User

LOL, States do not get to arbitrarily say money is illegal and then tax it. Clown.

Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase!

Glad you are not an anti-vaxxer. So... what were the two risks? What was the lie? What risks? No, your point started with this false statement, that you have long run away from. We have clearly established the government was willing to admit there was risk. "Obviously this is somewhat Canada specific, but I think a big part of the problem was that the government was unwilling to admit that there was a possible risk in any meaningful way" What dangers? Far more risky. Define far. What is it you think the risk was that was explained and how did it turn out to be "far" more risky?

I do. Nowhere has my position been to defend the Trudeau government. "Are you one of those crazy anti-vaxxers too? Is that your angle here?" <- This is called a question.

You continue to make me believe my theory that some posters here are locked up in a mental institution somewhere, and this is what they allow you to do with some of your free time. Perhaps it is part of their experiments to see how you behave and interact with folks.

Lovely strawman you have there. I am pointing out the lies and dishonesty you and the anti-vax conspiracy mongers here push. Are you one of those crazy anti-vaxxers too? Is that your angle here? Because that is Goddesses.

No, the problem is that you keep saying they knew there were risks, and YOU can't define what risks they were supposed to warn people about. I have clearly shown they said there were risks. YOU are the one who keeps saying they knew there were more they should have informed on and YOU can't define what that was. You keep changing your language... now it is "suggested." Listen, there is no "they" as if it were some single monolothic entity. There is the general scientific community, the World Health Organization, government health organizations, politicians, leaders, etc... You are still playing this game "same as" as if it was some absolute comparison to any other vaccine.... So... you say they are supposed to have informed you of the risks, that you now say they can't define. What was this "defined" risk you claim it was presented as? Lets see this argument of yours cite something. Show us where they said they knew ALL the risks and they were clearly defined and there could be no other risk. You can't because that was never the general position from any of those organizations or the community. The quotes I provided show you are wrong. They talk about risk in general. LOL, the point is you are full of shit. The quote did not lump all the vaccines together. That is your full of shit comment. What lie(s) am I repeating? What makes them a lie? That is your false characterization of things. Nowhere in that quote or article does it say that it's the same as any vaccine. Again, you are full of shit. What was said, is that vaccines in general have risk, so this one does too. "Like any medication, vaccines can cause side effects and reactions." You are the one who said it. What risks did they underplay? How?

LOL The difference here is that "Ms" was more about how to accurately label a woman without it being connected to her status of being with a man or not. The use of pronouns now, that is being pushed, is about pushing a lie and "acceptance" of trans ideology.

The downside is that HR has created a culture of forcing employees to partake in someone else's delusions and promote a lie. Do you support those policies? Do you support firing someone for not using a pronoun to call a man a woman?

Then again, you are dumb enough to believe that a man who thinks he is a woman, is one. No shit. Which means he is using the story to justify abortion. You are the most fundamentally dishonest person on this forum.

Talkning about... "creation" in the context of birth in the context of abortion being OK. "“To me, that is an affirmation in one of our most central stories that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create,” "

Define the risk... the risk... what risk?!?!?! ROFL Except, no where does it say "no different." Those are your words. The point of that quote and article was that they did in fact say there were risks... which disproved your original assertion here. What risks? What risks did they know that they were supposed to have warned you about? Where did they say "same" as in the exact same?

OK... now what? This has nothing to do with your ignorance about gas storage. This has nothing to do with your ignorance in mocking me for saying underground caverns. This has nothing to do with you being a cowardly, pathetic liar about gas storage and underground coverns.

Well, you certainly love to think very highly of yourself, but in reality, you offer the same surface-level deep tropes any average conspiratorial anti-vaxxer pushes, and then you fold under the slightest criticism. Your idea of "critical thinking" pretty much comes down to mindlessly quoting the most fringe people who have very little to no real facts or science to back up this shit they are serving. Then, when I point all this out, when I give you facts and data, you ignore it... move on to the next silly assertion. Once again, this is not a problem with my understanding; it is you making baseless assertions with no context. YOU brought this up. If you can't back it up, don't bother.

Yes, you are ignoring my questions. You just keep making the assertions and do not back them up with any real argument or facts. What my own quote? Give it to me. You are playing some silly game of absolutes, as if "they" said the vaccines was literally 100% exactly as perfectly safe as any other vaccine, when that is not what was said generally speaking by the scientific community or government health entities. The argument generally was that vaccines are "safe" and this vaccine did go through testing. To that point, the one being made, is that this vaccine was safe like the others. And guess what... it was and is. The vast vast vast majority of folks had no issues. Those who did were minor and quickly recovered. AND YOU STILL HAVE YET TO DEFINE THIS RISK THAT YOU THINK THEY KNEW BEFORE OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BEFORE No, you have not. What risks? What risks? What risks? That quote does not say: "They knew at the time that was not accurate, the mNRA vaccines were a new technology with many untested elements and they were NOT known to be as safe as existing vaccines. At the time they knew there could be many unknown risks or effects "

These are your claims. It is not my job to wade through the BS you spam here with to figure out what your sources are. This paper is full of shit, which is exactly why it is buried on some page here and not actually supported in the scientific community. The basic premise is... deaths went up after vaccines, so it must be vaccines! Guess what else was happening, COVID! Excess deaths happened because people were dying from COVID. This is a bad case of correlation != causation. What lie did I fall for? You are here asserting they knew the risk before the risk was even known... this is your garbage claim to support. Which is why you can't answer my simple questions and resort to your usual childish antics.

