CRITICAL: mRNA produced cDNA a la any mRNA "vaccines" produce is patentable and people who have received it are no longer free agents and are owned by the pharmaceuticals. We've heard this time and again, but here's the source folks. 🔥â˜ðŸ”¥
(blogs.scientificamerican.com)
🚔 Crime & Corruption 💸
No, I'm a biologist with experience in all of the things related to everything going on with the vaccine. In my opinion, based on about six months of solid research on the topic, and over a decade of experience in the field, the vaccine is among the worst crimes ever perpetrated on the human race.
But that doesn't mean that every fear that everyone has is legitimate. Many of the fears that exist have no basis in biology at all. mRNA writing to DNA without all of the required machinery is one of them.
I have given reasons for why your fears, and the fears of the OP are not legitimate. You have said I was wrong but offered no evidential support, nor even addressed my arguments specifically which are based 100% on experimental biology. In many cases, my arguments are based on MY OWN experiments in biology (not just something I read in a book, or in a paper).
I could very well be wrong about anything I say, but I can back it all up with published papers. I am asking you for ANY SORT OF EVIDENCE to support your assertion that my knowledge of biology is incorrect. You have only made statements of "you're wrong" and "you must be a shill". One is not actually an argument but a refutation, the other is an ad hominem attack (also not an argument).
A conversation can not advance towards the truth without honest debate. If you will not engage me in honest debate, then why are you engaging me at all?
My claim is that none of the machinery is listed as an ingredient in any of the vaccines.
No where in there is trust in their listed ingredients. It isn't stated nor implied. In fact I say:
Which DOES imply that I acknowledge they may be lying, but EVEN IF THEY ARE, there is even MORE machinery necessary.
And more important I go on to point out that there are much better technologies available than what they say they are using if altering our DNA was the goal.
Which means that if they are altering the DNA of the vaxxed, they are almost certainly using completely different technology which would ALSO make the argument put forth by the OP moot, since it was attempting to tie in the technology they say they are using with making us into GMOs. This is an argument, which I was pointing out, is not based on biology where they were trying to base their argument on biology.
Your assessment of what you think I said has absolutely nothing to do with anything I actually said.
As for the rest...
I have no trust in them, but knowing something about the gamut of available technologies, and knowing specifics of how the stated technologies work, I can say with fair confidence that the arguments that many claim about those things are incorrect. I am NOT suggesting I understand the intentions of the vaccine producers, only how the technologies and the biology work. I know what I WOULD DO if I wanted to turn people into GMO's and it would not have anything to do with the technology that they say they are using.
I have no idea where you get this idea. The adverse effects are well understood (for the vast majority). They are of three types:
As for how to treat it, the best way is to not get the vaccine. The second best way is to protect yourself from the vaccine exactly the same as you would protect yourself from the virus: Take vitamin D, C, B's, Zn, Mg, HCQ and Ivermectin.
Huh?
Again, you are making a claim without any effort to justify it. How am I doing this? From my perspective I am knowledgeable on the topic and am trying to help. You seem to have a very different view of my actions than I do, yet you offer no specifics on your accusations.
Another non specific accusation. Please point out a single dishonest or even misleading claim I have made. Preferably you will also provide evidence to support the dishonesty in my words.