@ringo
I'm sorry, as far as I wish to keep the conversation going I have no interest in reading those documents.
I do not think the vaccine is a biological weapon nor that it has been under development since the 1970s.
I have no idea what the supposed objectives of this weapon would be, but definitely we're missing the technology to make such a thing imaginable.
I mean, we currently have troubles finding drugs which temporarily inhibit the mechanism of a single protein...
@pamby1 @Andre
@Andre
I have no idea where you wish to take this conversation to by posing this retorical question.
A substance that causes harm is toxic, if it causes significant harm in small amounts then it is a poison.
A poison can be used as a weapon by deliberately administering it to someone with the objective of harming them.
@ringo @pamby1
Where was the rhetorical question?
The emerging data suggests strongly that there is no age group for which the mRNA products are capable of delivering a benefit.
There is ample evidence of harm.
There is ample evidence of deliberate manipulation of data to give false impressions of benefit.
If you build something that harms everyone and pretend it does not so it may be widely deployed, that is to me a weapon and a delivery method.
Dirty science enabled it.
@Andre @rastinza @ringo Every one of us has had to experience their own awakening to the evil we face- we've seen the evidence of greed & the disregard for human life accross every institution that we once had great respect for. It's been so disheartening but necessary so that we can do better.
I got a letter yesterday from my primary dr saying that she's retiring in Oct. She can't be more than her late 50's, early 60's- no explanation given. I can't help but wonder why & how many drs
@rastinza @ringo @pamby1
What do you call a substance for which there is no legitimate evidence of benefit and only evidence of harm?
A weapon? A poison?