Peer-reviewed evidence: Pfizer mRNA vaccines contain DNA contamination

[quintessentone]

Quoting your large print bolded quote from the source: "From this data, it can be assumed that the DNA values obtained after RNase-A treatment represented the real DNA concentration in the vials without interfering RNA."

...it can be assumed? really?

What I want to see is ...it has now established/proven that ...

[UltraBudgie]

...it can be assumed? really?

What I want to see is ...it has now established/proven that ...

That's not how the game is played. You set up a procedure, observe the results, enumerate the possible interpretations, solicit feedback, document it, but in the end you're always assuming based on prior practice and theoretical modelling, even when everyone agrees. If you say something like "it is proven", someone will come along with objections like "ah ha but you haven't proven that invisible machine elves are not manipulating the results! just because we have no evidence they exist doesn't mean they don't!" or "well sir it hasn't been established that everything you're seeing through that microscope there isn't a projection of the simulation matrix!". Some objections are plausible, many are not.

Science is assumption, really. We can merely hope that the trust in that assumption asymptotically approaches whatever truth is, or at the very least, utility. At a minimum, consistency. If done right, it seems to.

But about those lens-twisting elves... hmm I think I have a thread to write.

[quintessentone]

That's not how the game is played. You set up a procedure, observe the results, enumerate the possible interpretations, solicit feedback, document it, but in the end you're always assuming based on prior practice and theoretical modelling, even when everyone agrees. If you say something like "it is proven", someone will come along with objections like "ah ha but you haven't proven that invisible machine elves are not manipulating the results! just because we have no evidence they exist doesn't mean they don't!" or "well sir it hasn't been established that everything you're seeing through that microscope there isn't a projection of the simulation matrix!". Some objections are plausible, many are not.

Science is assumption, really. We can merely hope that the trust in that assumption asymptotically approaches whatever truth is, or at the very least, utility. At a minimum, consistency. If done right, it seems to.

But about those lens-twisting elves... hmm I think I have a thread to write.

Well the title of that table starts with the word 'Verifications ... " - so obviously they implied it was proven, then summarized their results by using the phrase '...it is assumed...'. Done wrong!

[Chiefsmom]

No pharmaceutical company cares about the average human that uses their products.  
They only care about profits.
People were warning about the vaccines from the get go and rightly so.  As we are finding out right now.

And Bayer?
Yeah, any company willing to buy Monsanto should be enough to make you run screaming the other way from them.
Apparently that is the case for most of these companies.

May not want to kill you, but causing permanent damage is great.   More product you have to buy.  They sure don't want to cure what ails you!

[quintessentone]

Without sounding like a cynical nutjob check her Rockefeller background mate (bet she's got one).

The clan at their Hasting's centre (with the WEF future council and Ezekiel) have now rebranded eugenics into 'bioethics' and if I could ever recommend just one video it would be the lead one here (Fauci's wife is also a major 'bioethicist').

Just actually look at what they are proposing and equate it to the wrong side of WW2.

Cheers.

Well, here she is, have at her, but you won't find any connection to the Rockefellers, even if you did, just by her devoting her life to finding a cure for cancer cancels any and all negative factors from any negative connections, IMO.