It's pretty easy to pretend a vaccine is perfectly safe and the way of the future when you completely hide all the harm that it's doing and make sure that no one is allowed to question it.
It's funny how the media makes excuses for this and everyone just eats it up.
If the vaccinated people took just a cursory amount of time to study history, they'd quickly realize there's several reasons we've never developed a vaccine for coronavirus's in the past. For over half a century they've ended in failure. These people are potentially looking at a lifetime of booster shots, where even then, versions of the virus found in nature — or the mutations they help create — will end up wrecking them.
The mRNA technology isn't really the problem. If the mRNA was designed to make the entire virus as an inert shell rather than just the spike protein it would probably be safer and definitely give better immunity because the capsid mutates much slower than the spike- it's almost like it was designed to not last long.
The J&J vaccine is an mRNA vaccine but it has storage and transport requirements of a traditional vaccine because it delivers the mRNA through an adenovirus rather than a nanolipid.
To
translate and form the chemical bonds in protein, the bacterial cell
deploys a piece of extremely complex equipment. The synthesis of
proteins is a two-stage process, since the protein sub-units are
assembled and polymerized, not directly on the gene, but on small
particles in the cytoplasm which serves as assembly lines. the deoxy-
ribonucleic acid text of the gene is therefore first transcribed into
another species of nucleic acid, the so-called ribonucleic acid, by
means of the same four-sign alphabet. This copy, called the 'messen-
ger', associates iwth the particles in the cytoplasm and brings them
the instructions for assembling the protein sub-units in the order
dictated by the nucleic-acid sequence.
Page 276
The logic of life : a history of heredity
by Jacob, François, 1920-2013
You do need an account to 'borrow' the book. And maybe archive.org is making very convincing edits to their scanned books but that seems wildly unlikely since most people won't investigate past the first internet rag that comes up on google.
That's not true. Here's an archive of the same page from 2015. https://archive.is/4OKBO#selection-687.84-687.85 mRNA has always been a mechanism to move instructions from the actual DNA to outside the nucleus. It's never been a mechanism to rewrite DNA (although it is likely that there have been attempts to edit DNA that involve mRNA, but that is not the normal function of mRNA). You are fucking wrong. I took AP biology which isn't much but it's enough to know what mRNA is.
Okay, fine but I made another sibling post, https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/12kFn8M2ul/x/c/4JEW0zrpxHG, where I transcribed a passage from a book from 1976 written by one of the people who won the Noble Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965 for the discovery of mRNA. Your memory is wrong. It's unlikely they are making convincing fake scans for books in the 70s. Please do not make me search used bookstores for a physical copy because I'm kind of invested here.
30 years and those monkeys with rocks still haven't figured out how to do it because what they are messing with is not a simple bit of coding. It's the framework upon which all is built. One minor, unaccounted for flaw in their design and the very foundation of our design comes undone. At the very least, this means cell death because it didn't work, the next step up on bad to worst, cancer.
Either they don't understand or they don't care, you cannot simply rewrite RNA like DNA, it's not the same thing and messing with DNA is already dangerous enough. We are probably 50 years from RNA altering technology at our current rate of development.
It doesn't have to be applied via direct injection. We already use genetically engineered yeast to produce some drugs. This could streamline that process and make it even easier.
But that's ignoring the problem that I pointed out. We are still trying to understand how genes work in DNA, let alone how RNA works. Until recently, they believed by just shutting off genes that cause problems, they would solve things like serious diseases. But you can't just shut off a gene, it's interconnected, the same goes for activating a dormant gene. For some diseases, yes, the risk is worth the effort, but for some, we need to know more before doing it.
A broader example is this, scientist thought for decades there was junk DNA, that it was leftovers from either things we encountered in the past or was no longer needed because we adapted beyond its need. Now, they are finding that genes in the 'junk' are actually regulators, activators, etc. No one gene works alone, that's why they can't find the 'gay gene'.
It isn't how the mRNA tech is applied, at least, not completely, it's that the tech isn't ready to be used. They are still at the earliest stages of understanding and these idiots deployed it all the same. We are still in the Madam Curie dying from Radium exposure because she doesn't understand radioactivity.
The tech is further along than you think. There are people posting youtube videos where they cultivate bacteria to make different colored fluorescent proteins. Hobbyists playing with mRNA technology! There clearly are applications to this tech that can be used today. But human injection clearly needs more testing. And more importantly: An extremely transparent process so there can be no question what's in it. Something I doubt we'll ever have.
