Issue 1: m1Ψ (hey Blimi, do you know what that is?)
What can this do? How about dramatically ↑ spike production (yes that's bad), prevents mRNA decay (also bad), downregulates certain immune mechanisms (definitely very bad) ashmedai.substack.com/p/what-they-al…
This is a complex topic, way too nuanced for a rabid propagandist like @MarcusBlimi
But it has been *proven* to be *possible*
Of course they didn't test on people to see if and to what extent this is happening
I can see all you luddites coming a mile away:
"SHOW ME THE PROOF😡😡😡😡"
Fine.
Here it is:
Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…
Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3…
Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3…
Adenoviral Vector DNA- and SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-Based Covid-19 Vaccines: Possible Integration into the Human Genome - Are Adenoviral Genes Expressed in Vector-based Vaccines?
(this one discusses mRNA as well) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
Extra credit: the spike protein itself created from mRNA can damage your DNA as well (including P53 & BRCA, which are mega Uh-Ohs):
SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/1…
Are there other issues?
Yes. This thread was just pointing out the *categories* of problematic features of the mRNA used.
Sci-Fi indeed.
Laypeople can tell that you are a bunch of hard core liars who know nothing and just mindlessly repeat FDA/CDC propaganda.
They're right💣
Oh. and let's not forget point #4
This is rich.
@MarcusBlimi and her ilk are rabidly anti- the scientific method.
They are elitist medical authoritarians who believe that whatever their oracles say should go for all the plebes without any questions.
Is it just me, or do the officially credentialed "scientists" on twitter happen to be the most fragile and obnoxious narcissists humanity has to offer??
Like, bathtubs are totally sooooo deadly to kiddies
DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY KIDS DROWN IN BATHTUBS EACH YEAR?? HAVE YOU NO COMPASSION!!??!!
And drowning is THE leading cause of death for kids 1-4 (besides birth defects) cdc.gov/drowning/facts…
But, I can already hear you saying, bathtubs are such a small risk & not giving your kiddo a bath is shall we say not an option at all, far too radical & not worth it??
BINGO!!!
And giving your child an untested vaccine whose trial data shows unmistakable NEGATIVE efficacy is??
But an accumulation of anecdotes from myriad sources many of whom possess legitimate judgement to have an informed opinion to adjudicate probability of what they are seeing is compelling
Compelling to anyone with common sense that is
[This is meant to exclude any dolt who insists "only high-impact journal peer-reviewed paper" counts as evidence]
So let's look at this CDC anecdote from @MarcusBlimi
@MarcusBlimi (BM) is essentially saying that she will only accept for proof of vaccine injuries peer-reviewed literature that analyzes a massive dataset large enough to reach statistical significance for population level extrapolation.
This is deceptive for two reasons
1. This "standard" very cagily avoids dealing with the primary evidence of vax injuries, which are not massive dataset analyses of the sort she demands (see below)
2. She is surreptitiously trying to establish a premise that this type of study is evidence for lack of vax harms