JCP Posted September 4, 2022 Share Posted September 4, 2022 3 hours ago, Captainlove said: I never yet got this, Why Ivermectin would help with covid. I thought this drug was used to treat parasites? They are finding parasites in the jab. https://kasialovesgod.wixsite.com/newsletter/post/hydra-vulgaris-found-in-the-covid-shot 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainlove Posted September 4, 2022 Share Posted September 4, 2022 6 minutes ago, JCP said: They are finding parasites in the jab. https://kasialovesgod.wixsite.com/newsletter/post/hydra-vulgaris-found-in-the-covid-shot I never heard of Dr.Carrie but if the tests are correct and its a Hydra,then its very interesting. I haven't seen anyone else mention hydra before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCP Posted September 4, 2022 Share Posted September 4, 2022 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Captainlove said: I never heard of Dr.Carrie but if the tests are correct and its a Hydra,then its very interesting. I haven't seen anyone else mention hydra before. She was the first person I heard, warning that the shots would change your DNA that would, under law, make us patentable, and the owner of that patent would own you. That was on youtube before all of the censorship started. She was also involved in a small aircraft crash, that IMO, was an attempted assassination, but she did survive. Check out her video in the link I posted. https://kasialovesgod.wixsite.com/newsletter/post/hydra-vulgaris-found-in-the-covid-shot Quote Dr. Carrie Madej saw with her own eyes this creature on the slides she examined of the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccine. It's called Hyra Vulgaris. It's immortal because it regenerates through stem cells. It has the ability to self assemble even if broken down. I have quoted some of her commentary below. Dr. Carrie Madej said, "Hydra Vulgaris is one of the six model organisms. It's one of the six model organisms because it's one of the keys to the people in human genomics and transhumanism really love (it). And the thing with this one is that it's immortal. It doesn't die, it continually recreates stem cells. Get this, it also can regenerate innumerable times. It can regenerate so well that if they put it in a blender and take all the pieces and put it back in a petri dish it reassembles itself, but miniaturized". Although these things are considered immortal, I suspect that Ivermectin, wormwood (what Ivermectin is derived from), cloves, green hull black walnut, and other anti-parasitic treatments could help. Edited September 4, 2022 by JCP 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talorgan Posted September 4, 2022 Share Posted September 4, 2022 (edited) This hyra vulgaris immortality if true reminds me as I recall they apparently used to use for some clever reason immortal human cancer cells from a person in some earlier vaccines as part of the Brew? , along with all other toxic ingredients it really is incredible how long this has been going on for . Edited September 4, 2022 by Talorgan 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCP Posted September 4, 2022 Share Posted September 4, 2022 28 minutes ago, Talorgan said: As I remember they used to use immortal human cancer cells from a person in earlier vaccines as part of the Brew ,it really is incredible how long this has been going on for . Yeah, that sounds like something that you would want in a medicine to keep you from getting sick .......... immortal human cancer cells !! I have zero trust in the medical system and would rather die before seeking treatment from any of these psychopaths. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talorgan Posted September 4, 2022 Share Posted September 4, 2022 (edited) Yes I used to have sort of uneasy sort of half trust in doctors in an emergency when no alternative (knowing they sometimes make mistakes and preferring natural holistic alternatives which treat cause of dis--ease It's because the big pharma companies have established immunity from prosecution that they can go full belt and experiment &cull population with excuse of fake pandemics . Edited September 4, 2022 by Talorgan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nip Posted September 4, 2022 Share Posted September 4, 2022 (edited) Who could have possibly seen this coming !!?! https://t.co/DfuvQwHGUx Sorry if this has been posted previously but worth another visit, methinks Edited September 4, 2022 by Nip 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinJ Posted September 4, 2022 Share Posted September 4, 2022 6 hours ago, XelNaga said: I mean about the part where the baby will become a property of the patent holder. If not sooner, as it should be, that would be where many sheep will draw the line. Ah I see, yes. I seem to remember a while back that they stated they wanted to basically barcode everything biological ( I mean, how crazy is that??) Including ocean animals etc. Its a special form of lunacy we are up against for sure 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidlittle Posted September 4, 2022 Share Posted September 4, 2022 I know for a fact this guy has just died suddenly from a heart attack - friend of a friend of a friend scenario. Michael Watson has a high-level expertise in the structure and drivers of global health and national policy. He started his career as an internal physician at the NHS, before joining the biopharmaceutical industry and holds a track record of executive leadership positions for several vaccine technology manufacturers. Overall, Mike brings over 20 years of leadership of industry groups and foundation board membership enabling an extensive network of global funders, policymakers, and influencers. Prior experience: • CEO/Executive Chair, VaxEquity Ltd (2020-current) • CEO, MEVOX Ldt (2021 – current) • Board Member and Chair of the Remuneration Committee, FIND (2014 – current) • Vaccine Consultant on SARS-COV-2, Moderna (2020) • President of Infectious Diseases Strategy and Vaccines Venture, Valera/Moderna (2016 – 2019) • Global Head of Policy & Advocacy, Sanofi (2009 – 2016) • Head of R&D and Board Member, Acambis (2007 – 2009) • Executive Director Clinical and Epidemiology Europe, Sanofi Pasteur MSD (2001 – 2007) • Medical Director UK and Ireland, Sanofi Pasteur MSD (1998 – 2001) • Clinical Project Scientist, Takeda (1995 – 1998) • Senior Medical Advisor Cardiovascular, Bristol-Myers Squibb (1993 – 1995) • Internal Hospital Physician, NHS (1988 – 1993) • Executive Director Clinical and Epidemiology Europe, Sanofi Pasteur MSD (2001 – 2007) • Medical Director UK and Ireland, Sanofi Pasteur MSD (1998 – 2001) https://osivax.com/team_mf/dr-michael-watson-md/ https://twitter.com/finddx/status/1565012364214386691?s=21&t=2LIDd6XYGTrGTZCA63nxGA 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zArk Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 (edited) 18 hours ago, Captainlove said: I never yet got this, Why Ivermectin would help with covid. I thought this drug was used to treat parasites? summit todo with the body having a variety of parasites some beneficial and others detrimental by reducing the detrimental parasites, the body rather than using energy removing them can focus upon cleaning up other body parts that are becoming overloaded i.e respiratory system. the body breaks down every day and is rebuilt. billions of cells. when the body is unable to maintain a balance it becomes what is called diseased. some peoples bodies are unable to cope due to overloaded stress (chemical, physical and emotional) in the case of most people its chemical stress. Poor diet and gobbling pharmaceutical tablets. ivermectin is an allopathic medicine and should be used as an emergency treatment to assist the body. Edited September 5, 2022 by zArk 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talorgan Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 33 minutes ago, zArk said: summit todo with the body having a variety of parasites some beneficial and others detrimental by reducing the detrimental parasites, the body rather than using energy removing them can focus upon cleaning up other body parts that are becoming overloaded i.e respiratory system. the body breaks down every day and is rebuilt. billions of cells. when the body is unable to maintain a balance it becomes what is called diseased. some peoples bodies are unable to cope due to overloaded stress (chemical, physical and emotional) in the case of most people its chemical stress. Poor diet and gobbling pharmaceutical tablets. ivermectin is an allopathic medicine and should be used as an emergency treatment to assist the body. Our human biome ,huge eco system of bacterial etc symbiosis which antibiotics and glyphosate and other chemicals etc can interrupt Natural food ,water eg even eating organic /natural apples put back to balance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinfoil Hat Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 Hydra parasites is it now? It wouldn't surprise me if the insects we're required to eat are listed out with similar. I feel like Jefferson Airplane's 'White Rabbit' should be striking up in the background. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zArk Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 2 hours ago, Talorgan said: Our human biome ,huge eco system of bacterial etc symbiosis which antibiotics and glyphosate and other chemicals etc can interrupt Natural food ,water eg even eating organic /natural apples put back to balance also eating food grown in your locality is essential as the light that grew the food is the same light you live in. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webtrekker Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 (edited) Another MUST read ... [NOTE: Best viewed in the original source - https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/who-owns-who which includes all images] Who owns who? Percy vs Goliath is here. You really need to pay attention. Dr Ah Kahn Syed Sep 1 Two completely unrelated stories crossed my path this week and I am going to join them for you. Before I do this I need to warn you in advance - if you read this you will not be able to unread it. So, if you want a comfy quiet life in blue pill pharma utopia, please hit the back-button now. For the rest of you who wish to pass through the one-way door… Remember this guy? No, I don’t mean Christoper Walken (fantastic actor, btw). I mean the person he represents in the film Percy vs. Goliath - Percy Schmeiser. It’s a really important film/legal case/story/history. For those in the #mousearmy who were paying attention we were discussing it back in January when the Moderna patent for the origin of SARS-Cov-2 first came up. If you can’t be bothered to watch the film (you really, really should but I can’t make you), here is an article to introduce you to what Monsanto did to Percy and why it matters to every person on earth. You can also look it up on wikipedia - but wikipedia sucks so don’t give them the traffic. In the meantime, and for the purposes of this article I’m going to spell it out to you: Percy vs Monsanto is a seminal Canadian Supreme Court ruling that a recipient of a patented product is under licensure to the patent owner, irrespective of whether the recipient consented to receive the product. Seminal is the most appropriate word to use here as you’ll see soon. Put simply, Percy claimed that his crop was contaminated by Monsanto seed (which he never used). He lost his livelihood of self-grown seed and that of generations of his family before him because, as a result of the ruling, he could never use that contaminated seed again. He “won” because the court didn’t make him pay Monsanto but he actually lost because he could not continue to farm and his life’s work was taken away from him. Now we get to the two completely unrelated () stories from this week. For my picture-reading followers I have displayed them side-by-side with a big red line to separate them, as you can see. The big red line is there to show that these are totally separate stories, agreed? On the left you have the sudden rush from Moderna to sue Pfizer for patent infringement over the mRNA technology in the “Pfizer vaccine”. And on the right we have a new preprint last week (the Qin paper) which shows how wonderfully effective a new mRNA-LNP formulation for the flu vaccine is in a mouse model. Call me cynical but once this article goes live I have a suspicion that this pre-print might disappear so just in case here it is in its full PDF glory. 2022 4.82MB ∙ PDF File Read now Now, what drew my attention to this was this throwaway line in the “author’s summary” - which is like a second abstract (not sure why the first abstract wasn’t enough). Ignoring the neutropenia elephant in the room (yes, person who has been coughing for 6 months and is constantly ill that’s you….) that is one big old throwaway line. It made me go “WTF” on telegram today, and that’s always a bad sign: “Mice pre-exposed to mRNA-LNPs can pass down the acquired immune traits to their offspring” I mean, WTF? The authors scoot around this by suggesting there are some quasi-epigenetic mechanisms by which offspring can inherit some traits from parents, but I don’t think they apply here. It’s a really tenuous link. Here is the diagram explaining the situation: What the experiment shows is this: By the 2nd-4th litter1 of the originally injected (transfected) mice, the effect of the RNA injected via lipid nanoparticles is persistent, provided the original injection (transfection) was in the maternal line. There is only one rational conclusion from this experiment, ignoring the bluster about epigenetics and various other tenuous stuff from the authors, and that is: The RNA injected into the original mice was incorporated into the genome in the oocytes of the maternal line of mice. And yes, we know that the following events happen with the LNP-mRNA technology (1) The LNP are biodistributed to the ovaries2 (2) The LNP are transfectant agents and therefore will transfect any tissue in which they are biodistributed3 (3) The SARS-Cov-2 vaccine mRNA is reverse transcribed (from RNA into DNA)4 Which means that the Qin paper has just confirmed the (4) in this list, that is: (4) Biodistribution of LNP-mRNA to the ovaries results in transfection of oocytes that result in integration of cDNA into the progeny genome In plain English, the LNP transports the mRNA to the ovaries, then to the eggs (oocytes) and because of reverse transcription that same mRNA becomes integrated into the genetic material of the offspring, and their offspring, and their offspring… well you get the gist. The only way this effect can be seen in subsequent generations is if the mRNA/cDNA given to the original recipient is being expressed in the DNA/genome of the offspring. So, now we are going to get opposing opinions. In one camp will be the “lucky mice children, they didn’t need to get the vaccine because it was already in their DNA”. In the other camp will be “those children did not consent to receive artificial patented DNA that nobody knows the long term effects of, this is eugenics”. Just for fun, I’ve included a poll so you can do a clicky thing and say which camp you’re in… (I have not included a substack poll before so have no idea how this will go..) POLL The integration of Pharma vaccine DNA to a genetic line is... Great -children don't need a jab! 3% Eugenics 97% 600 VOTES · POLL CLOSED OK, so I hope you are with me so far and have understood the following, but I’ll recap anyway: The Qin paper shows that the vaccine RNA included in a lipid nanoparticle (LNP), which is known/intended to go to the ovary, can get into the genetic line and produce the intended effect in 3-4 litters (at least) of the resulting mice. Now - this is the important bit. If we think back to Percy vs Goliath (Schmeiser vs Monsanto) and put these two stories together we can conclude the following: If a therapeutic patented RNA is injected into a mother, and it is passed to the offspring of that mother, the owner of the patent can claim licensure rights on the offspring. Yes, I know. That sounds crazy, right. Something like “Big pharma corporations would never claim licensure rights on a human”. In which case this US Supreme Court decision in 2013 was obviously meaningless, because we all trust those lovely fluffy pharma corporations to uphold human rights, obviously, don’t we? Thank God for that then. So my statement doesn’t stand, obviously (but I’ll just repeat it here: If a therapeutic patented RNA is injected into a mother, and it is passed to the offspring of that mother, the owner of the patent can claim licensure rights on the offspring. And thankfully, because my statement is meaningless inaccurate misinformation then the last piece of the puzzle is also meaningless. That is, that Moderna have sued Pfizer for a valueless5 lawsuit over a patent for technology that everyone knows was developed by both companies, overnight at the same time. Right? Unfortunately, there is only one logical conclusion to this. If you have got this far in the article you might have realised it already. If you haven’t and the article has depressed you this may be a good time to press the back button. I am going to leave a gap and then produce my one-paragraph conclusion. Feel free to disagree in the comments, but bear in mind that I don’t often make predictions. Maybe I’m not good at them. We’ll see. In the meantime…. This is the conclusion that you have ventured this far to read: Moderna are going after the patent rights because they know that the children of mothers who have taken either Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines can be subject to licensure. In simple terms, Moderna may claim ownership of those children. The good news? This can be stopped in its tracks. All you have to do is ask anybody that you know, friend, ex-friend or foe, who has received an mRNA therapy, to write to Pfizer or Moderna (whoever’s product they took) and request this : “Please confirm that there will exist no circumstances following receipt of a Pfizer BNT162b2 or Moderna Spikevax mRNA vaccine (or other similar technology vaccination), that patent licensing rights or other means of trespass or claim of ownership - either in part or full - will ever be claimed by the company (or its derivatives or partners or any other related entity) on any human being who has received the said product either directly via administration or via inheritance, knowingly or unknowingly, from a recipient”. Whichever way the company answers, I will have done my job here. 1 Thanks to an eagle-eyed observer I have updated “generation” to “litter” in the article (1/9/22 21:17 GMT). Comment reply here 2 The best resource for this is TGA FOI 2389 document 6 page 45 for which there have been multiple discussions in online fora showing accumulation of LNP in the ovaries of the tested rodents over 48 hours. 