originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Boadicea
oh dear - this is not going well :
yes you DID demand that i ` prove a negative `
Okay. Fair enough. I did ask you to prove a negative. My bad.
are you going to keep on lying about it ?
Are you going to quit beating your wife? You know I wasn't "lying" which would by definition require a conscious and willful intention to give false
And yet, now that you have pointed it out, proving a negative is exactly what is required in this situation: Proving that viruses do not contain
nagalase, and that therefore vaccines do not contain nagalase. Pretty darn convenient for those who just want to cry "Don't make me prove a
negative!!! You can't make me prove that the stuff in vaccines isn't going to hurt you!!!"
as i am not prepared to waste my time jumping through hoops for you - i will just give you one snippet :
the HIV virus and the human influenza virus are both cited as ` containing nagalese `
this requires a bit of logic - but i am not hopeful
Yes, the HIV, human influenza virus, and many more are being cited as "containing nagalase." And??? So??? So sorry to live up to your expectations,
but I have absolutely no idea what this means to you... and what logic I am supposed to apply. To what???
but - lets get back to Q1 :
in all your alledged reserach and ` due dilligence ` - did it never strike you as odd that none of the cock wombles in the " alternative medicine "
camp could cite the alledged levels of nagalase in any vaccine ???????????
Actually, yes, it has occurred to me many times. Likewise, and even more concerning, it has occurred to me that the vaccine manufacturers have not
either. I have looked for any such information from any source. I know of folks who are suggesting that folks have their blood serum tested for
nagalase both before and after vaccination, but I have not found anyone that has tested vaccines.
they claim that " nagalase is being introduced via vaccines "
Yes. Specifically, others -- not me -- are accusing vaccine manufacturers of intentionally adding nagalase to vaccines. My point is that if viruses
naturally contain nagalase, there is no reason to add nagalase to the vaccine because the virus already contains nagalase.
and lastly - another question :
at what level [ micrograms / kilo bodyweight ] is nagalase dangerous ????
I would assume that the level of danger is directly proportionate to the levels exceeding normal, with normal levels currently determined to be
between 0,5 and 0,95 nMol/ml/min for adults. But I also know -- although I don't understand it all -- that measuring serum levels does not
necessarily measure activity level of nagalase. There also seems to be a difference between ph requirements for nagalase in viruses and nagalase for
cancer, which I don't understand really either. I am not sure if there is a significance easily recognized by those with much greater understanding
of and experience in these matters, or if only the difference has been recognized but its significance is not yet understood.
hint - before answering consider kanzaki syndrome
I have been. But I haven't found much at all about nagalase. Actually, let me be more specific. When I research nagalase, I find references to
Schindler/Kanzaki syndrome... but when I search Schindler/Kanzaki syndrome, I'm not finding much about nagalase. Most of what I find is all related
to the GcMAF treatment, and I've been trying to find independent sources. I did read something that made me wonder if the human body produces its own
nagalase, but I think I misunderstood what I was reading.
It also seems to me that GcMAF is actually the product name developed for treatment, not the D-binding proteins produced by the liver which activates
the macrophages/endocannabinoid receptor. But again, I may be wrong... this is just the impression I've gotten from my research.
I'm pretty sure all this makes sense to you though. So school me. Make it make sense for me. You're making me crazy, and I think you're enjoying
it, but I still want to pick your brain soooooooooooooo bad!!!
edit on 29-8-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting