I think this is an unlikely scenario. What if they make a super deadly new pathogen emerge that is designed for that vaccine. So everybody without the vaccine gets super sick and likely dies. That way the people that easily trust and submit to their system is the ones who survive and most of the opposition is gone. People would be like OMG this vaccine is what save half the country and we have to take these otherwise we could die. It would be an effective way for them to take over and start a population that will submit to their plan is the part of the population they can use for their agenda.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (42)
sorted by:
In what way did I miss your point? You said "most died". I've looked at numerous coronavirus vaccine papers going back decades. On average it was about 5%. If your downstream point was based on the false premise of "most" then the downstream point is at least as off as the premise was off.
I get that you wanted to point to pathogenic priming being an intended effect. I was pointing out that as bad as that effect has been shown to be (and 5% is really fucking bad), it wasn't as bad as you were suggesting.
I wasn't wanting to point to anything. All I did was respond to someone's theory with my own. It's just a theory, along with all the other theories on GW. My point was, what if the failed vaccine tests on animals wasn't what we were led to believe, that the "failed" tests weren't necessarily a failure for the Cabal, that they used the information gained from the "failures" to tweak the "vaccines" into something more useable for their purposes. That, maybe, just maybe, the scientists involved weren't really trying to find something effective against Sars/Mers/Covid. That, possibly, the animal testing was to see what a mRNA "vaccine" could really do to a mammal. It's great that you have read a bunch of literature on this subject, literature that is, quite possibly, not telling the whole story. And, while there are plenty of recent examples of what can happen to someone after getting inoculated, the long term effects are largely unknown to us. Plenty of theories there, too. But, I would bet that "they" already know because of the knowledge gained from the "failed" tests. Again, just a theory. Have a Great Day!
I don't "read literature" so much as critically analyze the science. I have knowledge and experience in all topics related to these matters, and I use that to dig deeper. I attempt to use what I find to reduce disinformation, intentional or (usually) unintentional.
The "literature" part of the paper or report is the part I am least likely to be influenced by. Instead I look at the science. If someone makes a mistake in the science itself, or purposefully tries to mislead with it (very uncommon), its easy to spot for another scientist. On the other hand, If someone injects bias into the discussion part of a paper (which they always do) that is not nearly as influential to me as the critical analysis of the science and data. There have been many papers where I have completely agreed with the science and completely disagreed with the conclusions of the scientists.
That is the wonderful thing about science. It is really hard to lie with science to another scientist. That is its greatest strength. It is however really easy to lie about science in the literature to a non-scientist (or scientist that doesn't look deeper). It's important to not conflate those two distinct communications.
Agreed. Animal testing should have been done, especially on the pathogenic priming effect. Instead it is being done broad scale on humanity at large, with an attempt in this experiment to not even have a control group. There are so many violations of the Nuremberg code in this vaccine development and rollout it is sickening.
Having said that, we can extrapolate from the decades of tests that have been done on both the lipid nanoparticles they are using as a delivery system and coronavirus vaccines in general. Given those decades of data there are legitimate and frightening concerns that need to be discussed and brought out into the open. But there are also concerns that many people have that have no basis in any other tests or in cell or molecular biology. It is those I try to nip in the bud.
If a concern has no basis, even if it is stated by a medical doctor, its really important that it not become a fear in the population. There are enough real things to be concerned about. We don't need to create more out of thin air, or mischaracterize the ones that do exist beyond what the data would suggest.
A note on the opinions of medical doctors: I have worked with many. They generally do not have sufficient knowledge on bio-nanotechnology or cell and molecular biology to be giving advice or warnings. That doesn't mean all M.D.s are insufficiently armed, but in my experience, unless they are a specialist in a field where they are required to have this knowledge (oncologist e.g.) or an M.D. Ph.D, then they most likely don't. There are exceptions to that rule, but it is a good general rule. Its something to keep in mind when doing your own research.
As for your theory:
Do I think they tweaked the virus and/or vaccines for nefarious purposes?
Virus yes. I think that is highly likely and there is no small amount of data and other information to support that conclusion.
Vaccine maybe. I know what's in the vaccines (at least as advertised). I think they are genuine in scope. I think they don't care about who gets hurt because they think in numbers, present and future, and not in the individuals that make up those numbers. They could easily test for an allergic reaction for example prior to administration of the vaccines, but they choose not to.
I think they want a genuine test of these technologies for future, possibly more nefarious implementations. I think they don't care if 5% of the people die later, and if that does happen it presents a perfect opportunity to call it "a horrible variant" of the virus. Not testing for that may have been (and likely was) intentional, but it was almost certainly not an intentional outcome in previous vaccines tests. It didn't become a worse problem as time went on in the literature. They weren't selecting for this effect, quite the contrary.
Might they have created the virus to express this specific protein JUST so they could make a vaccine that also expressed this specific protein JUST so that the pathogenic priming effect would kill a certain amount of the population? I think this is unlikely for a couple reasons. One, biology is far to complicated to predict such a thing. Two, we would already know if it was more than 5% of the vaccine recipients. An effect like pathogenic priming is generally a reduced risk over time, not increased. Many more people would be dying from this effect already if that was the case.