Yet, the claims Wagh has made, have been independently verified by multiple teams of actual, real, verifiable PhD scientists (whom I've been following separately of Wagh).
So this begs the question: Is Wagh just a grifter? Or a plan to get in front of the story and discredit the independent findings of the other scientists?
Interesting to see how this unfolds.
Yet, the independent findings (e.g. no nitrogen/mRNA in the analyzed "vaccine" samples) remain as they are. For those interested digging deeper , I suggest replaying some of old live Lab session recordings by Kevin McCairn (PhD):
Folks should reconsider the whole idea of "discrediting." Fundamentally, the concept of "discrediting" assumes that there are people who can be taken at face value and their every word can be believed, as opposed to the "discredited" person or entity.
There aren't actually any people or organizations who can be blindly believed about anything. Even people who communicate diligently and in good faith are practically always mistaken about multiple important things, and the audience must realize that.
The mental habit of trying to find someone to believe blindly does not just prevent truthful discovery, but is negligent and deadly.
Eric Coppoline can't verify Poornima Wagh's studies/credentials:
https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/charlatans-web
Yet, the claims Wagh has made, have been independently verified by multiple teams of actual, real, verifiable PhD scientists (whom I've been following separately of Wagh).
So this begs the question: Is Wagh just a grifter? Or a plan to get in front of the story and discredit the independent findings of the other scientists?
Interesting to see how this unfolds.
Yet, the independent findings (e.g. no nitrogen/mRNA in the analyzed "vaccine" samples) remain as they are. For those interested digging deeper , I suggest replaying some of old live Lab session recordings by Kevin McCairn (PhD):
https://www.wetalkyoulisten.com/streamer/99
http://www.mccairndojo.com
Folks should reconsider the whole idea of "discrediting." Fundamentally, the concept of "discrediting" assumes that there are people who can be taken at face value and their every word can be believed, as opposed to the "discredited" person or entity.
There aren't actually any people or organizations who can be blindly believed about anything. Even people who communicate diligently and in good faith are practically always mistaken about multiple important things, and the audience must realize that.
The mental habit of trying to find someone to believe blindly does not just prevent truthful discovery, but is negligent and deadly.