Why are the vaxxed so angry? | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83769380 Australia 07/06/2022 07:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83769380 There were studies that suggested mRNA could cause permanent changes to DNA even before the vaccine rollout. I'm not going to be your source monkey... you're apparently a great researcher... you can go find them yourself if you're genuine (you don't seem genuine... it seems like you have a vested interest). There was one study and it was in vitro, and they added reverse transcriptase to make it happen. The only people that could potentially have reverse transcriptase in their bodies are HIV positive people. I’ve already researched this and there is only that one study that is not applicable to living, normal people There were actually a few papers in the microbiology area that suggested mRNA could permanently alter DNA before te pandemic. I found one from 2013 and another from 2017, and they both had a fair amount of related references that could have been followed up further. As I said, they were tangentially related (one was making permanent changes in fungi, another was in an insect from memory). The point is though, that we did know that mRNA could potentially alter DNA. Saying we didn't is quite simply academic dishonesty, or you are not across the literature as much as you think. What's more, you refer to "living normal people" as people who aren't HIV positive, though there are studies that both suggest there are HIV inserts in the COVID (so everyone that has had COVID could be potentially HIV positive) and that suffers of both COVID and the vaccines have tested positive for HIV. Also, an Australian vaccine development program at Queensland University was shut down in 2020 because subjects were testing positive for HIV... hmmm So it's not a far stretch to see how this mRNA vaccine could be altering the DNA of the vaccinated. Yes it is a very far stretch. Altering DNA like those other papers you mention was about the structure of the DNA, not the information it contained (genes). Now if a structural “fold” or something cut off access to a needed gene, the cell will just die. To actually permanently alter someone’s DNA, you have to add, subtract or scramble the information it contains. If COVID had the HIV gene for reverse transcriptase then it would have been all over the news and you would have seen infected people killed. It’s nonsense. That be some cognitive dissonance right there. Not being rude, but you really are twisting and turning to avoid the bleeding obvious. It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA for a long time. You are bandying words and other people's interpretations to try to wiggle out of the simple fact that long before it was shown to happen in humans (which it has been now), mRNA was thought to be able to, and proven in other species, to alter DNA permanently. What's more, this is a distraction (as the vaccinated keep doing) from the first question of; if this is all above board, why do the manufacturers have immunity from legal liability? Can you name ANY other product that has immunity from legal liability? Especially one that you put in your body? At least enogh of a possibility was ther to require MUCH MORE trsting bfore an international roll-out. |
Sharon Cherries
User ID: 81219831 United States 07/06/2022 07:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Sharon Cherries There was one study and it was in vitro, and they added reverse transcriptase to make it happen. The only people that could potentially have reverse transcriptase in their bodies are HIV positive people. I’ve already researched this and there is only that one study that is not applicable to living, normal people There were actually a few papers in the microbiology area that suggested mRNA could permanently alter DNA before te pandemic. I found one from 2013 and another from 2017, and they both had a fair amount of related references that could have been followed up further. As I said, they were tangentially related (one was making permanent changes in fungi, another was in an insect from memory). The point is though, that we did know that mRNA could potentially alter DNA. Saying we didn't is quite simply academic dishonesty, or you are not across the literature as much as you think. What's more, you refer to "living normal people" as people who aren't HIV positive, though there are studies that both suggest there are HIV inserts in the COVID (so everyone that has had COVID could be potentially HIV positive) and that suffers of both COVID and the vaccines have tested positive for HIV. Also, an Australian vaccine development program at Queensland University was shut down in 2020 because subjects were testing positive for HIV... hmmm So it's not a far stretch to see how this mRNA vaccine could be altering the DNA of the vaccinated. Yes it is a very far stretch. Altering DNA like those other papers you mention was about the structure of the DNA, not the information it contained (genes). Now if a structural “fold” or something cut off access to a needed gene, the cell will just die. To actually permanently alter someone’s DNA, you have to add, subtract or scramble the information it contains. If COVID had the HIV gene for reverse transcriptase then it would have been all over the news and you would have seen infected people killed. It’s nonsense. That be some cognitive dissonance right there. Not being rude, but you really are twisting and turning to avoid the bleeding obvious. It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA for a long time. You are bandying words and other people's interpretations to try to wiggle out of the simple fact that long before it was shown to happen in humans (which it has been now), mRNA was thought to be able to, and proven in other species, to alter DNA permanently. What's more, this is a distraction (as the vaccinated keep doing) from the first question of; if this is all above board, why do the manufacturers have immunity from legal liability? Can you name ANY other product that has immunity from legal liability? Especially one that you put in your body? At least enogh of a possibility was ther to require MUCH MORE trsting bfore an international roll-out. Which one is it, permanently or a long time? You seem a bit flustered and are totally wrong about mRNA permanently or long time altering DNA. Oh and they had no liability long before covid |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 81959055 United States 07/06/2022 07:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
CK Dexter Haven
User ID: 83798009 Switzerland 07/06/2022 07:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 80926053 United States 07/06/2022 07:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83769380 There were studies that suggested mRNA could cause permanent changes to DNA even before the vaccine rollout. I'm not going to be your source monkey... you're apparently a great researcher... you can go find them yourself if you're genuine (you don't seem genuine... it seems like you have a vested interest). There was one study and it was in vitro, and they added reverse transcriptase to make it happen. The only people that could potentially have reverse transcriptase in their bodies are HIV positive people. I’ve already researched this and there is only that one study that is not applicable to living, normal people There were actually a few papers in the microbiology area that suggested mRNA could permanently alter DNA before te pandemic. I found one from 2013 and another from 2017, and they both had a fair amount of related references that could have been followed up further. As I said, they were tangentially related (one was making permanent changes in fungi, another was in an insect from memory). The point is though, that we did know that mRNA could potentially alter DNA. Saying we didn't is quite simply academic dishonesty, or you are not across the literature as much as you think. What's more, you refer to "living normal people" as people who aren't HIV positive, though there are studies that both suggest there are HIV inserts in the COVID (so everyone that has had COVID could be potentially HIV positive) and that suffers of both COVID and the vaccines have tested positive for HIV. Also, an Australian vaccine development program at Queensland University was shut down in 2020 because subjects were testing positive for HIV... hmmm So it's not a far stretch to see how this mRNA vaccine could be altering the DNA of the vaccinated. Yes it is a very far stretch. Altering DNA like those other papers you mention was about the structure of the DNA, not the information it contained (genes). Now if a structural “fold” or something cut off access to a needed gene, the cell will just die. To actually permanently alter someone’s DNA, you have to add, subtract or scramble the information it contains. If COVID had the HIV gene for reverse transcriptase then it would have been all over the news and you would have seen infected people killed. It’s nonsense. You're either a troll, or the dumbest of people I have ran across on here. Enjoy it while it lasts. Cognitive Dissonance and being unwilling to accept you were a gullible cunt who was fooled by the media and state actors who are all heavily backed by Big Pharma is always hard to process. It's not like Pfizer has a proven criminal record and was forced to pay "at the time" the largest criminal fine in history about 10 years back or a little more. People taking a shot made by them is equivalent to letting a known and convicted Pedo babysit your children. [bitchute] [link to www.bitchute.com (secure)] |
The Tard Wrangler
User ID: 78105231 Australia 07/06/2022 07:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Sharon Cherries There was one study and it was in vitro, and they added reverse transcriptase to make it happen. The only people that could potentially have reverse transcriptase in their bodies are HIV positive people. I’ve already researched this and there is only that one study that is not applicable to living, normal people There were actually a few papers in the microbiology area that suggested mRNA could permanently alter DNA before te pandemic. I found one from 2013 and another from 2017, and they both had a fair amount of related references that could have been followed up further. As I said, they were tangentially related (one was making permanent changes in fungi, another was in an insect from memory). The point is though, that we did know that mRNA could potentially alter DNA. Saying we didn't is quite simply academic dishonesty, or you are not across the literature as much as you think. What's more, you refer to "living normal people" as people who aren't HIV positive, though there are studies that both suggest there are HIV inserts in the COVID (so everyone that has had COVID could be potentially HIV positive) and that suffers of both COVID and the vaccines have tested positive for HIV. Also, an Australian vaccine development program at Queensland University was shut down in 2020 because subjects were testing positive for HIV... hmmm So it's not a far stretch to see how this mRNA vaccine could be altering the DNA of the vaccinated. Yes it is a very far stretch. Altering DNA like those other papers you mention was about the structure of the DNA, not the information it contained (genes). Now if a structural “fold” or something cut off access to a needed gene, the cell