Anonymous ID: a897d9 Feb. 29, 2020, 7:50 a.m. No.8283026   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>3038 >>3054

>>8282988

Anons are trusting, honest, and analytical. They also have a love of numbers. I have always considered that statement by Q to be an exaggeration to stress how disconnected those stuck in the matrix are from the actual truth oof reality.

 

He didn’t mean 99% literally.

Anonymous ID: a897d9 Feb. 29, 2020, 8:35 a.m. No.8283316   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>3336 >>3359

>>8283286

RNA as a macromolecule can interact with EM of radio frequency range. Said interaction would likely be degradation and destruction of the molecule. No gain of functionality is known or considered possible by RF interaction. A virally introduced RNA will NEVER interact with RF and turn on.

 

Period.

Eat my shorts Capy.

Anonymous ID: a897d9 Feb. 29, 2020, 9 a.m. No.8283465   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>3510 >>3530

>>8283433

Excellent and informative rebuttal.

The greatest likelihood remains destruction of an introduced (by virus) RNA molecule by disorganized EM of varied frequency and energy. I am not aware of any catalyst role for EM radiation in organic chemistry. Probably been studied, I am not aware.