Forum
»
Covid Scientists admit lab leak cover-up was political: feared Sh*tshow from China
Covid Scientists admit lab leak cover-up was political: feared Sh*tshow from China
07-13-2023, 07:32 AM
-
#61
- gwg77
- Join Date: Oct 2017
- Location: United States
- Posts: 20,529
- Subscribers: 19
- Rep Power: 1100342
-
-
HOUSE REPUBLICANS ON the subcommittee probing the origin of the Covid-19 virus appear to have inadvertently released a trove of new documents related to their investigation that shed light on deliberations among the scientists who drafted a key paper in February and March of 2020. The paper, published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, was titled “The Proximal Origin of Sars-Cov-2” and played a leading role in creating a public impression of a scientific consensus that the virus had emerged naturally in a Chinese “wet market.”
The paper was the subject of a hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, which coincided with the release of a report by the subcommittee devoted to the “Proximal Origin” paper. It contains limited screenshots of emails and Slack messages among the authors, laying out its case that the scientists believed one thing in private, that lab escape was likely, while working to produce a paper saying the opposite in public.
The newly exposed documents include full emails and pages of Slack chats that were cropped for the report, exposing the “Proximal Origin” authors’ real-time thinking. According to the metadata in the PDF of the report, it was created using “Acrobat PDFMaker 23 for Word,” indicating that the report was originally drafted as a Word document. Word, however, retains the original image when an image is cropped, as do many other apps. Microsoft’s documentation cautions that “Cropped parts of the picture are not removed from the file, and can potentially be seen by others,” going on to note: “If there is sensitive information in the area you’re cropping out make sure you delete the cropped areas.”
When this Word document was converted to a PDF, the original, uncropped images were likewise carried over. The Intercept was able to extract the original, complete images from the PDF using freely available tools, following the work of a Twitter sleuth.
All the files can be found here. A spokesperson for committee Republicans declined to comment.
Much of Tuesday’s hearing focused on a critical few days in early February 2020, beginning with a conference call February 1 that included the eventual authors of the paper and Drs. Anthony Fauci, then head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Francis Collins, then head of its parent agency, the National Institutes of Health. Later minutes showed that the consensus among the experts leaned toward a lab escape. Yet within days, they were circulating a draft — including to Fauci and Collins — that came to the opposite conclusion, the first draft of which had been finished the same day of the conference call. How and why that rapid turnaround occurred has been the subject of much debate and interrogation.
The authors have said, and repeated during Tuesday’s hearing, that new data had changed their minds, but the new Slack messages and emails show that their initial inclination toward a lab escape remained long past that time.
Among the scientists testifying Tuesday was lead paper author Kristian Andersen of Scripps Research. In a Slack exchange on February 2, 2020, between Andersen and Andrew Rambaut of the University of Edinburgh’s Institute of Evolutionary Biology in the School of Biological Sciences, it becomes clear how seriously the authors took the hypothesis that Covid may have leaked from a lab, rather than emerged through natural means, before they ultimately became dedicated to publicly dismissing it.
“I believe RaTG13 is from Yuanan, which is about as far away from Wuhan as you can be and still be in China,” Andersen wrote, referring to a virus that produced Covid-like symptoms in miners in 2013, a strain that was later stored and researched at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. “What are the chances of finding a viruses that are 96% identical given that distance? Seems strange given how many SARS-like viruses we have in bats.”
Rambaut responded on Slack suggesting they back off such interrogation. “I personally think we should get away from all the strange coincidence stuff. I agree it smells really fishy but without a smoking gun it will not do us any good,” he wrote. “The truth is never going to come out (if [lab] escape is the truth). Would need irrefutable evidence. My position is that the natural evolution is entirely plausible and we will have to leave it at that. Lab passaging might also generate this mutation but we have no evidence that that happened.”
Still, said Rambaut, even though the truth would never emerge if a lab was responsible, the researchers had a responsibility, privately at least, to see what lessons could be learned to prevent a future lab escape. “I think it would be good idea to lay out these arguments for limited dissemination. And quite frankly so we can learn from it even if it wasn’t an escape,” he added.
That same day, after having put together the first draft of the paper, Andersen responded to two colleagues who wanted to conclusively rule out the lab scenario: “The main issue is that accidental escape is in fact highly likely–it’s not some fringe theory.”
