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.
If you do not know where SM102 comes from, you are far behind the curve.
I know exactly where it comes from. I know exactly who made it and what its molecular structure looks like. I could probably draw it form memory.
There is no evidence that I have found that its has any deleterious effects on a cell or an organism. That doesn't mean it doesn't. It just means there is no evidence to support it. As far as I can tell, it hasn't been tested.
Can you show me any evidence that the SM-102 lipid is harmful?
You really need to be educated on this? Really?
Less "education" and more "clarity" as in, I have no idea wtf you even meant by the statement. It was nonsensical. What does "your mRNA can only exist in a toxic environment" mean? What could that possibly mean? Your mRNA can only exist in a NON toxic environment, since that's pretty much the definition of toxic...
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.
Why are you speaking to me about environmental impact reports (I assume related to the vaccine???) Why the fuck would I care about its environmental impact?
All the vaccines need to be destroyed, and all vaccine manufacturer's need to be hung. The fact that they exist at all is an abomination. So why the fuck would I care about their environmental impact?
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE THE JAB YOU HELPED CREATE
First, I didn't help create the vaccine. Its an abomination. I have said this several times to you, but you obviously are not reading what I am writing and have zero clue about anything I am talking about.
Second, again, don't care to show evidence of any of those things. They are all ludicrous. Most of my writing is proving that those things happen. We are in complete agreement about all of the things on that list (except the "ecologically safe" because I neither know, nor give a flying fuck about that).
And by turning the burden of proof around, you hope to get away with it.
Why the fuck would I care about its environmental impact?
Indeed. You are exactly admitting to the problem at hand. Limited view with total disregard for holistic consequences.
And you are in denial about SM102.
This is shit that SHOULD not be injected into an acquatic millieu. EVER!
You are evidently asking the wrong question. Why would it be dangerous? The thing is this: ANY artificial substance by definition is not natural and therefor by default a danger to natural habitat. However, in this case this stuff is from it's inception already considered highly dangerous.
And it is prohibited from being administered to any living entity.
But but .... it's only trace amounts!
Where are the studies that positively and reproducibly shows it is not? Human waste contaminates water sources, when water sources are contaminated it contaminates the food supply of all living beings with far reaching consequences, especially when millions of idiots have stood in line to get their jab. We have seen this before.
This concoction on many levels is a danger, and it is NOT the default solution. The only reason why this solution is even debated, is because of a collusion between several market players and big government: a fascist / bolshevik collusion with no accountability and boatloads of money. Otherwise it would have been rejected out of hand, for obvious reasons.
It is based on bad science: medical, biochemical, environmental, genetical, etc. However you wanne slice and dice it: it is based on the premise: we make you sicker to make you better. damn the consequences. Maybe, just maybe you should start with the idea of cradle to cradle, circuitry in nature.
It has never worked in the past, but positively destroyed a lot.
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.
I know exactly where it comes from. I know exactly who made it and what its molecular structure looks like. I could probably draw it form memory.
There is no evidence that I have found that its has any deleterious effects on a cell or an organism. That doesn't mean it doesn't. It just means there is no evidence to support it. As far as I can tell, it hasn't been tested.
Can you show me any evidence that the SM-102 lipid is harmful?
Less "education" and more "clarity" as in, I have no idea wtf you even meant by the statement. It was nonsensical. What does "your mRNA can only exist in a toxic environment" mean? What could that possibly mean? Your mRNA can only exist in a NON toxic environment, since that's pretty much the definition of toxic...
Why are you speaking to me about environmental impact reports (I assume related to the vaccine???) Why the fuck would I care about its environmental impact?
All the vaccines need to be destroyed, and all vaccine manufacturer's need to be hung. The fact that they exist at all is an abomination. So why the fuck would I care about their environmental impact?
First, I didn't help create the vaccine. Its an abomination. I have said this several times to you, but you obviously are not reading what I am writing and have zero clue about anything I am talking about.
Second, again, don't care to show evidence of any of those things. They are all ludicrous. Most of my writing is proving that those things happen. We are in complete agreement about all of the things on that list (except the "ecologically safe" because I neither know, nor give a flying fuck about that).
You seriously need to learn how to read.
Indeed. You are exactly admitting to the problem at hand. Limited view with total disregard for holistic consequences.
And you are in denial about SM102. This is shit that SHOULD not be injected into an acquatic millieu. EVER!
You are evidently asking the wrong question. Why would it be dangerous? The thing is this: ANY artificial substance by definition is not natural and therefor by default a danger to natural habitat. However, in this case this stuff is from it's inception already considered highly dangerous.
And it is prohibited from being administered to any living entity.
But but .... it's only trace amounts!
Where are the studies that positively and reproducibly shows it is not? Human waste contaminates water sources, when water sources are contaminated it contaminates the food supply of all living beings with far reaching consequences, especially when millions of idiots have stood in line to get their jab. We have seen this before.
This concoction on many levels is a danger, and it is NOT the default solution. The only reason why this solution is even debated, is because of a collusion between several market players and big government: a fascist / bolshevik collusion with no accountability and boatloads of money. Otherwise it would have been rejected out of hand, for obvious reasons.
It is based on bad science: medical, biochemical, environmental, genetical, etc. However you wanne slice and dice it: it is based on the premise: we make you sicker to make you better. damn the consequences. Maybe, just maybe you should start with the idea of cradle to cradle, circuitry in nature.
It has never worked in the past, but positively destroyed a lot.
And we should trust it? No way, Jose.