"In any case, what we’re living through is not a medical or scientific event, but a global crime scene that uses as props certain medical and scientific aspects".
This narrative ("NLPs are to blame for everything") came from Ralph Baric and the US Department of Defence. It is intended to pretend that a single "mistake" was made with a single mechanism. This means that the perpetrators can, firstly, deny responsibility for the deliberate harm to 6 billion people and, secondly, that they can claim again that this bioweapon is "safe and effective" by making a small change in the design. I humbly apologize for having to delete this "simple explanation for everything" for the third time. I ask for your understanding. By the way, Dr Yeadon of course already pointed out in 2020 (and again later) that the NLP damage mechanism was already well known before the introduction of the bioweapon. Once again, I apologize for the deletion. In biology, there are no simple answers for everything, and it is considered certain that there are several damage mechanisms in "vaccination". One of the examples that any layman can understand: mRNA technology would be unpredictable even if NLPs were harmless. There is no STOP button, there is an unpredictable distribution problem within the body, and it cannot be dosed. So it would be harmful anyway. There is nothing in it that could help health (against what?). For this reason and for other reasons, this narrative is untenable.
I think the date for Mike Yeadon's foreward is wrong. "Dr. Mike Yeadon, October 20, 2024". As I'm reading this article today it is only the 11th October 2024.
"If harms were not intentional, they would have used saline or something else that’s harmless. Safe mRNA vaccines are an immunological impossibility."
Not necessarily. It is possible they were wanting to experiment with various dosages of various ingredients for multiple mass medical studies of undisclosed purpose. Any harms may not be explictly intentional, but might simply be lucky side effects.
One of my hypotheses: Consider that most (all?) of the meglomaniac globalists and Black Nobility are aging. Consider that they also have a desire to live forever (see their funding for longevity science). Assuming they believe they can cure their aging bodies (repair heart damage, liver damage, eliminate cancers, etc) they may want to rapidly identify which genes are responsible for those disease states (or which are responsible for preventing those states of disease). Enter mRNA. In their minds they just need to test several thousand genes and combinations of genes being turned on and off in various combinations. They would need to test each one a few thousand subjects (about the size of a batch of covid jabs). They would need to collect data for their studies of course, hence vax passes and national vax databases, and how convenient there is OneHealth globally, My Health Record in Aus, MyHealthEData in the USA (thanks Trump!), and most hospitals and medical facilities will be using "the cloud" (almost certainly Microsoft or Amazon, which just so happen to be majority owned by two prominent aging meglomaniac globalists). Oh no! This combination of genes being turned off or on induces turbo cancer in the brain. Oh no! This combination induces turbo cancer of the prostate! Oh no.... you get the picture. Now in their minds they might be thinking that the inverse combination of genese off and on could prevent those cancers. Of course they have most likley designed these experiments a bit better than my layperson's brain can come up with. Australia's health minister in 2021 Greg Hunt (formerly a WEF strategist) even referred to the global roll out of the covid jabs as the biggest medical experiment in human history.
To circle back to the "lucky side effects" comment earlier, the mass disease, disability and death helps contributes to their other meglomaniac goal to retire a huge portion of their herds of human resources.
I understood your statement as follows. Your hypothesis only adds, an additional, possible purpose of medical fraud. You completely ignored the topic of the toxicity mechanisms and the toxic substances contained in the bioweapon called "vaccination" in your comment. Therefore, I consider your statement to be an attempt to keep uncomfortable and very stressful information (intent to harm) away from consciousness. This way, one sleeps better and remains in a good mood. Perhaps you could please try to identify any substance in the "vaccinations" that, in your opinion, is not harmful to health? I am afraid that you will not find such a substance. We can simplify the discussion and ask : which chemical foreign substances will not harm a healthy person or a person with a cold if they are injected into them and enter their bloodstream? If you also take into account the compulsory "vaccination", and the proven damage to the immune systems of "vaccinated" people, you would find that these substances were intended to shorten human lifespan. Your hypothesis does not address this issue at all, does not mention it at all, and completely ignores this part of reality. In this context, it is irrelevant whether your hypothesis is correct or not. At this point I could add that a simple nasal test, without the "vaccination", is enough to determine the genetic code. The damage caused by the "vaccination" would not have been necessary for this.
