- If someone told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (169)
sorted by:
I can't tell if youre bullshitting me or not?
On the contrary, a bioweapon designed to kill you immediately would be a shitty weapon. People would quickly put two and two together and stop taking the death jabs. They DEF wouldn't continue to get boosted.
However, a bioweapon designed to kill you farther away from your inoculation date provides much better plausible deniability.
I'm not bullshitting.
I've heard the whole "delayed results" theory. Once it was 2 weeks, then 2 months, then 2 years. I'm not sure why a bioweapon wouldn't have this delayed result after everyone got the first/second jab.
At this point, I fully expect to see people die 50 years down the line and people to try and say it was because of the delayed reaction of the bioweapon from the shot 50 years ago. It just seems silly to hold that expectation that it was a bioweapon.
I would argue that a bioweapon that kills everyone, the HUGE number of people that got the first two shots, within a couple months to be incredibly effective. Why would they need plausible deniability if they're trying to take out that much of the population? Who would they need to deny it to?
Moreover, why would they kill off all the good little obedient citizens, leaving only the staunch and combative to survive?