"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?
Please don't argue with me. It's okay. The article states this not me. From the article:
"Vaccine injury lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,& Del Bigtree, producer of the suppressed anti-vaccine documentary, Vaxxed and the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) are credited with this victory."
It's very clear.
Being "gobsmacked" is being the proverbial deer in the headlights.
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?
Please don't argue with me. It's okay. The article states this not me. From the article:
It's very clear.
Being "gobsmacked" is being the proverbial deer in the headlights.