Donald Trump running for president

Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Source? I couldn’t find anything.

Did you watch the video or just try to discredit it ?
Her opening comments about the vaccine being released before FDA approval are flat wrong. I don't know how anyone could watch beyond the first 30 seconds knowing that.

I know "fact checkers" are the anti christ to you, but she has failed to show any evidence for her claim and is instead just using her Doctorate as a show of credibility.

Ever see an infomercial that didn't have a Doctors approval, even when it is a completely bogus product?
 
Last edited:
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Her opening comments about the vaccine being released before FDA approval are flat wrong. I don't know how anyone could watch beyond the first 30 seconds knowing that.

I know "fact checkers" are the anti christ to you, but she has failed to show any evidence for her claim and is instead just using her Doctorate as a show of credibility.

Ever see an infomercial that didn't have a Doctors approval, even when it is a completely bogus product?
life is a infomercial...doctors seem to be in control of our lives---trust the science?
 
BamBam54

BamBam54

Active member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
Is there any science that shows wearing two masks is a measurable benefit (test data, evidence....)

Is there any science that shows we need to keep wearing masks at all after getting the vaccine??

Yet here we are...
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Her opening comments about the vaccine being released before FDA approval are flat wrong. I don't know how anyone could watch beyond the first 30 seconds knowing that.

I know "fact checkers" are the anti christ to you, but she has failed to show any evidence for her claim and is instead just using her Doctorate as a show of credibility.

Ever see an infomercial that didn't have a Doctors approval, even when it is a completely bogus product?
Just to be clear, skepticism is absolutely OK, especially when it is backed by credibility.

The problem though is when people see all evidence as being equal, even when none is presented. If the evidence was presented, then the argument would be credible, but without it it is just a baseless accusation.

Evidence is key, no matter who you are or what your stance is
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Just to be clear, skepticism is absolutely OK, especially when it is backed by credibility.

The problem though is when people see all evidence as being equal, even when none is presented. If the evidence was presented, then the argument would be credible, but without it it is just a baseless accusation.

Evidence is key, no matter who you are or what your stance is
i try to pay attention to what is going on around me and form a opinion since i don't have a doctorate....i feel i have the right to voice my opinion rather it's backed by evidence or not...if i have a conspiracy theory should i be silenced, or should people just look at it as my opinion? i am afraid we are heading towards a slippery slope where peoples opinions are going to be silenced, instead of just disregarded as a opinion.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Is there any science that shows wearing two masks is a measurable benefit (test data, evidence....)

Is there any science that shows we need to keep wearing masks at all after getting the vaccine??

Yet here we are...
Same amount of air still blowing in and out the sides...actually, Id say if you wear 2 you would only getting even more air coming in and out the sides making it worse. Thats for the typical masks people wear.

Its all dumb crap.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Just to be clear, skepticism is absolutely OK, especially when it is backed by credibility.

The problem though is when people see all evidence as being equal, even when none is presented. If the evidence was presented, then the argument would be credible, but without it it is just a baseless accusation.

Evidence is key, no matter who you are or what your stance is
Did you find evidence that the vaccines were in fact not distributed out prior to FDA approval?
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
LMFAO!!!! Demicans rigged the election in ways that couldnt have been even pulled off in Venezuala and the Cartoon News Network says this!

"Trump unleashes new threat to American democracy"

 
THOR 70

THOR 70

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Did you find evidence that the vaccines were in fact not distributed out prior to FDA approval?
This. She didn’t say they were being injected. Just deployed to distribution centers. Which isn’t illegal. Just shady af and shows it’s part of a planned agenda.
 
THOR 70

THOR 70

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Just to be clear, skepticism is absolutely OK, especially when it is backed by credibility.

The problem though is when people see all evidence as being equal, even when none is presented. If the evidence was presented, then the argument would be credible, but without it it is just a baseless accusation.

Evidence is key, no matter who you are or what your stance is
Glad you demonstrated that you watched 30 seconds and then went to an alien DNA smear campaign WITHOUT evidence. Your handlers need to train you better or pay you more to try harder.

