Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.1K

I'm afraid the next generation will be mainly degenerates because of all the mRNA in parent's bodies. Since mRNA changes host's DNA, highly likely it will affect their children's brains. If you have tried GMO vegetables, you know their DNA is extremely ruined, because they don't have taste. Imagine what the slightest DNA change can do to human brain. In 20 years all the people born after 2020 will be employed everywhere. I'm expecting a total disaster.

I'm afraid the next generation will be mainly degenerates because of all the mRNA in parent's bodies. Since mRNA changes host's DNA, highly likely it will affect their children's brains. If you have tried GMO vegetables, you know their DNA is extremely ruined, because they don't have taste. Imagine what the slightest DNA change can do to human brain. In 20 years all the people born after 2020 will be employed everywhere. I'm expecting a total disaster.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (46).
[–] • -1 pt

or,

and stay with me here...

.

it could just be a vaccine...

.

I know, crazy huh?

[–] • 0 pt

When you can freely change the definition of something to make your narrative fit then you can call it whatever you like. I’m still not taking it

[–] • 1 pt

I wouldn't even bother trying to debate that guy, he's a pro-jab faggot.

[–] • 0 pt

That's OK, do what you like, just be aware that if you don't fully understand the issue or the definitions being used, your decision may not be based on fact. It's more likely to be from an emotional response.

Like look at the OP, we could be here all night fixing the reality of that mess

[–] • 0 pt

But that’s he thing, the narratives and definitions change so quickly based on the whims of politics based science (or whatever the flavor of the week is) that nobody normal can ever really keep up. If I look up the definition of vaccine today compared to 4 years ago. They’re completely different, and it’s not good enough to just exclaim science changes and definitions have to be updated when you actually compare the facts. The jab today would not be called a vaccine 20 years ago, it would be called a prophylactic at best. But if we’re calling this jab a vaccine based on todays definition of “providing protection” then why do we not have a new definition for actual vaccines that provide immunity. One of these things cannot be called a vaccine and yet they use the umbrella term to, I almost want to say “protect” the jab.I don’t know if this makes any sense, it’s tough for me to articulate my thoughts.