I have long theorized that "suddenly died" is actually "executed" in high profile people. for two reasons: Firstly, The number of suddenly died amongst celebrities is much higher than what we have seen around us. Secondly, we all know a lot of these celebrities Satanically sold their soul to get there, and that a lot of cleanup must have been happening even if its not publicised yet.
Theory of a remote kill switch, while pretty outrageous, does fit this scenario. It is death by vaxx technically, but also explains the higher number amongst celebrities.
Cannot disregard the reports and documentaries that showed each vaxxed person was emitting a unique MAC address, they had setup controlled experiments and found it to be fact.... They even found them in cemeteries....
If that's a fact, can't be too much of a stretch to incorporate that unique address and be able to add a signal for say maybe to clot? This shits getting real..... Or I just have a very active imagination.
Your thinking is illogical. The visibility of celebrities is much higher than for anyone "around us." Think of trees fallen in the forest. At an altitude of a hundred feet, they would be obvious. In the middle of dense forest, you would be lucky to encounter one.
Secondly, for cultural reasons (social visibility, herd-following), a celebrity is more likely to have taken the vaxx, and their numbers could be high. In any case, there is no substance to the supposition that their numbers are statistically abnormal.
A "kill switch" is absurd nonsense...and a testimonial to the farther limits of an overworked imagination. Likewise, we don't "all know" that any of these celebrities sold their soul to Satan. We may imagine it, but we don't know it. We laugh at Africans who believe in witchcraft (and many do), but we simply have our own preference for witches and evil spells.
No. Logical is the word. You were drawing logically unsupported inferences about the purported victims. All you do here is argue that they are no less likely than anyone to have taken the vaxx. You have no argument against the assymetric public visibility. Physician, heal thyself. (Or pluck the plank from your own eye.)
Rather than debate the issue, you quibble over vocabulary. Change of subject is always a sign of a failing argument. But...I don't think you knew that.
When you have taken a long breath, read again what I wrote, and actually understand what I am saying in its entirety, and then come to me with actual numbers that compares increase in excess mortality amongst Celebrities before and after the vaccines, and compare it against the increase in excess mortality amongst the rest of the population, then I will consider there is an "issue to debate" and who knows, I might even take your bait ;)
You surmise that "The number of suddenly died amongst celebrities is much higher than what we have seen around us." No evidence or argument given to support the surmise. No refutation of the counter-observation that the relative visibility of celebrities to the public is higher than of the public to the public (fallen tree in forest effect).
You claim "we all know a lot of these celebrities Satanically sold their soul to get there (etc.)." No we don't. Nor do you. This is fantasy.
You say "Theory of a remote kill switch, while pretty outrageous, does fit this scenario." Anyone could say the same thing of black magic, but dreaming up a magical cause does not establish the reality of that cause. This is an example of delusional thinking, where speculation is considered to be truth.
Yes, illogical, taking your words at face value. You are the one making claims about relative mortalities and other imponderables, so the onus is on you to provide evidence for your claims. That is the logical burden of proof you are obligated to assume.
No refutation of the counter-observation that the relative visibility of celebrities to the public is higher than of the public to the public
Nothing to refute since this is just a word salad with no meaning since you have not defined what you mean by:
Visibility celebrities to public
Visibility of public to public
"we all know a lot of these celebrities Satanically sold their soul to get there (etc.)."
No we don't.
Its clear that you don't. Thats not due the lack of crumbs.
Nor do you.
Don't presume to know what I know or don't.
If I thought you were making these statements in good faith, I would have said to go and read Q drops. But, hey, you are already here, and you have made it clear you dont always argue in good faith..
You say "Theory of a remote kill switch, while pretty outrageous, does fit this scenario."
where speculation is considered to be truth
See, this is your problem. You cannot differentiate between a "logical statement" and "assertion of truth". Saying "this fits the scenario" is not saying "this is true".
But the reason you jump to that conclusion is because, as I have repeated numerous times, you don't understand the difference between logical, plausible, possible, probable and provable.
Anyone could say the same thing of black magic
This is an illogical statement. And unlike you, I will back this up with a simple demonstration.
Consider the statement: "Electricity is what makes the light bulb glow"
Now consider whether your statement is logical. "Anyone could say the same thing of black magic". Yes, you can say "Black magic is what makes the light bulb glow". However, saying that statement has no relevance and cannot prove or disprove the original statement.
So the reason why you came up with this illogical statement is because of the logical fallacy that two similar sounding but mutually independant statements can prove or disprove each other.
