That incident at the conference has been disputed and distorted -- and from what I have seen, her account is not true. She was allowed to finish. Her comments were quite removed from the topic at hand, so its not surprising that people were not especially interested in hearing them. They would perhaps be more appropriate in a different s…
That incident at the conference has been disputed and distorted -- and from what I have seen, her account is not true. She was allowed to finish. Her comments were quite removed from the topic at hand, so its not surprising that people were not especially interested in hearing them. They would perhaps be more appropriate in a different setting. I'm not saying there is no merit to her complaint, but it has been overstated, as have the complaints about Dr. Cole. He is still very much a good guy as far as I can tell. The gossip and back-alley drivel in the medical freedom movement (probably instigated) has been very annoying for quite some time now.
That bothers me, too. It bothers me, because people are wasting their time staring at crystals in the vaccine under microscopes and declaring that they look like microchips, instead of analyzing the primary sources on IoB/IoBnT/intra-body nano-networks, which explicitly describe how these technologies are supposed to work. There is enough circumstantial evidence, and there have been enough highly questionable statements from leading WEF-aligned figures, to reasonably conclude that the ruling class are planning on slipping surveillance nanotechnology into medical products eventually, and are actively seeking a legal foot in the door and treaty-based enforcement mechanisms to enable this at some future date, when the technology is ready. The pushback against this has to be proactive, and it has to directly identify certain kinds of research as having intrinsically privacy-invasive intent.
I haven't known what to think about the people looking at the crystals under a microscope. It seems like they don't have the tools or expertise to really figure out what they are looking at. This is a tough problem but it bothers me that we don't have a good way of knowing whether there are undeclared substances in the shots, what they might be for, whether these things must be injected or whether they can be absorbed from the food chain... They seemed to really want everyone injected so I suspect there is something important about injecting, whether for this time around or just laying the groundwork for next time.
Thank you very much for making these arguments/concerns specific and crystal clear. You have a fantastic mind and (desperately needed) strong moral grounding; I hope some time to learn more about your background.
My opinion of Astrid speaking is she is nervous, speaks too quickly, vears off topic easily. This makes it diifficult to listen to her although she has important messages to bring. I think if I was trying to do same, this is how I'd come across. I've not viewed the video and if anyone has a link, please share.
That incident at the conference has been disputed and distorted -- and from what I have seen, her account is not true. She was allowed to finish. Her comments were quite removed from the topic at hand, so its not surprising that people were not especially interested in hearing them. They would perhaps be more appropriate in a different setting. I'm not saying there is no merit to her complaint, but it has been overstated, as have the complaints about Dr. Cole. He is still very much a good guy as far as I can tell. The gossip and back-alley drivel in the medical freedom movement (probably instigated) has been very annoying for quite some time now.
That bothers me, too. It bothers me, because people are wasting their time staring at crystals in the vaccine under microscopes and declaring that they look like microchips, instead of analyzing the primary sources on IoB/IoBnT/intra-body nano-networks, which explicitly describe how these technologies are supposed to work. There is enough circumstantial evidence, and there have been enough highly questionable statements from leading WEF-aligned figures, to reasonably conclude that the ruling class are planning on slipping surveillance nanotechnology into medical products eventually, and are actively seeking a legal foot in the door and treaty-based enforcement mechanisms to enable this at some future date, when the technology is ready. The pushback against this has to be proactive, and it has to directly identify certain kinds of research as having intrinsically privacy-invasive intent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTbh5VutXYQ
They're not discreet about any of this. The research is being conducted right under our noses.
I haven't known what to think about the people looking at the crystals under a microscope. It seems like they don't have the tools or expertise to really figure out what they are looking at. This is a tough problem but it bothers me that we don't have a good way of knowing whether there are undeclared substances in the shots, what they might be for, whether these things must be injected or whether they can be absorbed from the food chain... They seemed to really want everyone injected so I suspect there is something important about injecting, whether for this time around or just laying the groundwork for next time.
Thank you very much for making these arguments/concerns specific and crystal clear. You have a fantastic mind and (desperately needed) strong moral grounding; I hope some time to learn more about your background.
My opinion of Astrid speaking is she is nervous, speaks too quickly, vears off topic easily. This makes it diifficult to listen to her although she has important messages to bring. I think if I was trying to do same, this is how I'd come across. I've not viewed the video and if anyone has a link, please share.