The Daily Wrap Up
Biowarfare Censorship Conspiracy Constitutional Rights Daily Wrap Up Government Health Podcast Politics Propaganda Psychological Operations Ryan Cristian Science Social Engineering Top News

FDA Approves “COVID-Treating” Alopecia Drug w/ “Heart Risks” & Pfizer Doesn’t Know How Its Jab Works

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (6/15/22).

As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant.



Video Source Links (In Chronological Order)

Money Game Video

Important TLAV Mask Coverage

Bitcoin Donations Are Appreciated:

Ryan Cristián
"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see." - John Lennon Driven by a desire for accuracy, chef and independent news stalwart Ryan Cristián has a passion for the Truth. As a recent recipient of the Serena Shim Award For Uncompromising Integrity In Journalism, he understands that Americans want their news to be transparent, devoid of the opulence frothed out by today's corporate media. A cultured and insightful man with a worldly sense, Ryan's unjaded approach offers common sense to the individual racked by the ambiguous news cycle - a vicious and manipulative merry-go-round that keeps trenchant minds at a manageable distance from the truth. Avid writer & editor by day, Truth seeker by night, Ryan's reality defines what it means to be current.

4 Replies to “FDA Approves “COVID-Treating” Alopecia Drug w/ “Heart Risks” & Pfizer Doesn’t Know How Its Jab Works

  1. The pfizer rep dodged the question about severity.
    I qoute “there is no difference in THE NUMBER OF SYMPTOMS”
    He never answered about severity of said symptoms

  2. Ryan, perhaps you are ready aware of those article and maybe even discussed it. I am sharing it because I do not remember hearing about it despite it being published a couple months ago.

    It is a study showing how the Pfizer vaccine can turn into DNA in liver cells. It basically can enter the nucleus and alter the genetic make-up of the liver cells through reverse transcriptese. Similar to what retroviruses (HIV is an example)do. This is evidence of gene editing. The paper is peer-reviewed.

    I wondered if a damaged liver could lead to blood clotting and/or myocarditis. And while I am still digging, it looks like a damaged liver can cause those things.

  3. “They” are the people who censor and lie.

    It seems to be a coordinated effort (because it seems that the lies and the censorship are fairly consistent in what they lie about, what they censor, from many different places: government (many different governments), the different corporate media channels, the public relations arms of non-media corporations, the different silicon valley platforms, etc.)

    Unless it’s purely a coincidence that all those different groups are censoring and lying about the same things in the same ways, then it must be a coordinated effort.

    Now, all those groups probably didn’t just get together and all freely, independently choose to join together in a coordinated effort; they’re too many different groups for that. What are the odds that they all independently voluntarily agreed to the same plan?

    Therefore, there must be some smaller group of people behind the scenes coordinating, and either somehow dictating, or influencing with carrots and sticks.

    Whoever that smaller group of people are that decide what will be censored and lied about by all those different groups, that’s who “they” is.

  4. The use or misuse of the word “gender” has changed historically, but never before was there more than two genders IMO

    Gender Gen”der (j[e^]n”d[~e]r), n. [OF. genre, gendre (with
    excrescent d.), F.genre, fr. L. genus, generis, birth,
    descent, race, kind, gender, fr. the root of genere, gignere,
    to beget, in pass., to be born, akin to E. kin. See Kin,
    and cf. Generate, Genre, Gentle, Genus.]
    [1913 Webster]
    1. Kind; sort. [Obs.] “One gender of herbs.” –Shak.
    [1913 Webster]

    2. Sex, male or female.
    [1913 Webster]

    Note: The use of the term gender to refer to the sex of an
    animal, especially a person, was once common, then fell
    into disuse as the term became used primarily for the
    distinction of grammatical declension forms in
    inflected words. In the late 1900’s, the term again
    became used to refer to the sex of people, as a
    euphemism for the term sex, especially in discussions
    of laws and policies on equal treatment of sexes.
    Objections by prescriptivists that the term should be
    used only in a grammatical context ignored the earlier

    3. (Gram.) A classification of nouns, primarily according to
    sex; and secondarily according to some fancied or imputed
    quality associated with sex.
    [1913 Webster]

    Gender is a grammatical distinction and applies to
    words only. Sex is natural distinction and applies
    to living objects. –R. Morris.
    [1913 Webster]

    Note: Adjectives and pronouns are said to vary in gender when
    the form is varied according to the gender of the words
    to which they refer.
    [1913 Webster]

    — From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48″

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.