That's child's play. Adding this, adding that to make things like glowing bacteria. They are simple organisms whose development from beginning to adult form, is infinitely simple compared to our own.
I can almost guarantee you there are horrid mutations in the labs of these scientists. Not like the Ripley mutations in Alien 4, but things like headless fetuses where it didn't develop because they accidentally altered the gene sequence that was supposed to trigger its formation with their bumbling about.
What worries me is not that there might be something simple like cancers caused by their rushed tech. Viruses altering our cells have been the cause of cancers since the time of dinosaurs and maybe a lot earlier. (Maybe the cause of cancer period through their left behind remnants in DNA?) What worries is me is that by altering our RNA, they maybe creating a new disorder, like maybe a protein deficiency disorder that causes our cells to shutdown or something like diabetes. In 20 years, we might have had answers to these fears from lab studies, but now, we'll have answers on a massive scale that only conspiracy theorists will be correct about since the government will never admit this was rushed and stupid.
The idea itself is sound in specific, targeted usage on individuals. We can create a structure to modify bodily functions in a way to counteract otherwise terminal diseases.
Applying this tech on a global scale is retarded and the guy that invented it said as much.
Yup, mRNA vaccines are the medical equivalent of the Afghan debacle, run on a cost plus model paid out to the pharma companies. There is no money in simple, logistical scalable treatment, but never ending profit for quagmire.
It's pretty easy to pretend a vaccine is perfectly safe and the way of the future when you completely hide all the harm that it's doing and make sure that no one is allowed to question it.
As per a Dilbert comic two decades ago: "How do they respond to [the new policy]?" "I haven't listened to a single complaint."
Lets not forget pretending that it's working perfectly even as the cases rise in direct correlation with usage.
It's funny how the media makes excuses for this and everyone just eats it up.
If the vaccinated people took just a cursory amount of time to study history, they'd quickly realize there's several reasons we've never developed a vaccine for coronavirus's in the past. For over half a century they've ended in failure. These people are potentially looking at a lifetime of booster shots, where even then, versions of the virus found in nature — or the mutations they help create — will end up wrecking them.
Someone tell the people buying Novavax shares.
The mRNA technology isn't really the problem. If the mRNA was designed to make the entire virus as an inert shell rather than just the spike protein it would probably be safer and definitely give better immunity because the capsid mutates much slower than the spike- it's almost like it was designed to not last long.
We already have a tool to force your cells to make an entire virus - it's called a virus.
Well, yeah, but ideally it would create a virus that lacks the means to create a virus.
The J&J vaccine is an mRNA vaccine but it has storage and transport requirements of a traditional vaccine because it delivers the mRNA through an adenovirus rather than a nanolipid.
That is not at all correct. e: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messenger_RNA&oldid=790415279 here is the July 2017 wikipedia article on mRNA (which is probably unpozzed because at that point there was no politics attached to mrna).
To
translate and form the chemical bonds in protein, the bacterial cell
deploys a piece of extremely complex equipment. The synthesis of
proteins is a two-stage process, since the protein sub-units are
assembled and polymerized, not directly on the gene, but on small
particles in the cytoplasm which serves as assembly lines. the deoxy-
ribonucleic acid text of the gene is therefore first transcribed into
another species of nucleic acid, the so-called ribonucleic acid, by
means of the same four-sign alphabet. This copy, called the 'messen-
ger', associates iwth the particles in the cytoplasm and brings them
the instructions for assembling the protein sub-units in the order
dictated by the nucleic-acid sequence.
Page 276
The logic of life : a history of heredity
by Jacob, François, 1920-2013
Publication date 1976
https://archive.org/details/logicoflifehisto0000jaco_a3n9/page/276/mode/2up
You do need an account to 'borrow' the book. And maybe archive.org is making very convincing edits to their scanned books but that seems wildly unlikely since most people won't investigate past the first internet rag that comes up on google.
That's not true. Here's an archive of the same page from 2015. https://archive.is/4OKBO#selection-687.84-687.85 mRNA has always been a mechanism to move instructions from the actual DNA to outside the nucleus. It's never been a mechanism to rewrite DNA (although it is likely that there have been attempts to edit DNA that involve mRNA, but that is not the normal function of mRNA). You are fucking wrong. I took AP biology which isn't much but it's enough to know what mRNA is.
