I'm pretty sure that's the secret. I have gotten berated for posting factual evidence because I was "unpopular" (cough McKernan cough), meanwhile popular people can keep stacking their skateboard and still have a horde of brownnosers on standby to offer a variety of excuses why their mistake was definitely a super-intentional clever chess move.
I suspect he's playing both sides and/or is controlled opposition. Not likely that he received anything more than saline. Just my two cents and personal healthy skepticism of all mRNA technologies until proven otherwise. The ads for va$$ines these days on television are nauseating.
At this state of development it's bad. That doesn't mean the whole principle of technology has to be bad. It wasn't ready for prime time, much less as something to broadly treat people with without good indication - and they did it anyway.
But "every" technology starts out bad. The first transistor did not convince a lot of people that that would replace vacuum tube technology. Decades later, only guitar amp enthusiasts and some "audiophiles" use the latter. That there will be a path to success from where one currently stands, is rarely obvious, for complicated things. But they did solve _some_ of the heap of problems there were initially.
I'm not saying I'm not skeptical. E.g. controlling where the stuff goes and does its work seems unlikely to be solved, from my layman perspective.
Then again, the late Kary Mullis was working on stuff that could target specific cells in the body for some purpose, as he talked about in a 2010 google talk. Who the hell knows.
This limited type of thinking of "not possible" from the current standpoint is the same thing that prevents many of my engineer colleagues from estimating any likelihood of those big" conspiracy theories" of captured structures working in the background, for some cabal's purposes, being remotely true - because, unfortunately, they don't apply their engineer's product design experience to this topic, which is extra disapponting to me. Hardly anything interesting, project wise, ever was clear exactly how it would turn out to work, what obstacles needed to be overcome, at a first glance. But they expect this type of thing to be immediately obvious, as opposed to the "elites" engineering their kraken structures over decades - and if it looks like "can't work", then that's it.
You're conflating functionally bad, with unsafe, with morally wrong.
"The first transistor did not convince a lot of people that that would replace vacuum tube technology."
So what? Transistors did not kill people en-mass. We're talking about an engineered bioweapon here.
"At this state of development it's bad."
It will always be bad. Morally. It modifies genes. Your governments are corrupt. They killed children with it.
Your argument is essentially boiling down to 'well the nuke bombs killed a bunch of people but it'll get better later on'. Oh yeah? How? What's an improved mass murder bioweapon? More effective at killing? Maybe kill a few less?
Who are you mRNA shills who creep out the woodworks, post a wall of opinionated, unevidenced emotional appeals?
Exactly. For therapy of severaly sick people with bad outlook w.r.t. (quality) lifespan left, that could have been something.
It's a difference whether one unleashes e.g. chemo-therapy on very sick people vs. absolutely healthy people (like those with a positive HIV test, for instance...), too. (I know some people question how useful chemo actually is for e.g. cancer, but it's only for illustration of principle here)
🤡Elon Mask🤡
"Popular people never do anything wrong", this must be the magic key to the kingdom of sleepers.
I'm pretty sure that's the secret. I have gotten berated for posting factual evidence because I was "unpopular" (cough McKernan cough), meanwhile popular people can keep stacking their skateboard and still have a horde of brownnosers on standby to offer a variety of excuses why their mistake was definitely a super-intentional clever chess move.
We have to have a little patience. Even the communism disintegrated by itself. The burden of popularity crushed it.
Emperor Elonicus is trolling everybody. I'm skeptical that he took any of the "substance" to prevent the "malady".
Is he trolling us in his financed business plans to manufacture the toxic shot as well?
Company filings are available, along with photographs of his attendance at CureVac.
I suspect he's playing both sides and/or is controlled opposition. Not likely that he received anything more than saline. Just my two cents and personal healthy skepticism of all mRNA technologies until proven otherwise. The ads for va$$ines these days on television are nauseating.
He is playing what the rich are playing. Moneypower game. No sides.
Here are some more entertaining movies
https://watch.angelstudios.com/ https://www.crunchyroll.com/videos/new https://www.fathomevents.com/events/Left-Behind-Rise-of-the-Antichrist
In-fact, not once have you provided any evidence that mRNA is a good technology. You presume it without any evidence as such.
Where are your case studies and safety trials? Which is your evidence it is a 'good technology'?
Thanks for confirming you have no evidence for your claims.
"All this charade does not mean mRNA is inherently bad technology."
It does when you're talking to the guy who is the only one publishing documents showing mRNA is unstable, unsafe and not fit for purpose.
You say this remark on every article critical, yet when I shoot back the examples you ignore. Why?
At this state of development it's bad. That doesn't mean the whole principle of technology has to be bad. It wasn't ready for prime time, much less as something to broadly treat people with without good indication - and they did it anyway.
But "every" technology starts out bad. The first transistor did not convince a lot of people that that would replace vacuum tube technology. Decades later, only guitar amp enthusiasts and some "audiophiles" use the latter. That there will be a path to success from where one currently stands, is rarely obvious, for complicated things. But they did solve _some_ of the heap of problems there were initially.
I'm not saying I'm not skeptical. E.g. controlling where the stuff goes and does its work seems unlikely to be solved, from my layman perspective.
Then again, the late Kary Mullis was working on stuff that could target specific cells in the body for some purpose, as he talked about in a 2010 google talk. Who the hell knows.
This limited type of thinking of "not possible" from the current standpoint is the same thing that prevents many of my engineer colleagues from estimating any likelihood of those big" conspiracy theories" of captured structures working in the background, for some cabal's purposes, being remotely true - because, unfortunately, they don't apply their engineer's product design experience to this topic, which is extra disapponting to me. Hardly anything interesting, project wise, ever was clear exactly how it would turn out to work, what obstacles needed to be overcome, at a first glance. But they expect this type of thing to be immediately obvious, as opposed to the "elites" engineering their kraken structures over decades - and if it looks like "can't work", then that's it.
You're conflating functionally bad, with unsafe, with morally wrong.
"The first transistor did not convince a lot of people that that would replace vacuum tube technology."
So what? Transistors did not kill people en-mass. We're talking about an engineered bioweapon here.
"At this state of development it's bad."
It will always be bad. Morally. It modifies genes. Your governments are corrupt. They killed children with it.
Your argument is essentially boiling down to 'well the nuke bombs killed a bunch of people but it'll get better later on'. Oh yeah? How? What's an improved mass murder bioweapon? More effective at killing? Maybe kill a few less?
Who are you mRNA shills who creep out the woodworks, post a wall of opinionated, unevidenced emotional appeals?
Exactly. For therapy of severaly sick people with bad outlook w.r.t. (quality) lifespan left, that could have been something.
It's a difference whether one unleashes e.g. chemo-therapy on very sick people vs. absolutely healthy people (like those with a positive HIV test, for instance...), too. (I know some people question how useful chemo actually is for e.g. cancer, but it's only for illustration of principle here)