Well, This is disturbing…..”Zombie” Pandemic Dead People With Bluetooth Connections?

[tankasnowgod]

You know that graphene oxide nanoparticals, Luciferase and a cocktail of other undesireable poisonous things are in the vaxx vials, right?

No, I don't "know" that, in regards to the specific things you mentioned. I have "heard" that.

Although any specific ingredients aren't all that important to me. I take Peat's advice to not take any drug until it's been available to the public for at least 20 years. The demonvax still has 19 to go, in that regards. And based on VAERS reports, and pathetic effectiveness claims (even the official trials only claim a possible 1.3% Absolute Risk Reduction for a slight cold version of so called "Covid"), there is zero reason to take any of them in the first place.

And while investigations and proof of such things would add another level of fraud and danger to these so called "vaccines," all you have to do is read the official ingredients to see that there are potential dangerous substances in them (normally listed under lipids). What is SM-102? What is ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis? Or (2-hexyldecanoate), 2 [(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide? Why aren't people talking about the dangers of THOSE substances? They are straight up listed as ingredients!

Is it because (2-hexyldecanoate), 2 [(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide isn't as easy to write as Luciferase?

And the PCR test swabs have graphene nanoparticals on them. That’s already been proven.

Then post the proof. I haven't seen this "proof," though again, I have heard the rumors. I don't deny it's a possibility, but it's a long way from "proven," from what I've seen and heard.

I thought most informed people knew this.

Again, if you are so informed, post the proof. And not just a video about someone talking about it, but a well conducted study.

So why wouldn’t the test swabs not have the Luciferase, if the vials have them? It’s not a stretch to see that this could certainly be a possibilty.

I didn't say it wasn't a "possibility." I straight up asked you for proof (which you haven't provided). The rest of your comment keeps on talking about how "this has been proven" and "that has been proven," but if it really has, post the proof, ideally along with your own explanation and understanding.

 

[FocusedOnHealth]

No, I don't "know" that, in regards to the specific things you mentioned. I have "heard" that.

Although any specific ingredients aren't all that important to me. I take Peat's advice to not take any drug until it's been available to the public for at least 20 years. The demonvax still has 19 to go, in that regards. And based on VAERS reports, and pathetic effectiveness claims (even the official trials only claim a possible 1.3% Absolute Risk Reduction for a slight cold version of so called "Covid"), there is zero reason to take any of them in the first place.

And while investigations and proof of such things would add another level of fraud and danger to these so called "vaccines," all you have to do is read the official ingredients to see that there are potential dangerous substances in them (normally listed under lipids). What is SM-102? What is ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis? Or (2-hexyldecanoate), 2 [(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide? Why aren't people talking about the dangers of THOSE substances? They are straight up listed as ingredients!

Is it because (2-hexyldecanoate), 2 [(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide isn't as easy to write as Luciferase?

Then post the proof. I haven't seen this "proof," though again, I have heard the rumors. I don't deny it's a possibility, but it's a long way from "proven," from what I've seen and heard.

Again, if you are so informed, post the proof. And not just a video about someone talking about it, but a well conducted study.

I didn't say it wasn't a "possibility." I straight up asked you for proof (which you haven't provided). The rest of your comment keeps on talking about how "this has been proven" and "that has been proven," but if it really has, post the proof, ideally along with your own explanation and understanding.

There are so many videos posted all over the internet, but here are just a few :

WATCH: Prof. Werner Bergholz Finds Nanoparticles and Ethylene Oxide on COVID Test Swabs

Share this information with any parents you know to ensure children aren’t subjected to these dangerous, invasive nasal swabs any longer. Prof. Werner Bergholz has researched the test sticks utilized for COVID testing on the global population. Bergholz is a former professor of electrical...

welovetrump.com

View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZfcbdVOp7Yco/





View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/t1LFQ6frXVEG/



View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/aKMLknIQ2Pcu/



View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/pTkGhi3eyOZL/



View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/BxypTiAdrxDV/


PCR test nasal swabs contain a dangerous radioactive toxic chemical known to cause cancers.

SLOVAKIA STUDY FINDS PCR "TEST" SWABS CONTAMINATED WITH DARPA HYDROGEL AND LITHIUM

 

[tankasnowgod]

There are so many videos posted all over the internet, but here are just a few :

Did you even read what I wrote?

Videos aren't "proof," not on their own. Here's a video of Aliens blowing up the White House-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFG-4Ge668


"Proof" would be well conducted studies and analyses of the various vaccines and swabs and such. The Materials and Methods would be described, as would the results, and this would allow you to challenge the findings or conclusions of the researchers. If a researcher makes a video of his or her findings, that is great, but they also need to post the research that they did as to how they came to that conclusion.

 

[FocusedOnHealth]

Did you even read what I wrote?

Videos aren't "proof," not on their own. Here's a video of Aliens blowing up the White House-



"Proof" would be well conducted studies and analyses of the various vaccines and swabs and such. The Materials and Methods would be described, as would the results, and this would allow you to challenge the findings or conclusions of the researchers. If a researcher makes a video of his or her findings, that is great, but they also need to post the research that they did as to how they came to that conclusion.

Believe what you want. There are 100’s of videos on the subject sighting well conducted studies and analysis on what is on the test swabs in the videos I posted. These are just a very few. You can research for yourself. I can’t make you do that. You seem to want to be spoonfed. If you can’t even watch any of them ( after asking for it) then that is your choice to be ignorant. I can’t help you.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Believe what you want. There are 100’s of videos on the subject sighting well conducted studies and analysis on what is on the test swabs in the videos I posted.

Then why don't you post the studies directly?

If you watched a video, and they cite a study, you should be able to look it up on Pubmed or Google Scholar. We do that on the forum all the time. Ideally, you could post both. "Hey, here's a video about this researcher talking about Graphene in the AZ vaccine, and here's the paper he mentioned." More thorough, and more believable.

These are just a very few. You can research for yourself.

Ah, the lazy response. "See, I didn't do the research, but why don't you adopt my opinion and then do all the work?"

I can’t make you do that. You seem to want to be spoonfed.

No. I simply want YOU to back up your opinions.

If you can’t even watch any of them ( after asking for it) then that is your choice to be ignorant. I can’t help you.

If they cite studies, then I assume you've read the studies they cited. You should post them.

If you check my recent threads, you can see that I have done exactly that in regards to topics I am interested in. I posted a recent study about Retinoic Acid in Mice improving metabolism and Fatty Live, and one about Long Term Testosterone Replacement and Long Term weight loss.

 

[FocusedOnHealth]

Then why don't you post the studies directly?

If you watched a video, and they cite a study, you should be able to look it up on Pubmed or Google Scholar. We do that on the forum all the time. Ideally, you could post both. "Hey, here's a video about this researcher talking about Graphene in the AZ vaccine, and here's the paper he mentioned." More thorough, and more believable.

Ah, the lazy response. "See, I didn't do the research, but why don't you adopt my opinion and then do all the work?"

No. I simply want YOU to back up your opinions.

If they cite studies, then I assume you've read the studies they cited. You should post them.

If you check my recent threads, you can see that I have done exactly that in regards to topics I am interested in. I posted a recent study about Retinoic Acid in Mice improving metabolism and Fatty Live, and one about Long Term Testosterone Replacement and Long Term weight loss.

https://www.holistichealthonline.info/pcr-swabs/

Dr Antonietta M. Gatti

Antonietta M. Gatti, Ph.D. is the coordinator of the Italian Institute of Technology's Project of Nanoecotoxicology, called INESE.

www.azonano.com

SCATTER78 Link Situs Slot Gacor Terpercaya 2024 Hari Ini — Slot Gacor Terbaru

Scatter78 Adalah Daftar Link Situs Slot Gacor Terbaru No 1 Dan Terpercaya Hari Ini Tahun 2024 Agen Penyedia Game Terlengkap Dan Terpopuler Dengan Fitur RTP Gampang Menang Dan Winrate Maxwin Paling Tinggi.

evolvetoecology.org

*pubmed studies are not always reliable and they are biased, being controlled by big pharma..And they only post “pro” nanotechnology articles (which is the wave of the NWO future) and will not post anything telling of the dangers of pcr tests, or nanotechnology. You have to go outside the established big pharma “pubmed” studies, to get true independent research with this particular topic. That is why honest scientists have to fund their own independent studies.

If Pubmed studies and google scholar is all you are relying upon, then you are severely limiting yourself.

Why are you unwilling to watch the videos? What are you afraid you might discover?

 

[tankasnowgod]

Why are you unwilling to watch the videos? What are you afraid you might discover?

It's not that I'm "afraid" to discover anything. It's just that time is my most limited resource (yours too), and since I'm not taking a vaccine or PCR test anyway (as they are completely useless for their stated purpose, and I know they are dangerous, regardless of any unstated ingredients), I don't see much point. Besides, I've heard the rumors, and I doubt there is anything in the videos that rise to the level of "proof." If so, you could timestamp it, and say "relevant part from 37 to 42 minutes" or what have you.

I agree, studies on Pubmed and Google Scholar aren't the be all, end all, but all your criticisms of their potential limitations go double for bitchute videos and blog posts.

And you certainly can find damning evidence in both of those places, published in their own journals. The Lancet posted a piece calculating the Absolute Risk Reduction of "Covid cases" in the vaccine trials, and they were 1.3% or less. Jafaar, et al published a study showing the PCR test spits out 97% false positives when run at 35 cycles or more.

 

[FocusedOnHealth]

It's not that I'm "afraid" to discover anything. It's just that time is my most limited resource (yours too), and since I'm not taking a vaccine or PCR test anyway (as they are completely useless for their stated purpose, and I know they are dangerous, regardless of any unstated ingredients), I don't see much point. Besides, I've heard the rumors, and I doubt there is anything in the videos that rise to the level of "proof." If so, you could timestamp it, and say "relevant part from 37 to 42 minutes" or what have you.

I agree, studies on Pubmed and Google Scholar aren't the be all, end all, but all your criticisms of their potential limitations go double for bitchute videos and blog posts.

And you certainly can find damning evidence in both of those places, published in their own journals. The Lancet posted a piece calculating the Absolute Risk Reduction of "Covid cases" in the vaccine trials, and they were 1.3% or less. Jafaar, et al published a study showing the PCR test spits out 97% false positives when run at 35 cycles or more.

Post the Lancet piece then, since you are so on about “posting studies”

 

[tankasnowgod]

Post the Lancet piece then, since you are so on about “posting studies”

I have previously.... now who wants to be spoonfed?

But here it is.... calculating both Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Vaccinate, and clarifying the difference between Absolute and Relative Risk (the later being the one you always hear about in the Media)-

Lancet ARR and NNV vs. RRR

It was reading Anthony Colpo where I found out about that study. Here is one article where he references it, I think he does an excellent job (though he will sometimes curse in his articles, but they are still top notch)-

The COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’: Unsafe and Ineffective

Science is supposed to be an impartial and ruthless quest for facts. In reality, much of what is presented as 'science' today is sheer nonsense. Modern science has long since degenerated into a bastion of corruption and politically motivated propaganda. The two main funders of scientific...

anthonycolpo.com

 

[FocusedOnHealth]

I have previously.... now who wants to be spoonfed?

But here it is.... calculating both Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Vaccinate, and clarifying the difference between Absolute and Relative Risk (the later being the one you always hear about in the Media)-

Lancet ARR and NNV vs. RRR

It was reading Anthony Colpo where I found out about that study. Here is one article where he references it, I think he does an excellent job (though he will sometimes curse in his articles, but they are still top notch)-

The COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’: Unsafe and Ineffective

Science is supposed to be an impartial and ruthless quest for facts. In reality, much of what is presented as 'science' today is sheer nonsense. Modern science has long since degenerated into a bastion of corruption and politically motivated propaganda. The two main funders of scientific...

anthonycolpo.com

Thanks!

 

[Drareg]

Please go and listen to her interview with Reiner Fuellmich

I did, I don't trust her, I'm interested to see how it unfolds, I still have suspicions about all this, I feel like its a movie script, the bad guys will be brought down and the utopia will unfold or its a false flag, the bad guys were influenced by China therefore war.

 

[Peatness]

I did, I don't trust her, I'm interested to see how it unfolds, I still have suspicions about all this, I feel like its a movie script, the bad guys will be brought down and the utopia will unfold or its a false flag, the bad guys were influenced by China therefore war.

For the sake of my sanity I like to think there are still some good people out there. I think Whitney webb is one of them – however, if I learn otherwise I will just adjust my thinking. The last 2 years has given me that flexibility.

 

[FocusedOnHealth]

Darpa Hydrogel is Also on the PCR Nasal swaps…


View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/y6ubmz3aHBjE/?list=notifications&randomize=false


It just keeps getting worse.

 

[RealNeat]

new virus zombie movie trending on Netflix top 10 right now...

 

[FocusedOnHealth]

new virus zombie movie trending on Netflix top 10 right now...

That’s not surprising. They have to tell us, pre-condition the masses.