The tiny snippet of M-RNA programs your cells to manufacture "spike protein," the part of the virus that causes some of the COVID complications. Your cells keep manufacturing this toxic "spike protein" indefinitely (no off switch). What can go wrong?
Posts by Vidqun
-
30A humorous look at the efficacy of the vaccines
by Vidqun inhttps://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/friday-dark-humor-vaccine-efficacy-science-explained.
-
-
-
30
A humorous look at the efficacy of the vaccines
by Vidqun inhttps://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/friday-dark-humor-vaccine-efficacy-science-explained.
-
-
Vidqun
These graphs tell an interesting story:
-
30
A humorous look at the efficacy of the vaccines
by Vidqun inhttps://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/friday-dark-humor-vaccine-efficacy-science-explained.
-
-
Vidqun
Riley, funnily enough, the CDC does not distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated anymore. They are on an equal footing. I wonder why? Has it something to do with natural immunity? Here's a NSW article:
Joey jojo, I think you missed this one:
a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease (Webster).
And from the horse's mouth:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120710132002/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
-
30
A humorous look at the efficacy of the vaccines
by Vidqun inhttps://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/friday-dark-humor-vaccine-efficacy-science-explained.
-
-
Vidqun
Betty, let's get the facts straight. M-RNA gene therapy does not qualify as a vaccine. First, the fact that the CDC changed the definition of a vaccine doesn't mean a thing. As you might notice, the experimental gene therapy does not qualify as a vaccine even with the new definition.
a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease (Webster).
Secondly, the CDC had to remove the clause "vaccines do not cause autism." What does that mean? Vaccines do case autism! So the conspiracy theorists were right after all.
-
30
A humorous look at the efficacy of the vaccines
by Vidqun inhttps://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/friday-dark-humor-vaccine-efficacy-science-explained.
-
-
Vidqun
Those officials giving advice and direction are liars and follow the father of the lie. So, has the Governing Body been duped by the "angel of light"?
-
30
A humorous look at the efficacy of the vaccines
by Vidqun inhttps://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/friday-dark-humor-vaccine-efficacy-science-explained.
-
-
Vidqun
I see Twitter removed the original. Here's another copy with Fauci taking the lead (in lying):
https://www.brighteon.com/38ff7b45-e0bb-48b2-b6be-74453ee2ff58
Enough, this the one?
14 Jesus provides wise direction in times of crisis. The benefits of that direction were evident when the COVID-19 pandemic broke out. While many in the world were uncertain about what course to take, Jesus made sure that we received clear guidance to keep us safe. We were encouraged to wear face coverings when out in public and to practice physical distancing. The elders were reminded to maintain regular contact with all in the congregation and to be aware of their physical and spiritual needs. (Isa. 32:1, 2) We received additional direction and encouragement by means of Governing Body updates.
-
30
A humorous look at the efficacy of the vaccines
by Vidqun inhttps://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/friday-dark-humor-vaccine-efficacy-science-explained.
-
-
Vidqun
Yes, that might be true, till 2020. Something went wrong after that. Bottom graph is total vaccine deaths since 1990. In the olden days, they withdrew a vaccine product after thirty deaths:
-
7
The blood of the covenant and forgivness of sins
by enoughisenough ini am pasting in a copy of an email i hope my friend will read...i watched a video by bridget from az and i had thoughs i had never even considered before.
this is interesting : matt 26:28 for this means my 'blood of the covenant,' which is to be poured out in behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.according to wt, the christian greek scriptures were ( see copy ) wt 74 6/15 serve with eternity in view : also, it is to the spirit-anointed christians who will rule in that kingdom that most of the christian greek scriptures is directed, including the promises of everlasting life ( pasted from wt 74 6/15).
so matt 26:28 is at the lord's evening meal where the new covenant is being initiated.
-
-
Vidqun
Depending on one's interpretation, John 6 is an additional complication for the Witnesses. If it does point to the memorial, which I believe (only account in John of memorial-related information), the Witnesses have an even bigger problem. Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” No information given on spectators that will be present. Thus, partaking of the emblems qualifies as a feature of true Christianity (cf. John 6:48-54 ESV).
-
1
JWs conference centre in Denmark
by Vidqun inthis is a turnup for the books.
coincidence, or are they falling back to their roots?.
.
-
-
Vidqun
This is a turnup for the books. Coincidence, or are they falling back to their roots?
-
17
Where did Enoch go - God transferred him?
by Fisherman ingod did not take the lives of the wicked contemporaries of enoch, instead he took the life of enoch.
and that seems like a great injustice to deprive innocent enoch of life instead of killing the wicked.
—i said seems.. a man goes to get surgery but first they give him an opiate like narcotic and he falls asleep gladly and with pleasure and euphoria.
-
-
Vidqun
Here's the NET footnote of John 3:13. Quite comprehensive and gives the different readings (for those who have an interest in textual criticism):
tc Most witnesses, including a few important ones (A[*] Θ Ψ 050 ƒ1, 13 Û latt syc,p,h), have at the end of this verse "the one who is in heaven" (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ho on en to ourano). A few others have variations on this phrase, such as "who was in heaven" (e syc), or "the one who is from heaven" (0141 pc sys). The witnesses normally considered the best, along with several others, lack the phrase in its entirety (î66, 75 א B L T Ws 083 086 33 1241 pc co). On the one hand, if the reading ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is authentic it may suggest that while Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus he spoke of himself as in heaven even while he was on earth. If that is the case, one could see why variations from this hard saying arose: "who was in heaven," "the one who is from heaven," and omission of the clause. At the same time, such a saying could be interpreted (though with difficulty) as part of the narrator's comments rather than Jesus' statement to Nicodemus, alleviating the problem. And if v. Joh 3:13 was viewed in early times as the evangelist's statement, "the one who is in heaven" could have crept into the text through a marginal note. Other internal evidence suggests that this saying may be authentic. The adjectival participle, ὁ ὤν, is used in the Fourth Gospel more than any other NT book (though the Apocalypse comes in a close second), and frequently with reference to Jesus (Joh 1:18; Joh 6:46; Joh 8:47). It may be looking back to the LXX of Exo 3:14 (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν). Especially since this exact construction is not necessary to communicate the location of the Son of Man, its presence in many witnesses here may suggest authenticity. Further, John uses the singular of οὐρανός (ouranos, "heaven") in all 18 instances of the word in this Gospel, and all but twice with the article (only Joh 1:32 and Joh 6:58 are anarthrous, and even in the latter there is significant testimony to the article). At the same time, the witnesses that lack this clause are very weighty and must not be discounted. Generally speaking, if other factors are equal, the reading of such MSS should be preferred. And internally, it could be argued that ὁ ὤν is the most concise way to speak of the Son of Man in heaven at that time (without the participle the point would be more ambiguous). Further, the articular singular οὐρανός is already used twice in this verse, thus sufficiently prompting scribes to add the same in the longer reading. This combination of factors suggests that ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is not a genuine Johannism. Further intrinsic evidence against the longer reading relates to the evangelist's purposes: If he intended v. Joh 3:13 to be his own comments rather than Jesus' statement, his switch back to Jesus' words in v. Joh 3:14 (for the lifting up of the Son of Man is still seen as in the future) seems inexplicable. The reading "who is in heaven" thus seems to be too hard. All things considered, as intriguing as the longer reading is, it seems almost surely to have been a marginal gloss added inadvertently to the text in the process of transmission. For an argument in favor of the longer reading, see David Alan Black, "The Text of Joh 3:13, " GTJ 6 (1985): 49-66.