Published scientific studies can't be trusted, but random statements thrown out on conspiracy blogs are to be taken as gospel? That seems backwards to me.
"nanomaterials go to joints, the cornea, brain, and cause REAL problems"
Lipids cause real problems? That's an interesting idea.
"oncogenic, autoimmune, secondary infections, hyperimmune problems, endocrine changes, and unanticipated problems will show up later - they always do."
So you're saying you have no evidence that there's any problems, but you're certain they'll come up later? Based on what? How much later? Half-life on mRNA is 10 hours, so it's gone a week after the shot. First doses were given over a year ago. When are they going to have all these problems?
"the ONLY thing that was saved was thousands of mice"
Pfizer and Moderna didn't do their animal studies on mice.
"DNA operating systems"
They neither use DNA, nor do they interact with DNA in any way.
"designed by the CCP and then copied FROM THE TEXT by the over eager drug companies."
That's the most absurd statement yet. Do you have any idea how many text messages it would take to transmit all the technical data required to construct a lipid shell and custom build messenger RNA, then get the mRNA encapsulated within the lipid shell, then stabilize it for suspension in a medium for injection?
You'd be typing out text messages for the next 10 years trying to get all that data across. It's about the most inefficient, ineffective way possible to transmit that kind of data. And you have zero evidence of any of this. Pfizer and Moderna and Johnson & Johnson each independently worked on their vaccines. President Trump selected the most promising vaccine candidates to receive Operation Warp Speed funding based on where they were in the spring and summer last year. This one is just plain silly.
a nanomaterial is not a lipid.
you take every sentence and then rearrange it and lie.
you ought get an education, instead of SELLING what you know nothing about.