While reading this paper I lost track of the subject matter - COVID-19 and began thinking NAV, for Spike Protein. As there are 40 trillion mRNA of Spike Protein in any one injection of the NAV. So when I arrived at the last sentence:
I thought, What? How can I have read the entire paper incorrectly?This conclusion suggests that vaccination-generated antibody and/or exogenous antibody against S protein not only protects the host from SARS-CoV-2 infectivity but also inhibits S protein-imposed endothelial injury.
The paper is talking about spike protein on the COVID-19 virus. While I had transferred the subject to all that spike protein in the NAV inoculations. So the last sentence is true for my vaccine, natural, nonintrusive and safe. Not for the NAV - which is loaded with spike proteins.
Interesting how we are conditioned to think along certain avenues. Most people reading the paper will think it means to go get "vaccinated" as it is good for your heart while inoculating with the NAV is filling your entire circulatory system with spike proteins, that are very bad for the heart.
The mental juxtaposition seems intentional and now I am suspicious of the American Heart Association too. At first I thought the AHA intentionally changed the last sentence of the paper! But then I put the NAV back in scope, and looked at the paper about COVID-19 and mRNA of the Spike Protein, in perspective.
Can you see what I mean about contradictory? The mRNA of Spike Proteins is definitely bad for you but they say that the vaccine, which is filled with mRNA of Spike Proteins is good. One really does not get a break these days!
Reply With Quote