New MIT study: "These vaccinations have now been shown to down regulate critical pathways related to cancer surveillance, infection control, and cellular homeostasis."
(www.researchgate.net)
đź‘€ EYES ON! đź‘€
Normies just won’t take the time to read these studies. I have tried to debate people with studies so many times and then they just say, there are studies that say the opposite of what you’re saying. I ask for said studies and nothing. No one EVER asks me for my studies. That’s why they are sheep… but we have to continue to try, right. I don’t want the regret of knowing that I didn’t try to enlighten all my family and friends.
Some do. I'm sending this to a vac person who at least reads what I send them.
That’s great to hear.. I think a lot of people are honestly scared to see what the REAL science shows them.
Oh my, that science wasn’t as settled as they said!
What's going to happen when the science shows the vaccinated shed the spike proteins, which contribute to cancers in others?
Just keep doing it. It seeds doubt, and they're receiving more doubt from more angles every day. Eventually they'll switch. It's slow at first then all at once.
Same idea as if there was a sheep or cow warning the herd that at the end of the chute they're all going to be slaughtered.
"They told us it's just for food and then we're moving to a better farm! Stop it with your conspiracy theories!"
Me "Have you ever talked to anyone who's come out the other side?"
Them "Well no...but I believe them and you have NO proof of what you're saying!"
Me "My proof is that no one has ever talked to anyone who's gone through and I keep hearing the screams of our friends who go in while some machine sounds like it's firing a bolt through their head"
Them "Shut up conspiracy theorist! See you on the other side moron!"
......BANG!
And they're dead.
Sounds like quotes from Animal Farm.
Its true, you cannot force feed a red pill. They have to want it. But you should be ready to give it when you see they are ready. Things like this will help.
What this article isn't: proof or new data about "vaccine",it is hypothesis having very good data from VAERS.
What this article is: like u/M-I-vet says:
Ok,they can say:
muh, Greg Nigh isn't "real scientist",and claim something about the rest. This is however unimportant Who points thing,but WHAT is pointed.
muh that is only "hypothesis" - sorry,but in public health thing shall be proven to be safe,not proven not being unsafe.
Thing is: with such smoking gun indeed injections shall be stopped until it is proven that those Hypothesis (and VAERS data) is somehow wrong. It may be powerful Hypothesis "only" and it is enough - we not really need 100% proof but it is 100% scientific and solid based on solid science without any claims other than related to solid and mainstream science - ignoring it all is already crime and vaxxers admission of guilt
100% - I have had the same experience, it is almost like a programmed response. It is very frustrating. I have had times where I ask them to share their source because I am extremely interested in both sides. If they do share it is online magazine articles with circular references to each other. The analysis of the actual data is always done for them, telling them what the data says and how to think. They always make sure to trash anti-vaxers as just stupid!