Pfizer CEO Admits In An Interview That mRNA Is Gene Editing
(files.catbox.moe)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (17)
sorted by:
From the 2030 UnMasked Documentary, see this clip (timestamps of 49 mins 26s to 50 mins 37s in the full documentary).
It refers to the Bio-N-Tech SEC filing (this is the current version online, or, see the PDF here, and/or here), which states:
Also in the document, though, not highlighted by the documentary (found this while trying to confirm the above source for the documentary):
In regards to your comment:
I agree, there is plenty wrong with the mRNA-jabs.
Regardless of whether they do "alter your DNA (permanently)".
If it does though, then that's good to know.
And if not, then that's also good to know (to be more based in reality, and avoid spreading bad information).
With the above in mind, I would edit my thread title if I could, to leave more room for 'doubt' about what this means. I'll leave it be as is now though, to give people the opportunity to read these comments & add any additional information.
They ARE gene therapies. That is uncontested. A gene therapy does not mean that it alters DNA. It means that it is genetic material, used as a therapy. mRNA is genetic material; i.e. it encodes a protein with nucleotides.
I have yet to see any evidence that supports such a conclusion. I have written on the topic in multiple threads (almost every one I see on the topic). I have looked at (as far as I know) every piece of evidence anyone has provided in support of it. I have done deep dives into that evidence and provided rebuttals to all of the ones I have seen.
In addition to there being no known biological basis for systemic gene editing from mRNA therapies of the nature of the vaccine (or any injected mRNA at all), there is also zero evidential support of it that I have seen.
This is always the best approach imo. There is nothing wrong with being wrong (not saying you are, its just a general statement). People get so flummoxed when someone offers a reasonable rebuttal they immediately want to eliminate their words. This is the training of The Matrix. It is a flaw in our standard practice of argument, i.e. the endeavor to get closer to the Truth. The only proper path in argument is to keep it open for debate. The matter is never "closed." Some arguments just stand up to the evidence and debate better than others. If the argument isn't closed, then new evidence can be presented in the future in support of, or against any of the previous arguments.
I am happy you are not falling for that trap of "debunked" (a purposeful design of The Matrix and our schooling). So many people still do; even those partially aware of The Matrix's existence.
Thank you for the information.
I suspect this has a lot to do with feeling embarrassed about having said something (possibly) incorrect.
Another possibility is that someone might remove it, to avoid spreading the mis-info (under the assumption that not everyone would read the comments, and just latch onto the title/video/photo/etc.).
But yeah, I agree, I would also rather it stay, for the sake of finding/spreading truth.
This is also a fraud of The Matrix. We, as a group, need to unlearn this training. There is nothing wrong with "mis-info." I dare say, you've never heard the actual Truth in your life (at least not anything in the form of words). Everything is wrong to one degree or another. The problem with information is that people believe it if it confirms their bias, or if they like the source, and disbelieve it if the opposite of either of those things is the case.
We must not be afraid of bad information. ALL information is bad. Finding out the degree to which it is bad is the responsibility and the effort of all. It is the gestalt of many minds, through debate that propels this process.
Just because something is said, or a final rebuttal has been laid, doesn't make something "true." It just means that as of the time when the conversation ended, there was a final word. It is up to the reader to determine for themselves what is good and what is bad information. They mustn't fear being wrong, but it behooves them not at all to believe they are ever "right" in any definitive manner either.
No topic of debate is ever closed, no matter what has been presented thus far.