Russian Roulette
...and minefields, and poker.
Who would play Russian Roulette, so that they could go to the pub? It turns our everybody.
Who would run through a minefield, so that they could go to the gym? It turns out everybody.
In Feb 2022 I wrote this, the first of my Australian jab injury stories stacks:
I was talking to a friend the other day who had taken both doses and he said, “I took the first two and I was fine, I don’t know what all the fuss is about”, to which I said, “if you run through a mine field without having your leg blown off, it doesn’t mean it was a good idea. Run through that minefield enough times and a mine will get you eventually”.
Toby Rogers wrote this recently:
“Winning” at Russian Roulette is not winning. It’s just temporarily not losing. Keep playing the game and ya gonna find out.
He’s right.
It reminded me of what I wrote about Russian Roulette in June 2021.
“Vaccine” Safety and Time
The word SAFE in the context of vaccines has always meant large scale Phase 3 trials over long periods of TIME that are studied before public release, with plenty of sub-groups tested. This testing protocol was designed to pick up “product-defects”.
The key ingredient though is TIME, it is the only way of coming to terms with the UNKNOWN. The human body is a complex system, maybe the most complex systems of all, you cannot tell what will happen inside the body when you bring something in from the outside…without TIME to observe and report.
These “vaccines” have not been studied over enough TIME…they have been rushed to market…their primary defect is the spike protein that is now running riot inside the body.
Pricing the UNKOWN is impossible (you can price Probability, but not the Unknown), that’s why the Unknown is so risky.
Think of Russian Roulette and imagine a gun with a 20 bullet capacity. If you know there was one bullet in the barrel, well you have a 1 in 20 risk (5% probability) of blowing your brains out…the risk has been quantified and you can decide whether to play from there…. obviously if you knew there were 20 bullets in the barrel, you wouldn’t pick up the gun.
But what if you DIDN’T KNOW how many bullets there were…could be 20 and could be Zero…would you pick up the gun…I wouldn’t, and I don’t think anybody else would?
Not knowing how many bullets are in the barrel is the same as knowing there are 20.
Without TIME, you don’t know how many bullets are in the vaccine barrel…it is that simple.
I think this point is hard for people to grasp.
Not knowing is THE BIGGEST RISK FACTOR. It’s the same as KNOWING there are 20 bullets in the chamber. Unless you are crazy, or in a psychotic state (which is currently technically accurate), you do not gamble with your life when the risks are UNKOWN.
I have lost count of the stories of injuries in my circles. Third, second and first degree connections, acquaintances and friends that have come down with all manner of conditions from recurring colds/flus (“I just cann’t seem to get over it”) to anaphylactic reactions, shingles, pneumonia, bronchitis, repeat Covid (obviously), menstrual irregularity, blue-green breast milk, myo-peri carditis, death and more that I cannot now remember.
I have not lost touch with what “normal morbidity” in my circles looked and felt like in terms of degree and frequency. I remember the baseline. This is not normal. This is WAY above baseline.
The more time that goes by, which means the more doses are taken, the worse and more frequent the stories get. This is a full-frontal horror show happening in real time and in slow motion.
I thought this was quite well put:
Who’d have ever imagined a world (except for the likes of George Orwell perhaps)— where people would be forced by their “own democratically elected government”— to repeatedly play RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH THEIR LIVES— by having injected into their bodies— a potentially lethal; never before tested on human beings; synthetic gene-altering chemical substance— that serves “NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER”, other than to place one’s health, if not their “LIFE” in total jeopardy— before being allowed the privilege of HOLDING DOWN A JOB— receiving LIFE SAVING MEDICAL TREATMENT, or partaking in COMMON SOCIAL ACTIVITIES!
Marc Girdaot has used the Russian Roulette analogy a few times:
Can nanoparticles end up in the blood stream?
I have already addressed extensively in previous articles on the leak from the muscle, and on the risk of intravenous injections.
If nanoparticles escape the muscle - which is clearly proven from the Pfizer data - the circulatory system inevitably becomes their receptacles, and LNPs will start doing what they were designed to do: transfect, penetrate endothelial cells in very large numbers.
It is noteworthy to highlight that what is true for mRNA and DNA vaccines, is likely also true for viral vectors and attenuated viruses vaccines.
German pathologist, Professor Arne Burkhardt, recently told us that up to 5% of direct intravenous injection can occur. Though that seems a frighteningly high number, physiologically that’s certainly a possible proportion.
The above picture extracted from Pr. Burkhardt’s latest report demonstrates the physical possibility of a partial or total injection into a blood vessel.
Depending on local training, local protocols and the quality of the medical personnel in charge of vaccinating this necessarily would vary widely.
Literally Russian Roulette!
Exposing our Endothelium
Transfecting vaccines are the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette with one’s Endothelium. As the vast majority of LNPs end up in the blood stream, Vaccinated are exposing the linings of the vascular system to vaccine particles and to the subsequent immune attack that will follow. Each particle has the potential to destroy 1 healthy cell. A dose of the Pfizer vaccine is 13,6 billion nanoparticles. And a dose of Moderna has 46 billion nanoparticles!
We are literally shooting holes in one of our most fundamental organs!
If one considers the surface of an endothelial cell - around 1,320 sq.μm (60 μm long x 20 μm wide), 13.6 billion nanoparticles contained in one single Pfizer dose have the potential to destroy 9 times your skin surface in endothelium cells, or 18 sq.m. That’s simply massive !
With Moderna/AstraZeneca/Johnson we are risking upwards of 60 sq.m. (that’s 600+ sq.ft.) of a surface that is dedicated to protecting your brain, your heart, your lungs, your liver, your reproductive system…
If that’s sounds reasonable to you, you probably have lost all self-preservation instincts.
When vaccinating, shot after shot, no one ever contemplated a scenario whereby they took the risk of destroying - in aggregate - 2,000 sq.ft. of vascular lining in less than a year. Nevertheless, that’s what taking 3 injections of Moderna can entail. No need to add that only a fraction of that can be lethal… In that sense, no one ever gave a true informed consent to these vaccines…
Dr. Peter McCullough is happy to use the analogy also:
Absolutely. There is no logical explanation for injecting a young and healthy person with a virtual ZERO percent chance of a severe outcome to allow them to play Russian Roulette, risking their bodies for up to a 1 in 43 chance of subclinical myocarditis.
Here is Darby Shaw, on gambling with eye injuries:
Too Little, Too Late
Belatedly, scientists now are planning a multicenter study of eye damage from the vaccines. They also intend to look at potential biomarkers.
From “Ophthalmology and Therapy”:
“Implementation of a dedicated ophthalmic registry or establishing an ophthalmic division of existing registries for compilation and profiling of cases will further deepen our understanding of comorbidities associated with ocular COVID-19 infection and vaccination.” [3]
In the meantime, Americans continue to play Russian roulette with their own eyesight as well as that of their children. Each jab increases the risk of a serious injury.
And Margaret Anna Alice, in point 21 of her helpful checklist wrote:
You think playing Russian Roulette with your child’s life is exciting and are already planning the funeral.
Anyone who knows anything about poker, and I know a thing or two, knows that you don’t judge how you played the hand by the outcome, by whether you won or lost the pot.
Sorry, I’m going to go into poker jargon now.
If you call a bet on the turn chasing a two outer (there are only two cards in the deck that will let you win), you have about a 4% chance of winning (96% chance of losing). If you hit one of your two cards on the river, you don’t brag to the table about the quality of your play. You made a bat bet, because you couldn’t fold (you just had to go to the pub/gym/restaurant/hairdresser etc.) and won.
Make those bets often enough and you will not be playing poker for long.
If you have even a mild injury, please get onto the FLCCC I-Recover Treatment Protocol.
Thank you for reading this Substack.
Please share with others, we need to grow the resistance. Especially in Australia!
Please consider a small paid subscription (donation). The money goes to a good cause.
I am always looking for good, personal GMC and stories. Shared stories help others.
In the comments, please let me know what’s on your mind.
You can write to me privately: unbekoming@outlook.com
Absolutely brilliant piece, well done!
I wouldn’t play if they “said” there were no bullets in the gun.