This is very comprehensive, yes. It's excellent. But the simplest argument, I think, and the one that I hope might persuade people who won't read anything longer than a tweet, is this one:
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the spike protein is a poison.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the spike protein is a poison.
https://twitter.com/AndreasShrugged/status/1412711465853853697
You have two choices.
Would you like a finite dose of poison?
Or would you like your poison attached to a virus?
Proteins don't replicate. *Viruses do.* Viruses take your cells hostage and turn them into virus-making factories. Each new virus comes with ... a spike protein.
Would you like a finite dose of poison?
Or would you like your poison attached to a virus?
Proteins don't replicate. *Viruses do.* Viruses take your cells hostage and turn them into virus-making factories. Each new virus comes with ... a spike protein.
So which is the better bet? Spike proteins in a dose so limited that your immune system can quickly despatch it to hell? Or spike proteins travelling on a virus that replicates, meaning within days there are more of these proteins than there are grains of sand on the earth?
That's a pretty easy argument.
And fortunately, the news is even better: the spike protein isn't a poison in the first place.
But if you insist on believing it is, pick your poison. Cause you're getting it, either way.
And fortunately, the news is even better: the spike protein isn't a poison in the first place.
But if you insist on believing it is, pick your poison. Cause you're getting it, either way.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
