Smoking Gun: Vascular And Organ Damage Induced By mRNA Vaccines: Irrefutable Proof Of Causality

originally posted by: nugget1
But wait, there's more!

Since late last year, messenger RNA for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines, including its recently reformulated Omicron booster, has been exclusively manufactured by a little known company with significant ties to US intelligence.
....
the reformulated vaccine combines the previously approved COVID-19 vaccine with a “vaccine candidate” targeting the Omicron variant BA.1. That vaccine candidate has never been previously approved and has not been the subject of independent study. The MHRA approved the vaccine based on a single, incomplete human trial currently being conducted by Moderna. The company promoted incomplete data from that trial in company press releases in June and July. The study has yet to be published in a medical journal or peer reviewed.
Moderna has also noted that approval for its Omicron booster vaccine are pending in the US, EU, Australia and Canada – all of which are also planning fall vaccination campaigns focused on COVID-19. The company’s CEO, Stéphane Bancel, has called the reformulated vaccine “our lead candidate for a Fall 2022 booster.”
National Resilience was founded relatively recently, in November 2020, and describes itself as “a manufacturing and technology company dedicated to broadening access to complex medicines and protecting biopharmaceutical supply chains against disruption.” It has since been building “a sustainable network of high-tech, end-to-end manufacturing solutions with the aim to ensure the medicines of today and tomorrow can be made quickly, safely, and at scale.” It furtherplans to “reinvent biomanufacturing” and “democratize access to medicines,” namely gene therapies, experimental vaccines and other “medicines of tomorrow.”

Just a little something more to chew on.

[unlimitedhangout.com...]

We don't need actual science to prove its legit. I'm pretty sure we threw that out the door a long time ago.

Whatever evidence Moderna can manufacture is good enough. Lemme guess, it will be 120% effective at preventing all viruses and causing world peace?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Carpy you don't seem to understand the suspicious actions on the part
of (in this case) the profession these vaccine makers. And this vaccine
you defend with such rigor.

Not to mention the entire medical industry that automatically trusts
what they're being told with out doing any studies at all. So your
defense that so many people would have to be guarding a big secret
is garbage. Because of a nerf ball trust they expect everyone else to
have. You don't even acknowledge that is all highly suspect.

Well look at everyone who does and the light shinning on the reasons
why! You have to stop supporting this just based on studies done by
quacks if they are "Quacks"? And studies not done by "Quacks" even
if they're all quacks and liars. Did you get that part? Read it again
to make sure.

When to be reasonable quackery may not effect the outcome of any
study. These are the findings of two top persons in their field. And
you just want to argue that they're quacks and liars? Ha ha grow up
Carpy everybody lies but most people even psychopaths, don't lie
constantly. At the very least by now quite sensibly this should be
where you're at with your defense argument.

Care of Rickymouse.

I read too much research and evaluate it by comparing it to each other to find a rational solution to things. So this is my opinion, and opinions differ. Yes, being cautious of a new disease is good, but after six months of caution, they had enough research to identify people's risk and knew what food chemistries were active against this virus. But they promoted fear and started twisting evidence to make their jobs more secure and to gain prestige...not good in my opinion.

Perfectly reasonable and very well written I might add.

That's why so many people including myself find your stiff
opposition in turn also highly suspect

Frankly your lack of suspicion is suspect at best.

a reply to: nugget1

One can only wonder if Trump even knows it's been reformulated?

The whole thing is so bizarre it's in no way defensible. And if Trump
knows about this OMG!

OH NOES!

THE SKY IS FALLING?

DOOM!

RUN FOR THE HILLS!

a reply to: Randyvine2
Did you watch Hannah Fry in the BBC 'Unvaccinated' program.....
Check out
'Hannah Fry and the Peacock Feather' on yt.

It's amazing, they did a simulation of a contagion outbreak in Haslemere Surrey and Hannah's role was 'patient zero'. She hosted the program shown on BBC 4 2018.

Spooky coincidence......the actual 'patient zero' for covid in the UK, was reported to be in Haslemere 2 years later...

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Holy crap thank you I love this kind of stuff.

I'm gonna check that out now. This time stamp.

a reply to: Randyvine2
So happy that you are going to watch it...please feel free to share.
I just finished watching it and I am just starting to watch part 2.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Always a secondary source with modal verbs, never a primary source...

Where did all the sh!t talkers go who preached experimental Covid 19 shot is ok?

Did they all already die?

This site was full of pro Covid19 jab "know-it-alls.....got awful quite here on ats.


a reply to: v1rtu0s0

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

"The Substack letter published on Dec. 28 by Steve Kirsch, an individual previously fact-checked by Reuters (here and here), calls for an immediate halt to vaccine rollouts, saying the implications of the study are “potentially enormous resulting in millions of deaths”(here).

It adds that the research shows that 93% of people who died after receiving a COVID-19 shot “were killed by the vaccine”.

The research manuscript can be found here and is based on presentations by Dr Sucharit Bhakdi and Dr Arne Burkhardt at the Doctors for COVID Ethics Symposium, live-streamed by UKColumn here.

Both scientists have been criticized in the past for spreading vaccine-related misinformation (here, here,

here).

According to Bhakdi and Burkhardt, a pathologist assessment of 15 persons who died after vaccination and were aged between 28 and 95 found “irrefutable evidence” of the shots causing deaths. This, it says, was concluded due to the organs of 14 out of 15 patients (93%) showing evidence of “immunological self-attack”.

But three experts speaking to Reuters have highlighted several major issues with the research, as well as its lack of peer review."

www.reuters.com...

Unfortunately the study was based on results from 15 people, yes, only 15!

Also not peer reviewed...

Seems like more hocum to me...

PA

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

They would say that, wouldn't they? Here you go attacking the messenger instead of looking to see if the message was true or not.

You'd think they'd learn after we pointed it our several 100 times already.

You'd think you'd learn and start posting peer reviewed scientific analysis from reputable sources that are actually qualified in what they are taling about...

The veracity of the information is severely compromised when the source is not sufficiently qualified and also a proven liar..

When will you learn?

PA

a reply to: Randyvine2

Randy, we don't need to defend it mate, if you intepret the data correctly it clearly shows that the vaccines are effective at working to reduce hospitalisation and infection rates.... The data is all there...

You lot just refuse to look at official data, (Beacuse everyone is lying to us and they all want to kill us!!), and instead choose to believe random "doctors" from the internet and Bitchute videos... Usually without checking the source rigorously enough in my opinion...

We come back to the same old argument again, you're the ones making extraordinary claims, therefore it is you that should provide the extraordinary evidence...

This is not extraoridinary evidence...

It's quite simple really..

PA

a reply to: Itisnowagain

That is just insanely crazy Alex Jones is going to lose his
ever loving mind. This is so completely off the wall a Satanic
projection ritual. I have to point out an err they made though.

Spooky is for Casper the friendly ghost no way does spooky
cover this. No what we have here is the people running these
events earning the name given to them in the Bible. I would even
go further with that from THE WICKED, to THE ULTRA DIABOLICAL
DEVIL EXPOSING HIMSELF TO THE WORLD WICKED.

Absolutely horrifying it just can't be over stated and there isn't
enough sugar on the planet to sugar coat this. If Jones doesn't
already know of this he is going to lose his mind. This is the kind
of stuff that turns a lot of people off from Alex because he just
gets to scary for them.

But I keep track of what's up with him and what he's saying
and I haven't heard him say anything about this. To clarify I
listen to him not his sensationalism. Just take in the info
and keep it in mind. Cause he is also staggeringly correct quite
often. And I know he just sees things coming because I have
always been that way. Just not as proficient as he is . But
that's another story for a different time. Thank you so much
my good member I'm saving part two for later.

I gotta go call Alex and see what he knows of this.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

You know you're timing is so friggon gorgeous.

Did I not claim in the post of which you replied how indefensible
your argument based solely on the amount of bizarre around it all?
Huh huh did I did I huh?

Oh look i did.

The whole thing is so bizarre it's in no way defensible. And if Trump
knows about this OMG!

Well that was before I even looked at what It'snowagain had to offer.
And if you're screwed up enough to call that a coincidence on top of
all the other weird wicked crap involved? I don't even want a stupid
reply like that. And what evidence is there when something is so
diabolical it literally speaks for itself while testifying to it's own self
evidence.

There's far more going on here and I don't expect you to like it.
i do expect you to be man enough to face it and be able to
speak openly about it. If you can't do that save it pal.

How am I supposed to look at the data with rose colored glasses on?

a reply to: Randyvine2

Randy, although I appreciate your response I do find it a little condescending.. I treated you with respect pal... I would hope for the same back..

But I digresss...

Just because you claim something is "bizarre", doesn't mean its indefensible... Obviously we don't see the same bizarre things as you do.. Therefore we defend our position..

I don't see "far more going on"... I see the data, which speaks for itself... Whether I like it or not is irrelavent...

I thought I was speaking openly about it... and I'm certainly man enough, IMHO... Ask away, what do you want to know about me or my views?

You don't need rose coloured glasses to see the good in the data provided... you just need the necessary open mind to interpret it correctly...

Have a nice day...

PA

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

You know you're timing is so friggon gorgeous.

I'll take that as a compliment, even though it wasn't..

PA

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

So is none of it accurate?

Nothing at all?

a reply to: Randyvine2

Your lack of suspicion of a study that claims to be "irrefutable proof" that is based on only 15 subjects is highly suspect.

As for findings of "top experts in their fields", hardly.

And one of them has been rebuked for lying about his qualifications.

Does this not make you suspicious?

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

I'll take that as a compliment, even though it wasn't..

You don't know that it wasn't and I'm not cop'n to anything.

You're right though I was over the top with my reply, apologies sincerely.
ETA
Are you saying my bizarre meter is off or something? Because the amount of
Satanic ritual projection that was used before this bioweapon was released
if not seen as bizarre. Then the world you live in must be some kind of wild
psycho dramatic clock work orange with florescent tinge and tie dye.
So I don't know anybody save people arguing your point that wouldn't
agree. It's GD bizarre!

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Does this not make you suspicious?

No it doesn't carp you know why it doesn't because I don't have to
be suspicious about any of it.

Just I need to stop right there because
I don't like how I was gonna finish that.

a reply to: Randyvine2

But I have to be suspicious but you don't?

Even about one of the sources having lied about their qualifications?

You still take this as "irrefutable proof"?