will just die. To actually permanently alter someone’s DNA, you have to add, subtract or scramble the information it contains. If COVID had the HIV gene for reverse transcriptase then it would have been all over the news and you would have seen infected people killed. It’s nonsense. You're either a troll, or the dumbest of people I have ran across on here. Enjoy it while it lasts. Cognitive Dissonance and being unwilling to accept you were a gullible cunt who was fooled by the media and state actors who are all heavily backed by Big Pharma is always hard to process. It's not like Pfizer has a proven criminal record and was forced to pay "at the time" the largest criminal fine in history about 10 years back or a little more. People taking a shot made by them is equivalent to letting a known and convicted Pedo babysit your children. [bitchute] [link to www.bitchute.com (secure)] Forget about the cognitive dissonance and concentrate on your rampant confirmation bias, ya shit stupid simp Correcting the record one tard at a time #Junior Forum Mentor |
The Tard Wrangler
User ID: 78105231 Australia 07/06/2022 07:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83769380 There were actually a few papers in the microbiology area that suggested mRNA could permanently alter DNA before te pandemic. I found one from 2013 and another from 2017, and they both had a fair amount of related references that could have been followed up further. As I said, they were tangentially related (one was making permanent changes in fungi, another was in an insect from memory). The point is though, that we did know that mRNA could potentially alter DNA. Saying we didn't is quite simply academic dishonesty, or you are not across the literature as much as you think. What's more, you refer to "living normal people" as people who aren't HIV positive, though there are studies that both suggest there are HIV inserts in the COVID (so everyone that has had COVID could be potentially HIV positive) and that suffers of both COVID and the vaccines have tested positive for HIV. Also, an Australian vaccine development program at Queensland University was shut down in 2020 because subjects were testing positive for HIV... hmmm So it's not a far stretch to see how this mRNA vaccine could be altering the DNA of the vaccinated. Yes it is a very far stretch. Altering DNA like those other papers you mention was about the structure of the DNA, not the information it contained (genes). Now if a structural “fold” or something cut off access to a needed gene, the cell will just die. To actually permanently alter someone’s DNA, you have to add, subtract or scramble the information it contains. If COVID had the HIV gene for reverse transcriptase then it would have been all over the news and you would have seen infected people killed. It’s nonsense. That be some cognitive dissonance right there. Not being rude, but you really are twisting and turning to avoid the bleeding obvious. It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA for a long time. You are bandying words and other people's interpretations to try to wiggle out of the simple fact that long before it was shown to happen in humans (which it has been now), mRNA was thought to be able to, and proven in other species, to alter DNA permanently. What's more, this is a distraction (as the vaccinated keep doing) from the first question of; if this is all above board, why do the manufacturers have immunity from legal liability? Can you name ANY other product that has immunity from legal liability? Especially one that you put in your body? At least enogh of a possibility was ther to require MUCH MORE trsting bfore an international roll-out. Which one is it, permanently or a long time? You seem a bit flustered and are totally wrong about mRNA permanently or long time altering DNA. Oh and they had no liability long before covid They never get sick of being proven wrong, ever Correcting the record one tard at a time #Junior Forum Mentor |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83769380 Australia 07/06/2022 08:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83769380 There were actually a few papers in the microbiology area that suggested mRNA could permanently alter DNA before te pandemic. I found one from 2013 and another from 2017, and they both had a fair amount of related references that could have been followed up further. As I said, they were tangentially related (one was making permanent changes in fungi, another was in an insect from memory). The point is though, that we did know that mRNA could potentially alter DNA. Saying we didn't is quite simply academic dishonesty, or you are not across the literature as much as you think. What's more, you refer to "living normal people" as people who aren't HIV positive, though there are studies that both suggest there are HIV inserts in the COVID (so everyone that has had COVID could be potentially HIV positive) and that suffers of both COVID and the vaccines have tested positive for HIV. Also, an Australian vaccine development program at Queensland University was shut down in 2020 because subjects were testing positive for HIV... hmmm So it's not a far stretch to see how this mRNA vaccine could be altering the DNA of the vaccinated. Yes it is a very far stretch. Altering DNA like those other papers you mention was about the structure of the DNA, not the information it contained (genes). Now if a structural “fold” or something cut off access to a needed gene, the cell will just die. To actually permanently alter someone’s DNA, you have to add, subtract or scramble the information it contains. If COVID had the HIV gene for reverse transcriptase then it would have been all over the news and you would have seen infected people killed. It’s nonsense. That be some cognitive dissonance right there. Not being rude, but you really are twisting and turning to avoid the bleeding obvious. It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA for a long time. You are bandying words and other people's interpretations to try to wiggle out of the simple fact that long before it was shown to happen in humans (which it has been now), mRNA was thought to be able to, and proven in other species, to alter DNA permanently. What's more, this is a distraction (as the vaccinated keep doing) from the first question of; if this is all above board, why do the manufacturers have immunity from legal liability? Can you name ANY other product that has immunity from legal liability? Especially one that you put in your body? At least enogh of a possibility was ther to require MUCH MORE trsting bfore an international roll-out. Which one is it, permanently or a long time? You seem a bit flustered and are totally wrong about mRNA permanently or long time altering DNA. Oh and they had no liability long before covid Reading comprehension is not your strong suit hey. Nasty simpleton attacks is though. Let me rephrase the sentence for you, so you can more easily comprehend it... and stop looking so hard for me to be wrong that it makes you look like a fool. "It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA, for almost a decade before it was discovered to be fact. (ie. a long time). Get it now? Congratulations for knocking over all the pieces, shitting on the board and flying away in victory. Showing your true colours. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83769380 Australia 07/06/2022 08:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Sharon Cherries Yes it is a very far stretch. Altering DNA like those other papers you mention was about the structure of the DNA, not the information it contained (genes). Now if a structural “fold” or something cut off access to a needed gene, the cell will just die. To actually permanently alter someone’s DNA, you have to add, subtract or scramble the information it contains. If COVID had the HIV gene for reverse transcriptase then it would have been all over the news and you would have seen infected people killed. It’s nonsense. That be some cognitive dissonance right there. Not being rude, but you really are twisting and turning to avoid the bleeding obvious. It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA for a long time. You are bandying words and other people's interpretations to try to wiggle out of the simple fact that long before it was shown to happen in humans (which it has been now), mRNA was thought to be able to, and proven in other species, to alter DNA permanently. What's more, this is a distraction (as the vaccinated keep doing) from the first question of; if this is all above board, why do the manufacturers have immunity from legal liability? Can you name ANY other product that has immunity from legal liability? Especially one that you put in your body? At least enogh of a possibility was ther to require MUCH MORE trsting bfore an international roll-out. Which one is it, permanently or a long time? You seem a bit flustered and are totally wrong about mRNA permanently or long time altering DNA. Oh and they had no liability long before covid They never get sick of being proven wrong, ever You go Mr. Cheerleader Einstein! Keep on cheering ignorance, and showing our own. |
The Tard Wrangler
User ID: 78105231 Australia 07/06/2022 08:10 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Sharon Cherries Yes it is a very far stretch. Altering DNA like those other papers you mention was about the structure of the DNA, not the information it contained (genes). Now if a structural “fold” or something cut off access to a needed gene, the cell will just die. To actually permanently alter someone’s DNA, you have to add, subtract or scramble the information it contains. If COVID had the HIV gene for reverse transcriptase then it would have been all over the news and you would have seen infected people killed. It’s nonsense. That be some cognitive dissonance right there. Not being rude, but you really are twisting and turning to avoid the bleeding obvious. It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA for a long time. You are bandying words and other people's interpretations to try to wiggle out of the simple fact that long before it was shown to happen in humans (which it has been now), mRNA was thought to be able to, and proven in other species, to alter DNA permanently. What's more, this is a distraction (as the vaccinated keep doing) from the first question of; if this is all above board, why do the manufacturers have immunity from legal liability? Can you name ANY other product that has immunity from legal liability? Especially one that you put in your body? At least enogh of a possibility was ther to require MUCH MORE trsting bfore an international roll-out. Which one is it, permanently or a long time? You seem a bit flustered and are totally wrong about mRNA permanently or long time altering DNA. Oh and they had no liability long before covid Reading comprehension is not your strong suit hey. Nasty simpleton attacks is though. Let me rephrase the sentence for you, so you can more easily comprehend it... and stop looking so hard for me to be wrong that it makes you look like a fool. "It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA, for almost a decade before it was discovered to be fact. (ie. a long time). Get it now? Congratulations for knocking over all the pieces, shitting on the board and flying away in victory. Showing your true colours. I suggest you look up the definition of suggestive, but only after providing those missing links to back up your claims Correcting the record one tard at a time #Junior Forum Mentor |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83769380 Australia 07/06/2022 08:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83769380 That be some cognitive dissonance right there. Not being rude, but you really are twisting and turning to avoid the bleeding obvious. It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA for a long time. You are bandying words and other people's interpretations to try to wiggle out of the simple fact that long before it was shown to happen in humans (which it has been now), mRNA was thought to be able to, and proven in other species, to alter DNA permanently. What's more, this is a distraction (as the vaccinated keep doing) from the first question of; if this is all above board, why do the manufacturers have immunity from legal liability? Can you name ANY other product that has immunity from legal liability? Especially one that you put in your body? At least enogh of a possibility was ther to require MUCH MORE trsting bfore an international roll-out. Which one is it, permanently or a long time? You seem a bit flustered and are totally wrong about mRNA permanently or long time altering DNA. Oh and they had no liability long before covid They never get sick of being proven wrong, ever You go Mr. Cheerleader Einstein! Keep on cheering ignorance, and showing our own. your* (just to clarify, because you likely couldn't figure it out on your own). |
Sharon Cherries
User ID: 81690428 United States 07/06/2022 08:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Sharon Cherries Yes it is a very far stretch. Altering DNA like those other papers you mention was about the structure of the DNA, not the information it contained (genes). Now if a structural “fold” or something cut off access to a needed gene, the cell will just die. To actually permanently alter someone’s DNA, you have to add, subtract or scramble the information it contains. If COVID had the HIV gene for reverse transcriptase then it would have been all over the news and you would have seen infected people killed. It’s nonsense. That be some cognitive dissonance right there. Not being rude, but you really are twisting and turning to avoid the bleeding obvious. It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA for a long time. You are bandying words and other people's interpretations to try to wiggle out of the simple fact that long before it was shown to happen in humans (which it has been now), mRNA was thought to be able to, and proven in other species, to alter DNA permanently. What's more, this is a distraction (as the vaccinated keep doing) from the first question of; if this is all above board, why do the manufacturers have immunity from legal liability? Can you name ANY other product that has immunity from legal liability? Especially one that you put in your body? At least enogh of a possibility was ther to require MUCH MORE trsting bfore an international roll-out. Which one is it, permanently or a long time? You seem a bit flustered and are totally wrong about mRNA permanently or long time altering DNA. Oh and they had no liability long before covid Reading comprehension is not your strong suit hey. Nasty simpleton attacks is though. Let me rephrase the sentence for you, so you can more easily comprehend it... and stop looking so hard for me to be wrong that it makes you look like a fool. "It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA, for almost a decade before it was discovered to be fact. (ie. a long time). Get it now? Congratulations for knocking over all the pieces, shitting on the board and flying away in victory. Showing your true colours. You totally ignored the fact that it was about altering DNA structurally and not altering the information it encoded. No genetic modification, get it? |
The Tard Wrangler
User ID: 78105231 Australia 07/06/2022 08:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83769380 That be some cognitive dissonance right there. Not being rude, but you really are twisting and turning to avoid the bleeding obvious. It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA for a long time. You are bandying words and other people's interpretations to try to wiggle out of the simple fact that long before it was shown to happen in humans (which it has been now), mRNA was thought to be able to, and proven in other species, to alter DNA permanently. What's more, this is a distraction (as the vaccinated keep doing) from the first question of; if this is all above board, why do the manufacturers have immunity from legal liability? Can you name ANY other product that has immunity from legal liability? Especially one that you put in your body? At least enogh of a possibility was ther to require MUCH MORE trsting bfore an international roll-out. Which one is it, permanently or a long time? You seem a bit flustered and are totally wrong about mRNA permanently or long time altering DNA. Oh and they had no liability long before covid Reading comprehension is not your strong suit hey. Nasty simpleton attacks is though. Let me rephrase the sentence for you, so you can more easily comprehend it... and stop looking so hard for me to be wrong that it makes you look like a fool. "It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA, for almost a decade before it was discovered to be fact. (ie. a long time). Get it now? Congratulations for knocking over all the pieces, shitting on the board and flying away in victory. Showing your true colours. You totally ignored the fact that it was about altering DNA structurally and not altering the information it encoded. No genetic modification, get it? That’s just semantics to low iq tards Correcting the record one tard at a time #Junior Forum Mentor |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74364425 United States 07/06/2022 08:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nobody is talking about vaccines anymore in the real world. Just in online circles that you choose to be involved with (but don't have to be.) The only anger I ever see about vaccines comes coming from GLP and other conspiracy circles because their vaccine Armageddon they were promised didn't happen. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83798257 United States 07/06/2022 08:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79243780 United States 07/06/2022 08:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Sharon Cherries
