"Even if we assume their bullshit figures, an hour of contaminated DNA sitting inside your cell is too long. It shouldn’t even be there. Cyanide can kill within seconds to minutes. 50 minutes is plenty of time in the cellular world."
Just thought I would emphasize this excellent point of yours. This applies to a lot, if not all, of the junk/poison that is intentionally put inside our Beautiful Bodies by all the evil folks in "Medicine".
In a good paper you should rarely see opinion written as "... therefore x would not y in the cell". You wouldn't go there without experimental findings to support your hypothesis, which by this point has become pseudoscience: opinion. You can use words such as "... In vitro research by Smith et al.[09] demonstrated that x likely does not y". But they don't. Because it didn't.
In other words, it's a bullsh!t paper, badly written and should have been trashed at peer review for lacking and misusing references.
The sheer number of absolutist and universalist statements made within the paper tipped me off, especially with subjective wording ('quickly' isn't quantified; how quick is quickly? Who determined the speed? Versus what?).
I've not yet seen a good vaccine paper. They nearly all devolve into using the same set of fallacies, and most of them read like they did a draft version, found the data didn't support their conclusion, and so they kept re-running the analysis with different time periods of selection until they found one that looked 'vaguely good'.
I did an extensive rebuttal to a website trying to defend MMR jabs, and one of the papers they cited, I kid you not, basically 'deanonymised' patient data that they agreed to only use anonymously, and even then, their 'deanonymity' package was... basically racist. They assumed race based on zip codes.
Ugur Sahin told the RKI it was 24-30 h for modRNA
https://api.rkileak.com/f/Sitzungsprotokolle/2021/Ergebnisprotokoll_Krisenstabssitzung_2020-01-11.docx.pdf
"Even if we assume their bullshit figures, an hour of contaminated DNA sitting inside your cell is too long. It shouldn’t even be there. Cyanide can kill within seconds to minutes. 50 minutes is plenty of time in the cellular world."
Just thought I would emphasize this excellent point of yours. This applies to a lot, if not all, of the junk/poison that is intentionally put inside our Beautiful Bodies by all the evil folks in "Medicine".
You do good work.
In a good paper you should rarely see opinion written as "... therefore x would not y in the cell". You wouldn't go there without experimental findings to support your hypothesis, which by this point has become pseudoscience: opinion. You can use words such as "... In vitro research by Smith et al.[09] demonstrated that x likely does not y". But they don't. Because it didn't.
In other words, it's a bullsh!t paper, badly written and should have been trashed at peer review for lacking and misusing references.
That is, if it WAS peer reviewed?
The sheer number of absolutist and universalist statements made within the paper tipped me off, especially with subjective wording ('quickly' isn't quantified; how quick is quickly? Who determined the speed? Versus what?).
I've not yet seen a good vaccine paper. They nearly all devolve into using the same set of fallacies, and most of them read like they did a draft version, found the data didn't support their conclusion, and so they kept re-running the analysis with different time periods of selection until they found one that looked 'vaguely good'.
I did an extensive rebuttal to a website trying to defend MMR jabs, and one of the papers they cited, I kid you not, basically 'deanonymised' patient data that they agreed to only use anonymously, and even then, their 'deanonymity' package was... basically racist. They assumed race based on zip codes.
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/i/66645510/the-study-tries-to-guess-ethnicity-by-algorithm-as-a-variable
You make unfounded accusations. Why?
You didn't really answer my questions though, did you? You don't strike me as someone genuinely trying to engage.
Most people understand. I wish to show NO RESPECT for joo reptiles.
...by spreading arguments that sound like a child wrote them?
You might want to try Stormfront if they’re still operating. Sounds more like your cup of tea….
I think the gentleman is perhaps a Pfizer representative trying to damage the credibility of the rebuke.
They Lied. Join the campaign to Take Action and Raise Public Awareness at
https://TheyLied.ca/
Pfizer is managed/owned by joos. They are protected by law to lie.
Why do you write it as 'joos' and not Jews? Are you intentionally trying to write it so it sounds dumb?
I'm guessing he's trying to evade a (probably) nonexistent filter.
Thats exactly the way a Klansman in good standing would write it…