Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
They say hydrochloroquine is as effective as horse tranquilizer
They say
They say
Who? What are the names and positions of this global cabal that sees benefit in "herding the chattel"? What benefits is it to do so across sovereign boundaries and geopolitical divides? We're all the scientists paid off? By what person or organization? How are you immune to a move that clearly has duped BILLIONS of people of every stripe, education, social position and intelligence?Well the only real truth seems to be there
The worldwide attempt to herd the chattel and have them simultaneously "other" the opposition was a resounding success. Thats all that matters.
Who? What are the names and positions of this global cabal that sees benefit in "herding the chattel"? What benefits is it to do so across sovereign boundaries and geopolitical divides? We're all the scientists paid off? By what person or organization? How are you immune to a move that clearly has duped BILLIONS of people of every stripe, education, social position and intelligence?
Please enlighten me here.
Cui BonoWho? What are the names and positions of this global cabal that sees benefit in "herding the chattel"? What benefits is it to do so across sovereign boundaries and geopolitical divides? We're all the scientists paid off? By what person or organization?
Because I didn't take an experimental jab. owe no debts and hedged for inflation decades ago.How are you immune to a move that clearly has duped BILLIONS of people of every stripe, education, social position and intelligence?
Please enlighten me here.
Cui Bono
Because I didn't take an experimental jab. owe no debts and hedged for inflation decades ago.
It's really not rocket surgery or a decent attempt at sarcasm even.
People have been consuming Cannabis for thousands of years with zero reported deaths. We can't say the same for the jab unfortunately.Not much of an answer. We have only now begun to study and comprehend the long term effects of smoking cannabis.
But I presume you were smoking it some time ago.
Right? Your goal was Length and you got none. Its going to be ok.Not much of an answer. We have only now begun to study and comprehend the long term effects of smoking cannabis.
But I presume you were smoking it some time ago.
no; what he wanted was confirming information, but providing that is not your style.Right? Your goal was Length and you got none. Its going to be ok.
no; what he wanted was confirming information, but providing that is not your style.
People have been consuming Cannabis for thousands of years with zero reported deaths. We can't say the same for the jab unfortunately.
Or they are are defending an ideology to which they are loyal beyond reason.I have found that those who most often fail to answer questions materially and to the point actually have no answers at all.
Did you read the header of that study?..And then there is this:
A Study Finally Shows Just How Much Deadlier COVID Has Been for Republicans
And suggests that, yes, anti-vaccine rhetoric is to blame.slate.com
False:People have been smoking tobacco for hundreds of years and it was only in the past thirty that it was causealy linked to death.
It would be grimly amusing if GOP ads were made to carry a Surgeon General’s warning.And then there is this:
A Study Finally Shows Just How Much Deadlier COVID Has Been for Republicans
And suggests that, yes, anti-vaccine rhetoric is to blame.slate.com
We have been using vaccines of one sort or another for over 100 years. Mrna technology was introduced in the 1960's.False:
View attachment 5209259
Besides doesn't that sort of reasoning work against your position that the vaccines don't cause death, since we've only barely just started researching their outcomes?
Did you read the header of that study?..
View attachment 5209258
"Important: e-prints posted on arXiv are not peer-reviewed by arXiv; they should not be relied upon without context to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information without consulting multiple experts in the field. "
Or they are are defending an ideology to which they are loyal beyond reason.
This imo is slightly “other category”, not so much no answers as … no answers that survive objective or unbiased test.
From my experience with purple A, this usually obtains.
Yes. By implication, this one is not in the set “reasonable”."Loyal beyond reason". And if the ideology is reasonable? Wouldn't a "reasonble" question merit a substantive and "reasonable" response?