Okay, fine but I made another sibling post, https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/12kFn8M2ul/x/c/4JEW0zrpxHG, where I transcribed a passage from a book from 1976 written by one of the people who won the Noble Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965 for the discovery of mRNA. Your memory is wrong. It's unlikely they are making convincing fake scans for books in the 70s. Please do not make me search used bookstores for a physical copy because I'm kind of invested here.
He'll be wrapping up his stuff and going to prison for life soon.
Trust the plan! Patriots in control! Two more weeks!
In 2030 you'll own nothing and like it.
In 2030 you'll have no privacy and like it.
In 2030 you'll live in a pod with 10,000 other people within a half mile and like it.
In 2030 you'll injections called vaccines that don't do anything and like it.
I still think mRNA can be used for good. But clearly the product has been rushed.
30 years and those monkeys with rocks still haven't figured out how to do it because what they are messing with is not a simple bit of coding. It's the framework upon which all is built. One minor, unaccounted for flaw in their design and the very foundation of our design comes undone. At the very least, this means cell death because it didn't work, the next step up on bad to worst, cancer.
Either they don't understand or they don't care, you cannot simply rewrite RNA like DNA, it's not the same thing and messing with DNA is already dangerous enough. We are probably 50 years from RNA altering technology at our current rate of development.
It doesn't have to be applied via direct injection. We already use genetically engineered yeast to produce some drugs. This could streamline that process and make it even easier.
But that's ignoring the problem that I pointed out. We are still trying to understand how genes work in DNA, let alone how RNA works. Until recently, they believed by just shutting off genes that cause problems, they would solve things like serious diseases. But you can't just shut off a gene, it's interconnected, the same goes for activating a dormant gene. For some diseases, yes, the risk is worth the effort, but for some, we need to know more before doing it.
A broader example is this, scientist thought for decades there was junk DNA, that it was leftovers from either things we encountered in the past or was no longer needed because we adapted beyond its need. Now, they are finding that genes in the 'junk' are actually regulators, activators, etc. No one gene works alone, that's why they can't find the 'gay gene'.
It isn't how the mRNA tech is applied, at least, not completely, it's that the tech isn't ready to be used. They are still at the earliest stages of understanding and these idiots deployed it all the same. We are still in the Madam Curie dying from Radium exposure because she doesn't understand radioactivity.
The tech is further along than you think. There are people posting youtube videos where they cultivate bacteria to make different colored fluorescent proteins. Hobbyists playing with mRNA technology! There clearly are applications to this tech that can be used today. But human injection clearly needs more testing. And more importantly: An extremely transparent process so there can be no question what's in it. Something I doubt we'll ever have.
That's child's play. Adding this, adding that to make things like glowing bacteria. They are simple organisms whose development from beginning to adult form, is infinitely simple compared to our own.
I can almost guarantee you there are horrid mutations in the labs of these scientists. Not like the Ripley mutations in Alien 4, but things like headless fetuses where it didn't develop because they accidentally altered the gene sequence that was supposed to trigger its formation with their bumbling about.
What worries me is not that there might be something simple like cancers caused by their rushed tech. Viruses altering our cells have been the cause of cancers since the time of dinosaurs and maybe a lot earlier. (Maybe the cause of cancer period through their left behind remnants in DNA?) What worries is me is that by altering our RNA, they maybe creating a new disorder, like maybe a protein deficiency disorder that causes our cells to shutdown or something like diabetes. In 20 years, we might have had answers to these fears from lab studies, but now, we'll have answers on a massive scale that only conspiracy theorists will be correct about since the government will never admit this was rushed and stupid.
Ofc an economist would say that!
The idea itself is sound in specific, targeted usage on individuals. We can create a structure to modify bodily functions in a way to counteract otherwise terminal diseases.
Applying this tech on a global scale is retarded and the guy that invented it said as much.
why is the wef's continued existence tolerated
It also opens many wonderful possibilities of what you may do to your population, at the point of a gun.
Imagine a mRNA shot to make people produce their own Prozac. Turn everyone into a complacent herd that enjoys being trampled on.
Yup, mRNA vaccines are the medical equivalent of the Afghan debacle, run on a cost plus model paid out to the pharma companies. There is no money in simple, logistical scalable treatment, but never ending profit for quagmire.