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

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: chr0naut

To this end, the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company created a Medical Relations Division and advertised it in medical journals. Reynolds began paying for research and then citing it in its ads like Philip Morris. In 1946, Reynolds launched an ad campaign with the slogan, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” They’d solicited this “finding” by giving doctors a free carton of Camel cigarettes, and then asking what brand they smoked.

Feel free to dive down that rabbit hole should you so choose.

I am aware of this 'bad science' organized by the tobacco companies marketing arms.

Many of those same 'researchers and scientists' moved on to the dietary supplements companies, and other dubious marketing of alleged miracle cures when 'big tobacco' money dried up.

But at the same time, legitimate 'official' medically approved credible researchers opposed these snake-oil guys.

Guess who won?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm assuming nothing nor did i state there was a single cause.

Merely stating there's an increase in overall mortality which has an unknown cause. If we don't know exactly what's causing the increase or investigate then it remains unknown and you're speculating.

I highlighted the sticking point in your argument, above.

a reply to: chr0naut

Overall mortality is a singular measurement.

Back on topic, aren’t these mRNA molecules designed to breakdown within a few days of Injection?

I'm not sure why HCV sufferers would be more or less likely to be vaccinated for COVID than the general population.

So I'm not sure why you could not use the 10% number as a measure to indicate approximate contamination in the rest of the blood supply.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm assuming nothing nor did i state there was a single cause.

Merely stating there's an increase in overall mortality which has an unknown cause. If we don't know exactly what's causing the increase or investigate then it remains unknown and you're speculating.

I highlighted the sticking point in your argument, above.

Interesting how no one wants to find out what that mysterious cause is. Especially while all cause mortality is higher than during peak covid and covid deaths have plummeted.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Neither of you even know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what mRNA encodes for, it's not all the same gene sequence.

I'm getting tired of hearing people claim I don't know what I'm talking about when I clearly state I - Do - Not.

The problem is you/they will never elaborate. Can't give any actual details, because those could be checked out.

I can relate to this.

Sometimes you really just want to know what the hell is going on but instead of answers, you get the same crap on both sides, both blaming the other for the... wait for it... same crap!


Yes, I can see 10% of the vax getting into the blood supply. It makes complete sense. It's likely 10% of the people giving blood had recently been vaxed or boosted and it's still in their system. I'm not sure why this is surprising either.


So the unvaxed have a 10% chance of getting vaxed without their consent. That's the most laymen way of putting it.

That's all there is to it. Nothing more, nothing less. Is it bad? Probably. You're getting something you didn't consent to when you receive blood. It should be treated as though you were given the wrong blood type. Unfortunately it'll cost more to test for the vax, maybe? Perhaps for labeling at least. Still, I think people who aren't vaxed should have the right to not be vaxed by proxy. Coralling people like cattle and forcing them to jab is pretty damn inhumane. We treat animals better, thanks to peta or whatever they're calling themselves today. Maybe Brioche

Yes - People are dicks. But this didn't really take brain work to understand the point.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: chr0naut

Overall mortality is a singular measurement.

That does not mean that it doesn't have many different causes, nor that they haven't identified what those causes are.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm assuming nothing nor did i state there was a single cause.

Merely stating there's an increase in overall mortality which has an unknown cause. If we don't know exactly what's causing the increase or investigate then it remains unknown and you're speculating.

I highlighted the sticking point in your argument, above.

Interesting how no one wants to find out what that mysterious cause is. Especially while all cause mortality is higher than during peak covid and covid deaths have plummeted.

What is driving all cause excess mortality? - BMJ

Uncoupling of all-cause excess mortality from COVID-19 cases in a highly vaccinated state - The Lancet

Mont hly mortality analysis, England and Wales: January 2023 - UK Office for National Statistics

As the lethality of new strains reduces, but the infectiousness increases, there are fewer deaths directly from the disease, and more deaths where COVID is a contributory factor in deaths from what were previously only considered secondary comorbidities when the strains were more virulent.

a reply to: chr0naut

That's one THEORY.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: chr0naut

That's one THEORY.

Yes.

Please state clearly an alternate theory, or theories, because anyone can generalize without providing any specifics or basis.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: chr0naut

That's one THEORY.

Keep in mind you're arguing with somebody that tried to convince me that eating GMO rice with altered mRNA is the same thing as injecting biolipid encapsulated mRNA that alters gene expression to produce toxic spike proteins into your bloodstream. You're arguing with a polemic ideologue. The discussion will only ever be based in rational empirical science when it serves their support of a radical authoritarian agenda. Once it shifts, which the preponderance of data has, it turns irrational. No data will ever change their mind about the government being correct about every aspect of this debate. Masks, lockdowns, mass vaccination in demographics that get no benefit and have increased risk, violations of Nuremberg Code, you name it.

Another person you're arguing with about the uknown increases in excess mortality, as of a couple days ago, didn't understand the distinction between COVID-19 -disease- and SARS-COV-2 -viral pathogens that cause it- at all. If you're hoping that saying "unexplained" instead of "unknown" may help them understand that the issue has nothing to do with individual's cause of death you likely will be sorely disappointed. It would not be at all surprising if they don't comprehend why anybody would have questions when mortality after vaccine rollouts has consistently exceeded expectation by up to 50%. In their mind there is a cause of death, thus it can't be unknown or unexplained. A secondary root of causation is too abstract for them.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Point taken.

I now realise that when engaging in their circus I need to behave like a clown.

You've actually spurred me on to research mass formation psychosis.

a reply to: Grenade

mass formation psychosis

An objective and unbiased look into this precise phenomena would be hugely beneficial.

a reply to: Grenade

That doesn't demonstrate correlation between vaccination and any sort of mass casualty die-offs.

a reply to: chr0naut

That's just it, the virus itself wasn't a great killer and the vaccines are far less harmful than it. If this is their big secret weapon then we have nothing to worry about, they are hairbrained and incompetent

Its 99% innuendo and use of carefully selected words to elicit a specific reaction

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: chr0naut

That's one THEORY.

Yes.

Please state clearly an alternate theory, or theories, because anyone can generalize without providing any specifics or basis.

Sadly without generalization they will have to make a concrete statement which will be quickly quashed.

Its "JFK-JR still alive" all over again. One botched prediction after the other followed up by more predictions. Only now, they aren't even giving predictions just nebulous "look at the data" "something nefarious COULD be afoot"

a reply to: JBurns

Do you have any recommendations?

a reply to: JBurns

historical truth is too often merely a word: it [i.e. the truth] is impossible at the time of the events, in the heat of opposing passions, and if later, people remain in agreement, this is because the concerned parties, the opponents (or contrarians) are no longer around. But what is then this historical truth, most of the time? An agreed upon fable, as someone said very ingeniously/cleverly.

Or as Napoleon probably said "Cette vérité historique, tant implorée, à laquelle chacun s'empress d'en appeler, n'est trop souvent qu'un mot: elle est impossible au moment même des évènements, dans la chaleur des passions croisées; et si, plus tard, on démeure d'accord, c'est que les intéressés, les contradicteurs ne sont plus."

a reply to: JBurns

Yet it can't be ruled out and we should at least have an independent public investigation into the pandemic response and vaccine rollout.