Last year Pfizer anounced they would "reduce the population by 50% by next year in 2023". I was 1 of many who saw and heard this last year. This took place in Davos, Switzerland at the WEF summit.
Answer to #2 is an unequivocal YES. Delayed myocardial enhancement is NEVER normal and is indicative of basically non-viable and/or non-myocardial tissue (scar, sarcoidosis, amyloid, tumor etc).
Normal myocardium NEVER....EVER shows delayed enhancement on MRI or CT. Most commonly means scar tissue and non-viable myocardium. It cannot be spun any other way. There are few guarantees in life, but delayed enhancement of myocardial is NEVER normal and is essentially always bad (unless treatable cause...scarring from dead / non-viable myocardium is NOT treatable...dead is dead)....cardiotoxicity is NOT a side effect of da vax, its a FEATURE....neither safe nor effective....it can't be. Cannot 'stop the spread' as it does NOT induce IgA antibodies. It's toxicity and utter ineffective ness is unequivocally proven. If anyone disagrees....challenge them.
I read the abstract twice. This is written to hand wave the jabs being the cause here, see how they say they didn't find "... have EXAGGERATED SARS-CoV-2–specific or neutralizing antibody responses consistent with a hyperimmune humoral mechanism." (All caps are my emphasis). There doesn't have to be an exaggerated SARS2 etc. antibody response - and by saying that, there obviously IS an antibody response. I'm not recalling that term from literature at the moment, either. I'll have to read the entire paper for greater detail. Yes, very troubling. I also went straight to the funding source after reading the abstract, and it's the expected ones. The last sentence claims the contents of the paper are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH - that's camouflage. Sigh. This paper HAD to say it's not from the jabs, to keep NIH et al from yanking it from publication. IMO.
How can these findings be ignored? The temporal link to the covid shots is undeniable.
Last year Pfizer anounced they would "reduce the population by 50% by next year in 2023". I was 1 of many who saw and heard this last year. This took place in Davos, Switzerland at the WEF summit.
How do you think they will do this?
Answer to #2 is an unequivocal YES. Delayed myocardial enhancement is NEVER normal and is indicative of basically non-viable and/or non-myocardial tissue (scar, sarcoidosis, amyloid, tumor etc).
Normal myocardium NEVER....EVER shows delayed enhancement on MRI or CT. Most commonly means scar tissue and non-viable myocardium. It cannot be spun any other way. There are few guarantees in life, but delayed enhancement of myocardial is NEVER normal and is essentially always bad (unless treatable cause...scarring from dead / non-viable myocardium is NOT treatable...dead is dead)....cardiotoxicity is NOT a side effect of da vax, its a FEATURE....neither safe nor effective....it can't be. Cannot 'stop the spread' as it does NOT induce IgA antibodies. It's toxicity and utter ineffective ness is unequivocally proven. If anyone disagrees....challenge them.
1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978
2. https://voxday.net/2023/08/16/no-they-havent-always-died/
3.https://www.2ndsmartestguyintheworld.com/p/mrna-vaccines-have-caused-irreversible?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=400535&post_id=136157321&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
I read the abstract twice. This is written to hand wave the jabs being the cause here, see how they say they didn't find "... have EXAGGERATED SARS-CoV-2–specific or neutralizing antibody responses consistent with a hyperimmune humoral mechanism." (All caps are my emphasis). There doesn't have to be an exaggerated SARS2 etc. antibody response - and by saying that, there obviously IS an antibody response. I'm not recalling that term from literature at the moment, either. I'll have to read the entire paper for greater detail. Yes, very troubling. I also went straight to the funding source after reading the abstract, and it's the expected ones. The last sentence claims the contents of the paper are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH - that's camouflage. Sigh. This paper HAD to say it's not from the jabs, to keep NIH et al from yanking it from publication. IMO.