kimberlysteele | Zuckerberg Whoops: The Vaccine Does Modify Your DNA and RNA

From: (Anonymous)

My boss, age 70 and spry until now, has been wondering why she keeps staring at her computer, unable to think properly since she got vaccinated (both shots). I’m praying she will be protected.

From:

kimberlysteele

Ugh, I'm so sorry to hear that! There is a high incidence of adverse side effects; I've heard almost 80 percent have a bad reaction ranging from skin rash to actual death. Mainstream media is covering it up, which is unconscionable.

From: (Anonymous)

Former doctor here: if we're talking about the MRNA stuff, 80% is probably low..... (The actual vaccines don't seem as dangerous; but it's hard to know as of yet)

From: (Anonymous)

Hello Doctor,

If you have time, can you explain the potential benefits and drawbacks, and the MRNA issue, in layman’s terms? We kittens spend so much time knocking things off shelves and pulling down curtains that we don’t always have time to keep up with the latest science.

—Lady Cutekitten

From: (Anonymous)

The benefits are simple: if this works as intended, all we need to do is isolate the RNA which codes for proteins any given virus or bacteria has that our immune systems can recognize and attack, and we have a vaccine. Therefore, it becomes vastly easier to produce new vaccines; given how quickly pathogens can evolve, this is a useful thing to be able to do. For example, if something like Ebola, but airborne emerges, being able to develop a vaccine in less than a year is awesome.

The drawbacks come from the fact that we don't know enough about how cells work, and so there is a very high risk this will not work as intended, for at least some people. First, it is known that in some cases RNA gets transcribed into DNA. We don't know how, nor why, nor how often it happens, but we know it does, and so this is a risk. Even if it happens, we might not be able to detect it even if we look for it, and it might not happen to everyone anyway.

There are also what are called intercepted genes, where parts of the DNA are skipped when read into RNA; this can also vary from cell to cell, and person to person: it's part of how neurons and white blood cells can have the same genetic code, but it's also how things can be passed on from generation to generation; for example, starvation causes effects which linger for generations, based on alterations to these intercepted genes. There's some evidence this also happens with RNA, but it's not clear, and it was only discovered a few years ago. What this means is that it's possible these may code for other things for some or all people who get the treatment.

Then there's also the issue of the fact that the immune system does not use a simplistic "this protein is bad" method, but rather assesses the entire situation: it may very well lock onto other proteins on the targets and start attacking them as well; in other words, these might also cause autoimmune disorders: these may not cause major symptoms for months or even years, and so we'd have no idea if this was happening.

Then there's the fact that a lot of how cells work differs in sperm and egg cells, and so even if there are no consequences, there's a risk that mucking about with the cells in this way could cause issues with them, which would not become apparent for months (if it's sperm) or decades if it's egg cells: since egg cells develop in fetus', we'd only be able to know if there was an issue when women who's mothers got the treatment started having children.

In other words, these MRNA therapies are mucking about with a system we don't understand, in ways likely to have unforeseen and possibly devastating consequences, for some fraction of the people who get the treatment, which may not be obvious for a long, long time.

I hope this helps clarify the issue.

From: (Anonymous)

Oh, right, I also should add: assuming the MRNA thing works as intended, it'll function as a vaccine, raising another concern: for reasons which are still somewhat unclear, there is a phenomena called ADE (antibody dependent enhancement) which almost always appears with coronavirus vaccines. The result is that the patient is healthy, but exposure to other coronaviruses becomes vastly more dangerous. This is one of the reasons vaccines need years of testing: if this occurs, which it almost certainly will given that it's happened literally every single time anyone has tried to make a coronavirus vaccine, then things like new Covid-19 variants, the common cold, or whatever new coronaviruses emerge in the future will be vastly more dangerous to people who got these vaccines.

From: (Anonymous)

Thank you, Doctor. I believe that at this moment the virus is less dangerous than the “vaccine.” I hope a legitimate vaccine is soon developed.

—Lady Cutekitten

From:

jpc_w

The Sputnik V, AstraZenica and CanSino vaccines don't use mRNA technology. They use a viral vector method already used in Hepatitis B vaccines.

From:

kimberlysteele

Thanks! I always like a good infographic. I would point out that there's a concrete admittance that the "vaccine" is designed to turn one's own cells into replicators for a part of the virus:

"The viral vector vaccines get around this problem by smuggling the virus protein RNA into our cells in a different way. Scientists can add the RNA to the genetic material of another virus, a viral vector, which is then used in the vaccine.

