I am well awake. Being awake also means not to take headlines and consider them as gospel. Have you listened to the video before posting? I ask because, after carefully listening to it twice, I find no mention whatsoever of safety concerns for justifying not having taken the gene therapy injections. Indeed WAKE UP!
He is saying that he and his team (company) at first did not take the jab because they could not participate in a trial and then states that they could not participate after the trial because the ability of his team (& himself) to function could not be jeopardized by taking the jab. Hmmmm.
Quote: "I am legally not allowed to take the vaccine at the moment, we of course consider to make that possible. It is more important for us that our co-workers and partners GET VACCINATED(...)and we need to insure that we protect the co-workers and our team members from Covid-19 infection because that would mean interruption and delay..." He is saying his co-workers and team members got vaccinated so as to insure uninterrupted 24/7 production of the vaccine. Now his justification for not getting the shot could be hogwash for all I care, however the statement made does not suggest anything resembling what you say it does.
I must be daft for I fail to discern any condescendance in my comment to you good sir. Yours, however, reeks of bellicose animosity. I have merely pointed out the evidence of the video submitted: It does not say what you suggest or imply it does. You dont have to react in such a susceptible manner; it serves no constructive purpose.
I am well awake. Being awake also means not to take headlines and consider them as gospel. Have you listened to the video before posting? I ask because, after carefully listening to it twice, I find no mention whatsoever of safety concerns for justifying not having taken the gene therapy injections. Indeed WAKE UP!
He is saying that he and his team (company) at first did not take the jab because they could not participate in a trial and then states that they could not participate after the trial because the ability of his team (& himself) to function could not be jeopardized by taking the jab. Hmmmm.
That's my point....but DragonBallz can't see that....
Maybe DragonBallz was expecting something more literal.
Definitely...
Quote: "I am legally not allowed to take the vaccine at the moment, we of course consider to make that possible. It is more important for us that our co-workers and partners GET VACCINATED(...)and we need to insure that we protect the co-workers and our team members from Covid-19 infection because that would mean interruption and delay..." He is saying his co-workers and team members got vaccinated so as to insure uninterrupted 24/7 production of the vaccine. Now his justification for not getting the shot could be hogwash for all I care, however the statement made does not suggest anything resembling what you say it does.
Yes , of course i listened...Don't be a Condescending twat...connect the dots...
I must be daft for I fail to discern any condescendance in my comment to you good sir. Yours, however, reeks of bellicose animosity. I have merely pointed out the evidence of the video submitted: It does not say what you suggest or imply it does. You dont have to react in such a susceptible manner; it serves no constructive purpose.
Uh, uh, um, yeah, uh. (That’s all I heard; is it me?)