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

©2025 Poal.co

200

In terms of academia, a source like Nature is considered La Creme de la Creme. If you can pick apart an academics argument using Nature as a reference then you've pretty much knocked a leg off of their 3 legged soap box.

The second exercise is understanding the terminology. Nature is good with terminology and reading it can sometimes be an exercise in understanding technobabble. You've got time, read it carefully and any expressions you don't understand look them up. If you are part of the master race then this is not above your intellect, but you may have to break down the expressions to make them more digestible. If you're finding it too hard to read then get gud scrub.

So, pop quiz: Based on current events and reading this review, tell me what issue you can spot from it. (Hint, it's mentioned in the introduction and and based around time periods.)

In terms of academia, a source like **Nature** is considered La Creme de la Creme. If you can pick apart an academics argument using Nature as a reference then you've pretty much knocked a leg off of their 3 legged soap box. The second exercise is understanding the terminology. Nature is good with terminology and reading it can sometimes be an exercise in understanding technobabble. You've got time, read it carefully and any expressions you don't understand look them up. If you are part of `the master race` then this is not above your intellect, but you may have to break down the expressions to make them more digestible. If you're finding it too hard to read then `get gud scrub`. So, pop quiz: Based on current events and reading this review, tell me what issue you can spot from it. (Hint, it's mentioned in the introduction and and based around time periods.)

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (55).
[–] • 1 pt

So how many times is the RNA likely to be used to synthesize an S-protein. Is it only used once? 10 times? 100?

Here’s my theory of the covid vax.

This is way more dangerous than the typical vaxes, which are not that safe IMO. Its because that spike protein is a designed bioweapon, created to cleave furrin or something, which I hear is a bad thing. I dont want my furrin cleaved. People are bleeding from their lungs man!

So who cares if this bioweapon is attached to a cold virus that allows it to replicate or not? The point is, how much spike protein is safe in the human body? How much is safe when it is in the epithelials lining the capilaries of your brain or your testes or your placenta? Knowing that it is binding to every ACE2 receptor it sees?

If a 20 or 30 year old is developing cardiovascular inflamation and clotting similar to late stage covid because he has more spike protein in his blood vessels than he ever would have had in a full blown covid infection, how is this better than covid?

Do they know how much spike protein is being produced in a healthy young person who received the jab? How much is safe? How did they determine it? They don’t fucking know, they are guessing.

They claim that they need to provoke a strong immunity with the vax because they dont want “leaky vaccines”. But guess what? Every close contact of a vaccinated person is getting a leaky vax by default. There are a rash of respiratory illnesses like croup and asthma that are surging and they are being caused by vaccinated people shedding the spike proteins on to others. People like my friend’s kid who got croup after she was vaccinated are now weakly immune, i.e. leaky vax. And these illnesses go to show you just how dangerous the spike protein is.

If you want to know what the vax is doing through second hand exposure, look at what their trying to convince you is being caused by something else:

[–] • 0 pt

You are making some good observations which I fully agree with.

One of my main questions to try and stump the covid jabbers is "What are the risks of taking the vaccine vs the risks of catching the covid for people under the age of 40?" Because healthy people under the age of 40 are what really matter, Once your past the age of 40 things start shutting down and they shut down more rapidly if you haven't been taking care of yourself.

[–] • 0 pt

Yeah I agree, there is no benefit for the under 40s. Its all risk. 40 to 65 should be fine without the vax if they have antivirals early in the illness. Above that age people need either antiviral prophylaxis or a vaccine. Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis are safer. Its safer to take weekly bug killer than this vax but I get that the convenience is an issue.

They should have never approved it for under 65s.

[–] • 0 pt

But on the other hand also you have to ask is it really worth it for over 65s? If their ailments are such that a stiff breeze will push them over then an anti-virus may be as much that stiff breeze that the real virus would be.

People seem too comfortable with the expectation that people will live to 100+ or that death is a completely foreign concept.