Maybe the goal is to make sure people don't live long enough to get cancer in the first place? I think that would technically meet the goal of reduction of cancer.
yeah, scary. I'd stay as far away as possible, too. and I am pretty sure this is technology they have been working on - for treating cancer - for a decade+, unsuccessfully. Now that they have masses believing it is safe and effective... just horrifying.
As I just read C&C about the Moonshot Cancer jab I thought Jeff gave it that silly name... It's getting so hard to tell the difference between truth and satire these days....
This is especially ironic: Prior to (trying to be) "vaccines," mRNA gene therapies were tried for, among other things, treatments for cancer. They didn't work very well. Among other problems early on were a decreased immune response with more than one dose. In fact, the problems with multiple doses was a prime reason that Moderna (and no doubt others) decided to apply mRNA tech as vaccines, which was not their first choice since they presumed only one/few doses would be needed (WRONG!) and it would not be as lucrative.
[Disclaimer: the above is from reading a few, scant articles on early mRNA. That raises an interesting point: For all that we've heard of these supposedly "safe and effective" mRNA jabs since 2020, surely there must be some literature predating their repurposing as "vaccines." I'm sure they exist, but I've never seen reference to them, including in popular articles that purport to examine the background of the jabs. I continue on the assumption that whatever early research exists paints mRNA as as having too many problems. I've never seen any good argument to the contrary.]
After repeating “safe and effective” he scratches his nose. Is that like crossing your fingers behind your back when you make a promise you don’t intend to keep?
watching that “announcement” was just weird. for a while I couldn’t even understand what they were talking about. moonshot? cancer? cure cancer on the moon? huh? messaging fail.
Cure, cause....who can tell the difference these days
Maybe the goal is to make sure people don't live long enough to get cancer in the first place? I think that would technically meet the goal of reduction of cancer.
everything they say assume the opposite
“Safe and effective” is repeated so often it’s nauseating.
now they're just messing with us... right?
i mean, they've got to just be messing with us?
vaxxed + double boosted man who got the rona twice is telling us THIS is the technology that will stop cancer?
seriously, they're punkin' us.
Cure it like they cured Covid?
Pass. 😅
yeah, scary. I'd stay as far away as possible, too. and I am pretty sure this is technology they have been working on - for treating cancer - for a decade+, unsuccessfully. Now that they have masses believing it is safe and effective... just horrifying.
As I just explained at C&C, Brandon is confused, once again. He meant "cause," not "cure":
• https://etana.substack.com/p/turbo-cancer
As I just read C&C about the Moonshot Cancer jab I thought Jeff gave it that silly name... It's getting so hard to tell the difference between truth and satire these days....
This technology will definitely allow the oncologists to submit much larger invoices to the insurance companies.
This is especially ironic: Prior to (trying to be) "vaccines," mRNA gene therapies were tried for, among other things, treatments for cancer. They didn't work very well. Among other problems early on were a decreased immune response with more than one dose. In fact, the problems with multiple doses was a prime reason that Moderna (and no doubt others) decided to apply mRNA tech as vaccines, which was not their first choice since they presumed only one/few doses would be needed (WRONG!) and it would not be as lucrative.
For those interested, consult Whitney Webb's articles at unlimitedhangout.com
[Disclaimer: the above is from reading a few, scant articles on early mRNA. That raises an interesting point: For all that we've heard of these supposedly "safe and effective" mRNA jabs since 2020, surely there must be some literature predating their repurposing as "vaccines." I'm sure they exist, but I've never seen reference to them, including in popular articles that purport to examine the background of the jabs. I continue on the assumption that whatever early research exists paints mRNA as as having too many problems. I've never seen any good argument to the contrary.]
Question: Will they be using the pre-jab rates of cancer or the rates in the jabbed??
After repeating “safe and effective” he scratches his nose. Is that like crossing your fingers behind your back when you make a promise you don’t intend to keep?
To covidium and beyond!
watching that “announcement” was just weird. for a while I couldn’t even understand what they were talking about. moonshot? cancer? cure cancer on the moon? huh? messaging fail.
Desperation
breeds Contempt