Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Christie Laura Grace Profile picture
@_HeartofGrace_
Dec 14, 2023 • 26 tweets • 14 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
1/ 🧵💉Adverse Events: All of the threads combined on RNA/DNA/LNP.
People have been asking for easier to comprehend posts.
I am not one to drink, but consider this thread
"science in a shot glass"
All of the threads have study links to back what is stated, and explanations. Image
2/ The LNP has a charge. It can have a neutral charge, positive charge (+) or negative charge (-).

The RNA and DNA have a negative charge (-). The ionizable lipids have a positive charge (+).

Charge determines where in the body it goes and what it does.
Image
3/ There is net charge (positive and negative charges added up--similar to if you add 3 + -5 = -2 ).
That is it's net charge.

Zeta potential is the kinetic charge (a potential of interaction)

Positively charged LNPs cause MASSIVE clots in the lungs.


Image
4/Negatively charged LNPs can enter the cardiomyocyte (10:1 ratio (+) LNP to (-) RNA/DNA) and cause MYOCARDITIS.
The DNA contamination changed the charge on the LNP. The DNA is very negatively charged. The scientists involved should have known this.


Image
5/ Highly negatively charged LNP can cause clots. This will drive clot formation thousands of times more aggressively than human body normally would. It makes clots form more quickly, with more fibrin (thick and spindly), and are more difficult to treat.


Image
6/ The LNP can cross the placenta, and "transfect" it--meaning it can enter the cells there, and growing baby.
There is a 100 study 124 tweet thread I made on this. 100+ studies exist on it. This is not a hypothesis.

The LNP crosses the placenta.


Image
7/ The plasmid DNA contamination, can cause the body to attack itself, temporarily or indefinitely.
The body sees it as foreign, but also, it could see it as "self", causing the body to attack the tissues the LNP enters and create auto immune situation.

Image
8/ The DNA plasmid contamination may disrupt the normal growth of a baby, causing an auto immune response in the baby, issues with pregnancy, delivery, defects, and other concerns.


Image
9/ Sperm cells can spontaneously "take up" pieces of DNA. Plasmid DNA exists as contamination inside the LNP. If this enters the testes, and reaches the sperm, the sperm can absorb the DNA plasmid, altering it.


Image
10/ DNA plasmid contamination in modRNA "vaccines" DO NOT HAVE TO ENTER THE NUCLEUS to impact GENE EXPRESSION, and be implicated in CANCER RISK!

The DNA plasmid interacts with different areas i the body, and can impact what genes do.


Image
11/ The freezing and thawing process is braking the LNPs. it is causing some to leak out. It is also causing some to stick together, expand, and cluster, which can cause blockages. It can cause the RNA inside to break, which can be oncogenic.



Image
Image
Image
Image
12/ Impurities in Positively Charged Lipids in the LNP, can MUTATE mRNA in LNP (Packer et al., 2021); potentially mutating other nucleic acids (RNA,DNA) that may cause: -mutation -Aberrant Protein (toxic) -Noncoding (can be oncogenic) -Misfold/aggregation

Image
13/ When the LNP is made, with the RNA inside of it, not all of it is whole. Some of the RNA is in pieces when it is first made. Some of the whole pieces also break when it is frozen. Pieces of RNA can cause cancer or turn cancer off.
Image
14/ "Over 100 different ionizable lipid chemistries were examined, all of which produced measurable levels of mRNA-lipid adducts. This indicates that the formation of these adducts is not limited to a specific type of ionizable lipid but is a broad class effect." ALL MUTATE.
15/ Positively charged lipids DAMAGE BACTERIA. Bacteria exists in humans in a ratio of 2:1 --bacteria to human cells. Lipid Nanoparticles used in modRNA "vaccines", contain positively charged lipids. The LNPs are going everywhere, including the gut


Image
16/ Liver Cancer: dsDNA is implicated in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
dsDNA is part of DNA plasmid contamination discovered in💉.
dsDNA is activated by the STING pathway, causing an immune system cascade, which can cause inflammation, injury, and cancer.

Image
17/ Thyroid damage and auto immune disorders are linked to dsDNA. dsDNA is found in the current plasmid DNA contamination.

This is slightly different in the thyroid ( histone H2B)

Study + cases on 💉injury.


Image
18/ MYOCARDITIS
(DNA plasmid contamination was recently found in c@vid modRNA "vaccines")

in ANIMAL STUDIES CAUSES: MYOCARDIAL INFLAMMATION IN MURINE HEARTS after exposure and damages the CARDIOMYOCYTE


Image
19/ How the DNA plasmid contamination is causing the LNP to bind with proteins and cause other harms in the human body. Speicher and friends found the higher the DNA plasmid contamination, the worse the SAE on record.


Image
Image
20/ Could the LNPs alter/impair the mononuclear phagocyte system (MPS), leading to toxicity, reduced pathogen clearance, impaired immune function, and tumor/cancer progression?
Studies show a negative impact after repeated injections of lipids.

Image
21/ Spike protein is known to misfold and aggregate.
When you make a recombinant protein in a lab, in cells, under very controlled conditions (this is when you introduce RNA inside and LNP in a cell even, no human--it can misfold). Image
22/ Some LNP could not have formed properly in ways that may not have been explained, due to the DNA plasmid contamination. This just makes things far worse, and adds to the buffet of existing bad. LNPs weren't the only thing forming in the mix.

Image
23/ RAPID AAD-Aortic Aneurysm and Dissection (tearing/rupture) is lethal.

Plasmid DNA is dsDNA.

dsDNA can enter cells from the body's own sources, or a contamination event (💉)

dsDNA is shown to cause AAD


Image
24/ How Zeta Changes in the Human Body (layman's), and Why Pharma Companies are Incorrect Stating their Calculation of Zeta Potential (surface charge) is Accurate, much less, that it will not do harm. Zeta is the starting point for most adverse events.


Image
christiegrace.substack.com/p/the-reasons-…
25/ threadreaderapp.com/user/_HeartofG…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Christie Laura Grace

Christie Laura Grace Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @_HeartofGrace_

Christie Laura Grace Profile picture
Sep 13
1/ Study: Ivermectin Promotes Peripheral Nerve Regeneration during Wound Healing.
I am uncertain if anyone has spoken about nerve healing with Ivermectin
I wondered if people w/ burning pain were getting better w/ ivermectin because it was healing nerves, not spike related. Image
2/ here is the study and my substack reviewing the study:



pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ac…
christiegrace.substack.com/p/study-iverme…
3/ I’ve heard from several people with modRNA injections and injury that have burning pain who may or may not have a diagnosis of an autoimmune demyelination, small fiber neuropathy, etc. that ivermectin is helping them.
Read 26 tweets
Christie Laura Grace Profile picture
Sep 6
1/ 🚨 👀 This is very concerning and it requires additional posting.

"Right now in the US, Lockheed Martin is close to completing a prototype that will analyze media to “detect and defeat disinformation.”

And by media, those commissioning the tool – called the Semantic Forensics (SemaFor) program – mean everything: news, the internet, and even entertainment media. Text, audio, images, and video that are part of what’s considered “large-scale automated disinformation attacks” are supposed to be detected and labeled as false by the tool."

"The development process is almost over, and the prototype is used by the US Defense Department’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)."

Maybe some of you can chime in on the implications of this, if they aren't obvious enough.Image
2/ reclaimthenet.org/darpa-system-c…
3/ Image
Read 10 tweets
Christie Laura Grace Profile picture
Sep 2
Timeframe for possible cancer risk (growth formula included at end). We will use calculations AND LOVE CANAL CHEMICAL EXPOSURE example (something I wrote about in undergrad). These are just my concerns. Cancer is not a mathematical calculation, it is exponential when it comes to onset and exposure of populations to a genotoxin.

The cancer experts who have been interviewed SHOULD have told you that. Maybe a cancer expert can chime in (and do not give the "bad luck" hypothesis):

The obvious scenario is a known genotoxic/mutagenic substance was injected into billions of people on the planet, some of them, more than once, and there is serious concern that this known harm can cause genetic instability and worse.