User ID: 81690428 United States 07/06/2022 08:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nobody is talking about vaccines anymore in the real world. Just in online circles that you choose to be involved with (but don't have to be.) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74364425 The only anger I ever see about vaccines comes coming from GLP and other conspiracy circles because their vaccine Armageddon they were promised didn't happen. So true |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83769380 Australia 07/06/2022 08:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83769380 That be some cognitive dissonance right there. Not being rude, but you really are twisting and turning to avoid the bleeding obvious. It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA for a long time. You are bandying words and other people's interpretations to try to wiggle out of the simple fact that long before it was shown to happen in humans (which it has been now), mRNA was thought to be able to, and proven in other species, to alter DNA permanently. What's more, this is a distraction (as the vaccinated keep doing) from the first question of; if this is all above board, why do the manufacturers have immunity from legal liability? Can you name ANY other product that has immunity from legal liability? Especially one that you put in your body? At least enogh of a possibility was ther to require MUCH MORE trsting bfore an international roll-out. Which one is it, permanently or a long time? You seem a bit flustered and are totally wrong about mRNA permanently or long time altering DNA. Oh and they had no liability long before covid Reading comprehension is not your strong suit hey. Nasty simpleton attacks is though. Let me rephrase the sentence for you, so you can more easily comprehend it... and stop looking so hard for me to be wrong that it makes you look like a fool. "It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA, for almost a decade before it was discovered to be fact. (ie. a long time). Get it now? Congratulations for knocking over all the pieces, shitting on the board and flying away in victory. Showing your true colours. You totally ignored the fact that it was about altering DNA structurally and not altering the information it encoded. No genetic modification, get it? Wow.. you really are proving the point of the OP. Look how angry you're getting, and also the display of overjoyed passive aggressiveness (more anger) when you think you've caught me out. I didn't ignore anything, I have said "suggestive" many times, and you seem to not comprehend what that means, and are trying to ascribe to me things that I never said. Petty attacks are a pretty clear indication that you're not confident with your position, so need to lash out. |
Sharon Cherries
User ID: 81690428 United States 07/06/2022 08:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
The Tard Wrangler
User ID: 78105231 Australia 07/06/2022 08:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Sharon Cherries Which one is it, permanently or a long time? You seem a bit flustered and are totally wrong about mRNA permanently or long time altering DNA. Oh and they had no liability long before covid Reading comprehension is not your strong suit hey. Nasty simpleton attacks is though. Let me rephrase the sentence for you, so you can more easily comprehend it... and stop looking so hard for me to be wrong that it makes you look like a fool. "It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA, for almost a decade before it was discovered to be fact. (ie. a long time). Get it now? Congratulations for knocking over all the pieces, shitting on the board and flying away in victory. Showing your true colours. You totally ignored the fact that it was about altering DNA structurally and not altering the information it encoded. No genetic modification, get it? Wow.. you really are proving the point of the OP. Look how angry you're getting, and also the display of overjoyed passive aggressiveness (more anger) when you think you've caught me out. I didn't ignore anything, I have said "suggestive" many times, and you seem to not comprehend what that means, and are trying to ascribe to me things that I never said. Petty attacks are a pretty clear indication that you're not confident with your position, so need to lash out. I suggested you should learn the definition of suggestive, tard… do try to keep up Correcting the record one tard at a time #Junior Forum Mentor |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83337407 Australia 07/06/2022 08:39 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83769380 Australia 07/06/2022 08:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nobody is talking about vaccines anymore in the real world. Just in online circles that you choose to be involved with (but don't have to be.) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74364425 The only anger I ever see about vaccines comes coming from GLP and other conspiracy circles because their vaccine Armageddon they were promised didn't happen. So true I am still being actively discriminated against for my CHOICE of bodily autonomy... in the REAL WORLD, you clowns. I still can't enter many of my clients (big corporate's) buildings because of vaccination requirements. Many events (both social and career related) are still requiring vaccination, putting me at a disadvantage to my vaccinated counterparts. Just today our "Health" Minster said that 3 doses is the requirement now, no longer just two doses. ... and so many other examples, I could fill a book. Only the vaccinated, when dealing with other vaccinated, and ignoring the active and continuing discrimination of the unvaccinated, pretend that "nobody is talking about it" anymore... right up until they don't let yo in the door, and you can tell it is still very much front and centre in EVERY vaccinated mind. Pure vaccinated echo chamber. You are being so very disingenuous. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83769380 Australia 07/06/2022 08:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83769380 Reading comprehension is not your strong suit hey. Nasty simpleton attacks is though. Let me rephrase the sentence for you, so you can more easily comprehend it... and stop looking so hard for me to be wrong that it makes you look like a fool. "It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA, for almost a decade before it was discovered to be fact. (ie. a long time). Get it now? Congratulations for knocking over all the pieces, shitting on the board and flying away in victory. Showing your true colours. You totally ignored the fact that it was about altering DNA structurally and not altering the information it encoded. No genetic modification, get it? Wow.. you really are proving the point of the OP. Look how angry you're getting, and also the display of overjoyed passive aggressiveness (more anger) when you think you've caught me out. I didn't ignore anything, I have said "suggestive" many times, and you seem to not comprehend what that means, and are trying to ascribe to me things that I never said. Petty attacks are a pretty clear indication that you're not confident with your position, so need to lash out. I suggested you should learn the definition of suggestive, tard… do try to keep up You are a phenomenally rude person. Get over yourself cunt. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83769380 Australia 07/06/2022 08:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | These two muppets (Tard Wrangler and Sharron Cherries) have completely proved the point of the OP. Passive aggressive dipshits that refuse to engage in discourse, and rather obfuscate, belittle and insult as their modus operandi. I have tried polite conversation and they just can't help but rise to the stench of their own self-importance. Classic shill tactics. Either real, or just learned behavior because it makes them feel briefly better about their own shitty outlooks. Clear case of Self-induced schadenfreude. |
The Tard Wrangler
User ID: 78105231 Australia 07/06/2022 08:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nobody is talking about vaccines anymore in the real world. Just in online circles that you choose to be involved with (but don't have to be.) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74364425 The only anger I ever see about vaccines comes coming from GLP and other conspiracy circles because their vaccine Armageddon they were promised didn't happen. So true I am still being actively discriminated against for my CHOICE of bodily autonomy... in the REAL WORLD, you clowns. I still can't enter many of my clients (big corporate's) buildings because of vaccination requirements. Many events (both social and career related) are still requiring vaccination, putting me at a disadvantage to my vaccinated counterparts. Just today our "Health" Minster said that 3 doses is the requirement now, no longer just two doses. ... and so many other examples, I could fill a book. Only the vaccinated, when dealing with other vaccinated, and ignoring the active and continuing discrimination of the unvaccinated, pretend that "nobody is talking about it" anymore... right up until they don't let yo in the door, and you can tell it is still very much front and centre in EVERY vaccinated mind. Pure vaccinated echo chamber. You are being so very disingenuous. No vaccine requirements in my state and visitors to Australia no longer need to be vaccinated Where’s the link where “our Health Minster said that 3 doses is the requirement now, no longer just two doses.” They’ve been “recommending” a booster to everyone eligible and a second booster for immunocompromised and those over 65 Correcting the record one tard at a time #Junior Forum Mentor |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83769380 Australia 07/06/2022 08:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83769380 Reading comprehension is not your strong suit hey. Nasty simpleton attacks is though. Let me rephrase the sentence for you, so you can more easily comprehend it... and stop looking so hard for me to be wrong that it makes you look like a fool. "It was suggestive that DNA could be permanently altered by mRNA, for almost a decade before it was discovered to be fact. (ie. a long time). Get it now? Congratulations for knocking over all the pieces, shitting on the board and flying away in victory. Showing your true colours. You totally ignored the fact that it was about altering DNA structurally and not altering the information it encoded. No genetic modification, get it? Wow.. you really are proving the point of the OP. Look how angry you're getting, and also the display of overjoyed