HIlarious. If Tulsi was an actual normally-functioning human, her priority (as a top Dem politician) should be to call out the Emperor's (Joe) nakedness (senility). But no, she pops up here and there with popular topics. She's on a leash. Y'all -- The People -- do not own her.
Merck is not keen on it either. Their friendly fake news tech website Ars Technica wrote about the unfavorable change in outcome data. Marketing's way of setting it up to fail, without saying anything bad about it yourself.
As for the countries that ordered it (Singapore is one), not a peep. Funny, when Merck went guns-blazing on praising it in the early days. Nobody wants to talk about it, thus, it's a failure.
Merck is not defending it in the face of unfavorable news. The pill will be quietly dropped or ignored.
The fact that she speaks out, but is also a WEF asset shouldn't make you feel better about her. She's doing the job that us Anons should be doing, and taking the credit as "The rational Democrat".
Don't you think that some of this might play into the WEF's plan?
I suggest you discuss this with people locally instead of waiting for Big Sister to say it. This is what I do personally. It does make a difference.
(She's amazingly consistent at grabbing current news. I would be more impressed if she did it when the pill was first touted. Research papers were already out warning about potential cancer-causing properties of the drug. Given it's mechanisms, the drug is too powerful for widespread use, a very poor drug choice. Some of us already did our research very early on. She just picks out safe topics to hit on. Pure political strategy.)
I'm proud to take the hits. Means I'm over the target.
A man got payed 250 million dollars in defamation lawsuits for having a drum beat in his face.
The pharmaceutical companies won't target a person like you or me, because our voices don't carry in social media, but if you stand up against them, you better be damn certain that you have done your research and that you pick a 'safe' topic to hit. Especially if you no longer have the protections of the House as she was ousted by her own party.
"I'm proud to take the hits. Means I'm over the target."
Do your best not to virtue signal, as it reminds me of my Mother.
Okay, I'll play one more time. I won't be replying to any more of this.
Please improve your spelling: 'payed'
Yeah, and Sandmann settled with WaPo. Settlements like that are almost always sealed, so you're a fucking idiot for using that 250 mil figure. Also, you sue corporations for huge sums, then settle for less -- it's the American way.
HIlarious. If Tulsi was an actual normally-functioning human, her priority (as a top Dem politician) should be to call out the Emperor's (Joe) nakedness (senility). But no, she pops up here and there with popular topics. She's on a leash. Y'all -- The People -- do not own her.
Who cares. This medication is bad. Lets people know it is bad and they research it.
Hitler Mao and Stalin can tell me the sky is blue I won't start saying it's black now cause they said it.
More people speaking out about this the better
Tefren why dont you marry Tulsi. You obviously have a hard on for her. You literally only post Tulsi shit.
I mean, there's nothing wrong with a good wank, but don't fall for the pillow talk afterwards.
"Never be fooled by big socialist titties." - u/ProphetOfKek
Yep, don't be a SIMP falling for the commie tits.
Merck is not keen on it either. Their friendly fake news tech website Ars Technica wrote about the unfavorable change in outcome data. Marketing's way of setting it up to fail, without saying anything bad about it yourself.
As for the countries that ordered it (Singapore is one), not a peep. Funny, when Merck went guns-blazing on praising it in the early days. Nobody wants to talk about it, thus, it's a failure.
Merck is not defending it in the face of unfavorable news. The pill will be quietly dropped or ignored.
Yes. Merck is smarter than some companies.
The fact that she speaks out, but is also a WEF asset shouldn't make you feel better about her. She's doing the job that us Anons should be doing, and taking the credit as "The rational Democrat".
Don't you think that some of this might play into the WEF's plan?
I suggest you discuss this with people locally instead of waiting for Big Sister to say it. This is what I do personally. It does make a difference.
Further reading for those interested:
https://oppressed.news/2021/04/news/socialism/reps-dan-crenshaw-and-tulsi-gabbard-were-deep-state-plants/
Bernie Sanders successor no doubt. Keep the Democrats community college wing in the pocket.
The topic was "Merck's experimental COVID pill molnupiravir" you worthless muppet.
Yessir! Whatever you say Sir!
(She's amazingly consistent at grabbing current news. I would be more impressed if she did it when the pill was first touted. Research papers were already out warning about potential cancer-causing properties of the drug. Given it's mechanisms, the drug is too powerful for widespread use, a very poor drug choice. Some of us already did our research very early on. She just picks out safe topics to hit on. Pure political strategy.)
I'm proud to take the hits. Means I'm over the target.
A man got payed 250 million dollars in defamation lawsuits for having a drum beat in his face.
The pharmaceutical companies won't target a person like you or me, because our voices don't carry in social media, but if you stand up against them, you better be damn certain that you have done your research and that you pick a 'safe' topic to hit. Especially if you no longer have the protections of the House as she was ousted by her own party.
Do your best not to virtue signal, as it reminds me of my Mother.
Okay, I'll play one more time. I won't be replying to any more of this.
Please improve your spelling: 'payed'
Yeah, and Sandmann settled with WaPo. Settlements like that are almost always sealed, so you're a fucking idiot for using that 250 mil figure. Also, you sue corporations for huge sums, then settle for less -- it's the American way.
Pfffffft! Bye bye!
I don't trust her. I don't trust any of them.
You make the mistake of believing the MSM would cover that topic or that Twitter would not deplatform her if she made those statements there.
But you're not wrong about her being on a leash.