You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Dad in America Told His Son Had To Die Like Alfie—But He Resisted With Guns and His Son LIVED
And the jury should have nullified the case, against the father.
Further, the hospital, wanting to cut up and part out the son, should have been brought up on the stand to tell the truth about their duplicitous nature. Their conflict of interest. Their failure to the Hippocratic oath.
The decision was entirely arbitrary as it had no bearing on Britain’s healthcare system.
I have learned something important.
"in the UK, you cannot file a claim to the vaccine damage courts until a child is 2 years old." @daniarnold
And babie Alfie had all the symptoms of vaccine damage. The "witness" had to be gotten rid of before it could have gone to court.
one wonders what if anything the father was charged with and whether he was convicted of it, if you can't get away with that shit in Texas it probably won't fly anywhere.
You are speculating.
Everything about someone else's motives is speculation. Even if they tell you their motives.
So, what is your point?
Because he died of a mysterious undefined illness that caused neurological damage, in cases like these all sorts of experts are called in to try and solve them, your allegation would have to mean that every expert in the field is dishonest.
Oh that. Go and read about vaccine damage.
Then read my post on organ donor organs being harvested while alive.
In the video linked, it tells about some of the tests these supposed "experts" used.
This is not speculation. This is me saying, as many other do, that these symptoms are AWFULLY similar to those symptoms. Not very undefined except by those "experts" (who will deny vaccine damage to their dying day.)
There's no way they are going to harvest and use organs of a person with a undefined underlying diagnosis, if the person/people receiving the organs became ill it would open them up for millions in liability.
Most people are aware of the debate on vaccines. Let's just assume (because we are not the experts) they are right and a small segment of the population can become ill versus what?...millions of people dying annually from the diseases that these vaccines eradicated?
Do you know that there are tests that can be done to see whether a child will be susceptible to vaccine damage before they vaccinate? They don't do them because they are "expensive". Do you think we should put a child's life over money?
Who was talking about money. I was talking about the millions of kids who died each year from diseases that have been eradicated by the use of vaccines.
I was merely asking questions. For someone who's child has been damaged or killed by vaccines, it's just as devastating for them, as having a child die from the disease the vaccine should eradicate.
My point was, should even that small section of the population be put at risk of a bad reaction if they can test for susceptibility? I was wondering if you knew it was possible to test for that and eliminate the risk?