Almost 10% of blood sampled in blood bank contaminated with MRNA from vaccines.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Far more people than 10% have had the evil mRNA shots though. That means they do not stay in your system indefinitely. If they did, more than 10% of the blood supply would be contaminated. Also, they can't be super contagious or that would be a higher percentage.

None of this speaks to potential harms of the shots, only their staying power in one's system.

I think that's an unknown, but 10% of the blood supply being tainted is pretty bad.

What's more known is that people are producing SP for up to and probably longer than 9 months. It was detected at 9 months which is when the trial ended. So for people who have it, the trillions of inflammatory spike proteins have the potential to wreak havoc throughout the body causing untold health issues that could happen at any point in the future. If someone was designing a stealth murder weapon, this would be it.

Honestly, it's a bloody useless way to kill people.

There's nasty stuff that really kills people. Like 100% - and it kills in seconds - and is largely untraceable.

Unless what you mean by a "stealth murder weapon" is one where they don't know they are dead, but just keep walking around and doing all the stuff (and posting all the stuff) they used to do when alive.

a reply to: chr0naut

Like smoking tobacco, thalidomide or spraying DDT? Weren’t these promoted by the medical field in their infancy? They sure were profitable.

You can smoke for 80 years yet I’d hardly recommend it for healthy living.

a reply to: Grenade

All of which were revised when new evidence became available.

They make mistakes, no question about it. But they are at least willing to consider evidence and not just form an opinion and look for comfirmatory claims. They admit mistakes.

I think they have been more than up front about potential risks of getting a shot. They also have made clear it is many times safer than the actual virus. They won't even give you a shot unless you sign a consent form stating you understand the potential side effects. Most people, most of the time will not have severe side effects and will have protection from either catching the virus, or developing serious illness or death if they do.

The deaths have massively dropped off since vaccination. What do you think that is from?

a reply to: JBurns

Let’s hope these mRNA shots don’t need safety revisions in the face of new evidence. Oh wait, that’s already happening.

Smoking kills more people than covid yet last I checked there was a tobacco industry. Seems medical science catches up only when the evidence is undeniable.

What about the sugar scandal and all those scientists paid off to blame it on fats?

Maybe the contamination of Polio vaccines with Simian Virus 40?

People have short memories.

a reply to: Grenade

Hope indeed. Not saying at all that its impossible, merely there is presently no reason to believe that is the case. There is no objective reason to believe the vaccines are harmful other than "they could be." Anything *could be* the question should be "is there a shred of evidence saying they are harmful?" and the answer objectively has to be no.

There are anecdotal tales at best. I haven't seen a shred of evidence showing they are harming people, I have seen plenty in terms of death tolls decreasing showing they are doing exactly what they claim to do.

Oh wait, that’s already happening.

Where is that happening? Can you provide a link?

a reply to: JBurns

The worldwide increase in excess “unknown” deaths for me at least is an indicator something is seriously wrong.

a reply to: Grenade

What worldwide increase in unknown deaths are you referring to though? Can you show me the numbers and their source please?

I kindly ask that you provide evidence that claim is even true to begin with

a reply to: JBurns
C'mon now buddy...it wasn't just the mere introduction of new evidence that moved the needle on these issues.
It was multiple successful lawsuits resulting in huge settlements , combined with the possible threat of criminal prosecution for some scientists ignoring data that did.
Without the above mentioned events, we may still be spraying ourselves and everything we own with ddt, and teaching our grandkids how to French inhale.
It's not just like these scientists, and the bureaucrats that love them had an epiphany upon introduction of new evidence.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Grenade

I eat plenty of foods that are genetically modified. I support using technology to decrease disease, increase yields, that sort of thing. You aren't causing harm, you are just improving the quality.

As far as how that applies to humans and vaccines I can't tell ya because I do not know.

I’m saying this is the first time we’ve inserted artificial genetic sequences

Well it is about time. How many diseases like cancer might be cured by gene modification, stem cells, all that good stuff? The human body is highly flawed on its own. If there are technologies out there that can improve it then I am all for it.

But I don't think this is that...

This part . . ."The human body is highly flawed on its own". What makes it highly flawed? I think the exactly opposite statement could be made. I'd like to see you make something better starting out with nothing, absolute nothingness, then make anything thing from it. What a gigantic ego to have made such an arrogant statement. That attitude is so human and so flawed.

a reply to: JBurns

They’ve had so many safety revisions I can’t count.

The listed adverse reactions covers pretty much everything from myocarditis and blood clotting to guillain-barré syndrome.

originally posted by: Arizona2
a reply to: JBurns
C'mon now buddy...it wasn't just the mere introduction of new evidence that moved the needle on these issues.
It was multiple successful lawsuits resulting in huge settlements , combined with the possible threat of criminal prosecution for some scientists ignoring data that did.
Without the above mentioned events, we may still be spraying ourselves and everything we own with ddt, and teaching our grandkids how to French inhale.
It's not just like these scientists, and the bureaucrats that love them had an epiphany upon introduction of new evidence.

I fully concede the point. But those things did eventually get corrected.

The mere possibility something is XYZ does not make it true. Those people as you note presented evidence in a court of law, had properly cited sources and solid evidence.

That is all I am asking for

a reply to: Grenade

I seem to recall mention of at least one of those early on though.

What about these unexplained deaths?

originally posted by: JBurns

originally posted by: Arizona2
a reply to: JBurns
C'mon now buddy...it wasn't just the mere introduction of new evidence that moved the needle on these issues.
It was multiple successful lawsuits resulting in huge settlements , combined with the possible threat of criminal prosecution for some scientists ignoring data that did.
Without the above mentioned events, we may still be spraying ourselves and everything we own with ddt, and teaching our grandkids how to French inhale.
It's not just like these scientists, and the bureaucrats that love them had an epiphany upon introduction of new evidence.

I fully concede the point. But those things did eventually get corrected.

The mere possibility something is XYZ does not make it true. Those people as you note presented evidence in a court of law, had properly cited sources and solid evidence.

That is all I am asking for

In the case of Mrna vaccines, who do you sue? Who do you name as plaintiffs?

a reply to: JBurns
Excess Deaths - Major European Countries

As you can see last month excess deaths in Germany for example was more than 50% above the average. In 2022 and 2023 the average has been 15-30% month on month throughout Europe. Covid accounts for only a small proportion of these deaths, generally less than 5%

More deaths in Europe in summer 2022 than there was pre-vaccination and mid pandemic in summer 2020.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Grenade

What worldwide increase in unknown deaths are you referring to though? Can you show me the numbers and their source please?

I kindly ask that you provide evidence that claim is even true to begin with

You asked for unknown death data and you are given excess death data. Not the same thing.

a reply to: quintessentone

Can you explain these excess deaths?

If not, they're unknown.

Speculation doesn't count.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

Can you explain these excess deaths?

If not they're unknown.

Speculation doesn't count.

Can you explain what you originally meant by unknown deaths?

a reply to: quintessentone

Excess deaths which have an unknown cause. Exactly as i stated in the original post without your selective quote.

The worldwide increase in excess “unknown” deaths for me at least is an indicator something is seriously wrong.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

Excess deaths which have an unknown cause.

That data does not exist in the source you provided.