Well, I actually did see that one. Your picture here looks different so I thought you were someone different. Here's another question: How about the Danish study that shows 1/3 of folks apparently received inert material and had no ill effects, another 1/3 had moderate side effects, and the final 1/3 had more serious effects? And the timing of these shots showed that the more serious effects came early in the vaccination effort. I don't see how your bolus theory, though possibly correct in general, also accounts for the Danish study results. And didn't they have the policy of routine aspiration in Denmark. How would that fit into your theory
The author explained it I believe on John campbell. Not sure where I saw it, but I believe other people found accidents for these lots in other countries.
The lot theory can be falsified in various ways anyhow.
(1) lot theory doesn't explain why all the wounds are concentrated. That's not related to poison.
(2) poison doesn't trigger a Tcell attack, the vaccine does. It's its MoA.
(3) if the poison is in the LNP, it would change absolutely nothing, since the LNPs are cytotoxic by proxy (they get the Tcell to attack see 2). Adding poison to poison doesn't change.
(4) if poison were in the LNP, likely it would destroy the mRNA and the cell before it can produce spike. Vaccine injured are loaded with spike...
(5) if poison is outside the LNP, why no necrosis at the injection site, why T-cell+spike in the wounds?
(6) people wouldn't have antibodies if it was placebo and it would show. I have yet to hear of anyone not having Abs post-vaccine. How does a majority of people ger placebo and antibodies? It's a shameful joke.
The Bolus Theory explains all the adverse events observed, including cancer.
John Campbell interviewed me 7 months ago, and completely bought into the theory. He qualified my work as"superb" and as "an impressive body of work".
I thought I had seen all of Mr. Campbell's videos but I guess I missed yours.
I'll go back and view it. Thank you.
Well, I actually did see that one. Your picture here looks different so I thought you were someone different. Here's another question: How about the Danish study that shows 1/3 of folks apparently received inert material and had no ill effects, another 1/3 had moderate side effects, and the final 1/3 had more serious effects? And the timing of these shots showed that the more serious effects came early in the vaccination effort. I don't see how your bolus theory, though possibly correct in general, also accounts for the Danish study results. And didn't they have the policy of routine aspiration in Denmark. How would that fit into your theory
That was debunked. There was delayed reporting from whqt I understand. In other countries these lots had harmed the same .
Can you provide a citation for that? I thought the Danes could be counted on to have reliable information
The author explained it I believe on John campbell. Not sure where I saw it, but I believe other people found accidents for these lots in other countries.
The lot theory can be falsified in various ways anyhow.
(1) lot theory doesn't explain why all the wounds are concentrated. That's not related to poison.
(2) poison doesn't trigger a Tcell attack, the vaccine does. It's its MoA.
(3) if the poison is in the LNP, it would change absolutely nothing, since the LNPs are cytotoxic by proxy (they get the Tcell to attack see 2). Adding poison to poison doesn't change.
(4) if poison were in the LNP, likely it would destroy the mRNA and the cell before it can produce spike. Vaccine injured are loaded with spike...
(5) if poison is outside the LNP, why no necrosis at the injection site, why T-cell+spike in the wounds?
(6) people wouldn't have antibodies if it was placebo and it would show. I have yet to hear of anyone not having Abs post-vaccine. How does a majority of people ger placebo and antibodies? It's a shameful joke.