Exhibit A

The state of our world:

It does not give you immunity against the disease. It does not protect you from spreading the disease. It does seem to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from or with Covid-19 in persons whose immune system are compromised. There is a very small risk it may kill you within a few days of taking it. It may increase your risk of dying from blood clots, heart disease, stroke and a host of other side effects. It’s long term effect on your immune system and it’s ability to protect you against cancer is unknown, just like the future variants of SARS-Cov-2 are unknown.

You HAVE to take it or you will be ostracized from our society.

Well, maybe this is where I, and those that see this for what it is, part ways with your society. Something about this picture seems wrong to us:

The definition of the word “vaccine” was changed several times over the past decade by the CDC and other outlets of the Ministry of Truth. The way the current definition reads, the experimental mRNA injections are really nothing more than a somewhat dangerous symptom reducing drug with an effective life of a few months and for which the long term safety risks are completely unknown.

The choice of the word “vaccine” was a stroke of marketing genius, of course. Because with it came the entire self-justified moral machinery and labels that can be levelled against anyone who questions any aspect of the experimental treatments.

Besides, with the new definition, the Big Pharma companies, in conjunction with their partners at the CDC and NIH, can come up with new pharmaceuticals to call “vaccines” all the time! And, since it is a “vaccine” – you HAVE to take it.

Starting from the infection fatality rate, right through to the failed PCR test, asymptomatic infections (or the lack thereof) and the failure to emphasize early treatments and addressing lifestyle factors that severely increase risk – the lies and misrepresentation of data are stacked one on top of the other. And so the Tower of Babel was started.

Imagine you are presented with the following statements:

1 + 1 = 5 [this is Exhibit “A”]

From exhibit “A” we proceed to show that:

5 + 5 = 12 [this is Exhibit “B”]

Now, let us have a civilized debate about whether the (non-existing) 12 that is exhibit “B” times two is 24 or 22.

This is how I feel when drawn into any argument about Covid-19 lockdown policies and the science surrounding mandates for the experimental injections. The inconsistencies are stacked so deep that you are forced to concede that Exhibit “A” exists when you start an argument about Exhibit “B”. It is simply no use if the person cannot see that the existence of exhibit “B” is dependent on the non-existent 5 which is exhibit “A”. And so it goes.

Which is why I still refuse to enter into arguments about the science with someone who believes the disruption done to our society and our children’s futures is justified by a disease with an infection fatality rate comparable to a very bad flu. Clearly, they believe that exhibit “A” exists. I do not.


Please share my blog as widely as you feel comfortable to do. I do not want to sound alarmist, as is the habit of the mainstream media, but I really do believe we are in a battle in which technocrats and political ideologues are attempting to force a centralized, dehumanized and atheist-scientific-materialist way of life on us.

Also have a look at my Resources Page for useful videos to make you understand what is going on, and to find support groups to make you feel less alone and crazy.


Subscribe to my blog to get email notifications whenever I post something.

Thanks for visiting!