The Virus & The Vaccines: Deliberately Engineered Bioweapons

vibise

Well-known member
Well how manipulative of you...



Like I said - it isn't as big a threat as it's been made out to be. But they've been pretty effective at making the majority believe it is.
Power and money ...

Let's just look at Pfizer. How much have they made?
670,000 dead already is a serious threat.
Sure, you don't believe this, but you have no basis for that disbelief.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
You can reject data all you want, but if you want to be taken seriously, you would need an actual reality-based explanation of why those numbers are wrong. So far, your side has not presented anything close to that.

670,000 dead and counting.
Or you turn a blind eye to anything that disagrees with the establishment
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Again, loved ones and friends ultimately take precedence.
Think about it.
Again, losing your career over what some would claim ought to be common knowledge, isn't worth it. They have no problem rationalizing their way out of telling anyone about what's really going on. Their family and friends can figure it out for themselves. A journalist can tell their family and friends not to get jabbed because it's so dangerous while still writing one article after another praising and extolling the virtues of Big Pharma. A recent lawsuit proved that the claims of popular mainstream news celebrities are entertainment rather than based in facts.
 

vibise

Well-known member
When the same people who declare the information faulty are the same people pushing the other side of the argument, we have a conflict of interest
No. That is not the definition of conflict of interest. Disagreement is not a conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest occurs when someone has a financial interest in the issue at hand.
Like Manchin voting against climate change legislation when he has investments in fossil fuels.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Again, losing your career over what some would claim ought to be common knowledge, isn't worth it. They have no problem rationalizing their way out of telling anyone about what's really going on. Their family and friends can figure it out for themselves. A journalist can tell their family and friends not to get jabbed because it's so dangerous while still writing one article after another praising and extolling the virtues of Big Pharma. A recent lawsuit proved that the claims of popular mainstream news celebrities are entertainment rather than based in facts.
Got a link for that lawsuit?
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
No. That is not the definition of conflict of interest. Disagreement is not a conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest occurs when someone has a financial interest in the issue at hand.
Like Manchin voting against climate change legislation when he has investments in fossil fuels.
You deliberately mis stated my point. I am not surprised.
 

evoguy313

Active member

Whateverman

Well-known member
A recent lawsuit proved that the claims of popular mainstream news celebrities are entertainment rather than based in facts.
Got a link for that lawsuit?

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers


"Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
To be cleark, shnarkle's again talking out of the orifice not meant for communication. In no way did the lawsuit prove "that the claims of popular mainstream news celebrities are entertainment rather than based in facts". It might have established this about Tucker Carlson, but not "news celebrities" in general.
 
Top