Finally President Trump addresses the COVD vaccine issue and wants the drug manufacturers to clear up the controversy.
(media.greatawakening.win)
- S T O R M -
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (76)
sorted by:
Honestly, I think some knew the vaccine would cause health issues and were fine with it and/or agreed with it, some knew but weren't willing to do anything about it, and some believed the lies.
I remember reading one guys blog about mRNA suggesting that was the future and it was great tech. He's clearly a liberal and was pretty quick to defend the covid narrative, and being a PhD in chemistry, pretty full of his own view of things. Of course he gets all sciency about it. I admit that's not my area of expertise, but messing with people's DNA is never a good plan. People will argue that cross-breeding has been great for agriculture (true in many cases) but forget about all the failures and bad outcomes along the way.
While I wasn't working in mRNA specifically, the Covid "vaccine" (experimental immunotherapy) delivery system was something I was working on. Indeed, I designed a modular system that was (is) designed to deliver a huge swath of possible chemical agents (anything with certain chemical properties, which is a lot of things) in a cell specific targeted way. So when I first saw the "vaccine" I was really excited. I had issue with people calling it a "vaccine" since it clearly wasn't (I didn't understand the nature of the propaganda System at the time), but I allowed the word "vaccine" to make it easier to talk to other people, usually with the caveat that "it's not really a vaccine."
A part of the system I designed, indeed, the most important part, was that it was modular, and a part of that changing system targeted specific cell types; any cell type. After looking into The Vaxx in more detail, I realized it wasn't only not "modular," it was purposefully designed to go everywhere. I was aghast. Those details were a big part of the beginnings of my Awakening. I knew it would go into every system, including passing the blood brain barrier. I knew it would almost certainly cause havoc on the immune system. That was before any of the more important evidence emerged. I knew it was a really bad design.
But how many people would know that? How many other people were, at the exact time, working on a modular delivery system designed to ensure cell specific targeting?
Not bloody many.
So I don't fault others for being excited about that. It's somewhat esoteric knowledge. Anyone who understands immunology should have an inkling, but there is so much brainwashing in immunology, epidemiology, and public health, it's easy to overlook the problems and believe that even if there will be some harm, it is going to do far "more harm than good."
I appreciate why you say that, but I disagree. I have a good friend who does exactly that (in plants), and to very good effect. A tool is not evil, but the Elite use otherwise good tools for evil all the time. If not for the massive amounts of evil done using that tool, we would probably not have any issues with it at all.
I appreciate the response with all the info. I agree with you about tools. I will need some convincing regarding the value of being able to modify human DNA. Not saying you're wrong - I can think of some situations that could be beneficial, but many more where it could be a real problem.
While I was responding to you, internally I was thinking about things like food (flora and fauna), or structural products (wood, hemp, etc.). But thinking about it more broadly, I could make a pretty strong case for things like nicer pets, or faster horses, or stronger oxen, etc. When it comes to humans, it gets a little sticky. I could give a pretty strong case on both sides of that argument.
This is especially the case for things like disease, especially for congenital disease. A former long term girlfriend of mine was (probably is) a special needs teacher. Quite a few of her students had muscular dystrophy. Most of them had autism. A few had trisomy 21 (Downs). I used to think autism almost certainly had a partial genetic component. Now I'm less certain, but it still might be true. In all cases (notwithstanding a potential autism caveat), fixing those issues using genetic modification would be an absolute life changer in a positive way for each and every single one of them, and for their families. It's tough to argue with that. And suggesting that we shouldn't do that, given that we will be able to so eventually (and frankly, almost certainly already do), is tantamount to the greatest evil.
Having said that, those last couple statements are the tag line. That's how it's sold. The people selling us that are the Eugenicists AKA the Rockefellers et al AKA the Cabal.
In addition, assuming there is a genetic component to autism (and it won't just be fixed with removing mercury from vaccines or some other vaccine fuckery), do we really want to fix the autists? I don't know if you've listened to the Telepathy Tapes, but it is quite compelling. It suggests that some (maybe most or all?) autistic people, who don't have the capacity to communicate normally, have developed the ability to communicate telepathically, not just with each other, but with other people as well, even teaching some non-autistic people to do it!
Whether that is true or not, what other "genetic anomalies" might be "fixed" by genetic modification?
I could go on with this debate for days, on both sides, so I will leave it there. But I think it is worth thinking about, no matter who a person is. It is a reasonable consideration, and assuming the GA is what it purports, I suggest it will almost certainly happen, and in a good way. What is the limit to that? Who knows? Maybe there shouldn't be one. As long as it isn't pushed by propaganda, I suggest it should be supported as a personal decision, no matter what a person decides for themselves. From my perspective (or perhaps my personal philosophy): It's your life. As long as you don't harm me and mine, live your life as you choose. I won't fault you for it in the slightest.
That is a compelling argument, and I would love to have a deeper conversation about it. I still have reservations, along the same lines as you articulated. I don't question the potential benefits.
I suspect we've been lied to about the genetic source of many diseases. I don't doubt you can point at defective genes being the cause, but what caused the defective genes in the first place? We know some chemicals cause genetic defects and we are inundated with toxins all the time. Mercury and other toxins in vaccines, pesticides in the food, chemicals in the air, fluorine in the water, etc.
Very well stated fren.