As with the RNA vaccines, once the virus protein RNA is in our cells, our cellular machinery uses it as a blueprint to make the virus protein. This then causes an immune response, which trains our body’s immune system to recognise the SARS-CoV-2 virus."

Now I do understand what they are trying to do: make small, manageable pieces of the virus so the body can decide how to handle them, but I see such an approach to immunity as way too experimental. What if epigenetics affect metabolism of the vaccine? Like Methylethyl mentioned, what is the impact on the fetus? My approach: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. COVID is a flu that is easily treatable with supplements, especially vitamin D and zinc. To inject a vaccine that stimulates an artificial immune response (when we aren't dealing with anything as lethal or disfiguring as polio or smallpox) is asking for trouble.

From: (Anonymous)

For anything short of the black death, since the effects likely won't be known fully for generations, the risks are too great for it, in my opinion. Yes, I'd rather take my chances with polio or smallpox than an MRNA vaccine, which is saying something.

From:

jpc_w

I had the Hepatitis B vaccine 2 years ago. I've had none of the funky side effects the mRNA COVID vaccine recipients are showing.

I've been keeping on top of Covid treatments since I first heard about it in early January 2020.

One of the first people to sound the alarm of what was going on in China made a video about how the mRNA vaccine supposedly works in vivo. He's...well, he was one of the first people in the West to popularize the Vitamin C/Vitamin D/Zinc/Chaga Mushroom//Don Qin treatments used in Viet Nam and Taiwan.

He's also crazy.

So if you decide to watch his presentation, take it with appropriate levels of salt.

Edited (Mentioning I've had the Hep B vaccine.) Date: 2021-02-19 05:56 am (UTC)

From:

temporaryreality

Thanks for the link to Clif's video - sometime over the years I'd lost track of him/George Ure, and peoplenomics... nice to catch up on what that branch of the weird internet is up to these days.

From:

kimberlysteele

I could be wrong, but it seems like people are being told they're getting a vaccine when they're actually getting the MRNA "therapy". Is it legal to do this?

"This is not a vaccine... it is a medical device designed to stimulate a human cell into becoming a pathogen creator."

https://www.bitchute.com/video/4fVFgHXPELoO/

From: (Anonymous)

It's been classified by the FDA as a vaccine, so yes. Ethically, it's a whole other story, but legally speaking the MRNA stuff is a vaccine. One of the many reasons I think this was a terrible idea is that it means the consequences will be considered a vaccine issue, which means the backlash will hit a lot of very valuable things.

From:

kimberlysteele

Thank you for this. "...the backlash will hit a lot of very valuable things" Meaning it could cause massive public distrust in experimental gene therapies that could have improved and saved lives?

From: (Anonymous)

I'm thinking that because this is classed as a vaccine, the backlash will hit vaccines hard; some of which are beneficial despite the risks. Freaking out over a relatively minor disease, rushing these experimental treatments, classifying them as a vaccine when it's very much not, and then insisting it's safe even as the evidence for side effects pile up is going to convince a lot of people to stop trusting vaccinations in general.

From:

kimberlysteele

That makes a great deal of sense. I suspect this vaccine is a cover for injecting people with the latest tracking nanotechnology, essentially placing the equivalent of a microchip inside the vaccinated for surveillance purposes, but I have not heard anyone else say the same thing.

From:

methylethyl

I see it as a test run for such technology: they're prodding to see how compliant the population is, and how high they have to ratchet up the propaganda to get people to fall in line. I don't think it's a tracking marker yet, but I think if it's reasonably successful this time around, it'll be an ID chip of some sort next time.

From:

kimberlysteele

That seems right up their alley. They're in the manufacturing compliance phase...

From: (Anonymous)

The thing is, we don't know if it will or not. We know it's possible to transcribe RNA into DNA; we know it happens all the time, and it is in fact one of the many epigenetic processes. We don't have the foggiest idea of how it works, just that it happens, and given the complexities of the human genome, we can't easily test everyone. So it very well might alter DNA for some, or all, of the people who get it, and we won't know.

So of course Zuckerberg is smart enough to know this is a risk; but they can't let us peasants know, or we might not get the vaccines!

From:

kimberlysteele

It's not technically a vaccine -- isn't that rich? It is a genetically modified piece of the virus (the most pathogenic part) that replicates itself inside the body's cells order to generate an immune response "just in case" the actual Covid virus shows up. Which is to say it is the genetic Russian roulette version of Waiting for Godot.

