Oh, I know this is an investment ad, but I'm just curious if their reasoning actually makes sense.
Mainly because if myocarditis can be prevented by using a different adjuvant, it rules out "natural" side effects and places the blame firmly on those who created the current vaccines. It would confirm my theory that myocarditis is deliberate, a choice made by feminist scientists to harm men.
The injections may be damaging fertility as well. Menstrual cycle disruption has been observed after injection. So, I don't think that it is just men being adversely effected.
Those who believed the Earth revolved around the Sun were once considered mentally ill.
It was only after their deaths that people started to realise. What seemed obvious to those who knew, was strange and insane to those who couldn't understand. Especially those who clung on to the comfort of the universe revolving around God's world.
It was just better to believe in the fiction of the Catholic Church at the time than the reality. The reality threw up questions, while the fiction was comforting.
It doesn't confirm that at all. It's far more likely that they 1) saved billions of dollars by not including anti-inflammatory compounds and 2) knew that such a hedge would be correctly seen as an admission of serious adverse effects.
It's far more likely that they 1) saved billions of dollars by not including anti-inflammatory compounds
From the article (emphasis mine):
Novavax is still well-positioned to be the preferred vaccine in developing countries, as its vaccine is less expensive than its competitors and much easier to store than its mRNA rivals.
knew that such a hedge would be correctly seen as an admission of serious adverse effects.
An admission that such effects were monitored and dealt with.
You're talking about companies that are doing major damage control on this very topic. They're silencing anyone who even mentions it and continue the line "mild myocarditis" even though such a thing doesn't exist.
Would people have more trust in the jabs if they had worked to prevent this effect?
Saving money is possible, but without knowing how much it costs to produce a dose of Novavax, I can't say if it actually did add cost to put this risk mitigating measure in.
Unfortunately, we still do not know the long term effects, and natural immunity is superior at this point.
Medical treatment should never be mandated.
Oh, I know this is an investment ad, but I'm just curious if their reasoning actually makes sense.
Mainly because if myocarditis can be prevented by using a different adjuvant, it rules out "natural" side effects and places the blame firmly on those who created the current vaccines. It would confirm my theory that myocarditis is deliberate, a choice made by feminist scientists to harm men.
The injections may be damaging fertility as well. Menstrual cycle disruption has been observed after injection. So, I don't think that it is just men being adversely effected.
It's not just men. Imp is literally mentally ill.
Those who believed the Earth revolved around the Sun were once considered mentally ill.
It was only after their deaths that people started to realise. What seemed obvious to those who knew, was strange and insane to those who couldn't understand. Especially those who clung on to the comfort of the universe revolving around God's world.
It was just better to believe in the fiction of the Catholic Church at the time than the reality. The reality threw up questions, while the fiction was comforting.
It doesn't confirm that at all. It's far more likely that they 1) saved billions of dollars by not including anti-inflammatory compounds and 2) knew that such a hedge would be correctly seen as an admission of serious adverse effects.
From the article (emphasis mine):
An admission that such effects were monitored and dealt with.
You're talking about companies that are doing major damage control on this very topic. They're silencing anyone who even mentions it and continue the line "mild myocarditis" even though such a thing doesn't exist.
Would people have more trust in the jabs if they had worked to prevent this effect?
Saving money is possible, but without knowing how much it costs to produce a dose of Novavax, I can't say if it actually did add cost to put this risk mitigating measure in.