January 25, 20223 yr Just now, Paul852 said: Where is this data? I've reposted it like 6 times now. This was based on the testimony of the attorney above that works for DoD whistleblowers.
January 25, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, Kz! said: I've reposted it like 6 times now. This was based on the testimony of the attorney above that works for DoD whistleblowers. So no actual data?
January 25, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, Boogyman said: It's the second time today he came down with the sads because nobody paid attention to something he posted lol. Pretty much anyone who has interacted with a toddler before knows you don't give reinforcement to a attention seeking tantrums. That's pretty much how I approach KZ and Lynch.
January 25, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, Kz! said: I've reposted it like 6 times now. This was based on the testimony of the attorney above that works for DoD whistleblowers. Post it again. Maybe seven will be the magic number!
January 25, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, Boogyman said: Post it again. Maybe seven will be the magic number! He's not seriously referring to the Renz tweet, is he?
January 25, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, Toty said: In the the interest of being fair to you and your asinine QAnon straw-grasping... there is one point which you may have - likely by accident - hit upon over the course of the pandemic. 1) The government has shown a willingness to lie over this issue. The NIH/CDC et.al. will hide information or deliberately frame things falsely. Some of these have been because there are too many woke administrators on staff, others have been what they probably consider "noble lies" (BS) to achieve public compliance. Either way it's not something we should not tolerate moving forward. The credibility of these agencies is critical. I'm open to what this skeevy "lawyer" is peddling... maybe... but I bet you it ends up being another giant sack of nothing. Remember I said that (or just ask @VanHammersly) you have my permission to deliver my comeuppance in the form of a snarky meme if appropriate. That's all you get, now go back to being Alex Jones' knob polisher and bukakkee-ing this board with your Parler links. Nah, he already got the benefit of the doubt with Sidney Powell. Don't give him another skeevy lawyer.
January 25, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, Paul852 said: He's not seriously referring to the Renz tweet, is he? Of course. Are you accusing the military doctors of lying about the data?
January 25, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, Paul852 said: He's not seriously referring to the Renz tweet, is he? I don't know, like everyone except maybe Mikemack didnt read it. I scroll by any Tweet he posts, 9 out of 10 times it's complete BS (I'm being generous because of the random accurate Tweet he may occasional post by mistake).
January 25, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, Kz! said: Of course. Are you accusing the military doctors of lying about the data? I'm suggesting that I'd like to see the data before I believe a Tweet. Surely you understand.
January 25, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, Toty said: I'm open to what this skeevy "lawyer" is peddling Good there's nothing wrong with just asking questions.
January 25, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, Paul852 said: I'm suggesting that I'd like to see the data before I believe a Tweet. Surely you understand. As a thought experiment, do you think it'd be possible that the vaccine could contribute to unforeseen negative medical issues like those described by the skeevy lawyer?
January 25, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, Kz! said: As a thought experiment, do you think it'd be possible that the vaccine could contribute to unforeseen negative medical issues like those described by the skeevy lawyer? Could it cause a 300% increase in cancer cases in a few months? No, of course not. Only a complete fool would believe that.
January 25, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, Paul852 said: Could it cause a 300% increase in cancer cases in a few months? No, of course not. Only a complete fool would believe that. Interesting. What do you think could cause such a precipitous rise in cancer diagnoses among young military personnel?
January 25, 20223 yr Just now, Kz! said: Interesting. What do you think could cause such a precipitous rise in cancer diagnoses among young military personnel? I'll let you know when I actually see the data. You can trust the Tweet at face value.
January 25, 20223 yr Just now, Paul852 said: I'll let you know when I actually see the data. You can trust the Tweet at face value. Thanks, I will. As a thought experiment, assuming the numbers are correct, do you have any theory at all?
January 25, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, Kz! said: Thanks, I will. As a thought experiment, assuming the numbers are correct, do you have any theory at all? Nope because I don't believe the numbers are accurate. Come back when the data is officially released though.
January 25, 20223 yr 22 minutes ago, Paul852 said: He's not seriously referring to the Renz tweet, is he? i think he's the same doode that claimed 45,000 deaths within 2 weeks of getting "the jab"...when that number is actually the same as the expected death rates of the population...or some malarkey like that. renz is no joe probiotic...that's fo sho!
January 25, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, mr_hunt said: i think he's the same doode that claimed 45,000 deaths within 2 weeks of getting "the jab"...when that number is actually the same as the expected death rates of the population...or some malarkey like that. renz is no joe probiotic...that's fo sho! I feel like kz enjoys faceplanting and here I am giving him the attention he craves.
January 25, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, Boogyman said: You have no answer to Pacos question below, do you? I thought paco was sufficiently entertained by the previous trips around his circle. You may not be as sophisticated so I'll say it once more for you. The opportunity to make a lot of money is better than the opportunity to make a little money. Generic drugs are not as profitable as drugs under patent.
January 25, 20223 yr Everyone knows science is all about just assuming unexpected data is correct and drawing up theories based on that unconfirmed data, after all.
January 25, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, Abracadabra said: I thought paco was sufficiently entertain by the previous trips around his circle. You may not be as sophisticated so I'll say it once more for you. The opportunity to make a lot of money is better than the opportunity to make a little money. Generic drugs are not as profitable as drugs under patent. you don't think the price would go up if it were approved as a rona cure?
January 25, 20223 yr Just now, mr_hunt said: you don't think the price would go up if it were approved as a rona cure? No. At least not appreciably. Anyone can make it. Besides, the gap in potential profits massive.
January 25, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, Abracadabra said: I thought paco was sufficiently entertained by the previous trips around his circle. You may not be as sophisticated so I'll say it once more for you. The opportunity to make a lot of money is better than the opportunity to make a little money. Generic drugs are not as profitable as drugs under patent. The opportunity to make some money is better than making none. Generic drugs are more profitable than non existent drugs. I didn't expect a clear direct answer though. You Q folks tend to talk around the issues.
January 25, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, mr_hunt said: i think he's the same doode that claimed 45,000 deaths within 2 weeks of getting "the jab"...when that number is actually the same as the expected death rates of the population...or some malarkey like that. renz is no joe probiotic...that's fo sho! "with" the jab or "from" the jab? 4 minutes ago, Paul852 said: I feel like kz enjoys faceplanting and here I am giving him the attention he craves. You've done well today. You already challenged yourself more than I imagined any ishlib in here could by answering what you have so far. So, good job.
January 25, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, Abracadabra said: I thought paco was sufficiently entertained by the previous trips around his circle. You may not be as sophisticated so I'll say it once more for you. The opportunity to make a lot of money is better than the opportunity to make a little money. Generic drugs are not as profitable as drugs under patent. So you believe that Merck is suppressing ivermectin (which you believe is superior) in lieu of a more expensive drug which has a lousy efficacy and rough side effects. And you believe that is because of $$$ Why would people take something that is basically worthless and more expensive over something that is cheap and superior? Sounds like a terrible business plan to push the expensive, ineffective drug.
Create an account or sign in to comment