I don't have time to make a point by point rebuttal to everything you say here, (of which about 95% is off topic)so I'll just stick to the basics again:
I am ONLY interested in the claim you made that a court ruled that vaccines haven't been tested for safety or accuracy in 30 years. I was very excited to see this claim because I thought it would be excellent to use when talking to normies about vaccines. Imagine my disappointment when the evidence you provided didn't show that.
It wasn't a ruling from a court case. It was a FOIA document. Not anywhere near the same thing.
It is possible to test vaccines for safety and efficacy without providing those reports to Congress. The pharmaceutical companies will just show the studies they did internally. You can go to PMID and come up with hundreds of such studies in less than a minute.
I could read a book assigned by a teacher and NOT turn in the book report she wanted. It doesn't mean I didn't read the book, though. This is a very basic concept, and I really can't simplify it more than that.
So, I'm not sure if you're not capable of understanding my points here or if you understood all along that you didn't have evidence of what you claimed and wanted to pretend. Either way, there's really no need to go around in circles here.
"I don't have time to make a point by point rebuttal to everything you say here,..."
You can stop right there. Here's why. You are not going to convince us on vax☠xines being safe and effective or regarding this case. Vax☠xines are the biggest lie out there. The fraud is well documented and the serial crimes are voluminous.
I'd recommend you take it up with Del Matthew Bigtree and JFK, Jr. who went to court on this. I believe their response on this and not your speculation. So, there really isn't anything more to discuss here.
My intention is not to convince anyone that vaccines are safe or effective.
I don't believe that vaccines are safe or effective.
But that doesn't mean that what you claimed was true. It's things like what you did that makes it harder to convince normies. You were just making things up, or you were seriously misunderstanding what you were reading.
You should get out of the mindset that if anyone disagrees with you on anything that they're completely against everything you say.
So, clear your mind of any preconceived notions, go back to the beginning of this conversation,
and actually READ what I was saying. I was extraordinarily clear on my points.
You seem to be confused. I provided the source to you, in which I posted the information. It's not my opinion. Rather, it comes from Del Bigtree's ICANN and RFK, Jr. press release. Again, the proper place to argue it is with them.
I'm not the confused one here. You made a claim that was simply not true.
Do you really not understand the difference between a court making a ruling on a case and someone suing for FOIA documents?
When a court makes a ruling, they look at evidence from both sides, deliberate, and either a judge or jury makes a decision on it.
That is NOT what the case from ICANN is. That was someone suing for info from the FOIA. That's it. All that was, was the court telling the pharmaceutical company they had to provide the information asked for to ICANN.
It was NOT the court making a judgement as to if vaccine companies had done any tests or if vaccines were safe or effective.
I'm gobsmacked that I have to explain the difference here. Do you really not understand this?
I don't have time to make a point by point rebuttal to everything you say here, (of which about 95% is off topic)so I'll just stick to the basics again:
I am ONLY interested in the claim you made that a court ruled that vaccines haven't been tested for safety or accuracy in 30 years. I was very excited to see this claim because I thought it would be excellent to use when talking to normies about vaccines. Imagine my disappointment when the evidence you provided didn't show that.
It wasn't a ruling from a court case. It was a FOIA document. Not anywhere near the same thing.
It is possible to test vaccines for safety and efficacy without providing those reports to Congress. The pharmaceutical companies will just show the studies they did internally. You can go to PMID and come up with hundreds of such studies in less than a minute.
I could read a book assigned by a teacher and NOT turn in the book report she wanted. It doesn't mean I didn't read the book, though. This is a very basic concept, and I really can't simplify it more than that.
So, I'm not sure if you're not capable of understanding my points here or if you understood all along that you didn't have evidence of what you claimed and wanted to pretend. Either way, there's really no need to go around in circles here.
You can stop right there. Here's why. You are not going to convince us on vax☠xines being safe and effective or regarding this case. Vax☠xines are the biggest lie out there. The fraud is well documented and the serial crimes are voluminous.
I'd recommend you take it up with Del Matthew Bigtree and JFK, Jr. who went to court on this. I believe their response on this and not your speculation. So, there really isn't anything more to discuss here.
My intention is not to convince anyone that vaccines are safe or effective.
I don't believe that vaccines are safe or effective.
But that doesn't mean that what you claimed was true. It's things like what you did that makes it harder to convince normies. You were just making things up, or you were seriously misunderstanding what you were reading.
You should get out of the mindset that if anyone disagrees with you on anything that they're completely against everything you say.
So, clear your mind of any preconceived notions, go back to the beginning of this conversation, and actually READ what I was saying. I was extraordinarily clear on my points.
You seem to be confused. I provided the source to you, in which I posted the information. It's not my opinion. Rather, it comes from Del Bigtree's ICANN and RFK, Jr. press release. Again, the proper place to argue it is with them.
I'm not the confused one here. You made a claim that was simply not true.
Do you really not understand the difference between a court making a ruling on a case and someone suing for FOIA documents?
When a court makes a ruling, they look at evidence from both sides, deliberate, and either a judge or jury makes a decision on it.
That is NOT what the case from ICANN is. That was someone suing for info from the FOIA. That's it. All that was, was the court telling the pharmaceutical company they had to provide the information asked for to ICANN.
It was NOT the court making a judgement as to if vaccine companies had done any tests or if vaccines were safe or effective.
I'm gobsmacked that I have to explain the difference here. Do you really not understand this?