However, it is human nature to like to push stress and unpleasant realizations like these out of consciousness. In such cases, a clearly irrefutable realization sometimes takes several months to finally be understood. However, many people do not want to understand the cruel reality, and those who do understand suffer from stress that is not at all easy to deal with.
Hi Suavek and thankyou for the considered response.
I don't know where I've referred to the jabs as "vaccination". They are obvioulsy not that. I am in full agreement there.
I didn't mean that they were collecting genetic codes with the jabs. I meant they were possibly testing different genetic modifications in different batches.
And to clarify my earlier comment, I was not disagreeing with "Safe mRNA vaccines are an immunological impossibility". I should have only quoted the first part "If harms were not intentional, they would have used saline or something else that’s harmless".
I guess my intial "not necessarily" was more semantic. i.e. Did they intend harm as an objective or did they simply not care whether harm was caused or not in achieving a goal to identify which genetic toggles have what impacts on different states of disease (and aging). Of course both could be true, they could have intended to identify the genetic toggles AND to cause harm. It is not unusual for Ordo Ab Chao types to use situations to achieve multiple ends. And they could have used them to give everyone MAC addresses too. I certainly won't sleep better believing any of those possible options versus another. They are all incredibly nefarious.
As far as the contents of the vials are concerned, I am not equipped to examine them and so far the media and alt media landscape is littered with conflicting information. From what I can tell I don't think that question has been settled. Some sources claimed this brand had X times as much mrna as another brand. Some sources claimed there was no mrna in others. Some say there are nanobots or at least the ingredients for nanobots to self-assemble. Others say there's no nanobots. Some sources say they're 'contaminated' with all sorts of nasty stuff. How Bad Is My Batch and other sources suggests there is HUGE variation in adverse effects from various batches. Both these things (the differing claims about the contents and the huge variation in effects) could support my hypothesis that different batches actually had different contents and were being used for different medical experiments.
Lastly, I wouldn't agree that it is irrelevent whether my hypothesis about the motive is true or not. Former FBI Profiler Clint Van Zandt: "Motive is important because without an understanding of why people commit certain crimes in the way they do, we are left to begin at square one on every investigation, something we simply don’t have the time or the resources to do". The people responsible are businessmen, wielders of power... they didn't kill millions (intentionally or negligently) just for the fun of it. I am certain they want to depopulate us. I suspect they think they don't need the vast majority of us because robots and AI are more obedient and don't consume as much resources and don't need toilet breaks. But I think think they still want to extract as much value from "their" human resources in the process. The masses of human resources surplus to requirements are now only useful as medical guinea pigs.
They wrote this in reference to the following words of Dr Yeadon:
"If harms were not intentional, they would have used saline or something else that’s harmless. Safe mRNA vaccines are an immunological impossibility."
You don't have to know the contents of the vials to see their consequences. These substances were injected into perfectly healthy people and the current illnesses predicted by Dr. Mike Yeadon, Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi and others have been confirmed. These are not, as some people think, the "side effects", but rather the "intended effects" of the alleged "vaccination". "Covid" did not exist. How can you then claim at the beginning of your first comment that the intention to cause harm was "not necessarily" ascertainable? Of course, it is reassuring to think that these are some kind of regrettable side effects caused only by negligence. Here, EVERYTHING from A to Z was planned for more than 25 years and the damage was known IN ADVANCE. Negligence is something different. Here, there was no presumption of a risk of damage, but a certainty. Even those who are currently doing quite well were poisoned. Certainty is something completely different to negligence. The immune system was damaged in everyone who did not receive saline solution. Such strong poisons do leave a trace. Why do you write "not necessarily" when you do not know anything about the toxic aspect and a top toxicologist (Dr. Yeadon) has previously explained "toxicity by design" in detail in several articles? Please look at how much work I have also invested in these explanations in order to publish them. How many articles can you find on this topic in my Substack? I still consider your claim to be completely irrelevant with regard to the existing toxicity. I did not say that this is unimportant in itself.
I don't understand why so many laypeople claim to be smarter than a toxicologist and suggest that he missed an additional possibility. The toxicity present has nothing to do with someone having ADDITIONAL purposes. In this sense, your hypothesis misses the point and the core of the problem. There are multiple mechanisms of harm in these substances that can serve NO OTHER PURPOSE than to harm and sterilize. Have you not read this statement from Dr. Yeadon? These substances are NOT USEFUL FOR ANYTHING ELSE. Your hypothesis has been known for 2 years, so you don't have to worry about Dr. Yeadon missing or forgetting your information. However, these things have nothing to do with the proven and previously known toxicity. They propose a narrative that could be called "human sacrifice in the name of knowledge" but to the words of Dr Yeadon ("If harms were not intentional, they would have used saline or something else that’s harmless. Safe mRNA vaccines are an immunological impossibility.") you write: "not necessarily". There is a logical error here because your assumption does not contradict Dr Yeadon's claim at all. In other words, you do not offer another or better option. They simply offer a possible ADDITIONAL purpose for the fraud.Therefore, your statement "not necessarily" seems illogical to me and excuse me if I put it this way: a bit like a know-it-all.
However, if you really want to maintain the feeling that you live in a less disturbing world than it actually is, then no one can explain to you the malicious intent to do harm.
Because the symptoms after the injection were predictable, this means that the substances and "mechanisms of action" stated by the manufacturers are at least partially correct. Whether all the manufacturer’s information was true is another question. However, the information already available is sufficient to confirm the intent to cause harm. A poison that was previously known remains a poison that was deliberately inflicted. There is no changing this simple conclusion. The additional hypotheses or theories about the additional intentions of the perpetrators cannot change anything, either. But we would like reality to be less disturbing, don't we? So we invent all sorts of "other explanations" that make us a little less afraid. This is the so-called “art of not learning” that prevents us from truthfully informing other people.
However, in a simple, logical way, you can see that Dr. Yeadon's statement "Toxic by design" cannot be replaced or relativized by any other option. Whether it's your best ideas, alternative explanations, hypotheses seeking excuses, or hopeful relativizations of global cruelty and know-it-all attitudes, none of it will protect you and your children.
In my opinion, recognizing the truth alone is not a sufficient means to achieve the desired goals. Only when you share this truthful information with others do we all have a chance of success. Given the increasing brutality ( and censorship ) of this criminal gang, we do not have much time left to understand the depth of the problem and communicate that knowledge to others.
Hi Rob (c137) ,
This narrative ("NLPs are to blame for everything") came from Ralph Baric and the US Department of Defence. It is intended to pretend that a single "mistake" was made with a single mechanism. This means that the perpetrators can, firstly, deny responsibility for the deliberate harm to 6 billion people and, secondly, that they can claim again that this bioweapon is "safe and effective" by making a small change in the design. I humbly apologize for having to delete this "simple explanation for everything" for the third time. I ask for your understanding. By the way, Dr Yeadon of course already pointed out in 2020 (and again later) that the NLP damage mechanism was already well known before the introduction of the bioweapon. Once again, I apologize for the deletion. In biology, there are no simple answers for everything, and it is considered certain that there are several damage mechanisms in "vaccination". One of the examples that any layman can understand: mRNA technology would be unpredictable even if NLPs were harmless. There is no STOP button, there is an unpredictable distribution problem within the body, and it cannot be dosed. So it would be harmful anyway. There is nothing in it that could help health (against what?). For this reason and for other reasons, this narrative is untenable.
Best wishes,
Suavek
I think the date for Mike Yeadon's foreward is wrong. "Dr. Mike Yeadon, October 20, 2024". As I'm reading this article today it is only the 11th October 2024.
Thank you for correcting the error, the correct date is October 10, 2024.
"If harms were not intentional, they would have used saline or something else that’s harmless. Safe mRNA vaccines are an immunological impossibility."
Not necessarily. It is possible they were wanting to experiment with various dosages of various ingredients for multiple mass medical studies of undisclosed purpose. Any harms may not be explictly intentional, but might simply be lucky side effects.
One of my hypotheses: Consider that most (all?) of the meglomaniac globalists and Black Nobility are aging. Consider that they also have a desire to live forever (see their funding for longevity science). Assuming they believe they can cure their aging bodies (repair heart damage, liver damage, eliminate cancers, etc) they may want to rapidly identify which genes are responsible for those disease states (or which are responsible for preventing those states of disease). Enter mRNA. In their minds they just need to test several thousand genes and combinations of genes being turned on and off in various combinations. They would need to test each one a few thousand subjects (about the size of a batch of covid jabs). They would need to collect data for their studies of course, hence vax passes and national vax databases, and how convenient there is OneHealth globally, My Health Record in Aus, MyHealthEData in the USA (thanks Trump!), and most hospitals and medical facilities will be using "the cloud" (almost certainly Microsoft or Amazon, which just so happen to be majority owned by two prominent aging meglomaniac globalists). Oh no! This combination of genes being turned off or on induces turbo cancer in the brain. Oh no! This combination induces turbo cancer of the prostate! Oh no.... you get the picture. Now in their minds they might be thinking that the inverse combination of genese off and on could prevent those cancers. Of course they have most likley designed these experiments a bit better than my layperson's brain can come up with. Australia's health minister in 2021 Greg Hunt (formerly a WEF strategist) even referred to the global roll out of the covid jabs as the biggest medical experiment in human history.
To circle back to the "lucky side effects" comment earlier, the mass disease, disability and death helps contributes to their other meglomaniac goal to retire a huge portion of their herds of human resources.
Dear gettingreadyfor25,
I understood your statement as follows. Your hypothesis only adds, an additional, possible purpose of medical fraud. You completely ignored the topic of the toxicity mechanisms and the toxic substances contained in the bioweapon called "vaccination" in your comment. Therefore, I consider your statement to be an attempt to keep uncomfortable and very stressful information (intent to harm) away from consciousness. This way, one sleeps better and remains in a good mood. Perhaps you could please try to identify any substance in the "vaccinations" that, in your opinion, is not harmful to health? I am afraid that you will not find such a substance. We can simplify the discussion and ask : which chemical foreign substances will not harm a healthy person or a person with a cold if they are injected into them and enter their bloodstream? If you also take into account the compulsory "vaccination", and the proven damage to the immune systems of "vaccinated" people, you would find that these substances were intended to shorten human lifespan. Your hypothesis does not address this issue at all, does not mention it at all, and completely ignores this part of reality. In this context, it is irrelevant whether your hypothesis is correct or not. At this point I could add that a simple nasal test, without the "vaccination", is enough to determine the genetic code. The damage caused by the "vaccination" would not have been necessary for this.
However, it is human nature to like to push stress and unpleasant realizations like these out of consciousness. In such cases, a clearly irrefutable realization sometimes takes several months to finally be understood. However, many people do not want to understand the cruel reality, and those who do understand suffer from stress that is not at all easy to deal with.
Best wishes,
Suavek
Hi Suavek and thankyou for the considered response.
I don't know where I've referred to the jabs as "vaccination". They are obvioulsy not that. I am in full agreement there.
I didn't mean that they were collecting genetic codes with the jabs. I meant they were possibly testing different genetic modifications in different batches.
And to clarify my earlier comment, I was not disagreeing with "Safe mRNA vaccines are an immunological impossibility". I should have only quoted the first part "If harms were not intentional, they would have used saline or something else that’s harmless".
I guess my intial "not necessarily" was more semantic. i.e. Did they intend harm as an objective or did they simply not care whether harm was caused or not in achieving a goal to identify which genetic toggles have what impacts on different states of disease (and aging). Of course both could be true, they could have intended to identify the genetic toggles AND to cause harm. It is not unusual for Ordo Ab Chao types to use situations to achieve multiple ends. And they could have used them to give everyone MAC addresses too. I certainly won't sleep better believing any of those possible options versus another. They are all incredibly nefarious.
As far as the contents of the vials are concerned, I am not equipped to examine them and so far the media and alt media landscape is littered with conflicting information. From what I can tell I don't think that question has been settled. Some sources claimed this brand had X times as much mrna as another brand. Some sources claimed there was no mrna in others. Some say there are nanobots or at least the ingredients for nanobots to self-assemble. Others say there's no nanobots. Some sources say they're 'contaminated' with all sorts of nasty stuff. How Bad Is My Batch and other sources suggests there is HUGE variation in adverse effects from various batches. Both these things (the differing claims about the contents and the huge variation in effects) could support my hypothesis that different batches actually had different contents and were being used for different medical experiments.
Lastly, I wouldn't agree that it is irrelevent whether my hypothesis about the motive is true or not. Former FBI Profiler Clint Van Zandt: "Motive is important because without an understanding of why people commit certain crimes in the way they do, we are left to begin at square one on every investigation, something we simply don’t have the time or the resources to do". The people responsible are businessmen, wielders of power... they didn't kill millions (intentionally or negligently) just for the fun of it. I am certain they want to depopulate us. I suspect they think they don't need the vast majority of us because robots and AI are more obedient and don't consume as much resources and don't need toilet breaks. But I think think they still want to extract as much value from "their" human resources in the process. The masses of human resources surplus to requirements are now only useful as medical guinea pigs.
Best wishes to you too :)
Your text :
"Not necessarily."
They wrote this in reference to the following words of Dr Yeadon:
"If harms were not intentional, they would have used saline or something else that’s harmless. Safe mRNA vaccines are an immunological impossibility."
You don't have to know the contents of the vials to see their consequences. These substances were injected into perfectly healthy people and the current illnesses predicted by Dr. Mike Yeadon, Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi and others have been confirmed. These are not, as some people think, the "side effects", but rather the "intended effects" of the alleged "vaccination". "Covid" did not exist. How can you then claim at the beginning of your first comment that the intention to cause harm was "not necessarily" ascertainable? Of course, it is reassuring to think that these are some kind of regrettable side effects caused only by negligence. Here, EVERYTHING from A to Z was planned for more than 25 years and the damage was known IN ADVANCE. Negligence is something different. Here, there was no presumption of a risk of damage, but a certainty. Even those who are currently doing quite well were poisoned. Certainty is something completely different to negligence. The immune system was damaged in everyone who did not receive saline solution. Such strong poisons do leave a trace. Why do you write "not necessarily" when you do not know anything about the toxic aspect and a top toxicologist (Dr. Yeadon) has previously explained "toxicity by design" in detail in several articles? Please look at how much work I have also invested in these explanations in order to publish them. How many articles can you find on this topic in my Substack? I still consider your claim to be completely irrelevant with regard to the existing toxicity. I did not say that this is unimportant in itself.
I don't understand why so many laypeople claim to be smarter than a toxicologist and suggest that he missed an additional possibility. The toxicity present has nothing to do with someone having ADDITIONAL purposes. In this sense, your hypothesis misses the point and the core of the problem. There are multiple mechanisms of harm in these substances that can serve NO OTHER PURPOSE than to harm and sterilize. Have you not read this statement from Dr. Yeadon? These substances are NOT USEFUL FOR ANYTHING ELSE. Your hypothesis has been known for 2 years, so you don't have to worry about Dr. Yeadon missing or forgetting your information. However, these things have nothing to do with the proven and previously known toxicity. They propose a narrative that could be called "human sacrifice in the name of knowledge" but to the words of Dr Yeadon ("If harms were not intentional, they would have used saline or something else that’s harmless. Safe mRNA vaccines are an immunological impossibility.") you write: "not necessarily". There is a logical error here because your assumption does not contradict Dr Yeadon's claim at all. In other words, you do not offer another or better option. They simply offer a possible ADDITIONAL purpose for the fraud.Therefore, your statement "not necessarily" seems illogical to me and excuse me if I put it this way: a bit like a know-it-all.
However, if you really want to maintain the feeling that you live in a less disturbing world than it actually is, then no one can explain to you the malicious intent to do harm.
I wish you all the best,
Suavek
Because the symptoms after the injection were predictable, this means that the substances and "mechanisms of action" stated by the manufacturers are at least partially correct. Whether all the manufacturer’s information was true is another question. However, the information already available is sufficient to confirm the intent to cause harm. A poison that was previously known remains a poison that was deliberately inflicted. There is no changing this simple conclusion. The additional hypotheses or theories about the additional intentions of the perpetrators cannot change anything, either. But we would like reality to be less disturbing, don't we? So we invent all sorts of "other explanations" that make us a little less afraid. This is the so-called “art of not learning” that prevents us from truthfully informing other people.
However, in a simple, logical way, you can see that Dr. Yeadon's statement "Toxic by design" cannot be replaced or relativized by any other option. Whether it's your best ideas, alternative explanations, hypotheses seeking excuses, or hopeful relativizations of global cruelty and know-it-all attitudes, none of it will protect you and your children.
In my opinion, recognizing the truth alone is not a sufficient means to achieve the desired goals. Only when you share this truthful information with others do we all have a chance of success. Given the increasing brutality ( and censorship ) of this criminal gang, we do not have much time left to understand the depth of the problem and communicate that knowledge to others.