From:

kimberlysteele

This came across my newsfeed: leftist celebrities saying nasty things about the now-deceased Rush Limbaugh, hoping that his family and friends suffer and will soon join him in hell, where they are confident he is going, etc. This is after a year of the same people telling us "we're all in this together" as they virtue signaled from their posh mansions.

Hmmm.....

Now these same hateful people are dutifully lining up for the Covid "vaccine", which is not a vaccine at all but an RNA hijacker that permanently sickens 80 percent of the people who take it -- that is if it does not kill them outright.

As usual, I could be wrong, but it looks like a recipe for karmic comeuppance if I ever saw one. All I can say is grab the popcorn and find a comfortable seat.

From: (Anonymous)

Whatever else can be said about Limbaugh, he died well, carrying on with his show till nearly the end, loyal to his loyal audience.

—Lady Cutekitten

From:

methylethyl

For real! When did people lose the art of saying "I didn't agree with the guy, but what a life!"

FWIW:

Godspeed, Rush. You weren't my cup of tea, but what a life!

From:

causticus

Basically,

1. These people have gone full-blown psychotic.

2. The universe has quite a randy sense of humor.

My family is full of PMCs and I seen first-hand how the vaccine madness is playing out. And whenever I get the chance to interact with working class people, it's literally like night and day.

From:

kimberlysteele

I live in a working class neighborhood and it really is like night and day compared to where I work, which is in the heart of Affluenzaland.

From:

kimberlysteele

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Es1YmN6cqY6a/

Dr. Lee Merritt, an award winning spinal surgeon and former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons believes that current coronavirus vaccines are dangerous bioweapons being deployed against the people.

Merritt, who previously studied bioweapons while serving as an orthopedic surgeon in the US Navy for 9 years, sat on the board of the Arizona Medical Association, and has published numerous peer-reviewed papers, believes that mRNA-altering coronavirus vaccines currently being distributed in the US are rewriting our genetic code to make us vulnerable to a second virus later on.

From:

lincoln_lynx

The thought has crossed my mind. Before the pandemic they wargamed a scenario where a virus resurfaces and kills a large percentage of the population.

These are people who want a more manageable society so I wouldn't be shocked if they did such a thing. (Or if the vaccine just happens to cause a marked decline in birth rates.)

From:

methylethyl

To be fair: Zuck apparently said that back in... July? But if he's allowed to change his mind over time, it's curious that FB cannot allow others the possibility of doing likewise.

My natural inclination is to believe *all* the negative things postulated about the vaccine. But I don't *know* any of it for sure, and expect we'll all have to wait and find out. Though why anyone wants to be a guinea pig for it is beyond me.

From:

kimberlysteele

What troubles me is that they're so ready and willing to force the vaccine on people (like me) who aren't willing to take it. I'm not kidding when I say I will fight these people to the death if necessary.

From:

methylethyl

Yeah. I'm married, not yet menopausal, and accidents *do* happen. Not even going to risk getting vaccinated since there is pretty much *always* a non-zero chance I might be pregnant or get that way shortly, regardless of whether we're trying to or not (case in point: our delightful second kid!). Even the official literature says don't get it if you're pregnant, and don't get pregnant within 2 months of it (and at what? Three doses now?). I don't think any sexually active woman of childbearing age who still has a uterus should even consider getting it. x100 for those of us whose religious convictions prohibit getting an abortion. I think any Christian woman is within her rights to refuse on religious grounds for that reason.

From:

kimberlysteele

What I find frustrating is the same people who are pro-abortion are the ones pushing mandatory RNA-modding vaccines for everyone.... whatever happened to respecting a woman's bodily autonomy?

From:

methylethyl

The depressing thing is that discrimination against fertile women re: vaccine is already happening:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/nyc-waitress-fired-refusing-covid-vaccine-fertility-concerns/

From: (Anonymous)

""“Please be advised that we will require that all employees receive the vaccination,” the email, which Jacobson provided to NBC News, said. “This will be mandatory for all existing employees and any new hires. The exception to this policy will be if your own personal health or disability prohibits you from obtaining this vaccination. We encourage you to consult your healthcare professional to determine if getting a vaccine is right for you.”"

It's fascinating: talk to your doctor, make sure you know whether you should get, but you're getting it!

From:

kimberlysteele

I'm so glad I work for myself. SO. GLAD.

From:

lp9

My sister had a doctor's appointment to talk about her concerns with the vaccine and fertility. Interestingly, the nurse said he wasn't getting it because he and his wife were trying to have a baby. The doctor, of course, highly recommended my sister get it.

