Do you work in the medical field? I ask because I do and I see a lot of death and destruction after these jabs. What would be her reasons to lie? Do you think the shots are good for you? You seem rather naive. Not being rude but you seem to want to just explain everything away that you can't see with your own eyes. This is very serious, millions have died and are sick from this poison. What's your proof that hydrogel is good for you? What's your proof there isn't graphene oxide in the jabs? You need to come with proof if you want to denigrate someone else's research.
Jolly good. Product improvement. Get your Vaxx now! With improved recipe and a brand new box! but wait there is more .... You also get your lipid nanoparticle that can really penetrate into everything. No spot left behind!
This is a presentation by Pierre Capel, Emeritus Professor of Experimental Immunology and explains it really well: bio-distribution and immunization with the title: flowers and the bees.
I have a degree of expertise in the various subjects she is discussing in the video and have experience in process audits. I agree with many of her statements as an opinion, but there is a difference between presenting evidence of truth vs opinion. I absolutely do not believe these shots are good and they are incredibly harmful and possibly a bridge to something even worse (check out the current "gene therapy" landscape as a result of mRNA). But I try to address each statement or question to their own merits.
I am not about to speculate on her motive, but she is making some very large claims while providing descriptions and sources from (what I saw) entirely web based searches. She is making claims on actually analyzing these samples but I did not see ANY data presented on the techniques she claims. For example, she discusses metals analysis but doesn't mention techniques (or data). If I missed explanations in the videos regarding this please prove me wrong. I did not make the claim there is graphene oxide in these samples but I do know of techniques and data that would provide support for that claim, and I haven't seen it yet.
Proving there isn't graphene oxide is a very different approach then proving there is. The original discussion was that Pfizer provided documents that proved there is Graphene oxide in the formulations and I'm flat out saying that's a lie based on the document provided, not based on trust but that anyone here can read the paragraph, see what it's referencing, and search the technique and preparation procedures to confirm what I'm saying.
Again, most of this is my opinion and I don't really care if others believe me, but it gives another trail of breadcrumbs to follow for others who want to verify what shes saying. I'm tired of the deception. Shadows have nowhere to hide in the light.
Do you work in the medical field? I ask because I do and I see a lot of death and destruction after these jabs. What would be her reasons to lie? Do you think the shots are good for you? You seem rather naive. Not being rude but you seem to want to just explain everything away that you can't see with your own eyes. This is very serious, millions have died and are sick from this poison. What's your proof that hydrogel is good for you? What's your proof there isn't graphene oxide in the jabs? You need to come with proof if you want to denigrate someone else's research.
Instead of using aluminum or thermosal they are using graphene now in so called "vaxxes".
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21568886/
So not only is graphene use in the development of these "jabs" but also part of the delivery process.
Jolly good. Product improvement. Get your Vaxx now! With improved recipe and a brand new box! but wait there is more .... You also get your lipid nanoparticle that can really penetrate into everything. No spot left behind!
For those with ability to call upon YT subs: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=cVRsPSwOe_0
This is a presentation by Pierre Capel, Emeritus Professor of Experimental Immunology and explains it really well: bio-distribution and immunization with the title: flowers and the bees.
I have a degree of expertise in the various subjects she is discussing in the video and have experience in process audits. I agree with many of her statements as an opinion, but there is a difference between presenting evidence of truth vs opinion. I absolutely do not believe these shots are good and they are incredibly harmful and possibly a bridge to something even worse (check out the current "gene therapy" landscape as a result of mRNA). But I try to address each statement or question to their own merits.
I am not about to speculate on her motive, but she is making some very large claims while providing descriptions and sources from (what I saw) entirely web based searches. She is making claims on actually analyzing these samples but I did not see ANY data presented on the techniques she claims. For example, she discusses metals analysis but doesn't mention techniques (or data). If I missed explanations in the videos regarding this please prove me wrong. I did not make the claim there is graphene oxide in these samples but I do know of techniques and data that would provide support for that claim, and I haven't seen it yet.
Proving there isn't graphene oxide is a very different approach then proving there is. The original discussion was that Pfizer provided documents that proved there is Graphene oxide in the formulations and I'm flat out saying that's a lie based on the document provided, not based on trust but that anyone here can read the paragraph, see what it's referencing, and search the technique and preparation procedures to confirm what I'm saying.
Again, most of this is my opinion and I don't really care if others believe me, but it gives another trail of breadcrumbs to follow for others who want to verify what shes saying. I'm tired of the deception. Shadows have nowhere to hide in the light.