Sign into an existing account

I want to believe.

Such studies are not in the public domain and it's in the interest of whichever pharma company did them to keep this information private. That's the main reason why such a thing could be entirely true and real but lacking in information. That said, it should at least be possible to get evidence that such a study existed.

The main argument against the (well-documented) prior poor track record of mRNA treatments is that the new Moderna etc technology uses a different method for delivering the mRNA, called the "wrapper." The theory is that the manner in which the mRNA was delivered was responsible for the problems and that this new method for delivery would avoid those issues. The thing is, extensive data since the covid vaxx started has indicated that the "spike protein" is not isolated to the injection site and does travel the body and persists - those are the things the new "wrapper" method were supposed to prevent, because those were the things known to cause issues with previous mRNA treatments.

What this means is that when you hear them admit the spike protein escapes into the body, they are admitting that the novel part of the treatment that distinguishes it from the previous 20-years of failure is also a failure. Once you get to a place where the wrapper fails, all previous mRNA studies become instructive and act as a guide toward what you can expect this time.

Obviously Pfizer/Moderna knew this was entirely possible, which is why they did not just give everyone the same shots. The variation in outcomes based on the batch number proves that not all batches are equal. Eventually it will be shown that, like with any trial experiment, people were given different variations of the treatment formula in order to test which would be most effective and which would have the least side effects. This is why the pharma co's demanded legal immunity - they told the govt that this technology was promising but the only way to get it to work would be to do a major study on a large population that had significant risk of consequences. This is what is known as "unethical" in the medical world and wasn't allowed. The covid scam presented an opportunity to do this very unethical study on a huge population segment. Yes, it was known that it would kill a ton of people but they justified this by saying the data would be able to prove how to use mRNA safely in future treatments, which would benefit more people than would be harmed by the experiment itself.

The most likely scenario is that fully half of people who received the mRNA shots got a placebo. Of the other half, there should be a number of different variations on the formula and dosage, meant to determine the proper mix of ingredients and quantities necessary to produce results while minimizing side effects. Once the data is in they can figure out which batch had the best results-to-side effects ratio and then use that method for future mRNA treatments.

Yes, you were signed up for a medical experiment on the level of the experiments done by Germans and Japanese during the 1930's and 40's, things that are illegal to do now because they are certain to kill the research subjects. That research, while "unethical," has also been some of the most important and useful medical research done in the entire 20th century and is behind a huge number of medical advances that occurred later. The medical industry has long wished they could do such research in order to move medical technology forward and probably jumped at the opportunity to do this.

when you realize this was all a big research study the way the policies were rolled out makes a ton of sense. Certain countries pushed very hard to get high compliance, especially isolated locations like Australia. This was because Australia would be able to close international travel tightly for the duration of the study period, enabling a very clean data set.

deleted

He is pandering to the lowest common denominator to get them to listen. Tiktokers are dumb fucks for the most part.

Indeed, not worth posting. Its a rumor at best.

Still more reliable than government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.

He answers the common questions in other videos:
https://www.tiktok.com/@professorrandell?_t=8Upum1Ikfmj&_r=1

But the only evidence he provides is that he was very sick. Still worth being aware of.

They've been dying off all year. As predicted, the solution to this is to not report anything unusual in the press and as a result most people won't know it's happening, even if they have a sense that "a lot of people they know are dying lately." very few people have the ability/inclination to determine if that is happening to everyone and not just their extended social circle.

A major way the press keeps people from figuring this out is by "gatekeeping" the consequences. They widely-blast that "myocarditis" is a vaxx side effect, creating the impression that if you get the vaxx and are one of the "rare" and "unfortunate" people to have a side effect, it will come in the form of myocarditis. This distracts the herd from paying attention to other things going on, namely the dramatic increase in cancers. The most classic form of this side effect is for cancers to RETURN, often very aggressively. If the media were running stories talking about aggressive cancers as a vaxx side effect, people would be shouting from the rooftops because everyone knows at least one person who is dealing with such a thing right now.

Contact a funeral home, they have all stated the increase in deaths is astronomical. The media is not reporting it and when they report a death, it is "never from the clot shot".