Goddess

Surprisednotsurprised. It sounds like the media is being forced to report on it now that police vehicles are being burned and overturned.

Thousands of migrants just chased about 6 police vans away with rocks and fires.

They're setting fire to cars and throwing other stuff into the fires, like refrigerators. Wow, this is crazy.

The rioters (one news story is calling them "protesters") are cheering because they've chased all the white people out of the neighborhood. This is in Leeds. The man who is instigating the rioters is an Islamist and an elected official. Police are telling British people to stay at home.

They just reported that the police have lost control of Leeds. It belongs to the Islamists now. And now something is happening in Whitechapel area.

It's not being covered in the mainstream media, for obvious reasons, but is anyone following the immigration riots happening all over the UK and Ireland? I just watched a video, I think it was Leeds or Harehill (it kept switching back and forth between cities so I couldn't keep track) but the police retreated and just left the area to the Islamists. The British and Irish public have had enough of mass immigration. Tired of women getting raped and beaten to a pulp, tired of getting stabbed and macheted, tired of streets getting shut down constantly for prayers and tired of hearing loudspeakers. Tired of the gangs, tired of the housing and economic crisis its created and tired of being forced to pay for it all. Tired of the filth and garbage in the streets and neighborhoods.

So again you are arguing that there is NO WAY to monitor adverse events from these experimental injections. And that's a good thing.......why?

Did you know that 85% of ALL death reports in the entire history of VAERS are from the covid injections? That would indicate a signal that should be investigated.

How big of a problem do you think that is, given it is punishable by fines and imprisonment? Everything I've read, the biggest problem with VAERS is the under-reporting.

It's amusing how hostile you get whenever you make a fool of yourself and get proved wrong. 🤣

Hahaha, too late now, though. Yes, we won't know for about 10-15 years. Whhhheeeeee! Medical experimentation on humans is fun! Oh, OK. So they forced billions of people to inject an experimental product multiple times with NO WAY to monitor adverse events or how the experiment is going. That's.....not reassuring. You see now why some have a problem with this whole thing?

Well, I have mostly posted peer reviewed scientific studies because I know "peer review" is important to some here. When I have posted studies not yet peer reviewed, I have said so right at the beginning of the post.... And if it's an opinion piece, I point out that it is an opinion piece. How are scientific studies "NOT SCIENCE"? First you want peer reviewed studies, then when they are provided, you claim that is "not science." You're not making sense. As usual.

Oh, OK. Thanks. Erm, your first link actually agrees with the studies that confirm the contamination and the studies that explain the mechanisms for harm. I'll add - when Moderna was studying the contamination (again, this is years before the jabs) the issue that was of greatest concern was that the contamination caused oncological problems. So, they already knew before they rolled them out.

Obviously not. There's hundreds of billions of fragments in them. Heart issues, immunological or neurological conditions are more likely. There's a new database study using data from VAERS showing that Moderna has 30% higher rate of death than Pfizer. So....good for you?

At least you're admitting that it was a lie that the injections "stay in the arm"...... I wonder why they felt the need to lie about them in the first place staying in the arm, if it never mattered if DNA fragments went all over your body and integrated into your genome? I think it was because they knew they DIDN'T stay in the arm, AND they knew what that meant. There are no links to your screenshots, so I can't tell if those opinion pieces were written before or after the contamination was confirmed.....

I guess if you want to go with Opinion articles over the actual studies that show the evidence and the other studies that explain the mechanisms for the damage...... Did you see the post where Moderna acknowledged in their patents, years before these jabs, that DNA contamination would be a huge problem and that it needed to be removed from injections, especially if they are given repeatedly?

Eyeball always does a quick google without thinking things through or considering various facets of an argument. 🤣

Feel free. It's usually listed in the conflicts of interest section of a study. Weird, given how much you support it. I didn't say it wasn't necessary or integral. But if a study's hypothesis cannot be reproduced by other independent scientists, then the peer reviewing is moot. For example, the first scientist to discover and publish a study on the DNA contamination in the jabs- he was mocked at first until about 5 other independent scientists reproduced the work.

You just said weather was irrelevant to discussion on climate in the other post..... I find it hard to keep track of what we ARE and AREN'T allowed to talk about in a discussion on climate change. Harder has a lot of rules on what can be part of the discussion, too.

Weird. Because Trudeau and Guilbeault say the flooding in Toronto is caused by "climate change", even though Toronto has flooded quite a lot over the years from improper infrastructure and lack of upkeep.

Actually, it DOES answer those questions in the article. This means that several important readings were omitted from the models including the fact that Toronto was hotter in 1852 than in 2017, while Vancouver experienced warmer weather in 1910 than it did in 2017. It also excluded the fact that the hottest temperature ever observed in Canada took place on September 15, 1935. .....to produce dramatic weather diagrams and maps for their climate change website. .....as a means to illustrate the threat of climate change. They fabricated the data to support their preferred narrative because the real data didn't support it. I guess you didn't read the article, which kinds proves my thought that climate change catastrophizers refuse to consider any information that doesn't agree with the preferred narrative. Let's face it - if the non-catastrophizers were substituting real data for fake data, you'd be having a fit.

Denigrate the source when you can't refute the findings? This is being done waaaaaaaay too much lately. Is the information false? Did they NOT throw out real data in favour of "models"?

You check who is funding them and the level of censorship in the scientific discussion. Duh. Can either you or @Michael Hardner explain why you believe in censorship of scientific discussion? Very true. Peer-review is not the pinnacle of science. Reproducibility is.

I think scientists know how to think logically and reason properly. The problem is that they are just as easy to buy as politicians are.