“Evidence” can be manipulated, faked, created to serve any agenda
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
This. She didn’t say they were being injected. Just deployed to distribution centers. Which isn’t illegal. Just shady af and shows it’s part of a planned agenda.
At minimum it was certainly a monster money heist by the pharmaceuticals and the politicians they bribe.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
i try to pay attention to what is going on around me and form a opinion since i don't have a doctorate....i feel i have the right to voice my opinion rather it's backed by evidence or not...if i have a conspiracy theory should i be silenced, or should people just look at it as my opinion? i am afraid we are heading towards a slippery slope where peoples opinions are going to be silenced, instead of just disregarded as a opinion.
One of the problems is that people present their opinion as fact and dismiss counter evidence as if the opinion holds more weighting.

If I were to say "It is my opinion that water is actually fire", and someone provides evidence that it isn't, at what point should I recant my opinion and form a new one? Instead, a lot of people will continue to argue that water is actually fire, even in the face of compelling evidence.

I think then it is 100% fine to say "your opinion is wrong" and provide counter evidence to that. If the person continues to hold that opinion, which they are entitled to, they should stop getting so upset that people continue to correct them.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Did you find evidence that the vaccines were in fact not distributed out prior to FDA approval?
Burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the defender.

You can't accuse someone of murder then say "prove you didn't murder them", the burden is on you to prove they did.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Glad you demonstrated that you watched 30 seconds and then went to an alien DNA smear campaign WITHOUT evidence. Your handlers need to train you better or pay you more to try harder.

“Evidence” can be manipulated, faked, created to serve any agenda
If she can assert something without evidence, why can I not? She hasn't provided evidence saying she never said those things.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the defender.

You can't accuse someone of murder then say "prove you didn't murder them", the burden is on you to prove they did.
So your saying the accuser is by default a lie because she didnt provide evidence in a conversation??? Is it a set rule when you have a conversation you must present the evidence every time?

This the same person who said alien DNA is being used in treatments to stop people from becoming religious?


Just because someone may have been dead wrong on another issue doesnt justify the current topic or all the elements of the topic of discussion as also wrong.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the defender.

You can't accuse someone of murder then say "prove you didn't murder them", the burden is on you to prove they did.
If you actually watch the video she says and I paraphrase "the information is out there, dont tell me there isnt any evidence, it doesnt take alot of effort to find evidence, and if not you can go to America's Frontline Doctor's (aflds.com) or American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (aapsonline.org) and other organizations that are speaking out now."

So she isnt making claims without encouraging people to factcrap her claims.

She isnt asking people for blind faith in her.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the defender.

You can't accuse someone of murder then say "prove you didn't murder them", the burden is on you to prove they did.
Her name is Dr. Lee Merrit, her name alone validates her, lol.
 

blackirish36

New member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
Did you find evidence that the vaccines were in fact not distributed out prior to FDA approval?
The vaccines are not FDA approved. They are being administered under an Emergency Use Authorization. There is a difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
So your saying the accuser is by default a lie because she didnt provide evidence in a conversation??? Is it a set rule when you have a conversation you must present the evidence every time?

This the same person who said alien DNA is being used in treatments to stop people from becoming religious?


Just because someone may have been dead wrong on another issue doesnt justify the current topic or all the elements of the topic of discussion as also wrong.
If you assert something like that, you should absolutely provide evidence. She was asked to provide some and had repeatedly failed to show it.

If she is telling the truth, why is she working so hard to not provide evidence?
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
If you actually watch the video she says and I paraphrase "the information is out there, dont tell me there isnt any evidence, it doesnt take alot of effort to find evidence, and if not you can go to America's Frontline Doctor's (aflds.com) or American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (aapsonline.org) and other organizations that are speaking out now."

So she isnt making claims without encouraging people to factcrap her claims.

She isnt asking people for blind faith in her.
The same groups that have also not been providing evidence to back their claims?

Evidence isn't more people asserting the same rhetoric. It is tangible, reliable evidence that withstands scrutiny. A bunch of doctors giving their opinion is not evidence.
Screenshot_20210302-103220_Samsung%20Internet.jpeg
Screenshot_20210302-103313_Samsung%20Internet.jpeg
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
The vaccines are not FDA approved. They are being administered under an Emergency Use Authorization. There is a difference.
Valid point. I think the doc was implying the vaccines were delivered before the EUA was granted though.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
The same groups that have also not been providing evidence to back their claims?

Evidence isn't more people asserting the same rhetoric. It is tangible, reliable evidence that withstands scrutiny. A bunch of doctors giving their opinion is not evidence. View attachment 202999View attachment 203000
So somebody made a comment without providing counter evidence on some blog and that fully discredits the AFD?

Im not saying this woman is right I havent investigated this issue yet but things like this remind me of CiaNN whenever someone questions an official story some factyshytter from some think tank says a few words and all that was claimed was done.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
The vaccines are not FDA approved. They are being administered under an Emergency Use Authorization. There is a difference.
In a real medical emergency, lets say we really had a real dangerous pandemic to me it would only make sense to distribute it for on the ready, Im not against that.

I just feel the whole process in its current state was potentially dangerously rushed and the fact they want everybody to take it rather than simply focusing on pure volunteerism (people getting laid off from work for example, although I support a business decision to do so) and getting it out to primarily risk only groups.

After all, people should have a decision what risk they want, and if vaccines prevent high risk people from dying then I see alot of red alarms on this process, as in high levels of political corruption.
 
Beau

Beau

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
From a contextual usage perspective "Permitted Under FDA Emergency Use Authorization" is closer to "FDA Approved" than it is to "Not FDA Approved" (a phrase which implies that the FDA made a negative determination as to its use).
 

blackirish36

New member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
Valid point. I think the doc was implying the vaccines were delivered before the EUA was granted though.
That may be so. I think it is irresponsible, for her as well as anyone else, to simply call the vaccines "approved." Under the EUA, they remain experimental. I would like to see precise language, bacause most people will hear "FDA approved" and believe that the vaccines have gone through the full battery of testing and follow up surveillance. I think the populace should be armed with every bit of accurate info available before choosing to undergo any medical intervention.
 

blackirish36

New member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
From a contextual usage perspective "Permitted Under FDA Emergency Use Authorization" is closer to "FDA Approved" than it is to "Not FDA Approved" (a phrase which implies that the FDA made a negative determination as to its use).
That is certainly true.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
So somebody made a comment without providing counter evidence on some blog and that fully discredits the AFD?

Im not saying this woman is right I havent investigated this issue yet but things like this remind me of CiaNN whenever someone questions an official story some factyshytter from some think tank says a few words and all that was claimed was done.
It all boils down to the same thing: where does the evidence fall?

Ever been to a Doctor, got an opinion then went to another who gave something else? How do you determine who is right, when the opinions conflict?
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
It all boils down to the same thing: where does the evidence fall?

Ever been to a Doctor, got an opinion then went to another who gave something else? How do you determine who is right, when the opinions conflict?
Situations like this an old fashioned Ouija Board does the trick :)
 

blackirish36

New member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
It all boils down to the same thing: where does the evidence fall?

Ever been to a Doctor, got an opinion then went to another who gave something else? How do you determine who is right, when the opinions conflict?
Yes, indeed.
In the end, a person's own research is the only path to finding the truth.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
One of the problems is that people present their opinion as fact and dismiss counter evidence as if the opinion holds more weighting.

If I were to say "It is my opinion that water is actually fire", and someone provides evidence that it isn't, at what point should I recant my opinion and form a new one? Instead, a lot of people will continue to argue that water is actually fire, even in the face of compelling evidence.

I think then it is 100% fine to say "your opinion is wrong" and provide counter evidence to that. If the person continues to hold that opinion, which they are entitled to, they should stop getting so upset that people continue to correct them.
in fact, fact isn't always fact according to the science...i remind you that fauci and the cdc said back in march of 2020 that wearing a mask wasn't necessary and that it might cause more harm than good---when they knew damned good and well that people with colds and the flu had been told to wear masks in doctors offices and hospitals for over a decade because they knew damned good and well it prevented spread of viruses!!!


i must have missed it-when did you post on here to correct fauci and the surgeon general and cdc when they were saying masks would not prevent spread of the virus? or do you cherry pick what you chose to correct?
 
Last edited:
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
in fact, fact isn't always fact according to the science...i remind you that fauci and the cdc said back in march of 2020 that wearing a mask wasn't necessary and that it might cause more harm than good---when they knew damned good and well that people with colds and the flu had been told to wear masks in doctors offices and hospitals for over a decade because they knew damned good and well it prevented spread of viruses!!!


i must have missed it-when did you post on here to correct fauci and the surgeon general and cdc when they were saying masks would not prevent spread of the virus? or do you cherry pick what you chose to correct?
Its a novel virus, like with science the view changed with the evidence. Not all viruses spread through the air. You don't catch HIV for instance by being breathed on by an HIV positive person.

Noones saying a person can't be wrong, it is about whether or not they have the character to admit when they are wrong and correct their statements in line with evidence.

If anything, your argument is simply an example of what I'm saying working
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the defender.

You can't accuse someone of murder then say "prove you didn't murder them", the burden is on you to prove they did.
this is not necessarily true in todays world...if someone accuses you of something you had better set out on proving you didn't do it or you will be assumed of being guilty---this may not be true in a court of law but the law of public opinion can ruin people rather quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
this is not necessarily true in todays world...if someone accuses you of something you had better set out on proving you didn't do it or you will be assumed of being guilty---this may not be true in a court of law but the law of public opinion can ruin people rather quickly.
Yeah that's kind of my point.

People take opinions as facts when they shouldn't, hence why social media has taken to fact checking everything because otherwise the words destroy reputations if left unchecked.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Its a novel virus, like with science the view changed with the evidence.

Noones saying a person can't be wrong, it is about whether or not they have the character to admit when they are wrong and correct their statements in line with evidence.

If anything, your argument is simply an example of what I'm saying working
you are arguing now in favor of wearing masks---were they not telling people to wear masks in doctors offices and hospitals in new zealand to prevent spread of colds and flu for a decade before coronaVIRUS? what the hell do they call covid? it's a VIRUS---did you not think to challenge this faulty science or did you just decide you are not smart enough to think for yourself and if fauci said it it must be true?
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Yeah that's kind of my point.

People take opinions as facts when they shouldn't, hence why social media has taken to fact checking everything because otherwise the words destroy reputations if left unchecked.
Well there is fact checking and claiming to be fact checking as well. Its an endless loop.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
you are arguing now in favor of wearing masks---were they not telling people to wear masks in doctors offices and hospitals in new zealand to prevent spread of colds and flu for a decade before coronaVIRUS? what the hell do they call covid? it's a VIRUS---did you not think to challenge this faulty science or did you just decide you are not smart enough to think for yourself and if fauci said it it must be true?
Just throw sick people in nursing homes and problem solved. Less people = less virus. They did a great job here with that in NY!
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Yeah that's kind of my point.

People take opinions as facts when they shouldn't, hence why social media has taken to fact checking everything because otherwise the words destroy reputations if left unchecked.
lol...the ayatollah of iran and lewis farrakhan have facebook pages but conservatives get censored--fact checking is great when it is given equal opportunity-eh?
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Well there is fact checking and claiming to be fact checking as well. Its an endless loop.
when the fact checkers have clearly taken a side and only fact check the side they are against it kind of isn't really fact checking, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
you are arguing now in favor of wearing masks---were they not telling people to wear masks in doctors offices and hospitals in new zealand to prevent spread of colds and flu for a decade before coronaVIRUS? what the hell do they call covid? it's a VIRUS---did you not think to challenge this faulty science or did you just decide you are not smart enough to think for yourself and if fauci said it it must be true?
Do you think all viruses spread through the air? Human immunodeficiency VIRUS is not spread through airborne droplets. The word virus doesn't automatically mean you need to wear a mask to control the spread.

The Middle Eastern Respiratory Sydrome (MERs-CoV) is also a coronavirus, but human to human transmission has only been determined where prolonged, close exposure to an infected person has occurred. Because it doesn't spread as freely, widespread mask use was not required.

At the time the CDC made the statement, the evidence was not there to support wearing masks because most of the novel coronavirus cases that have spread to humans have had limited success with person to person infectivity.

Hindsight shows they were wrong, but they corrected themselves once the evidence came out. Again, its not about never being wrong, its about forming an opinion based on credible evidence and changing that opinion when the evidence changes. I have no idea why they recommend wearing 2 masks or whether that is based on anything, and if its not i would question that 100%.
 
Last edited:
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
lol...the ayatollah of iran and lewis farrakhan have facebook pages but conservatives get censored--fact checking is great when it is given equal opportunity-eh?
Controversial people can have social media accounts, but if they violate the terms of service then the companies do act.

Most are smart enough to say just enough to not get in trouble. Others believe they have a right to say whatever they want, and they typically get banned.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Do you think all viruses spread through the air? Human immunodeficiency VIRUS is not spread through airborne droplets. The word virus doesn't automatically mean you need to wear a mask to control the spread.

The Middle Eastern Respiratory Sydrome (MERs-CoV) is also a coronavirus, but human to human transmission has only been determined where prolonged, close exposure to an infected person has occurred. Because it doesn't spread as freely, widespread mask use was not required.

At the time the CDC made the statement, the evidence was not there to support wearing masks because most of the novel coronavirus cases that have spread to humans have had limited success with person to person infectivity.

Hindsight shows they were wrong, but they corrected themselves once the evidence came out. Again, its not about never being wrong, its about forming an opinion based on credible evidence and changing that opinion when the evidence changes. I have no idea why they recommend wearing 2 masks or whether that is based on anything, and if its not i would question that 100%.
Seems like everybody but the CDC, Nancy Pelosi, Fauci and the Demican party officials were the only ones in America who thought this couldnt be transmitted via air because Commies told them so.

But when I thought that they would have faktfuked me and told me to go to Chinatown and hug fresh chinese right off Air China.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Seems like everybody but the CDC, Nancy Pelosi, Fauci and the Demican party officials were the only ones in America who thought this couldnt be transmitted via air because Commies told them so.

But when I thought that they would have faktfuked me and told me to go to Chinatown and hug fresh chinese right off Air China.
Lots of countries didn't recommend widespread mask use early.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Controversial people can have social media accounts, but if they violate the terms of service then the companies do act.

Most are smart enough to say just enough to not get in trouble. Others believe they have a right to say whatever they want, and they typically get banned.
What about controversial people owning social media who violate the terms of humanity? Can we not only ban them from owning the business, but can we also throw them in jail?
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Lots of countries didn't recommend widespread mask use early.
Thats an obvious red flag right there, they probably wanted it to spread.

Do you really trust governments that much? They people will throw you in a pit of snakes if it makes them a dollar.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Thats an obvious red flag right there, they probably wanted it to spread.

Do you really trust governments that much? They people will throw you in a pit of snakes if it makes them a dollar.
People will throw you in a pit of snakes if it makes them a dollar, not just govts.

And yeah, I don't think the govts wanted it to spread.
 
THOR 70

THOR 70

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
The same groups that have also not been providing evidence to back their claims?

Evidence isn't more people asserting the same rhetoric. It is tangible, reliable evidence that withstands scrutiny. A bunch of doctors giving their opinion is not evidence. View attachment 202999View attachment 203000
Yeah a group of doctors decided to get together to make false claims, risk their careers, mislead people, and waste their time. Man you’re dense
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
People will throw you in a pit of snakes if it makes them a dollar, not just govts.

And yeah, I don't think the govts wanted it to spread.
Not even China? They closed domestic travel out of Wuhan but kept International open. That helped them crush the Hong Kong protests for good thats for sure. Plus it helped them propel their national tracking systems.

Look, with every crisis, either man made or natural comes alot of opportunity, to think there werent governments or elements/people in governments along with giant corporate banking cartels drooling for this to happen is hillarious.

Not saying I wish this ever happens again, but if I knew back then what I knew today Id more than likely made at least a half a million dollars with a small investment working out of my basement bunker.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Yeah a group of doctors decided to get together to make false claims, risk their careers, mislead people, and waste their time. Man you’re dense
Is that how you justify believing people?

They risk their careers by parroting misinformation, but they chose that path. Man you're dense.

Remember, it doesn't have to be intentional misleading, they could genuinely believe what they are saying. Just like you're genuine when you say that humans haven't been to the moon. You are staunch in that fact despite it being wrong
 

Top