3 https://www.invivotransfection.com/lipid-based-transfection/ 4 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35723296/ 5 As of the time of writing, Pfizer’s stock price has dropped 20% YTD ($56.6→$43.2) and Moderna’s stock price has dropped ($235→$132) 43% YTD. This is unlikely if the companies both had an effective and profitable product line. It is clear that the vaccines produced so far have failed to reduce infection rates and therefore cannot be considered successful by investors. When even your CEO is dumping stock, it’s not a good endorsement of your main product line. Edited September 5, 2022 by webtrekker 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 26 minutes ago, webtrekker said: Another MUST read ... [NOTE: Best viewed in the original source - https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/who-owns-who which includes all images] Who owns who? Percy vs Goliath is here. You really need to pay attention. Dr Ah Kahn Syed Sep 1 Two completely unrelated stories crossed my path this week and I am going to join them for you. Before I do this I need to warn you in advance - if you read this you will not be able to unread it. So, if you want a comfy quiet life in blue pill pharma utopia, please hit the back-button now. For the rest of you who wish to pass through the one-way door… Remember this guy? No, I don’t mean Christoper Walken (fantastic actor, btw). I mean the person he represents in the film Percy vs. Goliath - Percy Schmeiser. It’s a really important film/legal case/story/history. For those in the #mousearmy who were paying attention we were discussing it back in January when the Moderna patent for the origin of SARS-Cov-2 first came up. If you can’t be bothered to watch the film (you really, really should but I can’t make you), here is an article to introduce you to what Monsanto did to Percy and why it matters to every person on earth. You can also look it up on wikipedia - but wikipedia sucks so don’t give them the traffic. In the meantime, and for the purposes of this article I’m going to spell it out to you: Percy vs Monsanto is a seminal Canadian Supreme Court ruling that a recipient of a patented product is under licensure to the patent owner, irrespective of whether the recipient consented to receive the product. Seminal is the most appropriate word to use here as you’ll see soon. Put simply, Percy claimed that his crop was contaminated by Monsanto seed (which he never used). He lost his livelihood of self-grown seed and that of generations of his family before him because, as a result of the ruling, he could never use that contaminated seed again. He “won” because the court didn’t make him pay Monsanto but he actually lost because he could not continue to farm and his life’s work was taken away from him. Now we get to the two completely unrelated () stories from this week. For my picture-reading followers I have displayed them side-by-side with a big red line to separate them, as you can see. The big red line is there to show that these are totally separate stories, agreed? On the left you have the sudden rush from Moderna to sue Pfizer for patent infringement over the mRNA technology in the “Pfizer vaccine”. And on the right we have a new preprint last week (the Qin paper) which shows how wonderfully effective a new mRNA-LNP formulation for the flu vaccine is in a mouse model. Call me cynical but once this article goes live I have a suspicion that this pre-print might disappear so just in case here it is in its full PDF glory. 2022 4.82MB ∙ PDF File Read now Now, what drew my attention to this was this throwaway line in the “author’s summary” - which is like a second abstract (not sure why the first abstract wasn’t enough). Ignoring the neutropenia elephant in the room (yes, person who has been coughing for 6 months and is constantly ill that’s you….) that is one big old throwaway line. It made me go “WTF” on telegram today, and that’s always a bad sign: “Mice pre-exposed to mRNA-LNPs can pass down the acquired immune traits to their offspring” I mean, WTF? The authors scoot around this by suggesting there are some quasi-epigenetic mechanisms by which offspring can inherit some traits from parents, but I don’t think they apply here. It’s a really tenuous link. Here is the diagram explaining the situation: What the experiment shows is this: By the 2nd-4th litter1 of the originally injected (transfected) mice, the effect of the RNA injected via lipid nanoparticles is persistent, provided the original injection (transfection) was in the maternal line. There is only one rational conclusion from this experiment, ignoring the bluster about epigenetics and various other tenuous stuff from the authors, and that is: The RNA injected into the original mice was incorporated into the genome in the oocytes of the maternal line of mice. And yes, we know that the following events happen with the LNP-mRNA technology (1) The LNP are biodistributed to the ovaries2 (2) The LNP are transfectant agents and therefore will transfect any