It's cyclical too. They know they are "too big to fail" so they over leverage knowing they will be bailed out and that overleverage is what causes them to fail.
All reward, no risk (except to the taxpayers/indentured servants)
I've been trying to do some research and find citations on non-covid vaccines and you realize how much the mRNA vaccines have flooded the search results of everything vaccine related. You have to know exactly what you're looking for to filter out everything else.
I take that and apply it to the left when you see these media campaigns where they take over historical terminology.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Vanguard and Blackrock get their "power" from people shoveling their money into their Mutual Funds and ETFs, mostly from 401Ks, IRAs, and other retirement accounts.
What would be the impact if everyone just took their $ out of the funds and just invested into the stocks that the funds are split between?
Does anyone know what the terms that go along with paying $8 to get your verification? Are you verifying that whoever is posting is actually the account holder? Do these people not want to verify because the twitter accounts are run by think tanks?
Luckily they have it here in NC. Fan of the black & tan.
Along the same topic of OP, Is return rate on CDs at a credit union any way of evaluating if their at risk of failure? I'm familiar with a few Credit Unions and theres one that's more than 1.5% lower on their 12 month CDs and they do not seem to want to raise it (2.8% vs 4.5%). Same thing with their rates on Savings accounts etc. Wouldn't they be at risk of people pulling their deposits to get higher rates?
There seems to be so much misinformation on our side lately (especially p.win) that absolutely gets run with because it's what we want to hear and theres no verification done. It's how we got into this mess in the first place. It would be so easy to manipulate out side just by putting out false info that we agree with it.
To that extent if Soros or Dems wanted to torpedo a MAGA candidate just make donations through one of their pacs then immediately write an article on how their a WEF plant.
They have statements all prepared to liken half of Americans to cultists (referring to MAGA as "fervent followers")
Word warfare.
FYI this is how they explain away the lack of reported side effects with the CDC's Vaccine Information Statements (VIS) vs manufacturers package inserts. Package inserts reported all TEMPORAL side effects where VIS's reported CAUSAL side effects. The difference being temporal side effects are side effects related to the time the vaccine was given (vaccine given then side effect) where causal side effect they MUST have an established biological mechanism for the side effect. But if you don't look you will never find the cause.
Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/about/vis-faqs.html
"VISs are based on the ACIP’s recommendations, which occasionally differ from those made by the manufacturer. These differences may involve adverse events. Package inserts generally tend to include all adverse events that were temporally associated with a vaccine during clinical trials, whereas ACIP tends to recognize only those believed to be causally linked to the vaccine."
I am new to Christianity. When I picked up a bible I started with Genesis. The best advice I was given by a pastor was to start with the Gospels of Jesus; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I am now trying to live more like Jesus and everything I read in scripture I relate back to what Jesus said or did. Probably the most influential passages I have read so far on my journey finding Jesus has been:
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 22:36-40
With that said with almost every discussion I enter into I seek to learn, and in order to do that I have to recognize where I may be wrong, but that doesn't mean I should back down when the argument hasn't convinced me.
I'm not seeking to "win a debate", I'm searching for the truth.
Edit: with that said great post. Now that I'm older I realize my whole understanding of history is based on what people did not their interactions with others, which may have been distorted through propaganda. I'm always looking for sources to understand history better without the manipulation or "government approved" sources.
No kidding. A mentally ill person killed children in a school shooting and the demoncrats are coming out in full force sympathizing with the killer.
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.
Theres a difference between verification of a physical action vs electronic tokens. And funny that you mention that example, but I literally don't have a mechanic I trust. With that said if a mechanic changes your shocks you can go to your car and see that new shocks were put on the car without knowing how shocks are built. same with any other maintenance. There is a physical shape and mass you can check to make sure someones not bs-ing you that you are aware of just by being alive.
I've used computers all my life, but have essentially no experience with coding outside of high school. I wouldnt even know how to access the 'code' behind bitcoin nevermind verifying the important claims like "How do we know theres a fixed amount of bitcoin?" or "where does the bitcoin come from that is awarded to miners?" and "How do I know my access to my wallet can't just be shut off?"