But the paper they were drafting argued the opposite and would be used to label the possibility of a lab leak as a fringe conspiracy, confidently asserting, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
At Tuesday’s hearing, Andersen said repeatedly that Fauci and Collins had no role in influencing the paper. But Fauci’s shadow hangs over the conversation. “The idea of engineering and bioweapon is definitely not going away and I’m still getting pinged by journalists,” Andersen wrote on February 5, 2020. “I have noticed some of them starting to ask more broadly about ‘lab escape’ and for now I have just ignored them — there might be a time where we need to tackle that more directly head on, but I’ll let the likes of Jeremy [Farrar] and Tony [Fauci] figure out how to do that.”
Farrar, a British biomedical researcher, was not listed as an author on the paper but was frequently referred to by Democrats during the hearing as the “father” of it. In the messages, he is seen sharing drafts of the paper with Fauci and Collins and asking the authors for edits, at one point in mid-February asking that a lab scenario be downgraded in their paper from “unlikely” to “improbable” — a change that Andersen, the lead author, agreed to.
An email in the cache from Eddie Holmes, another one of the authors, alludes to “pressure from on high.” In reply to an email that isn’t included in the subcommittee’s report or the documents, Holmes writes, “Anyway, it’s done. Sorry the last bit had to be done without you…pressure from on high.” In previous exchanges, officials with the communications department at the NIH had been asking about the status of the submission. Taken as a whole, the messages undercut the claims that the NIH took a hands-off approach to the paper.
The new documents also include a message from Nature — where the authors pitched the “Proximal Origin” paper before sending to Nature Medicine — explaining its rejection. Despite the paper leaning heavily toward a natural emergence and downplaying the potential of a lab leak, one Nature reviewer found that even leaving open the possibility of a lab escape would fuel conspiracy theorists, a Nature editor wrote to the authors. “Once the authors publish their new pangolin sequences, a lab origin will be extremely unlikely,” the reviewer had written.
Andersen pushed back against the rejection, assuring the Nature editor that their project had started with the goal of beating back “conspiracy” theories, but that the data and evidence made it impossible. “Had that been the case, we would of course have included that — but the more sequences we see from pangolins (and we have been analyzing/discussing these very carefully) the more unlikely it seems that they’re the intermediate hosts,” Andersen responded in an email on February 20, 2020. “Unfortunately none of this helps refute a lab origin and the possibility must be considered as a serious scientific theory (which is what we do) and not dismissed out of hand as another ‘conspiracy’ theory. We all really, really wish that we could do that (that’s how this got started), but unfortunately it’s not possible given the data.”
The group edited their paper further to more strongly dismiss the possibility of a lab leak for its later submission to Nature Medicine. The journal’s publication of the paper just a month later effectively ended debate for a year or more as to the origin of the pandemic.
https://theintercept.com/2023/07/12/...e-republicans/The paper was the subject of a hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, which coincided with the release of a report by the subcommittee devoted to the “Proximal Origin” paper. It contains limited screenshots of emails and Slack messages among the authors, laying out its case that the scientists believed one thing in private, that lab escape was likely, while working to produce a paper saying the opposite in public.
The newly exposed documents include full emails and pages of Slack chats that were cropped for the report, exposing the “Proximal Origin” authors’ real-time thinking. According to the metadata in the PDF of the report, it was created using “Acrobat PDFMaker 23 for Word,” indicating that the report was originally drafted as a Word document. Word, however, retains the original image when an image is cropped, as do many other apps. Microsoft’s documentation cautions that “Cropped parts of the picture are not removed from the file, and can potentially be seen by others,” going on to note: “If there is sensitive information in the area you’re cropping out make sure you delete the cropped areas.”
When this Word document was converted to a PDF, the original, uncropped images were likewise carried over. The Intercept was able to extract the original, complete images from the PDF using freely available tools, following the work of a Twitter sleuth.
All the files can be found here. A spokesperson for committee Republicans declined to comment.
Much of Tuesday’s hearing focused on a critical few days in early February 2020, beginning with a conference call February 1 that included the eventual authors of the paper and Drs. Anthony Fauci, then head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Francis Collins, then head of its parent agency, the National Institutes of Health. Later minutes showed that the consensus among the experts leaned toward a lab escape. Yet within days, they were circulating a draft — including to Fauci and Collins — that came to the opposite conclusion, the first draft of which had been finished the same day of the conference call. How and why that rapid turnaround occurred has been the subject of much debate and interrogation.
The authors have said, and repeated during Tuesday’s hearing, that new data had changed their minds, but the new Slack messages and emails show that their initial inclination toward a lab escape remained long past that time.
Among the scientists testifying Tuesday was lead paper author Kristian Andersen of Scripps Research. In a Slack exchange on February 2, 2020, between Andersen and Andrew Rambaut of the University of Edinburgh’s Institute of Evolutionary Biology in the School of Biological Sciences, it becomes clear how seriously the authors took the hypothesis that Covid may have leaked from a lab, rather than emerged through natural means, before they ultimately became dedicated to publicly dismissing it.
“I believe RaTG13 is from Yuanan, which is about as far away from Wuhan as you can be and still be in China,” Andersen wrote, referring to a virus that produced Covid-like symptoms in miners in 2013, a strain that was later stored and researched at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. “What are the chances of finding a viruses that are 96% identical given that distance? Seems strange given how many SARS-like viruses we have in bats.”
Rambaut responded on Slack suggesting they back off such interrogation. “I personally think we should get away from all the strange coincidence stuff. I agree it smells really fishy but without a smoking gun it will not do us any good,” he wrote. “The truth is never going to come out (if [lab] escape is the truth). Would need irrefutable evidence. My position is that the natural evolution is entirely plausible and we will have to leave it at that. Lab passaging might also generate this mutation but we have no evidence that that happened.”
Still, said Rambaut, even though the truth would never emerge if a lab was responsible, the researchers had a responsibility, privately at least, to see what lessons could be learned to prevent a future lab escape. “I think it would be good idea to lay out these arguments for limited dissemination. And quite frankly so we can learn from it even if it wasn’t an escape,” he added.
That same day, after having put together the first draft of the paper, Andersen responded to two colleagues who wanted to conclusively rule out the lab scenario: “The main issue is that accidental escape is in fact highly likely–it’s not some fringe theory.”
But the paper they were drafting argued the opposite and would be used to label the possibility of a lab leak as a fringe conspiracy, confidently asserting, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
At Tuesday’s hearing, Andersen said repeatedly that Fauci and Collins had no role in influencing the paper. But Fauci’s shadow hangs over the conversation. “The idea of engineering and bioweapon is definitely not going away and I’m still getting pinged by journalists,” Andersen wrote on February 5, 2020. “I have noticed some of them starting to ask more broadly about ‘lab escape’ and for now I have just ignored them — there might be a time where we need to tackle that more directly head on, but I’ll let the likes of Jeremy [Farrar] and Tony [Fauci] figure out how to do that.”
Farrar, a British biomedical researcher, was not listed as an author on the paper but was frequently referred to by Democrats during the hearing as the “father” of it. In the messages, he is seen sharing drafts of the paper with Fauci and Collins and asking the authors for edits, at one point in mid-February asking that a lab scenario be downgraded in their paper from “unlikely” to “improbable” — a change that Andersen, the lead author, agreed to.
An email in the cache from Eddie Holmes, another one of the authors, alludes to “pressure from on high.” In reply to an email that isn’t included in the subcommittee’s report or the documents, Holmes writes, “Anyway, it’s done. Sorry the last bit had to be done without you…pressure from on high.” In previous exchanges, officials with the communications department at the NIH had been asking about the status of the submission. Taken as a whole, the messages undercut the claims that the NIH took a hands-off approach to the paper.
The new documents also include a message from Nature — where the authors pitched the “Proximal Origin” paper before sending to Nature Medicine — explaining its rejection. Despite the paper leaning heavily toward a natural emergence and downplaying the potential of a lab leak, one Nature reviewer found that even leaving open the possibility of a lab escape would fuel conspiracy theorists, a Nature editor wrote to the authors. “Once the authors publish their new pangolin sequences, a lab origin will be extremely unlikely,” the reviewer had written.
Andersen pushed back against the rejection, assuring the Nature editor that their project had started with the goal of beating back “conspiracy” theories, but that the data and evidence made it impossible. “Had that been the case, we would of course have included that — but the more sequences we see from pangolins (and we have been analyzing/discussing these very carefully) the more unlikely it seems that they’re the intermediate hosts,” Andersen responded in an email on February 20, 2020. “Unfortunately none of this helps refute a lab origin and the possibility must be considered as a serious scientific theory (which is what we do) and not dismissed out of hand as another ‘conspiracy’ theory. We all really, really wish that we could do that (that’s how this got started), but unfortunately it’s not possible given the data.”
The group edited their paper further to more strongly dismiss the possibility of a lab leak for its later submission to Nature Medicine. The journal’s publication of the paper just a month later effectively ended debate for a year or more as to the origin of the pandemic.
07-13-2023, 07:50 AM
-
#62
- Paul Kreul
- Registered User
-
- Paul Kreul
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2006
- Location: United States
- Posts: 33,385
- Rep Power: 316746
-
-
Originally Posted By JoeBidet⏩
I’m still waiting for that proof of a missing link Mr. Science.I love how this is your reply and has been to anything science related. Like you're a programmed bot. As if that invalidates all of science. Suddenly, low IQ people like you don't have to read anymore. You can just pretend all of science is a sham because transgender people exist. Your parents didn't beat you enough as a kid and force you to study. But I guess that's why you're a cop.
What is fuked is your total disregard for truth or needing to be able to demonstrate what is true. It calls into question your judgment as a police officer. How many innocent lives have you destroyed in your stubborn ignorance? Who knows?
What is fuked is your total disregard for truth or needing to be able to demonstrate what is true. It calls into question your judgment as a police officer. How many innocent lives have you destroyed in your stubborn ignorance? Who knows?
Tell me more about australopithecus & the how Planet of the Apes was actually a covert documentary.
07-13-2023, 09:13 AM
-
#63
Originally Posted By gwg77⏩
oops
07-13-2023, 09:27 AM
-
#64
Originally Posted By Retoaded⏩
All I see is scientists entertaining all plausible hypotheses before updating them in light of evidence. Nothing nefarious at all. I do see journalists spinning this to make it look bad though.oops
Note that not being able to refute a lab origin hypothesis from the data still doesn't mean the data didn't support an alternative hypothesis more closely. Sometimes, you cannot always rule out everything. You try, but in a situation like this, no one will ever really know the truth. There are just some explanations more plausible than others.
07-13-2023, 09:29 AM
-
#65
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
-
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
- Join Date: Jan 2005
- Location: Ill.
- Posts: 120,479
- Rep Power: 316531
-
-
Originally Posted By JoeBidet⏩
Explain the science of wearing a mask outdoors? In the privacy of your own car?I love how this is your reply and has been to anything science related. Like you're a programmed bot. As if that invalidates all of science. Suddenly, low IQ people like you don't have to read anymore. You can just pretend all of science is a sham because transgender people exist. Your parents didn't beat you enough as a kid and force you to study. But I guess that's why you're a cop.
What is fuked is your total disregard for truth or needing to be able to demonstrate what is true. It calls into question your judgment as a police officer. How many innocent lives have you destroyed in your stubborn ignorance? Who knows?
What is fuked is your total disregard for truth or needing to be able to demonstrate what is true. It calls into question your judgment as a police officer. How many innocent lives have you destroyed in your stubborn ignorance? Who knows?
07-13-2023, 09:30 AM
-
#66
Originally Posted By Dave22reborn⏩
Why do you always ask dishonest questions? It's tiresome. It's not clever.Explain the science of wearing a mask outdoors? In the privacy of your own car?
Does your mom know you're gay?
If you have a specific question about how respiratory diseases are transmitted, ask. No leading questions. No hidden assumptions. Try engaging in an actual discussion for once in your life.
I can link you papers explaining this all very thoroughly.
07-13-2023, 09:39 AM
-
#67
Originally Posted By JoeBidet⏩
nah bro I meant "oops" as in them "accidently" leaking this info.All I see is scientists entertaining all plausible hypotheses before updating them in light of evidence. Nothing nefarious at all. I do see journalists spinning this to make it look bad though.
Note that not being able to refute a lab origin hypothesis from the data still doesn't mean the data didn't support an alternative hypothesis more closely. Sometimes, you cannot always rule out everything. You try, but in a situation like this, no one will ever really know the truth. There are just some explanations more plausible than others.
Note that not being able to refute a lab origin hypothesis from the data still doesn't mean the data didn't support an alternative hypothesis more closely. Sometimes, you cannot always rule out everything. You try, but in a situation like this, no one will ever really know the truth. There are just some explanations more plausible than others.
07-13-2023, 10:39 AM
-
#68
Originally Posted By Retoaded⏩
These "Very Serious People" with law, government, and business degrees can leak what they want and think what they want. It won't change science, and it won't have any effect on anything. But by all means, have your McCarthy witchhunt. In the end, it will only solidify the GOP's position as the party of the uneducated and antiscientific. And it will provide us legitimacy to physically remove you when you escalate to violence.nah bro I meant "oops" as in them "accidently" leaking this info.
See Trump. lol
07-13-2023, 10:41 AM
-
#69
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
-
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
- Join Date: Jan 2005
- Location: Ill.
- Posts: 120,479
- Rep Power: 316531
-
-
Originally Posted By JoeBidet⏩
You can link papers explaining the science of wearing a mask outdoors or in the privacy of your own vehicle?Why do you always ask dishonest questions? It's tiresome. It's not clever.
Does your mom know you're gay?
If you have a specific question about how respiratory diseases are transmitted, ask. No leading questions. No hidden assumptions. Try engaging in an actual discussion for once in your life.
I can link you papers explaining this all very thoroughly.
Does your mom know you're gay?
If you have a specific question about how respiratory diseases are transmitted, ask. No leading questions. No hidden assumptions. Try engaging in an actual discussion for once in your life.
I can link you papers explaining this all very thoroughly.
07-13-2023, 10:42 AM
-
#70
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
-
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
- Join Date: Jan 2005
- Location: Ill.
- Posts: 120,479
- Rep Power: 316531
-
-
Originally Posted By JoeBidet⏩
Let's see Wincel, if it's a lab leak it's China's fault, and if it was from a "wet market" it's still China's fault.These "Very Serious People" with law, government, and business degrees can leak what they want and think what they want. It won't change science, and it won't have any effect on anything. But by all means, have your McCarthy witchhunt. In the end, it will only solidify the GOP's position as the party of the uneducated and antiscientific. And it will provide us legitimacy to physically remove you when you escalate to violence.
See Trump. lol
See Trump. lol
07-13-2023, 10:45 AM
-
#71
Originally Posted By Dave22reborn⏩
Nobody cares whose fault it is (as if it is anyone's fault...what a child), and the best part is you can't do chit about it, you fuking loser.Let's see Wincel, if it's a lab leak it's China's fault, and if it was from a "wet market" it's still China's fault.
Originally Posted By Dave22reborn⏩
More dishonest questions.You can link papers explaining the science of wearing a mask outdoors or in the privacy of your own vehicle?
07-13-2023, 11:44 AM
-
#72
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
-
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
- Join Date: Jan 2005
- Location: Ill.
- Posts: 120,479
- Rep Power: 316531
-
-
Originally Posted By JoeBidet⏩
It's not China's fault???Nobody cares whose fault it is (as if it is anyone's fault...what a child), and the best part is you can't do chit about it, you fuking loser.
More dishonest questions.
More dishonest questions.
07-13-2023, 11:50 AM
-
#73
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
-
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
- Join Date: Jan 2005
- Location: Ill.
- Posts: 120,479
- Rep Power: 316531
-
-
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
I think he's having another mental breakdown.And the left leaning intellectual shows his homophobia.
07-13-2023, 12:03 PM
-
#74
07-13-2023, 01:35 PM
-
#75
- pondus_levo
- mic dropper
-
- pondus_levo
- mic dropper
- Join Date: Oct 2006
- Location: United States
- Posts: 24,811
- Rep Power: 163138
-
-
Originally Posted By JoeBidet⏩
When someone blames a country, they are blaming the government, not the people. Its funny to watch you call people the names you literally are.China is a country with over 1 billion people. Fuking retard.
Forever alone? Attraction and keeping the girl chasing you - http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=131498033
You will never know your limits, unless you push yourself past the imaginary lines you have drawn in the sand.
Knee Dragger - '06 GSX-R750
07-13-2023, 02:05 PM
-
#76
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
-
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
- Join Date: Jan 2005
- Location: Ill.
- Posts: 120,479
- Rep Power: 316531
-
-
Originally Posted By JoeBidet⏩
If it came from the wet market, why did the Chinese government allow the wet markets to exist?China is a country with over 1 billion people. Fuking retard.
If it came from a lab in China, it's their fault, same as if it came from the wet market.
So explain how it's not their fault?
07-13-2023, 02:09 PM
-
#77
07-13-2023, 02:21 PM
-
#78
Originally Posted By guest89⏩
But isn't it the government saying it came from a lab leak?Literally all of the 'right wing' conspiracy theories around Covid has been proven true. Lmfao at believing anything the government tells you.
07-13-2023, 02:23 PM
-
#79
07-19-2023, 04:55 AM
-
#80
- gwg77
- Join Date: Oct 2017
- Location: United States
- Posts: 20,529
- Subscribers: 19
- Rep Power: 1100342
-
-
More Covid Origins Emails & Slack Messages Part 2
Matt Taibbi & Michael Shellenberger put out a devastating piece on Substack yesterday. They revealed several more damning emails and Slack messages that have not been reported on since last week.
Brief timeline & cliffs:
Jan 31, 2020:Andersen emails Fauci and says he thinks some of the virus may have been engineered
Feb 1-4, 2020:Fauci assembles Covid Task Force and held secret meetings during these crucial days where they determine natural origins within a few short days
Feb 16, 2020:They publish pre-print of Proximal Origins of SARS-CoV-2 pushing natural origins
March 17, 2020: Proximal Origins of SARS-CoV-2 is published in Nature Medicine - says lab-related incident is off the table
April 16, 2020:New Kristian Andersen Slack Messages reveal he still cannot rule out lab-related incident:
“I’m still not fully convinced that no culture was involved,” Andersen wrote to his co-authors on April 16. “We also can't fully rule out engineering (for basic research).”
Long article with a lot more damning emails & Slack messages:
https://public.substack.com/p/top-sc...congress-about
Matt Taibbi & Michael Shellenberger put out a devastating piece on Substack yesterday. They revealed several more damning emails and Slack messages that have not been reported on since last week.
Brief timeline & cliffs:
Jan 31, 2020:Andersen emails Fauci and says he thinks some of the virus may have been engineered
Feb 1-4, 2020:Fauci assembles Covid Task Force and held secret meetings during these crucial days where they determine natural origins within a few short days
Feb 16, 2020:They publish pre-print of Proximal Origins of SARS-CoV-2 pushing natural origins
March 17, 2020: Proximal Origins of SARS-CoV-2 is published in Nature Medicine - says lab-related incident is off the table
April 16, 2020:New Kristian Andersen Slack Messages reveal he still cannot rule out lab-related incident:
“I’m still not fully convinced that no culture was involved,” Andersen wrote to his co-authors on April 16. “We also can't fully rule out engineering (for basic research).”
Long article with a lot more damning emails & Slack messages:
https://public.substack.com/p/top-sc...congress-about
07-19-2023, 05:29 AM
-
#81
07-19-2023, 06:48 AM
-
#82
07-19-2023, 06:57 AM
-
#83
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
I wonder if that applies to not being "fully convinced" of the efficacy of the "vaccine", the effectiveness of Walmart's HVAC systems, the effectiveness of face diapers, etc.I don't think you should call people "smoothbrain" if you're going to make a "smoothbrain" post like that.
07-19-2023, 07:08 AM
-
#84
07-19-2023, 07:17 AM
-
#85
- Cleveland33
- Registered Gooner
-
- Cleveland33
- Registered Gooner
- Join Date: Jan 2010
- Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
- Posts: 66,951
- Rep Power: 497612
-
-
Originally Posted By Polaris⏩
goddamnit man people are dying with this disease!I wonder if that applies to not being "fully convinced" of the efficacy of the "vaccine", the effectiveness of Walmart's HVAC systems, the effectiveness of face diapers, etc.
07-19-2023, 07:21 AM
-
#86
07-19-2023, 07:24 AM
-
#87
07-19-2023, 07:28 AM
-
#88
- Cleveland33
- Registered Gooner
-
- Cleveland33
- Registered Gooner
- Join Date: Jan 2010
- Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
- Posts: 66,951
- Rep Power: 497612
-
-
Originally Posted By Polaris⏩
I still don't understand why they want us to get the vax still? What is the actual benefit if it doesn't prevent you from getting it or spreading it...I wonder why some vaxcels weren't "full convinced" that they should get all of the boosters that "the Science" told them they should.
07-19-2023, 07:31 AM
-
#89
Originally Posted By Cleveland33⏩
IDK, but it seems like many of them aren't "fully convinced" of one's right to bodily autonomy.I still don't understand why they want us to get the vax still? What is the actual benefit if it doesn't prevent you from getting it or spreading it...
07-19-2023, 07:35 AM
-
#90
Originally Posted By Cleveland33⏩
Nobody cares anymore. Just trolling at this point. Antivaxxers are retarded and should be shot.I still don't understand why they want us to get the vax still? What is the actual benefit if it doesn't prevent you from getting it or spreading it...
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts