As a patent lawyer who has been practicing patent law for almost a quarter century, permit me to offer one cautionary note on this:
luciferase is mentioned in the text of US patent no. 10,703,789 numerous times, but it is NOT mentioned in any of the claims of the patent. This, at least in my mind, raises a question as to whether the products covered by the claims of the patent have luciferase in them.
Now, there are many possible explanations for this.
1. It is not unusual for the description/specification in a patent to cover much more than the claims, or to list embodiments that are not covered by the claims. (They are called "unclaimed embodiments.")
2. There may be other pending related applications that have claims that DO list luciferase as one of the ingredients. (This is, in fact, quite likely - the patent itself is quite lengthy, and it is entirely possible that numerous other "child" patents will issue from the same application, claiming priority to all the provisionals listed there.)
3. Since I am not a chemist (much less an organic chemist), nor a molecular biologist, it is possible that luciferase is actually listed in the claims under some different nomenclature, but I am simply not recognizing it.
4. There might be other patents or applications owned by Moderna (unrelated to this patent/application - i.e., they are not parents, grandparents, children or grandchildren of the application that became US Patent No. 10,703,789) that have claims listing luciferase. The moral here is that the story is not quite as simple as it seems, or, at a minimum, it MIGHT be more complex than it seem, if the evidence of nefariousness is solely based on what's in that patent.
None of this is a comment one way or another about the nefarious part of any of it - again, I am not a chemist, so I am not qualified to debate the merits of what evil things luciferase (which I have never heard of until recently) can, or can't, do in the human body. My comment is solely about the fact that listing a chemical compound in the specification, but not in the claims, at least raises an issue in my mind about your theory.
In any case, keep up the good work. Lord knows, there aren't many actual journalists left out there.
If I understand you correctly, the referenced patent, 10,703,789, does not necessarily need to use luciferase as part of the finished product, but any ensuing product/patent which does use luciferase would be covered by adding patent 10,703,789 as part of its claim? Kind of a hide the pea approach..it’s there, but difficult to find. If I remember correctly, provisional patent applications don’t show-up in the USPTO database for more than a year? So, could there be a deliberate attempt to hide the actual use of luciferase in the final patent?
Moderna says (I *assume* it says, I haven't checked) that the vaccine that it manufactures and sells is protected by US Patent No. 10,703,789. That means the claims of the patent "read on" the vaccine. So we download the patent, and look at the claims (last 2 pages of the 248 page pdf). None of the claims (1 independent claim and 13 dependent ones) *mention* luciferase.
Does that mean there is no luciferase in the vaccine? Not necessarily. THESE claims do not mention it, but other patent applications (possibly related to this one, that haven't issued yet) might mention it in the claims, not just in the text of the specification. Or perhaps it's there already, and I just don't recognize it because the other molecular chemistry terms in the claims refer to luciferase implicitly, without saying the word "luciferase."
Is Moderna trying to hide something? They may be trying to hide lots of things in the commercial sense, but not in the patents. This patent (and all of its relatives) give a very extensive list of relevant prior art - dozens and dozens and dozens of prior art publications. This suggests that they are seriously preparing for litigation against potential future infringers. Not surprising, given the tens of billions of dollars at stake. Any shenanigans with trying to hide the best mode, or lying to the USPTO about something, or what have you, would only make the patent worthless - and infect all related patents with the same problem of inequitable conduct.
So they aren't hiding things in the patents. What they ARE trying to do is get claims that are as broad as possible, and claims that would provide maximum coverage from different angles, in the event of litigation.
Provisional applications (in this particular case, they were filed in the 2012 time frame) are available on the PTO website if the utility application that claims priority to them is published or if the patent issues, so they'd be available (usually) 18 months after their filing date, given that Moderna is presumably patenting not just in the US but elsewhere as well.
But I think we are getting into the weeds of patent procedure here, and I am not sure the readers here care THAT much about such arcana.
In other words, if I could re-state things: to the extent the theory of nefariousness is based on the word "luciferase" in this particular patent, there needs to be more evidence than just this. This is suggestive - but I am not so sure it is definitive.