passive aggressiveness (more anger) when you think you've caught me out. I didn't ignore anything, I have said "suggestive" many times, and you seem to not comprehend what that means, and are trying to ascribe to me things that I never said. Petty attacks are a pretty clear indication that you're not confident with your position, so need to lash out. I suggested you should learn the definition of suggestive, tard… do try to keep up Suggestive 1. tending to suggest an idea 2. indicative or evocative In use: When permanent DNA changes are found using mRNA (regardless of your semantics) in one species, or even when we saw temporary changes earlier than that, it is "suggestive" that the same could be found in other species, or that many types of permanent changes from mRNA/DNA interaction may be possible. Is English not your first language? Where exactly is your struggle with the definition of "suggestive" and my use of it? You're either being deliberately obtuse to try to diminish my input in this thread, or you really are a moron. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83769380 Australia 07/06/2022 09:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nobody is talking about vaccines anymore in the real world. Just in online circles that you choose to be involved with (but don't have to be.) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74364425 The only anger I ever see about vaccines comes coming from GLP and other conspiracy circles because their vaccine Armageddon they were promised didn't happen. So true I am still being actively discriminated against for my CHOICE of bodily autonomy... in the REAL WORLD, you clowns. I still can't enter many of my clients (big corporate's) buildings because of vaccination requirements. Many events (both social and career related) are still requiring vaccination, putting me at a disadvantage to my vaccinated counterparts. Just today our "Health" Minster said that 3 doses is the requirement now, no longer just two doses. ... and so many other examples, I could fill a book. Only the vaccinated, when dealing with other vaccinated, and ignoring the active and continuing discrimination of the unvaccinated, pretend that "nobody is talking about it" anymore... right up until they don't let yo in the door, and you can tell it is still very much front and centre in EVERY vaccinated mind. Pure vaccinated echo chamber. You are being so very disingenuous. No vaccine requirements in my state and visitors to Australia no longer need to be vaccinated Where’s the link where “our Health Minster said that 3 doses is the requirement now, no longer just two doses.” They’ve been “recommending” a booster to everyone eligible and a second booster for immunocompromised and those over 65 After your behavior; believe me, don't believe, whatever... go find the link yourself if you're actually interested or genuine. |
The Tard Wrangler
User ID: 78105231 Australia 07/06/2022 09:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Sharon Cherries You totally ignored the fact that it was about altering DNA structurally and not altering the information it encoded. No genetic modification, get it? Wow.. you really are proving the point of the OP. Look how angry you're getting, and also the display of overjoyed passive aggressiveness (more anger) when you think you've caught me out. I didn't ignore anything, I have said "suggestive" many times, and you seem to not comprehend what that means, and are trying to ascribe to me things that I never said. Petty attacks are a pretty clear indication that you're not confident with your position, so need to lash out. I suggested you should learn the definition of suggestive, tard… do try to keep up You are a phenomenally rude person. Get over yourself cunt. You were wrong You were proven wrong You can’t even admit you’re wrong You didn’t even know you were responding to the wrong person I suggest you are the cunt in need of getting over their cunty self Correcting the record one tard at a time #Junior Forum Mentor |
The Tard Wrangler
User ID: 78105231 Australia 07/06/2022 09:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I am still being actively discriminated against for my CHOICE of bodily autonomy... in the REAL WORLD, you clowns. I still can't enter many of my clients (big corporate's) buildings because of vaccination requirements. Many events (both social and career related) are still requiring vaccination, putting me at a disadvantage to my vaccinated counterparts. Just today our "Health" Minster said that 3 doses is the requirement now, no longer just two doses. ... and so many other examples, I could fill a book. Only the vaccinated, when dealing with other vaccinated, and ignoring the active and continuing discrimination of the unvaccinated, pretend that "nobody is talking about it" anymore... right up until they don't let yo in the door, and you can tell it is still very much front and centre in EVERY vaccinated mind. Pure vaccinated echo chamber. You are being so very disingenuous. No vaccine requirements in my state and visitors to Australia no longer need to be vaccinated Where’s the link where “our Health Minster said that 3 doses is the requirement now, no longer just two doses.” They’ve been “recommending” a booster to everyone eligible and a second booster for immunocompromised and those over 65 After your behavior; believe me, don't believe, whatever... go find the link yourself if you're actually interested or genuine. I’ve watched the video and nowhere does she say “3 shots are required”… unless you have another version Correcting the record one tard at a time #Junior Forum Mentor |
Nice Boots Billy
User ID: 77648059 Canada 07/06/2022 09:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |