Covid Plandemic, New World order takeover

Where is the vax for a cold? Apples & oranges, this is not a vax like you reference. No killed/live virus. No, it contains none of the traditional vaccine description. It contains that which has never been used before. They are administering it, experimentally, on a grand scale. Thanks for stepping up.

 

Yes, I know. He's still the most qualified voice on the subject. The subject is vaccines.

 

Yes, the article could have been written better and it is sensationalistic. But you are focusing on only one small part of the piece, ignoring the other parts. For instance check out the quotes that were made well before Covid made news.. There is also the Fauci-Wuhan connection. Or the numerous money connections and incentives to keep playing this scenario.

Although this is not in the article does it not concern you that the strict medical definition for "vaccine" has been rewritten (twice now) to accommodate this current procedure. I am not necessarily an anti-vaxxer. I am against This. I think anyone who does rigorous, dispassionate research would end up with the same conclusion.

 

Like I had written, my second paragraph was on topics not covered in the article. The definitions - three of them - are from the CDC.

1. Prior to 2015 (or 2016) their definition of vaccine was: "Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to *prevent* the disease."
2. From 2015-2021, their definition was: "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to *produce immunity* to a specific disease."
3. In seeming anticipation of Biden's speech, the CDC changed the definition of "vaccination" to: "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to *produce protection* from a specific disease."

Yes, I know the site above had some hooey. It also had a lot of good material. That is the nature of the beast called the Internet, which is why I said to spit out the bones. On Baptist Board here I see the same thing. There are a number of posters here - some in this very thread - who post things that I strongly disagree with - and then they post things that are totally spot on. I think it is unwise dis a site, or a person, because of obvious bones.

 

What connection? Please be specific. And please, no appeals to loony web-sites - reputable sources only, please.

Again, this is just a claim - please provide credible evidence to support it.

 

Oh please. If you are so obtuse that you have not seen this yourself then it is a waste of my time to do your work for you.

Then again, you actually may not have come across contrary evidence seeing that you seem to equate Wikipedia with "reputable"

 

No one on this site seems to understand a basic principle of responsible debate - it is up to the person making the claim to defend it; it is not the responsibility of those challenging the claim to disprove it.

You have it backwards - it is your work to defend your claim, not mine to refute it.

And when you guys repeatedly evade this responsibility, you send a clear message: you are making things up.

 

Profoundly misleading. Unlike the right-wing craze-oid sites that are so-oft quoted here in service of the propagation of disinformation, wikipedia cites reputable references.

Digging into the credibility of sources is not a road those of you on the anti-covid-vax side will want to go down.

But I am more than happy to go down that road if you wish.

 

Years ago I had a junior high student that wrote a Wiki page. With sources. It had several errors. You seem to already have your mind up about my integrity and ability. Forget it.

 

Changing the language yet another reason not to trust it

 

Post # 24 JonC sez: “I have to admit, once I see deliberate misinformation I do not consider something a credible source.“

This is “WHY” !!!!

 

Comparing Wikipedia to these zany, tinfoil hat right-wing sites is absurd. Yes, there are mistakes in Wikipedia. But, for these right-wing sites that we see invoked here, the question is not "Do these sites contain any errors of fact?"; it is instead "Do these sites contain any truth at all?"

 

From the ultra conservative Washing Post.

U.S. controls on experiments with supercharged pathogens have been undercut despite lab-leak concerns - Washington Post

 

Would your name happen to be Thomas?

 

There is no "zero," reason for not trusting these guys.

List of largest pharmaceutical settlements - Wikipedia

 

More for Andre to read and study

The Pentagon funneled $39million to a charity that funded Wuhan lab | Daily Mail Online