I am also not sure I buy the naming of the chemical compound as evidence of nefariousness, either, to be honest. "Lucifer" at one time, in the Roman era, referred to a spirit "who carries light". It was only much later that the word became equivalent to "Satan". Again, I emphasize that I am not a chemist, and whether luciferase is good for you, bad for you, indifferent, indicates a conspiracy of some sort, is the reason why Bill Gates grew breasts in that possibly fake video, or makes you sprout three extra appendages... I have no idea.
Thank you George, excellent explanation. I think it's safe to conclude for some, non of this adds confidence when considering putting something into our body that has not been made fully transparent or understood, especially when the government makes demands through mandates. Kind of like raising teenagers, if you're nonchalant about something you want them to do, your more likely to get the results you're looking for. But when you demand they do it, you'll be met with strong resistance.
Yeah, none of this is about whether one should, or shouldn't, get vaccinated - much less whether there should be mandates, much less whether children should be vaccinated. I myself got Pfizer back in April, and had no adverse side effects, that I am aware of. At the same time, I am less than eager to get any booster shots, given the info that is slowly dribbling out. (Not the luciferase info, FWIW.)
I also assume that every single word that Biden says on the subject of vaccines (or any other subject) is a lie - so the more he talks about them, the less I am inclined to follow his "advice."
The Moderna patent picture is complex - even THIS patent is a continuation (i.e., a child application) of another application that issued as a patent, and claims priority to multiple provisionals. In other words, making far-reaching conclusions from the fact that the word "luciferase" is found in the spec of one patent is *probably* unwarranted. It is an interesting find (good detective work by Emerald!), but it only one piece of evidence. If this story has legs, I would suggest Emerald talk to a biochemist, who can read and actually understand the technical language in that patent - my own background is Electrical Engineering, not chemistry.
Wish I'd met you years ago when dealing with the USPTO! I've not had side effects from the Pfizer either, but I'm older and my concerns are with young adults and children. Agreed, Emerald is an amazing journalist and we all encourage to keep going.
This thread seems to be very active. :) I wonder if this is typical for Substack, or if the subject of luciferase is of such great interest to the world. :)
I agree that other documents (e.g., FDA documents that Moderna must submit, and which I assume are public, etc.) are more indicative of whether or not they use luciferase in the actual product. That's where I would dig more, if I was the one doing the digging.
I am not a pharmacist, and not a molecular biologist. Maybe luciferase is a good thing, maybe it isn't - I can't really say. I am personally a bit skeptical that there is a conspiracy going on that specifically involves luciferase. (There are probably plenty of shady, corrupt and dishonest things going on with the COVID vaccines, and we are learning many of them on a weekly basis, when the information is not suppressed by pro-Biden media and Big Tech - I am just not yet convinced it involves luciferase, which seems to be a relatively harmless, if obscure, bioluminescent protein.)
I looked up luciferase in Wikipedia, and apparently it was first identified and named by a French chemist in the late 19th century. I doubt that French chemist guy was thinking that far ahead, that in 2021, 100 years after his death, luciferase would be used in some global-conspiratorial way. Why Moderna would use it, or not use it, or deny it's use if they do plan to use it, or not deny it, or lie about it (if they *are* lying about it)... Can't say.
My comment was specifically about the piece of evidence that Emerald uncovered - the mention of luciferase in the text of a Moderna patent. Don't forget that these patents trace their history to 2012 - years before COVID was cooked up in the Wuhan lab on Fauci's (and our) dime.
There are dozens of pre-COVID Moderna patents that mention luciferase somewhere in the text - so the notion of a vast conspiracy involving this particular bioluminescent protein is probably a bit of a stretch. The more likely scenario is that Moderna (and probably many others) long ago thought that luciferase has potential use in vaccines - separate and aside from COVID. A molecular biologist is needed to answer the question of what luciferase does in the human body, whether it is harmful, potentially harmful, and so on.
So to me, as a patent lawyer, the evidence is intriguing but, at least for the moment, ambiguous.
All of the mRNA vaccines use enzymes that are commonly used also when luciferase is used for various end purposes. One of the listed "ingredients" in Pfizer "vaccines" that I've researched includes this enzyme that is needed to make luciferase "glow". I'm using general terms but the point being, the link to mRNA vaccines and luciferase is not really in dispute, even if the link is indirect in some way.
