What is?

[RobGMN Premium Member]

LOL I make a factual statement, you had to respond with a smart *** come back huh?

You think the truth is a smartass comeback?
The article was shared in order to support the anti-vax narrative, but the article has not been verified as accurate.
I showed this fact by quoting FROM THE ARTICLE.

What exactly was your reason for saying not everything has to be peer-reviewed? Do you know of things in science that someone just puts forth and it is accepted as true?

The vax was tested on over 100,000 people and you anti-vaxxers call it "experimental and untested", yet you want to accept a non-peer-reviewed or verified paper, simply because it might support your anti-vax narrative.

Makes sense, huh?

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

You think the truth is a smartass comeback?
The article was shared in order to support the anti-vax narrative, but the article has not been verified as accurate.
I showed this fact by quoting FROM THE ARTICLE.

What exactly was your reason for saying not everything has to be peer-reviewed? Do you know of things in science that someone just puts forth and it is accepted as true?

Do you even know what you are responding too?

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

I think this could be a huge part of why Russia invaded Ukraine, possibly to prevent a covid 2.0 (like the lab we funded in Wuhan):

‘Russia is calling on the UN Security Council to establish a commission to investigate alleged violations of the convention prohibiting the production or use of biological weapons by Ukraine and the United States.’

‘Moscow’s ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, circulated a draft resolution ahead of a meeting set for Thursday, along with “a variety of documents and evidence that shed light on the true nature of military biological activities of the US and Ukraine on the Ukrainian territory.”’

Moscow urges UN probe into Ukrainian biolabs

Russia is calling on the UN Security Council to investigate alleged violations of the convention prohibiting the use of biological weapons

www.rt.com

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

You think they wouldn't? How many trillions of dollars were unaccounted for the day before the pentagon was hit by that "plane". It's not like there wasn't motive.

It’s up to about $35 trillion of unaccounted for taxpayers’ money spending. Definitely nothing to see here!

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

You think they wouldn't? How many trillions of dollars were unaccounted for the day before the pentagon was hit by that "plane". It's not like there wasn't motive.

There you go. Was it Bush, Cheney, the Clintons, Gore or the Lizard People behind the attacks? Maybe Isreal working with CIA.

President Joe Biden isn't astute enough to pull something like that off now, but early 2000s Joe with allies in both parties contacts in the Ukraine, China & Saudi Arabia...

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

You think the truth is a smartass comeback?
The article was shared in order to support the anti-vax narrative, but the article has not been verified as accurate.
I showed this fact by quoting FROM THE ARTICLE.

What exactly was your reason for saying not everything has to be peer-reviewed? Do you know of things in science that someone just puts forth and it is accepted as true?

The vax was tested on over 100,000 people and you anti-vaxxers call it "experimental and untested", yet you want to accept a non-peer-reviewed or verified paper, simply because it might support your anti-vax narrative.

Makes sense, huh?

But he germinated a seed....

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

View attachment 44029

Death as a result of COVID is proof that the vaccine kills people?
Republican logic?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Do you even know what you are responding too?

Yes, I know what I am responding TO.
I even used some of your words from your post in my reply. Did that confuse you?

And since you get upset when we veer off topic, I'll post it again:

The article was shared in order to support the anti-vax narrative, but the article has not been verified as accurate.
I showed this fact by quoting FROM THE ARTICLE.

What exactly was your reason for saying not everything has to be peer-reviewed? Do you know of things in science that someone just puts forth and it is accepted as true?

The vax was tested on over 100,000 people and you anti-vaxxers call it "experimental and untested", yet you want to accept a non-peer-reviewed or verified paper, simply because it might support your anti-vax narrative.

Makes sense, huh?

The first two questions are not rhetorical.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Yes, I know what I am responding TO.
I even used some of your words from your post in my reply. Did that confuse you?

And since you get upset when we veer off topic, I'll post it again:

The article was shared in order to support the anti-vax narrative, but the article has not been verified as accurate.
I showed this fact by quoting FROM THE ARTICLE.

What exactly was your reason for saying not everything has to be peer-reviewed? Do you know of things in science that someone just puts forth and it is accepted as true?

The vax was tested on over 100,000 people and you anti-vaxxers call it "experimental and untested", yet you want to accept a non-peer-reviewed or verified paper, simply because it might support your anti-vax narrative.

Makes sense, huh?

The first two questions are not rhetorical.

I have no clue what you are even talking about. Perhaps that's your goal.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

But he germinated a seed....

What is it you do... I see you play both sides. What's that about?

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

What is it you do... I see you play both sides. What's that about?

Sarcasm. Pretty easy to spot, given all of his other posts.
Comprende?

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Sarcasm. Pretty easy to spot, given all of his other posts.
Comprende?

If it were "easy" you would have just got mine... that you just quoted.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

If it were "easy" you would have just got mine... that you just quoted.

Nothing sarcastic about that. Nor humorous. Nor metaphorical.
But before you tapdance long enough to again change the discussion without answering:

The article was shared in order to support the anti-vax narrative, but the article has not been verified as accurate. I showed this fact by quoting FROM THE ARTICLE.

What exactly was your reason for saying not everything has to be peer-reviewed? Do you know of things in science that someone just puts forth and it is accepted as true?

These are not rhetorical.