) take a very different stance from the Vatican on the jabs.
* See LifeSiteNews.com
—————————-