Study shows Pfizer Vaccine Becomes DNA in Liver Cells

[Corn Pop]

One has to ask what the goal was. I started to get suspicious mid 2020 when the government statement didn’t match or defied known science. Then I paid attention and found out a lot of information before the governments shut the info sources down.

I don't even know what science is anymore. Apparently men can get pregnant and if I disagree I would probably get cencored for false information.

 

[Corn Pop]

What science?. I mean QR codes were a mandate and what did he say?.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What science?. I mean QR codes were a mandate and what did he say?.

There is a science but that’s mostly censored as it’s goal is understanding not controlling. An example is how many countries ignore immunity acquired from infection. The clear science is that this is better. All but a few countries even acknowledge this is anything at all. They acknowledge a tests or the shots, all of which pharma makes money. This was absolutely astounding. Getting the virus counts for nothing.

 

[Free]

I mean if someone does not want some companies product in there body that's a choice. I mean even the bill of rights under life and security says everyone has the right no to be subject to scientific or medical experiments without there consent. And everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment. That's under life and security.

Why do some people disrespect others peoples life and security rights to make to there own choice and he upset when people don't do what they want them to do, someone gets penalised for it or get less privileges than others for there choice.

I've been through this before with you and you still don't see the contradiction in your position. You cannot advocate for the right to not get vaccinated and then ignore the right of businesses, institutions, etc., to not have unvaccinated people on their premises which puts people at risk.

Not to mention that we all have the social, and, as Christians, the biblical, responsibility to put others first, including their health whenever we are able, as long as it is feasible and within reason. Yet your position ignores this social and biblical responsibility.

So, once again, yes, people should have the right to not get vaccinated. However, there are naturally going to be consequences for that decision, such as not being allowed into businesses, people's homes, etc.

 

[Free]

hawkman supplied the links but you don’t like them.

So, you prefer others to do the work for you, even though you were asked. I'm not surprised. That is very poor form.

Of course, it must be pointed out that I asked for sources for several different things and even for the links provided, it didn't provide the breakdown pre- and post-vaccination that you claimed.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

So, you prefer others to do the work for you, even though you were asked. I'm not surprised. That is very poor form.

Why? The information is available What difference does it make who supplies it to those who seek truth?

Of course, it must be pointed out that I asked for sources for several different things and even for the links provided, it didn't provide the breakdown pre- and post-vaccination that you claimed.

The numbers are the same, around 1%. If you want to think those RNA shots saved lives, I’m not going to be able to convince you otherwise. Too much riding on it for you.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I've been through this before with you and you still don't see the contradiction in your position. You cannot advocate for the right to not get vaccinated and then ignore the right of businesses, institutions, etc., to not have unvaccinated people on their premises which puts people at risk.

Not to mention that we all have the social, and, as Christians, the biblical, responsibility to put others first, including their health whenever we are able, as long as it is feasible and within reason. Yet your position ignores this social and biblical responsibility.

So, once again, yes, people should have the right to not get vaccinated. However, there are naturally going to be consequences for that decision, such as not being allowed into businesses, people's homes, etc.

What’s preventing the “natural” consequence of rounding them up and gassing them? I mean consequences are all natural, right?

 

[Free]

Why? The information is available What difference does it make who supplies it to those who seek truth?

Again, you're ignoring 1) that you made the claims, so you need to provide the evidence, and 2) I asked for sources for several different things.

The numbers are the same, around 1%. If you want to think those RNA shots saved lives, I’m not going to be able to convince you otherwise. Too much riding on it for you.

They absolutely did save lives and continue to do so. Here is an expert in the U.S., who also happens to be a Christian:

What’s preventing the “natural” consequence of rounding them up and gassing them? I mean consequences are all natural, right?

Such a poor argument doesn't warrant a response beyond this.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Again, you're ignoring 1) that you made the claims, so you need to provide the evidence, and 2) I asked for sources for several different things.

No, for those who want truth, any source of it works. But furthest who refuse truth, well, chaff is a good defense.

They absolutely did save lives and continue to do so. Here is an expert in the U.S., who also happens to be a Christian:

Anything the governs says you believe. They’ll be more injections to follow…

Such a poor argument doesn't warrant a response beyond this.

Means you have no answer. Your callousness towards those who cannot or should not or have ample reason not to receive the RNA injections is a match for my suggestion, What’s the difference between gas and depriving a person of their livelihood?

 

[Free]

No, for those who want truth, any source of it works. But furthest who refuse truth, well, chaff is a good defense.

Like I said, it's poor form on your part, and you continue to ignore my points. I'm not at all surprised though, as this is not the first time.

Anything the governs says you believe.

You didn't even bother to read what I wrote, so I know you won't watch the videos. Of course, I knew you wouldn't watch them anyway since you are guilty of what you claimed about me: "Those who chose to blindly believe the government and complied have a deep emotional stake in continuing to do so. No one likes to admit they were duped." This is just the proof.

Do you even realize the Mayo clinic is a nonprofit organization? Did you read that I wrote the doctor being interviewed in the first and doing a presentation in the second, is a Christian as well as an expert in a relevant field? It has nothing to do with the government.

They’ll be more injections to follow…

For what?

Means you have no answer.

Like I said, it means it's a poor argument.

