Whereas, they would have no choice but to and I agree that no viruses (known) are 100% effective in killing off their hosts in the short term. The great panic over ebola is dedicated to the high percentage of fatalities of the infected over a very short period.

Nevertheless, poisons are a who different ball park and game. Victorian poisoners added small doses of arsenic to food to induce chronic gastro enteritis over sustained periods eventually leading to the death of victims. However given a big enough dose of strychnine, for instance, 100% of those that ingested the substance would be dead in double quick time. For my understanding, mercury is a poison and this has presented a rather menacing quandary.

Why are those [of a group] that are given equal doses of a similar poison either affected in different ways or [seemedly] unaffected?

Smoking doesn’t kill all smokers, so shall we conclude that smoking is harmless? Most diseases, toxins or poisons do not affect all people to the same degree. That doesn’t mean that diseases, toxins or poisons are harmless. It’s just that sometimes you can’t see the damage immediately. It’s the same with vaccines. Vaccines are certainly not harmless just because everybody doesn’t get autism.

It’s bizarre to expect everyone to drop dead simultaneously from a vaccine and if they don’t then the medical profession declares the vaccine as “safe”. Never mind the all the ones who did die, because there a few left standing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqsT5EoIk8U

She asked me that on the same day you wrote the first article about the CDC whistleblower so I showed her that article.

“But the doctor told me when my son had Chickenpox that if the sore near his eye popped it would cause him to go blind” and “if the vaccine helps 98 people out of 100 it’s ok”.

“Easy to say. What if one of the two it injured was YOUR child?”.

Think. And that’s the just the tip of the iceberg.

Thanks for spreading the truth Jon.