Simply because one thing that a person said is correct does not mean that everything they've said is correct.
Hulda Clark is the most obvious scam in the world and if you can't see that by reading, "zapper" and "syncrometer" then you should really reevaluate some things.
Just so ya know many Bishops and Priests in the Catholic Church are already on the dark side. We won't even talk about the Vatican and the Pope.
Well that's because the Catholic Church is basically a cult. Jesus didn't teach Catholicism. That's a whole other can of worms so I won't get into all of it but I would highly suggest you review why you follow Catholicism instead of simply The Word of God.
And again, my point about the fetal cell differences is not because I think one is okay and one isn't, but that your future posts are 100% accurate and not misleading. That was my only point, ever since the beginning. Thanks pede for the civil conversation! God Bless.
I did a quick search on duck duck go and came up with the three answers. Do your own research if you don't believe me..
No, that's not how this works. You made a claim, you're expected to support it.
All flu vaccines contain fetal cells. That is a fact. Even the CDC admitted it https://www.thestandardsc.org/baxter-dmitry/cdc-admit-vaccines-contain-aborted-human-fetus-cells/
I'm not disputing this - We're not talking about flu vaccines or anything other than the three mentioned in your original comment.
As a vaccine so does J&J and the Catholic Church even told Catholics not to take it. https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/health/2021/03/04/bishops-tell-catholics-to-avoid-johnson---johnson-vaccine-if-possible
Again, it contains fetal cell linings. I say this again not because the difference is substantial to me, but because you're claiming something that is false. The truth matters. Having pointless falsehoods such as this in a comment allows others to poke against your argument, when it is entirely avoidable by just making sure you stick to the facts.
The mRNA is NOT officially a vaccine. Apparently you did not read the article I linked to earlier:
Not my point - you seem to be incredibly defensive and acting like I'm in favor of these, "vaccines." Note this is the SECOND time I put that in quotes.
"However such a cell line was used to test the efficacy of both Vaccines" Thus what I said before. Thus the mRNA still uses fetal cells in it's development.
Only in development, which doesn't mean it's used in the final production. Again my point here is only for you to be completely truthful. Apparently a lot of people on this site don't seem to get that, and try to argue with anyone who dares to question them, so I'm making this painfully obvious in this comment.
From this paragraph:
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were found to be ethically uncontroversial by the pro-life policy organization the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Further, the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, a committee within the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has stated: “neither Pfizer nor Moderna used an abortion-derived cell line in the development or production of the vaccine.
We've covered this above.
I think you meant, "O"
Dead is dead. What awaits them in Hell is far worse than anything we could ever imagine doing to them, and it's for all of eternity.
Get right with Jesus, pedes. Accept his free gift of salvation. Tomorrow is not promised.
I absolutely believe that cures are known, but Dr. Hulda Clark is the definition of a scam.
How to make and use a Syncrometer
How to build your own Zapper
If you read that product description and didn't immediately come to the same conclusion, you're an idiot. I'm willing to bet there's some documentary style podcast or something out there that talks about her.
Your first link has many inconsistencies and references things that don't exist (like where it says, "below you'll find").
Your second article is only in relation to the J&J so I didn't want to give MSN a click.
Your third article explicitly says that Madurna and Pfizer's, "vaccines" do not contain fetal material. It also states that the J&J only uses fetal cell linings, not fetal cells themselves (not a significant enough distinction to me but my point is, facts matter).
Unless I'm missing something, both of your claims are wrong as currently presented, by your own sources. I'd like to be proven wrong on this, but I don't think I'm going to be.
Can we please not spread mis-information?
Could you provide some sources for these claims? I'd love to add that to my catalogs.
I don't think we do know.
What?
My comment has nothing to do with whether he's the same Joe Biden or not. Please actually READ my comment.
My comment has nothing to do with whether or not he's the same Joe Biden or not. Please actually READ my comment.
Believe me, I wish we had a Civil War over basic rights decades ago...
The problem is getting enough people on board with that idea so your movement is successful, both in the short and long term. That's why I pray for the Q team to be successful so that a Civil War can be avoided.
I pray so. That's about all we can do short of some 2nd amendment action.
Thats the funny thing. Even you have no clue what exactly you are calling me out on!
No, I made it very clear. If you can't read, that's your problem.
Honestly, I am looking for a good debate, but you are shying away from making any point and sticking to it.
I haven't moved any goalposts, if that's what your implying.
So let me start "I believe Biden has been replaced".
Let me repeat for the FIFTH time that this is not the point of any of my comments.
I'm giving you one last chance to properly read my comments and acknowledge the points I've made, or I'm moving on. You are the only one misbehaving here, and you're very clearly doing it on purpose. As you said above, "this forum is for learning" so I'm giving you a chance to redeem yourself.
So far, you've blatantly lied on several points, you've refused to acknowledge basic facts about this discussion, and you're appearing as a simple troll at this point. Make a proper reply, or I'm done here.
Anytime you want to get off your high horse and actually curious to know what other people are thinking just ask this to me and you will get a very informative answer:
Again, quote me. What high horse? The fact that you said this again tells me you didn't read my last comment.
"Hey Bubble, you seem to think Biden has been replaced. Is it just based on his photos? Because some people can look different after time. Are there any more compelling aspects you wanna share?"
And you just proved my last suspicion correct. For the FOURTH time, my comments DO NOT relate to you believing that "POTUS" Biden is a double.
This forum is for learning, thats what Q has taught us. I have no time for your petty insecurities. You might find your style of "debate" more in line with reddit, perhaps you should make your way back there. If you wanna stay here and be productive, I suggest you learn some basics of debating and logic.
The projection is so real. Bubble, meet mirror.
You have no idea how to react to being called out on something, do you?
This movie is too long. I want to see the climax already.
I am having a hard time understanding why so much animosity!
What have I done that is hostile? Quote me.
Go back and read the comments and you will understand that you are putting words into my mouth.
I literally quoted your words back to you.
If I wanted to present my case that Biden is not the same guy I would do so with a lot more explicit evidences - something that at this point on this forum is no longer needed because most people are fully awake.
Yet you're still doing the things that I mentioned above...
On a telegram account recently someone posted a clip of Biden talking about Afghanistan in 2002 or so. In the comments people started saying that, that guy is not Biden he does not look anything like him nor does he sound like him.
Observation about how people outside this forum are also slowly waking up
They're waking up to what? What evidence are they being presented with that would wake them up? Clearly they are waking up to the idea that Biden isn't the same guy purely from his drastic change in looks from previous years. There is no other context that this statement could possibly be referring to. For you to pass off this comment of yours as merely meaning that people are waking up is a blatant lie in the form of omission. They are waking up to something from something. You cannot just ignore half of the evidence here and act like you're telling the truth. Your comment as written intrinsically relates to more than the fact that they are waking up, from all logical outside viewpoints unless you explicitly clarify this yourself.
Point is, the difference is so acute that if you just look at a picture you can immediately tell whether its "original" or "new" Biden.
Again, an observation that the difference is so acute. Dont confuse this observation to me claiming this is the ONLY reason I believe so.
My comments to you have NEVER involved this being your only reasoning; Merely that this reasoning itself is improper and does not stand on it's face without significant supporting evidence to go along with it. Since this is the only evidence that you've provided, no outside reader has any reason to believe that you have any other evidence, anyways.
That and 20yrs, in 2002 we all looked like a diff person
He made a statement that everyone looks different 20 years later, and I simply pointed out that is not true by offering examples. Again, this is not me saying "OBVIOUSLY Biden MUST be a double"
How did you write all of this and still miss my point? Did you just not read my comments for more than 2 seconds and decide to start arguing with me?
Honestly, if you believe he is the same guy doesn't bother me in the least. Not sure why you are getting so worked up.
Again I don't see why you think I'm worked up about this. I responded to you with simple logical statements, and you're now claiming that the sky isn't blue.
If you claim you cannot see that your statements give off the sentiment that you're using these claims of yours in support that Biden is a double, then you're being coy.
Honestly, if you believe he is the same guy doesn't bother me in the least.
Ask me politely for my compelling reasons to believe he is different, or offer your compelling reasons why you believe he is the same.
For at least the third time, the point of my comments have nothing to do with whether Biden is a double or not. If you can't read basic English I'm not going to bother continuing this conversation.
If you want to have a debate then start a debate.
I did. That's exactly what I did. You have this completely false notion that I'm upset at you, which is entirely baseless.
Anything else you are arguing is simply against an imaginary argument.
I've been incredibly clear as to what the point of my comments are for; Your willful ignorance of that fact is not my fault. You are the one choosing to argue against an imaginary figure, here.
I've done nothing hostile to you and yet you chose to get defensive towards me, and ignore/purposely misinterpret my comments and points.
If I've done something wrong to you, quote me. I haven't done any of the things you've accused me of. You should rethink how you approach confrontational conversations; They are not inherently negative by any means.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was that not an optional task? Why volunteer HIPPA protected information (or have they done something to exclude the gene therapy from HIPPA?)?
What exactly have I presented as a reason? None.
On a telegram account recently someone posted a clip of Biden talking about Afghanistan in 2002 or so. In the comments people started saying that, that guy is not Biden he does not look anything like him nor does he sound like him.
Point is, the difference is so acute that if you just look at a picture you can immediately tell whether its "original" or "new" Biden.
There's YOUR reasons, from your mouth.
Then, someone replied to you with a logical followup that 20 years will do things to a person, and you replied that since these people didn't age so drastically then OBVIOUSLY Biden MUST be a double (again, I'm not saying he's NOT a double, my problem is purely with your reasoning).
None. I am presenting my assumption and also an observation
You're presenting a line of reasoning that is illogical. That's my entire point. There are other lines of reasoning that could be used in place of your presented one.
Don't act coy and act like you're not saying these things. Your comments have only one valid interpretation.
Your dosage information is close for most people's weight, but not as informative as it could be. It's also just not accurate for those who wish to take it as a prophylactic or for exposure.
The math to figure out dosage is incredibly basic, and I think you should've included that information instead of this rough dosage info of, "multiply your weight by 1.5 and follow weight notches."
There's nothing wrong with getting vet medicine and taking it as a human, just be absolutely sure you're positive of what all is in the medicine. Not all are equal in terms of contents.
The standard Ivermectin tube for horses (by Durvet) that you see a lot is just fine. Dosage is by weight, the tube markings plus some basic math can get you the dosage you want. Anyone who says, "follow the dosages marked for horse weights" is just an idiot - don't listen to them.
It's very basic math and ivermectin dosage information is all over the place, but if for any reason you still want some help feel free to ask me. I don't mind helping a pede out.
You can, "call" an employee a contracted worker but that doesn't mean it'll hold up in court.
OP, they're doing this to try to find out who is and isn't vaccinated in what they think is a more, "legal" method and without directly addressing the issue. Start searching for a new job, as your current one doesn't sound very long lasting.
There's clearly a virus of some sort in addition to the standard flu and junk going around. Saying otherwise is ignorant.
Now as to what specifically that other virus is, I'm not sure. But there's clearly something, as some symptoms in some people (the ones who don't just have a cold or the flu) are different from the standard flu.
And regardless of any of that, Ivermectin is very very clearly a safe drug, and has, "miracle drug" like properties.