Bitcoin Forum

A government document that has recently surfaced offers horrifying details on how door-to-door “strike force” vaccine enforcement teams plan to operate. Labeled, “Community Health Ambassador Outreach Door Knocking Project,” a now-public document published by the government of Lake County, Illinois, instructs “ambassadors” to:

    Violate “no soliciting” restrictions and illegally trespass onto private property.
    Impersonate Health Dept. officials and attempt to intimidate building managers into consenting to allowing entry for the strike force teams.
    Lie to the public and falsely claim covid vaccines are safe by withholding information about serious vaccine side effects, including hospitalizations and deaths.
    Clear buildings in military fashion, going floor by floor, wing by wing, knocking on doors and intimidating residents of apartment buildings and residential units.
    Recording the locations (address, room number) of anti-vaxxers in order to feed this information into a government database for further action — most likely forced quarantine removal (medical kidnapping).

White House spokesperson Jen Psaki announced last week that the Biden regime would activate door-to-door “strike forces” to coerce more people into getting vaccinated:

White House announces "strike forces" to target anti-vaxxers
https://video.brighteon.com/file/Brighteon-staging/poster/bf33f90e-3bbe-4869-9c2b-0c23d063ed2c.0000001.jpg
https://www.brighteon.com/c8f43058-72b2-4759-85ff-a98788fde381 (https://www.brighteon.com/c8f43058-72b2-4759-85ff-a98788fde381)

Following that announcement, Lake County, Illinois posted this document that provides instructions for how such teams should operate:

https://www.lakecountyil.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39074/CHA-Doorknocking-Info-and-Script

An accompanying FAQ document (English version) is available here:

https://www.lakecountyil.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37998/CHA-Vaccination-Talking-Points_20210114
Lying to the public: False claims that the vaccine is safe and approved

While the VAERS system (VAERS.HHS.gov) now reports over 9,000 deaths in the US following covid vaccination, the Lake County government document instructs strike force teams to lie to the public:

Question: Is the COVID-19 vaccine safe?
Answer: COVID-19 vaccines are tested in large clinical trials to make sure they meet safety standards… All routine safety standards must be met to ensure that any authorized or approved vaccine is as safe as possible.

...

Time to prosecute Biden and other government leaders for breaking their oaths of office by even suggesting things kike this.


Government document instructs vaccine “strike force” teams how to clear buildings, violate trespass laws and flag anti-vaxxers for forced quarantines (https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-07-11-government-document-instructs-vaccine-strike-force-teams-how-to-clear-buildings-violate-trespass-laws-and-flag-anti-vaxxers-for-forced-quarantines.html#)




8)

You can not patent human dna, but if you were to change a human genome by mrna vaccine then the genome can be patented.
Anyone who is vaccineted is techically owned and falls under the definition of trans human.
Trans humans do not have access to human rights or any rights provided by the state because not 100% organic human anymore.
Vaccines are patented.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf)


https://i.ibb.co/dJT6YJ0/Untitled-5.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

~

Covid-19 Vaccines Can’t Alter Your DNA, Here’s Why (https://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2021/01/11/covid-19-vaccines-cant-alter-your-dna-heres-why/)
From a false premise you can draw any conclusion, which is what you are doing.

All the information they provide about vaccines is really scary, we must always be very careful when applying vaccines, seeing the various side effects.

why would I need credibility?

You can not patent human dna, but if you were to change a human genome by mrna vaccine then the genome can be patented.
Anyone who is vaccineted is techically owned and falls under the definition of trans human.
Trans humans do not have access to human rights or any rights provided by the state because not 100% organic human anymore.
Vaccines are patented.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf)

https://i.ibb.co/dJT6YJ0/Untitled-5.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

if you were to change a human genome by mrna vaccine then the genome can be patented.

Anyone who is vaccineted is techically owned and falls under the definition of trans human.

Someone is welcome to show where the courts reversed the interpretation that engineer genes are NOT patent-able

everyone who's got foriegn genes designed in pharma labs WILL be ruled as at least partially the property of the patent holders.

Well, then it's lucky that it's impossible for an mRNA vaccine to alter the human genome.

I can see what you're aiming for, but this is quite a leap of logic, and doesn't merit the absolute certainty of an all-caps 'WILL'. And, given the impossibility of an mRNA vaccine altering someone's genes, it has no bearing on the CV19 vaccine discussion.

