4
InarosPrime 4 points ago +4 / -0

Even if it appeared natural, people on this very discussion board would claim it wasn't natural.

29
InarosPrime 29 points ago +29 / -0

Everything about the "vaccine" was setting off red flags.

People were passing out on camera within seconds and the talking heads told us to ignore our eyes.
There were rumors of deaths within days following the shot and the talking heads said it was safe.
Those who questioned the need for a vaccine for such a low risk virus were told by the talking heads it was the only way to save the world.
The talking heads ridiculed anyone who pointed out the possibility of proven alternative treatments, like IVM.
The lack of accountability and insulation from liability should have been the biggest red flag. Eventually, the talking heads told us it was approved by the FDA, even though only Comirnaty was.

The signs were there for anyone to see this "vaccine" was not to be trusted.

2
InarosPrime 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't see where the meme explicitly offers the choice of 'whether or not to take the shot'.

That is what I am saying is wrong with the (not a meme) text presented. The real choice people face is to take the shot or not. In making that decision, they need to know the odds of both acquiring and dying myocarditis, versus the odds of dying from what they are told the "vaccine" protects them from.

The faulty comparison is made worse by the fact that the odds of getting COVID in one's lifetime are nearly 100% at this point. Myocarditis is a rare side-effect, from what we have seen so far. Comparing myocarditis induced by the "vaccine" to COVID death is the same as assuming myocarditis is inevitable.

I want to be clear that I don't believe the "vaccine" provides any protection. The choice people make is often based on misinformation and propaganda fed to them by the media and government.

3
InarosPrime 3 points ago +3 / -0

It is a logical fallacy. The choice presented is not "get myocarditis or get COVID". The choice is whether or not to take the COVID shot. The way it is presented is a faulty comparison fallacy.

5
InarosPrime 5 points ago +5 / -0

The latest dataset from the ONS is titled ‘Deaths by Vaccination Status, England, 1 January 2021 to 31 May 2022‘, and it can be accessed on the ONS site here, and downloaded here.

It has a link to the place where you can find the data set, and a direct link to download the data set from the same site in case you can't find it easily. The source is the UK government, as the article's headline states. There is nothing "unconfirmed" about this.

3
InarosPrime 3 points ago +3 / -0

I prefer the term, hyperbullshitia. It refers to the condition in which one believes the bullshit spewing from one's mouth for so long they are intoxicated by it.

1
InarosPrime 1 point ago +1 / -0

Again, you lashed out at someone who only tried to answer your question. That isn't very Christian-like.

You obviously have some issue and you're taking it out on some random person on the internet. Please talk to someone about it so you feel better. Find someone who will give you a hug, too.

I hope you feel better. Have a nice Fourth of July weekend!

0
InarosPrime 0 points ago +1 / -1

What is your problem? Everyone else who read the comment above understood it was speculation based on common sense and an understanding of the enemy. You insult someone who tried to answer your question instead of accepting that answer. If anyone needs to get off this site, it is you.

0
InarosPrime 0 points ago +1 / -1

because there was no way the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade otherwise?

SCOTUS can't simply take up any issue it wants. There must be a case presented to them. If abortionists wanted to avoid having a conservative court overturn Roe V Wade, the common-sense strategy would be to not bring a case to SCOTUS.

1
InarosPrime 1 point ago +2 / -1

My brother has children. His kids are like tequila: best enjoyed in moderation or you might do something you regret if you consume too much. I'm never having kids of my own.

3
InarosPrime 3 points ago +3 / -0

.08 is very easy to fail honestly

That is also enough to cause a measurable delay in reaction time for most people. I don't care if you are (or think you are) one of the few who can have a higher amount of BAC and still react the same. The law has to be applied equally. That means a single standard for everyone.

4
InarosPrime 4 points ago +4 / -0

Exactly. No matter how many guns a person owns, they are going to have a hard time accurately firing more than one at a time.

6
InarosPrime 6 points ago +6 / -0

Don't forget all of the photos of mannequins during COVID. Some of them had a ridiculous amount of machines hooked up - more than any person would have - just for dramatic effect.

12
InarosPrime 12 points ago +12 / -0

So you're saying 9/11 could have been avoided if those terrorist just had some goats?

12
InarosPrime 12 points ago +12 / -0

Getting rid of the 20-60 million illegals might relieve some of the strain on our housing market. Just saying.

1
InarosPrime 1 point ago +1 / -0

A tabulator can be set to recognize a fault

For some reason, it didn't connect with me that a tiny tear could cause a machine to reject the vote.

1
InarosPrime 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't understand. How does a slight cut in the card mean there is intent to rig an election?

1
InarosPrime 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maybe God wants you to educate others on what to do in that situation. I'm not a pilot, but I think dipping into the fog to try to get a visual is a bad idea. If your ILS can't guide you in for whatever reason what do you do?

My guess would be to land elsewhere. You should have the fuel to reach an alternative airport. If not, a lit highway or sports field might work.

Any licensed pilots have advice?

11
InarosPrime 11 points ago +11 / -0

The CEO of Pfizer tweeted, stating the vaccine was 100% effective. Leading people to believe that, when it clearly wasn't 100% effective, is fraud.

view more: Next ›