Madeline Mccann's DNA Tests archive show that indeed she has a mutation on the PAX gene. https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1606768 https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1523954 are threads linking pizzagate suspects to this issue. Specifically retinal-coloboma. It is important to understand that these elitist money hoarders like to diversify their revenue streams and want to live as long as possible. The use of peptides and proteins is key, this is known to science. Oxidative stresses are known to cause recessive genes to express themselves. Could 'they' be using pedofiles to cause the expression of genes in their carefully selected victims prior to them extracting blood or even killing their victims to harvest all their fluids and tissues? 'They' harvest fetal tissues for big $ from abortions, ref project veritas, why would this Pizzagate community not believe that they are profiting from peptides? To explore this further another board v/peptidegate exists because this tread may be deleted by the mods. A specific thread explores the science associated to PAX2, p53 and other proteins used in medicine and genetic engineering.
Here is some relevant science.
Control of cell cycle length and time of exit are expected to modulate the nature and extent of the neural progenitors. Intrinsic genetic programs and extracellular signaling cues contribute to the expansion of neural progenitor pool. Transcriptional factors provide key intrinsic control, qualitatively directing cell fate specification and differentiation. For example, Pax6 is required for the multipotent state of the retinal progenitors. Retnal Coloboma is known for PAX2 Production
A p53-Pax2 pathway in kidney development: implications for nephrogenesis.
Saifudeen Z1, Liu J, Dipp S, Yao X, Li Y, McLaughlin N, Aboudehen K, El-Dahr SS.
Developmental renal genes likely to be co--regulated by p53 and Pax2. We propose that the cross-talk between p53 and Pax2 provides a transcriptional platform that promotes nephrogenesis, thus contributing to nephron endowment.
view the rest of the comments →
jangles ago
@Millennial_Falcon , I think my post complies with rule 1 as it is about the Podesta relations, and I'm clearly stating that. What am I missing? You must give reason because: On-Demand Explanations
Millennial_Falcon ago
You make it sound very "sciency," but basically you present no evidence to support your argument. Therefore, your post is a violation of Rule 1. Maybe if you can build at least a decent argument as to how McCann's eye is relevant, your post can satisfy Rule 1.
Vindicator ago
Also jangles, scientific claims are verifiable in scientific publications. If you are going to make such claims, you need to provide supporting links that back up each one. PubMed is good place to start. You can also search scholar.google.com.
jangles ago
wtf, there are 4 peer reviewed publications noted on this link. I will rebuild this to satisfy need for educating the community.