You can not patent human dna, but if you were to change a human genome by mrna vaccine then the genome can be patented.
Anyone who is vaccineted is techically owned and falls under the definition of trans human.
Trans humans do not have access to human rights or any rights provided by the state because not 100% organic human anymore.
Vaccines are patented.

Given that after a year and a billion or so doses, they _still_ cannot quite figure out if 'vaccinated' people can become infected and spread the infection,

A surprising number of both pathogens and their 'cures' seem to include elements of HIV these days.  Interesting.  HIV is a retro-virus which incorporates RNA gentics back into nuclear DNA because...well...that what retro-viruses do.

funny part is in november 2020.. they actually did reveal how many people on average could become infected and spread it

5-6%
yep the 94-95% effectiveness is the number you pretend never existed in any study

seems tvbcof and tash cant tell the difference between what RNA does as oppose to what DNA does

the mRNA does not edit DNA.
<snip - irrelevant yak-yak>

The story they ended up with is set in 2024. The world has been ravaged by the latest and deadliest strain of coronavirus, Covid-23, and the government’s system to stop the spread is a lot simpler than anything involving tiers and scotch eggs. Every morning at 9am, you use a mobile phone app to scan yourself for the virus. If you test positive, hazmat-suited goons from the sanitation department break down your door, throw you into a van, and drive you to be quarantined in a high-walled shanty town.

Up to your old tricks again;  snipping out context to make it appear that someone said something that they did not.  Namely me.

If English is not your strong suite than

Here's your English lesson for the day.

It's simply more efficient and more readable to take the relevant part of the post rather than quote the whole thing every time. There's no intention here to divest your statement of context... but it stands by itself, surely? I don't see the problem here.

The operative context which you edited out was "I doubt that...".  This is very far from 'an absolute certainty'.

I only bother to mention it here for the benefit of others who might not have notice that you are very nearly a one-trick-pony, and editing other peoples words in order to take things out of context is your one main trick.  Various related and equally deceitful tricks compose most of the rest.  Science, inference, logic, etc are notably AWOL.  But, 'when all you have is a hammer...'

The genetic modifications are making the participants 'Round-Up Ready' one might say (or argue in court...closed court for national security reasons.)

Someone is welcome to show where the courts reversed the interpretation that engineer genes are NOT patent-able in the case of GMO technology inserted into human beings.  I doubt that they can.  Beyond that, when it is adjudicated I doubt that the courts will reverse the previous rulings.  In other words, everyone who's got foriegn genes designed in pharma labs WILL be ruled as at least partially the property of the patent holders.  If one has been turned into a GMO against their will it becomes more complicated.  Monsanto (now Bayer...formerly IG Farben of nazi fame) dropped the suite claiming ownership of a crop that had been genetically contaminated against the farmer's will/wishes because they didn't want to lose and have it become case law.  That was a while ago, however, and you can take it to the bank that the lobbyists who write U.S. law have inserted a ton of Easter-eggs since that time.

I'm surprised you're wanting to argue this, given that your full post is available above, for everyone to read.
Nevertheless, here's your full post, again (my bold):


To which 'I doubt that' are you referring? The first instance, where you doubt that anyone can show where the courts reversed their decision? Or the second instance, where you doubt that, when it is adjudicated, courts will reverse the previous rulings?

You are of course perfectly entitled to backtrack and to change your opinion, and to say that you didn't mean what you said... but please don't try to dress it up as someone willfully misinterpreting you.

The 'in other words' clause shows that I was explaining more clearly a prediction of mine.

I don't know if English is a second language for you or what

Some of you Christians

Where did you get the idea that I'm a Christian? That's hilarious! ;D

Where did you get the idea that I'm a Christian? That's hilarious! ;D
...

^^^ If f1 knows anything at all, it's how to provide so very few links to most of what he says. Why? Because he knows that people are too busy to look up what he says, themselves. And when they don't, they will never find out how deceptive he is, even if they don't believe him.

8)

Providing links that are inaccurate is no more accurate than not providing a link. You have linked natural news which are known for their peer reviewed studies and credible news stories. I have never seen you link a credible study or article its always from second fiddle websites claiming to be news sites.