but i wasnt arguing with you. i was insulting you.
nah, i was literally just eating doritos and playing video games last night. but i have more time today.
again, cheesy and irrelevant. ur a dork trying to peacock like andrew tate here
this is why u deserve to be insulted (rather than censored) so u stop this nonsense. its clown world garbage
heres a little more peacocking from you:
heres one of many examples of u strawmaning. which i notice u do frequently. did i claim that the main mechanism of vaccines was to kill people? i didn't even mention the word "bioweapon" but you went off on ur little rant here:
how is any sane person supposed to respond to that? u sound like a bizarro version of @
Subteigh here. sure, it may make guys like @
Alive wet (te-valuing), but i don't have time for that
another red herring:
and another:
u derail hard here. u demonstrate faulty logic here that i'd like to point out. this is like saying "i drank alcohol last night, why am i still alive?"
anyway, not worth going too into that now. moving on
There is nothing mind-blowing about the original premise, which you (predictably) tried to derail and twist into this weird strawman argument that you didn't realize (or rather intentionally) bc ur ego was wayyy overblown. Supporting my original argument certainly doesn't require me to psychopathically spit out epidemiology numbers.
To reiterate my main point:
Negative vaccine data are severely underreported, censored and not fully transparent. Much of the mainstream "science data" (and its interpretation) is biased toward political and ideological agendas (in the US, particularly). Why do u think companies like the FDA withholding data?? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize this.
Greta and AOC aren't scientists yet they get the spot light while scientists that deny climate change - you never hear their voice. And u expect me to believe the mainstream data is honest?
I don't need to reinvent the wheel and prove that gravity exists. All the experts have already done the hard work.
So here you go, more data:
To summarize so far, the claims above were provided from:
top florida cardiologist, MIT, UK, CDC, Vaers, FDA/Pfizer (unreleased data, getting sued), insurance companies, and anecdotes around the world.
Lol. Why am i not surprised. More Te bullshit tactics. Not impressed.
But okay, Here ya go cupcake, Dr. John Campbell, a scientist, (who youtube is trying to censor) summarizing the data:
Make a video response and refute the Drs @
DogOfDanger, educate everyone why their interpretations of the data and recommendation is wrong
I'll be waiting but I highly doubt anything. Usually when the opponent didn't even research the other side, its bc they already made up their mind in what they're going to believe. It has nothing to do with not being able to find the information.
You will most likely:
--do nothing or
--do a credibility attack or
--do some weird Te evasive/derail thing.
Anyway, carry onward
Speaking of basic reasoning mistakes, that is actually not my statement, but pasted from the article dummy lol.