I believe Midwestern Doctor looked at this and found that the closer the jab recipients were to the manufacturing site, the more deadly the injection. Remember when they first started talking about the injections, how they had to be kept at extremely low temps to keep the mRNA from breaking down, or maybe it was to keep the mRNA envelope…
I believe Midwestern Doctor looked at this and found that the closer the jab recipients were to the manufacturing site, the more deadly the injection. Remember when they first started talking about the injections, how they had to be kept at extremely low temps to keep the mRNA from breaking down, or maybe it was to keep the mRNA enveloped in the lipid nanoparticles, temps well below zero Celsius? It's my suspicion that the injections were not kept at those low temps the further you get from the manufacturing site and the further you go out in time from date of manufacture. As a result, batches that are older or further away from the manufacturing site are less deadly because the nRNA has broken down or is no longer enclosed in the lipid nanoparticles. Fresh batch = very deadly. Old batch = less deadly.
It's an interesting hypothesis, for sure. Yet here in Big Pharma central, I can walk to Moderna HQ near a gleaming Pfizer high-rise, a stone's throw from Steve's alma mater MIT. Not sure where exactly the shots were manufactured though. Many people I know have had multiple injections without serious adverse events (SAE)....well, none they will admit to anyway.
That said, I do have an ongoing list of SAE and deaths but the shots are never questioned. New onset conditions/deaths are attributed to natural aging and/or anything but the shots. I'm stating the obvious to anyone reading this.
yes, I believe the data was from Europe, Belgium in particular. If you go to her substack, you could find the article. Might have been entitled What Makes Vaccines So Dangerous, but could have been a different one.
I believe Midwestern Doctor looked at this and found that the closer the jab recipients were to the manufacturing site, the more deadly the injection. Remember when they first started talking about the injections, how they had to be kept at extremely low temps to keep the mRNA from breaking down, or maybe it was to keep the mRNA enveloped in the lipid nanoparticles, temps well below zero Celsius? It's my suspicion that the injections were not kept at those low temps the further you get from the manufacturing site and the further you go out in time from date of manufacture. As a result, batches that are older or further away from the manufacturing site are less deadly because the nRNA has broken down or is no longer enclosed in the lipid nanoparticles. Fresh batch = very deadly. Old batch = less deadly.
I can't find this on his substack. It is a good idea, and it might be your own. Someone should do this.
It's an interesting hypothesis, for sure. Yet here in Big Pharma central, I can walk to Moderna HQ near a gleaming Pfizer high-rise, a stone's throw from Steve's alma mater MIT. Not sure where exactly the shots were manufactured though. Many people I know have had multiple injections without serious adverse events (SAE)....well, none they will admit to anyway.
That said, I do have an ongoing list of SAE and deaths but the shots are never questioned. New onset conditions/deaths are attributed to natural aging and/or anything but the shots. I'm stating the obvious to anyone reading this.
What a fascinating observation. Did A Midwestern Doctor really have good data to assess that though, I wonder.
yes, I believe the data was from Europe, Belgium in particular. If you go to her substack, you could find the article. Might have been entitled What Makes Vaccines So Dangerous, but could have been a different one.