Smoking Gun: Vascular And Organ Damage Induced By mRNA Vaccines: Irrefutable Proof Of Causality

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: McGinty

…unfortunately with a patient this sick, it might be too late.

I think it’s never too late for mayhem. When it happens it’ll seem shocking and unexpected, while in hindsight being entirely predictable.

The means to suppress revolt via ‘soft control’ are indeed becoming ever more sophisticated. But until bioengineering that can literally control the synapsis and motor functions of the individual are rolled out en masse (whose to say that’s not currently underway?) there’ll always be scope for revolt.

In the meantime it may indeed be a race to achieve this tech in some darker quarters of the deep state before the soft control-psychological engineering jumps the shark and the weight of mass insight into the big con tips the balance towards action; general strikes, protest, riot, marshal law and then it’s a gamble upon which way the armed forces bend when push comes to shove on their own people. I don’t think anyone can ever predict which way that goes (at least not without some of that nifty bio-tech in the soldiers, if not in the general public).

However, let’s not see any ‘successful’ revolt through rose tinted glasses. It’ll be bloody and costly and the innocent and poor will pay the most. And once the dust settles and those taking the reigns of leadership with perhaps the best of intentions will soon succumb to moral compromise in order to maintain a balance of peace and prosperity for all (but no doubt for some more than others). And a new status quo is born; hierarchies protecting their interests by telling the masses that sacrifice of the very things they fault for is necessary to protect this way of life.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

That’s not to say that revolt isn’t necessary to stir the pond and avoid stagnation. But social emancipation always just a blip in the constant human condition?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

First let me say, excellent find.

The criteria they used to determine mRNA vaccines cause vascular and organ damage:

Actually it's not "criteria" but rather seems to be "evidence." That said, it does raise questions in my mind:

1. I think it has been well-established that the vaccine does not always stay confined to muscle tissue at the site of the injection. I can't locate the reference right now, but I do remember coming across a rather official article in the past that stated that the vaccine was intended to be aspirated... that is, once the needle is inserted, it is withdrawn to detect any blood in the area (which would indicate the injection pierced a blood vessel). If blood is detected, the needle is to be withdrawn and a new site tested until one is found that does not draw blood. I know of no one who is actually aspirating the injection site, so the vaccine is being improperly administered and can spread throughout the body in the blood supply contrary to recommendations.

2. This is the biggie for me. mRNA technology is pretty straightforward:

• Molecules of mRNA are developed which will produce the desired antigen.
  
• The mRNA is duplicated and encased in a lipid (a fat globule) so it can be absorbed by the cells.
  
• The encased mRNA are absorbed by the cells as a part of the normal lipid consumption process.
  
• The mRNA is released inside the cell as the lipids are digested.
  
• The mRNA then encounters the mitochondria where they are used to create the desired antigen (in this case, the spike protein).
  
• The mRNA molecules are then destroyed by the cell.
  
• The produced antigens migrate to the cellular wall where they trigger an immune response.
  
• The immune response includes the production of antibodies against the pathogen, and in turn against the virus one has been vaccinated against.

None of that includes any interaction with the DNA. Normal life processes create mRNA from the DNA as needed, and I know of no theory that states that mRNA affects DNA... as a matter of fact, it would seem self-evident that mRNA cannot affect DNA, since the mRNA molecules native to the cell are constantly being produced from the DNA during the normal life processes.

It also seems obvious that there is some immune response being observed in those who are vaccinated. So it only makes sense that the expression of the spike protein would be short-lived as we have been told. That is appearing to not be the case, however, as complications are reported months after the actual vaccination. So, that leaves only a few possibilities:

• The mRNA is somehow not being destroyed inside the cell, but is continuing to produce more spike proteins than expected.
  
• There is an unknown mechanism that is reproducing mRNA before it encounters the mitochondria.
  
• There is an unknown interaction with the DNA that continues to produce spike protein mRNA (which I consider highly unlikely).
  
• The spike protein is somehow self-replicating itself.

None of those potential explanations sound particularly reasonable to me... the first and second are the most plausible, but even those seem to be a bit far-fetched. But any of them would constitute a serious liability for the future of mRNA technology.

3. I think recent investigations into the problems being reported with the vaccine have well-established that inflammation of various organs is the mechanism that is the most dangerous.

4. I also think the fact that inflammation is the primary mechanism leading to death is self-evident, both for the vaccine and the virus.

As with most of these studies, this one seems to have covered a lot of territory from other studies and unlocked a few new questions. If these studies were taken seriously by TPTB, we would not be having this discussion and there would be no need to even consider mandates... the truth would be uncovered fairly quickly instead of painfully extracting one clue at a time.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

4. I also think the fact that inflammation is the primary mechanism leading to death is self-evident, both for the vaccine and the virus.

Even I came to that conlusion and I don't know squat other than common sense.

Also everytime I hear someone mention "The future of the mRNA vaccine."

I can't help but think this is the future of mRNA. This is why it exists and after this
it has no future.

a reply to: Randyvine2

I'll admit that at one time, I was all for the use of mRNA. It's a faster and cheaper alternative to more conventional vaccines. My initial concerns about this vaccine were limited to the effect of the spike protein itself (and still are).

But, to be honest, I am starting to doubt the mRNA process. Maybe we don't know enough about the mechanism yet. Whatever the reason, this "test" seems to be moving toward a complete failure of the mRNA process. That's really a shame, because mRNA held so much promise at one time.

I really blame the greed and political agendas. If not for them, a more transparent and open conversation about mRNA would have been possible and we could have perfected the process. As usual, politics tried to involve itself in science and screwed up both. Every time I hear the phrase "follow the science" now, it makes me want to slap someone repeatedly about the head and shoulders.

TheRedneck

a reply to: thedeadtruth

(1) Why are so many of the so called anti-vaxxer experts frauds or dishonest people ? Why does that stance attract these types of people if they are indeed "truth seekers " . And why are they unaware that mRNA Tech is NOT new. Just news to the masses.

Lol, just new to the masses. So the mRNA vaccines have never been administered to the masses before and you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that that makes it NEW.
I had a good laugh at that, pure comedy gold.

a reply to: TheRedneck


"To perfectly honest, your posts remind me of some dirty fellow wearing rags with three months of unkempt hair growth standing on a street corner holding a sign proclaiming "The End is NEAR!" while screaming unintelligibly about the end of the world."

Where have I ever "screamed" anything, unintelligibly or otherwise?

I'm not the one pushing doom porn.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: TheRedneck


"To perfectly honest, your posts remind me of some dirty fellow wearing rags with three months of unkempt hair growth standing on a street corner holding a sign proclaiming "The End is NEAR!" while screaming unintelligibly about the end of the world."

Where have I ever "screamed" anything, unintelligibly or otherwise?

I'm not the one pushing doom porn.

No but you do enjoy defending deep state rhetoric. Keep good

:-)

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: NorthOfStuff

So is none of it accurate?

Nothing at all?

The fact check references and links to previous fact checks.

www.poynter.org...

“FALSE: Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi’s multiple coronavirus allegations
Explanation: The success of vaccines is measured not by the death rate, but by the disease rate. 65+ is the age group with the highest mortality rate. Vaccines are not expected to be 100 percent successful for authorization.”

Seems that this one got turned on it’s head.

Now it’s explained that we’ll catch it but will avoid hospitalization and death. But it shouldn’t be measured like that according to a 2021 fact check.

Let’s see how long this latest one holds up.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Where have I ever "screamed" anything, unintelligibly or otherwise?

I said your posts reminded me of such. You really should read the posts put to you before replying.

I am reminded of the old saying: "Better to remain silent and appear the fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

I am also quite observant of the fact that out of that entire post, which covered your errors in detail and actually asked for your explanation of one of the discovered phenomena, you chose to focus exclusively on a statement I made referencing your behavior instead... thereby confirming what I said.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I seem to recall in another thread you had a personal go at me, that you said something to the effect that no one should care about anything I post or similar and now you come up with yet another round of personal insults.

If this is your idea of rational debate you will excuse me if I have no desire to to continue to be the subject of your sanctimonious and insulting responses.

I am not the subject of this thread, nor should I be.

I will refrain from responding in kind.

Please allow me the same courtesy.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: TheRedneck

I seem to recall in another thread you had a personal go at me, that you said something to the effect that no one should care about anything I post or similar and now you come up with yet another round of personal insults.

If this is your idea of rational debate you will excuse me if I have no desire to to continue to be the subject of your sanctimonious and insulting responses.

I am not the subject of this thread, nor should I be.

I will refrain from responding in kind.

Please allow me the same courtesy.

Pot meet kettle.


Also, why are you mysteriously avoiding this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I know you've seen it.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Because it's just more of your same old same old and why do you think I ought to bother?

That?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Because it's just more of your same old same old and why do you think I ought to bother?

That?

Because you are avoiding the threads you can't argue with which is like all of them.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I seem to recall in another thread you had a personal go at me, that you said something to the effect that no one should care about anything I post or similar and now you come up with yet another round of personal insults.

Please note that I do not play the "personality cult" game. I call out disingenuousness when I see it, regardless of who is at the receiving end, and I do not have some list of people I have called out. If I "had a personal go at you" then it follows that you said something to cause it. It does appear that I was likely correct in that other thread, since your entire purpose here seems to be to spread disinformation and attack anyone who actually has performed research into the "vaccine that doesn't prevent anything."

If this is your idea of rational debate...

It is not. Rational debate would involve actually looking at data and information shown and then formulating responses that addressed said data and information. You certainly bring no such thing to the table, and therefore I have nothing to address other than your "win at all costs" attitude on this subject.

I am not the subject of this thread, nor should I be.

Then you should stop making yourself the subject.

Understand that i will continue to post counters to untruths and misrepresentations you make. If you choose to consider that as me "having a go at you," so be it. I consider it setting the record straight.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, I get your drift that you make up stuff that I have never actually said but like you I also will continue to post counters to untruths and misinfo on here, of which there is a lot on here.

I will agree to disagree with you but if you think this sort of behaviour in referring to me in these terms is justified the you will forgive me for not wanting to engage with the likes of you:

"To bo perfectly honest, your posts remind me of some dirty fellow wearing rags with three months of unkempt hair growth standing on a street corner holding a sign proclaiming "The End is NEAR!" while screaming unintelligibly about the end of the world."

That is plain insulting and I'll mannered.

But you get away with it.

I will leave you to your sanctimonious belief that you are right and that anyone who has a different opinion is apparently some sort of an uneducated idiot.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

By your own admission you apparently post hundreds of similar threads. You obviously have plenty of time on your hands to do so.

Forgive me if I have neither the time or inclination to reply to your constant spamming.

May I respectfully suggest that you might get over yourself?

You seem to have an over inflated sense of worth and self importance?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Yes, I get your drift that you make up stuff that I have never actually said but like you I also will continue to post counters to untruths and misinfo on here, of which there is a lot on here.

Again, I never claimed you were standing on a street corner screaming incoherently. I said your posts reminded me of someone who was doing so. There is a difference in those two statements.

The OP in this case posted a study. You disagreed with the conclusion of that study and proceeded to impugn the character of the researcher instead of rebut his assumptions and/or methods. And you did so quite vehemently. Some would say almost rabidly. That is where the comparison came from. You have offered absolutely no argument based on the study, only specious and easily-dismissed arguments concerning the researcher personally.

If you want to deal with facts, try answering the question put to you: how do you explain the fact that spike proteins are found in vaccinated individuals months after they should all theoretically be gone?

I will leave you to your sanctimonious belief that you are right and that anyone who has a different opinion is apparently some sort of an uneducated idiot.

I do not believe that the opinion of others is in any way inferior to my own, until and unless others prove it to be such. I simply argue my position and reply, often in kind, to others. In other words, you want to throw a little mud, expect to get muddy. I am not intimidated by you.

As for your education status, I am still awaiting some evidence to indicate it. Perhaps actually answering questions posed to you would help in that deficiency? There's one sitting there waiting for you just two paragraphs above.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh please. Don't hide behind semantics.

I know when I'm being insulted and you do it constantly.

Your suggesting that you are not intimidated by me is a straight up straw man.

As for my education status, it's no secret that I am a practicing Solicitor here in England.

Your questions about the spike proteins have been answered by others many times over.

I'm not going to repeat that.

Frankly, I have had enough of your personal attacks.

If that's the way you roll, carry on.

Throw your mud.

I'm past caring.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Your questions about the spike proteins have been answered by others many times over.

That would be nice if it were true. I haven't received a believable answer yet.

And it appears I won't.

Just so I know... "solicitor"... is that what we call a "lawyer"? If so, I believe you're a little out of your forte here.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, it's what passes in your world as a lawyer.

www.proz.com...

That's me.

Practicing for over 30 odd years in many fields of litigation including Clinical Negligence.

Out of my forte? Hardly. I know my way round stacks of medical records and evidence.

But I'd defer to your learned opinion. If you've got one?