tissue in which they are biodistributed3 (3) The SARS-Cov-2 vaccine mRNA is reverse transcribed (from RNA into DNA)4 Which means that the Qin paper has just confirmed the (4) in this list, that is: (4) Biodistribution of LNP-mRNA to the ovaries results in transfection of oocytes that result in integration of cDNA into the progeny genome In plain English, the LNP transports the mRNA to the ovaries, then to the eggs (oocytes) and because of reverse transcription that same mRNA becomes integrated into the genetic material of the offspring, and their offspring, and their offspring… well you get the gist. The only way this effect can be seen in subsequent generations is if the mRNA/cDNA given to the original recipient is being expressed in the DNA/genome of the offspring. So, now we are going to get opposing opinions. In one camp will be the “lucky mice children, they didn’t need to get the vaccine because it was already in their DNA”. In the other camp will be “those children did not consent to receive artificial patented DNA that nobody knows the long term effects of, this is eugenics”. Just for fun, I’ve included a poll so you can do a clicky thing and say which camp you’re in… (I have not included a substack poll before so have no idea how this will go..) POLL The integration of Pharma vaccine DNA to a genetic line is... Great -children don't need a jab! 3% Eugenics 97% 600 VOTES · POLL CLOSED OK, so I hope you are with me so far and have understood the following, but I’ll recap anyway: The Qin paper shows that the vaccine RNA included in a lipid nanoparticle (LNP), which is known/intended to go to the ovary, can get into the genetic line and produce the intended effect in 3-4 litters (at least) of the resulting mice. Now - this is the important bit. If we think back to Percy vs Goliath (Schmeiser vs Monsanto) and put these two stories together we can conclude the following: If a therapeutic patented RNA is injected into a mother, and it is passed to the offspring of that mother, the owner of the patent can claim licensure rights on the offspring. Yes, I know. That sounds crazy, right. Something like “Big pharma corporations would never claim licensure rights on a human”. In which case this US Supreme Court decision in 2013 was obviously meaningless, because we all trust those lovely fluffy pharma corporations to uphold human rights, obviously, don’t we? Thank God for that then. So my statement doesn’t stand, obviously (but I’ll just repeat it here: If a therapeutic patented RNA is injected into a mother, and it is passed to the offspring of that mother, the owner of the patent can claim licensure rights on the offspring. And thankfully, because my statement is meaningless inaccurate misinformation then the last piece of the puzzle is also meaningless. That is, that Moderna have sued Pfizer for a valueless5 lawsuit over a patent for technology that everyone knows was developed by both companies, overnight at the same time. Right? Unfortunately, there is only one logical conclusion to this. If you have got this far in the article you might have realised it already. If you haven’t and the article has depressed you this may be a good time to press the back button. I am going to leave a gap and then produce my one-paragraph conclusion. Feel free to disagree in the comments, but bear in mind that I don’t often make predictions. Maybe I’m not good at them. We’ll see. In the meantime…. This is the conclusion that you have ventured this far to read: Moderna are going after the patent rights because they know that the children of mothers who have taken either Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines can be subject to licensure. In simple terms, Moderna may claim ownership of those children. The good news? This can be stopped in its tracks. All you have to do is ask anybody that you know, friend, ex-friend or foe, who has received an mRNA therapy, to write to Pfizer or Moderna (whoever’s product they took) and request this : “Please confirm that there will exist no circumstances following receipt of a Pfizer BNT162b2 or Moderna Spikevax mRNA vaccine (or other similar technology vaccination), that patent licensing rights or other means of trespass or claim of ownership - either in part or full - will ever be claimed by the company (or its derivatives or partners or any other related entity) on any human being who has received the said product either directly via administration or via inheritance, knowingly or unknowingly, from a recipient”. Whichever way the company answers, I will have done my job here. 1 Thanks to an eagle-eyed observer I have updated “generation” to “litter” in the article (1/9/22 21:17 GMT). Comment reply here 2 The best resource for this is TGA FOI 2389 document 6 page 45 for which there have been multiple discussions in online fora showing accumulation of LNP in the ovaries of the tested rodents over 48 hours. 