- because it's misc and Bodhy is a grown man AFAIK

- because I was replying to YOUR claims that I was attacking people

- if studies and videos are "CT crap", even published peer reviewed studies, videos from public events, and videos by qualified experts- all "CT crap" -then anything and everything that you do not like or agree with can be labeled as "CT crap"

Or, IOW, you seem to have made up your mind that everyone that has a different viewpoint or is willing to consider other evidence is some sort of crazy.

Again, if you feel this way, why are you still here? There are many many places where you will not only not be confronted, but will be embraced and validated.

Perhaps you have a streak of masochism?

I'll ask you again, what's your track record? How many of the things you've posted on this forum have turned out to be factually true? The entire point of this thread was that if people believed what you're claiming, 95% of the people wouldn't have gotten vaccinated - resulting in untold deaths.

Again, I'm calling CT fearmongering crap what it is - crap.

It is factually correct, you guys are crying becauseyou'resaying they're insults.

Jabbies aren't learning

Manlets are gifted scholars compared to them

Robert Malone called it gene therapy on the Dark Horse podcast like 8 months ago too. Crazy man how this stuff has less legitimacy until Big Press reports on it. Which is why they're trying to consolidate their influence and power with things like the "Trusted News Initiative"

Lmao this is the crap I'm talking about. Dr Malone is NOT an expert on these vaccines. But you guys want to believe the crap he's peddling so you choose to believe him over the actual experts.

Its not gene therapy

Its GENE CHAOS

this is like intentionally ingesting a radioactive substance

No. That is YOUR interpretation of "the point of this thread".

My point was that *again* something we were told was not true and what people were ridiculed for believing was later [perhaps unintentionally] admitted to be true.

My point was that the people in charge are untrustworthy and either incompetent, malevolent, wholly self-interested, or some combination of the aforementioned.

I've not once condemned anyone for choosing to be vaccinated and I've affirmed that it might be the correct choice for the people most at risk from the virus.

And I've gotten some stuff wrong. Earlier I thought that masks worked [at least a little bit] and I argued same with plenty of people here.

I can review new information and adjust my conclusion based on new data.

There is a lot of "CT stuff" that I thought was madness before...like no way it could get that crazy or be that bad. I didn't support the idea that vaccine passports would actually happen, yet here we are.

Even with the removal of many restriction there is STILL a movement to continue the effort for electronic global vaccine passports. Within in the US even some red states are STILL working towards an electronic system that says if it is okay or not for you to participate in daily life as a free individual.

Just like it doesn't matter what you believe about the mRNA injections and long term side effects it doesn't matter what you believe about controls being put into place on the public.

We will have to live with whatever we can't stop.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters...ports-00011144

https://www.politico.com/newsletters...ports-00010875

You may not believe that there are some bad people in power with a big agenda. I promise they don't care too much so long as they can continue to label any detractors as "CT tards".

Lol @ Patty getting laughed out of “Religion & Politics” and then gets laughed out of regular misc.

He is madly kicking his feet and pulling out his hair because he wants this place to be a bubble…but is even more furious at miscers because he thinks they want this place to be a bubble.

Lol watching him post is as sad as watching a guy crying and begging for his girl to not leave him, while she still has someone else’s cum in her hair LMAO

Riiiiiight. I just misinterpreted your thread intention. Right. I mean, it's not like it's completely consistent with all the other threads you've been posting lately..

And just lol at going on and on about "controlling the public". Fuk I'm sick of the CT retard chit around here.

Yes, you did. I never expected it to get this many replies honestly.

I left the R&P, but true to this forum (aka Bodhy chit smearing) this forum just makes crap up and pretends it's true. And strong cringe analogy.

And yet here you are.

“I am sick of you suckin the cawk of every man you meet. If you don’t cut it out soon, I might start asking you to brush your teeth before I kiss you” LMAO

The vaccines don't alter genes. But I can see how believing they do could help people feel better about their decisions.

The details of that study are pretty important.

"The cell model that we used in this study is a carcinoma cell line, with active DNA replication which differs from non-dividing ****tic cells. It has also been shown that Huh7 cells display significant different gene and protein expression including upregulated proteins involved in RNA metabolism [56]."

The investigators essentially forced it, then reported it happened.

look who came crawling out his hole just when you thought this couldn't get any worse.

The argument is NOT that they will alter your genes…but much like the trucker thread, here you are assigning a different meaning to the argument and then stating that the argument is false. Par for the course with you, and why you are dismissed.

S'all good. All anyone can really do is lob out info for people to see and maybe read.

It has nothing to do with picking and choosing when they’re credible, we’re just able to discern when they’re misdirecting or outright lying vs unable to lie. Example:

You ask an insurance salesman if you should take up the insurance they’re trying to sell you. 99.9% of the time they’re gonna say hell yes. The times they say no is the times they’re actually forced to be honest.

Fda and cdc has Pfizer and Moderna members on their board, there is a huge conflict of interest. If you can’t see that then you’re dumb as fk.

So yes, a salesman, which is what they are at this point, trying to sell us something, I’ll treat it with skepticism. But if they do say something that compromises their narrative then it’s probably true given that it’s unavoidable.

Here’s another example:

US says there’s WMD in Iraq. Plenty of people did not believe him. Years later, US admits there are no WMD in Iraq. By your logic, are we suppose to not believe the US then as well? Lol.

Brain cells, acquire some.

[QUOTE=J.L.C. post_id=1657441573]The details of that study are pretty important.

"The cell model that we used in this study is a carcinoma cell line, with active DNA replication which differs from non-dividing ****tic cells. It has also been shown that Huh7 cells display significant different gene and protein expression including upregulated proteins involved in RNA metabolism [56]."

The investigators essentially forced it, then reported it happened.[/QUOTE]It was already addressed that ONLY including DNA alteration to be "gene therapy" is a distortion of the former definition of the term which has been conveniently made [like the redefinition of what qualifies as a vaccine] to kill any resistance to the "safe and effective" narrative that has been force fed on repeat.

[b]From 2013 International Conference:[/b]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/maS2Dwv.png[/img]

[b]From a company flogging their mRNA gene therapy right now:[/b]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/l2vneGb.png[/img]

[b]Hey, this is a recent article about the mRNA injections and they use "gene therapy":[/b]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/0Z2Heas.png[/img]

[b]Same freaking article they refer to the mRNA shots as a "therapeutic":[/b]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/LCTrGvC.png[/img]

[b]Still the same article- repeated doses could lead to more side effects. They even mention that the bad side effects could be due to a buildup of the lipid nanoparticles; the ones that fuse into liver cells:[/b]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/45cefm5.png[/img]

article:
[URL=https://www.embs.org/pulse/articles/the-mrna-revolution-is-coming/]https://www.embs.org/pulse/articles/...ion-is-coming/[/URL]

link to article about the lipid nanoparticles and that the ones that worked best were ones that become part of our liver cells:
[URL=https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/drug-delivery/Without-lipid-shells-mRNA-vaccines/99/i8]https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/...vaccines/99/i8[/URL]

[b]So which is it then? Will they say "We didn't know that giving boosters would hurt people?" or will they go with "Well of course multiple injections increase the risk. We always said that."[/b]

[b]Article about Moderna and their fails re:mRNA therapeutics:[/b]
[URL=https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/]https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/...-trouble-mrna/[/URL]

[b]Paper about the potential effects of the mRNA injections:[/b]
[URL=https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhnvgov/content/Boards/BOH/Meetings/2021/SENEFF~1.PDF]https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dp...1/SENEFF~1.PDF[/URL]

[QUOTE][b]A central aspect of Doshi’s critique of the preliminary efficacy data is the exclusion of over 3400 “suspected COVID-19 cases” that were not included in the interim analysis of the Pfizer vaccine data submitted to the FDA.[/b]Further, a low-but-non-trivial percent of individuals in both Moderna and Pfizer trials were deemed to be SARS-CoV-1-positive at baseline despite prior infection being grounds for exclusion.[b]For these and other reasons the interim efficacy estimate of around 95% for
both vaccines is suspect.[/b]

A more recent analysis looked specifically at the issue of relative vs. absolute risk reduction. While the high estimates of risk reduction are based upon relative risks, the absolute risk reduction is a more appropriate metric for a member of the general public to determine whether a vaccination provides a meaningful risk reduction personally.[b]In that analysis, utilizing data supplied by the vaccine makers to the FDA, the Moderna vaccine at the time of interim analysis demonstrated an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% [p= 0.004], while the Pfizer vaccine absolute risk reduction was 0.7% [p<0.000] [Brown 2021]. [/b][/QUOTE][b]In B4 "CT tard".

The only thing I'm trying to find and "monger" is the truth. Not my fault if it scares you.[/b]

Lmao. If only you'd post links.. just lol

Nah, it's picking and choosing. Strong whatabouts though.

As I said, I get where you're coming from.

"I’ve now encountered 2 patients who are willing to decline blood transfusion because the blood supply is “contaminated” with COVID vaccine.

Anti-vaxxers & anti-maskers say that *we* are living in fear but it is people like this who are truly afraid. How did it come to this?"

Funny how all the people who rely on "trust the science" always fall back to anecdotal data about "here's a story about a fat 60 year old diabetic got covid twice, therefore no such thing as natural immunity", or "a doctor somewhere says two people have denied blood transfusions due to covid vax contamination, therefore all skeptics of the vaccine are irrationally fearful". It's all science until the science you like fails or comes into question, then it's anecdotal confirmation bias.

I could post links till I'm blue in the face but we all know how that turns out (with Trump gaslighting you all to believe everything you don't agree with is fake news and all)


And there's a massive difference between healthy skepticism and automatically believing every CT piece you see on the internet.

Absolutely. Every one of these threads end up the same with both imaginarysidesbelieving theirsideis correct and the othersideis nuts.

It's interesting how all of the recent threads are about how the Misc believes anyone who received a vaccine is doomed. But, most of the Misc seems to be unvaccinated, so who cares? With all eyes on the Ukraine now and mandates ending, if you didn't received a vaccine, aren't you golden until the nukes land?

INB4 vaccines protect you from Nuclear fallout ................super boosters