WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

1.5K

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)

[–] 0 pt

A steam train DOES do the same thing as an electric train. The mode of power is what’s different. But they both meet the definition of train. Such is not the case with the jab.

You were a little too eager to sound philosophical with that analogy. Regardless I understand the point you were making but I do disagree with it

[–] 0 pt

A steam train DOES do the same thing as an electric train. The mode of power is what’s different. But they both meet the definition of train. Such is not the case with the jab.

No, the mode of power is irrelevant, fuel goes in, motion comes out. 99% of people have never even seen inside a train, they only see the motion

same for mrna vaccines, how you get to the end result of a human body producing antibodies is irrelevant, only that you get antibodies.

One day we might be able to make antibodies directly

[–] 0 pt

I want to call you a pilpulling kike but I feel I may not be explaining myself correctly.

Your comment about the mode of power being irrelevant was exactly my point earlier. Further to that, the end result of the definition of vaccine today is not the end result of a vaccine in years past, and the end result today is inferior to that of years past. Therefore, either the vaccine for covid is not a vaccine or actual vaccines need to be called something else. That I’m trying to point out although I was trying to flesh it out so it doesn’t just sound like I’m being pedantic over definitions. When in THIS case , to argue over definitions is not pedantry.

[–] 0 pt

I want to call you a pilpulling kike

if you have run out of arguments then that's what you should do

and the end result today is inferior to that of years past

explain what is inferior by skipping part of the bodies antibody mechanism.

or actual vaccines need to be called something else

why? Isn't 'mRNA vaccine' descriptive enough?

How does a different name change anything? Did people trying to go from A to B shun the new electric trains and wail about not getting a steam one?

to argue over definitions is not pedantry

I'm not convinced that you know what a mRNA vaccine does, other than it inserts magnetic 5G graphene nanobots inside your brain.