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.
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.