More defensive quibbling over words. If you didn't understand what I meant about visibility, you never bothered to ask what I meant. And that would have made you look stupid, because then we would be struggling with the meaning of common words, like "visibility" (the ability to be seen). Feigning stupidity as a defense against producing a response is a low tactic, but I am not surprised.
We don't know anything about celebrities and Satanism. "Crumbs" in this context are only Rorschach blots into which we read meanings from our imagination. The fact is that there is no evidence for what you are saying about this, and the demands of logic and proof is that you have the burden of presenting a case that would convict---not just a collection of fancies and smears.
Why argue that something "fits the scenario" if there is no reason to think it is true? No, it is an attempt to impart credibility to a fancy. By the way, I don't believe that YOU know the difference among logical-plausible-possible-provable, or you would be enlightening me instead of using them as a club. Go to a dictionary. I'm good with those definitions. Prove me wrong.
We were talking about "kill switches" setting off a "vaccine"-based contamination in Navalny. Exactly analogous to black magic (i.e., entirely imaginary), yet you jump from "if it can be imagined" to "it must be real."
Your remark about electricity is tautological; light bulbs are designed to produce light from electricity. It is a definition of what a light bulb is. It's a question of logic only to the extent that it is a statement of truth; there is no syllogism involved with it. Some light sources produce incandescent light without electricity. Now we use quantum physics to produce light from electricity. I wouldn't expect you to know the details. I'm not the one saying "kill switches" exist or do anything; you are. And they are logically interchangeable with black magic, since there is nothing real to differentiate them. Your phrase about black magic and light bulbs is only from you, not from me. It is not semantically analogous. Why would you make that statement? Easy---to produce a straw man of your own making and put it in my mouth. Well, if the readers of this exchange think that makes sense, I can't help them.
Net result: Navalny died of a clot, which kills many people, often suddenly. Of which I have considerable personal experience. Paranoid fantasies are not required to accept his cause of death.
The only reason that I can think of that the Head of the Ukrainian Main Directorate of Intelligence would say this is if Ukraine was behind the death. Even if they believed that Navalny died of natural causes, they wouldn’t say this. They would want to keep the narrative alive that Putin did it.
Ukraine officials are basically saying that there is nothing to see here move along.
Another proof of sorts we are watching a movie. Why wouldn’t they just lie about the cause to keep their narrative going? My local news paper haven’t covered a foreign nationals death as much since Jamal Khashoggi.
Also mentioning the blood clot is a nice touch, the pro-waxxers are starting to notice.
And there is nothing mysterious about dying from a blood clot. Sadly, it happens all the time (thrombosis).
Immediately following my heart surgery in 2013 (atrial valve repair), 2 clots were discovered in my leg and one in my lung. It turned out that I was subject to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), where the heparin used as a blood anti-coagulant during the procedure actually acted the opposite. It is akin to an allergy and I had to go on a different blood thinner (warfarin) for quite a while afterward. My red blood cells had been depleted due to the clot formations and I was anemic. I had to remain in hospital for 19 days while my red blood cell count was restored. Interesting to watch the progression from late summer to fall outside my window during this time. Lots of fun trying to make it to the restroom by myself...like climbing the Matterhorn with a spike through my chest.
Years later, I then had a follow-up surgical procedure on my heart further delayed for years because a clot had been discovered in the "atrial appendage" of my heart, and we had to wait for blood thinners to dissolve it away. Dislodging the clot could have killed me instantly.
This idea that Navalny was murdered by some mysterious method is just nutty thinking. (Plus, it seems Navalny was not a candidate for Best Citizen of the Year. He is reputed to have been a Nazi sympathizer, and that he had taken money from the U.S.---caught red-handed---to foment a Maidan revolution in Russia.)
I am aware of nanotechnology being tested for regenerative growth (eg nervous system) so it is possible that it can be weaponized. One of the downsides is the toxicity at increased dosage.
In Vivo testing of biocompatibility is a critical step in regeneration approaches. Graphene nanomaterials can be biocompatible or have toxic effects on cells, depending on their chemistry (synthesis, functionalization, surface charges), doses, lateral size, purity, and hydrophilicity. In Vitro evaluation of toxicity required the involvement of macrophages, epithelial or endothelial cells, blood cells, or tumor cells[1].
GO, for example, has been reported to exert toxicity effects towards different human cell lines, including fibroblasts, hepatocarcinoma, skin keratinocytes [104,105,106,107]. However, these effects are strictly related to doses. Studies on human fibroblast cells showed that cytotoxicity and apoptosis induction has been reported at doses >50 μg/mL, while no toxic effects were observed at concentrations <20 μg/mL [104].
I wonder, for what purpose this information came out? The Deep State was getting a lot of mileage from this story. Have certain elements "good guys" taken control in Ukraine? It really doesn't make sense to give up the narrative, hell they are still pushing Russiagate in the MSM.
I have long theorized that "suddenly died" is actually "executed" in high profile people. for two reasons: Firstly, The number of suddenly died amongst celebrities is much higher than what we have seen around us. Secondly, we all know a lot of these celebrities Satanically sold their soul to get there, and that a lot of cleanup must have been happening even if its not publicised yet.
Theory of a remote kill switch, while pretty outrageous, does fit this scenario. It is death by vaxx technically, but also explains the higher number amongst celebrities.
Cannot disregard the reports and documentaries that showed each vaxxed person was emitting a unique MAC address, they had setup controlled experiments and found it to be fact.... They even found them in cemeteries....
If that's a fact, can't be too much of a stretch to incorporate that unique address and be able to add a signal for say maybe to clot? This shits getting real..... Or I just have a very active imagination.
🤔
I have tried bluetooth scanning for vaxxed people a while ago. Didnt work. Maybe the nanocircuits have developed fully by now? Should try again!
Came here to say this. Bluetetooth routers are addressable, can read life signs which could be altered.
👏👏👏 YES!
Your thinking is illogical. The visibility of celebrities is much higher than for anyone "around us." Think of trees fallen in the forest. At an altitude of a hundred feet, they would be obvious. In the middle of dense forest, you would be lucky to encounter one.
Secondly, for cultural reasons (social visibility, herd-following), a celebrity is more likely to have taken the vaxx, and their numbers could be high. In any case, there is no substance to the supposition that their numbers are statistically abnormal.
A "kill switch" is absurd nonsense...and a testimonial to the farther limits of an overworked imagination. Likewise, we don't "all know" that any of these celebrities sold their soul to Satan. We may imagine it, but we don't know it. We laugh at Africans who believe in witchcraft (and many do), but we simply have our own preference for witches and evil spells.
Personally, outside my own son and wife and one friend, vaxx intake is 100%. I doubt the celebrity stats can beat that number ;)
You are again confusing logical , probable, possible , plausible and provable but this time you have to find someone else to educate you!
No. Logical is the word. You were drawing logically unsupported inferences about the purported victims. All you do here is argue that they are no less likely than anyone to have taken the vaxx. You have no argument against the assymetric public visibility. Physician, heal thyself. (Or pluck the plank from your own eye.)
Rather than debate the issue, you quibble over vocabulary. Change of subject is always a sign of a failing argument. But...I don't think you knew that.
When you have taken a long breath, read again what I wrote, and actually understand what I am saying in its entirety, and then come to me with actual numbers that compares increase in excess mortality amongst Celebrities before and after the vaccines, and compare it against the increase in excess mortality amongst the rest of the population, then I will consider there is an "issue to debate" and who knows, I might even take your bait ;)
You surmise that "The number of suddenly died amongst celebrities is much higher than what we have seen around us." No evidence or argument given to support the surmise. No refutation of the counter-observation that the relative visibility of celebrities to the public is higher than of the public to the public (fallen tree in forest effect).
You claim "we all know a lot of these celebrities Satanically sold their soul to get there (etc.)." No we don't. Nor do you. This is fantasy.
You say "Theory of a remote kill switch, while pretty outrageous, does fit this scenario." Anyone could say the same thing of black magic, but dreaming up a magical cause does not establish the reality of that cause. This is an example of delusional thinking, where speculation is considered to be truth.
Yes, illogical, taking your words at face value. You are the one making claims about relative mortalities and other imponderables, so the onus is on you to provide evidence for your claims. That is the logical burden of proof you are obligated to assume.
Nothing to refute since this is just a word salad with no meaning since you have not defined what you mean by:
Visibility celebrities to public
Visibility of public to public
Its clear that you don't. Thats not due the lack of crumbs.
Don't presume to know what I know or don't.
If I thought you were making these statements in good faith, I would have said to go and read Q drops. But, hey, you are already here, and you have made it clear you dont always argue in good faith..
See, this is your problem. You cannot differentiate between a "logical statement" and "assertion of truth". Saying "this fits the scenario" is not saying "this is true".
But the reason you jump to that conclusion is because, as I have repeated numerous times, you don't understand the difference between logical, plausible, possible, probable and provable.
This is an illogical statement. And unlike you, I will back this up with a simple demonstration.
Consider the statement: "Electricity is what makes the light bulb glow"
Now consider whether your statement is logical. "Anyone could say the same thing of black magic". Yes, you can say "Black magic is what makes the light bulb glow". However, saying that statement has no relevance and cannot prove or disprove the original statement.
So the reason why you came up with this illogical statement is because of the logical fallacy that two similar sounding but mutually independant statements can prove or disprove each other.
More defensive quibbling over words. If you didn't understand what I meant about visibility, you never bothered to ask what I meant. And that would have made you look stupid, because then we would be struggling with the meaning of common words, like "visibility" (the ability to be seen). Feigning stupidity as a defense against producing a response is a low tactic, but I am not surprised.
We don't know anything about celebrities and Satanism. "Crumbs" in this context are only Rorschach blots into which we read meanings from our imagination. The fact is that there is no evidence for what you are saying about this, and the demands of logic and proof is that you have the burden of presenting a case that would convict---not just a collection of fancies and smears.
Why argue that something "fits the scenario" if there is no reason to think it is true? No, it is an attempt to impart credibility to a fancy. By the way, I don't believe that YOU know the difference among logical-plausible-possible-provable, or you would be enlightening me instead of using them as a club. Go to a dictionary. I'm good with those definitions. Prove me wrong.
We were talking about "kill switches" setting off a "vaccine"-based contamination in Navalny. Exactly analogous to black magic (i.e., entirely imaginary), yet you jump from "if it can be imagined" to "it must be real."
Your remark about electricity is tautological; light bulbs are designed to produce light from electricity. It is a definition of what a light bulb is. It's a question of logic only to the extent that it is a statement of truth; there is no syllogism involved with it. Some light sources produce incandescent light without electricity. Now we use quantum physics to produce light from electricity. I wouldn't expect you to know the details. I'm not the one saying "kill switches" exist or do anything; you are. And they are logically interchangeable with black magic, since there is nothing real to differentiate them. Your phrase about black magic and light bulbs is only from you, not from me. It is not semantically analogous. Why would you make that statement? Easy---to produce a straw man of your own making and put it in my mouth. Well, if the readers of this exchange think that makes sense, I can't help them.
Net result: Navalny died of a clot, which kills many people, often suddenly. Of which I have considerable personal experience. Paranoid fantasies are not required to accept his cause of death.
The only reason that I can think of that the Head of the Ukrainian Main Directorate of Intelligence would say this is if Ukraine was behind the death. Even if they believed that Navalny died of natural causes, they wouldn’t say this. They would want to keep the narrative alive that Putin did it.
Ukraine officials are basically saying that there is nothing to see here move along.
I've said the same and asked that question. Is there a remote kill switch imbedded in those nano circuit boards we saw on microscopy of the jab goo?
Another proof of sorts we are watching a movie. Why wouldn’t they just lie about the cause to keep their narrative going? My local news paper haven’t covered a foreign nationals death as much since Jamal Khashoggi.
Also mentioning the blood clot is a nice touch, the pro-waxxers are starting to notice.
And there is nothing mysterious about dying from a blood clot. Sadly, it happens all the time (thrombosis).
Immediately following my heart surgery in 2013 (atrial valve repair), 2 clots were discovered in my leg and one in my lung. It turned out that I was subject to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), where the heparin used as a blood anti-coagulant during the procedure actually acted the opposite. It is akin to an allergy and I had to go on a different blood thinner (warfarin) for quite a while afterward. My red blood cells had been depleted due to the clot formations and I was anemic. I had to remain in hospital for 19 days while my red blood cell count was restored. Interesting to watch the progression from late summer to fall outside my window during this time. Lots of fun trying to make it to the restroom by myself...like climbing the Matterhorn with a spike through my chest.
Years later, I then had a follow-up surgical procedure on my heart further delayed for years because a clot had been discovered in the "atrial appendage" of my heart, and we had to wait for blood thinners to dissolve it away. Dislodging the clot could have killed me instantly.
This idea that Navalny was murdered by some mysterious method is just nutty thinking. (Plus, it seems Navalny was not a candidate for Best Citizen of the Year. He is reputed to have been a Nazi sympathizer, and that he had taken money from the U.S.---caught red-handed---to foment a Maidan revolution in Russia.)
I am aware of nanotechnology being tested for regenerative growth (eg nervous system) so it is possible that it can be weaponized. One of the downsides is the toxicity at increased dosage.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8657785/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3212228/
I wonder, for what purpose this information came out? The Deep State was getting a lot of mileage from this story. Have certain elements "good guys" taken control in Ukraine? It really doesn't make sense to give up the narrative, hell they are still pushing Russiagate in the MSM.