RED ALERT!

Jon Rappoport

Dec 26, 2024

∙ Paid

What foul creature have they cooked up this time?

It’s called Kostaive.

European Medicines Agency: “Kostaive will be available as a powder for dispersion for injection. Kostaive is a RNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. It contains a self-amplifying mRNA that encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Self-amplifying means that the mRNA also carries instructions to make a protein called replicase. Once administered into a muscle, the replicase protein makes more copies of the mRNA, which the cell can use to make more spike protein…”

OK. We start with this. There is no “COVID VIRUS.” If the injection indeed produces a “spike protein,” the protein doesn’t belong to a virus.

Next, the scientists who developed this new vaccine believe they’re injecting some kind of self-replicating DEVICE into the body.

The RNA makes more copies of itself, which in turn leads to the production of more protein.

I’m not buying any of this mumbo-jumbo. Who knows what processes this will unleash in the body?

If indeed replication is going on, it appears this new vaxx is a super-version of the first COVID shot, which has decimated people from one end of the planet to the other.

I have to emphasize that the description of what this vaccine does, from the Euro Med agency, is ENTIRELY up for grabs. Meaning they have no idea what effects will take place across the population, or what range of mechanisms the shot will set off in the body.

I said the same thing about the first COVID RNA vaxx, and I meant it.

Fiddling and diddling with genetics has unpredictable ripple effects in all sorts of directions.

And when I hear “replication,” I think about “shedding.” People walking around with their bodies CONTINUING to make proteins or whatever they’re making…suggests that these products could be passed from person to person.

THE FIRST MISTAKE REPORTERS MAKE IS ACCEPTING THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE VACCINE DOES.

I can’t say that enough times.

When the first COVID RNA vaccine came out, I watched reporters ASSUME what the experts were saying about the mechanism of the shot was true, ironclad, well-known, and definite…and THEN the reporters either climbed on board as supporters, or they start raising doubts.

But either way, they were suckers. They went for the con.

Because the scientists were screwing around with genetic processes, and knew very little about the implications.

My rule of thumb is:

This post is for paid subscribers

Subscribe

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in