It's a simiiar mentality to why I want electronic voting systems gone. With physical systems there are ways of verifying if someone is speaking the truth just by life experience, with electronic systems you need to trust the experts.
Like I mentioned before I'm open to bitcoin (I KNOW I don't trust other crypto right now), but there is a huge psychological trust barrier to most of the population when people cant verify what they're actually holding.
I'm skeptical of her story, skimmed through the beginning of the video and the time points you mentioned.
She is WAY overhyping hydrogels. Hydrogels are just polymers (natural or synthetic) that can bind to water. Things like corn starch, gelatin, aloe, fancier sounding things like hydroxypropyl methylcellulose or carbomer-based. They're often used as viscosity modifiers.
Lots of talk. Lack of proof.
You can go to google scholar and search "Characterization of ....." of whatever type of material you're interested in and see how many techniques are needed to get confirmation of materials and what kind of data is expected to be reported.
I plan on posting this everywhere I see this on here so we stay skeptical but...
This document DOES NOT describe Graphene Oxide in the formulation. The document is talking about the PREPARATION PROCEDURE to analyze the purified protein in a Cryo-Electron Microscope (EM).
I would have posted this on twitter too but I'm not on twitter. This guy seems to have mentioned it though (had to scroll way to far to find it)
Whoever is circulating this is trying to be intentionally deceitful and not looking into the technique being described (not specifically OP, but news sites that have whole articles on this).
This document DOES NOT describe Graphene Oxide in the formulation. The document is talking about the PREPARATION PROCEDURE to analyze the purified protein in a Cryo-Electron Microscope (EM).
To your point 2) I don't believe bitcoin eliminates the need for trust because of the complex code involved. Those without the expertise have to trust what others are telling you about bitcoin and its one of the toughest things I'm having with the concept of bitcoin.
Is it because their handlers called them in to “protest” President Trump’s indictment to blame MAGA?
It will be cheaper to manufacture in the US?
Not sure if I understand your question. But to expand further they are doing (one way) of particle sizing on the purified protein only, not the jab formulation. With electron microscopy, you cannot image particles in a solution, they have to be separated from the medium. This excerpt is describing the procedure where they take a gold grid, coat it with graphene oxide in order for the proteins to stick to the grid better, then flash freeze it with liquid ethane. For these samples they collected 1.1 million particles in about 2 micrograms of protein
The freezing is required to "lock-in" the particle shape (aka morphology) as it appears in solution because if it dries it would collapse. Once that's prepared its in a form you can actually image with the EM then use image analysis software to pick out all the particles from (usually) thousands of images. They have size and shape filters applied to only get the particles they want (and exclude particles they dont). Each pixel in the image for this analysis was 0.087nm, particles were ~0.35nm, so your looking at only 3-4 pixels wide per particle.
If you want to see what the images look like search "Cryo em protein micrograph"
This instrumentation is crazy expensive, your talking $5-10 million for the instrument alone, 500K for the service contract, consumables, analysts, and another couple million to build the facility to house it. Not a run every sample type of thing but good for exploratory work.
This is NOT graphene oxide in the jab. This is a prep procedure for electron microscopy done to the grid prior to introduction of the sample.
What they are describing is the preparation procedure to enable images to be taken in a SEM. Grids are often used to catch particles that your trying to analyze, graphite (or graphene oxide) is coated onto the sample to dissipate electron build up so you can actually get an image.
Edit: Quick search of cryo-EM and sputtering techniques and reread of the procedure, it looks like the graphene oxide is used to increase particle count on the conductive gold grid. They are doing particle sizing and morphology imaging.
Yeah its a tricky situation. Its a double edge sword where if you remove a right from someone as soon as they seek help, your going to have fewer people getting the help they need.
Is there any group that has a higher suicide rate than trans? I’m curious if those who have had diagnosed suicidal thoughts even approach those numbers.
Let's get ready to RUMBLE?