Leftists label anyone who disagrees with them as intolerant, and they bring up the "paradox of intolerance" as justification to censor dissent. In other words, they are literally using fascism to denounce fascism.
Losing our jobs and being treated like dirt for 5 years certainly doesn't feel like a "victory."
Millstone Attached Pedophile
So much projection here. The left clearly doesn't care about consent anymore after arbitrarily forcing a medical treatment on Americans and seeking to destroy anyone who opposed it.
Known and tested is the new safe and effective.
The PCR test is discredited for finding "covid" but can still detect RNA sequences from the injections - what it was intended to do in the first place.
Woodchippers are minimal risk.
The divine masculine archetype is universal rights, and the divine feminine archetype is universal caring. The covidiots believe they are representing the divine feminine by getting inoculated and coercing everyone else into taking the injection "for the greater good."
A just and righteous society needs an integration of masculine and feminine principles. This does involve hampering freedom for the greater good, but absolutely not when the loss of freedom is based on lies.
The truth will determine the proper approach to a just and righteous society. Injecting everyone with poison isn't the right answer even if germ theory was correct. There is no way to protect others from a fake "virus," so it is each individual's responsibility to decide how to protect themselves from that thing on the news.
All covid related policies that restrict freedom are unjust. Since legacy media is perpetuating the false belief that illness is caused by a "virus," in this case, freedom is the greater good.
Yes, all of the cowards who chose to take the shot because they had families to feed and couldn't sacrifice their income gave in because they have no faith and hearts full of fear
Now this acronym I can get behind. Legendary meme.
Read The Invisible Rainbow by Arthur Firstenberg.
Two words: experimental and unnecessary. It was all risk and no reward taking an experimental injection to protect yourself from a "virus" with a 99.99% survival rate.
If you have an Android, use the "sensors off" button.
https://www.lifewire.com/turn-off-android-phone-sensors-5524799
The soy boy ripped the mask off big man, so if he lost the lawsuit it would set a precedent that it is acceptable to rip masks off people's faces if you disagree with them. It's a win-win situation!
Proud to be a humble American.
Keep giving away your freedoms because of the peer pressure, cuck.
It's ironic that you too are a cuck without even realizing it. Everywhere!
Religious exemptions are for spineless weaklings.
SargeSargento is afraid if it gives more information it will lose its job. The people who are remaining silent because their CEO told them to and don't want to get fired are just a part of the problem.
Brozen, How to Train Your Drag Son, The Lion Thing, Fagtasia, Xercules
It's like trying to clean up dog shit on the carpet with fresh dog shit.
Misery loves company.
You can store your crypto offline, and some cryptos don't need an internet connection to send, just a Bluetooth connection.
Bruce Lipton has been an advocate for the truth about cholesterol in his book, The Biology of Belief:
In a study, Theodore M. Hollister showed samples of blood from the specialized strain of rats he used to study human atherosclerosis, the hardening and narrowing of arteries that is the leading cause of death in the United States. These animals had so much cholesterol in their systems that their blood was milky white. Despite their apparently toxic level of cholesterol, these rats did not form endothelial cell plaque typical of atherosclerosis blood vessels. The secret... Ted added an over-the-counter antihistamine drug when he introduced the cholesterol because the antihistamines could override cholesterol's apparent role in atherosclerotic plaque formation, his work showed that the mere presence of the cholesterol was not the driving force behind a blood vessel's malfunction.
Since antihistamines protected the rats, this research suggested an alternative culprit: histamine. In recent mice studies, the genes for histamine synthesis were experimentally "knocked out." These genetically modified mice, unable to synthesize histamine, resisted the influence of stressor that led to inflammation and atherosclerosis in control mice. And the protective results observed in histamine-free mice were independent of serum cholesterol levels (Wang, etc al, 2011). The results of animal studies point to the role thay chronic stress plays in the creation of histamine and in the onset and exacerbation of atherosclerosis and promotion of cardiovascular disease. In direct contrast to the implied role of cholesterol in causing heart disease, cardiovascular pathology may instead primarily result from environmental stressors rather than genetic or biochemical dysfunction.
Though this research argues against the medical establishment's rush to judgment against cholesterol, that rush was fueled by the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, that's because the drug companies had come up with another one of their beloved magic bullets, this time in the form of statins. Statins are a class of drugs used to lower levels of cholesterol in the blood by inhibiting a liver enzyme responsible for producing 70 percent of the body's cholesterol. Statin drugs were originally intended for high-risk cardiac patients, but someone, likely in sales, came up with the idea that statins might be good for primary prevention to help those at risk of developing heart disease in the future as well.
The JUPITER Study, frequently referenced in support of statin use, found that during the study period, there were 68 heart attacks in the placebo group and only 31 heart attacks in the group that took statins. So according to those numbers, statins produced an astonishing 58 percent reduction in relative risk. The results led the research group to advise thay statins were effective for primary prevention of heart attacks (Ridker 2008). On the surface was simply a manipulation of the data. It should be noted that the experimental and control study groups each had 8,901 participants. In real terms, the heart attack risk went from a very low 0.76 percent (68 put of 8,901) in the control group to 0.35 percent (31 out of 8,901) in the statin group. Statistically, the "protective" effect of statins provided for a 0.35 percent reduction over controls, which meant a real risk reduction of less than one half of one percent. The data indicate that for every 300 people taking expensive statin drugs, only one life might be saved. Follow-up studies reveal that the presumed preventive effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs have been considerably exaggerated. As a side note, AstraZenica, makers of the statin drugs used in the study, was the source of funding for the now discredited JUPITER Study (Lorgeril, etc al, 2010).
The use of statins in the primary prevention of heart disease has fueled sales, but it hasn't turned the tide in the war on cardiovascular disease. In fact, as with many wars waged lately, the cost is high and the results negligible. Though statins accounted for $29 billion in U.S. sales in 2013 alone, their war against cholesterol has barely had an impact on cardiovascular diseases. At best, statin drugs lower the actual risk of heart attack by around 0.3 percent, while at the same time producing side effects in 15 to 40 percent of those using the drug. Recent independent studies have shown that statin use for primary prevention has minimal or no value in reducing heart attacks and mortality (Sultan and Hynes, 2013).
Perhaps it's time to revise the conclusion that cholesterol is culpable for cardiovascular health issues and shift our attention to environmental stressors rather than genetic or biochemical dysfunctions.