3 https://www.invivotransfection.com/lipid-based-transfection/ 4 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35723296/ 5 As of the time of writing, Pfizer’s stock price has dropped 20% YTD ($56.6→$43.2) and Moderna’s stock price has dropped ($235→$132) 43% YTD. This is unlikely if the companies both had an effective and profitable product line. It is clear that the vaccines produced so far have failed to reduce infection rates and therefore cannot be considered successful by investors. When even your CEO is dumping stock, it’s not a good endorsement of your main product line. "If a therapeutic patented RNA is injected into a mother, and it is passed to the offspring of that mother, the owner of the patent can claim licensure rights on the offspring. Yes, I know. That sounds crazy, right. Something like “Big pharma corporations would never claim licensure rights on a human”. In which case this US Supreme Court decision in 2013 was obviously meaningless, because we all trust those lovely fluffy pharma corporations to uphold human rights, obviously, don’t we?" Very interesting and this links to my earlier Moderna post on this thread where it was stated on the Moderna website that this vaxx was a patented operating system. So those jabbered are now corporate property, unlucky bitches. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainlove Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 11 minutes ago, Morpheus said: "If a therapeutic patented RNA is injected into a mother, and it is passed to the offspring of that mother, the owner of the patent can claim licensure rights on the offspring. Yes, I know. That sounds crazy, right. Something like “Big pharma corporations would never claim licensure rights on a human”. In which case this US Supreme Court decision in 2013 was obviously meaningless, because we all trust those lovely fluffy pharma corporations to uphold human rights, obviously, don’t we?" Very interesting and this links to my earlier Moderna post on this thread where it was stated on the Moderna website that this vaxx was a patented operating system. So those jabbered are now corporate property, unlucky bitches. I thought the birth certificate was a corporation ownership. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bamboozooka Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 (edited) On 9/4/2022 at 1:51 PM, Captainlove said: I never yet got this, Why Ivermectin would help with covid. I thought this drug was used to treat parasites? using logic then covid must be a parasite not a virus Edited September 5, 2022 by bamboozooka 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinfoil Hat Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 9 minutes ago, Captainlove said: I thought the birth certificate was a corporation ownership. Presumably you become a different entity, belonging to a different owner once jabbed? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 11 minutes ago, Captainlove said: I thought the birth certificate was a corporation ownership. Good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainlove Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 1 minute ago, bamboozooka said: using logic then covid must be a parasite not a virus Need to see more evidence on this. Else were going to look like mad conspiracy theorists. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainlove Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 2 minutes ago, Tinfoil Hat said: Presumably you become a different entity, belonging to a different owner once jabbed? Who knows,But that wouldnt make much sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinfoil Hat Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 Just now, Captainlove said: Who knows,But that wouldnt make much sense. Does any of it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainlove Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 1 minute ago, Tinfoil Hat said: Does any of it? I guess we really dont know what they want to do with this jab other than depop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bamboozooka Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 do you believe this is the best method of getting rid of "a virus" that is passed on from person to person "allegedly" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webtrekker Posted September 5, 2022 Share Posted September 5, 2022 (edited) 52 minutes ago, bamboozooka said: I never yet got this, Why Ivermectin would help with covid. I thought this drug was used to treat parasites? Used to kill parasites, eh? Interesting ... No bloody wonder they want it banned! Edited September 5, 2022 by webtrekker 5 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.