Polls are polls. They are a discussion on perception, not facts. This is also a discussion about the risk of COVID, not the vaccine, which is what was being discussed. Early on… when exactly? Risk was 1% of what exactly? Because if you were 35 years old, fat, had some underlying health issue, that risk was a lot more than 1%… This was a novel virus spreading quickly killing people. There wasn’t much definitively known and it continued to mutate after. Some certainly did fear mongering over this, many on the left politicized that, but you are conflating different things. COVID was still deadly, still scary to some degree, especially early on when we didn’t know more. I have been wise most of this time.

Just because you assert it doesn’t make it true.

COVID - Denis Rancourt Yeah, I don’t play the link spam game. This is a link to endless links. You want us to believe this outrageous BS. Expect us to believe that the whole worlds leading health agencies, scientists, governments are all in on a lie to cover up that the COVID vaccine killed 17 million people? Then you better to better than post a link to a bunch of links.

17 million died from the COVID vaccine?! That exceeds all directly attributed COVID deaths and almost the estimated deaths from COVID. You are completely unhinged from reality if you believe that. If you want to cite this BS, then let’s see your sources. The links.

No, you didn’t. You keep repeating yourself and ignoring me. You throw the term risk around, make assertions about it, but then refuse to define what it is you are talking about or expecting. You do this because the game you are playing is you expected people to know the future and fully explain and define a risk they didn’t know existed. Show me. Quote it. I’ve asked you to do this and get and over again now. Argue? I’ve posted link after link showing explicitly they in fact did discuss the risk. The media reported on it. Doctors informed on it. The government published details on it.

Ha ha ha ha ha. This is it? This is your response? First, this is the stupid game you play on here where you find one person allegedly harmed by the vaccine and then ignore all facts, statistics, logic, and reason to conclude that shows how awful the vaccine was. Second, all I needed was one example to disprove your blanket assertion. I can provide more.

Well, obviously, you don't care much about facts here. You can keep denying it all you want, the message was clearly and repeatedly made: Here is another article, highlighting someone with an adverse reaction... talking about the risks: Hamilton PSW says allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccine led to fainting, seizures and CPR Deborah Tilli says she still thinks people should get the vaccine Bobby Hristova · CBC News · Posted: Dec 30, 2020 8:56 AM PST | Last Updated: December 30, 2020 "When you administer a vaccine to enough people, you're going to get adverse reactions ... there's really two safeguards there," Furness said. "One is public communication that says if you have severe allergies, this is not the vaccine for you, not now, not yet. Wait for Moderna, perhaps. So everyone who has allergies should be awake and paying attention to that. Number two is people who are doing screening should also be right on top of that, so it looks like there was a double failure." The person above was not being called a liar. The person above was not ignored, silence, nor was this hidden from the public. I agree in as much as there were clearly more at risk demographics that we figured out as time went on. There was not much need for a healthy adult under the age of 40 to get vaccinated. Again, I do not support mandates here... but that is a completely different issue than the one you are peddling about the vaccine. You have not spent years on this thread or this forum only wanting to oppose mandates. You push anti-vax lies, propaganda to oppose vaccines in general, regardless of any mandates. Show me where in my link, make your argument. Stop speaking out of your rear with baseless assertions. Define the risk. Let's see your argument. Let's see your facts. Let's see you make a well-reasoned, articulate argument.

All 3 of my links were literally messages that went out to the public. They were safe and effective. OK.. and? Lets see the quote. This dude is not the arbiter of all things COVID. The effectiveness of stopping the spread was wildly oversold as we found out, but that doesn't discount how effective they were also proven to be in reducing the risk of death or serious illness. The overwhelming vast majority of people got vaccinated with no issues. The small number of people who did have issues were minor. It was an extreme few people who had severe side effects. These are the facts. OK? That was not me. The argument is not about there not being injuries or not. You do realize A LOT more people died from COVID, right? This doesn't change the facts that I have presented here. So what is your point other than throwing mud at the wall? I literally shared several links that contradict this. You just saying no, doesn't refute that or make it so. I can share more links. The simple reality is that it was in fact shared that there was risk. I did not support the mandates, but as misguided or stupid and wrong as they were, they were based on the fact that people were dying from a novel virus spreading rapidly through the community.

The only one continually changing their story here is you. Once again, this was your assertion: ""but I think a big part of the problem was that the government was unwilling to admit that there was a possible risk in any meaningful way"" Once again, I have proven this wrong. Now you change your story to "any meaningful" way. A subjective pile of BS you did not assert before and can't possibly be countered now because you can just say anything was not "meaningful" enough for you. You have not pointed out anything; you just make the assertion and ignore my asking you to actually quote what you are talking about. You keep talking about the risks but refuse to define them. Once again, you just ramble on making assertions. You offer nothing of substance. Then declare yourself the winner. Back to the point, again, I have responded to your original BS assertion and provided numerous links and quotes, unlike you. Again, changing the goal posts. You said they did not report on the risk, I show you they did. Now you claim it was false. OK, show me what was false with the link I shared. Lets see you make your case. LOL, that is the very definition of hindsight. You are looking at the risks discovered later and saying they should have informed about them before they even knew them. That is not only hindsight, it is just stupid. That is not what my quote said. That is your retarded mischaracterization. What risk? Again, DEFINE this risk they were supposed to inform the public of. More of your baseless subjective BS. Also, moving the goal posts from your original assertion.