I just subscribed here because Newmax has 'suspended' Emerald. I've emailed Newsmax to complain and also attempted to call Chris Ruddy's office to voice my concern over the network removing Emerald. I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that I would not be connected to his office.
I look forward to hearing Emerald's take every day and unless Newmax does the right thing they may as well be Fox News as far as I'm concerned. Straight up censorship. Keep going Emerald, you're a voice for so many of us.
It would be interesting to talk to Dr. Carrie Madej who witnessed a sample of the "vaccine" and saw glowing lights and self-organizing actions in the jabs. The thing that I love about all this is that people are seeing the unfolding of this and soon there will be no where to hide the intent.
Luke 21:28
“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”
I understand stand your concerns but suspect these names are meant to be funny and/or mocking. These are generally NOT people who believe in “spiritual warfare”. That being said the leaders and elites have lied about so many things for so long that they have NO credibility.
Is anyone else wondering what happened to Emerald? Is it coincidence she is nowhere to be found after her reporting, twitter expulsion, Newsmax expulsion, WH expulsion? Is she being re-educated? She is a believer in CHRIST, she does not run from the truth, she does not fear death, and yet she has gone quiet, not a peep? Not sub stack, not gettr, I cannot find her writing anywhere. Something is VERY wrong. No mention of this disappearance from ANYONE? Is she the only one, is this happening everywhere? First the fringe, then the mainstream? Be very scared, very vigilant, very suspicious of everything. Also stay Joyful. Stay loud. Stay on the path. This is a spiritual war, and we are the targets. In JESUS CHRIST our LORD and SAVIOR, we trust.
Do you have any comments on this video of a PhD German chemist made in Nov that describes the potential damage that graphene hydroxide could cause in human blood vessels? Or what happened to him, as he disappeared and is reported dead.
I love you Emerald Robinson, but the Christian world went balistic when talk of ID Chips came out years ago, and the European Union came about years ago, with talk of a one world currency, etc., grocery store scanners, computers, Rock and Roll music, and on, and on. The mention of buy and sell, Mark of Beast is in Revelation 13. Christians will not be here for that. We are out of here in Revelation 7. Some Christians believe Revelation 4. In any case, Christians are not here for the 7th Seal. I'm of the belief that we all go through Seals 1-6, but not 7. Seals 1-6 is mentioned in chapter 6. Chapter 7, I believe, is the rapture, and chapter 8 is the opening of the 7th Seal. In the 7th Seal is 3 "woe's", as stated in the KJV. The first "woe" is Revelation 9:12. The second is Revelation 11:14. The last woe is...Armegeddon, and that is chapter 16. Now, one thing to keep in mind is that John, the writer, is an apostle to the Jews, and it is the Jews who are looking for a Christ (whom we acknowledge is Jesus). That Christ that they will find is what we call the Anti-Christ, or Satan, aka Lucifer. The Anti-Christ MUST enter a Temple and proclaim that he is God (when the OBAMA-NATION (sarcasm) of Desolation enters in the [TEMPLE] (Holy Place), as prophesied by Daniel the prophet...). To date, there is no temple in Jerusalem for an anti-Christ to enter. And finally, Jesus asked the Pharisees the following, and they answered correctly.
Matthew 22:42
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
What nationality would the "Son of David" be?
Matthew 1:1
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David...
So what nationality will the Anti-Christ be? There must be a Temple in Jerusalem. The Jews must believe that their Christ had come, and how will they believe this? Miracles.
My point...we are a long way off before Revelation 13:17 is relevant.
Christians will be on Earth during the Trials & Tribulations. There is no "rapture"; not in the Bible. Revelation 20 describes the "Christians" who will be (possibly figuratively) "beheaded" for their testimony of Christ during the reign of the anti-christ (beast). Rapture believers will be among those stamping the mark of the beast on the foreheads and hands of the True Christians, all they while saying, "I won't be here so this can't possibly be the mark of the beast".
I know your dogma already, and I reject it. Rapture is indeed in the Bible. Harpazo is the Greek word, and is used as CAUGHT UP in the Bible. It's definition is the same as the English rapture...to seize. So I don't buy into the narrative that there is no rapture. The Jews are the focus of the book of revelation, not the gentiles. Not the Brits or the Germans, etc. As a matter of fact, in chapter 14 there is an additional rapture for the believing Jews, and converted gentiles right before chapter 16, the armageddon. Oh, and Paul tells us in galatians that John, the writer of revelation, is an apostle to the Jews. Revelation is for them, not us. And the final nail in the coffin... Jesus speaks of the 6th seal in the gospels... but not one word of the 7th seal. Peter, in acts 2 mentions the 6th seal. 144000 Jews will be sealed with the holy spirit in chapter 7, right at the time that we are raptured. We leave, they take over. Revelation is so simple.
I used to debate, discuss and argue this issue -- some twenty or more years ago, then I stopped. I used to believe it too. Until I realized that people who find solace in the false "rapture" notion were actually working on behalf of my enemies. What does that tell you? No need to cite any scripture, etc, etc. I've heard it -- and studied it -- a long time ago, then I woke up. Revelation 20 can't be any clearer, Christians will be persecuted during the Tribulation period, and it will be members of the Whore of Babylon (organized 501(c)3 churches) who will assist the beast with the persecution.
By the way, Revelation 7 is also "biblical". But I challenge you to find anything in the gospels regarding Jesus discussing anything about the 7th Seal in his end times discussions. You won't find it at all. He certainly mentions the 6th Seal, as does Peter in Acts 2, as does Joel, as does Revelation 6. But Jesus does not mention Revelation 8 and beyond at all. Peter mentions not just the 6th Seal, but also about the 144000 Jews getting the Holy Spirit in Revelation 7. So... Instead of you telling me to study Revelation 17, you should study everything about the 6th Seal and the 144000 that Peter talks about, the 6th Seal that Jesus discusses, the sixth Seal that Joel discusses, as well as the 6th Seal in Revelation 6, and all yourself why Jesus didn't mention the 7th Seal, and why the 6th is mentioned so many times, by John, Peter, Joel, and Jesus. Why would 144000 SUDDENLY get sealed with the holy spirit in chapter 7? They never had it before. So why then? What's the purpose? All of a sudden, BAM...144000 BELIEVERS that didn't believe before. That's the Jews. There is a reason that they didn't believe before. Roman's 9-11 explains. And it's the prophesy of Joseph, the 2nd in command of Egypt. His brothers didn't know who he was. Until he REVEALED himself. It's all about the Jews, not us lowly Gentiles.
Oh, and you mention the beheading. Read, if you will, the 5th seal. That's the reference in chapter 6. It's just a Q&A. How long? Jesus replied, "Not now...wait...", THAT Q&A is a SEAL. The 5th Seal. It's not a trial, or a tribulation. Just a Q&A.
Then much later comes the action for their be heading.
There is no rapture. People who believe they won't be here during the trials and tribulations will be among those persecuting those of us who know that we will be, and will justify it by say (to themselves) that, this or that can't be the mark of the beast because "I won't be here). In the interest of keeping it cordial, end of discussion.
As a patent lawyer who has been practicing patent law for almost a quarter century, permit me to offer one cautionary note on this:
luciferase is mentioned in the text of US patent no. 10,703,789 numerous times, but it is NOT mentioned in any of the claims of the patent. This, at least in my mind, raises a question as to whether the products covered by the claims of the patent have luciferase in them.
Now, there are many possible explanations for this.
1. It is not unusual for the description/specification in a patent to cover much more than the claims, or to list embodiments that are not covered by the claims. (They are called "unclaimed embodiments.")
2. There may be other pending related applications that have claims that DO list luciferase as one of the ingredients. (This is, in fact, quite likely - the patent itself is quite lengthy, and it is entirely possible that numerous other "child" patents will issue from the same application, claiming priority to all the provisionals listed there.)
3. Since I am not a chemist (much less an organic chemist), nor a molecular biologist, it is possible that luciferase is actually listed in the claims under some different nomenclature, but I am simply not recognizing it.
4. There might be other patents or applications owned by Moderna (unrelated to this patent/application - i.e., they are not parents, grandparents, children or grandchildren of the application that became US Patent No. 10,703,789) that have claims listing luciferase. The moral here is that the story is not quite as simple as it seems, or, at a minimum, it MIGHT be more complex than it seem, if the evidence of nefariousness is solely based on what's in that patent.
None of this is a comment one way or another about the nefarious part of any of it - again, I am not a chemist, so I am not qualified to debate the merits of what evil things luciferase (which I have never heard of until recently) can, or can't, do in the human body. My comment is solely about the fact that listing a chemical compound in the specification, but not in the claims, at least raises an issue in my mind about your theory.
In any case, keep up the good work. Lord knows, there aren't many actual journalists left out there.
Best,
George Bardmesser
If I understand you correctly, the referenced patent, 10,703,789, does not necessarily need to use luciferase as part of the finished product, but any ensuing product/patent which does use luciferase would be covered by adding patent 10,703,789 as part of its claim? Kind of a hide the pea approach..it’s there, but difficult to find. If I remember correctly, provisional patent applications don’t show-up in the USPTO database for more than a year? So, could there be a deliberate attempt to hide the actual use of luciferase in the final patent?
Let me explain it this way:
Moderna says (I *assume* it says, I haven't checked) that the vaccine that it manufactures and sells is protected by US Patent No. 10,703,789. That means the claims of the patent "read on" the vaccine. So we download the patent, and look at the claims (last 2 pages of the 248 page pdf). None of the claims (1 independent claim and 13 dependent ones) *mention* luciferase.
Does that mean there is no luciferase in the vaccine? Not necessarily. THESE claims do not mention it, but other patent applications (possibly related to this one, that haven't issued yet) might mention it in the claims, not just in the text of the specification. Or perhaps it's there already, and I just don't recognize it because the other molecular chemistry terms in the claims refer to luciferase implicitly, without saying the word "luciferase."
Is Moderna trying to hide something? They may be trying to hide lots of things in the commercial sense, but not in the patents. This patent (and all of its relatives) give a very extensive list of relevant prior art - dozens and dozens and dozens of prior art publications. This suggests that they are seriously preparing for litigation against potential future infringers. Not surprising, given the tens of billions of dollars at stake. Any shenanigans with trying to hide the best mode, or lying to the USPTO about something, or what have you, would only make the patent worthless - and infect all related patents with the same problem of inequitable conduct.
So they aren't hiding things in the patents. What they ARE trying to do is get claims that are as broad as possible, and claims that would provide maximum coverage from different angles, in the event of litigation.
Provisional applications (in this particular case, they were filed in the 2012 time frame) are available on the PTO website if the utility application that claims priority to them is published or if the patent issues, so they'd be available (usually) 18 months after their filing date, given that Moderna is presumably patenting not just in the US but elsewhere as well.
But I think we are getting into the weeds of patent procedure here, and I am not sure the readers here care THAT much about such arcana.
In other words, if I could re-state things: to the extent the theory of nefariousness is based on the word "luciferase" in this particular patent, there needs to be more evidence than just this. This is suggestive - but I am not so sure it is definitive.
I am also not sure I buy the naming of the chemical compound as evidence of nefariousness, either, to be honest. "Lucifer" at one time, in the Roman era, referred to a spirit "who carries light". It was only much later that the word became equivalent to "Satan". Again, I emphasize that I am not a chemist, and whether luciferase is good for you, bad for you, indifferent, indicates a conspiracy of some sort, is the reason why Bill Gates grew breasts in that possibly fake video, or makes you sprout three extra appendages... I have no idea.
Thank you George, excellent explanation. I think it's safe to conclude for some, non of this adds confidence when considering putting something into our body that has not been made fully transparent or understood, especially when the government makes demands through mandates. Kind of like raising teenagers, if you're nonchalant about something you want them to do, your more likely to get the results you're looking for. But when you demand they do it, you'll be met with strong resistance.
Yeah, none of this is about whether one should, or shouldn't, get vaccinated - much less whether there should be mandates, much less whether children should be vaccinated. I myself got Pfizer back in April, and had no adverse side effects, that I am aware of. At the same time, I am less than eager to get any booster shots, given the info that is slowly dribbling out. (Not the luciferase info, FWIW.)