If we do not even look at pseudouridine content in the modified RNA or spike protein, from what I have read and my knowledge working in industry and education is the following:

If we introduced just the linearized DNA plasmid pieces alone inside of a lipid nanoparticle and injected them into people, this will vary depending on how many exposures have occurred--each exposure meaning a single injection (discount RNA or anything else in there--this is just hypothetical for DNA):
Time frames (we are working off March 2021 as that as when general population was getting the first of the "series"):

1. First Window of Time for Cancer Risk: 0-2 Years out from initial exposure
0-2 years out will see the LOWEST number of cancers. We would see acute reactions--the immediate toxicity or inflammation.
Cancer rates should be the lowest during the first two years (that is the time we are now exiting, we are entering the next window of time), but aggressive hematological cancers ( acute leukemias, lymphomas) are the ones that are showing up with pancreatic. However, there are other genetic and environmental factors. We add in spike and pseudouridine, so these timelines might be speeding up. This timeline is just DNA plasmid pieces.
Existing polyps with mutations might show accelerated growth or progression to dysplastic lesions or early-stage cancer during the first two years out. The immediate effects of plasmid-induced genomic instability or inflammation could speed up the malignant transformation. We are primarily speaking to colon polyps, although there are endometrial polyps, etc and those are less likely to turn with a lower incidence.

2. Second window of time is 2. 2 to 5 Years after initial exposure.
DNA plasmids have either caused significant genomic instability through cGAS STING, or other mechanisms, or integration, causing increase in cancer. Chronic hematological cancers and early solid tumors should be appearing. This window would show a peak in cancer development if the genotoxic effects are significant but not immediate, meaning, it took time.

Polyps with pre-existing mutations, if changed by DNA plasmids inside of an LNP, might progress to more advanced stages of cancer, FASTER. We would see progression from polyps to cancerous tumors.

3. Third window of time should be the highest we see, which is within 3. 5 to 10 Years since initial exposure

The largest number of cancers SHOULD be seen during this window of time. Solid tumors in the liver, pancreas, or lungs, and hematological cancers should be exploding now in the rates that will be seen The delayed nature of these cancers reflects the cumulative impact of long-term genomic instability, inflammation, and mutagenesis induced by the DNA plasmids and LNPs.

This is also should be the peak time for poylps now showing cancer progression if exposure to DNA plasmids inside of an LNP were correlated. The largest number of cancers related to mutated polyps might be detected during this period.
Dr. Harvey Risch I believe to be one of the more respectable people who has spoken out, and he has stated at the three year mark is when we should start seeing more. However, that is just the beginning, because we go exponential, not mathematical.

Numbers game/probability:
Cancer numbers should be exponential cancer risk by time frame/windows after first exposure of injection because in biological systems, cancer incidence often shows exponential growth, not linear, due to accumulation of genetic mutations and interactions of multiple factors contributing to tumor progression.

Arbitrary numbers (I am just throwing numbers in here for math's sake so you can see scales of progression) might look like:
Quantification
If we were to model this mathematically:

Linear increase model using arbitrary numbers:
If we observed 5 cancers in the first 3 years, and the incidence rate increases linearly, we might expect an additional 5 cancers in the next 3.5 to 10 years, resulting in a total of 10 cancers.

Cancer rates go exponential:
If the increase is exponential, the number of cancers should grow faster.

Let's take the starting point of five cancers as example. Of COURSE there are other factors like total number of mutations already present, environment, predisposition, female versus male, lifestyle, age, etc, but if cancers double every year, starting from 5 cancers, you could expect a significantly larger number of cancers in the later period.

For example, if the rate of increase is such that the number of cancers doubles every 2 years, then by 7 years (from the initial 3), you could see approximately 40 cancers (based on doubling).

Real Math:
Exponential Growth Formula:

The general formula for exponential growth is:
N9t)=N0​×e(rt)--that is N nought times e and then (rt) is an exponent.

N(t) is the number of cancers at time t
N (0)​ is the initial number of cancers
e is the base of the natural logarithm (approximately 2.71828).
r is the growth rate
t is the time period

Ok, let's go back to the initial which we are saying is five cancers, that is it.

this is the calculation for growth rate, which we do not have at the moment:
Estimate Growth Rate (r): Calculate the growth rate r using:
r=ln(N(t)/N0​)​/t

If we started with five cancers and this is just all arbitrary, we had a growth rate of 0.2 (we do not know what this is!) then we say time is after ten years, we do the math and we land at 37.
N(10)=5×e(0.2×10) N(10)=5×e2N(10) = 5 \times e^{2}N(10)=5×e2 N(10)=5×7.389N(10) = 5 \times 7.389N(10)=5×7.389 (since e2≈7.389e^2 \approx 7.389e2≈7.389) N(10)≈36.945N(10) \approx 36.945N(10)≈36.945

Either way, we do not know the growth rate but we know cancer is exponential process.

Love Canal was a disturbing thing that happened years ago. Love Canal was a neighborhood in Niagara Falls, New York. The Hooker chemical company (this is all off the top of my head) had been dumping chemicals into the ground, buried chemical waste in an abandoned canal. This site was later used for residential development, and they sold the land for a dollar and this land was used to build houses on for families. A woman who was not a scientist by the name of Lois Gibbs did her OWN epidemiological investigation into the miscarriages and cancers that started to pop up in her community that would lead to a government investigation. It was terrible.

In the 1970s, residents reported high rates of cancer, birth defects, and other health problems, which were linked to the buried chemicals leaching into the environment.

In the Love Canal case, exposure to toxic chemicals did not immediately result in a large increase in cancer rates. The effects were observed over several years.

Epidemiological studies found elevated rates of cancer and other health issues among the residents, particularly in the years following their exposure.

In the lipid nanoparticles with the existence of DNA plasmids, where exposure to carcinogens is high and widespread, cancer incidence can increase exponentially. This was injected into billions of people.

Thinking back to those who have given their speeches, I am kind of horrified you did not mention this as cancer experts.

I am kind of alarmed.

I have no idea what the outcomes are going to be but if cancer increases exponentially and if a large portion of the population of the planet was subjected to genotoxic material SIMULTANEOUSLY within similar time frames starting in March of 2021, I cannot say what will happen, but we are now at September 1st of 2024, and I hope this is all incorrect and the people speaking out saying it is nothing or rare are correct.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24283955/
3/ .sciencedirect.com/topics/medicin…
Read 5 tweets
Christie Laura Grace Profile picture
Aug 28
🚨💉 For those not aware, if you go to Moderna's website that lists their clinical trials, you'll see they are in process of redevelopment of traditional vaccines and changing to RNA based with lipid nanoparticle. It is imperative to place political motivations and others to the side right now and focus on global public health and the ramifications.
Spike protein and DNA plasmid do not have to be present for this platform to cause harm. Those are just additional things which cause harm, and yes they are concerning beyond belief.
You do not need pseudoephedrine despite what anyone says anywhere with any credential to have a frame shift, junk proteins made, or misfolding resulting in aberrant protein creation by the human body by injecting RNA with a lipid. If you look in my highlighted tweets you will see a thread with over 100,000 views which details out a study that was done by Moderna scientists which was paid for by Moderna where they showed the positively charged lipids are binding through a covalent bond to any nucleic acid which they come in contact with.
Inside the lipid nanoparticle that is going to happen with the RNA and it's going to create what is called an adduct.

The fact that no podcaster ever mentioned this besides the ones I have been on despite the fact that I have tagged them all is alarming. Instead politicians and podcasters only focused on the pseudoeuridine, unless I went on that podcast and we had a talk otherwise it has been ignored and I'm pissed and you should be pissed too.
Another conversation to be had is why this is being ignored.

This is alarming. This is alarming on multiple fronts.

The positively charged lipids can also bind with other nucleic acids that have a negative charge. They will form what is called a covalent bond.

This will cause slippage in what is called the ribosome.

It does not matter if it is the spike protein or not. It does not matter if pseudoeuridine is present or not.

Molecular mimicry will also occur. To think this will not happen is outrageous.

Take the number of people who have died, those who have survived who have lasting harms, take the number of pregnant women who suffered, the miscarriages, all of it, and there is the very real potential of taking that number and multiplying it exponentially if all of these come to fruition.

This is not to discount anyone who has already been harmed or died.

The potential for harms are unimaginable.

We also know that the biodistribution impacts pregnant women differently.

We know that 8 times the amount of the lipid nanoparticle goes to the lymphatic system of pregnant women compared to women who are not pregnant who get these injections.

This isn't a mathematical calculation when we speak to risk. This isn't an addition. This isn't a plus or minus numbers game. This is exponential harms.
2/
3/ all RNA inside of a lipid nanoparticle that contains positively charged lipids will create adducts.

This has been studied and proven by moderna scientists and the research is proven in that tweet thread.

Everybody ignored it. All podcasters ignored it. All scientists and doctors and professors ignored it who have gone on podcasts.

I don't have any good words for you anymore.

Read 4 tweets
Christie Laura Grace Profile picture
Aug 24
🚨💉VERY IMPORTANT! THERE IS HIGH CONCERN OTHER CONTAMINATION HERE! THIS is what they do not want you to know!
Too long; didn't read: there are MANY other possible contaminants in the mod RNA COVID injections!

This data is NOT just important for gaining the DNA plasmid contamination levels that landed in the COVID injections that are correlated to myocarditis, autoimmune disorders, organ injury, clots, and worse. (the DNA plasmids that were used in E coli to make the modRNA injections)--no. Anyone who has worked biotech KNOWS (this is why you need to pull in real biotech people who designed this stuff to know what to look for) that there are many possibilities of other contaminants, that may have landed inside of these lipid nanoparticles ENTERING THE CELLS OF PEOPLE.

🚨1. If you look up ANY form 483 (this is a form that cites observations made by the FDA during an inspection of a company like a drug manufacturer or biotech company that indicates a product is in violation of FDA requirements. Often times you will not just find bacteria, you will see cited what is called CROSS CONTAMINATION. This is when other DNA product parts or other ingredients, even if in what is called a cGMP facility was where these things were made, have been routinely found, by very large companies and sites. We are talking about OTHER plasmids. WE are taking about REAGENTS.

🚨 2. Reagents are substances that are used in the production of many things, like RNA, DNA plasmids, etc. They can be introduced at ANY point during the manufacturing process. The enzymes used to break down the DNA plasmids in the modRNA LNP injections are ALSO reagents, like enzymes: proteases, kinases, and phosphatases for protein modification or degradation.

Reagents are used to make THE VARIOUS LIPIDS used in the LNP. REAGENTS are used to make the DNA plasmids that were used. REAGENTS were used even in the clinical trials in what people THINK is the SAFER version of these injections (process ONE). Process TWO used DNA plasmids, and what landed in BILLIONS of arms.

🚨☑️💉This is going to get sciencey and you might not be familiar with this stuff, but read the last part, and THEN you will understand (hopefully)

*********************************************

☑️Examples of REAGENTS:
DNA and RNA Reagents:
Nucleotides: dNTPs (deoxynucleotide triphosphates) for DNA synthesis, NTPs (nucleotide triphosphates) for RNA synthesis.
Enzymes:
Polymerases: Taq polymerase, Pfu polymerase for PCR.
Reverse Transcriptase:
For converting RNA into cDNA.
Ligases:
T4 DNA ligase for joining DNA fragments.
Restriction Enzymes: For cutting DNA at specific sequences.

Protein Reagents

🚨Enzymes: Proteases, kinases, and phosphatases for protein modification or degradation.

Chemical Reagents
Detergents:
SDS, Triton X-100 for lysing cells or solubilizing proteins.
Fixatives:
Formaldehyde, paraformaldehyde for preserving cells or tissues.
Reducing Agents:
DTT, β-mercaptoethanol for breaking disulfide bonds in proteins.
Denaturing Agents:
Urea, guanidine hydrochloride for denaturing proteins or nucleic acids.

Molecular Biology Reagents
PCR Reagents: DNA polymerase, dNTPs, primers, buffer systems for amplification of DNA.
Cloning Reagents:
Vector plasmids, ligase, competent cells for gene cloning.
Sequencing Reagents:
Dideoxynucleotides, sequencing primers, polymerases for Sanger sequencing.
CRISPR Reagents:
Guide RNA (gRNA), Cas9 nuclease, donor DNA for gene editing.

SOME of the chemicals YOU just read above, are used in the making of the modRNA injections.

This means, they are subject to contamination.

How do I know other than working in the industry and designing this stuff? Here is one of several studies showing contamination in REAGENTS. AND THESE contaminants if not filtered out, would ALSO EXIST IN THE FINAL PRODUCT:
This is just a few examples:

(heavy science time):

"Characterization of plasmid residues Of the 80 contigs with plasmid signatures, 41% (n = 33) had an origin of replication, 63% (n = 51) a selection marker and 52% (n = 42) an insert. Apart from the EIAV coding expression vector, three other artificial expression vectors could be identified by their inserts. Of these inserts, 19% included a chimera of a human-mouse chimera Bicaudal 1 gene (n = 8), 11% the UL-32 gene of the Cytomegalovirus (n = 5) and 5% the leukemia fusion protein AML1-MTG8 (n = 2). All contigs with a specific insert had been aligned and the consensus sequence displayed in SnapGene Viewer gave a predicted plasmid map (Fig. 5). The plasmids coding for Bicaudal 1 chimera and UL-32 genes were identical to those used for other studies in our laboratory and had, therefore, been identified as laboratory contaminants. BLAST of the 2268 bp long fragment of “Und_TR29_len2635”, found in the Und sample (Undetermined contigs), showed a 99% query coverage with homo sapiens mRNA for AML1-MTG8 fusion protein (GenBank: D13979.1). The source of this plasmid remains unknown.
Natural plasmids residues are derived from a variety of sources Besides the presence of artificial plasmids, natural occurring plasmids from different species were found in all twelve samples (n = 12). The most frequent plasmid was from Micrococcus spp. (92%) followed by Serratia spp. (50%), Burkholderia spp. (42%), Ralstonia spp. (25%), Acinetobacter spp. (25%), Mucilaginibacter spp. (17%), Streptococcus spp. (17%), Enterobacter spp. (8%) and Cupriavidus spp. (8%; Table 1). The plasmid sequences we found from Serratia maracesens pUO901 (ID: NG_047232.1) and Enterobacter cloacae pEC005 (ID: NG_050201.1) coded only for antibiotic resistances. The first one was identified as a aminoglycoside-(3)-N-acetyltransferase (AAC(3)s), whereas the latter coded for a Class A extended-spectrum beta lactamase TEM-157 (Table 1). These plasmids are likely from natural sources.

Analysis of metagenomics studies Finally, we analyzed previously published metagenomic data sets of human gut and plasma samples as well as a data set using different whole genome amplification kits50–52 for the presence of plasmid residues. Retrospective analysis of these data sets, natural plasmid residues had been found in most sets and most commonly Acinetobacter sp. and Escherichia sp. as source organisms (Table 1 and Table 2). The highest diversity of plasmids had been found in metagenomic data focusing on the fecal microbiome53. Especially metagenomic studies analyzing high bio mass samples such as microbiome studies are expected to contain a higher amount and diversity of natural plasmids compared to samples with low biomass (e.g. plasma). Remarkably, a plasmid highly similar to Xuhuaishuia manganoxidans strain DY6-4 had been detected in several samples of two unrelated metagenomics studies although this bacterium has been found only in the Pacific Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone51 (Table 3) so far."Image
2/ ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
@drdrew
@drjamesbjoyce
@DrJBhattacharya
@SenatorRennick
@RenzTom
@RobertKennedyJr
@RepThomasMassie
Read 7 tweets
Christie Laura Grace Profile picture
Aug 24
1/ 🚨🚨💉FOIA UPDATE : CONTAMINATION RECORDS REQUEST FOR PFIZER AND MODERNA (CATALENT): SUBMITTING APPEAL AFTER DENIAL OF FOIA. DNA plasmid is not the only contaminant. There is ALWAYS a LIST of contaminants on the QA. I asked for help, but none came. Below is my response.
Image
2/ Image
3/ Image
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(