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.
forgetting to actually understand what is really going on. Of course logistics are part of the equation. THAT is not the issue. The issue is circumvention.
If you do not know where SM102 comes from, you are far behind the curve.
You wrote:
the lipid SM-102 there is no reason to suspect that is harmful
really?
my words:
Your mRNA can only survive in a toxic environment.
your words:
What the hell does this mean? You went off on something that I didn't understand.
You really need to be educated on this? Really?
Yes, indeed. Ecological impact report. You may think this to be a joke, yet, for every item that may impact the biosphere, even the exchange of roof tiles, is to be supported by an ecological impact report.
There is no ecological impact report. Yet, Ivermectin is haunted by this.
I guess we will find out later on, after the fact. These jabs have been rushed to market in one giant medical experiment, without considering the consequences, despite the fact that perfectly working medications are at hand, at a fraction of the price, without the counter indications we are now witnessing. The jab is not not only useless, it is superfluous and outright dangerous.
In light of the foregoing, your qualifications mean nothing credible, rather the opposite.
I will repeat what I wrote before which you failed to address:
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. And so far, it is failing miserably; like all DS shit.
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.
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.
forgetting to actually understand what is really going on. Of course logistics are part of the equation. THAT is not the issue. The issue is circumvention.
If you do not know where SM102 comes from, you are far behind the curve.
You wrote:
really?
your words: What the hell does this mean? You went off on something that I didn't understand.
You really need to be educated on this? Really?
There is no ecological impact report. Yet, Ivermectin is haunted by this. I guess we will find out later on, after the fact. These jabs have been rushed to market in one giant medical experiment, without considering the consequences, despite the fact that perfectly working medications are at hand, at a fraction of the price, without the counter indications we are now witnessing. The jab is not not only useless, it is superfluous and outright dangerous.
I will repeat what I wrote before which you failed to address:
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE THE JAB YOU HELPED CREATE
is
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. And so far, it is failing miserably; like all DS shit.
Good luck with that.
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.