Please Consider Stocking Up On Food Now

[danceswithcats]

Hmmm. Given I’ve declared myself as a meat eater, I suppose you’ll be meaning me.

Please don’t think for one moment that the ”consume more, spend more” throwaway society - or the marketing machine that pushes those ideals - leaves vegans alone. We all waste, and we and our governments do less than we should to help those in need unless it becomes politically expedient.

Yes, I’ve just made a very sweeping statement; a set of oversimplified generalisations that seem pretty accurate but in fact do an injustice to a lot of individuals. Just like your statement, in fact. You’ve called me selfish and gluttonous without knowing anything about me.

Another member on this forum (@Hog) posted a thread trying to better understand meat eaters. I’ve been considering for a while whether or not to contribute, and the accommodating welcome I got from others here almost convinced me my opinions would be listened to and considered, and that I would not just be volunteering to appear on trial with the verdict already decided. Thank you for reminding me the understanding of some is not universal..

It's a matter of degree, though, isn't it? 100 calories of plant agriculture to produce 1 calorie of beef, I think I read. Around 75:1 with chicken. 50:1 for eggs. Then the **** pollution that kills off sea life, the energy consumption inherent in the keeping of animals as monocultures, the extra stages of transportation needed to move plant products to where animals are reared.
I mean, I'm very aware of the "last mile" cost of my food, and the packaging issues, and I shop at a local greengrocer and at a grocer that stocks loose dry goods, and I do that shopping by bike, with a trailer and panniers. However, I am also confident that my choice of following a vegan lifestyle reduces by more than two thirds the total calorific cost of my diet, even before I tweak my part of the consumption process.

 

[vegan89]

@vegan89, I congratulate you. You selectively attacked only part of my posting, and specifically the part I myself countered in my very next paragraph - a paragraph you kindly omitted from your quote. In essence, I said "I can make sweeping statements too; look here" and then illustrated why it was a dodgy thing to do.

Saying my statement was a "sweeping statement" doesn't mean it was a statement that is generally incorrect, and it also doesn't mean that the argument that people consuming animal products are generally paying farmers to feed scarce food crops to farm animals was incorrect in general either.

Perhaps you are some special case of animal product consumer -- a person who buys your animal products only from "Bob the farmer" down the road who grows animal products in an ethically pure manner -- if such a thing is even possible. And perhaps you dutifully avoid unethically produced animal products whenever you are hanging out with your non-vegan friends at McDonald's. And so in your particular case, perhaps my criticisms weren't valid for you specifically. But that doesn't mean my generalizations about animal product consumers (in general, on average) are untrue. Obviously most animal product consumers do not behave in this way.

Most people consuming animal products buy them at the supermarket and at whatever restaurants strike their fancy regardless of whether the products are ethically sourced, not in your special case scenarios. So I would argue my "sweeping statements" have some merit.

You're quite right that I didn't answer or discuss your assertion.

Well, at least you admitted that.

I also explained why I wasn't going to. I came to this forum to discover and learn, not create arguments,

Arguments tend to lead to discovery and learning as long as participants make logical arguments that address the issue of contention instead of engaging in whataboutism or other logical fallacies.

The only thing I actually challenged you on was your phrasing your views in a combative and condescending manner

Any moral or ethical criticism I make of people consuming animal products could arguably be considered combative, condescending, or at least offensive.

 

[majorbloodnok]

It's a matter of degree, though, isn't it? 100 calories of plant agriculture to produce 1 calorie of beef, I think I read. Around 75:1 with chicken. 50:1 for eggs. Then the **** pollution that kills off sea life, the energy consumption inherent in the keeping of animals as monocultures, the extra stages of transportation needed to move plant products to where animals are reared.
I mean, I'm very aware of the "last mile" cost of my food, and the packaging issues, and I shop at a local greengrocer and at a grocer that stocks loose dry goods, and I do that shopping by bike, with a trailer and panniers. However, I am also confident that my choice of following a vegan lifestyle reduces by more than two thirds the total calorific cost of my diet, even before I tweak my part of the consumption process.

It's a matter of several things, @danceswithcats, and degrees of scale is certainly a major one of them.

@vegan89, you might want to take a closer look at DancesWithCats' post. Specifically by focusing on what they are trying to get right rather than what I'm supposed to be doing wrong, DWC is leading the way and influencing rather than alienating. Not combative, not condescending, not offensive. My criticising your post isn't acting as a barrier to constructive social change, you are. I've suggested changes you could make and others here have shown how that can look in practice.