I also assume that every single word that Biden says on the subject of vaccines (or any other subject) is a lie - so the more he talks about them, the less I am inclined to follow his "advice."
The Moderna patent picture is complex - even THIS patent is a continuation (i.e., a child application) of another application that issued as a patent, and claims priority to multiple provisionals. In other words, making far-reaching conclusions from the fact that the word "luciferase" is found in the spec of one patent is *probably* unwarranted. It is an interesting find (good detective work by Emerald!), but it only one piece of evidence. If this story has legs, I would suggest Emerald talk to a biochemist, who can read and actually understand the technical language in that patent - my own background is Electrical Engineering, not chemistry.
Best regards to all,
George Bardmesser
Wish I'd met you years ago when dealing with the USPTO! I've not had side effects from the Pfizer either, but I'm older and my concerns are with young adults and children. Agreed, Emerald is an amazing journalist and we all encourage to keep going.
It does seem to indicate - if not now - that in the future this will become part of the formula. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4871753/
This thread seems to be very active. :) I wonder if this is typical for Substack, or if the subject of luciferase is of such great interest to the world. :)
I agree that other documents (e.g., FDA documents that Moderna must submit, and which I assume are public, etc.) are more indicative of whether or not they use luciferase in the actual product. That's where I would dig more, if I was the one doing the digging.
I am not a pharmacist, and not a molecular biologist. Maybe luciferase is a good thing, maybe it isn't - I can't really say. I am personally a bit skeptical that there is a conspiracy going on that specifically involves luciferase. (There are probably plenty of shady, corrupt and dishonest things going on with the COVID vaccines, and we are learning many of them on a weekly basis, when the information is not suppressed by pro-Biden media and Big Tech - I am just not yet convinced it involves luciferase, which seems to be a relatively harmless, if obscure, bioluminescent protein.)
I looked up luciferase in Wikipedia, and apparently it was first identified and named by a French chemist in the late 19th century. I doubt that French chemist guy was thinking that far ahead, that in 2021, 100 years after his death, luciferase would be used in some global-conspiratorial way. Why Moderna would use it, or not use it, or deny it's use if they do plan to use it, or not deny it, or lie about it (if they *are* lying about it)... Can't say.
My comment was specifically about the piece of evidence that Emerald uncovered - the mention of luciferase in the text of a Moderna patent. Don't forget that these patents trace their history to 2012 - years before COVID was cooked up in the Wuhan lab on Fauci's (and our) dime.
There are dozens of pre-COVID Moderna patents that mention luciferase somewhere in the text - so the notion of a vast conspiracy involving this particular bioluminescent protein is probably a bit of a stretch. The more likely scenario is that Moderna (and probably many others) long ago thought that luciferase has potential use in vaccines - separate and aside from COVID. A molecular biologist is needed to answer the question of what luciferase does in the human body, whether it is harmful, potentially harmful, and so on.
So to me, as a patent lawyer, the evidence is intriguing but, at least for the moment, ambiguous.
All of the mRNA vaccines use enzymes that are commonly used also when luciferase is used for various end purposes. One of the listed "ingredients" in Pfizer "vaccines" that I've researched includes this enzyme that is needed to make luciferase "glow". I'm using general terms but the point being, the link to mRNA vaccines and luciferase is not really in dispute, even if the link is indirect in some way.
I just subscribed here because Newmax has 'suspended' Emerald. I've emailed Newsmax to complain and also attempted to call Chris Ruddy's office to voice my concern over the network removing Emerald. I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that I would not be connected to his office.
I look forward to hearing Emerald's take every day and unless Newmax does the right thing they may as well be Fox News as far as I'm concerned. Straight up censorship. Keep going Emerald, you're a voice for so many of us.
Ditto!
It would be interesting to talk to Dr. Carrie Madej who witnessed a sample of the "vaccine" and saw glowing lights and self-organizing actions in the jabs. The thing that I love about all this is that people are seeing the unfolding of this and soon there will be no where to hide the intent.
Luke 21:28
“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”
I understand stand your concerns but suspect these names are meant to be funny and/or mocking. These are generally NOT people who believe in “spiritual warfare”. That being said the leaders and elites have lied about so many things for so long that they have NO credibility.
Is anyone else wondering what happened to Emerald? Is it coincidence she is nowhere to be found after her reporting, twitter expulsion, Newsmax expulsion, WH expulsion? Is she being re-educated? She is a believer in CHRIST, she does not run from the truth, she does not fear death, and yet she has gone quiet, not a peep? Not sub stack, not gettr, I cannot find her writing anywhere. Something is VERY wrong. No mention of this disappearance from ANYONE? Is she the only one, is this happening everywhere? First the fringe, then the mainstream? Be very scared, very vigilant, very suspicious of everything. Also stay Joyful. Stay loud. Stay on the path. This is a spiritual war, and we are the targets. In JESUS CHRIST our LORD and SAVIOR, we trust.
@EmeraldRobinson What's happening? Why the communication blackout? We need some content. Missing your reporting. Thanks. And Happy Thanksgiving!
Emerald,
Do you have any comments on this video of a PhD German chemist made in Nov that describes the potential damage that graphene hydroxide could cause in human blood vessels? Or what happened to him, as he disappeared and is reported dead.
https://odysee.com/@Trump_Won_2020:b/Graphene--razor-blades--found-in-COVID-vaccines---Dr.-Andreas-Noack-on-graphene-hydroxide-11.26.21:e
SEE ALSO:
Christian Whistleblower Reveals Pfizer COVID Vaccine Contains Toxic Compounds Graphene Oxide And Luciferase
https://www.christianitydaily.com/articles/13621/20211015/christian-whistleblower-reveals-pfizer-covid-vaccine-contains-toxic-compounds-graphene-oxide-and-luciferase.htm
Former Pfizer Employee Confirms Graphene Oxide in COVID 'Vaccine'
https://rumble.com/vkgdq7-deadly-shots-former-pfizer-employee-confirms-poison-in-covid-vaccine.html
Has anyone heard from Emerald? Money is tight & wouldn’t subscribed if she wasn’t going to be active.
I agree. I canceled mine effective end of the paid month. Sorry that Emerald is missing in action :(
Just subscribed here. Did you get permanently banned from Twitter?!
https://theunexpectedcosmology.com/luciferase-quantum-dot-tattoo-the-mark-the-seething-energies-of-the-light-bearer/
Thanks for this info - I've just written an essay on "Screwtape's Ten Commandments of Our Pandemic Response," and your finding fits in with the 10th ("WWSD"). https://jlronning.substack.com/p/the-ten-commandments-of-our-pandemic
How does one get a refund
I love you Emerald Robinson, but the Christian world went balistic when talk of ID Chips came out years ago, and the European Union came about years ago, with talk of a one world currency, etc., grocery store scanners, computers, Rock and Roll music, and on, and on. The mention of buy and sell, Mark of Beast is in Revelation 13. Christians will not be here for that. We are out of here in Revelation 7. Some Christians believe Revelation 4. In any case, Christians are not here for the 7th Seal. I'm of the belief that we all go through Seals 1-6, but not 7. Seals 1-6 is mentioned in chapter 6. Chapter 7, I believe, is the rapture, and chapter 8 is the opening of the 7th Seal. In the 7th Seal is 3 "woe's", as stated in the KJV. The first "woe" is Revelation 9:12. The second is Revelation 11:14. The last woe is...Armegeddon, and that is chapter 16. Now, one thing to keep in mind is that John, the writer, is an apostle to the Jews, and it is the Jews who are looking for a Christ (whom we acknowledge is Jesus). That Christ that they will find is what we call the Anti-Christ, or Satan, aka Lucifer. The Anti-Christ MUST enter a Temple and proclaim that he is God (when the OBAMA-NATION (sarcasm) of Desolation enters in the [TEMPLE] (Holy Place), as prophesied by Daniel the prophet...). To date, there is no temple in Jerusalem for an anti-Christ to enter. And finally, Jesus asked the Pharisees the following, and they answered correctly.
Matthew 22:42
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
What nationality would the "Son of David" be?
Matthew 1:1
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David...
So what nationality will the Anti-Christ be? There must be a Temple in Jerusalem. The Jews must believe that their Christ had come, and how will they believe this? Miracles.
My point...we are a long way off before Revelation 13:17 is relevant.
Ed Chapman
Christians will be on Earth during the Trials & Tribulations. There is no "rapture"; not in the Bible. Revelation 20 describes the "Christians" who will be (possibly figuratively) "beheaded" for their testimony of Christ during the reign of the anti-christ (beast). Rapture believers will be among those stamping the mark of the beast on the foreheads and hands of the True Christians, all they while saying, "I won't be here so this can't possibly be the mark of the beast".
I know your dogma already, and I reject it. Rapture is indeed in the Bible. Harpazo is the Greek word, and is used as CAUGHT UP in the Bible. It's definition is the same as the English rapture...to seize. So I don't buy into the narrative that there is no rapture. The Jews are the focus of the book of revelation, not the gentiles. Not the Brits or the Germans, etc. As a matter of fact, in chapter 14 there is an additional rapture for the believing Jews, and converted gentiles right before chapter 16, the armageddon. Oh, and Paul tells us in galatians that John, the writer of revelation, is an apostle to the Jews. Revelation is for them, not us. And the final nail in the coffin... Jesus speaks of the 6th seal in the gospels... but not one word of the 7th seal. Peter, in acts 2 mentions the 6th seal. 144000 Jews will be sealed with the holy spirit in chapter 7, right at the time that we are raptured. We leave, they take over. Revelation is so simple.
I used to debate, discuss and argue this issue -- some twenty or more years ago, then I stopped. I used to believe it too. Until I realized that people who find solace in the false "rapture" notion were actually working on behalf of my enemies. What does that tell you? No need to cite any scripture, etc, etc. I've heard it -- and studied it -- a long time ago, then I woke up. Revelation 20 can't be any clearer, Christians will be persecuted during the Tribulation period, and it will be members of the Whore of Babylon (organized 501(c)3 churches) who will assist the beast with the persecution.
Oh, I see. You are a church hater. Gotcha.
Whore hater. Read Revelation 17, it's Biblical.
By the way, Revelation 7 is also "biblical". But I challenge you to find anything in the gospels regarding Jesus discussing anything about the 7th Seal in his end times discussions. You won't find it at all. He certainly mentions the 6th Seal, as does Peter in Acts 2, as does Joel, as does Revelation 6. But Jesus does not mention Revelation 8 and beyond at all. Peter mentions not just the 6th Seal, but also about the 144000 Jews getting the Holy Spirit in Revelation 7. So... Instead of you telling me to study Revelation 17, you should study everything about the 6th Seal and the 144000 that Peter talks about, the 6th Seal that Jesus discusses, the sixth Seal that Joel discusses, as well as the 6th Seal in Revelation 6, and all yourself why Jesus didn't mention the 7th Seal, and why the 6th is mentioned so many times, by John, Peter, Joel, and Jesus. Why would 144000 SUDDENLY get sealed with the holy spirit in chapter 7? They never had it before. So why then? What's the purpose? All of a sudden, BAM...144000 BELIEVERS that didn't believe before. That's the Jews. There is a reason that they didn't believe before. Roman's 9-11 explains. And it's the prophesy of Joseph, the 2nd in command of Egypt. His brothers didn't know who he was. Until he REVEALED himself. It's all about the Jews, not us lowly Gentiles.
And yet, we have Rahab, mentioned in Hebrews 11.
Oh, and you mention the beheading. Read, if you will, the 5th seal. That's the reference in chapter 6. It's just a Q&A. How long? Jesus replied, "Not now...wait...", THAT Q&A is a SEAL. The 5th Seal. It's not a trial, or a tribulation. Just a Q&A.
Then much later comes the action for their be heading.
There is no rapture. People who believe they won't be here during the trials and tribulations will be among those persecuting those of us who know that we will be, and will justify it by say (to themselves) that, this or that can't be the mark of the beast because "I won't be here). In the interest of keeping it cordial, end of discussion.
You'll change your mind when you ask, "where did the Christians go?" Your dogma is acknowledged, just not believed by the majority of Christianity.