😉 one could almost conclude that they couldn't have stuffed it up more if they tried! It's almost "methodical" in how "badly" these things were designed to %$#@ up the mitochondria.🤨🤐😉🤦♀️🤦♀️
I remember Prof Angus Dalgleish saying that the spike protein was something like 80% homologous with human proteins, though I can't be sure of the exact figure, it was very significant. Then they injected it into billions of people to provoke a 'targeted' immune response . . . . . big target!
So, if there was a novel therapeutic that interfered with the body’s cells’ ability to produce p53 and make the BRCA pathway work defending our genome - you would think that would be important, wouldn’t you? Well I guess it depends on who is funding the therapeutic and whether they care two hoots whether you (or your mother, wife or daughter) get cancer.
I wonder how "Safe and Effective" the new anti-cancer Mrna vaxx will be? Maybe it will add a hemorrhagic component to the fun list of side-effects we already enjoy.
Let's recall that in all the years since injectable mRNA was conjured, it's record of failure in clinical trials is unblemished. AND the damage is heritable, showing up worse in the third and fourth generation, and probably beyond. That this was ever administer to a single person is simply unconscionable.
inactivation is considered to be one of the most common molecular mechanisms behind the dysfunction of p53. Extensive mutation search revealed that more than half of human cancers carry loss of function mutations of p53. Among them, 95% of mutations were detectable within the genomic region (exons 5–8) encoding the DNA-binding domain.
So, if there was a novel therapeutic that interfered with the body’s cells’ ability to produce p53 and make the BRCA pathway work defending our genome - you would think that would be important, wouldn’t you? Well I guess it depends on who is funding the therapeutic and whether they care two hoots whether you (or your mother, wife or daughter) get cancer.
not really. they designed something really harmful to human physiology.
😉 one could almost conclude that they couldn't have stuffed it up more if they tried! It's almost "methodical" in how "badly" these things were designed to %$#@ up the mitochondria.🤨🤐😉🤦♀️🤦♀️
Looks pretty deliberate and diabolical to me.
I remember Prof Angus Dalgleish saying that the spike protein was something like 80% homologous with human proteins, though I can't be sure of the exact figure, it was very significant. Then they injected it into billions of people to provoke a 'targeted' immune response . . . . . big target!
So, if there was a novel therapeutic that interfered with the body’s cells’ ability to produce p53 and make the BRCA pathway work defending our genome - you would think that would be important, wouldn’t you? Well I guess it depends on who is funding the therapeutic and whether they care two hoots whether you (or your mother, wife or daughter) get cancer.
I wonder how "Safe and Effective" the new anti-cancer Mrna vaxx will be? Maybe it will add a hemorrhagic component to the fun list of side-effects we already enjoy.
Let's recall that in all the years since injectable mRNA was conjured, it's record of failure in clinical trials is unblemished. AND the damage is heritable, showing up worse in the third and fourth generation, and probably beyond. That this was ever administer to a single person is simply unconscionable.
"Well I guess it depends on who is funding the therapeutic".
And what their true goal is.
inactivation is considered to be one of the most common molecular mechanisms behind the dysfunction of p53. Extensive mutation search revealed that more than half of human cancers carry loss of function mutations of p53. Among them, 95% of mutations were detectable within the genomic region (exons 5–8) encoding the DNA-binding domain.
So, if there was a novel therapeutic that interfered with the body’s cells’ ability to produce p53 and make the BRCA pathway work defending our genome - you would think that would be important, wouldn’t you? Well I guess it depends on who is funding the therapeutic and whether they care two hoots whether you (or your mother, wife or daughter) get cancer.