From: (Anonymous)

I find it wryly amusing, as a pro-life activist, is watching the way that the pro-choice activists are now shooting themselves in the foot: they're trampling over their best argument in favour of their cause, and it really appears they don't notice it. My guess is that one of the consequences will be a massive reduction in abortion rights over the next few years, since judging from conversations I've had lately, the pro-choice movement has just succeeded in something we have been trying to do for years, but could never quite pull off: convincing a lot of people, including plenty of young women, that a sizable fraction of the pro-choice people do not actually care about women's bodily autonomy. The fact they don't get that is the weirdest part of it all.

From:

kimberlysteele

Plus there's the Choice argument when applied to mask wearing and social distancing. Pro-choicers got triggered when anti-lockdown protestors carried signs with "My body, my risk, my choice" on them.

It's all so ridiculous because we are quickly going back to an era of back room abortions anyway -- not necessarily because of legal issues but because it's so expensive and difficult to have any elective surgery these days.

From: (Anonymous)

I know a young teen who had a baby because abortions were deemed elective surgery, so I think it's already here for a lot of people...

From:

kimberlysteele

How awful for her. May she be blessed. Had I gotten pregnant at 16 (when my body was biologically as good as it was going to get for having a baby, by the way) it would have ruined my life. I most likely would not have become a music teacher because I would not have gone to musical college and never would have felt credentialed enough to follow that path.

But it is highly likely I would have just killed myself. I was mentally ill back then and I can see myself either trying to poison the baby out with pennyroyal or just outright destroying my body trying to self-abort the fetus. Any teen girl depressed enough to attempt a drug OD or to slash her wrists will be a candidate for trying something horrific on herself. It doesn't help that our entire model of society focuses on having "fun" and a career before settling down and having children in our 30s.

Edited Date: 2021-02-19 04:35 pm (UTC)

From: (Anonymous)

I spent most of 2020 just shocked at how quickly the pro-choice activists succeeded in destroying their credibility, and I'm still not sure what to do with it: we accomplished more in 2020 than I had expected to be able to accomplish in the 2020s in my wildest dreams, all because of the way the most vocal people on the other side of the debate obliterated basically all of their credibility.

I think there are plenty of reasons to be pro-choice, but the only one that can stand against the fact that abortion means deliberately ending a human life is bodily autonomy. This is why watching the pro-choice people shred their ability to plausibly be able claim to support it was truly astonishing. It really is surreal....

From:

methylethyl

It really is bizarre to watch the whole "my body my choice" argument flip overnight from a left cause to a conservative cause, the same way freedom of speech already did. Looks like peaceable assembly is next.

I suspect a lot of things will follow suit in the near term.

From: (Anonymous)

I had long ago figured out that "My body my choice" needed to go beyond so-called reproductive rights, such as health freedom to choose what doctor or treatment to follow, whether allopathic or alternative/natural. Bodily autonomy is what most sane people want. My head has been spinning from all the flip-flopping on free speech and the like. My take is that the belief "X is for me, but not for thee" rules many humans. Put anything in X, ex: Free speech for me and my point of view, yay! For those who oppose me or my group, nay! and so on.

When extremes rule, we are all in danger of erasure.

Joy Marie

From: (Anonymous)

I wonder how many will join me in discovering that by staying still we moved from centre or even far left to the far right....

From:

methylethyl

Oh, it's huge, and the number is growing daily. I've always leaned right, and it's been truly a sight to behold: how every few months, yet another huge group of people who used to be opposed to all things "conservative" now find themselves allied with "the right". Because suddenly, "the right" are the only people who can handle saying "I respect you as a person acting in good faith even if I don't agree with you about everything, and I'm willing to work with you on the things we agree on".

It's the Dave Rubin-ization of everyone. Strange bedfellows. Gives me hope that maybe, just maybe, we can pull through this without a bloodbath.

From: (Anonymous)

Ultimately I think that neither side actually has an argument. They only have a want, and a will to make that want a reality by whatever means they think will work, and what we are seeing is a mass manipulation of what those wants happen to be.

From:

lp9

Get ready for some cacomagic. One of my co-workers just announced she is leaving because she has been hired for a big, national COVID vaccine marketing campaign. It's supposed to start in a week or two, so I imagine we'll be hearing all about why the vaccines are so great on tv (if you have one), radio, and internet ads.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Zuckerberg Whoops: The Vaccine Does Modify Your DNA and RNA

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags