I edited my comment while you were responding. Apologies for a sneaky edit!
I read what you wrote thoroughly. My days of cell biology courses are behind me but I can understand research papers just fine, thank you for your derision and condescension.
You're right, he's a poser, and don't let the tap dancing obfuscate what is plainly observed IRL- clinical observations proved transmission of blood-poisoning substances to individuals in the proximity of test subjects. And all injected are test subjects, because it's not a vaccine.
I do say blood poison because the effects CROSS SYSTEMS- reproductive, vascular, respiratory, nervous, etc.
Trying to identify the transmitted agent on our end is kind of futile because big pharma has been incredibly dishonest from the get go and we really do not know what is in the injections.
Learn how to address arguments. You are obviously not a researcher, at least not in the field of cell or molecular biology, or any field related to those topics. Researchers attack arguments with logic, reason, knowledge and evidence. You attack people with vitriol and insult.
plainly observed IRL- clinical observations proved transmission of blood-poisoning substances to individuals in the proximity of test subjects
Show me the evidence of this. Please. If this is true I would really like to see it.
I do say blood poison because the effects CROSS SYSTEMS- reproductive, vascular, respiratory, nervous, etc.
If you mean the vaccines, and more specifically the S proteins, I agree; the evidence suggests that they are poisons that attack all of these systems (but especially the endothelium, at least by the CDC data).
Trying to identify the transmitted agent on our end is kind of futile because big pharma has been incredibly dishonest from the get go and we really do not know what is in the injections.
On this I agree, on all counts. It is certainly possible that something is being transmitted. I never denied that. I am making a very sound argument for why it is almost certainly not the spike protein itself. Not one refutation has been presented for a single piece of my argument.
tap dancing
Don't know enough about cell and molecular biology to address my arguments?
note: you have no evidence as this is an experiment. And by turning the burden of proof around, you hope to get away with it. The JAB is NOT the default position. YOU have to proof viability.
Take it from another researcher, you've made several assumptions and you're tying everything to one alleged protein. We know different test subjects are getting different injections, easily proven despite blank ingredient sheets, simply based on the extreme differences in event reporting by lot.
We know there's more side effects from SHEDDERS than menstrual, and even then, putting the extreme bleeding, sudden huge painful, off- cycle extended bleeding to magical synchronization which normally happens gradually over months is beyond ludicrous. Especially since MALES have caused the reactions in FEMALES. You have some lab vocabulary but clearly no clinical experience so kindly stop trolling and read moar.
you've made several assumptions and you're tying everything to one alleged protein.
I have only made the case that the S protein is not shedding. I am not tying anything to anything. The claim is the S protein is shedding. That is what I am addressing.
We know there's more side effects from SHEDDERS than menstrual
Please point to a single piece of credible evidence to support this statement. "I got tired" or "I didn't feel well" don't count as evidence. The most likely scenario in that case is psychosomatic. I have seen no actual evidence, even anecdotal that supports this claim. If some exists I would really like to see it.
You have some lab vocabulary but clearly no clinical experience so kindly stop trolling and read moar.
Really? You are attacking me and not my arguments? That is not the path to elucidation but the opposite.
I am well versed in what is going on. Yes, I am a researcher. Yes, when I inject things its mice, not people. That doesn't mean I am ignorant, and it certainly doesn't mean I can't analyze evidence or research.
Especially since MALES have caused the reactions in FEMALES
This could easily be a pheromone response.
I also have seen no evidence that it is true.
sudden huge painful, off- cycle extended bleeding
The evidence I saw for this was in a vaccinated person not an off target effect.
You have offered not one bit of evidence and a bunch of attempts to discredit without addressing my arguments in response. If you wish to converse, please do so.
So, why is the mRNA enveloped in fat? To trick the body to accept it. the sequence itself has no chance of survival inside a healthy body.
To make matters worse, you inject people with SM102. You admit to having developed that on purpose!
And of course, it may be that "statistically", it is hardly "measurable". So far, I have not seen any data on that. however, the extremely toxic shit is prohibited from:
reaching acquatic millieus (meaning: fresh/ saltwater; living organisms)
being administered to humans and animals.
Your mRNA can only survive in a toxic environment.
It attaches itself to ovaries, sperm, lymphnodes, the brain, and there it multiplies. See the biological distribution.
Hell is being raised over the fact that people in Brasil have bought 12 million prescription of Ivermectin, and of course the consequences to waste treatment was raised high.
Nothing of the sort has been done with the shit you helped design. Where is your ecological impact report?
Sarscov was shown to be in fecal matter, and thus in waste water treatment.
Whether that can be effectively killed of is a different matter, we still are investigating.
If millions of stupid MF-ers get in line to be jabbed with this shit you created with the purpose of transfecting anyone, you can rest assured nature too is being impacted, especially, since the sarscov-virus is advertised as an improved trans species hopper where gain of function: i.e. transmissbility is enhanced.
Therefor the "cure" that toxic gen-concoction you helped create, also must be suspected of being transmissible to other species. Especially, with regards to biosludge use.
You will scream: there is no evidence of that. Sure, we are still looking, but the lack of evidence is a plastic matter.
"plainly seen or perceived, manifest, obvious," late 14c., from Old French evident and directly from Latin evidentem (nominative evidens) "perceptible, clear, obvious, apparent" from ex "out, out of, fully" (see ex-) + videntem (nominative videns), present participle of videre "to see" (from PIE root *weid- "to see").
The reports are quite clear. And blaming pheromones does not cut it. And appealing to authority does neither do you any good.
And with the shit you helped create, you created NOT a solution but many additional problems.
So, why is the mRNA enveloped in fat? To trick the body to accept it.
It really has more to do with the fact that transportation in an aqueous environment is best done by lipid micellles or bilyers. Its a physics thing. Its what our cells do. Its the fundamental separation technique of life. These lipid nanocarriers are just an imitation of life, because the physics of it is really smart.
It also helps entry into the cells, so you got that part right, but that's not the primary concern of these designs (though it is an important secondary concern and aids in delivery into the cytosol).
To make matters worse, you inject people with SM102. You admit to having developed that on purpose!
Where does shit like this even come from?
Regarding the lipid SM-102 there is no reason to suspect that is harmful. I don't personally like it as a lipid because I can't see an obvious entry into the breakdown pathways I know about, but that is not my expertise. If I really wanted to I could look into it, but off the top of my head I am not sure how it would be broken down by the body. That doesn't in any way mean it can't be. It should be tested though, and I have not found such tests. Regardless, there is no evidence to suggest it will be harmful, but it is irresponsible to inject people with it if it is untested.
Your mRNA can only survive in a toxic environment.
What the hell does this mean? You went off on something that I didn't understand.
It attaches itself to ovaries, sperm, lymphnodes, the brain, and there it multiplies. See the biological distribution.
The vaccine does accumulate in these organs yes (though I hadn't seen sperm: evidence?). I have said that several times in this discussion as part of my argument.
Nothing of the sort has been done with the shit you helped design. Where is your ecological impact report?
Wtf dude (or dudette).
And appealing to authority does neither do you any good.
I gave my qualifications. I agree that's annoying. But I didn't leave it at that. Instead I have presented my argument. It didn't come out as clear as I would have liked all at once. It is rather complicated, so it can take some time (through further questions) unless I'm writing an actual paper on it. But I encourage you to read the whole thread of my responses to get my entire argument. It is a very good one, and addressable with some effort.
As for the rest of the stuff in this post, you go off on some serious tangents. I don't even know wtf you are talking about. It certainly doesn't anything to do with a single thing I have ever said or done in my entire life.
And if you wish to see all that I have said on the topic, please read further above. I go into greater detail that helps explain my position. It extends into the "continue reading thread" section.
I never said you should trust me. That would be stupid. You absolutely should not trust me.
However, it must be understood that I have not made a statement, I have presented an argument. If the argument can't be refuted (which it hasn't) then the argument stands as the best argument until it is refuted.
That is all that is going on here. Never hand over your critical thinking skills to me or anyone else. Look at the evidence, hear the arguments.
Unfortunately, since there are no other actual biological researchers commenting on my arguments they are not able to prove that they stand up to debate. I really wish there were. I know there are at least a couple on the board, but they aren't chiming in.
you don't need an expert to disagree when common sense would do. The inventor himself stated they can shed. It's pretty clear. He also stated 'almost certainly can't cause disease'
One is presented as fact. The other is theory.
You yourself seem to make quite a few assumptions such as - 'The most likely scenario in that case is psychosomatic.' and "This could easily be a pheromone response." This was your argument, That's not arguing with facts. It would be just as valid to say. "This could easily be explained as a new virus infection or a parasite" , hell, make up anything. You can say whatever you want when you don't require evidence to back it up.
You have stated as fact - "I have only made the case that the S protein is not shedding. I am not tying anything to anything. The claim is the S protein is shedding. That is what I am addressing."
Yet Dr. Warren EXPLICITLY states it does. So one of you is incorrect. So who do we trust? The inventor? They thought the spike protein would stay in the area of the vaccination...they were wrong. You say you knew it wouldn't but we can't verify that so it's just your word. You say the protein doesn't shed. Warren states it does. One of you is incorrect right?
See, that's logic and reason without having a PHD in biology. The age old "my expert is better than yours" arguments. So you see you can use all the biological wording you want but you are still just a guy on the net saying the opposite what a very prominent expert has already stated.
Further even 'expert' opinions are in question. The experts just told us we went through one the deadliest pandemics since 1918 yet our 5 senses told us otherwise. We now find out the experts lied. Time and time again. Over masks, the source of the virus, HCQ, death rates, etc. And it's all documented.
So forgive us if we treat your arguments as bullshit. Other experts are saying the opposite of what you are and there has been so much bullshit shoveled around by so many people calling themselves experts that identifying the truth is difficult. There ARE people we trust who have been arguing against COVID and vaccines for a long time often at their own cost and reputation. I trust their motives and therefore their 'science'. They were RIGHT about HCQ, Ivermectin, etc while the people who stand to profit off a vaccine were lying about the cures and promoting an experimental vaccine that according to one inventor sheds the spike proteins. The doctors I trust saved lives. The experts lied.
you don't need an expert to disagree when common sense would do. The inventor himself stated they can shed. It's pretty clear. He also stated 'almost certainly can't cause disease'
Here's the thing about science. It is evidence, logic and reason based. The inventor said it sheds spike protein. But he may or may not be an expert in cell biology. He might have been talking out of his ass. I know people who are researchers in bio-nanotechnology (like I am) that know much less about cell biology than I do, because I am also a cell biologist and they are not. To make the vaccine you don't actually need to understand the biochemistry and molecular biology of cell biology as well as I do. I came to the field of nano-biotechnology THROUGH cell biology. Most do not.
Shedding of proteins would be MY specialty, at least the theory behind it, and there is no biological path for such to occur. Its a transmembrane protein. I know you don't know what that is, but I do. Its not "sheddable" It doesn't even make sense to say that. It can only exist inside of a cell membrane (or organelle, or bleb, etc.) It REQUIRES a lipid bilayer, and can never escape it. Physics won't allow it, unless you put it into another hydrophobic environment (oil e.g.). In the aqueous solution that is in between cells, it simply can't escape the membrane. Its not possible. Period.
I literally wouldn't care if this guy was God Almighty himself. He would have to provide evidence to support such a claim before I would even entertain the idea because it goes against 100 years of every piece of evidence in cell biology, chemistry and physics research.
The most likely scenario in that case is psychosomatic.'
This is more of an "Occam's Razor" than an assumption, though the two are related concepts. I say it is most likely, because in my opinion (which is not without expertise) the most likely case if the vaccine is what it says it is is that such things are psychosomatic. I am happy to review evidence to the contrary. I don't have any desire to be right about that. That was just an opinion based on my own knowledge and research.
This could easily be a pheromone response
Again, it could. I presented a reasonable argument for it.
make up anything
I'm not "making it up". I gave an argument to support it.
Evidence shows that the vaccines accumulate in the ovaries. I don't know where the link to that paper is, but if you want that evidence just let me know and I will find it.
Evidence also shows that menstrual sympathy is a thing.
