RE: Not My Meme! #949
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
From a variety of sources, why?
It just seems that you give the benefit of the doubt to a system that kills more people than we lose in wars.
https://www.rockvilleconciergedocs.com/prescription-drugs-have-killed-more-than-all-us-wars-combined/
I can only attribute that to your sources of information.
https://archive.org/details/murder-by-injection-eustace-mullins
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ju4HmBhYylUM/
https://archive.org/details/39002086348423.med.yale.edu/mode/2up
Just so I have it straight, your position is that BCBS pays doctors to vaccinate children to 'serve the purposes of those with control' and is willing to take a loss because they make it up in tax write-offs?
Yes, the control freaks can buy a property from the real estate arm of the corporation at an inflated price in order to force poisons on the population.
There are many ways to hide what is actually happening.
With the taxpayer picking up the tab for the shots they don't even lose money.
How else can they afford such a bonus in the first place?
Forgive me if I don't have any trust in anybody that is motivated by money.
--edit--
https://archive.org/details/b20388718/mode/2up
It took a minute, but I found it.
This is from 1898, the control freaks have been lying to us for a long time, along with all those they control.
I don't tend to give the benefit of the doubt to anything, least of all supposed facts presented in meme format that are almost always lies, half-truths, or otherwise inaccurate and misleading. Like the one in the OP. Presented by itself, the "facts" in it don't really show nefarious intent by BCBS. Add to that the fact that the numbers are significant exaggerations and it makes whatever argument you are trying to make come across as not credible.
Personally, I think large corporations are self-interested which is why my first guess as to why BCBS would pay for vaccination would be because vaccination results in overall better health outcomes (or at least BCBS believes that it does). It also fits Occam's razor. Better health outcomes result in lower insurance payouts. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But I don't think you'll convince anybody using arguments based on inaccurate info.
Killing a bunch of customers lowers payouts, too.
They already have their money, now they don't have to pay.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225187/
Your conflating arguments here. That link refers to adverse medical events but seems to mostly refer to things that happen in hospitals, not vaccinations which aren't even mentioned. If a patient has made it to a hospital, then the insurance company is already out a boatload of money regardless of whether or not the patient ultimately dies.
To the best of my knowledge, the kinds of vaccines that were being paid for as referred to by the OP don't lead to a lot of insta-death.
Also, while I don't see it affecting insurance companies much, "preventable adverse events" sounds like a recipe for malpractice lawsuits which I would think would be something hospitals would try to avoid. Since the study linked seems to be decades old at this point, a more interesting piece of information would be whether or not hospitals have improved in that regard since then.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/xTmeq33bMK58/
Probably shouldn't take medical advice from someone that makes more money when you are sick, or dead.™