What does the "science" say?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (63)
sorted by:
Well, considering the standing theory is that the vaccinated people:
A. Are sterilized by the shot
B. Only have 3 years to live due to the cardio problems
C. Were dumb enough to get the jab to begin with
All point toward parentage with such a person isn't only likely impossible now, but simply irresponsible.
You don't have a kid if you know you're not gonna survive at most 3 years past their birth. It's just cruel to the kid and the surviving parent.
Marriage sure, why not, but having kids?
I won't judge someone who does, even if they could, but know that you've chosen a pointlessly hard path if you do.
There is no "standing theory". Suggesting that there is suggests that there is evidence to support the ideas. It is an appeal to authority to support an argument for which there is no good evidence. It would be more appropriate to say "my hypothesis which some (few) other people share".
There is zero evidence to support this. There is evidence that it causes substantial spontaneous abortions in the first two trimesters, but that can easily be caused by a shock to the system (which the vaccine causes). It can also be caused by permanent damage to the reproductive organs, but there is zero substantive evidence to support that conclusion.
This again has zero evidential support. I am sure it is probably true for some people, but the vaccine causes different damage to different people. Not everyone is susceptible to heart damage from the spike protein and/or inflammation/autoimmune heart damage the vaccine might cause. Each individual has different diet/genetics/state of health/where the vaccine accumulates/etc. Patterns may emerge for statistical evidence to support such an idea, but we don't have any data to support ANY long term problems, nor do we have any idea of statistical long term patterns (yet).
I can't argue with this one.
This is nothing but fear mongering, and it doesn't even have a lick of evidential support (that I have seen). All evidence that I have seen that would warrant these particular fears I have provided substantial evidence to the contrary. That evidence being ignored because people would rather be fearful than not is not my fault. But I am calling this for what it is. Fear mongering.
Where did I say anything that remotely resembles anything like this statement? This is called a strawman. I did not say anything like this. I was addressing specific fears for which there is no evidence. I have made thousands of posts of the dangers of the vaccines. Those posts are based on corroborated evidence.
Not only does it not exist yet, but there isn't any current evidence that supports the fear at all.
This isn't about money (well, not primarily). This is about teaching people to give up their freedoms "for the good of the many." Such a lesson is a primer for their "Great Reset" which will ask people to give up ALL freedoms for the good of the many (the insidious path to total population slavery used by all communist, socialist, and fascist regimes).
The evidence suggests it does a lot of harm, though the evidence also suggests its not as harmful as many people fear it is. There is disinformation on both sides of this issue. I have spent hundreds of hours writing the details and analyses about this disinformation on both sides.
Science is not meant to be trusted. It is actually designed to be forever debated (never trusted). The statement "trust the science" is meant to confuse people, because science is intrinsically not trustable, but debatable.
I have an actual theory that says the same thing. It has substantial evidence to support it.
Within that evidence there is none that supports the claims or fears of infertility.
Oh, one other thing, while I've got your attention.
I know we got into a spat way back when, but I'll be honest, I do value your opinion. I think you're quite learned, in spite of a slight unwillingness t consider that the world at large may, very shortly, be required to unlearn things which would completely reconfigure organic, viral, and even periodic chemistry as we know it. We don't know how far the lies go.
With that in mind, I've been struggling with the idea of graphene in the "vaccines." That may surprise you, given my previous statement, but I don't see why they would need graphene to accomplish such a goal. It seem superficial to their ends. The Japanese reports of stuff in the "vaccines" do give this idea credence though.
Anyway...
Serendipitously, while researching a completely separate subject, I stumbled upon Phosphorene.
Aside from phosphorus' namesake being translatable to "light bearer" (also lucifer) and this sum bitchin' page looking like an upside down cross overlaid text on the Philosopher's stone, I'm a little perplexed. I mean, we know the Cabal have a big Satan thing going on, whether or not everyone is in on it, so...
What's your take? Assuming they may just be putting nanoparticle structures in the "vaccines", would Phosphorene be more or less likely than Graphene? Is it just for the voodoo magic like the Luciferase?
One more from the wiki article for Phosphorene, on top of that...
This line smells like 5G conspiracies, which I have a harder time swallowing as it rides on the graphene nanoparticle theory.
Thoughts?
This is a problem. People often think that just because I disagree with them that I do not value their thoughts or opinions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just because I don't sugar coat things doesn't mean I think badly of someone. I think you are a valuable researcher and I always read what you present.
But I am a scientist. I think of things scientifically (not exclusively, but when talking about science things I do). When I present arguments I call it like I see it, which is as a data analyst/scientist/researcher.
I don't know why you would think that about me. I agree with this 100%. I think there is going to be a Science Great Awakening as well. I think what you might be confusing is that such an awakening would be based on substantive evidence and not speculation. I speculate all the time, but I only use those speculations to drive my search for evidence. I do not give those speculations any more weight than they deserve. That is what I consider to be a major difference between me and many people who post here.
They wouldn't, though there may be meaningful uses for it. I just haven't seen any evidence that substantially supports the idea that it is in these vaccines. That doesn't mean that they aren't in them, Its just the the evidence provided so far does not support it by my analysis.
Nevertheless, there are reasons that they may want to inject graphene for nefarious technologies. But I also agree that there are other ways. They wouldn't "need" graphene.
I haven't read them yet. From the reports of the reports I only saw that it was "something" magnetic, nothing specific. That could be literally anything. There are so many things that could be magnetic, without further study assuming it is graphene would be purely speculative at this point.
I certainly can't say phosphorene is impossible. I don't know of any method to produce it in sufficient quantities, but production of phosphorene would hardly be the least of the potential hidden technologies. As for what they could do with it... I am not sure. Self assembling technologies using sheets is not something I have studied in much depth, though I certainly could look into it. I know a fair bit more about biological methods of self-assembly (DNA, RNA, peptide chains, lipid nanoparticles, etc.)
I would imagine that phosphorene self assembly would use similar techniques to graphene self assembly, which would be based on the additions to the sheets. Like, if you add certain moieties onto the edge of sheets you can get them to join in a certain way. Such moieties (like adding a hydroxyl group e.g.) to the edge of a sheet could help such sheets group around a metal ion (chelate the ion) for example. I'm just spitballing here, but yes, if you could create phosphorene in large quantities you could theoretically create self assembling tech and inject it.
I'm not sure why they would do that and not use graphene, but its not impossible if they have the tech to mass produce it. Then again, me not being sure why, doesn't mean there aren't good reasons. They do have different properties and it will likely become future tech with both similar and different applications to graphene.
Well, 20Ghz is right in line with 5G, so...
Regardless, I don't think the 5G conspiracies have any credence with regard to this vaccine.
That's the problem with all these theories.
I think many of the ideas have merit with regard to their intent, and possible tech. But there is no evidence to support them. I appreciate the speculation and the research, but there is so much evidence, and so little supports the wild speculations. I don't dismiss the speculations, but giving them more credence than they deserve is not sound reasoning. There are real concerns with actual evidence. I think it is more important to look there and do research there.
Maybe that's just me. I certainly don't want to discourage anyone doing any research. I just don't want "speculation" to turn into "standing theory" without evidence. That leads to bad decisions.
Listen, bud, I don't want to get in a spat. Others seem to be jumping on you anyway, so I'll just make it quick.
The Globalists like Schwab, Soros and Gates have been going on for decades how they want to reduce the world population.
They all have financial interests in vaccine companies.
Vaccines that have been produced by them have left many in 3rd world countries sterile or producing children with great deformities.
Cutting all the science theories, studies, research and what ifs aside, if you follow the money, it's clear A, B, and C are the primary goals for, in their mind, a successful vaccination(apartheid) campaign.
So, assuming they made something that fits the "Bill", I'm gonna boldly say, yeah, vaccinated people aren't in for a good time.
Yup, and not one of them addressed a single thing I actually said, but rather addressed suppositions of things that had not one thing to do with what I said.
When one gets into a debate, one should address the argument presented and not a made up argument that was not presented. That is called a strawman.
Yup. I've written a fair bit about this.
I have substantial evidence to support this statement and have written about it many times. I am writing what is turning into a book about these very facts.
Not a single argument from me about this. I agree 100%.
And again, we have no argument here.
This is 100% speculative. Basing "the standing theory" on something that is 100% speculative is not a theory it is a hypothesis. It can become a theory if it has evidential support. There is none. When you try to make a hypothesis into a theory without presenting evidence but just by calling it a "standing theory" that is an appeal to authority to make it into a stronger argument than it is, because it has no actual evidence to support it.
We have a metric FUCKTON of data on these vaccines. None of it supports the hypothesis of infertility, genetic damage to sperm/eggs, etc.. Promoting an idea that there is, without such evidence, is exactly what "fear mongering" is. You are trying to make people afraid of something for which there is no evidential support within the large body of data that we have.
You think that just because they have motive to do so that they have done it. That is supposition. If, within the mountain of evidence that we have there was supporting evidence for the theory, then I would be agreeing that the evidence does support it, but there isn't any, and that is why I disagree with it.
You are spreading a fear that all the evidence for the vaccines that we have does not support.
I think you're hung up on semantics.
I count miscarriages along with general sterility.
I've heard a TON of anecdotal stories about how pregnant women are having miscarriages as well as pregnant women who are simply in proximity with someone who was recently vaccinated. Hell, I've been getting prayer requests from Church by pregnant mothers having severe complications.
Oh, and by the way, we don't have evidence because it is being suppressed. All we have is anecdotes, so if those aren't good enough for you, then by your metrics we can't form ANY theories because the people in charge won't let us. Which is all sorts of a mind fuck of circular logic to me.
You gotta chill with the semantic arguments, is all I'm saying. All those rules you're hell-bent on following were put in place by bad actors to make sure the Truth is always quashed by those who have a precious degree and seek to lord it over us.
Common sense calls them as they see them, and I've seen a fair share of people say, yeah, it's making it hard to make babies.
Nicki Minaj's current affair with her friend's testicles growing to pop is a marked case I'm surprised you don't count among pertinent evidence. Is she a fear-monger?
"...but we don't have any data to support ANY long term problems, nor do we have any idea of statistical long term patterns (yet)."
How about those animal study phase the shot never made it out of? What happened to all those animals?
They all died from an ADE (antibody dependent enhancement). This is a severe immune response when encountering the wild type virus after getting the vaccines. There is some evidence to support that this might be happening with the current vaccines. I think the "Delta Variant" may be hiding some of these deaths.
But that is not data, and that has NOTHING to do with the topic of my post, which was specifically an address on unfounded fears of infertility or other fertility problems. THAT is based purely on fear mongering (with ALL the evidence so far).
https://www.bitchute.com/video/lnr5zv0o1CVn/
Give this a watch, and tell me what you think. It's more than just ADE, which I do agree is going on.
The Spike Proteins ARE the disease.
While your points are valid, so are the counter points: there is no evidence to suggest it's not true, either.
This is kinda vaguely stated. I'm not really sure what you mean, but I'll try to respond.
Exactly which counterpoints were true?
I stated that there was no evidence to support a stated fear. To the best of my knowledge, that is true, there is no evidence. It was touted as "The Standing Theory" but it would have been more accurate if he had said, "My unfounded fear." My protest was of advising someone against interacting with other people intimately because of a fear without any evidential foundation.
He stated that "people were sterilized by the shot". There is no evidence to support that statement. No evidence was provided in any counterpoints, so what "counterpoint" was true exactly?
He stated that "people have only 3 years to live" after the shot. There is no evidence to support that statement, so what "counterpoint" was true exactly?
I could say, "The Standing Theory is that a nuclear bomb is going to hit your house tomorrow. Because a nuclear bomb is going to hit your house tomorrow, you should be very afraid."
It MIGHT be true. There is no evidence that a nuclear bomb WON'T hit your house tomorrow. But its not a rational fear if there is no evidence.
My point is that you're both speculating. The "there is no evidence of" line is simply lazy. What is a rational fear is an entirely different question.
You are both looking at different "evidence" and coming to different conclusions.
I don't know what evidence that sleepydude is looking at, that's up to him to support his theory. But you didn't support yours either, you simply claimed that he had no evidence of that.
There was no evidence that thalidomide will hurt your baby, until there was.
There was no evidence that smoking was bad for you, until there was.
There was no evidence that the NSA was hoovering up everyone's data, until there was.
You see the point?