Your callousness towards those who cannot or should not or have ample reason not to receive the RNA injections is a match for my suggestion,

This is a straw man argument. Nowhere have I addressed "those who cannot or should not" receive vaccines. Of course there are those who cannot receive the vaccines for whom accommodation should be made, but they are likely a statistically insignificant minority. Who I am addressing are all the anti-vaxx and anti-mandate people who could get vaccinate but choose not to out of willful ignorance, whether scientific or biblical.

What’s the difference between gas and depriving a person of their livelihood?

Seriously? That is a thoroughly worldly question based on a worldly view of life.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Like I said, it's poor form on your part, and you continue to ignore my points. I'm not at all surprised though, as this is not the first time.


You didn't even bother to read what I wrote, so I know you won't watch the videos. Of course, I knew you wouldn't watch them anyway since you are guilty of what you claimed about me: "Those who chose to blindly believe the government and complied have a deep emotional stake in continuing to do so. No one likes to admit they were duped." This is just the proof.

Do you even realize the Mayo clinic is a nonprofit organization? Did you read that I wrote the doctor being interviewed in the first and doing a presentation in the second, is a Christian as well as an expert in a relevant field? It has nothing to do with the government.


For what?


Like I said, it means it's a poor argument.


This is a straw man argument. Nowhere have I addressed "those who cannot or should not" receive vaccines. Of course there are those who cannot receive the vaccines for whom accommodation should be made, but they are likely a statistically insignificant minority. Who I am addressing are all the anti-vaxx and anti-mandate people who could get vaccinate but choose not to out of willful ignorance, whether scientific or biblical.


Seriously? That is a thoroughly worldly question based on a worldly view of life.

Let’s end it here. I’m sorry for those who believed the government some of whom will suffer the consequences their whole lives.

 

[Free]

Let’s end it here. I’m sorry for those who believed the government some of whom will suffer the consequences their whole lives.

You made claims and I asked for sources which you not only have failed to give, you continue spouting the same opinions and disinformation. And, I even provided a source which has nothing to do with the government, and yet you still fail to acknowledge this, still referring to it as government. Of course, your argument that some "believed the government" is the fallacy of begging the question. You're jumping ship because you have no answer and no justification for your position.

 

[Corn Pop]

I've been through this before with you and you still don't see the contradiction in your position. You cannot advocate for the right to not get vaccinated and then ignore the right of businesses, institutions, etc., to not have unvaccinated people on their premises which puts people at risk.

Not to mention that we all have the social, and, as Christians, the biblical, responsibility to put others first, including their health whenever we are able, as long as it is feasible and within reason. Yet your position ignores this social and biblical responsibility.

So, once again, yes, people should have the right to not get vaccinated. However, there are naturally going to be consequences for that decision, such as not being allowed into businesses, people's homes, etc.

I have no contradiction. I have never ignored the rights of business but they had no rights, they were forced to close and forced to only accept vaccinated people, they got no choice. If they personally choose to only accept vaccinated people as some still do like airlines to fly as a policy I respect there decision and I will take my business elsewhere.

I'm sure many businesses would have been ok with serving me if they were not banned from doing so.

The vaccinated still get sick with 19, still pass on 19, it's not immunity, it's not anything the unjabbed can get blammed for.

 

[Corn Pop]

Why is it then as soon as business is allowed open they all open, and as soon as they are allowed at accept the unvaccinated they allow the unvaccinated. I don't know any place now everything is open to everyone that has a policy vaccinated people only, only a few airlines to fly on there policy. Its not hard to see where peoples choice is. Just as some people don't want a jab some business dont want just vaccinated people. Its a bit obvious it was only because it was forced otherwise they would have those policies and I would not be allowed to enjoy a coffee or go out and enjoy a meal.

 

[Corn Pop]

Now everyone has equal choice without interference. Both individuals and business.

 

[Corn Pop]

If people are concerned about there health hey can get a jab, they can keep there distance from others, they can wear a mask, they can wash there hands more regular, they can stay home and not go out as much if they want, I don't discriminate I respect there choice. I was forced to live that way.

 

[Free]

I have no contradiction. I have never ignored the rights of business but they had no rights, they were forced to close and forced to only accept vaccinated people, they got no choice. If they personally choose to only accept vaccinated people as some still do like airlines to fly as a policy I respect there decision and I will take my business elsewhere.

I'm sure many businesses would have been ok with serving me if they were not banned from doing so.

The vaccinated still get sick with 19, still pass on 19, it's not immunity, it's not anything the unjabbed can get blammed for.

Is it or is it not a government's responsibility to protect its citizens?

 

[Corn Pop]

Is it or is it not a government's responsibility to protect its citizens?

Do you mean protect citizens physically where they arm thousands of citizens and send them to wars and those who do make it back many suffer mental illness?. Or do you mean protect citizens mentally like the massive increase in mental health issues caused by lock downs?.

As for consuming a private companies product that's an individual choice.

 

[Corn Pop]

I did critisise a private company once for there policy not allowing me in but only because it was full hypocrisy. Yet I accepted there choice and moved on. Only because it was healthcare and I needed to see a doctor and was refused, most doctors practice are private. It was not emergency but urgent, I mean why people go there coughing and sniffing and have all sorts of flues and viruses my face was swelling up bad and I was refused to see a doctor because I was not vaccinated yet hey claim they care about peoples health. Well obviously not mine as my face was swelling, what if I left it and got it got in my blood stream and I got messed up, what because a health care provider refused me health care.

 

[Corn Pop]

All I know is before I do anything medical I talk to a doctor and they can give me the research and tell me any risks and side effects attached and make sure it's ok I can have it. That's care and responsibility.