Evidence also shows that the spike protein, which the vaccines produce, attacks the endothelium (blood vessels).
So its in the ovaries. It attacks the blood vessels. Menstrual sympathy is a thing.
Is that proof? Of course not. Its an argument. Its a pretty good argument. Its at least good enough to be addressed in the specifics. What it isn't is an "assumption without evidence". I am happy to provide papers for all three of those pieces of evidence if it will help you.
They thought the spike protein would stay in the area of the vaccination
I did not. I KNEW it would not. I said a thousand times it would not. Why? Because I design cell specific targeting lipid nanoparticle drug delivery systems. That's why.
So one of you is incorrect. So who do we trust?
The "inventor" (who knows if that's even true) did not provide any context or evidence or argument to support his claim. I did. Who do you trust? Neither. But I have an argument that can be disputed. He doesn't even have that. I like my odds better, because I know my argument is correct within the scope of known biology, chemistry, and physics.
The age old "my expert is better than yours" arguments
I am not asking you to take my expertise as argument. I have asked you NOT to. I am begging you to look at the argument itself. If you don't know the biology I am talking about, ask someone who does.
The argument is all. The person who gives it is irrelevant.
Further even 'expert' opinions are in question
They always have been. They always will be.
So forgive us if we treat your arguments as bullshit.
Wow. Its bullshit because I must be wrong because I'm an expert in the field?
What the fuck?
The argument is all. I keep telling you not to take my, nor anyone's word for it. Address the specifics of the argument. That is all.
Other experts are saying the opposite of what you are and there has been so much bullshit shoveled around by so many people calling themselves experts that identifying the truth is difficult.
Most of them are far from experts, and I have addressed how they got specific things wrong at other times, but I hardly expect you to know that at this point. You could find such things in my post history, but I post way too often for that to be practical.
Once again, I must point out, that I argue things point by point. I address others arguments when they present them. In this case, the person being quoted made a fiip statement without any evidence or context or any support whatsoever. I on the other hand have laid out an explicit argument, with detailed objections (you would have to look at the entire thread to see them all. I further clarified my position in response to other questions).
AGAIN!!! The argument is all.
There ARE people we trust who have been arguing against COVID and vaccines for a long time often at their own cost and reputation. I trust their motives and therefore their 'science'.
This is foolish, because those people are not experts in cell biology nor nanotechnology, which is the area of expertise that is important for THIS SPECIFIC topic.
I will end with this:
The argument is all. If you can't refute the argument, dismissing the arguer because you trust another "expert" more for completely unrelated reasons to the argument in question is just another way of handing off your critical thinking skills to someone else. That is how we got here in the first place. That is always the wrong path.
Did you read what I wrote or did you stop at the fear statement.
I am a researcher in the field. If you would like to learn why what he said is almost certainly not true I recommend reading what I wrote.
I edited my comment while you were responding. Apologies for a sneaky edit!
I read what you wrote thoroughly. My days of cell biology courses are behind me but I can understand research papers just fine, thank you for your derision and condescension.
You're right, he's a poser, and don't let the tap dancing obfuscate what is plainly observed IRL- clinical observations proved transmission of blood-poisoning substances to individuals in the proximity of test subjects. And all injected are test subjects, because it's not a vaccine.
I do say blood poison because the effects CROSS SYSTEMS- reproductive, vascular, respiratory, nervous, etc.
Trying to identify the transmitted agent on our end is kind of futile because big pharma has been incredibly dishonest from the get go and we really do not know what is in the injections.
Learn how to address arguments. You are obviously not a researcher, at least not in the field of cell or molecular biology, or any field related to those topics. Researchers attack arguments with logic, reason, knowledge and evidence. You attack people with vitriol and insult.
Show me the evidence of this. Please. If this is true I would really like to see it.
If you mean the vaccines, and more specifically the S proteins, I agree; the evidence suggests that they are poisons that attack all of these systems (but especially the endothelium, at least by the CDC data).
On this I agree, on all counts. It is certainly possible that something is being transmitted. I never denied that. I am making a very sound argument for why it is almost certainly not the spike protein itself. Not one refutation has been presented for a single piece of my argument.
Don't know enough about cell and molecular biology to address my arguments?
Then why are you speaking on it at all?
start here then follow the links, there are many, but can only be read when your eyes are open. https://www.bitchute.com/video/uaB0AkbUZE3y/
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE THE JAB YOU HELPED CREATE
is
ECOLOGICALLY SAFE
PROTECTS AGAINST SARSCOV-2
DOES NOT MAKE PEOPLE SICK
DOES NOT CAUSE DEATH.
DEFEATS SARSCOV-2
SARSCOV-2 TO BE NOT LAB CREATED.
note: you have no evidence as this is an experiment. And by turning the burden of proof around, you hope to get away with it. The JAB is NOT the default position. YOU have to proof viability.
Good luck with that.
Take it from another researcher, you've made several assumptions and you're tying everything to one alleged protein. We know different test subjects are getting different injections, easily proven despite blank ingredient sheets, simply based on the extreme differences in event reporting by lot.
We know there's more side effects from SHEDDERS than menstrual, and even then, putting the extreme bleeding, sudden huge painful, off- cycle extended bleeding to magical synchronization which normally happens gradually over months is beyond ludicrous. Especially since MALES have caused the reactions in FEMALES. You have some lab vocabulary but clearly no clinical experience so kindly stop trolling and read moar.
I have only made the case that the S protein is not shedding. I am not tying anything to anything. The claim is the S protein is shedding. That is what I am addressing.
Please point to a single piece of credible evidence to support this statement. "I got tired" or "I didn't feel well" don't count as evidence. The most likely scenario in that case is psychosomatic. I have seen no actual evidence, even anecdotal that supports this claim. If some exists I would really like to see it.
Really? You are attacking me and not my arguments? That is not the path to elucidation but the opposite.
I am well versed in what is going on. Yes, I am a researcher. Yes, when I inject things its mice, not people. That doesn't mean I am ignorant, and it certainly doesn't mean I can't analyze evidence or research.
This could easily be a pheromone response.
I also have seen no evidence that it is true.
The evidence I saw for this was in a vaccinated person not an off target effect.
You have offered not one bit of evidence and a bunch of attempts to discredit without addressing my arguments in response. If you wish to converse, please do so.
interesting.
So, why is the mRNA enveloped in fat? To trick the body to accept it. the sequence itself has no chance of survival inside a healthy body.
To make matters worse, you inject people with SM102. You admit to having developed that on purpose!
And of course, it may be that "statistically", it is hardly "measurable". So far, I have not seen any data on that. however, the extremely toxic shit is prohibited from:
Your mRNA can only survive in a toxic environment.
It attaches itself to ovaries, sperm, lymphnodes, the brain, and there it multiplies. See the biological distribution.
Hell is being raised over the fact that people in Brasil have bought 12 million prescription of Ivermectin, and of course the consequences to waste treatment was raised high.
Nothing of the sort has been done with the shit you helped design. Where is your ecological impact report?
Sarscov was shown to be in fecal matter, and thus in waste water treatment.
Whether that can be effectively killed of is a different matter, we still are investigating.
If millions of stupid MF-ers get in line to be jabbed with this shit you created with the purpose of transfecting anyone, you can rest assured nature too is being impacted, especially, since the sarscov-virus is advertised as an improved trans species hopper where gain of function: i.e. transmissbility is enhanced.
Therefor the "cure" that toxic gen-concoction you helped create, also must be suspected of being transmissible to other species. Especially, with regards to biosludge use.
You will scream: there is no evidence of that. Sure, we are still looking, but the lack of evidence is a plastic matter.
The reports are quite clear. And blaming pheromones does not cut it. And appealing to authority does neither do you any good.
And with the shit you helped create, you created NOT a solution but many additional problems.
Thanks.
It really has more to do with the fact that transportation in an aqueous environment is best done by lipid micellles or bilyers. Its a physics thing. Its what our cells do. Its the fundamental separation technique of life. These lipid nanocarriers are just an imitation of life, because the physics of it is really smart.
It also helps entry into the cells, so you got that part right, but that's not the primary concern of these designs (though it is an important secondary concern and aids in delivery into the cytosol).
Where does shit like this even come from?
Regarding the lipid SM-102 there is no reason to suspect that is harmful. I don't personally like it as a lipid because I can't see an obvious entry into the breakdown pathways I know about, but that is not my expertise. If I really wanted to I could look into it, but off the top of my head I am not sure how it would be broken down by the body. That doesn't in any way mean it can't be. It should be tested though, and I have not found such tests. Regardless, there is no evidence to suggest it will be harmful, but it is irresponsible to inject people with it if it is untested.
What the hell does this mean? You went off on something that I didn't understand.
The vaccine does accumulate in these organs yes (though I hadn't seen sperm: evidence?). I have said that several times in this discussion as part of my argument.
Wtf dude (or dudette).
I gave my qualifications. I agree that's annoying. But I didn't leave it at that. Instead I have presented my argument. It didn't come out as clear as I would have liked all at once. It is rather complicated, so it can take some time (through further questions) unless I'm writing an actual paper on it. But I encourage you to read the whole thread of my responses to get my entire argument. It is a very good one, and addressable with some effort.
As for the rest of the stuff in this post, you go off on some serious tangents. I don't even know wtf you are talking about. It certainly doesn't anything to do with a single thing I have ever said or done in my entire life.
And if you wish to see all that I have said on the topic, please read further above. I go into greater detail that helps explain my position. It extends into the "continue reading thread" section.
Soooooooo why should we trust you over other researchers? Because you said you were right on the GAW page?
I never said you should trust me. That would be stupid. You absolutely should not trust me.
However, it must be understood that I have not made a statement, I have presented an argument. If the argument can't be refuted (which it hasn't) then the argument stands as the best argument until it is refuted.
That is all that is going on here. Never hand over your critical thinking skills to me or anyone else. Look at the evidence, hear the arguments.
Unfortunately, since there are no other actual biological researchers commenting on my arguments they are not able to prove that they stand up to debate. I really wish there were. I know there are at least a couple on the board, but they aren't chiming in.
An argument without evidence can be rejected out of hand. An argument rejected does not remain standing.
Rejecting an argument out of hand is only done by someone who either;
A) doesn't understand the argument
B) can't reject it with their own argument
C) has no respect for the speaker.
Those are not exclusive reasons.
In every case they have nothing to do with the argument being bad, only with the rejecter being ignorant or an asshole.
you don't need an expert to disagree when common sense would do. The inventor himself stated they can shed. It's pretty clear. He also stated 'almost certainly can't cause disease'
One is presented as fact. The other is theory.
You yourself seem to make quite a few assumptions such as - 'The most likely scenario in that case is psychosomatic.' and "This could easily be a pheromone response." This was your argument, That's not arguing with facts. It would be just as valid to say. "This could easily be explained as a new virus infection or a parasite" , hell, make up anything. You can say whatever you want when you don't require evidence to back it up.
You have stated as fact - "I have only made the case that the S protein is not shedding. I am not tying anything to anything. The claim is the S protein is shedding. That is what I am addressing."
Yet Dr. Warren EXPLICITLY states it does. So one of you is incorrect. So who do we trust? The inventor? They thought the spike protein would stay in the area of the vaccination...they were wrong. You say you knew it wouldn't but we can't verify that so it's just your word. You say the protein doesn't shed. Warren states it does. One of you is incorrect right?
See, that's logic and reason without having a PHD in biology. The age old "my expert is better than yours" arguments. So you see you can use all the biological wording you want but you are still just a guy on the net saying the opposite what a very prominent expert has already stated.
Further even 'expert' opinions are in question. The experts just told us we went through one the deadliest pandemics since 1918 yet our 5 senses told us otherwise. We now find out the experts lied. Time and time again. Over masks, the source of the virus, HCQ, death rates, etc. And it's all documented.
So forgive us if we treat your arguments as bullshit. Other experts are saying the opposite of what you are and there has been so much bullshit shoveled around by so many people calling themselves experts that identifying the truth is difficult. There ARE people we trust who have been arguing against COVID and vaccines for a long time often at their own cost and reputation. I trust their motives and therefore their 'science'. They were RIGHT about HCQ, Ivermectin, etc while the people who stand to profit off a vaccine were lying about the cures and promoting an experimental vaccine that according to one inventor sheds the spike proteins. The doctors I trust saved lives. The experts lied.
So good luck with that!
Here's the thing about science. It is evidence, logic and reason based. The inventor said it sheds spike protein. But he may or may not be an expert in cell biology. He might have been talking out of his ass. I know people who are researchers in bio-nanotechnology (like I am) that know much less about cell biology than I do, because I am also a cell biologist and they are not. To make the vaccine you don't actually need to understand the biochemistry and molecular biology of cell biology as well as I do. I came to the field of nano-biotechnology THROUGH cell biology. Most do not.
Shedding of proteins would be MY specialty, at least the theory behind it, and there is no biological path for such to occur. Its a transmembrane protein. I know you don't know what that is, but I do. Its not "sheddable" It doesn't even make sense to say that. It can only exist inside of a cell membrane (or organelle, or bleb, etc.) It REQUIRES a lipid bilayer, and can never escape it. Physics won't allow it, unless you put it into another hydrophobic environment (oil e.g.). In the aqueous solution that is in between cells, it simply can't escape the membrane. Its not possible. Period.
I literally wouldn't care if this guy was God Almighty himself. He would have to provide evidence to support such a claim before I would even entertain the idea because it goes against 100 years of every piece of evidence in cell biology, chemistry and physics research.
This is more of an "Occam's Razor" than an assumption, though the two are related concepts. I say it is most likely, because in my opinion (which is not without expertise) the most likely case if the vaccine is what it says it is is that such things are psychosomatic. I am happy to review evidence to the contrary. I don't have any desire to be right about that. That was just an opinion based on my own knowledge and research.
Again, it could. I presented a reasonable argument for it.
I'm not "making it up". I gave an argument to support it.
Evidence shows that the vaccines accumulate in the ovaries. I don't know where the link to that paper is, but if you want that evidence just let me know and I will find it.
Evidence also shows that menstrual sympathy is a thing.
Evidence also shows that the spike protein, which the vaccines produce, attacks the endothelium (blood vessels).
So its in the ovaries. It attacks the blood vessels. Menstrual sympathy is a thing.
Is that proof? Of course not. Its an argument. Its a pretty good argument. Its at least good enough to be addressed in the specifics. What it isn't is an "assumption without evidence". I am happy to provide papers for all three of those pieces of evidence if it will help you.
I did not. I KNEW it would not. I said a thousand times it would not. Why? Because I design cell specific targeting lipid nanoparticle drug delivery systems. That's why.
The "inventor" (who knows if that's even true) did not provide any context or evidence or argument to support his claim. I did. Who do you trust? Neither. But I have an argument that can be disputed. He doesn't even have that. I like my odds better, because I know my argument is correct within the scope of known biology, chemistry, and physics.
I am not asking you to take my expertise as argument. I have asked you NOT to. I am begging you to look at the argument itself. If you don't know the biology I am talking about, ask someone who does.
The argument is all. The person who gives it is irrelevant.
They always have been. They always will be.
Wow. Its bullshit because I must be wrong because I'm an expert in the field?
What the fuck?
The argument is all. I keep telling you not to take my, nor anyone's word for it. Address the specifics of the argument. That is all.
Most of them are far from experts, and I have addressed how they got specific things wrong at other times, but I hardly expect you to know that at this point. You could find such things in my post history, but I post way too often for that to be practical.
Once again, I must point out, that I argue things point by point. I address others arguments when they present them. In this case, the person being quoted made a fiip statement without any evidence or context or any support whatsoever. I on the other hand have laid out an explicit argument, with detailed objections (you would have to look at the entire thread to see them all. I further clarified my position in response to other questions).
AGAIN!!! The argument is all.
This is foolish, because those people are not experts in cell biology nor nanotechnology, which is the area of expertise that is important for THIS SPECIFIC topic.
I will end with this:
The argument is all. If you can't refute the argument, dismissing the arguer because you trust another "expert" more for completely unrelated reasons to the argument in question is just another way of handing off your critical thinking skills to someone else. That is how we got here in the first place. That is always the wrong path.