 

[Lou]

no doubt there is a shortage on many products. And probably things will get worse before they get better.

but in some cases you are being manipulated to panic

Anti-vax Twitter accounts pushing food crisis misinformation, study finds

Research says conspiracy theorists shifting from QAnon and Covid to disinformation about crisis caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine

www.theguardian.com

 

[danceswithcats]

Well, this is awkward.
Flattered as I am to be the inaugural recipient of the @majorbloodnok award for decorous disputation, I'm afraid I must now pick a hole in your response to me, mjb.

It's a matter of several things, @danceswithcats, and degrees of scale is certainly a major one of them.

This is an error, which dismisses my argument by advancing it: you broaden my statement to diminish its force, and I feel compelled to correct that.

Of all economic sectors, agriculture, forestry and land use is the second greatest contributor to global greenhouse emissions after energy use, contributing 18.4% of emissions. Of that 18.4%, livestock and manure is the largest contributor, emitting 5.8% of total emissions.
I'll come back to the detail of that 18.4% in a moment, but I want to point something else out. The largest sector for emissions, energy, overlaps agriculture to a huge extent. Within the energy part of the graph, 73.2%, you will see that food and tobacco make up a further 1% and energy in agriculture and fishing contribute a further 1.7%. However, that is not the whole story either, because the road transport section makes up 11.9%, shipping, 1.7% and chemical and petro-chemical, 3.6%.
The production of animal corpses for human consumption takes a vast amount of road transport: the bulk transportation of feed, including plant products and petro-chemical products, both of which are shipped around the world to forcefeed the tortured animals, plus the transport of the live animals to their industrialised murder and the transport of their dismembered flesh, usually refrigerated, around the world again, make for a sizeable chunk of the 11.9% of road transport, and significant slices of the emissions of aviation (1.9% of emissions), shipping (1.7%) and rail (0.4%).
It's hard to find clear statistics about what proportion of the global chemical and petro-chemical industries are made up by 'animal feed'. These are two of the most secretive, power-crazed and brutish industrial sectors in history and they lie routinely. However, in my search, I did find a projection that said that it would be 17% of the petro-chemical industry of India by 2030, and that it was a growth industry for that country. If we extrapolate that to say that the more established global PC countries might be ahead of the growing Indian PC industry we might reasonably suspect that chemicals to bulk up animals make up perhaps 20 - 25% of the 3.6% of total emissions produced by those two industries.
Now let's get back to the agriculture, forestry and land use section of the graph again, shall we? You see, although livestock and manure is only 5.8% out of the 18.4%, the other parts of the AgForLU chunk are not innocent veg and grains destined for a virtuous nut loaf. This is the fact that matters, and because it matters so much, I'm going to format it in a nice visible header 3, with lovely colour:

More than 80% of farmland is used for livestock but it produces just 18% of food calories and 37% of protein.​

Yes, 63% of all the protein consumed by humans is of vegetable origin. It is also, incidentally, far better for you than having dead flesh completing its cycle of decomposition in your long, herbivorous digestive system, but that's tangential to my present argument. What is more important about this hugely key truth is that we have far more agriculture than we need. Not only the 'livestock' farming, but all the wasted plant agriculture that is thrown away to produce cow farts and cancer is using up water, energy, destruction of habitats, carbon emissions due to ploughing and land clearance, and producing toxic pollution which is undermining the Earth's ability to heal its wounds.
All plant agriculture is not equal, though:

...emissions from feed production typically exceed emissions of vegetable protein farming. (p5, column 1)

Food grown directly for human consumption, rather than being fed through a 'value added' animal torture process, is the least harmful agricultural sector there is.
I could go on, but I think that has covered the key points. None of this stuff is secret, it's just routinely shouted down. My point is that, unless you are an alt-right climate change denier, there really is not much of an excuse for defending the consumption of meat, beyond a nihilistic hatred of the world and a desire to see the apocalypse in your lifetime. I agree that it is important to observe certain courtesies in human discourse, particularly on the internet, but I do not think that those courtesies override an obligation to truth. I may be less ad hominen in my approach than @vegan89, but, fundamentally, I agree with them: it is wrong to advocate the eating of meat as a moral equivalence to veganism, here or anywhere else. That is, wrong in the sense of counter to the evident facts, as well as morally questionable. It is, however, understandable. Many, many memes and tropes defend meat-eating as a norm and a desirable right, and they are working: meat consumption is increasing and I regularly have to cycle around the gang of servile slobs who queue on a busy road with the engines of their tosser tanks idling so they can get their dose of carcinogenic MacDonalds' 'drive-thru', but popularity does not make a practice right. It just makes it something that unthinking people accept, like warfare, bigotry or inequality.
Truth matters, even more than manners:

