Posted on 03/28/2022 7:07:25 AM PDT by upchuck
Kamala’s own words:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/09/05/politics/kamala-harris-not-trust-trump-vaccine-cnntv/index.html
Why is the doctor not named? And what is this “functional medicine doctor“ anyway? Is he an MD? Or he something else?
I dunno. It’s odd things like this that cloud whatever good the article might have to say.
Total quackery. Which is why the author didn’t name the “medical doctor”.
Blood allowed to dry without being properly prepared for microscope will form random shapes.
There is quackery in the main stream medical complex. It shows up more often than most people think.
> Blood allowed to dry without being properly prepared for microscope will form random shapes. <
Good catch. And since the sample was not taken in a lab setting, who knows what kind of environmental contamination occurred. So, yeah. I think this is a case of someone who first formed a conclusion, then went looking for evidence.
I suspect they are keeping the info close hold for now. Then in October of 2024 right before the election the NYT's will release a blockbuster report that exposes all the fraud, lies and dangers of the vax.
It will all be blamed on Trump and the media will memory hole all the crap they pulled with mandatory vax. Anyone not fallowing the narrative will be canceled.
Does the artifact look liks a hammer and sickle?
I agree. It is from a Brightfield with a green filter.
What’s your problem with it? Be specific.
👍👍👍
““The truth is this vaccine was/is not safe. “
That’s the same thing Democrats said when Trump was in office.”
It was true then and true now.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I’m with you.
About covid, its origins, the vax, the endless mutations. About Russia and Ukraine. About the 2020 election. About upcoming possible food shortages..the list goes on.
This could easily be tested. Obtain N samples of vaccinated and unvaccinated blood, label and randomize. Prepare without knowing which is which. Then compare all blood and see if anyone can match the results. But that would be science anathema to “functional” quacks. Even though such a study, if confirmed, would bring lots of business to these blood charlatans.
“Usually a normal optical scope would not be powerful enough to see a virus...at least that was my understanding.”
Can You See Viruses Under a Microscope? - Rs’ Sciencehttps://rsscience.com › Microscopes
No. Viruses are too small to be seen with an optical microscope. An electron microscope is required to see viruses.
Big Pharma's been looking at graphene oxide for use as an adjuvant for a while now.
Thrombus Inducing Property of Atomically Thin Graphene Oxide Sheets
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.