...impacts of the lowest-impact animal products typically exceed those of vegetable substitutes, providing new evidence for the importance of dietary change. (lede)

Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?
https://josephpoore.com/Science 360 6392 987 - Accepted Manuscript.pdf
Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth
Meat Industry: How Big Is The Meat Industry & Why Is It Bad?

Peace out.
DWC

 

[LoreD]

We over-produce food to the degree that 40% is thrown into landfills. If production is down, then we will just have to stop throwing away food.

 

[vegan89]

@vegan89, you might want to take a closer look at DancesWithCats' post. Not combative, not condescending, not offensive.

I don't think there is a way for me to say animal product consumers are behaving in an unethical way without my comment being perceived as offensive by some % of animal product consumers.

Imagine I'm politely sitting down to have dinner with an animal product consumer. He puts a couple double bacon cheeseburgers on his plate, and mine is filled up with salad, bread, and hummus. When he asks me why I'm not eating meat like most other people, I respond that I consider the consumption of animal products to be unethical for various reasons. No matter how politely I say I consider the consumption of animal products to be unethical, some % of animal product consumers will be angered by this... because the simple fact that I am eating a diet I regard as more ethical than theirs implies that... assuming everything else is equal, I think I'm a better person than them. (An idea the animal product consumer seems to find fairly offensive by itself.)

That being said, I'm not even sure if the most ethical choice to make is to try to be inoffensive in that way. After all, if the year was 1855, we both resided in the United States, I was an abolitionist, and you were a plantation owner treating your African slaves in a cruel manner, would you also say I should try and avoid harsh moral criticisms of such behavior to spare the feelings of the plantation owners? Such plantation owners might find my criticisms "offensive" ...

If you don't like people saying animal product consumers are engaging in unethical behavior because of various reasons, you find you can't explain why their arguments are incorrect, and their arguments seem "offensive" to you, there is a simple solution: become a vegan.

 

[majorbloodnok]

...

This is an error, which dismisses my argument by advancing it: you broaden my statement to diminish its force, and I feel compelled to correct that.

@danceswithcats, given the discussion had moved towards the situation of wastefulness and poverty existing at the same time, I did indeed broaden the scope; as well as the wastefulness of production, I a few other significant hurdles to overcome independently or in parallel. However, in broadening that scope I had no intention of either dismissing your argument or diminishing its force - in fact, quite the opposite. Nonetheless, if that is what I did - and by your response it apparently is - then I wholeheartedly apologise.

I have already said a few times that I won't be offering my viewpoint on the consumption of meat, and I've given my reasons. However, that also means that I could not in conscience offer any counter to any of your views on that subject. I have joined this forum to listen and learn, and the only points I've been attempting to make in this thread are on how a point is made, not on the point itself. I only say this so as to demonstrate why my moving on from your point was not intended to be dismissive.

I don't think there is a way for me to say animal product consumers are behaving in an unethical way without my comment being perceived as offensive by some % of animal product consumers.

Imagine I'm politely sitting down to have dinner with an animal product consumer. He puts a couple double bacon cheeseburgers on his plate, and mine is filled up with salad, bread, and hummus. When he asks me why I'm not eating meat like most other people, I respond that I consider the consumption of animal products to be unethical for various reasons. No matter how politely I say I consider the consumption of animal products to be unethical, some % of animal product consumers will be angered by this... because the simple fact that I am eating a diet I regard as more ethical than theirs implies that... assuming everything else is equal, I think I'm a better person than them. (An idea the animal product consumer seems to find fairly offensive by itself.)

If someone is going to take offence, @vegan89, they'll do so. You most certainly shouldn't apologise for living your life according to your own choices. The only area here that I'd disagree with is that implication you're illustrating. I don't think your diet is implying you think you're a better person than them; I think it implies you think your choices are better than theirs. It worries me a little that you're extrapolating better choices into thinking you as a person are superior.

When I was growing up, I and my peers were regularly told how good or bad we were. When I became a father (bear in mind this is quite some time ago), I was quickly disabused of that idea by childcare professionals, nurseries, schools and other parents. "The child isn't good or bad," they'd say, "they're just doing a good or bad thing." And, of course, that was right. If someone is told they are bad, that starts to define them and implies there's no point in doing good things because they themselves will still be bad. If, on the other hand, you define the action or choice as good or bad, the person is free to change their choices and actions. It might sound like a load of politically correct nonsense but it has been around long enough now to have proven its validity.

That person in your illustration is no different, but bear in mind that he has opened up a conversation with you. You could use that opening to discuss and (perhaps) widen his viewpoint or you could use it to tell him how bad he is. The latter will definitely close him up and make him defensive, so will achieve none of what you want. The former just might spark some change somewhere, even if it's just helping him decide to have only one cheeseburger and fill up instead on fries.

I should also point out that, by offering a reasoned point in a non inflammatory way you've also kept me discussing. After the way the thread was going, that's not something I was entirely expecting, so you should chalk that up as a win.

That being said, I'm not even sure if the most ethical choice to make is to try to be inoffensive in that way. After all, if the year was 1855, we both resided in the United States, I was an abolitionist, and you were a plantation owner treating your African slaves in a cruel manner, would you also say I should try and avoid harsh moral criticisms of such behavior to spare the feelings of the plantation owners? Such plantation owners might find my criticisms "offensive" ...

There are certainly times when shaking things up and risking offence is the right course of action. However, I don't believe it's about whether it's the right ethical choice to be offensive or not; I believe it's about working out what is the most effective way of achieving your goal. Most of the time, influencing people is about finding common ground to steadily change their (and potentially your) stance. Alienating people can have a rallying effect on everyone else, but it will do nothing to change the views of those alienated.

As I said earlier, I came on this forum to listen and learn. Provide me with well made evidence based views and I promise I will do you the courtesy of listening and considering them just as I am, in fact, already doing with @danceswithcats.

 

[danceswithcats]

Working now, but just want to say how I'm enjoying this.

Also @majorbloodnok, no need to apologise. It was more of a rhetorical observation, than a sense of hurt. I am not so sensitive!

 

[Brian W]

I don't think there is a way for me to say animal product consumers are behaving in an unethical way without my comment being perceived as offensive by some % of animal product consumers.

But that is not the issue. You judged their motives, calling them selfish and gluttonous. Whenever you do that, by default you judge yourself for every way in which you are not perfect.

 

[majorbloodnok]

...

Whenever you do that, by default you judge yourself for every way in which you are not perfect.

Please, God, that I don't have to find EVERY way I'm imperfect; I have a long list already.

 

[majorbloodnok]

Working now, but just want to say how I'm enjoying this.

Also @majorbloodnok, no need to apologise. It was more of a rhetorical observation, than a sense of hurt. I am not so sensitive!

He, he. I didn't expect you were, @danceswithcats. Nonetheless, far better to apologise too much than too little.

 

[Graeme M]

I certainly have heard suggestions of food shortages to come. I think part of the reason is problems with gas supply and hence fertiliser. Here in Australia we no longer make very much of our own fertiliser, preferring to import it. But gobally, gas is increasingly in demand for energy security and of course there are problems with European supply due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Also in Australia, we have recently had a shortage of chickpeas and lentils, I think laregly due to flooding over the past few months affecting production.

 

[VeganRachel]

Hmmm. Given I’ve declared myself as a meat eater, I suppose you’ll be meaning me.

Please don’t think for one moment that the ”consume more, spend more” throwaway society - or the marketing machine that pushes those ideals - leaves vegans alone. We all waste, and we and our governments do less than we should to help those in need unless it becomes politically expedient.

Yes, I’ve just made a very sweeping statement; a set of oversimplified generalisations that seem pretty accurate but in fact do an injustice to a lot of individuals. Just like your statement, in fact. You’ve called me selfish and gluttonous without knowing anything about me.

Another member on this forum (@Hog) posted a thread trying to better understand meat eaters. I’ve been considering for a while whether or not to contribute, and the accommodating welcome I got from others here almost convinced me my opinions would be listened to and considered, and that I would not just be volunteering to appear on trial with the verdict already decided. Thank you for reminding me the understanding of some is not universal..

Everyone wastes, and kills bugs and small rodents, for sure. But I see that type of statement as an excuse, as are the multiple criticisms of vegans thrown about on the internet. Participating in animals suffering to eat farm and marine animals, to me, is much different. Doing the kill deed yourself would result in billions of humans becoming vegans. It is so easy for an omnivore, as I grew up, happily purchasing the dead body of an animal someone else killed. It is a completely impersonal thing to do (such as going to a prostitute to only have sex without any other interaction or relationship), where the consumer has no relationship to that "food" except as it is dead. You also absorb the negative energy of those animals--not simply the "protein" saturated fats hormones and carnitine. You have the "right" to consume whatever you choose, however, the question is, why have you declared yourself a "meat eater"?.. You make a simple blanket statement without any information on a vegan site. This is strange. cheers.

 

[VeganRachel]

THIS POST IS ABOUT 'STOCKING UP ON FOOD". THAT is the topic here, its' quite clear.
It is NOT a discussion or debate about someone choosing to eat dead animals and a desire for others to
hear that choice out because vegans also "waste' or harm in some way. .
please delete the comments related to that and start your own forum. Thank you.

 

[VeganRachel]

He, he. I didn't expect you were, @danceswithcats. Nonetheless, far better to apologise too much than too little.

Your comments are from your personal belief system that it is okay to eat the dead because you like to and enjoy doing so.
And because "vegans" are imperfect. You rationalize your choices ad nauseum intellectually in multiple ways in many of your posts.
You are a direct reflection of most humans in the world who justify eating the dead and make all kinds of excuses. It is so much
easier to be in the majority than to change. This does not make me better or superior, just more empathetic and conscious. I
would not slaughter and eat my dog or cat any more than I would a gentle sentient cow, pig, goat, lamb, turkey, or chicken.
I believe it takes courage to swim upstream and be vegan, because we make other lives more important than our
addiction and palate for dead flesh. I pray the rest of the world wakes up to that compassion.

 

[VeganRachel]

no doubt there is a shortage on many products. And probably things will get worse before they get better.

but in some cases you are being manipulated to panic

Anti-vax Twitter accounts pushing food crisis misinformation, study finds

Research says conspiracy theorists shifting from QAnon and Covid to disinformation about crisis caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine

www.theguardian.com

Manipulated to panic? as was done in hurricane force to get billions of humans to submit to untested medical jabs?. Jabs
which contain the DNA cells of multiple animals, glyphosate spike proteins, human aborted fetal cells and much more?.
I wish the 'leaders' in the world would become honest and trustworthy, instead of stealing from us, plotting to destroy humanity, blood sacrificing
human children, and polluting us to change our human DNA. The truths will be revealed shortly as to what has been going on behind the illusion
of normalcy, and many will be horrified at what they learn.
I did not get my Covid (flu) jabs because I have an immune system and trust that, so I fully support those believing in "health freedom" who are called
ani-vaxxers. Sadly, those who got their jabs are "shedding" nasty stuff to other humans, not the other way around. If you read the brilliant book by Dr. Suzanne Humphries, Dissolving Illusions, you will learn the true origin and history of "vaccines" and its' not a pretty picture for our health.
Peace be with you.

 

[majorbloodnok]

Your comments are from your personal belief system that it is okay to eat the dead because you like to and enjoy doing so.
And because "vegans" are imperfect. You rationalize your choices ad nauseum intellectually in multiple ways in many of your posts.
You are a direct reflection of most humans in the world who justify eating the dead and make all kinds of excuses. It is so much easier to be in the majority than to change. This does not make me better or superior, just more empathetic and conscious. I would not slaughter and eat my dog or cat any more than I would a gentle sentient cow, pig, goat, lamb, turkey, or chicken.
I believe it takes courage to swim upstream and be vegan, because we make other lives more important than our addiction and palate for dead flesh. I pray the rest of the world wakes up to that compassion.

@VeganRachel, I have no doubt of your convictions, ethics or intentions. As such, there is a lot in your post I agree with.

The only part I want to correct, though, is the part I highlighted in green. In fact, if you go back through any or all of my posts you will find I have gone to great lengths not to rationalise my choices - at least insofar as they are relevant to any discussion around veganism. Nor have I made any attempt to argue against any of the vegan principles or a vegan lifestyle. I have, however, on multiple occasions questioned people’s approach to putting forth their cases. I would do the same if it were related to religious discussions on a Christian forum or political arguments on a politics forum. I came here to learn, not spout my opinions, but lazy debating doesn’t help anyone and @danceswithcats provided a textbook example of how to marshal views in a constructive way.

i also believe it takes courage to swim upstream. Whilst I may not be discussing, I am listening and am constantly re-evaluating my views each time I discover new evidence-based arguments. To be consistent, though, I won’t be influenced by rhetoric and if or when I do change my stance I will keep that just as private so if you play a part I’m afraid you’ll probably not find out.

Thank you, though, for the information you’ve added here; it does help.

 

[majorbloodnok]

Manipulated to panic? as was done in hurricane force to get billions of humans to submit to untested medical jabs?. Jabs
which contain the DNA cells of multiple animals, glyphosate spike proteins, human aborted fetal cells and much more?.
I wish the 'leaders' in the world would become honest and trustworthy, instead of stealing from us, plotting to destroy humanity, blood sacrificing
human children, and polluting us to change our human DNA. The truths will be revealed shortly as to what has been going on behind the illusion
of normalcy, and many will be horrified at what they learn.
I did not get my Covid (flu) jabs because I have an immune system and trust that, so I fully support those believing in "health freedom" who are called
ani-vaxxers. Sadly, those who got their jabs are "shedding" nasty stuff to other humans, not the other way around. If you read the brilliant book by Dr. Suzanne Humphries, Dissolving Illusions, you will learn the true origin and history of "vaccines" and its' not a pretty picture for our health.
Peace be with you.

Are you able to point me towards the evidence to back up these claims, please? The book you quoted is the author‘s opinion and is not universally accepted in the scientific community. However, her conclusions should be based on quoted scientific studies which I’d very much like to read. A simple copy of the relevant parts of her bibliography will be fine; I can do the rest.

 

[VeganRachel]

Are you able to point me towards the evidence to back up these claims, please? The book you quoted is the author‘s opinion and is not universally accepted in the scientific community. However, her conclusions should be based on quoted scientific studies which I’d very much like to read. A simple copy of the relevant parts of her bibliography will be fine; I can do the rest.

Thank you. You have a right to make your own choices. I care about animal lives and can get a bit huffy. I simply know that most humans casually consume something as long as some stressed and low wage slaughterhouse worker, kills it. But they could not themselves.
This discussion is off the topic but I will try to answer. The book is not a bibliography. It is the history of "vaccines" from day one to about 2020. Each page has references to back up her statements.
She is a medical doctor, the same as those in the AMA who convinced billions of humans to get jabbed. It is also their opinion for what they do as well, as few of them question the NIH, FDA, CDC, and HHS.,
By the way, Doctors have a legal responsibility to give the patient "informed consent" before subjecting them to medical procedures. This is informing the patient of both the 'benefits" and the "side effects/detriments" of the jabs, BEFORE they inject patients. They did not do this. In addition, few humans are aware that pharmaceutical companies producing the jabs, are completely 100% immune from prosecution from any side effects of deaths of their jabs (Thanks to our Congress and Senate). Doctors are also completely immune from u prosecution for injecting the jabs in patients and any reactions from them. This should be disturbing and a red flag to anyone learning these facts.
I am not willing to debate these facts with anyone who chooses not to believe what I state. You all have free will and your own opinions. I apologize to anyone who is offended by the content in these videos below. Another bombshell is that the Covid jabs have been injected into probably 98% of all farm animals in the U.S. that feed humans flesh, organs, dairy, and eggs---and then humans eat them....cheers.
There is a very deep rabbit hole to understand, hold onto your seats friends.....This is just a small bit of information to share.
Dr. Reveals How Toxic Drug Was Approved For Treating COVID dr. reveals how toxic drug was approved for Covid (banned video)
Creator of mRNA vaccines says Covid vaccines are toxic creator of MRNA vaccines says Covid vaccines are toxic
SPANISH RESEARCHERS REVEAL GRAPHENE OXIDE ANTIDOTE Spanish researchers reveal graphene oxide antidote
SPANISH RESEARCHERS REVEAL GRAPHENE OXIDE ANTIDOTE how spike proteins in Covid jabs work